chloelogoa

          Canine Vaccines          

 talalogoa

Since we do not want dogs to have to endure an episode of disease to develop their own protection, we turn to the creation of active immunity by vaccination.  This is the deliberate triggering of the immune response by the giving of a small, weak dose of the disease in order to stimulate the production of anti-bodies.

Modern vaccines are divided into four main categories:

1.  Attenuated living vaccines
These include distemper, hepatitis and parvovirus which use a weakened strain of the virus to boost the immune system.  Fortunately bacteria and viruses can be modified to reduce their ability to cause disease yet maintain their ability to stimulate the formation of active antibodies.  This is achieved by a process called attenuation and is usually brought about by growing the organism in an unnatural host, eg in eggs, a different species of animal or in tissue culture.  The amount of attenuation depends on how long the germ is maintained in the 'artificial' system.  The trick is to get the right balance to achieve maximum antibody production in the animal given the vaccine and yet not cause disease.  The big advantage of live vaccines is that usually only one dose is required in adult dogs to stimulate immunity.  Dogs injected with the ideal live vaccine will not shed organisms to other dogs - as in the modern canine distemper vaccines.  If this is not so then organisms shed from vaccinated dogs infect in-contact animals and if this happens on several occasions there is always a risk that the organisms ability to cause disease may return.  Such vaccines are better not used where a good alternative dead vaccine, or a live vaccine that is not shed, is available.

2.  Killed Vaccines
killed vaccines are vaccines such as leptospirosis which strengthens the body's defences using an inactivated bacteria.  These are made from 'germs' which have been killed by heat or chemical agents such as formalin.  Although the organisms are incapable of multiplying in the vaccinated animal, they nevertheless stimulate the formation of antibodies.  However, two doses are normally required, and an additive, or adjuvant as it is called, may be needed to enhance the effect.  The immunity produced is not so long lasting but the safety factors in vaccines of this type are greater.

3. Toxoids
The lethal effect of some organisms is brought about by the fact that they produce poisonous substances called toxins.  The body reacts to these by producing specific anti-bodies called anti-toxins which are capable of neutralising toxins.  This can be done artificially by injecting a toxoid which is a detoxified toxin.  Toxoids are generally made by inactivating toxins either by heat or chemical means and on injection they stimulate immunity and booster doses may be needed over 1, 2, or 3 years.

4.  Mixed Vaccines
It is possible to make mixed vaccines provided that care is taken to ensure the compatability of the antigens.  Mixed vaccines may contain, for example, two live antigens, several dead antigens or even a combination of live and dead antigens.  Such vaccines make it possible to establish an effective degree of protection against diseases with a minimal number of injections.

source: Doglopaedia A complete guide to dog care J. M. Evans and Kay White

Core and Non-Core Vaccines

************************************
A Review of the Literature

Should I Vaccinate My Dog

Vaccinating dogs is highly effective.  It has greatly reduced the number of dogs dying from disease in the UK.  In addition, vaccination reduces the chances of "Leptospira" passing from dog to man, which can result in severe illness.  

Vaccination works as a kind of health insurance.  If the dog is infected, not only can treatment be very costly compared to the price of yearly boosters, but the dog may die.  Some reactions to vaccines are significant, but most are mild and the quality of the product is improving, leading to fewer problems.

It is important to vaccinate a dog throughout its life.  After vaccination or infection, antibody levels rise, but this immunity wanes at different rates in each dog and boosters are needed to keep the levels up.

If your dog spends time outdoors, it needs to be vaccinated, for its sake as well as for yours.
Harvey Caruthers


What every vet (and owner) should know about Vaccines



I don't vaccinate my dogs at all-the High Risk Option?
The Science of Vaccine Damage
The Belief in Vacines
Canine Vaccine Survey
Vaccination


I don’t vaccinate my dogs at all – the High Risk Option?

