Over vaccination is not merely a question of frequency but also dosage. The same rabies dosage is given to Scooby Doo as the Taco Bell Chihuahua!

            Does that make any sense?

 

            Emails like the one below to the Next To Kin Foundation (www.next2kin.org) are not untypical.

            But what you may find interesting is the response of a nationally famous Professor relative to the question of over vaccination. In prior emails to this writer (July, 2008), he outlined out size matters relative to dosage. (As a matter of fact, he pointed to a research study he was part of relative to 360 animal hospitals over a 3 day period which showed adverse reaction to shots of 4/10ths of 1% just in this short period. More importantly, the adverse reactions of small breeds were 10 times higher than large breeds.

 

            In particular: Per ‘Adverse Events Diagnosed Within Three Days of Vaccine Administration In Dogs’ (JAVMA, Vol 227, No.7, October 1, 2005, Moore, Glickman etc, “The VAAE (nonspecific vaccine reaction, allergic reaction, urticaria, or anaphylaxis) rate decreased significantly as body weight increased…young small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at the greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hours after vaccination.’

 

(Remembering this was study was conducted for only 3 days at 640 veterinary hospitals but on 1,226,159 dogs is interesting to note in the 3 days period only - the top 10 incidents of VAAE  were ALL small dogs. For example, the rate on the Dachsuhund was 121.7/10,000 dogs while the Rottweiler was 13/10,000 dogs or almost 1000% difference)

 

Yet, in his response to the subsequent situation, he seems to have changed his position. When I responded to what seems to be a change in his position – he has yet to reply.

 

 Here are the response to this email? Contrary to the past research cited previously by him?????

 (The professor is incorrect confusing cost to the veterinarian of the shot and cost to the consumer. The cost of the rabies shot (depending on volume is as low as $.60 cents. The cost to the owner guardian is $15-$35 at most animal hospitals). That aside his argument is cost benefit – adverse reactions versus increased cost – and he provides no evidence of the increase of cost even though he had indicated to another guardian that 2 manufacturers were working on vaccines for smaller dogs (an implicit admission of the higher incidence of adverse reaction relative to size).  PS The CDC as of 9/2007 declared the United States free of canine rabies - so why then are we giving 80 million plus shot$$$$ a year?

 

 

Devoted dog owners know the dilemma – my dog is old and has health issues. I know he doesn’t feel great, but how should I know when to let him go to the big dog park in the sky?

 

 James D. Schwartz, a retired Colorado fee-only financial planner, knows the problem well.  “A large number of guardians (pet owners) have told me the same thing about asking their vets when it’s time to say goodbye. In response to the question: ‘How do we know when it’s time?’ the response is something like, ‘Oh, you’ll know when it’s time,’” he writes.

 

This answer wasn’t good enough for Schwartz, owner of three standard poodles. He began to research this and other issues, including pet vaccination laws and public policy, micro-chipping, the low down on picking the right veterinarian, pet health insurance and more.  Schwartz has, in fact, done an exhaustive analysis on the current state of the small-animal veterinary industry, leading him to publishing his research and conclusions in his book, “Trust Me: I’m Not a Veterinarian!”

 

 Schwartz has created what amounts to a pet owner’s self defense manual, offering advice on everything from pet cremation to up-to-the-minute facts on controversial pet vaccination practices and the frequent life-threatening or fatal results vaccination can have on older animals.

 

Experience with vaccination and his dogs Buddy, Nicki, Moolah, Elle, Max, Ricki and Moses led Schwartz to question and examine the science, practice and public policy of pet vaccination, leading him to the conclusion that veterinary vaccination practices, evidently dangerous to  pet health, are in actuality a huge cash stream to small-animal vet practices. In his book, Schwartz deconstructs the financial and legislative implications for our pets that, in most cases, function as family members.

 

Schwartz also founded the Next to Kin foundation (next2kin.org) a private, not-for-profit organization that believes that, “dogs, cats and other pets so enrich our lives that we should recognize our pets/companion animals legally and even legislatively as ‘beyond mere property.’”

 

The book, “Trust Me, I’m Not a Vet,” is available at amazon.com. For more information, contact Mr. Schwartz at 303-850-9166

 

            In writing the chapter ‘Pickin’ The Right Financial Planner..Lullabies, Legends & Lies for my previous editions of ENOUGH(sm): A Handbook for Your Personal Financial Planning, I dealt with the dilemma of interviewing the referral sources the planner provides the prospective client.

            The dilemma: the prospective client wants the ‘low down’ on the planner (even realizing the planner is not going to refer clients or former clients that are/were dissatisfied), yet the present client fears any repercussion from saying negative things.

            So how does one get useful information from the present client under these circumstances?

            Typically, people ask questions like, ‘are you happy with the planner? Would you refer the planner? How long have you been with the planner?’ But when questions like, ‘what areas does the planner need to improve in, or, what are you not satisfied with’ people clam up.

            I suggest the use of a semantic differential (sort of like when you call the nurse at 3:00AM in the morning relative to what might be a minor emergency) before proceeding to an ER room. He or she will ask about the pain ‘on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rank the pain?’

            Using the same concept, ask the referred owners/guardians a 1-10 scale relative before or upon engagement of the veterinarian and now 1-10 after the engagement of the veterinarian, the following:

 

1. Preventative care for my companion animals (before engaging this veterinarian 1 to 10) and since being with this veterinarian (1 to 10)
2. Relative to the chronic conditions of your pets – ranking before and now (1-10)
3. Accessability (getting into see the vet especially when necessary whether you are unduly neurotic or not) Baseline (before 1-10) and presently (1-10)
4. Nutritional guidance (before and after)
5. Risk / reward guidance (informed consent) & probabilities of success (cure, manage etc)  for your decisions on procedures for pets (before and after)
6. Shots – informed consent (risk/rewards/ probabilities) for your decisions (before and after)

           Obviously, what you are looking for is numerically an increase from the baseline (before) and today from the referred client – which is less threatening than a declarative value statement on their part.

Notice there is not a ‘likeability’ bedside manner question- though that is up to you. Likeability is nice but competence – results is more important.

Besides, if you want a friend, as the saying goes, get a dog – or another dog.

Chris Leppek review three new publications

Thursday, 25 September 2008 12:57 Chris Leppek

***

This unusual compendium by former Colorado financial planner James D. Schwartz is many things packed into a relatively small package — a series of love stories (those of a man for his dogs), a loud statement of angry protest (mostly against the veterinary profession and its spokespersons) and a warning (to pet owners, especially about the dangers of over-vaccination).

That Schwartz loved his dogs is beyond doubt after reading Trust Me. His accounts of the time they spent with him are warm and touching to anyone who has ever served as a guardian for a dog or cat.

These reminiscences are lovingly related, often humorously so, sometimes with the strong Jewish flavor and the catchy plays-on-words that the author prefers.

The author’s anger, however, is just as genuine, and considerably more disturbing.

His charges about what he alleges to be routine excessive vaccination of pets, and the potentially lethal consequences thereof, are serious and direct. They will likely win him no friends in the veterinary industry, and one gathers from his text that this will bother Schwartz very little.

Pet owners who read this book will have to analyze and evaluate Schwartz’s conclusions — and the various documents he provides to back them up — on their own. Whatever conclusions they may come to on these issues, they are sure to enjoy the personal dimensions of the author’s relationships with his furry friends.

Any pet owner would.

 

During that period, I witnessed many complicated buy sell agreements, succession plans, as well as estate plans and pre-nuptial and post nuptial agreements.

Prior to leaving practice in 1996, more and more individuals and couples were providing for their companion animals in their wills and trusts - first, through appointing guardians but towards the end several took advantage of Colorado’s allowance for companion animals being named as beneficiaries in trusts for the companion animals.

