Vaccination/Heartworm/etc. Information

[~flower~]

I don't know about anybody else, but if I can give 1/2 the dose of poison over the course of a year, I think that is better for the animals health. 



http://www.vetinfo4dogs.com/doghw.html#Heartworm%20medication%20-%20lapse%20in%20medication


"Heartworm medication - lapse in medication

 The monthly heartworm preventatives work to kill heartworm larvae that are 45 days or less in age and probably closer to 50 days. Since an every 45 day dose would be hard to remember and provide no leeway for error, the pills are approved for monthly use. We tell clients to give another pill if they are unable to remember if they dosed their pet and we can not help them determine if that happened based on our records (usually we can help in a single dog family but it is harder when several dogs are on the same pills in a household). We just check the dates the medication is sold and count pills from there. Administering another pill is safe if one was given at the beginning of a month because the medication is not time release. It doesn't last in the body a month it just kills all the heartworm larvae that have accumulated in the last 30 days. It is pretty much completely cleared from the body in 72 hours. Since it takes 6 months for heartworms to develop to the age they can be tested for an immediate heartworm test is not necessary prior to restarting the medication. It is a very good idea to check for heartworms 6 months or so after a lapse in preventative medications.
 
 Mike Richards, DVM"


"The monthly medications are Heartgard and Interceptor. Heartgard is
Ivermectin and Interceptor is Milbemycin Oxime. These medications work by killing any larvae that have entered the dog up to 45 days ago. They kill L3s, 4s, and 5s. These drugs are given monthly (30 days) for the convenience of giving on the same day each month and also to give you a safety margin. If you forget to give your dog his/her heartworm medication, you have about 15 days to remember to give it and the dog will still be protected. With the daily medication, forgetting for more than a day may result in your dog becoming infected."

[~flower~]

All Veterinary Schools in North America Changing Vaccination Protocols

"Recent editions of the Senior Dogs Project's newsletter have reported on the ever-broadening trend of eliminating vaccinations for adult dogs, except for rabies, where required by state law. We have now had a report that all 27 veterinary schools in North America are in the process of changing their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats. Here, in a nutshell, are the new guidelines under consideration: "Dogs and cats immune systems mature fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus (MLV) vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet (i.e., canine distemper, parvo, feline distemper). If another MLV accine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titer is not 'boosted' nor are more memory cells induced."

"Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines. Puppies receive antibodies through their mothers milk. This natural protection can last 8-14 weeks. Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at LESS than 8 weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralize the vaccine and little protection (0-38%) will be produced. Vaccination at 6 weeks will, however, delay the timing of the first highly effective vaccine. Vaccinations given 2 weeks apart suppress rather than stimulate the immune system. A series of vaccinations is given starting at 8 weeks and given 3-4 weeks apart up to 16 weeks of age. Another vaccination given sometime after 6 months of age (usually at 1 year 4 months) will provide lifetime immunity."

[~flower~]

Hearing on Pet Vaccine Disclosure Forms Draws a Big Crowd
Story date: 03/02/2005
By Kay Liss

A hearing on a proposal to require veterinarians to provide to pet owners disclosure forms on vaccines was standing-room-only on Monday in Augusta. Comments were fairly equally divided, with citizens in support on one hand and veterinarians opposed on the other.

The proposed act is the latest effort spearheaded by Kris Christine of Alna to correct what she views as flaws in state laws regarding the administering of vaccines to pets, dogs in particular.

She recently was successful in bringing enough attention to discrepancies in canine rabies vaccination rules, which resulted in over-vaccination of dogs in Maine for 17 years, that the law was changed, extending the administering of inoculations from two to three years. Language exempting sick dogs from the requirement is soon to be added, due to the persistence of the Alna mother and dog owner.

This new proposal, initially championed by former Senator Chris Hall of Bristol, and presently by Rep. Peter Rines (D-Wiscasset), is an important next step, Christine believes, providing pet owners with scientifically-based information on which to make decisions on other routinely-given canine vaccines, specifically the distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis booster shot, recommended annually by vets. In her research into the rabies vaccines issue, she came upon information that suggested this booster vaccine was protective for much longer than a year.

First to speak to the Agriculture, Conservation and Forest Committee at the hearing, Christine began: “Many Maine veterinarians have failed to inform clients that most core veterinary vaccines protect for seven or more years, and pet owners, unaware that their animals don’t need booster vaccinations more often, have unwittingly given their companions useless booster shots – taking an unnecessary toll on their finances and animals’ health.”

Her testimony was bolstered by information from various authoritative sources, including Dr. Ronald Schultz, a leading researcher and authority on veterinary vaccine. His studies formed the scientific basis of the American Animal Hospital Association’s (AAHA) 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, which stated: “We now know that booster injections are of no value in dogs already immune, and immunity from distemper infection and vaccination lasts for a minimum of 7 years based on challenge studies and up to 15 years (a lifetime) based on antibody titer.”

In the American Veterinarian Medical Association’s Principles of Vaccination literature, Christine further quoted, “Unnecessary stimulation of the immune system does not result in enhanced disease resistance, and may increase the risk of adverse post-vaccination events” including “autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research.”

Speaking in support of the bill, a social worker from Warren, Jennifer Pearson, said she was “baffled” by the resistance of the veterinarians to the disclosure forms. Just as peoples’ rights are recognized to know the risks and benefits of drugs they take, so should the rights of pet owners be recognized in the vaccines recommended for their animals.

Arnold Woolf, a dog breeder from Lewiston and an AKC judge, testified that the disclosure forms would provide a “safeguard” to dogs and cats. He added that he didn’t see why supplying such a disclosure form should be a burden to vets, since pharmacists supply consumers a print-out of the pros and cons of drug they purchase without any trouble. Another breeder, Kay Sukforth of Sukee Kennels in Warren, commented that she thought the vets should welcome such a form, because it would protect them from possible lawsuits.

Dr. Bill Bryant, past president of the Maine Veterinarians Medical Association (MVMA), testified that vaccine protocols were in a “period of transition” and that the science is so complex and in a state of flux that it would be too difficult to provide a reliable and simple disclosure form. He said he didn’t want to turn “our profession” into managed care. He also accused the Christines of carrying on a negative campaign against the veterinarian community.

When asked by a number of legislators why he had previously said he was in favor of the disclosure form legislation, having stated in a Veterinary News magazine article “It’s time for something like this to come out … disclosure forms will be an important resource to have available, [and] if it goes before the Legislature, we’d likely support it,” Bryant appeared hardpressed to explain. He did agree a usable form might be devised but did not support it being devised by a legislative committee but by veterinarian associations.

Other veterinarians claimed they were already giving their clients information about vaccines so didn’t need to provide disclosure forms. A number claimed to be just like “James Herriot,” the well-known veterinarian and author of “All Creatures Great and Small” who has become a symbol of the ideal, trustworthy vet.

A supporter of the forms, Laura Moon of Brunswick, appeared with her Jack Russell Terrier, who had a large tumor on its side. She urged legislators to pass a law so that people would have more knowledge of vaccines, and that possible side-effects of such vaccines might be avoided.

Legislators will convene a work session on the bill in about two weeks. The act would be the first of its kind in the nation.

[~flower~]

I wish more vets were this outspoken and up to date:


Vet sues due to over vaccination of dogs and cats     

Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers, DVM
5703 Louetta Spring, Texas  77379
281-370-3262

April 17, 2002

Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Dear Sirs,

I hereby file a complaint against all licensed Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in the State of Texas for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 573.26 which states; Licensed veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity, and fair dealing to clients in time and services rendered, and in the amount charged for services, facilities, appliances and drugs.

I assert that the present practice of marketing of vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence by all Veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in this state.

Recommending, administering, and charging for Canine Corona vaccinations for adult dogs is fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Dogs over eight weeks of age are not susceptible to canine corona virus disease. Disease produced by canine corona virus has never been demonstrated in adult dogs. Dogs over eight weeks of age that are immunized against canine parvovirus will not develop symptoms of canine corona virus disease. Addition of an unnecessary antigen to the vaccination protocol will result in a lesser immunity to the important diseases like parvovirus and distemper, and increase the risk of adverse reactions.

2. Immunologists doubt that Canine corona virus vaccine works, as it would require secretory mucosal IgA antibodies to protect against corona virus and a parenteral vaccine does not accomplish this very well. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Texas A&M University do not recommend canine corona virus vaccine.

3. Gastroenteroligists at Schools of Veterinary Medicine including Dr Michael Willard at Texas A&M University have stated that they have only seen one case of corona virus disease in a dog in ten years.

On several occasions large numbers of dogs have died from adverse reactions to corona virus vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect corona virus vaccination for an adult dog if presented this information.

Recommending, administering, and charging for re-administration of modified live vaccines like Canine Distemper, Canine Parvovirus, Feline Panleukopenia, injectable Feline Rhinotracheitis, and injectable Feline Calicivirus on an semi-annual, annual, bi-annual or tri-annual basis is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The USDA Center for Biologic and Therapeutic Agents asserts that there is no scientific data to support label claims for annual re-administration of modified live vaccines, and label claims must be backed by scientific data.

2. It is the consensus of immunologist that a modified live virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system, and antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the replication of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except that the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction.

3. A temporal association has been demonstrated between vaccinations and the development of Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia.

4. It has been demonstrated that the duration of immunity for Canine Distemper virus is 7 years by challenge, and 15 years by serology; for Canine Parvovirus is 7 years by challenge, for Feline Panleukopenia, Rhinotracheitis, and Feline Calicivirus is 7.5 years by challenge.

A reasonable client would not elect re-administration of any of the above stated vaccinations for a previously immunized pet if provided with the above information.

The recommendation for administration of Leptospirosis vaccination in Texas is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the fact that:

1. Although Leptospirosis is re-emerging as an endemic disease for dogs in some areas of the country, Leptospirosis in dogs in Texas is a very rare disease. According to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab there are only an average of twelve cases of Leptospirosis documented in dogs in Texas per year. Factors to identify those dogs that are at risk have not been identified. Given that there are over 6 million dogs in Texas, the risk of leptospirosis disease to a dog is less than 2 in a million.

2. The commonly used vaccine only contains serovars Lepto. canicola, and Lepto icterohaemorrhagiae, and no cross protection is provided against the other three serovars diagnosed in Texas. Newer vaccines containing Lepto pomona, and Lepto rippotyphosa are available but the duration of immunity is less than one year. To provide protection for a dog against Leptospirosis would require two vaccines with four serovars twice per year.

3. Although humans can develop Leptospirosis, the spread of Lepto. from a dog to a human has never been documented and is thought to be a very low risk. Given that the risk of an adverse reaction, a reasonable client would not elect Vaccination of their pet if provided with the above information.

The recommendation of Lyme disease vaccine for dogs residing in Texas is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The Texas Department of Health only reports an average of 70 cases of Human Lyme disease per year in Texas, all of which were likely acquired when people were traveling out of the state.

2. Julie Rawlings reported in her research on the incidence of the lyme disease organism in ticks in Texas State Parks for the Texas Department of Health that the Borrelia burgdorferi organism is not present in sufficient numbers or in the suitable tick vector for dogs for Lyme disease to be endemic in Texas.

3. Eighty per cent of Lyme disease cases in the U.S. are found in the nine New England States and Wisconsin.

4. Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine has not documented one case of Lyme disease in a dog acquired in Texas. Testing on shelter dogs has not revealed a single case.

5. Dr Jacobson, Cornell University has documented a temporal relationship in over 327 cases of dogs, which acquired polyarthritis after the Lyme disease vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect Lyme disease vaccine for their pet if given this information on the risks vs. the benefit.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with an adjuvanted vaccine without offering a safer alternative vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Adjuvanted vaccines have been incriminated as a cause of Injection Site Fibrosarcoma in cats.

2. 1:1000 cats vaccinated develop this type of cancer, which is 100% fatal.

3. Safer alternative non-adjuvanted vaccines are available.

A reasonable client would not elect adjuvanted vaccines for their cat if given this information.

The recommendation for vaccination of cats with Feline Infectious Peritonitis vaccine is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Feline Infectious peritonitis is a rare disease.

2. Eight percent of adult cats carry the normal flora avirulent Feline Corona Virus. On rare occasions this Corona Virus mutates to become a virulent feline Infectious Peritonitis Virus. Every mutation is a different variant and there is no cross protection. This vaccine does not and cannot work.

3. Independent studies have not confirmed the manufacturers claims for efficacy.

4. Twenty-two Schools of Veterinary Medicine and the American Association of Feline Practitioners does not recommend this vaccine.

A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine if given this information.

The recommendation of annual Feline Leukemia Vaccine for adult cats, and cats that are not at risk is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. Cats over one year of age, if not previously infected, are immune to Feline Leukemia virus infection whether they are vaccinated or not.

2. Adjuvanted Feline leukemia vaccine can cause Injection Site Fibrosarcomas, a fatal type of cancer. This type of cancer is thought to occur in 1:10,000 cats vaccinated.

3. Only cats less than one year of age and at risk cats should be vaccinated against Feline Leukemia virus.

A reasonable client would not elect this vaccine for their cat if given this information.

The recommendation of annual rabies vaccination for dogs and cats with three-year duration of immunity vaccine is theft by deception, fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given that:

1. The vaccines has been licensed by the USDA and proven to have duration of immunity of three years by the USDA and seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, therefore annual re-administration the client is paying for something with no benefit.

2. Beyond the second vaccination, no data exist to demonstrate that the immune status of the pet is enhanced.

3. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. This recommendation has been proven effective in 33 States in the United States.

The recommendation of blood tests for antibody titers on dogs and cats in order to determine if re-administration of vaccine is indicated is fraud by misrepresentation, misrepresentation by silence, and undue influence given the literature that states:

1. The duration of immunity to infectious disease agents is controlled by memory cells, B & T lymphocytes. Once programmed, memory cells persist for life. The presence of memory cells is not taken into effect when testing for antibody titers.

2. Even in the absence of an antibody titer, memory cells are capable of mounting an adequate immune response in an immunized patient. A negative titer does not indicate lack of immunity, or the ability of a vaccine to significantly enhance the immune status of a patient.

3. A positive titer has not been demonstrated by challenge studies to indicate immunity.

4. The client is paying for a test when a Veterinarian can make no claims about the test results.

5. It has been proven that the re-administration of modified live vaccines has no effect, and that duration of immunity is 7 years or more.

A reasonable client would not elect this test if given this information.

I have brought these deceptive trade practices to the attention of this Board by writing six letters to the board, and appearing before the Board at three Board meetings. The Board members have demonstrated, by the questions that they have asked me, that they are uniformed on these issues, that they have not read the literature that I have sent to support my assertions, and that they have not read the letters I have written. On every occasion the Board members have refused to take any action on these matters.

The Board has also ignored my request to deny approval of Continuing Education credit for seminars on Vaccination of Companion Animals provided by Pfizer Animal Health drug company which are fraudulent by omission of material facts, a conflict of interest, and thereby influence Veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the marketing of vaccines.

The people of the State of Texas have paid over $360 million dollars per year for vaccinations that are unnecessary and potentially harmful to their pets. Over 600,000 pets suffer every year from adverse reactions to unnecessary vaccinations. Many of them die.

A survey by the American Animal Hospital Association shows that less than 7% of Veterinarians have updated their vaccination recommendations, in spite of the fact that these new recommendations have been published twice in every major Veterinary Medical Journal since 1995.

Given that it is the compact of this Board with the State of Texas to protect the people of Texas, and whereby it is provided in the Texas Administrative Code Title 22, Part 24, Chapter 577, Subchapter B, Rule 577.16: Responsibilities of the Board (a) The Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is responsible for establishing policies and promulgating rules to establish and maintain a high standard of integrity, skills, and practice in the profession of Veterinary medicine in accordance with the Veterinary Licensing Act, I hereby assert that the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners must take demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices and fraud in the marketing of vaccinations for companion animals.

A reasonable solution would be for the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners to request an opinion from the Attorney General on these issues, and for the Texas State Board to issue a policy statement in the Board Notes indicating a Board policy prohibiting each of the practices I have outlined above.

An alternative solution would be to notify every Veterinarian engaged in companion animal practice in this state of the complaint that has been filed against them and prosecute each and every complaint.

If demonstrated and thorough action to stop the deceptive trade practices has not been taken by this Board within ninety days of receipt of this letter I will file a class action suit against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners on behalf of the people of Texas, for negligence in the execution of their responsibilities, and I will request a Court order to instruct the Board to perform their duties.

Sincerely,

Dr Robert L Rogers

The above statements are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

[Vet]

Flower,

I want to respond to what you are putting in this thread because you accusations about my not caring about my patients are something that I take very, very personal and I see as a huge insult from someone with an internet agenda.  You seem to be missing a big point in terms of vaccinations and heartworm preventative, there are clearly labeled guidelines for administration.   If a veterinarian chooses not to follow those guidelines, then that veterinarian is liable for any and all negative effects.   This means if I tell a client that its fine to give their dog heartworm preventative every 45 days, they do, and their dog comes up heartworm positive, that client can now sue me for malpractice and I don't have anything to defend myself with.   However if I tell the client to give it every 30 days and the dog becomes heartworm positive, it then becomes the liability of the company that produced the heartworm preventative.  In our litigation happy society, a veterinarian must follow the label in order to stay in practice. 

You asked earlier about Proheart-6---I have many unanswered questions about what happened with that drug, the way it was pulled from the shelf, and everything else that went on with it.  I used that product with numerous clients, my own pets, and in multiple species.   I only saw one "reaction" with all of the times I administered it.   That dog recieved vaccinations at the same time, so I was unable to determine if it was the vaccine or the Proheart-6 that caused the allergic reaction.....  So I did the only thing I could after that, when owners asked me about safety of the drug, I told them what the drug label had published and I told them about my experience with that dog and its reaction.   We then discussed all of the methods of heartworm prevention that were carried by the practice where I worked and made a decision based on the wants and needs of the owner with their individual pet.   Some people chose not to use it when I told them about the one dogs reaction.  Others didn't.   I used that drug until the day it was pulled from shelves--and I'll be honest, I administered it to two of my families dogs that very day. 

Here is what I follow in terms of vaccinations of my pets and what I recommend to my clients:

First, all vaccinations must be justified by risk of the disease in my patients.   I do not condone in any way vaccinating an animal for a disease it has minimal risk of ever being exposed to.  Thats a waste of money in my opinion.   At the same time, there are certian diseases:  parvo (especially in dogs under 3 years of age), canine distemper, infectious canine hepatitis that are still very common among domestic dogs in America.  This commonness means that vaccinations for these diseases are something that pet owners should strongly consider.  Others such as Rabies is a legal issue governed by your local authorities.  Most areas require a rabies vaccination, and in areas where rabies is endemic (ie the last place I saw a case of rabies, rural kentucky) law requires that vaccination to be administered as frequently as once per year.   As an example, it doesn't really matter what the research is saying or the label on the vaccination because its the law that dogs and cats (and ferrets) recieve annual vaccinations.  All owners who do not comply with that law are subject to fines or worse.  Veterinarians who recommend anything other than the legal requirements of the county are subject to legal action, including action by the state veterinary medical board and/or fines from the county.   I personally don't like that aspect of vaccinations, but as a veterinarian who has dignosed more than one case of the "angry" form of rabies in domestic dogs, I feel we really need to consider it and abide by it. 

Other vaccinations, such as bordatella, lepto, corona, lyme disease, and  others are all "optional".  Veterinary hospitals should not be making the bulk of their income from vaccinations--so I encourage owners to question their veterinarians about their vaccination protocols.  The veterinarian should be able to say "i'm recommending XXX vaccination, BECAUSE.....  " if they don't, I would consider not getting the vaccinations. 

Just so you know, with my own dogs, I vaccinate for Parvo, Distemper, Canine Hepatitis every other year and Rabies every 3 years.   I only give my dogs a bordatella vaccination if I know I'm going to be boarding them for a period of time, thus significantly increasing thier risk of the disease.   I'll also be the first to admit, vaccinating my 13 year old border collie for Parvo is giving him a vaccination for a disease that he's not likely to get, BUT, you cannot get just a Distemper/infectious hepatitis vaccine, so I have to give in and administer Parvo also.   It'd be real nice if you could give individual vaccinations, however the drug companies and the demands of convience from many americans have made multivalent vaccinations both economical and "the norm". 


As far as cats go--I don't own any domestic cats right now---however, in the past I gave a rabies vaccination every three years--to comply with local laws, and a FVRCP vaccination every other year.   I consider FIV, FeLV, and FIP to all be optional vaccinations that need to be given based on risk assessment of the patient.  A cat that lives indoors all the time and never goes out side is a very different risk from a cat that lives on the street fighting with other cats. The owner and the veterinarian both need to be honest with each other in assessing that risk assessment. 


In terms of heart worm prevention:  I give it monthly to my dogs and I recommend monthly to my patients.   Heartworm disease is an indescriminant killer.  Its that plain and simple.   You can be rich, you can be poor, you can love your dog, you can ignore it.  If you live in an area where heartworm disease is endemic and your dog is bitten by a heartworm positive mosquito under correct conditions, your dog is going to develop heartworm disease.  If it develops heartworm disease and you do nothing about it, it will kill your dog.   I know this from losing dogs to heartworm when I was a child, working with numerous shelters and rescues in multiple states, and dealing with my clients who have heartworm positive pets.  The last one I saw was one of my keeper staff just two months ago, who decided to try to cut corners and go to every other month on administering heartworm medication.  Well, guess what, his dog came up positive for heartworms within 7 months of him deciding to do that.  He loves his dog, he takes great care of it---its a member of his family.  Its also got heartworm disease.   

Administering a heartworm preventative as a means of treatment is something I've done, but I cannot legally condone it becuase its extra-label use of that drug.  If a veterinarian would recommend this type of treatment and that dog would die, the owner could sue the veterinarian for malpractice because there are approved methods of treating heartworm infestation that were not used.  The veterinarian would have no way to defend themselves.     

As far as fleas  and ticks go.... I only use preventatives when my dogs have a problem.  My adult dogs haven't had fleas in the last year.  I didnt use any preventative and won't until there is a problem.   I just don't see the reason to apply Frontline monthly if they don't need it.   I can spend that money on something else.  That said, there are some areas, where my mother in law lives for example, were fleas are very, very common.  She also has a dog with flea allergy dermatitis.    She uses Frontline monthly.   I can't argue with this because I've seen the results of her dog after it gets fleas.   In this case its an ounce of prevention vs a pound of cure situation. 


As I posted before, be very, very wary of "petstore" topical antiflea medications---ie Hartz, Zodiac, etc.   These are chemicals which can be very dangerous to cats---I've seen cats die after the owners applied the dog version of this preventative to the cat by accident.  They also, in my opinion do not work.   I think you make a big mistake grouping Advantage, frontline and even Revolution in the same group of drugs as Hartz and Zodiac.   In my opinion, the degree of safety of these drugs is as different as night and day. 

[~flower~]

You say a vet is liable if he does not follow the guidelines, fine.  But how many unhealthy animals have been vaccinated when the guidelines state to not vaccinate unhealthy animals?  Why as a vet are you not liable for that?  Oh, that is right vaccines don't cause any problems so when the client comes back 2 months later with a problem it is unrelated and not only are you not liable, but you (meaning vets in general) can treat this new problem. 

Just so you know, with my own dogs, I vaccinate for Parvo, Distemper, Canine Hepatitis every other year and Rabies every 3 years.   I only give my dogs a bordatella vaccination if I know I'm going to be boarding them for a period of time, thus significantly increasing thier risk of the disease.   I'll also be the first to admit, vaccinating my 13 year old border collie for Parvo is giving him a vaccination for a disease that he's not likely to get, BUT, you cannot get just a Distemper/infectious hepatitis vaccine, so I have to give in and administer Parvo also.   It'd be real nice if you could give individual vaccinations, however the drug companies and the demands of convience from many americans have made multivalent vaccinations both economical and "the norm".

Why do you follow that protocol when all the science and even the AVMA protocol recommends every 3 years?  When studies prove out to over 7 years by challenge study and possibly lifetime immunity do you assault your pets system?   Bordatella is well known as a waste of time.  It only protects against a few strains.  More dogs get bordatella that have been vaccinated for it than haven't been.  Rabies vaccination I believe is now every 3 years in every state. I know Texas was one of the stragglers to go to the every 3 years.   And there are single vaccinations, distemper being one of them, note the healthy dogs that I have highlighted:

GALAXY® D
Schering-Plough
Vaccine
Canine Distemper Vaccine, Modified Live Virus
U.S. Vet. Lic. No.: 195
Active Ingredient(s): Canine distemper vaccine, modified live virus.
The vaccine contains gentamicin as a preservative.
Indications: For use in the vaccination of healthy dogs nine weeks
of age or older against canine distemper.

   
  If you recommend your every other year protocol to your clients, you are doing them a disservice. One that even your profession does not stand behind.         And vaccinating your 13 year old border collie for ANYTHING is assinine.  If he doesn't have immunity by now, he is never going to.

  Build up, don't tear down.   


 My internet agenda is one thing: to give people ALL the information so they may make an informed decision, and to give them access to all the latest studies that their vets neglect to tell them about.   


 

[Vet]

You say a vet is liable if he does not follow the guidelines, fine.  But how many unhealthy animals have been vaccinated when the guidelines state to not vaccinate unhealthy animals?  Why as a vet are you not liable for that?  Oh, that is right vaccines don't cause any problems so when the client comes back 2 months later with a problem it is unrelated and not only are you not liable, but you (meaning vets in general) can treat this new problem. 

I never said that veterinarians weren't liable.  I was addressing your statements about frequency of vaccination.   If I administer a vaccination to a dog, that dog has an allergic reaction, then I'm liable for that.   

Why do you follow that protocol when all the science and even the AVMA protocol recommends every 3 years?  When studies prove out to over 7 years by challenge study and possibly lifetime immunity do you assault your pets system?   Bordatella is well known as a waste of time.  It only protects against a few strains.  More dogs get bordatella that have been vaccinated for it than haven't been.  Rabies vaccination I believe is now every 3 years in every state. I know Texas was one of the stragglers to go to the every 3 years.   And there are single vaccinations, distemper being one of them, note the healthy dogs that I have highlighted: 

First off rabies is not every 3 years in every state.  Its governed by local county health authorities.  Alabama, Kentucky and New York all require annual vaccinations in some counties.  Rabies is a zoonotic disease.  The state laws are managed as a means of trying to prevent human infection.     

Where is your source for bordatella infection frequency?  And were they appropriately vaccinated with a booster vaccination administered?   That goes against what I've seen in clinical practice.   And again, I only recommend bordatella vaccinations for high risk dogs.  Its not something I administer unless its determined its needed.   

Also, what is your source for AVMA vaccination recommendations?  Are you quoting a {biased} third party source?   

I follow the AVMA guidelines:  http://www.avma.org/issues/vaccination/vaccination.asp 

GALAXY® D
Schering-Plough
Vaccine
Canine Distemper Vaccine, Modified Live Virus
U.S. Vet. Lic. No.: 195
Active Ingredient(s): Canine distemper vaccine, modified live virus.
The vaccine contains gentamicin as a preservative.
Indications: For use in the vaccination of healthy dogs nine weeks
of age or older against canine distemper.

   
  If you recommend your every other year protocol to your clients, you are doing them a disservice. One that even your profession does not stand behind.         And vaccinating your 13 year old border collie for ANYTHING is assinine.  If he doesn't have immunity by now, he is never going to.

  Build up, don't tear down.   

This makes me laugh.  Galaxy D is a terrible vaccine.  Of all of the distemper vaccines available on the market, Galaxy D is the one I've seen the most severe vaccine reactions too.    I've tailored my vaccination protocol for my dogs based on assessment of their risk of disease.   If you were my client, I'd discuss the options with you and then we'd design a protocol that suited your pets.   If this included titers, so be it, I would inform you of the increased cost.   

You need to think, not spout. 

[~flower~]

If the dog has an allergic reaction you are liable for that.  Meaning right then and there, shortly after administration?  What about the problems that show up later?  A month after, 2 months?  You are not liable for those?  That is the problem.  People are not informed of these risks and no one is liable. 

Every vet school is now teaching 3 year protocol for core vaccinations.   Read the scientific studies proving that they last much longer than even that.  Base your recommendations on scientific fact, not junk science. And inform your clients of that evidence. 

You think your 13 year old dog is at a greater risk from distemper than a vaccine related problem?  Considering he has been vaccinated routinely throughout his life? You seriously think he needs to be boostered? 

  The problem is that people are starting to think. And most vets do not like that idea.  "Immortal" is under your name.   That is very fitting, most vets seem to think that.  How dare someone question me.  How dare you actually have studies to back yourself up.  How dare you take a stance in the health of your pet.   

[~flower~]

My bad, it's the AAHA that spells out 3 year protocol (along with every vet school now teaching that):

  http://www.chicagodals.org/2006/vaccine_guidelines06.pdf



http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=46546

AHA wraps up canine vaccine guidelines
Feb 1, 2003
By: Stephanie Davis
DVM Newsmagazine


Dr. Richard Ford
Three words summarize the recommended frequency of canine vaccination - triennially, annually or never.

That's the consensus of the American Animal Hospital Association's (AAHA) 14-member taskforce, which, at presstime, was working feverishly to compose a final draft of its first-ever canine vaccination guidelines. The final version, to be released this spring, is pending discussions with vaccine manufacturers.

"The guidelines are huge," says Dr. Richard Ford, on the AAHA taskforce and professor of medicine at North Carolina State University.

Dubbed a "paradigm shift" in vaccination protocol, the bottom line is: not all vaccines should be administered with equal frequency.

"We have an abundance of referenced data that document the longevity and the lack of efficacy of these various (canine) vaccines," says Ford.

Vaccine explosion Little more than three decades ago, veterinarians had limited vaccine choices: distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and rabies.

Now more than two dozen different types of vaccines exist for dogs. Counting all the products, veterinarians have more than 100 vaccines at their disposal.

"We're going through an explosion of vaccines for dogs, and to some extent similar for the cat," says Ford, who also contributed to the feline vaccination guidelines re-released by the American Association of Feline Practitioners in 2000.


Dr. Ron Schultz
In response to the explosion, AAHA has proposed guidelines to offer direction on a vaccine protocol for veterinarians.

"It's an attempt to provide recommendations, and I use the word 'recommendations' - these are not national standards," says Ford. "We are not dictating how veterinarians should actually vaccinate."

What AAHA recommends
 For many vaccines the recommendation is still to vaccinate adult dogs annually. Other vaccines have proven safe and effective following a triennial administration.

Puppies are a different story. Appropriate vaccine administration is considered "absolutely the most important," says Ford. As a result, AAHA recommends veterinarians follow all prior vaccine protocols for puppies.

For example, the committee universally stipulates that canine parvovirus vaccines should be given initially at six to eight weeks, the second dose at nine to 11 weeks and a third dose at 12-14 weeks.

"The guidance provided by the vaccine manufacturers, the ones that have been in place for years and years are still being advocated (for puppies)," says Ford.

Booster vaccines
 The previous rules don't apply when the puppy reaches adult stage, according to the AAHA guidelines.

"It's recommended, not required, that veterinarians place vaccines in one of two categories when developing a vaccine protocol for their practice: core or non-core," says Ford.

The new categories are an attempt to segregate the vital vaccines from the more discretionary, according to the taskforce. The core vaccines, of which there are four, are to be administered triennially. These are vaccines to prevent against high-risk, highly contagious and potentially fatal diseases. Noncore vaccines, to be administered under the discretion of the veterinarian, would follow an annual schedule.

"We're trying to encourage veterinarians to look at the science behind the vaccines and to develop a vaccination protocol that is rational as well as effective," says Ford.

Of the core vaccines, the taskforce recommends that the adult dog receive rabies; canine parvovirus vaccine; canine adenovirus-2 (hepatitis vaccine); and distemper vaccines every three years.

The caveat to the recommendation, says Ford, is that there is good evidence that the protection conferred in adult dogs by both canine distemper and canine parvovirus exceeds five years.

Three years seemed a conservative, happy medium for all parties involved, according to the taskforce.

Anticipated reaction The canine guidelines are "much less controversial" than the previously released feline vaccination guidelines, says Dr. Ron Schultz, veterinary immunologist at the University of Wisconsin - Madison and member of the taskforce.


"It's hard to believe it'd be controversial to any DVM who's lived on earth for the past year or two. You'd have to be from outer space if you haven't heard about the issues," says Schultz.

"Yet individuals are still not aware of what the discussion is about," he adds.

Ford likewise expects to hear minimal grumbling at the outset.

"For some people this will be a surprise because ... it's the classic culture change. We've always done it this way, my gosh, why are we going to change it now," he mimics.

In response, he cites how today's vaccines have vastly improved immunogenic qualities and evidence points to long-term activity.

Didn't make the cut What may catch some veterinarians off guard is the taskforce's third classification, recommending against certain vaccines. Those are:

    * Giardia. Reason: no test is available for the disease; vaccine has not been proven to prevent infection, only reduces shedding.
    * Canine adenovirus-1. Studies found that the vaccine can cause visual impairment in dogs.
    * Coronavirus. "We're not recommending it because the disease isn't significant. The vaccine is safe, there just isn't a disease to go with it," Ford says.

"We're saying don't give it. We don't feel that the disease justifies vaccinating dogs for it," says Ford. "Nobody's very happy with that (recommendation), and they'll argue it to the bitter end," says Ford.

Who won't buy it Contention may also arise from corporate practices, who may ignore the guidelines altogether because of lost revenue.

"There are some corporate policies among these conglomerates of veterinary practices in the country. They have standard policies that all dogs get all licensed vaccines every year. What we're saying is that's wrong. Don't do that," says Ford.

He expects those groups to disregard the guidelines, since they are not mandates.

AVMA weighs in Although the American Veterinary Medical Association says it has not seen a draft of the guidelines, Dr. Elizabeth Curry-Galvin, assistant director of scientific activities, says the two organizations shared concepts during the development of their respective reports.

AVMA released its own position statement highlighting prudent use of vaccines late last year.

In regard to AAHA's anticipated guidelines, AVMA's position is: "We encourage veterinarians to read the report once it is available. Practitioners need information from a wide number of sources to make the best medical recommendations for their patients," Curry-Galvin says.

[Vet]

If the dog has an allergic reaction you are liable for that.  Meaning right then and there, shortly after administration?  What about the problems that show up later?  A month after, 2 months?  You are not liable for those?  That is the problem.  People are not informed of these risks and no one is liable. 

No the problem is proving without a doubt that that is the cause of the problem.   Its really easy to make the assumptions you are making---that vaccinations cause cancer, that vaccinations cause hip dysplasia, that vaccinations cause the moon to rise from the south.....    To be held liable, you need to be alble to prove liability, not base it on conjecture.   Unfortunately what you are advocating is conjecture except in a few cases---feline injection site sarcomas (and injection site sarcomas in other species such as ferrets).   Even then, we are not 100% sure of what causes that type of cancer. 

Every vet school is now teaching 3 year protocol for core vaccinations.   Read the scientific studies proving that they last much longer than even that.  Base your recommendations on scientific fact, not junk science. And inform your clients of that evidence. 

This simply is not true.  My wife is a veterinary teaching hospital professor.   I work as an adjunct instructor with a veterinary teaching hospital.    You need to check your resources before you make blanket statements like this.   Unfortunately vaccination protocols vary from veterinary teaching hospital to hospital---like Ohio States "Weimeraner Protocol" which is based entirely on the thoughts of two clinicians about this breed and is not done at any other teaching hospital to the best of my knowledge.  This protocol involves staggering vaccinations to the degree of literally vaccinating weimeraner puppies every other week with certian vaccinations that are killed, others that are modified live, all done under the thought that that breeds unique phsyiology requires it have a totally different vaccination protocol.  I'll be honest, i've questioned it since I was an intern there.   And the clinicians in charge of the protocol have yet to answer some of my questions.   

What you are referring to with the 3 year vaccinations is not the AVMA, but is the recommendations by the American Animal Hospital Association released in 2006.   These guidelines acknowledged that vaccinations may have efficacy up to 3 years, however there is only 1 single canine vaccination product licensed by the USDA as a 3 year vaccination for canine distemper, adnovirus, and parvo---Fort Dodges Duramune Adult.   This same AAHA document, while it acknowledges the 3 year vaccinations, it also acknowledges the liability of the veterinarian for off label---ie telling a client that a vaccination labeled for 1 year, is good for 3 years--use of vaccinations.   I think the Fort Dodge product is a good one, but I'll be the first to admit I do have limited experience with it.   

You think your 13 year old dog is at a greater risk from distemper than a vaccine related problem?  Considering he has been vaccinated routinely throughout his life? You seriously think he needs to be boostered? 

Considering I live in a rural area where distemper outbreaks are quite common in the wild raccon population, my dog has access to these raccoons because of his access to my horse barn, pasture, and trash, and the fact that dogs can acquire distemper at any age, yes I do.   The risk of distemper in this dog is not unreasonable.   Not only that but the last time I had this dogs titers checked, they were on the low end.  This just further justifies my thought that in the case of this dog, boostering vaccinations are indicated.   You need to be very, very careful making the blanket statements you are making.   Vaccinations should be an individual case basis, not the blanket "they all need them" or "all are bad".   

 

The problem is that people are starting to think. And most vets do not like that idea.  "Immortal" is under your name.   That is very fitting, most vets seem to think that.  How dare someone question me.  How dare you actually have studies to back yourself up.  How dare you take a stance in the health of your pet.    [/color]

   Again, you resort to childish personal attacks.   The word "Immortal" under my name is a reference to the wrestler Hulk Hogan.  Only a few members of this board (most of who are lurkers and know me from a different board) know the story behind it, but it involves plans I had years ago before college of going to a professional wrestling school.   Its a silly highschool kid joke I share with a couple of friends and absolutely nothing serious.    The fact that you are picking on subtle things like that just screams of your lack of maturity.   Good job.       When you want to grow up and talk about medical concerns, I'll be glad to do it with you.   

[~flower~]

So you do not trust the clinical trials by the manufacturers?  Is there any scientific evidence to back that up, if so that is information that should be put out there. 

 Yes, trying to prove a vaccination contributed to or was a the cause of a problem is very difficult.  But unless you have been on an island with no outside communication for the past several years, you would see that more and more people are starting to see the connection from overvaccinating and health problems.  Yours is exactly the thinking that is continuing to cause our pets harm.  Fortunately most vets are now at least considering that more is not always better and may be keeping up on studies and peer articles, and information from both the AVMA and the AAHA on the risks associated with vaccinating and increased risks from over vaccinating. 

 On the veterinary schools, I didn't personally check each one, but I do find Dr. Dodds a reputable source, as well as Dr.Schultz, I think once the Rabies Challenge Study gets under way and is completed (years from now) it will be another great benefit to pets and their owners:


Two Experts in the field of immunization.

The following is information I have gotten from two experts in the field of immunization. I am sharing this with you all so you know what is out there for all veterinarians to know. If your veterinarian is not aware of this information, inform he or she of this information so they can help you with reducing the amount of vaccines your animals receive.


NEW VACCINATION PROTOCOL
by Dr. Jean Dodds

Note: All of the 27 Vet Universities in the US have followed the immunization protocol as suggested by Dr. Dodds for years

I would like to make you aware that all 27 veterinary schools in North America are in the process of changing their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats. Some of this information will present an ethical & economic challenge to Vets, and there will be skeptics. Some organizations have come up with a political compromise suggesting vaccinations every 3 years to appease those who fear loss of income vs. those concerned about potential side effects. Politics, traditions, or the doctors' economic well-being should not be a factor in a medical decision.

NEW PRINCIPLES OF IMMUNOLOGY

Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet (i.e.,: canine distemper, parvo, feline distemper.) If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titer is not "boosted" nor are more memory cells induced. Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines. Puppies receive antibodies through their mother's milk. This natural protection can last 8 - 14 weeks. Puppies & kittens should NOT be vaccinated at LESS than 8 weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralize the vaccine and little protection (0-38%) will be produced. Vaccination at 6 weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of the first highly effective vaccine. Vaccinations given 2 weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the immune system. A series of vaccinations is given starting at 8 weeks and given 3-4 weeks apart up to 16 weeks of age. Another vaccination given sometime after 6 months of age will provide LIFETIME IMMUNITY.

As for Rabies vaccine, it is a law that all dogs must be vaccinated according to each state. Currently all but two states require annual vaccines and all the rest will honor three-year vaccines. Write and call your local state animal control agencies and petition for acceptance of rabies titers in lieu of repeated vaccination for licensing.

What Every Veterinarian Should Know About Canine and Feline Vaccines and Vaccination Programs
- Ronald D. Schultz, PhD

As always, Dr. Schultz delivered an informative, provocative and important message to all attendees at the 2004 Conference.

General Principles

He began by reminding us that the original vaccinologists were all virologists. He then compared Innate or Natural Immunity which is nonspecific with Acquired or Adaptive Immunity which is specific. The former is present from birth, operates against any substance, and is not enhanced by prior exposure, whereas the latter is a defense mechanism, tailored to individual pathogens, and is enhanced by prior exposure. Age is related to innate immunity, as eventually there is immune senescence which plays a role in longevity. Vaccines sometimes enhance innate immunity, although they are designed to enhance acquired immunity. An example is the intranasal kennel cough vaccine, which is preferred over the parenteral version, as it stimulates innate immunity immediately.

In the presence of Protective Immunity, when re-infection occurs, the immune challenge agent(s) is recognized by pre-formed antibody and effector T-cells; rapid expansion and differentiation of the effector cells occurs; and the infectious agent(s) is removed. When Immunologic Memory is present, only mild or unapparent infection occurs; this protection may last a lifetime. Effector B-cells are plasma cells that live for at least 10 years and likely forever in the bone marrow. Sterile Immunity exists when there is no infection or unapparent re infection.

The endocrine and nervous systems are intimately interactive with the immune system, i.e. neuroendocrine system and immunity.

It was in 1978 that Ron Schultz and Fred Scott at Cornell first recommended triennial vaccination [Vet Clin N Am 8(4):755-768, 1978]. So it has taken 25 years for this recommendation to be adopted by veterinary scientists, industry, and mainstream veterinary medicine!

Cell-Mediated Immunity is not important in canine parvo virus (CPV) but very important in canine distemper virus (CDV) infections. In the presence of very low or no measurable immunity to CDV after appropriate vaccination, it is basically useless to revaccinate. Currently licensed CDV vaccines, including the recombinant (Merial) vaccine, produce excellent sustained immunity. He recommends giving MLV CDV vaccines twice, once before 12 weeks and once after 12 weeks of age, then every 3 years thereafter. For the recombinant vaccine, he recommends vaccination at 6, 8, and 12 weeks of age, then every 3 years thereafter.

Core Vaccines. These for dogs are distemper, parvovirus, adenovirus 2 (CAV-2), and rabies; for the cat, core vaccines are panleukopenia and rabies. The last dose of vaccine must be given at 12 weeks or older, and revaccination is given at 1 year of age or 1 year later. Non-Core Vaccines for dogs are Leptospirosis, Bordetella, Lyme , and canine parainfluenza vaccines; for cats, these are calicovirus and herpes (rhinotracheitis) viruses. Canine corona virus and Giardia vaccines are generally not recommended.


Duration of Immunity

The minimum duration of immunity (DOI) is 7-10 years for CDV, CPV-2, and CAV-2. Booster vaccination more than every 3 years offers no benefit. Two methods are used to measure DOI: disease agent challenge studies, and serology measurements. But, what is the DOI for natural infection for these important pathogens? The protection generated by MLV vaccines is equivalent to that of natural infection or disease. For killed vaccines, DOI is usually less and immunity is less complete. Recovery from disease is for life with CDV, CPV-2, and CAV-2.

CPV lives in the environment for years or more, whereas CDV is fragile and survives about 15 minutes in the naked state. With CDV exposure, one has up to 72 hours to vaccinate and still induce protection, but with CPV, one has only 72 minutes. In specific pathogen-free animals, vaccination against core agents lasts at least 4 ½ years.

After only 1 dose of rabies vaccine, DOI is 5-7 years based on serologic titers.

Pfizer's published study in January 2004 showed DOI of at least 4 years for their 5-way canine and 3-way feline vaccines. Schering Plough now guarantees their CDV, CPV, and CAV-2 vaccines for 3 years; their panleukopenia and FeLV vaccines are also guaranteed for 3 years. Fort Dodge recently showed 3--year protection after challenge studies for their CDV, CPV, and CAV-2 vaccines.


Miscellaneous

Feline Leukemia Vaccine. Recommends product by Fort Dodge or Schering Plough; 2 doses must be given 3 weeks apart, and preferably at 9 and 12 weeks of age. No measurable titers are typically found, and no more vaccines are needed for cats over 1 year of age as FeLV is not that contagious.

Lyme disease. Infection and disease seen mostly in northeast and around the Great Lakes region. Vaccination is generally not recommended except in high-risk areas, and then only the recombinant vaccine is recommended at the beginning of the tick season. [Generally good advice to avoid bacterin vaccines, whenever possible, as they are immune modulators (e.g. Lyme, Leptospirosis, and Bordetella parenterals; intranasal Bordetella is satisfactory).]

Leptospirosis Vaccine. As a zoonotic disease, there is concern about contagion with leptospira spp. However, vaccination does not prevent against shedding of the organism, so it is not protective of others. Even 2 vaccinations and annual boosters will not adequately protect against re-infection, because of the short-lived immunity induced (several months). Hypersensitivity reactions to leptosirosis vaccines (Type I hypersensitivity) are long-lived, and can be recalled acutely even after 4 years. Many dogs now have measurable titers against L. bratislava and L. autumnalis, but they do not have disease unless titers are in the thousands and clinical signs are present. Serovars of leptospira spp. cross-react, especially with L. grippotyphosa, L. pomona , L. canicola, and L. icterohemorrhagiae.

Kennel Cough Vaccines. In 5,000 dogs studied in shelters, it made no difference which vaccines were given, as some dogs still got kennel cough. Upper respiratory infection is endemic in most pounds and shelters because of the crowding, poor ventilation, and variable hygiene. Kennel cough vaccines are basically useless, as natural immunization is ubiquitous.

Recombinant Vaccine. Good for use in shelters as are more likely to overcome maternal immunity. CDV recombinant can boost immunity rapidly in 90% of cases, whereas MLV CDV can do so in only about 10%. Excellent antibody titers are produced to the rCDV product, and they don't cause immunosuppression like MLV vaccines. Merial's recombinant CDV vaccine should be given at 6, 8, and 12 weeks of age , and then 3 years later. A question remains about the induction of autoimmune disease with recombinant vaccines, although hypersensitivity reactions should not occur. Naked DNA vaccines are being developed, as the next stage of vaccinology.

Horses. Generally, equine vaccines perform poorly (give one year or no immunity). Must ignore information about dogs, cats, and humans when dealing with horse vaccines. Even the newer equine influenza vaccine gives immunity for only about 11 months. Equine herpes vaccines are lousy, giving immunity for only 2-3 months in attempting to prevent herpes abortion, but these vaccines should never be given to pregnant mares, despite common recommendation to do so.

Tetanus vaccines produce good 3-year immunity. For West Nile Virus (WNV) vaccine, 2 doses are given 2-3 weeks apart at 6 months of age, but duration is only about 6 months. The newer WNV vaccines give 11-12 months immunity.

Vaccine Non-Responders or Poor Responders. The estimated frequency of these low responders is 1:1000-1:10,0000, and is genetically determined. It more likely occurs with CPV than CDV (10 times less) or CAV-2 (100 times less) vaccines, especially in Dobermans and Rottweilers, although most of these bloodlines have died off now. Non-responders to one vaccine are unlikely to be non-responders to another vaccine agent.

Summary provided by W. Jean Dodds, DVM


  The 3 year rabies and the 1 year rabies are the same vaccine, different label. But if a dog of was mistakenly given a vac labeled 1 year, most vets would make that animal get another rabies shot the next year.  As long as your liability is covered, who cares about that animals health, you can just treat the problems that show up that are virtually unprovable to show the cause as the vaccine.

 Titers do not prove or disprove that a dog needs a booster.  They can be low and the animal can be protected because it might mean the animal hasn't been challenged by the virus recently.  That is why some vets don't want to do them.  They can bring a peace of mind if they are high, but low can give a false assumption of need for re-vaccination.  Some states will accept a rabies titer in lieu of a vaccination, it would have to be re-checked yearly.  Also rabies waivers can be given and should be.  Though most vets are reluctant to do so.  Sorry, your dog has cancer, but it must have it rabies vaccination.

  Since you are such a stickler for following labels and such, remember, only HEALTHY animals per manufacturers labels, are to be vaccinated.  A dog comes in with skin problems, he is not healthy.  You would be going against the manufacturers and giving it off label.  I could probably think of a hundred more cases where a vet will still vaccinate even though the animal is not healthy.  That is done every day.  That is a disgrace.   But since cause is hard to prove, the vet gets away with it without a worry to himself. 
 
   You are a vet that would scare me. You stand behind "we are not 100% sure" and keep on doing the same things, even though if you thought about it you could see a connection between some conditions and vaccinating. You ignore the most up to date studies and information available.  I have based my decisions on actual studies, peer reviewed articles, top professionals in their fields, and personal first hand experience. 

  When you want to open the door and come into the current information, then we can talk.  Until then I will counter any inadequate or misleading information you post.  I will try and do this like I have always tried to do, with studies and respected articles, and not junk science, all the information that is available, not just what I think people should know. Vets hiding behind liabilities and ignoring the evidence before their eyes is one of the main reason that people are being proactive and educating themselves.  We have to, one can not have the trust in your vet like used to be commonplace.   


  I guess you forgot sarcasm   
 

[~flower~]

Canine Vaccine Survey

by Canine Health Concern, England


It is well known that there are risks associated with vaccination of dogs, just as there are risks for humans. The trouble is, no one has adequately quantified the risks. Is it true that only a tiny minority of dogs suffer adverse reactions to vaccines, or is the problem more common? And what is a vaccine reaction? Is it something that happens immediately after the jab, or can you expect a reaction to manifest weeks or months later?

Christopher Day, Honorary Secretary of the British Homoeopathic Veterinary Association, told us that, in his experience, where the start date of a dog's illness is known, a high percentage (around 80%) begin within three months of vaccination.

Canine Health Concern tested this observation and has analyzed the histories of over 3,800 dogs post vaccination. This critical mass, by any standards, is a very high number from which to draw valid statistical conclusions. Most commercial scientific research involves significantly fewer dogs (tending to base their conclusions on data involving a couple of litters of puppies, if that). We have been able to show a definite statistical correlation between a vaccine event and the onset of a number of specific illnesses. Our published conclusions have satisfied mathematical or inferential statistical tests at a level of confidence of 99% or better.

Overall, we found that 66% per cent of all sick dogs start being sick within three months of vaccination, which is considerably more than double the expected rate of illness. Worse, 49% of all illnesses reported in the survey occurred within 30 days of vaccination. This is over five times the expected percentage if vaccination had no bearing on subsequent illness. More damning still, 29% of sick dogs first became sick within seven days of their vaccine jab. This means that a dog is 13 times more likely to become ill within seven days of vaccination than at any other time.

In the study, 69.2% of allergic dogs first became allergic within three months of being vaccinated - more than double the expected number. 55.8% of dogs with autoimmune disease developed the condition within three months of being vaccinated - again, more than twice the expected figure. Of dogs with colitis, 65.9% developed the complaint within three months of being vaccinated and, of dogs with dry eye/conjunctivitis, 70.2% developed their conditions within three months - both nearly three times higher than expected. 73.1% of dogs with epilepsy first became epileptic within three months of vaccination. As 2% of all dogs in the UK are epileptic, vaccines are clearly causing horrendous damage. For statisticians, our Chi score for epilepsy is 96: any Chi test statistic higher than twelve gives a 95% confidence about the conclusions. Without doubt, then, the majority of epileptic dogs in our survey are vaccine damaged.

But perhaps most astonishing is the fact that a majority of dogs (64.9%) with behavioral problems appear to have developed their difficulties within three months of vaccination. Similarly, 72.5% per cent of dogs with nervous or worrying dispositions became nervous within three months of their jabs (with a Chi score of 112), and 73.1% per cent of dogs with short attention spans lost their attentiveness within three months of vaccination.

All of our evidence ties in with research in the human field, and a growing body of veterinary research, which says that vaccines cause allergies, hypersensitivity reactions, autoimmune disease, encephalitis, epilepsy, personality changes and brain damage.

The CHC results are statistically very significant, and carry with them very high statistical certainty. This means that the evidence is strong that the above diseases can be triggered or caused by vaccination.

Other diseases that were highly represented within three months post vaccination included cancer (35.1%) , chorea (81%), encephalitis (78.6%), heart conditions (39.2%), kidney damage (53.7%), liver damage/failure (61.5%), paralysis of the rear end (69.2%), and pancreas problems (54.2%).

Research conducted at Purdue University shows routinely vaccinated dogs developing auto antibodies to a vast range of normal canine biochemicals - which corroborates our findings.

Interestingly, our study showed that arthritis and Chronic Destructive Reticulo Myelopathy (CDRM - a degenerative disease affecting myelin in the spinal cord) occur in clusters nine months after vaccination, suggesting that the damage from vaccines resulting in these two diseases takes longer to develop or to show their symptoms.

Many contend that vaccines are a necessary evil; that we need them to protect our dogs against certain deadly canine diseases. However, our survey found that high percentages of dogs are developing the diseases we vaccinate against, soon after vaccination.

Of dogs with hepatitis, 64% contracted it within three months of being vaccinated and, of those with parainfluenza, 50% developed it within three months of their shots. Also, 69% of dogs with parvovirus, 56% of dogs with distemper, and every single dog with leptospirosis in the survey contracted the diseases within three months of vaccination.

Our figures support the view that vaccines don't confer guaranteed immunity and may actually cause the diseases they're designed to prevent. Our figures appear to demonstrate that vaccines cause illness in one in every  hundred dogs - and this is a conservative estimate.

For human beings, the  World Health Organization considers a reaction of one in 10,000 unacceptable. Surely the same statistics apply to dogs. Worse - and bordering on corporate dog slaughter - is the fact that we are urged to vaccinate companion animals every year. There is no scientific justification for this; it is a crime.

This research is ongoing. For further details or to participate, contact  Canine Health Concern @ Box 6943, Forfar, Angus DD8 3WG, Scotland or, for email, click on my name below.

Thank you.

Catherine O¹Driscoll
Canine Health Concern

[~flower~]

U. K. CANINE VACCINATION SURVEY

From England comes a report on the preliminary results of a well structured survey concerning possible health problems resulting from vaccination of dogs.

Although this is an ongoing survey the early tabulation on approximately 2,700 dogs appears to confirm our concerns with the potential for adverse effects from vaccination.

For the purposes of the survey they asked all participants to list their dogs' illnesses and tell them how soon they started after the date of vaccination. In theory, if vaccination has no adverse effect or even a bearing on subsequent illness, then illnesses will occur in equal numbers at any time during the twelve months following vaccination.

One aim of the survey was to test whether there was a timeframe bias between illnesses that developed that might be vaccine-linked. In fact, the results indicate a distinct statistical skew within the first three months. During this short time span one would expect to see no more than 25% of illnesses based on a one year time frame.

Overall, some 55% of all illnesses reported, occurred within the first three months after vaccination!

Although vaccine reactions are admitted by the manufacturers (all be it at an exceptionally low rate of perhaps 5 in one million) I don't know of any company that is admitting to a relationship of disease to vaccination. The survey indicates a strong statistical probability that such a link does in fact exist! Some examples after vaccination are:
   Diarrhea-- 4.9% of dogs surveyed had diarrhea (68% of these within the first three months).
   Allergies-- 3.8% had allergies (55.6% within the first three months).
   Colitis-- 2.7% had colitis (56.9% first three months).
   Dry Eye/conjunctivitis-- 2.5% of dogs surveyed (56.9% within first three months)
   Epilepsy-- 2.1% had epilepsy (65.5% in first three months).
   Loss of appetite-- 3.4% suffered a loss of appetite (79.8% within first three months).
   Nasal discharges-- 1.7% showed nasal discharges (84.1% within three months of vaccination).
   Nervous/worrying disposition-- 2.8% suffered from this complaint (54.8% began to do so within three months).
   Skin problems-- 5.4% of dogs surveyed had skin problems after vaccination (46.2% within three months).
   Vomiting-- 3% were reported to have vomited (72.5% of these dogs, within three months of vaccination).
   Weight loss-- 2.5% of dogs in the survey had lost weight.(63.1% were within three months after vaccination).
   Behavioral problems-- 2.5% had behavioral problems (55.4% occurred within three months).
   Tumor or growth at vaccination site-- 1.1% of all dogs surveyed suffered from this occurrence. (67.9% within the first three months after vaccination).

To increase statistical confidence they still need more completed questionnaires to study the patterns of each of the following diseases (although the interim figures do give rise for concern):
   Cancer--31% within 3 months
   Chorea--63.2% within 3 months
   Encephalitis--75% within 3 months
   Heart conditions--26.8% within 3 months
   Kidney damage--40.5% within three months
   Lameness--52% within three months
   Liver damage--47% within three months
   Paralysis of abdomen--64.7% within three months
   Short attention span--68.4% within three months
   Autoimmune diseases--54.8% within three months

They are also waiting for more survey returns for confirmation of early indications of dogs contracting the diseases they were vaccinated against. So far the results are:
   Hepatitis--63.6% occurred within three months
   Parainfluenza--50% within three months
   Parvovirus--68.2% within three months
   Distemper--55.6% within three months
   Leptospirosis--100% of dogs contracted leptospirosis within three months of vaccination.

These preliminary results tend to support the view that vaccines either don't protect, or can cause the disease itself.

Another interesting observation made from the survey was that the common belief that as dogs get older, the incidence of illness increases, was not supported. There was no statistical bias between the incidence of illness and the ages of the dogs covered in the survey.

The incidence of illness in dogs treated with more than one vaccine at the same time is significantly higher than when only a single vaccine is administered. The "cocktail" effect appears more hazardous (confidence level of higher than 99.9%). They also reported that dogs that were annually boosted were more likely to become ill than those that were not boosted annually.

From the preliminary results I have seen so far, I believe that this particular survey is one that we could all benefit from. The more dog owners that participate the better. Your contribution of a little time to fill out the questionnaire would certainly be of value. There is no charge. You can obtain the form from:

The Canine Health Census

P.O. Box 1, Longer, Derbyshire SK17 OJD

England

Or you can contact John Watt:

TEL: 44 1298 74737

FAX: 44 1298 84739

e-mail: john@dogcensus.win-uk.netJohn does urge all veterinarians interested in this work to participate and study their own patient records to see whether a similar pattern can be established.

[Vet]

Yours is exactly the thinking that is continuing to cause our pets harm.  Fortunately most vets are now at least considering that more is not always better and may be keeping up on studies and peer articles, and information from both the AVMA and the AAHA on the risks associated with vaccinating and increased risks from over vaccinating. 

I swear, you are the type of client who used to drive me absolutely crazy when I was in private practice.  I would try to explain how I was thinking, but unless I did it in eactly the words you are looking far, you'd have a keniption fit to try to prove you are right with little regard for the exact information as long as you found pages and pages and pages of it to back up your opinion, of basically EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY!!      How am I a veterinarian that is causing pets harm when I've repeatedly posted that the important thing is to assess the risk of the patient prior to administering a vaccination---a conversation that needs to be determined between the veterinarian and the owner.   I've also posted that I think you should follow the laws of the county you live in, even though I don't necessarily believe in the frequency of vaccination for that county?   The bottom line is that there are vaccinations on the market that should be considered as a "core" set for dogs, cats, ferrets, and livestock.   There are also many "optinal" vaccinations I don't think should be administered unless it is determined that the animal has significant risk of acquiring the disease.  Administration of these vaccinations are based on risk of the patient.   The veterinarian is legally bound by the label of the vaccination, but has to engage in open conversation with the owner to fully assess the risk of the patient and from there develop a vaccination protocol that is best fitting for them.   Again, different animals have different degrees of risk of disease.  You have to consider that.  To blatanly not consider risk and forgo vaccinations is as stupid as blindly giving a pet everything under the sun.   

  The 3 year rabies and the 1 year rabies are the same vaccine, different label. But if a dog of was mistakenly given a vac labeled 1 year, most vets would make that animal get another rabies shot the next year. 

This is not true.  There are two companies that market a "3 year" rabies vaccination--Imrab 3 and Rabvac3.   These vaccinations are labeled to be given after 12 weeks of age, boostered after 1 year, and then every 3 years (I'm paraphrasing for space).   The last private practice I worked as an associate in based their rabies vaccinations on this part of the label.  If a dog had recieved a rabies vaccination at 12 weeks of age, recieved a booster at 1 year, and then recieved a booster, but that booster was put into the computer as a 1 year vaccination and I caught it the next year, I would have told my office manager, verified the rabies vaccination serial number, and then changed the medical record to say that that dog was not due a booster vaccination for 2 more years.   Why overbooster when the dog isnt' due?  That makes no sense and it goes against the practice philosophy I've been trying to explain to you.  The point of that practice was to practice good medicine, not make $20 bucks off a rabies vaccination.   

 

Titers do not prove or disprove that a dog needs a booster.  They can be low and the animal can be protected because it might mean the animal hasn't been challenged by the virus recently.  That is why some vets don't want to do them.  They can bring a peace of mind if they are high, but low can give a false assumption of need for re-vaccination.  Some states will accept a rabies titer in lieu of a vaccination, it would have to be re-checked yearly.  Also rabies waivers can be given and should be.  Though most vets are reluctant to do so.  Sorry, your dog has cancer, but it must have it rabies vaccination.

Ok, so what should you use for guidelines?  I'll agree a low titer isn't a cut and dry indicator that a dog needs a booster, but I'm not going to jeopardize my dogs health and find out that he really didn't have the immunity I thought he had with a low titer after he gets distemper.  I don't think most of my clients would like that either.... ok, mam, you lab has a low titer, but it might be protective.....   6 months later:  whoops, the low titers werent protective, I'm sorry your dog has distemper now and will die from neurologic diease.   Its OK, we thought the low titers were protective, but sorry, we were wrong.   Do you see the point?   You have to make a decision based on the animals risk.   

 

Since you are such a stickler for following labels and such, remember, only HEALTHY animals per manufacturers labels, are to be vaccinated.  A dog comes in with skin problems, he is not healthy.  You would be going against the manufacturers and giving it off label.  I could probably think of a hundred more cases where a vet will still vaccinate even though the animal is not healthy.  That is done every day.  That is a disgrace.   But since cause is hard to prove, the vet gets away with it without a worry to himself. 

I wouldn't vaccinate a dog with severe skin problems.   Thats why I always insist on performing a physical examination on all animals prior to administering vaccinations--and I did everything I could to drill that into my students and interns heads.  That physical examination is key in helping determine the physical status of the animal.   
 
 

 You are a vet that would scare me. You stand behind "we are not 100% sure" and keep on doing the same things, even though if you thought about it you could see a connection between some conditions and vaccinating. You ignore the most up to date studies and information available.  I have based my decisions on actual studies, peer reviewed articles, top professionals in their fields, and personal first hand experience. 

And again, you are a client who would absolutely drive me crazy because unless I said things exactly worded how you wanted them to be worded you would continue to try to overwhelm me with "evidence" essentially saying what I was trying to tell you in the first place.   I've told cleints they don't have to use my services and were free to walk out the door if they felt I wasn't giving them the service they thought they should be getting.   I'd tell you the same thing....   

 

When you want to open the door and come into the current information, then we can talk.  Until then I will counter any inadequate or misleading information you post.  I will try and do this like I have always tried to do, with studies and respected articles, and not junk science, all the information that is available, not just what I think people should know. Vets hiding behind liabilities and ignoring the evidence before their eyes is one of the main reason that people are being proactive and educating themselves.  We have to, one can not have the trust in your vet like used to be commonplace.   


  I guess you forgot sarcasm   [/color]
 

nah, honey, you got your pants wound up really, really tight.  Unwind them and then we can talk.   

[~flower~]

   

  Ok, I am worn out anyways.      I have had to do some thinking the past couple days - I will give you that!!

  I will just toss this out there,  I do not vaccinate except for rabies as required by law.   I have (2) 6year old dogs, one rec'd 2 set sof vacs (one breeder, one I did) and my male dane never rec'd anything but rabies since the day I brought him home at 8 weeks (he had been vaccine assaulted by the breeder with 3 sets of vacs before I got him, hence his tendon tear).   My female rescue dane (approx 4yrs) no boosters with me, she probably was done at the shelter and  who knows what her owners did before they dumped her.  My youngest, 1 year old chi, he had one puppy series by his breeder, nothing since.  He scares me the most with vaccinations.   How can a 6.5# chi get the same dose vac as my 170# dane?   And people wonder why little dogs are pissers, the rabies alone can change temperaments.  That is something I think should be addressed, the one dose for all theory. 

  I feel 100% comfortable with a decision to take a puppy and never vaccinate it for anything.  I think it goes with the raw feeding.  Building up the immune system from every side.  Do I think they could never catch anything, no, but I do believe that a dog that catches distemper or parvo that has never been vaccinated for it stands a better chance of fighting it than one that has been vac'd.  (you familiar with Parvaid, btw?)

  That was longer than I intended, (yes I am that client you described  )

[Vet]

   

  Ok, I am worn out anyways.      I have had to do some thinking the past couple days - I will give you that!! 

Sorry.      Discussion is a very good thing.   I didn't mean to upset you. 

I'll tell you part of the reason I came to this board, I'm not seeing as many dog and cat patients now as I have in the past (I've moved on with my career and dogs and cats aren't a part of it) and hanging out on a message board like this is something that will hopefully force me to stay on my toes a little bit more.   

  I will just toss this out there,  I do not vaccinate except for rabies as required by law.   I have (2) 6year old dogs, one rec'd 2 set sof vacs (one breeder, one I did) and my male dane never rec'd anything but rabies since the day I brought him home at 8 weeks (he had been vaccine assaulted by the breeder with 3 sets of vacs before I got him, hence his tendon tear).   My female rescue dane (approx 4yrs) no boosters with me, she probably was done at the shelter and  who knows what her owners did before they dumped her.  My youngest, 1 year old chi, he had one puppy series by his breeder, nothing since.  He scares me the most with vaccinations.   How can a 6.5# chi get the same dose vac as my 170# dane?   And people wonder why little dogs are pissers, the rabies alone can change temperaments.  That is something I think should be addressed, the one dose for all theory. 

I'll be honest the volume of vaccination bothers the crap out of me too.   I will say one of the associates I used to work with decided, for whatever reason, that smaller dogs needed a smaller volume of vaccinations, so he, in his infinite stupidity stared administering half doses of vaccinations (yes, he charged full price for them until we caught him doing it--at which point we had a mess explaining things to clients)   The thing was he had the highest per veterinarian case load of parvo puppies in that hospital.   He literally saw 2-3 parvo puppies for every 1 I saw.  When we reviewed his records because of the billing issues, most of those dogs were puppies who he'd given 1 or 2 half strength vaccinations to.   My conclusion based on that was that a half dose does not provide the degree of immunity that a full dose does.    I also started looking into volume of vaccinations and why you need to give a small dog what seems like so darned much....  (and just so you know, my 9000 lb elephan patients get the same volume of rabies vaccination that my wifes 900 lb horse does---which is the same volume of rabies vaccination my 285 lb ass got when I was in veterinary school.  This holds true for multiple species) 

The best answer I can give is one I'll admit is confusing.  Its based on the antigenic mass of the vaccination.   That is the key---the mass of agent within the given volume of vaccine that will stimulate the immune system to have a response as is ideally appropriate for the animal being vaccinated.  A given volume of vaccine has a set antigenic mass.   This holds true for human and veterinary medicine.  The antigenic mass doesn't change whether it's a 2 lb teacup poodle or a 200 lb Dane. Same with babies and adult humans, the vaccine volume is the same.   I know its confusing and its something I'll admit Iv'e struggled with, but taking a few minutes to try to understand exactly how vaccines work, how they stimulate the immune system, and how the body responds to them helps out some.   

If you were a client of mine, I would tell you that I do not advise the approach that you are taking (which is obvious from our previous discussions) because of the questionable history of the vaccinations which your animals have recieved.  I don't know the risk of exposure with your pets, but to me its like playing russian roulette for the simple fact that you have not completed any sort of vaccination series with your dogs.   Your dogs have had one or two shot in the puppy series (Assuming you are doing a minimal DAP) but no more.  This means that there is a reasonable chance that the dogs have NOT developed full lasting immunity.   Look back through many of the posts that you have put up here, the big debate largely centers around boostering adult dogs.   There seems to be a general consensius that puppies all need some sort of core vaccinations---ie a DAP.   When to booster them after they are puppies is the area of debate.   If your dogs have recieved no vaccinations what so ever, then the statistical chance of them having protective immunity is significantly reduced vs a dog that had the puppy series and possibly some adult vaccinations.    I've seen a couple of cases of parvo where the owner has a 2 year old adult dog who only recieved 1 puppy vaccination. The owner goes out and adopts a puppy from the humane society, takes it home over the weekend and the puppy breaks with Parvo, which the older dog starts to show signs of 3-4 days later.  From there its a nightmare, where in my experience, for whatever reason the older dogs were hit much, muc harder by the parvo virus than the youngr ones.   

Now your choice to vaccinate them needs to be considered with your risk.   I'd encourage you to at least abide by local rabies vaccination  laws.   They may not be ideal, but lets face it, there is a legal issue that has to be dealt with.  Not only that, but you have Great Danes--a breed that does fall under some degree of the stupid breed legislation running crazy in the US.  I've successfully argued legal cases for clients based on the simple fact that the provided their dogs with heartworm, flea, and tick preventative and most of all vaccinations.   I dont' necessarily agree with it, but its a fact that legally these sort of things are used as a measure of "quality of ownership".   

 

I feel 100% comfortable with a decision to take a puppy and never vaccinate it for anything.  I think it goes with the raw feeding.  Building up the immune system from every side.  Do I think they could never catch anything, no, but I do believe that a dog that catches distemper or parvo that has never been vaccinated for it stands a better chance of fighting it than one that has been vac'd.  (you familiar with Parvaid, btw?)

Have you ever seen parvo or distemper or contagious hepatitis?   Parvo is a terrible disease that will rip through a group of dogs like wildfire.   Again, I think vaccinating a puppy with core vaccinations, then assessing risk of exposure for the dog while abiding by local legislature is the most sound medical approach.   

and yes, I am familiar with Parvaid, although its not something I use on a regular basis.  One key ingredient missing from that herbal concoction is Glutamine.  Parvo is an instinal viral infection that literally results in the lining of the inesting peeling out of the dog.  Supplementing glutamine is very, very important when treating this type of disease in my opinion. 

 

That was longer than I intended, (yes I am that client you described  )[/color]

Nah, its all good. 

[~flower~]

Sorry.      Discussion is a very good thing.   I didn't mean to upset you. 

I'll tell you part of the reason I came to this board, I'm not seeing as many dog and cat patients now as I have in the past (I've moved on with my career and dogs and cats aren't a part of it) and hanging out on a message board like this is something that will hopefully force me to stay on my toes a little bit more.

  I think discussion is good too.  I belong to a few groups that are pretty much 100% against vaccines so besides hearing about some new studies or something, it is pretty much the same stuff.  A new member will show up and spark some discussion but they are anti-vaccine groups so the discussions are kind of skewed one way.    Just recently someone had asked about vaccinating their ferret and the replies were pretty much don't.  I spoke up and wanted to make sure the person knew that distemper was pretty much 100% fatal in ferrets, (most of the comments were on the rabies vaccine).  I have had ferrets and currently have one, 9 years old, lost my other 9 year old on 4/12/07, and have not vaccinated them in about 7 years, and felt comfortable with that decision, but I couldn't let this person not know about that risk.  I thought I was going to get slammed for that, but actually no one said anything.  Maybe because I am a long standing member and I am not afraid to speak my mind, lol 
 

I'll be honest the volume of vaccination bothers the crap out of me too.   I will say one of the associates I used to work with decided, for whatever reason, that smaller dogs needed a smaller volume of vaccinations, so he, in his infinite stupidity stared administering half doses of vaccinations (yes, he charged full price for them until we caught him doing it--at which point we had a mess explaining things to clients)   The thing was he had the highest per veterinarian case load of parvo puppies in that hospital.   He literally saw 2-3 parvo puppies for every 1 I saw.  When we reviewed his records because of the billing issues, most of those dogs were puppies who he'd given 1 or 2 half strength vaccinations to.   My conclusion based on that was that a half dose does not provide the degree of immunity that a full dose does.    I also started looking into volume of vaccinations and why you need to give a small dog what seems like so darned much....  (and just so you know, my 9000 lb elephan patients get the same volume of rabies vaccination that my wifes 900 lb horse does---which is the same volume of rabies vaccination my 285 lb ass got when I was in veterinary school.  This holds true for multiple species) 

The best answer I can give is one I'll admit is confusing.  Its based on the antigenic mass of the vaccination.   That is the key---the mass of agent within the given volume of vaccine that will stimulate the immune system to have a response as is ideally appropriate for the animal being vaccinated.  A given volume of vaccine has a set antigenic mass.   This holds true for human and veterinary medicine.  The antigenic mass doesn't change whether it's a 2 lb teacup poodle or a 200 lb Dane. Same with babies and adult humans, the vaccine volume is the same.   I know its confusing and its something I'll admit Iv'e struggled with, but taking a few minutes to try to understand exactly how vaccines work, how they stimulate the immune system, and how the body responds to them helps out some.   

Thanks for that explanation.  I will pursue this further on my own to get a better understanding.  It still seems not right, like you said.  I think it is hard to wrap your mind around it.  If you have any sites or articles you could direct me too, I would appreciate that. 
 

If you were a client of mine, I would tell you that I do not advise the approach that you are taking (which is obvious from our previous discussions) because of the questionable history of the vaccinations which your animals have recieved.  I don't know the risk of exposure with your pets, but to me its like playing russian roulette for the simple fact that you have not completed any sort of vaccination series with your dogs.   Your dogs have had one or two shot in the puppy series (Assuming you are doing a minimal DAP) but no more.  This means that there is a reasonable chance that the dogs have NOT developed full lasting immunity.   Look back through many of the posts that you have put up here, the big debate largely centers around boostering adult dogs.   There seems to be a general consensius that puppies all need some sort of core vaccinations---ie a DAP.   When to booster them after they are puppies is the area of debate.   If your dogs have recieved no vaccinations what so ever, then the statistical chance of them having protective immunity is significantly reduced vs a dog that had the puppy series and possibly some adult vaccinations.    I've seen a couple of cases of parvo where the owner has a 2 year old adult dog who only recieved 1 puppy vaccination. The owner goes out and adopts a puppy from the humane society, takes it home over the weekend and the puppy breaks with Parvo, which the older dog starts to show signs of 3-4 days later.  From there its a nightmare, where in my experience, for whatever reason the older dogs were hit much, muc harder by the parvo virus than the youngr ones.   

 I understand and am aware of everything you have said.  As I said in my other post, I am trying to build up the body as a whole in every way I can.  I also took my dogs places as puppies where they would come in contact with other dogs or where other dogs have been.  The pet stores, on walks, etc.  I believe that they could have picked up immunities by coming across shed virus from vaccinated puppies.  This is a more natural approach that a vaccine.  Some people "vaccinate" their pups by letting them play with the neighbors dog that was recently vaccinated.   Some breeders are choosing to vaccinate one pup in the litter and letting shed virus do the others.  I personally could not do that, I would feel I was sacrificing that pup to possible future health problems for the sake of the others.  Other people give one puppy shot (and I believe this is what Schultz says) after 20 weeks,  do a titer and see if it took, and the dog is done for life.   The fallacy of the puppy series has always bugged me.  The only reason for the series is because of maternal immunity.  The series is so the odds are good that you will catch every one when they have worn off, and each animal is different on when that is.  By 20 weeks they usually are, so you could vaccinate once after that age and forgo the series.  The one year booster is a further safeguard that the vaccine took, but you could still give one then if you needed to feel safer. 

  I know quite a few breeders that have generations of raw fed, non vaccinated dogs.  And when I say non vaccinated, I mean for nothing.  They are trying to improve their breed.   One such person has Danes, and someone took a puppy that did get parvo.  When it was at the vets their was another puppy there with parvo that had been vaccinated for parvo a few weeks before.  The non vaccinated pup was out of there in 2 days and recovered fine, not sure if the other puppy made it.  The vet said it was a strong possibility that the puppy had gotten parvo from the vaccine.  That does happen, and it is usually a worse case than if contracted naturally.  Like the story you mentioned.  That puppy very well may have contracted parvo from the vaccine.  The non vaccinated puppy I mentioned was raw fed, and from raw fed, non vaccinated parents.  I am sure that played a role in it's parvo recovery.  That puppy as a whole was better able to deal with the virus.  Unlike the vaccinated, kibble fed, pup from vaccinated, kibble fed parents.  Chronic disease and poor health are passed down through the generations. The current theory is that it would take about 5 generations of natural reared (raw fed, no vacs) to undue that damage and actually get HEALTHY dogs.  My goal is to have the healthiest dogs that I can have.

Now your choice to vaccinate them needs to be considered with your risk.   I'd encourage you to at least abide by local rabies vaccination  laws.   They may not be ideal, but lets face it, there is a legal issue that has to be dealt with.  Not only that, but you have Great Danes--a breed that does fall under some degree of the stupid breed legislation running crazy in the US.  I've successfully argued legal cases for clients based on the simple fact that the provided their dogs with heartworm, flea, and tick preventative and most of all vaccinations.   I dont' necessarily agree with it, but its a fact that legally these sort of things are used as a measure of "quality of ownership".   

 Yes, rabies is req'd every 3 years here.  I have seen labradors on some of those BSL lists!  That issue has gotten way out of hand as a whole, but that is another discussion.       I could argue that my not chemically poisoning my dogs is a sign of my quailty of ownership.  I am not relying on "products" to give them the appearance of health (by suppressing the symptoms) and instead allowing them to have good health with no coverups.  The fact that my dogs can deal with fleas with no outside intervention is a better testament of health than the animal that never has fleas but gets preventative every month. You say it was luck, I say it was health.   So many of these problems are considered normal, and commonplace.  I say no, they should not be.   Skin problems should not be considered a small problem, dealt with by meds and other things that mask the symptoms but don't address the underlying problem - the health of the animal.   It disgusts me that in ferrets diseases are common and "go with the animal".  I don't know if my two 9 year old ferrets were/are genetically gifted, they came from Marshall farms and not a private breeder so I doubt they are. but I do think that not vaccinating them year after year played a part in them getting to 9 years disease free.  My remaining ferret has recently been diagnosed with adrenal (treated with a melatonin implant) and lymphoma.  2 diseases that usually strike 5 years earlier than that.   But people just don't see the connections.   

  Our pets are getting more chronic diseases than ever. Allergies, joint problems, skin problems,gastro problems, heart, cancers... etc etc.  And most people accept that. I do not accept that.  I will not accept that. 
 

Have you ever seen parvo or distemper or contagious hepatitis?   Parvo is a terrible disease that will rip through a group of dogs like wildfire.   Again, I think vaccinating a puppy with core vaccinations, then assessing risk of exposure for the dog while abiding by local legislature is the most sound medical approach.   

and yes, I am familiar with Parvaid, although its not something I use on a regular basis.  One key ingredient missing from that herbal concoction is Glutamine.  Parvo is an instinal viral infection that literally results in the lining of the inesting peeling out of the dog.  Supplementing glutamine is very, very important when treating this type of disease in my opinion.

 No I haven't but I have heard of cases.  But I have heard and have first hand experience with what vaccinating has done to the health of mine and other pets.  I have chosen the lesser risk, IMO, and am doing my best to give my animals what they need and require to be healthy. 

 That is why I question your every other year vacs for your own dogs. Do you not trust the efficacy of the vaccines?  Do you not believe the studies showing duration of immunity? Do you not think that your 13 year old dog has been vaccinated enough, and if he isn't immune now, he is never going to be? I was floored when I read that is what you do.  I find it hard to comprehend in light of what is now known about the risks of over vaccinating, and how long they do last, that someone would knowingly inject their pet, and keep doing it.  I think the AAHA's 3 year recommendation was a cop out on their part, they even say it was "the happy medium", and yet you continue to assault, and yes I believe it as an assault, your dogs immune system? 

  A recent post to one of my groups was regarding someone's neighbor dog and what they should tell this person about vaccinating.  One reply was since the person was going to be feeding it kibble and probably giving it every chemical and poison maybe she should just vaccinate it because it probably wouldn't be capable of dealing with a disease.   Those thoughts have crossed my mind when talking to people.  If someone isn't going to go the distance and work on the whole animal, then maybe they should follow the protocol and go every 3 years, or at least the puppy and one year, and spread out vacs over the next years, every 3 or 4, depending on the animal and it's vaccination history.   Older dogs with a vaccination history, I say, like I said to you, why bother with more, it's either got immunity or it doesn't at this point, leave it's body alone.
 
  To sum up, I try and build health with good food, and no assaults on the body, and expose them to different places to also build up their immunity. 

    I haven't been boostered for anything since high school, why should animals be subjected to it?

[~flower~]

Anyone going to listen to this online, Vet?  It's worth 2 CEU credits   


  http://www.naturalanimalworldconvention.org/



  I actually would like to hear some of those lectures. 


  9:00 a.m.
   

To Vaccinate or Not? That is the Question
Presenter: Dr. Steven Blake
   

For over one hundred years vaccination of humans and animals has been under scrutiny. Many veterinarians around the world share my opinion. The course’s purpose is to assist you in making an educated decision about vaccination for your entire family.

For the past 25 years I have stressed the following issue about vaccinations: Is the theory of vaccination practical? When we know there are an infinite number of strains of virus and bacteria, does it make any sense to try to prevent disease by injecting an infinite number of viruses and bacteria into the blood streams of animals and people? My answer is NO. A healthy immune system is the best prevention. My clients are encouraged to not vaccinate or vaccinate less. The documented cases of Distemper and Kennel cough I have treated were vaccinated at some point in their lives. All Parvo cases I have treated, post 1978's Parvo epidemic, had all been vaccinated. I want you to be aware there are no guarantees whether you choose to vaccinate or not.


  and this one:

3:00 p.m.
   

A Proper Diet for our Carnivorous Animals
Presenter: Dr. Tom Lonsdale
(with Kim Bloomer)
   

Nature knows and knows best. A natural diet acts as both food and medicine for carnivores. This fact has been overlooked ever since the pet-food industry and veterinary profession took charge of pet feeding.

Nowadays, concerned pet owners are taking back responsibility for feeding their pets. The most successful unlearn pet-food industry inspired misinformation and recognize that dogs, cats and ferrets are carnivores. They ask: What does Nature teach us about carnivore feeding?

Ideally dogs, cats and ferrets should be fed like their wild counterparts -- wolves, wild cats and polecats -- on whole carcasses of other animals. By this means, they receive the necessary nutrients plus the vital tooth cleaning effects of gnawing, ripping and tearing through meat and bones.

Giving your pets the best food and medicine is surprisingly easy, even in an unnatural world.

[~flower~]

Click for whole report on Heartgard:

    http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/730.htm


'Three hundred seventy dogs in controlled efficacy trials were treated with ivermectin. Of the 83 dogs treated at monthly intervals in natural infection trials, or treated 30 days after induced infection, with doses of ivermectin at 3.0 mcg/kg or greater, only 2 dogs developed infections. Even when the treatment interval was extended to 45 or 60 days following infection, only 2 of 88 dogs given ivermectin at 6.0 mcg/kg or more developed infections.'

[Vet]

  I think discussion is good too.  I belong to a few groups that are pretty much 100% against vaccines so besides hearing about some new studies or something, it is pretty much the same stuff.  A new member will show up and spark some discussion but they are anti-vaccine groups so the discussions are kind of skewed one way.    Just recently someone had asked about vaccinating their ferret and the replies were pretty much don't.  I spoke up and wanted to make sure the person knew that distemper was pretty much 100% fatal in ferrets, (most of the comments were on the rabies vaccine).  I have had ferrets and currently have one, 9 years old, lost my other 9 year old on 4/12/07, and have not vaccinated them in about 7 years, and felt comfortable with that decision, but I couldn't let this person not know about that risk.  I thought I was going to get slammed for that, but actually no one said anything.  Maybe because I am a long standing member and I am not afraid to speak my mind, lol 
 

I will tell you, I've advised ferret owners not to vaccinate their ferrets....    There are only two diseases you need to be concerned with in ferrets that there are vaccinations for----Rabies, which is again a legal issue.  In many places ferrets are treated as wildlife, meaning that if a ferret bites someone (and we all know ferrets can bite) even if its the local authorities are within the law to order that that animal be testedfor rabies if its been vaccinated for rabies or not.  The only way to test for rabies is to euthanize the animal, remove its head, and send in the brain/head for diagnostics. 

The other is distemper.   When I practiced in New York City, it made no sense for me to tell ferret owners that their ferrets were at risk getting distemper living on the 35th story of a high-rise apartment building.   I have seen distemper in domestic ferrets--but only in rural areas, where distemper was rampant in the wild raccoon population.  The thing is there is no cure for distemper in ferrets.  It will kill them.   So risk assessment is very important. 

 

Thanks for that explanation.  I will pursue this further on my own to get a better understanding.  It still seems not right, like you said.  I think it is hard to wrap your mind around it.  If you have any sites or articles you could direct me too, I would appreciate that. 

It can confusing reading, but I hope it will help things make sense for you.   
 

 

I understand and am aware of everything you have said.  As I said in my other post, I am trying to build up the body as a whole in every way I can.  I also took my dogs places as puppies where they would come in contact with other dogs or where other dogs have been.  The pet stores, on walks, etc. 

I agree with this, to a point.  You don't want to jeopardize their health by taking them somewhere where disease is rampant.  If you do that you will overwhelm their developing system and you will have major problems.   
 

I believe that they could have picked up immunities by coming across shed virus from vaccinated puppies.  This is a more natural approach that a vaccine.  Some people "vaccinate" their pups by letting them play with the neighbors dog that was recently vaccinated.   Some breeders are choosing to vaccinate one pup in the litter and letting shed virus do the others.  I personally could not do that, I would feel I was sacrificing that pup to possible future health problems for the sake of the others.  Other people give one puppy shot (and I believe this is what Schultz says) after 20 weeks,  do a titer and see if it took, and the dog is done for life. 

I'll be honest, I'm not sure about "shedding" of virus after vaccination.  In a "killed" product, it simply wont' happen.   Those vaccinations, there is no live product to be shed.  The vaccine is composed of antigenic particles, typically pieces of virus or bacteria bound with an adjuvent, which stimulate the immune system (which is also the reason that so many of them have adjuvents--which may be the real problem source with most vaccinations). 

In the case of modified live vaccinations, many of those contain virus which have been cultivated under conditions that disable the virulent properties. These virulent properties include virus reproduction and spreading.   That virus may be shed, but its lost the ability to infect other organisms.  That’s how you are able to vaccinate puppies and NOT induce major disease outbreaks.  Now, with some of the new Canary Pox vectored vaccinations---which for what ever manufacturing reason are sometimes very difficult to get-- the canary pox virus acts as a vector and may spread to other animals, but canary pox is not a normal disease for dogs or cats or ferrets, so the spreading of this virus vector between organisms should not happen unless there is some sort of mutation.   

Again, remember when you vaccinate an animal, you inject a certain antigen load.  Animals are by and large not vaccinated with the idea that the virus being put into them will replicate---most (and I say most, there are some where this isn’t the case) vaccines have had the replication factors removed from the virus, however, the presence of the virus injected will stimulate the immune system.  That’s where the immunity comes from. 

The fallacy of the puppy series has always bugged me.  The only reason for the series is because of maternal immunity.  The series is so the odds are good that you will catch every one when they have worn off, and each animal is different on when that is.  By 20 weeks they usually are, so you could vaccinate once after that age and forgo the series.  The one year booster is a further safeguard that the vaccine took, but you could still give one then if you needed to feel safer. 

   

I really, really wish I could draw you a picture for this question/statement.   The booster series is based on the developing immune system.   You have a set level of "minimal protection" which must be achieved for the vaccine to provide protection against disease.  The series is given because not every young animals immune system is fully active at the same time.   The same principles hold true with human vaccines.  While in the basic idea, the thought of a single vaccination at 20 weeks seems right, it isn’t because of how the body responds to antigenic stimulation.    Like I said, I really, really wish I could draw you a picture, its way easier to explain that way. 

 

I know quite a few breeders that have generations of raw fed, non vaccinated dogs.  And when I say non vaccinated, I mean for nothing.  They are trying to improve their breed.   One such person has Danes, and someone took a puppy that did get parvo.  When it was at the vets their was another puppy there with parvo that had been vaccinated for parvo a few weeks before.  The non vaccinated pup was out of there in 2 days and recovered fine, not sure if the other puppy made it.  The vet said it was a strong possibility that the puppy had gotten parvo from the vaccine.  That does happen, and it is usually a worse case than if contracted naturally.  Like the story you mentioned.  That puppy very well may have contracted parvo from the vaccine.  The non vaccinated puppy I mentioned was raw fed, and from raw fed, non vaccinated parents.  I am sure that played a role in it's parvo recovery.  That puppy as a whole was better able to deal with the virus.  Unlike the vaccinated, kibble fed, pup from vaccinated, kibble fed parents.  Chronic disease and poor health are passed down through the generations. The current theory is that it would take about 5 generations of natural reared (raw fed, no vacs) to undue that damage and actually get HEALTHY dogs.  My goal is to have the healthiest dogs that I can have.
[/color]

I disagree with that veterinarian saying that the puppy could have gotten Parvo from the vaccine.  Especially parvo that is capable of causing clinical disease.   You will rarely see puppies who show clinical signs of parvo—one of my pits did, where she had mild diarrhea for starting about 36-48 hours after vaccination for 2 days after she was vaccinated as a puppy.  That stopped as she got older.  We do not use true live vaccinations except on very rare occasions for that very reason.   That disease cannot develop from a vaccination and spread. 

 What is more likely to have happened is that the puppy was vaccinated—which causes an immune response and is acknowledged as producing a period where a puppy with a developing immune system may actually be more suseptable to the disease if they come into contact with it or the puppy had been exposed to parvo and was incubating the virus when the vaccination occured.  The majority of the parvo cases I’ve seen are those where the dogs have one, maybe two shots in the series, but did not get the full series.  That or the puppies come from dams that have not ever been vaccinated. 

In the case of animals getting sick and/or dying from diseases like Parvo, you need to consider virulence (ability and severity of infection) of the virus.  Parvo is a disease that has virulence that varies widely depending upon the area of the country where you live.  In Missouri, where I went to veterinary school, it wasn’t uncommon to have a 96-98% success rate for treating parvo puppies.   My wife and I would bring puppies home from the humane society and treat them on my back porch when I was a veterinary student  (one of the reasons I vaccinate my dogs---which I’ll get into later).  When I moved to Kentucky, we barely had a 50% success rate in treating that disease---even though I used the exact same treatment protocol from Missouri.   When I was in Ohio, we had about an 85% success rate.  There were only two major differences that I can think of that may account for this---one is frequency of vaccination of the mothers.  In Missouri, I know that many of the mothers were vaccinated, while in Kentucky very few were.  The maternal antibodies had to be a factor.  The other is virus virulence.  The only cases of Parvo induced endocarditis I’ve ever seen were in Kentucky.  It wasn’t uncommon to see puppies come in to the hospital where time of disease had been less than 48 hours and despite everything we did, they died.  Puppies who presented with similar clinical presentations often lived in Missouri and Ohio, they died in Kentucky.   It was pretty depressing. 

 Yes, rabies is req'd every 3 years here.  I have seen labradors on some of those BSL lists!  That issue has gotten way out of hand as a whole, but that is another discussion.       I could argue that my not chemically poisoning my dogs is a sign of my quailty of ownership.  I am not relying on "products" to give them the appearance of health (by suppressing the symptoms) and instead allowing them to have good health with no coverups.  The fact that my dogs can deal with fleas with no outside intervention is a better testament of health than the animal that never has fleas but gets preventative every month. You say it was luck, I say it was health.   So many of these problems are considered normal, and commonplace.  I say no, they should not be.   Skin problems should not be considered a small problem, dealt with by meds and other things that mask the symptoms but don't address the underlying problem - the health of the animal.   It disgusts me that in ferrets diseases are common and "go with the animal".  I don't know if my two 9 year old ferrets were/are genetically gifted, they came from Marshall farms and not a private breeder so I doubt they are. but I do think that not vaccinating them year after year played a part in them getting to 9 years disease free.  My remaining ferret has recently been diagnosed with adrenal (treated with a melatonin implant) and lymphoma.  2 diseases that usually strike 5 years earlier than that.   But people just don't see the connections.   

We could probably argue for a long, long time about some of what you wrote above.  I do agree with you about skin problems and such, however, I don’t think we have enough proof to attribute every single skin problem to vaccines.   

As far as your ferrets go…8-9 years old is a ripe old age.  Pat yourself on the back.   The oldest ferret I’ve had as a patient was just over 11 when heart disease finally killed her.  You could have written a textbook on the medical management of that ferret, but she was happy up to the day she died.  The incidence of adrenal disease in ferrets varies widely----although you are pretty much assured if you own a Marshall Farms ferret (they are mass produced, early spay neutered, and genetically line bred) they will get either adrenal disease, an insulinoma, or lymphoma or all of them at some time in their lives.  We could have a thread in and of itself devoted to adrenal disease….the bottom line is that there is a very, very strong body of research presented from Dr. Nico Shoemaker (I know I misspelled Nico’s last name) of Utrecht looking at early/spay/neutering as a predisposing factor for adrenal disease.  Based on the research he did, there is a definitive correlation based on LH modulation, early neutering, and its effects on stimulation of sex hormone production by the adrenal glands, and the fact that ferrets are seasonal breeders.  Unfortunately, in the US Marshal’s controls the market.   Having said that, I will say I’ve seen adrenal disease in ferrets neutered as adults and in unneutered ferrets, but they were all over 6 years of age, not the 3 year olds you sometimes see.

  Our pets are getting more chronic diseases than ever. Allergies, joint problems, skin problems,gastro problems, heart, cancers... etc etc.  And most people accept that. I do not accept that.  I will not accept that.  [/color]

   
I will agree with this.  I’m not sure what the source is, but one big factor is we are far better able to diagnose disease now than we were 25 years ago and we are expecting them to live longer.  That makes a difference. 

No I haven't but I have heard of cases.  But I have heard and have first hand experience with what vaccinating has done to the health of mine and other pets.  I have chosen the lesser risk, IMO, and am doing my best to give my animals what they need and require to be healthy. 

 That is why I question your every other year vacs for your own dogs. Do you not trust the efficacy of the vaccines?  Do you not believe the studies showing duration of immunity? Do you not think that your 13 year old dog has been vaccinated enough, and if he isn't immune now, he is never going to be? I was floored when I read that is what you do.  I find it hard to comprehend in light of what is now known about the risks of over vaccinating, and how long they do last, that someone would knowingly inject their pet, and keep doing it.  I think the AAHA's 3 year recommendation was a cop out on their part, they even say it was "the happy medium", and yet you continue to assault, and yes I believe it as an assault, your dogs immune system? 

  A recent post to one of my groups was regarding someone's neighbor dog and what they should tell this person about vaccinating.  One reply was since the person was going to be feeding it kibble and probably giving it every chemical and poison maybe she should just vaccinate it because it probably wouldn't be capable of dealing with a disease.   Those thoughts have crossed my mind when talking to people.  If someone isn't going to go the distance and work on the whole animal, then maybe they should follow the protocol and go every 3 years, or at least the puppy and one year, and spread out vacs over the next years, every 3 or 4, depending on the animal and it's vaccination history.   Older dogs with a vaccination history, I say, like I said to you, why bother with more, it's either got immunity or it doesn't at this point, leave it's body alone.
 
  To sum up, I try and build health with good food, and no assaults on the body, and expose them to different places to also build up their immunity. 

    I haven't been boostered for anything since high school, why should animals be subjected to it?

Again I think you’ve been real lucky or else your dogs live in a very, very low risk environment.  I will tell you why I booster my dogs… its simple risk assessment.   Up until about 10 months ago when my wife and I moved the last time we had at any given time 1-2 kittens or puppies from the local humane society in our house.  I’ve treated too many parvo dogs on my back porch to count.  Considering my dogs, I think they have a very, very high risk of exposure because of the revolving puppy door in my house.  Second, I work almost exclusively with wildlife now.  If you consider virulence of disease, typically strains that can cross species are more aggressive.  I think that increases the risk of the possibility of one of my dogs contracting something that I might inadvertently bring home with me.  Finally, I live in the country.  My dogs have been known to kill raccoons, coyotes and other wildlife.  That risk alone warrants attempting to protect them from disease I am certain they are going to be exposed.   

[Vet]

Click for whole report on Heartgard:

    http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/730.htm


'Three hundred seventy dogs in controlled efficacy trials were treated with ivermectin. Of the 83 dogs treated at monthly intervals in natural infection trials, or treated 30 days after induced infection, with doses of ivermectin at 3.0 mcg/kg or greater, only 2 dogs developed infections. Even when the treatment interval was extended to 45 or 60 days following infection, only 2 of 88 dogs given ivermectin at 6.0 mcg/kg or more developed infections.'

Again, as I posted earlier, ivermectin, as a heart worm preventative does not PREVENT infection with microfilaria, it prevents the development of heartworm disease.  Instead it kills microfilaria that are in the dogs body since the last time it recieved the preventative.   Those microfilaria are what develop into adult heartworms. 

[~flower~]

When I practiced in New York City, it made no sense for me to tell ferret owners that their ferrets were at risk getting distemper living on the 35th story of a high-rise apartment building.

  Try telling that to most members of the ferret community. Even getting them to do distemper every other year is like pulling teeth.  They will argue you can bring it in on your shoes, so the ferrets are never safe.  Meanwhile diseases are expected and accepted. 

I agree with this, to a point.  You don't want to jeopardize their health by taking them somewhere where disease is rampant.  If you do that you will overwhelm their developing system and you will have major problems. 

I would never purposely expose them, but I don't have the fear that they must not set a paw on the ground untll they have completed their puppy series. Some people are afraid even in their own backyard.  Just to get good socialization I think it is important to get them out and in new situations at a young age.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure about "shedding" of virus after vaccination.  In a "killed" product, it simply wont' happen.   Those vaccinations, there is no live product to be shed.  The vaccine is composed of antigenic particles, typically pieces of virus or bacteria bound with an adjuvent, which stimulate the immune system (which is also the reason that so many of them have adjuvents--which may be the real problem source with most vaccinations).

In the case of modified live vaccinations, many of those contain virus which have been cultivated under conditions that disable the virulent properties. These virulent properties include virus reproduction and spreading.   That virus may be shed, but its lost the ability to infect other organisms.  That’s how you are able to vaccinate puppies and NOT induce major disease outbreaks.  Now, with some of the new Canary Pox vectored vaccinations---which for what ever manufacturing reason are sometimes very difficult to get-- the canary pox virus acts as a vector and may spread to other animals, but canary pox is not a normal disease for dogs or cats or ferrets, so the spreading of this virus vector between organisms should not happen unless there is some sort of mutation.   

Again, remember when you vaccinate an animal, you inject a certain antigen load.  Animals are by and large not vaccinated with the idea that the virus being put into them will replicate---most (and I say most, there are some where this isn’t the case) vaccines have had the replication factors removed from the virus, however, the presence of the virus injected will stimulate the immune system.  That’s where the immunity comes from.

Occurrence of severe gastroenteritis in pups after canine parvovirus vaccine administration: A clinical and laboratory diagnostic dilemma

Nicola DecaroCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Costantina Desarioa, Gabriella Eliaa, Marco Campoloa, Alessio Lorussoa, Viviana Maria, Vito Martellaa and Canio Buonavogliaa
aDepartment of Animal Health and Well-being, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of Bari, Strada per Casamassima Km 3, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy
Received 10 August 2006;  revised 22 September 2006;  accepted 12 October 2006.  Available online 25 October 2006.

Abstract

A total of 29 faecal samples collected from dogs with diarrhoea following canine parvovirus (CPV) vaccination were tested by minor groove binder (MGB) probe assays for discrimination between CPV vaccine and field strains and by diagnostic tests for detection of other canine pathogens. Fifteen samples tested positive only for CPV field strains; however, both vaccine and field strains were detected in three samples. Eleven samples were found to contain only the vaccine strain, although eight of them tested positive for other pathogens of dogs. Only three samples were found to contain the vaccine strain without evidence of canine pathogens. The present study confirms that most cases of parvovirus-like disease occurring shortly after vaccination are related to infection with field strains of canine parvovirus type 2 (CPV-2) rather than to reversion to virulence of the modified live virus contained in the vaccine.


  This abstract appears to confirm shedding, along with your theory that the vaccinated parvo puppy did not get it from the vaccine, but was more susceptible to it because he was recently vaccinated.
 
  From Dr. Dodds:
  From The Immune System and Disease Resistance, a paper by DR W Jean Dodds, DVM

" A recent examination of the risks posed by MLV vaccines concluded that they are intrinsically more hazardous than inactivated products. The residual virulence and environmental contamination resulting from the shedding of vaccine virus is a serious concern."
-------   
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=2&cat=1648&articleid=962

 Shedding of vaccine agent

Vaccine virus may be found in the nasal secretions of dogs vaccinated intranasally. In addition, vaccine parvovirus is shed in the feces of vaccinated dogs, canine adenovirus-1 can be shed in the urine, and canine adenovirus-2 can be found in nasal secretions. These viruses are the vaccine forms of the virus; they do NOT revert back to the disease-causing strains.
---------
The Cornell Feline Health Center
College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University
& The American Association of Feline Practitioners
and the Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines

A second type of vaccine is the modified live-virus (MLV) vaccine (also referred to as an attenuated vaccine), which contains viruses that have been altered by various techniques, so that they no longer produce clinical disease. Viruses in these vaccines can replicate within the host and stimulate a rapid and excellent immune response. In some cases, vaccine virus may be shed from the vaccinated cat to infect other cats that may come in contact with the vaccinated cat. MLV vaccines should not be administered to pregnant cats.


