Yes, that is why we are working to get this language removed from the bill.
Yes, that is why we are working to get this language removed from the bill.
Again, nice work on this Kris!! These bills can be passed so quickly and quietly that we have to be very diligent in keeping an eye on what bills the CA assembly tries to put through.
Here is the current definition of Quarantine in the California code relating to rabies.
121580. "Quarantine," as used in this chapter, means the strict confinement, upon the private premises of the owner, under restraint by leash, closed cage, or paddock, of all animals specified in the order of the department.
I find all this vaccine info very interesting. Fortunately we do not have Rabies appear very often in the UK so there is no routine Rabies vaccination for UK born dogs unless they go abroad. It is good to know that there is a Rabies Chahlllenge Fund to keep an eye on such matters.
Not quite Rabies but currently however we have a campaign going against yearly vaccine boosters. Information/proof that these yearly boosters are unnecessary comes from scientists in the USA so thank you to all of them for information which is not however validated here.
It seems to be a hard struggle because the veterinary establishment in the main supports the drug companies who market these vaccines. We have had many instances of dogs having developed serious problems after vaccination and I myself had a Basenji eventually die after his initial vaccination. Obviously i feel very strongly about this and it is good to know that there are many enlightened people in the USA who keep us up to date with research.
I find all this vaccine info very interesting. Fortunately we do not have Rabies appear very often in the UK so there is no routine Rabies vaccination for UK born dogs unless they go abroad. It is good to know that there is a Rabies Chahlllenge Fund to keep an eye on such matters.
Not quite Rabies but currently however we have a campaign going against yearly vaccine boosters. Information/proof that these yearly boosters are unnecessary comes from scientists in the USA so thank you to all of them for information which is not however validated here.
It seems to be a hard struggle because the veterinary establishment in the main supports the drug companies who market these vaccines. We have had many instances of dogs having developed serious problems after vaccination and I myself had a Basenji eventually die after his initial vaccination. Obviously i feel very strongly about this and it is good to know that there are many enlightened people in the USA who keep us up to date with research.
Money and drugs! The pharmaceuticals have become as influential as the oil companies. I've never seen so many drug ads on TV.
Here is the current definition of Quarantine in the California code relating to rabies.
121580. "Quarantine," as used in this chapter, means the strict confinement, upon the private premises of the owner, under restraint by leash, closed cage, or paddock, of all animals specified in the order of the department.
That language is not referenced in Section 121690, and the quarantine language currently in the bill states that:
" (2) A dog exempt from the canine antirabies vaccination shall be kept quarantined as directed by the local health officer, until the dog's medical condition has resolved and the administration of the canine antirabies vaccine occurs."
The bill does not state that an exempt dog shall be quarantined pursuant to Section 121580.
Nor does it say the dog will be confiscated and quarantined off premises either.
I do not support this bill but I do not think it is the right tact to say things that are not stated in the bill. It does not say animals will be confiscated, it says they will be quarantined as directed by the local health officer. That does not mean impounded.
Ivoss,
Actually, The Rabies Challenge Fund wants to support this bill, which would provide a medical exemption clause; however we cannot support it with the current quarantine clause, which is why we are seeking its removal.
The quarantine clause states that quarantine shall be as directed by the local health officer.
Further in subsection (e) it states: The governing body of each city, city and county, or county shall maintain or provide for the maintenance of a pound system and a rabies control program for the purposes of carrying out and enforcing this section."
This language leaves open the possibility that a local health officer could determine that medically exempted dogs should be impounded.
It does but it does not say they must. In all honesty, I would expect that the bill will include language about restrictions on animals that are not current on their vaccinations even if the reason is medical. I would rather see language accepting titres for medically exempt animals.
Ivoss, we would LOVE to see titer language in the law, but there's next to no chance that will happen at this point. As far as I know, there is no state law with titer language in it, and the fact of the matter is, we don't have the scientific data setting a rabies titer standard for dogs yet. Dr. Schultz is working on that as part of the 5 and 7 year challenge studies The Rabies Challenge Fund is financing. Hopefully, we'll have that data in 1 1/2 years so we can get titer acceptance clauses written into the laws.
UPDATE California Rabies Bill AB 2000 – Jan Rasmusen, a Friend of The Rabies Challenge Fund, contacted Saulo Londono in AM Hagman's office Tuesday (5/25/10). Mr. Londono sent her an e-mail which said:
"We have indeed come to the understanding that we will remove Paragraph 2. I have put the request into Leg Counsel to have language written as such and I expect to receive that before the week is over. I will then immediately pass the amendment to the Senate Health Committee, and it is up to them to put it in print. With that said, I think the final language should be available by middle of next week. I have requested a hearing for this bill on June 23rd, at 1:30pm, in the Senate Health Committee. "
We are waiting to see the revised bill in print.
REVISED CALIFORNIA AB 2000 – PLEASE SUPPORT
The quarantine clause in AB 2000 inserting a medical exemption in California's rabies law has been removed http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_2000_bill_20100602_amended_sen_v97.pdf , and The Rabies Challenge Fund is asking dog owners to voice their support for this bill. The bill has a hearing set for June 23rd in the Senate Health Committee. Please contact the members of the Senate Health Committee below and ask them to pass the bill.
PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/HEALTH/_home1/PROFILE.HTM
Senate Health Committee Phone: (916) 651-4111
Elaine Alquist (Chair) senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4013, Fax: (916)-324-283
Tony Stickland (Vice-Chair) senator.strickland@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4019 Fax: (916) 324-7544
Samuel Aanestad Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4004 Fax: (916) 445-7750
Gilbert Cedillo Phone: (916) 651-4022 Fax: (916) 327-8817
Dave Cox senator.cox@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4001 Fax: (916) 324-2680
Mark Leo senator.leo@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4003 Fax: (916) 445-4722
Gloria Negrete McLeod senator.mcleod@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4032 Fax: (916) 445-0128
Fran Pavley senator.pavley@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4023 Fax: (916) 324-4823
Gloria Romero senator.romero@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4024 Fax: (916) 445-0485
Bill Co-Sponsor Assembly Member Curt Hagman Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov Phone: (916) 319-2060 Fax: (916) 319-2160
Congratulations on winnig the fight to have the clause removed. I hope that now the bill will be passed.
Letter from The Rabies Challenge Fund
June 4, 2010
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair
Senate Health Committee
State Capitol, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Revised Rabies Medical Exemption Bill AB 2000
Greetings Senator Alquist:
The Rabies Challenge Fund strongly supports the June 2nd revision of AB 2000, which will insert a medical exemption clause for dogs into Section 121690 of California?s Health and Safety Code, and we respectfully request that the Senate Health Committee vote to support this bill.
Sincerely,
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND CHARITABLE TRUST
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com
cc: W. Jean Dodds, DVM
Ronald D. Schultz, PhD
Assembly Member Curt Hagman
Congratulations on winnig the fight to have the clause removed. I hope that now the bill will be passed.
Yes, so do we!
URGENT ACTION NEEDED – On June 8th Monica Wagoner, the Deputy Director of the California Department of Public Health (916) 440-7502, sent a letter to legislators opposing the revised medical exemption bill AB 2000. Her letter states: "There is no scientific evidence that canine rabies vaccines are associated with severe or a high rate of vaccination reactions. …Modern canine rabies vaccines are safe ...."
PLEASE make a brief call or send a short e-mail to the Senate Health Committee members below and tell them you support "Molly's Bill" AB 2000 and ask everyone you know to do the same. Opposition to this bill from the Health Department will require a very strong show of public support to overcome, and we do want this bill to pass. A hearing is set for June 23rd before the Senate Health Committee.
PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST THIS MESSAGE.
Senate Health Committee Members
Elaine Alquist (Chair) senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov (916) 651-4013
Tony Stickland (Vice-Chair) senator.strickland@sen.ca.gov (916) 651-4019
Samuel Aanestad Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4004
Gilbert Cedillo (916) 651-4022
Dave Cox senator.cox@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4001
Mark Leo senator.leo@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4003
Gloria Negrete McLeod senator.mcleod@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4032
Fran Pavley senator.pavley@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4023
Gloria Romero senator.romero@senate.ca.gov (916) 651-4024
It's so frustrating to read this and not to be able to protest!
