|
Tuesday, 16 March 2010 12:43 |
|
ACG…re your comment “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”. (sic).
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.
|
