AGNOTOLOGY – “ALUMINUM-BASED ADJUVANTS AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH: A CALL FOR SCIENCE,” PUBLICATION BY CRÉPEAUX ET AL., 2026

Agnotology is the study of the production of ignorance, and in particular, how society produces, maintains, or propagates it (Proctor, 1992).

A fine example is provided in this article.

AGNOTOLOGY – “ALUMINUM-BASED ADJUVANTS AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH: A CALL FOR SCIENCE

An international publication (“Aluminum-based adjuvants and children’s health: a call for science” Crépeaux et al., 2026) has just been accepted by the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. It highlights several criticisms of the Danish study by Andersson et al., 2025, which was supposed to prove the safety of vaccines with aluminum adjuvants used in the first year of children’s lives.

This new publication was accepted after review by a peer review committee composed of four peers (a process which traditionally only involves two reviewers).
This clearly demonstrates the thoroughness of the work carried out.

BACKGROUND

In the summer of 2025, a Danish study claiming to demonstrate the absence of a link between exposure to aluminum-based adjuvants (ABA) in the first year of a child’s life and the occurrence of 50 different disorders (autoimmune disorders, allergies, neurodevelopmental disorders), caused quite a stir.
It was picked up by numerous French and international media outlets, as well as by many influencers (e.g., Réseau Infovac, Gavi – The Vaccine Alliance, Lonni Besançon, JIM, Infirmiers.com), as reassuring proof of the non-toxicity of ABAs.
The international community of experts on aluminum-based adjuvants quickly reacted during the summer, challenging the study and pointing out numerous biases. Dr. Crépeaux provided some answers in our article “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” before coordinating a collective effort to demonstrate the weaknesses of the Danish study.

READ Crépeaux et al.2026

SUMMARY OF THE PUBLICATION “ALUMINUM-BASED ADJUVANTS AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH: A CALL FOR SCIENCE,” CRÉPEAUX ET AL., 2026

Numerous significant biases are identified and explained in the analysis of the Danish study:
> a glaring lack of knowledge on the part of the authors about aluminum and aluminum-based adjuvants;
> critical shortcomings in the cohort design and statistical analysis;
> insufficient transparency and conflicts of interest
These limitations prevent any solid conclusions from being drawn regarding the absence of toxicity in aluminum-based adjuvants.
Presenting these results as proof of safety is scientifically unacceptable.

Only rigorous, independent, and transparent studies can reveal the true risks associated with aluminum-based adjuvants.

Our job now is to share this publication as widely as possible, especially with those who proclaimed the Danish study as definitive and serious proof of the absence of toxicity in ABAs.
Your role?
Spread the word and share this article on your social media pages or in the comments section.
Because sound, honest science must have the final say.

READ Crépeaux et al.2026