@JesslovesMJK .@ReginaWatteel .@stkirsch .@JeffereyJaxen .@SecKennedy .@jakescottMD.

any of the relevant statistical results (correlations, significance of covariates, or multicollinearity test stats) it is highly suspicious, but impossible to verify. Jake goes on to make more false/misleading claims about the study, but I think I've gone on long enough!. 14/14.

The protective effects shown for many outcomes are much more likely to be due to excessive exclusions, multicollinearity (from highly inter-related covariates) & model over-specification (with 12 highly correlated adjustment variables). 👇. Since the authors do not provide . 13/n

outcomes) are perfectly reasonable & just due to "residual confounding"! He does not give any potential explanation for what variable might be causing such confounding nor why the authors of the paper did not control for that variable. because it is simply not plausible. 12/n.

neglecting to mention that the Danish study was also observational (thus couldn't prove/disprove causation), & seemingly pulling the 3rd claim from somewhere other than the study. Next Jake claims that the protective effects suggested by the models (of alum on many health. 11/n.

due to this insane manipulation!. Then he (inexplicably) states, about a US study that found a significant link between asthma & aluminum exposure, that the "authors stressed it was observational, couldn't prove causation, and benefits vastly outweigh any unproven risks",. 10/n.

Next Jake states that the Danish study found "no increased asthma risk with aluminum exposure", but neglects to mention that the authors excluded 94% of asthma cases in the study & actually found a statistically significant decreased risk of asthma with aluminum exposure 👇. 9/n

but the authors only excluded those who were recorded as receiving too many vaccines, they did not exclude those who received too few vaccines (which biases the results). Note also that the exclusion was not minor & indicated that 2.5% of the total children were excluded!. 8/n.

is standard! That's ridiculous! Yes it is standard to exclude those with pre-existing conditions (before the first exposure), but it is absolutely NOT acceptable to exclude those diagnosed soon after exposure!. He also says excluding "implausible vaccines doses" is routine,. 7/n.

to refute it, but later realizes he was wrong & retracts this point. He then claims that excluding children who have bad health outcomes (including death) up to age 2, in a study examining the effect of a toxic exposure (in this case at 3, 5, & 12 months) on health outcomes. 6/n

mention that the authors adjusted for birth cohort which eliminates the differences in aluminum doses between birth cohorts, suggesting that RFK was correct in his assessment. Jake then claims that RFK's "central claim is demonstrably false" & tries to use data in the paper. 5/n

Next Jake argues that RFK's claim that the study was designed "not to find harm" was wrong. Jake claims that a "strength of the study" is that "different birth cohorts received different aluminum doses due to national policy changes - not parental choice", but neglects to. 4/n.

effects of aluminum on autism & other neurodevelopmental outcomes.👇. Furthermore the study did not "follow 1.2 million children over 24 years" as Jake claimed, rather it retrospectively used (up to 8 years of) health records of 1.2 million children born between 1997 & 2018. 3/n

(through exclusions & over-adjustment), resulted in the main analyses finding (clearly implausible) statistically significant protective effects of aluminum against autism & other neurodevelopmental harm👇, some of the additional analyses showed statistically signif. harmful. 2/n

Jake Scott is misrepresenting a (retrospective observational) Danish study while accusing RFK Jr of doing so. Jake falsely claims that the study "found no link between aluminum in vaccines and autism or neurodevelopmental harm". While the excessive manipulation of the data. 1/n.

Guy claiming to be a doctor using ad hominem instead of providing any evidence to support his claim. because there is none. My claim is 100% true no matter how many ad hominems and incomplete quotes you respond with Dave.

RT @MargaretAnnaAl1: STOP. WATCH. LISTEN. FEEL. SHARE. Lament of the Vaxx-Injured, Read by Cody Hudson. If this….

It's hilarious when someone asks for the high quality evidence & you tell them exactly where they can find it, so they reply with garbage opinion pieces & emojis then block you so you can't respond. It's the modern day version of monkeys with their hands over their eyes/ears.🙈🙉.

Heartbreaking.👇.