‘SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF DENMARK’ *

DR CRÉPEAUX’S RESPONSE TO THE DANISH STUDY CLAIMING TO DEMONSTRATE NO LINK BETWEEN EXPOSURE TO ALUMINIUM-BASED ADJUVANTS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF A CHILD’S LIFE AND THE OCCURRENCE OF 50 DIFFERENT DISORDERS

On 15 July, a Danish study claiming to demonstrate the absence of a link between exposure to aluminium-based adjuvants in the first year of a child’s life and the occurrence of 50 different disorders (autoimmune, allergic, neurodevelopmental) diagnosed between the ages of 2 and 5
was published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine (1).
An erratum was published two days later, updating the supplementary material (2).

THE STUDY WAS QUICKLY PICKED UP BY THE MEDIA BUT ALSO CRITICISED FOR ITS NUMEROUS METHODOLOGICAL BIASES :

Notably in these articles :
https://drchristopherexley.substack.com/p/circling-the-wagons

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/designed-to-fail-new-study-exonerating

https://badconcepts.substack.com/p/no-evidence-of-harm-a-garbage-in

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2025/07/16/how-the-danish-study-on-aluminum-in-vaccines-was-designed-to-find-no-harm/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/study-claiming-no-link-between-aluminum-vaccines-autism-riddled-flaws/utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20250717

AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE UPDATED VERSION OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL, FURTHER CRITICISM WAS RAISED.

PLEASE NOTE:
This study does not in any way guarantee the safety of aluminium adjuvants.

• The very design of the study, which contains numerous methodological biases, including: poor characterisation of exposure, biased statistical analyses with highly questionable adjustments, exclusion of unexposed or highly exposed children, etc.;
• the absence of relevant scientific references on the subject of ABAs and the citation of previous studies with methodological weaknesses;
• the existence of a first version of the supplementary material showing significant differences from the main text of the study;
• the rapid dissemination of an update to this data, this time showing a strong signal implicating exposure to aluminium adjuvants and the occurrence of neurodevelopmental disorders, contradicting the study’s conclusions;
• the authors’ links to the vaccine industry and previous flaws identified in other largecohort studies related to MMR vaccination.

These are all factors that invalidate this study and seriously call into question the scientific integrity of the authors on the one hand, and the rigour of the entire editorial process prior to publication on the other.

As we stated in 2020: ‘The role of aluminium-based adjuvants in vaccines raises questions that deserve independent, rigorous and honest scientific investigation.’ (3)

Five years later, it is clear that the science on aluminium adjuvants continues to sorely lack independence, rigour and transparency – to the detriment of scientific debate, public confidence and children’s health.

Dr G. Crépeaux
1) ‎Andersson NW, Bech Svalgaard I, Hoffmann SS, et al. Aluminum-adsorbed vaccines and chronic diseases in childhood: a nationwide cohort study. Ann Intern
Med. 2025 Jul 15. Epub ahead of print. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997. PMID:
40658954.
(2) Correction: Aluminum-adsorbed vaccines and chronic diseases in childhood. Ann
Intern Med. 2025. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-25-03233.
(3) Crépeaux G, Authier FJ, Exley C, Luján L, Gherardi RK. The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2020 Dec;62:126632. Epub 2020 Aug 1. doi:10.1016/j.jtemb.2020.126632. PMID: 32823165.

SO WHAT IS NEXT?

The international team of experts on aluminium-based adjuvants is preparing a detailed collective response to this study. Please stay tuned…

*In reference to Hamlet, by W. Shakespeare, but also to chapter 13 of the excellent book ‘Toxic Story: The Dangers of Aluminium in Vaccines’ by Prof. Romain Gherardi.