[Soundtrack]

Found this on a show dog list....


Veterinary Times, UK - at the end of January 2004. In the world of
science, ten years is a very short time in
which to expect a sea change. We and others whose dogs have
suffered vaccine reactions; we whose beloved
friends have died and suffered unnecessarily, have been pilloried
and castigated for speaking the truth for long
enough now. Time to take this letter to your vet; time to post
it to other vets in your neighbourhood; time to
show this letter to all the dog lovers you meet in the park or at
classes. Time to get the truth out there once
and for all. Time to stop our beloved animals suffering. Time
to say 'YES!' - but not yet time to stop the
campaign. We shall not be finished until annual vaccination is a
thing of the past.

I dedicate this post to my own dear friends who had to die for
this letter to appear in Veterinary Times: Oliver,
Prudence and Samson, and to the thousands, or even millions, of
animals and children whose lives have been
terminated because people in scientific and veterinary
communities saw a way to make a quick annual buck.

My respect and gratitude go to the courageous veterinarians who
have signed the letter below.

Catherine O'Driscoll

Please feel free to cross post far and wide:

Dear Editor

We, the undersigned, would like to bring to your attention our
concerns in the light of recent new evidence
regarding vaccination protocol.

The American Veterinary Medical Association Committee report this
year states that 'the one year
revaccination recommendation frequently found on many vaccination
labels is based on historical precedent, not
scientific data'.

In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that 'there is evidence that some
vaccines provide immunity beyond one year.
In fact, according to research there is no proof that many of the
yearly vaccinations are necessary and that
protection in many instances may be life long'; also,
'Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both
benefits and risks for the patient'; further that, 'Revaccination
of patients with sufficient immunity does not
add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase
their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'

Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may be associated with
the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative or
combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to
immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression,
autoimmune disorders, transient infections and/or long-term
infected carrier states.'

The report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine
Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April
2003) is also interesting reading: 'Current knowledgte supports
the statement that no vaccine is always safe,
no vaccine is always protective and no vaccine is always
indicated'; 'Misunderstanding, misinformation and the
conservative nature of our profession have largely slowed
adoption of protocols advocating decreased
frequency of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides
durations of immunity for core infectious diseases
that far exceed the traditional recommendations for annual
vaccination. This is supported by a growing body of
veterinary information as well as well-developed epidemiological
vigilance in human medicine that indicates
immunity induced by vaccination is extremely long lasting and, in
.most cases, lifelong.'

Further, the evidence shows that the duration of immunity for
rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine
parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline
rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been
demonstrated to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for
rabies and challenge studies for all others.

The veterinary surgeons below fully accept that no single
achievement has had greater impact on the lives and
well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability to
prevent infectious diseases than the developments in
annual vaccines. We, however, fully support the recommendations
and guidelines of the American Animal
Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce vaccine protocols for
dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations
are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines
unless otherwise scientifically justified.

We further suggest that the evidence currently available will
soon lead to the following facts being accepted:

* The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six months
and any modified live virus (MLV) vaccine
given after that age produces immunity that is good for the life
of that pet.

* If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies
from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens
from the subsequent so there is little or no effect; the pet is
not 'boosted', nor are more memory cells
induced.

* Not only are annual boosters for canine parvovirus and
distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to
potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated
haemolytic anaemia.

* There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims
for annual administration of MLV vaccines.

* Puppies and kittens receive antibodies through their mothers'
milk. This natural protection can last eight to
14 weeks.

* Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at less than
eight weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralise the
vaccine and little protection will be produced.

* Vaccination at six weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of
the first effective vaccine.

* Vaccines given two weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate
the immune system.

This would give possible new guidelines as follows:

1. A series of vaccinations is given starting at eight weeks of
age (or preferably later) and given three to four
weeks apart, up to 16 weeks of age.

2. One further booster is given sometime after six months of age
and will then provide life-long immunity.

In light of data now available showing the needless use and
potential harm of annual vaccination, we call on our
profession to cease the policy of annual vaccination.

Can we wonder that clients are losing faith in vaccination and
researching the issue themselves? We think they
are right to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic
well-being of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical
companies should not be a factor in making medical decisions.

It is accepted that the annual examination of a pet is advisable.
We undervalue ourselves, however, if we hang
this essential service on the back of vaccination and will
ultimately suffer the consequences. Do we need to
wait until we see actions against vets, such as those launched in
the state of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He
asserts that the present practice of marketing vaccinations for
companion animals constitutes fraud by
misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception.

The oath we take as newly-qualified veterinary surgeons is 'to
help, or at least do no harm'. We wish to
maintain our position within society, and be deserving of the
trust placed in us as a profession. It is therefore
our contention that those who continue to give annual
vaccinations in the light of new evidence may well be
acting contrary to the wefare of the animals committed to their
care.

Yours faithfully

Richard Allport, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sue Armstrong, MA BVetMed, MRCVS
Mark Carpenter, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sarah Fox-Chapman, MS, DVM, MRCVS
Nichola Cornish, BVetMed, MRCVS
Tim Couzens, BVetMed, MRCVS
Chris Day, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Claire Davies, BVSc, MRCVS
Mark Elliott, BVSc, MRCVS
Peter Gregory, BVSc, MRCVS
Lise Hansen, DVM, MRCVS
John Hoare, BVSc, MRCVS
Graham Hines, BVSc, MRCVS
Megan Kearney, BVSc, MRCVS
Michelle L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS
Suzi McIntyre, BVSc, MRCVS
Siobhan Menzies, BVM&S, MRCVS
Nazrene Moosa, BVSc, MRCVS
Mike Nolan, BVSc, MRCVS
Ilse Pedler, MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS
John Saxton, BVetMed, MRCVS
Cheryl Sears, MVB, MRCVS
Jane Seymour, BVSc, MRCVS
Christine Shields, BVSc, MRCVS
Suzannah Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS
Phillip Stimpson, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Nick Thompson, BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS
Lyn Thompson, BVSc, MRCVS
Wendy Vere, VetMB, MA, MRCVS
Anuska Viljoen, BVSc, MRCVS, and
Wendy Vink, BVSc, MRCVS


Research, reports etc are at CHC's web site:
http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/

 

[Betsy Iole]

Of the 31 vets who signed that letter, 24 apparently are also homeopaths. Homeopathy is a form of pseudoscience that, among other practices, promotes the use of nosodes rather than vaccines.

[ March 17, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Betsy Iole ]

 

[biscuit]

Nyarrrgh!!!!

I have a friend who found a wonderful little hound mix a few weeks ago. Beautiful hound-puppy face and coloring, long legs and coat - like some crazy husky-hound mix. Friendly, loving, happy to have found a home.

And dead as of three days ago from parvo.

As a kid, I once adopted an adult cat who died a few weeks later from distemper. I've seen both dogs and cats die terrible diseases from lack of vaccination.

I think we're fortunate to live in a day and age when we can be so cavalier about so many diseases, simply because of vaccination and emergency treatments. But I also know for a fact that many, many animals die terrible deaths because they did not get vaccinated.

 

[Soundtrack]

It doesn't seem to me that they're talking about not vaccinating at all...

"We, however, fully support the recommendations
and guidelines of the American Animal
Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce vaccine protocols for
dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations
are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines
unless otherwise scientifically justified."

 

[biscuit]

The problem --- or at least one of the problems, as I see it, Miriam --- is that too many people have already extrapolated this tiny bit of info out into *no* vaccinations whatsoever.

I just read on another board this evening someone posting about a kitten they're adopting and how they won't need vaccinations because it will be an indoor cat.

Wrong! :roll: At the very least, there's all the stuff the people will track in from outside. :roll: But these kinds of attitudes are becoming more and more common. Classic case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, i suspect.

I have yet to know of a critter who died from vaccination of any sort, including too many vaccinations. But I know of a lot of critters who have died from no or inadequate vaccinations.

 

[Betsy Iole]

Unfortunately, the AAHA recommendations aren't backed by evidence, either. While it seems reasonable to expect that some vaccinations may confer immunity of greater than one year's duration, there's no work that confirms this hypothesis. The AAHA recommendations allude to Schultz's DOI by challenge claims, but his work has never been published in primary, peer reviewed sources.

