Important Alert For Consumers Of Veterinary Medicines

[Do No Harm]

It's only in the last couple of weeks that the AVA has started to acknowledge that vaccines last longer than 12months.

As has been said, vets are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You want regulations to be enforced, but you have just blamed your vet for what happened to your own dog, when the vet was merely following the guidelines of the vaccination - created by the manufacturer of the vaccine. How is a vet supposed to win? You want vets to promote off label use of vaccines (which I'm all for now that's its been formerly accepted) but expect them to follow strict guidelines elsewhere?

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.

[stormie]

It's only in the last couple of weeks that the AVA has started to acknowledge that vaccines last longer than 12months.

As has been said, vets are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You want regulations to be enforced, but you have just blamed your vet for what happened to your own dog, when the vet was merely following the guidelines of the vaccination - created by the manufacturer of the vaccine. How is a vet supposed to win? You want vets to promote off label use of vaccines (which I'm all for now that's its been formerly accepted) but expect them to follow strict guidelines elsewhere?

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.

And you're apart of this industry are you? You know this first hand?

[Do No Harm]

And you're apart of this industry are you? You know this first hand?

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?

Edited August 11, 2009 by Do No Harm

[sas]

Do No Harm,

Have you considered being transparent?

Just be honest with who you are and your beef so to speak because even though you've stated a point you're not actually making a great deal of sense.

Edited August 11, 2009 by sas

[stormie]

And you're apart of this industry are you? You know this first hand?

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?

Of course I'm offended. You are attacking the vet industry so therefore attacking me. And the message is very relevant to me because it's my job. You, the messenger, have made comments about what goes on in my industry and made a huge generalisation based on one bad vet.

[Do No Harm]

Of course I'm offended. You are attacking the vet industry so therefore attacking me. And the message is very relevant to me because it's my job. You, the messenger, have made comments about what goes on in my industry and made a huge generalisation based on one bad vet.

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)

Edited August 12, 2009 by Do No Harm

[Sheridan]

Whilst I think you bring up a good point, and a very valid one when it comes to dispensing and record keeping, I think you might be judging the majority on the actions of the minority. I feel personally that if it were an issue that was commonly reported then something would have been done about long ago. In having said that, it really isn\'t the right attitude to have to think that a dog should be put at rsik or die beofre something is done.

Perhaps you need to take a slightly less personal view or a bigger view of it all and then you mmight end up with more support? I feel that the way in which you phrase some of your posts makes people feel you have a vendetta against Vets rather than an issue with the way thins are done.

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.

Really? I think that we get you're not fond of vets.

[Dogs4Fun]

It's only in the last couple of weeks that the AVA has started to acknowledge that vaccines last longer than 12months.

As has been said, vets are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You want regulations to be enforced, but you have just blamed your vet for what happened to your own dog, when the vet was merely following the guidelines of the vaccination - created by the manufacturer of the vaccine. How is a vet supposed to win? You want vets to promote off label use of vaccines (which I'm all for now that's its been formerly accepted) but expect them to follow strict guidelines elsewhere?

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.

SERIOUSLY : Veterinary research is published in fully publically available journals, as readily publically avialable as medical journals of similar types. Most have free paper abstracts avialable on the web (vet and medical), and any university that has a veterinary and amedical program will have these journals freely available to anyone who wishes to go and read them.

I can see the point of some of your comments, but really, focus on reality please.

[stormie]

Of course I'm offended. You are attacking the vet industry so therefore attacking me. And the message is very relevant to me because it's my job. You, the messenger, have made comments about what goes on in my industry and made a huge generalisation based on one bad vet.

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!

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)

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.

That quote of yours, in particular the bolded bit, is what I found most offensive and certainly seems to be making accusations, implying that vets withhold information from clients.

The first our clinic has heard about the changing vaccination protocols has been what everyone else has heard from the media lately, and the recent email from the AVA saying they are looking into it.

We have not received any evidence of studies, nor have any of the specialist centres held any talks about the issue. Up until now, we have been following a standard protocol, that is, following the dosage instructions on the vaccine labels as supplied by the manufacturing company. Now that we have support from the AVA supplying us with back-up information, we will now do the off-label dose.

Like I said before, its just seems a little contradictory - you are saying you want all vets to follow protocols, yet you blamed your vet for the health of your dog because he/she vaccinated according to the dosage guide of the vaccine, and thus following protocols. What if your vet ignored the dosage guide of the vaccine and didn't give the booster, and your dog got parvo? I'm sure you'd be blaming the vet for this too.

Sometimes it seems like people expect their vets to be superheroes.

[Do No Harm]

I can see the point of some of your comments, but really, focus on reality please.

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!

Edited August 12, 2009 by Do No Harm

[Dogs4Fun]

I can see the point of some of your comments, but really, focus on reality please.

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". The fact is that veterinary research is not reported in the mainstream media.

Yes and neither is most research. Why should it be? Most people could not understand either (even researchers in one area will be completely out of their depth in evaluating research in another area). And the sheer volume of material published every month is staggering - where would you like it published? Would you buy a multivolume book of hard core research each week? But it is readily available to ANYONE who wants to look at it.

You implied that vets keep their "secret vet research" secret to themselves. This is simply not true.

[Sheridan]

I can see the point of some of your comments, but really, focus on reality please.

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!

And so ...?

[Do No Harm]

That quote of yours, in particular the bolded bit, is what I found most offensive and certainly seems to be making accusations, implying that vets withhold information from clients.

The first our clinic has heard about the changing vaccination protocols has been what everyone else has heard from the media lately, and the recent email from the AVA saying they are looking into it.

We have not received any evidence of studies, nor have any of the specialist centres held any talks about the issue. Up until now, we have been following a standard protocol, that is, following the dosage instructions on the vaccine labels as supplied by the manufacturing company. Now that we have support from the AVA supplying us with back-up information, we will now do the off-label dose.

Like I said before, its just seems a little contradictory - you are saying you want all vets to follow protocols, yet you blamed your vet for the health of your dog because he/she vaccinated according to the dosage guide of the vaccine, and thus following protocols. What if your vet ignored the dosage guide of the vaccine and didn't give the booster, and your dog got parvo? I'm sure you'd be blaming the vet for this too.

Sometimes it seems like people expect their vets to be superheroes.

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?

Edited August 12, 2009 by Do No Harm

[Dogs4Fun]

That quote of yours, in particular the bolded bit, is what I found most offensive and certainly seems to be making accusations, implying that vets withhold information from clients.

The first our clinic has heard about the changing vaccination protocols has been what everyone else has heard from the media lately, and the recent email from the AVA saying they are looking into it.

We have not received any evidence of studies, nor have any of the specialist centres held any talks about the issue. Up until now, we have been following a standard protocol, that is, following the dosage instructions on the vaccine labels as supplied by the manufacturing company. Now that we have support from the AVA supplying us with back-up information, we will now do the off-label dose.

Like I said before, its just seems a little contradictory - you are saying you want all vets to follow protocols, yet you blamed your vet for the health of your dog because he/she vaccinated according to the dosage guide of the vaccine, and thus following protocols. What if your vet ignored the dosage guide of the vaccine and didn't give the booster, and your dog got parvo? I'm sure you'd be blaming the vet for this too.

Sometimes it seems like people expect their vets to be superheroes.

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 and 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 in contact with was through the vaccine). The vet was a nice guy and we got talking during our conversation 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. He hadn't even known that 'modified live' means modified live, ie attenuated/weakened.

Do vets really want their clients to laugh at them?

You are obviously unhappy with your current vet. Find a new one.

[puggy_puggy]

You are obviously unhappy with your current vet. Find a new one.

Or you could even study and become a vet yourself.

[stormie]

You are obviously unhappy with your current vet. Find a new one.

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...

Edited August 12, 2009 by stormie

[Do No Harm]

You are obviously unhappy with your current vet. Find a new one.

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!

[kendall]

Who is your vet?

[karly101]

I think the main problem here is you have to find a new vet!

No vet I've ever been to will vaccinate a sick dog... its why they do a thorough consult beforehand! Neither would any I've been to vaccinate a dog that has cancer or another illness.

[Do No Harm]

Who is your vet?

Since you ask, this one http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21...5007222,00.html was quite exceptional as a veterinarian (see the Comments which show the extent of support for him). I was horrified at seeing him on the TV news when this story broke. He'd always seemed rather 'strange' but I attributed this to his 'hippy' appearance and apparent preference for seclusion. Where an animal was concerned he was always available, he would always help, appointments were never needed and there were numerous reports of him transporting the pets of elderly clients home after they'd recovered sufficiently from surgery.

Now, after returning from interstate where we lived for some time it's become a case of 'shopping around'. I'm checking out vets by seeing how they perform a 'wellness' exam. Those I've seen so far 'skimp' on the procedure and none have even palpated the abdomen - which should be an essential part of a routine physical exam particularly for an aged dog. Right now, the AVA is 'working on' ways of "helping vets communicate to their clients the importance of annual health check-ups" (see http://ava.informz.net/ava/archives/archive_135431.html) as a change in emphasis after the public becomes aware en masse of the fact annual boosters are not needed. I don't know how they'll manage when, in my area at least, a veterinarian's idea of a health check is limited to looking at teeth, listening to heart and lungs and taking the temperature.

So far as the vet in the above link is concerned, this really comes back to the issue which started as the topic of this thread, i.e. veterinarians and drugs. Not providing Expiry Dates and Batch Numbers, and not ensuring medicines are dispensed in appropriate containers is just the tip of the iceberg. We may never know the complete truth of Marcel's case, because he was found dead (believed to be suicide) several hours before his court trial was due to commence. Regardless, if the claims were true, then this veterinarian was freely acquiring very potent drugs which he then gave or administered to young men as part of his lifestyle. The disturbing fact is, too, that were it not for a coroner's inquest into the death of one 17 year old youth then this lifestyle may well have continued undetected. As it was, it did continue for 19 years.

If veterinarians were accountable then at least so far as potentially lethal drugs are concerned, they would be required to sign for all that they acquire and account for their use then, perhaps, that 17 year old lad may still be alive as well as one quite exceptional veterinarian.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Do No Harm