RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

2008 RABIES--Report on Adverse Vaccine Reactions in Dogs & Vaccine info

61K views 291 replies 48 participants last post by  Kris L. Christine 
#1 · (Edited)
There is much confusion in the general public about the duration of immunity of canine vaccines. Below is a copy of my testimony and model disclosure submitted to Maine's Agriculture Committee in support of LD 429, the nation's first pet vaccine disclosure legislation, which was introduced on my behalf by Representative Peter Rines of Wiscasset. Anyone who wishes to have copies of the attachments referenced below, please e-mail me at ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST THIS MESSAGE.

February 27, 2005

TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee

RE: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms

My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Maine. Before I begin my testimony, I’d like to advise the committee that one of the world’s leading veterinary research scientists, Dr. W. Jean Dodds, wanted to be here today to testify in support of LD429, but could not do so because of prior commitments. With her permission, in the attachments to my testimony, I have included her letter to Representative Peter Rines dated February 17, 2005 (Attachment 5) resolutely endorsing this first-in-the-nation veterinary vaccine disclosure legislation.

I am here today to respectfully urge this committee to recommend passage of LD429 – An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms because pet owners need the scientifically proven durations of immunity (how long vaccines are effective for) in order to make informed medical choices for their animals.

Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health. The human equivalent would be physicians vaccinating patients against tetanus once every year, two years, or three years and not disclosing that the vaccines are known to be protective for 10 years.

For years veterinarians have sent pet owners annual, biennial and triennial reminders for redundant booster shots and justified it with vaccine manufacturers’ labeled recommendations. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6), “..revaccination frequency recommendations found on many vaccine labels is based on historical precedent, not on scientific data … [and] does not resolve the question about average or maximum duration of immunity [Page 2] and..may fail to adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product…[Page 4] .” As the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital states it: “…booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers.”

Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is at the forefront of vaccine research and is one of the world’s leading authorities on veterinary vaccines. His challenge study results form the scientific base of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (Attachment 7). These studies are based on science – they are not arbitrary. The public, however, cannot access this data. The American Animal Hospital Association only makes this report available to veterinarians, not private citizens, and Maine’s pet owners are unaware that the AAHA Guidelines state on Page 18 that: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.” They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been proven to protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years based on antibody count. So, unless the Legislature passes LD429 requiring veterinarians to provide vaccine disclosure forms, dog owners who receive an annual, biennial, or triennial reminders for booster shots will not know that nationally-accepted scientific studies have demonstrated that animals are protected a minimum of 7 years after vaccination with the distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2 vaccines (see Page 12 AAHA 2003 Guidelines attached, and Table 1, Pages 3 and 4).

"My own pets are vaccinated once or twice as pups and kittens, then never again except for rabies,” Wall Street Journal reporter Rhonda L. Rundle quoted Dr. Ronald Schultz in a July 31, 2002 article entitled Annual Pet Vaccinations may be Unnecessary, Fatal (Attachment 2). Dr. Schultz knows something the pet-owning public doesn’t – he knows there’s no benefit in overvaccinating animals because immunity is not enhanced, but the risk of harmful adverse reactions is increased. He also knows that most core veterinary vaccines are protective for at least seven years, if not for the lifetime of the animal.

The first entry under Appendix 2 of the AAHA Guidelines (Attachment 7) “Important Vaccination ‘Do’s and Don’ts” is “Do Not Vaccinate Needlessly – Don’t revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines that prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk.” They also caution veterinarians: “Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient – Vaccines are potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of producing adverse events.” Very few pet owners have had this disclosed to them.

The AVMA’s Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6) states that “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events.” (page 2) They elaborate by reporting that: “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.”(Page 2)

Referring to adverse reactions from vaccines, the Wall Street Journal article cited above (Attachment 2) reports: “In cats there has been a large increase in hyperthyroidism and cancerous tumors between the shoulder blades where vaccines typically are injected.” With modified live virus vaccines (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis), some animals can actually contract the same disease which they are being inoculated against. If the public knew an animal’s immunity to disease is not increased by overvaccination, they would certainly not consent to expose their pets to potential harm by giving them excessive booster shots.

Veterinary vaccines are potent biologic drugs – most having proven durations of immunity much longer than the annual, biennial or triennial booster frequencies recommended by vaccine manufacturers and veterinarians. They also carry the very real risk of serious adverse side affects and should not be administered more often than necessary to maintain immunity.

The extended durations of immunity for vaccines is not “new” or “recent” science as some members of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) have claimed. AAHA reveals on Page 2 of their Guidelines that ideal reduced vaccination protocols were recommended by vaccinology experts beginning in 1978. A Veterinary Practice News article entitled “Managing Vaccine Changes” (Attachment 3) by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reports that: “Change has been discussed for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country."

