Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared a letter he sent to the editor-in-chief of Toxicology Reports, questioning the removal of a study that linked sudden deaths among infants to vaccines.
“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,” Kennedy wrote on X. “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,” he added.
Kennedy wrote in his letter that the publication issued 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,” he wrote.
Kennedy requested that the editor-in-chief provide information regarding how the removal was reached, which experts were consulted in the decision, clarification of treatment of corroborating literature, a definition of “potential implications for medical practice,” and criteria for article removal versus criteria for retraction.
“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),” the notice explaining the study’s retraction read. “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 given the potential implications for medical practice, the Editor-in-Chief has decided that the article should be removed.”
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has questioned whether childhood vaccines are beneficial. “When we’re discussing the science here, we have to discuss what is the science in favor of giving the vaccine to a 6-month-old, and what are the benefits from that? And there is no benefit of hospitalization or death. And then what would the risks of that vaccine be?” Paul said to former CDC Director Susan Monarez in September. “We have large population studies of the risks of the vaccine in younger people.”
Paul went on to declare that “we should” change the childhood vaccine schedule. “What is the medical reason to give a Hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn whose mom has no hepatitis?”
“What is the medical, scientific reason and proof for giving a newborn a Hepatitis-B vaccine if the mom is Hep-B negative?” the senator pressed.
Monarez said she would “not precommit to approving all the ACIP recommendations without the science.”
