I don't have a question for him but I did read one of his latest Substack articles where he mentions the recent Danish study that concluded that aluminum does not cause autism. I wanted to comment on his substack but I am not a paid subscriber (yet) so I cannot comment. I just wanted to mention that I listened to a very informative podcast yesterday (July 21) on The Children's Health Defense website about this same study. Children's Health Defense research scientist, Carl Jablowski broke down this study piece by piece so something I think Alex should listen to or I am sure they have an article about it on their website. Valuable information there. The title of the podcase is called "Aluminum autism link buried" I saw something about Ivermectin. I guess you could ask him if he has read Dr. Pierre Kory's book "The War On Ivermectin" - he also has a Substack :))
This from James Lyons-Weiler, PhD's substack. He is also quoted in the CHD article.
The most egregious violation lies in the study’s statistical modeling: the authors adjusted their hazard ratios for the number of general practitioner (GP) visits before age two. This variable is not a confounder. It is a direct downstream consequence of vaccine exposure itself. Infants receiving multiple aluminum-containing vaccines in their first year may present with fever, seizures, inconsolable crying, rashes, hypotonia, gastrointestinal distress, or developmental regression. These symptoms drive parental concern, which in turn drives GP visits.
To adjust for GP visits in the same window as vaccine exposure is to adjust for an intermediate—an effect of the exposure.
Adjusting for having aluminum-related chronic illness before 24 months is an obvious statistical trick that would make the association between exposure to aluminum-containing vaccines and chronic illness after 24 months disappear. Imagine studying the association between smoking and lung disease adjusting for having nicotine-stained fingers, carrying a lighter, or frequency of coughing in the 24 months before lung cancer diagnosis.
What you are doing, in effect, is mathematically erasing the very signal you are supposed to be detecting. Stat News never critically examined the design of analysis.
I would like to know why Alex maintains his opposition to ivermectin/fenbendazole in the face of an increasing number of significant anecdotal success stories for much but not all of the population for both a variety of cancers and COVID. It is not likely we will ever see a clinical trial unless NIH does one as there is no pharma money to be made in it, so what's wrong with credentialed scientists and biostatisticians analyzing the increasing number of detailed lab tests and imaging to see what evidence-based conclusions may be drawn?
1. During the pandemic, it was extremely difficult to separate fact from rumor from anecdote from tin foil theory. Given that no one person was correct 100% of the time, what were your best and especially worst takes in hindsight?
2. How do you deal with those that still live in ignorance of the more damaging health and societal effects of the pandemic, and those that shun others that were slow to come around but eventually did? Those that shun most often saying they were right from the beginning as if it gave them moral superiority just as false as those that would be present day covid cultists.
I don't have a question for him but I did read one of his latest Substack articles where he mentions the recent Danish study that concluded that aluminum does not cause autism. I wanted to comment on his substack but I am not a paid subscriber (yet) so I cannot comment. I just wanted to mention that I listened to a very informative podcast yesterday (July 21) on The Children's Health Defense website about this same study. Children's Health Defense research scientist, Carl Jablowski broke down this study piece by piece so something I think Alex should listen to or I am sure they have an article about it on their website. Valuable information there. The title of the podcase is called "Aluminum autism link buried" I saw something about Ivermectin. I guess you could ask him if he has read Dr. Pierre Kory's book "The War On Ivermectin" - he also has a Substack :))
This from James Lyons-Weiler, PhD's substack. He is also quoted in the CHD article.
The most egregious violation lies in the study’s statistical modeling: the authors adjusted their hazard ratios for the number of general practitioner (GP) visits before age two. This variable is not a confounder. It is a direct downstream consequence of vaccine exposure itself. Infants receiving multiple aluminum-containing vaccines in their first year may present with fever, seizures, inconsolable crying, rashes, hypotonia, gastrointestinal distress, or developmental regression. These symptoms drive parental concern, which in turn drives GP visits.
To adjust for GP visits in the same window as vaccine exposure is to adjust for an intermediate—an effect of the exposure.
Adjusting for having aluminum-related chronic illness before 24 months is an obvious statistical trick that would make the association between exposure to aluminum-containing vaccines and chronic illness after 24 months disappear. Imagine studying the association between smoking and lung disease adjusting for having nicotine-stained fingers, carrying a lighter, or frequency of coughing in the 24 months before lung cancer diagnosis.
What you are doing, in effect, is mathematically erasing the very signal you are supposed to be detecting. Stat News never critically examined the design of analysis.
I would like to know why Alex maintains his opposition to ivermectin/fenbendazole in the face of an increasing number of significant anecdotal success stories for much but not all of the population for both a variety of cancers and COVID. It is not likely we will ever see a clinical trial unless NIH does one as there is no pharma money to be made in it, so what's wrong with credentialed scientists and biostatisticians analyzing the increasing number of detailed lab tests and imaging to see what evidence-based conclusions may be drawn?
1. During the pandemic, it was extremely difficult to separate fact from rumor from anecdote from tin foil theory. Given that no one person was correct 100% of the time, what were your best and especially worst takes in hindsight?
2. How do you deal with those that still live in ignorance of the more damaging health and societal effects of the pandemic, and those that shun others that were slow to come around but eventually did? Those that shun most often saying they were right from the beginning as if it gave them moral superiority just as false as those that would be present day covid cultists.