Quote:
Originally Posted by gemy  Yes and that concerns me. The under-reported adverse re-actions.
I never knew that there was not an independent reporting body that accumulated from the vets adverse re-actions to vaccines. It is really quite a bit of madness to report to the vaccine manufacturer, who is not obligated by law to report to an overseeing government body.
That has to change!
So I do believe in vaccines, but not over vaccinating. Also I believe in research. I believe in free accumulating of data to independent bodies.
Without accurate and complete reporting, how can the veterinary medical field make informed decisions and advice? |
I don't know how this can be changed into to make it a law but I'm in total agreement this has to change. This is just one study about the actual cases of adverse reactions:
In 2008 The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a report just on the rabies vaccine in its April 1, 2008 about the underreporting of vaccine reactions. Titled
"Postmarketing Surveillance of Rabies Vaccines for Dogs to Evaluate
Safety and Efficacy."
Between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2007, the Center for Veterinary Biologics, "nearly 10,000 adverse event reports (all animal species) were received by manufacturers of rabies vaccines.... ......Approximately 65% of the manufacturer' s reports, involved dogs."
In light of the 10,000 adverse reactions to the rabies vaccine in the JAVMA report, 65% of which were in dogs, the estimated 1% reporting of "serious" events by the former head of the FDA means that the
actual number of dogs that had adverse reactions to the vaccine would be more like 650,000!
When you see these numbers from just one vaccine I don't see how reactions can be looked at as "rare", I consider this is a serious problem with real reason to be concerned. For one thing every vet is supposed to inform the client of all risks before any pharmaceuticals are administered. I really wonder how many pet owners are given this info beforehand??