You're confusing strong evidence for causality with establishment and absolute proof of causality. This is even discussed in the sources you've cited (second link). For example here is a quote from one of your sources about the necessity understanding the underlying mechanism before causality can be established:
> A causal mechanism is the process that creates the connection between the variation in an independent variable and the variation in the dependent variable that it is hypothesized to cause (Cook & Campbell, 1979:35; Marini & Singer, 1988). Many social scientists (and scientists in other fields) argue that no causal explanation is adequate until a mechanism is identified.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7081045/
>In clinical medical research, causality is demonstrated by randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/236...
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/dissertation-resources/r...
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/understanding-statistics/s...
https://www2.stat.duke.edu/~jerry/Papers/causal.pdf
If you argue this further I'm just going to conclude you're trolling and won't respond again.
You are wrong. Face it.