Show him the data

DVM Magazine July 2003

In reading your article, "Much ado about nothing?" (May 2003, DVM Newsmagazine), I just kept shaking my head in disbelief. Comments such as, "a non-event," "veterinarians were ready for this," were just the beginning of the article and my bewilderment. Possibly there is so little comment (about AAHAs canine vaccine guidelines) because, like me, veterinarians are near stupor with their mouth open in incredulity at the stupidity of what is going on.
I just don't understand how a profession of "supposed intellectuals" can run off into left field the way the academics are railroading us with this proposed change in vaccination schedules.
I'm a general practitioner, not some hotshot egghead academic. I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but I learned many years ago that if someone was trying to teach me something and I couldn't understand it, it was because they didn't understand what they were teaching.
I sit here and wonder on what planet I have been practicing medicine for the past 30 years. Gee, you'd think that I would have seen at least one of these supposed "vaccine-induced sarcomas" or "immune disorders" or whatever our vaccines are supposedly causing. If this is such a widespread problem, why is it that most all of my colleagues and I rarely see it?
Where are "they" coming up with these guidelines? They offer no serious research, no explanation other than, as one of my local colleagues put it, "They stand in a room somewhere and flip a coin for a one-year vaccine or a (three)-year vaccine. Apparently a (three)-year vaccine won. By instituting such measures without proper research, they are medievalizing veterinary medicine by eliminating preventive medicine.
"OK," my colleague told me, "Let's only give one parvo vaccine to a Rottweiller or a Pit Bull!" That's an opinion. Without research, it's just as good an opinion as the next.
Your article says these protocols are based on opinion and conjecture. The only difference is that their opinion is from some "important person," not an out-of-the-loop general practitioner with 30 years of experience, as is my colleague. Without research what makes this "important" person's opinion more important than front-
line practitioners who ostensibly sees these problems daily?
These so-called "experts" offer no scientific studies. Where is the first (not to mention the second and the third) titer study involving 500 dogs of all ages, sex and breeds? A valid "opinion" must be based on scientific data, and they have shown NONE.
The vaccine companies know these "opinions" are hooey! They have already done the studies and have the data. It is my impression that they have no plans to change their recommendations. Therefore, in a court of law, we'd be left hanging out to dry, with no one to support us.
I just attended a vaccination seminar, "Changes in the Wind," presented by MeriaL They brought in a talking head, a Brigadier General, no less— a very intelligent and informed man—and yet, all he presented was the same material in all of our magazines, but no proof. Actually on one subject he commented, "We know it happens in humans, and we suppose it happens in dogs." There's the crux: a supposition. Merial offered no support to his diatribe. I suppose they presented him as one opinion in the open forum. If what he was saying is supported by their 50 years of vaccine development data, why didn't they jump right in on the bandwagon? It didn't happen. Doesn't anybody but me wonder why? He mentioned, "leaving the exact schedule up to the physician" to decide. In the court of law can I justify myself because "the General" told me to do it? Show me the data!
By the way, when you step on a nail and run to your doctor, does he draw blood for an immune titer or does he revaccinate you for tetanus? If there were 5,000 new cases of smallpox would they run liters or start vaccinating? Are we to start living in the dark ages again, stamping out fires instead of promoting preventive medicine?
I never see distemper any more and rarely see parvo in my patients. Why? Because I vaccinate the heck out of them when they're little and send reminders, call, throw dust in the air or do whatever it takes to get pets in for revac-cination. If "they" want to start getting up every night with parvo cases, go ahead, but I'm going to continue to vaccinate and get my sleep. I am more than a little irritated that "they" are trying to ram this down our throats and magazines are buying this garbage.
It's not a matter that I'm old and don't want to change, just prove it to me. It's not that it might cut down on income from vaccines and other services; it will, regard-
less of what the armchair quarterbacks tell us. It's not that, if we use less vacccines, then the producers of said vaccines will raise prices and leave us to face the client/consumer with new, improved and more expensive vaccine schedules. It's not that it will cost every office with a computer several thousand dollars to reprogram this Chinese fire drill of vaccine reminders, costing us lots to reprogram to earn less. I don't want conjecture; I want facts. I don't want opinion; I want data. Thus far we have been shown little, if any.
As far as the AAHA audio conference call went, I tried to get in on it and never got through. Did others have the same problems and therefore their opinions went unheard?
A "non-event" or mesmerized in disbelief?

Michael Merrithew, DVM Grand Bianc, Mich.