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]