New York State is Denying Access to Education to Anti-Vaxer Students

Doomsday:
You are absolutely right. I myself am a healthcare professional and have been involved in multiple research studies. That is NOT how a study should be done, as the results will not yield good accuracy.
Out of all the people that I know who got the vaccine, most of them WERE vaccinated. Thus, if someone has an unvaccinated individual in their class, they technically should NOT be worried, as they had the vaccine 🙂
While actual cause and effect between vaccines and specific illnesses have not been confirmed yet with studies, foreign chemicals entering your body cannot be to good for you. How about taking a roll of heavy duty aluminum foil, cutting it up and eating it? I am pretty sure the average person woupd not do this. These heavy metals are probably not the best for you.
By the way, I am fully vaccinated, but if I would be due for another in the future, I probably would not get it!

PracticalPost – so intersting. You are a young adult who cant sit still asking a 22 year old guy if he has available friends and are also a health professional who has been involved in multiple research studies. ..

Letter from a PhD Immunologist on why unvaccinated pose no risk and how even 100% measles vaccination would not stop measles outbreaks due to the number of non-responders and mmr antibodies waning after several years:

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

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.

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. [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, 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.” [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 risk to the public.

Sincerely Yours,

~ Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

Dooms,

First off, I really do not understand why you are still at it, after being exposed as twisting facts for your position, you have left us hanging at the other thread in the coffee room, you have been exposed as someone that is willing to twist the facts to support your position.

Second, a quick google search will direct you to a snopes and other sources that dismantle all of her work.

This is not new.

Each of these points are facts. They are well researched and availabe online and scholarly journals. You just arent used to seeing them presented in this way.

@Neville
I will tell you that 1 year ago, there was a large study conducted in NYU Oncology linking high presences of aluminum to certain diseases (not sure if the full study is available for viewing yet) Presented by one of the high honchos there. I know someone present during the study presentation who told me that he strongly encouraged that if using aluminum foil or pans, they should be lined with 1-2 layers of parchment paper due to free aluminum molecules absorbing into hot food. To reiterate, this was presented by a MEDICALLY TRAINED DR IN NYU…and there is an actual study to back it up!

2scents, you were the one exposed as a serial liar. I invite anyone wanting to know who was “exposed” to read the Vaccine Studies Thread.

Lol, not only are you a liar, you have a bad memory. You’re the one who was exposed as a fraud and a liar.

2 cents:
All because someone does not share your views, it does not make them less or more knowledgeable. But thanks for giving in your 2 cents.

Doomsday,
again you ignore my comment and in that this, as frum jews, is a matter of Halacha. Clearly, you feel that you are a medical professional able to argue and disagree with the far majority of medical professionals in the country.

Again, what is your halachic basis for not getting your vaccination and who is the Gadol that you rely on?

Practical,

“All because someone does not share your views, it does not make them less or more knowledgeable. But thanks for giving in your 2 cents.”

True, well said.

“Also, all because you do not love what I am saying, does not make what I am saying less true.”

now you’ve said it twice, but you imply that someone is saying you are not telling the truth (or is disagreeing) just because you oppose their view. I think that is a bit naive. Sometimes (as is the case here) posters aren’t disagreeing because they don’t love what you are saying. They disagree because they believe you are wrong.

Btw over time, Al in moms milk decreases less than the first feeding with every subsequent feed. Also imagine moms milk plus other sources of aluminum (vaccines, environment) will have a multiplicative effect.
And regarding RBC, that’s exactly why drinking blood won’t help so you are just strengthening what was iterated, thank G-d I won’t have to do a study on that 🙂
And I don’t believe I presented myself falsely-all because I’ve done research and am interested in medical bits does not make me a doctor-which I don’t believe I presented myself as one. The same way everyone here is presenting their knowledge, irrelevant of working in the health field/being a medical professional or not.

Injecting a poison is Faaaaar more harmful then ingesting (eating) a poison. Hashem created protections against people eating poison – you vomit, get diarhea – where the body rapidly expels the poison. The body has no such protection against INJECTED poison which rapidly enters the bloodstream and can harm all the organs of the body, especially the DEVELOPING brain of babies.

“The same way everyone here is presenting their knowledge, irrelevant of working in the health field/being a medical professional or not.”

Again (for the last time since this is getting boring)

you commented in an attempt to defend Dooms, who has been thoroughly debunked and exposed as a liar “You are absolutely right. I myself am a healthcare professional and have been involved in multiple research studies”

you did not explain how or why you thought dooms was right. you slapped the label “healthcare professional” on yourself and paskened dooms correct.

you THEN went on to make an absurd comparison that Because eating a ” roll of heavy duty aluminum foil, ” is not something an average human would do, therefore MMR (the subject of the thread) causes illnesses.

Never mind the fact that MMR contains no aluminum, never mind the fact that eating and injecting (vaccines arent injected in the bloodstream btw) are not equivalent your whole comparison makes no sense. Strangely when I pointed out the absurd comparison, by comparing to injecting vegetables, what should have been obvious as nonsense, you took that seriously too, you similarly dsiplayed a lac k of understanding of elementary physiology “And regarding blood transfusions-due to longer time of absorption, it would be unwise for someone to drink blood. It is quite a circuitous route from the mouth to the bloodstream.” When your lack of understanding was pointed out you bizzarley claimed ” you are just strengthening what was iterated, ”

Yo u win
I thought conversations on vaccines could not possibly get any dumber. I was absolutely wrong. congrats you have succeeded in lowering my incredibly low expectations for anti-vaxxers ie pro-dieasers .

Ubiq – FAKE NEWS! Are you living in the dark ages? I heard on Art Bell (or maybe the snopes news website) I heard there is REAL scientific evidence that the appendix has a special nerve that connects the GI to the bloodstream and most of the chemicals that get injected into the intramuscular veins go DIRECTLY there. Which, of course (!!) explains why appendix rupture so often. Obviously because of all the toxins that they have to process. So that pretty much validates the claim that those aluminum balls you used to chew on in grade school went DIRECTLY to the cortical blood brain barrier!

Doomsday,
you wrote:

Re: Halacha
I don’t have young children so I didn’t ask a Shayla. On the other thread, a parent said they asked THEIR Rov and were told Not to vaccinate.

Everyone has a right to ask their OWN Rov.

Again, you did not answer the question. the above statement makes it appear as you do not understand or know Halacha, Shas and Poskim because, if you did, you would know the when all Gadolim have all spoken and the far, far majority of medical professionsals (subject matter experts) have stated you are OBLIGATED to vaccinate, you must do so unless there is a danger to life and limb. What Germara, Shulan Aruch and Poskim allows you, as a FRUM Jew, to 1) state otherwise and 2) encourage people otherwise when same require you to follow the stated obligation (see end of Yoma and Halchos Yom Kippur)?

Question: which is more important – following Halacha or being an anti-vaxer?

Why You Cannot Compare the Amount of Aluminum in Breastmilk to Vaccines.

Claim #1:
Aluminum in vaccines is “safe” because, in the first six months of your child’s life, they will receive 4mg of aluminum in vaccines, but 10mg of aluminum through breastmilk.

Why this claim of safety is FALSE:

Breastmilk is ingested. Anything and everything ingested is subject to the gastrointestinal tract before it is absorbed into the bloodstream and ends up in other vital organs and tissues. The GI tract is an excellent barrier (when healthy) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that only 0.1-0.4% of aluminum ingested is actually absorbed.

Therefore, up to 99.9% of aluminum is not absorbed when ingested (through breastmilk or food), and is eliminated/removed from the body before it ever reaches the bloodstream.

Some math (using 10mg aluminum in breastmilk, and 0.4% for absorption rate):

(10mg aluminum) x (0.004 absorption rate) = 0.04mg

Conversion from mg to mcg = 40mcg total absorbed aluminum.

In contrast of course, most vaccines are injected.

The contents of an injected vaccine are not subject to the gastrointestinal tract. Aluminum, along with other ingredients, are injected intramuscularly in order to intentionally bypass the natural barriers of the body (skin, mucus membranes, etc. which exist to help to prevent absorption). Blood flows to and from our muscles, so the contents of a vaccine can enter the bloodstream rapidly. Therefore, absorption of aluminum via vaccine is 100%.

