|
♦
Vaccinations:
Vet sues due to over vaccination of dogs and cats
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers, DVM
5703 Louetta Spring, Texas 77379
281-370-3262
April 17, 2002
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Dear Sirs,
I hereby file a complaint against all
licensed Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in the State
of Texas for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 573.26
which states; Licensed veterinarians shall conduct their practice with
honesty, integrity, and fair dealing to clients in time and services
rendered, and in the amount charged for services, facilities, appliances
and drugs.
I assert that the present practice of
marketing of vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by
misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue
influence by all Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in
this state.
Recommending, administering, and charging
for Canine Corona vaccinations for adult dogs is fraud by
misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue
influence given the literature that states:
1. Dogs over eight weeks of age are not
susceptible to canine corona virus disease. Disease produced by canine
corona virus has never been demonstrated in adult dogs. Dogs over eight
weeks of age that are immunized against canine parvovirus will not
develop symptoms of canine corona virus disease. Addition of an
unnecessary antigen to the vaccination protocol will result in a lesser
immunity to the important diseases like parvovirus and distemper, and
increase the risk of adverse reactions.
2. Immunologists doubt that Canine corona
virus vaccine works, as it would require secretory mucosal IgA
antibodies to protect against corona virus and a parenteral vaccine does
not accomplish this very well. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine
including Texas A&M University do not recommend canine corona virus
vaccine.
3. Gastroenteroligists at Schools of
Veterinary Medicine including Dr Michael Willard at Texas A&M University
have stated that they have only seen one case of corona virus disease in
a dog in ten years.
On several occasions large numbers of dogs
have died from adverse reactions to corona virus vaccine.
a
reasonable client would not elect corona
virus vaccination for an adult dog if presented this information.
Recommending, administering, and charging
for re-administration of modified live vaccines like Canine Distemper,
Canine Parvovirus, Feline Panleukopenia, injectable Feline
Rhinotracheitis, and injectable Feline Calicivirus on an semi-annual,
annual, bi-annual or tri-annual basis is theft by deception, fraud by
misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence
given the literature that states:
1. The USDA Center for Biologic and
Therapeutic Agents asserts that there is no scientific data to support
label claims for annual re-administration of modified live vaccines, and
label claims must be backed by scientific data.
2. It is the consensus of immunologist that
a modified live virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the
immune system, and antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the
replication of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient
is not enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The
client is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except
that the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse
reaction.
3. A temporal association has been
demonstrated between vaccinations and the development of Immune Mediated
Hemolytic Anemia.
4. It has been demonstrated that the
duration of immunity for Canine Distemper virus is 7 years by challenge,
and 15 years by serology; for Canine Parvovirus is 7 years by challenge,
for Feline Panleukopenia, Rhinotracheitis, and Feline Calicivirus is 7.5
years by challenge.
A reasonable client would not elect
re-administration of any of the above stated vaccinations for a
previously immunized pet if provided with the above information.
The recommendation for administration of
Leptospirosis vaccination in Texas is theft by deception, fraud by
misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence
given the fact that:
1. Although Leptospirosis is
re-emerging as an endemic disease for dogs in some areas of the country,
Leptospirosis in dogs in Texas is a very rare disease. According to the
Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab there are only an average of
twelve cases of Leptospirosis documented in dogs in Texas per year.
Factors to identify those dogs that are at risk have not been
identified. Given that there are over 6 million dogs in Texas, the risk
of leptospirosis disease to a dog is less than 2 in a million.
2. The commonly used vaccine only contains
serovars Lepto. canicola, and Lepto icterohaemorrhagiae, and no cross
protection is provided against the other three serovars diagnosed in
Texas. Newer vaccines containing Lepto pomona, and Lepto rippotyphosa
are available but the duration of immunity is less than one year. To
provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two
vaccines with four serovars twice per year.
3. Although humans can develop Leptospirosis,
the spread of Lepto. from a dog to a human has never been documented and
is thought to be a very low risk. Given that the risk of an adverse
reaction, a reasonable client would not elect Vaccination of their pet
if provided with the above information.
The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine
for dogs residing in Texas is fraud by misrepresentation,
misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the literature
that states:
1. The Texas Department of Health only
reports an average of 70 cases of Human Lyme disease per year in Texas,
all of which were likely acquired when people were traveling out of the
state.
2. Julie Rawlings reported in her research
on the incidence of the lyme disease organism in ticks in Texas State
Parks for the Texas Department of Health that the Borrelia burgdorferi
organism is not present in sufficient numbers or in the suitable tick
vector for dogs for Lyme disease to be endemic in Texas.
3. Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in
the U.S. are found in the nine New England States and Wisconsin.
4. Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine
has not documented one case of Lyme disease in a dog acquired in Texas.
Testing on shelter dogs has not revealed a single case.
5. Dr Jacobson, Cornell University has
documented a temporal relationship in over 327 cases of dogs, which
acquired polyarthritis after the Lyme disease vaccine.
A reasonable client would not elect Lyme
disease vaccine for their pet if given this information on the risks vs.
the benefit.
The recommendation for
vaccination of cats with an adjuvanted vaccine without offering a safer
alternative vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by
silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. Adjuvanted vaccines have been
incriminated as a cause of Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.
2. 1:1000 cats vaccinated develop this type
of cancer, which is 100% fatal.
3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines
are available.
A reasonable client would not elect
adjuvanted vaccines for their cat if given this information.
The recommendation for vaccination of cats
with Feline Infectious Peritonitis vaccine is fraud by
misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence
given the literature that states:
1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare
disease.
2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the
normal flora avirulent Feline Corona Virus. On rare occasions this
Corona Virus mutates to become a virulent feline Infectious Peritonitis
Virus. Every mutation is a different variant and there is no cross
protection. This vaccine does not and cannot work.
3. Independent studies have not confirmed
the manufacturers claims for efficacy.
4. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine
and the American Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend
this vaccine.
A reasonable client would not elect this
vaccine if given this information.
The recommendation of
annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, and cats that are not at
risk is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation,
misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature
that states:
1. Cats over one year of age, if not
previously infected, are immune to Feline Leukemia virus infection
whether they are vaccinated or not.
2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can
cause Injection Site Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of
cancer is thought to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated.
3. Only cats less than one year of age and
at risk cats should be vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus.
A reasonable client would not elect this
vaccine for their cat if given this information.
The recommendation of annual rabies
vaccination for dogs and cats with three-year duration of immunity
vaccine is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation,
misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given that:
1. The vaccines has been licensed by the
USDA and proven to have duration of immunity of three years by the USDA
and seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, therefore annual
re-administration the client is paying for something with no benefit.
2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data
exist to demonstrate that the immune status of the pet is enhanced.
3. The National Association of State Public
Health Veterinarians recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats
for rabies at four months, one year later, and then every three years
subsequently. This recommendation has been proven effective in 33 States
in the United States.
The recommendation of blood tests for
antibody titers on dogs and cats in order to determine if
re-administration of vaccine is indicated is fraud by misrepresentation,
misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature
that states:
1. The duration of immunity to infectious
disease agents is controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once
programmed, memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells
is not taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.
2. Even in the absence of an antibody titer,
memory cells are capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an
immunized patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity,
or the ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status
of a patient.
3. A positive titer has not been
demonstrated by challenge studies to indicate immunity.
4. The client is paying for a test when a
Veterinarian can make no claims about the test results.
5. It has been proven that the
re-administration of modified live vaccines has no effect, and that
duration of immunity is 7 years or more.
A reasonable client would not elect this
test if given this information.
I have brought these deceptive trade
practices to the attention of this Board by writing six letters to the
board, and appearing before the Board at three Board meetings. The Board
members have demonstrated, by the questions that they have asked me,
that they are uniformed on these issues, that they have not read the
literature that I have sent to support my assertions, and that they have
not read the letters I have written. On every occasion the Board members
have refused to take any action on these matters.
The Board has also ignored my request to
deny approval of Continuing Education credit for seminars on Vaccination
of Companion Animals provided by Pfizer Animal Health drug company
which are fraudulent by omission of material facts, a conflict of
interest, and thereby influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive
trade practice in the marketing of vaccines.
The people of the State of Texas have paid
over $360 million dollars per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary
and potentially harmful to their pets. Over 600,000 pets suffer every
year from adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. Many of them
die.
A survey by the American Animal Hospital
Association shows that less than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their
vaccination recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new
recommendations have been published twice in every major Veterinary
Medical Journal since 1995.
Given that it is the compact of this Board
with the State of Texas to protect the people of Texas, and whereby it
is provided in the Texas Administrative Code Title 22, Part 24, Chapter
577, Subchapter B, Rule 577.16: Responsibilities of the Board (a) The
Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is responsible for
establishing policies and promulgating rules to establish and maintain a
high standard of integrity, skills, and practice in the profession of
Veterinary medicine in accordance with the Veterinary Licensing Act, I
hereby assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
must take demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade
practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for companion
animals.
A reasonable solution would be for the Texas
State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to request an opinion from
the Attorney General on these issues, and for the Texas State Board to
issue a policy statement in the Board Notes indicating a Board policy
prohibiting each of the practices I have outlined above.
An alternative solution would be to notify
every Veterinarian engaged in companion animal practice in this state of
the complaint that has been filed against them and prosecute each and
every complaint.
If demonstrated and thorough action to stop
the deceptive trade practices has not been taken by this Board within
ninety days of receipt of this letter I will file a class action suit
against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on behalf
of the people of Texas, for negligence in the execution of their
responsibilities, and I will request a Court order to instruct the Board
to perform their duties.
Sincerely,
Dr Robert L Rogers
The above statements are true and accurate
to the best of my knowledge.
♦
♦
With respect to the health testing sometimes
seen in stud dog ads, we object to health
related data that gives the misleading
impression that the data relates to what the
stud dog will transmit.
For example, we believe that a clear/normal Holter monitor result
of your dog belongs in the context of
whether you intend to medicate your dog, NOT
in the context of breeding. An asymptomatic
dog may still be passing on DCM and to
suggest otherwise is misleading and
ultimately a disservice to the breed. Its
fine to Holter your dogs, and any data
suggesting heritable heart problems should
be available to breeders, but a normal /
clear Holter result does not say what the
stud dog will transmit; asymptomatic dogs
can pass on DCM. Many asymptomatic dogs
have gone on to develop DCM and asymptomatic
dogs can transmit DCM (because of
incomplete penetrance).
Lets say that you have a six year old dog
with a normal / clear Holter ... the
owner advertises these results... the
breeder thinks Wonderful, no DCM and
breeds to the dog. Then, 6 months later,
the dog dies of DCM. One could make the
argument that the advertising is
misleading. Moreover, a two year-old stud
dog with a normal or clear Holter is like a
teenage boy with a normal PSA (Prostate
Specific Antigen) or a colonoscopy on a 20
year old. Neither the PSA or the
colonoscopy will tell you if the boy will
develop prostate or colon cancer.
Copyright © 2001 by Logres Farm. All rights reserved.
|