>>/186155/, >>/186156/, >>/186157/, >>/186158/, >>/186159/, >>/186160/, >>/186161/, >>/186162/, >>/186163/, >>/186164/, >>/186165/, >>/186166/, >>/186167/, >>/186168/, >>/186169/, >>/186170/, >>/186171/, >>/186172/, >>/186173/, >>/186174/, >>/186175/, >>/186176/, >>/186177/, >>/186178/, >>/186179/, >>/186180/, >>/186181/, >>/186182/, >>/186183/, >>/186184/
Secretary Kennedy @SecKennedy - 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.
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.
---
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
June 11, 2026
Lawrence H. Lash, Ph.D.
Wayne State University School of Medicine
Department of Pharmacology
540 East Canfield Avenue
Detroit, MI 48201 USA
Dear Dr. Lash:
I am writing to you regarding the editorial process concerning the removal of the article "Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature," by Neil Z. Miller. As you may know, research integrity and academic freedom have been important issues to me for decades in my private career and continue to be important to me in government service. In the case of research conducted or supported by the Public Health Service, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity promotes research integrity through education programs and oversees investigations of alleged research misconduct. Research integrity and academic freedom are vital to high-quality and trustworthy scientific investigation and debate.
For that reason, the recent decision to remove the article is of great interest to me. Retraction, and even removal, of seriously flawed publications is appropriate in certain cases. However, it should be accompanied by a transparent and full explanation of why such an action was carried out. For example, a guide on publication ethics, Wager et al (2009)', states that the notice of retraction should "state the reason(s) for retraction."
The notice of removal you issued had only two sentences explaining the retraction. 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.
To assist me and my staff in understanding the editorial standards regarding retraction, removal, and research integrity being applied by Toxicology Reports, please provide the following information by June 25, 2026:
1. How the removal decision was reached: Please provide the full internal written analysis that justified the decision to remove the article. For example, the data and/or statistical and/or methodological analysis that demonstrate that the author's "conclusions presented in the article are not supported by the methodology employed."
2. If, and which, experts were consulted in the investigation: You state that because of "post-publication concerns raised by readers regarding potential research errors and
methodological flaws in this article, the journal initiated an investigation." Please identify the experts who conducted this investigation and the conflicts of interest these experts may have.
3. Clarification of treatment of corroborating literature cited by Miller: The Miller paper cites an extensive literature on an association between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and recent vaccinations, from 1933 to 2014. Did the experts involved in investigating the Miller article also investigate those cited papers?
31