There is a growing sentiment that many of our pets are being overlyvaccinated. The following links may help you make a more educated decision on vaccination.
Recently my Morgy and Snowy received waivers from mandatory rabies vaccination. Morgy has bone cancer and Snowy has feline herpes virus-his little immune system just isn't. A vet's responsibility is to
not puthis/her client in harm's way-vaccinations are assaults on immune system. My vet
wouldn't vaccinate them because he said it would go against his oath as a veterinarian!
Dr Stephen Tobin gave me permission to post his comments:
While it would be nice to have an exemption specifically noted, in
actuality it is not necessary. All vaccines are supposed to be given only to
healthy animals. That is so stated in the package inserts. If an animal
is sick, it is not supposed to be vaccinated. That is why vets are supposed
to give an examination before giving the vaccination. Giving a vaccination
to a sick animal is malpractice. Also, there is no vaccine that can be
used, for the vaccine is only licensed for use in healthy animals. But how do
you define healthy? If an animal is being treated by the vet for a
problem, that is prima facie evidence that the animal is not healthy. If the
vet insists the animal is healthy enough, but you think it is not,
remind the vet that he is giving the vaccine off license, and that he and he
alone is responsible for any problems that arise from the vaccination, as the
manufacturer does not need to stand by a product that is used off
license.
In fact, it would be a good idea to get him to sign a statement
saying just that.
Stephen Tobin, Dr.Med.Vet.
Dr.Susan Wynn gave me permission to post her observations on vaccinations
while attending the AVMA conference in Salt Lake City in July 2000
I thought you guys might like a little news about what's happening with
vaccines and the AVMA.
I was speaking at the AVMA convention in Salt Lake City last week and
noticed a 4 hour 'panel' discussion changing vaccine practices. As it
turns out, the panel was the official investigation and policy maker for
the AVMA, as it prepares to issue a statement in 2002. They were looking
for feedback from the audience (approximately 200 veterinarians from around
the country as well as vets and reps from the vaccine industry).
On the one hand, it wasn't really newsworthy because the veterinarians who
attended were clearly those already interested in the issue - a biased
audience. On the other hand, it was a big crowd, and most were already
changing their practices so that they were using vaccines every 3 years.
All reported that this change had not caused any more disease, and that
they were still making a living (as you know, the monetary issue seems to
be a big one for many veterinarians).
There is general suspicion of titers, since the information gained by using
them is nonspecific and can't guarantee immunity, but I still like them for
the time being.
I stood up to make a comment that the moderator also seemed to
appreciate -
veterinarians need to know that vaccines are safe but come with some
risk -
not like injecting water as my friend Jean Dodds says. The label says they
are for use in healthy animals, and this doesn't mean you just stick a pet
with vaccines because they are there with another problem. This is
CRITICAL!
An industry rep got up to say that veterinarians need to decide where they
want the companies to spend research money - on developing new products, or
on determining maximum duration of immunity? The general consensus was that
maximum duration of immunity studies will never be done - they're too
expensive - so new vaccine intervals will continue to be guesswork (just
like the yearly intervals were guesswork).
One final comment - it should be clear that money is an issue - vets are
scared of not making a living (remember - we make less than most plumbers,
and not nearly as much as any M.D. with whom we share lengthy educations
and student loan obligations). Also, the industry is doing all of the
research, and doing it on spec. If you guys are serious about supporting
change, assure your vet that you trust him or her, and that you will
continue to show up for yearly check-ups, necessary medical care like
dentals when appropriate, etc. Don't complain when service fees go up
because vaccine fees have disappeared - this is GOING to happen and is
long overdue. And if you have LOTs of extra money, consider making
earmarked donations to independant research organizations like the Morris
Animal Foundation, AVMA Foundation, or even the AHVMA which has a small
research fund.
I am going to place my bet here. The AVMA will use fuzzy language but
clear the way for customized vaccination according the pet's actual risk,
and in general endorse other's use of 3 year vaccine schedules (like
Colorado State, Cornell, Texas and the AAFP). It's a start, considering
this is THE national organization that speaks for the country's 60,000
veterinarians.
Clearly, getting the profession to say that vaccines are all bad and
shouldn't be used won't happen. I'm more sensitive than most veterinarians
to this issue, and I still don't believe they are 100% bad. I also know
that there are many on this list with more extreme viewpoints. Still,
hope this gives you cause for optimism - although your local vet may not
know it, times they are a changin!
Susan G. Wynn DVM, CVA
1080 North Cobb Parkway
Marietta, GA 30062
Phone: 770-424-6303
FAX: 770-426-4257
(Quite sad that possibly there are veterinians who push unnecessary vaccinations for financial gain-if you go for instance to
Omaha Vaccine-and check the prices
for wholesale vaccines-you will see how lucrative it is to give them. In a healthy
pet it helps build antibodies. In a sickly pet,just adds insult to injury. In some states,one can also get waivers from high titer tests.
More and more vets are seeing
diseases that were not prevalent before the heavy vaccination schedules were in effect.
Many think that the rise in autoimmune diseases is the result of multiple vaccinations.
Now vets for instance are being encouraged to give vaccinations to cats in their legs just
in case they get cancer-so the leg will be more easily amputated-
I highly recommend you joining the yahoo egroup which now has over 500 members. Dr. Hamilton appears to be posting on it. Mary Wulff-Tilford who wrote Herbs for Pets is the moderator Button for your Web page
One member posted on the feline herpes thread " When I was treating my last cat for CRF (kidney disease), one vet
showed me an JAVMA article with chart that showed how creatine levels spiked on
years cats were vaccinated and dropped on years they were not"
American Association Of Veterinary State Boards-gives numbers for dog licensing requirements etc
Click to subscribe to jstsayno2vaccs
feline vaccinations..by Dr.LevyDr.Gloria dodd-scroll down for vaccination information" Even Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XI, the practicing veterinarian's
"bible," states that annual revaccination of dogs and cats "lacks scientific validity and
verification." In addition, the text continues, "Almost without exception, there is no
immunological requirement for revaccination." " article from doglogic which includes Dr. Dodd's vaccination protocol and her fees for titer testing
Here is another link re Dr.Dodd's fees instructions
In homeopathy,there are nosodes-which are a substitute for vaccinations. As of yet,not enough research has been done to challenge the laws and use the nosodes instead.
As more people share their personal experiences with negative experiences-ie their pets getting cancer,possibly more research will be done. Many of these links offer vets' opinions-on petimmune board on egroups-a heated discussionFeline injection site sarcomas.
Feline injection site sarcomas have mostly been associated with the
administration of vaccines. Although the pathogenesis remains largely unknown,
it is believed the inflammatory reaction caused by the injection of the
compound leads to uncontrolled proliferation of fibroblasts and myofibroblasts
that may undergo malignant transformation in a subset of cats. Pretreatment
evaluation and proper planning of therapy are essential. Currently, because of
the aggressive nature of these tumors, a multimodality treatment approach is
recommended
World Wide Web-based survey of vaccination practices,
postvaccinal reactions, and vaccine site-associated sarcomas in
cats.
OBJECTIVE:To quantify incidence of vaccination practices, postvaccinal
reactions, and vaccine site-associated sarcomas in cats. DESIGN: Epidemiologic
survey. Animals-31,671 cats vaccinated in the United States and Canada by
veterinarians with World Wide Web access. PROCEDURE: Veterinarians used
secure Web-based survey forms to report data regarding administered
vaccines, postvaccinal inflammatory reactions, vaccine site-associated sarcomas,
and detailed information and history on each sarcoma. Data were collected from
Jan 1, 1998 to Dec 31, 2000, allowing a 1- to 3-year follow-up of vaccinated
cats. RESULTS: Participants reported administering 61,747 doses of vaccine to
31,671 cats; postvaccinal inflammatory reactions developed in 73 cats (11.8
reactions/10,000 vaccine doses), and qualifying vaccine site-associated
sarcomas developed in 2 cats (0.63 sarcomas/10,000 cats; 0.32
sarcomas/10,000 doses of all vaccines). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL
RELEVANCE: These findings indicate that the incidence of vaccine
site-associated sarcomas is low and is not increasing. Thoughtful consideration
of the relative risks and benefits of specific vaccines remains the best means
of reducing the incidence of sarcomas. It is not necessary to remove
postvaccinal granulomas unless malignant behavior is apparent or they persist >
4 months.
brief quotes re vaccination concerns by many vets