Do No Harm

Or you could even study and become a vet yourself. Exactly. And yes, Do No Harm, I am telling you that our one of our vets did not know that the AVA was considering the changes to the protocol. She is not a member of the AVA, so does not get their updates. Nor is there much of an option for her to attend the WSA conferences because a) its difficult to get the time off work and b)she couldn't afford it. One of our vets knew changes were in the air, because he attended the Jean Dodds talk with me. But as for changes within the AVA policies, no, because again, he is not a member of the AVA at present. If vets aren't supplied with the information, how are they meant to know? We get all the journals etc and they attend all the talks, but nothing on changes to the protocol until now. My vet who came to the Jean Dodds talk with me has been following it as best he can along with me. But as he so rightly said, he's not going to implement the change unless he has a reliable source there to back him up, should anything go wrong. He wanted the support of the AVA before he considered off-label doses of vaccines. My vets were practicing in the days before we had vaccines. They've seen how awful things used to be, so naturally, they want to be sure it is 100% safe to start vaccinating triennially, and also be sure they have sufficient information to present to clients to ensure what is now happening is safe for their pets. The majority of our clients aren't like DOLERS. I can guarantee you that most of them are going to be more unsure about vaccinating less and are going to want to know that this is the safest thing. Now we have the appropriate documents from the AVA and the Uni, we can show them this, but up till now, we've had nothing official to support us. Perhaps you should be lobbying to the appropriate organisations to ensure they pass on their information to vets. But to answer your questions, yes, I knew things were changing and were different in other countries, because I come home from work and sit on DOL, which is the only place I have accessed information. But my vets are still busy at work to sit on the internet and get information from forums... Thanks for this, Stormie, and thank you for taking the time and going to the trouble of elaborating. Expecially because I am so new to this Forum game your openness is appreciated! Yes, I do know that not all vets are AVA members. I'm told the percentage is approximately 50% of vets. Frankly, I have found that the best vets I've encountered over the years are, with only two exceptions, non AVA members. Perhaps it is a cultural thing, but non AVA members are definately more open with clients and they do not tend to have the 'us and them' mentality. It's wonderful that you went along to Jean Dodds' seminar. She struggled for many years against opposition from her conventional veterinary colleagues. If she didn't care then she would not have exposed herself to the ridicule she was subjected to for so long, and if she wasn't on the right track then she would not have survived. She's a lovely lady as well - as I'm sure you discovered. At this stage, I do believe that were vets to simply alert clients to the fact that 'boosters' are 'contentious' in veterinary circles (with a simple explanation about conflict between manufacturer's labels and duration of immunity studies done by veterinary researchers) then the client can make their own 'informed' decision on whether or not to have the procedure done. That way, vets would have some protection because they had 'disclosed' to the client and have received informed consent (assuming the client requests that the vaccine be given). There seems to be a double standard so far as 'off label' use of vaccines is concerned. Perhaps not where you are, but it is routine here for dogs to be vaccinated when they are currently on treatment for illness, if they have cancer, IMHA, under anesthetic - anything. So long as the twelve month interval has reached the magic date when the vaccine is DUE then it must be given. In fact that is ALL 'off label' use of vaccines. Vaccine manufacturers all stipulate that 'only healthy dogs should be vaccinated'. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm glad that you did and it is noted!

