On December 5th the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to change the recommendations for hepatitis B vaccination practices and on December 16th the CDC officially adopted the change, moving from a blanket recommendation for all newborns to receive the vaccine to “individual-based decision making” specifically for women who test negative for the virus.
While the CDC’s suggestion for this population, babies whose mothers are hepatitis B negative, is to be given the vaccine no earlier than 2 months of age, parents are encouraged to make this decision in conjunction with their providers. Providers should discuss benefits and risks of both the vaccine and the virus allowing parents to decide “if or when their child will begin the hepatitis B vaccine series.”
This is a pro informed consent policy. The decision to change the recommendation is absoluxbnoversial?
The medical community – at least the portion of it that identifies with all the major medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or American Medical Association (AMA) thinks otherwise. They are calling this change dangerous and warning that this change was not based in science at all.
Like nearly everything else, there’s a sharp divide and the parts that don’t generate any controversy are ignored. So, what does this change actually mean for parents and patients? Who is right… MAHA or the medical associations?
No new science
The medical community is getting pretty good at using one of the oldest tactics used in politics, media and marketing: use the truth to tell a lie. In this case, the claim that there is “no new science” is true. ACIP used the existing information to update the recommendation. The lie is that “no new science” makes the new recommendation, by default, a bad one. New science is not necessary to reverse a recommendation that stands against the principle of medical practice where the benefit of an intervention should be greater than the risk.
The APP posted this video of Dr. Alok Patel stating, when over “40 major medical organizations issue a joint statement we should probably pay attention.” I agree, we should pay attention. We should pay attention when medical organizations balk at risk based decision making. We should pay attention to which pediatricians and medical associations prioritize “casting doubt in vaccines and the vaccine schedule” as a concern over the individual patients they serve.
This line of thinking is the same one Fauci openly employed throughout covid: lie to people in order to keep things looking rosy because ‘if we tell the truth they might not listen to us when we really want them to.’ News flash, people have caught on to these tactics and the medical community at large is losing trust in a massive and wholly deserved way.
The overlooked recommendation
In addition to changing the timing of the first recommended dose, there was a reinforcement of the recommendation that every pregnant woman be tested for Hepatitis B prior to delivery so that the conversation between physician and patient can be based on real individual risk. This part of the briefing; however, has been largely overlooked.
Meanwhile, pediatrician influencers warn that all newborns need to be vaccinated immediately because Hepatitis B isn’t just passed via vertical transmission (mother to baby) but largely also through horizontal transmission, via contact with contaminated surfaces.
Prior to November 2025, the rationale espoused for broad indiscriminate Hepatitis B vaccination at birth was that all not all mothers were tested. When the practice of newborn vaccination was questioned, the medical community pushed back based on the claim that due to inconsistent testing, they just didn’t know exactly which babies were at risk. What changed?
The general public becomes informed
Thanks to open and widely shared discussion at HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation hearing, the general broad discussion of vaccines and now this ACIP panel decision, the average person is waking up to Hepatitis B being a disease largely associated with ‘risky behaviors.’ Many mothers are realizing for the first time that largely they are actually being tested for Hepatitis B prior to delivery and then, consented for this vaccine without any information even when they test negative.
So, the pediatricians are employing another longstanding political maneuver: moving the goalpost. Lack of testing leading to no knowledge of which babies are at risk was no longer effective messaging so the message was changed to match the objective. The objective being – a solid poker face – uphold all vaccines all the time – no faltering.
While the medical organizations and affiliated influencer peds talk about the CDCs failure to bring forth new science, they drummed up their own. Since the long standing science absolutely pointed to the need for a recommendation change, the medical community initiated a new narrative but framed it as longstanding common knowledge in their profession. The conversation surrounding need for blanket Hepatitis B vaccination at birth would now be one of horizontal transmission through contact with community members who do not know they have Hepatitis B and surfaces that they have contaminated.
If newborns who are not yet crawling, walking, grabbing and putting things in their mouths contracted Hepatitis B largely from exposure through contaminated surfaces, not their mothers, why did they previously – for years – keep this important information from us? Why not ask other risk based questions like, “is your child going to daycare or staying home with you?”
What the hepatitis B change actually means
As HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to implement changes the medical community at large continues to push back. While changes like this one with the hepatitis B recommendation are good moves, parents across America are going to have to realize the ball is still fully in their court, at least on the basic level of advocating for their children.
The tension between the medical community and the CDC is out in the open. The CDC makes a change and the medical community fires back. They are even getting ahead of changes with preemptive messaging and rebuttals to potential recommendation and funding changes. Stat News reported that doctors and even entire hospital systems are just going to “shrug off” the new guidance. Some states are even putting forth their own recommendations in attempt to override those of the current CDC.
In Illinois, on December 2, Governor, JB Pritzker signed HB 767 – a bill that he describes as a protection for Illinois residents against “junk science” that undermines evidence-based vaccine regulations at the federal level. The bill will allow the Illinois Department of Public Health director to issue state-specific guidelines in coordination with the state level Immunization Advisory Committee.
As an aside, personally, I’d like to have seen medical organizations and swaths of individual doctors this vigilant in previous administrations, specifically throughout COVID.
Does anything really change for you?
So, what does it actually mean for you as a parent, as a patient? It means you will still have to vett your pediatrician or practitioner. If you are going in to a hospital or birth center to have a baby, you will still need to know what medications and interventions are routine and line by line know what you are consenting to. You will still need to advocate for your child, even if your choices do align with the current CDC, they might not align with the hospital system or individual doctor. It means when the ‘guards change’ again there will be new recommendations.
Bottom line, stay vigilant. It’s important to note that the medical system is a beast and as an external force tries to enact change it will not be changed willingly, in fact those that make up the system and adhere to the ideologies will likely push harder and louder in the opposing direction.
Please consider subscribing to my email list below & The Boom Clap Podcast on Youtube, Spotify and Apple and following on Instagram.
