R.I.P. American children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All because of… what? There’s no evidence these vaccines hurt anyone. The entire ACIP meeting was just a bunch of lunatics screaming “WE DON’T KNOW” as justification for changing the recommendation.

“Maybe seatbelts cause leukemia. No one has studied it, so we don’t know!!!! We must stop requiring seatbelts!” That’s how ridiculous these people sound.

Show the data on virus transmission rate among newborns with a "clean" mother. Your "it doesn't cause harm" argument is a slippery slope. Maybe it doesn't. But this argument is never valid.

Also, there is a financial cost and someone's making a boatload of money.

The "it's good for public health" argument is also specious. Ban alcohol (or at the least, advertising) to save livers then. It'd do way more good than a forced vaccine at birth, which can be given at a later date.

It was never “a forced vaccine at birth.” It was a recommendation, everyone has always had a choice. By taking back the recommendation, Kennedy has handed a win to insurance companies who will no longer pay for it.

You dumbos can’t see that everything these clowns are doing benefits big businesses and not the people. You should direct your efforts to investigating the finances of the clowns on this panel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need for a Hep B vax for newborns unless the mother is positive. None at all.

Another stupid American.

The abundance is shocking.

In Canada, it's given at 12 or 13 years old.

No, in most cases it’s given to infants.

Also—don’t you MAGAs view Canada as unworthy of being a country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like no more Hep B vax for newborns. RFK MAHA by bringing back liver cancers for young adults. 😬

Hopefully the rest of the world quarantines Americans and refuses to let their potential disease carrying behinds in.

So amazing how Jenny McCarthy and a bunch of Mommy bloggers get to bring back polio, measles, and hep B again.

How does the AMA sit there and allow this insanity to continue when they supposedly took a Hippocratic Oath. Why are doctors so quiet while watching the 1890s come roaring back?

Can parents still decide to vaccinate at birth?

And will insurance still cover it?

you can private pay if it's so important to you.

How about you idiot MAGas put your money where your mouth is and keep government out of interfering with our personal lives. Y’all couldn’t stop screeching about having to wear masks.

Why do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is MAGA? Delaying is not denying. Arbitrarily forcing medical decisions sometimes and "choicing" others for no logical reason except for personal politics is stupid. Outside of the delivery room, our kids interacted with maybe 6-8 other people outside the immediately family (i.e., grandparents, pediatrician, nurse) during the first 3 months of life. And we're not high income either. These types of policies are unnecessarily intrusive and this big brothering is more and more following kids in schools and society until adulthood.

So fragile that a vaccine recommendation is intrusive.

Why do people think you’re MAGA? Because you’re demonstrating ignorance and fragility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a delicate discussion that deserves a much greater degree of sensitivity than people give it credit for.

There are good reasons for giving the hep B vaccine at birth: hepatitis B can readily be passed from mother to child; the vaccine can likely prevent the overwhelming majority of occasions where a child catches hep B from his or her mother; chronic hep B infections can lead to liver cirrhosis or cancer.

There are also good reasons for not mandating the hep B vaccine at birth across the board: mothers are screened for hep B; some portion of children will have serious side effects from the vaccine; it is widely regarded as medically unethical to administer a medical intervention that is unnecessary, not least because it is a fact of life that most medical interventions have a financial upside to someone somewhere.

The choice ultimately comes down to a subjective value judgment: is it the value of inoculating children whose mothers are hep B positive but received a false negative on the screener greater than the cost of known and unknown vaccine side effects?

What complicates this issue is the asymmetry in harms: if “don’t mandate it” crowd is wrong, you know exactly what harm results—a baby gets hep B. If, however, the “let’s mandate it” crowd is wrong, and some appreciable degree of harm results to some meaningful number of babies from the shot, it’d be really hard to know; you just can’t run a years-long double-blind placebo-controlled study to see how health outcomes differ between people vaccinated at birth against hep B and those who were not. So, if the “let’s mandate it” crowd is wrong, we probably wouldn’t notice it.

