\n<\/strong>The following open letter written by a PhD Immunologist completely demolishes the current California legislative initiative to remove all vaccine exemptions. \u00a0That such a draconian and cynical state statute is under consideration in the ‘Golden State’ is as shocking as it is predictable. \u00a0After all, the legislation was mysteriously written and submitted shortly after the manufactured-in-Disneyland measles ‘outbreak’.<\/p>\n
The indisputable science that is employed by\u00a0Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD ought to be read by every California legislator who is entertaining an affirmative vote for\u00a0SB277. \u00a0Dr. 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<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0agenda.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0Such conduct by the Senate constitutes a criminal conspiracy (as in a real conspiracy to inflict harm) which endangers the lives and welfare of children. \u00a0Their official behavior must therefore be acknowledged for what it is — CRIMINAL<\/strong> — and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.<\/p>\n State of the Nation<\/a><\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n Re: \u00a0VACCINE LEGISLATION<\/strong><\/p>\n Dear Legislator:<\/p>\n My name is Tetyana Obukhanych.\u00a0 I hold a PhD in Immunology. \u00a0I 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.<\/p>\n Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines \u2013 and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children \u2013 is not consistent with such a statement.\u00a0 I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed<\/em> to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n State Senator Richard Pan of California, sponsor of vaccine legislation<\/p><\/div>\n State Senator Elizabeth Steiner-Hayward of Oregon, sponsor of vaccine legislation<\/p><\/div>\n 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.\u00a0 No discrimination is warranted.<\/strong><\/p>\n How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?<\/strong><\/p>\n It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events. \u00a0Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science.\u00a0 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 <\/strong>(see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n State Senator Kevin Mullin of Vermont, sponsor of vaccine legislation<\/p><\/div>\n Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?<\/strong><\/p>\n Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the \u201cmeasles paradox.\u201d I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) \u201cFailure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.\u201d <\/strong>Arch Intern Med <\/em>154:1815-1820:<\/p>\n \u201cThe apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.\u201d[2]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Further research determined that behind the \u201cmeasles paradox\u201d is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS.\u00a0 Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine.\u00a0 These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of \u201csusceptibles\u2019\u2019 within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait.[4]<\/a> \u00a0The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n 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 <\/strong>(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.\u00a0 Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.<\/p>\n It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious.\u00a0 In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.[6]<\/a>–[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n 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.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, sponsor of federal vaccine legislation<\/p><\/div>\n Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity.\u00a0 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 <\/strong>(see appendix, Item #8).<\/p>\n 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<\/strong><\/em> 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; <\/strong><\/strong>2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is\u00a0 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.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Sincerely Yours,<\/p>\n ~\u00a0Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD<\/strong><\/p>\n Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, is the author of the book <\/em>Vaccine Illusion<\/a>. \u00a0She has studied immunology in some of the world\u2019s most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Stanford University in California.<\/em><\/p>\n Dr. Obukhanych offers online classes for those who want to gain deeper understanding of how the immune system works and whether the immunologic benefits of vaccines are worth the risks:\u00a0 Natural Immunity Fundamentals.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Appendix<\/strong><\/p>\n Item #1. The Cuba IPV Study collaborative group. (2007) Randomized controlled trial of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in Cuba<\/strong>. N Engl J Med<\/em> 356:1536-44<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/17429085<\/a><\/p>\n The table below from the Cuban IPV study documents that 91% of children receiving no IPV (control group B) were colonized with live attenuated poliovirus upon deliberate experimental inoculation.\u00a0 Children who were vaccinated with IPV (groups A and C) were similarly colonized at the rate of 94-97%. \u00a0High counts of live virus were recovered from the stool of children in all groups.\u00a0 These results make it clear that IPV cannot be relied upon for the control of polioviruses.<\/p>\n Item #2. Warfel et al. <\/em>(2014)\u00a0Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model.<\/strong>Proc Natl Acad Sci USA\u00a0<\/em>111:787-92<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/24277828<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cBaboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than na\u00efve [unvaccinated] animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. By comparison, previously infected [naturally-immune] animals were not colonized upon secondary infection.\u201d<\/p>\n Item #3. Meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Harkins Global Communication Center, Atlanta, Georgia, December 11-12, 2013<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/maso\/facm\/pdfs\/BSCOID\/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n Resurgence of Pertussis (p.6)<\/p>\n \u201cFindings indicated that 85% of the isolates [from six Enhanced Pertussis Surveillance Sites and from epidemics in Washington and Vermont in 2012] were PRN-deficient and vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains. \u00a0Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.\u201d<\/p>\n Item #4. Rubach et al.<\/em> (2011) Increasing incidence of invasive Haemophilus influenzae<\/em> disease in adults, Utah, USA. <\/strong>Emerg Infect Dis<\/em> 17:1645-50<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/21888789<\/a><\/p>\n The chart below from Rubach et al<\/em>. shows the number of invasive cases of H. influenzae<\/em>(all types) in Utah in the decade of childhood vaccination for Hib.<\/p>\n Item #5. Wilson et al.<\/em> (2011) Adverse events following 12 and 18 month vaccinations: a population-based, self-controlled case series analysis. <\/strong>PLoS One<\/em> 6:e27897<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/22174753<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cFour to 12 days post 12 month vaccination, children had a 1.33 (1.29-1.38) increased relative incidence of the combined endpoint compared to the control period, or at least one event during the risk interval for every 168 children vaccinated. \u00a0Ten to 12 days post 18 month vaccination, the relative incidence was 1.25 (95%, 1.17-1.33) which represented at least one excess event for every 730 children vaccinated. \u00a0The primary reason for increased events was statistically significant elevations in emergency room visits following all vaccinations.\u201d<\/p>\n Item #6. De Serres et al<\/em>. (2013) Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade\u2013Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events. <\/strong>J Infect Dis<\/em> 207:990-98<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/23264672<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe largest measles epidemic in North America in the last decade occurred in 2011 in Quebec, Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cA super-spreading event triggered by 1 importation resulted in sustained transmission and 678 cases.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe index case patient was a 30-39-year old adult, after returning to Canada from the Caribbean.\u00a0 The index case patient received measles vaccine in childhood.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cProvincial [Quebec] vaccine coverage surveys conducted in 2006, 2008, and 2010 consistently showed that by 24 months of age, approximately 96% of children had received 1 dose and approximately 85% had received 2 doses of measles vaccine, increasing to 97% and 90%, respectively, by 28 months of age.\u00a0 With additional first and second doses administered between 28 and 59 months of age, population measles vaccine coverage is even higher by school entry.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAmong adolescents, 22% [of measles cases] had received 2 vaccine doses.\u00a0 Outbreak investigation showed this proportion to have been an underestimate; active case finding identified 130% more cases among 2-dose recipients.\u201d<\/p>\n Item #7. Wang et al<\/em>. (2014) Difficulties in eliminating measles and controlling rubella and mumps: a cross-sectional study of a first measles and rubella vaccination and a second measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination.<\/strong> PLoS One<\/em>9:e89361<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/24586717<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe reported coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99.0% in Zhejiang province.\u00a0 However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high.\u201d<\/p>\n Item #8. Immunoglobulin Handbook, Health Protection Agency<\/p>\n http:\/\/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/20140714084352\/http:\/\/www.hpa.org.uk HUMAN NORMAL IMMUNOGLOBULIN (HNIG):<\/p>\n Indications<\/p>\n [1]<\/a>\u00a0http:\/\/www.fda.gov\/NewsEvents\/Newsroom\/PressAnnouncements\/ucm376937.htm<\/a><\/p>\n [2]<\/a> http:\/\/archinte.jamanetwork.com\/article.aspx?articleid=619215<\/a><\/p>\n [3]<\/a>\u00a0Poland (1998) <\/strong>Am J Hum Genet<\/em><\/strong> 62:215-220<\/strong><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/9463343<\/a><\/p>\n \u201c \u2018poor responders,\u2019 who were re-immunized and developed poor or low-level antibody responses only to lose detectable antibody and develop measles on exposure 2\u20135 years later.\u201d<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0ibid<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cOur ongoing studies suggest that seronegativity after vaccination [for measles] clusters among related family members, that genetic polymorphisms within the HLA [genes] significantly influence antibody levels.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n [5]\u00a0LeBaron et al.<\/em> (2007) Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med <\/em>161:294-301<\/strong><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/17339511<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cTiters fell significantly over time [after second MMR] for the study population overall and, by the final collection, 4.7% of children were potentially susceptible.\u201d<\/p>\n [6]<\/a>\u00a0De Serres et al<\/em>. (2013) J Infect Dis<\/em> 207:990-998<\/strong><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/23264672<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe index case patient received measles vaccine in childhood.\u201d<\/p>\nAn Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology<\/h1>\n
![\"Senator-Pan\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Senator-Pan.jpg\")
<\/a>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Senator](\"http:\/\/thinkingmomsrevolution.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Senator-Steiner-Hayward-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a>\n
\n
![\"senator](\"http:\/\/thinkingmomsrevolution.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/senator-mullin-300x228.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"Senator](\"http:\/\/thinkingmomsrevolution.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/dianne-feinstein-300x200.jpg\")
<\/a>![\"polio](\"http:\/\/thinkingmomsrevolution.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/polio-chart.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Hib](\"http:\/\/thinkingmomsrevolution.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Hib-chart.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\/webc\/HPAwebFile\/HPAweb_C\/1242198450982<\/a><\/p>\n\n