Animal Vaccination Concerns:
Vaccine-Associated Autoimmune and Other Diseases
Michael W. Fox BVetMed, PhD,
By way of introduction to this critical review, I wish to make it clear at the onset that I am not opposed
to the judicious use of vaccines. My approval is conditioned on the proviso that the deployed vaccines have high levels of
proven safety and effectiveness for each species upon which they are used, and requires that they become part of an integrated,
holistic health care and disease prevention program. When used as a sole therapy, vaccines do not constitute an effective
preventive medicine regime. The myth of infectious and contagious diseases having a single cause---the infective organism---is
at long last being abandoned as other co-factors are now being more widely recognized, extending the narrow view that developing
a specific vaccine is all one requires to reduce the morbidity and mortality of a given disease.
As a veterinarian I am
concerned about the consequences of the widespread dissemination of modified live virus (MLV) and genetically engineered (GE)
virus strains through the mass vaccinations of humans, livestock and poultry, and in-house companion animals. Some GE vaccines
have been widely used in several countries in bait to stop rabies in foxes, jackals, and other wild carnivores. These vaccines
all contain live viruses, and supposedly weakened attenuated or inactivated strains recombined, like the pox virus which is
used as an infective carrier, spliced with an attenuated strand of rabies virus DNA. In a different context, this is akin
to the Cauliflower mosaic virus that is used as a carrier of engineered genes in GE crops conferring herbicide tolerance and
the manufacture of insecticidal proteins (Bt in corn). But there is one big difference. The aim of vaccination is to
trigger an antibody immune response to the antigens in the vaccine. A poor response could lead to actual disease from the
vaccine or vaccine failure, just as immunologic over-reaction (via aggressive anti-self antibody production) could mean death
to the recipient.
The US Government’s Agriculture Fact Book 98 states that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service “regulates the licensing and production of genetically engineered vaccines and other veterinary biologics. These
products range from diagnostic kits for feline leukemia virus to genetically engineered vaccines to prevent pseudorabies,
a serious disease affecting swine. --- Since the first vaccine was licensed in 1979, a total of 79 genetically engineered
biologics have been licensed; all but 20 are still being produced. More than a half-century ago, there were perhaps a half
a dozen animal vaccines and other biologics available to farmers. Now there are 2,379 active product licenses for these animal
vaccines and other biologics and 110 licensed manufacturers.” *
Hundreds of thousands of cats have been injected
with a non-adjuvanted recombinant rabies vaccine spliced with the canary pox virus used as a ‘vector’. According
to Meeusen et al (2007) ‘Vectored vaccines are genetically modified organisms that have the genes responsible for encoding
the desired antigens incorporated into the genetic code of a "carrier" organism. The vector is non-infectious to the recipient
and transmits the desired immunizing DNA/gene to susceptible cells where the antigens are produced and presented to immune
cells. The vector with the hybridized DNA is also called a chimera—having genes of two or more unrelated agents. The
common vectors are capripox and canarypox viruses, adenoviruses and flaviviruses. These vaccines stimulate both antibody and
cell mediated immunity and, coincidentally, immunize with one dose. A concern is that repeated vaccinations may result in
immunity to the vector virus eliminating its ability to infect/transmit the desired genes to the immune system. Currently,
several vectored vaccines are used in companion animals.
Some genetically engineered viral vaccines consist of chimera
viruses that combine aspects of two infective viral genomes. One example is the live flavivirus chimera vaccine against West
Nile virus (WNV) in horses (PreveNile), registered in the United States in 2006. The structural genes of the attenuated yellow
fever YF-17D backbone virus have been replaced with structural genes of the related WNV. Chimera avian influenza virus vaccines
have been produced on a backbone of an existing, attenuated Newcastle disease virus vaccine strain to protection against wild-type
influenza virus as well as against Newcastle disease virus.
DNA vaccines are also being developed that consist of gene
segments of infectious organisms. They are injected directly into cells for the production of the desired immunizing antigens.
Intradermal injectors are used to deliver the DNA directly to the dendritic cells of the dermis. This system induces antibody
and cell mediated immunity with a single injection and provides prolonged immunity. A DNA vaccine is being tested for feline
leukemia virus. A DNA vaccine licensed with the USDA has been developed to protect horses against viremia caused by WNV. WNV
infection, caused by a flavivirus belonging to the Japanese encephalitis virus complex, is enzootic in parts of Africa and
Asia. It was first detected in 1999 in the US in an outbreak involving birds, horses, and humans in New York, subsequently
spreading rapidly to many states.
I was particularly concerned by research being conducted at Philadelphia’s Thomas
Jefferson University, Jefferson Vaccine Center under the direction of a Dr. Matthias J. Schnell who co-authored a scientific
paper entitled ‘Rabies virus-based vectors expressing human immunodeficiency’. The following is the Center’s
own synopsis of the research and development that is underway at this institution:
Research interests of the laboratory
are the development of novel vaccines and viral pathogenesis.
Vaccines: Our laboratory develops Rhabdovirus-based [Rabies]
vectors as vaccines against other infectious diseases. We are particularly interested in using molecular adjuvants and other
molecules to enhance antigen-specific immunity and manipulate and retarget immune cells. Using different molecular approaches,
we perform detailed studies of highly attenuated RVs expressing HIV-1 or SIV genes and analyze their immunogenicity in mice.
Our most promising HIV vaccine candidates are currently being analyzed in a monkey model for AIDS. Other approaches include
using genetically modified RV G proteins or RV capsids to carry antigens of other pathogens as vaccines against Anthrax and
Botulism. We also seek to develop safer and more potent RV vaccines for wildlife and humans.
Pathogenesis: We are interested
in understanding the interaction of rabies with the infected host at the molecular level. The molecular mechanism of rabies
virus pathogenesis is not well understood, and our research analyzes the different functions of the rhabdoviral proteins (e.g.
rabies virus) and their interactions with host proteins and the immune system.
Current projects are directed toward understanding:
RV virus neurotropism and neuroinvasiveness; The transport of RV within neurons and the interaction of the RV phosphoprotein
and glycoprotein with host proteins (receptors and transporter molecules); Immune responses of wild-type RV and RV-based vectors
in the infected host (innate and adaptive)
GE virus developers Dongming Zhou, Ann Cun, Yan Li, and co-workers with Philadelphia's
Wistar Institute, posted on line on June 22, 2006, (doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2006.03.027 ) a report entitled A Chimpanzee-Origin
Adenovirus Vector Expressing the Rabies Virus Glycoprotein as an Oral Vaccine against Inhalation Infection with Rabies Virus.
Their summary read as follows:
Rabies has the highest fatality rate of all human viral infections and the virus could potentially
be disseminated through aerosols. Currently licensed vaccines to rabies virus are highly effective but it is unknown if they
would provide reliable protection to rabies virus transmitted through inhalation, which allows rapid access to the central
nervous system upon entering olfactory nerve endings. Here we describe preclinical data with a novel vaccine to rabies virus
based on a recombinant replication-defective chimpanzee-origin adenovirus vector expressing the glycoprotein of the Evelyn
Rokitniki Abelseth strain of rabies virus. This vaccine, termed AdC68rab.gp, induces sustained central and mucosal antibody
responses to rabies virus after oral application and provides complete protection against rabies virus acquired through inhalation
even if given at a moderate dose.
These researchers used rodents, dogs, and primates in their research, and cultures of
chicken fibroblasts. They use the term “immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer” or IGT.
This is a brief sample
of the kind of research and development that is now going on world-wide. The use of recombinant replication-defective, vectored
vaccines that express the proteins of rabies virus raises several issues, and comes close on the heels of using modified adenoviruses,
herpesviruses and pox viruses as delivery systems for foreign antigens in livestock and poultry vaccines, and in bait to vaccinate
and immuno-contracept wildlife. (For details see OIE/World Organization for Animal Health, Manual of Diagnostic tests and
Vaccines for Terrestrial Mammals, 2008. www.oieint/eng/normes/mmanual/A_00099.htm)
In July 2009 the World health Organization reported several outbreaks of a mutated strain of poliomyelitis in children
identified as causing paralysis originating from children who had been given the oral, modified live vaccine that they shed
in their urine and feces which forseeably infected unvaccinated children. Oral vaccination of red foxes
against rabies in Ontario Canada, using a modified live virus vaccine in bait (often distributed from airplanes) has actually
caused rabies in red foxes, raccoons, striped skinks and domestic animals (a bovine calf), according to Fehiner-Gardiner et
Revisiting Vaccination Needs and Safety
The first vaccine was Jenner’s cow pox (vaccinia) that
gave protection to a related human virus, small pox (variola) when injected into the skin. This practice of dispensing a mild
infection in the form of a vaccine, to give protection against a more virulent, natural strain is an ancient one. Maasai and
other African herders would make small incisions on healthy cattle’s thighs and shoulders and then rub in a paste that
included the secretions from sores of infected animals suffering from diseases like rinderpest, a virus closely related to
measles and canine distemper viruses.
Jenner’s discovery was a rare instance of cross-resistance, since subsequent
vaccines did not have a less harmful related virus to use but instead were usually composed of killed organisms of the same
natural infective virus or bacterium to induce an immune response. A few safe and effective vaccines were developed to give
protection from tetanus and diphtheria using the inactivated toxins from these bacteria.