On balance, I’m comfortable with the decision not to mandate it. If you’re in a stable, loving marriage with no history of hep B risk factors and if you test negative on the hep B screener, there’s probably a good chance that you’d pass the option up if you weren’t so distracted watching the miracle of life. But I understand why people see it differently.

For those of you whose passions run hot on this issue, I’d urge compassion and kindness.

Your whole argument is a pile of garbage because it was never mandated at birth. It was recommended. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need for a Hep B vax for newborns unless the mother is positive. None at all.

Another stupid American.

The abundance is shocking.

In Canada, it's given at 12 or 13 years old.

No, in most cases it’s given to infants.

Also—don’t you MAGAs view Canada as unworthy of being a country?

It's not given at birth in Canada unless the mother is high risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no need for a Hep B vax for newborns unless the mother is positive. None at all.

+100

A lot of scandanavian countries only vaccinate infants with Hep B based on risk categories.

Because the rate of Hep B is much lower in their general populations.

Google hep B demographics.

[Anonymous]

Eight pages and no one has said how the vaccine is harmful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages and no one has said how the vaccine is harmful.

This. We had a safe successful program and changed it for no reason. If there was data showing rhe birth dose was harmful, that would be one thing, but there is not. There is various modeling data that shows delaying the dose will result in a small increase in cases due to prenatal screening being imperfect as well as horizontal transmission because there is plenty of data showing Hep B DOES transmit to children despite them not having sex or doing drugs - in the 90s, this was around half of all transmissions to childrn.

Also it was not forced. What do you think, the nurse says "it's time for the Hep B vaccine" and the parent says no, so the nurse does a running jump, dodges the parent, jabs the baby?

Again, if there was actual harm, of course we reconsider the current practice and change the program! But there is NOT. Only nonsensical paranoia which will fuel more vaccine hesitancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now seven pages in, and not one person has explained how giving the vaccine at birth is harmful.

TBH, other than the high-risk newborns, no one is explaining how it is helpful.

FWIW, under this new recommendation, the opinion of my doctor would have determined whether or not I approved the vaccine for my son (now 5) on the day he was born versus 60 days later.

It is helpful because

1.Prenatal screening does not catch all cases and the birth dose helps reduce transmission during childhood. Hep B acquired in the first year of life us more likely to lead to serious liver disease, so administering at birth addresses rare lab errors, women who are infected after screening.

2. It is highly contagious so even though it is a blood borne pathogen, babies can and do still get it through exposures to microscopic amounts of blood, for which Hep B can live on surfaces for 7 days. Exposure from others was the 2nd most common way children acquired Hep B in the 90s.

3. Follow up at 2 months will be imperfect. Women definitely show up to give birth, but not necessarily the postpartum visits for the child. The longer the infant goes without the vaccine, they are susceptible per 2. So we will see a further increase in cases this way.

4. The cost of treating chronic liver disease is very high as well as devastating to the child. Just a slight increase in cases will result in millions of dollars in healthcare costs. In a way, every little bit of vaccine hesitancy drives up costs for all of us because it results in more very high cost treatment for severe disease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages and no one has said how the vaccine is harmful.

There are approximately 5 million births each year in the Unites States. Before 1991, when the U.S. started universal newborn vaccination, thousands of babies (around 18,000-20,000 annually) contracted hepatitis B, with roughly half infected at birth from their mothers.

That means less than 0.3% of those born had Hep B and less than 0.1% didnt get it from their mother. About rhe same infection rate of deaths from covid. See a trend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now seven pages in, and not one person has explained how giving the vaccine at birth is harmful.

TBH, other than the high-risk newborns, no one is explaining how it is helpful.

FWIW, under this new recommendation, the opinion of my doctor would have determined whether or not I approved the vaccine for my son (now 5) on the day he was born versus 60 days later.

It is helpful because

1.Prenatal screening does not catch all cases and the birth dose helps reduce transmission during childhood. Hep B acquired in the first year of life us more likely to lead to serious liver disease, so administering at birth addresses rare lab errors, women who are infected after screening.

2. It is highly contagious so even though it is a blood borne pathogen, babies can and do still get it through exposures to microscopic amounts of blood, for which Hep B can live on surfaces for 7 days. Exposure from others was the 2nd most common way children acquired Hep B in the 90s.

3. Follow up at 2 months will be imperfect. Women definitely show up to give birth, but not necessarily the postpartum visits for the child. The longer the infant goes without the vaccine, they are susceptible per 2. So we will see a further increase in cases this way.

4. The cost of treating chronic liver disease is very high as well as devastating to the child. Just a slight increase in cases will result in millions of dollars in healthcare costs. In a way, every little bit of vaccine hesitancy drives up costs for all of us because it results in more very high cost treatment for severe disease.

DP to add, for point 1 above, false negative rate for Hep B testing can be as high as 6% depending on the test

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages and no one has said how the vaccine is harmful.

There are approximately 5 million births each year in the Unites States. Before 1991, when the U.S. started universal newborn vaccination, thousands of babies (around 18,000-20,000 annually) contracted hepatitis B, with roughly half infected at birth from their mothers.

That means less than 0.3% of those born had Hep B and less than 0.1% didnt get it from their mother. About rhe same infection rate of deaths from covid. See a trend?

Your response did not address their question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages and no one has said how the vaccine is harmful.

There are approximately 5 million births each year in the Unites States. Before 1991, when the U.S. started universal newborn vaccination, thousands of babies (around 18,000-20,000 annually) contracted hepatitis B, with roughly half infected at birth from their mothers.

That means less than 0.3% of those born had Hep B and less than 0.1% didnt get it from their mother. About rhe same infection rate of deaths from covid. See a trend?

For those who get it, it is a devastating, easily and cheaply preventable disease (my sister died of Hep C in adulthood so I can tell you how devastating liver disease can be in far too much detail).

The small amount of cases dramatically also increases healthcare costs by millions for just, say 30 cases.

There was no rationale to change our very successful - and safe - practice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages and no one has said how the vaccine is harmful.

This. We had a safe successful program and changed it for no reason. If there was data showing rhe birth dose was harmful, that would be one thing, but there is not. There is various modeling data that shows delaying the dose will result in a small increase in cases due to prenatal screening being imperfect as well as horizontal transmission because there is plenty of data showing Hep B DOES transmit to children despite them not having sex or doing drugs - in the 90s, this was around half of all transmissions to childrn.

Also it was not forced. What do you think, the nurse says "it's time for the Hep B vaccine" and the parent says no, so the nurse does a running jump, dodges the parent, jabs the baby?

Again, if there was actual harm, of course we reconsider the current practice and change the program! But there is NOT. Only nonsensical paranoia which will fuel more vaccine hesitancy.

Actually yes. Many people have been forced, coerced, or outright lied to that it's legally required, including for our first. Also some pediatricians won't allow for staggered vaccines and will actually kick you from their practice. Please stop with the disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eight pages and no one has said how the vaccine is harmful.

This. We had a safe successful program and changed it for no reason. If there was data showing rhe birth dose was harmful, that would be one thing, but there is not. There is various modeling data that shows delaying the dose will result in a small increase in cases due to prenatal screening being imperfect as well as horizontal transmission because there is plenty of data showing Hep B DOES transmit to children despite them not having sex or doing drugs - in the 90s, this was around half of all transmissions to childrn.

Also it was not forced. What do you think, the nurse says "it's time for the Hep B vaccine" and the parent says no, so the nurse does a running jump, dodges the parent, jabs the baby?

Again, if there was actual harm, of course we reconsider the current practice and change the program! But there is NOT. Only nonsensical paranoia which will fuel more vaccine hesitancy.

Actually yes. Many people have been forced, coerced, or outright lied to that it's legally required, including for our first. Also some pediatricians won't allow for staggered vaccines and will actually kick you from their practice. Please stop with the disinformation.

It is legally required for schools, yes. As it should be! Also pediatricians are free to run their practices as they choose. Their business, their choice.

But no, nobody is literally forcibly pushing a needle into a child against your will.