Sally,
You are such an intelligent women who is not only a
caring and active (kitty) pro-activist, but also a
genuinely concerned pet guardian who brings to light
multiple aspect regarding our beloved kitties and
their diseases. I am so grateful that you are a member
of the wonderful list!
Every time I read your posts, I always find myself
agreeing with most of what you say i.e human grade,
high quality pet food, vaccinations
holistic/homeopathic pet care, etc. I have learned so
much from you and from this fabulous group. It is so
refreshing to find a person and/or group who shares
your own views and concerns.
I just wanted you to know that I greatly appreciate
your participation here on felvtalk. May you be
blessed with only good fortune.
Lora
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Kathy:
I also wish there were some definitive studies, but
since the companies who develop vaccines seem to be
the only ones with money to do research, I don't
think we will see any studies done any time soon
which demonstrate that the vaccines aren't safe or
necessary.
I was able to obtain some helpful info from the
website Holisticat.com about vaccines and printed out
some articles, including one from Dr. Don Hamilton, a
holistic vet who has writtten a well-regarded book
about holistic/homeopathic pet care, and another from
Dr. Jean Hofve.
Dr. Hamilton's advice is that you should not give
vaccines of any kind to an immunosuppressed animal.
For healthy animals, he recommends using only single
valent vaccines (not combo vaccines) and only after
assessing
1) whether or not the disease is life-threatening
2) how likely the animal is to be exposed
3) the vaccine is known to be effective and
4) the vaccine is considered safe.
He is especially adamant that yearly boosters are not
necessary and even counter-productive. He considers
the vaccines for FeLV and rabies very high risk and
those for FIV, FIP and ringworm ineffective.
If I had a scanner I would send you a copy.
Dr. Hamilton's practice is in New Mexico and he is
available for phone consultations, but there is a
charge for that, of course.
Given that Killian is an adult kitty now and kept
indoors, she is at very low risk of being exposed to
and/or contracting the illnesses for which cats are
typically vaccinated. Kittens are most at risk due
to the illnesses for which the typical 3- or 4-way
vaccines are intended to protect.
Most healthy, adult cats can resist or shuck off such
infections. As Killian is now FeLV+, her immune system
may not react normally to the challenge of any
vaccines, and such a challenge could be too much of a
stress.
Since she was vaccinated as a kitten (right?) her body
retains in its cells the "memory" to produce
antibodies to whatever she was vaccinated for, to
whatever extent it can still do so given her FeLV+
status. We humans do not need to have yearly boosters
after the initial childhood series (we only need
revaccination for toxins, such as tetanus to maintain
a safe titer.) So why do we do this to our pets?
Some believe that practice started as a way for vets
to get pet owners to bring their pets in at least
once/year for an exam. And of course the vaccine
companies are making money so why should they
complain?
The newer wisdom regarding vaccines is that yearly
boosters represent an unnecessary assault on a pet's
immune system and some vets see a correspondence
between this and the growing incidence of degenerative
and autoimmune diseases.
In light of this information, it would seem the best
course would be to do the best you possibly can to
prevent exposure to pathogens by keeping Killian
indoors, keep stress in her life to the absolute
minimum, feed her the best and most natural diet you
are able to provide and include some immunosupportive
supplements.
You are right to be concerned about Killian catching
something when taken to the vet (URI's especially),
just as hospitals and airplanes are a great place for
we humans to get exposed to pathogens. In that
respect, house calls are much safe if you can find a
vet who will do that.
Shelters, catteries and multi-cat households are also
more at risk due to the liklihood of increased "viral
load."
Sally in San Jose
