Think you know what's in vaccines? Think again!

https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2005.227.1066
https://www.avma.org/news/javmanews/pages/160701a.aspx
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2005.227.1102
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.231.1.94

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/avma-vaccine-report-surprises-skeptics

UC Davis Veterinary Medicine lists the work of Schultz RD in their references (Dr. Ronald D. Schultz).

Dr. Ron Schultz is a professor of immunology and founding chair of the Department of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine and is an author of the WSAVA and American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) guidelines.

• "[P]rofits are what vaccine critics believe is at the root of the profession's resistance to update its protocols. Without the lure of vaccines, clients might be less inclined to make yearly veterinary visits. Vaccines add up to 14 percent of the average practice's income, AAHA reports, and veterinarians stand to lose big, says Dr. Ron Schultz, a veterinary immunologist at the forefront of vaccine research and chair of the University of Wisconsin's Department of Pathobiological Sciences.
  
  'I suspect some are ignoring my work,' says Schultz, who claims some distemper vaccines last as long as 15 years. 'Tying vaccinations into the annual visit became prominent in the 1980s and a way of practicing in the 1990s. Now veterinarians don't want to give it up.'"
• "For North Carolina State University Professor Dr. Richard Ford, who worked on both the AAHA and AVMA documents, industry guidance couldn't come soon enough. 'What concerns me is the large number of vaccines coming into the market, and the fact that there are veterinarians who insist on vaccinating every dog and every cat with every vaccine every year,' Ford says. 'We cannot do this; it's too much.
  
  'Are we vaccinating too often with too many vaccines? I'm afraid the answer is yes.'
  
  
  
  Fact box
  
  Income vaccinations represent in the practice
  
  Practice Average
  
  < $500,000 15.9%
  
  > $1 million 2.3%
  
  Total: 14.1%
  
  Source: AAHA Financial & Productivity Pulsepoints, Second Edition"

(Dr. Ford received his DVM from Ohio State University)​

• "Over the course of the last decade, veterinarians have undergone a major shift in their approach to canine and feline vaccination. They have evolved from a standard procedure of vaccinating dogs and cats for everything in each year to a more balanced approach of analyzing risks and benefits of vaccines for each individual animal."[1]
• "But, as many veterinarians are realizing, over-vaccination can actually jeopardize a dog’s health and even life. Side effects can cause skin problems, allergic reactions and autoimmune disease."[2]

https://www.vetsmall.theclinics.com/article/S0195-5616(01)50604-X/abstract

https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/jvme.30.2.152

 

Mercury was removed from veterinary vaccines decades ago.

 

You rightly referred to Thimerosal and mercury as two separate ingredients in your first post. You will note that I did not say that Thimerosal has been removed, merely what is commonly known as mercury.

Methyl mercury, sometimes called merthiolate, used to be a common ingredient in veterinary vaccines, and that is what I was referring to. Thimerosal, while also a mercury product, is actually a different form of mercury known as ethyl mercury, and was thought to be safer than the methyl form.

I know you already know about it, but allow me to explain for anyone reading this. Confusion arises because in human vaccines, the two terms - mercury and Thimerosal - are used interchangeably. In veterinary vaccines, however, using the two terms separately is referring to the two distinct forms of mercury known to the veterinary world, and Thimerosal is usually referred to by its brand name.

Veterinary biologics are not regulated by the FDA, they are regulated by the USDA. The FDA has done more to remove mercury from various products on the market, including over the counter medications, than any other government agency and merely requires that an antibacterial agent (such as, but not necessarily Thimerosal) be added to human vaccines in order to prevent them from spoiling. Thimerosal serves two purposes in a vaccine, a preservative and an adjuvant. There are alternative ingredients for both functions that vaccine manufacturers have available to them. There is no regulation that forces vaccine manufacturers to use Thimerosal.

Thimerosal is still contained in the standard flu shot that is administered to children, including the flu shot that is given to pregnant women.

Thimerosal: A Sordid History​

Since its introduction 80 years ago, thimerosal has suffered a less than spectacular track record:

• In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found thimerosal killed mice when added to vaccines.
• In 1972, Eli Lilly found thimerosal to be “toxic to tissue cells” in concentrations as low as one part per million (PPM), 100 times weaker than in a typical vaccine.
• Despite all of this ongoing and emerging data, Eli Lilly continued to promote thimerosal as nontoxic, even including thimerosal in topical disinfectants.
• In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed on their umbilical cords.
• In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products containing thimerosal.
• In 1991, the FDA considered banning Thimerosal from animal vaccines.
• In 2006, researchers at UC Davis published a study connecting thimerosal with disruptions in antigen-presenting cells known as dendritic cells obtained from mice. Researchers and parents had previously proposed links between childhood vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects language skills and social interactions. The UC Davis study showed that in addition to being a direct neurotoxicant, thimerosal may also be an immunotoxicant, leaving the immune system vulnerable to microbes and other external influences.

