Vaccinations: Papers/Articles from
by Bev Carter, Damascusroad
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?
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
I suppose you happened to be a Doctor of Veterinary
Medicine, which most of us aren't, and knew exactly where to
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
"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.
Richard H. Pitcairn, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Natural Health Center, Eugene Oregon
New Look at the Vaccine Question
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
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
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
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
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.
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
• Loss of hair, in
patches, on the face of men.
susceptibility to influenza and general ill-health.
• Facial acne and
• Chronic vertigo.
• Paralysis and
• Very painful
spine, with weakness, inflammation, twitchings, etc.
• Hand cramps and
enlargement of the spleen.
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
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.
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.
Eruption around the mouth where hair meets the naked skin of the
Swelling of the feet, red footpads.
Eruptions on the skin of pustules, on the abdomen, inside the
thighs, and elsewhere.
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:
Form of Canine Distemper
discharge of eyes and nose.
for watery fluid to drip from the nose.
conjunctivitis, eye discharge.
diarrhea and loss of appetite. Chronic gastritis,
hepatitis, pancreatitis, appetite disorders.
feces, mixed with mucous, offensive and often bloody
feces; intense malaise, loss of weight, and death.
to foods with resultant diarrhea.
fits, epileptiform seizures.
rear leg paralysis.
around the mouth where hair meets the naked skin of the
of the feet, red footpads.
of licking the feet; eruptions between the toes,
inflammation and swelling of the toes & bottoms of
the feet; interdigital dermatitis.
on the skin of pustules — on the abdomen, inside the
thighs, and elsewhere.
skin eruptions involving abdomen, inside thighs, and
generally lower half of the body.
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.
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
No interest in food.
Unable to swallow because of paralysis of muscles of
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.
Agonizing pain and constriction in the throat; spasms of the
Increased sexual desire; satyriasis, nymphomania; attempted
Inflammation of the heart muscle; disturbed heart function,
irregular rhythm, heart rate too slow or too fast; heart
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:
Form of Rabies
uneasiness, apprehensiveness and a developing
viciousness. This is most apt to be manifested toward
nature; suspicious of others, unfriendly to other dogs,
vicious to other animals, desire to kill.
and mistrust of strangers, especially people in
normally affectionate may hide away and shun company.
of behavior to aloofness; from affectionate to
normally independent may become unusually attentive and
behavior, fear to be left alone. Follows owner from room
to room. Wants physical contact.
to travel away from home for long distances.
to escape confinement and to roam.
restrained, it will chew viciously on metal chains or
anything that is used to restrain or confine it.
at restraint results in hysterical, violent behavior.
Resistance can be so extreme as to cause self-injury.
dog may inflict severe bite wounds on itself.
tail-chewing, chewing off toes or a foot (seen in severe
allergic or nervous diseases).
cries and hoarse howls (partial paralysis of the vocal
tendency to bark or be vocal.
interest in food.
poor appetite; very particular about food; finicky.
to swallow because of paralysis of muscles of
deglutition. Hanging down of the lower jaw.
(or partial paralysis) of mouth, tongue or throat;
sloppy eaters or drinkers; tendency to drool or lose
staring with dilation of the pupils.
of sight, cataract formation, visual defects.
to close the eyes; cornea becomes dry and dull.
sicca, "dry eye".
pieces of wood, stones, its own fecal material and other
of eating wood, stones, sticks, earth.
desire to eat stool (their own or other animals).
of blankets, towels, clothing.
behavior and shredding of blankets or bedding.
epilepsy, chorea, twitches, etc.
pain and constriction in the throat; spasms of the
sexual desire; satyriasis, nymphomania; attempted rape.
sexual desire, even in neutered males; humping; sexual
of the heart muscle; disturbed heart function, irregular
rhythm, heart rate too slow or too fast; heart failure.
pulse; heart failure.
of excitement and jerky breathing; cluster breathing.
Ibid, pp. 771-772. 3 Colin Kaplan, ed.. 1977. Rabies
— The Facts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.
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:
Rough, unkempt coat.
