Few issues of contemporary science are more contentious than the relation between childhood vaccines and adverse health outcomes. So, whenever a new study appears, it attracts a lot of attention. See the new study by Andersson et al., titled Aluminum-adsorbed vaccines and chronic diseases in childhood. A nationwide cohort study appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine in July 2025.
Conclusion: “Cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccination during the first 2 years of life was not associated with increased rates of any of the 50 disorders assessed.”
We went through the paper, left no stone unturned, and report that we do not like what we found:
1. First, there is the issue of the “evolving” supplement. The original supplement included data on 2,239 neurodevelopmental events (such as autism and ADHD), but it is no longer accessible. It has been replaced by a revised version that now reports 5,200 neurodevelopmental events (see Table 11 of the Supplement). This increase in the number of events altered the confidence intervals, and the updated data now show a statistically significant association between certain neurodevelopmental outcomes—particularly autism and ADHD—and aluminum exposure from vaccines. This finding directly contradicts the paper’s conclusion, which states: “Cumulative aluminum exposure from vaccination during the first 2 years of life was not associated with increased rates of any of the 50 disorders assessed.” (See also the article at Children’s Health Defense)
2. The study suffers from a major limitation due to its short follow-up period. In Denmark, children are typically diagnosed with autism, autism spectrum disorders, and ADHD between the ages of 7 and 12—or even later, depending on the severity of symptoms. However, the authors only tracked the children up to age 5, virtually ensuring that many relevant outcomes were missed. Therefore, even if the study had not found an association between aluminum exposure and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes (which, in fact, it had—see point 1), the authors still would not have been in a position to conclude that no such association exists. Nevertheless, the corresponding author, Anders Hviid, publicly misrepresented the findings, claiming that the study showed there was no link between aluminum exposure and autism or ADHD. It is also important to notice that SSI (the institution behind the study) has great economic interests in developing and selling vaccines.
3. The exclusion criteria are suspect: “To be included in our study, children needed to be alive at age 2 years, not have emigrated from Denmark, not have been diagnosed with certain congenital or preexisting conditions (including congenital rubella syndrome, respiratory conditions, primary immune deficiency, and heart or liver failure).” However, death may be linked to vaccination. Moreover, many of the listed “preexisting” conditions may be, in fact, adverse events of previous vaccines. Thus, if the authors exclude many children who had been harmed by vaccines, they may miss some effects entirely. We would like to see the analysis with no children excluded.
4. Adjusting for the number of office visits (pre 2 years of age) may mask the effect significantly. Office visits are a “proxy” for the outcome (children who end up with some diagnosis probably visited GPs more often). Thus, there is a risk that the effect will be “adjusted away.” To give an example, if we want to measure the effect of an intervention on blood flow through the left arm, we should not adjust for blood flow in the right arm. These two quantities are very probably correlated and adjusting for one will probably adjust much of the effect away.
5. According to Figure 1, more than 34,000 children were excluded because they had implausibly many registered vaccines in the first 2 years of life. Why would that be? This casts serious doubt on the integrity of the data. Also, Figure 1 says that between 0 and 466,000 children were excluded from some analyses because they had the outcome in the first 2 years of life? What does that mean? We do not understand Figure 1 and the supplementary material, to which Figure 1 refers, does not help.
6. MMR vaccines allegedly contain no Aluminum. So, recipients of MMR vaccines only are in the control group, together with recipients of no vaccines at all. This makes the control group rather diverse. Moreover, the control group is very small. Thus, looking for a dose-response relation (by means of the Cox Proportional Hazards model) may not be appropriate because the data for the control group may get “outweighed” by the exposed group. It would be more sensible to directly compare the incidence of the events among the groups.
7. We cannot find raw (unadjusted) values for the incidence of health outcomes in the three groups stratified by different Aluminum exposure. The raw numbers are not provided in either the manuscript or the supplement. Only adjusted hazard ratios are given. Why? Such basic descriptive statistics should be included. We have asked the lead author for the raw data. He has not replied yet.
8. Figure 3 shows statistically significant positive effects of higher doses of Aluminum for many events. Since there is no plausible biological mechanism for this, it is a clear indication of the Healthy Vaccinee Effect which means that the data were not deconfounded properly.
