RFK Adjusts Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendations; Democrats Lose Their Minds

[Nithavela]

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

Happy to see that they have rediscovered it.

 

[DaisyDay]

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".

Since you knew they were not my words, why did you put them in quotes and demand that I defend them as my beliefs? Since you knew, that is disingenuous at best.

I stand by my actual words. Evidence is different from proof.

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.

Context is crucial. VAERS exists for the purpose of being an early warning system. If it is brought up to demonstrate what it does not nor is meant to, then it is immediately dismissed as anecdotal evidence not arising to the level of proof. By "no one" you seem to be excluding the researchers and epidemiologists for whom this database exists in favor of random posters.

Far from my dismissing the entire database because of this single case, my point is both that outliers need to be weeded and that significant trends do need to be investigated, investigated by researchers.

Have you ever read a VAERS report that concerned you?

Sure.

Have you ever actually done what you suggest here and filtered the noise from the data?

No, that is way beyond my skill set. I have never even taken statistics although I did take a couple of courses on using related software.

Yes. Have you?

Obviously or I wouldn't have said I did and mentioned a particular case I read about.

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.

How would you know if your case wasn't looked into as part of statistical studies? What did the emergency room tell you? Your treating physicians would be the ones to advise you personally and report your case history.

What follow up were you expecting from database researchers?

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

Again, sure. Ask me as many times as you please, the answer will remain the same. After the first time, this just seems rhetorical and tiresome on your part, not at all informational.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Yes, this has been my point consistently throughout this discussion of VAERS.

 

[DaisyDay]

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

Repeating my own question back at me is singularly unhelpful. The question is genuine and I was hoping that you or someone with actual knowledge could answer it.

The data is available

The data *are* - where?

. Many countries don't recommend the birth-dose of the Hep B vaccine.

What is their reason for this? Is there evidence that a dose given at 24 hours of birth has worse outcomes or is less effective than one given at three months or is this simply how they've "always" done it?

Is there evidence that those counties have "more childhood hepatitis B infections" and "more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood"?

*countries* Also, do those countries' populations have more chronic liver problems than the populations of countries that vaccinate at 24 hours?

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 don't know. Do you? Do you know if they have better, worse or similar outcomes at three months over 24 hours?

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?

There is considerable evidence - overwhelming to the point of arising to proof - that hep b infant vaccinations prevent death and long term complications. The immediate question is which timing is preferable and why. At least theoretically, 24 hours will provide protection from transmission during the time the infant is vulnerable.

From post #36

Hepatitis B: The Disease & Vaccines

All infants and young children are recommended to receive the hepatitis B vaccine to help prevent the severe liver disease that can develop if infected with hepatitis B virus.

www.chop.edu

People most often get hepatitis B from contact with blood. Blood from a person infected with hepatitis B virus is heavily contaminated with the virus. The virus is present at such high levels that it can be spread by contact with quantities of blood too small to see. The virus can also survive on surfaces longer than most viruses — up to seven days. As a result, even casual contact with the blood of someone who is infected can cause infection. Casual contact can include sharing of washcloths, toothbrushes, or razors...​

​

...The spread of hepatitis B virus has been difficult to control in the U.S. because the disease can be transmitted by casual contact and because so many chronically infected people don’t know they are infected. It’s estimated that about three-quarters of a million to 2 million people in the U.S. are chronically infected with hepatitis B virus. The original strategy aimed at controlling hepatitis B in the U.S. started in the early 1980s. The goal at that time was to vaccinate only those at highest risk (for example, healthcare workers, patients on dialysis, and intravenous drug users). But because the disease can be transmitted to those who are not in high-risk groups, this vaccine strategy didn't work. The incidence of hepatitis B virus disease in the U.S. remained unchanged 10 years after the strategy was first used! So, the vaccine strategy was changed. Starting in 1991, all infants and young children were recommended to receive the hepatitis B vaccine. As a result, the incidence of hepatitis B virus infections in the U.S. started to decline. Indeed, this strategy has virtually eliminated the disease in children less than 19 years of age. If we stick with it, we have a chance to finally eliminate this devastating disease within one or two generations.[oh well]​

​

...Large quantities of hepatitis B virus are present in the blood of people with hepatitis B. In fact, as many as one billion infectious viruses can be found in a milliliter of blood from an infected individual. A milliliter is about one-fifth of a teaspoon. Therefore, amounts of blood too small to be seen can contain enough viral particles to cause infection. In addition, many people don't know that they are infected. For these reasons, it is very hard to avoid the chance of getting infected with hepatitis B virus.​

 

[probinson]

Repeating my own question back at me is singularly unhelpful. The question is genuine and I was hoping that you or someone with actual knowledge could answer it.

I didn't repeat your question back to you. I rephrased it. Your position seems to be that there needs to be evidence of harm to not recommend it. My position is that there needs to be evidence of benefit to recommend it. Those are very different positions.

