by guest » Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:37 am
AAHA TRENDS magazine - March/April 2004
The vaccination quandary centers around the fact that AAHA, the AAFP
(Association of Feline Practitioners and most veterinary schools
recommend core vaccines every three years, while manufacturer labels
suggest annual re-administration. The [article] failed to point out
a legal opinion obtained by the AAFP and published in their
guidelines, which states: "The FDA does not regulate vaccines, so
the Animal Medical Drug Usage Clarification Act, AMBUCA, does not
apply to vaccines." Hence there is nothing legally binding about
vaccine label recommendations. Furthermore, the AVMA Council on
Biologic and Therapeutic agents has written, "There is no scientific
evidence to support annual re-administration." Merial and Intervet
now guarantee their vaccines as good for three years. Researchers
from Pfizer have published an article in JAVMA [Jan 2004]
demonstrating their vaccines are good for at least three years.
...As was addressed by the AAFP guidelines, informed consent centers
on the principle of a reasonable client. Would a reasonable client
elect to purchase and have administered to their pet corona vaccine
if given the information that dogs over 6 weeks of age do not get
any disease from corona virus infection? ... Or that there are
between 11 and 28 cases of Lepto per year out of 11 million dogs in
the state? If the issue came into question in court, the
information needed to obtain informed consent would depend, not on
what the DVM chose to tell the cliend, but on what a reasonable
client would need to know to make an informed decision. ...
It is discouraging to see remarks like, "Why change? I've never had
a problem," when 22,000 fibrosarcomas are diagnosed by
histopathology by veterinary pathologists every year. It is
discouraging to see in print, "There's not a lot of scientific
data." Duration of immunity studies by serology have been done by
Dodds, Mouzin, Lorenzen, Haworth and King, and challenge studies
have been done by Scott, Lappin, Schultz and Aubert. The AAFP
recommendations list 74 references, and the AAHA [canine vaccine]
guidelines list many more.
More importantly, studies show that re-administration of vaccine has
no effect. Antibodies from a previous vaccine block the vaccine
from working, just like maternal antibodies can block a vaccine from
working. Tizard has published that it may not be possible to
stimulate a further immune response. In the August 15, 1995, JAVMA,
Schultz wrote, "The client is paying for something with no effect,
except it exposes the pet to the risk of an adverse reaction." The
real legal issue is; Is it a misrepresentation to charge for a
vaccine that has no benefit?
There is ample data, AAHA, the AAFP, the AVMA, and the ACVIM and 22
[veterinary] schools all agree. Their consensus is the community
standard. This is not controversial any more.
Bob Rogers, DVM