this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
166 points (97.2% liked)
science
25437 readers
1146 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article fails to make a case that aluminum is even harmful. It talks about the safe limits but that's not the same.
Because whether or not it's harmful doesn't even matter when the vaccines don't even move the needle on terms of exposure anyway.
With respect to the vaccine facet at least. If exposure is otherwise harmful, well that's up to other studies to determine.
That's literally how they work
Hah, technically incorrect. Vaccines don't move the needle, vaccines move through the needle as they are moved by the plunger.
The human moves the needle.
The best kind of correct!
The article is all about quantity but not even one bit about if either quantity is, in fact, dangerous at either level. What's the distance between the "safe" amount and the toxic amount? In a lot of cases there is an order of magnitude or two between the safe limit and the lowest level needed for a toxic effect.
I know this is targeted at people that can't science but I feel it left out a "why are you even worried about aluminum in the first place" bit.
Because that’s not the case it is making…
It is the claim made vaccine deniers that the aluminum in vaccines is very dangerous. This study demonstrates that dietary aluminum exposure far exceeds exposure by vaccines. The implications of this study on those claims are left as an exercise to the reader.
If I were an anti-vaxxer I'd quickly dismiss this by assuming that aluminum consumed is magically not absorbed into my prescious bodily fluids during digestion. Those people are all about that needle phobia body horror so they will quickly move the goal post to it not being the amount but the method.