• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Opinion RFK calls for retraction of Danish vaccine study


Yet Another Study Finds That AI Is Making Us Dumb​

LLM users displayed the "weakest" brain connectivity in a new MIT study that hints AI use harms critical thinking.
 
Let's give him a chance to answer for himself first, maybe it's not AI..
anigif_sub-buzz-1368-1629848987-10.gif
 
As someone who conducts large scale studies, longitudinal studies rarely have a control group (particularly when the topic you are examining has multiple confluencing variables). The latter is of particular importance - you are looking at healthcare outcomes over two decades. The number of variables (both known and unknown) that can impact the results are in the thousands. The goal of the study is inferential analysis, not causal analysis (the latter being impossible due to the lack of controls).

Once again, most time series studies do not have a control group (in the conventional sense).
<mma4>
 
There is a clear methodology issue with this study.

This study does not include a truly unvaccinated control group, which limits its ability to completely rule out possible harms from aluminum additives. There is evidence to suggest aluminum builds up in the body and cross into the brain, creating big concerns about repeated exposure during early childhood. We need to be skeptical here.

RFK bless
the only thing clear is that you don't understand how vaccine studies work. You've clearly taken RFK's bat shit crazy word as the truth without asking any questions to your AI of choice, such as "why don't vaccine studies have control group?" you could also ask your AI of choice "is there any danger to aluminum in vaccines?"

Do you think breastmilk has more aluminum in it than a vaccine? quick, ask Grok!

  • The total aluminum in a vaccine dose is usually 0.125–0.85 milligrams.
  • By comparison, infants ingest 7–10 milligrams of aluminum daily from breast milk, formula, or food — and healthy kidneys clear it efficiently.

You could use AI to make yourself smarter or you could just be intellectually lazy and become dumber for it. I thought social media would kill us all, but no it's going to be AI. And not in some AI overthrow of the human race, nah, we're just going to dumb ourselves down so fucking much that we only accept AI that confirms our biases.
 
Last edited:
What is the degree of confidence needed for anything in the field of biology to be implemented on the public? We are not going to get 5 Sigma in Biology.



The study doesn't claim that aluminum is completely harmless in every way. What it is saying is that in their dataset there was no statistical significant association found between Aluminum and certain disorders. Now why is that an issue for you?
How can they make the claim that there is no statistically significant association between aluminum in vaccines and certain disorders when they don’t include the unvaxxed? Are they assuming a dose response reaction?

The fact that this study even has to be conducted after decades of administering aluminum containing vaccines is also pretty scary, and I think reflects unfortunately the lack of high quality safety data when it comes to certain vaccines and vaccine components. Obviously these researchers hope that these vaccines are safe, and that itself is a potential confounder.

Ultimately, this study seems to be another exercise in “low certainty” provax public relations adding little/nothing to our actual understanding of the safety of aluminum containing vaccines.

Concentrations, Number of Doses, and Formulations of Aluminium Adjuvants in Vaccines: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials​

“For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.


The above was from a 2023 systemic analysis, but you’ll find damn near the same thing (low to very low confidence results) in other similar reviews.
 
How can they make the claim that there is no statistically significant association between aluminum in vaccines and certain disorders when they don’t include the unvaxxed? Are they assuming a dose response reaction?

The fact that this study even has to be conducted after decades of administering aluminum containing vaccines is also pretty scary, and I think reflects unfortunately the lack of high quality safety data when it comes to certain vaccines and vaccine components. Obviously these researchers hope that these vaccines are safe, and that itself is a potential confounder.

Ultimately, this study seems to be another exercise in “low certainty” provax public relations adding little/nothing to our actual understanding of the safety of aluminum containing vaccines.

Concentrations, Number of Doses, and Formulations of Aluminium Adjuvants in Vaccines: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials​

“For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.


The above was from a 2023 systemic analysis, but you’ll find damn near the same thing (low to very low confidence results) in other similar reviews.

Ya in a way, it looks like they calculated cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccines by age 2, then group children into quarters and analyzed whether higher exposure correlated with increased risk of chronic disorders. The sample sizes were huge, as well as the longitudinal data, and they found no statistical increase for any of the conditions studied. And to quote @Brampton_Boy

"The latter is of particular importance - you are looking at healthcare outcomes over two decades. The number of variables (both known and unknown) that can impact the results are in the thousands. The goal of the study is inferential analysis, not causal analysis (the latter being impossible due to the lack of controls)."

The study provides strong evidence against a causal link, but it doesn't claim to prove causality. Researchers were careful to frame their conclusions in terms of lack of statistically significant associations, not definitive proof of safety.
 
Last edited:
the only thing clear is that you don't understand how vaccine studies work. You've clearly taken RFK's bat shit crazy word as the truth without asking any questions to your AI of choice, such as "why don't vaccine studies have control group?" you could also ask your AI of choice "is there any danger to aluminum in vaccines?"

Do you think breastmilk has more aluminum in it than a vaccine? quick, ask Grok!

  • The total aluminum in a vaccine dose is usually 0.125–0.85 milligrams.
  • By comparison, infants ingest 7–10 milligrams of aluminum daily from breast milk, formula, or food — and healthy kidneys clear it efficiently.

You could use AI to make yourself smarter or you could just be intellectually lazy and become dumber for it. I thought social media would kill us all, but no it's going to be AI. And not in some AI overthrow of the human race, nah, we're just going to dumb ourselves down so fucking much that we only accept AI that confirms our biases.
Theres a distinction between ingestion and injection, but you already have your mind made up and are acting in the opposite of good faith.
 
Theres a distinction between ingestion and injection, but you already have your mind made up and are acting in the opposite of good faith.
Yes there is a difference. Absorption is what matters with ingested and it's still far higher than injections. Injections are 0.125–0.85 milligrams, babies absorb 0.1-0.3% of the aluminum they ingest at 7-9 milligrams a day. best case scenario at 7 milligrams ingested and 0.1% absorbed is still 0.007 milligrams daily (best case scenario) from one food source. Far far higher DAILY dose of aluminum compared to a single vaccine shot of 0.125–0.85 milligrams that spaced out months apart. Bad faith, how ironic.
 
Last edited:
Yes there is a difference. Absorption is what matters with ingested and it's still far higher than injections. Injections are 0.125–0.85 milligrams, babies absorb 0.1-0.3% of the aluminum they ingest at 7-9 milligrams a day. best case scenario at 7 milligrams ingested and 0.1% absorbed is still 0.7 milligrams. Far far higher DAILY dose of aluminum compared to a single vaccine shot of 0.125–0.85 milligrams. Bad faith, how ironic.
The math is a bit wrong 0.1% of 7 mg is .007, but besides that there are things you are overlooking or not aware of. Injected aluminum from vaccines is 100% bioavailable because it bypasses the guts protective barrier. The adjuvant is designed to persist so it can generate an immune response with a half life of up to, sometimes, a year. This isnt the case with dietary aluminum which is excreted rapidly like you said.
 
Last edited:
The math is a bit wrong 0.1% of 7 mg is .007, but besides that there are things you are overlooking or not aware of. Injected aluminum from vaccines is 100% bioavailable because it bypasses the guts protective barrier. The adjuvant is designed to perist so it can generate an immune response with a half life of up to, sometimes, a year. This isnt the case with dietary aluminum which is excreted rapidly like you said.

These are Aluminum salts, not the element Aluminum that is being used. Very different!
 
The math is a bit wrong 0.1% of 7 mg is .007, but besides that there are things you are overlooking or not aware of. Injected aluminum from vaccines is 100% bioavailable because it bypasses the guts protective barrier. The adjuvant is designed to persist so it can generate an immune response with a half life of up to, sometimes, a year. This isnt the case with dietary aluminum which is excreted rapidly like you said.
Yes I got my decimal points wrong, but the fact remains, people ingest and absorb far more aluminum over time than vaccine injections. And the fact remains that the science doesn't support RFK's misunderstanding of vaccines, germs, viruses, and medicine in general.
 
These are Aluminum salts, not the element Aluminum that is being used. Very different!
They still both release aluminum ions in the body ultimately, and its these ions that matter regarding potential affects . Not only is this a red herring but elemental aluminum is only found in foil and cans, etc. So how is that relevant?
 
Yes I got my decimal points wrong, but the fact remains, people ingest and absorb far more aluminum over time than vaccine injections. And the fact remains that the science doesn't support RFK's misunderstanding of vaccines, germs, viruses, and medicine in general.
You dont understand the fundamental difference of bioavalibility and the guts protection regarding ingestion. Im not sure why you are just ignoring that, but do you I guess.
 
They still both release aluminum ions in the body ultimately, and its these ions that matter regarding potential affects . Not only is this a red herring but elemental aluminum is only found in foil and cans, etc. So how is that relevant?

What do you mean "these ions matter"? The form of the element matters, toxicity isn’t just about the presence of an element. It’s about its chemical structure, dose, and biological behavior. For example Chlorine is extremely toxic to the human body, yet table salt NACL is safe because of the chloride form of the ion.

Aluminum salts have been used for the past 70 years with vaccines and have gone through numerous trials, including the one cited in the OP.
 
What do you mean "these ions matter"? The form of the element matters, toxicity isn’t just about the presence of an element. It’s about its chemical structure, dose, and biological behavior. For example Chlorine is extremely toxic to the human body, yet table salt NACL is safe because of the chloride form of the ion.

Aluminum salts have been used for the past 70 years with vaccines and have gone through numerous trials, including the one cited in the OP.
You admit elemental aluminum isnt in foods right?
 
@Rob Battisti what's the source for that quote of yours? Don't tell you asked AI.
I'm asking where that excerpt is from, is it from one of these links? And did your actually read through all these sources?
From the excerpt

Did you read the (probably AI)excerpt in it's entirety? Did you read through the sources you linked here?

Or did you just ask an AI for a take?
@Rob Battisti
jon-jones.gif
 
They still both release aluminum ions in the body ultimately, and its these ions that matter regarding potential affects . Not only is this a red herring but elemental aluminum is only found in foil and cans, etc. So how is that relevant?

Approximately 90% of the aluminum that enters the blood stream binds with transferrin and citrate. 75% of that is passed within 2 weeks.



 
Back
Top