© Jennifer Hewitson, 760-944-6154
Is
Your Pet Dying From Over-Vaccination Due to Vet
Economics?
Nationally
and internationally, companion animals (pets) are
being over-vaccinated - a practice that is
resulting in vaccine related deaths, severe
illnesses, reduced longevity and large monetary
costs to guardians (pet owners).
The most
common practice is the annual administration of
rabies vaccine, based upon the oft-stated
supposition that an annual booster is necessary to
maintain the vaccine's effectiveness. In reality,
there is no research substantiating that practice,
and veterinary schools and professional
associations increasingly are embracing a
triennial administration standard.
A study of
more than 1,000 cats and 1,000 dogs in the United
Kingdom by Canine Health Concern in March 2001
showed a 1 in 10 risk of adverse reaction from
vaccines! The study, which tracked over a
seven-month period the health of cats and dogs
vaccinated by one UK veterinarian, found that
7.54% to 12.42% of the dogs had adverse reactions
within a 45-day period post-vaccination. An
almost-identical number of cats - from 7.56% to
12.44% -- also suffered adverse reactions within
45 days. This is quite contradictory to the
vaccine-manufacturers' claim that less than 15
adverse reactions occur out of 100,000 companion
animals vaccinated. The UK study results were
reported at the 99% confidence level. Vaccine
manufacturers rely on adverse-reaction statistics
from the vets themselves.
In our
opinion many vets continue to cling to the annual
rabies shot has less to do with a cautious
standard of care and more to do with their
economic dependence on vaccinations for fiscal
solvency. This is especially true of a substantial
- if not vast - majority of small vet practices
(1-3 people, non-specialty, non-emergency
practice).
A vial of
rabies vaccine costs the veterinarian about 61
cents and is typically administered at a cost to
the guardian of from $15 to $38 - not including
the $35 office visit. In perspective, an 18-oz.
package of Kellogg's Sugar Frosted Flakes® is
$2.20 to the grocer and approximately $2.75
retail. If the grocer's mark-up were comparable to
that of rabies vaccine, Frosted Flakes would cost
$137 without the office visit and more than $260
with it. To borrow Tony the Tiger's expression,
that size of a mark-up is "Gr-r-reat!"®
Take out 1
year of rabies vaccination and the consequential
office visit-- just for dogs -- and the average
small-practice vet's income drops from
approximately $87,000 to $25,000 -- and this
doesn't include cats or other vaccinations!
The
Veterinarian "Shot-based Practice" Model is a
systemically flawed economic approach and
potentially detrimental to companion animals. Bad
practice-management becomes bad medicine,
resulting in unnecessary -- and widespread --
death, illness, reduced longevity of companion
animals and unnecessary cost to owners.
——————————————————————
Shot Based
Practice Analysis
The vast
majority of dog owners vaccinate yearly. There is
an arguably safer choice --the three year rabies
vaccination option -- but many, many in the
veterinarian community are not informing the
guardians (pet owners) to the potential detriment
of their animal companions’ (pets’) life, health,
and longevity.
Could
economics be a factor in this lethargic effort on
the part of many vets to provide their clients
with an opportunity for informed consent?
Yearly
rabies vaccination is big business and materially
impacts the small-animal vet practice!
We can
make these assumptions based upon various surveys
and studies printed by animal association groups
and trade associations.
· Average
vet has 2,500 dogs and cats (45% dogs).
· Cost of
vial of rabies vaccine is 61 cents.
· Cost of
inoculation is between $15 and $38 yearly not
including office visit.
· Cost of
office visit is approximately $35.
· Price
markup on rabies vaccine: 2400% to 6200% and
again, this does not include the office visit.
If 100% of
the dogs in the average one-vet practice are
annually given the rabies vaccine= 2,500*.45 (dogs
per practice) or 1,125 dogs.
The gross
operating profit (after cost of goods, 61cents per
shot) equals:
@$15 per
shot, a net of $14.39 = $16,189.
@$38 per
shot, a net of $37.39 = $42,064.
If the
three year option is exercised (versus a yearly
vaccination for rabies), then each vet loses
between $32,000 ($16,000 x 2 years) and $84,000
($42,000 x 2 years) of operating profit in each
three-year vaccination period.
Adding
office visits (1 a year for 2 years x 1,125 dogs x
$35 per visit) = $78,800 of potential lost
revenue.
(Note: The
guardian should see that his/her companion animal
receives a wellness exam at least yearly, which
would extinguish this loss.)
Now,
consider these figures. The:
· Median
number of transactions per vet per year in 1997
was 5,102.
· Median
gross income per vet in 1997 was $305,000 for a
one- person practice.
·
Net-income median for a one-vet practice before
owner's compensation as a percentage of gross
income was 26.8%. Assuming $305,000, that would
be$87,300 for the average 1-vet practice.
· Average
transaction charge is $58.41 per vet in a one-vet
operation.
If 1,125
transactions for rabies vaccine would be lost here
is the impact on the one-vet practice for the two
years the dog doesn't get a rabies vaccine
(assuming no replacement revenue).
·
Transactions go from 5,102 to 3,887 or a 22%
decline.
· Gross
income falls (at $20 per shot plus $35 for an
office visit) by $62,000 from $305,000 to
$243,000.
· Net
median-income per vet in a one-vet situation could
drop from $87,000 to $25,000 or by 71%!
And this
is only if dogs were inoculated for rabies on a
three-year cycle. The impact magnifies with cats
going three years on the shot.
Source:
"Financial and Productivity Pulsepoints:
Comprehensive Survey and Analysis of Performance
Benchmarks:Vital Statistics For Your Veterinary
Practice," published by the American Animal
Hospital Association, 1998.
The Small
Vet (Non-emergency, non-specialist) Shot Model's
Systemic Dependence on Transactions Assumptions:
- That a
$25 rabies shot is eliminated for 1,000 dogs only
in one year. (Cats are not considered and parvo
virus and distemper shots would still be
administered annually).
- Profit
on the shot is $24.39 (the cost being 61 cents).
- 26% is
the net profit margin.
Result:
Instead of 1,000 transactions (shots) yielding
$24,390, the vet would have to gross $93,807 from
other areas of the practice to replace that net
revenue. Furthermore, using a $54 average per
transaction, the vet would have to conduct 70%
more transactions - 1,737 instead of 1,000 - which
would mean a 15% increase in workload (the average
vet has 5,100 transactions annually) just to be at
the same place. Then consider the loss of
office-visit revenue and take out cats, and parvo
and distemper annually, and the Small Vet Shot
Model indicates red ink.
It appears
that even at 20% of the gross revenue, rabies
shots may constitute 100% of the net profits - or
even worse, subsidize a net-deficit practice - of
average small-vet practices. The loss of two years
of shots, on which these practices seem dependent,
would have a devastating economic impact if not
replaced.
It appears
that the small-vet economic model is a "shot
model," based economically - by design or by
evolution - on transactions rather than expertise.
Such a model needs to be reexamined for validity
of purpose and economic consequences.
·
Vaccine-related cancer in cats: According to
Colorado State University Professor Dennis Macey,
"the incidence of this often fatal cancer
(sarcoma-cancer development at the vaccine site)
has been documented by several studies to be 1 to
3.2 per 10,000 cats receiving a rabies vaccine Š
If all the cats in Denver (estimated to be
400,000) were to be vaccinated yearly for rabies,
the unneeded additional vaccinations would result
in an additional 26 to 84 vaccine cancer sites per
year! Š I estimate 22,000 vaccine-associated
tumors per year. Since surgery is usually
unsuccessful, radiation treatment is necessary.
Treating all these cats would cost $66 million per
year."
-- "Are We
Vaccinating Too Much," Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, 1995
· And this
doesn't even consider vaccine related prolonged
illness or vaccine compounded deaths or reduced
longevity for cats - and doesn't consider the
impact on dogs at all!
—————————————————
Mere
Property or Next-To-Kin?
How much
money would it take to persuade you to give up
your television set? $3,000? What's that? You say
you have a 53" high-definition projection TV that
costs more that $3,000? Okay, would you give it up
for $30,000?
Well, the
pet food manufacturer, Iams Co., a division of
Proctor & Gamble, commissioned a Gallup poll,
which found that 66% of the respondents would not
trade their dog or cat for $1,000,000! (Dog Fancy,
May 2002 issue)
Here are
some more facts to chew on:
•An annual
American Animal Hospital Survey found that 83% of
companion-animal guardians (dog and cat owners)
"were somewhat likely … likely … or very likely"
to risk their life for their companion animal; 70%
said they would spend $1,000 on treatment for a
life-threatening illness or accident; 40% would
spend any amount necessary.
•Two other
studies found that between 44% and 76% of
companion animals sleep in their person's bed.
• Midland
National Life Insurance Company gives a discount
on life insurance for senior citizens who have a
dog, as it has been shown that dogs reduce stress
(high blood pressure), routine visits to the
doctor and, accordingly, medical expenses.
•In a
study by Dr. Karen Allen, assistance dogs were
able to substitute for paid-human assistance to
the elderly or physically challenged in 68% of
activities, saving a net-$13,000 a year in costs.
"Dogs
aren't my whole life, but they make my life
whole," wrote the late Roger A. Caras, noted
broadcaster, writer and editor.
Yet, our
laws still classify companion animals
(domesticated non-farm animals) as "mere
property." In Great Britain dogs and cats are
considered sentient beings.
Constructively, we are moving to recognize
domesticated non-farm animals as beyond mere
property in law. Several states now allow dogs and
cats effectively to be heirs – via trusts set up
for their care after the primary guardian has
passed away.
It is time
to declare companion animals (dogs and cats) to be
"beyond mere property" and recognize that they are
not mere objects. The value of the animal-human
bond, and the companionship generated by that
bond, should be legally recognized beyond the
depreciated value of the cat or dog. This is not
"whack-o animal rights" but simple protection both
for the companion animal and for the guardian.
By
recognizing the value of companion animals to be
"beyond mere property, Next-To-Kin," the law could
establish significant civil economic penalties for
the loss of that companionship through cruelty –
be it of the gut-wrenching variety or the silent,
systemic, willful acts of over-vaccination by
smiling veterinarians. What else would one call
economically driven acts that result in
unnecessary suffering, illness, reduced healthy
life span, and death?
As long as
these $1,000,000 companion animals are legally
considered mere property, there are no deterrents
to over-vaccination and other types of
self-serving, non-informed consent activities.
————————————————
The AVMA
Has Studied Vaccination Issues
Approved
by the American Veterinary Medical Association
Executive Board, April 2001, published in the
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association, Volume 219, No. 5, September 1, 2001.
INTRODUCTION
Medical
decisions about vaccine selection and protocols
have become more complex. Selecting vaccine
products and recommending vaccine programs are
among the most complicated of medical decisions
facing veterinarians. The reasons are numerous:
continued evolution of our understanding of the
immune system; increased value of animals to the
owner/client; improved medical-record systems, and
longer life-spans allowing the emergence of
chronic sequele. Improved understanding of
infectious diseases, the strengths and limitations
of the biologic regulatory-approval process, and
adverse events associated with vaccination also
complicate decisions required for best patient
care.
The
Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents (COBTA)
has studied the issues of vaccinology and
immunology for the past two years. This study
included a review of the scientific literature and
interactive testimony with four expert groups
including academic, regulatory, industry, and
practitioner experts. Topics included safety,
efficacy, duration of immunity, research and
development of vaccines, vaccine licensing,
product labeling, adverse events and adverse event
reporting, governmental oversight of
manufacturers, and legal issues associated with
medical procedures.
Vaccines
have played a significant role in enabling people
and animals to live longer in this world filled
with microbial pathogens. Vaccine products vary in
efficacy and safety. Modern science continues to
learn more about the immune systems and to develop
strategies and technology for safer and more
efficacious vaccines. Thorough evaluations of the
risks of the disease, and those potentially
associated with the vaccine, compared to the
benefits for the patient, are necessary in
crafting optimal health recommendations that
include vaccination.
COBTA
concludes that there currently exists inadequate
data to scientifically determine a single best
protocol for vaccination or revaccination.
Advances in antigen science, adjuvant function,
impacts of different vaccine carrier solutions,
and the immune system's acute and chronic
reactions to stimulation are impressive, but there
remain gaps in our understanding. The body of
knowledge about the variability of genetics within
a breed or species, and the resulting impacts on
the individual patient's response to vaccine or
associated adverse reactions, is increasing but
remains insufficient to make general
recommendations. COBTA believes that variation in
our patients and their lifestyle, and between the
individual vaccine products available, requires a
customized approach to vaccination recommendations
to best match the variation in the patients
presented for immunization.
The
practitioner and client must make the best
patient-care decisions where there exists a valid
veterinarian-client-patient relationship. Vaccine
decisions require a thorough and ongoing review of
scientific information and expert opinion of this
constantly evolving area to properly prepare the
customized vaccine recommendations animal patients
require.
The
one-year revaccination frequency recommendation
found on many vaccine labels is based on
historical precedent and United Sates Department
of Agriculture regulation, not on scientific data.
Even in those cases where scientific data was
submitted to qualify the label claim, the data
generated does not resolve the question about
average or maximum duration of immunity.
There is
evidence that some vaccines provide immunity
beyond one year. Revaccination of patients with
sufficient immunity does not add measurably to
their disease resistance and may increase their
risk of adverse post-vaccination events.
Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with
both benefits and associated hazards.
It is not
currently possible to determine the immune status
of a patient relative to all the infectious
diseases of concern without conducting a challenge
test. Serology does not predict a patient's immune
status for most diseases. For those diseases where
serology has predictive value of a patient's
immune status, the variation within and between
laboratories renders the procedure generally
unreliable.
Adverse
events may be associated with the antigen,
adjuvant, carrier, preservative, or a combination
thereof. Possible adverse events include failure
to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression,
autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or
long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a
causal association in cats between injection sites
and the subsequent development of a malignant
tumor is the subject of ongoing research. The role
of genetic predisposition to adverse events needs
further exploration and definition.
Vaccine
program goals include providing optimal immunity,
against clinically relevant diseases the patient
is at-risk to contract, while minimizing the
potential for adverse events.
Multiple
sources of information can be of value to
practitioners in their review of vaccine and
infectious diseases, including scientific data and
opinion from experts, species and specialty
groups, manufacturers and government agencies. All
sources of scientific information and expert
opinion need to be carefully and critically
considered to properly prepare the customized
vaccine programs, animal patients require.
PRINCIPLES
OF VACCINATION
1.
Vaccination is a potent medical procedure
associated with both benefits and risks for the
patient. Adverse events, including some that are
potentially severe, can be unintended consequences
of vaccination.
2. The
proper application of vaccines to animal
populations has enhanced their health and welfare,
and prolonged their life-spans. The risks to
animal health from non-vaccination are
significant.
3. The
goal for a vaccination program is to prevent
disease and thereby promote optimal patient, herd,
and/or public health.
4.
Different patients require different vaccines and
vaccination programs.
5.
Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does
not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may
increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination
events.
6.
Vaccination protects a population of animals by
providing a level of resistance to a disease in
those individual patients that are able to
respond. Vaccination does not protect every
individual patient even when they are properly
vaccinated.
7. Disease
carriers, including animals that shed the
infectious agent but do not show signs of illness,
are local sources of infection for susceptible
animals. Sufficient immunity within a population
of animals is an important component of preventing
high rates of disease. Programs targeting
immunization of unvaccinated animals are critical
to disease control.
8.
Knowledge of immunology and vaccinology, including
associated benefits and risks, and the
pathobiology of infectious diseases, are necessary
to implement an effective vaccination program.
Consideration of exposure, susceptibility,
potential severity of disease, efficacy and safety
of vaccine, any potential public health concerns,
and the owner's preferences are appropriate.
9. Only
those veterinarians with valid
veterinarian-client-patient relationships are in
position to make recommendations customized to the
needs of the individual patient(s) and
owner/client.
10.
Revaccination recommendations should be designed
to maintain clinically relevant immunity while
minimizing adverse event potential.
11.
Additional information, including
vaccine-specific, scientific data on minimum,
average, and maximum duration of immunity is
desired to craft optimal revaccination-frequency
recommendations.
12.
Vaccines, including polyvalent products, should be
selected to include only those antigens
appropriate for the specific risk needs of the
patient, thereby eliminating unnecessary immune
system stimulation and lowering potential risks of
adverse events.
13.
Multiple-dose vaccine vials must be carefully
managed to:
… Minimize
the potential for delivering inappropriate levels
of antigen or adjuvant.
… Optimize
the potential for maximum potency of the antigens
present.
… And
minimize the opportunity for contamination with
extraneous microbes or chemicals.
14.
Veterinarians should create a core vaccine
program, intended for use in the majority of
animals in their practice area. Core vaccines are
those that protect from diseases that are widely
distributed in the region, virulent and highly
infectious, thereby posing a risk of severe
disease. Core vaccines are efficacious and exhibit
patient benefit-risk ratios high enough to warrant
their use, and/or are of significant public health
significance, or required by law.
15.
Veterinarians should consider creating non-core
vaccine programs, intended for a minority of
animals in their practice area. Non-core vaccines
are those that target diseases that are of limited
risk in the region, and /or represent less severe
threats to infected patients, and/or vaccine
benefit-risk ratios are too low to warrant the use
of these products in all circumstances, and/or
scientific information is inadequate to evaluate
these products. Veterinarians and owners/clients
need to carefully consider the benefits and risks
of using these vaccine products on an individual
basis.
16.
Information about the benefits and risks of
vaccination are important in owners' decisions
about individual vaccine selection and vaccination
program choices.
17. USDA
licensed products have had the manufacturer's
claims about vaccine performance substantiated by
a variety of testing methods. Careful evaluation
of labels and other information is necessary to
compare and contrast between the available
products.
18. There
is a critical need for more fully developed,
scientifically based, and statistically valid
evaluations of vaccine products to provide
practitioners with a basis for developing
vaccination programs that maximize benefits and
minimize associated risks for patients under their
care.
19.
Current adverse-event reporting systems used need
significant improvement in the capture, analysis,
and reporting of adverse events. Practitioner
commitment to adverse event reporting, and timely
access for practitioners to current analysis of
adverse event data, are essential to providing
optimal patient care.
20. There
is potential legal liability for all medical
procedures including vaccination.
VACCINE
LICENSING
Biological
agents are regulated by the USDA, not the Food and
Drug Administration, and thus are not subject to
those regulations that address extra label use.
Veterinarians can legally use vaccines in a
discretionary manner.
USDA
licensing at the full approval level provides a
baseline standard for efficacy, safety, purity,
and potency, but the clinical need (relevancy) or
usefulness (applicability) of a product are not
assured by the licensing process. The USDA must
approve labels for biological products. However,
current labels frequently contain revaccination
interval recommendations based on historical
precedence and regulation rather than scientific
data, may fail to adequately inform practitioners
about the optimal use of the product, and the
testing methods may be inadequate to identify rare
but relevant safety concerns.
Labels on
licensed vaccines make different claims and should
be carefully studied when evaluating products.
Claims may, for example, declare the product (a)
prevents infection, (b) prevents disease, or (c)
results in a decreased number or a decreased
intensity of clinical signs. Each of these claims
represents a different level of performance
outcome that might be important in selection of a
specific vaccine.
USDA-approved products licensed under the
conditional approval process have demonstrated a
reasonable expectation of efficacy. Autogenuous
vaccines have no demonstrated efficacy.
————————————————
One
Companion Animal A Day
"Save a
life and you save the world." Talmud
"One
companion animal at a time" Next-To-Kin sm
Wondering
what you can do to improve the lives of companion
animals and their guardians? Try to inform one
person a day about the dangers of
over-vaccination.
It's very
easy. No one is a stranger when they have a dog or
cat.
For
example, you have a water leak in the house. Ask
the maintenance manager or plumber who comes to
fix the leak if he has a dog or cat.
Ask them:
Do you vaccinate annually? Do you realize that's
not necessary? Do you know that one in every 10
dogs and cats may suffer potentially serious side
effects from vaccinations?
People -
strangers, who then are no longer strangers - love
to talk and care about their companion animals.
So try to
help one companion animal a day by talking to one
guardian a day. It will have a real impact - right
away.
———————————————
Be
Informed About Vaccine
"We have
to change our focus from yearly vaccination to
that of a yearly physical."
-- Dr.
Fred Scott, Professor of Virology and Director of
the Cornell Feline Health Center in "Are We
Vaccinating Too Much?" Journal of American
Veterinary Medical Association, 1995.
