DR. DOLITTLER

Old vaccine suspected in cat's tumor

By DR. PATTY KHULY   http://www.miamiherald.com/357/story/169544.html

drkhuly@dolittler.com

Q: My cat, Bunny, had a nasty tumor on his back. My vet and the vet surgeon who removed it both said it might have been related to his past vaccines.

A: It's possible Bunny had a vaccine-associated sarcoma. A new study shows these sarcomas to be all but eradicated since new vaccines were introduced in 2002. However, cats vaccinated before this date are still at risk of developing these notoriously aggressive tumors.

It's also possible that Bunny's body made this cancer on its own and that it has nothing to do with vaccines. Most cancers just happen without a good reason. What we suspect in this case is that some vaccines cause inflammation in the skin. To fight it, the cat's immune system gets confused and enables cancer cells within normal skin.

Fortunately, these cancers don't spread wildly. They are, nonetheless, extremely hostile to the tissues they invade. Aggressive surgery of these tumors is the mainstay of treatment.

Dr. Marc Wosar, veterinary surgeon at Miami Veterinary Specialists and a local expert on excising these cancers, that means removing wide swathes of skin and muscle (and sometimes bone) surrounding them.

He recommends that owners get used to knowing the feel of their cats' normal skin. Pet your cat often and pay close attention to areas you know have received vaccines. If you find any unusual bumps, take your cat to the vet. But don't panic -- benign lumps and bumps are far more common than cancers.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association's Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (www.avma.org/vafstf), the situation is best managed by injection of vaccines in spots far away from the shoulders. The shoulders are the most common site for tumors and are difficult to operate on. The task force recommends using as few vaccines as necessary but caution that you should never forego infectious disease prevention.

Discuss any lingering concerns at your kitty's next round of shots. After all, not every cat needs every vaccine every single year.

Dr. Patty Khuly practices in South Miami and blogs at www.dolittler.com. Send questions to drkhuly@dolittler.com, or Dr. Dolittler, Tropical Life, The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL 33132. 
 

Patricia Monahan Jordan, DVM,CVA,CTCVH & Herbology

Cancer in our pet population, why is it on the rise?

There are no requirements for veterinary medical doctors to collect and to report statistics of the different companion animal cancers. However, a review of the pet insurance records did show that of the four most common cancer in humans-breast, lung, prostate and colon, only breast cancer was common in dogs. Breast cancer occurs in cats less frequently than in dogs but when it does is > 90% malignant adenocarcinoma.

For animals the most common tumors are soft tissue sarcomas, for example, in muscles, joint tissues and nerves. While the most common cancer in our companion animals, soft tissue sarcomas are found in less than 1 % of the human cancer patients. So, what are the differences between people and their pets?

If for discussion purposes we were to consider the later findings of the pet insurance records; that the most common tumors of companion animals are the soft tissue sarcomas. We could query as to why this fact occurs.

We can agree that the lifespan of the companion animal is much less than the average life span of the human caretaker. In such, ten generations of a companion animal’s family line could possibly be experienced in the length of one generation of the human caretaker. In this way, generations of genetic damage can be acquired over a relatively short period of time.

Not only do companion animals live a shorter lifespan, if they develop a malignant cancer the doubling time of the cancer mass is much shorter. Therefore, a malignant tumor can run the full course of cancer in a much shorter time.

In many discussions, the cause of any cancer is unknown, as in human breast cancer.
In 95% of human breast cancer cases the etiology or cause of the cancer remains unknown. However, the cause of soft tissue sarcomas in animals is now, well studied and now understood. The resultant findings of the Feline Vaccine Sarcoma Task Force show a clear correlation to vaccine administration and cancer formation.

In l999 the WHO named the veterinary vaccine adjuvant a grade ¾ carcinogen, with four being the most carcinogenic. The adjuvant identified is aluminum hydroxide, a component of most of the currently used veterinary vaccines. An adjuvant used also in human vaccines.

