Vaccination Update, July 2000
By Susan G. Wynn, DVM

I thought you guys might like a little news about what's happening with vaccines and the AVMA.

I was speaking at the AVMA convention in Salt Lake City last week and noticed a 4 hour 'panel' discussion changing vaccine practices. As it turns out, the panel was the official investigation and policy maker for the AVMA, as it prepares to issue a statement in 2002. They were looking for feedback from the audience (approximately 200 veterinarians from around the country as well as vets and reps from the vaccine industry). On the one hand, it wasn't really newsworthy because the veterinarians who attended were clearly those already interested in the issue - a biased audience. On the other hand, it was a big crowd, and most were already changing their practices so that they were using vaccines every 3 years. All reported that this change had not caused any more disease, and that they were still making a living (as you know, the monetary issue seems to be a big one for many veterinarians).

There is general suspicion of titers, since the information gained by using them is nonspecific and can't guarantee immunity, but I still like them for the time being.

I stood up to make a comment that the moderator also seemed to appreciate - veterinarians need to know that vaccines are safe but come with some risk - not like injecting water as my friend Jean Dodds says. The label says they are for use in healthy animals, and this doesn't mean you just stick a pet with vaccines because they are there with another problem. This is CRITICAL!

An industry rep got up to say that veterinarians need to decide where they want the companies to spend research money - on developing new products, or on determining maximum duration of immunity? The general consensus was that maximum duration of immunity studies will never be done - they're too expensive - so new vaccine intervals will continue to be guesswork (just like the yearly intervals were guesswork).

One final comment - it should be clear that money is an issue - vets are scared of not making a living (remember - we make less than most plumbers, and not nearly as much as any M.D. with whom we share lengthy educations and student loan obligations). Also, the industry is doing all of the research, and doing it on spec. If you guys are serious about supporting change, assure your vet that you trust him or her, and that you will continue to show up for yearly check-ups, necessary medical care like dentals when appropriate, etc. Don't complain when service fees go up because vaccine fees have disappeared - this is GOING to happen and is long overdue. And if you have LOTs of extra money, consider making earmarked donations to independent research organizations like the Morris Animal Foundation, AVMA Foundation, or even the AHVMA which has a small research fund.

I am going to place my bet here. The AVMA will use fuzzy language but clear the way for customized vaccination according the pet's actual risk, and in general endorse other's use of 3 year vaccine schedules (like Colorado State, Cornell, Texas and the AAFP). It's a start, considering this is THE national organization that speaks for the country's 60,000 veterinarians.

Clearly, getting the profession to say that vaccines are all bad and shouldn't be used won't happen. I'm more sensitive than most veterinarians to this issue, and I still don't believe they are 100% bad. I also know that there are many on this list with more extreme viewpoints. Still, hope this gives you cause for optimism - although your local vet may not know it, times they are a changin!