Welcome to the Vets4vaccs Home Page
Last updated 15th July 2002
Identification
of infected animals in a vaccinated population- the 3ABC elisa testVets4vaccs was set up in March 2001 by a group of UK Veterinary surgeons concerned that a frank and open debate about the current policy for eradication of FMD in the UK, in particular the role of vaccination, was not taking place.
Our aim is to provide a forum for discussion on this subject, aimed primarily at Veterinary surgeons but we are happy to involve all those with a legitimate interest in this subject.
Our immediate aim now is to gather and distribute unbiased fully researched information about F&M vaccines, particularly their efficacy and the logisitics of any future vaccination strategy. In addition we wish to investigate the likely effect of a vaccination policy on future farming practices, economics and exports in the UK.
Please e-mail in any new info that is not already here to vets4vaccs@hotmail.com this will then be distributed to the discussion group and if suitable added to this site. We hope to set up an online discussion group in the near future, please register your interest by email.
Please label the submissions as information or comment as appropriate in the subject line, plus a v short description. Please give links to other useful sites if known.
Thankyou for your time,
Richard Rowe, Peter Wood and colleagues
Janet Bayley NFMG
Peter Wood Vets for Vaccination
April 2002
The full proposal can be found by following this link
After our discussions with the Royal Society, when we were asked by Sir Brian Follett how we would use vaccination in a future outbreak, we felt it appropriate to respond by preparing such a proposal. We have, therefore, developed the attached programme in consultation with several vets and scientists. In particular we are very grateful for the assistance and guidance of Dr Keith Sumption of Edinburgh University, and also Dr Paul Sutmoller and Dr Simon Barteling of the Netherlands, for their papers, presentations and advice on vaccination, carriers and science based risk assessment.
The programme draws on the principle of Non Structural Protein free vaccines and the associated marker tests now available.
As you may recall, we tabled the technical paper from Intervet on the use of 3 ABC marker test for FMD, when we attended the Royal Society. We have subsequently liased with Dr Paul van Aarle of Intervet, for further technical and scientific data.
We now understand that a proposal is currently before the OIE regarding the return to disease free status post vaccination – and that a period of 6 months, as opposed to 12 months, for return to DFS post vaccination, is now under consideration.
"Additional proposal:
6 months after the last case or the last vaccination (according to the event that occurs the latest), where stamping out, emergency vaccination not followed by slaughtering of all vaccinated animals, and serological surveillance are applied, provided that a serological survey based on the detection of antibodies to non-structural proteins of FMDV demonstrates the absence of infection in the remaining vaccinated population."
Although we are aware that the Royal Society is not due to report its Inquiry findings before the OIE consideration of the proposal at the end of May, we feel it would be extremely helpful if the Royal Society could give an interim indication to Government regarding the proposal.
We hope that it may be possible for the Royal Society to express its initial thoughts on vaccination and, in particular, the scientific rationale behind the use of marker tests and vaccines, in order for the Government to form a view on the OIE proposal and inform its stance in considering this significant change of policy.
Clearly, the ability to achieve a return to DFS in 6 months, as opposed to 12 months, post vaccination, has fundamental consequences to the acceptability of the use of vaccination to control the disease.
Janet Bayley NFMG
Peter Wood Vets for Vaccination
The full proposal can be found by following this link
Identification
of infected animals in a vaccinated population- the 3ABC elisa test
A recent paper presented at the 22nd Conference of the OIE Regional Commission for Asia, the Far East and Oceania by Paul van Aarle et al discusses the development of the 3ABC marker test for FMD.
The original test of the World Reference Laboratory in Pirbight (U.K.) and the Instituto Zooprofilattico in Brescia (Italy) was a trapping, indirect ELISA. The test was not ready for use and several sensitive steps had to be performed before the test could actually start. Because of this there have been problems with variable results in several laboratories with the NSP-test.
Chekit-FMD-3ABC has been validated with the sera, which have been used for the validation of the original Brescia and Pirbright tests. The sera were from experiments as well as from the field, from well over 5.000 animals, cattle, sheep and swine. The sera involved all main FMDV-types. The sera have been supplied by the Instituto Zooprofilattica in Brescia (Italy), World Reference Laboratory Pirbright and the ID-Lelystad Institute from The Netherlands.
The new test, Chekit-FMD-3ABC, is a direct ELISA. The test-plates are coated with 3ABC. The test is ready to use. Compared to the original concept this has considerable advantages:
click here for the full paper.
Call for input in to the Royal Enquiry on the 15th Jan- Urgent
We have prepared a joint submission with The National Foot & Mouth Group for the Royal Society Inquiry. We would appreciate any comments about this proposal. We hope to provide oral evidence at the enquiry and we therefore hope to have an opportunity to incorporate points not already raised in the submission. Please mail us at Vets4vaccs or contact Peter Wood direct.
The National Foot & Mouth Group are an affiliation of organisations affected by the 2001 UK epidemic.
Download the full submission here (Word Format- 201k)
Download the full submission here (Zipped Word file- 62k)
The summary is given below. Please read the full submission and let us know what you think.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Foot and Mouth Disease in a developed European economy is not just a disease of agriculture but affects all areas of the community. It carries with it a huge human, social and economic cost.
The purpose of this submission is to set before the Inquiry the far-ranging consequences of current control policies and, in responding to the issues raised by the Inquiry, consider how alternative controls could be effected.
We consider that the key factors for consideration are; disease free status, the role of export markets, vaccination and the eradication of Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK, EU and on a global scale.
We have sought to demonstrate the wide, and often disproportionate impacts of the disease and its control, that have affected the rural economy, rural communities and their social fabric, during the current epidemic. Of great significance is the need to maintain normality for other sectors of the rural economy and ensure a form of disease control that does not cause extensive harm and financial loss to these interests.
We have also considered how the control of Foot and Mouth Disease must be viewed in relation to international trade and in conjunction with control procedures used both in mainland Europe and the rest of the world, particularly, third countries.
The role of modelling in forecasting disease spread and its subsequent control is addressed and regard is also had to the need for empirical evidence to direct future control procedures. We have considered the adopted policies and their impacts and detailed alternative methods of control.
The issue of vaccination is fundamental to our consideration and we have put forward how we view its use and application both in the UK and Europe, and on a global scale. We examine the current policies and practices that have militated against the use of vaccination in the current epidemic and suggest how these should be addressed.
Finally, in the construction of this response, we have sought to ensure that future control policies never again cause the indiscriminate slaughter of healthy animals in such vast numbers to maintain an economic market. We are grateful to the Royal Society for including the concepts of ethics in conducting this Inquiry.
Acknowledgements:
The National Foot & Mouth Group and Vets for Vaccination gratefully acknowledge the help and assistance of various scientists and vets in the production of this submission and for the contributions from the many who have been affected by the disease.
Interview on Radio4, the today programme 4th August 2001
Richard was invited to speak on the Today programme following a report commissioned by the BBC by Professor Peter Midmore from Aberystworth university.
Prof Midmore's report outlined the high cost of the current slaughter policy. In the interview it is suggested that £3 billion which would have been saved if an early vaccination policy had been implemented.
An interesting point raised by Helen Browning of the Soil Association was that meat from vaccinated animals is already being imported from Argentina.
Reference to the paper in last weeks Vet Record was also made.
Click here to listen to the interview.
The following article was written by Prof Midmore earlier this year.
Monday 23.04.01 The Veterinary Record from vets4vaccs
The vets4vaccs association of vets would like to thank everyone for their support, please continue to e-mail or fax in, whatever your opinion.
While the situation appears to be "under control" we may be able to avoid national vaccination against F&M, we hope that this remains the case.
Our immediate aim now is to gather and distribute unbiased fully researched information about F&M vaccines, particularly their efficiency in use and all the various effects that their use may have on farming practices, economics and exports.
Then when the problem recurs we will not have to waste weeks delving through so much disinformation before action can be taken.
We believe that huge scale destruction and crude disposal of animals, especially healthy ones, will never again be tolerated or funded by the public.
We must be ready with a viable alternative to protect the animals and those who care for them and which does not itself harm the environment or possibly cause any danger to public health.
Richard Rowe, Peter Wood, Glynn Wright, Mark Hinds et al.
Web vets4vaccs.co.uk, e-mail vets4vaccs@hotmail.com fax 01453 521131
Since starting the "Vets4vaccs" organisation we have come in to contact with a huge range of people who are concerned about F&M and animal welfare, from the "brown bread and sandals" end of the spectrum to the house of lords, and have been humbled by their knowledge and enthusiasm.
We have found that the public and media have tremendous respect for vets and are keen to hear about the various groups that have arisen to discuss and question the accepted point of view on F&M.
To try to retain that respect we have been on a very steep learning curve to catch up with the science. We can now begin to separate the facts that can be backed up from those which are just loudly repeated.
Vets are in a unique position in that we have been trained to digest the science and communicate it accurately. It is much easier for us to learn about the latest molecular biology than it is for the pure scientist to try to understand all the animal health, production and PR that we use unconsciously every day.
So even if you never see anything closer to a farm than a pygmy goat you have a valid point of view which needs to be communicated to the regular groups, BSAVA, BVA etc or even the "Devon 50", "Dumfries 40" or us at vets4vaccs.co.uk
Remember "It’s your vote that counts"