New Studies from Perdue Investigating Negative Vaccine Effects
Link to article: http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/purdue-vaccination-studies/
At some points, this article gets a little sensationalist/lacks important information (like when it talks about 75% of dogs developing behaviors within 3 months of a vaccine, this is bad for adults, but not unusual for puppies not receiving proper socialization/training), but it's important to be informed about these issues anyway. It's a very long article, but you should at least read the first section.
____________________________________________________________________________
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs — ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”– were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.
Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern’s 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines).
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? “Carry on vaccinating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die.”
In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they’re vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it’s not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the “oops” list.
But other species are okay – right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.
It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard’s Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government’s Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.
A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.
The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)
Then, in 2000, CHC’s findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that “examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections”.
When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.
I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that “paresis” is listed in Merck’s Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:
“Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed.”
I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word “allergy” is synonymous with “sensitivity” and “inflammation”. It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word “vaccination”. This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.
Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or “-itis” diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it’s where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.
There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are “people”, too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.
Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn’t stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:
Dr Jean Dodds: “Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines…” (9)
Christina Chambreau, DVM: “Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine.” (10)
Martin Goldstein, DVM: “I think that vaccines…are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today.”
Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: “Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits.” (12)
Mike Kohn, DVM: “In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals.” (13)
A Theory on Inflammation
Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they’ve not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.
Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease — including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.
Gary’s theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.
“Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals,” he says. “All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body’s reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.
“The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis].” (14)
If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.
If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.
Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the ‘flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway – but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.
The Final Insult
All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.
Dogs’ and cats’ immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no “boosted”, nor are more memory cells induced.
Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)
Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I’ve been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year – unnecessarily.
The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we’ve been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature’s supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.
It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.
Endnotes1. “Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II”, Purdue University, November 1,1999, at http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.
2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.
3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp.
4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.
5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.
6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). “Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog”, Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, “Immune System and Disease Resistance”, at http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., “AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents’ report on cat and dog vaccines”, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002, http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., “Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs”, Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., “Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices”, Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., “Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs”, J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by justine moeller on
-
We have chosen to stop vaccinating. We will vaccinate for rabies only (not every year either)for legal and travel purposes.
-
Permalink Reply by Beth on
-
Rachael,
You may want to reduce the amount of the article you actually quote; even though you have references, you might have a copyright issue? Unless it's reproducable, in which case it's not a problem.
On to the point raised:
Do they compare, as a control, animals that were not vaccinated but were exposed to disease? The reason I ask is I have an auto-immune/auto-inflammatory disease myself, called ankylosing spondylitis, and so I follow the auto-immune research somewhat carefully. And I do know several things. One is that an awful lot of people seem to develop an auto-immune disease after suffering from some sort of virus or infection. Molecular mimicry could potentially be a factor, but there are other theories too, including incomplete clearing of the bacteria or virus. Point being, are they comparing the vaccinated dogs to germ-free dogs, or are they comparing vaccinated dogs against dogs who were challenged with the disease the vaccine is actually meant to prevent? Diseases themselves are quite likely triggers for auto-immune reactions.
Secondly, mice genetically engineered to get ankylosing spondylitis do not come down with the disease if they are raised in a germ-free environment. The next question to answer is whether any germ can cause the disease in susceptible individuals (i.e., does exposure to any pathogen prime the pump, so to speak), or is there one (or maybe two or three) SPECIFIC bacteria that are needed to trigger the auto-immune reaction?
So do I believe vaccines can cause the body to start reacting against itself? Well, I suppose so, yes. But if the vaccine would cause the reaction, wouldn't the disease itself also cause the reaction? Vaccines are usually either killed organisms or the protein coats of organisms. If exposure to the killed/partial pathogen starts this cascade, wouldn't exposure to the leftover proteins and/or killed pathogen in the bloodstream after infection also cause it?
Regardless, we vaccinate every 3 years according to current protocol. My guess is protocols may be changing as more research is done. Those who choose not to vaccinate at all are counting on most of us vaccinating in order to keep the spread of disease in check. Parvo is devastating and if lots of people stop vaccinating, we'll see lots of dead puppies, plain and simple.
