Fort Dodge ~ Final Comments 2003
(http://www.britfeld.com/vaccine-fd-final.htm)

Following is, what would appear, the final correspondence from Fort Dodge sent to Dot Sweeney which includes her response. Dot response is shown in bold text, as she addressed points of concern in the report.

The codes used within this document are as follows:
# A1, A2, A3 etc. = Answer 1, Answer 2, Answer 3 etc. [some responses from Dot do not have A1, A2, A3 etc. preceding them, however they are shown in bold text]
# M1, M2, M3 etc. = Male 1, Male 2, Male 3 etc.
# F1, F2, F3 = Female 1, Female 2, Female 3 etc.

Report on the Possible Adverse Event following Vaccination of a Litter of Black Russian Terrier Pups

16 May 2003

All manufacturers of veterinary products receive a small number of reports of possible adverse events or reactions following the use of their products. Fort Dodge treats all reports of possible adverse events following the use of our products seriously. The cases are investigated to the fullest possible extent and the details of the owners, and the medical history of their animals are kept in the strictest confidence. One recent case, involving some pups becoming ill after vaccination with one of our products, has received considerable public discussion among the dog breeding and veterinary communities following the breeder's comments on the case in a number of widely disseminated emails, and some postings on a website. Although we do not usually release our findings to people not directly involved in these cases, we have decided to take the unusual step of releasing our findings in this instance because of the concern this case has generated.

We have concluded our investigation into the report of an adverse experience following vaccination in a litter of Black Russian Terrier pups. We have compiled a history of events from the breeder's recollections and from records from the five veterinary clinics where the pups were treated.

The 11 Black Russian Terrier pups, 7 males (M) and 4 females (F), were born 28 December 2002 and vaccinated at 5 weeks and 5 days of age on 6 February 2003 with Protech ® Duramune ® C4 vaccine. Within 24-72 hours after vaccination, they developed mild diarrhoea and decreased appetite. A1 This is not quite correct, as I explained to Mr Preshaw the day he visited my premises, most pups yelped and cried when vaccinated at around 3-3.30pm, I commented on this to the vet at the time. By nightfall all pups were crying and in pain and distressed. I spent most of the night with the pups and by the time I retired at around 3.30am I had already been cleaning up diarrhoea, by daylight the next morning ALL pups had diarrhoea. This was 12-14 hours after vaccination not 24 -72 hours.

The runt of the litter (M3) Nik, was the most severely affected with more severe diarrhoea and vomiting. A2 M3, Nik was the first to show signs of diarrhoea and vomiting at around 6.30pm. M4, Ollie, was removed from the breeder's household on 8 February and was reported to have mild diarrhoea at that time which had resolved by 14 February. Veterinary treatment was sought on 14 February as the pup was depressed and appeared to have mild abdominal pain. M4 responded to treatment with fluids, ( IV drip ) antibiotics and an antiemetic by the following day and was discharged on 15 February. There is no report of any further illness in this pup. F3, Mindi, was removed from the breeder's household on 9 February and had mild diarrhoea and anorexia. She was treated with antibiotics, an antidiarrhoeal suspension and rehydration liquids. She responded within a few days and was fine six days later. Two other pups, M3, Nik and F4, Dotti left the breeder's household briefly on 7 February and then permanently on 10 February. M3 continued to deteriorate and was hospitalized on 15 February with haemorrhagic diarrhoea, dehydration and weight loss. Coccidiosis was diagnosed on 19 February and treatment with toltrazuril (a coccidiocidal drug) was commenced, but M3 was euthanased on 20 February. F4 was also reported to have diarrhoea on 19 February and was also treated with toltrazuril and responded. The other seven pups remained at the breeder's household until at least 27 February. Veterinary treatment was sought on 10, 14 and 19 February as the pups remained ill with enteritis and diarrhoea. A faecal smear performed on 14 February failed to detect coccidia oocysts or worm eggs. On 19 February, coccidiosis was diagnosed by the veterinary clinic and confirmed by a commercial pathology laboratory and toltrazuril treatment was commenced. A3 Coccidiosis was confirmed in one pup, Nik, the day before he was euthanised and it was presumed that all the other pups had this as well, M4 Ollie and F3 Mindi were never treated specifically for coccidiosis.