. Adjuvant is not the only way to transmutate a body’s genome. Environmental poisons and toxins, viral oncogenes, proteins, drugs, nutritional deficiencies, hormones or mimickers and disruptors of hormones, geophysical forces, ultraviolet radiation, electromagnetic forces, we are finding out thousands of ways to cause genetic mutation. Protecting one’s DNA from transmutation is a current topic of health interest. Reversing damage done to the DNA an ongoing source of research funding

What the research tells us is in animals is that adjuvant, in this case aluminum hydroxide, stimulates an inflammatory reaction and therefore creates oxidative stress that results in a mutation of the p53 suppressor gene. The p53 suppressor gene is supposed to help the body stop malignancies by suppressing tumor growth. When p53 is doing its correct job, it is a nuclear transcription regulator. The integrity of the genome is guarded by many policemen. However in this case, the result is a loss in translation so to speak. When a mutation of p53 occurs, malignant tumors results

Not understanding gene theory and that the genetics of any individual is constantly up for change by the very nutrition we ingest and every stressors we are exposed to leads one to have a misunderstanding that it is difficult to mistune the genome of an weakened immune system……… even after birth. In this case there is no question as to the causation and effect; aluminum hydroxide often leaves its calling card in the biopsy specimens the telltale blue grey foreign body. The mark of the beast so to speak also claims the cancer as the result of the intrusion of this foreign substance.

Now, this one example leads to the question and then the realization that not only the cat but other animals, the ferret and the dog all get vaccine injection site soft tissue sarcomas. Studies have shown the vaccine to have caused the sarcoma in the dog and the ferret. Cancers are found in injection sites that resulted from the vaccine, as well in other areas not directly the vicinity of the injection site. Not only are the soft tissue sarcomas from the vaccines, so are most of the other tumors as well. Documented cases of lymphoma have resulted in patients developing vaccine injection site fibrosarcomas.

Once it is understood that the integrity of the genome has been compromised via immunosupression, inflammation, adjuvant, modified live viruses, protein incorporation, poison or neurotoxin injection all , I repeat all of which occurs via the hypodermic inoculation at the time of vaccine administration, you must question the reason why vaccines are used so frequently if at all.

Vaccination as we all are now aware is lacking in any scientific evidence for long term safety or studies that it does not produce chronic disease as a trade off for the missing acute disease. For that matter, we have no proof that the vaccines do not cause the bulk of every haywire out of control cancer cell growth that goes by unsuppressed. In this case we find the proof that vaccines can and do cause malignant cancer.

The yearly administration of the “mumbo jumbo” that vaccine based veterinary practices all over the United States have made a custom and a burden to the companion owning public was never scientific nor even an evidence based medical procedure. In fact, the custom, because that is all this has turned out to be, was the unscientific, unresearched and unwarranted musings of a roundtable discussion among veterinarian members of the AVMA. We have no information what if any role the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the vaccines may have played in those “musings”.
This medical hubris and the consequences have yet to be fully realized. The unforeseen collateral damages done to our patients as of yet unacknowledged.

Lacking any scientific validation, the veterinary medical institutions of our great nation essentially turned out veterinary doctors to work as needle jockeys.

Many practices still use this cancer causing medical procedure even now, with recommendations to not vaccinate needlessly coming from the AVMA, AAHA and the AAFP. Without informed consent and without full disclosure, veterinary medical doctors in every state continue to burden the client with vaccination reminders and the patient with immune assault. Culpable responsibility against the veterinary medical doctor needs to be litigated. Medical hubris does not excuse the veterinary medical doctor whom vaccinates the patient presenting for some symptom or illness and is in fact a direct violation of the FDA regulations on the very use of biologic products.

The consequential research preformed from our major veterinary vaccine researchers has proven the in vivo mutagenicity of vaccines, the generation of auto anti-bodies and auto-immune disease, the degenerative diseases, the endocrine diseases, neurotoxicity and seizures of vaccine administration, allergies, asthma and the continued evidence of cancer . All of the internal medicine cases we see are well described vaccine induced disease.

Vaccination has proved to be a big business for the veterinary medical doctor and insures job security for the needle jockeys. Big Pharma and the vaccine makers also benefit, cancer treatment is big business. Having a diagnosis of cancer means expensive drugs, possibly surgery and chemotherapy if treated via conventional medicine. Don’t forget the surgeons, there has been over a 150% increase in young women diagnosed with breast cancer choosing bilateral mastectomies, the more surgically aggressive therapy.

Now would be a good time to introduce the not so shocking recent admission of a Pharmaceutical CEO that any pharmaceutical or drug has at best 35% efficacy in the general population due to the genetic diversity within the human population. 35% effect is near placebo effect! Dr. Candace Pert in her Cd “Your Body Is Your Subconscious Mind” will explain how no drug is effective long term and how the down regulation of the receptor of that drug has ultimately more serious consequences.

