It'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

It'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.