Clinton you say: “The pets we have are kept safe and free from wolves, ticks, mites, mange, virus, heartworms, fleas, plague, nutritional imbalance, bacterial infection by modern preventive treatments as well as hygeine thus these animals live long enough to develope cancer.” [sic]

Since undertaking research into the problem of over-vaccination of pets, I am beginning to question the multitude of products that vets push their clients to buy for their pets. Are all these interventions really necessary? Are clients given the opportunity to properly weigh up the risks and benefits of these products?

For example, are heartworm treatments necessary for all dogs? In his book “An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics”, Bernard Rollin queries whether it is ethical for vets to urge their clients to have heartworm treatments for their dogs in regions where the risk of heartworm is negligible. What do you think Clinton?

Rollin also discusses the topic of vaccination, noting that there is “increasing evidence that over-vaccination can actually be conducive to disease development, not only as a consequence of immunological stress, but also more directly. Early evidence implicated frequent vaccination in the development of injection-site sarcomas in cats, and autoimmune hemolytic anemia in dogs, both of which can be fatal. It has thus become a science-based consensus that, for most companion animal diseases, annual boosting is not necessary.”

I would argue that triennial boosting with CPV, CAV and CDV MLV vaccines is also unnecessary. As noted in my previous comment, it is well-known in the veterinary community that product label revaccination recommendations for these vaccines are not grounded in science. Immunological memory doesn’t automatically “switch off” after one year or three years. Immunology experts advise us there is long duration of immunity with these vaccines, probably lifelong. Are veterinarians passing this latest scientific information on DOI to their clients for consideration before revaccinating their pets?

I am concerned that some members of the veterinary profession are “over-servicing” their patients, and pushing clients to have unnecessary interventions for their pets. I am concerned that some veterinarians may not be obtaining “informed consent” from their clients before administering interventions to their pets, interventions which may be unnecessary and possibly harmful. Have longitudinal trials been conducted to ascertain if there might be long-term deleterious consequences from regular use of these products over the lifetime of an animal?

The veterinary profession must consider very carefully its duty to serve its clients and patients. Professional status is a privilege. Professions are allowed to “self-regulate”, but the system fails when some members of the profession abuse their position of authority, and exploit their clients’ trust.

Reference:
Rollin, Bernard E. An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics. Iowa State University Press, 2006
Case 19: Marketing Heartworm Regimen, p. 143
Case 82: Can Annual Vaccinations Be Justified? p. 271
Bernard Rollin is University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Animal Sciences, Biomedical Sciences and University Bioethicist at Colorado State University

The veterinary literature refers to vaccination and fibrosarcomas in cats… Could vaccination also be responsible for other cancers in pets?

I am not anti-vaccination, but I am concerned about unnecessary over-vaccination of pets, which puts them at needless risk of adverse reaction.

It is well-known in the international veterinary community that vaccine product label revaccination recommendations have no scientific basis. (Refer for example to Smith, C.A. 1995. Are we vaccinating too much? JAVMA, Vol 207, No. 4 August 15, 421-425).

The latest scientific advice is that there is long duration of immunity with vaccines for canine parvovirus, canine adenovirus and canine distemper virus. (Refer for example to the fact sheets of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association Dog and Cat Vaccination Guidelines, which indicate that DOI after vaccination with MLV vaccines is 7 years or longer, based on challenge and serological studies: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VGG_09_2007.pdf )

The 2003 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines noted that MLV vaccines for parvovirus, adenovirus and distemper virus were likely to provide lifelong immunity, stating: “When MLV vaccines are used to immunize a dog, memory cells develop and likely persist for the life of the animal.”

So why do so many vets still urge their clients to have their dogs revaccinated annually, or triennially, with CPV, CAV and CDV vaccines? These are unnecessary interventions that provide no benefit, and put the animal at needless risk of adverse reaction, and possible long-term health consequences?

I recently came across the following BBC article from 2001: Immune system blamed for cancer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1496398.stm which made the comment: “Long-term over-activation of the immune system may be the single most important cause of cancer, say experts.”

I have sourced the paper referred to in this article. The paper is titled: Chronic immune activation and inflammation as the cause of malignancy. Here’s a link to the abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11506482?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citationsensor

This paper is about cancer in humans, but I assume it is also relevant to animals. So I wonder if constantly revaccinating pets, and regularly challenging their immune system might have long-term consequences for animals?

Would be interesting to get the views of some of the cancer experts on this theory. I will attempt to do that and see if we can’t update this post with their views.