TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

According to the speaker, 'And then hepatitis b is sexually transmitted.' The speaker argues 'There's no reason to give a baby that's almost just born hepatitis b.' The recommendation is to 'wait till the baby is 12 years old and formed and take hepatitis b.' The speaker concludes that 'if you do those things, it's gonna be a whole different it's gonna be a revolution in a positive sense in the country.' These statements frame a proposed policy shift regarding Hepatitis B vaccination timing and its perceived national impact. The quotes reflect a view on vaccination policy and public health strategy.

The discussion around vaccines is often oversimplified, leading to distrust in government recommendations. For instance, the hepatitis B vaccine is given to newborns, despite the disease primarily spreading through drug use and sexual contact. This raises questions about the necessity of immediate vaccination. While vaccines are generally beneficial, there should be room for individual choice and discussion. The COVID vaccine presents similar complexities, especially regarding its necessity for healthy children. It’s crucial to have open debates about vaccine safety and efficacy, rather than adhering strictly to consensus. Science evolves, and we should remain open-minded about potential links between vaccines and conditions like autism and schizophrenia, as we still lack definitive answers. Ultimately, it’s about following the science without preconceived notions.

This is the current CDC recommendations for vaccines for children. On day number one, they get their first jab, a hepatitis vaccine. By the time they're 18, they've had 18 jabs. By the time they get to build up to vote, they have 76 jabs. Speaker 0 discusses vaccines and a timeline from birth to adulthood milestones. These lines illustrate a staged vaccination pattern culminating in 76 jabs. However, the transcript includes no further detail about the vaccines, dosing intervals, or specific ages beyond 18. The overall message emphasizes a count of injections rather than the nature of each vaccine.

“Day one of birth.” “they get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another six months later.” It’s a “captive audience.” “How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or go out and have unprotected sex or get a blood transfusion from somebody who’s infected?” They claim “mom could have had hepatitis B” and that “mom was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,” so doctors would have known and could have “either treat it or do something about it or maybe prophylax the baby.” They ask, “Why would pediatricians go along with that? … money.” They warn, “If they’re giving infants treatment that the infant doesn’t need that has potentially harmful consequences and they’re doing it for money, then they’re criminals.” “there’s two hepatitis B vaccines that are in use.” They ask, “What the long term the follow-up study on those two hepatitis B vaccines is? No. Four days for one, five days for the other.” “Where’s the longitudinal study?” “They haven’t done it.” “That’s the vaccine industry.”

A child born in a US hospital receives pharmaceutical interventions, like erythromycin ointment and a hepatitis B vaccine, without informed consent. The ointment prevents chlamydial infections, though mothers are tested for chlamydia. The hepatitis B vaccine is for a sexually transmitted/IV drug user disease, which babies are not exposed to. There is a huge economic incentive to get more vaccines on the schedule because the government pays hundreds of millions of dollars for mandated products. Once approved, these vaccines are paid for everyone, and questioning them is discouraged by trusted institutions. YouTube will censor and demonetize videos that show skepticism of vaccine efficacy or need, even without directly attacking vaccines.

Dr. Menares and an interlocutor debate the science behind pediatric COVID vaccination and routine immunizations, focusing on transmission, hospitalization, and risk. - The interlocutor asks whether the COVID vaccine prevents transmission. Speaker 1 answer: the vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are infected, and with reduced viral load, there is reduced transmission. The interlocutor reframes, insisting that the vaccine does not prevent transmission and notes decreasing effectiveness over time, citing Omicron data showing around 16% reduction when there is a reduction. - On hospitalization for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 asserts the vaccine does not reduce hospitalization for 18-year-olds; statistics are inconclusive due to small numbers of hospitalizations in that age group (approximately 76 million people aged 18 in the country, with 183 deaths and a few thousand hospitalizations in 2020–2021; numbers have since dropped). The argument emphasizes a need to discuss the issue. - On death for children 18 and under: Speaker 0 says the vaccine does not reduce the death rate; claims there is no statistical evidence that it reduces deaths. Speaker 1 responds with a more cautious stance: “It can,” but Speaker 0 counters, calling that an insufficient answer. - The discussion references the vaccine approval process and ongoing debates in vaccine committees. The interlocutor states that when the vaccine was approved for six months and older, the discussion acknowledged no proof of reduction in hospitalization or death. The argument asserts that the justification for vaccination is based on antibody generation rather than clear hospitalization/death data. The interlocutor contends that immunology measurements (antibody production) do not necessarily justify vaccination frequency. - The core debate centers on what the science supports for vaccinating six-month-olds and the benefits versus risks. The interlocutor argues there is no hospitalization or death benefit for vaccination in this age group, and notes a known risk of myocarditis in younger populations, estimated somewhere between six and ten per ten thousand, which the interlocutor claims is greater than the risk of hospitalization or death being measurable. - The exchange then shifts to changing the childhood vaccine schedule, particularly the hepatitis B vaccine given to newborns when the mother is not hepatitis B positive. The interlocutor asks for the medical or scientific reason to give a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn with an uninfected mother, arguing that the discussion should focus on whether to change the schedule rather than declaring all vaccines as good or bad. - Speaker 1 says they agreed with considering the science and would not pre-commit to approving all ACIP recommendations without the science. Speaker 0 disagrees, asserting their position that the debate should center on the medical rationale for these specific vaccines and schedules, not on a blanket endorsement of vaccines. - Throughout, the dialogue emphasizes examining the medical reasons and evidence for specific vaccines and schedules, rather than broad generalizations about vaccines.

ACE has never turned away a single vaccine, even for diseases that are not casually contagious. The hepatitis B vaccine is recommended for babies when they're an hour old, despite the fact that it's transmitted through sexual contact or shared needles. While maternal transmission is possible, every mother is tested, so we know who is vulnerable. The speaker claims the risk to a one-day-old baby is one in seven million, and that financial incentives are a factor. Many of the targeted diseases' vaccines don't prevent transmission, making mandates questionable. Vaccines can cause chronic injuries that last a lifetime.

Hepatitis B is contracted through sexual activity and IV drug use. The speaker believes babies do not need the hepatitis B vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine contains 250 micrograms of aluminum. The speaker states that after Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, the hepatitis B vaccine was moved from being given to teenagers to newborns. The speaker claims the amount of aluminum in the vaccine is five times the adult daily maximum.

Day one of birth. They get one on day one, another a month later, another six months later: 'They get one on day one of birth, they get another one a month later, they get another one six months later.' 'That's because it's a captive audience. That's the only reason.' He questions the rationale: 'How many babies are gonna be IV drug abusers or get a blood transfusion from somebody who's infected?' He argues mom 'was tested for hepatitis during her pregnancy,' and that if they had hepatitis B, doctors would know and 'could ... prophylax the baby.' He asks, 'Why would pediatricians go along with that? ... money.' He contends: 'If they're giving infants treatment that the infant doesn't need ... they're criminals.' He notes 'two hepatitis B vaccines' are in use, with 'Four days for one, five days for the other' follow-up, and asks, 'Where's the longitudinal study? ... They haven't done it. ... That's the vaccine industry.'

Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago. The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the core topics: trial design and safety monitoring, absence of control group, list of reported adverse events, causality vs association, need for placebo-controlled trials, regulatory and review positions (CDC, IOM), and final stance on vaccine safety. - Preserve key factual claims and phrases (e.g., monitoring duration, lack of control group, listed adverse events, causality requirements). - Emphasize any surprising or unique points (no pre-licensure placebo trial, IOM stance on data, final assertion about safety assumptions). - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic chatter; keep a neutral, fact-focused summary. - Translate only if needed; retain precise wording where quoted. - Keep the summary within 378-473 words. Summary: In the discussion about Recombivax HB, the speaker confirms the product and its labeling, noting that Section 6.1 covers pre-licensure clinical trial experience and that safety was monitored after each dose for five days. It is stated that five days is not long enough to detect autoimmune issues or neurological disorders arising after vaccination. The conversation also points out that there is no control group in those trials. Turning to Section 6.2, the nervous system disorders subsection acknowledges reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome and multiple sclerosis, including exacerbation, myelitis including transverse myelitis, seizures and febrile seizures, peripheral neuropathy including Bell’s palsy, muscle weakness, hypothesia, and encephalitis. It is emphasized that these reports are included because they have been reported to authorities as occurring after vaccination, not because they prove the vaccine caused those reactions. To establish causality, a randomized placebo-controlled study would be needed, but none was performed for this hepatitis B vaccine before licensure. Without a control group, evaluating whether a phenomenon in the vaccine group is related is not possible. A speaker comments that the broader issue is that such safety placebo trials were not done before licensure; once injuries are observed, they argue that it’s unethical to conduct placebo trials, and doctors may claim there are no studies showing the injuries are caused by the vaccine, leading to an assumption of safety. The discussion then touches on CDC guidance, with a question about agreeing with the recommendation that babies receive hepatitis B on the first day of life. The responder concedes that hepatitis B doesn’t cause encephalitis “in my opinion.” The IOM review is cited as having determined it “couldn’t find science to support a causal determination one way or another.” In the absence of data, the conclusion cited is that “there’s no proof that causation exists,” which is distinguished from saying it doesn’t cause it. The transcript closes with a provocative remark: “Vaccine safety is not based on science and data. And that is the stalemate we find ourselves in.”

And so there are two hepatitis vaccines, and one of them was had a safety study that lasted for four days on a 143 kids, a product that's gonna be given to the seventy six million kids. The risk profile prior to the introduction of the vaccine, the risk of a baby dying from hepatitis B was one in seven million. That means you need to give 7,000,000 hepatitis B vaccines to prevent one death if you're gonna give seven million. So, mister Sikh, and guess before the press labels me wrong, I'm not anti vaccine either either. Think I MMR has been a great vaccine. The DPT has been a great vaccine. Polio has been a great vaccine. Small pot so there are great but it's it's the measured approach that we're after, the transparency you're trying to impal

Why did the number of vaccines triple after 1989? Are all of them necessary, or is it about profit? The US gives twice as many shots as other Western countries. Parents should educate themselves, and decide what is absolutely necessary. Do we need the chicken pox vaccine, or the hepatitis B shot on the second day of life? We can't assume public health officials always have our best interests at heart. Parents need to make educated decisions and look at the information. Space out vaccines, delay them, and clean out the toxins. Why wouldn't doctors want to learn more about preventing disease? The AAP and medical schools are financed by drug companies, and vaccines are the fastest-growing part of the pharmaceutical industry, a 13 billion dollar business. We're asking them to take a loss for the good of our children, which is a tough sell.

Vaccines may work for some in preventing diseases like measles, but they can also cause problems. Informed consent is important, so people should know all the possibilities, without influence from incentivized doctors. Some doctors may receive kickbacks for administering the full vaccine schedule. The number of vaccines is high; for example, 72 doses of 17 vaccines between birth and age 18. Many states mandate children receive 29 doses of nine vaccines to attend kindergarten, and multiple doses of 13 vaccines for daycare enrollment. The Hepatitis B vaccine, given on day one, is questioned, especially since it's for a sexually transmitted disease. The COVID vaccine is also considered unnecessary. Tetanus was misrepresented as dangerous. It is claimed that tetanus is not dangerous, and can be prevented by washing out an open wound.

