informed consent vaccine booster information for client

Electronic medical records (EMRs) hold great promise for improving the practice of evidence based medicine by facilitating communication between members of the health care team. The most profound influence of EMRs may lie in their ability to encourage clients' involvement in their own pets care.

informed consent vaccine booster information for client

Postby malernee » Fri Sep 03, 2004 3:46 pm

Annual pet vaccines do not booster immunity. Giving them again after successful immunization is not a good idea.

http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewt ... ht=schultz

Because serial revaccination programs of adult dogs and cats are an unproven modality of treatment Clients should avoid taking the advise of any veterinarian or animal care and control officer who promotes them in the market place. Clients who wish to comply with serial adult dog and cat rabies revaccination laws for their pet should discuss their situation with a knowledgeable veterinarian who has no commercial interest in making a profit from the unproven treatment. When needed revaccination wavier letters can be written to the government to avoid unneeded revaccination.
The use of serial revaccination programs of adult dogs and cats should be restricted to appropriate research settings because serial revaccination programs of adult dogs and cats are an unproven modality of treatment

Any previous vaccine keeps a booster vaccine from producing immunity The same thing occurs when mothers immunity is passed to a pup, kitten or child in early breast milk called clostrum. Until moms passive breast milk and placenta immunity is lost by the pup or kitten A vaccine will not work. Odds that the loss of protection from a previous vaccine would allow a booster vaccine to produce additional protection are less than 1%. Vaccines that have less than a 1% chance of immunization should not be promoted as needed. The public is paying for something that is of no benefit

Obviously there are several issues here that affect an immunization decision. Each is a separate factor with its own issues. I have started with booster vaccinations, as this is the clearest area and one with little risk of error. Simply put, there is almost never a need for booster immunization. Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is protected for life. Further vaccinations do not improve the immunity. The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM, appeared in Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected immunologists in the academic community):



A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for rabies).


In essence, Drs. Schultz and Phillips are stating that the only reasons for annual vaccination are legal (as with rabies vaccination) or as a means of manipulating guardians into bringing their companions for examinations (rather than simply recommending an examination). They also clearly state that booster vaccines provide no other benefit, including improved or added immunization. Although it has been some years since this was published, the veterinary community has made little headway toward following these recommendations. Some university experts now recommend vaccinations every three years, and other university clinics recommend titer testing to determine need. While both concepts are a step in the right direction, they still do not reflect the actual picture.

As the above quote indicates, immunologic memory lasts for years (usually for the life of the individual). This memory is not dependent upon titers, nor do titer levels always accurately indicate the immune status. A titer is a reflection of the quantity of circulating antibodies (immunoglobulins) to a given antigen (in this case, an organism). Cells in the body produce the antibody. These cells retain the ability to produce antibodies toward a given antigen for quite a long time, usually for life. Upon re-exposure, they can produce antibody within forty-eight hours. As a consequence of this capability, there is no need for the body to expend the energy needed to maintain circulating antibodies. A low or absent titer, therefore, does not mean the body is unprotected. The body may simply have cells ready to act, like firefighters playing cards until they are needed. When booster vaccines are administered, antibodies destroy the vaccine particles before they can augment the immunity, and nothing is accomplished.


With kittens, antibodies (maternal antibody) may be passed from the mother to the kittens via the umbilical cord and via colostrum (the first milk). This antibody serves to protect the kitten, but it also can interfere with vaccination. For this reason, we often vaccinate kittens multiple times, in hopes that we will give a vaccination shortly after the maternal antibody diminishes to a level that will not interfere with vaccination. This is often overkill, as one vaccination can induce immunity in approximately 95 percent of animals if the timing is correct.


Multiple vaccination, particularly with combination vaccines, is a contributor to vaccine-induced illness. Limiting vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines could greatly reduce disease and disease from vaccination. In my opinion, this would be a huge step in the right direction to encourage pet guardians that are too fearful to vaccinate their pets to do so. Studies show a way to get people to vaccinate children pups and kittens is to reduce cost, risk and make vaccination more convenient. Annual vaccines do just the opposite.
The next area of concern is that of risk. Veterinarians and vaccine companies frequently use fear to convince others of the need for vaccines. Often, the risk of disease is so small that vaccination is foolish. Many cats are kept indoors these cats have virtually no risk of exposure to most organisms (especially rabies and feline leukemia virus, both of which require direct contact with an infected animal). Vaccination for direct contact infections is generally pointless for these animals.
. We often hear raving about the lifesaving benefits of vaccination. Polio, some dog and cat diseases have been successfully vaccinated almost out of existence during my life time. Vaccine success like the success of penicillin has lead to public demand for more even when not needed.
Another vaccine that induces great anguish for guardian and companion is the rabies vaccine because vets have helped make laws that fail to offer the pet owner real proper scientific informed consent. Vets can revaccinate pets without informing the client they could have avoided the vaccine. When caught the vets can say they were confused about the laws they helped make.

The status of cats has elevated significantly since the 1960s. Prior to this most cats received little veterinary care. Since the 1970s, however, as cat status elevated, the care given to cats has climbed. This has generally meant more vaccinations. And rabies vaccination was often not recommended for cats until the mid-1980s.

Cats suffer greatly from revaccination damage. The most obvious vaccine-induced problem is one that is deathly serious, causing great suffering among cats and cat companions. Fibrosarcomas, a type of cancer, occur more and more as a result of vaccination. The vaccines that are implicated are the rabies and feline leukemia virus vaccines. These cancers arise at the site of injection of one of the vaccines. Researchers have identified vaccine particles within the cancer mass in a number of cases; the link is definite. Many veterinarians now refer to these cancers as vaccine sarcomas. Fibrosarcomas are malignant, and the average life expectancy is less than three years once the cancer has arisen. No treatment has proven satisfactory. Even with aggressive surgical removal, these cancers recur in the vast majority of cats. Some leading veterinarians recommend giving the vaccines in a leg, or even in the tail, to make amputation a viable option in case the cancers arise. Does this make sense?
Obviously, when the vet profession reaches the point of making recommendations like these, the profession out of control and I fear the public may simply avoid all vaccinations when studies show majority of vaccinations given by vets do more harm than good.


Finally, while rabies is a very serious disease with the potential to infect humans (this is the reason for excessive vaccination laws), most animals are very unlikely to be exposed. One vaccine at four months of age will protect most dogs and cats for life. If one booster vaccination is administered, almost all animals (95 percent) are immunized for life. (Schultz)







There is no known scientific value revaccinating adult dogs and cats once they have had one or two vaccines given as kittens or pups when the vaccine is given at the proper time so that immunity is produced from vaccination.

http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65


one or two rabies vaccination is all a dog or cat needs

http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewt ... ght=rabies

the science has been done and reported in major national newspapers

http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39

Dogs and cats already vaccinated as pups and kittens can avoid unneeded harmful revaccination and avoid buying annual dog tags as adults by getting rabies waiver letters. You can avoid vaccinating every year if you still want to still buy rabies licenses from the county.
http://ebvet.com/7news.htm

By requesting rabies vaccines with three year labels rather than one year labels since the 1yr and 3yr vaccines are identical just different label directions for the vet to follow.

http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewt ... 055a6a1e35

Studies show vets who stop vaccinating every year lose about 20% of their practice income
http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewt ... 055a6a1e35

And about 71% of their take home income.

http://www.ebvet.com/29news.htm

So vets have an economic reason not to offer scientific informed consent when they vaccinate and often say they were confused by the laws they helped make.
http://evidencebasedvet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162

If you would like to help pets only get the vaccines they need please go to

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/ ... i?petvax23
and sign the petition.
malernee
Site Admin
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm

Return to My Pet Medical Records

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron