Analysis
A small cluster of posts is promoting an analysis of Louisiana-linked immunization and infant mortality records, presented as definitive proof that the routine childhood vaccination schedule “kills babies.” The claim centers on a preprint-style analysis that allegedly links receipt of the standard 2-month vaccine visit to a sharply elevated risk of infant death, often summarized with striking figures such as “up to 112% higher mortality.” Polio is not singled out as the sole cause, but it is explicitly named as part of the “six-vaccine bundle” administered at that visit, allowing the narrative to undermine polio vaccination indirectly by attacking the schedule as a whole. The storyline is constructed to appear methodologically rigorous. Posts emphasize datasets, percentages, confidence language, and references to “linked records,” giving the impression of official surveillance evidence rather than a contested or preliminary analysis. This framing is reinforced by calls to urgency—“suspend the schedule immediately,” “the data are undeniable”—which discourage critical scrutiny and present refusal as the only rational response. The narrative is further extended by associating the alleged mortality signal with long-standing claims about autism, neurological damage, and immune overload, transforming a narrow statistical assertion into a broad indictment of early-life vaccination. Amplification remains limited in scale but notable in form. A small number of medically literate or data-oriented accounts on X drive most of the visibility, with reposts often accompanied by statements such as “this will never be discussed by CDC” or “why hasn’t the media covered this?” A subset of Facebook users then reframe the claim in more emotive language, presenting it as confirmation that parents’ instincts about vaccine danger were correct all along. Because the argument relies on numbers rather than personal tragedy, it is particularly effective at seeding doubt among undecided audiences who may not identify with overt anti-vaccine activism. By asserting that mortality risks can be demonstrated through administrative data, the narrative encourages caregivers to reject the entire infant schedule, including polio, even in the absence of polio-specific allegations. The claim is easily reusable across contexts and can be reintroduced whenever polio vaccination is discussed alongside other routine immunizations.
Recommendations
Precision and transparency are essential, clarifying what preprints can and cannot show and how vaccine safety evaluation works. Messaging should clearly explain what preprints and exploratory analyses can and cannot demonstrate, why association does not equal causation, and how infant mortality surveillance and vaccine safety monitoring are conducted in practice. Pediatric epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and trusted pediatric associations are the most credible messengers, particularly when they can translate complex methods into plain language. Short, shareable explainers that walk audiences through how safety signals are evaluated—and why polio vaccination cannot be implicated through schedule-level mortality claims—are more effective than broad reassurances. Operationally, teams should monitor for reuse of the “112%” figure in polio campaign contexts and be prepared with calm, evidence-based responses that redirect caregivers toward trusted clinical guidance rather than public debate.