# Does your dog get vacinated every year?



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

My dogs and cats have always had their annual vaccines without fail.

After a conversation with my daughter-in-law who is a vet, I'm having doubts about continuing. She does not inoculate her dog on a yearly basis even though for her, the inoculations are free. She instead does a 'Titer test' which shows if her dog is still covered.

Here is why: Puppy Shots and Dog Vaccinations: Needed or Not?

I understand that if your dog has to go into kennels then it has to have its shots. My dog won't ever go to kennels as I have a big enough family to muck in, in an emergency.

What do you think? And do you think a kennels would accept a Titer test result?


----------



## DirtyGertie (Mar 12, 2011)

My dog will never go into kennels either. 

My vet follows the three year protocol of the vaccine manufacturer, i.e. Lepto annually, others every three years. I am happy with that.

I'm not sure if kennels would accept titre testing. From the little bit of reading I've done about it (I've not researched as I'm happy with my decision to follow 3 year protocol) then the titre test will tell what the situation is at the time of the test but who knows what the situation will be at any other time?

On the other hand, I stopped vaccinating my cat a few years ago, she's about 13 now. She's not insured so I don't have to bear in mind that an insurance company wont pay out for illnesses connected with not vaccinating where she's concerned. 

My dog is insured and there is that clause in the Ts & Cs about if they're not vaccinated then they don't cover illnesses that could have been vaccinated against.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Only vaccinate as puppies and then a 12 month booster and that's it.

Did make enquiries about taking the dog abroad on holiday with us and at the time was told we would need to be fully up to date with all vaccs should we want to do this.I understood it to mean we would have to vaccinate every year but didn't go any further into it so may have got that wrong.


----------



## marasmum (Jun 12, 2013)

I am also in a quandary (should I start a new thread?). Mara is due her annual vaccination this month, so I toddled along to the vet as normal. I saw a different vet (its a practice set-up) and he told me that as I don't have evidence of her original set of inoculations (she is a Spanish rescue) then the annual ones are 'useless' and that I should think about giving her the full course. I spoke to another vet who just shrugged and said it was up to us.

So...i am a bit like you, really not sure what to do. We don't know Maras age and she will never be be kennelled (she has SA) and DEFRA have confirmed that her passport is perfectly valid under the pet travel scheme without the original 'jabs' so we are all kinds of confused now.

As an aside, we live in a rural area that does attract visitors and 'local' wooflers do seem to get upset tums at the start of the holiday season so we have always erred on the side of caution. 

I am interested to read others thoughts on the issue of annual inoculations before we make the decision.


----------



## EAD (May 10, 2013)

Titre test for parvo, distemper and hepatitis.

Have stopped giving lepto.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

No. Mine get the core puppy vaccinations and that is it for life.


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

Nope I don't vaccinate so obviously don't get yearly ones.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

Haha I just read my spelling mistake 

Some interesting replies so far. 

@@Girtie My dog is insured and there is that clause in the Ts & Cs about if they're not vaccinated then they don't cover illnesses that could have been vaccinated against.* 

I never thought about insurance. I will take a look at what PetPlan say. 

*@Lilly, Did make enquiries about taking the dog abroad on holiday with us and at the time was told we would need to be fully up to date with all vaccs should we want to do this.I understood it to mean we would have to vaccinate every year but didn't go any further into it so may have got that wrong.*

We spend half our life in France and so far our little dog has been to France, Italy and Spain. Obviously he has a passport and his rabies shots and appropriate wormers have to be in place but the borders don't seem interested in general inoculations. I need to re-read up on this because obviously this is very important. 

@marasmum, 

no of course you shouldn't start a new thread
If I'm correct in thinking borders don't worry about up to date inoculations apart from Rabies, it could well be that the dogs isn't covered. Why not have a Titre test done and check your dogs immunity? 

I really thought I was going to get a hammering for starting this thread. Its good to see others have already done research and made informed choices.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

Edited because I double posted.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

labradrk said:


> No. Mine get the core puppy vaccinations and that is it for life.


This ^^^


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Io will be getting her first booster since her puppy vaccinations and I then I am unsure - either no OR I will titre test every three years.

My cat I got at 3 years old - he is now 4 and won't be getting boosters.


----------



## SixStar (Dec 8, 2009)

Mine don't go into kennels either (if they did, I wouldn't use a kennels that accepted unvaccinated dogs or titre tested ones) - but I do keep them up to date with their vaccines - I don't think it's worth the risk of not doing so, especially since so many people are choosing to either leave their dogs un-vaccinated or use ineffective means of protection. People can take what chances they like with their dogs, but I do not want their decisions affecting my dogs.

They are vaccinated yearly as per my vets recommended schedule - lepto yearly, and DHPPi and P on alternate years. They don't get the kennel cough nasal drops. I do however also vaccinate against rabies every three years due to personal concerns over the ridiculous new quarantine regulations, or rather the lack of.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Mine get the initial full vaccinations and then are titre tested. The following link should help its the WSAVA vaccination guidelines, which explains about, vaccination, duration of immunity, titre testing etc. Its long read but worth the effort.

http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/files/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

This comes round again and again, so...

1) Insurance companies will NOT pay out for any illness that could normally be prevented by vaccination. They do NOT accept titre tests. (see below) Nor do they accept homoeopathic alternatives. [If you want to know how effective those are note the rush of "Homoeopaths sans Frontieres" to deal with the Ebola outbreaks].
2) The 'normal' duration that a manufacturer will guarantee cover for is 3 years for everything except lepto, which is usually annual.
3) Vets don't guarantee cover - the manufacturers do. (Very strictly monitored by DEFRA)
4) Titre testing tells you the current state of your pet at the time of the test. It *does not* give *any* indication of the state of your pet the day after.
5) The WSAVA guidelines are suspect. The RCVS have repeatedly asked for the raw data that stands behind the supposed 'science' which the recommendations have been made on (largely because the 2 people most involved with promoting titre testing made a very great deal of money from it in the USA). They have been continually refused. In academic circles that would pretty much throw the claims right out.
6) The one thing the WSAVA say that you should take note of is that there's a huge amount of uninformed veterinary opinion floating round the internet and that you should always ask a qualified vet and not rely on what anyone (including me) says on a forum.


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

lilythepink said:


> Only vaccinate as puppies and then a 12 month booster and that's it.
> 
> Did make enquiries about taking the dog abroad on holiday with us and at the time was told we would need to be fully up to date with all vaccs should we want to do this.I understood it to mean we would have to vaccinate every year but didn't go any further into it so may have got that wrong.


I go abroad a fair bit with mine (we're currently in Europe) and they aren't vaccinated. Vaccinations (aside from rabies) aren't a requirement. 

Some boarding kennels accept titers, others won't. I know my council (Sheffield) stipulate that any dogs being boarded have to have yearly up to date vaccs, regardless of if that's what the kennel owners are happy with.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

This has been done to death ...

It comes down to this ..if you want to risk it fine...


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Lepto annually - this is apparently spread by rats and I see them regularly out walking.

Others, as recommended by manufacturer - currently every 2 years.

This, because of insurance terms and conditions.

You can google the drugs that are being used and find out from the manufacturer their recommendations. 

There isn't really a definitive answer to this question - it's a risk assessment and personal choice really.


----------



## moomoo10 (May 10, 2012)

When we got our first dog we didnt get the vaccination reminder card the second year. We forgot about it and also being new dog owners, weren't aware of the diseases our dog could get. 

She got parvo & it was horrific, she nearly died and suffered terribly. She pulled through but it was a horrible time. It was just one month outside the booster due date. She'd never been in kennels. 

I'm absolutely no expert and i'm not scaremongering, but I would never not have my dogs have their booster after that experience. 

Lilian


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

I'll vaccinate as my vet advises, not everything is yearly, just the lepto I think. I also vaccinate for KC as I'm just more comfortable doing so.


----------



## Alfiepoo (May 19, 2014)

Alfie has just had his puppy jabs and he will be having yearly boosters. I can almost guarantee many dogs where I live aren't vaccinated and I'm not risking him getting poorly after catching something. 

Each to their own I guess.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Fluffster said:


> I'll vaccinate as my vet advises, not everything is yearly, just the lepto I think. I also vaccinate for KC as I'm just more comfortable doing so.


Kennel Cough is one that I will add next time, as Jack had symptoms of it a few weeks ago and although he wasn't particularly poorly it was a nuisance for him and he couldn't go out for a week or more. For the sake of an addition to the jab it will be worth getting him covered.


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

Daisy had the nasal spray which didn't seem to cause her any distress. She's around a lot of dogs at flyball and sharing balls/water etc so I feel happier with her having it, especially as there's been an outbreak at kennels not far from us.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

SixStar said:


> I do however also vaccinate against rabies every three years due to personal concerns over the ridiculous new quarantine regulations, or rather the lack of.


My dog was inoculated for rabies in France but before I could take him to Spain or Italy and safely bring him back into France, my dog had to have a rabies specific titre test. When I brought him to the UK they required no such test which I find very peculiar.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

dorrit said:


> This has been done to death ...
> 
> It comes down to this ..if you want to risk it fine...


You didn't have to join in if your sick to death of the subject.

As for me, I seldom get to spend much time in here and my search through the archives came up with zilch. I'm pleased to say though, enough people have joined in this topic so there are still some of us that are interested.... but thanks for your contribution, it was most helpful.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

sharloid said:


> I go abroad a fair bit with mine (we're currently in Europe) and they aren't vaccinated. Vaccinations (aside from rabies) aren't a requirement.
> 
> Some boarding kennels accept titers, others won't. I know my council (Sheffield) stipulate that any dogs being boarded have to have yearly up to date vaccs, regardless of if that's what the kennel owners are happy with.


Yay... thanks for confirming this  and have a great holiday with your dogs.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

EAD said:


> Titre test for parvo, distemper and hepatitis.
> 
> Have stopped giving lepto.


Sorry, right off topic because I noticed your dog wearing goggles  and that totally distracted me from anything you said


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Have allowed my two girls to run out, but I will have to vac my daughters service dog yearly as he needs to be for his service certificate... 

I just find it hard that we pump chemicals into our dogs all the time ! Even our children are not vaccinated this much!


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

piggybaker said:


> Have allowed my two girls to run out, but I will have to vac my daughters service dog yearly as he needs to be for his service certificate...
> 
> I just find it hard that we pump chemicals into our dogs all the time ! Even our children are not vaccinated this much!


Its the same with horses piggybaker. If you want to event and your horse misses his booster by one day, you have to start the whole process all over again. It seems ridiculous.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

ThelifeofPi said:


> You didn't have to join in if your sick to death of the subject.
> 
> As for me, I seldom get to spend much time in here and my search through the archives came up with zilch. I'm pleased to say though, enough people have joined in this topic so there are still some of us that are interested.... but thanks for your contribution, it was most helpful.


Im surprised you couldnt find anything its a very common subject full of opinion and rows ..

The fact is research research and more research is the answer, not a lot of scaremongering or media hyped answers.. Ask people who are qualified to give answers find out what the repercussions are if you do or dont and then decide what risks you want to take,,,

Sarcasm will get you nowhere though


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Not a dog, but I vaccinated Bagpuss when I got him as we didn't know his vaccination history.

He will have cat 'flu vaccine every year now because he uses the cattery and they require it, but I won't give him everything else every year - probably every few years when I feel like it.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> This comes round again and again, so...
> 
> 1) Insurance companies will NOT pay out for any illness that could normally be prevented by vaccination. They do NOT accept titre tests. (see below) Nor do they accept homoeopathic alternatives. [If you want to know how effective those are note the rush of "Homoeopaths sans Frontieres" to deal with the Ebola outbreaks].
> 2) The 'normal' duration that a manufacturer will guarantee cover for is 3 years for everything except lepto, which is usually annual.
> ...


^^^ This.

I like the WSAVA Guidelines, but they are NOT the vaccination Bible. There remains controversy over the Guidelines just as much as over the datasheets.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Mine are vaccinated as recommended by my vet. Some are annual some are not. We live by a farm and there are loads of rats, we go to shows and mix with lots of unknown dogs and my dogs go to boarding kennels a few times a year. 

I am not willing to risk my dog becoming ill with what are, in effect, preventable diseases and it annoys me that some people don't vaccinate and therefore contribute to the possible (and actual) resurgence of canine diseases. There has been an outbreak of parvovirus recently here. My vet said all the dogs have been unvaccinated.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

Those who don't vaccinate need to check their insurance T&Cs. I knew someone whose policy was worthless when they needed to claim for something unrelated once the insurance company found out the dog hadn't been vaccinated since being a puppy.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Helbo said:


> Those who don't vaccinate need to check their insurance T&Cs. I knew someone whose policy was worthless when they needed to claim for something unrelated once the insurance company found out the dog hadn't been vaccinated since being a puppy.


I think most insurance companies only exclude illnesses/diseases that could have been prevented by vaccinations.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Old Shep said:


> My vet said all the dogs have been unvaccinated.


I don't think this is true  While vaccinating might lessen the chance of a dog becoming ill with Parvo they can still contract it, and just remember some dogs can get Parvo, and shed spores and show no signs of the illness themselves.



Old Shep said:


> preventable diseases and it annoys me that some people don't vaccinate and therefore contribute to the possible (and actual) resurgence of canine disease


Do you have any research to show that it is people who don't vaccinate their dogs contribute to the resurgence of canine disease? Or could it also possibly be the dogs being brought in form Europe and puppy farms contributing to it?


----------



## Lizz1155 (Jun 16, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> I think most insurance companies only exclude illnesses/diseases that could have been prevented by vaccinations.


I'm not sure that's quite right? 

With mine when I initially took out the insurance I had to declare that his vaccination schedule was up to date (which it was). I checked the fine print and I was required to vaccinate for the standard stuff, not including Kennel Cough. Clearly if I did not do this my insurance would not be valid to begin with.

However mine _still _has the clause that they will not cover for anything that your pet should (could?) be vaccinated against. I guess this means they won't cover Kennel Cough (whether you vaccinated for it or not), or anything which happens due to vaccine failure (i.e they're vaccinated but not immune).


----------



## marasmum (Jun 12, 2013)

This has been really interesting reading and helped us make a decision.

We have made an appointment with another vet in the practice to discuss a Titer test for Mara, and discuss that if she does, at this moment in time, have immunity, then would her annual 'booster' be sufficient moving forward?. If she doesn't, then we need to understand what effects a full course of vaccinations may have on her, given her existing medication.

In addition we also need to discuss her medication for her arthritis, the anti infammatories are making her sooo poorly and it may be time to move to steroids  

So, given Maras individual circumstance we are unwilling to flood her system with yet more drugs, perhaps unnecessarily.

Finally, I think this forum is fab  My query on this thread really started as a result of the vet I saw confusing things. Until this thread I had never heard of a Titer test nor did the vet suggest it as a possible way of determining the actual need for Mara to undergo more 'jabs'. So whilst of course we will always confer with a vet, when we have to make a decision based on opinion we always like to canvas as much opinion as possible in order to make, for us, a balanced decision with Maras health and wellbeing at the forefront.

Thanks all


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Helbo said:


> Those who don't vaccinate need to check their insurance T&Cs. I knew someone whose policy was worthless when they needed to claim for something unrelated once the insurance company found out the dog hadn't been vaccinated since being a puppy.


Mine are titre tested, the companies (2 different ones) have been advised, and although I wouldn't be covered for any disease/infection that the vaccinations cover should they contract it, everything else is OK, and Ive had no problems with claims for other things with either company.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Meezey said:


> I don't think this is true  While vaccinating might lessen the chance of a dog becoming ill with Parvo they can still contract it, and just remember some dogs can get Parvo, and shed spores and show no signs of the illness themselves.
> 
> Do you have any research to show that it is people who don't vaccinate their dogs contribute to the resurgence of canine disease? Or could it also possibly be the dogs being brought in form Europe and puppy farms contributing to it?


