The editor determined vaccines don't cause SIDS and the paper could cause public harm if anyone read it. They will NOT disclose their analysis or answer any questions. Who benefits from the secrecy?
There seems to be a serious error in this analysis. The AI response says “ In that scenario, the excitement, fear, or proximity of the vaccination event would trigger the highest volume of reports immediately, on the day of the shot (Day 0) or the day after (Day 1).”
Then the article says:
“Miller’s study explicitly reports that:
Day of Vaccination (Day 1): 440 deaths reported.
Day 2 (Post-Vaccination): 760 deaths reported.”
Day 0 at the top is the same as day 1 below (day of vaccination). Day 1 at the top is the same as day 2 below (day after vaccination).
This seems to negate the premise of the article. The point is that because the peak in Deaths occurred on “day 2”, it couldn’t be reporting bias. But the AI says that actually, it could still be reporting bias if the peak occurs the day after vaccination - but due to numbering the days differently (is vaccination day day 0 or 1?) it looks like it’s not bias.
But the truth is that the AI says clearly that if there was reporting bias, we’d see a peak on vaccination day or vaccination day +1, amd we do (it peaks on vax day+1). Then deaths decrease monotonically from there, as all the tables showing example biases show.
I certainly find it discouraging that the editor won’t explain the decision-making, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s fraud. But this article has a contradiction that really undermines its premise. AI’s response does not undermine the removal as the author claims, if you look closely at the data.
„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.
Americans have a right to know why scientific papers are removed, who made those decisions, what , 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.„
15. June 2026
-
RFK Jr. demands journal explain removal of vaccine study used to support his childhood immunization changes
Ironically the system loses MORE credibility once it becomes apparent that they are actively suppressing scientific discussion and disproportionately suppressing results that are coming from multiple sources. We just need to keep talking about the suppression.
What we are seeing is no different than big tobacco's response to a 1950s study that linked smoking to lung cancer. Dr. Lash and his ilk need to be discredited and shunned for being sellouts.
"The late Dr Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry for inventing the gene-amplifying PCR (polymerase chain reaction) device, was accused by a prominent fellow scientist of “encouraging people to risk their lives” after he had declared there was no proof that HIV caused AIDS.
"Mullis’s response was:
'So what? I’m not a lifeguard, I’m a scientist. And I get up and say exactly what I think. I’m not going to change the facts around because I believe in something and feel like manipulating somebody’s behaviour by stretching what I really know… If you can’t figure out why you believe something, then you’d better make it clear that you’re speaking as a religious person, not as a scientist'".
This is why Mike Benz generally prefers "The Blob" to "Deep State." The analogy in medicine is that there are similar, behind-the-scenes actors and interests, not necessarily meeting with an organized agenda, but who share common interests and common sensibilities, each covering and covering-up for the other. Kudos to Steve Kirsch for continuing to shine light and continuing to ask "What is your evidence?"
Steve, I am always in awe of your smart, truthful and readily understood critical analysis of the $cience formerly known as science, that is also essentially impossible to refute by the $cientists!
I wonder how many parents have been falsely accused, and perhaps convicted, of causing harm to their child who died from unacknowledged vaccine-induced injuries.
This back and forth, with steadfast edicts from govt ostensibly standing behind pharma which is doing 'business as usual' brings to mind this kind of 'parallel' story in a different field - Business Disputes.
Let this serve as the introductory video; there is MUCH more from other parties on this too:
"RICO Suits and Restraining Orders: The Bricks & Minifigs Chaos Just Got WORSE"
Don’t look for the cause, just treat the symptoms.
Achieving a Just Response to Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief
2026
https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/29414/chapter/1
There seems to be a serious error in this analysis. The AI response says “ In that scenario, the excitement, fear, or proximity of the vaccination event would trigger the highest volume of reports immediately, on the day of the shot (Day 0) or the day after (Day 1).”
Then the article says:
“Miller’s study explicitly reports that:
Day of Vaccination (Day 1): 440 deaths reported.
Day 2 (Post-Vaccination): 760 deaths reported.”
Day 0 at the top is the same as day 1 below (day of vaccination). Day 1 at the top is the same as day 2 below (day after vaccination).
This seems to negate the premise of the article. The point is that because the peak in Deaths occurred on “day 2”, it couldn’t be reporting bias. But the AI says that actually, it could still be reporting bias if the peak occurs the day after vaccination - but due to numbering the days differently (is vaccination day day 0 or 1?) it looks like it’s not bias.
But the truth is that the AI says clearly that if there was reporting bias, we’d see a peak on vaccination day or vaccination day +1, amd we do (it peaks on vax day+1). Then deaths decrease monotonically from there, as all the tables showing example biases show.
I certainly find it discouraging that the editor won’t explain the decision-making, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s fraud. But this article has a contradiction that really undermines its premise. AI’s response does not undermine the removal as the author claims, if you look closely at the data.
... good news !
-
Secretary Kennedy
https://x.com/SecKennedy/status/2066551769006538847
„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.
Americans have a right to know why scientific papers are removed, who made those decisions, what , 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.„
15. June 2026
-
RFK Jr. demands journal explain removal of vaccine study used to support his childhood immunization changes
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5924878-kennedy-demands-answers-vaccine-study/
by Joseph Choi - 06/15/26
-
Eppur si muove !
We have to hush facts about vaccines massacring children because people wising up and not having their children massacred endangers.. them?
I'll go with Its' The Money Stupid for 1000
Ironically the system loses MORE credibility once it becomes apparent that they are actively suppressing scientific discussion and disproportionately suppressing results that are coming from multiple sources. We just need to keep talking about the suppression.
What we are seeing is no different than big tobacco's response to a 1950s study that linked smoking to lung cancer. Dr. Lash and his ilk need to be discredited and shunned for being sellouts.
We are at #PeakFraud. The crash will be Epic. Way worse than 2008.
re: 'The “Risk to Public Health” Fallacy'
"The late Dr Kary Mullis, winner of the 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry for inventing the gene-amplifying PCR (polymerase chain reaction) device, was accused by a prominent fellow scientist of “encouraging people to risk their lives” after he had declared there was no proof that HIV caused AIDS.
"Mullis’s response was:
'So what? I’m not a lifeguard, I’m a scientist. And I get up and say exactly what I think. I’m not going to change the facts around because I believe in something and feel like manipulating somebody’s behaviour by stretching what I really know… If you can’t figure out why you believe something, then you’d better make it clear that you’re speaking as a religious person, not as a scientist'".
https://lockdownsceptics.org/index.php?p=29994
This is why Mike Benz generally prefers "The Blob" to "Deep State." The analogy in medicine is that there are similar, behind-the-scenes actors and interests, not necessarily meeting with an organized agenda, but who share common interests and common sensibilities, each covering and covering-up for the other. Kudos to Steve Kirsch for continuing to shine light and continuing to ask "What is your evidence?"
it's hard to get re-spect, let alone introspection- but then again, vaxxxes are produced on spec...
He belongs in prison! Accessory to premeditated murders.
in case you hadn't noticed it yet, the world is full of predators... & most
of them walk free(ly)
Steve, I am always in awe of your smart, truthful and readily understood critical analysis of the $cience formerly known as science, that is also essentially impossible to refute by the $cientists!
I wonder how many parents have been falsely accused, and perhaps convicted, of causing harm to their child who died from unacknowledged vaccine-induced injuries.
This back and forth, with steadfast edicts from govt ostensibly standing behind pharma which is doing 'business as usual' brings to mind this kind of 'parallel' story in a different field - Business Disputes.
Let this serve as the introductory video; there is MUCH more from other parties on this too:
"RICO Suits and Restraining Orders: The Bricks & Minifigs Chaos Just Got WORSE"
(as seen, reviewed by an actual lawyer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imD2U3kCZTA
1. Acquire a large bag
2. Place it over head
3. Try to look intelligent
4. Be the laughing stock of the informed