Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Dear Sirs,

I hereby file a complaint against all licensed Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in the State of Texas for violation of 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.

I assert that the present practice of marketing of vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence by all Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in this state.

Recommending, administering, and charging for Canine Corona vaccinations for adult dogs is fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence given the literature that states:

Dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to canine corona virus disease.
Disease produced by canine corona virus has never been demonstrated in adult dogs.

Dogs over eight weeks of age that are immunized against canine parvovirus will not develop symptoms of canine corona virus disease. Addition of an unnecessary antigen to the vaccination protocol will result in a lesser immunity to the important diseases like parvovirus and distemper, and increase the risk of adverse reactions. Immunologists doubt that Canine corona virus vaccine works, as it would require secretory mucosal IgA antibodies to protect against corona virus and a parenteral vaccine does not accomplish this very well.
Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Texas A&M University do not recommend canine corona virus vaccine. Gastroenteroligists 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. On several occasions 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 presented this information.

Page 2 of 6

Recommending, administering, and charging for re-administration of modified live vaccines like Canine Distemper, Canine Parvovirus, Feline Panleukopenia, injectable Feline Rhinotracheitis, and injectable Feline Calicivirus on an semi-annual, annual, bi-annual or tri-annual basis is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts that there is no scientific data to support label claims for annual re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must 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, and 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 duration of immunity for Canine Distemper virus is 7 years by challenge, and 15 years by serology; for Canine Parvovirus is 7 years by challenge, for Feline Panleukopenia, Rhinotracheitis, and Feline Calicivirus is 7.5 years by challenge.

5. A reasonable client would not elect re-administration of any of the above stated vaccinations for a previously immunized pet if provided with the above information.

The recommendation for administration of Leptospirosis vaccination in Texas is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the fact that:

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 but the duration of immunity is less than one year. To provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two vaccines with four serovars twice per year.

Page 3 of 6

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 if provided with the above information.

The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs residing in Texas is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the literature that states:

1.) The Texas Department of Health only reports an average of 70 cases of Human Lyme disease per year in Texas, all of which were likely acquired when people were traveling out of the state.

2.) Julie Rawlings reported in her research on the incidence of the lyme disease organism in ticks in Texas State Parks for the Texas Department of Health that the Borrelia burgdorferi organism is not present in sufficient numbers or in the suitable tick vector for dogs for Lyme disease to be endemic in Texas.

3.) Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in the U.S. are found in the nine New England States and Wisconsin.

4.) Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine has not documented one case of Lyme disease in a dog acquired in Texas. Testing on shelter dogs has not revealed a single case.

5.) Dr Jacobson, Cornell University has documented a temporal relationship in over 327 cases of dogs, which acquired polyarthritis after the Lyme disease vaccine.

6.) A reasonable client would not elect Lyme disease vaccine for their pet if given this information on the risks vs the benefit.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with an adjuvanted vaccine without offering a safer alternative vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Adjuvanted vaccines have been incriminated as a cause of Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.

2. 1:1000 cats vaccinated develop this type of cancer, which is 100% fatal.

3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines are available.

4. A reasonable client would not elect adjuvanted vaccines for their cat if given this information.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with Feline Infectious Peritonitis vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare disease.

Page 4 of 6

2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the normal flora avirulent 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 is 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 and the American

Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend this vaccine.

5. A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine if given this information.

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 though 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.

4. A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if given this information.

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. The vaccines has been licensed by the USDA and proven to have duration of immunity of three years by the USDA and seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, therefore annual readministration the client is paying for something with no benefit.

2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to demonstrate that the immune statis of the pet is enhanced.

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.

The recommendation of blood tests for antibody titers on dogs and cats in order to determine if re-administration of vaccine is indicated is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programed, memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells is not taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.

Page 5 of 6

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 when a Veterinarian can make no claims about the test results.

5. It has been proven that the re-administration of modified live vaccines has no effect, and that duration of immunity is 7 years or more.

6. A reasonable client would not elect this test if given this information.

I have brought these deceptive trade practices to the attention of this Board by writing six letters to the board, and appearing before the Board at three Board meetings. The Board members have demonstrated, by the questions that they have asked me, that they are uniformed on these issues, that they have not read the literature that I have sent to support my assertions, and that they have not read the letters I have written. On every occasion the Board members have refused to take any action on these matters.

The Board has also ignored my request to deny approval of Continuing Education credit for seminars on Vaccination of Companion Animals provided by Pfizer Animal Health drug company which are fraudulent by omission of material facts, a conflict of interest, and thereby influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the marketing of vaccines.

The people of the State of Texas have paid over $360 million dollars per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary and potentially harmful to their pets. Over 600,000 pets suffer every year from adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. Many of them die.

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.

Given that it is the compact of this Board with the State of Texas to 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, I hereby assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners must take demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for companion animals.

Page 6 of 6

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 prohibiting each of the practices I have outlined above.

An alternative solution would be to notify every Veterinarian engaged in companion animal practice in this state of the complaint that has been filed against them, and prosecute each and every complaint.

If demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices has not been taken by this Board within ninety days of receipt of this letter I will file a class action suit against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on behalf of the people of Texas, for negligence in the execution of their responsibilities, and I will request a Court order to instruct the Board to perform their duties.

Sincerely,
Dr Robert L Rogers

The above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge

I am not in the habit of explaining myself. Here are the facts as I see them. I have done what I believe a Doctor of Medicine should do. I obtain over 100 hours of CE every year, including about four hours each year on vaccinations. I read peer reviewed journals, with what I believe is a healthy skepticism. I do not get my CE from drug companies or their adds. I adopt what I have learned into my practice, and try to keep my recommendations to my clients based on current evidence based information.

Fourteen years ago I watched Veterinarians embrace Corona vaccine for adult dogs, in spite of the fact that no one I know had ever seen a case, and in spite of the fact that TAMU did not adopt this vaccine into their recommendations. I called R&D at the vaccine manufacturer and asked why they were marketing corona vaccine for adult dogs when Dr Ron Schultz said dogs over 8 weeks of age were not sucesceptable. The Technical Service Vet agreed with Dr Ron Schultz and told me the vaccine was intended for use ONLY in breeding operations where puppies were demonstrated to have a problem with the virus, and that marketing does not listen to R&D. I asked the Texas State Board to encourage DVMs to get CE on this subject and was rebuffed. For fourteen years I have hoped my colleagues would come around. Instead I have watched as fibrosarcoma cases rose to 22,000 per year and Lyme disease and Lepto are marketed in areas of the country where there has never been a case. I watch as even more questionable vaccines come out, like Bordatella for cats and Giardia vaccine.

While attending conferences like WSVMA and NAVMC I have asked over 400 DVMs from various parts of the country if they attended the seminars on New Vaccination Protocols. I was told by all but one, “I don’t care what the data says, I am not changing.” One DVM here on VIN even said “I am not changing until the AVMA makes me change.”