It is understood that all these pups responded well to this treatment. A4 This is also not quite correct, I explained to Mr Preshaw that of the seven remaining pups at my premises 3 males responded to treatment, 2 males were better but still passing loose stools and the 2 females never responded to treatment but continued to deteriorate. Two adult dogs were also on the property at this time. Neither dog was vaccinated during this period. A5 ( both adult dogs were fully vaccinated ) The records do not indicate that either dog was treated with toltrazuril on 19 February. Adult F, the mother of the pups, vomited clear fluid with bile and a small A6 ( large enough to ring the vet immediately ) amount of blood on 20 February. Adult F and Adult M, an adult male dog, were treated with toltrazuril on 21 February. Adult M vomited after treatment, a suspected reaction to the alkalinity of the medication, but both were healthy after this.

By 23 February all the pups (apart from M3 the runt which had died) had responded to the toltrazuril treatment for coccidiosis and were healthy. A7 As I stated earlier this is not correct, my report submitted to both Fort Dodge and the APVMA states:
21/2/03 some pups seem better, some not
22/2/03 Male pups seem OK, two still have loose stools, two females not very good, no improvement
23/2/03 No change
24/2/03 One female worse, male pups OK apart from loose stools in two of them
However after this point, a second wave of illness, which was more severe than the earlier illness, affected four of the pups. A8 There was no ' second wave ' of illness, three of the male pups responded to treatment well, two not as well and the two females not at all and continued to deteriorate.

On 25 February two female pups at the breeder's household (F1 and F2) Bushka and Missy were depressed and veterinary treatment was sought. The following day one of the pups, F1, had watery diarrhoea and was presented comatose and dehydrated. The pup died and parvovirus enteritis was diagnosed on post-mortem histopathology. Secondary bacterial infection was also noted. The second female pup, F2, was reported to have died on 1 March, but no parvovirus test was conducted.

Two other pups, M5 and M6, Ben and Fergus left the breeder's household on 1 March and became ill
later that day. They were taken to a veterinary clinic with vomiting and diarrhoea on 1 and 2 March respectively. A9 On 28/2/03 the three males who had responded to treatment went to new homes, two were vet checked on arrival and found to be healthy, the third male had some diarrhoea after removal but recovered after treatment with panacur. The two male pups M5 and M6, Ben and Fergus, were vet checked at lunch time on 1/3/03 in the presence of their owner and no illness was detected at that time. Both pups were admitted to hospital in the early hours of 2/3/03.

M5 (M6) was diagnosed with parvovirus and recovered with veterinary treatment and was discharged on 10 March. M6 (M5) received veterinary treatment but did not respond well and was euthanased on 10 March. It was assumed by the attending veterinarian that M6 (M5) also suffered from parvovirus enteritis but no definitive diagnostic test for parvovirus was performed on this dog. This is not correct M5 was positively diagnosed with parvo on 2/2/03 and was treated unsuccessfully for same.

All other pups were not affected by this second wave of serious illness. F3 and M7 had some sporadic mild enteritis signs between 1-8 March, but their illness was not severe. Four of the other six dogs (F3, M7, M1 and M2) were tested for parvovirus on 1 March and were negative. We have no records of parvovirus testing for M4 or F4.

Our assessment of the case is as follows. The pups developed clinical signs of coccidiosis shortly after vaccination. It is not possible to identify exactly when they were infected but they may have been incubating the disease at the time they were vaccinated. M4 and F3 which were removed from the breeder's premises and treated early, recovered before the other pups. Although M3 was also removed from the breeder's, he was a runt and it is not unusual for runts to be more severely affected by disease. F4 and the other pups that remained at the breeder's were sick until treated with toltrazuril on 19 February, after which they responded well to this treatment. Not correct, see Answer 7

The second wave of illness that affected four pups and commenced on 25 February See Answer 8 was due to parvovirus in at least two of the cases, F1 and M6 (no definitive diagnosis was made in the other two pups, F2 and M5). M5 positively diagnosed There is no evidence of parvovirus in any of the pups until this time. As the vet was presuming coccidiosis no testing was done for parvo until the autopsy of the first female to die. The pups that succumbed to parvovirus did not develop a protective response after their first vaccination. It is not unusual for 6-week-old pups to fail to respond to vaccination, and this is the reason why a number of vaccines need to be given to pups until they are at least 12 weeks of age. No pup should be considered immune to parvovirus until 7-10 days after it has completed its full course of vaccinations. Why the hell are we vaccinating at 6 weeks then if it has a good chance of not working and an even better chance of it shedding into the environment and infecting other dogs and pups. Why are owners NOT told of this possibility. In your instruction leaflet it states " These vaccines can be used for the prevention of clinical disease, however they may fail to prevent infection or organism shedding."

