This diary deals exclusively with the science of vaccine damage in PETS; there can of course be no science of vaccine damage in humans because it has been proven by Good Science without a Shadow of a Doubt that Vaccines are Perfectly Harmless to Humans.
The study was done by Purdue University (summary and in depth) in 2002 and 2003. The title for my diary is taken from Catherine O'Driscoll's (of Canine Health Concern) review of the Purdue study which can be read e.g. here.
Thanks here also to my veterinarian, Dr. Niederee of Great Bend, KS, who raised with me the possibility of vaccine damage and discussed the subject with me openly and rationally.
By way of background, a vaccination is an assault on the immune system that intends to provoke an allergic response; the point is that the vaccine's assault is attenuated as compared to the assault a full-fledged infection would deliver, and that the immune system remembers the identity of the pathogen so that the immune response is automatic and strong should the body be confronted with the pathogen.
Apparently, in animals at least, the immune response can go wrong in several ways. The mechanics are not fully understood, and veterinary scientists (including it seems veterinary vaccine manufacturers) advocate further research. As my interactions with my own vet have shown, practitioners are familiar with the findings and discuss them freely. I have also seen official veterinary reactions, in that the rabies shot is now no longer advocated on an annual basis, but triennial.
The Purdue study establishes that vaccination can cause autoimmune responses in dogs, especially hypothyroidism.
So what else can go wrong? Apparently, a lot (with references in Ms. O'Driscoll's paper):
• Cats can develop cancer at the site of injections (Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma); vets have adjusted by injecting into legs or tails so that the leg can be amputated should cancer develop. Though rarer, it is a phenomenon with dogs as well.
• Modified live-virus vaccines (MLVs) can cause temporary or fatal autoimmune reactions such as anaphylactic shock or - according to the vaccine manufacturer Merck's Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy - the equally fatal AIHA (autoimmune haemolytic anaemia).
• The autoimmune reaction may attack collagen (resulting in decreased mobility), as well as laminin (cell damage) and cardiolipin (blood clots).
In her own review, Ms. O'Driscoll refers to a study which relies on pet owners' reports on changes in their pets' post-vaccination behaviour (epilepsy, nervousness). It is well established that pet owners (like parents) are not scientifically trained observers. They lack the requisite objectivity to provide data of probative value. This methodological weakness of course disqualifies this study.
Ms. O'Driscoll bemoans that the findings have not resulted in changed attitudes from vets or the official veterinary world; I can't agree with that, from my own experience. This may be an observation peculiar to Ms. O'Dricoll's Britain, where the single-payer system has preserved a "nanny knows best" attitude in the medical establishment, and where scientist who dare to question the orthodoxy are ruthlessly taken down.