R.I.P. American children

[Anonymous]

They keep saying that the Hep B universal birth dose decreased the incidence of Hep B by 99%

But the CDC data presented at the ACIP meeting this week tell a different story:

Universal birth dose started in 1991 & mandated in 2005.

Decrease observed mostly in 20+, started prior to 1991 and plateaued by 2005.

The babies born after 1991 were only 15 by 2005.

Other interventions which targeted the high risk populations are responsible for the observed decrease! Risk based policies actually work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t know if you have kids or have asked to see the package insert for the hep B shot at birth, but there is little practical difference between the two. Only a very motivated parent with formed views on the issue will do anything other than uncritically accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Oh shut up you antivax dummy

Seriously I hope every child that becomes ill or dies haunts you forever

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.

Imagine being proud of denying vaccines to kids and being comfortable with the fact that some of them will die as a result. You are a ghoul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are wrong. It's not given at birth in Canada.
I'm canadian

It depends on the province, but there is a push to move to vaccinate earlier due to kids getting infections before they are vaccinated.

https://academic.oup.com/pch/article-abstract/30/5/359/8128518

[Anonymous]

About time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About time

"Science based" is laughable as there was no evidence to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Oh shut up you antivax dummy

Seriously I hope every child that becomes ill or dies haunts you forever

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.

Imagine being proud of denying vaccines to kids and being comfortable with the fact that some of them will die as a result. You are a ghoul.

+1

The "it will only affect 1 percent of kids so this is fine" nutjobs. The same ones who only offer thoughts and prayers when kids are gunned down in schools.

[Anonymous]

After listening to the hearing on removing the Hep B vaccine from the newborn schedule, the single most shocking moment presenters cited in studies showed that every SIDS death occurred in infants who received the Hep B shot at birth.

There were Zero SIDS deaths in the unvaccinated healthy infants.

How much more evidence do we need to put an end to these vaccines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. We had a risk based approach to Hep B vaccination and it failed so we are returning to a failed approach

2. For anyone who says it is unnecessary to vaccinate babies because they don't have sex or do drugs, the 2nd most common way children are infected (after maternal transmission) is through household contacts or even potentially daycare contacts. That is because...

3.Even though Hep B is a blood borne pathogen, ila tiny amount of it is highly virulent and stable on dry surfaces for at least a week. As an example of this, dialysis facilities have additional protocols for Hepatitis B patients to prevent outbreaks that are not used for HIV patients or Hepatitis C patients. Anyone Hep B positive must he dialyzed in a separate room, with a separate dedicated machine and supplies, only used for Hepatitis B patients.

Children WILL die because of this roll back to a policy that was already known to fail.



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.

8 pages and nobody can tell me why my kids need it at birth or most people on this forum need it. We do not use drugs or share needles or have tattoos or live with formerly institutionalized individuals nor are healthcare workers.

The Hep B foundation lists the high risk groups:
-Health care providers and emergency responders
-Sexually active individuals (more than 1 partner in the past six months)
-Men who have sex with men
Individuals diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease
-Illicit drug users (injecting, inhaling, snorting, pill popping)
-Sexual partners or those living in close household contact with an infected person
Individuals born in countries where hepatitis B is common (Asia, Africa, South America, Pacific Islands, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East)
-Individuals born to parents who have emigrated from countries where hepatitis B is common (see #7)
-Children adopted from countries where hepatitis B is common (see #7)

Nothing else applies to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Oh shut up you antivax dummy

Seriously I hope every child that becomes ill or dies haunts you forever

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.

Imagine being proud of denying vaccines to kids and being comfortable with the fact that some of them will die as a result. You are a ghoul.

+1

The "it will only affect 1 percent of kids so this is fine" nutjobs. The same ones who only offer thoughts and prayers when kids are gunned down in schools.

[/b]People die. Kids die. It’s part of life.[b]

This is about taking our freedoms back from a corrupted, tyrannical state that has strayed so far from our founder’s vision they would not even recognize the corpse.

