|Complaint To The Texas Veterinary Board of Medical Examiners|
Dear Board Members,
I assert that the present practice of marketing of vaccinations by Veterinarians for companion animals without informed consent and where there is no benefit to the pet constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence. I allege this is a common practice on the part of over 90% of Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in this state.
I hereby file a complaint about the fraudulent marketing practices by Veterinarians in the State of Texas for violation of the Texas Penal Code and the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 573.26 which states: Licensed veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity, and fair dealing to clients in time and services rendered, and in the amount charged for services, facilities, appliances and drugs.
Recommending, administering, and charging for Canine Corona virus
1. Dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to canine corona virus disease.Canine corona virus has never been demonstrated to cause disease in adult dogs.
The argument that dogs that develop parvovirus
Immunologists doubt that Canine Corona virus
5. Gastroenterologists at Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Dr Michael Willard at Texas A&M University have stated that they have only seen one case of corona virus disease in a dog in ten years.
6. On at least one occasion large numbers of dogs have died from adverse reactions to corona virus vaccine.
A reasonable client
would not elect corona virus vaccination for an adult dog if
Dogs over 8 weeks of age do not develop disease from canine corona virus.
Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-what’s right? What’s not?
Compendium on CE,
2. Paul, Michael A., Vaccinations-what’s
3. Schultz, Ronald D., “Are we
vaccinating too much?”
4. Schultz, Ronald D., “Current and
future canine and
5. Klingborg, Hustead, Curry
Galvan, AVMA Council On
6. Paul, Michael, Report
of the American Animal
7. Ford, Richard B, Vaccines and
8. Wilson RB, Holladay JA, Cave
JS, A Neurologic
Recommending, administering, and charging for re-
1. The American Veterinary Medical Association, Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents has advised the USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics that there is no scientific data to support label claims for annual re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims should be backed by scientific data.
2. It is the consensus of immunologist that a modified live virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system. With repeat administration of a MLV vaccine antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the replication of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except that the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction.
3. A temporal association has been demonstrated between vaccinations and the development of Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia.
4. It has been demonstrated that the
1. HogenenEsch Harm, Dunham Anisa D, Scott-Moncrieff Catharine, Glickman Larry, DeBoer Douglas J, Effect of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and antigen-specific immunoglobulin E in dogs, AJVR, Vol 63, No. 4, April 2002, pgs. 611-616.
2. Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-What’s right? What’s not? Compendium on Continuing Education, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 1999, pg. 32.
3. Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future, Proceedings of the World Animal Veterinary Congress, Vancouver 2001.
Ronald D., “Are we vaccinating too much?” JAVMA, No. 4, August 15,
5. Schultz, Ronald D., “Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs”, Veterinary Medicine, March 1998, pg. 243.
6. Schultz, Ronald D, Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and What We Don’t Know, Proceedings – Canine Infectious Diseases: From Clinics to Molecular Pathogenesis, Ithaca, NY, 1999, 22.
7. Schultz, Ronald D, The Vaccine Controversy: What Vaccines
L J, Sawchuck S, Bonds M D, Schultz RD, Comparison of Antibody Titers
Among Dogs Vaccinated, One, Two, Three Years Previously, Proceedings of
9. Gorham, J.R., “Duration of vaccination immunity and the influence on subsequent prophylaxis” JAVMA 149:699-704; 1966
Tom R. and Schultz, Ronald D, “Canine and Feline
Donald, Principles of Vaccination, AVMA Council on
12. Paul, Michael, Report
of the American Animal Hospital
13. Ford, Richard B,
Vaccines and Vaccinations, The Veterinary
14. Tizard Ian, Use of serologic
testing to assess immune status of
Scott FW, Cordell MG, Long – term immunity in cats vaccinated
16. Lappin MR, Andrews J,
Simpson D, Jensen W, Use of Serologic
III. Ordinances by Counties and Municipalities requiring annual rabies vaccination are illegal, as they require the client to purchase something with no effect. The recommendation of annual rabies vaccination for dogs and cats with three- year duration of immunity vaccine is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given that:
1. Rabies vaccine has been licensed by the USDA as a three- year vaccine. Rabies vaccine has been proven to have a minimum duration of immunity of three years by challenge to the USDA, seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, and 4 years for cats and 5 years for dogs by challenge by Aubert.
