Professionals and Pharma companies keep us in the dark about prevalence of pet vaccination adverse events

This is a reminder that all cat owners should question whether their cat requires yearly booster vaccinations. The word is getting around but for a long time the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with veterinarians peddled the idea that it was obligatory to put a cat through yearly booster vaccinations. I wonder how many cats were injured needlessly over many years.

I’m not saying that people should argue with veterinarians or go against their advice. I’m just suggesting that concerned cat caretakers should think about and question the advice of veterinarians and the recommendations on the packet from manufacturers.

For example, in America, Fort Dodge Animal Health, a division of Wyeth, and a major pet vaccine manufacturer supplying in America carried out a vaccination study to assess whether vaccinations in respect of distemper, parvovirus and adenovirus (in respect of dogs, I believe) protected the pet for three years instead of one. They discovered that they did protect for three years, as I understand it, or at least longer than a year. Despite the finding the instructions provided on the vaccine vials recommend yearly booster vaccinations.

Turning to what is euphemistically described as “adverse events” in respect of the negative consequences of vaccinations, veterinarians are encouraged to report these directly to the vaccine manufacturer. In addition, if a veterinarian passes information about an adverse event or events to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the USDA simply passes on the information to the manufacturer. This obviously means that the veterinarian’s client, the cat’s owner is well and truly out of the information loop because manufacturers are obviously reluctant to come clean about the prevalence of vaccine adverse events.

Apparently, we are also told that there is no database available to veterinarians with respect to adverse vaccine reactions on a nationwide basis (or perhaps any basis). If this is true, the vets in America are unable to make a proper assessment of the side-effects of a particular vaccine. If I am incorrect, please correct me.

Some veterinarians no longer recommend booster vaccinations and indeed some veterinarians may advise against vaccinating at all (or in respect of certain vaccines) so there is certainly greater sensitivity from the professionals. I sense that the major “problem” can be traced back to the manufacturers of the vaccines.

The trouble here is that I sense that veterinarians work closely with the manufacturers and therefore what the manufacturers desire, veterinarians must also desire.

I don’t know what sort of financial or contractual relationship vets have with vaccine manufacturers. Are veterinarians paid a commission on the number of vaccinations administered?

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some or perhaps many veterinarians have a close financial relationship with the big Pharma companies. If that’s the case then these veterinarians would be under a conflict of interest and no longer be able to dispense neutral advice. This would be in breach of ethical guidelines but does that stop the vets? It does not in my opinion. The AVMA lacks authority.

The bottom line is that vaccinating cats and dogs should be carried out with caution and the cat owner’s instructions should only be delivered after questioning the vet and an analyzing the risks and benefits.