This is the longest post I've ever written, but please bear with me.:-)
 
Re: comments by Amy that there is no evidence to back up use of annual
vaccinations.  She asks why people accept these recommendations and don't
accept "psychic communication:"
 
Although there is some controversy on annual vaccinations in cats
(specifically Feline Leukemia and Rabies) due to vaccine-related
sarcomas, the issue is clearly not simple.  There IS evidence for
annual vaccination; a belief that there is not is based on incomplete
information.
 
There are many studies that proposed a link between diseases such as
AutoImmune Hemolytic Anemia and vaccinations in dogs, but these theories
have not generally been borne out.  The latest retrospective study
conclusively demonstrated that there was NOT a link.
 
Although some vaccines have demonstrated an ability to provide good
immunity for more than a year, many have not.  A recent study (published
in JAVMA) checked antibody levels in dogs presented for vaccination.
Most of these dogs were shown not to have immunity for more than a year,
and the study concluded with a recommendation to continue annual
vaccination.
 
In California, where many people did stop annual vaccination of dogs due
to concerns about possible side effects, the incidence of parvovirus
increased dramatically, resulting in the deaths of a lot of dogs.
 
We have very little data in ferrets to show whether or not annual
vaccination is truly necessary.  Very few of you ferret owners have
ever seen what distemper does to an animal, but I have.  Without pretty
conclusive evidence, I would much rather protect an animal from a
certain and painful death than not do so out of fear the vaccine may be
unnecessary.  This is a decision based on the evidence we currently have.
 
The point I'm making here is that science (ie medicine) continues to
evolve and change based on EVIDENCE.  It is not static.  Whatever the
final decision may be, we know that there are constantly studies going on
to help us make informed decisions based on EVIDENCE.  Belief in things
like psychics do NOT change based on evidence (or glaring lack thereof),
and this makes that belief more akin to religion than science.  You
simply can't argue with a spiritual belief because it exists independent
of evidence.
 
That is the difference between accepting vaccination recommendations and
accepting the existence of any sort of psychic communication.
 
One aside comment on the issue of something being "too much of a
coincidence to really be a coincidence:"
 
Remember that something that only happens to one person in six billion
happens six times every day!
 
That's basic statistics, not a Sign From Beyond.
 
Deborah Kemmerer DVM
[Posted in FML issue 4099]