 |
Re: [RC] [RC] vaccinations - Susan GarlinghouseI concur with everything Heidi just said. Plus, Colorado State did follow up on some 300-400 Colorado horses that had been vaccinated by the CSU ambulatory equine service (therefore, we know the horse was vaccinated appropriately, with viable vaccine and traceable lot numbers, etc.). Some of the second year vet students followed up with phone calls to the owners to ask about management, location, any adverse effects of ANY kind and whether any horses ever showed ANY signs of illness of any sort the following year. And those stats are all showing that the vaccine is reasonably effective. Shoot, more effective than some of the established vaccines (like equine flu or canine bordatella) that don't last nearly as long. Susan G ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heidi Smith" <heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Shelley Kerr" <skerr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [RC] [RC] vaccinations From my point of view, the only statastics are from the vets that see horses who are sick enough the owners take them to the vet. What about all the horses who only show suttle signs of being sick and are never seen by vets? The numbers and statistics I see are so inaccurate it's blatant! Unless everyone took their horses in and had them ALL tested for west niles to see who has the antibodies is the only way a "somewhat accurate" analysis could be published. The statistics that one sees published regarding immune response to the vaccine and efficacy rate (how well the vaccine actually protects) have nothing whatsoever to do with horses vaccinated in the public sector or reports back from private practitioners. They are generated from test vaccination groups in which ALL vaccinated horses are tested for an antibody response, and a set portion of them are challenged with specific exposure to the disease. The main problem with the statistics is that such test groups are only comprised of several hundred horses. However, the math of statistics involves predicting how accurate the rates from the sample are apt to be when applied to a population at large, given how large the sample group is. Fort Dodge has had to show research on such test groups in order to even get the vaccine on the market, and independent groups (I believe University of Florida was one, and I'm sure there have been others) have done similar independent studies. The records that ARE generated from private practitioner reports are adverse reaction rates--and these are not frequently published, but can be gotten from manufacturers if one asks for them. These are apt to only contain the really bad reactions--anaphylaxis, etc.--as the mild ones do not tend to be reported. Still, the immediate adverse reactions are a completely different sort of response by the body than the slower reactions that show up the next day. So the adverse reaction reports still have some value in understanding how apt a drug or vaccine is to cause the former problem. Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|