4 ms·

To preface this, I'm not saying anything about vaccines, efficacy, safety, or my positions on them. But how can you expect to convince doubters when a claim li

To preface this, I'm not saying anything about vaccines, efficacy, safety, or my positions on them. But how can you expect to convince doubters when a claim like "no link between vaccines and autism" is made, and all you have to do is click your left mouse button twice to pull up the actual research, and see that what was actually studied was "did a certain amount of increase in aluminum content in vaccines create more negative health effects than the vaccines with the previous aluminum content?". That's what was studied here, that is the source for this article. Yes, these things are related, but intentionally removing that context and misrepresenting the actual result does not convince people to believe you, it just drives them further away. It's so easy for a reader to see for themselves that the claim that's being made in this case is not remotely what the source research is actually claiming. How does that increase trust?

SubiculumCode 1y ago
If it were the only study, sure. But it is not. Not by a hot mile.
pdxandi 1y ago
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the article is misrepresenting the study. The research looked at over 1.2 million children and specifically examined whether increased exposure to aluminum containing vaccines was associated with autism or 49 other health conditions, and it found no evidence of a link. Since aluminum adjuvants are one of the most commonly cited concerns in vaccine skepticism, especially in claims about autism, the study directly addresses that idea. So while the article’s headline simplifies the finding by saying “no link between vaccines and autism,” it’s not inaccurate. It reflects the key takeaway, that within the vaccines that include aluminum, which are widely used in childhood immunizations, there is no indication of increased risk. That’s important and relevant. It’s fair to expect transparency, and I agree that people should be encouraged to read the actual research, but in this case it seems to me that the summary is consistent with what the study actually tested and found.
lettergram 1y ago
Agreed here, the description under the headline is important: > A new Danish study finds no association between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 different health conditions, including autism, asthma, and autoimmune diseases. The findings reaffirm the safety of Denmark’s childhood vaccination program. Breaking it down -- 1. The study was Denmark specific 2. The study inspected aluminum specifically 3. (Based on reading, it seems to) Reaffirm the findings that the vaccines are safe, conducted / funded by those who set the policy Here's the actual study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 Note the main researcher is funded by Novo Nordisk: https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ And is frequently trying to debunk criticisms of drugs, often with phrasing such as this. https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-increase-risk-of-syndromes-with-autonomic-dysfunction https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-... https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 and the list goes on...

SubiculumCode 1y ago

If it were the only study, sure. But it is not. Not by a hot mile.

pdxandi 1y ago

I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the article is misrepresenting the study. The research looked at over 1.2 million children and specifically examined whether increased exposure to aluminum containing vaccines was associated with autism or 49 other health conditions, and it found no evidence of a link. Since aluminum adjuvants are one of the most commonly cited concerns in vaccine skepticism, especially in claims about autism, the study directly addresses that idea. So while the article’s headline simplifies the finding by saying “no link between vaccines and autism,” it’s not inaccurate. It reflects the key takeaway, that within the vaccines that include aluminum, which are widely used in childhood immunizations, there is no indication of increased risk. That’s important and relevant. It’s fair to expect transparency, and I agree that people should be encouraged to read the actual research, but in this case it seems to me that the summary is consistent with what the study actually tested and found.

lettergram 1y ago

Agreed here, the description under the headline is important: > A new Danish study finds no association between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 different health conditions, including autism, asthma, and autoimmune diseases. The findings reaffirm the safety of Denmark’s childhood vaccination program. Breaking it down -- 1. The study was Denmark specific 2. The study inspected aluminum specifically 3. (Based on reading, it seems to) Reaffirm the findings that the vaccines are safe, conducted / funded by those who set the policy Here's the actual study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 Note the main researcher is funded by Novo Nordisk: https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ And is frequently trying to debunk criticisms of drugs, often with phrasing such as this. https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-increase-risk-of-syndromes-with-autonomic-dysfunction https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-... https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 and the list goes on...