Do No Harm

This is relevant to my earlier post: http://www.cedarbayvet.com/duration_of_immunity.htm and so is this: http://www.freewebs.com/novaxx/links.htm and this: http://www.advanstarvhc.com/avhc/article/a...l.jsp?id=133904 and this: http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar04/040315g.asp There's heaps more - HEAPS! Anyone still believe it is in the best interests of our dogs' health to give booster vaccinations?

With permission from the author I am posting here one letter which was written to the Editor of the Mercury in response to the article that is the topic of this thread. The author of this letter is working with Dr Jean Dodds. Many others from the US have responded to the article - to help US. I hope many here who share this concern do the same to help OURSELVES! Here is Kris' letter: Greetings! Below is a letter to the editor I'd like to submit in response to Charles Waterhouse's May 24th article on pet vaccinations. Sorry it is so long, but it contains important information every pet owner should have. I'm happy to send you the American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines as an attachment if you'd like them, as well as other original veterinary vaccine research. Thank you! Kris Christine P.O. Box *** Alna, Maine USA 04535 (***-***-*** for verification purposes only) May 25, 2006 TO THE EDITOR: It was interesting to read Charles Waterhouse's May 24th article, "Question Mark over Yearly Shot for Pets". Here in the United States, there has been growing awareness of the reduced need for booster vaccinations for pets since The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) released its Canine Vaccine Guidelines and Recomendations in 2003 and the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) released their vaccine recommendations for cats in 2000. Basically, veterinarians who recommend annual cat vaccinations for feline panleukopenia, calicivirus, and herpes viruses are wasting pet owner’s money and exposing animals to unnecessary risk. The same holds true for vets vaccinating dogs annually against canine distemper, parvovirus, and hepatitis. Cornell University studies have shown, by challenge (exposure), that cats are immune to feline panleukopenia 8 years after 2 kitten hood vaccinations. Similarly, in 2003 the AAHA Canine Task Force reported challenge studies showing dogs were immune to distemper, parvovirus, and hepatitis a minimum of 7 years after vaccination. Their report advised against vaccinating dogs for these diseases more often than once every three years. Overvaccinating overwhelms animals’ immune systems, making them more, not less, vulnerable to disease and auto-immune disorders. According to the AAHA, an animal’s immunity is not increased by unnecessary vaccinations, and in the case of modified live viruses “may result in the vaccine causing the disease for which it was designed to prevent.” Some veterinarians justify their annual vaccination policy by pointing to drug manufacturers’ labeled recommendations. Pet owners should be aware, as veterinarians are, that the American government only requires manufacturers to perform duration of immunity studies on rabies vaccines for licensure. Distemper, parvovirus, panleukopenia, calicivirus, rhinotracheitis, and other vaccines are not required to have duration of immunity studies to be licensed. According to Colorado State’s College of Veterinary Medicine Teaching Hospital (CSCVMTH), “Yearly booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers.” None of the American national veterinary medical associations or any of the 27 veterinary colleges recommends these vaccines be given yearly. In 2000, the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) issued guidelines in which they advise vaccinating cats no more often than once every 3 years for feline panleukopenia, viral rhinotracheitis, calicivirus, and rabies. Vaccinating for other diseases such as chlamydia and leukemia are only recommended for cats at high risk of exposure, such as those regularly attending shows. Despite the fact that the AAFP published vaccination guidelines for cat in 2000, the AAHA issued vaccination guidelines for dogs in 2003, and all 27 veterinary colleges have adopted reduced vaccination protocols because of “increasing documentation showing that overvaccinating has been association with harmful side effects,” (as Colorado State’s College of Veterinary Medicine Teaching Hospital states) veterinarians across the world are still promoting unnecessary annual and biennial vaccinations for cats and dogs. This is a deceptive practice which takes a toll on pets’ health and owners’ finances. It should stop. Respectfully submitted, Kris L. Christine P.O. Box *** Alna, ME 04535 USA For verification purposes only, my phone number is ***-***-***

A colleague of mine did, although this was about a year ago (initial trial stages here i think??), so it is possible that the formulations have changed. I shouldn't have used the word triple, just stronger, but it was by quite a bit. Tim, the figures we have are contained in a letter which is published in The Veterinarian of March 2006. However, the essential fact is duration of immunity. Have you read the AAHA Canine Vaccine Taskforce Report of 2003? That report stated challenge studies showed dogs were immune to distemper, parvovirus, and hepatitis a minimum of 7 years after vaccination. The AAHA is not an 'alternative' veterinary body and its Canine Vaccination Taskforce was not comprised of anything other than conventional scientists - and many of them. We do know that Virbac, a vaccine manufacturer, reported in its regualr Newsletter to Australian veterinarians in August of last year the results of some research. It found (to quote) "91% of veterinarians felt that a change from annual vaccination would have an adverse effect on their practice turnover". While there are many honest, genuinely caring and competant veterinarians around, the basic accepted arrangement is that 'responsible' dog owners actually pay vets to risk making our pets sick when there is no benefit from the procedure!

The problem is that they are providing triple the "strength/dose" which will end up causing more problems both short and long term, when the current lower "strength/dose" provides the same period and amount of protection. Just another product option for the pharmaceuticals and vets to flog to the public ("new and improved" - yet the old one will still available). Tim, have you looked at the formulations? With a very minor potency difference in CAV component, the 'new' three yearly vaccine is the same as the old one but with a label change! It doesn't take an Einstein to recognize that they surely knew they were misleading us all along!

Unfortunately the link is no longer active. Personally - I'll keep vaccinating yearly till my vet tells me otherwise. I'm not willing to take a chance that my dog will pick up something from a dog show. It's up to everyone to decide about their own dogs. I can only share that a booster vacciantion at the age of eight years almost killed my dog. She thankfully recovered and with two and a half years without further vaccinations, not only has the additional allergies she developed after the vaccination gone but her lifelong atopy has disappeared too! Here's the article from yesterday's The Mercury: Question mark over yearly shot for pets By CHARLES WATERHOUSE 24 May 2006 A SMALL but growing number of pet owners is questioning the health benefits of annual booster vaccinations for dogs and cats. The Australian Veterinary Association conference in Hobart was told yesterday there was concern at documented adverse effects on animals. In a submission to the AVA in 2004, the Australian Association of Holistic Veterinarians said research showed significant adverse effects warranted using only "minimum essential vaccination". It said vaccination less frequent than yearly had been shown to maintain immunity to most dog and cat diseases. The association listed adverse effects including hypersensitivity, fever, pain, behaviour change, loss of appetite and auto-immune disease. Australian Veterinary Association national president Matt Makin said the AVA's position was that consideration needed to be given to the animal, its age and environment and also the risk of its contracting the disease the vaccination covered. "Generally speaking we advise veterinarians to follow the manufacturer's recommendations and the licence recommendations for the particular vaccine," he said. But he said literature was starting to justify longer periods between vaccination, for example every two or even three years. Decisions should be based on the individual vaccine and the individual animal. Dr Lee Coyne, of the Hobart Animal Hospital, said a regime could develop whereby a full vaccination was given one year and then for the next one or two years a booster for some of the components, then in the third year a full vaccination again. Dr Coyne said the negative to not giving yearly vaccinations was that vets picked up a lot of disease at vaccination time not normally detected. The AVA conference continues today and tomorrow.

Many on this list have at different times expressed concerns about adverse reactions to vaccinations. The contentious issue of booster vaccinations has now been exposed in Australia's mainstream media via the latest ABC's Pet Show program, and then yesterday The Mercury ran an article to co-incide with the AVA Annual Conference in Hobart. The Mercury article 'Question mark over yearly shot for pets' can be seen here: http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/s...^3462,00.htmlhg Any member of this forum who believes that as consumers of veterinary services they are entitled to know what the real experts are saying so they can make Fully Informed Decisions on the preventative health care of their dog (or cat), is strongly encouraged to convey their interest to the Mercury and any other section of the media while this issue is topical. No responsible owner would risk their companion animal being vulnerable to preventable infectious diseases, but there's an enormous difference between existing immunity (to those diseases) and a repeated vaccination procedure. Duration of immunity studies via Serology and challenge for Distemper have been shown as 7yrs/15yrs respective and for Parvo it is 7 years. These figures are from Dr Schultz's research published August 14, 1999. 'Booster' vaccinations are overkill - sometimes literally, and unless concerned dog owners speak up in unison while the issue is topical in the public arena, this present opportunity to take advantage of the 'listening ear' may be lost. It is worth noting that, as stated in the AAHV Canine Vaccination Taskforce Report of 2003, annual booster vaccinations are based on tradition and not on scientific data. Indeed (according to Schultz who has researched this issue since the 1970's) there has never been published any scientific paper to justify annual revaccination. What on earth have we been doing to our dogs for all these years through blindly and unquestioningly accepting veterinary assertions that this procedure is "essential" to maintain immunity?

A site <http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/depts-VCPL/> which relates to this thread. It may be worth bookmarking for those interested in the topic. The site relates to Ivermectin and also other drugs which can cause problems in Collies and related breeds, as well as advising about an available test to determine whether a particular dog carries the mutant gene.

[ I think the 500 should be 5,500 dead (that's the figue I recall seeing recently but even that may be low). Additionally, that figure doesn't include those that suffered - many of whom have ongoing health problems! Correction to the above. I've just searched for the reference to the "5,500" I quoted in my previous post. I haven't found it but did find this:- http://www.fda.gov/cvm/PH6QA.htm It is from the FDA and does give figures. My apologies for the error.

Yes, the slow release mechanism is different, but the active ingredient is the same. It seems to be a matter of deciding what or who to believe these days. I'm not sure your veterinarian isn't out with the figure he quoted you. I think the 500 should be 5,500 dead (that's the figue I recall seeing recently but even that may be low). Additionally, that figure doesn't include those that suffered - many of whom have ongoing health problems! If you're interested in knowing how scandalous this issue became in the US, just Google in the name "Dr Victoria Hampshire FDA". Dr Hampshire is the FDA official who 'blew the whistle' on Proheart. The lengths that Wyeth/Fort Dodge went to to try and discredit her led to the involvement of the US Senate Committee on Finance. The alarming and disgusting thing about all this is that corporate MONEY is the bottom line and not dogs' health! Perhaps it is better to get the figures pertaining to the US from the official sources there rather than relying on an Australian veterinarian being properly informed. One other point needs clarifying: There have been adverse reactions to Proheart SR 12 in Australia, and the APVMA's Adverse Experience Reporting Program has been advised. We have heard of four through our list. Two owners accepted 'hush money' from Fort Dodge so cannot speak publicly. Of the other two, one (an 8 months old GSD) suffered very badly and the last I heard - about three months ago - she was having blood samples sent to a specialist in the UK, another small dog died just before Christmas (it was reported on this Forum) after suffering terribly. So far as Heartgard/Ivermectin is concerned, this link (below) will take to information from the FDA obtained under the Freedom of Information. It gives the research (involving a few Beagles and 16 Collies) that led to the product being licensed for use:- http://web.archive.org/web/20050307014733/...8412030287.html There are updated figures from the FDA/CVM's Cumulative Adverse Drug Experiences - including Heartgard/Ivermectin and Proheart here: http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/drugADEcomparison.html

The annual Heartworm preventative injection used in Australia is the Proheart SR 12 (SR 12 = slow release being active for 12 months). The active ingredient in Proheart is Moxidectin. The Proheart 12 contains three times the amount of Moxidectin than the Proheart 6 (slow release and active for 6 months). Both are made by Fort Dodge, the animal health division of the pharmaceutical company Wyeth. Proheart 6 was withdrawn from the US market following pressure placed on Fort Dodge by the FDA. This was because of the high number of serious side effects from using the product. Indeed, there were many deaths! Do a Google search on 'Proheart' and or 'Moxidectin'. Aside from those sites in which individuals or groups of aggrieved owners share their horrific experiences, there are copies of official letters from the FDA and copies of letters sent to veterinarians by the manufacturer (Fort Dodge). The Australian regulator of veterinary medicines here has adopted a 'watch in brief' approach while knowing the controversial history of the product.

I have been advised by a US source in the past few days, of information that was offered by a renowned Veterinary Hematologist and Researcher to those who attended a Seminar at which that veterinarian spoke. The information concerns Heartworm preventative medications. This veterinarian recommended the DAILY heartworm preventative over the monthly ones because "It is the only one that doesn't have death as a possible side effect". The daily heartworm preventative may be at risk of ceasing production with more consumers prefering the convenience and taste appeal of the monthly variety - although surely it is just as easy to add the medication daily when feeding a dog?! The daily heartworm preventative is Dimmitrol (Diethyl Carbamazine) and it is made at MavLab. Their website is : http://www.mavlab.com.au/ Members of this forum might like to include consideration of this option when making an Informed Decision about the preventative health care of their dog/s.

My dog had atopy in the form of seasonal allergic dermatitis every year from her first year of life. She was treated with Triamolone injections - which didn't cure the condition they only suppressed the urge to scratch and bite herself. After she contracted encephalitis from her annual booster vaccination in 2003 it took several months for her to recover and I was advised to never have her vaccinated again. In the course of researching the standard practice of over-vaccinating dogs, I had communications with a leading veterinary researcher who for more than 30 years has, along other veterinary researchers, been warning veterinary practitioners about the risks of over-vaccinating. That veterinary researcher kindly sent me copies of some published scientific papers on the issue. Among them is findings that dogs with inhalent allergies have an augmented response to viral vaccines. Be aware of this fact if you continue to vaccinate your dog because, believe me, inflammation of the brain is a whole lot worse than being itchy. In the year following my dog's near demise from the vaccine her seasonal allergy worsened and she also developed more allergies (which was predicatable according to a friend who is a medical research scientist - Viral Immunologist/Vaccinologist). I switched my dog to completely raw feeding and she has no commercial food or treats at all. She doesn't get fleas or worms so I don't give her any toxins to kill fleas and worms. Instead of monthly heartworm 'preventative' I spray her with essential oils to keep mosquitoes (and flies) away. She had no atopy last year or this year and her other allergies appear to have disappeared. She's been seen by three separate veterinarians 'for assessment' and been pronounced as being "In excellent condition for her age". You can see this for yourself from these photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/pandeva/sets/1675917/ - some of which were taken less than two weeks ago. She's now rising eleven years old and is clearly better off with good home husbandry than the standard veterinary 'care' we are conditioned to accept as 'essential'.

This http://www.apvma.gov.au/gazette/gazette0310p59_v2.pdf on Frontline from the federal regulator.

I currently have a female. Acquired as a rescue at around three and a half months of age, she was very undernourished at that time. In my circumstances, I would elect to spay any bitch I have, but I would never do so before full maturity. I cannot accept it as being in the animal's best interests to surgically interfer with it's normal development. I am convinced that not all male dogs need to be castrated, and I'm horrified that neutering is advocated based on a fear of what might happen if it is not done. Responsible owners know their own dogs, and my experience has been that good husbandry and bonding are the ultimate management tools. My previous two dogs were males. Both remained intact and neither caused any problems - to me or anyone/anything else - during their lives. All my dogs were 'rescues' and all were crossbreds of predominantly 'Working Dog' breeds. Here are a couple of additional articles on early spay/neuter. http://www.littleriverlabs.com/neuter.htm http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html I'm extremely uncomfortable with the view that all dog owers who are not registered breeders are presumed to be so ignorant of what is required to ensure their dogs live healthily, harmoniously and safely in our society that it should be mandatory for all their dogs to be spayed/neutered. Responsible owners, irrespective of the parentage of their dogs, are quite capable of making an informed decision, which is based on a proper consideration of the individual dog and their own social and domestic situation.