Today, 30+ states now allow these trusts - an implicit admission - that our companion animals are not just depreciable property like a couch or 42″wide screen TV screen (though this is the typically veterinary defense to limit damages at the same time these vets promote the animal human bond and pets as part of the family!)

Despite second marriages and blended families, there is still an omission in pre and post nuptial agreements - for want of a better word  - a pre-puptial (c) agreement.

In case of divorce, disability, separation etc provision should be considered as to who gets primary custody of the dog or cat - before the problems occur. Buddy, Max, Cleo etc should not be a ping pong ball - let alone a weapon as kids often are in a divorce.

Now I’ve seen lawyers go overboard on pet provisons - but first and foremost is who gets primary care and custody of the dog and cat - recognizing our companion animals are not ‘a couch’ not human beings (some would say better) but rather next to kin - or at least living property - and treated to a standard of care and custody better than a plant of a 42″ HDTV

When it is time (hopefully at least bi-annually to review your estate plans - review with counsel not only pet trusts upon your pass but also provisions via a pre-puptial agreement for your companion animals in the effect of split up.

 

 

 

 

However, in September of 2007 when the Center of Disease Control (CDC) announced that the United States was free of canine rabies, no such announcement then or heretofore was posted in this exam room or any of the other of the said animal hospital exam rooms.

One can only wonder the implication of the former (scare – get your vaccinations or else your dog or cat will get rabies) versus the latter – maybe we don’t need to overvaccinate your companion animal.

When queried, the veterinarian indicated that he agreed ‘we are on the same side on over vaccination’ but ‘Jim, many of the minorities don’t get their dog vaccinated.’

Thus, the inference is scare is necessary, though the United States has been declared free of canine rabies by the CDC into vaccination. Then why wasn’t the CDC declaration posted in the name of full disclosure – so that the guardian could vaccinate but not over vaccinate?

(And yes, the treatment was successful in stemming the tide of Buddy’s difficulty – though Buddy was never the same. I have concluded, years later, that Buddy’s difficulty came within two weeks of being over vaccinated at the age of 14 when he already had a myriad of health challenges. But, what did I know then.)

The veterinarians are now pushing twice a year physicals especially for older dogs. While I believe this a good idea – that should have become a standard of preferred recommended practice years ago - I can only wonder if this ‘new preferred protocol’ is at least in part due to the lost revenue or anticipated lost revenue due to reducing over vaccination generated fees, office visits, upsells etc.

In any event, fast forward now 11 years.

In light of my research resulting in Trust Me: I’m Not A Veterinarian, experience with hundreds of emails and call ins to the Next To Kin Foundation (www.next2kin.org) and this new preferred protocol being recommended, I have decided to have a healthcare team (rather than just one veterinarian doing twice a year physicals) in order to have my dogs exposed to different modalities (homeopathy, Chinese medicine, and conventional Western).

(Furthermore, and I recommend to this any companion animal guardian, I suggest the purchase of Dr. Andrew Jones’ Veterinary Secrets Revealed CD and DVD course – which will not only save you time and money – but put you, as the Guardian, in better control and understanding of your dog or cat’s health management. Of course, it is any wonder the Canadian Vet Association not unlike the American Vet Associations are giving Jones grief!)

In any even, at the first 6^th month interval, I had the semi annual physicals done by the same Chinese herb, Acupuncturist Integrative Veterinarian. At the second 6^th month interval I went to the Homeopathic Integrative Veterinarian.

It turns out, my 12 year old standard poodle Max’s blood work taken by the Homeopathic vet showed a very high liver count. Immediately we did an ultrasound (which was negative) but in any event he is now on Milk Thistle and a dose of SAMe daily. In a month we will redo blood work – to see if this was just a transient reading, still a problem or improved and go from there.

Subsequently, while the Homeopathic’s office on the Saturday before Labor Day, Max exhibited neck and or a bit of back pain. (I know when this is happening as he becomes attached to me like Velcro wherever I go and when even laying down his head is up. It’s his signal.)

So off to the Acupuncturist Vet who was open and available.

(Max, yes, is better since his treatment).

