Read and Think .........
Veterinary Times, UK - at the end of
January 2004. In the world of science, ten years is a very short
time in which to expect a sea change.
We and others whose dogs have suffered
vaccine reactions; we whose beloved friends have died and suffered unnecessarily,
have been pilloried and castigated for speaking the truth for long enough
now.
Time to take this letter to your vet;
time to post it to other vets in your neighbourhood; time to show this
letter to all the dog lovers you meet in the park or at
classes.
Time to get the truth out there once
and for all.
Time to stop our beloved animals suffering.
Time to say 'YES!' - but not yet time
to stop the campaign.
We shall not be finished until annual
vaccination is a thing of the past.
I dedicate this post to my own dear friends who had to die for this letter to appear in Veterinary Times: Oliver,Prudence and Samson, and to the thousands, or even millions, of animals and children whose lives have been terminated because people in scientific and veterinary communities saw a way to make a quick annual buck.
My respect and gratitude go to the courageous veterinarians who have signed the letter below.
Catherine O'Driscoll
Please feel
free to cross post far and wide:
Dear Editor
We, the undersigned, would like to bring to your attention our concerns in the light of recent new evidence regarding vaccination protocol.
The American Veterinary Medical Association
Committee report this year states that 'the one year revaccination recommendation
frequently found on many vaccination
labels is based on historical precedent,
not scientific data'.
In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that
'there is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year.
In fact, according to research there
is no proof that many of the yearly vaccinations are necessary and that
protection in many instances may be life long'; also,
'Vaccination is a potent medical procedure
with both benefits and risks for the patient'; further that, 'Revaccination
of patients with sufficient immunity does not add measurably to their disease
resistance, and may increase their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'
Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative or combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'
The report of the American Animal Hospital
Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003) is
also interesting reading:
'Current knowledgte supports the statement
that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective and no
vaccine is always indicated';
'Misunderstanding, misinformation
and the conservative nature of our profession have largely slowed
adoption of protocols advocating decreased
frequency of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides durations of
immunity for core infectious diseases that far exceed the traditional recommendations
for annual vaccination. This is supported by a growing body of veterinary
information as well as well-developed epidemiological
vigilance in human medicine that indicates
immunity induced by vaccination is extremely long lasting and, in most
cases, lifelong.'
Further, the evidence shows that the duration of immunity for rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for rabies and challenge studies for all others.
The veterinary surgeons below fully
accept that no single achievement has had greater impact on the lives and
well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability to
prevent infectious diseases than the
developments in annual vaccines. We, however, fully support the recommendations
and guidelines of the American Animal Hospitals Association Taskforce,
to reduce vaccine protocols for dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations
are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines
unless otherwise scientifically justified.
We further suggest that the evidence currently available will soon lead to the following facts being accepted:
* The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six months and any modified live virus (MLV) vaccine given after that age produces immunity that is good for the life of that pet.
* If another MLV vaccine is given
a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens
from the subsequent so there is little or no effect; the pet is
not 'boosted', nor are more memory
cells induced.
* Not only are annual boosters
for canine parvovirus and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to
potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated
haemolytic anaemia.
* There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.
* Puppies and kittens receive antibodies through their mothers' milk. This natural protection can last eight to 14 weeks.
* Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at less than eight weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralise the vaccine and little protection will be produced.
* Vaccination at six weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of the first effective vaccine.
* Vaccines given two weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the immune system.
This would give possible new guidelines as follows:
1. A series of vaccinations is given starting at eight weeks of age (or preferably later) and given three to four weeks apart, up to 16 weeks of age.
2. One further booster is given sometime after six months of age and will then provide life-long immunity.
In light of
data now available showing the needless use and potential harm of annual
vaccination, we call on our
profession
to cease the policy of annual vaccination.
Can we wonder
that clients are losing faith in vaccination and researching the issue
themselves? We think they
are right
to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic well-being of veterinary
surgeons and pharmaceutical
companies
should not be a factor in making medical decisions.
It is accepted
that the annual examination of a pet is advisable. We undervalue ourselves,
however, if we hang
this essential
service on the back of vaccination and will ultimately suffer the consequences.
Do we need to
wait until
we see actions against vets, such as those launched in the state of Texas
by Dr Robert Rogers? He
asserts that
the present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals constitutes
fraud by
misrepresentation,
fraud by silence and theft by deception.
The oath we
take as newly-qualified veterinary surgeons is 'to help, or at least do
no harm'. We wish to
maintain
our position within society, and be deserving of the trust placed in us
as a profession. It is therefore
our contention
that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of new
evidence may well be
acting contrary
to the wefare of the animals committed to their care.
Yours faithfully
Richard Allport,
BVetMed, MRCVS
Sue Armstrong,
MA BVetMed, MRCVS
Mark Carpenter,
BVetMed, MRCVS
Sarah Fox-Chapman,
MS, DVM, MRCVS
Nichola Cornish,
BVetMed, MRCVS
Tim Couzens,
BVetMed, MRCVS
Chris Day,
MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Claire Davies,
BVSc, MRCVS
Mark Elliott,
BVSc, MRCVS
Peter Gregory,
BVSc, MRCVS
Lise Hansen,
DVM, MRCVS
John Hoare,
BVSc, MRCVS
Graham Hines,
BVSc, MRCVS
Megan Kearney,
BVSc, MRCVS
Michelle
L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS
Suzi McIntyre,
BVSc, MRCVS
Siobhan Menzies,
BVM&S, MRCVS
Nazrene Moosa,
BVSc, MRCVS
Mike Nolan,
BVSc, MRCVS
Ilse Pedler,
MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS
John Saxton,
BVetMed, MRCVS
Cheryl Sears,
MVB, MRCVS
Jane Seymour,
BVSc, MRCVS
Christine
Shields, BVSc, MRCVS
Suzannah
Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS
Phillip Stimpson,
MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Nick Thompson,
BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS
Lyn Thompson,
BVSc, MRCVS
Wendy Vere,
VetMB, MA, MRCVS
Anuska Viljoen,
BVSc, MRCVS, and
Wendy Vink,
BVSc, MRCVS
Research,
reports etc are at CHC's web site:
http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/