I am old enough now that I can still recall the days of taking my dachshund, Rusty to our veterinarian in Westerville OH and getting his "rabies, distemper, and lepto" vaccines (those were the days BEFORE parvo...if you can believe that). I remember Rusty having a reaction (hives) and we opted to not vaccinate for lepto anymore, but it was only after a long discussion with our veterinarian.
As you may have seen in another recent post I had, the Alabama House just okayed the use of 3 year rabies vaccines in that state
Fast forward to this morning as I spent a good 20 minutes on a pet forum carefully crafting an answer to someone who thinks that veterinarians are scamming clients by charging too much for vaccinations and that everyone should just buy the vaccines from the local farm and feed store. I followed that by reviewing news video from Georgia about vaccines can be problems for pets...(here's the linkbut you will have to search for "pet vaccines" to see the video)
WHY all the controversy? Why do "pet experts" on the Internet or in the media think that they know more than veterinarians??
We know that vaccines help prevent disease...that much is fact as we have seen from the literal extinction of smallpox, the reduction of polio, and our low rate of rabies among our dogs and cats. We also know that some vaccines create a longer lasting immunity than other vaccines. But, if you listen to the media (and I referenced this in the last posting) you would think that millions of pets are dying from vaccines and that these newer guidelines mean that you don't have to go to the veterinarian at all!! I am continually amazed at the sheer amount of BAD information on this subject that is prevalent in the mass media and the new media of the Web.
Let's do a little history here: When vaccines for pets first became prevalent (around the 1950s-1960s) little research was done as to the duration of immunity created by the vaccines. The manufacturers of vaccines said "re-vaccinate annually" and veterinarians did so. Also, vaccine technology has changed...we have moved from using "killed" viruses to modified live viruses and even recombinant DNA technology to create vaccines. As we have gotten "smarter" about vaccines, veterinary science started making changes to recommended protocols.
Around the mid 1990s, this topic really gathered steam as scientists and veterinarians started searching for a correlation between an aggressive cancer in cats (fibrosarcoma) and vaccines. Some people also believed that there was a connection between recent vaccine events and immune mediated problems in dogs. Science has shown that some cats do develop these terrible cancers when they are injected (vaccines, antibiotics, etc), but not all cats will develop them. I saw one study from showing that about 1 in 30,000 cats develop this cancer.
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) recommended going to an extended vaccine protocol as the science and information got better. This happened as early as 2001 and some veterinarians had already changed protocols at that time. The majority of veterinarians now recommend vaccinating for "core" vaccines, like canine distemper, feline distemper, canine parvovirus, and rabies every 3 years instead of annually. Other vaccines, like feline leukemia, Bordetalla, Lyme Disease, and others, should be used based on the risk factors that your individual pet has. The best way of determining those factors is to have an open discussion with your veterinarian.
So far, this seems pretty straightforward...but the confusion and the controversy comes about when people equate veterinary visits with vaccines. I can't stress this enough....the most important reason to see your veterinarian is to have a good physical examination done on your pet. I recommend twice yearly examinations, but all pets should go at least once yearly. Also, trying to save money by vaccinating your pets yourself is also a potential for disaster. First, how do you know that the vaccines have been handled properly at your local farm/feed store or pet store? Next, do you know all the components of the vaccine you are about to give? What if your pet isn't at risk? Why should you give that vaccine?
Veterinarians and their staff members want your pet to be "immunized" not just poked with a needle. If you have questions or concerns about your pet's vaccine schedule, talk with your veterinarian. Find out your pet's risk factors and the potential effects of not vaccinating. Titer tests are available to check antibody levels for certain diseases, but be forewarned that they are not 100% understood (is your pet truly protected) and they can be quite a bit more expensive than the vaccines themselves.
You can also post questions to veterinarians at www.PetDocsOnCall.com. Our doctors will be sure to provide you with accurate information that you can trust...after all, its from a veterinarian!
This topic is still quite controversial and has many tangents and side avenues to explore. I welcome your comments and questions and hopefully we can both learn a little bit more about keeping our furry friends safe!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Alabama Okays 3 Yr Rabies Vaccines
This week, the state of Alabama joined most of the rest of the US in allowing veterinarians to administer 3 year rabies vaccines for pets instead of yearly boosters.
The Alabama House passed the bill unanimously and now it only needs the Governor's signature to become law.
