Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Stiller's avatar

Excellent job, Kristen. You’ve laid out the evidence clearly, and it’s crucial that people understand how important the birth dose is for protecting infants from lifelong liver disease. The claim that this panel is simply ‘re-examining the evidence’ is not a good faith excuse. It is designed to support their obsession with the belief that many vaccines cause more harm than benefit. That belief runs contrary to the best available evidence, and in this case a ‘square one’ approach is just a back door justification to eliminate vaccine recommendations.

Expand full comment
Nathan Johnson, MD's avatar

So I'd like to see a numberical analysis of NNT vs NNH. One important risk you left out is newborn fever. Hepatitis B approximately double fever. In 3.62 million births per year, you're looking at some 11K newborn fevers from a birthdose. In newborns fevers lead to labs/LP/antibiotics that they don't at later ages. Unnecessary LPs and antibiotics in newborn are not benign. US is an outlier and most European countries wait until at least 2 months.

Globally hep B under age 5 has dropped from 5 to 1 percent and the bigger drivers are universal vaccination and screening. It seems quite reasonable for low risk parents to defer the birth dose. No?

One other question. Do you know where your source at CHOP got the 9000 number?

https://publications.aap.org/aapgrandrounds/article-abstract/3/1/4/85915/Neonatal-Fever-Associated-with-Hepatitis-B-Vaccine?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/Scheduler/ByDisease?SelectedDiseaseId=6&SelectedCountryIdByDisease=-1

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/07/1069071

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?