They manipulated the data so much that they showed that injecting aluminum is actually beneficial for reducing the risk of autism. The authors refused data transparency requests from researchers.
That the study found Aluminum to be protective is false. To say that just means you have no idea what a risk ratio or a 95% confidence interval is.
"For groups of combined outcomes, adjusted hazard ratios per 1-mg increase in aluminum exposure were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02) for any autoimmune disorder, 0.99 (CI, 0.98 to 1.01) for any atopic or allergic disorder, and 0.93 (CI, 0.90 to 0.97) for any neurodevelopmental disorder"
Steve, I read this study last week and the flaws jumped out.. I mean the study was just designed to show a headline.
The study attempts to compare the cumulative effects of aluminium doses within childhood vaccines against adverse events including neurological (Autism) on 2 through 8 year olds
1. The study excludes children diagnosed before age 2 (ie it leaves a bias of only the healthiest children)
2. The follow up is to age 8 ( but the average autism diagnosis in Denmark is typically between 7-12y , ave 10.74y) so it would be statistically accurate to say most of the autism diagnosis has been excluded. Kids in Denmark start school after their 6th birthday.
3. There is no unvaccinated cohort ie the study looks at the effects of different doses of Al on outcomes up to age 8 with no zero dose control. The unvaccinated cohort was identified as too different (interpret that how you wish)
4. The data show systematic bias as over 70% of hazard ratios are below 1. If taken at face value we should be supplementing children with Aluminium! (Explained by the fact that ⅓ of children .45M are excluded from the study, IE a higher proportion with adverse events are excluded, leaving a healthy vaccinee bias in the included dataset as indicated in point 1)
5. There is a direct financial conflict of interest . The study authors, SSI manufactured the BCG vaccine up until they sold the manufacturing facility in 2017. SSI is still involved in vaccine R&D.
Jesus Christ - your point number one is the opposite of what the study did. It only includes children that are on the books up to age 2. Those are the one it INCLUDEs not the ones it excluded.
"Participants:
1 224 176 children born in Denmark between 1997 and 2018 who were alive and residing in the country at age 2 years."
Roger Morten, hard to believe but if you read a bit further... "We analyzed each outcome separately and included only incident events occurring after age 2 years."
So what you are claiming is that all the effects of Al exposure stop as soon as the child turns two and that is why the study found nothing? That seems a little bit implausible.
That is just you making up some fake reason. If something is going to effect neurological development then is some cases you are going to diagnose it after the age of two. How were there any cases in any of the datasets of what you are claiming is true?
I am not making a claim. Simply stating fact. If you exclude any children from the study who have had a diagnosis before the age of two (as the study clearly states it does), these are the kids having the most immediate reactions. The remaining kids will most probably have less severe reactions. The term is "healthy vaccinee bias"
The study didn't find that Aluminum was protective. That is just Kirsh lying to you.
Read up on what a risk ratio is and what a 95% Confidence interval means of you don't know. Once you do know you can understand what the following means:
"For groups of combined outcomes, adjusted hazard ratios per 1-mg increase in aluminum exposure were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02) for any autoimmune disorder, 0.99 (CI, 0.98 to 1.01) for any atopic or allergic disorder, and 0.93 (CI, 0.90 to 0.97) for any neurodevelopmental disorder"
That first 'doctor' referenced in this document is akin to MENGELE in that she is a BARBAROUS psycho! She just 'marked' herself for the Great and TERRIBLE DAY OF THE LORD...I would hazard to guess that she will be subject to the TERRIBLE part--just like 95% of the medical 'establishment' WHORES. Funny, the percentage is the same as the CONgressional WHORES....Coincidence?
I have a new neighbor with two small children. We had a talk and I mentioned I work on the vaccine issue. I was pleasantly surprised that she was quite aware of the issue (I've come across other young parents like her) and they decided not to vaccinate their second child. Her first one had some vaccines, not understanding the issue at the time, but now does and they stopped them. It is the good thing that has come about through this Covid mess--that parents that wouldn't have known otherwise, now are being educated, have stopped the vaccines, and that is a comfort. It was also a comfort to know that the Lord caused this divine intersection with this wonderful neighbor with two little children for a very sweet conversation.
Yes, I've been having conversations with people randomly out and about and there are more people questioning vaccines now, and thinking they're not good for kids! I like this!
It's just a shame that so many parents have figured out vaccines are not good for kids by seeing the damage in their own children...which is why many choose to NOT vaccinate their younger ones now. But yes, the covid madness has also made more people wake up, there.
Luckily I figured out vaccines were bad before having kids (I had my 3 children in my mid-late 30s; plenty of time to kick my brain into gear before then!). But my cat got a few vaccines before I pulled the plug on that one (by the time I got to my 30s.) Got her diet right (no grains!), stopped using the flea treatments, she almost never saw the vet, and she lived to almost 19.
