Harvard Vaccine Research: Unvaccinated Children Are Not Dangerous

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Dear legislators, My name is Tetiana Obukhanich. I am a Candidate of Science in Immunology (PhD).

I am making this appeal in the hope of correcting some of the misconceptions about vaccination to help you form a balanced and fair opinion, supported by both conventional vaccine theory and the latest scientific discoveries.

Are unvaccinated children more dangerous to the public than vaccinated children?

People who deliberately choose not to vaccinate their children are believed to endanger those around them.

It is this assumption that underlies attempts to legally prohibit vaccine refusal. This issue is now being considered at the federal and state levels throughout the country.

But you should be aware that the defense mechanism of modern vaccines, including most of the vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), does not match the above assumption.

Below I will give an example of several recommended vaccines that cannot prevent the spread of the disease, either because they were not designed to do so (rather, they are supposed to alleviate the symptoms of the disease), or because they are intended for non-communicable diseases.

People who are not vaccinated with the vaccines listed below do not pose a greater risk to the general population than those vaccinated. This means that discrimination against unvaccinated children in schools is not justified.

Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) cannot prevent the spread of the polio virus (see Appendix Study # 1).

There has been no wild polio virus in the United States for more than 2 decades. Even if it is reintroduced into the country, the inactivated vaccine will not be able to affect public safety. It should be noted that another vaccine, the oral live polio vaccine (OPV), contributed to the eradication of the wild virus.

Despite its ability to prevent wild poliovirus, the use of OPV in the United States has long been discontinued and replaced with IPV for safety reasons.

Tetanus is not a contagious infection, but rather acquired from deep puncture wounds of C. tetani spores. Vaccination against tetanus (as part of a comprehensive DPT vaccine) cannot affect the safety of being in public places, it is assumed that only the vaccinated person will be protected.

Diphtheria toxoid (also included in the complex vaccine), designed to prevent the manifestations of diphtheria, does not mean fighting the colonization and spread of C. diphtheriae bacteria. Vaccination is intended for personal protection and does not affect the safety of being in crowded places.

The currently used acellular pertussis vaccine (the last component of a comprehensive vaccine) replaced whole-cell pertussis in the 1990s, sparking an unprecedented wave of whooping cough.

Experimental administration of acellular pertussis vaccine to primates has shown its inability to prevent the colonization and spread of bacteria that cause pertussis B. Pertusiss (see study # 2 in the Appendix). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning regarding this important data [1].

Moreover, in 2013, at a meeting of the Board of Scientific Advisers at the Centers for Disease Control, alarming data were voiced that a type of whooping cough (PRN negative strain) circulating throughout the United States acquired the ability to infect precisely those people who were vaccinated in a timely manner (see CDC document # 3 in annex).

This means that such people are more susceptible to infection, and therefore transmission of infection, than those who did not receive the vaccine.

There are many types of Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae), but the Hib vaccine is only effective against type b. Despite the fact that the only purpose of this vaccine was to reduce the manifestations and the asymptomatic course of the disease, it turned out that after the start of its use, viruses of other types of H. influenzae (types a through f) began to prevail.

It is these types that cause severe illnesses with an aggressive course and increase the incidence rate among adults, while they mainly vaccinate children (see study No. 4 in the appendix)

The current generation is much more susceptible to invasive disease than it was before the Hib vaccination campaign. In an era when non-b-type H. influenzae infection is predominant, discrimination against children unvaccinated with the Hib vaccine has no scientific basis.

The hepatitis B virus is transmitted through blood. They should not be infected in public places, especially children who are not at risk (sharing needles or having sex).

Vaccination of children against hepatitis B cannot significantly affect the safety of the community. Moreover, children with chronic hepatitis B infection are not prohibited from attending school. Obstructing admission to educational institutions of unvaccinated children (not even carriers of hepatitis) is illogical and unjustified discrimination.

Thus, we can conclude that a person who is unvaccinated for certain reasons from polio, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B and hemophilic infection does not pose a greater threat to society than the vaccinated one. The infringement of the rights and discrimination of such people is not justified.

How often do the negative effects of vaccines occur?

It is argued that vaccination rarely provokes serious consequences. Unfortunately, this claim cannot be scientifically proven.

A recent study in Ontario, Canada found that after vaccination, 1 in 168 children are admitted to the emergency room within 12 months of vaccination and 1 in 730 within 18 months (see study # 5 in the appendix).

When the risk of post-vaccination complications requiring medical attention is so great, the decision on vaccination should remain with the parents, who, for obvious reasons, may not want to take such a risk, in order to protect their children from diseases with which they may not. meet.

Will limiting the rights of families who knowingly refuse vaccination help prevent an outbreak of infectious viral diseases such as measles in the future?

Measles scientists have long known about the so-called measles paradox. Below I quote from an article by Poland and Jacobson (1994) "Failed Eradication of Measles: The Obvious Paradox of Measles Infection in the Vaccinated Person" (Arch Intern Med 154: 1815-1820).

“The obvious paradox is that as the coverage of immunization increases, measles becomes a disease of vaccinated people” [2]

Further research has shown that people with a weak immune response to the vaccine are the cause of this paradox. These are those who do not respond well to the first dose of measles vaccine, to the revaccination against measles, and after 2-5 years they become susceptible to this disease again, although they were fully vaccinated. [3]

Revaccination does not solve problems in the case of a weak immune response, since this is an immunogenetic feature. [4] In the United States, the percentage of children with a poor response to vaccinations is 4.7%. [5]

In a study of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada and China, it was found that such outbreaks still occur, despite the fact that vaccine coverage is at the highest level (95-97% or even 99%, see study # 6. 7 in the appendix).

This is because even in people with a high immune response, the amount of antibodies after vaccination decreases over time. Immunity after vaccination is not equal to the lifelong immunity acquired after natural illness.

The documents recorded the fact that vaccinated people who fell ill with measles are contagious. Moreover, the two largest measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada and New York) were due to previously vaccinated people against measles. [6] - [7]

All of the above makes it obvious that a ban on the right to refuse vaccinations, which is actually used by only a small percentage of families, will not help solve the problem of the resurgence of diseases, just as it will not be able to prevent the importation and outbreaks of previously exterminated diseases.

Is limiting the rights of people who knowingly refuse vaccination the only practical solution?

Most recent cases of measles in the United States (including the recent outbreak at Disneyland) were in adults and infants, while in the pre-vaccine era, it was mostly children between the ages of 1 and 15.

Naturally transferred measles develops lifelong immunity, while immunity after vaccination weakens over time, leaving adults unprotected. Measles is more dangerous for adults and infants than for school-aged children.

Despite the high risk of developing epidemics in the pre-vaccination era, measles infection was practically not found among children under 1 year old, due to the transmission of persistent immunity from the mother.

The current susceptibility of infants to measles is a direct consequence of the long vaccination campaign of the past, when their mothers, vaccinated as children, were not able to naturally get measles and thereby acquire lifelong immunity that they would pass on to their children and protect them at 1 year life.

Fortunately, there is a way to mimic maternal immunity. Immunocompromised infants and people can receive immunoglobulin as a lifesaving measure that provides the body with antibodies against the virus to prevent or mitigate disease during an epidemic (see Appendix 8).

To summarize the above:

1. Based on the properties of modern vaccines, unvaccinated people do not pose a greater risk of the spread of poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis and multiple strains of H. influenza compared with vaccinated people; the unvaccinated also pose no risk of transmission of hepatitis B in the school environment, and tetanus is not contagious at all.
2. The risk of going to the emergency department after vaccination is significantly increased, indicating that vaccinations are unsafe;
3. Measles outbreaks cannot be completely prevented even if vaccination coverage is complete;
4. Immunoglobulin administration is an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in infants and immunocompromised people. It can also be used when there is a high risk of infection.

The above facts explain why discrimination against unvaccinated children in general education schools is absolutely unjustified, since the lack of vaccinations among conscientious objectors does not pose a particular risk to society.

Sincerely yours, Tetiana Obukhanich, PhD

Tetiana Obukhanich is the author of Vaccine Illusion. She studied immunology at the most prestigious medical universities. Tetyana earned her degree in immunology from Rockefeller University in New York, and after that she studied at Harvard Medical School (Boston, Massachusetts) and Stanford University (California).

APPENDIX

# 1. The Cuba IPV Study collaborative group. (2007) Randomized controlled trial of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in Cuba. N Engl J Med 356: 1536-44

# 2. Warfel et al. (2014) Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 787-92

No. 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

No. 4. Rubach et al. (2011) Increasing incidence of invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease in adults, Utah, USA. Emerg Infect Dis 17: 1645-50

No. 5. Wilson et al. (2011) Adverse events following 12 and 18 month vaccinations: a population-based, self-controlled case series analysis. PLoS One 6: e27897

No. 6. De Serres et al.(2013) Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade – Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events. J Infect Dis 207: 990-98

No. 7. Wang et al. (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. PLoS One 9: e89361

No. 8. Immunoglobulin Handbook, Health Protection Agency

Author: Tetiana Obukhanich

Translation: Ekaterina Cherepanova specially for the project MedAlternativa.info

We are grateful to Ekaterina Cherepanova for the free help!