RFK Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Lose Their Minds

[Belk]

No one has explained anything. Recapping, people have said that the data in VAERS is not "proof of anything", is "riddled with lies and misinfo", and is "worse than nothing".

The explanation that I got was that this data is useful for "tracking trends", which is utter nonsense if you believe the data is that bad to start with.

If I hand you a data source and I tell you that it's riddled with bad data and is worse than nothing, and oh by the way, I'd like you to identify what trends you see in the data, you'd rightfully look at me like I was crazy. You can't identity "trends" or ANYTHING ELSE for that matter if you truly believe your data is that dirty.

Cool story, go tell it to someone who wants to discuss it with you.

 

[probinson]

Cool story, go tell it to someone who wants to discuss it with you.

So, no logical explanation as to how someone can "track trends" in data that is riddled with lies and misinformation? I didn't think so, but just wanted to confirm.

By the way, if you don't want to discuss something, you can just not reply.

 

[Belk]

So, no logical explanation as to how someone can "track trends" in data that is riddled with lies and misinformation? I didn't think so, but just wanted to confirm.

By the way, if you don't want to discuss something, you can just not reply.

Or, conversely, I can reply and tell you I have no interest in discussing it with you.

 

[probinson]

Or, conversely, I can reply and tell you I have no interest in discussing it with you.

I guess if you really want people to know that you're not interested in talking with me. To each their own, I suppose.

Perhaps someone else will come along to explain how data that riddled with errors can be used to "track trends".

 

[probinson]

The problem with most any discussion about vaccines is that you'll encounter two extremes: anti-vaccine and vaccine zealotry. There is little room for rational discussion with either of those positions.

We are taught that vaccines are "safe and effective". Period. Full stop. If you dare question ANYTHING about the sacred vaccines, well then, you're nothing more than a science-denying anti-vaxxer worthy of ridicule and disdain.

Witness this thread. The decision to stop the recommendation to indiscriminately vaccinate newborns at low risk of Hep B was not a decision made by RFK. It was a decision reached by ACIP after two full days of heated exchanges and data analysis. The new recommendation aligns with much of the rest of the world, where they also do not vaccinate for Hep B at birth. There simply is no data that shows benefit of vaccinating a newborn baby at low risk of Hep B. The only thing we have are proclamations from people who have IMMENSE financial conflicts of interest in continuing the recommendation.

Also, no one has said that you can't get a Hep B vaccine for your newborn. If you want it for your baby at birth, you can still have it. It's just not recommended. Today, it was reported that insurance companies will continue to cover the cost of the vaccine. So really, not much has changed in practice.

It's interesting to watch how even just the simple change in a recommendation causes apoplectic screeching by 1) people who stand to gain financially from continued indiscriminate vaccination and 2) vaccine zealots at large. The idea that one should honestly discuss with ones doctor the risks and benefits of vaccination rather than making an across the board recommendation is simply a bridge too far for people with financial entanglements of the makers of such vaccines. But in reality, a vaccine is like any other medical intervention. There are potential risks and benefits. Informed consent is the answer where the potential risks and benefits are equally low.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

They're welcome to have that concern...

But are they not also concerned that it's become the "status quo" to vaccinate all babies for it regardless of whether or not the mother has it, rather than waiting a few months?

To give a little insight on the European standards.
Most European countries do NOT give a universal birth dose to all babies. Only five European countries (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, and Romania) vaccinate all newborns CGHE. Most European nations use what's called a "selective" approach - and only vaccinate babies whose mothers who are positive for hepatitis B. Babies of mothers who don't have it receive their first hepatitis B vaccine at 2 months of age or sometimes even later.


So it would seem that the change mirrors what most of Europe is doing.

 

[probinson]

On Friday, January 22, 1999, the ABC news program 20/20 ran a report on the adverse events of Hep B vaccination. It's worth watching the ~11 minutes, if for no other reason than to see how the mainstream media used to cover vaccine controversy vs. how it's covered today.

The people interviewed in this repot are not anti-vaxxers. They were simply doing what they believed was best for themselves and/or their child and faced devastating consequences as a result.