I tried to work within the system. I asked the Local VMA to have Alice Wolf or Richard Ford speak. I was told three years in a row, “No, it is an unpopular subject.” I asked the TVMA to
have seminars and finally after three years they agreed and had Dr Alice Wolf and Dr Richard Ford. Very few DVMs changed their protocols, and very few (40 out of 1400 in attendance, and no State Board members) came to hear Dr Ford. I have seen Dr Ford come all the way from North Carolina to speak to eight DVMs in a Greyhound bus terminal and two DVMs walked out on him.

I joined the TVMA Companion Animal Committee. At the first meeting I said ” I believe Veterinarians have one of the best public images of any Profession. I think that it is in the best interest of our profession for our clients to hear about the new vaccination recommendations from their own DVMs first, rather than from the press as had already happened in Great Brittain.” Two committee members said they did not care what the data said, they were not changing their protocols. Two days later I was kicked off the committee and told “My viewpoint would tend to alienate members.” The next year an Ex President of the TVMA said “A difference of opinion should be a mere speed bump to serve to make us stop and think,” and he urged the TVMA to let me be on the committee, but again I was refused.

I waited patiently for the AAFP to revise their guidelines only to see one DVM from a drug company prevail with annual FeLV vaccine recommendations over the majority on the committee who were in favor of every three years. I waited patiently for the AVMA-COBTA to revise their recommendations. They completely ignored my request to address age related immunity and Corona vaccine. They got off to a good start in what they said in Salt Lake City in July 2000, but eventually yielded to political pressure and even did a 180 on some recommendations, based on politics and not science. The end result , Principals of Vaccination, is so ambiguous that only someone who has studied all the data first could understand what they are saying.

It is hard for me to keep euthanizing fibrosarcoma cats and comforting distraught owners. I am annoyed by having to respond to numerous State Board complaints by my competitors about my recommendations, when I am conscientiously trying to do the right thing.

I have gone to the Texas State Board in Austin three times, and written them six letters simply asking them to encourage Veterinarians to obtain CE on this subject. They did not read the
journal articles I sent them, they did not read my letters. Instead one State Board member told me at the meeting, that he could vaccinate a clients pet every week for twenty two years and nobody could tell him not to.

In the mean time Pfizer comes through, buying fajitas for DVMS, citing references from the 60’s and 70’s on vaccines that are not even on the market anymore, while omitting all the new research and data. They conclude by telling the audience just what they wanted to hear, keep vaccinating every year for every disease.

On VIN I saw the futility of trying to point out to Veterinarians that the data does exist and asking them to consider the ethical side of what they were doing. I did, however get a dozen e-mails from DVMs on VIN who agreed with my views on new vaccination protocols, so I started a support group for DVMs who had already changed their recommendations, to share data, logistics and mostly moral support. That is where I got the idea to offer seminars. I invited 600 DVMs to these seminars, and only seven attended. Some came only to heckle me or try to commandeer my audience. I offered free seminars to every local VMA in Texas with only one taker. I also offered my seminars to dog clubs and the public. As it happened, there were pet fanciers who
already knew more about this than most Veterinarians as well as government officials, attorneys, and members of the press in attendance.

Recently I euthanized another cat with a fibrosarcoma. I witnessed the large bills on two dogs with IMHA in my care, (fortunately doing well). I also spoke with a distraught dog owner who’s 12 week old, 2 lb Chihuahua was administered DHLPP, and possibly because of the immunosuppression of the lepto, developed vaccinal distemper encephalitis, kidney and liver failure and was euthanized. It is my understanding that lepto should not be given to dogs less than 16 weeks of age, as it is immunosuppressive. My wife and I have two new dogs, to which we have already become very attached and derive a great deal of pleasure from. Either of us would be distraught if our pets died from an adverse reaction to a vaccine that was unnecessary. (There are only an average of 11 cases of lepto on Texas each year, and dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to corona disease.) I think the public has a right to know.

Our practice act says: Veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Veterinarians shall expose without fear dishonest conduct in the profession. It is the right of any Veterinarian to, without fear, give proper advise to those seeking relief against unfaithful or negligent veterinary services. I know that I will suffer repercussions from this article, and my complaints to the Attorney General, and it all might end up on the
bottom of a birdcage. I am motivated only by my compassion for the pets and their owners

There are institutions in place to promote high standards of the practice of Veterinary Medicine. Ford and Firestone; Enron, Arthur Anderson and the SEC; and the Catholic Church have done a poor job of addressing their ethical challenges. Neither the leaders of our profession, nor the followers learned anything from the mistakes of others. The press cries out “Where was the SEC? Where were the auditors? Where were the Board of Directors ?” The AVMA, USDA,
State and local VMAs, the State Boards and their requirements for CE, as well as the individual Veterinarians of our profession have all been inadequate in dealing with this ethical challenge. My letters to each of these institutions were ignored. It saddens me greatly to see this issue settled in the press or in the courts. From Harry Potter “It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies. It takes even greater courage to stand up to your friends.”

What kind of example do we set for the new graduates who are taught new vaccination protocols in school, when they come out and go to work for us? That the Ivory Tower Proffs don’t know what they are talking about, or that it is acceptable to mislead our clients? That we should all have unquestioning loyalty to our collegues, keep quite about our little secrets, cover things up, and that it is not acceptable to be a “snitch”?

I start out all of my seminars and talks with the press by saying, “I believe that there are 6000 Veterinarians in Texas who are honest, ethical people. I have classmates I highly admire. However, these same people are avoiding learning about and acting on the new vaccination protocols. The problem with learning is that sometimes what you learn doesn’t make you happy, or make you more money.”

Emotional reactions by DVMs will attempt to make me the bad guy. Veterinarians have brought this on themselves. By avoiding the Journals and Seminars for seven years and failing to act in their own best interest, the Veterinary profession has put themselves in a position where the public can say anything that they want about them.

Some try to put a spin on my intentions as being self-serving. I am doing what is in the best interest of the pets I went to Vet School to learn to help and the people who love them. I don’t look for fights, I don’t walk away from them either. Trying to shift the focus by making personal attacks on me, and all the Round- up in Texas will not make the ethical challenge we face go away.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent , but the one most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin

The only constant is change. It is imperative that we learn how to cope with change.

I have been referred to as the devil, and worse I am sure. As Harry Truman said, “I don’t give `em hell, I just tell the truth and it feels like hell.”

Sincerely,
Bob Rogers DVM
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Spring,Texas

A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual re-vaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccinations. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is recommended once every 7-10 years). And no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for rabies).

Summary: Yearly “boosters” are unnecessary, provide no benefit if given (will not increase immunity). Thus boosters are either a legal issue (Rabies) or a manipulation issue (inducing clients to come in for examination rather than directly suggesting an examination).

The issue of initial vaccination is less clear than that of boosters. Many clinicians feel that without vaccination they would see outbreaks of disease, particularly canine parvovirus disease. This can be a difficult issue to resolve. A fundamental dilemma is that vaccination in effect leads to weakening of the gene pool, and thus the overall health of a given population. One way this occurs is by allowing individuals to live that would otherwise succumb to disease, such disease being a natural means to “cleanse” and thus strengthen that population. This naturally presents an ethical quandary these days (our understanding of native or aboriginal thinking suggests that letting weak individuals die was implicitly understood to be not only acceptable but proper).

