Pubpeer responsible for the SIDS paper removal based on a tweet
Here's the paper trail - you decide if this study was justifiably "removed" from publication
Update: I made it to comment #7.
Background
Neil Z. Miller recently had his peer-reviewed published work “removed” from the journal Toxicology Reports 5 years following the original publication date. For now, it’s still up on PubMed. I have written this up here.
I recently asked Neil Miller (by email) to let me know first-hand what the claimed “serious methodological flaws” were that led to the recent “removal” of his SIDS/VAERS paper, published in 2021. N.B. His paper demonstrated a temporal clustering pattern between time of vaccination and SIDS reports in VAERS.
He replied to me with two formal documents - clearly and professionally dispelling this claim - that he had sent to the respective journal parties in order to prevent the removal of his study. I was impressed. He also informed me that he had asked this same question pertaining to the so-called “serious methodological flaws” many times to both the Toxicology Reports journal representative, and the representative from Elsevier, to which he “never received an answer”.
One of these documents contained the original email from the Founding Editor-in-Chief of the journal Toxicology Reports (Lawrence H. Lash, Ph.D.) stating the reason for the “concerns” regarding the paper’s published status. The Editor-in-Chief stated that these concerns were something that he “must take seriously”.
Sounds serious.
Here is the original email to Neil Miller from the Editor-in-Chief dated December 18, 2025. I received explicit permission from Neil Miller to post it here.1
He did respond in more than an adequate and timely way, rest assured. So why was the Editor-inChief “forced to conclude that the allegations [were] truthful”?
Who are the multiple parties?
“Concerns from multiple parties have been raised about the publication of the article listed above”.
Wow. I guess the original reviewers and Editor-in-Chief missed these concerns when they were peer-reviewing and publishing this study 5 years ago, eh?
Before I reveal who the “multiple parties” are that expressed their benevolent and science-based concern[s], I will tell you that I already knew that pubpeer had a role in this “removal”: it had their dirty tactical fingerprints all over it.
Pubpeer have a targeting protocol - complete with collusion tactics (with Retraction Watch) that I have been, and currently am, the victim of.2
I am going to show you in sordid detail EXACTLY what was required (in Neil Miller’s case) for an Editor-in-Chief of a serious and respected journal like Toxicology Reports (H-index of 72) to remove a paper from publication 5 years after the fact.
Let’s start at the beginning, and incidentally, the end.
Link 1:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1455831798160764929.html
This threadreaderapp.com link provided by the Editor-in-Chief, Lawrence H. Lash, is sourced from a tweet (not a science blog) made on Nov 3, 2021 at 5:38 am, by a person with the username “Rosewind”, and corresponding handle Rosewind2007. She/her is a UK-based female, and a self-proclaimed “Murderbot”. I am not entirely sure what being a “Murderbot” entails, but I know what murder means, and I know what a bot is.
Yes, that’s her in the photo.
Here is the original tweet dated November 3, 2021 (at 5:38 am) with the link embedded.
This was considered a legitimate source of concern? I beg your pardon 1,000 times? This is the “concern” or “allegation” raised by the Editor-in-Chief that he “must take seriously”? This is the source of the “allegations” deemed “truthful” that the Editor-in-Chief was “forced to conclude” was so? Did Dr. Lash even click on the link to check the absurdity of this source?
The tweeter is a nondescript (pseudonymed), self-proclaimed “Murderbot” with no qualifications of note. (Stay tuned.) He should have dismissed this as some random person’s opinion, and nothing more.
Are we meant to accept THIS as a credible source of information that prompted the removal of a scientific study?
N.B. The “information” that Murderbot provided in this tweet was nothing but an emotional rant, by the way. She was “extremely concerned” by Neil Miller’s findings.
On January 28, 2022 at 10:58 am, Murderbot very proudly let the Twitterverse know that she had emailed the journal, complete with this lovely science-oriented diagram shown below.
Well now. That settles it. Vaccines work. I’m convinced.
Here’s where the pubpeer mob enter the equation. As part of their “sleuthing”, they seek out this kind of nonsense (and sometimes plant it) in order to re-animate it [at a later date] for the final take-down.3 It’s possible that Murderbot was in on this from the start, but I personally doubt that because if that were the case, I believe that the pubpeer mob would have acted earlier.
Having said that, however, this entire attack vector - aimed at certain subject matters and individuals - could all be part of a time-sensitive operation to take out all and any scientific papers that bring up potential vaccine harms.
BREAKING…
I have just received confirmation that Murderbot (aka: Rosewind) is Magdalen Rose Wind-Mozley. According to her own ResearchGate page, she claims to have a Master of Science degree, and has 2 listed research items. Murderbot’s h-index is 1. For comparison, Wafik El Deiry’s h-index is 132. He’s also been attacked by the pubpeer mob recently. DDoS attacks included.