What is their reason for this? Is there evidence that a dose given at 24 hours of birth has worse outcomes or is less effective than one given at three months or is this simply how they've "always" done it?

*countries* Also, do those countries' populations have more chronic liver problems than the populations of countries that vaccinate at 24 hours?

I don't know. Do you? Do you know if they have better, worse or similar outcomes at three months over 24 hours?

What we seem to be agreeing on here is that there is no evidence of benefit or harm in the timing of the vaccine dose. Therefore, the proclamations that this will lead to more infections are, shall we say, a bit over the top, and not at all informed by evidence.

There is considerable evidence - overwhelming to the point of arising to proof - that hep b infant vaccinations prevent death and long term complications.

Swell. Is there evidence that vaccinating newborns at low risk results in better outcomes for them? I'm asking the same question you are. The difference is that I want to see evidence of a benefit to the birth-dose of the vaccine to make a universal recommendation.

 

[probinson]

Since you knew they were not my words, why did you put them in quotes and demand that I defend them as my beliefs? Since you knew, that is disingenuous at best.

First of all, I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. I put things in quotes that people have said. I'm pleased to know that you don't think VAERS is "riddled with lies and misnfo" and I apologize if you think I was trying to make it seem like you said something you did not. That was not my intent.

I stand by my actual words. Evidence is different from proof.

Context is crucial. VAERS exists for the purpose of being an early warning system.

I couldn't disagree more. VAERS did nothing to inform the vaccination policies during COVID despite a veritable mountain of reports. V-Safe did even less. The main thing they provided was the illusion that someone was tracking adverse events.

If it is brought up to demonstrate what it does not nor is meant to, then it is immediately dismissed as anecdotal evidence not arising to the level of proof.

if you say so. Meanwhile, the database consists of reports from real people who have been harmed by vaccines, and they are tossed into this database and simply forgotten.

By "no one" you seem to be excluding the researchers and epidemiologists for whom this database exists in favor of random posters.

I truly don't believe the database exists for any other reason than to pretend like someone actually cares about adverse events from vaccination.

Far from my dismissing the entire database because of this single case, my point is both that outliers need to be weeded and that significant trends do need to be investigated, investigated by researchers.

Did you see the increase in number of VAERS repots during COVID? Even though there were clearly fake reports, exactly how many reports do you think constitutes a "significant trend"? There's no doubt there's "noise" in this data, but there's also some very real "trends"that warranted further investigation. That didn't stop the government and public health from telling everyone to get vaccinated multiple times per year. Their booster recommendations during the Biden administration resulted in the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA resigning in protest.

The bottom line is, what you're saying sounds great. If VAERS were used in the way you explain, it would be a wonderful system to identify risks and pivot accordingly. But that's not what happens in practice. In practice, people pretend like the fact that there were over 1,000,000 VAERS reports in a single year when the previous high was around 60K is all just "noise" worthy of being ignored.

Sure.

Would you be willing to share more specifics? What vaccine was involved, and what was concerning to you?

No, that is way beyond my skill set. I have never even taken statistics although I did take a couple of courses on using related software.

Fair enough.

 

[DaisyDay]

I didn't repeat your question back to you. I rephrased it.

A distinction without much difference still provided no actual information.

Your position seems to be that there needs to be evidence of harm to not recommend it. My position is that there needs to be evidence of benefit to recommend it. Those are very different positions.

No, my question is concerning the timing of 24 hours vs three months, whether one is better, worse or no difference from the other. The benefit of the vaccine for infants is not seriously disputed that I've seen.

What we seem to be agreeing on here is that there is no evidence of benefit or harm in the timing of the vaccine dose. Therefore, the proclamations that this will lead to more infections are, shall we say, a bit over the top, and not at all informed by evidence.

No, we are not agreed that there is no evidence. My position is that I don't know one way or the other. My not knowing something does not mean that evidence of it does not exist. This is the basis for my asking.

Swell. Is there evidence that vaccinating newborns at low risk results in better outcomes for them? I'm asking the same question you are. The difference is that I want to see evidence of a benefit to the birth-dose of the vaccine to make a universal recommendation.

Is there a benefit to waiting three months? At least theoretically, the shorter window of vulnerability would be a benefit for the earlier one.

 

[probinson]

Is there a benefit to waiting three months? At least theoretically, the shorter window of vulnerability would be a benefit for the earlier one.

Again, you're asking a completely different question. The question should be, is there a benefit to vaccinating a newborn who is at low-risk? If there is no evidence of benefit, then you're simply introducing risk, no matter how small it might be. "First do no harm" means tthat if we're going to recommend that every newborn baby should receive a Hep B vaccine within hours of birth, there should be evidence of benefit for such a recommendation.