Western society values the individual’s right to be, therefore we make efforts to save all individuals. Any answer to this question naturally lies with the individual(s) involved. The second, and more compelling theory of the mechanism of interaction between a vaccine and the body suggests that vaccines “protect” against the acute disease not by preventing the disease but by changing the form of the disease to a chronic disease. 2 For example, the panleukopenia virus of cats induces an intense, rapidly progressive malfunction in the digestive tract, leading to vomiting and/or diarrhea. In adult vaccinated animals this translates into a chronic state of diarrhea and sometimes vomiting. This disease is known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), an autoimmune disease of the intestines. IBD has been occurring at near epidemic levels over the past several years; no other reasonable explanation has been proposed for the proliferation of cases of the disease.

Vaccinations are known to be a major trigger of other autoimmune processes in susceptible individuals, 3 so it is reasonable to suspect vaccines as a trigger for IBD. Another aspect of panleukopenia virus infection, implied by the name of the virus, is vastly lowered numbers of white blood cells and corresponding immune deficiency. Could the appearance of Feline Leukemia virus disease and later Feline Immunodeficiency virus disease be related to vaccination for panleukopenia during the previous two decades? The logicality of this theory does not allow easy dismissal of a relationship, most likely cause and effect. Both of the latter diseases produce low white blood cell counts and immunodeficiency as part of their symptom complexes.

Similar connections have been proposed between Canine Distemper virus disease and both kennel cough and Canine Parvovirus diseases as “distemper” includes a pneumonia component as well as severe diarrhea. Chronic coughing is characteristic of kennel cough; parvovirus disease affects the intestines, producing severe diarrhea and vomiting. Additionally, the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in dogs appears to be on the increase in the past year or two. Vaccination of dogs for Canine Parvovirus has been in effect for fifteen years, contrasted with the much longer history of parvovirus vaccination in cats (Feline Panleukopenia virus is a member of the parvovirus family). This portends a frightening future for dogs if the connection is indeed correct. Finally, connections are proposed between vaccination for Rabies and increasing numbers of fearful, aggressive animals. Behavioral problems of the extent seen today are a recent occurrence, being rare only two to three decades ago. 4 Their emergence is coincident with the practice of repeated adult vaccination, suggesting the need to examine that relationship. Aggressive behavior has been observed in dogs for several days following vaccination for rabies, even with non-infectious [killed] vaccines.5, 6

As practitioners sharing responsibility for the well being of patients, veterinarians are faced with a challenge when dealing with acute diseases. Vaccinations may prevent these acute diseases, but if the exchange is for a lifetime of chronic disease, is that a viable option? (Viable is from the French vie, meaning life, so the question is will the patient live and flourish or simply exist.)

First, remembering that booster vaccines are unnecessary, we can stop all vaccination after one year of age for virtually all diseases. (cf. below; Rabies is required by law so we need to work to change the laws so that they are in accordance with the fact rather than fear.) As repetition naturally increases the likelihood of problems, we can reduce side effects tremendously with no additional risk to the patient, simply by stopping adult boosters. Of course, there will still be some risk involved with even the initial vaccinations, but no risk of contracting the acute disease once the animal is immunized by these first vaccines. See below for duration of immunity to the various diseases for which vaccines are available.

Secondly, all vaccines should be administered as single antigens. (An antigen is something that is capable of eliciting an immune response, in this case a viral or bacterial organism from which a vaccine is produced.) This means not using the polyvalent vaccines which have become so common these days. Natural exposure to diseases is usually one at a time, and the body is probably more successful at responding to only one antigen and producing immunity without adverse effects, rather than responding to a complex of antigens. Therefore, rather than giving a group of antigens together at three to four week intervals, individual components should be given using an alternating schedule with a minimum of repetition. (Cf. below)

Thirdly, only immunize for diseases which meet all of the following criteria:

1.The disease is serious, even life threatening.
2.The animal is or will be exposed to the disease.
3.The vaccine for the disease is known to be effective.
4.The vaccine for the disease is considered safe.

Let us take Feline Leukemia virus (FeLV) disease as an example. An indoor only cat will not be exposed as this requires direct, intimate, cat-to-cat contact. Many veterinarians recommend immunizing indoor cats against this disease. I feel this is unethical. This disease does not fit criteria number three or four anyway in my experience, so vaccination is unwarranted in most if not all circumstances. Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) virus disease is another disease which fits neither three or four. FIP vaccine has generally been found ineffective and has produced severe side effects. Among the side effects I have observed with both FIP and FeLV is induction of the clinical disease they were intended to prevent. In dogs, Canine Hepatitis (CH) virus is almost nonexistent (the vaccine virus to prevent CH is Adenovirus-2). Leptospirosis is extremely rare and often not the same serotype used in the vaccine 7 and the bacterin for “lepto” is very prone to side effects. Coronavirus disease was never a serious threat except to dog companions’ bank accounts, the same being true for Lyme disease except possibly in very small regions. Kennel cough disease is generally not serious (criteria one), and one study showed immunization to be ineffective or even counterproductive. 8 Immunization should be limited to high risk circumstances, if at all. A similar situation exists with the feline upper respiratory diseases; most are not serious except in very young kittens who contract the disease before vaccines are typically administered. Rabies is another disease for which indoor cats and well confined dogs have no exposure, so the vaccine is clinically unnecessary although required by law.

Fourth, vaccines should NEVER be given to unhealthy animals. This is a practice that is gaining popularity among veterinarians for some strange reason, and it goes against the recommendations in all vaccine inserts as well as those of virtually all immunologists. This is malpractice in my opinion.

A bolder option is to refuse immunizations entirely, recognizing the inherent risk in administration of even one vaccine into the body, and being willing to accept the risk of not immunizing. While risk does exist if animals are unvaccinated, it can be moderated significantly by feeding better quality foods (home prepared, including fresh, raw meats) and by limiting exposure until the animals are six to eight months of age. An unvaccinated animal will be significantly less likely to suffer from allergies and many health problems. Skin allergic reactions have been associated with vaccine administration, 9 and tremendous numbers of dogs and cats have skin allergies today. Some other diseases for which links to vaccines are known or suspected include epilepsy, thyroid disorders 10 (hyper- and hypothyroidism), chronic hepatitis, renal failure, cystitis or lower urinary tract disease (particularly in cats), autoimmune hemolytic anemia, 11 neurologic diseases such as confusion and inability to be “present”, asthma, and so on. In humans sudden infant death syndrome is strongly linked to DPT vaccination, 12 as are attention deficit disease/hyperactivity and autism, 13 among many others including severe brain damage.

Why are vaccines worse than natural exposure? Probably the major factors are the artificial means by which exposure is created with vaccines and the repetition. With few exceptions (primarily rabies and occasionally Feline Leukemia virus or Feline Immunodeficiency virus), infectious organisms are transmitted via oral and nasal exposure, and this response begins at the oral/nasal level with recognition of a foreign material or organism, followed by initial non-specific destruction and elimination of the organism at the local site of exposure as well as within the blood stream whence an organism may not even reach the interior to cause deep illness, but may be successfully repelled at the periphery. In other cases the body would have a lag time of several hours or even days to begin mounting a response before the “invader” reaches interior organs. As a consequence, deeper pathology may be minimized or even averted. This interior organ pathology may be a direct result of the organism, or it may be an indirect result, manifested through antigen-antibody complexes or other immune system components. These components may inadvertently damage body tissues as “innocent bystanders”, or may directly attack or invade tissues due to recognition problems (autoimmune diseases). The latter may happen because of similarity between organism structures and host tissues; often this involves the nucleoproteins (DNA or RNA), molecules that are important for controlling activity at a cellular level.

When a vaccine is administered, the organism is injected directly into body tissues, bypassing the local immune responses. When this happens, much of the immune system is rendered useless. The body then must compensate by increasing the activity of the balance of the system, and the defenses begin in a compromised state, with the organism already in the blood stream. Within the blood stream, the primary aspects of the immune system are antibodies, proteins which attach to the organism and assist in its destruction. Although normally only a part of the defenses, these antibodies become heavily responsible in a vaccine (injected) induced invasion, thereby initiating a hyperactive (increased) response. Additionally, the preparation of vaccines often breaks down the integral structure of the virus or bacteria, exposing internal strictures such as viral DNA or RNA (depending on the virus) to the immune system, leading to heavy antibody production against these nucleoproteins. Since nucleoproteins are relatively similar in all life forms, the host antibodies may lose the induced hyperactivity of antibody production. The result may be antibody mediated destruction of host tissue, and autoimmune disease. In a natural exposure, antibodies would be directed more at external structures, which are less similar to host tissues thus less likely to induce cross reactions. Incidentally, autoimmune diseases are occurring more frequently than ever; could this be a reason?

Aside from the above considerations, vaccines commonly contain materials other than the organism to which immunity is desired. These materials may be added as preservatives, adjuvants (materials to stimulate immune response, usually added to non-infectious [killed] vaccines), or antibiotics. Preservatives and adjuvants include such toxins and carcinogens as aluminum (alum), mercury (thimersol), and formaldehyde. Also, many foreign proteins are included if the organism was grown on foreign tissue such as chicken or duck embryos. Even more frightening, non-intended organisms are sometimes accidentally incorporated as contaminant “stowaways”. In 1995 The Washington Post reported that MMR vaccine produced by Merck & Co. along with some influenza and yellow fever vaccines, contained an enzyme known as reverse transcriptase. This enzyme is associated with retroviruses such as FeLV, FIV, and HIV, and has the capability to alter genetic information, leading to serious diseases such as leukemia and other cancers. These diseases may take years to manifest, so correlation with vaccination may be impossible, masking a potentially causative relationship.

The recommended schedules (age to vaccinate) are from Dr. Schultz, with a few changes as follows: He supports the use of combination vaccines and I strongly do not. He thus recommends in cats to combine Panleukopenia (FPL), Calicivrus (FC), and Rhinotracheitis (FVR) in one schedule; I have recommended to use FVR-FC intranasal vaccine only if needed, and separately from FPL. In dogs he would combine Distemper (CD), Parvo (CPV), and Hepatitis, and possibly Corona and Parainfluenza. I would recommend CD and CPV only, and not combined.

I generally support the use of killed (non-infectious) vaccines, as I feel they have less likelihood for long term damage, but Dr. Schultz presents a strong case for the use of modified live vaccines (MLV) as repetition can be necessary with non-infectious vaccines. With MLV, one dose can have high efficacy. This primarily applies to DC and CPV as non-infectious [killed] Rabies and FP are as effective as MLV. Dr. Schultz’ one dose-95% (one dose of vaccine at a given age will successfully immunize 95% of animals) suggestions are as follows.

Canine Distemper (MLV) 10-12 weeks
Canine Parvovirus (MLV) 12-14 weeks
Feline Panleukoenia (non-inf. [killed] OK) 10-12 weeks

Finally, a comment about vaccinations and choice. While the concept of ‘owning’ an animal is one with which I am uncomfortable, I do recognize that this is how the human-animal relationship is viewed from a legal perspective. Otherwise we certainly can be said to be guardians of our companion animals. Within this framework the choice about vaccination rests with the human who has accepted responsible guardianship. It does not rest with the veterinarian. Another trend of the past few years is coercion of guardians into procedures such as vaccination. This coercion may be blatant, such as refusal to provide services, even emergency care, unless the animal is ‘current’ on vaccines. Sometimes even critically ill animals are vaccinated upon admission for treatment. More subtle means include induction of fear and/or guilt by asserting (as an authority figure) that companion animals are at risk if not vaccinated yearly, and that failure to comply is evidence of lack of caring. Tactics such as this can create feelings of guilt in the guardian, leading to a fear based decision to vaccinate an animal that is not at risk. This is unethical if not outright malpractice and refusal is an acceptable response. As has been stated above, rabies vaccination is legally compulsive at one to three year intervals, so refusal is a legal risk. Fighting to change these laws, however, is appropriate.

AAHA WRAPS UP CANINE VACCINE GUIDELINES

Three words summarize the recommended frequency of canine vaccinations—–triennially, annually or never. That’s the consensus of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 14-member taskforce, which, at presstime, was working feverishly to compose a final draft of its first-ever canine vaccination guidelines. The final version, to be released this spring, is pending discussions with vaccine manufacturers. “The guidelines are huge,” says Dr. Richard Ford, on the AAHA taskforce and professor of medicine at North Carolina State University. Dubbed a “paradigm shift” in vaccination protocol, the bottom line is: not all vaccines should be administered with equal frequency. “We have an abundance of referenced data that documents the longevity and the lack of efficacy of these various (canine) vaccines,” says Ford.

VACCINE EXPLOSION
Little more than three decades ago, veterinarians had limited vaccine choices: distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and rabies. Now more than two dozen different types of vaccines exist for dogs. Counting all the products, veterinarians have more than 100 vaccines at their disposal. “We’re going through an explosion of vaccines for dogs, and to some extent similar for the cat,” says Ford, who also contributed to the feline vaccination guidelines re-released by the American Association of Feline Practitioners in 2000. In response to the explosion, AAHA has proposed guidelines to offer direction on a vaccine protocol for veterinarians. “It’s an attempt to provide recommendations, and I use the word ‘recommendations’—-these are not national standards,” says Ford. “We are not dictating how veterinarians should actually vaccinate.”

