Booster jabs - fraudulent vets?

Actually, discussing this with a colleague, she pointed out that a one manufacturer has already obtained two-year authorisation for some of the vaccine components. I just checked the current situation - actually, it's two of them.

Pfizer, Merial, Schering-Plough and Fort Dodge (the last with two brands of vaccine, Kavak and Duramune), all recommend annual boosting of the lot.

Virbac recommends annual boosting of leptospirosis, parvovirus and parainfluenza (with a caveat that an extra dose of parainfluenza before entering boarding kennels is advisable as the full year is not guaranteed); every two years for distemper and infectious hepatitis (with a comment that most individuals may well have lifelong immunity to hepatitis, but as this doesn't apply to every dog, boosters are recommended at the same time as distemper).

Intervet recommends annual boosting of leptospirosis and parainfluenza (again with the caveat about kenneling, and mentioning the Bordetella vaccine as well in this context); every two years for distempter, infectious hepatitis and parvovirus.

See what a complex situation the poor bloody practitioners like BSM have to remember!

The point is that it still seems like an "annual booster vaccination" to everybody, because you can't get away from the leptospira part. (Personally, I'd dump the parainfluenza until somebody actually demonstrates that the virus causes clinical disease in this country, but there you go, they use this in America, and we all know that we must do things the American way.... sorry, somewhat off-topic opinion.)

This is a very complex subject, and pardon me if I get irritated when lunatics like the homoeopaths data-dredge with leading questionnaires and start completely needless and totally misunderstood panics, and when ignoramuses like Wrath of the Swarm muscle in with the opinion that they know better than all the experts and no matter how much it might cost, everything ought to be done the way they dictate.

Rolfe.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Feel free to point out the things I've claimed, been wrong about, and revised. Until you do so, enough with the well-poisoning, please.
Click to expand...
Sigh. You asserted, wrongly (perhaps as a result of a misunderstanding) that it had been claimed that the vaccines were "totally without side-effects". After it was pointed out to you that this was in error, as no such assertion had ever been made (in fact what was asserted was that no positive existence of identified adverse effects had been made), you then said you had claimed nothing, therefore you couldn't be wrong.

Go on arguing about this all night, I don't care. You like being arrogant and laying down the law, maybe you should have been a doctor.
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Merely that the research to find out if it can be changed isn't being done.
Click to expand...
First, on what grounds do you say that the research is not being done? Are you privy to the research policies of five veterinary drug companies in the UK and who knows how many in other countries? Especially after I explicitly stated that research was being done?

But second, where does it stop? You get everybody on to two-year intervals for distemper, hepatitis and parvo. Fine. You want to start researching for three years? Four years? When objective studies say the present regimen isn't causing any identifiable problems, and the cost of all this is likely to more than wipe out any savings you might envisage by giving some components less frequently? And it's all more vivisection, which some people get very fired up about and companies tend to avoid unless it's really justified.

I'm not saying it should never be done, I'm just pointing out that there are practical reasons for thinking twice.

Now, to get back to the subject on the card.

Do you think that the current manufacturers' data sheet recommendations should now be unilaterally varied by practising veterinary surgeons so that animals are not getting the booster regime laid down as ensuring protection, just because some homoeopaths have gone to the BBC with some baseless accusations, or do you think we should adhere to the data sheet recommendations until such time as these might be changed, the necessary validation work having been done?

Rolfe.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
panleucopaenia UK.
Click to expand...
I hate to say this, but it's conventionally panleucopenia, and if you want to put back the letter that's really missing, it's not an "a", it's an "o".

Panleucopoenia.

Neutropoenia (commonly neutropenia) etc, that one gets an extraneous "a" added as well quite often, same with lymphopoenia, eosinopoenia, etc., conventionally lymphopenia, eosinopenia etc.

[/END POINTLESS PEDANTRY MODE]

Call it FIE (feline infectious enteritis), or feline parvovirus, and astonish your friends....

Rolfe the pointless pedant. :c1:
 
Rolfe said:
I hate to say this, but it's conventionally panleucopenia, and if you want to put back the letter that's really missing, it's not an "a", it's an "o".

Panleucopoenia.
Click to expand...

Hangs head in shame.

Realises he's still smarter than the homeopaths. Feels better.
 
Rolfe said:
I hate to say this, but it's conventionally panleucopenia, and if you want to put back the letter that's really missing, it's not an "a", it's an "o".

Panleucopoenia.

Neutropoenia (commonly neutropenia) etc, that one gets an extraneous "a" added as well quite often, same with lymphopoenia, eosinopoenia, etc., conventionally lymphopenia, eosinopenia etc.
Click to expand...
So much for the world wide web....

Panleucopaenia 245 hits
Panleucopoenia 3 hits

leucopaenia 385 hits
leucopoenia 0 hits

Neutropaenia 918 hits
Neutropoenia 75 hits

lymphopaenia 228 hits
lymphopoenia 35 hits

eosinopaenia 25 hits
eosinopoenia 2 hits



But I didn't expect to get any hits for Homaeopathy.....

Homaeopathy 17 hits
Homoeopathy 134,000 hits
(But then even homeapathy gets 56 hits!)

BillyJoe
 
BillyJoe said:


But I didn't expect to get any hits for Homaeopathy.....

Homaeopathy 17 hits
Homoeopathy 134,000 hits


BillyJoe
Click to expand...

Not to mention homeopathy, 1,240,000 hits?

(Whichever way you spell it, it is still rubbish)
 
As I have nothing better to do:

homopathy, 1490 hits

homepathy, 3190 hits

homeipathy, 24 hits

"homeopathy is rubbish" 4 hits

hmmm, "homeopathy is wonderful" 16 hits
 
Originally posted by Rolfe
I hate to say this, but it's conventionally panleucopenia, and if you want to put back the letter that's really missing, it's not an "a", it's an "o".

Panleucopoenia.

Neutropoenia (commonly neutropenia) etc, that one gets an extraneous "a" added as well quite often, same with lymphopoenia, eosinopoenia, etc., conventionally lymphopenia, eosinopenia etc.
Click to expand...
It's all Greek to me.

I mean. Wait, ...











:D
 
Originally posted by Tanja
Not to mention homeopathy, 1,240,000 hits?

(Whichever way you spell it, it is still rubbish)
Click to expand...
Medicine: 39'000'000 hits.

Surgery: 18'500'000 hits

Vaccine: 1'790'000 hits

And even Placebo: 2'430'000 hits

'nuff said ;)
 
I just posted this in the "woo of the week" thread, but it really belongs here, so censure me for spamming, but I'm copying the post here for clarity.

I think the anti-vax stuff as regards dog boosters is getting more exposure in Scotland, for some obscure reason. My Mum had saved a long and sickening article in the Herald for me, by Richard Allport.

I'm listening to Chris Day (first time I've seen him surface since the RSPCA reported him to the Discip. Committee for neglect of a patient) on Radio Scotland right now, and he's going on about how bad vaccines are and how he's not saying this because he's a homoeopath, oh no of course not but there are these alternatives of course....

Gary Robertson isn't giving him as hard a ride as he gave the crystal therapist a couple of months ago....

I just heard the classic, yes the AHT did a big study which showed no ill effects of the booster vaccines (true, and it was a very good study), but of course that doesn't mean there aren't any ill effects we must realise. And Intervet is saying that you don't need to give every vaccine every year - absolutely, several of Intervet's vaccine components are licensed for two-year intervals, but Chris hasn't spelled that bit out.

I was just about to complain yet again about nobody having mentioned leptospirosis, but whoopee, someone has just succinctly explained exactly why the lepto situation means that an annual booster is necessary for every dog, and why, and that we're really only discussing which of the other components might be omitted at least in some years. He's also pointed out that the boosters are safe to any reasonable definition of "safe", and if you want to vary this, who is going to pay for it because we haven't a NHS for animals. Bang on target, and I didn't even catch this revered colleague's name.

Chris is now on again about all these animals he sees that get sick after vaccination, and the sane vet has countered with "temporal correlation does not imply causation", and you're just scaremongering over a non-problem. He might also have mentioned that Chris sees the woo-woo anti-vax loonies, by definition.

Point being made that we could be seeing the beginning of an MMR-type fall-off in vaccination, and sadly the way owners will come back to the vets for vaccination is when outbreaks of these horrible diseases start again.

The sane vet is called Paul - BSM, any idea who this is? He sounds English. He's just told Chris how hard it is to prove a negative, but the AHT had a random survey of 4,000 dogs which is just a tad more scientific than Chris's selected anecdotes.

This item did have all the right counter-arguments to the anti-vax woo, I just wish Gary Robertson hadn't been quite so even-handed. If he'd put some of Paul's points directly to Chris and pressed for a reply, we could have witnessed some squirming homoeopath.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe,

Rolfe said:
....the lepto situation means that an annual booster is necessary for every dog....
Click to expand...
I'm just wondering what you would advise if a leptospirosis vaccine was not necessary. Should the others (parvovirus, hepatitis and distemper) still be given annually? This exactly the situation down here (at least in Victoria). There is no leptospirosis and therefore the leptospirosis component of the annual vaccine is ommitted - but the other vaccines are still given annually. Can this be justified?

My brother is a Vet and he says it is the official recommendation of the A.V.S but he was not sure if it is justified and had never really questioned it. Apparently there is leptospirosis in N.S.W. (another state in Australia), so perhaps the A.V.S recommendations reflect the Australia wide situation.

BillyJoe.
 
You have to consider the disease situation as it is on the ground where you are. Certainly, if you can guarantee no leptospirosis, then there's no point vaccinating for that.

There's a paradox with some of the others. If disease is quite prevalent, one tends to recommend regular boosting to be on the safe side. But ironically, a vaccinated dog encountering field infection may actually be getting natural boosting and not really need re-vaccinating. The problem is you can't tell without blood tests, which are expensive. If the disease is relatively rare, you may think the danger is less, but on the other hand the immunity may wear off more quickly if it isn't being boosted by natural exposure.

I've just been reading a paper in the current Veterinary Record which suggests that immunity can be quite long-lasting for some of the components, but they did say that they thought quite a lot of natural boosting had taken place. They also judged the situation only by antibody tests - these were pet animals, so nothing experimental could be done, and no challenge infections were possible. While this is interesting, it's not the sort of information that the VMD would base any alterations to the data sheet requirements on. You really need data from animals not getting boosted by exposure to field infection, and being tested by challenge infection at the end of that.

Professional ethics says follow the data sheet recommendations from the manufacturer, and since the booster vaccinations are safe to any reasonable definition of safe, it's the sensible way to do it. If an owner is particularly paranoid then an exception can be made with individual counselling and waivers being signed and so on, but really, why?

I'd need to know what the data sheet recommendations were for Australia, really - the proper answer is that this is how the vaccines should be given. If there is pressure to lengthen the booster intervals, then the manufacturers have to get the work done to justify this. I don't think there's any sense in individual vets jumping the gun on that, because there simply isn't any evidence that the boosters cause any trouble.

I did notice also that in the paper I mentioned, the suggestion was that while individual components might eventually have longer booster intervals, these should be staggered in order to ensure that the dog still has a health-check examination every year. Thus you'd still have your yearly trip to the vet anyway.

This starts a completely new hare, whether a yearly health examination is necessary for dogs, irrespective of the vaccine. I'm not sure. I don't see my GP wanting to examine all her healthy young patients every year. Do we need to give dogs a more Rolls-Royce treatment than we give people? On the other hand, we do have the "animals can't tell us what's wrong" part, and it is possible that owners might not notice something important. On the other hand, ask any vet how often they pick up something completely unnoticed on a vaccination appointment - not often (there is the situation where people wait till the booster is due and then present you with the list of health probelms, but that's a different matter).

I think this is something which needs to be discussed with each owner individually. I'd be reluctant to insist on arranging vaccinations just to get a dog in every year. Some owners are short of money - would I be exploiting them? Some owners are very knowledgeable and conscientious - can they not be trusted to see when there is a problem needing attention?

I'd rather see less frequent boosting in the younger animals if this can be justified scientifically and incorporated into the data sheets, and advice given to owners of elderly pets that a regular health-check might be advisable.

Interesting situation in Australia, though - if you really don't need lepto, then you do have a lot more scope for manoeuvre.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
On the other hand, ask any vet how often they pick up something completely unnoticed on a vaccination appointment - not often
Click to expand...

I disagree and would say a large minority have something significant picked up: often chosen from a menu that includes dental disease, especially stomatitis and erosive lesions in cats, overweight (if the vet doesn't tell people their immobile obese animal is fat, no one else is going to), mobility problems (Cf obesity!) ear disease and skin disease, mammary masses.
 
Mmmm, you're right of course, but I was thinking more of the younger animal, and most of these you're not going to see much of in the under-fives.

Don't you find that the ones that come conscientiously for their boosters are often the younger ones, and then when the dog gets older the owner thinks (maybe rightly) that it's as immune as it's going to get, and gets less conscientious? But it's the older ones where you'll pick up the problems you mentioned.

I wonder if we (well, you - the only dogs I've had my hands on this week have been very,very dead) are seeing too much of the young ones and sometimes not enough of the older ones?

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom