Vaccinations in Veterinary Medicine:
Dogs and Cats
by Don Hamilton, DVM
A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks
scientific validity or verification is annual re-vaccinations.
Almost without exception there is no immunologic
requirement for annual revaccinations. Immunity to viruses
persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful
vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an
immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an
animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary)
response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the
immune response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus
toxin booster, in humans, is recommended once every 7-10
years). And no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs and
cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails
to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result
of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal
antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in
our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy
unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual
physical examination or is required by law (i.e., certain states
require annual revaccination for rabies). 1 (Italics added)
Summary: Yearly "boosters" are unnecessary, provide no
benefit if given (will not increase immunity). Thus boosters
are either a legal issue (Rabies) or a manipulation issue
(inducing clients to come in for examination rather than
directly suggesting an examination).
The issue of initial vaccination is less clear than that of boosters. Many clinicians feel that without vaccination they would see outbreaks of disease, particularly canine parvovirus disease. This can be a difficult issue to resolve. A fundamental dilemma is that vaccination in effect leads to
weakening of the gene pool, and thus the overall health of a
given population. One way this occurs is by allowing individuals to live that would otherwise succumb to
disease, such disease being a natural means to "cleanse"
and thus strengthen that population. This naturally presents
an ethical quandary these days (our understanding of native
or aboriginal thinking suggests that letting weak individuals
die was implicitly understood to be not only acceptable but
proper). Western society values the individual's right to be,
therefore we make efforts to save all individuals. Any answer
to this question naturally lies with the individual(s) involved.
The second, and more compelling theory of the mechanism
of interaction between a vaccine and the body suggests
that vaccines "protect" against the acute disease not by
preventing the disease but by changing the form of the
disease to a chronic disease. 2 For example, the
panleukopenia virus of cats induces an intense, rapidly
progressive malfunction in the digestive tract, leading to
vomiting and/or diarrhea. In adult vaccinated animals this
translates into a chronic state of diarrhea and sometimes
vomiting. This disease is known as inflammatory bowel
disease (IBD), an autoimmune disease of the intestines.
IBD has been occurring at near epidemic levels over the
past several years; no other reasonable explanation has
been proposed for the proliferation of cases of the disease.
Vaccinations are known to be a major trigger of other
autoimmune processes in susceptible individuals, 3 so it is
reasonable to suspect vaccines as a trigger for IBD. Another
aspect of panleukopenia virus infection, implied by the name
of the virus, is vastly lowered numbers of white blood cells
and corresponding immune deficiency. Could the appearance
of Feline Leukemia virus disease and later Feline
Immunodeficiency virus disease be related to vaccination for
panleukopenia during the previous two decades? The
logicality of this theory does not allow easy dismissal of a
relationship, most likely cause and effect. Both of the latter
diseases produce low white blood cell counts and
immunodeficiency as part of their symptom complexes.
Similar connections have been proposed between Canine
Distemper virus disease and both kennel cough and Canine
Parvovirus diseases as "distemper" includes a pneumonia
component as well as severe diarrhea. Chronic coughing is
characteristic of kennel cough; parvovirus disease affects the
intestines, producing severe diarrhea and vomiting.
Additionally, the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in
dogs appears to be on the increase in the past year or two.
Vaccination of dogs for Canine Parvovirus has been in effect
for fifteen years, contrasted with the much longer history of
parvovirus vaccination in cats (Feline Panleukopenia
virus is a member of the parvovirus family). This portends a
frightening future for dogs if the connection is indeed correct.
Finally, connections are proposed between vaccination for
Rabies and increasing numbers of fearful, aggressive animals.
Behavioral problems of the extent seen today are a recent
occurrence, being rare only two to three decades ago. 4 Their
emergence is coincident with the practice of repeated adult
vaccination, suggesting the need to examine that relationship.
Aggressive behavior has been observed in dogs for several
days following vaccination for rabies, even with non-infectious
[killed] vaccines.5, 6 As practitioners sharing responsibility
for the well being of patients, veterinarians are faced with a
challenge when dealing with acute diseases.
Vaccinations may prevent these acute diseases, but if the
exchange is for a lifetime of chronic disease, is that a viable
option? (Viable is from the French vie, meaning life, so the
question is will the patient live and flourish or simply exist.)
