- Notice
-
- Guest user account is not properly configured. Please set 'Username of Guest' option to the Username of registered user. guest_username="guest"
--
yvComment solution, version="1.24.0"
|
Friday, 19 March 2010 09:31 |
|
ACG, the original subject of this thread was vaccination of companion animals. My long posts are entirely relevant to this issue, including my comments on peer review. I have actually gone to the trouble to provide a great deal of material in the links and references provided to support my arguments. Unlike you, with your unreferenced and ill-spelt opinions…
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.
|
|
