One of the strengths–and weaknesses–of a Western medical education is its predisposition to break things down and compartmentalize them. While much data is gleaned in the minutiae, very little attention is given to the interrelationship between disciplines. While a medical student may become a true specialist in their field, they too become compartmentalized, and are often ignorant of very important information that would be essential for a broader, more holistic overview. And this appears to be by design.
A case in point is the testimony of Tetyana Obukhanych, who earned her Ph.D. in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did post-graduate work at Harvard. In a presentation she delivered in British Columbia (full video here), she was discussing scientific evidence from a publication dealing with a measles outbreak in Quebec in 2011. The evidence showed that 48% of those who had contracted measles were fully vaccinated for measles, and this does not even include those who were vaccinated only once for the measles, as they get lumped in with the unvaccinated people. She took a moment to tell a story about how she became aware of this phenomenon:
The interesting thing is that my field, the field of immunology, the basic field that sort of is responsible for all these theories of immunity, we don’t really deal with the real world. We do research in labs. We are sort of an ivory tower profession and we don’t even read these publications because this is too far away from our field. We only read what’s specific to our research and usually it’s immunizations and how antibodies are generated and all the details of the immune responses.
And I went through my whole PhD training and I believed that vaccines give you immunity and that if you got vaccines there is absolutely no way, virtually no way, that you would get a disease, and I’m pretty sure that most of my colleagues in my narrow field believed the same way, and we had conversations about that. And even someone at some point mentioned to me and said that they had a vaccine and they got measles and I sort of brushed it aside and thought that the person is confused. It was either she didn’t have the vaccine or it wasn’t measles, one of the two.
But what happen is that a few years ago I had to apply for American citizenship and part of the procedure is to submit your vaccination records, right, and this was the first time that I looked at my own vaccination records carefully, and I discovered that I had two measles vaccines in my childhood. Well, I didn’t know about it because I was too young to remember, but what I remember really well is that when I was 11 I had measles, and so that was a little bit harder to discount.
And I told recently someone else and they said, ‘Oh, you are confused about that, you didn’t have measles!’ like ‘How do you know?’ ‘Did you check <whether> you really had the virus there or not?’ So it’s just, you know, the doctors diagnosis, right? But I lived in Ukraine, and there, you know, there was tons of measles around and doctors knew when they saw measles. But anyway, so the reason I kind of had to look for these papers is to actually to confirm to myself whether I’m confused about my measles or is this a general phenomenon and it’s happening, and it’s documented in the literature. And indeed it is documented in the literature. But immunologists don’t know about it.
Let that sink in for a moment. You get your PhD in Immunology, and you leave school to go out into the world to work on things like, oh, immunization, and you haven’t learned that you can still get certain diseases even if you’ve been fully vaccinated against them? Despite this being scientifically documented and an uncontested fact? Again, ignorance by design.
For those medical students who become family doctors or pediatricians, the practice of doing independent research into the readily available scientific evidence that contradicts Western medical orthodoxy is certainly frowned upon. Further, those who wish to employ this knowledge in advising their patients often find themselves in the crosshairs of establishment and pharmaceutical industry condemnation.
One example of this is with the painkiller Vioxx, which by some estimates led to 60,000 deaths, and for which Merck had to pay out almost $5 billion to settle 27,000 lawsuits. Merck emails from 1999 showed that company execs sought to intimidate doctors who disliked using Vioxx, or worse. One email said, “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” while other emails passed on a list of dissenting doctors who they sought to “destroy,” “neutralize,” or “discredit.”(source)
Now, if doctors began to look into the independent research on vaccines and actually spoke out questioning their safety and effectiveness, they would quickly find themselves on such an industry hit list and risk losing their medical licenses, having their reputations destroyed and perhaps even more.
And that is why challenges to the establishment, like the one being waged by Tetyana Obukhanych, is so important to those of us who are simply looking for the objective facts and a reasonable theory that binds them, especially as it pertains to the safety of our children. Scientists like Tetyana generally don’t have any desire to be activists, they would likely rather do scientific research and have a higher authority act properly upon their findings. However, we live in a time when the medical authority is corrupt and money-driven and wields tremendous power over the government. And so the only way a scientist can get the truth out about their findings is to speak that truth themselves. This often means giving up the quiet and secure life as a researcher that they went to school for and going out into the public as an activist.
Defending The Choice Not To Vaccinate
One of the conclusions that Tetyana has come to after investigating real-world scientific findings on the safety and efficacy of vaccines is that children who have not been vaccinated do not pose any increased risk to public health as compared to vaccinated children. In an ‘Open Letter To Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation,’ she argues to legislators, some of whom are poised to remove vaccine exemptions from their districts, that “discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted.” Below is the full letter, and appendices and footnotes are available in the link above.
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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. 
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.
5. 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.
6. 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 (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.” 
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%, 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.  
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).
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 risk to the public.
~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
The average person is not a scientist, and so relies on the integrity of professionals in order to come to decisions about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Those who have done some research may very well agree with me that industry data on the safety of vaccine is presented in vague and complicated ways, replete with repetitive statements that ‘vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective.’ Meanwhile, the alternative data I have seen generally appears to be written in as simple and understandable a form as possible, and the connection between the theory and the data is much clearer. The vaccine ‘debate,’ if we can even call it that, is an opportunity for all of us to practice our discernment, and see telltale signs of the desire to find and share truth versus the desire to hide the truth for the sake of profit and in complete disregard for human life.
For some, this is difficult because it challenges the worldview that the authorities we have given our power to actually care about humanity and human life. But realizing the fallacy of this helps to motivate us to seek our sovereignty from authority, and contributes to our awakening as a collective.