The Politics of Your Dog’s Health
By ‘Catherine O’Driscoll’
How Pet Owners are Being Manipulated by Big Business (and how the veterinary profession is allowing itself to be manipulated)
The following media coverage arises from a letter published in Veterinary Times during January 2004, signed by 31 vets, saying that annual vaccination is neither necessary nor safe. The letter was made possible by research from America, announced publicly by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce during 2003, which stated that ‘no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective and no vaccine is always indicated’.
The 31 UK vets suggested that:
· The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six months and any MLV vaccine given after that age produces immunity that is good for the life of the pet.
· The benefits of any further vaccines are merely cancelled out by the existing antibodies carried by an already vaccinated animal.
In layman’s terms: we don’t need to vaccinate our pets every year. The national media picked up on the story in April. The first sound bite came via the BBC, and it was followed by coverage in the dog press, the quality nationals and the tabloid press, and it even reached overseas. Much of this was due to the fact that our respected 31 vets associated the word ‘fraud’ with annual vaccination in their letter to Veterinary Times.
(Of course, Canine Health Concern was calling annual vaccination ‘fraud’ back in the early 90’s. We actually don’t think the financial disadvantages of annual vaccination are as important, however, as the damage unnecessary shots can do to our pets. Perhaps the phrase ‘corporate dogslaughter’ is more appropriate than the word fraud.)
The Daily Express led with a heading: ‘Are vets conning worried owners over treatments?’ The Times led with: ‘Annual pet jab is waste of money, vets claim’. Its lead paragraph stated, ‘Dog and cat owners are spending millions of pounds on unnecessary and potentially dangerous vaccines for their pets, according to a group of veterinary surgeons’.
The Daily Telegraph quoted the Veterinary Times letter, saying that, ‘Those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of the new evidence may well be acting contrary to the welfare of the animals committed to their care’.
The Daily Mail told a similar story: ‘Pet owners are being conned into spending millions of pounds a year on unnecessary vaccinations, according to a group of rebel vets.
‘They claim that dog and cat owners are being persuaded to give their animals annual booster injections when a single booster can provide life-long protection against disease.
‘The vets say that as well as costing up to £40 a time, boosters can lead to dangerous allergic reactions, possibly causing chronic disease or death to pets. ‘In a letter to Veterinary Times, the 31 vets accuse their colleagues of failing their clients by accepting manufacturers’ recommendations to vaccinate annually despite independent research suggesting that it is needless.’
Dr Archie Bryden, writing in Dog World, stated: ‘Having worked with microbes for over 40 years, including 30-odd with viruses, I was pleased to see the report on unnecessary boosters (Dog World March 19).
‘I have long suspected that vaccination policies were financially and not scientifically driven…. Anyone with insight into the pathogenesis of the main viral diseases – distemper, parvovirus and canine hepatitis – will realise that because they are spread by the blood stream, immunity following infection or vaccination is almost certainly lifelong, thus rendering boosters unnecessary.’
In the last edition of CHC Update, I suggested that although we and other informed pet guardians were happy about the anti-booster letter in Veterinary Times, nothing much was likely to change. Sadly I was right. For despite the media coverage; despite the truth being out there, the establishment is digging its heels in and fighting on. We have, of course, the option of waiting for the veterinary profession to sort itself out. But I, for one, don’t believe that a single animal should be made to suffer in the meantime.
The British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) proclaimed on its web site that it supported the informed choice of clients, but that there was not enough evidence to discontinue annual shots. This is, of course, a continuation of the vaccine-associated ostrich disease I diagnosed in my book, ‘What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines’. Of course there is enough evidence!
The British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the BSAVA issued a joint statement following a Today programme pet vaccine special on April 1st. There was much bluster in the statement from the BVA and BSAVA about vaccines preventing major epidemics (OK, but do we need to vaccinate every year to prevent epidemics?); how highly skilled and trained veterinary surgeons are (but sadly led by the nose by big business); and how the ‘profession’ must adhere to the best scientific information available (then for goodness sake acknowledge the duration of immunity studies which show that annual vaccination is neither necessary nor safe!).
The statement quoted the government’s Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) which, in a working group report, recommended that there is insufficient justification to alter current data sheet recommendations. The statement went on to say: ‘The fact remains that we still do not know enough about the true duration of immunity in individual animals and …. whilst (titre) testing is possible it incurs extra expense to the owner.’
This government-endorsed statement came despite the fact that CHC had sent about 24 letters to the DEFRA Minister, who forwarded them on to the working party, and we included piles of duration of immunity studies, which were ignored!
And then, amidst the media furore, it was the turn of the members of the VPC working group to pipe up. In a letter to Veterinary Times, Professor Rosalind Gaskell claimed that the VPC working group report on feline and canine vaccination was not actually an industry report, but an independent report. Prof Gaskell gave her academic standing and quoted the academic standing of Prof Gettingby, a fellow working group member, and she claimed that they are both independent. However, Rosalind Gaskell failed to mention in her Veterinary Times letter that both she and Gettingby are PAID CONSULTANTS TO INTERVET.
I mean, like, um . . . Intervet is bunging money at them but they are independent?
Add to this, the colleges they work for also rely upon funding from pharmaceutical companies. And here’s another ‘independence’ claim: the Animal Health Trust, in association with the BSAVA, has come up with ‘independent’ research to prove that vaccines don’t cause unwanted side effects. This independent research was paid-for by guess who? Yes, you’ve guessed it: the drug companies that make pet vaccines!
And what’s more, the research itself is highly strange. Can you, for example, understand why older vaccinated dogs have been deleted from the research? Is this because old dogs cannot possibly suffer vaccine reactions, or because they jolly well DO, possibly in larger numbers than younger dogs? This question aside – why delete any dogs from the trial in the first place? Since vaccines can have adverse effects on any individual, then any individual should be studied – unless, of course, it isn’t in your interests to look at certain individuals.
In another letter to Veterinary Times, a representative of the Animal Health Trust stated that I was malevolent for suggesting (in another letter to Veterinary Times) that the Animal Health Trust research was far from independent, having been sponsored by the vaccine industry. Um, you don’t have to be malevolent to state the truth!
You might also be interested to know that conventional vets have been frantically writing letters to Veterinary Times to denounce the original letter from 31 veterinary surgeons who said that annual vaccination is associated with the word ‘fraud’. Their denunciation is on the basis that most of the signatories are homeopathic vets.
We would submit, however, that the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association are not homeopaths, and the homeopathic vets were merely quoting the actual independent research that has been carried out to show that . . . .
ONCE AN ANIMAL IS IMMUNE TO VIRAL DISEASE, HE IS IMMUNE. REVACCINATION CONFERS NO ADDED IMMUNITY.
It’s all a bit scandalous, really, and the animals are the sacrificial lambs in this. Let’s look at the actual scientific evidence available and repeat a simple statement that was actually made a very long time ago:
ONCE AN ANIMAL IS IMMUNE TO VIRAL DISEASE, HE IS IMMUNE. REVACCINATION CONFERS NO ADDED IMMUNITY.
YOU DON’T NEED TO VACCINATE AN ANIMAL YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL THEY DROP.
In case your own veterinary surgeon is hiding behind questionable research funded by the vaccine industry, please show him or her the following scientific references. Remind him or her, also, that the BSAVA supports the informed consent of animal guardians. This means that if you do not consent to the over-vaccination of your friends, then there is no law saying you have to.
And if you are one of the many CHC members whose beloved dogs were damaged or killed by vaccines, remember why you are prepared to speak out now.
References supporting the scientific fact that vaccines are neither necessary nor safe:
1. Smith, CA (1995) Current concepts - Are we vaccinating too much? JAVMA 207 (4): 421-425
2. Principles of Vaccination (Approved by the AVMA Executive Board April 2001) www.avma.org/policies/ vaccination.htm
3. Paul, M. S et al (2003) Report of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Taskforce; Executive Summary and 2003 Canine Vaccination Guidelines and Recommendations. JAAHA 39: 119-131.
4. Schultz, Ronald D. Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What we know and what we don’t know. Proceedings - Canine Infectious Diseases: From clinics to Molecular Pathogenesis, Ithaca, NY, 199, 22.
5. Fisherman, B and Scarnell, J (1976) Persistence of protection against infectious canine hepatitis virus. Vet. Rec. 99: 509
6. Scott, FW and Geissinger, C (1999) Long-term immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated trivalent vaccine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 60 (5): 652-8 Schultz, Ronald D (2002) Are we vaccinating too much? JAVMA 4: 421
7. Hogenenesch et al (2002) Effect of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and antigen specific IgE in dogs, AJVR 63 (4): 611-616
8. Gorham, JR (1966) Duration of vaccination immunity and influence on subsequent prophylaxis. JAVMA 149: 699-704.
The Saga Continues . . .
Vets Mark Elliott, John Saxton, and Sonya Winsor have subsequently sent the following letter to Veterinary Times, the BSAVA, the BVA, the Kennel Club, the FAB, and the Dog and Cat Press:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re the Recent debates as to whether annual booster vaccination of animals is necessary. We appreciate that the recent developments (1) in the ongoing controversy regarding annual booster vaccines for dogs and cats has left the veterinary profession and the pet owning public in a dilemma as to the direction they should take, especially when considering the animal welfare and consumer protection issues involved. It seems that on one hand you have the vaccine manufacturers, who appear to be hiding behind legislation and the advice of an industry report (2). Their stance that annual vaccination must be continued relies on the following points: (a) They do not know the actual duration of immunity (b) Vaccines do not cause significant harm, so annual vaccination is acceptable.
This is also the stated view of the veterinary organisations i.e. the BVA and BSAVA (3) However, the incoming President of the BSAVA Dr Ian Mason has been reported as saying that after due consideration of the evidence, the current recommendations on vaccination of animals may need to be refined (4). Vaccine manufacturers must have known about the changes in recommendations in response to detailed evidence in the US for some time, and have been affiliated to UK groups, such as the Cat Group (11) that have been looking at the work quoted (1).
So far it seems the only action to be taken has been that of Intervet UK in extending their duration of immunity for Distemper, Hepatitis and Parvo to 3 years. While this is to be welcomed, no mention has been made yet of the Cat situation.
On the other side there is a small but growing number of veterinary surgeons and a strongly supportive public who are citing recent reports and research (5,6,7,17,18) and conclude:
(a) That duration of immunity for parvovirus, adenovirus, distemper (5), and feline enteritis (18), is established as >7years, and for feline calicivirus and herpes (5,18) is established for at least 4 years, and it seems that giving booster vaccinations does not offer any further protection (6). Therefore, annual vaccination is not needed for dogs and cats (with the exception of Leptospirosis, discussed below) (b) That vaccines can cause harm (5,8,9,11, 14,18) and therefore unnecessary vaccination should be avoided if at all possible.
Additionally they also consider that information from the manufacturers is notable. These state that about 50% of dogs (10) and 2/3 of cats (10,11) in the UK are not vaccinated at all or only infrequently, but where are the reported outbreaks of the diseases one would expect if the duration of immunity were so short as to need annual boosters?
While following the recent debate, there seems to have been only two arguments put forward for continuing annual booster vaccines in dogs and cats. First there has been suggestion that the originating letter calling for cessation of booster vaccines was written by homeopaths and by inference should be ignored, in fact this was cited as ‘relevant correspondence’ for the debate in a mailing from a vaccine manufacturer to all vets in the UK (12) and the profession is misguidedly it seems seeking to use this (13). Whilst it is true that some of the signatories have interests in this field, it is certainly not the case that all the signatories do. All are scientifically trained Vets in the first instance, all recommend initial vaccination, and they quote the recent published orthodox research of others.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, is the argument for Leptospirosis vaccine, where it is claimed there is a poor duration of immunity and so annual vaccination of dogs only for this must continue. This has been the basis of much research in the USA, and it is appropriate that we in the UK are aware of the findings. We summarise them below
1. Immunity to Leptospirosis is complex and poorly understood. It can only be measured by challenge studies. This is ethically unacceptable so we have to examine what is happening in the field by epidemiological methods (5).
2. Kansas University reports that the Leptospirosis vaccine is THE major cause of vaccine reactions, so much so that they consider the risks outweigh the benefits. It is no longer considered a core vaccine and they even recommend it should not be given to puppies (9,14).
3. Another study found the vaccine highly immunosuppressive and recommended that the vaccine should not be given in conjunction with other vaccines (it is currently in the UK).
4. The Leptospirosis vaccine does not protect the dog from being infected with the disease; it just minimises the clinical symptoms. Hence there seems to be/have been a real risk of vaccinated ‘healthy’ dogs shedding the spirochetes so possibly posing a threat to other dogs and humans. Although one manufacturer has recently claimed it has a new vaccine to prevent this, the clinical study conducted to test the vaccine was based on a sample of only 6 dogs (15). In our opinion a study so narrowly based cannot of course be scientifically credible.
5. The duration of immunity measurable by titre induced by the Leptospirosis vaccine can be as little as a few months (14,16) yet the advised interval for boosters is 1 year, which it seems has been an entirely arbitrary recommendation. By inference it may well be therefore that even vaccinated dogs have not been protected as their owners expect.
6. There is little protection between serovars (types). Use of the vaccine in the USA has led to a shift in the serovars such that the serovars now infecting dogs are not the ones used in the vaccines (14). Can we assume this is true also in the UK? Are we now vaccinating against a disease that barely exists in the form vaccinated for?
7. The vaccine efficacy seems between only 50 -70%, depending on the author (5).
The outgoing president of the BSAVA, Dr Freda Scott-Park, stated that when the science is there the profession would respond. The science is here, and the profession must respond now or lose all credibility in this debate. In the USA working parties have resulted in the removal of mass vaccination requirements in favour of individual vaccination programmes and consumer choice.
This would answer the issues of insurance and kennels/catteries that are now being raised as well as restoring public faith in the industry.
Whilst we have no wish to presuppose findings in the UK, it is our desire to establish a truly independent working party under lay chairmanship critically to review the scientific data, to raise questions with the manufacturers and report as soon as practically possible to the profession and the public.
We therefore invite interested parties (with no links to vaccine manufacturers) in the dog and cat world, the BSAVA, the BVA, FAB and individual veterinary surgeons to express their interest in participating by writing to us at the address below as soon as practical.
Yours faithfully
Mark Elliott BVSc VetMFHom MRCVS MIPsiMed
John Saxton BVetMed VetMFHom MRCVS
Sonya Winsor BSc(Hons) PhD BVetMed MRCVS
Address for correspondence: 22A East Street, Westbourne, West Sussex PO10 8SH.
References:
1. Allport et al, Letter in Veterinary Times 26-01-04 Call to cease the Policy of Annual Vaccination
2. Gaskell RM et al (2002) Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) working group of feline and canine vaccination final report to the VPC. DEFRA, PB 6432.www.vpc.gov.uk
3. BSAVA/BVA joint statement on the vaccination controversy 2004. www.bsava.co.uk
4. Veterinary Review (2004) Looking Reality in the Eye. An interview with BSAVA President Ian Mason. Pg 20-22, April 2004.
5. Paul M et al, (2003) Report of the American Animal Hospital association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Taskforce: Executive Summary and 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines and Recommendations. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. 39,119-131
6. Bohm M et al, (2004) Serum antibody titres to Canine Parvovirus, adenovirus and distemper virus in dogs in the UK which had not been vaccinated for at least 3 years. The Veterinary Record April 10, 2004. 457-463
7. Richards J et al (2001) 2000 Report of the American Association of Feline Practitioners and Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 3, 47-72
8. Meyer EK (2001) Vaccine Associated adverse events. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 31, 493-514 9. http://www.newss.ksu.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/listpuppy11138.html
10. Intervet Mailing to Veterinary Surgeons
11. Report of the Cat Group on Vaccination.
www.users.waitrose.com/~thecatgroup/vacc.html
12. Intervet Mailing to Veterinary Surgeons 22-03-04
13. Nelson M (2004) Freda shows the BVA what to expect. Vet Times 26-04-04 p5
14. Greene C et al (2001) Canine Vaccination. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 31, 473-492
15. Intervet Literature on Nobivac Lepto 2 at last. A lepto vaccine that inhibits renal shedding 2004.
16. Coyne MJ, (2001) Duration of Immunity in Dogs after vaccination or naturally acquired infection. The Veterinary Record 149, 509-515.
17. Vaccination in Cats: which ones and how often? Report in Vet Record April 10 2004, pg 452
18. Sparkes A. The Vaccination debate continues. Veterinary Review May 2004 38-39
Back to:
Politics of your dog's health
Vets on Vaccines
A to Z
By ‘Catherine O’Driscoll’
How Pet Owners are Being Manipulated by Big Business (and how the veterinary profession is allowing itself to be manipulated)
The following media coverage arises from a letter published in Veterinary Times during January 2004, signed by 31 vets, saying that annual vaccination is neither necessary nor safe. The letter was made possible by research from America, announced publicly by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce during 2003, which stated that ‘no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective and no vaccine is always indicated’.
The 31 UK vets suggested that:
· The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six months and any MLV vaccine given after that age produces immunity that is good for the life of the pet.
· The benefits of any further vaccines are merely cancelled out by the existing antibodies carried by an already vaccinated animal.
In layman’s terms: we don’t need to vaccinate our pets every year. The national media picked up on the story in April. The first sound bite came via the BBC, and it was followed by coverage in the dog press, the quality nationals and the tabloid press, and it even reached overseas. Much of this was due to the fact that our respected 31 vets associated the word ‘fraud’ with annual vaccination in their letter to Veterinary Times.
(Of course, Canine Health Concern was calling annual vaccination ‘fraud’ back in the early 90’s. We actually don’t think the financial disadvantages of annual vaccination are as important, however, as the damage unnecessary shots can do to our pets. Perhaps the phrase ‘corporate dogslaughter’ is more appropriate than the word fraud.)
The Daily Express led with a heading: ‘Are vets conning worried owners over treatments?’ The Times led with: ‘Annual pet jab is waste of money, vets claim’. Its lead paragraph stated, ‘Dog and cat owners are spending millions of pounds on unnecessary and potentially dangerous vaccines for their pets, according to a group of veterinary surgeons’.
The Daily Telegraph quoted the Veterinary Times letter, saying that, ‘Those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of the new evidence may well be acting contrary to the welfare of the animals committed to their care’.
The Daily Mail told a similar story: ‘Pet owners are being conned into spending millions of pounds a year on unnecessary vaccinations, according to a group of rebel vets.
‘They claim that dog and cat owners are being persuaded to give their animals annual booster injections when a single booster can provide life-long protection against disease.
‘The vets say that as well as costing up to £40 a time, boosters can lead to dangerous allergic reactions, possibly causing chronic disease or death to pets. ‘In a letter to Veterinary Times, the 31 vets accuse their colleagues of failing their clients by accepting manufacturers’ recommendations to vaccinate annually despite independent research suggesting that it is needless.’
Dr Archie Bryden, writing in Dog World, stated: ‘Having worked with microbes for over 40 years, including 30-odd with viruses, I was pleased to see the report on unnecessary boosters (Dog World March 19).
‘I have long suspected that vaccination policies were financially and not scientifically driven…. Anyone with insight into the pathogenesis of the main viral diseases – distemper, parvovirus and canine hepatitis – will realise that because they are spread by the blood stream, immunity following infection or vaccination is almost certainly lifelong, thus rendering boosters unnecessary.’
In the last edition of CHC Update, I suggested that although we and other informed pet guardians were happy about the anti-booster letter in Veterinary Times, nothing much was likely to change. Sadly I was right. For despite the media coverage; despite the truth being out there, the establishment is digging its heels in and fighting on. We have, of course, the option of waiting for the veterinary profession to sort itself out. But I, for one, don’t believe that a single animal should be made to suffer in the meantime.
The British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) proclaimed on its web site that it supported the informed choice of clients, but that there was not enough evidence to discontinue annual shots. This is, of course, a continuation of the vaccine-associated ostrich disease I diagnosed in my book, ‘What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines’. Of course there is enough evidence!
The British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the BSAVA issued a joint statement following a Today programme pet vaccine special on April 1st. There was much bluster in the statement from the BVA and BSAVA about vaccines preventing major epidemics (OK, but do we need to vaccinate every year to prevent epidemics?); how highly skilled and trained veterinary surgeons are (but sadly led by the nose by big business); and how the ‘profession’ must adhere to the best scientific information available (then for goodness sake acknowledge the duration of immunity studies which show that annual vaccination is neither necessary nor safe!).
The statement quoted the government’s Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) which, in a working group report, recommended that there is insufficient justification to alter current data sheet recommendations. The statement went on to say: ‘The fact remains that we still do not know enough about the true duration of immunity in individual animals and …. whilst (titre) testing is possible it incurs extra expense to the owner.’
This government-endorsed statement came despite the fact that CHC had sent about 24 letters to the DEFRA Minister, who forwarded them on to the working party, and we included piles of duration of immunity studies, which were ignored!
And then, amidst the media furore, it was the turn of the members of the VPC working group to pipe up. In a letter to Veterinary Times, Professor Rosalind Gaskell claimed that the VPC working group report on feline and canine vaccination was not actually an industry report, but an independent report. Prof Gaskell gave her academic standing and quoted the academic standing of Prof Gettingby, a fellow working group member, and she claimed that they are both independent. However, Rosalind Gaskell failed to mention in her Veterinary Times letter that both she and Gettingby are PAID CONSULTANTS TO INTERVET.
I mean, like, um . . . Intervet is bunging money at them but they are independent?
Add to this, the colleges they work for also rely upon funding from pharmaceutical companies. And here’s another ‘independence’ claim: the Animal Health Trust, in association with the BSAVA, has come up with ‘independent’ research to prove that vaccines don’t cause unwanted side effects. This independent research was paid-for by guess who? Yes, you’ve guessed it: the drug companies that make pet vaccines!
And what’s more, the research itself is highly strange. Can you, for example, understand why older vaccinated dogs have been deleted from the research? Is this because old dogs cannot possibly suffer vaccine reactions, or because they jolly well DO, possibly in larger numbers than younger dogs? This question aside – why delete any dogs from the trial in the first place? Since vaccines can have adverse effects on any individual, then any individual should be studied – unless, of course, it isn’t in your interests to look at certain individuals.
In another letter to Veterinary Times, a representative of the Animal Health Trust stated that I was malevolent for suggesting (in another letter to Veterinary Times) that the Animal Health Trust research was far from independent, having been sponsored by the vaccine industry. Um, you don’t have to be malevolent to state the truth!
You might also be interested to know that conventional vets have been frantically writing letters to Veterinary Times to denounce the original letter from 31 veterinary surgeons who said that annual vaccination is associated with the word ‘fraud’. Their denunciation is on the basis that most of the signatories are homeopathic vets.
We would submit, however, that the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association are not homeopaths, and the homeopathic vets were merely quoting the actual independent research that has been carried out to show that . . . .
ONCE AN ANIMAL IS IMMUNE TO VIRAL DISEASE, HE IS IMMUNE. REVACCINATION CONFERS NO ADDED IMMUNITY.
It’s all a bit scandalous, really, and the animals are the sacrificial lambs in this. Let’s look at the actual scientific evidence available and repeat a simple statement that was actually made a very long time ago:
ONCE AN ANIMAL IS IMMUNE TO VIRAL DISEASE, HE IS IMMUNE. REVACCINATION CONFERS NO ADDED IMMUNITY.
YOU DON’T NEED TO VACCINATE AN ANIMAL YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL THEY DROP.
In case your own veterinary surgeon is hiding behind questionable research funded by the vaccine industry, please show him or her the following scientific references. Remind him or her, also, that the BSAVA supports the informed consent of animal guardians. This means that if you do not consent to the over-vaccination of your friends, then there is no law saying you have to.
And if you are one of the many CHC members whose beloved dogs were damaged or killed by vaccines, remember why you are prepared to speak out now.
References supporting the scientific fact that vaccines are neither necessary nor safe:
1. Smith, CA (1995) Current concepts - Are we vaccinating too much? JAVMA 207 (4): 421-425
2. Principles of Vaccination (Approved by the AVMA Executive Board April 2001) www.avma.org/policies/ vaccination.htm
3. Paul, M. S et al (2003) Report of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Taskforce; Executive Summary and 2003 Canine Vaccination Guidelines and Recommendations. JAAHA 39: 119-131.
4. Schultz, Ronald D. Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What we know and what we don’t know. Proceedings - Canine Infectious Diseases: From clinics to Molecular Pathogenesis, Ithaca, NY, 199, 22.
5. Fisherman, B and Scarnell, J (1976) Persistence of protection against infectious canine hepatitis virus. Vet. Rec. 99: 509
6. Scott, FW and Geissinger, C (1999) Long-term immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated trivalent vaccine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 60 (5): 652-8 Schultz, Ronald D (2002) Are we vaccinating too much? JAVMA 4: 421
7. Hogenenesch et al (2002) Effect of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and antigen specific IgE in dogs, AJVR 63 (4): 611-616
8. Gorham, JR (1966) Duration of vaccination immunity and influence on subsequent prophylaxis. JAVMA 149: 699-704.
The Saga Continues . . .
Vets Mark Elliott, John Saxton, and Sonya Winsor have subsequently sent the following letter to Veterinary Times, the BSAVA, the BVA, the Kennel Club, the FAB, and the Dog and Cat Press:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re the Recent debates as to whether annual booster vaccination of animals is necessary. We appreciate that the recent developments (1) in the ongoing controversy regarding annual booster vaccines for dogs and cats has left the veterinary profession and the pet owning public in a dilemma as to the direction they should take, especially when considering the animal welfare and consumer protection issues involved. It seems that on one hand you have the vaccine manufacturers, who appear to be hiding behind legislation and the advice of an industry report (2). Their stance that annual vaccination must be continued relies on the following points: (a) They do not know the actual duration of immunity (b) Vaccines do not cause significant harm, so annual vaccination is acceptable.
This is also the stated view of the veterinary organisations i.e. the BVA and BSAVA (3) However, the incoming President of the BSAVA Dr Ian Mason has been reported as saying that after due consideration of the evidence, the current recommendations on vaccination of animals may need to be refined (4). Vaccine manufacturers must have known about the changes in recommendations in response to detailed evidence in the US for some time, and have been affiliated to UK groups, such as the Cat Group (11) that have been looking at the work quoted (1).
So far it seems the only action to be taken has been that of Intervet UK in extending their duration of immunity for Distemper, Hepatitis and Parvo to 3 years. While this is to be welcomed, no mention has been made yet of the Cat situation.
On the other side there is a small but growing number of veterinary surgeons and a strongly supportive public who are citing recent reports and research (5,6,7,17,18) and conclude:
(a) That duration of immunity for parvovirus, adenovirus, distemper (5), and feline enteritis (18), is established as >7years, and for feline calicivirus and herpes (5,18) is established for at least 4 years, and it seems that giving booster vaccinations does not offer any further protection (6). Therefore, annual vaccination is not needed for dogs and cats (with the exception of Leptospirosis, discussed below) (b) That vaccines can cause harm (5,8,9,11, 14,18) and therefore unnecessary vaccination should be avoided if at all possible.
Additionally they also consider that information from the manufacturers is notable. These state that about 50% of dogs (10) and 2/3 of cats (10,11) in the UK are not vaccinated at all or only infrequently, but where are the reported outbreaks of the diseases one would expect if the duration of immunity were so short as to need annual boosters?
While following the recent debate, there seems to have been only two arguments put forward for continuing annual booster vaccines in dogs and cats. First there has been suggestion that the originating letter calling for cessation of booster vaccines was written by homeopaths and by inference should be ignored, in fact this was cited as ‘relevant correspondence’ for the debate in a mailing from a vaccine manufacturer to all vets in the UK (12) and the profession is misguidedly it seems seeking to use this (13). Whilst it is true that some of the signatories have interests in this field, it is certainly not the case that all the signatories do. All are scientifically trained Vets in the first instance, all recommend initial vaccination, and they quote the recent published orthodox research of others.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, is the argument for Leptospirosis vaccine, where it is claimed there is a poor duration of immunity and so annual vaccination of dogs only for this must continue. This has been the basis of much research in the USA, and it is appropriate that we in the UK are aware of the findings. We summarise them below
1. Immunity to Leptospirosis is complex and poorly understood. It can only be measured by challenge studies. This is ethically unacceptable so we have to examine what is happening in the field by epidemiological methods (5).
2. Kansas University reports that the Leptospirosis vaccine is THE major cause of vaccine reactions, so much so that they consider the risks outweigh the benefits. It is no longer considered a core vaccine and they even recommend it should not be given to puppies (9,14).
3. Another study found the vaccine highly immunosuppressive and recommended that the vaccine should not be given in conjunction with other vaccines (it is currently in the UK).
4. The Leptospirosis vaccine does not protect the dog from being infected with the disease; it just minimises the clinical symptoms. Hence there seems to be/have been a real risk of vaccinated ‘healthy’ dogs shedding the spirochetes so possibly posing a threat to other dogs and humans. Although one manufacturer has recently claimed it has a new vaccine to prevent this, the clinical study conducted to test the vaccine was based on a sample of only 6 dogs (15). In our opinion a study so narrowly based cannot of course be scientifically credible.
5. The duration of immunity measurable by titre induced by the Leptospirosis vaccine can be as little as a few months (14,16) yet the advised interval for boosters is 1 year, which it seems has been an entirely arbitrary recommendation. By inference it may well be therefore that even vaccinated dogs have not been protected as their owners expect.
6. There is little protection between serovars (types). Use of the vaccine in the USA has led to a shift in the serovars such that the serovars now infecting dogs are not the ones used in the vaccines (14). Can we assume this is true also in the UK? Are we now vaccinating against a disease that barely exists in the form vaccinated for?
7. The vaccine efficacy seems between only 50 -70%, depending on the author (5).
The outgoing president of the BSAVA, Dr Freda Scott-Park, stated that when the science is there the profession would respond. The science is here, and the profession must respond now or lose all credibility in this debate. In the USA working parties have resulted in the removal of mass vaccination requirements in favour of individual vaccination programmes and consumer choice.
This would answer the issues of insurance and kennels/catteries that are now being raised as well as restoring public faith in the industry.
Whilst we have no wish to presuppose findings in the UK, it is our desire to establish a truly independent working party under lay chairmanship critically to review the scientific data, to raise questions with the manufacturers and report as soon as practically possible to the profession and the public.
We therefore invite interested parties (with no links to vaccine manufacturers) in the dog and cat world, the BSAVA, the BVA, FAB and individual veterinary surgeons to express their interest in participating by writing to us at the address below as soon as practical.
Yours faithfully
Mark Elliott BVSc VetMFHom MRCVS MIPsiMed
John Saxton BVetMed VetMFHom MRCVS
Sonya Winsor BSc(Hons) PhD BVetMed MRCVS
Address for correspondence: 22A East Street, Westbourne, West Sussex PO10 8SH.
References:
1. Allport et al, Letter in Veterinary Times 26-01-04 Call to cease the Policy of Annual Vaccination
2. Gaskell RM et al (2002) Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) working group of feline and canine vaccination final report to the VPC. DEFRA, PB 6432.www.vpc.gov.uk
3. BSAVA/BVA joint statement on the vaccination controversy 2004. www.bsava.co.uk
4. Veterinary Review (2004) Looking Reality in the Eye. An interview with BSAVA President Ian Mason. Pg 20-22, April 2004.
5. Paul M et al, (2003) Report of the American Animal Hospital association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Taskforce: Executive Summary and 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines and Recommendations. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association. 39,119-131
6. Bohm M et al, (2004) Serum antibody titres to Canine Parvovirus, adenovirus and distemper virus in dogs in the UK which had not been vaccinated for at least 3 years. The Veterinary Record April 10, 2004. 457-463
7. Richards J et al (2001) 2000 Report of the American Association of Feline Practitioners and Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 3, 47-72
8. Meyer EK (2001) Vaccine Associated adverse events. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 31, 493-514 9. http://www.newss.ksu.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/listpuppy11138.html
10. Intervet Mailing to Veterinary Surgeons
11. Report of the Cat Group on Vaccination.
www.users.waitrose.com/~thecatgroup/vacc.html
12. Intervet Mailing to Veterinary Surgeons 22-03-04
13. Nelson M (2004) Freda shows the BVA what to expect. Vet Times 26-04-04 p5
14. Greene C et al (2001) Canine Vaccination. Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice 31, 473-492
15. Intervet Literature on Nobivac Lepto 2 at last. A lepto vaccine that inhibits renal shedding 2004.
16. Coyne MJ, (2001) Duration of Immunity in Dogs after vaccination or naturally acquired infection. The Veterinary Record 149, 509-515.
17. Vaccination in Cats: which ones and how often? Report in Vet Record April 10 2004, pg 452
18. Sparkes A. The Vaccination debate continues. Veterinary Review May 2004 38-39
Back to:
Politics of your dog's health
Vets on Vaccines
A to Z