Elections RFK Selected as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services

[Rob Battisti]

I'm not seeing a legitimate reason why youd be concerned about babies receiving hep b vaccines. It's a recommended vaccine, anyone is free to say "no."

lol! So now we go from “what concerns to do you have” and “RFK is a grifter” to “you can then down recommend vaccines no problem”.

 

[Sinister]

lol! So now we go from “what concerns to do you have” and “RFK is a grifter” to “you can then down recommend vaccines no problem”.

RFK is a fraud.

No one is forced to get a hep b vaccine.

You have not expressed any actual concern for infants receiving the hep b vaccine. Here I'll give you a concern for infants NOT receiving the hep b vaccine. Approximately 30-40% of all hep b infections happen during early childhood. Given the safety record of the vaccine it seems the earlier the inoculation the better. That's a concern.

 

[Rob Battisti]

RFK is a fraud.

No one is forced to get a hep b vaccine.

You have not expressed any actual concern for infants receiving the hep b vaccine. Here I'll give you a concern for infants NOT receiving the hep b vaccine. Approximately 30-40% of all hep b infections happen during early childhood. Given the safety record of the vaccine it seems the earlier the inoculation the better. That's a concern.

So it’s the act of being forced that matters? Is someone an anti-vaxxer if they decline recommended by not required?

lol

Well said.

 

[Sinister]

So it’s the act of being forced that matters? Is someone an anti-vaxxer if they decline recommended by not required?


Well said.

You picked a poor example, and then failed to raise a legitimate concern for the vaccine. If your premise is refusing vaccines "because you can" in the face of more than enough evidence of vaccine safety, and a legitimate reason to administer it, then yes you are absolutely anti-vaxx.

 

[Rob Battisti]

You picked a poor example, and then failed to raise a legitimate concern for the vaccine. If your premise is refusing vaccines "because you can" in the face of more than enough evidence of vaccine safety, and a legitimate reason to administer it, then yes you are absolutely anti-vaxx.

I told you the concern. Did you not understand?

If the mother doesn’t have hep b, the absolute risk of hep b infection is zero. The absolute risk of an adverse reaction is not.

 

[Sinister]

I told you the concern. Did you not understand?

If the mother doesn’t have hep b, the absolute risk of hep b infection is zero. The absolute risk of an adverse reaction is not.

That's not even true. The Mother isnt the only present party during birth and not all medical facilities are completely sterile and risk-free. Not all babies who receive the vaccine are even born in sterile medical facilities.

"They dont need it" isnt a cause for concern, neither is the presence of literally any statistical risk. 30-40% of hep b infections happen during childhood. The earlier the child is vaccinated the better.

You have not substantiated a legitimate reason not to get it.

 

[Rob Battisti]

That's not even true. The Mother isnt the only present party during birth and not all medical facilities are completely sterile and risk-free. Not all babies who receive the vaccine are even born in sterile medical facilities.

"They dont need it" isnt a cause for concern, neither is the presence of literally any statistical risk. 30-40% of hep b infections happen during childhood. The earlier the child is vaccinated the better.

You have not substantiated a legitimate reason not to get it.

You’re panic wrestling.

The whole purpose of the introduction of hep b during the first 24 hours is due to the mother being infected whether known or unknown.

Contracting hepatitis B during birth from a mother who is not infected is effectively zero is derived from the understanding of hepatitis B transmission pathways. These include:


1. Hepatitis B Transmission Dynamics: Hepatitis B is transmitted primarily through contact with infected blood or bodily fluids. If the mother is not infected (confirmed by negative hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg] testing during pregnancy), there is no source of the virus to infect the newborn during delivery. This is supported by:


• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines on perinatal transmission of hepatitis B (CDC: Perinatal Transmission).


2. Universal Vaccination Policy: The universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine is a precautionary public health measure, not based on individualized maternal risk in cases of confirmed negative maternal HBsAg. The reasoning for universal vaccination is outlined in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and CDC recommendations, which aim to eliminate potential errors in maternal screening and provide early protection against other exposures (AAP Hepatitis B Guidelines).


3. Risk Assessment Literature: Studies emphasize that the risk of perinatal transmission from a non-infected mother is zero, as no virus is present to transmit. Public health resources focus on errors in maternal screening or later exposures as reasons for universal newborn vaccination (World Health Organization (WHO) Hepatitis B Fact Sheet).

If the mother doesn’t have it, there is no reason for the literally day old baby to get it.

 

[Sinister]

You’re panic wrestling.

The whole purpose of the introduction of hep b during the first 24 hours is due to the mother being infected whether known or unknown.

Contracting hepatitis B during birth from a mother who is not infected is effectively zero is derived from the understanding of hepatitis B transmission pathways. These include:


1. Hepatitis B Transmission Dynamics: Hepatitis B is transmitted primarily through contact with infected blood or bodily fluids. If the mother is not infected (confirmed by negative hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg] testing during pregnancy), there is no source of the virus to infect the newborn during delivery. This is supported by:


• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines on perinatal transmission of hepatitis B (CDC: Perinatal Transmission).