I have no reason to think my vet was lying. She stated that all the dogs she had seen with parvovirus at this outbreak did not have up to date vaccinations. I believe one died.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Do you have any research to show that it is people who don't vaccinate their dogs contribute to the resurgence of canine disease? Or could it also possibly be the dogs being brought in form Europe and puppy farms contributing to it?[/QUOTE]

If vaccinations are not kept above a certain level for any given population then a disease can re emerge. This is currently happening in the US with pertussis and measles in areas where vaccination rates have gone down to insufficient levels. It happend in Wales last year.

If diseases are being exacerbated by puppy farming and European imports (I take it you mean dodgey imports) then I would conclude this to be lack of vaccination. I doubt puppy farmers vaccinate- similarly smuggled dogs.

Canine distemper rates fell dramatically when vaccination became more " the norm" and while correlation does not necessarily equal causation, I think it's pretty safe to conclude that canine vaccine- at effective population levels- limit the spread of disease.


----------



## 24Paws (Aug 9, 2014)

I don't vaccinate yearly. My dogs get their initial vaccinations and that's it. One of my dogs was given her first booster vaccination because it was required for a ringcraft class I wanted to enlist her in.

You can't become more immune to something. :sosp:

I'm not fond of the idea of injecting my dogs with a disease or virus and avoid it if I can help it. If there was an outbreak of something in the area, I'd consider vaccinating, but my dogs continue to develop natural immunity to changing strains of things like parvo over the course of the year.

I've had two dogs (one was 2, the other was just over 1) contract parvovirus after receiving their annual booster shots and both died as a result. Since the last dog died of parvo, I don't get my dogs their booster shots. 

I know people who have their dogs boostered each year without a problem.


----------



## PennyGSD (Apr 16, 2012)

SixStar said:


> Mine don't go into kennels either (*if they did, I wouldn't use a kennels that accepted unvaccinated dogs or titre tested ones*) - but I do keep them up to date with their vaccines - I don't think it's worth the risk of not doing so, especially since so many people are choosing to either leave their dogs un-vaccinated or use ineffective means of protection. People can take what chances they like with their dogs, but I do not want their decisions affecting my dogs.
> 
> They are vaccinated yearly as per my vets recommended schedule - lepto yearly, and DHPPi and P on alternate years. They don't get the kennel cough nasal drops. I do however also vaccinate against rabies every three years due to personal concerns over the ridiculous new quarantine regulations, or rather the lack of.


Couldn't agree more with this. I've always had all previous dogs vaccinated without a second thought. It's only since I've been an active member on here that I started to doubt whether I should keep 'pumping chemicals' into my dogs.

I decided that as a half way measure I would go to my vet armed with the fact that the manufacturer suggested boosters every 3 years for DHPPi rather than every year and see what she said. But she entirely took the wind out of my sails by commenting that my dogs only needed lepto annually now due to revised manufacturer recommendations (and kennel cough every 6 months - I do get them dosed for kennel cough, same as my parents always have the flu jab).

I still worry about this 'chemical' stuff but I also worry about DE and other 'natural' unregulated materials that so many people seem to use to combat other issues. I've come to the conclusion that being responsible for another living, breathing creature just means being worried a lot of the time


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Puppy jabs and thats it!


----------



## Jem121 (May 6, 2012)

Yes.
Puppy injections. And each year after that (boosters)


----------



## Kathyvet (Aug 24, 2014)

Hi all,

As a vet I thought I should comment on the topic of vaccinations!
As an animal lover firstly and Vet secondly I would highly recommend that all dogs are vaccinated yearly against leptospirosis and every three years against distemper, hepatitis and parvovirus. Kennel cough is not as important in some respects as catching it is unlikely to kill your dog but vaccinating against it will definitely reduce the severity of the infection and from your dogs point of view they will recover more quickly. 

Another important point to remember is that your dog should also receive a clinical examination each year when they are getting vaccinated and this in itself is very important. It enables us to pick up on any conditions that you may not have been aware of such as dental disease, heart conditions, masses in the abdomen etc. By detecting these problems early we can do our best to top them getting worse.

The reason that we don't see lots of the illnesses that we vaccinate against is because the vaccines work and they reduce the presence of the virus/bacteria in the population. Outbreaks occur when a population of unvaccinated animals come into contact with the virus/bacteria. 
If your dog isn't vaccinated you are exposing them to unnecessary risk. There have been reports recently about cases of distemper occurring and new strains of leptospirosis emerging. I don't think we should ever be complacent about the risk of disease. 

While many think that giving a dog its puppy vaccinations and then first yearly booster is enough, I personally believe that we should follow the guidelines of the Vaccine manufacturers.
My dog is my best friend and a member of the family. I would never forgive myself if she died of a condition which I could have prevented.

Kathy BVMS MRCVS


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

No. And I find it appalling that vets insist on bullying owners into over-vaccinating just for the income. For years the vets have been telling people dogs need a yearly vaccination, with no evidence, and against the advice of the firms producing the vaccines. And not warning people that sick, elderly or certain breeds are far more likely to have adverse reactions.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

No, puppy vacs and 1st yearly booster, and then that's it. And I don't let them have the lepto vaccination, it's not considered a core vaccination except where endemic.


----------



## VMH (Aug 24, 2014)

As I kennel my dogs when I go on holiday I actually have no choice but to vaccinate, including for KC.


----------



## El Cid (Apr 19, 2014)

PennyGSD said:


> I still worry about this 'chemical' stuff but I also worry about DE and other 'natural' unregulated materials that so many people seem to use to combat other issues. I've come to the conclusion that being responsible for another living, breathing creature just means being worried a lot of the time


My complication is that I qualify for free vet treatment with the PDSA, but with my hours of work changing, I may not qualify in months to come. So I started off paying the vets fees for pups first jabs, PDSA for flea treatment and antibiotics, and now perhaps back to normal fee charging vets. And trying to save money by buying my own flea/tick treatments.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Millie has the core vaccine every 3 years and Lepto in between.

As recommended by my previous vet and I ensured our new vet (One of those dreadful 'chain' of vets ) continues with the same protocol - I am happy with this level of cover.


As for the money making side my vet gets no extra out of me as we paid £79 for Vaccines for life 4 years ago (in fact to a different practise to the one we are at now) so my current practise hasn't had a penny out of us for vaccines.


Our borders are more open than ever before and I can't help but believe with more and more not only choosing not to vaccinate but choosing not to titre or look into alternatives that there will come a point when these diseases surface more regularly again as the number of unvaccinated dogs continues to rise and outnumber the vaccinated.

I do believe to an extent its the vaccinated dogs which to an extent protect the unvaccinated.


I believe like many human diseases (Measles outbreak) that the reason we don't see parvovirus as much is due to the introduction of vaccination programmes. 

Given Millie's health/ my living environment / lifestyle I would always vaccinate Millie.

In fact got her reminder through this week so will book it for Sep.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Milliepoochie said:


> I do believe to an extent its the vaccinated dogs which to an extent protect the unvaccinated.


Totally correct, it's called herd immunity Herd immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kathyvet (Aug 24, 2014)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> No. And I find it appalling that vets insist on bullying owners into over-vaccinating just for the income. For years the vets have been telling people dogs need a yearly vaccination, with no evidence, and against the advice of the firms producing the vaccines. And not warning people that sick, elderly or certain breeds are far more likely to have adverse reactions.


I just wanted to point out that the reason Vets recommend the vaccination protocols that we do is because we are following guidelines given by the vaccine manufacturers. We don't just make things up and are certainly not going against what firms tell us.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I wondered how long it would take for the conspiracy theories to creep in 


Vets are, in the vast majority of cases, doing the job they do for the love of animals. They are not in it to get rich quick ( there are much easier, and quicker ways to do that. Selling unproven "natural" remedies and quack treatments being one....).

Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making money for their shareholders. They do this by developing effective drugs for diseases. They can't make money if the drugs make the animals sicker.

And. Just to be clear. There is no secret pact between vets and the pharmaceutical companies to make all our pets sick.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

My opinion as a long time reader but new member...

