Canine Vaccination News

Following is Dr. Rogers' letter

I am not in the habit of explaining myself. Here are the facts as I see

them. I have done what I believe a Doctor of Medicine should do. I obtain

over 100 hours of CE every year, including about four hours each year on

vaccinations. I read peer reviewed journals, with what I

believe is a healthy skepticism. I do not get my CE from drug companies or

their adds. I adopt what I have learned into my practice, and try to keep

my recommendations to my clients based on current evidence based

information.

Fourteen years ago I watched Veterinarians embrace Corona vaccine for adult

dogs, in spite of the fact that no one I know had ever seen a case, and in

spite of the fact that TAMU did not adopt this vaccine into their

recommendations. I called R&D at the vaccine manufacturer

and asked why they were marketing corona vaccine for adult dogs when Dr Ron

Schultz said dogs over 8 weeks of age were not sucesceptable. The Technical

Service Vet agreed with Dr Ron Schultz and told me the vaccine was intended

for use ONLY in breeding operations where

puppies were demonstrated to have a problem with the virus, and that

marketing does not listen to R&D. I asked the Texas State Board to

encourage DVMs to get CE on this subject and was rebuffed. For fourteen

years I have hoped my colleagues would come around. Instead I have watched

as fibrosarcoma cases rose to 22,000 per year and Lyme disease and Lepto

are marketed in areas of the country where there has never been a case. I

watch as even more questionable vaccines come out, like Bordatella for cats

and Giardia vaccine.

While attending conferences like WSVMA and NAVMC I have asked over 400 DVMs

from various parts of the country if they attended the seminars on New

Vaccination Protocols. I was told by all but one, "I don't care what the

data says, I am not changing." One DVM here on VIN even said "I am not

changing until the AVMA makes me change."

I tried to work within the system. I asked the Local VMA to have Alice Wolf

or Richard Ford speak. I was told three years in a row, "No, it is an

unpopular subject." I asked the TVMA to

have seminars and finally after three years they agreed and had Dr Alice

Wolf and Dr Richard Ford. Very few DVMs changed their protocols, and very

few (40 out of 1400 in attendance, and no State Board members) came to hear

Dr Ford. I have seen Dr Ford come all the way from North

Carolina to speak to eight DVMs in a Greyhound bus terminal and two DVMs

walked out on him.

I joined the TVMA Companion Animal Committee. At the first meeting I said "

I believe Veterinarians have one of the best public images of any

Profession. I think that it is in the best interest of our profession for

our clients to hear about the new vaccination

recommendations from their own DVMs first, rather than from the press as

had already happened in Great Brittain." Two committee members said they

did not care what the data said, they were not changing their protocols.

Two days later I was kicked off the committee and told "My viewpoint would

tend to alienate members." The next year an Ex President of the TVMA said

"A difference of opinion should be a mere speed bump to serve to make us

stop and think," and he urged the TVMA to let me be on the committee, but

again I was refused.

I waited patiently for the AAFP to revise their guidelines only to see one

DVM from a drug company prevail with annual FeLV vaccine recommendations

over the majority on the committee who were in favor of every three years.

I waited patiently for the AVMA-COBTA to revise their recommendations. They

completely ignored my request to address age related immunity and Corona

vaccine. They got off to a good start in what they said in Salt Lake City

in July 2000, but eventually yielded to political pressure and even did a

180 on some recommendations, based on politics and not science. The end

result , Principals of Vaccination, is so ambiguous that only someone who

has studied all the data first could understand what they are saying.

It is hard for me to keep euthanizing fibrosarcoma cats and comforting

distraught owners. I am annoyed by having to respond to numerous State

Board complaints by my competitors about my

recommendations, when I am conscientiously trying to do the right thing.

I have gone to the Texas State Board in Austin three times, and written

them six letters simply asking them to encourage Veterinarians to obtain CE

on this subject. They did not read the

journal articles I sent them, they did not read my letters. Instead one

State Board member told me at the meeting, that he could vaccinate a

clients pet every week for twenty two years and nobody could tell him not

to.

In the mean time Pfizer comes through, buying fajitas for DVMS, citing

references from the 60's and 70's on vaccines that are not even on the

market anymore, while omitting all the new research and data. They conclude

by telling the audience just what they wanted to hear, keep vaccinating

every year for every disease.

On VIN I saw the futility of trying to point out to Veterinarians that the

data does exist and asking them to consider the ethical side of what they

were doing. I did, however get a dozen e-mails from DVMs on VIN who agreed

with my views on new vaccination protocols, so I started a support group

for DVMs who had already changed their recommendations, to share data,

logistics and mostly moral support. That is where I got the idea to offer

seminars. I invited 600 DVMs to these seminars, and only seven attended.

Some came only to heckle me or try to commandeer my audience. I offered

free seminars to every local VMA in Texas with only one taker. I also

offered my seminars to dog clubs and the public. As it happened, there were

pet fanciers who

already knew more about this than most Veterinarians as well as government

officials, attorneys, and members of the press in attendance.

Recently I euthanized another cat with a fibrosarcoma. I witnessed the

large bills on two dogs with IMHA in my care, (fortunately doing well). I

also spoke with a distraught dog owner who's 12 week old, 2 lb Chihuahua

was administered DHLPP, and possibly because of the immunosuppression of

the lepto, developed vaccinal distemper encephalitis, kidney and liver

failure and was euthanized. It is my understanding that lepto should not be

given to dogs less than 16 weeks of age, as it is immunosuppressive. My

wife and I have two new dogs, to which we have already become very attached

and derive a great deal of pleasure from. Either of us would

be distraught if our pets died from an adverse reaction to a vaccine that

was unnecessary. (There are only an average of 11 cases of lepto on Texas

each year, and dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to corona

disease.) I think the public has a right to

know.

. Our practice act says: Veterinarians shall conduct their practice with

honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Veterinarians shall expose without

fear dishonest conduct in the profession. It is the right of any

Veterinarian to, without fear, give proper advise to those seeking relief

against unfaithful or negligent veterinary services. I know that I will

suffer repercussions from this article, and my complaints to the Attorney

General, and it all might end up on the

bottom of a birdcage. I am motivated only by my compassion for the pets and

their owners

There are institutions in place to promote high standards of the practice

of Veterinary Medicine. Ford and Firestone; Enron, Arthur Anderson and the

SEC; and the Catholic Church have done a poor job of addressing their

ethical challenges. Neither the leaders of our profession, nor the

followers learned anything from the mistakes of others. The press cries out

"Where was the SEC? Where were the auditors? Where were the Board of

Directors ?" The AVMA, USDA,

State and local VMAs, the State Boards and their requirements for CE, as

well as the individual Veterinarians of our profession have all been

inadequate in dealing with this ethical challenge. My letters to each of

these institutions were ignored. It saddens me greatly to see this issue

settled in the press or in the courts. From Harry Potter "It takes a great

deal of courage to stand up to your enemies. It takes even greater courage

to stand up to your friends."

What kind of example do we set for the new graduates who are taught new

vaccination protocols in school, when they come out and go to work for us?

That the Ivory Tower Proffs don't know what they are talking about, or that

it is acceptable to mislead our clients? That we should all have

unquestioning loyalty to our collegues, keep quite about our little

secrets, cover things up, and that it is not acceptable to be a "snitch"?

I start out all of my seminars and talks with the press by saying, "I

believe that there are 6000 Veterinarians in Texas who are honest, ethical

people. I have classmates I highly admire. However, these same people are

avoiding learning about and acting on the new vaccination protocols. The

problem with learning is that sometimes what you learn doesn't make you

happy, or make you more money."

Emotional reactions by DVMs will attempt to make me the bad guy.

Veterinarians have brought this on themselves. By avoiding the Journals and

Seminars for seven years and failing to act in their own best interest, the

Veterinary profession has put themselves in a position where the public can

say anything that they want about them.

