#vaccine-safety

#vaccine-safety

Before this year, U.S. health officials following recommendations by infectious disease experts recommended annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older. The idea was to update protection against the coronavirus as it continues to evolve. As the COVID-19 pandemic waned, experts increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older who are among those most at risk for death and hospitalization.

As far as sticker price goes, the recommended vaccines for kids in the United States do not come cheap. The hepatitis-B shot, given within the first hours of life, can be purchased for about $30. The rotavirus vaccine costs $102 to $147 a dose. A full course of the vaccine that protects against pneumonia and meningitis runs about $1,000.

Four unnamed sources close to the situation told the Post that Trump administration health officials appear to be using information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to make the claim that COVID-19 vaccines have killed children. VAERS is a system in which anyone can report anything they think is an adverse event related to a vaccination.

It makes sense to approach some marketing efforts with skepticism. Scams, artificial intelligence and deceptive social media posts are common, with people you don't know seeking to profit from your behavior. But should people extend this same skepticism to pediatricians who advise vaccines for children? Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said financial bonuses are driving such recommendations.

NIH is proud to lead this effort to advance vaccine safety and support innovation that protects children without compromise. By reinstating this Task Force, we are reaffirming our commitment to rigorous science, continuous improvement, and the trust of American families.

Pediatricians report that for the first time, parents of newborns are asking if their babies will still be able to get vaccines due to rising concerns.

Artificial intelligence - arguably, a uselessly vague umbrella term - came up multiple times in a recent interview, highlighting a potential misguided approach to health testing and decisions.