Harvard PhD Immunologist Destroys SB277’s Vaccinations Logic With Open Letter to Legislators



SB277 is the rule of law in California. The state is no longer
allowing most vaccine exemptions for children hoping to attend public
schools. The law, at its very core, is designed to “smoke out” those who
choose to resist all vaccines or just a some of them. The legislation
hopes to bring fear to those who may be on the fence about whether or
not to vaccinate their children. Pharmaceutical companies backed the
bill which they hope keeps revenue flowing by keeping people “in
compliance.”



But not every medical researcher is on the pharmaceutical companies
take. Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., is speaking out on the matter and
condemning the state, it’s legislators and the pharmaceutical companies
for what is a blatant disregard for parental rights and science. She
breaks down the failed concept of “herd immunity” and regards the Disney
measles cases as mostly propaganda.



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.



[list=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.[/list]
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.[/list]
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.[/list]
[*]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][/*][/list]
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 morelikely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.
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.[/list]
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.[/list]
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.







Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?



The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the
recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in
the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and
15. Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from
re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults
unprotected by their childhood shots. Measles is more dangerous for
infants and for adults than for school-aged children.



Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles
practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age
due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism. The
vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct
outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during
which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not
able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish
the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and
protect them from measles for the first year of life.



Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal
immunity. Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised
individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a
potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed
against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).



In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines,
non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of
polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae
strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose
virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting,
and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2)
there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after
childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is not
risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if
we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method
of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible
infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for
those who may be exposed to these diseases.




Taken together, these four facts make it clear that
discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not
vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the
vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health
risk.




Sincerely Yours,


~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h66beBrEpk




https://truthkings.com/immunologist-shreds-sb277s-logic/

Added:

By: Grover3 (790.00)

Tags: SB277, Harvard PhD Immunologist, California, Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych, “herd immunity”, Disney measles case, unvaccinated children, CDC, IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine), DTaP vaccine

Location: Stockholm, Sweden