Jump to content
BC Boards

vaccines


Guest borderkatahdin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest PrairieFire

Interesting that "science" is catching up with anecdotal evidence...

 

Wendy, Bill F. and I have "lectured" on these boards many times about vaccines and our, seemingly mutual, feelings that they are over used.

 

In Wisconsin, I'm lucky that the law requires rabies shots only every three years - so I can follow that recommendation...and I only do the others every couple/three years on my dogs as it is...

 

There is an excellent book that discusses some of these issues - and presents fairly good evidence about the cancer/seizure connection (esp. to rabies vacs) - "The Nature of Animal Healing" by a Dr. Goldstein...

 

Everytime this subject comes up, a fair amount of discourse is generated - often by people whose profiles indicate they are involved in the "animal health" industry...pretty much as pointed out in the article.

 

Vaccines as originally developed were wonderful things - and still are when used properly - but very little testing has been done on the continued use of them - ever wondered why a 2# pup gets the same amount of vaccine as a 150# Great Dane, for example?

 

Dr Jonas Salk - the discover of the wonderful Polio vaccine that saved so much heartbreak in the '50's has made public his beleif that EVERY SINGLE CASE of polio since 1982 has been the direct result of the VACCINE - not the disease...

 

There is a TON of information on vaccinations, human and animal, out there...it's fun to read up on it...

 

See you at the Labor Day trial?

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest borderkatahdin

Bill,

I signed up to go to Oak Ridge , much as I like those Wisconsin sheep and that awsome field. Maybe I will see you at Cold Comfort(another great trial) or Knox's.

If not, I am sure I will be back to Portage next year, and I also plan on hitting Bluegrass .

Going to the finals? I am not in it, but am planning on going to watch my friends run.

 

This vaccine info I also found interesting. Why do people get vaccines when they are young, then don't need them again, but dogs get them every year. Then if rabies can be given every three years, why not the other vaccinations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason a chihuahua gets the same amount of vaccine than a great dane gets is because at that volume at the the body level, it seems like a big difference and it is but at the cellular level there is no difference between both dogs cells sizes and amount of memory cells necessary to give protection produced by the immune system, so they need the same amount of vaccine.

It is scary to see some, even vets sometimes, give only partial doses and expect the animal to be fully immunized.

 

Yes, I still don't know how to write but hope that this explains it sufficiently.

 

[This message has been edited by Cholla1 (edited 08-01-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PrairieFire

Cholla -

 

Appreciate the info.

 

BUT - vaccines carry not only the viral agent, but also various chemicals used to inactivate the pathogens, plus the chemical vehicle used to carry the organism into the bloodstream, plus a colored dye agent - at minimum - and for those agents - Size DOES matter...

 

Also, many manufacturers, to ensure efficacy, have made vaccines up to TEN times more potent than what is needed to challenge the immune system.

 

Or should we say, OVERchallenge the immune systems of puppies and the ill and old?

 

The vets I know who have recieved rabies vaccinations for thier work regularly have blood titers done - and not a one has needed to repeat the vaccination in less than 5 years...

 

Hey Wendy - I heard that the boomers that got the smallpox vaccinations when children MIGHT need a booster if it cropped up again - but that was because we all got it 40 years ago...

 

More, and maybe boring info...

 

In 1997 the first Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics Symposium concluded that NO vaccination boosters should be given more often than every three years...Ronald D. Schulz (a prof at U of Wisc and an organizer of the event) wrote that "when there is no interference from maternal immunity, immunized puppies are protected for life, just as children are."

 

Vaccines work by "challenging" the immune system to generate it's own immunity - too much of a challenge or a challenge issued too often - can weaken the immune system...

 

By the way - I vaccinate. And everybody should.

 

But I do so in ways I have researched and discussed with my vet...and suggest everybody begin to research and not just accept the drug companies spiel.

 

And with older dogs, dogs that are "allergic" or have specific health (or behaviour) problems - FIND A VET THAT WILL DO BLOOD TITERS...before vaccinating...

 

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 08-01-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting..several years ago my dog vet sat me down and said that he feels that yearly vaccines are not only not needed but even perhaps harmful. He went on to say that if I felt more comfortable with yearly he would go with yearly. I followed his recommendations.

