Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. health secretary, has demanded that a medical journal explain its decision to remove a controversial paper linking vaccines to sudden infant death syndrome, drawing swift accusations that he is using his office to intimidate the publication.
Kennedy posted a letter on X on Monday asking the journal Toxicology Reports to answer questions about its retraction of the 2021 paper by Neil Z. Miller. The journal removed the study this spring after determining it contained serious methodological flaws that could endanger public health. Kennedy gave the journal until June 25 to respond.
Public health advocates and vaccine experts immediately condemned the move as an abuse of power. Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law expert at UC Law San Francisco, wrote that Kennedy appeared to be using his position to "bully a journal." Surgical oncologist David Gorski pointed out the apparent hypocrisy on X: "To antivaxxers, it's free speech for me, but not for thee."
The 2021 paper had attracted scrutiny from the moment of publication. Miller, who lacks scientific credentials, analyzed reports submitted to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and concluded they showed a causal link between vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. VAERS accepts reports from anyone about any suspected adverse event following vaccination, making it unsuitable for the type of causal claims Miller attempted to draw.
Forensic scientist Magdalen Wind-Mozley, who works with the Oxford Vaccine Group, began raising concerns about Miller's methodology in 2021 and filed a formal complaint with the journal in 2022. She told the Guardian on Monday that the paper was "utter garbage from start to finish."
Elsevier, which publishes Toxicology Reports, said in a statement to the Guardian that it had conducted a "careful review and consultation with relevant experts" before removing the paper. The publisher explained that the study's "recommendations and conclusions" posed potential risks to public health and could lead to clinical harm if applied.
Miller defended his work and said he was not told of specific methodological flaws when asked to respond to eight concerns he characterized as "either insignificant or plainly incorrect." He said he was unaware that Kennedy planned to send the letter and told the Guardian he had not been in contact with anyone at the Department of Health and Human Services about it.
Miller said he welcomed Kennedy's intervention, hoping it would prevent journals from removing articles "solely because their findings are controversial or challenge consensus views."
Kennedy's spokespersons did not respond to requests for comment on the criticism. The journal's editor and Elsevier also declined to comment beyond their prior statements.
Author James Rodriguez: "Using the machinery of federal office to pressure a journal into re-evaluating its retraction decision crosses a line, especially when the underlying science was genuinely flawed."
Comments