R.I.P. American children
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
NP. Again, universal healthcare. |
Anonymous
So pay mothers to stay home for a year and reduce the daycare exposure route? Also read up on how isolated they live — most single people in the world. The exposure vectors are very different |
Anonymous
No, not that PP. Who are the high risk people? |
Anonymous
Everyone essentially as prior to the birth dose, half the cases came from birth, but the other half came from the environment. Even though Hep B is a blood borne pathogen, up to half of children who tested positive were getting infected after birth. That is why we changed from a risk based approach in the US, the risk based approach failed here. Any many countries also do a birth dose. |
Anonymous
Also why do we need to be like Scandinavia which has different rates and healthcare? Plenty of other countries (eg Australia) do a birth dose. And finally, yet again, there is no data showing the birth dose is harmful. In the absence of data showing harm coupled with small risk of harm plus cost increase with waiting, there was no reason to change the recommendation. |
Anonymous
I am offering the following response not because I want to debate you, much less play the “anti-vax” foil, but because there is a real policy choice here that deserves respect and seriousness. In medicine, the default assumption is that something is *not* safe, and the onus is on the proponents to show that it is. Nothing will be perfectly safe, so the question is whether it is adequately safe for the benefits it provides. In the case of the hep B vaccine, our public health officials have concluded that it is safe enough to warrant approval in view of our benefits. They have also taken it a step further and chosen to “recommend” it in a way that makes it effectively mandatory. The question here is not whether it is so harmful as to warrant being taken off the market—no one is suggesting that—it is simply whether we’ve really struck the right balance given its risks and benefits when we’ve slated it for presumptive administration to all newborns without regard to risk factors. It’s not hard to see why many parents would conclude that we’ve take it a bit far. To suggest that that view is wrong unless the parents can “explain[]” the “harm[]” is not a serious position and is broadly out of step with the approach followed elsewhere in medicine. And at the risk of invoking another cultural shibboleth, I’d be hard-pressed to think many on this message board are well-suited to explain the “harm[s]” of ivermectin, and I doubt you’d suggest that fact somehow justifies the government recommending it. |
Anonymous
|
In 1999 the NIH published a paper on newborn deaths after the Hep‑B shot. Eighteen babies died, most labeled “SIDS”, within days of vaccination. The authors admitted their data were too weak to rule out cause.
And with a single sentence, “limitations of passive surveillance”, they closed the book. No follow up, no investigation, no reform.. until NOW. Just the usual data magic trick turned dead infants into statistics, then called it safe. Eighty six million doses later, the program rolled on. Doctors reassured panicked parents that the science was “settled.” Media never asked a single serious question. Now, decades later, the CDC finally walks back the blanket newborn Hep‑B recommendation, and we’re supposed to pretend they learned this yesterday? They buried the warning twenty five years ago along with all the dead children. And right now they’re doing the same thing with the next generation of shots. Sadly eighteen dead babies were the footnote. The rest became the business model. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10591306/ |
Anonymous
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2842435 explains the reason for universal vaccination at birth clearly. At one time hep B vaccine was given to newborns of mothers who tested positive for hep B, since the earlier one contracts the disease, the more likely one is to develop chronic infection--which can spread to others through ongoing contact within the household (think of raising a child and the exposures to bodily fluids and potentially contaminated surfaces starting when the child is an infant). It turned out they missed a significant number of cases since chronic hep B is not symptomatic and testing did not identify all women who carried the virus. |
Anonymous
Oh my word, the stupidity of this post. Read the article you cited. ". The causes of death for the 17 autopsied cases were sudden infant death syndrome for 12, infection for 3, and 1 case each of intracerebral hemorrhage, accidental suffocation, and congenital heart disease. Conclusion: Few neonatal deaths following HepB vaccination have been reported, despite the use of at least 86 million doses of pediatric vaccine given in the United States since 1991. While the limitations of passive surveillance systems do not permit definitive inference, these data suggest that HepB immunization is not causing a clear increase in neonatal deaths" This is why we do not jump to conclusions based on VAERS reporting. |
Anonymous
That 1999 paper does not say what you think it does. Since the 1991 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendation of universal HepB immunization of infants, no evidence of either an increased trend in the overall number of neonatal deaths16 or in neonatal deaths after HepB vaccination reported to VAERS was found. From 1985 (before universal HepB immunization of infants) to 1996, the total number of neonatal deaths in the United States decreased from 7.0 to 4.8 deaths per 1000 live births.16 During the years 1992 to 1996, the number of SIDS cases (the predominant cause of infant deaths) reported to VAERS decreased by nearly 50% (US Food and Drug Administration, unpublished data, 1998). The deaths you cite (some of which were found to be from SIDS, others from infection, injury, brain hemorrhage, and other causes) are definitely less that the number of deaths that would result from chronic hep B infection without universal hep B vaccination for neonates: Restricting the birth dose only to infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers would raise perinatal HBV cases to 1101—an additional 63%, or a 76% increase from current (Figure, red box). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2842435 |
Anonymous
| Congratulations, US public health establishment! You have brought this upon yourselves by plopping annual covid shots into the CDC childhood schedule on the basis of no clinical data. Millions of Americans are now skeptical of the entire process, so each shot is now going to be reexamined. Instead of reciting propaganda, blaming scapegoats, and yelling about anti-Science, you should be preparing to defend the entire schedule not only in terms of public health effect but risks and benefits to individual vaccinees. This should be educational for the public (and physicians) and will hopefully get us to a better place at the end. |
Anonymous
Oh shut up you antivax dummy Seriously I hope every child that becomes ill or dies haunts you forever |
Anonymous
|
Mere weeks away from Jan 1, and the GOP still doesn't have a plan for A) lapsing ACA subsidies, and B) health care in general.
They've had 6 months to figure out the former (inc. a 2 month House vacation) They've had 15 years to figure out the latter. RFK jr is a quack and Bill Cassidy should go to hell for his vote. |
Anonymous
Imagine writing this and thinking you’re the good guy. I hope you find peace and don’t poison our discourse too much in the interim. |
Anonymous
You are wrong. It's not given at birth in Canada. I'm canadian |