As children we get the core vaccines measles, mumps, Rubella, Polio etc & they last a lifetime... we don't get called in for a booster every 12 months-3 years.

If we assume that the dogs immune system responds to vaccinations in the same way humans do, & it must or vaccines wouldn't work, then why do we think that the protection "wears off" in dogs but not people?

This is an hour or so long but well worth a watch...


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

IMO there is scope for vets to discuss the frequency of vaccination with owners, namely decisions to go 'off-licence' and administer them less frequently than datasheet guidelines.

However, for vets to recommend not vaccinating off their own back puts them on shaky ground. If something happened, they would be open to criticism and all sorts of liability if they had actively pushed not vaccinating in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines.

An open discussion between owner and vet, however, puts a different slant on things and I believe this should be encourage on both sides.

Plus, I've said it before and will say it again: even where vaccinations are foregone, please have your dog checked regularly!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Schultz: Dog vaccines may not be necessary


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I was forced to have Alfie vaccinated every year so that he could continue hydro.

However, he hasn't had one for nearly 2 years now


----------



## pogo (Jul 25, 2011)

rona said:


> I was forced to have Alfie vaccinated every year so that he could continue hydro.
> 
> However, he hasn't had one for nearly 2 years now


We just had to sign a disclaimer saying the boys aren't vaccinated for them to do hydro which I was happy with.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Every three years with lepto once a year. 

I know I know I should be using magically altered water that gives a totally natural immunity . And I should totally believe propaganda put out by these people saying it works.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Every three years with lepto once a year.
> 
> I know I know I should be using magically altered water that gives a totally natural immunity . And I should totally believe propaganda put out by these people saying it works.


Do you have children?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> Do you have children?


No, however I've seen the raging debates over childhood vaccines as well. Then the outbreaks that are coming from parents not vaccinating and relying on herd immunity. It's up to the parents and pet owners whether they vaccinate or not though. I will be vaccinating any children I have according to the established protocols.


----------



## Tamberlane (Jul 8, 2014)

I vaccinate my mutt yearly with lepto and on a cycle with the dhppi.She is also done for kennel cough and rabies.

I work as a vet. We have a high rate of parvo in the area(averaging around 2 pups a month,70 percent death rate even with treatment)and have seen distemper as well. Lepto is less common as it is difficult to get a confirmed diagnoses...have had several suspect cases esp after river floods.

Prevention is much easier than cure in the cases of these diseases. 

If I could titre test I would but its prohibitively expensive. When we used to titre test after the rabies vaccs for passports it was not as rare as you'd think to have too low a titre for immunity to be sufficient.
Really wish that was still in place as I can see rabies creating into Ireland and the UK in my lifetime with these new travel rules and the popularity of foreign imports/rescues.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> I will be vaccinating any children I have according to the established protocols.


So you won't be expecting 3 yearly (for life) boosters for your kids yet you will with your dog?

Some logic needs to be applied here, either vaccines work or they don't.
If it's good enough for our kids to be immunised at an early age & that's it for life, why not dogs?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> So you won't be expecting 3 yearly (for life) boosters for your kids yet you will with your dog?
> 
> Some logic needs to be applied here, either vaccines work or they don't.
> If it's good enough for our kids to be immunised at an early age & that's it for life, why not dogs?


Humans need boosters for some vaccines as well. Antibodies, those are the things that id and mark bacteria and viruses so the immune system can take care of them, last different times for different illnesses. Essentially what vaccines do is cause your body to create these antibodies, so that if you are exposed to the illness your immune system kicks in much faster.

Apologies if you know all this.


----------



## DirtyGertie (Mar 12, 2011)

BlackadderUK said:


> So you won't be expecting 3 yearly (for life) boosters for your kids yet you will with your dog?
> 
> Some logic needs to be applied here, either vaccines work or they don't.
> If it's good enough for our kids to be immunised at an early age & that's it for life, why not dogs?


Some human vaccines given to children and adults are not "for life" - 
Influenza - annually
Pneumonia - 10 years or 5 years for older people and those with health conditions, 3 doses for children
Most children's vaccines need about 3 doses to begin with and then boosters in later years (tetanus, diptheria, polio, meningitis C)

Isn't it possible that animal vaccines don't give lifelong immunity?


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Schultz: Dog vaccines may not be necessary


That would be the same Schultz that runs possibly the largest titre testing lab in the USA then? No possibility that he might just be swayed by his income? And, despite all his evangelism, he refuses to release any raw data about his findings. Hmmm. Is this a man I would trust?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> That would be the same Schultz that runs possibly the largest titre testing lab in the USA then? No possibility that he might just be swayed by his income? And, despite all his evangelism, he refuses to release any raw data about his findings. Hmmm. Is this a man I would trust?


Why shouldn't I trust him? Or should I trust the large companies who develop dog vaccines and then tell us that we should trust our vets to administer them even though some vets don't follow the guidelines given regarding vaccinations. Professor Schultz isn't the only one researching vaccines for our dogs and whether they should be administered so frequently as we are currently told.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Why shouldn't I trust him? Or should I trust the large companies who develop dog vaccines and then tell us that we should trust our vets to administer them even though some vets don't follow the guidelines given regarding vaccinations. Professor Schultz isn't the only one researching vaccines for our dogs and whether they should be administered so frequently as we are currently told.


In the UK the 'duration' of immunisation of vaccines is very carefully controlled by DEFRA. The manufacturers provide the data. It works by, surprise, surprise, titre testing over a number of animals. When the titre tests show that immunisation is starting to fall off then that's the indicated period of immunisation. For safety's sake that period is then shortened. All of this is outside the control of the manufacturer.

In Schultz's case the ONLY person making his claims is him. The only other person who makes similar claims (also without producing evidence) in the USA also happens to run a 'facility' where she bleeds 'rescue' greyhounds every 2 weeks as blood donors, runs a homoeopathic clinic and, oh yes, runs a titre testing lab.

The facts are straightforward: Titre testing provides a result that is valid only for the day the test was taken. Period. Some animals may carry the vaccination effects longer than that guaranteed by the manufacturer - but whereas they may show OK today they may not show OK tomorrow. The only 'guarantee' you have that your dog is immunised against preventable disease is to have it vaccinated according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Or, of course, you could titre test every day.

Your vet should vaccinate according to the manufacturer's protocols. If he doesn't - change your vet. The manufacturer has no control over what the vet does.

And, Schultz is on record as saying that you should vaccinate and the dangers of doing so are tiny compared with the dangers of not doing so. So, if you want to believe him, feel free.


----------



## kateh8888 (Aug 9, 2011)

We do it yearly but this is an interesting post so will certainly look into this now.


----------



## PennyGSD (Apr 16, 2012)

AlbertRoss said:


> In Schultz's case the ONLY person making his claims is him. The only other person who makes similar claims (also without producing evidence) in the USA also happens to run a 'facility' where she bleeds 'rescue' greyhounds every 2 weeks as blood donors, runs a homoeopathic clinic and, oh yes, runs a titre testing lab.


OMG. You're not talking about Jean Dodds are you? If so, I'm ordering in the popcorn for this one...


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Tamberlane said:


> If I could titre test I would but its prohibitively expensive. When we used to titre test after the rabies vaccs for passports it was not as rare as you'd think to have too low a titre for immunity to be sufficient.
> Really wish that was still in place as I can see rabies creating into Ireland and the UK in my lifetime with these new travel rules and the popularity of foreign imports/rescues.


Agreed.....


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> In the UK the 'duration' of immunisation of vaccines is very carefully controlled by DEFRA. The manufacturers provide the data. It works by, surprise, surprise, titre testing over a number of animals. When the titre tests show that immunisation is starting to fall off then that's the indicated period of immunisation. For safety's sake that period is then shortened. All of this is outside the control of the manufacturer.
> 
> In Schultz's case the ONLY person making his claims is him. The only other person who makes similar claims (also without producing evidence) in the USA also happens to run a 'facility' where she bleeds 'rescue' greyhounds every 2 weeks as blood donors, runs a homoeopathic clinic and, oh yes, runs a titre testing lab.
> 
> ...


