Joined
·
5,042 Posts
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/
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/