Links

• Home
• Regulations
• Code of Ethics
• About Dogs
• Stewards
• All The Forms
• Gazette
• Affiliates
• Fees
• Juniors
• Links
• Notices
• Contacts
• Breeders Directory
• Show Dates 2009
• Show Dates 2010
• Gundog Assoc
• Articles
• Show Results
• Constitution
• Training
• Committees

 

 

Science of Vaccine Damage

 

**The purpose of the articles on this page is to provide further information for the reader. It is always advised to do your own research regarding any of the articles on this page and to form your own conclusions. **

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html By Catherine O'Driscoll

A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- "but not the non-vaccinated dogs"-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.
Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vaccinating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."
In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.

But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.
It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.

A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field. The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7) Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections". When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.

I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves: "Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."

I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.
Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination". This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.

Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years.
They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.
There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other inflammatory conditions.

Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:

Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines..." (9)

Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10)

Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."

Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)

Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13)

A Theory on Inflammation

Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.

Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.
Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.

"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.
"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)
If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.
If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.

Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.

The Final Insult

All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.
Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced.
Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)

Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.
The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.
It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.

About the Author:
Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in NEXUS 4/04). She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine health around the world.
For more information, contact Catherine O'Driscoll at Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email catherine@carsegray.co.uk , website http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk.

Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, and worldwide from Dogwise at http://www.dogwise.com.

Endnotes

1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.

2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.

3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp.

4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.

5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.

6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.

7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985. See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.

8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.

9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.

10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.

11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.

12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.

13. ibid.

14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.

15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002, http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.

16. ibid.

17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.

18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).

19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.

Kibble Evaluation How to grade your dog's food:

Start with a grade of 100:

1) For every listing of "by-product", subtract 10 points.

2) For every non-specific animal source ("meat" or "poultry", meat, meal or fat) reference, subtract 10 points.

3) If the food contains BHA, BHT, or ethoxyquin, subtract 10 points.

4) For every grain "mill run" or non-specific grain source, subtract 5 points.

5) If the same grain ingredient is used 2 or more times in the first five ingredients (I.e. "ground brown rice", "brewers rice", "rice flour" are all the same grain), subtract 5 points.

6) If the protein sources are not meat meal and there are less than 2 meats in the top 3 ingredients, subtract 3 points.

7) If it contains any artificial colorants, subtract 3 points.

8) If it contains ground corn or whole grain corn, subtract 3 points.

9) If corn is listed in the top 5 ingredients, subtract 2 more points.

10) If the food contains any animal fat other than fish oil, subtract 2 points.

11) If lamb is the only animal protein source (unless your dog is allergic to other protein sources), subtract 2 points.

12) If it contains soy or soybeans, subtract 2 points.

13) If it contains wheat (unless you know that your dog is not allergic to wheat), subtract 2 points.

14) If it contains beef (unless you know that your dog is not allergic to beef), subtract 1 point.

Are We Helping to Criminalize Dog Breeding?

"The following article was written by Diane Klumb for ShowSights Magazine, June 2003. Though this pertains to dogs it should be of interest to anyone breeding purebred animals. It is VERY thought provoking and fits into our current discussion regarding mentoring new breeders as well as what a good breeder is!!!

Please give it some thought and give thought to the importance of mentoring, teaching and developing new breeders by encouraging those who are new to the breeding world. ...Because if we do not, we could be encouraging the END of breeding purebred pets. The article below is riveting in many respects!" (anonymous)
____________ _________ _________ _________ ______

"I just finished reading 'The Hijacking of the Humane Movement' by Rod and Patti Strand. If you haven't read it, please do so. Immediately.

What it did was convince me that allowing dogs to be shown on Limited Registration (the topic of my column last month) was not just a good idea, as a lot of you actually agreed, it was vital to the continuation of our passion....purebred dogs.

It is critically important that each and every one of us involved in the sport of dogs understand what we are up against, and most of us are woefully ignorant.

There is a large, well-funded and well-organized network out there that believes we have no right to own dogs - in fact, they believe domestic animals should not exist at all, and their goal is to see that they do not.

Yeah, we all know about animal-rights crazies....PETA jumps immediately to mind, because they are a media-oriented organization. Most of us do not support them. We think they are nuts.

But I'll bet it never occurred to you that you are unwittingly spreading their message..... .

Before you say "me? NEVER!" let me ask you this - have the words "companion animal" ever rolled off your tongue in the last year or two? Do you vaguely remember when we called them "pets"? Where'd that pretty term come from anyway?

Here is your answer:
"I don't use the word "pet". I think it is speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal". For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding.... if people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets....But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially designed by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance."
Ingrid Newkirk, Co-Founder of PETA

Every time we use "their" terminology in place of our own, we spread their message and support their cause. Are you perchance telling people you "place" puppies in their new "adoptive" homes? With their new "guardians"? (Is that check you get the "adoption fee" for their new "furkid"?)

Not me.

I sell puppies that I have bred to the best owners that I can find.

I tell my pet puppy-buyers in no uncertain terms that these are ten-pound pack-hunting predators, not little people in fur coats, and if they do not understand that right out the gate, they will have an unhousebroken little monster on their hands in short order.

But that's a mild example... the most dangerous way in which we have brought in and supported their cause to end animal ownership and the breeding of dogs is by believing that responsible ("good") breeders produce less dogs than irresponsible ("bad") ones. And, following this dangerous logic, the most responsible ("very best") breeders presumably produce none at all!

The reason we believe that breeding less dogs is responsible is because we all have been told that there is a pet overpopulation problem, and every year, more and more unwanted pets are euthanized in shelters across the country.

But is the problem really getting worse and worse, or have we simply been told that? (And by whom?)

Here's a fact that I learned, thanks to Rod an Patti's aforementioned book:

IT AIN'T TRUE.

According to the figures of the American Humane Association, there was a 45% drop in dog euthanasia from 1985-1990. That trend has continued today to such an extent that in many parts of the country, shelters are importing stray dogs from third world countries to fill the demand!!!

Unbelievable? Not at all.

I actually have first-hand experience with the shortage - our own local shelter, on whose Board I served for many years, sends a fair number of our strays to a shelter in New York that's in constant need of adoptable dogs, where they end up as pampered pets in Manhattan... and these are mostly crossbred hounds...these shelters get little dogs from Puerto Rico, honest to God.

At the same time, public demand for purebred dogs has increased to the point where the commercial producers (who presumably are not as gullible as us and never believed this claptrap coming from Animal Rights people in the first place) cannot keep up with the demand and are also importing purebreds from third world countries to supply many of the upscale pet shops in the country. And trust me, they are selling for a lot more than you are getting for your pet puppies out of top show lines!!

And here we sit, feeling smug about how very few dogs we breed, as though this is somehow a measure of our moral superiority.

The less dogs you breed, the better a breeder you are... how damn dumb is that?

Let's apply this weird logic to other endeavors for a minute - The less books you write, the better a writer you are? The less paintings you produce the better a painter you are? The less cases you try, the better an attorney you are? Or, how about - my personal favorite - the less surgeries you perform, the better surgeon you are???? Hmmmmm...Would you choose a cardiac surgeon because the guy only performs the particular surgery you need once every four years? (Not unless you are a total idiot...)

No, in a rational world, the measure of your competence in any given endeavor is not determined by how infrequently you do it...this idiocy was handed to us on a platter by the Animal Rights Activist, and we actually accepted it.

A good breeder is not one who breeds less dogs - it is someone who breeds dogs well. And, although it is probably the height of political incorrectness to point this out in the current climate, the odds of breeding dogs well is probably increased by actually doing it!

A good breeder, in my humble opinion, is one who breeds only for the improvement in type and structure, as defined by the Standard for his breed. (If his dogs don't need any improvement in those area, it's because it is his first litter...) He screens his dogs for all the health problems in his breed, and makes intelligent and informed choices based on the results of those tests to minimize the risk of producing unhealthy animals. He takes the time to learn the basics of genetics, anatomy, and canine behavior before he starts breeding, and continues to study throughout his years as a breeder. He socializes his puppies. He stands behind his dogs for life. He shows his dogs in competition, because he understands that the purpose of competition is the evaluation of breeding stock, but he does not breed only to win, because he is aware of the pitfalls inherit therein....

It doesn't matter if one produces one litter a year or ten, or whether one makes money or loses it in the process - one is either a good breeder, or one is not. Anyone who believes otherwise is supporting the agenda of those who want to see breeding dogs criminalized.

Criminalized? ?

Duhhhh... what exactly do you think these people are talking about anyway?

#10 on the Animal Rights Platform (reprinted from the Animals Agenda, a publication of the movement, and lifted from Rod and Patti's book) states unequivocally:

We Strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs or cats.

(Are they going to ask us nicely? Uh-uh. They are trying to legislate us out of existence as we speak...)

And #11 includes this ominous gem:

We call for an end to the use of animals in entertainment and sports such as horse and dog racing, dog and cock fighting, fox hunting, hare coursing, rodeos, circuses and other spectacles.. .Anyone inclined to pick and choose here, and there is much to pick and choose from, should remember that although they personally find dog fighting loathsome, one of the greatest "spectacles" in the sport of dogs is Westminster. ..

So what does this have to do with Limited Registration?

Easy. We need more good dogs, not less.

And we need more good breeders, not less. Which means we need to find some new ones, and mentor them.

But we want to make sure they will be responsible breeders, or we simply won't do it - we'll sell what we don't keep on spay/neuters until there are no more of us left before we'll risk having our kennel names show up on an auction list somewhere because we called one wrong...

And, as I pointed out in the last column, we would be much more likely to encourage new breeders if we could sell promising puppies on contract to novices with Limited Registration until such time as they are finished and health-tested. By this point the new owner would have demonstrated a sufficient degree of commitment (in some competitive breeds it's one hell of a commitment!) and the Limited could be lifted, sending another potential Good Breeder out into the world to fight the bad guys with our blessing.

And then the Parent Clubs could maybe get off their collective posteriors and start helping potential owners of their respective breeds find a good dog instead of forcing them to go to pet shops ......, thereby keeping the bottom feeders of dogdom in business and giving the Animal Rights crazies more video footage to work with in their campaign to outlaw the breeding of dogs...you know... be part of the solution instead of part of the problem...

But I guess maybe that's another column entirely. See you at the shows!!"

Implanted Microchips And Cancer

By Jane Williams
December 20, 2006

At the National ID Expo in Kansas City, Arkansas Animal Producer’s Association President
Michael Steenbergen asked, “What safety studies have been conducted on the chips that are inserted into animals?” His question was met with total silence. Did these manufacturers not know, or were they unwilling to admit that research has confirmed that implanted microchips cause cancer?

Melvin T. Massey, DVM from Brownsboro, Texas, brought this to the attention of the American Horse Council when he wrote, “I am a retired Equine Veterinarian and still breed a few horses. Because of migration-infections-increased risk of sarcoids I will not want to have microchips in my horses.”

The Institute of Experimental Pathology at Hannover Medical School in Germany reported ,
“An experiment using 4279 CBA/J mice of two generations was carried out to investigate the influence of parental preconceptual exposure to X-ray radiation or to chemical carcinogens.
Microchips were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsolateral back for unique
indentification of each animal. The animals were kept for lifespan under standard
laboratory conditions. In 36 mice a circumscribed neoplasm occurred in the area of the
implanted microchip. Macroscopically, firm, pale white nodules up to 25 mm in diameter with the microchip in its center were found. Macroscopically, soft tissue tumors such as
fibrosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma were detected.”Ecole Nationale Veterinaire of Unite d’Anatomie Pathologique in Nantes, France, reported,

“Fifty-two subcutaneous tumors associated with microchip were collected from three
carcinigenicity B6C3F1 mice studies. Two of these 52 tumours were adenocarcinoma of the mammary gland located on the dorsal region forming around the chip. All the other 50 were mesenchymal in origin and were difficult to classify on morphological grounds with
haematoxylin-eosin.”Marta Vascellari of Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie at Viale dell’Universita in Legnaro, Italy reported examining a 9-year-old male French Bulldog for a subcutaneous mass located at the site of a microchip implant. “The mass was confirmed as a high-grade infiltrative fibrosarcoma, with multifocal necrosis and peripheral lymphoid aggregates.”

The Toxicology Department of Bayer Corporation in Stillwell, Kansas reported, “Tumors
surrounding implanted microchip animal identification devices were noted in two separate
chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies using F344 rats. The tumors occurred at a low
incidence rate (approximately 1%), but did result in the early sacrifice of most affected
animals, due to tumor size and occasional metastases. No sex-related trends were noted.

All tumors occurred during the second year of the studies, were located in the subcutaneous dorsal thoracic area (the site of microchip implantation) and contained embedded microchip devices. All were mesenchymal in origin and consisted of the following types, listed on order of frequency: malignant schwannoma, fibrosarcoma, anaplastic sarcoma, and histiocytic sarcoma. The following diagnostic techniques were employed: light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry. The mechanism of carcinogenicity appeared to be that of foreign body induced tumorigenesis.”Additional studies related to cancer tumors at the site of microchip implants have been conduced in China; however, at this time these studies are not available in English.

At this time, no long term studies are available covering more than two years. It only seems
logical to conclude that if carcinogenic tumors occur within one percent of animals
implanted within two years of the implant that the percentage would increase with the
passage of time. Additional studies need to be conducted, but don’t hold your breath for
the manufacturers of microchips to conduct such research and be leery of any such
“research” they may conduct. Even the limited research available clearly indicates that
implantation of microchips within an animal is gambling with the animal’s well being.

 

 

Contact Us | ©2008 Tasmanian Canine Association Inc. Website designed & maintained by Lyndall Abbott-Young