The ‘Disgraced’ Andrew Wakefield and ‘that’ Dispatches programme

Last night, Monday 8th May, 2017, Channel 4’s Dispatches launched an attack on Donald Trump and Dr Andrew Wakefield, claiming that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. The tone of the programme was that of ‘investigative journalism’, with the presenter chasing Andrew Wakefield around a meeting venue and issuing accusations. A great deal of use was made of emotive words, and emotive tone.

The investigative reporter is Cathy Newman (CN).

CN: Of Trump: Blunt, brash, and preaching bogus science. There is no evidence of a link between the combined jabs and autism, but the president disagrees.

CN: And last year he met this man, a British doctor struck off in disgrace, the man behind the MMR scare. Discredited in Britain, Andrew Wakefield has reinvented himself, and now he claims to have the ear of the president.

CN: For the past three months we’ve been investigating Wakefield’s great American comeback. He’s still spouting alarmist theories about vaccines. Still inspiring devout support. And galvanised by Trump’s election he’s back in Europe and Britain, but still not keen to talk to Dispatches.

CN: Let’s face it: he’s not exactly shy about courting controversy (speaking of Trump) and he’s made it quite clear he has no time for established science. In an interview with Fox News, he derided climate change. But there is one Trumpism which could not only have a major impact on the health of American children, but also has its roots in Britain.

CN: During a primary debate, the president provocatively claimed that combined vaccines, like measles, mumps and rubella, MMR, cause brain disorders.

CN: While he’s not against vaccination as such, Trump has been clear on Twitter about the risk of what he calls monster shots. More than 20 times since 2012, he’s linked multiple combined vaccines with autism. And just three months ago before a group of head teachers, he expressed alarm that rates of autism were going up.

CN: This issue is close to Trump’s heart. He was happy for the White House to be turned blue to mark world autism day. And yet there is no credible scientific evidence to support Trump’s views. All vaccines, combined or not, have been tested comprehensively. There have been 17 authoritative studies which show that MMR does not cause autism.

CN: Dr Paul Offit is a leading vaccine scientist and a key supporter of America’s vaccine programme.

CN: Offit says: “The truth has emerged. The MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism. I think when a single study is done, that doesn’t prove anything. But I think when study after study after study is done, and in this case there are 17 studies been done in seven different countries on three different continents, involving hundreds of thousands of children, all of them which have found the same thing, now you can say that MMR does not cause autism.”

CN: America has a rich history as a global leader in science, but Trump’s views on vaccines are entrenched, no surprise when you see the company he’s keeping. It appears one important influence is a British medical researcher who’s been almost completely discredited. Step forward Andrew Wakefield, a former doctor at London’s Royal Free Hospital who in 1998, falsely linked the MMR jab and autism.

Cut to 2004 Dispatches programme: “It started with fear. Fear spread by a doctor.”

CN: In 2004, reporter Brian Deer investigated him for this programme. (Show Brian Deer interrupting Andrew Wakefield at a meeting. As soon as Wakefield heard Deer’s name, he sought to remove himself from the situation.) He revealed that while claiming the vaccine was unsafe, Wakefield was also being paid by solicitors who were suing the makers of the MMR jab. And he’d been accused by a colleague of misrepresenting data.

Cut to 2004 Dispatches programme, with Deer pursuing Wakefield and shouting at him: “You will stand your ground sir.”

CN: Wakefield’s claims caused chaos. MMR’s vaccination rates fell by 7% over three years. His disgrace culminated by him being struck off by the General Medical Council in 2010.

CN: Guilty of ethical breaches by taking blood from children at a birthday party, Wakefield was said to have been dishonest, misleading and irresponsible. That might have finished most people – not Wakefield.……

And on it goes.

So, let’s look at the witnesses for the prosecution. Paul Offit (from TruthWiki):

Dr. Paul Offit may be the most widely quoted promoter, defender and apologist for the vaccine industry today. Known for his “RotaTeq” rotavirus vaccine (and its patent) and his knowledge about immune response, Offit was honored with award by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases and recognized by the illustrious Bill Gates during one of Gates’ global health projects to vaccinate the whole world; a.k.a. “Living Proof.” The CDC recommends Offit’s rotavirus vaccine (for infants); however, auspiciously, Offit is also a founding advisory board member of the Autism Science Foundation. Autism has been linked to the MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine by Whistleblower vaccine scientist from the CDC, Dr. William Thompson himself in a stunning confession. Paul Offit is also the author of a sketchy medical narrative: “Autism’s False Prophets.”

In 2008, the program “Every Child by Two” Dr. Paul Offit received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from Pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines. They claim this has no influence on their vaccine “safety” stance, but this has been exposed otherwise by reliable journalists. There is missing information on just how much Offit profited from the sale of his invention of a Rotavirus vaccine (that’s never even been proven to work), but estimates are between $30 and $55 million of the 150 million dollar deal that was struck.

According to an investigation by Age of Autism, Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP is now their nickname), took home a fortune from the sale of CHOP, which had worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine. Offit’s former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices then comes into question, as his job description entailed creating the market for rotavirus vaccine; basically “voting himself rich” in the process. This is the same shill and vaccine promotor/orator who says he could get 10,000 vaccines at once and be fine. There is a connection in all of this. Dr. William Thompson’s admission of scientific fraud at the CDC that lead to African American boys under age three getting autism from MMR II vaccine was also recently revealed, but the mass media refused to cover it. Remember, while reading this confession, the name of Offit’s medical narrative is coincidentally, “Every Child by Two.”

Here’s a portion of Dr. Thompson’s (MMR vaccine – autism connection) confession:

 “My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR II vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.” Paul Offit’s profits from Merck’s Rotateq revenues are based on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck’s vaccine and thus share title, in other words, functioning as jointly owned patents by CHOP and Wistar Institute. The extreme conflicts of interest are astounding here. Back in 2005, the Wistar Institute sold its royalty interest in Rotateq to Paul Capital – so everything comes full circle, with the spike in autism rates so high and Merck’s contracts with the government that assure “95% efficacy.” It’s possible Paul Offit created the market for his own vaccine “intervention” and solely for profit. There are many ethical and even legal questions at play.

Is the market for mandated childhood vaccines created by Paul Offit?

In a single vote, the ACIP, or Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, can create a commercial market for a new vaccine worth hundreds of millions. This is not possible with most patented products, but then again, vaccines are not like “most” products. For example, after the ACIP approved Offit’s and Merck’s Rotateq vaccine to the official “childhood vaccination schedule,” Merck’s Rotateq revenue rose from nothing to over $650 million within a couple of years (2006 – 2008) (Dial it back to 1998 until 2003 and Offit was a “member” of ACIP). Since three doses of Rotateq cost about $200 and about four million infants and children are “mandated” to get it each year, do the math. To this day Offit still refuses to confirm how much money he made and to bury this conflict of interest and continue to only say he is a pediatrician in interviews represents ethics breaches right and left. It completely discredits the medical papers he writes about immune response and vaccine safety.

Now compare the ingredients of Rotavirus Rotateq vaccine and the MMR II vaccines (in question): Here is the list of ingredients in Offit’s invention – the Rotateq vaccine, as listed verbatum on the Merck website:

5 live rotavirus strains (G1, G2, G3, G4, and P1). Sucrose, sodium citrate, sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate, sodium hydroxide, polysorbate 80 and also fetal bovine serum. Parts of porcine circovirus (a virus that infects pigs) types 1 and 2 have been found in RotaTeq. (5)

Disclaimer: “RotaTeq is an oral vaccine used to help prevent rotavirus infection in children. Rotavirus infection can cause fever, vomiting, and diarrhea that can be severe and can lead to loss of body fluids (dehydration), hospitalization and even death in some children.”

More disclaimer: “What are the possible side effects of RotaTeq?” “The most common side effects reported after taking RotaTeq were diarrhea, vomiting, fever, runny nose and sore throat, wheezing or coughing, and ear infection. Call your child’s doctor or go to the emergency department right away if your child has any of the following problems after getting RotaTeq, even if it has been several weeks since the last dose because these may be signs of a serious problem called intussusception; bad vomiting, bad diarrhea, severe stomach pain, blood in the stool. Intussusception happens when a part of the intestine gets blocked or twisted. Since FDA approval, reports of infants with intussusception following RotaTeq have been received by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Intussusception occurred days and sometimes weeks after vaccination. Some infants needed hospitalization, surgery on their intestines, or a special enema to treat this problem. Death due to intussusception has occurred. A study conducted after approval of RotaTeq showed an increased risk of intussusception in the 21 days after the first dose of RotaTeq, but especially in the first 7 days. Other reported side effects include: • allergic reactions, which may be severe and may include face and mouth swelling, difficulty breathing, wheezing, hives, and/or skin rash; and • Kawasaki disease (a serious condition that can affect the heart; symptoms may include fever, rash, red eyes, red mouth, swollen glands, swollen hands and feet and, if not treated, death can occur). Call your doctor right away if your child has any side effects that concern you or seem to get worse. These are NOT all the possible side effects of RotaTeq. You can ask your doctor for a more complete list.”

Here’s the kicker: Rotavirus can be avoided if you maintain good hygiene. It’s a self-limiting condition that usually passes within seven days without doctor intervention – according to a NHS website. But every child must have the vaccine?

Brian Deer. Hmmm. He worked for Murdoch’s Sunday Times. The Murdoch family has extensive ties with the vaccine industry, and James Murdoch even served on the GlaxoSmithKline board. Deer was intimately involved in Wakefield being struck off by the GMC. When James Murdoch stepped down from the GSK board he received a ringing endorsement from the MMR manufacturer according to Reuters news agency. GSK insisted that Murdoch had made “a strong contribution” to the group and received share payments worth $158,000 in 2010. Murdoch, it turns out, was appointed to the board of the pharmaceutical manufacturer with a brief to “review…external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group’s business and reputation”.

Added to this, Professor Sir David Hull was chief of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) – a government body charged with the task of ensuring the safety of vaccines, and the promotion of vaccines. David Hull put pressure on the Dean of the Royal Free Hospital to stop Wakefield from acting as an expert witness for the parents of vaccine damaged children. Wakefield was legitimately awarded legal aid to do this work.

Let’s be clear: a British government agent – one who headed the JCVI – appeared to be involved before Andrew Wakefield was ever ‘discredited’, seeking to put a stop to honest research aimed at helping children and the parents of autistic children, and to hide any potential damage caused by the MMR vaccine.

A Freedom of Information Act request on the JCVI by Dr Lucija Tomljenovic at the University of Quebec, revealed that the JCVI withheld and skewed critical data on severe adverse reactions, including childhood vaccines causing encephalitis, meningitis, cot deaths, convulsions, anaphylaxis, brain damage, fits, cessation of development, and death.

Tomljenovic asserted that the JCVI and DH may have violated International Guidelines for Medical Ethics, including the Helsinki Declaration and their own Code of Practice.

Transcripts of JCVI meetings show that some of the committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake.

Rather than reacting appropriately when safety concerns over specific vaccines arose, the JCVI either remained inactive, skewed or removed data, and made intensive efforts to reassure the public and authorities on vaccine safety. In addition, the Committee persistently relied on dubious studies while dismissing independent research, promoted vaccine policies, and actively discouraged research on vaccine safety.

By mid to the late 1980s, the JCVI had become increasingly concerned about publicly associating the terms “death” and/or “brain damage” with the word “vaccine”, due to the negative repercussions they perceived this would have on vaccination policy. Concerns were exacerbated by the increasing burden of litigation surrounding pertussis vaccine-suspected injuries, and the possibility that vaccination could be linked to some cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Tomljenovic wrote: “In 1989, 10 years prior to the controversial Lancet report by Wakefield et al., the JCVI appeared to have been fully aware of the outcomes of the investigation carried out by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, which unequivocally established a link between the mumps component of the MMR vaccine (the Urabe-9 strain) and cases of vaccine-induced meningitis/encephalitis. In response to this, the JCVI appeared to have actively engaged in skewing and censoring data available to the public, continued to use Urabe-9 containing MMR vaccines, and made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities of the safety of all MMR vaccines. According to the transcript of a JCVI meeting in 1989, the causal agent of vaccine-induced meningitis/encephalitis was unequivocally identified.”

The JCVI’s solution appeared to be to give doctors little information about MMR vaccine safety issues. At other meetings, Committee members discussed the problem of limiting litigation, although “it was difficult to protect manufacturers against such heavy compensation claims”. So your child’s brain has been fried, and she sits screaming on the floor all day, rocking backwards and forwards, and all they appear to be concerned about is how to protect vaccine manufacturers from costly claims.

Wakefield’s other persecutor, Richard Horton (editor of The Lancet), worked for Crispin Davis. Crispin Davis was Chairman of Reed-Elsevier, which owned The Lancet. There have, incidentally, been criticisms of Reed-Elsevier’s involvement in the arms trade alongside medicine . In 2003, Crispin Davis was made a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of the MMR jab. In 2004 he was knighted.

Between them, Horton and Deer appeared to sow the seeds of professional misconduct against Wakefield and his team. There is a need to look beneath the top story presented in this ‘documentary’.

There is no evidence of a link between the combined jabs and autism.” Really?

Autism is a form of brain damage.