IMO, the AVMA's recommendation for individualization of vaccination schedules is characterized by greater intellectual integrity than are AAHA's recommendations. AVMA's discussion more accurately represents the current state of knowledge regarding vaccine duration of immunity, while AAHA, is in essence, advocating a poorly designed, national experiment with America's pets as its subjects. :roll:

[ March 17, 2004, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Betsy Iole ]

 

[Barbara Winters]

"Oh great no vaccinations for 3 years!!!! I guess that means my dog doesn't have to go to the vets for 3 years, unless of course he gets sick or hurt. Whoppee, think of all the money I'll save."

I wonder how many owners on a 3 year vaccination schedule are going to bring their dogs in for a checkup?

[ March 17, 2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Barbara Winters ]

 

[tiny529]

I, unfortunately, do know of a puppy that died of distemper from his vaccination. It wouldn't keep me from getting my pooches vaccinated, but I sure was sweating it when Gus was going through his distemper series.

 

[Lilibetty71]

My cat almost died from a distemper vaccination. We know for sure that it was the one that made him so sick because the vet gave him only that one vaccination and left to get the rest and in the time that she was gone, he went into anaphalactic shock. He will no longer have vaccinations. I do, however, give my other pets their vaccinations as my vet only recommends certain ones be given as boosters and then only every three years. AND my pets do go to the vet at least once a year for a check-up whether vaccinations are needed or not.

[ March 17, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: LiliBasset71 ]

 

[Soundtrack]

Hmmmm....my previous post got lost in cyberspace?

Anyway, I do bring in my hounds annually for checkups, and the vet charges pretty much the same whether I get shots or not. Sally is on my "do not vaccinate" list after having a bad reaction, as was my allergy dog, Webster, whose vet stated quite clearly that he must not ever have shots again. The rest do get vaccinated, as do puppies, but I have serious reservations about doing it annually, as does my (conventional medicine) vet. I've been doing it every other year and am considering switching to every three on a rotating basis (have some of the pack vaccinated each year).

 

[Betsy Iole]

Sorry to hear about your cat--those idiosyncratic reactions can be terrifying. I don't follow recommendations for cat vaccinations closely, and I believe there's more agreement on some of the risk/benfit issues among feline practitioners.

Switching to dogs, did your vet perform any sort of risk assessment for Lili prior to recommending the booster-every-3-years schedule? For example, did he ask whether she would be regularly exposed to dogs whose vaccination status is unknown (e.g., dog parks) or regularly kenneled with other dogs, (e.g. dog shows, doggy day care, regular visits to a groomer, etc.)? I'm curious to hear about how vets are implementing these recommendations.

 

[biscuit]

I don't know. I just read an article at vetinfo about distemper which described it as once being the most feared disease for dogs. I'd be curious to know estimated death rates from distemper before vaccination became available.

My oldest brother is deathly allergic to eggs and other substances. Once, he was to take a class on a field trip to Colorado and tried to get vaccinated for Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. They tried something like a 1/100th dose on him to see if it was possible to give him the shots. It wasn't and he went into anaphlactic shock.

Does my brother's experience negate the positives from vaccinations? No.

Any possibility of finding estimated death rates from distemper before widespread availability of vaccine?

 

[TrudiRose]

Here's a question: My dog never had any bad reactions to vaccines. Does that mean he's "safe" from any bad reactions in future? Or should I still be worried about this topic and consider limiting the frequently of vaccinations?

 

[Soundtrack]

I'm not questioning whether shots should be given at all, I believe they should, the question is how often and whether annual vaccinations are beneficial, neutral or harmful.

And just because an animal has not had a problem before doesn't mean they couldn't have one in the future. This is why I hang around the vet's office for a bit after shots are given, and why it's risky to do it yourself at home. I remember reading about one person on the DD who nearly lost her dog this way, one who had had shots previously with no hint of problems.

