The immediate take home is that legistlating vaccination is ineffective and wrong headed. Worse, the potential of a negative reaction is not low at all. It easily approaches one percent and has included serious and permanent damage. This is a risk that society itself cannot accept once understood. And we have alternative strategies as well.The commercial solution is a sedge hammer that maximizes profits and also produces maximum dangers.It is also forgotten that the best defense against all disease happens to be excellent hygiene. That is what deserves maximum public investment.
Immunologist destroys mandatory vaccine logic in open letter.
http://www.australiannationalreview.com/harvard-study-proves-unvaccinated-children-pose-risk/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 that vaccination
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
immunogenetic 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. influenza 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
1 comment:
a correspondent noted as follows:
Note that nowhere is the Harvard article cited. One would think that if this article were in any sense accurate, that it would be cited. Absence of evidence is evidence of lying. Surely he did not mean this Harvard article:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-inconvenient-truth-of-vaccine-refusal-201603229426
A study just released in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) makes this very clear. Researchers looked at information about recent measles and pertussis outbreaks. They found that unvaccinated people made up the majority of those who caught measles and a large proportion of those who caught pertussis (waning impunity from the pertussis vaccine plays a role in those outbreaks). Some weren’t old enough to be vaccinated—but of those who were old enough, most came from families who had chosen not to vaccinate.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-anti-vaccine-pseudoscience/
Pretty much every word in this headline is wrong or deceptive: Harvard Study Proves Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk.
First, there is no study. This is not in any way about some new study or research, but simply an article by an anti-vaccine crank, Tetyana Obukhanych. Further, her connection to Harvard seems tenuous and it’s not even clear what her current academic status is. And most importantly, she uses cherry picked, irrelevant, and incorrect information to make her case.
But she appears to be the new darling of the anti-vaccine movement, so let’s take a deeper look.
*** my remarks *** Note --- can I prove that there is no study? Nope. Just like I can not prove that aliens do not exist. Please do your basic research before you send me such drivel and waste my time. By the way --- I found this article while doing a search on harvard study vaccinations "do not" prevent. I DID NOT find the alleged Harvard Study. *** my remarks end
and who is this person giving this lecture?
Further, it is common to exaggerate the credentials of an alleged expert when you want to use them as an authority to promote an ideological opinion. That’s propaganda 101.
Obukhanych is promoted as a Harvard trained PhD immunologist. Superficially this sounds like she is an authority on vaccines. However, a more thorough look at her academic history tells a different story. Skeptical Raptor did a thorough investigation and found that Obukhanych seemed to be little more than a post-doc. She is listed on 10 scientific publications, only one as first author, none as corresponding author, and none on vaccines specificall
Chances are that the writer got this story wrong. However present day vaccine gold rush economics are very disturbing.
Post a Comment