• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Harvard Trained Immunologist Demolishes CA Legislation That Terminates Vax Exemptions 2016 Circle of

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
(Not sure of the date.)

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’.

The 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
Re: VACCINE LEGISLATION

Dear Legislator:

http://circleofdocs.com/harvard-tra...gislation-that-terminates-vaccine-exemptions/
 

helen1

Senior Member
Messages
1,033
Location
Canada
I watched her presentation (at the end of the article) which focuses on the measles vaccine and why it's ineffective. Very convincing. @ggingues
 

pogoman

Senior Member
Messages
292
sigh, its a shame her qualifications aren't very substantial to support her views.
google her name, no participation in vaccine research or vaccine papers in peer reviewed publications.

I live in Cali and have been following the vaccine debate.
There is no "current California legislative initiative", the vaccine exemption restriction was passed and signed into law last year.
 

PeterPositive

Senior Member
Messages
1,426
sigh, its a shame her qualifications aren't very substantial to support her views.
google her name, no participation in vaccine research or vaccine papers in peer reviewed publications.
It would be more interesting to rebut her claims, than nitpicking on the amount of published papers... imho.

There is no "current California legislative initiative", the vaccine exemption restriction was passed and signed into law last year.
Evidently the article was written before?
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
Not only are Tetyana Obukhanych qualifications meager but look at Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who is cited above. Her website is full of pseudo science, conspiracies, theories

I am quite suspicious of anyone who makes such unfounded statements that the California measles outbreak was manufactured, the evidence showing vaccines are harmful is indisputable, when it's the other way around, there's a conspiracy for a vaccine agenda and the people who believe this are criminals and should be prosecuted. It's not a critical assessment of what is really happening.

While I don't believe in government mandates in general, the mandate for compulsory vaccines is the exception as there's the consideration of the greater good and that greater good is backed up with credible science.

People do have the choice of not getting their children vaccinated but these students should not be allowed in the public school system. Let them be taught at home! They up the odds of dire consequences to the public at large.That is criminal!

No one is saying that vaccines are 100 percent safe or effective, but the odds of not getting vaccinations are far more harmful.

Both these people are well known in the anti vax community. So if we are going to question anyone's agends, these two are the ones we should be investigating.
 
Last edited:

PeterPositive

Senior Member
Messages
1,426
Thanks, I've already read those and I hoped the discussion could raise above the usual black or white dichotomy.

The 2nd article is simply a review of the dr.'s book, so not very relevant.
The first one, has some valid points obfuscated by a long attempt to discredi the immunologist or downplay her authority which is already a red flag.

The point-by-point rebuttal is an interesting read, but with an equal amount of cherry picking that is supposedly the main fault of the original article.

I wish it would be possible to talk about issues like these without the usual derogatory labels from one side (anti-science, anti-vaxxer etc...) and the consipiratorial, fear-mongering tone frome the other... It's hardly every a black or white proposition.

The discussion is not even about the efficacy or necessity for vaccination but rather at the government sponsored carpet-bombing type of approach to vaccination, which does raise multiple questions and is not even very well founded in scientific terms.

I tend to agree with the comment posted below the article:

Simply, she indicates that vaccines do have side-effects, that there is a choice to be made, that as vaccines currently exist elimination of measles is probably not possible due to the effects of low-responders and waning immunity on the epidemic threshold, and there are reasons to believe that natural immunity to wild-type viruses is better - that vaccines may attenuate symptoms but not prevent carriage and not confer lifelong immunity. Research should continue in immunology, but large scale experiments involving mass-vaccination are a bit premature.
 

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
I like Peter Positives comments, I don't think one sized fits all medicine is good for everyone!
The majority, probably, so what happens with those in the minority?
GG
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
People do have the choice of not getting their children vaccinated but these students should not be allowed in the public school system. Let them be taught at home! They up the odds of dire consequences to the public at large.That is criminal!

Should they be let into public parks, scouts, local sports leagues, restaurants, hospitals, churches, summer camps, shops, supermarkets, cinemas, swimming pools etc etc?

Or would you advocate a full ban on their movement?

Exactly what risk are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated if the purpose of vaccines is to make you immune from the disease itself?
 
Last edited:

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
Should they be let into public parks, scouts, local sports leagues, restaurants, hospitals, churches, summer camps, shops, supermarkets, cinemas, swimming pools etc etc?

Many of the above require physicals, so yes these people need to have vaccinations before participating. I would include state, federal and local government programs that include activities for children. This should also include any adults overseeing these programs.

It would be impossible and unethical to ban people from all public places and therein lies the problem. The fact that it's the unvaccinated who seemingly don't worry about the consequences of others, including their own children, getting sick. It's a pity that it's the people who are unable to get vaccinated who have to be wary about going out.

The outbreak at Disneyland is only one example of the above.

Within my county three babies, too young to get the vaccine, died of whooping cough over the last five years. This is after decades of no deaths reported from whooping cough. A horrific and devestating situation that could have been avoided. This is just one example of what is happening and statistics bear this out.

@PeterPositive
I wish it would be possible to talk about issues like these without the usual derogatory labels from one side (anti-science, anti-vaxxer etc...) and the consipiratorial, fear-mongering tone frome the other... It's hardly every a black or white proposition.

TBH, this is what I feel pertains to the anti vaxers. I guess it's a matter of perspective and that is why it's important to not only discuss these issues but to back them up. No one is saying that vaccines don't carry risks but it's a matter of weighing the positives against the negatives.

If all the scientific evidence showed the balance tipping towards more harm than good, I would feel differently.

Exactly what risk are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated if the purpose of vaccines is to make you immune from the disease itself?
This says it better than I can.
Some people in the community rely on herd immunity to protect them. These groups are particularly vulnerable to disease, but often cannot safely receive vaccines:

People without a fully-working immune system, including those without a working spleen

People on chemotherapy treatment whose immune system is weakened

People with HIV

Newborn babies who are too young to be vaccinated

Elderly people

Many of those who are very ill in hospital

For these people, herd immunity is a vital way of protecting them against life-threatening disease

http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/herd-immunity

An eye opening story about a parent with four children who are immunodeficient.

http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/please-help-me-keep-my-children-healthy/
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
BarbC56 quote:

Newborn babies who are too young to be vaccinated

Glad you pointed that out. However the vaccine schedule doesn't seem to think there is such a thing now.

Some people in the community rely on herd immunity to protect them. These groups are particularly vulnerable to disease, but often cannot safely receive vaccines:

People without a fully-working immune system, including those without a working spleen

People on chemotherapy treatment whose immune system is weakened

People with HIV.......

Barb you seem to be raising all the concerns that many people raise that you claim to be opposing.

Are you including PWME who should be mandated too considering the immune issues we face? Or is it down to the government to take away their informed consent with "sound science"?
 
Last edited:

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
It defies common sense to claim that vaccines don't work, esp. the measles vaccine. Cases of measles in the US plummetted after the vaccine was introduced.

So is measles different than chicken pox, where parents would get together when one kid was sick, might as well have them all sick at the same time, and be done with it (usually)?

GG
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
="Large Donner, post: 707740, member: 16773"]BarbC56 quote:
Glad you pointed that out. However the vaccine schedule doesn't seem to think there is such a thing now
According to the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule pertussis is not given until two months. I was surprised to see the flu, measles, as well as others aren't given until two months and a few even later. According to this schedule, newborns only given the HepB vaccination. I thought newborns get more vaccines than that. Am I reading this chart correctly?
http://www.vaccines.gov/who_and_when/infants_to_teens/

Barb you seem to be raising all the concerns that many people raise that you claim to be opposing
The article states these groups do not get vaccinated and are therefore at risk for catching the diseases that vaccinations cover. Herd immunity is defined as 19 out of 20 people get vaccinated. This would not include people who can not get vaccinated
.
Are you including PWME who should be mandated too considering the immune issues we face? Or is it down to the government to take away their informed consent with "sound science"?
It depends on whether the person has immune problems. I don't think we all have that. So that decision would be between the patient and the doctor.
 

chipmunk1

Senior Member
Messages
765
It depends on whether the person has immune problems. I don't think we all have that. So that decision would be between the patient and the doctor.

Doctors generally don't understand immune problems neither do patients. Many of us may have immune problems that are not understood. I think this is one of the areas where no one knows how to make the right decision.
 
Messages
8
A more accurate title would be: Immunologist who was once a postdoc at Harvard perpetuates myths promoted by anti-vaccination movement, attempts to back up claims with scientific evidence by pulling quotes from various sources that do not actually support her conclusions.

Vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor effective method of disease prevention.
- Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD Immunologist

That says it all right there. In case there was any doubt that these discussions are pretty much never about actual issues in vaccine safety. Anyone who is familiar with the anti-vaccination movement has heard these arguments before in one form or another. It's the same nonsense they have been spewing for years.

For example, David Gorski has already [indirectly] addressed a couple of her main arguments:
“Vaccines don’t work”? “Vaccines are dangerous”? They’re both!

If you look at the types of arguments used to oppose vaccination, they will almost always boil down to two different flavors, either that vaccines don’t work or that vaccines are somehow dangerous. Of course, we discuss the latter argument here all the time when we point out studies that refute the alleged link between vaccines and autism. Like the slogan “Tastes great, less filling,” both of these claims often co-exist to differing degrees, with some anti-vaccinationists arguing that both are true: Vaccines don’t work and they are dangerous.

This being the real world, one has to remember that vaccines are not perfect. They are not 100% effective, and there can be rare serious side effects. What differentiates anti-vaccine cranks from, for example, scientists who deal with issues of efficacy versus side effects and potential complications all the time, is exaggeration far beyond what the scientific data will support. For example, if the influenza vaccine is less efficacious than perhaps we would like (which is true), then it must be useless. This is, in essence, the Nirvana fallacy, wherein if something is not perfect it is claimed to be utterly worthless. Part and parcel of this approach involves the complement, namely vastly exaggerating the potential side effects and complications due to vaccines to paint them as being far more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. In addition, anti-vaccine activists frequently attribute harms to vaccines that the existing scientific data definitely don’t support as being reasonable or legitimate. The claim that vaccines cause autism is the most famous, but far from the only one of these sorts of claims. It’s not uncommon to hear fallacious claims that vaccines cause autoimmune diseases, asthma, and a general “weakening” of the immune system, among others.


He did a great job capturing the essence of anti-vaccination rhetoric too.
To say that the relationship that antivaccine activists have with science and fact is a tenuous, twisted one is a major understatement. Despite mountains of science that says otherwise, antivaccinationists still cling to the three core tenets of their faith, namely that (1) vaccines are ineffective (or at least nowhere near as effective as health officials claim; (2) vaccines are dangerous, causing autism, autoimmune disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, diabetes, sudden infant death syndrome, and a syndrome that is misdiagnosed as shaken baby syndrome; and, of course, (3) the Truth (capital-T, of course!) is being covered up by a nefarious combination of big pharma, the medical profession, and the government (in the US, primarily the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which works with pediatricians to produce the recommended schedule of vaccines). Because vaccine rejectors don’t have science on their side, they have to resort strategies common to science denialists like those who reject the scientific consensus about evolution or human-caused global climate change. These fallacious strategies include (but are not limited to) selective citation of evidence (i.e., cherry picking), misrepresentation and logical fallacies, impossible expectations about what science can deliver (e.g., vaccine denialists expecting 100% efficacy and 100% safety from vaccines or cancer quacks expecting 100% cure rates and no side effects from chemotherapy); fake experts (e.g., Andrew Wakefield); and, of course, conspiracy theories. Add to that appeals to personal freedom and “health choice” über alles and painting any form of vaccine mandate as incipient totalitarianism, with those rejecting vaccines taking on the role of the Jews in Hitler’s Germany, and you have a pretty good idea of the sorts of arguments antivaccine activists resort to.


Here are some more anti-vaccination tropes.

Steven Novella also exposed the anti-science nature of the anti-vaccination movement, showing how they are much more interested in fear-mongering and spreading propaganda than in vaccine safety.
There is a dedicated fringe anti-vaccine movement. They are dedicated to some permutation of the collection of beliefs that vaccines are: 1) not effective; 2) have not reduced or eliminated any infectious disease; 3) are not safe; and 4) are a conspiracy of Big Pharma, the government, and paid-off doctors. Specific claims have wandered over the years, but they have as a central theme that vaccines are bad. When one specific claim collapses, they will move on to the next anti-vaccine claim.
. . . .
The consequences of this particular battle are quite high. Obviously, everyone wants effective vaccine regulation and safety monitoring. There is broad support for the vaccine compensation program, that streamlines the process of financially compensating children and families that have suffered legitimate side effects from vaccines. On any particular claim, we want the scientific chips to fall where they may. If some vaccine ingredient is causing harm, we need to find out right away and make the necessary changes. Only a cartoonish, handlebar mustache-twisting villain would want to allow children to be harmed through compulsory vaccines. Anti-vaccine hysteria, however, hampers effective vaccine safety by diverting attention and resources to false claims.


I only bring this up because it's hard to see what Obukhanych is trying to do here unless you know what to watch out for. After all, the letter sounds reasonable (if you don't look too closely) and one might even find her arguments compelling and persuasive if they are unfamiliar with how anti-vaxxers operate.
 
Last edited: