to the best of my knowledge, there are NO documented cases of a TRUE
negative (ie, tested more than once, having enough time for known exposure
to be ruled out) cat who was vaccinated having ever turned positive from
living with a TRUE positive (see above.)

yes, there are cases where cats who tested negative ONCE have turned up
positive later on, even tho vaccinated, after they'd lived with a positive:
but in every case, it was before any of us (including vets) realized that it
can take 120 days for exposure to show up in a test. so a negative test
means no more, in reality, than a positive test does, unless we know for
SURE with whom any cat has been hanging out--which, in rescue, we rarely do.

70% of adult healthy cats can be exposed and not become persistently
infected; the vaccine is 95% effective--and, based on anecdotal evidence
from owners who did NOT vaccinate their negatives yet mixed their cats, we
aren't even sure if the efficacy rate is for ALL cats, or just for high-risk
cats: the chances are very very low that a vaccinated, truly negative cat is
going to catch anything from a positive.

plus, please remember that an asymptomatic FeLV is just that: asymptomatic.
until and if the virus is activated, they are just like normal (?) cats:
they are no more or less susceptible to illness than any other cat, and they
come with no better or worse warranties than any other. they'll get uris,
they'll get utis, they'll get herpes infections, they'll get gingivitis,
etc--their FeLV status doesn't necessarily make them any more vulnerable,
while the virus is inactive. more vigilance is called for, but  these are
NOT persistently frail, delicate little blossoms that need to be protected
from the world we're talking about here.... (as most of us can attest to)

i'm absolutely ecstatic to read threads where so many vets are saying, "hey,
we can handle a FeLV, no problem!" just talked to someone locally who needs
to place two, and she found three local vets--what an incredible change that

we all make the best decision for our own lives--but hopefully, we can do so
with adequare and accurate information.


On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I'd take a healthy FeLV neutered male in a heart beat.
> Lynne
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* catatonya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To:*
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:26 PM
> *Subject:* Re: update: Athena
> Keep us updated.  You would be doing a very good deed!  Not many people
> will take positives.
> tonya
> *Beth Gouldin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote:
> Hi everyone -
> We have been able to locate an almost 1 year old  very healthy FeLV+
> neutered male siamese. We will be going to see him in a couple weeks... Do
> you think that is 'o ld enough'?  This is only a potential - we don't have
> to make a decision quickly.  From what I understand, he was exposed as a
> kitten (last May ) and tested (in June) positive for FeLV. I think she said
> he would be a year in March (I think) but in the mean time, he hasn't had
> any health problems at all - even through the rounds of URI in his mates...I
> don't think that he's been re-tested since.   Do you think we should request
> him to be re-tested before we take him in?
> I'm excited about the prospects of having another siamese - and as long as
> he's healthy this could work. I'll keep you all updated - I have to make a
> trip to Chicago next week or else I would have already probably checked him
> out.
> Anyways...
> hope you all have a good evening.
>  Beth


Spay & Neuter Your Neighbors!
Maybe That'll Make The Difference....


AIM / YAHOO: TenHouseCats
ICQ: 289856892

Reply via email to