Without evidence, RFK Jr.’s vaccine panel tosses Heb B vaccine recommendation

There is no data supporting a delay and no evidence of harm from a birth dose.

See full article...

 

[morgenrot]

In Canada it’s two months and always has been. If this same change was made by democrats and marketed as bringing the US in line with international norms, every single comment here would be cheering. Funny how that works.

WRONG, Canada recommends a first-dose vaccination with monovalent vaccine against hepatitis B within 24 h of birth:
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-hea...tive-vaccines/page-7-hepatitis-b-vaccine.html

 

[morgenrot]

Seems like common sense to me that the older you get the less risk there is of any developmental damage from a vaccine. I would think once a disease is under control you would push the vaccine dates back farther and farther ideally until after 18 when all neural development is basically complete.

People always act like no evidence showing something is harmful means it is safe. I don't think people that say this understand the multitude of ways something can be harmful. The idea that we could be aware of and let alone study all of them is so absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of how the natural world works. This is why it's always smart to error on the side of caution.

You’re kidding, right?

What you wrote betrays a complete lack of understanding of the dangers of getting infected by e.g. hepatitis B, or HPV, or smallpox, or polio virus, and the dangers of the diseases they cause spreading in a population compared to the dangers of getting vaccinated with vaccines that have been a) extensively tested, bother prospectively and retrospectively, and b) that have caused extinction or near-extinction of some of the viruses mentioned above. Not getting vaccinated with vaccines that are safe is the opposite of erring on the side of caution.

Oh, and you’ll have to do better than telling us about an undefinable multitude of unknowable ways that vaccines could be harmful and that we can’t possibly be aware of. You brought up neural development in this regard - any evidence for this conjecture you’d care to share?

 

[morgenrot]

Maybe I’m missing something, but according to that link, only New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut give the hep b vaccine at birth. Six of the provinces don’t even have an infant program at all (ie not even at 1/2 months).



The recommendation to give the first dose at birth only applies if the province actually has an infant program using monovalent vaccine, and almost none of them do.

Yes, the Canadian recommendations are to vaccinate at birth where there is an infant vaccine program or if the mother has a positive test. Whether only some or all of the provinces have programs to vaccinate at birth, i.e. before 2 months after birth, as was previously claimed to be the Canadian recommendation, seems not irrelevant to the argument, doesn’t it? My point was to stick to discussions of the actual recommendations, which are much more nuanced and dependent on specific circumstances than what is typically used to descend into some random political rant.

Similar nuance applies to the hepatitis B recommendations in the EU, where in some countries with low prenatal testing rate and high hepatitis B prevalence, such as Romania, the recommendation is to vaccinate at birth, while in countries with broad testing (and health insurance coverage), where incidentally the hepatitis B prevalence is low (mmh, wonder why? /s), positive test-dependent hepatitis B vaccination of newborns is indicated, and a later immunization of non-at-risk newborns can be recommended where prevalence is low and testing coverage broad. This contrasts with the US, where barriers to testing are higher and the uninsured rate (and decreased testing coverage) is over 15% (compared to < 0.2%-0.5% uninsured in the EU states with broad testing, or Canada), and the prevalence of hepatitis B in the uninsured population is high.

 

[morgenrot]

But what you actually stated had none of that nuance or relevant information, so it was an odd comment if that was what you wanted to emphasize.

Haha, yes, all that nuance was not in my first comment because it diluted my main point, which was that the statement I responded to (“In Canada it’s two months and always has been“) is incorrect. And I did provide the relevant information for why I believe that this general statement is incorrect. Your response citing the details of what is recommended in Canada and where, provided a good context to add the that nuance.