Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov Press Release: Molly’s Bill Passes Assembly Agriculture with Unanimous SupportBill Protects Man’s Best Friend from Inflexible State Mandate Endangering Their Lives
Sacramento– Today, Assemblyman Curt Hagman’s legislation, AB 258, affectionately known as “Molly’s Bill” passed the Assembly Agricultural Committee with a 9-0 vote.
AB 258 is named after Molly, a dog with chronic autoimmune disease. Molly’s owner, Sam Gadd, has been refused a license by the local designated public health official because Molly is not able to receive a rabies vaccine. According to Molly’s veterinarian, if the vaccine is applied, it could have serious adverse effects, which are very dangerous to Molly.
AB 258 will protect California canines from unintended consequences of regular anti-rabies vaccine. AB 258 will create an exemption from anti-rabies vaccine for dogs a licensed veterinarian determines are likely to have dangerous or lethal reactions to the vaccine.
“I’m thrilled the agriculture committee agreed about the necessity of AB 258. Dogs are our best friends and we should make sure that California’s laws are flexible enough to keep the public and our pets safe,” stated Hagman, “I would like to thank the Chair, Assemblymember Galgiani, and her staff for their work on this bill.”
| WelcomeI am proud to keep you informed about issues affecting the 60th Assembly District, as well as the California State Legislature.
13920 City Center Drive, #260
Chino Hills, CA 91709
(909) 627-7021, (909) 627-1841 fax
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2060, 916-319-2160 fax
|© 2011 Assembly Republican Caucus | Disclaimer
Dr. Margo Roman’s Letter
Posted by Kris L. Christine on 6/19/2010, 10:52 am, in reply to “CALIFORNIA URGENT ACTION NEEDED–Rabies Medical Exemption Bill”
|Statement from Dr. Margo Roman sent in Support of AB 2000, “Molly’s Bill”As a California licensed veterinarian who has been practicing for 32 years, I am concerned about the health and well-being of my patients and protection of my clients. I am very concerned about the rabies vaccine. I have seen very serious reactions from the vaccine. My own personal dog, a 17 month old Standard Poodle “Wailea” was given a second rabies vaccine at 17 months and went into liver failure and facial myositis. She eventually lost all the muscles in her head as her eyes were sinking into their sockets and she eventually died.
I had taken a rabies titer (an antibody blood test) on my dog just for information at the time of the vaccine and it showed 10 times more protection than needed for a rabies response. Since the rabies vaccine is only 86 % effective and that means 14% of the animals vaccinated do not have protection. My dog did not need that vaccine but I gave it due to the law and it eventually killed my dog.
My dog’s antibodies were protecting her from the deadly disease of rabies and giving her another vaccine did not make her more protected but instead drove her body into an auto-immune reaction attacking her own body.
I received my own rabies vaccines in 1974 and was told in Veterinary School that I should never just blindly get vaccinated but should titer every other year and see if my titer had dropped. If my titer dropped below the level then I should get a booster. Under no circumstances should I just blindly get a booster as it can cause auto-immune issues. As veterinarians, we are required to do that. The vaccine has hazardous effects. With 46 % of dogs and 39 % of cats now getting cancer, giving an unnecessary rabies vaccine is very dangerous to the pet.
Vaccines are strong immune stimulators and can work negatively on the immune system. Titers are the best way to see if vaccines are effective protection and they should be an accepted evaluation of a pets protection from Rabies.
Margo Roman, DVM
MASH Main St Animal Services of Hopkinton
Hopkinton, MA 01748
508-435-4077 fx 508-435-5533
Dr. George McKay
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Veterinarian’s letter Re bill to require annual rabies shots
The follwing letter from Dr. George McKay of Watsonville, very clearly explains the wrong-headedness fo the proposal to require annual rabies shots.
I was recently made aware of 2 bills that are coming up for consideration, AB2689 and AB2000. I am a practicing Veterinarian here in California, and I would like to voice my wholehearted opposition to AB2689 in its entirety.
I am including a link to the CDC surveillance for Rabieshttp://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf/10.2460/javma.235.6.676?cookieSet=1 for 2008 which is the most recent data I could locate.
The CDC concluded in its study that there were 2 cases of rabies in humans in 2008, and they were both from exposure to bats, not domestic animals. Of the 6841 reported cases of rabies in animals, only 7% (479) were in domestic animals. In California, of the 179 cases of rabies in animals, only 1 was a domestic animal, a cat.
In the years 2000-2008, 27 people died from exposure to Rabies virus. Only 6 of those humans have died in the US and Puerto Rico from exposure to Dog Rabies and NONE of these people were bitten by a dog in the US (one was bitten in Puerto Rico, one in Haiti, two in the Philippines, one in El Salvador, one in Ghana).
In the US, the incidence of Rabies in domestic animals has steadily declined since 1958, particularly in dogs.
As to decreasing the age at which a dog is first vaccinated, we must examine the science behind it. Every pregnant dog who is current on vaccination (which we will assume is every dog being bred, since it is legally required) will provide a passive immunity to her pups. This is due to maternal antibodies against rabies passing through the placenta, in the colostrum (first milk) and in smaller amounts in the motherâ€™s milk. It was originally postulated that the maternal antibodies were gone at 6 weeks of age because our tests could not measure them after this time. This is what we based our vaccine protocols on. If you look at the springerlink article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/q7254227771u67w7/ ), you can see that the pups did not respond until 10 weeks of age. Therefore, we must conclude that on average, a puppy with a vaccinated mom can not respond to Rabies Vaccine until 10 weeks of age. If one looks at statistics and draws
a standard bell curve around 10 weeks, one standard deviation from the mean incorporates 84 % of the puppies, but 2 standard deviations include 97.7 % of the puppies, and by 3 standard deviations, we will cover 99.9% of puppies. That is to say, by vaccinating at or after 16 weeks we will cover 99.9% of puppies, and by vaccinating at 12 weeks of age, we potentially leave a larger number of puppies unvaccinated for all intents and purposes, because they were unable to respond to the vaccine. This is self defeating.
The conclusions that I draw from this information are as follows:
1) The incidence of Rabies in dogs has been declining year over year using our current vaccination strategy.
2) The danger of zoonotic exposure to humans by dogs in the US has been 0 in the past 10 years using the current vaccination strategy.
3) The most likely exposure to Rabies by humans in the US is by wildlife, particularly by bats, raccoons and skunks, which is not addressed in the current bill.
4)The mandating of vaccine for younger dogs will increase the number of vaccine failures due to latent maternal immunity.
This does not make sense.
Further, I want to pledge my full support to AB2000.
As a practicing Veterinarian, I have experienced firsthand the heartbreak of a pet who died as a result of a Vaccine reaction. I have seen numerous instances of non-lethal vaccine reactions that could have turned fatal if not for timely intervention on our part.
The ability to provide an exemption for a life threatening reaction is only common sense, and it is criminal that I can not legally do so at this time. For more information on Rabies Vaccine duration, follow the link tohttp://www.rabieschallengefund.org/
George McKay, DVM CA 12547
Mt. Madonna Vet
1961 Main St #232
Watsonville, CA 95076