A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question about a vax



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 03, 11:55 PM
Cheryl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question about a vax

Hi all. This is probably a stupid question for some of you who know
drugs and interactions, reactions but I thought I'd ask. Shamrock has
an appt tomorrow night for his FeLV booster (necessary living with a
FeLV+ cat) and he's due for a dental but I'm not scheduling them
together so we'll schedule that tomorrow after his jab. He also is
unable to clear the latest allergy attack (it may not be tuna
afterall?) and is pulling his fur out again and has sores again so he
needs a depo shot (I think that is the steroid). Is getting a vax and
a steroid shot together going to render the FeLV booster ineffective?
I set up the appt with the receptionist so she didn't mention it and I
would hope the vet will when he comes in, but what do you think?



  #2  
Old September 11th 03, 04:50 AM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cheryl, I read an article yesterday and thought of you. It is about
vaccines. You might want to read it *before* the booster shots. It´s
at

http://www.adoredbeast.com/vaccines.shtml
  #3  
Old September 11th 03, 04:50 AM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cheryl, I read an article yesterday and thought of you. It is about
vaccines. You might want to read it *before* the booster shots. It´s
at

http://www.adoredbeast.com/vaccines.shtml
  #4  
Old September 11th 03, 04:50 AM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cheryl, I read an article yesterday and thought of you. It is about
vaccines. You might want to read it *before* the booster shots. It´s
at

http://www.adoredbeast.com/vaccines.shtml
  #5  
Old September 11th 03, 04:55 AM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here´s another one (there´s a link to this one on the URL I posted
above):

Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?

Vaccination is not as widely and unquestionably accepted today as it
was in the past. Many pet guardians and veterinarians believe we have
taken the concept much farther than its usefulness warrants. In twenty
years of veterinary practice, I have made the transition from
believing strongly in the protective power of vaccines to becoming
continually more certain that they create at least as much illness as
they have ever prevented. In truth, I now consider vaccination to be
tantamount to animal abuse in most cases.

This opinion has two main bases: First, vaccines often do not provide
any protection. This may result from poor vaccine performance (as with
feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, and
ringworm vaccines), lack of risk (all vaccines at times, but
particularly the above vaccines plus rabies), or simply lack of need
(as with booster vaccination in almost all cases). Secondly, many
vaccines actually induce illness that is much greater than that of the
diseases that they are designed to prevent.

A further consideration is that vaccination weakens the strength of a
population by allowing individuals to survive that otherwise would
succumb to natural diseases; these diseases provide cleansing and
strengthening for the population under normal conditions. The
population is further weakened by immunosuppressive and possibly
gene-damaging vaccine impacts. Vaccination likely provides protection
from acute, contagious diseases by inducing chronic disease. This
trade-off is not a good one and itself amounts to abuse.

Obviously there are several issues here that affect an immunization
decision. Each is a separate factor with its own issues. I'll start
with booster vaccinations, as this is the clearest area and one with
little risk of error. Simply put, there is almost never a need for
booster immunization. Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is
protected for life. Further vaccinations do not improve the immunity.
The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM,
appeared in Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely
conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected
veterinary immunologists in the academic community):

A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific
validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without
exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual
revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life
of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens
produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an
animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when
exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins
requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is
recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are
currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most
viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response
as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal
antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our
opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is
used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is
required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for
rabies). (Italics added)
In essence, Drs. Schultz and Phillips are stating that the only
reasons for annual vaccination are legal (as with rabies vaccination)
or as a means of manipulating guardians into bringing their companions
for examinations (rather than simply recommending an examination).
They also clearly state that booster vaccines provide no other
benefit, including improved or added immunization. Although it has
been some years since this was published, the veterinary community has
made little headway toward following these recommendations. Some
university experts now recommend vaccinations every three years, and
other university clinics recommend titer testing to determine need.
While both concepts are a step in the right direction, they still do
not reflect the actual picture.
As the above quote indicates, immunologic memory lasts for years
(usually for the life of the individual). This memory is not dependent
upon titers, nor do titer levels always accurately indicate the immune
status. A titer is a reflection of the quantity of circulating
antibodies (immunoglobulins) to a given antigen (in this case, an
organism). Cells in the body produce the antibody. These cells retain
the ability to produce antibodies toward a given antigen for quite a
long time, usually for life. Upon re-exposure, they can produce
antibody within forty-eight hours. As a consequence of this
capability, there is no need for the body to expend the energy needed
to maintain circulating antibodies. A low or absent titer, therefore,
does not mean the body is unprotected. The body may simply have cells
ready to act, like firefighters playing cards until they are needed.
When booster vaccines are administered, antibodies destroy the vaccine
particles before they can augment the immunity, and nothing is
accomplished.

With kittens, antibodies (maternal antibody) may be passed from the
mother to the kittens via the umbilical cord and via colostrum (the
first milk). This antibody serves to protect the kitten, but it also
can interfere with vaccination. For this reason, we often vaccinate
kittens multiple times, in hopes that we will give a vaccination
shortly after the maternal antibody diminishes to a level that will
not interfere with vaccination. This is often overkill, as one
vaccination can induce immunity in approximately 95 percent of animals
if the timing is correct.

Multiple vaccination, particularly with combination vaccines, is one
of the greatest contributors to vaccine-induced illness. Limiting
vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines
could greatly reduce disease from vaccination. In my opinion, this
would be a huge step in the right direction for those who are too
fearful to avoid vaccines entirely.

The next area of concern is that of risk. Veterinarians and vaccine
companies frequently use fear to convince others of the need for
vaccines. Often, the risk of disease is so small that vaccination is
foolish. Many cats are kept indoors, and while this practice is
certainly controversial (I believe all animals need exposure to the
outside), these cats have virtually no risk of exposure to most
organisms (especially rabies and feline leukemia virus, both of which
require direct contact with an infected animal). Vaccination is
generally pointless for these animals.

Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases
are not truly contagious. In these cases vaccination is useless since
it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are
immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. The
immunosuppression occurs first, allowing a virus, bacteria, or fungus
to grow. We know this because healthy animals are unaffected by these
organisms. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia
virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency
virus, and ringworm (in most cases). Vaccines for these diseases are
therefore of no benefit; in fact, they often induce just the disease
they are purported to prevent. These vaccines are among the most
dangerous ones available. The only prevention of these diseases comes
from a healthy diet and lifestyle.

Vaccination often receives undue credit for disease prevention, and we
often hear raving about the lifesaving benefits of vaccination. From
human studies, however, we know that the death rates of measles,
whooping cough, and polio had fallen significantly prior to the
introduction of vaccination; in the case of measles it had dropped 95
percent. Many practitioners around the turn of the century reported
that smallpox immunization often increased a person's chance of
disease; this was even reflected in public health statistics. (Miller)
Most of the reduction of disease actually resulted from good food and
good hygiene.

