Secretary Kennedy critiques the new Danish study 'proving' that aluminium in vaccines is safe

When science™️ decides to cover up or obfuscate about an issue, it has a million creative and downright dishonest methods to prove whatever premise will make pHarma the most money and convince those who don’t actually read more than the Abstract - doctors, journalists, etc. - that real problems are just myths and myths are, in fact, true.

The recently published study by Andersson et al, Aluminum-Adsorbed Vaccines and Chronic Diseases in Childhood: A Nationwide Cohort Study, is a prime example of these deadly serious lies.

This publication is being crowed about by every pseudoscientific pseudoskeptic you can name and being published as the final word by mainstream presstitutes around the world. You see! We told you vaccines are safe! Here’s the proof, nyah, nyah!

The study purports to show that aluminium in vaccines is not linked with the serious health conditions previously shown to be caused by this toxic ingredient. However, what it does NOT look at or intentionally excludes speaks volumes about the true intent of this large, population-based paper.

According to a critique by Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F Kennedy, Jr, published in TrialSite News, Flawed Science, Bought Conclusions: The Aluminum Vaccine Study the Media Won’t Question, this paper is:

“…a study so deeply flawed it functions not as science but as a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Secretary Kennedy stated that the study pulled a lot of exclusionary tricks:

• “The exclusion included all children who died before age two, those diagnosed early with respiratory conditions, and an astonishing 34,547 children — 2.8% of the study population — whose vaccination records showed the highest aluminum exposure levels.”
• …introduced “collider bias” by inappropriately [treating] general practitioner visits before age two as a confounder, without assessing whether these GP visits reflected early aluminum-related illness or were predictive of later diagnoses.
• the study “initially had a zero-exposure cohort within the study group (eg a group which had not been exposed to aluminium via vaccines - a true control). But instead of evaluating this non-vaccination group separately and treating these children as the control, they lumped these kids into the least-exposed cohort, diluting any signal of harm.” This is a trick Secretary Kennedy would have been well-aware of from his days of analyzing the Gardasil shot which had a saline placebo group that was blended with the group that received the ‘placebo’ containing 225mcg of aluminium adjuvant prior to final publication, completely muddying the results.
• The authors adjusted for birth year in such a way as to cover up any cumulative effect of “Aluminum exposure from vaccines increased over time…” and their connection to “…rates of chronic childhood disorders.”
• “Furthermore, the authors almost exclusively relied on diagnoses from hospital inpatient registers. This gimmick allowed the authors to exclude the vast majority of affected children whose autism and food allergies would most likely be diagnosed and managed outside of hospital settings.”

There were other problems outlined by Kennedy in his article on TrialSite News linked above and freely available to download so I suggest you do so.

What really gets me mad is the fact that Kennedy’s article, complete with original source references and approved by the highest levels of the American Government which Kennedy represents, was prefaced by a big, red disclaimer:

I could be wrong, but I have yet to see a mainstream ‘scientist’ publish an article on that website with a similar disclaimer.

Pardon me, TrialSite, but your biases are showing in big, red letters and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Informed Choice is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.