 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / February 2004Vaccincation Question....please help!
I have two TOTALLY indoor cats. I decided last year not to continue vaccinating them (they are 5). However, last summer I found a tame but unneutered male cat outside (approximately 1 year old) and had it neutered, got it tested and had him vaccinated. He is the most loving, sweet cat and I know at one time he was an indoor/outdoor cat because he always looks in the door and wants to come in. Totally heartbreaking. I didn't want to let him in because I thought he would be unhappy being a totally indoor cat and I didn't think it was fair for him to go in and out and my other two to stay inside. He has shelter, garage and basement, however closing the door on his adorable face is becoming a bit much for me! My QUESTION is, is it safe to try and bring him in at this point with him being vaccinated (rabies, distemper and feline leukemia only) and my indoor cats NOT being vaccinated at all???? I would appreciate any answers or advice. Thank you so much....Janice >My QUESTION is, is it safe to try and bring him in at this point with him >being vaccinated (rabies, distemper and feline leukemia only) and my indoor >cats NOT being vaccinated at all???? I would appreciate any answers or >advice If he has been around since last summer, quarantine him for the amount of time your vet recommends (if he hasn't been quarantined in the garage), and then bring him in. If he's tested and quarantined, then he's not going to pass anything on to your cats. Angela (Aol.com doesn't hop!) www.rabbitadoption.org Rabbits & small animals for adoption--worldwide links, including vet referrals & other rescues, care tips, mail order products, etc. >From: "Janice" melville78@hotmail.com >My QUESTION is, is it safe to try and bring him in at this point with him >being vaccinated (rabies, distemper and feline leukemia only) and my indoor >cats NOT being vaccinated at all???? I would appreciate any answers or >advice. Thank you so much....Janice I would re-test him immediately before bringing him in. If he checks out negative for any diseases, I wouldn't worry about it. Your indoor cats had their initial vacs, right? Dr. Ronald Schultz did a really good article on vaccines and lifetime immunity. I'll see if I can find it. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm I would have him tested again for feline leukemia and if he's OK, I would integrate with the other two in your house. I have done this twice myself. Gail > I have two TOTALLY indoor cats. I decided last year not to continue > vaccinating them (they are 5). However, last summer I found a tame but [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cats NOT being vaccinated at all???? I would appreciate any answers or > advice. Thank you so much....Janice "Gail" <gmpg@earthlink.net> wrote in message news: > I would have him tested again for feline leukemia and if he's OK, I would > integrate with the other two in your house. I have done this twice myself. > Gail I believe I remember reading that adult cats do not get feline leukemia in a lawsuit done by some Texan vet against all vets in Texas for malpractice. I´m too tired right now but I´ll try to look it up. circa 25 Jan 2004 18:23:00 -0800, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Liz (c864320@yahoo.com) said, > > I would have him tested again for feline leukemia and if he's OK, I would > > integrate with the other two in your house. I have done this twice myself. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > leukemia in a lawsuit done by some Texan vet against all vets in Texas > for malpractice. I?m too tired right now but I?ll try to look it up. It's not that they *don't*; it's that they are far, far less likely to become infected than kittens and adolescent cats. Larua  SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. > "Gail" <gmpg@earthlink.net> wrote in message news: > > I would have him tested again for feline leukemia and if he's OK, I would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > leukemia in a lawsuit done by some Texan vet against all vets in Texas > for malpractice. I´m too tired right now but I´ll try to look it up. Found it... The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states: 1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not. 2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is thought to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated. 3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should be vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus. A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if given this information. http://www.petresource.com/Articles%20of%20Interest/texas_vet.htm There´s another copy of this lawsuit somewhere in the internet with all the studies attached to back up before Court what this Dr. Rogers states. > > "Gail" <gmpg@earthlink.net> wrote in message news: > > > I would have him tested again for feline leukemia and if he's OK, I would [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune > to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not. BULLSH!T!!!!!!!! Only you could find ridiculous nonsense like that! You also said cats shouldn't be vaccinated and even though millions of cats would die, the ones that survived would be "stronger".... Do you realize there's something seriously wrong with you? >>c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > would die, the ones that survived would be "stronger".... Do