An important paper published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology performs a met analysis entitled “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy in 5 year Survival in Adult Malignancies”. The objective of the paper was to accurately quantify and assess the actual benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the most common malignant cancers. All three of the authors are oncologists. One of the authors is also on an official body that advises the government in Australia on the suitability and efficacy of drugs that can be listed in the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (roughly the equivalent of the United States FDA, Food and Drug Administration).The meticulous study determined that in Australia chemotherapy protocols were 2.3% effective and in the United States they were found to be 2.1% effective.

Chemotherapy is cell poisoning, but isn’t that already accomplished with the injection of the vaccine? No the vaccine transmutates the genome and assaults the immune system. The treatment for this disease is often worse that the disease itself. A study took place among the pet owning clients of cancer victims, the “quantity” of time left for the cancer patient was not as important as the “quality”. Chemotherapy gives you neither.

One veterinary medical doctor in Norway, using a one acupoint acupuncture technique to treat malignant breast cancer with over 75% success, has found that recovered cancer patients have approximately 12 substances in their blood, peptides that was not found in the blood of non recovered patients. His passion to follow this treatment option out met with little interest from the pharmaceutical companies. He had to self finance the testing of the substances. The substances are more effective in stopping growth in even in the Tamoxifen resistant breast cell cultures. How much money could be made off the use of the acupuncturist administering a one needle technique? The substances in the blood of the woman receiving the acupuncture treatment are of great scientific importance; after all we are talking about the successful treatment of malignant cancer!

If vaccines were not dangerous with adverse reactions and devastating health consequences, then they would not have originated a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. This is available for humans harmed by vaccines. The Veterinary Vaccine Injury Compensation Act has been called for by a pathologist at Colorado’s Veterinary Medical School. The same oncologist that sat on the Feline Injection Site Sarcoma Task Force and one whom has witnessed these sarcomas and the difficult and unsuccessful they are attempted to be treated.

What needs to happen is that not only vaccine injury needs to be recognized and acknowledged, it needs to be reported. The owner has to be the proactive one for their pet’s benefit; it doesn’t look good for the profession carrying that banner. The medical hubris of both the medical and the veterinary profession needs to be done away with. Conventional treatment in not claiming victory for health, but perhaps that is the goal of conventional medicine, of whose foundation is in the business of drugs and vaccines and surgery.

The treatment of cancer is not likely to be found in conventional medicine. The multilevel multifactorial causation made complex by the medical industrial complex will not find the answer. Conventional wisdom will not allow conventional medicine to find an answer to cancer because it would not be profitable to do so. As said by Albert Einstein “We can’t solve problems with the same thinking that created the problems”. Of course, we have to get the medical community to see the problem first. Getting everyone to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes is a feat in itself. Getting medical doctors to stop a practice that feeds their wallet, well that it is what it is.

Tearing at the profession who claims to be the “compassionate profession” may only be heard if there is another way to still get paid while enacting compassion. The privilege that comes with a license to practice medicine obviously comes with the right to cause harm and with no consequence when it is the standard of care within the profession.

A wholistic approach is needed in order to address the disease in the “whole” population. TCM and Homeopathy are two important medical systems that attest to the presentation of the “individual”. Using an Integrative approach is also necessary. Only integrative practitioners integrate the being back into the mind-body-spirit trilogy of its personal picture and therefore it’s individual expression of this biological conflict.

In closing, I would have the following words for the naysayer that they could have possibility been a part of this medical conspiracy to push the agenda of Big Pharma and have single handedly ruined the health of those very patient’s of whom were entrusted into their care?

Dr. Phillip Kass, at the Discussion among other Feline Injection Site Sarcoma Task Force, presented these words of wisdom from Sir Austin Bradford Hill from the l965 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine

” Finally in passing from association to causation I believe in “real life” we shall have to consider what flows from that decision. On scientific grounds we should no such thing but in another more practical sense we may surely ask what is involved in our decision. All scientific work is incomplete, whether it is observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer on us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time”………

Dr. Phillip Kass continues with,.” you can’t always wait to have irrefutable scientific evidence before you have to take some sort of action, the vaccine associated sarcoma is a real phenomena and the cost of waiting and doing nothing is much greater than the cost of acting now.” As far as the need for action now, I point out one of the references from the Fallacy of Vaccination paper by Jonathan Pitcairn,

Forty-Five Years of Registration Statistics, Proving Vaccination to Be both Useless and Dangerous, by Alfred R. Wallace. LL.D., second edition, London, 1889, p. 38, Third Report of the [British] Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of Vaccination, Minutes of Evidence, Government Publication, London, 1890, p. 34, q. 7713 Well, that is the medical profession of whom I am not brethren. The veterinary profession can and needs to make the right directional move on this vaccine debacle. To ignore this issue is to commit malpractice. If a member of the profession does not understand this, let him honor the Hippocratic Oath, adopted by the AVMA,

The veterinary Hippocratic Oath upon most of our profession was sworn into the profession, professes

Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.

Vaccine induced round cell tumorreturn of vaccine sarcoma

earthclinic.com 

Vaccines: As Anticipated

A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs -- but not the non-vaccinated dogs-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells.

Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells. Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structuret o our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA deelop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern.

What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments?

"Carry on vaccinating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die." In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.

But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at thei injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.

It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA).

Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, lso acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.

A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.

The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)

Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis:
brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections".

When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-mnth post-vaccination period.

I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.

Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves: "Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of at ibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."

I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed. Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.

Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination".

This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.

Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or is equivalent is not administered.

There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.

Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can de if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.

Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent. Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.

A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:

Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunl ogic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines..." (9) Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10)

Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today." Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)

Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia , as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13)

A Theory on Inflammation
Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observatons led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.

Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS. Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 a s a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.

"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case. "The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)

If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth. If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective bt a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.

Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other  inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.

The Final Insult
All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and catsa long the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.

Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect.

The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced. Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia. In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)

Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years.

But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily. The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimize the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.

It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.

About the Author:
Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in NEXUS 4/04). She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine health around the world.

For more information, contact Catherine O'Driscoll at Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email
catherine@carsegray.co.uk , website http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk.
Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, and woldwide from Dogwise at http://www.dogwise.com.
Endnotes
1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at
http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.
2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.
3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp.
4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.
5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.
6. Duva, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at
http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Councilon Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog
vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002,
http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13,
2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining
revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000

This looks like a good article to read....

Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal Fibrosarcomas; Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A August 2003, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 286-291(6)

 

I know this is off-topic, so I'll keep this brief. I figured this group would appreciate the needs of this situation. :-)

We recently took in a young (11 month old) calico cat. Healthy, indoor, spayed, and unvaccinated. We weren't sure about the timing and this has proved the problem. We also have a 16 yr old cat who has a fibrosarcoma from the vaccines she received over 13 years ago. (We lost her sister to fibrosarcoma last July). We love the new cat and she is very sweet, but she and our cat are just not getting along. We've worked with the situation for the past month, but the stress is affecting our existing cat and it's just not fair for an old, ill cat to have to deal with a young whippersnapper who wants to pounce on her all the time.  This young cat would do best in a home as an only cat, or perhaps with one other cat who is fairly young and vigorous enough to work out a mutual cat territory arrangement. I hope she would remain unvaccinated and fed a healthy/raw diet (I'm working on the raw part; it's not what she's used to but I'm seeing progress).

If you have room in your home and heart for a cat, please email me off list for more information/photos. We're in the Lawrenceville-Suwanee area of Gwinnett County.

Dawn Burke

firstlight5@gmail.com

 

Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors


By TODD LEWAN
The Associated Press
Saturday, September 8, 2007; 2:04 PM


-- When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients' medical records almost instantly. The FDA found "reasonable assurance" the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005's top "innovative technologies."

But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had "induced" malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

"The transponders were the cause of the tumors," said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.

Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.

To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.

"We stand by our implantable products which have been approved by the FDA and/or other U.S. regulatory authorities," Scott Silverman, VeriChip Corp. chairman and chief executive officer, said in a written response to AP questions.

The company was "not aware of any studies that have resulted in malignant tumors in laboratory rats, mice and certainly not dogs or cats," but he added that millions of domestic pets have been implanted with microchips, without reports of significant problems.

"In fact, for more than 15 years we have used our encapsulated glass transponders with FDA approved anti-migration caps and received no complaints regarding malignant tumors caused by our product."

The FDA also stands by its approval of the technology.

Did the agency know of the tumor findings before approving the chip implants? The FDA declined repeated AP requests to specify what studies it reviewed.

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag.

"I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.

Also making no mention of the findings on animal tumors was a June report by the ethics committee of the American Medical Association, which touted the benefits of implantable RFID devices.

Had committee members reviewed the literature on cancer in chipped animals?

No, said Dr. Steven Stack, an AMA board member with knowledge of the committee's review.

Was the AMA aware of the studies?

No, he said.

___

Published in veterinary and toxicology journals between 1996 and 2006, the studies found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous "sarcomas" _ malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.

_ A 1998 study in Ridgefield, Conn., of 177 mice reported cancer incidence to be slightly higher than 10 percent _ a result the researchers described as "surprising."

_ A 2006 study in France detected tumors in 4.1 percent of 1,260 microchipped mice. This was one of six studies in which the scientists did not set out to find microchip-induced cancer but noticed the growths incidentally. They were testing compounds on behalf of chemical and pharmaceutical companies; but they ruled out the compounds as the tumors' cause. Because researchers only noted the most obvious tumors, the French study said, "These incidences may therefore slightly underestimate the true occurrence" of cancer.

_ In 1997, a study in Germany found cancers in 1 percent of 4,279 chipped mice. The tumors "are clearly due to the implanted microchips," the authors wrote.

Caveats accompanied the findings. "Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided," one study cautioned. Also, because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.

Still, after reviewing the research, specialists at some pre-eminent cancer institutions said the findings raised red flags.

"There's no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members," said Dr. Robert Benezra, head of the Cancer Biology Genetics Program at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Before microchips are implanted on a large scale in humans, he said, testing should be done on larger animals, such as dogs or monkeys. "I mean, these are bad diseases. They are life-threatening. And given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there's definitely cause for concern."

Dr. George Demetri, director of the Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, agreed. Even though the tumor incidences were "reasonably small," in his view, the research underscored "certainly real risks" in RFID implants.

In humans, sarcomas, which strike connective tissues, can range from the highly curable to "tumors that are incredibly aggressive and can kill people in three to six months," he said.

At the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a leader in mouse genetics research and the initiation of cancer, Dr. Oded Foreman, a forensic pathologist, also reviewed the studies at the AP's request.

At first he was skeptical, suggesting that chemicals administered in some of the studies could have caused the cancers and skewed the results. But he took a different view after seeing that control mice, which received no chemicals, also developed the cancers. "That might be a little hint that something real is happening here," he said. He, too, recommended further study, using mice, dogs or non-human primates.

Dr. Cheryl London, a veterinarian oncologist at Ohio State University, noted: "It's much easier to cause cancer in mice than it is in people. So it may be that what you're seeing in mice represents an exaggerated phenomenon of what may occur in people."

Tens of thousands of dogs have been chipped, she said, and veterinary pathologists haven't reported outbreaks of related sarcomas in the area of the neck, where canine implants are often done. (Published reports detailing malignant tumors in two chipped dogs turned up in AP's four-month examination of research on chips and health. In one dog, the researchers said cancer appeared linked to the presence of the embedded chip; in the other, the cancer's cause was uncertain.)

Nonetheless, London saw a need for a 20-year study of chipped canines "to see if you have a biological effect." Dr. Chand Khanna, a veterinary oncologist at the National Cancer Institute, also backed such a study, saying current evidence "does suggest some reason to be concerned about tumor formations."

Meanwhile, the animal study findings should be disclosed to anyone considering a chip implant, the cancer specialists agreed.

To date, however, that hasn't happened.

___

The product that VeriChip Corp. won approval for use in humans is an electronic capsule the size of two grains of rice. Generally, it is implanted with a syringe into an anesthetized portion of the upper arm.

When prompted by an electromagnetic scanner, the chip transmits a unique code. With the code, hospital staff can go on the Internet and access a patient's medical profile that is maintained in a database by VeriChip Corp. for an annual fee.

VeriChip Corp., whose parent company has been marketing radio tags for animals for more than a decade, sees an initial market of diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer's disease, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

The company is spending millions to assemble a national network of hospitals equipped to scan chipped patients.

But in its SEC filings, product labels and press releases, VeriChip Corp. has not mentioned the existence of research linking embedded transponders to tumors in test animals.

When the FDA approved the device, it noted some Verichip risks: The capsules could migrate around the body, making them difficult to extract; they might interfere with defibrillators, or be incompatible with MRI scans, causing burns. While also warning that the chips could cause "adverse tissue reaction," FDA made no reference to malignant growths in animal studies.

Did the agency review literature on microchip implants and animal cancer?

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and RFID expert, asked shortly after VeriChip's approval what evidence the agency had reviewed. When FDA declined to provide information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. More than a year later, she received a letter stating there were no documents matching her request.

"The public relies on the FDA to evaluate all the data and make sure the devices it approves are safe," she says, "but if they're not doing that, who's covering our backs?"

Late last year, Albrecht unearthed at the Harvard medical library three studies noting cancerous tumors in some chipped mice and rats, plus a reference in another study to a chipped dog with a tumor. She forwarded them to the AP, which subsequently found three additional mice studies with similar findings, plus another report of a chipped dog with a tumor.

Asked if it had taken these studies into account, the FDA said VeriChip documents were being kept confidential to protect trade secrets. After AP filed a FOIA request, the FDA made available for a phone interview Anthony Watson, who was in charge of the VeriChip approval process.

"At the time we reviewed this, I don't remember seeing anything like that," he said of animal studies linking microchips to cancer. A literature search "didn't turn up anything that would be of concern."

In general, Watson said, companies are expected to provide safety-and-effectiveness data during the approval process, "even if it's adverse information."

Watson added: "The few articles from the literature that did discuss adverse tissue reactions similar to those in the articles you provided, describe the responses as foreign body reactions that are typical of other implantable devices. The balance of the data provided in the submission supported approval of the device."

Another implantable device could be a pacemaker, and indeed, tumors have in some cases attached to foreign bodies inside humans. But Dr. Neil Lipman, director of the Research Animal Resource Center at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said it's not the same. The microchip isn't like a pacemaker that's vital to keeping someone alive, he added, "so at this stage, the payoff doesn't justify the risks."

Silverman, VeriChip Corp.'s chief executive, disagreed. "Each month pet microchips reunite over 8,000 dogs and cats with their owners," he said. "We believe the VeriMed Patient Identification System will provide similar positive benefits for at-risk patients who are unable to communicate for themselves in an emergency."

___

And what of former HHS secretary Thompson?

When asked what role, if any, he played in VeriChip's approval, Thompson replied: "I had nothing to do with it. And if you look back at my record, you will find that there has never been any improprieties whatsoever."

FDA's Watson said: "I have no recollection of him being involved in it at all." VeriChip Corp. declined comment.

Thompson vigorously campaigned for electronic medical records and healthcare technology both as governor of Wisconsin and at HHS. While in President Bush's Cabinet, he formed a "medical innovation" task force that worked to partner FDA with companies developing medical information technologies.

At a "Medical Innovation Summit" on Oct. 20, 2004, Lester Crawford, the FDA's acting commissioner, thanked the secretary for getting the agency "deeply involved in the use of new information technology to help prevent medication error." One notable example he cited: "the implantable chips and scanners of the VeriChip system our agency approved last week."

After leaving the Cabinet and joining the company board, Thompson received options on 166,667 shares of VeriChip Corp. stock, and options on an additional 100,000 shares of stock from its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, according to SEC records. He also received $40,000 in cash in 2005 and again in 2006, the filings show.

The Project on Government Oversight called Thompson's actions "unacceptable" even though they did not violate what the independent watchdog group calls weak conflict-of-interest laws.

"A decade ago, people would be embarrassed to cash in on their government connections. But now it's like the Wild West," said the group's executive director, Danielle Brian.

Thompson is a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington law firm that was paid $1.2 million for legal services it provided the chip maker in 2005 and 2006, according to SEC filings.

He stepped down as a VeriChip Corp. director in March to seek the GOP presidential nomination, and records show that the company gave his campaign $7,400 before he bowed out of the race in August.

In a TV interview while still on the board, Thompson was explaining the benefits _ and the ease _ of being chipped when an interviewer interrupted:

"I'm sorry, sir. Did you just say you would get one implanted in your arm?"

"Absolutely," Thompson replied. "Without a doubt."

"No concerns at all?"

"No."

But to date, Thompson has yet to be chipped himself.

___

On the Web:

http://www.verichipcorp.com

http://www.antichips.com

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/



Regards,

Eileen Dannemann
former director, National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW)
www.ProgressiveConvergence.com
917 804-0786

Please forward (permission to forward granted from the author)
Vaccination <http://www.vaccinationnews.com/now_accepting_donations.htm>
News, A Non-Profit Corporation is now accepting donations! - right click &
open in new window if you wish to support our education efforts
All
<http://www.vaccinationnews.com/letters_in_support_of_vaccination_news.htm>
the letters (so far) in support of Vaccination News
Thank you, Catherine. Your outstanding work promoting animal health has
long been an inspiration to me. - Sandy

About Catherine O'Driscoll <http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk>
Dear Sandy
I was of course disappointed to hear that the future of Vaccination News is in jeopardy. As you know, Canine Health Concern has been campaigning to end the over-vaccination of dogs - a practice that is causing untold suffering and death. Just to get the unmitigated truth out right at the beginning of this letter: once an individual is immune to viral disease, they are immune. Duration of immunity studies have shown that dogs and cats are immune to viral disease for at least seven years by direct challenge, and up to 15 years by serology. Veterinary bodies around the world have confirmed that annual vaccination is neither necessary nor safe. Our own research has shown that vaccines can cause arthritis, epilepsy, diabetes, organ failure, allergies, cancer, leukaemia, a vast range of immune-mediated diseases, and death in dogs.

And yet vets continue to demand that their clients vaccinate their pets every year. This must surely be because 40% of practice income comes from booster revenue. Can you imagine our human babies being vaccinated every year, throughout their lives, with a cocktail of vaccines? Can you imagine the harm this would do to children?  Ordinary people cannot match the budgets of pharmaceutical companies to advertise the simple truth. We cannot give vets and veterinary teaching establishments thousands of pounds to alter their practices and their curriculum. We can't sponsor seminars, or pay for bursaries and research grants. We are just ordinary people who have looked at the scientific evidence and know, without a shadow of doubt, that vets are making our animals ill. They are empowered to do this by vaccine manufacturers which pay for skewed research and hide the less lucrative findings, and their sales message is hammered home by visiting sales reps and through corporate jollies and handouts.  In this world of mass media marketing, it is absolutely vital that services such as Vaccination News are empowered to continue. When our experts, such as doctors and vets, are educated (misled) within a commercially based system, there has to be a voice of balance out there. Ordinary people who care for their children or their pets must have information available to them so that they can make informed, truthful, decisions. Change seems always to be made by an active and impassioned few. It is hard to give your time and energy, as you have done. But it is perhaps easier to write a cheque?

If anyone values their freedom of choice, then they must support Vaccination News. If we do nothing, then we are - to quote a phrase - simply part of the problem. Blood is on our own hands. Knowledge is power. Don't give your power away simply by doing nothing.
Sincerely
Catherine O'Driscoll
 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/8/prweb544223.htm

Pet Owners Say "Yes" to Exempt Dogs and Cats from Rabies Vaccinations

Texas pet owners demand change in rabies laws to exempt sick and senior pets from compulsory rabies vaccinations when the Department of Health Services Council meets on August 6 2007.

Austin, TX (PRWEB) August 3, 2007 -- Texas residents will present a petition to urge the Texas Department of Health Services to amend its compulsory vaccination of all companion animals for rabies regardless of their health, age or potential for exposure when it meets on Monday August 6, 2007 at the Moreton Building, 1100 W 49th St, Austin, TX.

Texas residents who love animals say this exemption is long overdue.

Overdue consideration

In 2003, the Texas Department of Public Health adopted a three-year interval between rabies vaccinations for dogs, one year for cats. This legislative action partially aligned state laws with the recommendations of 22 veterinary medical schools and leading veterinary professional associations to curb unnecessary vaccinations due to potential health risks. This legislation left the final decision about the interval for rabies booster shots up to each community. And it made no allowance for companion animals in the care of a licensed veterinary for acute or chronic health issues. Today, many Texas counties and cities, including Travis and Austin, still require annual rabies vaccinations regardless of the health status of the dog, cat or ferret when it is due.

Proof of a current rabies vaccination is required by many veterinarians, emergency veterinary services, many grooming and boarding services as well as by trains and airlines. Without it, services can be limited or denied entirely regardless how dire the need. This forces many Texas pet owners to make Sophie's choice: obey the law at the risk of further insult -- a! nd possi bly death - to an injured pet or disobey the law and risk the animal's life at the hands of zealous animal control officers. According to Dr. Bob Rogers, D.V.M. a Houston, TX veterinarian who is providing the science to support the need for a rabies exemption, there is little risk to any community. By contrast, the unintended consequences of repeat insults to an animal in a compromised state are of health are serious.

Duration of immunity

Rabies vaccine has been proven to have a minimum duration of immunity of three years by challenge to the USDA, seven years by serology by Dr. Ronald Schultz, Professor and Chair, Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison and four years for cats and five years for dogs by challenge by Michel F. Aubert, a French research scientist. According to Dr. Aubert's study, the chances of a dog or cat developing rabies in the United States that has had one rabies vaccination is less than one in eight million, (less than 1:8,000,000)

Any dog, cat or ferret that has had two rabies vaccinations is at very low risk of contracting and transmitting the disease. By contrast, the danger of adverse reaction in an immune-suppressed animal is far graver.  "There is a temporal association between adverse reactions like Vaccine Associated Sarcoma in cats and Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia and Immune Mediated Thrombocytopenia in dogs and cats," states Dr. Rogers in a letter to TDHS requesting an exemption for pets with a history of reactions or existing health issues. "They can be deadly."  But injection site tumors and IMHA are the tip of the iceberg according to veterinarians, veterinary medicine associations, research scientists and pet owners who want legal reform.

Veterinarians in the USA and worldwide are attributing an epidemic of common problems that they relate directly to vaccines. These include ear ! or skin conditions, such as chronic discharges and itching and behavior problems such as fearfulness or aggression. Pet owners often report that these symptoms begin shortly after vaccination and are exacerbated with every re-vaccination. "My Service Dog almost died from a severe adverse reaction to a routine vaccination in 2003," says Pat Styles, a Texas pet owner who supports the petition. "It affected her neurologically and rendered her unable to properly function as a Service Dog for 10 months."

More, both knowledgeable veterinarians and rabies vaccine manufacturers advise against administering the drug to animals in a weakened condition. A dog, cat or ferret that is stressed, under a general anesthetic or recovering from surgery, that has a chronic illness, allergies, is on treatment for an infection or has a history of immune system disorder is at much higher risk of adverse reactions. In these physical states an animal's immune system is either not functioning at its peak or is 'busy' dealing with another challenge. A multi-component live virus vaccine is a robust challenge to the immune system and when given on top of other existing factors, it can prove too much for the animal to cope with.

The 2007 Compendium of Veterinary Drug Products states that all rabies vaccines licensed by the USDA specify on their label, "For administration to healthy dogs and cats." Yet state and local laws in Texas stick to a "one size fits all" rabies booster protocol despite the unintended -- and undesirable - consequences. What's more, Texas veterinarians in many communities are required to administer them. "To require re-vaccination when a booster shot will put the patient's life at risk in direct contradiction to the manufacturer's labeling is state-sanctioned malpractice," says Pamela Picard, a Texas pet owner who launched the petition. "A pet owner should not have to choose between end! angering an animal's health and obeying the law."

The petition urges the Department of Health Services to give the attending veterinarian discretion in assessing the risk of rabies exposure versus the risk of an adverse and potentially fatal reaction to the rabies vaccine. It is hoped that animals with at least two rabies shots, with known reactions, prone to reactions or in the care of a licensed veterinarian for chronic or acute illness would qualify for exemption. This would not exempt pet owners from licensing their companion animals according to local ordinances, but instead give them a reasonable way to protect their pet's health and comply with rabies laws.

According to Dr. Tom J. Sidwa, DVM., Manager, Zoonosis Control Branch, State Public Health Veterinarian, Texas Department of State Health Services, .the state rule regarding rabies vaccinations can be amended by the Texas Department of Health Services Council. If approved, it will published for public comment for 30 days from date of publication.

People who love animals say, it's a start.

Pamela Picard is a business owner and has been an Austin resident since 1999. Formerly a Chicago marketing consultant and publicist, she has produced an inter-disciplinary conference on homelessness in Chicago, worked with community activists to block the installation of a regional landfill in Jo Daviess County and served on the Board of the JDC League of Women Voters.

Dr. Bob Rogers, D.V.M. a licensed veterinarian, is well known nationally for his advocacy in Texas for a science-based vaccine protocol. He is founder of CritterAdvocacy.org, a non profit organization dedicated to the education of pet owners and the care-takers that help them.
 

carlo.firetto@foneticamail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: canine vaccines


You have  a message posted on 11 04 01 Reaction to vaccine Labrador puppies. The  lady who wrote the article had a pup which died from a disease which it
was supposedly vaccinated against. I think she lives in Spain.I  purchased two Yorkshire Terrier bitches from a vet in Spain where I live,Francesca and Pippa. Both were vaccinated at the correct age and intervals with a vaccine supplied by the Merial Company which is the same company  this lady used. Pippa died of the Parvovirus at the age of 11 months.  Merial demanded a post-mortem which confirmed the Parvovirus. Apparently  according to Merial my dog was one in a million who was unable to build up  protective antibodies so it was her fault she died. Merial are also unable  to accept that her sister had to be revaccinated as she also was unable to  build up enough antibodies. I am now trying to get answers from a multi  multi billion pound company who are not interested in the small people so  was hoping that you could put me in contact with this lady and maybe  together we might achieve something.

Yours  Sincerely,

I have an idea...maybe I can post your request and she will answer? Would
you like me to try?