2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to demonstrate that the immune status of the pet is enhanced. Data shows that the immune status of the pet is not enhanced. When the rabies vaccine is re-administration the client is paying for something with no benefit.
3. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. This recommendation has been proven effective in 33 States in the United States.
Department of Public Health has adopted a new
Texas Department of Public Health, White Paper on Options for rabies
2. HogenenEsch Harm, Dunham Anisa D, Scott-Moncrieff Catharine, Glickman Larry, DeBoer Douglas J, Effect of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and antigen-specific immunoglobulin E in dogs, AJVR, Vol. 63, No. 4, April 2002, pg 611-616.
3. Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-What’s right? What’s not? Compendium on Continuing Education, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 1999, pg. 32.
4. Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future, Proceedings of the World Animal Veterinary Congress, Vancouver 2001.
Ronald D, Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines:
Aubert Michel F, The practical significance of rabies antibodies
rabies virus vaccines to cats is subject
8. “Local and regional regulatory
9. “Every effort should be made to
change laws that require
The recommendation for administration of Leptospirosis
1. Although Leptospirosis is re-emerging as an endemic disease for dogs in some areas of the country, Leptospirosis in dogs in Texas is a very rare disease. According to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab there are only an average of twelve cases of Leptospirosis documented in dogs in Texas per year. Factors to identify those dogs that are at risk have not been identified. Given that there are over 6 million dogs in Texas, the risk of leptospirosis disease to a dog is less than 2 in a million.
2. The commonly used vaccine only contains serovars Lepto. canicola, and Lepto. icterohaemorrhagiae, and no cross protection is provided against the other three serovars diagnosed in Texas. Newer vaccines containing Lepto pomona, and Lepto grippotyphosa are available. To provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two vaccines with four serovars annually.
3. Although humans can develop Leptospirosis, the spread of Lepto. from a dog to a human has never been documented and is thought to be a very low risk.
4. Given that the risk of an adverse reaction, a reasonable client would not elect vaccination of their pet for leptospirosis if provided with the above information.
1. Angulo, A. B. DVM, MS, PhD, ACVM, College Station, Texas, Personal phone conferences. (Antec samples are all sent to the TVMDL, Idexx samples are sent to Michigan and Texas results are not available.)
2. Klingborg, DJ, Hustead DR, Curry-Galvin E, AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents’ Report on cat and dog vaccines, JAVMA, Vol. 221, No 10, Nov 15, 2002, pg 1401- 1407.
3. Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future, Proceedings of
The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs residing
Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in the U. S. are found in
2. The Texas Department of
Health reports an average of 70 human
3. Julie Rawlings
reported in her research on the incidence of the
4. Texas A&M College
of Veterinary Medicine has not documented one
Dr Jacobson, Cornell University (ret) has documented a temporal
A reasonable client would not elect Lyme disease vaccine for their
1. Klingborg, DJ, Hustead DR, Curry-Galvin E, AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents’ Report on cat and dog vaccines, JAVMA, Vol 221, No 10, Nov 15, 2002, pg 1401- 1407.
2. Greene CE, Schultz RD, Ford, R, Canine Vaccination, Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, Vol 31, No 3, May 2001, pg 473- 492.
3. Jacobson RH, Chang YF, Shin SJ, Lyme disease; laboratory diagnosis of infected and vaccinated symptomatic dogs, Seminars in VET Medicine and Surgery; Small Animal, 11(3); 172-82 Aug 1996.
5. Schultz, Ronald D., “Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs”, Veterinary Medicine, March 1998, pg.
6. Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future, Proceedings of the World Animal Veterinary Congress, Vancouver 2001
Injection site fibrosarcoma is a fatal type of cancer caused by
1. Vaccines have been incriminated as a cause of Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.
2. Adjuvanted vaccines have been demonstrated to be at higher risk.
3. It is estimated that 1:20,000 cats vaccinated develop vaccine-associated fibrosarcoma.
4. Injection site fibrosarcomas are 100% fatal if untreated. The prognosis, even with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy is very poor.
5. The American Association of Feline Practitioners and the AVMA Vaccine Associated Sarcoma Task Force recommend reduced vaccination schedules and alternative non-adjuvanted and intranasal vaccines.
6. A reasonable client would not elect unnecessary or unsafe vaccines for their cat if given this information.
1. O’Rourke Kate, Progress made in feline sarcoma research, JAVMA, Vol. 220, No 6, March 2002.
2. Bergman P, Hendrick MJ, Macy D, McGill LD, Starr RM, Van Kampen KR, Feline Sarcoma and Vaccination, Veterinary Forum, March 1999,40-47.
3. Bergman PJ, Etiology of feline vaccine-associated sarcomas, JAVMA, 1998,213, 1424-1425.
4. Kass PH, Barnes WG, Spangler WL, Epidemiologic evidence for a Causal Relationship Between Vaccination and Fibrosarcoma Tumorigenesis in Cats, JAVMA, 1993,203, 396-405.
5. Meyer EK, Vaccine Associated Adverse Events, Veterinary Clinics of North America; Small Animal Practice, Vol 31, No 3 May 2001, pg 473-492.
6. Gaskell R, Gettinby G, Graham S, Skilton D, Veterinary Products Committee working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, Department for Food & Rural Affairs, Nobel House London, UK, May 2001
7. Ford, Richard, Vaccines & Vaccinations Change is in the Wind, Merial Ltd, 2003
recommendation for vaccination of cats with Feline
1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare disease.
2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the normal flora a virulent Feline Corona Virus. On rare occasions this Corona Virus mutates to become a virulent feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus. Every mutation is a different variant and there no cross protection. This vaccine does not and cannot work.
3. Independent studies have not confirmed the manufacturers claims for efficacy.
4. Twenty- two Schools of Veterinary Medicine, The American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents and the American Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend this vaccine.
5. A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine if given this
Kennedy M, Boedecker N, Gibbs P, Kania S,
Deletions of the 7a ORF of feline
2. Kiss I, Kecskemeti S, Tanyi J, Klingeborn B, Belak S, Prevalence and genetic pattern of feline coronavirus in urban cat populations, Vet J 159, (1); 64-70, Jan 2000.Veterinary Institute of Debrecen, Hungary, Harcourt Publishers Ltd, 2000.
3. Vennema H, Poland A, Hawkins F, Pedersen NC, A comparison of the genomes of FECV and Feline Infectious Peritonitis viruses, Feline Practice, 23,40-44,1995.
