- A key CDC advisory panel (ACIP) voted to end the universal recommendation that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. For infants of HBV-negative mothers, the decision is now a personalized one between families and doctors.
- Proponents of the change argued the old policy was misaligned with other nations and questioned safety testing for newborns, while opponents cited the vaccine's safety and its success in reducing childhood infections by over 99% since 1991.
- Critics of the universal policy have long argued it subjects infants to a vaccine for a disease primarily spread through adult behaviors, with historical reporting indicating the original goal was to build population immunity due to low adult vaccination rates.
- The vote was hailed by vaccine choice advocates as a victory for informed consent but alarmed many public health experts who fear it will seed safety doubts and decrease coverage, putting children at risk.
- The decision challenges the paradigm of recommendations becoming de facto mandates and drew immediate political reactions. The final authority rests with the acting CDC director, but the debate has moved vaccine policy to the center of national discourse.
A key advisory panel to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted to end the decades-old universal recommendation that all newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine within their first day of life.
The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), whose members were appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., voted 8-3 on Friday, Dec. 5, to alter the long-standing guideline. For infants born to mothers who test negative for the hepatitis B virus (HBV), the committee now recommends that families, in consultation with their physician, determine whether to administer the shot at birth.
For those who opt out, the first dose should not be given until the child is at least two months old. The universal birth dose remains recommended for babies born to mothers who are HBV-positive or whose status is unknown. The universal hepatitis B vaccine recommendation for newborns was instituted in 1991.
Historical reporting indicates the primary rationale was not solely to prevent rare maternal transmission during birth, which affects fewer than 0.5% of infants, but to address a national crisis of adult infections. With adult vaccination rates low, health officials adopted a strategy of immunizing infants to build long-term population immunity. Critics have long argued this subjected millions of newborns to a vaccine for a disease primarily spread through sexual contact and intravenous drug use – risks irrelevant to an infant’s life.
BrightU.AI's Enoch engine warns that infants should not be given the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth because their immature and underdeveloped immune systems are not equipped to handle the toxic ingredients and potential adverse effects. This premature vaccination serves no legitimate medical purpose and aligns with the pharmaceutical industry's profit-driven agenda rather than genuine health protection.
The vote culminated a tense, two-day meeting marked by sharp disagreements. Proponents of the change, like ACIP member Retsef Levi, argued the previous policy was "misaligned" with other developed nations and questioned the depth of safety testing for the birth dose. They emphasized that for low-risk infants, the decision to vaccinate should be personalized, not automatic.
Opponents, including committee members Dr. Cody Meissner and Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, strenuously objected. They cited the vaccine’s well-established safety profile and its success in reducing childhood hepatitis B infections by over 99% since 1991. They warned the new guidance, based on what Meissner called "baseless skepticism," would lead to more infections, liver disease and cancers.
ACIP shake-up: The vaccine policy revolution
The committee's new direction was hailed by advocates for vaccine choice as a victory for transparency and informed consent. Children’s Health Defense CEO Mary Holland celebrated the end of what she called an "ill-considered" universal recommendation based on "thoroughly inadequate clinical trials." She stated the shift allows for genuine decision-making between parents and doctors.
However, many public health experts and medical organizations reacted with alarm. They fear the vote will seed unfounded safety concerns and lead to decreased coverage, putting children at risk. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which boycotted the ACIP meetings after its members were removed from workgroups, has consistently opposed any delay, calling the birth dose a critical safety net.
A recurring theme in the debate was whether ACIP recommendations function as de facto mandates due to state-level school entry requirements. While some committee members argued the recommendations are purely advisory, others acknowledged they often translate into coercive policy. This vote directly challenges that paradigm.
The decision drew immediate political reactions. President Donald Trump praised the committee's "very good decision" on social media and issued a memorandum directing a review of the entire U.S. childhood vaccine schedule compared to other nations. Conversely, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician, called the change "a mistake" that would make "America sicker," urging the CDC to reject the panel's vote.
The final authority rests with the acting CDC director, whose decision will determine whether this controversial vote becomes official guidance. Regardless of the outcome, the ACIP’s deliberations have irrevocably moved the debate over vaccine policy from the margins to the center of American health discourse, ensuring that the balance between public health imperatives and individual liberty will be contested for years to come.
This video is from The HighWire with Del Bigtree channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