Catherine O’Driscoll
 www.canine-health-concern.org.uk

Our dogs are in the midst of an epidemic.  It’s not an epidemic of viral disease, but of chronic ill health.  They’re besieged with itchy, pus-laden, scabby skin; vomit and diarrhoea are the norm.  One in every hundred dogs suffers from epilepsy, and an even higher number lives with painful arthritis.  Allergies are also reaching epidemic proportions: dogs are becoming allergic to life.  

According to Dr Jean W Dodds, an eminent vet and researcher, both allergic and autoimmune diseases have been rising since the introduction of modified live virus vaccines.  Autoimmune diseases are where the body attacks self; they include cancer, leukaemia, thyroid disease, Addisons, Grave’s disease, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, lupus, thrombocytopenia, organ failure, skin inflammations, and more.  

We also seem to have a tremendous number of dogs with behavioural problems, largely due to over-vaccination and processed pet food.  Vaccines are known to cause inflammation of the brain, as well as lesions throughout the brain and central nervous system.  The medical term for this is ‘encephalitis’, and vaccine’s role is acknowledged in the Merck Manual.  Merck is a vaccine manufacturer.  

Years ago, I was the typical ‘responsible’ dog owner.  My four Golden Retrievers were vaccinated every year, and they were fed a ‘complete and balanced’ pet food, recommended by my vet.  The red carpet was metaphorically rolled out once a fortnight, each time I visited with a dog suffering from chronic disease.  Eventually the problems became more serious: my dogs started to die years before their time.

Over the years, I’ve collected research documents to help me make decisions about my dogs’ husbandry, and to share what I’ve learnt with other dog lovers.  I also hoped that vets would take notice of the research, and stop over-vaccinating.  All medical interventions come with a risk – even the humble aspirin can be deadly.  So you have to do a risk/benefit analysis whenever you consider medications.  What, then, are the risks of vaccines?  

Research by Frick and Brookes shows us that vaccines can trigger atopy (skin allergies).  (Am J Vet Res. 1983 Mar;44(3):440-5).  Dr Jean W Dodds tells us that retroviral and parvoviral diseases, and MLV vaccines, are associated with lymphoma, leukaemia, organ failure, thyroid disease, adrenal disease, pancreatic disease, and bone marrow failure.

Vaccines cause cancer in cats at their injection site and, according to the Journal of Veterinary Medicine, August 2003, vaccines cause cancer in dogs at their injection sites.  Vaccines cause autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (JVM, Vol 10, No. 5, September/ October 1996; Merck Veterinary Manual), and arthritis (BVJ, May 1995 and Am Coll Vet Intern Med, 2000; 14:381).  Epilepsy is a symptom of encephalitis, which, as we already know, can be caused by vaccines.  

According to Dr Larry Glickman and his team at Purdue University, serum and foreign proteins in vaccines can cause autoimmunity (i.e. cancer, leukaemia, organ failure, etc.).  This research also indicates that genetic damage is possible, since vaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to attack their own DNA.  Research from the University of Geneva echoes this finding.  

Over the years, many vets, particularly in America, have been saying that they think vaccines cause a diverse range of problems in animals.  For example, Christine Chambreau DVM said,  ‘Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing 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.’  She is not alone in this view.

So imagine my dilemma ten years ago, when Edward and Daniel came into my home.  Having already seen my vaccinated dogs suffer with chronic illnesses, and dying from cancer and leukaemia - knowing that vaccines may have caused these illnesses - what was I to do?

I concluded that I would rather risk viral disease with my dogs, than have them suffer from the epidemic of chronic and fatal illness that is gripping the canine population.  I appreciate that some will consider me irresponsible.  But what actually are we running from when we vaccinate?

OK, so distemper is so rare that most vets haven’t seen it in at least ten years. Also, according to the top researchers, and stated by the American Veterinary Medical Association, once immune to viral disease, dogs are immune for years or life.  So why are vets and vaccine manufacturers still trying to get us to vaccinate against viral disease every year, or even three-yearly – especially when you consider the risk?

