• Home Contact Us What's New New Litters Puppy ExportsAbout Us Pom Reader Kennel Visit Poms in Canada Kennel Visit  • About Poms Stud Services Links Photo Album • 

   • Fun Photos New Damascusroad ChampionshipsPuppies Growing Up List of ArticlesAbout Pet FoodSkin/Coat Care Vaccination Information CKC Breed Standard • 



Vaccinations: More Harm than Good? You be the Judge!

Information on this topic has also

been made available on the Pomeranian Club of Canada website in support of its Breed Education Program

In addition to food and shampoo, I also think vaccinations have played a significant role in the health and skin problems we are seeing in Pomeranians, and other breeds as well for that matter. 

I have very strong views on vaccination protocols. I put some stuff on the Pomeranian Club of Canada website about this. Here's the page reference: http://www.pcoc.net/vaccinations.htm. While I couldn't say it on the PCOC website, I think vaccinations are harmful, and that they do GREAT damage to our dogs natural immune system. They are said to work by causing the formation of antibodies, which are proteins that defend the body from an invasion by harmful germs. If vaccinations do, in practice, what they are supposed to do in principle, they should definitely not need to be repeated. Once the body has developed/built an antibody to something, it never forgets or loses that antibody. Just my opinion, and I'm not a veterinarian so you'll have to make your own decision.

Of course, all I can give you, in the final analysis, is my own opinion and tell you what I  do. And an opinion is not a fact, its just what you think about something. Reading my Annie's story might give you some food for thought though, at least when it comes to rabies vaccinations. That being said . . .

Opinions differs on vaccinations, and most vets promote them ... the full range of 3 or 4 puppy shots and then annual re-vaccinations. I think that vaccinations are the biggest part of any vets practice, so they have a vested interest in you and everybody else having your dogs vaccinated .... its a big money maker, they charge you $50 or $60 for a few minutes of their time and a vaccine they they buy for $4 or $5 ... big profit in vaccinations. For an interesting article on this topic, click here.

If a vaccination does in practice what the manufacturers tell you it does in principle (i.e., cause the body's immune system to develop antibodies to the viruses in the vaccine), then why do they need to be revaccinated EVER once they are old enough for the vaccination to fully take (e.g., one year of age)? Does the immune system forget the antibodies? I think not. If you get measles or whooping cough as child, you never get them again. You already have the antibodies, your body remembers and is able to attack and kill the virus.

I believe that the best immunization for any dog is a healthy immune system. I also believe that vaccinations (along with junky food and a lot of the chemicals in shampoos and conditioners) do untold damage to our dog's immune system, in effect destroying or weakening their own ability to protect themselves. If they come in contact with something, say parvo or kennel cough, it is usually a surface contact and the body begins mounting an attack on the invader right at the point of contact .... before it ever gets into the blood stream. It is a tremendous shock to have the virus, or the multi-viruses in most vaccines, injected directly into the blood stream, bypassing early warning and defense systems. To inject one virus would be bad enough, but 4 or 5 at once......... what a shock to the immune system that must be. And to do this every year - not my dogs!

We loosely follow Dr. Jean Dodds vaccination protocol when it come to vaccinations. Just do a search on line and you will find it, no problem.

So that's my opinion on the matter, and as I said before, an opinion is not a fact - its just what you think about something - so of course you will have to make your own decision. What follows may be of some interest to you as you make your decision.

Vets issue animal vaccine warning

Veterinary surgeons are warning that cat and dog owners are spending tens of millions of pounds on unnecessary and sometimes dangerous vaccines.

More than 30 vets have signed an open letter warning many vaccines for pets given in yearly doses last much longer. They have accused the pharmaceutical industry of "fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception". 

But drugs companies say they are bound by rules from licensing authorities. Because of a lack of research it can only give a minimum period of immunity - usually 12 months.

Yearly vaccines

The vets are warning the pharmaceutical industry and their own profession about the issue. The present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals may constitute fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception

Vets' group

In their letter they say that vaccinations for many conditions including distemper, cat flu and parva virus, last a lot longer than a year and sometimes for life.

The letter said: "The present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals may constitute fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception."

BBC correspondent Angus Stickler said that vets send out computer-generated letters telling people to take their pets in for vaccinations "every year, year in, year out".

He said: "With £20 to £40 to pay and about 13m dogs and cats in the country it's an industry worth tens of millions of pounds."

The letter also talks about an increase in the risk of "adverse post-vaccination events" including a list of problems such as auto-immune disorders, transient infections and a risk of cancer in cats.

Animal testing

Vaccination manufacturers say that, although they can test animals for one or two years so they can give a minimum cover or immunity, it is difficult to perform lifelong tests.

They say that to prove immunity lasts for three or four years, or for life, would mean keeping and testing a large number of cats and dogs for years on end.