Your theoretical can only be true if you assume that the risk associated with vaccination at birth is zero. It's not. We may not know exactly what it is, and I'm sure it's quite small. But it's not zero. There is always a risk in any medical intervention. I know people have been taught to believe that vaccines are all benefit and no risk, but that's simply not true. If there is no evidence of benefit, then all you have left is risk, no matter how small it may be.

Earlier in the thread, there was a link to the ACP's statement on this change in recommendation. It said:

“For example, ACIP’s decision to downgrade the longstanding recommendation to vaccinate all newborns against hepatitis B at birth 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. No new data was presented during the ACIP meeting to justify this change. ​

​

“The evidence remains clear: the hepatitis B birth dose is safe and an essential component in helping children develop immunity against a serious, potentially lifelong disease. In fact, since the U.S. implemented the hepatitis B birth dose in 1991, annual hepatitis B infections among infants and children have dropped 99%, from 16,000 to less than 20. This progress is directly attributable to timely vaccination.  ​

​

“ACIP’s actions will harm children, their families and the medical professionals who care for them. That is why we are joining together to speak up. American families deserve information grounded in science and clear, consistent guidance – not speculation intended to scare them. We urge the CDC leaders to reject ACIP’s new recommendation and instead retain the current, evidence-based approach.”   ​

Those are bold statements. Is there any evidence that "timely vaccination" is the reason that Hep B infections have dropped? We've already established that correlation is not causation, but here it seems it gets a pass. They make a bold statement this is "directly attributable to timely vaccination", as if we're to believe that there are no other confounders in play here over the last 34 years. No in this case, correlation IS causation.

Where is the evidence that supports this apoplectic hand-wringing?

 

[DaisyDay]

First of all, I'm not "demanding" anything of anyone. I put things in quotes that people have said.

Why put in quotes what people-not-me have said and then sweetly inquire how I defend "my beliefs" when they're not my beliefs?

I'm pleased to know that you don't think VAERS is "riddled with lies and misnfo" and I apologize if you think I was trying to make it seem like you said something you did not. That was not my intent.

Oookay....then what was your intent in labeling what was in quotes as "my beliefs" then delicately requesting that I defend said beliefs?

I couldn't disagree more. VAERS did nothing to inform the vaccination policies during COVID despite a veritable mountain of reports. V-Safe did even less. The main thing they provided was the illusion that someone was tracking adverse events.

The pandemic was a new situation as was the vaccine development and distribution. Data will always lag the events with analysis lagging even further behind and determining a course of action, particularly a change in the course, lagging even further behind. Do you truly believe that adverse reactions to the administration of the vaccines were not and are not tracked?

Where do you think data for studies come from? VAERS is one source.

if you say so. Meanwhile, the database consists of reports from real people who have been harmed by vaccines, and they are tossed into this database and simply forgotten.

There are also reports from health professionals and required reporters - as well as cranks, trolls and those looking to game the system to make a profit.

I truly don't believe the database exists for any other reason than to pretend like someone actually cares about adverse events from vaccination.

Well then, that's that. I don't see any point in further discussion since your mind is made up no matter what.

Did you see the increase in number of VAERS repots during COVID? Even though there were clearly fake reports, exactly how many reports do you think constitutes a "significant trend"? There's no doubt there's "noise" in this data, but there's also some very real "trends"that warranted further investigation. That didn't stop the government and public health from telling everyone to get vaccinated multiple times per year. Their booster recommendations during the Biden administration resulted in the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA resigning in protest.

The bottom line is, what you're saying sounds great. If VAERS were used in the way you explain, it would be a wonderful system to identify risks and pivot accordingly. But that's not what happens in practice. In practice, people pretend like the fact that there were over 1,000,000 VAERS reports in a single year when the previous high was around 60K is all just "noise" worthy of being ignored.

View attachment 374261

Oh look! A graph with no sourcing. Cool.

Would you be willing to share more specifics? What vaccine was involved, and what was concerning to you?

This was years ago. Generally, at some point I was looking at some covid vaccines particularly among the elderly in nursing homes. I don't remember the specifics - it was years ago and I was not particularly invested.

Again, you're asking a completely different question.

No, the question is not completely different; it is mostly the same.

The question should be, is there a benefit to vaccinating a newborn who is at low-risk?

I disagree - the question is what is the risk to benefit ratio to vaccinating at 24 hours versus at three months? That there is a benefit at all has been pretty well established by the near elimination of Hep B and its associated problems (cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, etc.) in children after the protocol was instituted compared to before.

If there is no evidence of benefit, then you're simply introducing risk, no matter how small it might be. "First do no harm" means tthat if we're going to recommend that every newborn baby should receive a Hep B vaccine within hours of birth, there should be evidence of benefit for such a recommendation.

