Going against the vet: Cancerous dog 5 years later still going strong

Today’s pet corner in the Palm Beach Post caught my attention. This reader wrote to Dr. Michael Fox, the Post’s column vet:
“In March 2004 we adopted a 50 lbs mixed breed dog. Three months later our vet removed a tumor from under her tongue. When the lab report came back, it said that the she (the dog) had a malignant melanoma with “high potential for local recurrence as well as metastasis.” We were told she would likely not survive a year.
A local animal hospital recommended that they remove her lower jar along with most of her teeth, a move that they said might give her an additional nine months.
When I expressed horror at causing such stress to an animal for such short term results, they told me they routinely perform at least one of these operations a week.
Needless to say, I turned them down and our dog has been going strong for the past 5 years.
Still I wonder whether such procedures aren’t more cruel than helpful and whether they actually aimed at making a hefty profit for animal hospitals at the expense of well meaning owners.”
Dr. Fox responded as follows:
“Certain cancers are far more common in dogs than they are in humans.
Vaccines may play a significant role in immune system dysfunction, resulting in cancer.
There are many other cancer causing chemicals in our food, water and home environments, which are contaminating cats and dogs at much higher levels than people.
Potent antioxidants that neutralize free radicals and help boost the immune system, supplements like zinc, magnesium, Vitamins C and D, selenium retinoic acid (from Vitamin A), fucoidan (from brown seaweed) and herbal teas are some of the low cost nutraceuticals and herbs fro treating cancer and cancer prevention.
I prefer this approach to your dog’s type of cancer rather than radical surgery. Good for you and your dog for refusing the surgery.”
This article just happened to show up in the paper while I am contemplating to publish a number of comments on cancer in the nearest future.
For this particular case, I join the Dr. in his applause. Since he did not really get into the last question the dog owner had, I guess for political reasons, here is how I see it: Of course it has a lot, if not all to do with the hospital generating revenue. Whom are we kidding here? The profit greed doesn’t stop in front of the hospital doors. I don’t believe anymore that behind the hospital doors are all Saints having nothing but our very best on their mind. I believe all they have on their minds is our wallets, or better yet, how they can assist us in emptying it. This applies to both, people and animal hospitals. Just a couple days ago I was watching the news on BBC and a discussion they had on the health care reform our President is pushing for. They interviewed a government rep and she was quite candid: One of the major problems with the hospital bills is that many doctors are owners of hospitals and equipment. And if they don’t, they get all kinds of incentives to make sure these hospitals stay busy and profitable. This does not just apply to the hospitals, it applies to the pharmacy industry as well. That is just the factual truth in many, I am not saying all cases.
The sad thing is, we all are aware of it, from Joe Doe, the dog owner next door to the dog owner in the White House, our President (and not just our current one, every past one as well). And what happens? Absolutely, positively nothing. Whether it is people or our companion animals, let’s just keep messing them up even more so they keep generating revenues for the health care industry. Who cares about the actual health of a living creature? The problem is that the majority of health care professionals in many cases don’t consider it anymore as their responsibility to make sure they make us or our animals healthy, they have been programmed to make sure they make us come back for more. You can’t blame them either, let me repeat myself: That’s what they are being trained or programmed for.

Interpreting Labels of Special Use Nutrition Products

Today, in conclusion to the comments Quality assurances on pet food labels – Realistic or marketing as usual? and When a Pet Food is a "Drug" we are going to take a closer look at which rules and regulations pet food manufacturers have to follow when making claims for so called "special use foods".

Treats and Chews
Snacks and treats for pets are implicitly intended to be offered on an occasional basis, and by no means should be fed as the mainstay of the diet. Although pet treats must meet all the other FDA and state regulations for labeling of pet foods, they are exempt from the need to include an AAFCO nutritional adequacy statement. "Biscuits" are not exempt, unless they are identified as a "snack" or "treat" as well. Regardless, some treats and biscuits are formulated to be nutritionally complete, and some are not.

Dog chews made from rawhide, bone or other animal materials or parts (for example, pig ears) are still considered "food" under FDA law, since they are comprised of materials that are consumable by the pet. As long as the label for the chew does not include any reference to nutritional value (such as "high protein"), it may not have to follow the AAFCO pet food regulations. Thus, many labels for chews may not have a guaranteed analysis or follow the AAFCO rules for product names. However, they should still bear the information required under FDA regulations, such as the net quantity statement, the manufacturer's name and address, and the ingredient list (if it contains more than one ingredient or the single ingredient is not declared in the product name). For products sold in bulk, the required information should appear in a placard on the bin or container.

Health Claims
Many of the products intended for special uses involve the dietary management of a disease or condition. Recent laws have affected the way FDA regulates these types of products for human consumption. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) provides for specified "health claims" (claims that state that consumption of a food may help in the reduction of risk for disease) to appear on human food product labels. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) has allowed for the boom of dietary supplements available for human use, many which include claims of "nutritional support" for specific organs or body functions. Since pet foods follow many similar marketing trends to foods for human consumption, it is not surprising that many pet food and supplement labels also bear these types of claims. However, since the rules for pet foods are very different, some of these claims are not legally allowed.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) defines "food" as an article used for food or drink for man or other animals. On the other hand, a "drug" is, in part, an article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or an article (other than food) intended to affect the structure or function of the body of man or other animals. "Food," in the parenthetical "other than food," has been further interpreted by the courts as a substance that provides "taste, aroma, or nutritive value." If a food affects the structure or function of the body, it does so by these properties (for example, a food may provide nutrients such as calcium for proper bone structure, or taurine for healthy heart function in cats). However, if a product affects the structure or function of the body apart from its nutritive value, such as urine acidification or improvement in joint function, it may be considered a drug.

The legal definitions of food and drug become intertwined when a food label bears a claim that consumption of the product will treat, prevent, or otherwise affect a disease or condition, or to affect the structure or function of the body in a manner distinct from what would normally be described as from its "nutritive value." Also, implied drug claims may include a discussion of a medical condition, reference to an equivalent drug product, or the presence of medical symbols. Such claims establish an intent to offer the product as a drug (i.e., it makes a "drug claim"). Furthermore, since the product was not subject to the normal premarket clearance mechanism to demonstrate safety and efficacy as required for drugs, it is unsafe by definition. Pet food products with labels bearing drug claims are subject to regulation by CVM as drugs as well as foods. A pet food company must then remove these claims to restore its regulatory status to simply food.

FDA's authority to prohibit drug claims extends beyond what is commonly considered the product "label." The FFDCA defines "labeling" as all labels and other written, printed or graphic matter upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or accompanying such article. Thus, brochures, flyers, signs or similar promotional material found at the point of sale may be labeling and subject to the same laws. Also, although food advertising is not regulated by the FDA, but by the Federal Trade Commission, FDA does have some authority. Advertisements or even verbal representations that establish the "intended use" of the product can be used as relevant evidence that it is a drug.

FLUTD Products
CVM has incorporated some of the philosophy of NLEA in its policies in order to allow meaningful health-related information on pet food labels. Much of CVM's efforts to date have focused on label claims related to cat foods and the prevention of Feline Lower Urinary Tract Disease (FLUTD). Although FLUTD occurs in less than 1% of cats, it is a concern for cat owners. The exact causes of FLUTD are still unclear, and a number of dietary and non-dietary factors may be involved.

Label claims to prevent or reduce the risk of FLUTD, cystitis, urinary problems or similar verbiage are drug claims and are not allowed under the law. However, in an effort to get some meaningful health-related information to the consumer, CVM is exercising regulatory discretion in not taking action against products that bear claims akin to "reduce urine pH to help maintain urinary tract health" or to have low magnesium levels. With respect to urine pH claims, this discretion is contingent upon adequate controlled studies to demonstrate that consumption of the product results in an appropriately acidic urine. Since too much acidification of the urine can also result in serious health problems, data to demonstrate safety of the product are reviewed as well. With respect to dietary magnesium levels, the "cut-off" criteria to support a "low magnesium" claim are less than 0.12% on a dry matter basis and less than 25 mg per 100 kilocalories of metabolizable energy. Companies submit the results of proximate analyses (including crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, moisture, and ash) and magnesium analyses of a number of production runs of the product. Demonstration that the product formulation consistently meets the cut-off criteria supports the label claim. The estimation of magnesium content as calculated by using guaranteed analysis values on the product label must also meet the criteria.

In order to be most useful in reducing the risk of FLUTD, products must also be used correctly. If the product is mixed with other foods or "meal fed" (offered for only a short period of time per day), it might not be able to maintain the proper urine pH to be beneficial. Thus, feeding directions are added to recommend the product be fed alone and to be made available throughout the day. Also, the nutritional adequacy statement on the label must be for adult maintenance only. This disease occurs primarily in young to middle-aged adults, and the most serious problems occur in males. Since the safety of these products for kittens and pregnant or nursing queens has not been established, it is recommended not to use these products for these life stages.

Another FLUTD-related claim, "low ash," is not allowed on cat food labels. The current scientific consensus is that ash per se is not related to the incidence of FLUTD. There are no valid reasons to reference ash on the product label (other than in the guaranteed analysis) except in regard to this outdated theory. Thus, "low ash" or similar claims, even without reference to FLUTD, are inherently false and misleading, which render the product misbranded and subject to regulatory action.

Weight Control Products
Obesity in pets is probably the most common nutritional problem today. Reduced calorie products have been on the market for many years. However, following the lead of marketing niches for human foods, more and more "lite" pet food products are now available. FDA regulations promulgated under the NLEA established the rules for human products labeled as "lite," "low calorie" or similar terms, but do not apply to pet foods.

Recent AAFCO regulations governing the use of terms such as "lite" became effective this year. Under the new rules, the term "lite" must be based on a standard reference for all products, regardless of manufacturer. For example, a "lite" or "low calorie" dry dog food cannot contain more than 3100 kilocalories per kilogram (kcal/kg), while a similarly named dry cat food cannot contain more than 3250 kcal/kg. Canned foods contain much more moisture, so the maximum allowable calories are even lower (900 and 950 kcal/kg for dog and cat foods, respectively).

For products that are reduced in calories but not enough to merit a "lite" claim, the rules also allow for comparative claims. For example, if a company makes a very high calorie product and a lower calorie alternative, it can still make statements such as "25% less calories than our regular product." A calorie content statement must also appear on any product bearing a calorie-based claim. In addition to "lite" and "low calorie" claims, a similar set of rules were established for "lean" and "low fat" products, except based on maximum allowable fat percentages instead of calories.

A successful weight loss program takes owner involvement, too. Even a "lite" food can cause weight gain if fed to excess. Owners should follow the feeding directions suggested for weight loss, be careful not to give their pets snacks or table scraps, and even institute an exercise program as the pet's health dictates. Involvement of the veterinarian in the process is also the most prudent in ensuring both the success of the weight loss program and avoidance of potential health risks.

Dental Products
Label claims for "clean teeth" have been on pet food labels for many years, particularly on dry, hard biscuit products. As the field of veterinary dentistry and the awareness of the importance of proper dental hygiene have grown, a number of products have borne much more explicit claims. Claims to treat or prevent gingivitis or periodontal disease are drug claims and should not appear on pet food labels. Plaque or tartar control claims may also be implied drug claims, as they directly relate to dental disease. However, CVM has exercised some regulatory discretion with respect to plaque and tartar claims for products that achieve their effects by mechanical actions. The Veterinary Oral Health Center, an outside organization formed under the auspices of the American Veterinary Dental College, has developed an experimental protocol for companies to follow to demonstrate that their products are useful in reducing plaque and tartar. This organization will also review data from companies to verify that the claim is true, and if so, allow them to carry its logo on the package. CVM has worked with the Veterinary Oral Health Center in this process, so consumers can be assured that products that bear the logo are useful for plaque and tartar control.

Skin and Coat Products
Pet food labels abound with promises for "healthy skin" and "glossy coat." Any normal animal receiving adequate nutrition through use of a complete and balanced product should have these qualities. However, claims to uncategorically "improve" skin and coat or to cure or prevent disease signs such dry skin, flaky skin, or itching may be drug claims.

Perhaps most notorious is the claim for a product to be "hypoallergenic." Elimination diets are used by veterinarians in the diagnosis and management of food allergies. An elimination diet is one devoid of food ingredients likely to cause an allergy, often characterized by itchy, inflamed skin. Resolution of these clinical signs while the animal is on the diet is diagnostic of a food allergy, and trial and error then could be used to determine exactly to what the pet was allergic and what ingredients to avoid. Traditionally, lamb and rice was used as the elimination diet. There is nothing special or unique about these ingredients in terms of allergenicity, and prolonged exposure to these ingredients could also induce an allergic condition. However, they were historically novel sources of protein, since the use of these ingredients was uncommon in commercial dog foods. As such, a pre-existing allergy to lamb or rice would be unlikely.

In recent years, a plethora of products containing lamb and rice entered the consumer market. Many of these products were labeled as "hypoallergenic," or otherwise espoused the benefits of lamb and rice in the treatment or prevention of food allergies and other skin problems. Such claims were made even for products that contained other sources of protein that would disqualify them as effective elimination diets.

CVM does not object to the use of lamb or rice in pet foods. Foods that contain these products in sufficient quantities to meet AAFCO labeling criteria may make claims to the presence of these ingredients. However, any claim to be "hypoallergenic," or any other expressed or implied claim relating these ingredients with benefits to the skin and coat beyond their normal nutritive value is a drug claim.

The same may also be true of other ingredients. For example, many fat sources may contain substances known as omega-3 fatty acids. There are some studies in the veterinary literature to suggest that when used pharmacologically, these substances may have an effect on inflammatory skin disease. However, omega-3 fatty acids are not recognized as essential nutrients at this time. In other words, dogs and cats cannot have an "omega-3 fatty acid deficiency," and unqualified claims relating to omega-3 fatty acid content may falsely imply nutritional benefit where none has been established. Thus, if a product label bears a claim for omega-3 fatty acids, it must also guarantee its level in the product, accompanied by a disclaimer that it is "not recognized as an essential nutrient by the AAFCO (Dog or Cat) Food Nutrient Profiles."

Veterinary Medical Foods
A "medical food" was originally defined in the Orphan Drug Act as "a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on sound scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation." Historically, even though medical foods are specifically intended for use in disease conditions, they were regulated by FDA as foods, not drugs. This was because the market for medical foods was relatively small, confined mainly to products such as infant formulas designed for babies with rare genetic conditions. Since the cost of obtaining a drug approval for the product grossly outweighed any profit manufacturers could expect from use in such limited circumstances, FDA allowed this exemption so that the products could be available for those who needed them.

The definition cited above is in reference to foods for human consumption. However, it could also apply to a category of foods for veterinary use that can be characterized as "veterinary medical foods" ("VMF"). These products are generally intended to be offered as the sole source of nutrition to animals with specific medical conditions. Historically, they usually contained restricted amounts of certain nutrients to aid in the mitigation of some disease processes. For example, low protein/low phosphorus diets could be used for some forms of kidney disease, while a low sodium diet could be helpful in some forms of heart disease.

These products are often identified on the market by the label bearing the phrase "use only as directed by your veterinarian," and are often sold only by veterinarians
.
As foods, VMF are subject to the same labeling requirements as are any other pet food. As such, labels may not bear drug claims. This restriction also applies to product names. Thus, these products are often given names that would not be easily recognized by the average consumer, such as initials or numbers. Also, VMF labels must meet the same criteria for substantiation of nutritional adequacy as other pet foods. Previously, foods labeled "for veterinary use" were exempt from meeting other AAFCO requirements for "complete and balanced" foods. This appeared contradictory, since assurances of nutritional completeness take on even greater significance when used on sick animals. This fact has been borne out by several well-publicized incidents of nutritional deficiencies in animals fed VMF (for example, taurine and potassium deficiencies were discovered in cats on VMF). Thus, products must now substantiate adequacy by meeting the AAFCO nutrient profile or passing an AAFCO feeding trial protocol for adult maintenance, or include the phrase "for intermittent or supplemental feeding only." Some companies have attempted to circumvent these requirements by listing "intermittent use" on the label, but claiming complete nutritional adequacy in brochures or other sources. Regardless of what the brochures say, if this last statement appears on the label it means that the product has not been shown to be complete and balanced for the normal animal. Thus, it should be used only for certain medical conditions as directed by a veterinarian. Directions for use are presumed to be provided by the veterinarian to the pet owner, so VMF labels are exempt from the AAFCO requirement to include feeding directions.

Labeling of VMF with statements regarding their use in the mitigation of disease processes would imply therapeutic use and thus is not permitted. However, CVM recognizes that VMF have a scientifically sound basis, and they serve a purpose. Thus CVM generally exercises regulatory discretion with respect to distributing truthful information on VMF in materials intended only for veterinarians. Proper use of these types of products requires adequate veterinary supervision. An owner who feeds a VMF product for its desired therapeutic effect solely on the basis of labeling or advertising claims may cause harm resulting from improper diagnosis or treatment.

Dietary Supplements and "Nutraceuticals"
With the availability of today's "complete and balanced" products, nutritional supplements are needed only in very rare circumstances. Injudicious use of supplements runs a greater risk of causing dietary imbalances or toxicity than it does to actually improve the diet. Therefore, unless the pet is being fed a homemade diet that requires additional sources of certain nutrients, or unless a veterinarian diagnoses a medical condition that could benefit from supplementation, it is best not to give supplements to pets.

"Dietary supplements" describe a much broader range of products. Some provide essential nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, but others contain substances that are not recognized as essential for the intended species (for example, vitamin C for dogs and cats, omega-3 fatty acids). Herbs, plant or organ extracts, enzymes, and a host of other substances are also often marketed as dietary supplements. The market for dietary supplements was boosted by passage of DSHEA. This law changed the way FDA regulated these products for humans. Briefly, it said that FDA could not call a substance a "drug" or "food additive" if it met the definition for a dietary supplement and was not already regulated as a drug or food additive. Thus, it shifted the burden of the manufacturer having to prove a product was safe before it went on the market to the FDA having to prove it was unsafe before it could be removed. This prompted a sizable increase in the number and range of dietary supplements available on the market today.
DSHEA only applies to human products, not pet products. Some of the substances allowed for sale as human dietary supplements may not be legally permitted to be sold for animals. Although some of the supplements, such as herbal products, may have "thousands of years of history of safe use," this does not include history of use in animals. Animals may react very differently to substances than people, and even small doses can cause adverse effects. For example, aspirin and chocolate, both substances that are used by people every day without ill effect, can be toxic to pets and even cause death. Therefore, since it's not known what the true effects an herb or other supplement may have on pets, it's safest not to allow marketing for that use.

On a case-by-case basis, CVM has reviewed safety information for some substances and allowed them to be used in animal feeds (for example, L-carnitine in dog foods), even though they were officially "unapproved food additives." If included in a pet food or supplement, they must be properly declared on the label. If the substance is not an essential nutrient, the disclaimer "not recognized as an essential nutrient by the AAFCO (Dog or Cat) Food Nutrient Profiles" must also appear on the label.

The term "nutraceuticals" was coined to describe the increasing number of products offered for the prevention or treatment of disease but marketed under the guise of dietary supplements. The promise of a "safe" and "natural" remedy for disease is very appealing. However, since the product has not undergone the same testing for safety and efficacy as required for approved drugs, it's impossible to know whether the product works at all or is even unsafe. Presently, these substances are drugs if the labeling bears claims to treat or prevent disease, or if the intended use as a drug can be established by other means.

Summary
An informed consumer is the best consumer. It is easy to be confused by all the claims and promises made for pet foods and supplements, but keeping the rules described above in mind should help. If the pet owner has any questions, he or she should not hesitate to contact the manufacturer. Asking for advice from parties other than the manufacturer, such as FDA or state regulatory officials or university experts, may also be a good source of unbiased information. Also, as with other health matters, the pet's veterinarian should be consulted on dietary choices, especially with respect to any special use products.
This comment is provided by David A. Dzanis, DVM, Ph.D., DACVN, and in its original can be found on the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine under Information for consumers food and drug administration center for veterinary medicine

Browsing today’s pet column in the local news paper: Elderly cat loosing weight

I haven’t done that for quite a while: Contributing to this blog nutrition related comments I find in the pet column of my local newspaper, The Palm Beach Post. Some while ago now they changed from a weekly frequency to publishing the column twice a week and by now a quite sizeable pile of news paper sections with a note to my wife “Pl. save” has accumulated on my already cluttered desk. This pile along with many other reference materials I am using here at this blog and on our website is just getting out of control, so I decided to just dive into it starting right now. And I like the idea because they should make for short comments, something my blog visitors here are not used to too much. I know, my and my contributors’ comments often are quite lengthy and also do not always make for the “lite” reading material you’d pick to relax.
One issue really makes me wonder: Why are pet owners using the pet column to find out about health issues they are having with their pets and how to address them? I understand, there may be a number of them who don’t want to or cannot for whatever reason afford to see their vet. ‘k they need help. But quite often I get the feeling that the pet owners inquiring are most definitely frequenting their vets. Do they not trust them? Could well be, and sort of does not come as a surprise to me when I read some of those cases. However, I want to make one thing very clear here: As you will see, many of these cases most definitely require veterinarian assistance, some of them I would even consider emergencies. I plead to those pet owners: Don’t experiment on your own by trying to figure out what’s going on with your pet by studying and discussing in pet columns, blogs, Internet forums and similar places. A precise diagnosis cannot be made via a pet column by you describing the problem. That would be like you e-mailing me stating you have some pain in your chest and I diagnose you having a lung infection while in the meantime you are on the verge of experiencing a heart attack. A correct diagnosis only can be found through a physical examination performed by a vet. I also do not understand why some vets in these columns even offer advice rather than referring the inquiring owner to one of their colleagues. Get your pet to the vet now before it is too late. If you cannot afford a “regular” vet, seek help at your local animal shelter. While they are not always providing free services, they often are less costly and chances are they will not turn you away and the financials can be worked out later in a mutually acceptable manner. As you go on there still will be plenty of time left for you to discuss things via the media listed above. And at that point I encourage you to do so, because there is sure a lot to be learned out there and all these sources can provide an incredible wealth of information for you.
If you already see a vet and have the feeling he is of no help, go see another one. Especially in more complicated cases, just as you handle it with your own body, it is good and advisable to seek a second opinion. I recommend that quite frequently to my customers when they come telling me that they are trying to get a problem resolved through their vet and just don’t make any progress. Don’t waste any more time than necessary, move on and most important, get your pet the help it needs and at a bare minimum deserves. But that is all general stuff I would ask anybody to keep in mind. Let’s get to today’s case:
This lady has an elderly male cat at home, approximately 15 years old. The cat was a rescue and when they found him obviously nobody was able to tell how old he was, so they estimated him being 5 back then. That’s all secondary. The owner is concerned. The cat’s entire spine and hip bones are starting to show. The owner says: “you can’t really see them, but when you pet him, you can feel every bone in his back. He still has great appetite. He has dry food available all day and he gets one can of Fancy Feast at night. He still has normal bathroom habits and he hasn’t been vomiting. Should I be concerned or is this the “normal” aging process?”
Let me quick throw in before I forget: Good: Cat has appetite and eats, normal bathroom habits, no vomiting. Not so good: Fancy Feast and I would assume the dry food provided falls in the same quality range.
The pet column vet recommends that the cat needs a good comprehensive physical exam. Really, why hasn’t the owner’s vet figured that out yet? I assume she has one, she definitely sounds to me as if she does. Then the paper’s vet continues: “Older cats are often in a delicate balance that needs to be monitored to keep them in good health. Their bodies are not as forgiving as when they were young, but with a little extra care they can live longer and more comfortably than ever before. First ask your veterinarian to select a senior diet for your cat to optimize his nutrition. Some older cats have sensitive digestive systems and need food that is easy to digest, others have decreased kidney function and need specialized food to help the kidneys. Some have tooth pain and need soft food. A blood profile may help your veterinarian determine your cat’s needs.”
Here are my questions to the column vet: Rather than confusing the pet owner I would have definitely sent her to see her vet. Granted, this does not seem to be an emergency since it sounds like the cat appears to be feeling fine despite the weight loss. But what was done here was just making the owner’s life difficult. She now is going to look for the right food. Good luck with that, that’s going to take for ever and she will end up with a million opinions and still not know what to do about that. Why do vets always right away push for a change in diet? Granted, it is the food what causes the diseases we are fighting and our animals are plagued with. However, switching the animal over to a “scientific” wonder food, which after all typically is not so much of a wonder healing miracle, is not the answer. And let’s face it, there is only a very few vets who will recommend any other food than their favorite prescription diets.
Then you bring up a possible kidney problem? Granted, yes there is a possibility of that, but again, it just confuses the owner. Let a vet determine that by doing a physical exam and don’t put that in the poor owner’s head needlessly increasing her worries.
My next question to the vet is: You wrote a great article on the paper’s website titled “Do you know when to see your vet? Here are guidelines about taking your pet to see a doctor.” In it you say: “Question: When should I take my pet to see my vet? Answer: These question/answer columns are extremely helpful, but there are certain situations with pets where no time should be wasted in getting your pet to a veterinarian. Everyone needs to understand that, just as in humans, problems can not be diagnosed without examining the pet and/or lab work. A good rule of thumb is: Emergencies (need a vet immediately) are: seizures, Bufo toad, collapsed, problem breathing, hit by car, bleeding, in labor, ate poison, eye injury/problem, and vomiting blood. If your vet is not open at the time these happen, be sure you know where the nearest emergency clinic is located. Get to a vet today: not eating, diarrhea, vomiting, weak/lethargic, in pain, cat that can't urinate /defecate, and ANY sick bird. These are the standards we give our new receptionists and staff to use as guidelines when making appointments.”
See what I am saying, I think that would have been the appropriate and only way that cat owner’s inquiry should have been answered.

