snips vaccination information ... 
spay/neuter / tips / greyhounds / news / quotes / stories / books / links / happily ever afters / mission / get in touch / home

The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM, appeared in Kirk's 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).

A Vaccination Release Form

From the AVMA Principles of Vaccination
There is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year. Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase their risk of adverse post-vaccination events. Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both benefits and associated hazards.

It is not currently possible to determine the immune status of a patient relative to all the infectious diseases of concern without conducting a challenge test. Serology does not predict a patient's immune status for most diseases. For those diseases where serology has predictive value of a patient's immune status, the variation within and between laboratories renders the procedure generally unreliable.

Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative, or a combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research. The role of genetic predisposition to adverse events needs further exploration and definition.

Vaccine program goals include providing optimal immunity against clinically relevant diseases the patient is at-risk to contract, while minimizing the potential for adverse events.

...Biological agents are regulated by the USDA, not the Food and Drug Administration, and thus are not subject to those regulations that address extra label use. Veterinarians can legally use vaccines in a discretionary manner.
USDA licensing at the full approval level provides a baseline standard for efficacy, safety, purity, and potency, but the clinical need (relevancy) or usefulness (applicability) of a product are not assured by the licensing process. The USDA must approve labels for biological products. However, current labels frequently contain revaccination interval recommendations based on historical precedence and regulation rather than scientific data, may fail to adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product, and the testing methods may be inadequate to identify rare but relevant safety concerns. [2001]

by Joseph A. Crock, DVM

There is... a potential problem with testing a cat for FIV if that cat has been vaccinated with the FIV vaccine. To understand this concept, it is necessary to understand some basics about how the immune system works.

Antigens are agents that invade the body, in this case the virus itself. Antibodies are agents that the body produces to protect itself from antigens.

All vaccines contain antigens, which are viral particles that stimulate the production of antibodies, but the antigens are modified so they do not cause disease. Following vaccination, an antibody titer is produced. This measures the amount of antibodies produced by the cat and are a rough indication of the presence of immunity or protection.

The routine test for the FIV in cats determines the presence of antibodies so it is called an antibody test. The tests for most other diseases, including the feline leukemia virus, measure antigen levels and not antibody levels.
Following vaccination with the FIV vaccine, the cat will develop an antibody titer. This antibody titer is the same as the antibody titer that will occur if an active FIV infection is present.
Therefore, confusion can arise.

Testing a cat that is infected with FIV will produce a positive test result. Testing a cat that was vaccinated with the FIV vaccine will also produce a positive test result. Therefore, to avoid this confusion, most veterinarians require that cats be tested for the FIV BEFORE they are vaccinated. A test performed within 3 months of the first vaccine is considered current.
To further complicate the situation, what will happen to the cat that has been vaccinated against FIV but through some misfortune is lost but then found by someone else or should end up in an animal shelter. If that cat is tested for FIV, it will test positive until a better test is developed. Will this cat be euthanized? For this reason, I recommend that any cat vaccinated with the FIV vaccine should be implanted with a microchip for identification.

NB, Dr. Crock is an advocate for annual revaccination based on risk assesment. This portion of a larger article is included to point out the potential risk to FIV vaccinated cats who may be picked up by an animal control agency, and is not meant to imply that Dr. Crock in any way advises against annual vaccination.

For more information on Titer Testing: Hemopet

Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Vaccination
LT Glickman
epartment of Veterinary Pathobiology
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

The following summarizes this author's current thoughts regarding veterinary vaccines and their safety:

1. Every licensed animal vaccine is probably
effective, but also produces some adverse effects.

2. Prelicensing studies of vaccines are not specifically designed to detect adverse vaccine reactions.

3. An improved system of national postmarketing surveillance is required to identify most adverse vaccine reactions that occur at low and moderate frequency.

4. Even a good postmarketing surveillance system is unlikely, however, to detect delayed adverse vaccine reactions, and the longer the
delay the less likely they will be associated with vaccination.