Some try to put a spin on my intentions as being self-serving. I am doing

what is in the best interest of the pets I went to Vet School to learn to

help and the people who love them. I don't look for fights, I don't walk

away from them either. Trying to shift the focus by making personal attacks

on me, and all the Round- up in Texas will not make the ethical challenge

we face go away.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most

intelligent , but the one most responsive to change." Charles Darwin

The only constant is change. It is imperative that we learn how to cope

with change.

I have been referred to as the devil, and worse I am sure. As Harry Truman

said, "I don't give `em hell, I just tell the truth and it feels like

hell."

Sincerely,

Bob Rogers DVM

Critter Fixer Pet Hospital

Spring,Texas

April 17,

2002

Office of the Attorney General

Consumer Protection Division

Box 12548

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Dear Sirs,

I hereby file a complaint against all licensed Veterinarians engaged

in companion animal practice in the State of Texas for violation of

the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 573.26 which states: Licensed

veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity,

and fair dealing to clients in time and services rendered, and in the

amount charged for services, facilities, appliances and drugs.

I assert that the present practice of marketing of vaccinations for

companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by

silence, theft by deception, and undue influence by all Veterinarians

engaged in companion animal practice in this state.

Recommending, administering, and charging for Canine Corona

vaccinations for adult dogs is fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by

silence, theft by deception, and undue influence given the literature

that states:

Dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to canine corona

virus disease.

Disease produced by canine corona virus has never been demonstrated

in adult dogs.

Dogs over eight weeks of age that are immunized against canine

parvovirus will not develop symptoms of canine corona virus disease.

Addition of an unnecessary antigen to the vaccination protocol will

result in a lesser immunity to the important diseases like parvovirus

and distemper, and increase the risk of adverse reactions.

Immunologists doubt that Canine corona virus vaccine works, as it

would require secretory mucosal IgA antibodies to protect against

corona virus and a parenteral vaccine does not accomplish this very

well.

Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Texas A&M

University do not recommend canine corona virus vaccine.

Gastroenteroligists at Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Dr

Michael Willard at Texas A&M University have stated that they have

only seen one case of corona virus disease in a dog in ten years.

On several occasions large numbers of dogs have died from adverse

reactions to corona virus vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect corona virus vaccination for an

adult dog if presented this information.

Page 2 of 6

Recommending, administering, and charging for re-administration of

modified live vaccines like Canine Distemper, Canine Parvovirus,

Feline Panleukopenia, injectable Feline Rhinotracheitis, and

injectable Feline Calicivirus on an semi-annual, annual, bi-annual or

tri-annual basis is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation,

misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the

literature that states:

1. The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts

that there is no scientific data to support label claims for annual

re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must be

backed by scientific data.

2. It is the consensus of immunologist that a modified live

virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system,

and antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the replication

of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not

enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client

is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except that

the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse

reaction.

3. A temporal association has been demonstrated between

vaccinations and the development of Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia.

4. It has been demonstrated that the duration of immunity for

Canine Distemper virus is 7 years by challenge, and 15 years by

serology; for Canine Parvovirus is 7 years by challenge, for Feline

Panleukopenia, Rhinotracheitis, and Feline Calicivirus is 7.5 years

by challenge.

5. A reasonable client would not elect re-administration of any

of the above stated vaccinations for a previously immunized pet if

provided with the above information.

The recommendation for administration of Leptospirosis vaccination in

Texas is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation,

misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the fact that:

1. Although Leptospirosis is re-emerging as an endemic disease

for dogs in some areas of the country, Leptospirosis in dogs in Texas

is a very rare disease. According to the Texas Veterinary Medical

Diagnostic Lab there are only an average of twelve cases of

Leptospirosis documented in dogs in Texas per year. Factors to

identify those dogs that are at risk have not been identified. Given

that there are over 6 million dogs in Texas, the risk of

leptospirosis disease to a dog is less than 2 in a million.

2. The commonly used vaccine only contains serovars Lepto.

canicola, and Lepto icterohaemorrhagiae, and no cross protection is

provided against the other three serovars diagnosed in Texas. Newer

vaccines containing Lepto pomona, and Lepto grippotyphosa are

available but the duration of immunity is less than one year. To

provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two

vaccines with four serovars twice per year.

Page 3 of 6

3. Although humans can develop Leptospirosis, the spread of

Lepto. from a dog to a human has never been documented and is thought

to be a very low risk.

4. Given that the risk of an adverse reaction, a reasonable

client would not elect Vaccination of their pet if provided with the above information.

The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs residing in Texas

is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue

influence given the literature that states:

1.) The Texas Department of Health only reports an average of 70

cases of Human Lyme disease per year in Texas, all of which were

likely acquired when people were traveling out of the state.

2.) Julie Rawlings reported in her research on the incidence of

the lyme disease organism in ticks in Texas State Parks for the Texas

Department of Health that the Borrelia burgdorferi organism is not

present in sufficient numbers or in the suitable tick vector for dogs

for Lyme disease to be endemic in Texas.

3.) Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in the U.S. are found

in the nine New England States and Wisconsin.

4.) Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine has not documented

one case of Lyme disease in a dog acquired in Texas. Testing on

shelter dogs has not revealed a single case.

5.) Dr Jacobson, Cornell University has documented a temporal

relationship in over 327 cases of dogs, which acquired polyarthritis

after the Lyme disease vaccine.

6.) A reasonable client would not elect Lyme disease vaccine for

their pet if given this information on the risks vs the benefit.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with an adjuvanted

vaccine without offering a safer alternative vaccine is fraud by

misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence

given the literature that states:

1. Adjuvanted vaccines have been incriminated as a cause of

Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.

2. 1:1000 cats vaccinated develop this type of cancer, which is

100% fatal.

3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines are available.

4. A reasonable client would not elect adjuvanted vaccines for

their cat if given this information.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with Feline Infectious

Peritonitis vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation

by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare disease.

Page 4 of 6

2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the normal flora avirulent

Feline Corona Virus. On rare occasions this Corona Virus mutates to

become a virulent feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus. Every mutation

is a different variant and there is no cross protection. This vaccine

does not and cannot work.

3. Independent studies have not confirmed the manufacturers

claims for efficacy.

4. Twenty- two Schools of Veterinary Medicine and the American

Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend this vaccine.

5. A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine if given

this information.

The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats,

and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by

misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence

given the literature that states:

1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are

immune to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated

or not.

2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site

Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is though

to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated.

3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should

be vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus.

4. A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their

cat if given this information.

The recommendation of annual rabies vaccination for dogs and cats with

three- year duration of immunity vaccine is theft by deception, fraud

by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue

influence given that:

1. The vaccines has been licensed by the USDA and proven to have

duration of immunity of three years by the USDA and seven years by

serology by Dr Ron Schultz, therefore annual readministration the

client is paying for something with no benefit.

2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to demonstrate

that the immune statis of the pet is enhanced.

3. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians

recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four

months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. This

recommendation has been proven effective in 33 States in the United

States.

The recommendation of blood tests for antibody titers on dogs and

cats in order to determine if re-administration of vaccine is

indicated is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by

silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is

controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programed,

memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells is not

taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.

Page 5 of 6

2. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells are

capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized

patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the

ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a

patient.

3. A positive titer has not been demonstrated by challenge

studies to indicate immunity.

4. The client is paying for a test when a Veterinarian can make

no claims about the test results.

5. It has been proven that the re-administration of modified

live vaccines has no effect, and that duration of immunity is 7 years

or more.

6. A reasonable client would not elect this test if given this

information.

I have brought these deceptive trade practices to the attention of

this Board by writing six letters to the board, and appearing before

the Board at three Board meetings. The Board members have

demonstrated, by the questions that they have asked me, that they are

uniformed on these issues, that they have not read the literature

that I have sent to support my assertions, and that they have not

read the letters I have written. On every occasion the Board members

have refused to take any action on these matters.

The Board has also ignored my request to deny approval of Continuing

Education credit for seminars on Vaccination of Companion Animals

provided by Pfizer Animal Health drug company which are fraudulent by

omission of material facts, a conflict of interest, and thereby

influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the

marketing of vaccines.

The people of the State of Texas have paid over $360 million dollars

per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary and potentially

harmful to their pets. Over 600,000 pets suffer every year from

adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. Many of them die.

A survey by the American Animal Hospital Association shows that less

than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their vaccination

recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new recommendations

have been published twice in every major Veterinary Medical Journal

since 1995.

Given that it is the compact of this Board with the State of Texas to

protect the people of Texas, and whereby it is provided in the Texas

Administrative Code Title 22, Part 24, Chapter 577, Subchapter B,

Rule 577.16: Responsibilities of the Board (a) The Texas Board of

Veterinary Medical Examiners is responsible for establishing policies

and promulgating rules to establish and maintain a high standard of

integrity, skills, and practice in the profession of Veterinary

medicine in accordance with the Veterinary Licensing Act, I hereby

assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

must take demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive

trade practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for

companion animals.

Page 6 of 6

A reasonable solution would be for the Texas State Board of

Veterinary Medical Examiners to request an opinion from the Attorney

General on these issues, and for the Texas State Board to issue a

policy statement in the Board Notes indicating a Board policy

prohibiting each of the practices I have outlined above.

An alternative solution would be to notify every Veterinarian engaged

in companion animal practice in this state of the complaint that has

been filed against them, and prosecute each and every complaint.

If demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade

practices has not been taken by this Board within ninety days of

receipt of this letter I will file a class action suit against the

Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on behalf of the

people of Texas, for negligence in the execution of their

responsibilities, and I will request a Court order to instruct the

Board to perform their duties.

Sincerely,

Dr Robert L Rogers

The above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge

There is a great deal of evidence concerning the adverse effects of vaccines on dogs. This information is generally hidden, and is not easy to find. The Canine Health Census was first started after I lost two young Golden Retrievers. We thought it was time we dog owners gathered evidence, independent of drug company money.

Shortly after our two beautiful dogs died, we received articles and information from other dog lovers whose dogs were suffering from terrible illnesses or dying years before their time. A major authority in vaccine reactions in dogs is Jean Dodds DVM, an American vet and researcher. Ms Dodds contends that Multiple Live Virus vaccines (MLV vaccines) are responsible for many diseases of the immune system in today's dogs. She includes arthritis, epilepsy, thyroid disease, diabetes, allergies and other conditions as those linked to vaccine regime.

I, personally, have many, many letters from dog owners whose dogs reacted violently to their vaccines - within minutes, hours, months. Many say that their dog started limping shortly after vaccination, and the vet diagnosed arthritis. Others say that their dog started having epileptic fits shortly after being vaccinated. When you see letter after letter after letter saying these things, you soon realise that this is not coincidence. However, vets rarely tell their clients that a vaccine is the cause of their dogs' ill health. Is this because they don't think it is? Is it because they don't realise? Or is it because they are all frightened of telling the truth?

A vet typically pays about £5 in England for a vaccine shot. He will charge his client anywhere between £15 and £35. Some people in England - typically the people whose dogs have died, they believe, as a result of the vaccination - say that vaccines are big business for vets: they represent the profitability of a veterinary practice. Also, vets make a lot of money 'treating' the illnesses that arise from vaccines.

All this, of course, is opinion. So how about some facts: Intervet, a vaccine manufacturer, states in its own veterinary data sheets:

Only healthy dogs should be vaccinated. Following initial vaccination, dogs should not be exposed to infection for at least 14 days. Generalised hypersensitivity reactions following administration may occasionally occur. In this event, administration of Adrenaline BP by the subcutaneous route may be indicated.

A good immune response is reliant on the reaction of an immunogenic agent and a fully competent immune system. Immunocompetence of the animal may be compromised by a variety of factors including poor health, nutritional status, genetic factors, concurrent drug therapy and stress.

I ask these questions:

What is Adrenaline used for? Is it not used for life and death situations? What "generalised hypersensitivity" reactions are they talking about? They don't tell us.

How do you know if your dog is healthy enough to be vaccinated? Can he tell you if he feels ill?

How do you know if your dog's immune system is fully competent? If you feed your dog commercial pet food (containing 'ash', animal 'byproducts', vegetable 'derivatives',) how good is your dog's nutritional status? If they don't tell us, precisely, what is in the dog's food, how do we know? In England, the Pet Food Manufacturers Association states in its own literature that the ingredients of dog food would be thrown away if we didn't give it to dogs!!

How do you know if your dog has 'genetic factors' that mean he shouldn't be vaccinated? Does your vet ask you whether any of the dog's relatives have epilepsy, thyroid disease, allergies, and so on? Does the vet even take your dog's temperature?

Stress: isn't it stressful for a puppy to be taken away from his littermates and mother, and placed in a completely strange environment, and then jabbed with an assortment of live virus vaccines?

Further, Ronald D. Schultz, a top American veterinary immunologist, conducted a search of all available veterinary literature, trying to find the scientific basis for annual revaccination for dogs. He could find none. This fact was reported in Kirk's Veterinary Therapy, a leading publication for vets. At a seminar in America, Dr. Schultz is reported as having said that distemper would have died out years ago if we hadn't vaccinated our dogs. The vaccine regime is keeping the virus in the ecosystem.

Further, the canine distemper vaccine is actually the measles virus (cfr Black's Veterinary Dictionary). Compare vaccine reactions in children who have been given the measles virus: epilepsy, bowel disorders, allergies, autism, etc... all the same reactions can be seen in dogs.

Except, of course, poor dog owners are never told this by their vets. So when their dog becomes ill, they are confused and grieving, and they don't think to speak with their friends and share information. There is not, to my knowledge, one single consumer protection body of dogs (or cats). We have listened to the 'experts' as if they were gods. Having seen hundreds of letters from dog owners, and having conducted a great deal of research, I know for a fact that vaccines can be extremely damaging to our pets. We are not told of the risks, so we must inform ourselves.

I would be grateful if any of your readers who own dogs would take part in the Canine Health Census. We are seeking to gather case histories of 16,577 dogs. This will give us the statistical evidence to prove (or disprove) whether vaccines, commercial pet food, drugs, chemicals (including flea treatments and agricultural chemicals), stress and other factors are creating death and disease in the modern dog. We have refused sponsorship from companies selling into the multi-billion £ pet market - so dog lovers are funding the Census themselves. So far, over 2,000 dogs are taking part.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine O'Driscoll

The Canine Health Census

P.O. Box 1, Longnor, Derbyshire, SK17 0JD, England Tel +44 1298 84737

Fax 84739

ANNUAL DOG VACCINES MAY NOT BE NECESSARY, SAYS UW VETERINARY IMMUNOLOGIST By Emily Carleson 1993

Once a year, Ronald Schultz checks the antibody levels in his dogs' blood. Why? He says for proof that most annual vaccines are unnecessary.

Schultz, professor and chair of pathobiological sciences at School of Veterinary Medicine, has been studying the effectiveness of canine vaccines since the 1970s; he's learned that immunity can last as long as a dog's lifetime, which suggests that our "best friends" are being over-vaccinated.

Based on his findings, a community of canine vaccine experts has developed new veterinary recommendations that could eliminate a dog's need for annual shots. The guidelines appear in the March/April issue of Trends, the journal of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA).

Every year, when we take our dogs to the veterinarian's office, they could receive up to 16 different vaccines, many of which are combined into a single shot. Four of these products protect against life-threatening diseases, including rabies, canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2), canine distemper virus (CDV) and canine adenovirus type 2 (CAV-2); the rest protect against milder diseases to which only some dogs are exposed, including Lyme disease.

But, as many veterinarians are realizing, over-vaccination can actually jeopardize a dog's health and even life. Side effects can cause skin problems, allergic reactions and autoimmune disease. Though the case in cats, not dogs, tumors have been reported at the site of vaccine injections.

"These adverse reactions have caused many veterinarians to rethink the issue of vaccination," says Schultz. "The idea that unnecessary vaccines can cause serious side effects is in direct conflict with sound medical practices."

For 30 years, Schultz has been examining the need to vaccinate animals so often and for so many diseases. "In the 1970s, I started thinking about our immune response to pathogens and how similar it is in other animals," says Schultz. "That's when I started to question veterinary vaccination practices."

Just like ours, a canine's immune system fires up when a pathogen, like a virus, enters the body. The pathogen releases a protein called an antigen, which calls into action the immune system's special disease-fighting cells. Called B and T lymphocytes, these cells not only destroy the virus, but they remember what it looked like so they can fend it off in the future.

It's this immunological memory that enables vaccines, which purposely contain live, weakened or dead pathogens, to protect against future disease.

But, as Schultz points out, vaccines can keep people immune for a lifetime: we're usually inoculated for measles, mumps and rubella as children but never as adults. So, can dogs be vaccinated as pups and then never again?

While evidence from Schultz's studies on both his own dogs and many other dogs from controlled studies suggests the answer is yes, Schultz recommends a more conservative plan based on duration of immunity and individual risk.

Schultz says that core vaccines, or the ones that protect against life-threatening disease, are essential for all dogs, yet he does not recommend dogs receive these shots yearly. "With the exception of rabies, the vaccines for CDV, CPV-2 and CAV trigger an immunological memory of at least seven years," he explains. (Studies testing the duration of immunity for rabies shots show it lasts about three years.)

For these reasons, Schultz suggests that dogs receive rabies shots every three years (as is required by law in most states) and the other core vaccines no more frequently than every three years.

Some non-core vaccines, on the other hand, have a much shorter duration of immunity, lasting around one year. But, as Schultz points out, not every dog should get these types of vaccines, because not every dog is at risk for exposure.

Today, many vaccinated dogs receive a shot for Lyme disease. However, Schultz says that the ticks carrying the Lyme disease pathogen can be found in only a few regions of the United States. More importantly, Schultz adds, "The vaccine can cause adverse effects such as mild arthritis, allergy or other immune diseases. Like all vaccines, it should only be used when the animal is at significant risk." He notes that the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital at the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine rarely administers the Lyme disease vaccine.

Another common vaccine that Schultz says is unnecessary protects against "kennel cough," an often mild and transient disease contracted during boarding or dog shows. "Most pet dogs that do not live in breeding kennels, are not boarded, do not go to dog shows and have only occasional contact with dogs outside their immediate family," Schultz recommends, "rarely need to be vaccinated or re-vaccinated for kennel cough."

Schultz says that it's important for veterinarians to recognize an individual dog's risk for developing a particular disease when considering the benefits of a vaccine. "Vaccines have many exceptional benefits, but, like any drug, they also have the potential to cause significant harm." Giving a vaccine that's not needed, he explains, creates an unnecessary risk to the animal.

Recommending that dogs receive fewer vaccines, Schultz admits, may spark controversy, especially when veterinarians rely on annual vaccines to bring in clients, along with income.

But, as he mentions, annual visits are important for many reasons other than shots.

"Checking for heartworm, tumors, dermatological problems and tooth decay should be done on a yearly basis," he says. "Plus, some dogs, depending on their risk, may need certain vaccines annually." Rather than vaccinating on each visit, veterinarians can use a recently developed test which checks dogs' immunity against certain diseases.

Schultz adds that veterinarians who have switched to the three-year, instead of annual, vaccination program have found no increase in the number of dogs with vaccine-preventable diseases.

"Everyday, more and more people in the profession are embracing the change," notes Schultz. And, that the new vaccination guidelines supported by the AAHA, along with the task force members representing the American Colleges of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Veterinary Microbiology and the American Association of Veterinary Immunologists, is evidence of just that.

Vaccine-Induced Autoimmunity in the Dog

Advances in Veterinary Medicine Vol 41, pp 733-747 HARM HOGENESCH, JUAN AZCONA-OLIVERA, CATHARINE SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, PAUL W. SNYDER, AND LARRY T. GLICKMAN

Departments of Veterinary Pathobiology and Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

I. Introduction

II. Materials and Methods

A. Animals

B. Vaccination Schedule

C. Viral Serology

D. Hematology

E. Endocrinology

F. Immunology

G. Lymphocyte Blastogenosis Assay

H. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)

I. Necropsy

J. Statistical Analysis

III. Results

A. Viral Serology

B. Clinical Observations, Hematology, and Endocrinology

C. Immunology

D. Necropsy

IV. Discussion

Acknowledgements

References

I. Introduction

Vaccines are widely used in human and veterinary medicine as an effective and economic method to control viral and bacterial diseases. Although generally considered safe, vaccination is occasionally accompanied by adverse affects. Many adverse affects related to vaccination are acute and transient, for example, fever, swelling at the site of the inoculation, and allergic reactions. In contrast, reports of autoimmune disease following vaccination are relatively rare. In most instances, it is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain that vaccination caused or precipitated the autoimmune disease. In a recent report, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in people concluded that there is a causal relation between diptheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination and arthritis, but no evidence of a causal relationship between these vaccinations and other autoimmune diseases such as autoimmune hemolytic anemia and Guillain-Barre syndrome (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996). Cohen and Shoenfeld (1996) also stated that the relation between vaccination and autoimmunity is obscure. They added that there is a need for experimental studies to address this subject (Cohen and Shoenfeld, 1996).

There has been a growing concern among dog owners and veterinarians that the high frequency with which dogs are being vaccinated may lead to autoimmune and other immune-mediated disorders (Dodds, 1988; Smith, 1995). The evidence for this is largely anecdotal and based on case reports. A recent study observed a statistically significant temporal relationship between vaccination and subsequent development of immuno-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA) in dogs (Doval and Ciger, 1996). Although this does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship, it is the strongest evidence to date for vaccine-induced autoimmune disease in the dog.

We are investigating the effect of vaccination on dogs in a series of experimental studies. The goals of these experiments are (1) to determine if vaccination of dogs affects the function of the immune system and, in particular, if vaccination results in autoimmunity; (2) to delineate the mechanisms by which vaccination results in autoimmunity if this occurs; and (3) to develop alternative vaccination strategies that will not be accompanied by adverse effects. The issue that is the focus of this and ongoing studies in our laboratory is somewhat different from that examined by Duval and Ciger (1996). In their study, a statistically significant temporal relationship between the onset of IMHA and prior vaccination suggested that vaccination caused IMHA or accelerated preexisting IMHA in adult dogs. Although not documented, it is likely that these middle-aged dogs had received multiple vaccines prior to the last vaccination. Why this last vaccination suddenly triggered the onset of IMHA is unknown. In contrast, our studies examine if vaccination of dogs at a young age causes alterations in the immune system, including the production of autoantibodies, that could eventually lead to autoimmune disease in susceptible individuals. In this paper, we report on the findings of the first study in which a group of vaccinated dogs and a group of unvaccinated dogs were followed for 14 weeks after the first vaccination.

II. Materials and Methods

A. Animals

Two pregnant Beagle dogs were purchased from a commercial breeder. The animals whelped in the Animal Facility of the Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine and the pups were weaned at 6 weeks of age. Five pups were assigned to one of two groups, a vaccinated and an unvaccinated group, based on body weight, gender, and litter of origin. The vaccinated and unvaccinated group of dogs were housed in separate rooms.

The dogs were examined daily. Rectal temperature and body weight were recorded twice a week. Blood samples were collected from the jugular vein prior to each vaccination and 2, 5, 7, and 14 days following vaccination for hematology, endocrinology, and viral serology. Blood samples collected on days 5 and 14 following vaccination were also used for lymphocyte phenotyping and lymphocyte proliferation assays, and blood samples collect at 7 days following vaccination were used for the detection of autoantibodies.

B. Vaccination Schedule

The dogs in the vaccinated group were injected subcutaneously with a commercially available multivalent vaccine, Vanguard-5 CV/L (Pfizer, Croton, CT) at 8, 10, 12, 16, and 20 weeks of age according to the instructions of the manufacturer. They were injected subcutaneously with an inactivated rabies vaccine, Imrab-2 (Rhone-Mericux, GA) at 16 weeks of age. The unvaccinated group of dogs received subcutaneous injections of sterile saline at the same time points.

Both groups of dogs were injected subcutaneously with 1 mg of keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH, Calbiochem) in RIBI-adjuvant at week 20.

C. Viral Serology

Serum samples collected at 6 weeks of age and 0, 2, 5, 7, and 14 days after each vaccination were assayed for the presence of antibodies to canine distemper virus by serum neutralization test, and for antibodies against canine parvovirus by hemagglutination inhibition test. Serum samples were analyzed for antibodies against rabies virus at 16 and 20 weeks of age by a rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test.

D. Hematology

Blood samples were collected at 0, 2, 5, 7, and 14 days after each vaccination for hematocrit, corrected white blood cell count and differential, and platelet counts.

E. Endocrinology

Plasma and serum samples collected at 0, 2, 5, 7, and 14 days after each vaccination were assayed for curtisol, triiodothymonine (T3), and thyroxine (T4) by radioimmunoassay.

F. Immunology

Lymphocyte phenotyping was used. Whole blood was stained with a panel of mouse monoclonal antibodies, followed by F(ab')2 goat anti-mouse IgG (Jackson Research Laboratories). The monoclonal antibodies used were CA2.1D6 (anti-CD21), CA15.8G7 (anti-TCRoB), CA20.8H1 (anti-TCRv81, 12.125 (anti-CD4), and 1.140 (anti-CD8). The characteristics of these monoclonal antibodies have been described (Gebhard and Carter, 1992; Moore et al., 1995). Following red blood cell lysis and fixation in 2% paraformaldehyde, the cells were analyzed by flow cytometry.

G. Lymphocyte Blastogenosis Assay

Heparinized blood samples were diluted 1:10 in RPM1-1640 and distributed in the wells of a 96-well plate. Triplicate samples were incubated for 96 hours in the presence of medium only, 2.5 and 5 pg/ml PHA, 5 and 10 pg/ml Concenavalin A (Con A) and 1 and 10 pg/ml PWM. During the last 24 hours of incubation the wells were pubed with 0.5 uCi of H-thymidine. The cells were harvested with a 96-well cell harvester, and the incorporation of radioactivity was measured in a TopCount scintillation counter (Packard Instrument Co., Meriden, CT).

H. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)

The presence of antibodies reactive with homologous and heterologous antigens in serum samples collected at 22 weeks of age was analyzed by an indirect ELISA. High-binding ELISA plates (Costar, Cambridge, MA) were coated with 10 pg/ml of antigen in 0.1 M bicarbonate buffer. The wells were rinsed and incubated for 1 hour with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)/0.1% Tween. Serum samples were diluted 1:10 in PBS and added to the wells in triplicate. Following incubation, the wells were rinsed and incubated with alkaline phosphatase labeled goat anti-dog IgG (Kirkegnard and Perry, Gaithersburg, MD). Alkaline phosphatase activity was measured after addition of p-NPP substrate at 405 nm in a microplate reader (Molecular Devices, Menlo Park, CA).

Essentially the same procedure was used to measure the presence of antibodies against KLH. Alkaline phosphatase labeled anti-dog IgM and IgG were used as secondary reagents.

I. Necropsy

At 22 weeks of age, the dogs were killed by intravenous injection of barbiturates, and a complete necropsy performed. Tissue samples were collected in 10% buffered formalin and processed for light microscopic examination. The tissues that were examined included the spleen, lymph nodes, tonsils, thymus, Psyer's patches, adrenal glands, thyroid glands, pituitary gland, pancreas, heart, lung, kidney, liver, and brain.

J. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed for significant differences between groups by Student's t test or repeated measures ANOVA and a significant change over time using a repeated measures ANOVA.

III. Results

A. Viral Serology

None of the pups had detectable antibodies against canine distemper virus and canine parvovirus at 6 weeks of age and against rabies virus at 16 weeks of age. The unvaccinated dogs remained seronegative for these three viruses during the course of the study. The dogs that were immunized developed titers against CDV (maximum titers ranged from 1:48 to 1:1024), CPV-2 (1:320 to 1:1280), and rabies (1:25 to 1:1000).

B. Clinical Observations, Hematology, and Endocrinology

No differences between the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups were found for rectal temperature, body weight, and hematologic values.

There were no significant differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated dogs for concentrations of cortisol, T3, and T4. However, a significant (p<0.02) change was observed over time for each of these three hormones. The plasma concentration of cortisol decreased from a mean of 41.1 ng/ml at 8 weeks of age to 17.6 ng/ml at 22 weeks of age. The concentration of T4 also decreased, from 31.1 ng/ml at 8 weeks of age to 22.8 ng/ml at 22 weeks of age. The concentration of T3 increased from 0.63 ng/ml at 8 weeks of age to 1.1 ng/ml at 22 weeks of age.

C. Immunology

No differences were observed unvaccinated and vaccinated dogs for lymphocyte subpopulations or for the proliferative response to any of the mitogens tested.

The response of both groups of dogs to KLH was similar. There was no statistically significant difference in the KLH-specific IgM and IgG concentrations in the serum (not shown).

At 8 weeks of age, antibodies against homologous and conserved heterologous antigens were negligible in the serum of the dogs. At 22 weeks of age there was a significant increase of IgG antibodies reactive with 10 of 17 antigens in the vaccinated dogs versus no increase in the unvaccinated dogs (Table I). The increase of optical density was modest for 8 of these 10 antigens, but a large increase was observed for fibronectin and laminin. All vaccinated dogs developed high levels of fibronectin-specific IgG antibodies. Similar levels of IgG anti-fibronectin antibodies were observed when bovine fibronectin was substituted by human or mouse fibronectin (not shown). The concentration of anti-fibronectin antibodies began to increase after the second vaccination in three dogs and after the third vaccination in the other two vaccinated dogs, and reached a maximum level after the fourth vaccination (Fig. 1). To determine if the antibodies had a preferential reactivity with a particular part of the bironectin molecule, we tested the reactivity of serum samples with two fragments of the fibronectin. The 30-kDa fragments contains the heparin-binding domain of fibronectin, whereas the 45-kDa fragment contains the collagen-binding domain. As shown in Fig. 2, little reactivity was observed with the 45-kDa fragment, but significant reactivity was observed with the 30-kDa fragment.

High levels of anti-laminin antibodies were observed in the serum of three of the five vaccinated dogs at 22 weeks of age. One dog had high levels at 17 weeks of age, whereas the other two dogs did not devlop high levels until the end of the study.

High levels of antibodies reactive with skeletal muscle myosin and myoglobin were observed in both groups of dogs at 22 weeks of age. The antibody levels increased at 11 weeks of age in three dogs, at 13 weeks of age in another three dogs, and at 17 weeks of age in the remaining four dogs.

D. Necropsy

Gross and light microscopic examination of the tissues of the dogs revealed no significant lesions. The thyroid gland of one of the vaccinated dogs had a small lymphoid nodule with obliteration of adjacent thyroid follicles.

IV. Discussion

In this study, we exhaustively evaluated the effects of vaccination with a multivalent vaccine and a rabies vaccine on the immune system of young dogs. Vaccination did not cause immunosuppression or alter the response to an unrelated antigen (KLH). In contrast to an earlier study (Mastro et al., 1986), but in agreement with other work (Phillips and Schultz, 1987), we did not observe a transient lymphopenia in the dogs at any time. However, vaccination did induce autoantibodies and antibodies to conserved heterologous antigens. The pathogenic significance of these autoantibodies is presently uncertain. We did not find any evidence of autoimmune disease in the vaccinated dogs, but the study was terminated when the dogs were 22 weeks of age, well before autoimmune diseases usually become clinically apparent. It is likely that genetic and environmental factors will trigger the onset of clinical autoimmune disease in a small percentage of the animals that develop autoantibodies. For practical and economic reasons, only a small number of dogs can be followed in an experimental study, and clinical autoimmune disease may, therefore, never be observed. The principal value of an experimental study is that it enables us to determine the frequency of autoantibody responses and the mechanism(s) that cause vaccines to induce autoantibodies.