   I think you should give a little more weight to vaccine shedding. If my dogs are repeatedly exposed to vaccine shedding it is a much healthier way to stimulate their immune system then a vaccine which bypasses the bodies ways of dealing with a preparing for an assault.  Again, this is my whole dog approach to health.

I really, really wish I could draw you a picture for this question/statement.   The booster series is based on the developing immune system.   You have a set level of "minimal protection" which must be achieved for the vaccine to provide protection against disease.  The series is given because not every young animals immune system is fully active at the same time.   The same principles hold true with human vaccines.  While in the basic idea, the thought of a single vaccination at 20 weeks seems right, it isn’t because of how the body responds to antigenic stimulation.    Like I said, I really, really wish I could draw you a picture, its way easier to explain that way.

You are trying to catch them in the period that the maternal immunities wane, and not leave them open to catching the virus, a single vaccine after 20 weeks would be sufficient if maternal anitibodies had waned:


http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=1&cat=1385&articleid=967


High levels of maternal antibodies present in a kitten's or puppy's bloodstream will block the effectiveness of a vaccine. When the maternal antibodies drop to a low enough level in the young animal, immunization by a commercial vaccine will work.

The antibodies from the mother generally circulate in the newborn's blood for a number of weeks. The complicating factor is that there is a period of time from several days to a couple of weeks in which the maternal antibodies are too low to provide protection against the disease, but too high to allow the vaccine to work and produce immunity. This period is called the window of susceptibility. This is the time when despite being vaccinated, a kitten or puppy can still contract the disease. This window of susceptibility can vary widely. The length and timing of the window of susceptibility is different in every litter and between animals in the same litter. Let us take canine parvovirus as an example.

The length and timing of the window of susceptibility is different in every litter, and even between individuals in a litter. A study of a cross section of different puppies illustrates this. It showed that the age at which puppies were able to respond to a vaccine and develop protection (become immunized) covered a wide period of time. At six weeks of age, 25% of the puppies could be immunized. At 9 weeks, 40% of the puppies were able to respond to the vaccine and were protected. The number increased to 60% by 16 weeks, and by 18 weeks, 95% of the puppies could be immunized. If a similar study was performed in kittens, it too would demonstrate variations in the length and timing of their windows of susceptibility.

Since the length and timing of the window of susceptibility varies so widely, it is impossible for us to determine when is the best time to vaccinate each individual kitten or puppy. There are just too many variables. For this reason, young animals are given a series of vaccinations in hope that we can vaccinate the animal as soon as it leaves the 'window of susceptibility.'


http://www.marvistavet.com/html/vaccination_options_prevention.html

MATERNAL ANTIBODY: OUR BIGGEST OBSTACLE

The biggest problem in protecting a puppy against this infection ironically stems from the natural mechanism of protection that has evolved.  As mentioned previously, puppies obtain their immunity from their mother’s first milk, the colostrum, on the first day of life.  This special milk contains the mother’s antibodies against parvovirus and until these antibodies wane to ineffective levels, they will protect the puppy.

The problem is that they will also inactivate vaccine.

Vaccine is a solution of inactivated virus, either live and weakened (“attenuated” or “modified”) or killed.  This virus is injected into the puppy. If there is still adequate maternal antibody present, this vaccine virus will be destroyed just as if it were a real infection.  There will be a period of about a week when there is not enough maternal antibody to protect the puppy but too much to allow a vaccine to work.  (This period is called the “window of vulnerability.”)  Then after this, vaccine can be effective.

The next problem is the age at which vaccine can be effective is different for each individual puppy.

To get around this, we vaccinate puppies in a series, giving a vaccine every 2-4 weeks until age 16 weeks. By age 16 weeks, we can be certain that maternal antibodies have waned and vaccine should be able to “take.”  It should be recognized that some individuals, especially those of well vaccinated mothers, must be vaccinated out to 20 weeks (unless a “high titer” vaccine is used.)

  Sorry, based on these and other articles, studies I have read, the series is not for "boostering" it is for making sure the vaccine will not be interfered with by maternal antibodies. 

We could probably argue for a long, long time about some of what you wrote above.  I do agree with you about skin problems and such, however, I don’t think we have enough proof to attribute every single skin problem to vaccines.   

As far as your ferrets go…8-9 years old is a ripe old age.  Pat yourself on the back.   The oldest ferret I’ve had as a patient was just over 11 when heart disease finally killed her.  You could have written a textbook on the medical management of that ferret, but she was happy up to the day she died.  The incidence of adrenal disease in ferrets varies widely----although you are pretty much assured if you own a Marshall Farms ferret (they are mass produced, early spay neutered, and genetically line bred) they will get either adrenal disease, an insulinoma, or lymphoma or all of them at some time in their lives.  We could have a thread in and of itself devoted to adrenal disease….the bottom line is that there is a very, very strong body of research presented from Dr. Nico Shoemaker (I know I misspelled Nico’s last name) of Utrecht looking at early/spay/neutering as a predisposing factor for adrenal disease.  Based on the research he did, there is a definitive correlation based on LH modulation, early neutering, and its effects on stimulation of sex hormone production by the adrenal glands, and the fact that ferrets are seasonal breeders.  Unfortunately, in the US Marshal’s controls the market.   Having said that, I will say I’ve seen adrenal disease in ferrets neutered as adults and in unneutered ferrets, but they were all over 6 years of age, not the 3 year olds you sometimes see.

 Of course you cannot blame everything on vaccines, but the overall health of animals seems to be declining and more and more problems are being considered acceptable.   I lost a ferret under 3 years to adrenal related problems. I have mentioned him before.  He had one adrenal removed and even though he was still exhibiting prostate signs my vet insisted that vaccinating him would not harm him.  Less than 2 months later he had his other adrenal gland removed that had been fine during the other surgery.  But of course the vaccines he was given had NOTHING to do with that.  His prostate never went back down, he had urinary problems and as a result his kidneys were damaged and he went into renal failure.  He was in and out of the vets the last six months of his life. I hand fed him the last six months of his life.  I had to watch him get worse and worse. Vaccines are not harmless like we are conned into believing.  I learned that the hard way and had to watch a pet die.
 
My remaining ferret, Tino, has adrenal and lymphoma.  He was diagnosed the end of April.  His lymphoma appears to be progressing slowly, his lymph nodes have not grown much.  Of course I do not know what is going on internally and what organs are affected, but for now he is eating, appears to be in no pain, and is pretty active as you could expect for a 9 year old.  He is only eating the chicken gravy I make for him (whole ground cooked chicken, pureed to gravy consistency) which is fine with me because I would like to keep him off carbs because of the cancer.  He used to hate the chicken gravy, but when my other ferret Simon was eating it during his hospice he kept trying it and decided it was pretty good.  So now he gets it for his hospice.  We did not do a biopsy of his lymph nodes to confirm lymphoma, but considering they are all enlarged I think the diagnosis is accurate.  I see no reason (nor does his vet) at his age to do any surgeries for either the adrenal or lymphoma.  For the adrenal we put in a melatonin implant.  He hasn't started to grow that much hair back, but it's loss does seem to have stopped.  He has lost it mainly on his head and shoulders, so he does not quite look like a plucked chicken! Thank you for the pat on the back concerning his age.  I am not sure what Simon (the one who passed in Apr) would of shown on necropsy, but the last year of his life was up and down.  Me hand feeding him, him bouncing back for a few months, to crash again, repeat. At the end the ups were shorter and shorter between the downs.  His last month and a half I was helping express his bladder but he was still eating on his own mostly, (chicken gravy) and seemed to be pain free.  When I could not get him to eat even by hand feeding him that last week, I knew he had had enough and let him go peacefully.   I plan on that for Tino too.  When he does not want to eat, I will let him go. 

I will agree with this.  I’m not sure what the source is, but one big factor is we are far better able to diagnose disease now than we were 25 years ago and we are expecting them to live longer.  That makes a difference.

But we are seeing chronic problems younger and younger.  If it was just that animals were living longer so we saw more diseases later in life that we didn't see before, I would say that would be expected.   You expect to see diseases at the end stage of life.  But animals are getting "old age" problems younger and younger.   And they are started to be considered normal and acceptable.  I can't agree with that.  It is neither normal nor acceptable.

Again I think you’ve been real lucky or else your dogs live in a very, very low risk environment.  I will tell you why I booster my dogs… its simple risk assessment.   Up until about 10 months ago when my wife and I moved the last time we had at any given time 1-2 kittens or puppies from the local humane society in our house.  I’ve treated too many parvo dogs on my back porch to count.  Considering my dogs, I think they have a very, very high risk of exposure because of the revolving puppy door in my house.  Second, I work almost exclusively with wildlife now.  If you consider virulence of disease, typically strains that can cross species are more aggressive.  I think that increases the risk of the possibility of one of my dogs contracting something that I might inadvertently bring home with me.  Finally, I live in the country.  My dogs have been known to kill raccoons, coyotes and other wildlife.  That risk alone warrants attempting to protect them from disease I am certain they are going to be exposed.

  When I brought Addie my rescue dog home she was a mess.  She had a severe respiratory infection (junk was coming out of her eyes and nose, it was gross) was about 25-30# underweight and had diarrhea as a result of malnutrition and the infections.   I had 2 other dogs in the house.  I don't have a big house, she was not kept separate from the other 2 except when crated (which was in the  downstairs anyways).  I was expected that soon I would have 3 green snotty dogs on my hands.  The other 2 did not show any signs of having caught anything from her. She also had "flipper" feet she was so far down in the pasterns. The vet didn't think her feet would tighten up very much.  Well a good raw diet fixed them up pretty good! They are not perfect (she is not a well bred dog in general) but they improved 100%.  Funny that vet never commented on that when I brought her back in.  Some hate to be proven wrong on anything.     You keep saying luck, but how about that maybe my efforts to work on the whole animal have some merit to them?    I did think about your added risk in working with animals, and that would probably make me consider a minimal vaccination schedule for my animals if I did that.  I still would not vaccinate every other year, especially the older animals that had rec'd a number of vaccinations already.  I have asked you this before, do you not trust the efficacy of the vaccines?  Even considering your added risk, it seems you lay very little trust in vaccinations?  Is there something that you know, that the general public does not?

[Vet]

Flower, to address your vaccination question.......   Which you've asked a couple of times and I've tried to ignore.     ..  I do trust some of the vaccinations, however I think others are junk. 


First off, let me try to explain my thoughts on vaccinations.  This is complex, so if I lose you, please say soo.  I'll try to keep it as simple as I can.  The idea behind a vaccination is to provide an immunostimulus that will prepare the body for exposure to a certian disease.  This immunostimulus results in development of T-cell and B-cell mediated immunity (Ie B-cell production of antibodies, T-cell mediated immunity).  This immunity is essentially the same that occurs in the event of an organism being exposed to the disease without the negative effects of the disease itself.  No vaccine will provide 100% efficacy against a disease for every single animal, no matter how many times that animal is vaccinated.  This is due to variations in immunoresponsiveness of individual organisms, the fact that viral diseases are in a constant state of genetic flux, and variation of virulence of the disease causing organisms.   There are vaccines that are statistically close to 100%, but even then, if you look at enough animals, there is always one that has a "breakthrough".   Statistically, nothing is 100%.  Its 99.9999999%, but thats still not 100%.   A modified live vaccine gives a better immune response.  Hoever, you don't want to run the risk of genetic mutation of a modified live vaccine into a virulent strain---thats why all Rabies vaccines in the US are killed vaccines.   This said, I think its very important to consider the type of vaccine being given when considering/evaluating a vaccination.  A modified live is not a killed bactern is not a toxoid type vaccination.   You absolutely have to consider this.  I also think this is partially why the "all vaccines don't work and are evil" mentality may be missing something. 

Imrab3 as a killed rabies vaccination is very good--across multiple species.   Considering I've seen dogs vaccinated with that vaccine be exposed to rabies (ia rabid animal bites) and they did not develop the disease.  Thats a trial by fire testament to this vaccines efficacy.  This is also a vaccine that has been implicated with injection site sarcomas in cats and ferrets...... so.....  its a double edged sword.   

I also trust the Distemper,parvo, adenovirus vaccines.... again its through trial by fire.  These are modified live vaccines by and large.  I think they provide good immunity for core diseases to be vaccinated against. 


I think that the majority of the intranasal bordatella vaccinations available are quite good.  They do not provide 100% efficacy, but they do seem to significantly decrease time and course of disease in exposed dogs.   The problem with this type of vaccination is that it has to be boostered frequently---in some cases every 6-9 months depending on risk of exposure and brand of vaccination. 

I think the injectable bordatella vaccinations are much, much less effective because of the method of delivery.  Mucosal immunity is what is needed to prevent bordatella bronchiseptica and parainfluenza.  I think SQ injection of bordatella bacterin doesn't do much. 

The other thing is that "Kennel Cough" is any tracheobronchitis.    We typically associate Bordatella with this disease, but it is possible for other bacteria to cause tracheobronchitis.  This is why you see dogs vaccinated who develop the disease.  Thats a very, very important distinction.   



As far as other vaccines go..... I think the FIP vaccine isn't very good, teh same as most Lepto vaccines.   You need to consider strains of disease causing organisms when you consider vaccinations.   

[~flower~]

I also think this is partially why the "all vaccines don't work and are evil" mentality may be missing something.

 


 I do not think this at all, and with a lot of the "anti-vaccine" people it's not that they don't think that vaccines work, they think the adverse affects from vaccines do not outweigh the benefits of the vaccine.  That is my stance on vaccines.  I do think vaccines can and do provide protection. However, I do not think they are necessary for every animal (or person), and I have decided to work on the whole animal, for me the possible harm from vaccinations is greater than the risk of the disease for my companions.

That being said, while I do not agree with your current vaccination program for your pets (taking into consideration the added risks in your situation I still think you are over vaccinating, your animals have probably come into contact with both actual live virus' as well as exposure to shed virus and should have a super stimulated many times over immune system), my goal has been for people to have all the accurate and current information from all sides in order to make an informed decision for their pets.  I want my decisions to be respected as informed ones, even if not agreed with, so I can give the same respect to someone else who obviously has the means to make an informed decision for their companions.  It is not for me to decide what others risks to benefits should be, I am not responsible for their companions, only my own.

         

[~flower~]

THE DOCTOR OF THE FUTURE WILL GIVE NO MEDICINE, BUT WILL INTEREST HIS
PATIENTS IN THE CARE OF THE HUMAN FRAME, IN DIET, AND IN THE CAUSE
AND PREVENTION OF DISEASE. (Thomas A. Edison, 1847-1931)