For those people interested in the ongoing over-vaccination of pets scandal, I recently forwarded a letter to Professor Ronald Schultz, a member of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s Vaccination Guidelines Group, and the American Animal Hospital Association’s Canine Vaccination Task Force, complaining about the confusing and misleading use of the term ‘booster’ in vaccination guidelines.
The email below summarises my complaint. My detailed letter can be accessed via this hyperlink: Letter to Professor Ronald Schultz re confusing and misleading use of the term ‘booster’
From: Elizabeth Hart <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Confusing and misleading use of the term ‘booster’ in relation to modified live virus (MLV) vaccines
Please see attached a detailed letter addressed to you criticising the use of the confusing and misleading term ‘booster’ in vaccination guidelines issued by the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group. This criticism is also relevant to the 2011 AAHA Canine Vaccination Guidelines.
As noted in my letter, I suggest use of the term ‘booster’ in relation to canine core modified live virus (MLV) vaccines for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus is resulting in extensive unnecessary over-vaccination of already immune dogs.
I suspect that many pet owners are still not being informed that there is no evidence to support revaccination of already immune animals with so-called ‘booster’ shots, nor that there is the option of titre testing to verify a response to core MLV vaccination.
This is especially concerning in light of the WSAVA 2010 guidelines warning “that we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”, and the WSAVA 2013 guidelines advice that “it is important to give as few vaccines as possible…” and “…any reaction to a vaccine that is not needed is unacceptable”.
There are serious flaws in the WSAVA guidelines 2010 and 2013 which must be rectified. In addition, the 2011 AAHA Canine Vaccination Guidelines should also be subjected to review.
I request your urgent response on this matter.
*This email and letter is also being circulated to the following:
- Professor Michael Day, Chairperson, WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group
- Professor Emeritus Marian Horzinek, previous member of the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group
- Professor Jolle Kirpensteijn, EB Liasison, WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Committee
- Professor Hajime Tsujimoto, WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group
- Professor Richard Squires, WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group
- Professor Emeritus Richard Ford, member of the AAHA Canine Vaccination Guidelines Task Force
- Dr Carmel Mooney, Editor of the Journal of Small Animal Practice
- Dr Anna-Maria Brady, Head of Biologicals and Administration, Veterinary Medicines Directorate
- Dr Allen Bryce, Executive Director, Veterinary Medicines, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
- Dr Rick E. Hill, Director, Center for Veterinary Biologics, US Department of Agriculture
- Professor Brian Martin, Social Sciences, University of Wollongong
- Bea Mies, independent advocate for judicial vaccine use
and will also be circulated to other parties.