"Clients
Should Be Informed About Vaccine Use. There are
legal and professional reasons to adequately
inform clients about the vaccines practitioners
use in their patients. Clients should be informed
about the relative benefits and risks of vaccine
use. They also should understand that vaccination
does not guarantee protection and they should be
informed about the potential adverse effects of
vaccines. In general, clients should receive
sufficient information to enable a reasonable
person to reach an informed decision regarding an
animal's medical care."
--
“Vaccination Issues of Concern To Practitioners,”
Journal of American Veterinary Medical
Association, April 1, 1999.
"The final
decision concerning individual vaccines to be
administered should be based on risk and benefit
assessment by the client and the vet."
-- Small
Animal Vaccination Protocol, Colorado State
University, College of Veterinary Science.
Clearly,
there are responsible voices within the veterinary
profession calling upon practitioners to kick
their annual-vaccination-shot economic habit and
to properly inform guardians about the benefits
and dangers of vaccine use. A glance at the dates
of the above articles show how little vets have
listened, despite the clarion character of the
calls.
What
should be done?
1. The
veterinary associations should launch a public
information campaign, advising all
companion-animal owners of the three-year rabies
vaccination option. Advertisements in local
newspapers across the country as well as print and
broadcasting public-service announcements are
suggested at a minimum.
2. Vets
should answer client-guardians’ questions about
vaccinations and the vet’s vaccination policies –
questions such as those listed in the
questionnaire found elsewhere on this website.
3. The
veterinary associations must make non-notification
by vets of the three-year vaccination option
subject to suspension and/or revocation of
license. Investigations should be made of known
situations by the vet societies and state vet
boards in the light of day -- with no gag orders
or secrecy - to determine a resolution of the
situation and to impose sanctions and penalties
where appropriate as a deterrent.
4. At
vaccination time an Informed Consent Notification
form would verify that the vet has discussed the
issues of vaccination with the client-guardian.
The Informed Consent form would be signed by the
vet and include the guardian's initials, affirming
that he or she has been informed of the following
by the vet:
• The
potential side effects and adverse reactions of
the vaccine relative to the benefits.
• What are
the vaccination options (three-year versus
one-year) and the pros and cons of each.
• Which
vaccines are medically necessary for the pet's
health and which are not necessary based on the
latest research.
The
original copy of the Informed Consent Notification
form would be kept by the owner/guardian and a
copy would be kept by the veterinarian.
————————————————
What Do
The Experts Say?
"The
practice of annual (pet) vaccinations lacks
scientific validity or verification. There is no
immunological requirement for annual vaccinations.
The practice of annual vaccinations should be
considered of questionable efficacy."
-- Kirk's
Current Veterinary Therapy (The Textbook Bible for
Veterinarians)
"There is
strong and growing consensus among immunology and
infectious disease experts that annual vaccination
(of dogs and cats) is neither necessary nor
advisable. The vast majority, if not all of the
North American veterinarian schools, are currently
recommending reduced frequency of vaccination."
-- "Does
My Pet Need Annual Vaccinations", American Animal
Hospital Association, 1999
"Our
adoption of this routine vaccination program
(three-year vaccination) is based on the lack of
scientific evidence to support the current
practice of annual vaccination and increasing
documentation showing that over-vaccinating has
been associated with harmful side effects. Of
particular note in this regard has been the
association of autoimmune hemolytic anemia with
vaccination of dogs and vaccine-associated
sarcomas in cats -- both of which are often
fatal."
--
Colorado State University's Small Animal
Vaccination Protocol
"To insure
efficacy, manufacturers (of vaccines) for years
have made vaccines 10 times more potent than what
is needed to challenge the immune system."
-- "The
Nature of Animal Healing", Martin Goldstein, DVM
·
Vaccine-related cancer in cats: According to
Colorado State University Professor Dennis Macy,
"the incidence of this often fatal cancer
(sarcoma-cancer development at the vaccine site)
has been documented by several studies to be 1 to
3.2 per 10,000 cats receiving a rabies vaccine If
all the cats in Denver (estimated to be 400,000)
were to be vaccinated yearly for rabies, the
unneeded additional vaccinations would result in
an additional 26 to 84 vaccine cancer sites per
year! I estimate 22,000 vaccine-associated tumors
per year. Since surgery is usually unsuccessful,
radiation treatment is necessary. Treating all
these cats would cost $66 million per year."
-- "Are We
Vaccinating Too Much," Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, 1995
The
"Benefit" of Annual Vaccinations
"Almost
without exception there is no immunologic
requirements for annual revaccination. Successful
vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces
an immunologic memory that remains for years.
Furthermore, revaccination with most viral
vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic
(secondary response) as a result of interference
by existing antibody."
--
Professors Tom Phillips and Ron Schultz, "Canine
and Feline Vaccines," Kirk's Current Veterinarian
Therapy XI
"Dr. Mark
Wood, representing the Animal Health Institute, a
trade organization for vaccine manufacturers has
indicated the arbitrary revaccination label on
vaccines has no legal significance."
--Cite 24,
Small Animal Vaccination Protocols, Veterinary
Teaching Hospital, College of Veterinary Medicine
and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University
"Vets and
kennels are demanding that pets are vaccinated
unnecessarily, and the owners are being fleeced.
The veterinary profession and the vaccine
manufacturers should be subject to adequate
external monitoring."
--
Professor Richard Lacey, former member of the
Ministry of Agriculture Veterinary Products
Committee (VPC), United Kingdom
The
Three-Year (Triennial) Vaccination and Its Impact
on Public Health
Dr. Kevin
Reily is quoted as saying, "It is clear from both
controlled laboratory challenged studies and more
than 20 years of field experience with the
triennial (every three years vaccination) rabies
programs, that the three year rabies vaccines are
extremely effective."
Reily, a
vet for (public health officer in charge of rabies
control), the state of California, where the risk
of rabies is much higher having both bat and skunk
rabies and ten million dogs and cats at risk, has
used the triennial vaccination program in dogs and
cats for the last 20 years. No currently
vaccinated dogs or cats have developed rabies
during the two decades. In addition, that no
animal received just two rabies vaccines in its
lifetime, regardless of current rabies vaccine
status, developed rabies in the state of
California during the last 20 years!"
Source:
"Denver's Rabies Laws - Take Another Look!",
Professor Dennis Macy, DVM, MS, Professor,
Internal Medicine/Oncology (Colorado State
University, College of Veterinary Medicine and
Biomedical Sciences), Head, Treatment Section of
AVMA Feline Vaccine-Associated Sarcoma Task Force.
"Even
Rabies vaccine is probably good for more than 3
years, since it is a viral vaccine. The tests done
by the vaccine manufacturers on the required 7
dogs were carried out only at three years
post-vaccine. If they had tested dogs longer
post-vaccine, rabies [vaccine] may be good for
life."
--"Veterinarian Advice Line", Chistina Chambreau,
DVM
————————————————
Heroes in
Reviewing Over-vaccination
The case
against over-vaccinating has been made since the
1970s by the pioneer in this area, W. Jean Dodds,
DVM.
In the
1990s Professors Ron Schultz and Tom Phillips,
Scripps Research Institute and University of
Wisconsin, and Professor Dennis Macy, Colorado
State University, added further to the body of
research and information.
Martin
Goldstein, DVM, author of The Nature of Animal
Healing (Knopf) is also a useful source.
Robert
Rogers, DVM of Spring, Texas has extensive
first-hand knowledge and experience with the
vaccine controversy as a practicing veterinarian,
in vet associations, and with regulatory
organizations.
Ms.
Catherine O'Driscoll, author of the international
book, What Vets Don't Tell About Vaccines
(Applewood Publishing, Derbyshire, United Kingdom
) is an invaluable source.
————————————————
Questions
to Ask Your Vet
By Jim
Schwartz, Founder of Next-To-Kin, man of dog
1. Why are
you suggesting annual rabies vaccinations?
2. What
scientific evidence supports annual rabies
vaccinations?
3. Does a
Yorkshire Terrier get the same shot-the same
dosage-as a Great Dane? Does one size fit all?
4. Is it
true there is a three-year vaccination option?
5. If the
3-year option was available prior to vaccinating
my companion animal and you did not inform me of
this, how come?
6. Were
you aware of the American Veterinary Medical
Association's position that the companion- animal
owner should be given the opportunity for informed
consent relative to vaccination options (rabies,
etc.)?
7. Is it
true that the efficacy (life) of the rabies
vaccination is 5-7 years?
8. What is
the adverse-reaction impact of the rabies
vaccination per 1,000 cats or dogs? Is it not true
that adverse reactions are self- reported by the
veterinarians? Might vets be economically
disadvantaged by self-reporting actual numbers of
adverse reactions to vaccinations, as such
statistics might show unnecessary risks of annual
vaccination shots?
9. Is it
true that the vaccine manufacturers recommend that
the vaccination should be given only to healthy
animals?
10. Is it
true that the cost of the rabies vaccine is 50 to
75 cents, at most, and that the cost to the
companion- animal guardian for the shot is
$15-$38, plus an additional $30-$35 for the office
visit?
11. With
just losing annual rabies vaccination of dogs and
cats (not including distemper and parvo) and the
accompanying shot-related office visits would your
practice be profitable in the non-vaccination
years?
————————————————
Ethical
Considerations and Legal Concerns
Vet
Economics or Animal Companions' Well-Being?
How many
thousands and thousands of pets have died
unnecessarily, had illnesses needlessly, and had
their healthy longevity reduced because
veterinarians knowingly failed to inform guardians
of the three-year rabies option - and the risks
and benefits of rabies vaccine?
"We should
not allow politics and tradition or greed to enter
the decision (on frequency of vaccination).
Changing vaccination schedules doesn't have to
mean less profit, but that you have more income
from some clients and less from others.
Veterinarians and the industry need to have guts
to be honest with ourselves and assess the risk
and not be trapped in tradition."
-- Dr.
Dennis Macy in "Are We Vaccinating Too Much?" AVMA
Journal, 1995
Be
Informed About Vaccine
"We have
to change our focus from yearly vaccination to
that of a yearly physical."
-Dr. Fred
Scott, Professor of Virology and Director of the
Cornell Feline Health Center in "Are We
Vaccinating Too Much?" Journal of American
Veterinary Medicine, 1995.
"Clients
Should Be Informed About Vaccine Use. There are
legal and professional reasons to adequately
inform clients about the vaccines practitioners
use in their patients. Clients should be informed
about the relative benefits and risks of vaccine
use. They also should understand that vaccination
does not guarantee protection and they should be
informed about the potential adverse effects of
vaccines. In general, clients should receive
sufficient information to enable a reasonable
person to reach an informed decision regarding an
animal's medical care."
-"Vaccination Issues of Concern To Practitioners,"
Journal of American Veterinary Association, April
1, 1999.
"The final
decision concerning individual vaccines to be
administered should be based on risk and benefit
assessment by the client and the vet."
-Small
Animal Vaccination Protocol, Colorado State
University, College of Veterinary Science.
Clearly,
there are responsible voices within the veterinary
profession calling upon practitioners to kick
their annual-vaccination-shot economic habit and
to properly inform guardians about the benefits
and dangers of vaccine use. A glance at the dates
of the above articles show how little vets have
listened, despite the clarion character of the
calls.
What
should be done?
1. The
veterinary associations should launch a public
information campaign, advising all
companion-animal owners of the three-year rabies
vaccination option. Advertisements in local
newspapers across the country as well as print and
broadcasting public-service announcements are
suggested at a minimum.
2. Vets
should answer client-guardians' questions about
vaccinations and the vet's vaccination policies -
questions such as those listed in the
questionnaire found elsewhere on this website.
3. The
veterinary associations must make non-notification
by vets of the three-year vaccination option
subject to suspension and/or revocation of
license. Investigations should be made of known
situations by the vet societies and state vet
boards in the light of day -- with no gag orders
or secrecy to determine a resolution of the
situation and to impose sanctions and penalties
where appropriate as a deterrent.
4. At
vaccination time an Informed Consent Notification
form would verify that the vet has discussed the
issues of vaccination with the client-guardian.
The Informed Consent form would be signed by the
vet and include the guardian's initials, affirming
that he or she has been informed of the following
by the vet:
… The
potential side effects and adverse reactions of
the vaccine relative to the benefits.
… What are
the vaccination options (three-year versus
one-year) and the pros and cons of each.
… Which
vaccines are medically necessary for the pet's
health and which are not necessary based on the
latest research.
The
original copy of the Informed Consent Notification
form would be kept by the owner/guardian and a
copy would be kept by the veterinarian.
——————————————————————
Moolah's
Story: What happened to the Standard of
Excellence?
By Jim
Schwartz, Founder of Next-To-Kin, man of dog
My first
generation of companion animals were all named
after great professional wrestlers. There was my
silver Miniature Poodle, Buddy; named after Nature
Boy, Buddy Rogers, the first dual National
Wrestling Alliance/World Wide Wrestling Federation
champion. There was Nicki, a Black Lab-Shepherd
female who was named after Nick Bockwinkle, the
American Wrestling Association champion; and there
was Rickie, a female marked Maltese - all nine
pounds of her - who was named after Ric Flair, the
16-time NWA/WWF champion.
Then there
was my black Standard Poodle, Moolah, the Standard
of Excellence. Moolah was named after Lillian
Ellison, who wrestled as the Fabulous Moolah.
Lillian is probably the greatest female wrestling
champion known to date. For 27 years, she was the
champ and she trained all the subsequent female
wrestlers for many years. I picked Moolah from a
litter of 11 puppies. She was such a fabulous dog
that I named her "The Fabulous Moolah - The
Standard of Excellence."
On October
29, 1999, I brought Moolah in for her annual
rabies shot. At that time, I asked the vet, "Can
we not do the three-year rabies vaccine - like we
are doing the three-year parvo and distemper?"
"No," I
was told. "Arapahoe County [Colorado] still
requires the annual rabies vaccination."
Now
Moolah, at the time, was not in the best of health
to begin with. Secondly, she was 11 years of age.
I would later learn that both of these are
critical concerns. I would later learn that the
rabies-vaccine label typically states "only
administer to healthy dogs." I would later learn
that the research is pretty overwhelming that
older dogs do not need the vaccination -
especially if they are kept in a confined area and
out of the woods.
However,
at that time, I was not aware of those points. Nor
was I aware that Colorado had passed, in January
of 1999, a bill allowing the three-year rabies
vaccination - or that it had been enacted into law
in July of 1999, four months prior to Moolah's
shot.
Moolah
developed autoimmune illness.
Every
guardian knows his or her dog. Moolah wasn't
herself. Normally upon my calling, she would be up
instantly. Now she wasn't. Moolah always ate very
well. (Once she got into my Werther's Original
gold-wrapped butterscotch candies, devouring them.
When I looked for them and accused her, she gave
me a "who me?" look even as the wrappers dangled
like tinsel from her ears). Now she wasn't eating
well, either.
Moolah was
always at my side. Now, she was in the cool
hallway - panting and panting and panting. Her
gums became pale. Her blood platelet counts
dropped like a rock; Oxyglobin was used, special
medication requiring me to wear gloves. Her
platelets continued to drop. Her dosages of the
steroid prednisone were increased.
She still
wasn't eating -- not even Good Times hamburgers
with cheese.
I was
advised to leave her at the vet's for a 24-hour
watch. It went on for days; I visited her several
times daily. The last day she looked at me as if
to say, "Take me home to die." I didn't. I can
still see her face as she went back into the cage.
Then came
the call: "You ought to come down."
Five-six-seven thousand dollars later - all to no
avail - she could hardly get up; she could hardly
breathe. Hearing my voice when I entered, for the
first and last time that day, she raised her head.
It was
time. I had promised my late-friend Fred Burke to
do what he had done: "I bring them into my life,"
he said, "I will be the one that takes them out."
I sang to
Moolah and held her. The vet sedated her. I kept
my promise to Fred Burke.
Sadly, The
Fabulous Moolah's case is not isolated. It
unfortunately happens every day.
The vet
that I liked left the clinic that I was not happy
with to join a new clinic. So, this is early in
the year 2000, February or March. It was time for
shots for Ellie-or to look into shots for Ellie-my
black, female Standard Poodle, and I asked the vet
about the annual rabies vaccination.
"No, we
can do a three-year vaccination," she said.
I asked,
"Did that just occur?"
The doctor
replied, "No. I mean, we've had it since 1999."
Well, that
was interesting to me. So, I called the vet clinic
that had given Moolah her shot, talked with the
manager, and asked, "Do you still do the annual
vaccination?"
She
replied, "Yes."
I asked,
"Is it still required by Arapahoe County?"
She said,
"Yes, Arapahoe County requires it."
I was
convinced that Arapahoe County was at fault. Why
would I think otherwise? Why would the vets
mislead me? So I inquired at Arapahoe County
Animal Control and eventually learned that they
were not at fault. As a matter of fact, they had
notified everyone of the change in the rabies
vaccination law. Additionally, I learned that the
vaccination period was not set by county ordinance
but by state law.
Subsequently, I learned of a study in Europe
indicating that 7 to 12 percent of all vaccinated
companion animals experience adverse reactions
within the first 45 days, including death and
autoimmune illness. The 1-in-10,000 and
1-in-100,000 adverse reaction statistics, thrown
around by some veterinarians, have not been
validated scientifically and are based on
reactions reported by veterinarians themselves.
That's sort of like Dracula guarding the blood
bank. There is no real good data on these adverse
reactions that I am aware of, other than that
European study.
Based upon
all of this information a list of questions was
developed and submitted to the veterinary firm
(part of a national chain) that had given Moolah
the fatal shot. They wouldn't respond to the
questions, but they sent the questionnaire on to
the veterinary group's Southwest Regional medical
director, Dr. Rocky McKelvey. He wrote back that
the issue of annual vaccinations is a
controversial subject, that it's based on local
regulation, and that this national chain of more
than 100 free-standing animal hospitals has chosen
to practice "conservative medicine" and recommend
annual rabies vaccination.
Then on
September 1, 2001, the American Veterinary Medical
Association issued "Principles of Vaccination"
that state that the practice of annual rabies
vaccination is based on historical precedent and
government regulation not scientific data. And
that's the basis for the practice of conservative
medicine?
This
brings up the real question: Who can you trust?
Moolah's rabies shot did not come from a rogue vet
or as a random act. The practice of annual
vaccinations by this large group of freestanding
vet hospitals continued in 2001, according to Dr.
Rocky McKelvey. Moolah has passed on and there is
no bringing her back. I realize this. Why do I
tell Moolah's story? Because what happened to
Moolah need not, and should not, happen to another
dog. Unfortunately, since December 28, 1999,
annual shots bearing potentially deadly side
effects have been issued to thousands of dogs and
cats knowingly, willingly, systemically by
economically motivated "professionals."
Who can
you trust? Guardians must ask about alternatives
to annual rabies vaccinations because, obviously,
the vets are not informing them. Not when the cost
of the rabies vaccine to the vets is 61 cents per
shot and they sell it to guardians for from $15 to
$38 along with a $35 office exam. Are vets in
professional practices or are they in
transaction-based practices - no different than
commissioned salespersons? There are many, many,
many veterinary practices that thrive and have
done wonderfully - as illustrated in their own vet
magazines - without being dependent upon
transaction-based shots.
Why has
this annual-rabies-shot practice gone on for
20-plus years? I can connect the dots only one
way, and it draws a picture of economics.
I was
financial planner of the year in 1985. I founded
the National Association of Personal Financial
Advisors, the largest fee-only organization. I've
written a book on financial planning that's gone
into two editions. It's been critically acclaimed
and 10 years later has been called one of the few
classics in the business. I pioneered no-load
insurance in this country and authored or have
been mentioned in hundreds of different articles
during my time. Had I not had this background, I
doubt that I would have put two and two together.
Maybe this
is not how the dots are connected. But in light of
the vaccination protocols of all of the major vet
schools, in light of the American Animal Hospital
Association saying three-year vaccinations, in
light of the law changes, any vet - any vet - who
continues to practice a vaccination protocol of
annual rabies shots, without providing guardians
with the opportunity for informed consent, in my
opinion, is guilty of malpractice and silent,
deadly, animal cruelty.
I can't
bring the Fabulous Moolah back. But I can carry on
her legacy by applying her Standard of Excellence
to the veterinary profession and, hopefully, save
millions of dogs and cats from death and
suffering, and save their guardians from the
suffering and the cost.
And thus,
we established Next-To-Kin, for The Fabulous
Moolah - The Standard of Excellence, and for your
fabulous canine companions.
