Secretary Kennedy Demands Transparency After Journal Retracts VAERS Infant Death Study
Updated
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent a letter to the editor-in-chief of Toxicology Reports for retracting a study that examines VAERS reports and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Secretary Kennedy is requesting transparency and a more detailed explanation of the decision to retract the paper. “Given the high levels of public interest in vaccine safety and a history of both overt and obscure pressure against the study of some of these topics, such a brief notice of removal is woefully insufficient.
The paper, titled “Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature,” by Neil Z. Miller, analyzed 2,605 VAERS reports of infant deaths under one year old. Miller found temporal clustering, with 58% of deaths occurring within 3 days post-vaccination and 78.3% within 7 days. Miller concluded that it was “highly suggestive of a causal relationship,” but noted the observational study design is not capable of proving causation.
The retraction note from the journal said, “Following post-publication concerns raised by readers regarding potential research errors and methodological flaws in this article, the journal initiated an investigation and contacted the author for clarification. The Editor-in-Chief determined that the author’s response did not satisfactorily address the concerns raised about this article. 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). 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 the potential implications for medical practice, the Editor-in-Chief has decided to remove the article. The author disagrees with this decision and disputes the grounds for removal.”
Miller told Retraction Watch that the decision to retract the article was “unjustified,” and he said the journal expressed eight concerns with the paper that all came from one woman. Miller said he responded thoroughly to all of the concerns from the journal and sought clarifications on the alleged methodological flaws cited by the journal. Miller said he did not receive a response and the journal ceased communication with him regarding the matter.
In the paper, Miller wrote that medical examiners are “compelled to misclassify and conceal vaccine-related fatalities under alternate cause-of-death classifications,” because “prophylactic vaccination” has been eliminated as an official cause of death.
Secretary Kennedy asked Editor-In-Chief Lawrence H. Lash to provide five points of information so his staff could better understand the editorial guidelines followed in making this retraction decision. First, he asked for the full internal written analysis that justified the decision to remove the article. Second, Kennedy asked for a list of experts who were consulted during the investigation and any conflicts of interest they may have. Third, he asked for clarification on the journal’s analysis of previous studies cited by Miller that also found an association between SIDS and vaccinations. Secretary Kennedy asked whether the experts had investigated those cited papers.
Fourth, Kennedy asked for the criteria by which a paper’s “potential implications for medical practice” are determined and considered for the purpose of retraction. He asked for clarification on whether these standards are applied equally across subject areas. Lastly, Kennedy asked for an explanation for the journal’s decision to retract and remove the article rather than a retraction with an expression of concern. Secretary Kennedy asked for Lash to provide the information by June 25, 2026.
The primary critiques of Miller’s study focus on VAERS as a passive surveillance system that cannot be used to establish causation. Critics acknowledge that Miller said his results are not proof of an association, but they insist his conclusions suggest a causal relationship between vaccines and SIDS.
VAERS is “not intended to prove causality,” according to critics like Dr. Paul Offit, who claims that Miller went beyond making a claim of temporal association to suggesting a high likelihood of causation based on the VAERS data. Other studies regarding VAERS data and vaccine harm have been retracted, including a paper published by Cureus about COVID-19 vaccines, and Taylor & Francis investigated a paper about DNA contamination in COVID-19 vaccines.
Independent researchers analyzing raw VAERS data and historical records have reported strong temporal associations between vaccination and SIDS, but the studies most frequently cited by health authorities find no association or a protective effect from vaccination. Many of these studies are funded by the CDC and other health agencies, which have a well-documented revolving door with the pharmaceutical industry. At least one of the studies frequently cited is the 2007 Vennemann meta-analysis, whose lead author had a research position partially funded by vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur MSD and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher with the McCullough Institute said, “Our study found hundreds of sudden deaths among infants and toddlers shortly after measles vaccination. 24% were classified as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Most died within 2 weeks of vaccination.”
Hulscher said their MMR study was “illegally deleted from Toxicology Reports.” He responded to Secretary Kennedy on X and said: “It’s time to take more direct action against the Journal Cartel.”