ACIP Committee Changes Hep B Recommendation For Day-Old-Infants - Current Recommendations Miss The Mark

Most Americans may not know what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided on the birth dose of the Hepatitis B “vaccines” for children. For those who do and are cheering Robert F. Kennedy’s new “champions” of informed consent, you might want to throttle back that cheering and applause.

For full disclosure, this writer watched much of the ACIP two-day meeting and heard the “banter” between members and liaisons. Therefore, it can be said, this “committee” ignored much of the evidence presented.

Children’s Health Defense reported:

Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) this morning voted to end a decades-long recommendation that all infants born in the U.S. receive the hepatitis B vaccine (Hep B) within 12-24 hours of birth.

Instead, for babies born to mothers who test negative for hepatitis B, the committee recommends that families determine whether to give their child the Hep B shot at birth through individual decision-making with their physician.

For infants who don’t get the birth dose, the committee recommends the initial dose of the vaccine not be administered until infants are at least 2 months old.

Three of the 11 committee members — Dr. Raymond Pollack, Dr. Cody Meissner and Dr. Joseph R. Hibbeln — opposed the recommendation. The remaining eight members supported it.

The only thing this decision did was change when infants received the vaccine. A baby born to a mother who tests negative for Hepatitis B is “recommended” by ACIP to decide at the time whether or not to receive the Hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of birth. If parents reject injecting their baby with the Hepatitis B vaccine on the first day, ACIP “recommends” the vaccine be given no earlier than 2 months of age.

Mothers who test positive for Hepatitis B or whose status is unknown are “recommended” to give their newborns the “birth dose” of the Hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccine.

While this has ended the “universal recommendation for the Hepatitis B vaccine birth dose”, ACIP still recommends infants receive the Hep B vaccine beginning at 2 months of age, then additional doses at 4 and 6 months, depending upon a serology test after the first dose.

Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland had this to say about the committee’s decision.

“The science behind that universal recommendation was a sham, based on thoroughly inadequate clinical trials. Hundreds of babies unquestionably died because of it. While I question whether any baby should receive a vaccine against a rare disease in infancy, I am pleased that this is now a matter for parents and their healthcare practitioner to decide — not a state mandate based on a federal pharma-backed recommendation.

“And while the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] on this issue was tedious and rancorous at times, it is an extremely positive change that actual debate about childhood vaccines is occurring in government venues with impact. This is the transparency that Secretary Kennedy promised.”

States will still have to decide whether to leave their Hep B vaccine “mandates” in place. That does not end because the ACIP votes to change the recommendation. The only change is the birth dose. ACIP still recommends all children receive the Hep B vaccine if opting out of the birth dose at 2 months of age, then 4 and 6 months based on serology tests if the pediatrician determines a serology test is warranted.

Based on the logic of Mary Holland, if clinical trials are inadequate (and they were), how can anyone make a recommendation for an infant to take a potentially harmful vaccine? There was debate, but the eight members who voted for the new recommendations still missed the point that some of those members made themselves. Is this really “now a matter for parents and their healthcare practitioner to decide”? Not as long as State mandates (vaccine requirements to attend school) exist.

What is “magical” about the age of 2 months? If you listened to the meeting, Vicki Pebsworth, PhD, RN, indicated that children would be coming in for their 2-, 4- and 6-month vaccines and could receive the Hep B vaccine with the other vaccines administered at that time. You can watch Day 1 of the ACIP meeting here and Day 2 of the ACIP meeting here.

Why do infants, regardless of age, need a Hep B vaccine? Hepatitis B is transmitted by sharing needles and/or sexual contact with infected individuals. The ACIP meeting presented the information that “lateral transmission” is rare (person-to-person casual contact with a positive individual).

This might explain it.

However, a 1991 New York Times article posted on Substack yesterday by Dr. Meryl Nass showed that when the universal shot was rolled out, the goal was not to prevent maternal transmission — the goal was to prevent adult cases, at a time when adult cases were deemed a national crisis. However, adults commonly didn’t get the shot.

“If adults won’t go for the shots, then give them to babies,” the article said.

That recommendation passed for actual science.

Let’s recap the clinical trial data for both Hep B vaccines approved to be given to infants.

Recombivax HB – from the package insert Section 6.1.

In three clinical studies, 434 doses of RECOMBIVAX HB, 5 mcg, were administered to 147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for 5 days after each dose. [Emphasis mine]

There were only 147 participants, consisting of healthy infants and children up to 10 years of age. How many were day-old infants? How many participants were 2-month-old infants, 4-month-old infants, 6-month-old infants? You can ask that of each age group. If you take the breakdown of infants day-old to 6 months, and 1–10-year-olds divided evenly, it would only be 10 participants for each age group. But the clinical trial data does not break down the age groups. Are 147 participants across these age groups truly representative of the infant and child population?

Notice in Section 6.1, there is no mention of a placebo group (inert placebo nor another vaccine used as a placebo). And, these children were only monitored for 5 days after each dose.

