Hepatitis B is a serious viral infection that primarily spreads through blood, sexual contact, or from mother to child during birth. It can lead to chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, and even liver cancer in severe cases. To combat this, the Hepatitis B vaccine is routinely administered to newborns in many countries, often within the first 24 hours of life. But a growing number of parents are questioning this practice, pointing out that babies aren't engaging in high-risk behaviours like intravenous drug use or unprotected sex. So, why vaccinate every newborn? And what are the risks?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO) recommend the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth to prevent perinatal transmission, where the virus passes from an infected mother to her baby during delivery. This is a significant concern because infants who contract Hepatitis B have a much higher risk, up to 90%, of developing chronic infection compared to adults, who have a 5-10% chance. Chronic Hepatitis B can lead to lifelong health issues, making early prevention critical.
The universal vaccination policy also supposedly aims to protect infants in cases where a mother's Hepatitis B status is unknown or incorrectly reported. In the U.S., for example, about 1% of pregnant women are estimated to have Hepatitis B, and not all are tested or disclose their status. Vaccinating all newborns ensures coverage for these cases, the authorities allege supposedly reduces the risk of missed infections. Additionally, the policy simplifies public health logistics; no need to tailor vaccination schedules based on individual risk factors, which could lead to gaps in coverage. And most of all, it means increased profits for Big Pharma, the lords of modern medicine.
But here's where the scepticism comes in: most babies aren't born to mothers with Hepatitis B, and they're not engaging in behaviours like sharing needles or having sex. So, why not wait until they're older, when risk factors might increase? Critics, like this writer, argue that the blanket approach feels like overreach, especially when the vaccine isn't without risks.
No vaccine is 100% safe, and the Hepatitis B vaccine is no exception. While adverse reactions are rare, they do occur, and parents deserve a clear picture of what's at stake. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), reported side effects in infants range from mild (fever, irritability) to, in rare cases, more serious issues like allergic reactions or neurological symptoms. There are concerns about the vaccine's aluminium adjuvant, a compound used to boost immune response. Aluminium has raised questions about potential neurotoxicity, especially in newborns with developing nervous systems. Some studies suggest a link between aluminium exposure and neurological disorders, though conclusive evidence tying it to vaccines remains limited, because the research is simply not done to not mobilise Big Pharma against researchers.
Another point of contention is the vaccine's timing. Newborns have immature immune systems, and some argue that introducing a vaccine so early could stress their bodies unnecessarily. Historical data suggesting a possible association between the Hepatitis B vaccine and conditions like autoimmune disorders or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), though these links are not definitively proven. For example, a 1999 study raised concerns about a correlation between the vaccine and increased SIDS rates, but subsequent research has not confirmed this. Still, the lack of large-scale, long-term studies specifically on newborns fuels scepticism.
The core of the debate lies in risk stratification. If a baby isn't born to a Hepatitis B-positive mother and isn't exposed to high-risk environments, why vaccinate at birth? The universal policy prioritises public health convenience over individual risk assessment. In low-prevalence areas, where Hepatitis B is rare, the odds of a newborn contracting the virus are minuscule outside of perinatal transmission. Even in those cases, screening mothers and vaccinating only high-risk infants could suffice.
This perspective resonates with parents who feel that medical interventions should be tailored to their child's specific circumstances. Delaying the vaccine until adolescence, when behaviours like sexual activity or drug use might emerge, could reduce unnecessary exposure to potential side effects. However, this approach assumes perfect compliance with later vaccinations, which isn't guaranteed. Public health data shows that vaccination rates drop as children age, especially in underserved communities, leaving gaps in protection. So, better not to have unprotected sex or use IV drugs, ideally.
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/why-is-every-newborn-forced-to-get