http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=105888
Letters to the Editor - 12/31/04
Friday, December 31, 2004 - Bangor Daily News
Submit Your Thoughts
Email This Article To A Friend Print This Article Go Back
Letters to the Editor - 12/31/04
Pet vaccine disclosure
We would like to express our support for Rep. Peter Rines' pet vaccine disclosure bill. As pet care professionals and as pet owners we have seen firsthand the tragic effects of vaccine reactions and overvaccination.
Our own golden retriever had a severe reaction to a rabies vaccine, causing aggression toward our other dogs as well as causing an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Our veterinarian feels these behavioral changes were a direct result of a reaction to her rabies vaccine.
This reaction not only affected our retriever, but also our Pekinese which lost an eye as a result of an unprovoked attack.
Our retriever's immune system has also been compromised; she is slowly destroying her thyroid gland and has a rare eye disorder, which many veterinarians believe is a direct result of overvaccination.
Happily, we were able to treat her and resolve the behavioral problems, but we get anxious every time she is due for a rabies vaccine. Unfortunately, her immune system is damaged for life.
There is ample scientific evidence to support this bill. Two of the worlds leading veterinary vaccine research scientists, Dr. Ronald Schulz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, and Dr. Richard Ford of the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, are assisting Rines in drafting the legislation.
If you have pets, we encourage you to write to your legislators to express your support for this bill.
Anyone who truly loves animals will support this bill.
Don Hanson, CPDT, BFRP
Paula L. Hanson
Green Acres
Kennel Shop
Bangor
state rabies vaccination law making animals sick
41 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Peter Rines' pet vaccine disclosure bill
by malernee » Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:35 am
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
precedent-setting veterinary legislation
by guest » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:50 pm
Greetings!
The public hearing on DHS Chapter 260 medical exemption language under the regulations regarding rabies immunization requirements for dog licensure will be held tomorrow Thursday, January 6th, from 1:30-3:00 in the Dirigo Health Offices at 211 Water Street in downtown Augusta. Former Senator Chris Hall (563-8604) will be testifying, as will I.
A lot has been happening on the pet vaccine front here in Maine recently. Representative Peter Rines (882-9794) has been hearing from a lot of people about his proposed legislation -- LR883 An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms . He informs me that the majority of people contacting him support the legislation (including breeders and kennel owners like Green Acres Kennel in Bangor), but he has also been hearing from those who oppose it -- including Coastal Veterinary Care of Wiscasset (882-9458).
With Representative Rines' approval, I wrote to the President of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association (see copy of letter below) on December 29, 2004 requesting their endorsement for LR883. To the best of my knowledge, the MVMA has not yet responded to this request. I'll update you on developments regarding this precedent-setting legislation.
Cheers, Kris
December 29, 2005
Dr. Bill Bryant, President
Maine Veterinary Medical Association
c/o The Winthrop Veterinary Hospital
1942 U.S. Route 202
Winthrop, ME 04364
RE: LR883 An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms
Greetings Dr. Bryant:
In the September 2004 DVM Newsmagazine article entitled "MVMA Backs Full Disclosure for Vaccines," Jennifer Fiala reported that "The Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) champions full disclosure of vaccine information to pet owners." In reference to legislation which would require veterinarians to provide full disclosures, Ms. Fiala quoted you as stating that, "[I]f it goes before the Legislature, we'd likely support it," and "It's time for something like this to come out. I think that disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available to stimulate verbal discussions on vaccines' benefits and possible side effects."
It was reassuring to read this article and learn that you and the MVMA are in favor of full vaccine disclosures for pet owners. Because of your unequivocal stand on this important issue, Representative Peter Rines and I are asking for your personal support and that of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association for the bill he is sponsoring, LR883 - An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. This legislation will require that Maine's veterinarians provide pet owners with full disclosure forms for the core feline and canine vaccines as well as disclosures to accompany any prescription medications. These disclosures will be similar to those pharmacies issue for human prescription medications, and those for the veterinary core vaccines will include Dr. Ronald Schultz's challenge study results, which were incorporated into The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines.
Representative Rines and I would welcome the full support of your organization for this precedent-setting legislation, which will preserve client confidence in veterinarians and will enable pet owners to make informed vaccine choices for their animals. Representative Rines can be reached by phone at 882-9794, e-mail: prines@verizon.net, or at 334 Bradford Road, Wiscasset, ME 04578.
Sincerely,
Kris L. Christine
P.O. Box 12
Alna, ME 04535
586-5043
The public hearing on DHS Chapter 260 medical exemption language under the regulations regarding rabies immunization requirements for dog licensure will be held tomorrow Thursday, January 6th, from 1:30-3:00 in the Dirigo Health Offices at 211 Water Street in downtown Augusta. Former Senator Chris Hall (563-8604) will be testifying, as will I.
A lot has been happening on the pet vaccine front here in Maine recently. Representative Peter Rines (882-9794) has been hearing from a lot of people about his proposed legislation -- LR883 An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms . He informs me that the majority of people contacting him support the legislation (including breeders and kennel owners like Green Acres Kennel in Bangor), but he has also been hearing from those who oppose it -- including Coastal Veterinary Care of Wiscasset (882-9458).
With Representative Rines' approval, I wrote to the President of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association (see copy of letter below) on December 29, 2004 requesting their endorsement for LR883. To the best of my knowledge, the MVMA has not yet responded to this request. I'll update you on developments regarding this precedent-setting legislation.
Cheers, Kris
December 29, 2005
Dr. Bill Bryant, President
Maine Veterinary Medical Association
c/o The Winthrop Veterinary Hospital
1942 U.S. Route 202
Winthrop, ME 04364
RE: LR883 An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms
Greetings Dr. Bryant:
In the September 2004 DVM Newsmagazine article entitled "MVMA Backs Full Disclosure for Vaccines," Jennifer Fiala reported that "The Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) champions full disclosure of vaccine information to pet owners." In reference to legislation which would require veterinarians to provide full disclosures, Ms. Fiala quoted you as stating that, "[I]f it goes before the Legislature, we'd likely support it," and "It's time for something like this to come out. I think that disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available to stimulate verbal discussions on vaccines' benefits and possible side effects."
It was reassuring to read this article and learn that you and the MVMA are in favor of full vaccine disclosures for pet owners. Because of your unequivocal stand on this important issue, Representative Peter Rines and I are asking for your personal support and that of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association for the bill he is sponsoring, LR883 - An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. This legislation will require that Maine's veterinarians provide pet owners with full disclosure forms for the core feline and canine vaccines as well as disclosures to accompany any prescription medications. These disclosures will be similar to those pharmacies issue for human prescription medications, and those for the veterinary core vaccines will include Dr. Ronald Schultz's challenge study results, which were incorporated into The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines.
Representative Rines and I would welcome the full support of your organization for this precedent-setting legislation, which will preserve client confidence in veterinarians and will enable pet owners to make informed vaccine choices for their animals. Representative Rines can be reached by phone at 882-9794, e-mail: prines@verizon.net, or at 334 Bradford Road, Wiscasset, ME 04578.
Sincerely,
Kris L. Christine
P.O. Box 12
Alna, ME 04535
586-5043
- guest
why we need Rep. Rines' LR 883 Maine bill
by guest » Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:56 pm
Greetings All!
At today's hearing, Dr. Phil Haines announced that the State of Maine will soon be sending a 2nd notice to all the state's veterinarians reminding them that the rabies immunization requirements for dogs changed on October 14, 2004 and that they are only required to have boosters once every three years, not every 2. His office has received multiple reports of veterinarians across the state sending out reminders to clients that their dogs are due for a 2 year rabies booster, despite the fact that his office faxed all the veterinarians notification of the rule change in October. (This is precisely why we need Rep. Rines' LR 883, because there are veterinarians who are not giving pet owners full disclosure.)
There was no opposition to the insertion of a medical exemption clause into the existing rule, and former Senator Chris Hall spoke, expressing an interest in how the state would determine if any abuses of the exemption clause were taking place. Dr. Haines said that veterinarians had been writing exemptions for sick/allergic animals for years and that there had not been a problem thus far, but his department would be watching the situation.
I spoke in favor the legislation (my testimony is below, anyone wishing to have the attachments, let me know and I'll e-mail them to you), and Dr. Haines addressed a major concern I raised by saying that the idea of punitive legislation for pet owners who do not booster their animals on time was "Off the table."
Dr. Haines expects to get the language to the Secretary of State's office by the end of January, with a projected effective date in mid-February. WCSH Channel 6 News sent a cameraman and reporter (should be on tonight's news) and it was a very short hearing as no one opposed the rule change!!!!! Hooray for the doggies!
Cheers, Kris
January 2, 2005
Dr. Philip W. Haines, Deputy Director
Department of Human Services
11 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
RE: DHS CHAPTER 260 MEDICAL EXEMPTION LANGUAGE
UNDER THE REGULATIONS REGARDING RABIES IMMUNIZATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR DOG LICENSURE
Greetings Dr. Haines:
I give my full support for this amendment to DHS Chapter 260 Regulations Regarding Rabies Immunization Requirements for Dog Licensure, which will incorporate a medical exemption for dogs similar to that in Maine's Title 7 Chapter 720 rabies immunization requirements for cats.
I am grateful that your Department acted to finalized the DHS Chapter 260 amendment to adopt the national triennial standard for canine rabies boosters on October 14, 2004 and respectfully request that when your Department notifies the state's veterinarians of finalization of this proposed amendment to DHS Chapter 260, it will take the opportunity to remind them that the current rabies immunization requirement for dogs is for a booster shot once every three years, not every two.
Attached to my testimony is a copy of a rabies challenge study conducted by a team of French researchers led by Michel Aubert, published in Scientific Review 1992 11(3), 735-760, which demonstrated that dogs were immune to a rabies challenge five years after vaccination. In challenge studies, animals are isolated after vaccination, then injected with high doses of virulent virus years later to "challenge" their immunity. Challenge studies are considered the gold standard by which to determine a vaccine's duration of immunity (DOI).
According to the American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (attached, see page 13), "The minimum DOI for killed rabies vaccine based on challenge studies is 3 years; based on antibody titers, it is considered to be up to 7 years [Table2]."
Also attached is the Populations at Risk for Rabies sheet from Chiron Corporation, manufacturers of the RabAvert rabies vaccines for humans. Their pre-exposure vaccination recommendation for veterinarians, who are at greater risk than the general population for contracting rabies because their profession brings them into physical contact with potentially rabid animals, is for a "Primary course. No serologic testing or booster vaccination." In other words, after the initial series of rabies vaccinations, it is not recommended that veterinarians receive further boosters or serological testing. Interestingly, the AAHA's 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines state on Page 18 that "There is no indication that the immune system of canine patients functions in any way different from the human immune system. In humans, the epidemiological vigilance associated with vaccination is extremely well-developed and far exceeds similar efforts in animals whether companion or agricultural. This vigilance in humans indicates that immunity induced by vaccination in humans is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, life-long." This strongly suggests that, like the human rabies vaccine, the canine rabies vaccine may provide life-long immunity as well -- something which could be determined by long-term challenge studies.
These attached materials are included with my testimony because, in August, State Public Health Veterinarian Dr. Robert Gholson and Director of the Animal Welfare Program Norma Worley expressed a desire to introduce punitive legislation making it a criminal or civil violation for pet owners who are delinquent in boostering their pets against rabies. This data, coupled with Ms. Worley's own data indicating that the vast majority of dog owners keep their animals' rabies vaccinations current even if they do not license them, should quell their perceived need for such legislation -- it is not justified by the nationally-accepted, peer reviewed scientific data.