This brings us to the question of damage from vaccines. Although this
is the most controversial aspect of vaccination, I see this so
commonly that I personally have no doubts that vaccines are extremely
dangerous. Most of my homeopathic colleagues are in agreement. We
believe vaccination underlies a huge percentage of illness that we see
today, and especially the rash of autoimmune diseases; these have
increased dramatically since my graduation from veterinary school in
1979.

I'll briefly present a case that turned my head many years ago. When I
first heard that vaccines might actually cause disease, I was
skeptical. Of course, I knew about allergic reactions and other quick
responses, but I assumed that these initial reactions were the extent
of the problem. I remember a case, however, that opened my eyes.
Fluffy was a sweet Persian cat who lived with an equally sweet woman.

Fluffy had recurrent bouts of cystitis (urinary bladder inflammation)
that were very resistant to conventional and homeopathic treatment.
Despite the fact that I liked Fluffy's guardian (and Fluffy), I hated
to hear from her, as it was such a frustrating case. The bladder
infections were never under control for long before they would return.
One day I was reviewing the record for some clue as to what to do next
when I had a stunning revelation. The cystitis bouts were always about
a month after the yearly boosters. I suggested to Fluffy's guardian
that we no longer vaccinate Fluffy, and I never needed to treat
Fluffy's cystitis again. I could only conclude that vaccines could
indeed cause diseases—even a supposed infection.

Once I opened my eyes to the possibility of vaccine-induced illness, I
began to see it commonly. It even became clear that certain vaccines
could cause chronic illness that resembled the acute disease that the
vaccine was intended to prevent. Panleukopenia is a good example.

With panleukopenia, major symptoms include inflammation and
degeneration of the intestinal tract leading to severe vomiting and
diarrhea, severe reduction of white blood cells (leukopenia) leading
to immunosuppression, loss of appetite, mucopurulent nasal discharge,
dehydration, and rapid weight loss. The chronic diseases we see
frequently in cats correspond to many of these symptoms. Inflammatory
bowel disease, an autoimmune inflammation of the intestines, is
occurring at epidemic levels today. This disease was virtually
nonexistent twenty years ago, yet today it is one of the most frequent
diagnoses.

Cats are also extremely susceptible to immune malfunction and
immunosuppression. The immunosuppressive state has been associated
with two retroviruses (feline leukemia virus and feline
immunodeficiency virus), and others are suspected. Rather than these
being separate diseases, I believe they are the same, but that more
than one virus can fill the niche opened by the immunosuppression
(remember that with chronic diseases the illness precedes the
infection). This is probably the same in people with HIV (human
immunodeficiency virus) related viruses. Parvoviruses, which include
the feline panleukopenia virus, are known to be very
immunosuppressive. Additionally, I suspect the feline upper
respiratory infections are a chronic state of the panleukopenia
virus-induced immunosuppression and the tendency to get eye
discharges.

A similar scenario now exists in dogs. While immunosuppressive states
are not common in dogs, reports of their occurrence are on the rise. I
believe the massive vaccination program for canine parvovirus, which
began some thirty plus years after we began vaccinating cats with
feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus), is creating this situation in
dogs. If this is true, then the imminent future bodes poorly for dogs
if the problem in cats is an indication. Furthermore, we have been
seeing inflammatory bowel disease in dogs over the past five to ten
years. Prior to this it was virtually nonexistent. I am certain that
vaccination for parvovirus and coronavirus is a major cause. I
commonly see inflammatory bowel disease that arises within a month or
two after vaccination for one of these viruses.

There is still another syndrome associated with parvoviruses, one that
occurred first in cats, and later in dogs. Cardiomyopathy is a disease
of the heart muscle. The muscle may either weaken and stretch (dilated
cardiomyopathy), or it may thicken greatly (hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy). Either condition will limit the heart's ability to
pump blood. Cardiomyopathy is often fatal.

We have been diagnosing cardiomyopathy in cats for over twenty years,
approximately the same period of time as for inflammatory bowel
disease. Many (but not all) cases of the dilated form of
cardiomyopathy have been associated with a deficiency of the amino
acid L-taurine. The cause for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as
the cause for the nontaurine-associated cases of dilated
cardiomyopathy, is unknown. I believe that the answer may have
appeared in dogs.

When canine parvovirus first erupted in the late 1970s, many young
puppies died rapidly, sometimes within hours. It turned out that
parvovirus was capable of attacking the heart muscle in young puppies,
and this form of the infection killed the puppies rapidly.

Cardiomyopathy did not affect dogs before the parvovirus outbreak (or
if so it was very rare), but in the years since the outbreak it has
appeared. The number of cases has especially risen over the past five
to ten years, coincident with the rise of inflammatory bowel disease
in dogs. The Merck Veterinary Manual states that, "The cause [of
dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs] is still unknown although viral
infection and resultant autoimmune reaction against the damaged
myocardium are suspect…. Since the canine parvovirus (CPV) pandemic of
1978, male Doberman pinschers appear to be highly vulnerable to both
CPV and cardiomyopathy." (Fraser) In the years since this was written
(in 1986), we have begun to see cardiomyopathy in many other breeds as
well as Doberman pinschers.

I believe the author of this section of The Merck Veterinary Manual
was correct, but I believe that parvovirus vaccination is even more
likely to be the cause in most cases. I also believe that this
explains the occurrence of cardiomyopathy in cats. Perhaps the heart
muscle association of the feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus) was
not seen in natural infections, but vaccination brought it to the
surface. Cardiomyopathy is an autoimmune disease, and vaccines are
major causes of autoimmune disease. In my opinion, these connections
are too close to be coincidence alone.

Another vaccine that induces great anguish for guardian and companion
is the rabies vaccine. I see many cases of fear and aggression that
stem from rabies vaccination. If you consider the nature of rabies,
this might not surprise you. It appears we are introducing chronic
rabies into our animals by injecting rabies virus particles into their
bodies. How, you may wonder, could inactivated virus induce illness?
Apparently, the ability to affect change is not contingent upon the
quality of aliveness, as we understand the concept. In fact, viruses
are on the border between living and non-living; they require another
organism to reproduce and thrive; otherwise they are little more than
a chemical compound with the potential to alter the metabolism of
their hosts.

Other conditions we see frequently in veterinary medicine today are
not so directly traceable to a particular vaccine, but the general
connection to vaccination is clear to many practitioners.
Hyperthyroidism (increased production of thyroid hormones) was not
seen when I first graduated from veterinary school. It was not simply
misdiagnosed. The symptoms are so characteristic that the syndrome
would have been recognized even if the cause was unknown. The disease
did not exist. Could vaccines be responsible? Let's look at another
case:

Sheba is a Siamese mix cat. She was nine years old when her guardian
first consulted me. One week after vaccination, Sheba stopped eating
and developed a rapid heart rate. Her conventional veterinarian
suspected hyperthyroidism, although thyroid testing revealed no
abnormalities. One dose of Thuja (a homeopathic remedy) reversed the
rapid heartbeat and the appetite problems, and her health bloomed
after the remedy so that she was better than before she became ill.
Clearly the vaccines had caused these problems. I believe she would
have developed true hyperthyroid disease if untreated.