Coccidiosis is a gastroenteritis disease caused by protozoal parasites collectively known as coccidia. The life cycle varies between different species however the overall pattern is the same. Dogs become infected through the ingestion of oocysts. The reproduction cycle is complex, but the simplified story is different stages of the organism infect the epithelial cells of the small intestine, sequentially multiplying and infecting neighbouring cells. The life-cycle is completed by the production of oocysts that are excreted in the faeces, and then act as a source of infection for other dogs. Some species of coccidia can infect other species such as rats and mice. Dormant tissue stages in these hosts can then act as a source of infection if eaten by a dog. Pups are most severely affected. Clinical disease is most commonly seen in weaning age animals, associated with high stress conditions such as weaning, high density housing, malnutrition or housing in wet environments. The only stress these pups had was a painful vaccination, they had been fully weaned for over a week, there was no ' high density housing ' situation, no malnutrition or wet environment, these were perfectly normal, happy, healthy pups on the day of vaccination.

Adults can develop immunity and become carriers, acting as sources of infection for others. However, not all dogs infected develop clinical signs. Diagnosis of coccidiosis is made by the identification of oocysts in the faeces, or at post mortem examination of the intestine. Although oocysts were not identified in faecal samples of these dogs on 14 February a negative result does not rule out the disease. Dogs will not excrete oocysts in the early stages of the disease as the prepatent period (time from infection to appearance of oocysts in the faeces) is 7-8 days. Oocysts are then excreted for 10-11 days (this is known as the patent period) but it is possible that they are not seen in a faecal sample during this time. The disease is generally self-limiting as the end of the patent period indicates the end of the infection in the animal. Part of a private e-mail to me from a well known and respected US research vet. D S
[Dear Dot, It is well recognized that coccidia are opportunistic parasites, commonly seen in the environment and easily transmitted from shed oocysts to others in the environment. Subclinical infections are common, and infections can be self limiting in about 30 days. Oocysts can be commonly seen in both formed and diarrheic stools. The immune status of the host animal or person plays an important role in determining whether or not infected individuals will show clinical signs of coccidiosis. Merely finding the oocysts does not prove that they are causing clinical disease unless all other causes of diarrhea are excluded, or the coccidia is a compounding cause of intestinal signs along with something else (eg. parvovirus, other intestinal parasites, inflammatory bowel disease, colitis, GI ulcers etc.). Whenever an animal or person is immunocompromised, the presence of coccidia is more likely to become clinically expressed. Thus, in your case the MLV vaccination with its temporary immunosuppressive effect could have been enough to have the pups get clinical coccidiosis, if they were exposed and harboring coccidia oocysts at any time before, during or in the several weeks after vaccination.] If the time from first infection to the appearance of Oocysts is 7-8 days are you suggesting that the pups were infected about 30-31st January and the symptoms only started to show a few hours after vaccination, or do the symptoms show immediately after infection? If the first instance is correct surely the vet check at the time of vaccination would have at least picked up one or more pups with some sign of illness or loose bowel motions seeing that the pups were ill only a few hours later, if the second instance is correct does that mean that the pups were infected on the day of vaccination. If the first instance is correct ie: they were carrying the infection but showing no signs did the vaccination cause the symptoms to accelerate or if the second instance is correct it is very coincidental that they picked up this illness on the same day they were vaccinated. If there was no sign of this in samples taken on the 14/2/03 but found on the 19/2/03 this means that the probable infection date was somewhere between the 6/2/03, the day of vaccination, and 10/2/03. Also if the mother was ill and vomiting blood but with no diarrhoea 14 days after the pups were vaccinated and it was coccidiosis, was her infection date about 13-14/2/03 which is 7-8 days after the pups were vaccinated and puts the pups infection date around 6-7/2/03, the time of vaccination. Two pups were removed to their new homes on 8-9/2/03 and later were treated by their vets with the same symptoms, this means that the infection took place on or before the 8/2/03 and as both pups were treated by their own vets on 13-14/2/03 this points to the infection date being 6-7/2/03, the time of vaccination.
Could you please explain this for everyone