Part 1: ABC News 20-20 1999 Hep B part 1 : NVICstandup : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Part 2: ABC News 20-20 1999 Hep B part 2 : NVICstandup : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a small clean up. Stay civil. Do not use derogatory nicknames.​

 

[Gene2memE]

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.

Misleading title is misleading.

It's not just Democrats that are having "existential meltdowns" about the vaccine schedule changes. It's pretty much the entirety of the US medical profession.

Statement from Leading Medical, Health and Patient Advocacy Groups on CDC Vaccine Meeting | ACP Online

Dec. 5, 20205— “We are deeply alarmed by the actions taken this week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The apparent goal of this meeting was to sow doubt in vaccines rather than advance sound vaccine policy, and we will all...

www.acponline.org

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?

This is false. There are no EU/EEA countries that wait until five months to deliver Hepatitus B vaccines

Vaccine Scheduler | ECDC

Giving insight in the vaccine schedules in all countries of the EU, provided by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu

The EU's most recent recommendations are here:

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Hepatitis%20B%20vaccination%20policies%2C%20practices%20and%20challenges%20to%20achieving%20hepatitis%20elimination%20in%20EU-EEA%20-%20FINAL.pdf

 

[probinson]

It's not just Democrats that are having "existential meltdowns" about the vaccine schedule changes. It's pretty much the entirety of the US medical profession.

So, more accurately, Democrats and mostly-Democrat associated health organizations. In particular, those that are funded primarily by pharmaceutical companies. Like the American Association of Pediatrics, as one example. Here's who funds them according to their website:

But I'm sure their recommendations are 100% pure and untainted by the fact that nearly all of their funding comes from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these vaccines.

In any event, the new recommendation from ACIP is consistent with many other developed nations of only giving the Hep B vaccine to high-risk newborns. There's no reason for medical organizations to be "deeply alarmed".

 

[Gene2memE]

So, more accurately, Democrats and mostly-Democrat associated health organizations. In particular, those that are funded primarily by pharmaceutical companies. Like the American Association of Pediatrics, as one example. Here's who funds them according to their website:

Ah, the old guilt by association.

But I'm sure their recommendations are 100% pure and untainted by the fact that nearly all of their funding comes from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these vaccines.

Medical associations receive funding from medical companies. Because that's who they interact with and are involved with.

Like sports associations receive funding from sports companies. And Republicans receive funding from ...

In any event, the new recommendation from ACIP is consistent with many other developed nations of only giving the Hep B vaccine to high-risk newborns. There's no reason for medical organizations to be "deeply alarmed".

Except that the medical associations ARE concerned. Because this decision will "lead to more childhood hepatitis B infections, will lead to more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood, and will complicate vaccine access for children".

Those are VERY GOOD reasons to be "deeply alarmed".

There is also a broader reason to be "deeply alarmed".

This decision was taken with no new evidence with an ACIP board that has been concocted for its ideological purity rather than its independent expertise.

The presentations around the vaccination established no causal link to any injury beyond "death following anaphylaxis", based on a 1994 study. There was not a single public-health based reason given supporting the decision to revise the schedule. Instead, what there was was a lot of picture of sad babies with needles and insinuations about phamecutical firms.

The complaint that there were "randomized, placebo-controlled, extended follow-up trials" is just so telling. As is the admission that "The safety concern may be more theoretical than real".

This is the thin edge of the wedge. RFK Jnr and his pack of cronies are out to destroy one of the greatest achievements in human health.

 

[BasedLutheran]

Misleading title is misleading.

It's not just Democrats that are having "existential meltdowns" about the vaccine schedule changes. It's pretty much the entirety of the US medical profession.

Statement from Leading Medical, Health and Patient Advocacy Groups on CDC Vaccine Meeting | ACP Online

Dec. 5, 20205— “We are deeply alarmed by the actions taken this week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The apparent goal of this meeting was to sow doubt in vaccines rather than advance sound vaccine policy, and we will all...

www.acponline.org

You repeated yourself.

This is false. There are no EU/EEA countries that wait until five months to deliver Hepatitus B vaccines

Vaccine Scheduler | ECDC

Giving insight in the vaccine schedules in all countries of the EU, provided by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu

Hm, your right, I think I was looking at Czechia wrong. But thanks for posting because looking even closer, i see Finland doesn't recommend or require it outside of at-risk infants, at all. Iceland doesn't either, and Hungary doesn't until age 12

 

[DaisyDay]

How in the world could you possibly "track trends" from data that you believe is "saturated with lies and misinfo" and can't be used for "proof of anything"?

If you pay attention to these posts you would know that "saturated with lies and misinfo" aren't my words so putting them in quotes and declaring them to be my beliefs is careless or worse. I don't think VAERS is saturated with lies - although lies are put in by some people for their own agendas - there is much misinformation primarily, imo, because correlation is not causation but such correlations when they reach a concerning significance trigger investigation. Tracking trends is done by statistics to filter noise from data, which are then studied. This is pretty basic.

Have you ever looked into the VAERS database yourself and actually read some the cases as submitted? One case was of a patient who died some time after getting a covid vaccine, but she had also been run over by a bus (or something similar, this was a while back so I don't recall the exact details) shortly before dying. VAERS had this flagged as death post vaccine which was true chronologically. Now, if hundreds of patients died by bus post vaccine, then that should be looked into as well as to why.

No one has explained anything. Recapping, people have said that the data in VAERS is not "proof of anything", is "riddled with lies and misinfo", and is "worse than nothing".

There is a ginormous difference between evidence and proof.

 

[DaisyDay]

What is the evidence that infants receiving the vaccine 24 hours after birth have a better or worse outcome than those receiving it at three months?

 

[probinson]

If you pay attention to these posts you would know that "saturated with lies and misinfo" aren't my words so putting them in quotes and declaring them to be my beliefs is careless or worse.

I know they're not your words. But they were indeed a quote from someone in this thread. Your words were not "proof of anything".

I don't think VAERS is saturated with lies - although lies are put in by some people for their own agendas - there is much misinformation primarily, imo, because correlation is not causation but such correlations when they reach a concerning significance trigger investigation. Tracking trends is done by statistics to filter noise from data, which are then studied. This is pretty basic.

Do you have any evidence that is occurring? Every time VAERS is brought up., it is immediately dismissed. No one attempts to "filter noise from data". They simply point out some obviously ridiculous example as a reason to discard everything. You do it later in this very post, where you point out that someone got run over by a bus. That seems to be the MO. Find one crazy report that is clearly false as a reason to discard everything else.

Have you ever read a VAERS report that concerned you? Have you ever actually done what you suggest here and filtered the noise from the data?

Have you ever looked into the VAERS database yourself and actually read some the cases as submitted?

Yes. Have you?

I've even submitted two VAERS reports of my own: one for me and one for my daughter. We had very severe and concerning reactions to the COVID vaccination. I reported thinking maybe someone would follow up. But no one ever did. I guess temporary paralysis and fevers of 105 aren't "severe" enough to warrant further investigation.

One case was of a patient who died some time after getting a covid vaccine, but she had also been run over by a bus (or something similar, this was a while back so I don't recall the exact details) shortly before dying. VAERS had this flagged as death post vaccine which was true chronologically. Now, if hundreds of patients died by bus post vaccine, then that should be looked into as well as to why.

Again, have you ever read a VAERS report you found concerning?

There is a ginormous difference between evidence and proof.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

 

[probinson]

What is the evidence that infants receiving the vaccine 24 hours after birth have a better or worse outcome than those receiving it at three months?

What is the evidence that newborns at low risk who receive the birth-dose have better outcomes than those who don't?

 

[DaisyDay]

What is the evidence that newborns at low risk who receive the birth-dose have better outcomes than those who don't?

What is the evidence that infants receiving the vaccine 24 hours after birth have a better or worse outcome than those receiving it at three months?

 

[probinson]

Ah, the old guilt by association.

Simply pointing out that your contention that it's not "just" Democrats is somewhat less than honest, since the organizations you cited are primarily Democrat.

Medical associations receive funding from medical companies.

And you don't see a problem with that?

Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support.​

​

...​

​

Results 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality.​

​

​

Conclusion Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.​

​

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review - PMC

Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

​

This next article is talking specifically about the food industry, but it illustrates just how much finance bias factors into these studies:

​

One study detected that research articles sponsored exclusively by food and beverage companies were 4-8 times more likely to have conclusions favorable to the financial interests of the sponsoring company than articles that were not sponsored by food or beverage companies. A subsequent comprehensive review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examining sponsor influences on the quality and independence of health research cited that industry-sponsored studies were about 30 times more likely than non-industry sponsored studies to report statistically significant findings in favor of the sponsor.​

​

Navigating Industry Funding of Research • The Nutrition Source

Scientific research is costly. However, a concern with industry funding is a potential influence on study outcomes, even if unintended.

nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu

​

​

Industry-sponsored studies are about THIRTY TIMES more likely than non-industry sponsored studies to report findings in favor of the sponsor. You're in denial if you think that pharmaceutical companies' funding doesn't impact the findings of their studies and the recommendations that the medical organizations make that are funded by them.

Except that the medical associations ARE concerned.

Hand-wringing seems more appropriate.

Because this decision will "lead to more childhood hepatitis B infections, will lead to more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood, and will complicate vaccine access for children".

So they say.

Has anyone asked them why other countries that don't recommend a universal birth-dose don't have these issues?

Those are VERY GOOD reasons to be "deeply alarmed".

Sure they are, if they were evidence-based.

There is also a broader reason to be "deeply alarmed".

Here comes the slippery slope...

This decision was taken with no new evidence with an ACIP board that has been concocted for its ideological purity rather than its independent expertise.

That's amusing. Prior ACIPs have been in the pocket of the industry for years. They weren't selected for their "independent expertise". They were selected for their willingness to rubber-stamp things. They have all been selected for their ideological purity. It's just now they're "concerned" because the "ideological-purity" in place now isn't the one that puts financial gain first.

The presentations around the vaccination established no causal link to any injury beyond "death following anaphylaxis", based on a 1994 study. There was not a single public-health based reason given supporting the decision to revise the schedule. Instead, what there was was a lot of picture of sad babies with needles and insinuations about phamecutical firms.

It's funny you should mention that there was not a single public-health based reason to support this, because when the universal birth-dose was instituted, there also was not a single public-health based reason to recommend it to newborns at low-risk. Prior to the 1991 recommendation, it was common practice to only vaccinate newborns whose mother tested positive for Hep B. That was evidence-based and logical. No evidence was presented that there was a public-health benefit to indiscriminately vaccinating all newborns. Someone just decided that an evidence-based, risk-stratified approach was not as easy as a universal approach. It's odd that only now people are upset that recommendations are changing without evidence.

And for crying out loud, if you want the Hep B vaccine for your child, you can still get it. Just because it's not recommended does not mean it's not available. "Talk to your doctor". Works for just about everything else.

The complaint that there were "randomized, placebo-controlled, extended follow-up trials" is just so telling. As is the admission that "The safety concern may be more theoretical than real".

Did you watch the 20/20 clips I posted from January 1999 about the Hep B vaccine? The parents of the children who died and are permanently injured from the vaccine are not "theoretical". That was at a time when industry capture wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is today and mainstream media wasn't afraid to do real investigations. Alas, that is no longer the case today.

This is the thin edge of the wedge. RFK Jnr and his pack of cronies are out to destroy one of the greatest achievements in human health.

There's the slippery slope I was waiting for!

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Considering the general lack of reactions to this thread, it seems that least on this board, people on the left don't care all that much.

No, they have lost their minds and forgotten how to post.

 

[probinson]

What is the evidence that infants receiving the vaccine 24 hours after birth have a better or worse outcome than those receiving it at three months?

What is the evidence that newborns at low risk who receive the birth-dose have better outcomes than those who don't?

The data is available. Many countries don't recommend the birth-dose of the Hep B vaccine. Is there evidence that those counties have "more childhood hepatitis B infections" and "more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood"? That's why these medical organizations say they are "deeply concerned". Can they point to evidence that countries that don't universally recommend the Hep B birth-dose have worse outcomes?

I happen to believe that if you're going to recommend a preventive medical intervention, you need to show evidence of benefit. Is there any such evidence?