Modern medicine doesn't always save you...it just makes you THINK it can save you all the time. And too much of modern medicine just decreases your general health!
I'm glad you had that chat with your neighbour. Sounds like she's a smart one.
Science is not much of a science anymore. Most "scientists" are business minded first, and foremost, closed minded, and they also suffer from a syndrome called "a paradigm bound mentality."
Strange how they don't seem to understand that it is impossible to prove a non-association, just like you can't prove that something does NOT exist - because you cannot observe everywhere in the universe simultaneously.
The reason that logic is not sound, and why it is impossible to prove a non-association, is because, as in the case of vaccines and autism, the cause could be vaccines plus one or more other factors. You could conduct a thousand studies into vaccines, in the absence of those other factors, and all you have proved is that vaccines alone are not the cause.
For example, what if the sudden and massive rise in autism is due to glyphosate poisoning and vaccines combined? Glyphosate was originally patented as a metal chelator, so there is a plausible mechanism when vaccines contain heavy metals.
Philosophically speaking, you are correct, but I think the point is to do what is reasonable to show safety. They cannot say what doesn't cause autism until they have shown what does cause it, which will involve removing that substance and observing autism rates returning to nearly zero.
The fact that they have not even tested a single vaccine against an inert placebo, or tested vaccines in combination with other vaccines, suggests the test procedure is nothing more than marketing, and not focused on showing the truth.
The study didn't find that Aluminum was protective. That is just Kirsh lying to you.
Read up on what a risk ratio is and what a 95% Confidence interval means of you don't know. Once you do know you can understand what the following means:
"For groups of combined outcomes, adjusted hazard ratios per 1-mg increase in aluminum exposure were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02) for any autoimmune disorder, 0.99 (CI, 0.98 to 1.01) for any atopic or allergic disorder, and 0.93 (CI, 0.90 to 0.97) for any neurodevelopmental disorder
I thought that very same thing! IF it was, in actuality, a positive--the cabal would have cornered the market on that 'supplement'! Since they haven't, it is simply OUTTING more TRAITORS TO HUMANITY for Clean up on Aisle 45-47!
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!".
One note ... I do not seem to be seeing folks harmed by using Aluminum foil and the like. Am I missing something? Or is this primarily due to injections?
Aluminium that's ingested vs. bypassing the blood brain barrier (BBB) via injection have different effects on the body. The aluminium bypassing the BBB is a lot more dangerous! It's very much a neurotoxin when injected, just like mercury. The effects are much worse. So no, you're not missing something. Injected aluminium has FAR worse effects on the body than when it's ingested (although if you have Down's Syndrome, you also tend to absorb more aluminium through your digestive tract than genetically normal people...yet another gem I learned from Dr Christopher Exley!).
The Earth's crust has loads of aluminium in it. It's quite weird, actually, that we're on a planet that has so many poisons to us surficially! However, aluminium also binds very strongly with oxygen, and so most aluminium that reaches the surface is a lot less harmful to us already, because it's oxidised.
However, some people do say that aluminium foil is a hazard, as are aluminium saucepans etc. And given we know aluminium is not good for us overall, I would strongly suggest minimising one's use of aluminium foil, aluminium cans and aluminium saucepans etc. Reduce the aluminium in your diet and what you handle (and remember to stop using any baking powders with aluminium in them, too), and that should help.
Aluminium is never helpful for our systems, from what I can glean. We can't avoid it completely, because it's all around us in the Earth's crust, but we can avoid deliberately trying to ingest it.
And injecting aluminium in any form is just plain stupid - and dangerous. Governments & Big Pharma don't seem to have caught up with that one, yet. I guess there's too much money at stake for them to care?!
That the study found Aluminum to be protective is false. To say that just means you have no idea what a risk ratio or a 95% confidence interval is.
"For groups of combined outcomes, adjusted hazard ratios per 1-mg increase in aluminum exposure were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02) for any autoimmune disorder, 0.99 (CI, 0.98 to 1.01) for any atopic or allergic disorder, and 0.93 (CI, 0.90 to 0.97) for any neurodevelopmental disorder"
Maybe when they take the fluoride out of the water they can add some aluminum?
They’re always looking for good health outcomes…. 😏
There are quite a lot of doctors who only learn standardized protocols and have no understanding of logic, chemistry, or arithmetic.
Doesn't it seem that about half of doctors lack the ability to think logically and develop new protocols?
Steve, I read this study last week and the flaws jumped out.. I mean the study was just designed to show a headline.
The study attempts to compare the cumulative effects of aluminium doses within childhood vaccines against adverse events including neurological (Autism) on 2 through 8 year olds
1. The study excludes children diagnosed before age 2 (ie it leaves a bias of only the healthiest children)
2. The follow up is to age 8 ( but the average autism diagnosis in Denmark is typically between 7-12y , ave 10.74y) so it would be statistically accurate to say most of the autism diagnosis has been excluded. Kids in Denmark start school after their 6th birthday.
3. There is no unvaccinated cohort ie the study looks at the effects of different doses of Al on outcomes up to age 8 with no zero dose control. The unvaccinated cohort was identified as too different (interpret that how you wish)
4. The data show systematic bias as over 70% of hazard ratios are below 1. If taken at face value we should be supplementing children with Aluminium! (Explained by the fact that ⅓ of children .45M are excluded from the study, IE a higher proportion with adverse events are excluded, leaving a healthy vaccinee bias in the included dataset as indicated in point 1)
5. There is a direct financial conflict of interest . The study authors, SSI manufactured the BCG vaccine up until they sold the manufacturing facility in 2017. SSI is still involved in vaccine R&D.
Jesus Christ - your point number one is the opposite of what the study did. It only includes children that are on the books up to age 2. Those are the one it INCLUDEs not the ones it excluded.
"Participants:
1 224 176 children born in Denmark between 1997 and 2018 who were alive and residing in the country at age 2 years."
Roger Morten, hard to believe but if you read a bit further... "We analyzed each outcome separately and included only incident events occurring after age 2 years."
So what you are claiming is that all the effects of Al exposure stop as soon as the child turns two and that is why the study found nothing? That seems a little bit implausible.
That is just you making up some fake reason. If something is going to effect neurological development then is some cases you are going to diagnose it after the age of two. How were there any cases in any of the datasets of what you are claiming is true?
I am not making a claim. Simply stating fact. If you exclude any children from the study who have had a diagnosis before the age of two (as the study clearly states it does), these are the kids having the most immediate reactions. The remaining kids will most probably have less severe reactions. The term is "healthy vaccinee bias"
If you exclude these result the baseline changes.
It's important to check for interest of conflict.
You also need to look into the author's past career.
And when you checked this what did you find?
After 150 years of researching Aluminium, biochemistry has found no known beneficial role for Aluminium in ANY lifeform, let alone humans.
Only toxic ones. The result of the study is so flawed it is even theoretically impossible.
The study didn't find that Aluminum was protective. That is just Kirsh lying to you.
Read up on what a risk ratio is and what a 95% Confidence interval means of you don't know. Once you do know you can understand what the following means:
"For groups of combined outcomes, adjusted hazard ratios per 1-mg increase in aluminum exposure were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02) for any autoimmune disorder, 0.99 (CI, 0.98 to 1.01) for any atopic or allergic disorder, and 0.93 (CI, 0.90 to 0.97) for any neurodevelopmental disorder"
This would be criminal?
That first 'doctor' referenced in this document is akin to MENGELE in that she is a BARBAROUS psycho! She just 'marked' herself for the Great and TERRIBLE DAY OF THE LORD...I would hazard to guess that she will be subject to the TERRIBLE part--just like 95% of the medical 'establishment' WHORES. Funny, the percentage is the same as the CONgressional WHORES....Coincidence?
According to this we should be adding aluminium to mother's milk. Wow science is incredible.
Yeah, this is a business opportunity for Aluminum 'supplements'....at least in Denmark!
I have a new neighbor with two small children. We had a talk and I mentioned I work on the vaccine issue. I was pleasantly surprised that she was quite aware of the issue (I've come across other young parents like her) and they decided not to vaccinate their second child. Her first one had some vaccines, not understanding the issue at the time, but now does and they stopped them. It is the good thing that has come about through this Covid mess--that parents that wouldn't have known otherwise, now are being educated, have stopped the vaccines, and that is a comfort. It was also a comfort to know that the Lord caused this divine intersection with this wonderful neighbor with two little children for a very sweet conversation.
God is good.
YES! God is SO GOOD!!!!
Yes, I've been having conversations with people randomly out and about and there are more people questioning vaccines now, and thinking they're not good for kids! I like this!
It's just a shame that so many parents have figured out vaccines are not good for kids by seeing the damage in their own children...which is why many choose to NOT vaccinate their younger ones now. But yes, the covid madness has also made more people wake up, there.
Luckily I figured out vaccines were bad before having kids (I had my 3 children in my mid-late 30s; plenty of time to kick my brain into gear before then!). But my cat got a few vaccines before I pulled the plug on that one (by the time I got to my 30s.) Got her diet right (no grains!), stopped using the flea treatments, she almost never saw the vet, and she lived to almost 19.
