Little value and carries great risk... to infants whose immune systems aren't even fully formed to protect against an illness that presents virtually zero risk to 99% of newborns. It's asinine.
In Australia, parents are coerced to have their babies vaccinated with three doses of hepatitis B vaccine under the No Jab, No Pay law.
However, an NHMRC report ‘Recommendations on hepatitis B immunisation’, published in 1996 (and now rescinded), states under 6. Advantages and disadvantages of universal childhood immunisation and universal pre-adolescent vaccination:
Disadvantages
– The overall incidence of disease is extremely low in young children and many infants will be vaccinated against a disease which they are at low risk of contracting.
– Booster doses may be needed when the cohort reaches adolescence and/or adulthood when risks related to lifestyle become a factor.
– The complexity of the immunisation schedule is likely to increase. . The number of injections required may reduce parental and immunisation provider acceptance of the immunisation schedule.
– The primary impact of the program (the reduction of long-term sequelae) will not be felt for a decade or more, which may affect acceptance by parents, health care professionals and health authorities.
– The program will be more costly than the current selective program.
– If all infants are immunised at birth, antenatal screening may be seen as less important and there could be a decrease in the proportion of infants born to carrier mothers who receive hepatitis B immunoglobulin at birth.
So back in 1996 they admitted “The overall incidence of disease is extremely low in young children and many infants will be vaccinated against a disease which they are at low risk of contracting.”
How can it be legitimate to coerce parents to have their children vaccinated against hepatitis B – a disease that, overall, “they are at low risk of contracting” – under Australia’s No Jab, No Pay law?
I can understand perhaps giving it to babies whose mother is a drug addict or already has it but otherwise why on earth Except $$ and blind belief. Everyone needs to read " Turtles all the way down" on vaccines. And RFKs vaxxed/unvaxxed. Chilling and accurate.
I give the vax enthusiasts the benefit of a doubt. Likely they're genuine, but blind belief is possible. As a physician I wouldn't have given a vax against anything to a one-day-old before knowing if the child was either immunocompromised or autoimmune. Both create difficulties with vaccines.
I was given the three shot series in the early 90’s when it was brand new as they were mandatory for the university program I had been accepted to. I got one of the worst illnesses of my life later that year where I was bed bound with high fever for 5 days. I always attributed that to influenza. Now I think it was from one of those shots.
The blood brain barrier that protects the brain from poisons and toxins is not fully developed until 16-24 month mark. Anything injected into the blood stream will have immediate access to the brain and the rest of the CNS. Injecting infants with anything is barbaric and even criminal.
“The investigators were disappointed to find that only 6.9% had long-lasting immunity to hepatitis B, and thus underwent booster doses upon entering medical school.”
Sounds like only downside exists for the other 93.1% of babies who are not at risk from their mothers.
What is the justification for giving a course of 3 jabs of Hep B vaccine to the babies who won’t go to med school and who are not at risk from their mothers?
In New Zealand, where the Hepatitis B vaccine started in 1987, the issue of titres was HUGE. People like ambulance staff, dentists, paramedics, doctors, nurses and blood transfusion staff were initially all retested 12 months after their last primary jab.
The vast majority has NO antibodies worth looking at.
Even worse, NZ had significant levels of anaphylaxis type responses, so much so, that this country never introduced routine at birth vaccination for babies of non-carrier mothers, because those side effects - according to the documents I have - "mimicked serious disease". Many doctors had a lot to say about the side effects, particularly prolonged jaundice in vaccinated newborns....
A friend of mine, who worked in the blood bank, said that of all the then 30 staff, only she had antibodies, and on checking a second time, they were rising antibodies indicative of a recent sub clinical infection.
My dentist had NINE jabs because she wouldn't sero-convert, until infectious disease specialist , Dr Mark Thomas told her that she was probably "immune".
Repeatedly lack of titres was discussed so much in so many groups, that doctors fell back on the argument that memory cells from bone marrow would kick in, and if a person didn't have blood antibodies, they would probably have memory antibodies.
Now, they do not check titres at all in this country... they know what they will find and just allow the vaccinated to assume they are "protected".
Even more interesting, I was amongst a number of unvaccinated people who were tested ten years after having provably hepatitis B infection, and like the others, I didn't have detectable blood antibodies either.
Having gone through the medical literature extensively from 1987, there are a lot of serious question marks about the Hepatitis B vaccine "theories", because the usual mantras sure didn't work out in practice in this country. So many people had more than three jabs because the primary schedule did NOT result in antibodies in THEM.
The team who inaugurated the programme sent out a booklet that I still have, which states that 60% of people who get hepatitis B will be subclinical and never know they had it.
The other side of this interesting coin is that a friend of mine has been a hepatitis B carrier for over 40 years. Not just surface antigen positive but core antigen positive.
The rest of his family refused vaccinations, and neither his wife or any of their 5 children have every tested surface or core antigen positive.
THANK YOU, Dr. McCullough, for sounding the alarm so that less parents will IGNORANTLY allow this UNNECESSARY DRUG to be injected into their defenseless Babies! I HATE that my husband and I allowed this to happen years ago....
I don’t think that the infinitesimal risk of contracting HepB warrants vaccinating EVERY single infant born with Soy bean adjuvant. Could this be why so many children develop a nut allergy?
Little value and carries great risk... to infants whose immune systems aren't even fully formed to protect against an illness that presents virtually zero risk to 99% of newborns. It's asinine.
There is only one reason a newborn less than 12 hours old is getting any vaccine: $$$$$$
In Australia, parents are coerced to have their babies vaccinated with three doses of hepatitis B vaccine under the No Jab, No Pay law.
However, an NHMRC report ‘Recommendations on hepatitis B immunisation’, published in 1996 (and now rescinded), states under 6. Advantages and disadvantages of universal childhood immunisation and universal pre-adolescent vaccination:
Disadvantages
– The overall incidence of disease is extremely low in young children and many infants will be vaccinated against a disease which they are at low risk of contracting.
– Booster doses may be needed when the cohort reaches adolescence and/or adulthood when risks related to lifestyle become a factor.
– The complexity of the immunisation schedule is likely to increase. . The number of injections required may reduce parental and immunisation provider acceptance of the immunisation schedule.
– The primary impact of the program (the reduction of long-term sequelae) will not be felt for a decade or more, which may affect acceptance by parents, health care professionals and health authorities.
– The program will be more costly than the current selective program.
– If all infants are immunised at birth, antenatal screening may be seen as less important and there could be a decrease in the proportion of infants born to carrier mothers who receive hepatitis B immunoglobulin at birth.
So back in 1996 they admitted “The overall incidence of disease is extremely low in young children and many infants will be vaccinated against a disease which they are at low risk of contracting.”
How can it be legitimate to coerce parents to have their children vaccinated against hepatitis B – a disease that, overall, “they are at low risk of contracting” – under Australia’s No Jab, No Pay law?
Australia sounds like a living nightmare. I thought some changes had been made after Covid 19.
I can understand perhaps giving it to babies whose mother is a drug addict or already has it but otherwise why on earth Except $$ and blind belief. Everyone needs to read " Turtles all the way down" on vaccines. And RFKs vaxxed/unvaxxed. Chilling and accurate.
I give the vax enthusiasts the benefit of a doubt. Likely they're genuine, but blind belief is possible. As a physician I wouldn't have given a vax against anything to a one-day-old before knowing if the child was either immunocompromised or autoimmune. Both create difficulties with vaccines.
I was given the three shot series in the early 90’s when it was brand new as they were mandatory for the university program I had been accepted to. I got one of the worst illnesses of my life later that year where I was bed bound with high fever for 5 days. I always attributed that to influenza. Now I think it was from one of those shots.
The blood brain barrier that protects the brain from poisons and toxins is not fully developed until 16-24 month mark. Anything injected into the blood stream will have immediate access to the brain and the rest of the CNS. Injecting infants with anything is barbaric and even criminal.
The War On The Child: Battlefront “Hep B”
“The investigators were disappointed to find that only 6.9% had long-lasting immunity to hepatitis B, and thus underwent booster doses upon entering medical school.”
Sounds like only downside exists for the other 93.1% of babies who are not at risk from their mothers.
What is the justification for giving a course of 3 jabs of Hep B vaccine to the babies who won’t go to med school and who are not at risk from their mothers?
https://open.substack.com/pub/petermcculloughmd/p/routine-infant-hepatitis-b-vaccination
In New Zealand, where the Hepatitis B vaccine started in 1987, the issue of titres was HUGE. People like ambulance staff, dentists, paramedics, doctors, nurses and blood transfusion staff were initially all retested 12 months after their last primary jab.
The vast majority has NO antibodies worth looking at.
Even worse, NZ had significant levels of anaphylaxis type responses, so much so, that this country never introduced routine at birth vaccination for babies of non-carrier mothers, because those side effects - according to the documents I have - "mimicked serious disease". Many doctors had a lot to say about the side effects, particularly prolonged jaundice in vaccinated newborns....
A friend of mine, who worked in the blood bank, said that of all the then 30 staff, only she had antibodies, and on checking a second time, they were rising antibodies indicative of a recent sub clinical infection.
My dentist had NINE jabs because she wouldn't sero-convert, until infectious disease specialist , Dr Mark Thomas told her that she was probably "immune".
Repeatedly lack of titres was discussed so much in so many groups, that doctors fell back on the argument that memory cells from bone marrow would kick in, and if a person didn't have blood antibodies, they would probably have memory antibodies.
Now, they do not check titres at all in this country... they know what they will find and just allow the vaccinated to assume they are "protected".
Even more interesting, I was amongst a number of unvaccinated people who were tested ten years after having provably hepatitis B infection, and like the others, I didn't have detectable blood antibodies either.
Having gone through the medical literature extensively from 1987, there are a lot of serious question marks about the Hepatitis B vaccine "theories", because the usual mantras sure didn't work out in practice in this country. So many people had more than three jabs because the primary schedule did NOT result in antibodies in THEM.
The team who inaugurated the programme sent out a booklet that I still have, which states that 60% of people who get hepatitis B will be subclinical and never know they had it.
The other side of this interesting coin is that a friend of mine has been a hepatitis B carrier for over 40 years. Not just surface antigen positive but core antigen positive.
The rest of his family refused vaccinations, and neither his wife or any of their 5 children have every tested surface or core antigen positive.
THANK YOU, Dr. McCullough, for sounding the alarm so that less parents will IGNORANTLY allow this UNNECESSARY DRUG to be injected into their defenseless Babies! I HATE that my husband and I allowed this to happen years ago....
I don’t think that the infinitesimal risk of contracting HepB warrants vaccinating EVERY single infant born with Soy bean adjuvant. Could this be why so many children develop a nut allergy?
Meanwhile, in Canada. Dr. Silvina Mema of Interior Health believes the world is filled with conflicting information and that it's important to rely on the fact that vaccines are safe, effective and essential to protecting children from dangerous diseases. https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/500586/Kindergarten-Immunization-event-taking-place-in-Kelowna-before-and-after-school-starts
I wonder how many other healthcare professionals, who were mandated to take the HepB vaxxes, have rheumatoid arthritis?