Why You Should NOT Vaccinate!
by Pat McKay
Author of REIGNING CATS & DOGS
A Natural Rearing
The Complete Herbal Book for the Dog
A Handbook of Natural Care and Rearing
by Juliette de Bairacle Levy
The Failure of Disease Prevention through Vaccination: Vaccination, although originated by the English country doctor Edward Jenner, has been based largely on the germ theory of the French chemist, Louis Pasteur.
Pasteur was not able to keep his own body in good health and he suffered from paralysis of the mouth in his later years; he also lost, from disease, members of his own family. I have always believed in "Healer, heal thyself first! II Then you have the authority to teach others how to heal themselves. If I had not been able to keep my own Afghan hounds, goats and horses in good health, I would never have possessed my absolute faith in herbal medicine and nature rearing and would not have written my herbal books, which gives over one hundred new and proven herbal treatments.
I have also watched my beliefs concerning the inability of vaccination to prevent canine disease come to be sadly; and overwhelmingly, proved correct. Disease rate among modern dogs has not been lowered by mass vaccination; it is greatly on the increase. Vaccination has produced numerous carriers of virulent diseases, or the treated dogs themselves, often given triple vaccinations nowadays, often develop all three of these very ailments-and die a speedy death. The plague disease of former days have not been controlled by vaccination; they owe their decline to those few benefits which man has derived from modern medicine: from improved sanitation and housing.
That vaccination has an insidious effect on general canine health has been noted by observant dog breeders. It is one of the causes of chronic skin disease, especially of the mange form. Also, greyhound owners have noted that vaccination has an adverse effect on the speed of their racing dogs. Mr James Baldwin, the well-known greyhound authority and breeder also of German shepherd dogs, wrote in Dog World concerning an anti-distemper vaccination movement among Irish and English greyhound breeders, resulting from the adverse effects on the natural speed of their dogs, and in support of this, he published a long statement from a greyhound man, whom he described as being "one of England's most successful and experienced greyhound trainers that there has ever been "giving his proof that vaccination made swift dogs slow.
The famed homeopathic doctor, Dorothy Shepherd, MD, condemning vaccination, has written: "The more I follow up clinical histories, the more I am inclined to agree with opponents of vaccination, that vaccination instead of being a blessing has proved to be a wolf in sheep's clothing and has produced more misery, more ill health in its wake than almost any other method of treatment."
There follow the opinions of two eminent doctors concerning distemper immunization; first, I quote J E R McDonough, FRCS, the bacteriologist, in The Nature of Disease, Volume I, pp 75-76: "Immunization with an attenuated virus cannot prevent distemper. The author has treated many dogs, which have developed distemper despite two or three injections of the preventative agent .... He is of the opinion that fits, chorea, hysteria, etc, in dogs, have become more frequent since the use of distemper vaccine. Successful prevention will never be achieved by inoculation.”
And the other doctor, Dr W J Murphy—who before becoming a physician was a graduated veterinarian for fifteen years—expresses the opinion (which is absolutely my own opinion, and is now also the opinion of large numbers of dog breeders and owners): “No serum nor virus for distemper is necessary nor can it accomplish any good for an ailment that has a natural tendency to get well of itself.”
A quote from George Muir, Montreal, Canada: "All those with whom I have since discussed the subject and who were in favour of inoculation, all maintained that the injections could not in any way affect the dog. Then they proceeded to contradict themselves by adding one or more of the following reservations: Don’t inoculate during teething. Don’t inoculate unless the dog is in perfect condition. Don't inoculate during fall season (in Canada) as weather is so changeable. After inoculation, don’t allow contact with other dogs for 7 days. After inoculation, make sure that the dog is in no way subjected to draughts, etc. "Now why should all these reservations be made if the inoculation has no effect on the victim? The common-sense deduction to be made is in my opinion--inoculation reduces the natural disease resistance of a healthy animal--even although administered by experts; and who, in his own opinion at least, is not an expert?"