9. In the supplement Tables 10 and 11, the group with the highest exposure to Aluminum is chosen as the reference group. Although this may be correct from the mathematical point of view, it is quite misleading for anyone used to reading forest plots. All the effects are reversed, so HR below one means that higher Aluminum exposure is associated with a higher event rate. In neurodevelopment, and especially in autism, Table 11 shows a statistically significant increase of these outcomes with higher Aluminum exposure. This directly contradicts the conclusion of the paper. Moreover, it may be overlooked by the casual reader due to the highly misleading choice of the control group.
This article was originally published by the Brownstone Institute. Tomas Fürst teaches applied mathematics at Palacky University, Czech Republic. His background is in mathematical modelling and Data Science. He is a co-founder of the Association of Microbiologists, Immunologists, and Statisticians (SMIS) which has been providing the Czech public with data-based and honest information about the coronavirus epidemic. He is also a co-founder of a “samizdat” journal dZurnal which focuses on uncovering scientific misconduct in Czech Science. Vibeke Manniche, MD, PhD is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Medical Alliance specializing in ENT. She is a scientist and author who has extensively researched and published on batch-dependent safety issues with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
4 Responses
Typical skewed “Science”
If they do not provide raw data, the study should not be published.
Vaccines are like cigarettes . . . the industry hides the harm and suppresses research until the dam breaks. This is criminal interference and fraud.
There will be mass settlements like the tobacco industry.
Bottom line, unvaxed children are substantially healthier than vaxed. You don’t need studies to see this, the industry does fake studies to hide this.
That is the elephant in the room. All other comments by the industry are to obfuscate and redirect attention.
Well as great as this research is, many involved in this are still trapped in the box. One would have to lend any credibility to the researchers whom continually put these studies together in the first place, to be bothered to dig too deep into their wares and statistical inferences, actually read the reports. ‘The findings contradict their own papers conclusions.’ That’s a given, you can take that to the bank and bet on that fact ahead of time these days. In the off chance the men in white lab coats still don’t quite understand what’s really happening here; These people form narratives around sales goals, then back into the data and form the papers conclusions around pre conceived positions. There is not much actually honest or objective about their works. They’re paid mouth pieces.
This illustrates why so many practitioners and knowledgeable people simply abandon the system and leave these models behind as thoroughly as possible, given the limitations of our current systems. That’s not always completely possible but we can accomplish really important goals for both health management and education, by simply getting out of the box.
An alternative take; We don’t care what the studies from these places have to say. There is something deeply wrong with the health care models these days. People are sick all over. There is never ending disclosure the mainstream systems refuse to acknowledge which is either the most glorious science fiction ever dreamed up, or we should all be taking this a lot more seriously, that the people whom still participate within these systems are either incredibly ignorant or may not be trust worthy. So we opt out instead. This is why entire networks of alternative holistic approaches flourish throughout the landscape. But one would have to get out of these places where narratives are scripted, the research literally never ends, nobody ever comes to an consensus, where the infinite exploitation of peoples health positions for cold hard cash in hand will never end.
The core premise is flawed from the start. Ask the most fundamental basic question; Is injecting toxin into babies good or bad? We do not need any studies in the first place. This should be basic common sense. Except for the inconvenient part of a multi billion international money making operation having grown up around the ‘practice’. The key thing to keep this all going is breaking peoples faith in a higher power. Because if you believed in one, believed in immaculate design, which you are a part of, you may find yourself not having much interest in these programs in the first place.
Only you can make the choice to exit this prison. Because it’s a prison of the mind. It’s bars are the ability to keep people believing, to keep them waiting, to keep them afraid. In modern medicine according to these people, there will always need to be another study. The people will always have to wait while counter studies are performed, argued about, buried in soft peat moss, dug up, buried again, argued about again, then eventually forgotten as they give way to the next very very even more important study.
Barbara O’Neil; Some guests whom come to our Living Springs retreat ask questions because they’re worried the hospital is three hours away. And we don’t have a doctor on site. My response to them; ‘We don’t need a doctor around, and don’t want one around either!’
Why aren’t animal studies being done replicating the relative amount of aluminum in the entire US childhood vaccine schedule? Seems like that answer lies in what happened when Dr Phyllis Mullenix was hired to show fluoride in quantities consistent with typical amounts in drinking water were harmless, however, the results were far from that as neurotoxicity was quite evident in developing rat pups.