4. Herreewegh AA, Maher M,
Hedrich HJ, Haagmans BL, Egberink
5. Richards J, Rodan
I, Feline Vaccine Guidelines, Veterinary
Vennema H, Genetic drift and genetic shift during feline
8. Gunn-Moore DA,
Gunn-Moore FJ, Gruffydd-Jones TJ, Harbour
9. Kida k,
Hohdatsu T, Fuji K, Koyama H, Selection of antigenic
10. Vennema H,
Poland A, Foley J, Pederson NC, Feline Infectious
Kennedy MA, Brenneman K, Millsaps RK, Black J, Potgieter LN,
Herreweigh AA, Mahler M, Hedrich HJ, Haagmans Bl, Egberink
Mochizuki M, Misutake Y, Miyanohara Y, Higashihara T, Shimizu
14. Klingborg DJ, Hustead DR, Curry-Galvin EA, AVMA Council on
2000 Report of American Association of Feline Practitioners
VIII. The recommendation of Feline Immunosupressive virus (FIV) vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:
1. The virus in the vaccine is Clade A &
D. The predominate Clade
2. A reasonable client would not
elect this vaccine for their cat if
1.Yamamoto, Janet K, Torres Barbara A, Pu
Ruiyi, Development of
2. Pu Ruiyi, Dual-subtype FIV vaccine, AIDS
15, pg. 1225-37, July
recommendation for annual Feline Leukemia vaccine for
1. Cats over one year of age are resistant to Feline leukemia virus whether they are vaccinated or not.
the duration of immunity of Feline Leukemia vaccine
1. Klingborg DJ, Hustead DR,
Curry-Galvin EA, AVMA Council on Biologic
2. Hoover EA, Feline leukemia virus infection: Age related variation in response to infection, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 57, 365. (1776)
3. Hofmann-Lehmann R, Recombinant FeLV Vaccine: Long-term protection effect on course and outcome of FIV infection, Veterinary Immunology Immunopathology, 4691- 2); 127-37 May 1999
4. 2000 Report of American Association of
Feline Practitioners and
recommendation of blood tests for antibody titers on dogs
1. The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programmed, memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells is not taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.
2. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells are capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a patient.
3. A positive titer has not been demonstrated by challenge studies to indicate immunity.
4. The client is paying for a test where the Veterinarian can make no claims as to the significance of a positive or negative test result.
5. A reasonable client would not elect to pay for this test if given this information.
1. Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-what’s right? What’s not? Compendium on CE, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 1999, pg. 32,33.
2. Klingborg Donald, Principles of Vaccination, AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents, Policy on Biologics, April 2002.
3. Wolf Alice M, Just the Facts About Vaccs: Frequently Asked Questions About Current Vaccination Recommendations and Practice Guidelines, Proceedings from the North American Veterinary Conference, 13, 1999, pg. 681.
4. 2000 Report
of American Association of Feline Practitioners
5. Klingborg, DJ, Hustead DR,
Curry-Galvin E, AVMA Council on
6 . Paul, Michael, Report of
the American Animal Hospital
The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners has reviewed this complaint and found nothing inaccurate or untrue. Despite my repeated requests over the last four years, the
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners has failed to take any reasonable and demonstrated action to stop the deceptive trade practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for companion animals. The open letter to Veterinarians approved by the Board February 13, 2003(Enclosed) cannot reasonably be expected to stop Veterinarians from the prevailing fraudulent protect the people of Texas, and whereby it is provided in the Texas Administrative Code Title 22, Part 24, Chapter 577, Subchapter B, Rule 577.16: Responsibilities of the Board (a) The Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is responsible for establishing policies and promulgating rules to establish and maintain a high standard of integrity, skills, and practice in the profession of Veterinary medicine in accordance with the Veterinary Licensing Act. The Licensing Act clearly provides for the Board to prohibit the prescribing of unnecessary medications. I hereby assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is negligent in its responsibilities.
The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners Board has ignored my repeated requests to deny approval of Continuing Education credit where a conflict of interest exists. CE credits should not be allowed for seminars provided by paid employees of drug companies. Pfizer Animal Health, Fort Dodge Animal Health, and Meriel have provided seminars, which are fraudulent by omission of material facts, misrepresent the scientific data, and thereby influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practices in the marketing of vaccines. (A separate complaint will be filed with your office and the Federal Trade Commission alleging false advertising on the part of these three companies.)
The people of the State of Texas have pay over $360 million dollars per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary and potentially harmful to their pets. Over 2,000 pets die every year from adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. A survey by the American Animal Hospital Association shows that less than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their vaccination recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new recommendations have been published twice in every major Veterinary Medical Journal since 1995.
I am not asking that the Veterinarians of the State be punished. I am requesting that the fraudulent marketing of vaccines and harming of clients pets be stopped.
A reasonable solution would be for the Attorney Generals office to request an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance on the part of each Veterinarian engaged in companion animal practice in the State, agreeing to stop the marketing of vaccines without informed consent, and where no benefit has been scientifically demonstrated.
A reasonable solution would be for the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to request an opinion from the Attorney General on these issues, and for the
Texas State Board to issue a policy statement in the Board Notes indicating a Board policy requiring informed consent, and prohibiting deceptive practices as I have outlined above.
Dr. Robert L. Rogers
Dr Robert L Rogers
The above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
dedicated to the education
of pet owners
Better Business Bureau. Education Foundation