It is my hope that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture will keep abreast of further scientific developments and protocol changes regarding rabies vaccinations and will initiate rule-making changes accordingly in order that Maine pet owners will not be forced to needlessly overvaccinate their animals in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
At today's hearing, Dr. Phil Haines announced that the State of Maine will soon be sending a 2nd notice to all the state's veterinarians reminding them that the rabies immunization requirements for dogs changed on October 14, 2004 and that they are only required to have boosters once every three years, not every 2. His office has received multiple reports of veterinarians across the state sending out reminders to clients that their dogs are due for a 2 year rabies booster, despite the fact that his office faxed all the veterinarians notification of the rule change in October. (This is precisely why we need Rep. Rines' LR 883, because there are veterinarians who are not giving pet owners full disclosure.)
There was no opposition to the insertion of a medical exemption clause into the existing rule, and former Senator Chris Hall spoke, expressing an interest in how the state would determine if any abuses of the exemption clause were taking place. Dr. Haines said that veterinarians had been writing exemptions for sick/allergic animals for years and that there had not been a problem thus far, but his department would be watching the situation.
I spoke in favor the legislation (my testimony is below, anyone wishing to have the attachments, let me know and I'll e-mail them to you), and Dr. Haines addressed a major concern I raised by saying that the idea of punitive legislation for pet owners who do not booster their animals on time was "Off the table."
Dr. Haines expects to get the language to the Secretary of State's office by the end of January, with a projected effective date in mid-February. WCSH Channel 6 News sent a cameraman and reporter (should be on tonight's news) and it was a very short hearing as no one opposed the rule change!!!!! Hooray for the doggies!
Cheers, Kris
January 2, 2005
Dr. Philip W. Haines, Deputy Director
Department of Human Services
11 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
RE: DHS CHAPTER 260 MEDICAL EXEMPTION LANGUAGE
UNDER THE REGULATIONS REGARDING RABIES IMMUNIZATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR DOG LICENSURE
Greetings Dr. Haines:
I give my full support for this amendment to DHS Chapter 260 Regulations Regarding Rabies Immunization Requirements for Dog Licensure, which will incorporate a medical exemption for dogs similar to that in Maine's Title 7 Chapter 720 rabies immunization requirements for cats.
I am grateful that your Department acted to finalized the DHS Chapter 260 amendment to adopt the national triennial standard for canine rabies boosters on October 14, 2004 and respectfully request that when your Department notifies the state's veterinarians of finalization of this proposed amendment to DHS Chapter 260, it will take the opportunity to remind them that the current rabies immunization requirement for dogs is for a booster shot once every three years, not every two.
Attached to my testimony is a copy of a rabies challenge study conducted by a team of French researchers led by Michel Aubert, published in Scientific Review 1992 11(3), 735-760, which demonstrated that dogs were immune to a rabies challenge five years after vaccination. In challenge studies, animals are isolated after vaccination, then injected with high doses of virulent virus years later to "challenge" their immunity. Challenge studies are considered the gold standard by which to determine a vaccine's duration of immunity (DOI).
According to the American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (attached, see page 13), "The minimum DOI for killed rabies vaccine based on challenge studies is 3 years; based on antibody titers, it is considered to be up to 7 years [Table2]."
Also attached is the Populations at Risk for Rabies sheet from Chiron Corporation, manufacturers of the RabAvert rabies vaccines for humans. Their pre-exposure vaccination recommendation for veterinarians, who are at greater risk than the general population for contracting rabies because their profession brings them into physical contact with potentially rabid animals, is for a "Primary course. No serologic testing or booster vaccination." In other words, after the initial series of rabies vaccinations, it is not recommended that veterinarians receive further boosters or serological testing. Interestingly, the AAHA's 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines state on Page 18 that "There is no indication that the immune system of canine patients functions in any way different from the human immune system. In humans, the epidemiological vigilance associated with vaccination is extremely well-developed and far exceeds similar efforts in animals whether companion or agricultural. This vigilance in humans indicates that immunity induced by vaccination in humans is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, life-long." This strongly suggests that, like the human rabies vaccine, the canine rabies vaccine may provide life-long immunity as well -- something which could be determined by long-term challenge studies.
These attached materials are included with my testimony because, in August, State Public Health Veterinarian Dr. Robert Gholson and Director of the Animal Welfare Program Norma Worley expressed a desire to introduce punitive legislation making it a criminal or civil violation for pet owners who are delinquent in boostering their pets against rabies. This data, coupled with Ms. Worley's own data indicating that the vast majority of dog owners keep their animals' rabies vaccinations current even if they do not license them, should quell their perceived need for such legislation -- it is not justified by the nationally-accepted, peer reviewed scientific data.
It is my hope that the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture will keep abreast of further scientific developments and protocol changes regarding rabies vaccinations and will initiate rule-making changes accordingly in order that Maine pet owners will not be forced to needlessly overvaccinate their animals in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
- guest
(1/13/05) Lincoln County News
by guest » Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:23 am
below appear in this week's (1/13/05) Lincoln County News Go into your medicine cabinet and look at your box/bottle of aspirin or ibuprofen -- there is more disclosure information contained on those over-the-counter medications than pet owners receive for the potent veterinary vaccines & medications given their animals. There is no valid reason we should be kept in the dark, we have the right to know!
Support Disclosure
To the Editor:
Please support Pet Vaccine Legislation LR883. Once your state passes this bill, the rest of the country will be following suit. It is imperative that we have access to the information about medications/vaccinations since our animals cannot speak for themselves about the side effects from them. Over vaccination is a problem with animals that is not well known unless you are a person who is informed. We all need the right to be informed.
Thanks for your help in getting this information out to the public.
Nancy Sconza
Hunter, NY
Vital Knowledge
To the Editor:
It is important for peopel to be informed about medication/vaccinations and the possible side effects in regards to animals. jPeople are informed about it by the pharmacy and it is important that people also be informed about what they are giving their animals and the side effects. It is vital that we be knowledgeable about any drug, be it for animal or person. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.
Angela Peters
Saugerties, NY
Support Disclosure
To the Editor:
Please support Pet Vaccine Legislation LR883. Once your state passes this bill, the rest of the country will be following suit. It is imperative that we have access to the information about medications/vaccinations since our animals cannot speak for themselves about the side effects from them. Over vaccination is a problem with animals that is not well known unless you are a person who is informed. We all need the right to be informed.
Thanks for your help in getting this information out to the public.
Nancy Sconza
Hunter, NY
Vital Knowledge
To the Editor:
It is important for peopel to be informed about medication/vaccinations and the possible side effects in regards to animals. jPeople are informed about it by the pharmacy and it is important that people also be informed about what they are giving their animals and the side effects. It is vital that we be knowledgeable about any drug, be it for animal or person. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.
Angela Peters
Saugerties, NY
- guest
Pet Vaccine Disclosure news articles
by malernee » Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:02 pm
Lewiston Sun Journal, Sunday, January 23, 2005
http://www.sunjournal.com/opinion/lette ... 123129.php
Disclosure
Sunday, January 23,2005
Preventative care is a must when our family is concerned. However, do we follow this regarding all members of our household?
Our pets, dogs and cats are family, and they, too, must have all the necessary preventatives for their good health.
A bill, in the works in Augusta, offered by Rep. Peter Rines of Wiscasset, calling for Pet Vaccine Disclosure, would require veterinarians to give disclosure sheets prior to vaccinating your pet and to require giving disclosure sheets with prescriptive medications. This could very possibly avoid serious or deadly overdoses.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association battled against this in the past.
I urge you to support Rep. Rines' bill.
It can save you heartache and finances.
Arnold L. Woolf,
AKC licensed judge, Lewiston
This letter, from Australia, appears in the 1/13/05 issues of the Lincoln County News, LC Weekly, Wiscasset Newspaper, and Boothbay Register
http://wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com/200 ... tters.html
In Support Of Pet Bill
Dear Editor:
Information is a great tool, I'm sure you would agree. Many Americans have spoken out and hope to be hard on the arbitrary tradition of annual pet vaccination which is making our beloved companions sick and deprive both them and us of quality time together.
Today, for a great many people all over the world, cats and dogs represent and constitute FAMILY, cherished companions who are taken are of with the same love and dedication as enjoyed by our children.
Having learned of Rep. Rines' bill for the State of Maine, I have written to him in support of his proposed legislation. If successful, which I sincerely hope he will be, this will -- hopefully -- cause tremendous waves in the U.S.A. and all over the world, making it a better place for our animals. (I do apologize for this choice of words i.e. wave) in the wake of the terrible Tsunamis in Asia.)
Information, as I mentioned above, is what pet owners need. In our society, where the words of any authority (read: veterinarians) is taken as gospel, transparency is needed.
While anyone can access a lot of information through the media, including the worldwide web, most people, I dare suggest, would not even think about questioning their vet's advice or recommendation -- until it's too late. Furthermore, the media would be rather selective in their "news and views,'' for fear of losing prospective advertising dollars from pharmaceutical com-panies/animal biological manufac-turers. It's all too political
I commend Rep. Rines, and Senator Chris Hall before him, on their daring proposals to challenge the status-quo of this "institution'' (read: annual booster vaccination protocol) which, according to accomplished U.S. scientists in the field of canine and feline immunology is totally unscientific, and the disclosure of details pertaining to drugs in general and vaccines and NSAID in particular.
I extend to you, your staff and families the best wishes for the New Year, from the Land Down-Under.
Beate (Bea) Mies
Sydney, Australia
This letter appears in the 1/20/05 Wiscasset Newspaper
http://wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com/200 ... tters.html
Pet Owners Should Decide On Vaccines
Dear Editor:
The following quote is from The American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Vaccine Guidelines:
"The ethical issue that our profession struggles with today is whether economics justifies giving an animal a drug (vaccines are biologic drugs) that is not necessarily required. As a minimum, we should allow pet owners to make this choice rather than make it for them."
If this quote were paraphrased to apply to other professions such as medicine, law, real estate, or in fact any business where a service is rendered for a fee, it can be seen that there would be no question to be asked; no debate in which to be engaged. On the contrary, other professionalswho enhanced their own economic well-being by selling unnecessary services and procedures with documented risks to their clients would likely be subject to license forfeiture, civil, and possibly criminal penalties. This has not been the case in the under-regulated veterinary industry.
In Rushworth Kidder's book "How Good People Make Tough Choices," he defines an ethical dilemma as a Right vs. Right' argument. Wrong vs. Right' arguments are not dilemmas because the choice, in most everybody's mind, should be obvious. To choose to make money by administering, withunnecessary frequency, vaccines whose effectiveness is known to be much longer than previously assumed and whose risks may involve life-threatening side effects, rather than to disclose such information and alter vaccination protocols is a Wrong vs. Right' question.
To suggest, as a minimum, that pet owners make this choice regarding vaccinations, in the absence of full disclosure of risks, benefits and durations of immunity, is to expect pet owners to function inthe dark.
Peter Christine
Alna
The following guest commentary of mine appears in this week's (1/20/05) Lincoln County News and appeared in Last week's LC Weekly. Anyone wishing to have the source documentation quoted, please e-mail me and I'll send it along.
http://www.timesrecord.com/website/main ... endocument
Overvaccinating pets tied to vets' profits
letters@TimesRecord.Com
01/17/2005
By Kris L. Christine, Times Record Contributor
Most pet owners never questioned why childhood vaccinations gave them life-long immunity to polio, measles and mumps while their pets routinely re-ceived annual vaccinations for distemper, hepatitis and parvovirus.
In the American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, the task force strongly suggests that canine vaccines might also provide life-long protection when they state that: "(T)here is no indication that the immune system of canine patients functions in any way different from the human immune system. In humans, the epidemiological vigilance associated with vaccination is extremely well-developed and far exceeds similar efforts in animals whether companion or agricultural. This vigilance in humans indicates that immunity induced by vaccination in humans is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, life-long."
The majority of Maine's veterinarians have vaccinated clients' pets annually, biennially and triennially and not disclosed that challenge studies have proven most of the core vaccines have minimum durations of immunity of five or more years. Because of this failure to inform, pet owners have needlessly overvaccinated their animals for years - taking a toll on their finances and their pets' health. Rep. Peter Rines of Wiscasset has introduced legislation to solve this problem: LR 883, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms.
Some veterinarians have justified their annual vaccination protocols with vaccine manufacturers' labels. According to Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, "Yearly booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers."
Challenge studies on canine vaccines by Dr. Ronald Schultz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine are not arbitrary, yet the public is not given access to that data. In challenge studies, vaccinated animals are isolated and then have their immunity "challenged" years later by high dose injections of virulent virus. These studies demonstrated that vaccines for distemper, parvovirus and hepatitis protect for a minimum of seven years. Cornell University challenge studies showed that cats were immune to feline panleukopenia eight years after two kittenhood vaccinations.
Why haven't all veterinarians disclosed this information to clients? A possible explanation is contained in a "Veterinary Economics" August 2004 cover story titled "Targeting Changing Vaccine Protocols." It states, "In the 1970s and '80s many veterinarians derived a substantial percent of their total incomes from vaccinating dogs and cats . And in many practices today, the vaccination reminder is the one thing that drives visits from healthy pets. So changing . vaccine protocols could have a significant affect on finances."
The AAHA's 2003 Vaccine Guidelines reports that: "[T]he ethical issue that our profession struggles with today is whether economics justifies giving an animal a drug [vaccines are biologic drugs] that is not necessarily required. At a minimum, we should allow pet owners to make this choice rather than make it for them."
Rep. Rines' legislation will give pet owners the disclosure information they need to make informed choices for their animals. Please let Rep. Rines and your local legislators know you support this bill.
Kris L. Christine lives in Alna.
http://www.sunjournal.com/opinion/lette ... 123129.php
Disclosure
Sunday, January 23,2005
Preventative care is a must when our family is concerned. However, do we follow this regarding all members of our household?
Our pets, dogs and cats are family, and they, too, must have all the necessary preventatives for their good health.
A bill, in the works in Augusta, offered by Rep. Peter Rines of Wiscasset, calling for Pet Vaccine Disclosure, would require veterinarians to give disclosure sheets prior to vaccinating your pet and to require giving disclosure sheets with prescriptive medications. This could very possibly avoid serious or deadly overdoses.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association battled against this in the past.
I urge you to support Rep. Rines' bill.
It can save you heartache and finances.
Arnold L. Woolf,
AKC licensed judge, Lewiston
This letter, from Australia, appears in the 1/13/05 issues of the Lincoln County News, LC Weekly, Wiscasset Newspaper, and Boothbay Register
http://wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com/200 ... tters.html
In Support Of Pet Bill
Dear Editor:
Information is a great tool, I'm sure you would agree. Many Americans have spoken out and hope to be hard on the arbitrary tradition of annual pet vaccination which is making our beloved companions sick and deprive both them and us of quality time together.
Today, for a great many people all over the world, cats and dogs represent and constitute FAMILY, cherished companions who are taken are of with the same love and dedication as enjoyed by our children.
Having learned of Rep. Rines' bill for the State of Maine, I have written to him in support of his proposed legislation. If successful, which I sincerely hope he will be, this will -- hopefully -- cause tremendous waves in the U.S.A. and all over the world, making it a better place for our animals. (I do apologize for this choice of words i.e. wave) in the wake of the terrible Tsunamis in Asia.)
Information, as I mentioned above, is what pet owners need. In our society, where the words of any authority (read: veterinarians) is taken as gospel, transparency is needed.
While anyone can access a lot of information through the media, including the worldwide web, most people, I dare suggest, would not even think about questioning their vet's advice or recommendation -- until it's too late. Furthermore, the media would be rather selective in their "news and views,'' for fear of losing prospective advertising dollars from pharmaceutical com-panies/animal biological manufac-turers. It's all too political
I commend Rep. Rines, and Senator Chris Hall before him, on their daring proposals to challenge the status-quo of this "institution'' (read: annual booster vaccination protocol) which, according to accomplished U.S. scientists in the field of canine and feline immunology is totally unscientific, and the disclosure of details pertaining to drugs in general and vaccines and NSAID in particular.
I extend to you, your staff and families the best wishes for the New Year, from the Land Down-Under.
Beate (Bea) Mies
Sydney, Australia
This letter appears in the 1/20/05 Wiscasset Newspaper
http://wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com/200 ... tters.html
Pet Owners Should Decide On Vaccines
Dear Editor:
The following quote is from The American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Vaccine Guidelines:
"The ethical issue that our profession struggles with today is whether economics justifies giving an animal a drug (vaccines are biologic drugs) that is not necessarily required. As a minimum, we should allow pet owners to make this choice rather than make it for them."
If this quote were paraphrased to apply to other professions such as medicine, law, real estate, or in fact any business where a service is rendered for a fee, it can be seen that there would be no question to be asked; no debate in which to be engaged. On the contrary, other professionalswho enhanced their own economic well-being by selling unnecessary services and procedures with documented risks to their clients would likely be subject to license forfeiture, civil, and possibly criminal penalties. This has not been the case in the under-regulated veterinary industry.
In Rushworth Kidder's book "How Good People Make Tough Choices," he defines an ethical dilemma as a Right vs. Right' argument. Wrong vs. Right' arguments are not dilemmas because the choice, in most everybody's mind, should be obvious. To choose to make money by administering, withunnecessary frequency, vaccines whose effectiveness is known to be much longer than previously assumed and whose risks may involve life-threatening side effects, rather than to disclose such information and alter vaccination protocols is a Wrong vs. Right' question.
To suggest, as a minimum, that pet owners make this choice regarding vaccinations, in the absence of full disclosure of risks, benefits and durations of immunity, is to expect pet owners to function inthe dark.
Peter Christine
Alna
The following guest commentary of mine appears in this week's (1/20/05) Lincoln County News and appeared in Last week's LC Weekly. Anyone wishing to have the source documentation quoted, please e-mail me and I'll send it along.
http://www.timesrecord.com/website/main ... endocument
Overvaccinating pets tied to vets' profits
letters@TimesRecord.Com
01/17/2005
By Kris L. Christine, Times Record Contributor
Most pet owners never questioned why childhood vaccinations gave them life-long immunity to polio, measles and mumps while their pets routinely re-ceived annual vaccinations for distemper, hepatitis and parvovirus.
In the American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, the task force strongly suggests that canine vaccines might also provide life-long protection when they state that: "(T)here is no indication that the immune system of canine patients functions in any way different from the human immune system. In humans, the epidemiological vigilance associated with vaccination is extremely well-developed and far exceeds similar efforts in animals whether companion or agricultural. This vigilance in humans indicates that immunity induced by vaccination in humans is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, life-long."
The majority of Maine's veterinarians have vaccinated clients' pets annually, biennially and triennially and not disclosed that challenge studies have proven most of the core vaccines have minimum durations of immunity of five or more years. Because of this failure to inform, pet owners have needlessly overvaccinated their animals for years - taking a toll on their finances and their pets' health. Rep. Peter Rines of Wiscasset has introduced legislation to solve this problem: LR 883, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms.
Some veterinarians have justified their annual vaccination protocols with vaccine manufacturers' labels. According to Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital, "Yearly booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers."
Challenge studies on canine vaccines by Dr. Ronald Schultz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine are not arbitrary, yet the public is not given access to that data. In challenge studies, vaccinated animals are isolated and then have their immunity "challenged" years later by high dose injections of virulent virus. These studies demonstrated that vaccines for distemper, parvovirus and hepatitis protect for a minimum of seven years. Cornell University challenge studies showed that cats were immune to feline panleukopenia eight years after two kittenhood vaccinations.
Why haven't all veterinarians disclosed this information to clients? A possible explanation is contained in a "Veterinary Economics" August 2004 cover story titled "Targeting Changing Vaccine Protocols." It states, "In the 1970s and '80s many veterinarians derived a substantial percent of their total incomes from vaccinating dogs and cats . And in many practices today, the vaccination reminder is the one thing that drives visits from healthy pets. So changing . vaccine protocols could have a significant affect on finances."
The AAHA's 2003 Vaccine Guidelines reports that: "[T]he ethical issue that our profession struggles with today is whether economics justifies giving an animal a drug [vaccines are biologic drugs] that is not necessarily required. At a minimum, we should allow pet owners to make this choice rather than make it for them."
Rep. Rines' legislation will give pet owners the disclosure information they need to make informed choices for their animals. Please let Rep. Rines and your local legislators know you support this bill.
Kris L. Christine lives in Alna.
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
REP. RINES INTRODUCES PET VACCINE DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION
by guest » Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:01 am
Maine House of Representatives
House Majority Office
Rep. Peter L. Rines, D-Wiscasset
www.mainehousedems.org
For Immediate Release, January 28, 2005
Contact: Rep. Peter L. Riines, 882-9794,
or 1-800-423-2900
REP. RINES INTRODUCES PET VACCINE DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION
AUGUSTA – Veterinarians would be required to provide information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines to dog and cat owners prior to their pet’s vaccination, according to legislation introduced by State Rep. Peter L. Rines, D-Wiscasset.
Rep. Rines submitted the bill, LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms, as an education tool in an effort to stop serious and sometimes deadly overdoses of prescription medicines given to cats and dogs.
“I have received letters from veterinarians, breeders and other pet care professionals across the country and internationally, as far away as Australia, “said the Wiscasset lawmaker. “Pet owners have contacted me to share their experiences and veterinarians have contacted me to offer themselves as a resource on this important issue. The response to this bill has been phenomenal, showing that people care just as much about man’s best friend as they do their neighbors.”
Cosponsors of LD 429 include: State Sen. Dana Dow, R-Lincoln; State Rep. Carol Grose, D-Woolwich; House Majority Leader Glenn Cummings, D-Portland; and Assistant House Majority Leader Robert Duplessie, D-Westbrook. The legislation has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing.
House Majority Office
Rep. Peter L. Rines, D-Wiscasset
www.mainehousedems.org
For Immediate Release, January 28, 2005
Contact: Rep. Peter L. Riines, 882-9794,
or 1-800-423-2900
REP. RINES INTRODUCES PET VACCINE DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION
AUGUSTA – Veterinarians would be required to provide information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines to dog and cat owners prior to their pet’s vaccination, according to legislation introduced by State Rep. Peter L. Rines, D-Wiscasset.
Rep. Rines submitted the bill, LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms, as an education tool in an effort to stop serious and sometimes deadly overdoses of prescription medicines given to cats and dogs.
“I have received letters from veterinarians, breeders and other pet care professionals across the country and internationally, as far away as Australia, “said the Wiscasset lawmaker. “Pet owners have contacted me to share their experiences and veterinarians have contacted me to offer themselves as a resource on this important issue. The response to this bill has been phenomenal, showing that people care just as much about man’s best friend as they do their neighbors.”
Cosponsors of LD 429 include: State Sen. Dana Dow, R-Lincoln; State Rep. Carol Grose, D-Woolwich; House Majority Leader Glenn Cummings, D-Portland; and Assistant House Majority Leader Robert Duplessie, D-Westbrook. The legislation has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing.
- guest
face-off, with no agreement between veterinarians and owners
by guest » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:49 pm
from: http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/20050301145.php
For the dogs
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer - Tuesday, 1,2005
AUGUSTA - A public hearing Monday on a proposal to mandate consumers
be given information about the risks and benefits of vaccines turned
into a face-off, with no agreement between veterinarians and pet
owners.
Veterinarians staunchly opposed legislators forcing them to give pet
owners information about vaccines. They're already doing that, they
said. And the science about adverse health risks from vaccines
is "fluid," making it impossible to give good information,
veterinarians said.
Pet owners and dog breeders who jammed into the standing-room-only
hearing were on the other side of L.D. 429. They questioned why
veterinarians were so opposed to giving out information.
With her little dog, Minnie, in her arms, Laura Moon of Brunswick
said she favors the bill. Everyone was there because they love
animals, she said. "That's why I think disclosure is so important.
How as an owner, as a guardian, do you know if you don't know?"
When any activity raises potential harm, precautionary measures are
warranted, even if the cause and effect are not fully understood,
Moon said. "How can we make an informed decision if we don't have
information?"
Joan Jordan, a dog breeder and dog obedience teacher from Woolwich,
said she's seen dogs "that have had a vaccine that had had lumps and
died. Personally I had a dog a couple of years ago I lost." Weeks
after her dog had a vaccine, she underwent surgery and chemotherapy,
she said, adding that 18 months later "Sarah" died.
When humans are prescribed medicine they're given information about
possible risks, Jordan said. "I see no reason why the veterinarians
feel that that's a threat to their services. ... What's the problem
with us just knowing what the research is saying?"
Arnold Woolf of Lewiston, a breeder and dog judge, called the bill
a "safeguard for dogs and cats." Years ago he sold a Collie puppy to
a couple who took that puppy to their veterinarian. That
veterinarian "re-inoculated the animal," giving shots the puppy
already had. The dog died within 48 hours from a vaccine overdose,
Woolf said. " That's what the autopsy showed."
Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They
testified about how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats
disease free, how their profession is under attack with inaccurate
information.
Dr. Bill Bryant of Winthrop, past president of the Maine Veterinary
Medical Association, said veterinarians are strong proponents of
education, but they're against the bill. Vaccine protocols have
changed and will continue to change, he said. Experts disagree on the
science of health risks, he said. With that science "fluid," Bryant
asked who would write information in disclosures, and what set of
research would be used?
Legislators should not mandate disclosure forms "for what is a
rapidly evolving national veterinary issue that Maine veterinarians
are actively addressing," Bryant said.
Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are
among the most trusted professionals. Wade said he gives his clients
numerous consent and information forms on many services, including
vaccines, that show the benefits and side effects.
Most veterinarians are also doing that, he said. "There is no need
for a state law to force us to do something we're already doing
voluntarily. The bill is not a legislative issue," Wade said with a
tone of annoyance. "The hidden agenda behind this bill is not for the
protection of welfare for animals, but an attempt to further control
an already ethical and trusted profession."
The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee will take up LD
429 in an unscheduled work session, possibly March 16, those
attending the hearing were told.
some quotes from this meeting:
"Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They
testified about how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats
disease free, how their profession is under attack with inaccurate
information"
"Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are
among the most trusted professionals."
"There is no need for a state law to force us to do something we're
already doing voluntarily."
For the dogs
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer - Tuesday, 1,2005
AUGUSTA - A public hearing Monday on a proposal to mandate consumers
be given information about the risks and benefits of vaccines turned
into a face-off, with no agreement between veterinarians and pet
owners.
Veterinarians staunchly opposed legislators forcing them to give pet
owners information about vaccines. They're already doing that, they
said. And the science about adverse health risks from vaccines
is "fluid," making it impossible to give good information,
veterinarians said.
Pet owners and dog breeders who jammed into the standing-room-only
hearing were on the other side of L.D. 429. They questioned why
veterinarians were so opposed to giving out information.
With her little dog, Minnie, in her arms, Laura Moon of Brunswick
said she favors the bill. Everyone was there because they love
animals, she said. "That's why I think disclosure is so important.
How as an owner, as a guardian, do you know if you don't know?"
When any activity raises potential harm, precautionary measures are
warranted, even if the cause and effect are not fully understood,
Moon said. "How can we make an informed decision if we don't have
information?"
Joan Jordan, a dog breeder and dog obedience teacher from Woolwich,
said she's seen dogs "that have had a vaccine that had had lumps and
died. Personally I had a dog a couple of years ago I lost." Weeks
after her dog had a vaccine, she underwent surgery and chemotherapy,
she said, adding that 18 months later "Sarah" died.
When humans are prescribed medicine they're given information about
possible risks, Jordan said. "I see no reason why the veterinarians
feel that that's a threat to their services. ... What's the problem
with us just knowing what the research is saying?"
Arnold Woolf of Lewiston, a breeder and dog judge, called the bill
a "safeguard for dogs and cats." Years ago he sold a Collie puppy to
a couple who took that puppy to their veterinarian. That
veterinarian "re-inoculated the animal," giving shots the puppy
already had. The dog died within 48 hours from a vaccine overdose,
Woolf said. " That's what the autopsy showed."
Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They
testified about how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats
disease free, how their profession is under attack with inaccurate
information.
Dr. Bill Bryant of Winthrop, past president of the Maine Veterinary
Medical Association, said veterinarians are strong proponents of
education, but they're against the bill. Vaccine protocols have
changed and will continue to change, he said. Experts disagree on the
science of health risks, he said. With that science "fluid," Bryant
asked who would write information in disclosures, and what set of
research would be used?
Legislators should not mandate disclosure forms "for what is a
rapidly evolving national veterinary issue that Maine veterinarians
are actively addressing," Bryant said.
Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are
among the most trusted professionals. Wade said he gives his clients
numerous consent and information forms on many services, including
vaccines, that show the benefits and side effects.
Most veterinarians are also doing that, he said. "There is no need
for a state law to force us to do something we're already doing
voluntarily. The bill is not a legislative issue," Wade said with a
tone of annoyance. "The hidden agenda behind this bill is not for the
protection of welfare for animals, but an attempt to further control
an already ethical and trusted profession."
The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee will take up LD
429 in an unscheduled work session, possibly March 16, those
attending the hearing were told.
some quotes from this meeting:
"Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They
testified about how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats
disease free, how their profession is under attack with inaccurate
information"
"Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are
among the most trusted professionals."
"There is no need for a state law to force us to do something we're
already doing voluntarily."
- guest
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
by guest » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:36 am
February 27, 2005
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms
My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Alna, Maine. Before I begin my testimony, I’d like to advise the committee that one of the world’s leading veterinary research scientists, Dr. W. Jean Dodds, wanted to be here today to testify in support of LD429, but could not do so because of prior commitments. With her permission, in the attachments to my testimony, I have included her letter to Representative Peter Rines dated February 17, 2005 (Attachment 5) resolutely endorsing this first-in-the-nation veterinary vaccine disclosure legislation.
I am here today to respectfully urge this committee to recommend passage of LD429 – An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms because pet owners need the scientifically proven durations of immunity (how long vaccines are effective for) in order to make informed medical choices for their animals.
Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health. The human equivalent would be physicians vaccinating patients against tetanus once every year, two years, or three years and not disclosing that the vaccines are known to be protective for 10 years.
For years veterinarians have sent pet owners annual, biennial and triennial reminders for redundant booster shots and justified it with vaccine manufacturers’ labeled recommendations. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6), “..revaccination frequency recommendations found on many vaccine labels is based on historical precedent, not on scientific data … [and] does not resolve the question about average or maximum duration of immunity [Page 2] and..may fail to adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product…[Page 4] .” As the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital states it: “…booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers.”
Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is at the forefront of vaccine research and is one of the world’s leading authorities on veterinary vaccines. His challenge study results form the scientific base of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (Attachment 7). These studies are based on science – they are not arbitrary. The public, however, cannot access this data. The American Animal Hospital Association only makes this report available to veterinarians, not private citizens, and Maine’s pet owners are unaware that the AAHA Guidelines state on Page 18 that: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.” They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been proven to protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years based on antibody count. So, unless the Legislature passes LD429 requiring veterinarians to provide vaccine disclosure forms, dog owners who receive an annual, biennial, or triennial reminders for booster shots will not know that nationally-accepted scientific studies have demonstrated that animals are protected a minimum of 7 years after vaccination with the distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2 vaccines (see Page 12 AAHA 2003 Guidelines attached, and Table 1, Pages 3 and 4).
"My own pets are vaccinated once or twice as pups and kittens, then never again except for rabies,” Wall Street Journal reporter Rhonda L. Rundle quoted Dr. Ronald Schultz in a July 31, 2002 article entitled Annual Pet Vaccinations may be Unnecessary, Fatal (Attachment 2). Dr. Schultz knows something the pet-owning public doesn’t – he knows there’s no benefit in overvaccinating animals because immunity is not enhanced, but the risk of harmful adverse reactions is increased. He also knows that most core veterinary vaccines are protective for at least seven years, if not for the lifetime of the animal.
The first entry under Appendix 2 of the AAHA Guidelines (Attachment 7) “Important Vaccination ‘Do’s and Don’ts” is “Do Not Vaccinate Needlessly – Don’t revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines that prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk.” They also caution veterinarians: “Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient – Vaccines are potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of producing adverse events.” Very few pet owners have had this disclosed to them.
The AVMA’s Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6) states that “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events.” (page 2) They elaborate by reporting that: “Possible adverse events include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”(Page 2)
Referring to adverse reactions from vaccines, the Wall Street Journal article cited above (Attachment 2) reports: “In cats there has been a large increase in hyperthyroidism and cancerous tumors between the shoulder blades where vaccines typically are injected.” With modified live virus vaccines (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis), some animals can actually contract the same disease which they are being inoculated against. If the public knew an animal’s immunity to disease is not increased by overvaccination, they would certainly not consent to expose their pets to potential harm by giving them excessive booster shots
Veterinary vaccines are potent biologic drugs – most having proven durations of immunity much longer than the annual, biennial or triennial booster frequencies recommended by vaccine manufacturers and veterinarians. They also carry the very real risk of serious adverse side affects and should not be administered more often than necessary to maintain immunity.
The extended durations of immunity for vaccines is not “new” or “recent” science as some members of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) have claimed. AAHA reveals on Page 2 of their Guidelines that ideal reduced vaccination protocols were recommended by vaccinology experts beginning in 1978. A Veterinary Practice News article entitled “Managing Vaccine Changes” (Attachment
3) by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reports that: “Change has been discussed for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country
According to a September 1, 2004 article in the DVM veterinary news magazine (Attachment 1), the 312 member Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) “champions full disclosure of vaccine
information to pet owners.” MVMA president, Dr. Bill Bryant, is quoted as stating: “Its time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it.”
It is time. Pet owners have the right to know the scientifically proven durations of immunity for the veterinary vaccines given their animals, as well as the potential adverse side effects and benefits. LD 429 would make that standardized information available to all pet owners.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
Alna, ME 04535
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms
My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Alna, Maine. Before I begin my testimony, I’d like to advise the committee that one of the world’s leading veterinary research scientists, Dr. W. Jean Dodds, wanted to be here today to testify in support of LD429, but could not do so because of prior commitments. With her permission, in the attachments to my testimony, I have included her letter to Representative Peter Rines dated February 17, 2005 (Attachment 5) resolutely endorsing this first-in-the-nation veterinary vaccine disclosure legislation.