I was discussing my dislike of inoculation and serum with an important London veterinary surgeon, whose claim was that he inoculated more dogs in a year than perhaps any other veterinary surgeon. He told me that I was being "foolish, backward, failing to keep pace with modern times," etc, in my attitude toward such "wonderful discoveries as vaccine and serum." This veterinary surgeon possessed one dog, one dog only, a Cairn terrier bitch. This one dog belonging to the great supporter of inoculation developed distemper around the time of whelping. Her distemper attack became seriously complicated and not one puppy survived. Yet, during my distemper work, in London, I reared a litter of Afghan puppies in daily contact with the distemper cases that I was treating there. This same veterinary surgeon informed me that it was an act of madness to attempt to rear puppies under such conditions (there were eleven cases of distemper being treated on the premises) and that I would certainly lose every puppy. However, despite the fact that the puppies were seriously handicapped by the mother having been poisoned and the puppies having to be hand-reared, not one puppy developed distemper.
Natural Rearing Newsletter
May 1995, Vaccinations, Part 1
by Marina Zacharias
As I start to write this I must admit that it is probably one of the most controversial subjects I will ever have to tackle. By now most of you know my own decision was made many years ago to go with a natural form of immunization rather than with the more generally accepted vaccination. Plainly stated, there is no such thing as a 100 percent effective form of protection against disease!
Putting it simply, all animals have a unique means of survival with the ability of the body to recognize foreign substances (proteins) and eliminate them. This is maintained by the production of antibodies by certain of their blood cells, often in response to infections. The body thus gains "immunity" to the infection--if it survives.
Today, immunologists recognize that the immune response is a very complicated process involving many systems in the body. These systems work in specific ways and are interdependent. The immune response has been loosely classified into two types-specific and non-specific.
The non-specific response appears to be the first line of defense and is usually invoked when catching diseases naturally. This primary response involves natural substances and natural microorganisms available throughout the entire body. They are able to destroy unwanted microorganisms and toxins.
The specific response involves blood antibodies that are produced in response to certain infections. They are effective only against a particular infective agent.
A vaccine is aimed at stimulating this specific antibody response. The injection of a very large dose of the disease agent is used (compared to that obtained through natural infection) without regard to the varying reaction of different individuals. It is hoped that antibodies to these agents are produced, that will protect against future infection, leaving the individual with as few symptoms as possible. It is hoped that the benefits to be gained will outweigh the risks. It would seem then that the allopathic approach to immunization concentrates only on the specific.
Recent research, however, suggests that this secondary response occurs only when the primary response has been inadequate (i.e., only when sufficient microorganisms have entered the body and got past the body s initial line of defense).
The holistic view regards disease as a function of the total state of health in the body and concentrates its efforts on the first line of defense -- the non-specific response.
The naturopathic vie\v is that the microorganism is never wholly responsible for disease. Many individuals with microorganisms present all the time only succumb to disease when their state deteriorates through overwork, toxins, poor nutrition, chemical changes from mental and emotional stress, etc.
Similarly, if the state of the body changes for the better (even if the microorganisms are still present), the disease state can be cured. This basic division in the theory of immunization is widely misunderstood by the vast majority of people.
Today in North America, conventional medicine recognizes and accepts only allopathic vaccination as the legal method of immunization.
The homeopathic form of immunization, called a nosode, has not as yet received acceptance under the law as a safe alternative to the allopathic injection method. Despite 200 years of worldwide usage and recent scientific proof that homeopathy is a viable alternative, the powers that be refuse to acknowledge its efficacy. After all, everybody knows that "if you can't see, feel, measure it, it just don’t exist.”
As the power of the large pharmaceutical companies has grown (along with their wealth), there has been an ongoing battle to discredit and, if possible, totally deny an individual's right to choose any other form of health care.
Herbal, homeopathic, nutritional, etc, all have come under attack for their removal from the American marketplace. For example, on September 1, 1994, a petition signed by 42 self-styled quack-busters, was filed with the FDA which basically demanded the removal of all homeopathic remedies. It is one thing to be a skeptic. It is another thing to attempt to impose your narrow vision of the world on everyone else. It's a war out there, and many Americans don't even know it's going on.