More recently, weaker, so called
attenuated, modified live virus (MLV) strains of the same species have been developed that ideally trigger specific antibodies
and an immune system ‘memory’ to enable recipients to fight off infection. Immunocompromised individuals might
get the disease from the actual MLV. In July 2006 Fort Dodge Animal Health recalled about 330,000 doses of a MLV rabies vaccine
after a quality-assurance test indicated an issue with the duration of protection. The company confirmed one dog contracted
rabies after receiving a dose from Serial 873113A of its Rabvac 3 TF vaccine. A statement from Fort Dodge added that the primary
reason a vaccinated animal would contract the disease is because of a poor immune response. But this does raise a red flag
over the potential risks of widespread dissemination of modified live virus vaccines.
Until recently, most vaccines were
given by injection, a route that was actually abnormal and possibly problematic, especially when additives like mercury and
aluminum were included in the antigen cocktail. Safer, more natural routes are via ingestion or inhalation, this latter route
being the focus of new vaccine research and development, especially for use in farmed animals in confined housing systems.
But since natural infectious viruses tend to mutate, the strain used in the vaccine may not prove effective, or gives incomplete
protection so that the recipient becomes a carrier or succumbs to the new infection.
Already we have seen MLV vaccines
infect non-target recipients, like nursing infants via the milk of recently vaccinated mothers. Some virologists believe that
the feline distemper or panleukopenia virus mutated and crossed over from cats, or from some unidentified wild carnivore,
to become canine parvovirus when it infected dogs. There is now a strain of canine parvovirus (CPV) that can infect cats with
a similar disease. Vaccines can be contaminated by other virus strains, abortions and deaths being reported in pregnant
bitches receiving a commercial canine parvovirus vaccine that was inadvertently contaminated with blue tongue virus of sheep.
Problems with Vaccines
The interactions between administering and receiving vaccinations and existing viral infections
in animal populations can be complex and have harmful outcomes. Wildlife biologist Dr Roger Burrows (personal communication,
May 13, 2009) writes that ‘Lions in Serengeti National Park (SNP), followed by those in the Masai Mara of
Kenya, died like flies in 1994 from a new strain of canine distemper (CD). This followed a period 1992-94 when domestic
dogs of agropastoralist/farmers to the west, and Maasai pastoralists dogs to the east of the SNP boundaries were being
experimentally vaccinated against rabies during a vaccination trial .The same new strain of CD in the rabies vaccinated domestic
dogs was subsequently found in the lions and was then found to have caused the death from CD of most of a captive colony of
wild dogs ( Lycaon pictus) in Mkomzai Game Reserve in Tanzania in 2000-2001 - these wild dogs had been vaccinated against
CD (using an inactivated strain developed for North Sea Seals!).
Following this, in 2007 the same new CD strain
was for the first time identified in free living African wild dogs in Maasai areas to the east of SNP where mass vaccinations
of local domestic dogs were being carried out against CD, CPV and rabies. The outbreak confirmed in one large wild dog pack
was associated with high mortality of this highly endangered canid species.’
When local breeds of domestic dogs
around Serengeti National Park (SNP) and the Masai Mara of Kenya were vaccinated against rabies and then soon after succumb
to a virulent outbreak of CD it would seem to indicate that the rabies vaccinations caused some immunosuppression and thus
increased susceptibility to CD. Attenuated vaccines should not be given to stressed and immunocompromised animals or humans.
multivalent vaccines such as attenuated CD and CPV together could also be problematic, where one could make the other revert
to a more virulent form due to the kind of reaction by the recipient to the other vaccine. Sensitization may occur following
vaccination, and subsequent vaccinations could cause an acute inflammatory reaction, the so called cytokine storm, which could
be fatal. This may explain why some dogs have severe reactions to vaccinations given a year or so after being given
the same cocktail of vaccinations toward which they showed no overt adverse reactions.
Vaccine Adjuvants & Preservatives
inflammatory response to vaccinations, for which adjuvants have been blamed, is associated with the development of injection-site
fibrosarcomas in cats and also dogs.
While the move toward developing preservative and adjuvant-free vaccines in order
to minimize harmful side-effects (such as vaccine hypersensitivities, and mercury-based preservatives exacerbating pre-existing
autoimmune disease), they are still widely used. Adjuvants are thought to enhance the immune response for small protein and
glycoprotein antigens that elicit a weak immune response alone, by direct stimulation of the immune innate response (inducing
local inflammatory reactions and stimulating the nonspecific proliferation of lymphocytes).
Aluminum salt and water/oil
emulsions adjuvants are used in food animal vaccines, but can lead to granulomas developing at injection sites. Particulate
or microsphere adjuvants are in limited veterinary usage in companion animal vaccines. They are made of biodegradable polymers
that allow for a slow release of the antigen to the immune system.
Immunostimulatory complexes, (ISCOMS) are being developed
and have been introduced into companion animal vaccines. They consist of a complex matrix of saponins, phospholipids and cholesterol
incorporating the selected antigen. Their particulate structure enhances their interactions with antigen processing cells.
ISCOMS tend to localize in lymph nodes draining the injection site, prolonging the immune response, and can be administered
at mucosal surfaces enhancing local antibody responses. Glycoside products called Quill A from the Chilean soap bark tree,
and saponins are used in some companion animal vaccines. Being quite toxic these adjuvants require extensive purification
to minimize toxicity. Squalene, a hydrocarbon triterpene, normally present in the human body as well as in shark liver and
wheat germ, is used in conjunction with DL-a-tocopherol and polysorbate 80 as an adjuvant in flu and other vaccines (See Novartis
MF59 and GlaxoSmithKline AS03 and AS 05. Injected squalene is suspected to cause a chronic inflammatory immune response in
some individuals and may induce lupus antibodies and autoimmune arthritis.
The widely used vaccine preservative, Thimerosal,
is a mercury-based compound that may damage DNA, neurons and T-cells. Several health experts insist that aluminum and mercury
adjuvants are not only neurotoxins but also immunotoxic, genotoxic, endocrine and glucose disruptors as well as pro-oxidant
and pro-inflammatory agents.
NANOPARTICLE CONTAMINATION OF VACCINES
Gatti AM, Montanari S (2016) New Quality-Control
Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. Int J Vaccines Vaccin 4(1): 00072. DOI: 10.15406/ijvv.2017.04.00072
presence of metallic nanoparticles reported in this extensive study is likely the result of polluted components or processes
used in the creation of the vaccines according to the researchers. They found metallic particles of aluminum, silicon, magnesium,
titanium, iron, chromium, calcium, lead, tungsten, stainless steel, nickel, gold, silver, zirconium, hafnium, strontium, platinum
and bismuth in vaccines manufactured in Europe. These controversial findings concluded with the opinion that these “investigations
revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria.
As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction occurs and a "protein corona" is formed.
The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since
it is not recognized as self by the body”.
Viruses Evolve and Mutate
Now that we have the new influenza viral strain that on its evolutionary journey in pigs
and poultry has killed wild birds, humans, dogs, and cats, we should honor the nature of viruses. And most importantly, not
fight them with vaccine cocktails of antigens with or without preservatives and adjuvants, which may make recipients extremely
ill, and even die. The latest influenza viral strain A/H1N1 isolated in human patients in the US has a genetic sequencing
indicating recombination of North American swine influenza, human influenza, avian influenza and Eurasian swine influenza
The entire field of vaccinology and vaccine development, which appeals to and has attracted many brilliant scientists,
is fraught by a reductionist paradigm which equates vaccinations with preventive medicine rather than seeing it as a last
resort at best: or a response in contexts where alternative methods of disease prevention and control have been tried and
failed, (e.g. sanitation).
The environmental and ecological consequences affecting inter-species balance, where modified
live vaccines may be transferred horizontally as well as vertically and where one or more species and particular at risk individuals
(‘at risk’ identified as those who are already immunocompromised by stress, malnutrition, and infection) may put
other species and individuals at risk due to population disruptions, are not being considered in the decision to vaccinate:
Or else the consequences of vaccination are simply dismissed. In many instances mild viral infections are often best treated
symptomatically and with nutraceutical supplements given as preventatives rather than run the risk of vaccinosis which could
be for life and cause much suffering and expense.
Genetic factors - individual, familial, sub-species (or hybrid and selected
breed or race) and species - represent important biological variables in vaccine risks and benefits and are now gaining some
belated attention. But the epigenetic effects and trans-generational consequences of introducing live vaccines into human
and animal (domestic and wild) populations have yet to be significantly addressed as representing potentially one of the greatest
long-tem risks, far outweighing any benefits except to their manufacturers and dispensers.
Application of the precautionary
principle is clearly called for, along with a vigorous bioethical evaluation, not simply to assess risks and benefits, and
safety and effectiveness, but of real need and in-context determination instituting application wherever appropriate, of alternative
disease-prevention measures. These alternatives include improved housing and humane treatment of animals raised for food;
better husbandry of free-range livestock and poultry to control diseases spread to wildlife (and vice-versa); not allowing
pet cats and dogs to roam free, community spay-neuter programs; and improved shelter, nutrition, sanitation, clean water and
socio-economic security incentives to facilitate the acceptance of family planning in many human communities around the world.
In the developed world we should not be surprised when pig and poultry-specific viruses mutate under certain conditions, as
in pig poultry and rabbit factory farms, to become infectious to humans, cats, dogs and wildlife.
