|
Tuesday, 23 March 2010 13:19 |
|
Uponnothing, thank you for your response. I’ve appreciated the opportunity to post uncensored on your open blog.
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.
|
