I'm a bit confused now.
As you may remember, I've found out the other day that Lily hasn't been vaccinated against Feline Leukemia by her first vet, so I had her tested last week - thank God it's been negative - and she got her shot now.
Now I've spoken to the friend from which I got Lily; she still has the mommy cat and Lily's brother Baghira, both indoor/outdoor cats, and none of them has ever been vaccinated against FeLV (by two previous vets). She has asked her new vet now about the necessity of FeLV-shots and he said there isn't a high risk, especially when a cat is neutered or spayed. He also said you would see when a cat has that disease (??? this doesn't match with the fact that a cat can be infected for years before the disease breaks out!!!) and that cats usually avoid having contacts with sick cats (which I also find an odd statement). He has also said that he would give the shot to her cats when she thinks she would have too much money. In other words, he thinks it's a waste of money, and so she decided not to have her kitties vaccinated against Feline Leukemia.
We just had a discussion and she believes now that the articles I've read about the importance of a FeLV shot have been written or sponsered by the pharma industry, and that my vet only wanted to make money (Luna has annually been vaccinated against FeLV, her mother has also been an outdoor cat). However, I cannot say I agree with that, and I'm feeling more comfortable with the thought that my cats have been vaccinated - even if there's only a protection of 80-85%.
What do you think? Would like to hear your opinions!
Kirsten
Bookmarks