- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: MAHA: Child vaccine schedule reduces from 72 jabs to 11
Posted on 1/6/26 at 3:52 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 1/6/26 at 3:52 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
What did I ask originally?
I dunno, Socrates... you tell me.
Comparing the risk of vax vs disease in a non endemic nation with an uninfected mother is like comparing my risk of sharkbite at beach when I never get in the water.
High burden country? Universal vaccination
Low burden country? Risk based
1
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:05 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
In what case does the risk profile of the vaccine or the intervention outweigh the risk profile of the original disease?
Here is what I wrote originally.
quote:
Comparing the risk of vax vs disease in a non endemic nation with an uninfected mother is like comparing my risk of sharkbite at beach when I never get in the water.
Sorry, the risk of getting Hep B is infinitely higher in the US than actually getting a vaccine injury at all. By orders of magnitude. You must think vaccine injuries are common. They are not. Look, you can choose to believe what you want. But don't dress it up in a dishonest fashion by pretending the risk of the vaccine is higher than getting the disease. That is a terrible argument to make. The argument you end up parroting is one about efficiency of resources. If, again, you knew anything about public health, you'd realize that the countries that do not vaccinate at birth make the argument along these lines. It is never about vaccine risk. Again, the only people who talk about the vaccine risk like this is RFK's people. Making the argument on resource lines is the far better argument to make. That is where the risk/benefit distinction becomes meaningful, especially in countries which have universal healthcare, as you then compare the risk of administering one intervention costs you the chance to administer another.
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:07 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
But don't dress it up in a dishonest fashion by pretending the risk of the vaccine is higher than getting the disease.
Depends on the mother baby dyad.
My kids were at 0% risk of contracting HepB as neonates/infants.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:19 pm to SallysHuman
Again, another amazing response from a bored housewife who claims she is interested in the science. Firstly, is Hep B only transmitted through pregnancy? Secondly, we are talking about population level effects. Your experience is less meaningful in that context and we certainly shouldn't base our approach to vaccines based on your experience or understanding of them. Lastly, the risks of Hep B vaccination are no different from the risks of vaccination in general. Somehow you think this is a meaningful point and then confidently relay some thought you had as though it is important. If you are saying that you are choosing to skip Hep B vaccination because the disease is not endemic to the US, you are making an argument based on population level effects. So with my respect to my original question, the answer you yourself profess is that no, the risk of Hep B vaccination is not worse than the disease. Rather, you yourself are arguing that the risk of getting Hep B is less than the risk of getting other infectious diseases. Because the risk from any vaccination is the same.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:23 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Because the risk from any vaccination is the same.
False.
The rest of your screed is eye-watering in its lack of spacing.
No other vaccination is given day of birth- so what YOU'RE comparing is introducing something into a 12hour neonates body vs a 2mo old infant's body.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
unless you’re trying to make each dose of things like MMR count as multiple “shots”
Next time your kid is getting a dose of MMR tell them they aren’t getting a shot.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:31 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
False
Show me the data or shut up. For once.
quote:
No other vaccination is given day of birth- so what YOU'RE comparing is introducing something into a 12hour neonates body vs a 2mo old infant's body
Lol. Are you going to give me a presentation on the development of the neonates immune system? Again, it is weird you invoke how amazing the immune system is, and then simultaneously don't understand it is already dealing with antigenic loads of exogenous material. It cannot be both. Instead, lets stop assuming physicians/scientists are dumbasses and instead ask yourself why we give it at birth? Because there is a multitude of very good reasons, all of which are aimed at preventing chronic infection.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:32 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Show me the data or shut up. For once.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:33 pm to texag7
Let's keep it to that thread you made little dude.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:35 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Show me the data or shut up. For once.
Different vaccines have different incidence of different side effects. They are not all the same.
quote:
lets stop assuming physicians/scientists are dumbasses and instead ask yourself why we give it at birth? Because there is a multitude of very good reasons, all of which are aimed at preventing chronic infection.
Doctors and scientists don't all agree that giving all fresh newborns this vaccine in low incidence countries with an uninfected mother is the right way to do it. Do you also refute them?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:40 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Different vaccines have different incidence of different side effects. They are not all the same
And none of the risks of those vaccines ever outweighs the disease itself. You are 100% wrong. Again, tell me the specific symptoms of a vaccine injury linked to one type of vaccine that we use. I know your dumbass is going to misunderstand this and give me an answer worse than a toddler would give, but go ahead.
quote:
Doctors and scientists don't all agree that giving all fresh newborns this vaccine in low incidence countries with an uninfected mother is the right way to do it. Do you also refute them?
Again, what was the evidence behind the choice to vaccinate at birth? It does something very specific.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:46 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Again, what was the evidence behind the choice to vaccinate at birth? It does something very specific.
Honestly? Minority families and their lack of preventative care and follow up care seems to have played a significant role. As with many "universal" recommendations, it plays to the least adherent population.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 4:56 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Honestly? Minority families and their lack of preventative care and follow up care seems to have played a significant role. As with many "universal" recommendations, it plays to the least adherent population.
While that might have played a role, and it is something you could actually look up if you had a curious mind at all, this is again the wrong answer. The reason is that vaccination at birth proved 90% effective at preventing perinatal infection. In addition, since universal vaccination, total cases in children dropped by 70%. The reason you can talk so freely about the decreased likelihood now is precisely due to the success of universal Hep B vaccination in basically eradicating Hep B infections in children. Maybe do real research for once instead of pretending you know more than you do. Because you are extremely ignorant and despite seeming to profess an open mind, are very resistant to correction. You've said several blatantly wrong things in this thread and have instead doubled down on several extremely stupid things.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:10 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
While that might have played a role, and it is something you could actually look up if you had a curious mind at all, this is again the wrong answer.
I did look it up, that's why I stated it.
It was a big problem they couldn't gain compliance in at risk populations so they took the WHO's advice for universal infant vaccination regardless of risk factors. Before that, it was screening and population risk based.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:12 pm to Kjnstkmn
Panicans and Liberals are united in their outrage.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:23 pm to SallysHuman
Yeah great but still not why we chose at birth versus say 2 months. And frankly, it has been such a rousing success by pretty much every metric that only morons would actually believe an intervention like that in the US is somehow bad. But of course, we have to take these stories of these vaccine side effects so seriously. Its clown behavior.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:34 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Yeah great but still not why we chose at birth versus say 2 months.
Actually... that was done in large part to compliance issues for the third dose. Dosing at the hospital allowed for greater compliance at subsequent well child visits.
It was also done because AT RISK groups didn't always screen truthfully about their risk factors or those of their household.
CDC report from 1991
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:41 pm to SallysHuman
Wow, look at you combining the scientific data with social data. The reasoning rests on the effectiveness of early doses across a population. In addition to the morphological and transmission characteristics, the choice wouldn't have been made if not for what? The fact that early doses prevented perinatal infection. And now given the success of that interventional model, you, absent if any evidence, are pretending that the success of it doesn't exist, instead retreating to an idiotic position about vaccine risk of Hep B specifically.
In other words, if the data showed that the vaccination was effective at 6 months onward and not earlier, would we have still chosen to vaccinate at birth?
In other words, if the data showed that the vaccination was effective at 6 months onward and not earlier, would we have still chosen to vaccinate at birth?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:46 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
crazy4lsu
From the 1991 decision on why infants...
quote:
Currently, the cost of an infant's dose of hepatitis B vaccine delivered in the public sector is about the same as each of the other childhood vaccinations. Vaccinating adolescents and adults is substantially more expensive because of the higher vaccine cost and the higher implementation costs of delivering vaccine to target populations. In the long term, universal infant vaccination would eliminate the need for vaccinating adolescents and high-risk adults.
Cost, ease of compliance... those are the risk/benefit factors. It's in the .gov link I provided.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:52 pm to SallysHuman
Dear god, are you retarded? The basis for the cost and compliance issues is based on the effectiveness of early intervention. As in, if that did not exist, then we would not be able to vaccinate at birth. That they chose a strategy which reached the greatest amount of people at the time when they would most likely present to clinic is literally based on one fact. Which is what? Yes, it is based on the effectiveness of early intervention of the vaccine.
And reading that report, the decision was absolutely the right one. History has borne that out.
And reading that report, the decision was absolutely the right one. History has borne that out.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News