Elsevier Retracts 2021 SIDS-Vaccine Study Over 75% VAERS Claim
Updated
Updated · Retraction Watch · May 26
Elsevier Retracts 2021 SIDS-Vaccine Study Over 75% VAERS Claim
1 articles · Updated · Retraction Watch · May 26
Summary
Elsevier removed Neil Z. Miller’s 2021 Toxicology Reports paper after an April 9 review found serious methodological flaws and possible risks to patient care.
The study analyzed 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS from 1990 to 2019 and said 75% occurred within seven days of vaccination, a timing pattern Miller argued suggested causality.
Editor-in-chief Lawrence H. Lash said Miller’s responses failed to resolve concerns about using VAERS—a passive reporting system that cannot establish causation—to infer a vaccine-SIDS link.
Miller called the decision unjustified and said he plans to republish the paper, while Elsevier acknowledged a human error left the full PDF visible online under a "removed" watermark.
The retraction adds to a string of vaccine papers pulled over VAERS-based claims, underscoring wider scrutiny of how the database is used in medical research.
Why did a 'horribly flawed' study on vaccines and infant death take five years to retract?
An author plans to republish his retracted study. How can flawed scientific claims be effectively stopped?
If the main vaccine injury database is so flawed, how do scientists actually prove vaccines are safe?
Retraction of the 2021 SIDS-Vaccine Study: Methodological Flaws, VAERS Misuse, and Implications for Public Trust in Vaccine Safety
Overview
The 2021 study by Neil Z. Miller, which examined the link between SIDS and vaccines, was officially removed by its publisher, marking a formal withdrawal from the academic record. However, the removal process caused confusion because the PDF still showed the original article content beneath a 'removed' watermark, making the text accessible despite its retracted status. This issue was explained as a 'human error' by the publisher, highlighting a temporary lapse in standard removal procedures. The incident underscores the importance of clear communication and strict adherence to protocols when retracting flawed scientific research.