A slap in the face to Statens Serum Institut in Denmark.
- jearungby
- 3 days ago
- 12 min read
By Dr. Jeanne A. Rungby, Specialist. Drawing by Lars Bo Appel
All quotes are translated from English to Danish and then back to English with possible interpretational consequences. The original article is in Danish.
In July 2025, Niklas Andersson, in collaboration with Anders Peter Hviid from the Statens Serum Institut (SSI) in Denmark, published a scientific article that concluded that
Exposure to aluminum in vaccines did not increase the risk of a wide range of diseases, including autism .
The study was based on 1.2 million Danish children (1).
On SSI's website on July 15, 2025, it stated:
“New Danish study shows no link between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 health conditions such as autism, asthma and autoimmune disorders. The study thus confirms the safety of the Danish childhood vaccination program.”
In Politiken on the same date one could read (2):
“Danish study finds no link between vaccines and 50 diseases. Doctor Niklas Andersson at SSI calls the results 'reassuring'. He is the first author on the study.”
This news went around the world like wildfire in the Main Stream Media.
Now the rumors that the content of Aluminum in children's vaccines is harmful could finally be put to rest.
Apparently.
2 days after this news, a correction of the underlying data (Supplements) on which the article was based took place in complete silence.
The change in this data was discovered and later analyzed abroad. Strangely enough, the SSI headline could no longer be confirmed when reviewing the corrected data.
A peer-reviewed article evaluates the Danish study
The claim in the headline from SSI and Politikken as well as other media outlets about the harmless effect of aluminum in vaccines apparently did not hold water, as a closer peer-reviewed study of these data showed fundamental scientific methodological errors(3).
This analysis by Crépeaux et al concluded that the SSI article (by Andersson et al) showed:
A striking lack of knowledge about Aluminum in vaccines
Critical flaws in study design and statistical analysis
Insufficient transparency and potential conflicts of interest
The authors wrote:
“In our view, all of these biases prevent this work from evaluating the safety of early exposure to aluminum-based additives in a reliable manner. A study that does not ask – or refuses to ask – the right questions cannot provide meaningful answers, regardless of cohort size or media coverage.”
The US health secretary intervenes in the debate
Jyllands-Posten writes on August 11, 2025 (4) the following:
In a post on Trial Site News, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described the study as
" a deceptive propaganda stunt from the pharmaceutical industry ."
He has also accused the researchers behind the study of
“ deliberately designing the study so that it would find no harm from vaccines.”
It was a serious accusation! - not only for SSI - but also for Danish health policy with serious consequences for Danish (and the world's) children, if the conclusion in the Danish study is untrue.
Jyllands-Posten continues: “Anders Peter Hviid, who is a professor and head of department at SSI and one of the researchers behind the study, defends the study in a post on Trial Site, writes Reuters.
Here it says that he does not believe that Kennedy Jr.'s criticism is decisive, and he completely rejects any form of deception.”
So, Anders Hviid showed no humility towards the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS Secretary), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who asked the journal to retract the study, which they refused.
In Trial Site News, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes the following about the study (5).
“ The architects of this study carefully designed it to find no harm. From the outset, Andersson et al. excluded precisely those children who were most likely to reveal harms associated with high exposure to aluminum in childhood vaccines. The exclusion included all children who died before the age of two, children who were diagnosed with respiratory illnesses early in life, and a full 34,547 children—2.8% of the study population—whose vaccination records showed the highest levels of aluminum exposure. These choices suggest an intention to exclude the children who were at highest risk of harm.”
Professor Peter Gøtzsche agrees with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Professor Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, wrote on October 6, 2025 in the Brownstone Journal that the SSI study is seriously flawed (6).
He emphasizes that the Danish researchers avoided comparing the data for their unvaccinated control group, which they mixed with a group with low exposure to aluminum in vaccines. (A muddy control group)
“This is highly inappropriate when one wants to conduct a dose-response analysis of exposure to aluminum.”
It was actually possible to make a new calculation from the corrected data for the Danish study with a correct unvaccinated control group. Researcher Christof Kuhbandner analyzed the corrected data (see Kuhbandner's comments to the article, reference 1) and found that there were significant reductions in disease risk among unvaccinated children with statistically significant results for several allergic outcomes and autism:
Gøtzsche writes: “It is remarkable that these results – given their partly high statistical significance – were neither reported in Andersson and colleagues’ study nor addressed in the response to critical comments.”
In other words, the new updated data from the Danish study apparently gave rise to the opposite result, namely that Aluminum in vaccines increased the risk of a number of diseases including autism.
Peter Gøtzsche continues:
“It should have been demonstrated in randomized trials that adding toxic metals to vaccines is safe before they were approved by the drug authorities, but this was never done.”
In the article in Brownstone Journal, Peter Gøtzsche includes his knowledge of aluminum from Merck's HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines, as he, as a witness in a lawsuit against Merck, had to familiarize himself with all the case documents, including several randomized trials.
