2 rating(s)
Animal Crackers
 | See More Groups...
Loading...
Current Members: 31
Bookmark URL: http://my.billingsgazette.com/Groups/Animal_Crackers
Truth in Advertising: If Only the Truth Were Provided
Posted by: jn at 12:44PM MT on April 6, 2009
In February 2009, Dyne Immune LLC issued a press release boasting their new "Rabies RAPID Screen", claiming the test can detect the presence of rabies in animal saliva within 35 minutes.

Problem is, and it's two-fold, the product is neither approved by the USDA nor the FDA or FDA/CVM.  Nor is the test reliable in any way, shape or form.

In March 2009, the New York City Health Department in coordination with a zoological veterinarian, issued a warning letter to vets (pdf file) suggesting to avoid the test, noting the test is ineffective for diagnosing rabies and can lead to countless needless, unnecessary deaths of animals if the product is used, it is completely unreliable.  The NYC Health Department focuses on such a case where a healthy kitten had been unnecessarily euthanized due to gross negligence upon a false positive result using Dyne Immune's test.  A subsequent proper rabies laboratory test confirmed the kitten was NOT positive for rabies.

Unfortunately, Dyne Immune LLC got their hands into a lucrative advertising market and subsequently, has passed the dubious information into the media, which has led to hundreds of pet owner and pet health websites posting misinformed merits of the product when in fact, it appears the actual product is only in a testing phase.  Another problem is misinformed animal shelter staff assuming the validity of the product and potentially causing untold euthanasias of healthy, adoptable pets. 

Let's see what Dyne Immune posts on their website.  Not very informative at best, dangerous at worst:

"Rabies RAPID ™ Screen is a non-instrument based antibody test to be used on a live animal saliva sample. Easily portable and cost-efficient, the test can be taken into the field for on-the-spot analysis. Yet it is accurate enough be your first line of investigation inside the lab."

(Snippets from their FAQ's):

"What will my Rapid™ Screen results tell me?
Negative
A negative result does not guarantee that rabies is not present, so the test is not suitable for clinical diagnosis at this time."

"Positive
A positive result would be cause for alarm and signal the need for caution and further testing. Not suitable for use on humans."

(And, the disclaimer):

"DISCLAIMER: The Rabies Rapid screen is intended to be used on non-human mammals. A negative result does not guarantee that rabies is not present. The screen produces a positive result to killed rabies virus in non-human mammalian saliva, results are not quantitative. A positive result would signal the need for caution and further testing. Not suitable for screening the rabies virus in humans at this time".

Well, first, I think it's more productive for vets to buy a SNAP test that obtains results in as little as 10 minutes (most are), as opposed to 35 minutes.  This begs the question of validity simply due to a resting sample at 35 minutes and whether temperature may affect the sample. (most reliable SNAP tests in small animal veterinary use today can obtain results in 10 minutes, the preparation is fast, a resting sample is not usually at risk for temperature variations).

Next, if a negative result doesn't reflect any accuracy, why use it?

A positive would MOST CERTAINLY require additional testing, hopefully in the form of a more specific assay test (from an outside lab with knowledge and experience). But say we've already spent a lot of money on your fabulous tests, this is only increasing the cost to the veterinarian, the client, and the pet (in terms of monitoring, or quarantine).  Hopefully, vets and animal shelters have the common sense to avoid your test at all costs.

Perhaps even more alarming and incredulous is the fact that Dyne Immune provides no obvious information to studies, clinical research or clinical trials for the product.  There is of course a link to request more information, I assume should you inquire, you'll be sent to a page with limited and dubious studies, none verified by a peer review of course.  And they state the test can be used for domestic, wild and agriculture animals.  So assume for a moment, you're out there in the field, you don't have a lot of opportunity to re-test that same animal, nor do you have a pristine condition in which to test.  Absurd.

One dog owner with breed interests dug a little further and found some interesting information on the "doctors" creating the product.  According to his website, it appears he has uncovered a bit of a shady business and marketing practice history along with the "associates" involved with the product. (No surprise, especially the MLM history).

Buyer beware, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  If you come across this in articles on your favorite pet sites, please set the record straight to the webmasters of the sites. 



About This Blog
Because life ain't worth living without the dog who sniffs the guests and the cat who shreds the toiletpaper. All things fun and educational in the crazy world of pets.