AVMA Tackles Veterinary Shortage With Incentive Program UW Veterinary Students to Host National Symposium Sanofi-Aventis Pulls Trigger on Merial Deal AVMA Reveals Trends in Veterinary Medicine, Pet Care Nature’s Variety Expands Recall to Include All Raw Frozen Chicken Products

Holistic Approach to Vaccination

How many people’s dearly loved pets have to get sick and/or die to provide proof that over-vaccinating dogs and cats with core MLV vaccines is causing serious illness and even death?

In the quest for proof, perhaps we should ask what is the scientific justification for vaccine manufacturers’ recommendations to revaccinate annually with core MLV vaccines?

As I understand it, there is no scientific justification for annual revaccination of adult dogs and cats with core MLV vaccines… (Ref. 1, p. 76).

According to the Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats, compiled by the Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA): “Vaccines should not be given needlessly. Core vaccines should not be given any more frequently than every three years after the 12 month booster injection following the puppy/kitten series”. (Ref. 2, p. 2).

The WSAVA Guidelines note: “Most vaccinated dogs will have a persistence of serum antibody (against core vaccine antigens) for many years. Immunologically, this antibody reflects the function of a distinct population of long-lived plasma cells (memory effector B cells). Induction of immunological memory is the primary objective of vaccination. For core vaccines there is excellent correlation between the presence of antibody and protective immunity and there is long DOI for these products”. (Ref. 2, p. 5).

In a chapter titled “Considerations in Designing Effective and Safe Vaccination Programs for Dogs”, Professor Ron Schultz notes “…for those vaccines that provide immunity for 3 or more years, I believe that annual revaccination is contraindicated – the increased risk of adverse reactions from revaccination provides no benefit”. (Ref. 3).

Core MLV vaccines that have been demonstrated by the manufacturer to provide 3 years’ protection have been registered in Australia since 2005. (Ref. 4). So why are core MLV vaccines that recommend that adult dogs and cats be revaccinated annually still on the market? They should be taken off the market immediately to ensure unnecessary annual revaccination with core MLV vaccines does not occur.

The Fact Sheets of the WSAVA Guidelines note that DOI after vaccination with MLV core vaccines for CPV-2, CAV-2 and CDV is 7 years or longer, based on challenge and serological studies (Ref. 2, pp 15-17), so even the notion of revaccinating every 3 years is suspect…

On the topic of adverse reactions to vaccination, the WSAVA Guidelines note “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”. (Ref 2, p. 8).

For a pet owner’s personal experience of veterinarians’ under-reporting of “adverse events”, see my previous comments on 2/14/2009 at 10:38:50 PM and 2/16/2009 at 2:13:50 AM. Also see my comment on the “Titers Join Debate on Vaccine Frequency” article on 2/16/2009 3:17:59 AM.

See references below

Elizabeth, Australia

I was interested to read your recent article titled, "Holistic Approach to Vaccination" in your recent article. It was interesting to hear another opinion on vaccination protocols. I am a practicing veterinarian whose does offer annual and 3 year vaccine protocols and have at times offered vaccine titers to clients. I spend time having conversations about why and when vaccines are important. Our practice uses a life style survey with each visit to see whether the patient should or should not receive certain vaccines. And regarding vaccines titers, titers are a tool; but they tell us very little about how long a vaccine may be protective in a pet.

Now the other claims made in the article, that we are causing serious illness to our patients by vaccinating; I feel needs to be proven or established established with research before we go publicizing the claim. I do not not see any scientific research supporting these claims in the article.

We are scientists and need to use valid scientific studies to help guide us. Just like I did not beginning extended vaccine protocols until there was scientific studies that showed extended protection and extended duration of immunity, I do not plan to begin speaking of these serious claims to my clients until I see strong evidence supporting these claims.

I feel that holistic care should be a tool and I will be the first to admit that I have no training in this area. Perhaps this should be an area of study in the veterinary curriculum. However, I have to deal with unsubstantiated claims about pet foods, and all other products from clients that read unsupported information and claims on the internet. I expect more from my colleagues and want to have valid research to back my decisions. I hope that that is the directions that this and future articles plan to take. I look forward to seeing the research to help change the claims to scientific proof and then would support a valid change in direction for vaccination protocols, an important area of wellness care that has saved so many lives.

Thank you,

David Walker, DVM