Vaccine-induced brain damage – references

  1. Encephalitis has been shown to appear in dogs after vaccination. (Grene, CE, ed, Appel MJ, Canine Distemper in Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat, 2nd edition, Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998: 9-22).
  2. Veterinary Record 1992 (130, 27-30), AIP McCandlish et al: “Post-vaccinal encephalitis is a recognised complication of the administration of certain strains of live attenuated canine distemper vaccine (Hartley 1974, Bestetti and others 1978, Cornwell and others 1988)”.
  3. Braund’s Clinical Neurology in Small Animals: Localisation, Diagnosis and Treatment: “Post vaccinal canine distemper encephalitis occurs in young animals, especially those less than six months of age. It has been recognised as a disease entity for a number of years, and is believed to be association with vaccination using live virus. The pathogenesis of this disease is unclear, but may result from insufficient attenuation of the vaccine virus which causes subsequent infections of the CNS; the triggering of a latent distemper infection by vaccination; other vaccine components; or an enhanced susceptibility of the animal (e.g., animals that are immunosuppressed).”
  4. Encephalitis following vaccination against distemper and infectious hepatitis in the dog. “A 4-months-old, male, healthy dog developed CNS-symptoms 10 days after the second vaccination with live, attenuated distemper and canine hepatitis virus.” G. Bestetti1, et al, Acta Neuropathologica Volume 43, Numbers 1-2 / 69-75 — 1/1/1978
  5. Wilson RB, Holladay JA, Cave JS: A Neurologic Syndrome Associated with Use of a Canine Coronavirus-Parvovirus Vaccine in a Dog. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet. February 1986; 8(2):117-124.
  6. Protein glutamate is added to vaccines to preserve the virus in vaccines. Meat, fish eggs, milk and cheese tend to be high in protein glutamate. High levels of glutamic acid have been shown in animal studies to cause damage to parts of the brain unprotected by the blood-brain barrier, leading to a variety of chronic diseases
  7. “Experimental studies on paralysis after antirabies vaccination. I. Histological studies on acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis in guinea pigs.” Shiina T, et al, Jpn J Microbiol; 2(2):187-96. — 4/1/1958
  8. “Clinical picture of postvaccinal encephalitis after rabies vaccination and sequelae.” Uchimaura Y, et al, Nervenarzt; 29(7): 303-7. — 7/1/1958
  9. Myelin basic protein as an encephalitogen in encephalomyelitis and polyneuritis following rabies vaccination: “Encephalitis and polyneuritis occurring after rabies vaccination are believed to be immunologically mediated. We studied antibody responses to neural antigens in 36 patients with major neurologic complications, 25 with minor complications, and 39 with no complications after immunization with a brain-derived, Semple rabies vaccine.” T Hemachudha, et al, New England Journal of Medicine Volume 316:369-374 , Number 7 — 2/12/1987
  10. Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis: T cell mediated autoimmune response to myelin basic protein, triggered by an infection or vaccination, underlies its pathogenesis R K Garg, Postgraduate Medical Journal; 79:11-17 — 1/1/2003
  11. Neurologic complications of immunization. “Individual vaccines can produce systemic or neurologic reactions ranging from minor events, such as pain and erythema at the injection site, to major complications, such as seizures, shock, encephalopathy, or death.” Bale JF Jr, J Child Neurol.; 19(6): 405-12. — 6/1/2004
  12. Merck: “In acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (post infectious encephalitis), demyelination can occur spontaneously, but usually follows a viral infection or inoculation (or very rarely a bacterial vaccine), suggesting an immunologic cause.”
  13. “Expression and characterization of a low molecular weight recombinant human gelatin: development of a substitute for animal-derived gelatin with superior features.” “Gelatin is used as a stabilizer in several vaccines. Allergic reactions to gelatins have been reported, including anaphylaxis. These gelatins are derived from animal tissues and thus represent a potential source of contaminants that cause transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.” Olsen D, et al, Protein Expr Purif.; 40(2):346-57 — 4/1/2005
  14. Ballerini, Rico B et al., Neurological Complications of Vaccination With Special Reference to Epileptic Syndrome Riview Neurol, Jul-Aug 1973; 43: 254-258.
  15. Wisniewski, H.M.; Sturman, J.A.; Shek, J.W. Chronic model of neurofibrillary changes induced in mature rabbits by metallic aluminum. Neurobiol Aging. 1982, 3(1), 11-22.
  16. Pendlebury, W.W.; Beal, M.F.; Kowall, N.W.; Solomon, P.R. Neuropathologic, neurochemical and immunocytochemical characteristics of aluminium. Neurology. 2008 May 6; 70(19):1672-7.
  17. Petit, T.L.; Biederman, G.B.; McMullen, P.A. Neurofibrillary degeneration, dendritic dying back, and learning-memory deficits after aluminium administration: implications for brain aging. Exp Neurol. 1980, 67(1), 152-162.
  18. Petrik, M.S.; Wong, M.C.; Tabata, R.C.; Garry, R.F.; Shaw, C.A. Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice. Neuromolecular Med. 2007, 9(1), 83-100.
  19. Gherardi, R.K.; Coquet, M.; Cherin, P.; Belec, L.; Moretto, P.; Dreyfus, P.A.; Pellissier, J.F.; Chariot, P.; Authier, F.J. Macrophagic myofasciitis lesions assess long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminium hydroxide in muscle. Brain. 2001, 124(Pt 9), 1821-1831.
  20. Shaw, C.A.; Petrik, M.S. Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration. J Inorg Biochem. 2009, 103(11), 1555-1562.
  21. Golub, M.S.; Gershwin, M.E.; Donald, J.M.; Negri, S.; Keen, C.L. Maternal and developmental toxicity of chronic aluminum exposure in mice. Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1987, 8(3), 346-357.
  22. Redhead, K.; Quinlan, G.J.; Das, R.G.; Gutteridge, J.M. Aluminium adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminium levels in murine brain tissue. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1992, 70(4), 278-280.
  23. Struys-Ponsar, C.; Guillard, O.; van den Bosch de Aguilar, P. Effects of aluminum exposure on glutamate metabolism: a possible explanation for its toxicity. Exp Neurol. 2000, 163(1), 157-164.
  24. Cohly, H.H.; Panja, A. Immunological findings in autism. Int Rev Neurobiol.2005, 71, 317-341.
  25. Banks, W.A.; Kastin, A.J. Aluminum-induced neurotoxicity: alterations in membrane function at the blood-brain barrier. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1989, 13(1), 47-53.
  26. Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe? L. Tomljenovic, and C.A. Shaw, Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2011, 18, 2630-2637 “Aluminium presented in this form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”
  27. Department of Paediatrics, Tokyo Medical University, Japan, found the measles virus in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. (Dig Dis Sci, 2000, Apri; 45(4) 723-9) . The sequences obtained from the patients with ulcerative colitis and children with autism were consistent with vaccine strains. It should be remembered that the measles virus and canine distemper are very closely related.
  28. 28. The question of encephalitis following vaccination was investigated by the League of Nations, and on August 27, 1928, the League published a report on the situation. The report stated: “The post-vaccinal encephalitis with which we are dealing has become a problem of itself . . . a new, or at least previously unsuspected or unrecognized risk attaches to vaccination. . . ”
  29. The Journal of the American Medical Association on April 2, 1937: “A multiplicity of untoward sequelae have been observed in patients treated with immune serum…The common symptomatology includes fever, urticaria, erythema, oedema, lymphadenoma, artharaliga, smothering sensations, headache, nausea and vomiting. Occasionally there are more serious and lasting manifestations such as peripheral neuritis, epididymitis and orchitis.”
  30. “The Smallpox Vaccine and Postvaccinal Encephalitis” “Before we become complacent with the idea that we will respond to a bioterrorism attack with a mass immunization program for smallpox, it is important to be reminded of the risk and clinical manifestations of postvaccinal encephalitis… The first case of postvaccinal encephalitis as a complication of the Jennerian cowpox inoculation was observed in 1905. A century later, there is no effective therapy.” Karen L. Roos, et al, Semin Neurol 22: 095-098 –1/1/2002
  31. “Relapsing Neuropathy due to tetanus toxoid.” “Summary: A unique case history is presented of a 42-year-old patient who has suffered three episodes of a demyelinating neuropathy, each of which followed an injection of tetanus toxoid.” Pollard, JD; Selby, G, Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 1978, 37: 113-125 — 1/1/1900
  32. “Etiology of acute encephalomyelitis after rabies vaccination.” Piskareva NA, Vopr Virusol; 1(6):47-50. — 11/1/1956
  33. “Experimental studies on paralysis after antirabies vaccination. Histological studies on acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis in guinea pigs. Shiina T, et al, Jpn J Microbiol; 2(2):187-96. — 4/1/1958
  34. “Clinical picture of postvaccinal encephalitis after rabies vaccination and sequelae.” Uchimaura Y, et al, Nervenarzt; 29(7): 303
  35. “The management of meningoencephalitis following rabies vaccination” Klemm D, et al, Med Klin;63(34):1354. — 8/1/1968
  36. “Relapsing encephalomyelitis following the use of influenza vaccine” Yahr MD and Lobo-Antunes, J, Arch Neurol. 27(2):182-3. — 8/1/1972
  37. “Hyperacute Allergic Encephalomyelitis: A localised form produced by passive transfer and pertussis vaccine.” “Blockade of histamine H1 receptors may reduce mortality in pertussis immunisation-induced encephalopathy in mice.” Levine,S et al, American Journal of Pathology; 73:247-260 — 1/1/1973
  38. “Murine model for pertussis vaccine encephalopathy: linkage to H−2” “Local, systemic and neurological complications have been observed following pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination in children. These often occur soon after primary or secondary immunization. The neurological syndrome ranges from minor irritability to convulsions, coma, and on rare occasions death.” L. Steinman, et al, Nature 299, 738 – 740 — 10/21/1982
  39. “Acute necrotic myelopathy associated with influenza vaccination.Graus F, et al, Lancet; 1(8545):1311-2. — 6/1/1987
  40. “Myelin basic protein as an encephalitogen in encephalomyelitis and polyneuritis following rabies vaccination” “Encephalitis and polyneuritis occurring after rabies vaccination are believed to be immunologically mediated. We studied antibody responses to neural antigens in 36 patients with major neurologic complications, 25 with minor complications, and 39 with no complications after immunization with a brain-derived, Semple rabies vaccine.” T Hemachudha, et al, New Endland Hournal of Medicine Volume 316:369-374 , Number 7 — 2/12/1987
  41. “Incidence of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis Following Measles and Measles Vaccination in Japan” “The Japanese Committee for the National Registry of Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE) confirmed that 215 cases of SSPE occurred” Yoshiomi Okuno, International Journal of Epidemiology Volume 18, Number 3 Pp. 684-689 — 10/1/1988
  42. “Acute cerebellar ataxia after influenza vaccination with recurrence and marked cerebellar atrophy.” “A 5-year-old, previously healthy girl developed symptoms and signs of acute cerebellar ataxia (ACA) 8 days after having received an influenza vaccination.” Saito H, et al, Tohoku J Exp Med; 158(1): 95-103. — 5/1/1989
  43. “Acute cerebellar ataxia and facial palsy after DPT immunization” “Since the initial report of Beyers & Moll (1948), numerous cases of seizures and encephalopathy after pertussis immunization or DPT immunization have been reported. We report a 1-year-11-month-old girl with acute cerebellar ataxia and facial palsy after DPT immunization.” Katafuchi Y, et al, No To Hattatsu. 21(5):465-9. — 9/1/1989
  44. “Acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (Guillain-Barre syndrome) after immunization with Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine.D’Cruz OF, et al, J Pediatr; 115(5 Pt 1):743-6. — 11/1/1989
  45. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA. “Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, an inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, can occur after viral infections or vaccinations. We report the clinical and neuroimaging findings in a 52-year-old man in whom acute disseminated encephalomyelitis developed after accidental self-injection of an industrial hog vaccine. ” Dodick DW, et al, Mayo Clin Proc. 73(12):1193-5. — 12/1/1998
  46. “Neurological adverse events associated with vaccination” “These complications include autism (measles vaccine), multiple sclerosis (hepatitis B vaccine), meningoencephalitis (Japanese encephalitis vaccine), Guillain-Barre syndrome and giant cell arteritis (influenza vaccine), and reactions after exposure to animal rabies vaccine. Seizures and hypotonic/hyporesponsive episodes following pertussis vaccination and potential risks associated with varicella vaccination, as well as vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis following oral poliovirus vaccination, are also described.” Piyasirisilp, Sucheep a; Hemachudha, Thiravat b, Neurology. 15(3):333-338 — 6/1/2002
  47. “Development of case definitions for acute encephalopathy, encephalitis, and multiple sclerosis reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System” “Acute encephalopathy age <18 months, encephalitis (EI), and multiple sclerosis (MS) after vaccination have been reported to VAERS” Robert Ball, et al, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Volume 55, Issue 8, Pages 819-824 — 8/1/2002
  48. “Postvaccinal inflammatory neuropathy: peripheral nerve biopsy in 3 cases” “Autoimmune inflammatory polyneuropathy (PN) can be triggered by vaccination. We report 3 such cases. A 36-year-old female nurse presented 15 days after a hepatitis B vaccination (HBV) with acute sensory disturbances in the lower limbs. She had severe ataxia but no weakness.” Claude Vital, et al, Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System Volume 7 Page 163 — 9/1/2002
  49. “Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis” “A T cell mediated autoimmune response to myelin basic protein, triggered by an infection or vaccination, underlies its pathogenesis. ” R K Garg, Postgraduate Medical Journal; 79:11-17 — 1/1/2003
  50. “Neurologic complications of immunization.” “Individual vaccines can produce  systemic or neurologic reactions ranging from minor events, such as pain and erythema at the injection site, to major complications, such as seizures, shock, encephalopathy, or death.” Bale JF Jr, J Child Neurol.; 19(6): 405-12. — 6/1/2004


The fact is, children – and dogs – can suffer brain damage from their vaccines. If you’re a parent considering whether or not to risk vaccinating your children, Channel 4 has seriously misled you.

My question is: who is behind this programme? They must know that Trump has the resources to mount a legal challenge against this programme. Therefore someone with a great deal of money – possibly a media mogul, or a multi-billionaire with vaccine industry interests, or even the makers of vaccines, has played a hand in this programme.

The biggest problem, however, is that presumably millions watched Channel 4’s Dispatches last night, which Wakefield and colleagues cannot match unless they too get mainstream media airtime. Since all of the major TV channels are owned by the super-rich who may also have vaccine shares, or the BBC whose reportage of Jeremy Corbyn reveals a hidden agenda, there’s not a lot of hope for that!

This documentary is, in my view, payback for Wakefield’s film, Vaxxed. It’s a shot across the bows by the vaccine industry (which is supported by government). Did you know that governments are involved in making and profiting from vaccines? Did you realise that government agencies lie to you about vaccine adverse effects?

If vaccines are that great, then why do they need to lie to us? arguing

VMD Reassurances over Lepto4 vaccine


Dear Sir

Open Letter: Who is the ‘Regulator’ protecting? Is it the animals and their owners – or the veterinary vaccine industry?

I refer to your on-line report ‘VMD offers reassurance over vaccine concerns’, dated March 20, 2017, ( with the sub-heading, “The VMD has moved to reassure vets following concerns raised in media reports of serious adverse events in dogs given the vaccine containing four strains of Leptospira bacteria”. The VMD stated in your report: “We would like to reassure vets – and through them, dog owners – we are constantly reviewing adverse event report data to ensure the benefits of each UK licensed veterinary medicine product outweighs the risk posed by their potential side effects.”

Bah humbug. Let me be clear: every reaction to a vaccine that is not needed is unacceptable. So let us examine the risk:benefit ratio in relation to the leptospirosis vaccine in the UK from a pet owner’s point of view, rather than the view of a ‘regulator’ which backs corporations every time rather than the animals it is supposed to protect.

The VMD 2014 Review of Adverse Events Report stated: “For the purposes of this report, we have classified core vaccines as those giving protection against any combination of distemper, parvovirus, adenovirus, parainfluenza and/or leptospirosis. We have done this, as in the UK dogs are almost invariably vaccinated against leptospirosis at the same time as the other diseases, which makes it very difficult to determine which vaccine component is responsible for the signs observed.”

So, in 2014, the VMD lumped Lepto4 adverse reactions in with core vaccines. Is this good science? It cannot be, for it demonstrates an apparent inability to ascertain the adverse effects of a new vaccine which has stimulated media reports prompted by grieving owners, and caused thousands of dog owners to join the ‘Lepto4 – our experiences’ Facebook group. And now, in response to further questioning, we have the figures obscured in percentages alongside reassurances based on what? Would this be to hide the known safety concerns surrounding the Lepto4 vaccine?

Why does the VMD not give us the actual numbers? Why reduce the deaths and abject suffering of Lepto4 victims, and their owners, to percentages? The VMD admitted to the Telegraph in July 2016 that there had already been 120 deaths and 2,000 adverse reactions in the UK. What is the figure now? (

How SAFE is this vaccine? Or is the VMD intimating that the Lepto4 vaccine from MSD is no more damaging than the other vaccines our dogs are subjected to, despite a huge rise from two (L2) to seven (L4) reactions per 10,000 doses sold? And what about the reactions which aren’t reported?

The European Medicines Agency Veterinary Pharmacovigilance Report 2014, didn’t have the same problem as the VMD. Specifically concerning Nobivac Lepto 4, the EU was able to establish that: “Several signals were identified, mainly relating to anaphylaxis and various immune-mediated conditions such as anaemia, thrombocytopenia and arthritis.” And death, of course. Let’s not forget death.

So whilst the European MCA was able to separate the Lepto vaccine from other vaccines but the UK’s VMD was not, the EU nevertheless gave this vaccine a special mention in its report and sent the manufacturer off to investigate. And because it is a vaccine (rather than, say, a herb which can’t make the veterinary pharmaceutical industry huge profits) L4 is still on the market and being injected into dogs – despite the fact that a percentage of dogs will die or have their bodies ruined as a result.

This means that every dog who receives the Lepto 4 vaccine is part of a medical experiment involving a vaccine under scrutiny, with a known association with death and severe debilitating disease. Are pet owners made aware of this before they are persuaded to part with their money and have them injected with this product?

Does the VMD even know how severe a risk leptospirosis is in the UK? Does anyone?

The CICADA survey from MSD ( furnishes veterinarians with figures, but dog owners must satisfy themselves with colours on a map, which stinks of obfuscation. But where did the data come from?

In May 2014, Christopher Ball from the University of Liverpool presented a thesis about leptospirosis in dogs. He thanked “MSD Animal Health for funding the project, without which none of this work would be possible”.

Mr Ball’s MSD-funded thesis, which may be found through a web search or, should that fail, through Canine Health Concern, appears to provide MSD with its data on leptospirosis incidence in the UK for its CICADA website. However, the thesis (which resulted in Mr Ball being awarded his PhD) also states:

  • Due to the perceived low rates of infection in the UK, the canine leptospirosis vaccine is also not currently considered a ‘core’ vaccine in the UK (unlike the vaccines for parvovirus, para-influenza virus, canine distemper and infectious hepatitis).
  • In the UK, the human vaccine is not routinely administered due to the low incidence of cases (between 50-60 a year) (HPA, 2012).
  • Climate plays a role in Leptospira infection rates, with temperate climates not having extreme weather situations that may contribute to infection rates. According to the Köppen climate classification, the UK has a rating of Cfb, meaning cooler summers but also milder winters. The classification reflects the milder climate changes between seasons which reduce the likelihood of leptospirosis.