We used two vaccines, a multivalent vaccine and an inactivated rabies vaccine of a particular commonly used brand. We consider it unlikely that the observed autoantibodies were specifically induced in response to those brands of vaccine and this phenomenon will likely occur with other commercial vaccines. In a follow-up study, we have observed similar autoimmune phenomena in dogs immunized with the multivalent vaccine only and in dogs immunized with the rabies vaccine only (unpublished observations).

There was a marked increase of autoantibodies to the skeletal muscle proteins, myoglobin and myosin, in both groups of dogs. The reason for the appearance of these antibodies is uncertain, but it may be the result of the frequent blood sampling of the dogs. The dogs were bled five times following each vaccination, and some tissue trauma was unavoidable.

We examined the thyroid and adrenal cortical function in the dogs, and did not find evidence of any abnormality. Autoimmune thyroiditis is one of the most common autoimmune diseases of dogs, and it has been suggested that the apparent increase of this condition in dogs is related to the increased frequency of vaccination with modified live vaccines. There was no increase of anti-thyroglobulin antibodies in the vaccinated animals, or other evidence of thyroid dysfunction. However, the lymphoid nodule found in the thyroid gland of one of the vaccinated dogs may be an early manifestation of thyroiditis, a common lesion in purpose bred Beagles (Fritz et al., 1970).

The most strikingly increased concentrations of autoantibodies were directed against fibronectin and laminin. Fibronectin is widely distributed in the body as a component of the extracellular matrix and plasma. The anti-fibronectin antibodies were reactive with fibronectin of bovine, murine, and human origin. Although we have not yet demonstrated that they also react with canine fibronectin, this is very likely, since fibronectin is highly conserved between species. Anti-fibronectin antibodies have been found in human patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis, and a patient with a poorly defined connective tissue disease (Henane et al., 1986; Atta et al., 1994, 1995; Girard et al., 1995). The anti-fibronectin antibodies in four human SLE patients were directed against the collagen-binding domain (Atta et al., 1994), in contrast to the anti-fibronectin antibodies in the vaccinated dogs, which showed no affinity for this domain. The anti-fibronectin antibodies in the human patient with connective tissue disease showed reactivity with the cell-binding domain of fibronectin (Girard et al., 1995).

Anti-fibronectin antibodies have been experimentally induced in rabbits by immunization with human fibronectin in complete Freund's adjuvant (Murphy-Ullrich et al., 1984). The antibodies were reactive with both human and rabbit fibronectin. The rabbits subsequently developed a glomernlopathy with granular deposits suggestive of immune complexes in the glomcrular basement membrane. Anti-fibronectin antibodies have been induced in mice by multiple injections of homologous fibronectin without adjuvant (Murphy-Ulrich et al., 1986). The titer of anti-fibronectin antibodies was much lower in mice immunized with native fibronectin than in mice immunized with de-natured fibronectin. However, in both groups, immune complexes were present in the serum and in the glomerali (Murphy-Ullrich et al., 1986). Light microscopic examination of the glomerali of the kidneys of vaccinated dogs did not reveal evidence of glomerunfpathy, but we cannot exclude the possibility of sub-light microscopic lesions.

Anti-laminin antibodies were prevalent in the serum of three of the five vaccinated dogs. Anti-laminin antibodies are increased in human patients with SLE, rheumatoid arthritis, and vasculitis. Injection of polyclonal anti-laminin antibodies into rats resulted in glocnerulopathay and proteinuria (Abrahamson and Caulfield, 1982)> Anti-laminin antibodies have also been implicated in glomaerular disease in rats induced by mercuric chloride (Aten et al., 1995).

The mechanisms that may underlie the production of autoantibodies following vaccination are unknown, but at least four mechanisms can be proposed: cross-reactivity with vaccine-components, somatic mutation of immunoglobulin variable genes, "bystander activation" of self-reactive lymphocytes, and polyclonal activation of lymphocytes. Perhaps the simplest and most likely mechanism is that of cross-reactivity of vaccine and self-antigens. (Schattner and Rager-Ziaman, 1990), the most likely sources of cross-reactive epitopes are bovine serum and cell culture components. These are present in almost all vaccines as residual components of the cell culture necessary to generate vaccine viruses and may purposely be added to the vaccine as a stabilizer. In the presence of an adjuvant, these bovine products stimulate a strong immune response and induce antibodies that cross-react with conserved canine antigens. Thus, the strong response to fibronectin in the vaccinated dogs is most likely the result of the injection of bovine fibronectin contaminants in the vaccine. Indeed, this is essentially identical to the protocol used to produce anti-fibronectin antibodies in rabbits with human fibronectin in complete Freund's adjuvant (Murphy-Ullrich et al., 1984), as mentioned above. The lower response to other antigens (e.g., cardiolipin and laminin) may be due to a lower concentration of these antigens in the vaccine or lower immunogenicity.

During every immune response, self-reactive B and T lymphocytes are generated and activated. This is the result of somatic mutation and bystander activation. Under normal conditions, this will not lead to significant production of autoantibodies, because of the selection process in the germinal centers of lymph nodes. In the germinal centers only B cells that successfully compete for interaction with antigen presented on the surface of follicular dendritic celia will be allowed to survive (MacLennan, 1994). These B cells generally have high-affinity receptors for the antigen to which the immune response was induced. B cells with low affinity for the antigen or affinity for other antigens, including self-antigens, will undergo programmed cell death. The B cells with high-affinity receptors express bc1-2, which may rescue them from programmed cell death (MacLennan, 1994). This mechanism was elegantly demonstrated in mice immunized with a nominal antigen phosphorylcholine (Ray et al., 1996). A single point mutation in the hypervariable region of the expressed immunoglobulin genes was sufficient for the phosphorylcholine-specific B cells to acquire specificity for DNA. However, it was only possible to demonstrate DNA-specific B cells by fusing germinal center B cells with celia that expressed high levels of bc1-2, thereby rescuing them from programmed cell death (Ray et al., 1996). An increased expression of bc1-2 was observed in thymic lymphoid follicles of patients with myasthenia gravis, suggesting that failure to delete self-reactive B cells in these patients may lead to autoimmune disease (Shiono et al., 1997). While this may seem an attractive hypothesis to explain autoimmune phenomena in human beings and dogs, there is currently no evidence that this is a common mechanism.

Finally, polyclonal activation of lymphocytes, including activation of self-reactive lymphocytes, is a possible mechanism of vaccine-induced autoimmunity. Certain viruses and bacteria have superantigen or mitegen activity (Schwarts, 1993). This could also be the case for the microbial products included in the vaccines. The present study does not support this mechanism. Firstly, antibodies were observed against 10 of 17 antigens tested. Secondly, the anti-fibronectin antibodies did not react with any portion of the fibronectin molecule, but instead, reacted most strongly with the heparin binding domain. These observations indicate that the appearance of autoantibodies in the serum of vaccinated dogs is an antigen-driven process and not caused by polyclonal activation. As argued earlier, the main antigens implicated are cell culture contaminants and bovine serum components.

In the dog, certain autoimmune diseases occur more frequently in particular breeds of dogs, indicating genetically determined susceptibility (Dodds, 1983; Happ, 1995). There is abundant evidence from studies in rodents and human beings that the magnitude of the antibody response and the susceptibility to autoimmune disease are in part genetically determined (Schwartz, 1993). It is likely that genetic factors also determine the susceptibility to vaccine-induced autoimmunity. That this is indeed the case is suggested by the finding that only three of the five vaccinated dogs developed a strong anti-laminin antibody response and that the kinetics of the anti-fibronectin response differed between individual animals. Identification of susceptibility genes will be important, because it may shed light on the pathogenesis of the autoimmunity. In addition, it will provide genetic tests that will enable dog breeders to monitor the susceptibility of their breeding stock to vaccine-induced autoimmunity.

Although the pathogenic significance of the vaccine-induced autoantibodies is still unclear, there are a number of ways to prevent their induction. Not vaccinating dogs is not a viable option, because the benefits of vaccination clearly outweigh the still uncertain risks of immune-mediated disease. However, since bovine serum components in the vaccine may be responsible for the majority of autoantibodies, elimination of these bovine components may avoid this problem. This could be accomplished by substituting homologous serum for bovine serum. However, as mentioned earlier, anti-fibronectin antibodies may still be induced by immunization with homologous fibronectin. New generations of vaccines, especially naked DNA vaccines, are free of serum components, and these should not induce autoantibodies. A recent study in mice indicates that DNA vaccination does not induce or accelerate autoimmune disease (Mer et al., 1997). Finally, mucosal vaccines are less likely to induce autoantibodies than parenterally administered vaccines. Depending on the formulation of the vaccine, soluble serum components are less likely to be absorbed via the mocosal surface, and, in fact, may induce tolerance instead of autoantibodies (Weiner et al., 1994).

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that vaccination of dogs using a routine protocol and commonly used vaccines, induces autoantibodies. The autoantibody response appears to be antigen driven, probably directed against bovine antigens that contaminate vaccines as a result of the cell culture process and/or as stabilizers. The pathogenic significance of these autoantibodies has not yet been determined.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Cheryl Anderson and Julie Tobelski-Crippen for animal care and technical support, and Nita Glickman for data management. This work is supported by the John and Winifred Hayward Foundation.

Vaccination and Genetic Change: Mobility of Genetic Material Between Life Forms:

One of the indications that vaccinations may in fact be changing the genetic

structure of humans became evident in September of 1971, when scientists at the

University of Geneva made the discovery that biological substances entering

directly into the bloodstream could become part of human genetic structure.

Originally, Japanese bacteriologists discovered that bacteria of one species

transferred their own specific antibiotic resistance to bacteria of an entirely

different species. Dr. Maurice Stroun and Dr. Philip Anker in the Department of

Plant Physiology at the University of Geneva, began to accumulate evidence that

the transfer of genetic information is not confined to bacteria, but can also

occur between bacteria and higher plants and animals. According to an article

in World Medicine on September 22, 1971, "Geneva scientists are convinced that

normal animal and plant cells shed DNA, and that this DNA is taken up by other

cells in the organism."

In one experiment, scientists in Geneva extracted the auricles of frog hearts

and dipped them for several hours in a suspension of bacteria. Afterward, they

found a high percentage of RNA-DNA hybridization between bacterial DNA

extracted from bacteria of the same species as that used in the experiment and

titrated DNA extracted from the auricles which had been dipped in the bacterial

suspension. Bacterial DNA had been absorbed by the animal cells. This

phenomenon has been dubbed transcession. There is evidence that this kind of

phenomenon is happening all the time within the human body. It is conceivable,

for example, that heart damage following rheumatic fever could the the result

of the immune system reacting to its own cells producing a foreign RNA complex

after absorption of foreign DNA.

In Science magazine, November 10, 1972, bacterial RNA was demonstrated in frog

brain cells after a bacterial peritoneal infection. In the April 1973 issue of

the Journal of Bacteriology, transcription of spontaneously released bacterial

DNA was found to be incorporated into cellular nuclei of frog auricles. Studies

by Phillipe Anker and Maurice Stroun have indicated spontaneous release of DNA

material from mammalian cells, spontaneous transfer of DNA from bacteria to

higher organisms, spontaneous transfer of DNA between cells of higher

organisms, release of RNA by mammalian cells, and biological activity of

released complexes containing RNA.

Malignant Cellular Transformations Caused By Foreign DNA:

There is evidence that freely circulating foreign DNA can cause malignancy. In

a 1977 issue of International Review of Cytology, Volume 51, Anker and Stroun

discuss the possible effects of foreign DNA causing malignant cell

transformations. When foreign DNA is transcribed into a cell of a different

organism, "this general biological event is related to the uptake by cells of

spontaneously released bacterial DNA, thus suggesting the existence of

circulating DNA. In view of the malignant transformations obtained with DNA,

the oncogenic (cancer-causing) role of circulating DNA is postulated."

The discovery in 1975 that viruses causing cancer in animals had a special

enzyme called reverse transcriptase makes the problem even more interesting.

These kind of viruses are called RNA viruses. When an RNA virus has the reverse

transcriptase enzyme within its structure, it allows the virus to actually form

strands of DNA which easily integrate with the DNA of the host cell which it

infects. Studies by Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers University indicate that RNA

viruses which do not cause cancer can also form DNA, even without the presence

of reverse transcriptase. DNA formed in this way from an RNA virus is called a

provirus. It is known that some non-cancerous viruses have a tendency to exist

as proviruses for long periods of time in cells without causing any apparent

disease. In other words, they remain latent. Some examples of common RNA

viruses that do not cause cancer, per se, but have the capacity to form

proviruses are influenza, measles, mumps and polio viruses. In the October 22,

1967 British Medical Journal, it was brought out by German scientists that

multiple sclerosis seemed to be provoked by vaccinations against smallpox,

typhoid, tetanus, polio, tuberculosis and diptheria. Even earlier, in 1965,

Zintchenko reported 12 cases in which MS became evident after a course of

anti-rabies vaccinations.

Remember that millions of people between 1950 and 1970 were injected with polio

vaccines containing simian virus 40 (SV-40) transferred from contaminated

monkey kidney cells used to culture the vaccine. It is impossible to remove

animal viruses from vaccine cultures. You are reminded that SV-40, the 40th

virus to be discovered in simian tissue, is a cancer-causing virus.

Immunization programs against influenza, measles, mumps and polio are in fact

seeding humans with RNA and forming proviruses which become latent for long

periods in throughout the body, only to re-awaken later on.

Post-polio syndrome is a good example of this problem. Other examples may

include the so-called mesenchymal and collegen diseases, such as rheumatoid

arthritis, multiple sclerosis and lupus erythmatosis, where antibodies are

formed by the immune system against the person's own tissues - tissues which

have been impregnated with foreign genetic material. According to a special

issue of Postgraduate Medicine in May 1962, "although the body generally will

not make antibodies against its own tissues, it appears that slight

modification of the antigenic character of tissues may cause it to appear

foreign to the immune system and thus a fair target for antibody production."

Two years later in 1964, studies were conducted on the polyoma virus, a

tumor-producing DNA virus. It was discovered that the persistent genetic DNA

material in the polyoma virus brought about malignant transformations in

hamster embryo cell cultures. This was reported in the November 23, 1964 issue

of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Even common non-tumor

viruses, including those in smallpox vaccine and polio virus 2, can act as

carcinogens. It was reported in Science on December 15, 1961 that these common

viruses acted as catalysts in producing cancer when given to mice in

combination with known organic carcinogens in amounts too small to induce

tumors themselves. This means that some vaccinations will induce cancer, when

combined with the growing problem of environmental pollution from toxic

by-products of agriculture (pesticides on and in food) and industry. Of course,

this information is hidden from the public, which is why the FDA, EPA and the

agricultural industries can get away with "sanctioning" small amounts of

pollutants in food, water and air. The connection has not been made public,

much to the joy of the chemical industry, the National Cancer Institute and the

growing cancer industry, which continues to fraudulently solicit public

donations to justify its own existence. As an aside, it has already been

admitted that polio vaccinations have caused 100% of all polio in the United

States since 1980 and the predominant cases of all paralytic polio since 1972

(Science, April 4, 1977). It is suspected that the Salk and Sabin vaccines,

made of monkey tissue culture, have also been responsible for the major

increase in leukemia in the United States.

The use of viruses, bacteria and animal tissue cultures in mass immunization

campaigns, considering that this information has been known for 20 years,

constitutes an intentionally created hazard to humans. The global impact on the

wide range of genotypes relative to human beings is difficult to assess, but

the outcome is definitely negative, and permitting the seeding of latent

proviruses in humans, knowingly, can have no other rationale other than future

medical profiteering, and constitutes a criminal conspiracy of vast

proportions which is tatamount to a genocidal policy against the population,

further constituting crimes against humanity, which is internationally

punishable by death. But, of course, especially in the United States, this

fact is ignored and suppressed from public knowledge, despite a 1984 plea by

some U.S. physicians to the United Nations in a report. The fact that this goes

on with the full knowledge of the world medical community makes this an

international conspiracy where the population has no recourse, given that

vaccinations are becoming mandatory and a prerequisite for many social programs.

Persistence of long-term viruses and foreign proteins and their relationship

to chronic and degenerative disease was also pointed out by Dr. Robert Simpson

of Rutgers University in 1976, when he addressed science writers at an American

Cancer Society seminar, saying "these proviruses could be molecules in search

of a disease." Dr. Wendell Winters, a virologist at the University of

California noted, "immunizations may cause changes in slow viruses and changes

in the DNA mechanism." Although host cells containing latent viral particles

operate more or less normally, they begin to synthesize viral proteins under

the guidance of the viral DNA, eventually creating the circumstances for

various autoimmune diseases, including diseases of the central nervous system,

which unfortunately add to the growing load of aberrant social behavior

patterns.

1.: J Child Neurol. 2002 Sep;17(9):700-2.

Pets don't need shots every year. Experts say annual vaccines waste money, can be risky By Leigh Hopper

Debra Grierson leaves the veterinarian's office clutching Maddie and Beignet, her Yorkshire terriers, and a credit card receipt for nearly $400.

That's the cost for the tiny dogs' annual exams, including heartworm checks, dental checks and a barrage of shots.

"They're just like our children," said the Houston homemaker. "We would do anything, whatever they needed."

What many pet owners don't know, researchers say, is that most yearly vaccines for dogs and cats are a waste of money -- and potentially deadly. Shots for the most important pet diseases last three to seven years, or longer, and annual shots put pets at greater risk of vaccine-related problems.

The Texas Department of Health is holding public hearings to consider changing the yearly rabies shot requirement to once every three years. Thirty-three other states already have adopted a triennial rabies schedule. Texas A&M University's and most other veterinary schools now teach that most shots should be given every three years.

"Veterinarians are charging customers $36 million a year for vaccinations that are not necessary," said Bob Rogers, a vet in Spring who adopted a reduced vaccine schedule. "Not only are these vaccines unnecessary, they're causing harm to pets."

Just as humans don't need a measles shot every year, neither do dogs or cats need annual injections for illnesses such as parvo, distemper or kennel cough. Even rabies shots are effective for at least three years.

The news has been slow to reach consumers, partly because few veterinarians outside academic settings are embracing the concept. Vaccine makers haven't done the studies needed to change vaccine labels. Vets, who charge $30 to $60 for yearly shots, are loath to defy vaccine label instructions and lose an important source of revenue. In addition, they worry their patients won't fare as well without yearly exams.

"I know some vets feel threatened because they think, `People won't come back to my office if I don't have the vaccine as a carrot,' " said Alice Wolf, a professor of small-animal medicine at Texas A&M and an advocate of reduced vaccinations. "A yearly exam is very important."

The movement to extend vaccine intervals is gaining ground because of growing evidence that vaccines themselves can trigger a fatal cancer in cats and a deadly blood disorder in dogs.

Rogers conducts public seminars on the subject with evangelical zeal but thus far has been unsuccessful in persuading the Texas Veterinary Medical Association to adopt a formal policy.

"I'm asking the Texas attorney general's office if this is theft by deception," said Rogers, whose Critter Fixer practice won an ethics award from the Better Business Bureau in 2000. "They just keep coming out with more vaccines that are unnecessary and don't work. Professors give seminars, and nobody comes and nobody changes."

When rabies shots became common for pets in the 1950s, no one questioned the value of annual vaccination. Distemper, which kills 50 percent of victims, could be warded off with a shot. Parvovirus, which kills swiftly and gruesomely by causing a toxic proliferation of bacteria in the digestive system, was vanquished with a vaccine. Over the years, more and more shots were added to the schedule, preventing costly and potentially deadly disease in furry family members.

Then animal doctors began noticing something ominous: rare instances of cancer in normal, healthy cats and an unusual immune reaction in dogs. The shots apparently caused feline fibrosarcoma, a grotesque tumor at the site of the shot, which is fatal if not discovered early and cut out completely. Dogs developed a vaccine-related disease in which the dog's body rejects its own blood.

"That really caused people to ask the question, `If we can cause that kind of harm with a vaccine ... are we vaccinating too much?' " said Ronald Schultz, a veterinary immunologist at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine. "As you get more and more (vaccines), the possibility that a vaccine is going to cause an adverse event increases quite a bit."

Less frequent vaccines could reduce that risk, Schultz reasoned. Having observed that humans got lifetime immunity from most of their childhood vaccines, Schultz applied the same logic to dogs. He vaccinated them for rabies, parvo, kennel cough and distemper and then exposed them to the disease-causing organisms after three, five and seven years. The animals remained healthy, validating his hunch.

He continued his experiment by measuring antibody levels in the dogs' blood nine and 15 years after vaccination. He found the levels sufficient to prevent disease.

Fredric Scott, professor emeritus at Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, obtained similar results comparing 15 vaccinated cats with 17 nonvaccinated cats. He found the cats' immunity lasted 7.5 years after vaccination. In 1998, the American Association of Feline Practitioners published guidelines based on Scott's work, recommending vaccines every three years.

"The feeling of the AAFP is, cats that receive the vaccines every three years are as protected from those infections as they would be if they were vaccinated every year," said James Richards, director of the Feline Health Center at Cornell. "I'm one of many people who believe the evidence is really compelling."

Texas A&M's Wolf said the three-year recommendation "is probably just as arbitrary as anything else," and nothing more than a "happy medium" between vaccine makers' recommendations and the findings by Schultz and Scott aimed at reducing vaccine-related problems.

But many vets are uncomfortable making a drastic change in practice without data from large-scale studies to back them up. There is no animal equivalent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which monitors outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease in people, thus keeping tabs on a vaccine's effectiveness.

Federal authorities require vaccine makers to show only that a vaccine is effective for a reasonable amount of time, usually one year. Richards notes that studies to get a feline vaccine licensed in the first place are typically quite small, involving 25 to 30 cats at most.

There is no federal requirement to show a vaccine's maximum duration of effectiveness. Arne Zislin, a veterinarian with Fort Dodge Animal Health, the largest animal vaccine maker in the world, said such studies would be expensive and possibly inhumane, requiring hundreds of animals, some of them kept in isolation for up to five years.

"I don't think anyone with consideration for animals would really want to go through that process," said Zislin, another vet who believes current data are insufficient to support an extended schedule.

Diane Wilkie, veterinarian at Rice Village Animal Hospital, said she tells pet owners that vaccines appear to last longer than a year, but her office hasn't officially changed its protocol yet. She said 20 percent to 30 percent of her cat patients are on the extended schedule.

"It's kind of a hard situation. The manufacturers still recommend a year, but they're the manufacturers," Wilkie said. "It's hard to change a whole professional mentality -- although I do think it will change."

In Houston, yearly pet examinations typically cost $50 to $135, with shots making up one-third to half of the expense. A dental check, heartworm test, fecal check and overall physical are usually included in the price. Without the shots, vets could expect to lose a chunk of that fee.

But an increasing number of vets are emphasizing other services, such as surgery. Wolf said savings on vaccines might prompt pet owners to get their pets' teeth cleaned instead. An in-house test to check antibody levels is in development.

"I definitely think there's a profit issue in there; don't get me wrong," Wilkie said. "(But) people are willing to spend money on their pets for diseases. Although vaccines are part of the profit, they aren't that big a part. We just did a $700 knee surgery."

Science of Vaccine Damage by Catherine O'Driscoll

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 auto-antibodies 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 auto-antibodies 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 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 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 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 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 longlived 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@...<http://us.mc461.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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, athttp://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