The documentary follows a growing concern: the rise of chronic illness and neurodevelopmental disorders in American children, with speakers outlining striking statistics, personal stories, and contested science around vaccines. Key facts and patterns: - A shift from decades ago to today: more than forty percent of American children now have at least one chronic health condition; estimates cited include that over fifty-four percent of kids have a chronic disease, up from twelve point eight percent in the 1980s. One speaker emphasizes that in forty years there has been “the greatest decline in human health ever recorded.” - Autism rates have surged: just a few decades ago, one in ten thousand children had autism; today, one in thirty-one. Other listed conditions include ADD/ADHD, tics/Tourette’s, narcolepsy, sleep disorders, IBS, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s), eczema, asthma, seizures, and various neurological issues. - The central question raised: what is causing this epidemic of chronic illness in kids? The film argues that rapid increases in incidence cannot be explained by genetic change alone, which would take generations. Story and study arc: - The narrative centers on a scientist who was willing to conduct a study into vaccine safety and vaccine injury, but who faced career-risking consequences when attempting to publish or disseminate results. - The film’s narrator and investigators say they compiled hidden-camera testimonies, interviews, and raw stories from parents whose children experienced serious adverse events after vaccines (eczema, seizures, chronic GI issues, sleep apnea, language loss, autonomic and neurological symptoms, and death in some cases). Stories include a child who lost language after vaccination, triplets who regressed into severe autism after their pneumococcal shot, and families describing chronic, ongoing medical crises following vaccines. - The film frames a broader debate: vaccines are safe and effective, with extensive global use and long-standing public health endorsement. Yet it argues that the vaccine safety narrative lacks certain types of trials, particularly double-blind placebo-controlled trials for childhood vaccines. It claims that, in some cases, no such trials exist prior to licensure, and that post-licensure safety surveillance is limited or incomplete. Vaccine safety testing and regulatory claims: - The film argues that none of the 72 vaccine doses on the childhood schedule has ever been subjected to a pre-licensure double-blind placebo-controlled trial, which is presented as the gold standard of safety testing. It asserts that safety assessments and post-licensure surveillance often rely on observational data rather than randomized trials. - A critical example is the hepatitis B vaccine (Recombivax HB): the FDA-approved trial cited shows safety monitoring for only five days after each dose, with no placebo control. The film argues this is insufficient to detect autoimmune or neurodevelopmental issues that could emerge years later. - Dr. Stanley Plotkin, a leading vaccine expert, is interviewed regarding whether five days of safety monitoring captures potential autoimmune or neurological adverse events; the dialogue suggests concern about the adequacy of such safety windows and controls. - The documentary presents the notion that the absence of a placebo-controlled vaccine safety trial is used to argue safety, while retrospective studies and unblinded cohort analyses hints at potential signals that would merit more rigorous testing. Henry Ford Health System and the “vaccinated vs unvaccinated” study: - Dell and others pursue a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study using Henry Ford Health System data, with the aim of comparing health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. They argue that this kind of retrospective cohort study can reveal safety signals when randomized trials are unavailable. - The study reportedly found that vaccination exposure was associated with higher risks of several chronic conditions, including asthma, atopic diseases, autoimmune diseases (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, SLE, Guillain-Barré syndrome), and neurodevelopmental disorders. They summarize that by ten years, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health condition versus 17% of unvaccinated children; overall, two to four times higher risks across several categories were reported, with notable differences in neurodevelopmental outcomes. - The study reportedly found zero chronic conditions in the unvaccinated group for several categories, though the vaccinated group showed higher incidence in many categories. Autism did not reach statistical significance in this study due to small numbers. The presenters emphasize that retrospective studies have limitations (confounding, follow-up length, healthcare-seeking behavior), but argue that the signal deserves publication and replication. - The Henry Ford study reportedly faced professional and institutional barriers: a threat of defamation, failed attempts to publish, and internal resistance. The documentary showcases a dinner meeting where Dr. Marcus Zervos expresses willingness to publish but ultimately faces career risk, leading to discussions about “Galileo moments” and whether data should be released despite pushback. Industry and public health responses: - The film juxtaposes the public health consensus—vaccines save lives, the schedule is well tested, and billions of people have been studied—with dissenting voices from physicians, scientists, and parents who argue that independent, large-scale vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated analyses are necessary to truly assess safety outcomes. - It includes testimonials from doctors who faced professional pushback after expressing concerns about broader vaccine safety questions or demonstrating adverse effects in patient populations. - The documentary frames a call to replicate the retrospective study in other large health systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente, Harvard Pilgrim, CDC’s VSD) to determine whether the Henry Ford findings hold across populations, and whether impaired health outcomes correlate with the breadth of vaccination exposure. Conclusion and call to action: - The film asserts that if the data are valid, this would constitute a sea-change in our understanding of off-target and nonspecific effects of vaccination and would necessitate reconsidering how the vaccination program is designed and implemented. - Viewers are urged to consider the evidence, demand replication, and reflect on the moral and ethical implications of vaccine safety research, balancing public health benefits with potential risks, and exploring alternate strategies to protect child health.

A newborn in the US receives pharmaceutical interventions, including erythromycin ointment and the hepatitis B vaccine, despite limited informed consent. The Hep B vaccine targets a sexually transmitted and IV drug user disease, which babies are not exposed to. The rationale for administering the vaccine on the first day of life is questioned, considering that newborns are unlikely to contract Hep B through sex or intravenous needles. When questioned, doctors claim American patients are too stupid to remember to get the vaccine later. Another justification is that a child at daycare could trip over a needle with hepatitis B on it. However, there has never been a documented case of hepatitis B transmission outside of intravenous needles or sex. Therefore, there is no valid reason to administer the vaccine to newborns.

Centralized authority in medicine is a catastrophe. Work with a board-certified physician who listens to your needs and values; find a new one if they are dismissive. Vaccines are generally advisable, potentially in a staggered fashion, but some, like the COVID and hepatitis B vaccines, may not be necessary. Mandating healthcare is contrary to how it should be done; the physician-patient relationship should be the primary unit. Medicines are dangerous and have risks, including vaccines. The risk-reward should be carefully considered before taking them.

After 1989, the U.S. administers twice as many vaccines as other Western countries. Parents should educate themselves on vaccine choices, questioning the necessity of certain shots like the hepatitis B vaccine at birth. There is concern that public health officials may not always prioritize individuals' best interests. The speaker questions why doctors wouldn't want to learn more about life-saving vaccines, suggesting financial ties between pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions influence vaccine promotion. Advocating for children's well-being may clash with the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry.

"There is not one longitudinal safety study on hepatitis b against unvaccinated kids versus vaccinated kids, inert placebo, does not exist." "The two studies that are cited most often, one is for MMR." "Hep B is not involved." "They're like, we did a huge study about this. No autism." "And I'm not suggesting there's a link. I'm simply saying that huge study is only MMR." "The other study they love to talk about involves thimerosal." "Not everything else about the hepatitis B vaccine." "There the there the reality is it's not settled science. Just it's okay." "Vaccines have like, we could but to even say that, anti vaxxer."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the hepatitis B vaccine agenda and controversy around its use for newborns. Speaker 1 describes an upcoming September meeting where hepatitis B vaccine is on the agenda, predicting an effort to change the birth dose so that children wouldn’t receive it at birth. They say that if a mother has good prenatal care and known hepatitis B status, that may not matter, but if a mother does not attend prenatal care, the child would have only one opportunity to receive the vaccine. Speaker 0 reacts strongly, arguing that the person promoting the vaccine is inappropriately chosen to advocate for it. They state that the vaccine “was made for people who partake in promiscuous sex with multiple partners or share heroin needles,” and disclaim any direct accusation about the person’s needle-sharing, while asserting that this individual fits a certain group. They question why this person should mandate a hepatitis B vaccine for their child, insisting that in the United States people should be allowed to live freely, but not have the government or advocates push a vaccine tied to a particular lifestyle onto a newborn. Speaker 0 contends that the day-one vaccination would not provide long-lasting protection, especially if the person’s argument is framed as addressing a disease tied to sexual activity. They point out that the majority of pregnant individuals in America are not hepatitis B positive (citing a statistic they recall), and ask why their child should receive an injection for a sexually transmitted infection on day one of life. Speaker 0 challenges religious leaders who support the vaccination program, asking what they would say to families who do not plan for their child to engage in the behaviors associated with hepatitis B transmission. They question the alignment with religious beliefs, asking believers of various faiths whether they intend for their child to share heroin needles. They suggest a paradox in relating the injection to the condition of being created in the image and likeness of God, and conclude with a provocative remark about losing sight of religious or moral principles. Throughout, the speakers frame the hepatitis B vaccination strategy as an ideological fight over who should decide what is injected into newborns, juxtaposing public health goals with concerns about personal freedom, lifestyle, and religious beliefs.

A child born in a U.S. hospital is immediately subjected to pharmaceutical interventions, including Erythromycin ointment and a hepatitis B vaccine, often without informed consent. The hepatitis B vaccine targets a sexually transmitted disease and IV drug use, which newborns are not at risk for. It's questioned why infants are vaccinated for conditions they are unlikely to encounter. The rationale provided by some doctors includes the notion that parents might forget or that a child could encounter a contaminated needle, despite no historical evidence supporting such transmission outside of the known routes. Thus, there seems to be no valid reason for administering this vaccine on the first day of life.

The vaccine discussion is overly simplified. People distrust the government because they recommend a Hepatitis B vaccine for one-day-old infants, despite it being contracted through drug use and sexual transmission. I believe in vaccines, but not a one-size-fits-all approach. I delayed my children's Hepatitis B vaccine until they started school. On the COVID vaccine, there's a huge difference in risk between the elderly and children. The science doesn't support mandating it for healthy six-month-olds. For those over 65 or with risk factors, the vaccine was advisable. We should openly debate these issues. There isn't any clear scientific evidence about what causes autism, so shouldn't we keep an open mind about potential causes like vaccines? We need to follow the science without presuppositions.

Will you assure mothers that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism? If the data supports it, I will. The vaccine discussion is oversimplified. Parents are concerned about giving a hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn when the disease is primarily transmitted through drug use and sex. I vaccinated my children but chose to delay the hepatitis B vaccine until school age. There needs to be an honest debate about vaccines, especially regarding COVID-19, where risks differ significantly between age groups. Healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID. We should remain open-minded about vaccine safety and autism, as we don't fully understand its causes. Science evolves, and we must be humble in our conclusions. The rationale for immediate vaccination against hepatitis B exists, but if a mother's status is known, vaccination can be delayed.

In 1990, when the hepatitis B vaccine was introduced, I questioned the justification for administering it to one-day-old infants. My research revealed that the clinical studies supporting the vaccine involved older children, not infants, and lacked proper safety assessments. I found no credible evidence to support giving this vaccine to newborns, leading me to conclude that it was primarily driven by profit motives rather than health needs. With only about 200 women annually giving birth with chronic hepatitis, the rationale for widespread vaccination seemed flawed. This prompted me to investigate other vaccines, and I discovered that they also lacked proper placebo trials and comprehensive safety evaluations, raising concerns about their validity.

Speaker 0: A child born in a hospital in The United States today, within an hours of coming from source into this body, the first thing that happens to them is pharmaceutical intervention without really asking, barely informed consent. That child's eyes are smeared with erythromycin ointment, and they're given a hepatitis B vaccine in their first day of life. And the hep B vaccine is for hepatitis B, which is a sexually transmitted disease, an IV drug user disease, of course, which babies are not gonna be exposed to, and yet every single baby in America is getting the intervention. So from the literally the day we are born, we're— Speaker 1: I these mean, why not test the pregnant mother for those? Speaker 0: They do. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: So They give it to the women who even if they have tested negative— Speaker 1: they give majority. Absolutely. So I don't understand why would you treat a child on his first day of life for illnesses you know for a fact he doesn't have, it isn't gonna get? Speaker 2: So a child's born let's just take the sign. The child's born. Hep B is spread by two routes, sexually transmitted disease or intravenous needles. So my one day old isn't going to be having sex or doing heroin right away. So what's the purpose of getting this on the schedule in the first day of life, the first hours of life? Speaker 0: And if you push, and I welcome anyone to do this with their doctor, you get to two things. You get to the American patients are too stupid to remember, so we need to do it right away. That's literally like what they say. And then my doctor told me that that a child at daycare could trip over a needle that has hepatitis B on it. That's literally what they get to. Speaker 2: That a needle could be on the playground that somebody just did heroin or something, threw the needle down, and it has hepatitis B blood on it. I asked the doctor, has there ever been in human history a case of hepatitis B two being transferred that way? They said no. It's only through intravenous needles and sex. So you actually to to just to steel man this, and, again, welcome anyone to respond, there is not actually a scenario absent of intravenous needles or sex, that a person gets hepatitis b. Speaker 0: There is not a reason for this to be given.