 

NOW on the other hand the horse vet wants to do vaccinations every six months..Since I do my own I stick with my own timetable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newer vaccines take into account any old problems with adjuvants and have the minimum possible added to them.

 

Titers have not been shown in any studies to be a reliable measure of protection in an exposure. People depending on them are looking at the wrong part of the immune system to tell them if they are protected.

If it was so easy, vaccine producers would not have to run exposure tests, just reading titers after a new vaccine trial would tell them if it is ok. They depend on them to tell them if it is doing something, not if it is really promoting the right protection.

Titers don't say that.

 

Once an organism has been vaccinated with the proper protocol for that vaccine, it is immune to any other vaccinations, even if given too early again. That immunity is what helps the body fight the specific infection and once the proper memory cells are circulating, any vaccine is a waste of money but not dangerous in itself. Many dogs come to shelters without any history and even if they were vaccinated a month ago, since it is not known, the shelter will revaccinate when adopted without any worry.

Vaccines don't "challenge or overchallenge" "the system", it doesn't work that way and that also is why this other statement is wrong "manufacturers use ten times more than is needed". They would be foolish to do so and even if they did it would not give any immune system any more protection.

There is a small window in which the amount is "right". Any under is not enough but any over would be wasted.

 

There are vaccine specific reactions that will make a dog/person sick but they are very, very rare for the millons of vaccines given.

 

Yes, most vaccines can be given less often and should, once enough research shows which ones we can skip altogether and how often any others may be needed, if every three years or five or whatever.

 

We need to give all this time and not be impatient. New stuff is coming out all the time about the immune system and some day it will be much simpler to be "right" when talking about this.

 

[This message has been edited by Cholla1 (edited 08-01-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PrairieFire

Cholla --

Interesting that you present the standpoint of the pharmaceutical industry and the traditional health industry - exactly as predicted...and literally pay no attention to the conclusions drawn by studies and symposiums - have you read Dr. Schulz' work? Or Jean Dodds? Or Dr. Goldstien? Or that of ANY non-traditonal vet?

 

Dr. Richard Pitcairn states: "If I may venture to make a prediction, it is that 50 or 100 years from now people will look back at the practice of introducing disease into people and animals for the purpose of preventing these same diseases as foolishness - a foolishness similar to bloodletting".

 

Infectious Canine Hepatitis simply doesn't exist anymore - why do combination vaccines STILL have it (the H in your DHPP vaccine)?

 

Dogs that are shown generally recive the following - IN THIER FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE - here's an actual example of a veterinarian recommended course for a show lab I know - 6 weeks, DHPP - another 2 weeks later - a third one month after that - a fourth one month after that - and, yes, a fifth one month after that - PLUS leptospirosis, rabies, bordetella, corona, Lyme and heartworm medication. More than 30 different, highly concentrated organisms...

 

This is supposedly because the dogs are introduced to other dogs at the shows (why don't the people attending the shows need this type of regimen?).

 

How many cases of distemper have you seen in the US? The vets at the U of MN say they had one in a dog from Puerto Rico...in 14 YEARS. Lesser incidences than smallpox - even considering that ALL smallpox instances have been CAUSED by the vaccine.

 

Coronavirus is mild condition best addressed with diet - in the VERY rare instance a dog contracts it. And the Vaccine is considered ineffective anyway.

 

And since MOST dogs in a lyme infested area acquire antibodies without ever exhibitng symptoms - and since in several anecdotal, yet beleiveable instances, the vaccine has (once again) CAUSED the disease...why vacinate?

 

Oh yes, because it is simple, easy, makes money, and avoids actually THINKING about the diseases...

 

As Jean Dodds, DVM, states "It's the vet's fault, really. We stopped practicing medicine and started pushing vaccines and pills."

 

"Vaccines don't "challenge or overchallenge" "the system", it doesn't work that way"

 

Why yes, it does.

 

The theory of vaccination is to introduce the organism into the patients body, hopefully stimulating (and challenging) the patient's immune system into developing natural antibodies.

 

If the immune system needs to work overtime in order to combat this introduced disease - what is it doing? Challenged (and in the actual case of the show lab I mentioned above), OVERchallenged.

 

Maternal immunity (as distributred to the pup) is compromised when external diseases are introduced - fact, read the studies.

 

Titering isn't taught in veterinary schools - because it is easier (and more more profitable) to simply vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate. If the animal gets sick, develops "sensitivity" or allergies, then the vaccine was "bad" or the condition was unrelated.

 

When naturally exposed to diseases, an animal does NOT contract it through the bloodstream as concentrated vaccines are given (with the exception of perhaps Rabies, and Lymes)...all are absorbed through saliva, oral, respiratory, etc. giving the mucous membranes, stomach acids, and the GI tract a chance to work - that is the way the "system" is designed to work.

 

Where in nature is an animal exposed, directly through it's bloodstream, to 7 or 8 diseases...? Yet we subject our pets to that shock with injected, polyvalent vaccines.

 

Think about getting vaccinated for chicken pox, polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, smallpox and influenza all at the same time - YEAR AFTER YEAR.

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The position of traditional medicine" is what has given us all the knowledge and advantages of a fairly healthy life today.

Are they things that could be improved?

Of course!

 

Traditional medicine, as much as you and others that like to fight windmills around it, as some of those people that you mention do (after all, not being in the mainstream does not make them any more reliable and "right" than being in it, I don't think you would like to argue that?) is and has always been about improving and advancing but with reason and proof, not just conjectures.

Cojectures is all those people you mention have and if you want to be a cynic you may say that commercial ventures are blinding knowledge in their favor but if you really examine those people they all also are a commercial venture of their own. They live and profit greatly from their controversial positions and those they help andvance with their as of now hard to prove theories.

 

There is always going to be those that are working in the mainstream and those that like to be fighting it with ideas that some may eventually work out but most won't.

You choose to believe those controversial people and that is your right but that really doesn't make them right.

 

Much of what you are saying can be refuted point by point.

The theories behind what you are saying are just not right and I am not an immunologist but have studied some under them, enough to say that if you did the same you would be a little more cautious on those statements you use as they just don't make sense with what we know today.

I don't know enough to tell you in detail why those statements you repeat are wrong just like you don't know why the people you quote think they are right but I know that they were brought up at our discussions (after all, all of us watch the same news and read the same articles so we have the same questions) and refuted soundly with what we know today.

 

This discussion with you is not about the science behind vaccines as it is about if to believe science and that comes under our different outlooks on life, something that will just not be resolved.

I see that you, as so many people in this country, have been changing more towards the less scientific method and more alternative views that don't need proofs, beliefs are enough if someone you trust said so.

 

That is why you start your post the way you do, as if "my views" (which I don't have, those are not "my views") were somehow part of any "goup" you may define as you do.

 

Attacking the messenger is really unneccessary here, you can go read what I refer to in any textbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PrairieFire

Ah Cholla - if you really believed in YOURSELF you would not be anonymous then, would you?

 

Whoever you are, I am an Engineer by training, and a Research and Development expert by vocation - I actually know a bit about the "science" you hold so dear...

 

I find it interesting that you quote nothing except an amorphous religious belief in traditional "science", and refute nothing except by your own "conjectures" that traditonal medicine(as expressed by large corporations) is right...

 

It is also extremely interesting to me that someone who has studied with "immunologists", has only a vague concept of the theory of vaccination...as you have so far expressed.

 

What textbooks are you referring to? The ones funded by pharmaceutical companies, sold to veterinary and medical schools funded by pharmaceutical companies, and "researched" by hacks whose salary is paid for by pharmaceutical companies?

 

There are of course many things to be discussed - and I go out of my way to dig up information - but the religious reverence for "traditional medicine" is not only misplaced, it is wrong - if you truly believe in "traditional medicine" then hasn't acupuncture, homeopathy, herbalism, etc. many, many, many, more years of "tradition" than your western simplistic beleif?

 

Western medicine ISN'T traditional - it is a veritable newcomer to the field of health - and so far, at least, has a good track record in some areas, and a track record that sucks in other areas.

 

The blind acceptance of ANY belief is stupid, and brands one as a fanatic.

 

And that is the problem with these types of discussion - "traditional" western medical-types simply don't want to be challenged - even by colleagues, but especially by those "under thier care"...the snooty doctor/professor syndrome became a cliche, like all cliches, through practical expereince.

 

"Cojectures is all those people you mention have"

 

Since Dr. Schultz is a well-respected - CONVENTIAL AND TRADITIONAL - Professor of Veterinary Science - I imagine the tenure commitee would be very interested in your "refutations"...

 

As for the rest of the licensed Doctors and DVM's, perhaps you could share your beleifs with the licensing committes of thier respective states?

 

Just because someone doesn't accept the "gospel canon", doesn't make them a heretic...unless you are part of the spanish inquistion.

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

 

I generally agree with you, but I have watched a dog die of distemper right here in good old New England. Some poor folks up the road had enough money to take a pup out of the pound, but not enough to keep up with its vaccinations.

 

Like you, I think there are far too many vaccines given, but I still think they have a place in a considered health care regime for dogs, people and other animals.

 

The problem is that most people don't stop and think about them. They do as they're told. I've listened as people in my vet's office were flabbergasted by the fact that he asks them what they want to do for a vaccine program and walks them through what's usually done and why, and the pros and cons of vaccines -- particularly Lyme disease vaccines.

 

I have one of the anecdotals dogs that developed some -- perhaps all -- of the immune-mediated symptoms of Lyme disease following seven years of annual vaccination. None of my dogs will ever get that vaccine again; however many of my dogs will probably be put on antibiotics needlessly because they will *always* test positive for Lyme disease because they have been exposed.

 

I'm not sure which I like better; but I know that in cases where Lyme disease becomes fatal, it's usually the immune-mediated responses (which lead to kidney failure) that do the killing. So for now, I'm choosing a different poison, I guess.

 

------------------

Bill Fosher

Surry, NH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always "obeyed" my doctors, and my vets. Then I hit menopause. I have been asymptomatic and at low risk of all the "evils" of just being me at my age.

 

But my doctors were determined that I should go on HRT. I refused. I may be short and of European heritage. But I am not small boned, I eat a reasonable diet, I exercise every day (bike 20 miles, run 4 miles, stairmaster 20 minutes and do 2 sets of 12 on the Cyex circuit....) in addition to waling Fergie several trips. And my female relatives have been totaly upright and without noticable bone loss into their 90s.I have been fighting HRT for about 5 years, because the "medical evidence" said it would save me from Alzheimers, heart attack, uterine cancer... in addition to osteroporosis.

 

Gee, the day I had my annual check-up this year was the day that UNC announced it was abruptly ending its tesing of HRT because the "solution" was causing more problems, specifically cardiovascular and cancer incidences, than the situation (menopause) that they were "curing". And my doctor had the gall to congratulate me on my not having "chosen" to use HRT!

 

So much for trusting the medical profession. Show me the proof. My comment was that, if HRT were so all-fired great, why were men not hte first to get it? They always get the best stuff first!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know who you are and you know, if you want to remember and by the combative tone of your post I think you do, who I am.

I don't wish you any ill and am not trying to go to war with you on this field of words where I am not good.

 

Your answering post makes my point for me, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nancy, I too am short, very short, 4'11'' and of european descent.

Which country? You can guess, by the end of the post of the fellow that I seem to be irritating and so disingenuously claims to have forgotten who I am. Or maybe that was merely a freudian slip?

 

HTR was never and all doctors should know this, meant to be used by the general population of women going thru normal menopause.

That it was so overprescribed was because most women demanded it and would go from doctor to doctor until they found one that would prescribe it and so the younger doctors came to practice assuming (they should not have!) that it was the way to handle any minor post menopausal complaints.

 

That your doctor insisted you start it without any symptoms and against your wishes makes me wonder about him.

Mine never even suggested it and probably would have not prescribed it if I had asked for it without any good reason.

 

Thus one more misunderstanding occurred and here doctors, that of course are not all guilty or blameless, get to be called to task.

That happens in all fields, even in engineering, a field that calls for much more measurable precision that can be expected of medicine with it's biological and so more fluid and changing subject.

Well, the engineer may object to this as those two are in some ways interacting fields and I will defer to his possible objection to it in advance.

 

There are things done by default or omission in all fields, sorry to say.

We hope little harm is done and all learn from it and correct for better results next time.

 

[This message has been edited by Cholla1 (edited 08-01-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you do not provide any information about yourself, i have to guess that you live somewhere far from me. I live in North Carolina's Reaserch Triangle.

 

Every woman my age that I have ever discussed this with - and through doctor's waiting rooms, work, church, volunteering, neighborhood, dogs... I have talked to a lot - has had exactly my experience. Old, young, male, female doctors all have insisted that we need to all be on HRT. I went to a huge program from Duke Hospital where an elderly doctor told us that all women should start HRT by age 35 - and that having had breast cancer was no contraindication because "we can always cure that."

 

I resent being told that something is prescribed because "you women insist on it". Back in 1973, when I seem to have had post partum depression and PMS, my doctor >b>made[/b] me go on valium. He offered no alternatives. He said, and I'm not making this up or exagerating, that I had no right to make my husband suffer because I didn't want to be drugged. About 12 to 18 months later, he had a big interview in the local paper about how women forced him to give them all these dangerous drugs because they refused to even consider any alternatives. I flushed the rest of those pills!

 

I do not believe in Better Living Through Chemistry. And I refuse to be blamed for what I have fought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PrairieFire

Good go, Nancy.

 

HRT is one of the major sins of the drug companies...ranks up there with thalidomide, phen-fen, the dalkon shield, and how many others?

 

Multi-million dollar ad campaigns, sending doctors on vacations thinly described as "conventions", thousands of free samples, and "women demanded it"...?

 

Like everything in life, we are responsible for ourselves - a 10 minute visit with an hmo doc, or your vet, and quickly prescribed pills or vaccine du jour simply is not the way to go.

 

One wonders why the "traditional medicine" folks object to us lowly patients becoming educated, eh?

 

We might then actually know more about our own personal health than the 10 minute quack...

 

Or actually wonder what the heck the "purple pill" continually advertised on tv is - and not just ask for it like the ad suggests...

 

Cholla, I haven't the faintest idea who you are, and since you aren't bothering to tell anybody, find it difficult to care.

 

Read the posts, you started with personal attacks and then get upset when I don't accept them...obviously upset that someone has different opinions than your religion.

 

Bill, as I mentioned, I vaccinate as well - and suggest others do - I just don't follow the regimen prescribed by the pharmaceutical companies - but one I have researched, thought about, and discussed with my own vets.

 

I vaccinate pups - but not starting at FOUR weeks as recommended by some vets - and I do continue with vaccinations throughout the life of the dog - at the three year recommendation by the "Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics Symposium" in 1997 - following the recommendations of a CONVENTIONAL and TRADITIONAL veterinary paper...just not one publicized by the pharmaceutical industry...

 

 

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 08-02-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the first time I have heard of any vet recommending vaccinating at four weeks.

 

The immune system is not developed enough yet and the factors in the mother's milk will annulate those vaccines before they can have any effect.

Around here our vets are fighting the farmers and other breeders that vaccinate their own dogs about not vaccinating at six!

They need to wait until seven for many reasons but since they are letting puppies go at six weeks they vaccinate then.

Why? Because around here parvo and distemper are still prevalent and they think better too early than never.

Many people are still not vaccinating at all.

Puppies are born to unspayed loose dogs and many die from many things before they are a few weeks old. A fellow had a lab litter and only two survived. Others "had something wrong with them, went out on the field and died".

I guess that if everybody quits vaccinating, maybe eventually only the strong will be left to reproduce.

 

Sorry to have offended you, Nancy, didn't intent to do so.

Guess that NC doctors are different that those here.

Good for you to stand up to those you have.

 

[This message has been edited by Cholla1 (edited 08-02-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PrairieFire

Cholla -

 

I certainly agree about the puppy age...

 

But many companion vets start this cycle - (adapted, by the way, from a puppy health record from Purina) -

 

worming: 2 weeks, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12

parvo: 5 weeks

combination (including coronavirus - and parvo again - but without lepto) - 6 and 9 weeks

Combination (with lepto and corona) and Lyme and Rabies - 12 & 15 weeks.

 

That isn't quite the same as the "show dog" recommendation I mentioned above - but still very much overkill according to the latest findings...in traditional Veterinary papers...

 

 

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend in Washington State that does not believe in vaccinations - maybe for puppies. But the climate in Spokane is different than Kansas City. It is very dry with low humidity. And the winters are long and very cold. Fleas aren't a problem and neither in heartworm.