If this topic is entering the vaccination issue then I'm astonished if practicing veterinarians in this country are unaware that the AVA has been 'considering' changing its recommended vaccination protocols for more than a decade. I knew it! Didn't you? They dragged their feet and got so far behind other countries then there was on April 15th this year a meeting between it's national body and scientists with the APVMA to 'discuss' the issue. You may be unaware of this, but are you expecting me to believe that Australian veterinarians know nothing of the Vaccination Guidelines Group which reported a few years ago on the latest research and it's subsequent reocmmendations? Are you unaware that the World Small Animal Veterinary Association's recommedations for 'GLOBAL' application are based on the VGG's recommendations? Now read the VGG's reports! This is precisely why owners of companion animals need to scrutinize their vets - because too often clinical practitioners don't know the science. It seems like they get their post graduate 'education' from the sales representives employed by pharmacuetical companies. Researchers have suspected since the 1970's at least and they subsequently confirmed that duration of immunity following successful vaccination with a MLV as a puppy lasts for 7-15 years (based on serology and challenge studies) and probably for life! The 'three year' recommendation is a compromise to 'wean' vets away from promoting boosters as a means of - well you know what! Yes, my dog suffered neurologicaly from a booster vaccination. My contention is that the vet ought not to have promoted the procedure as "essential" (for maintenance of immunity) and 'perfectly safe'. It was known by veterinary scientists long before that to be neither! At the very least the vet ought to have informed me that the whole issue of booster vacicantions was "CONTENTIOUS' within the veterinary industry. Owners cannot make informed decisions when such information is withheld from them. Owners/clients/consumers are all entitled to be given such information as they need to make "Informed Decisions". Additionally (since you're presumably a vet and want evidence) research published more than a decade before my dog was even born, showed that dogs with atopy have an augmented response to MLV vaccines. My dog had a history of atopy since puppyhood. (Incidentally, all her allergies disappeared after I stopped having her vaccinated and that was almost 6 years ago). How about this, now that we're focusing on vets themselves, I saw a local veterinarian recently and gave my dog's history (including that she had developed some classic signs of distemper when the only distember virus she'd been exposed to was through the vaccine in the name of 'prophylaxis'). The vet really was a nice guy and we got talking. During our conversation he 'educated' me to the 'fact' that modified live (viruses)”as used in vaccines are KILLED (viruses). Yep, I tried to explain but he was insistent - until he took a vial of vaccine from his fridge and checked the label. He graduated almost 20 years ago yet he hadn't even known that 'modified live' means just that, i.e. modified live, attenuated/weakened. Do vets really want their clients to laugh at them?

I was focusing on reality. Please read what you yourself quoted. What I actually said is "The reality is that veterinary research is not reported in the mainstream media". It is a reality that veterinary research is not reported in the mainstream media!

Just a quick one. Try this link http://www.claremiddle.com/articles/article2.htm Clare is a holistic vet and this is her advice on a protocol for vaccianting puppies. Good luck

Since you are asking on this forum, it does sound like you may have some reservations about accepting whatever advice you've been given by traditional sources, e.g. local vet, breeder etc. I would not tell anyone what to do beyind advising them to do their own reseach so they are properly equipeed to make a fully informed decision. Your pup is getting older while you are seacrhing for the information! Depending on where you live, there may be a holistic vet close enough to you that you could see. Holistic veterinarians have for years been raising the proplem of over-vacicantion with their conventional colleagues, so they are aware and won't remonned unnecessary vaccination. There is one in NSW that is often recommende. Here are her details All Natural Vet Care Dr Barbara Fougere and Dr Sue Hunter 292 Lyons Road Russell lea. NSW 2046 tel: 02 9712 5844 fax: 02 9712 5855 web:http://www.naturalvet.com.au/ourpractice.html Holistic veterinarians do have a website http://www.ahv.com.au/ There's also this one with links to vets around Australia http://www.arkoz.com.au/ahvic.htm Beyond that you could Google "Ronald Schultz + Canine Vacicnation Protocols" Schultz is a member of the Vaccination Guidelines Group. The World Small Animal Veterinary Association accepts that's group's findings. "Jean Dodds DVM" is another authority. She has been researching canine vaccinations for around 40 years. I have so many documents on file, but going out right now, so perhaps you can do some checking from those I've provided. Good luck

Stormie, you should not be offended even if you are a vet and I'm sorry if you feel that you are being attacked. I am not, in fact, attacking anyone! I just happen to have been made aware of some issues through personal experiences that seem to desperately need addressing in the interests of Best Practice protocols. So far as expiry dates, batch numbers and vets (in my particular area) not dispensing drugs in appropriate containers is concerned, I raise the issue here only because it occurs to me that most consumers of veterinary medicines dispensed by their veterinarians haven't even noticed it so they have never considered the implications. I didn't myself for many years! When I started canvassing other local dog owners of my acquaintence about these issues I discovered that other owners had been completely unaware also. Their responses left me in no doubt that the majority of dog owners really are concerned - they only need to have the issue brought to their attention. I have been and continue to try and have this matter addressed through the appropriate channels but there is typically disinterest from the relevant authorities - almost certainly because our legislators consider companion animals of little value. Obviously, if more people become aware then change might eventuate. The desired changes wouldn't threaten anyone. It would be a simple case of due care (but clients don't have access to the manufacturer's Information Sheet) and advising clients of (at least) the expiry date. Until that happens, if more owners are aware then they too might ask their vets for the information. Indeed, I have learned that others in my area have already started to. I indicated in an earlier post the responses of the AVA, the VSB and the APVMA - and only the latter acknowledged there were implications for 'Best Practice'. The AVA and VSB 'disowned' any role and both expressed no interest. Change should occur because it concerns safety and health. That's the whole - and sole - purpose of my raising this issue as a topic on the DOL forum. It is not about 'attacking' and 'defending' and it is certainly not personal. It is intended as and should surely simply be about sharing relevant information with others which they might otherwise not be aware of. That's all! No offence is ever intended. (I'd throw a friendly 'smilie' in here if I knew how to, LOL)

It appears you may be personally offended by what I have posted and if so that is a pity because I merely raise issues and aspects that others do need to be aware of and in all probablity have overlooked - or been conditioned to not question. So, please don't target the messenger. If the message is not relevant (to you) then why repsond at all?

The AVA is decades behind the recomendations of veterinary researchers. I have never encountered a dog which was such a slow learner! The reality is that veterinary research is not reported in the mainstream media. It is shared 'in house' among veterinarians - and all veterinarians know that owners (their clients) rely on them for 'expert' advice, opinion and information! Vets are not "damned if they do and damned if they don't". They'd be spared all 'damning' if they shared with their clients such relevant information as is needed for them to make their own Informed Decision about the preventative health care of their animal.

Fair observation. Members of Forums don't necessarily know why someone is coming from the perspective they obviously are, and typed words are not accompanied by visible gestures. For the record, my perspective is not vindictive. I only encourage others to be aware of risks vs benefits and not assume their vet is the ultimate authority on what is best for their dog. For the record, too, my own dog (an Assistance Dog) almost died and so did I only because I had believed and trusted our vet who had misrepresented the necessity of a booster vaccination and insisted it was not only "essential" but "perfectly safe". That was one vet, but then all the others rallied in support of that vet. Subsequently hearing that similar instances have happened to others - and not infrequently, has an affect.

Oops, that for me? Sorry if it confuses anyone. I plead a pre Dummy status! Thanks for the tip (or trip). I'll see if this one works better, LOL.

I have a new puppy - she has had her 8 week vaccination. Should I wait until she is 16 weeks for her next one, or get one done at 12 weeks and again at 16? The general answer to that may depend on who you ask. Perhaps if you acquired your pup from a registered breeder who knows the breed and bloodlines they may recommend an initial 'course' which they follow and have found both safe and effective. If you have a good vet you could discuss it with him/her. Have you seen the AVA Vaccination policy which was ratified by the Board in June of this year? In part, it states: "Because of maternally derived antibody and the variability in its level and duration between individuals, vaccines should ideally be administered two to three times to puppies and kittens, with timing of the final dose being variable but not earlier than the age of 16 weeks (the suggested age varies with the manufacturer and the vaccine). If cost is an issue and only one vaccine is possible, it should be at the age of 16 weeks or older. A booster vaccine should be administered approximately 12 months later." If you would like a copy of this document, then please PM me with your email address and I'll reply with the guidelined attached. Good luck with your new puppy.

I still don't quite understand what your issue is. Is it purely because there are no laws stating there needs to be an expiry date? Or is it because your vet removed pills from a foil packaging? Please see my reply to PugRescueSydney. Veterinarians vary, veterinary support staff vary, protocols in veterinary clinics/hospitals vary and cultures in different regions/states vary. My fundamental 'issue' is that such variations occur only because there is no independant regulator to ensure uniformity and Best Practice by all providers of veterinary services. Only yesterday I consulted a (specialist) veterinarian who shared with me his view that veterinary practice is no longer a profession. It is an industry. In his view, it became an industry when it started promoting unnatural feeding, more vaccinating of individual dogs than is needed to promote an immune status, and individually and collectively, allowing itself to become an extension of pharmaceutical sales representatives. It's such a pity!

Annual vaccinations could be harmful: vets toldKelly Burke, Consumer Affairs Reporter August 11, 2009 VETS have been told to stop advising pet owners to vaccinate annually and to adopt a triennial immunisation program in line with international standards. There is some more on this in another thread http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=173995 The latest AVA Vaccination protocols were ratified by the Board in June.

DNH, a lot of your posts lately seem to be quite negative towards the veterinary profession. The subject of this, like my previous topic, is something that everyone who purchases veterinary medicines should be aware of. It is about purchasing, storing and using Scheduled drugs. We are not talking about placebos! It is a health issue and it is a safety issue. Is it 'responsible' if, on becoming aware of a potential risk, one doesn't then try and ensure others are informed of something they probably took no notice of before? As it happens, I have raised this particular issue with the AVA, the state Veterinary Surgeons Board and the APVMA. The AVA confirmed that vets are not required to provide this information to consumers and said it is nothing to do with them. The VSB says it is nothing to do with them and I've learned this is the case with all VSB's. The APVMA acknowledges that not providing this information "has implications with Registration, Compliance and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)". But no one does anything! This then leaves it up to owners of companion animals to try and raise public awareness, because with there being no independant authority to ensure veterinarians are accountable (they are self regulating), the practice continues. If consumers never challenged it then no regulatory authority ever will! It is fine to prefer being on the side of the fence which is most crowded because that's where it's most comfortable, but this forum appears to be one where people are sharing information they trust will be helpful to others and I'm assuming that everyone using this forum has their dog's health and wellbeing as their primary concern.

Does anyone here share my concern about veterinarians' method of dispensing medicines/drugs in tablet form? Veterinarians do not and are not required by law to supply the Expiry Date or Batch Number information on labels of medicines they dispense nor are they required to enter this information on the animal's veterinary record. Also, they are not required to ensure that medicines are dispensed in appropriate containers. I discovered all of this only recently. Here's how... My dog was prescribed some tablets on a 'Use as Needed' basis, with the expectation these would be on hand, should they be required, over an extended period of time, i.e. months. Knowing that medicines, if they are used after their expiry date, can loose their effectiveness or even become harmful, I asked the dispensing veterinary practice about the expiry date. Their response was that they are not required by law to provide that information on the label. I accept that actual label sizes will not allow for the provision of much information, but when I asked about any other source of this detail, e.g. through their auditing, they said they do not record it. Being concerned, I later called the manufacturer (Merial) to ask whether there was any risk to my dog in event these tablets were given after their expiry date. The manufacturer's veterinarian inquired further about the dispensing method. Specifically he wanted to know whether the tablets were individually foil wrapped. I replied they had been supplied loose in a transparent plastic container "the same way that vets dispense all tablets". He sounded alarmed and told me to "Get rid of them". He explained the dispensed tablets are photosensitive and they would have been 'adversely affected' just from driving home from the veterinary clinic through exposure to light. Regarding the Expiry Date and Batch Number information. Even mild over the counter medicines are required to have this information marked on the label. In respect to medicines/chemicals/products for animal use; worming tablets, heartworm preventatives, shampoos, commercial pet food, etc. the Expiry Date and Batch Number information is required to be marked on their label. Why is it that Scheduled drugs - which are Poisons, are exempt only if they are dispensed by a veterinarian? Pharmacists are regulated in this regard! The Adverse Experience Reporting Program (AERP) of the APVMA monitors the use of veterinary medicines after they become widely used in the community. It is a safety measure! If an owner has cause to suspect their animal may have suffered an adverse reaction to any veterinary medicine, they are encourgaed to file a report - and the AERP requires the Expiry Date and Batch Number information for its investigation. How can this be supplied if it is not a requirement that this information be provided on the label or even recorded on the animal's veterinary record and how can a thorough and complete AERP investigation result?

Whats the difference between the guidelines you have. DNH, and the link to the PDF Guidelines in the letter from the AVA just posted? Thanks for this, Stormy. There is no difference! I've just checked the link and it (still) works. I would expect though that the AVA will not tolerate it's Member Alert letter being available online to anyone with Internet access, so once they find out it's likely to be removed. I have been told by one source which is monitoring this issue that the AVA - particularly the ASAVA, is very unhappy about the changes from annual boosters so I think we all need to scrutinise what vets tell us. Many don't seem very well informed. Only two months ago when I consulted a vet and told him my dog's history (which included clinical signs of distemper following a C3 booster). He stressed that “modified live (viruses)” as used in vaccines are KILLED (viruses). Yep, I tried to explain but he was insistent – until he took a vial of vaccine from his fridge and checked the label. Oh well, one can always laugh!

I'm interested DNH and have PM'd you with my email address if you wouldn't mind sending through a copy of the new AVA vaccination guidelines to me? Thanks Erny I haven't receive anything, and don't know how to access if something is sent through this (DOL) site. An alternative is to contact through our website http://www.freewebs.com/novaxx/ There's a 'Contact Us' at near the foot of first page.

If a rescued dog has been a stray then it has very probably been exposed to whatever any dogs lacking immunity are vulnerable to contracting. Therefore, it is almost certainly already immune! What is the purpose of vaccinating other than to render immune a dog which is not immune? Vaccination is not an unnocuous procedure! By vaccinating an immune dog one over-stimulates the immune system unnecessarily. There is no benefit and there is a certain risk. If in doubt one can do a titer test (and do study the research for unterpretation of results). The vaccination article in the National Dog is a summary of a longer, meticulously researched paper with very detailed references. It is available online at http://users.on.net/~peter.hart/Is%20over-...0our%20pets.pdf While the paper is long, I do encourage everyone on this forum to at least check the reference sources. They cannot be disputed and come from veterinary research scientists and not clinical veterinarians who have a vested interest in 'pushing' more vaccination than is necessary for immunity. The AVA's recently ratified new vaccination guidleines are unfortunately only now being distributed to its members. I have a copy of those guidelines which I am happy to share with anyone who is interested. I am though new to this 'forum participation' exercise, but if anyone knows how to contact me I'll respond by sending them a copy of the AVA's June 2009 Policy on Vaccination of Dogs and Cats.

Many on this forum will be aware of an excellent article about vaccinations that appeared on page 19 in the July edition of the National Dog magazine. Some on this forum will also be aware that the Sydney Morning Herald last weekend ran an article on page 3 alerting a wider section of pet owners to the contentious nature of 'booster' vaccinations. What most here may not know is how the AVA responded! The AVA responded by sending out a 'Member Alert' which quickly became available to anyone with Internet access. It can be seen here http://ava.informz.net/ava/archives/archive_135431.html If anyone wants to read it, be quick because it may soon become 'unavailable'! Note the date of the Member alert and date of the article - interesting?

Can anyone tell me what is the benefit of letting a bitch have her first season before being spayed? Is it a myth like letting them have a litter of puppies first, sort of thing? Or is it common practice? My vet advised to have my puppy bitch spayed mid way between her first and second season adding it's not something that would be recommended to an owner who was not responsible and/or couldn't manage the dog whilst in season. The first season is nature's way of letting us know the animal is now mature. I would never spay or neuter a dog which is immature. Managing the bitch during this time involved some thought and care, but we should all be doing that throughout their lives in my opinion. Good luck!

Our consult with Liz for which I paid $49.50 was the fourth visit. For each of the 4 visits - including the initial consult, I was charged the same amount, ie $49.50. For each treatment she used accupuncture needles.

I saw Liz Frank this afternoon. Her fee was $49.50 (inclusive of GST)