Demand Explanation for Expression of Concern from Sage Pub

In May of this year, Sage Publications added an “expression of concern” to the 2020 paper published in Sage Open Medicine by Brian S. Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders.”

Here is the complete statement from Sage Publications:
————————————————————
The following article is under investigation:

Hooker BS, Miller NZ. Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. SAGE Open Med. 2020 May 27;8:2050312120925344. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312120925344.

This expression of concern will remain in place until the investigation concludes, and a final decision has been made.
————————————————————
Sage’s “expression of concern” fails to cite any reasons for concern or investigation of the article. Surely the authors of a paper published over six years ago that suddenly warrants investigation deserve an explanation for this abrupt action. Readers must also find it odd to see the piece red flagged in this way with no rationale provided.

On July 29, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote to Sage Publishing Editor Prajakta Mane, asking for the following by August 15:

⏺ An explanation of how the decision to append the piece with an “expression of concern” was reached, including full internal written analysis and external scientific input that necessitated this action.

⏺ Clarification of the “reason or reasons for concern” that justified the journal’s decision.

“In these last-ditch efforts to staunch the public stampede away from vaccines, pharmaceutical megacorporations likely instructed their (lackey) journal editors to withdraw the article,” said Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland in a recent Defender opinion piece. “The editors do not make even a feeble attempt to justify this. No reasoning, no rationale — just that the public must be protected from wrongthink! The absurdity is self-evident. Such extraordinary paternalism has no place in any adult discourse, let alone in science.”

We need to let Sage Publications know that we’re watching this situation closely and expect an explanation for their actions which have cast an aspersion against the paper without providing any rationale whatsoever.

Act today to encourage Sage to explain its “expression of concern” by August 15!