Babies as young as six months old should receive a three-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine in 2025 despite having a near-zero risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This guidance, which has spared outrage and concern among parents, was outlined in the CDC’s latest immunization schedule for individuals aged six months and older, and is being touted by the agency as a critical step in protecting vulnerable populations.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
However, a growing chorus of voices argues that this aggressive push for infant vaccination is unnecessary, risky, and emblematic of an overreach by public health authorities.
Latest Video
According to the CDC’s document, available at their website, children aged six months through four years are recommended to receive an initial series of three doses of the 2024–2025 Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.
The schedule specifies that unvaccinated infants should receive their first dose at six months, followed by a second dose four to eight weeks later, and a third dose at least eight weeks after the second. For those with moderate or severe immunocompromise, the CDC even suggests additional doses, potentially under “shared clinical decision-making.”
This relentless vaccination cadence for babies—who face negligible risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19—has critics questioning the science and motives behind the recommendation.
The CDC justifies this protocol by asserting that vaccination is “especially important for people at highest risk of severe COVID-19,” a category that ostensibly includes infants due to their immature immune systems.
Yet, data from the agency’s own reports and independent studies paint a starkly different picture. Children, particularly those under five, have consistently shown an extraordinarily low risk of hospitalization or death from COVID-19.
A 2022 study published in The Lancet found that the infection fatality rate for children under five was less than 0.0001%, a statistic that undermines the urgency of subjecting infants to an experimental mRNA technology without any long-term safety data.
What’s more, the Moderna vaccine’s track record has raised red flags. Reports of adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis in older age groups, have been well-documented by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). While the CDC insists that these risks are “rare” and that benefits outweigh them, the agency has not provided robust data specifically addressing the safety of three doses in infants—a population incapable of reporting symptoms like chest pain or fatigue.
Critics argue that this lack of transparency is reckless, especially given that mRNA vaccines were authorized under emergency use provisions with far less scrutiny than traditional vaccines.
Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a vocal skeptic of mRNA vaccines, has publicly condemned the CDC’s stance. In a recent statement on X, she declared, “The mRNA shots are all risk, no benefit. CDC still recommends all babies get 3 mRNA shots by the age of 9 months.” Her sentiment echoes a broader distrust among those who see the guidance as prioritizing pharmaceutical interests over children’s well-being. With Moderna reaping billions in profits from its COVID-19 vaccine, the specter of financial influence looms large over the CDC’s unwavering endorsement.
The CDC’s schedule also fails to address the natural immunity many infants may already possess, either through maternal antibodies or prior exposure to the virus. Studies, including one from the Journal of Infection in 2023, have shown that natural immunity offers robust and durable protection against severe disease—potentially more so than vaccination in young children. Yet, the CDC makes no distinction for previously infected infants, instead advocating a one-size-fits-all approach that critics call dogmatic and unscientific.
For many parents, the recommendation feels like a betrayal of trust. “Why are we injecting babies with something they don’t need?” asked one concerned mother on X, reflecting a sentiment trending across the platform. The hashtag #NoMRNAforBabies has gained traction, with users sharing stories of vaccine hesitancy and calling for accountability from health officials. Even as the CDC doubles down, the backlash suggests a widening rift between the agency and the public it claims to serve.
As of today, the CDC shows no signs of revising its shocking position. But with mounting pressure from dissenting physicians, worried parents, and a public increasingly skeptical of institutional narratives, the debate over infant mRNA vaccination is far from settled.