Kansas USA Rabies Law

Here are rabies law updates from Kris Christine. I would like to thank Kris for these important updates and for her permission to allow me to post them here on my Blog.

Greetings!

To update you, there is a front-page article in today's (3/18/08)Wichita Eagle by Diane McCartney entitled:

Are annual shots a risk for dogs? Many wonder why city requires 3-year rabies vaccine yearly http://www.kansas.com/news/story/344780.html

Please post a response at the bottom of the online article!

Regards, Kris
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund
http://www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

The following quotes are from that article:

Most veterinarians, including those in Wichita, use a rabies vaccine for dogs that is guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to give immunity for three years.

That's why Michael Nawrocki, president of the Wichita Veterinary Medical Association, calls yearly rabies vaccinations "overkill."

"Every animal, whether they get the one-year or the three-year vaccine, it's the exact same vaccine; it's good for three years," Nawrocki said.

If the vaccine is good for three years, why does the city of Wichita require pets to be vaccinated every year?

Kay Johnson, director of the city's department of environmental services, says irresponsible pet owners are to blame.

Until we see better compliance with vaccinations in general, I'm not inclined to relax our position" on the yearly vaccine, she said.

"It's insane for them to go through this every year," said Christopher Hesse of College Hill Animal Hospital.

Requiring all dogs to be vaccinated annually because some people don't take their dogs in for shots is "ludicrous thinking," Hesse said.

If you would like to see the national 3 year rabies protocol adopted, you can contact Kay Johnson at KJohnson@wichita.gov Phone (316) 268-8351 Fax: (316) 268-8356 Environmental Services1900 E. 9th St. N. Wichita, KS 67214. Kansas Legislators can be contacted by clicking on the link below or by copying and pasting the e-mails at the bottom of this post.

Maine Rabies Update

News from Kris Christine one the latest about the proposed changes to Rabies Laws in Maine, see below.

Once again I would like to extend my gratitude to Kris Christine for her kind permission to share these updates with my visitors.

Greetings All!

I've just returned from the Maine Agriculture Committee's work session on Section 7 of LD 2171, the proposed legislation which would have amended the Animal Welfare law to require that puppies be vaccinated against rabies at 3 months instead of at 6 months as the law currently stands.

The official word from the Co-Chair of the Committee, Representative Wendy Pieh, was: "Your testimony plus the followup that we have all received has made the decision that the rabies vaccination time will NOT be changed."

"The followup" that the committee members received was SEVERAL HUNDRED E-MAILS in opposition to the amendment -- they were swamped!! The response was so overwhelming that even the Director of Animal Welfare, Norma Worley, who wrote and pushed the amendment requested that it be deleted!

MANY, MANY THANKS for responding to the action alert! Contacting the committee made a huge difference in the lives of Maine dogs, and the law will not be changed as a result!

Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
http://www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

Rabies Update - Maine USA

My thanks to Kris Christine for updates regarding vaccination changes in USA and for her kind permission to share this valuable information with my reads.

Greetings!

The Director of Animal Welfare, Norma Worley, is trying to change the rabies immunization requirement for puppies from 6 months to 3 months despite the fact that Maine hasn't had a documented case of a rabid dog since 2003 and there have only been 5 documented cases since 1994 (14 years), and none of them were noted as being puppies. Please read the testimony I presented in opposition to Section 7 of LD 2171 at yesterday's hearing before Maine's Agriculture Committee. If you are concerned about this and wish to voice your opposition, PLEASE e-MAIL THE COMMITTEE members by cutting and pasting their addresses below and putting something like Oppose LD 2171 Section 7 in your subject line. The committee wants to hear from the dog-owning public, and if it doesn't, you may end up being required to add a rabies vaccine into the mix of puppyhood shots (distemper, hepatitis, parvo, etc..) that are being administered at that age.

Below is Kris' submission, for your information.

TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee

RE: LD 2171, An Act To Amend the Animal Welfare Laws



My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Alna, Maine. I am the Founder and Co-Trustee of The Rabies Challenge Fund (RCF). My colleagues -- Dr. W. Jean Dodds of Hemopet, Co-Trustee of the RCF and Dr. Ronald Schultz of The University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, currently conducting 5 & 7 year rabies challenge studies for the RCF -- are the world’s two leading veterinary vaccine research scientists.

I am here to testify against Sec. 7. 7 MRSA §3916, sub-§1-A of LD 2171, which would amend the law to require that puppies be vaccinated against rabies at 3 months of age rather than 6.

There is no scientific or epidemiological data justifying amendment of this law as there has been no increase in rabies in puppies under the age of 6 months in the State of Maine. Dr. Donald Hoenig, Maine’s State Public Health Veterinarian, told me on Wednesday, February 6th that “The last case of canine rabies in Maine was in 2003.......there have only been 5 cases of canine rabies in the past 14 years in Maine…….Cases of canine rabies are EXTREMELY UNUSUAL.”

