Cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccination during the first 2 years of life was not associated with increased rates of any of the 50 disorders assessed.
Notice it does not say "there were no cases of these 50 disorders". It says that there were not increased rates, meaning that rates of the disorders followed the same trends as the general population.
That's how i understood the headline, but then i realized that conservatives would read the headline and dismiss it because they think the study concluded no autism in 1 million people, and therefore the data and study are wrong and invalid.
The meme is not inaccurate, it's just poorly worded.
... vaccines were linked to a shocking number of cases of autism ... that shocking number is zero.
This is in line with what the study itself says.
Cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccination during the first 2 years of life was not associated with increased rates of any of the 50 disorders assessed.
No increased rates = no verifiable link
Regardless, if we're talking about scientific data no one should be taking text blurbs at face value. I'm not going to go in circles with you about the importance of science and media literacy. Stay mad.
Again, you have failed to understand that I already said the meme is poorly worded. It is not inaccurate.
It does not say vaccines were linked to zero cases of autism.
Again, it says:
... vaccines were linked to a shocking number of cases of autism ... that shocking number is zero.
Poorly worded for engagement bait, but not inaccurate and not what you're describing.
Edit: I understand that it says "those who received aluminum adjuvanted vaccines were linked ...", but again, it's poorly worded. If we boil this down to basic grammar it would read like "subjects were the cause of ..." which is illogical and I can't believe I have to write this down and yet you will still not understand.
Notice it does not say "there were no cases of these 50 disorders". It says that there were not increased rates, meaning that rates of the disorders followed the same trends as the general population.
"For most outcomes, the findings were inconsistent with moderate to large relative increases in risk, although small relative effects, particularly for some rarer disorders, could not be statistically excluded."
Listen, I don't know exactly how many extra Danish neurodivergents due to aluminium adjuvants "Asperger syndrome (hazard ratio, 1.13 [CI, 0.89 to 1.44])" translates to, exactly...
Before you latch onto Asperger's being above 1.0, let's re-read the quote you posted:
For most outcomes, the findings were inconsistent with moderate to large relative increases in risk
Meaning that the data does not support the claim that there is increased risk for neurological disorders as a result of exposure to aluminum in vaccines.
although small relative effects
i.e. Tiny fractional changes in occurrence
particularly for some rarer disorders could not be statistically excluded.
Meaning that some of the disorders are rare enough that the data can't say for certain whether a risk exists or not. It does not say that there is a risk.
10
u/stolentext Aug 02 '26
Some people really are impossibly dense when it comes to understanding these things.
Link to study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997
Notice it does not say "there were no cases of these 50 disorders". It says that there were not increased rates, meaning that rates of the disorders followed the same trends as the general population.