You can’t vaccinate adults if they already have hepatitis b and do not know it. Or kids at the preschool who have hepatitis b (see some of the family stories at PKIDS, like the HepB positive child who starts to bleed at an indoor play area). It is complicated, especially since it is endemic in many countries, and I happen to live in an area with many immigrants from those countries, so we take it more seriously here (not far from where PKIDS is headquartered).

For more information:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2849

You may also wish to read the CDC Pink Book chapter on HepB vaccine strategies and the obstacles to keeping young children (including those past infancy) from getting the disease.

If we are concerned about public health and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases, for Hep B, as with Pertussis, we need to focus on the “cocoon” of adults; parents, relatives and caregivers; who surround a newborn infant in an intimate way. And, parents need to be more aware that exposing a too young to be immunized infant to random adults is not such a great idea.

For Hepatitis B, we need to go one step back and focus on providing all mothers to be with adequate prenatal care, and follow up services.

See for example: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/sccphd/en-us/HealthProviders/HepB/Pages/default.aspx

“The Center for Disease Control estimated 800 births born to hepatitis B infected mothers yearly in Santa Clara County; however, only 50% (400) of these infants are identified for preventive treatment. ”

Focusing so exclusively on “antivaxxers” is a side diversion from creating the sort of comprehensive public health system that our country needs.

. One of the interesting fact is that they avoid reseach that compares vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, but rather compare new type of vaccine to older vaccines.

The reasons would be called Willowbrook School, and other places where those studies were conducted. You can choose to acquaint yourself with the vaccine research that was done in prisons, institutions where disabled children were warehoused and developing countries…. Or propose a design that would protect the placebo arm of the study from measles, mumps and pertussis (diseases presently circulating in the USA), that abide by the rules of the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report.

And after all what are they thinking when vaccinating newborns for Heptitis B which is transferred by sexual contacts and multiple use of needles by drug addicts?

Hepatitis B is also transmitted by saliva, blood and other fluids that young children will share. They are also more likely to develop the chronic form of the disease that leads to liver cancer and early death. For more information check out the information at Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases (a group started because of children with hepatitis b).

Maybe this is about health professional / patient communication and mutual trust.

Brian Zikmund-Fisher of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, has, in my opinion, several intelligent posts on this very subject:

http://umrscblogs.org/2011/04/21/risk-info-in-small-dose/

http://umrscblogs.org/2011/01/23/public-health-needs-humility-to-address-vaccination-fears/

Denying that middle ground is what feeds into the distrust described by Sarah above and spawns supporters for those with more extreme viewpoints such as that of Tomasz R.

For example, here is an editorial, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on the risks and benefits of HPV vaccination:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/7/795.full?home

“The theory behind the vaccine is sound: If HPV infection can be prevented, cancer will not occur. But in practice the issue is more complex. First, there are more than 100 different types of HPV and at least 15 of them are oncogenic. The current vaccines target only 2 oncogenic strains: HPV-16 and HPV-18. Second, the relationship between infection at a young age and development of cancer 20 to 40 years later is not known. HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted infection, with an estimated 79% infection rate over a lifetime5​,6 The virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system.7​,”

The editorial concludes:
” Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened.15​ So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk of harmful effects from the vaccine. When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit. Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed. The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly. “

Vaccine advertisers on the other hand are not very keen to show good science. One of the interesting fact is that they avoid reseach that compares vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, but rather compare new type of vaccine to older vaccines. They also don’t mention that newborns have no fully developed immune systems, and vaccines are supposed to work with immune system… And after all what are they thinking when vaccinating newborns for Heptitis B which is transferred by sexual contacts and multiple use of needles by drug addicts?

Also it needs to be mentioned, that in their way of thinking vaccine makers care more about statistics, than about individuals. That is they are willing to sacrifice a number of customers to adverse effects in order to achieve desired statistical goals. This is opposite to what people want, preferring not having any danger to themselves first.

Adult people who get themselves vaccinated believe in vaccine religon so much that they don’t do analysis of benefits and adverse effects of getting vaccinated. If they had the rate of vaccination would be much lower, as the adverse effects are real and catastrophic (eg. people having brain damage like Guillain–Barré) while stated benefits are just speculations about the future, that unfortunately can’t be trusted because of huge corruption in whole medical system, and frequently don’t even matter much as the dieseases are not that dangerous (eg. panic fear of flu is irrational).

They dont even get the basic math – how many viral dieseases are there vs. those few that vaccinations are supposed to protect from. Had they done it it would be clear that the best way to protect yourself from diesease is in the form of increasing GENERAL HEALTH. This is exactly what natural health advocates are promoting – to get your ogranism working as intedned, to have your immune system fully functional, to minimize inflammation, to eliminate defficiencies in vitamins and minerals (Vitamin D, C, selenium, zinc allow good diesease figthing).