 

[Lilibetty71]

No, he didn't ask us about it, but I am not a fan of frequent vaccinations so was actually kind of relieved. I prefer the three year schedule, and not because of the money involved. We will pay whatever is needed to make sure our babies are safe. But since we had problems with Smokey the cat, I am still terrified for any of my babies to get vaccinations. I took one of my cats yesterday and I cried while we were in the exam room waiting...LOL. I know, it is silly, but if anything happened I don't know what I would do. Lily was given all of her puppy shots. I am sure we will discuss it again next year when she goes for her check-up. I do know that the rabies is required every three years due to County law.

 

[Betsy Iole]

Putting the concern about adverse effects from vaccines into perspective, from Analyzing the risk and benefits for vaccinations by Hugh B. Lewis, BVMS, Dipl. ACVP

The incidence of reported adverse effects to vaccines in our practice is .12 percent (12 per 10,000). This is based on an internal adverse effect reporting system and a database of several million pets. A higher percentage of these changes occur in smaller breeds than in the larger breeds. Most of them (>90 percent) are reflective of a positive immune response (the vaccine was effective) and include transient signs such as lethargy, inappetance, mild fever and pain and swelling at the injection site. Only one to two out of 10,000 pets seen at Banfield experience a potentially serious adverse event such as anaphylactic shock and collapse. Such effects invariably occur shortly after vaccination and, for the most part, are readily treatable. Cats can develop aggressive sarcomas at the site of vaccination. This is also rare, in our hands occurring to about one in 10,000 cats vaccinated.

[ March 17, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Betsy Iole ]

 

[Betsy Iole]

This abstract from JAVMA January 1, 2004 issue:

Duration of serologic response to five viral antigens in dogs

Douglas E. Mouzin, MS, MBA; Marianne J. Lorenzen, DVM; John D. Haworth, DVM, PhD; Vickie L. King, PhD *

Abstract

Objective—To determine whether vaccinated dogs either remained seropositive or responded serologically to revaccination for 5 key viral antigens after extended periods since their last vaccination.


Design—Serologic survey.


Animals—322 healthy client-owned dogs.


Procedure—Dogs were ? 2 years old and vaccinated against canine distemper virus (CDV), canine adenovirus-1 (CAV-1), canine adenovirus-2 (CAV-2), canine parainfluenza virus (CPIV), and canine parvovirus (CPV). On day 0, dogs were revaccinated with a vaccine from the same vaccine line as they had historically received. Antibody titers were measured in sera collected at day 0 (prevaccination titer) and 5 to 7 days later (postvaccination titer). Dogs were considered to have responded serologically if they had a day-0 serum neutralization titer to CDV ? 1:32; a serum neutralization titer to CAV-1, CAV-2, or CPIV ? 1:16; a hemagglutination inhibition titer to CPV ? 1:80; or a ? 4-fold increase in antibody titer after revaccination.


Results—The percentage of dogs that had titers at or greater than the threshold values or responded to revaccination with a ? 4-fold increase in titer was 98.1% for CDV, 98.4% for CAV-1, 99.0% for CAV-2, 100% for CPIV, and 98.1% for CPV.


Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—In most dogs, vaccination induced a response that lasted up to and beyond 48 months for all 5 antigens. Although not equivalent to challenge-of-immunity studies as a demonstration of efficacy, results suggest that revaccination with the same vaccine provides adequate protection even when given less frequently than the traditional 1-year interval. The study provides valuable information for clinicians to help determine appropriate revaccination intervals. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;224:55–60)

Edited to add: The way I read this is that even if a booster is administered more than a year after the previous vaccination, it will still produce a bump in antibody titre.

[ March 17, 2004, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Betsy Iole ]

 

[Lilibetty71]

Thank you for that post Betsy...good to know.

 

[Betsy Iole]

The following incident happened 3 years ago, but it's relevant to this discussion. Several dogs got loose from their owner's yard, and two were kenneled overnight at an animal shelter. These two dogs were infected with distemper, and they infected several other dogs in the household after they returned home. They were only 4 months overdue for their vaccinations at the time.

Here's the link to the story.
Dog owner distressed over deaths

 

[tiny529]

Isn't it possible that those dogs died from something other than distemper? The article doesn't say anything about post-mortem testing. And there are so many diseases out there that look so similar to each other.