Indifference to owner or surroundings.
Rapid weight loss.
Profuse, watery, diarrhea (often blood-tinged).
Mucopurulent discharges from the eyes and nose.
The changes to a chronic disease condition are shown in this
Form of Feline Panleukopenia
indifference to owner or surroundings.
cats, not active, lie around most of the time.
problems, finicky, not wanting to eat well.
fever, for weeks, with few symptoms except for cervical
groomers (or cats that never groom).
dehydration leading to cystitis and bladder calculus
formation; chronic interstitial nephritis.
thin, "skeletal" cats.
profuse, watery, diarrhea (often blood-tinged).
discharges from the eyes and nose.
upper respiratory infections; sinusitis.
Ibid, p. 858
Feline leukemia, in the primary stage, is characterized by
fever, malaise, anorexia, lymphadenopathy, leukopenia, anemia,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Ibid, pp. 771-772. 3 Colin Kaplan, ed.. 1977. Rabies
— The Facts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 38-44.
Ibid, p. 858..
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.
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
Eleanor McBean. 1974.The Poisoned Needle. Mokelumne Hill,
CA: Health Research. p. 142.
Neil Z. Miller. 1992. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and
Effective? Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press.
Michael Alderson. 1981. International Mortality
Statistics: Facts on File, , Washington, DC.
Hannah Allen. 1985. Don’t Get Stuck: The Case Against
Vaccinations. Oldsmar, FL: Natural Hygiene Press.
Neil Z. Miller. 1992. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and
Effective? Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press.
Michael Alderson. 1981. International Mortality
Statistics: Facts on File, , Washington, DC.
John H. Frank, Jr., MD et al. May 6-9, 1985. Measles
Elimination — Final Impediments. 20th Immunization
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.
Natural Health Center, Eugene Oregon
articles by Dr. Pitcairn can be found at:
Alternatives to Vaccines http://www.geocities.com/~lyncamp/nosodes.html
by Dr. Lorraine Day
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
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
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
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
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
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.
excellent primer on vaccinations is entitled
Are they Really Safe and Effective? by Neil Z. Miller
P.O. Box 9638, Santa Fe, NM 87504
informative book is:
By Injection, by Eustace Mullens
National Council for Medical Research
P.O. Box 1105, Staunton, VA 2440l
The story of the medical conspiracy against America.
video documenting the dangers of vaccination entitled:
and Ineffectiveness of Vaccinations, Including Scientific
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.
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.
Condemned, book one, by Elben
Better Life Research
P.O. Box 42002, Los Angeles, CA 90042
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.
For a more complete
listing of resources recommended by Dr. Day, please visit her
— Dr. Lorraine Day
Dr. Day is an
internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon and best
She was for 15
years on the faculty of the University of California, San
Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of
She was also
Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital
recognized world-wide as an AIDS expert.
on Government Reform
Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine
the Integrity of the Process”
June 15, 2000
, 1:00 pm
Rayburn House Office Building
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
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
the evidence we found, I think they do.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
confident in the safety and need for specific vaccines would
doctors and parents be if they learned the following:
members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory
committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies
that make vaccines.
individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines
under consideration or affected by the decisions of the
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.
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.
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
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.
are just a few of the problems we found.
Specific examples of this include:
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
governments rely on the recommendations of the CDC and the FDA
to determine the type and schedule of vaccines.
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.”
the FDA and the CDC really believe that scientists are more
immune to self-interest than other people?
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.
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
hearing record will remain open until June 28 for those who
would like to submit a statement into the hearing record.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
SMALL ANIMAL VACCINES SELECTED FOR OUR
PROGRAM AT THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY VETERINARY TEACHING
live canine distemper, adenovirus type 2, parainfluenza,
® KC (Intervet)
parainfluenza, Bordetella bronchiseptica (intranasal)
® -3 (Intervet, Inc.)
rhinotracheitis, calici, panleukopenia modified live virus
live rhinotracheitis, calici, panleukopenia (intranasal)
Lv-K ® (Fort Dodge)
AND FELINE* RABIES
3 (Rhone Merieux) (Dog)
rabies vaccine - three year duration of immunity
new canarypox vector rabies vaccine from Merial with a one
year duration of immunity replaces Imrab®3 in cats.
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.
be used ONLY IN HIGH RISK cats. Two vaccines prior to
12 weeks of age. One booster at one year of age.
those interested in reading more about small animal immunization
issues, the following is a suggested reading list.
SUGGESTED READING LIST
Dubielzig RR, Everitt J, Shadduck JA, et al:
Clinical and morphologic features of posttraumatic ocular
sarcomas in cats. Vet Pathol 27:62-65, 1990.
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.
Duval D, Giger URS: Vaccine associated
immune-mediated hemolytic anemia in the dog. J Vet Int Med
Esplin DG, McGill L, Meininger A, et al:
Postvaccination sarcomas in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc
Fawcett HA, Smith HP: Injection-site granuloma
due to aluminum. Arch Dermatol 120:1318-1322, 1984.
Greene CE: Vaccine induced complications
verses overvaccination. Proceedings of the 65th annual AAHA
meeting, Chicago, 1998, pp 368-369.
Hendrick MJ, Brooks JJ: Postvaccinal sarcomas
in the cat: Histology and immunohistochemistry. Vet Pathol
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.
Hendrick MJ, Goldschmidt MH: Do injection site
reactions induce fibrosarcomas in cats? J Am Vet Med Assoc
Hendrick MJ, Goldschmidt MH, Shofer F, et al:
Postvaccinal sarcomas in the cat: Epidemiology and electron
probe microanalytical identification of aluminum. Cancer Res
Hendrick MJ, Kass PH, McGill LD, et al:
Commentary: Postvaccinal sarcomas in cats. J Natl Cancer Inst
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.
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.
Larson LV, Schultz RD: Comparison of selected
canine vaccines for the inability to induce protective
immunity against canine parvovirus infections. AJVR 1997 58:4,
Larson RL, Bradley JS: Immunologic principles
and immunization strategy. Comp Cont Ed Pract Vet
Macy DW. The potential role and mechanisms of
FeLV vaccine-induced neoplasms. Sem Vet Med Surg
Macy DW, et al. Vaccine associated sarcomas in
cats. Fel Pract 1995;23:24-27.
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.
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.
Olson P, et al. Duration of immunity eliceited
by canine distemper virus vaccinatons in dogs. Vet Rec
Pedersen NC: Perspectives on small animal
vaccination: A critical look at current vaccines and vaccine
strategies in the United States. Proceedings AAHA 145-156,
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.
Schultz RD: Current and future canine and
feline vaccination programs. Veterinary Medicine 233-254,
Schultz RD: Veterinary Vaccines and
Diagnostics in Advances in Veterinary Medicine, 41, 1999 pp.
Scott FW: Duration of immunity in cats
vaccinated with an inactivated feline panleukopenia,
herpesvirus, and calicivirus vaccine. Fel Pract 1997;25:12-22.
Smith CA: Current concepts: Are we vaccinating
too much? J Am Vet Med Assoc 207:421-425,1995.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
To view other items
in the ongoing debate between Catherine O'Driscoll and Steve
Dean, go to:
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:
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
"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
Chambreau, DVM, Madison,USA, said:
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
Mike Kohn, DVM,
Madison, USA, said:
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
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".
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
Gary Seymour FBIH
DIHom wrote :
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
"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
Papers/Articles of Interest:
Dangers of Vaccinations, and the Advantages of Nosodes for
Donna Starita Mehan
The Immune System
and Disease Resistance, W. Jean Dodds, DVM
Interrelationship of Vaccinations, Vital Force and Remedy Action
A. Bernstein, V.M.D.
B Vaccine: Helping or Hurting Public Health
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
on Government Reform, May 18, 1999 10:00 A.M.
Twice Global Vaccine Institute: An Extensive Selection of
Uncensored Vaccine Information: Books, Laws, Natural
Alternatives and more . . .
the Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines, Catherine O'Driscoll
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
All Rights Reserved