dedicated to promoting and preserving the breed through responsible ownership, breeding and training


Contact PCOC
Email Address

Breed Education

Canine Vaccinations: Papers/Articles from Various Sources

compiled by Bev Carter, Damascusroad

Human beings don't need vaccinations every year of their life starting in infancy ¾ why do dogs? If one smallpox or polio vaccination in a lifetime is sufficient for humans, why isn't one rabies or distemper vaccination in a lifetime sufficient for dog? The average expected lifespan of a dog is a whole lot shorter than a human, after all! Is it wise and, more importantly, safe to give multiple viruses in a single vaccination? or to give the same size dosage to a Pomeranian and a Newfoundland dog? Do the risks of vaccinations outweigh the benefits? Is a dog more likely to die from a vaccination than from the disease it is intended to protect the dog against?

These are questions that many of us wonder about. Until the advent and explosion of the internet, however, it was difficult to find much scientific or general information about the subject ¾ unless I suppose you happened to be a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, which most of us aren't, and knew exactly where to look.

Now much information can be found on the internet to shed light on this subject. The following are just a few of the papers I found. Since there is much more information on vaccinations of humans than of dogs, I've also included some of those ¾ seems to me that if its reasonable to use conclusions about animal testing/observation to say something about expected outcomes for humans, then the reverse should also apply.

   The source of each paper/article, including website address where applicable, is at the end of each article. Most, but not all, articles/papers are reproduced in their entirety. Where parts are omitted, this is indicated by the insertion of three periods (i.e.,  ". . ."). Footnotes, when they are available, appear at the end of each paper/article. Often you'll find other interesting information at the websites where this information was obtained. 

The whole issue of vaccinations has become quite contentious and controversial over the last few years. In selecting papers to include on the website, I have tried to choose ones from both sides of the ongoing debate. For obvious reasons, material by the manufacturers of vaccines have not be included here. If you have, or know of, other papers you would like to see here, please pass them along to me and I'll put them up as soon as I can. Contact information follows the papers.


Dr.Richard Pitcairn Discusses Chronic Disease Caused by Vaccines

by Laura Wallingford

In this article we begin to address the subject of vaccinosis, the general name for chronic disease caused by vaccines. For some readers the very idea that vaccines are anything but wonderful and life-saving may come as a surprise, and it's not a very pleasant one. After all, the general population pictures vaccines as one of modern medicine's best and brightest moments, saving literally millions from the scourge of diseases like poliomyelitis and smallpox.

However, there is a great deal of statistical evidence to show that the incidence of these and other major communicable diseases was on the decline before the vaccine programs were enforced. Improvements in sanitation as well as nutritional teachings seem to be the obvious reason for the decline, since other communicable diseases, for which no vaccines were available, were declining, and continued to decline, at the same time.

There are many different aspects of the subject of vaccinosis which we will explore on a regular basis in Wolf Clan, such as how vaccines work, whether they're safe, whether they're even effective, and what evidence there is for the growing belief that what vaccines have done is actually convert what is in nature an acute viral disease into a chronic disease never before seen.

Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., Ph.D., author of Dr. Pictorial’s Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats, is a renowned homeopathic veterinarian practicing in Eugene, Oregon. Dr. Pitcairn received his Ph.D. when he returned to school after becoming a veterinarian in order to study veterinary immunology, virology and biochemistry. This return to school was prompted by his search for basic answers about the body's ability to defend and heal itself.

While Dr. Pitcairn began homeopathic practice without considering vaccination as a factor of any special importance, he found a troubling number of cases in which the appropriately chosen homeopathic remedy, based on the symptoms presented, would improve but not cure the case. After being frustrated by the lack of a definitive cure in these cases for some period of time, he began to believe that the cases represented a chronic state of illness induced by vaccination. His intuition proved to be correct when a remedy selected solely on the rubric (symptom ) "Vaccination, effects of," rather than the seemingly correct remedy based on the total symptom picture, would in fact cure or greatly improve the case. The remedy Thuja, one of about forty remedies listed under that rubric, has proven to be one of the most important remedies for vaccine related disease.

Wolf Clan spoke with Dr. Pitcairn this past October about the question of vaccinosis. Some of his comments, from both that interview as well as the text of his address on this question in 1993 before the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association, follow.

"My understanding of the importance of vaccination in animal diseases gradually developed over several years. In case after case, progress was dependent on the use of Thuja, the anti-vaccine remedy. Though this was not necessarily the final remedy for these patients, it seemed to be a necessary prescription. It is as if vaccinations have the ability to block response to a constitutional remedy, an obstacle that must be dealt with before cure can be underway. Sometimes, when the picture is muddled, perhaps because of prior treatment with allopathic drugs, Thuja can bring clarity into the situation.

"This does not mean that in every case of previously vaccinated animals (which is nearly all animals, since vacciin equal indicator of effectiveness. There is not really a system for tabulating the incidence of the common diseases of dogs and cats. There are figures for some of the reportable diseases of livestock, but the rapid turnover of these animals makes long-term studies almost impossible. However, since there are statistics for the common human diseases, we can reverse the process we usually find ourselves using as veterinarians: instead of using animals to study human disease, we can use human disease to answer our questions about animals.

"Looking at the statistics available for smallpox, polio, measles, and pertussis (whooping cough), we find that besides the fact that the incidence of these diseases was already declining before vaccination programs were enforced, the incidence actually increased once these programs were instituted. Some countries, looking at statistics showing this lack of efficacy and increase in disease incidence, together with deaths resulting from reactions to the vaccination, have terminated compulsory vaccination. When Australia did so in the case of the smallpox vaccine, smallpox virtually disappeared in that country (three cases in fifteen years). In the case of the polio vaccine, many European countries refused to systematically inoculate their citizens, yet polio epidemics also ended in these countries as well.

"Measles is an especially interesting disease to look at because of its close similarity to canine distemper. The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, even though in the United States and England a greater than 95% decline in the measles death rate had already occurred between 1915 and 1958. Also, the death rate from measles in the mid-1970s (post-vaccine) was exactly the same is it was in the early 1960s (pre-vaccine). A study by the World Health Organization concludes that chances are 14 times greater that measles will be contracted by those vaccinated against the disease than by those who have not been vaccinated. The federal government reported in 1985 that 80% of the 1,984 cases of measles occurred in people who had been properly vaccinated. More recently, outbreaks have continued to occur throughout the country, sometimes among 100% vaccinated populations.

"One particularly harmful effect of this continued use of a useless vaccine is that the disease now affects primarily a different age group. The peak incidence of measles no longer occurs in children, but in adolescents and young adults. As a result the risk of complications of pneumonia and liver abnormality have increased. Also, before the vaccine was introduced, it was extremely rare for an infant to contract measles. However, by 1993 more than 25% of all measles cases were occurring in babies under one year of age. The Centers for Disease Control anticipates a worsening of this situation and attributes it to the growing number of mothers who were vaccinated during the last 30 years, therefore passing on no natural immunity to their children.

"In the process of training as a doctor or veterinarian, one goes in as a relatively naive young person. The conditioning is heavy; it costs a lot of money, and of course you want to do well. Students are told how wonderful vaccines are, and they don't really question it; they accept as a fact that they're these great boons to health, are never harmful, and have saved a lot of lives—it's black and white. The companies making the vaccines have great amounts of money and influence to campaign and advertise. You have a situation on the one hand where doctors are conditioned to accept, and on the other hand companies powerful enough to squelch negative comment.

"I realize the topic is a controversial one, but I have observed that if one can look at the question with an open mind, one will be surprised at the amount of evidence that is actually there. I believe that the attitudes and feelings people now have about vaccinations are the same ones people used to have about bleedings. The prominent doctors, all the most important authorities, agreed they were absolutely beneficial. Anyone who dared to question that assumption was ridiculed. Now we look back on that practice with amazement that so many people bought into the idea for so long that bleedings were helpful and good. I trust we will be doing the same thing someday when we look back at the practice of vaccination.

— by Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., Ph.D.

 Animal Natural Health Center, Eugene Oregon

A New Look at the Vaccine Question

by Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., Ph.D., Animal Natural Health Center, Eugene Oregon

What we are going to do, in this presentation, is look at the question of vaccinations in four aspects. First, I want to tell you how my clinical experience led me to understand that vaccination was important, in a causative sense, in many of my cases. Second, we will look at the homeopathic perspective on chronic vaccine disease, or vaccinosis. Third, I wish to present some ideas on how vaccinosis may manifest in the dog and cat. Fourth, we will consider the question of the efficacy of vaccinations — do they really do what they are purported to do?

We are looking at this question, also, from my perspective as a practitioner of homeopathic medicine, not from the allopathic model that assumes vaccines to be useful and safe with occasional aberrations. Most of us are aware that vaccine-caused diseases — such as immune disorders, bleeding problems, tumor formation — are recently receiving attention from the allopathic community. However, the premise that these are exceptions to a basically safe procedure is not the same viewpoint as that which I am presenting to you today.


My understanding of the importance of vaccination in animal diseases gradually developed over several years. I began homeopathic practice without considering vaccination as a factor of special importance. So, what I did was to consider the totality of symptoms in the case and choose the remedy which seemed to be the similimum based on that picture. This is classical homeopathic procedure and, ordinarily, one which would be effective. However, there were a significant number of cases that would not react curatively. Though there was improvement in some respects, nonetheless, a cure was not forthcoming. Eventually, through following the case over a period of time, the image of the remedy Thuya would emerge — which when administered would resolve the case which had been so difficult.

What, then, is the significance of Thuya as a remedy? Thuya is the most important remedy to be used for that state induced by vaccination. Other remedies noted to have this correspondence are Sulphur, Mezereum, Malandrinum, Sarsaparilla, Carcinosin, and Silicea among others. Malandrinum and Carcinosin are interesting remedies because both are nosodes — the former from horses with "grease heel" and the latter from a cancerous discharge from a human being. Thuya, Mezereum, and Sarsaparilla are vegetable remedies — Thuya from the Arbor vitae tree, Mezereum is known as Spurge olive, and Sarsaparilla an herbal medicine. Sulphur, the element and Silicea, which is silicon dioxide or quartz are mineral remedies. Thus we have representations from all the major remedy classes. It gradually dawned on me that the underlying problem in some of my difficult cases was a state of illness that had been induced by vaccination. So, rather than simply use a totality of symptoms to choose my prescription, I found it more effective to emphasize the rubric "Vaccination, effects of" almost to the exclusion of other remedies. In this way, I was able to make progress in some very frustrating clinical situations.

Let me give you a few recent cases that demonstrate the usefulness of Thuya.

