If a scientific paper offers a counter-narrative conclusion, should it be deleted from the record?

Science publisher Elsevier says yes, if the topic is vaccines, because allowing doctors and parents to read it would pose a risk to public health.

This raises the question: Is censorship of science really the best way to ensure public health and safety?

The paper under scrutiny is a peer-reviewed analysis of three decades of vaccine adverse event reporting data which found that 75 percent of sudden infant deaths occurred within seven days of a vaccination, a statistically significant finding.

Author Neil Z. Miller reviewed the medical literature linking SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) to vaccines and proposed several pathogenic mechanisms, concluding that, "While the findings in this paper are not proof of an association between infant vaccines and infant deaths, they are highly suggestive of a causal relationship."

The main finding from the paper, titled 'Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature,' is represented in the below image, which was widely shared on social media since its publication in the journal Toxicology Reports, in June 2021.

Nearly five years later, the paper has been removed, a highly unusual step reserved only for papers that may present legal risks to the publisher, Elsevier, or that could pose a serious health risk. Usually, serious concerns are dealt with either through the publication of a correction, an expression of concern or, in the most egregious cases, a retraction. Removal differs in that it essentially deletes the paper from the scientific record.1

According to a 9 April notice, the removal was triggered by reader complaints over "potential research errors and methodological flaws," leading an investigation by the journal. The main sticking point was the use of data from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System), a passive reporting system to which anyone can make a report, to infer a correlation between vaccination and SIDS.

The notice states that Miller's response during the investigation "did not satisfactorily address" concerns raised. "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. The author disagrees with this decision and disputes the grounds for removal."

In a further comment to Retraction Watch, an Elsevier spokesperson confirmed that the paper was removed because "the recommendations and conclusions presented in the paper may pose potential risks to public health and could potentially be applied in clinical practice resulting in harm to patients."

This is striking given that paper explicitly states that "this paper does not prove an association between infant vaccines and sudden infant deaths."