The widespread dissemination
of small pox and rinderpest vaccinations have been touted as signal successes in eliminating these global scourges of human
and wild and domestic ruminant animal populations respectively. Such triumphalism needs to be tempered by the fact they have
done little to alleviate human starvation, overpopulation and the adverse environmental impact of livestock over-grazing and
over-stocking, to which they are now contributing until the next pandemic strikes.
Viruses are clearly an ‘indicator’
species reflecting their hosts’ quality and kind of life. Repeated mass inoculations of people and their domestic animals
can indirectly foster the selective evolution of other pathogens, or more virulent mutations, especially when the consequences
of such ‘public health’ measures are not fully considered and addressed, such as within ever increasing population
numbers and concentrations/densities. This means no end to business for investors and vaccine and drug manufacturers.
virologists now recognize that a gap of at least 3-4 weeks is desirable between giving one vaccine and then a different one,
because if not so spaced the immune response to the second vaccine may be inadequate and not produce sufficient specific antibodies
to give protective immunity. If there is a dormant/latent viral infection already present in the recipient, vaccination against
another pathogen could depress the immune system leading to the latent viral infection activating and expressing a new illness.
This may be the case in cats, for example, who can come down with feline leukemia or herpes virus infections after receiving
a feline distemper or rabies vaccine. Therefore, it concerns me that both humans, especially children, and animals are given
combinations of vaccines---‘cocktails’, an all in one visit rather than carefully sequenced series of different
vaccinations. It also concerns me that veterinarians seem to give little or no consideration to the role of vaccinations in
the etiology of animal diseases, especially since more such cases are being more widely diagnosed following repeat-vaccination
of dogs and of certain canine breeds in particular.
In their discussion of possible causal co-factors in the genesis of
neonatal pancytopenia in a herd of beef cattle, authors Bell and others (2010) make no mention of the potential role of vaccinations,
the herd in question receiving six different booster vaccinations two months before the start of calving. Similarly, Shiel
and others (2010) inexplicably did not raise the possibility of adverse vaccine reactions (vaccinosis) in a kennel of greyhounds
all receiving several vaccinations prior to dogs developing non-suppurative meningioencephalitis.
To make no mention of
the possibility of vaccinosis may or may not reflect some taboo or complacent attitude toward questioning the role of modified
live, attenuated and new-generation genetically engineered, DNA vaccines (and their adjuvant additives and substrate contaminants)
in the aetiology of various disease conditions, (Kamal 2009), notably those now increasingly diagnosed as auto-immune diseases,
(Duval & Giger 1996,Goggs and others 2008, Botch and others 2009).
Many modified live vaccines are grown on mammalian
cells which can harbor retroviruses. Miyazawa and others (2010) write:
The genomes of all animal species are colonized
by endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). Although most ERVs have accumulated defects that render them incapable of replication,
fully infectious ERVs have been identified in various mammals. In this study, we isolated a feline infectious ERV (RD-114)
in a proportion of live attenuated vaccines for pets. Isolation of RD-114 was made in two independent laboratories using different
detection strategies and using vaccines for both cats and dogs commercially available in Japan or the United Kingdom. This
study shows that the methods currently employed to screen veterinary vaccines for retroviruses should be reevaluated.
contaminants have led to adverse reactions such as kidney disease in cats (Lapin and others, 2006), and also to drug recalls,
as with human measles vaccine contaminated with low levels of avian leukosis retrovirus; rotovirus vaccine with porcine circovirus,
and Simian virus 40 in Polio vaccines possible leading to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Vilchez et al 2002). Adjuvants added to vaccines
to stimulate the immune response can also pose problems (Spickler & Roth 2003).Vaccines derived from cell cultures, such
as from canine kidney cells and human fetal cells, and intended for use in that same species, may cause auto-immune disease.
O’Toole and Van Campen (2010), expressing concern over the high incidence of abortions following cow vaccinations with
MLV vaccines, particularly to bovine diarrhea virus, for which there are over 150 different vaccination brands available,
urge government to require vaccine manufacturers to provide genetic sequence information to enable diagnosticians to be able
to differentiate between vaccine and field strains of viruses causing animal health problems.
The correlation between vaccinations
and neurological diseases in humans was demonstrated 15 years ago (Montinari and others 1996). Several human autoimmune diseases
have been shown since then to be associated with both genetic factors and vaccinations (Orbach and others 2010). The latter
authors state: “Infectious agents contribute to the environmental factors involved in the development of autoimmune
diseases possibly through molecular mimicry mechanisms. Hence, it is feasible that vaccinations may also contribute to the
mosaic of autoimmunity. Evidence for the association of vaccinations and the development of these diseases is presented in
this review. Infrequently reported post-vaccination autoimmune diseases include systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis,
inflammatory myopathies, multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and vasculitis. In addition, we will discuss macrophagic
myofasciitis, aluminum containing vaccines, and the recent evidence for autoimmunity following the use of human papillomavirus
These two associations (i.e.genetics (breed) and vaccinations) in the aetiology of various diseases in
dogs, (Scott-Moncrieff and others, 2002), some hitherto believed to be of ‘idiopathic’ origin such as epilepsy
and cutaneous atopy in dogs, have been reviewed ( Dodds 2001, Hogenesch 1999), nutritional factors ( Beck 2000) also being
considerable, including prenatal and epigenetic influences. Adverse canine vaccination reactions were documented several
years ago, notably interstitial nephritis and corneal opacity following vaccination with one type of infectious canine hepatitis
(Appel and others 1973), and encephalitis occurred when co-administered with a canine distemper virus vaccine (Cornwell and
Vaccinoses – Adverse Vaccine Reactions
This is the roulette of vaccine-based preventive medicine.
It has become an industry that we are learning to censor because of the increasing incidence of adverse vaccine reactions,
so called vaccinosis, in human and companion animal recipients. Selling annual vaccinations along with manufactured, highly
processed pet foods has become the bread and butter of conventional small animal veterinary practice. Yet this combination,
as in the consumer populace eating junk and convenience foods and being hypervaccinated in childhood, is the cause of a host
of iatrogenic health problems, compounded by genetic susceptibility in certain individuals. In the review Annual Summary
of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century published in Pediatrics, ( December 2000, Vol
106 / Issue 6 ) Bernard Guyer et al conclude “nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children
occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.” According to Guyer, et al: “State and
local health departments implemented these public health measures including water treatment, food safety, organized solid
waste disposal, and public education about hygienic practices.” But these measures have been supplanted by increasing
reliance on pesticides and other petrochemical and pharmaceutical products along with ever more vaccines for the animal industry
and to protect the human “herd” as public health officials mandate vaccinations for school children.
websites on this vaccination issue we find the following data: 1953: CDC recommended 16 doses of 4 vaccines (smallpox, DPT)
between two months and age six. 1983: CDC recommended 23 doses of 7 vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) between two months and age
six. 2013: CDC recommended 50 doses of 14 vaccines between day of birth and age six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between day
of birth and age 18. Concerning multiple vaccinations, in 1983, the CDC directed doctors to give a child no more than 4 vaccines
(DPT, polio) simultaneously. By 2013, the CDC directed that a child can receive 8 or more vaccines at once.
Dodds (2001,2016) has linked the following health problems in dogs to vaccinations, which can harm some breeds more than others
and appear more randomly in the ‘mixed breed’ segment of the population: fever, stiffness, sore joints and abdominal
tenderness, neurological disorders, polyneuropathy, transient seizures, and encephalitis, increased susceptibility to infections,
collapse with autoimmune hemolytic anemia, immune mediated thrombocytopenia, immune-mediated hemolytic anemia, autoimmune
thyroiditis, necrotizing vasculitis, joint disease, polyarthritis, and hypertrophic osteodystrophy. Hogenesch and others (1999)
conducted several studies to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening
immune-mediated diseases such as lupus and glomerulonephrosis. The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue
studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome
C, transferrin, cardiolipin and collagen. Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in genetically susceptible patients
with systemic lupus erythematosus, and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin
antibodies is significantly associated with cardiomyopathy.
Vaccinosis-prone dog breeds may mirror vaccinosis prone ethnic
groups and individuals in the human population. Diabetes Types 1 & 2 have been linked to early vaccinations in human infants,
(Classen 1996). Montinari et al (1996) were the first to use immunogenetics to show the antigenic linkage between brain damage
(demyelination) and a recombinant hepatitis vaccine in humans.
PfizerAnimal Health has acknowledged evidence of a
‘strong association’ between the use of its PregSure bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) vaccine and the later development
of ‘Bleeding Calf Syndrome’. The company voluntarily suspended sales of PregSure BVD in Germany in April 2010
and then in other member states in June 2010. (reprted by A. Driver in Farmer’s Guardian, May 3, 2011). This action
was initiated as a precautionary measure in light of reports that the vaccine may have an association with Bovine Neonatal
Pancytopaenia (BNP), the disease also known as ‘Bleeding Calf Syndrome’ that was first recognised in the UK in
The risks of growing vaccines in cells derived from the same species has been underscored by the research of
Deutskens et al (2011). They found that cows given Pfizer’s bovine viral diarrhea virus vaccine produced from cultured
bovine cells caused some cows to produce alloantibodies in response to the major histocompatibility complex class 1 (MHC1)
proteins which are released during the production process of the vaccine. If the mother cows MHC1 allotype differs from that
present in the vaccine, they will produce antibodies, but are not harmed. If the cows then produce calves with a different
MHC1 allotype derived from the father bull, the calves’ cells will be targeted by their mothers’ antibodies, transferred
in the colostrums. The alloantibody destruction of the calves’ megakaryocytes results in the calves being unable to
produce blood-coagulating platelets which results in bovine neonatal pancytopenia, the Bleeding Calf syndrome. Clear evidence
that repeated vaccinations with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune
disease has been published by K. Tsumlyama et al, (“Self-organizing criticality theory of autoimmunity”. PLoS
ONE Dec. 2009 Vol 4, Issue 12, e8382)
Interference or interreaction effects between different vaccines given in combination
at the same time or separately at close intervals are a legitimate concern, potentially causing increased virulence and immunosuppression,
or as Taguchi and others (2010) have shown, such immunization schedules depress the immune response and lowering antibody
titers, which may prompt the expression of latent infection or autoimmune disease to arise.
Humans and other animals with
inherited faulty B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal
infection. B and T cell immunodeficiencies are also associated with food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis,
neurological deterioration and heart disease.
Dog breeds vary in the titers they develop following vaccination, a low titer
not necessarily meaning poor immunity because of other components of immune defense mechanisms that blood titers do not measure,
including mucosal immunity, cell-mediated immunity, and immune memory ells. The innate immune system modulates the quality
and quantity of long-term T and B cell memory and protective immune response to pathogens.
Patients on steroidal and non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs may not produce a good antibody response to vaccinations, while pre-vaccination sensitization of dogs
with an allergen such as pollen can lead to hypersensitivity associated with excess amounts of IgE antibodies and subsequent
chronic inflammation of the skin, conjunctivitis and rhinitis. (Frick & Brooks,1981).
Long-term over-activation of
the immune system, as through hyperimmunization with repeated annual ‘booster’ vaccinations, may be a major cause
of cancer. Smith and Missailidis (2004) have proposed that inflammation could prevent the body from recognizing a foreign
substance and may therefore serve as a hiding place for invaders. Cancers are like wounds that never heal and are surrounded
by inflammation. This is generally thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this may not the case.
The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing
inflammation in order to hide from the immune system. That dogs surpass humans in the incidence of certain cancers raises
the probability of hyperimmunization with MLVs, a widespread practice in the US, the UK, Australia and many other countries.
and HogenEsch,(2010) in their review of adverse vaccinal events highlighted several issues:
1. Greatest risk was
associated with the total number of vaccines, that is, milliliters of vaccine, received at the office visit, and a dose-response
relationship was evident. The dose response was modified, however, by the dog’s body weight, as the (%) increase in
adverse event rate for each additional milliliter of vaccine in small (<10 kg) dogs was more than double the rise in rate
seen in larger dogs.
2. Vaccine excipients, probably common to many vaccines and manufacturing processes, are the most
frequent allergens in canine and feline vaccines. For dogs, these proteins may be of bovine origin. It is not known whether
protein exposure via diet (even exposure in utero or by nursing via the dam’s diet) influences the development of specific
IgE antibodies. This may, however, help explain allergic reactions occurring at the puppy’s first vaccination.
Breed predispositions have been identified in large studies, with greatest risk noted
for dachshunds, pugs, Boston terriers,
miniature pinschers, and Chihuahuas. Among
medium-to large-size breeds, boxers were at disproportionately greater risk..---
The number of vaccines simultaneously administered to high-risk dogs should be minimized. Whether spacing vaccinations
apart (and reducing incidence risk) reduces lifetime (cumulative) risk of a reaction is not known.
4. High-risk patients
can be premedicated with a H1 antihistamine,
for example, diphenhydramine, by subcutaneous or intramuscular administration
least 15 minutes before vaccination. Clinical manifestations of immediate hypersensitivity in dogs are often related
to the skin and general circulation, with signs of facial or periorbital edema, pruritus, wheals, hypotensive shock, or collapse.
Vomiting, with or without diarrhea, and respiratory distress are less common in dogs. Cats often exhibit gastrointestinal
and respiratory signs, including ptyalism, vomiting, and hemorrhagic diarrhea, as well as dyspnea, collapse, and facial swelling.
5.Treatment of type I reactions should be tailored to the type and severity of clinical
signs. Indicated drugs (used
alone or often in combination) include (1) H1 antihistamines to block histamine receptors in immediate phase, (2) rapidly
soluble glucocorticoids to block arachidonic pathways in late phase and shock, (3) epinephrine to relax
and (4) intravenous crystalloid fluids to combat hypotensive shock.
Although not indicated for all patients, epinephrine
and supplemental oxygen should
be administered to patients with respiratory distress and cyanosis.
These authors conclude:
vaccinal events, or perceived vaccine-associated adverse events, are relatively uncommon after canine and feline vaccination.
Nevertheless, undesired immune
sequelae occur, often evoking great concern from owners and attending veterinarians.
of the low incidence of these events and the large number of potential antigenic causes, exact mechanisms may be difficult
to elucidate. Good scientific studies,
genetic studies to identify populations and breeds at risk, improved vaccine quality,
and modified vaccination protocols will likely work together to further reduce these
events in the future.
equine veterinarians have informed me that most horses are given so many different vaccines that many become immunocompromised.
Vaccinating horses against West Nile virus can cause swelling in the front legs, fever, diarrhea and other systemic reactions
like purpura hemorrhagica, urticaria and anaphylaxis. West Nile vaccine is also found to cause abortions in mares. Pickles
and others (2011) found that 27 percent of horses given gonadotrophin-releasing hormone vaccinations had adverse reactions
including one “severe, presumed immune-mediated myositis.” (Expressed in the horse’s typical behavioral
response to pain as evidently excruciating and potentially fatal muscular inflammation).
In part because of the immunocompromised
condition of many racehorses infected with equine influenza and who passed the infection on to greyhounds at the same track,
a variant canine influenza vaccine is now marketed across the U.S.]
The Behavior and Ecology of Viruses
harmless viruses like the coxsackievirus can become virulent in selenium-deficient human hosts (Beck,2000). Stress and malnutrition
go hand in hand, impairing the immune system’s ability to respond effectively against viral infections---and even against
weaker strains in vaccines that then convey no immunity. Given this extreme variability of viruses that proliferate more as
population densities increase, especially down on the CAFOs---confined and crowded animal feeding operations for pig, poultry
and cattle industry “farms”, we should not be adding to the genetic diversity of the viral community by introducing
live GE vaccines. The same reservations hold true for the ‘philanthropic’ vaccination programs in the urban slums
and impoverished rural communities where humans, rats, rabid dogs, and Ebola virus- and AIDS virus-carrying monkeys are part
of the inter-species matrix for viral proliferation and evolution. We must look to safer and in the long term less costly
solutions by addressing the ecology and behavior of infectious viruses.
The kinds of viral research going on today, including
applications in biowarfare, are primarily driven to develop new vaccines to market in the name of ‘preventive’
human and veterinary medicine. The risks of genetically engineering new vaccines are considerable. Pair the release of such
GE vaccines into the environment with the recent reporting of the rabies virus rapidly evolving in Arizona and other parts
of the US. It is cross-infecting bats, foxes, and skunks, and health authorities are rightly concerned that the virus could
soon jump into the human population, like the Hanta virus, and West Nile virus. Adding attenuated live vaccines into such
a pathogenic milieu is counter-intuitive.
Using the proteins expressed from the rabies virus DNA, albeit replication-defective,
and splicing it on to a highly attenuated avian influenza virus for manufacture and use by the poultry industry world wide
is patently absurd in terms of potential risks and ultimate costs. Widespread vaccinations against one infectious strain may
open the door for the proliferation of a different pathogenic virus, as in the viral epidemic-vaccine associated outbreaks
of canine distemper and rabies in Maasai dogs and lions, wild dogs, and other endangered carnivore species. This is now being
compounded by the spread of canine parvovirus into their communities. It should not be forgotten that without rigorous manufacturing
protocols and safety tests, vaccines can become contaminated, not only with potentially hazardous DNA and RNA elements, but
also with live viruses such as the bluetongue virus in canine distemper vaccine (Wilbur et al 1994).
The development of
vaccines and biowarfare agents that can be dispensed as aerosols or nose-drops, (in part justified in order to reduce adverse
reactions to adjuvants in injected vaccines that can cause cancer and other diseases), has obvious military value. But such
aerosol vaccines, like those of pig brains in mid-west slaughter houses that caused neurological disease in several workers,
include foreign proteins that could trigger neurological and auto-immune diseases, allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock.
Safety and Consequences
Even if such government endorsed, pharmaceutical company funded, and ‘philanthropically’
supported institutions like the Jefferson Vaccine Center and Wistar Institute pass with flying colors on biosecurity, the
actual biosafety of their new vaccines can only be really determined after they are released. The bioethics and biological
consequences of these innovations have never been satisfactorily answered from a purely objective and scientific rather than
profit-driven perspective. The same must be said with regard to the creation of vaccine-producing plants, like the potato
with Hepatitis B oral vaccine that cooking will not destroy, and of genetically engineered and cloned farmed animals producing
monoclonal antibodies in their milk and blood for use in ‘the war on cancer’ and other anthropogenic diseases.
Developers of GE vaccines are gambling with life for primarily pecuniary ends especially when the use of such vaccines is
the primary if not sole response to potential pandemics and to the challenges of public health and disease prevention.
(2003) in her review of zoonotic consequences of vaccinations notes that human cases of Brucellosis and Bordetella infections
from animal vaccines have been documented, and that Buffalopox virus epidemics were first noted during the smallpox vaccination
era in India, Egypt and Indonesia. (See also Damasco et al 2000). Berkelman echoes my concerns over the widespread dissemination
of wildlife bait containing an oral rabies vaccine composed of recombinant vaccinia-rabies glycoprotein virus, noting that
human vaccinia infection associated with this product have been reported. With escalating use of such baits especially in
the U.S., the creation of a wildlife reservoir for vaccinia virus is highly probable.
The misanthropy behind commercial
vaccinology is more of consequence than design. Or so I wish to believe. The new generation of live GE vaccines being developed,
tested and marketed could amount to a chaos-sustaining genetic pollution that will predictably be far worse than radioactive
‘waste’, because it will be impossible to ever recall or contain. There are enough DNA damaging pollutants in
our food, water and air which need to be cleaned up as it is. Indirectly profiting from the health problems these are causing
with ever more pharmaceutical and other conventional, often iatrogenic, medical treatments is ethically questionable. Infections
to a large extent are anthropogenic, and so disease control has always been best achieved through such commonsense reduction
of exposure risk, good hygiene, mechanical barriers/quarantine, and assuring good nutrition and healthy (especially non-crowded)
It therefore may be prudent for those who are vaccinating billions of farmed and companion animals around
the world to consider the long-term health and environmental implications of vaccines, and the related concerns being expressed
and documented by virologists and other scientists over the safety, effectiveness and need for various vaccines currently
being introduced into human and animal populations (Chan 2006, Traavik 1999). Because of the shorter lives of animals being
killed for food the long-term adverse effects of vaccinations may only be evident in longer-lived breeding stock. DNA vaccines
that purportedly need no cold-chain preservation, are normally bacterial plasmids into which are spliced a promoter active
in mammals, such as the cytomegalovirus promoter. This drives the coding sequence for an antigen. The plasmid is taken up
by the mammalian cells and reaches the nucleus of some of those cells. There it is transcribed into RNA, which is translocated
to the cytoplasm and translated into antigen protein. DNA vaccines thus induce a full spectrum of immune responses. These
include antibodies, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and T helper cells. Concerns have been expressed over the induction of autoimmunity
and anti-DNA antibodies, which were observed in rabbits immunized with plasmids bearing a HIV reverse transcriptase gene.
Chan (2006), following up on the earlier concerns expressed by T. Travik writes:
Despite major therapeutic advances,
infectious diseases remain highly problematic. Recent advancements in technology in producing DNA-based vaccines, together
with the growing knowledge of the immune system, have provided new insights into the identification of the epitopes needed
to target the development of highly targeted vaccines. Genetically modified (GM) viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector
vaccines possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards. For all these vaccines,
safety assessment concerning unintended and unwanted side effects with regard to targeted vaccines has always been the main
focus. Important questions concerning effects on nontargeted individuals within the same species or other species remain unknown.
Horizontal transfer of genes, though lacking supportive experimental or epidemiological investigations, is well established.
New hybrid virus progenies resulting from genetic recombination between genetically engineered vaccine viruses and their naturally
occurring relatives may possess totally unpredictable characteristics with regard to host preferences and disease-causing
potentials. Furthermore, when genetically modified or engineered virus particles break down in the environment, their nuclei
acids are released. Appropriate risk management is the key to minimizing any potential risks to humans and environment resulting
from the use of these GM vaccines. There is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or
the consequences of genetic modifications.
Reliance on vaccinations as the cornerstone of preventive medicine and the top
priority of the new ‘One Health’ movement being promoted by the BVA, AVMA, and World Health Organization among
others, including philanthropic organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and even some scientists in
wildlife conservation and research, may be unwise, scientifically unsound, and medically unjustified when avoidable. Governmental
health agencies’ insistence on certain vaccinations, be they for children or animals, should recognize their full liability
to compensate victims for adverse reactions, and to empower attending physicians and veterinarians with the authority to grant
waivers where there is informed dissent, or conditions where such blanket regulations are inappropriate, as with companion
animals who are always kept indoors, farmed animals raised in accordance with organic farming standards, and all patients
who are immunocompromised.
Above all, natural ecosystems must receive emergency CPR---conservation, preservation and restoration
analysis and action. Unhealthy, human-infested and degraded ecosystems are ideal environments for viruses to spill over from
healthy carrier hosts, like bats who have brought us from their desecrated forests, the Hendra, Nipah and Ebola viruses that
killed people and, respectively, horses, pigs and neighboring chimpanzees and gorillas. The Simian immunodeficiency virus
spilled over into humans as HIV-1. Anthropozootic diseases (from the people to the wildlife) include polio, measles, influenza
In the absence of relevant bioethics, (Potter 1977 & Fox 2006), vaccinations and other medical and
veterinary practices may cause more harm than good, especially when altruism is misguided and or uninformed, and the Earth’s
‘carrying capacity’ and biodiversity-dependent functionality are not considered, (Hardin 1977).
are neither the end-all of preventive medicine nor its proper foundation but used with caution they may play a useful role
in integrated (animal-human-environment) medicine and health care maintenance. The behavior of viruses would seem to make
them an indicator bell-weather species for us to monitor and understand for our own good rather than reflexively seek to eradicate
them, since they reflect dysfunctional ecosystems and animal and human communities and populations.
Vaccination Protocols for Companion Animals
The World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) guidelines include the
statement that “dogs that have responded to vaccination with MLV core vaccines (parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus)
maintain immunity (immunological memory) for many years in the absence of any repeat vaccination”. The 2007 WSAVA guidelines
specifically warn that core vaccines should not be given any more frequently than every three years after the 12 month booster
injection following the puppy/kitten series. The American animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Task Force in 2003
noted that MLV vaccines are likely to provide lifelong immunity, stating “when MLV vaccines are used to immunize a dog,
memory cells develop and likely persist for the life of the animal”.
It should be noted that after receiving a polyvalent vaccine, dogs may be at short-term risk of infection because there is
suppression of absolute lymphocyte count and lymphocyte response to mitogen, but not when a vaccination against canine distemper,
or canine adenovirus type 1 or 2 is given separately, ( Phillips et al 1989).
While the World Small Animal Veterinary Association
now advocates a minimal 3-year interval between core ‘booster’ vaccinations for dogs and cats, the UK government’s
Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) remains adamant that veterinarians should follow the manufacturers’ guidelines
posted on their website as per Pfiizer Ltd Vanguard 7 Canine vaccine description in the VMD’s Summary of Product Characteristics
“The duration of immunity for canine distemper virus, canine parvovirus,
canine adenovirus type 1 and 2 and the leptospiral components are at least 12 months. However, the duration of immunity for
canine parainfluenzavirus has not been determined.---Re-vaccination Scheme:A single dose of Vanguard 7 to be given annually
The VMD chief executive, Prof. Steve Dean, in a letter to the UK’s Canine Health
Concern, while acknowledging the WSAVA basic 3-year core vaccination regimen is accepted by many on clinical and science-based
grounds, insists that the manufacturers' protocols published in the SPC, as per re-vaccination, should be adhered to by prescribing
veterinarians, stating that “if departing from the SPC, veterinary surgeons do so under their own responsibility, and
would be well advised to do so with the client’s agreement.”
Meeusen and others (2007) write: “A concern
is that repeated vaccinations (with canarypox or other vectored vaccines) may result in immunity to the vector virus eliminating
its ability to infect/transmit the desired genes to the immune system. Currently, several vectored vaccines are used in companion
animals”. Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that are given multiple vaccines per office visit are particularly at
risk of a vaccine-associated adverse event within three days of being vaccinated (Moore et al 2005).
NB The U.S. Supreme
Court ruling, Feb 22, 2011 to protect vaccine manufacturers from law suits following adverse reactions in children by denying
parents the right to sue in state courts is a disturbing matter of public record. U.S. Congress set up an informal “vaccine
court” in 1986 to settle claims, paying out $1.9 billion to more than 2,500 plaintiffs. The case that went to the Supreme
Court was rejected by the vaccine court even though the child suffers from residual, post-vaccination seizures.
Isolation of an Infectious Endogenous Retrovirus in a Proportion of Live Attenuated Vaccines for Pets
Miyazawa1 et al, J.Virol. April 2010 84:3690-3694
The genomes of all animal species are colonized by endogenous
retroviruses (ERVs). Although most ERVs have accumulated defects that render them incapable of replication, fully infectious
ERVs have been identified in various mammals. In this study, we isolated a feline infectious ERV (RD-114) in a proportion
of live attenuated vaccines for pets. Isolation of RD-114 was made in two independent laboratories using different detection
strategies and using vaccines for both cats and dogs commercially available in Japan or the United Kingdom. This study shows
that the methods currently employed to screen veterinary vaccines for retroviruses should be reevaluated.
Backfire: Veterinary Vaccines Found to Combine Into New Infectious Viruses
ScienceDaily (July 12, 2012) — Research
from the University of Melbourne has shown that two different vaccine viruses- used simultaneously to control the same condition
in chickens- have combined to produce new infectious viruses, prompting early response from Australia's veterinary medicines
According to Australian researchers, two new infectious laryngotracheitis viruses have arisen from vaccines
used to prevent the disease in chickens. The study, which compared the new viruses to two ILT vaccines widely used in Australia's
poultry industry, found that the live portions of the vaccines recombined, forming the two new strains. The study supports
the need for regulating the use of attenuated live vaccines across all species to protect against the formation of new viruses,
The vaccines were used to control infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT), an acute respiratory disease occurring
in chickens worldwide. ILT can have up to 20% mortality rate in some flocks and has a significant economic and welfare impact
in the poultry industry.