Natural Rearing Newsletter
July 1995, Vaccinations, Part 2
by Marina Zacharias
Since early childhood, we have all been brought up with firm beliefs in the practice of vaccination. Parents, teachers, doctors, leaders in the community-all have assured us that:
1) Vaccinations are relatively harmless
2) Vaccinations are effective
3) Vaccinations were primarily responsible for the decline in infectious diseases
4) Vaccinations are the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially dangerous diseases.
To even suggest that any of these accepted "facts" should be questioned is to invite ridicule and scorn from the vast majority who "know" better. Even our lawmakers hold these to be self-evident "truths." So who are we to cast doubt on established dogma?
For those who are willing to make the effort to ask the right questions and not be afraid to look at the answers, there is a vast body of work (many pounds of paper) that provides valid reasons to be concerned with this man-made attempt at immunization. Although there is more knowledge concerning humans and vaccination problems, there is also a growing amount of evidence that present veterinarian protocols are also questionable.
But wait a minute. Is it really serious enough to spend the time looking into it? I mean if a few million animals are vaccinated every year and one or two show some kind of adverse reaction, is that all we're talking about? Is that what all the fuss is about? Oh, if that were only true! I don't believe there are any accurate statistics available on the annual number of DEATHS directly attributable to vaccination or the number of diseases contracted from vaccination or the number of side-effect problems caused by vaccination!
As some vets vehemently deny any association with vaccine-related problems, it is most unlikely that we will ever have a true picture of the extent of the damage caused. There is no obligation for anyone to report cases and no body to report them to, other than the vaccine companies. Others recognize that within the journals of veterinary medicine, many cautionary articles and studies have been published -- not for general public distribution.
It takes very little effort to learn that the first two concepts we have been taught are not only open to question, but "just ain't true." Vaccinations are not relatively harmless and under a variety of conditions are not always effective! Your first clue to this can be found by simply reading the inserts found with the vaccine. Warnings and cautions are there for a good reason. This is why most pet owners never see them. Their vet doesn't want them "unduly" alarmed.
The immune system of a healthy animal is capable of handling the invasion of a single infectious disease. It was never intended to cope with the onslaught of multiple disease exposure. In nature it just doesn't happen that way. Common sense should tell you that when you hit an animal with a combination of several modified live infections at one time, while bypassing the non-specific immune system, chances are pretty good that something in the body is going to say "Whoa -what's going on here?" Combine this with the latest adjuvant (a substance that, when used in combination with an antigen, enhances levels of immunity beyond those developed with the virus or bacteria alone), a variety of preservatives and carrying agents, and you end up with a witch's brew that makes you shudder just to think about it. Yet that's what I want you to do. Think about it! Is it really a surprise that the body can be over-whelmed when subjected to this kind of "health care"?
To make matters worse, conventional wisdom tells us that the best thing we can do for our animals is to repeat the procedure on a regular basis. All of us at one time or another have received that nice little letter from a veterinarian reminding us that "Fluffy" is due for her annual booster. There is no scientific basis for annual vaccination!!! Yes, I'm shouting at you. I only hope you will start shouting this fact at others you know. For our animals sake, spread the word as far and as fast as you can.
There are several good references to this fact. The clearest one I have been able to find comes from an article titled Canine and Feline Vaccines by Tom R Phillips, DVM, and Ronald D Schultz, DVM, appearing in Current "Veterinary Therapy, Volume XI, pp 202 to 206. Allow me to take an excerpt of their comments concerning "Annual Vaccinations."
"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 revaccinations. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal." Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result of interference by existing antibodies."
"The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide annual physical examination or is required by law."
I guess what bothers me most is the number and frequency of breeders that have told me about the death of their animals caused by vaccination. Some of these have been verified through laboratory testing, but in the majority of cases they are anecdotal evidence only. Too often the reason given for the death was "unknown" and vaccination was dismissed as simple coincidence. Recent vaccinosis cases I have been told about range from full-blown distemper to an agonizingly painful death from a rabies shot.
When a pharmaceutical drug causes death, it is pulled from the market. This is not the case with vaccines. A certain number of deaths are not only accepted, they are expected! The cliche on this one is that the "benefits outweigh the risks." No one seems to know what this certain number is, and with no one keeping track or reporting on the incidence of harm from vaccination in animals, who really knows the extent of the problem. All we do know is that it does happen. Proving the frequency is, of course, another matter.
One thing we do know for sure, is that there are a large number of other problems directly and indirectly associated with vaccinations. Every veterinarian who has been in practice long enough has seen adverse reactions to vaccines. Unfortunately too many vets tend to believe that harmful effects only occur within the first hour, the first 24 hours, the first 7 days, the first 10 days, etc. (The answers seem to vary as much as the individual beliefs.) Too often we hear "it couldn't possibly be related to the vaccination." This outright denial of even the possibility springs from a life-long belief in the present system and an unwillingness to rock the boat. A closed mind, however, never helped anyone.
Fortunately, there are a growing number of veterinarians that do recognize that all is not well with our present protocols. There are even a few recent dog publications that have carried articles concerning the subject (including the March/95 issue of the Gazette article on the death of a Norwich Terrier from a vaccination). We are seeing a gradual awareness that the beliefs in the safety and effectiveness of routine vaccinations are not only unfounded but downright misleading.
When coincidence occurs often enough, even the allopathic community must eventually pay attention. This too is gradually starting to happen. For example, with cats it has now been officially recognized that vaccinating with too many vaccines in the same place all the time can cause fibrosarcoma, a nasty cancer. (See Chapter Nine).
Moving on to the third belief-Vaccinations were primarily responsible for the decline in infectious disease. We need only look at some cold, hard, statistical data to see that this belief is grossly out of whack with the facts. As the belief arises from human medicine we need to look at a few of the common diseases both before and after vaccination. Invariably we find that things like polio, measles, pertussis, etc, were steadily declining from the turn of the century (1900) onwards. Better hygiene and diet was the probable true reason.
For example, the measles death rate decreased by more than 95 percent from 1915 to 1958 (the year the measles vaccine was introduced). Polio death rate shows a similar decline. As a matter offact, statistics for five New England states reflect that the number of cases of polio increased after mass inoculations during 1954 and 1955.
In 1976, Dr Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine for polio, testified that the live-virus vaccine had been the principal, if not the sole cause, of all reported polio cases in the US since 1961.
More recently, the Center for Disease Control admitted that the live-virus vaccine is the dominant cause of polio in the US today. According to CDC figures, from 1980-89 every case of polio contracted within the US was caused by the vaccine.
Turning back to veterinary medicine, there is a considerable amount of evidence that points to the introduction of Modified Live Vaccine (MLV) some 20 years ago, as coinciding with the increase in allergic, immunologic and chronic debilitating diseases. There is no question that there are more skin problems, digestive problems, chronic ear infections, seizures, etc, in the past two decades than ever before. Can this increase really only be a coincidence with the increased widespread use of MLV vaccines? They may not be the only culprit but common sense says they are probably a primary offender.
In the last few years there has been some serious research done that strongly indicates that some MLV vaccines induce immunosuppression. The purpose of vaccines is supposed to be to stimulate the immune system, not suppress it! Worse yet, it is a well established fact that Modified Live Vaccines "shed" thus creating the potential to infect other animals and cause the very disease that the vaccine was designed to protect against.
Invariably the information sheets included with vaccines warn that the product is only to be used on healthy animals. This is really ironic. A truly healthy animal doesn't need vaccination. A truly healthy animal already has a strong natural immune system that can cope with disease in the real world. How else could the species have survived for all the centuries before man created vaccine?
But what is your definition of healthy? When you have had a history of chronic problems or bring your dog or cat in for treatment of ear, skin, kidney, thyroid or whatever problems, you obviously do not have a healthy animal. Less obvious but just as important, when your animal is to be spayed or castrated (which means anesthesia) your animal should not be vaccinated at the same time. During any pregnancy-do not vaccinate.
Remember that antibiotics and cortisone suppress the immune system. If your animal is being given these, do not vaccinate at these times. Remember that stress is a major immune suppressant. Show dogs in particular are subjected to many stressful conditions. Shipping off to handlers, kenneling, etc; do not vaccinate during a high stress period.
Pat McKay: Back to the same old premise: If unhealthy animals cannot be vaccinated during all the above situations and healthy animals don't need to be vaccinated, why vaccinate?
Natural Rearing Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 6, September 1995/Vaccinations, Part 3
by Marina Zacharias
Newspaper headline, July/95, Radcliff, Kentucky: "Parvo Epidemic." Jean Dodds, DVM, July/95: "I recently returned from the East Coast of Canada where there is a serious outbreak of distemper." I could go on to list a large number of incidents both recent and historical, which should cause you to seriously question the belief that vaccinations are the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially dangerous diseases.
However, these two examples alone will serve to make the point that the dogs involved were fully vaccinated yet obviously succumbed to dangerous diseases of epidemic proportions. We are not talking about isolated breakdowns here, but of total failure to immunize a large population of animals with conventional vaccination.
Yet this "belief" is so totally accepted that there is virtually no funding available for research into any other form of immunization. That there are "other" methods that have been used for centuries in many cultures is ignored by the allopathic community, due directly to the strength of the "unquestionable" belief in man-made vaccination.
To question this is to question the whole II germ theory" of disease and would certainly upset the applecart of present day medicine. Unthinkable.
Unthinkable? Maybe yes, maybe no. This newsletter is dedicated to breeders that choose to think for themselves.
Again, we have to go back and reexamine the foundation of accepted theory and see if it is valid or if any other theory may prove just as valid. It was the pioneering work of Louis Pasteur that formulated our present day theory. He held that each infectious disease was caused by a specific microorganism invading the body. Around the same time that ideas on germ theory were being developed, certain basic concepts of the mechanisms of immunity were also being put forth. It was established that foreign particles such as bacteria and viruses are recognized by specialized cells that function by producing antibodies that are able to attach to foreign particles present and render them harmless. In their time, these were revolutionary concepts that appeared to remove the mystery of how disease was transmitted and how the body created a defense mechanism against attack from microbes. These ideas seem to fit human nature and were in agreement with the mechanistic theories popular in the 19th Century. It is important to stress that, at this stage, vaccination and the ideas on biological immunity, were theoretical concepts. Their relevance to real life situations were not yet known.
The logical next step was to develop a way to make sure that the body developed the right antibodies in sufficient strength, to ensure that a specific germ would be totally wiped out if it dared to attack a protected body.
From a commercial and practical point of view, it appeared far easier to concentrate on attacking microbes than to be responsible for our total state of health in terms of diet, hygiene, etc. The immunization procedure was, and still is, based on a very simplistic model of immunity. Modern science and in particular research in the last few years has revealed that a whole host of mechanisms in the body are used to deal with foreign agents and the body's own toxic byproducts. Under close investigation the simplistic model of immunity does not stand up. The antibody response is only a small part of an extremely complex arrangement of immune responses.
The presence of antibodies has historically been the easiest way of detecting some sort of immune activity, but it is not necessarily indicative of a healthy immune response. Pasteur's germ theory can be seen as a step towards understanding the nature of disease, but it is, in essence, a half-truth. If this theory is faulty, what other theory can shed some light of understanding and be confirmed by modern science?
It is well documented that the original scientific research was carried out by a contemporary of Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp. It was from Bechamp's work that Pasteur formulated his theory. However, Bechamp continued his work in this field and went on to show how the agents of disease are present in every single cell and that disease is NOT caused primarily from INVADING microorganisms, but by changes in the constituents of the cells first. He termed this lithe soil of disease." Thus, the theories explaining the cause of infectious disease split into the so-called orthodox and alternative views.
The orthodox view maintains that disease starts with the introduction of microorganisms into the body. I don’t have to belabor this view as this is what we have all been taught.
The alternative theory is that the body DEGENERATES into a diseased state first, and subsequently ALLOWS the proliferation of bacteria and viruses. All the latest research supports this theory. When the body degenerates to a certain point, external microorganisms are attracted and able to infect and multiply, thus causing secondary complications. These infecting microorganisms are not the cause of the original condition. In other words, there may be a few flies around a clean area, but if the area is like an open garbage can, it certainly provides the “soil” for a proliferation of flies. Even Pasteur in his later years had to admit the truth in this and eventually conceded that “the germ is nothing; the soil is everything.”
In order to contract a particular disease, it is necessary for the individual to be susceptible to that disease by having the correct internal condition that allows the microorganism to thrive and multiply. The real causes of disease are a combination of factors such as inherited tendencies, pollution, sanitation, diet, drugs and mental or emotional stress—all of which affect the body according to each individual’s susceptibility. The presence or absence of antibodies is not the indicator of resistance to disease. Recent studies have shown individuals resistant to disease with very few or no antibodies, and those who have developed the disease with high antibody counts.
Recent research into AIDS also shows that those individuals in contact with HIV (the virus thought to be responsible for AIDS) that have remained healthy for many years have developed a primary immune response to HIV without antibodies. Conversely those that deteriorate to a condition that often leads to death have a high antibody count. The agents for disease are present in all individuals in the form of genes, bacteria and viruses. Normally they function in maintaining the health of the body, but under certain conditions they can be activated to bring on the symptoms of disease.
They can become pathogenic (disease-producing) when their environment changes due to toxins, poor nutrition or chemical changes from mental and emotional stress, etc. Pathogenic genes can be switched on that were previously dormant. Bacteria and viruses can also change from those that maintain health to those that have pathological effects. For example, the same intestinal bacteria necessary for digestion in humans (bacillus coli) can, under certain conditions of poor nutrition, be changed into the destructive bacteria of typhoid (bacillus typhus).
More and more studies and reports are being printed in prestigious medical journals regarding the ability of viruses to change or mutate under certain conditions. A May 1995 report described the specific genetic changes of a virus from a benign form to a deadly form due directly to a deficiency of selenium and vitamin E.
Is it possible that these mutated forms of Parvo the vets keep telling us about are caused by a nutritional deficiency? Science has proven it happens in people-would it not also be true with our animals? If Bechamp's theory is correct (which only in the last few years has science begun to support), it becomes obvious that we must pay more attention to the mechanisms of the primary immune system-our natural first line of defense-and stop relying on present vaccination protocols to do a job that is virtually impossible because it is based on a faulty theory of disease.
By neglecting the "soil" of disease, vaccination may not only be ineffective in disease prevention but may also be RESPONSIBLE for the widespread and subtle long-term effects of an overloaded and damaged immune system. By bypassing the primary immune system and injecting a substantial amount of toxic materials directly into the blood are we not creating the conditions that support disease?
Our primary immune system utilizes the skin and mucous membranes, their fine hairs and mucous; microbe-killing substances (e.g., gastric hydrochloric acid, lysozyme in saliva, phagocytes and blood lysins from damaged tissue); normal bacteria that have antibacterial activity; special white blood cells that ingest bacteria; interferon secreted by cells that act against viruses; small lymphocytes that act on virus and virus infected cells.
Are we really so arrogant to believe that we know better than nature and can abandon the primary immune system in favor of a man-made vaccine?
If there is one lesson we can draw from studying vaccination literature, it certainly is that NOTHING can beat natural immunity. Man cannot and will not be smarter than nature. Everything modern medicine so desperately tries to provide basically is already there. We do have immune systems that are infallible if only we allow them to function the way they were designed to function!
It is an illusion that an immune system has to be artificially stimulated or prepared for any kind of infection. It is already prepared, not in a specific and therefore extremely limited way (as vaccines are supposed to work), but in a general way. A healthy immune system is able to cope with any infection at any time.
A healthy body is free of pathogenic microbes because the body's constituents do not support them. Increasing one's level of health should be our foremost concern!
For free nutrition information and advice, email Pat McKay