Five cases of rabies in dogs since 1994 (no mention was made of these cases being puppies under 6 months of age), with the last one being in 2003, evidences the fact that the current law requiring puppies be vaccinated against rabies at 6 months of age is effective at controlling rabies in Maine’s canine community and does not need to be changed.

Vaccinating puppies at too young an age can be ineffective. The 2003 American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Guidelines reports on Page 17 (Attachment #1) that: “…when puppies are first vaccinated at > 16 weeks of age (an age when passively acquired antibodies generally don’t cause interference), one dose of an MLV vaccine, or two doses of a killed vaccine, are adequate to stimulate an immune response.”

On Page 16 of the 2003 AAHA Guidelines (Attachment #2), it states that: "When vaccinating an animal, the age of the animal, the animal's immune status, and interference by maternal antibodies in the development of immunity must be considered. Research has demonstrated that the presence of passively acquired maternal antibodies interferes with the immune response to many canine vaccines, including CPV, CDV, CAV-2 and rabies vaccines."

The 2006 AAHA Guidelines (Attachment #3), states on Page 13 as the most common reason for vaccination failure that “the puppy has a sufficient amount of passively acquired maternal antibody (PAMA) to block the vaccine......" The older the puppy is when it receives its first rabies vaccination, the more likely it will elicit the desired immunological response – as demonstrated by the extraordinarily low number of canine rabies cases in Maine over a 14 year period under the current 6 month vaccination protocol for puppies.

Rabies, a “killed” vaccine, is the most potent of the veterinary vaccines and is associated with clinically significant adverse reactions -- it should only be given when warranted. According to the 2003AAHA Guidelines (Page 16) (Attachment #2), "...killed vaccines are much more likely to cause hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., immune-mediated disease)." Further, the AAHA task force reports on Page 18 (Attachment #4) that, "Bacterial vaccines, especially killed whole organism products …..are much more likely to cause adverse reactions than subunit or live bacterial vaccines or MLV vaccines, especially if given topically. Several killed bacterial products are used as immunomodulators/adjuvants. Thus, their presence in a combination vaccine product may enhance or suppress the immune response or may cause an undesired response (e.g., IgE hypersensitivity or a class of antibody that is not protective)."

Adverse reactions such autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites are linked to rabies vaccinations.

In sum, the law, as it currently stands requiring puppies to be vaccinated at 6 months of age is and has been effective at controlling rabies in Maine’s canine population. There is no epidemiological or scientific rationale for changing this law and prematurely exposing puppies to the potentially harmful, sometimes fatal, adverse side affects of the rabies vaccine prior to the age of 6 months.



Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

The Rabies Challenge Studies Begin

Some years ago I was fortunate enough to meet Kris Christine through a mutual interest, that of over vaccination of our beloved dogs. Kris has stayed in touch through her regular updates VIA e-mail and I have shared this valuable information Kris has provided on my web site or here on my Blog.

On December 1, 2007 an announcement was made by The Rabies Challenge Fund Organisation and although a little late coming through on Verbiage Spillage, it is of such high importance and well deserving of promotion.

Following is the official announcement received from Kris. Thank you for all you have done and continue to do Kris.


One of the most important vaccine research studies in veterinary medicine is underway at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine in Madison. Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading authority on veterinary vaccines and Chair of the Department of Pathobiological Sciences, has begun concurrent 5 and 7 year challenge studies to determine the long-term duration of immunity of the canine rabies vaccine, with the goal of extending the state-mandated interval for boosters. These will be the first long-term challenge studies on the canine rabies vaccine to be published in the United States.

Dr. Schultz comments that: "We are all very excited to start this study that will hopefully demonstrate that rabies vaccines can provide a minimum of 7 years of immunity."

This research is being financed by The Rabies Challenge Fund, a charitable trust founded by pet vaccine disclosure advocate Kris L. Christine of Maine, who serves as Co-Trustee with world-renowned veterinary research scientist and practicing clinician, Dr. W. Jean Dodds of Hemopet in California. The Rabies Challenge Fund recently met its goal of $177,000 to fund the studies’ first year budget with contributions from dog owners, canine groups, trainers, veterinarians, and small businesses. Annual budget goals of $150,000 for the studies must be met in the future.

Dr. Jean Dodds, DVM states: "This is the first time in my 43 years of involvement in veterinary issues that what started as a grass-roots effort to change an outmoded regulation affecting animals will be addressed scientifically by an acknowledged expert to benefit all canines in the future."

Scientific data published in 1992 by Michel Aubert and his research team demonstrated that dogs were immune to a rabies challenge 5 years after vaccination, while Dr. Schultz’s serological studies documented antibody titer counts at levels known to confer immunity to rabies 7 years post-vaccination. This data strongly suggests that state laws requiring annual or triennial rabies boosters for dogs are redundant. Because the rabies vaccine is the most potent of the veterinary vaccines and associated with significant adverse reactions, it should not be given more often than is necessary to maintain immunity. Adverse reactions such autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites are linked to rabies vaccinations.

Study co-trustee Kris Christine adds: “Because the USDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to provide long-term duration of immunity studies documenting maximum effectiveness when licensing their products, concerned dog owners have contributed the money to fund this research themselves. We want to ensure that rabies immunization laws are based upon independent, long-term scientific data.”

More information and regular updates on The Rabies Challenge Fund and the concurrent 5 and 7 year challenge studies it is financing can be found at the fund’s website designed by volunteer Andrea Brin at: Rabies Challenge Fund.

US Declared Canine-Rabies Free

Here is another update regarding Rabies Vaccinations from Kris Christine. Once again my appreciation to Kris for this valuable information. Please visit The Rabies Challenge Fund web site and find out how you can help.

"Headlines to the contrary, that didn't mean that rabies - an essentially untreatable disease, with only one documented human survivor in this country - has disappeared for good."

Quote above is from a Newsday article entitled Giving Rabies Vaccine is Sure Way to Protect Pets by Denise Flaim (10/29/07). This article, with comments from Dr. W. Jean Dodds of The Rabies Challenge Fund and Hemopet, clarifies some of the confusion which arose in response to the Center For Disease Control's press release, US Declared Canine-Rabies Free -- CDC Announces at Inaugural World Rabies Day Symposium.

Challenging the Rabies Vaccine

I wanted to share a few important informational e-mails I receive from Kris Christine. Below is the first of these. My gratitude is extended to Kris for allowing me to share this valuable information with me readers and most definitely for her tireless passion for the health and well being of our dogs and cats.

An article was published by Reuters on September 7, 2007 that is of interest to dog owners:

U.S. Free of Canine Rabies Virus
by Maggie Fox (Health & Science Editor) September 7, 2007

"The elimination of canine rabies in the United States represents one of the major public health success stories in the last 50 years," CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said in a statement

For more information on the canine rabies vaccine and The Rabies Challenge Fund.

Rabies Challenge Fund Reaches First-Year Goal
Pets: Rabies vaccine research may save some pain
The Vaccine Challenge
How Often Does He REALLY Need a Rabies Shot?
Get Out Your Wallets, Rabies Challenge Fund a Reality
Are We Over Vaccinating Our Pets?
Rabies Challenge Kicks Off Fundraiser
Nationwide Campaign Launched to Fund Rabies Vaccine Study
Challenging the Rabies Vaccine
The Rabies Challenge Fund
Rabies Challenge Fund & Master Dog Training at the Womens Podcasting Expo - Show #42

Anyone wishing to have a copy of the 1992 French challenge study data from a research team led by Michel Aubert in which dogs were demonstrated to be immune to a rabies challenge 5 years after vaccination, or Vascellari's study which documented cancerous tumors in dogs at presumed injection sites of rabies vaccine, please e-mail me.

Regards, Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund

Vaccine Adverse Events

October • 2007

VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS

Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs


Although vaccines are designed to be immunogens and must have potency, safety, and efficacy before licensing, no vaccine is completely free of adverse reactions or totally effective. While pre-marketing safety trials by manufacturers help ensure that vaccine-associated adverse events (VAAEs) occur infrequently, their potential has generated public and professional concern regarding overvaccination of humans and animals.

A published retrospective cohort study of over 1.25 million dogs vaccinated at 360 veterinary hospitals permitted accurate estimation of the incidence rate of practitioner-diagnosed acute VAAEs occurring within 3 d of vaccine administration. Specific clinical signs and treatments were reviewed in a random sample of 400 affected dogs. The association between potential risk factors and a VAAE was estimated by use of multivariate logistic regression.

There were 4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000 dogs vaccinated) associated with administration of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight increased. Risk was 27-38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35-64% greater for dogs approximately 1-3 yr old versus 2-9 mo old. The risk of a VAAE significantly increased as the number of vaccine doses administered per office visit increased; each additional vaccine significantly increased risk of an adverse event by 27% in dogs = or <> 10 kg.

The risk of a VAAE in this study population was inversely related to a dog's weight. This weight -response relationship had been suggested previously in a study where toy breed dogs had significantly more suspected vaccine reactions than other dogs. [Vaccines, in contrast to nearly all veterinary pharmaceuticals, are prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight.] A genetic predisposition to VAAEs has been documented for some dog breeds, and the relatively low VAAE rate observed in mixed-breed dogs suggests that laboratory safety trials using mixed breeds may underestimate the VAAE rates that would occur in purebreds. This is important because purebred dogs comprise at least two thirds of the US dog population. Further, the risk of allergic reaction has been reported to increase after the 3rd or 4th vaccination.

In the present study, VAAE risk increased for dogs up to 2 yr of age and then declined thereafter. The decline after 2 yr of age may have been attributable to allergen desensitization, initiation of an alternative vaccination protocol in predisposed dogs, or owner refusal to revaccinate dogs that previously had a VAAE. Neutering appeared to increase the risk of a VAAE more than sex. Females are believed to mount stronger immune responses after vaccination or infection than males because of a dimorphic enhancing effect of estrogens and a protective effect of androgens.

Research is still required to characterize the primary allergenic components of different licensed veterinary vaccines, and it remains to be determined whether vaccine allergenicity and volume can be reduced while immunologic protection is maintained, particularly for smaller dogs.

Premarketing safety studies, when fiscally or logistically limited in size, will remain limited in power to detect rare adverse events that may be more common among animals with particular risk factors.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hr after vaccination. These factors should be considered in risk assessment and risk communication with clients regarding vaccination.

Fort Dodge Recalls Rabies Vaccine

It just does not seem to stop!

Fort dodge continues to be in the media and all BAD stuff while our beloved dogs and cats suffer and even die! Mostly in America the latest being the Rabies vaccine recall.


The Charlotte Observer June 10, 2006

Vaccine maker recalls rabies doses


Veterinarians to notify pet owners about shots
STELLA M. HOPKINS
shopkins@charlotteobserver.com


A leading rabies vaccine manufacturer has voluntarily recalled about 330,000 doses sold nationwide after a vaccinated dog contracted the deadly disease.

"They don't know why ... the animal contracted rabies," said Kelly Goss, a spokeswoman for Fort Dodge Animal Health, based in Overland Park, Kan., and a division of health care giant Wyeth. "In the best interest of pet owners and animals, we made a decision to voluntarily recall that product."

The company mailed notices to veterinarians on May 25, and will reimburse them for revaccination, Goss said. Doctors are notifying pet owners to bring in animals for free shots.

Fort Dodge began selling the recalled batch in January 2005. Goss didn't know how many vets bought the problem lot. Fort Dodge tested batches of vaccine with serial numbers issued around that of the affected lot and found no problems, she said.

Animals at greatest risk are outdoor pets and those such as puppies and kittens, who received the recalled medication as their first and only vaccination, said Dr. Steve Marks of the N.C. State University College of Veterinary Medicine in Raleigh.

"If that initial vaccination did not work, then they're ... at risk for rabies," he said.

Notified pet owners should act quickly to have their animal revaccinated, Marks said, but he cautioned against panic.

"Just call your veterinarian if you're in doubt," he said.

What This Means to Pet Owners

Fort Dodge Animal Health recalled rabies vaccine Rabvac 3 TF, serial number 873113A. Your vet should notify you if your pet was vaccinated with the problem batch. You can also check the rabies certificate that you should have received, which lists the manufacturer and serial number.

Canine Rabies Challenge Studies Begin

Greetings!

The Rabies Challenge Fund is pleased to announce that the canine rabies challenge studies have begun!!! Permission is granted to post and cross-post the text of our press release below.

Regards, Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
The Rabies Challenge Fund
http://www.RabiesChallengeFund.org


CANINE RABIES CHALLENGE STUDIES BEGIN !

One of the most important vaccine research studies in veterinary medicine is underway at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine in Madison. Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading authority on veterinary vaccines and Chair of the Department of Pathobiological Sciences, has begun concurrent 5 and 7 year challenge studies to determine the long-term duration of immunity of the canine rabies vaccine, with the goal of extending the state-mandated interval for boosters. These will be the first long-term challenge studies on the canine rabies vaccine to be published in the United States.

Dr. Schultz comments that: "We are all very excited to start this study that will hopefully demonstrate that rabies vaccines can provide a minimum of 7 years of immunity."

This research is being financed by The Rabies Challenge Fund, a charitable trust founded by pet vaccine disclosure advocate Kris L. Christine of Maine, who serves as Co-Trustee with world-renowned veterinary research scientist and practicing clinician, Dr. W. Jean Dodds of Hemopet in California. The Rabies Challenge Fund recently met its goal of $177,000 to fund the studies’ first year budget with contributions from dog owners, canine groups, trainers, veterinarians, and small businesses. Annual budget goals of $150,000 for the studies must be met in the future.

Dr. Jean Dodds, DVM states: "This is the first time in my 43 years of involvement in veterinary issues that what started as a grass-roots effort to change an outmoded regulation affecting animals will be addressed scientifically by an acknowledged expert to benefit all canines in the future."

Scientific data published in 1992 by Michel Aubert and his research team demonstrated that dogs were immune to a rabies challenge 5 years after vaccination, while Dr. Schultz’s serological studies documented antibody titer counts at levels known to confer immunity to rabies 7 years post-vaccination. This data strongly suggests that state laws requiring annual or triennial rabies boosters for dogs are redundant. Because the rabies vaccine is the most potent of the veterinary vaccines and associated with significant adverse reactions, it should not be given more often than is necessary to maintain immunity. Adverse reactions such autoimmune diseases affecting the thyroid, joints, blood, eyes, skin, kidney, liver, bowel and central nervous system; anaphylactic shock; aggression; seizures; epilepsy; and fibrosarcomas at injection sites are linked to rabies vaccinations.

Study co-trustee Kris Christine adds: “Because the USDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to provide long-term duration of immunity studies documenting maximum effectiveness when licensing their products, concerned dog owners have contributed the money to fund this research themselves. We want to ensure that rabies immunization laws are based upon independent, long-term scientific data.”

More information and regular updates on The Rabies Challenge Fund and the concurrent 5 and 7 year challenge studies it is financing can be found at the fund’s website designed by volunteer Andrea Brin at: www.RabiesChallengeFund.org

Vaccinations - Vaccination Interview with Bob Rogers, DVM

Anther hot topic...
Vaccinations - Vaccination Interview with Bob Rogers, DVM - LONG!
Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:24 pm (PST)

* * * * * * * *Begin Interview* * * * * * * *

Vaccination Interview with Bob Rogers, DVM of Texas

Welcome back to another great "If Your Horse Could Talk" show which promotes natural horse care through knowledge. I'm your host Lisa Ross-Williams and today I'll be chatting with Dr Bob Rogers about the class action lawsuit concerning pet vaccinations.

Lisa - Welcome Dr Rogers. Thanks so much for being with us today. Before we get into the nitty-gritty of this issue, please tell us a bit about your background and how you got involved with this issue.

Dr Rogers - I'm a 1975 graduate of Texas A & M University and I've been in practice for 30 years. In 1988, I noticed a new vaccine came out for Coronavirus and I was confused because I had never seen a case of a dog with Corona. In talking with the manufacturer, they said the vaccine was only developed for use for puppies, they acknowledged that Corona was not a disease of adult dogs and yet, their marketing department was marketing it for adult dogs. I asked them what was up with that and they said that Marketing doesn't talk to Research & Development.

I thought that over the years vets would quit using the Corona virus vaccine but what I've seen is more and more unnecessary and ineffective vaccines coming out. In 1997, I went to a seminar where Dr Ron Schultz, probably the most prominent immunologist in veterinary medicine said that giving vaccines like Rabies, Distemper, and Parvo annually had no effect. I went back to my practice and changed my vaccine recommendations as I cannot in good conscious charge a client for something that does nothing, especially when I know that there's a risk involved. I was very surprised over the years to see that nobody else was changing.

Lisa - Do you think that's because vets are so busy with their practice that they don't have the time to try to find new information about vaccines?

Dr Rogers - I think that's a big part of it. Certainly a vet would be more inclined to get continuing education about diabetes because that's a big challenge. However, he would probably think he knows how to vaccinate a dog. But the drug companies have disseminated a lot of false information; they come into town, buy dinners at the most expensive restaurant for all the vets and present a seminar on vaccines where they misconstrue the studies, they omit the most current studies, and they conclude that we should go on vaccinating every
pet for every disease known to man, every year. So that's a big part of the problem too.

Lisa - So at what point did you decide you needed to take a more active role?

Dr Rogers - Over three years, I went to the Texas State Veterinary Board; their mission is #1 to protect the public and #2 is to elevate the standard of practice. I merely asked them to encourage vets to get continuing
education on vaccinations and to stop allowing continued education where the speaker is a paid employee of a drug company because that is a big conflict of interest. I think that was a very reasonable request and they refused.

Lisa - Did they give you a reason?

Dr Rogers - They said they didn't want to tell vets how to practice. Well, stopping fraud is quite different than telling vets how to practice. This isn't just a matter of which antibiotic is better, this is charging people
for something that has no effect. As more scientific data came out and as more organizations like the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association came out with recommendations and guidelines, I kept going back to the state board and they continued to refuse. After about the sixth time, I threatened to sue them for negligence for failing to protect the public.

Lisa - Good and did that work?

Dr Rogers - Yes, they then agreed to investigate my complaint and in fact sent a letter out to every Texas vet saying that they should change their vaccine recommendations. To me the word "should" means do it and the boards interpretation means it's a suggestion. As people here have filed complaints against vets for giving unnecessary vaccinations, the state board has told these people, "if you don't like your vet's recommendations, find another vet." They still are not enforcing this.

So I went to the Sunset Commission which is a group of senators who oversee the state board and they told the board in no uncertain terms to crack down on unnecessary vaccinations. The state board sent me a letter saying they intended to ignore the Sunset Commission. People continue to file complaints
and the board continues to say vets can do whatever they want.

There are attorneys who just hang around the state capitals to see what's going on and this issue came to a law firm's attention. They made an announcement that they would represent clients who are upset about
necessary vaccinations and whose pets have been harmed. That firm approached me and asked me to provide them with the scientific literature to support this, which I have done. On the day they announced this, they got over 300 people on the first day alone.

Lisa - I believe that. Is that just Texas or is this across the U.S.?

Dr Rogers - I know of lawsuits going on in several states. They just changed the class-action ruling on a national level defining how class action suits can be filed. This law firm's focus started in Texas although they have identified complainants in other states.

Lisa - I certainly can see many people involved because this is an issue across the country. I'm finding that animal owners are becoming more informed and learning new things and I certainly think more people are aware of the vaccination issue. I see it growing to ten of thousands at least.

Let's talk a little more about vaccinations. I always tell people to do some research. If you're going to vaccinate, try to understand the diseases, the efficiency & duration of protection and the side effects. That way, you can make an informed decision. Unfortunately, a lot of people look to their vets for guidance, but it sounds like many of the vets are not aware of the latest studies and plug along, sending out annual vaccination notices.

Dr Rogers - What a vaccine consist of is a virus or bacteria that has been weakened or killed so that it cannot cause the disease, hopefully. But it still is essentially a Parvo virus, or Distemper, etc, so it stimulates the
immune system to protect against that disease. We're depending on our patients to respond to that vaccine by producing antibodies and cell mediated immunity. If a pet has already been immunized for one of the core vaccines of which we know the vaccines produce a long-term immunity, when you give them another vaccine, the antibodies for the first vaccine will block any subsequent vaccine from having an effect. This is what Dr Ron Schultz published clear back in 1995; that the client is paying for something with no effect. There are other vaccines like Leptospirosis for which the duration of immunity is very short and they do have to be given every year. But these vaccines should only be given to a dog that is at risk of developing the disease.

Lisa - So if there have been no reports of that disease in your area for many years, then that would be a reason not to give it.

Dr Rogers - Correct. For instance, in Texas, they only see an average of 12 dogs a year with Leptospirosis. Over a million dogs and the chance of your dog being exposed to Lepto is less than 1 in a million. We know that the dogs at the highest risk are hunting dogs. So, if you were given that information, would you purchase that vaccine for your dog? I wouldn't. The other thing is that vaccine is only 60-80% effective. Clients should be provided with enough information to make an informed decision.

Lisa - From what I understand, on the back of vaccination bottles it states it only should be given to healthy animals. So if an animal has a compromised immune system or some type of chronic issue, they might not be able to build the immunity even if given the shot. If they're not healthy enough to launch a reaction, what happens then?

Dr Rogers - The real danger is that the animal could develop the disease for which the vaccine was intended to prevent. Distemper is the biggest culprit. A dog with diabetes or Cushings could get distemper from the vaccine and this actually happens, depending on the brand of vaccine in 1 out of 10,000. I personally have seen this happen to three dogs and this is an awful experience for the animal, the owners and me as well.

Lisa - When you are talking about core vaccines, what are you referring to?

Dr Rogers - These are vaccinations that are recommended for every dog to receive; Rabies, Distemper, and Parvo. We are currently recommending these for puppies at 8, 12, and 16 weeks and again at one year. The American Animal Hospital Association and most veterinary schools have adopted a compromise here. We know the vaccines are good for at least 7 years, probably the lifetime of the pet. But to try to compromise with vets who are worried about losing money, they came up with an every 3 year recommendation. This is really just an arbitrary number that they just pulled out of a hat.

Lisa - Is it true that the USDA doesn't require the drug companies to prove efficiency?

Dr Rogers - They do have to prove 85% efficiency. The USDA certainly needs to revise it's standards for licensing vaccines. They do not have to prove how long the vaccine is good for; they can test at three months and get a license for the vaccine. The vaccine might only be good for four months or for the life of the pet. The USDA makes no determination on that.

Lisa - So unless you're testing for efficiency beyond one year, then you don't have to come out and say it's effective longer. Is that what has happened in the past where the drug companies say we have tested it at one year, but never went further? It is a business and we need to understand that vaccinations involve a LOT of money for the vets and the drug companies.

Dr Rogers - Yes, it's a billion dollar industry.

Lisa - How about some of the adverse reactions that are seen in pets today. Quite frankly, I think that this is just the tip of the iceberg and I don't feel the current adverse reporting procedures are efficient. I hear so many times from people who may see a reaction in their dog, cat or horse and tell their vet. The vet says, "On no, it couldn't possibly be linked to the shot." The people then just stop there where in fact this needed to be
reported, either by the vet or the owner. Let's chat whether there's a better way to report these reactions

Dr Rogers - There is no reporting. There is no government supported reporting for veterinary vaccines. We can report to the drug company, but they have no obligation and they do not report back to vets about these reactions. We have no idea and no way of finding out.

Lisa - That seems like it's broken. I thought there was a reporting agency?

Dr Rogers - There was a reporting network but it was discontinued several years ago.

Lisa - I didn't know that. What was the reason?

Dr Rogers - To save on government funding. Probably the most severe vaccine reaction that has received the most attention is cats getting cancer from the vaccines. This is called a vaccine associated sarcoma and it is 100% fatal. It is thought to kill 22,000 cats a year in the U.S. and that's an estimated figure.

Lisa - Say someone takes their cat in and are diagnosed with this. Are they being told why or do the vets even know why?

Dr Rogers - I've talked to a lot of cat owners where the vet didn't tell them that the vaccine was the cause of the cancer.

Lisa - Is that because the vet is afraid of repercussions?

Dr Rogers - I think it's a knee jerk reaction for people to be defensive and say "I didn't do it." But the owners find out. They all tell me the same thing-I wasn't warned, nobody told me this could happen. If vets would do
one thing we could greatly reduce the number of cats getting cancer. Warn the owner that if a lump develops at the site of the shot and it doesn't go way within three weeks, have it removed, hopefully before it becomes cancer. Maybe only 1 lump out of 100 will develop into cancer but it's worth removing them all.

Adjuvants are something that is added to the vaccine to stimulate the immune system. There is lots of evidence to show that it is adjuvants that is the cause of cancer in cats. I'm not saying that a non-adjuvanted vaccines can't possible cause cancer, but certainly the adjuvant vaccines are at least five times more likely.

Lisa - What type of substances are used for adjuvants?

Dr Rogers - It's usually an aluminum added. The way it works is it creates inflammation which draws the immune system to the site of the vaccine. It also makes a vaccination more of a sustained release product. Cats are unique in that inflammation can turn into cancer. There are non-adjuvanted vaccines; they don't cost anymore and yet they only have about 10% of the market. Only 10% of vets are going to all non-adjuvanted vaccines.

Lisa - Does that go back to them just not knowing?

Dr Rogers - I think it goes back to the vaccine manufacturer disseminating false and misleading information. Certainly the companies that don't make a non-adjuvant vaccines want to go around and say it hasn't been proven that adjuvants are the culprit.

Lisa - Doesn't that come down to demand? If there were more vets and owners demanding the types of vaccines, then the drug companies would either get on board or they're going to lose their shirt.

Dr Rogers - Absolutely. Adjuvants were declared a Class 2 Carcinogen by the World Health Organization. If that was recognized by the USDA, they would have to take all the adjuvant vaccines off the market. So again I think the USDA is asleep at the wheel.

The AVMA asked the USDA to revise their standards for licensing vaccines back in 1998. Since that time, they have licensed vaccines that have no effect, vaccines that don't even contain the virus or disease to which they were intended to protect and many adjuvant vaccines. So the USDA has not done what the AVMA asked them to do.

Lisa - Do you think this class action lawsuit will put pressure on the USDA to
change that? How can we get that changed?

Dr Rogers - It's very sad to see that it had to come to a lawsuit. I think vets are good people who have made one bad decision which is to ignore the scientific evidence and studies and to refuse to accept change. Basically, good people who said, "I don't care what the scientific evidence says, I'm not changing." But I do think we need some moral leadership at the AVMA, the State boards should do their duty to protect the public and the USDA needs to clean up their act.

Lisa - How about the AVMA. You said that they did change their recommendations. Did they send that out to all the vet members?

Dr Rogers - Yes, in 2001 they published a position statement on vaccinations. They said there is no scientific data to support annual vaccination and said that repeated administration of these vaccines does not enhance the pet's immunity.

Lisa - So you're getting risk with no benefit.

Dr Rogers - Correct. It's been ignored for 6 years. Those guidelines have been ignored by 90% of vets.

Lisa - Can't the AVMA get stronger it their stance?

Dr Rogers - They're afraid people will quit paying their dues. They do get most of their money from the drug companies. It is a trade association.

Lisa - I want people to understand that the AVMA is a private trade organization whose goal is to benefit the vets.

Dr Rogers - I have filed complaints with the AVMA about false advertising and they blew me off.

Lisa - But isn't that their duty to look into that?

Dr Rogers - They do have an ethics clause and committee and they do have the power to sanction vets who are doing false advertising, but they refuse to. It's about following the money.

Lisa - I do understand big business but I do what I do for the love of the animals. If doing the right thing means I lose some money, then so be it.

Dr Rogers - Well, look at this Vioxx trial. I think it's a good example of what drug companies do. If they don't like a study, they just ignore it.

Lisa - That in itself should be illegal. It sounds like there just needs to be a whole bunch of changes at all the different levels. I believe you initiating this and getting the legal people involved is the beginning.

Dr Rogers - It has had an effect. I just attended a seminar on vaccines and a vet in the audience was very concerned about lawsuits. The speaker indicated that fear was justified.

Lisa - Lets talk a little but about the disclosure statement which should cover the pros, cons, and adverse reactions to help educate the owner. What would be involved with something like that?

Dr Rogers - There is legislation pending in many states to require vets to give informed consent before vaccinating a pet. I know that the Texas AVMA has a committee that is looking at drafting such an informed consent form.

Lisa - Do you think that's what it's going to take to get the vets doing what's right? Introducing legislation at a state level requiring them to do so?

Dr Rogers - Well, I'm not sure if that's the answer. Say I have a client who comes in, a Dad with three kids and a dog. He says that Mom says all the shots are due and please hurry because the football game starts in 15
minutes. He doesn't want to know anything about vaccines and no doubt, if I don't vaccinate the dog for parvo and distemper every year, I'll get a phone call from Mom asking why not.

Lisa - Perhaps Mom would like that information. Dad can bring it home and she may say, I had no idea and next year we'll have to think twice about it. I run into some owners who just don't want to know-they figure if they don't have the information, then they can't be held accountable.

Dr Rogers - Maybe when the dog develops a severe reaction, they will say, "if only you had told me". It's got to start with the client.

Lisa - I know with my dealings with the Arizona Vet Board, it's tough to introduce a new idea and get them to change the way it's been going for ever. My question goes back to, is this something that each state needs to
get their legislators to introduce a bill? Who's responsibly is this to get the vets giving disclosure information?

Dr Rogers - It's the responsibility of each State Board and I have written to every state board in the U.S. They said they would take it under advisement which tells me my letter got filed in the round file. To your listeners- If you really love pets, get on the state board. Go apply to be on that board. Right now we have the foxes watching the henhouse and we need people on these boards who love pets. We have far too many people on the board who love vets and care about protecting their income-Now we need people who love
pets.

Lisa - That's certainly a way to do it. I believe here in AZ we have two or three seats open to the public.

Dr Rogers - Well, I hope they are not like the lay people on the TX board who sit there like a bump on a log and think this is over their head. We need people on these state board who are out to protect the public and their pets.

Lisa - Let's talk about the actually lawsuit. Again, is this just for Texas people only?

Dr Rogers - No, this firm will accept complaints out of Texas and there are a number of firms looking at this issue.

Lisa - The law firm is Childress, Duffy, Goldblatt of Chicago. Their website is
http://www.childresslaw.net

Dr Rogers - Yes, click on the "contact us" and then go to class action. It has a companion animal vaccine lawsuit there.

Lisa - So what are their main goals? Is it to require vets to give disclosure statement or is it bigger than that?

Dr Rogers - I think they want to see vets quit giving unnecessary and unsafe vaccines. Certainly, this begins with disclosure. The point of law here is the standard of the reasonable patient. Would a reasonable patient elect to purchase, for example, the corona vaccine if they knew that adult dogs don't even get this disease? Would a reasonable client purchase an adjuvant vaccine if they knew they were five times more likely to cause cancer? Or would they elect a safer, non-adjuvant vaccine? I provide my clients with that information and have not had one clients take the riskier product.

Lisa - So would it be up to the individual vets to come up with their own disclosure or would that be something at a state level?

Dr Rogers - The problem with the individual vet coming up with a disclosure is what if he gives false information and doesn't disclose or withheld the information? What if his disclosure statement said that dogs can die from corona? Then we're back to the lawsuits for misrepresentation.
Lisa - Do you think it's the responsibility of the AVMA to some up with something?

Dr Rogers - Yes, I would encourage the AVMA to come up with something, but ultimately the state boards are going to have to enforce the law that already exists, which in Texas says that a vet can be punished for giving
unnecessary treatment. Most states say vets must deal ethically with the public. I don't think you'd say it's ethical to charge someone for something that has no effect or to administer something to a patient which
could cause a 100% fatal cancer without warning the client.

Lisa - Where can people go for more information? http://www.newvaccinationprotocol.com is
one.

Dr Rogers - There's good information on that site. Most veterinary schools have their vaccination recommendations on their websites including Cornell and University of California at Davis. There's a lot of good info about cancer in cats at http://www.catshots.com . My website, http://www.critteradvocacy.org is good and has a lot of links to other excellent sites.

Lisa - You brought up vet schools. So they're on track with this?

Dr Rogers - Sure, the University of California at Davis changed their recommendation over 7 years ago. They do not use any adjuvant vaccines.

Lisa - Do you think that the new graduates are going to be coming out with an understanding and perhaps realize the dangers of this?

Dr Rogers - I think this is heartbreaking. When I graduated from vet school 30 years ago, the vet I went to work for told me on the first day, "When things go wrong, tell the truth." I have interviewed 40 new graduates who have told me at their job interviews, the vets tell them that they will vaccinate every dog for corona, every year or they can't come to work for them. Any vet who has graduated from Texas A & M in the last 17 years was taught that adult dogs don't get that disease and the vaccine is unnecessary but they come out of schools and their boss tells them they have to do it. They have student loans and they need a job. To me, this is heartbreaking.

Lisa - Yes because it's making people give up on their principles.

Dr Rogers - Of these people who graduated in the last 17 years who know better, 30% of them are still giving corona every year.

Lisa - Any last message you want to leave our listeners with? If they're saying that this is outrageous, what can they do? Hopefully, they pass this information along to every animal owners they know. What is your message to everyday animal owners?

Dr Rogers - As the Attorney General in Texas told me, "If this is going to get changed, it's going to take a big public outcry."

Lisa - The first step to that is education.

Dr Rogers - I think the core of the problem is doctors, dentists and vets need to quit getting their information from drug companies. Continuing education should not be allowed from a speaker who is a paid employee of a drug company. I prefer to get my information from the university or someone who is board certified in the field and someone who has no conflict of interest in the products being discussed. A lot of various things need to be put in place and certainly the state vet boards need to open their minds, listen to the information and truly do that's best for the animals and the public.

Lisa - Dr Rogers, thanks so much for being with us today. I pat you on the back for coming forward and taking a stance as I know it's not an easy thing to do. That's it for another great "If Your Horse Could Talk" show. Until next time, I'm Lisa Ross-Williams.

Be sure to listen to the full audio interview at
http://www.NaturalHorseTalk.com

smile-wailful