Fluoride Information

Fluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. When in doubt, get it out.


An American Affidavit

Thursday, January 15, 2026

Danish Study Claiming Safety of Aluminum in Vaccines Slammed in New Peer-Reviewed Paper

 

Danish Study Claiming Safety of Aluminum in Vaccines Slammed in New Peer-Reviewed Paper

by | Jan 12, 2026 | Featured, Health Freedom, News & Analysis | 0 comments

Andersson et al. claimed to show aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines do not cause chronic illnesses. Crépeaux et al. reveal the problems with that study.

Reading Time: 5 min ( Word Count: 1201 )

Audio and PDF Versions of This Article

🔒 The audio and PDF versions of this article are available to premium members. Log in or join today.

Crépeaux et al. Challenge Andersson et al.

Subscribe and get my FREE e-book The New York Times vs. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: How the Mainstream Media Spread Vaccine Misinformation

On July 15, 2025, a study was published that the media hailed as conclusively proving that aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines do not cause chronic illnesses in children.

Written by Niklas Worm Andersson and coauthors and published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the study was titled “Aluminum-Adsorbed Vaccines and Chronic Diseases in Childhood: A Nationwide Cohort Study”.

Immediately upon publication, it was met with criticisms by independent researchers, including myself, for fatal flaws in study design that systematically biased its findings in favor of finding no association.

Articles criticizing the study include the following:

Additionally, a correction to the study’s supplement was issued, which was analyzed by Dr. Karl Jablonowski and Dr. Brian Hooker in a paper at PrePrints.org titled “Neurodevelopmental Disease Associated with Aluminum-Absorbed Vaccines: A Nationwide Cohort Study”.

The preprint paper observed that the corrected data showed statistically significant associations between the highest exposure group and some neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

Now a peer-reviewed paper has been published criticizing Andersson et al. for “major methodological and conceptual flaws” that “prevent meaningful conclusions” about the safety of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines.

The paper is titled “Aluminium adjuvants and childhood health: a call for science”, published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology on December 29.

The lead author is Dr. Guillemette Crépeaux, and the senior author is Dr. Christopher Exley. The other coauthors are Jonathan B. Handley, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Karl Jablonowski, Dr. Lluís Luján, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Marika Nosten-Bertrand, Dr. Christopher A. Shaw, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, and Lucija Tomljenovic.

(My name also appears in the byline, and I am honored to have been invited to work with the team Dr. Crépeaux assembled for this important effort to set the record straight. My contribution was modest, but a few observations from my own analysis were incorporated.)

The paper describes “major concerns that critically undermine” the conclusions of Andersson et al., which fall into three main categories: (1) a “striking lack of knowledge” regarding aluminum adjuvants; (2) “critical shortcomings” in study design and statistical analysis; and (3) “insufficient transparency and potential conflicts of interest.”

I encourage you to read the paper, but here is my own layperson summary.

No Established ‘Safe’ Limit for Aluminum Adjuvant Exposure

Crépeaux et al. point out that aluminum-based adjuvants (ABAs) have been used in vaccines since the 1920s, and they have regulatory approval still today “without any scientifically established safe limit”.

This refers to how the limit of 0.85 mg per dose used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was based on immunogenicity and not safety data, as documented in a paper published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology in October, for which Dr. Crépeaux was senior author.

the limit of 0.85 mg per dose used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was based on immunogenicity and not safety data

(I reported on that paper for The Defender in an article that also briefly summarized key problems with the Danish study by Andersson et al.)

As noted by Crépeaux et al., this regulatory status quo for aluminum adjuvants remains “despite burgeoning experimental evidence in animals and humans concerning the biopersistence and neurotoxicity of ABAs and their links to chronic inflammatory conditions such as neurodevelopmental disorders and Auto Immune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA).”

Concerns about biopersistence include animal studies showing translocation of aluminum into the brain and findings of aluminum accumulation in human brain tissue.

Citing an Outdated and Discredited FDA Study

The new paper notes how Andersson et al. “seemingly disregard” this body of scientific literature, which is a “glaring omission” that starkly contrasts with their  referencing of “outdated and largely irrelevant studies.”

Most specifically, to support the claim of adjuvant safety, they cite a 2011 FDA study by Mitkus et al. that is “outdated” and “discredited”.

One core problem is that the FDA researchers inappropriately adopted a “minimal risk level” (MRL) defined for daily oral intake of soluble aluminum in mice—not the insoluble particulate form of aluminum injected into children.

the FDA researchers inappropriately adopted a “minimal risk level” (MRL) defined for daily oral intake of soluble aluminum in mice

Apart from being an irrelevant comparison, the MRL was also by that time already outdated, with animal studies having shown adverse effects at much lower levels of exposure.

And the FDA researchers considered only the amount of aluminum absorbed into the bloodstream as contributing to the body burden of aluminum toxicity, whereas studies have indicated that particulate aluminum can be taken up by macrophages and transported into tissues and organs throughout the body, including the brain, where it accumulates and can cause neuroinflammation.

Studies exposing the reckless inadequacy and scientific invalidity of the Mitkus et al. FDA analysis include:


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)