Wow...what an excellent critique. Thanx for proving (again) how Big Pharma shills lie and obfuscate with statistics. And sadly, most media don't even question the fake science. "Wagging the dog" is not just a media strategy for going to war but can also be used to create a media narrative that will lead to fear-mongering about one disease or another or to exonerating a dangerous drug by falsely testing for safety.
The problem is there are LOADS of other studies just like this, paid to blur the actual findings, using processes that will obscure vaccination injuries instead of highlight them. And then big pharma jumps on them to tout the so called safety of their products.
They can call it whatever they like, but let's remember this: the point of science is discovery; to work out how things work. At least that's what I was taught at school. What these guys are doing is hiding the truth. Shall we call it medical fraud? As for the rest of them who go along with it (the 'true believers') well they're just kidding themselves. Scientism, the new religion. Whatever the 'cardinals' declare, they believe. But it ain't science that's for sure.
Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a physician and scientist! He documented that washing hands saved lives, but was mocked, ridiculed, and run out of medicine! just like real doctors today who don't worship at the altar of our 62 billion in fraud fines & leader in cause of death, Big Pharma
(a) I agree that there are a few too many tweeks in the analysis of Andersson et al of the Danish registry. My preference would be that investigators - who alone can see the raw data - mostly just present the results as is - and comment on possible caveats. For example - Andresson et al have now explicitly refused to disclose the unvaccinated/vaccinated comparison - rather than provide the comparison with caveats.
(b) We are not informed as to the nature of the trial - exploratory or hypothesis testing. This is a critical issue in retrospective trials - whether the outcomes were settled on a priori or post hoc. A meticulous practice would even be to publicly declare/register the outcomes prior to opening the study.
(c) Comparison of the outcomes of the trial of Mawson and Jacob with that of Andersson et al seems relevant. Why such different outcomes? It is problematic - in my view - that Andersson et al do not address that in their publication.
The biggest problem is with regard to your third point. Because Mawson et al did not publish in a "respected" (ie pharma controlled) journal, their results are not worthy of acknowledgement and consideration. It's a sign that the foundation of science has eroded. It has become dogmatic.
If you wish to know how the "respected" (ie pharma controlled) journal" scam works Google: America's Broken Health Care: Diagnosis and Prescription. By John Abramson. In an Imprimis article! Very educational!!!
I don't really have anything to add. This is your usual excellent detailed but easy-to-read standard. At the time of writing, there're only 22 other comment; but they're all of great substance. Good to know the high level of people who follow your writings.
Thanks for providing further scrutiny into this abortion of scientific reason. As James Lyons-Weiler pointed out in his critique that you touched on:
"Making matters worse, no data availability statement was included in the paper or supplement, despite prevailing standards requiring that authors disclose how data may—or may not—be accessed. This absence further insulates the model from independent scrutiny."
Were this data made available, I'd be interested if someone like Steve Kirsch might deploy an AI engine to better understand how it would most effectively go about subverting such an outcome using this kind of statistical sleight of hand chicanery. I suspect these "researchers" meticulously combed through all possible options (structure, exclusion criteria, etc) to get to their pre-defined outcome, most likely deploying such an AI engine in their efforts. Might as well hide the data source to prevent someone from going through the same exercise and reveal their fraud, and then re-analyze the same data using an actual scientific-rational approach (without the benefit of the AI assist) that gives the exact opposite conclusion.
It's my understanding that the authors have recognized that some of their data was incorrect and would lead to different conclusions, but they have not responded to questions nor have they indicated that they are working on a correction.
Why can’t concerned scientists create new medical journals and publish genuine research. It is blatantly obvious that many of the so called ‘respected’ Journals have sold ou
They can and they do. But there is a bigger problem. Science has become scientism and has succumbed to herd mentality. The herd won't follow real science. It's going to take the non-scientists to recognize what has happened. We are in for some bumpy years ahead but it's a lot better than the decades that have led us to this place.
What really sucks is that this study will be the first thing to pop up on Google or other govt controlled search engines that many young people use esp my adult kids! Then my daughter will say See mom your wrong aluminum In vaccines is not causing any health problems! Fighting a losing battle because of these evil tools!!
Wherever there's $$$ vested interest, there's incentive to obfuscate.
Re fluoride
Jun 19, 2023 "A new study led by a California public health official and long-time advocate of water fluoridation omitted data that contradicted its conclusion that fluoridated water is not associated with reduced IQ, according to documents obtained through Public Records Act requests. Attorney Michael Connett has provided the unearthed documents to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) so that the agency can consider the omitted data in its long awaited final review of fluoride’s neurodevelopmental toxicity.
As a High School Substitute Science Teacher in 2021, I sketched an outline of the Scientific Method on the White Board. The Teacher joined us remotely from his secluded COVID hideaway. After a few moments of silence, he yelled derisively into the mic, "Who did that?" I was stunned as it dawned on me that he was actually asking, "What is that?"
On Monday, The Defender reached out to lead author Anders Hviid, a professor and department head of epidemiology at the Statens Serum Institut, for comment on the allegation that the corrected data show a link between increased aluminum exposure and autism. In response, we received an automated email from Hviid stating that he was “out-of-office for the summer,” until Aug. 11.
Please forward to Alex Berenson, who has accepted this study as gospel truth. Cancelled my paid subscription not due to his posting something I disagree with, but because of his nastiness in responding to those who disagree with him.
I wrote a lengthy comment on his substack piece hitting the biggest points that I made here. It only got a modest amount of attention. Not really sure why he has certain blocks in his ability to make sense of things.
Dr. Setty Argues: With 28 years of data available, the authors should have followed children to 10-15 years. He opines that limiting primary follow-up to age five “hides” later-onset disease.
EBM Appraisal: The primary analysis followed children from age two (end of exposure window) to age five to ensure clear temporality & avoid immortal time/left truncation problems. Crucially, Andersson et al. also performed sensitivity analyses that:
• Started follow-up at 14 months
• Truncated follow-up at ages three and four
• An extended follow-up to age eight
Estimates were materially unchanged, including for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) & ADHD, with Hazard Ratios (HRs) per 1 mg still ~0.95 for ASD & ~0.92 for ADHD by age eight (Supplement Figure 12). The claim that they did not look beyond early childhood is incorrect & the “hidden later risk” hypothesis was tested & not supported.
• Logical Fallacy: The critique asserts a limitation that the authors explicitly addressed with extended follow-up analyses (Strawman).
Step 1. “Deciding which children would be examined.”
Dr. Setty Argues: Because “older children have had more vaccines,” the study should have looked at adolescents or those “who got the most vaccines,” not children’s vaccinations before age two.
Evidence-Based Mediciner (EBM) Appraisal: This is a straw man of Andersson et al’s exposure strategy. The authors were not comparing “more vs fewer vaccinations” in general; they leveraged policy-driven product changes over time that altered the aluminum content of the routine schedule before age two. This creates a quasi-experimental exposure contrast largely independent of family characteristics (a strong design feature in pharmacoepidemiology). They explicitly describe how Danish program changes over 1997–2018 led to systematically different cumulative aluminum by age two across birth cohorts. This is why the exposure window was set to the first two years of life, when aluminum adsorbed products (DTaP IPV/Hib, PCV, Hep B) are administered.
The supplement’s vaccine table shows those product-level aluminum differences (DTaP IPV/Hib 1.0 mg historically vs later lower aluminum formulations; PCV formulations likewise varied), and the cohort’s exposure by age two ranged from 0 to 4.5 mg with a median of 3 mg (IQR 2.8–3.4). Studying this exogenous variation is precisely how one reduces confounding by healthcare seeking or parental choice that bedevils “more vs less vaccinated” comparisons.
Logical fallacies: Presenting “adolescents vs toddlers” or “most vs none” as the “obvious approach” ignores legitimate alternatives. One legitimate approach is a continuous aluminum dose modelling anchored to policy changes. He misrepresents the research question posed, which was the effect of cumulative aluminum by age two. This could be considered a false dilemma and a strawman argument.
Wow...what an excellent critique. Thanx for proving (again) how Big Pharma shills lie and obfuscate with statistics. And sadly, most media don't even question the fake science. "Wagging the dog" is not just a media strategy for going to war but can also be used to create a media narrative that will lead to fear-mongering about one disease or another or to exonerating a dangerous drug by falsely testing for safety.
This Danish study is what I would call 'Dirty science'; though in fact it's not science at all if truth be told.
The problem is there are LOADS of other studies just like this, paid to blur the actual findings, using processes that will obscure vaccination injuries instead of highlight them. And then big pharma jumps on them to tout the so called safety of their products.
The science is settled. The vast majority of scientists agree with whoever is funding them.
Also, A study designed not to find harm will never find harm.
They can call it whatever they like, but let's remember this: the point of science is discovery; to work out how things work. At least that's what I was taught at school. What these guys are doing is hiding the truth. Shall we call it medical fraud? As for the rest of them who go along with it (the 'true believers') well they're just kidding themselves. Scientism, the new religion. Whatever the 'cardinals' declare, they believe. But it ain't science that's for sure.
Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a physician and scientist! He documented that washing hands saved lives, but was mocked, ridiculed, and run out of medicine! just like real doctors today who don't worship at the altar of our 62 billion in fraud fines & leader in cause of death, Big Pharma
(a) I agree that there are a few too many tweeks in the analysis of Andersson et al of the Danish registry. My preference would be that investigators - who alone can see the raw data - mostly just present the results as is - and comment on possible caveats. For example - Andresson et al have now explicitly refused to disclose the unvaccinated/vaccinated comparison - rather than provide the comparison with caveats.
(b) We are not informed as to the nature of the trial - exploratory or hypothesis testing. This is a critical issue in retrospective trials - whether the outcomes were settled on a priori or post hoc. A meticulous practice would even be to publicly declare/register the outcomes prior to opening the study.
(c) Comparison of the outcomes of the trial of Mawson and Jacob with that of Andersson et al seems relevant. Why such different outcomes? It is problematic - in my view - that Andersson et al do not address that in their publication.
Well said.
The biggest problem is with regard to your third point. Because Mawson et al did not publish in a "respected" (ie pharma controlled) journal, their results are not worthy of acknowledgement and consideration. It's a sign that the foundation of science has eroded. It has become dogmatic.
If you wish to know how the "respected" (ie pharma controlled) journal" scam works Google: America's Broken Health Care: Diagnosis and Prescription. By John Abramson. In an Imprimis article! Very educational!!!
Sometimes there are realities that are too painful to accept. I think there is a lot of that going around in the medical profession these days.
... there is another study obviously following the same "rules" - with one person to be found in both studies:
-
"Original Research"
Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101
Authors: Anders Hviid, DrMedSci, Jørgen Vinsløv Hansen, PhD, Morten Frisch, DrMedSci, and Mads Melbye, DrMedSci
Publication: Annals of Internal Medicine - Volume 170, Number 8
https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2101
5 March 2019
-
In this case we do have a
"Primary Funding Source: Novo Nordisk Foundation and Danish Ministry of Health."
-
This science is not to follow.
I don't really have anything to add. This is your usual excellent detailed but easy-to-read standard. At the time of writing, there're only 22 other comment; but they're all of great substance. Good to know the high level of people who follow your writings.
Thanks for providing further scrutiny into this abortion of scientific reason. As James Lyons-Weiler pointed out in his critique that you touched on:
"Making matters worse, no data availability statement was included in the paper or supplement, despite prevailing standards requiring that authors disclose how data may—or may not—be accessed. This absence further insulates the model from independent scrutiny."
Were this data made available, I'd be interested if someone like Steve Kirsch might deploy an AI engine to better understand how it would most effectively go about subverting such an outcome using this kind of statistical sleight of hand chicanery. I suspect these "researchers" meticulously combed through all possible options (structure, exclusion criteria, etc) to get to their pre-defined outcome, most likely deploying such an AI engine in their efforts. Might as well hide the data source to prevent someone from going through the same exercise and reveal their fraud, and then re-analyze the same data using an actual scientific-rational approach (without the benefit of the AI assist) that gives the exact opposite conclusion.
It's my understanding that the authors have recognized that some of their data was incorrect and would lead to different conclusions, but they have not responded to questions nor have they indicated that they are working on a correction.
Why can’t concerned scientists create new medical journals and publish genuine research. It is blatantly obvious that many of the so called ‘respected’ Journals have sold ou
They can and they do. But there is a bigger problem. Science has become scientism and has succumbed to herd mentality. The herd won't follow real science. It's going to take the non-scientists to recognize what has happened. We are in for some bumpy years ahead but it's a lot better than the decades that have led us to this place.
Amen!
What really sucks is that this study will be the first thing to pop up on Google or other govt controlled search engines that many young people use esp my adult kids! Then my daughter will say See mom your wrong aluminum In vaccines is not causing any health problems! Fighting a losing battle because of these evil tools!!