According to the Intervet data sheet, dogs will develop permanent immunity to hepatitis over the age of 12 weeks.  So why keep vaccinating against that?  Kennel cough is easily treated in most cases, and the vaccine isn’t very effective.  So what’s the point?   Leptospirosis is rare (my vet tells me he hasn’t seen it in ten years, either), and the vaccine is associated with some of the worst adverse reactions.  Isn’t this vaccine an unacceptable risk, then?  And parvovirus is – according to the Concise Oxford Veterinary Dictionary – rarely a problem for the normal healthy adult dog.

The next question, of course, is how do you get yourself a normal healthy adult dog?  Aha – catch 22.  In my view, you get a healthy adult dog by not vaccinating at all!  Vaccines destabilise the immune system, leading to all sorts of chronic illness.  From all I’ve seen and read, vaccines do not set your dog up for good health.  They have the potential to make your dogs itchy, scratchy, vomiting, diarrhoea-filled, sickly, sub-normal shadows of their former selves – ready and waiting for the more serious killers like cancer to arrive.  Vaccines represent the perfect recipe for the chronic illness epidemic I’ve been describing.  

Does this mean I’ve left Edward and Daniel open and unprotected against viral disease?  No.  When they were puppies they were given the homoeopathic nosode, a safer vaccine alternative.  They have also been fed naturally all their lives, providing vital nutrients to boost their immune systems, and they are exercised well (which also boosts the immune system).  Have they ever they suffered from recurrent hot spots, allergies, digestive upsets, eye and ear infections, or any other chronic illnesses?  No.  Did they die of cancer at the age of five, or leukaemia at the age of six, or paralysis at the age of four – as my vaccinated dogs did?  No.  In fact, they’re probably very well equipped, and healthy enough, to withstand the diseases I might otherwise have vaccinated against.  

Is probably good enough?  Well – it’s the best anyone is going to get.  Because even vaccines cannot guarantee immunity.  

So am I taking the high risk option?  I don’t think so.  It seems to me that good health is a God-given natural right.  It’s only man who messes it up.  The natural order is wiser than any of us, and those of us who don’t vaccinate our dogs are proving natural  law to be right.  
reprinted with kind permission from Catherine O'Driscoll
 www.canine-health-concern.org.uk
PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD
back to top
********************

The Science of Vaccine Damage

By Catherine O’Driscoll
www.canine-health-concern.org.uk

A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies 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 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 vaccines4 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 sensitise (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 [author's emphasis]."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 giver 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 litre is no "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.

Endnotes
1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.
2. See http://www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.
3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp.
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, http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.
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.
About the Author:
Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns for natural health in dogs, and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of best-selling books Shock to the System and What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? She lives in Scotland with her husband, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, 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.


reprinted with kind permission from Catherine O'Driscoll
www.canine-health-concern.org.uk.
PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD

*****************************

The Belief in Vaccines

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
I always find it interesting that a discussion over the topic of   vaccination can become "heated" and "volatile".  Why is that?....would the   same debate rage over an antibiotic or an antihypertensive medicine if   there was evidence that it was causing harm?

Highly doubtful. It would be removed promptly from the market if deaths   resulted from its use. Even if deaths were suspected to be caused by a   medication, we stop using it until we prove it is safe.

Not so with a vaccine. We keep using it until we can "prove" it is causing   harm.

Why the double standard?
The doublespeak occurs because vaccination is built around a "belief"   system, and challenging the validity of vaccines challenges long-held   foundational beliefs. We BELIEVE that vaccines are safe; we BELIEVE that
vaccines are important for our health; we BELIEVE that vaccines will   protect us from infection; we BELIEVE that vaccines were the reason   infectious diseases decreased around the world. And we really want to
BELIEVE that our doctor has read all the available information on   vaccines--pro and con--and that s/he is telling us the complete truth about   vaccines......

However, belief is based on faith; not necessarily on fact.

With only a cursory review of the literature and CDC documents, one will   find the following facts:

1. No vaccine has ever been proven to be completely safe. Safety studies   are small and only include "healthy" children. However, after a study is   completed, vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless of underlying
 health conditions or genetic predispositions. We have a "one size fits all"   national vaccination policy; one that does not allow for personal choice or   individualized options; and one that has caused a myriad of health problems   for many.

2. Observations for side effects continue for a maximum of 14 days during a   "safety study". Complex problems involving the immune system can take weeks   or even months to appear. This arbitrary 14 day cut off set by the FDA and   the pharmaceutical industry stops the observation long before complications   are likely to appear. This is the basis for their "vaccines are safe"   mantra but the long term and relatively unknown complications from vaccines   reveal that no vaccine is safe.

3. A vaccine "safety" study compares a new vaccine to a "placebo" to   determine the safety of the new vaccine. When we examine the study a little   more closely, we discover that the "placebo" is NOT a benign, inert
substance, such as saline or water. The "placebo" is another vaccine with a   "known safety profile." So if the new vaccine has the same side effects as   the "placebo", the new vaccine is called "safe."

4. Vaccines are said to confer protection by causing the development of   antibodies. However, there are many references in CDC documents (the   Highest Authority in the land regarding vaccines) which reveal that
 antibodies don't necessarily protect us from infection. Here are a few   examples from medical journals and CDC documents:

Pertussis: "The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct   correlation between antibody response and protection against pertussis   disease." MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR-7, p.4

  H. Flu (HiB): "The antibody contribution to clinical protection is unknown."   ---HibTITER package insert
  "The precise level of antibody required for protection against HiB invasive   disease is not clearly established."
  http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hib.pdf.

Smallpox: "Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels of   protection, although this has not been validated in the field." JAMA June   9,1999, Vol. 281, No. 22, p.3132

5. We want to "believe" that if we receive a vaccine, we will be protected   from the infection. Several medical journal articles document that this is   not necessarily so. Here are a few examples:

 Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel    (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 5; Sep-Oct 2000)
 Pertussis in the Highly Vaccinated Population, The Netherlands   (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 4 July-Aug 2000)
 Pertussis in North-West Western Australia in 1999; all vaccinated.   (Communicable Diseases Intelligence 2000 Vol 2  4 No 12)

The debate surrounding the use of vaccines goes back and forth with "data"   and "studies" used to support both sides. But the bottom line is this:

Vaccination has been "accepted" as safe, effective and protective for   nearly 200 years. It is a "sacred cow" and with all "sacred cows", people   react with a visceral response, when someone suggests that the "cow" should   be "sacrificed". There are many examples of this over the centuries:   Copernicus who insisted that the Sun is the Center of the solar system and   Semmelweiss who showed that doctors performing hand washing saved women's   lives. Both men were ridiculed in their day. It is heresy to suggest that   the "status quo" is wrong. 

Statistics have shown that when presented with a new, different,   challenging idea, 96% of people will spend their time and energy defending   their current beliefs and only 4% will embrace the idea as something to
seriously consider.

When you research vaccinations and the vaccine industry, you will find that   your  "foundational beliefs" regarding vaccines will be seriously   challenged. When you begin to study the negative effects--both actual and
theoretical--that vaccines have on the immune system, you will likely   become part of the 4% who understand that "truth" about vaccines is not   really "The Truth" and that the mandatory vaccination policies currently
being enforced must be changed.
  
 reprinted with kind permission from Dr. Sherri Tenpenny 
 New Medical Awareness Seminars   www.drtenpenny.com  

************************

Canine Vaccine Survey

 
It is well known that there are risks associated with vaccination of dogs, just as there are risks for humans. The trouble is, no one has adequately quantified the risks. Is it true that only a tiny minority of dogs suffer adverse reactions to vaccines, or is the problem more common? And what is a vaccine reaction? Is it something that happens immediately after the jab, or can you expect a reaction to manifest weeks or months later?

Christopher Day, Honorary Secretary of the British Homoeopathic Veterinary Association, told us that, in his experience, where the start date of a dog's illness is known, a high percentage (around 80%) begin within three months of vaccination.

Canine Health Concern tested this observation and has analyzed the histories of over 3,800 dogs post vaccination. This critical mass, by any standards, is a very high number from which to draw valid statistical conclusions. Most commercial scientific research involves significantly fewer dogs (tending to base their conclusions on data involving a couple of litters of puppies, if that). We have been able to show a definite statistical correlation between a vaccine event and the onset of a number of specific illnesses. Our published conclusions have satisfied mathematical or inferential statistical tests at a level of confidence of 99% or better.

Overall, we found that 66% per cent of all sick dogs start being sick within three months of vaccination, which is considerably more than double the expected rate of illness. Worse, 49% of all illnesses reported in the survey occurred within 30 days of vaccination. This is over five times the expected percentage if vaccination had no bearing on subsequent illness. More damning still, 29% of sick dogs first became sick within seven days of their vaccine jab. This means that a dog is 13 times more likely to become ill within seven days of vaccination than at any other time.

In the study, 69.2% of allergic dogs first became allergic within three months of being vaccinated - more than double the expected number. 55.8% of dogs with autoimmune disease developed the condition within three months of being vaccinated - again, more than twice the expected figure. Of dogs with colitis, 65.9% developed the complaint within three months of being vaccinated and, of dogs with dry eye/conjunctivitis, 70.2% developed their conditions within three months - both nearly three times higher than expected. 73.1% of dogs with epilepsy first became epileptic within three months of vaccination. As 2% of all dogs in the UK are epileptic, vaccines are clearly causing horrendous damage. For statisticians, our Chi score for epilepsy is 96: any Chi test statistic higher than twelve gives a 95% confidence about the conclusions. Without doubt, then, the majority of epileptic dogs in our survey are vaccine damaged.

But perhaps most astonishing is the fact that a majority of dogs (64.9%) with behavioral problems appear to have developed their difficulties within three months of vaccination. Similarly, 72.5% per cent of dogs with nervous or worrying dispositions became nervous within three months of their jabs (with a Chi score of 112), and 73.1% per cent of dogs with short attention spans lost their attentiveness within three months of vaccination.

All of our evidence ties in with research in the human field, and a growing body of veterinary research, which says that vaccines cause allergies, hypersensitivity reactions, autoimmune disease, encephalitis, epilepsy, personality changes and brain damage.

The CHC results are statistically very significant, and carry with them very high statistical certainty. This means that the evidence is strong that the above diseases can be triggered or caused by vaccination.

Other diseases that were highly represented within three months post vaccination included cancer (35.1%) , chorea (81%), encephalitis (78.6%), heart conditions (39.2%), kidney damage (53.7%), liver damage/failure (61.5%), paralysis of the rear end (69.2%), and pancreas problems (54.2%).

Research conducted at Purdue University shows routinely vaccinated dogs developing auto antibodies to a vast range of normal canine biochemicals - which corroborates our findings.

Interestingly, our study showed that arthritis and Chronic Destructive Reticulo Myelopathy (CDRM - a degenerative disease affecting myelin in the spinal cord) occur in clusters nine months after vaccination, suggesting that the damage from vaccines resulting in these two diseases takes longer to develop or to show their symptoms.

Many contend that vaccines are a necessary evil; that we need them to protect our dogs against certain deadly canine diseases. However, our survey found that high percentages of dogs are developing the diseases we vaccinate against, soon after vaccination.

Of dogs with hepatitis, 64% contracted it within three months of being vaccinated and, of those with parainfluenza, 50% developed it within three months of their shots. Also, 69% of dogs with parvovirus, 56% of dogs with distemper, and every single dog with leptospirosis in the survey contracted the diseases within three months of vaccination.

Our figures support the view that vaccines don't confer guaranteed immunity and may actually cause the diseases they're designed to prevent. Our figures appear to demonstrate that vaccines cause illness in one in every  hundred dogs - and this is a conservative estimate.

For human beings, the  World Health Organization considers a reaction of one in 10,000 unacceptable. Surely the same statistics apply to dogs. Worse - and bordering on corporate dog slaughter - is the fact that we are urged to vaccinate companion animals every year. There is no scientific justification for this; it is a crime.
This research is ongoing. For further details or to participate, contact  Canine Health Concern @ Box 6943, Forfar, Angus DD8 3WG, Scotland or,
for email, click on my name below. Thank you.  http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/
reprinted with kind permission from   Catherine O¹Driscoll Canine Health Concern
 
******************************

Vaccination

Catherine O'Driscoll
http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/

Vaccines are the basis of the medical and veterinary medical future, the belief being that, if a vaccine can be made to every disease, then all disease can be prevented. This presupposes that

1) disease attacks from outside and has nothing whatsoever to do with the person or animal themself;

2) that vaccines actually always protect one hundred per cent; and

3) that vaccines themselves are only beneficial and cannot cause harm. None of these are true.

There is a growing list of research into and information on the problems that can be caused by vaccines. In the U.K. Canine Health Concern has been instrumental in bringing this subject into the public domain and the following article is one written by CHC founder Catherine O'Driscoll as a hand-out to vets at a seminar at which she was a speaker.

Annual Vaccination - a client's perspective
There has been much debate on the subject of annual pet vaccination, chiefly in response to concerns voiced by pet owners. On the whole, the veterinary profession in the UK has defended annual vaccination, on the basis of information largely supplied by the pharmaceutical industry. Yet there are wider issues to consider. It is acknowledged that certain individuals are genetically predisposed to suffer adverse reactions to vaccines. According to the SARSS figures, these reactions are extremely rare. It is my contention that these reactions are more common than we realise. The veterinary profession is largely unaware of the range of side-effects vaccines can stimulate, and consequently they go unreported. A radical rethink of the vaccination programme is necessary - immunisation programmes need not be abandoned, but reassessed.

The first subject for assessment is whether all animals should be vaccinated, irrespective of their genetic status. The Merck Manual, used as a reference source for the medical community, states, unequivocally, that "patients with B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live virus vaccines. Features of B cell deficiencies include respiratory or food allergies; features of T cell deficiencies include heart disease; and features of combined T and B cell deficiencies include dermatitis, neurological deterioration and eczema. Children with known or suspected immunodeficiency diseases should not receive any live virus vaccines, since they could initiate a severe or fatal infection.

"Children receiving immunosuppressive agents (corticosteroids, antimetabolites, alkylating compounds, radiation) may have aberrant responses to active immunisation procedures. Children with fluctuating or progressive neurologic diseases should not be immunised until their condition has been stabilised for at least one year."

Although this is written for humans, one must ask whether dogs, cats and horses have B cells and T cells, and B and T cell immunodeficiencies? Of course they do, meaning that animals with epilepsy and other neurologic conditions, skin disease, allergies, heart disease . . . in fact, any inflammatory or immune-mediated condition, should not be given live vaccines as the vaccine could initiate a severe or fatal infection.

Similarly, as stipulated on all vaccine data sheets, only healthy animals should be vaccinated. The term 'healthy' is rather subjective, however. For example, encephalitis is an acknowledged vaccine reaction (Merck). Epilepsy, characterised by inflammation of the brain and CNS (central nervous system), and lesions in the brain and CNS, is known to be a symptom that may occur as a result of encephalitis. Animals which become epileptic shortly after vaccination might therefore legitimately be suspected as having had an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Having shown this predisposition, it would be safer not to re-vaccinate epileptic dogs. Observance in your own practice will show that epileptic dogs which have been stabilised often revert to the condition when re-vaccinated.

