To Roger McMillian:
 
As sponsors of the distemper vaccine reaction survey that you urged
FMLers to boycott in your FML#711 posting, we found your remarks
ill-considered and uninformed, and completely contrary to the spirit of
community and open dialogue that unites us all as ferret lovers.  Your
attempt to obstruct data gathering by other ferret lovers about an
important health issue was especially inopportune given that you
yourself have been trying to conduct a nationwide survey of ferret
owners and doubtless hope to solicit their cooperation.
 
We polled L.I.F.E.  club presidents attending the LAFF show in Virginia
last weekend about your posting, and their reaction was tremendously
negative.  In most cases, the presidents themselves were responsible for
distribution of the survey in question to their own members.  The
sentiment most frequently voiced was that they were in a better position
than you to judge the feelings and concerns of their membership.
 
There is also the matter of whether you are qualified to "speak" for the
USDA (which you aren't), and whether you correctly summarized their
position (which you didn't).
 
>If you received a survey from your ferret club newsletter, I wouldn't
>even bother responding to it as the USDA has no interest in it.
 
We strongly doubt the USDA, and especially Dr.  David E.  Starling, DVM,
of USDA's Veterinary Biologics Field Operations office in Ames, Iowa,
who investigated and confirmed the report of the FERVAC-D induced ferret
fatality reported last summer, would agree with your characterization of
USDA's lack of interest.  As we reported in our Fall 93 issue of The
Independent Voice, it was Dr.  Starling himself who first contacted Pam
Grant of STAR* Ferrets, co-sponsor of the survey, to ask for copies of
the data, to help with his probe into the reported fatal reaction.
Starling expressly told the Voice that "VBFO continues to welcome all
reports of reactions to the vaccine."
 
The survey responses, which quantified reactions to more than 1,400
administrations of FERVAC-D, Fromm-D, and other distemper vaccines by
veterinarians and other respondents, clearly indicated a larger
percentage of ferrets had adverse reactions or "temporary discomfort"
with FERVAC-D than with other distemper vaccines.  It was obviously in
response to consumer complaints that United went to all the trouble of
going back through an entire recertification process to "improve" the
vaccine (both the carrier solution and the vaccine formula) so it could
advertise, in the current issue of American Ferret Report, that its
product now produces no "discomfort."  Since a previous "improved
version" of the carrier failed to remedy the problem, at least as far as
consumers could tell, we ourselves will be most interested in seeing
whether the third time will be the charm.
 
>Those of you who read the American Ferret Report already know this, but
>to those of you who don't: The rumors now being circualted about the
>USDA conducting a study on United Vaccine's Fervac-D are completely
>FALSE.
 
American Ferret Report is scarcely an objective source about the
suitability of FERVAC-D, since the newsletter is published by AFA, which
admits it is a beneficiary of United Vaccine financial support.  Indeed,
to judge from the neat fit between editorial and advertising pages in
the current issue of American Ferret Report, AFA relies heavily for
funding on the proceeds of product endorsements disguised as factual
journalism.  See for example the lengthy "news" article featuring a
testimonial by an AFA official/breeder praising a new ferret food, for
which AFA is the exclusive distributor.
 
>I don't know how this rumor [about a USDA probe] keeps cropping up, but I
>feel it's irresponsible journalism to persist in publishing it as fact when
>both parties concerned deny it.
 
As Dr.  Starling informed us, USDA monitors ALL reported adverse
reactions to newly licensed medicines.  In part it must do so because
certain kinds of reactions--anaphylactic shock, for example--tend to
crop up so rarely that accurate percentages cannot be obtained before
licensing, as the number of test animals required would be financially
prohibitive.  When a fatal reaction is reported, as it was last summer,
the USDA asks questions and tries to get answers.  This does not mean
United is "under investigation" in a technical sense, but neither does
it mean the USDA is "not interested."
 
We don't know what articles you are referring to as "irresponsible
journalism."  We do know that United Vaccine's marketing director, Roger
Brady, gave us to understand during our research for the factual and
balanced article in the Fall '93 issue of The Independent Voice, that in
his opinion it was irresponsible journalism to write anything about
FERVAC-D except his own press handouts!  We also know that he has
privately threatened legal action against several organizations and
individuals in the ferret community in an effort to intimidate them into
silence about problems with his company's vaccine.
 
If you or others on the FML are interested in what the survey results
showed--not only about FERVAC, but also about reaction rate variances
based on what part of the body was used as the injection site, and
whether or not it was administered by a veterinarian--we will be
delighted to upload that article so you can judge for yourself.
 
What IS irresponsible journalism is to try to fool readers into thinking
they are reading news when they are reading commercial product
endorsements.  Neither The Independent Voice nor the League of
Independent Ferret Enthusiasts maintains promotional relationships of
any kind with suppliers or distributors of any products for ferrets.  We
have no way of knowing what kind of relationship you and your
organization may have with United Vaccine...  but you know.
 
--Ann and Howard Davis, Publishers, The Independent Voice.
 
[Posted in FML issue 0716]