Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Pet Board => Topic started by: ~flower~ on April 03, 2007, 09:04:01 AM
-
Yes, those who know me have probably been wondering where this thread has been. ::) So here is the start of it.
This the Duration of Immunity Study done by Dr. Schultz. If you have read any articles on pet vaccines he has probably been quoted. I am posting this first so if nothing else you will see that immunity lasts a LOT longer than most vets want you to think.
Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines:
What We Know and Don't Know
Ronald D. Schultz, Professor and Chair
Department of Pathobiological Sciences
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison
It has been common practice since the development of canine vaccines in the late 1950's to administer them annually. The recommendation to vaccinate annually was based on the assumption that immunity would wane in some dogs, thus to ensure immunity in the population, all dogs required revaccination since it was not practical to test each animal for antibody. Little or no research has been done to demonstrate that the practice of annual revaccination has any scientific value in providing greater immunity than would be present if an animal was never revaccinated or was revaccinated at intervals longer than one year.
In 1978 we recommended an ideal vaccination program would be one in which dogs and cats would be revaccinated at one year of age and then every third year thereafter (1). That recommendation was based on a general knowledge of vaccinal immunity, especially the importance of immunologic memory and on duration of protection after natural subclinical or clinical infections as well as on limited studies we had performed with certain canine and feline vaccines. Since the mid 1970's we have done a variety of studies with various canine vaccines to demonstrate their duration of immunity. From our studies it is apparent, at least to me, that the duration of immunity for the four most important canine vaccines (core vaccines) that the duration of immunity is considerably longer than one year. Furthermore, we have found that annual revaccination, with the vaccines that provide long term immunity, provides no demonstrable benefit and may increase the risk for adverse reactions. We have assessed duration of protective immunity primarily by two procedures; the first is held to be the "gold standard and that is to challenge the vaccinated animal with the virulent organism, the second method is to measure antibody and compare the antibody titer to that which is known to prevent infection (e.g. provide sterile immunity). The studies we report here include challenge studies as well as studies that determine antibody titers. A summary of our results show the following (Table 1).
(http://critteradvocacy.org/19B.ht2.gif)
The minimum duration of immunity data does not imply that all vaccinated dogs will be immune for the period of time listed, nor does it suggest that immunity may not last longer (e.g. the life of the dog). The percentage of vaccinated animals protected from clinical disease after challenge with canine distemper virus, canine parvovirus and canine adenovirus in the present study was greater than 95%.
Although there is much more that we need to know about duration of immunity to canine vaccines the information we have at present provides adequate justification for the vaccination recommendations that I and others have made and continue to make regarding frequency of vaccination (2)
1. Schultz, RD. and F.W. Scott. Canine & Feline Immunization. In: Symposium on Practical Immunology. R.D. Schultz, Ed., Vet Clinics of N. Am., Nov. 1978, W.B. Saunders Co.
2. Schultz, R.D. Current and Future Canine and feline vaccination programs. Vet Med 3: No. 3, 233-254, 1998.
http://critteradvocacy.org/Duration%20of%20Immunity.htm (http://critteradvocacy.org/Duration%20of%20Immunity.htm)
Check out the Quick Links on that site to read other information on pet vaccines:
http://critteradvocacy.org/ (http://critteradvocacy.org/)
-
The Rabies Challenge fund co-chaired by Dr. Jean Dodds, another name some of you might have heard of. She has done wonderful research into autoimmune problems, I will be adding links and articles to her in the future.:
http://rabieschallengefund.com/index.html (http://rabieschallengefund.com/index.html)
The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust will determine the duration of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccine. The goal is to extend the required interval for rabies boosters to 5 and then to 7 years. This project depends primarily upon grassroots gifts for funding the costs of conducting the requisite vaccine trials. Our contributions to date have come mostly from kennel clubs and private individuals. The Challenge fund is a federally registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization [Fed. EIN # 84-6390682]. Our costs to begin the first year of the study are $177,000; to date we have raised close to $78,000. This vaccine trial cannot begin without funding for the first year.The Rabies Challenge Fund needs to raise a total of $1.5 million to complete the 5 and 7 year challenge studies, the adjuvant study, and to establish the vaccine adverse reaction reporting system. With your help this can be accomplished.
This vaccine research project to address the duration of immunity actually conveyed by rabies vaccine will be performed by Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiology at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine.The second phase of the project will finance a study of the adjuvants used in veterinary vaccines, and establish a federal adverse reaction reporting system for rabies and other vaccines.
The University of Wisconsin will donate all of the necessary overhead costs for these studies which normally amount to 48% of the direct research costs. Furthermore, Dr. Schultz, the Principal Investigator, has volunteered his time in conducting the research. My staff at Hemopet are donating their efforts as well. The only monies used from the pre-grant funds were IRS fees associated with applying for non-profit status. All other monies donated to The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust will go directly to funding these studies.
The Rabies Challenge Fund needs to raise a total of $1.5 million to complete the 5 and 7 year challenge studies, the adjuvant study, and to establish the vaccine adverse reaction reporting system. With your help this can be accomplished.
Jean
-
http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html (http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html)
Vaccination for Cats: Helpful or Harmful?
Author - Don Hamilton, DVM
Vaccination is not as widely and unquestionably accepted today as it was in the past. Many pet guardians and veterinarians believe we have taken the concept much farther than its usefulness warrants. In twenty years of veterinary practice, I have made the transition from believing strongly in the protective power of vaccines to becoming continually more certain that they create at least as much illness as they have ever prevented. In truth, I now consider vaccination to be tantamount to animal abuse in most cases.
This opinion has two main bases: First, vaccines often do not provide any protection. This may result from poor vaccine performance (as with feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, and ringworm vaccines), lack of risk (all vaccines at times, but particularly the above vaccines plus rabies), or simply lack of need (as with booster vaccination in almost all cases). Secondly, many vaccines actually induce illness that is much greater than that of the diseases that they are designed to prevent.
A further consideration is that vaccination weakens the strength of a population by allowing individuals to survive that otherwise would succumb to natural diseases; these diseases provide cleansing and strengthening for the population under normal conditions. The population is further weakened by immunosuppressive and possibly gene-damaging vaccine impacts. Vaccination likely provides protection from acute, contagious diseases by inducing chronic disease. This trade-off is not a good one and itself amounts to abuse.
Obviously there are several issues here that affect an immunization decision. Each is a separate factor with its own issues. I’ll start with booster vaccinations, as this is the clearest area and one with little risk of error. Simply put, there is almost never a need for booster immunization. Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is protected for life. Further vaccinations do not improve the immunity. The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM, appeared in Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected veterinary immunologists in the academic community):
A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal antibody interference). 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). (Italics added)
In essence, Drs. Schultz and Phillips are stating that the only reasons for annual vaccination are legal (as with rabies vaccination) or as a means of manipulating guardians into bringing their companions for examinations (rather than simply recommending an examination). They also clearly state that booster vaccines provide no other benefit, including improved or added immunization. Although it has been some years since this was published, the veterinary community has made little headway toward following these recommendations. Some university experts now recommend vaccinations every three years, and other university clinics recommend titer testing to determine need. While both concepts are a step in the right direction, they still do not reflect the actual picture.
As the above quote indicates, immunologic memory lasts for years (usually for the life of the individual). This memory is not dependent upon titers, nor do titer levels always accurately indicate the immune status. A titer is a reflection of the quantity of circulating antibodies (immunoglobulins) to a given antigen (in this case, an organism). Cells in the body produce the antibody. These cells retain the ability to produce antibodies toward a given antigen for quite a long time, usually for life. Upon re-exposure, they can produce antibody within forty-eight hours. As a consequence of this capability, there is no need for the body to expend the energy needed to maintain circulating antibodies. A low or absent titer, therefore, does not mean the body is unprotected. The body may simply have cells ready to act, like firefighters playing cards until they are needed. When booster vaccines are administered, antibodies destroy the vaccine particles before they can augment the immunity, and nothing is accomplished.
With kittens, antibodies (maternal antibody) may be passed from the mother to the kittens via the umbilical cord and via colostrum (the first milk). This antibody serves to protect the kitten, but it also can interfere with vaccination. For this reason, we often vaccinate kittens multiple times, in hopes that we will give a vaccination shortly after the maternal antibody diminishes to a level that will not interfere with vaccination. This is often overkill, as one vaccination can induce immunity in approximately 95 percent of animals if the timing is correct.
Multiple vaccination, particularly with combination vaccines, is one of the greatest contributors to vaccine-induced illness. Limiting vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines could greatly reduce disease from vaccination. In my opinion, this would be a huge step in the right direction for those who are too fearful to avoid vaccines entirely.
The next area of concern is that of risk. Veterinarians and vaccine companies frequently use fear to convince others of the need for vaccines. Often, the risk of disease is so small that vaccination is foolish. Many cats are kept indoors, and while this practice is certainly controversial (I believe all animals need exposure to the outside), these cats have virtually no risk of exposure to most organisms (especially rabies and feline leukemia virus, both of which require direct contact with an infected animal). Vaccination is generally pointless for these animals.
Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases are not truly contagious. In these cases vaccination is useless since it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. The immunosuppression occurs first, allowing a virus, bacteria, or fungus to grow. We know this because healthy animals are unaffected by these organisms. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency virus, and ringworm (in most cases). Vaccines for these diseases are therefore of no benefit; in fact, they often induce just the disease they are purported to prevent. These vaccines are among the most dangerous ones available. The only prevention of these diseases comes from a healthy diet and lifestyle.
Vaccination often receives undue credit for disease prevention, and we often hear raving about the lifesaving benefits of vaccination. From human studies, however, we know that the death rates of measles, whooping cough, and polio had fallen significantly prior to the introduction of vaccination; in the case of measles it had dropped 95 percent. Many practitioners around the turn of the century reported that smallpox immunization often increased a person’s chance of disease; this was even reflected in public health statistics. (Miller) Most of the reduction of disease actually resulted from good food and good hygiene.
This brings us to the question of damage from vaccines. Although this is the most controversial aspect of vaccination, I see this so commonly that I personally have no doubts that vaccines are extremely dangerous. Most of my homeopathic colleagues are in agreement. We believe vaccination underlies a huge percentage of illness that we see today, and especially the rash of autoimmune diseases; these have increased dramatically since my graduation from veterinary school in 1979.
I’ll briefly present a case that turned my head many years ago. When I first heard that vaccines might actually cause disease, I was skeptical. Of course, I knew about allergic reactions and other quick responses, but I assumed that these initial reactions were the extent of the problem. I remember a case, however, that opened my eyes. Fluffy was a sweet Persian cat who lived with an equally sweet woman.
Fluffy had recurrent bouts of cystitis (urinary bladder inflammation) that were very resistant to conventional and homeopathic treatment. Despite the fact that I liked Fluffy’s guardian (and Fluffy), I hated to hear from her, as it was such a frustrating case. The bladder infections were never under control for long before they would return. One day I was reviewing the record for some clue as to what to do next when I had a stunning revelation. The cystitis bouts were always about a month after the yearly boosters. I suggested to Fluffy’s guardian that we no longer vaccinate Fluffy, and I never needed to treat Fluffy’s cystitis again. I could only conclude that vaccines could indeed cause diseases—even a supposed infection.
Once I opened my eyes to the possibility of vaccine-induced illness, I began to see it commonly. It even became clear that certain vaccines could cause chronic illness that resembled the acute disease that the vaccine was intended to prevent. Panleukopenia is a good example.
With panleukopenia, major symptoms include inflammation and degeneration of the intestinal tract leading to severe vomiting and diarrhea, severe reduction of white blood cells (leukopenia) leading to immunosuppression, loss of appetite, mucopurulent nasal discharge, dehydration, and rapid weight loss. The chronic diseases we see frequently in cats correspond to many of these symptoms. Inflammatory bowel disease, an autoimmune inflammation of the intestines, is occurring at epidemic levels today. This disease was virtually nonexistent twenty years ago, yet today it is one of the most frequent diagnoses.
Cats are also extremely susceptible to immune malfunction and immunosuppression. The immunosuppressive state has been associated with two retroviruses (feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus), and others are suspected. Rather than these being separate diseases, I believe they are the same, but that more than one virus can fill the niche opened by the immunosuppression (remember that with chronic diseases the illness precedes the infection). This is probably the same in people with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) related viruses. Parvoviruses, which include the feline panleukopenia virus, are known to be very immunosuppressive. Additionally, I suspect the feline upper respiratory infections are a chronic state of the panleukopenia virus-induced immunosuppression and the tendency to get eye discharges.
A similar scenario now exists in dogs. While immunosuppressive states are not common in dogs, reports of their occurrence are on the rise. I believe the massive vaccination program for canine parvovirus, which began some thirty plus years after we began vaccinating cats with feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus), is creating this situation in dogs. If this is true, then the imminent future bodes poorly for dogs if the problem in cats is an indication. Furthermore, we have been seeing inflammatory bowel disease in dogs over the past five to ten years. Prior to this it was virtually nonexistent. I am certain that vaccination for parvovirus and coronavirus is a major cause. I commonly see inflammatory bowel disease that arises within a month or two after vaccination for one of these viruses.
There is still another syndrome associated with parvoviruses, one that occurred first in cats, and later in dogs. Cardiomyopathy is a disease of the heart muscle. The muscle may either weaken and stretch (dilated cardiomyopathy), or it may thicken greatly (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). Either condition will limit the heart’s ability to pump blood. Cardiomyopathy is often fatal.
We have been diagnosing cardiomyopathy in cats for over twenty years, approximately the same period of time as for inflammatory bowel disease. Many (but not all) cases of the dilated form of cardiomyopathy have been associated with a deficiency of the amino acid L-taurine. The cause for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as the cause for the nontaurine-associated cases of dilated cardiomyopathy, is unknown. I believe that the answer may have appeared in dogs.
When canine parvovirus first erupted in the late 1970s, many young puppies died rapidly, sometimes within hours. It turned out that parvovirus was capable of attacking the heart muscle in young puppies, and this form of the infection killed the puppies rapidly.
Cardiomyopathy did not affect dogs before the parvovirus outbreak (or if so it was very rare), but in the years since the outbreak it has appeared. The number of cases has especially risen over the past five to ten years, coincident with the rise of inflammatory bowel disease in dogs. The Merck Veterinary Manual states that, "The cause [of dilated cardiomyopathy in dogs] is still unknown although viral infection and resultant autoimmune reaction against the damaged myocardium are suspect…. Since the canine parvovirus (CPV) pandemic of 1978, male Doberman pinschers appear to be highly vulnerable to both CPV and cardiomyopathy." (Fraser) In the years since this was written (in 1986), we have begun to see cardiomyopathy in many other breeds as well as Doberman pinschers.
I believe the author of this section of The Merck Veterinary Manual was correct, but I believe that parvovirus vaccination is even more likely to be the cause in most cases. I also believe that this explains the occurrence of cardiomyopathy in cats. Perhaps the heart muscle association of the feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus) was not seen in natural infections, but vaccination brought it to the surface. Cardiomyopathy is an autoimmune disease, and vaccines are major causes of autoimmune disease. In my opinion, these connections are too close to be coincidence alone.
Another vaccine that induces great anguish for guardian and companion is the rabies vaccine. I see many cases of fear and aggression that stem from rabies vaccination. If you consider the nature of rabies, this might not surprise you. It appears we are introducing chronic rabies into our animals by injecting rabies virus particles into their bodies. How, you may wonder, could inactivated virus induce illness? Apparently, the ability to affect change is not contingent upon the quality of aliveness, as we understand the concept. In fact, viruses are on the border between living and non-living; they require another organism to reproduce and thrive; otherwise they are little more than a chemical compound with the potential to alter the metabolism of their hosts.
Other conditions we see frequently in veterinary medicine today are not so directly traceable to a particular vaccine, but the general connection to vaccination is clear to many practitioners. Hyperthyroidism (increased production of thyroid hormones) was not seen when I first graduated from veterinary school. It was not simply misdiagnosed. The symptoms are so characteristic that the syndrome would have been recognized even if the cause was unknown. The disease did not exist. Could vaccines be responsible? Let’s look at another case:
Sheba is a Siamese mix cat. She was nine years old when her guardian first consulted me. One week after vaccination, Sheba stopped eating and developed a rapid heart rate. Her conventional veterinarian suspected hyperthyroidism, although thyroid testing revealed no abnormalities. One dose of Thuja (a homeopathic remedy) reversed the rapid heartbeat and the appetite problems, and her health bloomed after the remedy so that she was better than before she became ill. Clearly the vaccines had caused these problems. I believe she would have developed true hyperthyroid disease if untreated.
The status of cats has elevated significantly since the 1960’s. Prior to this most cats received little veterinary care. Since the 1970’s, however, as cat status elevated, the care given to cats has climbed. This has generally meant more vaccinations. And rabies vaccination was often not recommended for cats until the mid-1980s. I believe the massive increase of vaccines in cats is responsible for hyperthyroidism as well as many other recently emerging diseases.
Cats suffer greatly from vaccination damage. The most obvious vaccine-induced problem is one that is deathly serious, causing great suffering among cats and cat companions. Fibrosarcomas, a type of cancer, occur more and more as a result of vaccination. The vaccines that are implicated are the rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines. These cancers arise at the site of injection of one of the vaccines. Researchers have identified vaccine particles within the cancer mass in a number of cases; the link is definite. Many veterinarians now refer to these cancers as vaccine sarcomas. Fibrosarcomas are malignant, and the average life expectancy is less than three years once the cancer has arisen. No treatment has proven satisfactory. Even with aggressive surgical removal, these cancers recur in the vast majority of cats. Some leading veterinarians recommend giving the vaccines in a leg, or even in the tail (ow!), to make amputation a viable option in case the cancers arise. Does this make sense?
Obviously, when we reach the point of making recommendations like these, we are out of control. But do we simply avoid vaccinations in order to avoid all risk? Or is there possibly more risk by not vaccinating? Personally, I am opposed to vaccination in virtually all situations, but I will endeavor to give some guidelines that will assist you in making a balanced decision regarding your feline companions.
There are four criteria that are at the center of any vaccine decision. One should only consider administering a vaccine if all four criteria are met:
1. The disease is serious, even life threatening.
2. The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.
3. The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.
4. The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.
Let’s look at individual diseases to see how this works. I’ll start with feline leukemia virus (FeLV) disease. An indoor-only cat will not be exposed (number two) as this virus requires direct, intimate, cat-to-cat contact for transmission. Many veterinarians recommend immunizing indoor cats against this disease, but I feel this is unethical. This disease does not fit criteria numbers three or four anyway in my experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not all circumstances. If a vaccine for the feline immunodeficiency virus were developed, it would be the same as for FeLV.
Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) is another disease that fits neither three nor four, and rarely number two. The FIP virus vaccine has generally been found ineffective and has produced severe side effects. Among the side effects I have observed with both FIP and FeLV vaccines is induction of the clinical disease they were intended to prevent.
Feline panleukopenia virus is very serious and the vaccine is quite effective, but most cats will not be exposed to the virus and the disease generally affects kittens only. Only those cats that are likely to be exposed would benefit from vaccination, and one vaccination between the age of ten to twelve weeks will protect 95 percent of cats for life. (Schultz)
With the feline upper respiratory diseases (calicivirus and rhinotracheitis virus as well as feline chlamydia), most are not serious except in very young kittens. These kittens generally contract the disease before vaccines would typically be administered, so the vaccine is not often beneficial. If you choose to immunize for these, use the intranasal form, and do not vaccinate for chlamydia. The chlamydia fraction produces poor immunization.
Recently a vaccine for ringworm was introduced. I have no direct experience with this vaccine, but I am certain that it will have little benefit and it is probably unsafe. Ringworm is usually the result of immunodeficiency—a chronic disease rather than an acute illness, so the vaccine will not address the cause of disease. I strongly recommend against using this vaccine.
Finally, while rabies is a very serious disease with the potential to infect humans (this is the reason for excessive vaccination laws), most animals are very unlikely to be exposed. One vaccine at four months of age will protect most cats for life. If one booster vaccination is administered, almost all animals (95 percent) are immunized for life. (Schultz)
In summary, my first recommendation is avoidance of vaccination whenever possible. If the risk is great, one panleukopenia vaccination will adequately protect the cat in almost all cases. The intranasal rhinotracheitis-calicivirus vaccine is relatively effective, but very few cats will benefit from this. Finally, rabies is legally mandated, but one vaccination will generally protect cats that are at risk.
I never recommend vaccines for feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, Chlamydia, ringworm, or the feline immunodeficiency virus. And I never recommend booster vaccines; these are always unwarranted.
Clarence Fraser, ed. The Merck Veterinary Manual (Rahway, New Jersey: Merck & Co., Inc., 1986).
Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? (Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean Press, 1994).
Phillips, T.R., DVM, and Ron Schultz, Ph.D., "Canine and Feline Vaccines," in Current Veterinary Therapy XI, Robert Kirk, DVM and John Bonagura, DVM, eds. (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992).
Ron Schultz, "Theory and Practice of Immunization" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association, Snowmass, CO, September 1995), 92-104.
Dr. Don Hamilton practices veterinary homeopathy in New Mexico. The vaccination issue is comprehensively reviewed in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs: Small Doses for Small Animals, to be published this summer by North Atlantic Books. Please see this book (available directly from Dr. Hamilton or at most bookstores) for further information about vaccination or other health problems, or you may call 505 666 2091 to schedule an appointment with Dr. Hamilton. There is a charge for telephone consultations.
-
http://www.byregion.net/articles-healers/Dr_Shawn.html (http://www.byregion.net/articles-healers/Dr_Shawn.html)
Degenerative Myelopathy and Excitotoxins -
Bad News for Big Dogs
by Shawn Messonnier, DVM
Author of The Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats
Degenerative myelopathy(DM) is a common yet misdiagnosed and underdiagnosed condition in dogs. According to Dr. Roger Clemmons, the leading expert on this condition, the age at onset is 5 to 14 years of age.1 The disease can occur in any large breed dog, but appears most frequently in the German Shepherd Dog GSD) suggesting the possibility of a genetic predisposition. Many dogs may experience a degenerative spinal cord disease; unless their disorders are caused by the same immune-related mechanisms which characterize DM of GSD, the integrative treatment protocol developed by Dr. Clemmons (and discussed fully on his informative website) may not be effective. The breeds for which there is data to suggest that they also suffer from DM of GSD are the Belgium Shepherd, Old English Sheep Dog, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Weimeraner and, probably, Great Pyrenees.
According to Dr. Clemmon’s research, the microscopic neural tissue lesions consist of widespread demyelination of the spinal cord, with the greatest concentration of lesions in the thoracolumbar spinal cord region. In severely involved areas, there is also a reduced number of axons, an increased number of astroglial cells and an increased density of small vascular elements. In the thoracic spinal cord, nearly all funiculi are vacuolated. Similar lesions are occasionally seen scattered throughout the white matter of the brains from some dogs, as well. Many patients have evidence of plasma cell infiltrates in the kidneys on throughout the gastrointestinal tract, providing a hint to the underlying immune disorder causing DM. 1
The current proposed etiology of DM centers on abnormalities of the immune system. Electrophoresis of immune-complexes that form during the disease demonstrates that the proteins present are in fact inflammatory proteins.1 These proteins increase in various disorders in which there is inflammation in the nervous system.
While the exact cause of DM is unknown, there is overwhelming evidence that DM is an autoimmune disease attacking the nervous system, and leading to progressive damage of the involved nervous system tissue. In many respects, the pathogenesis of DM is similar to the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis and it is likely that degenerative myelopathy is the equivalent of multiple sclerosis in affected dogs.1
Initially, due to some unidentified trigger, immune-complexes are formed and then circulate, leading to endothelial cell damage in the vessels of the CNS with subsequent deposition of fibrin in the perivascular spaces. When the fibrin degrades, inflammatory cells migrate into the lesions, releasing prostaglandins and cytokines. The prostaglandins and cytokines activate various tissue enzymes and form of oxygen free-radicals; the enzymes and radicals cause tissue damage.1 The currently proposed treatment is directed at these various pathologic processes.
I have an interesting yet probably controversial hypothesis on what possibly could cause this. Excitotoxicity may be part of the explanation. Excitotoxicity is defined as a “phenomenon characterized by the triggering of neuronal excitation through over-stimulation of susceptible neurons by the excitatory amino acids, primarily glutamate and aspartate”.2 These toxins increase for a variety of reasons, including exposure of the patient to mercury and in the presence of viruses.3,4
While controversial, there are some that believe that the increased incidence of autism is related to mercury in vaccines and the number of vaccines administered to young children with immature, developing nervous systems.5 Mercury inhibits the glutamate transport protein GLT-1, which allows glutamate to accumulate in the nervous system.3 Of particular interest is the measles virus, which is closely related to the dog distemper virus. When multiple vaccines are given together, especially when these vaccines are composed of modified live viruses, the stress on the immune system is increased.6 This leads to immune-directed damage to the nervous system. Measles virus, and likely distemper virus, can induce autoimmune reactions to myelin basic protein.6 In fact, 84% of autistic have antibodies against myelin basic protein, suggesting an autoimmunity to the nervous system.7 Damaged myelin is the lesion seen in people with MS, dogs with degenerative myelopathy, and in other disorders as well. Is it possible that by administering multiple modified live vaccines to puppies with immature immune systems, we are predisposing some patients to degenerative myelopathy? Viruses produce a lot of damage to the nervous system by stimulating the release of glutamate and other excitotoxins.4,8 Antioxidant deficiencies may allow viruses in vaccines (stealth viruses or modified live viruses) to mutate from a non-violent form to a highly virulent form.9
While some will find this article controversial, especially since I have extrapolated a lot of information from the human literature, I believe the idea of excitotoxicity is certainly plausible, and may be the most plausible inciting factor as a possible etiology for degenerative myelopathy to date. The pathophysiology of DM, plus the integrative treatment approach developed by Dr. Roger Clemmons and others, lend credibility to the possibility of autoimmunity with subsequent oxidative damage to the nervous tissue as outlined in this article. Of course not all kids or pets that are immunized will develop these disorders; my guess is that there is some genetic predisposition or other damage to the immune system that may allow one or more vaccine components to act as the trigger to incite the chain of events which allows damage to occur to the nervous system. Still, if we can minimize the amount of vaccines given to our patients, especially the younger ones, this will have a more positive effect on the overall health of the patient and reduce damage to the immune and nervous systems.
References:
1. Clemmons R.
2. Olney JW. Brain lesions, obesity, and other disturbances in mice treated with monosodium glutamate, Sci 1969, 165:719-721.
3. Aschner M, Ganon M, Kimelberg HK. Methylmercury-induced alterations in excitatory amino acid transport in rat primary astrocyte cultures, Brain Research, 1993, 602:181-186.
4. Dories R. The role of T-cell-mediated mechanisms in virus infections of the nervous system, Curr Top Microbiol Immunol, 2001, 253:219-245.
5. Blaylock R. The Central Role of Excitotoxicity in Autism Spectrum Disorders, JANA, Vol 6, No 1, 2001:10-22.
6. Liebert UG, Hashin GA, ter Meulen V. Characterization of measles virus-induced cellular autoimmune reactions against myelin basic protein in Lewis rats, J Neuroimmunol, 1990, 29:139-147.
7. Singh VK, Warren RP, Odell JD, et al. Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic behavior, Brain Behavior Immunity, 1993, 7:97-103.
8. Espey MG, Kustova Y, Sie Y, Basile AS. Extracellular glutamate levels are chronically elevated in the brains of LP-BM5-infected mics: a mechanism of retrovirus-induced encephalopathy, J Neurochem, 1998, 71:2079-2087.
9. Beck MA, Levander OA. Dietary oxidative stress and the potentiation of viral infection, Ammu Rev Nutr, 1998, 18:93-116.
Dr. Shawn Messonnier is author of the Natural Vet series from Prima publishing, which includes The Arthritis Solution for Dogs, The Allergy Solution for Dogs, and the award-winning The Natural Health Bible for Dogs & Cats. For your weekly dose of holistic pet care, read Dr. Shawn's column "The Holistic Pet" in your local paper. He can be reached at 972-867-8000, naturalvet@juno.com, or at http://www.petcarenaturally.com.
-
http://www.austinholistic.com/articles/FW001.html (http://www.austinholistic.com/articles/FW001.html)
Vaccinations: A Word of Caution for Our Animals – Part I
Efficacy ( Does it Work?)
Every procedure we do to ourselves or those in our care should be a useful one or there is no reason to do it. This may seem obvious, but bears mentioning, especially in the world of modern medicine. While vaccinations may confer immunity in animals, how effective or useful is it to repeat this procedure every year, as is the standard recommendation in this country today?
Immunology has recognized for a great many years that viruses in vaccinations confer a long-lived immunity. This is why your physician is not sending you postcards every year to repeat your small pox or polio vaccinations annually. They understand your immune system was adequately stimulated in childhood, and a cellular memory exists in you that will "wake up" if any future challenges from these viruses occur. Is there some profound difference in animals that makes us think they need to repeat their vaccinations yearly? Let me quote from the experts. The following was printed in Current Veterinary Therapy, volume XI, published several years ago (this is a very well respected, peer-reviewed book that is updated every four years). The authors are veterinary immunologists Ronald Schultz ( University of Wisconsin) and Tom Phillips (Scrips Research Institute).
"A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccination. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal...... Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response.... The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy..."
In plain English, that means you are wasting a lot of money (and, as we'll see later, risking your animals' health) without much likelihood that your animal is actually becoming "boosted" each year. In other words, the immunity that was established in early life persists, and it is that immunity that actually interferes with subsequent vaccinations. It's much like the case of vaccinating very young puppies. If you vaccinate a puppy (or kitten) at a too young age, the maternal antibodies from the mother's immune system are still present, and the vaccine will be thwarted in its attempt to provoke an immune response.
I had the pleasure to meet Dr. Schultz at a veterinary conference a few years ago. He has done research for many of the companies that market vaccines. It was very interesting to hear his perspective of 25 years in this field. He clearly had not come to this understanding lightly. One most interesting fact was the way that rabies vaccine comes to be labeled. We currently have a "One-year rabies" and a "Three-year rabies" vaccine. On the labels, the one-year must be repeated yearly and the three- year must be repeated every three years. The reason behind this is the length of time the experimental animals were studied. At the end of one year after their vaccination, the animals were challenged with live rabies virus, the survivors tallied, and the vaccine marketed. The same vaccine was studied for three years , the data gathered, and this vaccine lot was marketed as "Three-year rabies vaccine." Rabies vaccine is so effective in immunizing that there is likely life-long protection. Why then do we vaccinate annually? And why, in light of the understanding above, are we Texas veterinarians required to use the three-year vaccine annually? Unfortunately, we have a law in place that fails to recognize immunological facts. In Texas, all dogs and cats are required to be vaccinated annually against rabies.
What about the other vaccinations? They are also viral vaccines, so there should be "no immunological requirement" for repeating them yearly. Also know that none of the others are required by law to be repeated annually. Some are even useless to give at any age, others at any age over one year.
A lot of what conventional medicine recommends is based on is fear. If there's a "bad germ" out there that might "get us" (or our pets), we want to use something to protect against that germ. We've all heard horror stories about dogs dying of Parvovirus infection, so we are admonished to get yearly (or even twice yearly!) vaccinations against this deadly disease. Yet how many adult dogs die of Parvo each year? Ask your veterinarian this question. Parvo is almost always a disease of puppies under one year of age, and very occasionally old dogs who have weakened immune systems from unhealthy living (commercial diets and frequent vaccinations!). Why, then should we vaccinate against it yearly throughout life? Coronavirus also causes puppy diarrhea and vomiting, but differs from Parvo in that it is not fatal. Is it worthwhile injecting viruses into our animals for a disease from which they will surely survive? Dr. Schultz and others feel it is not. Yet this and other non-fatal viruses are in common use in every "annual (non-)booster" given.
You might ask why this annual vaccination habit exists. It's a very good question, and one that conventional medicine is examining more and more frequently as time goes on. A recent watershed occurred when a renowned University of California-Davis veterinary researcher and professor, Neils Pedersen, commented on the practice in a very well respected conventional magazine called AAHA Trends (AAHA is the American Animal Hospital Association). "current vaccine practices are medically unsound. It is time to question the wisdom of annual booster, multivalent products (combination vaccines, the most common being DHLPP for dogs and FVRCP for cats), and unnecessary vaccines. Doing so will return companion animals' immunization to its status as a medical and not an economical procedure."
What will get us a lot closer to what we really want (healthy animals who are resistant to all disease) is to focus on raising our individual animals in the way that allows them to do what nature intended: to live freely, happily, and fully alive, with an immune system that responds directly to any challenge that confronts them. In our haste to protect our pets, let's not forget that it's the animal's immune system that protects, not some solution of viruses in a syringe.
In Part II, I address another aspect of the vaccine question: safety. For now, suffice it to say that if your dog or cat is an adult who has had vaccinations, there is no immunologic need to continue vaccinating annually: the immunity is present from the early vaccines and will not get any better through yearly repetition.
-
http://www.austinholistic.com/articles/FW002.html (http://www.austinholistic.com/articles/FW002.html)
Vaccinations: A Word of Caution for Our Animals – Part II
Safety (Is It Free of Harm?)
Have you ever wondered why you get a reminder every year to revaccinate your pet when your physician never prompts you to do the same for your family or yourself? I'd like you to question the notion that we need this frequent vaccinating, and go a step further and listen to some evidence that this practice may actually be harmful to our four-footed friends.
If someone, even someone in a white coat, suggests that you take a drug or get injected with some substance, two logical questions ought to immediately arise in your mind:
1. Is this beneficial to me (or does this work as intended)?
2. Is this safe?
If we ask these two questions about annual revaccination of animals, and we ask the right people, we'll get a negative answer to both. We've already covered the first question in Part I: efficacy of annual revaccination is clearly lacking according to immunologists. A more important question is the safety issue, as a growing body of evidence mounts showing a correlation between vaccinations and chronic disease.
The chronic diseases have many names, including arthritis, hypo- or hyperthyroidism, allergies, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, repeated ear infections, skin disease, heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure, and cancer. What makes them nightmarish is that they linger, they are not easily cured, and they are slowly, progressively degenerative, meaning the patient declines in health over the time they are present. The best that conventional medicine can do with chronic disease is to control symptoms through suppressive therapies. This is fraught with problems, including side effects from the drugs, and apparently "new," more serious diseases arising from the continued course of suppression. So, our greatest goal as animal caretakers should be to prevent chronic disease in the first place.
The onset of chronic disease after vaccination is often delayed, coming about 1-2 months afterwards. This is not close enough for conventional medical minds to appreciate the correlation, but it's there nonetheless. The evidence of this comes from both anecdotal sources and research studies.
A British veterinarian has, for the last 10-12 years, asked those clients who present him with an itchy, allergic dog, "When did this itchiness begin?" The response is striking. Some 75% remember clearly: it began within 1-2 months of the "puppy shots." Anecdotal evidence in human medicine is pointing to a cause and effect relationship between childhood vaccines and autism. There has been a marked increase in incidence of this devastating disease that parallels the increased number of vaccinations now required of children. The interval between vaccination and disease? About one month.
In a research study published in 1996, the authors looked at a deadly canine disease of a confused immune system. Known as immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA), it means the dogs' immune systems attacked their own red blood cells as if they were foreign. Needless to say, this is life-challenging and the death rate is high, as one cannot live long without the oxygen-carrying red blood cells. In the study, 58 dogs with the illness, presenting at a veterinary teaching hospital over a two year period, were compared to a control group presenting for other problems over the same time. The question was asked, "Did anything precede the onset of IMHA?" Lo and behold, a highly statistically significant group of the sick dogs had been vaccinated with the usual yearly vaccines one month earlier. It was so significant that the authors entitled their paper, "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog." (Duval and Giger, J Vet Intern Med 1996;10:290-295)
In cats, researchers have known for the last ten years about the correlation between vaccines and a malignant tumor. This particular tumor arises where the vaccines are commonly given, in the area of loose skin at the back of the neck, or in the back of the hind leg. It appears to be uniformly fatal, even with extensive surgery. And it has been clearly associated with two particular vaccines, rabies and feline leukemia. Finally, in 2000, recognizing the clear cause and effect relationship between vaccination and this cancer, the disease was renamed by the research community. It is now officially called Vaccine-Associated Sarcoma.
In the early days of homeopathic veterinary practice, a number of us would see something we would later call the "vaccinosis phenomenon." It was instructive to us as to just how significant an impact vaccinations had had on our animal patients. We would be presented with a chronically ill animal, and after carefully choosing and giving the appropriate homeopathic remedy, we'd be met with disappointing results. A second or third prescription would be made with similar dismal responses from the patient. Finally, we'd go back to the owner and ask about vaccinations. Inevitably the patient was vaccinated. "Whenever we got the reminder postcard, we went in for the shots." Then we would reanalyze the case in light of this knowledge, and look at remedies that were particularly noted to have been applicable in illness that arose after vaccination. When we'd prescribe again with a "vaccinosis" remedy, the results were often startling. Not only would the disease symptoms lessen by 50% or more, but the patient would start acting more normally. The dog who was hyperactive would settle down and pay attention, the angry cat would become a lover again, or the animal terrified of visitors would come out and say hello. The owners were so impressed with the changes that they would often call before the next appointment to tell us how great things were going!
The inference we have made from this experience, repeated over and over in different parts of the country in different practitioners' hands, is simple: vaccinations are responsible for a significant portion of the illness we see in the patients with chronic disease.
The veterinary profession slowly continues to evaluate this practice of vaccinating annually. In 2000, the American Association of Feline Practitioners came out with an official statement against annual vaccination in the cat. They based this position on research from Cornell where kittens, vaccinated once, measured seven years later still showing evidence of immunity from those vaccines. Quite frankly though, I don?t think we can afford to wait for the whole profession to catch up. Our animals are at risk to become chronically ill if we continue this baseless practice of annual revaccination. And, years from now when we look back incredulously at how such a practice was ever thought to be wise, wouldn't it be nice to be able to smile and pat your healthy twenty-something pet and say, "We knew. We stopped. That's why you're still here."
About the Author
Dr. Will Falconer, DVM, enjoys a full-time classical homeopathic practice in Austin, Texas. To learn what Dr. Falconer has been recommending to his clients on all matter of natural health care for years, visit www.Alt4Animals.com.
He graduated with his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from the University of Missouri in 1980 and has been in practice ever since. For the first seven years, he practiced very conventionally, using drugs and surgery to treat animals. Since then, he has gradually changed his practice style and philosophy to incorporate a more holistic approach to healthcare. He has taken certification training in veterinary acupuncture and veterinary homeopathy, and has received Certification as a Veterinary Homeopath from the Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy.
Dr. Falconer is a member of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association, the Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy, and the National Center for Homeopathy. He writes articles for national pet magazines and medical journals, gives public lectures to animal owners, and shares homeopathic case reports with conventional and holistic veterinarians. He enjoys a full-time classical homeopathic practice in Austin, Texas.
-
"A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations."
from Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy, Volume XI
Charles Loops, DVM:
"After more than twenty years of practicing veterinary medicine, I am observing chronic diseases that begin much earlier than before. Cancer before five years of age in dogs and cats was a rarity, but now it is not unusual to see fatal cancers in two and three year old animals. And the incidence or number of cases is definitely increasing. While poor breeding practices, poor commercial diets and other environmental factors play their part, I believe it is the practice of vaccinating an animal repeatedly, with multiple vaccinations throughout their lifespan that factors the most. We have genetically weakened our companions with this practice. A normal dog or cat living to twelve years of age will receive at least twenty and possibly thirty vaccinations during their lifetime. Fifteen or so of these shots will have four to seven disease fractions present in each vaccination.
In all of this, balance in nature has been lost to the pharmaceutical-medical complex's philosophy, propelled in great part by monetary factors, leading us to believe that all vaccinations are beneficial.
Risk of Exposure should be the main guideline for consideration of whether to vaccinate and what to vaccinate against. If your cats are indoor only, or if your dogs' outside activities are on a leash or within a fenced area under supervision, there is little risk. The other considerations for a vaccine's use are its proven safety, its effectiveness, and whether the disease so serious or life-threatening that vaccinating is necessary. Remember, VACCINES ARE NOT HARMLESS. Only vaccinate if the threat is real. "
-
Pet Vaccination Lawsuit
By Lisa Ross-Williams with Dr Bob Rogers
Lisa has a great radio show called If Your Horse Could Talk. Recently she interviewed Bob Rogers DVM about a very hot topic in the dog community right now over a vaccination lawsuit. Here is her interview:
Today I’ll be chatting with Dr Bob Rogers about the class action lawsuit concerning pet vaccinations.
Lisa-Welcome Dr Rogers. Thanks so much for being with us today. Before we get into the nitty-gritty of this issue, please tell us a bit about your background and how you got involved with this issue.
Dr Rogers-I’m a 1975 graduate of Texas A & M University and I’ve been in practice for 30 years. In 1988, I noticed a new vaccine came out for Corona virus and I was confused because I had never seen a case of a dog with Corona. In talking with the manufacturer, they said the vaccine was only developed for use for puppies, they acknowledged that Corona was not a disease of adult dogs and yet, their marketing department was marketing it for adult dogs. I asked them what was up with that and they said that Marketing doesn’t talk to Research & Development.
I thought that over the years vets would quit using the Corona virus vaccine but what I’ve seen is more and more unnecessary and ineffective vaccines coming out. In 1997, I went to a seminar where Dr Ron Schultz, probably the most prominent immunologist in veterinary medicine said that giving vaccines like Rabies, Distemper, and Parvo annually had no effect. I went back to me practice and changed my vaccine recommendations as I cannot in good conscious charge a client for something that does nothing, especially when I know that there’s a risk involved. I was very surprised over the years to see that nobody else was changing.
Lisa-Do you think that’s because vets are so busy with their practice that they don’t have the time to try to find new information about vaccines?
Dr Rogers-I think that’s a big part of it. Certainly a vet would be more inclined to get continuing education about diabetes because that’s a big challenge. However, he would probably think he knows how to vaccinate a dog. But the drug companies have disseminated a lot of false information; they come into town, buy dinners at the most expensive restaurant for all the vets and present a seminar on vaccines where they misconstrue the studies, they omit the most current studies, and they conclude that we should go on vaccinating every pet for every disease known to man, every year. So that’s a big part of the problem too.
Lisa-So at what point did you decide you needed to take a more active role?
Dr Rogers-Over three years, I went to the Texas State Veterinary Board; their mission is #1 to protect the public and #2 is to elevate the standard of practice. I merely asked them to encourage vets to get continuing education on vaccinations and to stop allowing continued education where the speaker is a paid employee of a drug company because that is a big conflict of interest. I think that was a very reasonable request and they refused.
Lisa-Did they give you a reason?
Dr Rogers-They said they didn’t want to tell vets how to practice. Well, stopping fraud is quite different than telling vets how to practice. This isn’t just a matter of which antibiotic is better, this is charging people for something that has no effect. As more scientific data came out and as more organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association came out with recommendations and guidelines, I kept going back to the state board and they continued to refuse. After about the sixth time, I threatened to sue them for negligence for failing to protect the public.
Lisa-Good and did that work?
Dr Rogers-Yes, they then agreed to investigate my complaint and in fact sent a letter out to every Texas vet saying that they should change their vaccine recommendations. To me the word “should” means do it and the boards interpretation means it’s a suggestion. As people here have filed complaints against vets for giving unnecessary vaccinations, the state board has told these people, “if you don’t like your vet’s recommendations, find another vet.” They still are not enforcing this.
So I went to the Sunset Commission which is a group of senators who oversee the state board and they told the board in no uncertain terms to crack down on unnecessary vaccinations. The state board sent me a letter saying they intended to ignore the Sunset Commission. People continue to file complaints and the board continues to say vets can do whatever they want.
There are attorneys who just hang around the state capitals to see what’s going on and this issue came to a law firm’s attention. They made an announcement that they would represent clients who are upset about unnecessary vaccinations and whose pets have been harmed. That firm approached me and asked me to provide them with the scientific literature to support this, which I have done. On the day they announced this, they got over 300 people on the first day alone.
Lisa-I believe that. Is that just Texas or is this across the U.S.?
Dr Rogers-I know of lawsuits going on in several states. They just changed the class-action ruling on a national level defining how class action suits can be filed. This law firm’s focus started in Texas although they have identified complainants in other states.
Lisa-I certainly can see many people involved because this is an issue across the country. I’m finding that animal owners are becoming more informed and learning new things and I certainly think more people are aware of the vaccination issue. I see it growing to ten of thousands at least.
Let’s talk a little more about vaccinations. I always tell people to do some research. If you’re going to vaccinate, try to understand the diseases, the efficiency & duration of protection and the side effects. That way, you can make an informed decision. Unfortunately, a lot of people look to their vets for guidance, but it sounds like many of the vets are not aware of the latest studies and plug along, sending out annual vaccination notices.
Dr Rogers-What a vaccine consist of is a virus or bacteria that has been weakened or killed so that it cannot cause the disease, hopefully. But it still is essentially a Parvo virus, or Distemper, etc, so it stimulates the immune system to protect against that disease. We’re depending on our patients to respond to that vaccine by producing antibodies and cell mediated immunity. If a pet has already been immunized for one of the core vaccines of which we know the vaccines produce a long-term immunity, when you give them another vaccine, the antibodies for the first vaccine will block any subsequent vaccine from having an effect. This is what Dr Ron Schultz published clear back in 1995; that the client is paying for something with no effect. There are other vaccines like Leptospirosis for which the duration of immunity is very short and they do have to be given every year. But these vaccines should only be given to a dog that is at risk of developing the disease.
Lisa-So if there have been no reports of that disease in your area for many years, then that would be a reason not to give it.
Dr Rogers-Correct. For instance, in Texas, they only see an average of 12 dogs a year with Leptospirosis. Over a million dogs and the chance of your dog being exposed to Lepto is less than 1 in a million. We know that the dogs at the highest risk are hunting dogs. So, if you were given that information, would you purchase that vaccine for your dog? I wouldn’t. The other thing is that vaccine is only 60-80% effective. Clients should be provided with enough information to make an informed decision.
Lisa-From what I understand, on the back of vaccination bottles it states it only should be given to healthy animals. So if an animal has a compromised immune system or some type of chronic issue, they might not be able to build the immunity even if given the shot. If they’re not healthy enough to launch a reaction, what happens then?
Dr Rogers-The real danger is that the animal could develop the disease for which the vaccine was intended to prevent. Distemper is the biggest culprit. A dog with diabetes or Cushings could get distemper from the vaccine and this actually happens, depending on the brand of vaccine in 1 out of 10,000. I personally have seen this happen to three dogs and this is an awful experience for the animal, the owners and me as well.
Lisa-When you are talking about core vaccines, what are you referring to?
Dr Rogers-These are vaccinations that are recommended for every dog to receive; Rabies, Distemper, and Parvo. We are currently recommending these for puppies at 8, 12, and 16 weeks and again at one year. The American Animal Hospital Association and most veterinary schools have adopted a compromise here. We know the vaccines are good for at least 7 years, probably the lifetime of the pet. But to try to compromise with vets who are worried about losing money, they came up with an every 3 year recommendation. This is really just an arbitrary number that they just pulled out of a hat.
Lisa-Is it true that the USDA doesn’t require the drug companies to prove efficiency?
Dr Rogers-They do have to prove 85% efficiency. The USDA certainly needs to revise it’s standards for licensing vaccines. They do not have to prove how long the vaccine is good for; they can test at three months and get a license for the vaccine. The vaccine might only be good for four months or for the life of the pet. The USDA makes no determination on that.
Lisa-So unless you’re testing for efficiency beyond one year, then you don’t have to come out and say it’s effective longer. Is that what has happened in the past where the drug companies say we have tested it at one year, but never went further? It is a business and we need to understand that vaccinations involve a LOT of money for the vets and the drug companies.
Dr Rogers-Yes, it’s a billion dollar industry.
-
Lisa-Is it true that the USDA doesn’t require the drug companies to prove efficiency?
Dr Rogers-They do have to prove 85% efficiency. The USDA certainly needs to revise it’s standards for licensing vaccines. They do not have to prove how long the vaccine is good for; they can test at three months and get a license for the vaccine. The vaccine might only be good for four months or for the life of the pet. The USDA makes no determination on that.
Lisa-How about some of the adverse reactions that are seen in pets today. Quite frankly, I think that this is just the tip of the iceberg and I don’t feel the current adverse reporting procedures are efficient. I hear so many times from people who may see a reaction in their dog, cat or horse and tell their vet. The vet says, “On no, it couldn’t possibly be linked to the shot.” The people then just stop there where in fact this needed to be reported, either by the vet or the owner. Let’s chat whether there’s a better way to report these reactions
Dr Rogers-There is no reporting. There is no government supported reporting for veterinary vaccines. We can report to the drug company, but they have no obligation and they do not report back to vets about these reactions. We have no idea and no way of finding out.
Lisa-That seems like it’s broken. I thought there was a reporting agency?
Dr Rogers-There was a reporting network but it was discontinued several years ago.
Lisa-I didn’t know that. What was the reason?
Dr Rogers-To save on government funding. Probably the most severe vaccine reaction that has received the most attention is cats getting cancer from the vaccines. This is called a vaccine associated sarcoma and it is 100% fatal. It is thought to kill 22,000 cats a year in the U.S. and that’s an estimated figure.
Lisa-Say someone takes their cat in and are diagnosed with this. Are they being told why or do the vets even know why?
Dr Rogers-I’ve talked to a lot of cat owners where the vet didn’t tell them that the vaccine was the cause of the cancer.
Lisa-Is that because the vet is afraid of repercussions?
Dr Rogers-I think it’s a knee jerk reaction for people to be defensive and say “I didn’t do it.” But the owners find out. They all tell me the same thing-I wasn’t warned, nobody told me this could happen. If vets would do one thing we could greatly reduce the number of cats getting cancer. Warn the owner that if a lump develops at the site of the shot and it doesn’t go way within three weeks, have it removed, hopefully before it becomes cancer. Maybe only 1 lump out of 100 will develop into cancer but it’s worth removing them all.
Adjuvants are something that is added to the vaccine to stimulate the immune system. There is lots of evidence to show that it is adjuvants that is the cause of cancer in cats. I’m not saying that a non-adjuvanted vaccines can’t possible cause cancer, but certainly the adjuvant vaccines are at least five times more likely.
Lisa-What type of substances are used for adjuvants?
Dr Rogers-It’s usually an aluminum added. The way it works is it creates inflammation which draws the immune system to the site of the vaccine. It also makes a vaccination more of a sustained release product. Cats are unique in that inflammation can turn into cancer. There are non-adjuvanted vaccines; they don’t cost anymore and yet they only have about 10% of the market. Only 10% of vets are going to all non-adjuvanted vaccines.
Lisa-Does that go back to them just not knowing?
Dr Rogers-I think it goes back to the vaccine manufacturer disseminating false and misleading information. Certainly the companies that don’t make a non-adjuvant vaccines want to go around and say it hasn’t been proven that adjuvants are the culprit.
Lisa-Doesn’t that come down to demand? If there were more vets and owners demanding the types of vaccines, then the drug companies would either get onboard or they’re going to lose their shirt.
Dr Rogers-Absolutely. Adjuvants were declared a Class 2 Carcinogen by the World Health Organization. If that was recognized by the USDA, they would have to take all the adjuvant vaccines off the market. So again I think the USDA is asleep at the wheel.
The AVMA asked the USDA to revise their standards for licensing vaccines back in 1998. Since that time, they have licensed vaccines that have no effect, vaccines that don’t even contain the virus or disease to which they were intended to protect and many adjuvant vaccines. So the USDA has not done what the AVMA asked them to do.
Lisa-Do you think this class action lawsuit will put pressure on the USDA to change that? How can we get that changed?
Dr Rogers-It’s very sad to see that it had to come to a lawsuit. I think vets are good people who have made one bad decision which is to ignore the scientific evidence and studies and to refuse to accept change. Basically, good people who said, “I don’t care that the scientific evidence says, I’m not changing.” But I do think we need some moral leadership at the AVMA, the State boards should do their duty to protect the public and the USDA needs to clean up their act.
Lisa-How about the AVMA. You said that they did change their recommendations. Did they send that out to all the vet members?
Dr Rogers-Yes, in 2001 they published a position statement on vaccines. They said there is no scientific data to support annual vaccination and said that repeated administration of these vaccines does not enhance the pet’s immunity.
Lisa-So you’re getting risk with no benefit.
Dr Rogers-Correct. It’s been ignored for 6 years. Those guidelines have been ignored by 90% of vets.
Lisa-Can’t the AVMA get stronger it their stance?
Dr Rogers-They’re afraid people will quit paying their dues. They do get most of their money from the drug companies. It is a trade association.
Lisa-I want people to understand that the AVMA is a private trade organization whose goal is to benefit the vets.
Dr Rogers-I have filed complaints with the AVMA about false advertising and they blew me off.
Lisa-But isn’t that their duty to look into that?
Dr Rogers-They do have an ethics clause and committee and they do have the power to sanction vets who are doing false advertising, but they refuse to. It’s about following the money.
Lisa-I do understand big business but I do what I do for the love of the animals. If doing the right thing means I lose some money, then so be it.
Dr Rogers-Well, look at this Vioxx trial. I think it’s a good example of what drug companies do. If they don’t like a study, they just ignore it.
Lisa-That in itself should be illegal. It sounds like there just needs to be a whole bunch of changes at all the different levels. I believe you initiating this and getting the legal people involved is the beginning.
Dr Rogers-It has had an effect. I just attended a seminar on vaccines and a vet in the audience was very concerned about lawsuits. The speaker indicated that fear was justified.
Lisa-Lets talk a little but about the disclosure statement which should cover the pros, cons, and adverse reactions to help educate the owner. What would be involved with something like that?
Dr Rogers-There is legislation pending in many states to require vets to give informed consent before vaccinating a pet. I know that the Texas AVMA has a committee that is looking at drafting such an informed consent form.
Lisa-Do you think that’s what it’s going to take to get the vets doing what’s right? Introducing legislation at a state level requiring them to do so?
Dr Rogers-Well, I’m not sure if that’s the answer. Say I have a client who comes in, a Dad with three kids and a dog. He says that Mom says all the shots are due and please hurry because the football game starts in 15 minutes. He doesn’t want to know anything about vaccines and no doubt, if I don’t vaccinate the dog for parvo and distemper every year, I’ll get a phone call from Mom asking why not.
Lisa-Perhaps Mom would like that information. Dad can bring it home and she may say, I had no idea and next year we’ll have to think twice about it. I run into some owners who just don’t want to know-they figure if they don’t have the information, then they can’t be held accountable.
Dr Rogers-Maybe when the dog develops a severe reaction, they will say, “if only you had told me”. It’s got to start with the client.
Lisa-I know with my dealings with the Arizona Vet Board, it’s tough to introduce a new idea and get them to change the way it’s been going for ever. My question goes back to, is this something that each state needs to get their legislators to introduce a bill? Who’s responsibly is this to get the vets giving disclosure information?
Dr Rogers-It’s the responsibility of each State Board and I have written to every state board in the U.S. They said they would take it under advisement which tells me my letter got filed in the round file. To your listeners- If you really love pets, get on the state board. Go apply to be on that board. Right now we have the foxes watching the henhouse and we need people on these boards who love pets. We have far too many people on the board who love vets and care about protecting their income-Now we need people who love pets.
Lisa-That’s certainly a way to do it. I believe here in AZ we have two or three seats open to the public.
Dr Rogers-Well, I hope they are not like the lay people on the TX board who sit there like a bump on a log and think this is over their head. We need people on these state board who are out to protect the public and their pets.
Lisa-Let’s talk about the actually lawsuit. Again, is this just for Texas people only?
Dr Rogers-No, this firm will accept complaints out of Texas and there are a number of firms looking at this issue.
Lisa-The law firm is Childress, Duffy, Goldblatt of Chicago. Their website is www.childresslaw.net
Dr Rogers-Yes, click on the “contact us” and then go to class action. It has a companion animal vaccine lawsuit there.
Lisa-So what are their main goals? Is it to require vets to give disclosure statement or is it bigger than that?
Dr Rogers-I think they want to see vets quit giving unnecessary and unsafe vaccines. Certainly, this begins with disclosure. The point of law here is the standard of the reasonable patient. Would a reasonable patient elect to purchase, for example, the corona vaccine if they knew that adult dogs don’t even get this disease? Would a reasonable client purchase an adjuvant vaccine if they knew they were five times more likely to cause cancer? Or would they elect a safer, non-adjuvant vaccine? I provide my clients with that information and have not had one clients take the riskier product.
Lisa-So would it be up to the individual vets to come up with their own disclosure or would that be something at a state level?
Dr Rogers-The problem with the individual vet coming up with a disclosure is what if he gives false information and doesn’t disclose or withheld the information? What if his disclosure statement said that dogs can die from corona? Then we’re back to the lawsuits for misrepresentation.
Lisa-Do you think it’s the responsibility of the AVMA to some up with something?
Dr Rogers-Yes, I would encourage the AVMA to come up with something, but ultimately the state boards are going to have to enforce the law that already exists, which in Texas says that a vet can be punished for giving unnecessary treatment. Most states say vets must deal ethically with the public. I don’t think you’d say it’s ethical to charge someone for something that has no effect or to administer something to a patient which could cause a 100% fatal cancer without warning the client.
Lisa-Where can people go for more information? www.newvaccinationprotoc ol.com is one.
Dr Rogers-There’s good information on that site. Most veterinary schools have their vaccination recommendations on their websites including Cornell and University of California at Davis. There’s a lot of good info about cancer in cats at www.catshots.com. My website, www.critteradvocacy.org is good and has a lot of links to other excellent sites.
Lisa-You brought up vet schools. So they’re on track with this?
Dr Rogers-Sure, the University of California at Davis changed their recommendation over 7 years ago. They do not use any adjuvant vaccines.
Lisa-Do you think that the new graduates are going to be coming out with an understanding and perhaps realize the dangers of this?
Dr Rogers-I think this is heartbreaking. When I graduated from vet school 30 years ago, the vet I went to work for told me on the first day, “When things go wrong, tell the truth.” I have interviewed 40 new graduates who have told me at their job interviews, the vets tell them that they will vaccinate every dog for corona, every year or they can’t come to work for them. Any vet who has graduated from Texas A & M in the last 17 years was taught that adult dogs don’t get that disease and the vaccine is unnecessary but they come out of schools and their boss tells them they have to do it. They have student loans and they need a job. To me, this is heartbreaking.
Lisa-Yes because it’s making people give up on their principles.
Dr Rogers-Of these people who graduated in the last 17 years who know better, 30% of them are still giving corona every year.
Lisa-Any last message you want to leave our listeners with? If they’re saying that this is outrages, what can they do? Hopefully, they pass this information along to every animal owners they know. What is your message to everyday animal owners?
Dr Rogers-As the Attorney General in Texas told me, “If this is going to get changed, it’s going to take a big public outcry.”
Lisa-The first step to that is education.
Dr Rogers-I think the core of the problem is doctors, dentists and vets need to quit getting their information from drug companies. Continuing education should not be allowed from a speaker who is a paid employee of a drug company. I prefer to get my information from the university or someone who is board certified in the field and someone who has no conflict of interest in the products being discussed. A lot of various things need to be put in place and certainly the state vet boards need to open their minds, listen to the information and truly do that’s best for the animals and the public.
Lisa-Dr Rogers, thanks so much for being with us today. I pat you on the back for coming forward and taking a stance as I know it’s not an easy thing to do. That’s it for another great If Your Horse Could Talk show. Until next time, I’m Lisa Ross-Williams.
Be sure to listen to the full audio interview at www.NaturalHorseTalk.com
-
http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/bouvier/health/vaccination-concerns-uk.htm (http://www.bogartsdaddy.com/bouvier/health/vaccination-concerns-uk.htm)
Canine Vaccine Survey
by Canine Health Concern, England
It is well known that there are risks associated with vaccination of dogs, just as there are risks for humans. The trouble is, no one has adequately quantified the risks. Is it true that only a tiny minority of dogs suffer adverse reactions to vaccines, or is the problem more common? And what is a vaccine reaction? Is it something that happens immediately after the jab, or can you expect a reaction to manifest weeks or months later?
Christopher Day, Honorary Secretary of the British Homoeopathic Veterinary Association, told us that, in his experience, where the start date of a dog's illness is known, a high percentage (around 80%) begin within three months of vaccination.
Canine Health Concern tested this observation and has analyzed the histories of over 3,800 dogs post vaccination. This critical mass, by any standards, is a very high number from which to draw valid statistical conclusions. Most commercial scientific research involves significantly fewer dogs (tending to base their conclusions on data involving a couple of litters of puppies, if that). We have been able to show a definite statistical correlation between a vaccine event and the onset of a number of specific illnesses. Our published conclusions have satisfied mathematical or inferential statistical tests at a level of confidence of 99% or better.
Overall, we found that 66% per cent of all sick dogs start being sick within three months of vaccination, which is considerably more than double the expected rate of illness. Worse, 49% of all illnesses reported in the survey occurred within 30 days of vaccination. This is over five times the expected percentage if vaccination had no bearing on subsequent illness. More damning still, 29% of sick dogs first became sick within seven days of their vaccine jab. This means that a dog is 13 times more likely to become ill within seven days of vaccination than at any other time.
In the study, 69.2% of allergic dogs first became allergic within three months of being vaccinated - more than double the expected number. 55.8% of dogs with autoimmune disease developed the condition within three months of being vaccinated - again, more than twice the expected figure. Of dogs with colitis, 65.9% developed the complaint within three months of being vaccinated and, of dogs with dry eye/conjunctivitis, 70.2% developed their conditions within three months - both nearly three times higher than expected. 73.1% of dogs with epilepsy first became epileptic within three months of vaccination. As 2% of all dogs in the UK are epileptic, vaccines are clearly causing horrendous damage. For statisticians, our Chi score for epilepsy is 96: any Chi test statistic higher than twelve gives a 95% confidence about the conclusions. Without doubt, then, the majority of epileptic dogs in our survey are vaccine damaged.
But perhaps most astonishing is the fact that a majority of dogs (64.9%) with behavioral problems appear to have developed their difficulties within three months of vaccination. Similarly, 72.5% per cent of dogs with nervous or worrying dispositions became nervous within three months of their jabs (with a Chi score of 112), and 73.1% per cent of dogs with short attention spans lost their attentiveness within three months of vaccination.
All of our evidence ties in with research in the human field, and a growing body of veterinary research, which says that vaccines cause allergies, hypersensitivity reactions, autoimmune disease, encephalitis, epilepsy, personality changes and brain damage.
The CHC results are statistically very significant, and carry with them very high statistical certainty. This means that the evidence is strong that the above diseases can be triggered or caused by vaccination.
Other diseases that were highly represented within three months post vaccination included cancer (35.1%) , chorea (81%), encephalitis (78.6%), heart conditions (39.2%), kidney damage (53.7%), liver damage/failure (61.5%), paralysis of the rear end (69.2%), and pancreas problems (54.2%).
Research conducted at Purdue University shows routinely vaccinated dogs developing auto antibodies to a vast range of normal canine biochemicals - which corroborates our findings.
Interestingly, our study showed that arthritis and Chronic Destructive Reticulo Myelopathy (CDRM - a degenerative disease affecting myelin in the spinal cord) occur in clusters nine months after vaccination, suggesting that the damage from vaccines resulting in these two diseases takes longer to develop or to show their symptoms.
Many contend that vaccines are a necessary evil; that we need them to protect our dogs against certain deadly canine diseases. However, our survey found that high percentages of dogs are developing the diseases we vaccinate against, soon after vaccination.
Of dogs with hepatitis, 64% contracted it within three months of being vaccinated and, of those with parainfluenza, 50% developed it within three months of their shots. Also, 69% of dogs with parvovirus, 56% of dogs with distemper, and every single dog with leptospirosis in the survey contracted the diseases within three months of vaccination.
Our figures support the view that vaccines don't confer guaranteed immunity and may actually cause the diseases they're designed to prevent. Our figures appear to demonstrate that vaccines cause illness in one in every hundred dogs - and this is a conservative estimate.
For human beings, the World Health Organization considers a reaction of one in 10,000 unacceptable. Surely the same statistics apply to dogs. Worse - and bordering on corporate dog slaughter - is the fact that we are urged to vaccinate companion animals every year. There is no scientific justification for this; it is a crime.
This research is ongoing. For further details or to participate, contact Canine Health Concern @ Box 6943, Forfar, Angus DD8 3WG, Scotland or, for email, click on my name below.
Thank you.
Catherine O¹Driscoll
Canine Health Concern
-
Heartworm meds.
I do not give heartworm meds or flea meds, ever. I prefer to keep my dogs healthy by not injecting or applying chemicals and poisons to them. If a dog is healthy it's body will handle heartworms. I do not live in an area where mosquitoes are a problem for long periods, so every person will have to look at their situation and comfort level and decide for themselves.
If you do chose to give heartworm preventative, only give it during your areas mosquito season, and not year round. And give it every 45 days instead of 30, the 30 days is recommended because it is easier to remember to give a pill on the first of the month then to figure out every 45 days. But by doing this you can cut down the amount of poison you give your pet by half! And yes, it is a poison.
If your dog contracts heartworm in a lot of cases a dose of heartworm med takes care of them. The horror stories you hear of dogs dieing from the treatment to get rid of them and them having to be kept clam and inactive for months are cases of a huge parasite loads, a dog that has had them for years, usually is a shelter or rescued dog from a bad home that didn't feed or care for the dog.
I am putting a link to a good site that has heartworm season maps that show starting and ending months to give heartworm meds if you decide to and explains a little about the cycle that must take place. (I have attached the maps but please go to the site and read the information also).
http://www.tibetanmastiff.net/Heartworm.html (http://www.tibetanmastiff.net/Heartworm.html)
These maps show what month to Begin Heartworm, and what month to end it.
-
http://www.homeovet.net/content/lifestyle/section4.html#top (http://www.homeovet.net/content/lifestyle/section4.html#top)
Heartworms
This parasite is a source of great anxiety among dog caretakers. (I don't believe that one "owns" a dog.) Thanks in large part to the scare tactics of many veterinarians in promoting preventive drugs, many people believe that contracting heartworms is the equivalent of a death sentence for their dogs. This is not true.
I practiced for seven years in the Santa Cruz, California area, and treated many dogs with heartworms. The only dogs that developed symptoms of heart failure were those that were being vaccinated yearly, eating commercial dog food, and getting suppressive drug treatment for other symptoms, such as skin problems. My treatment, at that time, consisted of switching to a natural (that is, homemade) diet, stopping drug treatment whenever possible, and eliminating any chemical exposure, such as flea and tick poisons. I would usually prescribe hawthorn tincture as well. None of these dogs ever developed any symptoms of heart failure.
I concluded from this that it was not the heartworms that caused disease, but the other factors that damaged the dogs' health to the point that they could no longer compensate for an otherwise tolerable parasite load. It is not really that different from the common intestinal roundworms, in that most dogs do not show any symptoms. Only a dog whose health is compromised is unable to tolerate a few worms. Furthermore, a truly healthy dog would not be susceptible to either type of worm in the first place.
It seems to me that the real problem is that allopathic attitudes have instilled in many of us a fear of disease, fear of pathogens and parasites, fear of rabies, as if these are evil and malicious entities just waiting to lay waste to a naive and unprotected public.
Disease is not caused by viruses or by bacteria or by heartworm-bearing mosquitoes. Disease comes from within, and one aspect of disease can be the susceptibility to various pathogens. So the best thing to do is to address those susceptibilities on the deepest possible level, so that the pathogens will no longer be a threat. Most importantly, don't buy into the fear.
That having been said, there are practical considerations of risk versus benefit in considering heartworm prevention. The risk of a dog contracting heartworms is directly related to geographic location. In heavily infested areas the risk is higher, and the prospect of using a preventive drug more justifiable. Whatever you choose to do, a yearly blood test for heartworm microfilaria is important.
There are basically three choices with regard to heartworm prevention: drugs, nosodes, or nothing.
There are currently a variety of heartworm preventive drugs, most of which are given monthly. I don't like any of them due to their toxicity, the frequency of side effects, and their tendency to antidote homeopathic remedies. Incidentally, the once-a-month preventives should be given only every 6 weeks.
The next option is the heartworm nosode. It has the advantage of at least not being a toxic drug. It has been in use it for over 10 years now, and I am reasonably confident that it is effective. It is certainly very safe. The biggest problem with the nosode is integrating it with homeopathic treatment. But at least it's less of a problem than with the drugs.
The last option, and in my opinion the best, is to do nothing. That is to say, do nothing to specifically prevent heartworm, but rather to minimize the chances of infestation by helping your dog to be healthier, and thereby less susceptible. This means avoiding those things that are detrimental to health, feeding a high quality homemade diet, regular exercise, a healthy emotional environment, and, most of all, constitutional homeopathic treatment. Of course, this will not guarantee that your dog will not get heartworms, but, under these conditions, even the worst-case scenario isn't so terrible. If your dog were to get heartworms, s/he shouldn't develop any symptoms as a result.
For what it's worth, I never gave my dog any type of heartworm preventive, even when we lived in the Santa Cruz area where heartworms were very prevalent. I tested him yearly, and he never had a problem.
-
Allergies - and a site with lots of information on many subjects:
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/petallergies.htm (http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/petallergies.htm)
-
The ProHeart 6:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18137930/from/RS.2/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18137930/from/RS.2/)
Watchdog risked career over pet-drug warning
Speaking up about risky medicine sparked Senate inquiry, got vet demoted
By Jeff Donn
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:22 p.m. ET April 22, 2007
BETHESDA, Md. - The first hints of trouble came with vague warnings from the outer reaches of the bureaucracy.
She was “pushing too hard.”
She was “alarmist.”
But it was something else — a clumsy bid to call her off the scent of the dangerous veterinary drug she was tracking — that really galled her. Maybe that was her last possible moment to keep soundless and safe.
“When enough dogs die, this product will take care of itself,” a colleague said.
Her reply tumbled out like a boulder that, once rolling, will no longer stop. Victoria Hampshire heard herself say: “I don’t know what I’m doing here, then.”
What she was doing — trying to do, at least — was her job: She kept count of side effects from animal drugs for the Food and Drug Administration. She made tallies, analyzed numbers and alerted supervisors when something seemed amiss.
And something seemed amiss that spring of 2004.
A big drugmaker had crafted what seemed a star performer in Proheart 6, a 3-year-old injected drug to prevent heartworm, the common parasite in dogs. Hampshire’s numbers showed, though, that dogs were dying at alarming rates.
What happened next — and the price she paid for speaking up — have spurred a U.S. Senate inquiry and shined a spotlight on the complex topography of drug safety, where interests collide like tectonic plates and squeeze decisions from all sides.
On this landscape, the government’s watchdogs come in disparate breeds, too. Some whimper at approaching trouble; others bark gamely.
And some, like Hampshire, won’t give an inch.
continued... go to link for other pages.....
-
Vaccine injection site fibrosarcoma in canine….imprint this photo on your memory for the next time an allopathic veterinarian tries to convince you that your dog will be made healthier if you allow him to be injected with these toxins.
It is up to you to protect your dog how you see fit…….no one BUT you!!!
-
Whole Dog Journal
November 2006
We’ve come a long way, baby – on paper, at least.
In the past decade, the veterinary profession’s overall attitude toward vaccination has evolved to a point that can be tentatively termed progressive.
In 2002, the American Veterinary Medical Association issued a policy statement that urged veterinarians to “customize” vaccine protocols for individual patients, since there is “inadequate data to scientifically determine a single best protocol” for initial or repeat vaccinations. A year later, the prestigious American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) released its landmark canine vaccination guidelines, which were updated in 2006. The AAHA guidelines separate vaccines into different categories – core, noncore, and not recommended at all – and suggest that veterinarians revaccinate for core diseases such as parvovirus and distemper no more than every three years. Most veterinary universities have followed suit, teaching their graduates that, depending on the disease in question, yearly vaccines are now the exception, not the rule.
But while the idea of “annual shots” should be as antiquated as wringer washing machines, it is alive and well among some veterinarians who either have not taken the time to understand the new paradigm – or have chosen to ignore it.
“We haven’t gone anywhere in some cases, and I think there are several reasons,” says veterinary immunologist W. Jean Dodds of Santa Monica, California. One of them is simply inertia.
“The veterinary profession has been convinced for so long that vaccines were essential,” and that sort of thinking is hard to change, particularly when vaccine labels can be misleading, says Dr. Dodds. “I think veterinarians assume the label [identifying a given vaccine as a one-year product] is a requirement, and interpret it more strongly than the vaccine companies intended,” Dodds says. “And the companies don’t try to dissuade them because that’s what the USDA has told them to say.”
Bureaucracy aside, many veterinarians and veterinary practice managers may be concerned that abandoning annual vaccinations will hurt their practices’ bottom line. Bob Rogers, a veterinarian and vaccination critic from Spring, Texas, refutes that fear. When he switched to a reduced vaccination schedule, “my vaccine income dropped 7 percent, but my overall income went up 20 percent. When people find out they don’t have to spend a whole lot on vaccines, they spend that money on something the dog really needs, like teeth cleaning.”
One impetus for reevaluating vaccine protocols has been concern over adverse vaccine reactions, both acute and chronic. All veterinarians recognize signs such as anaphylactic shock (a severe allergic reaction), or flu-like symptoms such as low-grade fever, malaise, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. But they may not make the connection between vaccinations and temperament changes (particularly after the rabies vaccine), seizures, autoimmune diseases such as hemolytic anemia and thrombocytopenia (reduced platelet count), or hypertrophic osteodystrophy (severe lameness in young growing dogs), which may surface weeks or months after vaccination.
And many owners are equally oblivious. “If an owner sees her dog hiding under the table after a vaccination, or the dog doesn’t want to be touched, they don’t call their vet with that information,” Dr. Dodds says, but instead might dismiss it as the dog having an “off” day.
Dr. Dodds notes that some advocates for minimal vaccination have done more harm than good by overstating the issue, implying that virtually everything is caused by what’s in that syringe.
“Many environmental challenges can cause problems, and vaccines are just one of them,” says Dodds, ticking off other possible suspects, such as topical flea and tick products, and environmental pesticides and insecticides.
Personal experience is a powerful motivator, and some vets insist on vaccinating annually for diseases such as parvo because they remember the widespread fatalities when the disease was prevalent decades ago. Dr. Ron Schultz, chair and professor of pathobiological science at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Veterinary Medicine in Madison, notes that the flip side is true, too: Veterinarians whose own animals experience vaccine reactions are reluctant to reflexively vaccinate.
“Boy, are they ever believers,” says Dr. Schultz, who was a member of the AAHA task force that revised the 2006 guidelines. “As I often remind them, ‘When it was your animal, you didn’t care whether this occurs in one out of 10,000 animals, did you? It was your one.’”
Core vaccines
The 2006 AAHA canine vaccination guidelines single out four vaccines that are “musts” for every puppy: canine hepatitis (the adenovirus-2 vaccine), distemper, parvovirus, and rabies.
The guidelines recommend that the first three vaccines in that list be administered in a three-part puppy series, boostered at one year, then readministered no more than every three years.
Schultz notes that “no more than” could also be interpreted to mean “never again.” He points to studies that show that dogs properly immunized in puppyhood maintain lifetime immunity to canine hepatitis, distemper, and parvovirus.
“Every three years is probably a completely arbitrary number,” Dr. Rogers adds. “I’ve told my clients that after one year of age they don’t need to vaccinate anymore.” Rogers estimates that in nine years, he has used this protocol on some 30,000 dogs – “and I haven’t had one vaccine ‘break’ [failure].”
But he has seen a welcome decrease in adverse reactions. Dr. Rogers says he used to see at least one animal a week suffering from an adverse reaction to a vaccination. Now he’s down to three a year – almost always Dachshunds, a breed that he finds particularly vulnerable to vaccine reactions.
Other at-risks breeds include Akitas, Weimaraners, Standard Poodles, American Eskimo Dogs, Old English Sheepdogs, Irish Setters, Kerry Blue Terriers, and Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.
Even if a veterinarian is reluctant to stop vaccinating for these core diseases after the one-year booster, Schultz says that “every one of the major vaccine manufacturers has demonstrated that their current product, or one they’ve had for quite some time, has a minimum duration of immunity for three years,” regardless of what the label says.
“Only one company actually did it in a way that allows them to put ‘three year’ on the label according to USDA requirements, but it’s meaningless,” he says. In other words, parvo, distemper and canine hepatitis vaccines labeled “one year” have been proven to be effective for at least three.
Schultz also reminds that “other than rabies, there is no requirement to vaccinate with anything. And there’s no legal implication to any vaccine label with regard to duration of immunity, except for rabies.”
Why rabies is different
As those caveats suggest, the fourth core vaccine, rabies, offers far less wiggle room, because its administration is dictated by state laws – laws that were put into place to prevent this zoonotic disease from being transmitted to humans (see sidebar, left). An annual rabies “shot” was once the norm; in recent years, most states have changed their laws to allow a three-year vaccine, though there are a few stragglers that stick to annual rabies vaccination requirements. The one-year and three-year vaccines on the market are actually the same product, capable of conveying the same duration of immune response. But vaccines that are labeled “one year” satisfy the legal requirement for rabies vaccination for only that long. Legally, a dog who receives a one-year vaccine must get vaccinated again a year later, even if he lives in a state with a three-year law, and even if titer tests indicate that he’s protected against rabies.
To defend your dog against needless (and in the opinion of holistic veterinarians, potentially harmful) overvaccination against rabies, it’s imperative that you know the rabies requirement in your state. If you live in a state with a three-year law, make sure your veterinarian administers a three-year vaccine.
Also be sure to check your records; in an effort to increase client compliance, some veterinarians mail out rabies revaccination reminders after only two years to avoid a lapse in the three-year coverage that a given state law mandates.
Dr. Dodds notes that the rabies vaccine causes the greatest number of adverse reactions. As a result, owners of chronically ill dogs, or those who have had previous vaccine reactions, might want to consider applying for a rabies waiver.
To obtain a rabies waiver, the dog’s primary-care veterinarian must write a letter indicating why vaccinating the dog in question would be an unsound medical decision based on his health status. Though a rabies titer is not required – and can be expensive, from $75 to $150, depending on your location – Dodds nonetheless recommends doing one.
“Let’s say down the road there is an allegation that your dog bit someone,” she says. Even if the owner has obtained a rabies waiver, it does not exempt the dog from the possibility of being euthanized so that his brain can be examined – the only definitive diagnostic test for rabies. “If you’ve got the titer as proof that the animal has immunity, then the animal won’t be automatically impounded or destroyed.”
Dodds notes that some municipalities, such as Los Angeles County, have decided not to accept rabies waivers. Others will tell callers that they do not, but on receipt of the vet’s letter and titer the responsible public health official will review the case and may issue one anyway.
Because relatively few people request them, rabies waivers are a murky area that municipalities handle on a case-by-case basis. But Dr. Dodds worries about those owners who apply for them even though they do not have a sick dog; instead, they simply believe that the rabies vaccine has a longer duration of immunity than three years, and that the law is requiring them to overvaccinate.
While Dodds might agree in theory (the proposed rabies challenge study she and others are actively pursuing hopes to prove just that), she can’t condone the practice. As their numbers grow, such noncompliant owners increase the risk of triggering legislation that might bar the practice of waivers altogether – and in the process force their ill and immunocompromised counterparts to submit to vaccinations that could make them sicker, or worse.
Noncore vaccines
While the AAHA guidelines do not consider core vaccinations negotiable, noncore vaccine are, with their use determined by a dog’s risk factors.
One looming consideration is geography: In many parts of the country, leptospirosis and Lyme disease are simply not prevalent. But in areas where these “noncore” diseases are endemic, owners are faced with tough decisions about less-than-perfect vaccines.
For example, leptospirosis, which is most often spread through contact with the urine of an infected animal, has 200 different serovars, or strains. Only four strains (icterohaemorrhagiae, canicola, grippo-typhosa, and pomona) are covered by vaccines, which themselves are notoriously shortlived.
“The antibodies only last a short time n the body; they can be measured only by titers for one to two months, and [the titer levels] are low in the first place,” Dodds says. The vaccine manufacturers, in turn, maintain that a vaccinated dog is protected by its cell-mediated immunity, which cannot be measured by titers.
For dogs at high risk for leptospirosis, which has diffuse symptoms and can cause liver and kidney failure if caught too late, Schultz recommends using the four-strain vaccine instead of the two-strain product (which addresses the icterohaemorrhagiae and canicola serovars), first at 14 to 15 weeks (but not before 12 weeks), repeated two to four weeks later. Subsequent doses are administered at 6 months and one year, and thereafter every six to nine months. Even so, Schultz notes, “I find there’s still a fairly high percentage of dogs that do not respond to the vaccine.” Plus, of all the bacterin vaccines, leptospirosis causes the most adverse reactions. (For this reason, many holistic veterinarianss administer it separately and weeks apart from other vaccines, a practice they recommend with the rabies vaccine as well.)
The pros and cons of the Lyme vaccine are not any easier to navigate. In some areas where the disease is endemic, Schultz says practitioners are no longer vaccinating because they believe they are seeing as many vaccinated dogs with clinical disease as unvaccinated ones.
Instead of administering the vaccine, some owners are choosing to treat their dogs prophylactically with antibiotics if they suspect a tick bite. Regardless, good tick preventive is key, whether it’s in the form of an insect-repelling herbal spray or a systemic flea and tick product, though the more holistically oriented tend to avoid the latter because it exposes a dog’s body to still more chemicals. If owners choose to vaccinate for Lyme, both Dodds and Schultz recommend using the recombinant vaccine instead of the older bacterin one, which can cause symptoms similar to the disease itself, such as lameness and joint pain.
The recombinant vaccine does not contain the additional antigens that are in the bacterin vaccine, but instead contains only outer surface protein A, the antigen that inactivates the tick when it takes its blood meal, which is the point at which the disease is transmitted. As a rule of thumb, Schultz does not recommend the vaccine for dogs living in an area where the rate of infection is less than 10 percent. “Greater than 50 or 60 percent, then give it some serious thought.”
In the case of both Lyme and leptospirosis, which can be treated with early invention and antibiotic therapy, Dodds says that involved, observant owners who note any early and sometimes vague symptoms can literally save their dogs’ lives.
The condition commonly known as “kennel cough” is addressed by other noncore vaccines, including canine para-influenza virus (notated as CPiV or simply called parainfluenza) and Bordetella.
Unfortunately, few dog owners understand that kennel cough is a complex syndrome rather than an individual disease attributable to one specific pathogen. In addition to a buffet line of various viruses and bacteria (including the two mentioned above), factors that make a dog susceptible to kennel cough include stress, humidity, gasses such as ammonia from unhygienic environments, and nitrous oxide from exhaust fumes. That’s why a dog who received a parainfluenza or Bordetella vaccine may well still contract kennel cough.
Dogs who get out a lot, such as those who visit dog parks or dog shows, will be regularly exposed to many factors that can cause kennel cough. These exposures, in essence, will “vaccinate” the dog naturally, as his immune system learns to recognize and mount a defense against the ubiquitous pathogens. In contrast, dogs who lead highly sheltered, nonsocial lives may become quite ill in the rare event that they are exposed to the kennel-cough pathogens. “If any dog needed a kennel-cough vaccine, it would be one that’s never around another animal,” says Dr. Schultz. If such a dog had to be kenneled unexpectedly, a dose of the intranasal Bordetella vaccine might not prevent the disease entirely, but it could mitigate its severity, which is better than nothing. According to Dr. Schultz, when properly immunized dogs are exposed to infectious material of those “core” diseases, he is confident they will not contract the disease. He can’t say the same for leptospirosis, Lyme disease, or kennel cough; the existing vaccines are just not that effective or long-lived.
Dr. Schultz concludes about noncore vaccines, “No matter what you do, there’s going to be a risk. And that’s what we really have to measure.”
Not recommended vaccines
AAHA has various reasons for putting a vaccine in its “not recommended” category. One is simply a “lack of experience and paucity of field validation of efficacy,” which is the case with the vaccines for rattlesnake bites and periodontal disease.
The giardia vaccine is on the “no” list because it does not prevent a dog from getting infected – only from shedding the disease. Similarly, the adenovirus-1 vaccine earns the red light because it can cause “blue eye,” a clouding of the cornea, and because the core adenovirus-2 vaccine already protects against it.
In the case of coronavirus, the AAHA task force made the point that the disease is simply not prevalent enough to warrant vaccinating for it.
“People don’t have a clue that coronavirus doesn’t make dogs sick,” says Dr. Rogers, noting that puppies less than six weeks old develop a loose orangey stool that resolves on its own within 24 hours. “Puppies over six weeks of age are immune to it whether vaccinated or not.”
Indeed, he says, vaccine companies have had difficulty testing the vaccine on sick dogs because none can manage to contract it. But the vaccine can be licensed by the USDA because it does prompt a dog’s body to produce coronavirus antibodies.
Managing your veterinarian
Even if your veterinarian continues to recommend annual vaccines, as a client and consumer you have the right to request a different protocol. Depending on your approach, the veterinarian might be more willing to modify his or her suggested vaccine schedule. But some can prove to be stubbornly entrenched in their position on vaccination. Schultz’s own secretary was fortunate when she was unable to get past her veterinarian’s insistence on revaccinating her dogs. In frustration, she handed the phone to Dr. Schultz, who has the same sort of name recognition in veterinary circles as Tom Cruise does in most American households. After a brief exchange, Schultz returned the receiver to his secretary, who now found the vet more than willing to accede to her request for a minimal vaccine schedule. For those who cannot put one of the world’s foremost veterinary immunologists on the horn with their vet, Schultz recommends the next best thing: printing out the AAHA canine vaccination guidelines, highlighting the pertinent information, and bringing them along to the appointment.
“It really works; it helps,” he says. “AAHA is an esteemed organization that sets the highest standards for small-animal practice. Here’s what its expert panel recommends. How do you argue with that?”
The fact that you might have to argue – or at least debate – with your veterinarian to arrive at an appropriate vaccine schedule might be regrettable, but it’s hardly unexpected, given the very human resistance to change. “It’s an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one,” Schultz concludes. “Nothing is revolutionary in medicine.”
Donations to the Rabies Challenge Fund can be sent care of Hemopet, 11330 Markon Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841; for info, see dogsadversereactions.com/rabieschallenge.html.
Denise Flaim has two raw-fed Rhodesian Ridgebacks. The New Yorker is the author of The Holistic Dog Book: Canine Care for the 21st Century (Howell, $17). See "Resources" for purchasing information.
-
A good site to browse around on many different topics:
http://www.aunaturelk9s.com/about.html (http://www.aunaturelk9s.com/about.html)
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10328440&dopt=Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=10328440&dopt=Abstract)
Long-term immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated trivalent vaccine.
* Scott FW,
* Geissinger CM.
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate duration of immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine of feline panleukopenia virus (FPV), feline herpesvirus (FHV), and feline calicivirus (FCV). ANIMALS: 17 cats. PROCEDURE: Immunity of 9 vaccinated and 8 unvaccinated cats (of an original 15 vaccinated and 17 unvaccinated cats) was challenged 7.5 years after vaccination. Specific-pathogen-free (SPF) cats were vaccinated at 8 and 12 weeks old and housed in isolation facilities. Offspring of vaccinated cats served as unvaccinated contact control cats. Virus neutralization tests were used to determine antibody titers yearly. Clinical responses were recorded, and titers were determined weekly after viral challenge. RESULTS: Control cats remained free of antibodies against FPV, FHV, and FCV and did not have infection before viral challenge. Vaccinated cats had high FPV titers throughout the study and solid protection against virulent FPV 7.5 years after vaccination. Vaccinated cats were seropositive against FHV and FCV for 3 to 4 years after vaccination, with gradually declining titers. Vaccinated cats were protected partially against viral challenge with virulent FHV. Relative efficacy of the vaccine, on the basis of reduction of clinical signs of disease, was 52%. Results were similar after FCV challenge, with relative efficacy of 63%. Vaccination did not prevent local mild infection or shedding of FHV or FCV. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of immunity after vaccination with an inactivated, adjuvanted vaccine was > 7 years. Protection against FPV was better than for FHV and FCV. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Persistence of antibody titers against all 3 viruses for > 3 years supports recommendations that cats may be revaccinated against FPV-FHV-FCV at 3-year intervals.
PMID: 10328440 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-
Hey Toots, whats your feelings about general injection sites like allergy shots? Can it cause tumors like other injections (ie annual shots) can in dogs?
-
Hey Toots, whats your feelings about general injection sites like allergy shots? Can it cause tumors like other injections (ie annual shots) can in dogs?
I did a quick search and could find no reference to this, BUT that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I did find this though:
'Armed with the results of the intradermal tests, your veterinarian can develop a vaccine or vaccines specifically for your dog that contains the trouble-some allergens. The goal of hyposensitization is to reduce the dog's allergic response by injecting it with increasing doses of the allergens.
Although the therapy does not produce a cure, Nesbitt says that about three out of every four dogs that are treated experience from "excellent" to "fair" results, beginning within a few weeks or months after initiating treatment. After the early "loading" phase in the first one to two months, your dog will require weekly or monthly "maintenance" injections for the rest of its life. Most veterinarians like to teach their clients how to administer the vaccines to make it both more convenient and cost-effective. Nesbitt says that more than 90 percent of his clients give their own dogs' allergy injections. "One key to success is frequent communication between the owner and the veterinarian," Nesbittt says. "Allergy treatment is highly individualized and requires micro-management so as to know when and how to vary the dosage or frequency of treatment." '
Allergy shots would need to be given for the rest of his life, and this can be costly. Is this for food or inhalant allergies? Now I know we have discussed raw before and you don't think it is for you, but probably for the cost to upkeep his allergy treatments you could probably buy preground raw food that you could just plop in his bowl. Overall that would also build up his immune system and make him healthier. check out:
www.aplaceforpaws.com for some pricing, for dogs with allergies I recommend staying away from the mixes with veggies. You could always give it a try for a month or 2, and go to shots later if no relief is found.
I just haven't heard great things about allergy shots for dogs, it may work,or may not, or not completely, then people turn to pred which is a nasty drug long term.
-
I did a quick search and could find no reference to this, BUT that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I did find this though:
'Armed with the results of the intradermal tests, your veterinarian can develop a vaccine or vaccines specifically for your dog that contains the trouble-some allergens. The goal of hyposensitization is to reduce the dog's allergic response by injecting it with increasing doses of the allergens.
Although the therapy does not produce a cure, Nesbitt says that about three out of every four dogs that are treated experience from "excellent" to "fair" results, beginning within a few weeks or months after initiating treatment. After the early "loading" phase in the first one to two months, your dog will require weekly or monthly "maintenance" injections for the rest of its life. Most veterinarians like to teach their clients how to administer the vaccines to make it both more convenient and cost-effective. Nesbitt says that more than 90 percent of his clients give their own dogs' allergy injections. "One key to success is frequent communication between the owner and the veterinarian," Nesbittt says. "Allergy treatment is highly individualized and requires micro-management so as to know when and how to vary the dosage or frequency of treatment." '
Allergy shots would need to be given for the rest of his life, and this can be costly. Is this for food or inhalant allergies? Now I know we have discussed raw before and you don't think it is for you, but probably for the cost to upkeep his allergy treatments you could probably buy preground raw food that you could just plop in his bowl. Overall that would also build up his immune system and make him healthier. check out:
www.aplaceforpaws.com for some pricing, for dogs with allergies I recommend staying away from the mixes with veggies. You could always give it a try for a month or 2, and go to shots later if no relief is found.
I just haven't heard great things about allergy shots for dogs, it may work,or may not, or not completely, then people turn to pred which is a nasty drug long term.
Thanks baby your the best! 8)
-
http://web.archive.org/web/20040605095457/bullovedbulldogs.com/heartworm.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040605095457/bullovedbulldogs.com/heartworm.htm)
When a mosquito bites a dog harboring microfilariae, the mosquito ingests the L1 larvae, or microfilariae. This can only happen if the dog is also harboring the L6, or mature adult heartworm, because the microfilariae are the offspring of the adult heartworm. These microfilariae can live for up two years in the dog’s blood without causing any harm. They must, however, be taken up by a mosquito in order to develop any further. If they are not, they will simply die of old age and be passed out of the system.
Once the mosquito ingests the microfilariae from the infected dog, the larvae must go through two stages of development, or molts, changing from L1 to L2 and from L2 to L3, while in the mosquitoe’s system before the mosquito can infect another dog. Once the L3 stage has been reached the larvae migrate to the mosquitoe’s mouth. It is only the L3 larvae which are capable of infecting another dog. This mosquito cycle takes anywhere from two weeks to about a month depending on the weather. The warmer the weather, the faster the development. If the larvae haven’t made the final development by then, they never will because the mosquito dies of old age at about 35 days, and along with the mosquito, die the larvae.
The importance of temperature: While the larvae are developing in the mosquito, development continues only when the temperature is above 64 degrees F. Further, the temperature MUST remain above 57 degrees Fahrenheit at all times, day and night during the entire mosquito cycle. If at any time during the development into the L3 stage, the temperature drops below 57 F, the development is aborted and must start over. Remember, it is only the L3 larvae which are capable of infesting your dog.
Now let’s say that a mosquito has bitten an infested dog; and that the temperature has remained above 57 degrees F for a minimum of 14 days since that bite; and that the mosquito bites your dog. Still, your dog is not infested because the L3 larvae are deposited in a tiny droplet of mosquito saliva adjacent to the bite, not injected into your dog by the mosquito--as many would have us believe. Providing the humidity and temperature are such that the droplet does not evaporate before the they get the chance, the L3 larvae must swim through the saliva and into the hole left by the mosquito bite, thereby entering your dog’s system.
Once inside your dog, the L3 larvae must spend the next two weeks or so developing into the L4 larvae. During this period of time the larvae are living in the subcutaneous tissue just under the skin, not in the blood of the newly infected dog. The L4 will continue to live and develop in the subcutaneous tissue for the next two to three months, where they develop into the L5 stage. Once they make this development or molt into the L5 or young adult stage, they then leave the subcutaneous tissue and enter the blood stream. The L5 or young adults then migrate to the heart and pulmonary arteries where they make their final development into the L6 or mature, breeding, adult stage and attach to the tissue of the heart and pulmonary arteries. Once there, approximately 5 to 7 months after entering the dog’s body, they will mate. This mating produces the microfilariae.
If the dog is not re-infested with L3 larvae from another bite from another infected mosquito, the adult heartworm will die of old age in about 2 years. The microfilaria will also die a natural death unless taken up by a mosquito.
-
Heartworm meds.
I do not give heartworm meds or flea meds, ever. I prefer to keep my dogs healthy by not injecting or applying chemicals and poisons to them. If a dog is healthy it's body will handle heartworms. I do not live in an area where mosquitoes are a problem for long periods, so every person will have to look at their situation and comfort level and decide for themselves.
If you do chose to give heartworm preventative, only give it during your areas mosquito season, and not year round. And give it every 45 days instead of 30, the 30 days is recommended because it is easier to remember to give a pill on the first of the month then to figure out every 45 days. But by doing this you can cut down the amount of poison you give your pet by half! And yes, it is a poison.
If your dog contracts heartworm in a lot of cases a dose of heartworm med takes care of them. The horror stories you hear of dogs dieing from the treatment to get rid of them and them having to be kept clam and inactive for months are cases of a huge parasite loads, a dog that has had them for years, usually is a shelter or rescued dog from a bad home that didn't feed or care for the dog.
I am putting a link to a good site that has heartworm season maps that show starting and ending months to give heartworm meds if you decide to and explains a little about the cycle that must take place. (I have attached the maps but please go to the site and read the information also).
http://www.tibetanmastiff.net/Heartworm.html (http://www.tibetanmastiff.net/Heartworm.html)
These maps show what month to Begin Heartworm, and what month to end it.
Flower, with all due respect, I strongly disagree with this post. I do agree with most of what is said in this thread about vaccinations... owners need to carefully consider the vaccinations that the veterinarian is recommending, the veterinarian needs to be able to justify the use based upon disease risk of every single vaccination that they are giving, and considering measuring titers is something that is not unreasonable, however owners need to understand this is a more expensive process and need to be willing to pay for the costs. Owners also need to understand that veterinarians are legally bound by the label of the vaccination---therefore if the vaccine is labeled as needing to be bostered annually, the veterinarian legally has to tell the owner that the vaccine should be boostered annually. Its a difficult area because the drug companies test no vaccines past 3 years---and those are only a few select rabies vaccinations, although vaccines labeled as biannual--every 2 years--is becoming more and more common.
As far as the heartworm recommendations, what is posted in this thread is borderline asanine. Heartworm disease is a killer...its that simple. I grew up in the riverbottoms of the Missouri and Gasconade river in Missouri. When I was a kid, I thought dogs only lived 5 or 6 years, because that was how long the dogs we had on the farm lived before heartworm disease killed them. An old dog lived 9 years. It wasn't until I was a teenager that heartworm preventative became more readily available and the dogs started living their full lives. Heartworm does not distinguish between "healthy" and "not healthy". If a dog is bitten by a mosquito with heartworm, that dog has a very, very good chance of developing heartworm disease. Their immune systems will not "handle the infection".
I don't necessarily disagree with only giving heartworm preventative during "mosquito season" however, you need to be very, very careful with that statement. I have seen heartworm positive dogs where I know without a doubt that the dog recieved heartworm preventative only between March and October in a part of the US where that was the mosquito season. Mosquitos can come out of dormancy during unusual winter warm spells or during an early spring or late fall. Its better in my opinion to error on the side of caution and give the preventative year round. You also need to remember that all heartworm prevetatives---Interceptor, Heartguard, and Revolution (which I personally dont' like--but thats for personal reasons) also prevent common types of intestinal parasites. This is an added bonus which can be a real issue in some dogs considering their susceptability----ie "farm" dogs, kenneled dogs, others at a high risk of exposure to hook worms and/or other intestinal parasites.
You also need to remember that the manufacturers of Heartguard and Interceptor have traditionally paid for treatment of heartworm disease IF the owner has proof they have administered the drugs per label instructions. This is every 30 days. These drugs don't "prevent" heartworm, rather they kill the microfilaria that the dog or cat has been exposed to since the last time the drug was administered. Stretching that time frame out to 45 days gives a longer period of time for the worm to develop to a stage where the preventative may become less effective. You have a bit of leeway, but its walking a real tightrope in areas where heartworm disease is endemic. Because of this, I can't recommend it.
The horror stories you hear of dogs dieing from the treatment to get rid of them and them having to be kept clam and inactive for months are cases of a huge parasite loads, a dog that has had them for years, usually is a shelter or rescued dog from a bad home that didn't feed or care for the dog.
This is a pure bullshit statement. I've seen heartworm positive dogs come from very, very loving families that simply missed a couple of doses of heartworm preventative. Heartworm doesn't distinguish the loving nature or the socioeconomic status of the owners. If you live in an endemic area, your pets are at risk of getting this disease. And don't kid yourself into thinking that since your dog or cat lives indoors its at any less of a risk. I've seen heartworm positive dogs in the middle of New York City where they only time they ever even went outside was once a month when the owners drove out to the Hamptons for the weekend. Mosquitos can and do get indoors and if they are indoors they can bite your dog or cat.
The success of treatment of heartworm disease depends upon the severity of the disease. Heartworm disease is distinguished into distinct stages based upon the degree of heart failure the dog is in. A dog that has no clinical signs and a low circulating microfilarial load has a much better chance than a dog that has progressed to heartfailure. Ive seen heart failure develop within a time frame of 2 months---while the owners were saving money for treatment. The reason for keeping the dogs calm and inactive is totally dependant upon the degree of heart failure that the dog has. Obviously a dog with full blown heart failure has to have restricted activity post treatment. That dog also needs to have its heart failure treated.
Also remember, one heartworm is all it takes to kill a cat or a ferret and the most common clinical sign of heartworm disease in cats and ferrets is suddent death.
-
Hey Toots, whats your feelings about general injection sites like allergy shots? Can it cause tumors like other injections (ie annual shots) can in dogs?
There is absolutely no research that I'm aware of that associates allergy treatment with injection site sarcomas. These types of tumors are rare in dogs, relatively uncommon, but very aggressive, in domestic cats, have been reported in exotic dog and cat species and ferrets. They have all been associated with vaccinations..... that said, there is one reasearcher that a few years ago, was trying to establish an association with simply penetrating the skin with a needle. To the best of my knowledge, that reasearch didn't prove anything.
Also, be very, very wary of the "depo" "cortisone" "prednisone" type "Allergy" shots many veterinarians administer. These corticosteroid drugs are very, very different than immunomodulation that is used to desensitize dogs to allergens.
-
Are you aware that heartworm positive dogs have tested negative months later with NO treatment? If you will notice I have given information, pros and cons, along with encouraging further research on all these topics. Something most vets do not do. I am glad you stand behind the manufacturers instead of the welfare of your clients and not tell them heartguard can be given every 45 days and be effective, that the 30 days is for ease of remembrance for the owner. Were you in favor of Proheart 6? Despite all the evidence it was damaging pets? What a debacle that was. Yet some vets would still gladly inject their clients up if they could.
Owners also need to understand that veterinarians are legally bound by the label of the vaccination
As far as reading the manufacturers recommendations on the labels with vaccines, yes more vets should do that. How many vets give vacs at the same time as surgery? How many update when the animal is showing signs of a chronic problem? And what does the manufacturer label state: ONLY VACCINATE HEALTHY ANIMALS.
Its a difficult area because the drug companies test no vaccines past 3 years---and those are only a few select rabies vaccinations, although vaccines labeled as biannual--every 2 years--is becoming more and more common.
2 years? The current "protocols" are every 3 years for all core vaccines? And duration of immunity studies point to much longer (possibly lifetime) immunity. And you know (or should know) that the 1 year rabies and 3 year rabies is the same stuff, different label.
A vet telling me that it wouldn't hurt my ferret to get updated even though he had had adrenal surgery less than 2 months ago and still had a swollen prostate. This was before I became aware that vaccines are not as harmless as we are led to believe. I questioned the vet on if we should wait til he was healthy and was told there was no reason to, it wouldn't hurt him. Then the other adrenal became diseased even though it had appeared fine during the other surgery. 6 months later (most of that spent at the vets on fluids) and my ferret had kidney damage and suffered renal failure. But he was protected from distemper and rabies thankfully!
I have sat in the vet's office and heard the receptionist schedule a spay, a declaw and vaccinations all for the same visit. That is malpractice, IMO. How many people are told their pet must be "up to date" for surgery and they can do it at the same time? For whose protection? Not the animal's the vaccine won't be affective for about 2 weeks, and neither for any of the other animals at the vets. In fact it will make the animal more susceptible to disease because of that assault on the immune system, coupled with the surgery, and the stress of having surgery.
My male dane at 4months of age tore a tendon (he had been vaccinated 3 times by the time he was 8 weeks old, against my explicit instructions he was to get no vaccinations. After having fallen in love with him and then finding that out the day I was to bring him home I was faced with taking a puppy I knew was going to have health problems or abandon him. I took him, and it cost me 3grand for ortho surgery and about $50 a month now to keep him on joint sups for that leg. I am assuming that you are aware that the distemper vaccine has been linked to joint problems?). When I took him at 4mos of age to get xrays to find out what was going on with that knee the vet asked if I wanted to neuter him as long as he was going to have to be under anesthesia anyways. I flatly refused because 1) he is a great dane and at 4 months of age to even suggest neutering should be a crime, and 2) the puppy had a messed up knee and was probably going to need surgery, let his body focus on one thing at a time please! Did I really need to explain this to that vet?
The 1 year and the 3 year rabies vaccine is the same vaccination, different label. But if you were given the one year instead of the 3 year, sorry, your vet will tell you you need to do it again one year later, knowing full well that is not true. Whose best interest is the vet concerned for?
People need to be, and are starting to be more proactive with their own health and their pets. Vets should educate them on the current studies out there and the growing evidence that overvaccinating, overpoisoning, is harming our pets. Do you inform your clients (if you are a vet) of the dangers of overvaccinating? Do you let them know that there are duration of immunity studies out there showing that vaccines last much much longer (and maybe lifetime) than the recommended 3 years? Do you tell them that even the AVMA has acknowledged that there is no scientific reasoning behind boosters? They went to every 3 years because so many vets complained about the loss of income from not pushing annual vaccinations. It was a "compromise" to placate the vets. Schultz and Dodds do a great juggling act of trying to get information out there while still staying in the good graces of the veterinary profession. I hope one day, maybe when they are retired, they won't be held back from stating what they really think, instead of having to hedge a little in their opinions.
Full disclosure is not very forthcoming from most vets. I am no vet, but I try and direct people to actual studies, and to give information on both sides of the coin so that they can make an INFORMED decision. And to encourage them to do further research.
Today's vets better get with the program. People are not going to blindly take what the vet tells them as gospel, not when their is evidence the recommendations are outdated and potentially harmful to their pets.
-
I don't know about anybody else, but if I can give 1/2 the dose of poison over the course of a year, I think that is better for the animals health.
http://www.vetinfo4dogs.com/doghw.html#Heartworm%20medication%20-%20lapse%20in%20medication (http://www.vetinfo4dogs.com/doghw.html#Heartworm%20medication%20-%20lapse%20in%20medication)
"Heartworm medication - lapse in medication
The monthly heartworm preventatives work to kill heartworm larvae that are 45 days or less in age and probably closer to 50 days. Since an every 45 day dose would be hard to remember and provide no leeway for error, the pills are approved for monthly use. We tell clients to give another pill if they are unable to remember if they dosed their pet and we can not help them determine if that happened based on our records (usually we can help in a single dog family but it is harder when several dogs are on the same pills in a household). We just check the dates the medication is sold and count pills from there. Administering another pill is safe if one was given at the beginning of a month because the medication is not time release. It doesn't last in the body a month it just kills all the heartworm larvae that have accumulated in the last 30 days. It is pretty much completely cleared from the body in 72 hours. Since it takes 6 months for heartworms to develop to the age they can be tested for an immediate heartworm test is not necessary prior to restarting the medication. It is a very good idea to check for heartworms 6 months or so after a lapse in preventative medications.
Mike Richards, DVM"
"The monthly medications are Heartgard and Interceptor. Heartgard is
Ivermectin and Interceptor is Milbemycin Oxime. These medications work by killing any larvae that have entered the dog up to 45 days ago. They kill L3s, 4s, and 5s. These drugs are given monthly (30 days) for the convenience of giving on the same day each month and also to give you a safety margin. If you forget to give your dog his/her heartworm medication, you have about 15 days to remember to give it and the dog will still be protected. With the daily medication, forgetting for more than a day may result in your dog becoming infected."
-
All Veterinary Schools in North America Changing Vaccination Protocols
"Recent editions of the Senior Dogs Project's newsletter have reported on the ever-broadening trend of eliminating vaccinations for adult dogs, except for rabies, where required by state law. We have now had a report that all 27 veterinary schools in North America are in the process of changing their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats. Here, in a nutshell, are the new guidelines under consideration: "Dogs and cats immune systems mature fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus (MLV) vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet (i.e., canine distemper, parvo, feline distemper). If another MLV accine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titer is not 'boosted' nor are more memory cells induced."
"Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines. Puppies receive antibodies through their mothers milk. This natural protection can last 8-14 weeks. Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at LESS than 8 weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralize the vaccine and little protection (0-38%) will be produced. Vaccination at 6 weeks will, however, delay the timing of the first highly effective vaccine. Vaccinations given 2 weeks apart suppress rather than stimulate the immune system. A series of vaccinations is given starting at 8 weeks and given 3-4 weeks apart up to 16 weeks of age. Another vaccination given sometime after 6 months of age (usually at 1 year 4 months) will provide lifetime immunity."
-
Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
Story date: 03/02/2005
By Kay Liss
A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday in Augusta. Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one hand and veterinarians opposed on the other.
The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.
She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed, extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years. Language exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.
This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an important next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with scientifically-based information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine vaccines, specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot, recommended annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she came upon information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for much longer than a year.
First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee at the hearing, Christine began: “Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health.”
Her testimony was bolstered by information from various authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading researcher and authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific basis of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.”
In the American Veterinarian Medical Association’s Principles of Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events” including “autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”
Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren, Jennifer Pearson, said she was “baffled” by the resistance of the veterinarians to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples’ rights are recognized to know the risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet owners be recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.
Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge, testified that the disclosure forms would provide a “safeguard” to dogs and cats. He added that he didn’t see why supplying such a disclosure form should be a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of the pros and cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay Sukforth of Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should welcome such a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.
Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a “period of transition” and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux that it would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure form. He said he didn’t want to turn “our profession” into managed care. He also accused the Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian community.
When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a Veterinary News magazine article “It’s time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it,” Bryant appeared hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised but did not support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian associations.
Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients information about vaccines so didn’t need to provide disclosure forms. A number claimed to be just like “James Herriot,” the well-known veterinarian and author of “All Creatures Great and Small” who has become a symbol of the ideal, trustworthy vet.
A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged legislators to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines, and that possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.
Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.
-
I wish more vets were this outspoken and up to date:
Vet sues due to over vaccination of dogs and cats
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers, DVM
5703 Louetta Spring, Texas 77379
281-370-3262
April 17, 2002
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Dear Sirs,
I hereby file 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.
I assert that 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 in this state.
Recommending, administering, and charging for Canine Corona vaccinations for adult dogs is fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. Dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to canine corona virus disease. Disease produced by canine corona virus has never been demonstrated in adult dogs. Dogs over eight weeks of age that are immunized against canine parvovirus will not develop symptoms of canine corona virus disease. Addition of an unnecessary antigen to the vaccination protocol will result in a lesser immunity to the important diseases like parvovirus and distemper, and increase the risk of adverse reactions.
2. Immunologists doubt that Canine corona virus vaccine works, as it would require secretory mucosal IgA antibodies to protect against corona virus and a parenteral vaccine does not accomplish this very well. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Texas A&M University do not recommend canine corona virus vaccine.
3. Gastroenteroligists at Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Dr Michael Willard at Texas A&M University have stated that they have only seen one case of corona virus disease in a dog in ten years.
On several occasions large numbers of dogs have died from adverse reactions to corona virus vaccine.
A reasonable client would not elect corona virus vaccination for an adult dog if presented this information.
Recommending, administering, and charging for re-administration of modified live vaccines like Canine Distemper, Canine Parvovirus, Feline Panleukopenia, injectable Feline Rhinotracheitis, and injectable Feline Calicivirus on an semi-annual, annual, bi-annual or tri-annual basis is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts that there is no scientific data to support label claims for annual re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must be backed by scientific data.
2. It is the consensus of immunologist that a modified live virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system, and antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the replication of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except that the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction.
3. A temporal association has been demonstrated between vaccinations and the development of Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia.
4. It has been demonstrated that the duration of immunity for Canine Distemper virus is 7 years by challenge, and 15 years by serology; for Canine Parvovirus is 7 years by challenge, for Feline Panleukopenia, Rhinotracheitis, and Feline Calicivirus is 7.5 years by challenge.
A reasonable client would not elect re-administration of any of the above stated vaccinations for a previously immunized pet if provided with the above information.
The recommendation for administration of Leptospirosis vaccination in Texas is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the fact that:
1. Although Leptospirosis is re-emerging as an endemic disease for dogs in some areas of the country, Leptospirosis in dogs in Texas is a very rare disease. According to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab there are only an average of twelve cases of Leptospirosis documented in dogs in Texas per year. Factors to identify those dogs that are at risk have not been identified. Given that there are over 6 million dogs in Texas, the risk of leptospirosis disease to a dog is less than 2 in a million.
2. The commonly used vaccine only contains serovars Lepto. canicola, and Lepto icterohaemorrhagiae, and no cross protection is provided against the other three serovars diagnosed in Texas. Newer vaccines containing Lepto pomona, and Lepto rippotyphosa are available but the duration of immunity is less than one year. To provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two vaccines with four serovars twice per year.
3. Although humans can develop Leptospirosis, the spread of Lepto. from a dog to a human has never been documented and is thought to be a very low risk. Given that the risk of an adverse reaction, a reasonable client would not elect Vaccination of their pet if provided with the above information.
The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs residing in Texas is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. The Texas Department of Health only reports an average of 70 cases of Human Lyme disease per year in Texas, all of which were likely acquired when people were traveling out of the state.
2. Julie Rawlings reported in her research on the incidence of the lyme disease organism in ticks in Texas State Parks for the Texas Department of Health that the Borrelia burgdorferi organism is not present in sufficient numbers or in the suitable tick vector for dogs for Lyme disease to be endemic in Texas.
3. Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in the U.S. are found in the nine New England States and Wisconsin.
4. Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine has not documented one case of Lyme disease in a dog acquired in Texas. Testing on shelter dogs has not revealed a single case.
5. Dr Jacobson, Cornell University has documented a temporal relationship in over 327 cases of dogs, which acquired polyarthritis after the Lyme disease vaccine.
A reasonable client would not elect Lyme disease vaccine for their pet if given this information on the risks vs. the benefit.
The recommendation for vaccination of cats with an adjuvanted vaccine without offering a safer alternative vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. Adjuvanted vaccines have been incriminated as a cause of Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.
2. 1:1000 cats vaccinated develop this type of cancer, which is 100% fatal.
3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines are available.
A reasonable client would not elect adjuvanted vaccines for their cat if given this information.
The recommendation for vaccination of cats with Feline Infectious Peritonitis vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare disease.
2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the normal flora avirulent Feline Corona Virus. On rare occasions this Corona Virus mutates to become a virulent feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus. Every mutation is a different variant and there is no cross protection. This vaccine does not and cannot work.
3. Independent studies have not confirmed the manufacturers claims for efficacy.
4. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine and the American Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend this vaccine.
A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine if given this information.
The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not.
2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is thought to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated.
3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should be vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus.
A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if given this information.
The recommendation of annual rabies vaccination for dogs and cats with three-year duration of immunity vaccine is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given that:
1. The vaccines has been licensed by the USDA and proven to have duration of immunity of three years by the USDA and seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, therefore annual re-administration the client is paying for something with no benefit.
2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to demonstrate that the immune status of the pet is enhanced.
3. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. This recommendation has been proven effective in 33 States in the United States.
The recommendation of blood tests for antibody titers on dogs and cats in order to determine if re-administration of vaccine is indicated is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programmed, memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells is not taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.
2. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells are capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a patient.
3. A positive titer has not been demonstrated by challenge studies to indicate immunity.
4. The client is paying for a test when a Veterinarian can make no claims about the test results.
5. It has been proven that the re-administration of modified live vaccines has no effect, and that duration of immunity is 7 years or more.
A reasonable client would not elect this test if given this information.
I have brought these deceptive trade practices to the attention of this Board by writing six letters to the board, and appearing before the Board at three Board meetings. The Board members have demonstrated, by the questions that they have asked me, that they are uniformed on these issues, that they have not read the literature that I have sent to support my assertions, and that they have not read the letters I have written. On every occasion the Board members have refused to take any action on these matters.
The Board has also ignored my request to deny approval of Continuing Education credit for seminars on Vaccination of Companion Animals provided by Pfizer Animal Health drug company which are fraudulent by omission of material facts, a conflict of interest, and thereby influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the marketing of vaccines.
The people of the State of Texas have paid over $360 million dollars per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary and potentially harmful to their pets. Over 600,000 pets suffer every year from adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. Many of them die.
A survey by the American Animal Hospital Association shows that less than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their vaccination recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new recommendations have been published twice in every major Veterinary Medical Journal since 1995.
Given that it is the compact of this Board with the State of Texas to protect the people of Texas, and whereby it is provided in the Texas Administrative Code Title 22, Part 24, Chapter 577, Subchapter B, Rule 577.16: Responsibilities of the Board (a) The Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is responsible for establishing policies and promulgating rules to establish and maintain a high standard of integrity, skills, and practice in the profession of Veterinary medicine in accordance with the Veterinary Licensing Act, I hereby assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners must take demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for companion animals.
A reasonable solution would be for the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to request an opinion from the Attorney General on these issues, and for the Texas State Board to issue a policy statement in the Board Notes indicating a Board policy prohibiting each of the practices I have outlined above.
An alternative solution would be to notify every Veterinarian engaged in companion animal practice in this state of the complaint that has been filed against them and prosecute each and every complaint.
If demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices has not been taken by this Board within ninety days of receipt of this letter I will file a class action suit against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on behalf of the people of Texas, for negligence in the execution of their responsibilities, and I will request a Court order to instruct the Board to perform their duties.
Sincerely,
Dr Robert L Rogers
The above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
-
Flower,
I want to respond to what you are putting in this thread because you accusations about my not caring about my patients are something that I take very, very personal and I see as a huge insult from someone with an internet agenda. You seem to be missing a big point in terms of vaccinations and heartworm preventative, there are clearly labeled guidelines for administration. If a veterinarian chooses not to follow those guidelines, then that veterinarian is liable for any and all negative effects. This means if I tell a client that its fine to give their dog heartworm preventative every 45 days, they do, and their dog comes up heartworm positive, that client can now sue me for malpractice and I don't have anything to defend myself with. However if I tell the client to give it every 30 days and the dog becomes heartworm positive, it then becomes the liability of the company that produced the heartworm preventative. In our litigation happy society, a veterinarian must follow the label in order to stay in practice.
You asked earlier about Proheart-6---I have many unanswered questions about what happened with that drug, the way it was pulled from the shelf, and everything else that went on with it. I used that product with numerous clients, my own pets, and in multiple species. I only saw one "reaction" with all of the times I administered it. That dog recieved vaccinations at the same time, so I was unable to determine if it was the vaccine or the Proheart-6 that caused the allergic reaction..... So I did the only thing I could after that, when owners asked me about safety of the drug, I told them what the drug label had published and I told them about my experience with that dog and its reaction. We then discussed all of the methods of heartworm prevention that were carried by the practice where I worked and made a decision based on the wants and needs of the owner with their individual pet. Some people chose not to use it when I told them about the one dogs reaction. Others didn't. I used that drug until the day it was pulled from shelves--and I'll be honest, I administered it to two of my families dogs that very day.
Here is what I follow in terms of vaccinations of my pets and what I recommend to my clients:
First, all vaccinations must be justified by risk of the disease in my patients. I do not condone in any way vaccinating an animal for a disease it has minimal risk of ever being exposed to. Thats a waste of money in my opinion. At the same time, there are certian diseases: parvo (especially in dogs under 3 years of age), canine distemper, infectious canine hepatitis that are still very common among domestic dogs in America. This commonness means that vaccinations for these diseases are something that pet owners should strongly consider. Others such as Rabies is a legal issue governed by your local authorities. Most areas require a rabies vaccination, and in areas where rabies is endemic (ie the last place I saw a case of rabies, rural kentucky) law requires that vaccination to be administered as frequently as once per year. As an example, it doesn't really matter what the research is saying or the label on the vaccination because its the law that dogs and cats (and ferrets) recieve annual vaccinations. All owners who do not comply with that law are subject to fines or worse. Veterinarians who recommend anything other than the legal requirements of the county are subject to legal action, including action by the state veterinary medical board and/or fines from the county. I personally don't like that aspect of vaccinations, but as a veterinarian who has dignosed more than one case of the "angry" form of rabies in domestic dogs, I feel we really need to consider it and abide by it.
Other vaccinations, such as bordatella, lepto, corona, lyme disease, and others are all "optional". Veterinary hospitals should not be making the bulk of their income from vaccinations--so I encourage owners to question their veterinarians about their vaccination protocols. The veterinarian should be able to say "i'm recommending XXX vaccination, BECAUSE..... " if they don't, I would consider not getting the vaccinations.
Just so you know, with my own dogs, I vaccinate for Parvo, Distemper, Canine Hepatitis every other year and Rabies every 3 years. I only give my dogs a bordatella vaccination if I know I'm going to be boarding them for a period of time, thus significantly increasing thier risk of the disease. I'll also be the first to admit, vaccinating my 13 year old border collie for Parvo is giving him a vaccination for a disease that he's not likely to get, BUT, you cannot get just a Distemper/infectious hepatitis vaccine, so I have to give in and administer Parvo also. It'd be real nice if you could give individual vaccinations, however the drug companies and the demands of convience from many americans have made multivalent vaccinations both economical and "the norm".
As far as cats go--I don't own any domestic cats right now---however, in the past I gave a rabies vaccination every three years--to comply with local laws, and a FVRCP vaccination every other year. I consider FIV, FeLV, and FIP to all be optional vaccinations that need to be given based on risk assessment of the patient. A cat that lives indoors all the time and never goes out side is a very different risk from a cat that lives on the street fighting with other cats. The owner and the veterinarian both need to be honest with each other in assessing that risk assessment.
In terms of heart worm prevention: I give it monthly to my dogs and I recommend monthly to my patients. Heartworm disease is an indescriminant killer. Its that plain and simple. You can be rich, you can be poor, you can love your dog, you can ignore it. If you live in an area where heartworm disease is endemic and your dog is bitten by a heartworm positive mosquito under correct conditions, your dog is going to develop heartworm disease. If it develops heartworm disease and you do nothing about it, it will kill your dog. I know this from losing dogs to heartworm when I was a child, working with numerous shelters and rescues in multiple states, and dealing with my clients who have heartworm positive pets. The last one I saw was one of my keeper staff just two months ago, who decided to try to cut corners and go to every other month on administering heartworm medication. Well, guess what, his dog came up positive for heartworms within 7 months of him deciding to do that. He loves his dog, he takes great care of it---its a member of his family. Its also got heartworm disease.
Administering a heartworm preventative as a means of treatment is something I've done, but I cannot legally condone it becuase its extra-label use of that drug. If a veterinarian would recommend this type of treatment and that dog would die, the owner could sue the veterinarian for malpractice because there are approved methods of treating heartworm infestation that were not used. The veterinarian would have no way to defend themselves.
As far as fleas and ticks go.... I only use preventatives when my dogs have a problem. My adult dogs haven't had fleas in the last year. I didnt use any preventative and won't until there is a problem. I just don't see the reason to apply Frontline monthly if they don't need it. I can spend that money on something else. That said, there are some areas, where my mother in law lives for example, were fleas are very, very common. She also has a dog with flea allergy dermatitis. She uses Frontline monthly. I can't argue with this because I've seen the results of her dog after it gets fleas. In this case its an ounce of prevention vs a pound of cure situation.
As I posted before, be very, very wary of "petstore" topical antiflea medications---ie Hartz, Zodiac, etc. These are chemicals which can be very dangerous to cats---I've seen cats die after the owners applied the dog version of this preventative to the cat by accident. They also, in my opinion do not work. I think you make a big mistake grouping Advantage, frontline and even Revolution in the same group of drugs as Hartz and Zodiac. In my opinion, the degree of safety of these drugs is as different as night and day.
-
You say a vet is liable if he does not follow the guidelines, fine. But how many unhealthy animals have been vaccinated when the guidelines state to not vaccinate unhealthy animals? Why as a vet are you not liable for that? Oh, that is right vaccines don't cause any problems so when the client comes back 2 months later with a problem it is unrelated and not only are you not liable, but you (meaning vets in general) can treat this new problem.
Just so you know, with my own dogs, I vaccinate for Parvo, Distemper, Canine Hepatitis every other year and Rabies every 3 years. I only give my dogs a bordatella vaccination if I know I'm going to be boarding them for a period of time, thus significantly increasing thier risk of the disease. I'll also be the first to admit, vaccinating my 13 year old border collie for Parvo is giving him a vaccination for a disease that he's not likely to get, BUT, you cannot get just a Distemper/infectious hepatitis vaccine, so I have to give in and administer Parvo also. It'd be real nice if you could give individual vaccinations, however the drug companies and the demands of convience from many americans have made multivalent vaccinations both economical and "the norm".
Why do you follow that protocol when all the science and even the AVMA protocol recommends every 3 years? When studies prove out to over 7 years by challenge study and possibly lifetime immunity do you assault your pets system? Bordatella is well known as a waste of time. It only protects against a few strains. More dogs get bordatella that have been vaccinated for it than haven't been. Rabies vaccination I believe is now every 3 years in every state. I know Texas was one of the stragglers to go to the every 3 years. And there are single vaccinations, distemper being one of them, note the healthy dogs that I have highlighted:
GALAXY® D
Schering-Plough
Vaccine
Canine Distemper Vaccine, Modified Live Virus
U.S. Vet. Lic. No.: 195
Active Ingredient(s): Canine distemper vaccine, modified live virus.
The vaccine contains gentamicin as a preservative.
Indications: For use in the vaccination of healthy dogs nine weeks
of age or older against canine distemper.
If you recommend your every other year protocol to your clients, you are doing them a disservice. One that even your profession does not stand behind. :-\ And vaccinating your 13 year old border collie for ANYTHING is assinine. If he doesn't have immunity by now, he is never going to.
Build up, don't tear down.
My internet agenda is one thing: to give people ALL the information so they may make an informed decision, and to give them access to all the latest studies that their vets neglect to tell them about.
-
You say a vet is liable if he does not follow the guidelines, fine. But how many unhealthy animals have been vaccinated when the guidelines state to not vaccinate unhealthy animals? Why as a vet are you not liable for that? Oh, that is right vaccines don't cause any problems so when the client comes back 2 months later with a problem it is unrelated and not only are you not liable, but you (meaning vets in general) can treat this new problem.
I never said that veterinarians weren't liable. I was addressing your statements about frequency of vaccination. If I administer a vaccination to a dog, that dog has an allergic reaction, then I'm liable for that.
Why do you follow that protocol when all the science and even the AVMA protocol recommends every 3 years? When studies prove out to over 7 years by challenge study and possibly lifetime immunity do you assault your pets system? Bordatella is well known as a waste of time. It only protects against a few strains. More dogs get bordatella that have been vaccinated for it than haven't been. Rabies vaccination I believe is now every 3 years in every state. I know Texas was one of the stragglers to go to the every 3 years. And there are single vaccinations, distemper being one of them, note the healthy dogs that I have highlighted:
First off rabies is not every 3 years in every state. Its governed by local county health authorities. Alabama, Kentucky and New York all require annual vaccinations in some counties. Rabies is a zoonotic disease. The state laws are managed as a means of trying to prevent human infection.
Where is your source for bordatella infection frequency? And were they appropriately vaccinated with a booster vaccination administered? That goes against what I've seen in clinical practice. And again, I only recommend bordatella vaccinations for high risk dogs. Its not something I administer unless its determined its needed.
Also, what is your source for AVMA vaccination recommendations? Are you quoting a {biased} third party source?
I follow the AVMA guidelines: http://www.avma.org/issues/vaccination/vaccination.asp (http://www.avma.org/issues/vaccination/vaccination.asp)
GALAXY® D
Schering-Plough
Vaccine
Canine Distemper Vaccine, Modified Live Virus
U.S. Vet. Lic. No.: 195
Active Ingredient(s): Canine distemper vaccine, modified live virus.
The vaccine contains gentamicin as a preservative.
Indications: For use in the vaccination of healthy dogs nine weeks
of age or older against canine distemper.
If you recommend your every other year protocol to your clients, you are doing them a disservice. One that even your profession does not stand behind. :-\ And vaccinating your 13 year old border collie for ANYTHING is assinine. If he doesn't have immunity by now, he is never going to.
Build up, don't tear down.
This makes me laugh. Galaxy D is a terrible vaccine. Of all of the distemper vaccines available on the market, Galaxy D is the one I've seen the most severe vaccine reactions too. I've tailored my vaccination protocol for my dogs based on assessment of their risk of disease. If you were my client, I'd discuss the options with you and then we'd design a protocol that suited your pets. If this included titers, so be it, I would inform you of the increased cost.
You need to think, not spout.
-
If the dog has an allergic reaction you are liable for that. Meaning right then and there, shortly after administration? What about the problems that show up later? A month after, 2 months? You are not liable for those? That is the problem. People are not informed of these risks and no one is liable.
Every vet school is now teaching 3 year protocol for core vaccinations. Read the scientific studies proving that they last much longer than even that. Base your recommendations on scientific fact, not junk science. And inform your clients of that evidence.
You think your 13 year old dog is at a greater risk from distemper than a vaccine related problem? Considering he has been vaccinated routinely throughout his life? You seriously think he needs to be boostered?
The problem is that people are starting to think. And most vets do not like that idea. "Immortal" is under your name. That is very fitting, most vets seem to think that. How dare someone question me. How dare you actually have studies to back yourself up. How dare you take a stance in the health of your pet. ::)
-
My bad, it's the AAHA that spells out 3 year protocol (along with every vet school now teaching that):
http://www.chicagodals.org/2006/vaccine_guidelines06.pdf (http://www.chicagodals.org/2006/vaccine_guidelines06.pdf)
http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=46546 (http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=46546)
AHA wraps up canine vaccine guidelines
Feb 1, 2003
By: Stephanie Davis
DVM Newsmagazine
Dr. Richard Ford
Three words summarize the recommended frequency of canine vaccination - triennially, annually or never.
That's the consensus of the American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 14-member taskforce, which, at presstime, was working feverishly to compose a final draft of its first-ever canine vaccination guidelines. The final version, to be released this spring, is pending discussions with vaccine manufacturers.
"The guidelines are huge," says Dr. Richard Ford, on the AAHA taskforce and professor of medicine at North Carolina State University.
Dubbed a "paradigm shift" in vaccination protocol, the bottom line is: not all vaccines should be administered with equal frequency.
"We have an abundance of referenced data that document the longevity and the lack of efficacy of these various (canine) vaccines," says Ford.
Vaccine explosion Little more than three decades ago, veterinarians had limited vaccine choices: distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and rabies.
Now more than two dozen different types of vaccines exist for dogs. Counting all the products, veterinarians have more than 100 vaccines at their disposal.
