What about the Danish longitudinal studies where millions of kids were vaccinated, millions were not, and there was no statistically significant difference in autism rates?
Depends on the study parameters, how the data is collated and presented, and were the numbers adjusted or unadjusted. Not saying the result is incorrect, but details are important.
Also What longitudinal study has 'millions of unvaccinated kids' - are these Western kids or third world kids ?/.
If you want to look for probable causes of autism, go look at geriatric mothers yeeting their unloved children into daycare and public school gulags. The data doesnt support it being vaccines.
Ok thanks, Btw, It wasn't 'millions of children' . It was slightly over 500 000 (which incl almost 100 000 non vaccinated in that number).
The highlighted segment in your link, details what Studies Author's say they found, describing the findings as - 'adjusted relative risk of autistic disorder'. I almost knew before reading this would be how they categorized the results.
My question is ''What is the (unadjusted) absolute risk of autistic disorder?'' and curious why not show the 'absolute risk of spectrum disorder' from MMR vaccination. Eg, 'relative risk' to what - Not getting the MMR ? - then why not show the 'absolute risk'.
As we saw all throughout the convid19 reporting of data - using 'adjusted relative risk ' is simply a slight of hand way to game data by both either over stating or understating depending on what outcome you desire, and 'misinterpret' absolute risk.
Had a similar issue with the phizzer vaxx shill dadudemon1 - always posting links to big pharma/msm 'adjusted relative risk snapshot data' for why convid19 was deadly and everyone was gonna die unless you got their clot shot.
(post is archived)