[Angelique]

[quote="roefus"]

Met andere woorden: WELK onderzoek (al of niet geregistreerd) legt vast dat een weil-enting slechts DRIE maanden garandeert?


[/quote]

Wat ik uit het topic begrijp is dit gezegt door Tannetje tijdens een lezing van haar over vaccinaties. Zij lijkt me dan in deze dan ook de uitgesproken persoon om deze stelling te onderbouwen.

[Charlie Angel]

[quote="Angelique"]
Wat ik uit het topic begrijp is dit gezegt door Tannetje tijdens een lezing van haar over vaccinaties. Zij lijkt me dan in deze dan ook de uitgesproken persoon om deze stelling te onderbouwen.
[/quote]

Ik zou daar ook heel benieuwd naar zijn.

[dogsunlimited]

[quote="Angelique"]
Wat ik uit het topic begrijp is dit gezegt door Tannetje tijdens een lezing van haar over vaccinaties. Zij lijkt me dan in deze dan ook de uitgesproken persoon om deze stelling te onderbouwen.
[/quote]

Jullie lezen niet goed..........ik heb ergens gezegd 3-6 maanden WERKEND en dat zo'n hond dan minstens 3 mnd. ONBESCHERMD rond loopt. Volgens mij heeft Tannetje dat zo gezegd.
En is mij ook bekend van wat Dodds geschreven heeft. Die zegt dat de enting 3 maanden nodig heeft om in te werken, dan de volgende 3 maanden op zijn top zit en daarna heel snel afbouwt. En binnen 2 maanden hadden de groepen honden waar zo'n onderzoek mee is uitgevoerd allemaal Lepto opgelopen. Dus hoe betrouwbaar zijn die onderzoeken?

Die Catherine O'Driscroll van Canine Health Org. heeft zich met een hele groep holistische DA's hard gemaakt voor het niet door de commissie heenkomen van het 2 x in het jaar Lepto enten. Omdat de bijwerkingen van deze enting zo erg zijn dat het je hond om zeep kan helpen.

[dogsunlimited]

Misschien interessant voor Roefus.
En Lizzy, ik vraag me echt af of we wel zo'n vertrouwen moeten hebben in Intervet, ondanks dat zij als enige die 3-jarige registratie er doorheen hebben gekregen.


A shot in the dark

A few issues ago (June 2006) Dogs today carried a very sad story about
Spangler, a Golden Retriever that seems to have died from a severe
reaction to his annual vaccination. In the letters that followed, we received
a request from Blue Zebra - a PR firm acting on behalf of Intervet, a major
vaccine manufacturer - asking to put forward the other side of the argument,
outlining the benefits of vaccination; something they felt was “a particularly
relevant issue considering the recent Leptospirosis outbreaks across the UK.”

Naturally we were alarmed by the frightening possibility of an epidemic
but also puzzled, as our many contacts in the dog world, from vets to breeders to owners, had no knowledge of any such outbreaks. However, we welcomed the chance to find out more about Leptospirosis and its vaccine, especially in view of the fact that several canine vaccine experts in the United States were sceptical of its use - given that it does not cover all strains of the bacteria a dog might meet; it does not seem to confer immunity beyond a few months; there is ambiguous evidence over the real threat from the disease; and the vaccine itself has a reputation for being the one most commonly associated with serious side effects.

Dr Ronald Schultz, one of the world’s leading authorities on veterinary vaccines, says, “I find there’s still a fairly high percentage of dogs that do not respond to the Leptospirosis vaccine. In addition, of all the bacterin
vaccines, Leptospirosis causes the most adverse reactions.”

Given that its effectiveness has been questioned and the risks highlighted, was this really a vaccine worth having, we wondered?

Intervet’s PR company seemed keen to provide some answers. Unfortunately, when the response finally arrived, not all our questions
were addressed. In particular, Intervet did not substantiate its claims regarding the Leptospirosis outbreaks, instead citing just one anecdotal account of an unvaccinated working Labrador that had died from the disease. So we decided to launch our own investigation and take a deeper look at Leptospirosis - just how much of a threat is it and how effective is the
vaccine?

There is
debate over
whether the
disease is
common in pet
dogs. One of
the reasons
that Intervet
gave for
promoting the
vaccine was
the occurrence
of ‘outbreaks’
across the
UK. However,
when pressed,
Intervet
admitted that
this claim was
not based on
epidemiological
research but
on anecdotal
reporting from
vets in the
field – there is
no statistical
evidence of
outbreaks as
such

The Leptospirosis vaccine is a particularly controversial one. Unlike viral vaccines (parvovirus, distemper and adenovirus), which have been
shown to give immunity for several years and therefore may not need
annual boosters, Leptospirosis is a bacterin-based vaccine that gives very
poor lengths of immunity. In fact, clinical evidence suggests that bacterin derived vaccines may not even provide immunity for 12 months, which means
that even annual boosters may not give enough protection. Thus the fear of a decrease in vaccination levels leading to the re-emergence of disease is more relevant for bacterial diseases. This is a dilemma facing many dog owners as the time for their annual boosters rolls around. While they can safely leave their viral vaccines unboosted for longer intervals, they may not be able to do this for the bacterin-based vaccines.

But should they be boosting for Leptospirosis?

Because it is a zoonotic disease - one that can be transferred to humans - the threat of Leptospirosis cannot be underestimated. However, this does not mean that vaccination is necessarily the answer. Not only is this the vaccine most commonly associated with serious adverse reactions, especially
fatal canine anaphylaxis, but it also seems to give poor protection from the
disease. If the vaccine were potentially dangerous and not very effective,
why would you want to give it to your dog, unless there was a serious threat of exposure to the disease?

Just how prevalent is the disease?

Leptospirosis is caused by a bacterium that infects the dog when he
comes into contact with the urine of an infected host animal. This can be via
the environment (such as contaminated water) or directly from animal to
animal. After the bacteria enters the bloodstream, it replicates rapidly in
several tissues, such as the kidney, liver and spleen, leading to lethargy,
abdominal pain, jaundice, vomiting, bloody diarrhoea, and ultimately liver
and kidney damage. The disease can be highly contagious and, in acute cases, rapidly fatal if left untreated. Even if a dog survives the illness, he will remain a carrier of the disease, shedding the bacteria in his urine.

Because it is a
zoonotic disease
– one that can
be transferred
to humans
– the threat of
Leptospirosis
cannot be
underestimated.
However, this
does not mean
that vaccination
is necessarily
the answer.
Not only is this
the vaccine
most commonly
associated with
serious adverse
reactions,
especially
fatal canine
anaphylaxis, but
it also seems
to give poor
protection from
the disease

In humans, Leptospirosis is known as Weil’s disease and although
relatively common in tropical climates, it is rare in Britain and is not included
on the list of Notifiable Diseases at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra). In fact, Defra stated that the reason why they do not keep records of Leptospirosis is because it is so rare in humans. According to the Health Protection Agency (HPA), human cases recorded are commonly associated with occupations such as farming (cattle and pigs are strong carriers of Leptospirosis, as well as rodents) and recreational pursuits, such as canoeing, fishing and swimming in lakes and rivers.
So although the disease poses a serious threat in being transferable to humans, in reality transmission from dogs to humans rarely happens.

Number crunching

There is debate over whether the disease is common in pet dogs. One
of the reasons that Intervet gave for promoting the vaccine was the
occurrence of ‘outbreaks’ across the UK. However, when pressed, Intervet
admitted that this claim was not based on epidemiological research but on
anecdotal reporting from vets in the field - there is no statistical evidence
of outbreaks as such. (In fact, an ‘outbreak’ is simply defined as an elevation above the normal baseline, even if this is just an increase from 1
dog in a million to 2 dogs in a million - arguably still a very small number
and hardly an epidemic as such! And interestingly, Catherine O’Driscoll
of the Canine Health Concern has anecdotal evidence that shows the
opposite, with many vets - particularly those in rural areas, arguably where
dogs have the highest risk of exposure - stating that they had not seen a case of Leptospirosis in over a decade.)

Chris Bradley, Veterinary Adviser to Intervet UK, explained that their
anecdotal reports are from government agencies, veterinary schools and
veterinary laboratories, which obtain information from post-mortems and
referrals. The only way Leptospirosis can be identified is by post-mortem
or by blood tests; however, in most cases, due to financial constraints or
emotional reluctance, owners refuse post-mortems on deceased pets or
choose not to pursue extensive testing. This means that there is a general lack of reporting on the disease and only the occasional anecdotes drift back to Intervet regarding Leptospirosis cases.
But surely, I asked, there would be a record of these anecdotal reports,
which when audited, would give some idea of the prevalence of the disease?
Even something as simple as “there were 12 cases in Norwich, and 64 cases
in Northampton during the last three months” - without something along
these lines, surely you can have no real idea about the incidence of disease and therefore it is slightly irresponsible to be warning about possible epidemics?

Chris Bradley was coy about giving figures, explaining that they are in the
process of compiling a database on these reports and saying that it’s hard
to be definitive about the prevalence of the disease. In fact, the only statistical report he could cite was a 1991 UK serological survey of more than 500 unvaccinated strays in Edinburgh and Glasgow. This study revealed that between 23.5 per cent and 27.5 per cent had antibodies to Leptospirosis (got infected, survived and now carry the disease).
Note, though, that these were stray dogs and not pampered pets, with very different lifestyles. It seems to suggest that even in unvaccinated dogs, about 25 per cent would have the disease (although naturally, this does
not take into account the percentage of dogs that were infected and
subsequently died) - and 75 per cent would have escaped infection.

Is this disease really that common after all?

Intervet argues that regardless of how common the disease is, it is
important to vaccinate as infection with Leptospirosis can lead to a horrible
death for the dog. This would certainly play on most owners’ emotions but
again, it is really a question of numbers. In the majority of cases, Leptospirosis presents as a chronic, low-grade illness, which may lead to renal failure in old age, but usually the dog recovers to become simply a carrier of the disease.
In certain acute cases, the disease will be more aggressive and dogs will
suffer a rapid, horrible death. This is certainly something we all want to
avoid - but just how common are these acute cases? After all, chicken pox is
a disease that can, on rare occasions, lead to severe complications (such
as potentially fatal bacteraemia and pneumonia) but this doesn’t stop most
parents from just letting their children itch their way through an infection.
Could the situation not be similar for Leptospirosis? If the disease only
causes acute illness and death in a very small percentage of dogs, is it worth
vaccinating against it?

Catherine O’Driscoll points out, “If you look at the Edinburgh study,
it showed that dogs had antibodies to Leptospirosis, but they didn’t have
the full-blown disease, and they had survived. This, to me, indicates that
most dogs survive Leptospirosis, and in most cases, frequently undiagnosed,
the dog may have the runs. And then the high acid in the dog’s system
will neutralise the bacteria. It is my contention that healthy dogs won’t
be overly threatened by Leptospirosis.

Several studies have shown that an organism given adequate and
appropriate nutrition will withstand viral and bacterial disease.”
It would help if we had some idea of how many dogs would suffer
acute Leptospirosis. Again, Intervet was unable to provide any figures
and the information does not seem to be available anywhere else. I find it
astounding that there is currently not even a rudimentary system to record
incidence of Leptospirosis. Surely if this disease is meant to be so deadly to our dogs and so dangerous to humans, there would be some kind of recording system in place? How can pharmaceutical companies fighting something that is supposedly so serious, rely purely on anecdotal reporting?

Unfortunately, unless there is a formal reporting scheme for infectious disease in dogs, which provides independent data (free from both pro- and anti-vaccine bias) about the incidence of cases, we will never really know how common a disease Leptospirosis is.
So if we’re not sure how prevalent the disease is, maybe we should
vaccinate anyway, just to be safe?

But according to many veterinary experts, the vaccine itself may carry
risks. It is the one most likely to trigger serious side effects, especially
in puppies and toy breeds, possibly because it has the highest amount
of added ‘adjuvants’ to stimulate the immune system. Some vets in
the United States will not give the Leptospirosis vaccine to dogs under
10lb, due to the risk of severe anaphylaxis.

Rare risks

Intervet UK has strongly countered this by referring to the 2004 Animal Health Trust study and saying, “We appreciate that, on rare occasions, vaccination may adversely affect canine health.
Our pharmacovigilance monitoring does demonstrate that adverse reactions
such as transient malaise, lumps at the site of injection or even anaphylaxis
can occur rarely. These rare outcomes however must be weighed up against
the risks of the animal not being vaccinated and thus be left vulnerable
to disease.”

This is cold comfort to someone like Allison who had to put her 12-
week-old German Shepherd puppy to sleep, following his Leptospirosis
home from his first shots, he started worrying his tail and showing distress.
Allison tried to dismiss it as puppy behaviour but her concern turned to
panic when Cougar began displaying signs of fear and aggression - first
attacking Allison’s six-year-old daughter who he had previously adored and
then the older dogs in the household, before finally attempting to bite Allison
when she tried to comfort him. After consultation with three different vets,
Allison was told that Cougar was brain damaged and the only option was to put him to sleep.
“At the point of having Cougar put to sleep, I walked out of the vet’s and
had to sit on the step as my legs gave way. My husband took me straight to my mother’s who gave me brandy, as I was shaking with shock. After all, you don’t expect to buy a puppy and then have him put to sleep three weeks later! It totally devastated me. I was offered other puppies but I just couldn’t bring myself to have them. It’s taken me eight years to get the courage to have another.”

Stories like Allison’s are heartwrenching but the vaccine industry would argue that, while tragic, Allison’s case is in a negligible minority.
Chris Bradley from Intervet insists that he believes their vaccines are safe, with very few adverse reactions recorded to their Nobivac Lepto-2 vaccine, based on their pharmacovigilance monitoring from member vets who are obliged to report any incidences of adverse reactions.
Despite the evidence from studies that show a link between vaccines and illnesses like autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Chris Bradley is sceptical of any real risk from vaccines.
“I don’t discount that there are cases of haemolytic anaemia or injection site cancers, but there is no clear evidence that it is definitely caused by the vaccine. For example, with the injection site cancers, the scruff of the neck - where the tumour is detected - is also the place for a lot of other procedures, such as steroid and antibiotic injections and topical flea applications. In an animal that is genetically susceptible, any of these
causes could lead to the formation of a tumour - it is not necessarily
the vaccine. Yes, there is the odd case that may have a possible link to
vaccines but the incidence is so low, it’s not considered significant.
Our pharmacovigilance database has had no recorded incidence of anaphylactic shock in dogs, from our vaccine and very little record of other reactions.

According
to Dr Jean
Dodds, a
leading
veterinarian
and expert
on canine
vaccines,
challenge
studies from
the United
States show
that immunity
only lasts for
three to six
months

Obviously, if certain dogs were particularly susceptible - like certain
humans with bee stings - then the vets would warn the client and perhaps
recommend a different vaccination schedule. But I firmly believe that, in
the majority of cases, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.”
Catherine O’Driscoll, however, has a different perspective.
“The ‘monitoring’ is at present the SARRS [Suspected Adverse Reaction Reporting] scheme. It calls for vets to voluntarily report suspected reactions. The words, ‘voluntarily’ and ‘suspected’ are key.

Time after time we are contacted by dog owners whose dogs suffered epilepsy, brain damage, skin problems, allergies, etc, immediately after vaccination, and the vet denies there is any vaccine link. Therefore, no adverse reaction report is filed. If a report is filed, then a committee sticks its finger in the air and makes a subjective decision - and many of the ‘experts’ at the VMD [Veterinary Medicines Directorate] and the VPC
[Veterinary Products Committee] are paid consultants for vaccine companies.

Further, vets are not trained in college to look for such reactions. They are only trained to look for anaphylaxis. They are also unaware of latest research. For example, one lady who contacted the Canine Health Concern - her dog had vaccine-site cancer but the vet said it’s only seen in cats so must therefore have another cause.
Yet in August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine published a report to say that vaccines also cause vaccine-site cancer in dogs!”

But putting the issue of safety aside, what about the effectiveness of the vaccine itself? After all, if it is really good and effective, then it can be argued that it is worth giving, in spite of the risks.
In fact, the vaccine has been heavily criticised, as it appears to give only limited immunity because it does not protect against all the strains of
Leptospirosis a dog might meet in the field. Like many bacteria, Leptospira
exists in hundreds of different strains - called serovars - with two common
strains in Britain being Leptospira canicola (dog as host) and Leptospira
icterohaemorrhagiae (rodent as host), as well as two other strains, which use the pig and cattle as host, and many other rarer strains. The current vaccine only contains two serovars (L. canicola and L. icterohaemorrhagiae), which means that the dog is not protected if it meets any of the other serovars in the field. To someone like Catherine O’Driscoll, this seems crazy - to subject the dog to the high risks of the vaccine but then not give it the full spread of immunity needed.

Intervet insists, however, that anecdotal reports from veterinary laboratories show that L. icterohaemorrhagiae and L. canicola are still the antibodies most often found in blood tests on infected dogs (although
they acknowledge that L. bratislava seems to be increasing). Thus they
believe that L. icterohaemorrhagiae and L. canicola are the two strains dogs
are most likely to meet and, therefore, the two strains they use in the vaccine. They do admit that they do not have any real epidemiological data regarding the strains dogs are exposed to or infected with. Without proper statistical data, how can they be so sure dogs are never infected with other strains if they only base their knowledge on anecdotal cases of Leptospirosis?

Chris Bradley had already admitted to me earlier that most cases are under-reported and usually only acute cases would merit any owner deciding to have a diagnostic post-mortem or blood tests. Therefore, one could argue that maybe the reason why you only see L. icterohaemorrhagiae and L. canicola as the most common antibodies is because they are the ones
that cause the acute cases.

Stresses and strains

There might be other strains out there, such as L. bratislava (which Intervet has admitted is increasing), which are also infecting dogs, but because they cause chronic infection, rather than acute, they are never picked up because
those dogs would not be presented for post-mortems or blood tests. But
meanwhile, the dogs are still being infected with Leptospirosis, despite
being vaccinated, and still running the risk of both getting renal failure in later life and also adverse vaccine reactions.

In the United States, neglect to include other strains in the vaccine has led to serious outbreaks across the country from newly emerging serovars, despite dogs being already vaccinated for Leptospirosis with the two old serovars that had been believed to be dominant.
Nevertheless, Chris Bradley says that there is little evidence of L. bratislava
causing clinical disease in dogs; he is confident that the situation in the UK
is different from the United States - although it is difficult to see the reason
for his confidence when there is no epidemiological data to support it.

The other criticism of the Leptospirosis vaccine is the length of immunity.

According to Dr Jean Dodds, a leading veterinarian and expert on canine vaccines, challenge studies from the United States show that immunity
only lasts for three to six months, which means that even the recommended
annual boosters may leave a dog unprotected for half the year or more.
Intervet claims that its 2003 updated Leptospirosis vaccine, Nobivac
Lepto-2, does guarantee immunity for 12 months, based on its own challenge studies, the results of which were published in Veterinary Microbiology, Vol 95 (2003). In this study, only half the test dogs were vaccinated and then all the dogs were ‘challenged’ with infection from Leptospirosis at five-, 22- and 56-week intervals. The results showed that the vaccinated dogs withstood infection, even after 12 months, and Intervet suggests that immunity may last even longer in some dogs but yearly boosters are the safest upper limit, to cover all dogs.

What is puzzling is how the UK vaccine can give such different immunity levels to the US vaccine?

According to Dr Jean Dodds, the core vaccine is the same and even though the American vaccine contains two more serovars than the UK one,
“that wouldn’t explain the US and UK difference in claims for longevity.
Further, it has long been known that the two-way Lepto vaccines last no
longer than six months.”

Chris Bradley at Intervet claims that the difference lies in the way immunity is assessed - ie, the US is assessing immunity by measuring antibodies to Leptospirosis in the blood. However, dogs can still be immune to the disease, even if they do not show any antibodies - thus the American
studies may not record any antibodies after six months, leading them to
assume immunity only lasts for six months, when in reality the vaccinated
dogs may still be immune. Conversely, the UK vaccine immunity is measured
by actually challenging the animals with the disease and seeing if they succumb.
This is nonsense, says Dr Jean Dodds, insisting that the animals in the
US are also challenged by the actual disease. Chris Bradley admits that he
is unclear about the exact nature of vaccines in the US so he is unable to
really explain the difference.

Small sample

Certainly, challenge studies are not infallible - Dr Dodds points out that,
“The problem with experimental challenge studies is that only a small
number of animals are required to license a new vaccine” - and Chris
Bradley admits that the Intervet challenge studies only used 24 dogs
but maintains that this was statistically robust and that they did not use more dogs for welfare reasons.
The final issue with the Leptospirosis vaccine is that of ‘herd immunity’ or lack of, in this case.
While the vaccine may protect a dog from the clinical development of
the disease, it does not prevent it carrying and shedding the infectious
Leptospires into the environment.
Thus, this is one vaccine that does not protect the population, only the
individual dog. Having said that, Intervet insists that its 2003 updated
vaccine does confer reduced renal shedding and therefore does help
towards herd immunity.
This does not impress Catherine O’Driscoll. “Herd immunity refers to the fact that once 67 per cent of a population has been exposed to a disease, then epidemics die out (as with the human plague). As shown in the Edinburgh survey, only around 25 per cent of city dogs had been exposed to Leptospirosis, which shows that herd immunity cannot be claimed at this time. Even so, we still don’t have lots of dogs coming down with Lepto and, again, the high acid content of a healthy dog’s stomach will put a stop to acute infection.”

The American Animal Hospital Association Guidelines for vets places Leptospirosis in their ‘non-core’ (optional) category, with special mention of its high incidence of postvaccination reactions and advises that, “Annual boosters are not routinely recommended for all dogs. Vaccination should be restricted to use in areas where a reasonable risk of exposure has been established.”
Should we adopt a similar strategy for the UK? No, says Intervet’s Chris Bradley, because everywhere in the UK is potentially an area of high risk due
to the “booming rodent population”, which provides a reservoir for infection.
Now, this might be true but it does beg the question that if rats are so numerous and such a dangerous source of disease, why are humans not vaccinated for Leptospirosis? And why - if we are not and not all dogs are
vaccinated - are we not all succumbing to the disease, in spite of the high risk of exposure from rats everywhere?

Catherine O’Driscoll says, “Actually, it is said that all of us live within 20ft of rats. They are everywhere, and especially in cities where they live in the sewage network and feast on our rubbish. The rats aren’t vaccinated, of course, but the human population is NOT beset and besieged by a Leptospirosis epidemic. How many people are vaccinated against Leptospirosis, despite all these rats? Are farm workers vaccinated against Lepto - where it seems the greatest threat lies?”
It would be safe to assume that if the United States - arguably equally overrun with rats - can define geographical areas of high risk for Leptospirosis, then the UK should be able to do the same. After all, it seems - from Defra and HPA [Health Protection Agency] information on the disease - that even though there are rats everywhere, the risk for humans is only high for people who work with farm animals, who spend large amounts of time in possibly contaminated bodies of water and in areas of flooding. So the situation should be similar for dogs, shouldn’t it? At the very least, not all dogs could have the same risk of exposure and there is some argument for only vaccinating the dogs in high-risk areas.

No change

Despite conflicting evidence, annual boosting for Leptospirosis remains the recommendation in the UK and something most vets will push for, as they have little support from the veterinary community if they opt not to vaccinate and the dog subsequently becomes ill. In spite of support from scientific research, it seems that most vets still feel obliged to adhere to the vaccine data sheet recommendations.

Liz Jay was one such owner who came to bitterly regret her vet’s advice to
repeat the Leptospirosis vaccine on her Bearded Collie, Lulu. Following her booster, Lulu developed extremely itchy, peeling skin while her hair fell out in clumps until she was about two-thirds bald. She also developed a series of minor infections - ears, eyes, anal glands, nails - and occasional bouts of seizures and vomiting. Things came to a head when Lulu collapsed at a show, bleeding internally, and was diagnosed with haemangiosarcoma,
with tumours from her ovaries to her heart. Liz couldn’t even wake her up
to say goodbye. So it seems that we are back at square one, with the vaccine companies saying that there is a real need for protection and that the Leptospirosis vaccine is a good product that carries negligible risk.

Meanwhile, the sceptics, like Catherine O’Driscoll, cynically believe in more financial motives, saying, “The fact that it is dangerous and practically useless, and fighting a disease that is barely a problem, doesn’t much matter to them.”
Perhaps the best we can hope for is informed consent: make sure your vet explains the dangers of the vaccine to you; find out about the length and coverage of immunity of the vaccine he is using; ask him about the real risk of Leptospirosis in your area; and weigh up the risk benefit ratio before you subject your dog to ‘just a little prick’.

While the
vaccine may
protect a
dog from
the clinical
development
of the disease,
it does not
prevent it
carrying and
shedding the
infectious
Leptospires
into the
environment.
Thus, this is
one vaccine
that does not
protect the
population,
only the
individual dog

[Lizzy]

Misschien interessant voor Roefus.
En Lizzy, ik vraag me echt af of we wel zo'n vertrouwen moeten hebben in Intervet, ondanks dat zij als enige die 3-jarige registratie er doorheen hebben gekregen.

Dat is eerder omdat die andere te gierig zijn om drie jarige registratie aan te vragen. Want dit kost gigantisch veel geld. En heb je enig idee hoe de fabrikant zichzelf in de vingers snijdt met een 3 jarige registratie voor zoveel vaccins? Wat denk je dat meer oplevert, ieder jaar prikken of 1 keer per 3 jaar prikken?

[Lizzy]

Mag ik vragen hoe oud dit artikel is?

[Angelique]

Jullie lezen niet goed..........ik heb ergens gezegd 3-6 maanden WERKEND en dat zo'n hond dan minstens 3 mnd. ONBESCHERMD rond loopt. Volgens mij heeft Tannetje dat zo gezegd.En is mij ook bekend van wat Dodds geschreven heeft. Die zegt dat de enting 3 maanden nodig heeft om in te werken, dan de volgende 3 maanden op zijn top zit en daarna heel snel afbouwt. En binnen 2 maanden hadden de groepen honden waar zo'n onderzoek mee is uitgevoerd allemaal Lepto opgelopen. Dus hoe betrouwbaar zijn die onderzoeken?

Die Catherine O'Driscroll van Canine Health Org. heeft zich met een hele groep holistische DA's hard gemaakt voor het niet door de commissie heenkomen van het 2 x in het jaar Lepto enten. Omdat de bijwerkingen van deze enting zo erg zijn dat het je hond om zeep kan helpen.

Wat heb IK dan niet goed gelezen?

[dogsunlimited]

Wat heb IK dan niet goed gelezen?

Jij reageert op dat stukje van Roefus.........en waarschijnlijk n.a.v. mijn uitspraak waar hij op reageert, wat hij mogelijk verkeerd interpreteert................? Zo niet, dan is dit niet op jou van toepassing.

[dogsunlimited]

Dat is eerder omdat die andere te gierig zijn om drie jarige registratie aan te vragen. Want dit kost gigantisch veel geld. En heb je enig idee hoe de fabrikant zichzelf in de vingers snijdt met een 3 jarige registratie voor zoveel vaccins? Wat denk je dat meer oplevert, ieder jaar prikken of 1 keer per 3 jaar prikken?

Daar heb ik het niet over, Lizzy. Dat weten we allemaal dat Intervet daar als enige EINDELIJK voor uit komt. En dat voorbeeld mogen inderdaad meer fabrikanten nemen, maar daar spelen andere belangen een grotere rol.
Maar vind je in dit artikel over de communicatie met Intervet Engeland niet een kleine waarheid in zitten? Hoe is het mogelijk dat zo'n fabrikant dergelijke garanties kan afgeven, als Dodds en consorten toch duidelijk hele andere cijfers kunnen laten zien?

Artikel is van november 2006 trouwens.

[Lizzy]

Ik heb hier en daar wel wat vraagtekens bij het artikel trouwens.

A shot in the dark

A few issues ago (June 2006) Dogs today carried a very sad story about
Spangler, a Golden Retriever that seems to have died from a severe
reaction to his annual vaccination.

Ik krijg altijd ontzettende jeuk als ik zie staan "that seems to have died". Want dat is dus niet gezegd met zekerheid. En daar houd ik niet van, van die vaagheden. En nou weet ik wel dat dit moeilijk te controleren is. Maar zulke uitspraken doen : is net zo makkelijk. Ik houd er erg van wanneer ook dit soort honden aan worden geboden voor autopsie.

In the letters that followed, we received
a request from Blue Zebra - a PR firm acting on behalf of Intervet, a major
vaccine manufacturer - asking to put forward the other side of the argument,
outlining the benefits of vaccination; something they felt was “a particularly
relevant issue considering the recent Leptospirosis outbreaks across the UK.”

Naturally we were alarmed by the frightening possibility of an epidemic
but also puzzled, as our many contacts in the dog world, from vets to breeders to owners, had no knowledge of any such outbreaks. However, we welcomed the chance to find out more about Leptospirosis and its vaccine, especially in view of the fact that several canine vaccine experts in the United States were sceptical of its use - given that it does not cover all strains of the bacteria a dog might meet; it does not seem to confer immunity beyond a few months; there is ambiguous evidence over the real threat from the disease; and the vaccine itself has a reputation for being the one most commonly associated with serious side effects.

Dat van die verschillende bacterieen: dat weten we. Dat is inderdaad een probleem. Aan de andere kant: we vaccineren gewoon voor de gevaarlijkste. Dat een vaccin niet langer dan een paar maanden beschermt: daar heb ik dus mijn twijfels over. Er wordt door de makers van de vaccins natuurlijk gewerkt aan de vaccins. En je krijgt niet zo maar een 1 jarige registratie. Daar heeft een bedrijf als Intervet heel veel dierproeven voor doen. En dan vaccineren ze (ik zeg maar wat) 20 Beagle puppies, ze wachten 1 jaar en brengen de hondjes dan in contact met een van de 2 bacterieen uit het vaccin. Oftewel: ze spuiten gewoon de 2 lepto bacterieen uit het vaccin direct in bij de hondjes. En dan kijken ze wie er ziek wordt, wie er dood gaat. En als het hele spul na 1 jaar toch ziek wordt of dood gaat: geloof ik niet dat je een 1 jarige registratie krijgt.

Dr Ronald Schultz, one of the world’s leading authorities on veterinary vaccines, says, “I find there’s still a fairly high percentage of dogs that do not respond to the Leptospirosis vaccine. In addition, of all the bacterin
vaccines, Leptospirosis causes the most adverse reactions.”

Ik denk dat dit klopt. Maar dit geldt helaas niet alleen voor Lepto. Rabies en Parvo en Hondenziekte en HCC slaat net zo vaak niet aan.

Given that its effectiveness has been questioned and the risks highlighted, was this really a vaccine worth having, we wondered?

Goeie vraag!

Intervet’s PR company seemed keen to provide some answers. Unfortunately, when the response finally arrived, not all our questions were addressed. In particular, Intervet did not substantiate its claims regarding the Leptospirosis outbreaks, instead citing just one anecdotal account of an unvaccinated working Labrador that had died from the disease. So we decided to launch our own investigation and take a deeper look at Leptospirosis - just how much of a threat is it and how effective is the
vaccine?

We zien in NL ook wel eens zulke dingen in de krant staan, na aanleiding van 2 honden die overleden zijn. Ik heb het Intervet hier in NL nog nooit zien beweren. Kan een slip of the finger zijn van een medewerker natuurlijk. Reuze slordig. Dat wel.

There is
debate over
whether the
disease is
common in pet
dogs. One of
the reasons
that Intervet
gave for
promoting the
vaccine was
the occurrence
of ‘outbreaks’
across the
UK. However,
when pressed,
Intervet
admitted that
this claim was
not based on
epidemiological
research but
on anecdotal
reporting from
vets in the
field – there is
no statistical
evidence of
outbreaks as
such

OK.

The Leptospirosis vaccine is a particularly controversial one. Unlike viral vaccines (parvovirus, distemper and adenovirus), which have been shown to give immunity for several years and therefore may not need annual boosters, Leptospirosis is a bacterin-based vaccine that gives very poor lengths of immunity. In fact, clinical evidence suggests that bacterin derived vaccines may not even provide immunity for 12 months, which means that even annual boosters may not give enough protection. Thus the fear of a decrease in vaccination levels leading to the re-emergence of disease is more relevant for bacterial diseases. This is a dilemma facing many dog owners as the time for their annual boosters rolls around. While they can safely leave their viral vaccines unboosted for longer intervals, they may not be able to do this for the bacterin-based vaccines.

Hier schermt men al heel lang mee. Maar ik vraag me werkelijk af of dat vandaag de dag nog steeds het geval is. Dat zouden we aan Intervet kunnen vragen (ik heb daar wel een aardig contact).

But should they be boosting for Leptospirosis?

Because it is a zoonotic disease - one that can be transferred to humans - the threat of Leptospirosis cannot be underestimated. However, this does not mean that vaccination is necessarily the answer. Not only is this the vaccine most commonly associated with serious adverse reactions, especially fatal canine anaphylaxis, but it also seems to give poor protection from the disease. If the vaccine were potentially dangerous and not very effective, why would you want to give it to your dog, unless there was a serious threat of exposure to the disease?

Just how prevalent is the disease?

Leptospirosis is caused by a bacterium that infects the dog when he
comes into contact with the urine of an infected host animal. This can be via
the environment (such as contaminated water) or directly from animal to
animal. After the bacteria enters the bloodstream, it replicates rapidly in
several tissues, such as the kidney, liver and spleen, leading to lethargy,
abdominal pain, jaundice, vomiting, bloody diarrhoea, and ultimately liver
and kidney damage. The disease can be highly contagious and, in acute cases, rapidly fatal if left untreated. Even if a dog survives the illness, he will remain a carrier of the disease, shedding the bacteria in his urine.

Because it is a
zoonotic disease
– one that can
be transferred
to humans
– the threat of
Leptospirosis
cannot be
underestimated.
However, this
does not mean
that vaccination
is necessarily
the answer.
Not only is this
the vaccine
most commonly
associated with
serious adverse
reactions,
especially
fatal canine
anaphylaxis, but
it also seems
to give poor
protection from
the disease

In humans, Leptospirosis is known as Weil’s disease and although
relatively common in tropical climates, it is rare in Britain and is not included
on the list of Notifiable Diseases at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra). In fact, Defra stated that the reason why they do not keep records of Leptospirosis is because it is so rare in humans. According to the Health Protection Agency (HPA), human cases recorded are commonly associated with occupations such as farming (cattle and pigs are strong carriers of Leptospirosis, as well as rodents) and recreational pursuits, such as canoeing, fishing and swimming in lakes and rivers. So although the disease poses a serious threat in being transferable to humans, in reality transmission from dogs to humans rarely happens.

Dit vind ik eerlijk gezegd een beetje een non argument. In Europa sterven er toch jaarlijk wel een paar mensen aan de ziekte van Weil. Deze lopen ze overigens vrijwel altijd direct op via besmet water dat besmet is door ratten. Maar dat mensen niet vaak besmet raken: zegt nog niks over de hond. Kijk, katten zijn ongevoelig voor de lepto bacterie. Er is een goede kans dat de mens minder gevoelig is voor de lepto, minder gevoelig dan de hond. Dat weten we op dit moment gewoon niet.

Number crunching

There is debate over whether the disease is common in pet dogs. One
of the reasons that Intervet gave for promoting the vaccine was the
occurrence of ‘outbreaks’ across the UK. However, when pressed, Intervet
admitted that this claim was not based on epidemiological research but on
anecdotal reporting from vets in the field - there is no statistical evidence
of outbreaks as such. (In fact, an ‘outbreak’ is simply defined as an elevation above the normal baseline, even if this is just an increase from 1
dog in a million to 2 dogs in a million - arguably still a very small number
and hardly an epidemic as such! And interestingly, Catherine O’Driscoll
of the Canine Health Concern has anecdotal evidence that shows the
opposite, with many vets - particularly those in rural areas, arguably where
dogs have the highest risk of exposure - stating that they had not seen a case of Leptospirosis in over a decade.)

Ik heb het Intervet dus nog nooit ergens zien beweren. En ik heb ook een bel-rondtje gedaan en kreeg toch van de meeste DA's te horen dat ze echt af en toe nog wel gevallen zien. Natuurlijk weten ze helaas pindakaas nooit om welke bacterie het ging. Ik heb ook gevraagd of de hond gevaccineerd of ongevaccineerd was en in de meeste gevallen was de hond ongevaccineerd. Zo'n belrondje kan iedereen doen natuurlijk.

Catherine O'Driscoll vind ik overigens niet de meest betrouwbare persoon als het gaat om vaccinatie. Ze wordt ook niet overal zo serieus genomen. Ze weet wel veel hoor, daar niet van. Maar ze is nou ook weer geen afgestudeerd viroloog.

Chris Bradley, Veterinary Adviser to Intervet UK, explained that their
anecdotal reports are from government agencies, veterinary schools and
veterinary laboratories, which obtain information from post-mortems and
referrals. The only way Leptospirosis can be identified is by post-mortem
or by blood tests; however, in most cases, due to financial constraints or
emotional reluctance, owners refuse post-mortems on deceased pets or
choose not to pursue extensive testing. This means that there is a general lack of reporting on the disease and only the occasional anecdotes drift back to Intervet regarding Leptospirosis cases.
But surely, I asked, there would be a record of these anecdotal reports,
which when audited, would give some idea of the prevalence of the disease?
Even something as simple as “there were 12 cases in Norwich, and 64 cases
in Northampton during the last three months” - without something along
these lines, surely you can have no real idea about the incidence of disease and therefore it is slightly irresponsible to be warning about possible epidemics?

Ja, leuk. Maar hiermee kun je dus ook andersom redeneren. Als het niet onderzocht wordt, dan weet je dus ook niet hoeveel honden er echt gestorven zijn aan een lepto besmetting. Misschien zijn het er wel meer dan we denken.

Chris Bradley was coy about giving figures, explaining that they are in the
process of compiling a database on these reports and saying that it’s hard
to be definitive about the prevalence of the disease. In fact, the only statistical report he could cite was a 1991 UK serological survey of more than 500 unvaccinated strays in Edinburgh and Glasgow. This study revealed that between 23.5 per cent and 27.5 per cent had antibodies to Leptospirosis (got infected, survived and now carry the disease).
Note, though, that these were stray dogs and not pampered pets, with very different lifestyles. It seems to suggest that even in unvaccinated dogs, about 25 per cent would have the disease (although naturally, this does
not take into account the percentage of dogs that were infected and
subsequently died) - and 75 per cent would have escaped infection.

Is this disease really that common after all?

Goeie vraag.

Intervet argues that regardless of how common the disease is, it is
important to vaccinate as infection with Leptospirosis can lead to a horrible
death for the dog. This would certainly play on most owners’ emotions but
again, it is really a question of numbers. In the majority of cases, Leptospirosis presents as a chronic, low-grade illness, which may lead to renal failure in old age, but usually the dog recovers to become simply a carrier of the disease.
In certain acute cases, the disease will be more aggressive and dogs will
suffer a rapid, horrible death. This is certainly something we all want to
avoid - but just how common are these acute cases? After all, chicken pox is
a disease that can, on rare occasions, lead to severe complications (such
as potentially fatal bacteraemia and pneumonia) but this doesn’t stop most
parents from just letting their children itch their way through an infection.
Could the situation not be similar for Leptospirosis? If the disease only
causes acute illness and death in a very small percentage of dogs, is it worth
vaccinating against it?

Ja, goeie vraag. Maar het zal je hond maar wezen. De DA's die ik heb gevraagd overigens: die hadden het over lepto-gevallen waarbij de hond het uiteindelijk niet heeft gered.

Catherine O’Driscoll points out, “If you look at the Edinburgh study,
it showed that dogs had antibodies to Leptospirosis, but they didn’t have
the full-blown disease, and they had survived. This, to me, indicates that
most dogs survive Leptospirosis, and in most cases, frequently undiagnosed,
the dog may have the runs. And then the high acid in the dog’s system
will neutralise the bacteria. It is my contention that healthy dogs won’t
be overly threatened by Leptospirosis.

Ik zou die Edinburgh study wel eens willen lezen! Kunnen we die te pakken krijgen?

Several studies have shown that an organism given adequate and
appropriate nutrition will withstand viral and bacterial disease.”
It would help if we had some idea of how many dogs would suffer
acute Leptospirosis. Again, Intervet was unable to provide any figures
and the information does not seem to be available anywhere else. I find it
astounding that there is currently not even a rudimentary system to record
incidence of Leptospirosis. Surely if this disease is meant to be so deadly to our dogs and so dangerous to humans, there would be some kind of recording system in place? How can pharmaceutical companies fighting something that is supposedly so serious, rely purely on anecdotal reporting?

Nou, hier ben ik het helemaal mee eens! Overigens worden mensen in NL wel geregistreerd. Dieren niet.

Unfortunately, unless there is a formal reporting scheme for infectious disease in dogs, which provides independent data (free from both pro- and anti-vaccine bias) about the incidence of cases, we will never really know how common a disease Leptospirosis is.
So if we’re not sure how prevalent the disease is, maybe we should
vaccinate anyway, just to be safe?

Alweer een goeie vraag....

But according to many veterinary experts, the vaccine itself may carry
risks. It is the one most likely to trigger serious side effects, especially
in puppies and toy breeds, possibly because it has the highest amount
of added ‘adjuvants’ to stimulate the immune system. Some vets in
the United States will not give the Leptospirosis vaccine to dogs under
10lb, due to the risk of severe anaphylaxis.

Dit is een goed punt. Dit is ook een probleem. Overigens, zie het artikel over castratie. Gecastreerde honden krijgen sneller ent-reacties als ongecastreerde! Ik wist dit niet, maar dat is wel interessant.

Rare risks

Intervet UK has strongly countered this by referring to the 2004 Animal Health Trust study and saying, “We appreciate that, on rare occasions, vaccination may adversely affect canine health.
Our pharmacovigilance monitoring does demonstrate that adverse reactions
such as transient malaise, lumps at the site of injection or even anaphylaxis
can occur rarely. These rare outcomes however must be weighed up against
the risks of the animal not being vaccinated and thus be left vulnerable
to disease.”

Tja.

This is cold comfort to someone like Allison who had to put her 12-
week-old German Shepherd puppy to sleep, following his Leptospirosis
home from his first shots, he started worrying his tail and showing distress.
Allison tried to dismiss it as puppy behaviour but her concern turned to
panic when Cougar began displaying signs of fear and aggression - first
attacking Allison’s six-year-old daughter who he had previously adored and
then the older dogs in the household, before finally attempting to bite Allison
when she tried to comfort him. After consultation with three different vets,
Allison was told that Cougar was brain damaged and the only option was to put him to sleep.
“At the point of having Cougar put to sleep, I walked out of the vet’s and
had to sit on the step as my legs gave way. My husband took me straight to my mother’s who gave me brandy, as I was shaking with shock. After all, you don’t expect to buy a puppy and then have him put to sleep three weeks later! It totally devastated me. I was offered other puppies but I just couldn’t bring myself to have them. It’s taken me eight years to get the courage to have another.”

Stories like Allison’s are heartwrenching but the vaccine industry would argue that, while tragic, Allison’s case is in a negligible minority.
Chris Bradley from Intervet insists that he believes their vaccines are safe, with very few adverse reactions recorded to their Nobivac Lepto-2 vaccine, based on their pharmacovigilance monitoring from member vets who are obliged to report any incidences of adverse reactions.
Despite the evidence from studies that show a link between vaccines and illnesses like autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, Chris Bradley is sceptical of any real risk from vaccines.
“I don’t discount that there are cases of haemolytic anaemia or injection site cancers, but there is no clear evidence that it is definitely caused by the vaccine. For example, with the injection site cancers, the scruff of the neck - where the tumour is detected - is also the place for a lot of other procedures, such as steroid and antibiotic injections and topical flea applications. In an animal that is genetically susceptible, any of these
causes could lead to the formation of a tumour - it is not necessarily
the vaccine. Yes, there is the odd case that may have a possible link to
vaccines but the incidence is so low, it’s not considered significant.
Our pharmacovigilance database has had no recorded incidence of anaphylactic shock in dogs, from our vaccine and very little record of other reactions.

Ja, ik geef toe dat de bijwerkingen vreselijk kunnen zijn. Maar ja, nog steeds weinig argument om niet meer te vaccineren. Als je hond Lepto krijgt heb je ook dikke kans dat tie er aan onderdoor gaat....

According
to Dr Jean
Dodds, a
leading
veterinarian
and expert
on canine
vaccines,
challenge
studies from
the United
States show
that immunity
only lasts for
three to six
months

Obviously, if certain dogs were particularly susceptible - like certain
humans with bee stings - then the vets would warn the client and perhaps
recommend a different vaccination schedule. But I firmly believe that, in
the majority of cases, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.”
Catherine O’Driscoll, however, has a different perspective.
“The ‘monitoring’ is at present the SARRS [Suspected Adverse Reaction Reporting] scheme. It calls for vets to voluntarily report suspected reactions. The words, ‘voluntarily’ and ‘suspected’ are key.

Time after time we are contacted by dog owners whose dogs suffered epilepsy, brain damage, skin problems, allergies, etc, immediately after vaccination, and the vet denies there is any vaccine link. Therefore, no adverse reaction report is filed. If a report is filed, then a committee sticks its finger in the air and makes a subjective decision - and many of the ‘experts’ at the VMD [Veterinary Medicines Directorate] and the VPC
[Veterinary Products Committee] are paid consultants for vaccine companies.

Further, vets are not trained in college to look for such reactions. They are only trained to look for anaphylaxis. They are also unaware of latest research. For example, one lady who contacted the Canine Health Concern - her dog had vaccine-site cancer but the vet said it’s only seen in cats so must therefore have another cause.
Yet in August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine published a report to say that vaccines also cause vaccine-site cancer in dogs!”

Ja, eens.

But putting the issue of safety aside, what about the effectiveness of the vaccine itself? After all, if it is really good and effective, then it can be argued that it is worth giving, in spite of the risks. In fact, the vaccine has been heavily criticised, as it appears to give only limited immunity because it does not protect against all the strains of Leptospirosis a dog might meet in the field. Like many bacteria, Leptospira exists in hundreds of different strains - called serovars - with two common strains in Britain being Leptospira canicola (dog as host) and Leptospira icterohaemorrhagiae (rodent as host), as well as two other strains, which use the pig and cattle as host, and many other rarer strains. The current vaccine only contains two serovars (L. canicola and L. icterohaemorrhagiae), which means that the dog is not protected if it meets any of the other serovars in the field. To someone like Catherine O’Driscoll, this seems crazy - to subject the dog to the high risks of the vaccine but then not give it the full spread of immunity needed.

Ja, zoals je weet ben ik het hier dus helemaal niet mee eens.

Intervet insists, however, that anecdotal reports from veterinary laboratories show that L. icterohaemorrhagiae and L. canicola are still the antibodies most often found in blood tests on infected dogs (although they acknowledge that L. bratislava seems to be increasing). Thus they believe that L. icterohaemorrhagiae and L. canicola are the two strains dogs are most likely to meet and, therefore, the two strains they use in the vaccine. They do admit that they do not have any real epidemiological data regarding the strains dogs are exposed to or infected with. Without proper statistical data, how can they be so sure dogs are never infected with other strains if they only base their knowledge on anecdotal cases of Leptospirosis?

Ja, zit wat in.

Chris Bradley had already admitted to me earlier that most cases are under-reported and usually only acute cases would merit any owner deciding to have a diagnostic post-mortem or blood tests. Therefore, one could argue that maybe the reason why you only see L. icterohaemorrhagiae and L. canicola as the most common antibodies is because they are the ones
that cause the acute cases.

Ja, ik denk dat dat het geval is. En again, de icterohaemorrhagiae is een behoorlijk agressief tiepetje.

Stresses and strains

There might be other strains out there, such as L. bratislava (which Intervet has admitted is increasing), which are also infecting dogs, but because they cause chronic infection, rather than acute, they are never picked up because those dogs would not be presented for post-mortems or blood tests. But meanwhile, the dogs are still being infected with Leptospirosis, despite being vaccinated, and still running the risk of both getting renal failure in later life and also adverse vaccine reactions.

In the United States, neglect to include other strains in the vaccine has led to serious outbreaks across the country from newly emerging serovars, despite dogs being already vaccinated for Leptospirosis with the two old serovars that had been believed to be dominant. Nevertheless, Chris Bradley says that there is little evidence of L. bratislava causing clinical disease in dogs; he is confident that the situation in the UK is different from the United States - although it is difficult to see the reason for his confidence when there is no epidemiological data to support it.

The other criticism of the Leptospirosis vaccine is the length of immunity.

According to Dr Jean Dodds, a leading veterinarian and expert on canine vaccines, challenge studies from the United States show that immunity only lasts for three to six months, which means that even the recommended annual boosters may leave a dog unprotected for half the year or more. Intervet claims that its 2003 updated Leptospirosis vaccine, Nobivac Lepto-2, does guarantee immunity for 12 months, based on its own challenge studies, the results of which were published in Veterinary Microbiology, Vol 95 (2003). In this study, only half the test dogs were vaccinated and then all the dogs were ‘challenged’ with infection from Leptospirosis at five-, 22- and 56-week intervals. The results showed that the vaccinated dogs withstood infection, even after 12 months, and Intervet suggests that immunity may last even longer in some dogs but yearly boosters are the safest upper limit, to cover all dogs.

What is puzzling is how the UK vaccine can give such different immunity levels to the US vaccine?

According to Dr Jean Dodds, the core vaccine is the same and even though the American vaccine contains two more serovars than the UK one, “that wouldn’t explain the US and UK difference in claims for longevity.
Further, it has long been known that the two-way Lepto vaccines last no longer than six months.”

Nou, blijkbaar maakt dat verschil, 2 of 4 strains in het vaccin?

Chris Bradley at Intervet claims that the difference lies in the way immunity is assessed - ie, the US is assessing immunity by measuring antibodies to Leptospirosis in the blood. However, dogs can still be immune to the disease, even if they do not show any antibodies - thus the American studies may not record any antibodies after six months, leading them to assume immunity only lasts for six months, when in reality the vaccinated dogs may still be immune. Conversely, the UK vaccine immunity is measured
by actually challenging the animals with the disease and seeing if they succumb.

This is nonsense, says Dr Jean Dodds, insisting that the animals in the
US are also challenged by the actual disease. Chris Bradley admits that he
is unclear about the exact nature of vaccines in the US so he is unable to
really explain the difference.

Nou, dit is natuurlijk heel raar. Dat ze het bij Intervet zelf niet weten. Misschien dat een ander dan Chris bij Intervet gevraagd moet worden! (soms zitten er gewoon domme medewerkers bij een bedrijf. Wil het niet zeggen dat iemand anders binnen Intervet daar niet een fatsoenlijkere verklaring voor heeft.

Small sample

Certainly, challenge studies are not infallible - Dr Dodds points out that,
“The problem with experimental challenge studies is that only a small
number of animals are required to license a new vaccine” - and Chris
Bradley admits that the Intervet challenge studies only used 24 dogs
but maintains that this was statistically robust and that they did not use more dogs for welfare reasons.
The final issue with the Leptospirosis vaccine is that of ‘herd immunity’ or lack of, in this case.
While the vaccine may protect a dog from the clinical development of
the disease, it does not prevent it carrying and shedding the infectious
Leptospires into the environment.
Thus, this is one vaccine that does not protect the population, only the
individual dog. Having said that, Intervet insists that its 2003 updated
vaccine does confer reduced renal shedding and therefore does help
towards herd immunity.
This does not impress Catherine O’Driscoll. “Herd immunity refers to the fact that once 67 per cent of a population has been exposed to a disease, then epidemics die out (as with the human plague). As shown in the Edinburgh survey, only around 25 per cent of city dogs had been exposed to Leptospirosis, which shows that herd immunity cannot be claimed at this time. Even so, we still don’t have lots of dogs coming down with Lepto and, again, the high acid content of a healthy dog’s stomach will put a stop to acute infection.”

Dit does not impress me, eerlijk gezegd. Bacterieen komen niet alleen via de maag van de hond binnen. Ergo, wat het risico vergroot zijn open wondjes.

The American Animal Hospital Association Guidelines for vets places Leptospirosis in their ‘non-core’ (optional) category, with special mention of its high incidence of postvaccination reactions and advises that, “Annual boosters are not routinely recommended for all dogs. Vaccination should be restricted to use in areas where a reasonable risk of exposure has been established.”
Should we adopt a similar strategy for the UK? No, says Intervet’s Chris Bradley, because everywhere in the UK is potentially an area of high risk due to the “booming rodent population”, which provides a reservoir for infection. Now, this might be true but it does beg the question that if rats are so numerous and such a dangerous source of disease, why are humans not vaccinated for Leptospirosis? And why - if we are not and not all dogs are vaccinated - are we not all succumbing to the disease, in spite of the high risk of exposure from rats everywhere?

Zie wat ik hierboven al eerder heb geschreven. We weten nog steeds niet of de hond gevoeliger is dan de mens.

Catherine O’Driscoll says, “Actually, it is said that all of us live within 20ft of rats. They are everywhere, and especially in cities where they live in the sewage network and feast on our rubbish. The rats aren’t vaccinated, of course, but the human population is NOT beset and besieged by a Leptospirosis epidemic. How many people are vaccinated against Leptospirosis, despite all these rats? Are farm workers vaccinated against Lepto - where it seems the greatest threat lies?”
It would be safe to assume that if the United States - arguably equally overrun with rats - can define geographical areas of high risk for Leptospirosis, then the UK should be able to do the same. After all, it seems - from Defra and HPA [Health Protection Agency] information on the disease - that even though there are rats everywhere, the risk for humans is only high for people who work with farm animals, who spend large amounts of time in possibly contaminated bodies of water and in areas of flooding. So the situation should be similar for dogs, shouldn’t it? At the very least, not all dogs could have the same risk of exposure and there is some argument for only vaccinating the dogs in high-risk areas.

Ik vind dit een zeer zwak argument. Ze zou moeten weten dat juist in zompige slootjes er meer risico is dan in steden en nogmaals, we weten nog steeds niet hoe gevoelig de mens is tenopzichte van de hond. In Frankrijk vaccineren ze mensen overigens wel. Maar goed, ik ken weinig mensen die regelmatig uit zompige modderslootjes drinken en daar in zwemmen. Ik ken wel veel honden die dat graag doen.

No change

Despite conflicting evidence, annual boosting for Leptospirosis remains the recommendation in the UK and something most vets will push for, as they have little support from the veterinary community if they opt not to vaccinate and the dog subsequently becomes ill. In spite of support from scientific research, it seems that most vets still feel obliged to adhere to the vaccine data sheet recommendations.

Liz Jay was one such owner who came to bitterly regret her vet’s advice to
repeat the Leptospirosis vaccine on her Bearded Collie, Lulu. Following her booster, Lulu developed extremely itchy, peeling skin while her hair fell out in clumps until she was about two-thirds bald. She also developed a series of minor infections - ears, eyes, anal glands, nails - and occasional bouts of seizures and vomiting. Things came to a head when Lulu collapsed at a show, bleeding internally, and was diagnosed with haemangiosarcoma, with tumours from her ovaries to her heart. Liz couldn’t even wake her up
to say goodbye. So it seems that we are back at square one, with the vaccine companies saying that there is a real need for protection and that the Leptospirosis vaccine is a good product that carries negligible risk.

Meanwhile, the sceptics, like Catherine O’Driscoll, cynically believe in more financial motives, saying, “The fact that it is dangerous and practically useless, and fighting a disease that is barely a problem, doesn’t much matter to them.”
Perhaps the best we can hope for is informed consent: make sure your vet explains the dangers of the vaccine to you; find out about the length and coverage of immunity of the vaccine he is using; ask him about the real risk of Leptospirosis in your area; and weigh up the risk benefit ratio before you subject your dog to ‘just a little prick’.

While the
vaccine may
protect a
dog from
the clinical
development
of the disease,
it does not
prevent it
carrying and
shedding the
infectious
Leptospires
into the
environment.
Thus, this is
one vaccine
that does not
protect the
population,
only the
individual dog

Dit laatste is volgens veel geleerden echt niet het geval. Het nieuwe vaccin zorgt ervoor dat de hond de bacterieen niet uitscheidt?

[Antonia]

Hoi Dana, ik moet maandag even terugbellen omdat ik haar mobiel belde en ze wist het niet uit haar hoofd. Als ik het weet zet ik het hier maandag neer.

Ze raadde wel af om Gunnar in augustus mee naar Frankrijk mee te nemen, die hitte is te belastend voor zijn hart. Dat betekent dus dat ik daar in mijn eentje binnen zit, als Gunnar ook al niet mee mag

Als de warmte te belastend is voor Gunnar, vanwege zijn hartje, is dan de Weil enting niet nog veel belastender voor dat mannetje?

[Nynke]

Als de warmte te belastend is voor Gunnar, vanwege zijn hartje, is dan de Weil enting niet nog veel belastender voor dat mannetje?

Ik weet het niet Tonnie, als iemand het weet, hoor ik het graag !!! Ik denk er sowieso al over om hem geheel niet te enten.

[Laura2004]

Ik zou een ongezonde hond gewoon niet enten, volgens mij mag dat ook niet.

[Nynke]

Nou Laura, Gunnar is niet zozeer ongezond, maar wel bejaard en daarnaast  heeft hij een hartkwaal. Maar dat belemmert hem niet echt in zijn doen en laten

Ik heb gebeld met de dierenarts en het titeren kost € 45,- voor de eerste hond en € 32,50 voor de volgende. Ik heb een afspraak gemaakt voor 14 april.

[Juul]

@sandra, Bedankt voor jou reactie en Sorry voor mijn late reactie.

Lepto moet je altijd apart doen, wordt aangeraden 6 weken van de DHP (om de 3 jaar). De Rabies (om de 3 jaar) ook 6 weken van de DHP en de Lepto. De eerste keer Lepto enten is bij een pup 2x, omdat die enting moeilijk pakt. Dan zit daar zo'n 3-4 weken tussen vanaf 8-9 wk en 3 mnd. Maar zo jong al, lijkt mij echt helemaal niks. Ik liet het altijd eind maart/begin april enten, dan is het na 3 mnd goed ingewerkt en was 1 van mijn honden tegen de tijd dat we met vakantie gingen van zijn bijwerkingen af.....

Met 9 wkn heeft ie lepto en parvo-c gehad, met 12 wkn DHPPi, lepto, en Kennelhoest neusenting. Dat is toch 'normaal' volgens schema. Of is dat teveel tegelijk? Ik heb het aan de DA overgelaten.
(Goh, hoe meer ik lees, hoe minder ik weet!)

Met zo jong al, bedoel je dan de Lepto of de Rabies?