# To vacc or not to vacc....



## librarychick (May 25, 2008)

I've been doing a lot of reading the past few months about vaccinations. I'm not sure what I've really decided, but I have an inkling of where I'm headed. I decided not to put this in the 'Health and Nutrition' section because I mostly want opinions of what you are/will be doing.

Here's what got me looking. Muffin came to me at about 4 weeks old. By day 2 he was sneezing a lot, so off to the vet we went (call the vet visit 5 weeks). He gave us meds and said come back in 2 weeks. Well, when we came back to the vet Muffin was doing much better, but not completely better. The vet gave him his first kitten shots anyways.
Muffin's sneezing/wheezing promptly came back. It took a while to get him over it, and that was the first time he was on l-lysine. After that he got wheezy and sneezy about every two months, so I kept him on the l-lysine. It's worth noting that some of the times his 'cold' came back were right after his shots, the other 2 sets of the kitten booster and a worse bout after the rabies shot. Another after his neuter as well.

When Muffin was about 9 months, right after we moved into our new house, he got a sore above his lip. It looked very much like a cold sore, and went away when I upped his dose of L-lysine again, and put on a little polysporin to prevent infection. It went away in about a week or so. 

Now he's wheezing again, I've put him back on the l-lysine. he had been off it since summer, with no issues.

I've done a ton of research on this and I think that this 'cold' is linked to him getting the original shot when his immune system was still weak. IMO this shot weakened his immune system, causing the virus he was fighting to strengthen and become feline herpes. Again, IMO and from what I've found. my vet also thought feline herpes was likely when I asked, but also said testing isn't worth it.

Now my dilemma is whether to keep vaccinating. From the things i've read in the vast majority of cases one or two shots as a kitten, done at the appropriate time, can provide lifetime immunity. this does make sense to me. We don't get many shots yearly, just the flue vaccine and that's because it's a different strain every year. So why do they need yearlies?
Especially when you hear about sarcomas, long lasting immune issues, and serious reactions to vaccines.

I guess what I'm asking is why do you do what you do? Do you vaccinate, will you continue to do so? What kind of vaccine protocols do you follow with your pets?


----------



## NosyKitty (Feb 3, 2010)

I usually just get the basic necessary first shots and that's it, better safe than sorry. I, myself never ever get any kind of shots or vacs ever and I am exposed to potentially harmful bacteria/viruses out in the world. So why should I waste my time and money(and possibly do harm) on shots/vacs on my healthy, heavily pampered, indoor only cat?


----------



## RachandNito (Nov 21, 2008)

So far with all my cats I've done kitten shots only. With Nito, I brought him in for Chica's kitten appointment because they were having a special (buy one get one cat checkups) and the vet convinced me to do Nito's rabies again. I obliged, since I knew he would get a lot of outdoor time this summer. My mom's cats go out whenever they went, and she does their rabies every other year because of this. She does their distemper on the years in between. Her cats are 13 and 10 and have done fine all their lives with this. 

I don't think it's a huge issue if your cat is indoors. The boosters work best for cats that go out, with a "just in case" sort of notion. Now, if you cat bites someone and isn't updated on their rabies shot... that can bring some issues down the road, which could result in your pet getting quarantined for rabies.

As far as Muffin haves the herpes virus... yes, getting the vaccine probably weakened his immune system a bit, allowing his "cold" to worsen. I would not waste money getting him tested- many, many, MANY cats carry the herpes virus, which can be equated as to something like a human cold. These cats tend to be sniffly, and it all can be controlled with the lysine. I use it for Chica, who gets the sniffles every couples of months. Just watch for secondary bacteria infections (green runny boogers) and take him to the vet if that happens for antibiotics. Otherwise I wouldn't worry- it's not something you can make go away. But I wouldn't keep giving him vaccines, not if he isn't an outdoor kitty, and especially not if it causes the virus to act up.


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

I started having bad reactions with my own personal cat and then some of my foster cats when given their vaccinations. So started doing research. Then had a long talk with my personal vet about my concerns. 

She basically advised me to make sure all the kittens I get in get the full coarse of vaccinations their fist year. Then their immune systems will have a strong resistance to the diseases and not to worry from then on since they are indoor cats. The only vaccinations she would recommend continuing is the rabies but it’s become a bad problem around our area. If a cat got out or a dishonest person dumped one of our fosters they’ve adopted it would be best if it was vaccinated with the rabies.

But I’ve decided not to give my personal cat even the rabies anymore. I have one mostly indoor cat but does go out of doors so I had him vaccinated with the 3 year rabies shot. I’m convinced it just a big money maker for vets and not much benefit from giving indoor cats & dogs the shots. In fact, I think its a detriment.


----------



## MissAnne2u (Feb 10, 2008)

Since I got Scooter and Charlie when they were older, the Humane Society gave them all their shots, so I didn't have worry about them. With Freaky, we got her as a kitten and did get her the first kitten shots and then the follow-up shots for the first year only. All my kitties are indoor kitties, so I'm not too worried about it.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

librarychick said:


> I've done a ton of research on this and I think that this 'cold' is linked to him getting the original shot when his immune system was still weak. IMO this shot weakened his immune system, causing the virus he was fighting to strengthen and become feline herpes. Again, IMO and from what I've found. my vet also thought feline herpes was likely when I asked, but also said testing isn't worth it.
> 
> Now my dilemma is whether to keep vaccinating. From the things i've read in the vast majority of cases one or two shots as a kitten, done at the appropriate time, can provide lifetime immunity. this does make sense to me. We don't get many shots yearly, just the flue vaccine and that's because it's a different strain every year. So why do they need yearlies?
> Especially when you hear about sarcomas, long lasting immune issues, and serious reactions to vaccines.


Excellent question and one frequently discussed on the forums! My friend is a DVM and I myself will be graduating from MD school this year. Generally, guidelines for vaccinations already have the risks and benefits weighed for you. Studies and mathematical extrapolations such as cost effectiveness, morbidity and mortality, etc. are considered. For example, in the annual human flu shot, it was found that it may just be cheaper to vaccinate higher risk populations as opposed to treating the actual flu and the flu in select populations has frequently even caused death (e.g. elderly, immunocompromised, etc.).

With regards to the question about whether the vaccine immunocompromised your cat: it seems unlikely. Vaccines typically have only proteins or dead virus or very very weak virus. They are aimed at exposing just a tiny bit to kitty so they can develop an immunologic memory, memory immune cells are actually made in the process and that way kitty can have a fast robust response in an exposure as opposed to literally taking the long time to make up an army while an infection progresses. Making memory cells takes awhile. However, I trust the vet would not have administered it should s/he suspect it will do more harm than good.

With regards to research, it is excellent that you are doing your own reading! I find it helps patients and their caregivers be more enthusiastic about giving the best care. Can vaccines cause adverse reactions? Of course. But everything comes with risk, most things can cause severe outcomes albeit the vast majority of the time it is extremely rare. There is a lot of information out there, but please take caution to make sure the source is reputable i.e. from someone licensed and/or with a good educational background in the field. The vet as well as vet schools will have the best resources to offer for further reading. 

If you are still unsure, I would set up a time to meet with the doctor and discuss what the rationale behind the vaccination schedule is and weigh the risks and benefits together. For my own Snowy, we just follow the guidelines!

Snowy also has feline herpes virus and the vet explained that flare ups can happen throughout life. The virus will be in him forever so I am not surprised Muffin continues to have airway and mucocutaneous findings. The lysine does wonders for him. My bf stopped the lysine supplements too and the symptoms came back. Some of Muffin’s findings can be related to not being on the lysine +/- a typical herpes flare up.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

With Jonah, who came at 3 weeks, I've done NOTHING so far. I will do ONE rabies shot when he's a year old and that will be all he'll ever get. Period. My other cats were adopted as adults and had been given vaccinations at the shelter. They have gotten nothing else since I've had them.

That is for INDOOR ONLY cats. My barn cats get vaccinated (combo shot/FeLV/rabies) every 3 years or whenever I can catch them (they are 90% feral).


----------



## RachandNito (Nov 21, 2008)

Hoofmaiden- you may want to consider get the Feline Panleukopenia (distemper) vaccine for Jonah, at least just once (and perhaps a booster). While cats *can* recover from the disease, many cats die from it. It is a horrible disease when he rears its ugly head, and the worst part is, it's common and fairly contagious. You can even accidently bring it into your home on your shoes. They say most cats end up exposed at some point in their life, so it shouldn't hurt to take precautions! (plus the vaccine for distemper is generally much cheaper than the rabies vaccine!)


----------



## RachandNito (Nov 21, 2008)

Hoofmaiden- you may want to consider get the Feline Panleukopenia (distemper) vaccine for Jonah, at least just once (and perhaps a booster). While cats *can* recover from the disease, many cats die from it. It is a horrible disease when he rears its ugly head, and the worst part is, it's common and fairly contagious. You can even accidently bring it into your home on your shoes. They say most cats end up exposed at some point in their life, so it shouldn't hurt to take precautions! (plus the vaccine for distemper is generally much cheaper than the rabies vaccine!)


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

ooh, also forgot to mention. With the timing of the symptoms and association with vaccines, it may not necessarily be due chemically to the vaccine itself. For human herpes, even emotional stress can trigger an outbreak. Perhaps the feline herpes virus does that too? Going to the vet and getting a shot can be quite stressful to Muffin :roll:.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

RachandNito said:


> Hoofmaiden- you may want to consider get the Feline Panleukopenia (distemper) vaccine for Jonah, at least just once (and perhaps a booster). While cats *can* recover from the disease, many cats die from it. It is a horrible disease when he rears its ugly head, and the worst part is, it's common and fairly contagious. You can even accidently bring it into your home on your shoes. They say most cats end up exposed at some point in their life, so it shouldn't hurt to take precautions! (plus the vaccine for distemper is generally much cheaper than the rabies vaccine!)


I'm not vaccinating less because it COSTS less. :? Healthy cats really don't die from these things ("exposure" does not automatically = "illness") and panleuk is really not a risk for anything but kittens. I feel my cats are very safe indoors and prefer not to vaccinate.


----------



## RachandNito (Nov 21, 2008)

Costing less is always a plus for a college student like me  True about distemper being more dangerous for kittens. To each his own, I respect your decision. My own cats each had a set of two for the distemper and have never gotten it boostered.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

I think it's fine to get the kitten shots and usually do recommend that. I just decided that there was such low risk to Jonah that there was no reason to do it at all.


----------



## jusjim (Jun 30, 2009)

sweetyanna said:


> For example, in the annual human flu shot, it was found that it may just be cheaper to vaccinate higher risk populations as opposed to treating the actual flu and the flu in select populations has frequently even caused death (e.g. elderly, immunocompromised, etc.).
> 
> With regards to the question about whether the vaccine immunocompromised your cat: it seems unlikely. Vaccines typically have only proteins or dead virus or very very weak virus. .


The last I read on flu shots and the human elderly said that it appeared to make no difference in the death rate among the elderly. I'm considered elderly.

As to what was said about vaccines, I don't know about animal vaccines, but the human ones sometimes come with an 'adjuvant', and from what I understand the 'adjuvant' lowers the immune system slightly to allow the vaccine to take hold with a lesser dose of the actual vaccine. For instance, the Swine Flu Vaccine here in Canada had the added adjuvant to make the vaccine go further. (I refused it and it was free for me.) That in the States did not have it. I don't know about the rest of the world.

Roughly ten years ago, the yearly flu vaccine had the adjuvant, and I had the shot in December. I got sick with severe colds with secondary infections requiring anti-biotics in January, March and April, causing my pharmacist to remark as to what was going on. "You don't get sick," he said.

As I mentioned, I don't know if cat vaccines are treated this way, but the lowering of the immune system would explain the recurring sniffles. On the plus side, my immune system recovered.

This thread interests me, because Zenobi, a senior cat, came from the shelter with shots administered, and I've been wondering if I should take her in for re-vaccination when the year is up. She's mostly an indoor cat, but there are other cats hanging around, although she tends to not want anything to do with them. I'm wavering towards no boosters.


----------



## librarychick (May 25, 2008)

sweetyanna said:


> With regards to the question about whether the vaccine immunocompromised your cat: it seems unlikely. Vaccines typically have only proteins or dead virus or very very weak virus. They are aimed at exposing just a tiny bit to kitty so they can develop an immunologic memory, memory immune cells are actually made in the process and that way kitty can have a fast robust response in an exposure as opposed to literally taking the long time to make up an army while an infection progresses. Making memory cells takes awhile. However, I trust the vet would not have administered it should s/he suspect it will do more harm than good.


I was wondering about this. I know that vaccines are usually killed viruses, but I've also read that certain vaccines can give the cat a chrinic type of the disease it was vaccinated for. (I'll try and find the source for that, it's currently elluding me.)
Could the fact that he gave the vaccine before muffin had fully recovered have caused the vaccine to weaken his immune system, causing the active infection to become stronger???

As for my trust level of the vet...or vets in general...unfortunately there aren't many good vets around here. Most of the ones in my area are much more interested in how much money they can make than what's best for your pet. This isn't just from my experience, but also from hearing the stories of many many pet owners who have the same issue.
I'm currently looking for a vet that I can trust.



sweetyanna said:


> Snowy also has feline herpes virus and the vet explained that flare ups can happen throughout life. The virus will be in him forever so I am not surprised Muffin continues to have airway and mucocutaneous findings. The lysine does wonders for him. My bf stopped the lysine supplements too and the symptoms came back. Some of Muffin’s findings can be related to not being on the lysine +/- a typical herpes flare up.


I had him on the lysine during a few of the flare ups, after the third he was on it constantly until he was over a year. The only connection I could find was the vaccinations. I do know that some animals have adverse reactions, I'm thinking it's possible Muffin is one of those.

Will keeping him on the lysine do anything negative for him? Will it cause his immune system to become accustomed to it over time, and therefore he'll need gradually more and more? Does it have any side effects that I may not be aware of???

Thanks for all the replies, everyone has good points.

Currently I am holding back on Jitzu and Doran's checkup because I want to make a desicion before I go...that and the lack of good vets in my area. I'm not certain I want to discuss it with a vet, or that I would take the same route as the local vets would given the same information.
I am leaning towards less/no vaccinations currently, mostly because I can't find a reason that they need to be vaccinated again. The only exception is Muffin if I do get into therapy work with him...ironcially he's the one i'm most concerned about.


----------



## Huge2 (Jan 28, 2008)

If my cat can get the illness, it's serious or she can die from it, she's getting the jab. No question.


----------



## melysion (Mar 12, 2007)

Its a trickier question than you think Hugh. 

When I first adopted Toby, I didn't have a record of his vaccinations so I elected to redo them from the beginning -you know like a kitten where you have two lots so long apart which is then topped up with annual boosters as required.

He was fine with the first lot. But reacted quite badly to the second - was a very unwell pusscat for the day after the vaccinations and had a very sore hind leg! He will not be getting any more!

Vaccinations have been linked to cancer and some vets are now saying annual boosters are simply not necessary. In fact, we had this discussion with my mothers vet when Felix went in to have his teeth cleaned. He basically said all lthat was really required where the initial vaccinations, after which the cat builds up its own immunity. And if theres one vet in the world whos opinion I trust, its that one.

My mother has only ever given her cats the initial course as kittens or when she has first adopted them. Seeing as they have all gone outside and not brought home any nasties with them, I'd say they were adequently protected.


----------



## Xanti (Nov 4, 2008)

Agree Melysion, I am doing a compromise and only getting him done every 3 years. Only thing is, if he ever has to go in a cattery they won't take them unless shots are up to date


----------



## Huge2 (Jan 28, 2008)

She's an indoor/outdoor cat, and whatever sideeffects she may get, they're not going to be as bad surely?

She's had 2 lots of boosters in the 2 years I've had her, and is going to be due her 3rd soon. She's had no problems. Sure she's been a bit down for a day or two and a bit off her food, but then I'd expect that.


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

Huge said:


> She's an indoor/outdoor cat, and whatever sideeffects she may get, they're not going to be as bad surely?


Injection site sarcoma is pretty bad...best case is an amputated leg, worse case; death. But...with her going outside you have to weigh the risks. This is another area where it pays to research and educate yourself. If I had an outdoor cat, I would probably go the every 3 years route. Another alternative is to run titer tests, they will tell you whether the vaccine is still protecting her. But that's a more expensive proposition.


----------



## melysion (Mar 12, 2007)

doodlebug said:


> Huge said:
> 
> 
> > She's an indoor/outdoor cat, and whatever sideeffects she may get, they're not going to be as bad surely?
> ...


As I've already said, Mum only ever did kitten vaccinations and (I think) first year boosters. She has had 30 cats (not all at once I should add!), all of which have been indoor/outdoor (and in the country, where goodness only knows what might be lurking) and has had no problems associated with not keeping up vaccinations. Maybe she got lucky? Nah. I reckon (and this is my totally uneducated assumption - but based on my very good crusty old vets comments )- the cats build up their own immunities to the nasties routinely vaccinated against pretty quickly.

Up to you of course, but I think yearly vaccinations are way over the top. I like Xantis compromise mind.


----------



## Xanti (Nov 4, 2008)

Hmm just had another thought. If Monty ever gets ill with an illness that is NON related to his shots, how would the insurance react if he wasn't vaccinated? I do know they try and get out of everything if they can normally...


----------



## melysion (Mar 12, 2007)

Probably best to check the fine print ...


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

jusjim said:


> sweetyanna said:
> 
> 
> > For example, in the annual human flu shot, it was found that it may just be cheaper to vaccinate higher risk populations as opposed to treating the actual flu and the flu in select populations has frequently even caused death (e.g. elderly, immunocompromised, etc.).
> ...


According to the studies below involving over 10,000 patients, the flu shot decreases death rates in the elderly as well as healthcare costs. The elderly are more susceptible to adverse effects of the flu to a greater degree than the young. i.e. their immune system overall is not as robust and they are more likely to progress to pneumonia, sepsis, etc.

The articles below actually state that there are numerous benefits to the flu shot. If you find scholarly articles stating the contrary, please let me know as those would be interesting reads.

Also, for clarification, an adjuvant is an inert substance that results in increased antibody response to a vaccine. It binds antigen and increases uptake of antigen by APC and increases synthesis of cytokines e.g. aluminum hydroxide (alum). Someone would likely have to be severely compromised such as one undergoing chemotherapy or advanced AIDs such that their mounting this immune response deters from another active infection. Again, if you find academically based studies that suggest the contrary, I would be interested in reading more about this topic.



Cost effectiveness of influenza vaccination for healthy persons between ages 65 and 74 years 
Kristin L. Nichol , , a and Michael Goodmanb
a VA Medical Center, Medicine Service (111), One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA
b Health Partners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA

Available online 13 March 2002. 

Abstract
Healthy persons between 65 and 74 years of age represent a large proportion of the population in this age group. Internationally, there is a substantial variation in whether these people are included among the recommendations for routine influenza vaccination. We therefore conducted this study, updating an earlier analysis, to assess the health and economic benefits of routine influenza vaccination of healthy persons between 65 and 74 years of age. The health benefits associated with vaccination were estimated using the administrative data bases of a large HMO in the Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota area. Multivariate models were used to estimate reductions in hospitalization and death associated with vaccination. The economic analysis took the societal perspective and presented the results as net cost or saving per 10,000 persons vaccinated and per death prevented. Direct and indirect monetary costs were included in the models and were estimated from the published literature. Monte Carlo simulation was used to conduct probabilistic sensitivity analysis in order to derive probability intervals for each estimate of net costs or savings. Over the six consecutive study seasons, 1990–1991 to 1995–1996, vaccination of healthy elderly person was associated with a 36% reduction in hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza (95% CI, 2–39%), an 18% reduction in hospitalization for all respiratory conditions (95% CI, ?6 to 37%) and a 40% reduction in death (95% CI, 14–38%). Vaccination was also associated with cost savings in all scenarios evaluated. The findings of this study again affirm the value of an age-based strategy for routine influenza vaccination of all elderly persons including healthy elderly persons between 65 and 74 years.
The Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Vaccination against Influenza among Elderly Persons Living in the Community
K.L. Nichol, K.L. Margolis, J. Wuorenma, and T. Von Sternberg 






The Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Vaccination against Influenza among Elderly Persons Living in the Community

K.L. Nichol, K.L. Margolis, J. Wuorenma, and T. Von Sternberg 


ABSTRACT 
Background Despite recommendations for annual vaccination against influenza, more than half of elderly Americans do not receive this vaccine. In a serial cohort study, we assessed the efficacy and cost effectiveness of influenza vaccine administered to older persons living in the community. 
Methods Using administrative data bases, we studied men and women over 64 years of age who were enrolled in a large health maintenance organization in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. We examined the rate of vaccination and the occurrence of influenza and its complications in each of three seasons: 1990-1991, 1991-1992, and 1992-1993. Outcomes were adjusted for age, sex, diagnoses indicating a high risk, use of medications, and previous use of health care services. 
Results Each cohort included more than 25,000 persons 65 years of age or older. Immunization rates ranged from 45 percent to 58 percent. Although the vaccine recipients had more coexisting illnesses at base line than those who did not receive the vaccine, during each influenza season vaccination was associated with a reduction in the rate of hospitalization for pneumonia and influenza (by 48 to 57 percent, P 0.002) and for all acute and chronic respiratory conditions (by 27 to 39 percent, P 0.01). Vaccination was also associated with a 37 percent reduction (P = 0.04) in the rate of hospitalization for congestive heart failure during the 1991-1992 season, when influenza A was epidemic. The costs of hospitalization for all types of illness studied were lower in the vaccinated group during 1991-1992 (range of reduction, 47 to 66 percent; P<0.005) and for acute and chronic respiratory conditions and congestive heart failure in 1990-1991 (reductions of 37 percent and 43 percent, respectively; P 0.05). Direct savings per year averaged $117 per person vaccinated (range, $21 to $235), with cumulative savings of nearly $5 million. Vaccination was also associated with reductions of 39 to 54 percent in mortality from all causes during the three influenza seasons (P<0.001). 
Conclusions For elderly citizens living in the community, vaccination against influenza is associated with reductions in the rate of hospitalization and in deaths from influenza and its complications, as compared with the rates in unvaccinated elderly persons, and vaccination produces direct dollar savings. .






The Efficacy of Influenza Vaccine in Elderly Persons
A Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature
Peter A. Gross, MD; Alicia W. Hermogenes, MD; Henry S. Sacks, MD, PhD; Joseph Lau, MD; and Roland A. Levandowski, MD
+ Author Affiliations

From Hackensack Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey; New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey; Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York; Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and the Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Maryland. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Mark Solomon for manuscript preparation and Duressa Pujat for reference services. Grant Support: In part by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Contract 223-90-1102. Requests for Reprints: Peter A. Gross, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Hackensack Medical Center, 30 Prospect Avenue, Hackensack, NJ 07601. Current Author Addresses: Dr. Gross: Department of Internal Medicine, Hackensack Medical Center, 30 Prospect Avenue, Hackensack, NJ 07601. 
Abstract
Objective: To quantify the protective efficacy of influenza vaccine in elderly persons. 

Data Sources: A MEDLINE search was done using the index terms influenza vaccine, vaccine efficacy, elderly, mortality, hospitalized, and pneumonia. Appropriate references in the initially selected articles were also reviewed. 

Study Selection: Only cohort observational studies with mortality assessment were included in the meta-analysis. In addition, 3 recent case–control studies, 2 cost-effectiveness studies, and 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were reviewed. 

Data Extraction: Vaccine and epidemic virus strains, age and sex of patients, severity of illness, patient status, and study design were recorded. Upper respiratory illness, hospitalization, pneumonia, and mortality were used as outcome measures. 

Data Synthesis: In a meta-analysis of 20 cohort studies, the pooled estimates of vaccine efficacy (1 ?odds ratio) were 56% (95% CI, 39% to 68%) for preventing respiratory illness, 53% (CI, 35% to 66%) for preventing pneumonia, 50% (CI, 28% to 65%) for preventing hospitalization, and 68% (CI, 56% to 76%) for preventing death. 

Vaccine efficacy in the case–control studies ranged from 32% to 45% for preventing hospitalization for pneumonia, from 31% to 65% for preventing hospital deaths from pneumonia and influenza, from 43% to 50% for preventing hospital deaths from all respiratory conditions, and from 27% to 30% for preventing deaths from all causes. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed a 50% or greater reduction in influenza-related illness. Recent cost-effectiveness studies confirm the efficacy of influenza vaccine in reducing influenza-related morbidity and mortality and show that vaccine provides important cost savings per year per vaccinated person. 

Conclusion: Despite the paucity of randomized trials, many studies confirm that influenza vaccine reduces the risks for pneumonia, hospitalization, and death in elderly persons during an influenza epidemic if the vaccine strain is identical or similar to the epidemic strain. Influenza immunization is an indispensable part of the care of persons 65 years of age and older. Annual vaccine administration requires the attention of all physicians and public health organizations.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

librarychick said:


> I was wondering about this. I know that vaccines are usually killed viruses, but I've also read that certain vaccines can give the cat a chrinic type of the disease it was vaccinated for. (I'll try and find the source for that, it's currently elluding me.)
> Could the fact that he gave the vaccine before muffin had fully recovered have caused the vaccine to weaken his immune system, causing the active infection to become stronger???
> 
> Will keeping him on the lysine do anything negative for him? Will it cause his immune system to become accustomed to it over time, and therefore he'll need gradually more and more? Does it have any side effects that I may not be aware of???


Immune responses are built according to the proteins one is exposed to. Unless someone is severely immunocompromised as in chemotherapy, advanced AIDs, etc., it would theoretically be highly unlikely for a vaccine to use up such a high proportion of one's immune system allowing another infection to progress. Regardless, once Muffin finished building memory cells in response to the vaccine, the proteins from the previous infection should still be there. Muffin would still have the exposure there to respond and build a more elaborate immune response to. If he was truly immunocompromised, he would have worse symptoms. As troubling as some of his findings may appear, infections can get very horrid. I have seen chemotherapy patients have their eyeballs removed because of fungal infections, oral thrush, people that had to sterilize every piece of food they ate otherwise they could literally die from their next meal. That would be immunocompromised.

The lysine is just an amino acid. Amino acids are the building blocks for protein. Unless there is a harmful ingredient in his lysine preparation (which is unlikely or else they would not dispense it, even if it was for profit purposes, wouldn’t it be bad business to dispense a poor outcome? They want consumers to return right?), there should not be any harm from it. Lysine is just as easily found in the proteins we consume and is found in meat fed to cats too. The aim of the lysine is to help decrease the viral load, some research suggests it inhibits viral replication. (Gelatt, Kirk N. (ed.) (1999). Veterinary Ophthalmology (3rd ed.). Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-683-30076-8. )


----------



## Huge2 (Jan 28, 2008)

Xanti said:


> Hmm just had another thought. If Monty ever gets ill with an illness that is NON related to his shots, how would the insurance react if he wasn't vaccinated? I do know they try and get out of everything if they can normally...


This is exactly it. I'm on Petplan, and I know a lot of things are excluded if the boosters aren't kept up.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

Very few people in the US have "pet insurance." Don't know about the UK but over here it's pretty much a racquet, esp for indoor cats who aren't likely to have traumatic injuries. I certainly wouldn't have any company telling me I have to do ANYTHING w/ my cats that I don't feel is appropriate!


----------



## Xanti (Nov 4, 2008)

Actually Hoof it's not bad over here. My insurance costs £5 a month and Monty is covered up to £6000 per year per condition. £5 is nothing really.

My friend had the same insurance...her cat was sent to a vet school hospital as they weren't sure what was wrong with it...the bill came to over £5000...that is a LOT of money. The cat died in the end as it was FIP, but at least there were no financial issues. Maybe the vets are cheaper in the u.s, I don't know.


----------



## Jeanie (Jun 18, 2003)

I found this on Google:



> Typical costs:
> Pet insurance for a cat typically costs between $15 and $18 per month, depending on the age.
> Pet insurance for a dog typically costs and between $22 and $28 per month, depending on age and breed.
> Most companies offer at least two levels of coverage: basic and premium


There are some other facts, such as deductibles, etc., that should be considered. Here's a link:

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/pets/pet-insurance.html


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

Coverage decreases as the animal ages, so just when you really MIGHT need it for old-age stuff, it's not there. A number of conditions are deemed congenital and are not covered. IMO it's always better to put money into an interest-bearing savings account so that, by the time you really need it, you have actual money to cover the costs.


----------



## Xanti (Nov 4, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> *Coverage decreases as the animal ages*, so just when you really MIGHT need it for old-age stuff, it's not there. A number of conditions are deemed congenital and are not covered. IMO it's always better to put money into an interest-bearing savings account so that, by the time you really need it, you have actual money to cover the costs.


Actually it doesn't, how can you just state something as a fact when you have no knowledge of the plan whatsoever? Unless I am misreading this and you mean the u.s plans? If so, that sucks.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

Last time I looked into pet insurance seriously, it did decrease (and yes, I'm in the US, obviously ). This is also the case w/ equine insurance. I looked at the VPI page (US pet insurance co) but they cleverly do not give you complete info w/out your getting a quote, etc., and it's not worth it to me to do that just to prove a point.

Maybe they now have awesome coverage no matter the animal's age and no matter what goes wrong. But I doubt it. B/c if they did, they would be making NO money, and businesses are in business to make money.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Since we're on the topic of insurance, thought I'd share a little info .

Disclaimer: I am not arguing for or against it, just discussing the concept of insurance and what it was originally intended for.

Suppose it was your SF's birthday, you forgot, and have to choose one of two lottos. There is a lotto where you can enter twice, you have a high chance of winning either $10 or $90. There is another lotto where you can also enter twice and also have just as high a chance of winning $50 or $50. Which would you pick? People that like to play it safe generally go for the second lotto. Even though on average, from either lotto each win is $50.

Insurance plays on the concept of shared risk (similar to the second lotto). Everyone pools in a bit of money and people can spend it to some degree should they need it. It is certainly not a discount card. People invest in it because in the event there is a major incident in which their finances would not allow them to pay it out of pocket, IF the plan is sufficient, they will have some sort of safety net to cover their healthcare costs. They could save their own money and develop their own net, but some are afraid that you never know when this incident will happen. There is concern that the incident may happen prior to them saving nearly as much money (e.g. a rare cancer, severe trauma, inherited diseases that were just recently diagnosed, etc.). 

In the end do we end up paying for more than just the healthcare costs? Netwise, the clients as a whole do pay more. Insurance companies have to pay their secretaries, administrative fees, etc. to even allow the insurance plan to work. Then again, it is a matter of opinion and a case by case basis. Some prefer a degree of coverage and others prefer to save their money.


----------



## melysion (Mar 12, 2007)

As far as i am aware, in the uk at least, coverage does not decrease as the insured animal gets older. However, the insurance premium does most definately increase ... which is how pet insurance companies probably make their money over here. Well, thats my ineducated guess.

Its also one of the reasons Toby doesnt have insurance. He is 8 years old and when i looked into it his premium would have been significantly more than £5 a month on account of his age. That, and the fact i am sure a insurance company would try to wiggle out of any claim i made due to Tobys FIV. Toby has his own savings account instead. Its even called 'Tobys fund'. :lol:


----------



## Huge2 (Jan 28, 2008)

I pay 15 a month for a healthy 8 year old. It would cover a lot of things that I wouldn't be able to afford, and I wouldn't be able to shell out 5 grand at the drop of a hat. This is why I have insurance, and this is why I get her checked every year.


----------



## melysion (Mar 12, 2007)

Thats exactly the quote i was given, Hugh, but in my case it would have been totally pointless to take it out. Do expect that premium to increase as she gets older. It most definately will.

I know on the whole people get ripped off regarding pretty much any kind of insurance, but it still gives you piece of mind if a huge disaster does occur. It has its place, but unfortunately not for a FIV cat. Infections would be excluded for Toby for a start and nearly all his vet visits recently have been due to infections. His eye problem could very well have been due to a chronic infection that wasnt picked up until it was too late  Imagine the pickle flatmate and i would have been in if we had agreed to the £2k specialist only to find the insurance company refuse to pick up the tab. Nightmare!

I will certainly be taking out insurance for Willow on my Mums behalf. She is only about a year old, bless her. But i will also be inspecting the fine print regarding vaccinations.


----------



## Huge2 (Jan 28, 2008)

Oh yeah, I quite understand that you can't for Toby, He's a special case 
Although can you insure him against falling out of your bed? :lol?


----------



## melysion (Mar 12, 2007)

:lol: i think even a greedy insurance company would be hard pushed to blame a cat falling from a bed on FIV! :lol:


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

One thing to be careful to understand is pre-exisiting conditions. For example; your cat is diagnosed with a UTI in June. Your policy renews in July. If he has another UTI related issue it may be considered a pre-existing condition and not covered. It could be covered if the cat goes X months without another incident. Another example would be a cat diagnosed with diabetes...once that policy renews, diabetes issues may not be covered.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

Yup re: pre-existing. I went through this w/ equine insurance, which is why I dropped it and now just contribute to my savings account instead. Even a TINY thing that had nothing to do w/ anything ended up getting this or that or the other thing excluded. As each year passed, more stuff was excluded--and these were healthy horses! It was absurd.


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

Xanti said:


> hoofmaiden said:
> 
> 
> > *Coverage decreases as the animal ages*, so just when you really MIGHT need it for old-age stuff, it's not there. A number of conditions are deemed congenital and are not covered. IMO it's always better to put money into an interest-bearing savings account so that, by the time you really need it, you have actual money to cover the costs.
> ...


 In fairness to Tooter, or Hoofy or ...okay I lost track of all the names, I'm sure the plans are different in the US and England.

We were offered the chance to buy Pet Insurance at work during our annual open enrollment. No subsidy. Everyone I know was skeptical and no one bought it so I don't have any first hand experience but because I was curious I decided to do the Google. There's at least 1 company people aren't happy with.

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complain ... 19894.html

I'm skeptical of all of them. Given the damage that Hartz is getting away with it seems like our pets have no legal protection from unscrupulous companies and Pet Insurance would be a natural place for unethical people to make some money.


----------



## Mrs. PBJ (Dec 29, 2009)

Boss received two sets as a kitten 4 combo and his rabies at 6 months.

When he has to go back for his rabies it will be a three year and his last set of boosters. 
That will be all the boosters he get being in texas with bats and a apartment living I have to keep his three years rabies up. When I buy my own house he will get no more vacs. 

So 2 kitten sets
One set at a year old then three year rabies after that


Also any vet that will give a vac while a pet is still showing any signs of illness should be swude. For malpratise being a tech for a holistic vet at one point. 
I know the true in and outs and vec do weaken the immune system. No shot should be given to human or animal in a immune weakened state illness or travel for that matter. 
A vac is this 

A live or dead virus that your body fights to build antibodies against the real thing. So it like being sick just on a smaller scale but if you are already sick or your immune system is weak. It can be almost like getting sick with two things.

I would suggest if the OP has not changed vet to do so now.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Mrs. PBJ said:


> Also any vet that will give a vac while a pet is still showing any signs of illness should be swude. For malpratise being a tech for a holistic vet at one point.
> I know the true in and outs and vec do weaken the immune system. No shot should be given to human or animal in a immune weakened state illness or travel for that matter.


Actually, research suggests that in general, vaccinating when a patient has symptoms does not weaken the immune system. There are exceptions made but those are in outstanding and much more severe cases. Read the emphasized text below.

_Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System? 
Paul A. Offit, MD*, Jessica Quarles , Michael A. Gerber, MD , Charles J. Hackett, PhD||, Edgar K. Marcuse, MD¶, Tobias R. Kollman, MD#, Bruce G. Gellin, MD**, Sarah Landry
PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 1 January 2002, pp. 124-129
Some parents may be concerned that children with acute illnesses are, in a sense, immunocompromised, and that they are less likely to respond to vaccines or more likely to develop adverse reactions to vaccines than healthy children. Alternatively, parents may believe that children who are ill should not further burden an immune system already committed to fighting an infection. However, *vaccine-specific antibody responses and rates of vaccine-associated adverse reactions of children with mild or moderate illnesses are comparable to those of healthy children. * For example, the presence of upper respiratory tract infections, otitis media, fever, skin infections, or diarrhea do not affect the level of protective antibodies induced by immunization.33–37 

Data on the capacity of vaccines to induce protective immune responses in children with severe infections (such as those with bacterial pneumonia or meningitis) are lacking. *Although a delay in vaccines is recommended for children with severe illnesses until the symptoms of illness resolve, this recommendation is not based on the likelihood that the child will have an inadequate immune response to the vaccine. Rather, the reason for deferring immunization is to avoid superimposing a reaction to the vaccine on the underlying illness or to mistakenly attribute a manifestation of the underlying illness to the vaccine. * _

Other publications that support the above which were cited and can be read for further info include:
---Ndikuyeze A, Munoz A, Stewart J, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of measles vaccine in ill African children. Int J Epidemiol.1988; 17 :448 –455.
---Update. Vaccine side effects, adverse reactions, contraindications, and precautions. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.1996; 45 :1 –35



There has also been question about whether a vaccine can actually overwhelm the immune system. The answer is in general, no. A quote from the same article is below:

_Infants Have the Capacity to Respond to an Enormous Number of Antigens
Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 to 1011 different antibody specificities.38 But this prediction is limited by the number of circulating B cells and the likely redundancy of antibodies generated by an individual. 

A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide),39 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 103 B-cells per mL,39 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 103 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody39 (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 103 epitopes), and 5) approximately 107 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood,39 then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine). 

Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than 100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria, and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the estimated number of vaccines to which a child could respond is conservative. *But using this estimate, we would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune system would be "used up." *

*However, because naive B- and T-cells are constantly replenished, a vaccine never really "uses up" a fraction of the immune system.* For example, studies of T-cell population dynamics in HIV-infected patients indicate that the human T-cell compartment is highly productive. Specifically, the immune system has the ability to replenish about 2 billion CD4+ T lymphocytes each day. Although this replacement activity is most likely much higher than needed for the normal (and as yet unknown) CD4+ T-cell turnover rate, it illustrates the enormous capacity of the immune system to generate lymphocytes as needed. _

Other data that supports this includes:
---Does antigenic overload exist? The role of multiple immunizations in infants. Gregson, Aric L. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am . Volume: 23, Issue: 4, Date: 2003 Nov , Pages: 649-64.



That aside from my rebuttal, we should also consider weighing the pros and cons. As discussed earlier, nothing is risk free but rather we need to do the best we can to make the odds work in our favor. Take the flu shot that is targeted for at risk populations:
-cons: kind of hurts, irritation at local site, the occasional newly discovered egg allergy (rare and may lead to anaphylaxis), patient may report feeling unwell for a temporary time
-pros: decreased death rates, lower incidence of complications (pneumonia, sepsis, etc.), lower healthcare expenditures up into the millions
IMHO, it seems the pros outweigh the cons, death especially is hard to put a price on and there are more deaths related to not taking the vaccine than anaphylaxis from taking it in the rare event of an unknown egg allergy.




Mrs. PBJ said:


> I would suggest if the OP has not changed vet to do so now.


Again, IMHO I wouldn’t be so quick to tell the OP to leave their vet. None of us were around to witness the event and really only the OP knows the whole story and they are their best judge. Why would a provider still give a vaccine when a patient has symptoms? At least in humans, the data above states that except in special circumstances, the pros outweigh the cons. Also, most doctors (at least I and my colleagues) are trying to save the patient a visit and make it convenient. This goes contrary to the ‘doctors only want money’ conspiracy theory. If that was the case, why wouldn’t the doctor just schedule the vaccine at another visit? They get to write a bill for another visit wouldn’t they?

I find this to be quite an interesting topic. If there are scholarly articles that say otherwise, I’d love to read more about it. Never hurts to know more . If anyone is interested in reading more sources, I’d be happy to look it up, those were just the ones I found during my limited lunch break and getting ready to catch another lecture!


----------



## Mrs. PBJ (Dec 29, 2009)

As far as i have been told about children My twin nieces doctor will not vac while there sick or have been sick in the past two weeks she her self informed me the some information I learn in tech school and from the four different vets I have worked for.

Vac compress the immune system. so Vac while sick or possibly sick or recover is not a good idea. 

I will leave it at this to each his own I have heard very recently 6 weeks ago that I should not Vac my child while sick I have to come back 3 weeks later. And she only had two days left of her antibiotic.

It has to compress the immune system. To be able to form a immunity. 

That my honest option because that is just I have been told by animal and human Doctors.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Mrs. PBJ said:


> As far as i have been told about children My twin nieces doctor will not vac while there sick or have been sick in the past two weeks she her self informed me the some information I learn in tech school and from the four different vets I have worked for.
> 
> Vac compress the immune system. so Vac while sick or possibly sick or recover is not a good idea.
> 
> ...


_Compress_ or _compromise_ the immune system? What is this immune system _compression_? The act of pressing on a spleen, thymus, lymph node...? Anyways, sarcasm aside, the article above just had underlined and bolded that T and B cells replenish and there is no compromise even if you gave an infant 11 vaccines at one visit. Anyways, all I said is that I was interested in reading more on the topic, as the literature I have seen pretty much sums up what I said in the last post. It was merely an invitation to provide other references (reliable ones). I am always happy to investigate other theories and science is certainly ever changing. 

However, unless there is reliable research and statistical power to support such claims, I wouldn't take it right at face value. I'm a soon to be MD and I can insist that pigs fly. Doesn't mean that it is true. Likewise, I can get my colleagues together and then there would be several MDs insisting that pigs fly. That is why there is research and statistical analyses, to have evidence to back up claims.


----------



## Huge2 (Jan 28, 2008)

Of course pigs can fly.

Never heard of pig 'flu?


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Huge said:


> Of course pigs can fly.
> 
> Never heard of pig 'flu?


Haha! :lol: You have a great sense of humor . Okay, okay...I'll make another example. I insist that all humans defecate and only defecate pure gold xD.


----------



## Huge2 (Jan 28, 2008)

8O


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

sweetyanna said:


> If anyone is interested in reading more sources, I’d be happy to look it up,


I'm always interested in reading different perspectives, but...when we're discussing cats, I prefer that the information cited be about cats and not humans. Yes, there are many similarities but there are also many differences. Vaccine related sarcomas are a real problem for cats and you're not going to find any information about that in article on human vaccines.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

doodlebug said:


> sweetyanna said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone is interested in reading more sources, I’d be happy to look it up,
> ...


I never said every claim was intended to be generalized to cats. I was just trying to demonstrate common issues in healthcare both veterinary and allopathic (e.g. misconceptions, weighing pros and cons, evidence based medicine, etc.). Besides, one of the respondents made a mention about human vaccines of which technically I am still on her topic. This would still be a vaccine related post.


----------



## tobergill (Feb 14, 2010)

On the topic of insurance. I paid £182 for a year about £15 per week for a 6 month old healthy kitten. Pensioner discount in that. Covers treatment up to £12,000.
I have to pay the first £70.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Okay, here is an article on feline sarcomas. The estimated prevalence is 1-10/10,000. Still rare and this would still warrant weighing the risks and benefits. Lesions that were deemed to possibly be sarcomas actually have been reported in humans due to vaccines. Those case studies are rare but do happen and such cases make for a difficult diagnosis.
"As with most aspects of medical practice, there are benefits and risks to vaccination. Accordingly, vaccination protocols should be individualized to the patient, with consideration given to the medical importance and zoonotic potential of the infectious agent, the patient's risk of exposure, and germane legal requirements."
Vaccine-associated feline sarcomas
Wallace B. Morrison, Robin M. Starr, and the Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 5, March 1, 2001.

Another article states:
"The prevalence of sarcoma development after vaccination is approximately 1/10,000, but may be as high as 1/1,000 vaccines administered. Because of the relatively low incidence of fibrosarcomas in cats, the association between vaccination and tumor development was made only after millions of doses of the vaccines had been given to cats over approximately a 5-year period".
There are also measures available to reduce the risk of a sarcoma, avoid vaccinating the same site repeatedly:
"The authors also reported that the reaction to the vaccines was additive and the likelihood of sarcoma development increased with the number of vaccines given simultaneously at the vaccine site."
Feline Vaccine-Associated Sarcomas
Margaret C. McEntee and Rodney L. Page
J Vet Intern Med 2001;15:176-182.

Again, earlier with my articles on humans, I was only trying to demonstrate concepts in medicine both animal and human (misconceptions, evidence based medicine, weighing pros and cons, etc.). Citing these articles really doesn't change my argument, it still says that there is a protocol and risks and benefits must be weighed. Does it mean the protocol/guidelines are absolute? No and neither have I ever said that. It just reiterates what was said before, pros and cons are weighted and the patient is treated accordingly.


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

If you follow the yearly vaccination protocol then your cat is getting at least 2 vaccines per year. 2 per year x 15 years is 30 vaccines over a lifetime. All of a sudden those odds just became 1 in 333 or 1 in 33 depending on the actual occurrence. Those are numbers that make be do a serious risk assessment and not blindly follow 'what has always been done'.

There's also apparently a link between the feline distemper vaccine and development of CRF later in life. I haven't read up on it yet to say whether I buy into it.


----------



## Jeanie (Jun 18, 2003)

I see documented evidence (by a person about a hair's breadth from an MD, who has posted scientific articles re human beings AND cats) being attacked. Anna also has a close friend who is a vet. She is not talking out of the top of her head. If you're going to discuss this, please remain as polite and respectful as you want to be treated, and post scientific articles to back up your own theories. If any of you has a DVM, say so, and explain to Anna where she has erred.

I am very much interested in this subject, not in naysaying! Prove your points, please. 

On the other hand, I'm sure the word "compress" was a typo for compromise. 

Please, let's be polite. DB, I think we posted at the same time.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

doodlebug said:


> If you follow the yearly vaccination protocol then your cat is getting at least 2 vaccines per year. 2 per year x 15 years is 30 vaccines over a lifetime. All of a sudden those odds just became 1 in 333 or 1 in 33 depending on the actual occurrence. Those are numbers that make be do a serious risk assessment and not blindly follow 'what has always been done'.
> 
> There's also apparently a link between the feline distemper vaccine and development of CRF later in life. I haven't read up on it yet to say whether I buy into it.


At the end of the day we will all say, all to their own. But as my previous post said, nowhere did it say to follow the protocol blindly, it explicitly says to weigh pros and cons. Now that we heard some of the cons of the vaccine, here are some pros that consider the prevalence and transmission of the diseases which are protected against.
For FeLV:
"Prevalence in the general pet cat population in North America is < 5% in adult cats, regardless of whether they are owned or feral."
"In several studies involving experimental challenge of vaccinated and nonvaccinated control cats, at least 50% of adult
control cats became infected."
For FIV:
"The virus is present worldwide, with prevalence of infection ranging from 0% to 44%, depending on age, sex, lifestyle, physical condition, and geographic location."
For Bordetella bronchiseptica:
"Bordetella bronchiseptica appears to occur worldwide, and serosurveys have found that exposure to the
organism is common. Seroprevalences from 24% to 79% and isolation rates of as much as 47% have been
reported, depending on the type and clinical status of the population of cats tested."
"Epidemiologic evidence suggests a carrier state exists for B bronchiseptica infection, with as many as 9% of clinically healthy cats shedding the organism."
For FPV:
Young unvaccinated kittens present most commonly with the disease. Unvaccinated feral cats and other wild felids are also a reservoir for infection.
FPV is a severe disease that often causes death in a matter of a few days.
For FHV:"11% of cats with respiratory tract disease were FHV positive compared to 1% of healthy cats. Variables significantly associated with FHV isolation on univariable analysis included age, gender, and the presence of respiratory tract disease. Vaccination showed a negative association."
For FCV:
"Overall, feline calicivirus was isolated from 162/622 (26%) of cats sampled; 33% of the cats with respiratory tract disease were FCV positive compared to 21% of healthy cats. Variables significantly associated with FCV isolation on logistic regression were the presence of respiratory tract disease and contact with dogs with and without respiratory tract disease."
For rabies in regards to countries that have just started vaccinating:
"The prevalence of canine and human rabies in Thailand has decreased significantly during the last decade. This has been associated with an increasing number of human post-exposure treatments. Educational efforts, mass vaccination of dogs and cats and the use of safe and effective vaccines have all made an impact."
There was also a 33% seroprevalence of rabies found in feral cats in Mexico City.

*Sources:*
Rabies in Thailand, C. MITMOONPITAK a1 c1 , V. TEPSUMETHANON a1 and H. WILDE a1 , Epidemiology and Infection (1998), 120:165-169 Cambridge University Press
A study of feline upper respiratory tract disease with reference to prevalence and risk factors for infection with feline calicivirus and feline herpesvirus, S H Binnsa, S Dawsonb, f1, A J Speakmanc, L E Cuevasd, C A Harte, C J Gaskellb, K L Morganb and R M Gaskellc, Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery, Volume 2, Issue 3, September 2000, Pages 123-133 
Veterinary microbiology by Dwight Hirsch and YC Zee (book)
Murphy FA, Gibbs PJ, Studdert MJ, Horzinek MC: Veterinary Virology, 3rd ed. Academic Press, CITY, 1999; 348-351
The 2006 American Association of Feline Practitioners Feline Vaccine Advisory Panel Report JAVMA, Vol 229, No. 9, November 1, 2006
THE ROLE OF FERAL MAMMALS ON WILDLIFE INFECTIOUS DISEASE PREVALENCE IN TWO NATURE RESERVES WITHIN MEXICO CITY LIMITS, Gerardo SuzánD.V.M. and Gerardo CeballosPh.D., Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 36(3):479-484. 2005 


Also, the article explicitly says that the estimate is closer to 1/10,000 but the final prevalence has still yet to be documented. Far as vets are concerned, this is still considered rare and apparently rare enough that vets feel it will do more benefit to administer certain vaccines. Another more recent study states that the number may even be less than 1/10,000 doses in a study involving 31,671 cats in the US. Only 0.32 sarcomas of 10,000 doses were detected. (World Wide Web-based survey of vaccination practices, postvaccinal reactions, and vaccine site-associated sarcomas in cats, Glenna M. Gobar, DVM, MPVM, MS Philip H. Kass, DVM, PhD, DACVPM, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association May 15, 2002, Vol. 220, No. 10, Pages 1477-1482)



Jeanie said:


> I see documented evidence (by a person about a hair's breadth from an MD, who has posted scientific articles re human beings AND cats) being attacked. Anna also has a close friend who is a vet. She is not talking out of the top of her head. If you're going to discuss this, please remain as polite and respectful as you want to be treated, and post scientific articles to back up your own theories. If any of you has a DVM, say so, and explain to Anna where she has erred.
> 
> I am very much interested in this subject, not in naysaying! Prove your points, please.
> 
> ...


Thank you Jeanie so so much for cooling down the arena. I should watch my remarks too. My apologies.


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

sweetyanna said:


> At the end of the day we will all say, all to their own. But as my previous post said, nowhere did it say to follow the protocol blindly, it explicitly says to weigh pros and cons. Also, the definition of prevalence is the number of cases of a disease in a population at a point in time. Therefore, these are not all animals that only had one vaccine, some had all of them, some had none, and many in between. Vaccines have been given for decades to cats so we really cannot assume that every cat in that survey only got one vaccine.


Your quote said "1/10,000, but may be as high as 1/1,000 vaccines administered" not the number of cats that developed disease, which is why I extrapolated the numbers based on vaccines over a lifetime.


----------



## librarychick (May 25, 2008)

I've dug up some sources...I won't post the article cause they're huge, but here's the urls.

Meant for dogs, but still related i think:
http://www.caberfeidh.com/Revax.htm

This is the article that first got me thinking. This woman isn't a vet, but she has done a lot of research and several sources for the article ARE written by vets
http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html

I tried to find an online version of 'kirk's current veterinary therapy', this seems to be one of the main sources against over vaccination...if anyone can find a free online version i'd be interested.

I must admit that part of my concern stems from the lack of helpfulness shown by the many vets I have dealt with. 
The one I originally took Muffin to vaccinated him while ill. You may have shown studies that say it wouldn't cause an issue...but since I know they always reccomend not vaccination children while ill, and this was a 7 week old kitten...I'm sceptical to say the least.
Another vet tried to address my concerns of vaccine related sarcoma by saying "That's why I give shots in the leg. That way we can amuptate." To me, hearing that the 'cure' for vaccine related sarcoma is to give vaccinations in the leg so they 'just' have to amputate...irked me. If they said that to me, "Oh, it's fine...if you get cancer from the shot we'll just remove your arm." Not ok...why not find a way to actually prevent it???

Anyways, it wasn't my intention for things to become combative, but I am still concerned about this. And about the lack of concern the vets i've talked to seemed to have. If they just came out and addressed my concerns I'd probably be ok...I guess this just comes down to getting a better vet...


----------



## Bethany (Jul 19, 2006)

librarychick said:


> Another vet tried to address my concerns of vaccine related sarcoma by saying "That's why I give shots in the leg. That way we can amuptate." To me, hearing that the 'cure' for vaccine related sarcoma is to give vaccinations in the leg so they 'just' have to amputate...irked me. If they said that to me, "Oh, it's fine...if you get cancer from the shot we'll just remove your arm." Not ok...why not find a way to actually prevent it???


That's saying, "Why let people die from cancer? Why not just find a way to cure it?"

Because it's not necessarily that easy. It's not like moving the vaccination site is the only thing that's been done. The recommended vaccination schedules have been changed so that vaccinations are less frequent. Non-adjuvanted vaccines, less likely to cause sarcoma, have been developed and you can get then at your vet right now.

"Finding a way to prevent it" doesn't happen overnight. The connection between adjuvanted vaccines and sarcoma was only discovered in 1993, which is not a huge amount of time in medical research terms (new vaccines don't just appear, they have to be developed and tested). Also, it may never be possible to prevent it entirely. Cats are unfortunately very cancer-prone animals and I gather that pretty much anything you introduce under their skin increases the risk of tumors.

In the meantime, should they go back to vaccinating between the shoulder blades where treatment of sarcoma is impossible?


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

librarychick said:


> Another vet tried to address my concerns of vaccine related sarcoma by saying "That's why I give shots in the leg. That way we can amuptate." To me, hearing that the 'cure' for vaccine related sarcoma is to give vaccinations in the leg so they 'just' have to amputate...irked me. If they said that to me, "Oh, it's fine...if you get cancer from the shot we'll just remove your arm." Not ok...why not find a way to actually prevent it???


I totally understand. I know you were only trying to get some more information and this certainly is a topic that needs to be addressed in greater detail to dispell the myths. The reason why your vet said it is this: they were just preparing for the worst despite the fact that studies are leaning towards a prevalence of 0.32/10,000 vaccines administered (this is after surveying 31,671 cats!). That is 30,000 vaccines to get one case! Contrast that to the frequency and suffering that happens to cats who go unvaccinated (discussion in another previous post on this thread). Snowy himself prior to me adopting him was NOT vaccinated for FHV. He contracted it and initially his infections were horrid. Hundreds of dollars were spent on vet visits as at first he kept getting bacterial infections. He has minimal sense of smell due to damage to his cilia. We have him on suppression with lysine for life and that still does not promise there will not be a recurrence but it is the best we can do. His airway was so swollen that he was actually more likely to die from the complications of his _FHV via anoxia_ as opposed to the much smaller risk of a sarcoma. His oral herpetic lesions were so painful he would not eat for days and we were lucky to get any bit of water down him. It was seriously a medical emergency.

Can we guarantee that nothing bad will never ever happen? No. Just like how no one can guarantee they won't get hit by a car and have their head ripped clear off every time they cross the street. Vaccinating in the leg would then be a good practice, how would vaccinating in the head or any other place be better? In that case, there would be much less you can do to help kitty.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

librarychick said:


> This is the article that first got me thinking. This woman isn't a vet, but she has done a lot of research and several sources for the article ARE written by vets
> http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html


I noticed the sources. And this really suggests, not only for this site but for research overall, that everything must be looked at critically. Most of the sources are old, one of them is about 24 years old, none were listed to even be from this millennium and science changes. Not only that, she has very few citations (5). Some things we all (myself included) need to consider are the following:
-is the source more recent?
-what is the study design? (the more samples the more accurate something is to reflect what actually happens)
-how many references are there?
-how reproducible has the data been?
The sources I mentioned above not only outnumber the website's sources, but they themselves have dozens of citations and recent ones from this millennium at that. Some go into the hundreds. 

Some of the direct quotes from the vaccine article are interesting too (no offense, but just trying to demonstrate some weaknesses in this article that are somewhat striking):
*Self contradiction-*
vaccines often provide no protection yet have the capacity to allow a population to survive thus changing demographics?
---"First, vaccines _often do not provide any protection_."
---"I see this so commonly that I personally have no doubts that _vaccines are extremely dangerous_" 
---"A further consideration is that vaccination weakens the strength of a population by _allowing individuals to survive_ that otherwise would succumb to natural diseases; these diseases provide cleansing and strengthening for the population under normal conditions."
---"Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, _allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response_ when exposed to virulent organisms."
Once immunized there is protection for life but boosters are required?
---"Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is _protected for life_." 
---"Only the immune response to toxins _requires boosters_"
FeLV is contagious vs. FeLV is not truly contagious vs. the only prevention of diseases like FeLV is diet and lifestyle?
---"feline leukemia virus, both of which _require direct contact_ with an infected animal"(actually, it can be transmitted via fomites)
---"The _only prevention of these diseases comes from a healthy diet and lifestyle_." (in reference to FeLV, don't you also have to avoid direct contact?)
---"Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases are _not truly contagious_. In these cases vaccination is useless since it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency virus, and ringworm (in most cases)."

*False statements-*
Humans are NOT protected for life and DO need boosters
---"Once immunized, an animal, as with humans, is _protected for life_." 
Those diseases ARE contagious
---"Even in outdoor cats, vaccines may be unnecessary, as many diseases are _not truly contagious_. In these cases vaccination is useless since it is not directed toward the cause of illness. These diseases are immune suppressive (often autoimmune) conditions. Organisms that fit this category include feline leukemia virus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, feline immunodeficiency virus, and ringworm (in most cases)."
See cited prevalences of various diseases in this thread and the impact of vaccination on rabies
---"Often, the _risk of disease is so small_ that vaccination is foolish."
FeLV can be transmitted via fomites, albeit less commonly
---"feline leukemia virus, both of which _require direct contact_ with an infected animal"
Actually, FeLV is contagious, it doesn't matter what you eat
---"The _only prevention of these diseases comes from a healthy diet and lifestyle_."

*Multiple claims not supported by evidence, but speculative at best-*
"_I have no direct experience_ with this vaccine, but _I am certain_ that it will have little benefit and it is _probably_ unsafe."
"Limiting vaccination to one or two doses of appropriately indicated vaccines could greatly reduce disease from vaccination. _In my opinion_, this would be a huge step in the right direction for those who are too fearful to avoid vaccines entirely."
"Rather than these being separate diseases, _I believe_ they are the same, but that more than one virus can fill the niche opened by the immunosuppression (remember that with chronic diseases the illness precedes the infection)."
"Additionally, _I suspect_ the feline upper respiratory infections are a chronic state of the panleukopenia virus-induced immunosuppression and the tendency to get eye discharges."
"_I believe_ the massive vaccination program for canine parvovirus, which began some thirty plus years after we began vaccinating cats with feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus), is creating this situation in dogs."
"_I am certain_ that vaccination for parvovirus and coronavirus is a major cause."
"_Perhaps_ the heart muscle association of the feline parvovirus (panleukopenia virus) was not seen in natural infections, but vaccination brought it to the surface."

*Placing her own opinion as more valid than one of her own sources:*
"_I believe_ the author of this section of The Merck Veterinary Manual was correct, but _I believe_ that parvovirus vaccination is even more likely to be the cause in most cases."

Also, notice the paucity of the author saying such and such is not cost effective or does not reduce mortality, etc. We should contrast that with the overabundance of "mays", "in my opinion", "I suspect", "perhaps", etc. Well, perhaps some of those possibilities exist, perhaps we can determine our actions based on all the things that perhaps could happen and perhaps spend all day thinking perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…but we (very fortunately) already have tons of data that supports the rationale and efficacy of administering certain vaccines. Doesn’t it make more sense to act according to what we already know is established? Also, things that perhaps could happen but don't have evidence, currently have no reproducible validity.



librarychick said:


> I must admit that part of my concern stems from the lack of helpfulness shown by the many vets I have dealt with


You made an excellent point. Some of it really does boil down to getting a better doctor. People that are less prone to like their doctors are also less prone to trust them. Research has also shown a much stronger association between lawsuits and NOT QUALITY of care (mortality, morbidity, and other objective measures), but perceived bedside manner i.e. effectiveness of communication. This emphasizes how important good beside manner really is, something that is all too frequently overlooked.



librarychick said:


> You may have shown studies that say it wouldn't cause an issue...but since I know they always reccomend not vaccination children while ill, and this was a 7 week old kitten...I'm sceptical to say the least.


The reason as mentioned in another study in this thread of not vaccinating while someone is ill in the vast vast majority of cases is this: to avoid confusing caretakers that a vaccination reaction is actually an effect of the illness or that manifestations of an illness is caused by the vaccine. In real practice, it is more so the latter (as may be your case when Muffin was vaccinated). We just don't want to create misconceptions and have people refusing vaccines that physicians honestly and true to their hearts believe is in their best interest.


----------



## Mrs. PBJ (Dec 29, 2009)

Thank you Jeanie so so much for cooling down the arena. I should watch my remarks too. My apologies. 


Last edited by sweetyanna on Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:21 pm, edited 8 times in total

Did not mean to let it get heated either. 
Sorry about that.

But yeah there is a lot of info out there.


----------



## librarychick (May 25, 2008)

I just saw this posted on another forum I frequent.

The following article ran in the February 2010 issue of Clean Run magazine.

ALL ABOUT VACCINE ISSUES & VACCINATIONS*
W. Jean Dodds, DVM 1 and Ronald D. Schultz, PhD 2

There is little doubt that application of modern vaccine technology has permitted us to protect companion animals effectively against serious infectious diseases. Today, we can question conventional vaccine regimens and adopt effective and safe alternatives primarily because the risk of disease has been significantly reduced by the widespread use of vaccination programs, which convey underlying population or herd immunity.

For many veterinary practitioners canine vaccination programs have been “practice management tools” rather than medical procedures. Thus, it is not surprising that attempts to change the vaccines and vaccination programs based on scientific information have created significant controversy. A “more is better” philosophy still prevails with regard to pet vaccines.

Annual vaccination has been and remains the single most important reason why most pet owners bring their pets for an annual or more often “wellness visit.” Another reason for the reluctance to change current vaccination programs is many practitioners really don’t understand the principles of vaccinal immunity. Clearly, the accumulated evidence indicates that vaccination protocols should no longer be considered as a “one size fits all” program.

Giving annual boosters when they are not necessary has the client paying for a service which is likely to be of little benefit to the pet’s existing level of protection against these infectious diseases. It also increases the risk of adverse reactions from the repeated exposure to foreign substances.

So, have veterinarians really embraced the national policies on vaccination guidelines from the American Animal Hospital Association, American Veterinary Medical Association and Academy of Feline Practitioners? Does the public trust veterinarians to be up-to-date on these issues or are they unsure? Do they believe veterinarians have a conflict of interest if they seek the income from annual booster vaccinations? Given current media attention to vaccination issues, the public is more aware and worried about vaccine safety.

Some veterinarians today still tell their clients there is no scientific evidence linking vaccinations with adverse effects and serious illness. This is ignorance, and confuses an impressionable client. On the other hand, vaccine zealots abound with hysteria and misinformation. None of these polarized views is helpful.

Further, veterinarians are still routinely vaccinating ill dogs and those with chronic diseases or prior adverse vaccine reactions. This is especially problematic for rabies boosters, as many colleagues believe they have no legal alternative, even though the product label states it's intended for healthy animals. For more information, see www.RabiesChallengeFund.org


Alternatives to Current Vaccine Practices

1) measuring serum antibody titers;
2) avoidance of unnecessary vaccines or over vaccinating;
3) caution in vaccinating sick or febrile individuals; and
4) tailoring a specific minimal vaccination protocol for dogs of breeds or families known to be at increased risk for adverse reactions.
5) considerations include starting the vaccination series later, such as at nine or ten weeks of age when the immune system is better able to handle antigenic challenge;
6) alerting the caregiver to pay particular attention to the puppy’s behavior and overall health after the second or subsequent boosters; and
7) avoiding revaccination of individuals already experiencing a significant adverse event. Littermates of affected puppies should be closely monitored after receiving additional vaccines in a puppy series, as they too are at higher risk.

Some Frequently Asked Questions – Some questions are part of the Guidelines for Vaccination of Dogs and Cats compiled by the Vaccine Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA)

Q. Do dogs competing in agility or other events need more vaccines for protection than other pet dogs?
A. No, although if the event location has an exposure risk for Leptospirosis or Lyme disease , annual vaccination for these diseases should be considered.

Q. Is there risk of overvaccinating with vaccines not needed for a specific animal?
A. Yes. Vaccines contain material designed to challenge the immune system of the pet, and so can cause adverse reactions. They should not be given needlessly, and should be tailered to the pet’s individual needs.

Q. Are the initial series of puppy core vaccines immunosuppressive?
A. Yes. This period of immunosuppression from MLV canine distemper and hepatitis vaccines coincides with the time of vaccine-induced viremia, from days 3 to 10 after vaccination.

Q. Can anesthetized patients be vaccinated?
A. This is not preferred, because a hypersensitivity reaction with vomiting and aspiration could occur and anesthetic agents can be immunomodulating.

Q. Is it safe to vaccinate pregnant pets?
A. Absolutely not.

Q. Should pets with immunosuppressive diseases such as cancer or autoimmune diseases, or adverse vaccine reactions/ hypersensitibvity receive booster vaccinations?
A. No. Vaccination with MLV products should be avoided as the vaccine virus may cause disease; vaccination with killed products may aggravate the immune-mediated disease or be ineffective. For rabies boosters that are due, local authorities may accept titers instead or accept a letter from your veterinarian.

Q. If an animal receives immunosuppressive therapy, how long afterwards can the pet safely be vaccinated?
A. Wait at least 2 weeks.

Q. Should vaccines be given more often than 2 weeks apart even if a different vaccine is being given?
A. No. The safest and most effective interval is 3-4 weeks apart.

Q. At what age should the last vaccine dose be given in the puppy series?
A. The last dose of vaccine should be given between 14-16 weeks regardless of the number of doses given prior to this age. Rabies vaccine should preferably be given separately as late as possible under the law (e.g. 16-24 weeks).

Q. Should the new canine influenza vaccine be given routinely?
A. No. It is intended primarily for pounds and shelters and high density boarding facilities, as nose-to-nose contact and crowding promote viral transmission.

Q. Can intranasal Bordetella vaccine be given parenterally (injected)?
A. No. The vaccine can cause a severe local reaction and may even kill the pet.

Q. Will a killed parenteral Bordetella vaccine given intranasally produce immunity?
A. No.

Q. Are homeopathic nosodes capable of immunizing pets?
A. No. There is no scientific documentation that nosodes protect against infectious diseases of pets. The one parvovirus nosode trial conducted years ago did not protect against challenge.

Q. Should disinfectant be used at the vaccine injection site?
A. No. Disinfectants could inactivate a MLV product.

Q. Can vaccines cause autoimmune diseases?
A. Vaccines themselves do not cause these diseases, but they can trigger autoimmune responses followed by disease in genetically predisposed animals, as can any infection, drug, or chemical / toxic exposures etc.

Q. Can a single vaccine dose provide any benefit to the dog? Will it benefit the canine population?
A. Yes. One dose of a MLV canine core vaccine should provide long term immunity when given to animals at or after 16 weeks of age. Every puppy 16 weeks of age or older should receive at least one dose of the MLV core vaccines. We need to vaccinate more animals in the population with core vaccines to achieve herd immunity and thereby prevent epidemic outbreaks.

Q. If an animal receives only the first dose of a vaccine that needs two doses to immunize, will it have immunity?
A. No. A single dose of a two-dose vaccine like Leptospirosis vaccine will not provide immunity. The first dose is for priming the immune system. The second for boosting the immunity has to be given within 6 weeks; otherwise the series has to start over again. After those two doses, revaccination with a single dose can be done at any time.

Q. Can maternally derived antibodies (MDA) also block immunity to killed vaccines and prevent active immunization with MLV vaccines?
A.Yes. MDA can block certain killed vaccines, especially those that require two doses to immunize. With MLV vaccines, two doses are often recommended, particularly in young animals, to be sure one is given beyond the neutralizing period of MDA.

Q. How long after vaccination does an animal develop immunity that will prevent severe disease when the core vaccines are used?
A. This is dependent on the animal, the vaccine, and the disease.

· The fastest immunity is provided by canine distemper virus (CDV) vaccines -- MLV and recombinant canarypox virus vectored. The immune response starts within mins - hrs and provides protection within a day without interference from MDA.
· Immunity to canine parvovirus (CPV-2) develops after 3-5 days when an effective MLV vaccine is used.
· Canine adenovirus-2/hepatitis (CAV-2) MLV given parenterally provides immunity against CAV-1 in 5 to 7 days.

Q. Can dogs be “non-responders” and fail to develop an immune response to vaccines?
A Yes. This is a genetic characteristic seen particularly in some breeds or dog families. Boosting them regularly will not produce measurable antibody. Some of these animals may be protected against disease by their cell-mediated and secretory immunity.

Q. Are there parvovirus and distemper virus field mutants that are not adequately protected by current MLV vaccines?
A. No. All the current CPV-2 and CDV vaccines provide protection from all known viral isolates, when tested experimentally as well as in the field. The current CPV-2 and CPV-2b vaccines provide both short and long term protection from challenge by the CPV-2c variant.

Q. Are serum antibody titres useful in determining vaccine immunity?
A. Yes. They are especially useful for CDV, CPV-2 and CAV-1 in the dog, FPV in the cat, and rabies virus in the cat and dog. Rabies titers, however, are often not acceptable to exempt individual animals from mandated rabies boosters in spite of medical justifcation. Serum antibody titers are of limited or no value for (many of) the other vaccines.

1 President, Hemopet, 938 Stanford Street, Santa Monica, CA 90403; 2 Chairman, Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.

* Excerpted from: AKC Health Foundation, St. Louis, MO, 2007; J Sm An Pract 48, 528–541, 2007; 5th IVVDC Conference , Madison, WI , 2009.

Additional Literature

? Day MJ, Horzinek MC, Schultz RD. Guidelines for the vaccination of dogs and cats. J Sm An Pract, 48, 528-541 2007

? Dodds WJ. Vaccination protocols for dogs predisposed to vaccine reactions. J Am An Hosp Assoc 38: 1-4, 2001.

? Dodds WJ. Vaccine issues revisited: what’s really happening ? Proc Am Hol Vet Med Assoc, Tulsa, OK, 2007, pp 132-140.

? Paul MA (chair) et al. Report of the AAHA Canine Vaccine Task Force : 2006 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines. J Am An Hosp Assoc 42:80-109, Mar-April 2006, 28 pp. www.aahanet.org

? Schultz R D Considerations in designing effective and safe vaccination programs for dogs. In: Carmichael LE (editor), Recent Advances in Canine Infectious Diseases. Intern Vet Inform Serv, 2000. www.ivis.org.

? Schultz RD. Duration of immunity for canine and feline vaccines: a review. Vet Microbiol 117:75-79, 2006.

“CORE” CANINE VACCINES *

· Distemper
· Adenovirus (Hepatitis)**
· Parvovirus
· Rabies
_______________________________________
* vaccines that every dog and cat should have
** immunity provided by a CAV-2 vaccine

CANINE VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS *

· retrospective cohort study; 1.25 million dogs vaccinated at 360 veterinary hospitals
· 38 adverse events per 10,000 dogs vaccinated
· inversely related to dog weight
· vaccines prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight.
· increased for dogs up to 2 yr of age, then declined
· greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs
· increased as number of vaccines given together increased
· increased after the 3 rd or 4th vaccination
· genetic predisposition to adverse events documented
__________________________________________________ ___________
* from Moore et al, JAVMA 227:1102–1108, 2005


VACCINE CONCLUSIONS FOR CANINES *

Factors that increase risk of adverse events 3 days after vaccination:


· young adult age
· small-breed size
· neutering
· multiple vaccines given per visit

These risks should be communicated to clients
__________________________________________________ _____

* from Moore et al, JAVMA 227:1102–1108, 2005


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Hello again,

It is excellent that you are doing such thorough research and it seems the sources are much much better . First off, I want to give my condolences for being such an enthusiastic reader. You obviously really love Muffin and everyone that has thus far been involved in the discussion really do want the same thing in the end: the best possible outcome. This is certainly one of the most productive discussions on the forum with themes that we must all take into consideration when thinking of our pets: evidence based medicine (both for and against what we are considering for a balanced view) and weighing the pros and cons in the final decision.

I really hope my last post that critiqued the holisticat website article was not too harsh (I have edited that post and the one prior to that and I strongly hope you can read it again as it has more valuable information in it). 

As for the most recent article posted, it is indeed interesting. But, the article although it seems to be more against vaccines with with good evidence, is targeted at very specific circumstances which often do not apply to Muffin: Muffin is not a dog, muffin does not live in a pound, Muffin is not pregnant, Muffin will not ever be offered some of the vaccines discussed, Muffin is not immunosuppressed, Muffin is not in any competitive activity. We must think of how this concept applies to our scenario. This article basically is saying: we should not vaccinate blindly, vaccines can have adverse reactions, therefore vaccination should be determined on a case by case basis (with a professional), and sprinkled with some scenarios where caution _can_ be warranted. 

Although I love reading about other perspectives, it seems helpful to read from multiple viewpoints as they have their strengths and weaknesses. I noticed the articles you posted both have holistic advocates and focused on what adverse reactions can be associated with vaccines. Nothing against it, some concepts are great such as that of prevention. But they will have their own biases as will allopaths. Now that you developed a good list of cons, we should look into some pros and weigh the two against each other. I have some sources, the vet schools also have some excellent articles. I suggest weighing more information together and seeing what the other end have to say i.e. DVMs that are not affiliated with holistic practice. 

Also, in the end we must be able to not get lost in the trees and see the forest. For example, some of the most concerning adverse effects of vaccines such as fibrosarcomas, anaphylaxis, etc. are rare (yes, the more you vaccinate, the more risk you take, but remember our discussion about fibrosarcomas --> 30,000 shots for one case). But, please keep in mind that these infectious diseases are prevalent have their cons too, my Snowy almost literally died from FHV and we spent hundreds of dollars on vet visits. Had he been vaccinated, his risk would have been much lower. Do vaccines have risk? Of course. But so does everything else. That is why I really hope someday you find a vet you really trust and have an indepth discussion about vaccinations. Vets in the end (knowing from a friend) literally read hundreds to thousands of articles on this topic and have a very broad view of this.

Below is a copy and paste from Cornell's School of Veterinary Medicine:
*Feline Vaccines: Benefits and Risks 

Deciding which vaccines your cat should receive requires that you have a complete understanding of the benefits and risks of the procedure. For this reason, it is extremely important that you discuss vaccination with your veterinarian so he or she can help you decide which vaccines are most appropriate. Be sure to inform your veterinarian of your cat's lifestyle, environment, medical history, current medical problems, and medications your cat may be receiving. Remember, your veterinarian is more than willing to answer any questions you may have and will help you make the right vaccine choices. 

Why does my cat need to be vaccinated?
The immune system plays a pivotal role in maintaining your cat's health. One of the most important functions of this complex system of specialized cells and molecules is to protect cats from disease and infection caused by viruses, bacteria, and a host of other microbes and parasites. 

Vaccines help prepare your cat's immune system to fend off invasion by a particular disease-causing organism. Vaccines contain antigens, which to the immune system "look" like the organism but don't, ideally, cause disease. When a vaccine is administered, the immune system mounts a protective response. Then if your cat is subsequently exposed to the disease-causing organism, its immune system is prepared to either prevent infection or reduce the severity of disease. 

Though vaccines play an important role in controlling infectious diseases, most do not induce complete protection from disease, nor do they induce the same degree of protection in all cats. For extra protection, you should make every effort to reduce your cat's exposure to infected cats or contaminated environments. 

Why do kittens require a series of vaccinations?
During the first few hours after birth, kittens ingest maternal antibodies contained in their mother's milk. These antibodies help protect the kitten from infectious diseases until its own immune system is more mature. 

Unfortunately, maternal antibody also interferes with a vaccine's ability to stimulate the kitten's immune system. To counteract this problem, veterinarians often administer a series of vaccines, usually beginning when the kitten is around six to eight weeks of age. Vaccination is then repeated at three- or four-week intervals until maternal antibody has waned, usually at around twelve weeks of age. In some cases (e.g., rabies vaccines) the initial vaccine is not given until maternal antibody has disappeared altogether. 

Does my adult cat need to be vaccinated every year?
The answer depends in part on the vaccine. For example, certain feline rabies vaccines provide protection for longer than one year, so vaccination with a triennially approved rabies vaccine every three years (after the initial series is completed, and when consistent with local rabies vaccine requirements) is sufficient. 

Recent research suggests that panleukopenia, rhinotracheitis, and calicivirus vaccines provide adequate protection for several years, so that many veterinarians are now recommending that this vaccine be boosted no more than once every three years. 

Unfortunately, far less is known about the duration of protection provided by other vaccines. Until that information is known, annual vaccination with those products-when their administration is necessary-is a good idea. 

Return to Top 

Are vaccines dangerous?
Not usually. Unfortunately, a perfect, risk-free vaccine does not exist. Vaccines are indispensable in fighting feline infectious disease. But as with any medical procedure, there is a small chance that reactions may develop as a result of vaccination. To maximize the benefits of vaccination while minimizing the risks, it is important to vaccinate only against infectious agents to which your cat has a realistic risk of exposure, infection, and subsequent development of disease. Also, make sure to inform your veterinarian of any problems your cat is currently experiencing, medications your cat is receiving, or vaccine reactions experienced in the past before your cat is vaccinated again. 

Reactions may be mild or (very rarely) severe. 

Mild Reactions 

The following reactions are fairly common and usually start within hours to several days after vaccination. They typically last no more than a few days.

discomfort at the site where the vaccine was given 

mild fever 

diminished appetite and activity 

sneezing about four to seven days after administration of an intranasal vaccine 

temporarily sore joints and lameness following calicivirus vaccination 

Development of a small, firm, painless swelling under the skin at the site where the vaccine was given. The swelling usually goes away after several weeks, but if you notice such a swelling, contact your veterinarian. 

Lameness, loss of appetite, and fever beginning approximately one to three weeks after Chlamydia psittaci vaccination. 

Serious Reactions 

These reactions occur very rarely:

a serious and potentially life-threatening allergic reaction within several minutes to an hour after vaccination 

a tumor called a sarcoma developing at the vaccine site several weeks, months, or even longer following vaccination 

What should I do if I think my cat is having a reaction to a vaccine?
By all means, consult your veterinarian. Even though vaccine-related disease is uncommon, the consequences can be serious. Your veterinarian is the person most qualified to advise you if adverse side effects occur. 

Return to Top 

What vaccines are currently available for my cat?
Panleukopenia: Feline panleukopenia (also called feline distemper) is a highly contagious and deadly viral disease. Signs include extreme listlessness and loss of appetite. Fever, vomiting, and diarrhea are frequently seen, but some cats die suddenly with few clinical signs. A high percentage of cats with panleukopenia-especially kittens-die from the infection. Feline panleukopenia virus is shed in the feces of an infected cat and can survive extremes of temperature and humidity for months to years. The virus is resistant to most available disinfectants. 

Until recent years panleukopenia was the most serious infectious disease of cats, killing thousands every year. Thanks to the highly effective vaccines currently available, panleukopenia is now considered an uncommon disease. Immunity induced by panleukopenia vaccines is excellent, and most vaccinated cats are completely protected from infection and disease. Vaccination is recommended for all cats. 

Feline Herpesvirus and Feline Calicivirus: Feline herpesvirus (the cause of feline viral rhinotracheitis) and feline calicivirus are estimated to be responsible for 80-90 percent of infectious feline upper respiratory tract diseases. Although usually not serious in adult cats, disease caused by these viruses may be severe-and sometimes fatal-in kittens. Sneezing, runny eyes, runny nose, and fever are the most typical signs of infection. In addition to upper respiratory tract disease, lameness and chronic oral inflammatory disease have been linked to calicivirus infection. Both viruses are shed in secretions from the nose, eyes, and mouth of infected cats. Cats become infected by direct exposure to infected individuals, either from sneezed droplets, or from contaminated objects such as food and water dishes. 

Most cats are exposed to either or both of these viruses at some time during their lives, usually during kittenhood. Once infected, many cats never completely rid themselves of viruses. These carrier cats shed viruses either continuously or intermittently for long periods of time-perhaps for life-and serve as a major source of infection to other cats. Protection induced by the currently available vaccines minimizes the severity of disease, but does not prevent disease in all cats. Nonetheless, vaccination is recommended for all cats. 

Rabies: Rabies is an increasing threat to cats. At present, the number of reported feline rabies cases in the United States far exceeds that of dogs and all other domestic animals. Rabies is routinely fatal and is a major public health concern. Because of the potential for human exposure, rabies vaccination is recommended for all cats and is required by law in many parts of the country. 

Feline Leukemia Virus: Feline leukemia virus (FeLV) is the leading viral killer of cats. The virus is spread in the saliva and nasal secretions of infected cats; infection is transmitted through prolonged contact with infected cats, bite wounds, and from an infected mother cat to her kittens. Disease caused by FeLV is very serious, and it is estimated that fewer than 20 percent of infected cats will survive more than three years after being infected. Anemia (a deficiency of oxygen-carrying red blood cells), cancer, and secondary infections resulting from immune deficiency are the most common consequences of infection. 

Outdoor cats, indoor/outdoor cats, and cats exposed to such individuals are at greatest risk of exposure to FeLV. Cats living in households with FeLV-infected cats or with cats of unknown infection status are also at risk. Kittens younger than 4 months of age appear to be much more susceptible to infection than are adult cats. Indoor-only adult cats with little chance of exposure to potentially infected cats are not likely to be exposed or infected. Vaccination against FeLV is recommended for cats at risk of exposure, especially those younger than four months of age. Vaccination is not recommended for cats with minimal to no risk of exposure, especially those older than four months of age. Because FeLV vaccines do not induce protection in all cats, avoiding exposure to infected cats remains the single best way to prevent your cat from becoming infected. 

Chlamydiosis: Chlamydiosis is caused by the bacteria, Chlamydia psittaci. Conjunctivitis (inflammation of the tissues lining the eyelids and covering part of the eyeball) is the most common sign, but sneezing and nasal discharge may also occur. The bacteria are transmitted through direct contact with an infected cat, and the highest rates of infection are in cats between five weeks and nine months of age, especially those residing in multiple-cat environments with a history of respiratory tract disease. Cats vaccinated against chlamydiosis are not protected from infection but are expected to experience less severe disease if infected. Adverse reactions associated with chlamydia vaccines are more common than with many other feline vaccines, but the reactions are usually mild and resolve completely with treatment. Vaccination is recommended if your cat resides in a multiple-cat environment where chlamydiosis has been confirmed in other cats. 

Feline Infectious Peritonitis: Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) results from infection with feline coronavirus. Many different strains of the virus can infect cats, but most do not produce serious disease: usually less than 1 to 5 percent of coronavirus-infected cats develop FIP. 

Coronaviruses are shed primarily in the feces of infected cats. Most cats become infected by ingesting the virus, either as a result of direct contact with an infected cat or by exposure to virus-contaminated surfaces such as litter boxes, feeding bowls, bedding, clothing, or toys. A high percentage of cats residing in multiple-cat environments are exposed and ultimately infected with feline coronavirus, but exposure is far less common in households with fewer cats. Even though cats of all ages can develop the disease, most of those that develop FIP are younger than two years. Individuals with FIP rarely survive regardless of treatment. A vaccine to prevent FIP is available, but considerable controversy surrounds its ability to prevent disease. 

Feline Immunodeficiency Virus: Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) is another viral killer of cats. The primary mode of virus spread is through bite wounds, so cats that get outdoors and fight are at greatest risk of infection. Cats in households with stable social structures where housemates get along well are at little risk. 

Infected cats may appear normal for years. However, infection eventually leads to a state of immune deficiency that hinders the cat's ability to protect itself against other infections. The same bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi that may be found in the everyday environment - where they usually do not affect healthy animals - are responsible for many of the diseases associated with FIV. 

Keeping cats indoors and away from potentially infected cats that might bite them markedly reduces their likelihood of contracting FIV infection. Vaccines to help protect against FIV infection are available. Not all vaccinated cats will be protected, so preventing exposure will remain important even for vaccinated pets. In addition, vaccination may have an impact on future FIV test results. It is important that you discuss the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination with your veterinarian to help you decide whether FIV vaccines should be administered to your cat.

Bordetellosis: Bordetella bronchiseptica is a bacteria that can cause disease of the respiratory tract in cats. Cats with bordetellosis may cough, have a runny nose or runny eyes, sneeze, and occasionally have a fever. The signs of disease are very similar to those caused by feline herpesvirus and feline calicivirus. Cats are believed to become infected by breathing the bacteria into their noses. Cats residing in or entering rescue shelters and multiple-cat households have the highest risk of exposure, especially if respiratory tract disease has occurred in the environment. 

A vaccine to prevent disease caused by Bordetella bronchiseptica is available. Studies conducted by the manufacturer indicate that the vaccine can reduce the severity of disease in infected cats. Your veterinarian may suggest vaccinating cats entering or residing in multiple-cat environments (for example, shelters, catteries, or boarding facilities) where disease associated with Bordetella bronchiseptica infection is suspected or has been confirmed. 

Giardiasis: Infection with the single-celled parasite, Giardia lamblia, may be associated with gastrointestinal tract disease of either short or long duration. Diarrhea is the most commonly encountered sign of infection. The organism is shed in the feces of infected cats, and other cats become infected by drinking contaminated water, by direct exposure to an infected cat (such as through mutual grooming), by exposure to contaminated litter boxes, and from consuming prey. Giardiasis tends to be a greater problem in some multiple-cat households. Giardia vaccination can be part of a comprehensive control program in environments where exposure to the organism is associated with disease, although the vaccine has not been evaluated for its ability to hasten elimination of infection from multiple-cat environments. 

Which vaccines should my cat receive?
The decision depends on the following factors: 

Your cat's risk of exposure to the disease-causing organism, in part dependent on the health of other cats to which yours is exposed, and the environment in which your cat lives. 

The consequences of infection 

The age and health of your cat 

The protective ability of the vaccine 

The frequency or severity of reactions associated with vaccination 

The risk an infected cat poses to human health (e.g., rabies virus) 

Vaccine reactions your cat may have experienced in the past 

Return to Top 



This brochure was prepared by the American Association of Feline Practitioners and the Cornell Feline Health Center, Cornell University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ithaca, New York 14853-6401. The center is committed to improving the health of cats by developing methods to prevent or cure feline diseases and by providing continuing education to veterinarians and cat owners. Much of that work is made possible by the financial support of friends. ©2002 by Cornell University. All rights reserved. Cornell University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action educator and employer.*


----------



## Mitts & Tess (Sep 4, 2004)

My vet who interned at Cornell believes in Homeopathic med also. She looks at scientific data but knows also that other beliefs have merit. Thus the belief in acupuncture etc. I had a long talk with her about vaccinations. Her feelings were to do initial vaccinations and our cats carry the immunity from the studies shes read. We have a bad rabies problem in our area. She has people give the rabies 3 yr shot to dogs and cats that are out of doors. Then depend on the titer test to see where our indoor cats stand vaccination wise.

I did see this quote~“While difficult to prove, risks associated with over vaccination are an increasing concern among veterinarians. These experts say antibody titer testing may prove to be a valuable tool in determining your patients’ vaccination needs. * Veterinary Medicine, February 2002.

I’m wondering wouldn’t the studies on dog vaccination prove true for cats too since they are similar in a lot of respects?


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Mitts & Tess said:


> I did see this quote~“While difficult to prove, risks associated with over vaccination are an increasing concern among veterinarians. These experts say antibody titer testing may prove to be a valuable tool in determining your patients’ vaccination needs. * Veterinary Medicine, February 2002.


That is an interesting point indeed. It is healthy to have a critical view of everything and be open to change. I totally agree with that. But I also agree with viewing the evidence as a whole. Vaccinations have their risks. But so do illnesses. There is evidence backing up the utility and efficacy of vaccinating. Sure, there is increasing concern about the risk of vaccinations (it could also just be a reflection of vets being more meticulous about documentation, but the evidence is still unclear), but right now the evidence is not sufficient enough to make further widespread changes. There is more research still taking place and many of these questions are being addressed in studies for you already. As Bethany said, vaccination schedules have changed a bit for the better. But we really must make our changes in a well informed manner especially on a topic many of us take seriously. Hence, that is why many veterinarians also er on the side of caution and vaccinate (accordingly to guidelines with changes if necessary). You _may_ have immunity for longer but that still needs better data. Titers _can_ be an alternative. So yes, there _may_ be better alternatives, but that is always the case with medicine and why we do research and careful research at that to ensure that not just one study supports a theory, but that the results are actually reproducible, reliable, and applicable. In the meantime, most vets (at least that I know personally) practice according to what already has _established_ efficacy (among the bulk of the existing literature) and benefit when considering the risk of an intervention (e.g. vaccinating for a common disease that can kill or avoid a vaccine over a fibrosarcoma that occurs in 1 of 30,000). Of course, tailored to the individual patient too.

I guess, my main concern is that I'm just trying to encourage people to weigh the risks and benefits of vaccinating and look at the data as a _whole_. If all we did all day was worry about risks that are "difficult to prove" or that some other option "may" be better as opposed to also considering the data we _actually_ have, it can lead us on a misleading path. To put it another way, if all we did is obsess over the risks of something, that can make anything look unappealing if we did not look at the potential benefits. Hence the concept of weighing pros and cons. I guess that is why they say a good vet is worth their weight in gold.

Sorry, I hope I did not offend anyone, but just trying to balance out the argument a bit. Sometimes I feel people actively seek out cons without considering the pros (sort of like subconsciously already having made a decision), when it is really best to consider it all and try not to let our emotional biases sway us.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

I think one of the issues that gets lost in these discussions is a pretty simple one: How often do YOU get vaccinations? Healthy adults may get flu vaccinations (although many of us do not), but other than tetanus once every 10 years, that's IT. After childhood, we don't have "required" vaccinations and many folks get few or none. And yet we think we need to vaccinate our cats -- even indoor-only cats -- every year? I think that if one looks at it w/ that in mind, it's pretty clear that the #1 reason we are encouraged to vaccinate is to get the animal into the vet clinic. 

I used to work for vets--I think they're great overall and am very much behind all pets having an annual exam, just as human beings should. But vets are CONVINCED (and trust me -- they ARE) that unless pet owners think they "have" to come in for vaccs, they will not bring their pets in annually at all. This would result in a loss of revenue for the vets, and I agree that this would be a problem. I want the vet to BE THERE when I need him -- if he can't make enough $$ to stay afloat, then he will NOT be there.

However, vets have painted themselves into a corner w/ the vacc think. Instead of doing really good, thorough physical exams on pets annually, encouraging bloodwork and other labwork on a regular basis (i.e., baseline labs when the pet is young, annual labs once the pet reaches 8-12 (depending on species and size), and biannual labs once the pet is older), and otherwise encouraging the pet owner to see the vet’s checkup and the other things the vet can do as the reason to come in every year, vets have tended to do cursory physicals and make the SHOTS the main point of the annual visit.

All vets need to do is amend their behavior. Explain that there are GOOD REASONS to come in annually even if the cat/dog does not need shots. If the vet recommends (as AVMA and AAFVP do) vaccinating only every 3 years, make the 2 years in between worth the visit. It will require some re-education of clients, but it NEEDS TO BE DONE!


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> Healthy adults may get flu vaccinations (although many of us do not), but other than tetanus once every 10 years, that's IT.


That is actually not entirely correct. Once elderly, even if they are healthy, adults actually are due for a Pneumovax. Young women also get HPV vaccines (one that actually prevents cancer). And certain conditions although the adult may still be healthy overall warrant vaccinations such as HAV, HBV, varicella, zoster, MMR, and meningococcal. Now with H1N1, people even healthy ones get those shots too (young people, pregnant women, healthcare providers, etc.). I personally get all my shots that are recommended unless there is a contraindication, especially as a healthcare worker, not only do I contact it more frequently, but even getting the vaccine reduces transmission to patients.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedu ... hedule.pdf



hoofmaiden said:


> And yet we think we need to vaccinate our cats -- even indoor-only cats -- every year? I think that if one looks at it w/ that in mind, it's pretty clear that the #1 reason we are encouraged to vaccinate is to get the animal into the vet clinic.


That I partially agree. Vets are afraid that their clients will not take their pets back as frequently as recommended and yes, a doctor needs to make enough money to feed their children. But we also need to think of the patient side too. When I was a kid, my mom was _terrible_ with taking Mimi to the vet and this was common among family friends. Mimi throughout her life saw the vet two times! Vets do get _heartbroken_ when they see an animal suffer complications of a chronic disease that could have been easily managed, just to have a pet get put down. The mention of vaccines is probably the most effective way that has been found to get a pet in as many clients feel physicals are worthless. Again, as discussed earlier, the vaccines do have demonstrated efficacy. Of course, funding will lean more towards research on human healthcare, so the evidence for animals is there but much less. Given as far as what has reliable data, the vaccines may have severe but generally rare risks (as cited by Cornell) and considering what they prevent (diseases that would be more prevalent and cause lots of suffering in an unvaccinated world), vets do er on the cautionary side. 



hoofmaiden said:


> All vets need to do is amend their behavior. Explain that there are GOOD REASONS to come in annually even if the cat/dog does not need shots. If the vet recommends (as AVMA and AAFVP do) vaccinating only every 3 years, make the 2 years in between worth the visit. It will require some re-education of clients, but it NEEDS TO BE DONE!


This is an excellent point. I agree with it! I see this with human patients too who feel certain vaccines are not necessary or even a physical! Goodness, what could go wrong in a physical exam? Very very little. Many of my colleagues do give brief exams and yes, this makes the client less trusting of the doc. Good patient education certainly enhances compliance and something healthcare overall desperately needs to work on. Some of it is on the doctor, some is on the patient for non compliance (making the doctor a bit jaded) and you get a vicious cycle. And sometimes doctors just have too many patients, not that they necessarily voluntarily want it, but some administrations require you to do it to stay employed or sometimes there just aren't enough doctors  . Getting more professional schools to accommodate more students is a massively committing group effort. My vet has a crazy clinic schedule, hence why Snowy comes in as the first patient of the day and we come _early_, getting the most time. My colleagues from 8am-12pm can see up to 30 patients and most of the time, they try to give patients more time but end up running into their afternoon clinic and miss lunch. Ouch...


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

sweetyanna said:


> That is actually not entirely correct.


Sure it is.  


> Once elderly, even if they are healthy, adults actually are due for a Pneumovax. Young women also get HPV vaccines (one that actually prevents cancer).


Elderly adults MAY get flu shots if they choose. They don't have to, and many do not. And that's elderly.

And there is a good bit of controversy about HPV--Merck has marketed Gardasil heavily, but that doesn't mean that everyone is getting it. At any rate, it is 3 injections over 6 mos and that's it for LIFE. No annual boosters.


> The mention of vaccines is probably the most effective way that has been found to get a pet in as many clients feel physicals are worthless.


Only b/c that's the only thing they've ever TRIED, and b/c they do get kickbacks from the pharm cos and the pharm cos donate tons of $$ to the vet schools. That's really the main problem IMO -- too many people are making too much $$ off annually vaccinating cats/dogs for things they don't need to be vaccinated for annually (or in some cases EVER) for it to stop any time soon.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> sweetyanna said:
> 
> 
> > That is actually not entirely correct.
> ...


Pneumovax is actually for pneumonia :?. Patients _may_ get any of the recommended vaccinations but no, by law we cannot force anyone to take a vaccine as that currently falls under the technical definition of assault and a violation of patient autonomy. As long as the patient has decision making capacity, they decide what they will allow or not allow. Similarily in a massive hemorrhage, if a patient understands the consequences, they have every right to refuse a transfusion or any intervention if they wish, even if that means they will bleed to death without it. These shots are recommended because there actually is cost effectiveness and reduced morbidity and mortality demonstrated in a population as a whole. 



hoofmaiden said:


> Only b/c that's the only thing they've ever TRIED, and b/c they do get kickbacks from the pharm cos and the pharm cos donate tons of $$ to the vet schools.


I wouldn't go so far as to that that was _all_ they ever tried. Can they try harder? Yes. We can always try harder and think of better ways of presenting and phrasing things. Vets do try to discuss the importance of regular evaluations, at least the animal clinic I go to. But again, some clients/patients are much more non-compliant. It is more common that most think. Even with women, we advise them to get regular mammograms and discuss why. You tell them to come every year, many, sometimes up to half, come every 2 years (if at all). Tell them to come every 2 years, lots come every 3-4 years. Some patients/clients just do not conceive the risk that is actually there until something actually goes wrong (e.g. discovering a late breast cancer).

But yea, trying to keep unbiased when a pharmacy company donated so much is a sticky situation, totally agree with that. You want to tell the patient the best information yet don't want to lose funding to say, a school. The funding can provide for more books, better teachers, etc.  

At any rate, this is a really great and productive discussion. But I must agree full-heartedly with the fact that you mentioned that doctors need to get better with patient education. That is the root of most non-compliance issues and lots of complications, hospitalizations, deaths, and expenditures arise from the end result of non-compliance. Improved patient education will be a major focus in my future practice.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

Again, the point is that while there are some human vaccines that are recommended at various points in life, no human being I know gets 3-5 vaccinations a year, EVERY year, from babyhood until death! And yet that is what is recommended by many vets for cats and dogs.

The newer recs are every 3 years, but many vets are NOT up on that or are afraid to go along w/ those recs. And even that is overkill.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> Again, the point is that while there are some human vaccines that are recommended at various points in life, no human being I know gets 3-5 vaccinations a year, EVERY year, from babyhood until death! And yet that is what is recommended by many vets for cats and dogs.


Actually, early in life, infants have well over 10 vaccines in the first year.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedu ... ule-pr.pdf
Sure, it doesn't occur every year, but I'm also trying to illustrate that humans get lots of vaccines throughout the first 15 years of life, that average well over the number of vaccines cats generally get in their average ~15 year lifespan, as estimated by my local animal clinic and the vet school.

Not to step on anyone's toes, but how many exactly is "many"? Is there a study that sent out surveys to thousands of vets and over 50% said that they vaccinate each pet x3-5 q year? Or is this personal experience/opinion? 

At least in my experience, this has not been the case with what my vet recommends or any of her colleagues. They go by the guidelines and tailor it accordingly depending on the patient. My friend that is a DVM does not condone any of this overkill that is mentioned and neither does the entire vet school she is from, it is strictly evidence based. Sure, there probably are some vets that do it more often, but I have never heard of 3-5 vaccinations scheduled every year for any pet. 

So unless there is evidence that this overkill is something very prevalent, I would not go so far as to make generalizations about vets. All I can cite is my own experience with vets and an entire veterinary school that has provided vets for the community for decades. Can there be some that do not abide by the guidelines, sure, as _rarely _any guideline has a 100% compliance rate from both providers and patients (if that even exists). I would attempt to find an article surveying vets but I'm on call and catching a quick break when it is still quiet.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

sweetyanna said:


> Actually, early in life, infants have well over 10 vaccines in the first year.
> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedu ... ule-pr.pdf


And many parents are no longer doing that. The number has gone up and up (I sure didn't get that many when I was a kid in the 60s), and there is now a backlash against that.


> Not to step on anyone's toes, but how many exactly is "many"? Is there a study that sent out surveys to thousands of vets and over 50% said that they vaccinate each pet x3-5 q year? Or is this personal experience/opinion?
> [SNIP] I have never heard of 3-5 vaccinations scheduled every year for any pet.


Seriously? B/c 3-5 is bare minimum. For cats: The FVRCP vaccine contains vaccines against rhinotracheitis, calicivirus, and panleukopenia. Then there's rabies. And FeLV. That's 5 right there that most vets recommend and most folks here will have done annually.

There are other vaccines available that some vets push and others don't: FIV, chlamydia, bordetella, lyme, even giardia. There is also an FIP vaccine -- most vets are no longer recommending it b/c it doesn't work, but some still are.

I would say that there are very few vets out there not recommending the basic 5 mentioned above, though.


----------



## Avalonia (Oct 7, 2007)

Wow, this thread is full of good info! I admit I have only read about two of the five pages but I think I will print it out to read at my leisure.

As far as my own opinion and personal experience, I used to be very firm on getting all my cats shots regularly. I admit though, I took in a lot of strays and I couldn't afford to do it as often as the vets told me too. Now Snow and Emanon have not been vaccinated in several years, per our new vet's recommendation. She said at their age and with the fact that they are mostly indoors except for Snow's occasional 15 minutes, it just wasn't worth the risk. I wasn't sure what risk she meant, but if there was one, I wasn't about to take it.

Now I'm struggling on whether to get the kittens fully vacc'd. I couldn't really consider them indoor/outdoor as only Lea goes outside and for only brief periods of time. On the other hand, when I was growing up one of our cats died of feline leukemia. He really suffered before he died, and I will never forget watching his long, slow decline. (why my mother didn't put him down sooner is a long story best left for another time). I never want to see another cat suffer like that, so I probably will at least end up getting that shot and I really would recommend it to anyone whose cats spend time out of doors. It's just, at least for me, too much of a chance to take.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> sweetyanna said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, early in life, infants have well over 10 vaccines in the first year.
> ...


The major reason for the backlash was becaue people thought vaccines were linked to autism, of which is based on only one study and ALL the authors recanted their statements and even admitted some of what they said was fabricated. As a result of the backlash there has been increasing prevalence of diseases and no suggested benefit to the backlashing. It is really traumatic to see a child blue from suffocating to death after epiglottitis from H. Influenzae (something that a vaccine can easily prevent and had NO suggested link to autism, what the parents were concerned about).



hoofmaiden said:


> sweetyanna said:
> 
> 
> > ot to step on anyone's toes, but how many exactly is "many"? Is there a study that sent out surveys to thousands of vets and over 50% said that they vaccinate each pet x3-5 q year? Or is this personal experience/opinion?
> ...


According to the guidelines there is NO recommendation for 5 vaccines minimum a year. A COUPLE vaccines are suggested for annual boosters in HIGH RISK cats. And some are suggested once or prn in the event of exposures. 
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10 ... 229.9.1405
I am hard pressed to believe and from my own experience with a vet school to be convinced that vets in general would vaccinate more often than the guidelines. If there is no indication to provide a service and you are trying to help a pet, it makes no sense to infer extra cost on the client and potentially upset them by ordering more that is not of suggested efficacy.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

I am well aware of the AVMA/AAFVP guidelines. I'm talking about real vets in real practices (not vet schools) and I've called around. In my area, only a few vets said they did not recommend the full monty (FVRCP/FeLV/Rabies) annually. The guidelines are great. But many vets are NOT following them out in the real world. 

And the backlash against childhood vaccines is not entirely due to the autism thing, BTW.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> And the backlash against childhood vaccines is not entirely due to the autism thing, BTW.


Sure, parents can be concerned about all sorts of things, some reasonable, some highly unlikely. But I never said this was entirely due to the autism hype, I said it was a significant driver of the fear of vaccination. 

In any medical management there will always be patients and guardians that refuse certain treatments out of their own personal choice.

With regards to backlash against human vaccines-
Then please educate me with evidence (scholarly, not New York Time's stories) that actually suggests the risk of vaccination is greater than the morbidity and mortality of disease should there be no vaccination. i.e. evidence that supports such backlash. And contrast that with the data that suggests the benefits of the vaccinations for a balanced argument.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

Honestly . . . no. If you're interested, do your own research. Sheesh.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> Honestly . . . no. If you're interested, do your own research. Sheesh.


It was called semi-sarcasm. I did my own research and know the answers, I am just trying to encourage people to do their own reliable research. Apparently then, you have no evidence to back up your claims about human vaccines.

Also, I would not make my personal opinions and experiences and generalize it to "vets". Not citing the sources and phrasing it as if it is a fact can be misleading and some readers may walk away with the impression that all vets give 5 vaccinations q year to cats. My experience was that of vets who are knowledgeable and apply it, yours was different. We leave it at that.


----------



## hoofmaiden (Sep 28, 2009)

sweetyanna said:


> It was called semi-sarcasm. I did my own research and know the answers, I am just trying to encourage people to do their own reliable research. Apparently then, you have no evidence to back up your claims about human vaccines.


This is really off-topic. And it's not an area I care about. I have a few friends who do, though, and I trust their information. However, it has little to do w/ the topic at hand.


> Also, I would not make my personal opinions and experiences and generalize it to "vets". Not citing the sources and phrasing it as if it is a fact can be misleading and some readers may walk away with the impression that all vets give 5 vaccinations q year to cats. My experience was that of vets who are knowledgeable and apply it, yours was different. We leave it at that.


I cited my sources. I've called around to multiple vets in my area who are out in the real world. I told you what I was told. This has been my experience w/ my own vets as well. You are talking about vet schools: I am talking about vets in practice. They are two entirely different populations.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

hoofmaiden said:


> This is really off-topic. And it's not an area I care about. I have a few friends who do, though, and I trust their information. However, it has little to do w/ the topic at hand.


You were the one that brought it up as the main crux of your argument and I was just correcting some of the data. 


hoofmaiden said:


> I think one of the issues that gets lost in these discussions is a pretty simple one: How often do YOU get vaccinations?





hoofmaiden said:


> Healthy adults may get flu vaccinations (although many of us do not), but other than tetanus once every 10 years, that's IT.





hoofmaiden said:


> You are talking about vet schools: I am talking about vets in practice. They are two entirely different populations.


Then where do vets come from? DVMs with active practices do train vet students. And where do vets get their education from? Doctors do trust what they learn in school or else they would have no basis of advanced medical knowledge. Doctors practice accordingly to their knowledge but in the real world, yes, tuning can be changed a bit. I am just trying to highlight what is emphasized over and over in their education. Besides, I interact with vets in the real world too and am sharing that my experiences were vastly different and much more positive.



hoofmaiden said:


> I cited my sources. I've called around to multiple vets in my area who are out in the real world.


And for the record, a claim you made earlier when discussing your experience with vets, you said:


hoofmaiden said:


> But vets are CONVINCED (and trust me -- they ARE) that unless pet owners think they "have" to come in for vaccs, they will not bring their pets in annually at all. This would result in a loss of revenue for the vets, and I agree that this would be a problem.





hoofmaiden said:


> However, vets have painted themselves into a corner w/ the vacc think.





hoofmaiden said:


> Seriously? B/c 3-5 is bare minimum.


That can be read as pretty misleading and for someone to think all vets require 3-5 shots a year.


----------



## doodlebug (May 13, 2006)

Ladies....my head is about to explode...agree to disagree because neither one of you is going to give an inch. (and that's my opinion...not backed up by any research from reputable or disreputable sources).


----------



## KittyMonster (Nov 8, 2009)

Eep, okay doodlebug, I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire here, but just something to think about in terms of clinical studies and who they're funded by - 

If you see a research study (for humans or animals!) that is double-blind, a thousand subjects, good research methods and an outcome that is statistically significant, and is published in a well known journal then you simply can't doubt the results. It doesn't matter if it's funded by Hill's or Pzifer or whatever, a study is a study and no researcher is going to fudge the results no matter who is paying the bill. 

However!

What you DO need to worry about are _studies that are never published._ There is no way to know how many studies that are done that aren't published.

For example, say Pzifer funds 2 clinical trials. One of them is studying their newest pill for, uh, cholesterol (medication X) against a placebo in the typical double-blind format. The other is similar protocol and numbers, but compares placebo and carrots. The first study proves that medication X is significantly more effective at controlling cholesterol than placebo. The second study shows that carrots are also more effective than placebo - in fact, carrots are hugely and statistically more effective than Pzifer's new drug! So, naturally, Pzifer is going to fund the publication of Study 1, but probably not Study 2 because they don't want their sales for medication X to be eclipsed by carrot sales! Does this mean that Pzifer is _lying_? Or that medication X isn't super effective against cholesterol? Absolutely not. But should you be concerned that study B will never be published? Certainly.

This doesn't mean that relying on clinical trials is bad or untrustworthy or that anecdotal evidence is more valuable - clinical, scientific evidence ALWAYS trumps any opinion simply by design (that is why they were created, after all!). It simply means that there are many facets of life that cannot be quantified by studies because no one will make money off of the information. 

So I guess my point is ... you can't discount evidence that proves that vaccines are statistically safe. It's there, it's been proven, that's it. However, because there's no studies funded (or published) on vaccines being useless, we simply can't know.


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

I don't have an opinion on the vaccine issue. How's that for a shock..... This despite the fact that Dr House has weighed in on the issue for baby vaccines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yXn9XA-5c


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

Okay, I do have an opinion on pharamcy companies and drugs. 

I'm not sure if it was Plavix but withing the last 2 years a study proved that one of the highly sold cholosterol drugs was completely ineffective for reducing cholosterol. They had knew ads on within weeks saying 'helps prevent clotting'. 

Must have been a heck of a first study.


Gloat: I dropped my Cholosterol from 210 to 135. Oatmeal, veggies and I can't believe it's not butter. You know the guy in the ad caught chewing on a stick of butter. That was me.


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

In other vaccine news. Remember the woman who had her life ruined by the H1N1 vaccine. Well, vaccines can make you speak Australian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpe1u4cK ... re=related


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

KittyMonster said:


> This doesn't mean that relying on clinical trials is bad or untrustworthy or that anecdotal evidence is more valuable - clinical, scientific evidence ALWAYS trumps any opinion simply by design (that is why they were created, after all!).


Yay! You go girl!! 



KittyMonster said:


> What you DO need to worry about are _studies that are never published._ There is no way to know how many studies that are done that aren't published.


Totally agree. My professors have taught me that too. Even though the published data is what it is, there is tons of data that never make it out. Actually, there are a tremendous number of manuscript submissions the majority of which never make it, getting published is a big deal in a profession and ultra competitive, but there are only so many spots available to publish things. That does not imply that what does not make it, is not as valid, maybe a bit less exciting to read, but it can still have good validity. One of my professors says there should be a database that has some of the unpublished data, but it is so massive and there is so much published data to look at already (an overabundance and explosion of information especially after the internet came around).



KittyMonster said:


> So I guess my point is ... you can't discount evidence that proves that vaccines are statistically safe. It's there, it's been proven, that's it. However, because there's no studies funded (or published) on vaccines being useless, we simply can't know.


Understandable, I can absolutely see investigators interesting in seeking a study that will prove for example a certain treatment can actually reduce morbidity or mortality. It's exciting and can make for great marketing, I don't contest that at all. But I will say that healthcare does have a major problem especially in the US of cost control. We spend way too much money on healthcare and are getting less bang for our buck, there are countries that spend less than we do and have better mortality numbers.  As a result, there actually are published studies that re-investigate medical services and whether they are even efficacious or if they are, are they worth the money. Such studies do get funded by non-commercial based sponsors out of the intention of the goodness of people's hearts and the population as a whole. 




Dave_ph said:


> I'm not sure if it was Plavix but withing the last 2 years a study proved that one of the highly sold cholosterol drugs was completely ineffective for reducing cholosterol. They had knew ads on within weeks saying 'helps prevent clotting'.


Plavix is an antiplatelet drug i.e. it inhibits the ability of platelets to form blood clots (what actually clogs up blood vessels and lead to things like strokes and heart attacks). Cholesterol meds generally don't have effects on clotting...that's weird. 8O 



Dave_ph said:


> Gloat: I dropped my Cholosterol from 210 to 135. Oatmeal, veggies and I can't believe it's not butter. You know the guy in the ad caught chewing on a stick of butter. That was me.


YAY! This makes me even more excited than what kitty monster said. Lifestyle is the most cost effective and efficacious way to manage LOTS of things (yes, heavily supported by research by non-commercial sponsors ). I wish more patients could be like you. That is another cause of increased cost expenditure, lots of patients rely too much on surgery and pills to solve their problems rather than being proactive and more involved personally in their own well-being. Pills and surgery help, but only so much. I have seen people eat their way back to 300lbs after dramatic bariatric surgery, you can eat your way through anything. 8O. What happens? Complications of insufficiently managed chronic disease, more surgery, more meds, more hospitalization, more money.
I dunno, maybe lifestyle changes seems less glamourous than a surgery, but really, when you think about it, lifestyle changes are a form of medical therapy. The dean of my medical school tries to educate patients all the time about their cholesterol and how to use food to medicate their cholesterol and really as the best way in most cases to manage their cholesterol. i.e. food as therapy.

Now my time to gloat: I got my first lipid panel back today, my HDL was actually well above the typical range. I have hyperalphalipoproteinemia (high HDL). LDL and triglyercides were optimal. It is mostly genetic (typically does not cause problems except in rare cases where HDL is crazy high). Therefore, I have extra protection against cardiovascular disease, no food changes needed (yet)!


----------



## Dave_ph (Jul 7, 2009)

I used Plavix but I think I warned I wasn't sure that was the drug. I just know that within the last 2 years there was a major embarassment because new trials showed that a very popular drug used to lower cholesterol just wasn't effective. So they switched their marketing campaign to platelets. I wish I could remember the med name but I've been taking a nightly Ambien for to long to have a memory.


----------



## sweetyanna (Apr 13, 2008)

Dave_ph said:


> I used Plavix but I think I warned I wasn't sure that was the drug. I just know that within the last 2 years there was a major embarassment because new trials showed that a very popular drug used to lower cholesterol just wasn't effective. So they switched their marketing campaign to platelets. I wish I could remember the med name but I've been taking a nightly Ambien for to long to have a memory.


No problem at all . I was just wondering if a drug marketer was trying to perform a feat since if it didn't work in one medical condition, they tried to claim it worked for something else to keep their sales. Which people can do. Yea, I agree though, it would be much easier if less people acted out of greed and there would be less cynicism and more trust as a positive externality. We'd get so much more done if patients did not have to question medical claims which often stem from negative past experiences. By the way, I loved the youtube vids, those were awesome! That girl certainly did not have dystonia LOL. and Australian?! That is AWESOME.


----------

