Vets protest over homeopathy plan

[Darat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5093572.stm


A group of vets has said they are concerned by European Commission proposals to legitimise the use of homeopathic remedies for animals.

In an open letter to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the group says there is no clinical evidence that homeopathy works.

Forty vets have signed the letter to the RCVS, calling on it to increase its support for conventional medicine.



Hurrah!



The RCVS has said it does not take a stance either way on homeopathy.


Would they start letting me treat animals using voodoo then? I suppose they take no stance either way on that as well?


It says it only registers qualified vets and it is up to them whether or not they practice homeopathic medicine alongside their conventional treatments.


So let me see - this is meant to be a professional body for vets, but they don't have an opinion whether vets should use unproven treatments on animals or not? What a way to inspire confidence in the public! Perhaps they should put themselves up against their own disciplinary proceedings for bringing the profession into disrepute!

:mad:

[Blue Wode]

Here's the open letter:

http://www.rationalvetmed.org/

[Mojo]

I wondered what they were up to.

[Deetee]

The letter seems slightly disjointed to me, and not up to the usual standard of our in-house voodoovets. There are even a couple of typos. Maybe it was a draft, or maybe that's what you get with 40 cosignatories?

[Mojo]

But Carl Barton, farm manager for the Goodwood Estate in West Sussex, told Radio Four's Farming Today that homeopathy works.

"What one's got to remember is that these beasts we rely on for our livelihood," he said.

"So we're not going to do anything lightly. So we treat them with homeopathy, and it works very well." According to the estate's website (http://www.goodwood.co.uk/estate/welcome.htm), The farm has full organic status.Organic farming allows the use of homoeopathy, but the use of many effective conventional treatments is not allowed. For example, cows that have been treated with these treatments have to be taken out of milk production for a certain period of time.

Organic farmers such as Mr. Barton rely for their livelihood on, among other things, maintaining productivity from their livestock. Since this would to some extent be compromised by the use of effective conventional treatments, they would obviously prefer not to have to use them, and have a vested interest in having a legal alternative whether or not it is effective.

[Darat]

OK, well I've just drafted a letter to the RCVS saying I am astonished that a professional body that is concerned about animal welfare will not take a position on unproven medical treatments. I'm also going to drop a letter to my own vet saying how disappointed I was to learn that their professional body will offer no guidance on this matter and how her professional body itself has reduced my confidence in knowing she will only recommend the best treatment for my cats in the future.

[Mojo]

Here's the open letter:

http://www.rationalvetmed.org/There's a radio interview with one of the signatories here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/) (at 0745). It also features RCVS president Lynne Hill (or "Lynne Hell" as she was initially introduced) justifying the RCVS's position by saying "many people believe in homoeopathy and they feel that this is very much part of the holistic treatment that they give an animal..." followed by some flannel about clinical choice.

So there you have it. It's official: "mass existing in well distributed people since long" is good enough for the RCVS.

Incidentally, she also said "...and that is why veterinary surgeons are allowed to register with us with homoeopathic qualifications..."

It looks as if BSM's recent announcement about the list may have been premature.

[Deetee]

There's a radio interview with one of the signatories here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/) (at 0745).

What is a .RAM file and why won't my media player play it?
:(

[brodski]

What is a .RAM file and why won't my media player play it?
:(
it's real audio, so you'll need Real player unfortuantly.

[B.D.]

What is a .RAM file and why won't my media player play it?
:(
Google "Real Alternative" or "VLC Media Player". One of those will let you play .ram files without having to install the bloated POS that is RealPlayer.

[Soapy Sam]

Well now. I see several familiar names on that letter. I'm happy to see a decent number of unfamiliar ones , too.
So let's hope something positive results. Whatever the outcome, I'd like to offer my congratulations and personal admiration to those who have actually stood up and spoken the truth in the marketplace.
Now let's hope the temple is properly purged- and not with 30C Nux Vom.

[Mojo]

More coverage here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5095538.stm), including a spurious argument from antiquity from someone who evidently doesn't know when Hahnemann was around.

Haven't seen anything in the newspapers yet though.

[princesspoppy]

Im glad that vets are speaking out... Id be furious if someone jeopardised my pets health by woo methods

[Blue Wode]

In response to the Rational Vets request for a statement in support of evidence-based medicine from the RCVS, it looks like the RCVS has decided to stand by its October 1999 submission to the House of Lords inquiry into Complementary and Alternative Medicine:

“Veterinary surgeons practise science-based medicine. The patient cannot say how it feels, and the practitioner must rely on observation to find out whether treatment is effective or not.

The corpus of baseline clinical knowledge is less developed and secure than in human medicine, because veterinary medicine must cover a wide range of species and has therefore not had a comparable investment in research. Veterinary surgeons must nevertheless ground their practice on objective evidence, applying normal evidential standards to complementary and alternative treatments. Every adult has the freedom to make personal choices concerning their own health, regardless of medical evidence. This does not imply a similar freedom to impose such choices on their animals if there is a likelihood of adverse effects, including those arising from denial of conventional therapy. It is therefore essential that such treatments are indeed 'complementary' rather than 'alternative' to mainstream therapy until they can be proved."

Those are still the views of RCVS. The College has not, on the other hand, taken a view on the efficacy or otherwise of homoeopathy. We take the view that that is a matter for debate in the usual way, with publication of evidence in peer-reviewed journals, and that it would not be right for RCVS to seek to limit the clinical discretion of veterinary surgeons.
Whatever views there may be within the veterinary profession it is clear that there is a demand from some clients for complementary and alternative therapies. It is better that they should seek advice from a veterinary surgeon - who is qualified to make a diagnosis, and can be held to account for the treatment given - rather than turning to a practitioner who does not have veterinary training. That is why RCVS has in the past published in the Register a list of veterinary surgeons who hold homoeopathic qualifications. Now that we have updated the "Find a Vet" part of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/findavet) so that the public can find and choose veterinary practices who offer complementary treatments we feel this is more helpful than publishing a list of practitioners in the Register.


Full reply from the President of the RCVS:
http://www.rationalvetmed.org/#AND_THE_REPLY:

What a cop-out.

[Blue Bubble]

Grrrrr...:mad:

I seem to recall that tomorrow (26-June-2006) is some sort of deadline in the whole issue.

Maybe Rolfe and BSM can start posting updates again; I sure do miss them.

[Blue Wode]

The deadline for submissions to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is 7th July 2006.

Ben Goldacre is currently putting a submission together over at the Bad Science Forum.

Submission draft:
http://badscience.net/wiki/index.php?title=Submission_to_Veterinary_Medicines _Directorate

Bad Science forum thread:

Bad Science – a chance to do something! (re: Voodoo Vets)
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=136&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


Further reading:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=it_works_in_animals.php

[clarsct]

Is this the same fight that Rolfe, BSM, et al have been fighting all along?

[Blue Wode]

Basically, yes.

For those who haven’t been following the saga, this link provides a summary:

http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/newsletterarchive/hw61.htm#vets

Rolfe was cleared of the allegations in February in 2006 (the RCVS decided that there was "no indication of serious professional misconduct against the officers of the British Veterinary Voodoo Society”) and the case was closed. She was, however, advised to put a disclaimer on her site which said that the website was not responsible for the content of external links. It was advice that she chose not to take and which caused the case to (apparently) be re-opened three or four weeks ago with her being informed by the RCVS that their Preliminary Investigating Committee would also be looking at her open discussions on the issue on these forums. This saw the 20-page “Conduct disgraceful in a professional respect” thread being removed (presumably for legal reasons).

In the meantime, on 26th May 2006, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate issued a consultation document aimed at legitimising the use of homeopathy. Unusually, it’s being rushed through in 6 weeks (ending 7th July 2006) instead of the 12-week statutory normal minimum.

The consultation document can be found here:
http://www.vmd.gov.uk/publications/consultations/current.htm

[vbloke]

and yet more further reading: http://badhomeopath.com

[Mojo]

More coverage here (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125583.200-vets-demand-official-rejection-of-homeopathy.html), including a report that: the RCVS decided back in February to quietly remove a list of vets that offer homeopathic treatments from its official published register of licensed veterinary practitioners. :)

[Dcdrac]

More coverage here (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125583.200-vets-demand-official-rejection-of-homeopathy.html), including a report that: :)

Fabtastic news

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

A response to the RCVS statement is being prepared. More later. I think they have moved the situation forward to a usable degree but this needs to be explored further.

This-

"* It is therefore essential that such treatments are indeed 'complementary' rather than 'alternative' to mainstream therapy until they can be proved"

may be an important statement. Its reiteration in this context is probably quite valuable. Do we really think that homeopathy is used solely as a complementary therapy? Is its philosophy so compatible with conventional medicine that its practitioners routinely combine them?

The VMD and RCVS issues are separate. Whatever happens with the VMD, the RCVS position still needs to be debated.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

More coverage here (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125583.200-vets-demand-official-rejection-of-homeopathy.html), including a report that: the RCVS decided back in February to quietly remove a list of vets that offer homeopathic treatments from its official published register of licensed veterinary practitioners :)Before we get too excited, the list published in the register of vet surgeons to which virtually no member of the public had access has been replaced by a similar list in the RCVS's web-site (http://www.rcvs.org.uk/Templates/System/FAVSearch.asp?NodeID=89660&SearchType=2) to which everyone and their granny has access - a bit of a pyrexic victory (sorry, can't spell pyrrhic... whatever)

The relevant page states, merrily, "The Advanced Search allows users to filter the results by a range of different criteria, from species treated through practices offering a specific service (e.g. complementary medicine) to practices employing an RCVS Recognised Specialist or with a specific postgraduate qualification.". And they've made it even easier by putting a filter box next to the words "complementary medicine" which you can tick.

If you tick the box but don't select any region or practice name you get over 100 practices, 37 of which are RCVS accredited practices. When you select the practice of your choice they even give you a helpful map.

Pass the sick bag Alice.

Yuri

[Blue Bubble]

I clicked on the link and did the search to discover (as I already knew) that my local veterinary practice (Mercer & Hughes, Saffron Walden) is in the list of those offering this nonsense.

I hope the RCVS are not interpreting such access as evidence of genuine interest (though they probably don't know what the word "evidence" actually means). :mad::mad::mad:

I wrote a scathing letter-to-the-editor to my local newspaper asking for a statement of position from the practice to be issued in public; the letter was not published. I'm feeling very frustrated at not being able to contribute towards the combat of this.

To the good vets among us, please keep us informed. We're all behind you in this.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"And they've made it even easier by putting a filter box next to the words "complementary medicine" which you can tick."

We should register our "interest" in complementary medicine. No one could possibly claim we're not interested.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. I don't think the search works properly. If you just sleect "complementary medicine" and no other search criteria it finds "over 100" practices, and lists 5 pages of results, but the 5th page ends with "Boness Veterinary Enterprises Ltd" so I think it simply returned all the practices in its database without filtering.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

If I centre the search on my own practice's postcode and still 'filter' for comp med, we don't appear but

Royal Veterinary College Large Animal Practice* Hatfield AL9 7TA*

Sefton Equine Referral Hospital *This practice only takes Secondary Referrals*Hatfield AL9 7TA*

do appear!!

I don't think it works right proper well.

[Mojo]

A response to the RCVS statement is being prepared. More later. I think they have moved the situation forward to a usable degree but this needs to be explored further.

This-

"* It is therefore essential that such treatments are indeed 'complementary' rather than 'alternative' to mainstream therapy until they can be proved"

may be an important statement. Its reiteration in this context is probably quite valuable. Do we really think that homeopathy is used solely as a complementary therapy? Is its philosophy so compatible with conventional medicine that its practitioners routinely combine them? In particular with regard to homoeopaths talking about proper treatments "supressing" symptoms and making the underlying condition worse.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

If I centre the search on my own practice's postcode and still 'filter' for comp med, we don't appear but

Royal Veterinary College Large Animal Practice* Hatfield AL9 7TA*

Sefton Equine Referral Hospital *This practice only takes Secondary Referrals*Hatfield AL9 7TA*

do appear!!

I don't think it works right proper well.Bad luck - if you click on both those practices for details they BOTH come up as having complementary medicne listed in their interests - I'll say that again THE RVC LISTS COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AS ONE OF ITS INTERESTS!!!!! :jaw-dropp

[Zep]

Public name-and-shame campaign?

[Blue Bubble]

Public name-and-shame campaign?

Zep, that's easier said than done. That was my intention with my scathing letter-to-the-editor mentioned in post 24. Can we all together come up with a properly worded document to be distributed to e.g. local newspapers ? The JREF forums are not exactly where Joe Average Punter is likely to read about this.

