DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/052499a.pdf
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 522
Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Selenium, Vitamin E Injection
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a previously approved supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) held by Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp. and to remove certain information no longer required in the regulations. The approval concerns use of selenium, vitamin E injection.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lonnie W. Luther, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV–102), Food and Drug
Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0209.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Schering-
Plough Animal Health Corp., 1095
Morris Ave., P.O. Box 1982, Union, NJ
07083–1982,
provided information to support prior approval of supplemental NADA 30–315 for selenium, vitamin E injection. The supplement for use of 2 percent benzyl alcohol instead of 1:10,000 thimerosal had been approved by letter of August 10, 1981. FDA reviewed the information and concurred that the change in ingredient was approved. FDA also reviewed the information requirements of the animal drug regulations and determined that specification of ingredients other than active ingredients is not needed. Therefore, 21 CFR 522.2100 is amended to remove statement of ingredients other than active ingredients. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
§ 522.2100 [Amended] 2. Section 522.2100 Selenium, vitamin E injection is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing ‘‘, 250 milligrams polyoxyethylated vegetable oil, and 2.0 percent benzyl alcohol, and water for injection’’; in paragraph (b)(1) by removing ‘‘, 100 milligrams of polyoxyethylated vegetable oil, 1:10,000 thimerosal, and water for injection’’; and in paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) by removing ‘‘, 250 milligrams polysorbate 80, 2 percent benzyl alcohol, water for injection q.s’’. Dated: May 11, 1999. Margaret Ann Miller, Acting Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 99–12963 Filed 5–21–99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–F
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD01–99–038]
RIN 2115–AA97
Safety Zone: Unity Electric Co.
Fireworks Display, Shinnecock Bay,
Hampton Bays, NY
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 522
Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Selenium, Vitamin E Injection
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a previously approved supplemental new animal drug application (NADA) held by Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp. and to remove certain information no longer required in the regulations. The approval concerns use of selenium, vitamin E injection.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lonnie W. Luther, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV–102), Food and Drug
Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–0209.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Schering-
Plough Animal Health Corp., 1095
Morris Ave., P.O. Box 1982, Union, NJ
07083–1982,
provided information to support prior approval of supplemental NADA 30–315 for selenium, vitamin E injection. The supplement for use of 2 percent benzyl alcohol instead of 1:10,000 thimerosal had been approved by letter of August 10, 1981. FDA reviewed the information and concurred that the change in ingredient was approved. FDA also reviewed the information requirements of the animal drug regulations and determined that specification of ingredients other than active ingredients is not needed. Therefore, 21 CFR 522.2100 is amended to remove statement of ingredients other than active ingredients. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522 Animal drugs. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is amended as follows: PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
§ 522.2100 [Amended] 2. Section 522.2100 Selenium, vitamin E injection is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing ‘‘, 250 milligrams polyoxyethylated vegetable oil, and 2.0 percent benzyl alcohol, and water for injection’’; in paragraph (b)(1) by removing ‘‘, 100 milligrams of polyoxyethylated vegetable oil, 1:10,000 thimerosal, and water for injection’’; and in paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1), and (e)(1) by removing ‘‘, 250 milligrams polysorbate 80, 2 percent benzyl alcohol, water for injection q.s’’. Dated: May 11, 1999. Margaret Ann Miller, Acting Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 99–12963 Filed 5–21–99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–F
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD01–99–038]
RIN 2115–AA97
Safety Zone: Unity Electric Co.
Fireworks Display, Shinnecock Bay,
Hampton Bays, NY
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
by Catherine O'Driscoll
(posted with permission)
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.
Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vaccinating until
we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."
In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.
But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.
It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.
A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.
The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)
Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections".
When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.
I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:
"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."
I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.
Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination". This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.
Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years.
They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.
There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other
inflammatory conditions.
Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:
Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines..." (9)
Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10)
Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."
Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)
Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13)
A Theory on Inflammation
Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.
Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.
Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.
"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.
"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)
If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.
If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.
Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.
The Final Insult
All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.
Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced.
Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)
Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.
The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.
It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.
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 worldwide 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. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002,
http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.
DR. DOLITTLEROld vaccine suspected in cat's tumorBy DR. PATTY KHULY http://www.miamiherald.com/357/story/169544.htmldrkhuly@dolittler.comQ: 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.
http://www.petplace.com/article-printer-friendly.aspx?id=215
By: Dr. Debra Primovic
Regular visits to your veterinarian are critical to monitor your cat and treat this problem if it arises. Your veterinarian will examine the mass, measure and record its size and location, and discuss biopsy procedures with you.
Overview
An injection-site sarcoma, also known as vaccine site sarcoma, vaccine-associated fibrosarcoma, and vaccine associated sarcoma, is a tumor thought to be induced by an injection – most often a vaccination. Post-vaccinal sarcomas are very rare but may occur in cats as a consequence of an overzealous inflammatory or immune system reaction to the vaccine.
A sarcoma is a malignant tumor composed of cells derived from connective tissue. These tumors often develop quickly and can spread (metastasize) to distant locations in the body. These tumors often are not responsive to treatment and result in serious illness and ultimately death of the animal. Recurrence of such tumors is common after surgical removal.
Injection-site sarcomas were first recognized in the late 1980's when some changes occurred in the vaccine manufacturing process. At that time, manufacturers changed from production of modified live virus vaccines to killed virus products as directed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This change in manufacturing process resulted in the inclusion of aluminum into vaccines. It is this aluminum component of the vaccines that is suspected to be associated with development of post-vaccinal sarcomas. The feline leukemia virus and rabies vaccines are most frequently suspected in pets that develop post-vaccinal sarcomas.
The actual incidence of injection-site sarcomas is not known with certainty. Some investigators estimate that post-vaccinal sarcomas occur in as many as 1 of every 1,000 to as few as 1 in every 10,000 cats vaccinated. Injection-site sarcomas are recognized primarily in cats. The average age for onset of vaccine-site sarcomas is 7 to 9 years. There is no known breed predisposition. It is believed that tumors develop week to years after injection.
Despite the localized appearance of these tumors, microscopic branches of the tumor extend like fingers into the surrounding healthy tissue. During surgery to remove the tumor, these microscopic branches can remain and contribute to re-growth of the tumor. According to one study, as many as 62 percent of post-vaccinal sarcomas recur within 6 months after surgical removal.
There are several types of injection-site sarcomas:
Fibrosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from cells called fibroblasts in connective tissue. This is the most common type.
Histiocytoma – a malignant tumor arising from tissue cells called histiocytes
Osteosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from bone
Chondrosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from cartilage
Rhabdomyosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from muscle
Myxosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from loose connective tissue
Liposarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from fat
Neurofibrosarcoma - a malignant tumor arising from cells called fibroblasts in connective tissue and nerve tissue.
Hemangiopericytoma – a malignant tumor that arises from the pericytes, cells that are located around vessels.
Schwanoma –are tumors of the nerve sheath
Leiomyosarcoma – a tumor arising from smooth muscle.
Nerve sheath tumor – a tumor arising from the deep soft tissue, usually in close proximity of a nerve trunk
Myofibroblastic sarcoma – a malignant soft tissue tumor in which myofibroblasts are quantitatively the predominant cell type.
What To Watch For
You should watch for a firm, painless swelling in a subcutaneous (under the skin) location in the region of the body in which the cat was vaccinated or received an injection. It is wise to run your hand over your cat's shoulders, back and rear legs periodically to monitor for development of abnormal lumps or tumors. The mass maybe hairless or ulcerated in some cats.
Overview
Diagnosis
A swelling, nodule or mass under your cat's skin in a region of the body that was previously used for injection or vaccination should be taken very seriously. If this occurs, you should schedule an appointment with your veterinarian to have your cat examined and the mass evaluated. This approach is recommended especially if the mass has persisted for 3 or more months, is larger than 2 cm (just under one inch) in diameter, or if you notice that the mass has been increasing in size during the one month after injection or vaccination. Have your veterinarian examine your cat as soon as possible in this situation.
Diagnostic tests are needed to recognize injection-site sarcomas and exclude other diseases.
A complete medical history and thorough physical examination. An injection-site sarcoma is suspected based on a history of vaccination (or other injection) in the location on the cat's body in which the tumor has been identified.
Fine needle aspirate. A fine needle aspirate inovles placing a needle into the mass and sucking back tumor cells. The cells are injected onto a microscope slice and examined. This can help identify the tumor type to help determine the stage of the tumor and the treatment recommendations. Fine needle aspiration not considered reliable for the diagnosis because often this type of tumor does not readily shed cells during routine needle aspiration. A biopsy is often preferred as a first step for diagnosis of the mass.
Biopsy. A swelling that develops at the site of a previous vaccination or other injection should be considered malignant until proven otherwise. Such a swelling should be subjected to surgical biopsy and microscopic examination if the mass has been present for 3 or more months, if the mass is larger than 2 cm (just under one inch) in diameter or if the mass is increasing in size one month after injection.
Biopsy is a procedure in which a small portion of the mass is removed, preserved in a fixative solution, and sent to a laboratory for microscopic examination by a veterinary pathologist. Biopsy specimens can be obtained by an instrument called a Tru-Cut® needle (which collects a very small core of tissue) or by surgical incision of the mass to obtain a small wedge of tissue.
Radiographs. X-rays of the chest or nearby area of bone is often recommended to determine if any metastasis has occurred.
Treatment
Because of the aggressive nature of the injection-site sarcoma, no single treatment has proved effective. However, treatment may include one or more of the following:
Surgical excision
Radiation therapy
Chemotherapy
Home Care
The most important thing you can do at home is to observe the area of concern carefully. Record when you first noticed the mass and seek advice from your veterinarian.
Regular visits to your veterinarian are critical to monitor your cat and treat this problem if it arises. Your veterinarian will examine the mass, measure and record its size and location, and discuss biopsy procedures with you.
After a veterinary pathologist has examined the biopsy specimen and given a diagnosis, appropriate treatment can be discussed and implemented by your veterinarian.
Preventative Care
The only prevention is to eliminate vaccinations. However, since the incidence of injection-site sarcomas is low, it is wise to continue your immunization schedule. Consider vaccination every 3 years (rather than yearly) for rabies and panleukopenia. Limit vaccination for FeLV (feline leukemia virus) and FIP (feline infectious peritonitis) to at-risk cats as needed.
After immunizations, monitor your cat for swellings that may develop in body regions of previous injection or vaccination and see your veterinarian as soon as possible for early diagnosis and treatment.
Information In-depth
Other conditions both benign and malignant can occur and are often confused with injection-site sarcoma. Following is a partial list of such swellings:
Subcutaneous abscess – a localized collection of pus in a cavity formed by the disintegration of tissue that is common in cats that roam and fight with other cats.
Infectious granuloma – an inflammatory mass associated with unusual bacteria or fungal infectious agents
Sterile granuloma – cat an inflammatory mass associated with administration of certain medications under the skin.
Panniculitis – cat the inflammation of the subcutaneous tissue
Steatitis – cat inflammation of subcutaneous fat
Epidermal inclusion cyst – cat a cyst in the outermost layer of skin derived from a hair follicle that has accumulated debris or fluid
Pilomatrixoma – benign tumor of the hair follicle
Sebaceous gland adenoma – cat a benign tumor of the glands that empty into the hair follicle
Other benign tumors
Chondrosarcoma – cat a malignant tumor derived from cartilage cells
Malignant fibrous histiocytoma – malignant tumor derived from tissue cells called histiocytes.
Mast cell tumor – malignant tumor derived from inflammatory tissue cells called mast cells
Lymphosarcoma – malignant tumor derived from immune cells called lymphocytes
Osteosarcoma – malignant tumor derived from bone cells
Rhabdomyosarcoma – malignant tumor derived from muscle
Sebaceous gland adenocarcinoma – malignant tumor derived from glands that empty into hair follicles
Apocrine gland adenocarcinoma – malignant tumor derived from sweat glands
Other malignant tumors
Veterinary Care In-depth
Diagnosis In-depth
Diagnostic tests must be performed to confirm the diagnosis of injection-site sarcoma and exclude other types of masses. Tests may include:
A complete medical history and physical examination
Tests may be required to determine the nature of a swelling and the risk of distant spread (metastasis). For example, X-rays of the chest may be taken to evaluate for spread of a tumor to the lungs. Routine blood and urine tests may be completed to determine your pet's general health and ability to safely tolerate sedation or anesthesia for biopsy or removal of the mass.
Injection-site sarcomas can be diagnosed by history of vaccination and occurrence of a mass in a region of the body where vaccination has been performed. Biopsy of any mass that has developed in an area of previous injection or vaccination is recommended. The location, shape and size of the mass should be determined and recorded.
Radiographs. X-rays of the chest or nearby area of bone is often recommended to determine if any metastasis has occurred.
Advanced imaging. CT or MRI scans may be recommended to help determine the full extent of the tumor. Many tumors have root-like projections that extend further than the palpable mass. The best treatment success requires a full understanding of the extent of the tumor.
Veterinary Care In-depth
Treatment In-depth
The current recommendations for management of injection-site sarcomas are as follows:
Consider any mass that develops in the area of a previous injection or vaccination to be malignant until proven otherwise. A mass should be treated aggressively if it meets the following criteria:
Persists for 3 months or more
Is larger than 2 cm (just under 1 inch) in diameter
Is increasing in size one month after injection or vaccination
If the lesion meets one or more of these criteria, a biopsy is recommended before surgical excision. A biopsy is a procedure in which a small portion of the mass is removed and sent to a laboratory for microscopic examination by a veterinary pathologist. Biopsy samples can be collected by a special biopsy needle (called a Tru-Cut® needle) or by surgical incision of the mass to obtain a small wedge of tissue for microscopic examination. Fine needle aspiration and cytological examination using a conventional syringe and needle is not recommended because tumors of the sarcoma type generally do not readily shed cells during this procedure. Sedation or anesthesia may be required to obtain the biopsy sample.
Tumors typically are firm, well-demarcated, and gray to white in appearance. Many tumors are 4.0 cm (about 1 1/2 inches) in size when first noticed.
If the diagnosis of neoplasia (cancer) is determined by microscopic examination of the biopsy specimen:
The cat should be evaluated for distant spread of the tumor (metastasis). The initial evaluation can be completed by your veterinarian but more specialized procedures like computed tomography will require referral to a veterinary specialty clinic or university veterinary teaching hospital.
Diagnostic procedures to evaluate for metastasis include:
Chest X-rays to evaluate for any masses that may have spread to the lungs
Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are imaging techniques that provide images of computer-generated "slices" through a patient's body. If necessary, these tests require referral to a veterinary specialty clinic or university veterinary teaching hospital. Some sarcomas spread along the tissue planes that cannot be adequately evaluated by palpation or routine X-rays. These sophisticated imaging tests can be very useful to determine the extent of the mass and to evaluate the area that may require radiation treatment.
Routine blood tests and urinalysis may be recommended to identify co-existing medical conditions that may alter recommendations for anesthesia and treatment.
Treatment of injection-site sarcomas must be individualized based on the extent of the mass, distant spread of the tumor (metastasis) and other factors that must be analyzed by your veterinarian. Treatment options include some combination of surgery, radiation treatment and chemotherapy. Currently, no cure for injection-site sarcomas exists, and research is ongoing regarding the best recommendations for prevention and treatment.
Treatment recommendations may include:
Consultation with a veterinary oncologist before initiating therapy. Such consultation will help determine the best approach for your pet and will identify any need for specialty referral, such as for extensive surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy.
Surgical removal of the tumor. You may be referred to a specialist in veterinary surgery if an extensive or complicated procedure is deemed necessary. The removed mass should be submitted for microscopic examination by a veterinary pathologist to determine if the entire mass was removed. Routine surgical recommendations include handling the tumor carefully to avoid any potential spread and performing a very wide excision (removal) of the tumor to try and remove all of the small finger-like projections that may extend into surrounding tissues. Recurrence is common, and it is recommended to remove at least 2 cm of healthy tissue around all sides of the tumor. This may involve very aggressive surgical techniques, including reconstruction of the body wall and removal of bone. The best treatment success involves very aggressive surgery at time of initial diagnosis by a surgeon.
Amputation of an involved limb. It is recommended that the surgeon mark the location of the mass in the event that the pathologist reports tumor cells "in the margins" of the submitted sample and a second surgery is required. Complete surgical excision of low-grade tumors may result in survival times of 16 to 24 months.
Radiation treatment is recommended before surgery in some cases to try and minimize tumor size and after surgery in some cases if the surgical removal is thought to have been incomplete.
Chemotherapy may be recommended for non-resectable tumors but is likely to be of limited benefit.
A complete blood count (CBC) and platelet count will be recommended prior to each chemotherapy treatment to evaluate for drug toxicity.
Chemotherapy protocols for injection-site sarcomas vary based on the experience of the veterinary oncologist.
Recommendations may include the following drugs:
Carboplatin
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin®) and Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan®)
Vincristine (Oncovin®) and Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan®)
Ifosfamide
Acemannan use has been tried for tumors less than 2 cm in diameter
Prognosis
The prognosis for this type of cancer depends on the location and stage of the tumor. For example, tumors on the tail, on the distal legs or that are small and localized have a very good prognosis. Tumors that are large and treated aggressively with radiation, surgery and chemotherapy still have a fairly good prognosis; however some cats can have either reoccurrence or metastasis. Cats that are treated with aggressive surgery at the first diagnosis have the best chance of survival. Ask your surgeon about the specifics about your cat's tumor.
Follow-up
Optimal treatment for your pet requires a combination of home and professional veterinary care. Follow-up can be critical. Administer as directed all medications and contact your veterinarian if you are experiencing problems treating your pet.
Have your pet rechecked by your veterinarian on a regular basis. Examinations are recommended monthly for the first three months, and then every three months for one year.
Legal Disclaimer
If your pet is showing any signs of distress or you suspect your pet is seriously ill, CONTACT YOUR VETERINARIAN immediately.
All of the information presented on this website was developed by Intelligent Content Corporation staff members and is the sole responsibility of Intelligent Content Corporation.
See the legal terms on the website for additional legal terms.
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.
(posted with permission)
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.
Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vaccinating until
we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."
In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.
But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.
It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.
A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.
The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)
Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections".
When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.
I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:
"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."
I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.
Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination". This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.
Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years.
They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.
There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other
inflammatory conditions.
Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:
Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines..." (9)
Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10)
Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."
Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)
Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13)
A Theory on Inflammation
Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.
Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.
Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.
"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.
"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)
If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.
If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.
Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.
The Final Insult
All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.
Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced.
Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)
Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.
The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.
It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.
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 worldwide 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. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002,
http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.
DR. DOLITTLEROld vaccine suspected in cat's tumorBy DR. PATTY KHULY http://www.miamiherald.com/357/story/169544.htmldrkhuly@dolittler.comQ: 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.
http://www.petplace.com/article-printer-friendly.aspx?id=215
By: Dr. Debra Primovic
Regular visits to your veterinarian are critical to monitor your cat and treat this problem if it arises. Your veterinarian will examine the mass, measure and record its size and location, and discuss biopsy procedures with you.
Overview
An injection-site sarcoma, also known as vaccine site sarcoma, vaccine-associated fibrosarcoma, and vaccine associated sarcoma, is a tumor thought to be induced by an injection – most often a vaccination. Post-vaccinal sarcomas are very rare but may occur in cats as a consequence of an overzealous inflammatory or immune system reaction to the vaccine.
A sarcoma is a malignant tumor composed of cells derived from connective tissue. These tumors often develop quickly and can spread (metastasize) to distant locations in the body. These tumors often are not responsive to treatment and result in serious illness and ultimately death of the animal. Recurrence of such tumors is common after surgical removal.
Injection-site sarcomas were first recognized in the late 1980's when some changes occurred in the vaccine manufacturing process. At that time, manufacturers changed from production of modified live virus vaccines to killed virus products as directed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This change in manufacturing process resulted in the inclusion of aluminum into vaccines. It is this aluminum component of the vaccines that is suspected to be associated with development of post-vaccinal sarcomas. The feline leukemia virus and rabies vaccines are most frequently suspected in pets that develop post-vaccinal sarcomas.
The actual incidence of injection-site sarcomas is not known with certainty. Some investigators estimate that post-vaccinal sarcomas occur in as many as 1 of every 1,000 to as few as 1 in every 10,000 cats vaccinated. Injection-site sarcomas are recognized primarily in cats. The average age for onset of vaccine-site sarcomas is 7 to 9 years. There is no known breed predisposition. It is believed that tumors develop week to years after injection.
Despite the localized appearance of these tumors, microscopic branches of the tumor extend like fingers into the surrounding healthy tissue. During surgery to remove the tumor, these microscopic branches can remain and contribute to re-growth of the tumor. According to one study, as many as 62 percent of post-vaccinal sarcomas recur within 6 months after surgical removal.
There are several types of injection-site sarcomas:
Fibrosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from cells called fibroblasts in connective tissue. This is the most common type.
Histiocytoma – a malignant tumor arising from tissue cells called histiocytes
Osteosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from bone
Chondrosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from cartilage
Rhabdomyosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from muscle
Myxosarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from loose connective tissue
Liposarcoma – a malignant tumor arising from fat
Neurofibrosarcoma - a malignant tumor arising from cells called fibroblasts in connective tissue and nerve tissue.
Hemangiopericytoma – a malignant tumor that arises from the pericytes, cells that are located around vessels.
Schwanoma –are tumors of the nerve sheath
Leiomyosarcoma – a tumor arising from smooth muscle.
Nerve sheath tumor – a tumor arising from the deep soft tissue, usually in close proximity of a nerve trunk
Myofibroblastic sarcoma – a malignant soft tissue tumor in which myofibroblasts are quantitatively the predominant cell type.
What To Watch For
You should watch for a firm, painless swelling in a subcutaneous (under the skin) location in the region of the body in which the cat was vaccinated or received an injection. It is wise to run your hand over your cat's shoulders, back and rear legs periodically to monitor for development of abnormal lumps or tumors. The mass maybe hairless or ulcerated in some cats.
Overview
Diagnosis
A swelling, nodule or mass under your cat's skin in a region of the body that was previously used for injection or vaccination should be taken very seriously. If this occurs, you should schedule an appointment with your veterinarian to have your cat examined and the mass evaluated. This approach is recommended especially if the mass has persisted for 3 or more months, is larger than 2 cm (just under one inch) in diameter, or if you notice that the mass has been increasing in size during the one month after injection or vaccination. Have your veterinarian examine your cat as soon as possible in this situation.
Diagnostic tests are needed to recognize injection-site sarcomas and exclude other diseases.
A complete medical history and thorough physical examination. An injection-site sarcoma is suspected based on a history of vaccination (or other injection) in the location on the cat's body in which the tumor has been identified.
Fine needle aspirate. A fine needle aspirate inovles placing a needle into the mass and sucking back tumor cells. The cells are injected onto a microscope slice and examined. This can help identify the tumor type to help determine the stage of the tumor and the treatment recommendations. Fine needle aspiration not considered reliable for the diagnosis because often this type of tumor does not readily shed cells during routine needle aspiration. A biopsy is often preferred as a first step for diagnosis of the mass.
Biopsy. A swelling that develops at the site of a previous vaccination or other injection should be considered malignant until proven otherwise. Such a swelling should be subjected to surgical biopsy and microscopic examination if the mass has been present for 3 or more months, if the mass is larger than 2 cm (just under one inch) in diameter or if the mass is increasing in size one month after injection.
Biopsy is a procedure in which a small portion of the mass is removed, preserved in a fixative solution, and sent to a laboratory for microscopic examination by a veterinary pathologist. Biopsy specimens can be obtained by an instrument called a Tru-Cut® needle (which collects a very small core of tissue) or by surgical incision of the mass to obtain a small wedge of tissue.
Radiographs. X-rays of the chest or nearby area of bone is often recommended to determine if any metastasis has occurred.
Treatment
Because of the aggressive nature of the injection-site sarcoma, no single treatment has proved effective. However, treatment may include one or more of the following:
Surgical excision
Radiation therapy
Chemotherapy
Home Care
The most important thing you can do at home is to observe the area of concern carefully. Record when you first noticed the mass and seek advice from your veterinarian.
Regular visits to your veterinarian are critical to monitor your cat and treat this problem if it arises. Your veterinarian will examine the mass, measure and record its size and location, and discuss biopsy procedures with you.
After a veterinary pathologist has examined the biopsy specimen and given a diagnosis, appropriate treatment can be discussed and implemented by your veterinarian.
Preventative Care
The only prevention is to eliminate vaccinations. However, since the incidence of injection-site sarcomas is low, it is wise to continue your immunization schedule. Consider vaccination every 3 years (rather than yearly) for rabies and panleukopenia. Limit vaccination for FeLV (feline leukemia virus) and FIP (feline infectious peritonitis) to at-risk cats as needed.
After immunizations, monitor your cat for swellings that may develop in body regions of previous injection or vaccination and see your veterinarian as soon as possible for early diagnosis and treatment.
Information In-depth
Other conditions both benign and malignant can occur and are often confused with injection-site sarcoma. Following is a partial list of such swellings:
Subcutaneous abscess – a localized collection of pus in a cavity formed by the disintegration of tissue that is common in cats that roam and fight with other cats.
Infectious granuloma – an inflammatory mass associated with unusual bacteria or fungal infectious agents
Sterile granuloma – cat an inflammatory mass associated with administration of certain medications under the skin.
Panniculitis – cat the inflammation of the subcutaneous tissue
Steatitis – cat inflammation of subcutaneous fat
Epidermal inclusion cyst – cat a cyst in the outermost layer of skin derived from a hair follicle that has accumulated debris or fluid
Pilomatrixoma – benign tumor of the hair follicle
Sebaceous gland adenoma – cat a benign tumor of the glands that empty into the hair follicle
Other benign tumors
Chondrosarcoma – cat a malignant tumor derived from cartilage cells
Malignant fibrous histiocytoma – malignant tumor derived from tissue cells called histiocytes.
Mast cell tumor – malignant tumor derived from inflammatory tissue cells called mast cells
Lymphosarcoma – malignant tumor derived from immune cells called lymphocytes
Osteosarcoma – malignant tumor derived from bone cells
Rhabdomyosarcoma – malignant tumor derived from muscle
Sebaceous gland adenocarcinoma – malignant tumor derived from glands that empty into hair follicles
Apocrine gland adenocarcinoma – malignant tumor derived from sweat glands
Other malignant tumors
Veterinary Care In-depth
Diagnosis In-depth
Diagnostic tests must be performed to confirm the diagnosis of injection-site sarcoma and exclude other types of masses. Tests may include:
A complete medical history and physical examination
Tests may be required to determine the nature of a swelling and the risk of distant spread (metastasis). For example, X-rays of the chest may be taken to evaluate for spread of a tumor to the lungs. Routine blood and urine tests may be completed to determine your pet's general health and ability to safely tolerate sedation or anesthesia for biopsy or removal of the mass.
Injection-site sarcomas can be diagnosed by history of vaccination and occurrence of a mass in a region of the body where vaccination has been performed. Biopsy of any mass that has developed in an area of previous injection or vaccination is recommended. The location, shape and size of the mass should be determined and recorded.
Radiographs. X-rays of the chest or nearby area of bone is often recommended to determine if any metastasis has occurred.
Advanced imaging. CT or MRI scans may be recommended to help determine the full extent of the tumor. Many tumors have root-like projections that extend further than the palpable mass. The best treatment success requires a full understanding of the extent of the tumor.
Veterinary Care In-depth
Treatment In-depth
The current recommendations for management of injection-site sarcomas are as follows:
Consider any mass that develops in the area of a previous injection or vaccination to be malignant until proven otherwise. A mass should be treated aggressively if it meets the following criteria:
Persists for 3 months or more
Is larger than 2 cm (just under 1 inch) in diameter
Is increasing in size one month after injection or vaccination
If the lesion meets one or more of these criteria, a biopsy is recommended before surgical excision. A biopsy is a procedure in which a small portion of the mass is removed and sent to a laboratory for microscopic examination by a veterinary pathologist. Biopsy samples can be collected by a special biopsy needle (called a Tru-Cut® needle) or by surgical incision of the mass to obtain a small wedge of tissue for microscopic examination. Fine needle aspiration and cytological examination using a conventional syringe and needle is not recommended because tumors of the sarcoma type generally do not readily shed cells during this procedure. Sedation or anesthesia may be required to obtain the biopsy sample.
Tumors typically are firm, well-demarcated, and gray to white in appearance. Many tumors are 4.0 cm (about 1 1/2 inches) in size when first noticed.
If the diagnosis of neoplasia (cancer) is determined by microscopic examination of the biopsy specimen:
The cat should be evaluated for distant spread of the tumor (metastasis). The initial evaluation can be completed by your veterinarian but more specialized procedures like computed tomography will require referral to a veterinary specialty clinic or university veterinary teaching hospital.
Diagnostic procedures to evaluate for metastasis include:
Chest X-rays to evaluate for any masses that may have spread to the lungs
Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are imaging techniques that provide images of computer-generated "slices" through a patient's body. If necessary, these tests require referral to a veterinary specialty clinic or university veterinary teaching hospital. Some sarcomas spread along the tissue planes that cannot be adequately evaluated by palpation or routine X-rays. These sophisticated imaging tests can be very useful to determine the extent of the mass and to evaluate the area that may require radiation treatment.
Routine blood tests and urinalysis may be recommended to identify co-existing medical conditions that may alter recommendations for anesthesia and treatment.
Treatment of injection-site sarcomas must be individualized based on the extent of the mass, distant spread of the tumor (metastasis) and other factors that must be analyzed by your veterinarian. Treatment options include some combination of surgery, radiation treatment and chemotherapy. Currently, no cure for injection-site sarcomas exists, and research is ongoing regarding the best recommendations for prevention and treatment.
Treatment recommendations may include:
Consultation with a veterinary oncologist before initiating therapy. Such consultation will help determine the best approach for your pet and will identify any need for specialty referral, such as for extensive surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy.
Surgical removal of the tumor. You may be referred to a specialist in veterinary surgery if an extensive or complicated procedure is deemed necessary. The removed mass should be submitted for microscopic examination by a veterinary pathologist to determine if the entire mass was removed. Routine surgical recommendations include handling the tumor carefully to avoid any potential spread and performing a very wide excision (removal) of the tumor to try and remove all of the small finger-like projections that may extend into surrounding tissues. Recurrence is common, and it is recommended to remove at least 2 cm of healthy tissue around all sides of the tumor. This may involve very aggressive surgical techniques, including reconstruction of the body wall and removal of bone. The best treatment success involves very aggressive surgery at time of initial diagnosis by a surgeon.
Amputation of an involved limb. It is recommended that the surgeon mark the location of the mass in the event that the pathologist reports tumor cells "in the margins" of the submitted sample and a second surgery is required. Complete surgical excision of low-grade tumors may result in survival times of 16 to 24 months.
Radiation treatment is recommended before surgery in some cases to try and minimize tumor size and after surgery in some cases if the surgical removal is thought to have been incomplete.
Chemotherapy may be recommended for non-resectable tumors but is likely to be of limited benefit.
A complete blood count (CBC) and platelet count will be recommended prior to each chemotherapy treatment to evaluate for drug toxicity.
Chemotherapy protocols for injection-site sarcomas vary based on the experience of the veterinary oncologist.
Recommendations may include the following drugs:
Carboplatin
Doxorubicin (Adriamycin®) and Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan®)
Vincristine (Oncovin®) and Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan®)
Ifosfamide
Acemannan use has been tried for tumors less than 2 cm in diameter
Prognosis
The prognosis for this type of cancer depends on the location and stage of the tumor. For example, tumors on the tail, on the distal legs or that are small and localized have a very good prognosis. Tumors that are large and treated aggressively with radiation, surgery and chemotherapy still have a fairly good prognosis; however some cats can have either reoccurrence or metastasis. Cats that are treated with aggressive surgery at the first diagnosis have the best chance of survival. Ask your surgeon about the specifics about your cat's tumor.
Follow-up
Optimal treatment for your pet requires a combination of home and professional veterinary care. Follow-up can be critical. Administer as directed all medications and contact your veterinarian if you are experiencing problems treating your pet.
Have your pet rechecked by your veterinarian on a regular basis. Examinations are recommended monthly for the first three months, and then every three months for one year.
Legal Disclaimer
If your pet is showing any signs of distress or you suspect your pet is seriously ill, CONTACT YOUR VETERINARIAN immediately.
All of the information presented on this website was developed by Intelligent Content Corporation staff members and is the sole responsibility of Intelligent Content Corporation.
See the legal terms on the website for additional legal terms.
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.
Return of vaccine sarcoma
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
SPOTLIGHT WATCHING OUT FOR YOUR SAFETY AND POCKETBOOK
Cancer linked to shots can be fatal to your cat
By ALISON YOUNG
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/03/29/spotlight_cats_vaccination.html
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, March 29, 2009
When Leanne Smith felt the golf-ball-sized lump between her cat Tardy’s shoulder blades, she was filled with dread.
“I knew what it was immediately,” said Smith, a vet tech at Georgia Veterinary Specialists in Sandy Springs. “I was really upset.”
Tardy had a rare but dangerous tumor, called an injection-site sarcoma. Years ago, Smith said, that’s where the 11-year-old cat had been given vaccinations.
An estimated three of 10,000 vaccinated cats will develop cancerous tumors in the spots where they’ve received routine shots, such as those that protect against rabies and feline leukemia.
Veterinary experts aren’t sure why this happens. But since 1996, they have recommended limiting the number and frequency of shots that cats receive because of the tumor risk. They also have recommended that cats get injections as low as possible on their legs to increase their odds of survival and allow for amputation of the limb if needed to remove a tumor.
Yet a high proportion of tumors are still developing between cats’ shoulder blades, indicating that some veterinarians aren’t following the guidelines, according to a study published last month in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Cat owners need to take an active role in their pets’ medical care to make sure the shots the animals are receiving are appropriate, experts said.
Researchers from the University of California-Davis examined the cases of 392 cats treated at the university’s veterinary hospital. From 1990 to 1996, before the recommendations on vaccination locations, 53 percent of tumors developed in the shoulder-blade region. After the recommendations were issued, that dropped to about 39 percent during the 1997-2006 period, the study found.
“You can tell there’s been some change, but we’re still not finding that everything has changed,” said Michael Kent, a veterinarian and assistant professor of radiation oncology who was a co-author of the study.
“The fact that our one institution has seen over 400 of these, it’s sad. And probably what makes it worse is that this is a disease caused out of our desire to prevent a disease,” Kent said. Injection-site sarcomas are almost exclusively a problem for cats and, on rare occasions, for ferrets, Kent said. Dogs don’t appear to develop the tumors, he said.
Why some cats get the tumors isn’t fully understood. Sometimes the swelling begins soon after a shot, sometimes not for months or years.
A possible link between vaccinations and the development of the tumors was first recognized in the early 1990s. Some experts believe that a component in many vaccines designed to spur an immune response, called an adjuvant, is the likely culprit. Vaccines against rabies and feline leukemia viruses have been frequently implicated, but injections of nonvaccine medications also have been associated with the tumors.
In 1996, a task force of feline veterinary experts issued several recommendations, including to administer shots as low as possible on cats’ legs.
The American Association of Feline Practitioners’ current vaccine guidelines group shots into three categories: Core vaccines — such as rabies — that all cats should get; noncore vaccines that only some cats need depending on their individual circumstances; and a few shots that aren’t recommended at all.
“One of the things we try to do with these recommendations is to not vaccinate cats more often than they need to be,” said veterinarian Fred Scott, interim director of the Cornell Feline Health Center in Ithaca, N.Y.
“Each time you give a vaccine, you do increase the risk of producing fibrosarcomas,” Scott said. “Unfortunately when it does occur, it’s a nasty condition.”
The cancerous tumors tend to be aggressive and spread rapidly.
Finding tumors early improves a cat’s chances of survival, experts said. From 50 percent to 80 percent of cases can be cured with surgery and radiation, depending on the tumor and its location, said Terrance Hamilton, a board-certified medical oncologist at Georgia Veterinary Specialists.
“This is a very treatable disease if moved on early,” Hamilton said. “That’s the biggest mistake pet owners tend to do: They see a lump and assume it’s going to go away.” Any lump, particularly one that develops in areas where a cat has received a shot, should be evaluated immediately by a veterinarian, he said.
Tumors on cats’ limbs are easier to treat successfully, he said. If the tumor is between the shoulder blades, it’s more difficult to deliver radiation but still possible.
Treatment isn’t cheap: Surgery alone can cost about $2,000; if surgery and radiation are needed, the bill could be around $4,000, Hamilton said. Pet insurance, if the owner has it, will often cover the costs. And owners can also contact the veterinary drug company that made their cat’s vaccine and Hamilton said they may cover all or part of the treatment.
Smith is hopeful that Tardy will be a survivor. In January, Tardy underwent 18 days of radiation treatments and on Feb. 10 had surgery to remove the tumor.
“She actually has a really great prognosis at this point,” Smith said.
————————————————-
WHICH RABIES VACCINE IS BEST?
While experts advise decreasing the frequency of injections for cats, there is disagreement about which type of rabies vaccine is safest.
Some vets prefer giving cats a rabies vaccine that lasts for three years — believing it is safest because it limits how often cats get the shot. Others think it’s safer to give cats an adjuvant-free rabies vaccine called Purevax, even though it requires a booster shot every year. The American Association of Feline Practitioners has not taken a stance on which is best.
“There is significant controversy with what exactly causes the injection-site sarcomas,” said association President Roberta Lillich, a Kansas veterinarian. “So it boils down to what practitioners feel more comfortable with.”
Lillich personally uses the three-year rabies vaccine in her practice because she believes it’s most important to limit the frequency of shots. “I feel very strongly that there is some subpopulation of cats that are genetically predisposed to develop injection-site sarcomas,” she said.
West Hamryka, a veterinarian at Sugar Hill Animal Hospital in Gwinnett County, is among the vets who prefer to reduce cats’ exposure to adjuvants and annually give the Purevax rabies vaccine. Hamryka, a past president of the Georgia Veterinary Medical Association, said most cat owners are unaware of the sarcoma issue and just trust their vets to give the best vaccine.
Georgia law requires rabies vaccinations for cats. And while state law allows use of either the three-year or one-year vaccines, some local jurisdictions still require annual vaccination, said Dana Cole, public health veterinarian with the Georgia Division of Public Health.
“We tend to support the idea that cats should be offered the three-year vaccination,” Cole said, adding that it makes it less likely that a cat will be past-due and require isolation and observation if it is bitten by a wild animal or if it bites someone else.
Whichever vaccine is chosen, it should be based on the best medical decision for the cat, not a desire to force owners to bring cats in to the vet annually, Lillich said.
Vaccinations are important, she said, but owners should realize they are not the main reason their cats need yearly checkups. The visits are critical in identifying early signs of thyroid or kidney problems, dental disease, parasites and other conditions that can shorten a cat’s life if left untreated.
Compared with dogs, cats receive significantly less veterinary care. About 36 percent of the nation’s 81.7 million cats did not visit a veterinarian in 2006, compared with just 17 percent of dogs, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.
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?
Here is the package insert for the flu shot for horses. Notice the thimerosal (mercury) in it.
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
SPOTLIGHT WATCHING OUT FOR YOUR SAFETY AND POCKETBOOK
Cancer linked to shots can be fatal to your cat
By ALISON YOUNG
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2009/03/29/spotlight_cats_vaccination.html
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sunday, March 29, 2009
When Leanne Smith felt the golf-ball-sized lump between her cat Tardy’s shoulder blades, she was filled with dread.
“I knew what it was immediately,” said Smith, a vet tech at Georgia Veterinary Specialists in Sandy Springs. “I was really upset.”
Tardy had a rare but dangerous tumor, called an injection-site sarcoma. Years ago, Smith said, that’s where the 11-year-old cat had been given vaccinations.
An estimated three of 10,000 vaccinated cats will develop cancerous tumors in the spots where they’ve received routine shots, such as those that protect against rabies and feline leukemia.
Veterinary experts aren’t sure why this happens. But since 1996, they have recommended limiting the number and frequency of shots that cats receive because of the tumor risk. They also have recommended that cats get injections as low as possible on their legs to increase their odds of survival and allow for amputation of the limb if needed to remove a tumor.
Yet a high proportion of tumors are still developing between cats’ shoulder blades, indicating that some veterinarians aren’t following the guidelines, according to a study published last month in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Cat owners need to take an active role in their pets’ medical care to make sure the shots the animals are receiving are appropriate, experts said.
Researchers from the University of California-Davis examined the cases of 392 cats treated at the university’s veterinary hospital. From 1990 to 1996, before the recommendations on vaccination locations, 53 percent of tumors developed in the shoulder-blade region. After the recommendations were issued, that dropped to about 39 percent during the 1997-2006 period, the study found.
“You can tell there’s been some change, but we’re still not finding that everything has changed,” said Michael Kent, a veterinarian and assistant professor of radiation oncology who was a co-author of the study.
“The fact that our one institution has seen over 400 of these, it’s sad. And probably what makes it worse is that this is a disease caused out of our desire to prevent a disease,” Kent said. Injection-site sarcomas are almost exclusively a problem for cats and, on rare occasions, for ferrets, Kent said. Dogs don’t appear to develop the tumors, he said.
Why some cats get the tumors isn’t fully understood. Sometimes the swelling begins soon after a shot, sometimes not for months or years.
A possible link between vaccinations and the development of the tumors was first recognized in the early 1990s. Some experts believe that a component in many vaccines designed to spur an immune response, called an adjuvant, is the likely culprit. Vaccines against rabies and feline leukemia viruses have been frequently implicated, but injections of nonvaccine medications also have been associated with the tumors.
In 1996, a task force of feline veterinary experts issued several recommendations, including to administer shots as low as possible on cats’ legs.
The American Association of Feline Practitioners’ current vaccine guidelines group shots into three categories: Core vaccines — such as rabies — that all cats should get; noncore vaccines that only some cats need depending on their individual circumstances; and a few shots that aren’t recommended at all.
“One of the things we try to do with these recommendations is to not vaccinate cats more often than they need to be,” said veterinarian Fred Scott, interim director of the Cornell Feline Health Center in Ithaca, N.Y.
“Each time you give a vaccine, you do increase the risk of producing fibrosarcomas,” Scott said. “Unfortunately when it does occur, it’s a nasty condition.”
The cancerous tumors tend to be aggressive and spread rapidly.
Finding tumors early improves a cat’s chances of survival, experts said. From 50 percent to 80 percent of cases can be cured with surgery and radiation, depending on the tumor and its location, said Terrance Hamilton, a board-certified medical oncologist at Georgia Veterinary Specialists.
“This is a very treatable disease if moved on early,” Hamilton said. “That’s the biggest mistake pet owners tend to do: They see a lump and assume it’s going to go away.” Any lump, particularly one that develops in areas where a cat has received a shot, should be evaluated immediately by a veterinarian, he said.
Tumors on cats’ limbs are easier to treat successfully, he said. If the tumor is between the shoulder blades, it’s more difficult to deliver radiation but still possible.
Treatment isn’t cheap: Surgery alone can cost about $2,000; if surgery and radiation are needed, the bill could be around $4,000, Hamilton said. Pet insurance, if the owner has it, will often cover the costs. And owners can also contact the veterinary drug company that made their cat’s vaccine and Hamilton said they may cover all or part of the treatment.
Smith is hopeful that Tardy will be a survivor. In January, Tardy underwent 18 days of radiation treatments and on Feb. 10 had surgery to remove the tumor.
“She actually has a really great prognosis at this point,” Smith said.
————————————————-
WHICH RABIES VACCINE IS BEST?
While experts advise decreasing the frequency of injections for cats, there is disagreement about which type of rabies vaccine is safest.
Some vets prefer giving cats a rabies vaccine that lasts for three years — believing it is safest because it limits how often cats get the shot. Others think it’s safer to give cats an adjuvant-free rabies vaccine called Purevax, even though it requires a booster shot every year. The American Association of Feline Practitioners has not taken a stance on which is best.
“There is significant controversy with what exactly causes the injection-site sarcomas,” said association President Roberta Lillich, a Kansas veterinarian. “So it boils down to what practitioners feel more comfortable with.”
Lillich personally uses the three-year rabies vaccine in her practice because she believes it’s most important to limit the frequency of shots. “I feel very strongly that there is some subpopulation of cats that are genetically predisposed to develop injection-site sarcomas,” she said.
West Hamryka, a veterinarian at Sugar Hill Animal Hospital in Gwinnett County, is among the vets who prefer to reduce cats’ exposure to adjuvants and annually give the Purevax rabies vaccine. Hamryka, a past president of the Georgia Veterinary Medical Association, said most cat owners are unaware of the sarcoma issue and just trust their vets to give the best vaccine.
Georgia law requires rabies vaccinations for cats. And while state law allows use of either the three-year or one-year vaccines, some local jurisdictions still require annual vaccination, said Dana Cole, public health veterinarian with the Georgia Division of Public Health.
“We tend to support the idea that cats should be offered the three-year vaccination,” Cole said, adding that it makes it less likely that a cat will be past-due and require isolation and observation if it is bitten by a wild animal or if it bites someone else.
Whichever vaccine is chosen, it should be based on the best medical decision for the cat, not a desire to force owners to bring cats in to the vet annually, Lillich said.
Vaccinations are important, she said, but owners should realize they are not the main reason their cats need yearly checkups. The visits are critical in identifying early signs of thyroid or kidney problems, dental disease, parasites and other conditions that can shorten a cat’s life if left untreated.
Compared with dogs, cats receive significantly less veterinary care. About 36 percent of the nation’s 81.7 million cats did not visit a veterinarian in 2006, compared with just 17 percent of dogs, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.
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?
Here is the package insert for the flu shot for horses. Notice the thimerosal (mercury) in it.
what kind of "behaviors" does your dog have? My Dazey has bizzare behaviors (almost autistic like) that started after her vax 3 years ago (I didn't know any better at the time). We even worked with a personal trainer who said she had a very short attention span and was basket case that needed to find her inner lab. She barks at people, balloons, reflections etc. I love her to death but she's the crazeyest booger you'll ever meet.
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS AND CASE REPORTS
Vaccine-associated Rhabdomyosarcoma with Spinal Epidural Invasion and
Pulmonary Metastasis in a Cat
H.-W Chang, S.-Y Ho, H.-F Lo, Y.-C Tu, C.-R Jeng, C.-H Liu, F.-I Wang and V.
F. Pang
Abstract
A 7-year-old, female, domestic medium-haired cat had a recurrent deep dermal mass in the interscapular region after initial surgical removal 3 months earlier. The cat had received a killed rabies vaccine and a five-in-one
vaccine in the same area about 2 months prior to the first surgery. The relapsed mass was diagnosed as vaccine-associated sarcoma. The cat was euthanized 2 months later because of hind limb paralysis. At necropsy, multiple, poorly demarcated, nodular masses were seen in the muscles around the shoulders, neck, and thoracic vertebrae. Pulmonary metastasis and spinal epidural invasion at T1–T3 with regional cord compression and malacia were
observed. Microscopically, the masses consisted of interwoven bundles of spindle cells with prominent multinucleated giant cell formation. The neoplastic cells stained strongly positive for myoglobin, and moderately but
variably positive for vimentin, desmin, and - smooth muscle actin. Phosphotungstic acid-hematoxylin staining revealed cytoplasmic striations in scattered tumor cells. The tumor was considered a vaccine-associated
rhabdomyosarcoma.
Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2003 Aug;50(6):286-91.
Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and
Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal
Fibrosarcomas. Vascellari M, Melchiotti E, Bozza MA, Mutinelli F.
Fifteen fibrosarcomas, surgically excised from presumed sites of injection in dogs, and 10 canine fibrosarcomas excised from sites not used for injection were histologically and immunohistochemically compared with 20 feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas. Canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites were of grade I (3), of grade II (4) and grade III (8). Two fibrosarcomas from non-injection sites were of grade I, four of grade II and four of grade III. Feline samples were classified as grade I (2), grade II (4) and grade III (14). All fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites of both species showed lymphocytic inflammatory infiltration located at the tumour periphery, while two canine fibrosarcomas from non-injection sites showed perivascular inflammatory infiltration within the neoplasm. All samples were immunohistochemically examined for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, muscle specific actin and desmin expression. All tumours were positive for vimentin. Ten canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and all feline samples contained cells consistent with a myofibroblastic immunophenotype. Aluminium deposits were detected in eight canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and 11 feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas by the aurintricarboxylic acid method. The present study identifies distinct similarities between canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas, suggesting the possibility of the development of post-injection sarcomas not only in cats, but also in dogs.
Pet 'Companion' Bill Pulled From Consideration
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/1979114/detail.html
POSTED: 2:44 p.m. MST February 14, 2003
DENVER -- A bill that would have allowed owners to sue when their pets died because of vaccination abuse was twisted into a companionship issue that drew so much attention its sponsor pulled it off the table Friday. While state law defines pets as property, Rep. Mark Cloer's bill would have recognized pets as companions and allowed owners to collect up to $100,000 for animal cruelty and negligent health care. Current law allows owners to receive fair market value of up to $500.
Many took the bill to mean pets would be classified as companions instead of property, which attracted international attention. "The bill's intent was not to give animals a special status. The bill allowed the owner to seek civil remedies. It did not empower any animals," the Colorado Springs Republican said. Even Cloer's decision set off a round of controversy.
Senate sponsor, Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, was angry with Cloer for pulling the bill, but said he would not try to resurrect it this session. He wants the bill to have a broad interpretation, allowing a pet owner to sue for loss of companionship.
"Are they property, or do they have a higher value? They are more than property," said Chlouber, whose two Labrador retrievers died last year, one of old age and another in a car accident. Cloer drafted the bill as a way to force veterinarians to stop over-vaccinating pets. He believed the only way to succeed was to put financial pressure on vets by allowing pet owners to sue for more money. Veterinarians opposed the measure, while others took the language to mean Colorado would define pets as companions instead of property. Colorado is one of 14 states with current laws recognizing dogs and cats as beneficiaries and allowing people to leave their assets to their pets.
Cloer appeared on national and international news programs to discuss his bill, which also was mentioned by Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." Ted Cohn, a Denver veterinarian, said veterinarians opposed the bill because it would have driven up the cost of care. He said they also recognize that vaccinations can be dangerous. "I feel pets are certainly worth more than property. I also have suffered with grief at the loss of a pet," he said. "We need to be very careful, because it's a short jump from a pet dog or cat to including horses and other animals, and the whole agriculture industry could be in trouble. It certainly would drive up the cost."
Jim Schwartz is a retired financial planner from Centennial who started the Next-To-Kin Foundation to advocate for dogs, cats and their owners. The foundation also works to eliminate unnecessary vaccinations. He asked Cloer to carry the bill after his poodle, Moolah, acquired autoimmune cancer after vaccination and died at age 11. "What happened to Moolah need not, must not, happen to your dog or cat," Schwartz said. Dr. Bob Rogers, a Texas veterinarian who has crusaded against over-vaccination of pets, said there is ample evidence that pets are being harmed.
Every year, 1.6 million pet owners in Colorado spend over $160 million for vaccinations that are unnecessary and expose their pets to unnecessary adverse reactions, he said. He said dogs are developing a disease where they reject their own blood, and cats develop injection site fibrasarcomas, a fatal type of cancer.
I bought a dog nine months old, fully vaxxed (and wasn't the breeder proud). This dog is the puppy of a champion mom and dad, the breeder told me the only thing that was wrong with it was that it wiggled it's bum when it walked so he couldn't 'show' it. Wrong. The dog is a total basket case, untrainable. I think it is autistic. In hindsight I would get a puppy/dog that is totally unvaccinated. Can't even begin to explain how 'off the wall' this dog is....lovable though, even if it is totally mad..... Good luck, hope you find a vax free one.......
what kind of "behaviors" does your dog have? My Dazey has bizzare behaviors (almost autistic like) that started after her vax 3 years ago (I didn't know any better at the time). We even worked with a personal trainer who said she had a very short attention span and was basket case that needed to find her inner lab. She barks at people, balloons, reflections etc. I love her to death but she's the crazeyest booger you'll ever meet.
SARCOMA SPURS STUDIES
Veterinarians like Siebert have questioned the overuse of vaccines and their side effects since their 1960 introduction to the profession. But it wasn't until 1991, when DVMs began noticing a high rate of soft tissue feline sarcoma developing at popular vaccination sites that the issue sparked debate. Cancer reports spurred studies and in 1996, veterinarians formed the Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (VAFSTF), which has pumped money into proving vaccine-malignancy correlations ever since. The research remains under way. "Unless you're living in a cave, there's no veterinarian who's not going to be concerned with at least the information on the feline sarcoma issues," says Benjamin Cassutto, a practitioner in Delaware. "Even though I would profit more, I do not recommend certain vaccines because I'm worried about overstressing the immune system. This means you have to market better so you don't lose clients or income."
GREEDY MOTIVES?
And profits are what vaccine critics believe is at the root of the profession's resistance to update its protocols. Without the lure of vaccines, clients might be less inclined to make yearly veterinary visits. Vaccines add up to 14 percent of the average practice's income, AAHA reports, and veterinarians stand to lose big, says Dr. Ron Schultz, a veterinary immunologist at the forefront of vaccine research and chair of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Pathobiological Sciences. "I suspect some are ignoring my work," says Schultz, who claims some distemper vaccines last as long as 15 years. "Tying vaccinations into
the annual visit became prominent in the 1980s and a way of practicing in the 1990s. Now veterinarians don't want to give it up." Still, Cameron, who continues to vaccinate regularly, downplays talk of greed. "But veterinarians are people who, after eight years in a university, come out with the lowest professional incomes," he says. "If it were just money, we wouldn't be in business."
ASSOCIATIONS TAKE POSITION
To help DVMs make sense of the controversy, the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) developed feline vaccine protocols based on VAFSTF research. Canine-specific protocols also are on the way, AAHA promises, estimating their reports release by next spring. An AVMA position statement is scheduled for publication in coming months. For North Carolina State University Professor Dr. Richard Ford, who worked on both the AAHA and AVMA documents, industry guidance couldn't come soon enough. "What concerns me is the large number of vaccines coming into the market, and the fact that there are veterinarians who insist on vaccinating every dog and every cat with every vaccine every year," Ford says. "We can not do this; it's too much. Are we vaccinating too often with too many vaccines? I'm afraid the answer is yes."
REACTION TO VACCINE IN LABRADOR PUPPIES 11/4/`01 9 healthy pups born.5/6/`01 First vaccine given to pups. It was a MLV for Lepto. Parvo, Hepatitis & Distemper & made by the firm Merial. They are 8 wks old.6/6/01 one of the males is limping on the right leg in the morning. His name is "REDDY". By late afternoon the limp is worse & I bring him into the house.7/6/01 he has a pea-sized lump on his right side & by the afternoon he has several more. I spoke to the vet late afternoon & he said it was probably an allergy.8/6/01 Reddy has quite a few lumps & I spoke to the vet again who suggests I keep an eye on him. By the afternoon the lumps start bursting & we go to the vets clinic. My vet diagnosis is septicaemia. I told him Reddy was having a reaction to the vaccine but he disagreed. He did say he had never seen anything like it before. We came home with 2 different kinds of antibiotics.10/6/01 I phoned the vet & arranged to meet him at his clinic at 8 a.m. Poor Reddy`s ears are full of puss & more lumps have come out. The vet gives me drops for his ears & another antibiotic & takes a culture. Reddy is now on 3 different antibiotics.12/6/01 The results of the culture come back negative & my poor puppy is now covered with open, weeping sores.13/6/01 Back to the clinic & the vet does 2 biopsies & more cultures. One biopsy goes to the local hospital & the other goes to U.K.Over the next few days Reddy gets worse & stops eating. I cannot bear to watch him suffer & want to let him go but my vet persuades me to wait for the results of the biopsy. I can't even pick him up to comfort him, as the sores are everywhere & obviously very painful. The culture results show sterile puss & no bacteria.19/6/01 Results of biopsy show Reddy has IDIOPATHIC NODULAR PANNICULITIS
My vet starts treating Reddy with high dose of cortisone & one type of antibiotic. The vet now tells me he
believes it is caused by the vaccine. I had been telling him all the time it was because of the vaccine. Reddy responded very quickly to the drugs & came along in leaps & bounds. It was wonderful to watch him getting better. He lived in the kitchen & was just starting to go outside in the patio, as he liked to be clean when another disaster struck. 3/7/01 Pups are due their 12-week vaccine. 3 pups have gone to new homes & I have 6 still with me & Reddys new family are waiting for him to get better. 5 live outside in the puppy kennel & Reddy is in the kitchen. I had noticed a funny coloured faeces in the pups kennel & it was watery but solid at the same time & I had never seen anything like it before, so I just thought I would keep an eye on them & wasn't worried. I should have been.4/7/01 One male has diarrhoea. His name is Going Places, "G.P." for short. After no food I put him on chicken & rice. Absolutely fine in himself & running around as normal.5/7/01 One of the girls same as above. Her name is Gillianne, "Gilly" for short. By the late evening everything looks fine, they had each only had one bout of diarrhoea & they all were looking & behaving normally. Except one male, who was just a bit quite. His name is Going Around, "Gaddy" for short.6/7/01 Early morning & Gaddy is slumped over the water bowl, very poorly,& he is brought straight into the spare bedroom. Lots of vomit in the kennels but no diarrhoea & no temperature. After quickly sorting the other pups out I take Gaddy to my Spanish vet who is just up the road. He puts him straight on a drip & gives him intravenous drugs. After a couple of hours we come home with instructions to return at 7 p.m. Late afternoon & G.P. is vomiting & he is brought into the spare room. Both of them are taken to the vet at 7p.m. & are put on drips & have all the treatment, which is the same for Gastro Enteritis, Parvo, etc. Vet said they had gastro enteritis at this time. Told to bring them back to clinic 9a.m. tomorrow.7/7/01 9a.m. & back at vets. Still no diarrhoea or temperature in Gaddy or G.P. Vomiting has eased off. Treatment as previous day. Have to take them both back at 7p.m. tonight. At the clinic this evening they are both lively but the vet still treats them same as before & tells me to bring them back at 9a.m. tomorrow. Pups do well during the night & look fine.
Vomiting appears to have stopped & give them very small portion of Hills I.D. Pups outside appear to have no problem.8/7/01 One of the girls outside is vomiting & G.P. is quite. All 3 to the vet. The girl is called Gwen's Girl. All 3 have same treatment. When its finished the vet sends us home & tells me he will call in later. By early evening when the vet calls Gaddy is O.K., G.P. & Gwen are quite & he treats them as before. Still with no temperature or diarrhoea. Middle of the night & Gaddy has bloody diarrhoea.9/7/01 Early morning & the vet has all 3 on drips in my spare room. They have Parvo.This was confirmed later in the week by faeces analyses.Reddy ate his breakfast but very little else all day. He did eat his titbits.10/7/01 Reddy the same as yesterday. Late afternoon his faeces are soft. Vet starts him on treatment. The longest night. G.P. has explosive bloody diarrhoea & bloody vomit. Gaddy & Gwen are not as bad. Reddy starts to vomit & diarrhoea.11/7/01 Early morning & vet has all 4 on drips. By the afternoon Reddy is very poorly. Vet gives him morphine for the pain. I knew I had a decision to make but Reddy made it for me. He died at 7.25p.m. It was a horrible & violent way for him to die after all he had been through.But, I still had 3 poorly pups to look after.12/7/01 Gaddy & Gwen are recovering but G.P.is dying. His temperature is 42.C. and the vet can't stop the vomiting & diarrhoea. He has been on a drip since Sunday night.Gillianne & my other girl, Gwyneth, are moved into isolation, as they have not gone down with it.13/7/01 No change in G.P. but Gaddy is great & goes back outside. Gwen is getting there. Late evening & G.P.`s temp. goes down a degree.14/7/01 G.P. has turned the corner. He starts to recover but it takes another couple of weeks before the vomiting & diarrhoea stop & he can begin to eat normally.20/7/01 Gillianne & Gwyneth, the 2 girls who didn't appear to have Parvo have their 2nd vaccines & are fine. I had titres done for both of them first.22/7/01 Gaddy& Gwen are both outside in the puppy kennel & are fine in themselves but Gwen is still on drugs for diarrhea & vomiting. Not bloody.25/7/01 Gilly & Gwyneth come out of isolation & Gilly leaves to go to her new family. Gwyneth joins the other two in the puppy kennel. Mid morning & Gwen's sides look puffy. She is fine & eats her lunch and is her normal self. Mid afternoon & her sides are definitely swollen. Of to the vets again. He tries to pump her stomach & some food comes out. By 9.p.m. they have to operate. 11.30.p.m. he tells me her spleen had twisted& it was a good job I had decided not to wait till the morning as she would have died by then. It was dilatation. He still didn't know if she would survive the night, as she was very weak. So many long nights & he brought her home at 2.30.a.m. She did make it.3/8/01 Gaddy has his 2nd vacc.4/8/01 11.30.a.m. & Gaddy starts vomiting, it continues into the afternoon & then he starts diarrhea. Vets back & treating him & Gaddy is back in the bedroom. He tells me it's a reaction to the vaccine.6/8/01 Gaddy is back to normal & goes outside. 7/8/01 After such a long time & so many longer nights G.P. has gone out to join his littermates & they are running around being normal happy pups. I wouldn't say perfectly healthy just yet as they are still having minor ups & downs but they are certainly on the way to making a full recovery. When Reddys biopsy results came back, my Gibraltar vet said in his opinion the Panniculitis was caused by the vaccine & he spoke to Merial & told them what had happened. He also cancelled his contract with them & went back to his old supplier. Merial went to see him 2 wks later & took all the details. They told him they would be in touch with me. They did not get in touch with me.From 9/7/01 –16/7/01 my Gibraltar vet was on holiday. (He is the vet who gave my pups their first vaccine). I informed him on the 17/7/01 what had happened &that Reddy had died. He informed Merial the following day. Merial again told him that they would get in touch with me but they didn't. I finally had to ring them & a meeting was arranged between them, myself & husband & the two vets at my home on 31/7/01. Unfortunately the vet from Gibraltar couldn't make it.My opinion is that the vaccine caused the Panniculitis. Both the Spanish vet & the Gibraltar vet are of the same opinion.The vaccine failed to protect my pups against Parvo.It was the direct cause of Reddys death.The Spanish vet is of the opinion that the vaccine was either bad or it failed to protect my pups.The Gibraltar vet agrees the vaccine failed to protect my pups. Merial accepted none of our opinions. They have told me that Reddys Panniculitis is the only one in Europe. They said a lot of things which all boiled down to them not accepting any responsibility what so ever. As they were leaving they said they had serum that I could give my pups that would give them temporary protection until they were well enough to have their second jabs. I told them I wanted information first, but they insisted they would send it to my Spanish vet & I could use it or not, as I wished. It duly arrived, several days later Cash on Delivery! The vet promptly refused to accept it & phoned Merial & told them he thought they had greatly insulted me. G.P.& Gwen have had blood taken & it's been sent to Glasgow University for analyses on 10/8/01. The blood titres show that Gwen's Girl has high antibodies for Parvo Distemper & Adno virus. Unfortunately G.P. has very low antibodies for distemper & adenovirus. He obviously has no protection against these diseases & I am at a loss as to what to do. Damned if I do & damned if I don't. (Vaccinate that is). After much reading & talking. November finds me feeding all my dogs on a natural diet as explained in Dr Pitcairn's book The Complete Guide to Natural Health For Dogs & Cats. They are all very well & healthy & G.P. & Gwens Girl are doing great but I still cannot bring myself to have them vaccinated again. I know it is a decision I have to make alone. I just do not understand how the drug manufacturer & the vet who was involved in my situation are allowed to walk away from this situation with remarks such as …… "It happens"….."Vaccines are not 100%" …."There is no guarantee"……." It's got nothing to do with the vaccine"….."You cannot prove it was the vaccine". Drug manufacturers & the Veterinary profession have a duty to provide us with the safest possible medication for our animals & to take responsibility for things when they go wrong. They are bound by a professional code of ethics. Or doesn't that count for anything these days. I am sure a lot of people would agree with this opinion. C. Vaughan. UPDATE 6/3/2002 In February G.P. & Gwen's Girl had blood titres done at Glasgow University & neither of them have antibodies to distemper or adno virus.They were vaccinated against those 2 diseases 8 days ago . I put their continuing good health down to the natural diet & good food all my dogs will continue to eat. I cannot praise it enough.
We got away with not vaccinating our two cats for years due to not registering our cats or seeking vet care. When we finally moved and needed them to stay at an apartment, the apartment complex insisted on the records. So, we got them vaccinated - with everything. Not two hours later we had a dead cat. And 7 months later we had a second dead cat from 'hyperthyroidism' - this cat had never been sick in her 11 years of life until this point.
HELP! Sick kitty. Vaccine reaction?
My 3 year old cat, Spike, had his feline leukemia and distemper vaccines about a week and a half ago. Since Thursday, he's been lethargic. We've had him back to the vet twice now and they say he has a viral illness. Other than a fever (103.0-105.8), he checks out healthy according to them. Feline leukemia and feline HIV tests were negative. CBC and CMP were within normal range for felines. He spent Saturday night at the emergency vet and has been home since Sunday afternoon. His temp this morning was 102.4 and he seemed to be acting a little more chipper, but as the day has progressed he's more lethargic and I just rechecked his temp and it's 104.6.
My thoughts are that a viral illness would probably have run its course by now. It's been 5 days. He's also on prophylactic Amoxicillin, so I'd assume if it were something like a bacterial infection, the antibiotic would be helping by now. I plan on taking him back to the vet first thing in the morning (or sooner if need be) and insisting on at least a chest x-ray, but what I'm wondering is if this could be some sort of a vaccine reaction? I know absolutely nothing about reactions in animals. Can anyone offer me any advice? Please. Thank you. edited: If it is a reaction, what can I do?
(but the dogs are commodity, especially purebred ones...while no
price is put on human health and life...)
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030324_863.html
Study Concludes New Dog Vaccination Rules
University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor's Research Results in New Dog Vaccination Guidelines
The Associated Press
MADISON, Wis. March 24 —
A University of Wisconsin-Madison professor's research has helped shape new guidelines recommending a major change to how dog owners vaccinate their pets.Ronald Schultz said his findings suggest annual vaccinations to prevent rabies, distemper and other life-threatening diseases are not necessary, and their side effects may even hurt dogs.
Schultz recommends dogs receive the major shots once every three years and less critical vaccines only in certain instances. "If it's not necessary, don't do it," said Schultz, chairman of pathobiological sciences at UW-Madison's School of Veterinary Medicine. The guidelines published this month in Trends, the journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, are based primarily on Schultz's research.
"Not one program fits all animals, and unfortunately that is what the vaccination practice has been for many, many years," Schultz said. But Morris Link, a veterinarian at Madison's Spring Harbor Animal Hospital, said he would rather vaccinate dogs every year to make sure they're safe."I vaccinate with the full battery of stuff every year with my dog," Link said. "I sure wouldn't be doing that if I thought it was creating any harm, and I've been raising real healthy dogs who live into old age."
Schultz became convinced American dogs were being over-vaccinated after conducting years of clinical trials measuring the potency of vaccinations. His studies showed a rabies vaccine lasts about three years, while the three other core vaccines for the most dangerous canine diseases lasted seven years or more, he said.
Veterinarians have recommended annual shots of many of these vaccines for decades. Schultz said that puts dogs at risk for infrequent but potentially serious side effects including skin problems, allergic reactions and autoimmune diseases.
"These adverse reactions have caused many veterinarians to rethink the issue of vaccination," Schultz said. "The idea that unnecessary vaccines can cause serious side effects is in direct conflict with sound medical practices." Schultz said dogs should still make yearly visits to the veterinarian for annual checks for heartworm, skin problems, tumors, tooth decay and other problems. Other groups supporting the new guidelines include the American Colleges of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Veterinary Microbiology and the American Association of Veterinary Immunologists.
THE BIG SCAM--RABIES VACCINATION
By: Dr. John Fudens, D.V.M. http://www.totalsierra.com/ale/Links.asp?Linkid=2896
I would like to give you, the reader, the truth about the so called required vaccinations, particularly rabies. There are two basic forms of law. One is the legal Constitutional and Common law that this country was founded on, and the other is "colorable" law passed by Administrative agencies/bureaucrats who have been given so called authority to pass laws. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition defines colorable law as "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth." Yes, I study the law, am a paralegal, and have an extensive law library.
So any and all mandatory rabies vaccination programs are colorable law, in that they have been passed and mandated upon the pet owning public by certain vested interest groups. Who are these groups? First and foremost are veterinarians, in general, and veterinarian medical organizations. Second are the local animal control personnel, bureaucrats and politicians. What are their reasons? GREED, POWER AND CONTROL. Both these large powerful interest groups stand to benefit greatly by having rabies mandated by colorable law.
Veterinarians receive a large percentage of both their gross income and profit from vaccines given in the office. On average vaccines cost 60 to 95 cents per dose and are charged to the client at $15 to $25 per injection and substantially more in the large cities. Therefore, if veterinarians lobby to have a colorable law passed to give rabies vaccine every year that enhances their financial picture.
The veterinary medical societies, by working with other groups and area politicians, are rewarded by increased prestige and professional standing in the community. After all we are protecting you from the dreaded disease rabies, whether it exists or not. Some areas of the country are more enlightened and fortunate to have the rabies vaccine mandated every three years. You can be assured the rise of rabies is never taken into account as to whether the vaccine should be required or not. More on this later. The local government personnel benefit by extending more control over our lives, enriching the public treasury with fees, tags and fines, and giving the appearance that local government is doing something about animal populations, disease and risks to the public. Since rabies vaccines have been mandated, what county or area has seen less dog and cat bites, better animal control, more public awareness and educating of pet owning responsibility, better birth control of unwanted animals, less euthanasia of animals and decreased growth of animal control facilities?
These special groups and lobbies will use any argument, realistic or not, to justify their position. They are excellent at using the media to spread the lies and distortions. Examples: We have increased numbers of dogs biting people, pitbulls attacking and killing children are on the increase, more dogs and cats are running loose terrorizing neighborhoods, killing wildlife and other domestic stock, etc...ad nausaem. The only thing rabies vaccination is for is the protection from rabies virus, all other justifiers for the vaccine fall under human control and exist because there are a certain number of humans, connected to animals, who are irresponsible. Rabies is spread by the bite of an infected animal. The number of dog/cat bite cases in the U.S. that expose humans to rabies is as rare as shark attacks. This low incident rate has nothing to do with mandatory vaccination as the number of cases was low before the mandatory requirement.
Let me give you an example of Pinellas County, FL where my Affinity Clinic is located. I secured information from Pinellas Animal Control through the Freedom of Information Act. The record of animal control starts in 1964. From 1964 to 1978 there were zero cases of dog rabies in the county. Magically in 1978 rabies vaccine was mandated to be given every year and all dogs tagged and licensed. WHY? Well it seems four veterinarians, with animal control bureaucrats, pushed the county board of supervisors to pass a law mandating rabies vaccination every year. There were three local vets and one professor from the State Veterinary College who were behind this. It was interesting reading their letters pushing this law and the minutes of the county meeting. There was talk of dogs biting people (no actual figures given), dogs running loose, animal overpopulation, rabies on the increase in the U.S. (the increase was in wildlife, not dogs), etc.,etc. Not once was the issue discussed that there was no rabies in the county in dogs. To this date there still has not been one case of dog rabies, including the population of dogs whose owners, GOD BLESS THEM, do not vaccinate for rabies. Let's go further.
