(LifeSiteNews) — U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. demanded an explanation for the removal of a published study examining the possible link between vaccines and sudden infant death.
“I sent this letter to the Editor-in-Chief of Toxicology Reports demanding a full explanation for the removal of a published article examining vaccines and sudden infant death,” Kennedy wrote on X.
“Americans have a right to know why scientific papers are removed, who made those decisions, what evidence supported them, and whether the same standards are applied consistently.”
“We will restore trust in public health by insisting on transparency, accountability, and open scientific inquiry – not by asking the public to accept decisions behind closed doors,” he concluded.
The paper, by researcher Neil Miller, linked sudden infant deaths to vaccines, partly based on reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Toxicology Reports, which is owned by Elsevier, published the peer-reviewed paper in 2021. It said that it investigated the concerns raised by readers and found Miller’s responses unsatisfactory.
“In particular, serious methodological flaws were identified in the use of VAERS data to infer a correlation between vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS),” the notice by Toxicology Reports stated. “Given the inherent limitations of passive reporting systems, including the expected temporal clustering of events independent of causality, the conclusions presented in the article are not supported by the methodology employed. In light of these concerns, and given the potential implications for medical practice, the Editor-in-Chief has decided that the article should be removed.”
Kennedy cited the study in a 2023 book he authored. The HHS secretary said in his letter to Toxicology Reports Editor-in-Chief Lawrence Lash that any removals or retractions “should be accompanied by a transparent and full explanation of why such an action was carried out.” The brief statement given by the journal was “woefully insufficient.”
He demanded that Lash provide details on the retraction to his office by June 25, including a list of which experts were consulted during the process, a full written analysis, and a clarification regarding the concern over “potential implications for medical practice.”
An Elsevier spokesperson said the retraction followed “a thorough assessment” involving “careful review and consultation with relevant experts.”
“We stand by the decision that the recommendations and conclusions presented in the paper may pose potential risks to public health and could potentially be applied in clinical practice resulting in harm to patients,” the spokesperson added.
Miller opposed the removal of the paper. He said the fact that many SIDS deaths occurred within days of vaccination did not represent proof of causality. However, he pointed to what he said was “extensive additional evidence pointing to possible links between vaccines and sudden infant death.”
“I am deeply grateful that Secretary Kennedy is seeking an explanation from Dr. Lash regarding the process by which my paper was removed,” Miller told The Epoch Times. “I hope this inquiry helps ensure that valid and credible scientific research is evaluated on its merits and that articles are not removed or retracted solely because their findings are controversial or challenge prevailing views.”
Several other papers cited by Kennedy have also been retracted in recent years, including another one by Miller, suggesting potential political motivations.
On the other hand, in 2025, Kennedy asked for the retraction of a paper that asserted there was no link between aluminum in vaccines and chronic disease such as autism. The American College of Physicians, which published the study, declined his request.