Case 1: Jack: ten month old DSH, male cat. Ill since first obtained as a stray kitten about 12 weeks old. Symptoms primarily fever, diarrhea and vomiting. Associated symptoms were red gums, retained baby teeth, offensive breath, thirst, swollen cervical lymph nodes, craving for strange foods (cinnamon rolls, persimmons), blood at end of penis, licking genitals, dragging bottom on floor, and very strong-smelling urine. When neutered at age seven months, he developed fever, fear of noise, trembling, warm head, dilated pupils, pale gums with red line along the teeth, loss of appetite, craving for plastic, cardboard boxes and house plants, extraordinary hysterical fear on being allowed outside, dry stools with constipation, prolapsed third eyelids, crying in pain before passing a fluid stool, and vomiting any water drunk. Several homeopathic remedies were given during this illness with sometimes definite improvement, almost to normal. However, the condition always recurred and the previous remedy would then not be effective. Based on the symptoms of chronic diarrhea of offensive stools, with lots of gas causing sputtering sounding stool, and crying in pain before urinating — this cat was given Thuya 30C. Client reported almost immediate improvement with return to "97% himself" within a few hours. He has continued to be free of most of these symptoms since this one treatment with Thuya.

Case 2: Jerri, 3 and 1/2 year old mixed chow dog. Afflicted with sarcoptic mange and recurrent ear infections for 2 and 1/2 years. Treated allopathically without resolution of the problem (Mitaban and Paramine dips, immune system stimulants, bacterial extracts, etc.). Skin condition characterized by itching, hair loss, thickened dark skin, red irritated skin involving primarily the feet, lower legs, around the eyes, abdomen, top of the head, inside both ears. Patient has also become timid & cautious with the other dogs. Condition markedly ameliorated by a dose of Thuya 1M with regrowth of hair, normalization of appearance of the skin, reduction of ear inflammation, and return of normal personality and behavior.

Condition recurred, in milder form, one year later (after use of homeopathic nosodes for disease protection) and was resolved by one dose of Thuya 10M.

Case 3: Monster, 7 year old DSH, tiger stripe. Chronic diarrhea for 1 and 1/2 years with 1- 3 bowel movements a day. Very offensive diarrhea with a lot of gas being passed. Thuya 200C, one dose, resulted in marked improvement, with a perfectly formed stool within three weeks.

Case 4: Mei-Ling: six months old, female Sharpei dog imported to Brazil from Kansas. Never well since first obtained, now is diagnosed with a seborrhea (biopsy) and skin fungal infection. The skin is dark, itchy, with red, scaly spots. These lesions spread rapidly over most of the body. Client says the puppy was normal until receiving "puppy shots". She began to lose hair all over, especially from flanks and front legs and on the back near the tail. Treated with oral anti-fungal drug and two ointments without improvement. No effect from treatment with Sulfur 6X; temporary improvement with Rhus toxicodendron 200; rapid recovery after Thuya 200. Change for the better was very rapid with hair growing in faster than ever seen before with this dog. Another dose of Thuya 200 needed three months later, after exposure to plaster and chemicals used in refinishing a room. Other remedies were needed, months later, for some lingering minor symptoms, but Thuya clearly turned this case around.

You can see from these cases that progress was dependent on use of Thuya, the anti-vaccine remedy. Though this was not necessarily the final remedy for these patients, it seemed to be a necessary prescription. It is as if vaccinations have the ability to block response to a constitutional remedy, an obstacle that must be dealt with before cure can be underway.

Homeopathic Discovery of Vaccinosis

Of course, this "discovery", which was actually more the re-invention of the wheel, prompted me to search the homeopathic literature for information about the relation of vaccination to disease. The most important source on this phenomenon is the book

Vaccinosis and Its Cure by Thuja with Remarks on Homeoprophylaxis by J. Compton Burnett, M.D. The first edition of this book appeared in London in March 1884.

It is here that vaccination is first clearly described as a chronic disease. The effect of vaccination, besides the physical effects of stimulating an antibody response, is to establish a chronic disease — one that is long-lasting, indeed, in some cases a life-long, condition.

Burnett refers to the chronic disease that results from vaccination by the name Vaccinosis. So, we will adhere, in this discussion, to the same convention. Vaccinosis is to be understood as the disturbance of the vital force by vaccination that results in mental, emotional, and physical changes that can, in some cases, be a permanent condition.

Burnett gives several cases that demonstrate this. Several of them are in infants and children, showing the profound effects of vaccination on the growing organism. However, I wish to emphasize the long-standing effects of vaccination so will mention a couple of example cases to you.

Case 1: A woman, of about age 50, suffered greatly for 20 years from a condition of terrible pain in the eyes. The attacks of pain were so severe, that she would be confined to bed for days at a time and for some periods as long as six weeks. In spite of many examinations and treatments by allopathic doctors, no relief was forthcoming. The patient was confined to a darkened room, her head bound, and crying from the pain. These attacks were always preceded by what seemed to be "flu" and the frequency of these episodes was such that she was confined to her room about half of every year.

As this patient had been extensively vaccinated, the use of Thuya as a remedy was used by Burnett. Thuya, has a type of cephalgia similar to that described by the patient and, indeed, use of Thuya 30C successfully resolved the condition in six weeks. A follow-up in one year showed that the cure held.

Case 2: A young woman, 19 years of age, suffered from severe headaches for nine years. The attacks were characterized by a pain in the back of the head as if it were being squeezed in a vice with throbbing of the head as if it would burst. These attacks occurred once or twice a week. Associated symptoms were habitual constipation, poor appetite, a tendency towards styes, eruption of boils, cold feet, easily made motion-sick, tendency to faint, skin sensitive to wind which become rough with cracks forming in the lips. The patient had been vaccinated against smallpox at three months of age, seven years of age, and again at fourteen years. In spite of this vaccination, she had actually come down with smallpox at age 10! She was treated with Thuya, in low potency, over a period of several months and was eventually cured of her symptoms. A two year follow-up confirmed the stability of the cure.

Many other cases are described in Burnett’s little book. Lest you think that only head pain is the outcome of vaccinosis, let me hasten to give brief descriptions of some of the others.

• Wasting away (marasmus) of an infant being nursed by a recently vaccinated mother.

• Several cases of skin eruptions, pimples, ringworm.

• Enlarged cervical lymphatic glands and unhealthy lungs tending towards tuberculosis.

• Loss of hair, in patches, on the face of men.

• Unusual susceptibility to influenza and general ill-health.

• Facial acne and nasal dermatitis.

• Diseased finger-nails.

• Chronic vertigo.

• Paralysis and muscular weakness.

• Very painful spine, with weakness, inflammation, twitchings, etc.

• Hand cramps and enlargement of the spleen.

• Insufficient growth in children with paralysis on one-half of the face.

These cases and others, in subsequent books, began to present to the homeopathic community the nature of vaccinosis. Indeed, it was possible, from these cases for Burnett to declare vaccinosis a variant of the sycosis miasm. As you will already know, sycosis is characterized by affections of the skin, the lymphatics, the immune system, susceptibility to fungal infections, susceptibility to cold, damp weather, arthritis, affections of the blood, and many other symptoms of this sort. Most importantly, it is typical of the sycotic miasm, and therefore of vaccinosis, to develop growths of all types — cysts, polyps, warts, tumors and cancers.

Some of Burnett’s other books, especially Tumors of the Breast and their Treatment and Cure by Medicines, Curability of Tumors by Medicines, and Delicate, Backward, Puny and Stunted Children especially bring out some of the variety inherent in vaccinosis and the tremendous damage it can do once established.

One more thing I will mention before leaving the subject of Burnett’s work. This is his interesting observation that the person that is most susceptible to contracting the disease being vaccinated against is more likely to die when they do come in contact with it. In other words, rather than protecting some individuals as planned, it actually makes them more susceptible. The vaccination having created a chronic disease ahead of time, can predispose the patient to a more serious natural illness which combines with the established vaccinosis.

As we shall see later in this presentation, there is evidence that this is what has happened in vaccinated populations. Does this extend our understanding of vaccinosis? We can expand our definition to say that vaccinosis is the establishment of, instead of the acute natural disease, a chronic condition which now has the time to develop a multitude of manifestations not ordinarily seen. Another way of saying this is that the process of laboratory modification of a viral disease to make a vaccination strain is the conversion of the disease from acute to chronic. The virus has been changed so that its natural tendency to arouse a strong response it gone. Instead it can be introduced into the body in a form that does not elicit much of a reaction. The result is the establishment of a chronic disease that has never been seen before in clinical practice. To illustrate what I mean by this, I would like to briefly discuss aspects of three of these vaccine diseases — chronic canine distemper, chronic rabies, and chronic feline panleukopenia.

Chronic Canine Distemper

Canine distemper, a very old disease of dogs, is well known in its clinical manifestation. According to The Infectious Diseases of Domestic Animals,1 the major symptoms are:

• Watery discharge from eyes and nose.

• Conjunctivitis, with discharge (eventually purulent).

• Vomiting and diarrhea, loss of appetite.

• Watery feces, mixed with mucous, offensive and often bloody feces; intense malaise, loss of weight, and death.

• Severe, fetid diarrhea.

• Spasms, fits, epileptiform seizures.

• Paralysis.

• Eruption around the mouth where hair meets the naked skin of the lips.

• Swelling of the feet, red footpads.

• Pneumonia.

• Eruptions on the skin of pustules, on the abdomen, inside the thighs, and elsewhere.

• Emaciation.

What I am suggesting to you is that, because of repeated vaccination, the acute disease of canine distemper has changed form to appear as a variety of chronic diseases. In the table below, the acute form of the disease (on the left) has become the chronic (or new acute) disease on the right:

Acute Form of Canine Distemper Chronic/New Acute
Watery discharge of eyes and nose.  Tendency for watery fluid to drip from the nose.


Chronic conjunctivitis, eye discharge.


Vomiting, diarrhea and loss of appetite. Chronic gastritis, hepatitis, pancreatitis, appetite disorders.

Watery feces, mixed with mucous, offensive and often bloody feces; intense malaise, loss of weight, and death. 

Severe, fetid diarrhea.


Recurrent diarrhea.

Sensitivity to foods with resultant diarrhea.

Spasms, fits, epileptiform seizures.


Epilepsy; rear leg paralysis.


Eruption around the mouth where hair meets the naked skin of the lips.

Lip fold dermatitis.


Swelling of the feet, red footpads.

Habit of licking the feet; eruptions between the toes, inflammation and swelling of the toes & bottoms of the feet; interdigital dermatitis.



Kennel cough.

Chronic bronchitis.

Eruptions on the skin of pustules — on the abdomen, inside the thighs, and elsewhere.

Chronic skin eruptions involving abdomen, inside thighs, and generally lower half of the body.


Emaciation.  Failure to thrive; abnormally thin condition.

What I am suggesting here is that the original disease, Distemper, has been, for the most part, replaced by Distemper Vaccinosis, a chronic disease of great variety. This chronic disease also creates a susceptibility to new acute forms of distemper like parvovirus. Because by its nature, chronic disease is more developed than an acute disease, the many ramifications of this condition have been given new names from the mistaken idea that they are different and distinct diseases.

Chronic Rabies

Let’s now consider Rabies in the same way. Some of the symptoms of rabies are known to be (similar for dogs and cats)2,3:

• Restlessness, uneasiness, apprehensiveness and a developing viciousness.This is most apt to be manifested toward strangers.

• Dogs normally affectionate may hide away and shun company.

• Dogs normally independent may become unusually attentive and affectionate (an expression of anxiety).

• Desire to travel away from home for long distances.

• If restrained, it will chew viciously on metal chains or anything used to restrain or confine it.

• The dog may inflict severe bite wounds on itself.

• Strange cries and hoarse howls (partial paralysis of the vocal cords).

• No interest in food.

• Unable to swallow because of paralysis of muscles of deglutition.

• Eyes staring with dilation of the pupils.

• Unable to close the eyes; cornea becomes dry and dull.

• Hanging down of the lower jaw.

• Swallows pieces of wood, stones, its own fecal material and other foreign bodies.

• Destruction of blankets, towels, clothing.

• Convulsive seizures.

• Muscular incoordination.

• Agonizing pain and constriction in the throat; spasms of the throat.

• Increased sexual desire; satyriasis, nymphomania; attempted rape.

• Inflammation of the heart muscle; disturbed heart function, irregular rhythm, heart rate too slow or too fast; heart failure.

• Periods of excitement and jerky breathing; cluster breathing.


Now let’s consider how this acute disease has, through vaccination, become a variety of "new" ailments:

Acute Form of Rabies Chronic/New Acute

Restlessness, uneasiness, apprehensiveness and a developing viciousness. This is most apt to be manifested toward strangers.

Restless nature; suspicious of others, unfriendly to other dogs, vicious to other animals, desire to kill.

Aggression and mistrust of strangers, especially people in uniforms.

Dogs normally affectionate may hide away and shun company.

Change of behavior to aloofness; from affectionate to unaffectionate.

Dogs normally independent may become unusually attentive and affectionate.

Clingy behavior, fear to be left alone. Follows owner from room to room. Wants physical contact. 

Desire to travel away from home for long distances.

Tendency to escape confinement and to roam. 

If restrained, it will chew viciously on metal chains or anything that is used to restrain or confine it.  Attempt at restraint results in hysterical, violent behavior. Resistance can be so extreme as to cause self-injury. 

The dog may inflict severe bite wounds on itself.

Self-mutilation; tail-chewing, chewing off toes or a foot (seen in severe allergic or nervous diseases).

Strange cries and hoarse howls (partial paralysis of the vocal cords).

Changed voice; hoarseness.

Excessive tendency to bark or be vocal.

No interest in food.  Chronic poor appetite; very particular about food; finicky.

Unable to swallow because of paralysis of muscles of deglutition. Hanging down of the lower jaw.

Paralysis (or partial paralysis) of mouth, tongue or throat; sloppy eaters or drinkers; tendency to drool or lose saliva.

Eyes staring with dilation of the pupils.  Loss of sight, cataract formation, visual defects.

Unable to close the eyes; cornea becomes dry and dull.

Keratitis sicca, "dry eye".

Swallows pieces of wood, stones, its own fecal material and other foreign bodies.

Habit of eating wood, stones, sticks, earth.

Excessive desire to eat stool (their own or other animals).

Destruction of blankets, towels, clothing.  Destructive behavior and shredding of blankets or bedding.

Convulsive seizures.

Muscular incoordination.

Seizures, epilepsy, chorea, twitches, etc.


Agonizing pain and constriction in the throat; spasms of the throat.

Psychomotor seizure syndrome.

Increased sexual desire; satyriasis, nymphomania; attempted rape.

Increased sexual desire, even in neutered males; humping; sexual aggression.

Inflammation of the heart muscle; disturbed heart function, irregular rhythm, heart rate too slow or too fast; heart failure.

Irregular pulse; heart failure.

Periods of excitement and jerky breathing; cluster breathing.

"Reverse" sneezing attacks.

2 Ibid, pp. 771-772. 3 Colin Kaplan, ed.. 1977. Rabies — The Facts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 38-44.


These symptoms of rabies vaccinosis are not familiar to us because, until vaccines were widely employed, we never saw rabies in a chronic form in our patients. Even now, these effects of rabies’ vaccination are generally unrecognized even though follow-up of changes in dog temperaments and physical condition after rabies’ vaccination will readily confirm this.

Chronic Feline Panleukopenia

The third, and final, disease we are to consider is Feline Panleukopenia. The symptoms of this dread disease are:

• Lassitude.

• Inappetance.

• Fever.

• Rough, unkempt coat.

• Indifference to owner or surroundings.

• Rapid weight loss.

• Dehydration.

• Vomiting.

• Profuse, watery, diarrhea (often blood-tinged).

• Mucopurulent discharges from the eyes and nose.

The changes to a chronic disease condition are shown in this table:

Acute Form of Feline Panleukopenia Chronic/New Acute
Lassitude; indifference to owner or surroundings. Lazy cats, not active, lie around most of the time.
Inappetance. Appetite problems, finicky, not wanting to eat well.
Fever. Chronic fever, for weeks, with few symptoms except for cervical gland enlargements.
Rough, unkempt coat. Poor groomers (or cats that never groom).
Dehydration. Chronic dehydration leading to cystitis and bladder calculus formation; chronic interstitial nephritis.
Rapid weight loss.

Emaciation; thin, "skeletal" cats.


Vomiting; profuse, watery, diarrhea (often blood-tinged). Inflammatory bowel disease.
Mucopurulent discharges from the eyes and nose. Chronic upper respiratory infections; sinusitis.
4 Ibid, p. 858

Feline leukemia, in the primary stage, is characterized by fever, malaise, anorexia, lymphadenopathy, leukopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia.5 Thus, in many ways, chronic panleukopenia looks like feline leukemia. It is like the acute syndrome of panleukopenia stretched out in time to so that it becomes chronic.

Probably, by this point, many of you are wondering what I can mean about panleukopenia (or any of these diseases) becoming a chronic disease like feline leukemia. I am speaking from the homeopathic perspective that understands that every being, including viruses, have a vital force. This vital force, which is the life force or chi, is what is the energetic pattern that develops and maintains the physical form. It is a downstream flow of information from the energetic to the physical. When this physical aspect is changed or blocked, as happens when the chronic vaccine disease is established, then the life force behind the disease manifests itself in a different way. These new forms, we give new names.

We haven’t really eliminated anything by vaccination, we have just changed its shape. I picked these three diseases for discussion because of their importance to dogs and cats who have suffered from them for thousands of years. They would seem to have a susceptibility to these diseases that has never been satisfied. Now, with the extension of these diseases into a chronic form with vaccination, the influence of these diseases on the dog and cat species has never been so great as today.

Are Vaccines Effective?

The last thing I want to consider in this discussion is the larger question — are vaccines really effective? To answer this question is more difficult than it would seem at first. We don’t really have a system for tabulating the incidence of the common diseases of dogs and cats, for example. There are figures for some of the reportable diseases of livestock, but the rapid turnover of these animals makes long term studies almost impossible. However, what we can do is kind of a reverse process of what we usually find ourselves doing as veterinarians. Instead of using animals to study human disease, let’s use human disease to answer our question. There are statistics for the common human diseases and we can use these to answer our question about the efficacy of vaccinations.



Let’s start our evaluation with smallpox which was the disease for which Jenner developed his method of vaccination in 1796.6

There are two things of interest around this time of Jenner’s early work. First is that James Phipps, the eight-year-old boy initially vaccinated by Jenner in 1796, was re-vaccinated 20 times, and died at the age of twenty. Second, Jenner’s own son, who was also vaccinated more than once, died at the age of twenty-one. Both succumbed to tuberculosis, a condition that some researchers have linked to the smallpox vaccine. It is apparent that from the beginning, doctors were confused about the question of vaccine protection. They thought that because the specific syndrome of smallpox did not appear that the vaccine was effective. They did not see that the overall level of health of the boys receiving the vaccine was equally an indicator of vaccine effectiveness. Another thing of importance to understand in evaluating the significance of smallpox vaccination is that smallpox and other communicable diseases were declining before vaccination programs were enforced. This may be attributed to the sanitation reforms and nutritional teachings instituted around the mid-1800’s as much as to the vaccination programs as these other communicable diseases, for which there was no vaccination, were also declining at the same rate. The interesting thing, however, is that the incidence of smallpox actually increased once vaccination programs were instituted. In Jenner’s time, there were only a few hundred cases of smallpox in England. After more than fifteen years of mandatory vaccinations, in 1870 and 1871 alone more than 23,000 people died from the disease. Later, in Japan, nearly 29,000 people died in just seven years under a stringent compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination program.

This increase in smallpox deaths was associated with a noticeable lack of protection — not the best combination of events. For example, in Germany, over 124,000 people died of smallpox during the same epidemic. All had been vaccinated. Additionally, (unaltered) hospital records consistently show that about 90 percent of all smallpox cases occurred after the individual was vaccinated. This lack of efficacy and increase in disease incidence, while other communicable diseases were declining, led to the refusal of smallpox vaccination by some countries. This resulted in a drop of the incidence of the disease that is quite remarkable. In Australia, when two children died from their smallpox shots, the government terminated compulsory vaccinations. As a result, smallpox virtually disappeared in that country (three cases in fifteen years). When England began to reject vaccination, then the incidence of smallpox deaths decreased accordingly.7


This is another disease for which people assume that vaccination has made a great difference in incidence. However, let’s look more closely at the facts.8 From 1923 to 1953, before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the United States and England had already declined on its own by 47% and 55% respectively. Statistics show a similar decline in other European countries as well.9 When the vaccine became available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to systematically inoculate their citizens. Yet, polio epidemics also ended in these countries as well. Additionally, as with smallpox vaccine, the number of reported cases of polio following mass inoculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations.10 Though these facts are readily available, the mass vaccination against polio has continued with the result that most of the cases of this dread disease are now attributed to the vaccine. In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk testified that the live-virus vaccine, used almost exclusively in the United States since the early 1960’s, was "the principle if not the sole cause" of all reported polio cases in the United States since 1961.

The Federal Centers for Disease Control recently (Feb. 1992) admitted that the live-virus vaccine has become the dominant cause of polio in the United States today. According to CDC figures, 87% of all cases of polio between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine. More recently, from 1980 through 1989, every case of polio in the U.S. was caused by the vaccine. During this same time period, three of the five people that caught polio during foreign travel were previously vaccinated against the disease.


Measles is an especially interesting disease for us to look at because of its close similarity to canine distemper. The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, yet in the United States and England, from 1915 to 1958, a greater than 95 percent decline in the measles death rate had already occurred.12 In addition, the death rate from measles in the mid-1970’s (which was several years post-vaccine) remained exactly the same as in the early 1960’s (pre-vaccine), e.g., .03 deaths per 100,000. Once again, the efficacy of vaccination in prevention of this disease has not been established. According to a study conducted by the World Health Organization, chances are 14 times greater that measles will be contracted by those vaccinated against the disease than those who are left alone. According to Dr. Atkinson of the CDC, "measles transmission has been clearly documented among vaccinated persons. In some large outbreaks.... over 95 percent of cases have a history of vaccination..."

In addition, of all reported cases of measles in the U.S. in 1984, more than 58 percent of the school age children were "adequately" vaccinated.

In 1985, the federal government reported 1,984 non-preventable cases of measles. But 80 percent of these so-called "non-preventable" cases occurred in people who had been properly vaccinated. More recent outbreaks continue to occur throughout the country, sometimes among 100 percent vaccinated populations.

In spite of the evidence for lack of efficacy of this vaccine it is still strongly promoted. This continued use of a useless vaccine, however, is not without its price. It has been determined that the measles vaccine may cause ataxia, learning disability, retardation, aseptic meningitis, seizure disorders, paralysis and death. It has also been investigated as a possible cause of or cofactor for multiple sclerosis, Reye’s syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, blood clotting disorders, and juvenile-onset diabetes. Another additional harmful effect is that the disease has changed form, and now affects primarily a different age group. The peak incidence of measles no longer occurs in children, but in adolescents and young adults. The risk of complications of pneumonia (3%) and liver abnormality (20%) have increased as a result.

Also, before the vaccine was introduced, it was extremely rare for an infant to contract measles. However by 1993 more than 25 percent of all measles cases were occurring in babies under a year of age. CDC anticipates a worsening of this situation and attributes it to the growing number of mothers who were vaccinated during the last 30 years and therefore have no natural immunity to pass on to their children. The implications for our having changed the natural disease into this new form are immense.

Whooping Cough (Pertussis)14

Just as we have seen with the other diseases already discussed, the incidence and severity of whooping cough had begun to decline long before the pertussis vaccine was introduced in the 1940’s. From 1900 to 1935, in the United States and England, before the pertussis vaccine was introduced, the death rate from pertussis had already declined by 79 percent and 82 percent, respectively.15 However, once again, the usefulness of this vaccine is in doubt. Some studies indicate that the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine may be as low as 40-45 percent. Further evidence indicates that immunity is not sustained. During an epidemic in 1978, of 85 fully vaccinated children, 46 (54%) developed whooping cough.

During a ten month period in 1984, the state of Washington reported 162 cases. Of the cases aged 3 months to 6 years, 49% had been fully vaccinated against the disease. In the same year, of the 560 cases reported to CDC in the age bracket of seven months to six years with known vaccination status, 46 percent had received vaccine protection.16 (

In 1986, in Kansas, 1300 cases of pertussis were reported. Of the patients whose vaccination status was known, 90 percent were "adequately" vaccinated. As with measles vaccine, there are several known or suspected harmful effects from this vaccine. These included SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome — research shows that children die at a rate eight times greater than normal within three days after getting a DPT shot), encephalitis (the pertussis vaccine is used in animal experiments to help produce anaphylactic shock, and to cause an acute auto immune encephalomyelitis), retardation and learning disorders, fever as high as 106 degrees — with pain, swelling, diarrhea, projectile vomiting, excessive sleepiness, high-pitched screaming, inconsolable crying bouts, seizures, convulsions, collapse, and shock. In studies, approximately 1 in 200 children who received the full DPT series suffered severe reactions.

In the 20 months prior to July 31, 1992 — 250 deaths and 7,200 adverse reactions linked to whooping cough vaccinations had been reported to CDC. In addition, the US Public Health Service announced that as of Nov. 16, 1992, some 3,200 pertussis vaccine claims against the US government had been filed.


We have considered the vaccination question from several aspects. We have looked at the way in which I think that routine vaccinations can result in the production of chronic disease in animals and I have made some specific suggestions of the symptoms that result.

Also, we have considered the question of vaccine effectiveness with the surprising evidence that vaccines do not actually protect populations from disease — though they do seem to modify the pattern in which the acute disease manifests.

I realize that this topic is a controversial one and that many will disagree with my conclusions. However, what I have observed is that if one can look at this question with an open mind, one will be surprised at the amount of evidence that is actually there. If you look at the larger perspective of disease incidence (of any type) in the weeks and months following vaccination, you will soon see confirmations of what I am presenting to you today. And once this is seen, the way is open for you to question the whole edifice.


1 William Arthur Hagan, D.V.M., D.Sc.. and Dorsey William Bruner, B.S., D.V.M., Ph.D. 1961. The Infectious Diseases of Domestic Animals, fourth edition. Ithaca New York: Comstock Publishing Associates. pp. 833-834.

2,3 Ibid, pp. 771-772. 3 Colin Kaplan, ed.. 1977.  Rabies — The Facts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 38-44.

4 Ibid, p. 858..

5 Niels C. Pederson, D.V.M. and Bruce R. Madewell, V.M.D. 1980. Feline Leukemia Virus Disease Complex, Current Veterinary Therapy XII, Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. p. 404.

6 This information on smallpox statistics is taken, with permission, from Neil Z. Miller.1992.Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press.

7 Eleanor McBean. 1974.The Poisoned Needle. Mokelumne Hill, CA: Health Research. p. 142.

8 Neil Z. Miller. 1992. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press.

9 Michael Alderson. 1981. International Mortality Statistics: Facts on File, , Washington, DC.

10 Hannah Allen. 1985. Don’t Get Stuck: The Case Against Vaccinations. Oldsmar, FL: Natural Hygiene Press. 

11 Neil Z. Miller. 1992. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press. 

12 Michael Alderson. 1981. International Mortality Statistics: Facts on File, , Washington, DC. 

13 John H. Frank, Jr., MD et al. May 6-9, 1985. Measles Elimination — Final Impediments. 20th Immunization Conference Proceedings.

14 Neil Z. Miller. 1992. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press.15 Michael Alderson. 1981. International Mortality Statistics: Facts on File, , Washington, DC. 16 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. October 1985. 20th Immunization Conference Proceedings, Dallas, Texas, May 6-9, 1985.

— by Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., Ph.D.

 Animal Natural Health Center, Eugene Oregon

Other articles by Dr. Pitcairn can be found at:

Homeopathic Alternatives to Vaccines


    by Dr. Lorraine Day

Vaccines are injections of material that contains weakened amounts of the disease germ that they are meant to protect against. They are said to work by causing the formation of antibodies, which are proteins that defend the body from an invasion by harmful germs. Orthodox medicine contends that we can only be absolved from the peril of infection by vaccination, which involves injecting into the system infectious material which is supposed to confer lifelong immunity, hence the term "immunization."

Vaccinations are now mandatory in order for a student to enter school. Any child who is not vaccinated is not allowed into school with the reason given that that child will put all the other children at risk for disease. However, it is important to ask this question. If all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.

But, in fact, vaccinations don't work! They are not effective! They do not give immunity! In addition, they are very dangerous!

An alarming observation comes from a London practitioner of excellent reputation and long experience. Dr. Hurbert Snow, Senior Surgeon at the Cancer Hospital of London, voiced his concern, "In recent years many men and women in the prime of life dropped dead suddenly, often after attending a feast or a banquet. I am convinced that some 80% of these deaths are caused by the vaccinations they have undergone. They are well known to cause grave and permanent disease to the heart. The coroner always hushes it up as "natural causes."

Another practitioner, Dr. W. B. Clark of Indiana, says that "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."

Yet the government has mandated compulsory vaccinations!

Most people trust vaccines to be safe and effective. The government is mandating children to be vaccinated at earlier and earlier ages, when they are very fragile and far more vulnerable to the introduction of foreign materials into their tiny bodies.
The public and the medical profession have been totally convinced that it was the introduction of vaccinations that caused the decrease in the incidence of polio.

Polio is virtually non-existent in the United States today. However, there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. Before the Salk polio vaccine was introduced in 1953, the polio death rate in the United States had already declined by 47% on its own. It had also declined by 55% in England. Other European countries also showed a similar decline. When the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to inoculate their citizens. Yet polio epidemics also ended in those countries.

The number of reported cases of polio after mass inoculations with the vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations. And in many states the incidence of polio more than doubled after inoculations were introduced. In Rhode Island there was a 450 % increase, and in Massachusetts almost a 650 % increase in polio cases after the introduction of polio vaccinations.

After the vaccine was introduced, cases of polio were often reported under another name, aseptic meningitis, rather than as polio, even though they were counted as "polio" before the vaccine was introduced.

In 1976 Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed virus vaccine that was used throughout the 1950s testified that the live virus vaccine produced by Dr. Sabin, and which was used almost exclusively in the United States since the early 1960s, was the "principle if not sole cause" of all reported cases of polio in the United States since 1961. According to the Centers for Disease Control figures, 87% of all cases of polio in the United States between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine. It is now admitted that since 1979 virtually every case of polio in the United States has been CAUSED by the vaccine.

The same situation holds true for nearly all other diseases including diphtheria, measles, rubella, mumps and whooping cough. In virtually all of these diseases, the incidence was dropping dramatically before the introduction of the vaccine. And since the introduction of the vaccine, close to 100% of all cases of the disease are in individuals who have been vaccinated for that particular disease, proving clearly, that vaccinations are not effective and they often cause the very disease they are supposed to prevent.

It is not a mystery as to why vaccinations are not effective. First, the natural immunity mechanism in the human body is designed to work when the disease develops in its natural way. When the normal route of immune system stimulation is bypassed by injection of the microorganism (bacteria or virus) through the skin, then effective immunity against the disease does not develop. One obvious factor proving that vaccinations are not effective is that an individual has to keep getting booster shots. If a person develops polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough or any other contagious disease, he has virtual lifelong immunity from one episode of the disease. But when an individual is vaccinated, he must keep getting "booster" shots at regular intervals. The "booster" shots are "necessary" because --- vaccinations DON'T WORK! They are not effective! And neither are the "boosters." And the individual often succumbs to the very disease that he has been vaccinated to prevent, most often as a direct result of being vaccinated.

Now how about the safety of vaccines. Vaccines are grown in the laboratory in monkey kidney cells, in human cells which may be cancerous, in chick embryo and in guinea pig cells. The cells are nourished with the blood serum from calves, which may be contaminated with numerous diseases such as bovine leukemia virus, bovine AIDS virus, or other diseases that the animals may have. Chemicals such as aluminum, formaldehyde (a human carcinogen) and M.S.G are used in processing of the vaccines, and thiomerosal, a derivative of mercury and a deadly poison, is used as a preservative. These chemicals and potential diseases are all injected into your child's body or your body as part of the vaccine.

One of the earliest vaccines introduced for general use in the United States was the pertussis vaccine for whooping cough, which was put into general use during the 1940s. Autism, a form of childhood schizophrenia, characterized by mental retardation, muteness (an inability to speak) and lack of responsiveness to human contact, was not known or described until 1943, about the same time that vaccinations were introduced.

In addition, monitors placed on infants who have been vaccinated show severe alterations in breathing patterns after the DPT (Diphtheria/Pertussis/Tetanus) shot. A precise breathing monitor called Cotwatch was used in a special study of SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and the children's breathing patterns were measured before and after DPT vaccination. The data clearly demonstrate that vaccination caused an extraordinary increase in episodes where breathing nearly ceased or actually stopped completely! Doctor Viera Scheibner, the author of the study, concluded that "Vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths."