"We're going through an explosion of vaccines for dogs, and to some extent similar for the cat," says Ford, who also contributed to the feline vaccination guidelines re-released by the American Association of Feline Practitioners in 2000.
Dr. Ron Schultz
In response to the explosion, AAHA has proposed guidelines to offer direction on a vaccine protocol for veterinarians.
"It's an attempt to provide recommendations, and I use the word 'recommendations' - these are not national standards," says Ford. "We are not dictating how veterinarians should actually vaccinate."
What AAHA recommends
For many vaccines the recommendation is still to vaccinate adult dogs annually. Other vaccines have proven safe and effective following a triennial administration.
Puppies are a different story. Appropriate vaccine administration is considered "absolutely the most important," says Ford. As a result, AAHA recommends veterinarians follow all prior vaccine protocols for puppies.
For example, the committee universally stipulates that canine parvovirus vaccines should be given initially at six to eight weeks, the second dose at nine to 11 weeks and a third dose at 12-14 weeks.
"The guidance provided by the vaccine manufacturers, the ones that have been in place for years and years are still being advocated (for puppies)," says Ford.
Booster vaccines
The previous rules don't apply when the puppy reaches adult stage, according to the AAHA guidelines.
"It's recommended, not required, that veterinarians place vaccines in one of two categories when developing a vaccine protocol for their practice: core or non-core," says Ford.
The new categories are an attempt to segregate the vital vaccines from the more discretionary, according to the taskforce. The core vaccines, of which there are four, are to be administered triennially. These are vaccines to prevent against high-risk, highly contagious and potentially fatal diseases. Noncore vaccines, to be administered under the discretion of the veterinarian, would follow an annual schedule.
"We're trying to encourage veterinarians to look at the science behind the vaccines and to develop a vaccination protocol that is rational as well as effective," says Ford.
Of the core vaccines, the taskforce recommends that the adult dog receive rabies; canine parvovirus vaccine; canine adenovirus-2 (hepatitis vaccine); and distemper vaccines every three years.
The caveat to the recommendation, says Ford, is that there is good evidence that the protection conferred in adult dogs by both canine distemper and canine parvovirus exceeds five years.
Three years seemed a conservative, happy medium for all parties involved, according to the taskforce.
Anticipated reaction The canine guidelines are "much less controversial" than the previously released feline vaccination guidelines, says Dr. Ron Schultz, veterinary immunologist at the University of Wisconsin - Madison and member of the taskforce.
"It's hard to believe it'd be controversial to any DVM who's lived on earth for the past year or two. You'd have to be from outer space if you haven't heard about the issues," says Schultz.
"Yet individuals are still not aware of what the discussion is about," he adds.
Ford likewise expects to hear minimal grumbling at the outset.
"For some people this will be a surprise because ... it's the classic culture change. We've always done it this way, my gosh, why are we going to change it now," he mimics.
In response, he cites how today's vaccines have vastly improved immunogenic qualities and evidence points to long-term activity.
Didn't make the cut What may catch some veterinarians off guard is the taskforce's third classification, recommending against certain vaccines. Those are:
* Giardia. Reason: no test is available for the disease; vaccine has not been proven to prevent infection, only reduces shedding.
* Canine adenovirus-1. Studies found that the vaccine can cause visual impairment in dogs.
* Coronavirus. "We're not recommending it because the disease isn't significant. The vaccine is safe, there just isn't a disease to go with it," Ford says.
"We're saying don't give it. We don't feel that the disease justifies vaccinating dogs for it," says Ford. "Nobody's very happy with that (recommendation), and they'll argue it to the bitter end," says Ford.
Who won't buy it Contention may also arise from corporate practices, who may ignore the guidelines altogether because of lost revenue.
"There are some corporate policies among these conglomerates of veterinary practices in the country. They have standard policies that all dogs get all licensed vaccines every year. What we're saying is that's wrong. Don't do that," says Ford.
He expects those groups to disregard the guidelines, since they are not mandates.
AVMA weighs in Although the American Veterinary Medical Association says it has not seen a draft of the guidelines, Dr. Elizabeth Curry-Galvin, assistant director of scientific activities, says the two organizations shared concepts during the development of their respective reports.
AVMA released its own position statement highlighting prudent use of vaccines late last year.
In regard to AAHA's anticipated guidelines, AVMA's position is: "We encourage veterinarians to read the report once it is available. Practitioners need information from a wide number of sources to make the best medical recommendations for their patients," Curry-Galvin says.
-
If the dog has an allergic reaction you are liable for that. Meaning right then and there, shortly after administration? What about the problems that show up later? A month after, 2 months? You are not liable for those? That is the problem. People are not informed of these risks and no one is liable.
No the problem is proving without a doubt that that is the cause of the problem. Its really easy to make the assumptions you are making---that vaccinations cause cancer, that vaccinations cause hip dysplasia, that vaccinations cause the moon to rise from the south..... To be held liable, you need to be alble to prove liability, not base it on conjecture. Unfortunately what you are advocating is conjecture except in a few cases---feline injection site sarcomas (and injection site sarcomas in other species such as ferrets). Even then, we are not 100% sure of what causes that type of cancer.
Every vet school is now teaching 3 year protocol for core vaccinations. Read the scientific studies proving that they last much longer than even that. Base your recommendations on scientific fact, not junk science. And inform your clients of that evidence.
This simply is not true. My wife is a veterinary teaching hospital professor. I work as an adjunct instructor with a veterinary teaching hospital. You need to check your resources before you make blanket statements like this. Unfortunately vaccination protocols vary from veterinary teaching hospital to hospital---like Ohio States "Weimeraner Protocol" which is based entirely on the thoughts of two clinicians about this breed and is not done at any other teaching hospital to the best of my knowledge. This protocol involves staggering vaccinations to the degree of literally vaccinating weimeraner puppies every other week with certian vaccinations that are killed, others that are modified live, all done under the thought that that breeds unique phsyiology requires it have a totally different vaccination protocol. I'll be honest, i've questioned it since I was an intern there. And the clinicians in charge of the protocol have yet to answer some of my questions.
What you are referring to with the 3 year vaccinations is not the AVMA, but is the recommendations by the American Animal Hospital Association released in 2006. These guidelines acknowledged that vaccinations may have efficacy up to 3 years, however there is only 1 single canine vaccination product licensed by the USDA as a 3 year vaccination for canine distemper, adnovirus, and parvo---Fort Dodges Duramune Adult. This same AAHA document, while it acknowledges the 3 year vaccinations, it also acknowledges the liability of the veterinarian for off label---ie telling a client that a vaccination labeled for 1 year, is good for 3 years--use of vaccinations. I think the Fort Dodge product is a good one, but I'll be the first to admit I do have limited experience with it.
You think your 13 year old dog is at a greater risk from distemper than a vaccine related problem? Considering he has been vaccinated routinely throughout his life? You seriously think he needs to be boostered?
Considering I live in a rural area where distemper outbreaks are quite common in the wild raccon population, my dog has access to these raccoons because of his access to my horse barn, pasture, and trash, and the fact that dogs can acquire distemper at any age, yes I do. The risk of distemper in this dog is not unreasonable. Not only that but the last time I had this dogs titers checked, they were on the low end. This just further justifies my thought that in the case of this dog, boostering vaccinations are indicated. You need to be very, very careful making the blanket statements you are making. Vaccinations should be an individual case basis, not the blanket "they all need them" or "all are bad".
The problem is that people are starting to think. And most vets do not like that idea. "Immortal" is under your name. That is very fitting, most vets seem to think that. How dare someone question me. How dare you actually have studies to back yourself up. How dare you take a stance in the health of your pet. ::) [/color]
::) Again, you resort to childish personal attacks. The word "Immortal" under my name is a reference to the wrestler Hulk Hogan. Only a few members of this board (most of who are lurkers and know me from a different board) know the story behind it, but it involves plans I had years ago before college of going to a professional wrestling school. Its a silly highschool kid joke I share with a couple of friends and absolutely nothing serious. The fact that you are picking on subtle things like that just screams of your lack of maturity. Good job. ::) When you want to grow up and talk about medical concerns, I'll be glad to do it with you.
-
So you do not trust the clinical trials by the manufacturers? Is there any scientific evidence to back that up, if so that is information that should be put out there.
Yes, trying to prove a vaccination contributed to or was a the cause of a problem is very difficult. But unless you have been on an island with no outside communication for the past several years, you would see that more and more people are starting to see the connection from overvaccinating and health problems. Yours is exactly the thinking that is continuing to cause our pets harm. Fortunately most vets are now at least considering that more is not always better and may be keeping up on studies and peer articles, and information from both the AVMA and the AAHA on the risks associated with vaccinating and increased risks from over vaccinating.
On the veterinary schools, I didn't personally check each one, but I do find Dr. Dodds a reputable source, as well as Dr.Schultz, I think once the Rabies Challenge Study gets under way and is completed (years from now) it will be another great benefit to pets and their owners:
Two Experts in the field of immunization.
The following is information I have gotten from two experts in the field of immunization. I am sharing this with you all so you know what is out there for all veterinarians to know. If your veterinarian is not aware of this information, inform he or she of this information so they can help you with reducing the amount of vaccines your animals receive.
NEW VACCINATION PROTOCOL
by Dr. Jean Dodds
Note: All of the 27 Vet Universities in the US have followed the immunization protocol as suggested by Dr. Dodds for years
I would like to make you aware that all 27 veterinary schools in North America are in the process of changing their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats. Some of this information will present an ethical & economic challenge to Vets, and there will be skeptics. Some organizations have come up with a political compromise suggesting vaccinations every 3 years to appease those who fear loss of income vs. those concerned about potential side effects. Politics, traditions, or the doctors' economic well-being should not be a factor in a medical decision.
NEW PRINCIPLES OF IMMUNOLOGY
Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet (i.e.,: canine distemper, parvo, feline distemper.) If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titer is not "boosted" nor are more memory cells induced. Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines. Puppies receive antibodies through their mother's milk. This natural protection can last 8 - 14 weeks. Puppies & kittens should NOT be vaccinated at LESS than 8 weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralize the vaccine and little protection (0-38%) will be produced. Vaccination at 6 weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of the first highly effective vaccine. Vaccinations given 2 weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the immune system. A series of vaccinations is given starting at 8 weeks and given 3-4 weeks apart up to 16 weeks of age. Another vaccination given sometime after 6 months of age will provide LIFETIME IMMUNITY.
As for Rabies vaccine, it is a law that all dogs must be vaccinated according to each state. Currently all but two states require annual vaccines and all the rest will honor three-year vaccines. Write and call your local state animal control agencies and petition for acceptance of rabies titers in lieu of repeated vaccination for licensing.
What Every Veterinarian Should Know About Canine and Feline Vaccines and Vaccination Programs
- Ronald D. Schultz, PhD
As always, Dr. Schultz delivered an informative, provocative and important message to all attendees at the 2004 Conference.
General Principles
He began by reminding us that the original vaccinologists were all virologists. He then compared Innate or Natural Immunity which is nonspecific with Acquired or Adaptive Immunity which is specific. The former is present from birth, operates against any substance, and is not enhanced by prior exposure, whereas the latter is a defense mechanism, tailored to individual pathogens, and is enhanced by prior exposure. Age is related to innate immunity, as eventually there is immune senescence which plays a role in longevity. Vaccines sometimes enhance innate immunity, although they are designed to enhance acquired immunity. An example is the intranasal kennel cough vaccine, which is preferred over the parenteral version, as it stimulates innate immunity immediately.
In the presence of Protective Immunity, when re-infection occurs, the immune challenge agent(s) is recognized by pre-formed antibody and effector T-cells; rapid expansion and differentiation of the effector cells occurs; and the infectious agent(s) is removed. When Immunologic Memory is present, only mild or unapparent infection occurs; this protection may last a lifetime. Effector B-cells are plasma cells that live for at least 10 years and likely forever in the bone marrow. Sterile Immunity exists when there is no infection or unapparent re infection.
The endocrine and nervous systems are intimately interactive with the immune system, i.e. neuroendocrine system and immunity.
It was in 1978 that Ron Schultz and Fred Scott at Cornell first recommended triennial vaccination [Vet Clin N Am 8(4):755-768, 1978]. So it has taken 25 years for this recommendation to be adopted by veterinary scientists, industry, and mainstream veterinary medicine!
Cell-Mediated Immunity is not important in canine parvo virus (CPV) but very important in canine distemper virus (CDV) infections. In the presence of very low or no measurable immunity to CDV after appropriate vaccination, it is basically useless to revaccinate. Currently licensed CDV vaccines, including the recombinant (Merial) vaccine, produce excellent sustained immunity. He recommends giving MLV CDV vaccines twice, once before 12 weeks and once after 12 weeks of age, then every 3 years thereafter. For the recombinant vaccine, he recommends vaccination at 6, 8, and 12 weeks of age, then every 3 years thereafter.
Core Vaccines. These for dogs are distemper, parvovirus, adenovirus 2 (CAV-2), and rabies; for the cat, core vaccines are panleukopenia and rabies. The last dose of vaccine must be given at 12 weeks or older, and revaccination is given at 1 year of age or 1 year later. Non-Core Vaccines for dogs are Leptospirosis, Bordetella, Lyme , and canine parainfluenza vaccines; for cats, these are calicovirus and herpes (rhinotracheitis) viruses. Canine corona virus and Giardia vaccines are generally not recommended.
Duration of Immunity
The minimum duration of immunity (DOI) is 7-10 years for CDV, CPV-2, and CAV-2. Booster vaccination more than every 3 years offers no benefit. Two methods are used to measure DOI: disease agent challenge studies, and serology measurements. But, what is the DOI for natural infection for these important pathogens? The protection generated by MLV vaccines is equivalent to that of natural infection or disease. For killed vaccines, DOI is usually less and immunity is less complete. Recovery from disease is for life with CDV, CPV-2, and CAV-2.
CPV lives in the environment for years or more, whereas CDV is fragile and survives about 15 minutes in the naked state. With CDV exposure, one has up to 72 hours to vaccinate and still induce protection, but with CPV, one has only 72 minutes. In specific pathogen-free animals, vaccination against core agents lasts at least 4 ½ years.
After only 1 dose of rabies vaccine, DOI is 5-7 years based on serologic titers.
Pfizer's published study in January 2004 showed DOI of at least 4 years for their 5-way canine and 3-way feline vaccines. Schering Plough now guarantees their CDV, CPV, and CAV-2 vaccines for 3 years; their panleukopenia and FeLV vaccines are also guaranteed for 3 years. Fort Dodge recently showed 3--year protection after challenge studies for their CDV, CPV, and CAV-2 vaccines.
Miscellaneous
Feline Leukemia Vaccine. Recommends product by Fort Dodge or Schering Plough; 2 doses must be given 3 weeks apart, and preferably at 9 and 12 weeks of age. No measurable titers are typically found, and no more vaccines are needed for cats over 1 year of age as FeLV is not that contagious.
Lyme disease. Infection and disease seen mostly in northeast and around the Great Lakes region. Vaccination is generally not recommended except in high-risk areas, and then only the recombinant vaccine is recommended at the beginning of the tick season. [Generally good advice to avoid bacterin vaccines, whenever possible, as they are immune modulators (e.g. Lyme, Leptospirosis, and Bordetella parenterals; intranasal Bordetella is satisfactory).]
Leptospirosis Vaccine. As a zoonotic disease, there is concern about contagion with leptospira spp. However, vaccination does not prevent against shedding of the organism, so it is not protective of others. Even 2 vaccinations and annual boosters will not adequately protect against re-infection, because of the short-lived immunity induced (several months). Hypersensitivity reactions to leptosirosis vaccines (Type I hypersensitivity) are long-lived, and can be recalled acutely even after 4 years. Many dogs now have measurable titers against L. bratislava and L. autumnalis, but they do not have disease unless titers are in the thousands and clinical signs are present. Serovars of leptospira spp. cross-react, especially with L. grippotyphosa, L. pomona , L. canicola, and L. icterohemorrhagiae.
Kennel Cough Vaccines. In 5,000 dogs studied in shelters, it made no difference which vaccines were given, as some dogs still got kennel cough. Upper respiratory infection is endemic in most pounds and shelters because of the crowding, poor ventilation, and variable hygiene. Kennel cough vaccines are basically useless, as natural immunization is ubiquitous.
Recombinant Vaccine. Good for use in shelters as are more likely to overcome maternal immunity. CDV recombinant can boost immunity rapidly in 90% of cases, whereas MLV CDV can do so in only about 10%. Excellent antibody titers are produced to the rCDV product, and they don't cause immunosuppression like MLV vaccines. Merial's recombinant CDV vaccine should be given at 6, 8, and 12 weeks of age , and then 3 years later. A question remains about the induction of autoimmune disease with recombinant vaccines, although hypersensitivity reactions should not occur. Naked DNA vaccines are being developed, as the next stage of vaccinology.
Horses. Generally, equine vaccines perform poorly (give one year or no immunity). Must ignore information about dogs, cats, and humans when dealing with horse vaccines. Even the newer equine influenza vaccine gives immunity for only about 11 months. Equine herpes vaccines are lousy, giving immunity for only 2-3 months in attempting to prevent herpes abortion, but these vaccines should never be given to pregnant mares, despite common recommendation to do so.
Tetanus vaccines produce good 3-year immunity. For West Nile Virus (WNV) vaccine, 2 doses are given 2-3 weeks apart at 6 months of age, but duration is only about 6 months. The newer WNV vaccines give 11-12 months immunity.
Vaccine Non-Responders or Poor Responders. The estimated frequency of these low responders is 1:1000-1:10,0000, and is genetically determined. It more likely occurs with CPV than CDV (10 times less) or CAV-2 (100 times less) vaccines, especially in Dobermans and Rottweilers, although most of these bloodlines have died off now. Non-responders to one vaccine are unlikely to be non-responders to another vaccine agent.
Summary provided by W. Jean Dodds, DVM
The 3 year rabies and the 1 year rabies are the same vaccine, different label. But if a dog of was mistakenly given a vac labeled 1 year, most vets would make that animal get another rabies shot the next year. As long as your liability is covered, who cares about that animals health, you can just treat the problems that show up that are virtually unprovable to show the cause as the vaccine.
Titers do not prove or disprove that a dog needs a booster. They can be low and the animal can be protected because it might mean the animal hasn't been challenged by the virus recently. That is why some vets don't want to do them. They can bring a peace of mind if they are high, but low can give a false assumption of need for re-vaccination. Some states will accept a rabies titer in lieu of a vaccination, it would have to be re-checked yearly. Also rabies waivers can be given and should be. Though most vets are reluctant to do so. Sorry, your dog has cancer, but it must have it rabies vaccination.
Since you are such a stickler for following labels and such, remember, only HEALTHY animals per manufacturers labels, are to be vaccinated. A dog comes in with skin problems, he is not healthy. You would be going against the manufacturers and giving it off label. I could probably think of a hundred more cases where a vet will still vaccinate even though the animal is not healthy. That is done every day. That is a disgrace. But since cause is hard to prove, the vet gets away with it without a worry to himself.
You are a vet that would scare me. You stand behind "we are not 100% sure" and keep on doing the same things, even though if you thought about it you could see a connection between some conditions and vaccinating. You ignore the most up to date studies and information available. I have based my decisions on actual studies, peer reviewed articles, top professionals in their fields, and personal first hand experience.
When you want to open the door and come into the current information, then we can talk. Until then I will counter any inadequate or misleading information you post. I will try and do this like I have always tried to do, with studies and respected articles, and not junk science, all the information that is available, not just what I think people should know. Vets hiding behind liabilities and ignoring the evidence before their eyes is one of the main reason that people are being proactive and educating themselves. We have to, one can not have the trust in your vet like used to be commonplace. :-\
I guess you forgot sarcasm :)
-
Canine Vaccine Survey
by Canine Health Concern, England
It is well known that there are risks associated with vaccination of dogs, just as there are risks for humans. The trouble is, no one has adequately quantified the risks. Is it true that only a tiny minority of dogs suffer adverse reactions to vaccines, or is the problem more common? And what is a vaccine reaction? Is it something that happens immediately after the jab, or can you expect a reaction to manifest weeks or months later?
Christopher Day, Honorary Secretary of the British Homoeopathic Veterinary Association, told us that, in his experience, where the start date of a dog's illness is known, a high percentage (around 80%) begin within three months of vaccination.
Canine Health Concern tested this observation and has analyzed the histories of over 3,800 dogs post vaccination. This critical mass, by any standards, is a very high number from which to draw valid statistical conclusions. Most commercial scientific research involves significantly fewer dogs (tending to base their conclusions on data involving a couple of litters of puppies, if that). We have been able to show a definite statistical correlation between a vaccine event and the onset of a number of specific illnesses. Our published conclusions have satisfied mathematical or inferential statistical tests at a level of confidence of 99% or better.
Overall, we found that 66% per cent of all sick dogs start being sick within three months of vaccination, which is considerably more than double the expected rate of illness. Worse, 49% of all illnesses reported in the survey occurred within 30 days of vaccination. This is over five times the expected percentage if vaccination had no bearing on subsequent illness. More damning still, 29% of sick dogs first became sick within seven days of their vaccine jab. This means that a dog is 13 times more likely to become ill within seven days of vaccination than at any other time.
In the study, 69.2% of allergic dogs first became allergic within three months of being vaccinated - more than double the expected number. 55.8% of dogs with autoimmune disease developed the condition within three months of being vaccinated - again, more than twice the expected figure. Of dogs with colitis, 65.9% developed the complaint within three months of being vaccinated and, of dogs with dry eye/conjunctivitis, 70.2% developed their conditions within three months - both nearly three times higher than expected. 73.1% of dogs with epilepsy first became epileptic within three months of vaccination. As 2% of all dogs in the UK are epileptic, vaccines are clearly causing horrendous damage. For statisticians, our Chi score for epilepsy is 96: any Chi test statistic higher than twelve gives a 95% confidence about the conclusions. Without doubt, then, the majority of epileptic dogs in our survey are vaccine damaged.
But perhaps most astonishing is the fact that a majority of dogs (64.9%) with behavioral problems appear to have developed their difficulties within three months of vaccination. Similarly, 72.5% per cent of dogs with nervous or worrying dispositions became nervous within three months of their jabs (with a Chi score of 112), and 73.1% per cent of dogs with short attention spans lost their attentiveness within three months of vaccination.
All of our evidence ties in with research in the human field, and a growing body of veterinary research, which says that vaccines cause allergies, hypersensitivity reactions, autoimmune disease, encephalitis, epilepsy, personality changes and brain damage.
The CHC results are statistically very significant, and carry with them very high statistical certainty. This means that the evidence is strong that the above diseases can be triggered or caused by vaccination.
Other diseases that were highly represented within three months post vaccination included cancer (35.1%) , chorea (81%), encephalitis (78.6%), heart conditions (39.2%), kidney damage (53.7%), liver damage/failure (61.5%), paralysis of the rear end (69.2%), and pancreas problems (54.2%).
Research conducted at Purdue University shows routinely vaccinated dogs developing auto antibodies to a vast range of normal canine biochemicals - which corroborates our findings.
Interestingly, our study showed that arthritis and Chronic Destructive Reticulo Myelopathy (CDRM - a degenerative disease affecting myelin in the spinal cord) occur in clusters nine months after vaccination, suggesting that the damage from vaccines resulting in these two diseases takes longer to develop or to show their symptoms.
Many contend that vaccines are a necessary evil; that we need them to protect our dogs against certain deadly canine diseases. However, our survey found that high percentages of dogs are developing the diseases we vaccinate against, soon after vaccination.
Of dogs with hepatitis, 64% contracted it within three months of being vaccinated and, of those with parainfluenza, 50% developed it within three months of their shots. Also, 69% of dogs with parvovirus, 56% of dogs with distemper, and every single dog with leptospirosis in the survey contracted the diseases within three months of vaccination.
Our figures support the view that vaccines don't confer guaranteed immunity and may actually cause the diseases they're designed to prevent. Our figures appear to demonstrate that vaccines cause illness in one in every hundred dogs - and this is a conservative estimate.
For human beings, the World Health Organization considers a reaction of one in 10,000 unacceptable. Surely the same statistics apply to dogs. Worse - and bordering on corporate dog slaughter - is the fact that we are urged to vaccinate companion animals every year. There is no scientific justification for this; it is a crime.
This research is ongoing. For further details or to participate, contact Canine Health Concern @ Box 6943, Forfar, Angus DD8 3WG, Scotland or, for email, click on my name below.
Thank you.
Catherine O¹Driscoll
Canine Health Concern
-
U. K. CANINE VACCINATION SURVEY
From England comes a report on the preliminary results of a well structured survey concerning possible health problems resulting from vaccination of dogs.
Although this is an ongoing survey the early tabulation on approximately 2,700 dogs appears to confirm our concerns with the potential for adverse effects from vaccination.
For the purposes of the survey they asked all participants to list their dogs' illnesses and tell them how soon they started after the date of vaccination. In theory, if vaccination has no adverse effect or even a bearing on subsequent illness, then illnesses will occur in equal numbers at any time during the twelve months following vaccination.
One aim of the survey was to test whether there was a timeframe bias between illnesses that developed that might be vaccine-linked. In fact, the results indicate a distinct statistical skew within the first three months. During this short time span one would expect to see no more than 25% of illnesses based on a one year time frame.
Overall, some 55% of all illnesses reported, occurred within the first three months after vaccination!
Although vaccine reactions are admitted by the manufacturers (all be it at an exceptionally low rate of perhaps 5 in one million) I don't know of any company that is admitting to a relationship of disease to vaccination. The survey indicates a strong statistical probability that such a link does in fact exist! Some examples after vaccination are:
Diarrhea-- 4.9% of dogs surveyed had diarrhea (68% of these within the first three months).
Allergies-- 3.8% had allergies (55.6% within the first three months).
Colitis-- 2.7% had colitis (56.9% first three months).
Dry Eye/conjunctivitis-- 2.5% of dogs surveyed (56.9% within first three months)
Epilepsy-- 2.1% had epilepsy (65.5% in first three months).
Loss of appetite-- 3.4% suffered a loss of appetite (79.8% within first three months).
Nasal discharges-- 1.7% showed nasal discharges (84.1% within three months of vaccination).
Nervous/worrying disposition-- 2.8% suffered from this complaint (54.8% began to do so within three months).
Skin problems-- 5.4% of dogs surveyed had skin problems after vaccination (46.2% within three months).
Vomiting-- 3% were reported to have vomited (72.5% of these dogs, within three months of vaccination).
Weight loss-- 2.5% of dogs in the survey had lost weight.(63.1% were within three months after vaccination).
Behavioral problems-- 2.5% had behavioral problems (55.4% occurred within three months).
Tumor or growth at vaccination site-- 1.1% of all dogs surveyed suffered from this occurrence. (67.9% within the first three months after vaccination).
To increase statistical confidence they still need more completed questionnaires to study the patterns of each of the following diseases (although the interim figures do give rise for concern):
Cancer--31% within 3 months
Chorea--63.2% within 3 months
Encephalitis--75% within 3 months
Heart conditions--26.8% within 3 months
Kidney damage--40.5% within three months
Lameness--52% within three months
Liver damage--47% within three months
Paralysis of abdomen--64.7% within three months
Short attention span--68.4% within three months
Autoimmune diseases--54.8% within three months
They are also waiting for more survey returns for confirmation of early indications of dogs contracting the diseases they were vaccinated against. So far the results are:
Hepatitis--63.6% occurred within three months
Parainfluenza--50% within three months
Parvovirus--68.2% within three months
Distemper--55.6% within three months
Leptospirosis--100% of dogs contracted leptospirosis within three months of vaccination.
These preliminary results tend to support the view that vaccines either don't protect, or can cause the disease itself.
Another interesting observation made from the survey was that the common belief that as dogs get older, the incidence of illness increases, was not supported. There was no statistical bias between the incidence of illness and the ages of the dogs covered in the survey.
The incidence of illness in dogs treated with more than one vaccine at the same time is significantly higher than when only a single vaccine is administered. The "cocktail" effect appears more hazardous (confidence level of higher than 99.9%). They also reported that dogs that were annually boosted were more likely to become ill than those that were not boosted annually.
From the preliminary results I have seen so far, I believe that this particular survey is one that we could all benefit from. The more dog owners that participate the better. Your contribution of a little time to fill out the questionnaire would certainly be of value. There is no charge. You can obtain the form from:
The Canine Health Census
P.O. Box 1, Longer, Derbyshire SK17 OJD
England
Or you can contact John Watt:
TEL: 44 1298 74737
FAX: 44 1298 84739
e-mail: john@dogcensus.win-uk.netJohn does urge all veterinarians interested in this work to participate and study their own patient records to see whether a similar pattern can be established.
-
Yours is exactly the thinking that is continuing to cause our pets harm. Fortunately most vets are now at least considering that more is not always better and may be keeping up on studies and peer articles, and information from both the AVMA and the AAHA on the risks associated with vaccinating and increased risks from over vaccinating.
I swear, you are the type of client who used to drive me absolutely crazy when I was in private practice. I would try to explain how I was thinking, but unless I did it in eactly the words you are looking far, you'd have a keniption fit to try to prove you are right with little regard for the exact information as long as you found pages and pages and pages of it to back up your opinion, of basically EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY!! How am I a veterinarian that is causing pets harm when I've repeatedly posted that the important thing is to assess the risk of the patient prior to administering a vaccination---a conversation that needs to be determined between the veterinarian and the owner. I've also posted that I think you should follow the laws of the county you live in, even though I don't necessarily believe in the frequency of vaccination for that county? The bottom line is that there are vaccinations on the market that should be considered as a "core" set for dogs, cats, ferrets, and livestock. There are also many "optinal" vaccinations I don't think should be administered unless it is determined that the animal has significant risk of acquiring the disease. Administration of these vaccinations are based on risk of the patient. The veterinarian is legally bound by the label of the vaccination, but has to engage in open conversation with the owner to fully assess the risk of the patient and from there develop a vaccination protocol that is best fitting for them. Again, different animals have different degrees of risk of disease. You have to consider that. To blatanly not consider risk and forgo vaccinations is as stupid as blindly giving a pet everything under the sun.
The 3 year rabies and the 1 year rabies are the same vaccine, different label. But if a dog of was mistakenly given a vac labeled 1 year, most vets would make that animal get another rabies shot the next year.
This is not true. There are two companies that market a "3 year" rabies vaccination--Imrab 3 and Rabvac3. These vaccinations are labeled to be given after 12 weeks of age, boostered after 1 year, and then every 3 years (I'm paraphrasing for space). The last private practice I worked as an associate in based their rabies vaccinations on this part of the label. If a dog had recieved a rabies vaccination at 12 weeks of age, recieved a booster at 1 year, and then recieved a booster, but that booster was put into the computer as a 1 year vaccination and I caught it the next year, I would have told my office manager, verified the rabies vaccination serial number, and then changed the medical record to say that that dog was not due a booster vaccination for 2 more years. Why overbooster when the dog isnt' due? That makes no sense and it goes against the practice philosophy I've been trying to explain to you. The point of that practice was to practice good medicine, not make $20 bucks off a rabies vaccination.
Titers do not prove or disprove that a dog needs a booster. They can be low and the animal can be protected because it might mean the animal hasn't been challenged by the virus recently. That is why some vets don't want to do them. They can bring a peace of mind if they are high, but low can give a false assumption of need for re-vaccination. Some states will accept a rabies titer in lieu of a vaccination, it would have to be re-checked yearly. Also rabies waivers can be given and should be. Though most vets are reluctant to do so. Sorry, your dog has cancer, but it must have it rabies vaccination.
Ok, so what should you use for guidelines? I'll agree a low titer isn't a cut and dry indicator that a dog needs a booster, but I'm not going to jeopardize my dogs health and find out that he really didn't have the immunity I thought he had with a low titer after he gets distemper. I don't think most of my clients would like that either.... ok, mam, you lab has a low titer, but it might be protective..... 6 months later: whoops, the low titers werent protective, I'm sorry your dog has distemper now and will die from neurologic diease. Its OK, we thought the low titers were protective, but sorry, we were wrong. Do you see the point? You have to make a decision based on the animals risk.
Since you are such a stickler for following labels and such, remember, only HEALTHY animals per manufacturers labels, are to be vaccinated. A dog comes in with skin problems, he is not healthy. You would be going against the manufacturers and giving it off label. I could probably think of a hundred more cases where a vet will still vaccinate even though the animal is not healthy. That is done every day. That is a disgrace. But since cause is hard to prove, the vet gets away with it without a worry to himself.
I wouldn't vaccinate a dog with severe skin problems. Thats why I always insist on performing a physical examination on all animals prior to administering vaccinations--and I did everything I could to drill that into my students and interns heads. That physical examination is key in helping determine the physical status of the animal.
You are a vet that would scare me. You stand behind "we are not 100% sure" and keep on doing the same things, even though if you thought about it you could see a connection between some conditions and vaccinating. You ignore the most up to date studies and information available. I have based my decisions on actual studies, peer reviewed articles, top professionals in their fields, and personal first hand experience.
And again, you are a client who would absolutely drive me crazy because unless I said things exactly worded how you wanted them to be worded you would continue to try to overwhelm me with "evidence" essentially saying what I was trying to tell you in the first place. I've told cleints they don't have to use my services and were free to walk out the door if they felt I wasn't giving them the service they thought they should be getting. I'd tell you the same thing....
When you want to open the door and come into the current information, then we can talk. Until then I will counter any inadequate or misleading information you post. I will try and do this like I have always tried to do, with studies and respected articles, and not junk science, all the information that is available, not just what I think people should know. Vets hiding behind liabilities and ignoring the evidence before their eyes is one of the main reason that people are being proactive and educating themselves. We have to, one can not have the trust in your vet like used to be commonplace. :-\
I guess you forgot sarcasm [/color] :)
nah, honey, you got your pants wound up really, really tight. Unwind them and then we can talk. :-*
-
::)
Ok, I am worn out anyways. :P I have had to do some thinking the past couple days - I will give you that!!
I will just toss this out there, I do not vaccinate except for rabies as required by law. I have (2) 6year old dogs, one rec'd 2 set sof vacs (one breeder, one I did) and my male dane never rec'd anything but rabies since the day I brought him home at 8 weeks (he had been vaccine assaulted by the breeder with 3 sets of vacs before I got him, hence his tendon tear). My female rescue dane (approx 4yrs) no boosters with me, she probably was done at the shelter and who knows what her owners did before they dumped her. My youngest, 1 year old chi, he had one puppy series by his breeder, nothing since. He scares me the most with vaccinations. How can a 6.5# chi get the same dose vac as my 170# dane? And people wonder why little dogs are pissers, the rabies alone can change temperaments. That is something I think should be addressed, the one dose for all theory.
I feel 100% comfortable with a decision to take a puppy and never vaccinate it for anything. I think it goes with the raw feeding. Building up the immune system from every side. Do I think they could never catch anything, no, but I do believe that a dog that catches distemper or parvo that has never been vaccinated for it stands a better chance of fighting it than one that has been vac'd. (you familiar with Parvaid, btw?)
That was longer than I intended, (yes I am that client you described 8))
-
::)
Ok, I am worn out anyways. :P I have had to do some thinking the past couple days - I will give you that!!
Sorry. ;) Discussion is a very good thing. I didn't mean to upset you.
I'll tell you part of the reason I came to this board, I'm not seeing as many dog and cat patients now as I have in the past (I've moved on with my career and dogs and cats aren't a part of it) and hanging out on a message board like this is something that will hopefully force me to stay on my toes a little bit more.
I will just toss this out there, I do not vaccinate except for rabies as required by law. I have (2) 6year old dogs, one rec'd 2 set sof vacs (one breeder, one I did) and my male dane never rec'd anything but rabies since the day I brought him home at 8 weeks (he had been vaccine assaulted by the breeder with 3 sets of vacs before I got him, hence his tendon tear). My female rescue dane (approx 4yrs) no boosters with me, she probably was done at the shelter and who knows what her owners did before they dumped her. My youngest, 1 year old chi, he had one puppy series by his breeder, nothing since. He scares me the most with vaccinations. How can a 6.5# chi get the same dose vac as my 170# dane? And people wonder why little dogs are pissers, the rabies alone can change temperaments. That is something I think should be addressed, the one dose for all theory.
I'll be honest the volume of vaccination bothers the crap out of me too. I will say one of the associates I used to work with decided, for whatever reason, that smaller dogs needed a smaller volume of vaccinations, so he, in his infinite stupidity stared administering half doses of vaccinations (yes, he charged full price for them until we caught him doing it--at which point we had a mess explaining things to clients) The thing was he had the highest per veterinarian case load of parvo puppies in that hospital. He literally saw 2-3 parvo puppies for every 1 I saw. When we reviewed his records because of the billing issues, most of those dogs were puppies who he'd given 1 or 2 half strength vaccinations to. My conclusion based on that was that a half dose does not provide the degree of immunity that a full dose does. I also started looking into volume of vaccinations and why you need to give a small dog what seems like so darned much.... (and just so you know, my 9000 lb elephan patients get the same volume of rabies vaccination that my wifes 900 lb horse does---which is the same volume of rabies vaccination my 285 lb ass got when I was in veterinary school. This holds true for multiple species)
The best answer I can give is one I'll admit is confusing. Its based on the antigenic mass of the vaccination. That is the key---the mass of agent within the given volume of vaccine that will stimulate the immune system to have a response as is ideally appropriate for the animal being vaccinated. A given volume of vaccine has a set antigenic mass. This holds true for human and veterinary medicine. The antigenic mass doesn't change whether it's a 2 lb teacup poodle or a 200 lb Dane. Same with babies and adult humans, the vaccine volume is the same. I know its confusing and its something I'll admit Iv'e struggled with, but taking a few minutes to try to understand exactly how vaccines work, how they stimulate the immune system, and how the body responds to them helps out some.
If you were a client of mine, I would tell you that I do not advise the approach that you are taking (which is obvious from our previous discussions) because of the questionable history of the vaccinations which your animals have recieved. I don't know the risk of exposure with your pets, but to me its like playing russian roulette for the simple fact that you have not completed any sort of vaccination series with your dogs. Your dogs have had one or two shot in the puppy series (Assuming you are doing a minimal DAP) but no more. This means that there is a reasonable chance that the dogs have NOT developed full lasting immunity. Look back through many of the posts that you have put up here, the big debate largely centers around boostering adult dogs. There seems to be a general consensius that puppies all need some sort of core vaccinations---ie a DAP. When to booster them after they are puppies is the area of debate. If your dogs have recieved no vaccinations what so ever, then the statistical chance of them having protective immunity is significantly reduced vs a dog that had the puppy series and possibly some adult vaccinations. I've seen a couple of cases of parvo where the owner has a 2 year old adult dog who only recieved 1 puppy vaccination. The owner goes out and adopts a puppy from the humane society, takes it home over the weekend and the puppy breaks with Parvo, which the older dog starts to show signs of 3-4 days later. From there its a nightmare, where in my experience, for whatever reason the older dogs were hit much, muc harder by the parvo virus than the youngr ones.
Now your choice to vaccinate them needs to be considered with your risk. I'd encourage you to at least abide by local rabies vaccination laws. They may not be ideal, but lets face it, there is a legal issue that has to be dealt with. Not only that, but you have Great Danes--a breed that does fall under some degree of the stupid breed legislation running crazy in the US. I've successfully argued legal cases for clients based on the simple fact that the provided their dogs with heartworm, flea, and tick preventative and most of all vaccinations. I dont' necessarily agree with it, but its a fact that legally these sort of things are used as a measure of "quality of ownership".
I feel 100% comfortable with a decision to take a puppy and never vaccinate it for anything. I think it goes with the raw feeding. Building up the immune system from every side. Do I think they could never catch anything, no, but I do believe that a dog that catches distemper or parvo that has never been vaccinated for it stands a better chance of fighting it than one that has been vac'd. (you familiar with Parvaid, btw?)
Have you ever seen parvo or distemper or contagious hepatitis? Parvo is a terrible disease that will rip through a group of dogs like wildfire. Again, I think vaccinating a puppy with core vaccinations, then assessing risk of exposure for the dog while abiding by local legislature is the most sound medical approach.
and yes, I am familiar with Parvaid, although its not something I use on a regular basis. One key ingredient missing from that herbal concoction is Glutamine. Parvo is an instinal viral infection that literally results in the lining of the inesting peeling out of the dog. Supplementing glutamine is very, very important when treating this type of disease in my opinion.
That was longer than I intended, (yes I am that client you described 8))[/color]
Nah, its all good. ;D
-
Sorry. ;) Discussion is a very good thing. I didn't mean to upset you.
I'll tell you part of the reason I came to this board, I'm not seeing as many dog and cat patients now as I have in the past (I've moved on with my career and dogs and cats aren't a part of it) and hanging out on a message board like this is something that will hopefully force me to stay on my toes a little bit more.
I think discussion is good too. I belong to a few groups that are pretty much 100% against vaccines so besides hearing about some new studies or something, it is pretty much the same stuff. A new member will show up and spark some discussion but they are anti-vaccine groups so the discussions are kind of skewed one way. Just recently someone had asked about vaccinating their ferret and the replies were pretty much don't. I spoke up and wanted to make sure the person knew that distemper was pretty much 100% fatal in ferrets, (most of the comments were on the rabies vaccine). I have had ferrets and currently have one, 9 years old, lost my other 9 year old on 4/12/07, and have not vaccinated them in about 7 years, and felt comfortable with that decision, but I couldn't let this person not know about that risk. I thought I was going to get slammed for that, but actually no one said anything. Maybe because I am a long standing member and I am not afraid to speak my mind, lol ::)
I'll be honest the volume of vaccination bothers the crap out of me too. I will say one of the associates I used to work with decided, for whatever reason, that smaller dogs needed a smaller volume of vaccinations, so he, in his infinite stupidity stared administering half doses of vaccinations (yes, he charged full price for them until we caught him doing it--at which point we had a mess explaining things to clients) The thing was he had the highest per veterinarian case load of parvo puppies in that hospital. He literally saw 2-3 parvo puppies for every 1 I saw. When we reviewed his records because of the billing issues, most of those dogs were puppies who he'd given 1 or 2 half strength vaccinations to. My conclusion based on that was that a half dose does not provide the degree of immunity that a full dose does. I also started looking into volume of vaccinations and why you need to give a small dog what seems like so darned much.... (and just so you know, my 9000 lb elephan patients get the same volume of rabies vaccination that my wifes 900 lb horse does---which is the same volume of rabies vaccination my 285 lb ass got when I was in veterinary school. This holds true for multiple species)
The best answer I can give is one I'll admit is confusing. Its based on the antigenic mass of the vaccination. That is the key---the mass of agent within the given volume of vaccine that will stimulate the immune system to have a response as is ideally appropriate for the animal being vaccinated. A given volume of vaccine has a set antigenic mass. This holds true for human and veterinary medicine. The antigenic mass doesn't change whether it's a 2 lb teacup poodle or a 200 lb Dane. Same with babies and adult humans, the vaccine volume is the same. I know its confusing and its something I'll admit Iv'e struggled with, but taking a few minutes to try to understand exactly how vaccines work, how they stimulate the immune system, and how the body responds to them helps out some.
Thanks for that explanation. I will pursue this further on my own to get a better understanding. It still seems not right, like you said. I think it is hard to wrap your mind around it. If you have any sites or articles you could direct me too, I would appreciate that.
If you were a client of mine, I would tell you that I do not advise the approach that you are taking (which is obvious from our previous discussions) because of the questionable history of the vaccinations which your animals have recieved. I don't know the risk of exposure with your pets, but to me its like playing russian roulette for the simple fact that you have not completed any sort of vaccination series with your dogs. Your dogs have had one or two shot in the puppy series (Assuming you are doing a minimal DAP) but no more. This means that there is a reasonable chance that the dogs have NOT developed full lasting immunity. Look back through many of the posts that you have put up here, the big debate largely centers around boostering adult dogs. There seems to be a general consensius that puppies all need some sort of core vaccinations---ie a DAP. When to booster them after they are puppies is the area of debate. If your dogs have recieved no vaccinations what so ever, then the statistical chance of them having protective immunity is significantly reduced vs a dog that had the puppy series and possibly some adult vaccinations. I've seen a couple of cases of parvo where the owner has a 2 year old adult dog who only recieved 1 puppy vaccination. The owner goes out and adopts a puppy from the humane society, takes it home over the weekend and the puppy breaks with Parvo, which the older dog starts to show signs of 3-4 days later. From there its a nightmare, where in my experience, for whatever reason the older dogs were hit much, muc harder by the parvo virus than the youngr ones.
I understand and am aware of everything you have said. As I said in my other post, I am trying to build up the body as a whole in every way I can. I also took my dogs places as puppies where they would come in contact with other dogs or where other dogs have been. The pet stores, on walks, etc. I believe that they could have picked up immunities by coming across shed virus from vaccinated puppies. This is a more natural approach that a vaccine. Some people "vaccinate" their pups by letting them play with the neighbors dog that was recently vaccinated. Some breeders are choosing to vaccinate one pup in the litter and letting shed virus do the others. I personally could not do that, I would feel I was sacrificing that pup to possible future health problems for the sake of the others. Other people give one puppy shot (and I believe this is what Schultz says) after 20 weeks, do a titer and see if it took, and the dog is done for life. The fallacy of the puppy series has always bugged me. The only reason for the series is because of maternal immunity. The series is so the odds are good that you will catch every one when they have worn off, and each animal is different on when that is. By 20 weeks they usually are, so you could vaccinate once after that age and forgo the series. The one year booster is a further safeguard that the vaccine took, but you could still give one then if you needed to feel safer.
I know quite a few breeders that have generations of raw fed, non vaccinated dogs. And when I say non vaccinated, I mean for nothing. They are trying to improve their breed. One such person has Danes, and someone took a puppy that did get parvo. When it was at the vets their was another puppy there with parvo that had been vaccinated for parvo a few weeks before. The non vaccinated pup was out of there in 2 days and recovered fine, not sure if the other puppy made it. The vet said it was a strong possibility that the puppy had gotten parvo from the vaccine. That does happen, and it is usually a worse case than if contracted naturally. Like the story you mentioned. That puppy very well may have contracted parvo from the vaccine. The non vaccinated puppy I mentioned was raw fed, and from raw fed, non vaccinated parents. I am sure that played a role in it's parvo recovery. That puppy as a whole was better able to deal with the virus. Unlike the vaccinated, kibble fed, pup from vaccinated, kibble fed parents. Chronic disease and poor health are passed down through the generations. The current theory is that it would take about 5 generations of natural reared (raw fed, no vacs) to undue that damage and actually get HEALTHY dogs. My goal is to have the healthiest dogs that I can have.
Now your choice to vaccinate them needs to be considered with your risk. I'd encourage you to at least abide by local rabies vaccination laws. They may not be ideal, but lets face it, there is a legal issue that has to be dealt with. Not only that, but you have Great Danes--a breed that does fall under some degree of the stupid breed legislation running crazy in the US. I've successfully argued legal cases for clients based on the simple fact that the provided their dogs with heartworm, flea, and tick preventative and most of all vaccinations. I dont' necessarily agree with it, but its a fact that legally these sort of things are used as a measure of "quality of ownership".
Yes, rabies is req'd every 3 years here. I have seen labradors on some of those BSL lists! That issue has gotten way out of hand as a whole, but that is another discussion. ;) I could argue that my not chemically poisoning my dogs is a sign of my quailty of ownership. I am not relying on "products" to give them the appearance of health (by suppressing the symptoms) and instead allowing them to have good health with no coverups. The fact that my dogs can deal with fleas with no outside intervention is a better testament of health than the animal that never has fleas but gets preventative every month. You say it was luck, I say it was health. So many of these problems are considered normal, and commonplace. I say no, they should not be. Skin problems should not be considered a small problem, dealt with by meds and other things that mask the symptoms but don't address the underlying problem - the health of the animal. It disgusts me that in ferrets diseases are common and "go with the animal". I don't know if my two 9 year old ferrets were/are genetically gifted, they came from Marshall farms and not a private breeder so I doubt they are. but I do think that not vaccinating them year after year played a part in them getting to 9 years disease free. My remaining ferret has recently been diagnosed with adrenal (treated with a melatonin implant) and lymphoma. 2 diseases that usually strike 5 years earlier than that. But people just don't see the connections. :-\
Our pets are getting more chronic diseases than ever. Allergies, joint problems, skin problems,gastro problems, heart, cancers... etc etc. And most people accept that. I do not accept that. I will not accept that.
Have you ever seen parvo or distemper or contagious hepatitis? Parvo is a terrible disease that will rip through a group of dogs like wildfire. Again, I think vaccinating a puppy with core vaccinations, then assessing risk of exposure for the dog while abiding by local legislature is the most sound medical approach.
and yes, I am familiar with Parvaid, although its not something I use on a regular basis. One key ingredient missing from that herbal concoction is Glutamine. Parvo is an instinal viral infection that literally results in the lining of the inesting peeling out of the dog. Supplementing glutamine is very, very important when treating this type of disease in my opinion.
No I haven't but I have heard of cases. But I have heard and have first hand experience with what vaccinating has done to the health of mine and other pets. I have chosen the lesser risk, IMO, and am doing my best to give my animals what they need and require to be healthy.
That is why I question your every other year vacs for your own dogs. Do you not trust the efficacy of the vaccines? Do you not believe the studies showing duration of immunity? Do you not think that your 13 year old dog has been vaccinated enough, and if he isn't immune now, he is never going to be? I was floored when I read that is what you do. I find it hard to comprehend in light of what is now known about the risks of over vaccinating, and how long they do last, that someone would knowingly inject their pet, and keep doing it. I think the AAHA's 3 year recommendation was a cop out on their part, they even say it was "the happy medium", and yet you continue to assault, and yes I believe it as an assault, your dogs immune system?
A recent post to one of my groups was regarding someone's neighbor dog and what they should tell this person about vaccinating. One reply was since the person was going to be feeding it kibble and probably giving it every chemical and poison maybe she should just vaccinate it because it probably wouldn't be capable of dealing with a disease. Those thoughts have crossed my mind when talking to people. If someone isn't going to go the distance and work on the whole animal, then maybe they should follow the protocol and go every 3 years, or at least the puppy and one year, and spread out vacs over the next years, every 3 or 4, depending on the animal and it's vaccination history. Older dogs with a vaccination history, I say, like I said to you, why bother with more, it's either got immunity or it doesn't at this point, leave it's body alone.
To sum up, I try and build health with good food, and no assaults on the body, and expose them to different places to also build up their immunity.
I haven't been boostered for anything since high school, why should animals be subjected to it?
-
Anyone going to listen to this online, Vet? It's worth 2 CEU credits ::)
http://www.naturalanimalworldconvention.org/ (http://www.naturalanimalworldconvention.org/)
I actually would like to hear some of those lectures.
9:00 a.m.
To Vaccinate or Not? That is the Question
Presenter: Dr. Steven Blake
For over one hundred years vaccination of humans and animals has been under scrutiny. Many veterinarians around the world share my opinion. The course’s purpose is to assist you in making an educated decision about vaccination for your entire family.
For the past 25 years I have stressed the following issue about vaccinations: Is the theory of vaccination practical? When we know there are an infinite number of strains of virus and bacteria, does it make any sense to try to prevent disease by injecting an infinite number of viruses and bacteria into the blood streams of animals and people? My answer is NO. A healthy immune system is the best prevention. My clients are encouraged to not vaccinate or vaccinate less. The documented cases of Distemper and Kennel cough I have treated were vaccinated at some point in their lives. All Parvo cases I have treated, post 1978's Parvo epidemic, had all been vaccinated. I want you to be aware there are no guarantees whether you choose to vaccinate or not.
and this one:
3:00 p.m.
A Proper Diet for our Carnivorous Animals
Presenter: Dr. Tom Lonsdale
(with Kim Bloomer)
Nature knows and knows best. A natural diet acts as both food and medicine for carnivores. This fact has been overlooked ever since the pet-food industry and veterinary profession took charge of pet feeding.
Nowadays, concerned pet owners are taking back responsibility for feeding their pets. The most successful unlearn pet-food industry inspired misinformation and recognize that dogs, cats and ferrets are carnivores. They ask: What does Nature teach us about carnivore feeding?
Ideally dogs, cats and ferrets should be fed like their wild counterparts -- wolves, wild cats and polecats -- on whole carcasses of other animals. By this means, they receive the necessary nutrients plus the vital tooth cleaning effects of gnawing, ripping and tearing through meat and bones.
Giving your pets the best food and medicine is surprisingly easy, even in an unnatural world.
-
Click for whole report on Heartgard:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/730.htm (http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/730.htm)
'Three hundred seventy dogs in controlled efficacy trials were treated with ivermectin. Of the 83 dogs treated at monthly intervals in natural infection trials, or treated 30 days after induced infection, with doses of ivermectin at 3.0 mcg/kg or greater, only 2 dogs developed infections. Even when the treatment interval was extended to 45 or 60 days following infection, only 2 of 88 dogs given ivermectin at 6.0 mcg/kg or more developed infections.'
-
I think discussion is good too. I belong to a few groups that are pretty much 100% against vaccines so besides hearing about some new studies or something, it is pretty much the same stuff. A new member will show up and spark some discussion but they are anti-vaccine groups so the discussions are kind of skewed one way. Just recently someone had asked about vaccinating their ferret and the replies were pretty much don't. I spoke up and wanted to make sure the person knew that distemper was pretty much 100% fatal in ferrets, (most of the comments were on the rabies vaccine). I have had ferrets and currently have one, 9 years old, lost my other 9 year old on 4/12/07, and have not vaccinated them in about 7 years, and felt comfortable with that decision, but I couldn't let this person not know about that risk. I thought I was going to get slammed for that, but actually no one said anything. Maybe because I am a long standing member and I am not afraid to speak my mind, lol ::)
I will tell you, I've advised ferret owners not to vaccinate their ferrets.... There are only two diseases you need to be concerned with in ferrets that there are vaccinations for----Rabies, which is again a legal issue. In many places ferrets are treated as wildlife, meaning that if a ferret bites someone (and we all know ferrets can bite) even if its the local authorities are within the law to order that that animal be testedfor rabies if its been vaccinated for rabies or not. The only way to test for rabies is to euthanize the animal, remove its head, and send in the brain/head for diagnostics.
The other is distemper. When I practiced in New York City, it made no sense for me to tell ferret owners that their ferrets were at risk getting distemper living on the 35th story of a high-rise apartment building. I have seen distemper in domestic ferrets--but only in rural areas, where distemper was rampant in the wild raccoon population. The thing is there is no cure for distemper in ferrets. It will kill them. So risk assessment is very important.
Thanks for that explanation. I will pursue this further on my own to get a better understanding. It still seems not right, like you said. I think it is hard to wrap your mind around it. If you have any sites or articles you could direct me too, I would appreciate that.
It can confusing reading, but I hope it will help things make sense for you.
I understand and am aware of everything you have said. As I said in my other post, I am trying to build up the body as a whole in every way I can. I also took my dogs places as puppies where they would come in contact with other dogs or where other dogs have been. The pet stores, on walks, etc.
I agree with this, to a point. You don't want to jeopardize their health by taking them somewhere where disease is rampant. If you do that you will overwhelm their developing system and you will have major problems.
I believe that they could have picked up immunities by coming across shed virus from vaccinated puppies. This is a more natural approach that a vaccine. Some people "vaccinate" their pups by letting them play with the neighbors dog that was recently vaccinated. Some breeders are choosing to vaccinate one pup in the litter and letting shed virus do the others. I personally could not do that, I would feel I was sacrificing that pup to possible future health problems for the sake of the others. Other people give one puppy shot (and I believe this is what Schultz says) after 20 weeks, do a titer and see if it took, and the dog is done for life.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure about "shedding" of virus after vaccination. In a "killed" product, it simply wont' happen. Those vaccinations, there is no live product to be shed. The vaccine is composed of antigenic particles, typically pieces of virus or bacteria bound with an adjuvent, which stimulate the immune system (which is also the reason that so many of them have adjuvents--which may be the real problem source with most vaccinations).
In the case of modified live vaccinations, many of those contain virus which have been cultivated under conditions that disable the virulent properties. These virulent properties include virus reproduction and spreading. That virus may be shed, but its lost the ability to infect other organisms. That’s how you are able to vaccinate puppies and NOT induce major disease outbreaks. Now, with some of the new Canary Pox vectored vaccinations---which for what ever manufacturing reason are sometimes very difficult to get-- the canary pox virus acts as a vector and may spread to other animals, but canary pox is not a normal disease for dogs or cats or ferrets, so the spreading of this virus vector between organisms should not happen unless there is some sort of mutation.
Again, remember when you vaccinate an animal, you inject a certain antigen load. Animals are by and large not vaccinated with the idea that the virus being put into them will replicate---most (and I say most, there are some where this isn’t the case) vaccines have had the replication factors removed from the virus, however, the presence of the virus injected will stimulate the immune system. That’s where the immunity comes from.
The fallacy of the puppy series has always bugged me. The only reason for the series is because of maternal immunity. The series is so the odds are good that you will catch every one when they have worn off, and each animal is different on when that is. By 20 weeks they usually are, so you could vaccinate once after that age and forgo the series. The one year booster is a further safeguard that the vaccine took, but you could still give one then if you needed to feel safer.
I really, really wish I could draw you a picture for this question/statement. The booster series is based on the developing immune system. You have a set level of "minimal protection" which must be achieved for the vaccine to provide protection against disease. The series is given because not every young animals immune system is fully active at the same time. The same principles hold true with human vaccines. While in the basic idea, the thought of a single vaccination at 20 weeks seems right, it isn’t because of how the body responds to antigenic stimulation. Like I said, I really, really wish I could draw you a picture, its way easier to explain that way.
I know quite a few breeders that have generations of raw fed, non vaccinated dogs. And when I say non vaccinated, I mean for nothing. They are trying to improve their breed. One such person has Danes, and someone took a puppy that did get parvo. When it was at the vets their was another puppy there with parvo that had been vaccinated for parvo a few weeks before. The non vaccinated pup was out of there in 2 days and recovered fine, not sure if the other puppy made it. The vet said it was a strong possibility that the puppy had gotten parvo from the vaccine. That does happen, and it is usually a worse case than if contracted naturally. Like the story you mentioned. That puppy very well may have contracted parvo from the vaccine. The non vaccinated puppy I mentioned was raw fed, and from raw fed, non vaccinated parents. I am sure that played a role in it's parvo recovery. That puppy as a whole was better able to deal with the virus. Unlike the vaccinated, kibble fed, pup from vaccinated, kibble fed parents. Chronic disease and poor health are passed down through the generations. The current theory is that it would take about 5 generations of natural reared (raw fed, no vacs) to undue that damage and actually get HEALTHY dogs. My goal is to have the healthiest dogs that I can have.
[/color]
I disagree with that veterinarian saying that the puppy could have gotten Parvo from the vaccine. Especially parvo that is capable of causing clinical disease. You will rarely see puppies who show clinical signs of parvo—one of my pits did, where she had mild diarrhea for starting about 36-48 hours after vaccination for 2 days after she was vaccinated as a puppy. That stopped as she got older. We do not use true live vaccinations except on very rare occasions for that very reason. That disease cannot develop from a vaccination and spread.
What is more likely to have happened is that the puppy was vaccinated—which causes an immune response and is acknowledged as producing a period where a puppy with a developing immune system may actually be more suseptable to the disease if they come into contact with it or the puppy had been exposed to parvo and was incubating the virus when the vaccination occured. The majority of the parvo cases I’ve seen are those where the dogs have one, maybe two shots in the series, but did not get the full series. That or the puppies come from dams that have not ever been vaccinated.
In the case of animals getting sick and/or dying from diseases like Parvo, you need to consider virulence (ability and severity of infection) of the virus. Parvo is a disease that has virulence that varies widely depending upon the area of the country where you live. In Missouri, where I went to veterinary school, it wasn’t uncommon to have a 96-98% success rate for treating parvo puppies. My wife and I would bring puppies home from the humane society and treat them on my back porch when I was a veterinary student (one of the reasons I vaccinate my dogs---which I’ll get into later). When I moved to Kentucky, we barely had a 50% success rate in treating that disease---even though I used the exact same treatment protocol from Missouri. When I was in Ohio, we had about an 85% success rate. There were only two major differences that I can think of that may account for this---one is frequency of vaccination of the mothers. In Missouri, I know that many of the mothers were vaccinated, while in Kentucky very few were. The maternal antibodies had to be a factor. The other is virus virulence. The only cases of Parvo induced endocarditis I’ve ever seen were in Kentucky. It wasn’t uncommon to see puppies come in to the hospital where time of disease had been less than 48 hours and despite everything we did, they died. Puppies who presented with similar clinical presentations often lived in Missouri and Ohio, they died in Kentucky. It was pretty depressing.
Yes, rabies is req'd every 3 years here. I have seen labradors on some of those BSL lists! That issue has gotten way out of hand as a whole, but that is another discussion. ;) I could argue that my not chemically poisoning my dogs is a sign of my quailty of ownership. I am not relying on "products" to give them the appearance of health (by suppressing the symptoms) and instead allowing them to have good health with no coverups. The fact that my dogs can deal with fleas with no outside intervention is a better testament of health than the animal that never has fleas but gets preventative every month. You say it was luck, I say it was health. So many of these problems are considered normal, and commonplace. I say no, they should not be. Skin problems should not be considered a small problem, dealt with by meds and other things that mask the symptoms but don't address the underlying problem - the health of the animal. It disgusts me that in ferrets diseases are common and "go with the animal". I don't know if my two 9 year old ferrets were/are genetically gifted, they came from Marshall farms and not a private breeder so I doubt they are. but I do think that not vaccinating them year after year played a part in them getting to 9 years disease free. My remaining ferret has recently been diagnosed with adrenal (treated with a melatonin implant) and lymphoma. 2 diseases that usually strike 5 years earlier than that. But people just don't see the connections. :-\
We could probably argue for a long, long time about some of what you wrote above. I do agree with you about skin problems and such, however, I don’t think we have enough proof to attribute every single skin problem to vaccines.
As far as your ferrets go…8-9 years old is a ripe old age. Pat yourself on the back. The oldest ferret I’ve had as a patient was just over 11 when heart disease finally killed her. You could have written a textbook on the medical management of that ferret, but she was happy up to the day she died. The incidence of adrenal disease in ferrets varies widely----although you are pretty much assured if you own a Marshall Farms ferret (they are mass produced, early spay neutered, and genetically line bred) they will get either adrenal disease, an insulinoma, or lymphoma or all of them at some time in their lives. We could have a thread in and of itself devoted to adrenal disease….the bottom line is that there is a very, very strong body of research presented from Dr. Nico Shoemaker (I know I misspelled Nico’s last name) of Utrecht looking at early/spay/neutering as a predisposing factor for adrenal disease. Based on the research he did, there is a definitive correlation based on LH modulation, early neutering, and its effects on stimulation of sex hormone production by the adrenal glands, and the fact that ferrets are seasonal breeders. Unfortunately, in the US Marshal’s controls the market. Having said that, I will say I’ve seen adrenal disease in ferrets neutered as adults and in unneutered ferrets, but they were all over 6 years of age, not the 3 year olds you sometimes see.
Our pets are getting more chronic diseases than ever. Allergies, joint problems, skin problems,gastro problems, heart, cancers... etc etc. And most people accept that. I do not accept that. I will not accept that. [/color]
I will agree with this. I’m not sure what the source is, but one big factor is we are far better able to diagnose disease now than we were 25 years ago and we are expecting them to live longer. That makes a difference.
No I haven't but I have heard of cases. But I have heard and have first hand experience with what vaccinating has done to the health of mine and other pets. I have chosen the lesser risk, IMO, and am doing my best to give my animals what they need and require to be healthy.
That is why I question your every other year vacs for your own dogs. Do you not trust the efficacy of the vaccines? Do you not believe the studies showing duration of immunity? Do you not think that your 13 year old dog has been vaccinated enough, and if he isn't immune now, he is never going to be? I was floored when I read that is what you do. I find it hard to comprehend in light of what is now known about the risks of over vaccinating, and how long they do last, that someone would knowingly inject their pet, and keep doing it. I think the AAHA's 3 year recommendation was a cop out on their part, they even say it was "the happy medium", and yet you continue to assault, and yes I believe it as an assault, your dogs immune system?
A recent post to one of my groups was regarding someone's neighbor dog and what they should tell this person about vaccinating. One reply was since the person was going to be feeding it kibble and probably giving it every chemical and poison maybe she should just vaccinate it because it probably wouldn't be capable of dealing with a disease. Those thoughts have crossed my mind when talking to people. If someone isn't going to go the distance and work on the whole animal, then maybe they should follow the protocol and go every 3 years, or at least the puppy and one year, and spread out vacs over the next years, every 3 or 4, depending on the animal and it's vaccination history. Older dogs with a vaccination history, I say, like I said to you, why bother with more, it's either got immunity or it doesn't at this point, leave it's body alone.
To sum up, I try and build health with good food, and no assaults on the body, and expose them to different places to also build up their immunity.
I haven't been boostered for anything since high school, why should animals be subjected to it?
Again I think you’ve been real lucky or else your dogs live in a very, very low risk environment. I will tell you why I booster my dogs… its simple risk assessment. Up until about 10 months ago when my wife and I moved the last time we had at any given time 1-2 kittens or puppies from the local humane society in our house. I’ve treated too many parvo dogs on my back porch to count. Considering my dogs, I think they have a very, very high risk of exposure because of the revolving puppy door in my house. Second, I work almost exclusively with wildlife now. If you consider virulence of disease, typically strains that can cross species are more aggressive. I think that increases the risk of the possibility of one of my dogs contracting something that I might inadvertently bring home with me. Finally, I live in the country. My dogs have been known to kill raccoons, coyotes and other wildlife. That risk alone warrants attempting to protect them from disease I am certain they are going to be exposed.
-
Click for whole report on Heartgard:
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/730.htm (http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/730.htm)
'Three hundred seventy dogs in controlled efficacy trials were treated with ivermectin. Of the 83 dogs treated at monthly intervals in natural infection trials, or treated 30 days after induced infection, with doses of ivermectin at 3.0 mcg/kg or greater, only 2 dogs developed infections. Even when the treatment interval was extended to 45 or 60 days following infection, only 2 of 88 dogs given ivermectin at 6.0 mcg/kg or more developed infections.'
Again, as I posted earlier, ivermectin, as a heart worm preventative does not PREVENT infection with microfilaria, it prevents the development of heartworm disease. Instead it kills microfilaria that are in the dogs body since the last time it recieved the preventative. Those microfilaria are what develop into adult heartworms.
-
When I practiced in New York City, it made no sense for me to tell ferret owners that their ferrets were at risk getting distemper living on the 35th story of a high-rise apartment building.
Try telling that to most members of the ferret community. Even getting them to do distemper every other year is like pulling teeth. They will argue you can bring it in on your shoes, so the ferrets are never safe. Meanwhile diseases are expected and accepted.
I agree with this, to a point. You don't want to jeopardize their health by taking them somewhere where disease is rampant. If you do that you will overwhelm their developing system and you will have major problems.
I would never purposely expose them, but I don't have the fear that they must not set a paw on the ground untll they have completed their puppy series. Some people are afraid even in their own backyard. Just to get good socialization I think it is important to get them out and in new situations at a young age.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure about "shedding" of virus after vaccination. In a "killed" product, it simply wont' happen. Those vaccinations, there is no live product to be shed. The vaccine is composed of antigenic particles, typically pieces of virus or bacteria bound with an adjuvent, which stimulate the immune system (which is also the reason that so many of them have adjuvents--which may be the real problem source with most vaccinations).
In the case of modified live vaccinations, many of those contain virus which have been cultivated under conditions that disable the virulent properties. These virulent properties include virus reproduction and spreading. That virus may be shed, but its lost the ability to infect other organisms. That’s how you are able to vaccinate puppies and NOT induce major disease outbreaks. Now, with some of the new Canary Pox vectored vaccinations---which for what ever manufacturing reason are sometimes very difficult to get-- the canary pox virus acts as a vector and may spread to other animals, but canary pox is not a normal disease for dogs or cats or ferrets, so the spreading of this virus vector between organisms should not happen unless there is some sort of mutation.
Again, remember when you vaccinate an animal, you inject a certain antigen load. Animals are by and large not vaccinated with the idea that the virus being put into them will replicate---most (and I say most, there are some where this isn’t the case) vaccines have had the replication factors removed from the virus, however, the presence of the virus injected will stimulate the immune system. That’s where the immunity comes from.
Occurrence of severe gastroenteritis in pups after canine parvovirus vaccine administration: A clinical and laboratory diagnostic dilemma
Nicola DecaroCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Costantina Desarioa, Gabriella Eliaa, Marco Campoloa, Alessio Lorussoa, Viviana Maria, Vito Martellaa and Canio Buonavogliaa
aDepartment of Animal Health and Well-being, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Bari, Strada per Casamassima Km 3, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy
Received 10 August 2006; revised 22 September 2006; accepted 12 October 2006. Available online 25 October 2006.
Abstract
A total of 29 faecal samples collected from dogs with diarrhoea following canine parvovirus (CPV) vaccination were tested by minor groove binder (MGB) probe assays for discrimination between CPV vaccine and field strains and by diagnostic tests for detection of other canine pathogens. Fifteen samples tested positive only for CPV field strains; however, both vaccine and field strains were detected in three samples. Eleven samples were found to contain only the vaccine strain, although eight of them tested positive for other pathogens of dogs. Only three samples were found to contain the vaccine strain without evidence of canine pathogens. The present study confirms that most cases of parvovirus-like disease occurring shortly after vaccination are related to infection with field strains of canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) rather than to reversion to virulence of the modified live virus contained in the vaccine.
This abstract appears to confirm shedding, along with your theory that the vaccinated parvo puppy did not get it from the vaccine, but was more susceptible to it because he was recently vaccinated.
From Dr. Dodds:
From The Immune System and Disease Resistance, a paper by DR W Jean Dodds, DVM
" A recent examination of the risks posed by MLV vaccines concluded that they are intrinsically more hazardous than inactivated products. The residual virulence and environmental contamination resulting from the shedding of vaccine virus is a serious concern."
-------
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=2&cat=1648&articleid=962 (http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=2&cat=1648&articleid=962)
Shedding of vaccine agent
Vaccine virus may be found in the nasal secretions of dogs vaccinated intranasally. In addition, vaccine parvovirus is shed in the feces of vaccinated dogs, canine adenovirus-1 can be shed in the urine, and canine adenovirus-2 can be found in nasal secretions. These viruses are the vaccine forms of the virus; they do NOT revert back to the disease-causing strains.
---------
The Cornell Feline Health Center
College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University
& The American Association of Feline Practitioners
and the Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines
A second type of vaccine is the modified live-virus (MLV) vaccine (also referred to as an attenuated vaccine), which contains viruses that have been altered by various techniques, so that they no longer produce clinical disease. Viruses in these vaccines can replicate within the host and stimulate a rapid and excellent immune response. In some cases, vaccine virus may be shed from the vaccinated cat to infect other cats that may come in contact with the vaccinated cat. MLV vaccines should not be administered to pregnant cats.
I think you should give a little more weight to vaccine shedding. If my dogs are repeatedly exposed to vaccine shedding it is a much healthier way to stimulate their immune system then a vaccine which bypasses the bodies ways of dealing with a preparing for an assault. Again, this is my whole dog approach to health.
I really, really wish I could draw you a picture for this question/statement. The booster series is based on the developing immune system. You have a set level of "minimal protection" which must be achieved for the vaccine to provide protection against disease. The series is given because not every young animals immune system is fully active at the same time. The same principles hold true with human vaccines. While in the basic idea, the thought of a single vaccination at 20 weeks seems right, it isn’t because of how the body responds to antigenic stimulation. Like I said, I really, really wish I could draw you a picture, its way easier to explain that way.
You are trying to catch them in the period that the maternal immunities wane, and not leave them open to catching the virus, a single vaccine after 20 weeks would be sufficient if maternal anitibodies had waned:
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=1&cat=1385&articleid=967 (http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=1&cat=1385&articleid=967)
High levels of maternal antibodies present in a kitten's or puppy's bloodstream will block the effectiveness of a vaccine. When the maternal antibodies drop to a low enough level in the young animal, immunization by a commercial vaccine will work.
The antibodies from the mother generally circulate in the newborn's blood for a number of weeks. The complicating factor is that there is a period of time from several days to a couple of weeks in which the maternal antibodies are too low to provide protection against the disease, but too high to allow the vaccine to work and produce immunity. This period is called the window of susceptibility. This is the time when despite being vaccinated, a kitten or puppy can still contract the disease. This window of susceptibility can vary widely. The length and timing of the window of susceptibility is different in every litter and between animals in the same litter. Let us take canine parvovirus as an example.
The length and timing of the window of susceptibility is different in every litter, and even between individuals in a litter. A study of a cross section of different puppies illustrates this. It showed that the age at which puppies were able to respond to a vaccine and develop protection (become immunized) covered a wide period of time. At six weeks of age, 25% of the puppies could be immunized. At 9 weeks, 40% of the puppies were able to respond to the vaccine and were protected. The number increased to 60% by 16 weeks, and by 18 weeks, 95% of the puppies could be immunized. If a similar study was performed in kittens, it too would demonstrate variations in the length and timing of their windows of susceptibility.
Since the length and timing of the window of susceptibility varies so widely, it is impossible for us to determine when is the best time to vaccinate each individual kitten or puppy. There are just too many variables. For this reason, young animals are given a series of vaccinations in hope that we can vaccinate the animal as soon as it leaves the 'window of susceptibility.'
http://www.marvistavet.com/html/vaccination_options_prevention.html (http://www.marvistavet.com/html/vaccination_options_prevention.html)
MATERNAL ANTIBODY: OUR BIGGEST OBSTACLE
The biggest problem in protecting a puppy against this infection ironically stems from the natural mechanism of protection that has evolved. As mentioned previously, puppies obtain their immunity from their mother’s first milk, the colostrum, on the first day of life. This special milk contains the mother’s antibodies against parvovirus and until these antibodies wane to ineffective levels, they will protect the puppy.
The problem is that they will also inactivate vaccine.
Vaccine is a solution of inactivated virus, either live and weakened (“attenuated” or “modified”) or killed. This virus is injected into the puppy. If there is still adequate maternal antibody present, this vaccine virus will be destroyed just as if it were a real infection. There will be a period of about a week when there is not enough maternal antibody to protect the puppy but too much to allow a vaccine to work. (This period is called the “window of vulnerability.”) Then after this, vaccine can be effective.
The next problem is the age at which vaccine can be effective is different for each individual puppy.
To get around this, we vaccinate puppies in a series, giving a vaccine every 2-4 weeks until age 16 weeks. By age 16 weeks, we can be certain that maternal antibodies have waned and vaccine should be able to “take.” It should be recognized that some individuals, especially those of well vaccinated mothers, must be vaccinated out to 20 weeks (unless a “high titer” vaccine is used.)
Sorry, based on these and other articles, studies I have read, the series is not for "boostering" it is for making sure the vaccine will not be interfered with by maternal antibodies.
We could probably argue for a long, long time about some of what you wrote above. I do agree with you about skin problems and such, however, I don’t think we have enough proof to attribute every single skin problem to vaccines.
As far as your ferrets go…8-9 years old is a ripe old age. Pat yourself on the back. The oldest ferret I’ve had as a patient was just over 11 when heart disease finally killed her. You could have written a textbook on the medical management of that ferret, but she was happy up to the day she died. The incidence of adrenal disease in ferrets varies widely----although you are pretty much assured if you own a Marshall Farms ferret (they are mass produced, early spay neutered, and genetically line bred) they will get either adrenal disease, an insulinoma, or lymphoma or all of them at some time in their lives. We could have a thread in and of itself devoted to adrenal disease….the bottom line is that there is a very, very strong body of research presented from Dr. Nico Shoemaker (I know I misspelled Nico’s last name) of Utrecht looking at early/spay/neutering as a predisposing factor for adrenal disease. Based on the research he did, there is a definitive correlation based on LH modulation, early neutering, and its effects on stimulation of sex hormone production by the adrenal glands, and the fact that ferrets are seasonal breeders. Unfortunately, in the US Marshal’s controls the market. Having said that, I will say I’ve seen adrenal disease in ferrets neutered as adults and in unneutered ferrets, but they were all over 6 years of age, not the 3 year olds you sometimes see.
Of course you cannot blame everything on vaccines, but the overall health of animals seems to be declining and more and more problems are being considered acceptable. I lost a ferret under 3 years to adrenal related problems. I have mentioned him before. He had one adrenal removed and even though he was still exhibiting prostate signs my vet insisted that vaccinating him would not harm him. Less than 2 months later he had his other adrenal gland removed that had been fine during the other surgery. But of course the vaccines he was given had NOTHING to do with that. His prostate never went back down, he had urinary problems and as a result his kidneys were damaged and he went into renal failure. He was in and out of the vets the last six months of his life. I hand fed him the last six months of his life. I had to watch him get worse and worse. Vaccines are not harmless like we are conned into believing. I learned that the hard way and had to watch a pet die.
My remaining ferret, Tino, has adrenal and lymphoma. He was diagnosed the end of April. His lymphoma appears to be progressing slowly, his lymph nodes have not grown much. Of course I do not know what is going on internally and what organs are affected, but for now he is eating, appears to be in no pain, and is pretty active as you could expect for a 9 year old. He is only eating the chicken gravy I make for him (whole ground cooked chicken, pureed to gravy consistency) which is fine with me because I would like to keep him off carbs because of the cancer. He used to hate the chicken gravy, but when my other ferret Simon was eating it during his hospice he kept trying it and decided it was pretty good. So now he gets it for his hospice. We did not do a biopsy of his lymph nodes to confirm lymphoma, but considering they are all enlarged I think the diagnosis is accurate. I see no reason (nor does his vet) at his age to do any surgeries for either the adrenal or lymphoma. For the adrenal we put in a melatonin implant. He hasn't started to grow that much hair back, but it's loss does seem to have stopped. He has lost it mainly on his head and shoulders, so he does not quite look like a plucked chicken! Thank you for the pat on the back concerning his age. I am not sure what Simon (the one who passed in Apr) would of shown on necropsy, but the last year of his life was up and down. Me hand feeding him, him bouncing back for a few months, to crash again, repeat. At the end the ups were shorter and shorter between the downs. His last month and a half I was helping express his bladder but he was still eating on his own mostly, (chicken gravy) and seemed to be pain free. When I could not get him to eat even by hand feeding him that last week, I knew he had had enough and let him go peacefully. I plan on that for Tino too. When he does not want to eat, I will let him go.
I will agree with this. I’m not sure what the source is, but one big factor is we are far better able to diagnose disease now than we were 25 years ago and we are expecting them to live longer. That makes a difference.
But we are seeing chronic problems younger and younger. If it was just that animals were living longer so we saw more diseases later in life that we didn't see before, I would say that would be expected. You expect to see diseases at the end stage of life. But animals are getting "old age" problems younger and younger. And they are started to be considered normal and acceptable. I can't agree with that. It is neither normal nor acceptable.
Again I think you’ve been real lucky or else your dogs live in a very, very low risk environment. I will tell you why I booster my dogs… its simple risk assessment. Up until about 10 months ago when my wife and I moved the last time we had at any given time 1-2 kittens or puppies from the local humane society in our house. I’ve treated too many parvo dogs on my back porch to count. Considering my dogs, I think they have a very, very high risk of exposure because of the revolving puppy door in my house. Second, I work almost exclusively with wildlife now. If you consider virulence of disease, typically strains that can cross species are more aggressive. I think that increases the risk of the possibility of one of my dogs contracting something that I might inadvertently bring home with me. Finally, I live in the country. My dogs have been known to kill raccoons, coyotes and other wildlife. That risk alone warrants attempting to protect them from disease I am certain they are going to be exposed.
When I brought Addie my rescue dog home she was a mess. She had a severe respiratory infection (junk was coming out of her eyes and nose, it was gross) was about 25-30# underweight and had diarrhea as a result of malnutrition and the infections. I had 2 other dogs in the house. I don't have a big house, she was not kept separate from the other 2 except when crated (which was in the downstairs anyways). I was expected that soon I would have 3 green snotty dogs on my hands. The other 2 did not show any signs of having caught anything from her. She also had "flipper" feet she was so far down in the pasterns. The vet didn't think her feet would tighten up very much. Well a good raw diet fixed them up pretty good! They are not perfect (she is not a well bred dog in general) but they improved 100%. Funny that vet never commented on that when I brought her back in. Some hate to be proven wrong on anything. ::) You keep saying luck, but how about that maybe my efforts to work on the whole animal have some merit to them? I did think about your added risk in working with animals, and that would probably make me consider a minimal vaccination schedule for my animals if I did that. I still would not vaccinate every other year, especially the older animals that had rec'd a number of vaccinations already. I have asked you this before, do you not trust the efficacy of the vaccines? Even considering your added risk, it seems you lay very little trust in vaccinations? Is there something that you know, that the general public does not?
-
Flower, to address your vaccination question....... Which you've asked a couple of times and I've tried to ignore. ;) .. I do trust some of the vaccinations, however I think others are junk.
First off, let me try to explain my thoughts on vaccinations. This is complex, so if I lose you, please say soo. I'll try to keep it as simple as I can. The idea behind a vaccination is to provide an immunostimulus that will prepare the body for exposure to a certian disease. This immunostimulus results in development of T-cell and B-cell mediated immunity (Ie B-cell production of antibodies, T-cell mediated immunity). This immunity is essentially the same that occurs in the event of an organism being exposed to the disease without the negative effects of the disease itself. No vaccine will provide 100% efficacy against a disease for every single animal, no matter how many times that animal is vaccinated. This is due to variations in immunoresponsiveness of individual organisms, the fact that viral diseases are in a constant state of genetic flux, and variation of virulence of the disease causing organisms. There are vaccines that are statistically close to 100%, but even then, if you look at enough animals, there is always one that has a "breakthrough". Statistically, nothing is 100%. Its 99.9999999%, but thats still not 100%. A modified live vaccine gives a better immune response. Hoever, you don't want to run the risk of genetic mutation of a modified live vaccine into a virulent strain---thats why all Rabies vaccines in the US are killed vaccines. This said, I think its very important to consider the type of vaccine being given when considering/evaluating a vaccination. A modified live is not a killed bactern is not a toxoid type vaccination. You absolutely have to consider this. I also think this is partially why the "all vaccines don't work and are evil" mentality may be missing something.
Imrab3 as a killed rabies vaccination is very good--across multiple species. Considering I've seen dogs vaccinated with that vaccine be exposed to rabies (ia rabid animal bites) and they did not develop the disease. Thats a trial by fire testament to this vaccines efficacy. This is also a vaccine that has been implicated with injection site sarcomas in cats and ferrets...... so..... its a double edged sword.
I also trust the Distemper,parvo, adenovirus vaccines.... again its through trial by fire. These are modified live vaccines by and large. I think they provide good immunity for core diseases to be vaccinated against.
I think that the majority of the intranasal bordatella vaccinations available are quite good. They do not provide 100% efficacy, but they do seem to significantly decrease time and course of disease in exposed dogs. The problem with this type of vaccination is that it has to be boostered frequently---in some cases every 6-9 months depending on risk of exposure and brand of vaccination.
I think the injectable bordatella vaccinations are much, much less effective because of the method of delivery. Mucosal immunity is what is needed to prevent bordatella bronchiseptica and parainfluenza. I think SQ injection of bordatella bacterin doesn't do much.
The other thing is that "Kennel Cough" is any tracheobronchitis. We typically associate Bordatella with this disease, but it is possible for other bacteria to cause tracheobronchitis. This is why you see dogs vaccinated who develop the disease. Thats a very, very important distinction.
As far as other vaccines go..... I think the FIP vaccine isn't very good, teh same as most Lepto vaccines. You need to consider strains of disease causing organisms when you consider vaccinations.
-
I also think this is partially why the "all vaccines don't work and are evil" mentality may be missing something.
I do not think this at all, and with a lot of the "anti-vaccine" people it's not that they don't think that vaccines work, they think the adverse affects from vaccines do not outweigh the benefits of the vaccine. That is my stance on vaccines. I do think vaccines can and do provide protection. However, I do not think they are necessary for every animal (or person), and I have decided to work on the whole animal, for me the possible harm from vaccinations is greater than the risk of the disease for my companions.
That being said, while I do not agree with your current vaccination program for your pets (taking into consideration the added risks in your situation I still think you are over vaccinating, your animals have probably come into contact with both actual live virus' as well as exposure to shed virus and should have a super stimulated many times over immune system), my goal has been for people to have all the accurate and current information from all sides in order to make an informed decision for their pets. I want my decisions to be respected as informed ones, even if not agreed with, so I can give the same respect to someone else who obviously has the means to make an informed decision for their companions. It is not for me to decide what others risks to benefits should be, I am not responsible for their companions, only my own.
:)
-
THE DOCTOR OF THE FUTURE WILL GIVE NO MEDICINE, BUT WILL INTEREST HIS
PATIENTS IN THE CARE OF THE HUMAN FRAME, IN DIET, AND IN THE CAUSE
AND PREVENTION OF DISEASE. (Thomas A. Edison, 1847-1931)
-
THE DOCTOR OF THE FUTURE WILL GIVE NO MEDICINE, BUT WILL INTEREST HIS
PATIENTS IN THE CARE OF THE HUMAN FRAME, IN DIET, AND IN THE CAUSE
AND PREVENTION OF DISEASE. (Thomas A. Edison, 1847-1931)
LOL. Is that like the idiot resident telling me that "cheese was a cleaner protein source than ON Whey?" ;D ;) ;)
-
LOL. Is that like the idiot resident telling me that "cheese was a cleaner protein source than ON Whey?" ;D ;) ;)
Doesn't everyone like cheese? ::)
I like that quote, I thought it was fitting. ;D
-
Doesn't everyone like cheese? ::)
I like that quote, I thought it was fitting. ;D
Yeah, its a good quote.
-
http://www.newsday.com/search/ny-lspets5278482jul02,0,6559208.column (http://www.newsday.com/search/ny-lspets5278482jul02,0,6559208.column)
Pets: Rabies vaccine research may save some pain
Denise Flaim
Animal House
July 2, 2007
Score one - a big one - for the underdogs.
I've written before about Kris Christine, who is a prime example of what one woman with equal parts outrage and focus can achieve: She pretty much forced the state of Maine to change its annual rabies revaccination requirement from annually to every three years.
So when she called last week with news so exciting she could barely keep her voice from squeaking, I perked up.
"We did it!" she said. "The rabies trials are on!"
Maybe you have no idea what that means. If so, maybe you should read on.
While in recent years many vets have embraced progressive attitudes about vaccination, many still cling to outdated ideas. Among them: giving "annual shots" for core canine diseases such as distemper and parvovirus when three years is considered to be the minimum interval between boosters, or giving vaccines that are not recommended at all, such as coronavirus. (If this sound like your vet, consult the American Animal Hospital Association's newly updated canine vaccination guidelines at aahanet.org, and consider switching to a veterinary professional who is not still in the Pleistocene era.)
Of all the vaccines veterinarians administer, rabies is the most sacrosanct, largely because the disease is zoonotic, a fancy word that means transmissible to humans. Rabies in the only vaccine mandated by law for dogs and cats; New York, like many states, requires revaccination at three-year intervals, which is the longest. (A handful of states, including Alabama, still mandate annual boosters.)
But some veterinary immunologists believe the rabies vaccine confers a duration of immunity that exceeds three years - in fact, as much as five or seven years. Problem is, there have been no clinical trials - in which dogs are vaccinated and then exposed to the disease - to prove that. And vaccine companies, which normally conduct the trials, have a strong economic incentive not to. After all, how much sense does it make to spend a ton of money to be told consumers need less of your product than you are selling?
Which brings us to Christine. In her research on overvaccination, she came across two veterinarians who have made it their life's work to nudge their peers toward a less-can-be-more approach to vaccination: Jean Dodds of Hemopet in Garden Grove, Calif., and Ronald Schultz at University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine in Madison, who incidentally helped formulate the American Animal Hospital Association's guidelines.
Dodds has lectured endlessly on adverse reactions associated with the rabies vaccine. They include autoimmune diseases of the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites, especially in cats.
For his part, Schultz has performed serological studies that documented rabies antibody titer counts at levels known to confer immunity seven years after vaccination.
But what they needed to do was to formally prove the rabies vaccine's long-term duration of immunity, so state-mandated intervals for boosters could be extended.
So, two years ago, Christine teamed up with Dodds to create the Rabies Challenge Fund, which needed $177,000 to fund the studies' first-year budget.
Which brings us to Christine's euphoric phone call: Thanks to the contributions of many dog clubs, veterinarians and concerned owners, they now have the money to start.
The concurrent 5- and 7-year challenge studies trials will begin next month under the supervision of Schultz, who is volunteering his time as principal investigator. The University of Wisconsin will donate all the overhead costs.
"I've been an activist for a long time," Dodds says, "and this is the first time I've seen the public mount a grass-roots effort because the veterinary profession and the vaccine industry haven't done anything."
Five years from now, Schultz will likely have the proof of what he has known all along: That the rabies vaccine provides long-term immunity. In the face of that, the government can lengthen the mandated revaccination intervals.
This is too late to benefit my 7-year-old dog, who went for her rabies booster this weekend. But not for her 1-year-old daughter, who might be spared several unnecessary revaccinations over her lifetime.
Until then, the Rabies Challenge Fund needs more donations: Looming on the horizon each year is a $150,000 annual budget that must still be met.
The Rabies Challenge Fund is as grass roots as you can get. Individuals can and do make a difference.
Send donations to The Rabies Challenge fund at Rabies Challenge Fund, c/o Hemopet, 11330 Markon Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841. For more information on The Rabies Challenge Fund, visit RabiesChallengeFund.org.
-
This is good. Those studies need to be done.
-
Yes, I agree. I think it sucks that people that are pissed off about the callous attitude that 'vaccines do no harm' have to take on getting these studies done and the vaccine manufacturers contribute nothing. >:(
Now tell me, ::) , will you give any credence to this study? There are already studies proving that vaccines last longer than even 3 the years the mfg states, yet you do not put your faith in some of them even for those 3 years. So would this study actually change anything as far as your personal vaccination schedule for your dogs? (barring of course that the study does conclude the longer duration of immunity)
-
Another heartworm link for those interested:
http://www.tolldenfarms.ca/pdfs/newsletter/v1-iss01-may07.pdf (http://www.tolldenfarms.ca/pdfs/newsletter/v1-iss01-may07.pdf)
-
http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html (http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html)
Science of Vaccine Damage by Catherine O'Driscoll
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.
Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.
The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vaccinating until
we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."
In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list.
But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites.
It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA.
A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field.
The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7)
Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections".
When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.
I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:
"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."
I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.
Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination". This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.
Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years.
They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.
There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other
inflammatory conditions.
Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines.
Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent.
Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells.
A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients:
Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines..." (9)
Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10)
Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."
Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)
Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13)
A Theory on Inflammation
Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.
Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.
Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.
"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case.
"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)
If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.
If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones.
Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.
The Final Insult
All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts.
Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced.
Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)
Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.
The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs.
It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.
About the Author:
Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in NEXUS 4/04).
She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine health around the world.
For more information, contact Catherine O'Driscoll at Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email catherine@carsegray.co.uk , website http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk.
Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, and worldwide from Dogwise at http://www.dogwise.com.
Endnotes
1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.
2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.
3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp.
4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.
5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.
6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002,
http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.
-
From a list I am on:
Having been in Shelties since 1960, we watched our breed deteriorate in every way, allergies, hips, cancers, epilepsy (food & vacc related) autoimmune diseases to say the least. In 1984 we were about to "pack it in" We chose to change everything about our dogs. We went totally vaccine free and totally raw. No one knew we were doing this. Back then we did not have any help. When in doubt, I would close my eyes and think what a wolf would do! Answered all my questions!
We are happy to say that as of April this year we were 23 years vaccine free raw raw feeding! Absolutely No regrets. Improvement beyond our wildest imaginations. Pups are socialized from the get go. Out and about, people over, exploring, puppy classes. The proof is in the pudding. We will never vaccinate again and never kibble feed!
Immune systems just get better & better, the natural way. Survival of the fittest and we are blessed with healthy happy Shelties. Arguing about the pro's and con's of vaccinating is not even an interest for us. We do what has worked for the past 23 years that didn't work the 24 years previously!
-
Why must our dogs be revaccinated for rabies and Veterinarians are advised to not titer or even booster? Rabies is the only vaccine required by law. Support the Rabies Challenge Fund to extend the booster requirement past the current 3 year protocol (in most states, some states or counties still have a yearly requirement). http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/ (http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/)
http://www.britfeld.com/rabies.htm (http://www.britfeld.com/rabies.htm)
snippages:
"...Chiron Corporation, manufacturers of the RabAvert rabies vaccines for humans. Their pre-exposure vaccination recommendation for veterinarians, who are at greater risk than the general population for contracting rabies because their profession brings them into physical contact with potentially rabid animals, is for a “Primary course. No serologic testing or booster vaccination.” In other words, after the initial series of rabies vaccinations, it is not recommended that veterinarians receive further boosters or serological testing. Interestingly, the AAHA’s 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines state on Page 18 that “There is no indication that the immune system of canine patients functions in any way different from the human immune system. In humans, the epidemiological vigilance associated with vaccination is extremely well-developed and far exceeds similar efforts in animals whether companion or agricultural. This vigilance in humans indicates that immunity induced by vaccination in humans is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, life-long.” This strongly suggests that, like the human rabies vaccine, the canine rabies vaccine may provide life-long immunity as well -- something which could be determined by long-term challenge studies.
updated Chorion RabAvert link (4/04):
http://www.novartisvaccines.com/products/Rabavert_PI_0404.pdf (http://www.novartisvaccines.com/products/Rabavert_PI_0404.pdf)
Go to http://www.britfeld.com/rabies.htm (http://www.britfeld.com/rabies.htm) to read the French Rabies Study:
PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RABIES ANTIBODIES IN CATS AND DOGS AND RESULTS OF A SURVEY ON RABIES VACCINATION AND QUARANTINE FOR DOMESTIC CARNIVORA IN WESTERN EUROPE
M.F.A. Aubert
Centre national d'études vétérinaires et alimentaires, Laboratoire d'études sur la rage et la pathologie des animaux sauvages, B.P. 9, 54220 Malzéville, France
-
Subject: IMPORTANT for those with small pets
Pass this on. Sad, but true...........
Sorry for the lengthy story, but it is important to pass on to anyone who has a dog or cat. This is absolutely a true story. It is my very own, sad, story.
As most of you know, Paul and I have always had dogs as part of our family. Two years ago, a good friend gave us two beautiful Pomeranian/Chihuahua mix puppies to care for and love. But something went terribly wrong this week. We lost our beautiful, playful, loving, 4.45 lb, Jaz. She died so unexpectedly, and so tragically. We are really struggling with this more than any other animal we have ever lost. We are still in shock! HOW did she die? Well, this is what you have to pass on to everyone you know who has a dog, particularly if it is under 25 lbs.
Since Jaz was 1 yr old I started giving her K9 Advantix, from mid spring to early fall, to protect her from fleas, mosquitos and ticks. I was sure to watch the label to give her the appropriate dosage, and apply it in the manner suggested. The package I bought was for, and I quote, "puppies over 7 weeks old and older dogs under 10 lbs." Little did I know I wasn't protecting her, but slowly killing her. (Revolution does have doses for dogs under 5 lbs...but it had never been prescribed for Jaz.) In fact, I was so sure of this product, I was trying to coerce my sister into using a similar product on her cats.
Products that we are all familiar with, such as the one I used, and including Advantage, Frontline, Capstar and Revolucion are all pesticides. Do you know what Permithrin or Selamectin is used for? Killing ants and other insects. It is very toxic. The vet said, it would be the same as giving your dog a teaspoon of Raid every day. (Revolution seems to have a lower percentage of active ingredients...so it might be safer to use...or just might take longer before signs are recognized).
K9 Advantix has TWO toxic active ingredients!
If you were to call the manufacturers of these products they will tell you it does not enter the blood stream. And, if the dog/cat show signs of stress, just simply give them a bath to wash it away. Revolutions label states it enters the blood stream, and cannot be washed away. All will insist their product does no harm to your pet. However, the Vet says something quite different. Jaz was taken care of by two Vets over the past three days. Each from a different facility and not related to each other. Each told me the same thing!
Here is what happens: Once the poison is given to your dog via a liquid applied to the skin. It enters their system...and never fully leaves it. Some of the toxins remain. The following month you give another dose and more toxins remain in the body...until finally the toxicity is so great it begins to break down the organs, gets into the blood stream, and then all havoc breaks loose. The Vets said, because Jaz was so small, after the first six doses, I probably would never have had to give her anymore for the next THREE YEARS. That's how long it could have stayed active in her body. Larger dogs & cats tolerate it better, but in time, the same thing happens. By the time a larger dog starts having problems, their owners and vets think it is a sign of aging...and rarely ever look into toxic poisoning. They said they are seeing more and more evidence of this happening to our pets. Advantage and Advantix have only been out since aprx. 2002. Over the past two years we are hearing more about the actual affects of these products.
There are symptoms to watch for. The unfortunate thing is, you don't recognize the symptoms, until too late. Why is this? Because one doesn't usually acquaint the symptoms with a product you have been giving your pet for some time. Early symptoms could simply be, skin rashes, and a little more shedding than usual. In larger dogs, they might become more aggressive. By the way, there are no signs to watch for on the label...only instructions for humans if they touch or swallow this poison. (Revolution dose have a few warnings) Jaz had a small skin problem on her lower back. I was told it was just a normal dog thing and to change shampoo, and given an ointment. Well it turns out, it was a "burn" from the toxins.
Later symptoms are, seizures, (most people think seizures are due to breed and aging dogs, brain malfunctions, etc.) Throwing up two to three times a day (many will think it do to food or something they ate outside). Increased urinating and a need for a lot of water. Listless. Runny eyes. Eventually bleeding.
The only sympton Jaz had that we could have caught was the small skin rash or "burn." Notice how things quickly progressed. After giving her the last dose, a week ago Monday, within two days she seemed to become listless. Then she perked up again, like her old self, so we thought she was over whatever ailed her...a 48 hour flu. Then we noticed on Friday, she was always going to the bathroom. She chose not to sleep in her bed with her sister, and using her stuffed bunny as a pillow, but she wanted to be away from everyone, choosing to sleep on a cold floor on the side of the sofa, where she could not be seen. For three days, we filled her water dish every couple of hours, and within minutes she was eliminating it. However, she was eating well. But, by Sunday, she could barely walk, now preferring to lay on the cool tile floor but near her water dish. When we returned home from church, we noticed her shivering. So I sat with her, covered in a blanket. On Sunday she also stopped eating. No Vet or animal hospital was open. Even the animal emergency center had closed for some reason. We had to wait until Monday to get her to a vet. First thing Monday I took her to the vet, who immediately recommended hospitalization. He said it was either kidney failure or diabetes. At the hospital they gave her xrays and blood tests, took stool samples, urinalysis. They ruled out everything. All her vital organs seemed OK. She had slight fever so they put her on an antibiotic drip. As the hours went by, nothing worked. Then she had a seizure. As more time went by they realized it was Toxic poisoning. The doctors drilled me on things she ate. Things and plants to look for in our yard. Then they asked what type of flea control I was using. That did it. However, because these reactions are just now making themselves known, most vets do not know what antidote to give. They put her on various drips of stronger antibiotics and other things to try to flush the poison out, but nothing worked. That began their mad search to find out more.One vet had three people on-line to find out as much as they could. I pulled out my lap-top and tried to help. At 2Am we were still trying to find a way to help her. Another tried to get info from the Bayer Co. who manufactures K9 Ad. They were more concerned about a law suit, insisting their product couldn't be at fault. Two vets kept making calls to Poison Control Center...but no one would return calls. We knew she wasn't going to survive, but thought we would give docs until 10:00AM the next morning. If nothing changed, we would approve of putting her down. However, I was called into the hospital at 7Am, she had three seizures that night, after I left at 2:30AM. When she saw me, her eyes seem to say I'm glad your here to be with me. Doctor said she was not in pain, just in panic from being in a strange place with strange people. We decided not to "put her to sleep" unless she started having problems. She went into a peaceful sleep and died two hours later. Then, we got the call from the Poison Control Center. They didn't know what to give a dog.
The information we found on-line is incredible. There are thousands of blogs all over the country. People begging other people to stop using these products on their dogs. (To be fair, there are as many that say how great the products are...most are on websites that sell the products). What happened to Jaz, has and will continue to happen to other dogs until word gets out, or the manufacturers change the product, does better labeling, responds to emergencies, and prepares antidotes for those who are suffering from this poison. Vets must learn more. Jaz body was donated to a Veternarian research team. Perhaps her small body will aid in finding a way to help other small pets survive this poison.
Within three hours of Jaz dying...I heard EIGHT stories of other people having the same thing happen to them or a friend of theirs. These stories were not from strangers, but from people I know. If they had passed on their story earlier, perhaps I could have saved my little friend the agony she went through. I also learned there was recently an episode on a program similar to 20/20 or 60 minutes that investigted the same things I am mentioned, I am hoping, through my hurt and sadness, that I can, maybe, help prevent the same thing happening to you or someone you know.
My advice, please tell your friends and family, to stop using these products on their small pets. In fact, use it with great caution on larger dogs as well.
We all want them,and our homes to be free from fleas. So, if you or your friends decide to keep using these poisons, do so sparingly...and watch over your pet ever so closely for any type of reaction or change, however minor it might be...even during the months you don't give them this 'medication.' Help your friends and family help their pets! I only wish I had known this earlier.
Please pass on the word...and thank you for reading such a long story. (Someday I may learn how to make a long story short, rather than a short story, long).
-
*Not Safe for Humans but okay to keep putting on your pets!!! >:(
Illnesses Associated with Occupational Use of Flea-Control Products -- California, Texas, and Washington, 1989-1997
*Dips, shampoos, and other insecticide-containing flea-control products can produce systemic illnesses or localized symptoms in the persons applying them. Although these products may pose a risk to consumers, they are particularly hazardous to pet groomers and handlers who use them regularly. Illnesses associated with flea-control products were reported to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Texas Department of Health, and the Washington State Department of Health, each of which maintains a surveillance system for identifying, investigating, and preventing pesticide-related illnesses and injuries.* This report describes cases of occupational illnesses associated with flea-control products, summarizes surveillance data, and provides recommendations for handling these products safely.
Case Reports
Case 1. In April 1997, a 35-year-old female pet groomer treated a dog for fleas by placing the animal in a tub containing water to which was added a concentrated phosmet solution. During application, the dog shook and sprayed the product on the exposed hands and arms of the groomer; a nearby open soft drink can, from which the groomer reported drinking, may have been contaminated. Within an hour after exposure, she developed skin flushing and irritation, shortness of breath, chest pain, accelerated heart rate and respiration, abdominal cramping, and nausea. She sought care at a hospital emergency department, where she was released without treatment after her clothes were discarded, and she showered with soap and ethanol. Plasma and red blood cell (RBC) cholinesterase levels were 4584 U/L (normal: 2900-7100 U/L) and 32 U/g hemoglobin (normal: 24-40 U/g hemoglobin), respectively; however, no baseline or subsequent postexposure cholinesterase levels were available for comparison. The case-patient had been a pet groomer for 1 year and did not use personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., gloves, gowns, or goggles). She reported that she regularly applied insecticides with her bare hands and that her clothing was often wet with water and flea-control dips or shampoos. Previous exposures had not made her ill. No analysis of the concentration of the phosmet product was performed.
Case 2. A female pet store employee (age unknown) became ill and sought attention at a medical clinic in September 1993 after she inadvertently sprayed her face and eyes with a pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide solution while spraying a flea-infested cat house. Despite immediately flushing her eyes with water, she developed eye irritation with reddened conjunctiva and a burning sensation. Mild, diffuse wheezing was noted on examination, although its relation to her exposure is unknown; information about preexisting asthma or respiratory infection was unavailable. An allergic reaction and chemical conjunctivitis were diagnosed, and she received epinephrine, oral antihistamines, and oral steroids. At the time of exposure, she had not been wearing goggles or other PPE. She had not received training for safe handling of pesticides.
Case 3. A 21-year-old female veterinary assistant became ill in April 1992 after applying a phosmet-containing dip to a dog. She reported using a chemical-resistant apron, but no other PPE. A pruritic rash developed on her hands and arms approximately 2 hours after exposure. Later that evening, she developed systemic symptoms, including malaise, chest pains, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, diarrhea, stomach cramps, tremors, blurred vision, and excess salivation. Approximately 48 hours after exposure, she sought care at an urgent-care facility. Cholinesterase levels were not reported; she was treated with antihistamines. The case-patient had been a veterinary assistant for 8 months and had treated animals daily using several flea-control products. Whether she previously had used phosmet-containing products is unknown.
Surveillance Data
During 1989-1997, 16 cases of pesticide-related illness attributable to occupational use of flea-control products were reported in California (13), Washington (two), and Texas (one). The median age of the case-patients was 26 years (range: 16-73 years). Of the 16, eight (all in women) involved systemic illnesses caused by exposure to phosmet (five cases); pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide (two cases); or a product containing carbaryl, malathion, and pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide (one case). The other eight (four in women) involved localized symptoms (i.e., chemical conjunctivitis) caused by flea-control products splashing into the case-patients' eyes. In seven of these cases the products contained pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide, and in one case a phosmet-containing product was used.
After receiving these data in 1998, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff searched for similar cases in the Toxic Exposure Surveillance System (TESS). In 1993, TESS, maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, began collection of poisoning reports that included symptom information submitted by approximately 85% of the poison control centers in the United States (1996 is the latest year data are available) (1). Poisonings involving intentional suicides, intentional malicious use, nonworkplace exposures, and unknown intention were excluded from the search.
Symptomatic occupational exposures involving flea-control dips were identified in 20 women and six men. Responsible active ingredients were phosmet (12 cases); pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide (five cases); rotenone/pyrethrin (five cases); rotenone, malathion, chlorpyrifos, and unknown (one case each). Eight workers developed moderate health effects that required some form of treatment, and 18 developed minor health effects (minimally bothersome symptoms that resolved rapidly). Among the workers with moderate symptoms, the responsible ingredients were phosmet (five cases), rotenone/pyrethrin (two cases), and pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide (one case).
Reported by: L Mehler, MD, Dept of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental Protection Agency. J Shannon, PhD, Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology Program, Texas Dept of Health. L Baum, Office of Toxic Substances, Washington Dept of Health. Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. Div of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC.
Editorial Note:
Pyrethrins are plant-derived insecticides and are common ingredients in flea-control dips and shampoos (2). Although pyrethrins have low toxicity in humans (EPA classified as acute toxicity category III compounds**), exposures have caused dermatitis and upper respiratory tract irritation (3). Allergic contact dermatitis and asthma, sometimes resulting in death, also have been reported (1,3). Piperonyl butoxide, an EPA acute toxicity category IV compound, frequently is added to pyrethrins to slow chemical metabolism. No published reports of eye injury involving pyrethrins or piperonyl butoxide were identified.
Phosmet is an organophosphate insecticide and an EPA acute toxicity category II compound. The primary target in humans is the nervous system. Organophosphate exposure is associated with many of the symptoms reported by the first and third case-patients. In animals, phosmet is mildly irritating to the eyes but not irritating to the skin (4); no published reports of skin or eye irritation in humans after exposure have been identified.
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, although 76% of the cases described were in women, evidence suggests that this distribution may reflect workforce demographics (more women than men are employed as pet groomers and handlers [5,6]) rather than greater sensitivity to these toxins. Second, these surveillance data may not represent all workers with these illnesses. Third, this report describes only workplace-related illnesses following product exposure. Consumers using these products may experience similar illnesses; however, they were not included in this report.
Despite reports of the toxicity of flea-control products (7-9), including a high prevalence of symptoms among pet groomers and handlers (5,9), illnesses continue to occur among workers using these products. A survey of establishments using flea-control products found that groomers and handlers often were not provided with adequate safety training and PPE (9). When using pesticide products, label directions should be followed precisely. For phosmet-containing flea-control products, the label cautions users to wear safety glasses, long-sleeved shirts, long pants, elbow-length waterproof gloves, waterproof aprons, and unlined waterproof boots. For eye safety, CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends goggles designed to provide splash protection.
Although the EPA does not require PPE for toxicity category III and IV compounds, the findings in this report suggest that PPE may be needed during pyrethrin/piperonyl butoxide use. Workers should be trained in the safe handling of flea-control products and in personal hygiene practices (e.g., washing before eating and prohibition of eating, drinking, food storage, and smoking where flea-control products are used), and should be instructed about insecticide dangers and taught to recognize the symptoms of overexposure. In California, agricultural workers who apply organophosphates on 7 days in any 30-day period are required to have plasma and RBC cholinesterase tests before commencing exposure and periodically thereafter (8). Similar testing of workers handling organophosphate-containing flea-control products may be prudent; substitution of safer, less toxic pesticides also should be considered.
This report provides an example of how state-based pesticide poisoning surveillance systems and TESS complement one another; however, both systems are affected by lack of adequate clinical recognition of pesticide-related illness and injury. A new EPA publication may assist health-care professionals to gain expertise in recognizing and managing these conditions (10). Free copies are available from EPA; telephone (800) 490-9198.
References
1. Litovitz TL, Smilkstein M, Felberg L, Klein-Schwartz W, Berlin R, Morgan JL. 1996 report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. Am J Emerg Med 1997;15:447-500.
2. Pogoda JM, Preston-Martin S. Household pesticides and risk of pediatric brain tumors. Environ Health Perspect 1997;105:1214-20.
3. Paton DL, Walker JS. Pyrethrin poisoning from commercial-strength flea and tick spray. Am J Emerg Med 1988;6:232-5.
4. Kidd H, James DR, eds. The agrochemicals handbook. 3rd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Royal Society of Chemistry Information Services, 1991:5-14.
5. Bukowski J, Brown C, Korn LR, Meyer LW. Prevalence of and potential risk factors for symptoms associated with insecticide use among animal groomers. J Occup Environ Med 1996; 38:528-34.
6. Bureau of the Census. Detailed occupation and other characteristics from the EEO file for the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, October 1992; 1990 census of population supplementary reports (1990 CP-S-1-1).
7. CDC. Organophosphate toxicity associated with flea-dip products--California. MMWR 1988;37:329-36.
8. California Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for physicians who supervise workers exposed to cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. 3rd ed. Berkeley, California: California Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.
9. Ames RG, Brown SK, Rosenberg J, Jackson RJ, Stratton JW, Quenon SG. Health symptoms and occupational exposure to flea control products among California pet handlers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1989;50:466-72.
10. Reigard JR, Roberts JR. Recognition and management of pesticide poisonings. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1999 (EPA 735-R-98-003).
* These and other agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, collaborate with CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR), a program that supports the surveillance of acute occupational pesticide-related illnesses and injuries.
** EPA classifies all pesticides into one of four acute toxicity categories based on established criteria (40 CFR Part 156). Pesticides with the greatest toxicity are in category I and those with the least are in category IV.
-
http://www.apnm.org/publications/resources/fleachemfin.pdf (http://www.apnm.org/publications/resources/fleachemfin.pdf)
snippage (I suggest reading the whole article):
Method of action
Whether or not it is purposeful, manufacturers of these spot-on flea products have
managed to convince many veterinarians and animal guardians that these products are not absorbed into our dogs’ systems. The companies’ literature describes in vague and contradictory detail how the chemicals don’t go beyond the hair follicles and fat layers of the dogs’ skin.
Take, for example, information published on Merial’s Web site for Frontline
(“How Frontline Works”). In one place, it clearly states that fipronil (Frontline’s “active” ingredient) is absorbed into the skin (“Sebaceous glands provide a natural reservoir for Frontline . . .”), but other statements suggest that fipronil stays there and then leaves through the same entry point without moving into any other parts of the dog’s body – an illogical conclusion.
When the EPA’s Dr. Dobozy reviewed the results of a fipronil metabolism study,
she reported that “significant amounts of radio-labeled fipronil were found [not only] in various organs and fat . . . [but they were also] excreted in the urine and feces, and were present in other parts of the body . . . which demonstrated that the chemical is absorbed systemically.”
more...
Neurological health effects
Logic tells us that a topical chemical that is not absorbed into the skin has no chance of causing neurotoxic effects. Then why do the Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDSs) for all the permethrin-containing pesticides recommend preventing their products from having prolonged contact with the skin? And why do they all state that skin sensations, such as “numbness and tingling,” can occur? Schering-Plough’s MSDS makes an additional statement about its Defend EXspot Treatment: “can be harmful if absorbed through the skin and harmful following inhalation,” causing headaches, dizziness, and nausea.
-
http://www.ask-the-vet.com/frontline-plus-dogs.htm
(http://www.ask-the-vet.com/frontline-plus-dogs.htm)
Ask the Vet:
Are there any side effects of Frontline Plus?
Fipronil (the chemical ingredients in Frontline Plus) has been shown in studies to be neurotoxic to dogs and rats and affects the reproduction of rats. There have also been some disturbing reports of carcinogenicity (cancer causing) in the rat studies (however it must be stated that rats in these studies were given large amounts of fipronil and not the usual dose rate that is given to dogs/cats in flea prevention). It is classed as a Possible Human Carcinogen based on the studies done on rats. Constant exposure is the worry and there was a warning issued in 1996 regarding the Frontline spray product to all pet groomers and veterinarians who would be exposed at a far greater level than the public as there is a greater chance of inhalation and absorption of the product through the skin at increasing doses with these professions. The most common side effect seen with Frontline Plus application is skin irritation at the point of application. However there have been reports of animals that are allergic to Fipronil, and these animals will react violently to the product.
*Constant exposure is a concern to people I guess, but the constant exposure to dogs by repeated applications is of no concern and is only a Possible Human Carcinogen, and not a pet one, so the increases in pet cancers are still a mystery ::)
-
Poisons on Pets - Health Hazards from Flea & Tick Products
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/pets/pets.pdf (http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/pets/pets.pdf)
-
Lots of podcasts on a number of topics:
http://www.animaltalknaturally.com (http://www.animaltalknaturally.com)
-
::)
-
Should there be a Veterinary Vaccine Injury Act?:
http://www.geocities.com/kremersark/macy.html (http://www.geocities.com/kremersark/macy.html)
-
Support the Rabies Challenge Fund!!!
***I just donated $50 ;) :D
(UPDATE: They met the first year req'd amount, donations are still needed to pay for all the years of the study, every little bit helps and is TAX DEDCUCTABLE!!)
Morgan is doing all she can to protect her two dogs from overvaccination. “I have a vet who does titer testing instead of giving shots every year,” she says. “My dogs are five years old now, and the tests show they’re still being protected by the vaccines they had when they were pups.” But it’s a different story when it comes to rabies. Morgan lives in a state where rabies shots are required annually, so her vet is obligated to vaccinate her dogs every year, regardless of whether or not they might still be protected by earlier inoculations.
Teresa, meanwhile, is an apartment-dweller whose cat died after suffering an adverse reaction from a rabies vaccine. “I don’t know why I had to get him vaccinated so often when we’re seven floors up and he never went out,” she says. “The chances of him ever coming into contact with a rabid animal were pretty small.”
Serious side effects
It’s a dilemma common to animal lovers across the U.S. and Canada. Some regions still require annual rabies vaccines, while many others now allow the three-year variety, but even that’s too frequent when you consider the negative side effects of overvaccination. “Rabies is the vaccine most associated with adverse reactions because it’s so potent,” says renowned veterinarian Dr. Jean Dodds. “We have a lot of bad reactions, including fatal ones. They usually occur within two to three weeks after vaccination, although they can appear up to 45 days later. Because the rabies vaccine is a neurogenic protein, meaning it affects the nervous system, what you will often see is seizures or seizure-like disorders like stumbling, ataxia, dementia, and some demyelination, where the animals become wobbly and don’t have proper motor skills. You can also have an autoimmune-like destruction of tissues, skin, blood, joints, the liver or kidneys.” Dr. Dodds adds that animals already ill with immune-related diseases such as cancer can be even more negatively affected. “Often, this is the last thing that causes the animal’s demise.”
Despite all this, federal law still demands that companion animals be regularly vaccinated against rabies, even if you keep your animals indoors or live in an area where rabies is unlikely to be a major problem. The main reason is that rabies can afflict humans as well as dogs and cats. “Rabies is fatal to all mammals,” says Dr. Dodds. “This is an issue to protect the public health, not the animals. The primary goal of the law is to protect people from rabies.”
While there’s no denying that rabies is a serious disease, and that both humans and animals need protection from it, the question remains: why subject dogs and cats to the potentially serious side effects of the vaccination on an annual or even a triennial basis, when the duration of immunity (DOI) is probably much longer?
The need for new legislation
It’s a question that Dr. Dodds and several other professionals asked themselves when they started The Rabies Challenge Fund in the fall of 2005. “From challenge trials, we know the DOI for regular vaccines is seven to nine years, if not longer. So why would the rabies vaccines, being so potent, not have an even longer DOI? We decided the thing to do would be to design a study to federal government standards that would determine if the DOI is longer than three years.” Challenge studies in France have demonstrated that the rabies vaccine has a DOI of at least five years, but this information is not accepted by federal and state legislatures in the U.S., hence the need for a domestic study.
The Rabies Challenge Fund is a nation-wide effort. Along with Dr. Dodds, who is based in California, the study involves Dr. Ron Schultz of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Wisconsin, and vaccine disclosure activist Kris Christine, who lives in the northeast and has already worked with Dr. Dodds on other vaccine-related issues in that region. “We asked Dr. Schultz to do the study and he was delighted,” says Dr. Dodds. The group was even more delighted when the University of Wisconsin agreed to cover almost half the cost of overhead for the study. “It shows they believe very strongly that this is information we need.”
How will the study work?
Dr. Dodds and her colleagues officially registered The Rabies Challenge Fund in December of last year. Since then, they have been working diligently to raise the money needed to fund the actual study, which will involve two separate groups of 20 dogs each, one to be studied for five years’ DOI, and the other for seven. “We’ll do the two groups in parallel, and continue 20 of the five-year dogs to seven years.” By monitoring the animals’ antibodies and other benchmarks, Dr. Schultz will be able to determine the DOI for the rabies vaccine over these periods, thereby showing that the initial vaccines given to puppies and kittens before they’re a year old remain fully effective for many years, perhaps even for life. The fund will also finance a study of the adjuvants used in rabies vaccines and establish an adverse reaction reporting system.
But more money is needed before work can start. “We require $177,000 in the first year,” says Dr. Dodds. “So far, we have $65,000, so we’re still short of our goal. We also have some pledges that will become active once we achieve 60% of the amount we need. And we’ve had some substantial donations from Canada, even though what we do might not be accepted there. People still felt compelled to donate.”
One of the unique things about The Rabies Challenge Fund is that it’s being funded by animal guardians and others who feel passionate about this issue. “Kris and Ron and I want this to be a grassroots program,” says Dr. Dodds. “We know a company could come in and give us a whole bunch of money to do the study, but it’s nice to know that the project started and evolved from people in the grassroots."
Donations may be sent to The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust, c/o Hemopet, 11330 Markon Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841. Or contact Dr. Jean Dodds at Hemopet@hotmail.com or Kris Christine at LedgeSpring@Lincoln.midcoast.com. All donations are tax deductible in the U.S. www.rabieschallengefund. org
Killed vaccines like those for rabies virus can trigger immediate and delayed adverse vaccine reactions (termed "vaccinosis") While there may be immediate hypersensitivity reactions, other acute events tend to occur 24-72 hours afterwards, or up to 45 days later in the case of delayed reactions. Reactions that have been documented include:
* Behavior changes such as aggression and separation anxiety
* Obsessive behavior,self-mutilation, tail chewing
* Pica - eating wood, stones, earth, stool
* Destructive behavior, shredding bedding
* Seizures, epilepsy
* Fibrosarcomas at injection site
* Autoimmune diseases such as those affecting bone marrow and blood cells, joints, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel, and central nervous system.
* Muscular weakness and or atrophy
* Chronic digestive problems
-
It's bullshit that they only consider problems/reactions for 3 days after vaccinating, but it does a least acknowledge risks, especially for the toy breeds that get a wallop of a dose.
http://www.antechdiagnostics.com/clients/antechNews/2007/oct07_01.htm (http://www.antechdiagnostics.com/clients/antechNews/2007/oct07_01.htm)
VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS
Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs
Although vaccines are designed to be immunogens and must have potency, safety, and efficacy before licensing, no vaccine is completely free of adverse reactions or totally effective. While pre-marketing safety trials by manufacturers help ensure that vaccine-associated adverse events (VAAEs) occur infrequently, their potential has generated public and professional concern regarding overvaccination of humans and animals.
A published retrospective cohort study of over 1.25 million dogs vaccinated at 360 veterinary hospitals permitted accurate estimation of the incidence rate of practitioner-diagnosed acute VAAEs occurring within 3 d of vaccine administration. Specific clinical signs and treatments were reviewed in a random sample of 400 affected dogs. The association between potential risk factors and a VAAE was estimated by use of multivariate logistic regression.
There were 4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000 dogs vaccinated) associated with administration of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight increased. Risk was 27-38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35-64% greater for dogs approximately 1-3 yr old versus 2-9 mo old. The risk of a VAAE significantly increased as the number of vaccine doses administered per office visit increased; each additional vaccine significantly increased risk of an adverse event by 27% in dogs = or < 10 kg (22 lb) and 12% in dogs > 10 kg.
The risk of a VAAE in this study population was inversely related to a dog's weight. This weight -response relationship had been suggested previously in a study where toy breed dogs had significantly more suspected vaccine reactions than other dogs. [Vaccines, in contrast to nearly all veterinary pharmaceuticals, are prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight.] A genetic predisposition to VAAEs has been documented for some dog breeds, and the relatively low VAAE rate observed in mixed-breed dogs suggests that laboratory safety trials using mixed breeds may underestimate the VAAE rates that would occur in purebreds. This is important because purebred dogs comprise at least two thirds of the US dog population. Further, the risk of allergic reaction has been reported to increase after the 3rd or 4th vaccination.
In the present study, VAAE risk increased for dogs up to 2 yr of age and then declined thereafter. The decline after 2 yr of age may have been attributable to allergen desensitization, initiation of an alternative vaccination protocol in predisposed dogs, or owner refusal to revaccinate dogs that previously had a VAAE. Neutering appeared to increase the risk of a VAAE more than sex. Females are believed to mount stronger immune responses after vaccination or infection than males because of a dimorphic enhancing effect of estrogens and a protective effect of androgens.
Research is still required to characterize the primary allergenic components of different licensed veterinary vaccines, and it remains to be determined whether vaccine allergenicity and volume can be reduced while immunologic protection is maintained, particularly for smaller dogs.
Premarketing safety studies, when fiscally or logistically limited in size, will remain limited in power to detect rare adverse events that may be more common among animals with particular risk factors.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hr after vaccination. These factors should be considered in risk assessment and risk communication with clients regarding vaccination.
-
It's bullshit that they only consider problems/reactions for 3 days after vaccinating, but it does a least acknowledge risks, especially for the toy breeds that get a wallop of a dose.
http://www.antechdiagnostics.com/clients/antechNews/2007/oct07_01.htm (http://www.antechdiagnostics.com/clients/antechNews/2007/oct07_01.htm)
VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS
Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs
Although vaccines are designed to be immunogens and must have potency, safety, and efficacy before licensing, no vaccine is completely free of adverse reactions or totally effective. While pre-marketing safety trials by manufacturers help ensure that vaccine-associated adverse events (VAAEs) occur infrequently, their potential has generated public and professional concern regarding overvaccination of humans and animals.
A published retrospective cohort study of over 1.25 million dogs vaccinated at 360 veterinary hospitals permitted accurate estimation of the incidence rate of practitioner-diagnosed acute VAAEs occurring within 3 d of vaccine administration. Specific clinical signs and treatments were reviewed in a random sample of 400 affected dogs. The association between potential risk factors and a VAAE was estimated by use of multivariate logistic regression.
There were 4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000 dogs vaccinated) associated with administration of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight increased. Risk was 27-38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35-64% greater for dogs approximately 1-3 yr old versus 2-9 mo old. The risk of a VAAE significantly increased as the number of vaccine doses administered per office visit increased; each additional vaccine significantly increased risk of an adverse event by 27% in dogs = or < 10 kg (22 lb) and 12% in dogs > 10 kg.
The risk of a VAAE in this study population was inversely related to a dog's weight. This weight -response relationship had been suggested previously in a study where toy breed dogs had significantly more suspected vaccine reactions than other dogs. [Vaccines, in contrast to nearly all veterinary pharmaceuticals, are prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight.] A genetic predisposition to VAAEs has been documented for some dog breeds, and the relatively low VAAE rate observed in mixed-breed dogs suggests that laboratory safety trials using mixed breeds may underestimate the VAAE rates that would occur in purebreds. This is important because purebred dogs comprise at least two thirds of the US dog population. Further, the risk of allergic reaction has been reported to increase after the 3rd or 4th vaccination.
In the present study, VAAE risk increased for dogs up to 2 yr of age and then declined thereafter. The decline after 2 yr of age may have been attributable to allergen desensitization, initiation of an alternative vaccination protocol in predisposed dogs, or owner refusal to revaccinate dogs that previously had a VAAE. Neutering appeared to increase the risk of a VAAE more than sex. Females are believed to mount stronger immune responses after vaccination or infection than males because of a dimorphic enhancing effect of estrogens and a protective effect of androgens.
Research is still required to characterize the primary allergenic components of different licensed veterinary vaccines, and it remains to be determined whether vaccine allergenicity and volume can be reduced while immunologic protection is maintained, particularly for smaller dogs.
Premarketing safety studies, when fiscally or logistically limited in size, will remain limited in power to detect rare adverse events that may be more common among animals with particular risk factors.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hr after vaccination. These factors should be considered in risk assessment and risk communication with clients regarding vaccination.
The problem is you are measuring an allergic/immune reaction. 72 hours is a standard accepted lenght of term for such a reaction to occur in humans and animals in nonlaboratory owned animals. If you go out further than that, it becomes harder and harder to prove its related to the allergen in question without locking the dog in a lab where there is no exposure to other potential allergens--from mold and pollen to dog foods. Does that make sense?
-
The problem is you are measuring an allergic/immune reaction. 72 hours is a standard accepted lenght of term for such a reaction to occur in humans and animals in nonlaboratory owned animals. If you go out further than that, it becomes harder and harder to prove its related to the allergen in question without locking the dog in a lab where there is no exposure to other potential allergens--from mold and pollen to dog foods. Does that make sense?
The problem is if it doesn't happen shortly (days) after the vaccine it isn't considered a vaccine related problem. That is bullshit. But at least this article shows the correlation of vaccines and SOME adverse reactions, and notes the one-size-fits all dosing and that smaller dogs react more.
-
The problem is if it doesn't happen shortly (days) after the vaccine it isn't considered a vaccine related problem. That is bullshit. But at least this article shows the correlation of vaccines and SOME adverse reactions, and notes the one-size-fits all dosing and that smaller dogs react more.
Ok, so how are you going to prove it? Seriously. The further away from the time of vaccination, the more likely its something else thats causing the problem.
-
Ok, so how are you going to prove it? Seriously. The further away from the time of vaccination, the more likely its something else thats causing the problem.
you can't, it will always be anecdotal. But when a large number of people have some kind of problem show up in their pet (like allergies, immune, or digestive) and you ask them "when was the animal vaccinated?" and you get a lot of responses that say within the last 3 months "and they were healthy at that checkup", it is time to stop standing behind the "prove it" defense and open the eyes.
You saying "the further away from the time of vaccination" what is that period for you? The 3 days? 2 weeks?
-
you can't, it will always be anecdotal. But when a large number of people have some kind of problem show up in their pet (like allergies, immune, or digestive) and you ask them "when was the animal vaccinated?" and you get a lot of responses that say within the last 3 months "and they were healthy at that checkup", it is time to stop standing behind the "prove it" defense and open the eyes.
You saying "the further away from the time of vaccination" what is that period for you? The 3 days? 2 weeks?
Exactly, its anecdotal and subjective. That makes it very, very difficult. It'd be more realistic to try to prove titers/protection from a vaccination than prove some of the "diseases" that people are contributing to the vaccine. If protection was proved for a longer period of time, it justifies less frequent vaccinations. that might open the door for investigating soem of the "attributed diseases".
I really don't have a set time to answer your second question.
-
Exactly, its anecdotal and subjective. That makes it very, very difficult. It'd be more realistic to try to prove titers/protection from a vaccination than prove some of the "diseases" that people are contributing to the vaccine. If protection was proved for a longer period of time, it justifies less frequent vaccinations. that might open the door for investigating soem of the "attributed diseases".
I really don't have a set time to answer your second question.
But the AVMA and others (and so does the CDC for human vaccines) acknowledge immune problems, digestive, etc with a vaccine related cause. That was the whole reason for the change to the 3 year protocol, pets were getting more and more problems.
Like I said, if I have a healthy dog and he gets his shots and 2 months later he has a sudden chronic problem, or I had a happy, well adjusted pet that suddenly becomes aggressive after his vacs, to ignore the connection would be asinine. And I have heard of MANY people who had a dog that got along great with other dogs suddenly want to kill any they saw after a vaccination, or becomes stranger fearful. It's the same bullshit that is told to parents of autistic kids who had a happy, healthy child, it was vaccinated and now is a different person.
It's double speak, "yes vaccines can cause these problems sometimes, but you have to prove it" so in reality none of these cases exist because no one can prove it! If it doesn't happen immediately after the shot, their can be no connection. That really is pretty sad. :(