10 ms·
RFK Jr demanded a vaccine study be retracted – the journal said no
https://web.archive.org/web/20250822174237/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02682-9 https://web.archive.org/web/20250822174237/https://www.natur...
- giardini 1y ago[flagged]
- blackbear_ 1y agoBy far the most correct way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions. If those claims are true then I'm sure it won't be difficult to conduct a proper scientific investigation by collecting and anlyzing data, eventually sharing everything openly to finally "own the libs" for good. Until that point, lots of words that aren't backed by a proper analysis are just speculations and should be treated as such. Science isn't built on speculations but on hard data, and this standard is not negotiable. Challenges and skepticism are welcome but they should be properly supported, rethoric is just not enough.
- SilverElfin 1y ago> The only right way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions. Why is this the “only way”? The issue is this study seems to have manipulated its procedure to arrive at a preset conclusion. There are a lot of seemingly valid problems pointed out with it. Shouldn’t that be enough to contest it without the burden or cost or time of an “opposing” study?
- foldr 1y agoIt's easy for criticisms of a scientific study to look valid if you've only read the criticisms and not the study, and if you lack the expertise and context to evaluate them. One of the authors has posted a response briefly explaining why RFK is (as consistent with his track record) talking rubbish: https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/data-vs.-doubt-danish-scientist-responds-to-u.s.-hhs-secretary-critique-of-aluminum-vaccine-study-290120e9 https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/data-vs.-doubt-danish-scient... https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/landmark-danish-study-on-aluminum-in-childhood-vaccines-faces-fierce-criticismand-a-measured-defense-fcaf0bf6 https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/landmark-danish-study-on-alu... I'm sure that, as usual, the methodology of this particular study can be debated and people can disagree over exactly which conclusions can be drawn from it. That's not a reason to withdraw it from publication.
- blackbear_ 1y ago> There are a lot of seemingly valid problems pointed out with it. As I said, if the problems are indeed valid then a new analysis will show it. Otherwise, it's all speculations, and that is simply not enough. Science isn't built on speculations but on hard data, and this standard is not negotiable. Saying "sounds about right", shrugging and calling it a day is just not acceptable.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Spivak 1y agoBut then why flex and try to pull the study? Don't interrupt your opponent while they're making a mistake and then dunk on them. Surely the most transparent thing is allowing this scientific discourse to happen out in the open and let the truth fall out, no? If Kennedy is right and these are dangerous then I want him proven right and the vaccines reformulated.
- SilverElfin 1y agoIsn’t the mistake already made? What would the ideal way be to address this?
- Spivak 1y agoHold it up for all to see as an example of bad science. Make your case, back it up by data, publish your findings. Ya know, academic discourse. It's not like the man can't get funding for such a study. Realistically, if you're going to shout from the rooftops wouldn't you rather it be data that unequivocally proves you right than poking holes in studies that prove you wrong. The former is a victory.
- SilverElfin 1y agoBut why is “academic discourse” needed? The issue is that THIS study essentially falsified data. That can be discussed on its own, without some weird battle of studies each manipulating results to demonstrate a conclusion they’ve each decided on.
- Spivak 1y agoThat's a much stronger claim, stronger than the one made in Kennedy's criticism. If you or anyone can prove that they actually lied or fabricated data then yeah, nuke the paper from orbit. But if the criticism is that they're wrong—and that is the criticism here, then you tear it apart in the open. And if you want people to believe the opposite conclusion rather than simply ignoring the results then you need some data proving your new conclusion.
- shortrounddev2 1y agoKennedy is a political hack and is not coming from a place of legitimacy or integrity. If any other FDA admin had the same criticisms maybe we could listen to them but RFK Jr. is a conman who devalues the authority of the FDA
- throwawayqqq11 1y agoThe article is very manipulative. Take this example: > Three of the study’s authors are affiliated with Denmark’s Statens Serum Institut (SSI), a government-owned vaccine company that develops a number of aluminum-containing vaccines. SSI also procures and supplies vaccines for the Danish national vaccination program — a clear institutional conflict given its role in supporting vaccine manufacturing and promoting vaccine uptake. There are several points in there, can you see it? The article is really full of such subliminal messages, some people are vulnerable to.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoNot sure I'd take that source seriously. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/06/fact-check-blog-post-does-not-provide-factual-information-about-covid-vaccine-deaths.html https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/06/fact-check-blog-p... https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-dont-affect-ovaries-or-fertility-in-general-the-vaccines-are-highly-effective-at-preventing-illness-and-death/ https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-don... https://fullfact.org/health/CDC-PCR-Tests-trial-news/ https://fullfact.org/health/CDC-PCR-Tests-trial-news/
- jmull 1y agoIf you're studying the association between aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines and chronic childhood disorders, wouldn't you need to exclude children who couldn' t have chronic disorders due to being dead? It would skew the numbers down, since you'd have to count dead children as not having any chronic disorders, right? It's doesn't seem "on-point" to me. It looks illogical, unreasoned, and emotional to me. Seems clear he's rejecting evidence that doesn't affirm his preexisting viewpoint without engaging with the content.
- bko 1y ago> Kennedy also criticized the fact that the authors did not compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children to determine whether any aluminium exposure causes harm, even though they had some data on unvaccinated children. I'm not a scientist, but if you were to tell me "this trial shows that substance X is not harmful", I would think ideally it would give substance X to one group and a placebo to the other group. If not possible, it would look after the fact to see group A that received substance X compared to group B that didn't, large enough sample so it would be relatively controlled for extraneous variables. Seems like you would def want to compare the two groups, so what did this study actually do? Another criticism: > Among Kennedy’s criticisms of the Danish study are that the analysis excluded children who had died before the age of two. According to Kennedy, this means that the children “most likely to reveal injuries” associated with aluminum exposure were excluded. From the opinion piece: > The architects of this study meticulously designed it not to find harm. From the outset, Andersson et al. excluded the very children most likely to reveal injuries associated with high exposures to aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines. The exclusion included all children who died before age two, those diagnosed early with respiratory conditions, and an astonishing 34,547 children — 2.8% of the study population — whose vaccination records showed the highest aluminum exposure levels. I remember looking at some Lending Club loan statistics and their stated yields by Lending Club. I thought it was pretty good at the time. But then I noticed in fine print that from the historical yield calculations, they exclude any loans that defaulted within the first X months. That was not something I expected. I could see why Lending Club excluded these, but what's the rationale, if true, of excluding some populations from the vaccine trial results?
- yorwba 1y agoHopefully nobody told you that "this trial shows that substance X is not harmful" while pointing to this study, which is not a trial, but a cohort study making use of the fact that different birth years in Denmark received different amounts of aluminum in their already-approved-after-trials early-childhood vaccinations to study the effect on 50 different chronic diseases. They excluded children from the study that didn't fit the demographic they were trying to study (didn't get their early-childhood vaccinations, e.g. because they died too young) or that had other diseases known to cause the chronic diseases they were trying to study (if you have a respiratory tract infection and develop asthma, is that because of vaccines or because of the infection?) so that they could deal with slightly less messy data. Kennedy might've preferred it if they'd done a double-blind trial revealing injuries associated with high exposures to aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines, but that's not the question they were trying to answer.
- pseudoscienfist 1y ago[flagged]
- softwaredoug 1y agoBecause vaccines are a heavily deployed technology that have saved countless lives. Lead, asbestos, DDT, sugars cannot claim to have helped human health. I don’t say this just to be snarky, but many of us are grateful for this medical miracle, and are more likely to forgive those scientists and not be happy with anyone working on tobacco.
- pseudoscienfist 1y agoYes, it's clear scientists developing vaccines have done more positive in the world than those developing tobacco products. That's not the question I asked though.
- softwaredoug 1y agoMy answer is the prior for “is this science harmful” is strongly “no” in vaccine case and needs a lot of evidence to move away from that prior. The opposite is true of tobacco etc.
- pseudoscienfist 1y agoI think we agree that vaccines are a net benefit to humanity and the world. That doesn't mean there aren't dangers to vaccines, or that they could be made safer, or, that the pharmaceutical industry is complicit in masking the dangers.
- mccoyb 1y agoShare some references, friendo. Claims require evidence.
- 1y ago
- aurizon 1y agoAluminium is a major component of most clays = in most water = evolutionarily harmless - unless you have a crooked legal system abetted by RFK Jr - who is probably killing many children via his position!
- pseudoscienfist 1y agoChlorine is a major component in table salts = in most food = evolutionarily harmless! See how that doesn't make sense?
- happymellon 1y agoI try and avoid salt water.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- IAmBroom 1y agoYou are salt water. Well, most of you is.
- abhinavk 1y agoElements and Compounds.
- pseudoscienflst 1y agoPrecisely, which is what the OP fails to understand
- tim333 1y agoWe are talking ions in the blood, and chlorine ions are a standard component. In fact you'd have a problem if you didn't have them.
- roland35 1y agoThese grifters take something that sounds bad but out of context, make way too big a deal about it, then turn around and sell you supplements to fix the problems. I have no idea why anyone trusts them but it seems to work
- baxtr 1y agoVaccines are an absolutely amazing invention. Anyone who wants to be blown away by what they’ve achieved for humanity can visit this site: https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination
- libraryofbabel 1y agoTo put the numbers in perspective, more lives have been saved by vaccines than the number of lives lost, military and civilian, in all wars anywhere in the world in the 20th and 21st centuries. The only comparable invention in terms of human lives saved is antibiotics. We remember the war dead; the lives saved, not so much.
- adrr 1y ago10X more aluminum in a muffin than a vaccine. Just like there is more mercury in a can off of solid tuna than there is in vaccine. Amount of disinformation around vaccines is staggering. Vaccines change your DNA etc. You know what permanently changes your DNA which can increases your cancer risk? Viral infections like HPV.
- 0ckpuppet 1y agono one is injecting muffins, or tuna fish
- actionfromafar 1y agoHey, don't knock it til you try it.
- mingus88 1y agoAnd nobody is eating vaccines. You might be wondering what kind of nonsense I am spouting off. I’m wondering the same thing about these anti-vax arguments.
- barbacoa 1y ago[flagged]
- oblio 1y agoDo you have proof "public trust in health institutions is crumbling"? Fairly sure the fact that for example, the US doesn't have universal healthcare, is considered a tragedy by many people, which would point in the exact opposite direction.
- barbacoa 1y agoTrump appointing RFK due to popular demand from his base even though Trump previously never expressed any of those views.
- jaybrendansmith 1y agoRFK is a demon from hell ... just look in his eyes. I'm not a religious person, but the second coming is at hand. Joking, not joking.
- stankerns 1y agoIn London on the year 1800. (Before vaccines) - of the babies born that year three fourths died before their first birthday - in London on the year 2020 of the babies born that year, only three tenths of one percent failed to reach their first birthday.
- t0bia_s 1y agoIn London in 1800 there was no soaps. Or drinking water in houses.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- abenga 1y agoOr vaccines.
- soraminazuki 1y ago> The earliest recorded evidence of the production of soap-like materials dates back to around 2800 BC in ancient Babylon. > Knowledge of how to produce true soap emerged at some point between early mentions of proto-soaps and the first century AD. Guess which came first, 2800 BC - 99 AD or 1800 AD? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap