Rfk Wantonly Killing Babies Now

[FLaw47]

It’s political. Just like illegal immigration.

What does "it's political" mean in this context?

 

[MTTiger19]

What does "it's political" mean in this context?

The panel says this:
They put them into risk categories, higher risk child gets vaccines immediately based on what I can find. If they’re low risk there’s an option to delay the initial dose. Risk is determined by many factors but mainly mother’s health I believe. This is my minimal understanding of the change.

I’m not a doctor or immunologist so I have no idea. This seems to be motivated by something other than science, just like letting in 15 million people was motivated by something other than humanitarian aid or altruism. Illegals are disproportionately represented on welfare. I can say these obvious things because I’m not captured by a political party, unlike any of you from the left. It’s refreshing.

 

[scotchtiger]

What does "it's political" mean in this context?

I haven’t read all of the back and forth ITT, but honest question:

Does it make sense to vaccinate a baby 24 hours after birth for hepatitis B if the mother has tested negative, the parents are in a committed, monogamous relationship and the parents and family do not affiliate with drug users?

I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but we didn’t allow our kids to receive that shot in the hospital. Makes absolutely no sense given our risk profile.

I’m of the belief that some/many of the recommendations are made with the “herd” or lowest common denominator in mind. Sure, 100% vax at birth may slightly improve hep B infection rates for the herd. You’re going to pick up more kids of needle sharing loser parents in the process. But is there a potentially adverse effect at the individual level? Probably a slight one, but the determination was made to prioritize the herd.

Well, I’m going to use basic logic on contagion pathways and also prioritize my children.

To your point about having the choice already, yes that’s true. But the vast majority of people just blindly follow doctor’s orders, so with that recommendation in place, most kids were getting the hep B vax at birth even though there is no logical reason for them to. So the recommendation is rightly changing.

 

[bdgan]

Often the issue with them changing recommendations is that, yes it doesn't make it illegal to get them, but insurers don't often pay for things out of the good of their heart. And the people most effected by that in this case, would be the people who likely need it the most.

Insurers will continue to pay for the vaccines. I think the ACA requires it.

 

[MTTiger19]

I haven’t read all of the back and forth ITT, but honest question:

Does it make sense to vaccinate a baby 24 hours after birth for hepatitis B if the mother has tested negative, the parents are in a committed, monogamous relationship and the parents and family do not affiliate with drug users?

I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but we didn’t allow our kids to receive that shot in the hospital. Makes absolutely no sense given our risk profile.

I’m of the belief that some/many of the recommendations are made with the “herd” or lowest common denominator in mind. Sure, 100% vax at birth may slightly improve hep B infection rates for the herd. You’re going to pick up more kids of needle sharing loser parents in the process. But is there a potentially adverse effect at the individual level? Probably a slight one, but the determination was made to prioritize the herd.

Well, I’m going to use basic logic on contagion pathways and also prioritize my children.

To your point about having the choice already, yes that’s true. But the vast majority of people just blindly follow doctor’s orders, so with that recommendation in place, most kids were getting the hep B vax at birth even though there is no logical reason for them to. So the recommendation is rightly changing.

I know people that have described their experience when declining vaccines for children in the hospital. They describe it as being bullied or ostracized by the providers and nurses, parents should not have to deal with that imo.

 

[bdgan]

CDC panel recommends delaying birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine

The CDC's ACIP panel voted to recommend delaying the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, ending a policy that has reined in the virus.

www.statnews.com

It won't stop at Hep B either. They're going to start pulling them all eventually. If you have young children, talk to their doctors about which vaccines they can get early before the Trump administration takes them away.

Some people wake up in the morning looking for things to be alarmed about.

 

[bdgan]

CDC panel recommends delaying birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine

The CDC's ACIP panel voted to recommend delaying the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, ending a policy that has reined in the virus.

www.statnews.com

It won't stop at Hep B either. They're going to start pulling them all eventually. If you have young children, talk to their doctors about which vaccines they can get early before the Trump administration takes them away.

Goof point chump. Very soon people won't be able to get ANY vaccines. Orange man is going to take them all away. Seriously, how dare they recommend people make decisions after speaking with their doctor.

How big is your stockpile of Tylenol? Have they pilled that off the shelves yet?

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I haven’t read all of the back and forth ITT, but honest question:

Does it make sense to vaccinate a baby 24 hours after birth for hepatitis B if the mother has tested negative, the parents are in a committed, monogamous relationship and the parents and family do not affiliate with drug users?

I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but we didn’t allow our kids to receive that shot in the hospital. Makes absolutely no sense given our risk profile.

I’m of the belief that some/many of the recommendations are made with the “herd” or lowest common denominator in mind. Sure, 100% vax at birth may slightly improve hep B infection rates for the herd. You’re going to pick up more kids of needle sharing loser parents in the process. But is there a potentially adverse effect at the individual level? Probably a slight one, but the determination was made to prioritize the herd.

Well, I’m going to use basic logic on contagion pathways and also prioritize my children.

To your point about having the choice already, yes that’s true. But the vast majority of people just blindly follow doctor’s orders, so with that recommendation in place, most kids were getting the hep B vax at birth even though there is no logical reason for them to. So the recommendation is rightly changing.

Kids can spread Hep B through saliva, so sucking on the same toy or kids biting at daycare can spread it. Not only through the mother. Probably not an issue for you as you could likely afford to wait two months to send your infants to daycare, and chances are low regardless. But there is risk outside of just the mother.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Insurers will continue to pay for the vaccines. I think the ACA requires it.

That is great. Truly. Same with what MTTiger shared about AHIP. I think my concern, and many others, is a similar one to the 2A lobbyist, where it can become a slippery slope. And we are seeing step after step towards more and more vaccine skepticism. I certainly wouldn't say "RFKJr is wantonly killing babies" like the thread title, but I do think general vaccine skepticism has killed kids in the past year. And I am also just concerned that so many things have been done little by little that aren't based in peer reviewed science but by vibes, etc. Science can be wrong. It is literally what science is, the process of testing hypotheses and slowly learning over time. But I still think the top science authority in the nation should make decisions based on the best scientific information available at the time. Science never stops, so I don't expect things to stop being studied.

 

[scotchtiger]

Kids can spread Hep B through saliva, so sucking on the same toy or kids biting at daycare can spread it. Not only through the mother. Probably not an issue for you as you could likely afford to wait two months to send your infants to daycare, and chances are low regardless. But there is risk outside of just the mother.

Make that a screening question for the recommendation then. Most modern maternity leave periods are 12 weeks now, so even outside of being able to afford it, lots of people have those 2 months off. Understand that some don’t though. And still plenty of stay at home moms.

We did a nanny for the first 2 years with both of ours, so not an issue.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Make that a screening question for the recommendation then. Most modern maternity leave periods are 12 weeks now, so even outside of being able to afford it, lots of people have those 2 months off. Understand that some don’t though. And still plenty of stay at home moms.

We did a nanny for the first 2 years with both of ours, so not an issue.

Right, I didn't expect it would for you, just giving more color behind why it wasn't simply a test the mother at birth equation. And if it has shown to be safe and effective after 35 years, why they would rather be safe than sorry (maybe someone's plans change, maybe they visit somewhere, etc).

 

[baltimorened]

They put them into risk categories, higher risk child gets vaccines immediately based on what I can find. If they’re low risk there’s an option to delay the initial dose. Risk is determined by many factors but mainly mother’s health I believe. This is my minimal understanding of the change.

but, somehow, doesn't that seem to make sense? Or at least doesn't it seem logical?

 

[MTTiger19]

but, somehow, doesn't that seem to make sense? Or at least doesn't it seem logical?

Yes of course it makes sense.

 

[dpic73]

Make that a screening question for the recommendation then. Most modern maternity leave periods are 12 weeks now, so even outside of being able to afford it, lots of people have those 2 months off. Understand that some don’t though. And still plenty of stay at home moms.

We did a nanny for the first 2 years with both of ours, so not an issue.

Many people that have hep b aren't aware so did you get your nanny screened? Hep b can also live on surfaces for a week and can be transmitted through the tiniest of cuts via microscopic amounts. There are other ways to get it as well and since we know that 90% of those infected early go on to have a lifelong chronic infection and 25% will die from it due to cirrhosis or liver cancer, it makes no sense to spread skepticism or delay the shots which many won't return for. You don't know better than the science that for 35 years has shown this to be 99% safe and effective.

 

[tigres88]

@scotchtiger I understand you would probably leave it up to individual families to decide when/if to get certain vaccines like Hep. B so early. However, the logic for the recommendations from the CDC to reccommend them at birth are in response to what is laid out below, as that method was tried and failed miserably. And that's what this administration is moving back towards, and I'd be curious as to if you'd have issue with it?

This decision is a complete return to the pre-1991 strategy that public health experts widely view as a failure.

• The 1980s Failure (Why the Universal Dose Existed): Before 1991, the U.S. used the exact strategy this 2025 panel has just reinstated: vaccinating only "high-risk" babies (those born to infected mothers). This failed to stop transmission because:
  • Testing Errors: Mothers sometimes received false negative test results.
  • Systemic Gaps: Hospitals sometimes failed to screen mothers or lost records.
  • Hidden Carriers: Babies can catch Hepatitis B from infected family members or caregivers other than the mother, which maternal screening does not catch.
• The 1991 Consensus: Because the targeted strategy failed, the ACIP recommended a universal birth dose in 1991. This effectively acted as a "safety net," preventing infection regardless of testing errors.
• The Result: Since the universal strategy was implemented, Hepatitis B infections in children dropped by over 90%, virtually eliminating the disease in infants.

Summary of the Shift: The 2025 panel's decision argues that the universal dose is unnecessary for low-risk infants. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other major medical bodies define this as a dangerous regression, predicting it will lead to new cases of liver damage and cancer in children who will slip through the testing cracks—precisely the outcome the 1991 policy was designed to prevent.

 

[FLaw47]

The panel says this:
They put them into risk categories, higher risk child gets vaccines immediately based on what I can find. If they’re low risk there’s an option to delay the initial dose. Risk is determined by many factors but mainly mother’s health I believe. This is my minimal understanding of the change.

I’m not a doctor or immunologist so I have no idea. This seems to be motivated by something other than science, just like letting in 15 million people was motivated by something other than humanitarian aid or altruism. Illegals are disproportionately represented on welfare. I can say these obvious things because I’m not captured by a political party, unlike any of you from the left. It’s refreshing.

I think it's wild to acknowledge that a medical advisory committee made a change that wasn't based on science and seem to be completely unphased by it.

Let's also not pretend that the right is actually capable of acknowledging obvious things and the left isn't. I'm pissed off any time a politician wants more rent control because it doesn't work.

 

[FLaw47]

I haven’t read all of the back and forth ITT, but honest question:

Does it make sense to vaccinate a baby 24 hours after birth for hepatitis B if the mother has tested negative, the parents are in a committed, monogamous relationship and the parents and family do not affiliate with drug users?

I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but we didn’t allow our kids to receive that shot in the hospital. Makes absolutely no sense given our risk profile.

I’m of the belief that some/many of the recommendations are made with the “herd” or lowest common denominator in mind. Sure, 100% vax at birth may slightly improve hep B infection rates for the herd. You’re going to pick up more kids of needle sharing loser parents in the process. But is there a potentially adverse effect at the individual level? Probably a slight one, but the determination was made to prioritize the herd.

Well, I’m going to use basic logic on contagion pathways and also prioritize my children.

To your point about having the choice already, yes that’s true. But the vast majority of people just blindly follow doctor’s orders, so with that recommendation in place, most kids were getting the hep B vax at birth even though there is no logical reason for them to. So the recommendation is rightly changing.

It is the least surprising news ever that you would prioritize avoiding the mildest of inconveniences for your family over the benefit of "the herd".

 

[FLaw47]

Now, I don't know for a fact, but I would guess that some on the panel believe in the RFK vaccine theory, and that giving the vaccination at birth is either unnecessary or dangerous, others believe the just need to do something for the sake of doing something,. I seriously doubt if the purpose is to "wantonly kill babies". Or, like MTT posted, it might just be political.

Why do people/panels/governments make any recommendations?