First, remembering that booster vaccines are unnecessary,
we can stop all vaccination after one year of age for virtually
all diseases. (cf. below; Rabies is required by law so we
need to work to change the laws so that they are in accordance with the fact rather than fear.) As repetition naturally increases the likelihood of problems, we can reduce side effects tremendously with no additional risk to the patient, simply by stopping adult boosters. Of course, there will still be some risk involved with even the initial vaccinations, but no risk of contracting the acute disease once the animal is immunized by these first vaccines. See below for duration of immunity to the various diseases for which vaccines are available.
Secondly, all vaccines should be administered as
single antigens. (An antigen is something that is capable of
eliciting an immune response, in this case a viral or bacterial
organism from which a vaccine is produced.) This means not
using the polyvalent vaccines which have become so
common these days. Natural exposure to diseases is usually
one at a time, and the body is probably more successful at
responding to only one antigen and producing immunity
without adverse effects, rather than responding to a complex
of antigens. Therefore, rather than giving a group of antigens
together at three to four week intervals, individual
components should be given using an alternating schedule with a minimum of repetition. (Cf. below)
Thirdly, only immunize for diseases which meet all of the following criteria:
The disease is serious, even life threatening.
The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.
The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.
The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.
Let us take Feline Leukemia virus (FeLV)
disease as an example. An indoor only cat will not be
exposed as this requires direct, intimate, cat-to-cat contact.
Many veterinarians recommend immunizing indoor cats
against this disease. I feel this is unethical. This disease
does not fit criteria number three or four anyway in my
experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not all
circumstances. Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) virus
disease is another disease which fits neither three or four.
FIP vaccine has generally been found ineffective and has
produced severe side effects. Among the side effects I have
observed with both FIP and FeLV is induction of the clinical
disease they were intended to prevent. In dogs,
Canine Hepatitis (CH) virus is almost nonexistent (the
vaccine virus to prevent CH is Adenovirus-2). Leptospirosis is
extremely rare and often not the same serotype used in the
vaccine 7 and the bacterin for "lepto" is very prone to side
effects. Coronavirus disease was never a serious threat
except to dog companions' bank accounts, the same being
true for Lyme disease except possibly in very small regions.
Kennel cough disease is generally not serious (criteria one),
and one study showed immunization to be ineffective or even
counterproductive. 8 Immunization should be limited to high
risk circumstances, if at all. A similar situation exists with
the feline upper respiratory diseases; most are not serious
except in very young kittens who contract the disease before
vaccines are typically administered.
Rabies is another disease for which indoor cats and well confined dogs have no exposure, so the vaccine is clinically unnecessary although required by law. Fourth, vaccines should NEVER be given to unhealthy animals. This is a practice that is gaining popularity among veterinarians for some strange reason, and it goes against the recommendations in all vaccine inserts as well as those of virtually all immunologists. This is malpractice in my opinion.
A bolder option is to refuse immunizations entirely, recognizing the inherent risk in administration of even one vaccine into the body, and being willing to accept the risk of not immunizing. While risk does exist if animals are unvaccinated, it can be moderated significantly by feeding better quality foods (home prepared, including fresh, raw meats) and by limiting exposure until the animals are six to eight months of age. An unvaccinated animal will be significantly less likely to suffer from allergies and many health problems. Skin allergic reactions have been
associated with vaccine administration, 9 and tremendous
numbers of dogs and cats have skin allergies today. Some
other diseases for which links to vaccines are known or
suspected include epilepsy, thyroid disorders 10 (hyper- and
hypothyroidism), chronic hepatitis, renal failure, cystitis or
lower urinary tract disease (particularly in cats), autoimmune
hemolytic anemia, 11 neurologic diseases such as confusion
and inability to be "present", asthma, and so on. In humans
sudden infant death syndrome is strongly linked to DPT
vaccination, 12 as are attention deficit disease/hyperactivity
and autism, 13 among many others including severe brain
damage.
Why are vaccines worse than natural exposure? Probably the
major factors are the artificial means by which exposure is
created with vaccines and the repetition. With few exceptions
(primarily rabies and occasionally Feline Leukemia virus or
Feline Immunodeficiency virus), infectious organisms are
transmitted via oral and nasal exposure, and this response
begins at the oral/nasal level with recognition of a foreign
material or organism, followed by initial non-specific
destruction and elimination of the organism at the local site
of exposure as well as within the blood stream whence an
organism may not even reach the interior to cause deep
illness, but may be successfully repelled at the periphery.
In other cases the body would have a lag time of several
hours or even days to begin mounting a response before the
"invader" reaches interior organs. As a consequence, deeper
pathology may be minimized or even averted. This interior
organ pathology may be a direct result of the organism, or it
may be an indirect result, manifested through
antigen-antibody complexes or other immune system
components. These components may inadvertently damage
body tissues as "innocent bystanders", or may directly
attack or invade tissues due to recognition problems
(autoimmune diseases). The latter may happen because of
similarity between organism structures and host tissues;
often this involves the nucleoproteins (DNA or RNA),
molecules that are important for controlling activity at a
cellular level. When a vaccine is administered, the organism
is injected directly into body tissues, bypassing the local
immune responses. When this happens, much of the
immune system is rendered useless. The body then must
compensate by increasing the activity of the balance of the
system, and the defenses begin in a compromised state,
with the organism already in the blood stream. Within the
blood stream, the primary aspects of the immune system are
antibodies, proteins which attach to the organism and assist
in its destruction. Although normally only a part of the
defenses, these antibodies become heavily responsible in a
vaccine (injected) induced invasion, thereby initiating a
hyperactive (increased) response. Additionally, the
preparation of vaccines often breaks down the integral
structure of the virus or bacteria, exposing internal strictures
such as viral DNA or RNA (depending on the virus) to the
immune system, leading to heavy antibody production
against these nucleoproteins. Since nucleoproteins are
relatively similar in all life forms, the host antibodies may lose
the induced hyperactivity of antibody production. The result
may be antibody mediated destruction of host tissue, and
autoimmune disease. In a natural exposure, antibodies would
be directed more at external structures, which are less
similar to host tissues thus less likely to induce cross
reactions. Incidentally, autoimmune diseases are occurring
more frequently than ever; could this be a reason?
Aside from the above considerations, vaccines commonly
contain materials other than the organism to which immunity
is desired. These materials may be added as preservatives,
adjuvants (materials to stimulate immune response, usually
added to non-infectious [killed] vaccines), or antibiotics.
Preservatives and adjuvants include such toxins and
carcinogens as aluminum (alum), mercury (thimersol), and
formaldehyde. Also, many foreign proteins are included if the
organism was grown on foreign tissue such as chicken or
duck embryos. Even more frightening, non-intended
organisms are sometimes accidentally incorporated as
contaminant "stowaways". In 1995 The Washington Post
reported that MMR vaccine produced by Merck & Co. along
with some influenza and yellow fever vaccines, contained an
enzyme known as reverse transcriptase. This enzyme is
associated with retroviruses such as FeLV, FIV, and HIV,
and has the capability to alter genetic information, leading to
serious diseases such as leukemia and other cancers. These
diseases may take years to manifest, so correlation with
vaccination may be impossible, masking a potentially
causative relationship. The recommended schedules (age to
vaccinate) are from Dr. Schultz, with a few changes as
follows: He supports the use of combination vaccines and I
strongly do not. He thus recommends in cats to combine
Panleukopenia (FPL), Calicivrus (FC), and Rhinotracheitis
(FVR) in one schedule; I have recommended to use
FVR-FC intranasal vaccine only if needed, and separately
from FPL. In dogs he would combine Distemper (CD),
Parvo (CPV), and Hepatitis, and possibly Corona
and Parainfluenza. I would recommend CD and CPV only,
and not combined. I generally support the use of killed
(non-infectious) vaccines, as I feel they have less likelihood
for long term damage, but Dr. Schultz presents a strong case
for the use of modified live vaccines (MLV) as repetition can
be necessary with non-infectious vaccines. With MLV, one
dose can have high efficacy. This primarily applies to DC and
CPV as non-infectious [killed] Rabies and FP are as effective
as MLV. Dr. Schultz' one dose-95% (one dose of vaccine at
a given age will successfully immunize 95% of animals)
suggestions are as follows.
Canine Distemper (MLV) 10-12 weeks
Canine Parvovirus (MLV) 12-14 weeks
Feline Panleukoenia (non-inf. [killed] OK) 10-12 weeks
Finally, a comment about vaccinations and choice.