Now we can make an accurate comparison between absorbed aluminum via breastmilk vs vaccines, in the first 6 months of life:

Breastmilk: 40mcg (0.04mg) | Vaccines: 4000mcg (4mg)
Vaccines have 10x more aluminum ABSORBED then Breastmilk

Claim #2:
Aluminum in vaccines is “safe” because it is quickly eliminated from the blood once injected.

Why this claim of safety is FALSE:

First, elimination from the blood does not equal elimination from the body. Depending on the individual, blood levels may drop as the aluminum becomes deposited in organs and tissues, or aluminum may get trapped at the injection site. Second, there is evidence from in vivo scientific research that once aluminum is injected via vaccine, it is not quickly eliminated from the blood. One study sought to measure the amount of aluminum eliminated from the body 28 days after injection. Urine and blood samples were taken daily. After 28 days, only 6% of the total aluminum injected had been eliminated. Blood levels demonstrated the persistence of aluminum as well.

“The blood concentration of aluminum was fairly steady from days 2 to 28 indicating a relatively constant absorption rate…”

According to what was found, up to 94% of the aluminum injected remains in the body (tissues, organs, and bloodstream), even 28 days post-vaccination. The study concluded at 28 days, so there’s no way to know how much longer it might persist in the blood, however studies have found that in rare cases, aluminum injected via vaccine can remain at the injection site for ten years.

Final claim:
Aluminum in vaccines is “safe” for healthy individuals.

Why this claim is FALSE:

NO SAFE LIMIT of injection for aluminum has ever been scientifically determined.

The claim that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is safe, based on a flawed comparison to the amount of aluminum in breastmilk, is not science. It’s a trick.

Part of this trick is allowing you to make the assumption that the amount of aluminum in breastmilk is safe and non-toxic. This is untrue. Any amount of biologically active aluminum that reaches the bloodstream can cause adverse effects. The degree and location of that effect will vary depending on the individual, however, it is known that chronic, low level exposure to aluminum accelerates brain aging and neurodegeneration.

The risk of injury from aluminum-containing vaccines is significant for adults as well as infants and children. Previously healthy adults are developing autoimmune diseases as their immune systems begin to attack the persistent aluminum which remains deposited in muscle tissue and slowly translocates to other organs and the brain. Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to know if you will be affected by a recent vaccination you received, as symptoms from vaccine-induced autoimmune disease may take months or years to manifest.

For more information, please listen to this presentation by aluminum toxicology expert, Dr. Exley, and watch the documentary, Injecting Aluminum.

You copy/pasted this directly from a website without crediting the website. Most future posts of this nature will be deleted -29

Sorry, thought you weren’t allowed to mention websites. It was from thinklovehealthy.com

2scents

Mostly agree but it should be noted that water is also toxic.

2scents

“What is the definition of safe, is driving a car safe, is going to sleep considered safe?
Is drinking water safe?
Nothing is without risk, yet there is a certain level of risk that is considered to be totally safe ”

I agree that nothing is without risk, but its a risk that you know EXACTLY what the risk is and you can say confidently . This low risk is considered safe.

You know that water & sleeping is safe entirely , its nature …

you know that driving a car at speed limit , the risk is this much (PERCENT)… vs. if you speed on 85 then your risks are extremely higher.. and that might not be considerd safe

the point that all the pro-safety people are saying , that any medication that has side affect . the only way to know what the risk really is so that we can decide if this is considered safe. is by having a real long-term study that is vax vs unvaxed so that we can know the risk percentage.

however the problem with vaccines is that such safety studies were never made. Some vaccines monitored just for a few days.. no vaccine ever had a real placebo

so how do we know the risks? what made the governemnt decide that this risk is considered safe when they never made a way to measure the risks.

” why would you think that the inserts would contain potential side effects that are not associated with the vaccine at hand?”

because when someone says that its SAFE .. and you ask him about the side affects on the inserts… then it goes like .. yeh , its just the company trying to protec themselves against anything.. (i.e. choking hazard and don’t eat paint , etc. )

But this is not the case here. If the vaccine manufacture wouldn’t have known that vaccine can CAUSE this disease then they wouldn’t be allowed to put it there. so its not just to “protect” the company. This diseasse can be CAUSED by the vaccine . and back to my precous point “if you have no way of knowing the risk percentage – how can you say confidently that this is considered safe??? at most this is a wild guess . nothing substantial to it.( as its IMPOSSIBLE to know long-term affect of a medicine without testing)

2scents

“Most people understand the idea of risk vs benefit and understand that the risk is minuscule compared to other acceptable risks.
In fact, most people understand that there are a number of different unrelated scientific bodies that have each researched the safety and the claims that were made, yet have determined that there is no basis to these claims.”

The problem is that these studies do not exsist. so most people have been misinformed. Becuase without a real placebo study over the long term (at least 4-5 years that is done for allmost all medicines ) it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the risk and wherer this is minuscule.

do you agree that without a placebo its impossible to know or you say that even without a real placebo the risk can be known.??? (by all other medicines everyone agrees that wihtout a real placebo or somehting that its risk have already been determined by testing against a real placebo , etc. its impossible to know the risk of side affects, so why should vaccines be different ? ) .

ubiquitin

when i said that i dind’t bother to read it , becuase ususlly its just comments flying back and forth withotu addressing the actual quesitons and its non-sense.
But of course I did research both parts of the story. I have read many pro-vaccines websites and experts. My mind is made up? not true. I am still debating what to do with my children for the new school year. My wife doesn’t want to send to the new homeschooling …

But i haven’t found a normal response on all of these website about the RCT.

You can’t deny the fact that there are thousands of children that right after they get vaccines something happens to them. (seisures, autisim, SIDS.. ) So how can you say that its safe without real placebo RCT (If not RCT at least vaxxed vs unvaxxed retroactively ) .

All you are saying that because the government says BELIEVE me that its safe without any studies to back it, i have to belive it ..

this is a ridicules argument that is never used for any medicine .

if you are saving 500 death (out of at LEAST 5 MILLION measels cases 60 years ago when medicine wasn’t so advanced), you need to know how many death , and other illenses you are causing against it.

Just becuase it Helps (efficacy) doesn’t mean that the benefits outway the risks. Just like you don’t give any other medicine witoout a long term safety study even when you know that it helps.

Doom:

You got a big problem. You are trying to push your theories, conspiracy based, and hope there are enough suckers out there to buy into them. No, the government did not proclaim vaccines as dangerous. At least stick with truth to base your argument. There is a reality here which I suspect you will deny. The current measles outbreak resulted from exposure, and this created a ruckus in locations where there are swarms of kids. It led to a huge spike in numbers of cases in heavily concentrated areas, with the predicted complications. With all your theory, we had statistically large numbers of people at risk. Public health officials need to address such issues from the theoretical view, where they look at the predictability of the illness. During an outbreak, the basis for their actions and policies changes.

No, I do not buy into a penny of your anti-vax theories, and neither do the overwhelming majority of rabbonim and scientists of all specialties. But what you are peddling is inapplicable during an outbreak, and I wish you and the rest of your ilk would just lay down the gauntlet till this all passes.

“If not RCT at least vaxxed vs unvaxxed retroactively”

If you read my comments you would know such a study HAS been done see the Philippines study cited above.

And of course RCT blinded placebo trials have been done
starting with the early Salk POli vaccine

down to the MMR which this thread is about :

Frequency of true adverse reactions to measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. A double-blind placebo-controlled trial in twins. Lancet. 1986 Apr 26;1(8487):939-42.

There , now you have placebo studies. Satisfied? (Don’t worry I’m not holding my breath)

“All you are saying that because the government says BELIEVE me that its safe without any studies to back it, i have to belive it ..”
not once have I said that.
So not only don’t you bother to read comments I write, you put other words in my mouth

ubiquitin

“If you read my comments you would know such a study HAS been done see the Philippines study cited above. ”

well doomsday already pointed out that 85 kids cannot be considered a control trial. are you disagreeing with that?

the other studies you mentioned I will have to look into it . you ddin’t mention it before

You’re not even considering the risks of increased hygiene.