In a letter made public today, Sen. Ron Johnson called on the editor-in-chief of Toxicology Reports and the CEO of Elsevier, which owns the journal, to release all records related to the decision to remove vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller’s peer-reviewed analysis of VAERS data showing that many more SIDS reports were filed in VAERS in the first few days after vaccination compared to later on after vaccination.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is demanding to know why a 2021 peer-reviewed paper that presented data suggesting a possible link between vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) was recently removed from the Toxicology Reports website.
In a letter dated June 29 and made public today, Johnson called on the editor-in-chief of Toxicology Reports and the CEO of Elsevier, which owns the journal, to release all records related to the decision to remove vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller’s analysis: “Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature.”
The analysis showed that from 1990 to 2019, many more SIDS reports were filed in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the first few days after vaccination compared to later on after vaccination.
The paper also included a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on vaccines and SIDS, including documentation of large increases in SIDS rates following the rollout of national immunization campaigns and numerous case reports of SIDS in babies who were recently vaccinated.
Toxicology Reports published Miller’s analysis in June 2021 after it passed the peer-review process.
Johnson, who recently held a hearing about attacks on published science, noted that Miller’s paper had been criticized on PubPeer, a platform critics have nicknamed “PubSmear.”
He also noted that on June 11, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also wrote to Toxicology Reports’ editor-in-chief demanding details about the process leading up to the journal’s removal of Miller’s analysis.
Kennedy also asked the journal to clarify why it opted to remove the article, rather than issue an expression of concern or a retraction.
‘No one has engaged with the data. They simply made the paper disappear.’
On April 9, Toxicology Reports posted a removal notice for Miller’s article, citing “serious methodological flaws.”
Miller told The Defender why he believes the removal was unjustified. He said:
“The core findings of my paper — the temporal clustering of infant deaths in the immediate post-vaccination window, the historical SIDS rate spike following the national immunization campaign, the full literature review — remain unrefuted.
“No one has engaged with the data. They simply made the paper disappear. That should concern every parent, every researcher, and anyone who believes science advances through open inquiry rather than institutional gatekeeping.”
According to the notice, the editor-in-chief decided to remove Miller’s analysis because it used VAERS data “to infer a correlation between vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”
However, Miller said he never claimed a causal relationship between vaccination and SIDS. He said:
“My paper stated plainly: ‘While this paper does not prove an association between infant vaccines and sudden infant deaths, it reveals unusual patterns and safety signals highly suggestive of a causal relationship.’ I called for further investigation — nothing more.”
The journal launched an investigation into the article after PubPeer commenters criticized Miller’s paper starting in November 2021.
Some comments cited criticism posted on X by Magdalen R. Wind-Mozley, a former forensic scientist and vaccine advocate based in Newbury, England, who posts under the username “Rosewind,” Retraction Watch reported.
According to Retraction Watch, Wind-Mozley contacted the journal in 2022 to call for the article’s retraction.
The journal notified Miller about concerns raised by the commenters. According to the removal notice, “The Editor-in-Chief determined that the author’s response did not satisfactorily address the concerns raised about this article.”
However, Miller tells a different account of how things unfolded. He said:
“Neither Dr. Lash (Toxicology Reports) nor Dr. Papi (Elsevier) ever specified what the alleged methodological flaws were. From subsequent correspondence, I gathered their concern likely centered on reporting bias — an issue I had already explicitly addressed in the paper’s ‘Strengths and Limitations’ section.”
Since Miller had already acknowledged the critics’ concern — reporting bias — as a limitation of the study when it was first published, on what grounds did the journal remove it?
That’s a question that needs answering, Miller said. “I am deeply appreciative of Senator Ron Johnson and Secretary Kennedy for their efforts to get to the root of this problem.”
In his letter, Johnson cited a grieving mother who lost her child to SIDS. The mother said every parent at her SIDS support group brought up vaccines.
According to Johnson, the mother said, “We were all asking our SIDS support group leader, you know, is there a connection? Just seems like all of us feel like vaccines are involved.”
Johnson wrote:
“We owe it to this mother and all parents that have lost a child to SIDS to encourage and promote — instead of discourage and remove — medical research into the potential connection between vaccines and pediatric deaths.”
Miller’s paper cited possible biological explanations for why vaccination might cause SIDS in some babies, including inflammatory cytokines and some babies’ inability to process the toxicity of multiple vaccines given at once.
A 2025 study published in the International Journal of Medical Sciences found that underdeveloped liver enzyme pathways in some infants may make it harder for them to process toxic ingredients in vaccines, possibly leading to SIDS.
Study by Miller and CHD chief scientist also under attack
Miller noted that leading up to the paper’s removal, some influential figures had publicly endorsed his work on SIDS, including Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory.
“I suspect this amplified visibility, and the attendant fear of increased vaccine hesitancy, was instrumental in the decision to pull the article,” he said.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense (CHD) chief scientific officer, called Johnson’s letter “extremely encouraging and timely” given the lack of transparency surrounding the removal of Miller’s paper.
In April, Sage Journals notified Hooker that it is investigating a 2020 article he co-authored with Miller comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children following criticisms on PubPeer.
Sage stamped Hooker and Miller’s article with an “expression of concern” as it conducts its review.
Given these recent attacks on studies that raise questions about the safety of vaccines, Hooker said he was “heartened that both Sen. Johnson and Secretary Kennedy are investigating the very real threats of censorship of robust vaccine safety science.”
“Unlike their predecessors, these officials are interested in promoting scientific inquiry for the best health of our nation, rather than Big Pharma dogma focused on profits and institutions,” Hooker said.
Miller said he hopes that “credible research is evaluated on its merits, and that articles are not removed or retracted solely because their findings are controversial or challenge prevailing views.”
Related articles in The Defender
Source link