Modern medicine doesn't always save you...it just makes you THINK it can save you all the time. And too much of modern medicine just decreases your general health!
I'm glad you had that chat with your neighbour. Sounds like she's a smart one.
Science is not much of a science anymore. Most "scientists" are business minded first, and foremost, closed minded, and they also suffer from a syndrome called "a paradigm bound mentality."
Strange how they don't seem to understand that it is impossible to prove a non-association, just like you can't prove that something does NOT exist - because you cannot observe everywhere in the universe simultaneously.
If two things do NOT correlate then you have proven that they not casually associated.
It is just that the reverse is not true. Correlation does not prove causation. But non-correlarion does prove non causation.
The reason that logic is not sound, and why it is impossible to prove a non-association, is because, as in the case of vaccines and autism, the cause could be vaccines plus one or more other factors. You could conduct a thousand studies into vaccines, in the absence of those other factors, and all you have proved is that vaccines alone are not the cause.
For example, what if the sudden and massive rise in autism is due to glyphosate poisoning and vaccines combined? Glyphosate was originally patented as a metal chelator, so there is a plausible mechanism when vaccines contain heavy metals.
By your logic nothing ever could be established as safe.
Ice cream appears to be safe but we haven't got a study to show that it is safe if you have eaten more than 3 tachos on that day.
Philosophically speaking, you are correct, but I think the point is to do what is reasonable to show safety. They cannot say what doesn't cause autism until they have shown what does cause it, which will involve removing that substance and observing autism rates returning to nearly zero.
The fact that they have not even tested a single vaccine against an inert placebo, or tested vaccines in combination with other vaccines, suggests the test procedure is nothing more than marketing, and not focused on showing the truth.
Anyone know where I can buy a good aluminum supplement? I apparently never realized I was low on aluminum until now....
The study didn't find that Aluminum was protective. That is just Kirsh lying to you.
Read up on what a risk ratio is and what a 95% Confidence interval means of you don't know. Once you do know you can understand what the following means:
"For groups of combined outcomes, adjusted hazard ratios per 1-mg increase in aluminum exposure were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02) for any autoimmune disorder, 0.99 (CI, 0.98 to 1.01) for any atopic or allergic disorder, and 0.93 (CI, 0.90 to 0.97) for any neurodevelopmental disorder
Interesting how AI bots are unable to recognise sarcasm.
I got the sarcasm which is why I told you that the study did not say aluminum protects from Autism
I thought that very same thing! IF it was, in actuality, a positive--the cabal would have cornered the market on that 'supplement'! Since they haven't, it is simply OUTTING more TRAITORS TO HUMANITY for Clean up on Aisle 45-47!
Where's the "laugh" button when I need it?
the Gates Foundation provided a financial guarantee to help the Danish Serum Institute CEO Adar Poonawalla.
Compromised..
• Isaiah 5:20
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!".
Thank you.
One note ... I do not seem to be seeing folks harmed by using Aluminum foil and the like. Am I missing something? Or is this primarily due to injections?
How can you tell when aluminium is everywhere? There is no control group.
The question was - does aluminum in vaccines have any effect? And there are control groups for that .
Do addicts prefer ingesting or injections? Why?
I hope that answers your question.
Aluminium that's ingested vs. bypassing the blood brain barrier (BBB) via injection have different effects on the body. The aluminium bypassing the BBB is a lot more dangerous! It's very much a neurotoxin when injected, just like mercury. The effects are much worse. So no, you're not missing something. Injected aluminium has FAR worse effects on the body than when it's ingested (although if you have Down's Syndrome, you also tend to absorb more aluminium through your digestive tract than genetically normal people...yet another gem I learned from Dr Christopher Exley!).
The Earth's crust has loads of aluminium in it. It's quite weird, actually, that we're on a planet that has so many poisons to us surficially! However, aluminium also binds very strongly with oxygen, and so most aluminium that reaches the surface is a lot less harmful to us already, because it's oxidised.
However, some people do say that aluminium foil is a hazard, as are aluminium saucepans etc. And given we know aluminium is not good for us overall, I would strongly suggest minimising one's use of aluminium foil, aluminium cans and aluminium saucepans etc. Reduce the aluminium in your diet and what you handle (and remember to stop using any baking powders with aluminium in them, too), and that should help.
Aluminium is never helpful for our systems, from what I can glean. We can't avoid it completely, because it's all around us in the Earth's crust, but we can avoid deliberately trying to ingest it.
And injecting aluminium in any form is just plain stupid - and dangerous. Governments & Big Pharma don't seem to have caught up with that one, yet. I guess there's too much money at stake for them to care?!
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply :).
Appreciated.
You're welcome :-)
Old knowledge, why do you think they spray AL into the sky's from aircraft. Breath deep!