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
#129 ·
ARKANSAS 3 Year Rabies Law Effective 1/1/10

Updated Rabies Control Act Allows Longer Vaccination Intervals http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=95265&catid=2

"The updated Rabies Control Act has new rules passed by the State Board of Health that allow for a longer interval between rabies vaccinations for dogs and cats. The new rules will become effective January 1, 2010.

If a three-year vaccine is chosen, the pet will be required to be revaccinated three years later."
 
#130 ·
RHODE ISLAND 3 Year Rabies Regulations

At the end of April 2009, Rhode Island's Rabies Control Board approved a change to allow for a 3 year protocol, yet no date has been set for it to become effective. Concerned pet owners should contact their legislators http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/ and the Chair of the Board, State Veterinarian Dr. Scott Marshall at 401-222-2781 scott.marshall@DEM.RI.GOVto insist this policy change becomes effective.

RHODE ISLAND - Board OKs Change in Rabies Policy Providence Journal News Digest May 1, 2009 http://www.projo.com/news/content/news_digest_01_05-01-09_5KE7P0O_v4.38640bf.html "PROVIDENCE –– The Rhode Island Rabies Control Board has approved a change in policy that could pave the way for regulations that will allow the vaccination of dogs and cats every three years, rather than every two years. "
 
#131 ·
Judy Schor's agility champion, Peaches, suffered a significant adverse reaction to a rabies booster. Judy has posted photos of Peaches and a letter from the vaccine manufacturer, Fort Dodge, offering a settlement to pay for medical treatment if they not disclose information about the claim. You can read the letter and see photos of Peaches at this link: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2042916&id=1447415540&ref=mf .
 
#133 · (Edited)
Nashville TN Metro/Davidson County Rabies Ordinance 3 Year

ALERT: Nashville TN Metro/Davidson County Rabies Ordinance Allows 3 Year Vaccines

From the Director of Environmental Health for Metro Davidson County on the county rabies ordinance:

MCL 8.04.040 states "All licenses issued shall be valid for twelve months and shall expire on the last day of the month issued of the following year". The vaccine used, however, can be a one year or three year at the discretion of the vet or owner.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST

If you have any questions about this, please contact the Dr. Brent Hager, Director of Environmental Health at:

Dr. Brent Hager, Director of Environmental Health
Metro Public Health Department of Nashville/Davidson County
311 23rd Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
615-340-5653 (office phone)
brent.hager@nashville.gov
 
#134 ·
WEST VIRGINIA URGENT-- Contact Legislators and ask them to introduce a bill extending the required rabies vaccination interval to 3 years. (Senate http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Senate1/members/senmemview.cfm# House http://www.legis.state.wv.us/House/members/delmemview1.cfm ) February 22 is the last date a bill can be introduced this session, and Dr. Gary Kinder, the State Veterinarian e-mailed me on 1/19/10 that "The West Virginia Department of Agriculture (WVDA) will not oppose legislation that will increase the interval for required rabies vaccination from two years to three years for dogs and cats residing in West Virginia. " He did not say that his department would introduce such a bill, however, so in order for the West Virginia rabies law to be amended to the 3 year national standard, a Senator or Delegate will have to introduce the bill on behalf of a resident.

Please act now.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST
 
#135 ·
[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] Frana, Timothy, et als. Postmarketing Surveillance of Rabies Vaccines for Dogs to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy, The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association April 1, 2008 issue, Vol. 232, No. 7

[4] 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

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

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] Moore, George E. et als., Adverse events diagnosed within three days of Vaccine Administration in Dogs, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol 227, No. 7, October 1, 2005

[9]Meler, Erika & Pressler, Barrak; Research Updates: Investigating the Impact of Vaccine Administration Site Changes in Cats DVM360 October 1, 2009

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

[12] 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.

[13] Texas Department of Public Health, Zoonosis Control; The White Paper, Options for Rabies Vaccination of Dogs and Cats in Texas, 2002
 
#136 ·
RHODE ISLAND Rabies Control Board meets February 22 at 9:30 a.m. Room 370, Division of Agriculture, 235 Promenade Street, Providence-- New 3 year rabies regulations to be discussed. http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/13/2010/84585.pdf Concerned pet owners should make every effort to attend this meeting and ask their friends to do the same.

If you cannot attend the meeting, but want to voice your opinion, please contact the Chair of the Board, RI State Veterinarian, Dr. Scott Marshall at scott.marshall@dem.ri.gov phone: (401) 222-2781 ext. 4503 and ask that the regulatory change to the 3 year protocol be made effective as soon as possible.
 
#137 ·
Rhode Island -- 3 Year "Transition Policy" announced by State Vet 2/21/10

New R.I. Rabies Regulations Close to Approval, Providence Journal 2/21/10 http://www.projo.com/health/content/rabies_vaccinations_02-21-10_QVHH1UG_v13.36f414d.html

"New rules, expected to go into effect about March 16, change the mandatory vaccination period from two to three years.

In the meantime, the state veterinarian, Dr. Scott Marshall, has created a transitional policy so that pets now protected aren’t reimmunized unnecessarily just because the old regulations have not yet expired. "


If you have questions about the transition policy, contact Dr. Scott Marshall at scott.marshall@dem.ri.gov phone: (401) 222-2781 ext. 4503
 
#138 ·
Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines:
What We Know and Don't Know

Ronald D. Schultz, Professor and Chair
Department of Patho-biological Sciences
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison


It has been common practice since the development of canine vaccines in the late 1950's to administer them annually. The recommendation to vaccinate annually was based on the assumption that immunity would wane in some dogs, thus to ensure immunity in the population, all dogs required revaccination since it was not practical to test each animal for antibody. Little or no research has been done to demonstrate that the practice of annual revaccination has any scientific value in providing greater immunity than would be present if an animal was never revaccinated or was revaccinated at intervals longer than one year.

In 1978 we recommended an ideal vaccination program would be one in which dogs and cats would be revaccinated at one year of age and then every third year thereafter (1). That recommendation was based on a general knowledge of vaccinal immunity, especially the importance of immunologic memory and on duration of protection after natural sub clinical or clinical infections as well as on limited studies we had performed with certain canine and feline vaccines. Since the mid 1970's we have done a variety of studies with various canine vaccines to demonstrate their duration of immunity. From our studies it is apparent, at least to me, that the duration of immunity for the four most important canine vaccines (core vaccines) that the duration of immunity is considerably longer than one year. Furthermore, we have found that annual revaccination, with the vaccines that provide long term immunity, provides no demonstrable benefit and may increase the risk for adverse reactions. We have assessed duration of protective immunity primarily by two procedures; the first is held to be the "gold standard and that is to challenge the vaccinated animal with the virulent organism, the second method is to measure antibody and compare the antibody titer to that which is known to prevent infection (e.g. provide sterile immunity). The studies we report here include challenge studies as well as studies that determine antibody titers. A summary of our results show the following (Table 1).



Table 1: Minimum Duration of Immunity for Canine Vaccines

CORE VACCINES

Table 1: Minimum Duration of Immunity for Canine Vaccines

Vaccine / Minimum Duration of Immunity / Methods Used to Determine Immunity

Canine Distemper Virus (CDV)

Rockborn Strain 7 years/15 years challenge/serology
Onderstepoort Strain 5 years/9 years challenge/serology

Canine Adenovirus-2 (CAV-2) 7 years/9 years challenge-CAV-1/serology
Canine Parvovirus-2 (CPV-2) 7 years challenge/serology

Canine Rabies 3 years/7 years challenge/serology


NON-CORE VACCINES

Canine parainfluenza
3 yrs. serology
Bordetella bronchiseptica 9 months challenge
Leptospira interrogans ser. canicola ?
Leptospira icterohaemorrhagiac ?
Borrelia burgdorfen
1 yr. challenge
Giardia ?
Canine Coronavirus
Lifetime (whether vaccinated or not vaccinated) Challenge / serology

The minimum duration of immunity data does not imply that all vaccinated dogs will be immune for the period of time listed, nor does it suggest that immunity may not last longer (e.g. the life of the dog). The percentage of vaccinated animals protected from clinical disease after challenge with canine distemper virus, canine parvovirus and canine adenovirus in the present study was greater than 95%.

Although there is much more that we need to know about duration of immunity to canine vaccines the information we have at present provides adequate justification for the vaccination recommendations that I and others have made and continue to make regarding frequency of vaccination (2)

1. Schultz, RD. and F.W. Scott. Canine & Feline Immunization. In: Symposium on Practical Immunology. R.D. Schultz, Ed., Vet Clinics of N. Am., Nov. 1978, W.B. Saunders Co.

2. Schultz, R.D. Current and Future Canine and feline vaccination programs. Vet Med 3: No. 3, 233-254, 1998.
 
#139 ·
VIRGINIA HB322 Medical Exemption Clause Legislation

VIRGINIA-- Medical Exemption Clause Legislation--HB 322 Rabies vaccination; exempts certain dogs and cats. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...322&Submit2=Go Introduced by Delegate Kenneth R. Plum passed the House UNANIMOUSLY Feb. 15, goes to full Senate floor this week.

"Animal care; rabies vaccination. Requires the Board of Health to provide, by regulation, an exemption to the requirement that an owner of a dog or cat must have his animal vaccinated for rabies if the veterinarian determines that the dog or cat has an underlying medical condition that is likely to result in a life-threatening condition in response to the vaccination. "

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS POST
 
#141 · (Edited)
CALIFORNIA--Medical Exemption Bill AB 2000 ACTION ALERT!

California Assembly Member Curt Hagman has filed a bill which will insert a Medical Exemption Clause into California's Rabies Law. Assembly Bill AB200 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_2000_bill_20100217_introduced.html

"This bill would exempt from the vaccination requirement the owner of a dog that a licensed veterinarian determines, on an annual basis, may have a potentially lethal reaction to the vaccination."

The bill has gone to the Agriculture Committee, concerned pet owners should call the Committee Secretary (Mona Wood) at 916-319-2084 and leave a message for the Committee that you want them to recommend passage of this bill. Feline owners should request that this clause include cats as well.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS POST

You can also contact the Agriculture Committee members at the phone numbers or e-mail addresses below and leave a message for the Committee that you want them to recommend passage of this bill.

Cathleen Galgiani - Chair Dem-17 (916) 319-2017 Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov
Tom Berryhill - Vice Chair Rep-25 (916) 319-2025 Assemblymember.Berryhill@assembly.ca.gov
Connie Conway Rep-34 (916) 319-2034 Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov
Jean Fuller Rep-32 (916) 319-2032 Assemblymember.Fuller@assembly.ca.gov
Jerry Hill Dem-19 (916) 319-2019 Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov
Fiona Ma Dem-12 (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov
Tony Mendoza Dem-56 (916) 319-2056 Assemblymember.Mendoza@assembly.ca.gov
Mariko Yamada Dem-8 (916) 319-2008 Assemblymember.Yamada@assembly.ca.gov
 
#143 · (Edited)
We don't live in India. Here in the United States, the main vector for human rabies transmission is wildlife--racoons, bats, etc....not dogs.

According to the Center for Disease Control, of the 38 cases of human rabies in the U.S. from 1995-2006, not one came from a domestic (American dog). 28 of those cases were transmitted by bats, one racoon, the rest were contracted outside the country.

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/epidemiology.html

Wild animals accounted for 92% of reported cases of rabies in 2006. Raccoons continued to be the most frequently reported rabid wildlife species (37.7% of all animal cases during 2006), followed by bats (24.4%), skunks (21.5%), foxes (6.2%), and other wild animals, including rodents and lagomorphs (0.6%).

Domestic species accounted for 8% of all rabid animals reported in the United States in 2006.

In 2006, cases of rabies in cats increased 18.2% compared with the number reported in 2005. The number of rabies cases reported in cats is routinely 3-4 times as that of rabies reported in cattle or dogs.
 
#144 ·
#145 ·
URGENT--Defeat CALIFORNIA Rabies Bill AB 2689

California Rabies Bill AB 2689 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2651-2700/ab_2689_bill_20100408_amended_asm_v98.html introduced by Assembly Member Cameron Smyth, Chair of the Local Government Committee has been referred to the Local Government Committee http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=17
and will require annual rabies vaccinations and puppies to be vaccinated at 3 months instead of 4 months of age in "rabies areas" (portion of bill text below) as determined by the State Public Health Officer -- violation is impoundment.

It is URGENT that ALL concerned pet owners contact the committee and tell them to reject this bill in its entirety. The Local Government Committee phone is (916) 319-3958 and the members contact information is listed below.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST this notice, please help spread the word and take action to defeat this legislation.


Cameron Smyth - Chair Rep-38 (916) 319-2038 Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov
Anna M. Caballero - Vice Chair Dem-28 (916) 319-2028 Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov
Juan Arambula Ind-31 (916) 319-2031 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov
Steven Bradford Dem-51 (916) 319-2051 Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Steve Knight Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov
Dan Logue Rep-3 (916) 319-2003 Assemblymember.Logue@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov


SEC. 2. Section 121690 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

121690. In rabies areas, all of the following shall apply:

(b) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of three months, shall, at intervals of time not more often than once a year, as may be prescribed by the department, procure its vaccination by a
licensed veterinarian with a canine antirabies vaccine approved by, and in a manner prescribed by, the department.
 
#146 ·
Below is a copy of the letter I faxed to Assembly Member Smyth regarding AB 2689.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST

April 12, 2010

Assembly Member Cameron Smyth, Chair
Local Government Committee
State Capitol, Room 4098
Sacramento, CA 94249-0038

RE: California Rabies Bill AB 2689

Greetings Assembly Member Smyth:

Assembly Bill AB 2689 which you introduced on behalf of the City of Los Angeles is ill-advised and scientifically unfounded. The bill seeks to address a problem in the canine community that does not exist, as the California Veterinary Public Health Section’s statistics in Reported Animal Rabies by County and Species make abundantly clear: bats and other wildlife pose the major threat of rabies transmission to the public, not dogs.

According to the rabies data cited above, from 2007 until April 2, 2010, there was only 1 dog reported in California with rabies, while there were 2 cats, 442 bats, 55 fox, 107 skunks, 1 coyote, and 2 raccoons confirmed rabid. This bill authorizing the State Public Health Officer to require dogs to be vaccinated against rabies more often than once every 3 years as allowed by State law and lowering the age of required puppy vaccination to 3 months will not solve the issue of rabies in wildlife – it will, however, needlessly expose dogs of law-abiding citizens to the adverse reactions of medically unwarranted rabies boosters for which expense their owners will be charged.

Mandating rabies vaccinations more often than once every 3 years goes against the recommendations of all the national veterinary medical associations, including 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).”

Amending Section 121690 of the Health and Safety Code to require biennial or annual rabies boosters in “rabies areas” 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 rabies shots needlessly expose dogs 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.” This amendment may violate California’s Consumer Protection Law by requiring pet owners to pay for a veterinary medical procedure from which their animals derive no benefit and may be harmed.

The 3 year rabies vaccines currently licensed by the USDA for dogs all have a minimum duration of immunity of 3 years, backed by challenge studies conducted according to the licensing standards set forth in USDA Title 9 Part 113.209, serological studies performed by Dr. Ronald Schultz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine show a minimum duration of immunity of 7 years. According to the Center for Disease Control, "A fully vaccinated dog or cat is unlikely to become infected with rabies…. In a nationwide study of rabies among dogs and cats in 1988,….no documented vaccine failures occurred among dogs or cats that had received two vaccinations. " [2]

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]

Lowering the age at which puppies are required to have their first rabies shot from 4 months to 3 months is counterproductive. Puppies are finishing up their other vaccinations (distemper, hepatitis, parvo) at 12 weeks (3 months) of age, and adding a rabies vaccine into the mix will not only increase the likelihood of adverse reactions, but also the probability that the vaccine components will interfere with each other and neutralize or negate the desired immunological response. Contributing to the chance that rabies vaccination at 3 months may not be effective is the continued presence of maternal antibodies. According to the 2006 American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines, the most common reason for vaccination failure is "the puppy has a sufficient amount of passively acquired maternal antibody (PAMA) to block the vaccine......" They elaborate by reporting that at the ages of 14 to 16 weeks of age, "PAMA should be at a level that will not block active immunization in most puppies (>95%) when a reliable product is used." After the age of 16 weeks (4 months), the maternal antibodies are reduced to a level at which they should not reduce the rabies vaccine's effectiveness.

By lowering the age to 3 months in "rabies areas," not only will puppies be put at increased risk for adverse reactions, but they will also be less likely to mount the desired immunological response because of passively acquired maternal antibodies and the impact of the other puppyhood vaccinations.

On behalf of The Rabies Challenge Fund and the many concerned California pet owners who have requested our assistance, I strongly urge you to withdraw AB 2689 in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com

cc: Dr. W. Jean Dodds
Dr. Ronald D. Schultz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] American Veterinary Medical Association, Veterinary Biologics, June 2007, “Rabies Vaccination Procedures”
[2] Immunization Practices Advisory Committee, Rabies Prevention—United States, 1991 Recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee, Center for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report March 22, 1991/40(RR03);1-19
[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.
 
#149 ·
UPDATE--CA BILL AB 2689 -- Public response has caused Assembly Member Smyth's office to withdraw the language in AB 2689 lowering the age of puppy vaccination from 4 months to 3 months in "rabies areas." However, as the law currently stands, the State Public Health Officer can require annual rabies vaccinations in "rabies areas." Please call (916) 319-2038, (916) 319-3958, or the committee members them an e-mail (contact information below) and ask them to strike the language in the current law (121690) authorizing the State Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations in "rabies areas."

Below is a copy of my e-mail to AM Smyth's assistant, Kevin O'Neill. To access the law in question, go to this link http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html , click on "Health and Safety Code" and enter 121690 for the keyword .

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST this notice, please spread the word and take action to change this law.


Cameron Smyth - Chair Rep-38 (916) 319-2038 Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov
Anna M. Caballero - Vice Chair Dem-28 (916) 319-2028 Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov
Juan Arambula Ind-31 (916) 319-2031 Assemblymember.Arambula@assembly.ca.gov
Steven Bradford Dem-51 (916) 319-2051 Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Steve Knight Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov
Dan Logue Rep-3 (916) 319-2003 Assemblymember.Logue@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio Dem-69
(916) 319-2069
Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov



----- Original Message -----
From: Kris Christine
To: Kevin.O'Neill@asm.ca.gov
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: AB 2689 (Smyth)


Greetings Mr. O'Neill,

Thank you for your e-mail. There is conflicting language within the Health and Safety Code as it stands, and this is a good opportunity to resolve this. What The Rabies Challenge Fund objects to in the proposed amendment is the lowering of the age of puppy vaccinations to 3 months and the authority given (or reaffirmed) to impose annual rabies vaccinations in "rabies areas".

Within the language of the current law as it stands is the following below allowing for a 3 year dog license in "rabies areas" as long as the license period shall not extend beyond the remaining period of validity for the current rabies vaccination -- this does not state period of validity for an annual rabies vaccination.

As outlined in the letter we submitted to you, there is no scientific or epidemiological data supporting the authority given to the State Public Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations for dogs in "rabies areas," and it goes against the recommendations of the Center for Disease Control's recommendations in their Rabies Compendium. While you are revising AB 2689 to keep the 4 month puppy vaccination provision, we respectfully request that you also revise subsection (a) so that there is no authority given to impose annual vaccinations.

Regards,
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund
ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com


"121690. In rabies areas, all of the following shall apply:

(g) In addition to the authority provided in subdivision (a), the ordinance of the responsible city, city and county, or county may
provide for the issuance of a license for a period not to exceed three years for dogs that have attained the age of 12 months or older and have been vaccinated against rabies. The person to whom the license is issued pursuant to this subdivision may choose a license period as established by the governing body of up to one, two, or three years. However, when issuing a license pursuant to this subdivision, the license period shall not extend beyond the remaining period of validity for the current rabies vaccination. A dog owner who complies with this subdivision shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of subdivision (a)."
 
#150 ·
California Rabies Bill AB 2689

Below is a follow-up e-mail we have sent on AB 2689. Please continue to call Assembly Member Smyth's office at (916) 319-2038 or the Local Government Committee at (916) 319-3958 and request that they remove the authorization to impose annual rabies vaccinations.

PERMISSION GRANTED TO POST AND CROSS-POST

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter & Kris Christine
To: Kevin.O'Neill@asm.ca.gov; derick.lennox@asm.ca.gov
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 6:35 AM
Subject: California Rabies Bill AB 2689


Greetings Mr. O'Neill,

Regarding The Rabies Challenge Fund's request and conversations with the staff in your office about withdrawing the authorization given under 121690 Section (b) of the current law to the State Public Health Officer to impose annual rabies vaccinations in areas they determine to be "rabies areas" -- this easily could be accomplished in AB 2689 by striking the clause "at intervals of time not more often than once a year, as may be prescribed by the department". No additional language would need to be added, no new bill would need to be drafted or introduced, and the conflict with language contained in Section (g) would be resolved.

As you are aware from the data Dr. Jean Dodds, Dr. Ronald Schultz, and I have forwarded on to you, there is no benefit from annual rabies vaccination, and it goes against the recommendations of all the national veterinary medical associations, which recommend a 3 year booster schedule as the best way to prevent and control rabies.

It is our hope that you will be able to make this one further revision to AB 2689.

Regards,

Regards, Kris
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund
ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com

(b) Every dog owner, after his or her dog attains the age of four
months, shall, at intervals of time not more often than once a year,
as may be prescribed by the department, procure its vaccination by a
licensed veterinarian with a canine antirabies vaccine approved by,
and in a manner prescribed by, the department.
 
#151 ·
According to a study published in the January 2010 issue of Journal of Comparative Pathology entitled, Age and Long-term Protective Immunity in Dogs and Cats by Dr. Ronald Schultz, et als., "Old dogs and cats rarely die from vaccine-preventable infectious disease, especially when they have been vaccinated and immunized as young adults (i.e. between 16 weeks and 1 year of age). However, young animals do die, often because vaccines were either not given or not given at an appropriate age (e.g. too early in life in the presence of maternally derived antibody [MDA]).......

The present study examines the DOI for core viral vaccines in dogs that had not been revaccinated for as long as 9 years. These animals had serum antibody to canine distemper virus (CDV), canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) and canine adenovirus type-1 (CAV-1) at levels considered protective and when challenged with these viruses, the dogs resisted infection and/or disease. Thus, even a single dose of modified live virus (MLV) canine core vaccines (against CDV, cav-2 and cpv-2) or MLV feline core vaccines (against feline parvovirus [FPV], feline calicivirus [FCV] and feline herpesvirus [FHV]), when administered at 16 weeks or older, could provide long-term immunity in a very high percentage of animals, while also increasing herd immunity."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fb57fe5e84a086c6b1fa65abea55dbd8
 
#152 ·
Age and Long-term Protective Immunity in Dogs and Cats

Age and Long-term Protective Immunity in Dogs and Cats, Dr. Ronald Schultz et als., Journal of Comparative Pathology January 2010 http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fb57fe5e84a086c6b1fa65abea55dbd8

"Old dogs and cats rarely die from vaccine-preventable infectious disease, especially when they have been vaccinated and immunized as young adults (i.e. between 16 weeks and 1 year of age). However, young animals do die, often because vaccines were either not given or not given at an appropriate age (e.g. too early in life in the presence of maternally derived antibody [MDA])..........

The present study examines the DOI for core viral vaccines in dogs that had not been revaccinated for as long as 9 years. These animals had serum antibody to canine distemper virus (CDV), canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) and canine adenovirus type-1 (CAV-1) at levels considered protective and when challenged with these viruses, the dogs resisted infection and/or disease. Thus, even a single dose of modified live virus (MLV) canine core vaccines (against CDV, cav-2 and cpv-2) or MLV feline core vaccines (against feline parvovirus [FPV], feline calicivirus [FCV] and feline herpesvirus [FHV]), when administered at 16 weeks or older, could provide long-term immunity in a very high percentage of animals, while also increasing herd immunity."
 
#153 ·
Virginia--Medical Exemption Clause enacted March 29, 2010 http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+CHAP0182 VIRGINIA CODE Title 3.2 Section 3.2-6521

D. The Board of Health shall, by regulation, provide an exemption to the requirements of subsection A if an animal suffers from an underlying medical condition that is likely to result in a life-threatening condition in response to vaccination and such exemption would not risk public health and safety. For the purposes of § 3.2-6522, such exemption shall mean that the animal is considered not currently vaccinated for rabies. For the purposes of §§ 3.2-5902, 3.2-6526, and 3.2-6527, such exemption shall be considered in place of a current certificate of vaccination.
 
#154 ·
While there are certainly risks with any vaccine in a very small percentage of the canine world, the benefits still far outweigh the risks.

April 22 Colo. county health officials warn of skunk rabies epidemic
Several skunks in La Junta, Colo., were confirmed to be infected with rabies, prompting the Otero County Health Department to send a letter to 4,200 area households to inform them about the epidemic and remind them to have their livestock and pets immunized against rabies.

April 24 Equine rabies case in Colorado may mean vaccinations for horses
Colorado horse owners should ask their vets about the advisability of inoculating their horses again rabies, the state Department of Agriculture says. The suggestion comes after a Colorado horse was diagnosed with the disease, the second equine case discovered in two years.

April 30 Massachusetts horse is euthanized over rabies infection
A horse in Middleboro, Mass., was euthanized after it was confirmed to be infected with rabies. The horse, which was not vaccinated, is one of only three confirmed rabies cases in horses in the state over the past 10 years, a local veterinarian said, adding that the risk for the disease may be higher this year.
 
#155 ·
TBELL,

The cases you cite are not in dogs. The fact of the matter is that rabies is primarily a problem in wildlife, and redundantly vaccinating the dogs of law-abiding citizens will not address that problem. Perhaps you should be advocating for the vaccination of wildlife or addressing the problem of the approximately 50% of domestic pets estimated to be completely unvaccinated against rabies.

RABIES by Margo B. Maloney, DVM, Versatile Hunting Dog February 2008
"Although it still remains a zoonotic (illness transmitted from animal to man) threat in the United States today, rabies in dometicated animals and humans has fallen to a very low level.."

Center For Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/epidemiology.html
Wild animals accounted for 92% of reported cases of rabies in 2006. Raccoons continued to be the most frequently reported rabid wildlife species (37.7% of all animal cases during 2006), followed by bats (24.4%), skunks (21.5%), foxes (6.2%), and other wild animals, including rodents and lagomorphs (0.6%).

Domestic species accounted for 8% of all rabid animals reported in the United States in 2006.

In 2006, cases of rabies in cats increased 18.2% compared with the number reported in 2005. The number of rabies cases reported in cats is routinely 3-4 times as that of rabies reported in cattle or dogs.

The California Veterinary Public Health Section’s statistics in Reported Animal Rabies by County and Species http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/d...6 Reported Animal Rabies Data, California.pdf make abundantly clear (as does rabies data from other states): bats and other wildlife pose the major threat of rabies transmission to the public, not dogs. According to the rabies data cited, from 2007 until April 2, 2010, there was only 1 dog reported in California with rabies, while there were 2 cats, 442 bats, 55 fox, 107 skunks, 1 coyote, and 2 raccoons confirmed rabid.

In addition, a properly vaccinated dog (unless it is a non-responder, in which case no amount of boostering will elicit an immune reponse) contracting rabies is very unlikely. The Center for Disease Control reports that: "A fully vaccinated dog or cat is unlikely to become infected with rabies, although rare cases have been reported (48). In a nationwide study of rabies among dogs and cats in 1988, only one dog and two cats that were vaccinated contracted rabies (49). All three of these animals had received only single doses of vaccine; no documented vaccine failures occurred among dogs or cats that had received two vaccinations. "
 
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