From 1964 to 1989 there were no cases of rabies in cats in Pinellas County. Magically in 1989 a law was passed mandating rabies vaccination, tags and licenses for all cats. Same tired worn out excuses were used. Since the 1989 law there was one cat with rabies contracted from the bite of a bat. DO YOU READERS REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE JUST STATED? This is standard throughout the Country. No allowance is made for dogs/cats who never leave the house or yard, could never be exposed to rabies under any circumstances, or who are so ill, old or at the end of their life cycle that the rabies vaccine would throw them over the edge. No, all dogs and cats are treated the same because we have the bogeyman, rabies, stalking the streets waiting to strike unprotected dogs and cats.
Is there rabies in this Country? You bet. Are there areas of this Country that have rabies in their wildlife population and do some dogs/cats become infected? You bet. But let's be realistic. Rabies has been on this earth long before man walked here and will be here long after we are gone. The only way to get rid of rabies is to remove mankind and the upper animals susceptible to the virus. Then maybe the virus will die off. It is a self limiting disease in the wild as it is fatal. So the virus has an extremely hard time spreading far and wide.
What is wrong with targeting those areas of the Country that have a problem with rabies using a realistic and specially formulated program that will protect the population at risk? Too logical and the special groups don't make any money. Why not educate the pet owner to the risks and dangers and let them decide whether the immune system damage from rabies vaccination is greater or lesser than contracting the disease. We do have a God given Constitutionally secured right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Public health officials always have the right to mandate emergency health care procedures in case the public, in general does not respond properly. But why should every day, month and year be as if an emergency or crisis exists? And why should we have more and more control of our lives taken from us?
The vaccines, particularly rabies, are a political and economic scam being forced upon pet owners because they do not know the truth. Rabies, nationwide, is nowhere near the problem the veterinarians, media, politicians and bureaucrats would like you to believe. If you wish more of the truth go to your local city or county government building and look up the codes and statutes concerning vaccines and rabies. Get figures from local animal control for rabies in dogs, cats and wildlife in your area. Then you can start to fight back, take control of your life, and protect your pet from the only dreaded disease that is important--special interest groups pushing their program leading to vaccine induced damaged immune systems. Only you can set yourself free.
Current Veterinary Therapy by Kirk, the textbook bible for veterinarians in general, has an article on canine and feline vaccines by two researchers. Near the end of the article is a paragraph called Annual Vaccinations. It states "The practice of annual vaccinations lacks scientific validity or verification. There is no immunological requirement for annual vaccinations. The practice of annual vaccinations should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law." Sure, if we can't manipulate you with annual vaccinations let's pass a law to get you into the office. Nice trick!
Well reader, it is your choice. I can only hope to stimulate you to look and go further. You don't have to take this suppression. Fight back. The only thing you have to lose is your freedom and you have already lost a great deal of it. I can fight with you but I can't do it alone.
Wow! Does he tell it like it is or what! Dr. Fudens can be contacted at the Affinity Holistic Clinic, 1171 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, Florida. Phone: (727) 446-3603.
PRICELESS
from and by Jim Schwartz, M.O.D.
· PRICE OF ANNUAL RABIES VACCINE TO VETERINARIAN - 61 CENTS
· PRICE OF ANNUAL RABIES VACCINATION & EXAM - $60-$70 YEARLY
· PRICE OF AUTO IMMUNE TREATMENT DUE TO OVER VACCINATION -$2000-$6000
· COST OF LOSS OF DOG DUE TO OVER VACCINATION CAUSING AUTO IMMUNE DISEASE....PRICELESS
Monette Greska added to this:
Dear Jim,
Correction...
One of my clients just spent about 15,000.00 after wrapping up 4 weeks of vet bills from Auto Immune Hemolytic Anemia. This hefty price DID include the final life-saving, "full blood transfusion." She will live and her human will likely never vaccinate again. The puppy was given a total of eight different disease vaccines within a three day period, at the tender age of 8 weeks.
Monette
************************
These people are witness to just some of the daily, horrific occurrences that thoughtful pet owners induce in their animals. Please study and research the effects of vaccines on young puppies and consider backing away from using them if you are seeing reactions in your dogs. Those reactions may occur within a short time or at a later stage and can be as minimal as a black gooey discharge in the ears to full-blown immune-mediated disease. If you can, experience has proven to wait until at least 12 weeks to begin vaccinating or you could consider no vaccines at all after initial puppy vaccinations. Additionally, skipping vaccines all together may prove very beneficial to some families of dogs. From my experience, this looks like a good choice worth exploring.
Jim Schwartz lost his dog to a deadly reaction to an annual rabies booster in Colorado. The veterinarian sent the card for the annual booster, even though the law had recently changed in Colorado to a three year booster requirement (spurred to change by reports from Colorado State Veterinary School). Jim Schwartz has since presented many investigations in Colorado and nationally and hopes to help pets and their owners avoid the fate he and his dog suffered while he was acting as a good citizen and loyal dog owner.
Permission to cross-post granted.
I agree, I was a groomer for 14 years, and after I became aware of the connection between vaccinations and chronic illness and temperament/emotional problems I realized that I did not have one single client out of approx. 250 that didn't have something chronic wrong with them. Ranging from mild, such as weepy eyes, to extreme, such as seizures, blindness. Some of these poor dogs had conditions such as hypothyroid, chronic yeast, seizures, recurrent cystitis, itchy feet, rotten teeth all at the same time. But they got groomed
on a regular basis! These people love their dogs, but they refuse to make the connection between diet, vaccination, and chronic disease. They are following their vets advice to the letter, and getting positive strokes from the vet for being such good pet guardians. I will never forget one cocker that had recurrent severe yeast in his ears. Vet prescribed everything in his arsenal and nothing kept it at bay. Finally, out of desperation they went to Dallas and had the inside of this dog's ears REMOVED, and when it was over there was no ear opening, just raise the flap and it was seamed shut. The yeast kept on coming, though! It was always swollen and sore around the ear scars, and he developed a yeasty bottom and paws. Finally a couple of years later this poor dog died of lymphoma. He was only five years old. He got regular vaccinations
during his whole life, and his immune system was destroyed by all the vax and meds and surgery. They sure weren't bad people, they LOVED that dog. They were absolutely devastated when he died. Of course that was before I knew what I know now, but looking back I see the connection.
Start asking all the people you know that have pets questions about their pets' health histories. How long their pets lived, what illnesses they had in their lives, when they were vax'd and when did illness present, what was their treatment, etc....Chances are good that you will be amazed at what you find out.
Laura H. I work with the public and since i am pet oriented the subject comes up a lot. I can't even begin to remember how many people have said the same thing that i have seen countless times here. That the pup had his parvo shot and them came down with parvo. I can see that some may have already been exposed
but there are so many that i have to believe that this particular vaccine may be especially dangerous. Especially to pups that have already had one multiple antigen shot. The pups immune system already compromised by poor diet and that puppy shot, Well, maybe it is just to much for the pup.
My breeder over in the UK, just lost 2 10 week old pups from parvo. they got their jab and one of them was given the virus from the vaccination and he gave it to the rest. It was truly horrible and to boot, her alopathic vet said that they realize that 10% of the puppies vaccinated are given the very disease by the vaccination. :( An Irish terrier that also got parvo is recovering and guess what....he didn't get a vaccination. It has been quite well established that when an animal gets the disease they have been vaccinated for, they get much sicker than an unvaccinated dog. I do not vaccinate my puppies. I got my GSD puppy from the breeder before she vaccinated him. So he has never had shots. He actually got very sick, vomiting and diarhea, but was fine. The other puppy he was playing with at the time, was vaccinated and became temporarily blind in both eyes. And my other puppy was vaccinated at the humane society with a 6 way and the vet gave her another 6 way when she went in for her acupuncture appointment(the vaccine was a mistake). Because she is half Rottweiler, the vet recommended parvo shots every six months, but we declined. After her second six way, she developed vaginitis which took us almost 6 months to get rid of homeopathically. My ten year old was vaccinated as a puppy and adolescent and he has chronic problems, physical and behavioral. Just really research the long term effects of all the chemicals in vaccines before making your decision, there is more than just the physical side effects to consider.
IF I had known what the shots would do to my dog I would NEVER have vaccinated her as a puppy. The reason why a lot of us have vaccinated our puppies, I think, is because we simply did not have the knowledge available to us at that time about the harmful effects of vaccination. I have a severely vaccine-damaged dog - she has SLE - systemic lupus erythematosis - which manifests itself as many different immune mediated diseases. To put it simply, her immune system tries to kill off her own cells in many different ways - and she is probably on steroids and immune suppressants for life now. she had puppy shots, one year old shots, two year old shots and the three year booster was the one that pushed her over the edge. Why oh why did I do it - because I did not know any better - its that simple.
If I had another pup, I would rely on that old thing called the immune system - natures own defence. I would rather take my chances with parvo, distemper etc than watch another of my dogs go through what Saffy has been through for the past year (and the strain on me having to nurse her through this again and again). It is a nightmare - it is not a disease as simple as parvo - vaccine damage can do all sorts, and is wwwaaaayyyy harder to cure than parvo. You cannot really cure vaccine damage - all you can do is suppress it and slowly slowly hope the body recovers.Its a lottery but I know which way I will be betting next time.My animals are now not vaccinated, they are raw fed and I have not used flea or worming products for over a year now - and the others are sooo healthy it's amazing. I have 3 cats who are always in and out - no fleas all last summer - that is pretty good don't you think. Anyway - I've gone on long enough - but please - I know you have had a dreadful experience, but bear in mind - the parvo could have been caused by the vaccine.
Best wishes,
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/lifestyle/article/0,1426,MCA_521_1864182,00.html
Spot's annual shots: Necessity or tradition
Immunity can last years, expert says; over-vaccination may harm pet
By Cindy Wolff
wolff@gomemphis.com
April 6, 2003
For about eight weeks after he receives his annual vaccinations, Fred, a chocolate Labrador retriever, loses his coat and acts miserable. Owner Suzanne Walls says she hates to put him through that but he needs the inoculations. But some veterinary schools and vaccine experts are questioning the need for annual vaccinations for our pets and even say they can be harmful to some animals.
Information released last month from the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison says dogs and cats develop an immune response after their series of puppy and kitten vaccines and booster when they are 1-year-old that lasts for many years. It's similar to humans who get shots for measles, mumps and rubella as a child and then never get a booster.
"No one ever goes back and questions whether those immunizations are working 10 years later in a human," says Dr. Ronald Schultz, professor and chair of pathobiological sciences at the university. Schultz has spent 30 years studying the effectiveness of vaccinations in pets. He says that, as in humans, the immune system of dogs and cats fires up when a pathogen such as a virus enters the body. The pathogen releases a protein called an antigen, which calls the immune system's disease-fighting cells into action. These cells not only destroy the virus, they create a memory of what the virus looks like to fend it off in the future.
His conclusion: Immunity can last seven years or longer for the canine and feline core vaccines; therefore, annual vaccinations are unnecessary. Over-vaccination can cause skin problems, allergic reactions and autoimmune disease. Tumors have been reported at the vaccine site in some cats. Schultz says rabies vaccinations should be given every three years because that's what most state laws require, and any law that requires annual rabies shots should be changed. Canine vaccine guidelines will be in the April/May issue of Trends, the journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. The American Association of Feline Practitioners has previously published feline vaccination guidelines.
Many veterinarians use a three-year rabies vaccine, Schultz says, but still give it annually because pet owners come in for a series of shots anyway. Tennessee and local laws require pet owners to purchase a license tag annually for their dogs. Cats are not required to be licensed. Because the tag shows proof of the rabies inoculation, the shot typically is given annually. However, the state uses guidelines established by the American Veterinary Medical Association that say vaccines used in state and local rabies control programs should have a three-year duration of immunity. That means pet owners can provide a certificate that shows their pets' rabies shot is good for three years and they should just purchase a license. Keith Robinson, acting assistant manager for Shelby County rabies control, says his department recognizes the three-year vaccination if the pet owner has a certificate to prove the animal has received the shot in that time frame.
No domestic animal has been diagnosed with rabies in Shelby County in 40 years, he says. Some veterinarians may charge more for the three-year vaccination. The Health Department offers annual vaccinations each year at fire stations around the county for $8. But with the rabies debate settled by law, that leaves the question of the necessity of other vaccinations. The guidelines for canine and feline vaccines typically distinguish the vaccinations in two categories: core and noncore vaccinations.
Core vaccinations are the ones recommended for all dogs or cats. Noncore should be given only to animals at risk. Core vaccinations for dogs are:
Rabies
Distemper
Parvo
Canine adenovirus
In cats, the core vaccinations are:
Rabies
Feline panleukopenia (parvovirus or cat distemper)
Feline viral rhinotracheitis
Feline calicivirus infection
Noncore vaccines for dogs include nearly a dozen shots for illnesses such as leptospirosis, bordetella (kennel cough) or Lyme disease. Those shots should be given based on the region the animal lives in and its lifestyle, says Schultz. For instance, if the animal is boarded or groomed and exposed to other dogs, it should receive the kennel cough vaccine. As for cats, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine issued a report in 1998 that said cats should be inoculated with noncore vaccines for feline leukemia, feline infectious peritonitis, chlamydia and ringworm only after the pet's lifestyle has been carefully evaluated.
Some cats live their lives completely indoors and are rarely or never exposed to other cats or illnesses; therefore, they don't need noncore vaccines.
But while some veterinarians advocate customizing shot regimes to individual pets, others balk and say the risk of reaction to shots isn't worth the risk of getting the disease. Veterinarian Dr. David Hannon says he's treated lots of cases of parvo, distemper and other illnesses and he'd rather vaccinate his clients as a precaution. "We work in the trenches," says Hannon. "Parvo and distemper in dogs and upper respiratory infections in cats are real. I've seen a lot more animals who have these illnesses than I've seen animals react negatively to a vaccination." Schultz said if the guidelines are followed, the animal should be completelyprotected without over-vaccinating.
Also, another problem for the veterinarian lies with the pharmaceutical companies that sell the vaccines. Most of them put on their labels that a one-year booster is required, Hannon said. "As a veterinarian, I'm not supposed to advise my client to go against the labeled usage just because I don't think they need the shot," says Hannon. "If the animal gets sick, who will be blamed, the pharmaceutical company that said to boost annually or the vet who tells the owner don't bother?" But Schultz says the label is just a recommendation that was decided arbitrarily years ago.
Pfizer Animal Health has supported changes in the vaccination guidelines and believes the decision of how often and what vaccines to use should be left up to the veterinarians, said Robert Fauteux, a spokesman for Pfizer Animal Health.
He said Pfizer gave a $250,000 grant to Cornell University for a task force to study tumors in cats. "There are some cats that live their whole lives indoors and might not need the same antigens that an outdoor cat needs," said Fauteux. "We rely on the veterinarians to make that call." Hannon requires any cat or dog that visits his clinic to be vaccinated with several noncore vaccinations, including giardia and bordetella for dogs and giardia and upper respiratory infection for cats. Until labels change on products or he doesn't see the diseases in his regular practice, he will continue to require vaccinations for his patients, he says.
Veterinarian Dr. Gerald Black burn says the issue has been batted about among his peers for years. It began after veterinarians began noticing tumors developing at the injection site on some cats. The vets began to question whether it was the vaccine or the shot itself that might be causing the tumor. In determining whether to give yearly vaccinations, Black burn looks at the pet's lifestyle and what sort of exposure it faces. Walls, who rescues Labrador retrievers from shelters and other places, says she vaccinates her dogs because they are exposed to strays and foster dogs that can bring in all sorts of illnesses. But Pam Hampton, who lives in Tipton County, says after her Great Danes receive their puppy shots and first year booster, she doesn't vaccinate them again.
The five dogs have not developed illnesses and she believes they are healthier without all the vaccines and chemicals. She gets them tested to make sure their immune systems are still registering immunity against rabies and distemper. "It just doesn't make sense to give them those shots when they aren't necessary," says Hampton. Penny Webster, who rescues rottweilers for Serendipity Rottweiler Rescue in Huntsville, Ala., says her dogs get annual vaccinations until they are about seven or eight years old. From that point, she cuts back to every other year, except for rabies vaccinations, which the state requires to be given annually.
"I'm not willing to risk my dogs' lives," says Webster. "By the time they are 7 or 8, they aren't very active anymore anyway." Another concern among veterinarians is whether people will bring their pets in for annual checkups unless they are compelled by annual vaccinations. "Most of the tumors I've found on pets are during well-pet exams," says Blackburn. "They also need their teeth cleaned and just need to be looked at to make sure they are doing all right, just like a human." He said if you consider that dogs age at a rate of five to seven years faster than a human, missing an annual checkup is like a human not seeing a doctor for five years.
Schultz encourages pet owners to take their pets to veterinarians annually, but not just for shots. The annual visits may include vaccines and other things animals need such as routine teeth cleaning and heartworm preventative. "People who love their pets aren't just looking at the minor cost savings for vaccinations," said Schultz. "They are looking at their pets overall well-being and whether they really need the shots we are giving them."
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS AND CASE REPORTS
Vaccine-associated Rhabdomyosarcoma with Spinal Epidural Invasion and
Pulmonary Metastasis in a Cat
H.-W Chang, S.-Y Ho, H.-F Lo, Y.-C Tu, C.-R Jeng, C.-H Liu, F.-I Wang and V.
F. Pang
Abstract
A 7-year-old, female, domestic medium-haired cat had a recurrent deep dermal mass in the interscapular region after initial surgical removal 3 months earlier. The cat had received a killed rabies vaccine and a five-in-one
vaccine in the same area about 2 months prior to the first surgery. The relapsed mass was diagnosed as vaccine-associated sarcoma. The cat was euthanized 2 months later because of hind limb paralysis. At necropsy, multiple, poorly demarcated, nodular masses were seen in the muscles around the shoulders, neck, and thoracic vertebrae. Pulmonary metastasis and spinal epidural invasion at T1–T3 with regional cord compression and malacia were
observed. Microscopically, the masses consisted of interwoven bundles of spindle cells with prominent multinucleated giant cell formation. The neoplastic cells stained strongly positive for myoglobin, and moderately but
variably positive for vimentin, desmin, and - smooth muscle actin. Phosphotungstic acid-hematoxylin staining revealed cytoplasmic striations in scattered tumor cells. The tumor was considered a vaccine-associated
rhabdomyosarcoma.
Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2003 Aug;50(6):286-91.
Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and
Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal
Fibrosarcomas. Vascellari M, Melchiotti E, Bozza MA, Mutinelli F.
Fifteen fibrosarcomas, surgically excised from presumed sites of injection in dogs, and 10 canine fibrosarcomas excised from sites not used for injection were histologically and immunohistochemically compared with 20 feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas. Canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites were of grade I (3), of grade II (4) and grade III (8). Two fibrosarcomas from non-injection sites were of grade I, four of grade II and four of grade III. Feline samples were classified as grade I (2), grade II (4) and grade III (14). All fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites of both species showed lymphocytic inflammatory infiltration located at the tumour periphery, while two canine fibrosarcomas from non-injection sites showed perivascular inflammatory infiltration within the neoplasm. All samples were immunohistochemically examined for vimentin, smooth muscle actin, muscle specific actin and desmin expression. All tumours were positive for vimentin. Ten canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and all feline samples contained cells consistent with a myofibroblastic immunophenotype. Aluminium deposits were detected in eight canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and 11 feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas by the aurintricarboxylic acid method. The present study identifies distinct similarities between canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas, suggesting the possibility of the development of post-injection sarcomas not only in cats, but also in dogs.
Pet 'Companion' Bill Pulled From Consideration
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/1979114/detail.html
POSTED: 2:44 p.m. MST February 14, 2003
DENVER -- A bill that would have allowed owners to sue when their pets died because of vaccination abuse was twisted into a companionship issue that drew so much attention its sponsor pulled it off the table Friday. While state law defines pets as property, Rep. Mark Cloer's bill would have recognized pets as companions and allowed owners to collect up to $100,000 for animal cruelty and negligent health care. Current law allows owners to receive fair market value of up to $500.
Many took the bill to mean pets would be classified as companions instead of property, which attracted international attention. "The bill's intent was not to give animals a special status. The bill allowed the owner to seek civil remedies. It did not empower any animals," the Colorado Springs Republican said. Even Cloer's decision set off a round of controversy.
Senate sponsor, Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, was angry with Cloer for pulling the bill, but said he would not try to resurrect it this session. He wants the bill to have a broad interpretation, allowing a pet owner to sue for loss of companionship.
"Are they property, or do they have a higher value? They are more than property," said Chlouber, whose two Labrador retrievers died last year, one of old age and another in a car accident. Cloer drafted the bill as a way to force veterinarians to stop over-vaccinating pets. He believed the only way to succeed was to put financial pressure on vets by allowing pet owners to sue for more money. Veterinarians opposed the measure, while others took the language to mean Colorado would define pets as companions instead of property. Colorado is one of 14 states with current laws recognizing dogs and cats as beneficiaries and allowing people to leave their assets to their pets.
Cloer appeared on national and international news programs to discuss his bill, which also was mentioned by Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." Ted Cohn, a Denver veterinarian, said veterinarians opposed the bill because it would have driven up the cost of care. He said they also recognize that vaccinations can be dangerous. "I feel pets are certainly worth more than property. I also have suffered with grief at the loss of a pet," he said. "We need to be very careful, because it's a short jump from a pet dog or cat to including horses and other animals, and the whole agriculture industry could be in trouble. It certainly would drive up the cost."
Jim Schwartz is a retired financial planner from Centennial who started the Next-To-Kin Foundation to advocate for dogs, cats and their owners. The foundation also works to eliminate unnecessary vaccinations. He asked Cloer to carry the bill after his poodle, Moolah, acquired autoimmune cancer after vaccination and died at age 11. "What happened to Moolah need not, must not, happen to your dog or cat," Schwartz said. Dr. Bob Rogers, a Texas veterinarian who has crusaded against over-vaccination of pets, said there is ample evidence that pets are being harmed.
Every year, 1.6 million pet owners in Colorado spend over $160 million for vaccinations that are unnecessary and expose their pets to unnecessary adverse reactions, he said. He said dogs are developing a disease where they reject their own blood, and cats develop injection site fibrasarcomas, a fatal type of cancer.
I bought a dog nine months old, fully vaxxed (and wasn't the breeder proud). This dog is the puppy of a champion mom and dad, the breeder told me the only thing that was wrong with it was that it wiggled it's bum when it walked so he couldn't 'show' it. Wrong. The dog is a total basket case, untrainable. I think it is autistic. In hindsight I would get a puppy/dog that is totally unvaccinated. Can't even begin to explain how 'off the wall' this dog is....lovable though, even if it is totally mad..... Good luck, hope you find a vax free one.......
what kind of "behaviors" does your dog have? My Dazey has bizzare behaviors (almost autistic like) that started after her vax 3 years ago (I didn't know any better at the time). We even worked with a personal trainer who said she had a very short attention span and was basket case that needed to find her inner lab. She barks at people, balloons, reflections etc. I love her to death but she's the crazeyest booger you'll ever meet.
SARCOMA SPURS STUDIES
Veterinarians like Siebert have questioned the overuse of vaccines and their side effects since their 1960 introduction to the profession. But it wasn't until 1991, when DVMs began noticing a high rate of soft tissue feline sarcoma developing at popular vaccination sites that the issue sparked debate. Cancer reports spurred studies and in 1996, veterinarians formed the Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (VAFSTF), which has pumped money into proving vaccine-malignancy correlations ever since. The research remains under way. "Unless you're living in a cave, there's no veterinarian who's not going to be concerned with at least the information on the feline sarcoma issues," says Benjamin Cassutto, a practitioner in Delaware. "Even though I would profit more, I do not recommend certain vaccines because I'm worried about overstressing the immune system. This means you have to market better so you don't lose clients or income."
GREEDY MOTIVES?
And profits are what vaccine critics believe is at the root of the profession's resistance to update its protocols. Without the lure of vaccines, clients might be less inclined to make yearly veterinary visits. Vaccines add up to 14 percent of the average practice's income, AAHA reports, and veterinarians stand to lose big, says Dr. Ron Schultz, a veterinary immunologist at the forefront of vaccine research and chair of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Pathobiological Sciences. "I suspect some are ignoring my work," says Schultz, who claims some distemper vaccines last as long as 15 years. "Tying vaccinations into
the annual visit became prominent in the 1980s and a way of practicing in the 1990s. Now veterinarians don't want to give it up." Still, Cameron, who continues to vaccinate regularly, downplays talk of greed. "But veterinarians are people who, after eight years in a university, come out with the lowest professional incomes," he says. "If it were just money, we wouldn't be in business."
ASSOCIATIONS TAKE POSITION
To help DVMs make sense of the controversy, the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) developed feline vaccine protocols based on VAFSTF research. Canine-specific protocols also are on the way, AAHA promises, estimating their reports release by next spring. An AVMA position statement is scheduled for publication in coming months. For North Carolina State University Professor Dr. Richard Ford, who worked on both the AAHA and AVMA documents, industry guidance couldn't come soon enough. "What concerns me is the large number of vaccines coming into the market, and the fact that there are veterinarians who insist on vaccinating every dog and every cat with every vaccine every year," Ford says. "We can not do this; it's too much. Are we vaccinating too often with too many vaccines? I'm afraid the answer is yes."
REACTION TO VACCINE IN LABRADOR PUPPIES 11/4/`01 9 healthy pups born.5/6/`01 First vaccine given to pups. It was a MLV for Lepto. Parvo, Hepatitis & Distemper & made by the firm Merial. They are 8 wks old.6/6/01 one of the males is limping on the right leg in the morning. His name is "REDDY". By late afternoon the limp is worse & I bring him into the house.7/6/01 he has a pea-sized lump on his right side & by the afternoon he has several more. I spoke to the vet late afternoon & he said it was probably an allergy.8/6/01 Reddy has quite a few lumps & I spoke to the vet again who suggests I keep an eye on him. By the afternoon the lumps start bursting & we go to the vets clinic. My vet diagnosis is septicaemia. I told him Reddy was having a reaction to the vaccine but he disagreed. He did say he had never seen anything like it before. We came home with 2 different kinds of antibiotics.10/6/01 I phoned the vet & arranged to meet him at his clinic at 8 a.m. Poor Reddy`s ears are full of puss & more lumps have come out. The vet gives me drops for his ears & another antibiotic & takes a culture. Reddy is now on 3 different antibiotics.12/6/01 The results of the culture come back negative & my poor puppy is now covered with open, weeping sores.13/6/01 Back to the clinic & the vet does 2 biopsies & more cultures. One biopsy goes to the local hospital & the other goes to U.K.Over the next few days Reddy gets worse & stops eating. I cannot bear to watch him suffer & want to let him go but my vet persuades me to wait for the results of the biopsy. I can't even pick him up to comfort him, as the sores are everywhere & obviously very painful. The culture results show sterile puss & no bacteria.19/6/01 Results of biopsy show Reddy has IDIOPATHIC NODULAR PANNICULITIS
My vet starts treating Reddy with high dose of cortisone & one type of antibiotic. The vet now tells me he
believes it is caused by the vaccine. I had been telling him all the time it was because of the vaccine. Reddy responded very quickly to the drugs & came along in leaps & bounds. It was wonderful to watch him getting better. He lived in the kitchen & was just starting to go outside in the patio, as he liked to be clean when another disaster struck. 3/7/01 Pups are due their 12-week vaccine. 3 pups have gone to new homes & I have 6 still with me & Reddys new family are waiting for him to get better. 5 live outside in the puppy kennel & Reddy is in the kitchen. I had noticed a funny coloured faeces in the pups kennel & it was watery but solid at the same time & I had never seen anything like it before, so I just thought I would keep an eye on them & wasn't worried. I should have been.4/7/01 One male has diarrhoea. His name is Going Places, "G.P." for short. After no food I put him on chicken & rice. Absolutely fine in himself & running around as normal.5/7/01 One of the girls same as above. Her name is Gillianne, "Gilly" for short. By the late evening everything looks fine, they had each only had one bout of diarrhoea & they all were looking & behaving normally. Except one male, who was just a bit quite. His name is Going Around, "Gaddy" for short.6/7/01 Early morning & Gaddy is slumped over the water bowl, very poorly,& he is brought straight into the spare bedroom. Lots of vomit in the kennels but no diarrhoea & no temperature. After quickly sorting the other pups out I take Gaddy to my Spanish vet who is just up the road. He puts him straight on a drip & gives him intravenous drugs. After a couple of hours we come home with instructions to return at 7 p.m. Late afternoon & G.P. is vomiting & he is brought into the spare room. Both of them are taken to the vet at 7p.m. & are put on drips & have all the treatment, which is the same for Gastro Enteritis, Parvo, etc. Vet said they had gastro enteritis at this time. Told to bring them back to clinic 9a.m. tomorrow.7/7/01 9a.m. & back at vets. Still no diarrhoea or temperature in Gaddy or G.P. Vomiting has eased off. Treatment as previous day. Have to take them both back at 7p.m. tonight. At the clinic this evening they are both lively but the vet still treats them same as before & tells me to bring them back at 9a.m. tomorrow. Pups do well during the night & look fine.
Vomiting appears to have stopped & give them very small portion of Hills I.D. Pups outside appear to have no problem.8/7/01 One of the girls outside is vomiting & G.P. is quite. All 3 to the vet. The girl is called Gwen's Girl. All 3 have same treatment. When its finished the vet sends us home & tells me he will call in later. By early evening when the vet calls Gaddy is O.K., G.P. & Gwen are quite & he treats them as before. Still with no temperature or diarrhoea. Middle of the night & Gaddy has bloody diarrhoea.9/7/01 Early morning & the vet has all 3 on drips in my spare room. They have Parvo.This was confirmed later in the week by faeces analyses.Reddy ate his breakfast but very little else all day. He did eat his titbits.10/7/01 Reddy the same as yesterday. Late afternoon his faeces are soft. Vet starts him on treatment. The longest night. G.P. has explosive bloody diarrhoea & bloody vomit. Gaddy & Gwen are not as bad. Reddy starts to vomit & diarrhoea.11/7/01 Early morning & vet has all 4 on drips. By the afternoon Reddy is very poorly. Vet gives him morphine for the pain. I knew I had a decision to make but Reddy made it for me. He died at 7.25p.m. It was a horrible & violent way for him to die after all he had been through.But, I still had 3 poorly pups to look after.12/7/01 Gaddy & Gwen are recovering but G.P.is dying. His temperature is 42.C. and the vet can't stop the vomiting & diarrhoea. He has been on a drip since Sunday night.Gillianne & my other girl, Gwyneth, are moved into isolation, as they have not gone down with it.13/7/01 No change in G.P. but Gaddy is great & goes back outside. Gwen is getting there. Late evening & G.P.`s temp. goes down a degree.14/7/01 G.P. has turned the corner. He starts to recover but it takes another couple of weeks before the vomiting & diarrhoea stop & he can begin to eat normally.20/7/01 Gillianne & Gwyneth, the 2 girls who didn't appear to have Parvo have their 2nd vaccines & are fine. I had titres done for both of them first.22/7/01 Gaddy& Gwen are both outside in the puppy kennel & are fine in themselves but Gwen is still on drugs for diarrhea & vomiting. Not bloody.25/7/01 Gilly & Gwyneth come out of isolation & Gilly leaves to go to her new family. Gwyneth joins the other two in the puppy kennel. Mid morning & Gwen's sides look puffy. She is fine & eats her lunch and is her normal self. Mid afternoon & her sides are definitely swollen. Of to the vets again. He tries to pump her stomach & some food comes out. By 9.p.m. they have to operate. 11.30.p.m. he tells me her spleen had twisted& it was a good job I had decided not to wait till the morning as she would have died by then. It was dilatation. He still didn't know if she would survive the night, as she was very weak. So many long nights & he brought her home at 2.30.a.m. She did make it.3/8/01 Gaddy has his 2nd vacc.4/8/01 11.30.a.m. & Gaddy starts vomiting, it continues into the afternoon & then he starts diarrhea. Vets back & treating him & Gaddy is back in the bedroom. He tells me it's a reaction to the vaccine.6/8/01 Gaddy is back to normal & goes outside. 7/8/01 After such a long time & so many longer nights G.P. has gone out to join his littermates & they are running around being normal happy pups. I wouldn't say perfectly healthy just yet as they are still having minor ups & downs but they are certainly on the way to making a full recovery. When Reddys biopsy results came back, my Gibraltar vet said in his opinion the Panniculitis was caused by the vaccine & he spoke to Merial & told them what had happened. He also cancelled his contract with them & went back to his old supplier. Merial went to see him 2 wks later & took all the details. They told him they would be in touch with me. They did not get in touch with me.From 9/7/01 –16/7/01 my Gibraltar vet was on holiday. (He is the vet who gave my pups their first vaccine). I informed him on the 17/7/01 what had happened &that Reddy had died. He informed Merial the following day. Merial again told him that they would get in touch with me but they didn't. I finally had to ring them & a meeting was arranged between them, myself & husband & the two vets at my home on 31/7/01. Unfortunately the vet from Gibraltar couldn't make it.My opinion is that the vaccine caused the Panniculitis. Both the Spanish vet & the Gibraltar vet are of the same opinion.The vaccine failed to protect my pups against Parvo.It was the direct cause of Reddys death.The Spanish vet is of the opinion that the vaccine was either bad or it failed to protect my pups.The Gibraltar vet agrees the vaccine failed to protect my pups. Merial accepted none of our opinions. They have told me that Reddys Panniculitis is the only one in Europe. They said a lot of things which all boiled down to them not accepting any responsibility what so ever. As they were leaving they said they had serum that I could give my pups that would give them temporary protection until they were well enough to have their second jabs. I told them I wanted information first, but they insisted they would send it to my Spanish vet & I could use it or not, as I wished. It duly arrived, several days later Cash on Delivery! The vet promptly refused to accept it & phoned Merial & told them he thought they had greatly insulted me. G.P.& Gwen have had blood taken & it's been sent to Glasgow University for analyses on 10/8/01. The blood titres show that Gwen's Girl has high antibodies for Parvo Distemper & Adno virus. Unfortunately G.P. has very low antibodies for distemper & adenovirus. He obviously has no protection against these diseases & I am at a loss as to what to do. Damned if I do & damned if I don't. (Vaccinate that is). After much reading & talking. November finds me feeding all my dogs on a natural diet as explained in Dr Pitcairn's book The Complete Guide to Natural Health For Dogs & Cats. They are all very well & healthy & G.P. & Gwens Girl are doing great but I still cannot bring myself to have them vaccinated again. I know it is a decision I have to make alone. I just do not understand how the drug manufacturer & the vet who was involved in my situation are allowed to walk away from this situation with remarks such as …… "It happens"….."Vaccines are not 100%" …."There is no guarantee"……." It's got nothing to do with the vaccine"….."You cannot prove it was the vaccine". Drug manufacturers & the Veterinary profession have a duty to provide us with the safest possible medication for our animals & to take responsibility for things when they go wrong. They are bound by a professional code of ethics. Or doesn't that count for anything these days. I am sure a lot of people would agree with this opinion. C. Vaughan. UPDATE 6/3/2002 In February G.P. & Gwen's Girl had blood titres done at Glasgow University & neither of them have antibodies to distemper or adno virus.They were vaccinated against those 2 diseases 8 days ago . I put their continuing good health down to the natural diet & good food all my dogs will continue to eat. I cannot praise it enough.
We got away with not vaccinating our two cats for years due to not registering our cats or seeking vet care. When we finally moved and needed them to stay at an apartment, the apartment complex insisted on the records. So, we got them vaccinated - with everything. Not two hours later we had a dead cat. And 7 months later we had a second dead cat from 'hyperthyroidism' - this cat had never been sick in her 11 years of life until this point.
HELP! Sick kitty. Vaccine reaction?
My 3 year old cat, Spike, had his feline leukemia and distemper vaccines about a week and a half ago. Since Thursday, he's been lethargic. We've had him back to the vet twice now and they say he has a viral illness. Other than a fever (103.0-105.8), he checks out healthy according to them. Feline leukemia and feline HIV tests were negative. CBC and CMP were within normal range for felines. He spent Saturday night at the emergency vet and has been home since Sunday afternoon. His temp this morning was 102.4 and he seemed to be acting a little more chipper, but as the day has progressed he's more lethargic and I just rechecked his temp and it's 104.6.
My thoughts are that a viral illness would probably have run its course by now. It's been 5 days. He's also on prophylactic Amoxicillin, so I'd assume if it were something like a bacterial infection, the antibiotic would be helping by now. I plan on taking him back to the vet first thing in the morning (or sooner if need be) and insisting on at least a chest x-ray, but what I'm wondering is if this could be some sort of a vaccine reaction? I know absolutely nothing about reactions in animals. Can anyone offer me any advice? Please. Thank you. edited: If it is a reaction, what can I do?
(but the dogs are commodity, especially purebred ones...while no
price is put on human health and life...)
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030324_863.html
Study Concludes New Dog Vaccination Rules
University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor's Research Results in New Dog Vaccination Guidelines
The Associated Press
MADISON, Wis. March 24 —
A University of Wisconsin-Madison professor's research has helped shape new guidelines recommending a major change to how dog owners vaccinate their pets.Ronald Schultz said his findings suggest annual vaccinations to prevent rabies, distemper and other life-threatening diseases are not necessary, and their side effects may even hurt dogs.
Schultz recommends dogs receive the major shots once every three years and less critical vaccines only in certain instances. "If it's not necessary, don't do it," said Schultz, chairman of pathobiological sciences at UW-Madison's School of Veterinary Medicine. The guidelines published this month in Trends, the journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, are based primarily on Schultz's research.
"Not one program fits all animals, and unfortunately that is what the vaccination practice has been for many, many years," Schultz said. But Morris Link, a veterinarian at Madison's Spring Harbor Animal Hospital, said he would rather vaccinate dogs every year to make sure they're safe."I vaccinate with the full battery of stuff every year with my dog," Link said. "I sure wouldn't be doing that if I thought it was creating any harm, and I've been raising real healthy dogs who live into old age."
Schultz became convinced American dogs were being over-vaccinated after conducting years of clinical trials measuring the potency of vaccinations. His studies showed a rabies vaccine lasts about three years, while the three other core vaccines for the most dangerous canine diseases lasted seven years or more, he said.
Veterinarians have recommended annual shots of many of these vaccines for decades. Schultz said that puts dogs at risk for infrequent but potentially serious side effects including skin problems, allergic reactions and autoimmune diseases.
"These adverse reactions have caused many veterinarians to rethink the issue of vaccination," Schultz said. "The idea that unnecessary vaccines can cause serious side effects is in direct conflict with sound medical practices." Schultz said dogs should still make yearly visits to the veterinarian for annual checks for heartworm, skin problems, tumors, tooth decay and other problems. Other groups supporting the new guidelines include the American Colleges of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Veterinary Microbiology and the American Association of Veterinary Immunologists.
THE BIG SCAM--RABIES VACCINATION
By: Dr. John Fudens, D.V.M. http://www.totalsierra.com/ale/Links.asp?Linkid=2896
I would like to give you, the reader, the truth about the so called required vaccinations, particularly rabies. There are two basic forms of law. One is the legal Constitutional and Common law that this country was founded on, and the other is "colorable" law passed by Administrative agencies/bureaucrats who have been given so called authority to pass laws. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition defines colorable law as "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth." Yes, I study the law, am a paralegal, and have an extensive law library.
So any and all mandatory rabies vaccination programs are colorable law, in that they have been passed and mandated upon the pet owning public by certain vested interest groups. Who are these groups? First and foremost are veterinarians, in general, and veterinarian medical organizations. Second are the local animal control personnel, bureaucrats and politicians. What are their reasons? GREED, POWER AND CONTROL. Both these large powerful interest groups stand to benefit greatly by having rabies mandated by colorable law.
Veterinarians receive a large percentage of both their gross income and profit from vaccines given in the office. On average vaccines cost 60 to 95 cents per dose and are charged to the client at $15 to $25 per injection and substantially more in the large cities. Therefore, if veterinarians lobby to have a colorable law passed to give rabies vaccine every year that enhances their financial picture.
The veterinary medical societies, by working with other groups and area politicians, are rewarded by increased prestige and professional standing in the community. After all we are protecting you from the dreaded disease rabies, whether it exists or not. Some areas of the country are more enlightened and fortunate to have the rabies vaccine mandated every three years. You can be assured the rise of rabies is never taken into account as to whether the vaccine should be required or not. More on this later. The local government personnel benefit by extending more control over our lives, enriching the public treasury with fees, tags and fines, and giving the appearance that local government is doing something about animal populations, disease and risks to the public. Since rabies vaccines have been mandated, what county or area has seen less dog and cat bites, better animal control, more public awareness and educating of pet owning responsibility, better birth control of unwanted animals, less euthanasia of animals and decreased growth of animal control facilities?
These special groups and lobbies will use any argument, realistic or not, to justify their position. They are excellent at using the media to spread the lies and distortions. Examples: We have increased numbers of dogs biting people, pitbulls attacking and killing children are on the increase, more dogs and cats are running loose terrorizing neighborhoods, killing wildlife and other domestic stock, etc...ad nausaem. The only thing rabies vaccination is for is the protection from rabies virus, all other justifiers for the vaccine fall under human control and exist because there are a certain number of humans, connected to animals, who are irresponsible. Rabies is spread by the bite of an infected animal. The number of dog/cat bite cases in the U.S. that expose humans to rabies is as rare as shark attacks. This low incident rate has nothing to do with mandatory vaccination as the number of cases was low before the mandatory requirement.
Let me give you an example of Pinellas County, FL where my Affinity Clinic is located. I secured information from Pinellas Animal Control through the Freedom of Information Act. The record of animal control starts in 1964. From 1964 to 1978 there were zero cases of dog rabies in the county. Magically in 1978 rabies vaccine was mandated to be given every year and all dogs tagged and licensed. WHY? Well it seems four veterinarians, with animal control bureaucrats, pushed the county board of supervisors to pass a law mandating rabies vaccination every year. There were three local vets and one professor from the State Veterinary College who were behind this. It was interesting reading their letters pushing this law and the minutes of the county meeting. There was talk of dogs biting people (no actual figures given), dogs running loose, animal overpopulation, rabies on the increase in the U.S. (the increase was in wildlife, not dogs), etc.,etc. Not once was the issue discussed that there was no rabies in the county in dogs. To this date there still has not been one case of dog rabies, including the population of dogs whose owners, GOD BLESS THEM, do not vaccinate for rabies. Let's go further.
From 1964 to 1989 there were no cases of rabies in cats in Pinellas County. Magically in 1989 a law was passed mandating rabies vaccination, tags and licenses for all cats. Same tired worn out excuses were used. Since the 1989 law there was one cat with rabies contracted from the bite of a bat. DO YOU READERS REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE JUST STATED? This is standard throughout the Country. No allowance is made for dogs/cats who never leave the house or yard, could never be exposed to rabies under any circumstances, or who are so ill, old or at the end of their life cycle that the rabies vaccine would throw them over the edge. No, all dogs and cats are treated the same because we have the bogeyman, rabies, stalking the streets waiting to strike unprotected dogs and cats.
Is there rabies in this Country? You bet. Are there areas of this Country that have rabies in their wildlife population and do some dogs/cats become infected? You bet. But let's be realistic. Rabies has been on this earth long before man walked here and will be here long after we are gone. The only way to get rid of rabies is to remove mankind and the upper animals susceptible to the virus. Then maybe the virus will die off. It is a self limiting disease in the wild as it is fatal. So the virus has an extremely hard time spreading far and wide.
What is wrong with targeting those areas of the Country that have a problem with rabies using a realistic and specially formulated program that will protect the population at risk? Too logical and the special groups don't make any money. Why not educate the pet owner to the risks and dangers and let them decide whether the immune system damage from rabies vaccination is greater or lesser than contracting the disease. We do have a God given Constitutionally secured right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Public health officials always have the right to mandate emergency health care procedures in case the public, in general does not respond properly. But why should every day, month and year be as if an emergency or crisis exists? And why should we have more and more control of our lives taken from us?
The vaccines, particularly rabies, are a political and economic scam being forced upon pet owners because they do not know the truth. Rabies, nationwide, is nowhere near the problem the veterinarians, media, politicians and bureaucrats would like you to believe. If you wish more of the truth go to your local city or county government building and look up the codes and statutes concerning vaccines and rabies. Get figures from local animal control for rabies in dogs, cats and wildlife in your area. Then you can start to fight back, take control of your life, and protect your pet from the only dreaded disease that is important--special interest groups pushing their program leading to vaccine induced damaged immune systems. Only you can set yourself free.
Current Veterinary Therapy by Kirk, the textbook bible for veterinarians in general, has an article on canine and feline vaccines by two researchers. Near the end of the article is a paragraph called Annual Vaccinations. It states "The practice of annual vaccinations lacks scientific validity or verification. There is no immunological requirement for annual vaccinations. The practice of annual vaccinations should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law." Sure, if we can't manipulate you with annual vaccinations let's pass a law to get you into the office. Nice trick!
Well reader, it is your choice. I can only hope to stimulate you to look and go further. You don't have to take this suppression. Fight back. The only thing you have to lose is your freedom and you have already lost a great deal of it. I can fight with you but I can't do it alone.
Wow! Does he tell it like it is or what! Dr. Fudens can be contacted at the Affinity Holistic Clinic, 1171 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, Florida. Phone: (727) 446-3603.
PRICELESS
from and by Jim Schwartz, M.O.D.
· PRICE OF ANNUAL RABIES VACCINE TO VETERINARIAN - 61 CENTS
· PRICE OF ANNUAL RABIES VACCINATION & EXAM - $60-$70 YEARLY
· PRICE OF AUTO IMMUNE TREATMENT DUE TO OVER VACCINATION -$2000-$6000
· COST OF LOSS OF DOG DUE TO OVER VACCINATION CAUSING AUTO IMMUNE DISEASE....PRICELESS
Monette Greska added to this:
Dear Jim,
Correction...
One of my clients just spent about 15,000.00 after wrapping up 4 weeks of vet bills from Auto Immune Hemolytic Anemia. This hefty price DID include the final life-saving, "full blood transfusion." She will live and her human will likely never vaccinate again. The puppy was given a total of eight different disease vaccines within a three day period, at the tender age of 8 weeks.
Monette
************************
These people are witness to just some of the daily, horrific occurrences that thoughtful pet owners induce in their animals. Please study and research the effects of vaccines on young puppies and consider backing away from using them if you are seeing reactions in your dogs. Those reactions may occur within a short time or at a later stage and can be as minimal as a black gooey discharge in the ears to full-blown immune-mediated disease. If you can, experience has proven to wait until at least 12 weeks to begin vaccinating or you could consider no vaccines at all after initial puppy vaccinations. Additionally, skipping vaccines all together may prove very beneficial to some families of dogs. From my experience, this looks like a good choice worth exploring.
Jim Schwartz lost his dog to a deadly reaction to an annual rabies booster in Colorado. The veterinarian sent the card for the annual booster, even though the law had recently changed in Colorado to a three year booster requirement (spurred to change by reports from Colorado State Veterinary School). Jim Schwartz has since presented many investigations in Colorado and nationally and hopes to help pets and their owners avoid the fate he and his dog suffered while he was acting as a good citizen and loyal dog owner.
Permission to cross-post granted.
I agree, I was a groomer for 14 years, and after I became aware of the connection between vaccinations and chronic illness and temperament/emotional problems I realized that I did not have one single client out of approx. 250 that didn't have something chronic wrong with them. Ranging from mild, such as weepy eyes, to extreme, such as seizures, blindness. Some of these poor dogs had conditions such as hypothyroid, chronic yeast, seizures, recurrent cystitis, itchy feet, rotten teeth all at the same time. But they got groomed
on a regular basis! These people love their dogs, but they refuse to make the connection between diet, vaccination, and chronic disease. They are following their vets advice to the letter, and getting positive strokes from the vet for being such good pet guardians. I will never forget one cocker that had recurrent severe yeast in his ears. Vet prescribed everything in his arsenal and nothing kept it at bay. Finally, out of desperation they went to Dallas and had the inside of this dog's ears REMOVED, and when it was over there was no ear opening, just raise the flap and it was seamed shut. The yeast kept on coming, though! It was always swollen and sore around the ear scars, and he developed a yeasty bottom and paws. Finally a couple of years later this poor dog died of lymphoma. He was only five years old. He got regular vaccinations
during his whole life, and his immune system was destroyed by all the vax and meds and surgery. They sure weren't bad people, they LOVED that dog. They were absolutely devastated when he died. Of course that was before I knew what I know now, but looking back I see the connection.
Start asking all the people you know that have pets questions about their pets' health histories. How long their pets lived, what illnesses they had in their lives, when they were vax'd and when did illness present, what was their treatment, etc....Chances are good that you will be amazed at what you find out.
Laura H. I work with the public and since i am pet oriented the subject comes up a lot. I can't even begin to remember how many people have said the same thing that i have seen countless times here. That the pup had his parvo shot and them came down with parvo. I can see that some may have already been exposed
but there are so many that i have to believe that this particular vaccine may be especially dangerous. Especially to pups that have already had one multiple antigen shot. The pups immune system already compromised by poor diet and that puppy shot, Well, maybe it is just to much for the pup.
My breeder over in the UK, just lost 2 10 week old pups from parvo. they got their jab and one of them was given the virus from the vaccination and he gave it to the rest. It was truly horrible and to boot, her alopathic vet said that they realize that 10% of the puppies vaccinated are given the very disease by the vaccination. :( An Irish terrier that also got parvo is recovering and guess what....he didn't get a vaccination. It has been quite well established that when an animal gets the disease they have been vaccinated for, they get much sicker than an unvaccinated dog. I do not vaccinate my puppies. I got my GSD puppy from the breeder before she vaccinated him. So he has never had shots. He actually got very sick, vomiting and diarhea, but was fine. The other puppy he was playing with at the time, was vaccinated and became temporarily blind in both eyes. And my other puppy was vaccinated at the humane society with a 6 way and the vet gave her another 6 way when she went in for her acupuncture appointment(the vaccine was a mistake). Because she is half Rottweiler, the vet recommended parvo shots every six months, but we declined. After her second six way, she developed vaginitis which took us almost 6 months to get rid of homeopathically. My ten year old was vaccinated as a puppy and adolescent and he has chronic problems, physical and behavioral. Just really research the long term effects of all the chemicals in vaccines before making your decision, there is more than just the physical side effects to consider.
IF I had known what the shots would do to my dog I would NEVER have vaccinated her as a puppy. The reason why a lot of us have vaccinated our puppies, I think, is because we simply did not have the knowledge available to us at that time about the harmful effects of vaccination. I have a severely vaccine-damaged dog - she has SLE - systemic lupus erythematosis - which manifests itself as many different immune mediated diseases. To put it simply, her immune system tries to kill off her own cells in many different ways - and she is probably on steroids and immune suppressants for life now. she had puppy shots, one year old shots, two year old shots and the three year booster was the one that pushed her over the edge. Why oh why did I do it - because I did not know any better - its that simple.
If I had another pup, I would rely on that old thing called the immune system - natures own defence. I would rather take my chances with parvo, distemper etc than watch another of my dogs go through what Saffy has been through for the past year (and the strain on me having to nurse her through this again and again). It is a nightmare - it is not a disease as simple as parvo - vaccine damage can do all sorts, and is wwwaaaayyyy harder to cure than parvo. You cannot really cure vaccine damage - all you can do is suppress it and slowly slowly hope the body recovers.Its a lottery but I know which way I will be betting next time.My animals are now not vaccinated, they are raw fed and I have not used flea or worming products for over a year now - and the others are sooo healthy it's amazing. I have 3 cats who are always in and out - no fleas all last summer - that is pretty good don't you think. Anyway - I've gone on long enough - but please - I know you have had a dreadful experience, but bear in mind - the parvo could have been caused by the vaccine.
Best wishes,
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/lifestyle/article/0,1426,MCA_521_1864182,00.html
Spot's annual shots: Necessity or tradition
Immunity can last years, expert says; over-vaccination may harm pet
By Cindy Wolff
wolff@gomemphis.com
April 6, 2003
For about eight weeks after he receives his annual vaccinations, Fred, a chocolate Labrador retriever, loses his coat and acts miserable. Owner Suzanne Walls says she hates to put him through that but he needs the inoculations. But some veterinary schools and vaccine experts are questioning the need for annual vaccinations for our pets and even say they can be harmful to some animals.
Information released last month from the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison says dogs and cats develop an immune response after their series of puppy and kitten vaccines and booster when they are 1-year-old that lasts for many years. It's similar to humans who get shots for measles, mumps and rubella as a child and then never get a booster.
"No one ever goes back and questions whether those immunizations are working 10 years later in a human," says Dr. Ronald Schultz, professor and chair of pathobiological sciences at the university. Schultz has spent 30 years studying the effectiveness of vaccinations in pets. He says that, as in humans, the immune system of dogs and cats fires up when a pathogen such as a virus enters the body. The pathogen releases a protein called an antigen, which calls the immune system's disease-fighting cells into action. These cells not only destroy the virus, they create a memory of what the virus looks like to fend it off in the future.
His conclusion: Immunity can last seven years or longer for the canine and feline core vaccines; therefore, annual vaccinations are unnecessary. Over-vaccination can cause skin problems, allergic reactions and autoimmune disease. Tumors have been reported at the vaccine site in some cats. Schultz says rabies vaccinations should be given every three years because that's what most state laws require, and any law that requires annual rabies shots should be changed. Canine vaccine guidelines will be in the April/May issue of Trends, the journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. The American Association of Feline Practitioners has previously published feline vaccination guidelines.
Many veterinarians use a three-year rabies vaccine, Schultz says, but still give it annually because pet owners come in for a series of shots anyway. Tennessee and local laws require pet owners to purchase a license tag annually for their dogs. Cats are not required to be licensed. Because the tag shows proof of the rabies inoculation, the shot typically is given annually. However, the state uses guidelines established by the American Veterinary Medical Association that say vaccines used in state and local rabies control programs should have a three-year duration of immunity. That means pet owners can provide a certificate that shows their pets' rabies shot is good for three years and they should just purchase a license. Keith Robinson, acting assistant manager for Shelby County rabies control, says his department recognizes the three-year vaccination if the pet owner has a certificate to prove the animal has received the shot in that time frame.
No domestic animal has been diagnosed with rabies in Shelby County in 40 years, he says. Some veterinarians may charge more for the three-year vaccination. The Health Department offers annual vaccinations each year at fire stations around the county for $8. But with the rabies debate settled by law, that leaves the question of the necessity of other vaccinations. The guidelines for canine and feline vaccines typically distinguish the vaccinations in two categories: core and noncore vaccinations.
Core vaccinations are the ones recommended for all dogs or cats. Noncore should be given only to animals at risk. Core vaccinations for dogs are:
Rabies
Distemper
Parvo
Canine adenovirus
In cats, the core vaccinations are:
Rabies
Feline panleukopenia (parvovirus or cat distemper)
Feline viral rhinotracheitis
Feline calicivirus infection
Noncore vaccines for dogs include nearly a dozen shots for illnesses such as leptospirosis, bordetella (kennel cough) or Lyme disease. Those shots should be given based on the region the animal lives in and its lifestyle, says Schultz. For instance, if the animal is boarded or groomed and exposed to other dogs, it should receive the kennel cough vaccine. As for cats, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine issued a report in 1998 that said cats should be inoculated with noncore vaccines for feline leukemia, feline infectious peritonitis, chlamydia and ringworm only after the pet's lifestyle has been carefully evaluated.
Some cats live their lives completely indoors and are rarely or never exposed to other cats or illnesses; therefore, they don't need noncore vaccines.
But while some veterinarians advocate customizing shot regimes to individual pets, others balk and say the risk of reaction to shots isn't worth the risk of getting the disease. Veterinarian Dr. David Hannon says he's treated lots of cases of parvo, distemper and other illnesses and he'd rather vaccinate his clients as a precaution. "We work in the trenches," says Hannon. "Parvo and distemper in dogs and upper respiratory infections in cats are real. I've seen a lot more animals who have these illnesses than I've seen animals react negatively to a vaccination." Schultz said if the guidelines are followed, the animal should be completelyprotected without over-vaccinating.
Also, another problem for the veterinarian lies with the pharmaceutical companies that sell the vaccines. Most of them put on their labels that a one-year booster is required, Hannon said. "As a veterinarian, I'm not supposed to advise my client to go against the labeled usage just because I don't think they need the shot," says Hannon. "If the animal gets sick, who will be blamed, the pharmaceutical company that said to boost annually or the vet who tells the owner don't bother?" But Schultz says the label is just a recommendation that was decided arbitrarily years ago.
Pfizer Animal Health has supported changes in the vaccination guidelines and believes the decision of how often and what vaccines to use should be left up to the veterinarians, said Robert Fauteux, a spokesman for Pfizer Animal Health.
He said Pfizer gave a $250,000 grant to Cornell University for a task force to study tumors in cats. "There are some cats that live their whole lives indoors and might not need the same antigens that an outdoor cat needs," said Fauteux. "We rely on the veterinarians to make that call." Hannon requires any cat or dog that visits his clinic to be vaccinated with several noncore vaccinations, including giardia and bordetella for dogs and giardia and upper respiratory infection for cats. Until labels change on products or he doesn't see the diseases in his regular practice, he will continue to require vaccinations for his patients, he says.
Veterinarian Dr. Gerald Black burn says the issue has been batted about among his peers for years. It began after veterinarians began noticing tumors developing at the injection site on some cats. The vets began to question whether it was the vaccine or the shot itself that might be causing the tumor. In determining whether to give yearly vaccinations, Black burn looks at the pet's lifestyle and what sort of exposure it faces. Walls, who rescues Labrador retrievers from shelters and other places, says she vaccinates her dogs because they are exposed to strays and foster dogs that can bring in all sorts of illnesses. But Pam Hampton, who lives in Tipton County, says after her Great Danes receive their puppy shots and first year booster, she doesn't vaccinate them again.
The five dogs have not developed illnesses and she believes they are healthier without all the vaccines and chemicals. She gets them tested to make sure their immune systems are still registering immunity against rabies and distemper. "It just doesn't make sense to give them those shots when they aren't necessary," says Hampton. Penny Webster, who rescues rottweilers for Serendipity Rottweiler Rescue in Huntsville, Ala., says her dogs get annual vaccinations until they are about seven or eight years old. From that point, she cuts back to every other year, except for rabies vaccinations, which the state requires to be given annually.
"I'm not willing to risk my dogs' lives," says Webster. "By the time they are 7 or 8, they aren't very active anymore anyway." Another concern among veterinarians is whether people will bring their pets in for annual checkups unless they are compelled by annual vaccinations. "Most of the tumors I've found on pets are during well-pet exams," says Blackburn. "They also need their teeth cleaned and just need to be looked at to make sure they are doing all right, just like a human." He said if you consider that dogs age at a rate of five to seven years faster than a human, missing an annual checkup is like a human not seeing a doctor for five years.
Schultz encourages pet owners to take their pets to veterinarians annually, but not just for shots. The annual visits may include vaccines and other things animals need such as routine teeth cleaning and heartworm preventative. "People who love their pets aren't just looking at the minor cost savings for vaccinations," said Schultz. "They are looking at their pets overall well-being and whether they really need the shots we are giving them."
Here is more articles on animal overvaccination:
http://www.hua.org/Important/vaccinations.html
http://www.srdogs.com/Pages/care.fr.html (see link to Colorado
University hospital)
http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html
http://www.curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=94&db=2&C0=735
IT’S A DOG’S LIFE: It’s not just children we vaccinate too often
There’s been plenty of debate about childhood vaccinations, but what about the shots we give to the family dog? The poor mutt can be in line for 16 different vaccines a year, although they ’re often given in one shot. They are supposed to offer protection against rabies, and various canine viral infections, along with other, milder, conditions such as Lyme disease.
But, as with our children, dogs can also develop side effects, such as skin rash, allergic reactions and autoimmune diseases. Cats that have been vaccinated have suffered even worse reactions, including the development of malignant tumors.
So are we vaccinating our pets too often and with too much? Canine vaccine experts in America believe that we are. Like humans, dogs could be vaccinated at an early age and be protected for life, instead of being given annual ‘top-up’ shots, they say. At the very least, the core vaccines, including rabies, should not be given more than once every three years.
(Source: Journal American Animal Hospital Association, 2003; 39: 119-31).
HI, everyone I don't post much ,but need to ask everyone to please pray for a friends little yorkie mix she was vaxed for kennel cough on Tuesday she started coughing to day my friend took her back to the vet who she it was a reaction to the kc vax and put her on some meds. This little dog has a heart problem well this evening she started acting as if she was having trouble breathing and her color was a bit off she was taken to the vet ER were she was admitted and put on Oxygen and iv meds they think she will make it , but are not sure she will make it thru the night, she is my friends baby she takes this dog every were please pray she will make it .
http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html
Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?
Vaccination is not as widely and unquestionably accepted today as it was in the past. Many pet guardians and veterinarians believe we have taken the concept much farther than its usefulness warrants. In twenty years of veterinary practice, I have made the transition from believing strongly in the protective power of vaccines to becoming continually more certain that they create at least as much illness as they have ever prevented. In truth, I now consider vaccination to be tantamount to animal abuse in most cases. This opinion has two main bases: First, vaccines often do not provide any protection. This may result from poor vaccine performance (as with feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, and ringworm vaccines), lack of risk (all vaccines at times, but particularly the above vaccines plus rabies), or simply lack of need (as with booster vaccination in almost all cases). Secondly, many vaccines actually induce illness that is much greater than that of the diseases that they are designed to prevent.
A further consideration is that vaccination weakens the strength of a population by allowing individuals to survive that otherwise would succumb to natural diseases; these diseases provide cleansing and strengthening for the population under normal conditions. The population is further weakened by immunosuppressive and possibly gene-damaging vaccine impacts. Vaccination likely provides protection from acute, contagious diseases by inducing chronic disease. This trade-off is not a good one and itself amounts to abuse.
Obviously there are several issues here that affect an immunization decision. Each is a separate factor with its own issues. I¹ll start with booster vaccinations, as this is the clearest area and one with little risk of error. Simply put, there is almost never a need for booster immunization. Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is protected for life. Further vaccinations do not improve the immunity. The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM, appeared in Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected veterinary immunologists in the academic community):
A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for rabies). (Italics added) In essence, Drs. Schultz and Phillips are stating that the only reasons for annual vaccination are legal (as with rabies vaccination) or as a means of manipulating guardians into bringing their companions for examinations (rather than simply recommending an examination). They also clearly state that booster vaccines provide no other benefit, including improved or added immunization. Although it has been some years since this was published, the veterinary community has made little headway toward following these recommendations. Some university experts now recommend vaccinations every three years, and other university clinics recommend titer testing to determine need. While both concepts are a step in the right direction, they still do not reflect the actual picture.
As the above quote indicates, immunologic memory lasts for years (usually for the life of the individual). This memory is not dependent upon titers, nor do titer levels always accurately indicate the immune status. A titer is a reflection of the quantity of circulating antibodies (immunoglobulins) to a given antigen (in this case, an organism). Cells in the body produce the
antibody. These cells retain the ability to produce antibodies toward a given antigen for quite a long time, usually for life. Upon re-exposure, they can produce antibody within forty-eight hours. As a consequence of this capability, there is no need for the body to expend the energy needed to maintain circulating antibodies. A low or absent titer, therefore, does not mean the body is unprotected. The body may simply have cells ready to act, like firefighters playing cards until they are needed. When booster vaccines are administered, antibodies destroy the vaccine particles before they can augment the immunity, and nothing is accomplished.
With kittens, antibodies (maternal antibody) may be passed from the mother to the kittens via the umbilical cord and via colostrum (the first milk). This antibody serves to protect the kitten, but it also can interfere with vaccination. For this reason, we often vaccinate kittens multiple times, in hopes that we will give a vaccination shortly after the maternal antibody diminishes to a level that will not interfere with vaccination. This is often overkill, as one vaccination can induce immunity in approximately 95 percent of animals if the timing is correct.
Multiple vaccination, particularly with combination vaccines, is one of the greatest contributors to vaccine-induced illness. Limiting vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines could greatly reduce disease from vaccination. In my opinion, this would be a huge step in the right direction for those who are too fearful to avoid vaccines entirely. The next area of concern is that of risk. Veterinarians and vaccine companies frequently use fear to convince others of the need for vaccines. Often, the risk of disease is so small that vaccination is foolish. Many cats are kept indoors, and while this practice is certainly controversial (I believe all animals need exposure to the outside), these cats have virtually no risk of exposure to most organisms (especially rabies and feline leukemia virus, both of which require direct contact with an infected animal). Vaccination is generally pointless for these animals.
Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases are not truly contagious. In these cases vaccination is useless since it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. The immunosuppression occurs first, allowing a virus, bacteria, or fungus to grow. We know this because healthy animals
are unaffected by these organisms. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency virus, and ringworm (in most cases). Vaccines for these diseases are therefore of no benefit; in fact, they often induce just the disease they are purported to prevent. These vaccines are among the most dangerous ones available. The only prevention of these diseases comes from a healthy diet and lifestyle.
Vaccination often receives undue credit for disease prevention, and we often hear raving about the lifesaving benefits of vaccination. From human studies, however, we know that the death rates of measles, whooping cough, and polio had fallen significantly prior to the introduction of vaccination; in the case of measles it had dropped 95 percent. Many practitioners around the turn of the century reported that smallpox immunization often increased a person¹s chance of disease; this was even reflected in public health statistics. (Miller) Most of the reduction of disease actually resulted from good food and good hygiene.
This brings us to the question of damage from vaccines. Although this is the most controversial aspect of vaccination, I see this so commonly that I personally have no doubts that vaccines are extremely dangerous. Most of my homeopathic colleagues are in agreement. We believe vaccination underlies a huge percentage of illness that we see today, and especially the rash of autoimmune diseases; these have increased dramatically since my graduation from veterinary school in 1979.
I¹ll briefly present a case that turned my head many years ago. When I first heard that vaccines might actually cause disease, I was skeptical. Of course, I knew about allergic reactions and other quick responses, but I assumed that these initial reactions were the extent of the problem. I remember a case, however, that opened my eyes. Fluffy was a sweet Persian cat who lived with an equally sweet woman.
Fluffy had recurrent bouts of cystitis (urinary bladder inflammation) that were very resistant to conventional and homeopathic treatment. Despite the fact that I liked Fluffy¹s guardian (and Fluffy), I hated to hear from her, as it was such a frustrating case. The bladder infections were never under control for long before they would return. One day I was reviewing the record for some clue as to what to do next when I had a stunning revelation. The cystitis bouts were always about a month after the yearly boosters. I suggested to Fluffy¹s guardian that we no longer vaccinate Fluffy, and I never needed to treat Fluffy¹s cystitis again. I could only conclude that vaccines could indeed cause diseases even a supposed infection.
Once I opened my eyes to the possibility of vaccine-induced illness, I began to see it commonly. It even became clear that certain vaccines could cause chronic illness that resembled the acute disease that the vaccine was intended to prevent. Panleukopenia is a good example.
With panleukopenia, major symptoms include inflammation and degeneration of the intestinal tract leading to severe vomiting and diarrhea, severe reduction of white blood cells (leukopenia) leading to immunosuppression, loss of appetite, mucopurulent nasal discharge, dehydration, and rapid weight loss. The chronic diseases we see frequently in cats correspond to many of these symptoms. Inflammatory bowel disease, an autoimmune inflammation of the intestines, is occurring at epidemic levels today. This disease was virtually nonexistent twenty years ago, yet today it is one of the most frequent diagnoses.
Cats are also extremely susceptible to immune malfunction and immunosuppression. The immunosuppressive state has been associated with two retroviruses (feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus), and others are suspected. Rather than these being separate diseases, I believe they are the same, but that more than one virus can fill the niche opened by the immunosuppression (remember that with chronic diseases the illness precedes the infection). This is probably the same in people with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) related viruses. Parvoviruses, which include the feline panleukopenia virus, are known to be very immunosuppressive. Additionally, I suspect the feline upper respiratory infections are a chronic state of the panleukopenia virus-induced immunosuppression and the tendency to get eye discharges.
A similar scenario now exists in dogs. While immunosuppressive states are not common in dogs, reports of their occurrence are on the rise. I believe the massive vaccination program for canine parvovirus, which began some thirty plus years after we began vaccinating cats with feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus), is creating this situation in dogs. If this is true, then the imminent future bodes poorly for dogs if the problem in cats is an indication. Furthermore, we have been seeing inflammatory bowel disease in dogs over the past five to ten years. Prior to this it was virtually nonexistent. I am certain that vaccination for parvovirus and coronavirus is a major cause. I commonly see inflammatory bowel disease that arises within a month or two after vaccination for one of these viruses.
There is still another syndrome associated with parvoviruses, one that occurred first in cats, and later in dogs. Cardiomyopathy is a disease of the heart muscle. The muscle may either weaken and stretch (dilated cardiomyopathy), or it may thicken greatly (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). Either condition will limit the heart¹s ability to pump blood. cardiomyopathy is often fatal.
We have been diagnosing cardiomyopathy in cats for over twenty years, approximately the same period of time as for inflammatory bowel disease. Many (but not all) cases of the dilated form of cardiomyopathy have been associated with a deficiency of the amino acid L-taurine. The cause for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as the cause for the nontaurine-associated cases of dilated cardiomyopathy, is unknown. I believe that the answer may have appeared in dogs.
When canine parvovirus first erupted in the late 1970s, many young puppies died rapidly, sometimes within hours. It turned out that parvovirus was capable of attacking the heart muscle in young puppies, and this form of the infection killed the puppies rapidly.
Cardiomyopathy did not affect dogs before the parvovirus outbreak (or if so it was very rare), but in the years since the outbreak it has appeared. The number of cases has especially risen over the past five to ten years, coincident with the rise of inflammatory bowel disease in dogs. The Merck Veterinary Manual states that, "The cause [of dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs] is still unknown although viral infection and resultant autoimmune reaction against the damaged myocardium are suspectŠ. Since the canine parvovirus (CPV) pandemic of 1978, male Doberman pinschers appear to be highly vulnerable to both CPV and cardiomyopathy." (Fraser) In the years
since this was written (in 1986), we have begun to see cardiomyopathy in many other breeds as well as Doberman pinschers.
I believe the author of this section of The Merck Veterinary Manual was correct, but I believe that parvovirus vaccination is even more likely to be the cause in most cases. I also believe that this explains the occurrence of cardiomyopathy in cats. Perhaps the heart muscle association of the feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus) was not seen in natural infections, but vaccination brought it to the surface. Cardiomyopathy is an autoimmune disease, and vaccines are major causes of autoimmune disease. In my opinion, these connections are too close to be coincidence alone.
Another vaccine that induces great anguish for guardian and companion is the rabies vaccine. I see many cases of fear and aggression that stem from rabies vaccination. If you consider the nature of rabies, this might not surprise you. It appears we are introducing chronic rabies into our animals by injecting rabies virus particles into their bodies. How, you may wonder, could inactivated virus induce illness? Apparently, the ability to affect change is not contingent upon the quality of aliveness, as we understand the concept. In fact, viruses are on the border between living and non-living; they require another organism to reproduce and thrive; otherwise they are little more than a chemical compound with the potential to alter the metabolism of their hosts.
Other conditions we see frequently in veterinary medicine today are not so directly traceable to a particular vaccine, but the general connection to vaccination is clear to many practitioners. Hyperthyroidism (increased production of thyroid hormones) was not seen when I first graduated from veterinary school. It was not simply misdiagnosed. The symptoms are so characteristic that the syndrome would have been recognized even if the cause was unknown. The disease did not exist. Could vaccines be responsible? Let¹s look at another case:
Sheba is a Siamese mix cat. She was nine years old when her guardian first consulted me. One week after vaccination, Sheba stopped eating and developed a rapid heart rate. Her conventional veterinarian suspected hyperthyroidism, although thyroid testing revealed no abnormalities. One dose of Thuja (a homeopathic remedy) reversed the rapid heartbeat and the appetite problems, and her health bloomed after the remedy so that she was better than before she became ill. Clearly the vaccines had caused these problems. I believe she would have developed true hyperthyroid disease if untreated.
The status of cats has elevated significantly since the 1960¹s. Prior to this most cats received little veterinary care. Since the 1970¹s, however, as cat status elevated, the care given to cats has climbed. This has generally meant more vaccinations. And rabies vaccination was often not recommended for cats until the mid-1980s. I believe the massive increase of vaccines in cats is responsible for hyperthyroidism as well as many other recently emerging diseases.
Cats suffer greatly from vaccination damage. The most obvious vaccine-induced problem is one that is deathly serious, causing great suffering among cats and cat companions. Fibrosarcomas, a type of cancer, occur more and more as a result of vaccination. The vaccines that are implicated are the rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines. These cancers arise at the site of injection of one of the vaccines. Researchers have identified vaccine particles within the cancer mass in a number of cases; the link is definite. Many veterinarians now refer to these cancers as vaccine sarcomas. Fibrosarcomas are malignant, and the average life expectancy is less than three years once the cancer has arisen. No treatment has proven satisfactory. Even with aggressive surgical removal, these cancers recur in the vast majority of cats. Some leading veterinarians recommend giving the vaccines in a leg, or even in the tail (ow!), to make amputation a viable option in case the cancers arise. Does this make sense? Obviously, when we reach the point of making recommendations like these, we are out of control. But do we simply avoid vaccinations in order to avoid all risk? Or is there possibly more risk by not vaccinating? Personally, am opposed to vaccination in virtually all situations, but I will endeavor to give some guidelines that will assist you in making a balanced decision regarding your feline companions.
There are four criteria that are at the center of any vaccine decision. One should only consider administering a vaccine if all four criteria are met:
1. The disease is serious, even life threatening.
2. The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.
3. The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.
4. The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.
Let¹s look at individual diseases to see how this works. I¹ll start with feline leukemia virus (FeLV) disease. An indoor-only cat will not be exposed (number two) as this virus requires direct, intimate, cat-to-cat contact for transmission. Many veterinarians recommend immunizing indoor cats against this disease, but I feel this is unethical. This disease does not fit criteria numbers three or four anyway in my experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not all circumstances. If a vaccine for the feline immunodeficiency virus were developed, it would be the same as for FeLV.
Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is another disease that fits neither three nor four, and rarely number two. The FIP virus vaccine has generally been found ineffective and has produced severe side effects. Among the side effects I have observed with both FIP and FeLV vaccines is induction of the clinical disease they were intended to prevent.
Feline panleukopenia virus is very serious and the vaccine is quite effective, but most cats will not be exposed to the virus and the disease generally affects kittens only. Only those cats that are likely to be exposed would benefit from vaccination, and one vaccination between the age of ten to twelve weeks will protect 95 percent of cats for life. (Schultz)
With the feline upper respiratory diseases (calicivirus and rhinotracheitis virus as well as feline chlamydia), most are not serious except in very young kittens. These kittens generally contract the disease before vaccines would typically be administered, so the vaccine is not often beneficial. If you choose to immunize for these, use the intranasal form, and do not vaccinate for chlamydia. The chlamydia fraction produces poor immunization.
Recently a vaccine for ringworm was introduced. I have no direct experience with this vaccine, but I am certain that it will have little benefit and it is probably unsafe. Ringworm is usually the result of immunodeficiency‹a chronic disease rather than an acute illness, so the vaccine will not address the cause of disease. I strongly recommend against using this vaccine.
Finally, while rabies is a very serious disease with the potential to infect humans (this is the reason for excessive vaccination laws), most animals are very unlikely to be exposed. One vaccine at four months of age will protect most cats for life. If one booster vaccination is administered, almost all animals (95 percent) are immunized for life. (Schultz)
In summary, my first recommendation is avoidance of vaccination whenever possible. If the risk is great, one panleukopenia vaccination will adequately protect the cat in almost all cases. The intranasal rhinotracheitis-calicivirus vaccine is relatively effective, but very few cats will benefit from this. Finally, rabies is legally mandated, but one vaccination will generally protect cats that are at risk. I never recommend vaccines for feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, Chlamydia, ringworm, or the feline immunodeficiency virus. And I never recommend booster vaccines; these are always unwarranted.
Clarence Fraser, ed. The Merck Veterinary Manual (Rahway, New Jersey: Merck & Co., Inc., 1986).
Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 1994).
Phillips, T.R., DVM, and Ron Schultz, Ph.D., "Canine and Feline Vaccines," in Current Veterinary Therapy XI, Robert Kirk, DVM and John Bonagura, DVM, eds. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992).
Ron Schultz, "Theory and Practice of Immunization" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association, Snowmass, CO, September 1995), 92-104.
Dr. Don Hamilton practices veterinary homeopathy in New Mexico. The vaccination issue is comprehensively reviewed in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs: Small Doses for Small Animals, to be published this summer by North Atlantic Books. Please see this book (available directly from Dr. Hamilton or at most bookstores) for further information about vaccination or other health problems, or you may call 505 666 2091 to schedule an appointment with Dr. Hamilton. There is a charge for telephone consultations.
Ohio teen selected to compete in International Science and Engineering Fair
By CHRISTINA REDEKOPP -- The Herald-Dispatch
redekopp@herald-dispatch.com
ROME TOWNSHIP, Ohio -- Jeremiah Schley’s senior science fair project may be a testament to how far he has come.
Schley had a difficult time growing up with a mild case of Tourette’s syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes involuntary motor or verbal tics, he said. Because he was not diagnosed until he was 14, some people doubted he had a disorder and misunderstood he could not help rolling his eyes, having outbursts, falling asleep in class and having hyperactive tendencies. As a child, he was asked to leave day care centers and schools because of involuntary tics.
Since the ninth grade the TS seems to have settled into remission, Schley said. He has been able to quit taking medications and has worked to improve his grades, completing his junior year at Fairland High School with a 3.67 gpa. He also won first place for Introductory Word Processing at this past Marshall University’s S.C.O.R.E.S. competition.
Now, the 18-year-old is heading to California. He is one of eight Ohio students from six different high schools selected by The Ohio Academy of Science to compete in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in May at San Jose, Calif.
"I want to go back to everyone who said I’d never make it and say this is a testament to all I’ve done," he said.
The Intel ISEF is considered the "World Series" of science fairs for more than 1,200 students in grades nine to 12 from more than 50 countries, according to a news release from The Ohio Academy of Science. Students have six days to compete for scholarships, establish new collaborations for research, experience cultural exchanges and gain recognition from peers.
Schley’s project, "Are We Overvaccinating Our Dogs?" won first place at the local science fair and third at the district fair, he said.
Schley, an animal lover, had some help with his project from co-workers and veterinarians at the Tri-State Animal Clinic, where he works part-time.
He conducted antibody titer tests on 40 dogs, which measures immunity. The majority of dogs he tested had above adequate antibody titer. Every year a dog gets two shots, and one shot for rabies every other year, he said. Many people cannot afford the antibody titer test, which costs $40 to $50, so they just vaccinate their dogs as they have been instructed to do.
He concluded more tests and research are necessary, but veterinarians may want to revisit how often dogs should be vaccinated. And people who have missed a year of vaccination for their dogs need not worry because their dogs may still have plenty of immunity.
"It hasn’t sunk in yet," he said about ISEF. "The greatest thing about ISEF is I’m really stepping out into the world. I’ll be able to meet people from everywhere. It’s something I’ve always wanted to experience. I am meeting people from other countries."
Schley’s parents, Eileen and Leo Schley, are proud of him. He also has a 20-year-old brother, Robert.
"I’m really proud of his coming up with a project and working through it," Eileen Schley said. "I’m looking forward to the experience increasing confidence in himself."
Leo Schley, said, "I’m delighted and also a little bit amazed. When he started this, I had no idea he would end up going to California. I had no idea he would advance to international."
Jeremiah Schley isn’t sure yet what he wants to do after graduating from high school. He said he is toying with the idea of the Reserves and he wants to go to college, perhaps to study engineering or veterinarian medicine at Ohio State.
"My entire life is a dream right now," he said. "I figure once I get into college I’ll figure out what I want to do."
http://www.thepetcenter.com/exa/vacown.html Excellent website!
I know my dog was diagnosed with something called "Staples" which was basically a staph infection, where she got sores all over her face. She did that right after her first round of "puppy shots", I had enough sense to link it with the vaccines and never took her back for that again. She's been healthy every since, and she's 4 years old now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588457.stm
Vets issue animal vaccine warning
Veterinary surgeons are warning that cat and dog owners are spending tens of millions of pounds on unnecessary and sometimes dangerous vaccines. More than 30 vets have signed an open letter warning many vaccines for pets given in yearly doses last much longer. They have accused the pharmaceutical industry of "fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception". But drugs companies say they are bound by rules from licensing authorities. Because of a lack of research it can only give a minimum period of immunity - usually 12 months.
Yearly vaccines
The vets are warning the pharmaceutical industry and their own profession about the issue.
The present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals may constitute fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception
Vets' group
In their letter they say that vaccinations for many conditions including distemper, cat flu and parva virus, last a lot longer than a year and sometimes for life. The letter said: "The present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals may constitute fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception." BBC correspondent Angus Stickler said that vets send out computer-generated letters telling people to take their pets in for vaccinations "every year, year in, year out".
He said: "With £20 to £40 to pay and about 13m dogs and cats in the country it's an industry worth tens of millions of pounds." The letter also talks about an increase in the risk of "adverse post-vaccination events" including a list of problems such as auto-immune disorders, transient infections and a risk of cancer in cats. (Wondering if this happens in humans?)
Animal testing
Vaccination manufacturers say that, although they can test animals for one or two years so they can give a minimum cover or immunity, it is difficult to perform lifelong tests. They say that to prove immunity lasts for three or four years, or for life, would mean keeping and testing a large number of cats and dogs for years on end.
We base our recommendations on the science and the science we have tells us that we don't know how long immunity lasts in any individual animal
Intervet
David Sutton, a spokesman for Intervet, one of the world's largest veterinary drug manufacturers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We base our recommendations on the science and the science we have tells us that we don't know how long immunity lasts in any individual animal.
"What we do know is there are some animals that need more frequent vaccination than others and our vaccine recommendations have to be based on taking account of those animals." The vets' warning comes as more than 6,000 vets from all over Europe gather in Birmingham for the world's largest congress devoted to domestic pet welfare. One of the techniques up for discussion at the four-day event is pheromonotherapy, used to help cats and dogs overcome fears and phobias.
The treatment is based on a study of chemicals, called pheromones, secreted by canines and felines through glands on their body. These convey messages to members of the same species about ownership of territory, gender and mating availability.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/3588457.stm
Published: 2004/04/01 10:12:45 GMT
© BBC MMIV
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/04/09/news/local/top/news01.txt
Official: Just say nay to horse vaccine
By Steve Miller, Journal Staff Writer
In the don't-try-this-at-home (or anywhere else) category: Some people are injecting themselves with horse vaccine for West Nile virus. Don't do it, says Dr. Lon Kightlinger. It could be dangerous. There is no West Nile virus vaccine for humans yet, said Kightlinger, the state epidemiologist in the South Dakota Department of Health. There are vaccines effective in preventing the virus in horses. But there is no indication they prevent West Nile virus in humans, Kightlinger said. He explained that each vaccine is designed for the immune system of its intended target. The horse vaccines stimulate the immune system in horses so they develop antibodies against the virus.
The horse vaccine has not been tested on humans. "It could be very dangerous for people to inject a horse vaccine," Kightlinger said. It could cause an allergic reaction, even shock. Kightlinger said he had received numerous reports of people injecting themselves with horse vaccine. "It's gotten to the point that I felt I had to say something because it's not recommended at all." He said, however, that he had not yet heard of anyone becoming sick from using the horse vaccine. Kim Kizzier, administrator of Dakota Hills Veterinary Clinic in Rapid City, said she hadn't heard of anyone here injecting himself or herself with horse vaccine.
"We don't sell to just anybody coming in," Kizzier said. Dakota Hills sells horse vaccine only to horse owners, she added. "That's not to say that they don't go home and vaccinate themselves instead." People can buy horse vaccine only through a veterinarian, Kizzier said. Kightlinger and other health officials note that testing for animal vaccines is much less rigorous than for human vaccines.
Work is under way on two West Nile vaccines for humans, Kightlinger said, but a vaccine approved for wide use won't be ready this year and likely won't be ready for next year. Both groups working on vaccines are combining West Nile virus with another virus to create a hybrid, Kightlinger said. One group is doing tests on monkeys now. A British company is using a combination of West Nile virus and yellow fever vaccine. Yellow fever vaccine has been used safely for decades, Kightlinger said. That vaccine is being tested on humans in Kansas. The 60 volunteers will be watched for reactions such as itching, redness or swelling, he said. Kightlinger said both vaccines show promise. But he said more testing would be done on larger groups of humans before either of the vaccines could be
approved.
"We don't want to lull people into any false hope," he said. West Nile virus killed 14 South Dakotans and sickened 1,027 others in 2003. State officials say more than 100 cities and counties plan efforts this year to kill mosquitoes to prevent the spread of West Nile. Mosquitoes, particularly the Culex tarsalis mosquito, transmit the virus from birds to humans and horses. People, especially the elderly, have reason to be concerned about getting West Nile. The virus often attacks the spinal cord or brain, leaving the most severely ill with long-term damage. But horse vaccine is not the answer, Kightlinger said. Safer and more effective is the array of personal and community protection state officials have been urging since last summer: Wear protective clothing, use insect repellent containing deet, stay indoors during prime time for mosquitoes (dawn and dusk) and clean up mosquito breeding grounds.
Some officials have suggested beginning to use deet now. The personal protection will become crucial in June, Kightlinger said, as the disease spreads, first in the bird population and then in mosquitoes. People have already been sending dead birds to the state lab for testing, but none has tested positive for West Nile, Kightlinger said. The first person in South Dakota to get sick in 2003 fell ill on July 1. But the virus likely will get an early start this year because some infected mosquitoes probably survived the winter, Kightlinger said. "We've got to be ready."
Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or steve.miller@rapidcityjournal.com
I also stopped vaccs after a reaction but instead it was with my Great Dane puppy. He got a button tumor (histiocarcinoma) about a week after his first puppy cocktail and I started researching causes and it went from there. As much as I love my dogs, I am very glad that it was one of them who had a reaction and not one of my children. For now, my husband seems to be accepting of my views of vaccs but when the baby comes I need to have my facts to back me up because I have a feeling he might change his mind and I know the grandparents are going to flip out. If you (or anyone) has any favorites sites to back up their choices, I would greatly appreciate it! I am still reading through all the info on the homepage :)
Lynette
Infectious and Inflammatory Encephalopathies I and II
Western Veterinary Conference 2002
Karen Dyer Inzana
Virginia Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia
Tech Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
"Vaccine-induced distemper occurs within 10-21 days of vaccination with modified live distemper virus. The pathogenesis is unknown but theories include an inadequately attenuated vaccine, triggering of a latent myxovirus infection, or an increased susceptibility. Signs include behavior changes, aggression, depression, ataxia, tremors, seizures. Prognosis is guarded but some cases survive. Pathology demonstrates brain stem necrosis."
From Vaccinations for the New Puppy by Susan Thorpe-Vargas PhD:
"(S)ome dogs, after being vaccinated with modified live canine distemper vaccine can develop aggression, seizures, a lack of coordination and other neurological dysfunctions caused from a rare condition called postvaccinal canine distemper virus encephalitis. Another problem noted with genetically susceptible animals is that it is possible for vaccinations to trigger various autoimmune diseases, including several blood disorders and a rabies vaccine-induced encephalitis."
===
From
http://www.ivis.org/advances/Infect_Dis_Carmichael/appel/chapter_frm.asp
Recent Advances in Canine Infectious Diseases, Carmichael L. (Ed.) Ithaca: International Veterinary Information Service, 1999; A0103.1199 Canine Distemper: Current Status (Last Updated: 23-Nov-1999 ) M. J.G Appel and B. A. Summers James A. Baker Institute for Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
"With few exceptions the modified-live CDV vaccines available today are derived from either avian cell or canine cell culture adaptations. Both methods of adaptation produce vaccines that are very effective in inducing an immunity that lasts for at least 1 year and probably for several years in most dogs. There are minor disadvantages to both products: Canine cell-adapted strains immunize virtually 100% of susceptible dogs but sporadically may induce post-vaccinal encephalitis. .... Modified-live CDV can cause fatal post- vaccinal encephalitis in unprotected younger pups, as it can in certain wild or zoo species."
That reminds me, we had a sick cat two weeks ago and had to take him to the Emergency Vet. The vet asked if he was up to date on his vaccines, I told her that we don't believe in vaccines because of the harm they do. She was very nice and said that she doesn't recommend them at all for indoor cats and that she thinks that there are way too many done and too short of intervals. She said that she sees alot of tumors in animals from all of the vaccines! I was in shock! I never expected to hear anything like that from any kind of doctor.
[PROVE NOTE: Notice how they aren't reporting on the risk dropping these rabies vaccines out of the sky have on humans. They also don't tell you that they use the vaccinia virus(smallpox vaccine) in the making of the rabies bait vaccine. Do we really want this spread through our environment? In the fall of 2000, the CDC reported that a woman (who was 28-years-old and Pregnant) developed a vaccinia infection on her arm after trying to retrieve wildlife bait intended for wolves from her dog's mouth. The bait was a rabies vaccine spliced into a recombinant form of vaccinia virus, the same virus that is used for smallpox inoculations. This "air assault" may be working, but at what cost? Just like with childhood vaccines, follow the money trail.]
Texas rabies air assault working
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041220-042644-2579r.htm
By Phil Magers
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Dallas, TX, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Annual airdrops of vaccine to coyotes and foxes across remote sections of South and West Texas have helped check the spread of two deadly strains of rabies. Low-flying, state-chartered planes have dropped millions of the special baits for nearly a decade, virtually eliminating one type of coyote rabies in South Texas and slowing a second variant in foxes.
The aim of state and federal officials is to prevent a repeat of a 1988 rabies outbreak in South Texas that caused two deaths and 3,000 people to undergo rabies treatments. Officials began the Oral Rabies Vaccination Program in 1995 when there was a growing concern about rabies posing a public health threat to San Antonio and other cities in South Texas. Rabid coyotes were slowly moving northward, and there was growing concern about San Antonio, said Dr. James Wright, a veterinarian with the Texas Department of State Health Services. "It (rabies) could go very well from a coyote on the edge of town that fought with some farm dogs and we could literally end up with rabid dogs roaming the streets of San Antonio," he said.
The solution they found was an airdrop program used in Europe and Canada against red fox rabies in remote areas. Baits laced with vaccine were dropped to inoculate the animals. The bombers were soon flying Texas skies every January, when food was otherwise scarce. They buzzed the ground at 500 feet, dropping the specially designed baits over 31,000 square miles. Separate vaccines were developed for the coyote variant and the fox variant, and then scientists had to find a bait that would entice the animals to eat the anti-rabies vaccine. Fishmeal is now used for the coyote baits and dog food treated with molasses and vanilla for the foxes. As the animal chews the bait, it punctures the vaccine packets and swallows the vaccine. About 2.7 million baits are dropped each year across South and West Texas. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state pay the $4 million cost. The airdrops begin in early January and last most of the month.
Preparations are under way for flights next month in West Texas. With near control of rabies in South Texas, attention has turned to the gray fox in the Edwards Plateau of West Texas. Grounds crews of about 60 people assemble at the airports for the base operations. The bases in January next year will start in Zapata, then Fort Stockton and finally, Junction. The biggest challenge during the monthlong missions are the changing weather conditions, said Tom Sidwa, who heads the program for the state health department. "Visibility is a concern because we have to be able to see three miles in distance and 1,000 feet in altitude," he said. "The other thing is high winds. The planes fly only about 500 feet off the ground. It can be a pretty rough ride for the crews."
The crews on the four chartered King Air planes are small. There's a pilot, a navigator who tries to keep the bait from landing on people, roads and structures, and the bait distributor who must make sure the bait is moving through the feeding system. There have been a few minor incidents over the years, but nothing serious, officials say. A toll-free number is imprinted on the baits, and the command post has received a few strange calls. Once a fishermen who found one of the baits in a catfish wanted to know what to do with it.
After the airdrops, state trappers take blood samples from animals to check their immunity levels. The vaccine also contains a chemical that can be detected on the animal's teeth. "Blood and teeth samples can determine if the animal picked up the bait and didn't get immunized or picked up the bait and was immunized," said Craig Nunley, director of the Texas Cooperative Extension Wildlife Services Unit. "The tests are very definitive, and a high percentage of the animals have been found to be immunized."
The program has been highly successful in stopping the spread of rabies among coyotes in South Texas, and officials are hoping for similar success with the foxes in West Texas. "Over the last seven or eight years we have vaccinated very extensively in South Texas and have essentially eliminated that variant of the rabies virus down there," said Wright. "We still run a border corridor to keep them from coming across."
The number of rabies cases in coyotes has fallen from 122 in 1994 to almost none today. Gray fox cases declined from 244 in 1995 to 61 in 2003. In West Texas the plan is to encircle the gray fox with baits and then tighten the circle until complete immunity is achieved among the population, Wright said. State health officials report no animal cases of canine or gray fox rabies outside the original containment zones since the program began, and no human cases either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Richardson
PROVE(Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)
prove@vaccineinfo.net (email)
http://vaccineinfo.net/ (web site)
The following letter from The Hansons' at Green Acres Kennel appears in the December 31, 2004 issue of the Bangor Daily News and can be access at the link provided.
http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=105888
Letters to the Editor - 12/31/04
Friday, December 31, 2004 - Bangor Daily News
Letters to the Editor - 12/31/04
Pet vaccine disclosure
We would like to express our support for Rep. Peter Rines' pet vaccine disclosure bill. As pet care professionals and as pet owners we have seen firsthand the tragic effects of vaccine reactions and overvaccination.
Our own golden retriever had a severe reaction to a rabies vaccine, causing aggression toward our other dogs as well as causing an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Our veterinarian feels these behavioral changes were a direct result of a reaction to her rabies vaccine.
This reaction not only affected our retriever, but also our Pekinese which lost an eye as a result of an unprovoked attack. Our retriever's immune system has also been compromised; she is slowly destroying her thyroid gland and has a rare eye disorder, which many veterinarians believe is a direct result of overvaccination.
Happily, we were able to treat her and resolve the behavioral problems, but we get anxious every time she is due for a rabies vaccine. Unfortunately, her immune system is damaged for life.
There is ample scientific evidence to support this bill. Two of the worlds leading veterinary vaccine research scientists, Dr. Ronald Schulz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, and Dr. Richard Ford of the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, are assisting Rines in drafting the legislation. If you have pets, we encourage you to write to your legislators to express your support for this bill.
Anyone who truly loves animals will support this bill.
Don Hanson, CPDT, BFRP
Paula L. Hanson
Green Acres
Kennel Shop
Bangor
The following is an article appearing on the front cover of this week's Lincoln County Weekly (2/23/05) on Representative Peter Rines' legislation: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. Below that is a letter-to-the-editor on the same subject appearing in the LC Weekly and The Lincoln County News.
Regards, Kris
http://www.courierpub.com/articles/2005/02/24/lincolncountyweekly/local_news/n5maine.txt
Rep. Peter Rines introduces vaccine disclosure law
A Jefferson kitten pokes his head out of a cardboard box at a Washington Road residence. A public hearing to discuss a bill that would require veterinarians to provide vaccine disclosure forms has been scheduled for Feb. 28 at Maine's capitol. AARON MILLER
BY AARON MILLER
ALNA - Kris Christine questions why a group of Maine veterinarians oppose proposed legislation that would require full disclosure of vaccine information to pet owners.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association distributed a letter Feb. 17 to the House of Representatives expressing opposition to Rep. Peter Rines' legislation, "LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms." The proposal would require a veterinarian to provide a vaccine disclosure form to the owner of a dog or cat before vaccinating those animals. The vaccine disclosure is aimed at providing information regarding proven or demonstrated durations of immunity as well as advantages and disadvantages of vaccines.
"It came to my attention that our laws that pertain to vaccinations don't coincide with how long a vaccination is actually good for once given to pets," Rines said. "So consequently, pets are over-vaccinated when they don't need to be."
Christine, of Alna, said she asked Rines to propose the legislation after inadvertently learning her veterinarian administered a vaccination that Christine's pet did not need. A public hearing has been scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday, Feb. 28 in Room 206 of the State Office Building. It will be heard by the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Joint Standing Committee.
In an interview Feb. 14, Rines (D-Wiscasset), said that he was not surprised the Maine Veterinary Medical Association opposed the bill. Christine, however, said she was disappointed after learning the veterinarian association would not support Rines' proposal.
She referred to a story published in the September 2004 DVM Newsmagazine titled "MVMA Backs Full Disclosure for Vaccines." According to information provided by Christine, the publication's Jennifer Fiala reported that Bill Bryant, former president of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, backed such legislation, saying, "it's time for something like this to come out. I think that disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available to stimulate verbal discussions on vaccines' benefits and possible side effects."
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association consists of Maine veterinarians and volunteers and represents over 90 percent of veterinarians in Maine, according to the association's current president, Matt Townsend. Townsend wrote the House of Representatives and submitted that letter Feb. 17 expressing opposition to LD 429.
"The field of veterinary vaccine research is changing rapidly, and what was formally accepted as canon even a few years ago is now being rethought and adjusted," Townsend wrote. "In response to these trends veterinarians in Maine and across the country are in the middle of a transition regarding vaccine protocols for companion animals."
Townsend wrote that the Maine Veterinary Medical Association is concerned about the potential impact of Rines' proposal, but "the claims and allegations being leveled at veterinary vaccines and the motives of veterinarians who administer them that disturbs us far more."
In an interview on Feb. 15, Townsend said veterinarians are already disclosing information about vaccines to their clients.
"At this point we have grave concerns with having legislation mandating practices for us," Townsend said. "We are already doing disclosure. Everyday we are sitting down with clients asking them questions about the lifestyle of their pet. We need to talk to our clients instead of putting a piece of paper in front of them."
Christine said that information on duration of immunity is not readily available to pet owners.
"This is closely held data," she said. "The general public can't go to a library and access the information. This is why we need legislation."
Townsend said it would be difficult for the Legislature to set up a protocol that would work for all veterinarians
"We're not trying to hide anything," he said. "Having something mandated to us by the Legislature is not where we want to go."
How big of a
financial blow?
"One question we were asked was will this cost the department any money," said Dr. Donald Hoenig, state veterinarian for animal health at the Department of Agriculture. "We had to say yes because it's going to involve some extra work for the department if the bill is passed. We will have to determine if veterinarians are being compliant with law. Currently we don't have the staff that could do that."
The Department of Agriculture doesn't oversee Maine's veterinarians, according to Hoenig. That job is left up to the state's Board of Veterinary Medicine. It is possible, however, that oversight could be assigned to the Department of Agriculture, Hoenig said. He estimated that it would cost $30,000 for a part-time employee to enforce the proposed law.
"We will probably provide testimony at the hearing neither for or against and explain what impact this could have," Hoenig said.
Changing vaccine protocols could also have a significant impact on practice finances for veterinarians, according to a story published in Veterinary Economics, a monthly publication for veterinarians.
According to an August 2004 Veterinary Economics cover story titled "Targeting Changing Vaccine Protocols," "In the 1970's and 1980's many veterinarians derived a substantial percent of their total incomes from vaccinating dogs and cats."
Roger F. Cummings and James E. Guenther wrote that "in many practices today, the vaccination reminder is the one thing that drives visits from healthy pets."
"How big a hit will you take? Discuss these questions with your team members to find out," Cummings and Guenther wrote. "How many doses of each individual vaccine did you administer in the past 12 months? For example, your medical records might show: 2,000 rabies vaccines at $10 each = $20,000; 2,000 distemper and parvovirus combination vaccines at $15 each = $30,000."
Caring for man's
best friend
Dr. Jean Dodds, a Californian veterinarian who has been actively involved with vaccination issues for more than 40 years, recently wrote Rines a letter in support of LD 429.
Dodds received her D.V.M. degree with honors in 1964 from the Ontario Veterinary College and a year later accepted a position with the New York State Health Department in Albany. Her position there began as a research scientist and culminated as chief of Laboratory of Hematology at the Wadsworth Center.
In 1980 she also became executive director of the New York State Council on Human Blood and Transfusion Services. Among other accomplishments, she was formerly president of the Scientist's Center for Animal Welfare, chairman of the Committee on Veterinary Medical Sciences and vice-chairman of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources for the National Academy of Sciences.
"Challenge studies in the cat from Cornell University following just two doses of trivalent killed vaccine given at eight and 12 weeks of age, showed complete protection from feline panleukopenia virus for more than eight years, and good protection against feline calicivirus and herpes virus for four and three years, respectively. Colorado State University recently reported long-term vaccinal immunity in a large number of pet and laboratory cats," Dodds wrote.
For dogs, the 2003 report of the American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Task Force indicated that the duration of immunity following challenge studies in dogs was equal to or greater than seven years for the three canine "core" vaccines against distemper virus, parvovirus and adenovirus, Dodds wrote.
"In 2002, the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents published a landmark report on cat and dog vaccines," Dodds wrote. "Some key features of that report were: Š the practice of revaccinating animals annually is largely based on historic precedent supported by minimal scientific data; unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance and may expose animals to unnecessary risks."
The only vaccination for pets required by Maine law is rabies immunization, according to Maine Public Health Veterinarian Dr. Robert Gholson. It is difficult to determine how often cats and dogs receive vaccinations because recommendations are driven by the drug manufactures, Gholson said. He said veterinarians will take those recommendations into account as well as the pets' lifestyles, but discussing vaccinations with clients can be difficult.
"With the public not everybody has the educational background to understand the risks and so on, so it's difficult to communicate that to your clients," he said.
In 2004, the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine's Infectious Disease Study Group announced that they believe all dogs should have a routine health examination by a veterinarian at least yearly. At that time, vaccination needs should be determined and only those antigens deemed necessary should be administered Š"
While vaccines have significantly reduced the incidence of serious infectious diseases over the years, increasing evidence implicates vaccines in triggering immune-mediated and other chronic disorders, Dodds wrote. The duration of immunity from vaccination is now accepted to be at least five or more years for the clinically important diseases of dogs and cats.
In her letter, Dodds suggested veterinarians to obtain an informed consent form from their clients because of the potential legal liability for all medical procedures including vaccination. "This means that clients need to be given information about the benefits and risks of vaccination in order to permit them to make an appropriate decision about the individual vaccine to be selected and the vaccination programs of choice," Dodd wrote. "Thus, obtaining informed consent and the client's signature on a consent form or patient chart is an important aspect of following the legal standards of duty to inform 'what any reasonable, prudent person would want to know about the subject,' " wrote Dodd.
Gholson said that this suggestion makes sense.
"If you came into my clinic and said that you need to do this and you said no, I think this would protect veterinarians to an extent," Gholson said. "I do have faith that people would come back and said you didn't tell me enough. I think documentation and education are extremely important."
Aaron Miller may be reached at amiller@courierpub.com.
February 28, 2005
To the Editor
The public hearing for Representative Peter Rines’ LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms is scheduled for Monday, February 28th at 1:00 p.m. in Room 206 of the Cross State Office Building in Augusta Maine.
This legislation is necessary because Maine citizens deserve the same standardized, full vaccine disclosures for veterinary vaccines as they receive for human vaccines. Currently, only veterinarians have access to the duration of immunity data contained in the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Vaccine Guidelines which state: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.” They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been proven to protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years based on antibody count.
Many Maine veterinarians have been vaccinating pets against distemper, parvovirus, and hepatitis once every year, two or three years with vaccines that protect for a MINIMUM of 7 years. If LD 429 passes, pet owners will be legally entitled to have that information disclosed to them before their veterinarian vaccinates their animal. However, the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, comprised of 312 members, recently distributed a letter to every member of the House of Representatives expressing their opposition to LD 429, which would legally require them to give clients vaccine disclosure forms.
According to a Veterinary Practice News article entitled “Managing Vaccine Changes” by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reducing vaccine protocols is not a new subject. He states that: “ Change has been discussed for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country.” He goes on to say that: “Routine vaccinations have been a major source of revenue to small animal practitioners.” In October 2002, DVM Newsmagazine reported in their “AVMA, AAHA to Release Vaccine Positions” story that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) emphasizes that “Veterinarians must … move away from their dependence on vaccine income.”
In the July 2003 Consumer Reports article “Veterinary Care Without the Bite,” they reported that “[a]bout 66 percent of the 188 million visits to the vet by cats and dogs in 2001 involved vaccinations..” and that “the veterinary-care industry is still in the stone age of consumer-protection law.”
It’s time that the veterinary-care industry moved out of the stone age of consumer protection law. Towards that end, the Maine Legislature should pass LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms, and concerned citizens should attend the February 28th hearing and contact their legislators asking them to support this bill.
Sincerely,
Kris L. Christine
Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2005 Apr 8;104(3-4):249-56. Related Articles, Links
IgE reactivity to vaccine components in dogs that developed immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination.
Ohmori K, Masuda K, Maeda S, Kaburagi Y, Kurata K, Ohno K, Deboer DJ, Tsujimoto H, Sakaguchi M.
Department of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan. aa27150@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Allergic reactions after vaccination are considered as an important practical problem in dogs; however, their immunological mechanism has not been well understood. The present study was designed to investigate the relationship between IgE reactivity to the vaccines and immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination in dogs. Sera from 10 dogs that developed immediate-type allergic reactions such as circulatory collapse, cyanosis, dyspnea, facial edema, and vomiting within 1h after vaccination with non-rabies monovalent or combined vaccines and sera from 50 dogs that did not develop allergic reactions after vaccination were collected. Serum IgE reactivity to the injected vaccines was measured by fluorometric ELISA using a mouse monoclonal anti-dog IgE antibody. Then, IgE reactivity to fetal calf serum (FCS) and stabilizer proteins (gelatin, casein, and peptone) included in the vaccines was measured in sera that had high levels of IgE to the vaccines. Levels of serum specific IgE to the vaccines in dogs with immediate-type allergic reactions (59-4173 fluorescence units [FU], mean +/- S.D.: 992.5 +/- 1181.9 FU) were significantly higher than those in control dogs (38-192 FU, 92.4 +/- 43.3 FU) (P < 0.001). Of the eight dogs that developed immediate-type allergic reactions and had high levels of serum specific IgE to the vaccines, seven had specific IgE directed to FCS. The IgE reactivity to the vaccines in sera from these dogs was almost completely inhibited by FCS. The other one dog had serum IgE directed to gelatin and casein included in the vaccine as stabilizers. The results obtained in this study suggest that immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination in dogs were induced by type I hypersensitivity mediated by IgE directed to vaccine components. In addition, FCS, gelatin, and casein included in vaccines could be the causative allergens that induced immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination in dogs.
PMID: 15734545 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/20050220151.php
Too many shots?
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer
Sunday, February 20,2005
Ashleigh D. Starke/Sun Journal
CANINE CONCERNS: Kris Christine of Alna hopes the Legislature will pass legislation requiring all Maine veterinarians to give pet owners disclosure forms on the pros and cons of vaccinations. In January 2003, her Labrador retriever, Meadow, pictured here, developed a mast cell tumor on the site of a rabies vaccination.
