What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines
By Catherine O’Driscoll – 39 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary
If they are prepared to inject poison into a baby, what are the chances that pet vaccines are “safe and effective.”
Zero.
They didn’t bother with placebo testing for your child, do you think they bothered for your cat?
Once you understand the childhood vaccination mass poisoning event, you don’t really need a book to tell you that pet vaccines are to be avoided. There aren’t that many books on the subject anyway.
Pet vaccination is merely another disease creating wealth transfer program, that sustains the entirety of the veterinary sector.
Without the disease created by vaccines there simply wouldn’t be enough work to sustain the “profession.”
As I have repeatedly said, “mortgages create beliefs.”
With thanks to Catherine O’Driscoll for being one of the few to speak up.
About - Catherine O'Driscoll Books
What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines: O'driscoll, Catherine
12-point summary
The central argument of the book is that annual vaccination of dogs is unnecessary and harmful. O'Driscoll contends that the risks of adverse reactions, ranging from mild discomfort to death, outweigh the benefits, especially in countries like the UK where the targeted diseases are rare. She argues that natural immunity, achievable through proper nutrition and minimal exposure to pathogens, is a safer and more effective approach.
O'Driscoll criticizes the veterinary profession for prioritizing profit over animal well-being. She suggests that vets are overly reliant on pharmaceutical companies' recommendations and often fail to adequately inform pet owners about the risks of vaccines. She cites vet testimonies and her own experiences to support this claim.
The book heavily relies on personal testimonies from dog owners whose pets suffered adverse reactions to vaccines. These stories detail a range of conditions, including epilepsy, allergies, behavioral problems, and even death, allegedly occurring after vaccination.
O'Driscoll draws parallels between vaccine damage in animals and humans, citing research linking vaccines to various health issues in children, such as autism, dyslexia, and autoimmune disorders. She argues that similar mechanisms could be at play in animals, and that the veterinary profession ignores these risks. This comparison relies heavily on the work of authors like Harris L. Coulter.
The book emphasizes the concept of "vaccinosis," a non-specific adverse reaction to vaccines that can manifest in various ways depending on the individual animal's susceptibility. This concept is based on Hans Selye's work on the non-specific stress syndrome, suggesting that vaccines, as foreign substances, can trigger a cascade of physiological responses that can lead to a wide range of health problems.
O'Driscoll questions the effectiveness of vaccines, arguing that they do not guarantee immunity and make animals more susceptible to disease. She cites studies showing outbreaks of diseases in vaccinated populations and contends that natural herd immunity is a more sustainable solution.
The book highlights the dangers of vaccine ingredients, such as monkey kidney tissue and various adjuvants, which can cause a range of adverse effects. She criticizes the lack of transparency in vaccine manufacturing processes and the limited information available to pet owners about the composition of vaccines.
O'Driscoll advocates for the use of homeopathic nosodes as a safer alternative to conventional vaccines. She claims that nosodes, highly diluted preparations of disease-causing agents, can stimulate the immune system without the risks associated with vaccines.
The book presents the results of the Canine Health Concern (CHC) Vaccine Survey, which shows a strong correlation between vaccination and various health problems in dogs. The survey, based on questionnaires submitted by dog owners, suggests that a significant percentage of dogs experience adverse reactions within three months of vaccination.
O'Driscoll criticizes the reliance on animal experimentation in vaccine testing, arguing that it is cruel and produces unreliable results due to species differences. She suggests that alternative methods, such as in vitro studies or human clinical trials, would be more ethical and informative.
The book includes numerous examples of cover-ups and misinformation campaigns by vaccine manufacturers and the veterinary establishment. O'Driscoll outlines that these entities suppress information about vaccine risks to protect their financial interests.
O'Driscoll calls for greater transparency in the veterinary industry and empowers dog owners to take an active role in their pets' healthcare decisions. She encourages readers to question their vets, conduct independent research, and consider alternative approaches like homeopathy. The book concludes with a strong message of personal responsibility and a call for collective action to challenge the status quo in veterinary medicine.
39 Questions & Answers
Question (1): What are the core arguments Catherine O'Driscoll presents against the routine annual vaccination of dogs?
O'Driscoll passionately argues that the practice of routinely vaccinating dogs annually is not only unnecessary but also carries significant risks. She says that the perceived benefits of yearly boosters are outweighed by the for adverse reactions, ranging from mild discomfort to serious health issues like autoimmune disorders, neurological problems, and even death.
She further challenges the widely held belief that annual vaccination is essential for preventing infectious diseases. She cites research and historical data suggesting that natural immunity, fostered by good hygiene, a healthy diet, and reduced stress, can be just as effective in protecting dogs from viral and bacterial threats.
Question (2): What are Modified Live Virus (MLV) vaccines, and why does O'Driscoll express specific concerns about their use in animals with immune system deficiencies?
Modified Live Virus vaccines contain weakened versions of viruses intended to stimulate an immune response without causing the actual disease. O'Driscoll is particularly concerned about MLV vaccines because, in her view, they can pose serious risks to animals with compromised immune systems, including those with genetic predispositions or underlying health conditions.
She argues that these weakened viruses can overwhelm a weakened immune system, leading to the very diseases they are meant to prevent. She further contends that MLV vaccines can trigger or exacerbate autoimmune disorders in susceptible individuals.
[Unbekoming: For more on “viruses” you can start here, Settling the Virus Debate.]
Question (3): What evidence does O'Driscoll cite to support her claims that vaccines can cause or exacerbate various diseases in dogs? What are some of the specific diseases mentioned?
O'Driscoll draws on a range of evidence to support her claims, including accounts from dog owners, interpretations of scientific studies, and excerpts from veterinary literature. She cites instances where dogs developed illnesses like epilepsy, arthritis, skin conditions, and behavioral problems shortly after vaccination.
She frequently references the "Merck Manual," a widely respected medical text, to highlight the acknowledged risks of vaccines, including their to cause encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), autoimmune disorders, and other serious health problems. She also points to the work of researchers like Dr. Viera Scheibner, who has argued that vaccines can cause a wide range of adverse effects, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Vaccination: The Hidden Truth - Lies are Unbekoming
Question (4): What is the concept of "vaccinosis" as presented in the book, and what evidence does O'Driscoll provide to support its existence?
"Vaccinosis," as described in the book, is a term used to describe a chronic, debilitating condition that can be triggered by vaccinations. O'Driscoll says that vaccinosis can manifest in various ways, including allergies, skin problems, behavioral issues, and immune system dysfunction.
While acknowledging that the veterinary establishment generally does not recognize vaccinosis as a distinct medical condition, she argues that this is due to a lack of awareness and understanding of the long-term effects of vaccines. She points to the experiences of dog owners who report seeing improvements in their pets' health after discontinuing vaccinations or using homeopathic alternatives as evidence to support the validity of vaccinosis.
Question (5): How does the author explain instances where dogs contract the very diseases they were vaccinated against?
O'Driscoll offers several explanations for these apparent contradictions. She suggests that maternal antibodies, passed from mother to puppy, can sometimes interfere with the effectiveness of vaccines, leaving puppies vulnerable to infection.
She also points to the possibility of vaccine failure, where a particular batch of vaccine may not be potent enough to confer adequate immunity. Furthermore, she raises the idea that vaccines, particularly those using modified live viruses, can sometimes cause a mild form of the disease itself, particularly in susceptible individuals.
Question (6): O'Driscoll discusses the for vaccines to "shed" and "mutate." What does she mean by these terms, and what are the risks she associates with these phenomena?
"Shedding," in the context of vaccines, refers to the release of live virus particles from a vaccinated animal, exposing unvaccinated animals to the virus. "Mutation" describes the possibility of a virus within a vaccine changing its genetic makeup, which could lead to the emergence of new, more dangerous strains.
O'Driscoll expresses concern that shedding could expose vulnerable animals, such as those with compromised immune systems, to infection. She also suggests that the possibility of mutation introduces a level of unpredictability and risk, as it's impossible to fully anticipate how a virus might evolve after being introduced into a population.
Question (7): Why is O'Driscoll concerned about the presence of certain ingredients in vaccines, and what are some of the harmful ingredients she identifies?
O'Driscoll believes that certain ingredients used in vaccines, often referred to as adjuvants and preservatives, can be toxic and pose health risks to animals. She argues that these substances can accumulate in the body over time, contributing to a range of chronic health issues.
Some of the specific ingredients she identifies as harmful include aluminum compounds, formaldehyde, and mercury-based preservatives (thimerosal). She expresses concern that these substances can disrupt the immune system, interfere with neurological development, and contribute to allergic reactions.
Question (8): How might maternal antibodies in puppies interfere with the effectiveness of vaccines, according to the author?
Maternal antibodies, passed from mother to puppy through colostrum (the first milk), provide crucial early protection against disease. However, these antibodies can also interfere with the effectiveness of vaccines given to young puppies.
O'Driscoll explains that maternal antibodies can sometimes neutralize the weakened virus particles in vaccines, preventing them from triggering a robust immune response in the puppy. This interference can lead to inadequate immunity, leaving puppies vulnerable to infection even after vaccination.
Question (9): The author frequently cites the "Merck Manual." What is this manual, and why does she consider it a credible source?
The "Merck Manual" is a comprehensive medical reference guide published by Merck & Co., a pharmaceutical company. It's widely used by healthcare professionals and is generally considered a reputable source of medical information.
O'Driscoll frequently cites the "Merck Manual" to demonstrate that even conventional medical sources acknowledge the risks associated with vaccines. She uses excerpts from the manual to highlight warnings about the possibility of adverse reactions, including encephalitis, autoimmune disorders, and other serious health problems.
Question (10): What was the purpose and methodology of the Canine Health Concern (CHC) Vaccine Survey, and what were the key findings?
The Canine Health Concern (CHC) Vaccine Survey was an independent research project initiated by O'Driscoll and her husband to investigate the prevalence of adverse reactions to vaccines in dogs. The survey relied on questionnaires distributed to dog owners, asking them to report any health issues their dogs experienced following vaccination.
The key findings of the survey, according to O'Driscoll, were that a significant percentage of dogs experienced adverse reactions, ranging from mild to severe. These reactions included gastrointestinal upset, skin problems, behavioral changes, and neurological disorders. The survey data, she argues, provide compelling evidence that the risks of vaccination are greater than commonly acknowledged.
Question (11): What is the "cascade" referred to in the book, and how does it relate to the use of homeopathic remedies in veterinary medicine?
The "cascade" is a set of guidelines that dictates the order in which veterinarians in the UK are permitted to prescribe medications. It prioritizes the use of licensed veterinary medications specifically designed for the target species. If no suitable licensed product exists, veterinarians can then consider using licensed medications intended for other species or for human use. Homeopathic remedies fall lower down on the cascade, meaning that they should only be prescribed after licensed options have been exhausted.
O'Driscoll clarifies that despite the cascade's hierarchy, there is no legal barrier preventing veterinarians from using homeopathic remedies if they deem it the most appropriate treatment. She argues that the misconception that homeopathy is somehow prohibited in veterinary medicine stems from a lack of awareness of the regulations among both veterinarians and pet owners.
Question (12): What are homeopathic nosodes, and how do they differ from conventional vaccines?
Homeopathic nosodes are preparations made from highly diluted substances, such as diseased tissue or bodily fluids, that are believed to stimulate the body's natural healing abilities. They are based on the principle of "like cures like," a central tenet of homeopathy, which suggests that a substance that can cause certain symptoms in a healthy person can also treat those symptoms in a sick person.
Unlike conventional vaccines, which contain weakened or inactivated viruses or bacteria, homeopathic nosodes do not introduce any actual disease-causing agents into the body. They are intended to work by prompting the body's immune system to recognize and defend against specific diseases.
Question (13): What evidence does O'Driscoll present to support the efficacy of homeopathic nosodes as a preventative measure against canine diseases?
O'Driscoll presents a combination of anecdotal evidence and research to support her claims about the effectiveness of homeopathic nosodes. She shares stories from dog owners who report that their nosode-protected dogs remained healthy despite exposure to outbreaks of diseases like kennel cough and parvovirus.
She also cites a study conducted by Christopher Day, a homeopathic veterinarian, which suggested that kennel cough nosodes were more effective in preventing the disease than conventional vaccines.
Question (14): Why, according to O'Driscoll, are homeopathic remedies not licensed in the same way as conventional medications?
O'Driscoll attributes the lack of licensing for homeopathic remedies to two primary factors:
Resistance to animal experimentation: Homeopaths have historically been opposed to the use of animal testing, which is a standard requirement for obtaining licenses for conventional medications.
Difficulty in patenting: Homeopathic remedies are typically made from naturally occurring substances, making them difficult to patent. This lack of patentability reduces the financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in the research and development required for licensing.
Question (15): What is the significance of the story about Daniel, the puppy who died after being vaccinated against parvovirus?
O'Driscoll uses Daniel's story as a poignant example of the dangers of vaccination, even in seemingly healthy puppies. She details the heartbreaking experience of Daniel's owners, who watched their beloved puppy succumb to parvovirus despite having received the vaccine.
She cites an unnamed specialist who, according to Daniel's owner, suggested that the puppy might have contracted parvovirus from the vaccine itself. This story serves as a powerful anecdotal account that reinforces O'Driscoll's central argument that vaccines can sometimes cause the very diseases they are meant to prevent, particularly in susceptible individuals.
Question (16): What is the "Non-Specific Stress Syndrome," and how does O'Driscoll connect it to the adverse effects of vaccines?
"Non-Specific Stress Syndrome," a concept developed by endocrinologist Hans Selye, describes the body's generalized response to any demand placed upon it. Selye identified three stages: alarm, resistance, and exhaustion. O'Driscoll argues that vaccines act as a stressor on the body, triggering the Non-Specific Stress Syndrome.
She suggests that repeated vaccinations, particularly in young animals with developing immune systems, can overwhelm the body's ability to cope with stress, leading to a state of exhaustion and increased susceptibility to illness. She contends that the diverse range of adverse reactions to vaccines can be understood as manifestations of the body's attempts to adapt to this stress.
Question (17): Why does O'Driscoll believe that dog owners should be more involved in their dogs' healthcare decisions, particularly when it comes to vaccination?
O'Driscoll emphasizes the importance of informed consent and challenges the traditional power dynamic between veterinarians and pet owners. She argues that dog owners should not blindly trust the recommendations of "experts" but should actively educate themselves about the risks and benefits of different healthcare options, including vaccination.
She contends that dog owners, by closely observing their pets and engaging in open communication with their veterinarians, are best equipped to make informed decisions about what's best for their dogs' individual needs. She urges readers to ask questions, seek out alternative perspectives, and trust their own instincts.
Question (18): O'Driscoll expresses concern about conflicts of interest within the veterinary profession and government regulatory agencies. What are some of the specific concerns she raises?
O'Driscoll argues that financial ties between the veterinary profession, government regulatory agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry create conflicts of interest that can compromise the objectivity of vaccine recommendations and safety assessments.
She points to the reliance of regulatory bodies like the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) on data provided by vaccine manufacturers, suggesting that this dependence can lead to a bias in favor of industry interests. She also expresses concern about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on veterinary education and research, arguing that this influence can limit the exposure of veterinarians to alternative perspectives on vaccination.
Question (19): What alternatives to conventional vaccination does O'Driscoll suggest dog owners consider?
O'Driscoll primarily advocates for homeopathic nosodes as a safer and more natural alternative to conventional vaccination. She believes that nosodes can stimulate the body's immune system to defend against specific diseases without the risks associated with introducing weakened or inactivated viruses or bacteria.
She also encourages dog owners to focus on bolstering their dogs' natural immunity through a holistic approach that emphasizes good nutrition, stress reduction, and a healthy environment. She suggests that by creating optimal conditions for health, dogs can better resist disease without the need for repeated vaccinations.
Question (20): What is the central message O'Driscoll wants readers to take away from her book?
O'Driscoll urges readers to question conventional wisdom regarding dog vaccination and to become active participants in their dogs' healthcare decisions. She challenges the assumption that annual vaccination is necessary and safe, presenting evidence that she believes suggests otherwise.
Her central message is that dog owners have the right and responsibility to make informed choices about their dogs' well-being, even if those choices go against the prevailing opinions of the veterinary establishment. She encourages readers to seek out information, consider alternative perspectives, and trust their own instincts when it comes to protecting their beloved canine companions.
Question (21): What does O'Driscoll mean by "informed choice" when it comes to dog vaccination?
For O'Driscoll, making an "informed choice" about vaccinating your dog means going beyond simply accepting the routine vaccination schedule recommended by most conventional vets. Instead, it involves:
Educating yourself about vaccines: Understand how they work, risks and benefits, and the diseases they target.
Considering individual dog factors: Age, breed, health history, and lifestyle can influence the decision.
Weighing risks vs. benefits: Is the risk of disease exposure high enough to justify the vaccine risks?
Exploring alternatives: Homeopathic nosodes are presented as a primary alternative.
Open communication with your vet: Discuss concerns and desired approach.
Ultimately, it means taking responsibility for your dog's health, not blindly following expert advice.
Question (22): O'Driscoll states, "Your dogs look at YOU with love and trust in their eyes - not at some stranger in a white coat." What is the underlying message she's conveying here?
This statement encapsulates O'Driscoll's central message of empowering dog owners to be active participants in their dogs' healthcare. She encourages owners to question veterinary authority, conduct independent research, and make informed decisions based on their own judgment and their dog's individual needs. By highlighting the trust dogs place in their owners, she emphasizes the responsibility owners have to advocate for their dogs' well-being, even if it means challenging conventional wisdom. This statement also underscores her distrust of the veterinary establishment, portraying them as more concerned with profit than genuine animal welfare.
Question (23): What is O'Driscoll's main criticism of the Canine Health Concern (CHC) vaccine survey's methodology?
O'Driscoll repeatedly acknowledges that the main limitation of the CHC survey is the relatively small sample size. This makes it difficult to draw statistically robust conclusions for certain diseases or breed-specific trends. She calls for more dog owners to participate to strengthen the data.
Question (24): What does O'Driscoll claim the CHC survey revealed about the timing of illness onset after vaccination?
The survey's most striking finding, according to O'Driscoll, is the clustering of illness onset within the first three months after vaccination. She argues that if vaccines had no effect, illness should be evenly distributed throughout the year.
Specifically, 66% of reported illnesses began within those three months, significantly higher than the 25% expected by chance. O'Driscoll sees this as strong evidence of a temporal link between vaccines and disease.
Question (25): Which specific diseases does O'Driscoll highlight as linked to vaccination based on the CHC survey?
Numerous diseases are listed, but some with stronger claimed association based on the survey data are:
Ataxia: 91% of cases began within 3 months of vaccination, deemed "certainty" of a link.
Nasal discharge, loss of appetite, lethargy, behavioral changes: All showed over 80% onset within 3 months.
Skin problems: Over 70% onset within 3 months.
Epilepsy: 65% onset within 3 months, mirroring Christopher Day's observations.
Autoimmune diseases: Nearly 50% onset within 3 months.
Question (26): What does O'Driscoll suggest is problematic about the way vets are educated about vaccines and alternative medicine?
O'Driscoll contends that vet education is heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies, creating bias. This manifests in:
Vaccine-focused training: Emphasis on conventional vaccines, little exposure to downsides.
Dismissive of alternatives: Homeopathy and other approaches are often ridiculed or ignored.
Reliance on industry 'experts': Vaccine company personnel as guest lecturers shapes the curriculum.
This, she argues, leaves vets ill-equipped to offer truly informed choice to pet owners.
Question (27): How does O'Driscoll's personal experience with the loss of her dogs, Oliver and Prudence, influence her views on vaccination?
The death of Oliver after a routine vaccination left O'Driscoll questioning veterinary practices. She felt she had not been adequately informed of risks. Later, Prudence's death from leukemia, which O'Driscoll attributes to vaccines, fueled her commitment to research and advocacy.
These experiences are presented as the driving force behind her work. The emotional impact lends weight to her arguments, though it doesn't constitute scientific proof.
Question (28): O'Driscoll uses the term "vaccinosis." What does she mean by this?
"Vaccinosis," in O'Driscoll's usage, is a broad term for any adverse reaction to a vaccine, ranging from mild to severe. It encompasses:
Immediate reactions: Allergic responses, shock, etc.
Delayed reactions: Disease onset weeks or months later, like epilepsy or autoimmune issues.
Chronic health problems: O'Driscoll believes vaccines can trigger long-lasting conditions.
Question (29): How does O'Driscoll connect the concept of "water memory" to vaccine reactions?
O'Driscoll cites the work of Jacques Benveniste, who claimed that water retains "memory" of substances it previously held. Applying this to vaccines, she speculates:
If vaccines are cultured on animal cells or eggs, even after purification, the water may carry an "imprint."
This "memory" could trigger allergic reactions in susceptible individuals, despite no detectable allergens present.
EZ Water - Lies are Unbekoming
Question (30): What actions does O'Driscoll suggest concerned dog owners take regarding vaccination?
O'Driscoll's calls to action for readers include:
Educate themselves: Read her book, research independently, don't rely solely on vet advice.
Question the status quo: Don't accept annual vaccination as dogma, demand transparency from vets.
Consider homeopathic nosodes: Seek out vets offering this alternative, discuss its suitability for your dog.
Participate in CHC survey: Contribute to data collection to strengthen evidence base.
Spread awareness: Share the book, discuss concerns with other dog owners.
She aims to empower individuals to challenge conventional practices and advocate for their dogs' health.
Question (31): What arguments does O'Driscoll make against mandatory rabies vaccination in the UK?
O'Driscoll expresses strong opposition to mandatory rabies vaccination, citing these concerns:
Lack of rabies risk: The UK is considered rabies-free, so widespread vaccination is unnecessary.
for harm outweighs benefit: Given the absence of disease, the risks of vaccine reactions, however small, are unacceptable.
Individual choice should be respected: Owners should decide what's best for their dogs, not the government.
She celebrates the rumored abandonment of mandatory rabies vaccination as a victory for common sense and individual liberty.
Question (32): What is the "process problem" that O'Driscoll believes led to the deaths of puppies from a specific batch of vaccines?
O'Driscoll recounts a case where multiple puppies died after receiving a specific vaccine batch. While bacterial contamination was ruled out, she attributes the deaths to a "process problem" during manufacturing. This implies an inherent flaw in the vaccine's production, leading to a consistently dangerous product, rather than a single bad batch.
Question (33): Describe the incident involving Dr. Richard Lacey and the vaccine manufacturer Intervet.
Professor Richard Lacey, a microbiologist, agreed to test a vaccine batch suspected of causing puppy deaths. However, due to licensing restrictions, he could only test for bacterial contamination, which came back negative. He concluded that if the vaccine was indeed responsible, it pointed to a persistent "process problem." David Sutton of Intervet, representing NOAH (National Office of Animal Health), contacted Lacey, emphasizing the importance of leptospirosis vaccination. Lacey, concerned about legal action, researched leptospirosis and found the vaccine to be largely ineffective due to the numerous strains of the disease. He advocated for its withdrawal from the market due to questionable efficacy and side effects.
Question (34): How does O'Driscoll utilize stories from vets who support her views on vaccination?
O'Driscoll incorporates several vet accounts to strengthen her arguments:
A vet admitted to going along with vaccine manufacturers' push for annual boosters in the 1980s, acknowledging it as a financial incentive disguised as medical necessity.
A locum vet confessed awareness of vaccine risks but felt compelled to follow clinic protocols and vaccinate despite personal reservations.
These accounts, provide insider perspectives aligning with O'Driscoll's claims of industry-driven practices overriding genuine animal welfare.
Question (35): What does O'Driscoll see as the significance of the fact that Intervet offered to sponsor a seminar where she was invited to speak?
O'Driscoll expresses initial enthusiasm about Intervet sponsoring her seminar on vaccine issues, recognizing it as a sign that the veterinary establishment might be starting to listen. However, she quickly turns wary, viewing the sponsorship offer as a Trojan Horse. She believes pharmaceutical companies use financial incentives to gain influence and silence dissent. This is illustrated by her anecdote about a pet food company that tried to suppress her participation in seminars due to financial leverage. Ultimately, she declines Intervet's sponsorship, opting for independent funding to maintain control over the message and avoid conflicts of interest.
Question (36): What is the main point O'Driscoll wants to convey with the story of Chief Seathl's testament?
O'Driscoll relates Chief Seathl's famous speech, given during the displacement of Native Americans, to emphasize the interconnectedness of all life and the responsibility humans have to treat animals with respect. She parallels the exploitation of Native Americans and their land with the harm inflicted on animals through unnecessary or harmful medical practices like excessive vaccination. The quote, "What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, men would die from a great loneliness of spirit," highlights her belief that animal well-being is intrinsically tied to human well-being.
Question (37): What are some of the issues surrounding leptospirosis vaccination that O'Driscoll raises?
O'Driscoll presents several arguments against the routine use of leptospirosis vaccines:
Questionable efficacy: The vaccine only covers a limited number of the approximately 150 strains of the virus, providing incomplete protection.
Short-lived immunity: Protection lasts only 3-9 months, raising doubts about the need for annual boosters.
Risk of side effects: She cites Australian research highlighting concerns about adverse reactions, though details aren't provided in the source.
Unclear necessity: She questions how frequently dogs actually contract leptospirosis, implying that the risk may not warrant routine vaccination.
O'Driscoll ultimately concludes that the leptospirosis vaccine is of dubious value and harmful, echoing Professor Lacey's conclusion.
Question (38): O'Driscoll provides contact information for several organizations at the end of her book. What is the common theme connecting these organizations?
The organizations listed by O'Driscoll share a common theme of advocating for animal welfare and ethical treatment. Most of them are dedicated to animal rights, promoting vegetarianism or veganism, and opposing animal testing and exploitation. The inclusion of these groups underscores O'Driscoll's broader message of animal advocacy and responsible pet ownership, aligning with her critical stance on conventional veterinary practices.
Question (39): How does O'Driscoll suggest that individual dog owners can contribute to the work of Canine Health Concern (CHC)?
O'Driscoll emphasizes that CHC relies on individual support to achieve its goals of promoting canine health and challenging conventional veterinary practices. She encourages readers to contribute by:
Becoming members: Financial support helps CHC produce newsletters, leaflets, cassette tapes, and other educational materials to spread their message.
Participating in the Canine Health Census: Submitting completed questionnaires strengthens the data and provides valuable insights into canine health issues.
Networking and spreading the word: Sharing the book, discussing concerns with other dog owners, and advocating for informed choice helps raise awareness and challenge the status quo.
She believes that collective action by individuals can create meaningful change in veterinary practices and improve the lives of dogs.
I appreciate you being here.
If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
For COVID vaccine injury
Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
Have a 12 year old Labrador, who identifies as Antivaxx…..(updated) - make that 13+
Animals are used as the basis for all of our current healthcare insanity. Virtually everything we attribute to "modern healthcare" comes with the price tag of the torture, maiming, and mass killing of animals in labs.
Everything gets tested on the animals first. Including "vaccine passports." (They've been doing it for many years. Trying using a kennel, or renting housing, etc. without "proof of pet vaccination.")
Recommend: "Slaughter of the Innocent" and "Naked Empress (or The Great Medical Fraud)" by Hans Ruesch. An earlier author and whistleblower who suffered greatly for exposing the health SHAM for what it is.