Chapter 9
Slaves of Our Affection. The Myth of the Happy Pet
Charles Danten, DMV, M.A
Note: Thanks to RFK Jr., many who trusted authorities are stunned to learn how harmful vaccinations can be in human medicine. I wasn’t surprised.
Why?
Because pharmaceutical companies, their corrupt allies in government, watchdog agencies like the CDC and FDA, and the medical industry mirror the pet industry’s behavior.
Consider this when reading the following chapter on pet vaccination from my book, *Slaves of Our Affection* (2015). Though dated, little has changed.
***
While I was still a student, I was fortunate to meet an experienced veterinarian who would take me under his wing one summer and let me put my studies to more practical use. Despite what I will say about “Jim,” I am grateful to him for showing me the ropes. In retrospect, he played a crucial role in introducing me to the harsh realities of the veterinary world.
That summer, I was to become Jim’s veterinary assistant. Right after my exams, I packed my suitcase and drove off in my old Ford Custom. After an uneventful eight-hour drive, I finally reached my destination. It was an enormous, Victorian-style mansion with painted wood, located in a posh neighborhood on the outskirts of a small and friendly-looking city. I rang the doorbell. A massive individual opened the door, a welcoming, jovial smile on his face. It was Jim, the man with whom I would work and live for the next few months.
Jim was courteous by any standard, a real gentleman. His charming British accent reminded me of James Herriot, one of my heroes at the time, whose sensitively-told stories contributed immensely to the popularization of animals and of the veterinary profession. Herriot alone is undoubtedly at the origin of many veterinary careers.
Jim offered me a beer and we got to know each other while relaxing in his backyard in the shade of a majestic oak tree. The next day, I would accompany him for the first time on his rounds in the country.
With thirty years of experience under his belt, he treated all domestic species: horses, cattle, sheep, dogs, cats, you name it. In the jargon of the trade, he had a mixed practice. As comfortable with farm work as with city work, he could go straight from castrating a pig in a barn stall without anesthesia to spaying a cat in his clinic, this time using anesthesia and following the strictest of guidelines for aseptic condi-tions.
This difference in protocol seemed a little absurd to me. After all, an animal’s capacity for pain has nothing to do with whether it lives on a farm or in the city. The sad truth did not escape my attention: farm animals have a lesser sentimental value than pets, and as a result, most of them are treated with much less regard.
With time, Jim came to trust me more and more, allowing me to administer vaccines and even perform minor, routine operations. One day, I noticed that several vials containing a vaccine against feline leukemia were only half-full. Looking at them more closely, I spotted a pinhole in each of the rubber tops that sealed them. It was mysterious, even suspicious, and so I made a point to mention it to Jim the first chance I got. I was unprepared for his response.
A little uneasy and defensive, Jim admitted that to save money, he would transfer half the dose from the full vials to empty ones he picked out of the trash after office hours. He really believed that it didn’t matter much, that there was probably enough vaccine in a vial to vaccinate two, if not three animals.
He then proceeded to lecture me on the harsh realities of the business and on how important it was to cut costs in order to survive and prosper. It had already come to my attention that Jim was a master at economizing. After a surgery, he saved all the leftover bits of suture material he could gather. He arranged them delicately in a drawer on a paper towel, and he always managed to find a use for them later. Gauze soiled with blood was rinsed with cold tap water and immersed in a sterilizing solution. He kept a drawer for drying paper towels that had been used to clean the examination table. For routine surgeries on cats, like declawing, spaying, and neutering, he administered only ketamine, a potent anesthetic that is cheap, safe, and easy to administer and manage, but which has few or no analgesic properties. The gap between school and the real world felt enormous.
I stood there listening in silence, untouched by his arguments. I was young still, and unable to compromise on principle. To me, what he was doing was a serious breach of ethics: you don’t mess around with the recommended dosage of a vaccine. I was not quite finished with vet school, but I had learned at least that golden rule.
One thought lead to another, and it dawned on me that Jim treated pets just about the same way he treated farm animals. He was just more hypocritical about it.
When I told him my thoughts on the matter, our discussion quickly turned sour. Jim, this otherwise good-natured, easygoing man, became terrifyingly furious. Banging on the table with his clenched fists, he fired me, telling me I would fail as a vet. Unrecognizably red with anger, he burst out of the room, his dignity considerably blemished.
In the space of a few minutes, darkness had smothered the light. Because of a puny hole in a rubber cork, I had just sealed the fate of our friendship forever. My last days with him passed under a painfully heavy silence. We parted with barely a handshake. He turned his back to me and, as I watched him walk away, I knew I would never see him again.
***
For the past fifty years, vaccination in veterinary medicine has become a dangerous procedure, often needless and with little or no scientific and medical justification.
This statement seems bold, even preposterous, considering that vaccination is a highly valued medical procedure. So much so that some pet owners, who pride themselves on being compassionate and kind to their four-legged children, will feel insulted and angered by the insinuation that the majority of pet vaccination is a sham and that their act of love, paid for annually with hard-earned money, is worthless from both the animal’s point of view and that of science. Others will just turn away or ignore this challenge to popular opinion without even bothering to find out how it might be true.
Questioning the underlying assumptions or founding credo that governs gratifying actions, such as vaccination, is taboo in our society, as unfathomable as questioning the existence of God.
Annual boosters
No one can explain why since the sixties, pharmaceutical companies have been recommending the annual immunization of carnivorous domestic animals (dog, cat and ferret). The principles of immunology guarantee that a statistically significant proportion of individuals will be protected for a long period, even for life, by a single properly inoculated vaccine. This is especially true in the case of acute viral diseases such as distemper, rabies, or parvo in dogs, and panleukopenia in cats. (1) People are certainly not vaccinated every year, from infancy until death, with several different vaccines each time. Nor do we have annual blood titers taken, as some veterinarians have been recommending for the past decade or so, in order to determine if re-administration of a vaccine is required.
In 1985, Drs. Ronald D. Schultz and T. R. Phillips, two American vaccination specialists, wrote the following in the eleventh edition of Kirk’s Current Veterinary Therapy, a reference book considered the Bible of veterinary medicine:
Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that re-mains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins (such as tetanus) requires boosters... and no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs or cats. The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law (i.e. certain states require annual revaccination for rabies). (2)
Dr. Niels C. Pedersen, of the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology at the University of California-Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, said the following in a conference organized in 1997 by one of the most important veterinary associations in the world, the American Veterinary Hospital Association (AAHA):
Many veterinarians, and still a greater number of cli-ents, have come to question the medical basis for rou-tine yearly boosters for their pets, and rightfully so! The practice is not defendable. […] We are not vac-cinated with five or six different vaccines every year of our lives and why should our pets! Many human vaccines are given during childhood and provide lifelong protection to a significant number of vaccinates. Until 20 years ago, vaccines were given only to puppies and kittens. The only exception was rabies vaccination, which was given every 2-3 years for public health reasons more than animal health reasons. […] Why, then, do we insist on giving boosters when the practice is not medically sound? […] Booster immunizations are looked upon by many clients as simply another way for their veterinarian to make money. […] we must look at vaccination as a medical procedure and not a source of income. […] The term “practice builder” should be forever removed from our vocabulary and replaced with “client-builder. (3)
Vaccination protocols
Contrary to human medicine, there are no standard immunization protocols in veterinary medicine. A survey of twenty-seven schools of veterinary medicine in the U.S. and Canada showed twenty-seven different protocols for vaccination. (4) Manufacturers recommend a vaccination schedule and veterinarians typically follow it, even though they are not required to do so legally. (5) In some states, the only legally mandated annual vaccine is rabies. I emphasize “legally” because there is no scientific reason for routine vaccinations every year. The rabies vaccine has a scientifically proven efficacy of three years and more.
Pets that never go near areas in which a given disease is reported are routinely vaccinated against it anyway. A cat living alone on the twelfth floor in downtown Manhattan can receive up to ten vaccines at a time every year for life. A dog that never goes beyond the fire hydrant at the corner can be inoculated with up to twelve diseases each time. (6)
For business reasons, it is common for pets to be vaccinated the day before a surgery or even on the same day, a time when the immune system, seriously depressed by the stress of the procedure, cannot respond adequately for at least the two following weeks. (7)
In the United States, at least 20% of the market hinges on direct sale to the public via the Internet, catalogs, and stores. The equivalent in humans is unthinkable. Breeders and regular pet owners are able to buy whatever vaccines they want, along with syringes, needles, and even drugs like epinephrine. Depending on the age of the animal and the type of vaccine used, clients are sometimes advised to vaccinate young animals every week for six to seven weeks, when once or twice would be sufficient. (8)
Vaccines in search of diseases
Encouraged by relaxed licensing requirements, pharmaceutical companies have flooded the market with unnecessary, poorly tested, and ineffective vaccines since the late 1970s. (9) The focus is on creating wealth and jobs rather than quality products backed by sound medical and scientific evidence. (10) In the United States alone, there are currently eighty trademarked canine vaccines, and as many for cats. (11) It is possible to vaccinate animals against thirty diseases and counting. In 1998, vaccination specialist Dr. Richard B. Ford warned, “Most of these vaccines are so useless as to be called ‘vaccines in search of diseases.’” (12)
Vaccine manufacturers promote their products by appeal-ing directly to the good hearts and fears of the public, and even of veterinarians. When the Lyme disease vaccine was first introduced some years ago, pharmaceutical companies lied about the seriousness and importance of the disease, even going as far as to suggest that children could catch it directly from dogs, a medical impossibility. (13) This vaccine is still being administered all over the United States and Canada even though the condition, which is mild in most cases, occurs almost exclusively in thirteen north-eastern and upper-midwestern states. (14)
Millions of dogs are also uselessly inoculated with vaccines to prevent coronavirus and rotavirus, two rare gastrointestinal conditions found only in overpopulated and unsanitary puppy mills. (15)
Several other vaccines on the market are useless for reasons that have been well documented (in cats: feline calicivirus and herpesvirus, chlamydia, infectious peritonitis, ringworm, feline leukemia, and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV); in dogs: leptospirosis, parainfluenza, bordetella, periodontitis, western diamondback rattlesnake, and Giardia vaccines. Yet, in 2009, all these vaccines were still routinely recommended and used. (17)
In 2002, Dr. Robert L. Rogers, a Texas veterinarian, filed a complaint against all licensed veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in the state of Texas for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 573.26, which states:
Licensed veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity, and fair dealing to clients in time and services rendered, and in the amount charged for services, facilities, appliances and drugs.
Dr. Rogers asserts in his complaint the following:
The present practice of marketing of vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence by all veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice […]. (18)
Efficacy
Dr. Ronald D. Schultz, one of America’s most respected vaccination specialists, found that out of six vaccines for canine parvovirus, a serious and often fatal gastrointestinal dis-ease in puppies, only two were effective. (19) Another study from Holland found that only two out of six vaccines for rabies were effective. (20) According to other independent studies, some vaccines against feline leukemia produced no better results than distilled water; the best ones had at most 25 to 50% efficacy as opposed to 90 to 100% as claimed by the manufacturer. (21)
Safety
The number of vaccines that stay on the market despite a bad safety record is unconscionable. One brand of vaccine against coronavirus, a rare gastrointestinal condition in dogs, killed hundreds of dogs before being removed from the market. (22)
“Paradoxically,” says Dr. Pedersen, “there is no human counterpart to the canine Lyme vaccine, even though the disease in humans is far more important, because a Lyme vaccine modeled on the canine product does not meet safety and efficacy standards for human vaccine.” (23)
Rabies and feline leukemia vaccines, two of the vaccines involved in the skin cancer epidemic in cats, have killed millions of cats and continue to do so. (24)
Adverse reactions
Although an alarming number of adverse reactions to vaccination have been reported, the scale of the problem is a statistical black hole for several reasons. This gives a generous amount of leeway to marketing specialists.
– It is difficult to detect and study adverse reactions rou-tinely because they are not always clinically visible.
– An undetermined number of adverse reactions occur days, weeks, months, even years after the matter, when a clear cause-to-effect link is almost impossible to make; most compensation claims in humans are rejected precisely for that reason. (25)
– Although pharmaceutical companies are technically responsible for keeping track of side effects and reporting them to government agencies like the Federal Drug Administration in the United States and its equivalent in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, they simply don’t. And there is no law to oblige them. Furthermore, what little information they have – from safety studies conducted in their laboratories or from incidents reported by practitioners in the field – is not available to the public. (26)
– Veterinarians, unlike human doctors, are not required to report adverse reactions to immunization. And generally, they don’t. (27)
– The high turnover rate of pets adds greatly to the difficulty of identifying with precision the scale of the problem. When something unusual goes wrong, a client always has the option of getting rid of his pet. And for many, this is the favored choice.
Skin cancer in cats
Twenty years ago, it became customary to use inert vaccines containing several irritating chemicals, notably aluminum hydroxide, a product that triggers inflammation and eventually an immune response. It turns out that in the cat, for reasons unknown, the reaction triggered by this substance and others like it leads to an extremely aggressive and un-treatable tumor known as a vaccine-associated feline fibrosarcoma. The risk of developing this type of cancer depends on the number of vaccines given in the same inoculation (“cocktail” vaccines are explained below), the number of repetitions or boosters administered, and whether reinoculation occurs in the same area, often subcutaneously between the shoulder blades. Rabies and feline leukemia vaccines seem to be the most frequent culprits. (28)
The number of these cancerous tumors reported in 2005 is 1,300 per million. (29) I emphasize the word “reported” because it is impossible, for the reasons listed above, to accurately study the scale of the problem. Dr. Ford mentioned the number 2,000 per million at a 1998 conference in Montreal, but this is also an estimate. (30) In addition, one must keep in mind that other types of adverse reactions are not included in these numbers. Although they seem relatively low, put in perspective, they are phenomenal: in humans, only 100 total adverse reactions per million are tolerated. (31) Despite all this, veterinarians in the field continue to vaccinate cats with the same frequency and the same inoculations; what has changed, however, is that the vaccination site is now more commonly the lower part of the thigh or the end of the tail, instead of between the shoulder blades. Thus, should a tumor develop, an amputation is always an option for the client willing to pay for such a procedure. (32)
In 2006, the American Association of Feline Practitioners made the following laconic statement:
Regardless of the efforts of countless individuals, the problem of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats has not been solved. Researchers in academia and industry continue to study this singularly complex problem, but it is reasonable to assume that the definitive solution will not be identified in the immediate future. (33)
Cocktail vaccines and the immune system
These vaccines, containing four, six, or even nine attenuated diseases each, came into style in the seventies. From a strictly business point of view, cocktail vaccines are practical because they require less storage place and can be administered successfully all at once, for a higher financial reward. From a medical point of view, however, these mixtures pose several problems.
As with any other veterinary vaccines, no medical knowledge is required in order to procure these. Anyone can order them from a catalog and use them as they see fit. Since the particular case of each individual animal is not taken into consideration, most are routinely inoculated against diseases they have zero chance of catching. (34)
Cocktails cause an undetermined number of immunization failures and adverse reactions. In nature, an animal is unlikely to be threatened by more than one or two different diseases at once – never four, six, or nine of them at the same time. Bombarded by excessive and repeated doses of different foreign bodies, overwhelmed by too many antigenic attacks at once, the immune system can go berserk. This can result in autoimmune disease, wherein antibodies are created that attack parts of the animal’s own body. Antibodies may be formed, for instance, against the platelets, specialized cells involved in the coagulation of blood. According to American veterinarian Jean Dodds, this reaction occurs shortly after inoculation; serious, sometimes fatal, internal bleeding is the outcome. Although the exact frequency of this problem is unknown, certain purebred dogs, including Rottweilers, Dobermans and spaniels, are particularly predisposed. (35)
“Dirty” vaccines
There are several ways in which vaccination can do more harm than good. For one, diseases can result from the microbial contamination of a vaccine. Spoilage is also a serious problem because vaccines contain highly perishable animal products like egg yolk derivatives, bovine albumen, and casein. In addition to their perishable nature, animal products are full of toxic substances. “Dirty” vaccines are thought to be the cause of a recent increase in chronic diseases in both humans and animals. Use of cheaper multidose vials is especially dangerous. (36)
Other adverse reactions:
– Hypersensitivity or allergic reactions.
– Suppression of the immune system and the activation of a latent disease like leukemia, peritonitis, and the immunodeficiency syndrome in cats (FIV).
– Interference with the results of blood tests used to diagnose certain conditions, resulting in false positives.
– Aggravation of existing conditions like cancer, epilepsy, and allergies (higher susceptibility to allergies to pollen, pet food, or one’s own body, the last of these resulting in auto-immune diseases of the thyroid, kidney, etc.). (37)
A Few perpetuating factors
For the past thirty years or more, legions of guidelines have been defined for the purpose of regulating the use of vaccines; veterinarians have been advised over and over again by vaccination specialists to stop vaccinating animals for medically unjustified reasons; dozens of articles have been written on the subject; lawsuits have been filed; but these measures are not succeeding at putting an end to the abuse of vaccination. While it is relatively easy to formulate rules and good intentions, for reasons open to speculation, getting veterinarians in the field to adopt them is another story. (38)
Vested interests
The specialists that make up the surveillance committees (such as the Feline Sarcoma Task force) all have vested interests in the industry, an obvious conflict of interest. How adverse reactions are surveyed in the field remains unclear, even more so now that these committees are no longer active. There are no concrete measures to stop vaccination abuse, and in the United States, none to stop the sale of vaccines directly to the public via pet shops and the Internet. Nor does there seem to be any desire to impose stricter regulations on veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies or to standardize vaccination protocols. The underlying assumption of these committees is that vaccines on the market are for the most part safe, effective, and necessary. (39)
Misinformation
Since there are no public funds for research in the field of pets, the pharmaceutical industry has almost full control. They subsidize continuing education seminars, scientific journals, scientific studies, and laboratories that rarely go against their financial interests. According to Texas veterinarian Dr. Robert Rogers, “the main objective is to influence veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the marketing of vaccines.” The goal is the protection at all costs of the existing market, of the propagation of pet mania, and of the creation of new market outlets. (40)
Divide and conquer
If a layman tries to make sense of the available infor-mation on vaccination, good luck. The Internet is full of conflicting opinions and so-called scientific studies; the deck of cards is so well shuffled that few people can pick a winner. Even PhDs and veterinarians get boggled up in the bottom-less pit of bad science that plagues the fields of small animal nutrition, genetics, and medicine, as well as animal-assisted therapy and pet psychology. To make matters worse, most people are convinced that everything in life is a series of gray zones, that nothing is black and white, and that everyone can be right at the same time. Which is absurd.
Lack of reliable historical and geographical records
Although diseases like distemper and parvo in dogs and panleukopenia in cats seem under control today, there are no historical records, apart from anecdotal evidence, that could be used to evaluate the extent of the benefit of vaccination campaigns. Nevertheless, everyone claims as an irrevocable truth, without the slightest piece of sound evidence, that these diseases were at one time widespread and that vaccination cured the problem. Even for rabies, there were no dependable records until after World War II and in some areas, until after the sixties. To this day, there is no data either on the geographic prevalence of infectious diseases of cats and dogs. Except for rabies, there is no system of declaration like there is in human medicine. These gaps results in the systematic vaccination of animals against diseases they are unlikely to catch in a home environment. (41)
Consumerism
Most common infectious diseases that plague companion animals take root in pet shops and factory breeding farms like puppy mills, where overpopulation, intense breeding, genetic abnormalities, unhealthy sanitary conditions, a poor diet, and a lack of exercise are the rule. It is highly abnormal, even dangerous for any animal, to be raised in such an environment. These breeding grounds for disease were invented to cater to the demands of consumerism, a powerful force in our modern lifestyle which thrives on problems artificially created by its own doing, in a dog-eat-dog fashion tantamount to cannibalism.
Indoctrination
Most people, right or wrong, including the public, media, veterinarians, humane societies, and the industry in general, are well-intentioned and want to do right by our companion animals. That was certainly true in my case. For most of my career as a veterinarian, I was convinced that annual boosters were necessary. I thought vaccination was one of the safest and most beneficial medical acts in history and I was convinced the vaccines I administered were safe, effective, and necessary. That is what I had been told by professors and salespeople, and that is what everyone is conditioned to believe from an early age. To even suggest that these notions are false is a heresy that can lead to ostracism, if not persecution, a lawsuit, or jail time.
Ideological immunity
In retrospect, a few years after graduation, when the realities of the profession started to weaken the strength of my inculcated notions and values, I know I played dumb to some extent so as not to jeopardize my status, self-esteem, and bread and butter. It was Upton Sinclair who said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” We have a built-in ideological immune system that automatically protects us from ideas that can put our survival or self-confidence at risk. While our eyes capture the world as-is on our retinas, our brain per-forms an editing job in the shadows, a cut-and-paste operation, to adjust reality to fit our pre-existing ideas of it. Anything we see, read, or hear is unconsciously revised to accommodate notions we already have and take for granted.
This phenomenon, called scotoma is one of the major obstacles to change. I have experienced it numerous times myself. When I was a veterinarian, I used to go through medical journals highlighting statements that fit with my values of the time period, leaving in obscurity any part of reality that didn’t back up my convictions and interests. After leaving the profession, this fairly spectacular duality between good (that which comforted me in my certainty) and evil (that which threatened my certainty) jumped out at me as I flipped through these same journals. While before only the highlight-ed sections caught my attention, now I was able to see the whole of the text.
This is what happens when we read or hear something counter to popular wisdom: much of it is totally excluded from our consciousness. Unless we become familiar enough with the new information that it suddenly makes sense, we have a hard time even beginning to listen.
Public complacency
Ironically, although misrepresentation of vaccines is against the law, the State Board of Texas Veterinarians and the Attorney General ignored the complaint issued by Dr. Rogers, the veterinarian cited above. Eventually, after some pressure by the State Legislators, the Attorney General of the Consumer Protection Division decided to accept a case, preferably a suit against a large chain rather than one against veterinarians. Unfortunately, Dr. Rogers was unable to find one single client willing to participate in such a lawsuit. (42)
Pet owners are complacent about the notorious abuse of vaccination because they need to have their compassion validated through this highly valued medical act performed by themselves or preferably, for those who can afford it, by a professional that personifies a love of animals. What pet owners are really after when they bring their companion to the vet for a needless vaccination, health exam, or expensive brand of pet food is a certificate, a receipt, any kind of concrete proof that states: “Although I exploit animals in every way imaginable, I really do love them, see, my vet says so.” The high financial value assigned to these goods and services is meant to further increase their perceived value and therefore their moral impact. Clients who have unlimited financial resources can have their animals treated to death if they desire to do so, paradoxically, for moral reasons.
According to veterinarian and historian Susan D. Jones, author of Valuing Animals: Veterinarians and Their Patients in Modern America, veterinarians have built their profession on American’s uncertainty about the ‘proper’ way to behave with animals. They validate the use of animals as commodities by praising themselves and their clients for their passionate attitudes towards domesticated creatures. (43)
I argue that unscientific vaccination, along with other such needless and cruel medical procedures and services, is one of the ways they do so. This is why veterinarians are so reluctant to change their ways. Veterinarians have built their reputation on scientific grounds to the point of being perceived as first-class scientists. If they admitted to any wrongdoing, it would be a terrible blow to their image – after all, it took them over a century to shed the “quack doctor” stigma. Cli-ents would feel the heat also, since they pride themselves on the things they do to care for their pets. In the end, both veterinarians and their clients run the risk of shattering to pieces the house of mirrors they have painstakingly built at the expense of their loved ones.
Mankind is clever at finding ways to rationalize and put a smile on this and all self-serving, unnecessary, wasteful, cruel, and aggressive exploitations of those we metaphorically call our children. In a world of consumers, everything has a price, including peace of mind.
Superficiality
American historian Kathleen Kete, author of a magisterial analysis of pet keeping in nineteenth-century France, has an interesting insight on the subject of scientifically unjustified vaccination. In a chapter on the fear of rabies, called “Rabies and the Bourgeoisie,” Dr. Kete states why the issue of vaccination is probably much more complex than it appears at first glance:
The fear of rabies lies at the intersection of the organizing themes of bourgeois life and can be read as an expression of uneasiness about modern civilization and its tolls, about the uncertain conquest of culture over nature. […] Fear of rabies [in pets] was focused on the pathology in humans and what matters to us as it did to nineteenth-century bourgeois, obviously, is that the most frightening aspects of that pathology were constructions. Fear was of their own making. It was the beastly appetites of humanity that were expressed in the symptomatology of rabies. […] The strengths of “instinctual passions,” of sexuality and aggression, and their potentiality for revolt against an antithetical domesticity are clearly implied in the debate on rabies, an abortive uprising of the beast in the bourgeois. (44)
