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.
Apologies for misremembering the sample size. The Danish study was back in the 90s so its been awhile since I read through it.
In terms of showing relative risk rather than absolute risk, wouldnt they logically have to show relative risk? That would compare the trial group to the control group. Trying to show absolute risk back in the 90s would presume they even know what the absolute risk was as a baseline for a relative new diagnosis. I completely understand where you're coming from with "why not absolute?" given how shady big pharma tends to be. At least in this case it seems to make sense to show relative.
I definitely hear you on the 'rona shennanigans. There were so many financial incentives for doctors to lie their asses off and shill the clotshot that almost all the studies would fail a basic conflict of interest check.
(post is archived)