|
Thursday, 11 March 2010 13:56 |
|
Jon, if you take the trouble to read what I have written you will see that I have strong opinions against UNNECESSARY vaccination. It is important to be accurate when you criticise other people’s arguments...
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
|
