Vaccination of animals
Vaccination, "this privileged, reasoned and always delicate medical procedure1", invented by Jenner in 1796 and developed by Pasteur (1885), Salke (1954) and many others, serves to induce the protection of an individual or d 'a population against one or more diseases.
Its principle is well known; it consists in administering to a living being the attenuated form of a microbe or a toxin with the aim of causing the formation of antibodies and an immunological memory which will enable it to react and resist disease.2 'Even judicious use of vaccines always entails certain risks, but in general, it is believed that they are far outweighed by the benefits. However, it seems that in veterinary medicine vaccination has become a risky act in recent decades, in certain dangerous cases and often without any medical significance3. Many believe that some vaccines on the market are ineffective and that animals are often vaccinated unnecessarily4.
• Annual vaccination
For around twenty-five years, pharmaceutical manufacturers have recommended, without scientific justification, the annual vaccination of domestic carnivores (cats, dogs, ferrets).
However, the principles of immunology guarantee that a statistically significant proportion of individuals will be protected for a long period, even for life, by a well-conducted vaccination. This is particularly true for vaccines against acute viral diseases such as distemper in dogs and ferrets, hepatitis and parvovirus in dogs, panleukopenia in cats. Already in 1978, a study in cats had demonstrated that it was sufficient to vaccinate every three years, and recently Dr. Fred W. Scott and Dr. Cordell M. Geissinger, two veterinarians, American researchers from Cornell University, demonstrated Convincingly that well-matched cats were still protected… 71/2 years later (5).
Drs. Schultz and Phillips, two American specialists, wrote in 1996 the following in what is considered the bible in Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy:
'A practice started many years ago and which lacks validity and scientific verification is the annual vaccination. Almost without exception, there is no need, from an immunological point of view, to vaccinate annually. The virus persists for years or even throughout the life of the animal. A successful vaccination produces an immunological memory that lasts for years and allows an animal to react adequately when exposed to a virulent organism. , unless used as a means of having an annual examination or is required by law, as is the case in some regions for rabies vaccination, should be considered, in our opinion, as Effective.' 6.
Dr. Niels C. Pedersen, of the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, University of California School of Veterinary Medicine, corroborated this opinion during a.
Conference organized in March 1997 by one of the most important veterinary associations in the world, the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA):
'Many veterinarians and even more customers have come to question
Question the medical basis for annual, routine, animal vaccination, and
With reason! This practice is not defensible, so why continue to debate and
Ignore the question? We don't get five or six different vaccines each
Year of our lives, so why should it be any different for our animals? We inoculate
Several vaccines to humans during childhood and they provide lifetime protection for a
A significant proportion of subjects vaccinated. Twenty years ago, vaccines were injected
Only puppies and kittens. The only exception was rabies, against which
Recommended a recall every two to three years, more for reasons of public health than for
Protect the health of the animal. Why, then, do we persist in giving injections of
Recall annually, when this practice is not justified from a medical point of view? The
Original justifications for this practice were probably based on reports
Anecdotal reports of disease in older, vaccinated animals and on
We need to return an animal every year for a full physical examination.
Unfortunately, the first of these justifications is unfounded and the second was
Probably given to better swallow the need for annual inoculation7. The
Booster vaccines are seen by many people as a way for the vet to
Make money. '(64)....
• Vaccines looking for a disease
While the number of vaccines for humans is relatively small, vaccines for animals are plentiful and the number increases almost every year. Since 1975, the number of vaccines on the market has more than doubled. This proliferation responds more to the imperatives of trade than to the need to stop an epidemic of certain endemic infectious diseases (a permanent disease in a region) 8. According to Dr. Pedersen, the licensing standards necessary to put a product on the market are much less stringent than for humans and laxity encourages this proliferation9.
Currently, 28 new vaccines are seeking to carve out a place in the market. These vaccines are so useless that they are called 'vaccines in search of a disease' 10.
Manufacturers directly address the feelings of the public and even the veterinarian to promote their products. The promotional campaigns of certain manufacturers highlight false claims to create demand and stimulate sales. For example, the severity of Lyme disease in humans has been falsely extended to dogs, which however have only a mild form11. Advertising has even suggested that by vaccinating your dog, you protect your children from this disease12. This fear campaign has sold millions of doses of the vaccine, even in areas where the disease has never been reported13. Millions of dogs have also been inoculated with an ineffective vaccine against coronavirus disease, a relatively rare gastrointestinal illness limited to overcrowded and messy farms14. The same is true for other diseases, including infectious peritonitis, chlamydia, and cat leukemia15.
• Efficacy and safety of vaccines
Dr. Schultz, an independent American researcher specializing in infectious animal diseases, found that out of six vaccines for dog parvovirus, a very serious and often fatal gastrointestinal disease in puppies, only two were effective.16 Another study, Dutch one, showed that of six rabies vaccines, two were completely ineffective and two others were only marginally effective17. According to other independent studies, some vaccines against cat leukemia are comparable to distilled water18 and the best have at most effectiveness of 25% to 50% and not 90%
• 100% as claimed by the manufacturers19. Several other vaccines on the market are not effective for reasons which have been well demonstrated (infectious cat peritonitis, dog coronavirus, dog leptospirosis, cat chlamydia20). The vast majority of efficacy studies are performed by manufacturers and they are often difficult to interpret and compare since there is no standardization of experimental protocols21.
In terms of safety, some products are not very safe and the number of vaccines for veterinary use that remain on the market despite the fact that they cause serious consequences is quite high. For example, a vaccine against coronavirus, a gastrointestinal illness in dogs, has killed hundreds of dogs before being withdrawn from the market22 and, for six years, vaccines responsible for skin cancer in cats Kill hundreds of thousands of these animals23. Although only 10% of cats older than four months are likely to suffer from cat leukemia, a disease which appears under very specific conditions, they continue to be inoculated with a vaccine against this condition, the usefulness and Effectiveness remain questionable24. In fact, the rate of adverse reactions would be as high as the incidence of this disease25. Only seven of the 22 veterinary schools in the United States use this vaccine, and only on request in very specific situations26.
• Vaccination protocols
Unlike human medicine, the animal doctor does not have standardized immunization protocols.
The use of vaccines, their type, the number of vaccines to be inoculated and the dose are established by the manufacturers27. The marketing strategies used by the veterinarian, the competition, and not necessarily the principles of immunology, determine the frequency of vaccination, the intervals between vaccines and sometimes even the doses to be injected28.
Animals can be vaccinated unnecessarily, without taking into account the possible risks of exposure. Even those who never go outside and who have no contact with other animals are systematically vaccinated every year. A cat who lives alone in an apartment on the 12th floor of a building in the city center can receive at the same time, every year of his life, a vaccine against rabies, infectious peritonitis, leukemia, panleukopenia, viruses Respiratory herpes and calicivirus, chlamydia. Dogs who only go from one corner to the other or from the arms of their mistress to the couch can receive a vaccine for Lyme disease, rabies, distemper, for the rest of their lives. Viral hepatitis, parvovirus, parainfluenza, coronavirus, leptospirosis and an intranasal dog flu vaccine. It will soon be possible to also vaccinate against rotavirus which causes a rare and little-studied disease29.
3
It often happens that an animal is vaccinated the day before or the day of routine surgery, when its immune system, which will already be weakened by the stress of the operation, is not able, at least Two weeks later, to respond effectively30.
In the United States, 20% of the vaccination market is based on sales to the public. Breeders and owners buy by catalog the cows they want to give to their animals. It is even possible to order syringes and needles to inject them, as well as medicines like epinephrine to treat any allergic reaction to the vaccine.
The vaccination protocols recommended by the manufacturers recommend, contrary to all the principles of immunology, to vaccinate young animals in certain cases every week for six or seven weeks, while once or twice at two weeks Interval, depending on age and type of vaccine, is sufficient31.
Animals that never go to areas where a disease is present are vaccinated anyway. It has sold in the United States and Canada millions of doses of a Lyme disease vaccine that has only been reported in two states in the northeastern United States32.
• Adverse reactions
Skin cancer
It is a little thanks to the cat and the particular nature of its physiology that the vaccination of pets has for some time become such a controversial subject. Indeed, this animal is very sensitive to drugs which often cause undesirable reactions in him. In recent decades, vaccines have killed thousands.35
Some vaccines contain irritants (adjuvants) that are used to trigger an inflammatory reaction at the inoculation site that promotes the immune response. In cats, this reaction, for unknown reasons, turns into a cancerous tumor. The number of these tumors increases with the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and with the number of repetitions. Always inoculating in the same place would increase the risks. Rabies and leukemia vaccines are said to be particularly responsible, but they are not the only ones36.
The incidence of these cancers would be 100 to 1000 cases per million37. At a conference on vaccination held in Montreal in March 1998, Dr. Ford, an American vaccination specialist, even cited the figure of 2000 cases out of a million38.
Even if these reactions seem few, their number, put in perspective, is significant. According to the calculations of Drs Denis W. Macy and Mattie J. Hendrick, 22 million cats are vaccinated in the United States per year (about 25 million for North America39). There are therefore in North America 2,500 to 50,000 cases per year. How would authorities and the public react when they learned that in North America, over the past ten years, between 25,000 and half a million children have died from cancer directly linked to the administration of a vaccine and what would they say Parents if they knew that these vaccines are often useless or even ineffective, that they are used only to make the business work and that most of them are still widely used.
Vaccine cocktails
Vaccines with multiple valences (cocktail) which are in common use in veterinary medicine and which can contain a mixture of five to seven and even nine different vaccines are very practical from the commercial point of view and they reduce the trauma associated with with inoculation. However, from a medical point of view, these vaccines are not without drawbacks and they raise a lot of controversy in the veterinary environment for several reasons.
On the one hand, they do not allow vaccination with discernment according to the particular case of the animal and they do not require any in-depth knowledge of the diseases in question. The animal is systematically vaccinated even against diseases that are unlikely to contract41. On the other hand, these vaccines are said to be the cause of an unknown number of vaccination failures and undesirable post-vaccination reactions.
Under natural conditions, only one or two microbes at a time can threaten an individual, never five, six or nine at a time. Bomba rdd by excessive doses of different foreign bodies and repeatedly, submerged by this massive invasion, the immune system becomes confused and is unable to react effectively; Vaccination may therefore fail.
In addition, the immune system can panic and mistakenly make antibodies that attack and destroy vital elements of its own body, such as red blood cells and platelets (blood elements involved in coagulation42). According to Dr. Jean Dodds, an American veterinarian, these reactions take place shortly after vaccination, generally in the months that follow, and result in very serious internal bleeding that is difficult to stop and very often fatal (autoimmune hemolytic diseases. , thrombocytopenia, etc.). The frequency of these reactions is unknown, but purebred dogs with a defective immune system (rottweiler, Doberman, spaniel, etc.) are particularly susceptible43.
Finally, the large number of these vaccines and the high concentration of antigens3 that they contain is also believed to be responsible for the appearance of skin cancer in cats44.
Other adverse reactions
Many other adverse reactions have been observed in both dogs and cats.
Here is a brief list:
• hypersensitivity reactions (allergy to the vaccine, tat anaphylactic);
• suppression of the immune system and triggering of latent diseases, such as leukemia, infectious peritonitis, feline immunodeficiency;
• interference with the results of certain diagnostic tests (ELISA) leading to false-positive results;
• increased susceptibility to allergies, either pollen, food or even one's own body (an autoimmune disease of the thyroid, kidney, red blood cells, platelets, etc.);
• worsening of certain existing conditions, such as cancer, epilepsy, allergies.
In addition to these reactions, there is the possibility that an attenuated form of the disease develops (residual virulence) or that, due to bacterial or viral contamination of the vaccine, various infectious diseases appear (a variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, For example).
In addition, some chronic diseases, both in animals and in humans, are thought to be partly related to the persistence in cells of the body of viruses and proteins used in vaccines. This phenomenon explains the recent increase in the number of chronic diseases in humans and animals45.
• Gray areas
In the area of animal vaccination, there is a multitude of gray areas that allow marketing specialists to complete freedom.
1. With regard to pets, even if several diseases including rabies, distemper, dog parvovirus, cat panleukopenia, seem to be well controlled, there is not, as in Medicine, retrospective studies other than anecdotal reports that would assess the real benefits of vaccination campaigns46.
2. Except for rabies, there are no data on the prevalence and geographic distribution of infectious diseases of dogs and cats. There is no reporting system as in medicine, and this is reflected in the routine vaccination of animals against diseases they are often unlikely to catch47.
3. Except for rabies, there are no studies on the duration of immunity of vaccines. Manufacturers do not wish to continue tests of the duration of action beyond one year, unless the law requires them, as for rabies. These studies stop at three years in the case of rabies, but there is no reason to believe that this vaccine is not effective for a longer duration48.
4. There is no monitoring of adverse reactions to vaccination. Veterinarians are not required to report them and generally do not 49.
5. In the absence of standardized experimental protocols, it is difficult to compare the studies50.
6. There is no standardization of vaccination protocols as in medicine. Everyone can vaccinate according to their personal convictions or their commercial strategy51.
Notes:
1. J. J. Letesson, 'The immune response: a quest for meaning', Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire, vol. 140, 1996, p. 273-278.
2. Raymond Roy, Vaccines and vaccination, Immunology Laboratory, Faculty of veterinary medicine, University of Montreal.
3. R. B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', communication presented to the
Conference of the Association of Veterinary Physicians of Quebec, Montreal, 1998; 'Are we vaccinating too much?', Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 207, no. 4, August 15, 1995; Richard H. Pitcairn, 'A new look at the vaccine question', American
Holistic Veterinary Medical Association Proceedings, 1993, p. 21; P. L. Rivera, "Vaccinations and vaccinosis", Journal of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 16, no 1, février-Avril 1997, p.19-24; N. C. Pedersen, "Perspectives on small animal vaccination. A critical look at current vaccines and vaccine strategies in the United States", American Animal Hospital Association Proceedings, 1997, p. 145-156; Richard H. Pitcairn et Susan Hubble-Pitcairn, Natural Health for Dogs and Cats, Emmaus Oregon, Rodale Press, 1995; André Noël, "La vaccination annuelle des chiens et des chats est remise en question", La Presse, 20 mars 1999, p. A18; R.D.Schultz, "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Veterinary Medicine, mars 1998; "The human side of veterinary ethics: Impressions from the press", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 206, no 4, 15 février 1995.
4. R.D.Schultz, art. cité.
5. Twerk, Lisa; Dodds, W.Jean; Clinical use of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody titers for determining revaccination, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2000, V.217, N.7, P. 1021, 4P. Scott, Fred W.; Geisinger, Cordell, Long term immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated trivalent vaccine, American Journal of Veterinary Research, 1999, V.60, N.5, P.652. R.D.Schultz, "Emerging issues: Vaccination strategies for canine viral enteritis", North American Veterinary Conference, 1995; R.D.Schultz et T. R. Philips, "Canine and feline vaccines", dans Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy, Philadelphia, WB saunders, vol. 11: Small Animal Practice, 1996, p. 202-206; N. C. Pedersen, art. cité; P. L. Rivera, art. cité; R. Bedford,. art. cité; R. L. Larson et Autres, "Immunologic principles and immunization strategy (Small Animals)", Compendium on Continuing Education for The Practicing Veterinarian, vol. 18, no 9, September 1996, p. 963-970; Philip, D. Mansfield, "Clinical update, vaccination of dogs and cats in veterinary teaching hospitals in North America", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 208, no 8, 15 avril 1996, p. 1242-1246; Richard H. Pitcairn et Susan Hubble-Pitcairn, out. cité; R.D.Schultz, "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", art. cité.
6. R. D. Schultz et T. R. Philips, art. cité, p. o;traduction libre.
7. N. C. Pedersen, art. cité, p. o; traduction libre.
8. Ibid.; R. B. Ford, "Feline vaccines and vaccinations: What the future might hold", TNAVC Proceedings, Small Animal-Vaccination Symposium, 1996, p. 535-536.
9. Ibid.
10. R. B. Ford, "La vaccination et les maladies infectieuses", art. cité; R.D.Schultz, "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", art. cité; N. C. Pedersen, art. cité.
11. Meryl P. Littman, "Why I don't use Lyme disease vaccines", Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian, vol. 19, no 11, November 1997.
12. R.B.Ford, "La vaccination et les maladies infectieuses", art. cité.
13. N.C. Pedersen, art. cité.
14. R.B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', art. Cited; Ronald Schultz, 'Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs', art. Cited.
15. R.D.Schultz, 'Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs', art. Cited; Dennis W. Macy, 'Vaccination against feline retroviruses', in R. John (ed.), Consultations in Feline Internal Medicine, August 1994, chap. 5, p. 33-39.
16. R.D.Schultz et al., 'An evaluation of canine vaccines for their ability to provide protective immunity against challenge with canine parvovirus', American veterinary Medical Association, Conference Presentation-Abstract, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1994.
17. E. J. M. Rooijakkers et al., 'Potency of veterinary rabies vaccines in the Netherlands: A case for continued vigilance', The Veterinary Quarterly, vol. 18, no 4, December 1996, p. 146-150.
18. D. W. Macy, 'Feline retroviruses', American Animal Hospital Association Proceedings, 1996, p. 228-230; C. E. Greene, 'Controversies and benefits of feline vaccination, rabies', American Animal Hospital Association Proceedings, 1994, p. 420-422. 19. Ibid .; A. H. Sparkes, 'Feline leukemia virus: A review of immunity and vaccination', Journal of Small Animal Practice, vol. 38, May 1997, p. 187-194; D.W. Macy, 'Vaccination against feline retroviruses', art. Cited; 'Retroviruses of cats: A review', Australian Veterinary Practitioner, vol. 25, no 1, March 1995, p. 8-17; O. Jarrett and J. P. Ganière, 'Comparative studies of the efficacy of a recombinant feline leukemia virus vaccine', The Veterinary Record, vol. 138, no 1, January 1996, p. 7-10. 20. R.D.Schultz, 'Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs', art. Cited; A. M. Legendre, 'Feline infectious peritonitis (new insights)', The Veterinary Quarterly, vol. 18, suppl. 1, April 1996, p. 40-41; N. C. Pedersen and M. A. Torten, 'Review of feline immunodeficiency virus infection', Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine, vol. 50, no 1, 1995, p. 5-13; N. C. Pedersen, art. Cited; R. B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', art. Cited; D.W. Macy, 'Smal animal vaccines: Expectations / Reality', American Animal Hospital Association Proceedings, 1996, p. 202-203; Christine Wilford, 'Investigating immunity', Dog Fancy Magazine, April 1995; 'Canine coronaviral infection (special canine coronavirus issue)', Companion Animal Practice, vol. 19, no 2, spring 1989, p. 2- 5. 21. A. H. Sparkes, art. Cited; D.W. Macy, 'Vaccination against feline retroviruses', art. Cited.
22. N. C. Pedersen, art. Cited; M. L. Martin, 'Canine coronavirus enteritis and a recent outbreak following modified live virus vaccination', Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian, no 7, 1985, p. 1012-1017; M.J. Coyne and S.W. May, 'Considerations in using a canine coronavirus vaccine', Topics in Veterinary Medicine, vol. 6, no 2, 1995; 'Canine coronaviral infection (special canine coronavirus issue)', art. Cited.
23. N. C. Pedersen, art. Cited; R. B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', art. Cited.
24. R.D. Schultz, 'Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs', art. Cited; R. B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', art. Cited; D.W. Macy, 'Small animal vaccines: Expectations / Reality', art. Cited.
8
25. R. B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', art. Cited; D.W. Macy, 'Vaccination against feline retroviruses', art. Cited.
26. Philp, D. Mansfield, art. Cited.
27. D.W. Macy, 'Feline retroviruses', art. Cited; DW .. Macy's, 'Small animal vaccines: Expectations / Reality', art. Cited.
28. R. B. Ford, 'Feline vaccines and vaccinations: What the future might hold', art. Cited.
29. R.D. Schultz, 'Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs', art. Cited; R. B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', art. Cited.
30. Lawrence J. Mc Donald, 'Factors that can undermine the success of routine vaccination protocols', Veterinary Medicine, March 1992; Christine Wilford, art. Cited.
31. R. B. Ford, 'Vaccination and infectious diseases', art. Cited; R.D.Schultz, 'Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs', art. Cited.
32. N. C. Pedersen, art. Cited; R.D. Schultz, 'Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs', art. Cited; D. W. Macy, 'Small animal vaccines: Expectations / Reality', art. Cited; Meryl P. Littman, art. Cited.
33. N. C. Pedersen, art. Cited.
34. Canadian Institute of Animal Health (CIHI), Association of Pharmaceutical Industry Representatives, 'Too Many Vaccines in Pets?', InForum, May 1998.
35. N. C. Pedersen, art. Cited.
36. P. H. Kass, 'The epidemiology vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats', Trans North American Veterinary Conference NAVC Proceedings, Small Animal-Vaccination Symposium, 1996, p. 539-540; D. G. Esplin and L. D. McGill, 'Postvaccination sarcomas', in
0 Comments