 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Pet Forum / Miscellaneous / Animal Health / December 2006Canine vaccination protocol
I'm wondering what the current vaccination schedule is for dogs. I'd like up to take information with the most currently scientifically accepted theories. I have found this on a web page and wonder what it is all about: "But change is in the wind. Research shows that vaccines have a longer term of effectiveness against disease than previously thought, and some veterinary colleges have published alternative vaccination protocols that suggest three-year intervals after the initial shots and a 12-month booster. Some veterinarians go further; they divide vaccinations into two groups according to the prevalence of the disease in their area and recommend skipping vaccinations altogether for older animals that seldom leave home and for pets with already-compromised immune systems." http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=46546 "Of the core vaccines, the taskforce recommends that the adult dog receive rabies; canine parvovirus vaccine; canine adenovirus-2 (hepatitis vaccine); and distemper vaccines every three years." What are the opinions of the experts on this group? Thanks! :) I found these pages which help to answer my questions. Any comments? http://www.vetmedpub.com/vetmed/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=325509 http://www.aahanet.org/About_aaha/vaccine_guidelines06.pdf I should probably print this out and bring it with me to my vet in case they still want to do things the old way. > I'm wondering what the current vaccination schedule is for dogs. I'd > like up to take information with the most currently scientifically [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Thanks! :) Replying to my own post again, I hope this isn't poor form. But I have found ""Continuum DAP" which seems to combine all 3 vaccines into 1 and is approved for 3 years. Not that approval necessarily matters given the AAHA guidelines of course. But does anyone have experience with it? A Google search only shows a few 100 hits amazingly, but I guess this stuff isn't too popular a search term! > I found these pages which help to answer my questions. Any comments? > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > Thanks! :) > Replying to my own post again, I hope this isn't poor form. .......No, you're doing a good job of talking to yourself! ;-) But I have > found ""Continuum DAP" which seems to combine all 3 vaccines into 1 and > is approved for 3 years. Not that approval necessarily matters given > the AAHA guidelines of course. ..........I don't know why vets don't trust that the ordinary vaccines can do the job. Yearly vaccination schedules weren't instituted with any kind of research or as a response to a need. They just became common practice without a rational scientific basis. I think many people either don't know that or forget why it started. Now they want research to prove they last longer than a year so they'll feel *safe* offering vaccines less than annually. I suppose this vaccine is a response to that *perceived* need. I don't know anything about this new vaccine. It's been around since early 2005. Most of the research done on duration of immunity were done on ones already out there. This company went the extra mile to prove their vaccines last longer than a year, but that doesn't mean that other ones don't. As they clearly state in the AAHA document below. And you might check for adverse reactions if they've published them on the net (should be a ref at the end of the document or check Center for Veterinary Biologics). The first couple of years on the market are really part of testing the product and I usually don't touch them until some feedback is available. > > I found these pages which help to answer my questions. Any comments? > > http://www.aahanet.org/About_aaha/vaccine_guidelines06.pdf .............This document is based on work by the primary researchers in this issue and I would trust it. And I also applaud any group of vets willing to tell vaccines companies that some vaccines are not recommended, such as giardia vaccines. There comes a point where you need to have an ethical response to any practice. Many of the recommendations in this paper are the same as the ones in 2003, so it's certainly not a new idea. Years and years ago Colorado State University recommended cutting back on yearly vaccines. > > I should probably print this out and bring it with me to my vet in case > > they still want to do things the old way. ......Yes, do that. It will help open discussion on the issue. If your vet is not open to discussion find another one. It's your dog and your responsibility and you get to help make the decision based on risk vs. benefit. Single vaccines are also available but many vet clinics don't stock them as they're still pushing the multivalent ones. I think those people who do vax in pet stores do stock them as I asked once out of curiosity. buglady take out the dog before replying >> Replying to my own post again, I hope this isn't poor form. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > longer than a year so they'll feel *safe* offering vaccines less than > annually. I think this is reasonable. In lack of research, vaccinate more often than necessary, as you'll probably do less damage than if you vaccinate less often than necessary (this is aside from the legal considerations in telling people the vaccine is OK for 3 years, without evidence of it being good for 3 years). >> > I should probably print this out and bring it with me to my vet in case >> > they still want to do things the old way. > > ......Yes, do that. It will help open discussion on the issue. Or depending on your vet, it may bug them, which is why I mentioned it in my other post. Many vets are more than willing to discuss options with you. If I were you, I would talk to them, and say essentially, that you read somewhere that a lot of the vaccines that were being given every year are actually good for much longer than a year, what do you think? Let them defend their choice (for all you know, they agree with the idea already). Talk to them about it. If after talking to them, you don't trust them, then by all means, find another vet, but what I'm trying to say here, is that just because they happen not to agree with what you found on the net, doesn't mean that they are wrong, or a bad vet. > If your vet > is not open to discussion find another one. As long as you actually mean discussion, and not "willing to cave on any issue you challenge them on" then I agree. >It's your dog and your > responsibility and you get to help make the decision based on risk vs. > benefit. I would say that your vet also had some responsibility there. If your vet tells you that the vaccine is good for 3 years, and in reality its not, you're going to be pretty pissed if they talked you out of a yearly schedule. If you're vet isn't comfortable with a 3 year schedule, then they aren't. I'm not saying you can't put your dog on that schedule yourself, but you have to recognize that your vet has to be comfortable with the idea in order to recommend it to their patients. Dale The vet I go to basically does the following... If the animal was vaccinated the last two years (i.e. has had the last two shots more or less on schedule) then they don't recommend revaccinating for another 3 years. (this goes for DA2PP, and Rabies) In other words, Erwin was vaccinated in 2004 for his first shots (well actually had his set of 3 in 2004), had a booster in 2005, so now doesn't get shot again until 2008. We adopted Dempsey at the end of 2005, so have no vaccination history on him. He was revaccinated this year, and won't be due again until 2009 (assuming he lives that long :(, he's 11 1/2 now ). In the end, its your call if you want to vaccinate your animal or not. Personally I'll do it, as long, and as often as my vet recommends (I trust the vet I go to). I wouldn't bother printing anything off the net. Your vet has almost certainly heard of what you've read (remember, they probably hear about this stuff significantly sooner in most cases than you will. They are much closer to the source of the information). I know one of the vets at the clinic I'm volunteering at has a bit of a pet peeve about people who try to 'educate' her from information found on the internet. If you're interested in your vet's opinion on the matter, ask them. I wouldn't bother with supporting doccumentation, unless they ask for it. I imagine (but am not sure) that the two sides are essentially Evidence shows that the vaccines are effective for 3 years, or thereabouts. (actually I'd guess that the evidence shows that they are probably good for longer than that, but 3 years is to be on the safe side, but I haven't read the papers on it, so I don't know). Its then a safe thing to vaccinate every 3 years. The other side is probably a bit more complicated. 1. You most likely aren't doing any harm vaccinating more often than required. 2. You may be doing some good (obviously every dog is different, so the vaccines will be good for different amounts of time). 3. Some owners will probably not come in for an annual health check, unless they have shots due. Annual health checks are important. Therefore, by recommending vaccinating less often, your patients may actually on average be worse off. Another thing to bear in mind that certain regulations may apply if you plan on traveling with your dog (your vet will almost certainly have a good idea of what the rules are where you are, or at least who to ask, so if this is an issue, ask them) Anyways, just some random thoughts which may or may not represent the opinion of anyone... Dale > I'm wondering what the current vaccination schedule is for dogs. I'd > like up to take information with the most currently scientifically [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Thanks! :) I know one of the vets at the > clinic I'm volunteering at has a bit of a pet peeve about people who try to > 'educate' her from information found on the internet. .....Heh, considering the info I get off the net on this subject has been life long research for some people, my guess is they know the subject better than this vet. I don't go to vets who don't listen to reason. There's no reason to keep vaccinating your dog over and over once they've developed an immune response to a vaccine. Vaccination decisions should be individual decisions, depending on the health of