Iowa Bill Requires Infant Death Certificates to Include Vaccine Information

Iowa Bill Requires Infant Death Certificates to Include Vaccine Information

A bill is working its way through the Iowa legislature that would require medical examiners to include information on the medical examiners form used to fill out the death certificate about recent vaccinations given to any child under age three who dies of any cause. The bill, SF 2302, passed the Iowa Senate’s Human Resources committee on February 18 by a 8-5 party-line vote with Republicans voting in favor and will proceed to the full Senate for approval within the upcoming weeks.1

Bill’s Sponsor:  “It’s Only About Facts”

Sen. Dennis Guth, the bill’s sponsor, was approached by a medical examiner who said that the death certificate for a child three years old and younger included eight questions about the last thing the child ate, and only one question about vaccination, which was whether the child was up-to-date on recommended vaccines at the time of death. The medical examiner felt it would be important to know a little more about the vaccination history of a child who died. “I thought it was a reasonable idea, and it’s something that’s not pro or anti vaccination, it’s only about understanding what’s going on. It’s only about facts.” Iowa has about 40 sudden unexplained infant deaths each year.2

Health and Medical Groups Oppose Disclosure

In the Senate subcommittee meeting, the bill was met with opposition from public health officials and Iowa’s medical trade associations. Amy McCoy, with the Iowa Department of Public Health, stated they are “undecided” on the matter but cited concerns about accessing vaccination records due to HIPPA, the federal law protecting patient privacy.

Dennis Tibben, representing the Iowa Medical Society and the Iowa Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated their concern was the potential to slow down child death investigations. “We have several county medical examiners amongst our membership who have voiced concerns about the practical implications of accessing medical records.”

Lina Tucker Reinders of Iowa Public Health Association spoke against the bill.:

We owe it to our children to maintain Iowa’s strong culture of vaccinations. We are concerned that the package of vaccine-related bills that have been introduced this session will not together increase Iowa’s vaccination rates or serve to protect children from vaccine-preventable diseases, to the contrary. We’re concerned that they will introduce doubt to parents who have well-placed trust in their medical providers and the public health community.

Deborah Thompson, a volunteer with the Iowa Public Health Association was worried about what would be done with the information collected. “We put this information on, and then what? Which set of researchers pick it up and then what happens to it then? How is it used to wield in defense or for a particular set of arguments?”

Section 164.512(g)(1) of HIPPA law allows for disclosure of medical records to be shared with “medical examiners or coroners to assist them in identifying the decedent, determining the cause of death, or to carry out their other authorized duties.”3 Deputy state medical examiner Jonathan Thompson, MD, said collecting the information would add only an hour of extra work.

The Department of Public Health already has a child death review team, which investigates any death of someone under 18 that is not a natural death. This review includes past medical history and sometimes includes vaccination history. While information on death certificates are publicly available, the vaccination information would only appear on the medical examiner’s form, not the death certificate, and, would not be made public.

Parents Support Collecting Information After Children Die

Brei Johnson, president of Informed Choice Iowa, argued in support of SF 2302. “Everybody should work really hard to unturn every stone to get those parents the answers that they deserve, whether it’s a police officer, whether it’s a medical professional, whoever,” she said. “

We should be getting those parents the answers they deserve. To turn over every single rock—but not to leave this one turned over—I start asking a lot of questions why. Why wouldn’t we turn that rock over and give those parents that answer and be able to check that box without clear thought or without a doubt that no, your baby did not die from that vaccine? Or, maybe, start looking and creating statistics here in Iowa that might show it is.

Shanda Burke, a concerned citizen and certified medical assistant said, “If you want people and patients and parents to be sure of their choices, have the study. Show the information. This is gathering information. I don’t see why that would lead to vaccination hesitancy. We shouldn’t be placing vaccination rate above a good policy. This is a good policy to gather information to determine whether or not there is a correlation, and if there is not, we’ll accept that.  If there is, we need to figure out what to do.”

Katie Adrian of Informed Choice Iowa stated:

No one is saying we shouldn’t be vaccinating, no one is trying to encourage people not to vaccinate. If you want to stick with the safe and effective mantra, great, let’s do it, but this would solidify that claim. So I’m not sure why this data is being questioned. We should welcome it with open arms. I don’t see parents hesitant to give Tylenol, because that’s also being collected.

Sen. Jim Carlin, who chaired the committee, ended by asking, “So here’s my question. Where’s the downside to looking at 30 or 40 cases a year, just to supplement the research, to give more context to the research. It doesn’t seem like a big burden.”

Resistance Confusing Since Data Could Answer Questions

When asked about the pushback from the public health and medical establishment, Sen. Guth commented that he was not surprised.

It is well known that they support vaccination without any reservations whatsoever. The idea that they would resist collecting data in such a painless way is a bit stunning. It is not rational. Is it so important to not do anything to cause any possible hesitation about vaccines that we refuse to collect objective data? That is ridiculous! The only way to get rid of hesitancy is to have good solid data to support the safety of vaccines. The collecting of data at the death of an infant could provide some of that information. If it does show a link between infant death and vaccines, isn’t it our responsibility to use that information to track down the reason and make some changes in timing or contents of the vaccine? The medical field needs to rely on real science, not emotion.4

At the full meeting of the Iowa Senate’s Human Resources Committee meeting, Sen. Carlin supported that viewpoint. “It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that we should try to get good information, good data on this topic,” he said.

CDC Collects Information on Infants Who Die

The CDC collects data on sudden unexplained infant deaths (SUID) using The Sudden Unexplained Infant Death Investigation (SUIDI) Reporting Form.  This form requests information on any vaccination or medication given to infants 72 hours prior to their death,5 and “produces information that researchers can use to recognize new threats and risk factors for sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”

SIDS Becomes New Diagnosis in 1973

“Crib death” was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics until 1969, when medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).6 In 1973 the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category for SIDS to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), which is used to code and classify morbidity data.  By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of post neonatal mortality in the United States.7

The three commonly reported types of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) include sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), unknown cause, and accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed (ASSB).In 2017, the CDC reported 3,600 sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUID) in the United States, with about 1,400 deaths due to SIDS, about 1,300 deaths due to unknown causes, and about 900 deaths due to accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed.8

According to the CDC, SUID is still the leading cause of death for babies one month to one year of age, and while it occurs in all socio-economic, racial and ethnic groups, American Indian/Alaska Native and non-Hispanic black infants have a SUID death rate more than two to three times that of Caucasian infants. Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander infants had the lowest rates of SUID.9

Most SIDS deaths occur when a baby is between two and four months old, and 90 percent of all SIDS deaths occur before six months of age.  Most babies that die of SIDS appear to be healthy prior to death.10

Other risk factors for SUID include maternal smoking during pregnancy, second-hand smoke exposure, prematurity, bed-sharing, overheating, stomach sleeping, soft sleep surfaces and loose bedding, and faulty design of cribs or beds.11

Deaths Reclassified But Infant Mortality Rates Remain Unchanged

To address the unacceptable SIDS rate, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued safe sleep recommendations in 1992 and initiated a “Back to Sleep” campaign to convince parents to place infants on their backs during sleep in 1994, and the CDC released their Sudden Unexplained Infant Death Investigation Reporting Form in 1996. According to the CDC, rates of SUID declined considerably beginning in 1990, but the declines have slowed since 1999.12

In recent years, the CDC reports that sudden unexpected infant deaths are being classified less often as SIDS, and more often as accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed, or unknown cause. Other researchers13 14 15 16 noticed the same thing—as SIDS rates decreased, deaths attributed to asphyxia or non-SIDS causes of unexpected infant death increased, suggesting that a change in classification, rather than a decrease in incidence, may be occurring.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Case Finds Causal Relationship Between SUID and Vaccination But is Overturned

The CDC states that the timing of the two month and four month shots and SIDS has led some people to question whether they might be related. However, federal health officials state that there is no relationship between vaccination and the sudden unexpected infant death of previously healthy babies after vaccination. The CDC further argues that, because the rate of SIDS declined dramatically following the 1994 Back to Sleep program and stabilized in the 2000s at a time when the number of recommended infant vaccinations was increasing, vaccines are not linked to SIDS.17

A 2014 study18 examining the causal relationship between hexavalent vaccination and sudden infant death concluded that there was sufficient evidence to warrant post-mortem examination by an expert pathologist to evaluate the possible causative role of vaccines in SIDS.

