# Why your vet really sends those vaccination notices to you



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I will be interested in what others have to say about this.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

I honestly am not a fan of this article. They take one quote from one study in JAVMA from 1995, which I am even struggling finding said study since it is so old... And it may even be out of context. Who knows if these numbers are actually true? If it is just one study.... is it applicable? What were the conditions of the study? Why are there no recent studies other than this one from 20 years ago? 
Titers are something that I certainly advocate doing if that is what someone is interested in doing, but no, I don't think that vaccines will last 15 years... 
We certainly are seeing more of certain diseases now-a-days in certain areas due to people not vaccinating their dogs at all. Such a touchy subject, and I think it will be difficult to find middle ground between veterinarians and people who are 'anti-vaccine.' 
Again, I am certainly one for minimizing the amount of vaccines given, but I do not think that this 'article' is something anyone should be abiding by...


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

It would be nice if the vaccination issue weren't so complex and uncertain. Yes veterinarians make money vaccinating dogs so there's a profit incentive. But it's my understanding that certain vaccines (I'm thinking particularly of Lepto and Bordetella) are only effective for a short period of time. In recent years rabies, distemper and parvo vaccines are recognized as having longer duration and aren't done by my vet every year.


----------



## Melfice (Aug 4, 2012)

My vet gives vaccinations every 3 years, and we have the option of testing their blood instead of more vaccinations in the future.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

For the record, I am "pro vaccine." I just don't want to over vaccinate. And let's face it, vaccines last longer than a year. My 5-year old has never had to have another vaccine so far because she has complete immunity, still. When and if she ever loses her immunity, I will revaccinate, but not until then.

And vaccinating when the dog shows immunity is, at best, a waste of money. The vaccine won't reproduce when the dog is immune, because the dog's immune system will simply kill the vaccine virus.

And it's not just one study, though that article focuses on that one by Dr. Schultz. And there is no greater authority on canine immunology than Ronald Schultz. But try this one: The report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003).

There's this one from 2010, which focuses on age-related immunity: http://www.2ndchance.info/parvo-Schultz2010.pdf

2006: http://www.belbergere.com/documents/vaccinations/vaccinedurationShultz.pdf

But what's telling is that there are _zero_ studies indicating that vaccinations need to be given annually because immunity lasts only that long. None. Not a single one.


----------



## Anon-2130948gsoni (Apr 12, 2014)

Is _anyone_ still advocating annual vaccines for the core DHLP diseases? I'm in a really remote rural area and I've been going to my vet for nearly ten years...she has never advocated annual boosters for distemper, parvo, etc., and is fully cooperative with whatever choices I make for my pets.

I'm not sure when vets became the enemy...


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

My 4 year old has high titers and has had no vaccines since her puppy shots. My vet is on board with this and does not recommend more vaccines.
My biggest issue with vaccines and immunity is that my State law wants rabies vaccines at 3 months and from what I understand with maternal immunity they may not have a sufficient vaccine response at this age. It does not make sense to me at all. I would rather wait another month and give the dog a better chance at actually having good protection.


----------



## Cpc1972 (Feb 23, 2015)

So would a puppy need parvo and distemper a year after puppy shots or would the puppy shots give them longer immunity.


----------



## rabernet (Feb 24, 2015)

I remember years ago, when I volunteered with Canine Assistants, the staff vet telling me that we are over-vaccinating our pets. I had told him about my cat that had to have a leg amputated with fibrosarcoma, and that's how the discussion started. 

My cats have always been indoor cats, and after that happened with him - none of my cats get vaccinated beyond their kitten series, with the full agreement from my vet on this protocol. 

Now with Noah, I have a very interesting relationship with his vet. He LOVES that I research information - when it agrees with him. He HATES when I research information and it doesn't agree with him, and gets very offended. I have to somewhat tread lightly with him. He LOVES that I'm slow growing Noah and delayed neutering (and maybe never neutering), he's not sold on my research about vaccinations. I just know I have to be Noah's advocate and push for what I believe are the right decisions for him.


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

No reason to do vaccines every year, old school thinking. When I adopted Fiona she had a DHLPP done every year. I kept up with a separate Lepto shot but the other part so unnecessary.

What bugs me the most is the rabies vaccine. We have a 3 year rule but some states still require it every year which is absurd.

Thankfully the Rabies challenge has changed things for some. For my state there is now a medical exemption thank god. They won't except a titer for rabies though. My vet thinks it easily last 5 years if not 7.

When my boy had to have a rabies shot required by law at 13 years old and went downhill after it made me mad  When Fiona is due for hers at 13 I'm blowing it off, screw the "law"

I would love to see a study of those that titer and found out the dog actually need "whatever" vaccine after 3 years. Probably be one in a million.


----------



## Coby Love (Apr 9, 2015)

*Found a holistic vet*

HI Everyone,

For the next puppy, I did some research in my area and found a holistic vet. Here is her protocol and I agree with it (although I have limited knowledge.) 

I think we are over vaccinating our children and even with my own son, I insisted his Ped (this was 16 years ago) give him the MMR separately and spaced over a month apart. I wondered with Coby, am I over vaccinating him too? But you know, you assume you can trust your vet but it seems like with everything else, the Mom has to be the advocate for everyone in her care. 

Anyway, here is the protocol of my soon to be new vet. Let me know what you think.

"For puppy shots, My recommendation is not to do anything until the puppies have had time to settle into the house for at least 2-3 weeks. The immune system is suppressed with all the stress of coming into a new home/ enviroment, etc. I give vaccines but have a very specific protocol. I give vaccines at 10 weeks and 16 weeks only. I only do one shot at a time every 2 weeks starting at 10 weeks( to make sure maternal antibodies will not actually cancel the vaccine), so it actually takes quite a commitment. I feel vaccinations have their place but are extremely overused. I do recommend them and I do size-appropriate dosing. I also put the puppies/dogs on an herbal formula to help the immune system and also have them detoxed with a homeopathic for vaccinosis. The vaccines I give are, Parvo, Distemper and Rabies- (as late as possible- sometimes 9mo - 1yr). If you want to take them out and about- also wait until the 2-3 week period is over and to places that have few dogs.

As for Neutering, I like to wait in females until after their 2 nd heat and males as long as possible"


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

This may be a stupid question,so forgive me, but if human vaccines, are not done yearly, why dogs?


----------



## Melfice (Aug 4, 2012)

goldensrbest said:


> This may be a stupid question,so forgive me, but if human vaccines, are not done yearly, why dogs?


Bingo!  

But don't give the doctors any ideas tho!


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Why is medicine and science the enemy anymore? I don't get it. Someone quotes an obscure study and all the sudden your conspiracy theories are found to be valid? I don't get it. 

I will continue to vaccinate my family, my pets, and myself. Double blind studies proven with large groups are the only way to really test. All too often obscure studies are proven to just be surveys of owners with a very small pool of pets. Not real studies at all. Why would you want to risk the health of your family and yourself? 

Yes big pharma makes money, so do I in my own business. As you all do in your own professions. I'm not a conspiracy theory person. Jonas Salk would be rolling in his grave right now if he found out they way we speak of vaccines these days.


----------



## rabernet (Feb 24, 2015)

goldensrbest said:


> This may be a stupid question,so forgive me, but if human vaccines, are not done yearly, why dogs?


That's what the vet at Canine Assistants said to me - he said if you think about it, humans don't have yearly boosters. Yearly boosters are pushed by vets to get their clients in to see them once a year.


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

goldensrbest said:


> This may be a stupid question,so forgive me, but if human vaccines, are not done yearly, why dogs?


I guess because dogs have big teeth and pose more of a liability of eating small children? :jester:

I dunno :gotme: Maybe Dr Oz has the answer LOL


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Because my vet makes money off of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals, he is able to keep his prices for services affordable. It's a trade-off.
He was one of the first (in my area) to advocate 3 year vaccinations. He doesn't vaccine geriatric dogs except for rabies, which is required by law.
He doesn't recommend neutering dogs under 18 months old, or spaying females before their first heat cycle.
They're not all greedy money grabbing cash suckers.


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

Alaska7133 said:


> Why is medicine and science the enemy anymore? I don't get it.


It isn't the enemy, more how the media plays it. Up to every individual to find the knowledge.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

It's not a stupid question at all, but the answer isn't as simple as it might seem. Humans are not dogs.
We live, on average, 7 times as long as they do.
They are now finding that the vaccinations that they *thought* were lifetime immunity, are not. This includes diptheria, whooping cough, chicken pox, measles, and certainly tetanus.
Most of those are now required to be boosted. 
A dog getting a shot every 3 years is somewhat similar to a human getting one every 21 years....in a manner of speaking....




goldensrbest said:


> This may be a stupid question,so forgive me, but if human vaccines, are not done yearly, why dogs?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

But the knowledge is hard to find. The internet has given birth to a plethora of experts in all fields, with no credentials to back up their claims. Yes, there are excellent, legitimate sources of great information on the internet, but there are also a lot of opinions that are published as scientific fact.



GoldenCamper said:


> It isn't the enemy, more how the media plays it. Up to every individual to find the knowledge.


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> But the knowledge is hard to find. The internet has given birth to a plethora of experts in all fields, with no credentials to back up their claims. Yes, there are excellent, legitimate sources of great information on the internet, but there are also a lot of opinions that are published as scientific fact.


I agree with the plethora of experts thing. Knowledge comes with the years, not the internet.

The internet for advice seeking folks is a double edged sword, what is one supposed to believe?


----------



## my4goldens (Jan 21, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> Because my vet makes money off of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals, he is able to keep his prices for services affordable. It's a trade-off.
> He was one of the first (in my area) to advocate 3 year vaccinations. He doesn't vaccine geriatric dogs except for rabies, which is required by law.
> He doesn't recommend neutering dogs under 18 months old, or spaying females before their first heat cycle.
> They're not all greedy money grabbing cash suckers.


My vet isn't a money grabbing cash sucker either. And he is very open minded too. He listened to me a few years ago about three year vaccinations, did the research and now that is part of his vaccination protocol. I love my vet. He saved Rusty's life when he bloated, operated on Libby twice, once for a growth on her leg and once to remove her spleen, grieved with me when Tess got sick and died and did the same for Rusty. I know there may be vets out there who aren't like yours and mine, I guess we both got lucky.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

I don't personally know a vet who still advocates vaccinating yearly for DHPP, either. You get the puppy series finished at around 16 weeks- then vaccinate at 1 year of age (I still recommend doing this, too, and then titering from there on out.) Beamer is still good from his 1 year booster of his Distemper/Parvo vaccination. Rabies, where legal, you vaccinate every 3 years after that initial 1 year vaccine, as well.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

hotel4dogs said:


> It's not a stupid question at all, but the answer isn't as simple as it might seem. Humans are not dogs.
> 
> We live, on average, 7 times as long as they do.
> 
> ...



I wonder how many people here realise that they need to get boosters for their whooping cough vaccines?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

It is still standard practice around here for annual vaccines for everything, including rabies. When people hear I don't give annual vaccines to my dogs, they think either I'm being an irresponsible owner, or I'm one of those nut job fanatics. It took me forever to convince vets to give me a 3 year rabies, even though it is allowed by law here.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I remember as a child, we would take my dog to the vets and they would say, okay this year he us due for this, next year he will be due for the other shot. I do not think they had multiple vaccines in one. I just found a vet that does titers, and will probably go in that direction.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I didn't know until my daughter got pregnant, and her OB/GYN told her that everyone who will have close contact with the baby needs to be sure they have been boosted.



Chritty said:


> I wonder how many people here realise that they need to get boosters for their whooping cough vaccines?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

DanaRuns said:


> Folks, there is absolutely zero need for you to vaccinate your dogs every year. And doing so could be harmful to them. So why do it?


Woah, woah, woah. This comment massively overstates the case. If there's one thing that all the research on duration shows, it's that different vaccines have different periods of effectiveness. Schultz's work is really interesting, and may indicate that yearly vaccinations are unnecessary for *certain* vaccines. But to say that there is _zero_ need for _any_ vaccine booster _ever_? That's just not demonstrated in the research at all (Schultz's and the rest).

3-year rabies is already the norm around here, which is great (and based on sound evidence). And heck, rabies shots may be good for a lot longer, but the risk of rabies is severe because of its high contagiousness and the fact that it's incurable, so it's incredibly important to make sure that your dog cannot be a vector under _any_ circumstances. I'd rather vaccinate my dog a little more often than necessary than risk even the tiniest gap in protection.

_Dogs Naturally_ tends to take a position on the risks of vaccines that vastly overestimates the dangers, btw. Most vaccine boosters are incredibly low-risk. So it's not like you're putting your dog in any danger by boosting a little more often than might be necessary, just to make sure the dog is covered.

Also, I have had vet friends say on several occasions that vaccination reminders help ensure not-so-responsible owners are coming in for a basic exam at least once a year. So it's not so much about cash as it is about making sure that those low-priority dogs get seen.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

tippykayak said:


> Woah, woah, woah. This comment massively overstates the case. If there's one thing that all the research on duration shows, it's that different vaccines have different periods of effectiveness. Schultz's work is really interesting, and may indicate that yearly vaccinations are unnecessary for *certain* vaccines. But to say that there is _zero_ need for _any_ vaccine booster _ever_? That's just not demonstrated in the research at all (Schultz's and the rest).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

My vet moved to 3-year rabies shots years ago. Every vaccine is talked about, nothing is forced (except parvo and distemper are strongly recommended). My vet recently suggested we do lepto because of where we train, but she said to me, "it's entirely up to you. Here's why I am recommending it. Do some research, and do what you're comfortable with." 

I don't believe my vet is the enemy. I don't believe she's in this just to make money. The lucky among us get to choose a profession we really love. I highly doubt anyone sits at age 18-19 and says, "hey... I could go to vet school for 4-8 years, run up tons of debt, work really hard studying, taking on difficult lab work, work with the animals I love... because I can SCREW my clients out of millions of dollars." 

Sorry. I don't buy it. I don't know when vets (and doctors, for that matter) became the enemy either.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> It is still standard practice around here for annual vaccines for everything, including rabies. When people hear I don't give annual vaccines to my dogs, they think either I'm being an irresponsible owner, or I'm one of those nut job fanatics. It took me forever to convince vets to give me a 3 year rabies, even though it is allowed by law here.


The 1 year & 3 year rabies vaccines are the same product. 
Just different states/municipal laws/requirements.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

In my state, the first Rabies shot your dog gets is for one year. A year later the Rabies shot is a three year shot and all that follow as required by State Law.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Because my vet makes money off of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals, he is able to keep his prices for services affordable. It's a trade-off...


Last I read the rabies vaccine markup was 2,400 - 6,200 % !!!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

T&T said:


> The 1 year & 3 year rabies vaccines are the same product.
> Just different states/municipal laws/requirements.


Yes, same product, but sometimes different labels. And different expiration dates on the certificate


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Setting aside the argument that vaccinations are not needed at all, veterinarians are running a business, of course they charge for their services! It sounds like people are expecting them to provide services and products for nothing or faulting them for charging. Why should they do that? They should receive payment for their work just like everyone else. Every single business in existence marks up their products from their cost, it's how they continue to stay in business.

I never understand why people are so convinced vets are scamming everyone and just in it for the money. I've never had that experience with veterinarians. All of the ones I've seen care very much about the welfare of the animal.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

mylissyk said:


> Setting aside the argument that vaccinations are not needed at all, veterinarians are running a business, of course they charge for their services! It sounds like people are expecting them to provide services and products for nothing or faulting them for charging. Why should they do that? They should receive payment for their work just like everyone else. Every single business in existence marks up their products from their cost, it's how they continue to stay in business.
> 
> I never understand why people are so convinced vets are scamming everyone and just in it for the money. I've never had that experience with veterinarians. All of the ones I've seen care very much about the welfare of the animal.


Very well said, all businesses regardless of what it is, is in business to make money. If they don't make a profit, they won't be in business for very long. 

If an individual is self employed, that is how they earn or make their living. 

If I were a licensed professional such as a Vet, Dr., nurse, any type of profession that requires an advanced degree which is extremely costly and requires several years of additional education, I would be very offended by someone saying I was only in it for the money. 

Most people do not pick a profession to go into to because they think they will make lots of money in it. They do so because they have an interest in that particular field and most often these type of fields provide a much needed service to others.


----------



## Cpc1972 (Feb 23, 2015)

Our vet does the three year rabies at their one year check. They only get the one year when they are four months.


----------



## Tennyson (Mar 26, 2011)

I'll never understand where a spice and herb newsletter would lead their faithful to believe that vets would purposely harm their clients for the sake of the almighty buck.
Deaglan's vet comes to the house, we discuss vaccinations and he gets what is necessary according to my state's laws. Far from being over doped up. Her fees are less then the surrounding clinics. She does his nails, anal glands and ears no charge. I purchase his heartworm and Nexgard from her also. I could save a few bucks and purchase it on line but I don't. All the cbc's and fecal test fees are reasonable.
She answers my calls, e-mails and writes letters from her letterhead all for no charge. Not too many other professions can say the same.
I want her to be financially sound. She deserves it. 
When she's ready to leave I always tell her and her vet tech to go up the road to the Italian restaurant and have lunch on my tab. Not to many other professionals I would do that for.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And I have no problem with that. My vet, who may mark up his vaccination 4000% (dunno, never asked him) also came to my house at NO CHARGE on his DAY OFF to put my dog down when I asked him to. He also answers emails and phone calls at NO CHARGE.
It's a trade off.



T&T said:


> Last I read the rabies vaccine markup was 2,400 - 6,200 % !!!


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

The difference between a profession and a business is how they bill. A profession only makes money when the vet works and is able to bill something. When the vet is sick or on vacation, there is no way to bill for the vet's time. But the overhead continues for the vet whether they are working or not. But a business continues whether the owners are working or not. Having a profession is a lot harder than most people realize. Making money is hard. Especially today for vets. College is more expensive than ever. Renting space, hiring staff, buying equipment and advertising goes up all the time.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

I too was thinking about the late night phone calls I've made to our vet free of charge with good medical advice given over the phone with no need to go to their offices and be charged


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

I guess perhaps the question may be why the majority of vets don't advocate titers vs vaccines? ...or at minimum offer the option.

Surely this would be both in the best health interest of the dog/cat and also provides a revenue stream for the veterinarian?

Does anyone know the answer to this? Is there a difference in the profit margins of titer vs booster vaccinations?


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

IMO, I don't think a Vet who does titers or is doing annual vaccinations is doing it based on profit margins. I think they do it based on the health and welfare of dogs.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> And I have no problem with that. My vet, who may mark up his vaccination 4000% (dunno, never asked him) also *came to my house at NO CHARGE on his DAY OFF to put my dog down when I asked him to. He also answers emails and phone calls at NO CHARGE.*
> It's a trade off.


That's one nice vet you have. I've delt with 4 different vets in the past 10 years & must say I absolutely adore 2 (out of 4). When it comes to vaccines the great majority are just following Big Pharma's recommendations. No different then our doctors (one perfect example is Pfizer controlling the cholesterol guidelines for the overprescribed lipitor drug)


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> IMO, I don't think a Vet who does titers or is doing annual vaccinations is doing it based on profit margins. I think they do it based on the health and welfare of dogs.


Yes, however why vaccinate if the dog or cat has immunity to what is being vaccinated for? Would due diligence not be to determine whether vaccination is required? ...or at minimum offer the client the option? 

Would another consideration for health and welfare not be whether vaccinating where immunity is present pose other health risks to the dog or cat? 

From the OP's original post/link:



> ...*Minimum Duration of Immunity for Canine Vaccines:*
> 
> Distemper- 7 years by challenge/15 years by serology
> Parvovirus – 7 years by challenge/ 7 years by serology
> ...


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> And I have no problem with that. My vet, who may mark up his vaccination 4000% (dunno, never asked him) also came to my house at NO CHARGE on his DAY OFF to put my dog down when I asked him to. He also answers emails and phone calls at NO CHARGE.
> It's a trade off.





Chritty said:


> I too was thinking about the late night phone calls I've made to our vet free of charge with good medical advice given over the phone with no need to go to their offices and be charged


I was thinking about this through the day yesterday, too. Remembering the hours I spent at my vet's the day Tesia died, with my vet and the techs coming in and crying with me, comforting me, then making sure I got home okay; the phone calls from both my vet and my vet who was on maternity leave at the end of Tesia's life and wasn't there that day - both of them called me in the days and even weeks after. They made no money for those calls - and I didn't even have a pet who was going to earn them any money in the future. They called because they cared and they were sad and they knew I was sad. I also have the email address of my vet, and she will reply any time, any day (weekends and holidays included) and gets no pay for that. 

No one will ever convince me they are doing this just for the money.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

A big part of the problem is that, for many of the viruses, no one is really certain what titers mean. For the most part, they just mean that the dog has been exposed to the virus. Dogs who have very low titers can still be immune, and dogs with high titers can sometimes still get the disease.
Challenge studies are frowned on in this country, because of the number of dogs who have to be *sacrificed* to do the study. By definition, all the study animals are killed.
If you look at the Rabies challenge study (which suddenly went silent) they have found to their dismay that the rabies vaccination does NOT offer lifetime immunity. This is from the study update page:
"...Our conclusion from studies with the initial rabies vaccine is that the immunity conferred by that product, and assessed by the in vitro RFFIT, was excellent for the first three years, but declined during the fourth year, and continued to drop during the fifth year. The second vaccine group, which is now three years from vaccination, will remain on study for at least two more years.
Principal Investigator, Dr. Ronald Schultz of the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, is preparing results of the study and details described above for scientific peer review and publication. That data will be made available to the public as soon as our paper has been accepted for publication. After completion of the peer-review process, it is our hope that this data will establish the world’s first canine rabies titer standard. If this data is further verified by challenge, it will provide a solid scientific base enabling states to incorporate titer clauses into their laws...."
Summary of The Rabies Challenge Fund Duration of Immunity Study - Rabies Challenge Fund
I believe they obtained 125 beagles to be killed (sacrificed) for this study, btw. 
There is a lot of literature about titers in the scientific community, too. Some are pretty useful, others not. It's why no legal entity will recognize a rabies titre in lieu of vaccination.



Yaichi's Mom said:


> I guess perhaps the question may be why the majority of vets don't advocate titers vs vaccines? ...or at minimum offer the option.
> 
> Surely this would be both in the best health interest of the dog/cat and also provides a revenue stream for the veterinarian?
> 
> Does anyone know the answer to this? Is there a difference in the profit margins of titer vs booster vaccinations?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Regular titers are a lot more expensive than vaccines, no? If a vet was in it for the money, wouldn't yearly titers be a better way to rake in cash than revaccinating?


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Rainheart said:


> I honestly am not a fan of this article. They take one quote from one study in JAVMA from 1995, which I am even struggling finding said study since it is so old... And it may even be out of context. Who knows if these numbers are actually true? If it is just one study.... is it applicable? What were the conditions of the study? Why are there no recent studies other than this one from 20 years ago?
> Titers are something that I certainly advocate doing if that is what someone is interested in doing, but no, I don't think that vaccines will last 15 years...
> We certainly are seeing more of certain diseases now-a-days in certain areas due to people not vaccinating their dogs at all. Such a touchy subject, and I think it will be difficult to find middle ground between veterinarians and people who are 'anti-vaccine.'
> Again, I am certainly one for minimizing the amount of vaccines given, but I do not think that this 'article' is something anyone should be abiding by...



Rainheart is currently attending Vet School, I happen to agree with what she has said above. This article is very outdated.

I had a discussion with my Vet recently about vaccinations, she told me that the clinic I go to has treated more cases of Parvo in the last year because people were not vaccinating their dogs for it. The cases they saw and treated were in dogs that were 2 years and up. 

Diseases in humans that were thought to have been eradicated are showing up again due to people choosing not to vaccinate their children. 

I think an individual has to choose what is best for their dog, find a Vet who shares your same view point about vaccination protocols.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

They killed 125 dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldensrbest said:


> They killed 125 dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That's what a challenge study means. They challenge the immunity by intentionally infecting the dogs with rabies. If the vaccine works, the dog doesn't get rabies. But the point of challenging is that you keep trying to infect the dog until you find out when the vaccine stopped working.

