Hepatitis B is transmitted through infected blood and bodily fluids, often through sexual intercourse. Why does the US health system insist that newborns receive a vaccination against an STD at birth? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine panel plans to re-evaluate the mandate.
The current recommendation states that newborns should be vaccinated against hepatitis B within the first 24 hours of birth. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, has delayed voting on updated guidelines due to the controversy.
The vaccine panel voted to recommend testing for hepatitis B in pregnant women as the disease can be transferred from mother to baby. Pharmaceutical company Merck, who recently moved a multi-million dollar facility from the UK to the US, insists the vaccine is safe and effective at birth. Yet, there are no concrete studies to show whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits.
This disease is not airborne nor can be passed through coughing, sneezing, or close contact. There must be an exchange of bodily fluid, and the primary infector here would be the mother (vertical transmission). If the disease cannot be spread through anything other than bodily fluid, why is the medical community insistent on a mandate? Parents should have the ability to chose the best course of action for their baby’s health.
Health complications from the vaccine are rare, but never zero. “Six studies reported serious adverse events (SAEs) such as the requirement for escalation of respiratory support. However, these occurred predominantly in high-risk infant populations and were rare (~1%),” a study published by the National Library of Medicine detailed. The study also notes a decreased risk of adverse side effects among newborns vaccinated after one week of birth. Yet, the study also explains the importance of catching the disease early. “Infection in the newborn or during early childhood leads to chronic hepatitis in 95% of infections, whereas infection acquired during adulthood is less likely to lead to chronic disease, with less than 5% of patients in this category.”
“I believe that this vaccine is absolutely critical for babies that are treated,” said member Retsef Levi, who has been vocal about his opposition to RNA vaccines. “But this notion that we sit here with very lousy evidence and argue there is no problem whatsoever [with administering the shot at birth] is not building trust, and it’s not scientific and it’s not what the public here should expect from us.”
The panel is considering updating the recommendation to infants at one month of age. “As people have asked, why would we pick one month? Why two? There’s no evidence that it’s safer at a later time,” Meissner said. “It’s an extremely safe vaccine, a very pure vaccine. So I think we will be creating new doubts in the minds of the public that are not justified.”
Others believe there is insufficient evidence. “I believe that there’s enough ambiguity here and enough remaining discussion about safety, effectiveness, and timing that I believe that a vote today would be premature,” Dr. Robert Malone said.
The bottom line is that we have a string of vaccines pushed upon the population from birth until death that have not been properly tested. Those who fund the studies also profit from the vaccinations, which is precisely the problem. Before Kennedy, no one questioned whether or not the guidelines coming from health agencies were backed by actual science. There were very few vaccination mandates for newborns a few decades ago, and now, babies in America receive FIFTEEN doses of vaccinations during their first year of life—and “the science” cannot clearly show whether these concoctions are “safe and effective.”