Some antibiotics can be used to treat coccidiosis. Toltrazuril is probably the most effective; a single dose is needed, with
possibly a second dose 5 days later. Vaccines cannot transmit this disease and there is no association between vaccination and coccidiosis. The question has arisen as to whether the vaccine, although not a primary cause of coccidiosis, may have contributed to the occurrence of the outbreak through immunosuppression of the pups. Vaccines are designed to stimulate the immune system, not to suppress the immune system. Veterinary Vaccinology 2 provides a good review of the topic. I note here you say ' designed to stimulate not suppress' can you categorically state that vaccines can not and do not suppress the immune system.

The author notes that one of the effects of vaccines, the alteration of white cell trafficking (movement of white cells out of the blood stream into other compartments), has been confused with immunosuppression in the past. This is not immunosuppression; it is a normal part of the immune response. However, the author goes on to mention a few specific cases in the history of vaccination where immunosuppression has been documented. In dogs, of the hundreds of scientific papers on canine vaccines, there has only been one published study that indicated that polyvalent dog vaccines (vaccines for a number of diseases) containing a particular strain of distemper virus (not produced by Fort Dodge) may result in a short period of immunosuppression.{5} The comments about the ONE published study which showed immunosuppression following vaccination versus two other studies which failed to show this, is a poor point, because the same investigator (the world-renowned Dr. Ron Schultz) published all of them AND the one that showed immunosuppression was from 1989, when the other two were earlier (1987 and 1976). Obviously, the later paper is more current, especially when coming from the same place !!! Furthermore, the reference you cite for Dr. Carmichael (#1), on page 293 has a lot to say about safety issues with today's vaccines. In talking about MLV vaccines which are "attenuated " (page 293), he states " Because "attenuation" means reduction, not absolute loss of capacity to produce disease, safety problems may not be revealed until extensive field tests have been conducted; unfortunately, this has occurred after a product has been licensed and marketed. However, the authors acknowledge that their observations may have been due to alteration of white cell trafficking, a non-immunosuppressive effect of vaccination discussed above. They also note that because of the short duration of this effect, the practical significance of their results is unknown, and it is concluded {2} that in regards to immunosuppression, "vaccination by itself is unlikely to cause detectable adverse reactions in animals".

From AVMA Journal 15/11/02 Introduction: Principles of Vaccination " Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative, or a combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression ,autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long term infected carrier states."

From The Immune System and Disease Resistance, a paper by Dr W Jean Dodds, DVM
" Viral disease and recent vaccination with single or combination modified live-virus vaccines, are increasingly recognized contributors to immune-mediated blood disease, bone marrow failure, and organ dysfunction." Factors Associated with Auto Immune Disease: Frequent or Recent use of MLV Vaccines - Parvovirus, Distemper, Hepatitis-lyme ( vaccines alone or in combination )
Bordetella, Rabies

From What Vets Don`t Tell You About Vaccines: by Catherine O`Driscoll
"DR Larry Glickman at Purdue University has found that routinely vaccinated dogs develop autoantibodies to a wide range of their own biochemicals. This means that vaccines cause dogs to attack their own bodies, which is what autoimmune disease is all about. "

The authors also state that their results do not suggest dogs should not receive polyvalent vaccines. It is also worth noting that the same authors have published two other studies where they failed to demonstrate any immunosuppressive effects of canine vaccines.{4,6} With regards to immunosuppression and canine parvovirus strains in vaccines, the association is best described by DR Carmichael, a leading expert in canine vaccination from the College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, New York. A question, could you tell us if it is true that Cornell University OWNS the PATENT on the parvo vaccine. He states that "the myth of 'immunosuppression' by virulent CPV-2 (canine parvovirus), or vaccine virus, has been discredited".{1}

"Report of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force: 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature", 28 pages, published April 2003. Page 16 states " Modified live virus vaccines can and do cause disease because attenuation is a balance between maintaining infectivity while eliminating its pathogenicity. Individual response is dependent on the status of the recipient's immune system. Thus, an attenuated pathogen in a host which is severely immunosuppressed, or genetically more susceptible, may result in the vaccine causing the disease for which it was designed to prevent.'

A Study at the School of Veterinary Medicine University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1993/1994 showed with at least one vaccine that while it provided protection against death it caused infection and clinical disease occurred.

Our research supports the conclusions of these well-recognised researchers in regards to immunosuppression and the safety of vaccines. The results of our safety studies with Protech Duramune have not demonstrated immunosuppression in dogs following vaccination. Canine parvovirus can only multiply in the cells of an animal. The host animal is the dog, but it has also been demonstrated to replicate in cats, and may also be spread by cats. Infection occurs by ingestion of the virus. When a dog is infected, the virus enters the blood stream, replicates in the lymphatic cells in the lymph nodes before spreading through the blood stream again and infecting the epithelial cells lining the small intestine. This produces the gastroenteritis (vomiting, then diarrhoea, often haemorrhagic), and the virus is passed out in the faeces in large numbers. These contaminated faeces then act as a source of infection for other dogs. The incubation period of parvovirus is 4-7 days. This is the time that it takes between ingestion of the virus to the onset of the first clinical signs. There is no specific treatment for parvovirus, only supportive therapy to prevent dehydration and ensure adequate nutrition. If dogs do not die, they will develop immunity, eliminate the viral infection and recover over a period of up to 7 days or so. Canine parvovirus is a particularly hardy virus and can survive for months and even years in the environment under the right conditions. It was suggested that the vaccine was responsible for producing parvovirus diagnosed in some of the pups after 25 February. To assess this possibility, a number of points must be examined including the details of the case itself, the historical records of the safety of parvovirus vaccines and the development and manufacture of vaccines. The most conclusive evidence that the vaccine did not cause parvovirus in this case is the history of the case itself. A number of points are worth noting:

o Parvovirus disease has an incubation period of 4-7 days. Considering the first signs of parvovirus infection occurred on 25 February, then the pups would have been exposed sometime between 18-21 February. This is at least 12 days after they were vaccinated.

In your instruction leaflet it states " These vaccines can be used for the prevention of clinical disease, however they may fail to prevent infection or organism shedding." In that case is it possible that one or more of the puppies shed the virus after vaccination and contaminated the environment for a weaker pup to be exposed to the shed virus and become infected, and as some of the pups were progressively weakened by the diarrhoea they in turn were also infected by the shed virus or the infected pup. This would explain why the 3 males who responded to treatment and the pups who had already left my premises did not contract the parvovirus.

Comments please.

From The Immune System and Disease Resistance, a paper by DR W Jean Dodds, DVM
" A recent examination of the risks posed by MLV vaccines concluded that they are intrinsically more hazardous than inactivated products. The residual virulence and environmental contamination resulting from the shedding of vaccine virus is a serious concern."
# The theory that the pups were suffering from parvovirus from 8 February is not supported by the clinical history. Parvovirus does not produce a chronic (prolonged), biphasic (two waves) disease. The relatively mild clinical signs between 8-19 February and the response to toltrazuril treatment support the first diagnosis of coccidiosis made on 19 February. This is in contrast to the severe second wave of illness where three of the four affected pups died.
# The only pups that suffered from this second wave of serious gastroenteritis (parvovirus diagnosed in two dogs) were all on the breeder's premises at the probable time of exposure (18-21 February). None of the dogs that left the household prior to this were diagnosed with parvovirus, and none suffered this second wave of serious gastroenteritis. This suggests that only those dogs on the breeder's premises on or after 18 February were exposed to the virus. Historically, the safety of parvovirus vaccines in regards to producing clinical disease is exceptional. DR Parrish, also from the College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, with extensive experience in canine vaccines, reports that vaccine virus has never been documented as causing parvovirus disease.3

DR Carmichael ( of Cornell University ) supports this view and states (with regards to virulence of vaccines): "No modified live CPV-2 vaccine has been reported to cause adverse reactions".{1}

What about MLV C3 or C4 or higher

From Vaccination issues of concern to practitioners, COBTA and DAC special educational session on vaccine issues 1998: "Adverse reactions occur in some patients after vaccine administration. These reactions range from simple, self-limiting responses that are rather commonplace to complex, potentially life-threatening events that are uncommon".