With a rabies study, that's a death sentence for the test animal.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Regular titers are a lot more expensive than vaccines, no? If a vet was in it for the money, wouldn't yearly titers be a better way to rake in cash than revaccinating?


Yes, here they most certainly are. That said, what we pay for either vaccines or titer testing is not what the vet pays or takes in related to profitability.....it is the margin of cost of either vs what the vet charges. 

There is a very large margin on vaccines. I don't know what a vet pays for sending out to a laboratory to titer test relative to cost to the patient. Some vets can now do titer testing in house as well. Again no idea what the actual cost is for that. Perhaps someone can chime in who does.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> Rainheart is currently attending Vet School, I happen to agree with what she has said above. This article is very outdated.
> 
> I had a discussion with my Vet recently about vaccinations, she told me that the clinic I go to has treated more cases of Parvo in the last year because people were not vaccinating their dogs for it. The cases they saw and treated were in dogs that were 2 years and up.
> 
> ...


I agree with you both.

Not vaccinating at all is irresponsible IMHO. I happen to be in the camp where vaccinating when not required ( when immunity is present) is the same...JMHO of course.

It is a very personal decision to choose what one feels is best for their dog. 

Personally I will titer test and only vaccinate when indicated where immunity is compromised. I have made this decision after doing a lot of reading, weighing the pros and cons. Due to the high incidence of cancer in GRs I am trying to avoid any and all unnecessary toxins for Brisby after loosing my Yaichi to hemangio and following typical veterinary protocol.

I am NOT saying that Yaichi was stricken by cancer because of the above, however if there is any or a slight chance there was some relationship, I am trying to do what I feel is best for Brisby as I am sure all of you will do for your fur babies. 

I will happily pay whatever it costs for the titers regardless of cost or what the vet profits from by doing so. For me, it's not about the $$...it's all about doing what I feel is best for my girl to keep her happy and healthy for as long as possible.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

What 'serious risk' is Dr. Schultz referring to when dogs get revaccinated yearly? Vaccine reactions? Which are usually very mild, from what I've seen.
Again, I don't know any veterinary clinic that isn't vaccinating DHPP every 3 years now, which is the standard protocol. 
Titers are much much more expensive (when I left my clinic to come to school a few years ago, it was about $120 client cost (which I'm sure has gone up since then). Rarely did we run them. 
As Hotel4dogs has said, it is difficult to tell what exactly the titers mean- are they protective? Yes, it does say that their antibody levels are adequate, but does that mean protective? We may not know... that is the struggle with titers. But, if someone really doesn't want to revaccinate, it is something (and I will say, it is what I do on my golden boy right now and will do with Fenway after he has his year booster). We definitely are still keeping up on Rabies (I would never, ever, ever titer Rabies under any circumstances per the owners request for this. This is required BY LAW. Only under very special and rare circumstances where a dog has such a severe reaction to the vaccine). 
My boys also get Lepto and Bordatella yearly at this point just due to their lifestyle. No Lyme since we aren't currently living in an endemic area. Some say I'm vaccinating too much, what do you all think? I think it is a good balance, IMO. And that is what you need to discuss with your veterinarian- what is your dog at risk for... etc. 
I am very interested to see what the GRLS findings will be in regards to all aspects, especially vaccines and nutrition. This will be many years down the line, but I hope they turn up some good study information for us.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Rainheart said:


> What 'serious risk' is Dr. Schultz referring to when dogs get revaccinated yearly? Vaccine reactions? Which are usually very mild, from what I've seen.


Vaccine reactions are rare and/or mild, but for whatever reason, vaccines are being blamed by the pseudoscience peddlers for everything from developmental disorders to cancer....as if we aren't exposed all day every day to foreign proteins.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Vaccine reactions are rare and/or mild, but for whatever reason, vaccines are being blamed by the pseudoscience peddlers for everything from developmental disorders to cancer....is if we aren't exposed all day every day to foreign proteins.


I want to see where these studies are (again, this is one of the hopes that the GRLS may show that vaccines, etc don't cancer).


----------



## GoldenCamper (Dec 21, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> That's what a challenge study means. They challenge the vaccine by intentionally infecting the dogs with rabies. If the vaccine works, the dog doesn't get rabies. But the point of challenging is that you keep trying to infect the dog until you find out when the vaccine stopped working.
> 
> With a rabies study, that's a death sentence for the test animal.


Thanks Brian, and Barb also. I had not realized this. I thought they were just doing titers on dogs, not killing them 

I feel about 3 inches tall not having looked into it more. Thank you both for the education.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> That's what a challenge study means. They challenge the vaccine by intentionally infecting the dogs with rabies. If the vaccine works, the dog doesn't get rabies. But the point of challenging is that you keep trying to infect the dog until you find out when the vaccine stopped working.
> 
> With a rabies study, that's a death sentence for the test animal.


I am shocked, I had no idea!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Rainheart said:


> I want to see where these studies are (again, this is one of the hopes that the GRLS may show that vaccines, etc don't cancer).


They don't exist. The vaccine/toxins/cancer pseudoscience comes from what is essentially a religious belief: natural—whatever that means—is better and the things that are wrong with our health come from our artificial lifestyles. Then, the person who believes that article of faith goes and finds anything that seems like a plausible connection and offers it up as evidence. There's no science involved at all, no studies.

Here's what vaccine safety science looks like. It's the American Academy of Pediatrics' list of vaccine safety studies, overwhelmingly disproving the common myths about the health effects of vaccines (mostly autism, since that's the biggest and most damaging myth, but also studies on immunological problems, metabolic problems, seizures, etc.).


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

> They don't exist. The vaccine/toxins/cancer pseudoscience comes from what is essentially a religious belief: natural—whatever that means—is better and the things that are wrong with our health come from our artificial lifestyles. Then, the person who believes that article of faith goes and finds anything that seems like a plausible connection and offers it up as evidence. There's no science involved at all, no studies.
> 
> Here's what vaccine safety science looks like. It's the American Academy of Pediatrics' list of vaccine safety studies, overwhelmingly disproving the common myths about the health effects of vaccines (mostly autism, since that's the biggest and most damaging myth, but also studies on immunological problems, metabolic problems, seizures, etc.)*.*


Exactly! Kind of reminds me of the how the autism and vaccine link got WAY out of hand and still is to a point today... Things get blown WAY out of proportion.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

It is amazing how many people know more than the experts.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

There are many articles for those wishing a ubiquitous view and consideration on this topic. Here is just one.

As has been stated earlier in this thread, we all love and want the best for our dogs and cats. It is only through sharing information, learning and discussion without judgement that we can come to the best decisions for our beloved fur babies.

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

Science of Vaccine Damage​ 
_by Catherine O'Driscoll 
(posted with permission) _​ 
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence. 
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen. 


This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism. 


The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells. 


Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage, bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions. 


The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997 study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines). 


Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vaccinating until
we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die." 


In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the "oops" list. 


But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human cancer sites. 


It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting, usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA). Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets die of AIHA. 

*A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases*


We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by research in the human field. 


The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following vaccination.(7) 


Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8) There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections". 


When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period. 
I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death. 
Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. 



Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves: 
"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed." ​ 
I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed. 


Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should. 

*Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response*


The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation". It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination". This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. 



This may be apparently temporary or it may be longstanding. 


Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. 



They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered. 


There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are "people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such as allergies and other
inflammatory conditions. 


Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault from modified live-virus vaccines. 


Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very disease it was intending to prevent. 


Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where the body attacks its own cells. 


A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith, explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to their patients: 


Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV vaccines..." (9) 


Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by the vaccine." (10) 


Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of dogs and cats in America today."


Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more harm than they provide benefits." (12)


Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component), epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small animals." (13) 

*A Theory on Inflammation*


Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer. For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable. 


Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS. 


Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill, the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal. He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen. 


"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this is not the case. 


"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14) 


If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign. Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth. 


If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were. They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. 



Worse, we animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to unwittingly betray our loved ones. 


Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and, in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place. 

*The Final Insult*


All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however, vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring the following facts. 


Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced. 


Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia. 


In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19) 
Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily. 


The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is healthy and long-lived dogs. 


It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond. 
_*About the Author:*_
_Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in NEXUS 4/04). 
She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine health around the world. _
_For more information, contact Catherine O'Driscoll at Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email [email protected] , website Canine Health Concern - Putting your dog’s health first.
Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, and worldwide from Dogwise at Dog Books, Dog Training Books, Dog eBooks, DVDs, Audio CDs, and Dog Toys â€“ Dogwise.com. _​ *Endnotes*
1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg/haywardstudyonvaccines.html.
 2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm. 
3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp. 
4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.
5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.
6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.
7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.
8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.
9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at critterchat.netÂ -Â critterchat Resources and Information.. 
10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.
11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.
12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit. 
13. ibid.
14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at Journal of Inflammation content/1/1/3.
15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002,
http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm. 
16. ibid.
17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.
18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).
19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.


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


http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html


​


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

I am extremely frustrated when I read an article that a journalist wrote regarding studies. The journalist reads the study, then interprets the information and writes the article. The journalist normally footnotes various locations for those studies to be found. Here's my trouble with the above article. It's based on a study completed at Purdue University. Personally I like to read the study, not the journalist interpretation of it. So I went on a hunt to find this study. I was UNABLE to find it based on the two footnotes listed in the article. So I searched on google by the name of the study and the university. I was UNABLE to again find this study. I found lots of people interpreting the study, but not the actual study itself. So if anyone could find the study itself, could you post a link to the study, not another journalist opinion of the study? Thank you


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

Very often these articles that are against vaccinations are very skewed by bias (and yes, same goes for those that are very much for vaccines, too!). Which is why it is ALWAYS important to go back to the original studies and look at them. I also tried to search for said articles and couldn't find them, Alaska. Super frustrating because you have no idea the context of where they are taking the information from.


----------



## ckshin05 (May 6, 2012)

I vaccinate my girl every year because well I know the importance of vaccination. In Austin there was a dog at a famous park that was put down even though it didn't show any signs of rabies. The dog had it. This dog was a family pet. It did spread the virus.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> There are many articles for those wishing a ubiquitous view and consideration on this topic. Here is just one.


Researching who Catherine O'Driscoll is reveals that she believes in "Energy Healing" and homeopathy amongst other things. 

As homeopathy has absolutely nothing to do with science, medicine or evidence forgive me if I do not pay attention to what she writes


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Rainheart said:


> Again, I don't know any veterinary clinic that isn't vaccinating DHPP every 3 years now, which is the standard protocol.


I think annual vaccination is more common than you realize. I believe it is a geographical thing. Down here annual vaccination is the standard. If you go to big cities (like Houston), then you see the 3 year recommendations. 

I get grief because I refuse to do annual vaccinations. I talked to an owner of a boarding place once about bringing a dog there for the weekend. Turned out that because all the vets here go by an annual protocol, dogs who didn't get annual vaccines couldn't board because they were shown to be out of date according to their vet. 

I had to contact local media and make a stink because no vet in the area (and we have a lot of vets) would go with a 3 year rabies plan. It was ridiculous the amount of time I spent on the phone and driving around talking to vets, animal control, police jury, and it took me months to finally get it done.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> There are many articles for those wishing a ubiquitous view and consideration on this topic. Here is just one.


This is one of the least literate, most cherry-picked articles I have ever read, written by one of the least qualified people ever to pretend to be a scientist. This is the Jenny McCarthy of veterinary medicine. Ubiquitous? Try biased and insane. Amazing how the people with no credentials whatsoever are somehow able to come to the opposite conclusions compared to what actual professionals think. Like others who have complained, I note that the sources I was able to isolate do not support the conclusions drawn by the author, and some sources cannot be found at all.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> I think annual vaccination is more common than you realize. I believe it is a geographical thing. Down here annual vaccination is the standard. If you go to big cities (like Houston), then you see the 3 year recommendations.
> 
> I get grief because I refuse to do annual vaccinations. I talked to an owner of a boarding place once about bringing a dog there for the weekend. Turned out that because all the vets here go by an annual protocol, dogs who didn't get annual vaccines couldn't board because they were shown to be out of date according to their vet.
> 
> I had to contact local media and make a stink because no vet in the area (and we have a lot of vets) would go with a 3 year rabies plan. It was ridiculous the amount of time I spent on the phone and driving around talking to vets, animal control, police jury, and it took me months to finally get it done.


These are the standards that I know my clinic followed and went by. This is from 2011. Might be a more updated copy around somewhere, not sure, but this will work for purposes here. https://www.aaha.org/public_documents/professional/guidelines/caninevaccineguidelines.pdf

What is the state law regarding Rabies vaccine in your state? I know most states have gone to a 3 year rabies plan after that initial 1 year rabies was given... but it honestly depends on the law. Even if they are the same vaccine (which, they are). Up until a few years ago, West Virginia was on a strange 2 year Rabies vaccine schedule while Virginia was on 3. Being close to the border, we had to be very careful of what dogs we vaccinated (ie, those who lived in WV) got a tag from the clinic and we had to change the date in the computer to notify them in two years instead of 3.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

ckshin05 said:


> I vaccinate my girl every year because well I know the importance of vaccination.


Hopefully you give each type of vaccine weeks apart and not at the same vet visit. Doing so, IMO, could really suppress a dogs's immune system. Plus, if your dog would have a reaction, you wouldn't know which vaccine caused it.

When grooming customers bring in their dogs' shot records at my store, I cringe at some of them. Seeing how many vaccines were given at one time makes me wonder about the competency of their vet.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Rainheart said:


> What is the state law regarding Rabies vaccine in your state?


State law is 3 years, but they try to keep that fact hush. Everybody I talked to kept blaming everyone else for why they wouldn't allow the 3 year rabies vaccine even when I pulled up a copy of the law. This is in southwest Louisiana. In talking to friends in Southeast Texas they have run into similar problems. In this area it is just assumed that dogs are supposed to get vaccines every year because that is what all the vets say. It is very frustrating. You should see the look I get when I tell other pet owners here that my dogs only get vaccines every three years. Good dutiful pet owners are supposed to bring their dogs in every year to get all vaccines in one visit.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

*Dr. Karen Becker and Dr. Ronald Schultz on Pet Vaccines
*





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Xd5ghnlJ4


----------



## rabernet (Feb 24, 2015)

OK - I am just a pet owner who struggles to make sure I'm being the best advocate that I can for my animals. 

In my own reading about vaccines, before this thread ever was started, I had bookmarked this site - and wondered what some of your thoughs were on the legitimacy of this organization and their recommendations? 

http://www.wsava.org/guidelines/vaccination-guidelines

And this was another discussion from almost 6 years ago here on the forum, that I had also bookmarked: 

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com...w-jean-dodds-latest-vaccination-schedule.html


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Rainheart said:


> I want to see where these studies are (again, this is one of the hopes that the GRLS may show that vaccines, etc don't cancer).


Maybe there is a lot that we just don't know. We do know that vaccines can cause sarcomas in cats so it is a leap of faith to state that there is no harm done in over vaccinating. 
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/Pages/rbbroch.aspx

There may not be studies done that show harm in dogs at this point but that does not preclude more information becoming available as time goes on.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> Dr. Karen Becker and Dr. Ronald Schultz on Pet Vaccines



Again more homeopathy. I'm sorry but I will not take medical advice from people who believe that homeopathy is medicine despite all the evidence.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

rabernet said:


> OK - I am just a pet owner who struggles to make sure I'm being the best advocate that I can for my animals.
> 
> In my own reading about vaccines, before this thread ever was started, I had bookmarked this site - and wondered what some of your thoughs were on the legitimacy of this organization and their recommendations?
> 
> ...


Thank you for the links. There is some very good information in both IMHO.

I don't know of anyone who has more expertise in veterinary immunology than Dr Ronald Schultz as he is quoted in both, however if there are others, I would like to read what their findings are.

There is a dead link in the second link you shared...I have found a replacement live link:


*http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/images/Duration_of_Immunity_Schultz.pdf*
http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/images/Duration_of_Immunity_Schultz.pdf [/B


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

TrailDogs said:


> Maybe there is a lot that we just don't know. We do know that vaccines can cause sarcomas in cats so it is a leap of faith to state that there is no harm done in over vaccinating.
> https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/Pages/rbbroch.aspx
> 
> There may not be studies done that show harm in dogs at this point but that does not preclude more information becoming available as time goes on.


