Ju mer jag lär om hundars hälsa, desto mer övertygad blir jag om att vi (trots många varningar) fortsätter att vaccinera våra hundar alldeles för mycket.
För de som läser engelska utan större problem har jag här kopierat en artikel som publicerades i den brittiska tidskriften Veterinarian Times i januari 2004. Den beskriver många aspekter av det här problemet.
Det har hela tiden kommit fram mer forskning som visar på problem med frekventa vaccinationer. Själv kommer jag i framtiden så långt det är möjligt att följa de rekommendationer som ges i slutet av den här artikeln (röd markering). Om detta betyder att jag inte får delta på utställningar så gör jag hellre den uppoffringen än att jag gör mina hundar sjuka. För utställning gäller just nu att det ska vara högst tre år sedan sista vaccination i Norge, på hundar som är över ett år gamla, men fyra år i Sverige. Allteftersom kunskapen växer och sprids kommer säkert regler att ändras.
We, the undersigned, would like
to bring to your attention our concerns in the light of recent new
evidence regarding vaccination protocol.
The American Veterinary Medical
Association Committee report this year states that 'the one year
revaccination recommendation frequently found on many vaccination
labels is based on historical precedent, not scientific data'.
In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes
that 'there is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond
one year. In fact, according to research there is no proof that
many of the yearly vaccinations are necessary and that protection
in many instances may be life long'; also, 'Vaccination is a potent
medical procedure with both benefits and risks for the patient';
further that, 'Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity
does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase
their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'
Finally, he states that: 'Adverse
events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative
or combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure
to immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders,
transient infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'
The report of the American Animal
Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April
2003) is also interesting reading: 'Current knowledgte supports
the statement that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always
protective and no vaccine is always indicated'; 'Misunderstanding,
misinformation and the conservative nature of our profession have
largely slowed adoption of protocols advocating decreased frequency
of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides durations of immunity
for core infectious diseases that far exceed the traditional recommendations
for annual vaccination. This is supported by a growing body of veterinary
information as well as well-developed epidemiological vigilance
in human medicine that indicates immunity induced by vaccination
is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, lifelong.'
Further, the evidence shows that
the duration of immunity for rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine,
canine parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline
rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been demonstrated
to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for rabies and challenge
studies for all others.
The veterinary surgeons below
fully accept that no single achievement has had greater impact on
the lives and well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability
to prevent infectious diseases than the developments in annual vaccines.
We, however, fully support the recommendations and guidelines of
the American Animal Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce vaccine
protocols for dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations are only
given every three years, and only for core vaccines unless otherwise
We further suggest that the evidence
currently available will soon lead to the following facts being
* The immune systems of dogs and
cats mature fully at six months and any modified live virus (MLV)
vaccine given after that age produces immunity that is good for
the life of that pet.
* If another MLV vaccine is given
a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the
antigens from the subsequent so there is little or no effect; the
pet is not 'boosted', nor are more memory cells induced.
* Not only are annual boosters
for canine parvovirus and distemper unnecessary, they subject the
pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated
* There is no scientific documentation
to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.
* Puppies and kittens receive
antibodies through their mothers' milk. This natural protection
can last eight to 14 weeks.
* Puppies and kittens should NOT
be vaccinated at less than eight weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralise
the vaccine and little protection will be produced.
* Vaccination at six weeks will,
however, DELAY the timing of the first effective vaccine.
* Vaccines given two weeks apart
SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the immune system.
This would give possible new guidelines
1. A series of vaccinations is
given starting at eight weeks of age (or preferably later) and given
three to four weeks apart, up to 16 weeks of age.
2. One further booster is given
sometime after six months of age and will then provide life-long
In light of data now available
showing the needless use and potential harm of annual vaccination,
we call on our profession to cease the policy of annual vaccination.
Can we wonder that clients are
losing faith in vaccination and researching the issue themselves?
We think they are right to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic
well-being of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical companies should
not be a factor in making medical decisions.
It is accepted that the annual
examination of a pet is advisable. We undervalue ourselves, however,
if we hang this essential service on the back of vaccination and
will ultimately suffer the consequences. Do we need to wait until
we see actions against vets, such as those launched in the state
of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He asserts that the present practice
of marketing vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud
by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception.
The oath we take as newly-qualified
veterinary surgeons is 'to help, or at least do no harm'. We wish
to maintain our position within society, and be deserving of the
trust placed in us as a profession. It is therefore our contention
that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light
of new evidence may well be acting contrary to the welfare of the
animals committed to their care.
Richard Allport, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sue Armstrong, MA BVetMed, MRCVS
Mark Carpenter, BVetMed, MRCVS
Sarah Fox-Chapman, MS, DVM, MRCVS
Nichola Cornish, BVetMed, MRCVS
Tim Couzens, BVetMed, MRCVS
Chris Day, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Claire Davies, BVSc, MRCVS
Mark Elliott, BVSc, MRCVS
Peter Gregory, BVSc, MRCVS
Lise Hansen, DVM, MRCVS
John Hoare, BVSc, MRCVS
Graham Hines, BVSc, MRCVS
Megan Kearney, BVSc, MRCVS
Michelle L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS
Suzi McIntyre, BVSc, MRCVS
Siobhan Menzies, BVM&S, MRCVS
Nazrene Moosa, BVSc, MRCVS
Mike Nolan, BVSc, MRCVS
Ilse Pedler, MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS
John Saxton, BVetMed, MRCVS
Cheryl Sears, MVB, MRCVS
Jane Seymour, BVSc, MRCVS
Christine Shields, BVSc, MRCVS
Suzannah Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS
Phillip Stimpson, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
Nick Thompson, BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS
Lyn Thompson, BVSc, MRCVS
Wendy Vere, VetMB, MA, MRCVS
Anuska Viljoen, BVSc, MRCVS,
and Wendy Vink, BVSc, MRCVS