In July 2017 the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, known as the vaccine court, ruled in favor of the petitioner in Boatman & Cupid vs. Secretary of Health and Human Services that vaccination caused a child to die from SIDS.  Testimony from neuropathologist Douglas Miller MD, an expert on cytokines, and Harvard neuropathologist Hannah C. Kinney, MD and her colleagues, was instrumental in the decision.

The role of pro-inflammatory cytokines in tipping the molecular balance in the underdeveloped brainstem is thought by multiple experts to be a potentially critical factor in the pathology of SIDS. In his official conclusion in Boatman & Cupid vs Secretary of Health and Human Services, special master Thomas Gowen stated:

In this case, I have concluded, after review of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the vaccines played a substantial causal role in the death of J.B. (child of Boatman and Cupid) without the effect of which he would not have died.  The role of inflammatory cytokines as neuro-modulators in the infant medulla has been well described and is likely the reason for a significant number of SIDS deaths occurring in conjunction with mild infection.  I have concluded that it is more likely than not that the vaccine-stimulated cytokines had the same effect in this vulnerable infant during sleep.19

The decision was appealed and in 2018 the Court of Federal Claims overturned the decision because it ignored previous decisions and applied too low a standard of proof. That decision was further confirmed by a three-judge panel in November, 2019.20 Judge Newman, writing in dissent of that ruling argues,

The panel majority, adopting the government’s argument, holds that Vaccine Act compensation does not apply because J.B.’s death was not shown to have resulted from the immunizations. The majority states that the cause of death was not the vaccine, but was SIDS. The majority states that “because the Petitioners failed to present a sound and reliable theory of how vaccinations can cause SIDS, they have also failed to show that vaccinations caused or contributed to J.B.’s death from SIDS. However, SIDS is not a cause of death, SIDS is an admission that the cause of death is unknown. The close proximity between vaccine administration to a healthy baby, and fever and death soon thereafter, presents a sufficient relationship among these events to produce a reasonable—likelihood, a prima facie case that the vaccine caused or contributed to the injury.

More Vaccinations Not Related to Lower Infant Mortality Rate in U.S.

Noting that the infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country, a 2011 study by Neil Miller and Gary Goldman, PhD21 found that the U.S. childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than one year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates.  Using linear regression, Miller and Goldman examined the immunization schedules of these 34 nations and found a correlation between infant mortality and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants.

These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates. The authors concluded that finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority, and that a closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and infant mortality was needed.

Cardiac, Neurological and Respiratory Disorders Raise Questions About Role of Vaccines

Other childhood vaccines currently on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) schedule of recommended vaccines list respiratory disorders such as apnea and bronchospasm, cardiac disorders such as tachycardia and cyanosis, and nervous system disorders such as syncope and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes (HHE) in adverse events and postmarketing reports.22 23 24 25 26 The Rotateq vaccine lists “death” as an adverse event.27


References:

1 Hall J. Bill requiring last immunization prior to death on death certificate of Iowa infants moves through committee on party-line vote The Iowa Standard Feb. 19, 2020.
2 Bill would require certificate of death form to include request for information regarding decedent’s last immunization, passes subcommittee The Iowa Standard, Feb. 18, 2020.
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services When doses the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials? July 26, 2013.
4 Personal correspondence between Barbara Cáceres and Sen. Dennis Guth on Feb. 24, 2020.
5
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SUIDI Reporting Form Feb. 13, 2018.
6 Miller, NZ, Goldman GS. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given:  Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Human and Experimental Toxicology May 4, 2011; 3(9): 1420-1428.
7 Malloy MH, MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths:  United States, 1992-2001.  Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1247-1253.
8 CDC. Sudden Unexpected Infant Death and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Data and Statistics Sept. 13, 2019.
9 CDC. Sudden Unexpected Infant Death and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Data and Statistics Sept. 13, 2019.
10 First Candle. Facts on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)/Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID).
11 The National Center for Fatality Review and Prevention. SIDS/SUID Fact Sheet.
12 CDC. Sudden Unexpected Infant Death and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Data and Statistics. Sept. 13, 2019.
13 Malloy MH, MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths:  United States, 1992-2001. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1247-1253.
14 Mitchell E, Krous HF, et.al. Changing trends in the diagnosis of sudden infant death. American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology 2000; 21: 311-314.
15 Overpeck MD, Brenner RA, et.al. National under ascertainment of sudden unexpected infant deaths associated with deaths of unknown cause. Pediatrics 2002; 109: 274-283.
16 Byard, R.W., Beal, S.M,, Has changing diagnostic preference been responsible for the recent fall in incidence of sudden infant death syndrome in South Australia? Journal of Pediatric Child Health 1995; 31: 197-199.
17 CDC. Vaccine Safety: Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Oct. 16, 2018.
18 Matturri L, Corno GD, Lavezzi AM. Sudden Infant Death Following Hexavalent Vacciantion:  A Neuropathologic Study Current Medicinal Chemistry 2014; 21(7): 941-946.
19 Jaxen, J. New Decision in US Vaccine Court SIDS Case Is Significant GreenMedinfo Aug. 21, 2017.
20 U.S. Court of Appeals CHASE BOATMON, MAURINA CUPID, PARENTS OF J.B., DECEASED, Petitioners-Appellants v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee, Nov. 7, 2019.
21 Miller NZ, Goldman GS. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given:  Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Human and Experimental Toxicology May 4, 2011; 3(9): 1420-1428.
22 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers Insert for Engerix-B (Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant) injectable suspension, for intramuscular use) 1989.
23 FDA. Manufacturers Insert for Quadracel (Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Adsorbed and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine) Suspension for Intramuscular Injection. 2015.
24 FDA. Manufacturers Insert for PREVNAR 13 (Pneumococcal 13-valent Conjugate Vaccine [Diphtheria CRM197 Protein]) Suspension for intramuscular injection. 2010.
25 FDA. Manufacturers Insert for Pentacel (Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Adsorbed, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus b Conjugate (Tetanus Toxoid Conjugate) Vaccine Suspension for Intramuscular Injection. 2008.
26 FDA. Manurfacturers Insert for INFANRIX (Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed) Suspension for Intramuscular Injection. 1997.
27 FDA. Manufacturers Insert for RotaTeq (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral, Pentavalent) Oral Solution. 2006.

20 Responses to "Iowa Bill Requires Infant Death Certificates to Include Vaccine Information"

  1. Cher   March 7, 2020 at 10:42 am

    A very simple way to see if vaccines contribute to infant mortality before 6 mos is to wait until 6 mos to begin vaccine administration – right?
    Not sure why anyone would not want this data collected in Iowa unless they are afraid of the results.

    Reply
  2. Camielle   March 7, 2020 at 11:06 am

    I pray the Good Lord comes back really soon. We live under communism, no freedoms anymore. I am 80 and I’ve watched our country go down the tube since around 2000. They take away one freedom after another. Now you go to jail if you refuse to vaccinate your babies. God Help Us!

    Reply
  3. Tim   March 7, 2020 at 11:15 am

    This is a good step to determine the relationship between SIDS and vaccines. Clearly there is a relationship – and that relationship should be public knowledge.

    Reply
  4. Melinda Gladstone   March 7, 2020 at 11:30 am

    Those at the CDC, ACIP, FDA, Big Pharma, doctors, scientists, CEO’s and political leaders KNOW that all these vaccines are indeed contributing to infant mortality. May those who know and say nothing because they are chicken or consumed by money, status, or population control best get on their knees. Your time is running out.

    Reply
  5. Mary   March 7, 2020 at 11:35 am

    Everything including vaccines should of course be included and studied with all deaths but especially the death of an infant!

    Reply
  6. Joy Metcalf   March 7, 2020 at 1:14 pm

    “The majority states that the cause of death was not the vaccine, but was SIDS.”
    So, the cause of death was not the cause of death but the symptom itself. Does this sound like Newspeak?

    Reply
  7. Louise Gallagher   March 7, 2020 at 2:27 pm

    I have no doubt that the powers that be do not want infant death info to include vaccine information because they know the damn vaccines can be harmful and even deadly. If too many children die from the same suspected cause it will throw up a red flag. A red flag means more questions and investigations which can and will lead back to the vaccines. I can assure you that is NOT what they want. It is a matter of control and money at the expense of the children. As it has been said before many times and many ways, (take down the children and take down a nation).

    Reply
  8. Hollie   March 7, 2020 at 3:10 pm

    Glad to hear it, I vote to pass it

    Reply
  9. DAVID   March 7, 2020 at 3:19 pm

    in 1971 my daughter approximately 3 months old received her DPT shot. three hours later she died. the hospital said she died of SIDS. SIDS = I DONT KNOW

    Reply
  10. Mary S Sleger   March 7, 2020 at 6:06 pm

    Do Democrat lawmakers overwhelmingly support pro vaccination legislation over Republican lawmakers? Doesn’t Big Pharma donate to both parties? I wonder why the difference in support for this bill.

    Reply
  11. Brian James   March 7, 2020 at 6:51 pm

    This is for everybody here and now.

    Aug 21, 2018 Death by vaccinations from the CDC

    How to get the information from the CDC about vaccines and damage done

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUogHxlVGOM

    Reply
  12. BETTY GORDON   March 7, 2020 at 8:20 pm

    Nov. 1964, my late husband, Jack Gordon and wife, Sharon, HEALTHY daughter, Kimberly, age 3, died 3 days after getting her small pox shot.

    My husband said they never received a death certificate!

    He also said he talked to the dr. after her death about this. Dr. said they would NEVER show on a death certificate it “was a small pox shot she died from”!

    Betty Gordon, Ames, Iowa

    Reply
  13. Natalie   March 8, 2020 at 12:19 am

    Opposing this bill indicates concern for the vaccine program regardless of whether it’s killing babies. A great example of why trust in the program, and the people pushing it, is waning rapidly.

    Reply
  14. Jam   March 8, 2020 at 2:15 am

    If you get a vaccine isnt your child “protected”? I guess not huh?

    I have a cousin who fell behind in vaccines to perfectly healthy 3 year old at the time. After catching up to speed on the vaccines her child now suffers autism. My cousin was a firm believer in vaccines before she witnessed her healthy son get autism. No one will ever be able to convince her it wasnt the vaccines.

    This is a sad reality in our world today. Big Pharma is protected from the courts and sleazy swamp creatures that take bribes I mean donations. Freedom means being able to control what goes into your body.

    Reply
  15. Anna Riordan   March 8, 2020 at 11:57 am

    It’s unconscionable that Public Health officials, AAP and other health orgs are expressing doubts/concerns about this legislation. Families should be given assurance that every stone has been unturned in the investigation of the death of their perfectly healthy infant. In my eyes, this makes them look guilty.

    Reply
  16. Daniel Brett   March 8, 2020 at 8:49 pm

    It has been written, “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

    Reply
  17. Michele Lyon-Brown   March 9, 2020 at 4:09 pm

    This is common sense and a necessAry developement towards compiling factual information to be evaluated on so many terms. Manner of death, history coalated to follow whatever direction emerges as to causative effects in vaccines or underlying diseasze or congenital conditions incompatible with them?

    Reply
  18. Jan B.   March 9, 2020 at 5:57 pm

    A few years ago, I started checking into vaccines and found a fact that stunned me: human infants are incapable of developing antibodies for the first year of life. Apparently, nature intended babies to be protected by receiving naturally acquired immunity from their mothers–first via the birth canal, then via breast milk. Why inject known neurotoxins and viruses into anyone under the age of 1 anyway? Forget about all the other arguments. Vaccine theory itself contraindicates such an assinine maneuver.

    Reply
  19. Svetlana   March 9, 2020 at 9:26 pm

    I had to make a hard decision whether to vaccinate my 1.5 month old daughter next month! I wish there were more scientific resources that I could share with my pediatrician to make an argument of vaccine safety.

    Reply
  20. Jessica A Isles   March 11, 2020 at 12:47 pm

    Use of formula, rather than breastmilk, is associated with a 50% increase in SIDS. Co-sleeping with a breastfed child, otherwise known as breastsleeping, is not associated with any increased risk – quite the opposite – there is a decreased risk. The American Academy of Pediatrics accepts apprx $3m dollars a year from formula milk companies and this does not include how much is donated to the individual state chapters nor does it include conference sponsorship etc.
    This is why the AAP doesnt come out and say that formula increases a baby’s risk of SIDS – they say that breastfeeding reduces it…that’s not the same at all.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.