Is the risk at 24 hours greater than the risk at three months? The risk includes the vaccination itself as well as the risk of infection between 24 hours and three months, taking into consideration that a newborn is more likely to be closely monitored by doctors and nurses than a three month old in a doctor's office or clinic.

Your theoretical can only be true if you assume that the risk associated with vaccination at birth is zero.

Baloney. Is the risk greater or lesser at 24 hours than at three months? I don't know - my theoretical actually assumed equal risk but not no risk. If the risk is greater earlier, please provide evidence that this is so. You haven't even given a theoretical why this would be so.

It's not. We may not know exactly what it is, and I'm sure it's quite small. But it's not zero. There is always a risk in any medical intervention. I know people have been taught to believe that vaccines are all benefit and no risk, but that's simply not true. If there is no evidence of benefit, then all you have left is risk, no matter how small it may be.

If that's what you know, then I question your general knowledge.

Earlier in the thread, there was a link to the ACP's statement on this change in recommendation. It said:

“For example, ACIP’s decision to downgrade the longstanding recommendation to vaccinate all newborns against hepatitis B at birth 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. No new data was presented during the ACIP meeting to justify this change. ​

​

“The evidence remains clear: the hepatitis B birth dose is safe and an essential component in helping children develop immunity against a serious, potentially lifelong disease. In fact, since the U.S. implemented the hepatitis B birth dose in 1991, annual hepatitis B infections among infants and children have dropped 99%, from 16,000 to less than 20. This progress is directly attributable to timely vaccination.  ​

​

“ACIP’s actions will harm children, their families and the medical professionals who care for them. That is why we are joining together to speak up. American families deserve information grounded in science and clear, consistent guidance – not speculation intended to scare them. We urge the CDC leaders to reject ACIP’s new recommendation and instead retain the current, evidence-based approach.”   ​

Those are bold statements. Is there any evidence that "timely vaccination" is the reason that Hep B infections have dropped? We've already established that correlation is not causation, but here it seems it gets a pass. They make a bold statement this is "directly attributable to timely vaccination", as if we're to believe that there are no other confounders in play here over the last 34 years. No in this case, correlation IS causation.

Where is the evidence that supports this apoplectic hand-wringing?

How do you justify other people-not-you saying what you haven't said?

 

[probinson]

Well then, that's that. I don't see any point in further discussion since your mind is made up no matter what.

As opposed to your open-mindedness...

But OK then. Nice talking to you!

Oh look! A graph with no sourcing. Cool.

Perhaps your eyesight is failing you. There is source listed right on the image. It's a bar chart showing the number of VAERS reports over the years. If you don't trust the chart, you can query CDC Wonder yourself to verify.

 

[probinson]

CF has been flaky for me the last two days, so I lost much of my last post. But I feel it's important to talk about one of those things that I lost: Healthy Vaccinee Bias.

Basically, it goes something like this:

• A mostly-healthy, low-risk population is vaccinated.
• A retrospective observational study is conducted.
• Very few people get sick ard/or die.
• THE VACCINES WORKED! THE HEAVENS REJOICE! THE MEDIA DOTH DECLARE THAT THE VIRUS HAS BEEN DEFEATED! ALL HAIL SCIENCE!

What studies like this fail to account for is that even if the mostly-healthy, low-risk population had not been vaccinated, they would still have had very few people get sick and/or die. We're back to correlation != causation. But in the case of these observational studies (funded by industry, natch) , correlation IS causation. We gave the vaccine, people didn't get sick, ergo, the vaccine was effective. This is why there is often not a comparator to unvaccinated populations.

They tried this during COIVD. Studies were awash with healthy vaccinee bias. It worked for a little while. Who can forget the government propaganda, "The Pandemic of the Unvaccinated"? Until the real-world demonstrated that people who were vaccinated were getting sick just as much as people who weren't vaccinated. Fully vaccinated populations experienced outbreaks of infections. Odd, if the vaccine is supposed to "protect" you. Then came the pivot. You'll still get COVID, but you won't die. But people who weren't vaccinated weren't dying either. And no matter how many industry-funded studies there were, reality set in. That's one of the reasons why COVID vaccine uptake dwindled each year and is now in the low 20% range.

The authors and organizations that write and publish these studies know precisely where their bread is buttered. They know the average person doesn't understand the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. They know the average person doesn't understand healthy vaccinee bias. So they publish studies with the "right" results to keep their funders happy.

Here is a great article that demonstrates how the industry has captured our healthcare systems.

"Our healthcare system isn’t about health—it’s about business.​

And in this business, harm isn’t an accident. It’s built into the system.​

The more I uncovered, the more I realized:​

We aren’t just patients. We are customers.​

And we are all trapped in Big Pharma’s spider web of influence."​

Trapped in the Spider Web: How Big Pharma Captured Our Healthcare System

GUEST POST written by Kim Witczak

blog.maryannedemasi.com

​