Talk:Hepatitis B vaccine

message: one of the most peculiar articles I have read in a while. the part about sexual activity is not true at all. hepatitis b is certainly not just a sexually acquired disease. Blood transfusions, vertical transmission and unsterilized needles are a few different ways. Woknblues 15:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this article needs some serious cleaning-up. -- MacAddct1984 02:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I love how in one paragraph it talks about booster shots not being needed and then two paragraphs later starts to imply that it's useless to vaccinate at birth because you have to have booster shots anyway. Brilliant. Jmissig 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: one

message: Moved this sentence here:
Also, some studies suggest an increase in the rate of type 1 diabetes between those who take the vaccine compared to those who do not.'
referenced to webMD. Could not find the original study on PubMed, suggesting it may not have been peer reveiwed. Don't think it should go back in unless the original study is cited. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diabetes linked to Vaccination 

message: Photos from this website are making the rounds. From what I can discern, the kid had an allergic reaction to the yeast. I think an independent analysis of the case would be a useful addition to the article. Anyone know of one? -- SpareSimian (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adverse reaction to yeast 

message: This article is confusing and poorly written. I think it should be rewritten completely. 162.82.215.196 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite? 

message: I've reverted this edit per WP:MEDRS as it is a primary research paper. We need reliable secondary sources for controversial medical claims. This study in particular has been widely rubbished. See this article. The study is flawed and didn't find any relevant statistical differences between the groups. Colin°Talk 09:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin, the private blog "states = Are the red flags up yet? They should be. Take for example kids aged 17 in the 1997 survey. When were they born? That’s right, 1980." However, a quick look at the wikipedia reads "The vaccine was approved in 1981." Prokaryotes (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism paper 

message: I was researching the hepB vaccine and came across these two Wikipedia articles that contradicted each other. This one states that Dr. Maurice Hilleman created the first HepB vaccine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B_vaccine This one states that Dr. Baruch Blumberg created the first HepB vaccine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Samuel_Blumberg I am not a medical expert and I have no idea how to resolve this.71.108.131.174 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who invented it? 

message: I found, and have removed, a sentence in here that said that this vaccine causes CFS, based only on a link to an anti-vaccine website--the Vaccination Risk Awareness Network.  How did this survive for like two years without anyone noticing it was a miserable failure of MEDRS? Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 04:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously? 

message: This article relies on a blog entry from Planned Parenhood in Arizona written by "Anna C." What kind of source is that?  This is the title and info: "World Hepatitis Day: The History of the Hepatitis B Vaccine/Posted on July 26, 2012 by Anna C." ( http://blog.advocatesaz.org/2012/07/26/world-hepatitis-day-the-history-of-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine/ ) How can anyone take this seriously? The author's credentials are a "bachelor’s degree from the University of California" -- the school and the major are not specified. This is ridiculous! Furthermore, the blog entry by this anonymous person also implies that the Hepatitis B vaccine trials spread HIV into the gay community. William (The Bill) Blackstone (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable Source

message: The CDC reviews the evidence here which is uptodate as of 2015.
We have this article from 2014 which is described as a historical article rather than a review. We do have reviews in better quality journals.
Regardless it is not notable enough to be in the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: MS

message: "Noninferiority was met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in seroprotection rates (HEPLISAV-B minus Engerix-B) was greater than -10%."
Thus non inferior seems better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: FDA says

message: It would be useful to find counterarguments for Mr. J.B. Handley ( https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/7/2/hepbthree ).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.146.147.166 (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wang X., Yang J., Xing Z., 2018 

message: (This question is nowadays of low importance since modern hepatitis B vaccines appear to be "dead" vaccines comprising only antigens of the virus.)
Is there a possiblilty to contract hepatitis D after receiving a live-attenuated hepatitis B vaccine? --2003:E7:7735:1942:1D45:4007:670C:1885 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hepatitis D requires concurrent chronic Hepatitis B infection in order to infect its host. As a hypothetical (none have ever existed) live-attenuated hepatitis B vaccine would not be supposed to be capable of establishing chronic infection, no infection with Hepatitis D could happen. Ruslik_Zero 18:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attenuated vaccine and hepatitis D