This clinical trial was egregiously underpowered (not enough participants), had no placebo control group, and was not monitored long enough to determine any serious adverse events or development of any autoimmune disorders.

Engerix B – from the package insert Section 6.1.

In 36 clinical studies, a total of 13,495 doses of ENGERIX-B were administered to 5,071 healthy adults and children who were initially seronegative for hepatitis B markers, and healthy neonates. All subjects were monitored for 4 days post-administration. [Emphasis mine]

Just as in the Recombivax HB vaccine, there is no indication of an inert placebo group, the number of participants is too low to be representative of the population and participants were monitored for only 4 days post-administration.

Later in Section 14.1, the package insert states Engerix B was given to 58 neonates born to Hepatitis B serous antigen positive and Hepatitis B ‘e’ serous antigen positive mothers.

Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) is defined as a nonstructural protein produced by infected hepatocytes during acute or chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, indicating high levels of viral replication and infectivity. Its presence is associated with active liver disease, while seroconversion to the HBeAg-specific antibody (anti-HBe) signifies a transition to an inactive infection.

This information was available to every member of the ACIP committee and was presented to the committee by Aaron Siri, attorney at law for the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). Yet, the committee voted just to suspend the birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine to babies born of Hep B seronegative mothers, pushing out to when the infant was older.

Still, the ACIP is recommending that infants take the burden and risk instead of adults.

Dr. Retsef Levi, PhD, voiced opposition to the birth dose but voted in favor of the new recommendation.

ACIP member Retsef Levi, Ph.D., said that for parents whose children were at extremely low risk, the decision to give them the vaccine was analogous to flying in a plane — they wouldn’t get in a plane that hadn’t been safety tested, why should they give their child a vaccine that hadn’t been safety tested.

This is sound rationale. However, wouldn’t that same rationale apply to 2-, 4- and 6-month-old infants? What age would be appropriate for children to take the Hep B vaccine based on the clinical trials (studies) data? Wouldn’t this same rationale apply to all vaccines where the clinical trials were underpowered, lacked a placebo control (inert placebo) group, and lack sufficient post-administration monitoring time?

The ACIP committee discussed “mandates” and most concluded that vaccine requirements for children to attend school functioned as mandates. Liaison members disagreed with recommendations being mandated as ACIP recommendations were just that – commendations. They claimed parents could do what they wanted. Evidently, these members are not aware that parents have to receive “approval” from the State to exempt their children from vaccines in the form of a religious exemption form or a medical exemption form. Or, maybe these liaison members are and choose to ignore it.

Dr. Adam Langer, CDC ex-officio member, opposed changing the recommendations but did state the committee should issue a formal statement indicating all vaccine recommendations are recommendations and should not function as mandates. However, that is what the States have done – taken an unconstitutional agency’s recommendation and formulated mandates. Many physicians have done the same. Dr. Langer called the “mandates” put in place by States and localities “problematic”. That is an understatement.

At this point, it matters not what the ACIP committee recommends.  The true fight lies with the individual States and the medical whitecoat industry. This is where removing mandates has to occur.

At this point, Mt. Hamner is about to “kick off” and regurgitate a huge loogie in one massive explosion. None of this is about children’s health, far from it. These unelected bureaucrats sitting on a committee under an unconstitutional agency are intent on keeping the status quo even while acknowledging the lack of safety data nor are they interested in informed consent. Oh, they changed the “recommendation” but still hold to the “belief” low risk infants should get a Hep B vaccine. Physicians and nurses rarely, if ever, these days obtain informed consent or document the process as required by all State laws. In other words, the medical whitecoat industry continually violates the law on informed consent with impunity. Moreover, litigation brought because of a lack of informed consent rarely finds in favor of the plaintiffs – the medical whitecoat industry hides under the farce of “implied consent”. These unconstitutional agency bureaucrats know this.

Then, there are some on the ACIP committee, who “believe” those challenging the current vaccine program are wanting to remove vaccines for everyone. Rubbish and bull manure!! If you, as a parent, want to give your child a product that lacks proper safety testing, knock yourself out – that is your right. On the flip side, parents who do not want to give their children a product that lacks proper safety testing should be able to refuse with impunity – that is their right. Unfortunately, it is the Church of Vaccine that wants to take parental rights away from parents based on a “belief” and what an unconstitutional agency committee says through backing State mandates of improperly trialed products. Who is taking whose rights away here? And, if your child is vaccinated, why are you worried about children that are not? Your child is not at risk if you “believe” an improperly trialed product for safety and effectiveness is safe and effective. The truth is that you don’t believe these products work, or you wouldn’t be demanding the removal of others’ rights. However, what proof is there that these products work? None. Church of Vaccine members want to remove everyone’s rights because of their own fears, not reality.

No one should believe these committees when they declare they have zero conflicts of interest. Those conflicts have just not been discovered yet.

Friends, save your applause and cheers for real advancement and change where childhood immunization practices are concerned. This change isn’t it. The committee is still recommending vaccines, which States will continue to mandate until the people stand up in mass and oppose them, that have never had a proper clinical trial and never demonstrated safety.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media