>From my point of view, the only statastics are from the vets that see
horses who are sick enough the owners take them to the vet. What about all
the horses who only show suttle signs of being sick and are never seen by
vets? The numbers and statistics I see are so inaccurate it's
blatant! Unless everyone took their horses in and had them ALL tested for
west niles to see who has the antibodies is the only way a "somewhat
accurate" analysis could be published.
The statistics that one sees published regarding immune response to the
vaccine and efficacy rate (how well the vaccine actually protects) have
nothing whatsoever to do with horses vaccinated in the public sector or reports
back from private practitioners. They are generated from test vaccination
groups in which ALL vaccinated horses are tested for an antibody response,
and a set portion of them are challenged with specific exposure to the
disease. The main problem with the statistics is that such test groups are
only comprised of several hundred horses. However, the math of statistics
involves predicting how accurate the rates from the sample are apt to be when
applied to a population at large, given how large the sample group is.
Fort Dodge has had to show research on such test groups in order to even
get the vaccine on the market, and independent groups (I believe University of
Florida was one, and I'm sure there have been others) have done similar
independent studies.
The records that ARE generated from private practitioner reports are
adverse reaction rates--and these are not frequently published, but can be
gotten from manufacturers if one asks for them. These are apt to only
contain the really bad reactions--anaphylaxis, etc.--as the mild ones do not
tend to be reported. Still, the immediate adverse reactions are a
completely different sort of response by the body than the slower reactions that
show up the next day. So the adverse reaction reports still have some
value in understanding how apt a drug or vaccine is to cause the former
problem.