I don't know how many will die or get sick because of this but I'd bet it's greater than 0. And that's certainly the case with the MMR skepticism where we've had children die this year.

My best guess is they are doing this to just sow as much distrust in vaccines as they can. I don't have a better answer.

They make recommendations because most people used to trust the government. We followed all of the CDC recommendations for vaccines.

 

[scotchtiger]

It is the least surprising news ever that you would prioritize avoiding the mildest of inconveniences for your family over the benefit of "the herd".

Not inconvenience, risk.

 

[bdgan]

That is great. Truly. Same with what MTTiger shared about AHIP. I think my concern, and many others, is a similar one to the 2A lobbyist, where it can become a slippery slope. And we are seeing step after step towards more and more vaccine skepticism. I certainly wouldn't say "RFKJr is wantonly killing babies" like the thread title, but I do think general vaccine skepticism has killed kids in the past year. And I am also just concerned that so many things have been done little by little that aren't based in peer reviewed science but by vibes, etc. Science can be wrong. It is literally what science is, the process of testing hypotheses and slowly learning over time. But I still think the top science authority in the nation should make decisions based on the best scientific information available at the time. Science never stops, so I don't expect things to stop being studied.

RFK put his own people in place which is customary. You might not agree with their bias which is OK but look them up. They are all very experienced doctors and scientists with impressive resumes and they voted 8-3 to make the recommendation to wait until 2 months for this vaccine. It's only a recommendation and people can still do what they want and have it covered by insurance.

 

[FLaw47]

Not inconvenience, risk.

Risks:

Common Mild Side Effects

• At Injection Site: Pain, redness, swelling, or bruising.
• General: Low-grade fever, headache, fatigue, fussiness, irritability, or loss of appetite.
• Infants: May experience crying, drowsiness, or diarrhea.

Rare & Serious Risks

• Severe Allergic Reaction (Anaphylaxis): About 1 in 600,000 doses causes this, with symptoms like swelling of the mouth/throat, difficulty breathing, low blood pressure, or shock, usually within minutes.
• Fainting: A small risk with any injection.

Half of people with Hepatitis B don't know they have it.

My reading suggests 0.4% to 0.7% of Americans have Hep B.

You're clearly allowed to make your own choices but it seems like a higher risk to not get the vaccine.

 

[FLaw47]

RFK put his own people in place which is customary. You might not agree with their bias which is OK but look them up. They are all very experienced doctors and scientists with impressive resumes and they voted 8-3 to make the recommendation to wait until 2 months for this vaccine. It's only a recommendation and people can still do what they want and have it covered by insurance.

With a big enough population, you can find plenty of "experienced" morons with "impressive" resumes. He stacked the committee with vaccine skeptics. They have negative credibility on this. I'm being 100% serious - if the committee announces something I'm going to assume the opposite is in fact true and find out if there is any validity to what they've said.

 

[dpic73]

RFK put his own people in place which is customary. You might not agree with their bias which is OK but look them up. They are all very experienced doctors and scientists with impressive resumes and they voted 8-3 to make the recommendation to wait until 2 months for this vaccine. It's only a recommendation and people can still do what they want and have it covered by insurance.

First of all, it's not customary to have a vaccine skeptic with no medical background and a worm in his brain as HHS secretary. And furthermore, it's laughable that you find his appointments credible. These people are not respected by the greater scientific community.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/technology/robert-malone-covid.html

 

[scotchtiger]

Risks:


Half of people with Hepatitis B don't know they have it.

My reading suggests 0.4% to 0.7% of Americans have Hep B.

You're clearly allowed to make your own choices but it seems like a higher risk to not get the vaccine.

What’s the percentage of upper middle class and above, non drug users who have hepatitis B? My assumption is much lower than 0.4-0.7%. And that’s all my kids interact with. Even our nannies generally came from households similar ours.

My point is that the recommendation shouldn't be the same for everyone. Different people have different risk profiles. But because the CDC has to standardize a recommendation, they went with the recommendation for the lowest common denominator. And that recommendation isn't right for my family.

 

[baltimorened]

I don't know how many will die or get sick because of this but I'd bet it's greater than 0. And that's certainly the case with the MMR skepticism where we've had children die this year.

My best guess is they are doing this to just sow as much distrust in vaccines as they can. I don't have a better answer.

They make recommendations because most people used to trust the government. We followed all of the CDC recommendations for vaccines.

Do you think the government could show more doubt into the vaccine requirements after COVID?

I speak only for myself, but I know that when the COVID vaccines came out, I was in line the first day my age group was eligible. Went back for the second shot as recommended. Listened to all the "trust the science", masked, stayed 6 feet away from everyone, only to discover that what I was being told was not 100% accurate.

I haven't been back for a COVID shot since.

But, just to be clear, I'm not against or for this recommendation by the CDC. From what I've read, and not all the technical medical data, there seems to be just as many good arguments for the new recommendation as for the old. And, I have no idea which one is right.
I do know that I, my wife, my son and my grandchildren have all followed the old vaccine recommendations - all of them - and when I am blessed with great grandchildren we would sit with our doctor, whether that be Hepatitus at birth or 2 months later. do research and err on the side of safety.

On the issue/question of the old standbys, measles, polio, chicken pox, etc, the government should not screw around with new recommendations/directives. Although I have to admit, that I find it somewhat ironic, that we have admitted into the country, millions of people who's vaccination status is unknown. And, we don't seem to be very concerned about that.

 

[Rastafarian]

I hope insurance companies stop covering care for those who don’t take vaccines that are recommended by cdc etc. if you arent doing your part to prevent health care issues then why should others be forced to subsidize your decision?

I don’t like taking vacccines and almost never take a prescription med, but if someone who has dedicated their life to researching this stuff tells me it’s in my own best interest, then I absolutely am going to do so.

I don’t understand anti-vaxxers. You wouldn’t go against your CPA or lawyer, so why are you going against doctors?

 

[FLaw47]

Do you think the government could show more doubt into the vaccine requirements after COVID?

I speak only for myself, but I know that when the COVID vaccines came out, I was in line the first day my age group was eligible. Went back for the second shot as recommended. Listened to all the "trust the science", masked, stayed 6 feet away from everyone, only to discover that what I was being told was not 100% accurate.

I haven't been back for a COVID shot since.

But, just to be clear, I'm not against or for this recommendation by the CDC. From what I've read, and not all the technical medical data, there seems to be just as many good arguments for the new recommendation as for the old. And, I have no idea which one is right.
I do know that I, my wife, my son and my grandchildren have all followed the old vaccine recommendations - all of them - and when I am blessed with great grandchildren we would sit with our doctor, whether that be Hepatitus at birth or 2 months later. do research and err on the side of safety.

On the issue/question of the old standbys, measles, polio, chicken pox, etc, the government should not screw around with new recommendations/directives. Although I have to admit, that I find it somewhat ironic, that we have admitted into the country, millions of people who's vaccination status is unknown. And, we don't seem to be very concerned about that.

It seems like you threw some baby out with the bathwater there.

 

[FLaw47]

What’s the percentage of upper middle class and above, non drug users who have hepatitis B? My assumption is much lower than 0.4-0.7%. And that’s all my kids interact with. Even our nannies generally came from households similar ours.

My point is that the recommendation shouldn't be the same for everyone. Different people have different risk profiles. But because the CDC has to standardize a recommendation, they went with the recommendation for the lowest common denominator. And that recommendation isn't right for my family.

So it sounds like you think the recommendation shouldn't have been changed?

 

[MTTiger19]

I think it's wild to acknowledge that a medical advisory committee made a change that wasn't based on science and seem to be completely unphased by it.

Let's also not pretend that the right is actually capable of acknowledging obvious things and the left isn't. I'm pissed off any time a politician wants more rent control because it doesn't work.

I didn’t say that, I told you what they reported and gave my uneducated opinion. My guess is every single physician on that panel knows more about this than you or I do. A very common thing to hear from the left is, “trust the experts”. I don’t typically subscribe to that line of thinking but anytime I question the response to COVID or question trans conversion therapy, that’s the exact response I am met with. Trust the experts. That’s my main point of contention here, my kids are vaxxed, I’m not anti-vax, I find it incredibly inconsistent to cite experts you agree with and then take anyone that has an alternative point of view and saying they’re a quack. To Hucks very point, science is constantly changing. Rent control is one issue the left parrots. But illegal immigration, abuse of welfare, soft crime policies are seemingly staples of the left that go completely unchecked so don’t get upset when I don’t care about vaccine schedules.

