Danish Study: No link between vaccines and autism or other health conditions

Value of yet-another vaccine–autism study

• Some see it as tragic that resources must keep disproving a debunked claim, arguing funds could advance new science instead.
• Others argue replication is core to science; even “boring” confirmations can uncover surprises or refine understanding.
• Several commenters say such work maintains trust by addressing specific evolving claims (e.g., aluminum adjuvants), not just appealing to authority.

Public trust, institutions, and political reality

• Many doubt the study will change minds; some think it may even entrench anti‑vax beliefs due to motivated reasoning.
• Discussion links resistance to emotional identity, social networks, and reluctance to admit being wrong, rather than math/statistics.
• Broader causes mentioned: long-running anti‑institution culture, alt‑media profiteering from distrust, politicization during COVID, and decline of traditional religion creating space for new “zealot” causes.

What the Danish aluminum study actually did

• Study looked at ~1.2M Danish children, correlating cumulative aluminum from vaccines (before age 2) with autism and 49 other outcomes.
• It did not compare vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated; instead it compared higher vs lower aluminum exposure among mostly vaccinated children.
• Hazard ratios for most outcomes had confidence intervals entirely below or including 1 → no evidence of risk increase; Asperger’s and atypical autism had wide CIs crossing 1, interpreted as statistically non‑significant and likely underpowered.
• Some readers argue headlines overstate the result (“no link between vaccines and autism”) versus the narrower aluminum-focused finding.

Methodology, data, and conflicts of interest

• Questions raised about exclusion of children with “too much” aluminum, and absence of code/data despite the replication crisis.
• One commenter accuses Denmark’s serum institute of vaccine-profit bias; others counter it is a state public-health body and not funded by vaccine sales.
• Statistical explanations reference inverse probability weighting to approximate randomization in an observational setting.

Autism rates and competing explanations

• Autism researchers in the thread emphasize stronger evidence for other causes and note limited budgets should target more plausible mechanisms.
• Others point to changing diagnostic criteria, increased awareness, and service incentives as major drivers of rising recorded prevalence; some disagree based on personal observation.
• Anecdotes (e.g., onset after shots, knowing many autistic children) and social-media memes are seen as powerful fuels for anti‑vax narratives.

How to handle skeptics and mandates

• Split between those who see engagement with hard‑core anti‑vaxxers as wasted effort and those urging continued respectful, evidence-based outreach.
• Concerns aired about pharma immunity from lawsuits, past drug scandals, and perceived coercion during COVID, which feed broader vaccine unease even among people who still vaccinate.