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.