Vaccination Protocols - Australian Media Exposure To Controversy.

[Do No Harm]

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?

Edited May 24, 2006 by Blackfoot

[woolliwag]

Hi Blackfoot

Thanks for sharing the link from The Mercury - I noticed the article in the paper yesterday and phoned them this morning to see if it could be placed in a national paper. Apparently the article is on the media's own site and can be accessed by any Australian paper and also can be used if they wish to use it.

I suspect it will go nationally and definitely followed through should there be enough interest shown from the 64%+households that have companion dogs.

Let's hope so for the interest and well-being of our dogs!

Cheers

Woolliwag

[NaturallyWild]

Not only do many people blindly take for granted what the vets say in regards to yearly vacs (and many other things), but the government also takes it for granted and imposses laws that to go to a place of dog training or to a kennel/boarding facility you must have the yearly vaccinations. This is something that i brought to the attention of the department of primary industries in victoria, and was told they would look into it by asking the AVA and the companies making the vacs (as if they would tell them to change the law when it makes them money). This was 6 months ago, probably time to ask again i think, particularly if there is media out there about it.

Tim

[ravensmyst00]

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?

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.

[Do No Harm]

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.

[Kirty]

I have been looking into this recently and decided to vacc my pets every three years. However, now that I have joined obedience, will I have to vacc every year?

[morgan]

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.

My vet has "confidentially" told me "as we all know, vaccinations last several years at least, and if customers ignore my annual vaccination reminders and leave it a year or two, I'm not at all concerned". Obviously, he does not share this advice with his usual clientele. Neither does he question my steadfast refusal to vaccinate my adult dogs. Friends in Victoria who work with a number of vet practices tell me that these vets are frantically trying to find new sources of income to replace annual boosters once the new protocols come in - not only will they lose income from the vaccinations themselves, they will lose the spin-off income from treating associated allergies, epilepsy, arthritis, immune disorders etc.

I have never had a dog vaccinated after 2 puppy shots in 30 years, despite regular attendance at shows (sometimes over 50 shows a year). Even when my non-boosted adults have been exposed to parvo and distemper, they have not caught it.

So don't be expecting your vet to tell you otherwise anytime soon! :D

[Miranda]

I agree wholeheartedly morgan, I do give my dogs one booster at 16 months, but that's it for life. After having a dog develop an auto-immune disease in 2000 immediately following vaccination I have done a lot of research and have decided that annual boosters are unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Of course all dog owners must make their own decisions.

[Kez]

I know of at least 3 people who had the vaccinations done up to 2 years old, and didn't bother with a booster at 3 years...

They're all from different areas, and all 3 ended up with their dogs contracting Canine Hepatitis...

I don't know if it's related, but the same 3 people also ended up with "Fading Puppy Syndrome" killing off every litter they had over the following 12 months.

I think the need for yearly vaccination boosters, really depends on how much exposure there is to possibly infected/carrier dogs.

[Miranda]

I know of at least 3 people who had the vaccinations done up to 2 years old, and didn't bother with a booster at 3 years...

They're all from different areas, and all 3 ended up with their dogs contracting Canine Hepatitis...

I don't know if it's related, but the same 3 people also ended up with "Fading Puppy Syndrome" killing off every litter they had over the following 12 months.

I think the need for yearly vaccination boosters, really depends on how much exposure there is to possibly infected/carrier dogs.

Well that's very strange, I have been in dogs for over 30 years and have never heard of any vaccinated dog contracting hepatitis. One of the causes of fading puppy syndrome can be the canine herpes virus which will attack the puppies if the bitch is exposed to it during the last three weeks of gestation and has no immunity. Fading puppies can also be the result of a bacterial infection, cold and a myriad other reasons. I would actually question why someone whos bitch had had canine hepatitis was subsequently mated less than 12 months following the illness, but that's going OT.

Distemper, hepatitis and parvo are all diseases caused by viruses, once the immune system has been alerted it will 'remember' and automatically attack the virus if and when the dog comes in contact with it. Everytime the dog is exposed the immunity builds up again so actually a dog that is kept in isolation is likely to have lower immunity than a dog that gets out and about and meets lots of other dogs. This is the reason why titre testing can be unreliable, if a dog hasn't had any recent exposure to any of these diseases its titre levels will be low, but if it has had recent exposure its titre levels will be much higher.

Humans are vaccinated for viral diseases too, is anyone reading this thread currently receiving annual boosters? The only disease that requires a booster (after 10 years) is tetanus and this is because it's caused by a bacterium not a virus.

An interesting and very important topic, obviously everyone will have different opinions :D

[Do No Harm]

I know of at least 3 people who had the vaccinations done up to 2 years old, and didn't bother with a booster at 3 years...

They're all from different areas, and all 3 ended up with their dogs contracting Canine Hepatitis...

This claim does not sound correct.

It is known there have been no cases recorded of Canine Infectious Hepatitis in the US for more than two decades, and in a paper written by an Australian veterinarian in 2001 it is stated the same applies here in Australia.

The minimum duration for Canine Adenovirus - 2 (CAV-2) is 7 years by challenge and 9 years by serology (Schultz Aug 14, 1999).

If those dogs were vaccinated as young adults ("up to 2 years") then provided the vaccine was effective (some dogs are known to be 'non-responders' so no amount of vaccine would immunize), then those dogs could not succumb to Canine Infectious Hepatitis even if exposed to the virus. On the other hand 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. My own dog displayed some classic signs of canine distemper and the only distemper virus she was exposed to was via the vaccine she'd been given 24 hours earlier.

It all boils down to not only the fact boosters are not needed but in many cases are not even safe.

[dogbesotted]

I have discussed annula vaccinations with my vet and he too is perfectly confortable with no annula boosters. He too agrees that the latest literature is showing that immunity is n0ot dependent upon annual boosters.

It think it is difficult for vets to take a stand at the moment..it puts their practise at risk if they advise a different protocol than that which is r4ecommended. It is a "be damned if you do be damned if you dont scenario". Which leave the individual dog owner in the position of having to do their own reseacrh and making their own decisions. The Mercury artcile will hopefully push more people to at least start asking questions and questioning. For far too long many people have been far too accepting of whatever their vet or dr says or prescribes. I am not being critical of drs and vets but rather of just believing hwatever we are told as being set in concrete. If I had accepted that my Lucinda would have been put to sleep nearly 4 years ago..instead she is still here and still feisty.

There is one vet practice that I know is providing the "three year" vaccination now.

[NaturallyWild]

she is still here and still feisty.

There is one vet practice that I know is providing the "three year" vaccination now.

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).

[carabelle]

Thank you for posting the article Blackfoot.

I agree with Miranda, we have always limited vaccinations for our dogs and cats over the past 20 years as we felt ongoing booster vaccinations were unnecessary, after all humans do not require yearly vaccinations against identified diseases. All of our dogs and cats have lived to very old age (some 19+) with no major health issues, so assume we were doing the right thing. It is comforting to know that others have followed this strategy to good effect and now appears to be confirmed as the correct approach.

As I now have a puppy in obedience training I am also concerned about the ongoing requirement for proof of annual vaccination and when this will be reviewed. It is not an issue now or for the next 12 months for us but obviously of concern to those with older dogs.

[Do No Harm]

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!

[NaturallyWild]

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!

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.

Edited May 26, 2006 by tim_m99

[Do No Harm]

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!

[Do No Harm]

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 ***-***-***

[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?

[Minny]

I visited this forum to ask about Parvo in dog pounds - as there is already a thread about inoculations going, perhaps someone might be able to tell me why so many dogs contract Parvo in dog pounds.

Are the pound not disinfected effectively? (I image it would be fairly difficult to maintain any living area free from disease where dogs are in close contact with one another). Are newly impounded dogs inoculated against Parvo or distemper, or other transmittable diseases? What are council regulations concerning viral diseases control within their pounds – assuming the regulations are similar Australia-wide?