Of Murderbot’s 2 listed research items, one is a correspondence reply entitled Reply: Suspicions of possible vaccine harms must be scrutinised openly and independently to ensure confidence, and one is a comment entitled Inadvisable anti-vaccination sentiment: Human Papilloma Virus immunisation falsely under the microscope. She is second author on both of these afterthought notes, with corresponding author Michael G Head.
Michael G Head is a Senior Research Fellow in Global Health at the University of Southampton. He co-created and leads the Research Investments in Global Health (RESIN) study, whose work is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So very philanthropic.
More about Murderbot.4
END OF BREAKING…
Link 2:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/C02A9C1F937150E44015877641F4F9
When you click on the above link you will see 5 comments made from November 2021 through to the present (June 2026) on the pubpeer site. Sorry to send you there, but it’s necessary.
The first comment made in reference to Neil Miller’s paper on the pubpeer site comes from Hoya camphorifolia - a notorious “character” acting on behalf of pubpeer.
N.B. I have had (and continue to have) my own sordid experiences with this particular pseudonymed “individual”.5 It’s just a coincidence though, I am sure. Pubpeer isn’t systematically targeting specific articles and individuals.
You’ll have noticed from the screenshot above that comment #1 - also made in November 2021 - was not a science-based comment. In fact, it did not add anything constructive in the form of criticism pertaining to the content of Neil Miller’s article at all. It was simply a link to the tweet made by Murderbot (in November 2021).
The Editor of the journal used both the threadreaderapp and pubpeer links as “multiple party” sources in his email to Neil Miller to demonstrate “concerns” or “allegations” raised that he “must take seriously”.
Obvious note: The threadreaderapp and pubpeer links are the same schlock.
Moving on…
Intelligent and compelling science-based comment #2 made by our boy-a Hoya is simply a screenshot of Murderbot’s tweet. You’ll also notice that her profile picture is different in this screenshot. I am not sure if this is relevant. It might be.
This comment is simply a re-post of a patronizing tweet from [self-proclaimed] Murderbot, writing that she thinks something Neil Miller claimed was stupid. Who cares if she thinks it was stupid? Does her mere unqualified opinion warrant removal of a peer-reviewed published article?
This part’s interesting.
There is quite the time gap between comments #1 and #2 and comment #3. Nothing was posted on the pubpeer site between November 2021 and May 2026.
But wait now. Did you notice?
Where is comment #3? No comment #3. Where did it go? Was it posted in the interim time period between November 2021 and May 2026 and deleted? Who has the power to precision-delete comments on the pubpeer site → comments that perhaps might serve as an implicative link? I believe that Elizabeth M Bik has that power.
In any case, it doesn’t matter which one of them deleted it. One of the pubpeer mob members with “executive power” deleted comment #3, and the usual reason for people to delete stuff is to try to cover their tracks or to attempt to deny connections.
I do wonder what it said and who made the elusive comment #3.
Comment#3gate?
Addendum on Comment#3gate
Thanks to Clare Craig for suggesting that I check the Wayback Machine to see if comment #3 was archived. It was. But no tasty dice. On November 14, 2021, someone archived the link at 19:41:25 pm. Mysteriously however, the comment was moderated by an “admin” a day earlier. I wonder what it said? And who as the admin that deemed comment #3 unworthy?
As commenter #3, Parabagrotis Sulinaris has been quite active on pubpeer, and for a while there in 2021, seemed to be focused on concerns regarding articles published in the journal Microprocessors and Microsystems. Interestingly, this dude was also interested in papers about curcumin. He mostly seems to have expressed concerns regarding abstracts involving machine learning and health care. He even has one about a paper on hospital Internet of Things which was subsequently retracted. Go figure. He might be right that some had computer-generated bits, and he seemed to be fond of using the GPT-2 Output Detector Demo to detect these.
N.B. This was 5 years ago (July 2021) - pretty ahead-of-the-times! I wonder what his real name is?
I am honestly not sure if this guy is a good guy or a bad guy (or a guy at all!), but seeing as how his comment was censored by a pubpeer admin, I wouldn’t be surprised if he held the former attribute.
This does remind me of Bik’s notorious Imagetwin tactics, however, I am not equating them. Bik is a prominent user and endorser of Imagetwin, as part of her pubpeer “sleuthing” and demonstrably intentional attempts to retract certain papers, and even has a public testimonial on ImageTwin’s official website.
End of addendum
Comment #4 is simply a note from Eupithecia lanceata proudly presenting the removal of Neil Miller’s paper. Ah, yes. A fait accompli, in pubpeer’s eyes.6 By the way, if you do click on the links provided for these pubpeer members, have a gander at the subject matter of the papers they “comment on” to incite take-downs. Also take note of the subject matters of papers they do not try to take-down, and in fact, defend.
Comment #5 is also made by our boy-a Hoya, and it is a notification that gosh darn it, even though the paper was “removed”, “the pdf is still there”. And yes, it’s still up on PubMed, as I noted above.
And finally comment #6 comes from the beloved Actinopolyspora biskrensis - a true fan of mine who appears to be going after papers that report on the health benefits of curcumin now (as in, 1 day ago). He makes a particularly intelligent remark pertaining to Neil Miller’s abstract conclusions.
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.
Actino-man doesn’t seem to understand that what Neil Miller was saying is that definitive proof is lacking7; not association.
Indeed, with mere evidence of association between vaccines and SIDS (again, this is babies dying without a “known reason”), causation is possible, and follow-up investigations are necessary, as Neil Miller concluded.
I want to make sure that everyone who read this article understands that THIS IS WHERE WE ARE with regard to scientific integrity and merit - not only with retractions, but with peer review in its entirety.
Ask yourself, how can an Editor-in-Chief of a journal possibly believe that a single tweet from an unknown and unqualified person merits the removal of a peer-reviewed, published, scientific study 5 years later? Was he put under duress to do this?
It seems unlikely that Dr. Lash would have been so careless as an Editor-in-Chief of a prestigious journal so as to officially remove a paper because of a tweet.
Facts
N.B. A retraction call must be made on retractable grounds such as the following:
Plagiarism: The most common reason for retraction, encompassing self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, and copying others’ work without proper attribution. (No plagiarism reason provided.)
Scientific Misconduct: Includes fabrication, falsification, and image manipulation, which are significant drivers of retractions, particularly in high-impact journals. (No fabrication of data reason provided. Data came from VAERS - https://vaers.hhs.gov)
Honest Errors: Such as laboratory errors (e.g., contamination), analytical errors, and irreproducible results, which are frequently cited in retraction notices. (No lab errors reason provided. Plus, I reproduced his results.)
Authorship and Ethical Issues: Unethical authorship claims, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and failure to obtain ethical approval for human or animal studies can lead to retraction. (No COI reason provided.)
Peer Review and Copyright Issues: Peer review fraud and copyright infringement, such as unauthorized use of figures, are also recognized causes. (No fraud reason provided.)
None of these criteria have been fulfilled in Neil Miller’s case. Even the Secretary of HHS is now demanding to know why and how this happened. As he should.
An article about this scandalous event was also published in The Hill. Looks like we all want answers, in our own ways.
Final thoughts
This article has demonstrated - complete with receipts - incomprehensible and potential COPE-violating actions to censor a study that simply hinted at challenging a specific narrative and/or incentivized individuals. Herein are direct links between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the person literally responsible for inciting the sudden removal of this peer-reviewed published study after 5 years of being available to readers.
Take Home Message
It doesn’t matter how excellent our work is, or how excellent the defense of our work is in the academic/peer review space. If Gates, pubpeer, or other entities want our work gone, they’ll get it gone. They own it all. They control it all. That much seems very clear. Journal editors appear helpless to this insidiousness.
None of this is about science, public health or ensuring the well being of humans. It’s not even about publishing good work or retraction.
It’s about control of a narrative to support an industry. That’s it.
Rest assured, there is an antidote.
EXPOSURE.
EXPOSE THEM. Censorship does NO ONE any good. And if any wokies want to refer to a peer-reviewed scientific study as “misinformation” after some fact, then my suggestion is for you to try to get something published in a scientific journal. See how it goes. Maybe you’ll toot a different horn after that experience, if you could even get through it. Lookin’ at you, Murderbot.
The only things that can brew in festering, hidden and subversive holes, are things that stink.
Not. The End.
For the record: I am in perfect health, am in love with life, and am perfectly integral with respect to living soundly - both ethically and morally - as a stand-out citizen and human being.
It’s publicly available information that the Editor-in-Chief of Toxicology Reports is Lawrence H. Lash.
DNA paper RETRACTION update: We received a new email about our paper that is "under investigation"
I woke up the other morning to the next step in the retraction attempt on our seminal paper published in Autoimmunity entitled: Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada
This is not speculation on my part - I have been the attack point of these creeps for years. Please see the work of ScienceGuardians (on X).
Important side note (might actually not be a side note): She used to be the Director for a company called RICHARD MOZLEY LIMITED (01364279). She resigned on September 1, 2000 and the company was dissolved on August 8, 2012.
DDoS attacks are the old new tactic of censorship/retraction
Settle in subscribers! This is a long and disturbing article - filled with receipts - and if you’re not aware of the length and breadth and depth of the tentacles that reach into the post-peer-review and publication system, listen up:
This is almost impossible to provide - and by the way, the burden of proof lies in proving no harm, it is NOT on the science community to prove harm in vaccine context.
Jessica... Superb sleuthing! You are becoming a great investigative journalist. Thanks for all you do!
It’s unfortunate that we no longer live in a world where rule of law and integrity are respected, and instead a climate of fear is being generated to keep people in line. The good and honest people are being sidelined, or worse, while those who grovel before corruption are elevated.
Many are distracted by endless entertainment, and slogans stand in for real thought and consideration.
Still we fight on, as we have no choice. We fight for a world where real gentlemen (and women) are our leading lights, and not scoundrels.
Thank you for your work and integrity.