http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/about%20the%20RCF.html
The challenge is based on the need to understand exactly how long
immunity lasts once a rabies vaccine is give - the old data which
is three or one year is actually a result of the original test
subjects being put down rather then allowed to live out their life
span with re-testing to see if the vaccine was still effective over
time. Hopefully the challenge will shed light on that question.
It would seem very promising since if a person or pet is immune to
something they can[t be made "more" immune as the message from Dr.
Dodds stated - the booster will only be negated by the antibodies
from first initial shot -
Re-vaccinating when it is not necessary introduces many adjuvants,
preservatives etc necessary to keep the vaccine material viable
into the pet - which may have unknown health consequences of their
own. A few of these are -
adjuvants
Aluminium
Squalene
Freund's (FCA)
MF59
preservatives:
Alcohols
Glycerine
Neomycin
2-phenoxyethanol (2-PE)
Streptomycin
Polymyxin B
Mercury
Formaldehyde
Stabiliser/solvent:
Tween 80
there's more of course, monkey cells human cells etc -
http://www.dogs4sale.com.au/Notice_Board_Dogs_World_UK.htm
and has permission to cross post at the top of the letter)
Please feel free to cross post far and wide:
Dear Editor
We, the undersigned, would like to bring to your
attention our concerns in the light of recent new
evidence regarding vaccination protocol.
The American Veterinary Medical Association Committee
report this year states that 'the one year revaccination
recommendation frequently found on many vaccination
labels is based on historical precedent, not scientific data'.
In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that 'there is evidence
that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year. In
fact, according to research there is no proof that many
of the yearly vaccinations are necessary and that protection
in many instances may be life long'; also, 'Vaccination is a potent
medical procedure with both benefits and risks for the patient';
further that, 'Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity
does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase
their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'
Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may be
associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative
or combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure
to immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders,
transient infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'
The report of the American Animal Hospital Association
Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003)
is also interesting reading: 'Current knowledge supports
the statement that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always
protective and no vaccine is always indicated'; 'Misunderstanding,
misinformation and the conservative nature of our profession have
largely slowed adoption of protocols advocating decreased frequency
of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides durations of immunity
for core infectious diseases that far exceed the traditional
recommendations for annual vaccination. This is supported
by a growing body of veterinary information as well as
well-developed epidemiological vigilance in human
medicine that indicates immunity induced by vaccination
is extremely long lasting and, in .most cases, lifelong.'
Further, the evidence shows that the duration of immunity
for rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine
parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline
rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been demonstrated
to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for rabies and challenge
studies for all others.
The veterinary surgeons below fully accept that no single
achievement has had greater impact on the lives and
well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability
to prevent infectious diseases than the developments in annual
vaccines.
We, however, fully support the recommendations and guidelines of
the American Animal Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce
vaccine
protocols for dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations are only
given every three years, and only for core vaccines unless otherwise
scientifically justified.
We further suggest that the evidence currently available
will soon lead to the following facts being accepted:
* The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six
months and any modified live virus (MLV) vaccine given
after that age produces immunity that is good for the
life of that pet.
* If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the
antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens
from the subsequent so there is little or no effect; the
pet is not 'boosted', nor are more memory cells induced.
* Not only are annual boosters for canine parvovirus and
distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential
risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated
haemolytic anaemia.
* There is no scientific documentation to back up label
claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.
* Puppies and kittens receive antibodies through their
mothers' milk. This natural protection can last eight to
14 weeks.
* Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at less
than eight weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralize the
vaccine and little protection will be produced.
* Vaccination at six weeks will, however, DELAY the
timing of the first effective vaccine.
* Vaccines given two weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than
stimulate the immune system.
This would give possible new guidelines as follows:
1. A series of vaccinations is given starting at eight
weeks of age (or preferably later) and given three to
four weeks apart, up to 16 weeks of age.
2. One further booster is given sometime after six months
of age and will then provide life-long immunity.
In light of data now available showing the needless use
and potential harm of annual vaccination, we call on our
profession to cease the policy of annual vaccination.
Can we wonder that clients are losing faith in
vaccination and researching the issue themselves? We
think they are right to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic
well-being of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical companies should
not be a factor in making medical decisions.
It is accepted that the annual examination of a pet is
advisable. We undervalue ourselves, however, if we hang
this essential service on the back of vaccination and
will ultimately suffer the consequences. Do we need to wait until
we see actions against vets, such as those launched in the state
of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He asserts that the present practice
of marketing vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud
by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception.
The oath we take as newly-qualified veterinary surgeons
is 'to help, or at least do no harm'. We wish to maintain
our position within society, and be deserving of the
trust placed in us as a profession. It is therefore our contention
that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light
of new evidence may well be acting contrary to the welfare of the
animals committed to their care.
Yours faithfully
Richard Allport, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sue Armstrong, MA BVetMed, MRCVS
Mark Carpenter, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sarah Fox-Chapman, MS, DVM, MRCVS
Nichola Cornish, BVetMed, MRCVS
Tim Couzens, BVetMed, MRCVS
Chris Day, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Claire Davies, BVSc, MRCVS
Mark Elliott, BVSc, MRCVS
Peter Gregory, BVSc, MRCVS
Lise Hansen, DVM, MRCVS
John Hoare, BVSc, MRCVS
Graham Hines, BVSc, MRCVS
Megan Kearney, BVSc, MRCVS
Michelle L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS
Suzi McIntyre, BVSc, MRCVS
Siobhan Menzies, BVM&S, MRCVS
Nazrene Moosa, BVSc, MRCVS
Mike Nolan, BVSc, MRCVS
Ilse Pedler, MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS
John Saxton, BVetMed, MRCVS
Cheryl Sears, MVB, MRCVS
Jane Seymour, BVSc, MRCVS
Christine Shields, BVSc, MRCVS
Suzannah Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS
Phillip Stimpson, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Nick Thompson, BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS
Lyn Thompson, BVSc, MRCVS
Wendy Vere, VetMB, MA, MRCVS
Anuska Viljoen, BVSc, MRCVS,
and Wendy Vink, BVSc, MRCVS
