Harvard Immunologist: Unvaccinated
Children Pose ZERO Risk to Anyone and Here’s Why
Nov 8, 2017
Creative Commons Attribution
(Informational sharing and repost from TSM http://truthstreammedia.com)
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. 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. The FDA has issued a
warning regarding this crucial finding.
[[[[Addendum example: May cause Autism (per FDA warning label):
]]]]
[[[[Addendum example: May cause Autism (per FDA warning label):
]]]]
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, 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. 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.
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.”
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.
Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it
appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among
children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.
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%). 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.
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.
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,
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonus: