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.