In response to the Dick Bossart's post on vaccine reactions, it seems as if
something is occurring, but I'd exhort folks to proceed judiciously.  It's
not time yet to assemble the grand jury to indict United Vaccines.  The data
collected on vaccine reactions are impressive, but they need to be evaluated
with some caution.  It's probably not possible to compare Fervac-D reactions
directly with Fromm-D or Galaxy-D reactions because a certain proportion of
the people who used the latter two vaccines did so because they switched
vaccines following reactions to Fervac-D.  The fairest comparison would be
to contrast only reports from two subsets of those who responded: (1) people
who had only used one particular type of vaccine and had never switched or
(2) those who used only one vaccine up until the time they switched to
another, otherwise, the comparisons are bised.  Doing that would make the
groups more comparable statistically.  Maybe such a comparison would be
enough to encourage United Vaccine to change their vaccine or encourage
Solvay to test their vaccine in ferrets.  BTW, I commend Dick for leaving
the minor reactions out of the calculations he presented.  Reports of minor
reactions by recall alone are notoriously innacurate.
 
The real acid test to study vaccine reactions would consist of a randomized,
controlled study of vaccines, preferably at the offices of several
veterinarians who see a lot ferrets.  Ferrets coming in for their first
vaccine would be eligible, and if their owners consented, the ferret would
receive either Fervac or Galaxy at random and on a subsequent visit would
receive the same vaccine again.  The ferrets would be observed for 20-30
minutes in the vet's office and telephoned the next day to inquire about
reactions, particularly minor ones that did not prompt another visit to the
veterinary office.  An attempt would also need to be made to determine which
vaccine the kit received before leaving the breeder, if any.  Such a study
is doable but it would probably take two years to conduct and would cost the
participating vets' offices in terms of time and paperwork.  I'll bet it
would be publishable in JAVMA, though.  Any vets think it would be
worthwhile?
 
   --Jeff Johnston
[Posted in FML issue 1538]