I think that this is a great story, BUT...again, there seems to be a media bias against veterinarians in general. If you listen to the anchor as she gets ready to pitch the story to the reporter she talks about "costly veterinary visits" and how this law will help to reduce the number of veterinary visits. Then the reporter says that the law "allows pet owners to go to the vet once every 3 years".
Ok...I get the idea that they are focusing on the change from a 1 year vaccine protocol to a 3 year protocol, but it's still a good idea to take your pet to the veterinarian at least once a year...twice is actually better. As I used to tell my students when I was teaching at the veterinary hospital..."a second exam is a second chance to find little issues before they become BIG problems!"
So...for those of you pet owners in Alabama...CONGRATULATIONS! Your pets will be at less risk for the rare vaccine adverse events. BUT, please ignore what the media has told you and continue to keep up a routine visit schedule with your veterinarian!
The Alabama House passed the bill unanimously and now it only needs the Governor's signature to become law.
I think that this is a great story, BUT...again, there seems to be a media bias against veterinarians in general. If you listen to the anchor as she gets ready to pitch the story to the reporter she talks about "costly veterinary visits" and how this law will help to reduce the number of veterinary visits. Then the reporter says that the law "allows pet owners to go to the vet once every 3 years".
Ok...I get the idea that they are focusing on the change from a 1 year vaccine protocol to a 3 year protocol, but it's still a good idea to take your pet to the veterinarian at least once a year...twice is actually better. As I used to tell my students when I was teaching at the veterinary hospital..."a second exam is a second chance to find little issues before they become BIG problems!"
So...for those of you pet owners in Alabama...CONGRATULATIONS! Your pets will be at less risk for the rare vaccine adverse events. BUT, please ignore what the media has told you and continue to keep up a routine visit schedule with your veterinarian!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Pet Health: Greenies?
Once again I am amazed at the audacity and single-mindness of ConsumerAffairs.com!
Several weeks ago, I reported at PetDocsOnCall.com how Nutro, the parent company who acquired the rights to make Greenies, has decided to only sell their product in pet specialty stores and through veterinarians. Seems pretty straight forward...
Well, enter ConsumerAffairs.com...they took the same story and on May 4th released an article titled Nutro Pulls Greenies Dental Chews from Supermarkets. In this article, the journalist describes all of the terrible obstructions that have happened with pets who have been given Greenies. In fact, I became aware of their story simply because it was being repeated in various forums across the Internet, without the additional information that they will still be sold through veterinarians and certain pet stores.
First the facts: Have Greenies caused impactions in the past? The answer is most certainly yes, but so have pig ears, cow hooves, rawhides and many other numerous dog chew products. The most cited caseof Greenies is the Dachshund in New York who became obstructed after eating a Greenie and died of complications several days later. The owners attempted to sue the maker of Greenies for $5 million dollars for "product fraud". Now...the really interesting part...in the papers I read at the time (this was 2005), the lawsuit clearly stated that the owners had cut the Greenie into smaller pieces. The packaging that I remember said that cutting the treat was not advised.
Next, all dog chew toys should really be labeld "PG" for parental guidance. Some dogs get very excited about the whole chewing activity and often swallow pieces of material that won't pass or digest in a timely manner. As mentioned above, this happens with rawhide and many other products too, not just Greenies. BUT...rawhide obstructions aren't generally traceable to a brand name. Not too mention that the Internet has grown to a point where people from across the country or the world can get together and really attack a product they find fault with.
Finally, note that the majority of complaints on the ConsumerAffairs website are complaints from prior to 2007 when Greenies were reformulated. The one complaint from 2009 did not conclusively show that the Greenies were the issue. The x-ray was non-conclusive and the owner did not pursue other diagnostics or treatments. So...how can she KNOW that Greenies were the issue....
I am just stunned that ConsumerAffairs continues such strong attacks on Nutro...it's almost vendetta like. Note the last paragraph of the story.."A division of...FDA has denied it is investigating NUTRO products Inc, whose pet foods are the subject of more than 700 complaints..." I fail to see any sense of objectivity in anything that ConsumerAffairs does...
Again, I will gladly admit to my ignorance when and if a problem can be shown with the Nutro foods. But for now, I think ConsumerAffairs should forget about the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Nutro and look towards other issues.
