Since they can't win on the merits, they've resorted to other tactics.
Injury Studies
© Injecting Freedom
A journalist from The Guardian recently contacted me for a comment on vaccine-related studies I have previously cited in my work. The publishers of these studies have decided — years after publication — that these studies were so flawed and "dangerous to public health" that they needed to be retracted or investigated. The journalist wanted to know if I would amend my book and my recent ACIP presentation now that these studies were under attack.

My response:
"I welcome the media noting the targeted assassination of articles that do not fit the religious belief of vaccine proponents; this is also exemplified by the media's lack of interest in the hundreds of other articles, reviews, and trial documents from my book and ACIP presentation which make plain that the claim vaccines are 'safe and effective' is not supported by the available evidence."
So which studies are under fire? You won't be surprised that they are on some of the biggest hot-button topics when it comes to vaccine injury:

1. REMOVED: Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature (Neil Miller, 2021). This study has not just been retracted — it has been removed. Completely wiped. This is reserved for only the most egregious publication offenses. Elsevier says it found "serious methodological flaws" and that the paper "may pose potential risks to public health." Author Neil Miller explains their concerns were "either insignificant or plainly incorrect." He has shared his emails with Elsevier publicly, so you can be the judge. A copy of the study can still be found here.

2. RETRACTED: Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002 (Carolyn Gallagher & Melody Goodman, 2010). This paper was published sixteen years ago. Sixteen years. And only now was it retracted after the publisher claimed that "due to fundamental methodological flaws the study's conclusions are unsound." The authors stand behind the study and noted "many of the recent criticisms of the paper are consistent with what we recognized and noted at the time."

3. UNDER INVESTIGATION: Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders (Brian Hooker & Neil Miller, 2020). This study now has an "expression of concern" attached to it that says the study is "under investigation." Miller stated that the investigation has to do with false allegations that the data came from another source and was not disclosed.

4. UNDER INVESTIGATION: Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada (David Speicher, Jessica Rose, & Kevin McKernan, 2025). The publisher may regret kicking the hornet's nest on this one. Rose and McKernan have been posting regularly about their study, their conversations with the publisher, and how it turns out the person trying to get their study retracted is apparently one of the study's original peer reviewers and who also happens to have received funding from the same German organization, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, that provided substantial funding to BioNTech. Go figure.

Behind each of these attacks is a plain desire to wipe from the record any evidence of vaccine harm and to chill the publication of any future studies that report vaccine harm.

Every scientist who values scientific integrity should publicly denounce these tactics. Anything less is not science. It is ideology.