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 themajor 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 
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 pathwayfrom 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; reviewed 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 [email protected] , website 
Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, 
and worldwide from Dogwise at

1. “Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.
2. See
3. See
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
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 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 web site.