He writes:
“Like lead, aluminum is a highly neurotoxic metal. We therefore expect that vaccines containing aluminum adjuvants will cause neurological damage if the aluminum enters the nervous system in toxic amounts.”
If Merck's aluminum adjuvant causes serious neurological damage, one would expect to see more damage with Gardasil 9 than with the quadrivalent Gardasil, as it contains more than twice as much aluminum, equivalent to 500 µg versus 225 µg of aluminum.”
The HPV vaccine Gardasil 9 contains 500 µg of aluminum compared to 225 µg of aluminum in the previously used quadrivalent Gardasil!
In Denmark, Gardasil 9 (SSI) is used and recommended. Aluminum is also found in vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B, and in pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines. All (except Hep B) are vaccines that are given repeatedly in the first year of life to young children in Denmark.
Peter Gøtzsche continues:
“Merck was not eager to reveal what they found. In the published trial report in the New England Journal of Medicine, there was no mention of serious harm. But on page 27, just before the last page, in a supplemental appendix on the Internet that few people will ever find and read, it was revealed that there were more serious side effects in women who got Gardasil 9 than in those who got Gardasil (3.3% vs. 2.6%). There was no P value, but I calculated P = 0.01 for this difference.”
The P-value of 0.01 shows that the difference in the two rather high risk percentages is not a random finding.
In other words, in Denmark, the SSI chooses to expose young girls (and boys) to a 3.3% risk of serious harm, including neurological damage, when it recommends giving the HPV vaccine (Gardasil 9) to both girls and boys in Denmark.
It is a very high risk to expose these children to!
Merck - and other vaccine manufacturers - have a habit of either comparing new vaccines with previous similar vaccines or comparing new vaccines with a liquid that, for example, contains an additive such as aluminum without the vaccine itself, as Merck did with its HPV vaccines.
It should be obvious that new vaccines should be compared to an unvaccinated control group that receives sugar-saline in the syringe – not aluminum.
These are called placebo studies.
However, this happens extremely rarely when vaccine manufacturers conduct their studies. One might wonder why.
Gøtzsche conducted his own aluminum dose-response study of Merck's Gardasil trial. The result was a clear aluminum highly significant dose-response relationship for all adverse events (P < 0.00001),
This means that aluminum without vaccine (Merck's control group) is just as harmful as aluminum plus the vaccine.
In other words: Comparing the vaccine to aluminum (not sugar-saline) is cheating.
Gøtzsche's conclusion: Aluminum is toxic and can in rare cases cause serious neurological damage. Therefore, aluminum should be avoided in vaccines.”
Aluminum toxic limit values.
Crépeaux et al, who criticized the Danish study, write that vaccines containing aluminum continue to be approved by regulatory authorities without any scientifically established safety limit for their aluminum content. This is despite growing experimental evidence in animals and humans regarding aluminum accumulation and neurotoxicity and their link to chronic inflammatory conditions such as neurodevelopmental disorders and autoimmune diseases.
This means that the toxic limits of the aluminum that is repeatedly injected and accumulates in children through vaccines are unknown.
The authors of the Danish study, Andersson et al., appear to ignore a significant portion of this published data demonstrating accumulation, brain/nerve damage, and other side effects such as allergy, autoimmunity, and behavioral changes in humans and animals.
Another review article by Angrand et al reviews possible toxic limits for the use of aluminum in vaccines: The main message of the article is that regulatory limits for aluminum content in vaccines lack a toxicological foundation and are based on outdated criteria from the mid-20th century (7).
This means that there is a potential risk due to increased accumulation of aluminum in cells and tissues in modern vaccination programs and that there is a lack of assessment of long-term effects.
The authors conclude that there is an urgent need for updates: Independent pharmacokinetic and toxicological studies. The implications for vaccine safety and policy are that current limits may not adequately address safety risks from the use of aluminum in vaccines, which could undermine public trust; policies should prioritize independent research, transparency, and safer alternatives to protect public health.
In a response from the former CEO of the EMA (European Medicines Agency), Dr. Guido Rasi, Professor Gøtzsche is assured that aluminum in HPV vaccines is safe. As evidence for this claim, Dr. Rasi provides a link that refers to the limits for dietary aluminum intake. Dietary intake has of course nothing to do with aluminum in vaccines that are injected into the blood and tissues. Gøtzsche writes that very little aluminum is absorbed orally from the intestine, and most of what is absorbed is excreted through the kidneys. Another link in Dr. Rasi's response was to a WHO report that pointed out that the body's aluminum load after injections of aluminum-containing vaccines never exceeded the US safety limits based on aluminum intake through the mouth. As Gøtzsche writes, this is irrelevant information.
The EMA has therefore chosen to equate limit values for oral intake of aluminum with intake via injection via vaccines into blood and tissue , which says a lot about the professional level of the EMA.
Questionable scientific methods at SSI.
The article by Crépeaux et al states that the following questionable scientific methods were used in the Danish study by Andersson et al:
1. Andersson et al failed to use a control group (despite the fact that approximately 15,237 children are included in their data). By omitting an unvaccinated control group that has not been exposed to aluminum in vaccines, it is not possible to assess the limits of aluminum toxicity in the study. The only real comparison the authors could have made would be between infants who have never received an aluminum-containing vaccine and infants who have received at least one aluminum-containing vaccine.
2. Andersson et al deliberately excluded groups of children with particularly high exposure to aluminum and thus screened out the children at greatest risk of aluminum poisoning in their target group.
3. The study excluded children who died before reaching the age of two in its target population. Thus, mortality was not considered as a health outcome, despite the fact that non-live vaccines, which are generally those containing aluminum, have been associated with increased childhood mortality. This omission of deaths as a result limits the study's ability to capture the full range of potential aluminum-related adverse effects.
4. The study also excluded children under two years of age with serious health problems. The exclusion of patients with serious health problems before 24 months of age in the target population was applied without a clear rationale or justification. By removing this subgroup, which is potentially more susceptible to aluminum, the authors narrowed the possibility of finding a real difference between the target population and the control group. Nevertheless, they concluded that aluminum in vaccines is “safe for everyone,” a statement that represents an overgeneralization that is not supported by the available data.
5. The study focused only on children aged 2 to 5 years. The study therefore also excluded children diagnosed before the age of 2, which is misleading, as the prevalence of atopic dermatitis (eczema), for example, is high before this age. The follow-up period, which ends at the age of 5 for most children, is insufficient to detect many chronic conditions that manifest both earlier (before the age of 2) and later, for example up to the age of 8.
6. Exclusion of foreign population. The study excluded children whose mothers had not lived in Denmark for at least two years before birth, which raises the issue of exclusion of foreign population groups, despite evidence that some may be at higher risk of neurological disorders after vaccines.
7. Exclusion of vulnerable groups. Subgroup analyses were not conducted for known biologically vulnerable groups, such as premature infants, infants with low birth weight, or infants with a familial or genetic predisposition to neurological or autoimmune disorders.
8. Finally, no stratified analysis by gender was performed beyond statistical adjustments, despite well-known gender differences in immune response and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
This described manipulation of data will overall mask and underestimate serious risks from exposure to aluminum in vaccines, making the study far too weak to support any reliable conclusions.
This is not the first time SSI has performed "data adaptation"
Niklas Andersson and Anders Hviid from the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark have done it again!
They have produced results that fit the message that (children's) vaccines are safe, so that they can continue their probably lucrative business of recommending and selling vaccines in Denmark.
This is not the first time Niklas Andersson and Anders Hviid have done this kind of data fitting, as described by Crépeaux et al above. The technique is well known and is called
selective cohort construction.
In the study “Comparison of the efficacy of monovalent XBB.1.5-containing COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in Denmark, Finland and Sweden”, Niklas Andersson and Anders Hviid et al attempted to assess the efficacy of vaccination with a monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Booster no. 6) containing the omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant against severe COVID-19 disease (8). By calling the control group “non-recipients”, readers, including the Danish Minister of Health, Sophie Løhde, were given the impression that a comparison was being made with an unvaccinated control group.
However, that was not the truth (9).
The referenced study did not compare vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Rather, it compared the group that received the 5th or 6th COVID-19 booster vaccine (the target group) with those who had already received at least 4 Covid-19 injections a year or more ago (the control group).
The authors from SSI deliberately chose to compare with a group that, as documented in their own previous scientific studies, had reached the phase that entails a negative effect; that is, a group with a weakened immune system, and therefore an increased risk of Covid-19 and an increased risk of death regardless of the cause.
The authors also failed to include data from the time period from the injection to one week later, when most deaths and serious early adverse events traditionally occur. These early cases of COVID-19 and deaths were thus filtered out of the study data.
The authors also failed to inform whether the quality and number of PCR tests for positive COVID-19 diagnosis in each group were comparable, including the number of “cycles” (CT scores) run for a positive test result. It is well known with PCR tests that the higher the “cycles”, the higher the risk of false positive test results, therefore the conditions, including CT scores, for these tests should be the same in the two compared groups.
Overall, the authors have used the same tactics in both studies to get the desired results:
Selective cohort construction.
Conclusion
It is very "unfortunate" for the Danish population that the authors from SSI are conducting this questionable research, as SSI has an advisory function to the Minister of the Interior and Health, Sophie Løhde.
Minister of the Interior and Health Sophie Løhde has been made aware in several letters that SSI wears several hats and that they are very likely to inappropriately adapt data in their research, which forms the basis for the advice of the Danish government (10).
It is extremely serious if the vaccines given to young children in Denmark are harmful and the Minister of Health, against her better judgment, fails to investigate this further, including the role of the Serum Institute in possible data manipulation.
This article will therefore be sent to the Danish Minister of Health by email so that she is informed and has the opportunity to act on the information provided.
After all, she is the overall responsible person for Denmark's Health Policy.
Nice article!! Thank you!