WHAT AAHA RECOMMENDS
For many vaccines the recommendation is still to vaccinate adult dogs annually. Other vaccines have proven safe and effective following a triennial administration. Puppies are a different story. Appropriate vaccine administration is considered “absolutely the most important,” says Ford. As a result, AAHA recommends veterinarians follow all prior vaccine protocols for puppies. For example, the committee universally stipulates that canine parvovirus vaccines should be given initially at six to eight weeks, the second dose at nine to eleven weeks and a third dose at 12-14 weeks. “The guidance provided by the vaccine manufacturers, the ones that have been in place for years and years are still being advocated (for puppies),” says Ford.

BOOSTER VACCINES
The previous rules don’t apply when the puppy reaches adult stage, according to AAHA guidelines. “It’s recommended, not required, that veterinarians place vaccines in one of two categories when developing a vaccine protocol for their practice: core or non-core,” says Ford. The new categories are an attempt to segregate the vital vaccines from the more discretionary, according to the taskforce. The core vaccines, of which there are four, are to be administered triennially. These are vaccines to prevent against high-risk, highly contagious and potentially fatal diseases. Noncore vaccines, to be administered under the discretion of the veterinarian, would follow an annual schedule. “We’re trying to encourage veterinarians to look at the science behind the vaccines and to develop a vaccination protocol that is rational as well as effective,” says Ford. Of the core vaccines, the taskforce recommends that the adult dog receive rabies; canine parvovirus vaccine; canine adenovirus-2 (hepatitis vaccine); and distemper vaccines every three years. The caveat to the recommendation, says Ford, is that there is good evidence that the protection conferred in adult dogs by both canine distemper and canine parvovirus exceeds five years. Three years seemed a conservative, happy medium for all parties involved, according to the taskforce.

ANTICIPATED REACTION
The canine guidelines are “much less controversial” than the previously released feline vaccination guidelines, says Dr. Ron Schultz, veterinary immunologist at the University of Wisconsin - Madison and member of the taskforce. “It’s hard to believe it’d be controversial to any DVM who’s lived on earth for the past year or two. You’d have to be from outer space if you haven’t heard about the issues,”says Schultz. “Yet individuals are still not aware of what the discussion is about,” he adds. Ford likewise expects to hear minimal grumbling at the outset. “For some people this will be a surprise because….it’s the classic culture change. We’ve always done it this way, my gosh, why are we going to change it now,” he mimics. In response, he cites how today’s vaccines have vastly improved immunogenic qualities and evidence points to long-term activity.

DIDN’T MAKE THE CUT
What may catch some veterinarians off guard is the taskforce’s third classification, recommending against certain vaccines. Those are: Giardia. Reason: no test is available for the disease; vaccine has not been proven to prevent infection, only reduces shedding. Canine adenovirus-1. Studies found that the vaccine can cause visual impairment in dogs.
Coronavirus. “We’re not recommending it because the disease isn’t significant. The vaccine is safe, there just isn’t a disease to go with it,” Ford says. The recommendation may be controversial because coronavirus can be a viable revenue source for veterinarians since it is a more expensive vaccine, Ford adds. “We’re saying don’t give it. We don’t feel that the disease justifies vaccinating dogs for it,” says Ford. “Nobody’s very happy with that (recommendation), and they’ll argue it to the bitter end,” says Ford.

WHO WON’T BUY IT
Contention may also arise from corporate practices, who may ignore the guidelines altogether because of lost revenue. “There are some corporate policies among these conglomerates of veterinary practices in the country. They have standard policies that all dogs get all licensed vaccines every year. What we’re saying is that’s wrong. Don’t do that,” says Ford. He expects those groups to disregard the guidelines, since they are not mandates.

AVMA WEIGHS IN
Although the American Veterinary Medical Association says it has not seen a draft of the guidelines, Dr. Elizabeth Curry-Galvin, assistant director of scientific activities, says the two organizations shared concepts during the development of their respective reports. AVMA released its own position statement highlighting prudent use of vaccines late last year. In regard to AAHA’s anticipated guidelines, AVMA’s position is: “We encourage veterinarians to read the report once it is available. Practitioners need information from a wide number of sources to make the best medical recommendations for their patients,” Curry-Galvin says.

DVM Table 1
CORE VACCINES (Triennial):
.Rabies (May vary for adult dogs according to state law)
.Distemper
.Parvovius
.Adenovirus

NONCORE VACCINES (ANNUAL, UNDER DISCRETION OF VETERINARIAN):
.Bordetella bronchiseptica
.Parainfluenza virus
.Lyme borreliosis
.Distemper-Measles (combined)
.All the Leptospirosis vaccines (four types available)

NOT RECOMMENDED:
.Canine Adenovirus-1
.Coronavirus
.Giardia>>

He was whelped on April 20, 1999. He was the blackest and most muscular Bullmastiff puppy I ever saw at birth. We named him Royal Prince Onyx due to color and his regal stance from the time he could stand. The Prince was the obvious alpha male of the three males from the litter of six. His tail stood straight up and his head tried to match that from the beginning.

The Prince was placed in a family with working dog experience and a contractually agreed upon obedience and conformation training schedule. The family consisted of a brawny six foot husband, a diminutive five foot wife and two young girls ages two and four.

At the age of five months; the husband called to tell me that he had given Royal Prince Onyx the common name of Tyson. He also told me that Tyson was becoming food aggressive as he would growl at the husband if he approached Tyson while he was eating. Although; Tyson showed no signs of aggression when the girls touched his food. I highly recommended feeding Tyson in his crate which the husband said he had not purchased yet. It seems that Tyson had house trained immediately so they were letting him stay in the living room during the day with a child gate across the doorway. I reminded him that we had verbally agreed to crate training. The husband agreed to get a crate, enter Tyson in an obedience class, and ask for help with his food aggression. I asked him to schedule a time to bring Tyson back for my assessment.

Tyson and his family arrived about two weeks later. Tyson looked marvelous! It was obvious that Tyson had become very attached to the wife and children as the girls steered him around the yard with the slightest pull on his leash. The girls spent much of their time hugging Tyson and kissing him on the muzzle while the wife instructed him in behavioral issues. The husband explained that he had started working an additional job since Tyson arrived at their home. I gave them contact information for a handler that we had hired in their area in the past. I asked questions about the spatial aggression but there didn’t seem to be any signs of dominant, territorial or psychotic aggression present.

One night when Tyson was ten months old; the husband called to say that he had reached down to take one of the girl’s toys away from Tyson and had a problem. Tyson had grabbed his wrist and would not let go until his wife ran into the room and yelled at Tyson to stop. The husband and Tyson had been wrestling for about three minutes. I arrived the next morning and took Tyson to my home to evaluate him to decide if he could be managed, rehabilitated or put down. The husband’s wrist was not punctured and looked like he had a bad wrist burn from the assault.

Tyson was placed in Bullmastiff boot camp where he had to pay for everything. I was immediately impressed with how soft Tyson’s mouth was when hand fed. Tyson was exceptionally leash trained and I walked him several times a day for exercise and elimination. I concentrated my retraining on the spatial aggression that he had shown. I was able to leave my hand in his food bowl through an entire feeding by the time Tyson was returned to his family a month later.

At the age of one year; the husband called to tell me that Tyson had growled at him while eating a piece of breakfast food that had fallen onto the floor. The husband said that Tyson seemed to love and obey the wife and children but had challenged him again. I bought Tyson back that afternoon. My son’s name is Ty so we decided to keep the name Tyson in part because he had the name for so long at that time.

Tyson was placed back in Bullmastiff boot camp and intense obedience training continued thereafter. Tyson was crated and eventually allowed outdoor activity but he had to pay for that privilege. Tyson was required to sit, lay or dominance down and stay while I walked outside for several minutes prior to his release through the open door. Tyson loved wrestling with his dam and sister so he would do anything to join them in the yard. Tyson was routinely bicycle trained around the neighborhood.

Tyson and I attended obedience and conformation training at a local kennel club during the following year. Tyson also traveled with me to Canada, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and several trips to Wisconsin locations without showing any human or animal aggression during the next eighteen months.

Tyson was thirty months old when I noticed the obvious talent of a local professional handler with working dog and specifically Bullmastiff experience. I watched dog after dog turn into statues under this handlers talented instruction and decided to approach her to handle Tyson in the conformation ring. I spent fifteen minutes introducing the idea to this handler and we set a schedule for her to meet Tyson at the following conformation class.

The handler and I spent forty-five minutes in the puppy pen while she worked and played with Tyson. She asked astute questions regarding his rehabilitation. I told her how I had hand fed Tyson, stood over him while he ate or left my hand in his bowl while he ate an entire raw meat dinner. I also informed her about Tyson’s aggression issues, towards the husband, and the constant obedience training that was still being utilized to that date. Tyson had grown into a twenty-seven inch, one hundred and forty-five pound, chiseled statue from the bicycling and exercise program we had maintained since he returned to my home.

The handler was immensely impressed with the Tyson and agreed to train and show him in the conformation ring. The handler wanted Tyson to be boarded at her professional facility during the training to allow her complete access and control of him. I spent forty-five minutes with the handler at her facility the day I boarded Tyson with her. She placed a card on his kennel door informing her employees that she would be the only one to handle him. She also told me how she was going to enlist the help of her husband to examine Tyson during conformation training to help decrease any issues he might still have toward human males.

I called to see how they were doing the next day. The handler told me that she was startled when Tyson had loudly growled at her when she tried to dremel his nails. I told her I would come and pick him up immediately. She said that Tyson couldn’t stay there if she couldn’t handle him and that she had the situation under control. She had commanded Tyson with a quick, “Down”, and he dropped to the table as I had trained him. She quickly placed a muzzle on Tyson and continued dremeling his nails. The handler dremeled Tyson’s nails weekly for the seven weeks that he was in her facility without a muzzle from that time on.

Tyson’s chronic ear infection had returned and the hander took him to her veterinarian. The handlers vet did some tolerance testing and prescribed a medication that had to be administered daily. Tyson accepted his treatment as he had in the past without a grumble.

I took the forty-five minute one way drive to visit Tyson weekly and also met the handler at the local kennel club when she felt comfortable taking him to the open conformation class. Tyson looked very nice but I could tell that he was losing some of his muscle mass due to less conditioning in his training schedule. It was obvious that the handler was training Tyson the same way she had trained so many others and he seemed to adore her. Tyson would whine when she went out of her sight and she seemed pleased upon her return.

In late November; the handler called because she wanted to enter Tyson in the Christmas Cluster in Chicago. This show was scheduled a month earlier than we had expected Tyson to start showing. I mentioned that fact and the handler told me that she was going to take an assistant handler that we knew from her role as judge during many of our conformation classes at the local kennel club facility. I agreed to enter Tyson in the December 15 and 16, 2001 shows in Chicago.

On December 8, 2001; I drove to the handlers facility to see how Tyson was looking and use the practice time to exercise one of my bitches that was also entered in the Chicago shows. I told the handler that I would transport Tyson to Chicago on Friday, and to both of the show locations, as we would be staying with a relative in Aurora, Illinois. I offered to house the handler as well but she declined both of my offers stating that she would transport Tyson to the show and get a motel room afterwards near the second show location.

On December 15, 2001; the handler did transport and show Tyson well that morning. The show videotape shows that she dropped her bait at one point. She reached down to retrieve it and Tyson tried to lick her face. Afterwards; the handler, Tyson and her assistant left the show area to go shopping and later to obtain a motel room for the night.

Around seven that night I received a telephone call from home to tell me that the handler had been injured. I called the motel to get directions to their location but I don’t remember the fifteen minutes it took to drive twenty miles through Chicago. I have owned or bred forty-five Bullmastiffs since 1979, performed hundreds if not thousands of hours of socialization and training, and one of my dogs had seriously injured someone. I was in shock!!

The handler was sitting on the bed when I arrived at the motel and she told me the story of how she had been injured. She reported that she had done some shopping and returned to the motel room around 5:00 PM. She said that she and her assistant handler were tired and decided to rest. The handler stated that she had invited Tyson onto the bed prior to falling asleep. She said that she awoke about a half an hour later and heard Tyson growling while laying on his left side to her right on the bed. The handler raised her head and looked in Tyson’s direction as he jumped up pinning her to the bed on her back. The handler gave a quick jerk to try and dislodge Tyson but she was terrified to find that she was securely pinned by his chest and body weight. The assistant handler jump off of the couch where she had been sleeping and swung a pillow in Tyson’s direction missing him by a foot. Tyson jumped off the other side of the bed and looked as if he was greeting them. The handler said that she thought Tyson must have a brain tumor or something because he acted like nothing had happened. She also stated that he had been so sweet during his fifty-four day stay with her.

The handler sustained a five inch laceration up the back of her head that require thirty staples to close. The emergency room physician informed the handler that her injuries resulted from a collision of their heads. There was no evidence that Tyson had bitten her as she reported to the police upon their arrival. The handler’s head had been off of the pillow for a split second during an incident that lasted less than ten seconds.

I asked the handler why Tyson was sleeping with her that afternoon? She stated that she had made a terrible mistake inviting Tyson onto the bed with her. The handler added that she was thinking with her heart instead of her head. Tyson had never slept with anyone before or been allowed on the furniture.

On December 16, 2001; the investigating Dupage county animal control officer returned my call. I asked him about the county laws regarding quarantine and euthanasia. The officer stated that he believed that Tyson had probably been asleep when this incident began and referred to the incident as an accidental injury. He also added that he wouldn’t consider putting the dog down over this kind of incident since it is the most common way that owners are injured by their most loyal of companions. My research for this article indicates that 750,000 children are bitten in this manner each year.

I called the handler later that day to see how she was doing. I offered to treat any neck or spinal injuries. I became emotional when the handler told me that her head was a little sore but she felt fine otherwise and that she would return to work the next day. I was so relieved that she had not sustained any additional injuries . I made arrangements to meet her at her business facility to collect another Bullmastiff male I had placed there for training and pay all of the known expenses at that time.