Wow. The thing with vaccination is you put others at risk who would choose vaccination bit have kids too young, etc. Freedom has always been limited by potential harm to others, particularly children.

You mean like when we could have lost the war against Britain if GW didn't implement a smallpox vaccine mandate for our military? How tyrannical of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. We had a risk based approach to Hep B vaccination and it failed so we are returning to a failed approach

2. For anyone who says it is unnecessary to vaccinate babies because they don't have sex or do drugs, the 2nd most common way children are infected (after maternal transmission) is through household contacts or even potentially daycare contacts. That is because...

3.Even though Hep B is a blood borne pathogen, ila tiny amount of it is highly virulent and stable on dry surfaces for at least a week. As an example of this, dialysis facilities have additional protocols for Hepatitis B patients to prevent outbreaks that are not used for HIV patients or Hepatitis C patients. Anyone Hep B positive must he dialyzed in a separate room, with a separate dedicated machine and supplies, only used for Hepatitis B patients.

Children WILL die because of this roll back to a policy that was already known to fail.



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.

8 pages and nobody can tell me why my kids need it at birth or most people on this forum need it. We do not use drugs or share needles or have tattoos or live with formerly institutionalized individuals nor are healthcare workers.

The Hep B foundation lists the high risk groups:
-Health care providers and emergency responders
-Sexually active individuals (more than 1 partner in the past six months)
-Men who have sex with men
Individuals diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease
-Illicit drug users (injecting, inhaling, snorting, pill popping)
-Sexual partners or those living in close household contact with an infected person
Individuals born in countries where hepatitis B is common (Asia, Africa, South America, Pacific Islands, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East)
-Individuals born to parents who have emigrated from countries where hepatitis B is common (see #7)
-Children adopted from countries where hepatitis B is common (see #7)

Nothing else applies to us.

It has been repeated as nauseum that half of all kids infected acquired it through exposure to someone positive for the disease. People can be silent carriers like a relative, daycare provider, etc. Canada is likely going to move to birth dose on the future as kids are getting infected before vaccination.

Even if the risk of infection is small, the risk of vaccination is smaller. It's am easy decision to vaccinate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple reason - more vaccines have a direct coorelation to autism. Autism rates have dramatically increased from the 1980s to 2024, rising from roughly 1 in 2,500 in the early '80s to about 1 in 36 children by the early 2020s.

Here are some other things that “correlate” with the increase in autism diagnoses since the 1980s:
-increased use of seatbelts
-reduced rates of smoking
-declining use of fax machines
-increased television flatness
-reduced consumption of Aquanet
-decline in the frequency of Molly Ringwald movies

All of these have changed at the same time autism diagnoses have increased. That is not evidence that they cause autism.

I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I think your response—while technically correct (I assume; not exactly a Molly Ringwald buff )— is, in my view, somewhat harmful.

It is, I believe, basically a scientific truth that autism is associated with indicia of immune abnormality. Just to take a few examples, I don’t think any serious scientist would dispute that research suggests that, compared with their neurotypical counterparts, children who go on to have autism tend, as a group, to have more ear infections, require antibiotics more frequently, have disrupted gastrointestinal microbiota, have higher circulating levels of cytokines associated with an immune response, and were born following pregnancies in which the mom underwent an immune response. Does that mean that vaccines cause autism? Of course not. But it does mean that if we stigmatize discussions of immunology when we’re discussing autism, we risk stigmatizing potentially important research into a debilitating and poorly understood condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the hearing on removing the Hep B vaccine from the newborn schedule, the single most shocking moment presenters cited in studies showed that every SIDS death occurred in infants who received the Hep B shot at birth.

There were Zero SIDS deaths in the unvaccinated healthy infants.

How much more evidence do we need to put an end to these vaccines?

You would need some evidence, since what you wrote is not evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Oh shut up you antivax dummy

Seriously I hope every child that becomes ill or dies haunts you forever

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.

Imagine being proud of denying vaccines to kids and being comfortable with the fact that some of them will die as a result. You are a ghoul.

+1

The "it will only affect 1 percent of kids so this is fine" nutjobs. The same ones who only offer thoughts and prayers when kids are gunned down in schools.

[/b]People die. Kids die. It’s part of life.[b]

This is about taking our freedoms back from a corrupted, tyrannical state that has strayed so far from our founder’s vision they would not even recognize the corpse.

Wow. The thing with vaccination is you put others at risk who would choose vaccination bit have kids too young, etc. Freedom has always been limited by potential harm to others, particularly children.

You mean like when we could have lost the war against Britain if GW didn't implement a smallpox vaccine mandate for our military? How tyrannical of him.

Again, people die. Kids die. If you want to vaccinate your children with thousands of medications that contain thousands of different, often poorly understood, chemicals that have never been adequately studied both individually and in combination with one another, that’s fine. You can sign the legal paperwork stating that you understand that by placing your child on the vaccine schedule you are accepting the risk of participating in a experimental medical treatment and that illness, disease, and/or death may result in such participation.

We can chase zero mortality, but that is not realistic. People will die, and kids will die, and there is nothing we can do about it. Trying to force me to participate in your medical cult won’t stop kids from dying. Stripping away the right to choose whether our children participate in highly experimental medical treatments and operations, a right our ancestors fought and died for, won’t stop kids from dying. It’s a part of life, and we would do well to accept it as such.

Oh my word. These vaccines have been studied extensively for years. What harm that exceeds the harm of the disease? The wellness industry is less regulated and warns far more than the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps worry about that more?

If you want to get angry about exposure to chemicals not thoroughly vetted, go bleat at the Trump administration for their approach to PFAs and pesticides. Far more concerning, but you MAHAs voted for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Oh shut up you antivax dummy

Seriously I hope every child that becomes ill or dies haunts you forever

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.

Imagine being proud of denying vaccines to kids and being comfortable with the fact that some of them will die as a result. You are a ghoul.

+1

The "it will only affect 1 percent of kids so this is fine" nutjobs. The same ones who only offer thoughts and prayers when kids are gunned down in schools.

[/b]People die. Kids die. It’s part of life.

This is about taking our freedoms back from a corrupted, tyrannical state that has strayed so far from our founder’s vision they would not even recognize the corpse.

Wow. The thing with vaccination is you put others at risk who would choose vaccination bit have kids too young, etc. Freedom has always been limited by potential harm to others, particularly children.

You mean like when we could have lost the war against Britain if GW didn't implement a smallpox vaccine mandate for our military? How tyrannical of him.

Again, people die. Kids die. If you want to vaccinate your children with thousands of medications that contain thousands of different, often poorly understood, chemicals that have never been adequately studied both individually and in combination with one another, that’s fine. You can sign the legal paperwork stating that you understand that by placing your child on the vaccine schedule you are accepting the risk of participating in a experimental medical treatment and that illness, disease, and/or death may result in such participation.

We can chase zero mortality, but that is not realistic. People will die, and kids will die, and there is nothing we can do about it.[b] Trying to force me to participate in your medical cult won’t stop kids from dying. Stripping away the right to choose whether our children participate in highly experimental medical treatments and operations, a right our ancestors fought and died for, won’t stop kids from dying. It’s a part of life, and we would do well to accept it as such.

Oh my word. These vaccines have been studied extensively for years. What harm that exceeds the harm of the disease? The wellness industry is less regulated and warns far more than the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps worry about that more?

If you want to get angry about exposure to chemicals not thoroughly vetted, go bleat at the Trump administration for their approach to PFAs and pesticides. Far more concerning, but you MAHAs voted for it.

Actually yes. It reduces kids deaths, same as requiring a carseat, which I also support.

Freedom does not extend to childcare negligence.