R.I.P. American children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the heroes stats of newborns by demo before the newborn inoculation and after it was administered?

Unclear when.

Newborns and babies get so many multi-dose shots their first five years of life, id this one is overkill or money grabbing, get rid of it.

Sure if a mom has herpes or her partner and is going to give birth shoot yo the newborn. At risk mothers present all kinds of risks, perhaps more shots for the baby is the least of their worries.

Considering the price of liver disease pharmaceuticals run tens of thousands per year per for a single case (oh and then if an organ transplant, there are the lifelong anti rejection meds as well), would say reducing vaccination will help big pharma make a killing!!

If we want to use this kind of logic, big pharma absolutely supports reducing vaccination.

Oddly, dentists are still pro fluoride even though removing it from water will certainly improve their incomes. Ah, pretzel logic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Carseats don't cause accidents.You should also support things like permanently losing your license for DUI, not allowing seniors to drive, and requiring driver tests every (fill-in-the-blank) years. But you probably don't.

Same goes for your love of kids. Arrest parents who give birth to kids with avoidable genetic diseases, right?

You are sociopathic with this single issue that many kids have zero percent chance of contracting in their first months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Carseats don't cause accidents.You should also support things like permanently losing your license for DUI, not allowing seniors to drive, and requiring driver tests every (fill-in-the-blank) years. But you probably don't.

Same goes for your love of kids. Arrest parents who give birth to kids with avoidable genetic diseases, right?

You are sociopathic with this single issue that many kids have zero percent chance of contracting in their first months.

Honey, nobody is forcing you to vaccinate your child either before this decision or after. So quit your bizarre ranting about tyranny. Schools require it as they should for a communal setting. Don't like it? Homeschool. Doctors offices may as they are within their rights as a business, no different than a bakery denying a gay couple a cake for their marriage even when there is mo other bakery around for 100 miles. Don't like it? Move.

I assure you 'mah freedom" is still intact for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

So absolute numbers in children went from rinky dink to rinky dinky dink.
Meanwhile unintended consequences and side symptoms risks went way up.
Political- attempting to accommodate one small subsegment of at risk mothers by forcing it on everyone. And a money grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the heroes stats of newborns by demo before the newborn inoculation and after it was administered?

Unclear when.

Newborns and babies get so many multi-dose shots their first five years of life, id this one is overkill or money grabbing, get rid of it.

Sure if a mom has herpes or her partner and is going to give birth shoot yo the newborn. At risk mothers present all kinds of risks, perhaps more shots for the baby is the least of their worries.

Considering the price of liver disease pharmaceuticals run tens of thousands per year per for a single case (oh and then if an organ transplant, there are the lifelong anti rejection meds as well), would say reducing vaccination will help big pharma make a killing!!

If we want to use this kind of logic, big pharma absolutely supports reducing vaccination.

Oddly, dentists are still pro fluoride even though removing it from water will certainly improve their incomes. Ah, pretzel logic!

What are the leading causes of liver disease?

Are those all due to lifestyle choices?

So the $$$$$$ live disease Pharma you are applauding are another accommodation drug we’re all supposed to pay for, subsidize, take and give our newborns because of other people’s poor lifestyle choices?

Nice.

Only in America.

None of this $hit is being pushed in europe, Asia or LatAm.

[Anonymous]

Italy does not vaccine with hep b until three months. They have zero cases of hep b in 0-14 year olds.

They also have a much higher life expectancy than we do. They are 7th highest in the world and we are 48th.

It’s time for change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Italy does not vaccine with hep b until three months. They have zero cases of hep b in 0-14 year olds.

They also have a much higher life expectancy than we do. They are 7th highest in the world and we are 48th.

It’s time for change.

They used to have zero cases before as well.

Hmmmmm

[Anonymous]

The problem isn't so much just this recommendation and whether it's justified. Maybe it is. I'm not an expert.

The problem is that everything about HHS has now been so politicized, including the expert boards, that I don't trust the decision-making at all. And the majority of Americans feel this way, and what they do next in terms of infectious disease management (including vaccination) is going to be based on whatever random sources they trust. This is only the beginning of the public health disaster that awaits us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the heroes stats of newborns by demo before the newborn inoculation and after it was administered?

Unclear when.

Newborns and babies get so many multi-dose shots their first five years of life, id this one is overkill or money grabbing, get rid of it.

Sure if a mom has herpes or her partner and is going to give birth shoot yo the newborn. At risk mothers present all kinds of risks, perhaps more shots for the baby is the least of their worries.

Considering the price of liver disease pharmaceuticals run tens of thousands per year per for a single case (oh and then if an organ transplant, there are the lifelong anti rejection meds as well), would say reducing vaccination will help big pharma make a killing!!

If we want to use this kind of logic, big pharma absolutely supports reducing vaccination.

Oddly, dentists are still pro fluoride even though removing it from water will certainly improve their incomes. Ah, pretzel logic!

Out all the obese promiscuous drinkers on GLPs and all our problems are solved.

And fyi transplants don’t go to alcoholics, STD or obese people. Too risky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't so much just this recommendation and whether it's justified. Maybe it is. I'm not an expert.

The problem is that everything about HHS has now been so politicized, including the expert boards, that I don't trust the decision-making at all. And the majority of Americans feel this way, and what they do next in terms of infectious disease management (including vaccination) is going to be based on whatever random sources they trust. This is only the beginning of the public health disaster that awaits us.

You have it backwards.

This is a rollback of prior POLITICAL decisions to force more unnecessary drugs and shots on the populace, under “recommendations.” If you did further the small segment of the population who have more benefits than risks to taking it are in pretty bad health and lifestyle situations. So really this is about subsidizing and normalizing treatments for already unhealthy people, for all people and babies.

[Anonymous]

Nut jobs are out in force. Hope this gets cleaned up. What a mess of the ice cream sales cause shark bites people.

[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.

Pretty much this.

This is what our pediatrician said the last ten years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How does the STD carrier infect the baby or child?

[Anonymous]

Birth canal.

But std tests are part of obgyn annual care…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Someone has to use the supply the taxpayers pay for each year!!!