The research found that when two different ILT vaccine strains were used in the same populations,
they combined into two new strains (a process known as recombination), resulting in disease outbreaks.
Neither the ILT
virus or the new strains can be transmitted to humans or other animals, and do not pose a food safety risk.
The study was
led by Dr Joanne Devlin, Professor Glenn Browning and Dr Sang-Won Lee and colleagues at the Asia-Pacific Centre for Animal
Health at the University of Melbourne and NICTA's Victoria Research Laboratory.
Dr Devlin said the combining of live vaccine
virus strains outside of the laboratory was previously thought to be highly unlikely, but this study shows that it is possible
and has led to disease outbreaks in poultry flocks.
"Live vaccines are used throughout the world to control ILT in poultry.
For over 40 years the vaccines used in Australia were derived from an Australian virus strain. But following a vaccine shortage
another vaccine originating from Europe was registered in 2006 and rapidly became widely used," Dr Devlin said.
after the introduction of the European strain of vaccine, two new strains of ILT virus were found to be responsible for most
of the outbreaks of disease in New South Wales and Victoria. So we sought to examine the origin of these two new strains."
team sequenced all of the genes (the genome) of the two vaccines used in Australia, and the two new outbreak strains of the
virus. Following bioinformatic analysis on the resulting DNA sequence, in conjunction with Dr John Markham at NICTA's Victoria
Research Laboratory, they found that the new disease-causing strains were combinations of the Australian and European origin
"Comparisons of the vaccine strains and the new recombinant strains have shown that both the recombinant
strains cause more severe disease, or replicate to a higher level than the parent vaccine strains that gave rise to them,"
Dr Lee said.
Professor Glenn Browning said recombination was a natural process that can occur when two viruses infect the
same cell at the same time.
"While recombination has been recognised as a potential risk associated with live virus vaccines
for many years, the likelihood of it happening in viruses like this in the field has been thought to be so low that it was
considered to be very unlikely to lead to significant problems," he said.
"Our studies have shown that the risk of recombination
between different vaccine strains in the field is significant as two different recombinant viruses arose within a year. We
also demonstrated that the consequences of such recombination can be very severe, as the new viruses have been responsible
for the deaths of thousands of Australian poultry."
"The study suggests that regulation of live attenuated vaccines for
all species needs to take into account the real potential for vaccine viruses to combine. Measures such as those now being
taken for the ILT vaccines will need to be implemented."
Sang-Won Lee, Philip F. Markham, Mauricio
J. C. Coppo, Alistair R. Legione, John F. Markham, Amir H. Noormohammadi, Glenn F. Browning, Nino Ficorilli, Carol A. Hartley,
and Joanne M. Devlin. Attenuated Vaccines Can Recombine to Form Virulent Field Viruses. Science, 13 July 2012: 188 DOI: 10.1126/science.1217134
new study in the U.S. has shown that pigs vaccinated against one strain of influenza were worse off if subsequently infected
by a related strain of the virus.
H.Golding et al Vaccine-Induced Anti-HA2 Antibodies Promote Virus Fusion and Enhance
Influenza Virus Respiratory Disease, Sci Transl Med 28 August 2013: Vol. 5, Issue 200, p. 200ra114 Sci. Transl. Med. DOI:
Vaccine-induced disease enhancement has been described in connection with several
viral vaccines in animal models and in humans. We investigated a swine model to evaluate mismatched influenza vaccine-associated
enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD) after pH1N1 infection. Vaccinating pigs with whole inactivated H1N2 (human-like) virus
vaccine (WIV-H1N2) resulted in enhanced pneumonia and disease after pH1N1 infection. WIV-H1N2 immune sera contained high titers
of cross-reactive anti-pH1N1 hemagglutinin (HA) antibodies that bound exclusively to the HA2 domain but not to the HA1 globular
head. No hemagglutination inhibition titers against pH1N1 (challenge virus) were measured. Epitope mapping using phage display
library identified the immunodominant epitope recognized by WIV-H1N2 immune sera as amino acids 32 to 77 of pH1N1-HA2 domain,
close to the fusion peptide. These cross-reactive anti-HA2 antibodies enhanced pH1N1 infection of Madin-Darby canine kidney
cells by promoting virus membrane fusion activity. The enhanced fusion activity correlated with lung pathology in pigs. This
study suggests a role for fusion-enhancing anti-HA2 antibodies in VAERD, in the absence of receptor-blocking virus-neutralizing
antibodies. These findings should be considered during the evaluation of universal influenza vaccines designed to elicit HA2
Kanduc D. (2012) Peptide cross-reactivity: the original sin of vaccines. Front Biosci (Schol
Ed). Jun 1;4:1393-401.
Recent numerous studies have demonstrated that an extensive peptide identity platform
characterizes entities spanning the entire evolutionary arc from viruses to humans and establishes an immune cross-reactivity
potential among viruses and bacteria, as well as between microbial organisms and humans. This peptide commonality presents
obstacles to diagnostics, burdens therapeutic vaccinology with harmful collateral effects, and can result in autoimmune diseases.
The present study 1) recapitulates the significance of cross-reactivity from the molecular mimicry hypothesis to the phenomenon
of microbial immunoevasion; 2) analyzes the implications of cross-reactivity for the self-nonself discrimination issue; 3)
highlights the negative role exerted by cross-reactions in translating immunology to effective vaccines; 4) outlines the vicious
circle connecting peptide commonality, microbial immune escape, adjuvanted vaccines and autoimmune cross-reactions; and 5)
conclusively indicates sequence uniqueness as a basic criterion for designing effective vaccines exempt from autoimmune cross-reactions.
VACCINE FOR DOGS AND CATS
A U.S. patent has been issued on April 23, 2013 for the treatment of phenotypic obesity in
dogs and cats by vaccination, and covers ‘methods for enhanced somatostatin immunogenicity in the treatment of obesity’.
This genetically engineered vaccine was developed by Braasch Biotech based in South Dakota, which specializes in developing
and commercializing a new class of biopharmaceutical products for the human and animal health care market. Additional patent
applications are pending in Canada, Europe, Japan and other countries.
Given that obesity, which has reached epidemic
proportions in the U.S. and many other countries in both humans and companion animals, such a vaccine could be extremely profitable
since reported studies indicate that it can help promote weight loss. But how safe is it? Vaccines can notoriously fickle
when it comes to genotypic variables in immune response, susceptibility to autoimmune diseases and vaccinosis
the known physiological, regulatory and other complex functions of somatostatin are considered, we must question what the
short and long term consequences could be when a vaccine is given to block these functions. They include:
a polypeptide hormone, produced in the brain, stomach, intestine and pancreas, inhibits secretion of somatotropin growth hormone,
thyroid stimulating hormone from the hypothalamus and inhibits insulin production by the pancreas.
· In the stomach,
somatostatin acts on the acid-producing parietal cells parietal cells via G-coupled receptor to reduce secretion. Somatostatin
also indirectly decreases stomach acid production by preventing the release of other hormones, including gastrin and histamine.
It decreases the rate of gastric emptying, and reduces smooth muscle contractions and blood flow within the intestine.
the release of pancreatic hormones
o Inhibits insulin release when somatostatin is released from delta cells of pancreas.
the release of glucagon.
· Suppresses the exocrine secretory action of the pancreas.
The rationale behind
this vaccine is that it triggers the body into producing anti-somatostatin antibodies, effectively removing the inhibition
of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) which increase metabolism and weight loss. One immediate concern
of mine is the link between elevated IGF-1 and certain cancers, a reason why the U.K. and Europe banned recombinant genetically
engineered bovine growth hormone for use in dairy cows because it caused elevation of IGF-1 in the milk which could put consumers
GH induces growth promoting and other effects by stimulating the liver to increase production of the natural Insulin-like
Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) whose blood levels normally decline with advancing age. However, there are numerous publications in
prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals showing that elevated IGF-1 levels are strongly associated with major excess
risks of colon, prostate and breast cancers according to Dr. Samuel Epstein. (Source: Cancer Prevention Coalition Press Release
– March 14, 2000)
Several studies have shown that somatostatin can have a modulating effect on tumor suppressor
genes. ( e.g. see Xing, Z. et al. XAF1 expression and regulatory effects of somatostatin on XAF1 in prostate cancer
cells J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 29(1): 162). An anti-somatostatin vaccine, such as the one developed to induce weight loss,
could block this effect and thus increase the possibility of recipients developing cancer.
With appropriate dietary modifications,
supplements such as L-carnitine, regular exercise and microbiome enhancement with probiotics or fecal infusion, most cases
of obesity show dramatic improvement. In my professional opinion as a long-time critic of overvaccianation of companion animals
(see Healing Animals & the Vision of One Health, CreatSpace/Amazon.com) and advocate of wise use of vaccines and biopharmaceuticals,
I cannot endorse such vaccine treatment of obesity in dogs and cats especially since this condition is often associated with
diabetes, liver and heart disease which could be aggravated by a lack of somatostatin. In the absence, to my knowledge, of
published peer reviewed clinical trials and only basic resarch on obesity prone mice from my alma mater, the Jackson Laboratory,
Bar Harbor ME, I do not believe that this vaccine has a place in veterinary treatment of metabolically compromised dogs and
cats suffering from obesity. For additional details on the role of good nutrition in promoting and maintaining anu=imals’
health and well-being, see the book that I co-authored with two other veterinarians, Not Fit for a Dog: The Truth About Manufactured
Cat & Dog Foods.
FLU VACCINE HELPS UNRAVEL COMPLEX CAUSES OF NARCOLEPSY
Science News December 2013 by Deborah
“It was as unexpected as it was tragic: children in northern Europe who got one particular vaccine against
the 2009 swine flu pandemic were at a much higher risk of developing narcolepsy, a lifelong disorder in which people fall
asleep involuntarily and experience spells of muscle weakness Exposure to swine flu itself could also lead to the disorder:
after the pandemic, China saw a fourfold rise in narcolepsy in children who didn't receive any flu vaccine. New research has
now revealed the link between the two: part of a surface protein on the pandemic virus looks very similar to part of a brain
protein that helps keep people awake. When a person's immune system learns to recognise and fight the virus, it mistakes the
brain protein for an invader, too. The discovery could make flu vaccines safer and might also make narcolepsy the first autoimmune
disease to have its complex causes picked apart.”
VACCINES, ADJUVANTS AND AUTOIMMUNITY
C.A.Shaw and L. Tomiljenovic
Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity. Immunol
Res. 2013 Jul;56(2-3):304-16. doi: 10.1007/s12026-013-8403-1.
We have examined the neurotoxicity of aluminum
in humans and animals under various conditions, following different routes of administration, and provide an overview of the
various associated disease states. The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system
across the age span. In adults, aluminum exposure can lead to apparently age-related neurological deficits resembling Alzheimer's
and has been linked to this disease and to the Guamanian variant, ALS-PDC. Similar outcomes have been found in animal models.
In addition, injection of aluminum adjuvants in an attempt to model Gulf War syndrome and associated neurological deficits
leads to an ALS phenotype in young male mice. In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number
of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders. Many of the features of
aluminum-induced neurotoxicity may arise, in part, from autoimmune reactions, as part of the ASIA syndrome.
The book Vaccines
and Autoimmunity, edited by Yehuda Shoenfeld, Nancy Agmon-Levin and Lucija Tomljenovic (Wiley Blackwell, 2015) provides critical
review articles by 77 contributors from 15 different countries assessing the role of vaccine contents and protocols in the
genesis of autoimmune diseases in humans and animals. It should be mandatory reading for all involved in the manufacture and
distribution of vaccines and is a wakeup call for all health care providers in human and veterinary medicine.
insert avian influenza gene into duck enteritis vaccine
Scientists used CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to insert avian influenza
virus genes into the duck enteritis virus vaccine to protect ducks, geese and swans against both viruses. Domestic ducks in
Southeast Asia are a primary reservoir of highly pathogenic avian influenza strains and are important targets for vaccination
Poultry World (Netherlands) (4/3/18)
Influenza vaccines and dengue-like disease
vaccines can trigger dengue-like fever, cytokine storm and fatalities especially after prior sensitization with influenza
vaccination. BMJ 2018; 360 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1378 (Published 23 March 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;360:k1378 ---" When a person making anti-H3N2 IgE is infected with H3N2,
one can expect the course of the flu to be significantly worse. So the "cytokine storm" being observed in severe cases is
likely to be an infection concurrent with an allergic reaction. Death is caused by anaphylactic shock but due to the presence
of an infection, it is wrongly classified as septic shock.
M., BISTNER, S.I., MENEGUS, M., et al.(1973) Pathogenicity of low-virulence strains of two canine adenovirus types.
Am J Vey Res 34, 543-550
BECK, M.A. (2000) Nutritionally induced oxidative stress: effect on viral disease. Amer. J. Clinical
Nutr 71, 1676S-1679s.
BELL, C.R., SCOTT, P., SARGISON, D.J., et al ( 2010) Idiopathic neonatal pancytopenia in a Scottish
beef herd.Veterinary Record 167, 938-940
BERKELMAN RL (2003). Human illness associated with the use of veterinary
vaccines. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 37: 407-414
BOTSCH,V., KÜCHENHOFF, H.,.HARTMANN, K. et al.(2009)
Retrospective study of 871 dogs with thrombocytopenia. Veterinary Record 164,647-651
CHAN, V. (2006) Use of
genetically modified viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector vaccines; Environmental effects. J. Toxicology
and Environmental Health Part A. 69, 1971-1977
CLASSEN,J.B., (1996) Childhood Immunisation and Diabetes Mellitus.
New Zealand M.J., 109, 195
CORNWELL, H.J., THOMPSON, H., MCCANDLISH, I.A.P.,et al (1988) Encephalitis in dogs associated
with a batch of canine distemper (Rockborn) vaccine. Veterinary Record, 112, 54-59
DAMASO CRA, ESPOSITO JJ, CONDIT RC,
MOUSSATCHE N.(2000) An emergent poxvirus from humans and cattle in Rio de Janeiro state: cantagalo virus may derive from Brazilian
smallpox vaccine. Virology 277:
DEUTSKENS F. et al, (2011) Vaccine-induced antibodies linked
to bovine neonatal pancytopenia (BNP) recognize cattle Major Histocompatability Complex class 1 (MHC1). Veterinary Research
DODDS, W.J. (2001). Vaccination protocols for dogs predisposed to vaccine reactions. J Am An Hosp Assoc 38, 1-4.
W.J. (20160 rabies virus issues and therapy. Global Vaccines & Immunol. 1 (3) 51-54
DUVAL, D. &.GIGER, U. (1996).
Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog, Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10,290-295.
C.NADIN-DAVIS, S., ARMSTRONG, J. et al ( 2008). ERA vaccine-derived cases of rabies in wildlife and domestic animals in Ontario,
Canada, 1989-2004. J. Wildlife Dis, 44,71-85.
FOX MW.(2006) Principles of veterinary bioethics. J Am Vet Med Assoc
229, 666-667. See also FOX MW. Bringing life to ethics: global bioethics for a humane society. Albany NY: State University
of New York Press,2001.
FRICK,O.L. & BROOKS, D.L. (1981) Immunoglobulin E antibodies to pollens augmented in dogs by
virus vaccines. Am J. Vet Res 44:440
GOGGS, R.,. BOAG,A.K., & CHAN, D.L., (2008) Concurrent immune-mediated haemolytic
anaemia and severe thrombocytopenia in 21 dogs. Veterinary Record 163,323-327
HARDIN G.(1977) The limits of altruism:
an ecologists view of survival Bloomington: Indiana University Press
HOGENESCH, H., AZCONA-OLIVERA,J. & .SCOTT-MONCRIEFF,
C. (1999). Vaccine-induced autoimmunity in the dog. Adv Vet Med. 41,733-747
KAMAL, S.A, (2009) Pathological studies
of postvaccinal reactions of Rift Valley fever in goats. Virol J. 6, 94-103
KNOBEL,D.L..DU TOIT, J. & AND J.BINGHAM,
J. (2002) Development of a bait and baiting system for delivery of oral rabies vaccine to free-ranging African wild
dogs (Lycaon pictus) J. of Wildlife Diseases 38, 352-362
LAPPIN, M.R., BASARABA RJ, JENSEN WA. (2006) Interstitial
nephritis in cats inoculated with Crandell Rees feline kidney cell lysates. J. Feline Med. Surg. 8,353-356
WALKER J., PETERS A et al (2007) Current status of veterinary vaccines. Clin Microbiol Rev 20, 489-510.
ROKUSUKE YOSHIKAWA,R. MATTHEW, G. et al (2010) Isolation of an Infectious Endogenous Retrovirus in a Proportion of Live Attenuated
Vaccines for Pets. J.Virol. 84,3690-3694
MONTINARI, M.G., FAVOINO, B., & ROBERTO, A. (1996) Role of immunogenetics
in post-vaccine diseases of the central nervous system. Mediterranean J. Surg & Med. 4, 65-71
MOORE, G.E., GUPTILL,
L.F., WARD, M.P. et al (2005)Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs. J Am Vet
Med Assoc 227, 1102-1108
MOORE, G.M., HOGENESCH, H., (2010)Adverse Vaccinal Events in Dogs and Cats Vet Clin Small
Anim 40 393–407[ Elsevier)
ORBACH, H., AGMON LEVIN, N., & ZANDMAN GODDARD, G. (2010) Vaccines and autoimmune
diseases of the adult. Discovery Med 9, 90-97
O’TOOLE, D.O.,& CAMPEN H.VAN. (2010) Abortifacient vaccines
and bovine herpes virus1. J Am Vet Med Assoc 237, 259-260.
PHILLIPS, T.R. et al, (1989) Effects of vaccines on the
canine immune system. Can J Vet Res 53: 154-160
PICKLES, K.J., BERGER, J., DAVIES, R. et al (2011) use of gonadotrophin-releasing
hormone vaccine in headshaking horses. Veterinary Record 168, 19.
POTTER VR. (1971) Bioethics: bridge to the future. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, J.C., AZCONA-OLIVERA, J., GLICKMAN, N.W. et al (2002) H. Evaluation of
antithyroglobulin antibodies after routine vaccination in pet and research dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 221, 515-521
R.E., MOONEY, C.T., BRENNAN, S.F., NOLAN, C. M. et al (2010) Clinical and clinicopathological features of non-suppurative
meningioencephalitis in young greyhounds in Ireland. Veterinary Record 167, 333-337
SMITH, G.R., & S. MISSAILIDIS,
S.(2004) Cancer, inflammation, and the AT1 and AT2 receptors. J. Inflammation, 1,3
SPICKLER, A.R., & ROTH, J.A.
(2003) Adjuvants in veterinary vaccines: modes of action and adverse effects. J Vet Inter Med, 17, 273-281
NAMIKAWA, K., MAURUO, T. et al. (2010) Antibodies to parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus conferred to household dogs
using commercial combination vaccines containing Leptospira bacterin. Veterinary Record 167, 931-934
TRAAVIK, T. (1999)
An Orphan in Science: Environmental Risks of Genetically Engineered Vaccines. Research Report No.1999-5 Directorate for Nature
Management. Norway. www.naturforvaltning.no
VILCHEZ, R.A.,MADDEN, C.R., KOZINETZ, C.A. et al (2002) Association between simianvirus 40 and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
WILBUR LA, EVERMANN JF, LEVINGS RL, et al. (1994) Abortion and death in pregnant bitches associated with
a canine vaccine contaminated with bluetongue virus. J Am Vet Med Assoc; 204:1762–5.
are under more intense scrutiny internationally for both children (visit http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=7320) and companion animals (1).. Noting the correlation in children receiving the MMR vaccination (triple live measles, mumps
and rubella) and their subsequent development of inflammatory bowel disease(2), I see a possible parallel in puppies receiving
the standard triple modified live distemper, hepatitis and parvovirus vaccine as a factor contributing to the evident increase
in inflammatory bowel disease in dogs. But I would not rule out the possibility of dietary co-factors, especially considering
the novel proteins in GM foods, (3,4), and also glyphosate and other herbicide residues contributing to dysbiosis and inflammatory
(1 ) Fox, M.W. Healing Animals and the Vision of One Health. Tallevast, FL One Health Vision Press/Amazon.com
(2) Kawashima, H., Mori, T., Kashiwagi, Y., Takekuma, K., Hoshika, A., & Wakefield, A. Detection and sequencing
of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. Dig Dis Sci
(3) Dona A. and Arvanitoyannis,I.S., Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews
in Food Science and Nutrition. 49: 164-175, 2009
(4) Smith, J.M. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically
Engineered Foods Fairfield. Iowa Yes! Books 2007.
* For more details see www.twobitdog.com/DrFox/ and . OIE/world Organization for Animal Health, Manual of Diagnostic tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Mammals, (2008).
***This paper is included in the following Proceedings which provide further, extensive documentation of human
risks of vaccinations from researchers and doctors from around the world:
Additional References & Resources
Alexander, A. N., M. K. Huelsmeyer, A. Mitzey, et al ( 2006).
Development of an allogeneic whole-cell tumor vaccine expressing xenogeneic gp100 and its implementation in a phase II clinical
trial in canine patients with malignant melanoma. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 55:433-442
American Veterinary Medical
Association letter, re Center for Veterinary Biologics Notice Draft No. 327: Studies to Support Label Claims of Duration of
Immunity dated October 27 2008: http://www.avma.org/advocacy/federal/regulatory/practice_issues/vaccines/duration_of_immunity_ltr.pdf
Azad, N., and Y. Rojanasakul. (2006). Vaccine delivery—current trends and future. Curr. Drug Deliv. 3:137-146
P.J., McKnight, J., Novosad, A., et al (2003) Long-term survival of dogs with advanced malignant melanoma after DNA vaccination
with xenogeneic human tyrosinase: a phase I trial. Clin Cancer Res. 9(4), 1284-90
Crawford, C. 2002. The Current Status
of Canine Vaccinations: Are We Vaccinating Dogs With Too Many vaccines Too Often? Dog Owners and Breeders Symposium, University
of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine.
Day, M..J., Horzinek, M.C.,& Schultz, R.D.(2007) Guidelines for the Vaccination
of Dogs and Cats, compiled by the Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA).
Journal of Small Animal Practice 48 (9), 528-541: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf
Delves, P. J., T. Lund, & I. M. Roitt. (2002). Antifertility vaccines. Trends Immunol. 23:213-219.
J.,& Meier, P., and Wackernagel, W. 2004. Microbial horizontal gene transfer and the DNA release from transgenic crop
plants. Plant and Soil, 266: 91-104.
England, J. (2008). New Vaccine Technologies: Destined for Cattle Vaccines, CVC
Proceedings. August 1st.
Frick, O.L., & D. L. Brooks. ( 1983) Immunoglobilin E antibodies in pollen-augmented in dogs
by virus vaccines. Am. J. Vet Res. 44: 440-445
Friedrich, F. et al (1996). Temporal association between the isolation of
Sabin-related poliovirus vaccine strains and the Guillan-Barre syndrome Rev Inst Med Trop. Sao Paulo, Jan-Feb; 38(1):55-8
J., M. Reed, J. Wong,et al (2005). Evaluation of a monovalent companion animal periodontal disease vaccine in an experimental
mouse periodontitis model. Vaccine 23:3148-3156.
Isaguliants, M.G., Iakimtchouk, K., Petrakova, N.V.,et al (2004)
Gene immunization may induce secondary antibodies reacting with DNA. Vaccine 2004, 22(11-12),1576-85
Feline injection site-assiciated sarcoma: Is it a reason to critically evaluate our vaccination policies? Vet Microbiol.
Kowalczyk, D. & Ertl.(1999) H. Immune response to DNA vaccines. CMLS Cell. Mol. Life Sci.
Kuiken, T., G. Rimmelzwaan, D. van Riel,et al (2004) Avian H5N1 influenza in cats. Science 306:241
M.R., Andrews, J., Simpson D. et al (2002) Use of serologic tests to predict resistance to feline herpesvirus 1, feline calicivirus,
and feline parvovirus infection in cats. J Am Vet Med Asooc 220: 38-42
Lappin, M.R.,Sebring RW, Porter M, et al (2006)
Effects of a single dose of an intranasal feline herpesvirus 1, calicivirus, and panleukopenia vaccine on clinical signs and
virus shedding after challenge with virulent feline herpesvirus 1. J Fel. Med. Surg 8:158-163.
Ledwith, B.J., Manam, S.,
Troilo, P.J.,et al (2000) Plasmid DNA vaccines: Investigation of integration into host cellular DNA following intramuscular
injection in mice. Intervirology 43(4-6), 258-72.
Martin, T., Parker, S.E., Hedstrom, R., Le T., et al (1999) Plasmid
DNA malaria vaccine: the potential for genomic integration after intramuscular injection. Hum Gene Ther. 10(5), 759-68.
Mouzin, D.E.,Lorenzen, M.J., Haworth K., et al (2004) Duration of serologic response to five viral antigens in dogs. J
Am Vet Med Assoc 224: 55-60
Mouzin, D.E., Lorenzen, M.J., Haworth, K et al (2004) Duration of serologic response to three
viral antigens in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 224: 61-66
O’Byrne, K.J., & Dalgleish, A.G.(2001) Chronic immune
activation and inflammation as the cause of malignancy. British Journal of Cancer 85: (4):473-83.
Olson, M. E., D.W.
Morck, & H. Ceri. (1997) Preliminary data on the efficacy of a Giardia vaccine in puppies. Can. Vet. J. 38:777-779
A., N., M. Valiante,& J. B Ulmer. (2005)Targeting the innate immune response with improved vaccine adjuvants. Nat.
Paul, M.A., Appel, M.J., Barrett, et al (2003) Report of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)
Canine Vaccine Task Force: 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature:
Pulendran, B., & R Ahmed. (2006). Translating innate immunity into immunological memory: implications for vaccine
development. Cell 124:849-863.
Robbins, S. C., M. D. Jelinski, & R. L. Stotish. (2004) Assessment of the immunological
and biological efficacy of two different doses of a recombinant GnRH vaccine in domestic male and female cats (Felis catus).
J. Reprod. Immunol. 64:107-119.
Rupprecht, C. E., C. A. Hanlon, & D. Slate. (2004) Oral vaccination of wildlife against
rabies: opportunities and challenges in prevention and control. Dev. Biol. (Basel) 119:173-184.
Schetters, T. (2005) Vaccination
against canine babesiosis. Trends Parasitol. 21:179-184
Schultz, R.D., R.B. Ford, J. Olsen ET AL and F. Scott. (2002)
Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices. Vet Med 97: 1-13 (insert).
Schultz, R.D.,(2006) Duration
of immunity of canine and feline vaccines: a review. Vet Microbiol 2006, 117:75-79
Torch, W.S. (1982) Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus
(DPT) immunizations: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Neurology 32-4 A169 abstract
& Dodds, W.J (2000) Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody titers for determining revaccination
strategies in healthy dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 217: 1021-1024
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Center for
Veterinary Biologics Notice Draft No. 327 on the subject of “Studies to Support Label Claims of Duration of Immunity:
Vascellari, M., Melchiotti E., Bozza, M.A et al (2003) Fibrosarcomas at presumed sites of injection in dogs: x characteristics
and comparison with non-vaccination site fibrosarcomas and feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas. J Vet Med 50: 286-291
L.P. (2004) Viruses and the Evolution of Life. Washington DC, ASM Press.
World Small Animal Veterinary
Association Dog and Cat Vaccination Guidelines: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf
“The only safe vaccine is one that is never used... No vaccine can be proven safe before it is given to children.
” James A. Shannon, while serving as Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.