I am here today to respectfully urge this committee to recommend passage of LD429 – An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms because pet owners need the scientifically proven durations of immunity (how long vaccines are effective for) in order to make informed medical choices for their animals.
Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health. The human equivalent would be physicians vaccinating patients against tetanus once every year, two years, or three years and not disclosing that the vaccines are known to be protective for 10 years.
For years veterinarians have sent pet owners annual, biennial and triennial reminders for redundant booster shots and justified it with vaccine manufacturers’ labeled recommendations. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6), “..revaccination frequency recommendations found on many vaccine labels is based on historical precedent, not on scientific data … [and] does not resolve the question about average or maximum duration of immunity [Page 2] and..may fail to adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product…[Page 4] .” As the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital states it: “…booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus have been determined arbitrarily by manufacturers.”
Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is at the forefront of vaccine research and is one of the world’s leading authorities on veterinary vaccines. His challenge study results form the scientific base of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (Attachment 7). These studies are based on science – they are not arbitrary. The public, however, cannot access this data. The American Animal Hospital Association only makes this report available to veterinarians, not private citizens, and Maine’s pet owners are unaware that the AAHA Guidelines state on Page 18 that: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.” They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been proven to protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years based on antibody count. So, unless the Legislature passes LD429 requiring veterinarians to provide vaccine disclosure forms, dog owners who receive an annual, biennial, or triennial reminders for booster shots will not know that nationally-accepted scientific studies have demonstrated that animals are protected a minimum of 7 years after vaccination with the distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2 vaccines (see Page 12 AAHA 2003 Guidelines attached, and Table 1, Pages 3 and 4).
"My own pets are vaccinated once or twice as pups and kittens, then never again except for rabies,” Wall Street Journal reporter Rhonda L. Rundle quoted Dr. Ronald Schultz in a July 31, 2002 article entitled Annual Pet Vaccinations may be Unnecessary, Fatal (Attachment 2). Dr. Schultz knows something the pet-owning public doesn’t – he knows there’s no benefit in overvaccinating animals because immunity is not enhanced, but the risk of harmful adverse reactions is increased. He also knows that most core veterinary vaccines are protective for at least seven years, if not for the lifetime of the animal.
The first entry under Appendix 2 of the AAHA Guidelines (Attachment 7) “Important Vaccination ‘Do’s and Don’ts” is “Do Not Vaccinate Needlessly – Don’t revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines that prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk.” They also caution veterinarians: “Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient – Vaccines are potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of producing adverse events.” Very few pet owners have had this disclosed to them.
The AVMA’s Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6) states that “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events.” (page 2) They elaborate by reporting that: “Possible adverse events include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”(Page 2)
Referring to adverse reactions from vaccines, the Wall Street Journal article cited above (Attachment 2) reports: “In cats there has been a large increase in hyperthyroidism and cancerous tumors between the shoulder blades where vaccines typically are injected.” With modified live virus vaccines (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis), some animals can actually contract the same disease which they are being inoculated against. If the public knew an animal’s immunity to disease is not increased by overvaccination, they would certainly not consent to expose their pets to potential harm by giving them excessive booster shots
Veterinary vaccines are potent biologic drugs – most having proven durations of immunity much longer than the annual, biennial or triennial booster frequencies recommended by vaccine manufacturers and veterinarians. They also carry the very real risk of serious adverse side affects and should not be administered more often than necessary to maintain immunity.
The extended durations of immunity for vaccines is not “new” or “recent” science as some members of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) have claimed. AAHA reveals on Page 2 of their Guidelines that ideal reduced vaccination protocols were recommended by vaccinology experts beginning in 1978. A Veterinary Practice News article entitled “Managing Vaccine Changes” (Attachment
3) by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reports that: “Change has been discussed for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country
According to a September 1, 2004 article in the DVM veterinary news magazine (Attachment 1), the 312 member Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA) “champions full disclosure of vaccine
information to pet owners.” MVMA president, Dr. Bill Bryant, is quoted as stating: “Its time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it.”
It is time. Pet owners have the right to know the scientifically proven durations of immunity for the veterinary vaccines given their animals, as well as the potential adverse side effects and benefits. LD 429 would make that standardized information available to all pet owners.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
Alna, ME 04535
- guest
Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
by guest » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:38 am
Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
By Kay Liss
A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday in Augusta. Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one hand and veterinarians opposed on the other.
The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.
She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed, extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years. Language exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.
This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an important next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with scientifically-based information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine vaccines, specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot, recommended annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she came upon information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for much longer than a year.
First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee at the hearing, Christine began: “Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health.”
Her testimony was bolstered by information from various authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading researcher and authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific basis of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.”
In the American Veterinarian Medical Association’s Principles of Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events” including “autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”
Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren, Jennifer Pearson, said she was “baffled” by the resistance of the veterinarians to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples’ rights are recognized to know the risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet owners be recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.
Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge, testified that the disclosure forms would provide a “safeguard” to dogs and cats. He added that he didn’t see why supplying such a disclosure form should be a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of the pros and cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay Sukforth of Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should welcome such a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.
Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a “period of transition” and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux that it would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure form. He said he didn’t want to turn “our profession” into managed care. He also accused the Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian community.
When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a Veterinary News magazine article “It’s time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it,” Bryant appeared hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised but did not support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian associations.
Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients information about vaccines so didn’t need to provide disclosure forms. A number claimed to be just like “James Herriot,” the well-known veterinarian and author of “All Creatures Great and Small” who has become a symbol of the ideal, trustworthy vet.
A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged legislators to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines, and that possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.
Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.
By Kay Liss
A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday in Augusta. Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one hand and veterinarians opposed on the other.
The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.
She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed, extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years. Language exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.
This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an important next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with scientifically-based information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine vaccines, specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot, recommended annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she came upon information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for much longer than a year.
First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee at the hearing, Christine began: “Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health.”
Her testimony was bolstered by information from various authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading researcher and authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific basis of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.”
In the American Veterinarian Medical Association’s Principles of Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events” including “autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”
Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren, Jennifer Pearson, said she was “baffled” by the resistance of the veterinarians to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples’ rights are recognized to know the risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet owners be recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.
Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge, testified that the disclosure forms would provide a “safeguard” to dogs and cats. He added that he didn’t see why supplying such a disclosure form should be a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of the pros and cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay Sukforth of Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should welcome such a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.
Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a “period of transition” and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux that it would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure form. He said he didn’t want to turn “our profession” into managed care. He also accused the Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian community.
When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a Veterinary News magazine article “It’s time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it,” Bryant appeared hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised but did not support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian associations.
Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients information about vaccines so didn’t need to provide disclosure forms. A number claimed to be just like “James Herriot,” the well-known veterinarian and author of “All Creatures Great and Small” who has become a symbol of the ideal, trustworthy vet.
A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged legislators to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines, and that possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.
Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.
- guest
update on maine vet act
by guest » Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:36 am
(updates from Kris Christine regarding the 2/28 hearing on Maine Act
to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms...1st
message includes Sun Journal article already linked
message)
(2nd message to follow)
From: "Peter & Kris Christine" <LedgeSpring@l...>
Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 11:51 am
Subject: LD429 Hearing Update & Press
Greetings All!
THANK YOU ALL for the e-mails you've been sending legislators and
tremendous thanks for those of you who attended the hearing -- I know
it is difficult to take time off from work, etc..., but it made a huge
difference, thank you!
To sum up my observations of the public hearing -- the committee room
was packed (standing room only) and there were approximately the same
number of private citizens testifying in favor as there were
veterinarians testifying in opposition to Representative Peter Rines'
LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms. No veterinarians testified in favor of disclosures, and no
private citizens spoke in opposition, although a woman who works for
the Spay/Neuter program (perhaps a vet tech) did oppose it. There was
a clear dividing line -- the veterinarians on one side of the issue
and the pet-owning public on the other.
The basic argument in favor was that the public had the right to know
and the veterinarians' basic argument was that they were already
disclosing vaccine information to pet owners and didn't need
legislation to mandate what they were already doing voluntarily.
Apparently, the legislators' veterinarians are not among those who
have been voluntarily disclosing, because none of them indicated
that their veterinary care provider was doing so, and several asked to
see the disclosure forms they were handing out. The Maine Veterinary
Medical Association invited a veterinarian from Fort Dodge
Pharmaceuticals, which manufacturers veterinary vaccines, to testify.
In response to a committee member's question, he said that his company
had paid for him to come to Maine for the hearing.
My testimony (below) was the only one with supporting scientific
documentation accompanying it and the only one with a letter endorsing
LD 429 from one of the world's leading research scientists, Dr. W.
Jean Dodds.
Below are articles from The Lewiston Sun Journal and The Lincoln
County News, beneath that are my testimony and my husband's testimony
presented at Monday's hearing.
Representative Rines told Peter that it is critical that the public
continue contacting their legislators asking them to support the bill.
The co-chair of the Agriculture Committee, Representative Piotti, said
that the work session on the bill will be in about 2 weeks, so PLEASE
keep up the contacts! I'll update you when I know more!
Cheers, Kris
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/20050301145.php
For the dogs
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer
Tuesday, 1,2005
AUGUSTA - A public hearing Monday on a proposal to mandate consumers
be given information about the risks and benefits of vaccines turned
into a face-off, with no agreement between veterinarians and pet owners.
Veterinarians staunchly opposed legislators forcing them to give pet
owners information about vaccines. They're already doing that, they
said. And the science about adverse health risks from vaccines is
"fluid," making it impossible to give good information, veterinarians
said.
Pet owners and dog breeders who jammed into the standing-room-only
hearing were on the other side of L.D. 429. They questioned why
veterinarians were so opposed to giving out information.
With her little dog, Minnie, in her arms, Laura Moon of Brunswick said
she favors the bill. Everyone was there because they love animals, she
said. "That's why I think disclosure is so important. How as an owner,
as a guardian, do you know if you don't know?"
When any activity raises potential harm, precautionary measures are
warranted, even if the cause and effect are not fully understood, Moon
said. "How can we make an informed decision if we don't have information?"
Joan Jordan, a dog breeder and dog obedience teacher from Woolwich,
said she's
seen dogs "that have had a vaccine that had had lumps and died.
Personally I had
a dog a couple of years ago I lost." Weeks after her dog had a
vaccine, she
underwent surgery and chemotherapy, she said, adding that 18 months later
"Sarah" died.
When humans are prescribed medicine they're given information about
possible
risks, Jordan said. "I see no reason why the veterinarians feel that
that's a
threat to their services. ... What's the problem with us just knowing
what the
research is saying?"
Arnold Woolf of Lewiston, a breeder and dog judge, called the bill a
"safeguard
for dogs and cats." Years ago he sold a Collie puppy to a couple who
took that
puppy to their veterinarian. That veterinarian "re-inoculated the animal,"
giving shots the puppy already had. The dog died within 48 hours from
a vaccine
overdose, Woolf said. " That's what the autopsy showed."
Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They
testified about
how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats disease free, how their
profession is under attack with inaccurate information.
Dr. Bill Bryant of Winthrop, past president of the Maine Veterinary
Medical
Association, said veterinarians are strong proponents of education,
but they're
against the bill. Vaccine protocols have changed and will continue to
change, he
said. Experts disagree on the science of health risks, he said. With that
science "fluid," Bryant asked who would write information in
disclosures, and
what set of research would be used?
Legislators should not mandate disclosure forms "for what is a rapidly
evolving
national veterinary issue that Maine veterinarians are actively
addressing,"
Bryant said.
Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are
among the
most trusted professionals. Wade said he gives his clients numerous
consent and
information forms on many services, including vaccines, that show the
benefits
and side effects.