AUGUSTA - Like many pet owners, when Kris Christine of Alna got cards from her veterinarian reminding her that Meadow's and Butter's shots were due, she brought in her lovable Labs.
Her vet recommended that her pets have rabies shots every other year and distemper shots every year, Christine said.
But months after Meadow's biannual rabies shot in the fall of 2003, she noticed something. "He had this weird thing on his back hind side," she said. "Every time he'd run, it would swell, then it would go away."
Meadow eventually was diagnosed with mast cell cancer, which Christine believes resulted from the vaccination injection at that same spot on his leg. "It's not something you want," she said. "It's an aggressive cancer."
Veterinarians say the likelihood is very small that Meadow's cancer stemmed from the shot. However, while taking care of Meadow's cancer, Christine stumbled on a hot debate in the animal health field: How often should dogs and cats be vaccinated?
While experts stress that vaccines are vital to the health of pets, mounting research indicates vaccines can no longer be considered harmless. Research shows they can cause adverse health effects - everything from lower immunity against viruses, bacteria and parasites, to cancer - and that some vaccines do not have to be given as frequently as once thought.
In response, the American Animal Hospital Association in 2003 began recommending less frequent vaccinations for cats and dogs.
Christine, who began researching the subject after Meadow's cancer was detected, quickly became an energetic crusader, spreading information about vaccinations and questioning frequency guidelines. She believes that by following her veterinarian's recommendations, "Meadow was being over-vaccinated for years."
Ashleigh D. Starke/Sun Journal
Kris Christine of Alna hopes the Legislature will pass legislation requiring all Maine veterinarians to give pet owners disclosure forms on the pros and cons of vaccinations.
In the process, Christine said she discovered that Maine law required a rabies shot for dogs and cats every two years, despite the fact that the vaccine's manufacturer says it is good for three.
She questioned the law in early 2004, and it was changed last fall, according to state public health veterinarian Dr. Robert Gholson. The state now mandates that rabies shots be given every three years. (Saying not all veterinarians have gotten the word, Gholson is sending out a second reminder.)
Christine now hopes she will be equally successful with her next effort: to get the Legislature to pass a law requiring Maine veterinarians to disclose the pros and cons of vaccines.
Rep. Peter Rines, D-Wiscasset, is sponsoring L.D. 429, and said that since introducing the bill, the outpouring of e-mails and letters in favor has been overwhelming.
"In my tenure as a legislator I've never had this kind of response," he said. Pet owners are thanking him, and some people outside Maine have said they hope his bill will lead to similar laws in other states, he said.
"Everyone wants to do the best thing for our four-legged friends," said Rines, noting his bill is intended only to give consumers information.
But some Maine veterinarians plan to voice their opposition to the bill at its public hearing on Feb. 28. Saying they feel like they're under attack, the opponents say they see no need for disclosure forms.
The making of a crusader
After Meadow was diagnosed with cancer last year, he underwent two operations. A chunk of his back thigh was removed.
On the bottom of one of Christine's veterinarian bills in April for cancer treatment was a reminder that Meadow's distemper shot was due in November and his next rabies shot in 2005.
It upset Christine. "I said, 'He's not going to be alive then.'"
Christine said her veterinarian said the cancer did not come from the vaccine, but Christine was skeptical. She grew even more doubtful after learning that the law required dog immunizations every two years even though the rabies vaccine lasted three.
When she got the bill, Christine told her vet she had a problem giving her dog vaccinations every year or every other year.
"Here's my dog lying at my feet, suffering with a huge chunk of his hind leg removed. I thought, 'You were giving him medication that you know he doesn't need.'"
Christine found a new veterinarian and became an advocate for changing the laws and making pet owners more aware of the potential health risks posed by vaccinations. "We need the tools," she said
She is not the only one who feels that way.
Among those concerned about pets receiving vaccinations too frequently are AKC judge and former breeder Arnold Woolf of Lewiston and Larry Doyon of Munster Abbey Kennels in Minot, breeders of German shepherds. Both say they support the legislation.
Experts: Risks are low, but . . .
Christine's efforts have also met angry opposition. Last week the Maine Veterinary Medical Association came out against L.D. 429. In a Feb. 2 letter to lawmakers, MVMA President Matt Townsend did not directly spell out why the organization is opposed to the bill.
But Townsend complained that such a law would mandate "cumbersome disclosure and consent procedures for every vaccination and medication dispensed by veterinarians." It also said Christine "has launched what can only be described as an aggressive scare campaign, designed to drive a wedge of distrust between pet owners and their veterinarians."
Actually, the law makes no mention of medication other than vaccines. The law says veterinarians must provide disclosure forms informing consumers about the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines.
MVMA Executive Director Bill Bell said there is no Maine protocol on how often vaccines should be administered, and that even top researchers disagree. "The bill is vague to the point of being ridiculous," he said.
Veterinarians are worried a disclosure form would scare away some pet owners from having their dogs and cats vaccinated, which would lead to diseases coming back, Bell said. He added that the bill will increase paperwork for veterinarians without doing any good.
One nationally recognized vaccine researcher, Dr. Ronald Schultz, favors the law.
While rare, vaccines can cause adverse health affects in cats and dogs, said Schultz, an expert in animal vaccinations and chair of the department of pathobiological sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine.
"I favor anything that would better inform the potential buyer of what they need and what they're getting," he said in a telephone interview from his Wisconsin office.
A majority of veterinarians are already providing that information, but some are not, he said.
The thinking that vaccines are harmless is changing, Schultz said, adding that annual vaccinations don't help pets, and can hurt them. "For years we worked under a philosophy of 'if it doesn't help, (at least) it won't hurt.'"
What he called "an awakening" began in the 1980s when healthy cats given vaccines were getting cancer. "The odds were small, but if the odds are 1 in 1,000 that doesn't matter if it's your pet," he said.
The probability of dog vaccines causing cancer is lower than cats, he said. "But we're constantly learning. The wake-up call to the veterinarian profession was that vaccines create a risk. ... No matter how rare the adverse effects are, we don't want to give a product that's not needed."
Schultz said the veterinary profession has been using annual or biannual shots as a way to bring clients through the door for the more important exam. Convincing pet owners to come in by telling them their pets' annual or biannual shots are due should no longer be practiced, he said.
Schultz cited the newest guidelines from the American Animal Hospital Association, which in 2003 went from recommending annual distemper shots to one every three years. Under the guidelines, dogs and cats should receive core shots for rabies and distemper beginning at 12 weeks, a booster at one year, then boosters no more frequently than every three years. (Some central and western Maine veterinarians are following the recommendations, others are not. See related chart.)
All other vaccines are "optional," according to Schultz and the AAHA, and are based on the animal's lifestyle and risk. For instance, annual Lyme disease and heartworm vaccines may be important for pets living in areas where those diseases have been prevalent, but may not be necessary where they have not, he said.
Maine vets already informing
While not all researchers or veterinarians agree with Schultz, many acknowledge that the thinking regarding vaccines has changed in recent years, and that more vets are giving vaccinations less frequently.
"There's been a paradigm shift to greater focus on trying to encourage clients to see the importance of an examine and not vaccines, that vets aren't just for shots anymore," said Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of MVMA. Physical examinations at least once a year are important, he stressed, especially when considering that dogs and cats "age seven years on average for every year we age."
Part of that examination, Bryant said, involves making a recommendation on what vaccines a pet should have, based on the pet's lifestyle. For instance, a dog that is never with other animals may need less vaccine protection than one that goes to a doggie day care. An indoor cat needs less than one that roams outdoors.
In part because of that important relationship between a veterinarian and a pet owner, Bryant and at least some other Maine veterinarians remain wary of Christine's legislation. Veterinarians are already giving clients information on the risk of vaccines, he said. Central Maine Veterinary Hospital in Turner, for instance, asks pet owners to sign a vaccination consent form that outlines the concerns.
Dr. Susan Chadiman of Androscoggin Animal Hospital in Topsham said L.D. 429 is well intentioned and that the veterinarian's office "is the place for dialogue, for education." But she said she's against the bill because a mandated disclosure form would not enhance that.
"It would create a tremendous amount of paperwork," Chadiman said. "And a real concern is that it leaves wide open who's going to decide what is science, what is fact."
Christine, whose dog Meadow is now doing "very well," counters that science has already proven that the protective effects of pet vaccines last longer than even the newest recommendations. But she said her legislation is simply about a consumer's right to know.
"I think pet owners have a right to know what veterinarians know" about the effects and effectiveness of vaccines, she said.
No one would advocate giving a human a 10-year tetanus shot every two years, she said. Pet owners are consumers. "They need to know there's no benefit in giving their dogs booster shots more often ... and it does put them at increased risk for adverse side effects," she said.
The proposal
What: The bill says veterinarians "shall provide a vaccine disclosure form to the owner of a dog or cat before vaccinating that dog or cat. The vaccine disclosure form must provide information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines."
When: L.D. 429 will be heard before the legislative Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. The public hearing has been scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday, Feb. 28, in Room 206 of the State Office Building.
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/20050301145.php
For the dogs
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer
Tuesday, 1,2005
AUGUSTA - A public hearing Monday on a proposal to mandate consumers be given information about the risks and benefits of vaccines turned into a face-off, with no agreement between veterinarians and pet owners.
Veterinarians staunchly opposed legislators forcing them to give pet owners information about vaccines. They're already doing that, they said. And the science about adverse health risks from vaccines is "fluid," making it impossible to give good information, veterinarians said.
Pet owners and dog breeders who jammed into the standing-room-only hearing were on the other side of L.D. 429. They questioned why veterinarians were so opposed to giving out information.
With her little dog, Minnie, in her arms, Laura Moon of Brunswick said she favors the bill. Everyone was there because they love animals, she said. "That's why I think disclosure is so important. How as an owner, as a guardian, do you know if you don't know?"
When any activity raises potential harm, precautionary measures are warranted, even if the cause and effect are not fully understood, Moon said. "How can we make an informed decision if we don't have information?"
Joan Jordan, a dog breeder and dog obedience teacher from Woolwich, said she's seen dogs "that have had a vaccine that had had lumps and died. Personally I had a dog a couple of years ago I lost." Weeks after her dog had a vaccine, she underwent surgery and chemotherapy, she said, adding that 18 months later "Sarah" died.
When humans are prescribed medicine they're given information about possible risks, Jordan said. "I see no reason why the veterinarians feel that that's a threat to their services. ... What's the problem with us just knowing what the research is saying?"
Arnold Woolf of Lewiston, a breeder and dog judge, called the bill a "safeguard for dogs and cats." Years ago he sold a Collie puppy to a couple who took that puppy to their veterinarian. That veterinarian "re-inoculated the animal," giving shots the puppy already had. The dog died within 48 hours from a vaccine overdose, Woolf said. " That's what the autopsy showed."
Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They testified about how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats disease free, how their profession is under attack with inaccurate information.
Dr. Bill Bryant of Winthrop, past president of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, said veterinarians are strong proponents of education, but they're against the bill. Vaccine protocols have changed and will continue to change, he said. Experts disagree on the science of health risks, he said. With that science "fluid," Bryant asked who would write information in disclosures, and what set of research would be used?
Legislators should not mandate disclosure forms "for what is a rapidly evolving national veterinary issue that Maine veterinarians are actively addressing," Bryant said.
Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are among the most trusted professionals. Wade said he gives his clients numerous consent and information forms on many services, including vaccines, that show the benefits and side effects.
Most veterinarians are also doing that, he said. "There is no need for a state law to force us to do something we're already doing voluntarily. The bill is not a legislative issue," Wade said with a tone of annoyance. "The hidden agenda behind this bill is not for the protection of welfare for animals, but an attempt to further control an already ethical and trusted profession."
The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee will take up LD 429 in an unscheduled work session, possibly March 16, those attending the hearing were told.
http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/index.cfm?ID=10870
Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
By Kay Liss
A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday in Augusta. Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one hand and veterinarians opposed on the other.
The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.
She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed, extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years. Language exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.
This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an important next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with scientifically-based information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine vaccines, specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot, recommended annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she came upon information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for much longer than a year.
First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee at the hearing, Christine began: “Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health.”
Her testimony was bolstered by information from various authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading researcher and authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific basis of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.”
In the American Veterinarian Medical Association’s Principles of Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events” including “autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”
Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren, Jennifer Pearson, said she was “baffled” by the resistance of the veterinarians to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples’ rights are recognized to know the risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet owners be recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.
Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge, testified that the disclosure forms would provide a “safeguard” to dogs and cats. He added that he didn’t see why supplying such a disclosure form should be a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of the pros and cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay Sukforth of Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should welcome such a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.
Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a “period of transition” and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux that it would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure form. He said he didn’t want to turn “our profession” into managed care. He also accused the Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian community.
When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a Veterinary News magazine article “It’s time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it,” Bryant appeared hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised but did not support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian associations.
Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients information about vaccines so didn’t need to provide disclosure forms. A number claimed to be just like “James Herriot,” the well-known veterinarian and author of “All Creatures Great and Small” who has become a symbol of the ideal, trustworthy vet.
A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged legislators to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines, and that possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.
Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.
My Testimony
February 27, 2005
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms
My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Alna, Maine. Before I begin my testimony, I’d like to advise the committee that one of the world’s leading veterinary research scientists, Dr. W. Jean Dodds, wanted to be here today to testify in support of LD429, but could not do so because of prior commitments. With her permission, in the attachments to my testimony, I have included her letter to Representative Peter Rines dated February 17, 2005 (Attachment 5) resolutely endorsing this first-in-the-nation veterinary vaccine disclosure legislation.
I am here today to respectfully urge this committee to recommend passage of LD429 – An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms because pet owners need the scientifically proven durations of immunity (how long vaccines are effective for) in order to make informed medical choices for their animals.
Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health. The human equivalent would be physicians vaccinating patients against tetanus once every year, two years, or three years and not disclosing that the vaccines are known to be protective for 10 years.
For years veterinarians have sent pet owners annual, biennial and triennial reminders for redundant booster shots and justified it with vaccine manufacturers’ labeled recommendations. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6), “..revaccination frequency recommendations found on many vaccine labels is based on historical precedent, not on scientific data … [and] does not resolve the question about average or maximum duration of immunity [Page 2] and..may fail to adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product…[Page 4] .” As the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital states it: “…booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers.”
Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is at the forefront of vaccine research and is one of the world’s leading authorities on veterinary vaccines. His challenge study results form the scientific base of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (Attachment 7). These studies are based on science – they are not arbitrary. The public, however, cannot access this data. The American Animal Hospital Association only makes this report available to veterinarians, not private citizens, and Maine’s pet owners are unaware that the AAHA Guidelines state on Page 18 that: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.” They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been proven to protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years based on antibody count. So, unless the Legislature passes LD429 requiring veterinarians to provide vaccine disclosure forms, dog owners who receive an annual, biennial, or triennial reminders for booster shots will not know that nationally-accepted scientific studies have demonstrated that animals are protected a minimum of 7 years after vaccination with the distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2 vaccines (see Page 12 AAHA 2003 Guidelines attached, and Table 1, Pages 3 and 4).
"My own pets are vaccinated once or twice as pups and kittens, then never again except for rabies,” Wall Street Journal reporter Rhonda L. Rundle quoted Dr. Ronald Schultz in a July 31, 2002 article entitled Annual Pet Vaccinations may be Unnecessary, Fatal (Attachment 2). Dr. Schultz knows something the pet-owning public doesn’t – he knows there’s no benefit in overvaccinating animals because immunity is not enhanced, but the risk of harmful adverse reactions is increased. He also knows that most core veterinary vaccines are protective for at least seven years, if not for the lifetime of the animal.
The first entry under Appendix 2 of the AAHA Guidelines (Attachment 7) “Important Vaccination ‘Do’s and Don’ts” is “Do Not Vaccinate Needlessly – Don’t revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines that prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk.” They also caution veterinarians: “Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient – Vaccines are potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of producing adverse events.” Very few pet owners have had this disclosed to them.
The AVMA’s Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6) states that “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events.” (page 2) They elaborate by reporting that: “Possible adverse events include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”(Page 2)
Referring to adverse reactions from vaccines, the Wall Street Journal article cited above (Attachment 2) reports: “In cats there has been a large increase in hyperthyroidism and cancerous tumors between the shoulder blades where vaccines typically are injected.” With modified live virus vaccines (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis), some animals can actually contract the same disease which they are being inoculated against. If the public knew an animal’s immunity to disease is not increased by overvaccination, they would certainly not consent to expose their pets to potential harm by giving them excessive booster shots
Veterinary vaccines are potent biologic drugs – most having proven durations of immunity much longer than the annual, biennial or triennial booster frequencies recommended by vaccine manufacturers and veterinarians. They also carry the very real risk of serious adverse side affects and should not be administered more often than necessary to maintain immunity.
The extended durations of immunity for vaccines is not “new” or “recent” science as some members of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) have claimed. AAHA reveals on Page 2 of their Guidelines that ideal reduced vaccination protocols were recommended by vaccinology experts beginning in 1978. A Veterinary Practice News article entitled “Managing Vaccine Changes” (Attachment
3) by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reports that: “Change has been discussed for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country
According to a September 1, 2004 article in the DVM veterinary news magazine (Attachment 1), the 312 member Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) “champions full disclosure of vaccine
information to pet owners.” MVMA president, Dr. Bill Bryant, is quoted as stating: “Its time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it.”
It is time. Pet owners have the right to know the scientifically proven durations of immunity for the veterinary vaccines given their animals, as well as the potential adverse side effects and benefits. LD 429 would make that standardized information available to all pet owners.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
http://www.hua.org/Important/vaccinations.html
http://www.srdogs.com/Pages/care.fr.html (see link to Colorado
University hospital)
http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html
http://www.curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=94&db=2&C0=735
IT’S A DOG’S LIFE: It’s not just children we vaccinate too often
There’s been plenty of debate about childhood vaccinations, but what about the shots we give to the family dog? The poor mutt can be in line for 16 different vaccines a year, although they ’re often given in one shot. They are supposed to offer protection against rabies, and various canine viral infections, along with other, milder, conditions such as Lyme disease.
But, as with our children, dogs can also develop side effects, such as skin rash, allergic reactions and autoimmune diseases. Cats that have been vaccinated have suffered even worse reactions, including the development of malignant tumors.
So are we vaccinating our pets too often and with too much? Canine vaccine experts in America believe that we are. Like humans, dogs could be vaccinated at an early age and be protected for life, instead of being given annual ‘top-up’ shots, they say. At the very least, the core vaccines, including rabies, should not be given more than once every three years.
(Source: Journal American Animal Hospital Association, 2003; 39: 119-31).
HI, everyone I don't post much ,but need to ask everyone to please pray for a friends little yorkie mix she was vaxed for kennel cough on Tuesday she started coughing to day my friend took her back to the vet who she it was a reaction to the kc vax and put her on some meds. This little dog has a heart problem well this evening she started acting as if she was having trouble breathing and her color was a bit off she was taken to the vet ER were she was admitted and put on Oxygen and iv meds they think she will make it , but are not sure she will make it thru the night, she is my friends baby she takes this dog every were please pray she will make it .
http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html
Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?
Vaccination is not as widely and unquestionably accepted today as it was in the past. Many pet guardians and veterinarians believe we have taken the concept much farther than its usefulness warrants. In twenty years of veterinary practice, I have made the transition from believing strongly in the protective power of vaccines to becoming continually more certain that they create at least as much illness as they have ever prevented. In truth, I now consider vaccination to be tantamount to animal abuse in most cases. This opinion has two main bases: First, vaccines often do not provide any protection. This may result from poor vaccine performance (as with feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, and ringworm vaccines), lack of risk (all vaccines at times, but particularly the above vaccines plus rabies), or simply lack of need (as with booster vaccination in almost all cases). Secondly, many vaccines actually induce illness that is much greater than that of the diseases that they are designed to prevent.
A further consideration is that vaccination weakens the strength of a population by allowing individuals to survive that otherwise would succumb to natural diseases; these diseases provide cleansing and strengthening for the population under normal conditions. The population is further weakened by immunosuppressive and possibly gene-damaging vaccine impacts. Vaccination likely provides protection from acute, contagious diseases by inducing chronic disease. This trade-off is not a good one and itself amounts to abuse.
Obviously there are several issues here that affect an immunization decision. Each is a separate factor with its own issues. I¹ll start with booster vaccinations, as this is the clearest area and one with little risk of error. Simply put, there is almost never a need for booster immunization. Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is protected for life. Further vaccinations do not improve the immunity. The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM, appeared in Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected veterinary immunologists in the academic community):
A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for rabies). (Italics added) In essence, Drs. Schultz and Phillips are stating that the only reasons for annual vaccination are legal (as with rabies vaccination) or as a means of manipulating guardians into bringing their companions for examinations (rather than simply recommending an examination). They also clearly state that booster vaccines provide no other benefit, including improved or added immunization. Although it has been some years since this was published, the veterinary community has made little headway toward following these recommendations. Some university experts now recommend vaccinations every three years, and other university clinics recommend titer testing to determine need. While both concepts are a step in the right direction, they still do not reflect the actual picture.
As the above quote indicates, immunologic memory lasts for years (usually for the life of the individual). This memory is not dependent upon titers, nor do titer levels always accurately indicate the immune status. A titer is a reflection of the quantity of circulating antibodies (immunoglobulins) to a given antigen (in this case, an organism). Cells in the body produce the
antibody. These cells retain the ability to produce antibodies toward a given antigen for quite a long time, usually for life. Upon re-exposure, they can produce antibody within forty-eight hours. As a consequence of this capability, there is no need for the body to expend the energy needed to maintain circulating antibodies. A low or absent titer, therefore, does not mean the body is unprotected. The body may simply have cells ready to act, like firefighters playing cards until they are needed. When booster vaccines are administered, antibodies destroy the vaccine particles before they can augment the immunity, and nothing is accomplished.
With kittens, antibodies (maternal antibody) may be passed from the mother to the kittens via the umbilical cord and via colostrum (the first milk). This antibody serves to protect the kitten, but it also can interfere with vaccination. For this reason, we often vaccinate kittens multiple times, in hopes that we will give a vaccination shortly after the maternal antibody diminishes to a level that will not interfere with vaccination. This is often overkill, as one vaccination can induce immunity in approximately 95 percent of animals if the timing is correct.
Multiple vaccination, particularly with combination vaccines, is one of the greatest contributors to vaccine-induced illness. Limiting vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines could greatly reduce disease from vaccination. In my opinion, this would be a huge step in the right direction for those who are too fearful to avoid vaccines entirely. The next area of concern is that of risk. Veterinarians and vaccine companies frequently use fear to convince others of the need for vaccines. Often, the risk of disease is so small that vaccination is foolish. Many cats are kept indoors, and while this practice is certainly controversial (I believe all animals need exposure to the outside), these cats have virtually no risk of exposure to most organisms (especially rabies and feline leukemia virus, both of which require direct contact with an infected animal). Vaccination is generally pointless for these animals.
Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases are not truly contagious. In these cases vaccination is useless since it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. The immunosuppression occurs first, allowing a virus, bacteria, or fungus to grow. We know this because healthy animals
are unaffected by these organisms. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency virus, and ringworm (in most cases). Vaccines for these diseases are therefore of no benefit; in fact, they often induce just the disease they are purported to prevent. These vaccines are among the most dangerous ones available. The only prevention of these diseases comes from a healthy diet and lifestyle.
Vaccination often receives undue credit for disease prevention, and we often hear raving about the lifesaving benefits of vaccination. From human studies, however, we know that the death rates of measles, whooping cough, and polio had fallen significantly prior to the introduction of vaccination; in the case of measles it had dropped 95 percent. Many practitioners around the turn of the century reported that smallpox immunization often increased a person¹s chance of disease; this was even reflected in public health statistics. (Miller) Most of the reduction of disease actually resulted from good food and good hygiene.
This brings us to the question of damage from vaccines. Although this is the most controversial aspect of vaccination, I see this so commonly that I personally have no doubts that vaccines are extremely dangerous. Most of my homeopathic colleagues are in agreement. We believe vaccination underlies a huge percentage of illness that we see today, and especially the rash of autoimmune diseases; these have increased dramatically since my graduation from veterinary school in 1979.
I¹ll briefly present a case that turned my head many years ago. When I first heard that vaccines might actually cause disease, I was skeptical. Of course, I knew about allergic reactions and other quick responses, but I assumed that these initial reactions were the extent of the problem. I remember a case, however, that opened my eyes. Fluffy was a sweet Persian cat who lived with an equally sweet woman.
Fluffy had recurrent bouts of cystitis (urinary bladder inflammation) that were very resistant to conventional and homeopathic treatment. Despite the fact that I liked Fluffy¹s guardian (and Fluffy), I hated to hear from her, as it was such a frustrating case. The bladder infections were never under control for long before they would return. One day I was reviewing the record for some clue as to what to do next when I had a stunning revelation. The cystitis bouts were always about a month after the yearly boosters. I suggested to Fluffy¹s guardian that we no longer vaccinate Fluffy, and I never needed to treat Fluffy¹s cystitis again. I could only conclude that vaccines could indeed cause diseases even a supposed infection.
Once I opened my eyes to the possibility of vaccine-induced illness, I began to see it commonly. It even became clear that certain vaccines could cause chronic illness that resembled the acute disease that the vaccine was intended to prevent. Panleukopenia is a good example.
With panleukopenia, major symptoms include inflammation and degeneration of the intestinal tract leading to severe vomiting and diarrhea, severe reduction of white blood cells (leukopenia) leading to immunosuppression, loss of appetite, mucopurulent nasal discharge, dehydration, and rapid weight loss. The chronic diseases we see frequently in cats correspond to many of these symptoms. Inflammatory bowel disease, an autoimmune inflammation of the intestines, is occurring at epidemic levels today. This disease was virtually nonexistent twenty years ago, yet today it is one of the most frequent diagnoses.
Cats are also extremely susceptible to immune malfunction and immunosuppression. The immunosuppressive state has been associated with two retroviruses (feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus), and others are suspected. Rather than these being separate diseases, I believe they are the same, but that more than one virus can fill the niche opened by the immunosuppression (remember that with chronic diseases the illness precedes the infection). This is probably the same in people with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) related viruses. Parvoviruses, which include the feline panleukopenia virus, are known to be very immunosuppressive. Additionally, I suspect the feline upper respiratory infections are a chronic state of the panleukopenia virus-induced immunosuppression and the tendency to get eye discharges.
A similar scenario now exists in dogs. While immunosuppressive states are not common in dogs, reports of their occurrence are on the rise. I believe the massive vaccination program for canine parvovirus, which began some thirty plus years after we began vaccinating cats with feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus), is creating this situation in dogs. If this is true, then the imminent future bodes poorly for dogs if the problem in cats is an indication. Furthermore, we have been seeing inflammatory bowel disease in dogs over the past five to ten years. Prior to this it was virtually nonexistent. I am certain that vaccination for parvovirus and coronavirus is a major cause. I commonly see inflammatory bowel disease that arises within a month or two after vaccination for one of these viruses.
There is still another syndrome associated with parvoviruses, one that occurred first in cats, and later in dogs. Cardiomyopathy is a disease of the heart muscle. The muscle may either weaken and stretch (dilated cardiomyopathy), or it may thicken greatly (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). Either condition will limit the heart¹s ability to pump blood. cardiomyopathy is often fatal.
We have been diagnosing cardiomyopathy in cats for over twenty years, approximately the same period of time as for inflammatory bowel disease. Many (but not all) cases of the dilated form of cardiomyopathy have been associated with a deficiency of the amino acid L-taurine. The cause for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as the cause for the nontaurine-associated cases of dilated cardiomyopathy, is unknown. I believe that the answer may have appeared in dogs.
When canine parvovirus first erupted in the late 1970s, many young puppies died rapidly, sometimes within hours. It turned out that parvovirus was capable of attacking the heart muscle in young puppies, and this form of the infection killed the puppies rapidly.
Cardiomyopathy did not affect dogs before the parvovirus outbreak (or if so it was very rare), but in the years since the outbreak it has appeared. The number of cases has especially risen over the past five to ten years, coincident with the rise of inflammatory bowel disease in dogs. The Merck Veterinary Manual states that, "The cause [of dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs] is still unknown although viral infection and resultant autoimmune reaction against the damaged myocardium are suspectŠ. Since the canine parvovirus (CPV) pandemic of 1978, male Doberman pinschers appear to be highly vulnerable to both CPV and cardiomyopathy." (Fraser) In the years
since this was written (in 1986), we have begun to see cardiomyopathy in many other breeds as well as Doberman pinschers.
I believe the author of this section of The Merck Veterinary Manual was correct, but I believe that parvovirus vaccination is even more likely to be the cause in most cases. I also believe that this explains the occurrence of cardiomyopathy in cats. Perhaps the heart muscle association of the feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus) was not seen in natural infections, but vaccination brought it to the surface. Cardiomyopathy is an autoimmune disease, and vaccines are major causes of autoimmune disease. In my opinion, these connections are too close to be coincidence alone.
Another vaccine that induces great anguish for guardian and companion is the rabies vaccine. I see many cases of fear and aggression that stem from rabies vaccination. If you consider the nature of rabies, this might not surprise you. It appears we are introducing chronic rabies into our animals by injecting rabies virus particles into their bodies. How, you may wonder, could inactivated virus induce illness? Apparently, the ability to affect change is not contingent upon the quality of aliveness, as we understand the concept. In fact, viruses are on the border between living and non-living; they require another organism to reproduce and thrive; otherwise they are little more than a chemical compound with the potential to alter the metabolism of their hosts.
Other conditions we see frequently in veterinary medicine today are not so directly traceable to a particular vaccine, but the general connection to vaccination is clear to many practitioners. Hyperthyroidism (increased production of thyroid hormones) was not seen when I first graduated from veterinary school. It was not simply misdiagnosed. The symptoms are so characteristic that the syndrome would have been recognized even if the cause was unknown. The disease did not exist. Could vaccines be responsible? Let¹s look at another case:
Sheba is a Siamese mix cat. She was nine years old when her guardian first consulted me. One week after vaccination, Sheba stopped eating and developed a rapid heart rate. Her conventional veterinarian suspected hyperthyroidism, although thyroid testing revealed no abnormalities. One dose of Thuja (a homeopathic remedy) reversed the rapid heartbeat and the appetite problems, and her health bloomed after the remedy so that she was better than before she became ill. Clearly the vaccines had caused these problems. I believe she would have developed true hyperthyroid disease if untreated.
The status of cats has elevated significantly since the 1960¹s. Prior to this most cats received little veterinary care. Since the 1970¹s, however, as cat status elevated, the care given to cats has climbed. This has generally meant more vaccinations. And rabies vaccination was often not recommended for cats until the mid-1980s. I believe the massive increase of vaccines in cats is responsible for hyperthyroidism as well as many other recently emerging diseases.
Cats suffer greatly from vaccination damage. The most obvious vaccine-induced problem is one that is deathly serious, causing great suffering among cats and cat companions. Fibrosarcomas, a type of cancer, occur more and more as a result of vaccination. The vaccines that are implicated are the rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines. These cancers arise at the site of injection of one of the vaccines. Researchers have identified vaccine particles within the cancer mass in a number of cases; the link is definite. Many veterinarians now refer to these cancers as vaccine sarcomas. Fibrosarcomas are malignant, and the average life expectancy is less than three years once the cancer has arisen. No treatment has proven satisfactory. Even with aggressive surgical removal, these cancers recur in the vast majority of cats. Some leading veterinarians recommend giving the vaccines in a leg, or even in the tail (ow!), to make amputation a viable option in case the cancers arise. Does this make sense? Obviously, when we reach the point of making recommendations like these, we are out of control. But do we simply avoid vaccinations in order to avoid all risk? Or is there possibly more risk by not vaccinating? Personally, am opposed to vaccination in virtually all situations, but I will endeavor to give some guidelines that will assist you in making a balanced decision regarding your feline companions.
There are four criteria that are at the center of any vaccine decision. One should only consider administering a vaccine if all four criteria are met:
1. The disease is serious, even life threatening.
2. The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.
3. The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.
4. The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.
Let¹s look at individual diseases to see how this works. I¹ll start with feline leukemia virus (FeLV) disease. An indoor-only cat will not be exposed (number two) as this virus requires direct, intimate, cat-to-cat contact for transmission. Many veterinarians recommend immunizing indoor cats against this disease, but I feel this is unethical. This disease does not fit criteria numbers three or four anyway in my experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not all circumstances. If a vaccine for the feline immunodeficiency virus were developed, it would be the same as for FeLV.
Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is another disease that fits neither three nor four, and rarely number two. The FIP virus vaccine has generally been found ineffective and has produced severe side effects. Among the side effects I have observed with both FIP and FeLV vaccines is induction of the clinical disease they were intended to prevent.
Feline panleukopenia virus is very serious and the vaccine is quite effective, but most cats will not be exposed to the virus and the disease generally affects kittens only. Only those cats that are likely to be exposed would benefit from vaccination, and one vaccination between the age of ten to twelve weeks will protect 95 percent of cats for life. (Schultz)
With the feline upper respiratory diseases (calicivirus and rhinotracheitis virus as well as feline chlamydia), most are not serious except in very young kittens. These kittens generally contract the disease before vaccines would typically be administered, so the vaccine is not often beneficial. If you choose to immunize for these, use the intranasal form, and do not vaccinate for chlamydia. The chlamydia fraction produces poor immunization.
Recently a vaccine for ringworm was introduced. I have no direct experience with this vaccine, but I am certain that it will have little benefit and it is probably unsafe. Ringworm is usually the result of immunodeficiency‹a chronic disease rather than an acute illness, so the vaccine will not address the cause of disease. I strongly recommend against using this vaccine.
Finally, while rabies is a very serious disease with the potential to infect humans (this is the reason for excessive vaccination laws), most animals are very unlikely to be exposed. One vaccine at four months of age will protect most cats for life. If one booster vaccination is administered, almost all animals (95 percent) are immunized for life. (Schultz)
In summary, my first recommendation is avoidance of vaccination whenever possible. If the risk is great, one panleukopenia vaccination will adequately protect the cat in almost all cases. The intranasal rhinotracheitis-calicivirus vaccine is relatively effective, but very few cats will benefit from this. Finally, rabies is legally mandated, but one vaccination will generally protect cats that are at risk. I never recommend vaccines for feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, Chlamydia, ringworm, or the feline immunodeficiency virus. And I never recommend booster vaccines; these are always unwarranted.
Clarence Fraser, ed. The Merck Veterinary Manual (Rahway, New Jersey: Merck & Co., Inc., 1986).
Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 1994).
Phillips, T.R., DVM, and Ron Schultz, Ph.D., "Canine and Feline Vaccines," in Current Veterinary Therapy XI, Robert Kirk, DVM and John Bonagura, DVM, eds. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992).
Ron Schultz, "Theory and Practice of Immunization" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association, Snowmass, CO, September 1995), 92-104.
Dr. Don Hamilton practices veterinary homeopathy in New Mexico. The vaccination issue is comprehensively reviewed in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs: Small Doses for Small Animals, to be published this summer by North Atlantic Books. Please see this book (available directly from Dr. Hamilton or at most bookstores) for further information about vaccination or other health problems, or you may call 505 666 2091 to schedule an appointment with Dr. Hamilton. There is a charge for telephone consultations.
Ohio teen selected to compete in International Science and Engineering Fair
By CHRISTINA REDEKOPP -- The Herald-Dispatch
redekopp@herald-dispatch.com
ROME TOWNSHIP, Ohio -- Jeremiah Schley’s senior science fair project may be a testament to how far he has come.
Schley had a difficult time growing up with a mild case of Tourette’s syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes involuntary motor or verbal tics, he said. Because he was not diagnosed until he was 14, some people doubted he had a disorder and misunderstood he could not help rolling his eyes, having outbursts, falling asleep in class and having hyperactive tendencies. As a child, he was asked to leave day care centers and schools because of involuntary tics.
Since the ninth grade the TS seems to have settled into remission, Schley said. He has been able to quit taking medications and has worked to improve his grades, completing his junior year at Fairland High School with a 3.67 gpa. He also won first place for Introductory Word Processing at this past Marshall University’s S.C.O.R.E.S. competition.
Now, the 18-year-old is heading to California. He is one of eight Ohio students from six different high schools selected by The Ohio Academy of Science to compete in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in May at San Jose, Calif.
"I want to go back to everyone who said I’d never make it and say this is a testament to all I’ve done," he said.
The Intel ISEF is considered the "World Series" of science fairs for more than 1,200 students in grades nine to 12 from more than 50 countries, according to a news release from The Ohio Academy of Science. Students have six days to compete for scholarships, establish new collaborations for research, experience cultural exchanges and gain recognition from peers.
Schley’s project, "Are We Overvaccinating Our Dogs?" won first place at the local science fair and third at the district fair, he said.
Schley, an animal lover, had some help with his project from co-workers and veterinarians at the Tri-State Animal Clinic, where he works part-time.
He conducted antibody titer tests on 40 dogs, which measures immunity. The majority of dogs he tested had above adequate antibody titer. Every year a dog gets two shots, and one shot for rabies every other year, he said. Many people cannot afford the antibody titer test, which costs $40 to $50, so they just vaccinate their dogs as they have been instructed to do.
He concluded more tests and research are necessary, but veterinarians may want to revisit how often dogs should be vaccinated. And people who have missed a year of vaccination for their dogs need not worry because their dogs may still have plenty of immunity.
"It hasn’t sunk in yet," he said about ISEF. "The greatest thing about ISEF is I’m really stepping out into the world. I’ll be able to meet people from everywhere. It’s something I’ve always wanted to experience. I am meeting people from other countries."
Schley’s parents, Eileen and Leo Schley, are proud of him. He also has a 20-year-old brother, Robert.
"I’m really proud of his coming up with a project and working through it," Eileen Schley said. "I’m looking forward to the experience increasing confidence in himself."
Leo Schley, said, "I’m delighted and also a little bit amazed. When he started this, I had no idea he would end up going to California. I had no idea he would advance to international."
Jeremiah Schley isn’t sure yet what he wants to do after graduating from high school. He said he is toying with the idea of the Reserves and he wants to go to college, perhaps to study engineering or veterinarian medicine at Ohio State.
"My entire life is a dream right now," he said. "I figure once I get into college I’ll figure out what I want to do."
http://www.thepetcenter.com/exa/vacown.html Excellent website!
I know my dog was diagnosed with something called "Staples" which was basically a staph infection, where she got sores all over her face. She did that right after her first round of "puppy shots", I had enough sense to link it with the vaccines and never took her back for that again. She's been healthy every since, and she's 4 years old now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588457.stm
Vets issue animal vaccine warning
Veterinary surgeons are warning that cat and dog owners are spending tens of millions of pounds on unnecessary and sometimes dangerous vaccines. More than 30 vets have signed an open letter warning many vaccines for pets given in yearly doses last much longer. They have accused the pharmaceutical industry of "fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception". But drugs companies say they are bound by rules from licensing authorities. Because of a lack of research it can only give a minimum period of immunity - usually 12 months.
Yearly vaccines
The vets are warning the pharmaceutical industry and their own profession about the issue.
The present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals may constitute fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception
Vets' group
In their letter they say that vaccinations for many conditions including distemper, cat flu and parva virus, last a lot longer than a year and sometimes for life. The letter said: "The present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals may constitute fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception." BBC correspondent Angus Stickler said that vets send out computer-generated letters telling people to take their pets in for vaccinations "every year, year in, year out".
He said: "With £20 to £40 to pay and about 13m dogs and cats in the country it's an industry worth tens of millions of pounds." The letter also talks about an increase in the risk of "adverse post-vaccination events" including a list of problems such as auto-immune disorders, transient infections and a risk of cancer in cats. (Wondering if this happens in humans?)
Animal testing
Vaccination manufacturers say that, although they can test animals for one or two years so they can give a minimum cover or immunity, it is difficult to perform lifelong tests. They say that to prove immunity lasts for three or four years, or for life, would mean keeping and testing a large number of cats and dogs for years on end.
We base our recommendations on the science and the science we have tells us that we don't know how long immunity lasts in any individual animal
Intervet
David Sutton, a spokesman for Intervet, one of the world's largest veterinary drug manufacturers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We base our recommendations on the science and the science we have tells us that we don't know how long immunity lasts in any individual animal.
"What we do know is there are some animals that need more frequent vaccination than others and our vaccine recommendations have to be based on taking account of those animals." The vets' warning comes as more than 6,000 vets from all over Europe gather in Birmingham for the world's largest congress devoted to domestic pet welfare. One of the techniques up for discussion at the four-day event is pheromonotherapy, used to help cats and dogs overcome fears and phobias.
The treatment is based on a study of chemicals, called pheromones, secreted by canines and felines through glands on their body. These convey messages to members of the same species about ownership of territory, gender and mating availability.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/3588457.stm
Published: 2004/04/01 10:12:45 GMT
© BBC MMIV
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/04/09/news/local/top/news01.txt
Official: Just say nay to horse vaccine
By Steve Miller, Journal Staff Writer
In the don't-try-this-at-home (or anywhere else) category: Some people are injecting themselves with horse vaccine for West Nile virus. Don't do it, says Dr. Lon Kightlinger. It could be dangerous. There is no West Nile virus vaccine for humans yet, said Kightlinger, the state epidemiologist in the South Dakota Department of Health. There are vaccines effective in preventing the virus in horses. But there is no indication they prevent West Nile virus in humans, Kightlinger said. He explained that each vaccine is designed for the immune system of its intended target. The horse vaccines stimulate the immune system in horses so they develop antibodies against the virus.
The horse vaccine has not been tested on humans. "It could be very dangerous for people to inject a horse vaccine," Kightlinger said. It could cause an allergic reaction, even shock. Kightlinger said he had received numerous reports of people injecting themselves with horse vaccine. "It's gotten to the point that I felt I had to say something because it's not recommended at all." He said, however, that he had not yet heard of anyone becoming sick from using the horse vaccine. Kim Kizzier, administrator of Dakota Hills Veterinary Clinic in Rapid City, said she hadn't heard of anyone here injecting himself or herself with horse vaccine.
"We don't sell to just anybody coming in," Kizzier said. Dakota Hills sells horse vaccine only to horse owners, she added. "That's not to say that they don't go home and vaccinate themselves instead." People can buy horse vaccine only through a veterinarian, Kizzier said. Kightlinger and other health officials note that testing for animal vaccines is much less rigorous than for human vaccines.
Work is under way on two West Nile vaccines for humans, Kightlinger said, but a vaccine approved for wide use won't be ready this year and likely won't be ready for next year. Both groups working on vaccines are combining West Nile virus with another virus to create a hybrid, Kightlinger said. One group is doing tests on monkeys now. A British company is using a combination of West Nile virus and yellow fever vaccine. Yellow fever vaccine has been used safely for decades, Kightlinger said. That vaccine is being tested on humans in Kansas. The 60 volunteers will be watched for reactions such as itching, redness or swelling, he said. Kightlinger said both vaccines show promise. But he said more testing would be done on larger groups of humans before either of the vaccines could be
approved.
"We don't want to lull people into any false hope," he said. West Nile virus killed 14 South Dakotans and sickened 1,027 others in 2003. State officials say more than 100 cities and counties plan efforts this year to kill mosquitoes to prevent the spread of West Nile. Mosquitoes, particularly the Culex tarsalis mosquito, transmit the virus from birds to humans and horses. People, especially the elderly, have reason to be concerned about getting West Nile. The virus often attacks the spinal cord or brain, leaving the most severely ill with long-term damage. But horse vaccine is not the answer, Kightlinger said. Safer and more effective is the array of personal and community protection state officials have been urging since last summer: Wear protective clothing, use insect repellent containing deet, stay indoors during prime time for mosquitoes (dawn and dusk) and clean up mosquito breeding grounds.
Some officials have suggested beginning to use deet now. The personal protection will become crucial in June, Kightlinger said, as the disease spreads, first in the bird population and then in mosquitoes. People have already been sending dead birds to the state lab for testing, but none has tested positive for West Nile, Kightlinger said. The first person in South Dakota to get sick in 2003 fell ill on July 1. But the virus likely will get an early start this year because some infected mosquitoes probably survived the winter, Kightlinger said. "We've got to be ready."
Contact Steve Miller at 394-8417 or steve.miller@rapidcityjournal.com
I also stopped vaccs after a reaction but instead it was with my Great Dane puppy. He got a button tumor (histiocarcinoma) about a week after his first puppy cocktail and I started researching causes and it went from there. As much as I love my dogs, I am very glad that it was one of them who had a reaction and not one of my children. For now, my husband seems to be accepting of my views of vaccs but when the baby comes I need to have my facts to back me up because I have a feeling he might change his mind and I know the grandparents are going to flip out. If you (or anyone) has any favorites sites to back up their choices, I would greatly appreciate it! I am still reading through all the info on the homepage :)
Lynette
Infectious and Inflammatory Encephalopathies I and II
Western Veterinary Conference 2002
Karen Dyer Inzana
Virginia Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia
Tech Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
"Vaccine-induced distemper occurs within 10-21 days of vaccination with modified live distemper virus. The pathogenesis is unknown but theories include an inadequately attenuated vaccine, triggering of a latent myxovirus infection, or an increased susceptibility. Signs include behavior changes, aggression, depression, ataxia, tremors, seizures. Prognosis is guarded but some cases survive. Pathology demonstrates brain stem necrosis."
From Vaccinations for the New Puppy by Susan Thorpe-Vargas PhD:
"(S)ome dogs, after being vaccinated with modified live canine distemper vaccine can develop aggression, seizures, a lack of coordination and other neurological dysfunctions caused from a rare condition called postvaccinal canine distemper virus encephalitis. Another problem noted with genetically susceptible animals is that it is possible for vaccinations to trigger various autoimmune diseases, including several blood disorders and a rabies vaccine-induced encephalitis."
===
From
http://www.ivis.org/advances/Infect_Dis_Carmichael/appel/chapter_frm.asp
Recent Advances in Canine Infectious Diseases, Carmichael L. (Ed.) Ithaca: International Veterinary Information Service, 1999; A0103.1199 Canine Distemper: Current Status (Last Updated: 23-Nov-1999 ) M. J.G Appel and B. A. Summers James A. Baker Institute for Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
"With few exceptions the modified-live CDV vaccines available today are derived from either avian cell or canine cell culture adaptations. Both methods of adaptation produce vaccines that are very effective in inducing an immunity that lasts for at least 1 year and probably for several years in most dogs. There are minor disadvantages to both products: Canine cell-adapted strains immunize virtually 100% of susceptible dogs but sporadically may induce post-vaccinal encephalitis. .... Modified-live CDV can cause fatal post- vaccinal encephalitis in unprotected younger pups, as it can in certain wild or zoo species."
That reminds me, we had a sick cat two weeks ago and had to take him to the Emergency Vet. The vet asked if he was up to date on his vaccines, I told her that we don't believe in vaccines because of the harm they do. She was very nice and said that she doesn't recommend them at all for indoor cats and that she thinks that there are way too many done and too short of intervals. She said that she sees alot of tumors in animals from all of the vaccines! I was in shock! I never expected to hear anything like that from any kind of doctor.
[PROVE NOTE: Notice how they aren't reporting on the risk dropping these rabies vaccines out of the sky have on humans. They also don't tell you that they use the vaccinia virus(smallpox vaccine) in the making of the rabies bait vaccine. Do we really want this spread through our environment? In the fall of 2000, the CDC reported that a woman (who was 28-years-old and Pregnant) developed a vaccinia infection on her arm after trying to retrieve wildlife bait intended for wolves from her dog's mouth. The bait was a rabies vaccine spliced into a recombinant form of vaccinia virus, the same virus that is used for smallpox inoculations. This "air assault" may be working, but at what cost? Just like with childhood vaccines, follow the money trail.]
Texas rabies air assault working
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041220-042644-2579r.htm
By Phil Magers
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Dallas, TX, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Annual airdrops of vaccine to coyotes and foxes across remote sections of South and West Texas have helped check the spread of two deadly strains of rabies. Low-flying, state-chartered planes have dropped millions of the special baits for nearly a decade, virtually eliminating one type of coyote rabies in South Texas and slowing a second variant in foxes.
The aim of state and federal officials is to prevent a repeat of a 1988 rabies outbreak in South Texas that caused two deaths and 3,000 people to undergo rabies treatments. Officials began the Oral Rabies Vaccination Program in 1995 when there was a growing concern about rabies posing a public health threat to San Antonio and other cities in South Texas. Rabid coyotes were slowly moving northward, and there was growing concern about San Antonio, said Dr. James Wright, a veterinarian with the Texas Department of State Health Services. "It (rabies) could go very well from a coyote on the edge of town that fought with some farm dogs and we could literally end up with rabid dogs roaming the streets of San Antonio," he said.
The solution they found was an airdrop program used in Europe and Canada against red fox rabies in remote areas. Baits laced with vaccine were dropped to inoculate the animals. The bombers were soon flying Texas skies every January, when food was otherwise scarce. They buzzed the ground at 500 feet, dropping the specially designed baits over 31,000 square miles. Separate vaccines were developed for the coyote variant and the fox variant, and then scientists had to find a bait that would entice the animals to eat the anti-rabies vaccine. Fishmeal is now used for the coyote baits and dog food treated with molasses and vanilla for the foxes. As the animal chews the bait, it punctures the vaccine packets and swallows the vaccine. About 2.7 million baits are dropped each year across South and West Texas. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state pay the $4 million cost. The airdrops begin in early January and last most of the month.
Preparations are under way for flights next month in West Texas. With near control of rabies in South Texas, attention has turned to the gray fox in the Edwards Plateau of West Texas. Grounds crews of about 60 people assemble at the airports for the base operations. The bases in January next year will start in Zapata, then Fort Stockton and finally, Junction. The biggest challenge during the monthlong missions are the changing weather conditions, said Tom Sidwa, who heads the program for the state health department. "Visibility is a concern because we have to be able to see three miles in distance and 1,000 feet in altitude," he said. "The other thing is high winds. The planes fly only about 500 feet off the ground. It can be a pretty rough ride for the crews."
The crews on the four chartered King Air planes are small. There's a pilot, a navigator who tries to keep the bait from landing on people, roads and structures, and the bait distributor who must make sure the bait is moving through the feeding system. There have been a few minor incidents over the years, but nothing serious, officials say. A toll-free number is imprinted on the baits, and the command post has received a few strange calls. Once a fishermen who found one of the baits in a catfish wanted to know what to do with it.
After the airdrops, state trappers take blood samples from animals to check their immunity levels. The vaccine also contains a chemical that can be detected on the animal's teeth. "Blood and teeth samples can determine if the animal picked up the bait and didn't get immunized or picked up the bait and was immunized," said Craig Nunley, director of the Texas Cooperative Extension Wildlife Services Unit. "The tests are very definitive, and a high percentage of the animals have been found to be immunized."
The program has been highly successful in stopping the spread of rabies among coyotes in South Texas, and officials are hoping for similar success with the foxes in West Texas. "Over the last seven or eight years we have vaccinated very extensively in South Texas and have essentially eliminated that variant of the rabies virus down there," said Wright. "We still run a border corridor to keep them from coming across."
The number of rabies cases in coyotes has fallen from 122 in 1994 to almost none today. Gray fox cases declined from 244 in 1995 to 61 in 2003. In West Texas the plan is to encircle the gray fox with baits and then tighten the circle until complete immunity is achieved among the population, Wright said. State health officials report no animal cases of canine or gray fox rabies outside the original containment zones since the program began, and no human cases either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Richardson
PROVE(Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)
prove@vaccineinfo.net (email)
http://vaccineinfo.net/ (web site)
The following letter from The Hansons' at Green Acres Kennel appears in the December 31, 2004 issue of the Bangor Daily News and can be access at the link provided.
http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=105888
Letters to the Editor - 12/31/04
Friday, December 31, 2004 - Bangor Daily News
Letters to the Editor - 12/31/04
Pet vaccine disclosure
We would like to express our support for Rep. Peter Rines' pet vaccine disclosure bill. As pet care professionals and as pet owners we have seen firsthand the tragic effects of vaccine reactions and overvaccination.
Our own golden retriever had a severe reaction to a rabies vaccine, causing aggression toward our other dogs as well as causing an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Our veterinarian feels these behavioral changes were a direct result of a reaction to her rabies vaccine.
This reaction not only affected our retriever, but also our Pekinese which lost an eye as a result of an unprovoked attack. Our retriever's immune system has also been compromised; she is slowly destroying her thyroid gland and has a rare eye disorder, which many veterinarians believe is a direct result of overvaccination.
Happily, we were able to treat her and resolve the behavioral problems, but we get anxious every time she is due for a rabies vaccine. Unfortunately, her immune system is damaged for life.
There is ample scientific evidence to support this bill. Two of the worlds leading veterinary vaccine research scientists, Dr. Ronald Schulz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, and Dr. Richard Ford of the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, are assisting Rines in drafting the legislation. If you have pets, we encourage you to write to your legislators to express your support for this bill.
Anyone who truly loves animals will support this bill.
Don Hanson, CPDT, BFRP
Paula L. Hanson
Green Acres
Kennel Shop
Bangor
The following is an article appearing on the front cover of this week's Lincoln County Weekly (2/23/05) on Representative Peter Rines' legislation: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. Below that is a letter-to-the-editor on the same subject appearing in the LC Weekly and The Lincoln County News.
Regards, Kris
http://www.courierpub.com/articles/2005/02/24/lincolncountyweekly/local_news/n5maine.txt
Rep. Peter Rines introduces vaccine disclosure law
A Jefferson kitten pokes his head out of a cardboard box at a Washington Road residence. A public hearing to discuss a bill that would require veterinarians to provide vaccine disclosure forms has been scheduled for Feb. 28 at Maine's capitol. AARON MILLER
BY AARON MILLER
ALNA - Kris Christine questions why a group of Maine veterinarians oppose proposed legislation that would require full disclosure of vaccine information to pet owners.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association distributed a letter Feb. 17 to the House of Representatives expressing opposition to Rep. Peter Rines' legislation, "LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms." The proposal would require a veterinarian to provide a vaccine disclosure form to the owner of a dog or cat before vaccinating those animals. The vaccine disclosure is aimed at providing information regarding proven or demonstrated durations of immunity as well as advantages and disadvantages of vaccines.
"It came to my attention that our laws that pertain to vaccinations don't coincide with how long a vaccination is actually good for once given to pets," Rines said. "So consequently, pets are over-vaccinated when they don't need to be."
Christine, of Alna, said she asked Rines to propose the legislation after inadvertently learning her veterinarian administered a vaccination that Christine's pet did not need. A public hearing has been scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday, Feb. 28 in Room 206 of the State Office Building. It will be heard by the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Joint Standing Committee.
In an interview Feb. 14, Rines (D-Wiscasset), said that he was not surprised the Maine Veterinary Medical Association opposed the bill. Christine, however, said she was disappointed after learning the veterinarian association would not support Rines' proposal.
She referred to a story published in the September 2004 DVM Newsmagazine titled "MVMA Backs Full Disclosure for Vaccines." According to information provided by Christine, the publication's Jennifer Fiala reported that Bill Bryant, former president of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, backed such legislation, saying, "it's time for something like this to come out. I think that disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available to stimulate verbal discussions on vaccines' benefits and possible side effects."
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association consists of Maine veterinarians and volunteers and represents over 90 percent of veterinarians in Maine, according to the association's current president, Matt Townsend. Townsend wrote the House of Representatives and submitted that letter Feb. 17 expressing opposition to LD 429.
"The field of veterinary vaccine research is changing rapidly, and what was formally accepted as canon even a few years ago is now being rethought and adjusted," Townsend wrote. "In response to these trends veterinarians in Maine and across the country are in the middle of a transition regarding vaccine protocols for companion animals."
Townsend wrote that the Maine Veterinary Medical Association is concerned about the potential impact of Rines' proposal, but "the claims and allegations being leveled at veterinary vaccines and the motives of veterinarians who administer them that disturbs us far more."
In an interview on Feb. 15, Townsend said veterinarians are already disclosing information about vaccines to their clients.
"At this point we have grave concerns with having legislation mandating practices for us," Townsend said. "We are already doing disclosure. Everyday we are sitting down with clients asking them questions about the lifestyle of their pet. We need to talk to our clients instead of putting a piece of paper in front of them."
Christine said that information on duration of immunity is not readily available to pet owners.
"This is closely held data," she said. "The general public can't go to a library and access the information. This is why we need legislation."
Townsend said it would be difficult for the Legislature to set up a protocol that would work for all veterinarians
"We're not trying to hide anything," he said. "Having something mandated to us by the Legislature is not where we want to go."
How big of a
financial blow?
"One question we were asked was will this cost the department any money," said Dr. Donald Hoenig, state veterinarian for animal health at the Department of Agriculture. "We had to say yes because it's going to involve some extra work for the department if the bill is passed. We will have to determine if veterinarians are being compliant with law. Currently we don't have the staff that could do that."
The Department of Agriculture doesn't oversee Maine's veterinarians, according to Hoenig. That job is left up to the state's Board of Veterinary Medicine. It is possible, however, that oversight could be assigned to the Department of Agriculture, Hoenig said. He estimated that it would cost $30,000 for a part-time employee to enforce the proposed law.
"We will probably provide testimony at the hearing neither for or against and explain what impact this could have," Hoenig said.
Changing vaccine protocols could also have a significant impact on practice finances for veterinarians, according to a story published in Veterinary Economics, a monthly publication for veterinarians.
According to an August 2004 Veterinary Economics cover story titled "Targeting Changing Vaccine Protocols," "In the 1970's and 1980's many veterinarians derived a substantial percent of their total incomes from vaccinating dogs and cats."
Roger F. Cummings and James E. Guenther wrote that "in many practices today, the vaccination reminder is the one thing that drives visits from healthy pets."
"How big a hit will you take? Discuss these questions with your team members to find out," Cummings and Guenther wrote. "How many doses of each individual vaccine did you administer in the past 12 months? For example, your medical records might show: 2,000 rabies vaccines at $10 each = $20,000; 2,000 distemper and parvovirus combination vaccines at $15 each = $30,000."
Caring for man's
best friend
Dr. Jean Dodds, a Californian veterinarian who has been actively involved with vaccination issues for more than 40 years, recently wrote Rines a letter in support of LD 429.
Dodds received her D.V.M. degree with honors in 1964 from the Ontario Veterinary College and a year later accepted a position with the New York State Health Department in Albany. Her position there began as a research scientist and culminated as chief of Laboratory of Hematology at the Wadsworth Center.
In 1980 she also became executive director of the New York State Council on Human Blood and Transfusion Services. Among other accomplishments, she was formerly president of the Scientist's Center for Animal Welfare, chairman of the Committee on Veterinary Medical Sciences and vice-chairman of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources for the National Academy of Sciences.
"Challenge studies in the cat from Cornell University following just two doses of trivalent killed vaccine given at eight and 12 weeks of age, showed complete protection from feline panleukopenia virus for more than eight years, and good protection against feline calicivirus and herpes virus for four and three years, respectively. Colorado State University recently reported long-term vaccinal immunity in a large number of pet and laboratory cats," Dodds wrote.
For dogs, the 2003 report of the American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Task Force indicated that the duration of immunity following challenge studies in dogs was equal to or greater than seven years for the three canine "core" vaccines against distemper virus, parvovirus and adenovirus, Dodds wrote.
"In 2002, the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents published a landmark report on cat and dog vaccines," Dodds wrote. "Some key features of that report were: Š the practice of revaccinating animals annually is largely based on historic precedent supported by minimal scientific data; unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance and may expose animals to unnecessary risks."
The only vaccination for pets required by Maine law is rabies immunization, according to Maine Public Health Veterinarian Dr. Robert Gholson. It is difficult to determine how often cats and dogs receive vaccinations because recommendations are driven by the drug manufactures, Gholson said. He said veterinarians will take those recommendations into account as well as the pets' lifestyles, but discussing vaccinations with clients can be difficult.
"With the public not everybody has the educational background to understand the risks and so on, so it's difficult to communicate that to your clients," he said.
In 2004, the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine's Infectious Disease Study Group announced that they believe all dogs should have a routine health examination by a veterinarian at least yearly. At that time, vaccination needs should be determined and only those antigens deemed necessary should be administered Š"
While vaccines have significantly reduced the incidence of serious infectious diseases over the years, increasing evidence implicates vaccines in triggering immune-mediated and other chronic disorders, Dodds wrote. The duration of immunity from vaccination is now accepted to be at least five or more years for the clinically important diseases of dogs and cats.
In her letter, Dodds suggested veterinarians to obtain an informed consent form from their clients because of the potential legal liability for all medical procedures including vaccination. "This means that clients need to be given information about the benefits and risks of vaccination in order to permit them to make an appropriate decision about the individual vaccine to be selected and the vaccination programs of choice," Dodd wrote. "Thus, obtaining informed consent and the client's signature on a consent form or patient chart is an important aspect of following the legal standards of duty to inform 'what any reasonable, prudent person would want to know about the subject,' " wrote Dodd.
Gholson said that this suggestion makes sense.
"If you came into my clinic and said that you need to do this and you said no, I think this would protect veterinarians to an extent," Gholson said. "I do have faith that people would come back and said you didn't tell me enough. I think documentation and education are extremely important."
Aaron Miller may be reached at amiller@courierpub.com.
February 28, 2005
To the Editor
The public hearing for Representative Peter Rines’ LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms is scheduled for Monday, February 28th at 1:00 p.m. in Room 206 of the Cross State Office Building in Augusta Maine.
This legislation is necessary because Maine citizens deserve the same standardized, full vaccine disclosures for veterinary vaccines as they receive for human vaccines. Currently, only veterinarians have access to the duration of immunity data contained in the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Vaccine Guidelines which state: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.” They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been proven to protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years based on antibody count.
Many Maine veterinarians have been vaccinating pets against distemper, parvovirus, and hepatitis once every year, two or three years with vaccines that protect for a MINIMUM of 7 years. If LD 429 passes, pet owners will be legally entitled to have that information disclosed to them before their veterinarian vaccinates their animal. However, the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, comprised of 312 members, recently distributed a letter to every member of the House of Representatives expressing their opposition to LD 429, which would legally require them to give clients vaccine disclosure forms.
According to a Veterinary Practice News article entitled “Managing Vaccine Changes” by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reducing vaccine protocols is not a new subject. He states that: “ Change has been discussed for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country.” He goes on to say that: “Routine vaccinations have been a major source of revenue to small animal practitioners.” In October 2002, DVM Newsmagazine reported in their “AVMA, AAHA to Release Vaccine Positions” story that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) emphasizes that “Veterinarians must … move away from their dependence on vaccine income.”
In the July 2003 Consumer Reports article “Veterinary Care Without the Bite,” they reported that “[a]bout 66 percent of the 188 million visits to the vet by cats and dogs in 2001 involved vaccinations..” and that “the veterinary-care industry is still in the stone age of consumer-protection law.”
It’s time that the veterinary-care industry moved out of the stone age of consumer protection law. Towards that end, the Maine Legislature should pass LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms, and concerned citizens should attend the February 28th hearing and contact their legislators asking them to support this bill.
Sincerely,
Kris L. Christine
Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2005 Apr 8;104(3-4):249-56. Related Articles, Links
IgE reactivity to vaccine components in dogs that developed immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination.
Ohmori K, Masuda K, Maeda S, Kaburagi Y, Kurata K, Ohno K, Deboer DJ, Tsujimoto H, Sakaguchi M.
Department of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan. aa27150@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Allergic reactions after vaccination are considered as an important practical problem in dogs; however, their immunological mechanism has not been well understood. The present study was designed to investigate the relationship between IgE reactivity to the vaccines and immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination in dogs. Sera from 10 dogs that developed immediate-type allergic reactions such as circulatory collapse, cyanosis, dyspnea, facial edema, and vomiting within 1h after vaccination with non-rabies monovalent or combined vaccines and sera from 50 dogs that did not develop allergic reactions after vaccination were collected. Serum IgE reactivity to the injected vaccines was measured by fluorometric ELISA using a mouse monoclonal anti-dog IgE antibody. Then, IgE reactivity to fetal calf serum (FCS) and stabilizer proteins (gelatin, casein, and peptone) included in the vaccines was measured in sera that had high levels of IgE to the vaccines. Levels of serum specific IgE to the vaccines in dogs with immediate-type allergic reactions (59-4173 fluorescence units [FU], mean +/- S.D.: 992.5 +/- 1181.9 FU) were significantly higher than those in control dogs (38-192 FU, 92.4 +/- 43.3 FU) (P < 0.001). Of the eight dogs that developed immediate-type allergic reactions and had high levels of serum specific IgE to the vaccines, seven had specific IgE directed to FCS. The IgE reactivity to the vaccines in sera from these dogs was almost completely inhibited by FCS. The other one dog had serum IgE directed to gelatin and casein included in the vaccine as stabilizers. The results obtained in this study suggest that immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination in dogs were induced by type I hypersensitivity mediated by IgE directed to vaccine components. In addition, FCS, gelatin, and casein included in vaccines could be the causative allergens that induced immediate-type allergic reactions after vaccination in dogs.
PMID: 15734545 [PubMed - in process]
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/20050220151.php
Too many shots?
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer
Sunday, February 20,2005
Ashleigh D. Starke/Sun Journal
CANINE CONCERNS: Kris Christine of Alna hopes the Legislature will pass legislation requiring all Maine veterinarians to give pet owners disclosure forms on the pros and cons of vaccinations. In January 2003, her Labrador retriever, Meadow, pictured here, developed a mast cell tumor on the site of a rabies vaccination.
AUGUSTA - Like many pet owners, when Kris Christine of Alna got cards from her veterinarian reminding her that Meadow's and Butter's shots were due, she brought in her lovable Labs.
Her vet recommended that her pets have rabies shots every other year and distemper shots every year, Christine said.
But months after Meadow's biannual rabies shot in the fall of 2003, she noticed something. "He had this weird thing on his back hind side," she said. "Every time he'd run, it would swell, then it would go away."
Meadow eventually was diagnosed with mast cell cancer, which Christine believes resulted from the vaccination injection at that same spot on his leg. "It's not something you want," she said. "It's an aggressive cancer."
Veterinarians say the likelihood is very small that Meadow's cancer stemmed from the shot. However, while taking care of Meadow's cancer, Christine stumbled on a hot debate in the animal health field: How often should dogs and cats be vaccinated?
While experts stress that vaccines are vital to the health of pets, mounting research indicates vaccines can no longer be considered harmless. Research shows they can cause adverse health effects - everything from lower immunity against viruses, bacteria and parasites, to cancer - and that some vaccines do not have to be given as frequently as once thought.
In response, the American Animal Hospital Association in 2003 began recommending less frequent vaccinations for cats and dogs.
Christine, who began researching the subject after Meadow's cancer was detected, quickly became an energetic crusader, spreading information about vaccinations and questioning frequency guidelines. She believes that by following her veterinarian's recommendations, "Meadow was being over-vaccinated for years."
Ashleigh D. Starke/Sun Journal
Kris Christine of Alna hopes the Legislature will pass legislation requiring all Maine veterinarians to give pet owners disclosure forms on the pros and cons of vaccinations.
In the process, Christine said she discovered that Maine law required a rabies shot for dogs and cats every two years, despite the fact that the vaccine's manufacturer says it is good for three.
She questioned the law in early 2004, and it was changed last fall, according to state public health veterinarian Dr. Robert Gholson. The state now mandates that rabies shots be given every three years. (Saying not all veterinarians have gotten the word, Gholson is sending out a second reminder.)
Christine now hopes she will be equally successful with her next effort: to get the Legislature to pass a law requiring Maine veterinarians to disclose the pros and cons of vaccines.
Rep. Peter Rines, D-Wiscasset, is sponsoring L.D. 429, and said that since introducing the bill, the outpouring of e-mails and letters in favor has been overwhelming.
"In my tenure as a legislator I've never had this kind of response," he said. Pet owners are thanking him, and some people outside Maine have said they hope his bill will lead to similar laws in other states, he said.
"Everyone wants to do the best thing for our four-legged friends," said Rines, noting his bill is intended only to give consumers information.
But some Maine veterinarians plan to voice their opposition to the bill at its public hearing on Feb. 28. Saying they feel like they're under attack, the opponents say they see no need for disclosure forms.
The making of a crusader
After Meadow was diagnosed with cancer last year, he underwent two operations. A chunk of his back thigh was removed.
On the bottom of one of Christine's veterinarian bills in April for cancer treatment was a reminder that Meadow's distemper shot was due in November and his next rabies shot in 2005.
It upset Christine. "I said, 'He's not going to be alive then.'"
Christine said her veterinarian said the cancer did not come from the vaccine, but Christine was skeptical. She grew even more doubtful after learning that the law required dog immunizations every two years even though the rabies vaccine lasted three.
When she got the bill, Christine told her vet she had a problem giving her dog vaccinations every year or every other year.
"Here's my dog lying at my feet, suffering with a huge chunk of his hind leg removed. I thought, 'You were giving him medication that you know he doesn't need.'"
Christine found a new veterinarian and became an advocate for changing the laws and making pet owners more aware of the potential health risks posed by vaccinations. "We need the tools," she said
She is not the only one who feels that way.
Among those concerned about pets receiving vaccinations too frequently are AKC judge and former breeder Arnold Woolf of Lewiston and Larry Doyon of Munster Abbey Kennels in Minot, breeders of German shepherds. Both say they support the legislation.
Experts: Risks are low, but . . .
Christine's efforts have also met angry opposition. Last week the Maine Veterinary Medical Association came out against L.D. 429. In a Feb. 2 letter to lawmakers, MVMA President Matt Townsend did not directly spell out why the organization is opposed to the bill.
But Townsend complained that such a law would mandate "cumbersome disclosure and consent procedures for every vaccination and medication dispensed by veterinarians." It also said Christine "has launched what can only be described as an aggressive scare campaign, designed to drive a wedge of distrust between pet owners and their veterinarians."
Actually, the law makes no mention of medication other than vaccines. The law says veterinarians must provide disclosure forms informing consumers about the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines.
MVMA Executive Director Bill Bell said there is no Maine protocol on how often vaccines should be administered, and that even top researchers disagree. "The bill is vague to the point of being ridiculous," he said.
Veterinarians are worried a disclosure form would scare away some pet owners from having their dogs and cats vaccinated, which would lead to diseases coming back, Bell said. He added that the bill will increase paperwork for veterinarians without doing any good.
One nationally recognized vaccine researcher, Dr. Ronald Schultz, favors the law.
While rare, vaccines can cause adverse health affects in cats and dogs, said Schultz, an expert in animal vaccinations and chair of the department of pathobiological sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine.
"I favor anything that would better inform the potential buyer of what they need and what they're getting," he said in a telephone interview from his Wisconsin office.
A majority of veterinarians are already providing that information, but some are not, he said.
The thinking that vaccines are harmless is changing, Schultz said, adding that annual vaccinations don't help pets, and can hurt them. "For years we worked under a philosophy of 'if it doesn't help, (at least) it won't hurt.'"
What he called "an awakening" began in the 1980s when healthy cats given vaccines were getting cancer. "The odds were small, but if the odds are 1 in 1,000 that doesn't matter if it's your pet," he said.
The probability of dog vaccines causing cancer is lower than cats, he said. "But we're constantly learning. The wake-up call to the veterinarian profession was that vaccines create a risk. ... No matter how rare the adverse effects are, we don't want to give a product that's not needed."
Schultz said the veterinary profession has been using annual or biannual shots as a way to bring clients through the door for the more important exam. Convincing pet owners to come in by telling them their pets' annual or biannual shots are due should no longer be practiced, he said.
Schultz cited the newest guidelines from the American Animal Hospital Association, which in 2003 went from recommending annual distemper shots to one every three years. Under the guidelines, dogs and cats should receive core shots for rabies and distemper beginning at 12 weeks, a booster at one year, then boosters no more frequently than every three years. (Some central and western Maine veterinarians are following the recommendations, others are not. See related chart.)
All other vaccines are "optional," according to Schultz and the AAHA, and are based on the animal's lifestyle and risk. For instance, annual Lyme disease and heartworm vaccines may be important for pets living in areas where those diseases have been prevalent, but may not be necessary where they have not, he said.
Maine vets already informing
While not all researchers or veterinarians agree with Schultz, many acknowledge that the thinking regarding vaccines has changed in recent years, and that more vets are giving vaccinations less frequently.
"There's been a paradigm shift to greater focus on trying to encourage clients to see the importance of an examine and not vaccines, that vets aren't just for shots anymore," said Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of MVMA. Physical examinations at least once a year are important, he stressed, especially when considering that dogs and cats "age seven years on average for every year we age."
Part of that examination, Bryant said, involves making a recommendation on what vaccines a pet should have, based on the pet's lifestyle. For instance, a dog that is never with other animals may need less vaccine protection than one that goes to a doggie day care. An indoor cat needs less than one that roams outdoors.
In part because of that important relationship between a veterinarian and a pet owner, Bryant and at least some other Maine veterinarians remain wary of Christine's legislation. Veterinarians are already giving clients information on the risk of vaccines, he said. Central Maine Veterinary Hospital in Turner, for instance, asks pet owners to sign a vaccination consent form that outlines the concerns.
Dr. Susan Chadiman of Androscoggin Animal Hospital in Topsham said L.D. 429 is well intentioned and that the veterinarian's office "is the place for dialogue, for education." But she said she's against the bill because a mandated disclosure form would not enhance that.
"It would create a tremendous amount of paperwork," Chadiman said. "And a real concern is that it leaves wide open who's going to decide what is science, what is fact."
Christine, whose dog Meadow is now doing "very well," counters that science has already proven that the protective effects of pet vaccines last longer than even the newest recommendations. But she said her legislation is simply about a consumer's right to know.
"I think pet owners have a right to know what veterinarians know" about the effects and effectiveness of vaccines, she said.
No one would advocate giving a human a 10-year tetanus shot every two years, she said. Pet owners are consumers. "They need to know there's no benefit in giving their dogs booster shots more often ... and it does put them at increased risk for adverse side effects," she said.
The proposal
What: The bill says veterinarians "shall provide a vaccine disclosure form to the owner of a dog or cat before vaccinating that dog or cat. The vaccine disclosure form must provide information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines."
When: L.D. 429 will be heard before the legislative Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. The public hearing has been scheduled for 1 p.m. Monday, Feb. 28, in Room 206 of the State Office Building.
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/20050301145.php
For the dogs
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer
Tuesday, 1,2005
AUGUSTA - A public hearing Monday on a proposal to mandate consumers be given information about the risks and benefits of vaccines turned into a face-off, with no agreement between veterinarians and pet owners.
Veterinarians staunchly opposed legislators forcing them to give pet owners information about vaccines. They're already doing that, they said. And the science about adverse health risks from vaccines is "fluid," making it impossible to give good information, veterinarians said.
Pet owners and dog breeders who jammed into the standing-room-only hearing were on the other side of L.D. 429. They questioned why veterinarians were so opposed to giving out information.
With her little dog, Minnie, in her arms, Laura Moon of Brunswick said she favors the bill. Everyone was there because they love animals, she said. "That's why I think disclosure is so important. How as an owner, as a guardian, do you know if you don't know?"
When any activity raises potential harm, precautionary measures are warranted, even if the cause and effect are not fully understood, Moon said. "How can we make an informed decision if we don't have information?"
Joan Jordan, a dog breeder and dog obedience teacher from Woolwich, said she's seen dogs "that have had a vaccine that had had lumps and died. Personally I had a dog a couple of years ago I lost." Weeks after her dog had a vaccine, she underwent surgery and chemotherapy, she said, adding that 18 months later "Sarah" died.
When humans are prescribed medicine they're given information about possible risks, Jordan said. "I see no reason why the veterinarians feel that that's a threat to their services. ... What's the problem with us just knowing what the research is saying?"
Arnold Woolf of Lewiston, a breeder and dog judge, called the bill a "safeguard for dogs and cats." Years ago he sold a Collie puppy to a couple who took that puppy to their veterinarian. That veterinarian "re-inoculated the animal," giving shots the puppy already had. The dog died within 48 hours from a vaccine overdose, Woolf said. " That's what the autopsy showed."
Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They testified about how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats disease free, how their profession is under attack with inaccurate information.
Dr. Bill Bryant of Winthrop, past president of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, said veterinarians are strong proponents of education, but they're against the bill. Vaccine protocols have changed and will continue to change, he said. Experts disagree on the science of health risks, he said. With that science "fluid," Bryant asked who would write information in disclosures, and what set of research would be used?
Legislators should not mandate disclosure forms "for what is a rapidly evolving national veterinary issue that Maine veterinarians are actively addressing," Bryant said.
Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are among the most trusted professionals. Wade said he gives his clients numerous consent and information forms on many services, including vaccines, that show the benefits and side effects.
Most veterinarians are also doing that, he said. "There is no need for a state law to force us to do something we're already doing voluntarily. The bill is not a legislative issue," Wade said with a tone of annoyance. "The hidden agenda behind this bill is not for the protection of welfare for animals, but an attempt to further control an already ethical and trusted profession."
The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee will take up LD 429 in an unscheduled work session, possibly March 16, those attending the hearing were told.
http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/index.cfm?ID=10870
Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
By Kay Liss
A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday in Augusta. Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one hand and veterinarians opposed on the other.
The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.
She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed, extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years. Language exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.
This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an important next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with scientifically-based information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine vaccines, specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot, recommended annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she came upon information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for much longer than a year.
First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee at the hearing, Christine began: “Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health.”
Her testimony was bolstered by information from various authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading researcher and authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific basis of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.”
In the American Veterinarian Medical Association’s Principles of Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events” including “autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”
Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren, Jennifer Pearson, said she was “baffled” by the resistance of the veterinarians to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples’ rights are recognized to know the risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet owners be recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.
Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge, testified that the disclosure forms would provide a “safeguard” to dogs and cats. He added that he didn’t see why supplying such a disclosure form should be a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of the pros and cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay Sukforth of Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should welcome such a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.
Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a “period of transition” and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux that it would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure form. He said he didn’t want to turn “our profession” into managed care. He also accused the Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian community.
When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a Veterinary News magazine article “It’s time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it,” Bryant appeared hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised but did not support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian associations.
Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients information about vaccines so didn’t need to provide disclosure forms. A number claimed to be just like “James Herriot,” the well-known veterinarian and author of “All Creatures Great and Small” who has become a symbol of the ideal, trustworthy vet.
A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged legislators to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines, and that possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.
Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.
My Testimony
February 27, 2005
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms
My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Alna, Maine. Before I begin my testimony, I’d like to advise the committee that one of the world’s leading veterinary research scientists, Dr. W. Jean Dodds, wanted to be here today to testify in support of LD429, but could not do so because of prior commitments. With her permission, in the attachments to my testimony, I have included her letter to Representative Peter Rines dated February 17, 2005 (Attachment 5) resolutely endorsing this first-in-the-nation veterinary vaccine disclosure legislation.
I am here today to respectfully urge this committee to recommend passage of LD429 – An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms because pet owners need the scientifically proven durations of immunity (how long vaccines are effective for) in order to make informed medical choices for their animals.
Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health. The human equivalent would be physicians vaccinating patients against tetanus once every year, two years, or three years and not disclosing that the vaccines are known to be protective for 10 years.
For years veterinarians have sent pet owners annual, biennial and triennial reminders for redundant booster shots and justified it with vaccine manufacturers’ labeled recommendations. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6), “..revaccination frequency recommendations found on many vaccine labels is based on historical precedent, not on scientific data … [and] does not resolve the question about average or maximum duration of immunity [Page 2] and..may fail to adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product…[Page 4] .” As the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital states it: “…booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers.”
Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is at the forefront of vaccine research and is one of the world’s leading authorities on veterinary vaccines. His challenge study results form the scientific base of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (Attachment 7). These studies are based on science – they are not arbitrary. The public, however, cannot access this data. The American Animal Hospital Association only makes this report available to veterinarians, not private citizens, and Maine’s pet owners are unaware that the AAHA Guidelines state on Page 18 that: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.” They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been proven to protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years based on antibody count. So, unless the Legislature passes LD429 requiring veterinarians to provide vaccine disclosure forms, dog owners who receive an annual, biennial, or triennial reminders for booster shots will not know that nationally-accepted scientific studies have demonstrated that animals are protected a minimum of 7 years after vaccination with the distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2 vaccines (see Page 12 AAHA 2003 Guidelines attached, and Table 1, Pages 3 and 4).
"My own pets are vaccinated once or twice as pups and kittens, then never again except for rabies,” Wall Street Journal reporter Rhonda L. Rundle quoted Dr. Ronald Schultz in a July 31, 2002 article entitled Annual Pet Vaccinations may be Unnecessary, Fatal (Attachment 2). Dr. Schultz knows something the pet-owning public doesn’t – he knows there’s no benefit in overvaccinating animals because immunity is not enhanced, but the risk of harmful adverse reactions is increased. He also knows that most core veterinary vaccines are protective for at least seven years, if not for the lifetime of the animal.
The first entry under Appendix 2 of the AAHA Guidelines (Attachment 7) “Important Vaccination ‘Do’s and Don’ts” is “Do Not Vaccinate Needlessly – Don’t revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines that prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk.” They also caution veterinarians: “Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient – Vaccines are potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of producing adverse events.” Very few pet owners have had this disclosed to them.
The AVMA’s Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6) states that “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events.” (page 2) They elaborate by reporting that: “Possible adverse events include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”(Page 2)
Referring to adverse reactions from vaccines, the Wall Street Journal article cited above (Attachment 2) reports: “In cats there has been a large increase in hyperthyroidism and cancerous tumors between the shoulder blades where vaccines typically are injected.” With modified live virus vaccines (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis), some animals can actually contract the same disease which they are being inoculated against. If the public knew an animal’s immunity to disease is not increased by overvaccination, they would certainly not consent to expose their pets to potential harm by giving them excessive booster shots
Veterinary vaccines are potent biologic drugs – most having proven durations of immunity much longer than the annual, biennial or triennial booster frequencies recommended by vaccine manufacturers and veterinarians. They also carry the very real risk of serious adverse side affects and should not be administered more often than necessary to maintain immunity.
The extended durations of immunity for vaccines is not “new” or “recent” science as some members of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) have claimed. AAHA reveals on Page 2 of their Guidelines that ideal reduced vaccination protocols were recommended by vaccinology experts beginning in 1978. A Veterinary Practice News article entitled “Managing Vaccine Changes” (Attachment
3) by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reports that: “Change has been discussed for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country
According to a September 1, 2004 article in the DVM veterinary news magazine (Attachment 1), the 312 member Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) “champions full disclosure of vaccine
information to pet owners.” MVMA president, Dr. Bill Bryant, is quoted as stating: “Its time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it.”
It is time. Pet owners have the right to know the scientifically proven durations of immunity for the veterinary vaccines given their animals, as well as the potential adverse side effects and benefits. LD 429 would make that standardized information available to all pet owners.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4448558/detail.html
Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm Than Good
POSTED: 9:00 am PDT May 4, 2005
LOS ANGELES -- Many people get their pets vaccinated every year for health and protection.
Pet Vaccinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pet Vaccinations: More Harm Than Good?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it possible those same vaccinations could be harming your pet or worse? Some veterinarians are starting to look more closely at those claims, reported NBC4's David Cruz. Today, Molly is a playful 4-year-old Basenji, but at 2 years old, she was covered in sores and fighting for life. "She was dying," her owners told NBC4. "Laying in her bed, she wouldn't get up. She would hardly eat."
Doctors were baffled by the dog's mystery illness until they narrowed it down to a most likely cause, a severe reaction to multiple vaccines, given at the rescue shelter where her owners adopted her. "What I understand now is that that can potentially overload the immune system," said Molly's owner. You do not need to vaccinate your pet every year and it may not be safe to do so, reported NBC4's Cruz. One veterinarian told NBC4 that millions of pets get booster shots every year, for everything from rabies and distemper to parvovirus and lyme disease, and most suffer no ill effects.
But these days, many veterinarians are taking a "less is better" approach.
People often are so hysterical, they put the animals to sleep because it's an acute vaccine reaction and has to be treated rapidly to have the animal recover, but then you don't vaccinate again because the next one could kill the animal, the veterinarian said. One Los Angeles veterinarian said vaccines can remain effective for years without booster shots.
He did a survey of more than 100,000 dogs that were vaccinated once for distemper and parvovirus. In every case, those who were tested and did not get boosters have remained healthy. Overvaccination has been suspected in causing tumors in some cats and immune problems in dogs. One family said their Yorkshire Terrier, Nicky, nearly died after an annual series of booster shots. "She couldn't breathe well, she was weak, limp," a family member said. "She was going to die. They said she probably wouldn't pull through it."
After $6,000 in medical fees and a week in intensive care, Nicky pulled through. Doctors suspect an adverse vaccine reaction. "You bring your dog in because you're trying to keep her healthy, and a week later you find out you almost killed her," the family member said. One doctor told NBC4 that if you're getting your pet vaccinated, here's a simple plan: Start with the basics, rabies, distemper and parvovirus, then consult with your vet. The doctor said German shepherds, rottweilers and poodles are at higher risk for adverse vaccine reactions, as are older pets.
Concerned pet owners with questions are encouraged to consult with their veterinarian.
News about the pet vaccine issue is spreading rapidly and getting more national coverage. NBC's Boston station, WHDH-7 News, sent journalist Christina Mattingly and her cameraman to Alna to interview us as part of a pet vaccine story they are running Wednesday night at 11:00 p.m., May 18th. If you don't have access to the broadcast, you should be able to read the transcript of the story on their website http://www1.whdh.com/ after it airs .
Below are three recent stories on the issue:
Vaccination often Good for Life: http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-lspets4251551may09,0,3030875.column?coll=ny-main-tabheads
No Vaccines for us this Year: http://blogs.mainetoday.com/dogslife/001539.shtml
Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm than Good (NBC Channel 4 Los Angeles) http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4448558/detail.html
BL Fisher Note;
The veterinarians are starting to get it: too many vaccines are unhealthy
for dogs and cats and some are genetically more vulnerable than others for
vaccine induced immune and brain system damage. Too bad pediatrician's don't
get it: too many vaccines are unhealthy for children and some children are
genetically more vulnerable than others for vaccine induced immune and brain
system damage.
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3408959&nav=0RaPaSJX
WisTV.com
Veterinarian warns over-vaccination can harm pets
(Undated-NBC) May 30, 2005 - If you love your pet, you take him to the vet for a checkup each year. And that usually includes a round of vaccinations.
But some animal experts say that annual vaccination could be harmful to your pet.
Mollie Mae is a playful four-year-old Basenji. But at two-years-old, Mollie Mae was covered in sores and fighting for life. Sherri Crispin is the dog's owner, "She was really dying. She was laying in her bed. She wouldn't get up. She wouldn't eat." Sherri Crispin says the doctors were baffled by her dog's mystery illness, until they narrowed it down to a most likely cause, a severe reaction to multiple vaccines given at the rescue shelter where Sherri adopted her, "What I understand now is that can potentially overload the immune system." Jean Dodds, a veterinarian, understands the dangers of vaccinations, "You do not need to vaccinate animals every year and it may not be safe to do so." Immunologist and veterinarian Jean Dodds says millions of pets get booster shots every year for everything from rabies and distemper to parvo virus and
lyme disease. Most suffer no ill effects, but these days, many veterinarians are taking a less is better approach, "People are often so hysterical that they put the animals to sleep because it's an acute vaccine reaction and has to be treated rapidly to have the animal recover. And then you don't
vaccinate again because the next vaccine could kill the animal."
Los Angeles veterinarian Rick Palmquist says vaccines can remain effective for years, without booster shots. He did a survey of over 100,000 dogs who were vaccinated once for distemper and parvo virus. In every case, those who were tested and did not get boosters have remained healthy, "The vaccine was doing what we wanted it to do without causing increased illness from overuse."
Over-vaccination has been suspected in causing tumors in some cats and immune problems in dogs. Doctor Palmquist says if you're getting your pet vaccinated, here's a simple plan. Start with the basics like rabies, distemper, and parvo virus, and then consult with your vet.
Pet owners who say they've seen the results of one shot too many couldn't agree more. You also need to be aware of local pet laws when considering whether or not to have your pet vaccinated yearly. Doctor Palmquist says that German shepherds, rottweilers, and poodles seem to be at higher risk for adverse vaccine reactions. If you're concerned. Talk it over with your vet.
Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm Than Good
POSTED: 9:00 am PDT May 4, 2005
LOS ANGELES -- Many people get their pets vaccinated every year for health and protection.
Pet Vaccinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pet Vaccinations: More Harm Than Good?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it possible those same vaccinations could be harming your pet or worse? Some veterinarians are starting to look more closely at those claims, reported NBC4's David Cruz. Today, Molly is a playful 4-year-old Basenji, but at 2 years old, she was covered in sores and fighting for life. "She was dying," her owners told NBC4. "Laying in her bed, she wouldn't get up. She would hardly eat."
Doctors were baffled by the dog's mystery illness until they narrowed it down to a most likely cause, a severe reaction to multiple vaccines, given at the rescue shelter where her owners adopted her. "What I understand now is that that can potentially overload the immune system," said Molly's owner. You do not need to vaccinate your pet every year and it may not be safe to do so, reported NBC4's Cruz. One veterinarian told NBC4 that millions of pets get booster shots every year, for everything from rabies and distemper to parvovirus and lyme disease, and most suffer no ill effects.
But these days, many veterinarians are taking a "less is better" approach.
People often are so hysterical, they put the animals to sleep because it's an acute vaccine reaction and has to be treated rapidly to have the animal recover, but then you don't vaccinate again because the next one could kill the animal, the veterinarian said. One Los Angeles veterinarian said vaccines can remain effective for years without booster shots.
He did a survey of more than 100,000 dogs that were vaccinated once for distemper and parvovirus. In every case, those who were tested and did not get boosters have remained healthy. Overvaccination has been suspected in causing tumors in some cats and immune problems in dogs. One family said their Yorkshire Terrier, Nicky, nearly died after an annual series of booster shots. "She couldn't breathe well, she was weak, limp," a family member said. "She was going to die. They said she probably wouldn't pull through it."
After $6,000 in medical fees and a week in intensive care, Nicky pulled through. Doctors suspect an adverse vaccine reaction. "You bring your dog in because you're trying to keep her healthy, and a week later you find out you almost killed her," the family member said. One doctor told NBC4 that if you're getting your pet vaccinated, here's a simple plan: Start with the basics, rabies, distemper and parvovirus, then consult with your vet. The doctor said German shepherds, rottweilers and poodles are at higher risk for adverse vaccine reactions, as are older pets.
Concerned pet owners with questions are encouraged to consult with their veterinarian.
News about the pet vaccine issue is spreading rapidly and getting more national coverage. NBC's Boston station, WHDH-7 News, sent journalist Christina Mattingly and her cameraman to Alna to interview us as part of a pet vaccine story they are running Wednesday night at 11:00 p.m., May 18th. If you don't have access to the broadcast, you should be able to read the transcript of the story on their website http://www1.whdh.com/ after it airs .
Below are three recent stories on the issue:
Vaccination often Good for Life: http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-lspets4251551may09,0,3030875.column?coll=ny-main-tabheads
No Vaccines for us this Year: http://blogs.mainetoday.com/dogslife/001539.shtml
Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm than Good (NBC Channel 4 Los Angeles) http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4448558/detail.html
BL Fisher Note;
The veterinarians are starting to get it: too many vaccines are unhealthy
for dogs and cats and some are genetically more vulnerable than others for
vaccine induced immune and brain system damage. Too bad pediatrician's don't
get it: too many vaccines are unhealthy for children and some children are
genetically more vulnerable than others for vaccine induced immune and brain
system damage.
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3408959&nav=0RaPaSJX
WisTV.com
Veterinarian warns over-vaccination can harm pets
(Undated-NBC) May 30, 2005 - If you love your pet, you take him to the vet for a checkup each year. And that usually includes a round of vaccinations.
But some animal experts say that annual vaccination could be harmful to your pet.
Mollie Mae is a playful four-year-old Basenji. But at two-years-old, Mollie Mae was covered in sores and fighting for life. Sherri Crispin is the dog's owner, "She was really dying. She was laying in her bed. She wouldn't get up. She wouldn't eat." Sherri Crispin says the doctors were baffled by her dog's mystery illness, until they narrowed it down to a most likely cause, a severe reaction to multiple vaccines given at the rescue shelter where Sherri adopted her, "What I understand now is that can potentially overload the immune system." Jean Dodds, a veterinarian, understands the dangers of vaccinations, "You do not need to vaccinate animals every year and it may not be safe to do so." Immunologist and veterinarian Jean Dodds says millions of pets get booster shots every year for everything from rabies and distemper to parvo virus and
lyme disease. Most suffer no ill effects, but these days, many veterinarians are taking a less is better approach, "People are often so hysterical that they put the animals to sleep because it's an acute vaccine reaction and has to be treated rapidly to have the animal recover. And then you don't
vaccinate again because the next vaccine could kill the animal."
Los Angeles veterinarian Rick Palmquist says vaccines can remain effective for years, without booster shots. He did a survey of over 100,000 dogs who were vaccinated once for distemper and parvo virus. In every case, those who were tested and did not get boosters have remained healthy, "The vaccine was doing what we wanted it to do without causing increased illness from overuse."
Over-vaccination has been suspected in causing tumors in some cats and immune problems in dogs. Doctor Palmquist says if you're getting your pet vaccinated, here's a simple plan. Start with the basics like rabies, distemper, and parvo virus, and then consult with your vet.
Pet owners who say they've seen the results of one shot too many couldn't agree more. You also need to be aware of local pet laws when considering whether or not to have your pet vaccinated yearly. Doctor Palmquist says that German shepherds, rottweilers, and poodles seem to be at higher risk for adverse vaccine reactions. If you're concerned. Talk it over with your vet.
Plenty of people have serious issues with the way dogs and cats are being vaccinated and there are some pretty rigid vets out there. The Truth About Vaccines yahoogroup is full of people dealing with those issues.
On the other hand, right after I learned that my son had been OD'd on thimerosal - I was at the vet's office with our cat who had just been diagnosed with diabetes and told the vet the whole story. She flipped out (she was pregnant at the time) went into the med room brought out all the vaccines she was using and we picked out all those with thimerosal and calculated the doses the kittens and puppies were getting. She started crying and I thought for a second she was really going to lose it. Our vet immediately put two and two together and got really upset about all the seizure disorders she was treating, all the diabetes, all the skin disorders, ... Several months later she declined to vaccinate her baby.
The Charlotte Observer June 10, 2006 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/14786163.htm
Vaccine maker recalls rabies dosesVeterinarians to notify pet owners about shots
STELLA M. HOPKINSshopkins@charlotteobserver.comA leading rabies vaccine manufacturer has voluntarily recalled about 330,000 doses sold nationwide after a vaccinated dog contracted the deadly disease.
"They don't know why ... the animal contracted rabies," said Kelly Goss, a spokeswoman for Fort Dodge Animal Health, based in Overland Park, Kan., and a division of health care giant Wyeth. "In the best interest of pet owners and animals, we made a decision to voluntarily recall that product."
The company mailed notices to veterinarians on May 25, and will reimburse them for revaccination, Goss said. Doctors are notifying pet owners to bring in animals for free shots.
Fort Dodge began selling the recalled batch in January 2005. Goss didn't know how many vets bought the problem lot. Fort Dodge tested batches of vaccine with serial numbers issued around that of the affected lot and found no problems, she said.
Animals at greatest risk are outdoor pets and those such as puppies and kittens, who received the recalled medication as their first and only vaccination, said Dr. Steve Marks of the N.C. State University College of Veterinary Medicine in Raleigh.
"If that initial vaccination did not work, then they're ... at risk for rabies," he said.
Notified pet owners should act quickly to have their animal revaccinated, Marks said, but he cautioned against panic.
"Just call your veterinarian if you're in doubt," he said.
What This Means to Pet Owners
Fort Dodge Animal Health recalled rabies vaccine Rabvac 3 TF, serial number 873113A. Your vet should notify you if your pet was vaccinated with the problem batch. You can also check the rabies certificate that you should have received, which lists the manufacturer and serial number.
On the other hand, right after I learned that my son had been OD'd on thimerosal - I was at the vet's office with our cat who had just been diagnosed with diabetes and told the vet the whole story. She flipped out (she was pregnant at the time) went into the med room brought out all the vaccines she was using and we picked out all those with thimerosal and calculated the doses the kittens and puppies were getting. She started crying and I thought for a second she was really going to lose it. Our vet immediately put two and two together and got really upset about all the seizure disorders she was treating, all the diabetes, all the skin disorders, ... Several months later she declined to vaccinate her baby.
The Charlotte Observer June 10, 2006 http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/14786163.htm
Vaccine maker recalls rabies dosesVeterinarians to notify pet owners about shots
STELLA M. HOPKINSshopkins@charlotteobserver.comA leading rabies vaccine manufacturer has voluntarily recalled about 330,000 doses sold nationwide after a vaccinated dog contracted the deadly disease.
"They don't know why ... the animal contracted rabies," said Kelly Goss, a spokeswoman for Fort Dodge Animal Health, based in Overland Park, Kan., and a division of health care giant Wyeth. "In the best interest of pet owners and animals, we made a decision to voluntarily recall that product."
The company mailed notices to veterinarians on May 25, and will reimburse them for revaccination, Goss said. Doctors are notifying pet owners to bring in animals for free shots.
Fort Dodge began selling the recalled batch in January 2005. Goss didn't know how many vets bought the problem lot. Fort Dodge tested batches of vaccine with serial numbers issued around that of the affected lot and found no problems, she said.
Animals at greatest risk are outdoor pets and those such as puppies and kittens, who received the recalled medication as their first and only vaccination, said Dr. Steve Marks of the N.C. State University College of Veterinary Medicine in Raleigh.
"If that initial vaccination did not work, then they're ... at risk for rabies," he said.
Notified pet owners should act quickly to have their animal revaccinated, Marks said, but he cautioned against panic.
"Just call your veterinarian if you're in doubt," he said.
What This Means to Pet Owners
Fort Dodge Animal Health recalled rabies vaccine Rabvac 3 TF, serial number 873113A. Your vet should notify you if your pet was vaccinated with the problem batch. You can also check the rabies certificate that you should have received, which lists the manufacturer and serial number.
This is my tiny dog Bruzer, who just turned 9 years old. Sweetest nature, and v...ery timid. He was almost killed by overvaccination. After we paid the $4,000 bill for his operation, the Veteranarian admitted it was the vaccine that caused it... but only AFTER we paid the bill.
Vaccines are bad for people too! VERY BAD. My sister, as it turns out, was taken down by a vaccine, the sacred polio vaccine. She used to be normal and after the vaccine, was diagnosed with "severe mental retardation". They're calling it autism now. My mother was vaccinated and had a stroke shortly afterwards, my father was given a flu vaccine and came down with the flu (his first sickness ever), my husband checked into the hospital for a pulled muscle and the doctor kept insisting on vaccinating him to the point of his checking out early, cause he was informed that "sometimes they don't ask" and feared they would vaccinate him while he slept.
Please inform Doctors about the true perills of vaccines and never accept one, especially for your child.
~ Here is a website for beginners: http://www.NVIC.org/
~ Another for advanced http://VaccineResistanceMovement.org/
~ One dedicated just to informing parents about the dangers of the deadly HPV, Gardasil vaccine http://TruthAboutGardasil.org/
Say, "NO VACCINE FOR ME!" and mean it.
Ask your legislators to sponsor this bill, "ALL VACCINES ARE BANNED". http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/all-vaccines-are-banned/
As Dawn MacDonald of Canada says, "Children are our future. Stop hurting them deliberately!" I'm with her.
By: Sallie Elkordy
Vaccines are bad for people too! VERY BAD. My sister, as it turns out, was taken down by a vaccine, the sacred polio vaccine. She used to be normal and after the vaccine, was diagnosed with "severe mental retardation". They're calling it autism now. My mother was vaccinated and had a stroke shortly afterwards, my father was given a flu vaccine and came down with the flu (his first sickness ever), my husband checked into the hospital for a pulled muscle and the doctor kept insisting on vaccinating him to the point of his checking out early, cause he was informed that "sometimes they don't ask" and feared they would vaccinate him while he slept.
Please inform Doctors about the true perills of vaccines and never accept one, especially for your child.
~ Here is a website for beginners: http://www.NVIC.org/
~ Another for advanced http://VaccineResistanceMovement.org/
~ One dedicated just to informing parents about the dangers of the deadly HPV, Gardasil vaccine http://TruthAboutGardasil.org/
Say, "NO VACCINE FOR ME!" and mean it.
Ask your legislators to sponsor this bill, "ALL VACCINES ARE BANNED". http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/all-vaccines-are-banned/
As Dawn MacDonald of Canada says, "Children are our future. Stop hurting them deliberately!" I'm with her.
By: Sallie Elkordy
Has Your Pet Recently Had This Vaccine? Watch Out for These Symptoms…
By Dr. Becker
Earlier this year, a local ABC affiliate in Chicago, ABC7 Eyewitness News, decided to investigate dog owner claims (no mention of how many) that vaccine side effects had caused harm to their pets.1
According to Julie Harding, owner of a 4-year-old Vizsla, her pet suddenly became violent and vicious, foamed at the mouth, thrashed about, and suffered unexplained seizures. The woman took her dog, Piper, to a veterinary neurologist who diagnosed her with autoimmune meningitis.
Meningitis is a life-threatening disease characterized by inflammation of the layers that protect the brain and spinal cord. In the autoimmune form of the disease, the body manufactures antibodies against its own tissues, producing a massive inflammatory response.
Piper Had Recently Received the Leptospirosis Vaccine The veterinary neurologist asked Harding if her dog had been vaccinated recently, and learned that indeed, Piper had just received the leptospirosis vaccine. The neurologist noted in Piper’s paperwork that her brain swelling could have been triggered by the vaccine and her predisposition to allergic conditions.
According to the ABC7 reporters (who apparently contacted other veterinary specialists for their story), “Veterinary neurologists say it was unusual to receive Piper’s case and four others possibly linked to one vaccine within a month-and-a-half.”
Predictably, when the reporters contacted the vaccine manufacturer they were told that “Each suspected adverse reaction was thoroughly reviewed and no causal association between the vaccine and the Chicago cases was found.”
So if I understand this correctly… within 6 weeks’ time, 5 dogs in the Chicago area who received a recent vaccination against leptospirosis were taken to veterinary neurologists suffering symptoms consistent with autoimmune meningitis… and the vaccine manufacturer would have us believe there is “no causal association.”
Let’s just say I’m not convinced. And apparently neither is Dr. Michael Podell, a Chicago-area veterinary neurologist and neurosurgeon, who told ABC7, "In the last year to year-and-a-half, we have seen more cases in this practice related to dogs who have recently been vaccinated. We are trying to understand what the risks are."
Leading Vaccine Expert ‘Very Disappointed’ with Amount of Vaccines Still Being Given The ABC7 reporters also consulted my friend Dr. Ronald Schultz, a world-renowned expert in the field of veterinary vaccines and an immunologist at the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Schultz is currently heading up the Rabies Challenge Fund to determine the duration of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccines.
Dr. Schultz told ABC7 he questions the need to vaccinate so often. "It's very disappointing to me to still have distemper, parvo, and adno [adenovirus] given every year when we know it provides a life of immunity," he said.
This is especially true since the latest canine vaccination guidelines, updated four years ago, call for extending the time between core vaccines from one year to three years, while also acknowledging that immunity lasts at least 5 years for distemper and parvo, and at least 7 years for adenovirus. This is essentially an admission that even the new 3-year interval guideline is overkill.
Unfortunately, two full years after the new guidelines were published, over half of veterinarians were still doing unnecessary, potentially dangerous annual re-vaccinations. As Dr. Schultz explained to ABC7, vaccinating an already-immune animal may cause a hypersensitivity reaction.
Many of This Holistic Vet’s Patients Receive Only the Rabies Vaccine After Their First Year ABC7 also talked with my good friend Dr. Barbara Royal, who owns the Royal Treatment Veterinary Center in Chicago.
Dr. Royal, like most holistic veterinarians, opts to use antibody titer tests to measure a pet’s immunity vs. automatic vaccinations. She says that aside from the required-by-law rabies vaccine, many of her patients no longer receive vaccinations past their puppy/kitten shots and boosters at one year. She believes those animals are now healthier.
"Someone makes a vaccine and we all have to give it, but the efficacy and the safety of those vaccines is not necessarily that well researched," Dr. Royal said.
During their investigation, the ABC7 reporters discovered that if a dog has an adverse reaction to a vaccine, veterinarians are not required to report it to the manufacturer or the government, although many do.
The All-or-Nothing Vaccine Trap ABC7 also received a statement from the American Veterinary Medical Association for their story:
"While adverse reactions can occur, they are extremely rare, and the benefits far outweigh the risks. Vaccination is the primary reason why deadly diseases like rabies, distemper, parvovirus, and panleukopenia have become much less common in US pets. Pet owners should talk with their veterinarians about any concerns they have regarding vaccines, and to determine the best vaccination plan for each individual pet."
This statement reflects an all-or-nothing trap many people who should know better seem to fall into.
Those of us who refuse to give unnecessary vaccines understand the value of core vaccines for puppies and kittens. We aren’t advocating a “do nothing and hope for the best” approach. We are advocates of giving the absolute minimum number of vaccines to protect young animals from life-threatening illness, and treating each animal as an individual in assessing what vaccines he or she needs, and how often, throughout their lives. In most cases, revaccination of adult animals is rarely indicated.
In my personal experience, adverse vaccine reactions aren’t all that rare. Julie Harding, loving owner of a 4-year-old dog who now has autoimmune meningitis, probably doesn’t think so either.
Additional Information About the Leptospirosis Vaccine The leptospirosis vaccine is a bacterin -- a vaccine made from killed bacteria, which in and of itself won’t prompt an immune response to make antibodies, so a powerful adjuvant (usually a heavy metal such as aluminum or mercury, aka thimerosal) is added that elicits a strong immune system response. Because of this, it also carries a significantly greater risk for adverse reactions.
I feel that because my profession is testing for leptospirosis -- an ancient endemic infection -- more frequently, we’re finding more positive animals. As a result, we’re fostering a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety in pet owners over a bacterium that is far from a “new risk” for dogs. In fact, it’s been in the environment since the beginning of time.
Unfortunately, many vets are still promoting repeated vaccinations for all pets, despite the significant risks associated with unnecessary revaccination. Further, a lepto infection is entirely treatable. So, my question is, why vaccinate for something that’s one hundred percent treatable? I’ve handled about a dozen cases of lepto in my career and have never had a dog experience any lingering problems from the infection. I recommend you skip the leptospirosis vaccine.
If you live in a lepto-endemic area, make sure your dog’s immune system is strong, and you can certainly go the extra mile by taking precautions to insure your pet doesn’t have an opportunity to be exposed to the leptospirosis bacteria.
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2015/06/10/vaccine-adverse-reaction.aspx?e_cid=20150603Z1_PetsNL_artTest_HP1&utm_source=petsnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=artTest_HP1&utm_campaign=20150603Z1&et_cid=DM76171&et_rid=976295279