From Vaccination: Helpful or Harmful? By DR Don Hamilton, DVM
" many vaccines actually induce illness that is much greater than that of the diseases that they are designed to prevent."

Due to the prevalence of this highly infections virus, the situation where pups have succumbed to parvovirus after vaccination is not unique. However, investigations of cases such as this invariably identify a virus other than the vaccine strain as the cause of the disease. DR Parrish is reported to have "isolated virus from many dogs with clinical disease after vaccination, but has never isolated vaccine virus as the aetiology (cause) of clinical disease".{7} An explanation of how pups may develop parvovirus after vaccination is best summarized by DR Carmichael: "Parvovirus vaccines are exceptionally safe. Dogs that develop signs and symptoms of parvovirus infection within 5 days of vaccination should be considered as infected with virulent virus prior to, or at the time of, vaccination. This is still a common occurrence where parvovirus is likely to be present in the environment".{1} In other words this proves at least that the pups were not incubating parvo at the time of vaccination which indicates that the pups must have been exposed about 12-13 days after vaccination, this appears to fit the timeline of shedding and infection. The reason that modified-live viral vaccines are so safe is that they contain attenuated (Modified live virus vaccines can and do cause disease because attenuation is a balance between maintaining infectivity while eliminating its pathogenicity. AAHA report 2003) (weakened) strains of virus that stimulate a protective immune response, but do not produce clinical signs of disease. Prior to marketing, every precaution is taken to ensure vaccines are safe. Extensive safety studies must be conducted on a vaccine to demonstrate that the vaccine strain does not contain "residual virulence" (the ability to produce clinical disease). The parvovirus antigens used in vaccines must be nonpathogenic, and must not cause enteritis (vomiting and diarrhoea) in dogs. Tests are also performed on all live vaccines to ensure there is no "reversion to virulence" (mutation into a form that can cause disease). This is done by isolating the vaccine virus from a vaccinated dog, and inoculating another dog (back passage) a number of times. Each lot of vaccine is always made from the same seed stock, so there is no variation in the strain present between different batches. Similarly, vaccines have to satisfy strict quality assurance and safety guidelines, and so there is minimal variation in composition between batches. Fort Dodge has conducted all these studies on the vaccines it produces to ensure their safety, and the results of these studies support the conclusions held by vaccine experts that canine parvovirus vaccines do not produce parvovirus enteritis.

Finally, is also worth noting that the bitch Adult F, who was not vaccinated, ( the mother was fully vaccinated, a fact that Mr Preshaw is aware of) also had a gastrointestinal illness with clinical signs on 20 February. No definitive diagnosis for her illness was made, however the attending veterinarian suggested on 20 February that it may have been coccidiosis. It is also possible that Adult F's illness was caused by parvovirus, and that she acted as a source of parvovirus for the pups, as she was ill during the probable time of the pup's exposure to parvovirus (18-21 February). Is it also possible that if it was parvo that the virus shed by the recently vaccinated pups caused the mothers illness? We have reported this case to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA; formerly the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, NRA) Adverse Experience Reporting Program. Their report supports our conclusions. In regards to coccidiosis they state "there is no scientific evidence to support a direct link between administration of this vaccine and the development of coccidiosis post vaccination." In regards to source of parvovirus they concluded that the affected pups succumbed to a field parvovirus strain and state that "there is no evidence to support the tenet that live parvovirus vaccines can revert and cause disease".

The APVMA have not at this time advised me of their finding on this case, if as you say they support your conclusions I would like to know the thoughts of both yourself and the APVMA ( I will e-mail them on this ) on the studies showing that parvovirus can shed from recently vaccinated animals and infect the environment and other animals. Also your comments on the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force: 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature which states, as I have quoted above " Modified live virus vaccines can and do cause disease" and also "may result in the vaccine causing the disease for which it was designed to prevent"

We understand that this unfortunate episode must have been extremely distressing to the breeder, the pups and the other owners. However, the history demonstrates that the diseases the pups suffered from are not directly related to vaccination and we do not believe that the vaccine is responsible.

I have just received the assessment of the APVMA, it says

" the puppies initial clinical signs ( pain at injection site, diarrhea, depression and anorexia) are possibly related to the use of this product."
" However, there is no scientific data to support a direct link between administration of this vaccine and the development of coccidiosis post-vaccination."
" There is no evidence to support the tenet that live parvovirus vaccines can revert and cause disease."

While I do not agree with this assessment I do have to accept it. I await answers from Mr Preshaw and the APVMA to the points I have raised and will forward them for inclusion on the site when and if I receive them. I will also keep everyone informed if I do not receive any answers.
Dot Sweeney

Answers from Fort Dodge and APVMA follow

References

{1} Carmichael, LE. (1999). Canine viral vaccines at a turning point--a personal perspective. Adv. Vet. Med. 41 (1-2): 289-307.

{2} Martinod, S. (1997). Chapter 15: Technical Basis of Vaccination, Part 13: Adverse Effects of Vaccination. In Veterinary Vaccinology, (Eds., Pastoret, P.-P., et al.), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 574-578.

{3} Parrish, C, (2001). Referenced in Seton, J. (2002). Parvovirus Clinical Management. AGEN Biomedical, Brisbane.

{4} Phillips, TR and Schultz, RD. (1987). Failure of vaccine or virulent strains of canine parvovirus to induce immunosuppressive effects on the immune system of the dog. Viral Immunol 1 (2): 135-44.

{5} Phillips, TR, Jensen, JL, Rubino, MJ, Yang, WC and Schultz, RD. (1989). Effects of vaccines on the canine immune system. Can J Vet Res 53 (2): 154-60.

{6} Schultz, RD. (1976). Failure of attenuated canine distemper virus (Rockborn strain) to suppress lymphocyte blastogenesis in dogs. Cornell Vet 66 (1): 27-31.

{7} Seton, J. (2002). Parvovirus Clinical Management. AGEN Biomedical, Brisbane. ® Registered trademark

Answers from Fort Dodge and the Apvma

Fort Dodge

Dear Mrs Sweeney,

We have fully investigated the case, reviewed the appropriate literature relevant to the two issues involved (immunosuppression by vaccines, and residual virulence and reversion to virulence of canine parvovirus vaccines), and made our final conclusions. The clinical history of the dogs in our report was an honest attempt to reconstruct the events that occurred from the histories supplied by the veterinarians, and from yourself. Although some details may conflict with your recollections, these conflicts do not affect:
# The overall clinical picture
# The diagnoses of coccidiosis and parvovirus
# The conclusions that vaccination was not responsible for the coccidiosis or the parvovirus in your dogs.

The other issues you raise in your reply have either been addressed in our report (immunosuppression by vaccines, and residual virulence and reversion to virulence of canine parvovirus vaccines), or are not relevant to this case (eg: immune mediated disease).
Your main argument is that modified-live vaccines can potentially have residual virulence. Generally speaking, this is true. However, regarding canine parvovirus vaccines specifically, this has never been demonstrated and the experts agree that it does not occur, as our report points out.

We have nothing further to add.

Sincerely

Anthony Preshaw BVSc (Hons) PhD

Technical Services Manager
Veterinary Ethical Division
Fort Dodge Australia

PO Box 6024
Baulkham Hills B/C NSW 2153
Tel: +61 2 9899 0403
Fax: +61 2 9899 2151

Response from APVMA

Dear Mrs Sweeney,
Thank you for your recent email. The APVMA is aware of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Task Force Paper. We feel that these issues have already been commented upon by us in our report on the adverse experience involving your puppies and we note that the Registrant's report to you has similarly addressed these issues. Whilst the APVMA has no further comments to add, we do appreciate your time in bringing these matters to our attention.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Linnett

NEWS FLASH: 31 March 2004 a hand delivered warning letter was given to Mr. E. Thomas Corcoran, President Fort Dodge Animal Health, a Division of Wyeth, Inc., about irregularities at the manufacturing plant in Iowa. Full details can be read by clicking this piece of text.

We would like to express our gratitude to Dot Sweeney for allowing us to reproduce her experiences.

Disclaimer: Information contained here is obtained from various sources and does not replace the advice from a qualified professional. If the health of your dog/s is ever in question, you should consult your veterinarian first and foremost. No liability is accepted by Britfeld Weimaraners, owners of Britfeld Weimaraners, their families and/or their associates for any information contained here which may result in adverse outcome/s for your dog/s.