RFK Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Lose Their Minds

[BasedLutheran]

Democrats are having existential meltdowns over RFK's department issuing revised recommendations for Hepatitis B vaccines in children. Instead of the current recommendations that have Hospitals as a matter of course inject all infants with Hepatitis B vaccines on the day of their birth, the new recommendations are that infants whose mothers have Hepatitis B be given the vaccine for protection at birth, but the others who have no risk getting the disease, instead delay until 2-3 months after birth before getting the vaccine. Apparently this will cause all sorts of death and destruction according to dems. The reality is there's nothing wrong with the recommendations at all, and there's no reason we should be injecting newborn infants who are not at risk, with something that they don't need, on the day they're born.

https://ground.news/article/us-vaccine-advisers-say-not-all-babies-need-a-hepatitis-b-shot-at-birth_014461

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Democrats are concerned that RFK has no idea what he's doing. He have no medical knowledge to be making huge dangerous decisions on babies and people heath. He needs to be fired as soon as possible. The same with Trump. Sadly, that won't happen.

 

[Desk trauma]

Nurgle approves.

 

[BasedLutheran]

Democrats are concerned that RFK has no idea what he's doing. He have no medical knowledge to be making huge dangerous decisions on babies and people heath. He needs to be fired as soon as possible. The same with Trump. Sadly, that won't happen.

Fired for what? He and the committee literally changed the recommendations and schedule to directly match the entirety of the civilized and developed world. The new recommendations are identical to almost every European country (some of them go even later to 5 months before it being given), and the countries of New zealand, Japan, etc.

So what, precisely, is the 'dangerous decision' you want to claim he is making?

 

[7thKeeper]

Nurgle approves.

 

[DaisyDay]

Democrats are having existential meltdowns over RFK's department issuing revised recommendations for Hepatitis B vaccines in children. Instead of the current recommendations that have Hospitals as a matter of course inject all infants with Hepatitis B vaccines on the day of their birth, the new recommendations are that infants whose mothers have Hepatitis B be given the vaccine for protection at birth, but the others who have no risk getting the disease, instead delay until 2-3 months after birth before getting the vaccine. Apparently this will cause all sorts of death and destruction according to dems. The reality is there's nothing wrong with the recommendations at all, and there's no reason we should be injecting newborn infants who are not at risk, with something that they don't need, on the day they're born.
View attachment 374077
View attachment 374078

https://ground.news/article/us-vaccine-advisers-say-not-all-babies-need-a-hepatitis-b-shot-at-birth_014461

24 hours after birth. The problem as explained to me is that people can be silent carriers of the virus which can be passed through breaks in the skin such as scrapes, scratches and minor cuts. Infants who get infected are at high risk for liver cancer, cirrhosis of the liver and chronic liver problems. Unless everyone who is going to handle the baby is tested, then it is unknown what the actual risk is. The risk of the vaccine versus infection is heavily weighted towards the infection.

 

[MarkSB]

Democrats are having existential meltdowns over RFK's department issuing revised recommendations for Hepatitis B vaccines in children. Instead of the current recommendations that have Hospitals as a matter of course inject all infants with Hepatitis B vaccines on the day of their birth, the new recommendations are that infants whose mothers have Hepatitis B be given the vaccine for protection at birth, but the others who have no risk getting the disease, instead delay until 2-3 months after birth before getting the vaccine. Apparently this will cause all sorts of death and destruction according to dems. The reality is there's nothing wrong with the recommendations at all, and there's no reason we should be injecting newborn infants who are not at risk, with something that they don't need, on the day they're born.
View attachment 374077
View attachment 374078

https://ground.news/article/us-vaccine-advisers-say-not-all-babies-need-a-hepatitis-b-shot-at-birth_014461

So what is the advantage to delaying the shot? Do you even know? Or is it just the vague conclusion you came to that it is "something they don't need"? What problems do you think giving them the shot earlier is causing? And do you have any evidence for those claims?

Meanwhile... it sounds like there are significant benefits to not waiting:

First, about 15 percent of women in the United States don’t receive first-trimester screening for hepatitis B virus. Indeed, among developed world nations, the United States is one of the worst in assuring pre-natal screening.​

​

Second, like all screening tests, detection of hepatitis B virus isn’t perfect. About 5 percent of those who are infected are missed by the screening test. In other words, the test can be falsely reassuring.​

​

Third, because the screening test is performed in the first trimester, mothers can still be infected in the second or third trimester.​

​

Fourth, and this is the big one, only half of the 30,000 children less than 10 years of age in 1991 had acquired the disease from their mother! The rest were infected from relatively casual contact with people who were chronically infected with hepatitis B virus, most of whom didn’t know they were infected. (This is why hepatitis B is called “The Silent Epidemic”.)​

Jumping Without a Net

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new CDC advisory board continues to try and fix things that aren’t broken. Next up: the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose.

pauloffit.substack.com

 

[BasedLutheran]

So what is the advantage to delaying the shot? Do you even know? Or is it just the vague conclusion you came to that it is "something they don't need"? What problems do you think giving them the shot earlier is causing? And do you have any evidence for those claims?

Meanwhile... it sounds like there are significant benefits to not waiting:

First, about 15 percent of women in the United States don’t receive first-trimester screening for hepatitis B virus. Indeed, among developed world nations, the United States is one of the worst in assuring pre-natal screening.​

​

Second, like all screening tests, detection of hepatitis B virus isn’t perfect. About 5 percent of those who are infected are missed by the screening test. In other words, the test can be falsely reassuring.​

​

Third, because the screening test is performed in the first trimester, mothers can still be infected in the second or third trimester.​

​

Fourth, and this is the big one, only half of the 30,000 children less than 10 years of age in 1991 had acquired the disease from their mother! The rest were infected from relatively casual contact with people who were chronically infected with hepatitis B virus, most of whom didn’t know they were infected. (This is why hepatitis B is called “The Silent Epidemic”.)​

Jumping Without a Net

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new CDC advisory board continues to try and fix things that aren’t broken. Next up: the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose.

pauloffit.substack.com

The advantage is not overloading the newborn infant's system with a vaccine that has known cases of harm and even death, when it is not needed at that time. Europe seems to understand the advantage of delaying the shot, as almost every country in Europe (as well as places like New Zealand and Japan) already do delay the shot to 2 or more months after birth in children whose mothers do not have Hep B

 

[BasedLutheran]

24 hours after birth. The problem as explained to me is that people can be silent carriers of the virus which can be passed through breaks in the skin such as scrapes, scratches and minor cuts. Infants who get infected are at high risk for liver cancer, cirrhosis of the liver and chronic liver problems. Unless everyone who is going to handle the baby is tested, then it is unknown what the actual risk is. The risk of the vaccine versus infection is heavily weighted towards the infection.

No, you aren't a 'silent carrier', you're infected or your not. And again, all major European countries wait until 2 months or more (some even wait until adolescence)