An Interview With Research Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, Part 3 of 3, Catherine Frompovich

Vaccine Illusion is Tetyana’s effort to reach parents outside the San Francisco Bay Area with a similar message she teaches in her classes on making vaccination decisions. She is also dedicated to spreading the awareness of sorely needed changes in the way modern biomedical research is done. Her e-Book, Vaccine Illusion, is available from Amazon.com as a Kindle edition and a few free excerpts are available at her book website (https://sites.google.com/site/vaccineillusion).

When I studied natural nutrition, a lot of my research was dedicated to prenatal and infant nutrition. Why do you think medical science now wants to discredit breast milk, the prime contributor of antibodies for an infant? After all, hasn’t an infant spent nine months gestating within its mother’s internal ecosystem and is totally receptive to her breast milk? Why deny those benefits?

I am aware of plenty of science confirming the benefits of breastfeeding, both nutritional and in disease protection. How can it be otherwise, if we relied on breastfeeding for the millennia of mammalian evolution?

Do you agree that human breast milk is rich in immunoglobulins? Don’t they provide sufficient immunity? Mother’s breast milk contains macrophages that kill bacteria, viruses and fungi, so why does immunology want to mess with Mother Nature?

Maybe if we had more feminine involvement in science, we would have been paying more respect to Mother Nature. We would study how Mother Nature protects us from disease and would attempt to aid and reinforce that process, if it goes wrong. Instead, we are trying to override the natural process with clever artificial applications that bring very short-term and limited benefits at expense of long-term liabilities.

Well put, Doctor.

From your research in immunology, what have you discovered that is not common knowledge and ought to be mainstreamed? Can you divulge that, please?

Apart from science itself, I have “discovered” the forces that govern how scientific research is being presented.

A career of a typical modern-day scientist, including an immunologist, consists of demonstrating early career success for the purposes of procuring short-term research funding, which necessitates prompt demonstration of further success in the form of publications in order to secure further funding, and the cycle goes on and on to maintain a career. Funding for the sake of publications, and publications for the sake of further funding. The requirement in this game is to demonstrate success, as only success is rewarded. The problem, however, is that the tremendous pressure to appear successful might set the wrong incentive.

This pressure might place scientists in a very difficult situation: what if the demonstration of the whole truth revealed by their data would leave them with nothing spectacular to publish (as only successful stories are accepted for publication), and with not much prospect of getting their next grant that would ensure their ability to stay in science and maintain a lab. Would they undermine their career, and the livelihood of people who depend on their career, by revealing the whole truth of their unsuccessful findings?

An example of this would be a line of research, which I happened to observe in one of the labs I worked in, towards a novel method of inducing an immune response. The method got published in a prestigious immunologic journal with a tacit expectation that it can be of value in new vaccine development strategies. Yet, the available data on the failure to protect research animals from the actual infection by this method of immunization was purposefully left out of the publication.

How was this omission justified? I have no clue and I was not in a position to ask for explanations.

I’d call that scientific fraud. Why aren’t the CDC and FDA doing their jobs to protect healthcare consumers instead of pharmaceutical research?

How was this omission rewarded? Well, obscene amounts of money poured right in from a well-known private foundation that sponsors vaccines for the Third World. A chunk of that money, as I was told, was intended for developing this particular immunization approach into a novel vaccination strategy for humans.

Did I divulge enough here?

I think so.

What is the reality for a modern-day immunologist that makes the majority of them, if not all, close their eyes to what is going on outside their labs in the vaccine-damaged world? This is what I would call the ‘politics’ of research science. Would you agree?

I would like to give the readers a taste of what it feels like to be in the field of Immunology.

I found that basic immunologists, and I was like that too for a long time, do not typically educate themselves about anything other than the narrow area of research they are involved in, not even about epidemiologic research that reveals profound amounts of vaccine failures. Immunologists do not “know” that vaccines fail to protect. Or perhaps, it is the collective professional pride that doesn’t allow them to see that vaccination, the cherished fruit of their research endeavors to which they devote their whole lives, are so flawed compared to natural immunity.

It is taboo to discuss public or even personal concerns with vaccination. Any attempt to bring these issues up for discussion, to raise even a slightest hint of concern about lack of properly done science behind vaccine safety, efficacy, or necessity is bound to encounter the wrath and indignation of colleagues. The mantra that vaccines are safe and effective and that they save lives is taken beyond faith and beyond the need for even slightest examination.

Therefore to question would be analogous to committing scientific mortal sin, it seems.

So, on the one hand, basic immunologists entertain themselves with the artifact-prone theory without bothering themselves to take a look at how their theory plays out when applied in the form of vaccines to the human population at large. On the other hand, epidemiologists and public health officials hardly know enough of the intricate immunologic theory to realize that vaccines do not perform as expected by the theory. They simply introduce more and more schedules for booster vaccines as a quick-fix solution for apparent vaccine failures.

This compartmentalization and this tunnel vision that permeates the science is what stands in a way for any single specialist to search for the bigger picture on vaccination and get horrified by what transpires from such a search. And what transpires is the realization that something about the virtues of vaccination doesn’t quite add up. In the mainstream science, however, the impetus for taking a broad look at vaccination is definitely lacking and instead there is a lot of pressure to keep your head down in the sand.

You have to be joking! I find that shocking since science is supposed to be about open discussions to find newer, better, and factual science.

Is there any special information that you would like to share with our readers?

I want to share with the readers my view on why we need to change the way we do science. We have indeed created a mess with vaccination, yet we don’t have to keep ourselves in this mess. But first, I want the readers to see what perpetuates the kind of science that keeps us in the mess.

In the U.S., scientists are mere slaves of the Establishment, they can only do research on what they are funded for. Not only their research money, but also their career development and salaries depend on grants, especially during early phases of career development. Why would anyone be surprised that scientists are not able to or do not feel too secure attempting to do research that is not in line with the agenda of the funding sources that support their most basic livelihood?

It is not a secret that the vast majority of our biomedical research is funded by the government, pharma, or private foundations with very strong pro-drug or pro-vaccine agendas. This determines the priorities and the focus of biomedical research in a way that gives all the power to the funding sources, and little power of knowledge to individuals to make their own informed decisions.

Why don’t we have science that systematically and adequately addresses parents’ concerns with vaccines?

Why don’t we have science that systematically and adequately studies natural factors determining mild versus severe courses of any infectious disease or even disease susceptibility itself?

Why don’t we have science that gives us understanding of natural immunity?

Wouldn’t we, as individuals, be able to make good use of this kind of knowledge?

As a scientist, I personally want to be accountable to society directly and to be able to address the concerns/needs for scientifically researchable information of society without the filters that are put in-between society and the scientists by government/pharma’s agendas.

If we want to have this kind of direct relationship between scientists and society, then scientists have to be sponsored differently from how it is done right now. We can’t possibly expect pharma or government to sponsor the kind of science that takes their power away from them, can we? And we can’t expect scientists to starve their families while they are trying to establish research they are not going to be funded for or promoted for, can we?

Can we then establish the direct relationship between the scientists and society to promote research that places the power of knowledge into our own hands, not into the hands of the Establishment?

Just like the U.S. Constitution principle of the separation between religion and the state has brought us tremendous prosperity, imagine what we can achieve with the separation between science and the state.

I encourage everyone to pause and think for a moment how to accomplish this.

Dr. Obukhanych, thank you so much for helping us understand more about natural immunity and the role pharmaceutical vaccines play in modifying it. I wish there were more research scientists with your thinking and ethics. Again, thank you for what you do.