 

We have very hot, humid weather. And often a lot of rain in the spring - really a lot of rain. Everything just gets saturated. We have a lot of parasite problems from heartworm to whip worm, hook worm, tape worm.

 

We also have problems with distemper going through the racoon population. That distemper is the same kind dogs get. Its bad enough that the racoons just wander around in the middle of the day - acting completely disoriented.

 

And there is still a lot of rabies out in the wild populations of foxes. One of my dogs got into it with a fox one time.

 

We have a huge wild animal population existing right in the middle of the city.

 

I get vaccinations every year for my dogs.

 

I am not willing to take the risk - not with all the exposure to so many things that we have in our environment.

 

I would think dog owners even further south would have the same problems.

 

------------------

Mary Hartman

Kansas City, MO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

""adapted, by the way, from a puppy health record from Purina"

 

Bill, that is what I object to, that we are taking things out of context here.

Why blame it on "Purina"? On principle? What do they have to do with any health records? They don't manufacture vaccines, so you can't say that they are selling the stuff and want to sell all they can.

 

Those recommendations were adopted by them from the research veterinary universities that had determined that schedule to be best, rightly or not, in those days.

 

I can't access that link that started this thread so I am writing blind here but your first post started with someting like:

"interesting that science is catching up with the anecdotal evidence"

That is what the scientific process is all about, really. Not anything to be ironic about.

Science studies what seems to be happening and what seems to change it and how, so it is expected to need some time to verify those observations.

 

That those first accepted observations were taking us into wrong paths in some cases is part of that too and they are being corrected now.

 

Many of the "natural" products that are so pushed today by all the marketing and publicity are now, since they are being used in sufficient numbers to have a statistical base for measuring, not all "passing".

Some are not effective, others don't have the same consistency and potency as formulated, others have been found to be harmful.

Those "natural" products that "have been used longer than today's science based medicine" are being studied more and so their claims not always accepted anymore.

 

There is a balance to anything in life and that is what I was trying to find here.

 

It is not on denying that vaccines are necessary, as I know as I was working with dogs in the mid 70's when Parvo first appeared as an endemic and highly infectious disease and it was scary before a vaccine came along.

I do have to admit that to vaccinate like we have done is also not the best and all that has been slowly changing for the last few years.

We just don't have a good answer to what is best, or at least less harmful for the benefits, yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I'm with Bill G. on this one. If it makes a difference, although I work as a writer, I was educated as a chemist and biologist. Two of my favorite college courses were virology and immunology, not that that really means anything because those fields have changed/grown tremendously since I was in school (e.g., hepatitis C was still called non-A non-B hepatits back then).

 

I have for the first time in my life taken a dog to a vet who practices alternative medicine. I am an acupuncture skeptic, but I have to say that acupuncture treatment left Boy more relaxed than I've ever seen a dog. Don't talk to me about homeopathy--I just can't get my brain around how that could possibly work. But if it works for other folks, fine.

 

So what do I do with my pets? They all got the recommended series of puppy shots (I assume, my latest dog is the only one I actually had as a puppy), and then went through two or three years of annual vaccines (this goes for my cats, too). Now they get vaccinated every three years, and I do the vaccinating myself, except for rabies vaccs because I want proof of vaccination (in the form of a tag and certificate) for all of them.

 

I once asked my vet why most vets didn't want to change from the yearly vaccination schedule. Her response was that encouraging folks to come in for yearly vaccines was the onlyway to get some owners to bring their pets in for health checkups. Of course, I don't take my pets in for annual health exams (but then they always have something going on, so they go to the vet much more often than annually anyway!). I think good, responsible owners are in tune with their pets anyway and will be the first to notice any signs that the animal's health status has changed. How many of you have taken an animal to the vet simply because there's been some sort of change, but you just can't quite put your finger on it? Those kinds of things might not get caught at an annual checkup anyway. (I'm not saying don't do annual checkups if that's your habit, but simply that I think in-tune pet owners knowwhen a health issue has cropped up, often in the very early stages, and so making them feel bad for not making annual visits to the vet is silly.)

 

The biggest aggravation I have is when I do need to take an animal and have it stay at the vet for whatever reason. They want to vaccinate for everything. So far, vets have been good about accepting my word that the dogs are UTD on all vaccines, but just the other day I had to leave four of my dogs off for a few hours because I had to be at work and it was too hot to keep the dogs in the van for those several hours (we were on our way to Richmond to see the alt. vet that afternoon plus take a lesson with someone who lives up that way). The vet clinic insisted that each dog have a bordetella vaccine. Had heat not been an issue, I most certainly would have said no thank you, I'll just not leave the dogs. The odd thing about this is that both Willow and Twist had stayed at this clinic on separate previous occasions (Willow for her broken leg, and Twist because she had to have mouth surgery), and no oneon the staff mentioned kennel cough vaccines then, so it's hard not to feel that sometimes the whole vaccine issue is simply a way to make more $$. (Boarding 4 dogs for 4 hours that day cost me over $100 after vaccines....).

 

I think the bottom line is do what you are most comfortable with. I am not comfortable with vaccinating my dogs (or cats) annually. I just don't think it's necessary. My dogs travel to lots of different places with me and are exposed to lots of other dogs. I really don't fear for their health becuase they are on a reduced vaccination schedule.

 

Cholla1, I do remember you being on here before as Cholla (I assume you're the same person), but I don't remember anything about you. Not that it really matters--just for the record....

 

J.

 

[This message has been edited by juliepoudrier (edited 08-02-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by juliepoudrier (edited 08-02-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Bill. We need to realize there is no definite research to prove yearly vaccinating is necessary. I do not vaccinate any dog over 8 years old. Except for the blasted rabies repuired by law.

 

Human research and testing will have more funds available than animal research. Here is an article in point.

http://www.garynull.com/Documents/Vaccines/VaccineScene.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. I too had immunology courses, more like chapters in a general book many years ago and three years ago took some at our local college and it seemed like a whole new subject to me.

It had changed so much (and I thought that I had bee keeping up!) and in the last three years it has even changed more.

Today it is a very intense field in itself and much is being understood in a new way practically every few months.

 

All that will take years to be brought to where it will impact the way we vaccinate, I think.

You check on the newer protocols and they are really saying that three years is safe, even in endemic areas as ours is too, for diseases like rabies, distemper etc.

Since yearly vaccines really should not hurt heathy adults any, our vet still goes ahead on them as, our animals are directly exposed to wildlife.

 

Some kennels ask for certain vaccinations to be current because of liability, so they can say that they did the best they could.

Same as vaccinating every year so the people come in to have their dog checked (our vet said that too).

Those are other reasons that purely medical.

 

P.S. Trailrider, that is an interesting article but like all those like that, in the fringes, it makes some good points but not followed logically:

 

---"The clear implication of this report, which in our experience is fairly representative of a haphazard pattern towards issues of safety throughout the vaccine field, is that adverse reactions to the vaccines may be occurring on a large scale without being recognized as to their true nature."---

 

Many of those paragraphs should end---"may be occurring on a large scale without being recognized as to their true nature"--- with the words..."or may not be anything harmful occurring at all".

 

[This message has been edited by Cholla1 (edited 08-02-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PrairieFire

"Why blame it on "Purina"?"

 

Because they are the ones printing and distributing the information - and if you don't think Purina doesn't have ties to the "animal health industry" then you better check your corporate records...

 

By the way, that recommendation is nearly identical to the one published by Drs. Fosters and Smith - a large mail order veterinary supply outfit...

 

I would be interested to know your ties to the animal health industry...

 

"You check on the newer protocols and they are really saying that three years is safe...Since yearly vaccines really should not hurt heathy adults any, our vet still goes ahead on them"

 

Huh?

 

Even assuming that there is NO evidence that vaccines can be harmful - which is simply a bad assumption - what possible use is it to IGNORE the latest protocols?

 

Just because? Or just because of money?

 

That's REALLY silly, and criminal in it's assumption that pet owners should happily pay for protocols that are outdated - just because...

 

 

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie wrote:

 

"Her (the vets) response was that encouraging folks to come in for yearly vaccines was the onlyway to get some owners to bring their pets in for health checkups."

 

My vet has recently switched to 3 yr intervals for vaccinations....and staggers the vaccinations so the dogs don't get more than one vaccination at year. This gets people in about every year. Also they won't dispense heartworm medication until the dog has had an annual health check. So there are other ways to get people to bring their pets in.

 

Elizabeth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...