US CDC Advisory Panel Votes to Limit Hepatitis B Vaccines for Newborns in Regressive Move
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory panel voted on Friday morning to limit the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, signaling a major shift away from evidence-based recommendations. The decision is seen as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to undermine vaccination policies.
The panel's recommendation now suggests that parents whose mothers test negative for hepatitis B should decide when or if their child should receive the vaccine series in consultation with a healthcare professional. This change will add confusion to routine vaccinations and create access issues, particularly for lower-income families.
Experts warn that this move could lead to an increase in preventable infections among children, citing estimates that delay the vaccination from birth to two months would result in at least 1,400 new cases of hepatitis B every year. This could ultimately lead to hundreds of liver cancer cases and deaths.
The Hepatitis B Foundation's Michaela Jackson noted that this decision "removes choice by causing barriers to access" and will leave parents unsure who to trust for vaccine recommendations. The change also adds unnecessary complexity, as healthcare providers may interpret the new language as a sign that the vaccine is controversial or carries additional risks.
Independent medical bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommend that all infants receive the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth. However, under the new recommendation, parents may delay vaccination, potentially leaving them vulnerable to infection.
The CDC's action aligns with President Trump's stated desire to review and realign child immunization recommendations with best practices from other developed countries. However, this move is seen as a regressive step in public health policy, driven by misinformation and misconceptions about vaccines.
As Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth College, noted, "We have heard 'do no harm' is a moral imperative. We are doing harm by changing this wording." The decision highlights the need for evidence-based policies that prioritize public health over politics and special interests.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory panel voted on Friday morning to limit the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, signaling a major shift away from evidence-based recommendations. The decision is seen as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to undermine vaccination policies.
The panel's recommendation now suggests that parents whose mothers test negative for hepatitis B should decide when or if their child should receive the vaccine series in consultation with a healthcare professional. This change will add confusion to routine vaccinations and create access issues, particularly for lower-income families.
Experts warn that this move could lead to an increase in preventable infections among children, citing estimates that delay the vaccination from birth to two months would result in at least 1,400 new cases of hepatitis B every year. This could ultimately lead to hundreds of liver cancer cases and deaths.
The Hepatitis B Foundation's Michaela Jackson noted that this decision "removes choice by causing barriers to access" and will leave parents unsure who to trust for vaccine recommendations. The change also adds unnecessary complexity, as healthcare providers may interpret the new language as a sign that the vaccine is controversial or carries additional risks.
Independent medical bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommend that all infants receive the hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth. However, under the new recommendation, parents may delay vaccination, potentially leaving them vulnerable to infection.
The CDC's action aligns with President Trump's stated desire to review and realign child immunization recommendations with best practices from other developed countries. However, this move is seen as a regressive step in public health policy, driven by misinformation and misconceptions about vaccines.
As Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth College, noted, "We have heard 'do no harm' is a moral imperative. We are doing harm by changing this wording." The decision highlights the need for evidence-based policies that prioritize public health over politics and special interests.
i'm really worried about this move... hepatitis b vaccine is already super important to prevent liver cancer and infections. 
delaying it for 2 months could lead to a lot of suffering... 
like, parents are gonna be stuck in the dark not knowing what's best for their kid. 
how can we trust our healthcare system if they're making decisions based on misinformation? 
and it's not just about individual kids, but whole communities that'll suffer from preventable infections... 
like, what's next? 
they're actually going to limit the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns? what a stupid move 
i mean come on, we all know how important vaccines are especially with hepatitis B it's like, super deadly and stuff 
so why would they do something that could harm people's lives? 
they need access to these vaccines now more than ever 
we have to keep fighting for what's right and making sure people don't get hurt because of some politician's ego 
.
. They already struggle to get their kids vaccinated as it is; now they'll be stuck in a Catch-22 where they gotta choose between getting sick or not getting vaccinated 
. I mean, what's the harm in just saying "vaccinate your kid ASAP" anyway? 
, and we should be calling out our reps for this regressive move 
... they're basically saying parents don't have to get their babies vaccinated if their mom doesn't have hepatitis b, which is like a recipe for disaster 
... the statistics are just mind-boggling - 1,400 new cases of hepatitis b every year? that's hundreds of liver cancer cases and deaths 
... it's not about choice, it's about public health and protecting our communities 
... why do politicians have to get involved in this stuff? can't they just focus on making sure everyone is safe and healthy 
This decision is going to disproportionately affect lower-income families and communities of color, who already face barriers to healthcare access.
The idea of parents having to "consult" with a healthcare professional about this is just gonna create more confusion and access issues for lower-income families 
. It's like, come on CDC, get back to what you know best - saving lives! 