The status of cats has elevated significantly since the 1960's. Prior
to this most cats received little veterinary care. Since the 1970's,
however, as cat status elevated, the care given to cats has climbed.
This has generally meant more vaccinations. And rabies vaccination was
often not recommended for cats until the mid-1980s. I believe the
massive increase of vaccines in cats is responsible for
hyperthyroidism as well as many other recently emerging diseases.

Cats suffer greatly from vaccination damage. The most obvious
vaccine-induced problem is one that is deathly serious, causing great
suffering among cats and cat companions. Fibrosarcomas, a type of
cancer, occur more and more as a result of vaccination. The vaccines
that are implicated are the rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines.
These cancers arise at the site of injection of one of the vaccines.
Researchers have identified vaccine particles within the cancer mass
in a number of cases; the link is definite. Many veterinarians now
refer to these cancers as vaccine sarcomas. Fibrosarcomas are
malignant, and the average life expectancy is less than three years
once the cancer has arisen. No treatment has proven satisfactory. Even
with aggressive surgical removal, these cancers recur in the vast
majority of cats. Some leading veterinarians recommend giving the
vaccines in a leg, or even in the tail (ow!), to make amputation a
viable option in case the cancers arise. Does this make sense?

Obviously, when we reach the point of making recommendations like
these, we are out of control. But do we simply avoid vaccinations in
order to avoid all risk? Or is there possibly more risk by not
vaccinating? Personally, I am opposed to vaccination in virtually all
situations, but I will endeavor to give some guidelines that will
assist you in making a balanced decision regarding your feline
companions.

There are four criteria that are at the center of any vaccine
decision. One should only consider administering a vaccine if all four
criteria are met:

1. The disease is serious, even life threatening.

2. The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.

3. The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.

4. The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.

Let's look at individual diseases to see how this works. I'll start
with feline leukemia virus (FeLV) disease. An indoor-only cat will not
be exposed (number two) as this virus requires direct, intimate,
cat-to-cat contact for transmission. Many veterinarians recommend
immunizing indoor cats against this disease, but I feel this is
unethical. This disease does not fit criteria numbers three or four
anyway in my experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not
all circumstances. If a vaccine for the feline immunodeficiency virus
were developed, it would be the same as for FeLV.

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is another disease that fits
neither three nor four, and rarely number two. The FIP virus vaccine
has generally been found ineffective and has produced severe side
effects. Among the side effects I have observed with both FIP and FeLV
vaccines is induction of the clinical disease they were intended to
prevent.

Feline panleukopenia virus is very serious and the vaccine is quite
effective, but most cats will not be exposed to the virus and the
disease generally affects kittens only. Only those cats that are
likely to be exposed would benefit from vaccination, and one
vaccination between the age of ten to twelve weeks will protect 95
percent of cats for life. (Schultz)

With the feline upper respiratory diseases (calicivirus and
rhinotracheitis virus as well as feline chlamydia), most are not
serious except in very young kittens. These kittens generally contract
the disease before vaccines would typically be administered, so the
vaccine is not often beneficial. If you choose to immunize for these,
use the intranasal form, and do not vaccinate for chlamydia. The
chlamydia fraction produces poor immunization.

Recently a vaccine for ringworm was introduced. I have no direct
experience with this vaccine, but I am certain that it will have
little benefit and it is probably unsafe. Ringworm is usually the
result of immunodeficiency—a chronic disease rather than an acute
illness, so the vaccine will not address the cause of disease. I
strongly recommend against using this vaccine.

Finally, while rabies is a very serious disease with the potential to
infect humans (this is the reason for excessive vaccination laws),
most animals are very unlikely to be exposed. One vaccine at four
months of age will protect most cats for life. If one booster
vaccination is administered, almost all animals (95 percent) are
immunized for life. (Schultz)

In summary, my first recommendation is avoidance of vaccination
whenever possible. If the risk is great, one panleukopenia vaccination
will adequately protect the cat in almost all cases. The intranasal
rhinotracheitis-calicivirus vaccine is relatively effective, but very
few cats will benefit from this. Finally, rabies is legally mandated,
but one vaccination will generally protect cats that are at risk.

I never recommend vaccines for feline leukemia virus, feline
infectious peritonitis virus, Chlamydia, ringworm, or the feline
immunodeficiency virus. And I never recommend booster vaccines; these
are always unwarranted.

Clarence Fraser, ed. The Merck Veterinary Manual (Rahway, New Jersey:
Merck & Co., Inc., 1986).

Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? (Santa Fe,
NM: New Atlantean Press, 1994).

Phillips, T.R., DVM, and Ron Schultz, Ph.D., "Canine and Feline
Vaccines," in Current Veterinary Therapy XI, Robert Kirk, DVM and John
Bonagura, DVM, eds. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992).

Ron Schultz, "Theory and Practice of Immunization" (paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical
Association, Snowmass, CO, September 1995), 92-104.

Dr. Don Hamilton practices veterinary homeopathy in New Mexico. The
vaccination issue is comprehensively reviewed in a chapter of his
forthcoming book, Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs: Small Doses for
Small Animals, to be published this summer by North Atlantic Books.
Please see this book (available directly from Dr. Hamilton or at most
bookstores) for further information about vaccination or other health
problems, or you may call 505 666 2091 to schedule an appointment with
Dr. Hamilton. There is a charge for telephone consultations.
  #6  
Old September 11th 03, 04:55 AM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here´s another one (there´s a link to this one on the URL I posted
above):

Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?

Vaccination is not as widely and unquestionably accepted today as it
was in the past. Many pet guardians and veterinarians believe we have
taken the concept much farther than its usefulness warrants. In twenty
years of veterinary practice, I have made the transition from
believing strongly in the protective power of vaccines to becoming
continually more certain that they create at least as much illness as
they have ever prevented. In truth, I now consider vaccination to be
tantamount to animal abuse in most cases.

This opinion has two main bases: First, vaccines often do not provide
any protection. This may result from poor vaccine performance (as with
feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, and
ringworm vaccines), lack of risk (all vaccines at times, but
particularly the above vaccines plus rabies), or simply lack of need
(as with booster vaccination in almost all cases). Secondly, many
vaccines actually induce illness that is much greater than that of the
diseases that they are designed to prevent.

A further consideration is that vaccination weakens the strength of a
population by allowing individuals to survive that otherwise would
succumb to natural diseases; these diseases provide cleansing and
strengthening for the population under normal conditions. The
population is further weakened by immunosuppressive and possibly
gene-damaging vaccine impacts. Vaccination likely provides protection
from acute, contagious diseases by inducing chronic disease. This
trade-off is not a good one and itself amounts to abuse.