While the concept of 'owning' an animal is one with which
I am uncomfortable, I do recognize that this is how the
human-animal relationship is viewed from a legal perspective.
Otherwise we certainly can be said to be guardians of our
companion animals. Within this framework the choice about
vaccination rests with the human who has accepted
responsible guardianship. It does not rest with the
veterinarian. Another trend of the past few years is coercion
of guardians into procedures such as vaccination. This
coercion may be blatant, such as refusal to provide services,
even emergency care, unless the animal is 'current' on
vaccines. Sometimes even critically ill animals are vaccinated
upon admission for treatment. More subtle means include
induction of fear and/or guilt by asserting (as an authority
figure) that companion animals are at risk if not vaccinated
yearly, and that failure to comply is evidence of lack of caring.
Tactics such as this can create feelings of guilt in the
guardian, leading to a fear based decision to vaccinate an
animal that is not at risk. This is unethical if not outright
malpractice and refusal is an acceptable response. As has
been stated above, rabies vaccination is legally compulsive
at one to three year intervals, so refusal is a legal risk.
Fighting to change these laws, however, is appropriate.
Footnotes: _____ 1 T.R. Phillips, T.R., DVM and
Ron Schultz, PhD, Canine and Feline Vaccinations in
Current Veterinary Therapy, Volume XI
Robert Kirk, DVM and John Bonagura, DVM, eds.,
1992 2 Pitcarin, Richard, DVM, PhD, A New Look at the
Vaccine Questions. Proceedings of the American Holistic
Veterinary Medical Association, 1993. 3
Dodds, W. Jean, DVM, More Bumps on the Vaccine Road,
Proceedings of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical
Association, 1995. 4 Young, Arthur, DVM, Personal
communication. 5 Blanco, B. Dee, DVM,
Personal communication. 6 Hamilton, Don, DVM,
Personal observation. 7 Schultz, Ronald D., PhD,
American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association
Annual Conference, 1995. 8 Day, Christopher, E.I.,
MRCVS Isopathic Prevention of Kennel Cough -
Is Vaccination Justified? International Journal of Veterinary
Homeopathy, Vol. 2, number 2, 1987.
9 Scheibner, Viera, PhD, Vaccination: The Medical
Assault on the Immune System, Australian Print Group,
Maryborough, Victoria, Australia, 1993, p. 21. 10 Dodds,
1995. 11 Ibid. 12 Scheibner 1993. 13 Coulter, Harris, PhD,
Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality,
North Atlantic Books, 1990. __ End Footnotes
Copyright 1996 Don Hamilton, DVM
Please feel free to copy and disseminate this article,
however it must be copied exactly (with no changes) unless
written permission is obtained from the author.
Dr. Hamilton
Chekia Pet Lovers Pages
Important Info On Vaccines
You're listening to
"The Sounds Of Silence"
written by Paul Simon
Science Of Vaccine Damage
by Catherine O’Driscoll
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine
conducted several studies (endnotes 1 & 2) to determine if vaccines
can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead
to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed.
It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was
looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune
system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue
studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own
biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin,
cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs – ”but not the
non-vaccinated dogs”– were attacking their own fibronectin, which
is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to
laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement
of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the
natural intelligence of cells.
Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients
with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and
also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence
of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated
with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were
developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter
of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides
structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer
tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder
that Canine Health Concern’s (Great Britain) 1997 study of 4,000
dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book,
What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines).
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the
vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA.
Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a
halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their
fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain
whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the
study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up
has been conducted.
At around the same time, the
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that
cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the
British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group
charged with the task of looking into canine and feline
vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern.
What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? “Carry on vaccinating until
we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are
most likely to die.”
In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they’re
vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when
cancer appears. Great advice if it’s not your cat amongst the
hundreds of thousands on the “oops” list.
But other species are okay, right? Wrong. In August 2003,
the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study
which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers
at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site
cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the
Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces
inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning
up in human cancer sites.
It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a
fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself
a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual
of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia
may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard’s Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government’s Working Group,
despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say
they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However,
no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected
to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why
after their pets die of AIHA.
A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine
events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns
were compounded by research in the human field.
The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported
that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints
in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation
of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged
arthritis following vaccination.(7)
Then, in 2000, CHC’s findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis,
which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine
given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the
paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that
vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous
system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines
(i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions
in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck
states that “examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many
other less well defined viral infections”.
When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported
that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs
did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same
percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three
months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that
72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be
nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these
traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.
I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered
from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot,
that “paresis” is listed in Merck’s Manual as a symptom of
encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural
(brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis,
resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway
from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly
after a vaccine event. Dr. Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the
Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in
dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder
Bet Hargreaves:
“Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine
vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies
dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies
have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue
such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells,
DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in
Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of
repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response
directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have
a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be
generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed.”
I must mention here that Dr. Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.
Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word “allergy” is synonymous with “sensitivity” and
“inflammation.” It should, by rights, also be synonymous with
the word “vaccination.” This is what vaccines do: they sensitize
(render allergic) an individual in the process of forcing them to
develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words,
as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine
process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.
Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or “-itis”
diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines,
in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again,
this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it’s where
an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will
die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not
administered.
There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people
(and animals are “people,” too) who have inherited faulty
B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the
immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them,
and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future
harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.
Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with,
B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere,
it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food
allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their
immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee
a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus
vaccines.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn’t stimulated, then
the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the
very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to
inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as
cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student
Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying
for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have
said in relation to their patients:
Dr. Jean Dodds: “Many veterinarians trace the present problems
with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines...” (9)
Christina Chambreau, DVM: “Routine vaccinations are probably
the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types
of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them
definitely to be caused by the vaccine.” (10)
Martin Goldstein, DVM: “I think that vaccines...are leading killers
of dogs and cats in America today.”
Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: “Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that
vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits.” (12)
Mike Kohn, DVM: “In response to this [vaccine] violation,
there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being
one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as
behavioural problems in small animals.” (13)
A Theory on Inflammation
Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have
been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they’ve not
understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific
sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for
many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the
vaccine process is inherently questionable.
Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies
when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory
disease – including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, rheumatoid
arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.
Gary’s theory questions the received wisdom that when a person
gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area
helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents
the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore
serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs
when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as
angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a
balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.
“Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals,”
he says. “All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body’s reaction to try to fight
the cancer, but this is not the case.
“The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection.
It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing
inflammation in order to hide from the immune system.” (14)
If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly
stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or
bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign
protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the
vaccine is winning by stealth.
If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is
not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover
of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought
they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf
of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly
acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents
are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our
loved ones.
Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world.
They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where
they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather
than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the ’flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and
distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with
cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune
(self-attacking) diseases taking their place.
The Final Insult
All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their
protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines;
(15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these
changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and
other countries are ignoring the following facts.
Dogs’ and cats’ immune systems mature fully at six months.
If modified live-virus vaccine is given after six months of age,
it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet.
If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from
the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine
and there is little or no effect. The titre is not “boosted,” nor are
more memory cells induced.
Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the
pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and
immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the
American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at
studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded
and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)
Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without
harm. Dr. Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at
Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been
saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s
I’ve been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long
in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of
animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.
The good news is that thousands of animal lovers
(but not enough) have heard what we’ve been saying.
Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food
as Nature’s supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed
pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself
included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward
is healthy and long-lived dogs.
It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple
news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy
dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.
About the Author:
Catherine O’Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns
and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005), the best-selling book What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines
(1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; r
eviewed in NEXUS 4/04). She lives in Scotland with her partner,
Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, and she lectures on
canine health around the world. For more information, contact
Catherine O’Driscoll at Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533,
Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email catherine@carsegray.co.uk , website http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk.
Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC,
and worldwide from Dogwise at http://www.dogwise.com.
Endnotes
1. “Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems
4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline
and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.
5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.
6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). “Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary
Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, “Immune System and
Disease Resistance", at http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing,
Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at
http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al.,
“AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents’ report on cat
and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002,
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., “Current and future canine and feline
vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P.,
“Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices",
Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., “Clinical application of serum
parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs",
J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.
Thank You to Catherine O’Driscoll for granting permission
to reprint this article here on the Chekia Family web site.