Clarification: This bill will not change anything regarding the frequency of rabies vaccinations required, it will only add a medical exemption clause for dogs who are too ill to be vaccinated.
The current law already authorizes the Public Health Officer to impose annual rabies boosters in "rabies areas," which all counties in the state have been annually declared to be since at least 2001. As far as I know, the Health Department has not exercised that power by imposing annual rabies boosters in the last few years. In order to remove that authorization, another bill will have to be introduced in the next legislative session.
There are many precious canine lives depending on this medical exemption being being passed into California law, and now that the mandatory quarantine requirement for exempted dogs, which the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) requested, has been removed from the bill, The Rabies Challenge Fund is fully supporting passage of this bill. We urge anyone concerned to take immediate action and call or e-mail the Senators on the Health Committee and ask them to pass "Molly's Bill", AB 2000. Once the mandatory quarantine clause, which the CDPH and CVMA had requested, was removed from AB 2000, they decided to oppose the bill. Government agencies carry a great deal of weight, and it is essential that there be a large voice of public support for this bill to get it passed in the face of such powerful opposition, so please contact all the members of the Senate Health Committee and tell them to support "Molly's Bill", AB 2000.
Below again is the contact information for the Senate Health Committee which has a hearing set for AB 2000 on June 23rd. Included are the e-mail addresses of the Senators' legislative aids:
Elaine Alquist (Chair) senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4013, Fax: (916)-324-0283
Tony Stickland (Vice-Chair) senator.strickland@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4019 Fax: (916) 324-7544
Samuel Aanestad Senator.Aanestad@senate.ca.gov , legislative aid: julie.nystrom@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4004 Fax: (916) 445-7750
Gilbert Cedillo legislative aid: luis.quinonez@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4022 Fax: (916) 327-8817
Dave Cox senator.cox@senate.ca.gov , legislative aid: kirk.cowgill@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4001 Fax: (916) 324-2680
Mark Leo senator.leo@senate.ca.gov , legislative aid: sara.rogers@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4003 Fax: (916) 445-4722
Gloria Negrete McLeod senator.mcleod@senate.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4032 Fax: (916) 445-0128
Fran Pavley senator.pavley@senate.ca.gov , legislative aid: elise.thurau@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4023 Fax: (916) 324-4823
Gloria Romero senator.romero@sen.ca.gov , legislative aid: rae.flores@sen.ca.gov Phone: (916) 651-4024 Fax: (916) 445-0485
The following is Dr. W. Jean Dodds' letter of support for "Molly's Bill", AB 2000, and her refutation of the California Department of Public Health's opposition:
PERMISSION GRANTED TO CROSS-POST
June 14, 2010
The Honorable Curt Hagman
California State Assembly
State Capitol, Room 4116
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: CA Assembly Bill AB2000
Dear Assembly Member Hagman:
I learned today from your staff person, Saulo Londono, that the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has officially opposed your sponsored bill AB 2000. This decision by the CDPH is a huge step backwards for veterinary health care professionals, like myself, who need to be able to justify exemption from rabies vaccine boosters on a case-by-case basis. Your bill AB 2000 would permit a safe alternative for dogs whose illnesses were caused by a rabies vaccine, as well as those too sick to tolerate the rabies vaccine because of terminal cancer, kidney/liver failure, grand mal seizures, and other chronic diseases.
The CDPH letter of June 8, 2010 states that ?there is no scientific evidence that rabies vaccines are associated with severe or a high rate of vaccination reactions.? This statement is just false. The letter goes on to state that ?Modern rabies vaccines are safe and effective?, and that ? A recent study published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that rabies vaccines used for dogs –-- do not result in a high frequency or unexpected pattern of adverse events.? On the contrary, this same cited study found:
Rabies Vaccines and the USDA/CVB
Rabies vaccines are the most common group of biological products identified in adverse event reports received by the USDA?s Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB). Currently, 14 rabies vaccines are labeled for use in dogs. Before licensure, a product must be shown to be safe through a combination of safety evaluations. The field safety trial is the most comprehensive evaluation and has the objective of assessing the safety of the product in its target population under the conditions of its intended use. However, safety studies before licensure may not detect all safety concerns for a number of reasons, as follows: insufficient number of animals for low frequency events, insufficient duration of observation, sensitivities of subpopulations (e.g. breed, reproductive status, and unintended species), or interactions with concomitantly administered products.
Reporting Adverse Vaccine Reaction to Manufacturer and the Government
There is no mandatory reporting of adverse reactions in veterinary medicine. The 2007 World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) Vaccine Guidelines states that there is: "gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products." WSAVA 2007 Vaccine Guidelines http://www.wsava.org/SAC.htm,
Despite the serious under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse reactions, the 2008 Report from the USDA?s CVB [JAVMA 232:1000-1002, 2008], states that between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2007, they "requested manufacturers of rabies vaccines to provide adverse event report summaries for their products. During this period, nearly 10,000 adverse event reports (all animal species) were received by manufacturers of rabies vaccines. Approximately 65% of the manufacturer's reports involved dogs."
The USDA/CVB 2008 Report further states that "Rabies vaccines are the most common group of biological products identified in adverse event reports received by the CVB." During the 3-year period covered in this report, the CVB received 246 adverse event reports for dogs in which a rabies vaccine was identified as one of the products administered.
The following clinical terms were listed ?to describe possibly related adverse events in dogs vaccinated against rabies ? and reported to the USDA/CVB between April 1, 2004-March 31, 2007. For 217 adverse event reports ? the clinical term is followed by the % of dogs affected:
Vomiting-28.1%; facial swelling-26.3%; injection site swelling or lump-19.4%; lethargy-12%; urticaria-10.1%; circulatory shock-8.3%; injection site pain-7.4%; pruritus-7.4%; injection site alopecia or hair loss-6.9%; death-5.5%; lack of consciousness-5.5; diarrhea-4.6%; hypersensitivity (not specified)-4.6%; fever-4.1%;, anaphylaxis-2.8%; ataxia-2.8%; lameness-2.8%; general signs of pain-2.3%; hyperactivity-2.3%; injection site scab or crust-2.3%;, muscle tremor-2.3%; tachycardia-2.3%; and thrombocytopenia-2.3%.
The overall adverse report rate for rabies vaccines was determined to be 8.3 reports/100,000 doses sold. Adverse events considered possibly related to vaccination included acute hypersensitivity (59%); local reactions (27%); systemic reactions, which refers to short-term lethargy, fever, general pain, anorexia, or behavioral changes, with or without gastrointestinal disturbances starting within 3 days after vaccination (9%); autoimmune disorders (3%); and other (2%).
While there may be no contraindications listed on the label for canine rabies vaccines, the labeling instructions on vaccine products clearly instruct veterinarians to only vaccinate healthy dogs. I submit that the dogs for which medically justified exemptions from rabies boosters are sought are not healthy.
The CDPH ?believes that passage of AB 2000 could increase the risk to the public health by allowing dogs to be exempted from current rabies vaccination requirements.? This statement lacks credibility, as the number of dogs eligible for exemptions statewide would be small and such exemptions require that a primary care veterinarian justify them on a case-by-case basis. To deny these animals the opportunity to avoid serious or even fatal adverse events from rabies vaccines just encourages pet owners to break the law to save their pets from harm. They would then join the approximate 50% of pet owners in our State that fail to vaccinate their dogs at all. It is those that flaunt the law and never comply that we should seek out, rather than penalizing the few unfortunate pets and owners whose dogs cannot tolerate rabies boosters.
Finally, the CDPH letter states ? Standard veterinary immunization protocols already exist to prevent vaccine adverse reactions.? I know of no such standard protocols, and further, one often cannot predict which animals will react adversely without a prior history of reaction or family predisposition.
Sincerely,
W. Jean Dodds, DVM
Co -Trustee, Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust;
President, Hemopet