Obviously there are several issues here that affect an immunization
decision. Each is a separate factor with its own issues. I'll start
with booster vaccinations, as this is the clearest area and one with
little risk of error. Simply put, there is almost never a need for
booster immunization. Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is
protected for life. Further vaccinations do not improve the immunity.
The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM,
appeared in Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely
conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected
veterinary immunologists in the academic community):

A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific
validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without
exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual
revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life
of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens
produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an
animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when
exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins
requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is
recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are
currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most
viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response
as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal
antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our
opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is
used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is
required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for
rabies). (Italics added)
In essence, Drs. Schultz and Phillips are stating that the only
reasons for annual vaccination are legal (as with rabies vaccination)
or as a means of manipulating guardians into bringing their companions
for examinations (rather than simply recommending an examination).
They also clearly state that booster vaccines provide no other
benefit, including improved or added immunization. Although it has
been some years since this was published, the veterinary community has
made little headway toward following these recommendations. Some
university experts now recommend vaccinations every three years, and
other university clinics recommend titer testing to determine need.
While both concepts are a step in the right direction, they still do
not reflect the actual picture.
As the above quote indicates, immunologic memory lasts for years
(usually for the life of the individual). This memory is not dependent
upon titers, nor do titer levels always accurately indicate the immune
status. A titer is a reflection of the quantity of circulating
antibodies (immunoglobulins) to a given antigen (in this case, an
organism). Cells in the body produce the antibody. These cells retain
the ability to produce antibodies toward a given antigen for quite a
long time, usually for life. Upon re-exposure, they can produce
antibody within forty-eight hours. As a consequence of this
capability, there is no need for the body to expend the energy needed
to maintain circulating antibodies. A low or absent titer, therefore,
does not mean the body is unprotected. The body may simply have cells
ready to act, like firefighters playing cards until they are needed.
When booster vaccines are administered, antibodies destroy the vaccine
particles before they can augment the immunity, and nothing is
accomplished.

With kittens, antibodies (maternal antibody) may be passed from the
mother to the kittens via the umbilical cord and via colostrum (the
first milk). This antibody serves to protect the kitten, but it also
can interfere with vaccination. For this reason, we often vaccinate
kittens multiple times, in hopes that we will give a vaccination
shortly after the maternal antibody diminishes to a level that will
not interfere with vaccination. This is often overkill, as one
vaccination can induce immunity in approximately 95 percent of animals
if the timing is correct.

Multiple vaccination, particularly with combination vaccines, is one
of the greatest contributors to vaccine-induced illness. Limiting
vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines
could greatly reduce disease from vaccination. In my opinion, this
would be a huge step in the right direction for those who are too
fearful to avoid vaccines entirely.

The next area of concern is that of risk. Veterinarians and vaccine
companies frequently use fear to convince others of the need for
vaccines. Often, the risk of disease is so small that vaccination is
foolish. Many cats are kept indoors, and while this practice is
certainly controversial (I believe all animals need exposure to the
outside), these cats have virtually no risk of exposure to most
organisms (especially rabies and feline leukemia virus, both of which
require direct contact with an infected animal). Vaccination is
generally pointless for these animals.

Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases
are not truly contagious. In these cases vaccination is useless since
it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are
immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. The
immunosuppression occurs first, allowing a virus, bacteria, or fungus
to grow. We know this because healthy animals are unaffected by these
organisms. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia
virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency
virus, and ringworm (in most cases). Vaccines for these diseases are
therefore of no benefit; in fact, they often induce just the disease
they are purported to prevent. These vaccines are among the most
dangerous ones available. The only prevention of these diseases comes
from a healthy diet and lifestyle.

Vaccination often receives undue credit for disease prevention, and we
often hear raving about the lifesaving benefits of vaccination. From
human studies, however, we know that the death rates of measles,
whooping cough, and polio had fallen significantly prior to the
introduction of vaccination; in the case of measles it had dropped 95
percent. Many practitioners around the turn of the century reported
that smallpox immunization often increased a person's chance of
disease; this was even reflected in public health statistics. (Miller)
Most of the reduction of disease actually resulted from good food and
good hygiene.

This brings us to the question of damage from vaccines. Although this
is the most controversial aspect of vaccination, I see this so
commonly that I personally have no doubts that vaccines are extremely
dangerous. Most of my homeopathic colleagues are in agreement. We
believe vaccination underlies a huge percentage of illness that we see
today, and especially the rash of autoimmune diseases; these have
increased dramatically since my graduation from veterinary school in
1979.

I'll briefly present a case that turned my head many years ago. When I
first heard that vaccines might actually cause disease, I was
skeptical. Of course, I knew about allergic reactions and other quick
responses, but I assumed that these initial reactions were the extent
of the problem. I remember a case, however, that opened my eyes.
Fluffy was a sweet Persian cat who lived with an equally sweet woman.

Fluffy had recurrent bouts of cystitis (urinary bladder inflammation)
that were very resistant to conventional and homeopathic treatment.
Despite the fact that I liked Fluffy's guardian (and Fluffy), I hated
to hear from her, as it was such a frustrating case. The bladder
infections were never under control for long before they would return.
One day I was reviewing the record for some clue as to what to do next
when I had a stunning revelation. The cystitis bouts were always about
a month after the yearly boosters. I suggested to Fluffy's guardian
that we no longer vaccinate Fluffy, and I never needed to treat
Fluffy's cystitis again. I could only conclude that vaccines could
indeed cause diseases—even a supposed infection.

Once I opened my eyes to the possibility of vaccine-induced illness, I
began to see it commonly. It even became clear that certain vaccines
could cause chronic illness that resembled the acute disease that the
vaccine was intended to prevent. Panleukopenia is a good example.

With panleukopenia, major symptoms include inflammation and
degeneration of the intestinal tract leading to severe vomiting and
diarrhea, severe reduction of white blood cells (leukopenia) leading
to immunosuppression, loss of appetite, mucopurulent nasal discharge,
dehydration, and rapid weight loss. The chronic diseases we see
frequently in cats correspond to many of these symptoms. Inflammatory
bowel disease, an autoimmune inflammation of the intestines, is
occurring at epidemic levels today. This disease was virtually
nonexistent twenty years ago, yet today it is one of the most frequent
diagnoses.

Cats are also extremely susceptible to immune malfunction and
immunosuppression. The immunosuppressive state has been associated
with two retroviruses (feline leukemia virus and feline
immunodeficiency virus), and others are suspected. Rather than these
being separate diseases, I believe they are the same, but that more
than one virus can fill the niche opened by the immunosuppression
(remember that with chronic diseases the illness precedes the
infection). This is probably the same in people with HIV (human
immunodeficiency virus) related viruses. Parvoviruses, which include
the feline panleukopenia virus, are known to be very
immunosuppressive. Additionally, I suspect the feline upper
respiratory infections are a chronic state of the panleukopenia
virus-induced immunosuppression and the tendency to get eye
discharges.

A similar scenario now exists in dogs. While immunosuppressive states
are not common in dogs, reports of their occurrence are on the rise. I
believe the massive vaccination program for canine parvovirus, which
began some thirty plus years after we began vaccinating cats with
feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus), is creating this situation in
dogs. If this is true, then the imminent future bodes poorly for dogs
if the problem in cats is an indication. Furthermore, we have been
seeing inflammatory bowel disease in dogs over the past five to ten
years. Prior to this it was virtually nonexistent. I am certain that
vaccination for parvovirus and coronavirus is a major cause. I
commonly see inflammatory bowel disease that arises within a month or
two after vaccination for one of these viruses.

There is still another syndrome associated with parvoviruses, one that
occurred first in cats, and later in dogs. Cardiomyopathy is a disease
of the heart muscle. The muscle may either weaken and stretch (dilated
cardiomyopathy), or it may thicken greatly (hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy). Either condition will limit the heart's ability to
pump blood. Cardiomyopathy is often fatal.

We have been diagnosing cardiomyopathy in cats for over twenty years,
approximately the same period of time as for inflammatory bowel
disease. Many (but not all) cases of the dilated form of
cardiomyopathy have been associated with a deficiency of the amino
acid L-taurine. The cause for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as
the cause for the nontaurine-associated cases of dilated
cardiomyopathy, is unknown. I believe that the answer may have
appeared in dogs.

When canine parvovirus first erupted in the late 1970s, many young
puppies died rapidly, sometimes within hours. It turned out that
parvovirus was capable of attacking the heart muscle in young puppies,
and this form of the infection killed the puppies rapidly.

Cardiomyopathy did not affect dogs before the parvovirus outbreak (or
if so it was very rare), but in the years since the outbreak it has
appeared. The number of cases has especially risen over the past five
to ten years, coincident with the rise of inflammatory bowel disease
in dogs. The Merck Veterinary Manual states that, "The cause [of
dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs] is still unknown although viral
infection and resultant autoimmune reaction against the damaged
myocardium are suspect…. Since the canine parvovirus (CPV) pandemic of
1978, male Doberman pinschers appear to be highly vulnerable to both
CPV and cardiomyopathy." (Fraser) In the years since this was written
(in 1986), we have begun to see cardiomyopathy in many other breeds as
well as Doberman pinschers.

I believe the author of this section of The Merck Veterinary Manual
was correct, but I believe that parvovirus vaccination is even more
likely to be the cause in most cases. I also believe that this
explains the occurrence of cardiomyopathy in cats. Perhaps the heart
muscle association of the feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus) was
not seen in natural infections, but vaccination brought it to the
surface. Cardiomyopathy is an autoimmune disease, and vaccines are
major causes of autoimmune disease. In my opinion, these connections
are too close to be coincidence alone.

Another vaccine that induces great anguish for guardian and companion
is the rabies vaccine. I see many cases of fear and aggression that
stem from rabies vaccination. If you consider the nature of rabies,
this might not surprise you. It appears we are introducing chronic
rabies into our animals by injecting rabies virus particles into their
bodies. How, you may wonder, could inactivated virus induce illness?
Apparently, the ability to affect change is not contingent upon the
quality of aliveness, as we understand the concept. In fact, viruses
are on the border between living and non-living; they require another
organism to reproduce and thrive; otherwise they are little more than
a chemical compound with the potential to alter the metabolism of
their hosts.

Other conditions we see frequently in veterinary medicine today are
not so directly traceable to a particular vaccine, but the general
connection to vaccination is clear to many practitioners.
Hyperthyroidism (increased production of thyroid hormones) was not
seen when I first graduated from veterinary school. It was not simply
misdiagnosed. The symptoms are so characteristic that the syndrome
would have been recognized even if the cause was unknown. The disease
did not exist. Could vaccines be responsible? Let's look at another
case:

Sheba is a Siamese mix cat. She was nine years old when her guardian
first consulted me. One week after vaccination, Sheba stopped eating
and developed a rapid heart rate. Her conventional veterinarian
suspected hyperthyroidism, although thyroid testing revealed no
abnormalities. One dose of Thuja (a homeopathic remedy) reversed the
rapid heartbeat and the appetite problems, and her health bloomed
after the remedy so that she was better than before she became ill.
Clearly the vaccines had caused these problems. I believe she would
have developed true hyperthyroid disease if untreated.

The status of cats has elevated significantly since the 1960's. Prior
to this most cats received little veterinary care. Since the 1970's,
however, as cat status elevated, the care given to cats has climbed.
This has generally meant more vaccinations. And rabies vaccination was
often not recommended for cats until the mid-1980s. I believe the
massive increase of vaccines in cats is responsible for
hyperthyroidism as well as many other recently emerging diseases.

Cats suffer greatly from vaccination damage. The most obvious
vaccine-induced problem is one that is deathly serious, causing great
suffering among cats and cat companions. Fibrosarcomas, a type of
cancer, occur more and more as a result of vaccination. The vaccines
that are implicated are the rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines.
These cancers arise at the site of injection of one of the vaccines.
Researchers have identified vaccine particles within the cancer mass
in a number of cases; the link is definite. Many veterinarians now
refer to these cancers as vaccine sarcomas. Fibrosarcomas are
malignant, and the average life expectancy is less than three years
once the cancer has arisen. No treatment has proven satisfactory. Even
with aggressive surgical removal, these cancers recur in the vast
majority of cats. Some leading veterinarians recommend giving the
vaccines in a leg, or even in the tail (ow!), to make amputation a
viable option in case the cancers arise. Does this make sense?

Obviously, when we reach the point of making recommendations like
these, we are out of control. But do we simply avoid vaccinations in
order to avoid all risk? Or is there possibly more risk by not
vaccinating? Personally, I am opposed to vaccination in virtually all
situations, but I will endeavor to give some guidelines that will
assist you in making a balanced decision regarding your feline
companions.

There are four criteria that are at the center of any vaccine
decision. One should only consider administering a vaccine if all four
criteria are met:

1. The disease is serious, even life threatening.

2. The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.

3. The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.

4. The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.

Let's look at individual diseases to see how this works. I'll start
with feline leukemia virus (FeLV) disease. An indoor-only cat will not
be exposed (number two) as this virus requires direct, intimate,
cat-to-cat contact for transmission. Many veterinarians recommend
immunizing indoor cats against this disease, but I feel this is
unethical. This disease does not fit criteria numbers three or four
anyway in my experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not
all circumstances. If a vaccine for the feline immunodeficiency virus
were developed, it would be the same as for FeLV.

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is another disease that fits
neither three nor four, and rarely number two. The FIP virus vaccine
has generally been found ineffective and has produced severe side
effects. Among the side effects I have observed with both FIP and FeLV
vaccines is induction of the clinical disease they were intended to
prevent.

Feline panleukopenia virus is very serious and the vaccine is quite
effective, but most cats will not be exposed to the virus and the
disease generally affects kittens only. Only those cats that are
likely to be exposed would benefit from vaccination, and one
vaccination between the age of ten to twelve weeks will protect 95
percent of cats for life. (Schultz)

With the feline upper respiratory diseases (calicivirus and
rhinotracheitis virus as well as feline chlamydia), most are not
serious except in very young kittens. These kittens generally contract
the disease before vaccines would typically be administered, so the
vaccine is not often beneficial. If you choose to immunize for these,
use the intranasal form, and do not vaccinate for chlamydia. The
chlamydia fraction produces poor immunization.

Recently a vaccine for ringworm was introduced. I have no direct
experience with this vaccine, but I am certain that it will have
little benefit and it is probably unsafe. Ringworm is usually the
result of immunodeficiency—a chronic disease rather than an acute
illness, so the vaccine will not address the cause of disease. I
strongly recommend against using this vaccine.

Finally, while rabies is a very serious disease with the potential to
infect humans (this is the reason for excessive vaccination laws),
most animals are very unlikely to be exposed. One vaccine at four
months of age will protect most cats for life. If one booster
vaccination is administered, almost all animals (95 percent) are
immunized for life. (Schultz)

In summary, my first recommendation is avoidance of vaccination
whenever possible. If the risk is great, one panleukopenia vaccination
will adequately protect the cat in almost all cases. The intranasal
rhinotracheitis-calicivirus vaccine is relatively effective, but very
few cats will benefit from this. Finally, rabies is legally mandated,
but one vaccination will generally protect cats that are at risk.

I never recommend vaccines for feline leukemia virus, feline
infectious peritonitis virus, Chlamydia, ringworm, or the feline
immunodeficiency virus. And I never recommend booster vaccines; these
are always unwarranted.

Clarence Fraser, ed. The Merck Veterinary Manual (Rahway, New Jersey:
Merck & Co., Inc., 1986).

Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? (Santa Fe,
NM: New Atlantean Press, 1994).

Phillips, T.R., DVM, and Ron Schultz, Ph.D., "Canine and Feline
Vaccines," in Current Veterinary Therapy XI, Robert Kirk, DVM and John
Bonagura, DVM, eds. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992).

Ron Schultz, "Theory and Practice of Immunization" (paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical
Association, Snowmass, CO, September 1995), 92-104.

Dr. Don Hamilton practices veterinary homeopathy in New Mexico. The
vaccination issue is comprehensively reviewed in a chapter of his
forthcoming book, Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs: Small Doses for
Small Animals, to be published this summer by North Atlantic Books.
Please see this book (available directly from Dr. Hamilton or at most
bookstores) for further information about vaccination or other health
problems, or you may call 505 666 2091 to schedule an appointment with
Dr. Hamilton. There is a charge for telephone consultations.
  #7  
Old September 11th 03, 04:55 AM
Liz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here´s another one (there´s a link to this one on the URL I posted
above):

Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?

Vaccination is not as widely and unquestionably accepted today as it
was in the past. Many pet guardians and veterinarians believe we have
taken the concept much farther than its usefulness warrants. In twenty
years of veterinary practice, I have made the transition from
believing strongly in the protective power of vaccines to becoming
continually more certain that they create at least as much illness as
they have ever prevented. In truth, I now consider vaccination to be
tantamount to animal abuse in most cases.

This opinion has two main bases: First, vaccines often do not provide
any protection. This may result from poor vaccine performance (as with
feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, and
ringworm vaccines), lack of risk (all vaccines at times, but
particularly the above vaccines plus rabies), or simply lack of need
(as with booster vaccination in almost all cases). Secondly, many
vaccines actually induce illness that is much greater than that of the
diseases that they are designed to prevent.

A further consideration is that vaccination weakens the strength of a
population by allowing individuals to survive that otherwise would
succumb to natural diseases; these diseases provide cleansing and
strengthening for the population under normal conditions. The
population is further weakened by immunosuppressive and possibly
gene-damaging vaccine impacts. Vaccination likely provides protection
from acute, contagious diseases by inducing chronic disease. This
trade-off is not a good one and itself amounts to abuse.

Obviously there are several issues here that affect an immunization
decision. Each is a separate factor with its own issues. I'll start
with booster vaccinations, as this is the clearest area and one with
little risk of error. Simply put, there is almost never a need for
booster immunization. Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is
protected for life. Further vaccinations do not improve the immunity.
The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM,
appeared in Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely
conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected
veterinary immunologists in the academic community):

A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific
validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without
exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual
revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life
of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens
produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an
animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when
exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins
requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is
recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are
currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most
viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response
as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal
antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our
opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is
used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is
required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for
rabies). (Italics added)
In essence, Drs. Schultz and Phillips are stating that the only
reasons for annual vaccination are legal (as with rabies vaccination)
or as a means of manipulating guardians into bringing their companions
for examinations (rather than simply recommending an examination).
They also clearly state that booster vaccines provide no other
benefit, including improved or added immunization. Although it has
been some years since this was published, the veterinary community has
made little headway toward following these recommendations. Some
university experts now recommend vaccinations every three years, and
other university clinics recommend titer testing to determine need.
While both concepts are a step in the right direction, they still do
not reflect the actual picture.
As the above quote indicates, immunologic memory lasts for years
(usually for the life of the individual). This memory is not dependent
upon titers, nor do titer levels always accurately indicate the immune
status. A titer is a reflection of the quantity of circulating
antibodies (immunoglobulins) to a given antigen (in this case, an
organism). Cells in the body produce the antibody. These cells retain
the ability to produce antibodies toward a given antigen for quite a
long time, usually for life. Upon re-exposure, they can produce
antibody within forty-eight hours. As a consequence of this
capability, there is no need for the body to expend the energy needed
to maintain circulating antibodies. A low or absent titer, therefore,
does not mean the body is unprotected. The body may simply have cells
ready to act, like firefighters playing cards until they are needed.
When booster vaccines are administered, antibodies destroy the vaccine
particles before they can augment the immunity, and nothing is
accomplished.

With kittens, antibodies (maternal antibody) may be passed from the
mother to the kittens via the umbilical cord and via colostrum (the
first milk). This antibody serves to protect the kitten, but it also
can interfere with vaccination. For this reason, we often vaccinate
kittens multiple times, in hopes that we will give a vaccination
shortly after the maternal antibody diminishes to a level that will
not interfere with vaccination. This is often overkill, as one
vaccination can induce immunity in approximately 95 percent of animals
if the timing is correct.

Multiple vaccination, particularly with combination vaccines, is one
of the greatest contributors to vaccine-induced illness. Limiting
vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines
could greatly reduce disease from vaccination. In my opinion, this
would be a huge step in the right direction for those who are too
fearful to avoid vaccines entirely.

The next area of concern is that of risk. Veterinarians and vaccine
companies frequently use fear to convince others of the need for
vaccines. Often, the risk of disease is so small that vaccination is
foolish. Many cats are kept indoors, and while this practice is
certainly controversial (I believe all animals need exposure to the
outside), these cats have virtually no risk of exposure to most
organisms (especially rabies and feline leukemia virus, both of which
require direct contact with an infected animal). Vaccination is
generally pointless for these animals.

Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases
are not truly contagious. In these cases vaccination is useless since
it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are
immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. The
immunosuppression occurs first, allowing a virus, bacteria, or fungus
to grow. We know this because healthy animals are unaffected by these
organisms. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia
virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency
virus, and ringworm (in most cases). Vaccines for these diseases are
therefore of no benefit; in fact, they often induce just the disease
they are purported to prevent. These vaccines are among the most
dangerous ones available. The only prevention of these diseases comes
from a healthy diet and lifestyle.

Vaccination often receives undue credit for disease prevention, and we
often hear raving about the lifesaving benefits of vaccination. From
human studies, however, we know that the death rates of measles,
whooping cough, and polio had fallen significantly prior to the
introduction of vaccination; in the case of measles it had dropped 95
percent. Many practitioners around the turn of the century reported
that smallpox immunization often increased a person's chance of
disease; this was even reflected in public health statistics. (Miller)
Most of the reduction of disease actually resulted from good food and
good hygiene.

This brings us to the question of damage from vaccines. Although this
is the most controversial aspect of vaccination, I see this so
commonly that I personally have no doubts that vaccines are extremely
dangerous. Most of my homeopathic colleagues are in agreement. We
believe vaccination underlies a huge percentage of illness that we see
today, and especially the rash of autoimmune diseases; these have
increased dramatically since my graduation from veterinary school in
1979.

I'll briefly present a case that turned my head many years ago. When I
first heard that vaccines might actually cause disease, I was
skeptical. Of course, I knew about allergic reactions and other quick
responses, but I assumed that these initial reactions were the extent
of the problem. I remember a case, however, that opened my eyes.
Fluffy was a sweet Persian cat who lived with an equally sweet woman.

Fluffy had recurrent bouts of cystitis (urinary bladder inflammation)
that were very resistant to conventional and homeopathic treatment.
Despite the fact that I liked Fluffy's guardian (and Fluffy), I hated
to hear from her, as it was such a frustrating case. The bladder
infections were never under control for long before they would return.
One day I was reviewing the record for some clue as to what to do next
when I had a stunning revelation. The cystitis bouts were always about
a month after the yearly boosters. I suggested to Fluffy's guardian
that we no longer vaccinate Fluffy, and I never needed to treat
Fluffy's cystitis again. I could only conclude that vaccines could
indeed cause diseases—even a supposed infection.

Once I opened my eyes to the possibility of vaccine-induced illness, I
began to see it commonly. It even became clear that certain vaccines
could cause chronic illness that resembled the acute disease that the
vaccine was intended to prevent. Panleukopenia is a good example.

With panleukopenia, major symptoms include inflammation and
degeneration of the intestinal tract leading to severe vomiting and
diarrhea, severe reduction of white blood cells (leukopenia) leading
to immunosuppression, loss of appetite, mucopurulent nasal discharge,
dehydration, and rapid weight loss. The chronic diseases we see
frequently in cats correspond to many of these symptoms. Inflammatory
bowel disease, an autoimmune inflammation of the intestines, is
occurring at epidemic levels today. This disease was virtually
nonexistent twenty years ago, yet today it is one of the most frequent
diagnoses.

Cats are also extremely susceptible to immune malfunction and
immunosuppression. The immunosuppressive state has been associated
with two retroviruses (feline leukemia virus and feline
immunodeficiency virus), and others are suspected. Rather than these
being separate diseases, I believe they are the same, but that more
than one virus can fill the niche opened by the immunosuppression
(remember that with chronic diseases the illness precedes the
infection). This is probably the same in people with HIV (human
immunodeficiency virus) related viruses. Parvoviruses, which include
the feline panleukopenia virus, are known to be very
immunosuppressive. Additionally, I suspect the feline upper
respiratory infections are a chronic state of the panleukopenia
virus-induced immunosuppression and the tendency to get eye
discharges.

A similar scenario now exists in dogs. While immunosuppressive states
are not common in dogs, reports of their occurrence are on the rise. I
believe the massive vaccination program for canine parvovirus, which
began some thirty plus years after we began vaccinating cats with
feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus), is creating this situation in
dogs. If this is true, then the imminent future bodes poorly for dogs
if the problem in cats is an indication. Furthermore, we have been
seeing inflammatory bowel disease in dogs over the past five to ten
years. Prior to this it was virtually nonexistent. I am certain that
vaccination for parvovirus and coronavirus is a major cause. I
commonly see inflammatory bowel disease that arises within a month or
two after vaccination for one of these viruses.

There is still another syndrome associated with parvoviruses, one that
occurred first in cats, and later in dogs. Cardiomyopathy is a disease
of the heart muscle. The muscle may either weaken and stretch (dilated
cardiomyopathy), or it may thicken greatly (hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy). Either condition will limit the heart's ability to
pump blood. Cardiomyopathy is often fatal.

We have been diagnosing cardiomyopathy in cats for over twenty years,
approximately the same period of time as for inflammatory bowel
disease. Many (but not all) cases of the dilated form of
cardiomyopathy have been associated with a deficiency of the amino
acid L-taurine. The cause for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as
the cause for the nontaurine-associated cases of dilated
cardiomyopathy, is unknown. I believe that the answer may have
appeared in dogs.

When canine parvovirus first erupted in the late 1970s, many young
puppies died rapidly, sometimes within hours. It turned out that
parvovirus was capable of attacking the heart muscle in young puppies,
and this form of the infection killed the puppies rapidly.

Cardiomyopathy did not affect dogs before the parvovirus outbreak (or
if so it was very rare), but in the years since the outbreak it has
appeared. The number of cases has especially risen over the past five
to ten years, coincident with the rise of inflammatory bowel disease
in dogs. The Merck Veterinary Manual states that, "The cause [of
dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs] is still unknown although viral
infection and resultant autoimmune reaction against the damaged
myocardium are suspect…. Since the canine parvovirus (CPV) pandemic of
1978, male Doberman pinschers appear to be highly vulnerable to both
CPV and cardiomyopathy." (Fraser) In the years since this was written
(in 1986), we have begun to see cardiomyopathy in many other breeds as
well as Doberman pinschers.

I believe the author of this section of The Merck Veterinary Manual
was correct, but I believe that parvovirus vaccination is even more
likely to be the cause in most cases. I also believe that this
explains the occurrence of cardiomyopathy in cats. Perhaps the heart
muscle association of the feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus) was
not seen in natural infections, but vaccination brought it to the
surface. Cardiomyopathy is an autoimmune disease, and vaccines are
major causes of autoimmune disease. In my opinion, these connections
are too close to be coincidence alone.

Another vaccine that induces great anguish for guardian and companion
is the rabies vaccine. I see many cases of fear and aggression that
stem from rabies vaccination. If you consider the nature of rabies,
this might not surprise you. It appears we are introducing chronic
rabies into our animals by injecting rabies virus particles into their
bodies. How, you may wonder, could inactivated virus induce illness?
Apparently, the ability to affect change is not contingent upon the
quality of aliveness, as we understand the concept. In fact, viruses
are on the border between living and non-living; they require another
organism to reproduce and thrive; otherwise they are little more than
a chemical compound with the potential to alter the metabolism of
their hosts.

Other conditions we see frequently in veterinary medicine today are
not so directly traceable to a particular vaccine, but the general
connection to vaccination is clear to many practitioners.
Hyperthyroidism (increased production of thyroid hormones) was not
seen when I first graduated from veterinary school. It was not simply
misdiagnosed. The symptoms are so characteristic that the syndrome
would have been recognized even if the cause was unknown. The disease
did not exist. Could vaccines be responsible? Let's look at another
case:

Sheba is a Siamese mix cat. She was nine years old when her guardian
first consulted me. One week after vaccination, Sheba stopped eating
and developed a rapid heart rate. Her conventional veterinarian
suspected hyperthyroidism, although thyroid testing revealed no
abnormalities. One dose of Thuja (a homeopathic remedy) reversed the
rapid heartbeat and the appetite problems, and her health bloomed
after the remedy so that she was better than before she became ill.
Clearly the vaccines had caused these problems. I believe she would
have developed true hyperthyroid disease if untreated.

The status of cats has elevated significantly since the 1960's. Prior
to this most cats received little veterinary care. Since the 1970's,
however, as cat status elevated, the care given to cats has climbed.
This has generally meant more vaccinations. And rabies vaccination was
often not recommended for cats until the mid-1980s. I believe the
massive increase of vaccines in cats is responsible for
hyperthyroidism as well as many other recently emerging diseases.

Cats suffer greatly from vaccination damage. The most obvious
vaccine-induced problem is one that is deathly serious, causing great
suffering among cats and cat companions. Fibrosarcomas, a type of
cancer, occur more and more as a result of vaccination. The vaccines
that are implicated are the rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines.
These cancers arise at the site of injection of one of the vaccines.
Researchers have identified vaccine particles within the cancer mass
in a number of cases; the link is definite. Many veterinarians now
refer to these cancers as vaccine sarcomas. Fibrosarcomas are
malignant, and the average life expectancy is less than three years
once the cancer has arisen. No treatment has proven satisfactory. Even
with aggressive surgical removal, these cancers recur in the vast
majority of cats. Some leading veterinarians recommend giving the
vaccines in a leg, or even in the tail (ow!), to make amputation a
viable option in case the cancers arise. Does this make sense?

Obviously, when we reach the point of making recommendations like
these, we are out of control. But do we simply avoid vaccinations in
order to avoid all risk? Or is there possibly more risk by not
vaccinating? Personally, I am opposed to vaccination in virtually all
situations, but I will endeavor to give some guidelines that will
assist you in making a balanced decision regarding your feline
companions.

There are four criteria that are at the center of any vaccine
decision. One should only consider administering a vaccine if all four
criteria are met:

1. The disease is serious, even life threatening.

2. The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.

3. The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.

4. The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.

Let's look at individual diseases to see how this works. I'll start
with feline leukemia virus (FeLV) disease. An indoor-only cat will not
be exposed (number two) as this virus requires direct, intimate,
cat-to-cat contact for transmission. Many veterinarians recommend
immunizing indoor cats against this disease, but I feel this is
unethical. This disease does not fit criteria numbers three or four
anyway in my experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not
all circumstances. If a vaccine for the feline immunodeficiency virus
were developed, it would be the same as for FeLV.

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is another disease that fits
neither three nor four, and rarely number two. The FIP virus vaccine
has generally been found ineffective and has produced severe side
effects. Among the side effects I have observed with both FIP and FeLV
vaccines is induction of the clinical disease they were intended to
prevent.

Feline panleukopenia virus is very serious and the vaccine is quite
effective, but most cats will not be exposed to the virus and the
disease generally affects kittens only. Only those cats that are
likely to be exposed would benefit from vaccination, and one
vaccination between the age of ten to twelve weeks will protect 95
percent of cats for life. (Schultz)

With the feline upper respiratory diseases (calicivirus and
rhinotracheitis virus as well as feline chlamydia), most are not
serious except in very young kittens. These kittens generally contract
the disease before vaccines would typically be administered, so the
vaccine is not often beneficial. If you choose to immunize for these,
use the intranasal form, and do not vaccinate for chlamydia. The
chlamydia fraction produces poor immunization.

Recently a vaccine for ringworm was introduced. I have no direct
experience with this vaccine, but I am certain that it will have
little benefit and it is probably unsafe. Ringworm is usually the
result of immunodeficiency—a chronic disease rather than an acute
illness, so the vaccine will not address the cause of disease. I
strongly recommend against using this vaccine.

Finally, while rabies is a very serious disease with the potential to
infect humans (this is the reason for excessive vaccination laws),
most animals are very unlikely to be exposed. One vaccine at four
months of age will protect most cats for life. If one booster
vaccination is administered, almost all animals (95 percent) are
immunized for life. (Schultz)

In summary, my first recommendation is avoidance of vaccination
whenever possible. If the risk is great, one panleukopenia vaccination
will adequately protect the cat in almost all cases. The intranasal
rhinotracheitis-calicivirus vaccine is relatively effective, but very
few cats will benefit from this. Finally, rabies is legally mandated,
but one vaccination will generally protect cats that are at risk.

I never recommend vaccines for feline leukemia virus, feline
infectious peritonitis virus, Chlamydia, ringworm, or the feline
immunodeficiency virus. And I never recommend booster vaccines; these
are always unwarranted.

Clarence Fraser, ed. The Merck Veterinary Manual (Rahway, New Jersey:
Merck & Co., Inc., 1986).

Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? (Santa Fe,
NM: New Atlantean Press, 1994).

Phillips, T.R., DVM, and Ron Schultz, Ph.D., "Canine and Feline
Vaccines," in Current Veterinary Therapy XI, Robert Kirk, DVM and John
Bonagura, DVM, eds. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992).

Ron Schultz, "Theory and Practice of Immunization" (paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical
Association, Snowmass, CO, September 1995), 92-104.

Dr. Don Hamilton practices veterinary homeopathy in New Mexico. The
vaccination issue is comprehensively reviewed in a chapter of his
forthcoming book, Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs: Small Doses for
Small Animals, to be published this summer by North Atlantic Books.
Please see this book (available directly from Dr. Hamilton or at most
bookstores) for further information about vaccination or other health
problems, or you may call 505 666 2091 to schedule an appointment with
Dr. Hamilton. There is a charge for telephone consultations.
  #8  
Old September 11th 03, 01:34 PM
Cheryl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Liz" wrote in message
om...
Here´s another one (there´s a link to this one on the URL I posted
above):

Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?

Thanks for the info, Liz. Yeah, I hate having to get him the FeLV shot but
he lives with one who is positive and the risk is too great not to.


  #9  
Old September 11th 03, 01:34 PM
Cheryl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Liz" wrote in message
om...
Here´s another one (there´s a link to this one on the URL I posted
above):

Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?

Thanks for the info, Liz. Yeah, I hate having to get him the FeLV shot but
he lives with one who is positive and the risk is too great not to.


  #10  
Old September 11th 03, 01:34 PM
Cheryl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Liz" wrote in message
om...
Here´s another one (there´s a link to this one on the URL I posted
above):

Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?

Thanks for the info, Liz. Yeah, I hate having to get him the FeLV shot but
he lives with one who is positive and the risk is too great not to.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT - gas fireplace question (kinda long) Denise VanDyke Cat anecdotes 6 March 23rd 04 07:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.