2. Universal Vaccination Policy: The universal birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine is a precautionary public health measure, not based on individualized maternal risk in cases of confirmed negative maternal HBsAg. The reasoning for universal vaccination is outlined in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and CDC recommendations, which aim to eliminate potential errors in maternal screening and provide early protection against other exposures (AAP Hepatitis B Guidelines).


3. Risk Assessment Literature: Studies emphasize that the risk of perinatal transmission from a non-infected mother is zero, as no virus is present to transmit. Public health resources focus on errors in maternal screening or later exposures as reasons for universal newborn vaccination (World Health Organization (WHO) Hepatitis B Fact Sheet).

If the mother doesn’t have it, there is no reason for the literally day old baby to get it.

Uh huh, and what I said remains true. My 3 Sons were all born at home, and my wife and I werent the only 2 people involved in the home births. The risk is primarily from the Mother, but not exclusive to the Mother. And the risk is never completely zero. One infected person exposed and bleeding at the wrong time and it could happen.

And yes, precautionary public health measure. You've ignored more than once that over 30% of hep b infections happen during childhood, because holding onto your "it's not necessary" narrative is more important than just accepting that the vaccine has a pretty immaculate record, and provides pretty much a lifetime of inoculation.

 

[Rob Battisti]

You've ignored more than once that over 30% of hep b infections happen during childhood, because holding onto your "it's not necessary" narrative is more important than just accepting that the vaccine has a pretty immaculate record, and provides pretty much a lifetime of inoculation.

I’ve routinely stated the 24 hour period

My 3 Sons were all born at home

Interesting you had home births but are going on and on about risks

 

[Blayt7hh]

he definitely gets how much of our food is poisoned by corporate "nutritionists" who are actually chemists trying to figure out new ways to hack our brains.


if he ONLY makes all of that illegal he will have done a great job.

but my fear is that he will be a paper tiger as trump guts funding for the fda.

There’s problems in the statement. For one no on new trying to hack your brain. Most of those chemicals end up in our food because it makes food easier and cheaper to mass produce.

Yes I agree that it’s incredibly bad. We also have to acknowledge a reality that if we do this, good costs will have to rise. I’m not telling you it’s not worth the change, but it will have negative impacts.

Lastly, you’re probably right that he will be just a figure head for a neutered regulatory body. If he wasn’t though he’s still bad for the job. He attacks traditional vaccines that have long proven records of doing a lot of good. He attacks vegetable oils based on internet conspiracy theories that run counter to the actual evidence. Worse yet, he’s convinced he’s right and no amount of reality is going to change his mind.

 

[koquerelle]

So much health in one photo.

 

[Sinister]

I’ve routinely stated the 24 hour period


Interesting you had home births but are going on and on about risks

Your own post noted the precautionary aspect of the recommended vaccination period. But at this point dismissing your own reference checks out.

My argument is there is NO such thing as zero risk, so your attempt to use the home births against me also falls flat. My wife and I discussed the risks and (she) made a decision, like rational people. We arent crusading against Hospital births or anything.

 

[ShadowRun]

So much health in one photo.

Lol you ok?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Your own post noted the precautionary aspect of the recommended vaccination period. But at this point dismissing your own reference checks out.

My argument is there is NO such thing as zero risk, so your attempt to use the home births against me also falls flat. My wife and I discussed the risks and (she) made a decision, like rational people. We arent crusading against Hospital births or anything.

So you’re okay with risks in some instances for yourself after you’ve looked into it, but not for others?

 

[Rob Battisti]

@Sinister you’re arguing for a vaccine immediately after birth because of infected equipment. That’s not why they have the vaccine as a recommendation. You know why? Because that isn’t a systemic actual risk. Aka it doesn’t happen.

 

[koquerelle]

Lol you ok?

I'm fine. Why do you ask?

 

[Rob Battisti]

@Sinister

Follow me here.

You agree that they recommend the vaccine due to passing Hep B from the mother and if the mother isn’t infected the chance of infection during birth is zero. HOWEVER, you’re arguing it isn’t zero due to the chance of infection of Hep B from tools used during labor.

Nothing is statistically impossible. I could trip on the street can fall on a needle that gives me HIV. However, this is still — and you must admit this — nothing more than a statistically anomaly that doesn’t happen in real life and only exists in hypotheticals. More so, it’s not why they have that vaccine at that time to begin with.

Now, the risk OF the vaccine is absolutely above the risk of the child getting Hep B during birth IF the mother isn’t infected.

If the mother decides not to take that chance, she has weighed the risks as your wife did, is she an “anti-vaxxer” for not giving her baby, who may be just hours out of the womb the hep B vaccine?

 

[ShadowRun]

I'm fine. Why do you ask?

Poking fun, nothing serious

 

[PhitePhan]

My wife and I discussed the risks and (she) made a decision, like rational people.

So you think it’s rational to make your own medical decisions against a doctor’s advice?

