Part
II Safety (Is
It Free of Harm?)
Have you ever
wondered why you get a reminder every year to revaccinate your pet
when your physician never prompts you to do the same for your
family or yourself? I'd like you to question the notion that we
need this frequent vaccinating, and go a step further and listen
to some evidence that this practice may actually be harmful to our
four-footed friends.
If someone, even
someone in a white coat, suggests that you take a drug or get
injected with some substance, two logical questions ought to
immediately arise in your mind:
1. Is this
beneficial to me (or does this work as intended)?
2. Is this safe?
If we ask
these two questions about annual revaccination of animals, and we
ask the right people, we'll get a negative answer to both. We've
already covered the first question in Part I efficacy of
annual revaccination is clearly lacking according to
immunologists. A more important question is the safety issue, as a
growing body of evidence mounts showing a correlation between
vaccinations and chronic disease.
The chronic
diseases have many names, including arthritis, hypo- or
hyperthyroidism, allergies, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease,
repeated ear infections, skin disease, heart disease, diabetes,
kidney failure, and cancer. What makes them nightmarish is that
they linger, they are not easily cured, and they are slowly,
progressively degenerative, meaning the patient declines in health
over the time they are present. The best that conventional
medicine can do with chronic disease is to control symptoms
through suppressive therapies. This is fraught with problems,
including side effects from the drugs, and apparently
"new," more serious diseases arising from the continued
course of suppression. So, our greatest goal as animal caretakers
should be to prevent chronic disease in the first place.
The onset
of chronic disease after vaccination is often delayed, coming
about 1-2 months afterwards. This is not close enough for
conventional medical minds to appreciate the correlation, but it's
there nonetheless. The evidence of this comes from both anecdotal
sources and research studies.
A British
veterinarian has, for the last 10-12 years, asked those clients
who present him with an itchy, allergic dog, "When did this
itchiness begin?" The response is striking. Some 75% remember
clearly: it began within 1-2 months of the "puppy
shots." Anecdotal evidence in human medicine is pointing to a
cause and effect relationship between childhood vaccines and
autism. There has been a marked increase in incidence of this
devastating disease that parallels the increased number of
vaccinations now required of children. The interval between
vaccination and disease? About one month.
In a
research study published in 1996, the authors looked at a deadly
canine disease of a confused immune system. Known as
immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA), it means the dogs' immune
systems attacked their own red blood cells as if they were
foreign. Needless to say, this is life-challenging and the death
rate is high, as one cannot live long without the oxygen-carrying
red blood cells. In the study, 58 dogs with the illness,
presenting at a veterinary teaching hospital over a two year
period, were compared to a control group presenting for other
problems over the same time. The question was asked, "Did
anything precede the onset of IMHA?" Lo and behold, a highly
statistically significant group of the sick dogs had been
vaccinated with the usual yearly vaccines one month earlier. It
was so significant that the authors entitled their paper,
"Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the
Dog." (Duval and Giger, J Vet Intern Med 1996;10:290-295)
In cats,
researchers have known for the last ten years about the
correlation between vaccines and a malignant tumor. This
particular tumor arises where the vaccines are commonly given, in
the area of loose skin at the back of the neck, or in the back of
the hind leg. It appears to be uniformly fatal, even with
extensive surgery. And it has been clearly associated with two
particular vaccines, rabies and feline leukemia. Finally, in 2000,
recognizing the clear cause and effect relationship between
vaccination and this cancer, the disease was renamed by the
research community. It is now officially called Vaccine-Associated
Sarcoma.
In the
early days of homeopathic veterinary practice, a number of us
would see something we would later call the "vaccinosis
phenomenon." It was instructive to us as to just how
significant an impact vaccinations had had on our animal patients.
We would be presented with a chronically ill animal, and after
carefully choosing and giving the appropriate homeopathic remedy,
we'd be met with disappointing results. A second or third
prescription would be made with similar dismal responses from the
patient. Finally, we'd go back to the owner and ask about
vaccinations. Inevitably the patient was vaccinated.
"Whenever we got the reminder postcard, we went in for the
shots." Then we would reanalyze the case in light of this
knowledge, and look at remedies that were particularly noted to
have been applicable in illness that arose after vaccination. When
we'd prescribe again with a "vaccinosis" remedy, the
results were often startling. Not only would the disease symptoms
lessen by 50% or more, but the patient would start acting more
normally. The dog who was hyperactive would settle down and pay
attention, the angry cat would become a lover again, or the animal
terrified of visitors would come out and say hello. The owners
were so impressed with the changes that they would often call
before the next appointment to tell us how great things were
going!
The
inference we have made from this experience, repeated over and
over in different parts of the country in different practitioners'
hands, is simple: vaccinations are responsible for a significant
portion of the illness we see in the patients with chronic
disease.
The
veterinary profession slowly continues to evaluate this practice
of vaccinating annually. In 2000, the American Association of
Feline Practitioners came out with an official statement against
annual vaccination in the cat. They based this position on
research from Cornell where kittens, vaccinated once, measured
seven years later still showing evidence of immunity from those
vaccines. Quite frankly though, I donąt think we can afford to
wait for the whole profession to catch up. Our animals are at risk
to become chronically ill if we continue this baseless practice of
annual revaccination. And, years from now when we look back
incredulously at how such a practice was ever thought to be wise,
wouldn't it be nice to be able to smile and pat your healthy
twenty-something pet and say, "We knew. We stopped. That's
why you're still here."
|