Not Fit For A Dog

[Guest guest]

Not fit for a dog The death of Tarsell was nothing to do with her third repeat vaccine for Gardasil. So says the Gardasil expert Dr Ault. But he has ‘humility’ and ‘sadness’ for the death. It’s tragic he says. Perhaps he would have more humility and more sadness if he said it was causal for he would be out of a job the same day. How can an expert with his job on the line say anything else? Not Science, Not Junk Science, his statement is Propaganda. The death certificate says cause unknown. Cardiac arrest. This is not Science, Not Junk Science but again simply Propaganda. Has anyone ever died and their heart continued to beat for ever afterwards? Perhaps I am being supersensitve but to say the heart stopped is trite, simplistic and even sarcastic to my simple brain. The pathologist and Dr Ault show a zero concept of their profession and expertise by these pointless even hurtful statements. But in the next breath they show 100 per cent vison in what was not the cause of the deaths of Tarsell. It was not a vaccine death and not the result of repeat and repeat vaccination with the same antigens. It is truly remarkable how they can change from disbelief that 27 fit and healthy people should drop dead suddenly after a gardasil vaccine and then say thats they don’t know what caused the deaths! For a start the vaccine is genetically modified. How about several dozen very fit and healthy Belgian cyclists that ingested a GMO medicine and dropped dead? Any similarity there? What about the work of Nobel Prize winner Richet and his theory of Anaphylaxis. Give a dog a vaccine and he will be immune for life. Give the same dog the same vaccine and it may well suffer from anaphylaxis and die. Any similarity here? Read what modern ideas on vaccinating dogs repeatedly says in 2008 more than 100 hundred years after Richet’s experiments: It has now come to the forefront that there are problems associated with the recommended vaccination programs for our dogs. As breeders we were aware that some dispute existed in the recommended vaccination programs followed by local veterinarians. We really couldn't get definitive answers until we read the article in Poodle Variety, August-September issue, 2007, " Science of Vaccine Damage " by O'Driscoll and submitted by Brigitte Copeland. The whole article has been reprinted below. The main point stated, " All 27 Veterinary Schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following line. " " Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is given after six months of age, it produced immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titre is not " boosted " , nor are more memory cells induced. " Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia. " In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary. " Facts and Science do not change but Propaganda and Lies change like the proverbial winds. Not fit for a dog