Several weeks ago, I reported at PetDocsOnCall.com how Nutro, the parent company who acquired the rights to make Greenies, has decided to only sell their product in pet specialty stores and through veterinarians. Seems pretty straight forward...
Well, enter ConsumerAffairs.com...they took the same story and on May 4th released an article titled Nutro Pulls Greenies Dental Chews from Supermarkets. In this article, the journalist describes all of the terrible obstructions that have happened with pets who have been given Greenies. In fact, I became aware of their story simply because it was being repeated in various forums across the Internet, without the additional information that they will still be sold through veterinarians and certain pet stores.
First the facts: Have Greenies caused impactions in the past? The answer is most certainly yes, but so have pig ears, cow hooves, rawhides and many other numerous dog chew products. The most cited caseof Greenies is the Dachshund in New York who became obstructed after eating a Greenie and died of complications several days later. The owners attempted to sue the maker of Greenies for $5 million dollars for "product fraud". Now...the really interesting part...in the papers I read at the time (this was 2005), the lawsuit clearly stated that the owners had cut the Greenie into smaller pieces. The packaging that I remember said that cutting the treat was not advised.
Next, all dog chew toys should really be labeld "PG" for parental guidance. Some dogs get very excited about the whole chewing activity and often swallow pieces of material that won't pass or digest in a timely manner. As mentioned above, this happens with rawhide and many other products too, not just Greenies. BUT...rawhide obstructions aren't generally traceable to a brand name. Not too mention that the Internet has grown to a point where people from across the country or the world can get together and really attack a product they find fault with.
Finally, note that the majority of complaints on the ConsumerAffairs website are complaints from prior to 2007 when Greenies were reformulated. The one complaint from 2009 did not conclusively show that the Greenies were the issue. The x-ray was non-conclusive and the owner did not pursue other diagnostics or treatments. So...how can she KNOW that Greenies were the issue....
I am just stunned that ConsumerAffairs continues such strong attacks on Nutro...it's almost vendetta like. Note the last paragraph of the story.."A division of...FDA has denied it is investigating NUTRO products Inc, whose pet foods are the subject of more than 700 complaints..." I fail to see any sense of objectivity in anything that ConsumerAffairs does...
Again, I will gladly admit to my ignorance when and if a problem can be shown with the Nutro foods. But for now, I think ConsumerAffairs should forget about the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Nutro and look towards other issues.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Dog Health: Puppy Mills
Last night, the National Geographic channel aired a special Dog Whisperer episode about puppy mills. As always, there was lots of footage of poorly cared for dogs in wire cages and an abundance of tear-jerking emotional pictures and stories. All in all, I thought the episode was fairly typical for this topic. But again, I fail to understand why there are never any veterinarians interviewed in these stories. Hearing about the horrors of this type of a life for a dog would mean more to me coming from a veterinary professional.
HOWEVER, this story may have stimulated me to think of a potential workable plan to do away with puppy mills. If you follow any legislative alerts, you will see that regulating breeders is a common item on many states' law-making agendas this year. Right here in Indiana, a new law caps the number of dogs you can own (or breed) before you are considered to be a "commercial breeder" Many other states are looking at similar laws as well as the ideas to control pet over-population, such as mandatory spay-neuter laws. I don't know for certain, but my gut tells me that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is behind many of these legislative efforts. Although I do applaud their surface efforts to help, I can't help but continue to be concerned about their less than apparant motives. Both HSUS and PETA leaders have publically declared their goal of "no-more pets".
But let's be realistic, people want to own pets and the "don't shop..adopt" program is not working. American consumers will continue to buy puppies because 1) puppies in stores are cute and 2) its really convenient.
Instead of working through legislatures, why not put some money up front to help develop an enforcement agency/operation/organization that can help police breeders and help educate future pet owners? As it stands now, each new law that passes in every state adds to a financial burden at a time when it is difficult to get funding for any project.
The website, Charity Navigator shows that HSUS has in excess of $225 Million in assets. Why not free up some of those assets to develop an organization that will work with the American Kennel Club, veterinary organizations, and other dog-related groups to come up with a workable and fair outline of "good" breeding practices that is not solely determined by number of dogs or number of puppies sold?
Think on it...I don't know how much money the AKC has, but if HSUS could give about $20 Million (10% of their assets), the AKC could chip in and partner that money with funds already allocated for the USDA for enforcement of existing laws, we might make a bigger dent in the puppy mill industry. Its all about working together and stopping the "in-fighting" that accompanies any attempt at creating new laws.
Other benefits: Breeders who met "good" breeding practices could sell puppies through any outlet they choose...to individuals or to stores. People looking for puppies could buy them through "HSUS Approved Stores" to save the difficulties of finding a "good" breeder. Portions of all sales, through breeders or stores, would be funneled back into the organization for further enforcement and inspection of facilities. And best of all, we could avoid a lot of government interference. Breeders and stores who don't meet the requirements would eventually perish from lost business and consumers, good breeders and good stores would be able to work together to get puppies into homes.
This is just a basic outline and I know that many people will have a lot of issues with it, but...it's a much better start than simply throwing up some numbers and saying you can't breed dogs if you own x number of dogs. Work with DVMs to find good breeding practices, make potential breeders outline their breeding facilities/plans and submit them to this new organization annually along with their license fees, and finally, utilize technology to help eliminate the fraud that is often associated with AKC/CKC and other kennel club registrations. Maybe even mandate microchips for all new puppies that make it to 6 weeks of age.....
This obviously needs a lot of work and, of course, a lot of money. BUT...money is something the HSUS has alot of and my gut feeling is that the AKC has a fair share too. Let's put their monies together for a good common cause and start stamping out this horrendous nightmare breeders!
HOWEVER, this story may have stimulated me to think of a potential workable plan to do away with puppy mills. If you follow any legislative alerts, you will see that regulating breeders is a common item on many states' law-making agendas this year. Right here in Indiana, a new law caps the number of dogs you can own (or breed) before you are considered to be a "commercial breeder" Many other states are looking at similar laws as well as the ideas to control pet over-population, such as mandatory spay-neuter laws. I don't know for certain, but my gut tells me that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is behind many of these legislative efforts. Although I do applaud their surface efforts to help, I can't help but continue to be concerned about their less than apparant motives. Both HSUS and PETA leaders have publically declared their goal of "no-more pets".
But let's be realistic, people want to own pets and the "don't shop..adopt" program is not working. American consumers will continue to buy puppies because 1) puppies in stores are cute and 2) its really convenient.
Instead of working through legislatures, why not put some money up front to help develop an enforcement agency/operation/organization that can help police breeders and help educate future pet owners? As it stands now, each new law that passes in every state adds to a financial burden at a time when it is difficult to get funding for any project.
The website, Charity Navigator shows that HSUS has in excess of $225 Million in assets. Why not free up some of those assets to develop an organization that will work with the American Kennel Club, veterinary organizations, and other dog-related groups to come up with a workable and fair outline of "good" breeding practices that is not solely determined by number of dogs or number of puppies sold?
Think on it...I don't know how much money the AKC has, but if HSUS could give about $20 Million (10% of their assets), the AKC could chip in and partner that money with funds already allocated for the USDA for enforcement of existing laws, we might make a bigger dent in the puppy mill industry. Its all about working together and stopping the "in-fighting" that accompanies any attempt at creating new laws.
Other benefits: Breeders who met "good" breeding practices could sell puppies through any outlet they choose...to individuals or to stores. People looking for puppies could buy them through "HSUS Approved Stores" to save the difficulties of finding a "good" breeder. Portions of all sales, through breeders or stores, would be funneled back into the organization for further enforcement and inspection of facilities. And best of all, we could avoid a lot of government interference. Breeders and stores who don't meet the requirements would eventually perish from lost business and consumers, good breeders and good stores would be able to work together to get puppies into homes.
This is just a basic outline and I know that many people will have a lot of issues with it, but...it's a much better start than simply throwing up some numbers and saying you can't breed dogs if you own x number of dogs. Work with DVMs to find good breeding practices, make potential breeders outline their breeding facilities/plans and submit them to this new organization annually along with their license fees, and finally, utilize technology to help eliminate the fraud that is often associated with AKC/CKC and other kennel club registrations. Maybe even mandate microchips for all new puppies that make it to 6 weeks of age.....
This obviously needs a lot of work and, of course, a lot of money. BUT...money is something the HSUS has alot of and my gut feeling is that the AKC has a fair share too. Let's put their monies together for a good common cause and start stamping out this horrendous nightmare breeders!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)