RE: Does Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines cause Autism? New article provides solid evidence it does! (Spoiler: No, it doesn’t)
Great work! This is how information should be verified. However, just a few quick notes. One, I don't know you or your credentials. Based on your writing you are highly educated. Definitely more than I. But how do we verify you? Social media just isn't the platform for critical information. Could your critical analysis of this article be published by a credible journal? Two, assuming that you are credible which I do believe, you are really only showing how inconclusive and poorly executed this research is. The headline kinda baits people in to forming an opinion one way or another that vaccines with aluminum are either safe or unsafe vs Autism. You only disprove their research. Some people might believe that this means Aluminum is safe in vaccines. I think it means we should do more research. The statistical correlation between Autism and vaccines is too high to ignore. Something is happening and someone needs to figure it out.
Excellent points here.
Thanks
@dinodog1, thanks for commenting and stating your concerns, I addressed some of them in my response to @kafkanarchy84 right above yours ^
Quoting Stephen Jay Gould, the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning. The problem with said correlations when it comes to autism (the significance of which could also be argued) is that 1) the increase in cases reported could be also attributed simply to the improved detection and diagnosed of the condition, as well as the inclusion of other neurological disorders within the same term (since autism, like cancer, is not a single disease, but a term used to group a spectrum of disorders that share some common symptoms) and 2) There are many other variables involved that would be difficult to separate and discard in order to convincingly narrow down the cause to the vaccination. Maybe I should discuss this further in another post since I think is an important and interesting thing that can help us all to understand scientific studies and research in general.
I am sorry I don't mean to offend you but what you just wrote is complete non-sense to me. Stephen Jay Gould probably could have improved his work had he lived long enough to see what theoretical physicists have been working on today.
The thought that "correlation implies cause" is an invalid assumption? Yes correlation absolutely and positively must imply cause and simply that. Without correlation we have no real reason to invest into discovery. Are you going to waste valuable time researching a topic that is not based upon some correlation? Without patterns there are no real problems just unaccounted for randomness.
Early on in the debate, I would have agreed with your statement that improved diagnosis and detection have adversely affected the statistical analysis. However, based on just common sense alone, we are clearly far past that point now. There are simply too many cases of parents experiencing the same issues with their children and vaccination. It is important to note here that the majority of vaccination is safe. Statistics can prove that as well. Here in the USA we should be questioning the number a vaccines required, the age when they are administered, their effective timeline, and one vaccine in particular the MMR.
I would love to hear your comments on "many other variables". I see this as a weak argument. It is the job of the scientific community to set up parameters during research which account for such variables. Research must be conducted properly no matter how difficult. You must keep pushing forward until you discover a way to conduct it properly.
One more thing to note, you choose to analyze just one research paper. There are many more out there with similar findings. Just because you found one with bogus research doesn't mean that the problem doesn't really exist. You kinda cherry picked it. I would like to see you find another paper on the same topic that you cannot dispel the research. One that in your own opinion shows that they did the research properly.