And if anybody is interested in hearing what I would have recommended: Go see your vet and have a physical done. Then based on the results come back and if the vet recommends a change in diet let’s figure out what we’re going to do. It all depends on the results of the vet’s exam.
Assuming the outcome of the exam is that except for some weight loss there is nothing wrong with your cat, let’s look at two possibilities: Is the cat “underweight”? If so let’s try an increase of the amounts to be fed daily (probably by 50%) and also lets possibly consider a diet with higher fat and protein content. If we are dealing with a “lean” cat, I would suggest an increase of the food ration by 25%. Let’s start weighing the animal at least once a week, this way we can monitor our progress.
In the past I have been very successful by using Dr. Wysongs Recommendations for Specific Health Conditions. He recommends for “Underweight cats”: A dry or canned growth formula, a raw variety combined with all meat canned or raw meat, a supplemental nutrition enhancement for animals that are undernourished. A supplement designed to reflect this understanding and can be mixed with water to form a paste for force feeding if necessary. It is made of a base of gently processed, concentrated meats and organs from various sources to provide the major natural proteins, fats, and calories. Vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and probiotic cultures are naturally derived, and provide nutrients to the animal in the form that its system was designed to recognize and utilize, and the Wysong Supplement Mother’s Milk.

Struggling economy affecting pets’ health

Unfortunately these days it has become a common topic almost daily written about in every newspaper nationwide and on every pet related news website: The state of our economy also hits home with every pet owner. Just a brief comment unrelated to pet nutrition: I strongly believe it would help a great deal if the media would report in a more optimistic manner on what is going on with our economy. If one gets up every morning and starts reading and listening to the news, being confronted with bad news over and over again, it does not come as a surprise to me that nobody is willing to do anything positive, everybody gets depressed before the day even starts. Sure, there is a lot of negative to report about, but gee, there is also positive happening and a little cheering would probably work wonders. Our government officials should do the same: Look back in history and every bad event happening. Regardless of how bad it was and how “down” we were as a nation, if the President said “let’s get our act together and move on in a positive spirit. We can do it”, then things usually started turning around. What happened to our President’s positive “let’s do it because we can” pre-election attitude? We need some more of that. The world didn’t (and for a matter of fact never does) come to an end. Just a thought on the side…
Now back to what really counts: The matter of our healthy pets.
Swansea resident Brian J. Lowney, past president of the Wampanoag Kennel Club and an active dog show judge who shares his home with two shelter adopted cats wrote for the pet column of South Coast Today:
One emergency veterinarian reports that the nation's struggling economy is also affecting our pets.
Dr. Michelle Lampe, president of the Mass.-RI Veterinary ER in Swansea, says that she's seen an increase in the number of pets with treatable conditions being euthanized because owners can't afford surgery or prolonged treatment programs.
The veterinarian adds that she also has received numerous calls from owners seeking advice about treating sick cats and dogs with over-the-counter medications such as Advil and Tylenol or their own prescription drugs. One caller asked if it was ok to give Percocet to an animal that was suffering from intense pain.
"They want to do something for their pets," Dr. Lampe acknowledges. "The bottom line is that no one should give their animal anything unless a veterinarian has given the animal a physical exam."
The veterinarian explains that it's less expensive to treat a sick pet with appropriate medications rather than pay for drug intoxication or poisoning, if the animal survives the ordeal.
"It's not legal to prescribe medication for an animal that we've never seen, and it's not good medicine," Dr. Lampe emphasizes, adding it can be potentially harmful to offer advice based on an owner's assessment of a condition rather than on the results of an examination and diagnostic tests.
Dr. Lampe notes that when pet owners face difficult economic times, they often choose less expensive brands of cat and dog foods that have little nutritional value. These foods are made from cheaper cuts of meat and grains, and often lack vital nutrients.
"Don't be tempted to switch back and forth," Dr. Lampe warns, noting that abrupt changes in a pet's diet can cause painful gastrointestinal upsets.
"Sometimes people end up spending dollars to save cents," she continues, noting that it's wiser to invest in a quality brand dog food than in a less expensive brand made with fillers that makes a pet so sick that the poor creature requires medical attention.
"Don't always go for cheaper," Dr. Lampe advises. She recommends comparing prices at supermarkets, large volume discount chains and pet supply stores. Smart shoppers can use coupons or purchase cases of premium cat food or large bags of quality dog food and share the cost and contents with a relative or friend who feeds the same brand.
The emergency veterinarian comments that tough times often force owners to neglect preventive care such as inoculations, heartworm treatment and spaying or neutering.
"These decisions could cost money in the long run, Dr. Lampe says, adding that unspayed female pets are prone to developing painful and repetitive uterine infections. Pets not vaccinated for rabies run the risk of contracting the potentially fatal disease.
"Try to save money in smart places, and don't be afraid to consult a veterinarian if your pet needs help," she advises.
Dr. Lampe adds that the holiday seasons are a busy time of year for most veterinarians. "We get a lot of holiday related problems," Dr. Lampe says, noting that many cats love to eat tinsel, which can lodge in the intestines and cause blockages. Some animals develop severe pancreatitis after devouring turkey grease and scraps of other rich foods served at holiday gatherings.
While Dr. Lampe doesn't advocate feeding table scraps, she says it's ok to offer your pet a small slice or two of cooled roasted chicken. She warns owners never to give pets chocolate, which contains theobromine that spikes an animal's blood pressure and heart rate and causes seizures.
The veterinarian warns owners never to give pets a piece of Styrofoam as a substitute for a toy. It can cause choking. She also cautions pet lovers not to let their four-footed friends drink water from a Christmas tree stand. Stagnant tree water or water containing preservatives could result in stomach upsets.
The recent cold snap has forced field mice to flee indoors. Dr. Lampe says that pet owners should be observant and make sure that pets don't eat the pellets that have been put down to kill the destructive rodents.
"Rat poison is made to kill small animals," she emphasizes. "If your pet ingests the poison, it could be fatal." Only anti-coagulant rat poison can be effectively treated with an antidote, Dr. Lampe states. Other types, if ingested, will cause death.
She adds that many owners take the "wait and see" approach when a pet has ingested a toxic substance. One man recently waited four days after his dog had eaten rat poison. By the time the pet was brought to the emergency clinic, there was widespread hemorrhaging and the animal was near death. Luckily, the dog survived.
Dr. Lampe says that before buying a pet, the cost of food, grooming and veterinary care during the animal's lifetime should be considered carefully.
"People should see if they can afford a pet," she advises. "If they can't, they shouldn't buy one. People are dumping their pets left and right because they can't afford to feed them."
I am kind of glad that someone finally said what was said here in the last sentence. I have to admit, I really feel the very same way. People all too easy forget that animals are living creatures and not just toys, which after initial interest and excitement and after reality sets in can be set aside like a puppet or remote controlled toy car. Or for that matter of fact a home or car which one couldn’t afford to begin with. That is basically wrong with too many people within our society: Too easy obligations are entered into and when it gets serious it is being left up to others to pick up the slack. But it will never change as long as they are allowed to act this way and as long as these people too easy get away with their irresponsibility. Only problem I see with our poor animals: I have not seen them being part of any federal bail out package. Just another side note…

