oldephartte (oldephartte) wrote,
oldephartte
oldephartte

Vaccine Legislation : Demolishing Arguments Against Exemptions

The following open letter by a PhD Immunologist completely demolishes
the current California legislative initiative to remove all vaccine
exemptions. That such a draconian and cynical state statute is under
consideration in the ‘Golden State’ is as shocking as it is predictable.
 After all, it was mysteriously written and submitted shortly after the
manufactured-in-Disneyland measles ‘outbreak’.


vax_ill_collThe
indisputable science that is employed by Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD ought
to be read by every CA legislator who is entertaining an affirmative
vote for SB277.  Dr. Obukhanych skillfully deconstructs the many false
and fabricated arguments that are advanced by Big Pharma and the U.S
Federal Government as they attempt to implement a nationwide Super-Vaccination agenda.


When the California Senate refuses to consider authoritative
scientific evidence which categorically proves the dangerous vaccine
side effects on the schoolchildren, something is very wrong. Such
conduct by the Senate constitutes criminal action that endangers the
lives and welfare of children. Their official behavior must be
acknowledged for what it is — CRIMINAL — and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology


Re:  VACCINE LEGISLATION


Dear Legislator:


My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology.  I am
writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common
misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and
balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and
new scientific findings.


Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?


It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their
children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and
this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine
exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators
country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded
by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines
recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a
statement. I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot
prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed
to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to
prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable
diseases. People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose
no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying
that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school
setting may not be warranted.



  1. IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus (see
    appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been
    non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild
    poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with
    IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces.  Please note that wild
    poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine,
    OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine. Despite being capable of preventing wild
    poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA
    and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.



  1. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani
    spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine)
    cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render
    personal protection only.



  1. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only.



  1. The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP
    combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell
    pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an
    unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with
    deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #2). The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.[1]



  • Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that
    pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the
    USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date
    for their DTaP boosters
    (see appendix for the CDC document, Item #3), meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.



  1. Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine
    covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and
    asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f).These
    types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and
    increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children
    (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4).  The general
    population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was
    prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign.  Discriminating
    against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any
    scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.



  1. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not
    spread in a community setting, especially among children who are
    unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or
    sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the
    safety of public spaces. Further, school admission is not prohibited
    for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers. To prohibit school
    admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry
    hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical
    discrimination.


In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP,
HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra
danger to the public than a person who is.  No discrimination is
warranted.


How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?


It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse
events. Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science. A
recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established thatvaccination
actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children
following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730
children following their 18-month vaccination appointment
(see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).


When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after
well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a
choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this
immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are
generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed
to.


Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons
of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral
diseases, such as measles?


Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the
“measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson
(1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:


“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization
rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of
immunized persons.”[2]


Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a
fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders
are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine.
These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent
RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within
2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.[3]


Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an
immuno-genetic trait.[4]  The proportion of low-responders among
children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.[5]


Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket
(95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items
#6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders,
vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time.  Vaccine immunity does not
equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.


It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop
breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles
outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were
re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.[6] – [7]


Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination
of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of
families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence
nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated
diseases.

Tags: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, sickening the healthy, vaccines. immunization
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments