The infant mortality rate, following mass-mRNA vaccination of mothers, increased by 77%, anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists claim.
NEWS: An analysis of data provided by the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) indicates severe cross-generational harm caused by mass mRNA vaccination: the infant mortality rate following mass-mRNA vaccination of mothers increased by 77%.
The analysis, which uses the Deviation from Trend (DFT) method, reveals a worrying development: a sudden and sustained increase in infant mortality among children who do not have COVID-19 and have not been vaccinated against the disease, but whose parents have been previously exposed to mRNA jabs.
The evidence points to the existence of two risks – teratogenic effects during pregnancy and cross-generational epigenetic effects transmitted through germline biology. Together, these raise concerns about the long-term impact of synthetic mRNA technology.
NARRATIVE: mRNA vaccination of mothers led to a 77% increase in infant mortality.
PURPOSE: To promote conspiracy rhetoric, to undermine trust in the healthcare system and by extension, in state authorities, to stir and amplify social unrest, to validate previously promoted conspiracy theories.
Infant mortality increased slightly in 2022 and stabilized in 2023
WHY THE NARRATIVE IS FALSE: The claim that mortality rates among children born to mothers vaccinated with mRNA have increased radically is not supported by any study published in recognized scientific journals, nor is it confirmed by official data from the CDC or other health institutions. In fact, the narrative circulated in the media also in 2023 (and was disproved at the time).
Admittedly, infant mortality rate in the United States increased slightly in 2022, although not due to vaccination, but because of the difficulty of accessing medical services and the infection of mothers with Covid during the pandemic. Furthermore, a study published by the CDC in February 2022 shows that full mRNA vaccination during pregnancy reduces the risk of babies under six months being hospitalized due to Covid-19 by 61%, while 84% of those hospitalized with Covid-19 were born to mothers who were not vaccinated during pregnancy. Other internationally recognized studies show that vaccination during pregnancy reduces the risk of babies becoming infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and provides some protection against hospitalization, with varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the viral strain circulating in the community at any given time. Another study that analyzed almost 200,000 cases in Scandinavia revealed that maternal mRNA vaccination is associated with lower risks of severe neonatal morbidity, neonatal death and intensive care admissions. Similarly, an analysis conducted by Australian authorities found a significant reduction in the number of stillbirths and premature births in women vaccinated against Covid-19.
Official CDC data, interpreted according to a “proprietary methodology” by Nicolas Hulscher, actually shows that, for 2022, there was an increase of only about 3% in the infant mortality rate – from ≈5.44 in 2021 to ≈5.61 deaths per 1,000 births, which is indeed the most significant rate in the last two decades. Most importantly, over 2022-2023, there were no significant changes, the rate standing at ≈5.61 deaths per 1,000 births. Moreover, the provisional quarterly estimates for 2024–2025 point to a slight decrease in the infant mortality rate, from ≈5.61 to ≈5.47. Experts say the 2022 increase can be attributed more to factors such as seasonal infections, limited access to prenatal care, and other social determinants, with no proven connection to mRNA vaccination. Moreover, multiple public health sources and genetic experts explicitly state that mRNA vaccines cannot modify DNA or cause transgenerational genomic mutations, as some conspiracy theories suggest.
Overall, the article in question is not a CDC study, and especially not peer-reviewed. The “analysis” is actually the author’s own interpretation, based on unverified criteria, which does not provide valid arguments to demonstrate an individual mother-child link caused by the mRNA vaccine. The “study” was published on a website well-known for its controversial positions on science in general, lacking academic review, and contradicts both official figures and safety studies on vaccination during pregnancy.
Tell me what company you keep...
BACKGROUND: False narratives about the effectiveness and effects of vaccination have been circulating for several years, but have become much more visible with the advent of anti-Covid vaccines. At a time when public trust in science is already waning, the alarmist statements of a few individuals still manage to cause noise and confusion. These theories are promoted by various publications or figures belonging to ultra-religious conservative groups, but they are also taken up and exploited by politicians, for electoral purposes, or by people known to be close to Russia and its foreign policy, by means of which it seeks to destabilize Western societies.
Several conservative publications pick up these false narratives and seek to validate their anti-vaccine theories by resorting to pseudo-experts, anonymous websites or by misquoting various studies, events or personalities from outside the medical world.
The author of the “study” under analysis is Nicolas Hulscher, an American epidemiologist with an M.A. in Public Health, who is affiliated to the McCullough Foundation, an organization known for its criticism of anti-Covid vaccines, founded by the controversial American cardiologist Peter McCullough, another extremely vocal critic of the anti-Covid vaccination policy. Hulscher and McCullough have co-authored several papers suggesting links between mRNA vaccines and various adverse effects, including the death of people who’ve taken the jab. Another “analysis” by Nicolas Hulscher (“A systematic review of autopsies in cases of post-vaccination deaths”) was withdrawn from the preprint platform of The Lancet due to its inappropriate methodology, criticized by several medical doctors and experts in the field. It should also be noted that Hulscher’s works are not published in recognized scientific journals and are not subject to peer-review. They are also constantly criticized by experts for the methodology of data interpretation, which is most often subjective and without clear classification criteria.
Moreover, The Ethical Skeptic website, which published Hulscher's "study", is actually a personal blog, administered by an anonymous person who promotes “ethical skepticism”, that is, theories accompanied by long, complicated and rhetorical arguments, sprinkled with terms rarely used in academic language, such as “educated/cultivated ignorance”. The site does not clearly cite specialized studies or rigorous bibliographical references, which denotes a philosophical and provocative rather than scientific style of the published materials. The author behind the blog claims to be the recipient of diplomas in engineering, business, finance and ethics from top universities in the USA, without specifying the names of people, academic institutions, or a verifiable resume. Most specialists and readers question the credibility of the website and criticize the author’s approach as being pseudoscientific.
Check sources:
---copie-image.webp)