Well of course he's not biased don't talk silly . Vaccines have effects of course but so do parvo and distemper and those are generally much worse. And I'm not going to buy into what someone who makes their living off titre testing or magically altered water that gives you the symptoms so totally makes you immune to a disease , says about vaccines. Can people not understand that someone who makes their money off people NOT vaccinating, be it titre testing or nosodes, has as much stake in persuading you that vaccines are evil as the evol big pharm has in persuading you that vaccinating is essential?

In rabbits the recommendations are one vaccine every year and one every 6 months. Yes I know, screams hysterically about overvaccination etc etc. But I'd take that over my pet bleeding out of every orifice strangely enough.

I'm curious as to what the next argument will be. It causes autism maybe?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Just to be clear I am not against vaccinating, in fact I wholly support it... it's the biggest weapon in our armoury when it comes to common diseases.

What I am asking is why do we accept that annual, biannual, triannual boosters are required for the "core" vaccines?

Someone in the thread mentioned that humans have boosters too &, that's true but if we look at the MMR vaccine there is one jab at around 12 months & a booster at around 3years... that's it, no visits to the docs every 3 years for a topup.

The 5 in 1 vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio and Hib) is given to babies at 2, 3 & 4 months of age followed by the 4 in 1 at around 3 & a "teenage" booster at roughly 13 & that's it. No more boosters for as long as you live.
If this program is followed even Tetanus should be covered for life.

If we take Parvo, Distemper & Adenovirus as the "core" vaccines for dogs we all know that as puppies they get 2 shots some 4 weeks apart & a booster after 1 year, equivalent (ish) to the protocol used for baby vaccs.

I am not saying don't vaccinate, far from it but I am asking why I as a parent am told that my children are protected for life from major illnesses after vaccination but my dogs are not.

Let's not forget that it's not that long ago that annual boosters were the norm for dogs. The vaccine hasn't changed greatly, the dogs immune sytem hasn't changed at all but now 3 yearly boosters are recommended... is it perhaps that someone has put a little effort into research?

For vaccines to work at all the immune system in both us & dogs must work the same way... so why the difference?

RE: Dr Ronald Schultz. I have no doubt he has a financial interest but so do the vaccine manufacturers... he offers a different view, it's up to the customer (us) to decide which side of the fence they stand


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

What we need is unbiased research, unfortunately there wouldn't be the funding. So most of the research is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies or the anti-vaccine people who all have their own agendas. 

We recommend different vaccine protocols for different illnesses because they work differently and as more research is done we might find out that the 3 yearly vaccines aren't necessary.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

:thumbup: for actual evidence based veterinary science and so many here advocating it! I used to feel so lonely!



Just to add about childhood vaccinations- some infectious diseases are much more serious if contracted as an infant- deadly, in fact.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> :thumbup: for actual evidence based veterinary science and so many here advocating it! I used to feel so lonely!
> 
> Just to add about childhood vaccinations- some infectious diseases are much more serious if contracted as an infant- deadly, in fact.


Most diseases tend to be, it's what made the spanish flu so scary that it hit young, healthy adults the hardest. Chicken pox can be very serious in adults too, whereas it's an irritating rash for a few days in most child cases.

It's funny that so many people emphasise science based training yet when it comes to health rarely put in the same amount of research.


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Vaccinated yearly here. Would not live with myself if Lily would get ill and we could have prevented it by vaccinating.

Also by not vaccinating would it invalidate your insurance policy?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> What we need is unbiased research, unfortunately there wouldn't be the funding. So most of the research is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies or the anti-vaccine people who all have their own agendas.
> 
> We recommend different vaccine protocols for different illnesses because they work differently and as more research is done we might find out that the 3 yearly vaccines aren't necessary.


Nice post.

I'm not sure how we get independent research for the reasons you quote but it's desperately needed.

I agree that the vaccine protocols for different illnesses is valid. Lepto has god knows how many different strains & the effectiveness can be as little as 6 months even for those strains covered by the vaccine.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

gorgeous said:


> Vaccinated yearly here. Would not live with myself if Lily would get ill and we could have prevented it by vaccinating.


Talk to your vet, the latest info from Nobivac is 3 yearly boosters. Nobivac DHPPi - Product Data Sheet



gorgeous said:


> Also by not vaccinating would it invalidate your insurance policy?


Only for preventable illnesses IE: those that could be vaccinated against.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

"It's funny that so many people emphasise science based training yet when it comes to health rarely put in the same amount of research."


A point I made myself on here about a year ago!


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> What we need is unbiased research, unfortunately there wouldn't be the funding. So most of the research is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies or the anti-vaccine people who all have their own agendas.
> 
> We recommend different vaccine protocols for different illnesses because they work differently and as more research is done we might find out that the 3 yearly vaccines aren't necessary.


May I suggest that anyone who wants to look at information about current vaccines in the UK has a look at the DEFRA leaflet. As I'm sure you know, DEFRA isn't funded by the vaccine manufacturers so their guidelines are, presumably, reasonably authorative. In particular: _We now consider that immunity to canine parvovirus, infectious canine hepatitis and canine distemper usually lasts for up to four years and some studies suggest it may be longer. For rabies and panleucopaenia in cats immunity is usually considered to last for three years. However, immunity to cat flu, leptospirosis or kennel cough may only last for 12 months. _


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> May I suggest that anyone who wants to look at information about current vaccines in the UK has a look at the DEFRA leaflet. As I'm sure you know, DEFRA isn't funded by the vaccine manufacturers so their guidelines are, presumably, reasonably authorative. In particular: _We now consider that immunity to canine parvovirus, infectious canine hepatitis and canine distemper usually lasts for up to four years and some studies suggest it may be longer. For rabies and panleucopaenia in cats immunity is usually considered to last for three years. However, immunity to cat flu, leptospirosis or kennel cough may only last for 12 months. _


So basically in line with the current recommendations of the 5-in-1 vaccine every three years and lepto every year.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> So basically in line with the current recommendations of the 5-in-1 vaccine every three years and lepto every year.


Exactly.

By the way, this may be of interest. The vaccinations approved in the UK and the protocols for giving them are under a section of DEFRA known as the "Veterinary Medicines Directorate". They take issue with the WSAVA guidelines both in the vaccination protocols and also with Schultz's research:


For primary vaccination of puppies the WSAVA recommend up to three doses of vaccine. The majority of UK vaccines recommend two vaccinations for the puppy.
The WSAVA Guidelines recommend re - vaccination intervals for canine leptospira vaccines of 6 - 9 months during a period of risk. The UK authorised products for leptospira recommend annual revaccination and this reduced frequency of vaccination is justified by the data supporting the vaccine authorisation .
The WSAVA Guidelines include claims for durations of immunity of nine years or longer for CPV - 2 , CAV - 2 and CDV MLV vaccines. Much of the work to support these extended claims, beyond the 3 years established by most manufacturers, has been reviewed (Schultz, 2006 ; 2010). He has reported studies assessing the minimum duration of vaccinal immunity in more than 1000 dogs vaccinated with products from all the major US veterinary biological companies...
Confounding these observations and claims is the lack of detail reported in the primary scientific literature for these studies and as a result a thorough scientific analysis of the data is not possible without the provision of the raw data. For example, it is not possible to ascertain the number or age of the puppies at the time of vaccination, their immunological status or the vaccination protocol and products administered. The serological methods are not described, nor are the clinical signs or the detailed observations following challenge. Whilst the evidence as reported is persuasive, much of the data would not meet the usual standards of scientific scrutiny reserved for peer reviewed primary literature.

Naturally the VMD quotes the research to justify items 1 and 2 above. As for the final point, if that were a statement issued by a University it would basically be translated as "this person is either lying or otherwise deceiving us". If Schultz's evidence supports his arguments why does he consistently refuse to supply it?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

After reading this....



> To support
> SPC statements on duration of immunity (DOI), laboratory and field efficacy studies are
> conducted with the actual product (in this case Nobivac DHP) to demonstrate the DOI of the
> vaccine. At an appropriate period after primary vaccination the persistence of the immune
> ...


It would seem that nobody knows the actual DOI due to research not being conducted & that "they" have settled on 3 yearly boosters due to the above, reasonable IMO, constraints.

I would argue that the fact that DOI has been determined to be a minimum of 3 years then a much longer period is likely just not proven.

Outside of lab conditions, in the real world, exposure to the 3 main "core" diseases could literally be on a daily basis & would, in the case of an immunised dog, boost it's immunity for life.

Nothing I've seen proves Schultz is wrong, or right, just that his theories are not supported by established scientific procedures & to be honest I don't know of anyone who would support the isolation of numerous (100's?) dogs for life to get the answer.

Not wanting to sound like a Parrot, I still find it hard to believe that humans can be immunised for life but dogs can't... & nothing is available to show they can't.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> After reading this....
> 
> It would seem that nobody knows the actual DOI due to research not being conducted & that "they" have settled on 3 yearly boosters due to the above, reasonable IMO, constraints.
> 
> ...


Interesting stuff, except that what you have quoted is part of a reply to a (very long) letter which cites one particular vaccine (Nobivac DHP) and which comes from someone who describes herself as "Independent Advocate for Judicious Vaccine Use". Her 'critique' of the VMD approach isn't solely about protocols in the UK, she also wrote to a large number of other bodies, including the regulators in Australia (where she comes from) and, unsurprisingly the WSAVA. Much of her argument is based on Schultz's unproven claims and, TBH, much of it seems more like raving hysteria than supposedly 'scientific' argument. In particular she questions the 'memory' part of immunisation (which a titre test does _not_ indicate the continuation of) and expects all these bodies to show how long such memory lasts. Sadly, she doesn't have a clue, herself, how to show that. If there were such a test then maybe the whole scenario would change. But there isn't.

Shame you didn't include the following paragraph in the reply:

It is recognised that there is an increasing body of scientific literature and opinion that suggests the DOIs of certain antigens *may* be considerably longer than the authorised claims for existing vaccines on the EU market. Nevertheless regulatory and scientific requirements restrict extrapolation of generic claims to specific products. Furthermore although much of the work to support the extended claims beyond the 3-4 years established by most manufacturers has been reviewed (Schultz, 2006, 2010) *there is insufficient detail reported in the primary scientific literature* for these studies to permit a thorough scientific analysis of the raw data is not possible. Whilst the evidence as reported may be *superficially persuasive*, much of the data *would not meet the usual standards of scientific scrutiny* reserved for peer reviewed primary literature and *certainly would not offer sufficient information for extrapolation* to the individual supporting data package for a particular product.

The emphasis is mine. The simple fact about Schultz is that, if his papers are to be recognised they should be checkable. In order to do that he should make available the data they were based on, which would include such things as breeds and sexes, ages at which vaccines were administered, how the dogs were kept e.g. isolated or non-isolated, etc. He has consistently refused to show this. That's why his results are suspect.

If anybody _really_ wants to read the original letter it's here and the reply is here. I won't bother to cite the letters she sent to the WSAVA and the Australian bodies.


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

I don't vaccinate yearly because I don't believe its needed


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I remain torn on this one... Diz has reacted to jabs, even boosters, in the past and I don't really see the need now she's 3 for yearly ones. 

But, to do things like hydrotherapy, or if she needed kennelling, then without up to date jabs, there would be problems.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Having lost a young dog (aged 4) following AI probs - possibly brought on by vacs I try to keep upto date with Jean Dodds and her vaccinations

Dr. Jean Dodds' Pet Health Resource Blog | 2013 and 2014 Canine Vaccination Protocol - W. Jean Dodds, DVM

That said my 6 year old I am just 'dittering' about get her vacs again


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

AlbertRoss said:


> The simple fact about Schultz is that, if his papers are to be recognised they should be checkable. In order to do that he should make available the data they were based on, which would include such things as breeds and sexes, ages at which vaccines were administered, how the dogs were kept e.g. isolated or non-isolated, etc. He has consistently refused to show this. That's why his results are suspect.


With the greatest respect, this isn't just about Schultz.

He puts forward an alternative viewpoint &, while I agree it's open to "debate", until long term studies (very unlikely) have been carried out to disprove his theories then his opinion is as valid as Defras.

The truth is that no-one actually knows how long immunity lasts after successful vaccination but are we really to believe that a dog vaccine only protects for 3 years but a human MMR (for example) vaccine protects (supposedly) for life?

IMO it's ludicrous to suggest that is the case.

My two dogs had the intial puppy jabs & a booster after 12 months, they are now approaching 8yo & haven't had a booster since... maybe I'm just lucky but I'll bet there are many more dog owners who can say the same.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Depends on the vaccine, doesn't it?

The 'flu vaccine in humans, for example, needs to be given at regular intervals.

There is also discrepancy in human medicine. I have heard different doctors give different information about whether or not tetanus boosters are needed. I have yet to witness a consensus on that one.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> Depends on the vaccine, doesn't it?
> 
> The 'flu vaccine in humans, for example, needs to be given at regular intervals.
> 
> There is also discrepancy in human medicine. I have heard different doctors give different information about whether or not tetanus boosters are needed. I have yet to witness a consensus on that one.


I'm comparing the core vaccines for the two species Parvo, Distemper & Adenovirus for dogs vs MMR, Diptheria etc in humans.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> I'm comparing the core vaccines for the two species Parvo, Distemper & Adenovirus for dogs vs MMR, Diptheria etc in humans.


Ah, I get you.

Lack of research, it seems. It's so patchy.

This one, for example (Schering-Plough, no less - now MSD of course), states:
_These data support *at least a 4-year duration of immunity* for these three "core" fractions in the combination vaccine. _

Which kind of contradicts their datasheet recommendations.

Evaluation of the efficacy and duration of immunity of a canine combination vaccine against... - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> With the greatest respect, this isn't just about Schultz.


Actually it's about Schultz and Dodds - who both push titre testing rather than recommended vaccination protocols and who both make huge amounts of money from doing so.



> He puts forward an alternative viewpoint &, while I agree it's open to "debate", until long term studies (very unlikely) have been carried out to disprove his theories then his opinion is as valid as Defras.


The point is that it isn't open to debate. Because he won't supply any evidence.



> The truth is that no-one actually knows how long immunity lasts after successful vaccination but are we really to believe that a dog vaccine only protects for 3 years but a human MMR (for example) vaccine protects (supposedly) for life?


The truth is that some vaccines protect for a longer time than others. Flu vaccines are renewed annually. Various 'tropical illness' vaccines e.g Cholera - every 2 years.



> My two dogs had the intial puppy jabs & a booster after 12 months, they are now approaching 8yo & haven't had a booster since... maybe I'm just lucky but I'll bet there are many more dog owners who can say the same.


Maybe you are. And maybe your dogs are carriers putting others at risk. Who knows?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

AlbertRoss said:


> Actually it's about Schultz and Dodds - who both push titre testing rather than recommended vaccination protocols and who both make huge amounts of money from doing so.


Do they?



AlbertRoss said:


> The point is that it isn't open to debate. Because he won't supply any evidence.


Of course it is, we're debating it right now! If he supplied conclusive evidence any debate would stop wouldn't it?



AlbertRoss said:


> The truth is that some vaccines protect for a longer time than others. Flu vaccines are renewed annually. Various 'tropical illness' vaccines e.g Cholera - every 2 years.


Sigh... I thought we were discussing the core vaccines as stated many times.



AlbertRoss said:


> Maybe you are. And maybe your dogs are carriers putting others at risk. Who knows?


Maybe you're right, does being immune to a disease prevent you being a carrier?


----------



## PennyGSD (Apr 16, 2012)

What exactly is a 'core' virus for humans, apart from the fact that you're classifying them as ones where immunisation lasts a lifetime.

What are the characteristics of MMR/Tetanus etc that makes them different to cholera, influenza or any other shots that human beings need to be regularly vaccinated against?

BlackadderUK - the whole point of your argument is that you're comparing against the 'core' human vaccines, but do you have any reason to do this? Do you know that parvovirus etc acts in a similar way to measles?


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> Do they?


Yes. Well documented.



> Of course it is, we're debating it right now! If he supplied conclusive evidence any debate would stop wouldn't it?


Yes, and because he doesn't there is no debate. People may _believe_ that he's right (and he may be) but there are no facts available to support him. Some people _believed_ the moon was made of cheese but someone landed on it and proved that it wasn't. Belief does not equal fact and debating 'beliefs' is pointless.



> Sigh... I thought we were discussing the core vaccines as stated many times.





PennyGSD said:


> What exactly is a 'core' virus for humans, apart from the fact that you're classifying them as ones where immunisation lasts a lifetime.
> 
> What are the characteristics of MMR/Tetanus etc that makes them different to cholera, influenza or any other shots that human beings need to be regularly vaccinated against?
> 
> BlackadderUK - the whole point of your argument is that you're comparing against the 'core' human vaccines, but do you have any reason to do this? Do you know that parvovirus etc acts in a similar way to measles?


Precisely.


----------



## Guest (Sep 1, 2014)

The minimum requirement for rabies in this state is 3 years so thats what we do. I dont mess around with rabies, not gonna titer test, just make sure to get a booster every 3 years, and we do parvo/distemper at that time too.

Dont do any other vaccines, no bordetella, lyme etc. Its a risk/reward. Rabies is a high reward, low-ish risk vaccine. Parvo/distemper is another very low risk vaccine that has proven to be highly effective. Bordetella is very ineffective, so its not worth the vaccination risk to me. (Or cost for that matter).


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

PennyGSD said:


> What exactly is a 'core' virus for humans, apart from the fact that you're classifying them as ones where immunisation lasts a lifetime.
> 
> What are the characteristics of MMR/Tetanus etc that makes them different to cholera, influenza or any other shots that human beings need to be regularly vaccinated against?
> 
> BlackadderUK - the whole point of your argument is that you're comparing against the 'core' human vaccines, but do you have any reason to do this? Do you know that parvovirus etc acts in a similar way to measles?


I use the word "core" to describe the vaccines every child/dog/kitten should have as opposed to optional vaccines such as Lepto or Flu. So "core" vaccines to me would mean Diptheria, Polio, MMR, MenC, Whooping cough for children (there are some others...) & Distemper, Parvo & Adenovirus for dogs.

I'm not classifying them by longevity but rather by importance as I doubt many parents would refuse to vaccinate their children against the above illnesses.

It just so happens that it's these same vaccinations that, we are told, last a lifetime. I didn't decide this, medical experts did.

The polio vaccine is given as part of the 5 in 1 at 2,3 & 4 months there are no further boosters.

After this course we are told that we are immune for life & we all accept that as fact, without question!

The WHO declared Europe as Polio free in 2002, this has continued to the present day I believe despite increased travel to the more remote regions where vaccination protocols might not be the best. A good indication (not proof) that immunity does indeed last.

My question is, & always was, why do some find it so difficult to believe that the immunity confered to dogs from Vaccination isn't the same for Distemper for example?

I'm not saying it is but more why not?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

PennyGSD said:


> What are the characteristics of MMR/Tetanus etc that makes them different to cholera, influenza or any other shots that human beings need to be regularly vaccinated against?


Forgot about this bit....

Flu has so many different strains that continually mutate (eg the bird flu epidemic) that a new vaccine is required each year to combat the known prevelent strains.

Cholera (& Lepto) are bacterial infections & it's a known fact that vaccines for bacterial diseases are far, far less effective which is why an annual booster for Lepto is recommended for at risk dogs.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> My question is, & always was, why do some find it so difficult to believe that the immunity confered to dogs from Vaccination isn't the same for Distemper for example?
> 
> I'm not saying it is but more why not?


Well, in the first place most of the human vaccination programs have changed from using 'dead' to 'live' attenuated viruses over the past 30 or so years. In each case there has been an enormous amount of specific research into the individual diseases and the vaccine effects. Even so, some of the 'lifetime' vaccinations you quote above are only recommended as 'lifetime' if the person lives in areas where the appropriate disease has been virtually eradicated. (You may remember in the fairly recent past that there was a large outbreak of measles in South Wales because people wrongly assumed that measles had been eradicated). The World Health Organisation recommends that if you visit areas where some of these diseases are prevalent you should have boosters.

Because there is detailed research for each such human illness it is possible to draw evidence based conclusions. In the case of animal vaccines there is no such research. Schultz et al have assumed that ALL diseases follow the same pattern and what's good for one will be good for another. To take the 'human' comparison it's like saying that because we know the effects of, say, polio vaccination we also know that influenza vaccines will work the same way. It simply isn't true.

Anyone can _assume_ anything. Without detailed research and data there is no proof that it is so. However, we DO have detailed information that various animal vaccines last for particular periods - in most cases 3 years or thereabouts. It may well be the case that they last longer. But we know that, for example, in leptospirosis they don't. And there simply is no data available to show any form of longevity in the 'core' animal vaccines. That's the objection that virtually all national veterinary bodies raise against the WSAVA guidelines.

It seems to me that it's a vast number of vets, all over the world, against the self-interest of one man (who financially benefits) and his main supporter (who also financially benefits but who has also failed to produce any evidence). If he provided the data then I would have no problem. But, with his academic background, not doing so makes his case just a little more than suspect.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

AlbertRoss said:


> Yes, and because he doesn't there is no debate. People may _believe_ that he's right (and he may be) but there are no facts available to support him. *Some people believed the moon was made of cheese but someone landed on it and proved that it wasn't*. Belief does not equal fact and debating 'beliefs' is pointless.


Therefore the moon debate ended, we had facts!

The point about debating any issue is that until there are facts to prove one way or another then each opposing opinion is valid, how can it not be?


----------



## Lizz1155 (Jun 16, 2013)

I have a theory on why dogs are meant to be vaccinated more than humans :idea: But it's based on a few years studying mathematical biology/epidemiology rather than anything medical, so I'd appreciate thoughts.

For humans, very few (if any?) vaccines are close to 100% effective, even if you complete the full course, fully according to manufacture's specifications . From what I recall from modelling how infections spread, most vaccines are somewhere between 80-90% effective - meaning that the other 10-20% would either get a minor case of the disease, or a full-blown case of the disease if they're unlucky. (For example I've had all my MMR's, but I'm also immunosuppressed, so I don't trust mine to be effective. Hence why I don't lick people who have measles, mumps or rubella  )

(This is assuming you come into contact with the particular strain of the disease you've been vaccinated against - obviously if you've been vaccinated against the "wrong" strains of the disease, you won't be immune at all, so this doesn't apply.)

Since vaccination isn't 100% effective, the level of vaccinated people in the population has to exceed the threshold for epidemic - i.e if you add one infected person into the population, the "*contact rate*" x "*transmission probability*" has to be less than 1 to prevent the disease from spreading further. If contact x transmission = 1 you'll have a constant level of infection, if it's more than 1 you'll have an epidemic.

The "*contact rate*" is the rate in which the infected person meets people who are susceptible to the infection (ie. not vaccinated, or vaccine-failed). The "*transmission probability*" is how likely the person is to infect another person, given they are susceptible.

You can't change the transmission probability. But you can change the contact rate, by trying to vaccinate as many susceptible individuals as possible. In my limited experience, vaccination rates of 85-90% are required so that epidemics do not occur (i.e 85-90 people out of every 100 have to be vaccinated, which includes an allowance for a small amount of vaccine failure).

With that in mind - the human population doesn't change as quickly as the dog population, cos human's have much longer lifespans. Also I suspect vaccination levels are much higher in the human population, since humans tend to get healthcare before/after giving birth. (In the UK, at least.)

Whereas with dogs, the population turnover is much quicker; after say 11-12 years (average) you're going to be looking at an entirely different set of dogs. It means it's a much greater challenge to get herd immunity up to a level so that epidemics cannot occur. (Also, I think that some canine diseases can be picked up from wildlife? It's really difficult to successfully eradicate diseases from wildlife). It means that it's a dodgy-er idea to rely on herd immunity, since it may not exist; instead, pet owners become more concerned as to whether _their individual dog is immune_. And re-vaccination would most likely significantly help to reduce the failure rate of vaccinations for individual dogs.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

^^^ Wow, awesome.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

That's an interesting theory but facts have no place in this debate .

