The following open letter by a PhD Immunologist completely demolishes the current California legislative initiative to remove all vaccine exemptions. That such a draconian and cynical state statute is under consideration in the ‘Golden State’ is as shocking as it is predictable.  After all, it was mysteriously written and submitted shortly after the manufactured-in-Disneyland measles ‘outbreak’.

vax_ill_collThe indisputable science that is employed by Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD ought to be read by every CA legislator who is entertaining an affirmative vote for SB277.  Dr. 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 agenda.

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. Such conduct by the Senate constitutes criminal action that endangers the lives and welfare of children. Their official behavior must be acknowledged for what it is — CRIMINAL — and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

An Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology


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.

  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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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 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

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, is the author of the book Vaccine Illusion.  She has studied immunology in some of the world’s 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.

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:  Natural Immunity Fundamentals.



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

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.  Children who were vaccinated with IPV (groups A and C) were similarly colonized at the rate of 94-97%.  High counts of live virus were recovered from the stool of children in all groups.  These results make it clear that IPV cannot be relied upon for the control of polioviruses.

polio chart

Item #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

“Baboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than naïve [unvaccinated] animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. By comparison, previously infected [naturally-immune] animals were not colonized upon secondary infection.”

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

Resurgence of Pertussis (p.6)

“Findings 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.  Moreover, 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.”

Item #4. Rubach et al. (2011) Increasing incidence of invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease in adults, Utah, USA. Emerg Infect Dis 17:1645-50

The chart below from Rubach et al. shows the number of invasive cases of H. influenzae(all types) in Utah in the decade of childhood vaccination for Hib.

Hib chart

Item #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

“Four 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.  Ten 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.  The primary reason for increased events was statistically significant elevations in emergency room visits following all vaccinations.”

Item #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

“The largest measles epidemic in North America in the last decade occurred in 2011 in Quebec, Canada.”

“A super-spreading event triggered by 1 importation resulted in sustained transmission and 678 cases.”

“The index case patient was a 30-39-year old adult, after returning to Canada from the Caribbean.  The index case patient received measles vaccine in childhood.”

“Provincial [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.  With additional first and second doses administered between 28 and 59 months of age, population measles vaccine coverage is even higher by school entry.”

“Among adolescents, 22% [of measles cases] had received 2 vaccine doses.  Outbreak investigation showed this proportion to have been an underestimate; active case finding identified 130% more cases among 2-dose recipients.”

Item #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 One9:e89361

“The reported coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99.0% in Zhejiang province.  However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high.”

Item #8. Immunoglobulin Handbook, Health Protection Agency



  1. To prevent or attenuate an attack in immuno-compromised contacts
  2. To prevent or attenuate an attack in pregnant women
  3. To prevent or attenuate an attack in infants under the age of 9 months



[3] Poland (1998) Am J Hum Genet 62:215-220

“ ‘poor responders,’ who were re-immunized and developed poor or low-level antibody responses only to lose detectable antibody and develop measles on exposure 2–5 years later.”

[4] ibid

“Our 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.”

[5] LeBaron et al. (2007) Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161:294-301

“Titers fell significantly over time [after second MMR] for the study population overall and, by the final collection, 4.7% of children were potentially susceptible.”

[6] De Serres et al. (2013) J Infect Dis 207:990-998

“The index case patient received measles vaccine in childhood.”

[7] Rosen et al. (2014) Clin Infect Dis 58:1205-1210

“The index patient had 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine.”


Source: Aletho News


Insufficient rights

Hint: Login or create a member account to improve your posting status.

  1. As we can see vaccination is not a chiropractic issue it is one of science and as a parent informed judgement. As a doctor of chiropractic for 25 years I have never taken the stance of anti vaccination nor have I shared with any regularity my personal choice when it came to my own children. I have provided my patients the opportunity to tune out the emotional tides of fear and advised them to look at both sides of the story. Parents must take the time to research the realities of both sides and a good place to start is the NVIC and CDC. Discussions than become focused on science and safety as opposed to what Big Brother wants to mandate. What ever the parent decides is there decision and no DC should ever have a problem with this highly emotional and complex decision process. If anything there has been an awakening of the American people who, sorry to say, have been asleep at the wheel as our so called government leaders led them blindly into this very dark time in American history. Let us lead by example and pray that the American spirit will prevail over the present corporate takeover of our freedom of choice guaranteed by the very constitution this country was founded on.
  2. [font=arial]Vaccination unfortunately is a human issue and also an issue of trust. Parents do not have the time or the know how to dig for the research that explains both sides of the story in order to make an informed decision based on risk versus benefit. Unfortunately the people they trust and who they also assume to have done the above research to help them make that decision fail at the task miserably and are mostly bought by the industry and those who also stand to profit from the industry. Therefore most of the valuable information is hidden from view and not disseminated to the public. What's even worse is that anyone who dares to speak one word against vaccines is immediately bashed and shamed in public. What is going on now under the Healthy Person 2020 initiative is mass vaccination campaigns by choice or mandate. So I think Chiropractors do play a great role in the education of the public as they are the world's first Naturopaths so to speak. There is no room for vaccination in the field of naturopathic medicine. [color=#141823]Vaccination is a true abomination of our natural immune systems. Nothing good can ever come of it no matter what the mainstream dogma and media hype and industry propaganda claims. We must educate the people to just open their eyes, close their minds to the barrage of misinformation from the outside world and think for a moment. Vaccination is the ultimate insult to our otherwise perfectly designed immune system, there is no question about that.[/color][/font]
  3. Imagine being able to read but choosing not to. You've just imagined every pro-vaxxer.

    Amanda Peet is pro-vaccination.

  4. Tatyana F. Grimble et al from the College of Nutrition of the Medical School of Southampton published that our immune system is a result of our sulfur based amino acids. Where is the sulfur?

    The use of chemicals in agriculture has broken the sulfur cycle, in Germany 1860, the Ukraine, 1945, the US 1954, mandated, and world wide by 1960.

    Where is the immune system if Grimble is correct especially since our research demonstrates that everyone world wide is sulfur deficient.

    Our 509,000 study members in 78 countries are no longer sulfur deficient nor are they complaining about any immune system disorders, 105 n-stage cancer folks flat refuse to die, including my son.

    9 former Hep C folks, who could not be transplanted who viral load is below 100,000, many were at 22,000,000, biopsies yield pink liver cells.

    The only enemy of a virus is intracellular oxygen, transported by sulfur, selenium, or tellurium, all with 6 electrons in their outer ring, is the basis of cellular respiration and metabolism. Start a fire without oxygen in our biology, I double dare you.

    If you know someone in Russia who knows Edward E Snowdon's contact info we need a Director for Russia. We also want Dr. Andrew Wakefield to direct the Study in the UK, the moms wanted to hang him, his wife, and their children. Sounds like what we are told about Russia, ignorance has it own costs.

    Patrick McGean
    Cellular Matrix Study
    Body Human Project est. 1999

  5. The statements made by Dr Obukhanych do not constitute an anti-vaccination statement; those who think that they do are filtering her words through their own biases. What they do constitute is an argument against enforcing vaccinations upon families when those specific vaccinations are proven to be incapable of decreasing communal disease risk within the school and public communities.
    As an immunologist, Dr Obukhanych is obviously well aware of the concept of herd immunity that underpins the concept of vaccination. She does not attack this; rather, she examines the science of many of the current vaccines in use, demonstrating by their science that many of them are not meant to prevent disease transmission (and thus should not be required on the basis of a concern for transmission of the relevant infections), and that unfortunately, a few of those that are meant to do so are failing at the task.
    As a herbalist, I can assure readers that there IS room in naturopathic practice for the concept of vaccination. I am not anti-vaccination, as I understand the science of how it is meant to function. I also hold a medical science degree; as such, I am always willing and able to consider solid scientific data in relation to current vaccines and their use, and base clinical advice on these considerations.
    In relation to tetanus vaccination: this is clearly designed not to prevent the illness but to short-circuit its symptoms. Anyone who's seen those symptoms in person will agree that this is a good thing; anyone who thinks that this means the patient won't get tetanus is deluding themselves. Dr Obukhanych notes this with clarity and explains why this is so.
    Regarding the measles vaccine: this is a disease with very serious potential complications, and where an effective vaccine exists, this should be employed. However, when evidence demonstrates that the available vaccine produces a false confidence and has a high rate of poor response, then its value is immediately brought into question. If the data presented by Dr Obukhanych demonstrates anything about this vaccine, it's that it's currently far from satisfactory as a prophylactic or treatment for the disease, and that further research into the disease (especially in relation to the measles paradox) will be necessary before the vaccine can be improved.
    As to the rate of high emergency-room visits post-vaccination: this sadly proves nothing, precisely because the data presented by Dr Obukhanych does not include any mention of whether these visits resulted in increased admissions to hospital or in sustained treatments being prescribed. Parents are naturally panicky in relation to the health of their children, especially as infants, and at the slightest (even very minor) reaction to a vaccine, they are likely to rush to the ER. So unless the data can be refined (by noting any increases in admissions or treatments post-infant immunisation), then it is unfortunately rather unhelpful and likely to be misconstrued by the fearful. If such data exists, then by all means let it be brought to the table; a rational discussion requires all available data and no emotional suasion, after all.
    In short: Dr Obukhanych is doing what she should do as an immunologist; she is presenting the facts without emotion as they are relevant to the argument of enforced immunisation. She is not presenting an anti-vaccination argument, and her words should not be taken as such. And she is noting that some vaccines are currently quite unsatisfactory in their ability to prevent disease transmission, and thus should not be compulsorily required on the basis of epidemic prevention concerns.
  6. This is a very well written letter.

    Dr. Obukhanych brings to light many of the same points illustrated by Dr. Suzanne Humphries: (

    If legislation is to be drawn under the guise of protecting the general population, than the research that they are using to develop this rational should certainly be in support of such claims, not opposed to it.
  7. As a Public Health Consultant & Clinician (which she obviously is not), let me tell you that Obukhanych's statement "Vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor an effective method of disease prevention" is without doubt that of an under-informed anti-vaxxer.
    Without going into too much detail, there are two scopes to the Public Health concept of Primary Prevention of diseases (both communicable and non-communicable) - Health Promotion and Specific Protection. For that reason, Primary Prevention is always a multi-pronged approach. Our past experience, in this country mainly but, globally is that the corner-stone of Primary Prevention of vaccine-preventable infectious-diseases has been vaccination. The classical examples are smallpox, which has been eradicated globally, and yellow fever and poliomyelitis which are almost on the verge of being eradicated. But, the primary purpose of vaccination is to provide Specific Protection to individuals at risk to those vaccine-preventable diseases. That a comprehensive national (or sub-national) mass-vaccination programme against any vaccine-preventable disease goes on to produce satisfactory herd-immunity is secondary. (In fact, herd-immunity is a more recent concept not taught in classical Public Health).
    Our National Immunisation Programme (NIP) comprises vaccines that are aimed at mainly providing Specific Protection, but a few such as diphtheria, pertussis, polio, BCG, HiB, measles, mumps, hepatitis B, and rubella go on to produce herd-immunity in population receiving programmed mass-vaccination - such that diphtheria, pertussis, polio and child-hood TB are practically unheard of in this country, while measles, mumps, hemophilus meningitis has become rare. Vaccines such as tetanus merely hitch a ride on the NIP to provide individual specific-protection - but, although they do not bring about herd-immunity (in the sense that the disease is not spread from person-to-person) tetanus is still unheard of in the country (even though Clostridium welchii spores still thrive in the environment). Sub-national herd-immunity, without the surveillance accorded to diseases acquiring national herd-immunity, do tend to become diluted by travel and trans-migration.
    Measles is a disease that is usually mild - except for its serious complications such as broncho-peumonia, gastro-enteritis and encephalitis, all of which frequently causes death. When I was a houseman in 1979, the paediatric-wards used to be filled with these complications - but, hardly any now.
    Hence, even without herd-immunity aimed at, vaccines provide protection to such individuals in a community who are at risk to these vaccine-preventable diseases. She is also very wrong in saying that "they are intended to prevent disease symptoms" - they prevent infection, and thus prevent both symptomatic-cases and asymptomatic carrier-states. Thus, they effectively reduce the disease-reservoir, and prevent (reduce, actually) transmission of infection that causes the disease (even without talking of herd-immunity, which is herd-protection acquired by a community-at-risk through mass-vaccination). She is again wrong.
    How much protection a vaccine affords an individual or a community depends on its efficacy (effectiveness). Not all vaccines have the same efficacy (the cholera vaccine had only 30% effectiveness when it was first approved here. But, it was approved nevertheless because of the high morbidity and mortality of the disease). There will still be individuals, who received a vaccine, who would remain unprotected against the disease that the vaccine is supposed to protect against. There would still be outbreaks of diseases, the vaccines against which are not of high efficacy. But, the infections/cases would be less (the complications fewer), and outbreaks smaller.
    "People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have", she says.
    She is wrong because Hepatitis B is spread from person-to-person, and thus the vaccine does prevent transmission and does achieve herd-immunity.
    But importantly, specific-protection of individuals at risk (as in school-children) is equally as important as herd-immunity because of the burden of the disease in the community.
    If a new, more virulent strain appears then there is no more than necessity to produce a new vaccine against the new strain. This is no more than classically demonstrated in the case of the influenza-vaccine. Thus, those not vaccinated against diphtheria and tetanus may not pose "an extra danger to the public" in terms of transmission but pose an extra burden to the public, and risk complications. Whereas, those not vaccinated against Hep B and HiB pose an "extra danger to the public" in terms of transmission.
    It was either MacMillan or Churchill who said "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"! That is not quite what I agree with, except when statistics are deliberately, wrongly presented to pose as a lie in the manner that Obukhanych presents her statistics on the adverse effects of vaccines.
    No manufacturer claims that vaccines are without side-effects. But, serious side-effects are extremely rare, and most side-effects (such as a mild fever and pain-at-injection-site) very rarely pose an emergency. But, that does not stop parents from bringing their recently-vaccinated children to the ER for mild fever and pain-at-injection-site. Thus, if she deliberately avoids describing the causes of such ER attendances, then she deliberately aims at 'lying'!
    Thus, her 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" is either misleading and/or wrong.
    Also, immunoglobulins have a higher rate of serious side-effects than vaccines - in particular, anaphylactic allergic reactions.
    In addition to my note here, I would advise the reader to read
    Two of my professors were educated in Harvard - both during my under-graduate days and during my MPH class!
  8. If I may add, all vaccines undergo stringent tests and trials (including clinical-trials in stages) to ascertain satisfactory efficacy and safety (besides cost-benefit, etc) before they become registrable and approved for use in the community. And after being put into use, the manufacturers are required to do appropriate follow-up, to obtain feedback on its use and to find out how the vaccine could be improved - especially with regards to its efficacy and safety. The term "vaccine-preventable infectious-disease" is a Public Health description of such a disease. Dr. Obukhanych should not try to have us believe that the term is an oxymoron!