Login
Lawmaker Wants to End Hepatitis B Vaccine Requirement to Align NH With Kennedy’s CDC
New Hampshire Bulletin reported:
A bill filed by Republican state Rep. Kelley Potenza, House Bill 1719, seeks to remove hepatitis B from the list of vaccines children in New Hampshire are legally required to receive. The proposal comes on the heels of a recent decision by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory panel to end the agency’s longstanding recommendation that all infants receive hepatitis B vaccinations at birth.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, commonly known as ACIP, voted, 8-3, in December to change the federal government’s guidance to not recommend the vaccine at birth for infants unless the mother tested positive for the virus. Mothers who test negative for hepatitis B should consult their doctors about giving the vaccine to their children, the committee recommended.
“New Hampshire has always followed, like I said before, the ACIP and CDC guidance on vaccines until now,” Potenza said during a legislative hearing on the bill last week. “This bill continues the tradition by aligning state law with the ACIP’s and the CDC’s updated hepatitis B recommendation.”
Oklahoma Lawmaker Proposes Blood Bank for Vaccine-Free Blood
A House lawmaker wants the state to run its own blood bank so it can provide Oklahomans blood “untainted” by the COVID-19 vaccine. But medical professionals said it’s not reasonable to require blood banks to accurately screen donors for vaccination status. Scientifically, there’s no way to tell the difference between the antibodies of people who have been sick with COVID and those who have been vaccinated against it, one doctor said.
Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane, said he authored House Bill 3196 to “start conversations” about how to best provide people with unvaccinated blood products, especially in emergencies. His measure proposes that the State Department of Health open a blood bank that receives and stores blood from people who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19. Humphrey said he created this legislation after hearing a story about a child in state custody whose mother wanted any blood transfusions to be done with blood that had not received the COVID-19 vaccine.
He said he’s suspicious of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and believes some of his family were adversely affected by it. “At the end of the day, I don’t want it,” Humphrey said. “I don’t want it in me. I don’t want a transfusion. I don’t want it.”
He said he should have the ability to receive blood from donors who are unvaccinated and is open to private sector solutions to this problem if creating state statute isn’t the right path forward.
Vax Manufacturers Could Get Hauled Into Court Under Bill Moving in the Senate
Manufacturers that advertise vaccines in Florida that cause injury or harm could be sued under a bill sponsored by Fort Pierce Republican Erin Grall. Over objections by lobbyists representing organized medicine and business interests, the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries voted, 5-3, Tuesday to pass the proposal, SB 408.
Specifically, the bill would amend Florida law regulating drugs and cosmetics to allow an individual to file a lawsuit within three years following an alleged vaccine-related injury.
The bill would provide one-way attorney fees, allowing any claimant who wins to recover “reasonable attorney fees” but not allow winning defendants to do the same.
Traditionally in Florida, one-way fees have been intended to balance the interests of ordinary people against deep-pocketed interests.
The bill defines “advertise” as “a media communication, including, but not limited to, television, radio, print, the Internet, digital or electronic media, product placement, promotion by an influencer in exchange for compensation, or any other manner of paid promotion, that a vaccine manufacturer purchases to promote the manufacturer’s vaccine.”
Trump’s E.P.A. Has Put a Value on Human Life: Zero Dollars
Government officials have long grappled with a question that seems like the purview of philosophers: What is the value of a human life? Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the answer has been in the millions of dollars. The higher the value, the more the government has required businesses to spend on their operations to prevent a single death.
But for the first time ever, at the Environmental Protection Agency the answer is effectively zero dollars. Last week, the E.P.A. stopped estimating the monetary value of lives saved when setting limits on two of the most widespread deadly air pollutants, fine particulate matter and ozone. Instead, the agency is calculating only the costs to companies of complying with pollution regulations.