5. Analytic epidemiologic (field) studies are the best way to link vaccination with delayed adverse reactions, but these are often hindered by incomplete vaccination histories in medical records in veterinary practice and by a lack
of veterinarians in industry trained in epidemiologic methods.

6. Each licensed veterinary vaccine should be subjected to a quantitative risk assessment, and these should be updated on a regular basis as new information becomes available.

7. Risk assessment should be used to identify gaps in information regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and appropriate
epidemiologic studies conducted to fill these gaps that contribute to the uncertainty in risk estimates.

8. Risk assessment is an analytical process
that is firmly based on scientific considerations, but it also requires judgments to be made when the available information is incomplete. These judgments inevitably draw on both scientific and policy considerations.

9. Representatives from industry, government, veterinary medicine, and the animal-owning public should be involved in risk management, that is, deciding between policy options.

The controversy regarding vaccine risks is
intensifying to the point that some animal owners have stopped vaccinating their animals. They offer as justification the belief that current vaccines are "just too dangerous." Some owners report that since they completely
stopped vaccinating their animals, they have been healthy. What they fail to realize is that a high percentage of animal owners are responsible and do vaccinate their animals, thus providing "herd immunity" protection to the
unvaccinated animals whom they contact.

[snips comment: There is an even stronger possibility that lasting immunity from initial vaccination, and not "herd immunity" is why the dogs who do not receive annual revaccination stay healthy. Consider that animals who have had the most vaccinations are often those who are most strongly affected when disease states are introduced into a population.]

The solution to the vaccine controversy is not to abandon vaccination as an effective means of disease prevention and control, but rather to encourage vaccine research to answer
important questions regarding safety and to identify the biological basis for adverse reactions.

Key questions to be answered include these: What components of vaccines are responsible for adverse reactions?

What is the genetic basis for susceptibility to adverse health effects in animals?

How can susceptible individuals be identified?

Do multivalent vaccines cause a higher rate of adverse reactions than monovalent vaccines?

Is administration of multiple doses of monovalent vaccines really any safer than administering a single multivalent vaccine?

These and other vaccine-related questions deserve our attention as veterinarians so we can fulfill our veterinary oath to relieve animal suffering and "above all else, do no harm."

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association offered a free online course called "New Realities of Marketing Veterinary Services: Replacing Your Vaccine Business" to Canadian veterinarians in early 2003.

An article by Dr. Don Hamilton about the dangers of vaccinating cats. A quote from this article states: 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.

The following is taken from the January 2003 Senior Dogs Project Newsletter:
Annual Vaccinations and Titers
In several of our recent newsletters, we have published information concerning the dangers of annual vaccinations and the growing trend of veterinary schools to recommend against the practice. In fact, it has been reported that all 27 veterinary schools in North America are in the process of changing their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats, recommending against annual vaccination. In view of these changes, there may be a time at which it may be important to ascertain whether a dog is protected against such life-threatening diseases as canine parvoviius and distemper. In the past, a costly test was required, but now there is a new test available that is less expensive and quicker to yield results. Called TiterChek, this15-minute test can help determine if a dog is protected. Vets charge about $30 (compared with $65 - $100 for the old titer tests). For more information on titer testing in general, you can visit:

Re: J Dodd's Vaccine Protocol
From: Dr. Ihor Basko

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

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

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

"Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia. "There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines "Puppies receive antibodies through their mothers milk. This natural protection can last 8-14 weeks. Puppies & kittens should NOT be vaccinated at LESS than 8 weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralize the vaccine and little protection (0-38%) will be produced. Vaccination at 6 weeks will, however, delay the timing of the first highly effective vaccine. Vaccinations given 2 weeks apart suppress rather than stimulate the immune system. A series of vaccinations is given starting at 8 weeks and given 3-4 weeks apart up to 16 weeks of age. Another vaccination given sometime after 6 months of age (usually at 1 year 4 mo) will provide lifetime immunity."

According to Celeste Yarnall, Ph.D., author of Natural Dog Care: Pamphlet #3 of the Florida League for Humane Progress in Saint Petersburg, Florida, quotes the Delson Chemican Company as stating that compulsory inoculation of your dog is unconstitutional, not to mention unnecessarily troublesome and expensive. The League has concluded that inoculations for canine diseases can be extremely dangerous and are at best unreliable. Vaccinated dogs frequently develop paralysis, blindness and convulsions; some even die.

Dr. Christina Chambreau, D.V.M., questions the practice of vaccination: "What are we doing to the whole animal, the whole immune system of our animals? Why are dogs and cats becoming more and more unhealthy, living shorter life spans, and having smaller litters? New diseases have appeared even since we started vaccinating so heavily."

W. Jean Dodds, D.V.M., states: "Recently, polyvalent (containing different viruses) vaccines have been shown to induce supression of absolute lymphocyte responsiveness. Previous studies have shown a reduction in platelet count. Can antigenic overload from single or combination vaccines overwhelm the host's immune system? If so, can immunosupression result?"

Richard Pitcairn, D.V.M., says: "The effect of vaccination, besides the physical effects of stimulating an antibody response, is to establish a chronic disease... resulting in mental, emotional, and physical changes that can, in some cases, be a permanent condition." (From his address to the American Holisitic Veterinary Medical Association, September, 1993 available in written or audio format from the AHVMA.)

C. Edgar Sheaffer, D.V.M., has said that "vaccinosis in animals is a true disease state."

According to Wendy Volhard and Kerry Brown, D.V.M., in Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog, pp. 99 - 100: "Immunologists are finding a direct correlation between the increase in autoimmune and chronic disease states and the overuse of vaccines. Breeders have had entire litters wiped out after using parvo vaccines...Some European veterinarians now believe that the benefits of many vaccines are outweighed by the risks, and that the dog is better either not being vaccinated or being vaccinated only for distemper and parvo."

From: Dr. Moira Drosdovech, D.V.M.
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: DIC Letter

An argument against annual vaccinations

I read Dr. Mark Cole¹s article on vaccines in the 2003 Dogs in Canada Annual (page 72) with a great deal of frustration and sadness. Frustration because I consider the continued practice of annual vaccinations to be unsound medical management, especially when it comes to their use in unhealthy animals. Sadness because it is the pets and their guardians that suffer the consequences. I firmly believe that annual vaccinations are absolutely unnecessary and I¹m most assuredly not alone in this opinion.

I¹m very disappointed that your Annual did not present a balanced point of view on this hot issue. I do realize that Dr. Jeff Grognet has written two vaccine articles for the monthly but believe your subscribers would have appreciated having both sides of this debate in the book that tends to sit around on their shelves for a lot longer than the monthly issues.

Getting back to the article in question. Why would Dr. Cole even bring up Giardia and Lyme disease occurring in humans as a reason to vaccinate dogs for these diseases? These are not diseases transmitted directly from pets to people. Vaccinating dogs will make no difference in the human infection rate.

With regard to rabies, your readers may be interested to discover that once two rabies vaccinations have been administered, extremely few (two I have heard of) dogs and cats in North America have acquired rabies. In Canada, there is only one province that "requires" up-to-date rabies vaccines. In the remainder, it is voluntary. To enter the United States, your rabies vaccination certificate can be up to three years old.

I¹m interested to know what proportion of the 20-per-cent increase in life expectancy of dogs Dr. Cole, or his sources, attributes to annual vaccinations. Has there been a study to indicate that dogs vaccinated annually live longer than those that receive only initial vaccinations? Many individuals choose not to vaccinate their dogs beyond puppyhood, yet we don¹t see droves of these same dogs coming in with parvo or distemper. My opinion is that we would see some of these cases since both diseases are out there, but we don't, simply because the dogs have developed adequate immunity from early vaccinations as well as natural exposure.

Is there documented proof that the vaccines used in dogs (and cats) are safe as stated by Dr. Cole? This same controversy is going on right now in the medical field because there are no vaccine-safety studies even for people, and it¹s a fact that there are none for animals either. We really don¹t know if they are safe and certainly should not proclaim that they are. More and more research shows that, in fact, vaccines can be harmful.

The immune systems of dogs and cats are fully mature at or before 6 months of age. If a modified live virus vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it will produce adequate immunity, which is 9 times out of 10 good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine will, in all likelihood, neutralize the antigens of the booster vaccine and there is little or no positive effect. The titre is not "boosted" nor are more memory cells induced.

Dogs and cats have the same type of immune system as people. Unfortunately for us, their species have been programmed to live somewhat less than 20 years, but that doesn¹t mean their immune system needs constant reminders. Humans rarely, if ever, get re-immunized for childhood diseases. Why do we insist on this for our pets?

An interesting viewpoint as to why annual vaccination continues is presented at There is a lot at stake here and it isn't just the health of your dogs.

Vaccinations do not come without risk. A large portion of the ever-increasing chronic diseases in our pets could be attributed to overvaccination, a view shared by many breeders and veterinarians taking extra training in homeopathy. This is hard to prove, but isn't the possibility of this true?

Vaccines should be administered separately and only those that are a real threat for an area should be considered. Once into the first year of life, antibody titre testing can act as a tool to guide revaccination decisions. Well over 90 per cent of the time, vaccines will not be indicated for several years.

Vaccines should only be administered to 100-per-cent healthy pets and certainly not to pets that already have, or have had, a problem with their immune system. They should not be given during times of stress ­ surgery, moving, breeding, etc. Speak to homeopathic vets in your area to find out their position on vaccines, and do your own research.

As the American Veterinary Medical Association states, "Veterinarians must promote the value of the exam and move away from their dependence on vaccine income." Unfortunately, veterinarians stand to lose big, according to Dr.Ron Schultz, leading immunologist and outspoken critic of annual vaccine practices, when the numbers of those requesting vaccines drops.

Remember, medicine is always in a state of change and change we must in regards to annual vaccinations. Our pets will be healthier and isn¹t that what it¹s all about? Do continue to get those regular checkups. You¹re not off the hook for those!

Dr. Moira Drosdovech,
Kelowna, B.C.


This Page is a Compilation of Information
Regarding the Use of Vaccines

When I was sixteen years old, I lost my Appaloosa gelding, Brent Bar, to cirrhosis of the liver. My vet gave me three possible causes: heredity, feeding moldy hay or grain, or overvaccination.
The year? 1975.

The veterinary community has known for many years that there is no proven benefit to annual revaccination - in fact, they have known that there may be serious health problems actually caused by this practice - however they have continued to supress this information, instead convincing us that we were not good guardians if we did not comply with their recommendations. We know now that we have been misled, and our animal companions have paid the price. With this in mind, this page will add information on an ongoing basis so that you may be able to educate yourself regarding the vaccination issue. This page currently includes a wide array of information, including articles by respected alternative veterinarians, new vaccine protocols finally being introduced by vet schools, articles in the mainstream press, and a letter to the Texas Attorney General from a Texas veterinarian willing to step forward and call these acts the practice of fraud.

Want to find out what to do
if your companion animal has an adverse
vaccination reaction?

In his letter, Dr. Rogers quotes a survey by the American Animal Hospital Association showing that less than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their vaccination recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new recommendations have been published twice in every major Veterinary Medical Journal since 1995.

Personally, in many cases when I have taken a sick dog to the vet, upon learning that I do not vaccinate, the vet has insisted that the dog must be vaccinated against parvo immediately EVEN BEFORE ANY DIAGNOSIS HAD BEEN MADE. Thankfully I have enough knowledge to have been able to resist these suggestions. Not only has the problem never turned out to be parvo (causes have ranged from a perforated intestine to Giardia to just an upset tummy), but each and every vet who has made this suggestion has ignored the warning coming directly from the drug manufacturers that ONLY HEALTHY ANIMALS SHOULD BE VACCINATED. How could you justify adding disease pathogens to a system already in a weakened state, particularly the pathogen for the disease the dog may already be fighting? In addition, it is common practice to vaccinate animals for multiple diseases on the day of a surgery. Think about it! How could you, in good conscience, supress the immune system of a cat or dog whose body will be undergoing such a tremendous amount of stress and not realize that this could cause serious complications?

You must agree that information like this is frightening. It could cause you to wonder if some veterinarians have nothing other than their financial interests in mind when they practice these tactics and "oversights."

Please visit this site for regular updates regarding what appears to be a serious cover up often perpetrated by those we have entrusted to protect our animal companions. Please educate yourself! We can no longer hand over this responsibility to anyone whose primary concern is not the health and wellbeing of our animals.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
Thomas Paine
(Introduction to Common Sense 1776)
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers, DVM
5703 Louetta
Spring, Texas 77379

April 17, 2002
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548


Dear Sirs,
I hereby file a complaint against all licensed Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in the State of Texas for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 573.26 which states: Licensed veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity, and fair dealing to clients in time and services rendered, and in the amount charged for services, facilities, appliances and drugs.

I assert that the present practice of marketing of vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence by all Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in this state.

Recommending, administering, and charging for Canine Corona vaccinations for adult dogs is fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to canine corona virus disease. Disease produced by canine corona virus has never been demonstrated in adult dogs. Dogs over eight weeks of age that are immunized against canine parvovirus will not develop symptoms of canine corona virus disease. Addition of an unnecessary antigen to the vaccination protocol will result in a lesser immunity to the important diseases like parvovirus and distemper, and increase the risk of adverse reactions.

2. Immunologists doubt that Canine corona virus vaccine works, as it would require secretory mucosal IgA antibodies to protect against corona virus and a parenteral vaccine does not accomplish this very well. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Texas A&M University do not recommend canine corona virus vaccine.

3. Gastroenteroligists at Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Dr Michael Willard at Texas A&M University have stated that they have only seen one case of corona virus disease in a dog in ten years. On several occasions large numbers of dogs have died from adverse reactions to corona virus vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect corona virus vaccination for an adult dog if presented this information.

Recommending, administering, and charging for re-administration of modified live vaccines like Canine Distemper, Canine Parvovirus, Feline Panleukopenia, injectable Feline Rhinotracheitis, and injectable Feline Calicivirus on an semi-annual, annual, bi-annual or tri-annual basis is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts that there is no scientific data to support label claims for annual re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must be backed by scientific data.

2. It is the consensus of immunologists that a modified live virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system, and antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the replication of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except that the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction.

3. A temporal association has been demonstrated between vaccinations and the development of Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia.

4. It has been demonstrated that the duration of immunity for Canine Distemper virus is 7 years by challenge, and 15 years by serology; for Canine Parvovirus is 7 years by challenge, for Feline Panleukopenia, Rhinotracheitis, and Feline Calicivirus is 7.5 years by challenge.

A reasonable client would not elect re-administration of any of the above stated vaccinations for a previously immunized pet if provided with the above information.

The recommendation for administration of Leptospirosis vaccination in Texas is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the fact that:

1. Although Leptospirosis is re-emerging as an endemic disease for dogs in some areas of the country, Leptospirosis in dogs in Texas is a very rare disease. According to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab there are only an average of twelve cases of leptospirosis documented in dogs in Texas per year. Factors to identify those dogs that are at risk have not been identified. Given that there are over 6 million dogs in Texas, the risk of leptospirosis disease to a dog is less than 2 in a million.

2. The commonly used vaccine only contains serovars Lepto. canicola, and Lepto icterohaemorrhagiae, and no cross protection is provided against the other three serovars diagnosed in Texas. Newer vaccines containing Lepto pomona, and Lepto grippotyphosa are available but the duration of immunity is less than one year. To provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two vaccines with four serovars twice per year.

3. Although humans can develop Leptospirosis, the spread of Lepto. from a dog to a human has never been documented and is thought to be a very low risk.

Given that the risk of an adverse reaction, a reasonable client would not elect Vaccination of their pet if provided with the above information.

The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs residing in Texasis fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The Texas Department of Health only reports an average of 70 cases of Human Lyme disease per year in Texas, all of which were likely acquired when people were traveling out of the state.

2. Julie Rawlings reported in her research on the incidence of the lyme disease organism in ticks in Texas State Parks for the Texas Department of Health that the Borrelia burgdorferi organism is not present in sufficient numbers or in the suitable tick vector for dogs for Lyme disease to be endemic in Texas.

3. Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in the U.S. are found in the nine New England States and Wisconsin.

4. Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine has not documented one case of Lyme disease in a dog acquired in Texas. Testing on shelter dogs has not revealed a single case.

5. Dr Jacobson, Cornell University has documented a temporal relationship in over 327 cases of dogs, which acquired polyarthritis after the Lyme disease vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect Lyme disease vaccine for their pet if given this information on the risks vs the benefit.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with an adjuvanted vaccine without offering a safer alternative vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Adjuvanted vaccines have been incriminated as a cause of Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.

2. 1:1000 cats vaccinated develop this type of cancer, which is 100% fatal.

3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines are available.

A reasonable client would not elect adjuvanted vaccines for their cat if given this information.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with Feline Infectious Peritonitis vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare disease.

2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the normal flora avirulent Feline Corona Virus. On rare occasions this Corona Virus mutates to become a virulent feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus. Every mutation is a different variant and there is no cross protection. This vaccine does not and cannot work.

3. Independent studies have not confirmed the manufacturers claims for efficacy.

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

A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine if given this information.

The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not.

2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is though to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated.

3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should be vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus.

A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if given this information.

The recommendation of annual rabies vaccination for dogs and cats with three- year duration of immunity vaccine is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given that:

1. The vaccines has been licensed by the USDA and proven to have duration of immunity of three years by the USDA and seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, therefore annual readministration the client is paying for something with no benefit.

2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to demonstrate that the immune statis of the pet is enhanced.

3. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. This recommendation has been proven effective in 33 States in the United States.

The recommendation of blood tests for antibody titers on dogs and cats in order to determine if re-administration of vaccine is indicated is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programed, memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells is not taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.

2. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells are capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a patient.

3. A positive titer has not been demonstrated by challenge studies to indicate immunity.

4. The client is paying for a test when a Veterinarian can make no claims about the test results.

5. It has been proven that the re-administration of modified live vaccines has no effect, and that duration of immunity is 7 years or more.

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

I have brought these deceptive trade practices to the attention of this Board by writing six letters to the board, and appearing before the Board at three Board meetings. The Board members have demonstrated, by the questions that they have asked me, that they are uniformed on these issues, that they have not read the literature that I have sent to support my assertions, and that they have not read the letters I have written. On every occasion the Board members have refused to take any action on these matters.

The Board has also ignored my request to deny approval of Continuing Education credit for seminars on Vaccination of Companion Animals provided by Pfizer Animal Health drug company which are fraudulent by omission of material facts, a conflict of interest, and thereby influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the marketing of vaccines.

The people of the State of Texas have paid over $360 million dollars per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary and potentially harmful to their pets. Over 600,000 pets suffer every year from adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. Many of them die.

A survey by the American Animal Hospital Association shows that less than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their vaccination recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new recommendations have been published twice in every major Veterinary Medical Journal since 1995.

Given that it is the compact of this Board with the State of Texas to protect the people of Texas, and whereby it is provided in the Texas Administrative Code Title 22, Part 24, Chapter 577, Subchapter B, Rule 577.16: Responsibilities of the Board (a) The Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is responsible for establishing policies and promulgating rules to establish and maintain a high standard of integrity, skills, and practice in the profession of Veterinary medicine in accordance with the Veterinary Licensing Act, I hereby assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners must take demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for companion animals.

A reasonable solution would be for the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to request an opinion from the Attorney General on these issues, and for the Texas State Board to issue a policy statement in the Board Notes indicating a Board policy prohibiting each of the practices I have outlined above.

An alternative solution would be to notify every Veterinarian engaged in companion animal practice in this state of the complaint that has been filed against them, and prosecute each and every complaint.

If demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices has not been taken by this Board within ninety days of receipt of this letter I will file a class action suit against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on behalf of the people of Texas, for negligence in the execution of their responsibilities, and I will request a Court order to instruct the Board to perform their duties.

Dr Robert L Rogers

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

See more on the Critter Fixer website.

The Canine Health Concern census has received a brochure from Intervet UK (the major U.K. supplier of animal vaccines). In the light of the following quotation from page 15 of the brochure would anyone explain to us how annual multiple vaccine booster can ever satisfy the recommendations of its manufacturer?

"It is recommended that dogs be revaccinated against:
* Canine distemper: every 2 years
* Canine parvovirus: every year
* Canine hepatitis: dogs over 12 weeks of age should acquire permanent immunity to contagious hepatitis
* Canine parainfluenza: every year
Note: the duration of the immunity to parainfluenza virus infection induced by vaccination is unknown

Contra-indications, warnings, etc.
* Only healthy dogs should be vaccinated.
* This product (PL1708/4218) should not be used on ferrets or mink.
* Following initial vaccination, dogs should not be exposed to infection for at least 14 days.
* Sterile equipment should be used for administration but avoid contamination of vaccine with traces or disinfectant or spirit.
*Generalised hypersensitivity may occasionally occur. In this event administration of Adrenaline BP by the subcutaneous route may be indicated"

Questions to Ask Your Vet
By Jim Schwartz, Founder of Next-To-Kin, man of dog
1. Why are you suggesting annual rabies vaccinations?

2. What scientific evidence supports annual rabies vaccinations?

3. Does a Yorkshire Terrier get the same shot-the same dosage-as a Great Dane? Does one size fit all?

4. Is it true there is a three-year vaccination option?

5. If the 3-year option was available prior to vaccinating my companion animal and you did not inform me of this, how come?

6. Were you aware of the American Veterinary Medical Association's position that the companion- animal owner should be given the opportunity for informed consent relative to vaccination options (rabies, etc.)?

7. Is it true that the efficacy (life) of the rabies vaccination is 5-7 years?

8. What is the adverse-reaction impact of the rabies vaccination per 1,000 cats or dogs? Is it not true that adverse reactions are self- reported by the veterinarians? Might vets be economically disadvantaged by self-reporting actual numbers of adverse reactions to vaccinations, as such statistics might show unnecessary risks of annual vaccination shots?

9. Is it true that the vaccine manufacturers recommend that the vaccination should be given only to healthy animals?

10. Is it true that the cost of the rabies vaccine is 50 to 75 cents, at most, and that the cost to the companion- animal guardian for the shot is $15-$38, plus an additional $30-$35 for the office visit?

11. With just losing annual rabies vaccination of dogs and cats (not including distemper and parvo) and the accompanying shot-related office visits would your practice be profitable in the non-vaccination years?

Further Resources

Dogs and Vaccinations

Questions to Ask Your Vet

Beyond Vaccination newsgroup

Pets Don't Need Shots Every Year ~ an article from the Houston Chronicle

Animal Diseases: A New Look at the Vaccine Question by Richard H. Pitcairn, DVM, PhD

Vaccines Prevent Health: Why Vaccines Are Bad for Us by Dr. Joseph Mercola
This article primarily address human vaccination issues.

What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccinations by Catherine O'Driscoll

Protect Your Pet by Ann Martin

Dr. Pitcairn's Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats by Richard H. Pitcairn, DVM and Susan Huble Pitcairn

Homeopathic Care for Dogs & Cats by Don Hamilton, DVM

The Nature of Animal Healing by Martin Goldstein, DVM

The Holistic Guide for a Healthy Dog by Wendy Volhard and Kerry Brown, DVM

Natural Dog Care & Natural Cat Care by Celeste Yarnall, PhD

Natural Healing for Dogs & Cats & The Natural Remedy Book for Dogs & Cats by Diane Stein



spay/neuter / tips / greyhounds / news / quotes / stories / books / links / happily ever afters / mission / get in touch / home