 

Just for the record, in case those new to this thread want to know which ones were changed, the original poll answers numbers 8, 9 & 10 were completely changed.

Out of respect to the person that chose option 6 before it was edited, and no, I have absolutely no idea who that was, it used to read "I never heard of any of this, but wish I had."

I purposely chose to keep the voter's choices anonymous as I thought everyone would like their choices to remain private.

I wouldn't have mentioned it except for the fact that that one vote was cast with that choice before the answer was cut.

I am grateful that the poll question was left as it was originally; as were choice numbers 1 through 5; and number 7.

None of the poll choices were my words to begin with, so no harm done. The poll question I created. The answers I did not. Those were not answers that any one person could come up with. One gets some really odd answers when you have a fill-in-the-blank survey. But I explained this in a previous post. I arranged the order of the answers according to the percentage received in the original survey.

I suppose some folks didn't pay attention and got caught up in the heat of the moment and didn't stop to think it through.

After all, most farmers have heard a thing or two and know or at least can name some of the ingredients in a veterinary vaccine.

As for the previous original choices of #8 & #9 each was created by a different person who had written those respective answers on the original survey. Anyone who took issue with that failed to realize that there are folks out there who actually believe and say those things. You may not come across them in our online forums much but that is because they do not care about nor wish to participate in discussions relating to health.

And I don't know how anyone could say that they understand the risks and "feel" their way to a decision. A goat can feel like it wants to eat an entire bag of grain and that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Likewise a person can feel like having marzipan all day. Feelings are not a substitute for reason, knowledge and understanding.

Some of the answers are now completely unrelated to the question itself. Be that as it may we're talking about risks, not practices. Ingredients, not guidelines and schedules. I created a separate poll on the question of whether or not you choose to vaccinate your goats in a different thread.

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but for anyone interested the last choice "I understand the risks and take steps to minimize them" is not what some might think. To truly minimize a risk is to avoid it. Some thought the previous real-life answers formerly listed were not to their taste, but this new answer is the strongest statement on this thread thus far. So while that appears to leave those who believe vaccines are safe with one less choice, it actually does not. You see, the gentleman who wrote the original answer didn't vaccinate. A person who truly does not care about health does not spend money on health products. It is perhaps an overblown statement though, as no one can truly know the complete range of possible risk in all veterinary vaccines given our current situation.

Why not, you ask? The fact is that the complete list of ingredients for most veterinary vaccines is proprietary information, which means vaccine manufacturers are not required to disclose their ingredients to the consumer. Even if the consumer’s pet or livestock has a reaction to a vaccine, the manufacturer is not required to divulge the ingredients of the vaccine.

The poll question is limited in scope for a reason. You see, anyone not interested in learning about any potential risks or not wanting to discuss known ingredients does not have to participate or bother to read this. Some have already researched the topic. This thread was created for those who might be interested in such matters. We're not discussing benefits, we're trying to focus on risks. There are countless posts throughout forums that talk about benefits. The benefits side of the argument is endlessly represented. You can't walk into a store these days without hearing about how dangerous it is to live and about all of the benefits you can buy and that these products (vaccines) offer. Intelligent discussion of ingredients and the risks they might carry on the other hand is scarce, if you even hear about it at all.

Some of the poll's answers are not indicative of the conclusion a person has arrived at with a certain line of thinking. To further explain my reasoning behind why the 'concerned' poll answers can fall into any of the ideological camps, consider that we've pretty much all come across the following scenarios at one point or another in our lives:
-One can say that one is concerned about one's sugar intake, and continue to eat candy all day.
-One can say that one is concerned about lung health and continue to smoke.
-One can say that one is concerned about getting enough exercise and not get around to it.
-One can say that one is concerned with the amounts of lead found in city water and continue drinking it.
The opposites are also true, one can be concerned and take proactive measures to address one's concern(s).
So the concerned statements do not indicate a person's decision one way or another, just that they are concerned. They can then act on their concern or not. And there is nothing wrong with being concerned. If no one had any concern about health issues a good portion of this web site would not exist. Concern is a very good thing, and can lead to further consideration of what caused the concern to begin with.

In other words, none of the answers are, nor have ever been, ideal anti-vaccine statements. The poll choices are merely risk awareness assessment statements. Apparently those who vehemently support or consider themselves pro-vaccine did not notice this. A person who has chosen against a certain vaccine, or perhaps even vaccines in general, would have preferred a statement that didn't state "does not worry me" because anyone who loves goats worries about the health of the North American goat herds in general. And being able to find new bloodlines is worrisome enough already as it is. Some researchers believe that vaccinations cause genetic damage, and those weakened genes will be passed down to future generations, following the laws of nature (the science of epigenetics).

If anyone would like to chime in and discuss an ingredient or share something you know about a particular risk please do. Just try to use common sense and don't say you "feel" a particular ingredient is "safe" unless you know that to be true. True medicine is not based on feelings, but on facts. If you don't know anything about vaccine ingredients, questions are most welcome too. At some point none of us knew anything about them either. The thing to do when you don't know is to begin to learn. Don't stay paralyzed by fear. Remember that mankind and livestock have been around for thousands and thousands of years and vaccines, and the risks they carry, are a recent invention. Read and research and discover for yourself.

There are more than two sides to the debate.

I'm not asking that my poll be changed again, quite the contrary, and I would like to thank everyone who voted for voting and to thank others in advance for the same.

 

Anyone who would like to read my posts on other subjects to determine whether they find my methods of research or thoroughness of any merit is welcome to do so.

My posts on the Ivermectin in dairy animals: https://www.thegoatspot.net/threads...ilk-what-you-werent-told.197455/#post-2125152

My post on copper: https://www.thegoatspot.net/threads/copper-deficiency.197190/page-2#post-2125355

My post on a wormer comparison trial: https://www.thegoatspot.net/threads/effectiveness-of-herbal-wormers-vs-conventional-wormers.197451/

https://www.thegoatspot.net/threads/great-new-article-on-deworming.197263/#post-2124984

My post on poisonous plants to goats: https://www.thegoatspot.net/threads/plants-that-make-goats-sick.197431/#post-2124862

My post on clipping goats: https://www.thegoatspot.net/threads/do-you-clip-your-goats-in-the-summer.197447/#post-2125324

-----

Now to return to the topic of vaccine ingredients and risks, let us hear from Merck, a major vaccine manufacturer.

"Encephalitis is inflammation of the brain that occurs when a virus directly infects the brain or when a virus, vaccine, or something else triggers inflammation." -- Merck

https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/b...nerve-disorders/brain-infections/encephalitis




And last I checked, CAE stands for Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis.

 

You are welcome to write anything you please, and questions are always welcome.

Yes, currently. I have a gaggle of geese, flocks of chickens, ducks, turkeys, cattle, sheep and a medium size herd of dairy goats. No, I'm not a vet. I've posted part of this elsewhere, but I know what it's like to work very long hours, and was partially raised on a farm where endless days and nights of hard work do not allow for much time to read the research or keep up with the wormer guideline changes let alone medical studies and discoveries. I remember countless nights spent tending incubators, assisting goat deliveries, cranking up generators during power outages to keep the chick's heaters going, and generally roughing the worst weather while most people were comfortably sitting at home. Some non-farmers have more time to look into these matters on account of their relatively shorter workdays and sometimes this paradox can contribute to some of the differences in views on food safety between farmers and consumers. Many farmers mean no harm, but are completely unaware of the consequences that their actions might have on the public health. I was fortunate to be able to eventually have the time for a more thorough education on medicine and food safety. I realize not every farmer/breeder has had the time so after years of looking into these things, I thought I'd share.

I mean no offense to anyone, I merely wish to shed light on a topic I don't see being talked about. When was the last time you heard of someone asking what was in a vaccine? And you'd be hard-pressed to find a vet that even has a clue. You can't "feel" that something is safe, or think it must be alright since everyone else seems to be doing it, you have to know for certain. So I don't provide opinions based on my personal feelings, what I have presented has been thoroughly researched, is very evidence-based and very grounded in sound science.

Anyone who has been in farming long enough knows that the vaccine guidelines have changed over the years, that previous wormer schedule recommendations are no longer considered healthy. Some of what was once thought to be true about OPP has been proven wrong. Farmers of all people should be the most concerned about important findings that effect the safety and efficacy of health management practices.

Depressing, well, I said above that "anyone who loves goats worries about the health of the North American goat herds in general" and truth cannot be sugar-coated. But we are so much better off knowing than not. No one likes to hear that the brakes on their truck are beginning to fail. But wouldn't you rather know?

And never lose hope. There are so many things we know now and so many resources we have at our disposal that weren't available years ago. On the bright side of things, some of the latest research in human medicine has been very exciting, and shows that some vaccine damage can be reversed and we now know that the human brain actually has the capability to heal. Research on the gut-brain connection has provided insights into some of the keys to treating and sometimes even reversing brain disorders.

Good point. Great idea. Thread created: https://www.thegoatspot.net/threads/vaccine-alternatives.197487/
Thank you! Hope you will chime in and share some of your experience and practices!


Ted Koppel once said that "Our society finds truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form, truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder. It is a howling reproach." Boy am I glad I'm not a reporter.