|
|
Are annual vaccinations necessary ? There is a lot of
discussion on the subject and more and more information
becomes available, that it might even be harmful to our
pets. We vaccinate our kids when they are young and then
they should be protected for life. What about our dogs ?
A Texas vet, Dr. Bob Rogers, has threatened to take all
Texas veterinarians to court, because he feels these
annual booster shots are beneficial to their wallets,
but not necessarily to the animals. This is the letter
he sent to the Attorney General, Mr. Craig Abbott. Dr.
Rogers gave me permission to include it in this website
as he wants the word to get out ! In the meantime the
Attorney's office got in touch with him and they are
talking about changing the laws in Texas !
Critter Fixer Pet
Hospital
Bob Rogers, DVM
______________________________________________________________
5703 Louetta
Spring, Texas 77379281-370-3262
Craig
Abbott
Office of the
Attorney General
Consumer Protection
Division
Box 12548
Austin, Texas
78711-2548
Dear
Attorney General Abbott,
I assert that
the present practice of marketing of vaccinations by
Veterinarians for companion animals without informed
consent and where there is no benefit to the pet
constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by
silence, theft by deception, and undue influence. I
allege this is a common practice on the part of all
Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in
this state. I hereby file a complaint against all
licensed Veterinarians engaged in companion animal
practice in the State of Texas for violation of the
Texas Penal Code and 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. Recommending,
administering, and charging for Canine Corona virus
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.Canine corona
virus has never been demonstrated to cause disease in
adult dogs.
2. The
argument that dogs that develop parvovirus enteritis
concurrently with corona virus infection will develop
worse symptoms than a dog that develops parvovirus alone
is without merit. If dogs over eight weeks of age are
immunized against canine parvovirus they 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 adverse reactions.
3. 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.
4.
Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine including
Texas A&M University do not recommend canine corona
virus vaccine.
5. Gastroenterologists 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.
6. On at least one occasion large numbers of dogs
have died from adverse reactions to corona virus
vaccine.
7. A reasonable client would not elect corona virus
vaccination for an adult dog if presented this
information.
References:
Dogs over 8
weeks of age do not develop disease from canine corona
virus.
1.
Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-what’s right? What’s
not? Compendium on CE, Schering-Plough Animal
Health, 1999, pg. 32,33.
2.Schultz, Ronald D., “Are we vaccinating too much?”
JAVMA, No. 4, August 15, 1995, pg. 421.
3.Schultz, Ronald D., “Current and future canine and
feline vaccination programs”, Veterinary Medicine,
March 1998, pg. 251.
4.Paul, Michael A., Vaccinations-what’s right? What’s
not? Compendium on CE,Schering-Plough Animal
Health, 1999, pg. 32,33.
II. 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, or bi-annual
basis is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation,
misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given
the literature that states:
1.The
American Veterinary Medical Association, Council on
Biologic and Therapeutic Agents has advised the USDA
Center for Veterinary Biologics that there is no
scientific data to support label claims for annual
re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label
claims should 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. With repeat administration of a MLV
vaccine 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.
References:
1.HogenenEsch Harm, Dunham Anisa D, Scott-Moncrieff
Catharine, Glickman Larry, DeBoer Douglas J, Effect
of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and
antigen-specific immunoglobulin E in dogs, AJVR, Vol
63, No. 4, April 2002, pgs. 611-616.
2.Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-What’s right? What’s
not? Compendium on Continuing Education,
Schering-Plough Animal Health, 1999, pg. 32.
3.
Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future,
Proceedings of the World Animal Veterinary Congress,
Vancouver 2001.
4.Schultz, Ronald D., “Are we vaccinating too much?”
JAVMA, No. 4, August 15, 1995, pg. 421.
5.Schultz, Ronald D., “Current and future canine and
feline vaccination programs”, Veterinary Medicine,
March 1998, pg. 243.
6.Schultz, Ronald D, Duration of Immunity to Canine
Vaccines: What We Know and What We Don’t Know,
Proceedings – Canine Infectious Diseases: From Clinics
to Molecular Pathogenesis, Ithaca, NY, 1999, 22.
7.Schultz, Ronald D, The Vaccine Controversy:
What Vaccines Do Cats and Dogs Really Need and How Often
Do They Need To Be Vaccinated? Department of
Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
8.Larson L J, Sawchuck S, Bonds M D, Schultz RD,
Comparison of Antibody Titers Among Dogs Vaccinated,
One, Two, Three Years Previously, Proceedings of 80th
Meeting of the Conference of Research Workers in Animal
Diseases, CRWD, Chicago, IL, 1999.
9.Gorham, J.R., “Duration of vaccination immunity and
the influence on subsequent prophylaxis” JAVMA
149:699-704; 1966.
10.Phillips, Tom R. and Schultz, Ronald D, “Canine
and Feline Vaccines”, Current Veterinary Therapy XI,
ed. Kirk and Bonagura, pg. 202, 205, WB Saunders Co,
Philadelphia, PA 1992.
11.Klingborg Donald, Principles of Vaccination, AVMA
Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents, Policy on
Biologics, April 2002
III. Ordinances by Counties and Municipalities
requiring annual rabies vaccination are illegal. 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.Rabies vaccine has been licensed by the USDA as a
three- year vaccine, and proven to have duration of
immunity of three years by challenge to the USDA and
seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, and 4 years
for cats and 5 years for dogs by challenge by Aubert.
2.Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to
demonstrate that the immune status of the pet is
enhanced. Data shows that the immune status of the pet
is not enhanced. When the rabies vaccine is
re-administration the client is paying for something
with no benefit.
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.
4.The
Texas Department of Public Health will be adopting a new
tri-annual policy to become effective in March 2003.
References:
1.The
Texas Department of Public Health, White Paper on
Options for rabies vaccinations.
2.HogenenEsch Harm, Dunham Anisa D, Scott-Moncrieff
Catharine, Glickman Larry, DeBoer Douglas J, Effect
of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and
antigen-specific immunoglobulin E in dogs, AJVR,
Vol. 63, No. 4, April 2002, pg 611-616.
3. Wolf, Alice M.,
Vaccinations-What’s right? What’s not? Compendium on
Continuing Education, Schering-Plough
Animal Health, 1999, pg. 32.
4.Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future,
Proceedings of the World Animal Veterinary Congress,
Vancouver 2001.
5.Schultz, Ronald D, Duration of
Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and What We
Don’t Know, Proceedings – Canine Infectious
Diseases: From
Clinics to Molecular Pathogenesis,
Ithaca, NY, 1999, 22.
6.Aubert Michel F, The practical
significance of rabies antibodies in cats and dogs,
Scientific and Technical Revue, 11(3) 735, 1992 Paris,
France
IV. The recommendation for
administration of Leptospirosis vaccination in Texas without informed consent of the incidence in the
locality and the potential side effects 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
grippotyphosa are available. To provide protection for a
dog against Leptospirosis would require two vaccines
with four serovars annually.
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.
4.Given that the risk of an adverse
reaction, a reasonable client would not elect
vaccination of their pet for leptospirosis if provided
with the above information.
References:
1.Angulo, A. B. DVM, MS, PhD, ACVM,
College Station, Texas, Personal phone conferences.
(Antec samples are all sent to the TVMDL, Idexx samples
are sent to Michigan and Texas results are not
available.)
2.Klingborg, DJ, Hustead DR,
Curry-Galvin E, AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic
Agents’ Report on cat and dog vaccines, JAVMA, Vol. 221,
No 10, Nov 15, 2002, pg 1401- 1407.
V. The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs
residing in Texas without informed consent is fraud by
misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and
undue influence given the literature that states:
1. Eighty per cent of Lyme disease
cases in the U. S. are found in nine New England States,
Minnesota and Michigan.
2. The Texas Department of Health
reports an average of 70 human cases of Lyme disease in
Texas annually, many of which were acquired when people
traveled outside of the State.
3. Julie Rawlings reported in her
research on the incidence of the Lyme disease organism
in Texas State Parks for the Texas Department of Health,
that the Borrelia buorgdorferi organism is not present
in sufficient amounts in the suitable tick vector for
dogs to be at risk of Lyme disease in Texas.
4. Texas A&M College of Veterinary
Medicine has not documented one case of Lyme disease in
a dog. Screening of shelter dogs by Dr Alice Wolf has
not demonstrated one case.
5.Dr Jacobson, Cornell University
(ret) has documented a temporal relationship between
Lyme vaccine and the development of polyarthritis in
dogs.
6. A reasonable client would not
elect Lyme disease vaccine for their pet if given this
information on the risk vs. benefit of the vaccine.
References:
1.Klingborg, DJ, Hustead DR,
Curry-Galvin E, AVMA Council on
Biologic and Therapeutic Agents’
Report on cat and dog vaccines, JAVMA,
Vol 221, No 10, Nov 15, 2002, pg
1401- 1407.
2. Greene CE, Schultz RD, Ford, R, Canine Vaccination,
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal
Practice, Vol 31, No 3, May 2001, pg 473-492.
3.Jacobson RH, Chang YF, Shin SJ,
Lyme disease; laboratory diagnosis of infected and
vaccinated symptomatic dogs, Seminars in VET Medicine
and Surgery; Small Animal, 11(3);172-82 Aug 1996.
VI. Injection site fibrosarcoma
is a fatal type of cancer caused by vaccines. The
vaccination of a cat without informing the customer of
the risk of an injection site fibrosarcoma is fraud by
omission of a material fact. Clients should be informed
of the risk of a vaccine causing an injection site
fibrosarcoma. Adjuvanted vaccines have been determined
to be at a higher risk of causing a injection site
fibrosarcoma. Clients should be advised of safer
alternatives including reduced vaccination schedules,
intranasal vaccines, and non-adjuvanted vaccines. The
recommendation for vaccination of cats without informed
consent is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation
by silence, and undue influence as well as cruelty to
animals given the literature that states:
1. Vaccines have been incriminated as
a cause of Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.
2. Adjuvanted vaccines have been
demonstrated to be at higher risk.
3. 1:20,000 cats vaccinated develop
vaccine associated fibrosarcoma.
4. Injection site Fibrosarcomas are
100% fatal.
5. The American Association of Feline
Practitioners and the AVMA Vaccine Associated Sarcoma
Task Force recommend reduced vaccination schedules and
alternative non-adjuvanted and intranasal vaccines.
6.A reasonable client would not elect
unnecessary or unsafe vaccines for their cat if given
this information.
References:
1.O’Rourke Kate, Progress made in
feline sarcoma research, JAVMA, Vol. 220, No 6,
March 2002.
2.Bergman P, Hendrick MJ, Macy D,
McGill LD, Starr RM, Van Kampen KR, Feline Sarcoma and
Vaccination, Veterinary Forum, March 1999,40-47.
3.Bergman PJ, etiology of feline
vaccine-associated sarcomas, JAVMA, 1998,213, 1424-1425.
4.Kass PH, Barnes WG, Spangler WL,
Epidemiologic evidence for a Causal Relationship Between
Vaccination and Fibrosarcoma Tumorigenesis in Cats,
JAVMA, 1993,203, 396-405.
5. Meyer EK, Vaccine Associated
Adverse Events, Veterinary Clinics of North America;
Small Animal Practice, Vol 31, No 3 May 2001, pg
473-492.
VII. 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 a virulent 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 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, The American Veterinary Medical Association
Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents and the
American Association of Feline Practitioners does not
recommend this vaccine.
5.A reasonable client would not elect
this vaccine if given this information.
References :
1. Kennedy M, Boedecker N, Gibbs
P, Kania S, Deletions of the 7a ORF of feline corona
virus associated with an epidemic of FIP, Vet
Microbiology, 81(3): 227-34, Aug. 8, 2001 Department of
Comparative Medicine, U of Tenn, CVM.
2. Kiss I, Kecskemeti S, Tanyi J, Klingeborn B, Belak S,
Prevalence and gnetic pattern of feline coronavirus in
urban cat populations, Vet J 159, (1); 64-70, Jan
2000.Veterinary Institute of Debrecen, Hungary, Harcourt
Publishers Ltd, 2000.
3.Vennema H, Poland A, Hawkins F,
Pedersen NC, A comparison of the genomes of FECV and
Feline Infectious Peritonitis viruses, Feline Practice,
23,40-44,1995.
4.Herreewegh AA, Maher M, Hedrich HJ,
Haagmans BL, Egberink HF, Persistence and Evolution of
Feline Corona virus in a closed cat-breeding colony,
Virology, Aug 1997, 4; 243,349-63.
5.Richards J, Rodan I, Feline Vaccine
Guidelines, Veterinary Clinics of North
America, Small Animal Practice,
Vol 31, No 3, May 2001, pg 445-469.
6. Rohrbach Barton W, Legendre A M, Epidemiology of
Feline Infectious Peritonitis Among Cats Examined at
Veterinary Teaching Hospitals, JAVMA 218, (7): 111-15
April 1, 2001.
7. Vennema H, Genetic drift and genetic shift during
feline coranavirus evolution, Vet Microbiology
69(1-2);139-41 1999 Sept 1.
8. Gunn-Moore DA, Gunn-Moore FJ,
Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Harbour DA, Detection of FeCoV
quasaspecies using denaturing gradient gel
eletrophoresis, Vet Microbiology 69(1-2):127-30 Sept 1,
1999.
9. Kida k, Hohdatsu T, Fuji K, Koyama H, Selection of
antigenic variants of the S glycoprotein of FIP virus
and analylsis of antigenic sites involved in
neutralization,J Vet Med Sci. 61(8): 935 – 8 Aug 1999
10. Vennema H, Poland A, Foley J, Pederson NC, Feline
Infectious peritonitis viruses arise by mutation from
endemic feline enteric coronaviruses, Virology
234(1):150-7, March 30,1998.
11. Kennedy MA, Brenneman K, Millsaps RK, Black J,
Potgieter LN, Correlation of genomic detection of feline
coronavirus with various diagnostic assays for feline
infectious peritonitis, J Vet Diagn Invest 10(1); 93-7,
Jan 1998.
12. Herreweigh AA, Mahler M, Hedrich HJ, Haagmans Bl,
Egberink HF, Horzinek MC, Rottier PJ, de Groot RJ,
Persistence and evolution of feline coranavirus in a
closed cat-breeding colony, Virology 234(2):349-63, Aug
4 1997.
13.Mochizuki M, Misutake Y,
Miyanohara Y, Higashihara T, Shimizu T, Hodatsu T,
Antigenic and plaque variations of serotype II feline
infectious peritonits coronavirus, J Vet Med Sci,
59(4):253-8, April 1007.
14.Klingborg DJ, Hustead DR,
Curry-Galvin EA, AVMA Council on Biologic and
Therapeutic Agent’s report on cat and dog vaccines,
JAVMA Vol 221, No 10,pg 1407.November 15, 2002
14.2000 Report of American
Association of Feline Practitioners and Academy of
VIII.The recommendation of
Feline Immunosupressive virus (FIV) vaccine is fraud by
misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and
undue influence given the literature that states:
1. The virus in the vaccine is
Clade A & D. The predominate Clade found to cause FIP
disease in the United States is Clade B. Cross
protection is poor.
2. A reasonable client would not
elect this vaccine for their cat if given this
information.
References:
1.Yamamoto, Janet K, Torres
Barbara A, Pu Ruiyi, Development of the dual-type feline
immunodeficiency virus vaccine, AIDScinece Vol. 2, No 8,
26 April 2002.
2.Pu Ruiyi, Dual-subtype FIV vaccine,
AIDS 15, pg. 1225-37, July 6, 2001 (Pub Med)
IX The recommendation for
Feline Leukemia vaccine for indoor only cats, or adult
cats without informed consent is theft by deception,
fraud by omission of material facts, and undue influence
given the literature that states;
1. Cats over one year of age are
resistant to Feline leukemia virus whether they are
vaccinated or not.
References:
1. Klingborg DJ, Hustead DR,
Curry-Galvin EA, AVMA Council on Biologic and
Therapeutic Agent’s report on
cat and dog vaccines,
JAVMA Vol 221, No 10,
pg 1405.November 15, 2002
2.Hoover EA, Feline leukemia
virus infection: Age related variation in response to
infection, Journal of the National Cancer
Institiute, 57, 365. (1776)
3. Hofmann-Lehmann R, Recombinant
FeLV Vaccine: Long-term protection effect on
course and outcome of FIV
infection, Veterinary
Immunology Imunopathology, 4691-2);127-37 May 1999
X. 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. positive titer has not been
demonstrated by challenge studies to indicate immunity.
4.The client is paying for a test
where the Veterinarian can make no claims as to the
significance of a positive or negative test result.
5.A reasonable client would not elect
to pay for this test if given this information.
References:
1.Wolf, Alice M.,
Vaccinations-what’s right? What’s not? Compendium on
CE, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 1999, pg. 32,33.
2.Klingborg Donald, Principles of
Vaccination, AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic
Agents, Policy on Biologics, April 2002.
3.Wolf Alice M, Just the Facts About Vaccs:
Frequently Asked Questions About
Current Vaccination
Recommendations and Practice Guidelines, Proceedings from the North American Veterinary Conference,
13, 1999, pg. 681.
4. 2000 Report of American
Association of Feline Practitioners and Academy of
Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines, pg.
15 & 16.
5.Klingborg, DJ, Hustead DR,
Curry-Galvin E, AVMA Council on Biologic and
Therapeutic Agents’ Report on cat and
dog vaccines, JAVMA, Vol 221, No 10, Nov 15, 2002, pg
1401- 1407.
6.Despite my repeated requests over
the last four years, the Texas State Board of Veterinary
Medical Examiners has failed to take any reasonable and
demonstrated action to stop the deceptive trade
practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for
companion animals. 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 is negligent
in its responsibilities.
(If demonstrated and thorough action
to stop the deceptive trade practices has not been taken
by the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
by the next public board meeting, in February of 2003, I
will proceed with 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.)
The Texas State Board of Veterinary
Medical Examiners Board has ignored my repeated requests
to deny approval of Continuing Education credit where a
conflict of interest exists. CE credits should not be
allowed for seminars provided by paid employees of drug
companies.Pfizer Animal Health, Fort Dodge Animal
Health, and Meriel have provided seminars, which are
fraudulent by omission of material facts, misrepresent
the scientific data, and thereby influence Veterinarians
to continue deceptive trade practices in the marketing
of vaccines. (A separate complaint will be filed with
your office and the Federal Trade Commission alleging
false advertising on the part of these three companies.)
The people of the State of Texas have
pay over $360 million dollars per year for vaccinations
that are unnecessary and potentially harmful to their
pets. Over 7,000 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.
I am not asking that the
Veterinarians of the State be punished. I am requesting
that the fraudulent marketing of vaccines and harming of
clients pets be stopped.
A reasonable solution would be
for the Attorney Generals office to request an Assurance
of Voluntary Compliance on the part of each Veterinarian
engaged in companion animal in the State, agreeing to
stop the marketing of vaccines without informed consent,
and where no benefit has been scientifically
demonstrated.
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 requiring informed consent,
and prohibiting deceptive practices as I have outlined
above.
Sincerely,
Dr Robert L Rogers
The above statements are true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
The Studies and Journal Articles
referenced are provided.
Haut
|