Animals from families that are known to suffer allergic/inflammatory conditions are at most risk from live vaccines. Anaphylactic shock is the most well-known consequence, but other consequences are possible, namely types I, II, III and IV hypersensitivity reactions, which include tissue injury, arthritis, lupus, and kidney and liver damage. Frick and Brooks, in 1983, demonstrated that dogs predisposed to develop atopic dermatitis did not do so if vaccinated after being exposed to an allergen, but did develop the condition when they were vaccinated first and then exposed to an allergen. Expressed another way, vaccines sensitise genetically susceptible organisms.

Vaccines are also acknowledged to cause T cell immunodeficiencies. Around 60% of T cells are in the skin - which explains why it should be that a high proportion (61.2%) of dogs with skin disease in the CHC vaccine survey first developed the condition within three months of being vaccinated. Similarly, arthritis can be an inflammatory as well as a non-inflammatory condition. The New England Journal of Medicine (vol 313, 1985) reported that it is often possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella, many months after vaccination. The report also tells of isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination. Stratton Vaccines 97 carries case reports linking tetanus and diphtheria vaccines with arthritis and skin eruptions.

The US National Academy of Sciences IOM report concluded that the measles vaccine can cause death from measles-vaccine-strain infection, thrombocytopenia, fatal shock and arthritis. A paper appearing in the British Veterinary Journal in May 1995, by Bell, Carter, May and Bennet, tells us that dogs with rheumatoid arthritis showed higher anti-heat shock proteins (HSP) antibody levels in both their sera and synovial fluids, compared to control dogs. The paper states that there was a significant correlation between anti-HSP65 and antibodies to the canine distemper virus, and discussed the relevance of the presence of canine distemper virus within the joint.

As it has been demonstrated that a wide range of human vaccines can stimulate arthritis, it makes sense to consider, also, that canine vaccines might also stimulate this condition. A team at Purdue University under the direction of Larry Glickman VDM, DrPh, and Dr Harm GogenEsch, studied the effects of routinely used vaccination protocol on the immune and endocrine system of Beagles. Their paper was presented at the International Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference in 1997. One control group was not vaccinated and the other group was vaccinated with a commercial multivalent vaccine at 8, 10, 12, 16 and 20 weeks of age, and with a rabies vaccine at 16 weeks of age. The vaccinated group developed significant levels of autoantibodies against fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, Cytochrome C, transferring, cardiolipin and collagen.

Dr La Rosa of the Hayward Foundation suggested that something in the vaccine could be one of the etiologies (in the genetically susceptible dog) of such diseases as cardiomyopathy, lupus, erythematosus, glomerulonephritis, etc.". Further research is indicated, but these results should concern us. Laminin, as an example, coats kidney cells. If autoantibodies are being produced against laminin, then one would not be surprised if kidney damage followed a vaccine event. Similarly, if vaccines stimulate the production of autoantibodies to DNA, then the vaccine may well be introducing genetic defects.

How many veterinarians think to report a suspected adverse reaction if an animal develops pancreatitis, arthritis, ataxia, skin disease, epilepsy, behavioural problems, allergies, colitis, etc., post-vaccination? And are you looking only for the reaction within a few days of a vaccine event? If anaphylactic shock is the only condition reported, all of these known vaccine-associated conditions are slipping through the net. It should be borne in mind that serum reactions are known to develop sometime after administration, and that some vaccine components are not easily metabolised, remaining in the system for some considerable time.

Ask yourself, also, whether vaccine industry trials are of sufficient duration. Is one year long enough to measure the effect of repeated vaccination over the lifetime of an animal? We find that animals can react to vaccines at any age. They might be vaccinated for many years, without ill-effect, and then suffer an adverse reaction. This has less to do with the animal's genes (although we do know that T cells can be disrupted by vaccines), but to do with environmental factors.

For example, pantothenic acid (vitamin B5) is vital for the production of anti-stress hormones. In a study conducted by Sheffey et al, puppies starved of vitamin B5, and then vaccinated, all died. B5 is a highly unstable vitamin, easily destroyed by heating and freezing. Without B5 in the diet, which is vital for the production of anti-stress hormones, an organism is less able to survive the vaccine challenge.

Similarly, insufficient vitamin C and zinc in a diet can render an organism unable to deal with stress. Vaccines, of course, are designed to stress the body so that it mounts an immune response and develops antibodies against a pathogen.

We appreciate that the financial implication of this debate could be alarming for the veterinary profession, and even more alarming for the vaccine industry. However, there are many options available for the veterinary profession to consider. The first option is to conduct blood tests to assess the presence of circulating antibodies. Vaccine companies have been using this measure as a marketing tool for decades. Now that they run the risk of losing booster income, however, they have announced that circulating antibodies are no measure of immunity. This is true, of course, but titre testing does show that the organism has been exposed to the virus without succumbing to it, and represents a safer alternative to over-vaccination.

Dr Ronald D Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University, for example, contends that immunity to a virus persists for years or the lifetime of a host. His own dogs are vaccinated as puppies only. As many of you are aware, advice emerging from America is that re-vaccination should occur only every three years, but only if there is a disease risk in the area, only if titre tests show it to be necessary, and not in geriatric or unhealthy animals.

Pet owners are becoming more informed about the vaccine issue, and many are choosing not to vaccinate at all. This is not a situation I would like to see occur. My own research indicates that the homoeopathic alternative is a valid one, but I acknowledge that there are only a few laboratory tests to prove its efficacy (although there are some!). And so it seems that the best option would be for the profession to examine the frequency at which vaccines are administered, and become more aware of contra-indications. I believe that, from an income perspective, this would represent the best option for vets. Consultation fees are still payable if animals are titre tested rather than boosted.

Your clients are, in increasing numbers, seeking the advice of vets who take their concerns seriously, and abandoning those who are unable to examine the evidence openly. I already know of vets who have adopted this option and reaping the rewards. Finally, it is the greatest wish of many of your clients that veterinarians understand the issues from sources other than the vaccine industry. I repeat, we are not asking you to abandon vaccines altogether, but to examine the options that might lead to a better solution for you, your clients, and their pets.

Catherine O'Driscoll Canine Health Concern  PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD
 reprinted with kind permission form Catherine O'Driscoll
http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/
**************************

Dr Jean Dodds Vaccination Schedule

Re-Vaccination:
Vaccination for Previously
 Vaccinated Dogs and Older Puppies
 Titers:
What do they tell us?		 Titers and Canine
Vaccination Decisions

 Vaccinosis

The Belief in Vaccines
 Shirleys Wellness Cafe
 Vaccine Ingredients
Vaccine Controversy and Guidelines
 Are They Safe for Our Animals The Vaccine Controversy
 What is Coming Through The Needle
Video of Vaccine Reactions
Puppy and Dog Vaccinations
 About Vaccines
 Vaccine Dangers
Vaccination Decisions
 The Future of Vaccines
 Pet Prescription Fact Sheet
 Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines


Vaccine Questions Answered
 Vaccination of Companion Animals
 What to do if You Suspect an Adverse Reaction
 Monitoring Suspected Adverse Reactions in Animal Medicines
How Does an Animal Medicine Get to The Market
 New Veterinary Guidlines for Canine Vaccination (oct 2007)




Join
Vaccination Alternative Discussion Yahoo Group

join
Truth About Vaccines

chloebutton  talabutton  
The above information is simply informational. It's intent is not to replace the advice of a veterinarian nor to assist you in making a diagnosis of your pet. Please consult with your own veterinarian for confirmation of any diagnosis. Your pets life may depend on it.