you realize > there's something seriously wrong with you? Bioethics. The new Nazism. > > The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, > > and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > BULLSH!T!!!!!!!! Only you could find ridiculous nonsense like that! Do you realize the guy has studies backing up his claims? What do you have? Recommendations from vaccine manufacturers? Let´s see what *you* have. > > > The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, > > > and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do you realize the guy has studies backing up his claims? Whoopee! A study is only as good as its methodology.... which means nothing to you as long as the study supports your bullsh!t. You'd cite any nonsensical study that supports your asinine anti-vaccine and fanatical au naturel agenda regardless of whether or not it was valid. What do you > have? Reality.... You should get a map and visit the place... for a change... Recommendations from vaccine manufacturers? Let?s see what *you* > have. How about the thousands of privately owned *adult* cats that have contracted FeLV from FeLV- infected cats... Why do you think FeLV+ and uninfected cats aren't housed together.... or are you normally not that inquisitive? Btw, nut case, try telling Cheryl that Shadow can't become infected because he's immune.... Every time I think you can't possibly conjure up a more stupid and asinine statement than your previous one, you never fail to surprise me! "Phil P" <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in message news: > Every time I think you can't possibly conjure up a more stupid and asinine > statement than your previous one, you never fail to surprise me! LOL. You are such a moron. Why don´t you try to find out what a retrovirus is? After you do that, try to find out WHY there are NO vaccines against retroviruses for humans. Let us know what you find. > "Phil P" <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in message news: > > > Every time I think you can't possibly conjure up a more stupid and asinine > > statement than your previous one, you never fail to surprise me! > > LOL. You are such a moron. And you're such sleazy, manipulating, lying assh*le! Ain't that a hoot! You make the utterly stupid and asinine statement that adult cats over a year old if not infected are immune to FeLV.... and you call me a moron? ROTFL! There's something seriously wrong with you... haven't you realized that yet? Are you so attention-starved that you conjure up these utterly asinine statements so people will notice you? Fret not! I notice! I notice! I notice either you're oblivious to reality, or you don't have the slightest clue of what you're babbling about, or you're a stone stupid idiot... Actually I think you're a combination of all three... How can you make such a moronic and utterly asinine statement when almost everyone in this group who has worked with FeLV+ cats knows of at least one instance of horizontal transmission of FeLV between adult cats? Not to mention every veterinary medical association's recommendation of *not* housing FeLV+ and FelV- cats together? This isn't the first time you posted very dangerous and potentially *lethal* information. Why are you posting here? You're wrong more often than you're right... Are you actually a cat hater or are you just a psychopath? Either way, you're a very real danger to cats and their owners. Why don?t you try to find out what a > retrovirus is? After you do that, try to find out WHY there are NO > vaccines against retroviruses for humans. Let us know what you find. What does the above totally unrelated gibberish have to do with your moronic and utterly asinine statement about FeLV immunity? Did you forget what the dissussion was about or are you once again trying to convolute the issue and divert attention away from your spectacular stupidity and incompetence with another totally utterly asinine statement? "Phil P" <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in message news: > > Why don´t you try to find out what a > > retrovirus is? After you do that, try to find out WHY there are NO > > vaccines against retroviruses for humans. Let us know what you find. > > What does the above totally unrelated gibberish have to do with your moronic > and utterly asinine statement about FeLV immunity? Goes to show how you love to BOAST about things you have absolutely no idea about, no understanding, no background, you name it. Perhaps if you made a small effort to UNDERSTAND what you read, you wouldn´t be so ignorant because you sure read and COPY a lot! Furthermore, the statemente wasn´t MINE. I have never and will never vaccinate my cats against FeLV. If they are or are not immune to FeLV beyond their first year has never influenced this decision of mine. I do not vaccinate against FeLV because FeLV is a RETROVIRUS. Retroviruses mutate quickly. Retroviruses are oncogenic. "Killed" retroviruses *can* use host protein to infect cells. In other words, vaccinating against a retrovirus can actually *cause* the disease you are vaccinating against. Every time you vaccinate your pet against a retrovirus, you are actually PAYING the pharmaceutical company to use YOUR PET as a guinea pig. You are greatly increasing your pet´s chance to develop some sort of cancer at some point. Damn it Phil. AIDS has been around for at least 22 years. Why the h*ll do you think we still do not have a vaccine for AIDS? Prostate cancer, uterine cancer, and mammary cancer are all caused by retroviruses. Why isn´t there a vaccine for these diseases that kill THOUSANDS of people every year?! Are you *ever* going to put that gray matter of yours to work? > "Phil P" <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in message news: > > > Why don´t you try to find out what a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > for at least 22 years. Why the h*ll do you think we still do not have > a vaccine for AIDS? Reagan et. al. sticking their heads in their a.ses about it for eight years while the epidemic continued to spread, as well as millions of dollars and tens of years spent by the NIH trying to infect chimpanzees - *which are incapable of becoming HIV positive* - just *might* have something to do with it... Vaccinate your cats or don't. The fact is cats DO NOT become immune to FeLV. -L. >From: k3_e81@yahoo.com (-L.) >> "Phil P" <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in message news: >> > > Why don´t you try to find out what a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >-L. So has there been any definitive findings on whether or not the FeLV vaccine actually works or not, do you know? Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >So has there been any definitive findings on whether or not the FeLV vaccine >actually works or not, do you know? There are several FeLV vaccines available. Here's the quote I saw on the "Stop Feline Leukemia" Web site: "Unfortunately the USDA does not have standard requirements for FeLV vaccines, so different manufacturers can publish 'Effectiveness Ratings' which cannot be compared with each other due to a lack of uniformity in testing terms and requirements." I did see a study (can't find it now, of course) which experimentally exposed a number of cats and kittens to FeLV, with a group of cats vaccinated and the other not vaccinated. I don't know which particular vaccine was used. I wish I could recall the details, but I do remember that only one of the vaccinated cats developed FeLV, as opposed to about a third of the non-vaccinated cats. So what you can say is that FeLV vaccinations will prevent many exposed cats from developing FeLV, but not all. circa 04 Feb 2004 16:41:03 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Yngver (yngver@aol.comnospam) said, > I did see a study (can't find it now, of course) which experimentally exposed a > number of cats and kittens to FeLV, with a group of cats vaccinated and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what you can say is that FeLV vaccinations will prevent many exposed cats from > developing FeLV, but not all. Everything I've read on the subject pretty much draws the same conclusion as you describe. For me, I balance the risk of my cats being exposed to FeLV with the risk of vaccination site sarcoma, and since they're indoor-only, geriatric cats in a closed household, I do not get them vaccinated for FeLV anymore. When they were younger, I did, but that was also before the efficacy and safety questions started arising. Laura SignatureI am Dyslexia of Borg, Your a.s will be laminated. >Everything I've read on the subject pretty much draws the same >conclusion as you describe. For me, I balance the risk of my cats [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >did, but that was also before the efficacy and safety questions >started arising. In the situation you describe, I would not have the cats vaccinated against FeLV either, nor would the majority of vets recommend that you do. Years ago, when my previous cat reached her double digits in age, the vet I had then recommended I stop having her vaccinated for FeLV. This was long before the current recommendations, but he felt that a senior indoor cat was at very little risk, even back then. Some vets have always been conservative with such vaccinations. >From: yngver@aol.comnospam (Yngver) >>So has there been any definitive findings on whether or not the FeLV vaccine >>actually works or not, do you know? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >from >developing FeLV, but not all. Ok, thanks for the info, Yngver. I wonder if there have been more studies done. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > >So has there been any definitive findings on whether or not the FeLV vaccine > >actually works or not, do you know? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > what you can say is that FeLV vaccinations will prevent many exposed cats from > developing FeLV, but not all. Which, given in a nutshell, is the same info that my vet gave to me. Better protection than none (*if* recommended, on a cat-by-cat basis), but known to not be 100% effective. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon >Which, given in a nutshell, is the same info that my vet gave to me. Better >protection than none (*if* recommended, on a cat-by-cat basis), but known to >not be 100% effective. I think there is a failure rate with all vaccines; therefore none could really be labeled 100 percent effective. But the FeLV vaccines are usually estimated to be about 87% effective. Feb 2004: > I did see a study (can't find it now, of course) which experimentally > exposed a number of cats and kittens to FeLV, with a group of cats [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > FeLV vaccinations will prevent many exposed cats from developing FeLV, > but not all. I wish there was a study that could show how often the vaccination is really necessary for an at-risk cat. But until that time, my FeLV- cats are going to have to get the booster yearly. It will be interesting to see how Bonnie fares since she was only about 5 months old when I took her in and she got the first and second shot for FeLV, plus being an at-risk cat. And then Shamrock with an auto-immune disease and getting regular steroid shots (hopefully to be lessened with antihistamines -- fingers crossed). I gotta tell you. With what is going on here, I don't think I want cats any more. Either that or they were all sent to me for a reason. SignatureCheryl Trapped like rats. In a chia-pet. MIB II >I wish there was a study that could show how often the vaccination is >really necessary for an at-risk cat. I asked my vet if it wasn't likely that the one vaccinated and receiving the annual booster for a couple years that that immunity was probably lasting more than a year, but he said since they don't really know, it's better to keep up with the boosters if the cat is at risk (or in our case, *might* be at risk once in a blue moon). But until that time, my FeLV- cats >are going to have to get the booster yearly. It will be interesting to see >how Bonnie fares since she was only about 5 months old when I took her in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >gotta tell you. With what is going on here, I don't think I want cats any >more. Either that or they were all sent to me for a reason. > >So has there been any definitive findings on whether or not the FeLV vaccine > >actually works or not, do you know? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > what you can say is that FeLV vaccinations will prevent many exposed cats from > developing FeLV, but not all. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1996 Mar 20;12(5):379-83 Efficacy of an inactivated feline leukemia virus vaccine. Hoover EA, Mullins JI, Chu HJ, Wasmoen TL. Department of Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523, USA. An inactivated whole-virus FeLV vaccine, developed from a molecularly cloned FeLV isolate (FeLV-61E-A), was assessed for its ability to protect cats against homologous and heterologous virulent viral challenge. The fractions of cats that resisted the induction of persistent viremia after FeLV challenge were as follows: FeLV-61E-A vaccine, 95%; adjuvant controls, 26%; and established commercial control FeLV vaccine, 35%. The prechallenge mean neutralizing antibody titers for each group were as follows: FeLV-61E-A vaccine, 1:43; adjuvant controls, < 1:8; and commercial control FeLV vaccine, 1:12. The prototype FeLV-61E-A vaccine was developed commercially for immunization of pet cats by substitution of a proprietary adjuvant and development of stable, high antigen production cell lines. This vaccine (Fel-O-Vax) has been studied extensively, alone and in multivalent combination with other feline virus vaccines, in seven efficacy trials involving a total of 150 immunized cats. These studies yielded an FeLV-resistant fraction of 87% in vaccinated cats as compared with 8% in adjuvant controls. The duration of immunity induced by an FeLV-61E-A commercial vaccine (Fel-O-Vax-LvK IV) was also assessed. One year after vaccination, 100% of challenged vaccinated cats and none of challenged controls resisted induction of persistent viremia. The results of these studies demonstrate that an inactivated FeLV vaccine prepared from a molecularly cloned subgroup A FeLV produces a high level of protective immunity against heterologous and homologous FeLV infection. This vaccine-induced immunity is durable for at least 1 year without intervening booster immunization or exposure to virus." Many FeLV vaccine efficacy trials have been conducted over the years -- Efficacy among the various vaccines range between 75% and 90% with most researchers agreeing on the average vqccine efficacy of about 75-80%. I don't have time to dig through studies and construct side-by-side comparisons. But it shouldn't take a comparison for a rational and reasonable person to realize that the 75% odds of vaccine protection jusify the .0001% odds of developing a VAS for cats *at risk* of contracting FeLV. >So >> what you can say is that FeLV vaccinations will prevent many exposed cats [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >reasonable person to realize that the 75% odds of vaccine protection jusify >the .0001% odds of developing a VAS for cats *at risk* of contracting FeLV. Thank you for finding this and posting it, Phil. If, as a Winn Foundation article reports, as many as eleven percent of strays are infected with FeLV, and in urban areas up to 40 percent of roaming cats, it certainly seems rational to vaccinate any cat that might come into contact with strays or indoor/outdoor cats. > So has there been any definitive findings on whether or not the FeLV > vaccine actually works or not, do you know? Gosh, I sure hope so. :( SignatureCheryl Trapped like rats. In a chia-pet. MIB II k3_e81@yahoo.com (-L.) wrote in message news: > Vaccinate your cats or don't. The fact is cats DO NOT become immune > to FeLV. > > -L. There is an interesting relationship between retroviruses and hosts. Many times retroviruses do not cause disease, probably because long ago those who survived the virus developed (or already had) a natural immunity to it. This is noticed even with AIDS. Roughly ten percent of African prostitutes who have been again and again exposed to the AIDS virus are AIDS-free. They simply do not develop the disease and scientists are trying to figure out why. This is also noticed in lions regarding FIV. Some carry the virus but they never develop the disease. Lions have probably been selected long ago for natural immunity. The same is probably true for cats regarding FeLV and FIV. We messed up the natural immunity they acquired in their evolution by inbreeding. Now some cats are again susceptible to these diseases mostly thanks to us. > Vaccinate your cats or don't. The fact is cats DO NOT become immune > to FeLV. > > -L. Remember, Liz is the same lunatic that said calcium oxalate uroliths can be dissolved with *water* in cats.... and who "corrects" peer-reviewed and other studies and surveys to what she thinks they should say and what the author(s) "really meant"... Liz is also the psychopath that said cats shouldn't be vaccinated -- even though she knows for generations, millions of cats would die, she feels its worth it because not vaccinating cats would produce stronger cats that don't need vaccinations... How's that? > "Phil P" <phil@maxshouse.com> wrote in message news: > > > Why don?t you try to find out what a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Goes to show how you love to BOAST about things you have absolutely no > idea about, no understanding, no background, you name it. "Boast"? Now what the hell are you rambling about? Are you having a private, delusional conversation with yourself about another subject or are you now desperately trying to divert attention away from your utterly stupid and asinine statement that adult cats are immune to FeLV? Your unintelligible and nonsensical post has absolutely nothing to do with your other nonsensical statement that "adult cats are immune to FeLV...." which of course they aren't... Anyone with even a basic knowledge of FeLV - which you clearly don't have - knows adult cats can and do become infected... Like I said, nut case, what does your nonsensical post have to do with your moronic and utterly asinine statement that adult cats are immune to FeLV? ...which of course they *are not immune*. No wonder you're not "in research" anymore (I don't think you ever were) - Your mind can't stay focused on a subject without digressing or drifting off on some unrelated tangent... Do you realize that every time you try to show off how "smart" you are you make a complete and utter a.s of yourself? LOL! You came into this group with utterly ridiculous theories that are in direct opposition to mainstream veterinary medicine as if you're some kind of wiz and had some privileged information that the rest of the world didn't know about... Turns out all your theories are nothing but silly, ignorant bullsh!t -- like your incredibly *stupid* delusion of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths in cats with water! That little piece of delusional fantasy had 4 vets and their entire staffs laughing to the point of tears... All four vets thought you were a very, very dangerous person because your convoluted and manipulated spiels probably sound good to newbies and average cat owners who just don't know any better. I tremble at the thought of male cats dying from acute renal failure because their owners were waiting for their cats' calcium oxalate urinary tract obstructions to dissolve. As far as my understanding, background and "you name it" about FeLV, I've rescued, managed, treated and *CURED* FeLV cats for more than 20 years, you backwoods, sleazy, lying, low-life, manipulator. No one has been caught red-handed in more lies and manipulating studies than you... I've worked one on one with veterinary professors, pathologists, virologists and IM Diplomates and 1000s of cats -- Where exactly does your "fountain of knowlege" come from... the sewer? Must be... because you've been *wrong* more times than you've been right... when you're wrong, you're *dead* wrong -- because your bogus information is usually *lethal* for cats. You've been a clear and present danger to cats ever since Lauren dragged you out from under your slimy rock and infested this group. I was not joking when I said the world for cats and their owners would be a better place without you in it. You obviously did not understand at all what I wrote but of course I predicted that. The immediate effects of vaccinating against FeLV may be apparently good but definitively not worth the risk. If the risk were worth it, we would have a vaccine for AIDS and for every other disease caused by retroviruses in humans. BTW, do you have any studies showing the efficacy of the vaccine in a natural setting, that is, challenged with strains that are out there and not the ones they manipulate in labs? > You obviously did not understand at all what I wrote You're obviously right! I obviously don't understand your obviously utterly stupid and obviously nonsensical theories and obviously asinine conclusions... Obviously the mainstream veterinary community doesn't understand you either.... You're obviously the only person who understands you.... but of course I > predicted that. Of course you did! Clairvoyance is part of your delusion.. That's how you get all this secret information that's known only to you but unknown to the mainstream veterinary medical community.... like your utterly stupid delusion of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths in cats with water! The immediate effects of vaccinating against FeLV may > be apparently good Yeah, Einstein, I'd say protecting cats at risk of contracting a fatal disease may be "apparently good"... > but definitively not worth the risk. Lets see.... the vaccine has at least a 75% efficacy with a 0.0001% risk factor... and you say its "definitively not worth the risk.."? ...and you still don't think there's something very seriously wrong with you? If the risk > were worth it, we would have a vaccine for AIDS and for every other > disease caused by retroviruses in humans. Human AIDS and FeLV aren't caused by the same virus, you backwoods babbling idiot ,.... The human and Feline immunodeficiency viruses are classified as Lentivirinae or type E Retroviridae and are distinct from the FeLV. The FeLV belongs to the subfamily Oncovirinae of the Retroviridae family. > BTW, do you have any studies Why do you ask? Did you run out of studies to manipulate, and deliberately misinterpret? >Do you realize the guy has studies backing up his claims? What do you >have? Recommendations from vaccine manufacturers? Let´s see what *you* >have. But the claim that cats older than one year of age are naturally immune to FeLV is a pretty incredible one and contradicts the experience of most vets and veterinary schools. I don't see a citation for that particular claim in Dr. Roger's statement, so where would one look for such supporting studies? >Found it... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune >to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not. I looked at the site where this is quoted, but I don't see any literature cited to support this claim. I find it hard to believe, since I know of adult cats that have contracted FeLV. >2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site >Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is thought >to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated. > >3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should be >vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus. If a cat is more than one year old and so presumably immune, what would be an "at risk" cat? >A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if >given this information. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >all the studies attached to back up before Court what this Dr. Rogers >states. I'm sure many people would be interested to see these studies. > >Found it... > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I looked at the site where this is quoted, but I don't see any literature cited > to support this claim. No surprise... Liz has a long established history of manipulating and dilberately misinterpreting statements and studies to suit her obsessive agenda. Remember the CRF survey and the vaccine-CRF study? She changed the original authors' conclusions completely into the conclusions she thought they should be.... She even said she includes "facts" the original authors "should have" included.... I find it hard to believe, since I know of adult cats > that have contracted FeLV. So do most of us who actually work with real live cats.... Liz is what's known as an armchair commando... No actual experience... She just regurgitates others' information with her own spin on it... valid or not as long as it supports her agenda.... >> >Found it... >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >they should be.... She even said she includes "facts" the original authors >"should have" included.... Dr. Rogers' suit does cite various sources for other parts of his claim, but since that one --that adult cats are immune to FeLV--is not supported, or at least not in the document shown. I'd like to know the disposition of this case, and how the state responds. >I find it hard to believe, since I know of adult cats >> that have contracted FeLV. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >regurgitates others' information with her own spin on it... valid or not as >long as it supports her agenda.... Well, I looked at Dr. Rogers' own site and I think his statement on FeLV immunity is derived from the AVMA VAS Task Force. The chart on non-core vaccines (FeLV) notes in the comments section that 87% of cats over the age of one year are immune. Again, I'm not sure where that data comes from. They do recommend vaccinating "high risk" cats, so it's confusing as to whether any cat more than one year in age could still be high risk. I wonder if Dr. Rogers is overstating the case here, because he implies that no adult cat needs to be vaccinated against FeLV. I am only wondering about the FeLV statement itself--for the rest of it, he seems to be pretty much in line with the veterinary association recommendations on vaccination protocols. I also do not disagree with his general argument that many pets have been and are still being over-vaccinated. Especially when I walk into clinics with posters on their walls promoting the FIV or FIP vaccines. > >> >Found it... > >> > > >> >The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, > >> >and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by > >> >misrepresentation, misrepresentation That's a perfect description of Liz's usual modus opereandi! by silence, and undue influence > >> >given the literature that states: Liz just loves hyperbole and sensationalism, and exaggeration. She especially loves to perpetuate rumors and innuendo about mainstream veterinary medicine... Don't forget her gross exaggeration if not down right lie about a "direct link" between vaccines causing CRF... The authors made no such conclusion.... She conjured up that conclusion in one of anti-mainstream vet med frenzies.... > >> >1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune > >> >to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > Dr. Rogers' suit does cite various sources for other parts of his claim, Typical au naturel modus openandi - Take a little truth, mix in it with a lot of au naturel bullsh!t and the finished product has a somewhat believable ring to it.... but > since that one --that adult cats are immune to FeLV--is not supported, or at > least not in the document shown. I'd like to know the disposition of this case, > and how the state responds. Probably laugh... Who would take a nut case trying to sue every vet in the state, seriously... except another nut case... Rogers should be prosecuted for malicious prosecution and harassment.... Unfortunately, I'm sure he has a flock of idiots who swear he's an au naturel guru... like the one who posted his nonsense... > >I find it hard to believe, since I know of adult cats > >> that have contracted FeLV. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well, I looked at Dr. Rogers' own site and I think his statement on FeLV > immunity is derived from the AVMA VAS Task Force. I don't think so... The AVMA/VASF is very clear about which cats should be vaccinated.... "The individuals most at risk of infection are outdoor cats, indoor/outdoor cats, and cats exposed to such individuals. Cats living in households with FeLV-infected cats or with cats of unknown infection status are also at risk. Indoor-only cats with no exposure to potentially infected cats are extremely unlikely to become infected. FeLV vaccines are recommended for all cats at risk of exposure to the virus." http://www.avma.org/vafstf/rbbroch.asp Nope... Nothing about all cats over a year old being immune... The chart on non-core > vaccines (FeLV) notes in the comments section that 87% of cats over the age of > one year are immune. Even *if* that were true... which of course it isn't.... What about the other 13%? Does this nut case realize how astronomically high a 13% incidence is? Besides, that's not how it works in nature.... As the risk of exposure increases, the cumulative rate of infection is opposite that of antibody production. IOW, as exposure to FeLV accumulates with age, susceptibil?ity to infection simultaneously decreases. This age-related resistance isn't absolute -- because you know and I know that many FeLV- *adults* can and *do* serocovert to FeLV+ if they're housed together with FeLV+ cats regardless of their age.... although younger cats are more susceptible. > Again, I'm not sure where that data comes from. Probably manipulated from an older and unrelated but highly regarded Rojko & Hardy FeLV text regarding FeLV testing methods and interpretations. "We would like to emphasize that it is not necessarily desirable for any FeLV test to detect early or local tissue FeLV infections without persistent viremia, since it is known that most cats (42 percent in nature, up to 85 percent in the laboratory setting) will reject their initial local infections and become FeLV-free and immune ". They do > recommend vaccinating "high risk" cats, so it's confusing as to whether any cat > more than one year in age could still be high risk. Nothing confusing about "FeLV vaccines are recommended for *all* cats at risk of exposure to the virus." No ambiguity in that statement... None, zilch, nada... > I wonder if Dr. Rogers is overstating the case here, because he implies that no > adult cat needs to be vaccinated against FeLV. That's an easy question... Just ask yourself, how many au naturel fanatics present their cases in a rational and prudent fashion....? They're usually extremists and sensationalize, exaggerate - not to mention throwing in their usual scare tactics to get their point accross. ....Suing all vets in Texas for malpractice.... LOL! I sure as hell wouldn't want a vet with that mentality anywhere near my cats! >> Dr. Rogers' suit does cite various sources for other parts of his claim, > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >other 13%? Does this nut case realize how astronomically high a 13% >incidence is? Yes, that's a far cry from stating that all cats over one year of age are naturally immune. >Besides, that's not how it works in nature.... As the risk of exposure >increases, the cumulative rate of infection is opposite that of antibody [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >percent in the laboratory setting) will reject their initial local >infections and become FeLV-free and immune ". Okay, thanks, Phil. That's what I was trying to find out--where was Dr. Rogers getting that "87% of cats over one year of age are naturally immune" figure. While the majority of healthy adult cats will probably overcome exposure to the FeLV virus, it still seems prudent to vaccinate adult cats who are at risk of exposure. >They do >> recommend vaccinating "high risk" cats, so it's confusing as to whether [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Texas for malpractice.... LOL! I sure as hell wouldn't want a vet with >that mentality anywhere near my cats! It will be interesting to see what comes of his suit, if anything. > > "Gail" <gmpg@earthlink.net> wrote in message news: > > > I would have him tested again for feline leukemia and if he's OK, I would [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune > to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not. This is totally incorrect. Cats can catch FeLV at any time. > 2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site > Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is thought > to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated. > > 3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should be > vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus. Again, most vets would disagree with this. > A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if > given this information. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all the studies attached to back up before Court what this Dr. Rogers > states. Well, with ADR, I think Dr. Rogers is full of sh.t. If I had an indoor-ourdoor cat, I would vaccinate all my crew. The risk, although minimal, is enough to warrant vaccination, IMO. -L. > > "Gail" <gmpg@earthlink.net> wrote in message news: > > > I would have him tested again for feline leukemia and if he's OK, I would [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune > to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not. I understand (via directly questioning one of my vets about it) that kittens & cats up to approx. 18 months of age are much more likely than cats older than 18 months to develop FeLV if exposed, but not that cats over 12 months are completely immune. And, of the cats who are infected, that some never show signs of the illness, another portion live relatively normal lives but w/ periods of illness, & that the remaining cats succumb to the illness. > 2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site > Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is thought [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if > given this information. If I had a cat who went outside & could interact w/ other cats, having no idea if any of those cats were possibly ill w/ FeLV, I'd presently elect to have them vaccinated. Cathy -- "Staccato signals of constant information..." ("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon >> 3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should be >> vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >idea if any of those cats were possibly ill w/ FeLV, I'd presently elect to >have them vaccinated. The statement contradicts the previous statement that cats more than one year of age are immune to FeLV whether vaccinated or not. That implies that no cat more than one year old is "at risk", yet the second statement recommends vaccinating cats more than one year old who are at risk. I agree with you--our cats do go outside on a leash, and although our vet said she does the same thing with her cats but does not vaccinate against FeLV, we elected to do it. We were glad we did when we rescued a stray. Even though the risk would have been small and she did later test negative for FeLV, it was one less thing to worry about. Of course, the fact that the cat clinic we use has never had a case of vaccine related sarcoma also gives us some sense of reassurance. There is a recent study I just read about in either Catnip or CatWatch, which found that the temperature of the vaccine (whether or not it's kept refrigerated) may have some relationship to vaccine related sarcomas. They also noted that there is a slightly higher risk of sarcoma associated with long-acting injectable medications like penicillin and prednisolone, so in fact it may not be the nature of the vaccine itself that results in sarcoma. > I believe I remember reading that adult cats do not get feline > leukemia Another one of your utterly stupid, *asinine* and dangerous statements.... No one posts more erroneous and dangerous information in this group than you... Do you even realize you continuously post dangerous information? Do you do it intentionally, or are you really that clueless? Adult cats *can* and certainly *do* become infected with FeLV.... You said you were in "research in the pharmaceutical industry".... Then you should be well aware of vaccine efficacy studies required for licensing in which a significant propor?tion of unvaccinated adult controls became infected when they were housed with FeLV-infected cats.... in a lawsuit done by some Texan vet against all vets in Texas > for malpractice. I?m too tired right now but I?ll try to look it up. Its not surprising you have a knack for finding quotes and articles written by nut cases.... Birds of a feather... Did it ever occur to you that you should look up and verify the accuracy of your information *before* you post it.... No wonder you're not in research any more... Now, do the cats of the world a favor and take a nap... a real long nap... say about 20 years or so... May be about 400 mg of potassium IV will help you sleep a little better.... > I have two TOTALLY indoor cats. I decided last year not to continue > vaccinating them (they are 5). However, last summer I found a tame but I think you should reconsider. I don't vaccinate my indoor cats for diseases only passed by contact with another infected cat, but I do keep them vaccinated for distemper and rabies. Feline distemper is an airborne pathogen, so your cats will be at risk. Rabies vaccination is usually required by law. A rabid bat could get into your house, or your cats could escape and encounter a rabid skunk, possum, or raccoon -- all of which often live in cities as well as in suburban and rural areas. Bats can fit through cracks only 1/4 inch wide, and in a friend's bat-infested house, they came out through the light fixtures when their exit from the attic was blocked up. According to the CDC, any unvaccinated cat or dog that is bitten by a wild animal needs to be either euthanized or kept in isolation for 6 months. Signaturejamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com) "There's a seeker born every minute."
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.