I told the Acupuncturist Vet of Max’s new condition.(which I thought, per my instructions to the Homeopathic Vet all information – blood work, findings, etc. was to be shared between the two veterinarians.)

She had not received the information and blood work from the Homeopath.

However, the Acupuncturist Vet seemed to be offended by the utilization of another veterinarian outside her own practice in a subsequent followup inquiring about Max’s neck – and her newly received bloodwork.

Implied was ‘who is number 1’ within the remark ‘who is the main person?’

My response to ‘who is the main person?’: “I am.”

And quite frankly, in light of my findings in Trust Me: I’m Not A Veterinarian – you are whether you like it or not – for your companion animal.

Not unlike our experiences with human medicine today (where the gatekeeper primary care doctor, in most situations, turns over in managed care every other year or so – and is a gatekeeper in theory not practice) – by default you are the main person for your own health care. The days of the family doctor and house calls in human medicine – where you could just ‘trust’ given ‘substitute reliance’– are over, with few exceptions, over. The same applies to veterinary medicine. You must manage your healthcare team for your companion animal.

Anyway, instead of being put on the defensive and accepting the premise of this veterinarian question, I replied with a question, ‘do you have a problem with being a part a healthcare team?’ She backed off and believe me I was ready to remind her of her being part of a health care team when she had no problem with it – 11 years ago with Buddy. I reiterated the veterinarian’s own preferred protocol of semi-annual physicals adding that in that light I wanted, therefore, to have different vantage points (modalities) in viewing my standard poodles’ (Max, Elle, & Moses) health condition.

In human medicine, docs today actually encourage second opinions – if nothing more to protect themselves from malpractice. But remember, unlike the pediatrician (which veterinarians effectively hold themselves out as akin to but for companion animals) who pay $5000-$11,000+ per year in malpractice premiums, the small animal veterinarian practice owner pays approximately $241/year on average practice revenues of $394,000 or about 9cents a dog or cat!

In effect, the small animal veterinarian, because our companion animals are merely personal property like a HDTV, effectively have no malpractice deterrent in law, in professional review etc. (which is outlined in Trust Me: I’m Not A Veterinarian). (Quite frankly, the vets pitch the animal human bond and pets as part of the family for practice development but for liability they have fought tooth and nail to have the liability of a garage mechanic.)

Thus, there is no perceive malpractice minimization benefit of the concept of second opinion let alone healthcare team (unless within their own practice). Instead, second opinion – and healthcare team concept seems to evoke professional jealousy rather than collegiality for the welfare of the companion animal.

Look Joe DiMaggio is dead, Sammy Sosa had a corked bat, Mark McGuire still hasn’t answered whether he was on steroids, Marcus Welby and Rex Allen (Country Veterinarian on TV – which shows my age) were fiction.

So who is the main person on your companion animal’s healthcare team: you!

Empower yourselves (here is the crass commercial – get Trust Me: I’m Not A Veterinarian, get Dr Jones’s Veterinary Secrets Revealed – you dog(s) and cat(s) will thank you.

Next Week’s blog: Professional Collegiality & Over Vaccination Continues

(By way of disclosure, yes, I have a recently released book titled: Trust Me: I’m Not A Veterinarian! - which is an antidote to misleading titles and books, in my opinion, like the one reviewed below)

Rather than it’s self proclaimed ‘insider’s guide to protecting your pet’s health,’ Vet Confidential is, at best a misnomer – a collegial bouquet to veterinarians and the veterinary business, and, at worst, a whitewash fraught with glaring omission$, coverup, and conflicted $pin especially on the subject of the economically driven harmful effects of continued overvaccination despite years of veterinary knowledge.

In the 25 page chapter, Give It Your Best Shot, Murray, fails to disclose that the small animal veterinary practice’s economic business model is based to shots (70% of feline visits, 63% of all canine visits). Nor does she disclose the economic incentive for continuation of overvaccination – the cost of the rabies shot alone is 60 -75cents – which the vet charges $15-$35 a 2500% to 5800% markup! But wait – there’s more. Only the rabies shot can be given by a veterinarian. Cost of office visit $40-$50 bringing the gross markup of shot and visit to 9000% to as high as 16000%. But wait – there is more! This doesn’t include the adverse reactions – which are underreported by the self reporting veterinarians (which even the veterinary association reports as under reported) let alone the upsell opportunity (blood work etc.)

In all 25 pages, there is not a word about the fact that vaccinations are 70%-150% of the small animal veterinarian’s gross profit. And in all 25 pages there is – just 1 throw away line (page 51) relative rabies vaccination that ‘in September 2007, for example, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that the United States was free of canine rabies.’ The fact is by the Noah study (1980-1996) the incidence of rabies from domesticated dog to humans was 2 – making the overall incidence at 200 million average population approximately 11 billionths of 1%. Even the three year rabies protocol was an economic compromise. Only a duration (three years) was challenged not ‘the’duration of the immunity. (It is thought that none of the 7 dogs in one 3 year challenge exhibited rabies – so they were euthanized – thus not showing the longer duration of the shot!) Furthermore, Murray omits that even in the Vets own Principles of Vaccination is the statement (to paraphrase) ‘the practice of annual rabies vaccination is based to historical precedent and government regulation NOT scientific data.’

As far as ‘customization’ now advocated by the vets, this is an implied admission of standardized malpractice for 15+ years in light of the economic motivation and lack of science!

Also, in this vet Babbitt ‘boosterism’ (pun intended) Dr. Murray confuses input with results in her emphasis in selecting a vet practice. Like accreditation, which people mistake as the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval of value, competency, and credibility, her emphasis is on tools and equipment rather than outcomes. This is faulty logic – what good is a high power rifle if the shooter can’t hit the side of a barn? An ingredient – excellent marinara sauce – does not mean the spaghetti dish is excellent. Equipment is an inference – results are the acid test.

Dr. Murray treatise on pet health insurance is naïve at best – missing the scams and scandals.

Her apologies for malpractice by veterinarians (as there is no effective legal recourse) – are empty and disingenuous when the veterinarians hold themselves out to be companion animal pediatricians and market to ‘pets as part of the family’ and then contest the companion animal is merely a couch, a TV by law for liability purposes. She offers no constructive remedy which is not unlike most vets who cherish colleague collegiality over accountability and responsibility. This is a betrayal of trust especially when systemically the veterinarians have been in violation in the law and their canon of ethics of informed consent. For example, Colorado passed a law allowing the three year rabies option in 1999. As of September 2005, despite 6 years of the law being in place, despite veterinary canon of ethics of informed consent, 79% of those surveyed by Hill Research Consulting said their dog or cat was still getting the annual rabies shot – and 62% - 6 years later did not know of the 3 year option!

Is it any wonder, that in Colorado, a pediatrician has gross revenues of approximately $400,000 and pays $5000 to $11,000 for malpractice insurance, while the small animal vet practice owner has $394,000 of revenue and pays (and has paid) for $1,000,000 per incident and $3,000,000 aggregate liability - $241 per year for malpractice (that’s approximately 9 cents per dog and cat in the average practice) And over 10+ years, the coverage has increased while the premium has effectively decreased!)

And yet, the second fastest growing consumer business (after consumer electronics) is our expenditures on companion animals (in excess of $40 billion in 2007 according to Business Week).

So much for credibility of Vet Confidential-

Sorry, this Vet Confidential – sweeps the dirt of small animal veterinarian medical practices under the run, keeps the dirty linen in the closet giving the companion animal guardian more ‘con’ than confidential.

Vet Confidential -great sizzle (packaging)– steak all grizzle (contents).

Where’s the beef?

Under the rug or buried.

Reader: I opine the above in light of my following background:

Author of trice defeated legislation in Colorado by veterinarians that would have established ‘loss of companionship damages,’ reclassification of our companion animals from being mere personal property (couches, TVs) to living property, and would have required informed consent (which the veterinary community despite its canon of ethics overwhelming disregards relative to vaccination).

Founder of the Next To Kin Foundation

Pet insurance patent holder of 1 of only 330 patents granted in the 705 area (financial services) since 1977 (440,000 patents are given a year!) – which will revolutionize pet health insurance – making it convenient, affordable (30%-50% less) with no games!

(Fee Only) Financial Planner of the Year 1985

Co Founder of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (the largest association of fee only financial planners)

Author (two editions) ENOUGH(sm) A Handbook for Your Personal Financial Planning

Author of just released, Trust Me: I’m Not A Veterinarian!

A companion animal guardian who needlessly lost 1 if not 2 of his dogs to overvaccination – without informed consent, in defiance of the law then and now, and betrayal of trust.

Schwartz’s journey began with the sudden decline and death of his beloved standard poodle, “Moolah,” after a round of routine vaccinations. Moolah was named for the famed female wrestling champion, “The Fabulous Moolah,” a.k.a. Lillian Ellison.

Schwartz took Moolah for her annual rabies vaccine in 1999. The dog had also received what is known as the “Wombo Combo” in previous years, which included a triple vaccination for parvo, distemper and rabies.

Schwartz said he requested a delay of 2 more years per the new law, a safer alternative to a yearly rabies vaccination, but was quoted inaccurate county statues.

A few days after Moolah’s shot, Schwartz noticed she “wasn’t herself.””Every guardian knows his or her dog, and when the dog isn’t right,”Schwartz said. Moolah “stayed in the cool hallway, panting and panting,”Schwartz said.

After taking Moolah back to the vet, Schwartz learned she had developed an auto-immune disease. Moolah had challenges which should have precluded her from vaccination — elderly dogs may be especially vulnerable to lethal side effects of vaccines, Schwartz said. Moolah died of the disease in December 1999.

Since then, Schwartz has led an anti-vaccination campaign in the Colorado state legislature and has been subject to threats and harassment from the veterinary industry. In his book he demonstrates how vaccinations and their revenue offshoots serve as huge income sources for vet practices.

Schwartz calculates that 300 animal hospitals would administer an average of 2.25 million shots per year with a profit of $156 million over three years. He also notes that 63 percent of canine and 70 percent of feline vet office visits are for vaccination shots.

Schwartz learned that a British study demonstrated that up to 12 percent of vaccinated animals showed adverse reactions within 45 days of vaccination. Schwartz views current American vaccination practices as a betrayal of trust by the vet industry, quoting the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Journal as stating: “The one-year vaccination frequency recommendations for rabies found on many vaccine labels is based only on historical precedent, NOT on scientific data.”

He also quotes the Colorado State University’s Animal Vaccination Protocol, which states, “Of particular note has been the association of auto-immune hemolytic anemia with vaccination of dogs and vaccine-associated cancers in cats.”

Deconstructing the science and economics of pet vaccination, the author finds little value in current rabies protocols, demonstrating far more harm than benefit to pets.

While Schwartz has worked closely with veterinarians on the projects, none would go on the record with their views on the business motives of over-vaccination by vets. “The reason I had to write this book is the veterinarian choosing collegiality over fixing their vaccination protocols. The legislation drafts are already written — making companion animals living property rather than a couch, which they are by law, and also would be a deterrent to over-vaccination through loss of companionship damages. It all boils down to this — over-vaccination has caused physical and fiscal harm knowingly, due to their business model and the failure of veterinary ethics,” Schwartz said.

For information, contact James Schwartz at (303) 850-9166. “Trust Me, I’m Not a Veterinarian” is available at http://www.amazon.com.

The Last Book Your Small - Animal Veterinarian Wants You To Read!

A ‘Self Defense’ Manual for The Protection of Your Companion Animal from: overvaccination, pet insurance ripoffs, pet cemetery/crematorium abuses, slipshod companion animal disaster planning & ER mishap$

A Call To Paws - for legislative relief & veterinarian accountability.

Buy it now at Amazon.com!