Following is Dr. Rogers' letter
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
April 17,
2002
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