[Spiro]

The RVC defends its pathetic position on treatment with sugar pills by saying it's better for a client with a sick animal to come to a vet who can at least make a proper diagnosis. But why shouldn't the RVC be as happy with a vet who feels animals' auras, or waves a crystal pendulum over them, to make a diagnosis. If alternative treatment is acceptable, so should alternative diagnosis be acceptable too: both come from the same types of self-deluded individuals.

[Dunstan]

Zep, that's easier said than done. That was my intention with my scathing letter-to-the-editor mentioned in post 24. Can we all together come up with a properly worded document to be distributed to e.g. local newspapers ? The JREF forums are not exactly where Joe Average Punter is likely to read about this.

Easy. Announce that your organization ("People Demanding Proper Treatment of Animals" or some name that makes a better acronym) will boycott any vet that does not publicly disclaim this nonsense and vow not to refer any clients to such practitioners nor prescribe such "medicine."

Money talks.

I don't really expect this to eradicate veterinary woo, but I think it might (1) give some of the "well, I don't believe in it, but what the hell" types reason to pause before prescribing it; and (2) reward the logical and scientific vets out there.

Where's Dogdoctor, anyway? Curious for your take on this.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bad luck - if you click on both those practices for details they BOTH come up as having complementary medicne listed in their interests - I'll say that again THE RVC LISTS COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AS ONE OF ITS INTERESTS!!!!! :jaw-dropp

But, as I already said, it's one of my interests too!

[Amapola]

Easy. Announce that your organization ("People Demanding Proper Treatment of Animals" or some name that makes a better acronym) will boycott any vet that does not publicly disclaim this nonsense and vow not to refer any clients to such practitioners nor prescribe such "medicine."

Money talks.

I don't really expect this to eradicate veterinary woo, but I think it might (1) give some of the "well, I don't believe in it, but what the hell" types reason to pause before prescribing it; and (2) reward the logical and scientific vets out there.

Where's Dogdoctor, anyway? Curious for your take on this.

I'm not Dogdoctor..... and I'm not a vet, I am a person who raises livestock and has for many years.

Unfortunately, admirable as this plan is, it would not work because there are so many people with animals who think a vet that offers alternative treatments is "better" than one that does not! In the US anyway people would probably actually go to the vet that DOES prescribe alternatives. I think it is actually money that is driving this. Sure, it makes me run the other way, but you would be amazed at the number of intelligent people who are willing to put their animals through homeopathy, "cold laser" treatments, reiki etc. rather than just treat them for what is wrong.

I think that if a lot of vets spent one-on-one time with their clients, they could convince at least some of the people to forget this nonsense. But, every vet I know works night and day and hardly gets a day off.

Perhaps the owners themselves need to organize as well. But there is still that problem that so many people think that homeopathy etc. are "good treatments".

[kleinjahr]

A possibility would be to charge those responsible for such "treatment" with cruelty towards animals or whatever else under the appropriate statutes. Both owners and vets. I think it could be interpreted as withholding proper care and treatment.

[Mojo]

A possibility would be to charge those responsible for such "treatment" with cruelty towards animals or whatever else under the appropriate statutes. Both owners and vets. I think it could be interpreted as withholding proper care and treatment.The problem with this is that many forms of sCAM are well enough established (socially speaking, not based on actual scientific evidence, of course) that courts are prepared to accept that an animal treated with homoeopathy, for example, has not been withheld proper treatment.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

...why shouldn't the RVC be as happy with a vet who feels animals' auras, or waves a crystal pendulum over them, to make a diagnosis. If alternative treatment is acceptable, so should alternative diagnosis be acceptable too: both come from the same types of self-deluded individuals.
That's just the position they have put themselves in.

For instance, eminent vet. homoeopath John Saxton VetFFHom is also a leading radionics and pranamonics practitioner both of which involve manipulation of supposed energy fields or 'vibrations' at some distance from the patient by movement of the hands or by an electric wire connected to the patient via a 'resistance box' or completely removed from the patient when the practitioner works on a 'witness' ie. a small part of the patient, usually a drop of blood or a piece of hair (similar techniques are used in voodoo). Mr Saxton has been published in the journal of radionics where he states:The physical body is the lowest expression of energy. Thought is the highest. Between the two is constant interchange, the interchange is mediated primarily through the endocrine and nervous systems on the physical level, and the chackras and subtle energy bodies on the higher planes.about the difference between radionics and pranamonics he states:Pranamonics... utilises cosmic energy originating from outside the system under investigation and treatment. The second difference is that radionics views energies on a gradient between matter and thought. Pranamonics envisages a much more integrated system with all energies operating on different levels of consciousness at the same time. Spirit (as defined by esoteric wisdom) is the breath of life which causes all manifestations. Spirit lies behind consciousness. Matter is energy. Matter and spirit are one.This is the type of practitioner the RCVS says must be allowed 'clinical freedom'. On the other hand, if I use a perfectly effective bottle of ear drops manufactured for humans in a dog when there is another preparation available which has been specifically manufactured for dogs I could be called up infront of a disciplinary board and struck off.

Yuri

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I think it is actually money that is driving this. Sure, it makes me run the other way, but you would be amazed at the number of intelligent people who are willing to put their animals through homeopathy, "cold laser" treatments, reiki etc. rather than just treat them for what is wrong.

I think that if a lot of vets spent one-on-one time with their clients, they could convince at least some of the people to forget this nonsense. But, every vet I know works night and day and hardly gets a day off.



One problem we have as vets is very definitely the problem of money. We struggle with the matter of trying to charge for our services when sometimes what people really only need is advice and no little bottle of pills to hang on the invoice to make the process seem real and justifiable. If you use CAM you're guaranteed never to be without something that you can send the client away with to give to the animal. I think that must be very seductive.

It's bad enough with doctors: they do feel under pressure to hand over a presription for some medication, but often they will just talk through a problem and advise. However, in the UK, the cost for that is hidden in our taxes and people are utterly unaware of what that 10mins in the consulting room has just cost the taxpayer so the patient can't go away muttering about 'value for money' because they paid nothing at the time. I think this has a corrosive effect on the professions as a whole in the UK where people think they have a right to our time at no cost.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

On the other hand, if I use a perfectly effective bottle of ear drops manufactured for humans in a dog when there is another preparation available which has been specifically manufactured for dogs I could be called up infront of a disciplinary board and struck off.

Yuri

No! Get your facts right.

You'd be sent to prison first. You'd be struck off secondary to having a criminal conviction rendering you unfit to practise veterinary medicine.

See?

[Moochie]

You mess with my cat, you mess with me!

M.

[Amapola]

No! Get your facts right.

You'd be sent to prison first. You'd be struck off secondary to having a criminal conviction rendering you unfit to practise veterinary medicine.

See?

Holy Toledo. I hope that is a joke.... ! :eek:

Don't vets HAVE to prescribe "off-label" (or whatever they call it) drugs? Like how there IS no rabies vaccine for goats, so they have to prescibe a different vaccine for rabies for another species, if a rabies vaccine is warranted in a goat?

I do hope you are kidding but I am afraid you may not be......

[Moochie]

Joviality aside, check out the possibility that your cat's annual shots may be just another way for your vet to buy a new car every year.

Reason I say so is because our cat became gravely ill after his last annual shots. A bit of research revealed the shots need not be annual, and that the contents of the shots can be extremely harmful.

Our cat's recovered. At nearly 13, it's all systems go, although our trusted vet was priming us for an unexpected, premature death.

Check the contents of the "vaccine" your vet is shooting into your feline companion -- it could be deadly.

M.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Holy Toledo. I hope that is a joke.... ! :eek:

Don't vets HAVE to prescribe "off-label" (or whatever they call it) drugs?...Yes, but according to the 'cascade' law in the UK if a veterinary licensed drug is available it must be used, even if it is identical, regardless of price or availability. Perhaps someone ought to license sugar.

Yuri

[Darat]

Joviality aside, check out the possibility that your cat's annual shots may be just another way for your vet to buy a new car every year.

Reason I say so is because our cat became gravely ill after his last annual shots. A bit of research revealed the shots need not be annual, and that the contents of the shots can be extremely harmful.

Our cat's recovered. At nearly 13, it's all systems go, although our trusted vet was priming us for an unexpected, premature death.

Check the contents of the "vaccine" your vet is shooting into your feline companion -- it could be deadly.

M.

Joviality aside - any evidence (apart from your own anecdotal evidence) that you put your cat at more risk by following an annual vaccination schedule then not?

[Moochie]

Joviality aside - any evidence (apart from your own anecdotal evidence) that you put your cat at more risk by following an annual vaccination schedule then not?

No.

Our cat became very ill after his last vaccination. The vet told us to prepare for his death, is how serious it seemed. Prior to the vaccination he was in apparently good health -- no symptoms of anything.

Research on the Internet suggested the vaccine may be the cause of potentially fatal consequences.

There are reasons for that, to do with what the vaccine is comprised of. Do your own research. I'm not a loony. I love my cat and don't want him to die prematurely.

He's not having shots this year.

It's never been explained to us why the shots have to be annual.

M.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Joviality aside, check out the possibility that your cat's annual shots may be just another way for your vet to buy a new car every year. ]Reason I say so is because our cat became gravely ill after his last annual shots. A bit of research revealed the shots need not be annual, and that the contents of the shots can be extremely harmful.
Our cat's recovered. At nearly 13, it's all systems go, although our trusted vet was priming us for an unexpected, premature death.
Check the contents of the "vaccine" your vet is shooting into your feline companion -- it could be deadly.Joviality aside, a lot of cats get ill at 13 years of age whether or not they are vaccinated, what diagnostics were performed to confirm that your cat's signs were caused by the vaccine as you seem to suggest?

You're quite right about the fact that the need for annual vaccination is under review; some vaccinations only need to be given every few years to maintain immunity, others need to be given annually. These things are constantly under review and subject to change as new evidence becomes available, this is the nature of scientific and medical research. Since I qualified in 1982 I have given canine distemper and adenovirus every second year and parvovirus and leptospirosis every year. In the years immediately before I qualified research had identified that in some succeptible individuals cases of 'blue eye' were caused by canine adenovirus virus (though less frequently than caused by clinical cases) and the vaccine was modified to eliminate this problem. Currently work is under way to quantify and reduce the incedence of vaccine associaed sarcoma in cats, a particular problem in the US, and seen not infrequently in the UK.

In the last few years I have reduced the frequency of parvovirus, distemper and adenovirus to every 3rd year while maintaining annual leptospira vaccination. Recently in the UK the data sheet for rabies vaccination has been changed to allow a 3 year duration of immunity and feline vaccine regimes have been modified to allow a 2 yearly vaccination for feline panleukopenia while maintaining annual calici and herpes vaccination. Personally I have always understood that the panleukopenia vaccination could be reduced to a 5 yearly interval but that is anecdotal and I will wait to see whether research confirms or refutes this.

In my time in general veterinary practice I have seen possibly 2 (certainly 1) cases where the evidence was, to me, strong enough to suggest an almost certain vaccination reaction and I reluctantly advised that annual vaccinations be discontinued in those individuals. Of course this, too is only anecdote.

On balance I feel priveliged to be able to protect my patients from serious and often fatal diseases in a way that my predecessors of 50 or 60 years ago were unable to. Obviously, if no dogs or cats were vaccinated I would make more money from treating the consequences of such infections but such a course would be reprehensible to me.

As, indeed, would giving sugar tablets in the form of nosodes on the pretext that they will protect against serious disease.

Yuri

[Moochie]

[COLOR=black]Joviality aside, a lot of cats get ill at 13 years of age whether or not they are vaccinated, what diagnostics were performed to confirm that your cat's signs were caused by the vaccine as you seem to suggest?

You're quite right about the fact that the need for annual vaccination is under review; some vaccinations only need to be given every few years to maintain immunity, others need to be given annually. These things are constantly under review and subject to change as new evidence becomes available, this is the nature of scientific and medical research. Since I qualified in 1982 I have given canine distemper and adenovirus every second year and parvovirus and leptospirosis every year. In the years immediately before I qualified research had identified that in some succeptible individuals cases of 'blue eye' were caused by canine adenovirus virus (though less frequently than caused by clinical cases) and the vaccine was modified to eliminate this problem. Currently work is under way to quantify and reduce the incedence of vaccine associaed sarcoma in cats, a particular problem in the US, and seen not infrequently in the UK.

In the last few years I have reduced the frequency of parvovirus, distemper and adenovirus to every 3rd year while maintaining annual leptospira vaccination. Recently in the UK the data sheet for rabies vaccination has been changed to allow a 3 year duration of immunity and feline vaccine regimes have been modified to allow a 2 yearly vaccination for feline panleukopenia while maintaining annual calici and herpes vaccination. Personally I have always understood that the panleukopenia vaccination could be reduced to a 5 yearly interval but that is anecdotal and I will wait to see whether research confirms or refutes this.

In my time in general veterinary practice I have seen possibly 2 (certainly 1) cases where the evidence was, to me, strong enough to suggest an almost certain vaccination reaction and I reluctantly advised that annual vaccinations be discontinued in those individuals. Of course this, too is only anecdote.

On balance I feel priveliged to be able to protect my patients from serious and often fatal diseases in a way that my predecessors of 50 or 60 years ago were unable to. Obviously, if no dogs or cats were vaccinated I would make more money from treating the consequences of such infections but such a course would be reprehensible to me.

As, indeed, would giving sugar tablets in the form of nosodes on the pretext that they will protect against serious disease.

Yuri


I appreciate your input. We like and trust our vet, but feel he and his cohorts are not up to date with what's being discovered week by week. It's very similar to what we've found with our General Practitioners.

It seems some practitioners think their education stops once they've obtained their degree, when it couldn't be further from the truth.

In the case of our feline, we strongly think our vet's been remiss.

Perhaps you can suggest why our cat got sick only after his annual shots.

Regards,

M.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Perhaps you can suggest why our cat got sick only after his annual shots.Broadly speaking there are 2 possibilities - coincidence or vaccine reaction. Cats very often become acutely ill with no previous signs; there is a 1 in 12 random chance of such an illness happening within one month of an annual vaccination (or any other annual event for that matter). I could just as well ask why your cat didn't get sick following his/her (presumed) 12 previous annual shots?

What was the nature of your cat's illness and what diagnostics were done?

Yuri

[Moochie]

Broadly speaking there are 2 possibilities - coincidence or vaccine reaction. Cats very often become acutely ill with no previous signs; there is a 1 in 12 random chance of such an illness happening within one month of an annual vaccination (or any other annual event for that matter). I could just as well ask why your cat didn't get sick following his/her (presumed) 12 previous annual shots?

What was the nature of your cat's illness and what diagnostics were done?

Yuri

If I remember correctly -- I can check with the vet later -- our cat developed life-threatening kidney disease.

From what we've learned on the 'net, the compounds used in the vaccine may have been the cause of this.

I have no conclusive proof.

My wife and I only want to keep our cat healthy and alive for as long as possible.

He recovered from this episode -- to the vet's amazement -- and we've since notified the vet of our findings.

Thus far we've heard nothing back.

Our cat's due for his annual checkup/shots in a couple of months. He'll have his checkup, but no shots this year.

He's not broke. Why fix him?

M.

[Mojo]

From what we've learned on the 'net, the compounds used in the vaccine may have been the cause of this. Where exactly did you learn this? There is some astonishingly inaccurate information about vaccines on the web.

[Moochie]

Broadly speaking there are 2 possibilities - coincidence or vaccine reaction. Cats very often become acutely ill with no previous signs; there is a 1 in 12 random chance of such an illness happening within one month of an annual vaccination (or any other annual event for that matter). I could just as well ask why your cat didn't get sick following his/her (presumed) 12 previous annual shots?

What was the nature of your cat's illness and what diagnostics were done?

Yuri

I don't know what was done, Yuri. We were told to prepare for the worst.

Matter of fact, when the veterinary clinic released our friend back to our custody, we were told it was so that we could be present at his death.

Elvis (he was named by his original caretakers -- we got him as an adult) recovered over two or three days, much to our relief.

I think he may have suffered a vaccine reaction, as you suggest. It took us by surprise because he'd had many "annuals" in the preceding years.

Maybe his kidneys are diseased -- we have no evidence of that. He eats, plays, and sleeps, and does his toilet like a regular cat. In other words, there are no symptoms to suggest he is ill.

What do you think?

Regards,

M.


(Added text)

P.S. We don't want to risk losing him again, hence this year we will not have him vaccinated. It hasn't been adequately explained to us why annual vaccinations are necessary.

[Zep]

Wouldn't be a heartworm shot, would it, Moochie? That needs regular topping up.

[Moochie]

Wouldn't be a heartworm shot, would it, Moochie? That needs regular topping up.

Could be. He would usually get one injection for three different purposes.

It's just that when he had this injection last August, there was a very severe reaction to it, and we were told to more or less prepare for the worst.

Research on the Internet lead us to think that (a) there was something in the shot that could precipitate kidney failure, and (b) the shot was not necessary every year. Some vets recommend a shot every three years, which is the regime we're going to follow.

As I remarked before, we have not had an adequate explanation as to why this treatment should be annual. I mean, why a "human year"?

There seems to be a lot of advice we take onboard without question.


M.

(Edited to add a comment.)

[Zep]

I don't know if heartworm is a feline affliction as well as canine - vets??

But we used to dose our dog weekly for it when living in the tropics. I understand now it is an annual shot, and that there can be reactions depending on a number of other factors including the dog's current state of health.

[Mojo]

Could be. He would usually get one injection for three different purposes. You're not sure what the vaccine was?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Following on what Yuri said, the most recent example I have of a patient becoming ill after vaccination was a 12yo dog that developed a fever a few days after vaccination. I got as far as reporting it to the vaccine company as I was starting my diagnostics. It turned out to have a large uterine tumour. The acute illness was completely coincidental with the vaccination.

Like Yuri said, we see thousands of clinical cases each year and we do hundreds of vaccination. Inevitably a percentage will coincide in the same animal. This may seem causally linked at first, but that perception does not make it so. Reducing the vaccine frequency because it can be shown that the vaccines give longer coverage is just good medicine. It doesn't mean that frequent harm was caused by the annual vaccines in the first place.

Even such a well-documented instance such as injection (no it doesn't seem to be just vaccine) related sarcoma in the cat is rare enough that I am unlikely to see one in my career. This is, of course, part of the difficulty. There almost certainy are other rare problems with vaccinations, but whatever the actual problem is, it is unlikely to alter the risk-benefit calculation by very much. 15 years ago, if I saw an unwell middle-aged cat ther was a pretty good chance it would have a leukaemia-related illness. That is simply not the case now. There are problems with collecting good epidemiological data in the small animal vet world, but the period during which we have had useful FeLV vaccines is the period during which we have seen much less FeLV-related disease. I now go long periods between finding a FeLV-positive cat. Here's the first thing I found on PubMed to support that assertion J Vet Intern Med. 2005 May-Jun;19(3):329-35. Feline lymphoma in the post-feline leukemia virus era.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Modelling the feline leukemia virus (FeLV) in natural populations of cats (Felis catus).

Fromont E, Artois M, Langlais M, Courchamp F, Pontier D.

UMR CNRS 5558, Universite Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, France. fromont@biomserv.univ-lyon1.ft

A compartmental model was built in order to study the circulation and impact of Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) in populations of domestic cats. The model was tested with data from a long-term study of several feline populations. The study of stability shows that FeLV is maintained in the population with a stable equilibrium and a slight reduction of population size. Estimation of the transmission rate allows us to make a comparison with the values previously estimated in the literature. We compare the impact of mass vaccination or removal programmes in controlling FeLV infection, and conclude that vaccination is more efficient.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"Evaluation of feline leukemia virus control measures.

Lubkin SR, Romatowski J, Zhu M, Kulesa PM, White KA.

Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. lubkin@amath.washington.edu

A susceptible-infected-recovered-susceptible (SIRS) model of the epidemiology of feline leukemia virus is formulated and analysed. The dynamics of the disease are dramatically different in no-risk, low-risk and high-risk subpopulations of asocial, free roaming, and multiple cat household cats. Among low risk (<1% prevalence) free roaming cats, the model predicts that an effective immunization rate of 4% year-1, or an effective removal rate of 8% year-1 are adequate to control the disease completely. Under higher risk (10% prevalence) conditions, an effective immunization rate of 23-72% year-1 or a removal rate of 69-145% year-1 are required for control. At very high (30%) prevalence rates, even heroic measures may not suffice to substantially reduce disease prevalence: a vaccination rate of 100% year-1 even if attainable, would only slightly reduce disease prevalence from 30% to 29%. We conclude that the current estimated effective feline leukemia virus immunization rate of 11-19% of the general population is inadequate to provide herd immunity in the subpopulation of cats which are genuinely at risk of infection. A substantial increase in the vaccination rate and/or intensification of test and removal efforts in the at risk population would be required to attain an effective level of protection."

In my practice we vaccinate about half of our vaccinated cats for FeLV. I've no real handle on how that translates into the general population of cats in our area, but one would also have to bear in mind what is the reservoir population that pet cats would get the disease from- there is not free mixing between the vaccinated group and all the others.

[geni]

From what we've learned on the 'net, the compounds used in the vaccine may have been the cause of this.

The net is not exactly know for provideing useful information with regard to vacines.


He's not broke. Why fix him?


Same reason you do routine mantince on a plane or install patches on an operating system.