According to a September 1, 2004 article in the DVM veterinary news magazine (Attachment 1), the 312 member Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) “champions full disclosure of vaccine information to pet owners.” MVMA president, Dr. Bill Bryant, is quoted as stating: “Its time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it.”

It is time. Pet owners have the right to know the scientifically proven durations of immunity for the veterinary vaccines given their animals, as well as the potential adverse side effects and benefits. LD 429 would make that standardized information available to all pet owners.

Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
Attachments
 
See less See more
#66 ·
I apologize for not stating more clearly, unlike some, these are just my opinions from my research and everyone needs to make there own decisions. I thought I had said this before. I guess part of the problem is I should have put quotes around some of my information showing it was from others. Since I did not quote them exact, I did not do this.
These vaccination schedules were from the above mentioned Doctors in my posts, and others. I should have made that more clear.

My point on all this is just because there is laws, rules, information, does not mean it is correct. On the other hand, any information I choose to believe, does not mean it is correct either. I make my own informed decisions, and then go from there.

Lisa, I could have worded more clearly. You also should stop picking sentences out of laws and leaving out the rest to try to make your point. Example is when you chose to say the dogs will be put down, period. As you can see, that is not correct information. I do like these discussions because I am always learning, and drives me to do more research.

Thanks
 
#67 ·
You are correct Nancy, never doubted that. Who is to say what is correct? Is what you believe in the only or Correct way? These are just opinions, never said otherwise. How can anyone debate without opinions? Actually, opinions really don't have to be based on fact. I don't disagree with too much that has been said, I think if you look at the whole picture, we are probably very close to being on the same page.

You infer the Holistic way is not the best choice, you did this by the way your post is worded. This may be for another topic, but why do you think Holistic is not correct, do you have an opinion.
 
#68 ·
You infer the Holistic way is not the best choice, you did this by the way your post is worded. This may be for another topic, but why do you think Holistic is not correct, do you have an opinion.
Some of the holistic websites are pure poppycock with little science and a lot of hocus pocus. I do many things Holistically with supplements that boost the immune system and I find some holistic and herbal remedies helpful, but I also incorporate my medical background and knowledge, and where the animals are concerned, will side with medicine to protect my dogs. I've never had problems with my dogs and vaccines or the pups sold either. I believe in building a good immune system from before conception I don't think you have those problems. Some of the people that feel strongest may have had dogs from stock that had immune problems. I have modified my vaccination schedules and I separate the vaccines but I won't rely on titers because of the wide variability between laboratories in methodology and reporting, and the fact that there are 2 types of immunity measured, cellular and humoral, which means the titer may not reveal actually how protected the dog is, or in other words, you may have false confidence. I wouldn't trust going to a big trial or dog event if my dogs and others' weren't properly immunized and have them needlessly get sick or die because I lost one dog to cancer and blamed a rabies vaccine and didn't vaccinate my dogs. Why go back to the dark ages and tempt fate.
 
#69 ·
Thanks for the post Nancy, this gives me some helpful information to help in my research. I don't always agree that today's way is the best way, I am not just talking with this subject. I guess that is why I look for as much information as I can get. Times change, science changes and so will our opinions.

Thanks
 
#70 ·
RHODE ISLAND Rabies Law--Move to Change to 3 Year

Pet Owners in Rhode Island led by Jani Wolstenholme have initiated a legislative effort to change the state's 2 year rabies booster law to the national 3 year standard (see below).

What You Can Do to Help:

Contact your legislator and ask them to introduce a bill changing the 2 year booster requirement to conform to the 3 year protocol recommended by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians Rabies Compendium and ask your pet-owning friends to do the same.

Rhode Island General Assembly: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/ A full e-mail list of Rhode Island's Senators and Representatives is at the bottom of this post.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST

Sen. Paiva-Weed:


Dear Mrs. Paiva-Weed,

I live on Malbone Road in Newport. There is a small group of concerned dog/pet owners, which includes a veterinarian, here in the state who are worried about having to vaccinate our pets with the rabies vaccine too often. Right now we are required by law to have our dogs and cats vaccinated every two years. In order to get a dog license in Newport, we must have proof of vaccination. Studies done by several veterinary research programs have proven that titers run even seven years after a rabies vaccine show antibodies in the dog's system. Vaccine companies state on their vials that the vaccine should be given every 1,095 days (3 years), which clearly goes against what the state of Rhode Island's law recommends. This not only forces owners to pay more out of pocket every two years, but it endangers the pet by over-vaccination. Our law is contrary to the recommendations of the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians (NASPHV) and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and is counter to the inoculation instructions of the vaccine manufacturers. In fact, in its Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2003, the AVMA and NASPHV committee state under Part I B (3): "There are no laboratory or epidemiologic data to support the annual or biennial administration of 3-year vaccines following the initial series." .

In its Principles of Vaccination (2001), the AVMA concluded that:

Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events.

Having seen a close friend's older dog die within 2 weeks of rabies re-vaccination, which shut down her immune system, I don't want to put my own dog through that potential danger.

We are hoping that you will help us get this law updated. Just this past month, Arkansas changed their protocol to three years, as did Wyoming late last year. At the present time, Massachusetts has a law that states "by intervals recommended by the manufacturer", and Connecticut law is for vaccination every three years, so we would be just updating our law to correspond with our neighboring states.

Can we count on your help? Or can you recommend what we can do to rectify this situation?

Thank you for your consideration,

Respectfully,

Jani Wolstenholme


E-mails of all members of Rhode Island General Assembly

sen-goodwin@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-pichardo@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-perry@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-ruggerio@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-jabour@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-metts@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-ciccone@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-doyle@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-pinga@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-felag@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-levesque@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-dipalma@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-paivaweed@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-daponte@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-mcburney@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-crowley@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-eoneill@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-devall@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-connors@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-picard@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-blais@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-tassoni@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-fogarty@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-cote@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-maselli@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-lanzi@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-gallo@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-miller@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-mccaffrey@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-walaska@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-lynch@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-bates@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-raptakis@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-maher@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-lenihan@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-sheehan@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-sosnowski@rilin.state.ri.us; sen-algiere@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-ajello@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-almeida@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-azzinaro@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-baldellihunt@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-brien@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-caprio@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-carnevale@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-carter@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-ecoderre@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-corvese@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-costantino@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-dasilva@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-dennigan@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-desimone@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-diaz@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-driver@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-edwards@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-ehrhardt@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-fellela@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-ferri@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-fierro@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-flaherty@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-fox@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-gablinske@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-gallison@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-gemma@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-giannini@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-guthrie@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-handy@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-hearn@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-jackson@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-jacquard@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-kennedy@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-kilmartin@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-lally@rilin.state.ri.us; ; rep-lima@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-loughlin@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-macbeth@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-malik@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-marcello@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-martin@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-mattiello@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-mccauley@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-mcnamara@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-melo@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-menard@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-murphy@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-naughton@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-newberry@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-oneill@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-pacheco@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-palumbo@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-petrarca@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-pollard@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-mrice@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-rice@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-ruggiero@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-sanbento@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-savage@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-schadone@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-segal@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-serpa@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-shallcrosssmith@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-silva@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-slater@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-smith@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-story@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-sullivan@rilin.state.ri.us; reptrillo@aol.com; rep-ucci@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-vaudreuil@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-walsh@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-wasylyk@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-watson@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-williams@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-williamson@rilin.state.ri.us; rep-winfield@rilin.state.ri.us
 
#71 ·
Below is a copy of my letter to Rhode Island's Public Health Veterinarian, who responded that he is "planning to convene that body to review current regulations and protocols" and that he will present my petition.

Now is the time for concerned Rhode Island pet owners to contact their legislators about changing the state's rabies law to the national 3 year standard. To find your legislator, click on this link: Rhode Island General Assembly: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST

February 18, 2009

Dr. Scott Marshall Dr. David R. Gifford, Director
State Public Health Veterinarian Department of Health
Division of Agriculture 3 Capitol Hill
235 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908
Providence, RI 02908-5767

RE: Chapter 4-13-30 Rules and Regulations Governing the Suppression of Rabies

Greetings Drs. Marshall and Gifford:

On behalf of The Rabies Challenge Fund and concerned Rhode Island pet owners who have contacted us, I am writing to alert you to the fact that Rhode Island’s rabies regulations (Title 4, Chapter 4-13-30) requiring that dogs and cats receive boosters “not more than twenty-four (24) months have elapsed since the most recent vaccine” is contrary to the recommendations of all the national veterinary medical associations as well as the labeled specifications of all rabies vaccines licensed by the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The Center for Disease Control’s National Association of State Public Health Veterinarian's (NASPHV) Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control 2008 states that, “Vaccines used in state and local rabies control programs should have at least a 3-year duration of immunity. This constitutes the most effective method of increasing the proportion of immunized dogs and cats in any population (50).” They specifically warn that, (n)o laboratory or epidemiologic data exist to support the annual or biennial administration of 3- or 4-year vaccines following the initial series.” Also endorsing the NASPHV’s Rabies Compendium are the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)[1] and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA).[2]

Requiring Rhode Island’s pet owners to pay for medically unnecessary rabies vaccinations at least every 24 months, from which their animal derive no benefit, raises ethical and legal issues which may violate Chapter 6-13.1 of Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices as well as the Veterinary Practice Act (Chapter 5-25) when veterinarians are compelled to administer 3 year vaccines (there are no 2 year rabies vaccines licensed by the USDA), off-label every 2 years in order for their clients to comply with state law.

Immunologically, the rabies vaccine is the most potent of the veterinary vaccines and associated with significant adverse reactions such as polyneuropathy “resulting in muscular atrophy, inhibition or interruption of neuronal control of tissue and organ function, incoordination, and weakness.”[3] Auto-immune hemolytic anemia,[4] autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel, and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites are all linked to the rabies vaccine. [5] [6] It is medically unsound for this vaccine to be given more often than is necessary to maintain immunity.

The labels on rabies vaccines state that they are for “the vaccination of healthy cats, dogs…,” and there are medical conditions for which vaccination can jeopardize the life or well-being of an animal. A medical exemption clause inserted into the new 3 year Rabies Law being considered would allow veterinarians to write waivers for animals for whom medical conditions preclude vaccination. The State of Maine inserted such an exemption into the 3 year rabies protocol, 7 M.R.S.A., Sec. 3922(3), it adopted in 2004 as follows:


A. A letter of exemption from vaccination may be submitted for licensure, if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the dog. Qualifying letters must be in the form of a written statement, signed by a licensed veterinarian, that includes a description of the dog, and the medical reason that precludes vaccination. If the medical reason is temporary, the letter shall indicate a time of expiration of the exemption.

B. A dog exempted under the provisions of paragraph 5 A, above, shall be considered unvaccinated, for the purposes of 10-144 C.M.R. Ch.251, Section 7(B)(1), (Rules Governing Rabies Management) in the case of said dog’s exposure to a confirmed or suspect rabid animal.


The Rabies Challenge Fund strongly urges Rhode Island to amend the Rules and Regulations Governing the Suppression of Rabies to conform to the national standard set by the CDC’s NASPHV’s Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control and respectfully requests that medical exemption language be inserted into the law.

Sincerely,

Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

cc: Rhode Island Legislature
Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch
Dr. W. Jean Dodds
Dr. Ronald Schultz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] American Veterinary Medical Association, Veterinary Biologics, June 2007, “Rabies Vaccination Procedures”

[2] American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Task Force. 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, 28pp.; and ibid. 2006 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Revised, 28 pp.

[3] Dodds, W. Jean Vaccination Protocols for Dogs Predisposed to Vaccine Reactions, The Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, May/June 2001, Vol. 37, pp. 211-214

[4] Duval D., Giger U.Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog, Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 1996; 10:290-295

[5] American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Executive Board, April 2001, Principles of Vaccination, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 219, No. 5, September 1, 2001.

[6] Vascelleri, M. Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal Fibrosarcomas; Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A August 2003, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 286-291.
 
#72 ·
ALABAMA RABIES LAW

Alabama pet owners not wanting their state to be the only one in the country with an annual rabies booster requirement for dogs and cats have begun requesting their Legislators to change the law to conform to the national 3 year standard. Below is a copy of my letter to the Alabama Public Health Veterinarian and State Health Officer on behalf of The Rabies Challenge Fund and the Alabama pet owners who have contacted us.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST

What You Can Do to Help:


Contact your legislator and ask them to introduce legislation to change Alabama Code Title 3 Chapter 7A-2 to conform to the 3 year protocol recommended by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians Rabies Compendium, including a medical exemption clause for sick animals, and ask your pet-owning friends to do the same.

Alabama Legislature: You can find contact information for your Senator and Representative at the following link: http://www.legislature.state.al.us/

February 25, 2009

Dr. Dee Jones Dr. Donald E. Williamson
State Public Health Veterinarian State Health Officer
Department of Health Department of Health
201 Monroe Street, P.O. Box 303017 201 Monroe Street, P.O. Box 303017
Montgomery, AL 36104 Montgomery, AL 36104

RE: Alabama Code Title 3 Chapter 7A-2--Dogs and Cats to be Immunized

With the recent passage of Act 159 paving the way for Arkansas to conform to the national 3 year rabies immunization standard, Alabama has become the only state in the country to adhere to a now outdated annual rabies vaccination requirement for dogs and cats.

Title 3 Chapter 7A-2 of the Alabama Code mandating annual rabies vaccinations is counter to the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association [1] and the Center for Disease Control’s National Association of State Public Health Veterinarian’s Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control 2008 which states that, “Vaccines used in state and local rabies control programs should have at least a 3-year duration of immunity. This constitutes the most effective method of increasing the proportion of immunized dogs and cats in any population (50).” They specifically warn that, “no laboratory or epidemiologic data exist to support the annual or biennial administration of 3- or 4-year vaccines following the initial series.”

It is recognized that most, if not all, currently licensed annual rabies vaccines given annually are actually the 3-year vaccine relabeled for annual use -- Colorado State University's Small Animal Vaccination Protocol for its veterinary teaching hospital states: “Even with rabies vaccines, the label may be misleading in that a three year duration of immunity product may also be labeled and sold as a one year duration of immunity product.” According to Dr. Ronald Schultz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, whose canine vaccine studies form a large part of the scientific base for the 2003 and 2006 American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Guidelines, as well as the World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s 2007 Vaccine Guidelines, “There is no benefit from annual rabies vaccination and most one year rabies products are similar or identical to the 3-year products with regard to duration of immunity and effectiveness.” [2]

Alabama’s code requiring annual rabies boosters may have been intended to achieve enhanced immunity to the rabies virus by giving the vaccine more often than the federal 3-year licensing standard, but, more frequent vaccination than is required to fully immunize an animal will not achieve further disease protection. Redundant annual rabies shots needlessly expose dogs and cats to the risk of adverse effects while obligating residents to pay unnecessary veterinary medical fees. The American Veterinary Medical Association's 2001 Principles of Vaccination state that “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events.” The current rabies immunization code may violate Title 8 Section 8-19-5 of Alabama’s Consumer Protection Law by requiring pet owners to pay for a yearly veterinary medical procedure from which their animals derive no benefit and may be harmed.

Immunologically, the rabies vaccine is the most potent of the veterinary vaccines and associated with significant adverse reactions such as polyneuropathy “resulting in muscular atrophy, inhibition or interruption of neuronal control of tissue and organ function, incoordination, and weakness,”[3] auto-immune hemolytic anemia,[4] autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites are all linked to the rabies vaccine.[5] [6] It is medically unsound for this vaccine to be given more often than is necessary to maintain immunity.

A “killed” vaccine, the rabies vaccine contains adjuvants to enhance the immunological response. In 1999, the World Health Organization “classified veterinary vaccine adjuvants as Class III/IV carcinogens with Class IV being the highest risk,"[7] and the results of a study published in the August 2003 Journal of Veterinary Medicine documenting fibrosarcomas at the presumed injection sites of rabies vaccines stated, “In both dogs and cats, the development of necrotizing panniculitis at sites of rabies vaccine administration was first observed by Hendrick & Dunagan (1992).” [8] According to the 2003 AAHA Guidelines, "...killed vaccines are much more likely to cause hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., immune-mediated disease)." [9]

The labels on rabies vaccines state that they are for “the vaccination of healthy cats, dogs…,” and there are medical conditions for which vaccination can jeopardize the life or well-being of an animal. A medical exemption clause inserted into Title 3 Chapter 7A-2 would allow veterinarians to write waivers for animals for whom medical conditions preclude vaccination. The State of Maine inserted such an exemption into the 3 year rabies protocol, 7 M.R.S.A., Sec. 3922(3), it adopted in 2004 as follows:

A. A letter of exemption from vaccination may be submitted for licensure, if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the dog. Qualifying letters must be in the form of a written statement, signed by a licensed veterinarian, that includes a description of the dog, and the medical reason that precludes vaccination. If the medical reason is temporary, the letter shall indicate a time of expiration of the exemption.


B. A dog exempted under the provisions of paragraph 5 A, above, shall be considered unvaccinated, for the purposes of 10-144 C.M.R. Ch.251, Section 7(B)(1), (Rules Governing Rabies Management) in the case of said dog’s exposure to a confirmed or suspect rabid animal.

On behalf of The Rabies Challenge Fund and the many Alabama pet owners who have contacted us with concerns about the state’s annual rabies booster requirement for dogs and cats, we strongly urge you to change Title 3 Chapter 7A-2 of the Alabama Code to conform to the 3-year national standard recommended by the Center for Disease Control’s National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians and endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association. We also respectfully request that medical exemption language be inserted into the code.

Sincerely,
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

cc: Governor Bob Riley
Attorney General Troy King
Alabama Legislature
Dr. Tony Frazier, State Veterinarian
Dr. Terry Slaten, Associate State Veterinarian
Dr. W. Jean Dodds
Dr. Ronald D. Schultz
CONTINUED BELOW
 
#73 ·
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] American Veterinary Medical Association, Veterinary Biologics, June 2007, “Rabies Vaccination Procedures”

[2] Schultz, Ronald D.; What Everyone Needs to Know about Canine Vaccines, October 2007, http://www.puliclub.org/CHF/AKC2007Conf/What Everyone Needs to Know About Canine Vaccines.htm

[3] Dodds, W. Jean Vaccination Protocols for Dogs Predisposed to Vaccine Reactions, The Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, May/June 2001, Vol. 37, pp. 211-214

[4] Duval D., Giger U.Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog, Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 1996; 10:290-295

[5] American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Executive Board, April 2001, Principles of Vaccination, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Volume 219, No. 5, September 1, 2001.

[6] Vascelleri, M. Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal Fibrosarcomas; Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A August 2003, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 286-291.

[7] IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Volume 74, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Feb. 23-Mar. 2, 1999, p. 24, 305, 310.

[8] Vascelleri, M. Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal Fibrosarcomas; Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A August 2003, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 286-291.

[9] American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Task Force. 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, 28pp. and ibid. 2006 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Revised, 28 pp.
 
#76 ·
Klist,

Irritable bowel syndrome is one of the possible adverse reactions linked to vaccination. The Chinaroad Lowenchows website http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/health/immune.htm has a good tutorial on the canine immune system that might interest you.

Have you consulted a homeopathic/holistic veterinarian for your dog's diahrrea? It might be worth a try, you can locate one near you online at the following links: American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association http://www.holisticvetlist.com/, Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy http://www.theavh.org/referral/index.php .

Kris
 
#77 ·
Klist,

Here's another link for you, 2007 World Small Animal Veterinary Association 32nd Congress http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2007&PID=18136&O=Generic Immune-Mediated Intestinal Disease

"Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is ..... a disease of modern living, where over-vaccination , dysfunction of gut-associated lymph tissue, dietary intolerance, and nutritional imbalance combine to overwhelm the essential process of digestion."

Kris
 
#78 ·
Alabama Rabies Law

Senate Bill #469 sponsored by Senator Larry Dixon http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ViewBillsStatusACASLogin.asp?BillNumber=sb469 was introduced on March 5, 2009 to amend Alabama Code Title 3 Section 7A-2 to conform to the 3 year rabies protocol and include a medical exemption clause for animals whose well-being would be jeopardized by rabies vaccination.

The bill has been assigned to the Senate Health Committee.

What You Can Do to Help

Contact the Senate Health Committee members lindacoleman60@bellsouth.net; senbutler@aol.com; senbedford@aol.com; larry.dixon@alsenate.gov; steve.french@alsenate.gov; legislator@mclo.org; myronpenn28@hotmail.com; qtross2002@hotmail.com; harriannesmith@graceba.net; zeb@zeblittlelawfirm.com; jabo.waggoner@alsenate.gov and ask them to pass SB #469

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST
 
#79 ·
OK, here I go again...

It is my understanding that the good folks at the Rabies Challenge Fund are actually instructing people on reporting vaccine reactions, even when a clear cause-and-effect cannot be arrived at. Encouraging people to fill out adverse event reports with FDA for every little scratch, burp, and hiccup constitutes manufacturing data.

Will this "data" then be used to fuel further fundraising and attempts to drive vaccine and public health laws?

As a scientist, I find this very, very disturbing. Scientists should not go out of their way to manufacture their data. I see no effort to review how many dogs were vaccinated *successfully*. No random collection of data points. Just a focus on those data that support your "theories", while ignoring the overwhelming mountain of data from those dogs who get rabies vaccines regularly, and never have a problem. This is what is known as "junk science".

Just my humble opinion.

Lisa
 
#80 ·
Lisa Van Loo,

The Rabies Challenge Fund encourages and will provide FDA links for reporting adverse reactions, but are not "actually instructing people on reporting vaccine reactions" as you state (check your sources). As a scientist, you should know how important it is that adverse reactions get properly reported, and the veterinary medical associations strongly urge the reporting of vaccinal adverse reactions as well.

It's impossible to know just how often dogs adversely react to vaccines because veterinarians are not required by law to report adverse reactions, and according to the World Small Animal Veterinary Association's 2007 Vaccine Guidleines, "The VGG recognises that there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products. The recently released World Small Animal Veterinary Association 2007 Vaccine Guidelines are available online at http://www.wsava.org/SAC.htm Scroll down to Vaccine Guidelines 2007 (PDF)

The American Veterinary Medical Association's 2007 Veterinary Biologics Guiding Principles www.avma.org/products/scientific/biologics.pdf states that: "Current adverse event reporting systems 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. .... There is a critical need for more fully developed, scientifically based, and statistically valid evaluation of vaccine products to provide practitioners with a basis for developing vaccination programs that maximize benefits and minimize associated risks for the patients under their care."
 
#81 ·
No random collection of data points. Just a focus on those data that support your "theories", while ignoring the overwhelming mountain of data from those dogs who get rabies vaccines regularly, and never have a problem. This is what is known as "junk science".

Lisa, are you saying that people will slant and skew data to get their point across? Then ignore other data that doesn't support their point of view? All to affect public policy?

Political regards,

:p :p
 
#82 ·
People do it all the time. However, scientists absolutely should not. It is (or should be) a career-killer.

There's a lot NOT being told to the dog and public policy worlds about adverse event reporting, how FDA collects this information, and how it is used. Most of the public is blissfully unaware that ANY sort of oddity can be reported as an "adverse event", including a dog that scratches at the site of a vaccination, or falls asleep after its shot. I'd like to see more effort being made to educate policy makers on what adverse event reports REALLY mean, and how cause-and-effect are NOT established by adverse event reports.

Lisa
 
#83 ·
Some information from FDA regarding their Adverse Event Reporting System:

"AERS is a useful tool for FDA, which uses it for activities such as looking for new safety concerns that might be related to a marketed product, evaluating a manufacturer's compliance to reporting regulations and responding to outside requests for information. The reports in AERS are evaluated by clinical reviewers in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) to monitor the safety of products after they are approved by FDA. If a potential safety concern is identified in AERS, further evaluation might include epidemiological studies. Based on an evaluation of the potential safety concern, FDA may take regulatory action(s) to improve product safety and protect the public health, such as updating a product’s labeling information, restricting the use of the drug, communicating new safety information to the public, or, in rare cases, removing a product from the market.

"AERS data do have limitations. First, there is no certainty that the reported event was actually due to the product. FDA does not require that a causal relationship between a product and event be proven, and reports do not always contain enough detail to properly evaluate an event. Further, FDA does not receive all adverse event reports that occur with a product. Many factors can influence whether or not an event will be reported, such as the time a product has been marketed and publicity about an event. Therefore, AERS cannot be used to calculate the incidence of an adverse event in the U.S. population."

Link to their website. Education and actual, first-hand information is key to making the right decisions regarding vaccinations for your dogs and your family:

http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/default.htm

And the One Health website (again); a consortium of veterinarians and doctors working toward better health for animals and humans, particularly where their medical paths cross (like rabies):

http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/

Lisa
 
#84 ·
Kris, I don't have the time right now to read through all of these pages of this thread, but do you know anything about the reactions associated with each brand of vaccine? I hadn't seen that published yet, and would be particularly intrigued by reactions associated with Merial vaccines. I know that they manufacture the only vaccines right now that I know of (from their PureVax line) that don't contain adjuvants (they are those killed rabies with live canarypox rather than an adjuvant, in addition to other vaccines), but those vaccines aren't labelled to last as long without the adjuvant (1 year vs. 3 year rabies) and think that these are still only labelled for use in cats...

I wonder if they're coming up with Purevax Rabies for use in dogs?
 
#88 ·
Montview,

The data I have on adverse reactions to rabies vaccines do not contain brand names. The only non-adjuvanted rabies vaccines licensed in the US that I am aware of are for felines -- I wish they had one for dogs. Vaccine adjuvants used in killed vaccines (such as the rabies, leptospira, lyme) to enhance the immune response frequently consist of aluminum salts such as aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate. Aluminum is a highly reactive metal -- especially when combined with mercury (also known as thimersol, a common preservative in veterinary vaccines) can have corrosive effects.

According to the 2003 American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines (Page 16 http://www.leerburg.com/special_report.htm), "...killed vaccines are much more likely to cause hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., immune-mediated disease)."

Further, the AAHA task force reports on Page 18 that, "Bacterial vaccines, especially killed whole organism products like certain Leptospira spp. products or B. bronchiseptica given systemically, are much more likely to cause adverse reactions than subunit or live bacterial vaccines or MLV vaccines, especially if given topically. Several killed bacterial products are used as immunomodulators/adjuvants. Thus, their presence in a combination vaccine product may enhance or suppress the immune response or may cause an undesired response (e.g., IgE hypersensitivity or a class of antibody that is not protective)."

"The World Health Organization (WHO) in 1999 classified veterinary vaccine adjuvants as Class III/IV carcinogens with Class IV being the highest risk," (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Volume 74, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Feb. 23-Mar. 2, 1999, p. 24, 305, 310.)
 
#86 ·
Obviously, I'm not Kris, but here is what I understand about the studies:

The term "challenge" with regards to vaccination usually refers to challenging the immunity/immune system of an individual. While I don't know all about the studies or the program, it is basically funding of a study for the longer-term immunity that these rabies vaccines can and usually do offer.

Right now, they (rabies vaccines) are all labelled for either 1-year or 3-year immunity. I believe that the Rabies Challenge Fund is looking to "prove" that most rabies vaccines offer at least 5-7 year immunity, which would result in us being able to vaccinate less frequently. It doesn't have much to do with adverse reactions, that I know of.
 
#87 ·
Clearly there is a lack of independent information out there and if we trusted all the research performed to be 100% correct and with out bias then we would not need the FDA ARISq Oracle Clin or Argus. In the rush to bring products to market and in the intent of profit making and having Dr's perscribe drugs beyond there intended use we should not simply take someones word. Dr's Vet's pharmacutical companies are in business to make $$
and "somtimes" put there own best interest before the good of all. Everyday you can check the clinical news to see one major pharma company after another acknowledge there wrong doing pay the mutli million judgements and continue with business as usual. If you are interested in reading where big pharma and scientists have comprised there morals while chasing the almight dollar pm me and I'll send you the links and if you think the Animal Science divisions of these very same pharma companies are any more honest than I have nothing more to say. Your blind faith and trust only belongs to God
 
#91 ·
A few months ago I would have said "this is the way I have done it for 23 years and it works for me". Unfortunetly as life usually does, I got knocked down a notch or two. I have never had a reaction to a vaccine with any of my dogs up until 6 months ago. Then after vaccinating a litter of 6 week old pups, three of them went completely lame in the rear legs, they were dragging themselves around by thier front legs. I immediatley took them to be seen and found nothing else wrong but the muscles in the rear legs were extremely weak. They couldn't even stand to pee or poop, they just eliminated right where they sat. I worked around the clock keeping them cleaned and bathed and we put them in warm water in our jet tub 3 - 4 times a day. The jets in the tub created enough of a current to start their lil legs swimming. One of the males recovered in about a week, the next male a few days later. The female took longer. Both males have recovered completely, the lil girl is still working on it. The only diagnosis I got was a reaction to the vaccine.
My point in posting this is not to scare people from vaccines, but I am more aware of the reality of the reactions. After talking with my vet, and doing some real soul searching and educating myself about this decision I will tell ya that I HAVE changed my vaccination protocol, I will continue to vaccinate, but things will be done a lil differently from now on. Like anything in life there is always gonna be some sort of side effect, but anything I feel I can do to keep from watching my pups go through that again I feel I gotta at least try.
 
#93 ·
A few months ago I would have said "this is the way I have done it for 23 years and it works for me". Unfortunetly as life usually does, I got knocked down a notch or two. I have never had a reaction to a vaccine with any of my dogs up until 6 months ago. Then after vaccinating a litter of 6 week old pups, three of them went completely lame in the rear legs, they were dragging themselves around by thier front legs. I immediatley took them to be seen and found nothing else wrong but the muscles in the rear legs were extremely weak.
That's pretty strange for a first vaccine to cause a reaction (what brand/combo?). I'd be looking deeper myself. The only time I've had a reaction is if there was something else wrong-- pup w/ a UTI who got combos and had facial swelling (benedryl did the trick), and one bitch about to go into season that had combo+rabies, same thing, facial swelling. I no longer will give combos and rabies together and split off what I can , but I won't skimp on vaccines and avoid certain brands too. Anne
 
#92 ·
Kris;

I did not say that your organization was receiving taxpayer funds. Rather, I was pointing out that FDA & USDA (the organizations who collect adverse event reports) are funded by my taxes. I don't see the reasoning behind focusing your efforts on adverse events, especially as they are what is known as "anecdotal" evidence and do not constitute scientific data in any way, shape, or form.

I would be much happier if you, rather than writing these melodramatic "the sky is falling" posts about vaccines, actually provided some hard, scientific data. I went online and saw essentially the same post as the one that opens this thread posted on numerous sites. But no actual data showing that "thousands" of lives are lost through rabies vaccination. Also, no real, straightforward description of the vaccine study, which I think people have a right to know about if you are asking them for money. I know what a vaccine challenge is. I am not sure that others do.

Lisa
 
#94 ·
Montgomery Advertiser March 10, 2009 Bill May Save Pet Owners Cash by Markeshia Ricks http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903100335

"State Sen. Larry Dixon, R-Montgomery, is sponsoring a bill that would change a law that requires dogs and cats to be vaccinated against rabies each year. Instead, most pet owners will only have to round up their animals and pay for the shots once every three years.

Dr. Charles Frantz, executive director of the Alabama Veterinarian Medical Association, said vaccines for dogs and cats that immunize an animal against rabies for three years have been around for at least 20 years."
 
#95 ·
WICHITA, KS Passes 3 Year Rabies Ordinance 3/11/09


Yesterday the Wichita, Kansas City Council voted in a 3 year rabies protocol.


Wichita City Council Overhauls Animal Codes 3/11/09 Wichita Eagle http://www.kansas.com/news/story/728918.html by SUZANNE PEREZ TOBIAS

"• Require rabies vaccinations every three years -- instead of every year -- for dogs, cats and ferrets."
 
#96 ·
In the August 2008 issue of The Whole Dog Journal, Dr. Ronald Schultz reports in an article entitled, Vaccinations 101, by Lisa Rodier, "Research shows that less than 50 percent of puppies will respond at six weeks; 75 percent at nine weeks; 90 percent at 12 weeks; and by 14 to16 weeks, close to 100 percent will respond. "

In an August 1, 2008 article in DVM360 entitled Vaccination: An Overview,http://veterinarycalendar.dvm360.com/avhc/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=568351 Dr. Melissa Kennedy states: Vaccination of the young begins at 6-8 weeks of age. Multiple boosters are given because maternal immunity interferes with vaccinal response. Because one doesn't know the level in each animal for each pathogen at each time point (and it is not feasible nor cost-effective to measure this), repeated boosters are given until the point when maternal immunity has likely decreased sufficiently to allow induction of immunity, usually at 16-18 weeks of age.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top