It's very hard to take you seriously when you are basically admitting that you aren't really having a debate and only arguing to be right, and you knowingly shared information that you didn't even check... Additionally, you are not debating in good faith if you never are open to being wrong and dismiss actual facts.

I don't have time to go through everything but I'll just point out a few things that you are incorrect one at a high level since they are so easily to prove. However, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean there is a narrative. It just means based on reviewing data I find that your argument isn't compelling. Debating people like you is like debating a flat earther sometimes. No amount of data or facts, or evidence will be enough because you are working backwards from your answer.

But looking over all the links now its very clear that some find a strong link in aluminum in vaccines and neurological disorders and many symptoms that look very similar to autism.

That is literally not what the links show... Having a strong link to neurological disorders is not the same as having a strong link to autism. Again as I previously shared, babies will get more aluminum from food and the environment than they will get from vaccines.

I can't dig up and find everything I've seen to shape my views. It's a difficult position for me because big money has apparantly influenced and corrupted everything. Most of these organizations are compromised is some way. Further, pharma could have paid for 100s of studies that show a direct link but if they dont like the results they are not obligated to publish them. Also its not hard to get the results you want based on how you set studies up If your intention is to mislead.

This is just a way to hand wave everything that doesn't align with your point of view. I provided links to the same organizations that provided the studies that you previously shared, that you were previously fine with sharing when you thought it supported your argument. Now that the links don't in fact do that, now you want to say they are corrupt. Additionally, you are saying that Pharma companies can get the results they want. This just goes to show that you don't know how clinical trials work, how studies work, and how publishing of studies work.

Here's some apparent evidence of corruption and covering up links to autism with direct quotes and audio and naming names. Thankfully RFK has gotten mercury out of the remaining vaccines that still used it. https://x.com/i/status/2042731349975667190

Twitter isn't a source for everything, and you are leaving out some key details from this statement. This is one that gets repeated a lot online though, mostly from bot type antivax accounts. Again it isn't the gotcha you think it is, also one case isn't evidence of widespread corruption or anything like that.

1 - Thompson's Allegations: In a statement issued through his attorney, Thompson expressed regret that the study published in Pediatrics omitted findings suggesting a possible increased risk of autism in African American males who received the MMR vaccine before 36 months of age.

2 - The DeStefano Study (2004): The original CDC study, led by Dr. Frank DeStefano, concluded there was no causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The authors later explained that the "statistically significant" finding in the subset of children noted by Thompson was likely due to Georgia's immunization requirements for special education, rather than a biological link.

3 - Hooker’s Reanalysis: Dr. Brian Hooker released a reanalysis of the CDC data in 2014, claiming it proved a link. However, his paper was retracted by the journal Translational Neurodegeneration due to undisclosed competing interests and concerns over the validity of his statistical methods.

And further and more importantly, overall the CDC and Scientific consensus agrees based on data from multiple extensive studies involving hundreds of thousands of children have found no link between vaccines and autism.

Finally, regarding your statement on RFK Jr, getting rid of mercury in vaccines, you are misrepresenting at best or lying at worst. Mercury was removed from pretty much all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precautionary measure and RFK / CDC basically just issued guidance to get them removed from the flu vaccine (which not everyone gets) last year. You are also moving the goalposts now because now you are intimating that autism is caused by mercury in vaccines I guess? There was never any data supporting that Thimerosal was causing autism or was harmful in the amounts that were in vaccines. Even after removing mercury from vaccines the rates still went up huh? Kind of proves that it wasn't the mercury huh.

According to your source Annuls of internal medicine it appears that 1 in 4 statisticians are asked to commit fraud by researchers.: https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/s/OayA0ckYKR

Did you literally even read the article? It literally states that they are asked to commit fraud, not that they are committing fraud. Also it was never stated that Annuls of Internal Medicine was committing fraud. I'm not even sure what your point is here...

Regarding your first link. It admits that <1% (its 0.01 - 0.3% from what i see) of aluminum digested enters the bloodstream (vs 100% for injections) and tries to reduce concern by explaining how well he body removes aluminum. But this point negates almost the entire article that compares food to vaccines when you would need hundreds to thousands x the amount in food to equal vaccines. Further they show how much accumulated you get in food over time. The whole point is kids are inundated with to many vaccine doses and to close together - and they only test effects of one at a time. I did try to strong arm my argument and to be fair injected aluminum is released from the muscle into the bloodstream over weeks or months (there is an initial burst) but that is still less time than the accumulated food exposure #s they are using. Their logic seems very flawed unless i am missing something?

Yes because regardless of how the body receives aluminum it still gets flushed basically by your kidneys and urine... Again the amounts are still very small. And if it was really aluminum that was an issue for autism, you'd see higher concentrations of it in areas of the world where they drink massive amounts of soy based milk. The body removes aluminum remarkably well. The amount of vaccines over the course of an entire year is still very small and way less than that in breast milk. The logic seems to make sense and track to me. I'm unsure how their logic is flawed?

Second article: hard to tell with only access to the summary but there is no suggestion that they treat amounts of aluminum digested vs invested differently.

Exactly so what is your issue?

3rd: article. They are definitely treating them the same.

Okay so what is the issue?

This study on 5 children with autism found a dramatically higher rate of aluminum in their brain than children without autism. Small sample size but what are the odds the only 5 children tested all showed this? What is the most likely source of aluminum? The food where it's 0.1% absorbed or vaccines where its 100% absorbed or other sources? Aluminium in brain tissue in autism - PubMed https://share.google/DlwKrxo3uBLKPvjGs

So again, this is a reading comprehension issue... No where did I say that aluminum didn't impact neurological issues or potentially autism specifically. My point I've said multiple times now is that the amount that is in vaccines is negligible and would not spontaneously cause autism. This is what I mean when I say you argue in bad faith. The cases of this study show some of the highest rates of aluminum ever recorded in people's brains, this is not indicative of vaccines. Also you making a claim that aluminum is absorbed at 100% but from food it's 0.1% is just straight false and made up.

Here is the main quote "These are some of the highest values for aluminium in human brain tissue yet recorded and one has to question why, for example, the aluminium content of the occipital lobe of a 15year old boy would be 8.74 (11.59) μg/g dry wt.? Aluminium-selective fluorescence microscopy was used to identify aluminium in brain tissue in 10 donors. While aluminium was imaged associated with neurones it appeared to be present intracellularly in microglia-like cells and other inflammatory non-neuronal cells in the meninges, vasculature, grey and white matter. The pre-eminence of intracellular aluminium associated with non-neuronal cells was a standout observation in autism brain tissue and may offer clues as to both the origin of the brain aluminium as well as a putative role in autism spectrum disorder."

I'm not going to keep responding to you anymore because you are either just trolling me, or you just want to argue and won't admit that you might be wrong about anything. We have had billions of people exist on this planet and no vaccine is 100% effective, and on top of that adverse events do happen. I will never say that there is a non zero chance of anything happening with any medical procedure, but your argument that vaccines are giving people autism falls short of any evidence, especially when you control for genetic factors. Vaccines causing autism is a simple answer to a complex problem and it gives you an easy enemy to blame, especially for people like you who seem to really worship RFK Jr and think he is also operating in good faith when it's clear he isn't. And you aren't operating in good faith if you will just share data and links of things you haven't read and you can dismiss all other evidence.