Hiding the signal:
Wherever there's $$$ vested interest, there's incentive to obfuscate.
Re fluoride
Jun 19, 2023 "A new study led by a California public health official and long-time advocate of water fluoridation omitted data that contradicted its conclusion that fluoridated water is not associated with reduced IQ, according to documents obtained through Public Records Act requests. Attorney Michael Connett has provided the unearthed documents to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) so that the agency can consider the omitted data in its long awaited final review of fluoride’s neurodevelopmental toxicity.
https://youtu.be/3U_ULik20Bc
“… crafty enough to fool legacy media…” That’s a pretty low bar!
As a High School Substitute Science Teacher in 2021, I sketched an outline of the Scientific Method on the White Board. The Teacher joined us remotely from his secluded COVID hideaway. After a few moments of silence, he yelled derisively into the mic, "Who did that?" I was stunned as it dawned on me that he was actually asking, "What is that?"
It's getting worse....
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/aluminum-vaccines-autism-link-denmark-study-corrected-data/
On Monday, The Defender reached out to lead author Anders Hviid, a professor and department head of epidemiology at the Statens Serum Institut, for comment on the allegation that the corrected data show a link between increased aluminum exposure and autism. In response, we received an automated email from Hviid stating that he was “out-of-office for the summer,” until Aug. 11.
Please forward to Alex Berenson, who has accepted this study as gospel truth. Cancelled my paid subscription not due to his posting something I disagree with, but because of his nastiness in responding to those who disagree with him.
I wrote a lengthy comment on his substack piece hitting the biggest points that I made here. It only got a modest amount of attention. Not really sure why he has certain blocks in his ability to make sense of things.
Thank you for such an important post. I've added it to a curation of evidence on harmful vaccine ingredients:
https://birdseyeviewperspective.substack.com/p/she-pushed-for-tests-to-be-conducted
Step 2. “Deciding on the observational window.”
Dr. Setty Argues: With 28 years of data available, the authors should have followed children to 10-15 years. He opines that limiting primary follow-up to age five “hides” later-onset disease.
EBM Appraisal: The primary analysis followed children from age two (end of exposure window) to age five to ensure clear temporality & avoid immortal time/left truncation problems. Crucially, Andersson et al. also performed sensitivity analyses that:
• Started follow-up at 14 months
• Truncated follow-up at ages three and four
• An extended follow-up to age eight
Estimates were materially unchanged, including for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) & ADHD, with Hazard Ratios (HRs) per 1 mg still ~0.95 for ASD & ~0.92 for ADHD by age eight (Supplement Figure 12). The claim that they did not look beyond early childhood is incorrect & the “hidden later risk” hypothesis was tested & not supported.
• Logical Fallacy: The critique asserts a limitation that the authors explicitly addressed with extended follow-up analyses (Strawman).
Step 1. “Deciding which children would be examined.”
Dr. Setty Argues: Because “older children have had more vaccines,” the study should have looked at adolescents or those “who got the most vaccines,” not children’s vaccinations before age two.
Evidence-Based Mediciner (EBM) Appraisal: This is a straw man of Andersson et al’s exposure strategy. The authors were not comparing “more vs fewer vaccinations” in general; they leveraged policy-driven product changes over time that altered the aluminum content of the routine schedule before age two. This creates a quasi-experimental exposure contrast largely independent of family characteristics (a strong design feature in pharmacoepidemiology). They explicitly describe how Danish program changes over 1997–2018 led to systematically different cumulative aluminum by age two across birth cohorts. This is why the exposure window was set to the first two years of life, when aluminum adsorbed products (DTaP IPV/Hib, PCV, Hep B) are administered.
The supplement’s vaccine table shows those product-level aluminum differences (DTaP IPV/Hib 1.0 mg historically vs later lower aluminum formulations; PCV formulations likewise varied), and the cohort’s exposure by age two ranged from 0 to 4.5 mg with a median of 3 mg (IQR 2.8–3.4). Studying this exogenous variation is precisely how one reduces confounding by healthcare seeking or parental choice that bedevils “more vs less vaccinated” comparisons.
Logical fallacies: Presenting “adolescents vs toddlers” or “most vs none” as the “obvious approach” ignores legitimate alternatives. One legitimate approach is a continuous aluminum dose modelling anchored to policy changes. He misrepresents the research question posed, which was the effect of cumulative aluminum by age two. This could be considered a false dilemma and a strawman argument.