Request For Comsumer Protection

[oakway]

I have been given permission to cross-post this

"Request for comsumer protection for consumers of Veterinary services"

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1593/...zabeth_Hart.pdf

[oakway]

Bump

[MolassesLass]

I don't understand why it's been posted - is there something others should be doing?

[stormie]

I don't get the point of this. Vets are slowly changing over to the new protocol, but it's not going to happen overnight.

We still send out annual reminders even though we're on the new protocol, because a) the clients should be able to make up their own minds about what they want, and b) many still need the annual KC to go boarding. When they come in, we discuss the new protocol.

This is only new to Australia. Sure, it's been happening over the world for a while, but it's new here. Many vets in practice would have been around in the times before there were vaccines, when parvo and other diseases were rife. When the vaccine first became available, people literally lined up down the street to have their pets done. Annual vaccination has reduced parvo significantly and whilst annual injections may not be warranted, it's going to take some time for these vets to be comfortable enough to change over the new system, in case it doesn't work.

I also don't believe there is any hard core scientific proof that vaccinations are causing all these problems. Yes, there are theories but I do not believe as yet they are 100% linked. I know our local Specialists does not believe vaccines are the CAUSE of immune mediated diseases, but rather the hit on the immune system by the vaccine can TRIGGER a disease to surface that was there all along.

Instead of complaining about vets, why aren't people complaining about the vaccine companies who refuse to do the testing to find out the true duration of their vaccines? People are forever whinging about vets using certain drugs 'off label' because they're not registered for that use.

That letter is calling for consumer protection and regulation of vets, but by enforcing vets use a drug OFF LABEL. How does that make sense? Regulating vets to use drugs in a way that is not registered for use?? Get vaccine companies to pay for the studies and have their ANNUAL vaccines registered for use for 3 years, rather than creating a new one. But they won't do it because it's going to cost them money.

Edited June 22, 2010 by stormie

[oakway]

molasseslass It was posted for no other reason than for people to read.

It's up to you to make an informed decision on it.

[Crisovar]

Instead of complaining about vets, why aren't people complaining about the vaccine companies who refuse to do the testing to find out the true duration of their vaccines? People are forever whinging about vets using certain drugs 'off label' because they're not registered for that use.

That letter is calling for consumer protection and regulation of vets, but by enforcing vets use a drug OFF LABEL. How does that make sense? Regulating vets to use drugs in a way that is not registered for use?? Get vaccine companies to pay for the studies and have their ANNUAL vaccines registered for use for 3 years, rather than creating a new one. But they won't do it because it's going to cost them money.

Exactly!

The Vaccine manufacturers need to be targeted.

At the moment we only have one brand of vaccine that is registered for 3 yr. Administering any of the others and signing off on them for 3yrs is off label.

Target where the fault lies people.

[oakway]

stormie

I would disagree with some of your comments.

Many companies have known the results of testing (good and bad) vaccines.

They can't get them onto the market with out it.

Scientific testing has taken place to prove it. That's how we found out about

that it was the vaccines.

stormie, am I correct in thinking that you are connected to the veterinary

profession ?. If that is so, I ask you to step back and look at things through the

eyes of those that have no connection in any way what so ever other than to take

their dog to the vet when sick. You would find that there is a vastly different perception.

[Danois]

stormie

I would disagree with some of your comments.

Many companies have known the results of testing (good and bad) vaccines.

They can't get them onto the market with out it.

Scientific testing has taken place to prove it. That's how we found out about

that it was the vaccines.

stormie, am I correct in thinking that you are connected to the veterinary

profession ?. If that is so, I ask you to step back and look at things through the

eyes of those that have no connection in any way what so ever other than to take

their dog to the vet when sick. You would find that there is a vastly different perception.

I am not connected with the vet profession and agree entirely with what stormie wrote.

[stormie]

stormie

I would disagree with some of your comments.

Many companies have known the results of testing (good and bad) vaccines.

They can't get them onto the market with out it.

Scientific testing has taken place to prove it. That's how we found out about

that it was the vaccines.

stormie, am I correct in thinking that you are connected to the veterinary

profession ?. If that is so, I ask you to step back and look at things through the

eyes of those that have no connection in any way what so ever other than to take

their dog to the vet when sick. You would find that there is a vastly different perception.

Of course, but the current annual vaccines were only originally tested after 12months. They still had immunity at the 12month mark so they were registered for use every 12months. They have NOT done the studies to see whether they last longer than 12months - not in the early days anyway.

If there was conclusive scientific evidence that vaccinating every 12 months was the CAUSE of diseases, we would all know about it. As I said, it's a theory - the AVA have said that there's thought that there's a link, but nothing is scientifically proven. If you have proper scientific studies which conclusively demonstrate that annual vaccination is the PROVEN cause of such diseases, then please, show me - I'm happy to be proven wrong. The local specialist that I referred to has a special interest in Immune Mediated Diseases. If there was a confirmed link, he'd know about it. I believe there is more concern over the SR12 actually.

Yes, oakway, I'm in the veterinary industry. But I think I have a pretty good understanding on how things are from outsiders. As I said, out clinic is on the new protocol, we don't push certain brands of food etc. And I'm sure many on DOL would attest to that.

But why not take the time to look at things from the Veterinary point of few? What you're asking is that all vets use vaccinations as an Off Label dose. I can tell you from experience with other vets, that whilst they vaccines are still labelled for annual use, that's how the vets will be using them.

One vaccine company openly told us that they would not offer any support to a vet who uses their annual vaccines triennially. They will not be following the new guidelines themselves and are quite against triennial use, so their vaccines will continue to be labelled for 12month use.

People will sue for anything these days. They complain about fees, they sue if a vet, a simple human being, makes a mistake or misdiagnosis, or doesn't get it right the first time. People come in telling the vet how they want the surgery to be done, what drugs they want them to use. They go to uni for 5-6 years to get a degree, only to end up in an industry where they are being dictated by their clients how they should be doing things.

I am all for the new protocol, oakway, but I'm against vets copping the blame because they won't use a drug off label. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, and in this day and age, where people will take them to the Board over everything and anything, why wouldn't they be trying to do everything 'by the book' to ensure they've followed the guidelines for use for the drugs, to ensure they have that backup in case they get taken to the board.

Edited June 23, 2010 by stormie

[stormie]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's like complaining to Woolworths because you can't buy Coke in a carton of 13. It's not Woolworth's fault that Coke only make them in a 12 - that's how they're sold and it says not for individual sale, so that's how Woolworths need to sell them.

It's the same for us. If people want to push for the new protocol, its the vaccine companies that need to be targeted, to enable vets to use their products the way the public want. It shouldn't be up to the vets to risk their practice by using it 'incorrectly'.

[cointreau]

I also agree with what stormie has said but would like to take it further and while the manufacturers of the vaccines need to do testing and relable their product boarding kennels also need to accept that annual vaccination is not necessary as this can be a trigger for people to vaccinate their pets. No vaccination no boarding and you can't blame them just as you can't blame the vet - they are the middle men/women in the chain they have their business to protect.