Developmental disabilities have increased dramatically since the introduction of vaccinations. And this not a mystery since post-vaccinal encephalitis, inflammation of the brain, occurs after vaccinations and can cause serious injury to the brain and nervous system. Suppression of the immune system, causing an increased susceptibility to all diseases, is another effect of vaccination.

In the 1950's another disorder rapidly spread among school children and became prominent in medical science and health literature: Hyperactivity/Minimal Brain Dysfunction (ADD, Attention Deficit Disorder or ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder). These children usually exhibit symptoms of neurological damage, frequently associated with vaccinations

Genetic mutation is also a possibility because, for example, the polio vaccine contains monkey kidney cells and calf serum. The combination of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is prepared in chick embryo. Monkey kidney, calf serum and chick embryo are all foreign proteins to the human biological matter composed of animal cells. Because they are injected directly into the bloodstream they are able to change our genetic structure.

During the 1950s and 1960s millions of people were injected with polio vaccines that were contaminated with the SV 40 virus found in monkey kidney cells and a powerful immunosuppressor and trigger for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

How about flu shots? Flu vaccine is made from LAST year's flu virus so it is totally ineffective against THIS year's flu virus. No one knows what virus will be causing the flu this year, but it is almost never the same virus as last year. All of the hazards of the other vaccines are true for flu shots as well. "In 1976 more than 500 people who received their flu shots were paralyzed with Guillain Barre Syndrome, a sudden-onset paralysis that can be fatal. Thirty of these people died. During the same year, the incidence of Guillain Barre among flu-vaccinated U.S. Army personnel was 50% greater than among unvaccinated civilians ." (The Risk of Immunizations and How to Avoid Them, by Robert Mendelsohn, Ph.D.) There is also a suspicious correlation between seasonal outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease and the inoculation with flu vaccines.

Dr. John Seal of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease says that "Any and all flu vaccines are capable of causing Guillain Barre." I personally would NEVER get a flu shot nor would I ever advise anyone else to get one.

The bottom line is that the best way to develop natural immunity is to build a healthy immune system by the proper diet and lifestyle. Eating a diet of fruits, grains, vegetables, seeds and nuts that are preferably organically grown, preservative free and in a natural unprocessed state as close to nature as possible, with 75% of your food eaten raw, is optimum. Eliminate all refined sugar, all animal products including meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products (including milk, cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.). Fresh air, exercise, plenty of rest and relief of stress by trust in God as well as all of the other steps outlined on my video "You Can't Improve On God" are essential for health. This is the only effective way to remain free from disease. It is impossible to get sick if your immune system is functioning properly. Bacteria and viruses do NOT attack a healthy body, just as insects and plant diseases do NOT attack healthy plants.

Some of the Resoures Recommended by Dr. Day:

    An excellent primer on vaccinations is entitled

    Vaccines: Are they Really Safe and Effective? by Neil Z. Miller

    New Atlantean Press
    P.O. Box 9638, Santa Fe, NM 87504
    (505) 983-1856

    Another informative book is:

    Murder By Injection, by Eustace Mullens

    The National Council for Medical Research
    P.O. Box 1105, Staunton, VA 2440l
    The story of the medical conspiracy against America.


    A video documenting the dangers of vaccination entitled:

    Dangers and Ineffectiveness of Vaccinations, Including Scientific Correlations

    to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, by Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.
    New Atlantean Press
    P.O. Box 9638-T9, Santa Fe, NM 87504
    Though it is somewhat difficult to follow because of the presenter's heavy accent, this two-hour video contains much astounding and well-documented information.

    Vaccination, by Viera Scheibner Ph.D. (book)
    New Atlantean Press
    P.O. Box 9638-T9, Santa Fe, NM 87504
    According to Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., medical preventive measures are not credible. In this book she compiles scientific studies from throughout the world showing how vaccines are often ineffective and can damage the immune system, and she gives numerous examples from 1950 to 1992.

    Vaccination Condemned, book one, by Elben
    Better Life Research
    P.O. Box 42002, Los Angeles, CA 90042

    The intention of this book is to present enough authentic incriminating evidence against vaccination to prove that vaccination has already condemned itself. It we wait for the medical establishment, or the vaccine labs, or health departments, schools, press or government to condemn it, the wait will be fruitless as vaccination has been killing and disabling people by the thousands for 200 years, and those in authority have not stopped it yet, and do not intend to.

Editors Note:

For a more complete listing of resources recommended by Dr. Day, please visit her website.


Dr. Lorraine Day

Dr. Day is an internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon and best selling author.

She was for 15 years on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco,

School of Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Orthopedics.

She was also Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital

and is recognized world-wide as an AIDS expert.

Opening Statement  

Chairman Dan Burton

Committee on Government Reform 

“FACA: Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development:

Preserving the Integrity of the Process”

Thursday, June 15, 2000 , 1:00 pm

2154 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC  20515  

Today, we are going to continue our series of hearings on vaccine policy.  For the last few months, we’ve been focusing on two important advisory committees.  The Food and Drug Administration  (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rely on these advisory committees to help them make vaccine policies that affect every child in this country.   We’ve looked very carefully at conflicts of interest.  We’ve taken a good hard look at whether the pharmaceutical industry has too much influence over these committees.  From the evidence we found, I think they do.

The first committee is the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC).  This Committee makes recommendations on whether new vaccines should be licensed.  The second committee is the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP).  This committee recommends which vaccines should be included on the Childhood Immunization Schedule. 

To make these issues easier to understand, we’re going to focus on one issue handled by these two committees – the Rotavirus vaccine.  It was approved for use by the FDA in August 1998.  It was recommended for universal use by the CDC in March 1999.  Serious problems cropped up shortly after it was introduced.  Children started developing serious bowel obstructions.  The vaccine was pulled from the U.S. market in October 1999.

So the question is, was there evidence to indicate that the vaccine was not safe and if so, why was it licensed in the first place?  How good a job did the advisory committees do?  We’ve reviewed the minutes of the meetings.  At the FDA’s committee, there were discussions about adverse events.  They were aware of potential problems.  Five children out of 10,000 developed bowel obstructions.  There were also concerns about children failing to thrive and developing high fevers, which as we know from other vaccine hearings, can lead to brain injury.  Even with all of these concerns, the committee voted unanimously to approve it. 

At the CDC’s committee, there was a lot of discussion about whether the benefits of the vaccine really justified the costs. Even though the cost-benefit ratio was questioned, the Committee voted unanimously to approve it. 

Were they vigilant enough?  Were they influenced by the pharmaceutical industry?  Was there appropriate balance of expertise and perspectives on vaccine issues?  We’ve been reviewing their financial disclosure statements.  We’ve interviewed staff from the FDA and the CDC.  The staff has prepared a staff report summarizing what we’ve found.  At the end of my statement, I’ll ask unanimous consent to enter this report into the record.  We’ve identified a number of problems that need to be brought to light and discussed.

Families need to have confidence that the vaccines that their children take are safe, effective, and truly necessary.  Doctors need to feel confident that when the FDA licenses a drug, that it is really safe, and that the pharmaceutical industry has not influenced the decision-making process.  Doctors place trust in the FDA and assume that if the FDA has licensed a drug, it’s safe to use.  Has that trust been violated?

How confident in the safety and need for specific vaccines would doctors and parents be if they learned the following:

1.That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies that make vaccines.

2.That individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines under consideration or affected by the decisions of the committee.

3.That three out of five of the members of the FDA’s advisory committee who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived. 

4.That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not present at the meeting, two others were excluded from the vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary voting members who all voted to license the product.

5.That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not. 

6.That the CDC’s advisory committee has no public members – no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the childhood immunization schedule.  The FDA’s committee only has one public member.

These are just a few of the problems we found.  Specific examples of this include:

Dr. John Modlin—He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and became the Chair in February 1998.  He participated in the FDA’s committee as well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines, valued at $26,000.  He also serves on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board.  Dr. Modlin was the Chairman of the Rotavirus working group.  He voted yes on eight different matters pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, including recommending for routine use and for inclusion in the Vaccines for Children program.  It was not until this past year, that Dr. Modlin decided to divest himself of his vaccine manufacturer stock. 

          At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he holds a patent on a rotavirus vaccine and receives grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine.  He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe.  Dr. Offit is a member of the CDC’s advisory committee and voted on three rotavirus issues – including making the recommendation of adding the rotavirus vaccine to the Vaccines for Children’s program. 

Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA’s advisory committee, owned stock in Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full waiver.

Dr. Neal Halsey, who serves as a liaison member to the CDC committee on behalf of the American Association of Pediatrics, and as a consultant to the FDA’s committee, has extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including having solicited and received start up funds from industry for his Vaccine Center.  As a liaison member to the CDC committee, Dr. Halsey is there to represent the opinions of the organization he represents, but was found in the transcripts to be offering his personal opinion as well.

Dr. Harry Greenberg, who serves as Chair of the FDA committee, owns $120,000 of stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer.  He also is a paid member of the board of advisors of Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer and owns $40,000 of stock.  This stock ownership was deemed not to be a conflict and a waiver was granted.  To the FDA’s credit, he was excluded from the rotavirus discussion because he holds the patent on the rotashield vaccine.

How confident can we be in the process when we learned that most of the work of the CDC advisory committee is done in “working groups” that meet behind closed doors, out of the public eye?  Members who can’t vote in the full committee because of conflicts of interest are allowed to work on the same issues in working groups, and there is no public scrutiny.  I was appalled to learn that at least six of the ten individuals who participated in the working group for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies developing rotavirus vaccines.

How confident can we be in the recommendations with the Food and Drug Administration when the chairman and other individuals on their advisory committee own stock in major manufacturers of vaccines?

How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted.  It almost appears that there is a “old boys network” of vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA – at times serving simultaneously.  Some of these individuals serve for more than four years.  We found one instance where an individual served for sixteen years continually on the CDC committee.  With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 11 years? 

It is important to determine if the Department of Health and Human Services has become complacent in their implementation of the legal requirements on conflicts of interest and committee management.   If the law is too loose, we need to change it.  If the agencies aren’t doing their job, they need to be held accountable.  That’s the purpose of this hearing, to try to determine what needs to be done.

Why is this review necessary?  Vaccines are the only substances that a government agency mandates a United States citizen receive.  State governments have the authority to mandate vaccines be given to children prior to admission to day care centers and schools.  State governments rely on the recommendations of the CDC and the FDA to determine the type and schedule of vaccines.  

I am not alone in my concern about the increasing influence of industry on medicine.  Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine learned that 18 individuals who wrote drug therapy review articles had financial ties to the manufacturer of the drugs discussed.  The Journal, which has the most stringent conflict of interest disclosures of medical journals, had a recent editorial discussing the increasing level of academic research funded by the industry.  The editor stated, “What is at issue is not whether researchers can be 'bought' in the sense of a quid pro quo, it is that close and remunerative collaboration with a company naturally creates goodwill on the part of researchers and the hope that the largesse will continue. This attitude can subtly influence scientific judgment.”

Can the FDA and the CDC really believe that scientists are more immune to self-interest than other people?   

Maintaining the highest level of integrity over the entire spectrum of vaccine development and implementation is essential. The Department of Health and Human Services has a responsibility to the American public to ensure the integrity of this process by working diligently to appoint individuals that are totally without financial ties to the vaccine industry to serve on these and all vaccine-related panels. 

No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions regarding vaccines that may be mandated for use should be participating in the discussion or policy making for vaccines.  We have repeatedly heard in our hearings that vaccines are safe and needed to protect the public.  If the panels that have made the decisions on all vaccines on the Childhood Immunization Schedule had as many conflicts as we found with rotavirus, then the entire process has been polluted and the public trust has been violated.  I intend to find out if the individuals who have made these recommendations that effect every child in this country and around the world, stood to gain financially and professionally from the decisions of the committees they served on.

The hearing record will remain open until June 28 for those who would like to submit a statement into the hearing record.

Vaccination Decisions

         by Susan G Wynn, DVM

Conventional veterinary wisdom states that annual vaccinations have decimated the incidence of formerly common viral diseases such as feline panleukopenia, rhinotracheitis, feline leukemia, canine distemper, hepatitis, and canine parvovirus. Vaccinations have certainly worked to decrease the incidence of acute viral disease, but many pet owners and some veterinarians have begun to question both the need for annual, life-long re-vaccination, as well as the long term consequences of vaccination in general.

Although Dr Jean Dodds suggested, as early as 1983, that autoimmune disease was occurring in certain susceptible individuals as a result of over-vaccination, concurring literature began to appear only in 1992. Phillips and Schultz, of the Scripps Research Institute and University of Wisconsin, respectively, reviewed the state of canine and feline vaccine technology in Current Veterinary Therapy XI. One conclusion was that annual vaccination was a widespread practice with no scientific basis or verification. The immune response to most bacteria and viruses lasts years, and the only exception to this rule is immunity to bacterial toxins, such as tetanus toxin (necessitating yearly boosters for horses, for example).

Dr Schultz has further speculated that for most dogs, revaccination is probably only necessary every three years, although the persistence of immune competence may vary, since modified live virus vaccines stimulate a stronger response from the animal than do killed vaccines. Dr Jim Richards, of the Cornell Feline Health Center, has written that duration of immunity in cats is also not well understood, despite the fact that the need for annual revaccination is questionable.

Most recently, an article appeared in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association entitled "Are We Vaccinating Too Much?" The veterinarians interviewed included Dr Schultz, Dr Dennis Macy of Colorado State University, Dr Leland Carmichael, and Dr Fred Scott of Cornell University. These leading veterinary immunologists admit puzzlement at the current situation but stop short of making recommendations, since no studies have been done to show maximum duration of immunity. When asked directly what should be done, Dr Macy recommends continuing to follow vaccine label instructions, but to pressure the USDA to determine the optimal vaccination schedule. The other experts interviewed did not make specific recommendations but emphasized the need for veterinarians to rationally analyze the individual situation and vaccinate accordingly. In general, they felt that cats should be immunized every three years for both FVRCP and rabies, not annually.

Alternatives to Vaccination

Please keep in mind that this section discusses alternatives to all vaccinations except rabies. Rabies vaccination is required by law in most states. Rabies can be an urban disease, frequently found in raccoons and foxes that raid suburban trashcans, and if your unvaccinated pet is exposed, the disease is invariably fatal. The majority of rabies cases in domesticated animals occur in cats.

One argument against vaccination has been that if we keep our animals perfectly healthy, feed raw diets, good water, and give them a perfect lifestyle, they will never succumb to these diseases when exposed. Many students of environmental medicine believe that this perfect lifestyle is simply impossible to achieve. There is not much that can be done about the air we breathe, although indoor cats that live with the luxury of multiple air filters may have an advantage here. It is well recognized that city water systems are far from "clean," as recent reports seem to suggest. Animals drinking distilled water may be given a head start here. What about indoor air pollution? A recent review detailed the potential sources of indoor air pollution to which we are all subject, emphasizing that pets experience "comparable, if not greater" exposure to these pollutants, which may include nitrogen dioxide from gas appliances and water heaters, formaldehyde from foam insulation, and household cleaning agents. Of course, outdoor pets walk all over beautiful lawns full of chemicals, then walk into their homes to lick their feet.

Add to all of these insults the fact that purebred (and even mixed breed) animals may have genetic tendencies that can lead to greater susceptibility to these diseases and the potential for developing long term side effects from these diseases or the vaccines designed to prevent them. Because it is my belief that we cannot provide our pets with perfectly healthy environments and bodies (or even determine whether that is possible), it should be clear that we need to increase the odds in favor of our pets.

Nosodes may be one way to protect them; unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence that nosodes do prevent disease. A few studies published in homeopathic journals suggest that nosodes may decrease the severity of active disease and possibly prevent the spread of epidemics, but these studies are not well controlled. The results of one recent well controlled study suggest that parvovirus nosodes are completely ineffective in preventing parvoviral disease under experimental challenge conditions. Until well designed studies are completed and thousands of pet owners make a concerted effort to help with potential retrospective studies, nosodes remain an unknown quantity, and I do not recommend using them as a sole strategy for disease prevention.

I recommend that puppies and kittens undergo an initial vaccination series and that annual vaccination be continued for a year or two, depending on the individual. Unfortunately, many dogs and cats begin developing signs of allergy or other disorders early in life. It is not recommended that sick animals be vaccinated, and chronic illness may include the gamut of every day conditions like atopic skin disease, inflammatory bowel disease, or spondylosis. If we don't want to risk vaccination, and we don't know whether nosodes work, what next?

One strategy being used by many veterinarians is to test antibody levels in the blood of our pets. Antibody levels may suggest (but not conclusively prove) how much immunity that pet carries against a specific disease. For many diseases, antibodies are the prime source of protection against disease, and a high level suggests that the animal may adequately respond to the agent causing that disease. Conversely, low levels indicate that the pet may be susceptible to contracting the disease in question. These antibody tests are not perfect indicators of immunity, and most immunologists suggest that we do not place total reliance on them. They are, however, the best tests we have, and can give the pet owner a rationale for not submitting a pet to vaccination, should there be any argument.

Many veterinary school diagnostic laboratories are capable of doing vaccine titers for your pet. Most private practitioners also have access to Antech laboratories, which will run an abbreviated test for a reasonable price. Some labs will set a threshold for protection, although others will only give the veterinarian a number, which must be interpreted in the light of experience. The serologic tests of interest are IgG titers for feline panleukopenia, feline herpesvirus, calicivirus, and feline syncytial virus. Feline coronavirus titers are measurable, but interpretation is difficult, so most veterinarians only use this test if clinical FIP is suspected in a sick cat. Dogs can be tested for parvovirus, coronavirus, herpesvirus, adenovirus, and distemper antibodies. Cats are not tested for feline leukemia virus and immune deficiency virus by antibody levels, but by the presence of the virus. Rabies antibody level tests are not offered or recommended in animals due to the public health implications (although human rabies titers are sometimes measured).

Practically speaking, dogs should have antibody titers against canine distemper and canine parvovirus evaluated. Canine hepatitis has been called an exotic disease, and since it is rarely seen today, titer assessment is probably unecessary. The need for other titers, such as leptospirosis, should be evaluated according to the individual's general health and environment. Cats should have titers to feline panleukopenia, herpesvirus, and calicivirus tested. Be sure to advise the lab specifically of your interest in antibodies to vaccination. The lab should, in this case, change the normal testing technique by starting at lower serum dilutions to give a more accurate answer.

Once a number has been provided, how is this information interpreted? If the levels are in the "protective range" (understand that this is still a fuzzy number, due to the novelty of this technique in clinical practice), you can assume that certain indicators suggest that the pet has made an adequate immune response to those diseases. As wishy-washy as this statement may sound, this information is a much better indicator that the pet is protected than the simple act of vaccinating. Since not all animals are genetically identical or live in identical environments, scientists have no idea how each and every pet is going to respond to vaccination. Is the pet going to be protected by vaccination? No way to know for sure except to do antibody titers. If the titers already look adequate, why vaccinate?

For people who board their pets in facilities which require annual vaccinations, protective antibody levels actually provide more precise information about a pet's immune status than a simple history of receiving vaccinations. Animals receiving nosodes may or may not develop antibody titers, for reasons that would require pages more to explain. Suffice it to say that a nosode protected animal with sufficient antibody titers should still be considered adequately immunocompetent by facilities asking for this information, and for those animals receiving nosodes that do not develop titers, this rather inconvenient situation remains the same--one cannot prove anything.

Antibody titers are not going to save the pet owner any money, and they should still be done annually, until we know how long these antibodies actually last in the blood. These annual tests will give us peace of mind, while at the same time helping to establish just how long vaccinations actually protect the average dog or cat. Knowledge of how to more safely and judiciously vaccinate our pets will save many thousands of pets unnecessary iatrogenic illnesses.


    W J Dodds (1983). Immune Mediated Diseases of the Blood. Advances in Veterinary Science and Comparative Medicine 27:163-196.

    T Phillips and R Schultz (1992). Canine and Feline Vaccines, in Current Veterinary Therapy XI, W B Saunders, Philadelphia, PA

    R Ford, et al (1995). Vaccines: Pioneering New Paths to Healthcare. Emerging Science and Technology: Advances in Veterinary Medicine, Fairway, KS

    C Smith (1995). Are We Vaccinating Too Much? JAVMA 207(4): 421-425

    J Dye and D Costa (1995). A Brief Guide to Indoor Air Pollutants and Relevance to Small Animals. Current Veterinary Therapy XII, W B Saunders, Philadelphia, PA

Veterinary Teaching Hospital

Colorado State University's Small Animal Vaccination Protocol

In the past there have been many different vaccination recommendations for dogs and cats from veterinarians across the United States based on the best available information. In light of new information, the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital is offering its clients the following vaccination program. This program is designed as the routine immunization program for Colorado State University's clients' dogs and cats living in Larimer County, Colorado, USA in conjunction with a complete physical examination and health evaluation. This program is modified for any patient with specific risk factors.

Not all available small animal vaccines may be suitable for our program. Infectious disease risk may vary and our routine vaccination program may not be suitable for all localities. Anyone using our routine vaccination program is encouraged to follow the guidelines that are its basis and use the program at their own risk.

For pet owners, your local veterinarian is your best resource to develop a vaccination program tailored for your pet. The health status and infectious disease risks of your pet should be considered in the selection of a vaccination program.

