The question is whether a dose of Hepatitis B vaccine, given on the day of birth to infants in central Africa does more harm or good. The US trials of Hep B vaccine in US newborns lasted 5 days or less—a deliberate design that made it impossible to determine adverse reactions that occurred after 5 days.

Hepatitis B vaccine is the only vaccine given on the day of birth, to prevent mother-to child transmission of the virus. However, only 0.4% of birthing mothers are infectious for the Hep B virus. The other 99.6% of babies are at no risk and imho should not receive the vaccine at birth until they are older, or not at all, depending on their later risk of exposure through sex or dirty needles.

But everyone who pushes for universal Hep B vax at birth ignores that fact that without testing, the babies whose mothers are positive will not receive Hepatitis B immune globulin. Without it, the vaccine alone is only 25% effective at preventing Hepatitis B. So if we want to save those 0.4% of newborns with infected moms from a likely chronic Hep B infection, all birthing moms need to be tested and their newborns given the full preventive treatment when moms are infected.

But the vaccine Nazis don’t ask for universal testing (which costs $50 and takes 5 minutes) because they are only interested in pushing more vaccines, whether needed or not. They fear that the result of testing will mean that around 99% of newborns will not be vaccinated, since they are not at risk of Hep B. While that would be a good outcome, and would save a lot of state and federal money spent on unnecessary vaccines, and would avoid side effects of an unnecessary vaccine—it challenges the doctrine of vaccination: more is better.

Hep B, since it is only transmitted by dirty needles, blood and sex, is not something your child could catch from a playmate. There has only been one reported US case of spread in a school in many years. Very few kids need this shot. But we would learn more about its risks and benefits if the trial in Guinea Bissau were conducted.

Who is the Stand UP for Science crowd? Cofounder Colette Delawalla was a grad student studying addiction, and was fearful there would be no money for her future research.

The 30-year-old budding clinical psychologist and mother of a toddler had been eager to finish her dissertation and launch a scientific career dedicated to teaching and research on addiction. Now that plan seemed seriously at odds with where the country was headed.

According to wikipedia, Michael Mann is a global warming maven.

Mann is author of more than 200 peer-reviewed and edited publications. He has also published six books: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming (2008), The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (2012), together with co-author Tom Toles, The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy (2016) with Megan Herbert, The Tantrum That Saved the World (2018), The New Climate War (2021), and Our Fragile Moment (2023). In 2012, the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as “outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age”. Mann is a co-founder and contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate.

Starbird ran one of the 4 top US censorship organizations during COVID out of the University of Washington, comparable to the Stanford Internet Observatory—organizations that censored COVID and political narratives under the guise of doing research. Unlike her buddies at Stanford, Starbird is still at it running the:

See, she is even using the public LIBRARIES for her censorship and narrative campaigns—something we talked about yesterday on my CHD-TV show.

And trying to shut down the story of how elections in Maricopa County, Arizona have been stolen, even today.

These are the people who are trying to shut down a clinical trial of Hepatitis B vaccine, in case it shows the vaccine can be dangerous or may be unnecessary for most babies. Are they standing up for science or trying to control the outcomes of scientific study? You decide.

Here is their website. They fail to disclose their donors. But I bet you can guess who they might be.

 

IPAK-EDU is grateful to Meryl’s CHAOS letter (Critical Health Analysis and OpinionS) as this piece was originally published there and is included in this news feed with mutual agreement. Read More