I think you have taken offense where none was intended. I am very
grateful to my vets, both regular and holistic, for the wonderful
years I am having with Dixie. She is the picture of health. My note
was simply a caution to all of us to factor in any vet's situation
when we make decisions for our friends. They have a responsibility to
provide us with the best and most accurate information possible. We
must make sure we are asking the right questions. If we don't get the
information we need from a vet, we need to make sure we are asking the
right and hard questions. I have been with all my vets long enough
that I trust them and they are very free giving me personal
as opposed to by the (often outdated) book answers. They are the
ones who sent me to my first holistic vet over 14 years ago......not a
by the book answer. People who are not as lucky as I am may have to
push for answers then push some more again, understanding that the vet
may be cautious. We can't simply take the first answer we are given
just because it is offered by a vet any more than we would just accept
a medical doctor's if the condition was ours.
Luckily, we have very knowledgable members of this board to bounce
ideas off of. I truly pity those who have no resources either because
of situation or lack of information. opinions
On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:06 PM, MaryChristine wrote:
there's a HUGE difference between being cautious, and chosing
ignorance.
using statistics that are as outdated as 60% efficacy for the
vaccine isn't caution, it's bordering on malpractice.
no, none of the vet schools, or the veterinary associations, are
gonna say, "sure, go ahead and mix them!" until there's solid, hard
evidence--which has been impossible when the treatment of choice has
been euthanasia. i understand that position--vets ignoring the
current knowledge base, the research done by the vet schools and the
professional associations, and the merck manual, in favor of stuff
that wasn't standard practice even years ago isn't caution. my vet,
who is NOT a young man, was taught quite awhile ago not to make a
decision re: FeLV based on a single positive test: the information
has been out there, and so much has been learned in the past six
years that i know of that there is truly no excuse for vets to be
further behind in their knowledge than a batch of folks on an
internet list who are NOT scientists.
i don't expect any vet to know everything about anything--that's an
absurd thing to require. but when faced with a situation, to not
even find out what the current standard is, is no more acceptable.
i came into this FeLV thing late--i have nothing but the utmost
respect and awe for those folks on this list who, when it was much
harder to do so, said, "NO! you cannot kill my cat just because it
has a virus," and either worked with their vet to find options, or
went out on their own to get the information. without them, all of
our lives would have a lot less love (and fur) in them.
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Marylyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
A thought: Most vets are going to steer toward caution because they
do not want to be blamed if a cat develops FeLV+. This is human
nature and part of their ethics system. Knowing that, we can ask
more questions and pin them down. The good ones who are up on FeLV
will be forthcoming with answers. I have found this to be
particularly true with those who accept alternative medicine even
though they do not practice it themselves. Once we, not they, make
the decisions the vets I know and go to are very supportive. I can
really understand why they would not want the responsibility.
On Mar 1, 2008, at 4:44 AM, Pat Kachur wrote:
My vet says the vaccine is 90+% effective. My 6 negatives were
vaccinated and all are over 5 years old. My vet and I agreed that
mixing my one positve with the others had very little risk.
----- Original Message -----
From: catatonya
To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: FeLV Vaccination
I would vaccinate my negatives, wait the 2-3 weeks necessary and
booster them, wait 2-3 weeks more and let them mix. All this IF
the other cats are over a year old. That has always been my
protocol and I've never had a negative cat 'catch' the leukemia
from my positive.
tonya
Sue & Frank Koren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Several people here have said that they have their FeLV + kitties
living in with FeLV - cats, and the negative cats are not getting
infected. I am trying to decide if I should vaccinate my others
and let Buzz out of his room. My vet is against it and says the
vaccinations are only 60 - 80% effective. The vet does not seem to
be up on all that is going on with FeLV, though, and I am
considering switching vets. Buzz really doesn't,t mind his room,
but he is a social boy and cries when he doesn't want to be alone.
I visit him as often as I can and spend at least an hour or so in
the evenings in with him, but such minor details as a full time job
and the rest of my human and cat family keep me away from being
with him as much as he and I would like. It seems as if
vaccinating the others and freeing Buzz from his prison room is the
best solution, but not if any of the others end up being infected.
Their ages range from 2 to 8 years. Two of them, Charlie and
Tucker have other health problems and I don't know if that would
put them more at risk. Anyway, has anyone ever heard of a
vaccinated cat being infected?
--
Spay & Neuter Your Neighbors!
Maybe That'll Make The Difference....
MaryChristine
AIM / YAHOO: TenHouseCats
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 289856892
