Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Views And Reviews Acute Perspective

David Oliver: Vaccination sceptics are immune to debate

BMJ 2019; 365 doi: (Published 22 May 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;365:l2244

Rapid Response:

Vaccination guidelines and the ever-increasing 'vaccine load' - a response to David Oliver

David Oliver, as well as systematic reviews, you suggest to me that " guidelines, professional bodies and acknowledged content expertise" are useful to go to for medical field investigations:

In my investigation of vaccination policy and practice over the past ten years or so I have been influenced by vaccination guidelines issued by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association.[1] These are guidelines for the vaccination of dogs and cats, but I suggest they contain information which is also relevant to consider for human vaccination.*

The WSAVA guidelines for the vaccination of dogs and cats were originally formulated to address the problem of over-use of vaccine products in companion animals. For example it was, and often still is, common practice to vaccinate dogs every year with modified live virus (MLV) vaccines for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus (the equivalent would be people having a live MMR every year). Other vaccines were/are also given every year, e.g. aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines for bordetella bronchiseptica (often called 'kennel cough').

The current WSAVA guidelines state "we should aim to reduce the 'vaccine load' on individual animals in order to minimise the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products and reduce the time and financial burden on clients and veterinarians of unjustified veterinary medical procedures".

It's interesting that while vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats are recommending "we should aim to reduce the 'vaccine load' on individual animals in order to minimise the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products...", vaccination of humans is going through the roof, with an ever-increasing 'vaccine load' being imposed. A startling number of vaccine products and revaccinations are given to children now, see for example:
- NHS vaccination schedule:
- Australian National Immunisation Program Schedule:

Who exactly is influencing the ever-increasing vaccination schedules, i.e. the increasing 'vaccine load? As Allan Cunningham suggests in his recent rapid response, is the "Vaccine Industrial Complex" in charge?[2]

Do we have any objective and independent specialists in the area of infectious diseases and immunology considering the current and long-term impact of this increasing vaccine load?

Returning to the WSAVA dog and cat vaccination guidelines again, the authors of these guidelines also recognise "there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events, because of the passive nature of reporting schemes, which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products". The situation is the same in human vaccination. For example, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the regulator of medical products in Australia, acknowledges that "adverse event reports from consumers and health professionals to the TGA are voluntary, so there is under-reporting by these groups of adverse events related to therapeutic goods in Australia. This is the same around the world".[3]

David Oliver, there is much that is unknown about vaccination and immunisation, this is a global experiment underway.

Currently we are awash with an army of shrill 'experts' in the medical establishment and the media who appear to be determined to defend 'vaccination' at all costs, and stifle dissent. This is wrong. Serious problems are emerging with the use of vaccine products, e.g. early waning of maternally derived measles antibodies in babies born to vaccinated mothers, as I have tried to raise previously in rapid responses on your article, see:

The early waning of measles MDA is a huge red flag, is anybody in 'authority' thinking about the implications, including for other vaccine products?

*Caveat: The WSAVA dog and cat vaccination guidelines are sponsored by a vaccine manufacturer (originally Intervet Schering Plough, more recently MSD Animal Health). Guidelines sponsored by industry are compromised, and in my opinion the WSAVA guidelines still contain ambiguous information in regards to dog and cat vaccination. However, they remain useful for this discussion.

1. Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats, compiled by the Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA). Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 57. January 2016: These guidelines were first published in 2007. The Journal of Small Animal Practice is the journal of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and also the scientific journal of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association.
2. Standard media outlets are dominated by vaccine officialdom:
3. About the DAEN - Medicines:

Competing interests: No competing interests

03 June 2019
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating conflicts of interest in vaccination policy and the over-use of vaccine products
Adelaide, Australia