z*0
2 楼
3月22日晚上到23日凌晨网上efile，25日usps寄出，13块大洋，27日到达NSC，开始了
漫长的等待之旅乐。
来美第三年，一般州立大学薄厚，业内号称是最牛的领域，姑且自我安慰吧。从最初的
有申请绿卡的打算到现在一年多吧，从j1签证到豁免，到要求老板换h1b，差点换到另
外一个地方去，最终老板同意帮我申请了H1b，却最终也没有给我写推荐信（他太忙，
我又没习惯push别人）。不过在6封推荐信里，有4封多多少少都是因为他或者因为来这
里薄厚才认识的人，人家也挺给面子的。
说起推荐信，就从此谈起吧：最初的一封推荐信是从去年10开始要得（不好意思，我太
拖拉了，要推荐信竟然拖这么久），最初订了几个人，决定从不认识的开始，独立嘛，
就是要独立，发了一圈，没有人理睬。后来开始想联系那些曾经遇到的，却没有合作背
景的吧，这个时候，我想起了几个开会认识的人，发过email后，只有一个台湾的回复
了，经过多次email，中间过程不多说了，最后把我的草稿全部删掉，签字的推荐信只
有一段话（几行吧），说证明我的学历，在哪里读的书。我当时很火大了，心情沮丧了
一个晚上，客客气气的感谢人家。
那接着找吧，没有想到联系了一个老印在美国做教授了，还是个fellow，完全不认识，
在一个review里引用我的文章多次，发了email，却很爽快地答应了，只简单的修改了
一下语法。
后来开始厚脸皮向那些因为老板认识的大牛们，有私下里交谈过，聊过工作的，和老板
关系好的人，都很乐意写，事实证明，老板的人脉真的很重要，有一位教授还主动把他
给别人写的几封推荐信发给我让我参考，真是好人。
推荐信的内容，很头疼，我现在看看最初写的，真的很差，空洞无物，反复的修改，制
定好内容闪光点最重要吧，让版上有经验的同学给说说。
可说的东西太多，姑且说到这里，等有好消息再多说些，case很弱，只能靠老天相助了。
Bless 大家！
漫长的等待之旅乐。
来美第三年，一般州立大学薄厚，业内号称是最牛的领域，姑且自我安慰吧。从最初的
有申请绿卡的打算到现在一年多吧，从j1签证到豁免，到要求老板换h1b，差点换到另
外一个地方去，最终老板同意帮我申请了H1b，却最终也没有给我写推荐信（他太忙，
我又没习惯push别人）。不过在6封推荐信里，有4封多多少少都是因为他或者因为来这
里薄厚才认识的人，人家也挺给面子的。
说起推荐信，就从此谈起吧：最初的一封推荐信是从去年10开始要得（不好意思，我太
拖拉了，要推荐信竟然拖这么久），最初订了几个人，决定从不认识的开始，独立嘛，
就是要独立，发了一圈，没有人理睬。后来开始想联系那些曾经遇到的，却没有合作背
景的吧，这个时候，我想起了几个开会认识的人，发过email后，只有一个台湾的回复
了，经过多次email，中间过程不多说了，最后把我的草稿全部删掉，签字的推荐信只
有一段话（几行吧），说证明我的学历，在哪里读的书。我当时很火大了，心情沮丧了
一个晚上，客客气气的感谢人家。
那接着找吧，没有想到联系了一个老印在美国做教授了，还是个fellow，完全不认识，
在一个review里引用我的文章多次，发了email，却很爽快地答应了，只简单的修改了
一下语法。
后来开始厚脸皮向那些因为老板认识的大牛们，有私下里交谈过，聊过工作的，和老板
关系好的人，都很乐意写，事实证明，老板的人脉真的很重要，有一位教授还主动把他
给别人写的几封推荐信发给我让我参考，真是好人。
推荐信的内容，很头疼，我现在看看最初写的，真的很差，空洞无物，反复的修改，制
定好内容闪光点最重要吧，让版上有经验的同学给说说。
可说的东西太多，姑且说到这里，等有好消息再多说些，case很弱，只能靠老天相助了。
Bless 大家！
x*u
3 楼
not a short article, but it's worth reading it
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2013/1
Is Your Pet Receiving Any of These Useless Vaccines?
By Dr. Becker
Today I have a very special guest returning for a second time to talk with
us and give us the tremendous benefit of his knowledge, Dr. Ronald Schultz.
Dr. Schultz heads up the Department of Pathobiological Sciences at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine. He’s joining
me today on behalf of an important project he’s been involved with for
several years – the Rabies Challenge Fund. The purpose of the fund is to
determine the duration of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccines, with the
goal of extending the required interval for rabies boosters to five and then
to seven years.
Dr. Schultz has agreed to spend some time today, in the first half of our
two-part discussion, talking about core and non-core vaccines in cats and
dogs.
I asked him first to briefly explain the difference between the two types of
vaccines.
Core versus Non-Core Vaccines
Dr. Schultz replied that several years ago, the American Association of
Feline Practitioners (AAFP) decided to look at all the USDA-licensed
vaccines that were available for cats. They put them into categories, with
the first and most important category being the core vaccines, which are
those vaccines that every cat should receive.
Then they went back over the list looking for vaccines that should not be
given to any cat, and placed those in a category called not-recommended
vaccines.
All remaining vaccines on the list – those that didn’t fall into either
the core or not-recommended vaccine categories – were placed in a third
category called non-core or optional vaccines. These were to be given based
on individual need, after considering a number of factors. So that’s how
categories of vaccines came into existence.
The Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) Vaccine: Should Every Cat Receive It?
In the most updated feline vaccination guidelines, the feline leukemia virus
(FeLV) vaccine has been moved from the non-core to the core category for
kittens. Dr. Schultz says he would like to see every kitten receive two
doses of the vaccine, administered from two to six weeks apart. (If the
interval is longer than six weeks, you must start the protocol over.) He
feels that with those two doses and a re-vaccination at one year, we can
immunize a large percentage of the cat population against feline leukemia.
Dr. Schultz says the new guidelines recommend revaccination (after the
kitten series and the one-year booster) every two to three years, but he
doesn’t believe boosters after age one are necessary – especially given
the development of age-related resistance.
I asked Dr. Schultz if he thinks even strictly indoor cats with no exposure
to other cats should receive the FeLV vaccine, and he thinks they should (I
don’t) – mainly because indoor cats very often become outdoor cats. In
situations where a cat truly will never go outside or be exposed to other
cats, there’s no need for the vaccine. But in Dr. Schultz’s experience,
even people with the best intentions don’t wind up keeping their pet
indoors at all times.
Dr. Schultz points out that the goal is to achieve population immunity. If
the problem of persistently viremic cats (those who carry the virus) can be
eliminated through kitten vaccination programs, the disease can be
extinguished. Dr. Schultz says his colleagues in Switzerland tell him they
have essentially eradicated the feline leukemia virus from that country’s
cat population. Switzerland is about the size of many states in the U.S.,
and Dr. Schultz believes we could eliminate the virus state-by-state, if we
did what Switzerland did.
He says he’s been talking to colleagues in Hawaii, trying to convince them
to attempt to eliminate it there, since feline leukemia has been a real
problem in that state’s cat population for years. Hawaii also has a large
feral population, which doesn’t mean the feral cats are any more a threat
than housecats. Studies of feline leukemia in feral cats indicate that the
prevalence of persistent viremia is no higher than in pet cats – in fact,
it’s actually higher in pet cats.
I asked Dr. Schultz if he had concerns about the feline leukemia vaccine and
vaccine-associated sarcomas. He answered that initially there were just two
types of vaccines linked to injection-site sarcomas in cats, adjuvanted
leukemia vaccines and adjuvanted rabies vaccines. Dr. Schultz says it’s
important to keep in mind that all adverse reactions to vaccines, including
the development of tumors, occur in genetically predisposed cats. In the
case of an adjuvanted vaccine, that vaccine in a predisposed cat is more
likely to lead to an injection-site sarcoma than a modified-live vaccine.
What About the Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) Vaccine and the Chlamydia
Vaccine?
I asked Dr. Schultz about the FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) vaccine
for cats. He replied that he does not recommend it. He said when it’s used,
there must be at least three doses for the primary immunization, and then
annual revaccination. One of the major problems is that there are strains of
FIV floating around that the vaccine doesn’t protect against.
In addition, while FIV is a concern, the percentage of infected cats is
fairly low. We just don’t see it a lot. FIV isn’t even considered in
reviews of what vaccines are necessary for the shelter population.
I asked Dr. Schultz about the chlamydia vaccine. He doesn’t recommend it,
either. The vaccine is primarily designed to reduce the incidence of feline
infectious respiratory disease complex. In the shelter population, the
vaccine hasn’t been helpful, and chlamydia is rare in pet cats. There’s
also a feline bordetella vaccine Dr. Schultz does not recommend, because it
hasn’t proven beneficial for shelter cats.
Is There Any Need to Run Titers on Cats?
Next I asked Dr. Schultz if he is seeing more cat owners requesting antibody
titers these days. He answered that no, very few cat owners bother titering
. He says he’s not sure there’s any real need to titer for cats because
there’s only one disease we can effectively titer for, and that’s
panleukopenia, which is essentially feline parvovirus.
Why Dr. Schultz Prefers the Term “Protective Antibody Testing” to Titering
Dogs are of course a different story, and Dr. Schultz definitely recommends
antibody testing. I asked him what terminology he prefers – does he even
use the word “titer”? He replied that he prefers either “protective
antibody testing” or simply “antibody testing” instead of titers. This is
because many tests today return yes-or-no results rather than titers.
Titer tests tend to become a numbers game, whereas tests that return a
result of either “yes” (the animal has antibody at a level considered
protective) or “no” (the animal does not have antibody at a level
considered protective) give the information everyone needs, and no one has
to get mired in trying to understand what the titer numbers truly mean. It’
s much less confusing and should help veterinarians and pet owners make
better decisions about revaccinations.
As I discussed with Dr. Jean Dodds in a recent interview, the whole subject
of titers is tremendously confusing. Many veterinarians recommend
revaccinations because they simply can’t sort out titer test results. They
feel it’s easier to just revaccinate – especially when boarding kennels
and grooming salons that receive titer test results often don’t understand
them or accept them as proof of a dog’s immunity.
Vaccination or Revaccination is NOT a Guarantee of Protection Against
Disease
Dr. Schultz points out that what many people fail to understand is that
vaccination or revaccination is by no means an assurance that the animal is
protected. He has seen dogs that have been vaccinated repeatedly who have no
antibody. When challenged (exposed to a disease), they are susceptible. And
that includes rabies vaccines. Dr. Schultz has seen dogs that have been
vaccinated five or more times against rabies that have no antibody. In the
case of rabies, distemper and parvo, if there’s no antibody, the animal is
not protected.
To demonstrate that fact, and to demonstrate that dogs can have lifelong
immunity after receiving distemper and parvo vaccines, he keeps them in a
distemper and parvo-free environment after their puppy shots. He does not
revaccinate them. Seven years later, he checks their antibody levels. If
there is antibody present, he challenges them with the virulent virus itself
, and they survive it. If they don’t have antibody, he doesn’t challenge
them because there’s a high likelihood they will get sick and die.
The presence of antibody, even at low levels, means the immune memory
response will kick in and within hours the dog’s body will bring the
infection under control. There will be infection, but it won’t cause
disease. There’s a big difference between infection and disease. And in
fact, reinfection without disease isn’t a bad thing because it leads to
natural stimulation of the immune response. A few vaccines can provide
sterile immunity. It is called this because the antibody produced is able to
completely prevent the virus from infecting the animal, and so can’t
reproduce itself. Vaccines that provide sterile immunity are almost always
against viruses that produce systemic rather than local disease.
So for example, parvo and distemper vaccines provide sterile immunity for
life in most cases, similar to measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines in
humans. Dr. Schultz uses the example of his own case of measles when he was
5 years old. There were no measles vaccines back then. But 50 years later,
he had his blood drawn for a demonstration for his veterinary students. He
sent the blood to the State Laboratory of Hygiene at the University of
Wisconsin and they performed a variety of serologic tests. His measles
antibody response came back at a level considered protective. Now, how did
Dr. Schultz have protective immunity 50 years after being naturally
immunized with measles? He can thank his memory effector B cells.
Dr. Schultz explains the discovery of these long-lived plasma cells is
fairly recent. They reside in bone marrow and are programmed to continue to
produce antibody. A dog that lives on average 15 years will still have long-
lived cells that produce antibodies to distemper or parvo at the age of 15.
Useless Vaccines and Why Some Are Still on the Market
The good news is that distemper and parvo are really the only two life-
threatening canine diseases still active in our environment. Giardia, for
example, is an unfortunate disease, but it’s not life threatening. And
according to Dr. Schultz, the really good news is that the giardia vaccine
is no longer on the market.
I asked him about the dental plaque vaccine, and he said there’s more good
news – it’s no longer on the market, either. It was in clinical trials
under USDA authorization for four years. At the end of the four years, when
they looked at the results, it was clear the vaccine didn’t work. It was
taken off the market, and according to Dr. Schultz, credit is due Pfizer,
the manufacturer of the vaccine, because they were willing to pull it.
I asked Dr. Schultz why he thinks some of these totally unnecessary vaccines
ever enter the marketplace to begin with. He believes that very often there
is some potential for those vaccines to provide benefit. But he also feels
it’s critical that there’s a test period that actually determines whether
vaccines do or don’t meet the requirements for licensure. Dr. Schultz
believes the USDA is looking much more carefully at those types of vaccines
now than they used to because these days we understand much more about what
immunity is, how to measure it, how it protects us, and how it translates
into an effective vaccine.
Dr. Schultz says one of his “favorite” vaccines is the canine coronavirus
vaccine. He calls it “a vaccine in search of a disease.” This vaccine came
into being back in the late 1970s when canine parvovirus first appeared. No
one recognized parvo yet, but dogs were getting sick and many of them also
happened to have coronavirus.
As it turns out, every animal has coronavirus -- even puppies. Dr. Schultz
says it’s actually a beneficial virus. It doesn’t cause disease by itself.
When scientists finally discovered the minute, spherical virus we now know
as parvovirus, they found what was making the dogs sick. Meanwhile, Dr.
Schultz and some of his colleagues were able to demonstrate that corona, in
coexistence with parvo, could enhance the virulence of parvo.
In the 1990s, Dr. Schultz published studies that looked at what benefit the
canine coronavirus vaccine might provide in the case of even a dual
infection. What it provided was … nothing. But the vaccine still exists
even though it has no value. Why? Because veterinarians still buy it. As Dr.
Schultz explains, the only thing that removes a licensed vaccine from the
market is if the manufacturer discontinues it. That’s what happened to the
giardia vaccine and the porphyromonas (dental plaque) vaccine.
So if your vet says your dog needs the canine coronavirus vaccine, you can
argue against it because you know its history.
Stay Tuned for Part 2 of My Interview with Dr. Ron Schultz
Stay tuned for the second half of my discussion with Dr. Ron Schultz on
Friday, in which we’ll cover many more vaccine-related topics and also talk
about his wonderful work with the Rabies Challenge fund.
Mercola Healthy Pets is proud to partner with the Rabies Challenge Fund to
raise money to help improve the lives of animals. This week, for every $1
donated to the Rabies Challenge Fund by a Mercola Healthy Pets reader, we
will donate $2, up to $30,000. I hope you’ll join us in helping
RabiesChallengeFund.org fund the remaining research needed to complete their
seven-year study.
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2013/1
Is Your Pet Receiving Any of These Useless Vaccines?
By Dr. Becker
Today I have a very special guest returning for a second time to talk with
us and give us the tremendous benefit of his knowledge, Dr. Ronald Schultz.
Dr. Schultz heads up the Department of Pathobiological Sciences at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine. He’s joining
me today on behalf of an important project he’s been involved with for
several years – the Rabies Challenge Fund. The purpose of the fund is to
determine the duration of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccines, with the
goal of extending the required interval for rabies boosters to five and then
to seven years.
Dr. Schultz has agreed to spend some time today, in the first half of our
two-part discussion, talking about core and non-core vaccines in cats and
dogs.
I asked him first to briefly explain the difference between the two types of
vaccines.
Core versus Non-Core Vaccines
Dr. Schultz replied that several years ago, the American Association of
Feline Practitioners (AAFP) decided to look at all the USDA-licensed
vaccines that were available for cats. They put them into categories, with
the first and most important category being the core vaccines, which are
those vaccines that every cat should receive.
Then they went back over the list looking for vaccines that should not be
given to any cat, and placed those in a category called not-recommended
vaccines.
All remaining vaccines on the list – those that didn’t fall into either
the core or not-recommended vaccine categories – were placed in a third
category called non-core or optional vaccines. These were to be given based
on individual need, after considering a number of factors. So that’s how
categories of vaccines came into existence.
The Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV) Vaccine: Should Every Cat Receive It?
In the most updated feline vaccination guidelines, the feline leukemia virus
(FeLV) vaccine has been moved from the non-core to the core category for
kittens. Dr. Schultz says he would like to see every kitten receive two
doses of the vaccine, administered from two to six weeks apart. (If the
interval is longer than six weeks, you must start the protocol over.) He
feels that with those two doses and a re-vaccination at one year, we can
immunize a large percentage of the cat population against feline leukemia.
Dr. Schultz says the new guidelines recommend revaccination (after the
kitten series and the one-year booster) every two to three years, but he
doesn’t believe boosters after age one are necessary – especially given
the development of age-related resistance.
I asked Dr. Schultz if he thinks even strictly indoor cats with no exposure
to other cats should receive the FeLV vaccine, and he thinks they should (I
don’t) – mainly because indoor cats very often become outdoor cats. In
situations where a cat truly will never go outside or be exposed to other
cats, there’s no need for the vaccine. But in Dr. Schultz’s experience,
even people with the best intentions don’t wind up keeping their pet
indoors at all times.
Dr. Schultz points out that the goal is to achieve population immunity. If
the problem of persistently viremic cats (those who carry the virus) can be
eliminated through kitten vaccination programs, the disease can be
extinguished. Dr. Schultz says his colleagues in Switzerland tell him they
have essentially eradicated the feline leukemia virus from that country’s
cat population. Switzerland is about the size of many states in the U.S.,
and Dr. Schultz believes we could eliminate the virus state-by-state, if we
did what Switzerland did.
He says he’s been talking to colleagues in Hawaii, trying to convince them
to attempt to eliminate it there, since feline leukemia has been a real
problem in that state’s cat population for years. Hawaii also has a large
feral population, which doesn’t mean the feral cats are any more a threat
than housecats. Studies of feline leukemia in feral cats indicate that the
prevalence of persistent viremia is no higher than in pet cats – in fact,
it’s actually higher in pet cats.
I asked Dr. Schultz if he had concerns about the feline leukemia vaccine and
vaccine-associated sarcomas. He answered that initially there were just two
types of vaccines linked to injection-site sarcomas in cats, adjuvanted
leukemia vaccines and adjuvanted rabies vaccines. Dr. Schultz says it’s
important to keep in mind that all adverse reactions to vaccines, including
the development of tumors, occur in genetically predisposed cats. In the
case of an adjuvanted vaccine, that vaccine in a predisposed cat is more
likely to lead to an injection-site sarcoma than a modified-live vaccine.
What About the Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) Vaccine and the Chlamydia
Vaccine?
I asked Dr. Schultz about the FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) vaccine
for cats. He replied that he does not recommend it. He said when it’s used,
there must be at least three doses for the primary immunization, and then
annual revaccination. One of the major problems is that there are strains of
FIV floating around that the vaccine doesn’t protect against.
In addition, while FIV is a concern, the percentage of infected cats is
fairly low. We just don’t see it a lot. FIV isn’t even considered in
reviews of what vaccines are necessary for the shelter population.
I asked Dr. Schultz about the chlamydia vaccine. He doesn’t recommend it,
either. The vaccine is primarily designed to reduce the incidence of feline
infectious respiratory disease complex. In the shelter population, the
vaccine hasn’t been helpful, and chlamydia is rare in pet cats. There’s
also a feline bordetella vaccine Dr. Schultz does not recommend, because it
hasn’t proven beneficial for shelter cats.
Is There Any Need to Run Titers on Cats?
Next I asked Dr. Schultz if he is seeing more cat owners requesting antibody
titers these days. He answered that no, very few cat owners bother titering
. He says he’s not sure there’s any real need to titer for cats because
there’s only one disease we can effectively titer for, and that’s
panleukopenia, which is essentially feline parvovirus.
Why Dr. Schultz Prefers the Term “Protective Antibody Testing” to Titering
Dogs are of course a different story, and Dr. Schultz definitely recommends
antibody testing. I asked him what terminology he prefers – does he even
use the word “titer”? He replied that he prefers either “protective
antibody testing” or simply “antibody testing” instead of titers. This is
because many tests today return yes-or-no results rather than titers.
Titer tests tend to become a numbers game, whereas tests that return a
result of either “yes” (the animal has antibody at a level considered
protective) or “no” (the animal does not have antibody at a level
considered protective) give the information everyone needs, and no one has
to get mired in trying to understand what the titer numbers truly mean. It’
s much less confusing and should help veterinarians and pet owners make
better decisions about revaccinations.
As I discussed with Dr. Jean Dodds in a recent interview, the whole subject
of titers is tremendously confusing. Many veterinarians recommend
revaccinations because they simply can’t sort out titer test results. They
feel it’s easier to just revaccinate – especially when boarding kennels
and grooming salons that receive titer test results often don’t understand
them or accept them as proof of a dog’s immunity.
