Has anyone else seen this?

Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers, DVM
5703 Louetta
Spring, Texas
77379
281-370-3262


April 17, 2002

Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Dear Sirs,
I hereby file a complaint against all licensed Veterinarians engaged
in companion animal practice in the State of Texas for violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 573.26 which states: Licensed
veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity,
and fair dealing to clients in time and services rendered, and in the
amount charged for services, facilities, appliances and drugs.

I assert that the present practice of marketing of vaccinations for
companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by
silence, theft by deception, and undue influence by all Veterinarians
engaged in companion animal practice in this state.

Recommending, administering, and charging for Canine Corona
vaccinations for adult dogs is fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by
silence, theft by deception, and undue influence given the literature
that states:

1. Dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to canine corona
virus disease. Disease produced by canine corona virus has never been
demonstrated in adult dogs. Dogs over eight weeks of age that are
immunized against canine parvovirus will not develop symptoms of
canine corona virus disease. Addition of an unnecessary antigen to
the vaccination protocol will
result in a lesser immunity to the important diseases like parvovirus
and distemper, and increase the risk of adverse reactions.

2. Immunologists doubt that Canine corona virus vaccine works, as it
would require secretory mucosal IgA antibodies to protect against
corona virus and a parenteral vaccine does not accomplish this very
well. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Texas A&M
University do not recommend canine corona virus vaccine.

3. Gastroenteroligists at Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Dr
Michael Willard at Texas A&M University have stated that they have
only seen one case of corona virus disease in a dog in ten years.
On several occasions large numbers of dogs have died from adverse
reactions to corona virus vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect corona virus vaccination for an
adult dog if presented this information.



Recommending, administering, and charging for re-administration of
modified live vaccines like Canine Distemper, Canine Parvovirus,
Feline Panleukopenia, injectable Feline Rhinotracheitis, and
injectable Feline Calicivirus on an semi-annual, annual, bi-annual or
tri-annual basis is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation,
misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the
literature that states:

1. The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts
that there is no scientific data to support label claims for annual
re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must be
backed by scientific data.

2. It is the consensus of immunologist that a modified live
virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system,
and antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the replication
of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not
enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client
is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except that
the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse
reaction.

3. A temporal association has been demonstrated between
vaccinations and the development of Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia.

4. It has been demonstrated that the duration of immunity for
Canine Distemper virus is 7 years by challenge, and 15 years by
serology; for Canine Parvovirus is 7 years by challenge, for Feline
Panleukopenia, Rhinotracheitis, and Feline Calicivirus is 7.5 years
by challenge.

A reasonable client would not elect re-administration of any
of the above stated vaccinations for a previously immunized pet if
provided with the above information.

The recommendation for administration of Leptospirosis vaccination in
Texas is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation,
misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the fact that:

1. Although Leptospirosis is re-emerging as an endemic disease
for dogs in some areas of the country, Leptospirosis in dogs in Texas
is a very rare disease. According to the Texas Veterinary Medical
Diagnostic Lab there are only an average of twelve cases of
Leptospirosis documented in dogs in Texas per year. Factors to
identify those dogs that are at risk have not been identified. Given
that there are over 6 million dogs in Texas, the risk of
leptospirosis disease to a dog is less than 2 in a million.


2. The commonly used vaccine only contains serovars Lepto.
canicola, and Lepto icterohaemorrhagiae, and no cross protection is
provided against the other three serovars diagnosed in Texas. Newer
vaccines containing Lepto pomona, and Lepto grippotyphosa are
available but the duration of immunity is less than one year. To
provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two
vaccines with four serovars twice per year.



3. Although humans can develop Leptospirosis, the spread of
Lepto. from a dog to a human has never been documented and is thought
to be a very low risk.

Given that the risk of an adverse reaction, a reasonable client would
not elect Vaccination of their pet if provided with the above
information.

The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs residing in Texas
is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue
influence given the literature that states:

1. The Texas Department of Health only reports an average of 70
cases of Human Lyme disease per year in Texas, all of which were
likely acquired when people were traveling out of the state.

2. Julie Rawlings reported in her research on the incidence of
the lyme disease organism in ticks in Texas State Parks for the Texas
Department of Health that the Borrelia burgdorferi organism is not
present in sufficient numbers or in the suitable tick vector for dogs
for Lyme disease to be endemic in Texas.

3. Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in the U.S. are found
in the nine New England States and Wisconsin.

4. Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine has not documented
one case of Lyme disease in a dog acquired in Texas. Testing on
shelter dogs has not revealed a single case.

5. Dr Jacobson, Cornell University has documented a temporal
relationship in over 327 cases of dogs, which acquired polyarthritis
after the Lyme disease vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect Lyme disease vaccine for
their pet if given this information on the risks vs the benefit.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with an adjuvanted
vaccine without offering a safer alternative vaccine is fraud by
misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence
given the literature that states:
1. Adjuvanted vaccines have been incriminated as a cause of
Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.

2. 1:1000 cats vaccinated develop this type of cancer, which is
100% fatal.

3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines are available.

A reasonable client would not elect adjuvanted vaccines for
their cat if given this information.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with Feline Infectious
Peritonitis vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation
by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare disease.

2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the normal flora avirulent
Feline Corona Virus. On rare occasions this Corona Virus mutates to
become a virulent feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus. Every mutation
is a different variant and there is no cross protection. This vaccine
does not and cannot work.

3. Independent studies have not confirmed the manufacturers
claims for efficacy.

4. Twenty- two Schools of Veterinary Medicine and the American
Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend this vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine if given
this information.

The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats,
and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by
misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence
given the literature that states:

1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are
immune to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated
or not.

2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site
Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is though
to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated.

3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should
be vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus.

A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their
cat if given this information.

The recommendation of annual rabies vaccination for dogs and cats with
three- year duration of immunity vaccine is theft by deception, fraud
by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue
influence given that:

1. The vaccines has been licensed by the USDA and proven to have
duration of immunity of three years by the USDA and seven years by
serology by Dr Ron Schultz, therefore annual readministration the
client is paying for something with no benefit.

2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to demonstrate
that the immune statis of the pet is enhanced.

3. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians
recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four
months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. This
recommendation has been proven effective in 33 States in the United
States.

The recommendation of blood tests for antibody titers on dogs and
cats in order to determine if re-administration of vaccine is
indicated is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by
silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is
controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programed,
memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells is not
taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.

2. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells are
capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized
patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the
ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a
patient.

3. A positive titer has not been demonstrated by challenge
studies to indicate immunity.

4. The client is paying for a test when a Veterinarian can make
no claims about the test results.

5. It has been proven that the re-administration of modified
live vaccines has no effect, and that duration of immunity is 7 years
or more.

A reasonable client would not elect this test if given this
information.

I have brought these deceptive trade practices to the attention of
this Board by writing six letters to the board, and appearing before
the Board at three Board meetings. The Board members have
demonstrated, by the questions that they have asked me, that they are
uniformed on these issues, that they have not read the literature
that I have sent to support my assertions, and that they have not
read the letters I have written. On every occasion the Board members
have refused to take any action on these matters.

The Board has also ignored my request to deny approval of Continuing
Education credit for seminars on Vaccination of Companion Animals
provided by Pfizer Animal Health drug company which are fraudulent by
omission of material facts, a conflict of interest, and thereby
influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the
marketing of vaccines.

The people of the State of Texas have paid over $360 million dollars
per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary and potentially
harmful to their pets. Over 600,000 pets suffer every year from
adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. Many of them die.

A survey by the American Animal Hospital Association shows that less
than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their vaccination
recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new recommendations
have been published twice in every major Veterinary Medical Journal
since 1995.

Given that it is the compact of this Board with the State of Texas to
protect the people of Texas, and whereby it is provided in the Texas
Administrative Code Title 22, Part 24, Chapter 577, Subchapter B,
Rule 577.16: Responsibilities of the Board (a) The Texas Board of
Veterinary Medical Examiners is responsible for establishing policies
and promulgating rules to establish and maintain a high standard of
integrity, skills, and practice in the profession of Veterinary
medicine in accordance with the Veterinary Licensing Act, I hereby
assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
must take demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive
trade practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for
companion animals.

A reasonable solution would be for the Texas State Board of
Veterinary Medical Examiners to request an opinion from the Attorney
General on these issues, and for the Texas State Board to issue a
policy statement in the Board Notes indicating a Board policy
prohibiting each of the practices I have outlined above.

An alternative solution would be to notify every Veterinarian engaged
in companion animal practice in this state of the complaint that has
been filed against them, and prosecute each and every complaint.

If demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade
practices has not been taken by this Board within ninety days of
receipt of this letter I will file a class action suit against the
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on behalf of the
people of Texas, for negligence in the execution of their
responsibilities, and I will request a Court order to instruct the
Board to perform their duties.

Sincerely,

Dr Robert L Rogers

The above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge