Anonymous wrote:My kids (2008 & 2010) were vaccinated on the standard schedule, and did not begin the hep B series until 2 months (along with their other shots).

At the hospital I was asked “do you want hep B now, or to follow up with your ped (which is what most do)?” And I said I’d follow up with the ped. It was clearly considered the norm. I’m not a “delayed vaxer” or anything like that. My kids received what was recommended & it was made clear that hep B at the hospital was very much optional - and that most waited for ped visit.

We lived in Madison WI at the time and my kids were born at a UW hospital.

I really don’t understand the drama surrounding all of this, or what has changed, TBH. Is it just fear that insurance won’t cover a birth dose now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was never “a forced vaccine at birth.” It was a recommendation, everyone has always had a choice. By taking back the recommendation, Kennedy has handed a win to insurance companies who will no longer pay for it.

You dumbos can’t see that everything these clowns are doing benefits big businesses and not the people. You should direct your efforts to investigating the finances of the clowns on this panel.

The entire premise of MAGA is mare money for billionaires and big corporations by convincing runs they are owning libs. It’s ALWAYS about more profits for corporations. Not recommending means no coverage.

+1

Also the revenue of the unregulated wellness industry is far higher than the pharmaceutical industry. RFK himself has made millions from his anti vaccine sh*t. Maybe follow who promotes anti vax stances while profiting from wellness crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birth canal.

But std tests are part of obgyn annual care…

People most at risk of Hepatitis B probably aren’t getting regular obgyn care. They might not even get regular prenatal care.

Anonymous wrote:Here is a map showing which countries recommend Hep B shots at birth. Africa and western Europe very much stand out:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/hepatitis-b-birth-dose-vaccine-immunization-schedule?mapSelect=RUS~ALB

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids (2008 & 2010) were vaccinated on the standard schedule, and did not begin the hep B series until 2 months (along with their other shots).

At the hospital I was asked “do you want hep B now, or to follow up with your ped (which is what most do)?” And I said I’d follow up with the ped. It was clearly considered the norm. I’m not a “delayed vaxer” or anything like that. My kids received what was recommended & it was made clear that hep B at the hospital was very much optional - and that most waited for ped visit.

We lived in Madison WI at the time and my kids were born at a UW hospital.

I really don’t understand the drama surrounding all of this, or what has changed, TBH. Is it just fear that insurance won’t cover a birth dose now?

It’s tribalism

Anonymous wrote:Birth canal.

But std tests are part of obgyn annual care…

Anonymous wrote:My kids (2008 & 2010) were vaccinated on the standard schedule, and did not begin the hep B series until 2 months (along with their other shots).

At the hospital I was asked “do you want hep B now, or to follow up with your ped (which is what most do)?” And I said I’d follow up with the ped. It was clearly considered the norm. I’m not a “delayed vaxer” or anything like that. My kids received what was recommended & it was made clear that hep B at the hospital was very much optional - and that most waited for ped visit.

We lived in Madison WI at the time and my kids were born at a UW hospital.

I really don’t understand the drama surrounding all of this, or what has changed, TBH. Is it just fear that insurance won’t cover a birth dose now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was never “a forced vaccine at birth.” It was a recommendation, everyone has always had a choice. By taking back the recommendation, Kennedy has handed a win to insurance companies who will no longer pay for it.

You dumbos can’t see that everything these clowns are doing benefits big businesses and not the people. You should direct your efforts to investigating the finances of the clowns on this panel.

The entire premise of MAGA is mare money for billionaires and big corporations by convincing runs they are owning libs. It’s ALWAYS about more profits for corporations. Not recommending means no coverage.

+1

Also the revenue of the unregulated wellness industry is far higher than the pharmaceutical industry. RFK himself has made millions from his anti vaccine sh*t. Maybe follow who promotes anti vax stances while profiting from wellness crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was never “a forced vaccine at birth.” It was a recommendation, everyone has always had a choice. By taking back the recommendation, Kennedy has handed a win to insurance companies who will no longer pay for it.

You dumbos can’t see that everything these clowns are doing benefits big businesses and not the people. You should direct your efforts to investigating the finances of the clowns on this panel.

The entire premise of MAGA is mare money for billionaires and big corporations by convincing runs they are owning libs. It’s ALWAYS about more profits for corporations. Not recommending means no coverage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It was never “a forced vaccine at birth.” It was a recommendation, everyone has always had a choice. By taking back the recommendation, Kennedy has handed a win to insurance companies who will no longer pay for it.

You dumbos can’t see that everything these clowns are doing benefits big businesses and not the people. You should direct your efforts to investigating the finances of the clowns on this panel.

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!

Anonymous wrote:

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.