We obviously didn’t need more validation or convincing, but $5 says the usual suspects are already developing their “contra temps,” without ever reading the study. And so it goes in the vast world of saving children…
I saw a post on an anti-vax subreddit already discussing this paper. A lot of them say that statistics are inherently biased, and you can make these studies say whatever you want them to say. Also, they were bent out of shape about this study not having an unvaccinated control group.
Just wanted to share, so we can tailor our message to combat these messages. I think the paper's authors provide good explanations for these concerns in the methods and discussion sections.
How come they are only ever interested in the limitations of studies that don't support their preferred narrative? Bet they will be the last ones to criticize David Geier's "research" when he's done dumpster diving for data to support RFK Jr's claims.
The characterization of aluminum as a heavy metal has always driven me crazy. More proof these naysayers do not know what they are talking about from a technical standpoint.
I thought children were only followed until age 5? So not 24 years. And they didn’t continue to track any vaccines after age 2? How is this a good study?? It’s again comparing vaccinated to vaccinated.
“Figure 3 shows the number of outcome events between ages 2 and 5 years within the cohort during the 24-year study period (1997 to 2020) and hazard ratios for all of the autoimmune, atopic and allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders assessed per 1-mg increase in the cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccination during the first 2 years of life.”
They didn’t track the individuals for 24 years, they only looked at diagnosed conditions from 2-5 years old, before many cases of autism are even diagnosed btw. In the U.S., we tally autism in 8 year old children, for example.
The study spanned 24 years, but they only followed each child til age 5… hmmmm wonder why?
Also why not evaluate the 15,000 completely unvaccinated children separately, so strange…
The study is what it is, and limitations are clearly stated. Based on evidence from "...approximately 1.2 million children, findings were incompatible with moderate to large relative increases in the risks for autoimmune, atopic or allergic, and neurodevelopmental disorders associated with early childhood exposure to aluminum-adsorbed vaccines for most outcomes, although small relative increases could not be statistically excluded, particularly for some rarer outcomes." No single study is ever the end-all and be-all on any particular topic, this just adds to the body of evidence that indicates very low probability of harm from aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. There are no perfect studies, except for the ones that support anti-vax claims, of course.
Well it should be honest in what it is looking at. It's looking at 5 year olds, and those 5 year olds may have been vaccinated at age 2. So it really doesn't say anything worth while. If someone wants to begin vaccinating at age 2, by age 5 their child will be similar to other children who vaccinated earlier. The autism rate is very low in the paper, 1 in 245 kids. So not sure how to relate this to US or any other country.
We obviously didn’t need more validation or convincing, but $5 says the usual suspects are already developing their “contra temps,” without ever reading the study. And so it goes in the vast world of saving children…
I saw a post on an anti-vax subreddit already discussing this paper. A lot of them say that statistics are inherently biased, and you can make these studies say whatever you want them to say. Also, they were bent out of shape about this study not having an unvaccinated control group.
Just wanted to share, so we can tailor our message to combat these messages. I think the paper's authors provide good explanations for these concerns in the methods and discussion sections.
How come they are only ever interested in the limitations of studies that don't support their preferred narrative? Bet they will be the last ones to criticize David Geier's "research" when he's done dumpster diving for data to support RFK Jr's claims.
The characterization of aluminum as a heavy metal has always driven me crazy. More proof these naysayers do not know what they are talking about from a technical standpoint.
Thank goodness that these authors used the example of aluminum being a heavy metal as the first myth they debunked.
I thought children were only followed until age 5? So not 24 years. And they didn’t continue to track any vaccines after age 2? How is this a good study?? It’s again comparing vaccinated to vaccinated.
“Figure 3 shows the number of outcome events between ages 2 and 5 years within the cohort during the 24-year study period (1997 to 2020) and hazard ratios for all of the autoimmune, atopic and allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders assessed per 1-mg increase in the cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccination during the first 2 years of life.”
They didn’t track the individuals for 24 years, they only looked at diagnosed conditions from 2-5 years old, before many cases of autism are even diagnosed btw. In the U.S., we tally autism in 8 year old children, for example.
The study spanned 24 years, but they only followed each child til age 5… hmmmm wonder why?
Also why not evaluate the 15,000 completely unvaccinated children separately, so strange…
The study is what it is, and limitations are clearly stated. Based on evidence from "...approximately 1.2 million children, findings were incompatible with moderate to large relative increases in the risks for autoimmune, atopic or allergic, and neurodevelopmental disorders associated with early childhood exposure to aluminum-adsorbed vaccines for most outcomes, although small relative increases could not be statistically excluded, particularly for some rarer outcomes." No single study is ever the end-all and be-all on any particular topic, this just adds to the body of evidence that indicates very low probability of harm from aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. There are no perfect studies, except for the ones that support anti-vax claims, of course.
Well it should be honest in what it is looking at. It's looking at 5 year olds, and those 5 year olds may have been vaccinated at age 2. So it really doesn't say anything worth while. If someone wants to begin vaccinating at age 2, by age 5 their child will be similar to other children who vaccinated earlier. The autism rate is very low in the paper, 1 in 245 kids. So not sure how to relate this to US or any other country.