I would suspect it's probably not just cats and I say this from personal experience. 

I had my beloved Yaichi re-vaccinated at the age of 9....regular veterinary protocol. Shortly there after, she developed a lump/tumor at the injection site. The lump/tumor when it grew to the size of half a golf ball was aspirated and diagnosed as a lipoma ( fatty tumor). My vet said it was common, nothing to worry about. Removal was not recommended as I was advised that these types of tumors reoccur at the same site therefore there was really no point. in 3 years, the tumor grew to the size of about a 3-4 lb roast. Again the vet said, nothing to worry about as it was not impeding her mobility, nor was it in an area where it was being abraded, infected etc ( outer rear hip/leg area). I blame myself for blind faith in my veterinarian and not insisting that the tumor be re-tested. 

At age 12 and a few days after she collapsed, this "lipoma" burst and was leaking blood, gelatinous material etc. To make a very long story short, I suspect Yaichi had hemangio, however I also believe this lipoma had turned cancerous as well, or had been cancerous for quite a while and my vet kept relying on the results of the initial aspiration, did not bother to recheck it and I went on blind faith in what I was advised by her.

*I have no proof* that this tumor was caused by the last vaccine at the injection site, however it started growing at the exact spot about 2 weeks after the vaccination...at first just like a small pea. I am convinced that the vaccine was the catalyst...and yes, I could be wrong.

Needless to say, we no longer see the same veterinarian. 

I just wanted to post this to share with all of you and also to let you know why I am so passionate about this topic after loosing my girl to what may have been vaccine stimulated


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

Chritty said:


> Again more homeopathy. I'm sorry but I will not take medical advice from people who believe that homeopathy is medicine despite all the evidence.


Homeopathy?

Ronald D Schultz | University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine

DVM - Dr. Karen Becker


----------



## rabernet (Feb 24, 2015)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> I would suspect it's probably not just cats and I say this from personal experience.
> 
> I had my beloved Yaichi re-vaccinated at the age of 9....regular veterinary protocol. Shortly there after, she developed a lump/tumor at the injection site. The lump/tumor when it grew to the size of half a golf ball was aspirated and diagnosed as a lipoma ( fatty tumor). My vet said it was common, nothing to worry about. Removal was not recommended as I was advised that these types of tumors reoccur at the same site therefore there was really no point. in 3 years, the tumor grew to the size of about a 3-4 lb roast. Again the vet said, nothing to worry about as it was not impeding her mobility, nor was it in an area where it was being abraded, infected etc ( outer rear hip/leg area). I blame myself for blind faith in my veterinarian and not insisting that the tumor be re-tested.
> 
> ...


I'm so sorry for your loss of Yaichi! I am fully aware that it is believed that vaccinations cause sarcomas in cats - I had one that developed fibro sarcoma, and that's when I first learned that vaccines could be the cause, and why now, at least with my cats, I am very vehement about kitten series of shots, and nothing after that (indoor cats only). 

It makes it very difficult for the lay person to work through what is the best decision for one's own animals. Until you've gone through a vaccine related sarcoma yourself, it's easy to sit back and say that vaccines cause no harm. 

I don't profess to be an expert in anything medically related to my pets, I just try to do the best I can, gleaning the information that I can from these forums and other sources and hope I come to the right conclusion for MY pets.


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

Okay, reading through most of the posts. I am all for vaccinating and my vet does not do titers - not all vets do. Also, our area is still one of those that does advocate yearly vaccinations and we have the choice between 1 year and 3 year rabies vaccination. And no, the 3 year is not the same as the 1 year vaccine anymore - it used to be. I do vaccinate against rabies every 3 years since our state law finally changed.
I worked as a LVT for many years.... reminders are sent out for client compliance for the welfare of the animal. 
Truthfully, it usually is not the vets that are the money grabbers - that falls to the veterinary clinic/hospital managers. Most I met are not even veterinarians, they are hired by the vets to handle the monetary aspect of the practice. 
Most veterinarians are actually really reasonable people.

I really don't buy into vaccinations cause so much cancer and bla bla bla. Yes, fibrosarcoma in cats can happen at the injection sites but I certainly don't believe that every cat gets fibrosarcoma by being vaccinated or that other cancers are caused by vaccinations. 
I live out in the sticks, I have lots of wildlife around me and lots of unvaccinated cats and dogs that are allowed to roam and multiply by their dumb owners. 
I make darn sure my dogs are protected and get vaccinated and I don't really care what anybody else thinks or does.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And that's exactly why challenge studies are so unpopular. People want positive proof of the exact immunity offered by vaccinations, yet are unwilling to accept the tests that are necessary to provide that proof :doh: .



tippykayak said:


> That's what a challenge study means. They challenge the immunity by intentionally infecting the dogs with rabies. If the vaccine works, the dog doesn't get rabies. But the point of challenging is that you keep trying to infect the dog until you find out when the vaccine stopped working.
> 
> With a rabies study, that's a death sentence for the test animal.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

IMO, the bottom line is we all have to do whatever we think is best for our own animals, hopefully while working with a very trusted veterinarian. Then when we do lose them, at whatever age, and from whatever cause, we will always suffer grief but not guilt. We will know we did the best we could, given the information we had at the time. 
When things don't go right for me (in many different areas) I always ask myself, "given the exact same information, would I have made the exact same decision?" If the answer is yes, even if it turned out to be the wrong decision, I don't beat myself up over it. I made the best decision I could have with the information I had available.
But we also have to all be careful to be sure that the information we have comes from the best sources possible, not just internet rumor. What we determine to be the best sources depends on our personal beliefs and frame of reference.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

rabernet said:


> I'm so sorry for your loss of Yaichi! I am fully aware that it is believed that vaccinations cause sarcomas in cats - I had one that developed fibro sarcoma, and that's when I first learned that vaccines could be the cause, and why now, at least with my cats, I am very vehement about kitten series of shots, and nothing after that (indoor cats only).
> 
> It makes it very difficult for the lay person to work through what is the best decision for one's own animals. Until you've gone through a vaccine related sarcoma yourself, it's easy to sit back and say that vaccines cause no harm.
> 
> I don't profess to be an expert in anything medically related to my pets, I just try to do the best I can, gleaning the information that I can from these forums and other sources and hope I come to the right conclusion for MY pets.


Thank you.

I am so sorry that you had to go through fibro sarcoma with your cat. I lost 3 of mine to varied cancers as well. 

I actually found this forum when my Yaichi was so ill after her collapse and the lipoma burst trying in desperation to see what I could learn and do.

Like you, I try to do as much reading as I can, question my veterinarian and make the best choice I can for my pets. This is why respectful dialogue like this is very important IMHO. We all benefit from reading and considering all POV, "evidence" to enable us to do just that


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Vaccines can and do cause harm. It's just that they do it at rates and/or severities so much lower than the diseases they prevent that they're a no-brainer gamble. 

Option 1: .001% risk of serious injury or death.
Option 2: 1% risk of serious injury or death.

Which do you pick?

Vaccine-associated sarcoma in cats is a _perfect_ example of the difference between pseudoscientific fear of vaccines and real, documented risks. VAS is real, well-studied, and still less risky than not vaccinating your cat (it occurs in less than 1/1000 vaccinated cats). VAS _may_ also occur in dogs, but it so rare that it is statistically hard to pinpoint.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

Yes, I am fully aware of fibrosarcoma that has been documented to occur in cats due to vaccines. It used to be much more prevalent from the mixing of two adjuvants together years ago, but we have since learned to be much more careful when vaccinating. We have learned to place vaccines in cats in areas that can be amputated, if need be (but again, this is a rare complication need be... if I recall correctly, they are teaching us 1:10,000 now-a-days in school?) Still quite rare. And we aren't putting vaccines in the same area, all in different areas. But again, this is something WELL documented, and we know it occurs. A definite link! 
If such a time were to come when vaccines and cancer could be linked like this in dogs, then we could talk, IF that time will come, I am not even sure.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> IMO, the bottom line is we all have to do whatever we think is best for our own animals, hopefully while working with a very trusted veterinarian. Then when we do lose them, at whatever age, and from whatever cause, we will always suffer grief but not guilt. We will know we did the best we could, given the information we had at the time.
> When things don't go right for me (in many different areas) I always ask myself, "given the exact same information, would I have made the exact same decision?" If the answer is yes, even if it turned out to be the wrong decision, I don't beat myself up over it. I made the best decision I could have with the information I had available.
> But we also have to all be careful to be sure that the information we have comes from the best sources possible, not just internet rumor. What we determine to be the best sources depends on our personal beliefs and frame of reference.