Vaccination or Revaccination is NOT a Guarantee of Protection Against
Disease
Dr. Schultz points out that what many people fail to understand is that
vaccination or revaccination is by no means an assurance that the animal is
protected. He has seen dogs that have been vaccinated repeatedly who have no
antibody. When challenged (exposed to a disease), they are susceptible. And
that includes rabies vaccines. Dr. Schultz has seen dogs that have been
vaccinated five or more times against rabies that have no antibody. In the
case of rabies, distemper and parvo, if there’s no antibody, the animal is
not protected.
To demonstrate that fact, and to demonstrate that dogs can have lifelong
immunity after receiving distemper and parvo vaccines, he keeps them in a
distemper and parvo-free environment after their puppy shots. He does not
revaccinate them. Seven years later, he checks their antibody levels. If
there is antibody present, he challenges them with the virulent virus itself
, and they survive it. If they don’t have antibody, he doesn’t challenge
them because there’s a high likelihood they will get sick and die.
The presence of antibody, even at low levels, means the immune memory
response will kick in and within hours the dog’s body will bring the
infection under control. There will be infection, but it won’t cause
disease. There’s a big difference between infection and disease. And in
fact, reinfection without disease isn’t a bad thing because it leads to
natural stimulation of the immune response. A few vaccines can provide
sterile immunity. It is called this because the antibody produced is able to
completely prevent the virus from infecting the animal, and so can’t
reproduce itself. Vaccines that provide sterile immunity are almost always
against viruses that produce systemic rather than local disease.
So for example, parvo and distemper vaccines provide sterile immunity for
life in most cases, similar to measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines in
humans. Dr. Schultz uses the example of his own case of measles when he was
5 years old. There were no measles vaccines back then. But 50 years later,
he had his blood drawn for a demonstration for his veterinary students. He
sent the blood to the State Laboratory of Hygiene at the University of
Wisconsin and they performed a variety of serologic tests. His measles
antibody response came back at a level considered protective. Now, how did
Dr. Schultz have protective immunity 50 years after being naturally
immunized with measles? He can thank his memory effector B cells.
Dr. Schultz explains the discovery of these long-lived plasma cells is
fairly recent. They reside in bone marrow and are programmed to continue to
produce antibody. A dog that lives on average 15 years will still have long-
lived cells that produce antibodies to distemper or parvo at the age of 15.
Useless Vaccines and Why Some Are Still on the Market
The good news is that distemper and parvo are really the only two life-
threatening canine diseases still active in our environment. Giardia, for
example, is an unfortunate disease, but it’s not life threatening. And
according to Dr. Schultz, the really good news is that the giardia vaccine
is no longer on the market.
I asked him about the dental plaque vaccine, and he said there’s more good
news – it’s no longer on the market, either. It was in clinical trials
under USDA authorization for four years. At the end of the four years, when
they looked at the results, it was clear the vaccine didn’t work. It was
taken off the market, and according to Dr. Schultz, credit is due Pfizer,
the manufacturer of the vaccine, because they were willing to pull it.
I asked Dr. Schultz why he thinks some of these totally unnecessary vaccines
ever enter the marketplace to begin with. He believes that very often there
is some potential for those vaccines to provide benefit. But he also feels
it’s critical that there’s a test period that actually determines whether
vaccines do or don’t meet the requirements for licensure. Dr. Schultz
believes the USDA is looking much more carefully at those types of vaccines
now than they used to because these days we understand much more about what
immunity is, how to measure it, how it protects us, and how it translates
into an effective vaccine.
Dr. Schultz says one of his “favorite” vaccines is the canine coronavirus
vaccine. He calls it “a vaccine in search of a disease.” This vaccine came
into being back in the late 1970s when canine parvovirus first appeared. No
one recognized parvo yet, but dogs were getting sick and many of them also
happened to have coronavirus.
As it turns out, every animal has coronavirus -- even puppies. Dr. Schultz
says it’s actually a beneficial virus. It doesn’t cause disease by itself.
When scientists finally discovered the minute, spherical virus we now know
as parvovirus, they found what was making the dogs sick. Meanwhile, Dr.
Schultz and some of his colleagues were able to demonstrate that corona, in
coexistence with parvo, could enhance the virulence of parvo.
In the 1990s, Dr. Schultz published studies that looked at what benefit the
canine coronavirus vaccine might provide in the case of even a dual
infection. What it provided was … nothing. But the vaccine still exists
even though it has no value. Why? Because veterinarians still buy it. As Dr.
Schultz explains, the only thing that removes a licensed vaccine from the
market is if the manufacturer discontinues it. That’s what happened to the
giardia vaccine and the porphyromonas (dental plaque) vaccine.
So if your vet says your dog needs the canine coronavirus vaccine, you can
argue against it because you know its history.
Stay Tuned for Part 2 of My Interview with Dr. Ron Schultz
Stay tuned for the second half of my discussion with Dr. Ron Schultz on
Friday, in which we’ll cover many more vaccine-related topics and also talk
about his wonderful work with the Rabies Challenge fund.
Mercola Healthy Pets is proud to partner with the Rabies Challenge Fund to
raise money to help improve the lives of animals. This week, for every $1
donated to the Rabies Challenge Fund by a Mercola Healthy Pets reader, we
will donate $2, up to $30,000. I hope you’ll join us in helping
RabiesChallengeFund.org fund the remaining research needed to complete their
seven-year study.
c*2
4 楼
自己回复给大家报个数据点：买AA的里程票费报销一点问题都没有，关键是打电话去什
么都不问，也不要确认你这个是不是baggage fee，就查了下以前报销了多少，然后就
直接说行了。
么都不问，也不要确认你这个是不是baggage fee，就查了下以前报销了多少，然后就
直接说行了。
c*n
5 楼
bless
c*x
6 楼
本来以为可以不打的，这个还是支持打3in1的
joining
【在 x********u 的大作中提到】
: not a short article, but it's worth reading it
: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2013/1
: Is Your Pet Receiving Any of These Useless Vaccines?
: By Dr. Becker
: Today I have a very special guest returning for a second time to talk with
: us and give us the tremendous benefit of his knowledge, Dr. Ronald Schultz.
: Dr. Schultz heads up the Department of Pathobiological Sciences at the
: University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine. He’s joining
: me today on behalf of an important project he’s been involved with for
: several years – the Rabies Challenge Fund. The purpose of the fund is to
joining
【在 x********u 的大作中提到】
: not a short article, but it's worth reading it
: http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2013/1
: Is Your Pet Receiving Any of These Useless Vaccines?
: By Dr. Becker
: Today I have a very special guest returning for a second time to talk with
: us and give us the tremendous benefit of his knowledge, Dr. Ronald Schultz.
: Dr. Schultz heads up the Department of Pathobiological Sciences at the
: University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine. He’s joining
: me today on behalf of an important project he’s been involved with for
: several years – the Rabies Challenge Fund. The purpose of the fund is to
b*r
7 楼
祝福
【在 z******0 的大作中提到】
: 3月22日晚上到23日凌晨网上efile，25日usps寄出，13块大洋，27日到达NSC，开始了
: 漫长的等待之旅乐。
: 来美第三年，一般州立大学薄厚，业内号称是最牛的领域，姑且自我安慰吧。从最初的
: 有申请绿卡的打算到现在一年多吧，从j1签证到豁免，到要求老板换h1b，差点换到另
: 外一个地方去，最终老板同意帮我申请了H1b，却最终也没有给我写推荐信（他太忙，
: 我又没习惯push别人）。不过在6封推荐信里，有4封多多少少都是因为他或者因为来这
: 里薄厚才认识的人，人家也挺给面子的。
: 说起推荐信，就从此谈起吧：最初的一封推荐信是从去年10开始要得（不好意思，我太
: 拖拉了，要推荐信竟然拖这么久），最初订了几个人，决定从不认识的开始，独立嘛，
: 就是要独立，发了一圈，没有人理睬。后来开始想联系那些曾经遇到的，却没有合作背
【在 z******0 的大作中提到】
: 3月22日晚上到23日凌晨网上efile，25日usps寄出，13块大洋，27日到达NSC，开始了
: 漫长的等待之旅乐。
: 来美第三年，一般州立大学薄厚，业内号称是最牛的领域，姑且自我安慰吧。从最初的
: 有申请绿卡的打算到现在一年多吧，从j1签证到豁免，到要求老板换h1b，差点换到另
: 外一个地方去，最终老板同意帮我申请了H1b，却最终也没有给我写推荐信（他太忙，
: 我又没习惯push别人）。不过在6封推荐信里，有4封多多少少都是因为他或者因为来这
: 里薄厚才认识的人，人家也挺给面子的。
: 说起推荐信，就从此谈起吧：最初的一封推荐信是从去年10开始要得（不好意思，我太
: 拖拉了，要推荐信竟然拖这么久），最初订了几个人，决定从不认识的开始，独立嘛，
: 就是要独立，发了一圈，没有人理睬。后来开始想联系那些曾经遇到的，却没有合作背
R*0
8 楼
嗯，前段时间也仔细研究过，最后决定还是遵守法规每年打rabies，确保用不加
adjuvent的疫苗（目前好像只有PureVax一种，我当时问了一圈才找到家附近一家vet有
），并且每三年打FVRCP
【在 c********x 的大作中提到】
: 本来以为可以不打的，这个还是支持打3in1的
:
: joining
adjuvent的疫苗（目前好像只有PureVax一种，我当时问了一圈才找到家附近一家vet有
），并且每三年打FVRCP
【在 c********x 的大作中提到】
: 本来以为可以不打的，这个还是支持打3in1的
:
: joining
t*1
9 楼
bless!!
c*x
10 楼
学习了~FVRCP 这个是不是头两年都要打？
【在 R******0 的大作中提到】
: 嗯，前段时间也仔细研究过，最后决定还是遵守法规每年打rabies，确保用不加
: adjuvent的疫苗（目前好像只有PureVax一种，我当时问了一圈才找到家附近一家vet有
: ），并且每三年打FVRCP
【在 R******0 的大作中提到】
: 嗯，前段时间也仔细研究过，最后决定还是遵守法规每年打rabies，确保用不加
: adjuvent的疫苗（目前好像只有PureVax一种，我当时问了一圈才找到家附近一家vet有
: ），并且每三年打FVRCP
x*h
11 楼
bless u, bless me
【在 z******0 的大作中提到】
: 3月22日晚上到23日凌晨网上efile，25日usps寄出，13块大洋，27日到达NSC，开始了
: 漫长的等待之旅乐。
: 来美第三年，一般州立大学薄厚，业内号称是最牛的领域，姑且自我安慰吧。从最初的
: 有申请绿卡的打算到现在一年多吧，从j1签证到豁免，到要求老板换h1b，差点换到另
: 外一个地方去，最终老板同意帮我申请了H1b，却最终也没有给我写推荐信（他太忙，
: 我又没习惯push别人）。不过在6封推荐信里，有4封多多少少都是因为他或者因为来这
: 里薄厚才认识的人，人家也挺给面子的。
: 说起推荐信，就从此谈起吧：最初的一封推荐信是从去年10开始要得（不好意思，我太
: 拖拉了，要推荐信竟然拖这么久），最初订了几个人，决定从不认识的开始，独立嘛，
: 就是要独立，发了一圈，没有人理睬。后来开始想联系那些曾经遇到的，却没有合作背
【在 z******0 的大作中提到】
: 3月22日晚上到23日凌晨网上efile，25日usps寄出，13块大洋，27日到达NSC，开始了
: 漫长的等待之旅乐。
: 来美第三年，一般州立大学薄厚，业内号称是最牛的领域，姑且自我安慰吧。从最初的
: 有申请绿卡的打算到现在一年多吧，从j1签证到豁免，到要求老板换h1b，差点换到另
: 外一个地方去，最终老板同意帮我申请了H1b，却最终也没有给我写推荐信（他太忙，
: 我又没习惯push别人）。不过在6封推荐信里，有4封多多少少都是因为他或者因为来这
: 里薄厚才认识的人，人家也挺给面子的。
: 说起推荐信，就从此谈起吧：最初的一封推荐信是从去年10开始要得（不好意思，我太
: 拖拉了，要推荐信竟然拖这么久），最初订了几个人，决定从不认识的开始，独立嘛，
: 就是要独立，发了一圈，没有人理睬。后来开始想联系那些曾经遇到的，却没有合作背
R*0
12 楼
如果你那法律没要求，rabies也不用每年这么频繁~~
RVRCP是头两年都要打，然后就是每三年一次了
【在 c********x 的大作中提到】
: 学习了~FVRCP 这个是不是头两年都要打？
RVRCP是头两年都要打，然后就是每三年一次了
【在 c********x 的大作中提到】
: 学习了~FVRCP 这个是不是头两年都要打？
m*f
13 楼
mark
相关阅读