Anonymous
12/06/2025 12:16
Subject: Re:R.I.P. American children
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
Anonymous
12/06/2025 12:12
Subject: R.I.P. American children
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.
Anonymous
12/06/2025 12:03
Subject: R.I.P. American children
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.
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
12/06/2025 12:01
Subject: R.I.P. American children
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
Anonymous
12/06/2025 11:57
Subject: R.I.P. American children
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
12/06/2025 11:51
Subject: R.I.P. American children
Anonymous wrote: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/
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
12/06/2025 11:46
Subject: R.I.P. American children
Anonymous wrote: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/
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
12/06/2025 11:41
Subject: Re:R.I.P. American children
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.
Anonymous
12/06/2025 11:40
Subject: R.I.P. American children
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/
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
12/06/2025 11:39
Subject: R.I.P. American children
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.
Anonymous
12/06/2025 11:32
Subject: Re:R.I.P. American children
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.
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
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
12/06/2025 11:23
Subject: R.I.P. American children
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I'm literally talking about a hepB vaccine forced in the delivery room. No, it was not a choice during the chaos of childbirth.
Having watched my love one die of chronic liver disease due to a Hepatitis acquired in childhood, I am glad they encouraged you to vaccinate your child and that you signed the consent form.
Stop with the one example over and over. It's too bad that this is a rare case you had to experience but enough with the zealous unhinged comments. You've given that example 10 times already. Every illness and disease has tragedy involved but you cannot force people to do things based on selfish experiences or motivations. Delaying two months does not change anything.
I know people that have died from alcohol, from smoking, from car accidents, and fat people who had heart atacks. All these things can be easily avoided. Should we ban everything and/or force everyone to live a certain way?
You're literally giving a reason to quarantine foreign travelers so they take a hepB test before entering and kicking out all the immigrants.
And if you really care about the kids and their missed doses, why not just give DTap, Hib, etc.in the delivery room as well?
At least PP has an example. Meanwhile you can’t give a single explanation for why the birth dose is harmful.
I don't. I just didn't want my kids to get so many vaccines as newborns. I'd rather have them spread out however I'm sure I signed that form while under the influence of a drip after a difficult birth. If I had showed up fresh from over the border or with 100 tattoos then sure my baby should get it right away.
PS and why don't you want your kids to get so many vaccines as newborns? Hep B (and perhaps now RSV) is the only one given at birth, now moved to two months with other vaccines. What is your research citation there? Modern vaccines are actually far, far more limited in antigen targets than the ones of the 80s. Exposure to antigen targets is 95% less than vaccines of 40 years ago.
Are you the autism conspiracy theorist who posted here with spurious correlations equivalent to ice cream sales cause shark bites logic?
No, not that PP. Who are the high risk people?
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
12/06/2025 11:19
Subject: R.I.P. American children
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I'm literally talking about a hepB vaccine forced in the delivery room. No, it was not a choice during the chaos of childbirth.
Having watched my love one die of chronic liver disease due to a Hepatitis acquired in childhood, I am glad they encouraged you to vaccinate your child and that you signed the consent form.
Stop with the one example over and over. It's too bad that this is a rare case you had to experience but enough with the zealous unhinged comments. You've given that example 10 times already. Every illness and disease has tragedy involved but you cannot force people to do things based on selfish experiences or motivations. Delaying two months does not change anything.
I know people that have died from alcohol, from smoking, from car accidents, and fat people who had heart atacks. All these things can be easily avoided. Should we ban everything and/or force everyone to live a certain way?
You're literally giving a reason to quarantine foreign travelers so they take a hepB test before entering and kicking out all the immigrants.
And if you really care about the kids and their missed doses, why not just give DTap, Hib, etc.in the delivery room as well?
At least PP has an example. Meanwhile you can’t give a single explanation for why the birth dose is harmful.
I don't. I just didn't want my kids to get so many vaccines as newborns. I'd rather have them spread out however I'm sure I signed that form while under the influence of a drip after a difficult birth. If I had showed up fresh from over the border or with 100 tattoos then sure my baby should get it right away.
PS and why don't you want your kids to get so many vaccines as newborns? Hep B (and perhaps now RSV) is the only one given at birth, now moved to two months with other vaccines. What is your research citation there? Modern vaccines are actually far, far more limited in antigen targets than the ones of the 80s. Exposure to antigen targets is 95% less than vaccines of 40 years ago.
Are you the autism conspiracy theorist who posted here with spurious correlations equivalent to ice cream sales cause shark bites logic?
No, not that PP. Who are the high risk people?
Anonymous
12/06/2025 11:17
Subject: Re:R.I.P. American children
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.
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
12/06/2025 10:33
Subject: Re:R.I.P. American children
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just heard on NBC news that if you want the vaccine at birth for your child, you can get it.
From google:
Hepatitis B (HBV) spreads through contact with infected blood, semen, or other body fluids, commonly via unprotected sex, sharing needles, from mother to baby during birth, or accidental needlesticks; it is not spread by food, water, or casual contact like hugging or sneezing, but can survive on surfaces for days. Key transmission routes include sexual contact, injection drug use, contaminated medical equipment (tattoos/piercings), and perinatal transmission.
How are Canada and Scandinavian countries able to do this by targeting high risk individuals?
Universal healthcare
DP also much lower Hep B carrier rates in general
Why? Keep asking that.
NP. Again, universal healthcare.