More than well said...thank you! I totally agree.

We all want the best possible for our fur babies. That is one of the reasons we are all here on this forum; to share, to learn so that we can make those decisions.


----------



## jerripina (Apr 22, 2015)

5 year old golden with hip dysplasia. I have been taking my golden Ginger to swim thearpy once a week which has helped her a lot.I would like to put up a above gtound pool for her but have made myself crazy looking at different pools. Which brand is goos fir c ogs. I was looking at the Intex pools at wallmart. Does anyone know if these are good fir goldens? And is there anyway to g t the dog into the pool without building a deck?


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

jerripina said:


> 5 year old golden with hip dysplasia. I have been taking my golden Ginger to swim thearpy once a week which has helped her a lot.I would like to put up a above gtound pool for her but have made myself crazy looking at different pools. Which brand is goos fir c ogs. I was looking at the Intex pools at wallmart. Does anyone know if these are good fir goldens? And is there anyway to g t the dog into the pool without building a deck?


You should start a new thread with this question so it can be seen more easily on the board.


----------



## ckshin05 (May 6, 2012)

kwhit said:


> Hopefully you give each type of vaccine weeks apart and not at the same vet visit. Doing so, IMO, could really suppress a dogs's immune system. Plus, if your dog would have a reaction, you wouldn't know which vaccine caused it.
> 
> When grooming customers bring in their dogs' shot records at my store, I cringe at some of them. Seeing how many vaccines were given at one time makes me wonder about the competency of their vet.


Wow I love this forum. I learn something everyday. I am doing all in one when I visit. Is it possible to give an example so I can know how to handle her vaccination?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

cgriffin said:


> And no, the 3 year is not the same as the 1 year vaccine anymore - it used to be.


This got me curious. I can find where the feline 3 years rabies vaccine is in fact different from the feline 1 year rabies vaccine- happened in 2014. I cannot find anything pointing to a different formulation for canine rabies vaccines (3 year vs 1 year). I've always been told and read they are the same, it's just the state laws and county ordinances are changing to allow vets the option to offer a 3 years vaccine. Did I miss something? When Yogi got his adult rabies vaccine after 1 year, it was initially labeled as a 1 year vaccine, and I objected to that and the staff simply printed me out a 3 year certificate and told me it was their mistake. I just wanted to make sure that for governmental purposes we would not be required to update for 3 years, since that option is available here. 

I personally trust my vet and like you said, it's the business managers that people need to be concerned about because yes, they operate from a purely business background and not from a viewpoint of the animal's welfare first and foremost. I do space the vaccines out when given and will continue to do that, just like I space out heartworm and flea and tick protection. I've dealt first hand with a dog who contracted leptospirosis when no vaccine for it was recommended (they do now). So my perspective is a little different than many on the forum regarding the benefit of vaccination. I never want my vet to tell me things look grim and I need to prepare for the worst, like we did with our lepto boy. Never again...

It was fairly easy to set up our veterinary reminder system to my preferences so I do not get bombarded with vaccination notices for things like bordatella or other non essential vaccines. They come every 3 years, except for our lepto vaccine notice.


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

Anne, I was actually talking about dog rabies vaccine but it is actually the same for cats and dogs going by this link, this is the vaccine brand my vet uses Imrab 1 and Imrab 3: 

The Benefits of IMRAB | IMRABÂ® The worldâ€™s leading rabies vaccine


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

just to muddy the waters a bit....
I have an autoimmune disease (well actually 2 of them). I've attended medical conferences on autoimmunity, and they're very interesting.
It is highly recommended that people with autoimmune issues get vaccinated, because exposure to the disease is more likely to trigger an autoimmune event than exposure to the vaccination.
And, some experts believe you're better off getting the vaccinations all at once and hitting your immune system once, rather than spreading them out and causing repeated insult to your immune system.
Clear as mud?


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> Homeopathy?
> 
> Ronald D Schultz | University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine
> 
> DVM - Dr. Karen Becker










In researching Dr Becker I found this as well as her association to Dr Mercola who is himself a very dubious character


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

I fear that I may come across as cold when talking about these topics. I do empathise with all who have lost pets on here, I have lost cats and other pets throughout my life, and it is not something that I minimise. 

But I'm not of the opinion that I can make better choices than those who have dedicated their adult life to a chosen profession that I have not. If there is a large body of evidence for X and a small body of evidence for Y that contradicts X and the general scientific consensus accepts X then that is what I will accept. And I'm very wary of the source of Y. Science welcomes challenging points of view but they all have to be held to the same standard. The beauty of science is that it is malleable and if evidence for Y grows and becomes rock solid then the consensus can shift. 

I think about my two professions and I can see a lot of misconceptions by Joe Public about most of it and also a lot of pseudoscience in one of them specifically.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

Chritty said:


> View attachment 522521
> 
> In researching Dr Becker I found this as well as her association to Dr Mercola who is himself a very dubious character


Did you miss the DVM = Doctor of Veterinary Medicine as one of her credentials?

There are many veterinarians who practice conventional veterinary medicine and incorporate holistic treatments in their practices. We have a few here in the greater Toronto area. Some veterinarians who graduate, take traditional protocol and with their expertise practice with a blend of both. If you had taken the time to watch the video I posted earlier of Dr Becker and Dr Schultz, I would think this would be clear.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

We would vaccinate thousands of dogs a year with all the vaccines they needed to be up to date that year, and they would do just fine. Most people really don't want the hassle of coming back to the veterinary clinic every 2-4 weeks for one vaccine. My new veterinarian (since I've moved out here for school) requires an exam for every visit, even if it is just a bordatella or lepto vaccine. So, it just isn't feasible for some people to space out vaccines (that wasn't our policy back home, but some clinics it may be). 
Certainly, certain breeds or types of dogs are more at risk for vaccine reactions. I can honestly say in the 6 years I worked there, I don't think I ever saw a large breed dog have any kind of reaction. They were all little dachshunds, chihuahuas, yorkies, etc. If we knew they were subject to vaccine reactions, we would evaluate their vaccine needs and reduce any that we knew we could take out, pre-medicate them with benadryl (via the owner giving some orally before coming or injectable), and observe in the clinic after the vaccine. We also spaced out the vaccines as much as we could- Distemper/parvo one day, Rabies a few weeks later, etc. 
I certainly do space them out for my own dog when I can, but I don't necessarily believe it is detrimental in every patient to not give all vaccines concurrently at the same time.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> Did you miss the DVM = Doctor of Veterinary Medicine as one of her credentials?
> 
> There are many veterinarians who practice conventional veterinary medicine and incorporate holistic treatments in their practices. We have a few here in the greater Toronto area. Some veterinarians who graduate, take traditional protocol and with their expertise practice with a blend of both. If you had taken the time to watch the video I posted earlier of Dr Becker and Dr Schultz, I would think this would be clear.



I did notice the DVM but for me that is marred by the practice of something that has no scientific basis, is not medical and has no evidence of working beyond placebo. If you are a scientific, medical person then it should be blindingly obvious that homeopathy is snake oil.

http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4034

From the Australian National Health and Research Council
"Findings
There was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered: no good-quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result reported either that homeopathy caused greater health improvements than placebo, or caused health improvements equal to those of another treatment.
For some health conditions, studies reported that homeopathy was not more effective than placebo. For other health conditions, there were poor-quality studies that reported homeopathy was more effective than placebo, or as effective as another treatment. However, based on their limitations, those studies were not reliable for making conclusions about whether homeopathy was effective. For the remaining health conditions it was not possible to make any conclusion about whether homeopathy was effective or not, because there was not enough evidence."

Also, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...281/Homeopathy-is-witchcraft-say-doctors.html 

"Homeopathy is "witchcraft" and the National Health Service should not pay for it, the British Medical Association has declared.

Hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine, saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them."


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> Did you miss the DVM = Doctor of Veterinary Medicine as one of her credentials?
> 
> There are many veterinarians who practice conventional veterinary medicine and incorporate holistic treatments in their practices. We have a few here in the greater Toronto area. Some veterinarians who graduate, take traditional protocol and with their expertise practice with a blend of both. If you had taken the time to watch the video I posted earlier of Dr Becker and Dr Schultz, I would think this would be clear.


Holistic and homeopathic are not at all the same thing. Holistic care means looking at the whole picture rather than just the disease. Homeopathy is goofy superstitious weirdness.


----------



## Thalie (Jan 20, 2008)

My vet sends to yearly reminders because if he did not most of the dogs around here would go years without an exam. I truly think he does advocate yearly DHPP because he knows that even with the reminders, he is lucky if he sees the dogs every couple of years. On the other hand, he is agreable to titering and letting educated owners choose which vaccines to administer on which schedule (once the puppy shots and the one year booster is done). I don't mind his profit on the cost of the shot; perhaps some of it went to the improvements he did to his diagnostic tools (digital xrays, laser surgery, cold laser treatments, etc.) in the last 12 years. 

Rabies are on a 3 years schedule her according to state law but on a yearly schedule according to local law. I will have them vaccinated every year because otherwise the alternative, if my dog's teeth ever grazed somebody who would file a complaint, is clear cut. Seizure of the dog, euthanasia, head sent for testing. No, thank you. If they are vaccinated, they would be quarantined (either at a vet or at home) and live.

I do titer instead of vaccinating for parvo and distemper. It is way more costly but it is my choice to do so. 

Lepto is the one shot I do not dare not to do. I am aware of its shortfalls but I am also aware of the fact that once symptoms appear, the dog's system is severely compromised. In 12 years of yearly Lepto vaccinations (one dog) and 10 years (different dog) I had no side-effect. Evaluate your situation and your risk factors and your personal tolerance to the different risk then you shall have neither remorse nor regrets and you will have done what is best for your particular dog in your particular circumstances.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Holistic and homeopathic are not at all the same thing. Holistic care means looking at the whole picture rather than just the disease. Homeopathy is goofy superstitious weirdness.


Yes, I totally agree that they are not the same thing, although some holistic practitioners incorporate homeopathic approaches. The matter of "weirdness" is in the eye of the beholder I guess and their mindset and belief system.

BTW, I never brought up the subject of homeopathy in any of my posts in this thread except as a question in one response. I thought this thread was about vaccines & immunology.....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Yaichi's Mom said:


> The matter of "weirdness" is in the eye of the beholder I guess and their mindset and belief system.


Yes, but facts are facts, and they are verifiable. I appreciate the friendly way that we're having this discussion, but I also don't feel OK taking a "all beliefs are equal" approach to medicine. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The _fact_ is that homeopathy does not work and is not based in any kind of science. It is based in a weird belief system created by an 18th century German doctor.

I think it's relevant to this discussion because the denial of science in medicine comes from superstitious belief, rather than analysis of evidence. I don't think it's a coincidence that the same vets who are overstating the dangers of vaccines are also engaging in other kinds of superstitious, non-analytic behavior.


----------



## Yaichi's Mom (Jul 21, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Yes, but facts are facts, and they are verifiable. I appreciate the friendly way that we're having this discussion, but I also don't feel OK taking a "all beliefs are equal" approach to medicine. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The _fact_ is that homeopathy does not work and is not based in any kind of science. It is based in a weird belief system created by an 18th century German doctor.
> 
> I think it's relevant to this discussion because the denial of science in medicine comes from superstitious belief, rather than analysis of evidence. I don't think it's a coincidence that the same vets who are overstating the dangers of vaccines are also engaging in other kinds of superstitious, non-analytic behavior.


tippykayak, WADR we live in a world of free will and choice. Neither you nor I can make anyone believe or accept anything. 

Let's remember that many things that were once deemed as "fact" by the scientific community/others have been dis-proven. Religion can't be proven IMHO but many believe regardless without "scientific facts". 

I have never said that I subscribe to homeopathy, yet it seems I am being centered out here on this topic.

You may choose to believe and subscribe to conventional medicine, practices, what you call "facts" and may not be open to considering alternate POV, theories etc. and/or you have considered them and dismiss them and that's fine...your choice, prerogative and belief. 

Others may choose to look at the possibility of methodologies and practices beyond the above and that is their choice and free will as well. 

Science, fact, medicine etc., is continually evolving and IMHO in these communities all we have is a CBT ( current best theory), many of which have evolved and changed over time. Conventional medicine used to bleed patients, electric shock patients etc. We don't do that anymore. Many medicines are derived on models of chemical substances from plants ( naturopathy?)

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread any further. The OP intended this topic of this thread to be about vaccines, immunology and seemed to be questioning the basis and necessity of the current conventional vaccination schedule. 

Dr Ronald Schultz is probably the top veterinary immunologist in North America. If not, then I'd like to know who is. If you and others question his research because of some of his alleged associations, that's fine....your choice and your prerogative. 

Bottom line and as others have said in this thread, we are all here for discussion, to learn, to consider all POV, yet in the end we will all make the best choices for our beloved GR's based on information considered and gleaned.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

I never expected all this when I posted this thread. I know thread drift is a thing, but I want to make clear that:


I never said vets were evil and greedy, or are "bad guys." I simply said the benefit of annual vaccinations was economic for the vet, not medical for the dog.
I fully believe in science (which is a stupid thing to say because science is not a belief system, but such is the sad state of American culture today that I feel the need to declare it).
I believe in vaccinating dogs (and people), so all this anti-vaxx discussion has nothing to do with the OP. The point of this thread was supposed to be about OVER vaccinating, not failing to vaccinate.

I find this most recent post apropos:



tippykayak said:


> Yes, but facts are facts...I also don't feel OK taking a "all beliefs are equal" approach to medicine. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. ...
> 
> I think it's relevant to this discussion because the denial of science in medicine comes from superstitious belief, rather than analysis of evidence. I don't think it's a coincidence that the same vets who are overstating the dangers of vaccines are also engaging in other kinds of superstitious, non-analytic behavior.


Tippy's points about superstition in refusing to vaccinate apply equally to over-vaccinating. Belief in the need for annual core vaccinations is not supported by medical science, the belief is superstitious (in the sense that it is not supported by fact). My initial point was that annual core vaccinations (such as rabies and DHPP) need not be given annually, not that they shouldn't be given at all. Indeed, the best available science tells us that immunity often goes as long as 7 years or more, and many dogs will have lifetime immunity from initial vaccinations.

Of course, the science is still out on the safety of over-vaccinating, and irrationality swirls all around it. But there are some established risks to over-vaccinating, including allergic reactions and immune system stress, and there is some evidence of cancer risk and other problems associated both with the proteins and the various salts, though the extent of these risks remain largely unknown. And of course there are other unknowns. In the absence of actual knowledge and facts, assuming safety is equally as irrational and superstitious as assuming danger, perhaps more so even. So we should base our decisions about our dogs not on assumptions and a vet's reminder card in the mail, but taking into account the facts and science.

These days, we need to be informed consumers. It is irresponsible simply to rely on the word of a veterinarian, especially if that vet advocates annual vaccines. As my vet does, and as most vets in my area do. Indeed, the inspiration for this thread was my receiving a reminder card about the need to re-vaccinate my dogs, which I received only 11 months after their last set of vaccinations.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Sweet Girl said:


> I don't believe my vet is the enemy. I don't believe she's in this just to make money. The lucky among us get to choose a profession we really love. I highly doubt anyone sits at age 18-19 and says, "hey... I could go to vet school for 4-8 years, run up tons of debt, work really hard studying, taking on difficult lab work, work with the animals I love... because I can SCREW my clients out of millions of dollars."
> 
> Sorry. I don't buy it. I don't know when vets (and doctors, for that matter) became the enemy either.


I feel the same way. Are there bad vets? Of course there are! No profession is without at least a few bad professionals. But they aren't the majority! I know people can get upset when think about there vets making money, but seriously guys, vets have to eat too. They have to make a living too, there is no "vow of poverty" for vets.


----------

