Tetyana Obukhanych, a Ph.D. immunologist, explains in open letter why unvaccinated children are not a threat to the vaccinated children.
It is believed that people who consciously choose not to vaccinate their children pose a risk to other children who are vaccinated. This belief is also the rationale behind the legislation to put an end to vaccine exemptions that are already being considered by state and federal legislation.
However, the nature of the protection of modern vaccines that are approved by the CDC for children does not agree with the above statement.
In fact, the Harvard immunologist Tetyana states that most recommended vaccines cannot prevent the transmission of the disease – they can only prevent its symptoms. She says that unvaccinated children pose no danger to the vaccinated ones thus implying that the discrimination that exists against non-vaccinated children is unjustified and unnecessary.
For example, IPV (Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine) cannot prevent the virus from spreading, so it cannot change the public safety and it is used for personal protection only. Such is the case of DTaP combination vaccine.
Moreover, the vaccine for Tetanus is also for personal protection only and it cannot change the safety of the public spaces because Tetanus is not a contagious disease. It is caught from deep wounds that are contaminated with C. tetani spores.
Such is the case of Hepatitis B. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus and it can spread only by indulging in risky behaviors, such as using the same needles, or through sex. The vaccine also cannot alter the safety of the public spaces. Plus, children who are carriers of the virus are admitted in school. So, prohibiting children who are not carriers only for not being vaccinated is ridiculous.
In conclusion, children who are not vaccinated with IPV, Tetanus, DTaP, or HepB vaccines because their parents decided so, it is no danger to those who are vaccinated and there should not be any discrimination imposed on them.
How often do serious vaccine adverse events occur?
When we take into consideration the fact that 1 in 168 children had gone to the emergency room 12 months after they’ve been vaccinated, the statement that vaccination, rarely, to almost never, leads to adverse events doesn’t make much sense.
So, vaccination needs to be the choice of the parents. Are they willing to undertake the risk of any serious adverse events that may happen to their children only to protect them from diseases that are known to be mild and their children might never be exposed to them?
Can we stop the outbreaks of viral diseases (for instance, measles) if we choose to discriminate those families who consciously decided to not vaccinate their children?
The measles paradox that is popular among scientists says that “as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”
Moreover, some patients are low-responders to vaccines. Meaning, their immune system remains weak after they received the vaccine and re-vaccination cannot fix that.
Plus, even in those people who are high-responders to vaccines, antibodies that are induced through vaccines wane over time.
All in all, discrimination against the families who oppose vaccines (currently they are only a small percentage) won’t solve the problem of outbreaks of viral diseases nor prevent them from happening.
So, we couldn’t help but wonder: Is discrimination against vaccine objectors the only solution?
According to Tetyana, this is not a solution. Children who are not vaccinated do not endanger other vaccinated children. So, the discrimination against them is unwarranted and needs to stop.
Mary Wright is a professional writer with more than 10 years of incessant practice. Her topics of interest gravitate around the fields of the human mind and the interpersonal relationships of people.If you have a general question or comment please fill out the form and we will get back to you as soon as possible https://curiousmindmagazine.com/contact-us/ .