 

[FLaw47]

I didn’t say that, I told you what they reported and gave my uneducated opinion. My guess is every single physician on that panel knows more about this than you or I do. A very common thing to hear from the left is, “trust the experts”. I don’t typically subscribe to that line of thinking but anytime I question the response to COVID or question trans conversion therapy, that’s the exact response I am met with. Trust the experts. That’s my main point of contention here, my kids are vaxxed, I’m not anti-vax, I find it incredibly inconsistent to cite experts you agree with and then take anyone that has an alternative point of view and saying they’re a quack. To Hucks very point, science is constantly changing. Rent control is one issue the left parrots. But illegal immigration, abuse of welfare, soft crime policies are seemingly staples of the left that go completely unchecked so don’t get upset when I don’t care about vaccine schedules.

"Trust the experts" doesn't mean "trust an individual person" it's "err towards believing the expert consensus.". These individuals are severely out of step with the broad consensus of experts. It was never meant to be a choose your own adventure.

 

[MTTiger19]

"Trust the experts" doesn't mean "trust an individual person" it's "err towards believing the expert consensus.". These individuals are severely out of step with the broad consensus of experts. It was never meant to be a choose your own adventure.

And yet here we are….

 

[scotchtiger]

So it sounds like you think the recommendation shouldn't have been changed?

Not at all. The standard recommendation should have been changed. Perhaps they can incorporate some screening questions like, "do you know who the father is?" and "do you or anyone you associate with do drugs that involve needles?" Then offer it to those with clear flags.

 

[FLaw47]

Not at all. The standard recommendation should have been changed. Perhaps they can incorporate some screening questions like, "do you know who the father is?" and "do you or anyone you associate with do drugs that involve needles?" Then offer it to those with clear flags.

Do you think it's more or less likely that a high risk person gets their kid vaccinated when it feels like they'll be morally judged for answering honestly?

I think we've seen a lot of good from the old recommendations and, to the best of my knowledge, approximately nothing bad.

 

[FLaw47]

And yet here we are….

What are you trying to say?

 

[nytigerfan]

What’s the percentage of upper middle class and above, non drug users who have hepatitis B? My assumption is much lower than 0.4-0.7%. And that’s all my kids interact with. Even our nannies generally came from households similar ours.

My point is that the recommendation shouldn't be the same for everyone. Different people have different risk profiles. But because the CDC has to standardize a recommendation, they went with the recommendation for the lowest common denominator. And that recommendation isn't right for my family.

Dont your kids go to public school?

 

[MTTiger19]

What are you trying to say?

That we will have to agree to disagree sir. We clearly aren’t going to side with one another.

 

[FLaw47]

That we will have to agree to disagree sir. We clearly aren’t going to side with one another.

Honestly, why even comment on these threads if your mind cannot be changed?

 

[dpic73]

Not at all. The standard recommendation should have been changed. Perhaps they can incorporate some screening questions like, "do you know who the father is?" and "do you or anyone you associate with do drugs that involve needles?" Then offer it to those with clear flags.

Do you really think everyone would answer those questions honestly? And as others have already pointed out, we already tried it your way pre-1991 and it didn't work because you can't account for every possible form of transmission, even for babies born into wealthy Aryan families, so why would you change a recommendation for a vax that does you no harm? Because it's been proven that the earlier they get vaccinated, the better their chance of developing full immunity and again, it's completely safe despite your non-medical opinion.

 

[dpic73]

"Trust the experts" doesn't mean "trust an individual person" it's "err towards believing the expert consensus.". These individuals are severely out of step with the broad consensus of experts. It was never meant to be a choose your own adventure.

Can't you see his point that it's fine that a panel of quacks make bad recommendations because Democrats did something he didn't like?

 

[MTTiger19]

Honestly, why even comment on these threads if your mind cannot be changed?

Are the arbiter of my thoughts and speech. Who are you to ask me that? I can assure you I don’t come to this dumb board to have my mind changed.