The Vaccinologist's Desk (Dr Helen Petousis-Harris)
banner
helenp-h.bsky.social
The Vaccinologist's Desk (Dr Helen Petousis-Harris)
@helenp-h.bsky.social
Vaccine Science, Associate Professor @UoA, Co-Director Global Vaccine Data Network. In pursuit of a hike, good food and wine.
5/ 🧠 What does it all mean?
— A lack of evidence that aluminium in vaccines causes autism, autoimmunity, or allergy.

www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/... #AluminumMyths #PublicHealth #AutismFacts #ScienceMatters
www.acpjournals.org
July 14, 2025 at 10:36 PM
4/ 📉 CIs were incompatible with even modest risk increases. In plain English: If aluminium did cause problems, this study would’ve picked it up. It didn’t. ⚠️ But, this won’t stop the aluminium claims from spreading. Disinformation doesn’t care about data — it cares about drama
July 14, 2025 at 10:36 PM
3/ 📊 What they found (per 1 mg of aluminum from vaccines by age 2):
— Autism: HR 0.93 (↓ 7% risk)
— ADHD: HR 0.90
— Asthma: HR 0.96
— Autoimmune disease: HR 0.98
— Allergies: HR 0.99
Translation: no increased risk — and in some cases, a slightly lower one.
July 14, 2025 at 10:36 PM
2/ 💉 Study details:
— 1.2 million children
— 24 years of data
— Real-world vaccine exposure
— Outcomes: autism, ADHD, asthma, autoimmune & allergic diseases
— Published: Annals of Internal Medicine, 2025
July 14, 2025 at 10:36 PM
2/2 In my latest blog, I unpack 10 logical fallacies behind the “injected vs. ingested” claim that has traction in anti-vax circles. From appeals to nature to confirmation bias, this post highlights the reasoning errors that fuel fear.👇 Read the full post. diplomaticimmunity.blog/aluminum-vac...
10 Obvious Logical Fallacies in the "Injected vs Ingested" Aluminium Claim
Explore 10 logical fallacies in the “Injected vs Ingested” aluminium claim, revealing how misconceptions shape our understanding of vaccine safety.
diplomaticimmunity.blog
June 5, 2025 at 1:59 AM
This isn't Geneva hijacking Wellington, just countries agreeing not to trip over each other mid-crisis. Peters invokes a false dichotomy, presenting the issue as if NZ must choose between preserving sovereignty or signing the Agreement. In reality, the agreement explicitly protects nat sovereignty.
May 16, 2025 at 1:23 AM
Winston Peters says it threatens NZ sovereignty. But Article 24.2 (and a bunch of others) literally says WHO can’t tell us what to do.
May 16, 2025 at 1:23 AM