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]