| There are many differing opinions as
to the causes and treatments of what is now called an Epidemic of Canine
Skin Disorders, the Itching, Scratching and Chewing commonly referred to
as "Summer Itch Hot Spots".
These dog skin rashes are generally known as Hot Spots because these
skin disorders are often associated with warm weather. Hot Spots are
often diagnosed as Eczema, Pyoderma, Seborrhea, Allergies to Fleas /
Foods / Grass / Mold /or other Environmental Substances, Pemphigus,
Atopic Acral Lick Dermatitis, Auto Immune Disorders, Thyroid problems,
Staph and Yeast Infections, and other skin disorders.
Itchy "Hot Spot" skin conditions MUST not be confused with
Mange or Flea infestations or Ringworm Fungus and hair loss caused by
Hypothyroidism, Cushings disease, Genetically predisposed pattern
baldness, Rabies vaccine induced ischemic dermatopathy bald patches, and
hormonally caused coat problems as a result of neutering are not
"Hot Spot" itching and scratching!
Demodectic Mange and Sarcoptic Mange are Parasitic Mite Infestations
and can be diagnosed by skin scrapings. Fleas and Mange
can be successfully treated with Insecticides.
Ringworm is not a worm, it is a fungus, causing itching, scabbing and
hair loss in one or more areas on your pet. It is contagious and easily
transmittable to humans and other pets. Treatment with a fungicide such
as most athletes foot creams are usually effective.
Demodectic (Red Mange) is caused by small mites found naturally on
most dogs but do not generally cause skin problems unless the dog’s
immune system will not naturally control them. This skin problem may be
inherited because certain bloodlines in some dog breeds are more ‘prone’
to Demodectic Mange.
Democectic Mange is not very contagious and is generally passed on to
nursing puppies by the mother and is most noticeable around the eyes and
mouth. Most breeders will not breed these dogs.
Sarcoptic Mange (Canis Scabies) is very contagious and can be life
threatening for the dog and can easily spread to other animals and
humans. Steps must be taken to eradicate the infestation in the dogs
entire environment as well as the dog and any other pets that may be
exposed to the infestation.
Thyroid hair loss problems are not caused by itching, chewing, and
scratching but by systemic hair loss, a type of Alopecia or Balding.
There does not seem to be a consensus as to the cause of "Hot
Spot" canine skin disorders but they do have a common set of
symptoms.
It appears that some dogs develop an itch so severe that the they
chew and scratch and traumatize themselves to such an extent that this
process causes open wounds, infections, loss of hair, and sometimes
roughening of the skin (elephant hide).
The most common areas of irritation are around the back and tail, the
abdomen, and the legs and paws. These symptoms seem to be more prevalent
in warm weather and mild moist climates like the sun belt in the United
States but are known world wide as far north as Alaska and as far South
as South Africa and New Zealand. Research has shown this canine skin
problem is world wide and affects many millions of dogs.
Statistically, no one breed of dog appears more or less likely to
develop "Hot Spots", and mongrels are just as likely to
develop a "Hot Spot" skin condition as is a pedigreed show
dog. Age also does not seem to be a factor, puppies can develop
"Hot Spot" skin problems as early as a few months of age, and
geriatric dogs may suddenly show signs of "Hot Spots" when
they have had no previous history of any type of itchy skin conditions.
At this time there are a growing number of researchers that believe
there may be a connection between the over-vaccination of the domestic
dog population and the Epidemic of "Hot Spot" skin disorders. For more information on this problem,
I have included several articles and website links below. *
Quite often if a dog’s skin problems become more serious the dog
may be ostracized by the family and even other pets as the skin problems
become more visible and the dog’s skin may take on a very unpleasant
odor. This can lead to the dog suffering serious depression that in turn
aggravates the situation. Obviously, dogs feel the stress of being
rejected in much the same manner as a human would.
Unfortunately, many dog owners at this point in time, may be faced with
the heartbreaking task of choosing to have their dog euthanized to
end the dog’s suffering rather than continue expensive and painful treatments
that have not been successful in controlling the dog’s skin disorder . According to a recent survey of Animal
Control Facilities many dogs suffering from out of control skin
conditions are brought to public animal shelters where they are
considered to be unadoptable and many thousands of dogs in these
shelters are euthanized for this reason. Many other dogs are also euthanized
by private veterinarians to alleviate the dog’s suffering under the
same circumstances.
Because of the different opinions as to the cause of this serious
skin irritation problem, there are many different treatments prescribed by
the Veterinary community. The first treatment of choice appears to be
the Steroid Prednisone in an effort to temporarily relieve the itch and
inflammation and perhaps an Anti-histamine. (The use of Steroids is a
severe treatment and can result in serious negative side-effects, such
as kidney failure, over an extended period of use).
The next order of treatment is usually an Antibiotic or other
treatment to fight infection because the dog has irritated the skin to
such an extent that it is an open and infected wound. Analgesics and
pain suppressing ointments may be provided as well. These treatments are
only designed to treat the pain symptoms and infections and do not
address the etiology of the problem or the cause of the itch. Some pain
relief may be achieved but the itch remains and as soon as the pain
relievers wear off the itch returns and the whole painful cycle begins
again.
Some Veterinarians believe that "Hot Spots" are the result
of a Sensitivity or an Allergy to some substance. Allergy tests
and treatments with antihistamines, changes in
environments, and Special Diets, (including specially formulated dog foods, Raw Food Diets
and supplements ) are often touted as the cure for "Hot Spots"
but these treatments are inconclusive as to their efficacy and statistically
these treatments do not appear to help with these skin problems.
Over The Counter Remedies such as Medicated or Coal Tar Shampoos,
Tea-Tree and Emu oil, Aloe Vera and other home remedies such as
Turpentine, Petroleum Jelly, Mouthwash and Vinegar are all are basically
part of a last ditch shot-gun approach to the problem that owners will
often try in the hopes that ‘something’ will work. Some Flea
shampoos will also further irritate open skin wounds.
At this time there is no statistical evidence that any of the above
treatments actually work to control the itch problem. While some
temporary relief may be provided by some of these therapies, it is
usually only temporary unless the itch syndrome is controlled. Many of
these therapies can also be harmful and threatening to the dogs health.
One can easily conjure up an image of a mad scientist, wearing
goggles, a mask and rubber gloves, ‘treating’ an afflicted dog with
useless shots, painful and dangerous chemical treatments, or shampoos so
strong they advise against contact with human skin, then fitting the dog
with plastic collars, taping the paws or putting on little gloves to
prevent the dog from scratching and chewing itself raw. At this point you
must ask yourself how you would feel if someone did that to you and then
prevented you from scratching your itch?
About 25 years ago Cornell University Veterinary School in New York
did a study of Canine Hot Spot skin treatments to determine if any of
the treatments available at that time were effective in treating this
disorder. The study found that all of the standard Medical treatments
employed in the study were inconclusive as to their efficacy and that
30% of the dogs recovered from their skin problems with no treatment at
all! (these are basically the same treatments being used today!)
This 30% recovery rate WITH OR WITHOUT TREATMENT has given rise to a
large industry of questionable Alternative methods of treating this
painful canine skin disorder. These Alternative Treatments are
unsupported by statistical or scientific method as to the efficacy of
these treatments and are generally referred to in
"Testimonials" with little, if any, testing to back up such
claims.
It is estimated that Americans spend more than $100 Billion Dollars a
year struggling with these dog skin problems and it is also estimated
that more than 50% of the total Veterinarian income in the Southern
United States is derived from treating "Hot Spot" dog skin
problems alone.
However, don’t give up hope just yet! There are some recent
scientific advances in research with statistical evidence which gives
real hope that there may be some actual relief in the future for the
estimated 100 million or more dogs world wide that suffer from this
painful problem. This research is published and readily available on the
Internet by typing in search terms as - 'Canine Itch Treatment Research'
or 'Alternative Dog Skin Treatment Research' on any major search engine.
T.R.Talbott
Portions of this article were printed in the "Vet Gazette"
section ofK9 Magazine's Summer Issue, 2009, pages 70-71.
Permission is available to reprint this article at no charge,
contact; TRtalbott@prodigy.net
T.R.Talbott is a former breeder of AKC Labrador Retrievers and
currently breeds and shows AKC Mastiffs.
Authors note; listed below are several
excellent articles on the over-vaccination of our pets! I've also
included weblinks for those wanting more information on this problem.
*ARTICLES ON OVER-VACCINATION
Bottom Line Blurs Veterinary Practices
Imagine if every time you went to the doctor you were given vaccinations
that you don't need; vaccinations that offer no benefit but all of the
risks of harmful side effects. Or you were given medications with no
explanation or information provided. Or tests were being done for no
reason. Now imagine that you can't speak and you have no way to tell
those who care for you that those vaccinations make you feel sick; you
don't want those tests; and the medicine is causing more harm than good.
That's exactly what many of our cat and dog friends experience. We bring
our best friend to the veterinarian with unquestioned trust and faith
that our vet has our animal's best interest at heart but according to
Veterinarian Dr. James Busby, author of "How To Afford Veterinary
Care Without Mortgaging the Kids", his profession is suffering from
a serious lapse in judgment and ethics that is rooted in making money.
Dr. Busby, who has been a practicing vet since 1966, loves his work and
comes from a family of Veterinarians; but admits if he had to practice
the way vets practice today he would not enter the profession. Dr. Busby
feels "the profession has slowly turned from what was once an
honest, caring one to a situation where many clinics and doctors are
interested more in the bottom line, than what is necessary and best for
your pet."
If you thought the veterinary world had escaped the 'bottom line'
mentality of the Medical Community you are wrong. The world of
veterinary medicine has become equally entangled with Drug and Insurance
Companies. The result is not only rising costs for the animal guardian
but also unnecessary treatments, over-the-top testing, and over
vaccination for the animals.
Dr. Busby says, "Veterinarians today seem to assume they have the
OK to run every test and perform any and every procedure on your animal
they can, unless you tell them differently. Then they usually get irate
and try to shame you for being a non-loving pet owner."
Veterinarians are great at using guilt and pressure to strip animal
guardians of their power. They can be brusque, condescending and
intimidating and in the end, the animal guardian, wanting to do whatever
they can to support their animal friend, goes along with whatever the
vet says. The only way to change this is for animal guardians to become
as well informed about their animal's care, as they are about their own.
Until recently, Vets have held an unquestionable 'high moral' mark where
guardians assumed that whatever a vet wants to do must be in the best
interest of the animal, but that unquestionable morality is gone now.
Let's start with vaccinations. The standard operating procedure is for
animals to receive a multitude of vaccinations on a regular schedule.
Most animal guardians don't question the vaccination schedule. If the
vet says it's needed, then it must be. For those who do question it,
they are met with hostility or condescension or frightened with the
horrors of what will happen if an animal isn't vaccinated regularly. And
in several cases, have been asked to find another vet altogether.
But here's the truth about all animal vaccines: The drug manufactures
label determines the frequency of revaccination. There is nothing
scientific about the current animal vaccination schedule. Neither the
FDA nor the USDA requires drug companies to prove the maximum immunity
conferred; they only require that immunity be conferred for the duration
of their testing. Which means if the drug company tests for one year,
the label states vaccinate yearly.
This manufacturers' recommendation ultimately influenced rabies laws in
each and every state across the country. Those laws are not based in
scientific study, but rather on the research done by drug companies
necessary to get approval for their drugs.
It has been proven as well that vaccine boosters do not increase
immunity. Once the body has immunity, that same immunity will knock out
the virus in the vaccine, leaving your animal to experience none of the
benefits from the vaccine but all of the risks from the adjuvants; and,
leaving the guardian to pay for something that does nothing.
Kris Christine, Founder of The Rabies Challenge Fund Trust and vaccine
reform activist, stated during a recent interview on Conscious Animal
Radio that this practice fit the definition of fraud. Christine joined
this fight when her own dog Meadow developed an injection site sarcoma
with the needle mark visible in the center of the tumor. After her vet
informed her that Meadow most likely had immunity to rabies for life,
and carelessly let it slip that it was the distemper shot Christine
should really watch out for as that one had many side effects and was
ultimately unnecessary for older dogs, Christine jumped into action.
Since, she has had the rabies vaccination requirement revised in her
home state of Maine extending it to every three years; challenged the
state to introduce a veterinary disclosure law, which was defeated and
has started the Rabies Challenge Fund Trust along with Dr. W. Jean Dodds,
a highly noted Veterinarian for her work and opinion on vaccine reform.
The Rabies Challenge Fund seeks to prove through a challenge study that
the rabies vaccine confers immunity for seven years.
Dr. Ronald Schultz, who is also involved in the Rabies Challenge Fund,
has already demonstrated through serology (blood testing) that the
Rabies vaccine lasts at least 7 years. He's also demonstrated that the
distemper vaccine lasts at least 15 years; parvovirus at least 7 years
and the adenovirus at least 9 years.
By now you are beginning to see that there are two roots to this issue:
The drug manufacturers who are not required to test for maximum immunity
conferred and the veterinarians that go along with the recommendation of
the drug companies without question.
Another advocate for the animals is Dr. Bob Rogers. He has been
challenging his profession for more than 15 years about the vaccination
schedule and has numerous complaints raised against him by fellow
veterinarians who claim his information is impacting their practice. Dr.
Roger's website ( http://critteradvoc
acy.org) offers insight, support
and guidance for animal guardians trying to figure out what is in the
best interest of their animals.
Vaccinations are not the only area where Veterinary care has become more
about the bottom line than about the health and wellness of the animal.
Flea and tick prevention as well as heartworm prevention have added
another layer of continual revenue stream for vets and the drug
companies.
Just recently, a direct mail company was promoting their services by
citing the example of a veterinarian they had conducted a mail campaign
for flea and tick preventative medication. The campaign occurred in
December and the veterinarian was ecstatic that he had brought in
$300,000 dollars in flea and tick medication sales in one month during
the middle of winter.
Topical flea and tick medications are neurotoxins designed to sever the
nervous system of the fleas and ticks, hence killing them. If you read
the package instructions you'll find information to this effect: wash
hands immediately should you come in contact with this product. How does
that make sense? We put this product on our animal's skin, but we are
warned to wash immediately? The skin absorbs anything that is put on it.
That toxin is drawn right into the bloodstream.
In 2000, the FDA approved Pfizer's NADA (new animal drug application)
141-152 for the drug RevolutionT (selamectin) which address fleas,
ticks, heartworm, hookworms and ear mites all in one. This drug was
tested for a duration of anywhere from 3 days to 10 months before
receiving approval. Drug companies test to determine the effectiveness
of RevolutionT, not to identify any long-term side effects of continuous
use year after year. If side effects occur during testing, they are only
a concern if the effect is wide spread; otherwise the drug is approved.
In the case of the testing of RevolutionT, a number of animals in the
clinical and field studies experienced vomiting, injection site hair
matting and in a few cases developed anorexia.
In 2002, the FDA approved Bayer Corporation' s Advantage Duo® (imidacloprid/
ivermectin) for the use on dogs in the prevention of fleas and
heartworm(see NADA 141-208). This drug was tested, at most, for 5 months
and most tests consisted of once monthly application. Again the concern
was demonstrating that the drug works, not identifying any possible
long-term side effects from repetitive use over the many years of a
dog's life.
According to Dr. Busby, year round treatment for heartworms is
unnecessary in areas where the temperature does not remain consistently
above 70 degrees. Heartworm requires mosquitoes; without them, your
animal is at no risk of contracting heartworm. And more importantly, a
little known fact is this: " HeartgardT, or its active ingredient
ivermectin, if given once a month to a known infected dog for 18 months
will cure an animal of the infection."
Even more important to using pharmaceuticals to cure heartworm is using
natural remedies to prevent fleas, ticks and other parasites from
hosting on our animals. A healthy animal is less likely to be the host
for parasites. A healthy animal requires a nutrient rich diet (no
processed kibble) and natural support such as apple cider vinegar. Diane
Stein, author of The Natural Remedy Book for Cats and Dogs, states that
by simply adding apple cider vinegar to your animals diet daily, you
will greatly boost the immune system and your animal will be less likely
to have fleas or intestinal worms.
One other area of concern is that of testing. It seems whenever we bring
our animals to the vet, some sort of test needs to be done. According to
Dr. Busby, many of these tests are unnecessary and not only cause your
animal stress and anxiety but also cost you money you don't need to be
spending.
In the case of testing for heartworm before administering heartworm
medication, Dr. Busby says, " Veterinarians imply that it's
dangerous to give the preventative to an infected dog. I am not aware of
a product currently being used as a monthly preventive that can't be
given to a dog infected with heartworm." He feels vets want to make
a big deal out of discovering 'heartworm' so they can 'cure' it and
charge you more.
Dr. Busby also feels Pre-surgical screening prior to elective surgery is
unwarranted. This screen entails a complete blood count and organ
evaluation test prior to surgery. It could also involve x-rays and heart
evaluation. His theory is that Veterinary medicine is indeed moving in
the same direction of Human medicine with vets feeling the need to
'cover' themselves should anything go wrong.
In short, Dr. Busby asserts that the majority of problems in surgery
come from improperly administering anesthesia. If the vet is competent,
the chances of complications are nominal and don't warrant such over the
top testing.
Dr. Busby's advice: "find an older vet with a lot of experience and
forego the testing on routine surgeries.That way you will not be paying
extra to prevent a problem that would much more likely be a result of
doctor's ineptitude rather than due to a weakness with the animal's
system."
He goes on to warn "that office staffs are often coached to
approach you in relays trying to talk you into the pre-surgical
screening. It's a moneymaker and they will try to imply you are risking
your pet's life if it isn't done."
Although veterinarians have enjoyed a long 'honeymoon' period, the
honeymoon is officially over. Veterinarians have demonstrated over and
over that they no longer deserve our trust and faith. For those vets
that do have the best interest of your animals at heart, their response
to your questioning and to your decisions for what is best for your
animal should be one of understanding and support. For those that do not
have the best interest of your animals at heart, a hostile response can
be expected but should not be tolerated.
As guardians to the animals in our lives, it is becoming more and more
essential that we educate ourselves about the healing power of animals
and that we understand that conventional western medicine strips our
animals of their natural healing power. Seek natural solutions, feed a
healthy diet and remember that all beings need a way to transition from
their physical form. When our animal friend gets sick our initial
reaction, which most veterinarians fuel, is to do whatever is possible
to make our animals better. The greatest gift we can give our animal
friends is respect of their process, which more often than not means
letting them transition how they choose.
When your animal came into your life, you made an agreement with them,
whether you were conscious of it or not. That agreement: to be their
voice and their advocate. You can no longer simply accept the word of
your vet. You must do your research and educate yourself on what your
animal truly needs to live a healthy, happy life.
Sources:
Dr. James Busby, (www.Oldcountryvet. com)
Dr. Bob Rogers, (http://critteradvoc
acy.org)
Kris Christine, (http://Rabieschalle
ngefund.org)
*******************
Limited Vaccination Protocol (from a Retriever breeder)
I believe in (and require my puppy buyers to follow) a very limited
vaccination protocol for my puppies. This consists of specific
vaccinations at specific intervals, designed to maximize protection and
minimize risk.
There is an incredible amount of information out there about vaccines
and their side effects.. Often previously considered to be benign and
harmless, now we are learning that we were wrong! Vaccines can have very
many serious side effects, including autoimmune disorders, epilepsy,
encephalitis, allergies, behavior problems, digestive disorders, cancer
and death! With the Toller breed we have to be particularly careful, as
their self-coloring and very limited gene pool puts them at a greater
risk of vaccine-related problems than the average dog.
The number one rule of my vaccination protocol is to NEVER give
combination vaccines (a vaccine that contains more than one virus). The
vast majority of vets give these combination vaccines only, so you will
likely have to ask your vet to special-order your puppies vaccines for
you. They may tell you its not possible to get a single-virus vaccine,
don't believe them! Many don't want to order it in because it is more
work for them! Galaxy makes the "Galaxy-D" single distemper
vaccine; Intervet (Proguard), Vanguard and Duramune all make single
Parvo vaccines.
The all-to-common multi-virus vaccines tend to confuse to immune system
rather than stimulate it. Many of these combo-vaccines contain anywhere
from 5-8 different diseases! Where in nature would your dog be exposed
to that many diseases all at the same time? You can only imagine the dog
would have a very difficult time effectively fighting that many diseases
at once! Just think about the stress on the dog's immune system, and
especially on a young puppy who's immune system is still developing.
Excessive vaccination can actually cause the immune system to cease
working altogether. I call that the "I can't handle it anymore, I
quit!" response.
Rule number two is limit the total number of vaccinations. There is no
valid reason for giving the same vaccine over and over again to a puppy.
The reason this practice was started is because puppies receive maternal
antibodies from their dam while they are nursing, and these gradually
wear off after weaning. But they wear off at different rates in
different puppies, so we have no way of knowing for sure when they have
worn off....it can be anywhere from 5-16 weeks, although the average is
6-10. Giving a puppy shots while it still has maternal antibodies is
useless, as the maternal antibodies will "block" the vaccine
and prevent immunity from being established. So vets in their infinite
wisdom decided to give puppies vaccines over and over again so that
eventually one will be given after the maternal antibodies are worn
down. But since we don't know when they were down, it could leave pups
unprotected for several weeks, which is why vets will tell you to keep
your young puppy off the streets and away from strange dogs until it
"has had all its shots" at 12-16 weeks.
So if we have to keep puppy isolated even if giving all these
most-likely useless shots, then why do we both putting all that extra
stress on the poor puppy's system? Doesn't it make more sense to not
give those shots (since they likely won't work anyway) and just be
careful with puppy until he is a little older? Stay away from dog parks,
pet stores and other areas frequented by large numbers of dogs until
after 4 months old. Do your public socializing outside the grocery
store, library, Home Depot, any place you can think about that has lots
of people, but few dogs. Invite people over to your house to play with
puppy, they can bring their adult, healthy dogs with them for playtime.
Rule number three is choosing to only use vaccines that are actually
needed in your area. Don't give a vaccine simply because it exists.
Every vaccine given to your dog places stress on the animal's immune
system and increases the risk of an unwanted autoimmune reaction.
Parvovirus is an example of a disease that is very common and widespread
and effects mainly puppies - therefore we may consider it to be a
vaccine worth vaccinating puppies for. Also, the Parvo vaccine rarely
seems to cause vaccinosis in Tollers. Now on the other hand, Distemper
is another vaccine that always seems to be recommended - yet if you
actually look into things, Distemper is essentially an unknown disease
in many areas. I have talked to many vets that have never seen an actual
case of Distemper in their practice. If the disease is not an issue in
your area, then why vaccinate for it? Especially in the case of
Distemper - this vaccine has been noted to cause a lot of side effects (vaccinosis)
in Tollers, and I am very aware of the frequency of these reactions in
the bloodlines I am working with. I do not recommend giving the
Distemper vaccine unless truly needed in your area. Common side effects
to this vaccine include temperament issues (fearfulness) , pitted teeth,
belly rash, chronic itchy skin, and cystitis. Some of these are
temporary problems, others have life-long effects.
Rule number four is no annual boosters! The practice of giving annual
vaccinations is a practice developed by the vaccine manufacturers, so
that they will sell more vaccines. Vaccines don't suddenly
"expire" after a year, that's just when the manufacturer' s
stopped testing the immunity. ONCE IMMUNITY TO A VIRUS EXISTS, IT
PERSISTS FOR YEARS OR LIFE. There is no need to keep rechecking titers
and revaccinating every 3 years or whatever. You cannot add more
immunity to an already immune dog. It is not immunologically possible.
All you are doing is increasing the risk of chronic disease....there is
no benefit.
The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is controlled by
memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programmed, memory cells
persist for life. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells
are capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized
patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the
ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a
patient.
The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts that there
is no scientific data to support label claims for annual
re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must be
backed by scientific data.
It is the consensus of immunologists that a modified live virus vaccine
must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system, and antibodies
from a previous vaccination will block the replication of the new
vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not enhanced in any
way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client is paying for
something with insignificant or no effect, except that the patient is
being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction.
According to Dr. Ronald D Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin
University and arguably the world expert on this subject, once immunity
to a virus exists, it persists for years or life. I am told that he
vaccinated his own Golden Retrievers as puppies, and then didn't
vaccinate them again. He took yearly blood tests. His Goldens are
reported to have died naturally at around 15 years of age, and showed
good antibody levels from the first booster until they died. Moral of
the story: this and other research shows that annual shots are not
necessary.
Research by Dr. Ronald D Schultz, shows that a vaccine received at or
after 12 weeks of age provides immunity in over 95% of dogs. He also
states that the less than 5% which did not have immunity would never get
immunity regardless of how many vaccinations they received. Dr. Schultz
is the author of this paragraph in Kirk's "Current Veterinary
Therapy XI", the conventional medicine textbook: "A practice
that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or
verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is
no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses
persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination
to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains
for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic
(secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune
response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in
humans, is recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are
currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most
viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as
a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal
antibody interference) . The practice of annual vaccination in our
opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used
as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required
by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for
rabies)."
Another interesting point on the vaccination issue is that your dog will
in fact essentially be "vaccinated" on a regular basis by
being exposed to other dogs that have been vaccinated recently. You see,
for a several week period after vaccination with a modified live virus
vaccine, dogs will actually "shed" particles of the virus into
their environment. When another dog is exposed to the shed virus, it
stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies, just the same as if
it was exposed to the actual disease. Only this is much safer, since it
is through a more natural means of exposure (inhaled or ingested rather
than injected) and with a much smaller dosage. This vaccination through
shed virus is known as the "herd immunity effect". So as long
as you keep taking your dog (over 16 weeks) out and about and expose it
to other dogs regularly (parks, training classes, dog shows) it will
regularly receive low-level stimulation of its immunity, which is safe
and effective.
For additional information, I highly recommend checking out the
following web pages:
http://www.caberfei
dh.com/PuppyVax. htm
http://www.caberfei
dh.com/Revax. htm
http://www.caberfei
dh.com/Titers. htm
http://www.caberfei
dh.com/VaxNone. htm
Vaccine Issues and Controversy
> Vaccine Controversy
NEWS FLASH! A must read!! Dr. Rogers sues state of Texas over vaccines!
> Read the article...
> Visit Dr. Roger's website
*********************
Catherine O'Driscoll - "What Vets Don't tell you about
Vaccinations" .
> Vaccine Info - UK Vets Speak Out
Open Letter to the Vet Times, UK - January 2004 - From Catherine
O'Driscoll
> Vaccinations - How they work, when they work (PDF): by Mogens
Eliasen
> Changing Vaccine Protocols (PDF): by Dr. Jean Dodds
> Questions to Ask Your Vet by Jim Schwartz, Founder of Next-To-Kin,
man of dog
> Over Vaccination Alert! Download the article (PDF)
> Holisticat.com
> Is Your Pet Dying From Over-Vaccination Due to Vet Economics?
> Why is Cancer Killing Our Pets? 'New Living' Newspaper
Now for the recommended vaccine scheduleof Distemper only. Only give
this vaccine if Distemper is an issue in your area - That is it for the
vaccinations! If it makes you feel better, you can run titers at a year
old, and every 1-3 years after that, but it is not necessary, and
doesn't really tell all that much, since titer levels will rise and fall
through the dogs lifetime in accordance to their frequency of exposure.
Remember, a low titer does not equal low immunity, as it is the memory
cells that are the important part, and we have no way to measure those.
So you can pretty safely consider any measurable titer to be proof of
current immunity.
I believe in (and require my puppy buyers to follow) a very limited
vaccination protocol for my puppies. This consists of specific
vaccinations at specific intervals, designed to maximize protection and
minimize risk.
There is an incredible amount of information out there about vaccines
and their side effects.. Often previously considered to be benign and
harmless, now we are learning that we were wrong! Vaccines can have very
many serious side effects, including autoimmune disorders, epilepsy,
encephalitis, allergies, behavior problems, digestive disorders, cancer
and death! With the Toller breed we have to be particularly careful, as
their self-coloring and very limited gene pool puts them at a greater
risk of vaccine-related problems than the average dog.
The number one rule of my vaccination protocol is to NEVER give
combination vaccines (a vaccine that contains more than one virus). The
vast majority of vets give these combination vaccines only, so you will
likely have to ask your vet to special-order your puppies vaccines for
you. They may tell you its not possible to get a single-virus vaccine,
don't believe them! Many don't want to order it in because it is more
work for them! Galaxy makes the "Galaxy-D" single distemper
vaccine; Intervet (Proguard), Vanguard and Duramune all make single
Parvo vaccines.
The all-to-common multi-virus vaccines tend to confuse to immune system
rather than stimulate it. Many of these combo-vaccines contain anywhere
from 5-8 different diseases! Where in nature would your dog be exposed
to that many diseases all at the same time? You can only imagine the dog
would have a very difficult time effectively fighting that many diseases
at once! Just think about the stress on the dog's immune system, and
especially on a young puppy who's immune system is still developing.
Excessive vaccination can actually cause the immune system to cease
working altogether. I call that the "I can't handle it anymore, I
quit!" response.
Rule number two is limit the total number of vaccinations. There is no
valid reason for giving the same vaccine over and over again to a puppy.
The reason this practice was started is because puppies receive maternal
antibodies from their dam while they are nursing, and these gradually
wear off after weaning. But they wear off at different rates in
different puppies, so we have no way of knowing for sure when they have
worn off....it can be anywhere from 5-16 weeks, although the average is
6-10. Giving a puppy shots while it still has maternal antibodies is
useless, as the maternal antibodies will "block" the vaccine
and prevent immunity from being established. So vets in their infinite
wisdom decided to give puppies vaccines over and over again so that
eventually one will be given after the maternal antibodies are worn
down. But since we don't know when they were down, it could leave pups
unprotected for several weeks, which is why vets will tell you to keep
your young puppy off the streets and away from strange dogs until it
"has had all its shots" at 12-16 weeks..
So if we have to keep puppy isolated even if giving all these
most-likely useless shots, then why do we both putting all that extra
stress on the poor puppy's system? Doesn't it make more sense to not
give those shots (since they likely won't work anyway) and just be
careful with puppy until he is a little older? Stay away from dog parks,
pet stores and other areas frequented by large numbers of dogs until
after 4 months old. Do your public socializing outside the grocery
store, library, Home Depot, any place you can think about that has lots
of people, but few dogs. Invite people over to your house to play with
puppy, they can bring their adult, healthy dogs with them for playtime.
Rule number three is choosing to only use vaccines that are actually
needed in your area. Don't give a vaccine simply because it exists.
Every vaccine given to your dog places stress on the animal's immune
system and increases the risk of an unwanted autoimmune reaction.
Parvovirus is an example of a disease that is very common and widespread
and effects mainly puppies - therefore we may consider it to be a
vaccine worth vaccinating puppies for. Also, the Parvo vaccine rarely
seems to cause vaccinosis in Tollers. Now on the other hand, Distemper
is another vaccine that always seems to be recommended - yet if you
actually look into things, Distemper is essentially an unknown disease
in many areas. I have talked to many vets that have never seen an actual
case of Distemper in their practice. If the disease is not an issue in
your area, then why vaccinate for it? Especially in the case of
Distemper - this vaccine has been noted to cause a lot of side effects (vaccinosis)
in Tollers, and I am very aware of the frequency of these reactions in
the bloodlines I am working with. I do not recommend giving the
Distemper vaccine unless truly needed in your area. Common side effects
to this vaccine include temperament issues (fearfulness) , pitted teeth,
belly rash, chronic itchy skin, and cystitis. Some of these are
temporary problems, others have life-long effects.
Rule number four is no annual boosters! The practice of giving annual
vaccinations is a practice developed by the vaccine manufacturers, so
that they will sell more vaccines. Vaccines don't suddenly
"expire" after a year, that's just when the manufacturer' s
stopped testing the immunity. ONCE IMMUNITY TO A VIRUS EXISTS, IT
PERSISTS FOR YEARS OR LIFE. There is no need to keep rechecking titers
and revaccinating every 3 years or whatever. You cannot add more
immunity to an already immune dog. It is not immunologically possible.
All you are doing is increasing the risk of chronic disease....there is
no benefit.
The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is controlled by
memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programmed, memory cells
persist for life. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells
are capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized
patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the
ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a
patient.
The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts that there
is no scientific data to support label claims for annual
re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must be
backed by scientific data.
It is the consensus of immunologists that a modified live virus vaccine
must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system, and antibodies
from a previous vaccination will block the replication of the new
vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not enhanced in any
way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client is paying for
something with insignificant or no effect, except that the patient is
being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction.
According to Dr. Ronald D Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin
University and arguably the world expert on this subject, once immunity
to a virus exists, it persists for years or life. I am told that he
vaccinated his own Golden Retrievers as puppies, and then didn't
vaccinate them again. He took yearly blood tests. His Goldens are
reported to have died naturally at around 15.
*********************
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association October 2000;
217(7):1021- 4
You've undoubtedly seen them in your mailbox. Cute little reminder cards
from your vet that it's time for Beauregard's annual vaccinations. But
after looking a bit closer at the risks and benefits of these vaccines,
you might want to paws before making that appointment.
Could these vaccines not only be unnecessary, but actually harmful to
your pet's health?
Absolutely.
We overvaccinate our children -- but at least we eventually stop after
puberty. But with our pets, we continue vaccine boosters until they are
well into their senior years.
As adults, we don't assault ourselves with annual boosters, and we
certainly wouldn't do this to our elderly family members. So why do we
inflict this upon our pets, regardless of their immune status or age,
when common sense would tell us those vaccines should last longer than a
year?
Additionally, there are no adjustments in dose for size or age of your
animal. Your five-pound Miniature Pinscher receives the same size
vaccine as your 150-pound Rottweiler. Your 10-pound housecat gets the
same amount as a 400-pound lion.
All of these vaccines are overwhelming your pet's immune system. Vaccine
reactions are at an all-time high.
A study of more than 2,000 cats and dogs in the United Kingdom by Canine
Health Concern showed a 1 in 10 risk of adverse reactions from vaccines.
This contradicts what the vaccine manufacturers report for rates of
adverse reactions, which is "less than 15 adverse reactions in
100,000 animals vaccinated" (0.015 percent).