Mr Ball sent out a questionnaire to veterinary practices in the UK for his thesis. Of the 472 questionnaires he sent out, only 89 were returned. Of these, by far the largest response came from vet practices which had seen no lepto cases in the previous twelve months. Only 13 practices reported a case within the last twelve months, of which only five had lepto confirmed by a laboratory test. A further 29 practices reported having seen a case within the last 15 years. No practice in the study reported seeing two or more suspected (or confirmed) cases in the 12 previous months. Does this make leptospirosis in dogs ‘endemic’ or a problem large enough to risk this vaccine? I think not.

Very similar extrapolated figures were presented by MSD on its website for the ‘CICADA’ survey, which is being used to justify annual vaccination against leptospirosis. Yet, to anyone unwilling to subject their dogs to unnecessary vaccines, these figures highlight a product desperately looking for a market, and not a validation for Lepto4.

What makes MSD’s Lepto4 vaccine different to its Lepto2 vaccine, apart from the number of serovars present? Do its ingredients give us a clue?

Thiomersal (mercury). Studies show that this mercury-based compound used as a vaccine preservative induces brain damage similar to that seen in autism patients. As an example, July 10, 2009, Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry June 4, 2009; 91(4): 735-749: “Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined.”

Sodium chloride (salt): MSD thinks it’s a good idea to inject salt into our dogs: salt that we avoid in their foods.

Potassium chloride – used to cause cardiac arrest within the “three drug cocktail” used for executions by lethal injection. Side effects (from uses not intended to kill) can include gastrointestinal discomfort, including nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, and bleeding of the digestive tract. Too much potassium in the blood can lead to hyperkalaemia.

Disodium phosphate dehydrate (DPD) – used within saline laxatives and enemas. According to Toxnet, part of the American government’s National Institute of Health, “Saline laxatives are tolerated reasonably well by most patients. However, they need to be used with caution or avoided in patients with renal insufficiency, cardiac disease, or pre-existing electrolyte abnormalities and in patients on diuretic therapy. Is use by injection safer than use by laxative?

Potassium dihydrogen phosphate (PDP): According to’s PDP factsheet, PDP injections should be administered with caution in people who already have high phosphate levels, such as those with hypoparathyroidism, chronic renal diseases, rhabdomyolysis, and heart disease. PDP injection is contraindicated for those with severe renal function impairment, Addison’s, and low calcium levels, and there’s a wide range of drugs which contraindicate its use, including NSAIDs, ACE inhibitors, calcium containing medicines, diuretics, and digitalis containing medicines. Adverse effects associated with PDP injection, include very low or irregular blood pressure, heart attack, high blood potassium, tiredness, weakness, slow heart rate, anxiety, trouble breathing, convulsions, muscle cramps, and acute renal failure.

I wonder if veterinarians take all of these contraindications and adverse effects into account when they go along with the ‘need’ to vaccinate dogs against lepto – a RARE disease in the UK?

Interestingly, the Nobivac Lepto 2 datasheet only lists Thiomersal under its ‘pharmaceutical particulars’.

We are also guessing about adverse reactions because even the VMD admits that there is a serious problem with the under-reporting of adverse reactions. So what we see could just be the tip of the needle.

There’s also the question: “does this vaccine prevent disease?”

Well – the jury is sort of out. MSD claims they’ve got the four main serovars covered, but our thesis author says it has not been possible to identify which are actually causing disease in the UK. Veterinary Times quotes the VMD:

“In other words, the VMD has received fewer than two adverse reactions for L2, and fewer than seven for L4, for every 10,000 doses sold. This includes every suspected adverse event reported – even cases that were considered unclassifiable or were later found to be unrelated to the vaccine.

“The overall incidence of suspected adverse reactions for both L2 and L4 vaccine products is therefore considered to be rare.”

I have to wonder whether veterinarians are advocating the leptospirosis vaccine so they can keep on pulling in revenue now that the WSAVA has informed pet owners that annual shots for parvovirus, distemper and adenovirus are not needed? Veterinarians, please think: do you wish to lose the trust of your clients altogether? And when will the people who have sworn to do no harm apply rigorous attention to the problem of VMD-industry collusion?

Yours faithfully
Catherine O’Driscoll
Canine Health Concern

Canine Health Concern Vaccine Survey – how vaccines harm our dogs

Canine Health Concern Vaccine Survey was conducted in the 1990s and involved 3,800 dogs. Our findings were astonishing, and confirmed that there is a high likelihood of your dog becoming ill within three months of a vaccine event. The survey was published in What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines.

The study is now closed – we are NOT looking for further dogs to participate.


The homoeopathic vet Christopher Day told us that he suspected that around 80% of the diseases he treats in his practice are vaccine related, and occur within three months of vaccine event where the start date of the illness is known. Chris is a referral vet, which means that he tends to see mostly the cases where every other avenue has been tried and failed, so the 80% figure was, by his own admission, likely to be exaggerated.

We put Christopher Day’s hypothesis to scientific test.

The CHC vaccine survey was first launched during October 1996. A questionnaire was devised by John Watt – a statistician with a Masters in statistical analysis and operational research – with the help of Christopher Day, Jean Dodds DVM, and Dr Viera Scheibner. Some 30,000 readers of Dog World magazine were invited to participate. In addition, all members of Canine Health Concern were mailed with a questionnaire, and some members of CHC (very kindly) circulated the questionnaire to friends and neighbours.

At time of publication of the second edition of my book, What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines, 770 detailed questionnaires had been received. These covered 523 dog owners and a total of approximately 3,800 dogs. This enabled us to compare the first interim results with a larger database.

First Interim results

For the purposes of this survey, we asked all participants to list their dogs’ illnesses, and tell us how soon they started after the date of vaccination. Our aim was to test whether there was a time frame bias between vaccination and the start of illness. This in itself would enable us to see whether illnesses which developed within three months after vaccination might be vaccine-linked.

The hypothesis is that, if vaccination has no adverse effect or even bearing on subsequent illness, then illnesses will occur in equal numbers at any time during the twelve months after vaccination. In fact, the results show a distinct skew or bias towards illness occurring within the first three months after vaccination.

No data was recorded in respect of lupus, Lyme disease or rabies in the first analysis, but one dog with lupus was incorporated into the second analysis. Obviously, no statistical conclusions can be drawn on such a sample size.

Some diseases showed a distinct bias towards occurring at nine months or more after vaccination had taken place. These are arthritis and heart conditions. We do, though, ask why these illnesses should all be clustered together at around the nine month period? It may, in fact, suggest that it takes longer for these illnesses to manifest overt symptoms, and consequently for diagnosis to take place. If vaccination had no bearing, then there should by rights be an even spread of occurrence throughout the twelve month period.

In a paper published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Vol 10, No 5, September/October 1966, entitled ‘Vaccine-Associated Immune-mediated Haemolytic Anaemia in the Dog’, the authors state: “Because vaccine components can remain in the body for extended periods of time, chemical reactions caused by these vaccine components may continue to occur later than with other drugs that are excreted or metabolized more quickly.” This statement in its own right would appear to support the belief that vaccines can cause reactions some time after the jab.

The first, astounding, finding of our initial survey results showed that, overall, 55% of all illnesses reported by participants occurred within the first three months of vaccination. This rose to 66% in the second analysis. If the vaccine had no bearing on the illness, you would expect to see no more than 25% occurring within that three month time frame.

A significant percentage of canine diseases arise in the first quarter following vaccination. Further analysis of the data shows that 41.75% of all illnesses start within 30 days after vaccination; this figure rose to 49% with extra data. This is over five times the expected percentage (if vaccination had no bearing on subsequent illness, you would expect only 8.22% of the dogs to become ill during the 30 days after vaccination.)

The original observation was tested using a standard t-Test which resulted in a t value of 5.39 with alpha at 0.001%. This means that a statistician would be 99.999% confident that vaccines are related to the subsequent illnesses.

In respect of the illnesses occurring seven days after vaccination, the case against vaccination is even more dramatic. The first interim survey results showed that 24.56% of illness occurred within seven days, when statistically it should only be 1.92%. This rose to 29% when more dogs were added to the survey. That is to say, the risk of illness is 12.8 (now 13%) times greater than would be expected if vaccines had nothing to do with the illness. This t-Test gave a t value of 4.69, with alpha at 1%. For the non-statistician, this means that the vaccine/illness connection can be expressed with 99% confidence.

66% of illness occurring during this period compared with a maximum expectation of 25%: almost three times the number of illnesses you would expect if vaccines had no bearing on the outcome.

Specific diseases highlighted by the first interim survey now follow.


2.7% of all dogs surveyed had arthritis. Of these, 71.8% were diagnosed nine months plus after vaccination. Arthritis in humans has been positively linked to vaccines. The fact that the onset of arthritis clusters at the nine month period indicates that vaccine-induced arthritis has a longer incubation period, or takes longer for overt physical symptoms to manifest. At a 95% confidence interval, we believe that arthritis is caused by vaccination.

The New England Journal of Medicine (vol. 313 no 18, 1985), carried a research report entitled ‘Persistent rubella virus infection associated with chronic arthritis in children’. The report confirms that infection or immunisation with rubella virus has been recognised in producing an acute synovitis (inflammation of the joint) . . . which has been reported to recur in certain persons for months or years after the acute stage’. It is also reported that it is often possible to isolate the virus from affected joints in children, vaccinated against rubella, many months after the vaccination.

Arthritis can be either inflammatory or noninflammatory. Stratton Vaccines: 97 carries case reports linking tetanus and diphtheria vaccines with arthritis and skin eruptions. The US National Academy of Sciences IOM report concluded that the measles vaccine can cause death from measles-vaccine-strain infection, thrombocytopenia, fatal shock and arthritis. Measles and distemper are, as you know, virtually the same virus. Transient arthritis follows rubella vaccination (Am J Child Dis, 1969), and pain in wrists, hands and knees (JAMA, 1970). One study reported that as many as 26% of children receiving rubella vaccination develop arthritis (Science, 1977). A study by the Institutes of Medicine in America concluded that there was evidence of a causal relationship between the rubella vaccine and acute arthritis in 13-15% of adult women.

As arthritis has been clearly linked to a number of different vaccines, it would be blinkered to discount the possibility that canine vaccines can also cause arthritis in the light of these survey findings.


Where dogs had diarrhoea, 68% of cases occurred within the first three months following vaccination.


Where dogs had allergies, 55.6% started within the first three months after vaccination. 3.8% of dogs surveyed had allergies. This indicates that vaccines do, indeed, ‘sensitise’ an organism. At 99% confidence, we are certain that allergies are triggered by vaccines.

Of course, Merck has already told us that patients suffering from B and T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live virus vaccines. Deficiency symptoms include atopic (inherited) diseases such as allergies. Dr Robert Gouch of Baylor University, Houston, Texas reported to the US Public Health Committee in 1982 that a worsening of allergic symptoms occurred in six out of seven people immunised against flu. It wouldn’t take too great a leap of imagination to understand that other vaccines can provoke hypersensitivity reactions and could quite easily invoke or worsen allergic conditions. Frick and Brooks, in 1983, demonstrated that vaccines can trigger atopic dermatitis. As over half the dogs in the CHC survey first became allergic within three months of vaccination, we strongly suggest that further research be conducted to establish the relationship between vaccines and allergic conditions. This research, rather than being based upon experiment, could be simply accomplished if vets or the Veterinary Medicines Directorate took a serious look at patient records.


At 95% confidence, it is very probable that ataxia (muscle incoordination caused by lesions throughout the nervous system) is caused by vaccines, with a high percentage starting within three months of vaccination.
Merck has already told us that encephalitis can extend to the central nervous system, and encephalitis can result in lesions.

Autoimmune disease

54.8% of dogs in the survey with autoimmune diseases developed this condition within the first three months after vaccination. However, there were abnormally low incidences occurring at the six month and nine month intervals, which may be explained by delays in diagnosis. We can now say that AI related diseases, at a 95% confidence interval, are vaccine-related.

Merck acknowledges that autoimmune disease can follow rabies vaccination in which, ‘cross-reaction probably is initiated by animal brain tissue in the vaccine’. As dogs in the UK are not yet subjected to the rabies vaccine, we must either assume (upon the evidence that nearly half of dogs in the survey with autoimmune disease developed it within three months of vaccination) that either other canine vaccines are developed on brain tissue, or that vaccines not cultured on brain tissue can also initiate autoimmune diseases. Merck tells us that details of the autoimmune response are incompletely understood. We do, though, know from other research that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Hashimotos thyroiditis, cancer, leukaemia, atopic dermatitis, and other autoimmune diseases are positively associated with vaccination.


Where dogs had colitis, 56.9% occurred within the first three months after vaccination. 2.7% of dogs surveyed had colitis. This finding may help current research seeking to establish the vaccine/colitis/irritable bowel link in humans. At 95% confidence, the survey indicates strongly that colitis is a sequel to vaccination. As colitis and diarrhoea overlap, the case could be considered to be even stronger.

The Concise Oxford Veterinary Dictionary defines colitis as inflammation of the colon and says it is also associated with concurrent enteritis, which it defines as an acute or chronic inflammation of the mucosa of any part of the intestines. Crohn’s disease, an inflammatory bowel disease which can affect any part of the digestive tract in humans, has been associated with vaccination by Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital in London (The Lancet Vol 345, 1995).

Dry eye/conjunctivitis

Where dogs had dry eye or conjunctivitis, 56.9% occurred within the first three months after vaccination. 2.5% of dogs surveyed had this complaint. According to the homoeopathic vet Richard Pitcairn, the vaccine has induced chronic (long lasting) conjunctivitis, rather than distemper-induced conjunctivitis. At 99% confidence, we are certain that dry eye and conjunctivitis can be caused by vaccines. Frick and Brooks’ research highlighting the incidence of atopic dermatitis following vaccination showed that conjunctivitis could also be involved. Conjunctivitis is described as a Type 1 hypersensitivity reaction in the Concise Oxford Veterinary Dictionary.


Where dogs had epilepsy, 65.5% occurred within the first three months following vaccination. 2.1% of the dogs surveyed had epilepsy. Epilepsy is essentially a neurological condition; scientific evidence has already been given to explain that vaccines can cause brain palsy and lesions, leading to epilepsy (this is tied in with encephalitis, admitted by vaccine manufacturers to be a possible effect of vaccination). The surveys allows a 99% certainty that epilepsy can be caused by vaccines, and that the most common cause of epilepsy in dogs is vaccines.

Nasal discharges

Where dogs showed nasal discharges, 84.1% occurred within 3 months of vaccination. 1.7% of dogs surveyed had nasal discharges. At 99% confidence interval, it is a certainty that nasal discharges are vaccine related. Indeed, as Dr Richard Pitcairn has stated, “a dog with distemper would have watery discharge of eyes and nose; a dog with chronic vaccine-induced distemper would have a tendency for watery fluid to drip from the nose”.

Nervous/worrying disposition

Where dogs exhibited a nervous or worrying disposition, 54.8% began to do so within three months post-vaccination. 2.8% of dogs surveyed suffered from this complaint. This is THE certainty of the survey! It has the highest t-score of any group, i.e., 19.9. Combined with another category – behavioural problems – we can say without a shadow of a doubt that vaccines cause personality changes in dogs. Of course, we know that encephalitis can be caused by vaccines. This fact is irrefutable.

Skin problems

Where dogs had skin problems, 46.2% started within three months after vaccination. 5.4% of dogs surveyed had skin problems. This, again, supports the contention that vaccines sensitise an organism. Again, with a 99% confidence, we can be certain that vaccines cause skin problems. Research conducted by Frick and Brooks in 1983 illustrates graphically that skin problems can be induced by vaccines.


Where owners reported vomiting in their dogs, 72.5% occurred within 3 months of vaccination. 3% of dogs surveyed were reported to have vomited. This, of course, can be described as an anaphylactic reaction which can develop into encephalitis. Dr JA Morris, a leading US infectious disease expert declared: “We only hear about the encephalitis and the deaths, but there is an entire spectrum between fever and death, and it’s all those things in between that never get reported”. Vomiting after vaccination can be expressed as a vaccine reaction, as a certainty at the 95% confidence interval.

Weight loss

Where owners reported weight loss in their dogs, 63.1% were within three months after vaccination. 2.5% of dogs in the survey had lost weight. At 99% confidence, weight loss is directly connected to vaccination.
The legal firm Dawbarns has been acting on behalf of parents whose children were vaccine damaged. Their fact sheet describes vaccine-induced Crohn’s disease which, it says, ‘can also be accompanied by joint pains and swelling, and conjunctivitis of the eyes. It can take many years to develop, but with children the first symptom is often malabsorption and failure to thrive’.

Behavioural problems

Where owners reported behavioural problems, 55.4% occurred within three months after vaccination. 2.5% of all dogs surveyed had behavioural problems. This, then, supports Dr Harris L Coulter‘s hypothesis that much human violence, sociopathy and criminality is vaccine linked, and has its basis in brain damage caused by vaccines. At a 99% confidence interval, we are now certain that behavioural problems are largely vaccine related.

The law firm Dawbarns says of autistic children (autism is thought to be a range symptoms including brain damage): “Before they were vaccinated they (according to their parents) were developing perfectly normally, passing all milestones and showing none of the classical signs of autism. After being vaccinated they regressed (sometimes only within a few days), losing metal, physical and social skills.” Dawbarns adds, “If a teenager takes Ecstasy and becomes ill or dies, it is IMMEDIATELY concluded that the illness or death was caused by the drug. But if a child becomes ill or dies after vaccination, it is dismissed as mere coincidence.”

Tumour or growth at vaccination site

Where dogs had tumours or growths at vaccination site, 67.9% occurred within three months of vaccination. 1.1% of all dogs surveyed suffered from this occurrence. It is well recorded in the medical/veterinary literature that cancer/tumours can (and do) grow at vaccine sites. With 95% confidence, we are certain that tumours or growths at vaccination sites are caused by the vaccination process itself.

All of the above figures had z alpha scores of greater than 5, and showed a distinct tendency to occur during the first three months after vaccination. This means that there is a link between vaccines and the above illnesses which, in turn, means that the vaccine/illness link is a certainty.

To increase statistical confidence, we needed more completed questionnaires to study the patterns of each of the following diseases, although the interim figures did give rise for concern:

Cancer – 31% within 3 months

Chorea – 63.2% within 3 months (note: although we would like more data, the data that we do have indicates at a 99% confidence interval that this disease is vaccine-related. Chorea is, in fact, involuntary jerking of the muscles due to degenerative lesions of nerve cells. It is common in dogs with distemper when the fever has subsided; residual brain damage is revealed as chorea.)

Encephalitis – 75% within 3 months (note: at 95% confidence, it is highly probable that vaccination caused the encephalitis.)

Heart conditions – 26.8% within 3 months (note: even though only 26.8% occurred within the first three months after vaccination, we can say that, from the statistical evidence, it is very likely that heart conditions can be caused by vaccination. More data would help us resolve this.)

Kidney damage – 40.5% within three months (note: we are only 90% confident that it is probable that kidney damage follows vaccination.)

Lameness – 52% within three months (note: statistically, it is a 99% certainty that lameness can be caused by vaccination.)

Liver damage – 47% within three months (note: we are 90% certain that, statistically, liver damage can follow vaccination)

Paralysis of rear end – 64.7% within three months (it is very likely – at 95% confidence interval – that this condition is caused by vaccines)

Pancreas problems – 31.6% within three months (note: these are likely to be related to vaccines at a 90% confidence interval)

Short attention span – 68.4% within three months (note: we would like more data concerning dogs with this problem, although we can say that, even with the limited data, we are 99% confident that this is vaccine related)

Dogs contracting the diseases they were vaccinated against:

Hepatitis – 63.6% occurred within three months of vaccination

Parainfluenza – 50% occurred within three months of vaccination (note: it is highly probable that parainfluenza can be caused by vaccines, at 95% confidence interval)

Parvovirus – 68.2% occurred within three months of vaccination

Distemper – 55.6% occurred within three months of vaccination

Leptospirosis – 100% of dogs contracted leptospirosis within three months of vaccination (note: according to the data we have, leptospirosis is related to vaccination at a 90% confidence interval.)

With the exception of distemper and leptospirosis, where not enough dogs with the disease were recorded, all of the above satisfy a z alpha score of more than three. This means that we are 99.53% certain that there is a strong causal link between vaccination and the onset of the diseases.
In all cases, at least half of the dogs with each of the viral diseases contracted them within three months of vaccination. This supports the view that vaccines either don’t protect, or can cause the disease itself.

Probability of vaccine reaction

Although we neededore dog owners to participate in the survey, we are able to make tentative prognoses regarding the likelihood of a vaccine reaction in an individual dog.

One veterinary vaccine manufacturer claimed that 15 adverse reactions occurred in three million administered doses (.000005 probability). If this is realistic, then my personal experience of having six dogs (100%) experience a vaccine reaction is mathematically impossible. Mathematically it only requires a cluster of seven adverse reaction reports coming in during a narrow time frame for the claimed probability of 0.000005 to be rejected.

Resulting from the combined data we can now estimate that the likelihood of a reaction to vaccination in a dog is at least 3%. This is about 30,000 times more risky than that accepted for human vaccines.

In reality, we can be reasonably sure that the probability of a vaccine related illness is vastly under reported/admitted by manufacturers and authorities such as the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. It demonstrates clearly the need for a proper system of verification and compliance regarding the use of vaccines and other manufactured medicines.

Age and illness

It is commonly believed that, as a dog gets older, the incidence of illness will increase. This has not been our personal experience, and the vaccine survey does not support this view, either.

The data we have relates to dogs ranging from a few weeks old to over 19 years of age. The conclusion from this survey is that a dog can become ill at any age – there was no statistical bias between the incidence of illness and the ages of the dogs covered in the survey.

Neither was there a correlation between the number of illnesses per dog and their respective ages. This may support the statement by Dr Ronald D Schultz, that these reactions are a result of “the accumulation of many antigens over many years. I believe that adverse effects are increasing because we are putting more and more components into these animals.”


The majority of respondents were UK residents (England, Scotland and Wales). The remaining respondents were from the USA, Canada, New Zealand and the Channel Islands. After analysing the two batches of combined data we can rule out environmental factors having any relevance to illnesses in dogs.

Dog ownership

A person who has kept dogs for many years is just as likely to experience illness in their dogs as a person who has had a dog for a short time, indicating that experienced husbandry has little bearing on the rate of illness (probably IF the owner is still vaccinating and feeding processed food).

Type of vaccine used

Based on combined survey data, we checked to see if it might be better to give annual boosters, or to give a puppy its initial course of vaccines and none thereafter. The risk of vaccine reaction appears to be the same irrespective of regime – initial only or annual vaccination. Nor are killed vaccines any safer than modified live vaccines.

Additional Analysis

Based on the data gained after publication of the first edition of What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines, we compared the profile of the second batch of data with the first. The objective was to ascertain whether or not we had received any different data that would invalidate previous conclusions. The second batch of data was a very close match to the first batch and statistically it can be concluded that the first and second batches of data are identical as to content.

Consolidating the two batches of data together allowed some more detailed levels of investigation. Significantly, the rankings of different diseases and ailments following vaccination did not change materially compared with the previous analysis.

In order of most significance, the following diseases occurred within three months of vaccination.

Ataxia – 91% occurred within three months of vaccination. This can be caused by lesions throughout the central nervous system (Concise Oxford Veterinary Dictionary). The previous analysis showed that, with a 95% confidence, Ataxia was caused by vaccines. Additional data allows us to attribute a Chi score of 29 and, as stated previously, a Chi score of 13 gives a 99% confidence. On which basis, without any hesitation whatsoever, we say that the most common cause of Ataxia is vaccination.

Nasal discharges – 87% occurred within three months of vaccination.
Previous analysis was 84%. The Chi score is now 125.

Loss of appetite – 83% occurred within three months of vaccination. Previous analysis was 79.8%. The Chi score is now 213.

Tumour or growth at vaccine site – this has climbed from 67.9% to 81.1%. There is a Chi score of 62.

Chorea – this has climbed from 63.2% and is now 81%. Chi score is 36.

Vomiting – climbed from 72.5% and is now 79.7% with a Chi score of 190.

Encephalitis (inflammation of the brain, with lesions throughout the brain and central nervous system) occurring within three months of vaccination has risen from 75% to 78.6%. The Chi score for this is 22. It’s interesting that this is a known and acknowledged vaccine reaction, and our survey shows well above a 99% certainty that it’s vaccine related – but some other diseases which are not acknowledge as vaccine reactions show even higher Chi scores.

Diarrhoea – first interim results showed that 68% of the dogs in the survey with diarrhoea developed it within three months of vaccination. This has now risen to 78.4%. The Chi score is 290. Thus it is absolutely certain (not surprisingly) that vaccines can induce diarrhoea.

Hepatitis – initially 63.6% and now risen to 75%. Chi score is 17, i.e., 99.5% confidence that hepatitis was caused by vaccines in the dogs in our survey.

Short attention span – was 68.4% and now risen to 73.1%. The Chi score is 34. Again, this offers extremely strong proof (99.9% certainty) that dogs with short attention spans are vaccine damaged.

Epilepsy/fits/convulsions – 65.5% of dogs in the first interim analysis developed epilepsy within three months of vaccination. This has now risen to 73.1%, with a Chi score of 96. We would say that the majority of dogs in our survey with epilepsy are vaccine damaged.

Nervous, worrying disposition – this was the certainty in the previous survey, with 54.8% developing the condition within three months of vaccination, bringing a t score of 19.9. The percentage has now risen to 72.5% and a Chi score of 112. Yet another cast iron example of vaccine-induced brain damage.

Weight loss – was 63.1% and has grown to 70.3% developing within three months of vaccination; with a Chi score of 101.

Dry eye/conjunctivitis – was 56.9%, now risen to 70.2% with a Chi score of 95. Again, this is a vaccine-induced condition.

Paralysis of rear end – was 64.7%, now risen to 69.2% with Chi score of 28.

Allergies – was 55.6%, and has now risen to 69.2% with a Chi score of 136. Allergies are caused or worsened by vaccines with a certainty above 99.9%

Parvovirus – in the previous analysis 68.2% of dogs with this disease developed it within three months of vaccination. This has now risen to 69%, giving a Chi score of 33. We were only able to say with a 95% confidence in the first analysis that parvovirus can be vaccine-induced. We are now able to say with a 99.9% certainty that it can (was).

Lameness – was 52%, now 66.7% with a Chi score 66.

Distemper – was 55.6%, now risen to 66.7%, with a Chi score of 12. Despite scientific research which shows that distemper can be vaccine induced, we can only give you a 95% confidence level of this fact.

Colitis – was 54.8%, now 65.9% with a Chi score of 79. Obviously, colitis can be vaccine induced. Vets: please check your practice records.

Behavioural problems – 55.4% of dogs in the first analysis developed behavioural problems within three months of vaccination. This has risen to 64.9% with a Chi score of 80. This gives a 99.9% certainty that the dogs with behavioural problems in our survey were brain damaged by vaccines.

Liver damage/failure – the number of dogs in the survey with liver damage/failure within three months of vaccination rose from 47% to 61.5%, with a Chi score of 29. Previously, we were only able to offer a 90% confidence that liver damage and/or failure was vaccine-induced. It is now 99.9% certain that liver damage/failure is a vaccine-induced condition.

Skin problems – 46.2% of dogs in the first analysis developed skin problems within three months of vaccination. This has risen to 61.2% of dogs, with a Chi of 130. A certainty at 99.99%.

Autoimmune disease – was 54.8%, now risen to 55.8% with a Chi of 26. As it is acknowledged by Merck that vaccines can initiate autoimmune disease, all we can do is confirm the experts’ opinion.

Parainfluenza – 50% of dogs with parainfluenza within the first analysis had been vaccinated against it within three months of getting it. This has now risen to 55.7% with a Chi score of 39. In the previous analysis we could only offer a 95% confidence that the parainfluenza vaccine could cause the disease. Now we are 99.9% certain.

Pancreas problems – was 31.6% and is now 54.2%, with a Chi score of 13, i.e., a 99% confidence that vaccines can induce pancreas problems.

Kidney damage – was 40.5% and has risen to 53.7%, with a Chi score of 20. Again, if you don’t want your dog to develop kidney damage, steer clear of vaccines.

There were only small numbers of dogs with leukaemia, asthma and meningitis in the survey and although around 50% of the dogs with these diseases contracted them within three months of a vaccine event, because of the small numbers involved, we can only give low Chi scores.

Heart condition – 26.8% of dogs with a heart condition first developed the condition within three months of vaccination. This has risen to 39.2% with a Chi score of 12, offering a 95% certainty that vaccines can induce this condition.

Arthritis – the original analysis revealed that 71.8% of dogs with arthritis developed it within the third quarter after vaccination. Further data reveals that 37.8% got it within the first three months after vaccination, and only 21% in the third quarter. Our Chi score is still 13, giving a 99% confidence that arthritis in dogs in our survey is vaccine induced. It is interesting to note that the New England Journal of Medicine (vol 313, 1985), reported that it is often possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella, many months after vaccination. The report tells of isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis which followed vaccination. As, statistically, our survey indicates a strong vaccine-arthritis association, we feel that further research should be carried out. It could be that many viruses can stimulate arthritis and, particularly, the immune mechanisms following vaccination with a live virus vaccine.

Cancer – 31% of dogs in the first analysis with cancer developed it within three months of vaccination. This has risen to 35.1%, with a Chi score of 15. This raises serious alarm. Indeed, we urge that those with the ability should look seriously at the vaccine link in relation to cancer. More research – looking at the onset of disease in relation to a vaccine event – could benefit animals and man.

Genetic Pre-Disposition, or Vaccine Damage?

Although I have never bred a dog, I have always intuitively doubted the assertion that most illnesses in dogs can be attributed to irresponsible or faulty breeding practices. We have sufficient data from a number of breeds to say that the genetic issue is a red herring without justification. We had sufficient data to look specifically at a number of breeds, and found that Golden Retrievers, German Shepherds, Shar-Peis, Border Collies, Boxers, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels all showed a high incidence of illness in the first three months following vaccination. Mathematically speaking, the propensity to illness within these breeds is the same.

The myth has told us that Border Collies, bred predominantly as workers, were hardier than other breeds, and that Shar-Peis hadn’t been westernised for long enough to suffer from irresponsible breeding. German Shepherds and Goldens, on the other hand, are said to be genetically compromised as they are so popular and therefore over-bred. Or maybe, on the other hand, all these breeds are genetically defective . . . . in which case, maybe all dogs are genetically defective and vaccination should not – as indicated by Merck – take place.

These breeds all showed a marked propensity to illness in the first three months following vaccination and the clusters for the other quarters were very tight. Mathematically the profiles for each breed are the same.

Dr Dodds has questioned why it is that big dogs and small dogs should have the same amount of vaccine. We have therefore checked to see whether illnesses are more common in small dogs than large dogs, or vice versa. We have found that size makes no difference, nor does it matter whether or not the vaccine used was killed, live, or a mix.

Similarly, a puppy is just as prone to a vaccine reaction as an adult. Although illnesses can appear to clear up and then get worse upon re-vaccination, any vaccine, at any time, at any age, can invoke disease. And reactions can happen at any time of year. This highlights the false assumption that a puppy shot plus a booster is safe. It is not. Each time you vaccinate, you are relying upon luck.


We can also now rule out geographical environment as having any bearing on the likelihood of vaccine reaction. Comparing data from England, Scotland, Wales and North America, a dog is just as likely to have a vaccine reaction irrespective of the country involved.


The following published provisional conclusions have all satisfied mathematical or inferential statistical tests at a level of confidence of 99% or better. That is, we have rejected, unless otherwise stated, any result with a z alpha of less than 2.56. In mathematical terms, an alpha score of 4 would mean that the chance of a false conclusion is less than one in about 33,000. In many cases, the data we have is greatly in excess of 4, making the following conclusions a certainty for all practical purposes.

The second analyses initially used the Chi square test. This test was used to compare the expected number of illnesses over the twelve months following vaccination against the actual results. We have rejected any illness with a Chi test statistic of less than twelve. That is to say, any Chi test statistic higher than twelve gives a 95% confidence about the conclusions. A Chi test result of 13 or greater gives a 99% confidence, and a Chi test of 17 gives 99.5% confidence. Only one test, heart conditions, was accepted at the 95% level as being vaccine-induced. Arthritis and pancreas problems are, at a 99% level of statistical certainty, vaccine-induced. Hepatitis is 99.5% certain to be vaccine-induced.

Meningitis, CDRM, asthma, leukaemia and thyroid problems did not pass the statistical test, although the term ‘meningitis’ is often the name given to encephalitis. However, the numbers of dogs in the survey with such ailments were extremely small and as leukaemia is a form of cancer, if cancer and leukaemia are combined, then one can conclude that leukaemia, like other cancers, is vaccine related. Strong research does exist in the human field to link these illnesses with vaccination. We also know that thyroid disease is very commonly undetected in the dog and therefore undiagnosed, and diseases like leukaemia may have varying incubation periods depending upon the inherent health of the dog.