Should the virus antigens be modified-live--the ones that multiply in the host--or "killed"?
When I started out in practice, I used MLVs--the stronger the better, I thought. But as I grew wary of the whole notion of vaccines, MLVs began to seem particularly risky. Though they confer more sustained antibody protection than killed vaccines, their challenge to the immune system imposes too great a strain. Now, after all I've seen in the way of adverse reactions to vaccines, it scares me to put any potentially live infectious agent into the body. Does that mean "killed" vaccines are preferable? By process of elimination, yes. But this is hardly to say that "killed" vaccines are always harmless. Because they're less virulent than MLVs, they're also less effective. As a result, manufacturers routinely boost them with powerful adjuvants, or additives, to provoke a more sustained immune response. But these adjuvants can also cause adverse effects. My preference, overall, is still to give no vaccines.
Should the same dose size of vaccine be given to a chihuahua as to a Saint Bernard?
If you're not familiar with veterinary science, you're probably thinking, "Gee, that's an easy one--of course not." Guess what? That is the way vaccines are administered. And to most veterinarians (and all drug companies), "one dose fits all" in such common practice that it's simply never questioned. Press the point and you'll get a vague rap about the vaccine antigens being such minuscule agents in an animal's bloodstream that dose size is of no concern. Ergo, a one-pound Chihuahua puppy and a 15--pound full-grown Saint Bernard both get I-CC vaccine doses that contain not only viral agents but various chemicals used to inactivate the pathogens, plus the chemical "vehicle" used to carry the organism into the bloodstream, plus a preservative to keep the whole toxic mix potent, plus a colored dye agent (typically red) to make it look pretty as it enters the body.
I've long felt that even a Saint Bernard doesn't need all the antibodies that a I-CC dose size produces, let alone the extra chemicals, and that a puppy's health is endangered by that amount, especially when injected right into his body. But now Jean Dodds has learned something truly mind-boggling about vaccine dose size form sources in the drug industry. To ensure efficacy, manufacturers for years have made vaccines ten times more potent than what is needed to challenge the immune system. After all, if vaccines are harmless, what's the downside? If you can, persuade your veterinarian to give smaller doses, but understand that even if he's sympathetic, he may not feel he can oblige. In theory, he could lose his license for not administering the full I-CC dose, or might have to recall all of the pets to whom he gave a substandard dose and revaccinate them at full dosages, meaning that those unfortunate "victims of the law" would be getting even more overdosed with antigens. That's how controversial vaccines are--and will remain, until attitudes, and laws, begin to change.
Should you buy over-the-counter vaccines for your pet and administer them yourself?
That's an easy one: no. Eager as I am to see owners rely less on veterinarians than themselves in matters like this, vaccines are too dangerous to be handled by people with no medical training. The over-the -counter brands emerged, ironically, from the drug industry's unbridled growth. Enough people were turned off by the costs of ever more aggressive vaccination schedules that do-it-yourself, cut-rate vaccines appealed to them. But cut-rate vaccines only benefit other drug companies. The ones who lose-by not getting vaccines properly administered, and by missing out on the checkup that a vaccine visit, at least, provides--are the animals.
Should your veterinarian administer vaccines to animals who are ill, malnourished, or on drugs?
The answer is obvious-no!-but because most veterinarians view vaccines as benign, they administer them as standard procedure in some of these circumstances. Commonly, they even give a whole battery of vaccinations while a pet is under anesthesia for surgery, oblivious to the possible consequences of inundating a pet's body with highly concentrated antigens while his immune system is already under siege. The cases that beat all, in my experience, are those of pets whose cancers are so terribly aggressive that they've been given just a few months to live. Yet their veterinarians diligently bring them "up to date" on their vaccines, and start dogs on heartworm preventatives despite the fact that it takes five months for the bite of an infected mosquito to produce clinical heartworm in a dog's body. I don't understand the rationale for giving a pet a chemical to prevent diseases that can't even surface until months after his supposed demise. If anything, the vaccines will shorten these pets' remaining life spans. Where's the sense in that?
Looming over these issues is the most important and controversial one of all: When to revaccinate?
With my own dogs and cats, the answer is: Never. I will titer them and, in the event of any reported incidence of a certain disease in the area, consider giving a weight-related dose. I think these vaccines last for life, as human vaccines do, and I've been given no reason to revise that view in my more than two decades of living holistically with pets. The standard procedure of revaccinating every year is simply ludicrous. It makes no sense: How can animals of different sizes, given the same dose size vaccine, all need boosters exactly one year later? The vaccination policy at Smith Ridge is continually changing, due to the influx of new information, changing standards, and changing law. My current stance is that I may revaccinate after three to five years, but only after titering to determine if the antibodies generated by the original vaccines are no longer active. In most cases, they are active. I never vaccinate pregnant animals, because a mother may "shed" the virus as the vaccines takes effect, leading to abortion or infertility, or infecting her offspring. I never vaccinate females near or during estrus; the added stress of the hormonal activity they're experiencing at that time can provoke disease when a vaccine enter the bloodstream. And I never vaccinate older pets if I can possibly help it.
Of all the unfortunate assumptions about vaccines, those about older pets are, to me, among the most exasperating. A fourteen-year-old golden retriever who comes to a clinic for some minor ailment will be brought "up to date" on his vaccines as a matter of course. The owner may be informed but not…consulted. Why should he be, when vaccines "must" be given? Indeed, an older pet needs them more than on in his prime, goes the logic, because his immune system is starting to deteriorate and needs the extra help. But that couldn't be the extra stress. And how likely is it that a dog near the end of his natural life span will contract any of the diseases for which he's being vaccinated? How much more likely is it that the vaccines will do him enough harm to shorten that life span unnecessarily? Yet the logic persists. I remember a teacher at veterinary school discussing the case of a dog eight and a half year old who was diagnosed as having canine distemper. Usually, my teacher explained, canine distemper affected far younger dogs. In fact, this was the only dog he'd ever seen reported with the disease above the age of eight. Yet today, in our misguided enthusiasm, we're vaccinating dogs twelve and sixteen years old--dogs who'll never get canine distemper, but who may well suffer adverse effects from the vaccines.
Saddest of all are the older pets who've had to endure a whole battery of vaccinations to be admitted into a kennel. In our overlitigous world, some kennel owners apparently worry more about liability than about the lives of the pets they board (though, in fairness, they're likely to be unaware of the health ramification of demanding that pets of any age be completely "up" on their vaccines). Recently, we treated a nineteen-year-old domestic short-haired cat who had been boarded at a kennel for two weeks so that her owners could take a much needed vacation. The kennel rules about vaccines were inflexible, so the cat's veterinarian dutifully gave her the full FRVC+E before she was checked in. When her owners picked her up two weeks later, the cat was emaciated, her immune system wiped out. It's as if a one-hundred-year-old woman had planned a two-week stay at a seaside hotel, only to learn that before she checked in, her doctor would have to vaccinate her for chicken pox, smallpox, polio, and flu--at the same time! If this was your grandmother, would you let that happen to her?
Homeopathic alternative to vaccines
Excerpted from The Nature of Animal Healing by Martin Goldstein Copyright© 2000 by Martin Goldstein. Excerpted by permission of Ballantine, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Dr. Martin Goldstein earned his B.S. and D.V.M. from Cornell University. He has written numerous articles about holistic veterinary medicine and alternative therapies for many magazines, journals and related publications. He has many happy and healthy dogs and cats, all of which are living proof of the philosophy contained in his book, The Nature of Animal Healing.
The information provided here is for educational and entertainment purposes only, and should not be relied on as medical advise for your pet, or in lieu of consultation with your own veterinarian. We urge you to always consult your veterinarian for specific advice and diagnoses concerning your pet.