We base our recommendations on the science and the science we have tells us that we don't know how long immunity lasts in any individual animal


David Sutton, a spokesman for Intervet, one of the world's largest veterinary drug manufacturers, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We base our recommendations on the science and the science we have tells us that we don't know how long immunity lasts in any individual animal.

"What we do know is there are some animals that need more frequent vaccination than others and our vaccine recommendations have to be based on taking account of those animals."

The vets' warning comes as more than 6,000 vets from all over Europe gather in Birmingham for the world's largest congress devoted to domestic pet welfare.

One of the techniques up for discussion at the four-day event is pheromonotherapy, used to help cats and dogs overcome fears and phobias.

The treatment is based on a study of chemicals, called pheromones, secreted by canines and felines through glands on their body.

These convey messages to members of the same species about ownership of territory, gender and mating availability.

Vaccination Protocols Change

This came thru on the AKC Parent Club list on 9/28/03.   The following is taken from the April/May Newsletter of the Senior Dogs Project:

Vaccinations: All Veterinary Schools in North America Changing Vaccination Protocols

Recent editions of the Senior Dogs Project's newsletter have reported on the ever-broadening trend of eliminating vaccinations for adult dogs, except for rabies, where required by state law.

We have now had a report that all 27 veterinary schools in North America are in the process of changing their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats.

Here, in a nutshell, are the new guidelines under consideration:

"Dogs and cats immune systems mature fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus (MLV) vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet (i.e., canine distemper, parvo, feline distemper). If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titer is not 'boosted' nor are more memory  cells induced.

"Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines. Puppies receive antibodies through their mothers milk.  This natural protection can last 8-14 weeks.  Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at LESS than 8 weeks.  Maternal immunity will neutralize the vaccine and little protection (0-38%) will be produced.

"Vaccination at 6 weeks will, however, delay the timing of the first highly effective vaccine. Vaccinations given 2 weeks apart suppress rather than stimulate the immune system. A series of vaccinations is given starting at 8 weeks and given 3-4 weeks apart up to 16 weeks of age.  Another vaccination given sometime after 6 months of age (usually at 1 year 4 months) will provide lifetime immunity."

Here's an excellent article on Vaccinations: http://www.drday.com/vaccination.htm. The article refers to vaccination of humans, but it is equally applicable to vaccination of our precious Pomeranians. Here's a quote from the article:

Vaccinations are now mandatory in order for a student to enter school. Any child who is not vaccinated is not allowed into school with the reason given that that child will put all the other children at risk for disease. However, it is important to ask this question. If all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.

But, in fact, vaccinations don't work! They are not effective! They do not give immunity! In addition, they are very dangerous! . . . 

Now how about the safety of vaccines. Vaccines are grown in the laboratory in monkey kidney cells, in human cells which may be cancerous, in chick embryo and in guinea pig cells. The cells are nourished with the blood serum from calves, which may be contaminated with numerous diseases such as bovine leukemia virus, bovine AIDS virus or other diseases that the animals may have. Chemicals such as aluminum, formaldehyde (a human carcinogen) and M.S.G are used in processing of the vaccines, and thiomerosal, a derivative of mercury and a deadly poison, is used as a preservative. These chemicals and potential diseases are all injected into your child's body or your body as part of the vaccine.

Dr. Viera Scheibner, author of "Vaccinations: 100 Years of Orthodox Research" sums up the position of researchers not funded by pharmaceutical companies:

"There is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines of any kind ... are effective in preventing the infectious diseases they are supposed to prevent. Further, adverse effects are amply documented and are far more significant to public health than any adverse effects of infectious diseases. [Vaccinations have] caused more suffering and more deaths than any other human activity in the history of medical intervention."

Here's another excellent discussion of vaccines, again pertaining to vaccines used for humans . . . but if they aren't safe for human, why on earth would we expect pet vaccines to be safe for our precious Pomeranians. Here's the link: http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccines_phillips_myths.htm. And here are a few quotes from it, and these statements are just as true for animal vaccination protocols as they are for human vaccination protocols:


"Vaccination causes significant death and disability at an astounding personal and financial cost to uninformed families."



"Evidence suggests that vaccination is an unreliable means of preventing disease."



"It is unclear what impact, if any, that vaccines had on 19th and 20th century infectious disease declines."



"Many of the assumptions upon which immunization theory and practice are based are unproven or have been proven false in their application."



"Dangers of childhood [and puppy] diseases are greatly exaggerated in order to scare parents [owners] into compliance with a questionable but highly profitable procedure."



"The long term adverse effects of vaccinations have been ignored in spite of compelling correlations with many serious chronic conditions. Doctors can’t explain the dramatic rise in many of these diseases."



"Documented safe and effective alternatives to vaccination have been available for decades. (However, they have been systematically attacked and suppressed by the medical establishment.)"



"Many of the public health officials who determine vaccine policy profit substantially from their policy decisions."


In the December 1994 Medical Post, Canadian author of the best-seller Medical Mafia, Guylaine Lanctot, M.D., stated, "The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are actually changing our genetic code through vaccination...100 years from now we will know that the biggest crime against humanity was vaccines." After critically analyzing literally ten’s of thousands of pages of the vaccine medical literature, Dr. Viera Scheibner concluded that "there is no evidence whatsoever of the ability of vaccines to prevent any diseases. To the contrary, there is a great wealth of evidence that they cause serious side effects." Dr. Classen has stated, "My data proves that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general. This question can only be determined by proper studies which have never been performed. The flaw of previous studies is that there was no long-term follow up and chronic toxicity was not looked at. The American Society of Microbiology has promoted my research...and thus acknowledges the need for proper studies." To some these may seem like radical positions, but they are not unfounded. The continued denial and suppression of the evidence against vaccines only perpetuates the "Myths" of their "success" and, more importantly, their negative consequences on our children and society. Aggressive and comprehensive scientific investigation into adverse vaccine events is clearly warranted, yet immunization programs continue to expand in the absence of such research. Manufacturer profits are enormous, while accountability for the negative effects is conspicuously absent. This is especially sad given the readily available safe and effective alternatives.

The positions asserted above are not coming from a handful of fringe lunatics; entire professional organizations are speaking out. Criticisms of vaccines are being sounded by an increasing number of credible and reputable scientists, researchers, investigators, and self-educated parents from around the world. Instead, it is public health officials and die-hard vaccine advocates (many of whom have a financial stake in the outcome of the debate) who are beginning to lose credibility by refusing to acknowledge the growing body of evidence and to address the very real, serious, documented problems.

Meanwhile, the race is on. There are over 200 new vaccines being developed for everything from birth control to cocaine addiction. Some 100 of these are already in clinical trials. Researchers are working on vaccine delivery through nasal sprays, mosquitoes (yes, mosquitoes), and the fruits of "transgenic" plants in which vaccine viruses are grown. With every adult and child on the planet a potential recipient of vaccines administered periodically throughout their lives, and every healthcare system and government a potential buyer, it is little wonder that countless millions of dollars are spent nurturing the growing multi-billion dollar vaccine industry. Without public outcry, we will see more and more new vaccines required of us all. And while profits are readily calculable, the real human costs are ignored or suppressed.

Whatever your personal vaccination decision, make it an informed one; you have that right and responsibility. It is a difficult issue, but there is more than enough at stake to justify whatever time and energy it takes.

Here's another good site you might want to visit: http://thinktwice.com/ and also http://www.abap.org/nosodes.htm . There's lots of other good information out there, and its getting harder and harder for the pharmaceutical industry to hide with the proliferation of the internet. All you have to do is look for it.

Vaccines and United States Congressional Hearings

During Congressional Hearings in the United States, on the topic of  “FACA: Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development: Preserving the Integrity of the Process” , Chairman Dan Burton in his opening statement said:

The Food and Drug Administration  (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rely on these advisory committees to help them make vaccine policies that affect every child in this country. . .

How confident in the safety and need for specific vaccines would doctors and parents be if they learned the following:

1.         That members, including the Chair, of the FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these decisions own stock in drug companies that make vaccines.

2.         That individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines under consideration or affected by the decisions of the committee.

3.         That three out of five of the members of the FDA’s advisory committee who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived. 

4.         That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA advisory committee were not present at the meeting, two others were excluded from the vote, and the remaining five were joined by five temporary voting members who all voted to license the product.

5.         That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member, whether they have a financial stake in the decision or not. 

6.         That the CDC’s advisory committee has no public members – no parents have a vote in whether or not a vaccine belongs on the childhood immunization schedule.  The FDA’s committee only has one public member.

These are just a few of the problems we found.  Specific examples of this include:

Dr. John Modlin—He served for four years on the CDC advisory committee and became the Chair in February 1998.  He participated in the FDA’s committee as well owned stock in Merck, one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines, valued at $26,000.  He also serves on Merck’s Immunization Advisory Board.  Dr. Modlin was the Chairman of the Rotavirus working group.  He voted yes on eight different matters pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, including recommending for routine use and for inclusion in the Vaccines for Children program.  It was not until this past year, that Dr. Modlin decided to divest himself of his vaccine manufacturer stock. 

 At our April 6 autism hearing, Dr. Paul Offit disclosed that he holds a patent on a rotavirus vaccine and receives grant money from Merck to develop this vaccine.  He also disclosed that he is paid by the pharmaceutical industry to travel around the country and teach doctors that vaccines are safe.  Dr. Offit is a member of the CDC’s advisory committee and voted on three rotavirus issues – including making the recommendation of adding the rotavirus vaccine to the Vaccines for Children’s program. 

Dr. Patricia Ferrieri, during her tenure as Chair of the FDA’s advisory committee, owned stock in Merck valued at $20,000 and was granted a full waiver.  

