Natural Vet for Pets P.C.
Veterinary holistic and homeopathic educational resources — suggested reading
Articles:Animal Diseases: A New Look at the Vaccine Question Excerpt from:
Animal Diseases: A New Look at the Vaccine Question By Richard H. Pitcairn, DVM, PhD Veterinary Immunology
Homeopathic Discovery of Vaccinosis
It is here that vaccination is first clearly described as a chronic disease. The effect of vaccination, besides the physical effects of stimulating an antibody response, is to establish a chronic disease — one that is long-lasting, indeed, in some cases a lifelong, condition. Burnett refers to the chronic disease that results from vaccination by the name Vaccinosis. So, we will adhere, in this discussion, to the same convention. Vaccinosis is to be understood as the disturbance of the vital force by vaccination that results in mental, emotional, and physical changes that can, in some cases, be a permanent condition.
Reprinted with permission from A New Look at the Vaccine Question by Richard H. Pitcairn.
We, the undersigned, would like to bring to your attention our concerns in the light of recent new evidence regarding vaccination protocol.
The American Veterinary Medical Association Committee report this year states that 'the one year revaccination recommendation frequently found on many vaccination labels is based on historical precedent, not scientific data'.
In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that 'there is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year. In fact, according to research there is no proof that many of the yearly vaccinations are necessary and that protection in many instances may be life long'; also, 'Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both benefits and risks for the patient'; further that, 'Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'
Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative or combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'
The report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003) is also interesting reading: 'Current knowledge supports the statement that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective and no vaccine is always indicated'; 'Misunderstanding, misinformation and the conservative nature of our profession have largely slowed adoption of protocols advocating decreased frequency of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides durations of immunity for core infectious diseases that far exceed the traditional recommendations for annual vaccination. This is supported by a growing body of veterinary information as well as well-developed epidemiological vigilance in human medicine that indicates immunity induced by vaccination is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, lifelong.'
Further, the evidence shows that the duration of immunity for rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for rabies and challenge studies for all others.
The veterinary surgeons below fully accept that no single achievement has had greater impact on the lives and well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability to prevent infectious diseases than the developments in annual vaccines. We, however, fully support the recommendations and guidelines of the American Animal Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce vaccine protocols for dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines unless otherwise scientifically justified.
We further suggest that the evidence currently available will soon lead to the following facts being accepted:
This would give possible new guidelines as follows:
In light of data now available showing the needless use and potential harm of annual vaccination, we call on our profession to cease the policy of annual vaccination.
Can we wonder that clients are losing faith in vaccination and researching the issue themselves? We think they are right to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic well-being of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical companies should not be a factor in making medical decisions.
It is accepted that the annual examination of a pet is advisable. We undervalue ourselves, however, if we hang this essential service on the back of vaccination and will ultimately suffer the consequences. Do we need to wait until we see actions against vets, such as those launched in the state of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He asserts that the present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception.
The oath we take as newly-qualified veterinary surgeons is 'to help, or at least do no harm'. We wish to maintain our position within society, and be deserving of the trust placed in us as a profession. It is therefore our contention that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of new evidence may well be acting contrary to the welfare of the animals committed to their care.