Not everybody jumping onto the Grain Free train

Warning: Please consider my today’s comment in part as a reflection of the not so serious side in me, the humorous side of your Pet Food Examiner.
Not a day goes by anymore when we don’t find out about yet another pet food manufacturer introducing his grain free contribution to the market. Grain free is in. (See also on this blog my series Pet food ingredient Grain: Controversy vs. chemistry). As a matter of fact, we may indeed soon get to the point when we don’t hear any more announcements because everybody will have it in their programs. Well, almost everybody that is.
According to Pal-Item.com in Richmond, Indiana on 03/01/09 “The Wayne County Farm Service Agency has approved additional approved warehouse capacity for Harvest Land Co-op's new storage facility. The farmer-owned cooperative built additional grain storage at the Hagerstown Ag Center last year and has eliminated its storage facilities in the city of Richmond.
In January, Harvest Land Co-op was approved for a property tax abatement on the new facilities by the Wayne County Council, based on supplying grain to Hill's Pet Nutrition, which maintains jobs in the community. The 10-year abatement was granted on the 750,000-bushel grain bin and equipment valued at $970,000 and property valued at $1.5 million.
Harvest Land delivered 3.5 million bushels of grain to Hill's in 2008, up from 2.2 million bushels in 2001, according to Wayne County Council records.”
It all makes a lot of sense to me: Low cost ingredient for a high cost pet food with very close ties to the veterinary community. Corn instead of what our carnivores need: Meat. But what is good about it: It comes in 2 varieties: Vet recommended and if that doesn’t impress you, let’s use more force: Vet prescribed. Now you have no other choice. Sounds all too familiar, doesn’t it? And sounds like that trend, though to me personally not so desirable, is definitely here to stay for a while. At least I think they must be doing well since I didn’t hear of any bail-out requests from their quarters. And, to give the company credit, it has to be noted that according to their own declarations Hills “Nature's Best pet foods lets you treat your pet to high-quality … grains … .”
To round this up I wanted to get into it and talk more about the fine line of Hills products, actually I was looking for a grain free diet. All I had intended was giving them credit. Well, I started searching their site and when looking at the first one I considered to be applicable to be grain free label, the d/d Venison & Green Pea Formula, I noticed that the first listed ingredient is Pea Protein Concentrate and the second ingredient is venison. Already it started the other way around than what the name states. Why does pet food shopping have to be so difficult? If I want venison food and buy food stating by it’s name that is venison food then I expect (rightfully so?) the first ingredient to be nothing but venison, either meat or meal and not some pea protein concentrate. Or is there a dictionary or industry guide telling me what I should look for when looking for venison? Is it after all maybe peanut butter? It is for that reason that I decided to stick with the brands I know and support and stay away from the scientific stuff mainly because it is probably way beyond my educational horizon and will take up too much of my time and energy. I may discover that I suffer ADD and it may impact my mood today. I still don’t know if they indeed offer a grain free formula, but to be honest, today I am not interested in whether they do or not. Maybe another day. There is nothing for us to be worried about. After all, according to them, their “Science Diet® brand pet foods are formulated for overall health and wellness” and represent “Superior Nutrition For the Lifelong Health of Your Pet®.” Their “Prescription Diet® brand therapeutic pet foods are available only from a veterinarian.” But don’t worry about that, after all they are “Clinical Nutrition to Improve Quality of Life™” of our pets.
Sources & references:
Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc.
Pal-Item.com
This article mentions and includes Trademarks and Registered Trademarks owned by Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.

"Human grade" Pet Food - Reality or Marketing Hype?

Susan Thixton of The Truth About Pet Food some time ago made a simple point. In her a article on this subject (Unfortunately it's a gray area - Human Grade or Pet Grade ingredients in pet foods): “To me, the topic of human grade meat should not be a gray area. A piece of chicken or beef is either suitable for me to consume or it’s not. Totally black and white issue." Well spoken Susan, I have to agree, but, as you too realize, reality in the pet food world is an entire other story.
So when getting ready to elaborate on this issue, I was glad that recently I came across an article written by Edie Lau for the news service of the Veterinarian Information Network. It addresses in great detail the problems surrounding the subject matter. I also liked what I read there because it talked about a veterinarian taking an active role in trying to figure out which dilemma pet owners are facing these days when they are trying to figure out what to feed their pets. The vet, Dr. Paul Palmatier, a 26 year practitioner in a Northern California clinic took an approach very different of what I hear usually from my customers about their vets. Palmatier, as most of his peers carries pet food in his clinic. But rather than just sitting there and preaching about, ordering to feed and prescribing some supposedly miraculous scientific diet, this gentleman actually took the time to visit a local pet food store. There he realized very quickly that the chore of getting some pet food is not quite as simple as it sounds. Just like most of us pet owners he was stunned about the overwhelming number of food choices. He also said that he was surprised when he noticed the cost involved.
The article’s author continues: “The visit gave the 26-year practitioner a sharp appreciation for the choices his clients face. Palmatier said he thinks “constantly” about pet food these days, in part because clients come to him with questions or admit to alternative diets for their pets — raw or homemade food, for example — that the mainstream veterinary community typically doesn’t advise.Just as consumers are thinking more critically about where their food comes from and what’s in it, many are applying the same scrutiny to what they feed their animal companions. Palmatier believes the movement gained momentum from the melamine scandal of 2007, in which unscrupulous suppliers added an industrial chemical to pet food, killing and sickening thousands of animals and spurring a giant product recall involving leading manufacturers.Speaking to consumers’ growing concern about safety and health, some pet-food makers are using a variety of labels that they hope will convey superiority — “all-natural,” for example, “holistic” and even “human grade.”That last one prompted Palmatier last month to post a survey on a Veterinary Information Network discussion board. Just what does that term mean? he wanted to know. Does it have an official definition, or is it just marketing? The answer, it turns out, is both. “Human grade” has no formal legal definition. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine has taken the position that if every ingredient in a product is edible, meaning that it was processed according to rules of sanitation required of food sold to people, then the product may be labeled “human grade,” said Dr. William Burkholder, a veterinary medical officer and the agency’s resident pet nutrition expert. The fact that the FDA doesn’t frown upon the term doesn’t mean that the claim always is used appropriately. “We see a lot of ‘this ingredient is human grade’ claims but our position is that an edible ingredient becomes inedible when you add it to other inedible ingredients,” Burkholder said.One pet food maker that says it meets FDA’s strict definition of the term was refused permission to sell its food in Ohio by that state’s Department of Agriculture, on the grounds that the label was misleading. (States and the FDA, together, have a hand in regulating animal feed.) The company, The Honest Kitchen of San Diego, Calif., took the state to court in 2007. It won on the basis of free speech. The Honest Kitchen, founded in 2002, produces dehydrated raw food for dogs and cats. Owner Lucy Postins said the company originated from her desire to make food for her own puppy. Then she discovered that other pet owners shared her concerns about what goes into conventional kibble. “When you’re feeding these homogenous brown chunks, it’s difficult to determine what’s in there,” Postins said. The ingredients The Honest Kitchen uses not only are edible for humans, they are eaten by humans, she said. “We actually physically eat the raw ingredients that are going into our food. As part of our QC (quality control), we taste every batch of food ... They actually taste pretty good,” she said, comparing the aroma of the finished product to soup or stuffing mix. The meat, she added, is sampled after it’s dehydrated. Although Postins feels strongly about her company’s right to call its food “human grade,” she said she’s aware of other manufacturers that use the term inaccurately.Because of its misuse, many players in the industry decry the label. “It is essentially a made-up term used by marketing interests to describe and promote products in light of anthropomorphic responses people have to their pets,” David Syverson, chair of the Association of American Feed Control Officials’ Pet Food Committee wrote in an e-mail response to questions. AAFCO is an advisory body of state and federal feed regulators that develops nutrient standards and ingredient definitions for animals, whether livestock or pets. Regardless whether a pet-food product meets the standard for human-edible food, people tend to misunderstand the term, Syverson said. He suspects consumers believe it applies to various body parts — intestines versus muscle, for instance — but it does not. Whether a food is edible for humans “has little to do with the nature of the product. It has everything to do with how the product is handled,” he said. He offered this example: “We have two steaks that came out of a USDA meat processing plant. One is edible and can be sold for human consumption because it has been handled continuously under process controls established by law/rule to assure that the product is not exposed to anything that would make the product unfit for human consumption. The second came from the same slaughter plant, same animal and same production line, but slipped off the belt and hit the floor. This one is inedible.” Furthermore, what is acceptable for one species to eat may be harmful for another, he said: “Humans can eat chocolate, for instance; however, if it is fed to a dog, it (can be) toxic.”At the same time, some ingredients regularly found in pet food but considered less-than-desirable in the standard American diet (meat byproducts, for example) may be just fine for either to eat, he and others said. In fact, some people do eat them, noted Dr. Jennifer Larsen, an assistant professor of clinical nutrition at the University of California-Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.“I have some good friends here from Spain and they’re really frustrated by what’s in the market,” Larsen said. “There’s no brains, there’s no kidneys. They think it’s really interesting that we even devein shrimp. It’s a cultural thing. There’s nothing wrong with byproducts; they’re quite safe. It’s just, Americans think they’re icky.”Mark Heyward, owner of Timberwolf Organics pet food, said pet owners should judge pet food not on what they’d like to eat themselves, but on what constitutes good quality for those species. “If you were to let a live chicken out in the back yard and your dog ate it, it would eat everything,” Heyward said. Dr. Avi Deshmukh, scientific communications manager for pet-food maker Royal Canin USA, agreed. “When carnivores kill, the first thing they are likely to eat are the internal organs,” he said. “They know that’s where the gusto is. For example, liver and kidney contain vitamins. The intestines contain excellent protein. So a lot of these things provide a very good nutrition to the animals. They will go to the steak later.” And to those people who say they don’t eat meat byproducts, Deshmukh responds with a chuckle, “Yes, you do. What do you think is (in) a hot dog?”What, then, is the difference between people food and pet food? From the government’s point of view, the key distinction rests in rules governing the handling of food products, which are aimed chiefly at sanitation. “For animal feeds, of which pet foods are a subset, there are currently no ‘good manufacturing practices’ in regulation,” the FDA’s Burkholder said. Ancillary parts of an animal, such as the beaks, feet and combs of a chicken, for example, could end up as components of a pet-food ingredient. “I don’t know of any ingredient that is just feet and beak,” Burkholder added. “Feet would contribute protein and minerals to a product. Beaks are probably arguably filler, if it was just beaks. They’re sort of a chitin-keratin-composed substance. They tend to be components of poultry byproduct meal, which has a lot of other things in it.” Similarly, meat and bone meal, which is a combination of “whatever is left over (from processing of meat for human consumption) -- bones, and meat portion attached to it,” Deshmukh said, may be used as an ingredient in pet food.
One category of meat source known as 4D, for “dead, dying, diseased or disabled,” is prohibited for use in human food, but allowed in animal feed, provided it was processed properly with heat to kill pathogens, AAFCO's Syverson said. 4D meats could include road kill. Syverson said he believes critics of conventional pet foods put undue focus on this fact. “People don’t go out of their way to find road kill to put in pet food,” he said. “...Somebody would have to physically collect it and bring it to the plant. I’m not saying it never happens; however, I have never seen it, and it’s unlikely.”Just because something is permitted in pet food doesn’t mean it’s present, of course. “There’s a difference between good companies and mediocre companies,” Deshmukh said. “Responsible and reputable companies will use only meat or poultry from healthy animals.” He acknowledged that pet owners have no way of knowing the quality of ingredients specified by a given manufacturer. “You have to go on the reputation of the company,” he said.Palmatier, the veterinarian in Santa Rosa, said many in the veterinary community have close, mutually beneficial relationships with major pet-food companies, some of which fund continuing-education programs at professional conferences. For that reason, he said, practitioners have a responsibility to know what is in the food they promote.“Veterinarians are aligned with major food manufacturers to some degree, so criticisms of the major food companies are, to some degree, a criticism of standard veterinary medicine, too,” he said. “So we should really know the products that either fund our CE programs or are sold ... from our offices.””
I guess we still have long ways to go. And come to think of, when you consider what the Royal Canin guy had to say about hot dogs, maybe after all "human grade" is not such a great idea.
Just as a side note, this has nothing to do with the actual subject of this comment but with a general issue: I am glad to see it confirmed by a third party: After all it looks like my constant suspicion about a great number of vets having a very special relationship with some members of the pet food industry doesn’t seem to be just a fantasy. I know I have a big ego, I like to think I am most of the times right. But I can’t help it, it really makes me feel good when others, who even don’t know me confirm what I am saying.Click here to see the original article in VIN News “Can we eat it?”

Pet Vaccinations: A sickening subject

If there is anything getting my blood boiling it is when I receive yet another call from my vet’s office in the mail: One of the seven pets is up for a vaccination again. And surprisingly, with having 5 cats and two dogs I need to see the vet about every two weeks or so. At least I get the impression that this is the case. This year they came even up with a great new and neat, or I’d say quite tricky idea: A wall calendar for the entire year clearly showing me every birthday. Of course cat and dog birthdays only. It really doesn’t help me to remember my wife’s or any other to her of the same importance relevant dates such as for example our wedding anniversary. I am getting better though, by now at least I can remember Valentine’s Day (that’s around the time when the History Channel shows its annual about Al Capone’s Valentine’s massacre in Chicago). Now, before I get carried away with my capabilities of memorizing what is more or less important to me or to others, let me come back to this new wall calendar. I am honest with you: I threw it in the trash. The calendar was not useable for me, i.e. there was no room for me to make any notes. All room was taken to remind me of yet another vaccination for any one of our beloved pets.
The entire incident made me decide to share with you what a dear friend of one of my pet buddies as a vet once had to say about the issue of vaccinating our pets. Dr. Larry Siegler, D.V.M. He writes in his article “The Truth about Vaccinations”:
“ Most guardians have never been told the truth about vaccinations. On the contrary, you are likely to get annual notices from your veterinarian that your companion is “due for their annual booster shots”. The evidence against vaccinating, however, is overwhelming. Most veterinarians just choose to ignore the research because they don’t want to lose the income from giving booster shots to all those animals each year.
Vaccinations represent a major stress to the immune system. They can not only cause side effects and allergic reactions, they also contribute significantly to long term chronic disease. Chronic health problems frequently appear following vaccination including skin allergies, arthritis, leukemia, upper respiratory infections, irritable bowel syndromes, neurological conditions including aggressive behavior and epilepsy, auto immune diseases and cancer.
I have been practicing veterinary medicine for over 20 years and I see sicker animals at a younger age now than when I began. It is more and more common to see cancer in dogs and cats under 5 years of age. Autoimmune diseases are on the rise as well. Our companions are suffering from generations of over vaccination, which combined with inadequate nutrition, poor breeding practices and environmental stresses are leaving each generation more susceptible to congenital disorders and chronic disease.
Vaccinations do help prevent serious illnesses, but they should be used with restraint. Before vaccinating, consider the risk. If your cat is indoor only and will never be exposed to unvaccinated animals, the risk of infection is low. The decision about vaccinations is very individual and should be guided by your own research on the subject before you go to the veterinarian.
Puppies and kittens should not be vaccinated until at least 12 weeks of age. Their developing immune systems are especially vulnerable to the stress of vaccines. Request individual vaccines and vaccinate at least three weeks apart if possible. Until 12 weeks of age keep your companion safe by avoiding exposure to public areas such as parks and pet stores. Keep them close to home and only expose them to animals you know are healthy. For puppies consider parvovirus and distemper at 12-15 weeks, and not until after 6 months of age for rabies. For kittens - consider one Panleukopenia combination (FRCP). Again, if available, give the vaccine components separately spaced three to four weeks apart. Feline leukemia and FIP vaccines may not be necessary for your cat. Consider its lifestyle and environment. IF your cats go outside and you have rabies in your area, give a rabies vaccine at six months of age. (Legal requirements vary from state to state.)
Vaccinations do not need “boosting”. Studies have shown that a single vaccination for parvovirus, distemper and panleukopenia results in long term protection from disease. Simple blood tests can determine if your companion’s antibody levels for parvovirus and distemper remain high enough to resist infection. Next time your veterinarian suggests a booster shot, request the blood test first. (Rabies may be required by law every three years. Check the regulations in your state.)
I do not recommend vaccinations for Bordetella, corona virus, leptospirosis or Lyme vaccines unless these diseases are endemic locally or at a specific kennel. The currently licensed leptospira bacterins do not contain the serovars causing the majority of clinical leptospirosis today, so it is generally not a useful vaccine.
Homeopathic Nosodes are an alternative some guardians are using when choosing not to vaccinate. They can also be used before three months of age if an animal is at risk. Many guardians use these homeopathic medicines to help protect their companions against Parvovirus, Distemper, Kennel Cough, Panleukopenia and FIP. Some nosodes seem to work more effectively than others. Homeopathic nosodes are not vaccinations. They do not produce titers against these diseases like a vaccination. They do seem to offer some protection by reducing the severity of illness if the animal is exposed, even if they don't prevent it.
Never vaccinate a sick or weakened animal. If your puppy or kitten is showing signs of allergies or skin problems, wait. Vaccinating an already compromised immune system is almost sure to compound the problem!
Educate yourself. Your veterinarian cannot make this decision for you, nor should they. You are your companion’s guardian. It is your responsibility to give them the best care you can by researching and carefully weighing your decisions about their healthcare.”
Dr. Siegler is not the only one stating his take on vaccinations so clearly. More and more of his peers seem to be willing to share his view and speak up against the nonsense going on in may vet offices. After reading the above I would say nobody can blame me for deciding against vaccinating. I will do whatever is minimally required by law and that’s it. There is plenty of other ways my pet can get ill and catch a disease. Like the wrong nutrition for example. And most of the times the exact same vets who are insisting so much on vaccinations are the ones who are trying to sell me their junky prescription food. Here’s an idea: If you guys (i.e. “these” vets) want job security, why don’t you try a government job? Or wherever else you may feel safe and secure. Just don’t make your living at the expense of my pet’s health.