|
The Daily Mail doesn't have a particularly good record when it comes to views on the causes of Autism. Melanie Phillips for example led the Mail crusade to link MMR jabs to the onset of Autism and although that has now been disproved in scientific terms the doubts still linger in the minds of many. This doubt has been helped by a media quick to look for health scare stories, and quick to place huge faith in barely credible sources.
Last night on Twitter @jameswales Tweeted that the Daily Mail had once again gone beyond parody to report that vaccines are giving autism to dogs. The story has all the hallmarks of a Bad Science classic: 'Vaccines "are making our dogs sick as vets cash in"'. Firstly, the classic inverted commas imply that there isn't a huge amount of truth behind the story, because the Daily Mail is quick to show that the claim is not theirs. Secondly, it has the conspiracy element that appeals to tabloid readers. It isn't just an accusation that vaccines have side-effects, it is actually implying that vets are making dogs ill just so that they can charge animal owners to make them better. And finally, when we get to the 'organisation' behind the 'research' or claim, we find out that it is ostensibly a lone woman making unsubstantiated claims.
The claims are made by the charity Canine Health Concern [CHC]. The claims are that vaccines given to puppies have led to conditions such as autism and epilepsy and quotes 'latest scientific research' that suggests immunisation after the initial jabs does not need to be repeated for 'at least seven years, if not for life'.
I visited the website to find out more about the charity and discovered some interesting things. The charity was founded by Catherine O'Driscoll who had two Golden Retrievers die from conditions she believes to have been caused by vaccines. The latest research I could find under 'Scientific Data' was published in 1997. The latest news section gives a link to a Vet Times article on the open letter sent by CHC to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate [VMD], the article is dated 8 March, so presumably CHC has been sent an advance copy to demonstrate how the issue has been written up.
With regards to the entire open letter, I cannot find it on the website, but a Google search found a full copy on Facebook - of all places. The letter argues that the VMD has not properly considered the current accepted immunisation schedule (yearly for the majority of injections) in light of scientific evidence that suggests immunisation should occur less frequently. This issue seems to be separate to the issue of whether such immunisations are making animals sick or not.
Not surprisingly the Daily Mail has muddied the waters by focusing on the accusation that animals are being made sick by vaccines, when the scientific focus of the open letter is on the frequency of the vaccinations, for which evidence is provided and footnoted. The letter ends with the claim that:
This letter is written on behalf of the hundreds of pet owners who have contacted Canine Health Concern after their dogs were made ill or died from unnecessary vaccine procedures, and whose illnesses and deaths remain unreported and unacknowledged. It is signed by veterinarians from around the world, and by some of the animal guardians who join us in calling for an end to a needless and potentially harmful veterinary practice.
Immediately, we can see that this story bears a clear resemblance to the MMR scare, the letter is supported by dog owners who have linked a vaccination with an illness in their animal and have concluded that the vaccination was the cause of it. This is an accusation that does not appear to be grounded in science, the same as the claim about the MMR jabs. The letter only tries to support the claims for a reduction in the vaccinations given, it does not put forward a scientific case for the vaccinations causing sickness.
The Daily Mail has greatly exaggerated the claims made by the CHC in the letter, the letter is not accusing vets or vaccine manufacturers from cashing in on making our dogs sick, rather they are cashing in on giving too many vaccinations. The Daily Mail headline implies that money is being made by vets purposefully making dogs ill, whereas this claim simply isn't supported in the open letter. The open letter is careful not to push the 'vaccination makes animals sick' argument too strongly, largely - I would suggest - to keep their credibility.
With regards to the claim that vaccinations are making dogs sick, Catherine O'Driscoll is the author of two books on the subject: 'What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines' and 'Shock to the System'. I managed to track down a review of the second edition of 'What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines' by Nigel Gumley, DVM, and published in the Canadian Vetinary Journal. The review is interesting:
Founded on the belief that vaccination led to illness or the demise of all 6 of her pets, Ms. O'Driscoll's book is a colorful, yet poor, attempt to devalue the importance of immunization. Convinced of the harmful and oft unreported side effects of vaccination, Ms. O'Driscoll formed the Canine Health Concern, a self-proclaimed pet advocacy group. Using surveys conducted under the auspices of this group, Ms. O'Driscoll leads the reader through liberal quotations, anecdotes, and research, including her own, to arrive at the apparently irrefutable position that vaccines are much more harmful than veterinarians are leading their clients to believe. Reactions, such as arthritis, diarrhea, allergies, ataxia, autoimmune disease, colitis, dry eye/conjunctivitis, epilepsy, loss of appetite, nasal discharges, nervous/worrying dispositions and other behavioral changes, skin problems, weight loss, various cancers, to name a few, are all, in her opinion, connected to immunization through a temporal association, giving a reaction rate of at least 3%.
Ms. O'Driscoll's assertions, unfortunately, are difficult to substantiate. On one hand, her own retrospective study on a temporal relationship between vaccination and adverse effects, while summarized, is not published for scientific scrutiny. On the other, literature and opinions that are available are often misinterpreted or taken out of context. Despite various attempts to remain credible with references to figures of scientific respect, Ms. O'Driscoll loses the credibility in her dogmatic assertions or interpretations.
Furthermore, the reviewer goes onto add that:
With chapter titles like What vets should know about vaccines, Vaccine do not immunize, Vaccines are deadly poisons, and Vaccines can cause the disease they are designed to prevent, Ms. O'Driscoll leads the reader to the inevitable recommendation that homeopathy is a much safer and more efficacious method with which to protect dogs.
Homeopathy, the alternative to evil medicine that treats people 'naturally', but has been proven in repeated, peer-reviewed studies to not work, at all, ever. The CHC, however, are very clear to offer complete support for homeopathy for dogs:
Many dog lovers are moving away from annual vaccination towards the safer homoeopathic nosodes. Nosodes usually come in pill form, made from highly diluted preparations containing the disease-causing organisms or diseased tissue. This method of protection has been used for many years with a significant record of success. Published studies have shown the efficacy of nosodes in reducing the incidence of infection in outbreaks of mastitis in cow herds, kennel cough in dogs, distemper in dogs, meningitis in humans, and tularaemia in mice. As such, the principle of nosodes in disease prevention is well proven.
Once again, the first questions that enter my mind are clear: what evidence? Where can I find it? Who published it? And so on. The CHC website provides no links and no evidence whatosever to back up these claims. The idea of animal homeopathy is the same as human homeopathy, reduce an ingredient until there is virtually no particles left at all in the final pill and have faith that this will somehow trigger an immunity in the animal. Does homeopathy work in animals? Err, no:
When considering specifically veterinary trials, results are even more disappointing than in man, with no controlled studies of any degree of credibility having demonstrated a significant effect. In one memorable paper Taylor et al. (1989) described seven calves treated with a commercially purchased homoeopathic nosode for Dictyocaulus viviparus and seven with a sham solution, both groups then being challenged with virulent larvae. No antibody could be demonstrated in either group, mortality in both groups was high, and there was no difference in the number or morphology of the worms recovered from the groups post mortem. The conclusion was that "There were no discernable differences between the treated and the control groups in their manifestations of resistance to D. viviparus or their clinical responses to the diseases produced."...
More recently, other authors have reported similar findings. Scott et al. (2002) studied a commercial homoeopathic remedy for dermatitis in 18 dogs suffering from atopic dermatitis. One dog in each group (treated and control) showed a reduction in pruritus (to less than 50% of pre- treatment severity) after treatment. This study also generated much criticism from homoeopathy proponents, mainly on the grounds that as the treatment had not been administered by homoeopaths, the results were therefore invalid. The fact that the remedy used, like the nosode employed by Taylor et al. (1989), had been purchased from a commercial source advertising it as suitable for exactly that purpose, was not commented on by the critics. The following year de Verdier et al. (2003) treated 24 calves suffering from neonatal diarrhoea with a D30 preparation of Podophyllum, and compared them to a group of 20 similar calves given a sham solution, in a double-blind study. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to depression, inappetance and fever, and the treated group actually had a slightly longer duration of diarrhoea than the control group. In the light of these findings, the authors expressed concern about the welfare implications of the fact that homoeopathic treatment is encouraged among "organic" farmers in the EU. Once again, the study was dismissed by homoeopaths on the grounds of lack of individualisation, ignoring the fact that this is exactly how homoeopathy is actually practised in farm animal medicine.
The author goes on to give some more recent studies (and unlike the CHC, he gives full references and links to the studies), but I think you get the idea by now. Homeopathy has never been proven to perform above placebo in any properly controlled, valid clinical trial. It is as simple as that. Yet, the CHC promote homeopathy for pets as the 'safer' alternative to injections. Exactly how safe a dog with no immunity to disease is compared to one that has had the relevant injections is a mystery to me.
Once agin the Daily Mail has stirred up a fear in its readership based on the ramblings of an organisation unfit to comment on the matter. Consider the complete lack of any scientific evidence for homeopathy and consider the following statements on the CHC website:
Although many homoeopathic vets refuse to vaccinate, being convinced of the high risks involved, others will suggest that you vaccinate but try to counteract the side-effects by also giving nosodes. CHC does not recommend this option, as dogs can still experience life- threatening side-effects from the vaccine, nosodes or not...
Please note that kennels are increasingly willing to accept nosode-protected dogs, and some training and ringcraft classes are also becoming more enlightened...
Also, as nosode-protected dogs are usually remarkably healthy, an annual visit to collect nosodes from your vet will probably represent the very worthwhile 'annual check- up'.
Is this an organisation that demands any credibility whatsoever? Considering that their assertions for vaccines causing sickness in dogs is nothing more than anecdotal (same as MMR and Autism) and at no point is any scientific study actually linked to, it makes me sad that the Daily Mail has given such prominence to the story. Furthermore, the fact that they felt the need to change the angle to make it seem as if vaccinations were far more dangerous than they are, is an action I consider to be criminal. If a dog owner is convinced to not have their pet immunised as a result and that dog dies, then the blood will be on the hands of the Daily Mail.
Consider the impact of the story in terms of the comments, this is the second-highest negatively rated comment:
As a qualified vet nurse I cannot stress enough the importance of vaccinating your pets. Of you who have commented that your pet has never been vaccinated and are fine, you are very lucky. The thing people dont see are the pets that come into my practice in serious pain dying and its heartbreaking knowing that it could have been prevented. The annual vaccination does not just offer the opportunity to vaccinate them it gives them a general health check by a veterinary surgeon, vets are skilled clinicians and they can pick up of things at the earliest possible opportunity, lumps and bumps you may not have noticed etc. I urge you to consider the risk you are taking by not vaccinating your pets these diseases are painful and they are deadly!
- char, derby, 6/3/2010 12:26
Click to rate Rating 112
Compare this to the second-highest positively rated comment:
I was made aware of this 'scam' a couple of years ago and do not have my dog vaccinated every year as a result he is far to important a member of my family to take the risk. Trouble is, the pet insurance companies seem to be in on this 'little number' as one of the questions they always ask is 'has your dog had his annual injections' They need to keep up to date with research and be aware that this one question could be leading them to more insurance payouts than necessary!
- Tats, UK, 6/3/2010 9:38
Click to rate Rating 168
The failure of the Press Complaints Commission to regulate the news media is that the assumption that no-one really takes tabloid newspapers seriously, or that people are intelligent enough to not beleive everything they read, is badly mistaken. Newspapers have an huge influence on their readership - as evidenced during the MMR 'scare' when the media convinced a large amount of parents to put their children at risk by not having the vaccinations. The PCC has a responsibility not just to accuracy, but a responsibility for public health issues that are caused by woeful reporting such as this.
Sadly, there are a substantial number of people in society who need protection from organisations like the CHC and a media who are so quick to hype their claims into the next big scare story.
|
Re your reference to homeopathy… I’ve been campaigning on the problem of unnecessary vaccination of pets in Australia with two other women, one in Sydney and one in Perth. (I’m in Adelaide.) We found each other courtesy of the internet. These two women also strongly suspect their dogs were adversely affected by unnecessary vaccination. One dog died, the other suffered neurological problems. This dog had homeopathic treatment and survived. Did the homeopathic treatment work? Who knows, maybe the dog would have recovered anyway? I don’t know.
I don’t know much about homeopathy, although I have been in contact with homeopathic vets amongst the broad range of people I have contacted on the topic of vaccination. What intrigues me is the amount of opprobrium heaped upon homeopathy, while non-evidence based conventional medical practices escape censure. How about we direct some indignant outrage towards potentially harmful conventional interventions that lack an evidence base - unnecessary revaccination for example?
Non-evidence based information about companion animal revaccination is being forced upon pet owners - by the veterinary profession, vaccine manufacturers and government regulators. Pet owners are told their pets have to be revaccinated to ‘stay healthy’, and boarding kennels and pet insurers insist upon it because this is what vets dictate. Critical information in the scientific literature and vaccination guidelines on long duration of immunity and possible adverse reactions and longer term health problems is being suppressed from pet owners' consideration.
Vaccines are just so-called ‘preventive’ products on the shelf. After pressure from ‘concerned pet owners’, the Australian government regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, has recently confirmed that neither veterinarians nor pet owners are under any obligation to use these products or follow the manufacturers’ revaccination ‘recommendations’.(1)* (I have been in contact with both the British Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in the past on this issue, and I have received obfuscatory responses, but I will pursue this matter further. As I understand it, vaccination of companion animals is not compulsory in Britain.)
Vets have taken it upon themselves to dictate vaccination practice, without supporting evidence. It’s about time they were pulled into line.
The trust of pet owners is being exploited by members of the ‘self-regulated’ veterinary ‘profession’. There is no effective consumer protection for users of veterinary services. If dodgy plumbers or mechanics were pulling a similar scam, Consumer Affairs would be onto them like a shot, but veterinary ‘professionals’ get off scot free.
The public needs to be warned about this problem. There are serious ethical questions to be considered here, and there are important parallels with human medicine.
I’m grateful to ACG for giving me the links to other science-oriented blogs. I’ll prepare a post and try to engage in further discussion on this topic on the Bad Science forum in the first instance.
Thanks again
Elizabeth
Ref. 1: Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats. Published 21 January 2010, revised 25 January 2010:
http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/news/2010/2010-01-21_vaccination_position.php
* Note: In some countries rabies revaccination is mandatory, and this is also questionable.
I appreciate your comments and I understand some of the arguments for reducing vaccinations in animals. This is why i frankly steered clear of the issue and instead focused on the claim that vaccinations were causing autism in dogs - as well as the clearly silly advice to have dogs treated with homeopathy instead.
I don't really have any other points to make because I do not know enough about the subject to comment further. ACG does recommend some very good websites that may be able to give you a good discussion on the subject.
Thanks,
Uponnothing
ACG, I think it is unfair to accuse me of being a troll. The subject of this thread is vaccination of pets, i.e. the Daily Mail’s report "Vaccines ‘are making our dogs sick as vets cash in’". I am on topic, and I have endeavoured to contribute another perspective to the discussion. I have provided evidence to support the argument that animals are indeed being unnecessarily vaccinated, and needlessly put at risk of adverse reactions (and possible long-term health problems), which the WSAVA guidelines acknowledge are grossly under-reported.
ACG, you suggest Angry Mob “is dedicated very specifically to the subject to sloppy uk tabloid journaliam” (sic). The author of this thread, ‘Uponnothing’, obviously went to some effort to do some research on the topic of vaccination of pets. One might think he/she might appreciate some additional, referenced information from somebody with an interest in evidence-based veterinary medicine, to provide more substance to the discussion. Isn’t that the point…or is it?
Re your comment "i'll say again, i was critising your dismissal of peer review, and nothing more" (sic). This is incorrect. In your Comment No. 13 you disagreed that vaccination was controversial, and in your Comment No. 15 you insinuated there was not "a valid question to be argued". You sought to dismiss my referenced argument about unnecessary vaccination of pets with your poorly informed opinion. I suggest this is 'sloppy'...
In your Comment No. 17 you said "if you don't want to have a conversation about peer reivew specifically i suggest in future not replying to people who do" (sic). I did in fact have some conversation with you about peer review, and my comments about the ‘complex world of scientific evidence’ in my Comment No. 14 are relevant here, but I suspect they went over your head. My reference to the paper “From Evidence-based Medicine to Marketing-based Medicine: Evidence from Internal Industry Documents” in my response to Kathryn in my Comment No. 9 is also very pertinent. The entire paper is currently accessible via this link: http://i.bnet.com/blogs/spielmans-parry-ebm-to-mbm-jbioethicinqu-2010.pdf
ACG, you are the one who did not want to engage in the main topic of this thread, i.e. unnecessary vaccination of pets…
Despite our differences ACG, I do thank you for your references to alternative sites. It would be good to access some blogs that encourage thoughtful and well-sourced debate and constructive criticism rather than off the cuff opinion. I've checked out 'Bad Science' and registered, so I'll raise the issue there soon and see what response that elicits.
Thanks also for the tip re setting up my own blog. I’ve thought about this in the past, but I haven’t had time to do this, as much of my limited ‘spare time’ is actually spent on researching and lobbying on the international scandal of unnecessary vaccination of pets, which has now turned into quite a time-consuming hobby. It’s more effective for me to continue lobbying the authorities, and to post on open and transparent blogs where the topic is under discussion, including references and links when I’m allowed. Criticising vaccination on any level appears to be taboo, it’s very difficult to engage in open and transparent debate on this subject. I suggest it is a topic that could do with much more scrutiny and review, particularly after my eye-opening experiences dealing with the veterinary ‘profession’.
Also, here’s a little tip for you… If you draft your comments in Word before copying and posting on a blog, the spell checker will highlight spelling errors. Online dictionaries are also freely available. I suggest comments appear more erudite without misspellings, but perhaps I'm just old-fashioned...or just old...
Thanks for our chat ACG.
Bye
Elizabeth
if you want to have an open conversation on the vaccine topic i suggest going here: http://www.badscience.net/forum/ a large group of people who all have a good understanding of how to read and interpret studies, they'll be of much help to you, and have a very relaxed policy. you also might want to consider setting up your own blogger account which you can link to, rather than having to make incredably long blog posts.
this blog isn't really the place for what to want to wax lyrical about, it is dedicated very specifically to the subject to sloppy uk tabloid journaliam.
layscience might also be a more relevant place for you to go and hang out.
have fun now.
ever think about actually starting your own blog?
I appreciate that I have been able to leave long, referenced and unmoderated posts on Angry Mob. My posts are very long, but I’m trying to redress a serious imbalance, and provide detailed, referenced information that has been withheld from pet owners for many years.
Not all forums are so accommodating of philosophical contributions. For example, the Daily Mail’s moderated blogs allow very limited comments – 1,000 characters. (I submitted a comment (including links) on the Daily Mail’s article “Vaccines 'are making our dogs sick as vets cash in'” but it wasn’t posted.) (1)
Other more thoughtful publications, such as the Economist and the Guardian, provide more liberal blogs which allow long comments, up to 5,000 characters, and allow inclusion of links. Comments are posted immediately and only censored if they contain offensive material. (I haven’t left any comments about vaccination on these forums so far, but I am hopeful that if I get the opportunity to do so that my comments will not be censored.)
I’m particularly fond of the Guardian’s forums which are collectively known as “Comment is free....” This title has been adopted from the centenary essay by CP Scott, a previous editor of the Manchester Guardian. Here’s a quote from his essay: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred. ‘Propaganda’, so called, by this means is hateful. The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.”(2)
I’ve been campaigning with other concerned pet owners in Australia on the problem of unnecessary vaccination of pets for the past 17 months, and I know how difficult it is to be heard when challenging the status quo. My colleagues and I have faced great resistance from the veterinary profession and government regulators to having our concerns addressed. We have had to be very persistent to have our voices heard.
One academic in the US even tried to intimidate me and impede me from quoting from published material in my critical review of veterinary practice. There are some serious ethical questions here, no wonder I’m suspicious of the infallibility of peer review…
As evidenced by an article published in the Australian magazine, The Veterinarian, back in 2000, titled “The needle and the damage done?”(3), the veterinary profession has been well aware of the controversy surrounding vaccination of pets for many years, but critical information continued to be withheld from pet owners’ consideration. Holistic vets have tried to have this issue addressed over the years but unfortunately they were unsuccessful.(4) It wasn’t until pet owners starting finding out crucial information for themselves, and challenging the veterinary profession about unethical vaccination practice, that action was taken.
After years of delay, shortly after I circulated my paper “Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice” (5), the Australian Veterinary Association’s Board ratified its new reduced policy on vaccination of dogs and cats, apparently on 26 June 2009.(6) This new policy was not publicly announced until August 2009 (7), after negative press in the Australian media regarding unnecessary vaccination of pets (8, 9 and 10).
In September 2009, a colleague and I met with senior members of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and the Australian Veterinary Association. We were also invited to comment on the APVMA’s draft Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats, which was finally published, after persistent follow-up by us, on 21 January 2010. The APVMA’s Position Statement was subsequently revised, after my urgent criticism of a key statement, on 25 January 2010.(11) (Refer to my government submission on unnecessary vaccination of pets for more background information).(12)
The APVMA’s Position Statement is far from perfect, but I understand it is the first time a government regulator has publicly addressed this problem. Despite the AVA’s reduced vaccination policy, and the APVMA’s Position Statement, unnecessary vaccination of pets remains a significant problem, and annual revaccination with MLV core vaccines is still prevalent practice.(13)
There’s big money in companion animal vaccination. A recent article in the US magazine, Veterinary Practice News, estimates that up to 25% of global animal health product revenue comes from vaccines. The article notes that there are about “110 available canine and 70 feline vaccines to choose from”.(14)
The veterinary profession knows that word on long duration of immunity of MLV core vaccines for viral diseases such as parvovirus is out of the bag, but they are now going to push for triennial core revaccination, even though they know triennial core vaccination is just as arbitrary as annual core vaccination.
Also be alert for a push by the veterinary profession towards making people have blanket non-core annual vaccination (for diseases such as ‘kennel cough’ and leptospirosis) for their pets as compensation for the loss of annual core vaccination.
The WSAVA dog and cat vaccination guidelines (i.e. the guidelines that are seldom mentioned to pet owners…) note that “non-core vaccines are those that are licensed for the dog and whose use is determined on the basis of the animal’s geographical and lifestyle exposure and an assessment of risk-benefit ratios”. In other words, a blanket recommendation for these non-core vaccines is inappropriate.
(NOTE: The WSAVA guidelines were published in the British Small Animal Veterinary Association’s journal, the Journal of Small Animal Practice, in 2007, yet how many British pet owners have been informed of these guidelines? Practically zip I suspect…)
In the Veterinary Practice News article mentioned previously, veterinary academic Richard Ford is quoted as saying “using vaccines as a way to get clients to make an office visit is good medicine”, adding “there are many non-core vaccines that may be necessary for the patient, and evaluating animals annually is smart”.(15)
I am alarmed that veterinary academics are recommending that vaccines be used as a practice management tool, as a means to “get clients to make an office visit”. Check-ups should be promoted on their own merits, it is unacceptable for veterinarians to use possibly harmful, and in many cases unnecessary, core and non-core vaccinations as a means to lure pet owners into their clinics.
The WSAVA guidelines warn that “vaccines should not be given needlessly….we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimise the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products.” Non-core vaccines also pose risks to animals. For example, the WSAVA guidelines note that the vaccine for leptospirosis is associated with the greatest number of adverse reactions to any vaccine”. Toy breeds in particular are at risk and “routine vaccination of toy breeds should only be considered in dogs known to have a high risk of exposure”.(16)
Similarly, killed vaccines for Bordetella (‘kennel cough’) containing aluminium are problematic. Michael Day, a member of the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group suggests vaccines containing alum may be implicated in cases of vaccine-associated autoimmunity.(17)
Aluminium is also associated with cancer in dogs. For example, a study by Vascellari et al identified distinct similarities between canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas, suggesting the possibility of the development of post-injection sarcomas not only in cats but also in dogs. In this study “aluminium deposits were detected in eight canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites”.(18)
I am concerned that pet owners are going to continue to be pressured into having a range of vaccinations which may not be in the best interests of their pets’ health and well-being. Certainly pet owners must be properly informed of the risks and benefits of vaccination in their own particular pet’s case before deciding on vaccination.
Ronald Schultz, a member of the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group, notes: “Vaccines are medical products that should only be given if needed and only as often as is necessary to provide protection from diseases that are a risk to the health of the animal. If a vaccine that is not necessary causes an adverse reaction that would be considered an unacceptable medical procedure, thus use only those vaccines that are needed and use them only as often as needed.”(19)
As I said in my previous post ACG, more “astute and thoughtful” people may be interested to consider the information (including the links and references) I have provided on the topic of unnecessary vaccination of pets in my previous posts.
Unfortunately, in Britain, this issue appears to have been dichotomised into an anti-vaccination / pro-vaccination argument. Only very recently have some people appreciated that the important, and actually obvious, issue to tackle is the problem of UNNECESSARY, and possibly harmful, vaccination of pets. If only they had caught onto this years ago many dogs, including my dog, might have been spared the risk of unnecessary vaccination.
The onus is on those who wish to promote a medical intervention to provide evidence that the intervention is beneficial and safe. It is my understanding from my review of the scientific literature that there is no evidence that repeated revaccination of adult dogs with MLV vaccines is beneficial for the animal, as trials have demonstrated that dogs that have responded to MLV vaccination are likely to have at least seven years protection (20), and probably lifelong (21). I am also dubious about the safety and effectiveness of non-core vaccines. In any event, the final decision on whether to vaccinate or not should rest with the properly informed pet owner.
How many animals have been adversely affected by unnecessary vaccination over the many years that pet owners have been compelled to have this intervention? We will never know as due to ineffective post-marketing surveillance, adverse reactions are grossly under-reported.(22)
Evidence of long duration of immunity of MLV vaccines has been available in international dog and cat vaccination guidelines for years, so why has this information been withheld from pet owners’ consideration? Why has this information been suppressed? Why have pet owners been compelled to have possibly risky interventions for their pets that have not been proven to be beneficial? Is this ethical?
I am interested in politics and the abuse of power and authority. Investigating the problem of unnecessary vaccination of pets has been an eye-opening exercise for me, discovering how a ‘self-regulated’ profession can abuse its self-appointed power and authority when there is no effective watchdog to protect consumers.
Professional conduct and self-regulation in the veterinary profession must come under scrutiny. In a book chapter on veterinary ethics, Jane Hern, the Registrar of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, notes that professional bodies are granted the privilege of self-regulation, but only in return for an assurance their members set standards of competence and ethical behaviour to protect consumers.(23)
Who protects the consumer when the veterinary profession’s “standards of competence and ethical behaviour” are putting pets needlessly at risk? By allowing unnecessary vaccination to continue, the veterinary profession has failed in its duty to protect the rights of pet owners and the health of their pets.
The consequences of unnecessary vaccination for pet owners and their pets are significant. If an animal becomes sick, or worse, after unnecessary vaccination, the pet owner bears the emotional and financial cost, which in some cases can be considerable.
Users of veterinary services are sorely in need of effective consumer protection, and I will continue to campaign for transparency and accountability in this area.
References:
1: Vaccines 'are making our dogs sick as vets cash in', Mail Online, 6 March 2010: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255863/Vaccines-making-dogs-sick-vets-cash-in.html##ixzz0iapDzmBVhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255863/Vaccines-making-dogs-sick-vets-cash-in.html#comments
2: CP Scott’s Centenary Essay: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainability/cp-scott-centenary-essay
3: The needle and the damage done? The Veterinarian, September 2000, pp. 6-9.
4. Submission to the AVA Policy Council on Small Animal Vaccination Policy Suggestions, compiled by the Australian Association of Holistic Veterinarians, May 2004. (As annual vaccination was still ‘accepted practice’ until recently, this submission was obviously unfortunately unsuccessful in 2004.)
5. Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice" (16 June 2009): http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Over-vaccination_of_pets_-_an_unethical_practice.pdf
6: Australian Veterinary Association – Vaccination of dogs and cats. Policy ratified 26 June 2009. The policy is available on the AVA website, try this link: http://ava.informz.net/ava/data/images/documents/ava-vaccination-policy-final-june09.pdf
7: “Important to get vaccination message right”, AVA Media Release, 12 August 2009: http://avacms.eseries.hengesystems.com.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTFILEID=4558
8: “Vets dogged by criticism over vaccinations”. The Sydney Morning Herald, 1-2 August, 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/vets-dogged-by-criticism-over-vaccinations-20090731-e4f7.html
9: “Annual vaccinations could be harmful: vets told”. Sydney Morning Herald, 11 August 2009: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/annual-vaccinations-could-be-harmful-vets-told-20090810-efms.html
10.“Pet owners dogged by ‘unnecessary’ vaccinations, ABC News, 6 August 2009: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/06/2647283.htm
11: Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats. Published 21 January 2010, revised 25 January 2010: http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/news/2010/2010-01-21_vaccination_position.php
12: Submissions were recently invited on the (Australian) National Scheme for Assessment, Registration and Control of Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Discussion paper. I made a submission titled “Unnecessary and possibly harmful, use of companion animal vaccines”. (February 2010). My submission has been published on the Australian Government’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website: http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/food/regulation-safety/ag-vet-chemicals/domestic-policy/psic/responses-to-discussion-paper/hart,_elizabeth
13: I provided evidence of this unacceptable ‘media promotion’ of annual revaccination, with examples from newspapers in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales, in my ‘open letter’ to the APVMA, AVA, Australian Small Animal Veterinary Association, and the Competition and Consumer Policy Division, dated 24 January 2010. The letter is accessible via this link:
http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Open_letter_to_APVMA_AVA_ASAVA_CCPD_24-01-10.pdf
14: “Injecting insight into vaccinations”. Veterinary Practice News, March 2010: http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-dept/small-animal-dept/injecting-insight-into-vaccinations.aspx
15: Ibid.
16: WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines for Dogs and Cats: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf
17: Day, M. Infectious Triggers of Immune Mediated Disease. 29th World Congress of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association, October 2004: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2004&Category=&PID=8599&O=Generic
18: Vascellari, M., Melchiotti, E., Bozza, M.A., and Mutinelli, F. Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-Vaccinal Fibrosarcomas. J. Vet. Med. A 50, 286–291 (2003).
19: Schultz, R.D. 2007. What everyone needs to know about canine vaccines and vaccination programs. 2007 National Parent Club Canine Health Conference: http://www.spinoneus.org/forum/uploaded/Admin/Vaccinations2007.pdf
20: WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines for Dogs and Cats: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf
21: 2003 AAHA guidelines: Paul, M.A., Appel, M.J., Barrett, R., Carmichael, L.E., Childers, H., Cotter, S., Davidson, A., Ford, R., Keil, D., Lappin, M., Schultz, R.D., Thacker, E., Trumpeter, E., Welborn, L. 2003. Report of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force: 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature.
22: WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines for Dogs and Cats: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf
23: Hern, J.C. “Professional conduct and self-regulation” in Veterinary Ethics: An Introduction. Ed. Legood, G. London, New York. Contiuum. 2000.
you (assuming you view your self as "astute and thoughtful") could doubtless tell from my first reply that i was raising specifically the issue of peer review with you. the fact that i wouldn't respond to the long and irrelevant parts of your subsiquent replys should not be a surprise to you. if you don't want to have a conversation about peer reivew specifically i suggest in future not replying to people who do.
Your posts have given me the opportunity to respond and share information on unnecessary vaccination of pets (one of the original discussion points of this thread) that other more astute and thoughtful people might be interested to consider.
It's 'on the record'...
as for the "contraversy" just because there is a debate happening doesn't make every side of it equally valid. the rise of blogs and the internet has lead to people questioning a whole bunch of stuff, even things that are downright insane, people debating it doesn't mean there is actually a valid question to be argued, people are just like that.
I suggest the fact we are having this discussion indicates the topic of vaccination is complex and controversial. Thanks to the rise of the internet and blogs, citizens now have access to a valuable forum to express alternative views and challenge the status quo, outside the confines and censorship of the mainstream media.
When it comes to "the complex world of scientific evidence", more discerning members of the general public are questioning the so-called evidence underpinning medical interventions such as vaccination. The rationale for ‘scientific research’ and resulting interventions needs to be more critically examined – is it a response to a demonstrated need or is it merely a means to create new markets? This is particularly important to consider in matters of public health, including the motivation behind what research findings are published and what is suppressed.
White-coated 'professionals' are assumed to be up to speed on medical best practice but, as I have discovered through personal experience, these people are not always the experts one might expect them to be. They are also heavily influenced by the marketing ploys of pharmaceutical companies, which are focused on turnover and profit rather than altruistic healthcare.
I am questioning the evidence base and safety of conventional 'preventive' products that are heavily promoted for healthy people and animals. Homeopathic treatments have recently been under attack in the UK and Australia for not being evidence-based. It follows that conventional ‘preventive’ products must also be subject to the same scrutiny.
The Australian Veterinary Association’s Code of Professional Conduct notes: “Veterinary procedures and recommendations should be based on sound evidence-based science and practice.” Yet veterinarians continue to abuse their self-appointed authority by dictating that pet owners have their pets repeatedly revaccinated with MLV vaccines, and ‘strongly recommending’ that pet businesses such as boarding kennels demand proof of repeated revaccination, without any evidence that repeated MLV revaccination is beneficial for the adult animal. Animals that have already responded to vaccination with MLV vaccines are being needlessly subjected to unnecessary and possibly harmful repeated revaccination – this is unacceptable.
Pet owners are not being advised that manufacturers’ prescriptive MLV revaccination recommendations have not been proven to be necessary. Pet owners are not being given the opportunity to consider the research of veterinary experts, referred to in international dog and cat vaccination guidelines, which indicates there is long duration of immunity with MLV vaccines. They are also not being advised of the dubious efficacy of non-core vaccines.
Pet owners are not being warned of the possible adverse reactions or long term health problems, that can result from the continuing assault on the immune system due to repeated vaccination.
In a paper titled “Postmarketing surveillance for dog and cat vaccines: new resources in changing times”, Moore et al note: “Adverse events that are relatively uncommon or that occur in high-risk subgroups (eg. elderly animals or specific breeds) are usually only detected through postmarketing surveillance. The full safety profile for a given vaccine can only be determined after the vaccine has been licensed and administered to large numbers (often millions) of individuals.”
In other words, dogs in the community are the guinea pigs for these vaccines. They (and their owners) are unknowingly part of a huge unregulated trial, the results of which are not being reported. Post-marketing surveillance is currently ineffective due to adverse reactions being grossly under-reported (as admitted by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s Vaccination Guidelines Group).
Due to lack of research, the consequences of repeated vaccination over the lifetime of an animal have not been determined. Michael Day, a member of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s Vaccination Guidelines Group, admits that few “investigations have studied the phenomenon of ‘inflammageing’ (the effect of cumulative antigenic exposure and onset of late life inflammatory disease)” in dogs and cats.
(More information on adverse reactions is included in my papers, refer to links provided in my previous comments.)
The pet belongs to the pet owner, and it is the pet owner's right to be properly informed of vaccination best practice, and not to be bullied into having non-evidence based interventions that are more in the financial interests of the veterinarian / vaccine manufacturer, than in the best interests of the pet.
On the topic of evidence-based medicine, the British Medical Journal provides this definition: “Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research....”
The Journal of the American Medical Association provides additional definition: “Evidence-based medicine de-emphasizes intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale as sufficient grounds for clinical decision making and stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research. Evidence-based medicine requires new skills of the physician, including efficient literature searching and the application of formal rules of evidence evaluating the clinical literature.”
In Seminars in Perinatology, David Sackett notes that: “Without current best external evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine is a process of life-long, self-directed learning in which caring for our own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and other clinical and health care issues…”
For years many veterinarians in countries such as the UK, Australia and the US, have ignored evidence of long duration of immunity of MLV core vaccines, contained in the scientific literature and international dog and cat vaccination guidelines. This information has been withheld from pet owners’ consideration.
Pet owners should be advised that there is no evidence to support repeated revaccination of pets with MLV core vaccines, and that there is evidence that most dogs are likely to be protected from serious viral diseases such as parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus after the final puppy MLV core vaccination at 16 weeks. No further revaccination is likely to be required for these diseases, although pet owners can seek serological testing if they wish to verify their dog’s antibody status.
The World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats advise that “the principles of ‘evidence-based veterinary medicine’ would dictate that testing for antibody status (for either pups or adult dogs) is better practice than simply administering a vaccine booster on the basis that this should be ‘safe and cost less’”.
It should be a matter of course that vaccination guidelines be regularly updated to ensure advice on vaccination best practice is relayed to pet owners.
References:
- Moore, G.E., Frana, T.S., Guptill, L.F., Ward, M.P., Lewis, H.B., Glickman, L.T. 2005. Postmarketing surveillance for dog and cat vaccines: new resources in changing times. JAVMA. Vol. 227, No. 7, October 1, 2005, pp. 1066-1069.
- Day, M.J. Ageing, immunosenescence and nflammageing in the dog and cat. J Comp. Pathol. 2010 Jan; 142 Supl. 1:S60-9. Epub 2009 Dec 14.
- Editorial. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal. 1996. 312. 71-72 (13 January).
- Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. November 4 1992. Vol 268, No. 17.
- Sackett, D.L. Evidence-based medicine. Seminars in Perinatology. Vol. 21, No.1 (February) 1997: pp 3-5.
- Australian Veterinary Association’s (AVA) “Draft Policies and Position Statements – For members’ comment by 13 March 2009”refers to “Responsible use of veterinary vaccines for dogs and cats”. This draft policy admitted that “annual vaccination is the currently accepted practice in Australia”. The AVA has now ostensibly moved to ‘triennial’ vaccination. The new policy is available on their website.
- The 2006 AAHA canine vaccine guidelines recommend “every three years or longer” (My emphasis). Paul, M.A., Carmichael, L.E., Childers, H., Cotter, S., Davidson, A., Ford, R., Hurley, K.F., Roth, J.A., Schultz, R.D., Thacker, E., Welborn, L. 2006 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Revised: http://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/VaccineGuidelines06Revised.pdf
However, my correspondence with veterinary schools in the US indicates that an ‘every three years’ recommendation is taught there.
- In Britain, the British Veterinary Association fact sheet ‘Vaccination – The Facts’ states that: “Vets must use vaccines in accordance with the licence stipulations. It should be noted that it would be negligent of a vet to deviate from the medicinal data available to them and/or use a vaccine not in accordance with the instructions on the label and the summary of the product characteristics or data sheet.”: Vaccination – The Facts. Enc 7, Annex C. British Veterinary Association. If British vets are using MLV vaccines “in accordance with the (current) licence stipulations” I suggest they are unnecessarily revaccinating pets.
- WSAVA Guidelines: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf
the key word here is "opinion" i read blogs and the like for opinion, but when it comes to the complex world of scientific evidence, that's when i rely on peer review. option doesn't, and cannot, cut the mustard there.
you refer as vaccination as "contraversial" but really, is it? yes, people debate it on forums and letter pages, they throw around anecdones and homemade studies, but in terms of legitimate research (which is legitimised by a process of being intependant assessed by a group of academic peers with the aim of hightlighting any flaws accidental or otherwise) there is no contrvercy.
If you think ‘peer review’ is the only legitimate system, one wonders why you bother to read blogs and alternative opinions?
Information from the scientific literature can be difficult for the general public to access, particularly as the veterinary profession is not sharing this information with pet owners. Similarly, information contained in international dog and cat vaccination guidelines has also been withheld from the public's consideration.
Vaccination is a controversial issue, but so far pet owners have been receiving a biased and non-evidence based perspective from the veterinary profession. Interested people who are willing to take the time to read the results of my research can make their own judgements. (Refer to links in my previous comments.) There is little benefit for me in arguing with people who are ill-informed, and who are incapable of reading the information provided and responding with constructive criticism.
The primary purpose of my research is to challenge veterinary associations and government regulators regarding unnecessary vaccination of pets, and to demand transparency and accountability. My concerns are now officially 'on the record', and I am continuing my research and lobbying on this topic. Along with other concerned people, I have been focusing on the problem in Australia, but I understand the situation is also quite dire in the UK, and I have had some unsatisfactory correspondence with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) on this issue.
Unnecessary vaccination of pets is a multi-billion dollar international scandal. As I outline in my papers, the veterinary industry has known for years that there is no scientific basis for repeated revaccination of adult dogs with MLV core vaccines, and that dogs are likely to have lifelong immunity after responding to core vaccination, yet many veterinarians have continued to dictate that pet owners have their pets needlessly, and possibly harmfully, revaccinated annually or triennially. They have been assisted in this regard by industry-funded government regulators such as the VMD and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), which have allowed on the market MLV vaccine products with scientifically unfounded 'annual' and 'triennial' MLV revaccination recommendations. There are serious financial conflicts of interest here.
Veterinarians have been saying that they have to follow the vaccine manufacturers' (unproven) revaccination recommendations. This is untrue. Vaccines are just so-called ‘preventive’ products on the shelf, there is no compunction to use them or follow the manufacturers’ recommendations, particularly when recent dog and cat vaccination guidelines advise that duration of immunity with MLV vaccines has been demonstrated to be at least seven years after challenge and serological studies.
After pressure from ‘concerned pet owners’ the APVMA recently published a Position Statement on Dog and Cat Vaccination Protocols, in which it was acknowledged that "veterinarians and pet owners are under no obligation to follow revaccination intervals recommended on vaccine labels.” The APVMA’s Position Statement also notes that “it is important that veterinarians tailor vaccination regimens to suit the needs of each animal under their care, and discuss alternatives with their client.”
The APVMA’s Position Statement also acknowledges “the aim should be to ensure that all susceptible animals are vaccinated, rather than that already well-immunised animals are re-vaccinated”, and goes on to say: “The APVMA does not support the retention of label statements that direct or imply a universal need for life-long annual revaccinations with core vaccines. The APVMA supports the AVA’s (Australian Veterinary Association’s) vaccination policy and is of the view that product labels should be amended to align with that policy. The APVMA is working with vaccine registrants with a view to updating labels.”
After years of ignoring the triennial revaccination compromise ostensibly adopted in the United States back in 2003, both the APVMA and AVA are now trying to slide over to triennial revaccination in Australia, but triennial revaccination is just as scientifically unfounded as annual revaccination with MLV vaccines.
The main concern is that critical information continues to be withheld from pet owners, the main stakeholders in their pets’ health and wellbeing. For many years, scientific information on long duration of immunity and possible adverse reactions and longer term health problems after vaccination has been suppressed from pet owners’ consideration.
It is also often said that adverse reactions to vaccination are low, as if this justifies unnecessary interventions. However, as the WSAVA dog and cat vaccination guidelines acknowledge, adverse reactions are grossly under-reported. Due to poor post-marketing surveillance, the authorities really have no idea of the true adverse reaction rate.
The so-called 'benefits' of limited duration of immunity non-core vaccines for diseases such as bordetella and leptospirosis are also dubious, and should be considered very carefully in each individual case, particularly for breeds of dogs (e.g. small breeds) which are at greater risk of adverse reaction to vaccination.
Pet owners are seriously in need of effective consumer protection from the 'self-regulated' veterinary 'profession'. Members of the veterinary 'profession' must be made aware that it is their professional duty to advise pet owners of evidence-based vaccination ‘best practice’. The final decision on whether to vaccinate or not must rest with the properly informed pet owner.
I suggest if veterinarians continue to dictate that pet owners have their pets repeatedly revaccinated, without scientific evidence to support this practice being beneficial in the case of each individual animal, it will raise interesting ethical, and possibly legal, questions in the future.
(needless to say, i don't think one mans opinion rant overturns the value of peer review. obviously it is a flawed system, people made it, but seeing as the alturnative to it is just a bunch of self procliamed experts lobbing unvarified waffle at each other, i think i'll still take it.)
Here’s a link to another article that might help broaden your outlook: From Evidence-based Medicine to Marketing-based Medicine: Evidence from Internal Industry Documents: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b674622731k4850q/?p=780854c9fdb64f988dd69a0651085be7&pi=10
This quote from Furedi’s article is pertinent:
“Increasingly, peer review has been turned into a quasi-holy institution, which apparently signifies that a certain claim is legitimate or sacred. And from this perspective, voices which lack the authority of peer review are, by definition, illegitimate. Peer review provides a warrant to be heard – those who speak without this warrant deserve only our scorn. You can almost visualise peer-review dogmatists waving their warrant and demanding that their opponents be silenced.”
I am challenging veterinary dogmatists, i.e. those veterinarians who dictate that pet owners have their pets unnecessarily, and possibly harmfully, revaccinated with MLV vaccines over and over again. And there are no ‘peer reviewed’ papers to support this non-evidence based vaccination practice.
My research papers (accessible via links in my response to Jon) are now ‘on the record’ with various authorities. They include discussion on international dog and cat vaccination guidelines, duration of immunity, unproven MLV vaccine label revaccination recommendations, adverse reactions to vaccination, and professional, ethical and legal considerations.
My fully-referenced research speaks for itself, and is freely available to be critiqued by anybody who has the wit to understand it.
Maybe you do know what you're talking about on this issue, but you must admit, the vast majority of anti-vaxxers definitely don't.
I suggest the people who suffer from “a form of delusional grandiosity” are those that continue to push revaccination with modified live virus (MLV) core vaccines for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus when there is no scientific evidence to support this practice (i.e. vets who are not keeping up to date with vaccination 'best practice').
Repeated vaccination of adult dogs with MLV core vaccines is of no benefit to the animal and is a needless expense for the pet owner. Most importantly, this unnecessary intervention puts the animal at risk of an adverse reaction and longer term health problems.
A close reading of the scientific literature indicates that most dogs are likely to be protected after the final puppy vaccination at 16 weeks, repeated ‘annual’ or ‘triennial’ vaccination is not necessary.
The focus should be on vaccinating unvaccinated dogs, not unnecessarily ‘revaccinating’ already vaccinated dogs over and over again. Do you continue to have a measles injection every year or every three years Jon?
Jon, please provide me with links to “peer-reviewed published papers” that provide scientific evidence that repeated vaccination of adult dogs annually OR triennially with MLV core vaccines has been proven to be necessary.
The World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) dog and cat vaccination guidelines, published in 2007*, advise that “dogs that have responded to vaccination with MLV core vaccines maintain a solid immunity (immunological memory) for many years in the absence of any repeat vaccination”.
The Fact Sheets of the WSAVA guidelines advise that duration of immunity after vaccination with MLV vaccines for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus has been demonstrated to be AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS, based on challenge and serological studies.
Earlier guidelines issued by the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force in 2003 note MLV vaccines are likely to provide lifelong immunity, stating "when MLV vaccines are used to immunize a dog, memory cells develop and likely persist for the life of the animal".
Are veterinarians giving pet owners the opportunity to consider this scientific information regarding vaccination? Not in my experience…. This information is being withheld from pet owners. Many veterinarians continue to ignore scientific evidence of long duration of immunity, and continue to rely on manufacturers' unproven revaccination recommendations. Core vaccination is being used as a practice management tool, i.e. as a means to lure pet owners back to vets' surgeries every year. This is a money-making racket for vaccine companies and for vets. This is not acceptable.
The WSAVA dog and cat vaccination guidelines warn: "we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimise the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products". The WSAVA guidelines also acknowledge: "that there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products".
Due to inadequate research and lack of effective community surveillance, the full range of possible immediate and delayed adverse reactions (including long term health problems) to repeated vaccination over the life-time of an animal is unknown. Many breeds of dogs may be more vulnerable to adverse reaction. For example, recent studies warn that small-breed dogs in particular are at greater risk of adverse reaction with multivalent vaccines (see my papers for references).
Jon, my work is not a series of “angry, cranky letters”. I have been researching the problem of unnecessary vaccination since my own dog died in suspicious circumstances after her last unnecessary vaccination 17 months ago. I have been shocked to discover that veterinarians are not undertaking continuing education in immunology, particularly as vaccination of animals is a major feature of veterinary practice.
The information I have collated is not merely my opinion, it is a fully-referenced review of the scientific literature and other relevant sources, and I have been using it to challenge the unethical practice of unnecessary vaccination.
Since I started campaigning on this issue, the Australian Veterinary Association has issued a new reduced vaccination policy, and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has issued a Position Statement on Vaccination Protocols for Dogs and Cats which acknowledges that “the aim should be to ensure that all susceptible animals are vaccinated, rather than that already well-immunised animals are re-vaccinated”. The situation in Australia is still not satisfactory, but at least the authorities are acknowledging this problem now. (Refer to my papers for further details.)
Here are links to some papers I have prepared:
- "Is over-vaccination harming our pets? Are vets making our pets sick?" (13 April 2009). (This fully-referenced report was tabled at a special meeting of senior scientific staff convened by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (i.e. the government regulator) on 15 April 2009. The meeting was convened in response to my concerns about the problem of unnecessary vaccination of pets.)
http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Is_%20over-vaccination_harming_our_pets.pdf
- "Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice" (16 June 2009): This fully-referenced paper is a summary of my previous report with additional information:
http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Over-vaccination_of_pets_-_an_unethical_practice.pdf
Submissions were recently invited on the (Australian) National Scheme for Assessment, Registration and Control of Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Discussion paper. I made a submission titled “Unnecessary and possibly harmful, use of companion animal vaccines”. (February 2010). My submission has been published on the Australian Government’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website: http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/food/regulation-safety/ag-vet-chemicals/domestic-policy/psic/responses-to-discussion-paper/hart,_elizabeth
As for your comments re “peer reviewed published papers”, Jon, if debate was limited to this sphere we might as well close down all the newspapers, television and radio channels, blogs etc tomorrow. Thankfully in our democratic society we are all free to challenge the status quo, particularly if we go to the trouble to research our chosen topic.
And for an interesting perspective on “peer review” check out this article by Frank Furedi: "Turning peer review into modern-day holy scripture - The treatment of peer-reviewed science as an unquestionable form of authority is corrupting the peer-review system and damaging public debate": http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/378/
Jon, I have gone to some trouble to research the topic of unnecessary vaccination of pets with my fully-referenced papers. This is a complex issue and there is quite a hidden international scandal here waiting to be exposed... If you disagree with my views, you will have to do much better than a few cranky and inaccurate paragraphs…
Elizabeth Hart
Australia
* Day, M..J., Horzinek, M.C., Schultz, R.D. Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats, compiled by the Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA). Journal of Small Animal Practice . 2007. 48 (9), 528-541: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf
I remember precisely what parvo and distemper outbreaks were like, and I am fed up with people claiming that vaccines are dangerous. Of course they carry risks, but the diseases they prevent are a lot worse. Its just that we are so unfamiliar with the horror of infectious disease that it has been erased from our collective memory.
Of course it is important to review vaccination policy, but get some balance.
I feel sorry for the poor suffering pets, who are very unlikley to die prematurely by missing out on protection from and treatment of serious diseases.
No further revaccination is likely to be required for these diseases, although pet owners can seek serological testing if they wish to verify their dog’s antibody status.
This simple message is still not being relayed to pet owners. Veterinarians in countries such as Australia, Britain and the United States continue to mislead pet owners with ill-founded advice, insisting they have their pets unnecessarily revaccinated ‘annually ’or ‘triennially’ with core vaccines when there is no scientific evidence to support this potentially harmful practice.
I'm very much in favour of evidence-based medicine, and I have written a number of fully referenced articles on the topic of unnecessary vaccination of pets – which is very much a money-making racket for the pharma companies and vets.
My submission titled "Unnecessary, and possibly harmful, use of companion animal vaccines" on the Australian National Regulatory System Discussion Paper contains many scientific references in relation to this issue, plus links to my other research papers: http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/PSIC_Submission_E_Hart.pdf
My soon to be published article "Too many needles ! Unnecessary vaccination exposed": http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Too_many_needles.pdf provides an overview of the situation.
Elizabeth Hart
Australia
It scares me to think that this poor woman's dog could end up with Parvo because she was taken in by another Daily Mail piece of crap.
There was a case of this virus near where I live a couple of years ago, around 6 dogs died from it and 1 was lucky enough to survive, they only had contact with the carrier dog once in the park. It was really sad for one of the owners, whom I know, because they thought the vaccinations weren't necessary, they lost their 2 year old dog who died in their arms.
Articles like this are irresponsible and just makes me angry inside, it's the same with the Daily Fail's cancer articles! So many claims, no proof, but always a case of: We're only quoting other people. Makes me so angry