On December 17, 2001; I had Tyson examined by our veterinarian Dr. Link. I wrapped Tyson’s leash over his nose like I always do when a vet examines my dogs. Dr. Link kneeled down, grabbed Tyson by both sides of his muzzle, looked him in the eyes and shouted, “Hey, how you doing?”. Tyson’s tongue slithered out as he tried to lick one of Dr. Link’s wrists. Dr. Link looked a bit surprised and asked, “This dog bit somebody?”. I explained the circumstances and we discussed options. Dr. Link told me that if Tyson had a brain tumor I should see signs of it within a month or so. I discussed the situation with my partner and we decided to wait sixty days to make a final decision.

On December 18, 2001 I went to the handler’s business to settle the bill. The handler was talking to a friend on the phone when I entered her feed store. She hung up the phone and told me that she had informed the other telephone conversation participant that she had broken her own first cardinal rule. The handler reported that she always tells people to keep their pets off of the furniture if they are having any kind of behavioral issue with their dog. I again asked her why Tyson was sleeping with her at the time of the incident. She shrugged her shoulders and said that, “She wanted to show Tyson the fun part of dog shows”. She also repeated her previous statement that she was, “thinking with her heart instead of her head”.

I paid all of the handlers expenses from the past weekend, both dogs boarding, and training bills. I informed the handler of the animal control officers findings and she was not pleased. I asked her to contact the officer directly and supplied the number for her to do so. I don’t know if she ever called the officer but she definitely called several Bullmastiff owners that she knew.

The response from the local Bullmastiff community was swift and severe resulting in a promised stud being pulled from a breeding with one of Tyson’s sisters the following month. The rumors were exponentially increased by the fact that the handler had been the president of the local kennel club and had helped with the Midwest Bullmastiff Specialty for several years.

By the time Tyson was allowed out of quarantine; I was almost convinced that he had a brain tumor since he had become deeply depressed during the ten day incarceration. Tyson’s whole body seemed to droop and he constantly carried a small fleece doll around that the handler had given him. Tyson would take his doll to the van, sit, and whine at the door. I eventually realized that Tyson missed his beloved handler and decided to take the doll away from him. Tyson’s depression lifted about a week after disposing of the doll.

On February 16, 2002; at the urging of our attorney and considering the amount of damage inflicted during the incident; my sweet Tyson was euthanized by lethal injection. I had consulted with an animal behaviorist, a different animal control officer and another veterinarian. My attorney had successfully argued that Tyson had been branded by this incident. I hugged his neck and kissed his muzzle as he passed away.

On March 5, 2002; I was not surprised when I received a letter from the handler’s health insurance company asking for expense reimbursement. I was shocked when I received a March 12, 2002 letter from the handler’s attorney demanding fifteen thousand dollars for pain and suffering. I have the ultimate respect for this handler as she is a talented, experienced professional with over thirty years of experience. The handler had admitted her mistake and I believed her so I was at a loss for an explanaition for her demands.

On April 22, 2002; I had a very informative telephone conversation with the Chief Veterinarian for the Illinois Department of Animal Welfare and the Head of the Illinois Bureau of Animal Welfare. Dr. David Bromwell explained that Illinois statute 5/2.16 does hold the owner of a dog liable for the full amount of the injury sustained but that the law also defines the owner as to include the handler at the time of the accident. Dr. Bromwell stated that the handler was one hundred percent liable for the damages since she was harboring the dog at the time, had the dog in her care, was acting as his custodian and allowed him to roam freely about the motel room. I informed the handlers attorney of the reality of Illinois law and the case will not be filed.

It is important to note that each case must be investigated to find out what happened prior to making any decisions. There are no cookie cutter solutions. My first reaction was to have Tyson euthanized immediately. My final conclusion was that Tyson had probably acted out of instinct as he pinned the handler without mauling her.

Bullmastiff breeders must strive to maintain a sound, stable, predictable and controllable temperament but not necessarily softer. To ignore the function of the Bullmastiff would reduce them to a caricature that would only remind us of the work they were originally bred to perform.

Royal Prince Onyx was never bred because I didn’t want to enter another variable until I was certain that he was rehabilitated. It was an honor to have bred and owned him none the less. I may never find another like him in my lifetime.

Dr. Michael T. Wayda mtwaydadc@royalbullmastiffs.net
Royal Bullmastiffs http://www.royalbullmastiffs.net

Nerves from the upper thoracic (dorsal) region initiate and control the sympathetic autonomic nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system is capable of initiating the flight-or-flight syndrome, which will increase bronchi diameter and decreasing blood flow to the digestion system. The blood is shunted to the heart, lungs and extremities in order to prepare the body to fight or run. Sympathetic nervous system stimulation and dorsal adjustments are especially good for many lung ailments. Stimulating the fight-or-flight syndrome to increase inspiration mean volume can be a lifesaver in pneumonia cases for instance.

Sympathetic nervous system initiation: Thumping with your fist on the back of your hand as you move your hand from the base of the neck to the end of the ribs and back and forth will initiate a sympathetic response within one to three minutes. You stand or sit next to your standing or sitting dog and thump away. This is known as mediated tamponade. Hit hard enough to hear a clear thud up and down the backbone. The sympathetic response is usually audible within a few minutes. The dog will usual take a deep breath, much deeper than normal, and sometimes shudder or shake a little for a second. Their body is preparing to run or fight so they may want to go for a walk. This may be a short walk for a truly sick animal.

The pelvic region contains nerves that form the parasympathetic autonomic nervous system. The parasympathetic nervous system is responsible to reduce stress to a level where the body can utilize their energy to heal itself. The parasympathetic nervous system calms and relaxes the body and is responsible for healing.

Parasympathetic nervous system initiation can be stimulated by having the dog lay close enough to deeply massage the posterior spine and pelvic area as the dog relaxes into a restful healing state. Deep massage your dog for five to ten minutes for complete relaxation.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Michael T. Wayda, D.C.
Royal Bullmastiffs
mtwaydadc@royalbullmastiffs.net

Terms definitions:

Homeostasis is a relative stable state of equilibrium between the different, but interdependent, elements of an organism or group.

Subluxations are a dynamic complex that include bone, ligament and muscle considerations that may include components of neuropathology, kinesiopathology, dysfunction, symptoms, degeneration and eventually compensation

Chiropractic techniques vary from specific osseous adjusting and nonspecific manipulation to soft tissue molding, healing touch, massage, applied kinesiology and trigger point therapies

Chiropractic adjustments are high velocity - low force thrusts, of applied amplitude, in an X-Y-Z axis, to normalize segmental juxtaposition

During the first chiropractic appointment; the doctor must take a complete history
so that any influencing factors or contraindications may be identified. The history will be followed by an examination that covers motion and static palpations, observation and signs of general health dysfunction. Radiographic films, or other imaging modalities, may be utilized to specifically diagnose the problem.
Subluxations are caused by a mixture of mechanical, chemical and emotional stresses that include improper collars, training practices, toxins, breed limitations, playful practices, improper bedding, obesity, gravity, neglect and leash length. The primary indication for spinal adjustment is a reversible mechanical derangement of the intervertebral joint which produces a barrier to the normal motion. Chiropractic adjustments restore physiological motion to the joints that have been fixed at their adjacent tissues. The patient’s prognosis will depend on the reversibility of the pathology and the restoration of normal physiology through reduction of the kinesiopathology of the neuromuscular system. Biomechanical distortion patterns may require that the same patient’s spine be checked for continued subluxation at regular intervals (similar to routine dental care).

Contraindications to adjusting include fractures, recent traumas, vicious patients, vascular conditions (especially in the cervical region), tumors, disease (such as bone infections), nerve damage, old surgical scars, profuse joint swelling, Arthritis, skin lesions, recent surgery, prostheses, medications, herniated or slipped disc and unsubstantiated claims of a cure (such as in hip dysplasia).

Chiropractic Examination:

Motion and static palpations are performed with the animal at rest and stacked. Static palpation is utilized to ascertain bone, ligament, muscle, joint variation and pathology. Motion palpation requires the doctor check individual vertebral segments for kinesiopathology, dysfunction and fixation; including hypomobility, compensation (change in the axis of rotation) and adjacent hypermobility (pain-spasm-pain).

Observation; specifically gait analysis is the art and science of watching an animal move to note variations to normal motion. This is relative to the breed being examined. Your breeder will probably be superior to most assessment because they know your bloodline and could identify line fault related aberrant motion versus pathological biomechanical imbalance. Bullmastiff breed-judges will know if the patient’s problems are of normal conformational anomaly or pathological; which is paramount in the examination process. A provider with working dog or Bullmastiff experience would be an optimum preference.

Common Bullmastiff Concerns:
1. Top lines: Postural analysis requires the dog to be correctly stacked with the hock and foreleg perpendicular to the ground. Please note: Bullmastiffs that present with nonspecific, shifting lameness and spinal deformity, such as sway and hunch backs or enlargement of rib cage cartilage, elbows, knees, weak pasterns or bending of long bones giving a bow-legged appearance; may be suffering the effects of Rickets.

Barring malnutrition; there are several structural anomalies that could cause top line changes. These include: uneven leg bone lengths (especially short upper thigh or forearm) causing unbalanced front or rear angulation, reduced or increased pelvic or croup angles and muscular imbalances in the psoas, gluteal, longissimus dorsi, latissimus dorsi, trapezius, sterno and brachiocephalicus muscles.

Sacral (top of the pelvic girdle) nutation (nodding) or counternutation can result in top line changes. A Bullmastiff, with a nutated sacrum, will present a hunchbacked appearance with increased pelvic angle (over 30 degrees from the horizon), related stifled rear angulation and a low tail set. The dog will appear as if the tail has been run under the abdomen, and forcibly pulled toward the front of the dog, causing the back to hunch and the dog to stand on the rear toes. Sitting positions may cause or maintain this sacral / pelvic subluxation. This problem is easily adjusted once it has been properly diagnosed. A counternutated sacrum, will present a reduced pelvic angle; resulting in a flat croup that will make the dog shuffle and lack drive when evaluated in the side gait. This structural anomaly, with related muscular imbalances, will be damaging to the Bullmastiff or any breed of substance. Canine chiropractic intervention could include spinal and/or pelvic adjustments, applied kinesiology (AK), reflexology, massage, healing touch or other soft tissue techniques.

2. Side winding can be caused by biomechanical imbalances and may include: lack of overall balance (more rear angulation than front), which may be influenced by reduced pelvic or croup angles, increased rear leg length, related muscular imbalances and reduced front angulation, due to either improper shoulder layback angle or variable length front leg bones. The dog’s back may be shorter than ideal for the rear leg length causing rear overdrive. Canine chiropractic interventions are not usually effective in eliminating side winding.

In a well balance dog; handler interference may cause the dog to attempt to compensate for the inconsistent stride or leash position by the handler. Start your evaluation by asking several people to take your dog down and back. As the standard says, “Feet tend to converge under the body, without crossing over, as speed increases…”. See if various handlers makes any difference.
3. Hip Dysplasia: Unsubstantiated claims of cure are prevalent regarding HD. Canine chiropractic intervention could include spinal and/or pelvic adjustments, applied kinesiology, reflexology, massage, healing touch or other soft tissue techniques that could supply palliative care and help reduce the sequalae of this insidious pathology.
4. East/West, cow hocks or chip-n-dale (Bulldog-like) can be caused by long bone growth spurts that may, or may not, resolve as the Bullmastiff matures. A short forearm may cause a Bulldog-like front that some uninformed judges seem to prefer in Bullmastiffs. Molding techniques may be utilized to reduce the impact of the deformity and help reduce any resulting pain patterns.

5. Traumatic injuries present their own problems and would require another article to explore in depth. PRICE injuries immediately as a way to evaluate for emergency treatment and start the healing process. PRICE means: protection, rest, ice, compress and elevate whenever possible.

6. Increased Q-angles are observed by looking at the dog from front to rear. Q-angles are measurable extremity joint angles that deviate from zero. There are acceptable q-angle ranges and there are pathological changes related to aberrant angles. In my observations; increased q-angles are related ligament injury, bone deformation, nerve irritation and muscle deconditioning.
Canine chiropractic intervention may include extremity adjustment, applied kinesiology (AK), reflexology, massage, molding, healing touch or other soft tissue techniques. Molding techniques could reduce q-angles, to acceptable ranges, and decrease any resulting pain patterns and pathology.

There are many challenges in the critical evaluation of Bullmastiff biomechanics. The most important consideration is to determine if chiropractic care is the correct modality for the presenting symptoms. Systemic disease must always be a consideration.

Human versus animal applications:
The early chiropractic research was done on live lab animals like rats and mice. The nerve compression, cord compression, fixation, vertebrobasilar arterial insufficiency, axoplasmic aberration, somatoautonomic reflex, perfusion and neurodystrophic research studies gave us priceless information and comprise the basics of animal as well as human chiropractic theory.

Veterinary Chiropractic Education:

There are probably as many human chiropractors, that have quadruped training in chiropractic treatment protocols, as there are veterinarians that have obtained animal chiropractic training. The affect on the animal population is already starting to show; as it has in the human population. Many veterinarians, like many medical doctors, have seen the positive results of chiropractic. I personally consider veterinarians to be some of the most thoroughly trained doctors on the planet and endorse their interest. Some veterinarians currently have the biomechanical knowledge to equal chiropractors in this field. Given that they are trained in quadruped biomechanics, animal anatomy and adjustive techniques; I would not hesitate to refer someone to either modality.
The American Veterinary Chiropractic Association (AVCA), at (309) 658-2920, has a quadruped biomechanical education program that may be attended by licensed chiropractors and veterinarians. The AVCA can also direct you to a trained animal chiropractor in your area.

Warmest regards
Dr. Michael Wayda
Royal Bullmastiffs http://www.royalbullmastiffs.net