2008 REPORT ON RABIES VACCINE ADVERSE REACTIONS IN DOGS

[~flower~]

Any vet that does not report an adverse affect is doing a disservice to his/her clients.  Claims that reactions are uncommon is backed up by numbers that are incorrect due to under reporting. I am sick of hearing from people that their vet didn't report something because "it is not that common", duh, maybe it really is and vets are not reporting them!?!

IF YOUR PET HAS AN ADVERSE REACTION MAKE SURE YOUR VET REPORTS IT, IF THEY WON'T DO IT YOURSELF

 


2008 REPORT ON RABIES VACCINE ADVERSE REACTIONS IN DOGS

The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association has just
published a report in its April 1, 2008 issue, Vol. 232, No. 7,
entitled:

"Postmarketing Surveillance of Rabies Vaccines for Dogs to Evaluate
Safety and Efficacy."

Despite the extreme under-reporting of vaccinal adverse reactions,
this report states on the second page that between April 1, 2004 and
March 31, 2007, the Center for Veterinary Biologics, "nearly 10,000
adverse event reports (all animal species) were received by
manufacturers of rabies vaccines..........Approx imately 65% of the
manufacturer's reports, involved dogs."

The report further states on the second page that: "Rabies vaccines
are the most common group of biological products identified in
adverse event reports received by the CVB," and they give the
following description of the adverse reaction followed by the % of
dogs affected: Vomiting-28.1%, Facial Swelling-26.3%, Injection Site
Swelling or Lump-19.4%, Lethargy-12%, Urticaria-10.1%, Circulatory
shock-8.3%, Injection site pain-7.4%, Pruritus-7.4%, Injection site
alopecia or hair loss-6.9%, Death-5.5%, Lack of Consciousness-5.5,
Diarrhea-4.6%, Hypersensitivity (not specified)-4.6%, Fever-4.1%,
Anaphylaxis-2.8%, Ataxia-2.8%, Lameness-2.8%, General signs of pain-
2.3%, Hyperactivity-2.3%, Injection site scab or crust-2.3%, Muscle
tremor-2.3%, Tachycardia-2.3%, and Thrombocytopenia-2.3%.

Veterinarians are not required by law to report adverse reactions to
vaccines, to which the World Small Animal Veterinary Association
stated in their 2007 Vaccine Guidelines that there is: "gross under-
reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes
knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products,"

And in an article entitled, A New Approach to Reporting Medication
and Device Adverse Effects and Product Problems, (JAMA - June 2,
1993. Vol.269, No.21. p.2785) Dr. David Kessler, former head of the
Food & Drug Administration, reported that "only about 1% of serious
events are reported to the FDA."

In light of the 10,000 adverse reactions to the rabies vaccine in the
JAVMA report, 65% of which were in dogs, the estimated 1% reporting
of "serious" events by the former head of the FDA means that the
actual number of dogs that had adverse reactions to the vaccine would
be more like 650,000!!!!!

World Small Animal Veterinary Association 2007 Vaccine Guidelines
http://www.wsava.org/SAC.htm Scroll down to Vaccine Guidelines 2007
(PDF)

A New Approach to Reporting Medication and Device Adverse Effects and
Product Problems
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Adverse_Reactions/VAERS/credible_estimates.htm Scroll down to David Kessler statement in JAMA - June 2,
1993,vol.269, No.21, p.2785

[Vet]

I love how the last 3 paragraphs are convinently left out of this discussion. 

Descriptions of the CVB postmarketing surveillance
system and limitations of adverse event reporting
have been discussed elsewhere.17 Adverse event reporting
may provide insights into concerns regarding product
performance in the postmarketing phase, but it is
not a total picture. Adverse events should be reported
to the vaccine manufacturer and to the CVB. In particular,
events concerning efficacy need to be reported so
full investigations can ensue.

In summary, findings within this report do not suggest
a high frequency or unexpected pattern of adverse
events associated with the use of rabies vaccines in veterinary
medicine. Nearly 120 million doses of rabies
vaccine were distributed within the United States during
the 3-year period. Although species-specific use is
unavailable, it can be expected that dogs are the most
common species vaccinated against rabies because rabies
vaccination is a legal requirement for dogs in nearly
all states.18

Two dogs with confirmed rabies that were previously
vaccinated with a rabies vaccine were reported during
this period. Because obtaining outcome data with vaccination
and exposure status for all dogs in the United
States during this period is not feasible, the actual efficacy
of rabies vaccines for dogs cannot be determined.
Results of other studies19,20 have revealed apparently rare
rabies vaccination failures in dogs without determining
a failure rate. The information presented here provides
additional support for the premise that rabies vaccines
for dogs are highly efficacious and a vital component of a
successful rabies animal control program

It'd be real nice if you posted articles like this one that you post the entire article instead of just a snippet that could be construed to however you want your bias to be. 

[~flower~]

I love how the last 3 paragraphs are convinently left out of this discussion. 


It'd be real nice if you posted articles like this one that you post the entire article instead of just a snippet that could be construed to however you want your bias to be. 

I printed the entirety of what I rec'd INCLUDING the reference links that were attached so people can go read for themselves.

  My "bias" was to show how adverse affects are UNDERREPORTED and to encourage people to have their vet or themselves make reports. 

  I don't see the added paragraphs you posted have anything to do with that? In fact if they don't take into consideration the UNDEREPORTING of adverse affects your first bolded section means nothing and can't be taken at face value.

 

[Vet]

I printed the entirety of what I rec'd INCLUDING the reference links that were attached so people can go read for themselves.

  My "bias" was to show how adverse affects are UNDERREPORTED and to encourage people to have their vet or themselves make reports. 

  I don't see the added paragraphs you posted have anything to do with that? In fact if they don't take into consideration the UNDEREPORTING of adverse affects your first bolded section means nothing and can't be taken at face value.

 

reread what I posted.   that article argued both sides of the issue.  The problem is you posted only a snippet of the article.  If thats all you recieved, then you need to look at the sources who sent it to you because they selectively chose bits of the article that went along with their agenda.  Apparently you unwittingly fell into their agenda then too if you only posted what you were sent. 


here's my point---if you are going to post an article like that, please post the entire article. 

[~flower~]

   It's a fact that adverse events with most vaccines, meds, etc (pets and human) don't get reported. 


How can it summarize: In summary, findings within this report do not suggest a high frequency or unexpected pattern of adverse events associated with the use of rabies vaccines in veterinary medicine, after noting how underreported adverse affects are?    Talk about a bias.   

[Vet]

   It's a fact that adverse events with most vaccines, meds, etc (pets and human) don't get reported. 


How can it summarize: In summary, findings within this report do not suggest a high frequency or unexpected pattern of adverse events associated with the use of rabies vaccines in veterinary medicine, after noting how underreported adverse affects are?    Talk about a bias.   

You haven't read the article have you?   


Seriously Flower.  I don't disagree with you in that over vaccination occurs in some veterinary hospitals, that there are some vaccines that are just not necessary, that there needs to be alot more research done on the effects of vaccinations (both negative and positive) and that the whole shebang is a controversial topic in veterinary medicine right now.  I also don't think vaccinations are the be all end all cause of every single disease your dog might get at one point in its life. 


What I don't like is the pulling of a snippet an article that really is a summary of information and jumping on it like its done in your first post is appropriate.   As a matter of fact, it flat out pisses me off when people do it to articles that I write, especially if its something like this one was. 

[knny187]

you wrote this article...or are saying as an example?

[Vet]

you wrote this article...or are saying as an example?

No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply I wrote the rabies article. I didn't. 

[~flower~]

You haven't read the article have you?   


Seriously Flower.  I don't disagree with you in that over vaccination occurs in some veterinary hospitals, that there are some vaccines that are just not necessary, that there needs to be alot more research done on the effects of vaccinations (both negative and positive) and that the whole shebang is a controversial topic in veterinary medicine right now.  I also don't think vaccinations are the be all end all cause of every single disease your dog might get at one point in its life. 


What I don't like is the pulling of a snippet an article that really is a summary of information and jumping on it like its done in your first post is appropriate.   As a matter of fact, it flat out pisses me off when people do it to articles that I write, especially if its something like this one was. 

 I can't get access to the full JAVMA article, only what I have found posted from it. 


 Did YOU read what I posted?  It was not about whether people should vaccinate, or about over vaccinating but about the UNDER REPORTING OF ADVERSE AFFECTS.

  In my first post I said NOTHING about not vaccinating, over vaccinating or that vaccines are evil, my comment was strictly about making sure your vet reports any adverse affects, because if they don't there is not accurate information on adverse affects.

 It pisses ME off when people jump on me for something I did not say. 


  The article I posted was a response to the JAVMA article, showing it's flaws, it's summary is bogus and inaccurate if they are using inaccurate information.

I stand by my subsequent statement that they cannot make that summarization if they know that adverse affects are seriously under-reported or they should add the statement "based on what adverse events that ARE REPORTED (which are underreported)  blah blah blah.


Since you have access to the full JAVMA article the one I posted is a response to, please post it.  I would like to see what they say about under-reporting of adverse events, the article I posted does not say what, if anything, the JAVMA article says about that.

[Vet]

 I can't get access to the full JAVMA article, only what I have found posted from it. 


 Did YOU read what I posted?  It was not about whether people should vaccinate, or about over vaccinating but about the UNDER REPORTING OF ADVERSE AFFECTS.

  In my first post I said NOTHING about not vaccinating, over vaccinating or that vaccines are evil, my comment was strictly about making sure your vet reports any adverse affects, because if they don't there is not accurate information on adverse affects.

 It pisses ME off when people jump on me for something I did not say. 


  The article I posted was a response to the JAVMA article, showing it's flaws, it's summary is bogus and inaccurate if they are using inaccurate information.

I stand by my subsequent statement that they cannot make that summarization if they know that adverse affects are seriously under-reported or they should add the statement "based on what adverse events that ARE REPORTED (which are underreported)  blah blah blah.


Since you have access to the full JAVMA article the one I posted is a response to, please post it.  I would like to see what they say about under-reporting of adverse events, the article I posted does not say what, if anything, the JAVMA article says about that.

I'll post it tonight when I get home. 

[Vet]

Ok, I'm a computer goofball.  How do you post a PDF file? 

[knny187]

Ok, I'm a computer goofball.  How do you post a PDF file? 

well, you really can't

you can take a "snap shot of it"

when you view it...press control & Print screen button

then paste in a photo shop program & save

you might have to convert it from bmp to jpg to post here on getbig

[Vet]

well, you really can't

you can take a "snap shot of it"

when you view it...press control & Print screen button

then paste in a photo shop program & save

you might have to convert it from bmp to jpg to post here on getbig

Well crap.  Ok, its going to take a little longer to get the article in question up.  Flower, if you want, I'll just email it to you.  Let me know. 

[knny187]

Well crap.  Ok, its going to take a little longer to get the article in question up.  Flower, if you want, I'll just email it to you.  Let me know. 

just email it to me

knny187@aol.com


I'll post it for you in seconds