Vaccination with modified live viruses makes allergies worse. This was confirmed with me by Jean Dodds who then sent me a copy of the March 1983 report "Immunoglobulin E antibodies to pollens augmented in dogs by virus vaccines". The report is authored by Oscar L Frick, MD, PhD, and Dale L Brooks, DVM, PhD and appears on p440 of Am J vet Res, Vol 44 No 3. The connection between vaccines and allergies has been known for decades and is more prevalent with vaccines that mimic viral infections - such as when using modified live virus vaccines, eg the canine vaccines for distemper, parvo and hepatitis.

I've just found my hard copy of the letter referred to in my previous post. It is written by Dr Roger Clarke of Bundoora in Victoria and appears on page 670 in the Aust Vet J Vol 79, No 10, October 2001.

There were some responses seeking more information on the quote I gave from Professor Ronald Schultz. The quote I gave was from notes taken by a Vet Technician at a seminar given by Dr Schultz in March of last year. It is all consistent with what he is reported in serious mainstream media reports in the US and with papers written and/or co-written by him - some of which are freely available on the Internet. One source is the IVIS site http://www.ivis.org but one needs to be registered. There is also an atricle which one can access from the University of Wisconsin website http://www.wisc.edu/ where he works. A media release is available from that site at http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/8413.html. In an Australia Veterinary Journal, a Veterinarian had a letter published in which he stated that he never vaccinates his own dogs from onset of adulthood, they are constantly exposed and her has never had any problems. He referred in that letter to a study done in which Beagles were vaccinated as pups, isolated and never vaccinated again but were euthaised at 10 years of age. At the time they were euthaised they still had protective titers against the diseases they'd be vaccinated against in spite of having no possibility of exposure to the wild virus strains. I've spent about three hours searching for that letters page which, from memory, I think I received as a link. I have a hard copy too, and cannot find that either (my filing is atrotious!) I've just sent off an SOS to the person who sent it to me and meanwhile I shall continue looking here. As soon as I find (or receive it again) I'll post it here.

Professor Ronald Shultz, a Veterinary Immunologist/Vaccinologist has been researching veterinary vaccines for more than 30 years. He has said that if a pup is vaccinated once with a Modified Live Virus vaccine after the maternal antibodies have waned, then provided that vaccine 'takes' that dog will be immune for life. Here in Australia, a leading manufacturer of vaccines is Virbac. Virbac produces a Newsletter which is distributed to all veterinarians in Australia. In its August 2005 Newsletter it reported on its recent research among Australian veterinarians on the issue of small animal vaccinations. Its findings were that "91% of veteri narians felt that a change from annual vaccinations would have an adverse effect on their practice turnover". Who is right about the need for the number of vaccinations that are routinely promoted as 'essential' on an annual basis - the veterinary scientist or the veterinary clinician? It may be worth mentioning too, that veterinarians familiar with the scientific research opt not to vaccinated their own adult dogs but typically promote the revaccination of dogs owned by their clients. Money, money and more money. That's what it is all about - unless one happens to be the aggrieved owner of an 'unfortunate' dog.

There's a very good Canine Nutrition list on Yahoo. The issue of fatty acids is discussed periodically and one can access the posts without subscribing to the list. If you go to http://onibasu.com/, check the 'K9Nutrition' box and enter the subject you'll bring up a great deal of information. One thing if supplementing with Omega oils you need to also supplement with Vitamin E.

Have you not heard of the controversy over Vioxx and in recent months even more NSAID's? Veterinarians, like many MD's, get their post graduate 'education' from the salespersons representing the drug manufacturers. They then 'condition' us to comply with the recommendations that fill the coffers of their industry's sponsors. Next time there is an AVA Conference take a look at the program and see how much sponsorship they get - and from whom!

Here's a piece about Proheart 6 from the AVMA Journal. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr05/050415c.asp The Proheart SR12 signifying Slow Release and '12' for 12 months) contains 3 times the amount of Moxidectin (which is the active ingredient) than the amount which is contained in the Proheart 6 (for 6 months). The APVMA has a notice on its website saying it is aware of the withdrawal by the FDA and is adopting a 'watch in brief' here. Someone in NSW posted on our list that his 8 months old GSD had a severe adverse reaction after the injection. His veterinarian and a representative from Fort Dodge told him that the dogs deteriorated condition had nothing to do with the Proheart. product. However, the signs exhibited by the dog were classic signs that the FDA had attributed to the use of Proheart in the US. The owner had not heard of the APVMA until he got onto the Internet. His vet and Fort Dodge representative apparently showed no interest in reporting the adverse experience. The owner has now filed an adverse reaction report with the APVMA. I don't know how many dog owners on this forum know about the APVMA. It's website is http://www.apvma.gov.au/. They will accept reports of a suspected adverse reaction from members of the public, ie owners of affected animals. Reports do not have to be sent in by veterinarians and the drug companies. We can too! Forms are available from the website, and reports can be submitted online. Because so few consumers of veterinary products and services are aware of the existence and role of the APVMA, I would like to see veterinary practices carry some signage that advises veterinary clients of this particular federal authority. One files a report of a SUSPECTED adverse reaction to a veterinary product, after which the report is investigated. The biggest problem is that the APVMA cannot get accurate statistics if preorts are not made. If owners knew they could report events then this situation would improve - and all of us would be safer!

I'm sorry. I don't know how to set the 'Quotes' into a reply. I'll try some more to figure that one out! The reason vets vaccinate annually is nothing to do with veterinary ethics - it is because of legal liability. However, vaccine manufacturers labels state that only 'healthy' animals should be vaccinated. This is because the vaccine, because of it's nature, suppresses the immune system for a few days after administration. This is a physiological reality and a normal response by the immune system. It is why vets tell owners to keep the dog at home for a few days after vaccinating (to avoid exposure to risks). From the perspective of the veterinary profession, when each dog is vaccinated it is more to do with HERD immunity than for the benefit of the individual dog which is given the vaccine. So far as the health of the dog at the time of vaccinating, Kirks Current Veterinary Therapy, XI states: "vaccination of an immunosupressed host can result in modified live vaccines causing the disease they are designed to prevent." pg 206. Many commonly prescribed medications are immunosupressing. Many dogs have immune system disorders that are immunosuppressive. Many dogs are immunocompromised. Vaccinating a dog which is immunocompromised can cause post vaccinal encephalitis (Meyer) Dogs with allergies have an augmented response to viral vaccines. If you vaccinate a dog which has pollen allergies its allergies will worsen and it is likely to develop further allergies. (Frick and Brooks). That research was published in 1983, yet most Australian vets STILL don't get it. Chronic allergies in dogs are extremely common. Most affected dogs are still being vaccinated every year on veterinary advice and their allergies are getting progressively worse and/or they are developing allergies to more things (food, environmetal etc.) Some breeds of dogs are known to be more susceptible to adverse reaction to vaccines. My own dog had atopy and she was vaccinated annually. She was fine for several years - BUT VACCINES ARE CUMULATIVE. After her last vaccine, she developed post vaccinal encephalitis and 'hardpad' which needed months of intensive treatment, the atopy has worsened now she also has food allergies - which she didn't have before. It was PREDICTABLE! Dr Ron Schultz, the Veterinary Immunologist has said that veterinarians don't know much about immunology and they know even less about vaccines. Moreover, ask any scientist who has studied immunology and researched viruses and vaccines and they will tell you that Immunologists, Virologists and Vaccinologists freely admist that so much is not known about immune systems and they STILL don't really know how vaccines work! Perhaps I'm fortunate to have a good friend who is a Viral Immunologist/Vaccinologist. The Fort Dodge Duramune vaccine has recently been approved by the APVMA and is stated to have a duration of immunity (DOI) of "up to 39 months", Intervet has been manufacturing a three year vaccine for a long time. However, these claims are a bit of a nonsense because they have nothing to do with immunity, they are to do with commercially manufacturing a product which has to be licensed before it can be brought onto the market for widespread use. None of these arguments address the issue of the non-responder. The 'non responder' is a host which does not and cannot respond to a vaccine by producing immunity to the diseases that were vaccinated against. Ron Scultz estimates this number to be 1 in 5,000 dogs. Others suggest the figure is higher. That is, a non responder can be vaccinated and have a current vaccination certificate which permits it to be shown, trained, boarded etc., but it is not immune - at least as a result of the vaccine it isn't! Someone here posted that a doctor has advised a 'booster' MMR vaccine to women of childbearing age because her last one was given more than 10 years ago. The post seemed to imply that a baby could be at risk if she did not and that she was given a comparison with tetanus to sup[port the recommendation. Perhaps it would be wise to consult someone with far more expertise than a GP and/or seek a second and even third opinion. You cannot compare immunity to viral diseases with tetanus because tetanus is a bacterial disease. Immunity to viral disease is not the same as immunty to bacterial disease - and once given a vaccine cannot be reomoved! A quick Google search for the ingredients of vaccines would alert to what is being injected into the body and what the body then has to cope with. Alternative a visit to the Australian Vaccination network at http://www.avn.org.au/ The measles virus in humans and the distemper virus in dogs are members of the moribilla family of viruses. So is the virus which mysteriously emerged to kill several racehorses and the trainer Vic Rail in Queensland a few years ago. After vaccination, viruses are shed for up to 45 days. In my opinion, not enough is known about viruses and viral mutation to mess around with over-vaccinating our dogs. We cannot afford such a cavalier approach to our dogs health, our own health, the health of our communities and the health of our environment. The World Health Organisation's policy on vaccinations is to not vaccinate against diseases that are unless they are endemic in the area. Do you think they don't know what they are talking about? When and where was the last outbreak of canine distemper in Australia? When and where was the last outbreak of Canine Infectious Hepatitis in Australia? When and where was there a case of a healthy adult contracting Parvovirus? Don't say that vaccination keeps these diseases at bay. If it was then it would not only be the occasional outbreak of parvo - we'd have distemper and hepatitis too! Moreover, an estimated 50% of dogs are not vaccinated. What do you think protects them if the diseases are just lying around and waiting to 'catch' an unvaccinated dog? With so much in the way of vaccines, wormers, heartworm preventative, flea treatments, etc. etc being given regularly throughout a dog's life - not to treat a sickenss but as a prophylactic, is it any wonder we have increasing behavioral problems that leads to increasinly restrictive legislation. How would any of us feel if we had so much toxin relentlessly thrown into and onto our bodies all through our lives. I'll bet we'd feel like exploding!

I've just joined DOL and am new to this, so hope I'm clicking on the right tabs. My dog almost died following her routine yearly booster in December 2003. I'd surely have lost her if it had not been for the holistic veterinarian we saw who treated the dog homeopathically. My steep learning curve started then. Because of what I encountered when I started asking questions here I looked elsewhere. I've had contact with Jean Dodds and Bob Rogers - both of whom sent me valuable information and copies of research papers. My dog's adverse reaction was not only unnecessary and avoidable but predictable too! She had a history of pollen allergy, and dogs with pollen allergies have an augmented response to virus vaccines. The dog now has more allergies. I understand from research done by Ron Schultz that if a dog is given a virus vaccine after the maternal antibodies have waned and that vaccine 'takes' then immunity from the vaccination is good for the life of the dog. Vaccines against bacterial diseases are different. My dog had some classic CNS signs of canine distemper following vaccination, she later developed 'crusty' nose, ie hardpad. Vaccines can cause the disease they are designed to prevent if given to a dog which is immunosuppressed. Dogs which are immunocompromised can have problems too. Too many veterinarians have a very cavalier approach to the use of immunobiological agents. Veterinarians are not regulated and they are not accountable. Too many owners are not aware of the federal government authority that licenses and monitors the use of veterinary products in Australia, so incidents of adverse reactions are chronically under-reported making the statistics extremely unreliable. Manufacturers of vaccines are heavy sponsors of Veterinary Conferences etc., so how independent are veterinarians when it comes to questioning the safety of one of the products made by a sponsor of their 'profession'? A few of us set up a website on this issue which focuses on the Australian scene http://www.freewebs.com/novaxx/ Our view is that veterinary services would improve if those who utilized them viewed themselves as 'consumers'. We do not pay service providers to cause harm and we do not pay veterinarians to make our animals sick. Enough from me!