the animal and the risks involved (presence of disease in local community, lifestyle, etc.). Do you get your childhood vaccines every 3 yrs? Doesn't work any differently in dogs. With rabies they plain don't care if the dog is immune for 3,7 10 yrs or forever, as it's a public health issue for people, so they figure they can do what they want with dogs. > Evidence shows that the vaccines are effective for 3 years, or thereabouts. > (actually I'd guess that the evidence shows that they are probably good for > longer than that, but 3 years is to be on the safe side, but I haven't read > the papers on it, so I don't know). Its then a safe thing to vaccinate every > 3 years. ........Vaccine companies have no reason on doG's green earth to run expensive tests to prove their vaccines last longer. After all they're selling vaccines and this is very expensive reasearch as it is long term. Schultz and Ford have been working on these issues their entire careers. The rabies lasts at least 7 yrs with direct challenge in the small number of dogs they worked with. Research is ongoing. Read the studies. .......The most important thing to consider is the health of your dog. If the dog has anything wrong with him at all, including problems with allergies, he might not mount a sufficient response to a vaccine. So don't vaccinate at that point because you're probably not going to get a good response. Vaccines don't run out on the date of that card you get from the vet. There's no reason to rush to get them by a certain date. > The other side is probably a bit more complicated. > 1. You most likely aren't doing any harm vaccinating more often than > required. .........This is a common fallacy, AFAIC. We have no idea if repeated unnnecesary vaccicnations do harm or not and there's some evidence that they do - autoimmune hemolytic anemia for one. > 2. You may be doing some good (obviously every dog is different, so the > vaccines will be good for different amounts of time). ........That depends on the dog's health, as I already mentioned. And I do not believe that confusing an immune system with repeated multivalent vaccines is a good thing. Especially if the immune system of the dog is niot competent to begin with. > 3. Some owners will probably not come in for an annual health check, unless > they have shots due. Annual health checks are important. Therefore, by > recommending vaccinating less often, your patients may actually on average > be worse off. ........Baloney. Do you go in for a yearly checkup? You should know that there are actually discussions on the net by vets about losing the yearly vaccine business. It hurts the pocketbook. And I don't mean to imply that vets are venal moneygrubbers, but financial reasons ARE a consideration. Too many times the actual physical exam lasts only minutes. The pity of it is that the most concerned pet owners are the ones bringing their animals in yearly for those unnecessary vaccines. Not the people whose dogs have never been to the vet. Giving my dog unnessary vaccines will not get those other dogs in to see the vet, nor will it make my dogs more immune. buglady take out the dog before replying > I know one of the vets at the >> clinic I'm volunteering at has a bit of a pet peeve about people who try [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > better > than this vet. They might, but the average person visiting the vet with some print out probably doesn't. If the person is well enough respected, chances are that information in some form or another has passed that vets desk at some time or another. I've never read the original research on the issue (if someone can point out the research articles, I'd love to read them. If I have a chance, I'll see if I can dig them out), but I can certainly imagine the research that would have to be conducted, and I can imagine what the results would say, and how they would on average be interpreted. (I'm assuming that some research has in fact been done). Take a set of dogs. Vaccinate them. Check their titres after a couple of weeks to get a baseline. Re-test titres yearly, and watch as they fall. At the point where x% of the original dogs have titres below a certain level, must revaccinate. This obviously begs the question, what x% is low enough? 5%? 10%? 1%? Obviously where you set this number is going to have a huge impact on where you set the number of years between vaccines. Obviously the safest place to put it as far as what the vaccines are trying to protect you against is 0%. Anything above that may be deemed an unacceptable risk (you'd be pretty pissed if your dog picked up distemper 2.5 years after being vaccinated against it, if your vet told you the vaccine would be good for 3 years!). Obviously with something like this, its normally safer to ere on the side of caution. >I don't go to vets who don't listen to reason. There's no > reason to keep vaccinating your dog over and over once they've developed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > your > childhood vaccines every 3 yrs? Some vaccines are due at various intervals throughout your life. Some of this is based on the bodie's abbility to handle the disease, and the chance of being exposed to it. I'm not a doctor, and I've never had kids, so I don't know all the details. I know tetanous is good for 10 years (just had my 10 year booster a few months ago). Your flu shot is only good for one year. >Doesn't work any differently in dogs. Can you prove that? What evidence do you have? I don't know the details of the doggy immune system, and how it reacts long term to vaccines. Presumably they are similar to some extent, but how similar? Without evidence/studies/etc, this statement is meaningless. I think you're probably right, but how do you *know* you're right? >With > rabies they plain don't care if the dog is immune for 3,7 10 yrs or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ........Vaccine companies have no reason on doG's green earth to run > expensive tests to prove their vaccines last longer. No, but fortunately other people/universities/vets do have reason. >After all they're > selling vaccines and this is very expensive reasearch as it is long term. > Schultz and Ford have been working on these issues their entire careers. > The rabies lasts at least 7 yrs with direct challenge in the small number > of > dogs they worked with. Research is ongoing. Read the studies. I intend to...eventually. I haven't had a chance yet, in the meantime, I plan on trusting my vet. But from what you've said, I can certainly understand why some vets might be skeptical of their results. How small is a "small number of dogs"? How much variation within their sample? > .......The most important thing to consider is the health of your dog. If > the dog has anything wrong with him at all, including problems with > allergies, he might not mount a sufficient response to a vaccine. So > don't > vaccinate at that point because you're probably not going to get a good > response. And if their is something wrong with the dog, that neither you, nor the vet has pinpointed? If you're only going to get one kick at the can here, you'd better be darn sure its going to take. >Vaccines don't run out on the date of that card you get from the > vet. There's no reason to rush to get them by a certain date. Nor does your milk immediately expire on the date on the carton, but it is going downhill by that point. >> The other side is probably a bit more complicated. >> 1. You most likely aren't doing any harm vaccinating more often than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they > do - autoimmune hemolytic anemia for one. In lack of long term, large studies, which side are you going to fall on? Personally I'm fine with vaccinating once every 3 years. But I'm trying to point out reasonable reasons why someone who has read all the same studies might come to different conclusions. The big question is, at what point does the risk outweigh the benefit? A rare condition, that may or may not be caused by the vaccine (how closely have these/can they be tied?) or protection against a highly contagious condition present in the population. Right now we are quite fortunate that a very high fraction of dogs are vaccinated, and we can protect them against these things. If you start pushing vaccinate once, and forget about it, how many people will go to not vaccinating at all? If the study wasn't large enough, and say 0.1% of dogs only keep their immunity for 2 years, then out of a million dogs, there are 1000 of them that are unprotected. How common is autoimmune hemolytic anemia? How much are the chances raised by repeated vaccinations? I've seen a dog with distemper, I've never seen a dog that I know of with autoimmune hemolytic annemia. >> 2. You may be doing some good (obviously every dog is different, so the >> vaccines will be good for different amounts of time). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vaccines is a good thing. Especially if the immune system of the dog is > niot competent to begin with. If the dog isn't healthy, then I'd say, no probably vaccinating again would be stupid, and probably irresponsible, given my knowledge of the circumstances. >> 3. Some owners will probably not come in for an annual health check, > unless [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ........Baloney. Do you go in for a yearly checkup? Honestly? No I don't. Should I? Probably. But I don't. I'm probably a lot more competant to determine if I'm well, than I am to determine if my dog is well. My dog sees the vet far more often than I see the doctor. > You should know that > there are actually discussions on the net by vets about losing the yearly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other > dogs in to see the vet, nor will it make my dogs more immune. I've been volunteering at a vet clinic for about 4 months now, so I feel somewhat competant to comment on this. I would estimate, that at least at the clinic I'm at (which adhears to a 3 year protocol), most appointments aren't annual checks, and most don't include vaccines. Most of the appointments are "My dog/cat isn't feeling well". The bread and butter of the practice, seems to be spay/neuters,ear infections and lumpectomys. I don't think the bottom line would be much different if they vaccinated every yearly check that came through the door. The biggest asset to the practice, is probably how much the clientelle trust them, and are loyal to them (many of them driving for 45+minutes to get to the office)which is something that is built up over many years of practice. Dale > I've never read the original research on the issue (if someone can point out > the research articles, I'd love to read them. ..........Just read the AAHA article, all the refs are at the end. but I can certainly imagine the research that would > have to be conducted, .........You can imagine all you want. Schultz actually directly challenged the dogs with the disease. http://www.ivis.org/advances/Infect_Dis_Carmichael/schultz/IVIS.pdf More at: http://www.ivis.org/advances/Infect_Dis_Carmichael/schultz/chapter_frm.asp?L A=1 This one you have to sign up to view. It's free and you don't have to be a vet. More on studies in UK: http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/154/15/457 Excellent discussion by Israeli Vet Assn: http://www.isrvma.org/article/59_3_1.htm >I know tetanous is good for 10 years (just had my 10 year booster a few months ago). .........Tetanus is not a communicable disease. >Your flu shot is only good for one year. .......The flu virus mutates every year and that's the reason for yearly shots. > Can you prove that? What evidence do you have? ...........Most mammals use the same system. A simple Google search gives you answers. Here's a good synopsis: http://ackcsc.org/articles/VaccineGuidelines.pdf ......Here's SAME immunology lectures delivered to med AND vet students: http://www-immuno.path.cam.ac.uk/~immuno/part1.html I don't know the details of > the doggy immune system, and how it reacts long term to vaccines. .........then do some reading please. >I haven't read the papers on it, .........then do some reading please. A rare condition, that may or may not be > caused by the vaccine .................Schultz and others have listed the concerns with adverse reactions in their PAPERS. Do some reading. Aren't you the guy who wants to go to vet school? At this point your mind should be like an open window. You ought to be amassing information and doing your own thinking, not defending what you imagine is status quo from volunteering at one clinic for 4 months. Links and excerpts from DVM mag discussing vax issues: http://www.britfeld.com/dvm.htm > Right now we are quite fortunate that a very high fraction of dogs are > vaccinated, .........How do you know that? I'm probably a lot > more competant to determine if I'm well, than I am to determine if my dog is > well. .........Most people who really pay attention to their dogs KNOW when they're not well. Even you mention that most come into the clinic because they're dogs are quite *right*. buglady take out the dog before replying > .................Schultz and others have listed the concerns with adverse > reactions in their PAPERS. Do some reading. Aren't you the guy who wants [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for > 4 months. I'm skeptical of everything, including the status quo. I demand evidence for everything, and I am amassing as much information as I can on everything. I happen to agree with my vet (and the 3 year protocols stated in the original post) from what I do know. I read everything I have the time to read, but classes, and work have to take priority over recreational learning. What I am trying to show, is that perfectly reasonable people can disagree over the interpretation of data, even if it is presented in a peer reviewed journal. Dale > .........You can imagine all you want. Schultz actually directly > challenged > the dogs with the disease. > http://www.ivis.org/advances/Infect_Dis_Carmichael/schultz/IVIS.pdf Just had a look through that article. I didn't read it in depth, but I'm a wee bit concerned about some of the figures presented, like 80% will acquire immunity after x vaccines, or 25% will not acquire immunity, and these are quoted relative to the minium vaccination protocol. Come on, do you really want to live with 1 in 5 odds? Frankly even 1 in 100 is too much for me. No numbers were presented for the >7 years efficacity, as far as how many dogs were tested, and how many actually got the disease (was it 0? that's what I interpreted here, but I'd like to see the raw data, if the author is happy with an 80% success rate, I imagine they would be prepared to say a vaccine is good for 7+ years if that were true for 98% of dogs studied) I want the raw data, or at least the statistical tests they did in order to make these recommendations. As you rightly pointed out, I should be doing my own thinking, and this paper doesn't give me the information I need to draw my own conclusions. > ...........Most mammals use the same system. A simple Google search gives > you answers. Here's a good synopsis: > http://ackcsc.org/articles/VaccineGuidelines.pdf > ......Here's SAME immunology lectures delivered to med AND vet students: > http://www-immuno.path.cam.ac.uk/~immuno/part1.html I have to admit, I haven't been able to go through this in any detail, considering its probably a 4 month course, you'll have to forgive me. The general aspects of immunology are probably pretty similar in most vertebrate species, let alone most mammals, but as they say, the devil is in the details. > I don't know the details of >> the doggy immune system, and how it reacts long term to vaccines. > .........then do some reading please. Believe me, I will, and I thank you for the links. >>I haven't read the papers on it, > .........then do some reading please. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to go to vet school? At this point your mind should be like an open > window. Just to add to what I said before... Everything I read ends up in my brain somewhere, and I do do quite a bit of reading (vaccination protocols just haven't been a major area of research for me yet), but *nothing* is accepted on faith alone. Everything has to be weighted, as far as source of the information, and how well is fits with other pieces of the puzzle already in place. Right now, my mind is fairly blank as far as immunology goes, so I have to make sure that my basic facts are accurate as far as they go. I *know* there is disagreement among various practices as far as vaccine protocols go. (acutally I think most practices around here go for a 3 year schedule). What I'm trying to understand, and believe that I do in fact understand, is *why* that disagreement exists. What in your mind, constitutes and acceptable percentage of 'unprotected' but vaccinated dogs for a vaccine program? Is 0% attainable? (I would guess that it isn't). Is an increase in that number acceptable (very marginally, I would say possibly)? What percentage of dogs develop adverse reactions after repeated vaccinations? These are very important questions, that I don't believe there are clear cut answers to (mostly the last question, due to difficult associated with tying a reaction to the vaccine). > You ought to be amassing information and doing your own thinking, not > defending what you imagine is status quo from volunteering at one clinic > for > 4 months. Actually I imagine the status quo, around here at least is the 3 year protocol. > Links and excerpts from DVM mag discussing vax issues: > http://www.britfeld.com/dvm.htm [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they're not well. Even you mention that most come into the clinic because > they're dogs are quite *right*. So are you saying the annual health checks are unnecessary? Dale No > numbers were presented for the >7 years efficacity, .........Go read the actual study of you want numbers. That paper was just a discussion of the issue. > So are you saying the annual health checks are unnecessary? .......That's up to the dog owner. I'm saying that annual vaccinations are unnecessary. buglady take out the dog before replying Thanks to both of you for the lively discussion! You made some great points and I think I understand the issue much clearer now. I'll be sure to mention the 3 year schedule to my vet (as they have been sending me vaccination reminders after only 1 year, which is a bit annoying to be honest...), but I won't act as though its just something I found in a quick Google search. I'm also someone who likes to read full studies, although my specialty isn't veterinary medicine. I'll attempt to convey this without sounding too arrogant! In the end though I'm going to go for 3 year vaccinations as I just adopted our chihuahua a year ago and we aren't sure of how old she is. She is probably about 10 and although she is in good health I don't want to push things, seeing as she doesn't spend time around other dogs! I really think it's wonderful that people do research on this topic as of course it is not in the best interests of the companies who manufacturer the vaccines to do so. It's heartening to see that this research is being done. It really is a huge paradigm shift if pets are to be given vaccines every 3 years now instead of every year and I'm surprised I haven't heard about this before via the news... Happy new year! I just adopted our chihuahua > a year ago and we aren't sure of how old she is. She is probably about > 10 and although she is in good health I don't want to push things, > seeing as she doesn't spend time around other dogs! ......Even walking around in the environment, dogs are continually challenged with diseases. If they have any kind of immunity at all to the diseases, this natural exposure can boost their immunity. And since your dog is 10 years old, I'd really read up on the necessity of giving more than 1 parvo or distemper vaccine for the rest of her life. These are diseases dogs are more susceptible to as puppies. I'd be especially careful with a toy like a Chi as sometimes they react to things a big dog doesn't. You'd really be better off with single vaccines a few weeks apart, especially if you've never had her vaccinated before and don't know how she'd react. It really is a huge paradigm shift if pets are > to be given vaccines every 3 years now instead of every year and I'm > surprised I haven't heard about this before via the news... ......Yeah, you'd think it was a secret! shhhhhhhhhh... Actually the point is that vax is a medical procedure like any other and the risk vs. benefit must be weighed for the necessity for each vaccine. For people hanging out in dog parks every day or going to shows all the time, a different vaccine schedule may be more appropriate. > Happy new year! ......same to you......and your pup of course! buglady take out the dog before replying |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.