In an article of mine carried on this blog (see the Purdue Study), I outlined the implications of vaccinated dogs in a Purdue study developing autoantibodies to their own biochemicals. Specifically, the Purdue team found autoantibodies to fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen. My research methodology was straightforward. I searched the internet for scientific references to autoantibodies in relation to each of these biochemicals. Anyone can do this: simply type in “autoantibodies to fibronectin” … “autoantibodies to laminin” …, etc. When I originally wrote-up my findings, I sent them via email to Larry Glickman, who led the Purdue which that found these autoantibodies, and asked him to comment. His response was startling. Although he didn’t address the science of my findings, he did appear to be hot under the collar about dog owners who choose not to vaccinate their dogs. Having asked Dr Glickman to comment on the implication of these autoantibodies, I remained none the wiser with regard to his thoughts. Because my article has seemingly gone viral on the internet recently, there have been some positive and some negative responses.
Strangely enough, negative comments are well worth having, because it means I can address them. Why do I do this? Because I care about the dogs and want to ensure that we are doing the best we can for them. One of the negative responses to my article came from someone called Geneva Coats, a nurse, who believes it is “Pure BUNK and pure “JUNK SCIENCE” !!!”Ms Coats says, amongst other things, “These antibodies were not found to react with the dog’s own tissues. The long-term significance of these autoantibodies has not yet been determined.
“”The Purdue study found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA”…Nowhere was this found in this study! She states [Ms Coats means me], “The study dogs were found good homes.” No, they were euthanized at 22 weeks so that their tissues could be examined….did this woman actually read the study? Or just doesn’t understand it? Or doesn’t choose to try to understand it?”
If we compare two of Ms Coats’ sentences with one-another, we’ll find that a) the dogs were either re-homed or killed at 22 weeks, and b) the long-term significance of these autoantibodies has yet to be determined.
If the dogs were disposed of, and no follow-up was conducted, then of course the significance of these antibodies has yet to be determined. This is why I wanted to know what the significance of these autoantibodies might be, and why I researched them.
I also believe Ms Coats is looking at a different study to the one I referred to. For example, the Purdue study I was writing about did indeed find autoantibodies to DNA. Perhaps it would be safer for us all to look at the same study: find it here. There’s also a very interesting article by the non-vaccine-industry sponsor of this research.
Someone also decided to go straight to Larry Glickman for his comments about my article. Referring to me, Dr Glickman stated: “I think this is how some individuals deal with death or illness of a pet or child. They try to rationalize what happened by placing the blame on physicians or veterinarians rather than on the genetics or environmental factors.”
With respect to Dr Glickman, who is an impressive scientist by any reckoning, this is a very reductionist and silly statement. Similar comments were made about Rachel Carson when she wrote the seminal book, “Silent Spring”. After she questioned the use of toxic chemicals in the environment in her book, the agri-chem industry spent thousands of dollars on a PR campaign to discredit her. Amongst the statements made about Rachel Carson was the assertion that she only wrote the book because she was an embittered childless woman. Silly. Were Dr Glickman to read my book “Shock to the System”, he will find that I do indeed look at genetics and environmental factors (although I do accept that this is probably the last thing Dr Glickman would want to do).
Dr Glickman also says in his response to my article: “Many of Catherine O’Driscoll’s conclusions make no sense to me as well, whether they relate to autoantibody production following vaccination of dogs or the need for Leptospirosis vaccination which she often challenges”.
I would be extremely pleased to speak directly to Dr Glickman about the actual science relating to autoantibody production and the implications associated with this. In absence of this, I would draw readers’ attention to the following link. This relates to a scholarly scientific book called ‘Autoantibodies’ by Y Schoenfeld, ME Gershwin, and PL Meroni.
Please feel free to go directly to this link yourself. However, it’s perhaps worth looking at some extracts here: “Autoimmune diseases are characterized by the presence of auto-reactive lymphocytes in affected tissues and circulating autoantibodies, immunoglobulins reacting against self-antigens.” Translated, this means that autoantibodies are associated with autoimmune disease.
“The mere detection of autoantibodies in an asymptomatic person or in an apparently healthy subject should not be neglected. It is now appreciated that autoantibodies may predict the eventual development of a full-blown autoimmunity, such as specific HLA, IgA and complement components deficiencies.” Translated, this means that we should take note of autoantibodies, since they might lead to full-blown autoimmune disease.
“Involvement of autoantibodies in disease progression and complications, especially in the form of immunocomplexes, is widely accepted.” Translated, this probably means that Catherine O’Driscoll wasn’t making it up!
“Although thyroid autoantibodies are uncommon in children, we noticed that the siblings of our juvenile thyroid disease patients had a high prevalence of thyroid autoantibodies. Following six initially euthyroid [normal thyroid function] brothers and sisters for a decade we found that a high proportion who were antibody positive later developed biochemical evidence of impaired thyroid function … This experience stirred the thought in our minds that the presence of autoantibodies even in clinically normal individuals may sometimes represent an early warning signal of impending disease.” Translated, this means that children with thyroid autoantibodies weren’t euthanized, but research continued for at least another ten years. The research found that the presence of autoantibodies years earlier appeared to lead to thyroid disease itself.
However, in a separate piece of research which cites Dr Glickman ( J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002;221:515–521), (which may be the research Ms Coats refers to), it is stated:
Results—In the research Beagles, there was a significant increase in anti-bovine thyroglobulin antibodies in all vaccinated dogs, compared with control dogs.
There was a significant increase in anti-canine thyroglobulin antibodies in the 2 groups of dogs that received the rabies vaccine but not in the group that received the multivalent vaccine alone. In the pet dogs, there was a significant increase in anti-canine thyroglobulin antibodies after vaccination but no significant change in anti-bovine thyroglobulin antibodies.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Recent vaccination may result in increased anti-canine thyroglobulin antibodies. Whether these antibodies have a deleterious effect on canine thyroid function is unknown.
Here’s my take on this which, as a non-scientist, I appreciate may stray from the established norm: if you’re going to do the research, and you find changes which suggests that animals are developing autoantibodies after they are vaccinated, don’t you think you’d better take the research to its conclusion and find out what this means?
Reiki practitioners will know the story. The founder of this healing discipline was asked a question by a pupil and, in the Japanese tradition, a teacher must stop teaching if he cannot answer a question. He is honour bound to go and find the answer before resuming his teaching career. To be fair, it only took me one rainy afternoon to find that scientists have asked the questions and found some answers relating to the presence of autoantibodies. Why did Dr Glickman and his team not take the research to its important conclusion, or at least look up the many references to the presence of autoantibodies?
Dr Glickman also wrote in his email response to my article: “Another paper I published in JAVMA in 2002 described results of the largest vaccine epidemiological safety study ever conducted in dogs. It this study of >1million pet dogs it was demonstrated that “Although VAAE rates were higher for certain risk factors or some vaccines, compared with other factors or vaccines, the rates for vaccine associated adverse events (VAAEs) were low in the overall population. Evidence of VAAEs does not indicate that vaccines are not safe, but rather that there is a small risk of adverse events for some breeds”
The above mentioned study looked at post-vaccine events for only three days post vaccination. Anything that happened between four days and ten years later has not been covered. If anything, this study could be described as being designed to hide vaccine adverse events, and not to find them – whilst at the same time looking as if you are looking. I apologise to Dr Glickman for stating this, but it is well known that vaccine reactions can manifest observable symptoms weeks and months later. Out of interest, one of the studies referenced in the thyroglobulin antibodies study mentioned above – (Duval D, Giger U. Vaccine-associated immune-mediated hemolytic anemia in the dog. J Vet Intern Med 1996;10:290–295) – does state that vaccine components can remain in the system for long periods of time and that reactions need not happen immediately.
Dr Glickman finished his critique of my work with:
“My take is that there are impurities in animal vaccines that result in autoantibody production and allergic reactions following vaccination. Dog and cat vaccines are admittedly less pure than most human vaccines but the trade-off is a significantly lower cost. I suppose if pet owners were willing to pay $50 or more per dose of vaccine the situation might be improved, but on the other hand many less dogs and cats would ever be immunized. So all and all I think animal vaccine companies are doing a good job as are veterinarians in providing preventive health care. Are dog and cat vaccines safe?- Yes, but we could do better.”Again with respect to the highly acclaimed Dr Glickman, I am stupefied by this paragraph. He is actually saying that dog vaccines are less pure than human vaccines, but this is OK because we pet owners won’t want to pay more for purer vaccines. Vaccines are safe, but they could be safer. He appears to be saying that we are happy to put our dogs at risk of autoimmunity and allergies so long as we can save some money.
This is a preposterous proposition. The veterinary vaccine industry needs to understand that pet owners pay to vaccinate their dogs because they really, really love them. We want to protect them, and to honour their lives with our care. We don’t want to put them at risk of disease at the same time. Were we to understand that we are injecting sub-standard products – with impurities – into our dogs, that will cause autoantibodies and allergies, we probably wouldn’t inject them.
I would also point out that the veterinary vaccine industry is a multi-billion, international, highly profitable, blossoming, growing, business. Is it too much to ask that the products they sell us might be free from contaminants? They can afford it. Would we buy food knowing that it’s full of salmonella, excusing the manufacturer because at least the food was cheap?
In fact, vaccine contamination is a real problem if you want to be able to take your dog to the vet for a jab in the sure knowledge that he isn’t going to die as a result of it. Last year (2010), researchers in Scotland and Japan isolated a feline retrovirus in both dog and cat vaccines. (Isolation of an Infectious Endogenous Retrovirus in a Proportion of Live Attenuated Vaccines for Pets, Journal of Virology, April 2010, p. 3690-3694, Vol. 84, No. 7.) http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/84/7/3690
The authors stated: “the current methods used for screening human vaccines for retroviral contaminants include extremely sensitive PCR-based RT assays (not required for veterinary vaccines) that are much more sensitive than conventional RT assays”.
The authors added:
“In this study, we isolated a feline infectious ERV (RD-114) in a proportion of live attenuated vaccines for pets. Isolation of RD-114 was made in two independent laboratories using different detection strategies and using vaccines for both cats and dogs commercially available in Japan or the United Kingdom. This study shows that the methods currently employed to screen veterinary vaccines for retroviruses should be re-evaluated.
“Overall, it is possible that our data under-represent the number of vaccines from which RD-114 can be isolated….
“Collectively, our data show unequivocally that RD-114 is present in live attenuated vaccines commonly used in dogs and cats from different continents and produced by three different manufacturers. Future studies will be necessary to determine whether RD-114 has any negative impact in cats or dogs….
“Infectious ERVs have the same biological properties and pathogenic potential of exogenous horizontally transmitted retroviruses, once the co-evolutionary mechanisms that have shaped the interaction with their natural hosts cease to exist. In this regard, the large-scale exposure to RD-114, particularly of the dog population, may have effects that are impossible to predict even if successful RD-114 transmission was an extremely rare event.
“Millions of puppies are vaccinated annually worldwide, and they may be more susceptible to RD-114 infection than cats as the dog genome does not harbor RD-114. Also wild cats do not harbor RD-114, and they are regularly vaccinated in zoos with the same vaccines used for pets. These vaccines have been used extensively for many years without major acute effects on vaccinated animals, but retroviruses rarely induce acute diseases.
“Therefore, it is impossible to rule out chronic effects, especially as we were able to grow RD-114 very efficiently in dog cell lines, confirming older published studies….
A recently identified novel human retrovirus (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related retrovirus [XMRV]) has been found in some forms of prostate cancers and chronic fatigue syndrome in humans, although causal association has not been proven yet. XMRV is almost undistinguishable from an ERV present in mice, and it will be important to investigate how this virus passed into the human population, regardless of its pathogenic potential.
The study concluded that:
• Future studies will be necessary to determine whether RD-114 has any negative impact in cats or dogs….
• A recently identified novel human retrovirus (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related retrovirus [XMRV]) has been found in some forms of prostate cancers and chronic fatigue syndrome in humans
• sensitive PCR-based RT assays [as used in this study] are not required for veterinary vaccines
Writing in US Dog World, March, 1995, Dr Jean W Dodds stated:
“Immune–suppressant viruses of the retrovirus and parvovirus classes have recently been implicated as causes of bone marrow failure, immune-mediated blood diseases, haematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukaemia), dysregulation of humoral and cell-mediated immunity, organ failure (liver, kidney) and autoimmune endocrine disorders – especially of the thyroid gland (thyroiditis), adrenal gland (Addison’s disease) and pancreas (diabetes). Viral disease and recent vaccination with single or combination modified live virus vaccines, especially those containing distemper, adenovirus 1 or 2 and parvovirus, are increasingly recognised contributors to immune-mediated blood diseases, bone marrow failure and organ dysfunction.”
So a feline retrovirus in their vaccines could cause serious problems for our dogs. According to UK Kennel Club research, one in four dogs in the UK can be expected to die of cancer. Retroviruses are implicated in this scenario.
Retroviruses and cancer CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 81, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2001 http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep102001/528.pdf – quote:
“Indeed, the study of retroviruses in relation to cancer has been recognized in the award of three separate sets of Nobel Prizes: to Peyton Rous in 1966 for the discovery of his eponymous sarcoma virus in chickens; to David Baltimore and Howard M. Temin in 1975 for their discovery in 1970 of reverse transcriptase; and to J. Michael Bishop and Harold E. Varmus in 1989 for their demonstration in 1976 that retroviral oncogenes originate from cellular genes in the host.
Retroviruses were first associated with malignant disease in animals more than ninety years ago. In 1908 the Danish veterinarians Ellerman and Bang observed that erythroleukaemia is infectiously transmissible in chickens. Then in 1911, Rous in USA and in 1914, Fujinami in Japan showed that some avian sarcomas could be transmitted by inoculation of cell-free filtrates.
“On many occasions during vertebrate evolution, retroviruses have infected cells of the host’s germ-line, destined to become the eggs and sperm. In this way the integrated DNA provirus can be passed on to the next generation without undergoing further viral replication. Such genetically transmitted retroviral genomes are called endogenous retroviruses (ERV) to distinguish them from exogenous, infectiously transmitted retroviruses.”
Is it possible that we are talking about cancer being potentially passed to subsequent generations via the vaccine needle? Please, vaccine manufacturers and researchers, don’t tell us you don’t know if this will happen.
I, through Canine Health Concern, alerted the British veterinary vaccine licensing body to the above-mentioned research which found a feline retrovirus in dog and cat vaccines in the UK and Japan. Prior to this, the regulatory body was unaware of its presence. The research was published in April last year, and it wasn’t until September that a response was forthcoming.
The Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) was mobilised throughout Europe as a result. Their ‘opinion’ was subsequently published: http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/pdf/vaccines_retrovirus_RD114.pdf
“The hazard constituted by replicative retrovirus RD114 cannot currently be defined. Consequently, the risk of its presence in cat and dog vaccines is not quantifiable, however the impact of this risk is probably low on animal health and extremely low on human health.
“On the other hand, it is not considered acceptable to have vaccine batches on the market containing unwanted live virus particles, without trying to investigate and correct this issue. Therefore, considerations for improvement of the vaccines are needed and appropriate actions might include replacement of cell lines, introduction of manufacturing steps to allow clearance of the virus, and inactivation of retrovirus RD114.
“Implementation of such corrective measures will take a long time, and implies close collaborative studies between authorities and industry.”
In the CVMP assessment – http://www.vmd.defra.gov.uk/pdf/vaccines_CVMPassessmentRD114.pdf – it is stated:
“It should be noted that RD114 and endogenous type-C baboon retroviruses are related in many respects. Moreover, retrovirus RD114-related nucleic acid sequences are found in the genomes of all Old World Monkey and ape tissues. These observations have led to the suggestion that retrovirus RD114 evolved from an endogenous primate type-C virus that infected and became endogenous in a recent ancestor of domestic cats.[Since monkey retroviruses have been found in human vaccines as a result of using monkey tissue for vaccine development, the question must be asked if cat vaccines were also developed using monkey/baboon tissues?]
The report continued: “In general, canine and human cell lines are more sensitive than feline cell fines to retrovirus RD114 infection in vitro.
“All these points taken together, the risk that retrovirus RD114 can integrate into the genome of humans, dogs or big felidae, although theoretical at this stage, cannot be ruled out.
“…injection through vaccines of retrovirus RD114 live replicative particles, even at very low level, does not mimic natural conditions of contact between retrovirus RD114 and animals or humans. The consequences of inoculating replicative retrovirus RD114 to animals or humans are not foreseeable.
“As retrovirus RD114 belongs to the retroviridae, this virus is able to integrate its RT-DNA product into the genome of a permissive host cell. Depending on the location of the integration, the function of a gene can be disrupted, including regulatory ones. This could potentially lead to the appearance of tumors at the injection site, but also elsewhere.
“Further information about pathogenicity of retrovirus RD114 is clearly desirable, however almost impossible to generate in a short to medium time schedule, as it is part of fundamental research on retroviridae in general. Much remains unknown in this area. Due to the non-specific nature of the disease signs to be detected including tumours/neoplasia and immunodepression, and the potentially long time lag before these signs might be seen, it would be very difficult to use adverse reaction databases to investigate a causal relationship between attenuated vaccines potentially containing retrovirus RD114 and the induction of subsequent disease in animals.
“In conclusion, no prompt regulatory action is warranted, although corrective actions need to be undertaken over years to come.”
This is the pro-vaccinating mind-set. In an effort to save our dogs from parvovirus, distemper and hepatitis, they think it’s acceptable to NOT KNOW whether their vaccines will cause cancer or other diseases in our dogs and cats. They’re happy to wait years for corrective action to be taken.
Please note something I have said many times. There are scientists who assert that parvovirus, which is closely related to feline enteritis, was created by the vaccine industry when it used contaminated cat cells for the production of the canine distemper vaccine. If they are correct, parvovirus is a vaccine-induced plague.
As for the implications of autoantibodies generated by veterinary vaccines, and staying on the subject of cancer, let me share correspondence I received from Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D., in response to my article that was criticised by Nurse Coats. Dr Maniotis is Visiting Associate Professor of Bioengineering: Program of tumor mechanics and tissue regeneration, University of Illinois at Chicago:
“I don’t think it is coincidental that two of the molecules that the vets find (especially the tissue-controlling two molecules laminin and fibronectin) that are deregulated in vaccine-induced, cancer-harboring animals, are the same ones we have found reverse, kill, or promote tumours [in humans].
“It is logical that these two tissue constructing molecules in the correct or incorrect amounts induce tumor dormancy or killing as we have found, and at different amounts (as when a vaccine disturbs a tissue and fibronectin is produced in abundance while laminin is suppressed) they can, when not in proper amounts, induce tumor growth and metastasis.
“I estimate that, if thousands of cats/year develop tumors at the site(s) of their vaccinations as these vet societies now claim, and nobody knows how many dogs do, although other studies show they also develop a variety of cancers, accompanied by the production of anti-fibronectin, anti-laminin, anti-collagen, anti-cardiolipin, and anti-DNA antibodies associated with immediate onset arthritis, autoimmune diseases of all kinds, demyelination syndromes, hematological pathologies, etc., that perhaps The Church of Modern Human Medicine someday will become concerned regarding the 1:160 autism rate, rates of diabetes, asthma, and also, just maybe, the escalating cancer rates in our children and other humans following the mass vaccine crusades of the past 40 years.”
My own thoughts are that if scientists are going to conduct studies which find anomalies in our dogs’ biochemicals, they should feel honour bound to ascertain what these anomalies actually mean to the lives – or deaths – of our dogs.
The unwanted effects of vaccines are seen in the field, after humans and animals have been vaccinated; after they are forced to live with vaccine-induced illness, and after vaccines have killed the people and animals they were purported to help. Is that good enough?
And so, Ms Coats and Dr Glickman – I make no apology for researching and publishing the known science in relation to the implication of autoantibodies generated by the vaccine process. Someone needs to!
There is far more to vaccination than a trip to the vets and the insertion of a needle would imply. There is far too much we do not know about vaccine effects – but we do it anyway. Animal guardians have the right to informed consent. At the very least, if we are going to vaccinate, we have a right to truthful duration of immunity information from our veterinarians so that we vaccinate no more often than is necessary.