Sad proof for why you should support The Rabies Challenge Fund

[~flower~]

http://pinecrestaussies.tripod.com/id17.html


 Please Support the Rabies Challenge Fund anything will help!

   http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/about%20the%20RCF.html

  Your dog or future dogs may benefit from this study!


  And remember NEVER vaccinate an unhealthy dog, this includes what some vets consider 'minor' problems like a skin problem - the animal is unhealthy and per the manufacturers vaccines are only to be given to HEALTHY animals. 

   NEVER vaccinate at the time of a surgery.

  NEVER vaccinate rabies with any other vaccine, seperate them by 4-6 weeks min.

   YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAND UP TO PROTECT YOUR PET.  DO IT!
   

[JediKnight]

Did the dog have a bad reaction with the rabies vaccine? Is that why it got sick?

[~flower~]

Did the dog have a bad reaction with the rabies vaccine? Is that why it got sick?

  the rabies vaccine caused her autoimmune system to get all messed up and that is what caused it.

   I do not think the dog had a "reaction" at the time of the shot, which is just about the only problem most vets will acknowledge as a vaccine reaction/complication. If it doesn't happen within 24 hours or so, most vets say the health problem is unrelated to the vaccine.   

  It's very easy for them to do that because they can they say even though your dog was healthy when I gave it that vaccination a 2 months ago and is now suffering health problems, go and prove it was the vaccination that caused it.   

     It is bullshit the way the majority of the profession has buried it's head in the sand, and our pets pay for it, along with us paying for it watching our pets suffer and not to mention the monetary cost of trying to treat the animal.

 So 2 experts in the veterinary field along with a lot of fed up pet owners started the Rabies Challenge Fund in the hopes of getting the rabies vaccination pushed out to longer than 3 years (some states are still archaic and have yearly rabies vacs in affect as law).  The 2 vets conducting the study are volunteering their time because they know that this is an important issue.

[JediKnight]

  the rabies vaccine caused her autoimmune system to get all messed up and that is what caused it.

   I do not think the dog had a "reaction" at the time of the shot, which is just about the only problem most vets will acknowledge as a vaccine reaction/complication. If it doesn't happen within 24 hours or so, most vets say the health problem is unrelated to the vaccine.   

  It's very easy for them to do that because they can they say even though your dog was healthy when I gave it that vaccination a 2 months ago and is now suffering health problems, go and prove it was the vaccination that caused it.   

     It is bullshit the way the majority of the profession has buried it's head in the sand, and our pets pay for it, along with us paying for it watching our pets suffer and not to mention the monetary cost of trying to treat the animal.

 So 2 experts in the veterinary field along with a lot of fed up pet owners started the Rabies Challenge Fund in the hopes of getting the rabies vaccination pushed out to longer than 3 years (some states are still archaic and have yearly rabies vacs in affect as law).  The 2 vets conducting the study are volunteering their time because they know that this is an important issue.

thank you,,by the way,,what did u want from coach?

[~flower~]

thank you,,by the way,,what did u want from coach?

 spring/summer is coming!!


  http://www.coach.com/content/product.aspx?product_no=10809&category_id=788





http://www.coach.com/content/product.aspx?product_no=9714&category_id=788

[~flower~]

http://www.coach.com/content/product.aspx?product_no=10804&category_id=404

[Vet]

I know I'm going to incur the wrath of Flower with this post, but I have to say what I'm saying.  There is absolutely no proof in anything that is posted in this thread that that dog had an autoimmune disease that was directly caused by rabies vaccination---its all anecdotal conjecture by the owners and the people with the owners agenda. 

What is sad to me is that that dog could have potentially lived a normal life if the owners had simply agreed to considering and offering treatment.  They didn't and as a result, they caused their beloved dog to die a horrible death.  Unfortunately because of their own clouded judgement, they will not see it that way and would much rather place the blame on the evil vaccinations. 

I support the Rabies Challenge Fund wholeheartedly because hopefully it will stop some of this ridiculousness.   Are pets overvaccinated---YES, I think they are by some veterinary clinics.  Vaccines should not be the primary money maker for a veterinary hospital, good medicine should be.  Do vaccines prevent diseases that will otherwise kill your pet or worse yet, cause disease in humans?  YES!  The prevention of disease and protecting human health is the ultimate goal of vaccinating anything. 

My advice: discuss the vaccinations your veterinarian is giving your pet with them in detail.  They should be able to tell you exactly why they are administering that vaccination and what the interval between vaccinations will be before the vaccination comes anywhere near the pet.  If they cannot present a logical reason--ie rabies vaccination is a legal requirement to own your pet in this area or there is currently a distemper outbreak in wild raccoons, or you have a breed of dog which has been proven to be more susceptible to parvo and you live in a high risk neighborhood, then rethink getting that vaccination.  There is no real reason to get a bordatella, giardia or a lyme vaccine except in special circumstances.  If your vet isn't discussing this with you, then ask them.  And if they can't give an answer that makes logical sense, rethink going to see them.  Just please, don't jump on a bandwagon because of some sad pictures and an overzealous, bullheaded owner who has no proof that what they think was going on in their dog caused the problem and are too stubborn to even think they they may have actually killed their own pet with their stubbornness. 

There is no such disease as "rabies vaccinosis".   Its a term coined by Dr. Dodds, which to the best of my knowledge she herself does not clearly identify.  This probably best sums up vaccinosis (taken from the Veterinary Information Network under a search on "vaccinosis"):

In general, it's as you say--it's a lay term that's been coined to sound semi-scientific, and has been taken to mean any and all perceived side-effects of vaccination. Rather than including confirmed consequences, such as vaccine-site sarcomas, anaphylaxis, etc., it instead predominantly refers to the acute dog-feels-yucky syndrome, and chronic diseases such as IBD, polyarthritis, etc that some people feel were due to their animal's vaccinations.   

Barrak Pressler, DVM, DACVIM
North Carolina State University (graduate student-immunology)
University of NC-Chapel Hill (visiting scientist)

Ok, I'm bracing myself now for the onslaught............     

[~flower~]

 Thank you Vet for proving my point. 


 It is anecdotal to think that dog might have lived with conventional treatments, and no saying what the quality of life may have been.  It is also anecdotal to say the rabies vaccine did not cause or contribute to this dogs health problem.

  But without that rabies vaccination that would most likely have been a mute point because the dog would not have developed that horrible autoimmune problem.  Or are you saying the rabies vaccine just happened to be a coincidence?   

 Unfortunately because of the veterinarians clouded agendas that more and more 'anecdotal' cases are ignored.  THAT is what is truly sad. 

 It is 'anecdotal' to say that vaccines are not the cause in some instances of health problems.  Prove that it wasn't the vaccine. 


  Vaccinosis is just a term to group together all the damage that vaccines can cause. 


  There are more people who have had their dogs health damaged or their dogs killed because of vets stubborn bullheadness in insisting that vaccines hardly do any damage that vets will admit.  Because to admit so would crush years of stagnant thinking.

  When a survey was done about switching to a 3 year instead of annual boostering an uproar was heard in the veterinary community, but not because they feared for companion animals health, but because of the LOSS OF INCOME.


 It took a whole bunch of people who were pissed off at the veterinary community and the vaccine manufacturers who keep denying any harm from vaccines or overvaccinating to get together to start a study to say FUCK YOU WE WILL TRY TO PROTECT OUR PETS IF YOU WONT and some open minded experts who have seen tons and tons of "anecdotal" evidence over the years who agreed to do the study, and even a school to volunteer the space to conduct it.  That's a whole lot of people, time and money behind something so "anecdotal"



 

[Vet]

 Thank you Vet for proving my point. 


 It is anecdotal to think that dog might have lived with conventional treatments, and no saying what the quality of life may have been.  It is also anecdotal to say the rabies vaccine did not cause or contribute to this dogs health problem.

  But without that rabies vaccination that would most likely have been a mute point because the dog would not have developed that horrible autoimmune problem.  Or are you saying the rabies vaccine just happened to be a coincidence?   

  I'm saying there is no proof that a rabies vaccine caused that dogs problems.   The owners jumped on the rabies vaccination as the cause and apparently did not consider what really could be going on---Judging from the pictures and the description (I'll admit, this is difficult becuase I'd have to actually examine the dog and potentially do appropriate diagnostic testing to make a diagnosis) the differential list should include: infectious diseases such as fungal and bacterial skin infections, parasites including both sarcoptic mange, demodectic mange and flea allergy.   It should include atopy and other allergic reactions to materials within the environment, it should include other allergies, including food based allergies, AND finally it should include autoimmune disease including pemphigus and lupus.   The skin biopsy mentioned would only diagnose lupus, pemphigus and possibly a deep skin infection.  Now obviously I don't know the entire case history and I've never seen the dog, but it really seems as if the owners abandoned this poor dog because of their own clouded agendas.   Every one of the diseases I've mentioned can be treated, and in almost all cases can be eliminated (or medically managed) allowing a dog to lead a normal life. Also, not one of those diseases is definitively linked to vaccine induced problems.

Unfortunately because of the veterinarians clouded agendas that more and more 'anecdotal' cases are ignored.  THAT is what is truly sad. 

I'll agree with you on this to a point.  Unfortunately, veterinary medicine is a rapidly, rapidly evolving science.  THings have changed drammatically in the last 20 years and unfortunately there are veterinarians out there who just can't or won't keep up with new information.  I've been dealing with a referring veterinarian who's one such veterinarian.  I finally just got mad at him and told him point blank I though he was a medical fuckup.  He cussed me back.  Obviously, he isn't going to change.  I feel sorry for his patients. 

It is 'anecdotal' to say that vaccines are not the cause in some instances of health problems.  Prove that it wasn't the vaccine. 

Prove that it was the vaccine.   

  Vaccinosis is just a term to group together all the damage that vaccines can cause. 

Its a nonword.  To the best of my knowledge it doesn't appear in any one dictionary, be it a simple english dictionary or any veterinary or human medical dictionary.   It has no meaning, because it isn't a word.  Because it isn't a word, it isn't a disease. 

  There are more people who have had their dogs health damaged or their dogs killed because of vets stubborn bullheadness in insisting that vaccines hardly do any damage that vets will admit.  Because to admit so would crush years of stagnant thinking.

I think further study is needed on vaccinations in all species.  Its not the veterinarians who are necessarily driving the reluctance to change, its the companies manufacturing the vaccines and lawmakers with local ordinances.  Again, I agree with you that there are clinics out there that overvaccinate.  I personally believe in assessing the risk of the patient and vaccinating appropriately for the diseases that dog or cat has a legitimate possibility of coming into contact with.  I think refusing to vaccinate becuase it might possibly cause a problem in your dog, one that there is little other than conjecture as to vaccines being the cause of the problem, and thus forgo protecting your dog from a very real threat (like parvo in a pit puppy living in the inner city) is irresponsible pet ownership.  I also think that practices of some hospitals, like Banfields, of vaccinating all dogs for bordatella, DHPLP, Corona, Lepto, Lyme, Rabies, Giardia, and mayb fleas or what ever else they can charge an owner for, is medical malpractice.   You must assess the risk of the patient and vaccinate based on that risk. 

  When a survey was done about switching to a 3 year instead of annual boostering an uproar was heard in the veterinary community, but not because they feared for companion animals health, but because of the LOSS OF INCOME.

Please provide the source for this survey.  What you are saying is something new to me. 

It took a whole bunch of people who were pissed off at the veterinary community and the vaccine manufacturers who keep denying any harm from vaccines or overvaccinating to get together to start a study to say FUCK YOU WE WILL TRY TO PROTECT OUR PETS IF YOU WONT and some open minded experts who have seen tons and tons of "anecdotal" evidence over the years who agreed to do the study, and even a school to volunteer the space to conduct it.  That's a whole lot of people, time and money behind something so "anecdotal"



 [/color]

Again, dont buy into the overzealous jaded opinions of people like the ones in the link that you posted.   Communicate with your veterinarian, assess your pets risk of exposure to a disease, and vaccinate according to that risk and to follow local laws.   If your veterinarian cannot communicate with you or answer your questions, find a different veterinarian. 

The primary source of income from a well run hospital should not be vaccinations--this is commonly quoted by AAHA.   The primary income source should be good quality preventative medicine including dental care, including assessment of a patient via physical examination, surgery to correct problems, blood work including preoperative and monitoring, and monitoring of chronic diseases.  Its should not be 15 minute, pop a shot in vaccine appointments. 

[Deicide]

  I'm saying there is no proof that a rabies vaccine caused that dogs problems.   The owners jumped on the rabies vaccination as the cause and apparently did not consider what really could be going on---Judging from the pictures and the description (I'll admit, this is difficult becuase I'd have to actually examine the dog and potentially do appropriate diagnostic testing to make a diagnosis) the differential list should include: infectious diseases such as fungal and bacterial skin infections, parasites including both sarcoptic mange, demodectic mange and flea allergy.   It should include atopy and other allergic reactions to materials within the environment, it should include other allergies, including food based allergies, AND finally it should include autoimmune disease including pemphigus and lupus.   The skin biopsy mentioned would only diagnose lupus, pemphigus and possibly a deep skin infection.  Now obviously I don't know the entire case history and I've never seen the dog, but it really seems as if the owners abandoned this poor dog because of their own clouded agendas.   Every one of the diseases I've mentioned can be treated, and in almost all cases can be eliminated (or medically managed) allowing a dog to lead a normal life. Also, not one of those diseases is definitively linked to vaccine induced problems.

I'll agree with you on this to a point.  Unfortunately, veterinary medicine is a rapidly, rapidly evolving science.  THings have changed drammatically in the last 20 years and unfortunately there are veterinarians out there who just can't or won't keep up with new information.  I've been dealing with a referring veterinarian who's one such veterinarian.  I finally just got mad at him and told him point blank I though he was a medical fuckup.  He cussed me back.  Obviously, he isn't going to change.  I feel sorry for his patients. 

Prove that it was the vaccine.   


Its a nonword.  To the best of my knowledge it doesn't appear in any one dictionary, be it a simple english dictionary or any veterinary or human medical dictionary.   It has no meaning, because it isn't a word.  Because it isn't a word, it isn't a disease. 


I think further study is needed on vaccinations in all species.  Its not the veterinarians who are necessarily driving the reluctance to change, its the companies manufacturing the vaccines and lawmakers with local ordinances.  Again, I agree with you that there are clinics out there that overvaccinate.  I personally believe in assessing the risk of the patient and vaccinating appropriately for the diseases that dog or cat has a legitimate possibility of coming into contact with.  I think refusing to vaccinate becuase it might possibly cause a problem in your dog, one that there is little other than conjecture as to vaccines being the cause of the problem, and thus forgo protecting your dog from a very real threat (like parvo in a pit puppy living in the inner city) is irresponsible pet ownership.  I also think that practices of some hospitals, like Banfields, of vaccinating all dogs for bordatella, DHPLP, Corona, Lepto, Lyme, Rabies, Giardia, and mayb fleas or what ever else they can charge an owner for, is medical malpractice.   You must assess the risk of the patient and vaccinate based on that risk. 

Please provide the source for this survey.  What you are saying is something new to me. 



Again, dont buy into the overzealous jaded opinions of people like the ones in the link that you posted.   Communicate with your veterinarian, assess your pets risk of exposure to a disease, and vaccinate according to that risk and to follow local laws.   If your veterinarian cannot communicate with you or answer your questions, find a different veterinarian. 

The primary source of income from a well run hospital should not be vaccinations--this is commonly quoted by AAHA.   The primary income source should be good quality preventative medicine including dental care, including assessment of a patient via physical examination, surgery to correct problems, blood work including preoperative and monitoring, and monitoring of chronic diseases.  Its should not be 15 minute, pop a shot in vaccine appointments. 

Why is Flower arguing against a trained and certified vet? Her zealotry has taken away her sense of reason.

[Vet]

Why is Flower arguing against a trained and certified vet? Her zealotry has taken away her sense of reason.

its flower.  SHe'll spout her thing, I'll try to reason with her, she'll use frantically use google, and we'll yell at each other.  If you break things down, I think to a degree, we actually agree with each other, but a veterinarian agreeing with her goes against Flowers agenda.   I've opened this can of worms again, I'll go with it until it gets stupid, then I'll just quit posting for a while until Flower puts up something borderline asanine for her agenda again. 

I actually welcome the discussion to a degree.   In many ways, Flower represents the extreme nut I'm very glad I don't have to see as a client anymore. 

[~flower~]

Why is Flower arguing against a trained and certified vet? Her zealotry has taken away her sense of reason.

They are gods?  I can't read scientific studies and manufacturer studies?

  I should just blindly follow what someone certified says?  I owe it to my companions to not just accept whatever someone tells me if I think there is more to it. 

  But that makes someone a "nut".   How dare they stand up using evidence when making decisions.  They should allow the "expert" to push what goes against current knowledge and evidence on our pets? 

  A profession that stands behind the "prove it" defense should be questioned, and that goes for animals as well as people.


   I had a more lengthy post I was going to submit, but why bother.

   "Prove it" is so much easier. 

 

[Deicide]

They are gods?  I can't read scientific studies and manufacturer studies?

  I should just blindly follow what someone certified says?  I owe it to my companions to not just accept whatever someone tells me if I think there is more to it. 

  But that makes someone a "nut".   How dare they stand up using evidence when making decisions.  They should allow the "expert" to push what goes against current knowledge and evidence on our pets? 

  A profession that stands behind the "prove it" defense should be questioned, and that goes for animals as well as people.


   I had a more lengthy post I was going to submit, but why bother.

   "Prove it" is so much easier. 

 

No, not gods but that is what their occupation is. They do it every day and spent years studying the subject matter. If you have a hormonal problem and the endocrinologist tells you the probable cause, sure you can research, but are you going to argue with him all day? Unlikely. Evidence is always necessary but sometimes a certain expertise is required to grasp it. That expertise is usually the providence of a trained specialist. That's why we have loony creationists running about the USA; they are looking at the evidence and clearly do not understand it.

[~flower~]

No, not gods but that is what their occupation is. They do it every day and spent years studying the subject matter. If you have a hormonal problem and the endocrinologist tells you the probable cause, sure you can research, but are you going to argue with him all day? Unlikely. Evidence is always necessary but sometimes a certain expertise is required to grasp it. That expertise is usually the providence of a trained specialist. That's why we have loony creationists running about the USA; they are looking at the evidence and clearly do not understand it.

 argue all day?  You are a frickin weirdo. 

  He says prove vaccines have caused harm, I say prove they haven't.

  Fortunately there are EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD that say vet is wrong.  He should be taking it up with them for feeding us "nuts" misinformation since they are also experts, more so than he is on this issue.  They are TRAINED SPECIALISTS in this area.

 I don't think it is too difficult to grasp scientific studies showing duration of immunity out to 7 years and possibly the life of the animal and to decide that I do not wish to vaccinate my animals.

 This is a hot topic, the veterinary organizations have recognized vaccines can and do cause harm and that needs to be considered.  There are a lot of expert "nuts" saying the same things I have.  Sorry if some vets don't like it to be reminded to people that they should educate themselves and take a stand if something is not comfortable to them.  They don't have to be bullied into something by an "expert" they have the right to say no.

 Some of these experts you think everyone should take their word at don't even know how to read and comprehend a vaccine manufacturers instructions.  They will vaccinate unhealthy animals and they will vaccinate at times of stress and surgery - all of which go against manufacturers instructions and can either cause health problems for the animal or make the vaccine not "take" making it pointless and not doing what it was given to do.  So yes, "nuts" out there need to remind these experts to step it up and get with the latest information and tough shit if they don't like their clients being informed on issues and not dumb head nodders anymore.

[Deicide]

argue all day?  You are a frickin weirdo. 

  He says prove vaccines have caused harm, I say prove they haven't.

  Fortunately there are EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD that say vet is wrong.  He should be taking it up with them for feeding us "nuts" misinformation since they are also experts, more so than he is on this issue.  They are TRAINED SPECIALISTS in this area.

 I don't think it is too difficult to grasp scientific studies showing duration of immunity out to 7 years and possibly the life of the animal and to decide that I do not wish to vaccinate my animals.

 This is a hot topic, the veterinary organizations have recognized vaccines can and do cause harm and that needs to be considered.  There are a lot of expert "nuts" saying the same things I have.  Sorry if some vets don't like it to be reminded to people that they should educate themselves and take a stand if something is not comfortable to them.  They don't have to be bullied into something by an "expert" they have the right to say no.

 Some of these experts you think everyone should take their word at don't even know how to read and comprehend a vaccine manufacturers instructions.  They will vaccinate unhealthy animals and they will vaccinate at times of stress and surgery - all of which go against manufacturers instructions and can either cause health problems for the animal or make the vaccine not "take" making it pointless and not doing what it was given to do.  So yes, "nuts" out there need to remind these experts to step it up and get with the latest information and tough shit if they don't like their clients being informed on issues and not dumb head nodders anymore.

Yes, I am exceptionally odd but I am actually a nice guy, just very strange.

[knny187]

Why is Flower arguing against a trained and certified vet? Her zealotry has taken away her sense of reason.

I don't necessarily agree with flower 100% of everything she says......but I do support her actions 100%.  The medical field is a "science"...it's not absolute.  It constantly needs to be questioned for the search of some absolute knowledge.  Otherwise, we would be taking every damn thing a witch doctor recommends & could make matters worse.

A degree or doctorate doesn't mean your perfect or have all the right answers.

[pedro01]

I'm with Vet - the following says it all

I knew that "traditional" treatment for this would have been steroids and possibly antibiotics.   I no longer use any allopathic treatments for my dogs, so Belle was placed into Classical Homeopathic treatment in mid-June.  And, of course, her Raw Meaty Bone Diet was continued.

Although Belle's condition seemed to wax and wane with her CHOM treatment...the problem seemed to get worse as time went by...as you can see, her condition has caused total hair loss and scabs on the bridge of her nose,  and now the areas around both her eyes are involved...sigh.

So the vet recommended treatment but it was refused in place of some vegetarian snake oil remedy. Dog dies. Must blame vaccine, can't accept responsibility for my vegan ways 

[~flower~]

I'm with Vet - the following says it all

So the vet recommended treatment but it was refused in place of some vegetarian snake oil remedy. Dog dies. Must blame vaccine, can't accept responsibility for my vegan ways 

So you also think the vaccine did not cause the problem in the first place?

 You can argue about what course of treatment was taken, but can you really say the vaccine was innocent?

  Of course it would be just guessing to say that any course of treatment would of helped, but that is besides the point. 

 The point is this dog was healthy until it was given that second rabies vaccination.

   

[Vet]

So you also think the vaccine did not cause the problem in the first place?

 You can argue about what course of treatment was taken, but can you really say the vaccine was innocent?

  Of course it would be just guessing to say that any course of treatment would of helped, but that is besides the point. 

 The point is this dog was healthy until it was given that second rabies vaccination.

   

No, because based on what that owner has put up, virtually no diagnostics were done on that dog other than a skin biopsy.  Without knowing what the disease is, you have absolutely no idea what the cause is.   I posted a reasonable differential list based on the pictures and history presented.  Based on teh information given, it could be several things other than vaccine induced autoimmune disease, you and the owners have just chosen to ignore those because they don't fit your agenda. 

There is also no proof that that dog was "healthy" until it was given the second rabies vaccination because with the information given proper diagnostics were not done for that dog or if they were done, the owner chose to ignore them or the veterinarian involved misintepreted them.   I don't know the answer because there is some very important information missing from what has been presented---important information that should make any person with a semblance of logical reasoning question the story.  What I do know is that everything they are presenting on that website is purely conjecture based on their own bias.   They dropped the ball on a "beloved" pet and are milking their own stupidity to fit their agenda and bias against vaccines.   Its sad, because we all know they are going to torture another dog like they did this one with some quackery and the whole time scream that they are right and its the veterinarians fault for administering a vaccination that is required by law in most areas of the US.  Thats the ridiculousness of this entire vaccination argument. 

Does there need to be more research done on vaccines?  ABSOLUTELY.  Do some veterinarians overvaccinate pets in an effort to make a buck?  Yes, its a sad fact of the profession---Banfield is one of the worst, a corporate, the dollar wins all practice.   Does a person need to question why their pet is getting vaccines? Yes, in my opinion.

[Vet]

argue all day?  You are a frickin weirdo. 

  He says prove vaccines have caused harm, I say prove they haven't.

  Fortunately there are EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD that say vet is wrong.  He should be taking it up with them for feeding us "nuts" misinformation since they are also experts, more so than he is on this issue.  They are TRAINED SPECIALISTS in this area.

 I don't think it is too difficult to grasp scientific studies showing duration of immunity out to 7 years and possibly the life of the animal and to decide that I do not wish to vaccinate my animals.

 This is a hot topic, the veterinary organizations have recognized vaccines can and do cause harm and that needs to be considered.  There are a lot of expert "nuts" saying the same things I have.  Sorry if some vets don't like it to be reminded to people that they should educate themselves and take a stand if something is not comfortable to them.  They don't have to be bullied into something by an "expert" they have the right to say no.

 Some of these experts you think everyone should take their word at don't even know how to read and comprehend a vaccine manufacturers instructions.  They will vaccinate unhealthy animals and they will vaccinate at times of stress and surgery - all of which go against manufacturers instructions and can either cause health problems for the animal or make the vaccine not "take" making it pointless and not doing what it was given to do.  So yes, "nuts" out there need to remind these experts to step it up and get with the latest information and tough shit if they don't like their clients being informed on issues and not dumb head nodders anymore.

Flower, there is no such thing as a veterinary vaccinologist.   By and large, the people doing this research are boarded in internal medicine, if they are board certified. 

As far as the "prove it" its called Evidence Based Medicine (yes, i'm copying this from wikipedia so I dont' get too wordy in my answer):  "Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients."

Evidence based medicine involves the following:
Systems to stratify evidence by quality have been developed, such as this one by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for ranking evidence about the effectiveness of treatments or screening:

Level I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
Level II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
Level II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.
Level II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled trials might also be regarded as this type of evidence.
Level III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

The UK National Health Service uses a similar system with categories labeled A, B, C, and D. The above Levels are only appropriate for treatment or interventions; different types of research are required for assessing diagnostic accuracy or natural history and prognosis, and hence different "levels" are required. For example, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine suggests levels of evidence (LOE) according to the study designs and critical appraisal of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and harm studies:[8]

Level A: consistent Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial, Cohort Study, All or None, Clinical Decision Rule validated in different populations.
Level B: consistent Retrospective Cohort, Exploratory Cohort, Ecological Study, Outcomes Research, Case-Control Study; or extrapolations from level A studies.
Level C: Case-series Study or extrapolations from level B studies
Level D: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or first principles




Opinions hold the lowest regard.  Remember that.  Dr. Dodds can say what she wants about vaccines until she is blue in the face, but until she proves it with a higher level of evidence, its still an opinion in the eyes of the medical community.  Thats why I keep saying there needs to be more studies done.  The negative effects of vaccines have to be proven with clinical trials. 

[~flower~]

They are not going to torture another dog because they won't vaccinate again. 

Flower, there is no such thing as a veterinary vaccinologist.   By and large, the people doing this research are boarded in internal medicine, if they are board certified.

 I said they were experts in this field, not veterinary vaccinologists. I don't hear these experts "saying prove it" and denying any correlation exists between vaccines and health problems.     


Dr. Ronald Schultz, veterinary immunologist and professor and chair of pathobiological sciences at the Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine.He has been studying canine vaccines since the 1970's.

 He is the big reason vacs went from annual to every 3 years.  He has done a lot in that area.


http://www.amvm.org/vets_w-jean-dodds.asp

An internationally-recognized authority on blood diseases in animals, W. Jean Dodds, DVM established Hemopet, the first nonprofit blood bank for animals, in the mid-1980s. Through southern California-based Hemopet, Dodds - a grantee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and author of over 150 research publications - provides canine blood components and blood-bank supplies throughout North America, consults in clinical pathology, and lectures worldwide.

Dr. Dodds is one of two editors of Molecular Genetics, Gene Transfer, and Therapy, Volume 40 (Advances in Veterinary Medicine)
www.amazon.com/Molecular-Genetics-Transfer-Advances-Veterinary/dp/0120392410

W. Jean Dodds received her D.V.M. in 1964 from the Ontario Veterinary College. From 1965 to 1986 she worked for the New York State Health Department in Albany, where she conducted comparative studies of animals with inherited and acquired bleeding diseases. She also was a member of many national and international committees on hematology, animal models of human disease, veterinary medicine, and laboratory animal science. Dodds was a grantee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH) and has over 150 research publications. She was formerly President of the Scientist's Center for Animal Welfare; Chairman of the Committee of Veterinary Medical Sciences; and Vice-Chairman of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Academy of Sciences. In 1974, Dodds was selected as Outstanding Woman Veterinarian of the Year by the AVMA, Denver, Colorado; in 1977, she received the Region I Award for Outstanding Service to the Veterinary Profession from the American Animal Hospital Association, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Dodds received the Gaines Fido Award as Dogdom's Woman of the Year in 1978 and 1990; and the Award of Merit in 1978 in Recognition of Special Contributions to the Veterinary Profession from the American Hospital Association, Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1984 she was awarded the Centennial Medal from the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine.  Dodds moved to Southern California in 1986 to establish Hemopet, the first nonprofit national blood bank program for animals. In 1987 she was elected a distinguished Practitioner of the National Academy of Practice in Veterinary Medicine. Currently, Dodds is actively expanding Hemopet's full-service, nonprofit animal blood bank program, which provides canine blood components, blood bank supplies, and related services throughout North America. Dodds is a member of numerous professional societies and she consults in clinical pathology and lectures nationwide to veterinarians and dog fanciers on hematology, immunology, and blood banking.