MedPage Today on Wednesday ran the latest in a series of mainstream articles defending the hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccine as safe, effective and necessary for every newborn baby born in the U.S.
The articles are in response to concerns recently raised by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Martin Kulldorff, Ph.D., chair of the vaccine advisory committee for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
At his first meeting in June, Kulldorff announced that the panel may revisit its longstanding recommendation that the vaccine be given to all babies at birth.
MedPage said Kulldorff and Kennedy’s assertions “could erode public confidence in a vaccine credited with virtually eliminating childhood transmission of the virus in the U.S.”
Critics have long raised concerns about the safety and necessity of giving the vaccine to newborns, particularly those not at risk for the disease. Today, the Hep B vaccine contains at least 250 micrograms of aluminum, and aluminum exposure has been linked to autism.
Hepatitis B is a liver disease caused by the hepatitis B virus (HBV). It can range from a mild, short-term, acute illness lasting a few weeks to a serious, long-term, chronic infection.
The virus is transmitted through bodily fluids, most often by sexual contact or sharing IV drug equipment. In the U.S., IV drug use is the most common risk factor for the disease, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Infected pregnant mothers can pass the disease to their infants. In the U.S., an estimated 25,000 pregnant women per year — or 0.69% — have HBV. About 1,000 of those women pass the virus to their babies, according to HHS.
Women can be tested for the disease to see if their babies would benefit from vaccination, but that’s not what the CDC recommends.
Instead, children are required to receive the Hep B vaccine to attend either childcare, school or both, in every state except Alabama.
Dr. Kristen Marks, an infectious disease specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, told MedPage the Hep B vaccine is “a safe vaccine that prevents liver disease and liver cancer.” It “makes no sense” to question the use of such a drug, she said.
However, the vaccine does not prevent cancer. It is designed to prevent HBV, which can lead to liver cancer in some people if the disease goes untreated. Yet “almost all children 6 years and older and adults infected with acute HBV recover completely with no lasting liver damage,” according to the CDC.
An Aug. 14 analysis of a clinical trial and immunological data by James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., also raises doubts about whether the dose given to newborns is effective. Instead, immunity appears to be conferred after the entire series of shots.
That, combined with substantial evidence of the vaccine’s dangers, has raised concerns about the existing recommendation.
Hep B vaccine, other mandatory shots not reviewed in more than 7 years
At the June meeting of the CDC’s revamped Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Kulldorff asked:
“Is it wise to administer a birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine to every newborn before leaving the hospital? That’s the question. Unless the mother is hepatitis B positive, an argument could be made to delay the vaccine for this infection, which is primarily spread by sexual activity and intravenous drug use.”
Kulldorff, a former Harvard epidemiologist tapped by Kennedy to lead ACIP, announced the committee was forming two new work groups. One group would look at the cumulative effect of the childhood and adolescent vaccination schedules, and another would look at vaccines that have not been reviewed “in more than seven years.”
The latter group includes the Hep B shot.
MedPage said Kulldorff’s claim about how HBV is spread was “inaccurate,” because in “highly endemic areas, hepatitis B is most commonly spread from mother to child at birth.”
However, HBV is not endemic in the U.S. Its prevalence is estimated at 0.6%, and the public health agencies say IV drug users are at greatest risk.
Articles in MedPage and other mainstream publications also cited a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, where Kennedy claimed “without evidence” that suppressed CDC data linked the vaccine to autism, with one study showing a “1,135% elevated risk of autism.”
MedPage asked HHS for the study cited by Kennedy, but received no response. It concluded there was no “credible evidence” that the study existed. MedPage also quoted Chari Cohen, who said she had never seen such a study and didn’t know anyone who had.
The risk percentage can be found in a series of studies the CDC completed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which the group Safe Minds obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.
The studies, which examined the relationship between thimerosal and autism in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, found a strong link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and medications — including HBV treatments — and autism.
One of those analyses identified a 1,135% elevated risk of autism — or an 11.35 times greater risk — for infants exposed to high levels of thimerosal.
The researchers repeated the study multiple times, manipulating the groups they included and changing the way they analyzed the data in an attempt to water down the results.
Lead investigator Thomas Verstraeten, in an email to his colleagues with the subject line “it just won’t go away,” said he was having trouble eliminating evidence of harm within the first month of a baby’s life.
With each new iteration of the study, the risks shown were reduced or eliminated. Eventually, the researchers achieved results that were published in Pediatrics, and used to claim there was no link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.
The documents obtained by Safe Minds provide “strong support for the autism-mercury hypothesis,” along with evidence of how data can be manipulated, according to the group.
“The pattern of behavior constitutes malfeasance and should not be permitted to stand,” they wrote. “It is time to remove the parties involved from their role in vaccine safety assessment and to subject the VSD database to open and independent review.”
Why did the Hep B vaccine get added to the childhood schedule?
In an article published in the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland questioned the constitutionality of requiring children to receive the Hep B vaccine for school attendance, especially since CDC data show transmission is unlikely through routine contact among children.
The CDC’s position on mass vaccination for children changed after the pharmaceutical companies got legal protection from liability.
When ACIP made its first Hep B vaccine recommendation in 1982, the CDC recognized that the U.S. had “low HBV prevalence” and recommended the shot for high-risk people only, including healthcare workers, people likely to be in sexual or “needle stick” contact with an infected person and infants born to infected mothers.
In 1988, the committee called for all pregnant mothers to be screened to determine if vaccination was necessary. At that time, it was estimated that 16,500 mothers per year were infected and, without vaccination, an estimated 3,500 infants would become chronic carriers.
Later that year, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), created by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, was established. The law protects vaccine makers from liability for injuries related to vaccines on the CDC’s childhood schedule.
The VICP was intended to provide an alternative means of compensating people who suffer “accidental injury or death” from taking those vaccines.
By 1991, the CDC was describing HBV risks differently, saying the consequences of infection were “major health problems” in the U.S. — even though rates had not changed and only a few hundred children were infected.
The CDC advisory committee concluded that because it was challenging to vaccinate only people at risk for HBV, mass immunization against the virus was “the most effective means of preventing HBV infection and its consequences.”
The committee recommended that all infants be vaccinated, regardless of their mothers’ HBV status, and the Hep B vaccine was added to the childhood immunization schedule.
Related articles in The Defender
- Hep B Vaccines Come With High Risk, Little Benefit — Why Does CDC Recommend Them for Every Newborn?
- Safety Data on Hepatitis B Vaccine for Newborns ‘Sadly Lacking’
- Judge Rules in Favor of Teen in Medical Exemption Lawsuit Funded by Children’s Health Defense
- Hand-curated links from conservative and Christian sites — NO legacy media garbage links. Patriots get their news every day at JDRucker.com
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.