Most veterinarians are also doing that, he said. "There is no need for
a state
law to force us to do something we're already doing voluntarily. The
bill is not
a legislative issue," Wade said with a tone of annoyance. "The hidden
agenda
behind this bill is not for the protection of welfare for animals, but an
attempt to further control an already ethical and trusted profession."
The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee will take up LD
429 in an
unscheduled work session, possibly March 16, those attending the
hearing were
told.
http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/i ... m?ID=10870
Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
By Kay Liss
A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet
owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday
in Augusta.
Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one
hand and
veterinarians opposed on the other.
The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine
of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the
administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.
She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to
discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in
over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed,
extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years.
Language
exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the
persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.
This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall
of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an
important
next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with
scientifically-based
information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine
vaccines,
specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot,
recommended
annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she
came upon
information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for
much longer
than a year.
First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
at the hearing, Christine began: "Many Maine veterinarians have failed
to inform
clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more
years, and
pet owners, unaware that their animals don't need booster vaccinations
more
often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots -
taking an
unnecessary toll on their finances and animals' health."
Her testimony was bolstered by information from various
authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading
researcher and
authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific
basis of the
American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine
Guidelines,
Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: "We now know
that
booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and
immunity from
distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years
based on
challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody
titer."
In the American Veterinarian Medical Association's Principles of
Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, "Unnecessary
stimulation of
the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may
increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events" including
"autoimmune
disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier
states. In
addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the
subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing
research."
Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren,
Jennifer Pearson, said she was "baffled" by the resistance of the
veterinarians
to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples' rights are recognized to
know the
risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet
owners be
recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.
Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge,
testified that the disclosure forms would provide a "safeguard" to
dogs and
cats. He added that he didn't see why supplying such a disclosure form
should be
a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of
the pros and
cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay
Sukforth of
Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should
welcome such
a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.
Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical
Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a "period of
transition" and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux
that it
would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure
form. He said
he didn't want to turn "our profession" into managed care. He also
accused the
Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian
community.
When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he
was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a
Veterinary
News magazine article "It's time for something like this to come out .
disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available,
[and] if it
goes before the Legislature, we'd likely support it," Bryant appeared
hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised
but did not
support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian
associations.
Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients
information about vaccines so didn't need to provide disclosure forms.
A number
claimed to be just like "James Herriot," the well-known veterinarian
and author
of "All Creatures Great and Small" who has become a symbol of the ideal,
trustworthy vet.
A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her
Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged
legislators
to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines,
and that
possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.
Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two
weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.
http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/i ... m?ID=10815
From the Legislature
By Sen. Dana Dow
2. Pet Vaccines: There is a great deal of interest by pet owners in
supporting a
bill which would require veterinarians to give dog owners vaccines
information
before vaccines are given. I have co-sponsored this bill with Rep.
Peter Rines
of Wiscasset. My only concern lies with what information would be in the
required handout. I am not a scientist, but having been a chemistry
and physics
teacher, I am used to working and teaching about scientific data and
research.
At this time the on-going research leads me to believe that this is
not a black
and white issue, but a gray area. Whether your dog is a house dog with
little
contact with others or a hunting dog, your best bet is always a
conversation
with your local veterinarian. I found them to be very informative on this
subject.
My Testimony
February 27, 2005
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms
My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Alna, Maine.
Before I begin my testimony, I'd like to advise the committee that one
of the
world's leading veterinary research scientists, Dr. W. Jean Dodds,
wanted to be
here today to testify in support of LD429, but could not do so because
of prior
commitments. With her permission, in the attachments to my testimony,
I have
included her letter to Representative Peter Rines dated February 17, 2005
(Attachment 5) resolutely endorsing this first-in-the-nation
veterinary vaccine
disclosure legislation.
I am here today to respectfully urge this committee to recommend
passage of
LD429 - An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms
because pet owners need the scientifically proven durations of
immunity (how
long vaccines are effective for) in order to make informed medical
choices for
their animals.
Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most
core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners,
unaware that their animals don't need booster vaccinations more often,
have
unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots - taking an
unnecessary
toll on their finances and animals' health. The human equivalent would be
physicians vaccinating patients against tetanus once every year, two
years, or
three years and not disclosing that the vaccines are known to be
protective for
10 years.
For years veterinarians have sent pet owners annual, biennial and
triennial reminders for redundant booster shots and justified it with
vaccine
manufacturers' labeled recommendations. According to the American
Veterinary
Medical Association's (AVMA) Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6),
"..revaccination frequency recommendations found on many vaccine
labels is based
on historical precedent, not on scientific data . [and] does not
resolve the
question about average or maximum duration of immunity [Page 2]
and..may fail to
adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product.[Page
4] ."
As the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital states it:
".booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus
have been
determined arbitrarily by manufacturers."
Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiological Sciences at the
University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is at the
forefront of
vaccine research and is one of the world's leading authorities on
veterinary
vaccines. His challenge study results form the scientific base of the
American
Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines,
Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (Attachment 7). These
studies are
based on science - they are not arbitrary. The public, however, cannot
access
this data. The American Animal Hospital Association only makes this report
available to veterinarians, not private citizens, and Maine's pet
owners are
unaware that the AAHA Guidelines state on Page 18 that: "We now know that
booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and
immunity from
distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years
based on
challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody
titer."
They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been
proven to
protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years
based on
antibody count. So, unless the Legislature passes LD429 requiring
veterinarians
to provide vaccine disclosure forms, dog owners who receive an annual,
biennial,
or triennial reminders for booster shots will not know that
nationally-accepted
scientific studies have demonstrated that animals are protected a
minimum of 7
years after vaccination with the distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2
vaccines (see Page 12 AAHA 2003 Guidelines attached, and Table 1,
Pages 3 and
4).
"My own pets are vaccinated once or twice as pups and kittens, then
never again except for rabies," Wall Street Journal reporter Rhonda L.
Rundle
quoted Dr. Ronald Schultz in a July 31, 2002 article entitled Annual Pet
Vaccinations may be Unnecessary, Fatal (Attachment 2). Dr. Schultz knows
something the pet-owning public doesn't - he knows there's no benefit in
overvaccinating animals because immunity is not enhanced, but the risk of
harmful adverse reactions is increased. He also knows that most core
veterinary
vaccines are protective for at least seven years, if not for the
lifetime of the
animal.
The first entry under Appendix 2 of the AAHA Guidelines (Attachment
7) "Important Vaccination 'Do's and Don'ts" is "Do Not Vaccinate
Needlessly -
Don't revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines
that
prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk." They also caution
veterinarians: "Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient -
Vaccines are
potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of
producing
adverse events." Very few pet owners have had this disclosed to them.
The AVMA's Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6) states that
"Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced
disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination
events." (page 2) They elaborate by reporting that: "Possible adverse
events
include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune
disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier
states. In
addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the
subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing
research."(Page 2)
Referring to adverse reactions from vaccines, the Wall Street
Journal article cited above (Attachment 2) reports: "In cats there has
been a
large increase in hyperthyroidism and cancerous tumors between the
shoulder
blades where vaccines typically are injected." With modified live virus
vaccines (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis), some animals can actually
contract
the same disease which they are being inoculated against. If the
public knew an
animal's immunity to disease is not increased by overvaccination, they
would
certainly not consent to expose their pets to potential harm by giving
them
excessive booster shots
Veterinary vaccines are potent biologic drugs - most having proven
durations of immunity much longer than the annual, biennial or
triennial booster
frequencies recommended by vaccine manufacturers and veterinarians.
They also
carry the very real risk of serious adverse side affects and should not be
administered more often than necessary to maintain immunity.
The extended durations of immunity for vaccines is not "new" or
"recent" science as some members of the Maine Veterinary Medical
Association
(MVMA) have claimed. AAHA reveals on Page 2 of their Guidelines that ideal
reduced vaccination protocols were recommended by vaccinology experts
beginning
in 1978. A Veterinary Practice News article entitled "Managing Vaccine
Changes"
(Attachment
3) by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reports that: "Change has been
discussed
for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country
According to a September 1, 2004 article in the DVM veterinary news
magazine
(Attachment 1), the 312 member Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA)
"champions full disclosure of vaccine
information to pet owners." MVMA president, Dr. Bill Bryant, is quoted as
stating: "Its time for something like this to come out . disclosure
forms will
be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the
Legislature, we'd likely support it."
It is time. Pet owners have the right to know the scientifically
proven durations of immunity for the veterinary vaccines given their
animals, as
well as the potential adverse side effects and benefits. LD 429 would
make that
standardized information available to all pet owners.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
Alna, ME 04535
Attachments
Peter Christine's Testimony
February 28, 2005
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: L.D. 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine
Disclosure
Forms
My name is Peter Christine of Alna, Maine and I am here today to voice
support
for L.D. 429
The information contained in the American Animal Hospital
Association's 2003
Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature
is not
available to the public. At present, the only information about
vaccines, their
benefits, risks, and durations of immunity comes from veterinarians
who derive
income from vaccinations.
This is a clear conflict of interest. That veterinarians are
boostering with
vaccines on one, two and three year schedules with vaccines that have
proven
durations of immunity of 7 years or more is evidence that the
scientific data of
Dr. Ronald Schultz's study contained in the AAHA Guidelines, is being
disregarded.
I work in the real estate profession where disclosure to prospective
buyers of
material facts and defects of a property is not left solely to the
discretion of
the real estate agent. By law we must provide a document signed by the
seller
itemizing this information and are under a legal obligation to reveal any
material defects " of which the real estate brokerage agency knew or,
acting in
a reasonable manner, should have known." To do otherwise would be
self-serving.
The veterinary profession, likewise, should be required to make available
material facts regarding vaccinations. The absence of such information
to-date
has allowed a continuance of the practice of over-vaccination which
provides no
additional benefit, incurs needless expense to consumers, and
jeopardizes the
health of the animal.
A disclosure should and can be manageable. A concise example is the
tetanus/diphtheria vaccination disclosure from the Center for Disease
Control
which was readily available from my physician (and is attached). It is
written
in layman's terms and provides the necessary information for patients
to make
educated decisions. A document containing the benefits, risks, and
possible
side effects of a particular vaccination, and references to the vaccine
durations of immunity contained in the AAHA Guidelines, would give
consumers the
facts required for an informed discussion with their veterinarian
about the best
vaccination schedule for their animal.
Mention has been made of the cost to the state and to the
veterinarians of such
legislation. Should the legislation not pass, consideration should be
given the
needless expense to consumers, as well as the health risks posed to
animals by
an uninformed acceptance of overly frequent vaccination routines
having no basis
in proven durations of immunity.
I urge you to vote this legislation 'ought to pass'.
to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms...1st
message includes Sun Journal article already linked
message)
(2nd message to follow)
From: "Peter & Kris Christine" <LedgeSpring@l...>
Date: Wed Mar 2, 2005 11:51 am
Subject: LD429 Hearing Update & Press
Greetings All!
THANK YOU ALL for the e-mails you've been sending legislators and
tremendous thanks for those of you who attended the hearing -- I know
it is difficult to take time off from work, etc..., but it made a huge
difference, thank you!
To sum up my observations of the public hearing -- the committee room
was packed (standing room only) and there were approximately the same
number of private citizens testifying in favor as there were
veterinarians testifying in opposition to Representative Peter Rines'
LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms. No veterinarians testified in favor of disclosures, and no
private citizens spoke in opposition, although a woman who works for
the Spay/Neuter program (perhaps a vet tech) did oppose it. There was
a clear dividing line -- the veterinarians on one side of the issue
and the pet-owning public on the other.
The basic argument in favor was that the public had the right to know
and the veterinarians' basic argument was that they were already
disclosing vaccine information to pet owners and didn't need
legislation to mandate what they were already doing voluntarily.
Apparently, the legislators' veterinarians are not among those who
have been voluntarily disclosing, because none of them indicated
that their veterinary care provider was doing so, and several asked to
see the disclosure forms they were handing out. The Maine Veterinary
Medical Association invited a veterinarian from Fort Dodge
Pharmaceuticals, which manufacturers veterinary vaccines, to testify.
In response to a committee member's question, he said that his company
had paid for him to come to Maine for the hearing.
My testimony (below) was the only one with supporting scientific
documentation accompanying it and the only one with a letter endorsing
LD 429 from one of the world's leading research scientists, Dr. W.
Jean Dodds.
Below are articles from The Lewiston Sun Journal and The Lincoln
County News, beneath that are my testimony and my husband's testimony
presented at Monday's hearing.
Representative Rines told Peter that it is critical that the public
continue contacting their legislators asking them to support the bill.
The co-chair of the Agriculture Committee, Representative Piotti, said
that the work session on the bill will be in about 2 weeks, so PLEASE
keep up the contacts! I'll update you when I know more!
Cheers, Kris
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/20050301145.php
For the dogs
By Bonnie Washuk, Staff Writer
Tuesday, 1,2005
AUGUSTA - A public hearing Monday on a proposal to mandate consumers
be given information about the risks and benefits of vaccines turned
into a face-off, with no agreement between veterinarians and pet owners.
Veterinarians staunchly opposed legislators forcing them to give pet
owners information about vaccines. They're already doing that, they
said. And the science about adverse health risks from vaccines is
"fluid," making it impossible to give good information, veterinarians
said.
Pet owners and dog breeders who jammed into the standing-room-only
hearing were on the other side of L.D. 429. They questioned why
veterinarians were so opposed to giving out information.
With her little dog, Minnie, in her arms, Laura Moon of Brunswick said
she favors the bill. Everyone was there because they love animals, she
said. "That's why I think disclosure is so important. How as an owner,
as a guardian, do you know if you don't know?"
When any activity raises potential harm, precautionary measures are
warranted, even if the cause and effect are not fully understood, Moon
said. "How can we make an informed decision if we don't have information?"
Joan Jordan, a dog breeder and dog obedience teacher from Woolwich,
said she's
seen dogs "that have had a vaccine that had had lumps and died.
Personally I had
a dog a couple of years ago I lost." Weeks after her dog had a
vaccine, she
underwent surgery and chemotherapy, she said, adding that 18 months later
"Sarah" died.
When humans are prescribed medicine they're given information about
possible
risks, Jordan said. "I see no reason why the veterinarians feel that
that's a
threat to their services. ... What's the problem with us just knowing
what the
research is saying?"
Arnold Woolf of Lewiston, a breeder and dog judge, called the bill a
"safeguard
for dogs and cats." Years ago he sold a Collie puppy to a couple who
took that
puppy to their veterinarian. That veterinarian "re-inoculated the animal,"
giving shots the puppy already had. The dog died within 48 hours from
a vaccine
overdose, Woolf said. " That's what the autopsy showed."
Veterinarians disagreed that the bill would do any good. They
testified about
how critical vaccines are to keeping dogs and cats disease free, how their
profession is under attack with inaccurate information.
Dr. Bill Bryant of Winthrop, past president of the Maine Veterinary
Medical
Association, said veterinarians are strong proponents of education,
but they're
against the bill. Vaccine protocols have changed and will continue to
change, he
said. Experts disagree on the science of health risks, he said. With that
science "fluid," Bryant asked who would write information in
disclosures, and
what set of research would be used?
Legislators should not mandate disclosure forms "for what is a rapidly
evolving
national veterinary issue that Maine veterinarians are actively
addressing,"
Bryant said.
Dr. Paul Wade of Manchester said polls show that veterinarians are
among the
most trusted professionals. Wade said he gives his clients numerous
consent and
information forms on many services, including vaccines, that show the
benefits
and side effects.
Most veterinarians are also doing that, he said. "There is no need for
a state
law to force us to do something we're already doing voluntarily. The
bill is not
a legislative issue," Wade said with a tone of annoyance. "The hidden
agenda
behind this bill is not for the protection of welfare for animals, but an
attempt to further control an already ethical and trusted profession."
The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee will take up LD
429 in an
unscheduled work session, possibly March 16, those attending the
hearing were
told.
http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/i ... m?ID=10870
Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
By Kay Liss
A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet
owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday
in Augusta.
Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one
hand and
veterinarians opposed on the other.
The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine
of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the
administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.
She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to
discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in
over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed,
extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years.
Language
exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the
persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.
This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall
of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an
important
next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with
scientifically-based
information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine
vaccines,
specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot,
recommended
annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she
came upon
information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for
much longer
than a year.
First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
at the hearing, Christine began: "Many Maine veterinarians have failed
to inform
clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more
years, and
pet owners, unaware that their animals don't need booster vaccinations
more
often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots -
taking an
unnecessary toll on their finances and animals' health."
Her testimony was bolstered by information from various
authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading
researcher and
authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific
basis of the
American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine
Guidelines,
Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: "We now know
that
booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and
immunity from
distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years
based on
challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody
titer."
In the American Veterinarian Medical Association's Principles of
Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, "Unnecessary
stimulation of
the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may
increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events" including
"autoimmune
disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier
states. In
addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the
subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing
research."
Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren,
Jennifer Pearson, said she was "baffled" by the resistance of the
veterinarians
to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples' rights are recognized to
know the
risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet
owners be
recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.
Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge,
testified that the disclosure forms would provide a "safeguard" to
dogs and
cats. He added that he didn't see why supplying such a disclosure form
should be
a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of
the pros and
cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay
Sukforth of
Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should
welcome such
a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.
Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical
Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a "period of
transition" and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux
that it
would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure
form. He said
he didn't want to turn "our profession" into managed care. He also
accused the
Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian
community.
When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he
was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a
Veterinary
News magazine article "It's time for something like this to come out .
disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available,
[and] if it
goes before the Legislature, we'd likely support it," Bryant appeared
hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised
but did not
support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian
associations.
Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients
information about vaccines so didn't need to provide disclosure forms.
A number
claimed to be just like "James Herriot," the well-known veterinarian
and author
of "All Creatures Great and Small" who has become a symbol of the ideal,
trustworthy vet.
A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her
Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged
legislators
to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines,
and that
possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.
Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two
weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.
http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/i ... m?ID=10815
From the Legislature
By Sen. Dana Dow
2. Pet Vaccines: There is a great deal of interest by pet owners in
supporting a
bill which would require veterinarians to give dog owners vaccines
information
before vaccines are given. I have co-sponsored this bill with Rep.
Peter Rines
of Wiscasset. My only concern lies with what information would be in the
required handout. I am not a scientist, but having been a chemistry
and physics
teacher, I am used to working and teaching about scientific data and
research.
At this time the on-going research leads me to believe that this is
not a black
and white issue, but a gray area. Whether your dog is a house dog with
little
contact with others or a hunting dog, your best bet is always a
conversation
with your local veterinarian. I found them to be very informative on this
subject.
My Testimony
February 27, 2005
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: LD 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms
My name is Kris Christine and I live with my family in Alna, Maine.
Before I begin my testimony, I'd like to advise the committee that one
of the
world's leading veterinary research scientists, Dr. W. Jean Dodds,
wanted to be
here today to testify in support of LD429, but could not do so because
of prior
commitments. With her permission, in the attachments to my testimony,
I have
included her letter to Representative Peter Rines dated February 17, 2005
(Attachment 5) resolutely endorsing this first-in-the-nation
veterinary vaccine
disclosure legislation.
I am here today to respectfully urge this committee to recommend
passage of
LD429 - An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure
Forms
because pet owners need the scientifically proven durations of
immunity (how
long vaccines are effective for) in order to make informed medical
choices for
their animals.
Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most
core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners,
unaware that their animals don't need booster vaccinations more often,
have
unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots - taking an
unnecessary
toll on their finances and animals' health. The human equivalent would be
physicians vaccinating patients against tetanus once every year, two
years, or
three years and not disclosing that the vaccines are known to be
protective for
10 years.
For years veterinarians have sent pet owners annual, biennial and
triennial reminders for redundant booster shots and justified it with
vaccine
manufacturers' labeled recommendations. According to the American
Veterinary
Medical Association's (AVMA) Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6),
"..revaccination frequency recommendations found on many vaccine
labels is based
on historical precedent, not on scientific data . [and] does not
resolve the
question about average or maximum duration of immunity [Page 2]
and..may fail to
adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product.[Page
4] ."
As the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital states it:
".booster vaccine recommendations for vaccines other than rabies virus
have been
determined arbitrarily by manufacturers."
Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chairman of Pathobiological Sciences at the
University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is at the
forefront of
vaccine research and is one of the world's leading authorities on
veterinary
vaccines. His challenge study results form the scientific base of the
American
Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines,
Recommendations, and Supporting Literature (Attachment 7). These
studies are
based on science - they are not arbitrary. The public, however, cannot
access
this data. The American Animal Hospital Association only makes this report
available to veterinarians, not private citizens, and Maine's pet
owners are
unaware that the AAHA Guidelines state on Page 18 that: "We now know that
booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and
immunity from
distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years
based on
challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody
titer."
They further state that hepatitis and parvovirus vaccines have been
proven to
protect for a minimum of 7 years by challenge and up to 9 and 10 years
based on
antibody count. So, unless the Legislature passes LD429 requiring
veterinarians
to provide vaccine disclosure forms, dog owners who receive an annual,
biennial,
or triennial reminders for booster shots will not know that
nationally-accepted
scientific studies have demonstrated that animals are protected a
minimum of 7
years after vaccination with the distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2
vaccines (see Page 12 AAHA 2003 Guidelines attached, and Table 1,
Pages 3 and
4).
"My own pets are vaccinated once or twice as pups and kittens, then
never again except for rabies," Wall Street Journal reporter Rhonda L.
Rundle
quoted Dr. Ronald Schultz in a July 31, 2002 article entitled Annual Pet
Vaccinations may be Unnecessary, Fatal (Attachment 2). Dr. Schultz knows
something the pet-owning public doesn't - he knows there's no benefit in
overvaccinating animals because immunity is not enhanced, but the risk of
harmful adverse reactions is increased. He also knows that most core
veterinary
vaccines are protective for at least seven years, if not for the
lifetime of the
animal.
The first entry under Appendix 2 of the AAHA Guidelines (Attachment
7) "Important Vaccination 'Do's and Don'ts" is "Do Not Vaccinate
Needlessly -
Don't revaccinate more often than is needed and only with the vaccines
that
prevent diseases for which that animal is at risk." They also caution
veterinarians: "Do Not Assume that Vaccines Cannot Harm a Patient -
Vaccines are
potent medically active agents and have the very real potential of
producing
adverse events." Very few pet owners have had this disclosed to them.
The AVMA's Principles of Vaccination (Attachment 6) states that
"Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced
disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination
events." (page 2) They elaborate by reporting that: "Possible adverse
events
include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune
disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier
states. In
addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the
subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing
research."(Page 2)
Referring to adverse reactions from vaccines, the Wall Street
Journal article cited above (Attachment 2) reports: "In cats there has
been a
large increase in hyperthyroidism and cancerous tumors between the
shoulder
blades where vaccines typically are injected." With modified live virus
vaccines (distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis), some animals can actually
contract
the same disease which they are being inoculated against. If the
public knew an
animal's immunity to disease is not increased by overvaccination, they
would
certainly not consent to expose their pets to potential harm by giving
them
excessive booster shots
Veterinary vaccines are potent biologic drugs - most having proven
durations of immunity much longer than the annual, biennial or
triennial booster
frequencies recommended by vaccine manufacturers and veterinarians.
They also
carry the very real risk of serious adverse side affects and should not be
administered more often than necessary to maintain immunity.
The extended durations of immunity for vaccines is not "new" or
"recent" science as some members of the Maine Veterinary Medical
Association
(MVMA) have claimed. AAHA reveals on Page 2 of their Guidelines that ideal
reduced vaccination protocols were recommended by vaccinology experts
beginning
in 1978. A Veterinary Practice News article entitled "Managing Vaccine
Changes"
(Attachment
3) by veterinarian Dennis M. McCurnin, reports that: "Change has been
discussed
for the past 15 years and now has started to move across the country
According to a September 1, 2004 article in the DVM veterinary news
magazine
(Attachment 1), the 312 member Maine Veterinary Medical Association (MVMA)
"champions full disclosure of vaccine
information to pet owners." MVMA president, Dr. Bill Bryant, is quoted as
stating: "Its time for something like this to come out . disclosure
forms will
be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the
Legislature, we'd likely support it."
It is time. Pet owners have the right to know the scientifically
proven durations of immunity for the veterinary vaccines given their
animals, as
well as the potential adverse side effects and benefits. LD 429 would
make that
standardized information available to all pet owners.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris L. Christine
Alna, ME 04535
Attachments
Peter Christine's Testimony
February 28, 2005
TO: The Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee
RE: L.D. 429, An Act to Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine
Disclosure
Forms
My name is Peter Christine of Alna, Maine and I am here today to voice
support
for L.D. 429
The information contained in the American Animal Hospital
Association's 2003
Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature
is not
available to the public. At present, the only information about
vaccines, their
benefits, risks, and durations of immunity comes from veterinarians
who derive
income from vaccinations.
This is a clear conflict of interest. That veterinarians are
boostering with
vaccines on one, two and three year schedules with vaccines that have
proven
durations of immunity of 7 years or more is evidence that the
scientific data of
Dr. Ronald Schultz's study contained in the AAHA Guidelines, is being
disregarded.
I work in the real estate profession where disclosure to prospective
buyers of
material facts and defects of a property is not left solely to the
discretion of
the real estate agent. By law we must provide a document signed by the
seller
itemizing this information and are under a legal obligation to reveal any
material defects " of which the real estate brokerage agency knew or,
acting in
a reasonable manner, should have known." To do otherwise would be
self-serving.
The veterinary profession, likewise, should be required to make available
material facts regarding vaccinations. The absence of such information
to-date
has allowed a continuance of the practice of over-vaccination which
provides no
additional benefit, incurs needless expense to consumers, and
jeopardizes the
health of the animal.
A disclosure should and can be manageable. A concise example is the
tetanus/diphtheria vaccination disclosure from the Center for Disease
Control
which was readily available from my physician (and is attached). It is
written
in layman's terms and provides the necessary information for patients
to make
educated decisions. A document containing the benefits, risks, and
possible
side effects of a particular vaccination, and references to the vaccine
durations of immunity contained in the AAHA Guidelines, would give
consumers the
facts required for an informed discussion with their veterinarian
about the best
vaccination schedule for their animal.
Mention has been made of the cost to the state and to the
veterinarians of such
legislation. Should the legislation not pass, consideration should be
given the
needless expense to consumers, as well as the health risks posed to
animals by
an uninformed acceptance of overly frequent vaccination routines
having no basis
in proven durations of immunity.
I urge you to vote this legislation 'ought to pass'.
- guest
The Rabies Challenge Fund
by malernee » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:29 am
http://blogs.mainetoday.com/dogslife/002976.html
September 19, 2005
News! The Rabies Challenge Fund
It was approximately eight years ago that I started to hear the buzz. More and more pet owners were becoming convinced that vaccines were making their pets sick. Over the years I have heard countless stories from dog and cat owners who attributed all sorts ailments to adverse reactions from vaccines. Among the most common reported were tumors, cancers, seizures and even aggression. Little by little the buzz that began as a controversy, gathered medical data to proove what pet owners "knew" with their hearts.
I clearly remember a Vet Tech friend telling me nearly 8 years ago about research that showed current vaccines protected our pets years longer than we were vaccinating them for. A more recent study by Dr Ron Schultz shows that serologically, dogs have rabies antibody titer counts at levels Known to Confer Immunity 7 years after vaccination. Just as clearly I remember asking her, "why then are we putting so many unnecessary toxins into our dogs bodies"?
Her reply, "Nancy-get real! Just who do you think would fund the vaccine research that would cost millions of dollars, only to prove something that will make no money? Not the drug companies that is for sure."
"I see your point" I said.
Now here it is 8 years later, and I have just received The Rabies Challange Fund Press Release from Kris Christine of Alna of Maine. Her name is familiar to many because she has been featured in the press frequently regarding her very personal rabies campaign. Her yellow Lab Meadow, who is featured in the above poster, developed cancer at the site of his rabies vaccine within 3 months of getting a rabies shot. Thousands of dollars later, Meadow has recovered, but he one of the lucky ones. Kris is also a proponent of Consumer Information Sheets and is working hard to have the information sheets available to us so we can read the pros and cons and medical risks associated with all pet vaccines.
Kris has been collecting data on her own, and we all have her to thank for her hard work and for having Maine's outdated rabies law amended from every two years, to every three. But she hasn't stopped there.
What started as a buzz has turned into a roar.
Together with Veterinarian Dr Jean Dodds of California, Kris is now spearheading our countries first long term rabies vaccine study and it will be funded by you!
For some time there has been speculation that the adjuvants used in the rabies vaccine may be at fault for the adverse reactions some dogs incur. It has also been speculated that the actual rabies vaccine lasts far beyond the 3 years currently required by law.
Pet owners please help fund the study that will tell us all for certain one way or another if we have been unwittingly poisoning
our pets.
It is a positive step in the right direction and I personally commend the four women who have made this study a reality.
When I read the following press release it all seemed so simple and obvious, but it has been a long time coming for someone to actually do something!
__________________________
Date: September 19, 2005
PRESS RELEASE
The Rabies Challenge Fund
World-renown vaccine research scientist and practicing veterinarian, Dr. W. Jean Dodds of California, and pet vaccine disclosure advocate, Kris L. Christine of Maine, have established The Rabies Challenge Fund to raise money to fund a 7 year rabies vaccine challenge study in the United States.
In addition to the challenge study, the fund will finance a study of the adjuvants used in veterinary rabies vaccines and establish a rabies vaccine adverse reaction reporting system.
Rabies vaccination is the one immunization required by law across the country for domestic dogs and cats. Researchers believe this vaccine causes the most and worst adverse reactions in animals. The Rabies Challenge Fund has been founded to improve the safety of rabies vaccines and to determine, by challenge, if they confer immunity for 5, 6, or 7 years.
The Rabies Challenge Fund’s first official sponsors are Deb Odom (Florida) and Dawn Turner (Arizona), who have committed to donating a portion of the proceeds from the sale of their pet vaccine informed consent posters and informational flyers.
Donations can be sent to THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND, c/o Hemopet, 11330 Markon Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841.
Rabies Challenge Fund poster (above) designed by fund sponsor Deb Odom is accessible at: http://www.zbirdbrain.com/PetAdvocatesT ... upport.htm
For more information please see Denise Flaim's article in Newsday. Fetch it here.
September 19, 2005
News! The Rabies Challenge Fund
It was approximately eight years ago that I started to hear the buzz. More and more pet owners were becoming convinced that vaccines were making their pets sick. Over the years I have heard countless stories from dog and cat owners who attributed all sorts ailments to adverse reactions from vaccines. Among the most common reported were tumors, cancers, seizures and even aggression. Little by little the buzz that began as a controversy, gathered medical data to proove what pet owners "knew" with their hearts.
I clearly remember a Vet Tech friend telling me nearly 8 years ago about research that showed current vaccines protected our pets years longer than we were vaccinating them for. A more recent study by Dr Ron Schultz shows that serologically, dogs have rabies antibody titer counts at levels Known to Confer Immunity 7 years after vaccination. Just as clearly I remember asking her, "why then are we putting so many unnecessary toxins into our dogs bodies"?
Her reply, "Nancy-get real! Just who do you think would fund the vaccine research that would cost millions of dollars, only to prove something that will make no money? Not the drug companies that is for sure."
"I see your point" I said.
Now here it is 8 years later, and I have just received The Rabies Challange Fund Press Release from Kris Christine of Alna of Maine. Her name is familiar to many because she has been featured in the press frequently regarding her very personal rabies campaign. Her yellow Lab Meadow, who is featured in the above poster, developed cancer at the site of his rabies vaccine within 3 months of getting a rabies shot. Thousands of dollars later, Meadow has recovered, but he one of the lucky ones. Kris is also a proponent of Consumer Information Sheets and is working hard to have the information sheets available to us so we can read the pros and cons and medical risks associated with all pet vaccines.
Kris has been collecting data on her own, and we all have her to thank for her hard work and for having Maine's outdated rabies law amended from every two years, to every three. But she hasn't stopped there.
What started as a buzz has turned into a roar.
Together with Veterinarian Dr Jean Dodds of California, Kris is now spearheading our countries first long term rabies vaccine study and it will be funded by you!
For some time there has been speculation that the adjuvants used in the rabies vaccine may be at fault for the adverse reactions some dogs incur. It has also been speculated that the actual rabies vaccine lasts far beyond the 3 years currently required by law.
Pet owners please help fund the study that will tell us all for certain one way or another if we have been unwittingly poisoning
our pets.
It is a positive step in the right direction and I personally commend the four women who have made this study a reality.
When I read the following press release it all seemed so simple and obvious, but it has been a long time coming for someone to actually do something!
__________________________
Date: September 19, 2005
PRESS RELEASE
The Rabies Challenge Fund
World-renown vaccine research scientist and practicing veterinarian, Dr. W. Jean Dodds of California, and pet vaccine disclosure advocate, Kris L. Christine of Maine, have established The Rabies Challenge Fund to raise money to fund a 7 year rabies vaccine challenge study in the United States.
In addition to the challenge study, the fund will finance a study of the adjuvants used in veterinary rabies vaccines and establish a rabies vaccine adverse reaction reporting system.
Rabies vaccination is the one immunization required by law across the country for domestic dogs and cats. Researchers believe this vaccine causes the most and worst adverse reactions in animals. The Rabies Challenge Fund has been founded to improve the safety of rabies vaccines and to determine, by challenge, if they confer immunity for 5, 6, or 7 years.
The Rabies Challenge Fund’s first official sponsors are Deb Odom (Florida) and Dawn Turner (Arizona), who have committed to donating a portion of the proceeds from the sale of their pet vaccine informed consent posters and informational flyers.
Donations can be sent to THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND, c/o Hemopet, 11330 Markon Drive, Garden Grove, CA 92841.
Rabies Challenge Fund poster (above) designed by fund sponsor Deb Odom is accessible at: http://www.zbirdbrain.com/PetAdvocatesT ... upport.htm
For more information please see Denise Flaim's article in Newsday. Fetch it here.
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
41 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests