I feel like a lot of the problems are with AVMA. CDC says one thing and AVMA says another.
I once read, and posted the data on DFA, on the AVMA website that vets were concerned about the loss of income when switching from annual to triennial vaccination... Ummm WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH OF MY PET!!! I tried to find the article and struck out but found the below instead -- interesting in my opinion...
"Speculation feeds the gray area of vaccines. Practitioners and scientists like Glickman theorize the repeated use of vaccines breed antibodies that can attack a host's own organs, causing autoimmune disease. Schultz argues that many annual vaccines remain effective throughout a lifetime; at least one of his reports successfully challenges a distemper vaccine after seven years. But despite all the research, it wasn't until veterinarians started noting soft-tissue sarcoma developing at vaccine injection sites in cats that the issue sparked widespread debate.
That's when the Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force began its ongoing quest to prove the vaccine-sarcoma connection. AVMA admits that the practice of annual vaccinations is based on historic precedent and not research. But that research is expensive, requiring large numbers of animals to be isolated and studied for long periods of time, says Schultz.
"That's why a lot more work doesn't come out," he says. "In the 1970s, there were four vaccines for dogs and we weren't using them often. Now there are 16 vaccines for dogs, and if they're not getting them annually, they're getting them more often than that.
"I'm the only one in the profession who challenges the immunity of vaccines. I'm really one among a total of three individuals who have challenge studies out. With just a few of us studying them and more vaccines on the market, how are we supposed to keep up?" http://veterinarynew...il.jsp?id=35171
I had not heard of Dr. Glickman before so googled. I wasn't able to find his research but rather ran across others who site his research.
"A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (endnotes 1 & 2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs – ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”– were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.....
Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted." http://www.whale.to/...driscoll11.html
Also wanted to mention Dr. Schultz was asked to help with the "World Small Animal Veterinary Medical Associations Vaccine Guidelines". He is one of only three on the team. Someone mentioned vets fearing being sued. This was addressed in the WSAVA vaccine recommendation article and in my opinion is simply an excuse to go with the status quo. In their report they write.
"Vaccines should not be given needlessly. Core vaccines should not be given any more frequently than every three years after the 12 month booster injection following the puppy/kitten series, because the duration of immunity (DOI) is many years and may be up to the lifetime of the pet.
In speaking to practitioner audiences about the 2007 guidelines it is clear that there is widespread confusion about their purpose. Many practitioners are initially alarmed that the recommendations appear contrary to those given on the product data sheet, and therefore feel that if they adopt guidelines recommendations, they are leaving themselves open to litigation. The distinct difference between a data sheet and guidelines document has been clearly discussed in a recent paper (Thiry and Horzinek, 2007).
A data sheet (or ‘summary of product characteristics’; SPC) is a legal document that forms part of the registration process for a vaccine. A data sheet will give details of the quality, safety and efficacy of a product and in the case of vaccines will describe the legal DOI of the product. The legal DOI is based on experimental evidence, represents a minimum value and need not reflect the true DOI of a vaccine. Most companion animal vaccines, until recently, had a 1 year DOI and carried a recommendation for annual revaccination. The sensible response of industry to recent discussions about vaccine safety has been to increasingly license products with an ‘extended’ (generally 3 year) DOI. However, for most core vaccines (see below) the true DOI is likely to be considerably longer.
There are instances, where the guidelines may recommend a triennial vaccination with a product that still carries a 1 year licensed DOI. The simple reason for this is that the guidelines are based on current scientific knowledge and thinking, whereas the data sheet reflects the knowledge available at the time that the vaccine received its original license (which may be more than 20 years earlier). Consequently, guidelines advice will often differ from that given in the data sheet; however, any veterinarian may use a vaccine according to guidelines (and therefore current scientific thinking) by obtaining informed (and documented) owner consent for this deviation from legal recommendations (‘off-label use’). Further confusion is often caused by company representatives who will advise, as they are legally obliged to do, that the veterinarian must adhere to the data sheet recommendation." http://www.wsava.org...delines2010.pdf
The vet simply has to get documented consent from their client. Most of us would happily do that if given the current information. In fact, I know many that go to their vet asking for triennial vaccination and are not asked to sign a consent form but rather advised against it???
Sorry this is so long...