Dr. Neal Halsey, who serves as a liaison member to the CDC committee on behalf of the American Association of Pediatrics, and as a consultant to the FDA’s committee, has extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including having solicited and received start up funds from industry for his Vaccine Center.  As a liaison member to the CDC committee, Dr. Halsey is there to represent the opinions of the organization he represents, but was found in the transcripts to be offering his personal opinion as well. 

Dr. Harry Greenberg, who serves as Chair of the FDA committee, owns $120,000 of stock in Aviron, a vaccine manufacturer.  He also is a paid member of the board of advisors of Chiron, another vaccine manufacturer and owns $40,000 of stock.  This stock ownership was deemed not to be a conflict and a waiver was granted.  To the FDA’s credit, he was excluded from the rotavirus discussion because he holds the patent on the rotashield vaccine.  

How confident can we be in the process when we learned that most of the work of the CDC advisory committee is done in “working groups” that meet behind closed doors, out of the public eye?  Members who can’t vote in the full committee because of conflicts of interest are allowed to work on the same issues in working groups, and there is no public scrutiny.  I was appalled to learn that at least six of the ten individuals who participated in the working group for the rotavirus vaccine had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies developing rotavirus vaccines.  

How confident can we be in the recommendations with the Food and Drug Administration when the chairman and other individuals on their advisory committee own stock in major manufacturers of vaccines?   (emphasis added)

How confident can we be in a system when the agency seems to feel that the number of experts is so few that everyone has a conflict and thus waivers must be granted.  It almost appears that there is a “old boys network” of vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA – at times serving simultaneously.  Some of these individuals serve for more than four years.  We found one instance where an individual served for sixteen years continually on the CDC committee.  With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 11 years? 

Read the rest of this at http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.06.15/opening_statement.htm 

or this one, if the other one doesn't work:  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:73042.wais

Click here to read another interesting article about the FDA.
Most of the drugs prescribed for our dogs are FDA approved.

Click here to read an interesting article about the Pharmaceutical Industry


By: Dr. John Fudens, D.V.M.

I would like to give you, the reader, the truth about the so called required vaccinations, particularly rabies. There are two basic forms of law. One is the legal Constitutional and Common law that this country was founded on, and the other is "colorable" law passed by Administrative agencies/bureaucrats who have been given so called authority to pass laws. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition defines colorable law as "That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth." Yes, I study the law, am a paralegal, and have an extensive law library.

So any and all mandatory rabies vaccination programs are colorable law, in that they have been passed and mandated upon the pet owning public by certain vested interest groups. Who are these groups? First and foremost are veterinarians, in general, and veterinarian medical organizations. Second are the local animal control personnel, bureaucrats and politicians. What are their reasons? GREED, POWER AND CONTROL. Both these large powerful interest groups stand to benefit greatly by having rabies mandated by colorable law.

Veterinarians receive a large percentage of both their gross income and profit from vaccines given in the office. On average vaccines cost 60 to 95 cents per dose and are charged to the client at $15 to $25 per injection and substantially more in the large cities. Therefore, if veterinarians lobby to have a colorable law passed to give rabies vaccine every year that enhances their financial picture.

The veterinary medical societies, by working with other groups and area politicians, are rewarded by increased prestige and professional standing in the community. After all we are protecting you from the dreaded disease rabies, whether it exists or not. Some areas of the country are more enlightened and fortunate to have the rabies vaccine mandated every three years. You can be assured the rise of rabies is never taken into account as to whether the vaccine should be required or not. More on this later. The local government personnel benefit by extending more control over our lives, enriching the public treasury with fees, tags and fines, and giving the appearance that local government is doing something about animal populations, disease and risks to the public. Since rabies vaccines have been mandated, what county or area has seen less dog and cat bites, better animal control, more public awareness and educating of pet owning responsibility, better birth control of unwanted animals, less euthanasia of animals and decreased growth of animal control facilities?

These special groups and lobbies will use any argument, realistic or not, to justify their position. They are excellent at using the media to spread the lies and distortions. Examples: We have increased numbers of dogs biting people, pitbulls attacking and killing children are on the increase, more dogs and cats are running loose terrorizing neighborhoods, killing wildlife and other domestic stock, etc...ad nausaem. The only thing rabies vaccination is for is the protection from rabies virus, all other justifiers for the vaccine fall under human control and exist because there are a certain number of humans, connected to animals, who are irresponsible. Rabies is spread by the bite of an infected animal. The number of dog/cat bite cases in the U.S. that expose humans to rabies is as rare as shark attacks. This low incident rate has nothing to do with mandatory vaccination as the number of cases was low before the mandatory requirement.

Let me give you an example of Pinellas County, FL where my Affinity Clinic is located. I secured information from Pinellas Animal Control through the Freedom of Information Act. The record of animal control starts in 1964. From 1964 to 1978 there were zero cases of dog rabies in the county. Magically in 1978 rabies vaccine was mandated to be given every year and all dogs tagged and licensed. WHY? Well it seems four veterinarians, with animal control bureaucrats, pushed the county board of supervisors to pass a law mandating rabies vaccination every year. There were three local vets and one professor from the State Veterinary College who were behind this. It was interesting reading their letters pushing this law and the minutes of the county meeting. There was talk of dogs biting people (no actual figures given), dogs running loose, animal overpopulation, rabies on the increase in the U.S. (the increase was in wildlife, not dogs), etc.,etc. Not once was the issue discussed that there was no rabies in the county in dogs. To this date there still has not been one case of dog rabies, including the population of dogs whose owners, GOD BLESS THEM, do not vaccinate for rabies. Let's go further.

From 1964 to 1989 there were no cases of rabies in cats in Pinellas County. Magically in 1989 a law was passed mandating rabies vaccination, tags and licenses for all cats. Same tired worn out excuses were used. Since the 1989 law there was one cat with rabies contracted from the bite of a bat. DO YOU READERS REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE JUST STATED? This is standard throughout the Country. No allowance is made for dogs/cats who never leave the house or yard, could never be exposed to rabies under any circumstances, or who are so ill, old or at the end of their life cycle that the rabies vaccine would throw them over the edge. No, all dogs and cats are treated the same because we have the bogeyman, rabies, stalking the streets waiting to strike unprotected dogs and cats.

Is there rabies in this Country? You bet. Are there areas of this Country that have rabies in their wildlife population and do some dogs/cats become infected? You bet. But let's be realistic. Rabies has been on this earth long before man walked here and will be here long after we are gone. The only way to get rid of rabies is to remove mankind and the upper animals susceptible to the virus. Then maybe the virus will die off. It is a self limiting disease in the wild as it is fatal. So the virus has an extremely hard time spreading far and wide.

What is wrong with targeting those areas of the Country that have a problem with rabies using a realistic and specially formulated program that will protect the population at risk? Too logical and the special groups don't make any money. Why not educate the pet owner to the risks and dangers and let them decide whether the immune system damage from rabies vaccination is greater or lesser than contracting the disease. We do have a God given Constitutionally secured right to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Public health officials always have the right to mandate emergency health care procedures in case the public, in general does not respond properly. But why should every day, month and year be as if an emergency or crisis exists? And why should we have more and more control of our lives taken from us?

The vaccines, particularly rabies, are a political and economic scam being forced upon pet owners because they do not know the truth. Rabies, nationwide, is nowhere near the problem the veterinarians, media, politicians and bureaucrats would like you to believe. If you wish more of the truth go to your local city or county government building and look up the codes and statutes concerning vaccines and rabies. Get figures from local animal control for rabies in dogs, cats and wildlife in your area. Then you can start to fight back, take control of your life, and protect your pet from the only dreaded disease that is important--special interest groups pushing their program leading to vaccine induced damaged immune systems. Only you can set yourself free.

Current Veterinary Therapy by Kirk, the textbook bible for veterinarians in general, has an article on canine and feline vaccines by two researchers. Near the end of the article is a paragraph called Annual Vaccinations. It states "The practice of annual vaccinations lacks scientific validity or verification. There is no immunological requirement for annual vaccinations. The practice of annual vaccinations should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law." Sure, if we can't manipulate you with annual vaccinations let's pass a law to get you into the office. Nice trick!

Well reader, it is your choice. I can only hope to stimulate you to look and go further. You don't have to take this suppression. Fight back. The only thing you have to lose is your freedom and you have already lost a great deal of it. I can fight with you but I can't do it alone.


Wow! Does he tell it like it is or what!
Dr. Fudens can be contacted at:
Affinity Holistic Clinic
1171 Lakeview Road
Clearwater, Florida
Phone: (727) 446-3603.

~ Source: http://www.naturalrearing.com/ARTICLES/GuestAuthors/RABIESSCAM.html 

June 3, 2002, 8:47PM
Pets don't need shots every year

Experts say annual vaccines waste money, can be risky

Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle Medical Writer

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."

Vaccination findings

Veterinary research challenges the notion that pets need to be vaccinated every 12 months. Some of the findings:

Dog vaccines/Minimum duration of immunity

· Canine rabies3 years

· Canine parainfluenza3 years

· Canine distemper (Onderstepoort strain)5 years

· Canine distemper (Rockborn strain)7 years

· Canine adenovirus (kennel cough)7 years

· Canine parvovirus7 years

Cat vaccines/Minimum duration of immunity

· Cat rabies3 years

· Feline panleukopenia virus6 years

· Feline herpesvirus5 or 6 years

· Feline calicivirus3 years

Recommendations for dogs

· Parvovirus, adenovirus, parainfluenza, distemper: Following initial puppy shots, provide booster one year later, and every three years thereafter.

· Rabies: At 16 weeks of age, thereafter as required by law.

· Bordatella: Use prior to boarding; may be repeated up to six times a year.

· Coronavirus: Not recommended in private homes. Prior to boarding, may be given to dogs 8 weeks or older, and repeated every six months.

· Lyme: Not recommended.

· Giardia: Not recommended.

Recommendations for cats

· Panleukopenia, herpesvirus (rhinotracheitis), calicivirus: Following initial kitten shots, provide booster one year later and every three years thereafter.

· Rabies: At 8 weeks of age, thereafter as required by law.

· Feline leukemia: Use only in high-risk cats. Best protection is two vaccines prior to 12 weeks of age, with boosters repeated annually.

· Bordatella: Use prior to boarding.

· Feline infectious peritonitis: Not recommended.

· Chlamydia: Not recommended.

· Ringworm: May be used during an outbreak in a home.

Sources: Ronald Schultz, University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine; Fredric Scott, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine; Colorado State University; University of California-Davis Center for Companion Animal Health.

~  Houston Chronicle.com


 PET Vaccination Findings

This link is the latest info since I have published this report:


I wanted to share this very important information with all my canine
friends. I've always known we were over vaccinating our dear fur
friends. Please print this out and take it to your current vet. It
looks as if after the puppy series of shots are fur kids are good for
life. Yayyyyyy!!!! It's about time this important factor is realized.

Subject: New Vaccination Protocol - IMPORTANT READING

by Dr. Dodd ... ALL 27 Vet Hospitals as suggested by Dr. Dodd for years, the revised Vaccination Protocol for
ALL 27 Vet hospitals will be changing their programs apparently.
This is welcome news and should be taken with you to your vet should you need
reinforcement against over-vaccination.

VACCINATION NEWSFLASH [CIMDA support] Re: J Dodd's vaccine protocol

I would like to make you aware that all 27 veterinary schools in North
America are in the process of changing their protocols for
vaccinating dogs and cats.

Some of this information will present an ethical & economic challenge
to vets, and there will be skeptics. Some organizations have come up
with a political compromise suggesting vaccinations every 3 years to appease
those who fear loss of income vs. those concerned about potential side
Politics, traditions, or the doctor's economic well-being should not
be a factor in medical decision.

NEW PRINCIPLES OF IMMUNOLOGY Dogs and cats immune systems mature
fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus vaccine is given after 6 months of
age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet (ie: canine
distemper, parvo,feline distemper). If another MLV vaccine is given a
year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens
of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titer is
not "boosted" nor are more memory cells induced.

Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they
subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and
immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia. There is no scientific
documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.

Puppies receive antibodies through their mothers milk. This natural
protection can last 8-14 weeks. Puppies & kittens should NOT be
vaccinated at LESS than 8 weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralize the vaccine
and little protection (0-38%) will be produced.

Vaccination at 6 weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of the first
highly effective vaccine.

Vaccinations given 2 weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the
immune system.

A series of vaccinations is given starting at 8 weeks and given 3-4
weeks apart up to 16 weeks of age.

Another vaccination given sometime after 6 months of age (usually at
1 year 4 mo) will provide lifetime immunity.


Experts NOW say annual vaccines  waste money and can be risky!
Vaccine related problems are potentially deadly.
Most shots for pet related diseases last 3-7 years!
33 States have now adopted triennial (every 3 years) rabies vaccination.

Vets are fighting the label change in order not to loose a source of revenue.
The vaccine program is a carrot to get you in the door for annual exams.
Evidence suggest vaccines can trigger fatal cancer in cats and deadly 
blood disorder in dogs. Immune reactions in dogs develops in some,
rejecting their own blood.

Corona Virus: not recommended in private homes. If boarding every 6 months.
Lymes: not recommended AT ALL
Giardia: Not recommended AT ALL

Sources: Ronald Schultz, University of WI School of Medicine
Fredric Scott, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine: Colorado
State U, U of CA-Davis Center for Companion Animals.

I received THIS Today 11/11/02:

Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers, DVM
5703 Louetta
Spring, Texas 77379

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:

1. 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

2. Immunologists doubt that Canine corona virus vaccine works, as it
would require secretory mucosal IgA antibodies to protect against orona
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

3. 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. 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. 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 rippotyphosa
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.

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. 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. 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%

3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines are available. 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.

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

4. Twenty- two Schools of Veterinary Medicine and the American
Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend this
vaccine. 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. 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.

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

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.

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.

Dr Robert L Rogers

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

~ http://www.gloryridge.com/vaccinations.htm

Why You Should NOT Vaccinate!

A Book Review by Rhona Zaid, PhD

        In this age, when technology trumpets miracle "cures," but delivers only greater intrusion, it is indeed encouraging to see that respect for the genuine health and welfare of non-human and human animals alike is the inspiration for Pat McKay's new book, NATURAL IMMUNITY, Why You Should NOT Vaccinate! (Oscar Publications, 1997). The author's thirty-year contribution to and research in the areas of health and nutrition for companion animals, much of which she chronicles in her earlier, widely-acclaimed work, REIGNING CATS & DOGS, Good Nutrition, Healthy, Happy Animals, has broken new ground in creating a platform where she presents the mounting scientific evidence that shows the obvious dangers, both immediate and long-term, of vaccination. Turning the tables on the self-serving stewards of the medical-research complex, whose emotional plea of "your baby or your dog," the over-used anthem that has persuaded many generations of the need for "animal research," McKay's hard data and authoritative commentary demonstrate that vaccination is detrimental to your baby and your dog. She explains effectively the pitfalls and perils of vaccination, and ultimately why the individual should avoid subjecting his/her animals or children to this practice.

        By clearly defining the physical problems vaccination causes at the outset, she establishes a frame of reference for the subsequent data and commentary that oppose it. "The general public has been sucked into believing that decayed animals, diseased blood, sera, bacteria, viruses, formaldehyde, mercury derivatives, acetone, aluminum and carbolic acid - shot directly into our blood systems - is the answer to keeping us free of disease. How barbaric." As she permits the reader to view the issue through the clear lens of common sense by removing the opacity and confusion caused by vested interests, she justifies her findings that vaccination "is not about protecting our animals and children, but about money and greed." Skillfully interweaving the opinions of medical and veterinary authorities, as well as evidence exposed by medical historians and researchers, McKay uncovers the hidden agenda in the vaccination question. Citing such renowned authorities as Robert Mendelsohn, MD; Viera Scheibner, Phd; veterinarians Michael Lemmon, Christina Chambreau, Russell Swift and the noted Richard Pitcairn, she produces a consensus of informed opinion that demonstrates how and why vaccination is indeed hazardous to the health. Following Pitcairn's admonition, "If you knew...that you would be sentencing an animal to a lifetime of chronic disease...would you still vaccinate?", she supports the point that repeated vaccination, in human and non-human animals, causes both acute and chronic diseases, but to which problems the medical establishment conveniently attaches other labels and causes. Concurring with medical historian Eustace Mullins that immunization may well be the most pernicious of practices, McKay underscores the fact that vaccination "goes directly against the discovery of modern holistic medical experts that the body has a natural immune defense against illness."

        Russell Swift, DVM, pointedly asks, "Who could think it is safe to inject several mutated viruses and/or bacteria directly into the body?" In answer to Swift's logical question, McKay looks at the intertwined political and legal issues that assure the survival of vaccination despite the growing indications that prove it is deleterious to health. Seeking a return to common sense, the author acknowledges that it is the general public's complicity, a product of its naive and unfaltering belief in the integrity of the medical and veterinary establishments, that remains the foundation of the vaccination industry. A major business, it generates great financial gain, not only in the overt manufacturing and administering of the vaccines, but in the covert residual income of repeat business in terms of ensuing acute and chronic disease treatment. Vaccination is definitely lucrative. In light of this information, it is clear why vaccination propagandizing is carefully planned and orchestrated, with the full participation of other key players, including the educational system and the media.

        Greed and power, asserts McKay, fuel the vaccination industry: "Even veterinarians and pediatricians who are aware - because they are so controlled by the bureaucratic medical and legal system - are afraid to state their concerns over the effects of vaccines." Apparently no one cares to rock so gold-laden a boat, least of all the politicians whose reward transcends the obvious financial "incentives" they receive from pharmaceutical laboratories and medical lobbies, but extends to their desire for increased control over the private lives of individuals. Along with J M Peebles, MD, McKay agrees that vaccination is a political connivance; not only is it a principal threat to health, but also "an outrage upon the personal liberties of the American citizen." She emphasizes the true (largely unpublished) failures of even the most celebrated vaccination successes, such as smallpox, which abated only when general hygiene conditions improved; rabies, a calculated campaign of fear, fraud and misinformation, and polio. At a national conference in Washington, it was announced that "all cases of polio since 1979 had been caused by the polio vaccine." Faced with such statistics presented by the medical establishment itself, common sense dictates that this dangerous practice should cease. Yet, with a nod to that hidden agenda, McKay sagely notes that common sense and reason are dismissed as "simplistic" by those "overeducated professionals."

        Written in the author's usual good-natured style, by presenting the scientific data and opinion in an understandable and cohesive format, accessible to all, she provides the reader ample initiative and ammunition to think for himself/herself in this vital issue. Offering additional information on how legally to avoid mandatory vaccinations for animals and children, and a practical resource guide and bibliography, NATURAL IMMUNITY speaks not only to animal guardians and parents, but to all of us who value our health and our natural right to self-determination to maintain it.

A few "must read" papers I have found
(many relate to vaccinations for humans, but are equally applicable (in their logic) to canine vaccinations)


The Case Against Immunizatons

By Richard Moskowitz, M. D.

From Journal of the AIH, March 1983; included in R. Mendelsohn, ed.,
Dissent in Medicine,
Contemporary Books, Chicago, 1985

A few quotes from this paper

"The attempt to eradicate entire microbial species from the biosphere must inevitably upset the balance of Nature in fundamental ways that we can barely imagine. Such concerns loom ever larger as new vaccines continue to be developed for no better reason than that we have the technical capacity to make them, and to manipulate the evolutionary process itself."


"The vaccine-related ailments we are aware of represent only a small part of the problem, and many others will be identified once we look for them. But even these few make it less and less plausible to suppose that vaccines produce a natural or healthy immunity that lasts for some time but then wears off, leaving patients unharmed and unaffected by the experience."


"It is dangerously misleading and indeed the exact opposite of the truth to claim that a vaccine makes us "immune" or protects us against an acute disease, if in fact it only drives the infection deeper into the interior and causes us to harbor it chronically, with the result that our responses to it become weaker and weaker, and show less and less tendency to heal or resolve themselves spontaneously."


Speaking of autoimmune diseases, Dr. Moskowitz writes: "If these speculations are accurate, the net effect of artificial immunization will have been to trade off the acute epidemic diseases of past centuries for the weaker, less curable chronic diseases of today, whose cumulative suffering continues to appreciate throughout life, and to introduce the new possibility of ongoing genetic recombination within the cells of the race."


"We worship the victory of technology over Nature as a bullfight celebrates the triumph of human intelligence over the brute beast. That is why we do not begrudge the drug companies their profits and volunteer the bodies of our children for their latest experiments. Vaccination is a sacrament of our participation in medical science, an auto-da-fé in the name of civilization itself."


"In any case, regardless of which studies are actually carried out, the point is that the technology to do them already exists. The only obstacle to their being done is our own refusal to acknowledge the likelihood that vaccines are not simply "wonder drugs" producing specific antibodies and nothing more, but complex, biological agents whose effects on the human organism are virtually unknown and urgently need to be investigated."


Vaccine preservative linked to brain disorders

CTV.ca NewsNet, February 5th, 2004

A new study is linking an additive used in the flu vaccine to an increased possibility of developing neurological disorders, such as autism and ADHD, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.

The flu vaccine contains an additive called thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. The chemical has been shown to interfere with brain development.

Thimerosal was phased out of the vaccines generally given to children in Canada since the 1960s. Yet it is still in the flu vaccine, says CTV medical correspondent Avis Favaro.

"It's always been in the flu vaccine," she says. "But it's only lately that the flu vaccine has been recommended to children six months and older."

The American university researchers looked at how thimerosal affects brain growth in children. They found that exposure to heavy metals, including ethylmercury-containing thimerosal, interrupts growth factor signaling in cells, causing adverse effects in regulating DNA function and brain development.

"Scientists certainly acknowledge that exposure to neurotoxins like ethanol and heavy metals can cause developmental disorders," said lead researcher Dr. Richard Deth. "But until now, the precise mechanisms underlying their toxicity have not been known.

Deth says his study could account for the rising rates of autism in recent decades, when more thimerosal-containing shots were added to a child's vaccine schedule.

"The recent increase in the incidence of autism led us to speculate that environmental exposures, including vaccine additives might contribute to the triggering of this disorder."

Favaro says the study shouldn't cause parents to panic or to stop vaccinating their children.

"The dose of thimerasol is very small and would be much less than a child would ingest if they ate a couple of tuna sandwiches a month," she says.

She points out that this study has found only the mechanism by which mercury could enter the brain, but does not confirm whether it is actually happening to children and causing ill effects.

"Parents should realize that there have been five studies looking at the link between thimerosal and autism and none of these studies have found any sort of link," Favaro points out.

"Parents should really not be that concerned."

Deth says he doesn't want to parents to misunderstand how important vaccine programs are to children's health.

"It's not the vaccines that are the problem -- it's the additives," he says.

The study appears in this week's issue of the journal Molecular Psychiatry and was published two months ahead of schedule.

Source:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1076000448085_71409648/?hub=Health 

New material on vaccinations added May 2006 ~ Click Here


Good Links:



Did you know that more the 95% of the dogs who contract Parvovirus during an outbreak have in fact been vaccinated against parvo? Same goes for rabies! Could it be that your dog is at greater risk for contracting these diseases if it has been vaccinated against them? Kind of makes you wonder!


Vaccinations More Harm than Good? You be the Judge!


Me, I don't vaccinate unless I absolutely have to for shipping.

I think its just a money making racket for the vets & drug companies.


If you feel you must vaccinate, wait till your puppy is at least 6 months old and give one shot for life (more frequent rabies is legally mandatory in some areas)


Here's a really good site on this topic . . . Click Here


But please, whatever you decide, do make sure your dog has a thorough annual vet examination.

This can help detect, and provide early intervention for, health problems.

 • Home Contact Us What's New New Litters Puppy ExportsAbout Us Pom Reader Kennel Visit Poms in Canada Kennel Visit  • About Poms Stud Services Links Photo Album • 

   • Fun Photos New Damascusroad ChampionshipsPuppies Growing Up List of ArticlesAbout Pet FoodSkin/Coat Care Vaccination InformationCKC Breed Standard •