Our adoption of this routine vaccination program is based on the lack of scientific evidence to support the current practice of annual vaccination and increasing documentation showing that over-vaccinating has been associated with harmful side effects. Of particular note in this regard has been the association of autoimmune hemolytic anemia with vaccination in dogs and vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats -- both of which are often fatal. With boosters (except for rabies vaccine), the annual revaccination recommendation on the vaccine label is just that -- a recommendation without the backing of long term duration of immunity studies, and is not a legal requirement. Rabies vaccine is the only commonly used vaccine that requires that duration of immunity studies be carried out before licensure in the United States. Even with rabies vaccines, the label may be misleading in that a three year duration of immunity product may also be labeled and sold as a one year duration of immunity product.

Based on the concern that annual vaccination of small animals for many, but not all, infectious agents is probably no longer scientifically justified, and our desire to avoid vaccine-associated adverse events, we are recommending the described routine immunization program to our small animal clients.

This Program recommends the standard three shot series for puppies (parvovirus, adenovirus 2, parainfluenza, distemper) and kittens (panleukopenia, rhinotracheitis, calicivirus) to include rabies after 8 weeks of age for cats and 16 weeks of age for dogs. Following the initial puppy and kitten immunization series, cats and dogs will be boostered one year later and then every three years thereafter for all the above diseases except for rabies in cats which receive the new sater canary pox rabies vaccine that requires annual boosters. Similar small animal vaccination programs have been recently adopted by other university teaching hospitals and the American Association of Feline Practitioners.

Other available small animal vaccines, which may need more frequent administration, i.e., intranasal parainfluenza, Bordetella, feline leukemia, Lyme, etc., may be recommended for CSU client animals on an "at risk" basis but are not a part of the routine Colorado State University protocol for small animals. Recent studies clearly indicate that not all vaccines perform equally and some vaccine products may not be suitable for such a program.



  • Progard ®-5 (Intervet)

  • Modified live canine distemper, adenovirus type 2, parainfluenza, parvovirus vaccine

  • Progard ® KC (Intervet)

  • Canine parainfluenza, Bordetella bronchiseptica (intranasal)


  • Protex ® -3 (Intervet, Inc.)

  • Feline rhinotracheitis, calici, panleukopenia modified live virus

  • Trivalent (Heska)

  • Modified live rhinotracheitis, calici, panleukopenia (intranasal)

  • Fel-O-Vax Lv-K ® (Fort Dodge)

  • Killed FeLV vaccine


  • Imrab® 3 (Rhone Merieux) (Dog)

  • Killed rabies vaccine - three year duration of immunity

  • Purvax (Cat)

  • A new canarypox vector rabies vaccine from Merial with a one year duration of immunity replaces Imrab®3 in cats.


  • Intranasal Bordetella/Parainfluenza

  • To be used just prior to possible exposure to kennel cough carriers, i.e., shows, field trials, etc. May be repeated up to six times per year.

  • Feline Leukemia Vaccine

  • To be used ONLY IN HIGH RISK cats. Two vaccines prior to 12 weeks of age. One booster at one year of age.

For those interested in reading more about small animal immunization issues, the following is a suggested reading list.


  1. Dubielzig RR, Everitt J, Shadduck JA, et al: Clinical and morphologic features of posttraumatic ocular sarcomas in cats. Vet Pathol 27:62-65, 1990.

  2. Dubielzig RR, Hawkins KL, Miller PE: Myofibroblastic sarcoma originating at the site of rabies vaccination in a cat. J Vet Diagn Invest 5:637-638, 1993.

  3. Duval D, Giger URS: Vaccine associated immune-mediated hemolytic anemia in the dog. J Vet Int Med 10:290-295, 1996.

  4. Esplin DG, McGill L, Meininger A, et al: Postvaccination sarcomas in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 202:1245-1247, 1993.

  5. Fawcett HA, Smith HP: Injection-site granuloma due to aluminum. Arch Dermatol 120:1318-1322, 1984.

  6. Greene CE: Vaccine induced complications verses overvaccination. Proceedings of the 65th annual AAHA meeting, Chicago, 1998, pp 368-369.

  7. Hendrick MJ, Brooks JJ: Postvaccinal sarcomas in the cat: Histology and immunohistochemistry. Vet Pathol 31:126-129, 1994.

  8. Hendrick MJ, Dunagan C: Focal necrotizing granulomatous panniculitis associated with subcutaneous injection of rabies vaccine in cats and dogs: 10 cases (1988-1989) J Am Vet Med Assoc 198:304-305, 1991.

  9. Hendrick MJ, Goldschmidt MH: Do injection site reactions induce fibrosarcomas in cats? J Am Vet Med Assoc 199:968, 1991.

  10. Hendrick MJ, Goldschmidt MH, Shofer F, et al: Postvaccinal sarcomas in the cat: Epidemiology and electron probe microanalytical identification of aluminum. Cancer Res 52:5391-5394, 1992.

  11. Hendrick MJ, Kass PH, McGill LD, et al: Commentary: Postvaccinal sarcomas in cats. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:5, 1994.

  12. Hendrick MJ, Shofer FS, Goldschmidt MH, et al: Comparison of fibrosarcomas that developed at vaccination sites and at nonvaccination sites in cats: 239 cases (1991-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc 205:1425-1429, 1994.

  13. Kass PH, Barnes WG, Spangler WL, et al: Epidemiologic evidence for a causal relation between vaccination and fibrosarcoma tumorigenesis in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 203:396-405, 1993.

  14. Larson LV, Schultz RD: Comparison of selected canine vaccines for the inability to induce protective immunity against canine parvovirus infections. AJVR 1997 58:4, 360-363, 1997.

  15. Larson RL, Bradley JS: Immunologic principles and immunization strategy. Comp Cont Ed Pract Vet 1996;18:963-970.

  16. Macy DW. The potential role and mechanisms of FeLV vaccine-induced neoplasms. Sem Vet Med Surg 1995;10:234-238.

  17. Macy DW, et al. Vaccine associated sarcomas in cats. Fel Pract 1995;23:24-27.

  18. Macy DW, et al. Postvaccinal reactions associated with three rabies and three leukemia virus vaccines in cats. Proc. 14th Annual Vet Cancer Soc Cof., Veterinary Cancer Society, Townsend, Tenn., 1994:90-91.

  19. Macy DW, Hendrick MJ: The potential role of inflammation in the development of postvaccinal sarcomas in cats. Seminars in Vet Med and Surg 26:103-109, 1996.

  20. Olson P, et al. Duration of immunity eliceited by canine distemper virus vaccinatons in dogs. Vet Rec 1997;141:654-655.

  21. Pedersen NC: Perspectives on small animal vaccination: A critical look at current vaccines and vaccine strategies in the United States. Proceedings AAHA 145-156, 1997.

  22. Phillips TR, Schultz RD: Canine and feline vaccines. Kirk R and Bonagura JD (eds). Current Veterinary Therapy XI, WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1992, pp 202-206.

  23. Schultz RD: Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs. Veterinary Medicine 233-254, March 1998.

  24. Schultz RD: Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics in Advances in Veterinary Medicine, 41, 1999 pp. 1-853.

  25. Scott FW: Duration of immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated feline panleukopenia, herpesvirus, and calicivirus vaccine. Fel Pract 1997;25:12-22.

  26. Smith CA: Current concepts: Are we vaccinating too much? J Am Vet Med Assoc 207:421-425,1995.

  27. Tizard I: Risks associated with the use of live vaccines. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1990;196:1851-1858.


On the Subject of Vaccines: Steve Dean's Colum

by Catherine O'Driscoll, Editor of Dog World

Dear Sir:

I once asked my doctor what caused cramp. He replied, "Nobody knows". What he was actually saying was that he didn't know. Now that I know, I'm probably smarter than my doctor where cramps are concerned. So I guess that the experts don't know everything there is to know about everything there is to know.

In fact, Steve Dean's legendary ignorance on the subject of vaccination is truly remarkable. (ignorance = the act of ignoring)

Fact: the parvovirus vaccine is admitted by Merck, a vaccine manufacturer, to be one cause of autoimmune haemolytic anaemia. Similarly, one of the rabies manufacturers states in its own data sheet that extraneous animal proteins found in some vaccines can cause autoimmune disease. Dr Jonas Salk, of the famous Salk Institute, has placed on record his opinion that the polio vaccine is the sole cause of polio in the USA today. So, in the space of three sentences, I think we have established that vaccines can be dangerous. But are they efficacious?

The leptospirosis vaccine, for which Mr Dean advocates a yearly booster, is said to be effective for only a few months, leaving 'unprotected' dogs to the mercy of this disease. Why, then, aren't dogs keeling over and dying of lepto in vast numbers between shots?

The parvovirus vaccine has an extremely high failure rate - having studied six parvovirus vaccines, Ronald D Schultz, a top USA veterinary immunologist, concluded that only two provided 100% protection; one provided partial protection; and three did not protect at all. So if vaccination is so successful, as Mr Dean claims, why didn't the dogs vaccinated with the ineffective three vaccines keel over and die of parvovirus? Has he heard of herd immunity, and the fact that an epidemic naturally abates once a certain proportion of the 'herd' develops antibodies - naturally - to the disease? If not, why does he consider himself an expert on the subject?

Don't you think it interesting that the Concise Oxford Veterinary Dictionary should put forward the view that parvovirus was caused by shedding of the feline enteritis vaccine? Does Mr. Dean not therefore think it possible/feasible that vaccines can cause diseases to spread and/or remain in the eco-system rather than eradicate them?

Distemper: I have on my files a great number of letters from people whose dogs died of what looks remarkably like distemper within hours or days of being vaccinated for distemper; ditto for hepatitis. The typical vet answers that the disease was probably incubating in the dog at the time of vaccination, or it must have been a bad batch of vaccine, or it wasn't distemper or hepatitis the dog died of at all. But could it be that these dogs might just have been infected with a disease by the injection of the live virus into their body? Dr Salk's comments regarding the polio vaccine mean that Mr. Dean is no longer able to laugh us out of court for suggesting this possible scenario.

Add to this the vast catalogue of dogs who suffered epileptic fits, colitis, hypersensitivity reactions, encephalitis, anaphylactic shock and even death within hours or days of vaccination. Of course, the vets haven't always (in fact rarely) connected the vaccine to the reaction. This might be because they haven't read the data sheets supplied by the manufacturers, or they don't understand what hypersensitivity reactions or anaphylactic shock are, or they don't want to jeopardize the biggest 'earner' in the practice, or they are bound by peer pressure and selective education to tow the party line. Or might it be that vaccines are very unstable and require careful storage and handling by the vet if they are to be safe or effective?

But there comes a point where coincidence, supported by scientific evidence, will eventually become known to the public at large. At this point, we will vote with our pockets (and many of us are already doing so). In the meantime, following Mr. Dean's advice, many owners will watch their dogs die and suffer the consequences of vaccination. No, we cannot guarantee that dogs won't contract viral diseases - but neither can we guarantee that vaccines won't cause viral disease or produce catastrophic side-effects. In short, neither option provides guarantees. There are, however, ways in which we dog lovers can boost our dogs' immune systems so that they are more able to fight off viral disease.

While vets like Mr. Dean pat us on the head and tell us not to worry our little selves, and expect us to take their word for it, the scientific evidence exists to tell us the whole truth - if the truth is of interest to us.

I draw your attention to Dr Schultz's advice regarding annual vaccination: "Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal... 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)."

Translating these few snippets for the consumer, this means that boosters probably cancel immunity out; we are being encouraged to subject our dogs to vaccines that might not give full protection or any protection at all; the same vaccines might cause chronic and/or acute adverse reactions; and they might cause death (and have been known to do so).

Mr. Dean says that reactions are extremely rare and then pins the blame on genetics (it's that familiar scapegoat the breeder again). Well I happen to disagree with him. Other factors can render the chance of vaccine reaction more likely, including diet, stress, concurrent drug therapy, and the general health of a dog. This is not because I'm one of those 'wrathful homoeopaths' that Mr. Dean so likes to snigger about, but because I've taken the trouble to examine the scientific evidence in the hope of keeping my remaining dogs alive beyond middle age.

One thing appears puzzling to me: how prevalent are these diseases we are urged to vaccinate our dogs against? The National Office of Animal Health doesn't know. The Kennel Club doesn't know. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons doesn't know. The RVC doesn't know. MAFF doesn't know. I know they don't know because I asked them within the last fortnight. In fact, we are being urged to weigh the risk of unquantified disease against the risk of under-quantified vaccine reactions. Another thing nobody knows: how common these reactions are. In all but one or two of the cases that have been reported to me - even when the vaccine manufacturer admitted liability - no-one sent off the Yellow Form - MLA 252(A) - to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

I venture to suggest that, far from being an open and shut case as Mr. Dean suggests, the jury is still out on the subject of vaccination. The case hasn't even been properly presented yet. At the present time the playing field is rather stacked in favour of the home team: most dog owners accept the advice about vaccine products from people who make money from flogging the products. The Canine Health Census is asking the consumers to speak. Unlike the veterinary profession, as represented by Mr. Dean, we are actually listening. The evidence against vaccination - if you have ears to hear is utterly damning, of which this letter is but the tip of the iceberg.

Yours faithfully

Catherine O'Driscoll

To view other items in the ongoing debate between Catherine O'Driscoll and Steve Dean, go to:

Vaccination in Animals

   International Vaccination Newsletter

Let's start with a potpourri of opinion - a selection of vets who believe vaccines are damaging our dogs. The April / May 1995 issue of the exellent Wolf Clan Magazine Collected a cacaphony:

Charles E Loops, DVM, Pittsboro, USA said: 

"The first thing that must change with routine vaccinations is the myth that vaccines are not harmful. Veterinarians and animal guardians have to come to realise that they are not protecting animals from disease by annual vaccinations, but in fact, are destroying the health and immune systems of these same animals they love and care for".


Russell Swift, DVM, Fort Lauderdale, USA, said: 

"I believe that poor diet and vaccinations are responsible for most chronic diseases. Acute 'diseases' are discharges of toxins and energy from the body. The 'causative' germs assist by breaking down toxins and stumulating cleansing. By preventing these discharges, vaccines result in chronic disorders. Injected vaccines preservatives. They implant mutated microörganisms, preservatives, foreign animal proteins and other compounds directly into the system. This is done in the name of 'preventing' a few syndromes. If an animal is in an optimal state of health, he or she will produce the strongest immune response possible. This response offers protection against all NATURAL challenges. The irony is that vaccine labels say they are to be given only to healthy animals. If they were truly healthy, they would not need them. Those who are not healthy are the most severely damaged".


Pedro Rivera, DVM, Sturtevant, USA, said:

 "Vaccinosis is the reaction from common innoculations (vaccines) against the body's immune system and general well-being. These reactions might take months or years to show up and will cause undue harm to future generations. In our practice, we have seen hypothyroidism, chronic yeast, ear infections, immune-mediated diseases and worsening of them, joint maladies, and behavioural problems as secondary reactions to over-vaccination."


Pat Bradley, DVM, Conway, USA, said: 

"The most common problems I see that are directly related to vaccines on a day to day basis are ear or skin conditions, such as chronic discharges and itching. I also see behaviour problems such as fearfulness or aggression. Often guardians will report that these begin shortly after vaccination, and are exacerbated with every vaccine.

"In a more general and frightening context, I see the overall health and longevity of animals deteriorating. The bodies of most animals have a tremendous capacity to detoxify poisons, but they do have a limit. I think we often exceed that limit and over-whelm the body's immune system function with toxins from vaccines, poor quality foods, insecticides, environmental toxins, etc. This is why we've seen such a dramatic increase in allergies, organ failures, and behaviour proble                  ."

Christina Chambreau, DVM, Madison,USA, said: 

"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. Repeating vaccinations on a yearly basis undermines the whole energetic well-being of our animals. Animals do not seem to be decimated by one or two vaccines when they are young and veterinary immunologists tell us that viral vaccines need only be given once or twice in an animal's life. First, there is no need for annual vaccinations and, second, they definitely cause chronic disease. As a homoeopath, it is almost impossible to cure an animal without first addressing the problems that vaccines have caused to the animal, no matter what the species."


Mike Kohn, DVM, Madison, USA, said: 

"Unfortunately our society is in the grasp of a health panacea and this panacea is fuelled by the biomedical and pharmaceutical industries. Vaccinations have become the modern day equivalent of leeching. First of all, introducing foreign material via subcutaneous or intramuscular injection is upsetting to the body's defense system. In response to this violation, there have been increased autoimmune disease (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia, as well as behavioural problems in small animals.

"Even though man and animals have been around for thousands of years, formal vaccines were introduced within the last century. Interestingly, the increase in cancer, respiratory disorders (most air quality standards are higher today than in decades past), and autoimmune problems have likewise escalated alarmingly during the previous decade. Vaccines are not the only culprit for these increases; however, I feel they are one of the primary offenders."

Kristine Severyn, R. PH., PH.D., Director, Ohio Parents for Vaccine Safety said: "Vaccines are not always effective, safety is unproven, and long-term consequences are unknown. Despite this the government requires their use, resulting in a lack of incentive for drug companies to produce better products. Additionally, mandatory vaccine laws make it impossible to conduct properly controlled studies, so we'll never know if vaccines are truly safe, as is claimed by the government and medical profession.

Similar to other medical procedures, the right of informed consent. i.e., the right to say 'no', should apply to vaccines."


Norman C Ralston, DVM, Mesquite, USA, said: 

" I think we eventually have to take a look at what is happening to animals because of repeated vaccinations. If you have an animal that within 10 days from the time he received vaccines falls back into a condition that you'd been trying to clean up for some time, you know what happened. We're seeing a condition that is being described by some of my colleagues and myself as vaccinosis.We have to recognise it as being there."


Stephen R Blake, DVM, San Diego, USA, said: 

"The idea of annual vaccines is really questionable. There is no scientific basis from what I've been able to read. There was a good article in Current Veterinary Therapy a couple of years ago. They did a literature search and the two authors were not 'alternative' veterinarians, and they could find no scientific basis for annual vaccines. So it's just being done; there is no real basis for the practice. There are a lot of chronic conditions that develop some time after vaccinating. Some of these conditions that I see are chronic ear infections, digestive problems, seizures, skin problems, and behavioural problems".


Nancy Scanlon, DVM, Chino Hills, USA, said: 

"For those who don't believe in the concept of long-term vaccinosis, there is plenty of evidence of short term problems. Every time a dog is vaccinated for Parvo, the number of white blood cells in the circulation decreases for a while. This means their immune system won't work as well during that time. Every veterinarian who has been in practice long enough has seen reactions to vaccines, ranging from lethargy, mild fever, sore neck to vomiting and sleeping for 24 hours, to total collapse and shock. In cats we now recognise that vaccinating with too many vaccines in the same place all the time can cause fibrosarcoma, a nasty cancer. This is officially recognised by the allopathic veterinary community, and if this isn't a form of vaccinosis, I don't know what is".


Driston Sherman, DVM, Colombus, USA, was quoted in Wolf Clan Magazine as saying: "

When I was doing primary allopathic medicine, I saw two things. One is that within an hour after the vaccination was given, the animal was having trouble breathing or may have had redness of the skin. The other thing I saw quite often was usually about twelve to twenty-four hours after being vaccinated, animals with fever, loss of appetite, sleeping a lot, sometimes vomitting or diarrhea. Most of those cases usually took care of themselves without any intervention within twenty-four hours.


"Now that I'm doing holistic medicine, it's really intriguing to look at the medical histories of animals. One case that comes to mind is a cat with a history of these horrible-looking sores that occurred exactly 30 days after being vaccinated - two years in a row. You may want to call that coincidence. I have my suspicions but I can't say , for sure, what caused these conditions, which is very frustrating."


Gary Seymour FBIH DIHom wrote : 

"Under Israeli law every dog has to receive an anti-rabies vaccination once a year. Within seconds of receiving his first rabies shot, my dog had an adverse reaction and has been ill ever since (a distemper type illness).

"I am convinced that his illness is a direct result of the vaccination he has been given, and deeply fear the results of his vaccination. I see on an almost daily basis in my practice the adverse effects of vaccine poisoning to both childeren and adults. I am a protagonist of the total abolishment of vaccination in both humans and animals. If this short-sighted practice can be curtailed, or even slowed down by your Census, then I offer you my whole hearted support".

— Health World Vaccination Centre

Other Papers/Articles of Interest:

The Dangers of Vaccinations, and the Advantages of Nosodes for Disease Prevention,

Dr. Donna Starita Mehan

The Immune System and Disease Resistance, W. Jean Dodds, DVM

The Interrelationship of Vaccinations, Vital Force and Remedy Action

Larry A. Bernstein, V.M.D.

Hepatitis B Vaccine: Helping or Hurting Public Health

The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

Committee on Government Reform, May 18, 1999 10:00 A.M.

Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute: An Extensive Selection of Uncensored Vaccine Information: Books, Laws, Natural Alternatives  and more . . .

What the Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines, Catherine O'Driscoll

Contact Information

The coordinator for this  page of our website is Bev Carter, a member of the Pomeranian Club of Canada and Webmaster. If you have any suggestions about what you would like to see on this page, you may contact Bev as follows:

Email Address, Damascusroad

Telephone: (709) 341-0489



© Copyright 2000
Pomeranian Club of Canada
All Rights Reserved

[ Home Page ] [ Email Us ] [ About the Club ] [ Club Executive ] [ Code of Ethics ] [ Club Magazine ] [ Join the Club ] [ Renew Your Membership ] [ List of Club Members ] [ Club Events ] [ Top Poms

 [ About Pomeranians ] [ Club Rescue Program ] [ CKC Breed Standard ] [ Breed Education Articles/Information ] [ Pomeranian Archives ] [ Puppy Stuff ] [ Pom Links ] [ PCOC Specialty Reports ]

[ Breeder Referral Ads ] [ Stud Dog Referral Ads ] [ Web-Ad Rates/Fees ]