Three scientific papers that questioned vaccine safety and were used by the Trump administration to justify controversial changes to US vaccine policy have been retracted, removed or placed under investigation by the journals that published them, in actions that critics say came years too late.
The studies – which all suggested that vaccinated children face greater health risks than unvaccinated children – have been central to the work of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary and longtime anti-vaccine activist, and were cited by advisers to influence federal policy. One was used by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to alter its long-held position that vaccines do not cause autism. Another served as a key pillar in a book co-written by Kennedy. All three were invoked by an anti-vaccine lawyer in a presentation to a federal vaccine advisory panel in December.
The most recent action came on 21 May, when the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A retracted a 2010 study by Carolyn M Gallagher and Melody S Goodman that claimed boys vaccinated for Hepatitis B in their first month of life were more likely to be diagnosed with autism. The journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis, said the retraction followed an independent statistical review that identified “fundamental methodological flaws”. The authors disagreed with the decision. Goodman, dean at New York University’s School of Global Public Health, said the study, which began as a student project, was never intended as the final word and acknowledged its limitations in the paper, calling for larger studies.
That paper was cited by the CDC in November, when it revised its webpage on vaccines and autism at Kennedy’s direction. The reworked page now states that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities” and references the Gallagher and Goodman study. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CDC, has not responded to questions about whether it will update the page again in light of the retraction.
A second study, by Neil Z Miller and published in 2021 in Toxicology Reports, suggested a link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome (Sids). The journal, published by Elsevier, launched an investigation after concerns were raised in 2025 and identified “serious methodological flaws” in Miller’s use of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – a passive monitoring system where anyone can submit a report of a suspected adverse event after vaccination, meaning reports do not establish causation. The journal took the rare step of removing the paper entirely, apologising to readers and warning that its conclusions “may pose potential risks to public health and could potentially be applied in clinical practice resulting in harm to patients”.
Miller, who is not a scientist, defended his work, saying the journal never specified the methodological flaws and that he believed the removal was unjustified. The paper had previously been criticised by Magdalen Wind-Mozley, a forensic scientist and vaccine advocate who works with the Oxford Vaccine Group. She emailed a complaint to the journal as early as January 2022, but said she was unaware of any action taken at the time. Elsevier said its records showed no formal complaint until 2025. Wind-Mozley praised the eventual removal but warned that the paper “will have done so much harm” in the intervening years.
The third paper, published in 2020 in Sage Open Medicine and co-authored by Miller and Brian S Hooker, claimed vaccinated children had higher rates of developmental delays, asthma and other health problems compared with unvaccinated children. The journal attached an expression of concern to it on 18 May, stating that the paper is under investigation. The action followed a detailed complaint emailed to the journal in January 2025 by an anonymous paediatrician and scientist, who told the Guardian they made the complaint because they had seen such studies scare parents away from vaccinating their children. The paper had faced significant rejection: five medical journals turned it down before Sage Open Medicine accepted it, and the journal struggled to find peer reviewers, with the process taking 11 months and multiple rounds of revisions.
Hooker, now “chief scientific officer” at the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense – which Kennedy formerly led – did not respond to requests for comment. Miller said the investigation concerned allegations of data misuse, not methodology or findings, and that he was not concerned because the claims were false. Sage declined to comment on specifics during the investigation.
The studies share a common thread: poor methodology and weak statistical analysis, according to scientists who criticised them. “People and organizations intent on spreading vaccine misinformation have been very savvy in their misuse of scientific terms, such as ‘gold-standard science’, and publishing flawed studies to give their claims the appearance of credibility and confuse the public,” said Dr Karina Top, a professor of paediatrics at the University of Alberta. “These papers are poor science, it appears the authors are making the data fit their hypothesis that vaccines are harmful.”
Their influence, however, has been profound. Kennedy co-wrote his 2023 book Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak with Hooker, and the Sage study was a crucial pillar in a chapter arguing that vaccinated children suffer more health problems. Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has previously acted for Kennedy, cited all three papers when he was invited to present to the federal vaccine advisory committee in December, calling for changes to the childhood immunisation schedule. In a statement, Siri described the scrutiny of the papers as a “targeted assassination” and stood by his claim that there is no “available evidence” that vaccines are safe and effective, alleging his assessment relied on hundreds of other articles and trial documents.
The effects of such misinformation have been seen in rising rates of vaccine-preventable diseases, including measles and whooping cough, across the US. Dr Top said the studies had been “used to justify changes to vaccine policy and undermine confidence in vaccines, likely contributing to decreased vaccination rates and outbreaks”.
Morgan McSweeney, a scientist who posts as Dr.Noc, created a viral video debunking the Gallagher and Goodman study after seeing the CDC’s revised webpage. He noted the small number of cases involved and said the paper was “worth less than a fart in the summer breeze”. The video has been viewed more than 5 million times across Instagram and TikTok. McSweeney argued that how the paper was used by the CDC showed that officials were “willing to overlook data points from hundreds of thousands or millions of children and go with the one that fits their story”.
Critics, including Dr Top, have called on journals to act more swiftly when scientific flaws are identified. “The peer review process and response to complaints need to be improved to ensure timeliness,” she said. For Wind-Mozley, the delays are a source of deep frustration. “It will have done so much harm,” she said of the Sids paper, which remained accessible for years despite her early complaint. “It will have influenced people’s beliefs and actions around vaccines.”