CDC Committee Votes to Halt Blanket Recommendation for Hepatitis B Shot at Birth
The new approach will link Hepatitis B vaccination decision to the mother’s hepatitis B status and “individual-based” decision-making by parents and clinicians.
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) team brought into the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is continuing to work hard in reviewing American vaccination policies, and with an aim to make adjustments in their scheduling and usage, especially among children.
We noted recently that the FDA’s Chief Medical and Science Officers issued a memo indicating that COVID-19 vaccinations were responsible for at least 10 pediatric deaths and questioned whether there was enough data available to clearly demonstrate that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed its risks when it comes to the young and healthy.
The HHS is investigating a school for vaccinating children without parental consent.
Now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has just voted to end the universal recommendation that all newborns receive a hepatitis B vaccine dose within 24 hours of birth. The new approach will link that particular vaccination decision to the mother’s hepatitis B status and “individual-based” decision-making by parents and clinicians.
The recommendations state that if a mother tests negative for hepatitis B, parents should decide, with the guidance of their health care provider, whether the shot is right for their newborn — referred to as “individual-based decision-making,” according to a document with the ACIP voting language.
The vote includes that newborns who do not receive the hepatitis B birth dose get an initial dose no earlier than 2 months old.
The voting language document emphasized there is no change to the recommendation that infants born to women who test positive or have unknown status to be vaccinated.
The language document also included a footnote that parents and health care providers should consider whether the newborn faces risks, such as a hepatitis B-positive household member or frequent contact with people who have emigrated from areas where hepatitis B is common.
Hepatitis B is a bloodborne pathogen that tends to be transmitted in ways not commonly associated with newborn activity (unless, as noted above, the mother tests positive for the liver-impacting disease). I have always viewed the blanket guidelines as questionable and nixed this vaccine for my own son until he was older.
The Hepatitis B vaccine is mandated for children to attend public school in virtually every state.
Hepatitis B is transmitted through needles or sexual contact, so why is this vaccine pushed on babies their first day of life?
Doctors don’t have a valid answer. If you ask them… pic.twitter.com/GThkigoiaF
— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) December 4, 2025
Giving parents the choice to opt out after reviewing the nature of the disease and how it spreads was at the crux of this new guidance.
Robert Malone, the committee’s vice chairman, characterized the vote to no longer universally recommend a birth dose vaccine as one that pitted individual rights against societal obligations.
“We’re torn by these two conflicting points of views,” Malone said. “There are these two fundamental differences of opinion about the rights of individuals versus the rights of society.”
Many parents seem pretty pleased with this direction:
BREAKING: the vaccine advisory board has just confirmed that the Hepatitis B vaccine is not required at birth for newborns.
This is a HUGE win for parents rights and scientific discernment of over-intervention of pharmaceuticals in our healthcare systempic.twitter.com/HDtb6L61kr
— Isabel Brown (@theisabelb) December 5, 2025
The panel’s review was inspired by surveys indicating the American public has grown distrustful of the enormous reliance on vaccinations in today’s practice of medicine. The new guidelines are also in accordance with those of other developed countries, which do not universally vaccinate newborns with the Hepatitis B vaccine.
The ACIP routinely revisits its recommendations in light of new evidence. This re-evaluation was prompted by concerns about public dissatisfaction with US vaccination policy, according to ACIP member Vicky Pebsworth, a nurse and health-policy analyst at the National Vaccine Information Center in Sterling, Virginia. During the meeting on Thursday, Pebsworth cited two surveys, including one in which 16% of parents reported skipping or delaying childhood vaccines in part because of concerns about side effects and safety. “This level of dissatisfaction is of societal significance and poses challenges for vaccination policy making,” she said.
The same survey also found that 90% of parents said it is important for children to receive the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, and 88% said the same for the polio vaccine.
Pebsworth also noted that the US policy is “misaligned relative to existing recommendations in most other developed countries” where universal birth-dose vaccination is not the standard practice. Walensky responded at the briefing that “the United States has access issues and insurance issues that don’t mirror access and insurance issues of other countries”.
This recommendation is not yet in effect; it must still be accepted or rejected by the CDC’s acting director or the HHS secretary before it becomes part of the official immunization schedule.
Image by perplexity.ai.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’ve never been vaccinated for Hep B. Why would I be? Why would most people be?
Considering its mostly an STD, and the chance of contracting it is so small, the only reason to ever give it to a child is if the mother has the disease….. Why would we give it to kids today?
I know tbis is a little off-topic, but vaccines can be delivered via a patch instead of a needle and often work better that way. I wonder how widespread adoption will affect views on vaccinations. Smaller dose, more effective with slower absorption, less side effects and no pain.
Vaccines are fundamentally different than pharmaceuticals. They need to generate an immune response, so they have to be delivered at a certain level at one time (a bolus in med-speak), not slowly over time. They are also a 2 part deal, with an immuogen (Hep B Surface antigen in this case) and an adjuvant that stimulates the required immune response. Both need to be delivered in the bolus, so a patch won’t work.
But the skin is part of our immune response, so it makes sense to make use of it instead of bypassing it. I am not expert but it seems like a pretty cool advance. We could all use less needles.
I’m glad science is now democratic. You just take a vote and then you can do that.
What puzzles me: were we “following the science” before the vote, or after?
Oh, that’s right! They voted! So they were following the science BOTH times.
That’s the science of voting or something.
They are following the science. You mainly get HepB from drug use or sex. So unless their mother is a drug user or having sex with one there is very little chance of a newborn being exposed. Also note they did not say they don’t recommend it at all just waiting 2 months. A lot of physicians have said for a while they need to spread out the vaccines given in the first year more to lessen side effects.
You miss the point.
Either they were following the science when they issued their blanket recommendation, or they were following the science when they halted it. But they can’t have it both ways.
You can easily have it both ways.
They are following the money. The CDC gets million of dollars every year from the pharmaceutical industry.
The increase in childhood vaccinations via the “schedule” recommended by the CDC is directly correlated timewise to the creation of the CDC Foundation which has received over $160 Million from the pharmaceutical industry. Companies donate cash and magically their products including vaccines get recommended. Ask yourself how Fauci managed to pay cash for an estate on the Potomac River.
What a concept. Treating each patient as an individual with unique factors, risks and circumstances instead of a top down, one size fits all, industrialized approach.
Vaccines are fundamentally different than other pharmaceuticals in the fact that vaccines are administered to healthy individuals with the expectation that it will prevent disease where other pharmaceuticals (i.e. drugs) are given after a person has contracted a disease and are in need of treatment. And it’s that difference that makes answering questions such as, “Do the benefits of vaccinating a person or persons for disease X outweigh the side-effects and negative consequences of administering that vaccine.” difficult to answer.
And in the case of Hep B, in the absence of any factors that raise the risk of a newborn infant’s chances of becoming infected, the answer to that question is no. There is no apparent benefit of administering the Hep B vaccine to newborns when there are no increased risks of contracting the disease and therefore blanket vaccination of newborns for Hep B is inappropriate
Nobody is following any kind of science here, even with the recommendation to delay the Hep B vax.
Because almost 100% of mothers are tested for Hep B, and the blanket vaxx is useful to only one baby in a million, less than 4 babies a year are “helped” by the vaxx.
Pharma sells 3.6 million doses, and it actually is targeted at fewer than 4 potentially infected babies.
Yup – it’s about $$$, not “public health.”