The Latest Letter from Nick Thompson re: Over Vaccinating

To Vet Times, BSAVA, BVA, the Kennel Club, the FAB, and the Dog and Cat
Press

5th May 2004.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re the Recent debates as to whether annual booster vaccination of
animals is necessary.

We appreciate that the recent developments (1) in the ongoing
controversy regarding annual booster vaccines for dogs and cats has
left the veterinary profession and the pet owning public in a dilemma as
to the direction they should take, especially when considering the animal
welfare and consumer protection issues involved.

It seems that on one hand you have the vaccine manufacturers, who
appear to be hiding behind legislation and the advice of an industry report (2).
Their stance that annual vaccination must be continued relies on the following
point

(a) They do not know the actual duration of immunity

(b) Vaccines do not cause significant harm, so annual vaccination is
      acceptable.

This is also the stated view of the veterinary organisations i.e. the
BVA and BSAVA (3)

However, the incoming President of the BSAVA Dr Ian Mason has been
reported as saying after due consideration of the evidence, the current
recommendations on vaccination of animals may need to be refined (4).
Vaccine manufacturers must have known about the changes in recommendations
in response to detailed evidence in the US for some time, and have been affiliated
to UK groups, such as the Cat Group (11) that have been looking at the work
quoted (1).
So far it seems the only action to be taken has been that of Intervet UK in
extending their duration of immunity for Distemper, Hepatitis and Parvo to 3 years.
While this is to be welcomed, no mention has been made yet of the Cat situation.

On the other side there is a small but growing number of veterinary surgeons and a
strongly supportive public who are citing recent reports and research (5,6,7,17,18)
and conclude

(a) That duration of immunity for parvovirus, adenovirus,
     distemper (5), and feline enteritis (18), is established as >7years, and for feline
     calicivirus and herpes (5,18) is established for at least 4 years, and it seems that
     giving booster vaccinations does not offer any further protection (6).
     Therefore, annual vaccination is not needed for dogs and cats (with the
     exception of Leptospirosis, discussed below)

(b) That vaccines can cause harm (5,8,9,11,14,18) and therefore unnecessary
      vaccination should be avoided if at all possible.

Additionally they also consider that information from the manufacturers is
notable. These state that about 50% of dogs (10) and 2/3 of cats (10,11)
in the UK are not vaccinated at all or only infrequently, but where are the
reported outbreaks of the diseases one would expect if the duration of immunity
were so short as to need annual Boosters?

While following the recent debate, there seems to have been only two
arguments put forward for continuing annual booster vaccines in dogs and cats.

First there has been suggestion that the originating letter calling for cessation
of booster vaccines was written by homeopaths and by inference should be
ignored, in fact this was cited as relevant correspondence for the debate in a
mailing from a vaccine manufacturer to all vets in the UK (12) and the
profession is misguidedly it seems seeking to use this (13).
Whilst it is true that some of the signatories have interests in this field, it is certainly
not the case that all the signatories do. All are scientifically trained Vets in the first
instance, all recommend initial vaccination, and they quote the recent published
orthodox research of others.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, is the argument for Leptospirosis
vaccine, where it is claimed there is a poor duration of immunity and so annual
vaccination of dogs only for this must continue. This has been the basis
of much research in the USA, and it is appropriate that we in the UK are aware
of the findings. We summarise them below

1. Immunity to Leptospirosis is complex and poorly understood. It can
    only be measured by challenge studies. This is ethically unacceptable
    so we have to examine what is happening in the field by epidemiological
    methods (5).

2. Kansas University reports that the Leptospirosis vaccine is THE major
    cause of vaccine reactions, so much so that they consider the risks
    outweigh the benefits. It is no longer considered a core vaccine and they
    even recommend it should not be given to puppies (9,14).

 3. Another study found the vaccine highly immunosuppressive and
     recommended that the vaccine should not be given in conjunction with
    other vaccines (it is currently in the UK).

4. The Leptospirosis vaccine does not protect the dog from being  infected
    with the disease; it just minimises the clinical symptoms. Hence there
    seems to be/have been a real risk of vaccinated healthy dogs shedding the
    spirochetes so possibly posing a threat to other dogs and humans.
    Although one manufacturer has recently claimed it has a new vaccine to prevent
    this, the clinical study conducted to test the vaccine was based on a sample of
    only 6 dogs (15).
    In our opinion a study so narrowly based cannot of course be scientifically credible.

5. The duration of immunity measurable by titre induced by the Leptospirosis vaccine
    can be as little as a few months (14,16) yet the advised interval for boosters is
    1 year, which it seems has been an entirely arbitrary recommendation. By inference
    it may well be therefore that even vaccinated dogs have not been protected as their
    owners expect.

 6. There is little protection between serovars (types). Use of the vaccine in the
     USA has led to a shift in the serovars such that the serovars now infecting dogs
     are not the ones used in the vaccines (14). Can we assume this is true also in the
     UK?
     Are we now vaccinating against a disease that barely exists in the form vaccinated for?

7. The vaccine efficacy seems between only 50 -70%, depending on the
     author (5).

The outgoing president of the BSAVA, Dr Freda Scott-Park, stated that when the
science is there the profession would respond. The science is here, and the profession
must respond now or lose all credibility in this debate. In the USA working parties have
resulted in the removal of mass vaccination requirements in favour of individual vaccination programmes and consumer choice. This would answer the issues of insurance and
kennels/catteries that are now being raised as well as restoring public faith in the industry.

Whilst we have no wish to presuppose findings in the UK, it is our desire to establish a
truly independent working party under lay chairmanship critically to review the scientific data,
to raise questions with the manufacturers and report as soon as practically possible to the
profession and the public.
We therefore invite interested parties (with no links to vaccine manufacturers) in the dog and
cat world, the BSAVA, the BVA, FAB and individual veterinary surgeons to express their
interest in participating by writing to us at the address below as soon as practical.
 

Yours faithfully
 
 

Mark Elliott BVSc VetMFHom MRCVS MIPsiMed
John Saxton BVetMed VetFFHom MRCVS
Sonya Winsor BSc(Hons) PhD BVetMed MRCVS

Address for correspondence: 22A East Street, Westbourne, West Sussex
PO10 8SH.

Reference:
1.   Allport et al, Letter in Veterinary Times 26-01-04 Call to cease the
      Policy of Annual Vaccination
2.   Gaskell RM et al (2002) Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) working
       group of feline and canine vaccination  final report to the VPC. DEFRA, PB
      6432.www.vpc.gov.uk
3.   BSAVA/BVA joint statement on the vaccination controversy 2004.
      www.bsava.co.uk
4.   Veterinary Review (2004) Looking Reality in the Eye. An interview
      with BSAVA President Ian Mason. Pg 20-22, April 2004.
5.   Paul M et al, (2003) Report of the American Animal Hospital association
      (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Taskforce: Executive Summary and 2003 Canine Vaccine
      Guidelines and Recommendations. Journal of the American Animal Hospital
      Association. 39, 119-131
6.   Bohm M et al, (2004) Serum antibody titres to Canine Parvovirus, adenovirus and
      distemper virus in dogs in the UK which had not been vaccinated for at least 3
      years. The Veterinary Record April 10, 2004. 457-463
7.   Richards J et al (2001) 2000 Report of the American Association of Feline
      Practitioners and Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines.
      Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 3, 47-72
8.   Meyer EK (2001) Vaccine Associated adverse events. Veterinary Clinics of North
      America Small Animal Practice 31, 493-514
9.   http://www.newss.ksu.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/listpuppy11138.html
10. Intervet Mailing to Veterinary Surgeons
11. Report of the Cat Group on Vaccination.
      www.users.waitrose.com/~thecatgroup/vacc.html
12. Intervet Mailing to Veterinary Surgeons 22-03-04
13. Nelson M (2004) Freda shows the BVA what to expect. Vet Times 26-04-04 p5
14. Greene C et al (2001) Canine Vaccination. Veterinary Clinics of North America
      Small Animal Practice 31, 473-493
15. Intervet Literature on Nobivac Lepto 2 at last. A lepto vaccine that inhibits
      renal shedding 2004.
16. Coyne MJ, (2001) Duration of Immunity in Dogs after vaccination or naturally
      acquired infection. The Veterinary Record 149, 509-515.
17. Vaccination in Cats: which ones and how often? Report in Vet Record April 10
      2004, pg 452
18. Sparkes A. The Vaccination debate continues. Veterinary Review May 2004 38-39
 
 

Nick Thompson BSc.(Hons), BVM&S, VetMFHom, MRCVS.

Holisticvet Ltd.
Homeopathy, Acupuncture and Nutrition for Horses, Cats and Dogs

Apthorp, Weston Road,
Bath BA1 2XT

Tel: 08700 111 340
Fax: 07092 233 930
Mob: 07881 811 590
 

Website: http://www.holisticvet.co.uk
 
 

back

not copyright protected, please feel free to cross-post
GSDSRUS
2004