Funny enough, your “rational” decision to home birth was way higher risk than not vaccinating.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, recommends hospitals or accredited birth centers as the safest option for having a baby.

In fact, infant mortality plummeted in the past century as hospital births became more common. In 1900, when almost all U.S. births took place at home, 100 babies died for every 1,000 born. By 1997, modern medicine had reduced that rate by a whopping 93 percent, to seven infant deaths out of every 1,000. (Today's rate is 5.9 per 1,000.)…

Dr. Neda Ghaffari, a perinatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, says delivering in the hospital is generally safer than being at home, because a team of practitioners is always available in case of emergency, which any woman can experience during labor. A mother may begin hemorrhaging, for instance, or the baby may become blocked in the birth canal.

"It's very hard to determine which patients are going to have an obstetric emergency," Ghaffari says.

In fact, somewhere between 23 and 37 percent of first-time moms attempting home birth end up transferring to a hospital, largely because the baby is unable to move through the birth canal. (Transfers for moms who've already given birth were much lower, up to 9 percent.)

Plus, Ghaffari notes that, according to ACOG, babies die in home births at roughly twice the rate as they do in hospital births. Plus, one (admittedly very rare) complication, neonatal seizure, is three times more common at home.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/11/700829719/home-birth-can-be-appealing-but-how-safe-is-it

 

[Andy Capp]

So you think it’s rational to make your own medical decisions against a doctor’s advice?

Funny enough, your “rational” decision to home birth was way higher risk than not vaccinating.

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, recommends hospitals or accredited birth centers as the safest option for having a baby.

In fact, infant mortality plummeted in the past century as hospital births became more common. In 1900, when almost all U.S. births took place at home, 100 babies died for every 1,000 born. By 1997, modern medicine had reduced that rate by a whopping 93 percent, to seven infant deaths out of every 1,000. (Today's rate is 5.9 per 1,000.)…

Dr. Neda Ghaffari, a perinatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, says delivering in the hospital is generally safer than being at home, because a team of practitioners is always available in case of emergency, which any woman can experience during labor. A mother may begin hemorrhaging, for instance, or the baby may become blocked in the birth canal.

"It's very hard to determine which patients are going to have an obstetric emergency," Ghaffari says.

In fact, somewhere between 23 and 37 percent of first-time moms attempting home birth end up transferring to a hospital, largely because the baby is unable to move through the birth canal. (Transfers for moms who've already given birth were much lower, up to 9 percent.)

Plus, Ghaffari notes that, according to ACOG, babies die in home births at roughly twice the rate as they do in hospital births. Plus, one (admittedly very rare) complication, neonatal seizure, is three times more common at home.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/11/700829719/home-birth-can-be-appealing-but-how-safe-is-it

Same source:

Dr. Robyn Lamar is an OB-GYN at UCSF. Despite her profession, she chose home births for all three of her children. She says she prefers to labor at her own pace in a familiar setting, without medical intervention.

"The underlying belief in midwifery is that birth is a physiological process, which makes sense to me," Lamar says. "Versus the more medical view, which I'm trained in and I practice, that birth is something that can be high-risk at any moment and it's sort of a disaster waiting to happen."

Lamar emphasizes that, at the hospital, a mother is at a higher risk for an episiotomy (vaginal incision) and infection.

Lamar recognizes that what's best for one woman may not be right for the next.

"Some [women] feel more at ease in the hospital because they know the experts are there. It gives them a lot of security and assurance," Lamar said. "But, a lot of us feel like a duck out of water in the hospital. It's very unfamiliar. When you're on your home turf, and you're there with your family, it really does change the dynamic."

She says a mother is more likely to dilate and embrace difficult contractions if she feels comfortable and supported in her surroundings. In other words, feeling safe can not only lead to a more positive emotional experience, but also a faster delivery.

When I asked Lamar directly to advise me on my own decision, she answered very neutrally, with a smile.

"Oh, there's no right answer," she told me. "I think it's such an individual journey for everybody. Whether you give birth in a hospital, or at home, or in a birth center, everyone's story is going to be completely unique."

Weighing the cost

Another factor to consider is cost, which varies widely depending on the type of insurance you may or may not have. If I choose a home birth I'll pay completely out of pocket. In the Bay Area, midwives' fees are $4,000 to $8,000. If I choose a hospital, my insurance will pay all the bills. For someone without insurance, the price of a home birth wouldn't change, but a trip to the hospital could potentially put me back tens of thousands of dollars.

This frustrates Lamar.

"In terms of reproductive justice, it makes sense for all women to have the same array of options around birth like you would in a country like England, where there's national insurance," she said. "One should be able to choose their place of birth based on preferences and risk level rather than financial means."

She hopes insurance companies will consider the benefits of home-birth and future plans will cover the costs.

I tried to prevent money from influencing my decision by continuing to talk to friends and experts, reading studies and touring hospitals. After nine months of searching, I'm starting to heavily lean in one direction — though my feelings still change almost by the day.


But I agree that 7 out of a thousand is much worse odds than the chance of a bad reaction to any vaccine.