Additionally, adverse reactions of small breeds are 10 times higher than
large breeds, suggesting standard vaccine doses are too high for smaller
animals.
A few bold veterinarians have paved the way for ending overvaccination,
but the research is sparse and the opposition is great, just as with the
human vaccine industry -- and for similar reasons.
In this article I will be addressing three main points:
1. There is no scientific evidence that annual vaccines are necessary,
and in fact once animals achieve immunity from their initial vaccines,
they appear to have immunity that lasts for many years, and often for
life, without boosters.
2. There is growing alarm that overvaccination appears to be causing a
multitude of serious medical problems, particularly with the immune
system, including allergies, seizures, anemia and cancer.
3. Vaccines are a very profitable part of veterinary care -- in fact,
some vet practices are built around them. Long-term studies of animal
immunity would require a substantial outlay of money -- the kind of
money that only the drug companies have, and Big Pharma is much more
interested in selling more vaccines than challenging the need for them.
How Current Vaccine Schedules Were Determined
The current recommendation from many veterinarians is for dogs is to
receive rabies, parvovirus, distemper, adenovirus, parainfluenza,
leptospirosis, coronavirus, hepatitis, lyme (borelia), and annually,
bortadella (kennel cough) sometimes being recommended every 6 months.
Cats are advised to have rabies, feline leukemia (FeLV), distemper (panluekopenia)
, rhinotracheitis, and calcivirus annually--and depending on risk,
chlamydia, feline infectious peritonitis (FIP), and ringworm can be
added.
Many vets advise both puppies and kittens get their "core
vaccines" at ages 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks, 14 weeks,
and 16 weeks. Then, they get boosters at one year, and annually
thereafter.
All of these shots add up to a tremendous vaccine load over your pet's
lifetime!
How did these recommendations for annual vaccines come about?
One of the veterinary pioneers, Dr. W. Jean Dodds, president of the
nonprofit animal version of the Red Cross called Hemopet, reported that
the recommendations for annual vaccines were just that --
recommendations. They were not based on any scientific evidence.
The recommendations for annual vaccination were put forth jointly by the
United States Department of Agriculture and the drug companies, more
than twenty years ago. And veterinary medicine has continued to do it
that way because, well, that's the way it's always been done.
And it's a good deal for them financially. So far, protests to annual
vaccines have been mild.
Now the USDA puts the annual vaccination recommendation right on the
product label.
Veterinary Vaccines are Big Money for Many Vets -- and Even Bigger Money
for Big Pharma
Without some driving force for change, there is no motivation for the
industry to change the most lucrative part of its practice.
Many vets cling to annual vaccine schedules because of economic
dependence more than maintaining a "cautious" standard of
care. This is particularly true for the typical small vet practices (1-3
people, non-specialty, non-emergency practices).
Consider this ...
One dose of rabies vaccine costs the vet about 61 cents. The client is
typically charged between $15 and $38, plus a $35 office visit. The
markup on the vaccine alone is 2,400 percent to 6,200 percent -- a
markup equivalent to charging $217 for a loaf of bread.
According to one estimate, removing the one-year rabies vaccination and
consequential office visit for dogs alone would decrease the average
small vet's income from $87,000 to $25,000 -- and this doesn't include
cats or other vaccinations.
According to James Schwartz, author of Trust Me, I'm Not a Veterinarian,
63 percent of canine and 70 percent of feline vet office visits are for
vaccinations.
Clearly, radically changing the vaccine schedule for dogs and cats would
result in a huge economic loss for any veterinary practice that is built
around shots.
And chances are the vaccines you are paying so much for are creating
even more income for vets, because the adverse reactions and other
medical issues caused by the vaccines keep Fluffy coming back often!
The profits for vets pale in comparison to the profits being enjoyed by
vaccine manufacturers. Veterinary vaccine sales amounted to more than
$3.2 million in 2004 and have risen 7 percent per year since 2000. This
figure is projected to exceed $4 billion in 2009.
Six companies account for more than 70 percent of world veterinary
vaccine sales. The market leader is Intervet, with sales of almost $600
million in 2004. That's a whole lot of 61-cent vaccines.
The United States has by far the largest share of the national market
with revenues of $935 million, and Japan comes in second with $236
million.
Medical Risks Outweigh Benefits
In 1991, an unfortunate observation led many vets to begin rethinking
the vaccine protocol.
A lab at the University of Pennsylvania noted a connection between a
troubling increase in sarcomas (a type of cancerous tumor) and
vaccinations in cats. Mandatory annual rabies vaccinations were leading
to an inflammatory reaction under the skin, which later turned
malignant.
At about the same time, researchers at University of California at Davis
confirmed that feline leukemia vaccines were also leading to sarcomas,
even more than the rabies vaccine.
Further investigations led to alarming statistics: vaccine-induced
sarcomas were estimated to be one cat in 1,000, or up to 22,000 new
cases of sarcoma per year.
It wasn't long before veterinary professionals began to suspect
vaccination as a risk factor in other serious autoimmune diseases.
Vaccines were causing the animals' immune system to turn against their
own tissues, resulting in potentially fatal diseases such as autoimmune
hemolytic anemia in dogs (AIHA).
Delayed vaccine reactions were also the cause of thyroid disease,
allergies, arthritis, tumors and seizures in both cats and dogs.
These findings led to a 1995 article in the Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association that concluded:
"There is little scientific documentation that backs up label
claims for annual administration of most vaccines."
And then there's the issue of adjuvants.
Thimerosal, mercury, and aluminum-based adjuvants are still being
allowed in veterinary vaccines. So, your pet is being exposed to
potential antigens that could abnormally stimulate his immune system,
but last a lifetime and cause chronic disease. The less of this, the
better.
For more on thimerosal, mercury, and aluminum, please visit Dr.
Mercola's site.
Is Non-Vaccination a Greater Danger?
Giving your dog or cat a vaccine when it is already immune does not give
any additional immunity, and it creates an unnecessary risk to your
animal.
Evidence suggests that, like humans, dogs and cats could be vaccinated
with certain vaccines early in life and be protected for a lifetime.
With the exception of rabies, the core vaccines probably last at least
seven years and should not be given more often than every three years.
In one study, the antibody levels of more than 1,400 healthy dogs of all
ages were measured for parvo and distemper. Nearly all the dogs were
immune (95-98 percent), suggesting that annual revaccination may not be
necessary.
Many of the non-core vaccines are bactrins, vaccines created to treat
non-viral infections (Lyme disease and Chlamydia, for example) and may
have a shorter duration; about one year. But not all animals are at risk
of exposure, and the vaccines have proven to be significantly more
reactive to the immune system, so assessing risk versus benefit is very
important before considering these very reactive vaccines. .
Researchers say there has been no increase in disease rates among dogs
who have gone to vaccines every three years. And there is ample evidence
that the dangers of repeated vaccinations are real.
A study published by Purdue in 2005 found correlations between vaccine
reactions in dogs and variables such as age, size, and number of
vaccines given. The study found:
a.. Smaller dogs are more prone to vaccine reactions than larger dogs
b.. Risk of reactions increased by 27 percent for each additional
vaccine given per office visit in dogs under 22 pounds, and by 12
percent in dogs over 22 pounds
c.. Risk increased for dogs up to 2 years old, then declined with age
d.. Risk increased for pregnant dogs and dogs in heat
e.. More reactions were found in small dogs given Leptospirosis vaccine
As in humans, one of the reasons why dogs and cats need vaccine
protection at all is that they aren't eating an ideal diet. The better
your pet's nutrition is, the healthier his immune system will be, and
better able to fend off pathogens.
My Vaccine Recommendations
1.. Wellness visits are important for other reasons than vaccines, such
as checking for heartworm and tumors and assessing general health
status. I do recommend continuing these checkups every six months,
although I do not recommend annual vaccines.
2.. Rabies vaccines are required by law. There are approved 1-year and
3-year rabies vaccines. They are the same product. Please ask for the
3-year vaccine, if you opt to vaccinate your pet against rabies. I also
recommend you consider finding a holistic vet that will provide you with
the homeopathic rabies vaccine detox, called Lyssin.
3.. Ask for a Vaccine Titer Test: this is a how you can determine if
your pet has adequate immunological protection from previously
administered vaccines (puppy or kitten shots). Antibody levels can be
measured from a blood draw, in place of revaccination. The type of titer
that best assesses immune system's response to vaccinesis called IFA, or
indirect immunofluorescent antibody.
Please discuss with your vet the risks versus benefits of the diseases
you are considering vaccinating for, before you automatically assume
additional vaccines are necessary.
4.. Indoor housecats should not be vaccinated annually, especially if
they never go outside or have access to other cats (potentially exposing
them to infectious disease). I believe overvaccination is one of the
main reasons the general health of our feline patients is deteriorating.
5.. Do not vaccinate your dog or cat if it has had a serious
life-threatening vaccine reaction.
6.. Do not patronize any boarding facility, groomer, training facility
or veterinarian that requires you to vaccinate your pet more than
necessary.
The decision by some vets to come forward with the truth about pet
vaccines is a positive step toward changing our animal health care
system. Veterinary vaccines are one more unfortunate example of the
corporate greed that permeates the pharmaceutical industry.
Posted On Aug 13, 2009
Great article - thank you for this. One person asked why this
information isn't in the news. Having worked to alert pet owners to the
dangers of over vaccines for the past 15 years, and having a public
relations background (which means I am trained to get stories in the
news), I have concluded that the media is controlled by powerful
interests. Last month we sent a letter to the British press, signed by
33 vets from around the world, calling for an end to over-vaccination,
quoting the research, and NO-ONE published it.
Worse, our governments put pharmaceutical companies ahead of the lives
of animals and humans. Years of lobbying the government to get one-year
vaccines withdrawn have met with avoidance and intransigence. The
licensing body in the UK - the Veterinary Medicines Directorate - is in
the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry.
Meanwhile, our animals die and have serious adverse vaccine reactions
every day. It is a scandal, and heartbreaking to the pet owners who put
their trust in a profession that cannot be trusted.
Catherine O'Driscoll, Canine Health Concern.
***********************
Fw: The Economics of Vaccines
Posted by: "Kris King" rescuerehab@earthlink.net
ownedbypoodles
Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:08 am (PST)
Is Your Pet Dying From Over-Vaccination Due to Vet Economics? (courtesy
of vaccinenews. com)
Nationally and internationally, companion animals (pets) are being
over-vaccinated - a practice that is resulting in vaccine related
deaths, severe illnesses, reduced longevity and large monetary costs to
guardians (pet owners).
The most common practice is the annual administration of rabies vaccine,
based upon the oft-stated supposition that an annual booster is
necessary to maintain the vaccine's effectiveness. In reality, there is
no research substantiating that practice, and veterinary schools and
professional associations increasingly are embracing a triennial
administration standard.
A study of more than 1,000 cats and 1,000 dogs in the United Kingdom by
Canine Health Concern in March 2001 showed a 1 in 10 risk of adverse
reaction from vaccines! The study, which tracked over a seven-month
period the health of cats and dogs vaccinated by one UK veterinarian,
found that 7.54% to 12.42% of the dogs had adverse reactions within a
45-day period post-vaccination. An almost-identical number of cats -
from 7.56% to 12.44% -- also suffered adverse reactions within 45 days.
This is quite contradictory to the vaccine-manufacture rs' claim that
less than 15 adverse reactions occur out of 100,000 companion animals
vaccinated. The UK study results were reported at the 99% confidence
level. Vaccine manufacturers rely on adverse-reaction statistics from
the vets themselves.
In our opinion many vets continue to cling to the annual rabies shot has
less to do with a cautious standard of care and more to do with their
economic dependence on vaccinations for fiscal solvency. This is
especially true of a substantial - if not vast - majority of small vet
practices (1-3 people, non-specialty, non-emergency practice).
A vial of rabies vaccine costs the veterinarian about 61 cents and is
typically administered at a cost to the guardian of from $15 to $38 -
not including the $35 office visit. In perspective, an 18-oz. package of
Kellogg's Sugar Frosted Flakes® is $2.20 to the grocer and
approximately $2.75 retail. If the grocer's mark-up were comparable to
that of rabies vaccine, Frosted Flakes would cost $137 without the
office visit and more than $260 with it. To borrow Tony the Tiger's
expression, that size of a mark-up is "Gr-r-reat!"
Take out 1 year of rabies vaccination and the consequential office
visit-- just for dogs -- and the average small-practice vet's income
drops from approximately $87,000 to $25,000 -- and this doesn't include
cats or other vaccinations!
The Veterinarian "Shot-based Practice" Model is a systemically
flawed economic approach and potentially detrimental to companion
animals. Bad practice-management becomes bad medicine, resulting in
unnecessary -- and widespread -- death, illness, reduced longevity of
companion animals and unnecessary cost to owners.
Shot Based Practice Analysis
The vast majority of dog owners vaccinate yearly. There is an arguably
safer choice --the three year rabies vaccination option -- but many,
many in the veterinarian community are not informing the guardians (pet
owners) to the potential detriment of their animal companions' (pets')
life, health, and longevity.
Could economics be a factor in this lethargic effort on the part of many
vets to provide their clients with an opportunity for informed consent?
Yearly rabies vaccination is big business and materially impacts the
small-animal vet practice!
We can make these assumptions based upon various surveys and studies
printed by animal association groups and trade associations.
· Average vet has 2,500 dogs and cats (45% dogs).
· Cost of vial of rabies vaccine is 61 cents.
· Cost of inoculation is between $15 and $38 yearly not including
office visit.
· Cost of office visit is approximately $35.
· Price markup on rabies vaccine: 2400% to 6200% and again, this does
not include the office visit.
If 100% of the dogs in the average one-vet practice are annually given
the rabies vaccine= 2,500*.45 (dogs per practice) or 1,125 dogs.
The gross operating profit (after cost of goods, 61cents per shot)
equals:
@$15 per shot, a net of $14.39 = $16,189.
@$38 per shot, a net of $37.39 = $42,064.
If the three year option is exercised (versus a yearly vaccination for
rabies), then each vet loses between $32,000 ($16,000 x 2 years) and
$84,000 ($42,000 x 2 years) of operating profit in each three-year
vaccination period.
Adding office visits (1 a year for 2 years x 1,125 dogs x $35 per visit)
= $78,800 of potential lost revenue.
(Note: The guardian should see that his/her companion animal receives a
wellness exam at least yearly, which would extinguish this loss.)
Now, consider these figures. The:
· Median number of transactions per vet per year in 1997 was 5,102.
· Median gross income per vet in 1997 was $305,000 for a one- person
practice.
· Net-income median for a one-vet practice before owner's compensation
as a percentage of gross income was 26.8%. Assuming $305,000, that would
be$87,300 for the average 1-vet practice.
· Average transaction charge is $58.41 per vet in a one-vet operation.
If 1,125 transactions for rabies vaccine would be lost here is the
impact on the one-vet practice for the two years the dog doesn't get a
rabies vaccine (assuming no replacement revenue).
· Transactions go from 5,102 to 3,887 or a 22% decline.
· Gross income falls (at $20 per shot plus $35 for an office visit) by
$62,000 from $305,000 to $243,000.
· Net median-income per vet in a one-vet situation could drop from
$87,000 to $25,000 or by 71%!
And this is only if dogs were inoculated for rabies on a three-year
cycle. The impact magnifies with cats going three years on the shot.
Source: "Financial and Productivity Pulsepoints: Comprehensive
Survey and Analysis of Performance Benchmarks:Vital Statistics For Your
Veterinary Practice," published by the American Animal Hospital
Association, 1998.
The Small Vet (Non-emergency, non-specialist) Shot Model's Systemic
Dependence on Transactions Assumptions:
- That a $25 rabies shot is eliminated for 1,000 dogs only in one year.
(Cats are not considered and parvo virus and distemper shots would still
be administered annually).
- Profit on the shot is $24.39 (the cost being 61 cents).
- 26% is the net profit margin.
Result: Instead of 1,000 transactions (shots) yielding $24,390, the vet
would have to gross $93,807 from other areas of the practice to replace
that net revenue. Furthermore, using a $54 average per transaction, the
vet would have to conduct 70% more transactions - 1,737 instead of 1,000
- which would mean a 15% increase in workload (the average vet has 5,100
transactions annually) just to be at the same place. Then consider the
loss of office-visit revenue and take out cats, and parvo and distemper
annually, and the Small Vet Shot Model indicates red ink.
It appears that even at 20% of the gross revenue, rabies shots may
constitute 100% of the net profits - or even worse, subsidize a
net-deficit practice - of average small-vet practices. The loss of two
years of shots, on which these practices seem dependent, would have a
devastating economic impact if not replaced.
It appears that the small-vet economic model is a "shot
model," based economically - by design or by evolution - on
transactions rather than expertise. Such a model needs to be reexamined
for validity of purpose and economic consequences.
· Vaccine-related cancer in cats: According to Colorado State
University Professor Dennis Macey, "the incidence of this often
fatal cancer (sarcoma-cancer development at the vaccine site) has been
documented by several studies to be 1 to 3.2 per 10,000 cats receiving a
rabies vaccine S If all the cats in Denver (estimated to be 400,000)
were to be vaccinated yearly for rabies, the unneeded additional
vaccinations would result in an additional 26 to 84 vaccine cancer sites
per year! S I estimate 22,000 vaccine-associated tumors per year. Since
surgery is usually unsuccessful, radiation treatment is necessary.
Treating all these cats would cost $66 million per year."
-- "Are We Vaccinating Too Much," Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association, 1995
· And this doesn't even consider vaccine related prolonged illness or
vaccine compounded deaths or reduced longevity for cats - and doesn't
consider the impact on dogs at all!
Mere Property or Next-To-Kin?
How much money would it take to persuade you to give up your television
set? $3,000? What's that? You say you have a 53" high-definition
projection TV that costs more that $3,000? Okay, would you give it up
for $30,000?
Well, the pet food manufacturer, Iams Co., a division of Proctor &
Gamble, commissioned a Gallup poll, which found that 66% of the
respondents would not trade their dog or cat for $1,000,000! (Dog Fancy,
May 2002 issue)
Here are some more facts to chew on:
.An annual American Animal Hospital Survey found that 83% of
companion-animal guardians (dog and cat owners) "were somewhat
likely . likely . or very likely" to risk their life for their
companion animal; 70% said they would spend $1,000 on treatment for a
life-threatening illness or accident; 40% would spend any amount
necessary.
.Two other studies found that between 44% and 76% of companion animals
sleep in their person's bed.
. Midland National Life Insurance Company gives a discount on life
insurance for senior citizens who have a dog, as it has been shown that
dogs reduce stress (high blood pressure), routine visits to the doctor
and, accordingly, medical expenses.
.In a study by Dr. Karen Allen, assistance dogs were able to substitute
for paid-human assistance to the elderly or physically challenged in 68%
of activities, saving a net-$13,000 a year in costs.
"Dogs aren't my whole life, but they make my life whole,"
wrote the late Roger A. Caras, noted broadcaster, writer and editor.
Yet, our laws still classify companion animals (domesticated non-farm
animals) as "mere property." In Great Britain dogs and cats
are considered sentient beings.
Constructively, we are moving to recognize domesticated non-farm animals
as beyond mere property in law. Several states now allow dogs and cats
effectively to be heirs - via trusts set up for their care after the
primary guardian has passed away.
It is time to declare companion animals (dogs and cats) to be
"beyond mere property" and recognize that they are not mere
objects. The value of the animal-human bond, and the companionship
generated by that bond, should be legally recognized beyond the
depreciated value of the cat or dog. This is not "whack-o animal
rights" but simple protection both for the companion animal and for
the guardian.
By recognizing the value of companion animals to be "beyond mere
property, Next-To-Kin, " the law could establish significant civil
economic penalties for the loss of that companionship through cruelty -
be it of the gut-wrenching variety or the silent, systemic, willful acts
of over-vaccination by smiling veterinarians. What else would one call
economically driven acts that result in unnecessary suffering, illness,
reduced healthy life span, and death?
As long as these $1,000,000 companion animals are legally considered
mere property, there are no deterrents to over-vaccination and other
types of self-serving, non-informed consent activities.
**********************
Search Engine Submission - AddMe
|
|
Photos below were part of a test conducted by
Raven Pet Products.
The pictures below were taken in July, 2008, as part of an ongoing
test program. Note hair loss and Elephant Hide.



The pictures below, same subject, third treatment, two weeks
later, note hair re-growth and no Elephant Hide!


The pictures below, after 5 treatments, 35 days, hair has
re-grown,
skin is clear. No evidence of itching or scratching. Update; July 2009,
subject remains symptom free, with no further treatments required.


Test photos courtesy of Mike Raven
www.RavenPetProducts.com
|