Anonymous wrote:I will pay out of pocket, sign whatever for my upcoming kid to have whatever is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and not RFK Jr's. Conspiracy squad.

Doesn't matter, it may be too legally tenuous to give out the vax to newborns now eveif parents want to pay out of pocket.

US kids are fuuuuuuuuuuuucked.

Hep b is like 100x more contagious than HIV. Maybe risk is lower if mothers are clean, but this idiotic argument assumes every mother has adequate prenatal care and gets tested. Newsflash: in the real world that never happens. Hep B explodes once inside a newborns body when they have a weak and developing immune system. It only takes a very small amount of viral exposure.

Have fun bringing a new born out in public soon, American parents.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it mean that people can’t get the vaccine for their healthy newborns? Or is it just the recommendation that’s being lifted?

Yes, it means it may be impossible now get the vax for newborns.

Anything the state health boards can do? This is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Does it mean that people can’t get the vaccine for their healthy newborns? Or is it just the recommendation that’s being lifted?

Yes, it means it may be impossible now get the vax for newborns.

Anonymous wrote:Does it mean that people can’t get the vaccine for their healthy newborns? Or is it just the recommendation that’s being lifted?

Cannot get vaccinated unless in risk group:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/cdc-panel-rfk-hepatitis-b-vaccine

I will pay out of pocket, sign whatever for my upcoming kid to have whatever is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and not RFK Jr's. Conspiracy squad.

Anonymous wrote:There's no reason why the hep b vax can't be pushed a few months like every other vaccine for the vast majority of people. The odds of contracting it are very low outside of the high risk population.

Such ignorance. The high risk populations are also less likely to get prenatal care, so a Hep B infection of the mother may not be picked up. And I guess the infants of high risk parents don't deserve to be protected? Do we not care if they end up sick and with early liver cancer? Even if you don't care (I do), perhaps you might care if you think that these kids are also more likely to be on Medicaid, so if they end up with Hep B due to transmission at birth, they will cost the taxpayers more $.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no reason why the hep b vax can't be pushed a few months like every other vaccine for the vast majority of people. The odds of contracting it are very low outside of the high risk population.

What is the harm of giving it earlier?

There isn't any. Only benefit. We used to vaccinate only children of known Hep B positive mothers and the approach failed until we went with vaccination at birth.

Hep B is more infectious than Hep C or HIV and tiny amounts of it are viable on surfaces for at least a week. This is why dialysis facilities have extra prevention measures specifically for Hep B patients. The 2nd most common way children acquire Hep B is a household contact.

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 now you like Scandinavia? Thought you MAGAs derided them as socialist havens.

Anonymous wrote:There's no reason why the hep b vax can't be pushed a few months like every other vaccine for the vast majority of people. The odds of contracting it are very low outside of the high risk population.

What is the harm of giving it earlier?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no reason why the hep b vax can't be pushed a few months like every other vaccine for the vast majority of people. The odds of contracting it are very low outside of the high risk population.

It’s okay if a few more babies die of preventable illness. But no abortions!

The timing is for convenience, not medical necessity.

It seems people have forgotten why these vaccines were developed in the first place. 3 kids have already died of pertussis this year in KY and vaccine rates will keep plummeting in the years to come.

Does it mean that people can’t get the vaccine for their healthy newborns? Or is it just the recommendation that’s being lifted?

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.

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.

Oh, are doing everything the Scandinavians do now? When is MAHA giving us universal healthcare?

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.

We literally did a risk based approach like this and it FAILED!