A new analysis of Louisiana health records found higher third-month mortality rates among infants vaccinated at two months compared with unvaccinated peers, prompting calls for broader access to population-level safety data.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Infants who received routine vaccinations during their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than infants who were not vaccinated during that period, according to an analysis of state health records conducted by Children’s Health Defense scientists and reported by The Defender. The findings are based on data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Health and were published Monday on Preprints.org, with the authors calling for similar datasets nationwide to be released for independent review.
preprints202512.1865.v1 by yourNEWS Media
The analysis was conducted by Children’s Health Defense researchers Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., who examined linked immunization and mortality records for infants who died between 2013 and 2024. According to the study, infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die between 90 and 120 days of age than infants who were unvaccinated during the same window. The analysis further reported higher mortality rates among female infants and Black infants compared with male or white infants.
Depending on which vaccines were administered, vaccinated infants were reported to be between 29% and 74% more likely to die than unvaccinated infants, according to the data. Vaccinated Black infants showed a 28% to 74% higher likelihood of death, while vaccinated female infants showed a 52% to 98% higher risk. Infants who received all six vaccines recommended for two-month-olds were reported to be 68% more likely to die in their third month of life.
Hooker and Jablonowski derived mortality rates by analyzing immunization and death records for infants who died before three months of age, then isolating a subset of 1,225 children who survived beyond 90 days and whose vaccination status could be evaluated. Hooker said the study represents one of the first examinations of the cumulative effect of vaccines administered at the two-month visit under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommended schedule.
“This very important paper represents one of the first studies on the cumulative effect of vaccines given at 2 months of age following the CDC’s recommended schedule,” Hooker told The Defender. “The highest infant mortality rates were seen when children received all six of the recommended vaccines in one visit.”
Hooker added that, in addition to elevated mortality, the vaccination schedule was associated with a higher likelihood of death from non-leading causes. He said this type of research is needed as federal health agencies and advisory bodies revisit the recommended schedule.
The study compared infants vaccinated between 60 and 90 days of life — corresponding to the CDC’s recommended two-month immunization visit — with infants who were not vaccinated during that period. Mortality was defined as death occurring between 90 and 120 days of life.
During the study years, a CDC-compliant two-month visit could include vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus, hepatitis B, rotavirus, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type B, pneumococcal disease and poliovirus. The authors wrote that this visit represents the largest single-day antigen exposure many individuals will encounter and noted the presence of aluminum adjuvant levels they said exceed certain federal limits.
The authors contrasted their findings with long-standing public health assertions that childhood vaccines are safe and effective and that vaccination prevents far more deaths than it could plausibly cause. They noted that some scientists and physicians, including participants in recent ACIP meetings, have questioned whether sufficient safety data supported the expansion of the childhood schedule.
Jablonowski said the Louisiana analysis, while limited in size, is among the largest studies of its kind and larger than earlier research such as the 1988 study, “Risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome after Immunization with the Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccine,” which analyzed a much smaller number of deaths.
The researchers reported that when vaccines were analyzed in combination — reflecting typical clinical practice — infants who received all five non-hepatitis B vaccines at the two-month visit were 60% more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants. Those who received all six vaccines, including Hep B, were reported to be 68% more likely to die.
The analysis also identified notable race- and sex-based differences. For every vaccine examined, Black infants experienced higher relative increases in mortality compared with white infants when vaccinated during the second month of life. Vaccinated female infants showed the strongest associations, with mortality odds increases exceeding 80% in several comparisons. The authors cited prior research suggesting sex-based differences in immune response as a possible factor.
In reviewing causes of death, the researchers compared vaccinated and unvaccinated female infants and found differences in the distribution of causes. Vaccinated females were more likely to die from causes outside the leading categories of sudden infant death syndrome, accidental suffocation and ill-defined causes, including deaths attributed to infectious diseases and nervous system conditions.
Jablonowski described the work as a proof-of-concept study demonstrating that associations between vaccination timing and infant mortality can be detected in real-world data. He said the findings were emotionally difficult, describing the dataset as “a record of one of the most horrible experiences a parent can go through, multiplied by 1,225 times.”
Both authors emphasized that a single study does not establish consensus and called for replication using comparable datasets in other states and countries. They argued that only broader access to linked immunization and death registries can determine whether the patterns observed in Louisiana represent a localized anomaly or a more general phenomenon.
Original article
Comments