-
Permalink Reply by Rachael & Waffle on
-
The references are not what save against copyright laws-- I included them because they were cited in the article. I linked to the original place the article was posted, which is sufficient, in my opinion. I only reproduced it for ease of reading of the MyCorgi community.
I read the references cited in the first two links. In one of the studies where they had controlled lab settings done with beagles bred specifically for the study. The unvaccinated dogs were not exposed to the virus. The second study, which was more of a survey, had three groups of great danes: unvaccinated, vaccinated minimally, and then those that follow the typical vaccination schedule recommended by most vets. The owners had to fill out a questionnaire about their dogs vaccine history and they compared the answers to blood serum antibody concentrations to test the validity of the owners claims.
"The findings with regard to rabies and distemper antibody titers support the validity of the owners’ answers on the questionnaire. It is not surprising however, that many dogs unvaccinated for parvovirus based on owners’ reports had antibody titers as high or higher against parvovirus than dogs that were reported to have been vaccinated against parvovirus either regularly or sporadically." The article then went on to say that parvo is spread through the environment and distemper/rabies are spread through closer contact because they are not environmentally stable. So, in this study, it can be assumed that the unvaccinated dogs were probably exposed to parvo at the least, probably not to distemper, and certainly not to rabies. The results of the study are summarized below by the article.
"As in previous studies, the strongest positive relationship was shown between previous vaccination for rabies and an antibody response to bovine fibronectin and bovine thyroglobulin. A strong positive association was also observed between vaccination for distemper or parvovirus and bovine thyroglobulin. In contrast, there was only a weak positive relationship between previous vaccination for parvovirus and antibody to canine thyroglobulin. It thus appears that vaccinated dogs in this study were producing antibodies that reacted to bovine contaminants plus adjuvant in the canine vaccines. This reaction was evidenced by higher concentrations of antibodies against bovine thyroglobulin, but these antibodies only weakly cross-reacted with canine thyroglobulin. Similarly, the increasing antibody titers to bovine laminin in dogs with regular rabies vaccination, was likely caused by contaminants in the rabies vaccine combined with the presence of adjuvant. These findings alone do not tell us whether the serum auto-antibodies might be responsible for clinical autoimmunity in dogs. They do however warrant further investigation to determine if they play a causal role in thyroid disease."
The article continues on to say that more antibodies against bovine thyroglobulin are related to higher incidences of canine autoantibodies. Because autoantibodies to thyroglobulin seem to arise from antibodies against bovine-thyroglobulin, I think it's safe to say that autoimmune reaction against thyroglobulin would not come from exposure to the pathogen "in the wild". The same possibly goes for fibronectin and other native substances where the dog is able to develop antibodies to the bovine version.
I made the decision when I got Waffle to finish his 1 year boosters and then never vaccinate him again-- except for rabies, which I am required to give by law, stupidly.
-
-
Here's a good overview of viruses/bacteria as triggers for auto-immune diseases:
http://www.everydayhealth.com/autoimmune-disorders/understanding/ar...
And an interesting note is that some (admittedly very small) studies seem to indicate that having intestinal parasites can reduce humans' auto-immune response; it seems the worms might emit chemicals that fine-tune the immune system and keep it from going crazy or tune it down a notch as a measure of self-protection for the parasites, or perhaps might simply "train" the immune system to recognize what's important and what's not. Ironically, our own improved sanitation standards could be one factor in the apparent rise in auto-immune diseases in the Western world.
So while the vaccine info is interesting, it seems that perhaps the author is taking information and bending it to support a pre-determined conclusion, rather than letting the research lead where it will. "Vaccines are bad" is a popular view (as witnessed by the autism groups who feel vaccines cause autism). Everything that challenges our immune system will have some consequence, but the fact is the diseases we are vaccinating against are often fatal and usually quite easily spread.
-
-
In our microbiology class, we talked about how some parasites do reduce autoimmune disease, which is super cool!
The author of this article was definitely slanting it towards the anti-vaccine view, but I don't think it was encouraging stopping the use of all vaccines-- just the use of extraneous vaccines. The study with the beagles focused specifically on effects of parvo vaccination every 3 weeks and a rabies vaccination at 16 weeks. I would have liked to see the study with minimal vaccine use included along with no vaccination and standard vaccination, but what the study was trying to elicit was vaccine-mediated autoantibodies just to see if it is actually a concern. If they get the funding (someone has donated 25,000 USD to care for the colony of beagles in the meantime) they will do more tests, and maybe the findings will have real scientific meaning.
Edit: Nevermind, I just read the last paragraph where the author was beaming about her stop of all vaccines on her dogs. That's a pretty irresponsible path, because parvo and distemper put the dog at much greater risk than the vaccines (used minimally) would. Vaccines have their place, but we need to determine what that place is.
-
-
I can totally understand your decision. Personally I'm not comfortable stopping the vaccines after the one-year shot because a certain percent of vaccines do fail (bad dose, dog's immune system suppressed at time of vaccination, etc).
However, Maddie is 6 now and I am considering asking my vet if he's ok with just doing rabies from now on. Her prior owner vaccinated the core viruses every two years, so she had a dose at one and then at three and five. So I'm comfortable not vaccinating any more for her, and doing one more round for Jack either this year or next and finishing there. If the vet will do it; I don't feel strongly enough about it to annoy my vet over it.
The bacterial vaccines are different and need to be done every year; lepto is enough of a concern for me to continue to vaccinate with the four-way lepto shot.
-
Permalink Reply by Melissa and Franklin! on
-
best thing to do, instead of stopping vaccines all together and hope it works, is to just get titers done. If you don't want to vaccinate at least do titers every few years and those will indicate whether or not a booster is needed. It seems to be the safest and most responsible way to go. Then at least you know you are doing what is best for your dog and 1) not over vaccinating and 2) not under vaccinating.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Payerl on
-
We do titers with Sophie as she has epileptic seizures and vaccinations have been tied to increased seizure activity. It's a simple blood test and, in our community, is acceptable for licensing purposes if accompanied by a letter of explanation from the vet.
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Markley on
-
Let me start by saying that I have systemic lupus, and anti-phospholipid syndrome. I have quit doing vaccinations also, and if I knew 15 years ago what I know now, I wouldn't have had my daughter's vaccinated. It isn't so much the vaccine itself that is the problem, but the preservatives used to keep the multi-dose vials stable. Most contain thimeresol, which is a mercury derivitive. You can avoid the thimeresol by asking specifically for a single dose vaccine--the one time, one person dose. If you watch (and there is many videos available) what the mercury does to your cells, its extremely scary. There is tons of evidence that proves that these vaccines give you up to 200,000 times or more the legal allowable dose of mercury in ONE shot. Especially if you get the last dose of the vial, or the nurse doesn't mix it well before drawing up yours. I have to get a flu shot every year where I work, and I always insist on the mercury free--and shockingly, since I've been doing that I haven't had an adverse affect to the vaccines at all. We know how they insist you can't get the flu from the shot because it's a killed vaccine, but plenty of the people I work with have adverse, crappy feeling effects for days/weeks after. I don't anymore. This and tetanus are the only vaccines I'll get, or allow my children to get- and then, only the mercury free--which is more expensive, but well worth it.
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer evans on
-
We had this talk in a couple lectures and it was explained that most vaccines ( aside from tetanus and influenza) don't contain any thimeresol. Some may contain trace amounts but biologically it has no effect. I think some vaccines are a must, especially when the actual disease is worse than the side effects. Personally I will always vaccinate due to the fact that I live in a highly populated area. I wouldn't want the responsibility of spreading illness to others, especially when preventable.
-
Permalink Reply by Edison on
-
(Pre-emptive apologies for the long post. Anti-vaccine activists sort of get on my nerves, and lately they've been causing far more illness and death than vaccines have ever done.)
This article's author has a clear anti-vaccine bias coupled with a dangerous misunderstanding of immunology. Vaccines aren't perfect and science is a perpetual process of self-correction, but to condemn an entire branch of medical practice without careful consideration is incredibly irresponsible.
The principle of vaccination/immunization on an individual level is simple (expose the body to a harmless version of a particular germ (dead, live-but-unable-to-reproduce, etc.) and the immune system produces antibodies which will (eventually) always be on call to attack aforementioned germ) but vaccination of a population is a more complicated. What people do not always realize are the advantages of herd immunity. When a certain percentage of the population (some say ~85%) are immune, it means that not enough people can carry and spread the disease, causing it to die out in the population. This is why we no longer worry about smallpox, polio, measles, whooping cough, etcetera. (The sad exceptions are the patches of California where the anti-vaccine scare has translated into deaths by whooping cough and measles.) For that matter, rabies used to be a serious risk in the general population, and death by rabies was hardly uncommon. Animal control has taken care of the wild dogs, rabies vaccines have taken care of the domestic ones, and now all we have to worry about are wild animals that might still be carriers. (For more details: http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/index.html)
Not only does this author ignore the advantages of herd immunity (i.e. you can let your dog play with other dogs and be reasonably sure that the entire dog park isn't going home with rabies) he/she seems to attribute all kinds of medical conditions to vaccination, without understanding how the immune system works. To begin with, many of the illnesses listed (inflammatory diseases, allergies, autoimmune diseases, asthma) are actually the product of under-challenged immune systems. Doctors are now telling people to let their kids play in the dirt because if a child's immune system doesn't have enough foreign antigens to react against, it will often start reacting against harmless things (producing allergies) or even attacking itself. Dogs who are kept inside all the time along with the kids, will likely develop the same conditions. It is also possible that a dogs whose immune systems are under-challenged will over-react to the components of a vaccine, which often contain harmless things like DNA, laminin and other normal components of the body. However, a normally functioning immune system will filter out antibodies that react with "self" molecules. If the author understood immune function at all, he/she would have realized that all germs contain molecules which we use in our normal cellular functions, and our immune systems work around this all the time. This is probably why "[scientists] stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage".
However, this is operating on the assumption that dogs do have normal immune systems, and the elephant in the room which the author is not addressing is that many pets might not have normally functioning immune systems. Excessively inbred dogs can develop all kinds of conditions (many of which the author blames on vaccines alone), which responsible breeders work to prevent. However, there are many irresponsible breeders in the world, and there are many immune conditions which may not develop until the dog is mostly grown.
I'm frankly disturbed by this article, its lack of consideration of alternative viewpoints and the author's hazy grasp of immune function. There are many reasons for bad reactions to vaccines, such as pre-existing illnesses (an overtaxed immune system can react badly), preservatives and stabilizers in the vaccine formulation, errors in vaccine preparation, and genetic and environmental immune conditions which might not be obvious in a germ-free environment. All of this is why research into vaccines and immunity is an ongoing process, which can produce a lot of confusion and conflicting results. However, the principle of vaccination is still valid, and to dismiss it out of hand is dangerous, for yourself and your beloved dogs.
-
-
Those who are anti-vaccine don't ignore the advantages of herd immunity (well, some of them do). Many of them are aware of it and, frankly, exploit it.
All vaccines carry some risk; smallpox vaccine was particularly risky and yes people died from the vaccine. But a lot more people died from smallpox.
The anti-vaccine people, quite frankly, take the best of both worlds: Because OTHER people take the low risk of vaccine reactions, those other people reduce the frequency of the disease. Basically in my opinion those who choose not to vaccinate at all are saying "I'll let you take the risk with your dog, while I'll reap the benefits of lower disease risk caused by high vaccination rates."
I am, however, all in favor of reducing the frequency of vaccination as research seems to indicate that protection against viruses is long-lived. Protection against bacterial diseases, however, is short-lived and more frequent vaccination is still needed.
It seems to me that a lot of press is being given to those who espouse something I refer to as the "Eden complex"; the mistaken notion that in nature everything is balanced and beautiful and healthy, and we have messed it all up with civilization. You will find this idea on all sorts of human and dog health forums, where people are certain that many illnesses can be avoided simply by following a certain diet or avoiding certain vaccines or not getting your teeth filled.
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
