Vaccines: Parent - Doctor Conversation
Tuesday, May 12, 2026
Thursday, March 12, 2026
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
‘Deeply Troubling’: Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants
December 23, 2025 › Health Conditions › Science › News
‘Deeply Troubling’: Higher Mortality Rates Detected in Vaccinated 3-Month-Olds Compared With Unvaccinated Infants
Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., who conducted the analysis, called on health authorities to make similar datasets available for independent analysis, arguing that transparency is essential for evaluating vaccine safety at the population level.
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health. Female and Black infants died at higher rates than male or white babies.
Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., conducted the analysis, which was published Monday on Preprints.org.
Depending on which vaccines they received, vaccinated children were between 29%-74% more likely to die than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated Black infants were 28%-74% more likely to die, and vaccinated female infants had a 52%-98% greater risk of death.
Overall, children who received all six vaccines recommended for 2-month-olds were 68% more likely to die in their third month of life, the data showed.
Hooker and Jablonowski determined the death rates by analyzing immunization and mortality records from the Louisiana Department of Health for children who died before age 3 months between 2013 and 2024.
“This very important paper represents one of the first studies on the cumulative effect of vaccines given at 2 months of age following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended schedule,” Hooker told The Defender.
He added:
“The highest infant mortality rates were seen when children received all six of the recommended vaccines in one visit. In addition to elevated mortality, the vaccination schedule also increased the likelihood that children were more likely to die of non-leading causes of death.
“This type of study is needed to guide the efforts of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and especially the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) as they revisit the recommended schedule.”
Hooker and Jablonowski compared infants vaccinated between 60 and 90 days of life — the window corresponding to the CDC’s recommended 2-month immunization visit — with children who were unvaccinated during that same period. Mortality was defined as death occurring between 90 and 120 days of life.
At the 2-month visit, during the period studied, a CDC-compliant infant would likely have received shots for respiratory syncytial virus or RSV; hepatitis B (Hep B); rotavirus; diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis; Haemophilus influenzae type B; pneumococcal; and poliovirus.
“It is the largest single-day antigenic assault a person is ever likely to encounter in their lifetimes, and may be accompanied with 1.225 mg [milligrams] of aluminum adjuvant … even though the … maximum per-dose limit allowable by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is 0.85mg,” according to the authors.
The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is about 1 in 200. However, “in what amounts to one of the greatest health hazards in the entire country, and a national injustice,” according to the authors, the mortality rate for infants born to Black mothers is approximately 1 in 100 — almost double the national rate.
Major departure from the standard narrative
Public health authorities have long maintained that childhood vaccines are safe and effective and that vaccination prevents far more deaths than it could plausibly cause.
However, some doctors and scientists, including some who spoke at recent ACIP meetings, are beginning to acknowledge that these claims are based on limited evidence, that many vaccines were recommended without sufficient safety data and that the expansion of the childhood schedule coincided with a rise in chronic illness among U.S. children.
The authors said their study — although limited to a few thousand children — is, to date, one of the largest studies of its kind.
“By epidemiological standards, it is a really small dataset, yet it is among the largest and most detailed of its kind,” Jablonowski told The Defender. “By contrast, when Vanderbilt University and the CDC published ‘Risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome after Immunization with the Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine,’ they analyzed only a couple hundred infant deaths”
He added:
“I didn’t have expectations on what we would find, because there is no comparator. A study this large, with this level of detail, focused on the second month of life, to my knowledge has never been done before.
“If vaccine safety were as heavily researched as vaccine proponents would like us to believe, this would have been a well-trodden exercise and we would have found nothing, not even the whisper of a disturbing trend. But there is nothing subtle about the measured safety signals. The records of children who are no longer with us demonstrate the hazard of the 2-month recommended vaccines.”
Study included an analysis of multiple vaccines administered at once
The researchers identified approximately 5,800 infant deaths during the period studied. Of those, 1,775 children could be exactly matched to their immunization records.
The analysis focused on a subset of 1,225 children who survived beyond 90 days of life and whose vaccination status could be evaluated.
They found increased mortality odds ranging from 29%-74% depending on the specific vaccine analyzed. The largest individual association was reported for the rotavirus vaccine, with an odds ratio of 1.74 — a 74% greater mortality rate — which the authors note reached the level of statistical significance.
When vaccines were analyzed in combination — reflecting how immunizations are typically administered — children who received all five non-hepatitis B vaccines at the 2-month visit were reported to be 60% more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated children.
Children who received all six recommended vaccines, including Hep B, were reported to be 68% more likely to die during that period.
Across all comparisons in the dataset, unvaccinated children had the lowest observed mortality rates during the 90- to 120-day window.
Race and sex-based differences were notable
For every vaccine analyzed, Black infants reportedly experienced higher relative increases in mortality compared to white infants when vaccinated during the second month of life. The finding was consistent across individual vaccines and vaccine combinations.
The strongest associations were reported among female infants. According to the analysis, vaccinated females experienced substantially higher increases in mortality risk than vaccinated males. In several comparisons, the reported increase in mortality odds for females exceeded 80% and, in some cases, exceeded 100%.
For females, they wrote, “The difference is so great, it is statistically significant almost everywhere it was measured.”
The authors suggest that sex-based differences in immune response may contribute to these findings, citing prior research that has shown stronger immune responses — and higher rates of adverse reactions — among females following vaccination.
There were also patterns in cause of death
The authors also analyzed reported causes of death, comparing distributions of those causes among vaccinated and unvaccinated female infants who died in their third month of life.
They found that vaccinated females were more likely to die from causes outside the leading categories of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), accidental suffocation and ill-defined causes.
Specifically, the analysis identified several deaths attributed to infectious diseases and nervous system conditions among vaccinated female infants, compared with none in the unvaccinated group during the same period.
This was significant, they wrote, because if vaccinations played no role in mortality, the distribution of causes of death would be expected to remain consistent between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.
Covid Index: The world's largest directory of censored science & suppressed evidence on COVID-19. Learn More!
‘One of the most horrible experiences a parent can go through, multiplied by 1,225 times’
Jablonowski and Hooker described the analysis as a “proof-of-concept,” demonstrating that statistically significant associations between vaccination timing and infant mortality can be identified in real-world data.
They called on health authorities and researchers to make similar linked datasets available for independent analysis, arguing that transparency is essential for evaluating vaccine safety at the population level.
Jablonowski said the results weren’t just significant, they were deeply troubling. “I always knew it would be emotionally difficult to work for CHD. Our data is a record of one of the most horrible experiences a parent can go through, multiplied by 1,225 times.”
However, he said, “One study does not make consensus. It needs to be replicated many times over, in every state, province or nation willing to look. I am extremely grateful that CHD was able to pair with such courageous people in the state of Louisiana.”
Jablonowski and Hooker said that only broader access to comparable datasets — and independent replication — can determine whether the patterns observed in Louisiana reflect a localized anomaly or a more general phenomenon.
“To validate, generalize, and explore that harm further requires corroboration with additional sources of evidence. Every state, province, and country where an immunization registry may be matched with a death registry may provide that evidence,” they wrote.Related articles in The Defender
‘Runaway Train’: Media Outlets Race to Condemn Unconfirmed Report of Changes to Childhood Vaccine Schedule
CDC Vaccine Panel Votes to End Universal Hep B Vaccine for Newborns
Vaccine Injury Lawyer Delivers Scathing Rebuke of Childhood Vaccine Schedule — Offit, Hotez Decline Invitation to Debate
In Show of Support for RFK Jr., Trump Orders ‘Comprehensive Evaluation’ of Childhood Vaccine Schedule
Aluminum in Vaccines Far Exceeds ‘Safe’ Limits for Infants, Critics Say
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.
Sunday, December 14, 2025
Trump Orders ‘Comprehensive Evaluation’ of Childhood Vaccine Schedule
Policy
In show of support for RFK Jr., President Donald Trump last week directed HHS to “fast track” a comprehensive review of the childhood immunization schedule. Trump also praised the CDC vaccine advisers for voting to end the recommendation that all newborns receive the Hep B vaccine.
December 8, 2025
President Donald Trump last week directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “fast track” a comprehensive review of the childhood immunization schedule.
“The American Childhood Vaccine Schedule long required 72 ‘jabs,’ for perfectly healthy babies, far more than any other Country in the World, and far more than is necessary. In fact, it is ridiculous! Many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule,’ as have I!” Trump posted.
Trump issued a memorandum, which he announced on Truth Social after the conclusion of last week’s two-day meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) panel of vaccine advisers.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which met Dec. 4-5, voted to end the recommendation that all infants receive the hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccine at birth.
The committee members also heard presentations questioning the safety of the current childhood vaccination schedule and comparing its health outcomes to those of Denmark and other high-income countries.
In his Truth Social post, Trump said ACIP “made a very good decision” to end the Hep B vaccine recommendation for newborns.
Trump’s memorandum directs U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the CDC to “review best practices from peer, developed countries for core childhood vaccination recommendations,” including “the scientific evidence that informs those best practices,” as part of the review.
If the review finds that the childhood vaccination policies of other countries “are superior to current domestic recommendations,” the memorandum directs HHS and the CDC to “align” the childhood vaccination schedule “with such scientific evidence.”
In a post on X on Friday, Kennedy thanked Trump and wrote, “We’re on it.”
Dr. Larry Palevsky, a pediatrician, called Trump’s memorandum “unprecedented.” “Trump became the first American president to appropriately challenge the safety and efficacy of vaccines.”
Dr. Michelle Perro, also a pediatrician, told The Defender:
“Any medical intervention given to virtually every child deserves ongoing, rigorous re-evaluation. My hope is that this process will be data-driven, transparent and free from industry or political capture, which is something parents have not felt confident about for a long time.”
James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., also responded. “People, the public, the taxpayers deserve to know: do we have the safest possible schedule?” the research scientist and author asked.
ACIP member Retsef Levi, Ph.D., told The Washington Post that more research into childhood vaccines is needed. He said vaccines have risks that “are currently not well understood.”
In June, ACIP formed a work group to study the cumulative effect of all childhood vaccines.
ACIP’s Hep B vaccine recommendation now awaits approval by acting CDC Director Jim O’Neil. The Post reported Friday that the rollback of the Hep B shot recommendation “could portend broader changes to come” on vaccine policy.
Trump’s memorandum a ‘vote of confidence’ in RFK Jr.’s leadership
Trump’s memorandum and accompanying fact sheet took aim at the latest version of the childhood immunization schedule.
“In January 2025, the United States recommended vaccinating all children for 18 diseases, including COVID-19, making our country a high outlier in the number of vaccinations recommended for all children,” the memorandum states.
According to the memorandum, “Peer, developed countries recommend fewer childhood vaccinations — Denmark recommends vaccinations for just 10 diseases with serious morbidity or mortality risks; Japan recommends vaccinations for 14 diseases; and Germany recommends vaccinations for 15 diseases.”
The fact sheet states that “timing and administration of the vaccines also varies by country” — some do not require certain vaccines at birth or on an annual basis.
“Practices like the hepatitis B vaccination at birth are standard in the United States, but uncommon in most developed countries, where it is typically only recommended for newborns of mothers who test positive for the infection,” the fact sheet states.
During Friday’s ACIP meeting, Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D., who last week was named the next leader of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said there are “eye-opening differences in the recommendations” between the U.S. and her native Denmark.
Biologist Christina Parks, Ph.D., said it was evident that Trump “was listening … to the fact that it appears that our regulatory agencies have been co-opted by money and not really looking at the cost-benefit analysis of vaccines.”
In September, Trump made similar statements questioning the safety of the childhood immunization schedule — and the administration of the Hep B shot at birth — during an event announcing that HHS would study all possible causes of autism.
Earlier that month, the White House’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission unveiled its “Make Our Children Healthy Again” strategy report, outlining 128 recommendations for tackling the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S., including a review of existing vaccine policies and recommendations.
Friday’s fact sheet said that the review of the childhood vaccination schedule is part of these MAHA-related initiatives.
Axios said Trump’s memorandum is a “vote of confidence” in Kennedy’s leadership of HHS and Kennedy’s “handpicked advisory panel on vaccines” — referring to ACIP.
In June, Kennedy dismissed ACIP’s 17 previous members. Later in June and in September, Kennedy appointed several new members to ACIP.
In a statement shared with The Defender, HHS Press Secretary Emily Hilliard said:
“Secretary Kennedy reconstituted ACIP to strengthen its independence and to end past practices that favored established corporate interests over open scientific review.
“Instead of promoting the failed politics of the pandemic, HHS is promoting transparency in vaccine safety data and communicating clearly about both risks and benefits.”
“Kennedy and his allies have gained the power to pursue sweeping changes in U.S. vaccine policies,” Axios reported.
Mainstream medical organizations in a ‘panic’ over new vaccine guidelines
Friday’s ACIP developments and Trump’s memorandum prompted criticism by some political figures, pro-vaccine advocates and mainstream medical organizations.
In a post on X on Friday, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee, said ACIP’s new Hep B recommendation “makes America sicker.”
Before last week’s ACIP meeting, Cassidy said the committee was “totally discredited” after it invited attorney and vaccine critic Aaron Siri to deliver a presentation questioning the childhood vaccination schedule.
Two prominent and outspoken promoters of vaccines — Dr. Paul Offit and Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., who declined invitations to deliver presentations at last week’s ACIP meeting — also criticized the committee and Kennedy.
Offit told The New York Times that ACIP is “a political group, not a scientific group.” Hotez said ACIP “seems to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine.”
Lyons-Weiler questioned Offit’s and Hotez’s criticism of ACIP and their decisions not to accept the committee’s invitation to deliver presentations at the meeting, which he said, “signals they do not have the science to back up their claims.”
“If they believe the new ACIP lacks scientific rigor, then the responsible move is to walk into the room, put the data on the table and challenge the panel openly,” Lyons-Weiler said.
In a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) op-ed published last week, 12 former FDA commissioners said they were “deeply concerned” by the Trump administration’s vaccine policies, which “undermine a regulatory model designed to ensure that vaccines are safe, effective, and available when the public needs them most.”
That same day, three former CDC officials published an op-ed in STAT accusing ACIP of “losing its footing” and warning that the committee was “poised to raise vaccine risks while burying their benefits.”
The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) also criticized ACIP’s new Hep B vaccine guidance and last week’s meeting.
In July, the AAP and other medical organizations sued Kennedy and HHS, alleging the new ACIP members unilaterally changed COVID-19 vaccine recommendations without evidence. Last week, the plaintiffs in that lawsuit updated their complaint.
In August, the CDC removed AMA and AAP representatives from ACIP vaccine work groups. That month, the AAP released its own “evidence-based” immunization schedule, calling universal immunization essential to protect children.
According to the Post, after the ACIP meeting, a “slew of Democratic governors” and state health officials reaffirmed guidance that all newborns get a Hep B shot.
In recent months, several state and city public health departments have formed coalitions, issuing vaccine guidance that counters CDC recommendations. In April, CIDRAP launched the Vaccine Integrity Project, which issues similar guidance.
Lyons-Weiler said these reactions suggest that mainstream medical organizations are in a “panic.”
“If the scientific foundation is as strong as they claim, a comparative review should be the easiest win imaginable,” Lyons-Weiler said. “Instead, we get apocalyptic rhetoric. That tells you these institutions are defending authority and revenue streams, not science.”
‘The priority should be children’s health, not corporate comfort’
In the aftermath of the ACIP meeting, some critics also questioned comparisons between the childhood vaccination schedules of the U.S. and other countries.
Speaking on behalf of the AAP, pediatrician Dr. José R. Romero told the Post, “Children in the United States are at risk of different diseases than children in other countries.” We also have a completely different health system.”
Jessica Malaty Rivera of Defend Public Health told the Post that comparisons between the vaccination schedules of the U.S. and countries like Denmark are “like comparing apples to steaks,” due to significant differences between the countries — an argument Lyons-Weiler characterized as “hand-waving.”
“If Denmark, Japan or Germany achieve excellent outcomes with fewer early-life injections, ignoring that comparison is malpractice,” he said.
Perro said cross-country comparisons are commonplace “in every other field of medicine,” adding that it is possible to “adjust for differences in size and health systems and still learn a great deal.”
Defend Public Health operates under the Peace Development Fund, whose funders include pharma giant GSK, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers and the Tides Foundation. Tides also funds the Center for Countering Digital Hate, publisher of the 2021 “Disinformation Dozen” list of “leading online anti-vaxxers” that included Kennedy.
STAT reported that vaccine makers are “terrified” of the Trump administration’s potential changes to vaccine policy, which are “alarming manufacturers.” Perro said, “That line unintentionally reveals a lot.”
“If manufacturers are ‘alarmed’ by a scientific review and possible schedule adjustments based on international best practices, we should be asking why. The priority should be children’s health, not corporate comfort.”
