Key facts
- Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has written to Toxicology Reports demanding an explanation for the removal of a vaccine study.
- The study, published in 2021 by Neil Z. Miller, suggested a link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome.
- Critics argue Kennedy's actions constitute an attempt to bully the journal and influence its editorial decisions.
- The journal removed the paper due to serious methodological flaws and potential risks to public health.
- Kennedy requested details on the journal's decision-making process, expert consultations, and criteria for discrediting the study.
- Publisher Elsevier stated the study's conclusions were not supported by its methodology.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has formally requested an explanation from the journal Toxicology Reports concerning the removal of a 2021 study that examined the relationship between vaccines and sudden infant death.
Kennedy's letter, posted on X, asked the journal's editor to detail the process by which the decision to remove the study was made, which experts were consulted, and the criteria used to discredit the findings. He has given the journal until June 25 to provide this information.
The study, authored by Neil Z. Miller, suggested a link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome, or Sids. It was previously cited by Kennedy's former lawyer, Aaron Siri, in a presentation to a federal vaccine panel advocating for changes to the childhood immunization schedule, a proposal that has since been blocked by a federal judge.
Public health advocates and legal experts immediately criticized Kennedy's move, accusing him of attempting to intimidate and influence the journal’s editorial process. Dorit Reiss, an expert in vaccine law, stated that if Kennedy is trying to use his position to bully a journal, he is stepping close to violating their First Amendment rights. Surgical oncologist David Gorski noted Kennedy's apparent use of his position to pressure a private publisher, contrasting it with his pro-free speech stance.
Elsevier, the publisher, stated that the article's conclusions were not supported by its methodology, citing the limitations of passive reporting systems like VAERS. The journal had removed the paper after an investigation identified "serious methodological flaws" and determined it could harm patients and pose a risk to public health. Miller has defended his work and opposed the removal, stating he was not given clear specifications of the flaws.