I just read the preliminary bat study results posted by Beth Comarow and I
have one question:
 
           Is anyone else mad as hell about this??
 
To my knowledge there is currently documented studies on the following
rabies variants:
 
European vole [Foerster NIH-92-36 Zbl Vet Med B 1979; 26:26-38]
Unknown Rodent (possibly hamster) [Foerster NIH-92-36 Zbl Vet Med B 1979;
                                   26:26-38]
Fox [Blancou, Aubert, & Artois NIH 91-444 Rev Med Vet 1982;
     133(8-9): 553-557]
Bat (via oral route) [Bell & Moore American Journal of Epidemiology Vol.93,
                      No. 3 1971]
 
and then the current domestic studies on the variants:
 
Skunk
Raccoon
Coyote/Dog
2 Different bat variants (Big Brown and Brazilian Free Tailed)
 
And yet Dr. Ruprecht has the gall to write:
 
"Although the first licensed rabies vaccine was approved for use in domestic
ferrets in 1990, healthy vaccinated ferrets that bite human beings may,
based on review of the case report, be routinely euthanatized and examined
for rabies, rather than be held and observed.  Current recommendations
result largely from the lack of information on ferret response to rabies
virus infection.  Neither clinical signs nor a determination of virus
secretion in salvia prior to clinical signs are well documented."
 
Lack of information?  Clinical signs not well documented??  Later in this
same piece he goes into the clinical signs not once, but several times.
 
"Ten of 12 ferrets were euthanized with severe clinical signs. "  (The ones
you said you didn't know how to recognize?)
 
"Common clinical signs of rabies included ataxia, paresis, paraparesis, and
paralysis." (These are common but they really don't know yet)
 
"2 of 9 ferrets euthanatized with severe clinical signs and one of these
shed virus in their saliva (concomitant with clinical signs)," (Again, the
clinical signs that they don't have enough data to recognize."
 
And after all this comes the punchline:
 
"To adequately ensure the publics health, continuing studies must be
completed before any changes in ferret rabies control recommendations can be
considered."
 
Wake up and taste the reality, people!!  These studies are a waste of time
and are never going to lead to a recommended quarantine period as long as we
patiently wait and trust these people.  How many studies are going to be
enough?  The answer is simple.  As many as we are willing wait for.  And
every new study which is done is going to carry some kind of quote like the
ones at the beginning and end of this fax by Dr. Ruprecht which can, and
will, be used by public health officials as an excuse to invalidate the
entire volume of data available because the official CDC position, as stated
in the very documents we quote, is that it is too soon to make any kind of
policy change until more studies are done.  These people are not interested
in establishing a shed period towards the goal of a quarantine.  They are
only interested in doing research.  That is their job.  And to insure their
job security they have to throw out a little teaser at the end of each study
to insure that there is a need or desire for the next one or else they are
out of work and have to go looking for some other project like arthritis in
cats.  It has been stated many times that rabies in ferrets is simply not an
important public health issue.  They only way interest can be generated in
doing the next study is by getting the ferret community all worked up that
this could be the one which ends all the unnecessary killing (admit it, most
of you thought that the bat strains would be the end).  The ferret community
gets all riled up and puts pressure to get the study done and someone has a
grant for another few months.  Face it, people, you are being used.  If the
intent of these studies is actually the furthering of knowledge about rabies
in the domestic ferret for the welfare of the public, then why don't they
publish their data in a timely manner?  This idea of introducing the
information at a convention and then not following it up with immediate
publication in a peer review journal is highly suspect (at least to me).
And when the information IS released, why must it always inclide some form
of disclaimer?  Look back.  Every time we think we have won a point there is
soem kind of statement to invalidate it.  The best example of this is the
disclaimer on the IMRAB3 vaccine.  How many more lies are we going to let
them get away with?  I guess the answer is up to us.  From my point of view
it looks like we are letting a few more slide in regards to this study.
After all, haven't I pointed out several places where Dr. Ruprecht
contradicts himself?  They'll stop playing games when we pick up our ball
(funding support) and go home.
 
Which brings me to another point.  Almost every day I receive mail, email,
or read a post on the FML where someone is calling for us to rally and raise
funds to complete these studies.  I hate to be the one to burst these naive
bubbles but this is not the way studies like this get funded.  At the Reno
conference when the skunk study results were announced (I don't think they
have been published yet but I may be wrong) I had a long talk with Dr.
Briggs about funding the studies.  She told me that the funds raised by the
ferret community were pretty much insignificant.  The purpose they do serve
is to show that there is enough public support for a project to make it
easier to sell the project to the organizations who actually do hand out
grants large enough to get something done.
 
So, if you think that by pushing these studies and working real hard at your
raffles and donation drives you are making a big difference, maybe you
should stop and take a good hard look at the way things actually are going
down.  Step back and look at things, not as a ferret lover trying to protect
your fur kids, but with a cold, logical, anaylitical mind.  Are you really
getting the results you want?  Are your efforts really bringing you any
closer to your goal?  If not, maybe it's time to try something else.
[Posted in FML issue 2103]