The Problem with Vaccines
excerpted by Hillgrove Cats Campaign
from What Vets Don't Tell You about Vaccines
by Catherine O'Driscoll
It is only recently that pet owners have been warned that unnecessary yearly boosters have the potential to seriously damage their animals' health. Sadly, this information has not been passed by the veterinary profession to its clients so that the clients could make informed choices about preventative healthcare, but it has come to light through the research conducted by bereaved pet owners. Frankly, we have been misled for years.
Vaccine manufacturers contend that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks associated with their use. Having conducted considerable research on the subject, I cannot agree . . . The first serious risk is that vaccines can permanently alter genes through the introduction of cross-species retroviruses. In other words, vaccines are introducing inheritable genetic defects that will be experienced for generations to come. Vaccines are routinely cultivated on monkey, cat, dog and cat brains and kidneys, on bird cells, and even on hamsters. The fact that vaccines can introduce cross-species viral contamination is real and documented - as are the ethical concerns of this barbaric practice.
. . .But apart from epidemic and life-threatening diseases like cancer, leukaemia and AIDS - conditions few would ever think to link with their pet's annual booster - vaccines have been scientifically shown to cause a considerable number of chronic debilitating diseases. Arthritis is one irrefutable example . . . In our own study, Canine Health Concern found that, of dogs with arthritis, 71.8% were diagnosed nine months plus after vaccination; this time-cluster points towards an incubation period between infection and overt symptoms: if vaccines had no bearing on subsequent illness, you would expect 25% of all cases to occur within each three-month quarter.
But our study indicates a wide range of other hitherto unquantified risks. Of dogs in the survey with skin disease, for example, 61.2% first developed the condition within three months of vaccination. If vaccines had no bearing, you would expect only 25% to occur within that three month period. In 1983, Frick and Brookes demonstrated clearly that atopic dermatitis (inheritable skin disease) only develops in dogs who are first vaccinated before being exposed to an allergen.
Other diseases, such as epilepsy, kidney damage, autoimmune diseases, liver damage/failure, heart conditions, paralysis and behavioural (neurological) problems, first developed in high numbers within three months of vaccination. In the case of epilepsy and behavioural problems, Merck acknowledges that vaccines can cause encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and epilepsy is one consequence of encephalitis. Brain lesions (i.e. brain damage) are also acknowledged by Merck to arise from encephalitis . . .
And why did parvovirus (a serious viral disease that affects dogs) suddenly appear in the 1970s? Some scientists contend that parvovirus was created by a vaccine manufacturer who cultivated the distemper vaccine on feline-enteritis-contaminated cats' kidneys. The fact that the virus reared its head around the world, simultaneously, reflects the sales practices of the vaccine manufacturer.
Canine Health Concern, which is supported by vets from around the world, contends that at least one in every hundred dogs (but probably more), is vaccine-damaged, but adverse reactions are rarely quantified by the veterinary establishment. In America it is estimated that 22,000 cats develop tumours at their vaccine sites every year - and this figure is for America alone.
The adverse reaction reporting schemes are supposed to protect us, but they are run by organisations funded by the pharmaceutical industry and staffed by individuals who have been employed, or wish to be employed, by the pharmaceutical industry. The British government's veterinary adverse reporting committee is even chaired by a vaccine company employee!
In establishing product safety, it seems from the evidence I have seen, that the pharmaceutical industry conducts short-term trials that cannot possibly show long-term effects; manipulates statistics to obtain the results they want, and deletes animals from trials if their deaths or illnesses don't support their commercial aims.
I have been able to give you only a tiny taste of the evidence against vaccination. The full story will, I hope, horrify you to the point that you investigate the homeopathic alternative. We must all become knowledgeable and informed animal guardians, ceasing to rely upon the words of 'experts' whose received wisdom comes from those who have commercial interests, rather than your animal's health, in mind . . . My aim is to ensure that your animals are not also sacrificed to the greatest group delusion in medical history. For rather than helping our animal friends, vaccines have been guaranteeing misery and suffering for generations to come.
Catherine O'Driscoll's book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines is published by Abbeywood Publishing. The article, from which the above extracts have been quoted, is undated, but is believed to have been printed in one of the Save the Hillgrove Cats' campaign newsletters. - Deirdre Balaam
"I wish everyone - even people without pets (would) read it, and especially - I wish a book like this was written also concerning humans. This is SUCH an easy to read book, with SUCH a shocking message, and this is something we need to take our hearts today. Now. Not wait. Knowledge is power, ignorance is extremely expensive." H Bertilsson, Sweden
In case you wondered, the owners of Hillgrove Farm in England bred cats on a large scale for sale to research labs. It was shut down as a result of massive, persistent campaigning. Activists in Sweden have begun a similar intensive campaign against a facility breeding cats for sale to laboratories. A Cat in Hell's Chance, written by the Hill Grove campaigners, edited by Anny Malle is soon to be published.
More info from Prof. Ronald Schultz at U. Wisconsin
reported in Spring 2003 CivAb
Professor Ronald Schultz recommends that dogs receive major shots once every three years instead of annually as has been customary in the past.
"Not one program fits all animals and unfortunately that is what the vaccination practice has been for many, many years...If it's not necessary don't do it," he advised.
Schultz is chair of pathobiological sciences at UW-Madison's School of Veterinary Medicine. His research involving years of clinical trials and analyzing vaccine potencies determined that rabies vaccine is effective for about three years and the other routinely given vaccines for seven years.
His research also suggests that vaccines can have serious side effects including skin problems, allergic reactions and autoimmune diseases.
These findings have caused a revision of vaccine guidelines in Trends, the journal of the American Animal Hospital Association.
The new guidelines have yet to be accepted by all veterinarians, however. Morris Link, a Madison practitioner prefers to inoculate his dog "with a full
battery of the stuff" every year.
The guidelines have, been accepted, by the American Colleges of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Microbiology, and the American Association of Veterinary Immunologists among others. from AP report New York Times March 24, 2003
Annual inoculations comprise a fair chunk of practitioner income, and, as in any profession there are good vets and those more interested in money than their patients. So it's a case of owners being informed. Dr. Schultz advises annual visits be maintained to check for skin problems, heart worm, tooth decay, and other possible problems.
The Civil Abolitionist
Winter 2002-03 v.13 no. 3