We've seen what happens when herd immunity is no longer there, the outbreaks of measles etc after that "study" showed the link with autism. Who wants to bet the anti-vaccers were first in the queue to get their children vaccinated? We only have to look at the current polio outbreak in Asia to know these diseases are still around and still causing problems.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I find it very very difficult to understand why anyone would intentionally choose not to vaccinate their children.

It's a no brainier. Vaccination limits, and in some cases completely eradicates, the spread of transmissible disease.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> I find it very very difficult to understand why anyone would intentionally choose not to vaccinate their children.
> 
> It's a no brainier. Vaccination limits, and in some cases completely eradicates, the spread of transmissible disease.


That's what big pharm wants you to think, you're so brainwashed into thinking these diseases are still around and dangerous or that vaccines do anything . I think possibly the worst one was reading a travel blog a couple and their young daughter. Oh she was breastfed so taking her to morocco or south east asia will be fine with no vaccines ut:. She was 6 when they started out, don't maternal antibodies only last a few months?


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

They had been getting Lepto boosters annually and the other vaccs on a 3-yearly basis as per the WSAVA guidelines (the vast majority of vets will follow these), but as of last year they won't be having any more boosters. Reasons being that they're oldies who won't be going into kennels and we don't meet many other dogs on a regular basis. Neither Scooter or Breeze has had a negative reaction to vaccs/boosters, but I feel further boosters are unnecessary (Scooter is mum's dog and she agrees on this).
In the future I'll be giving my dogs their puppy vaccs then titre testing annually.

The kennels I worked at and have boarded at asked for all dogs to be vaccinated but would accept titre results instead. 

IMO there's a delicate balance between over-vaccination and under-vaccination; neither is beneficial for the individual dog or the dog population overall! We need to maintain good "herd health" in our dogs and vaccination is essential for that; it concerns me when people don't vaccinate at all.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> The point about debating any issue is that until there are facts to prove one way or another then each opposing opinion is valid, how can it not be?


But we DO have facts about animal vaccine effectiveness. They happen to show a 3 year immunity. We DON'T have any facts to support immunity longer than that.


----------



## PennyGSD (Apr 16, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> ^^^ Wow, awesome.


Almost exactly what I was going to post.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Lizz1155 said:


> Just my two cents.


And a cracking "2 cents" it is!

It's certainly a plausible explanation if DOI is as short lived as we are currently advised.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

AlbertRoss said:


> But we DO have facts about animal vaccine effectiveness. They happen to show a 3 year immunity.


Because research stopped at that point, no longer (lifetime?) studies were performed therefore only 3 years could be advised.



AlbertRoss said:


> We DON'T have any facts to support immunity longer than that.





> The point about debating any issue is that until there are facts to prove one way or another then each opposing opinion is valid, how can it not be?


You do seem to want to miss the point.

If I say that dogs are immune for life after successful vaccination you might disagree but that doesn't make you right, or me wrong.... because no studies have been carried out to prove it one way or the other!

I agree that 3 yearly boosters are the only recommendation that can be made based on our knowledge now.... that doesn't mean that DOI only lasts for 3 years, it could be much longer but nobody knows!


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> You do seem to want to miss the point.
> 
> If I say that dogs are immune for life after successful vaccination you might disagree but that doesn't make you right, or me wrong.... because no studies have been carried out to prove it one way or the other!
> 
> I agree that 3 yearly boosters are the only recommendation that can be made based on our knowledge now.... that doesn't mean that DOI only lasts for 3 years, it could be much longer but nobody knows!


I think it's you who wishes to miss the point. It is a FACT that immunity can be granted for 3 years. It may be your BELIEF that it could be longer. I'd much rather rely on hard, factual evidence than airy-fairy beliefs. When verifiable facts show a longer immunity, fine. Until then, your 'belief' is worthless.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

AlbertRoss said:


> I think it's you who wishes to miss the point. It is a FACT that immunity can be granted for 3 years. It may be your BELIEF that it could be longer. I'd much rather rely on hard, factual evidence than airy-fairy beliefs. When verifiable facts show a longer immunity, fine. Until then, your 'belief' is worthless.


Good lord!! Belief?

I have never said I believed it to be correct, I asked a question & put forward an argument to support it... I may be totally wrong.

To refresh your memory.. can dogs have DOI that lasts a lot longer than 3 years for certain vaccines?

Simple answer... nobody knows, there are no facts to prove or disprove because no studies have been done.

It is then impossible for you or anyone else to state that immunity is not lifelong!

Recent studies that show immunity doesn't last longer than 3 years will be gratefully accepted (with links)
I won't be holding my breath but you might surprise me


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Dr ronald shultz vaccinates his dogs once in their lifetime, and he is and expert in immunology. Good enough for me!


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> I have never said I believed it to be correct, I asked a question & put forward an argument to support it... I may be totally wrong.
> 
> To refresh your memory.. can dogs have DOI that lasts a lot longer than 3 years for certain vaccines?
> 
> Simple answer... nobody knows, there are no facts to prove or disprove because no studies have been done.


Precisely. So, in the absence of any evidence to prove the assertion that immunity lasts longer than 3 years it's a 'belief'. I don't need to 'disprove' that immunity lasts longer than 3 years - you (or someone) needs to prove it. Nobody has.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

goldenretrieverman said:


> dr ronald shultz vaccinates his dogs once in their lifetime, and he is and expert in immunology. Good enough for me!


roflmao!!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2014)

I did until my vet told me that vaccinations are not really needed after the 1st year booster. I only vaccinate every few years now when I have to put the dogs in Kennels.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Wow Ronald Shultz?


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Wow Ronald Shultz?





AlbertRoss said:


> roflmao!!!!


Yes someone who knows what hes talking about :dita:


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

I am currently treating one of my dogs for an infection as others have said tourist season in a rural area.  
It has cost my £75 already for one vet visit, urine test Amoxicillin and anti inflammatory. If she had parvo I have seen quotes from £500-£1500 :yikes: potentially times by 3. 
Not to sound like the zombie apocalypse is coming but
"It is also crucial to know that a dog that has been affected with the parvovirus at some point during their life will forever be a carrier of the virus and they can shed the virus at various points during their lifespan." :yikes:
I know if I was rejected by my insurance I would find a way to treat them but when I can take them for a £30 booster I just don't feel there is much of an option for me. 
It isn't like rejecting flea/worm medication getting that wrong and you can treat dog/home in 48 hours for less than £50. 
I see why people are cynical but I just feel I can't afford to risk it. 
Its hard being responsible for this furry family.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Yes someone who knows what hes talking about :dita:


Well, that's cleared that up.

*sarcasm*


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Well, that's cleared that up.
> 
> *sarcasm*


You and Albatross should fly away, and both live happy ever after with each other.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Dr ronald shultz vaccinates his dogs once in their lifetime, and he is and expert in immunology. Good enough for me!


Is that the same Ronald Schultz who is a prominent member of the VGG, responsible for writing the WSAVA Guidelines that recommend vaccinations every 3 years and more frequently in other cases? :blink:

Unfortunately there's no cut-and-dry in the world of vaccination YET (we can live in hope); it's a case of 'pick your expert'.

I personally don't believe in a 'one size fits all' approach for preventative medicine, whether that 'size' is the bare minimum or everything possible.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> Is that the same Ronald Schultz who is a prominent member of the VGG, responsible for writing the WSAVA Guidelines that recommend vaccinations every 3 years and more frequently in other cases? :blink:
> 
> Unfortunately there's no cut-and-dry in the world of vaccination YET (we can live in hope); it's a case of 'pick your expert'.
> 
> I personally don't believe in a 'one size fits all' approach for preventative medicine, whether that 'size' is the bare minimum or everything possible.


Well yea he says every 3 years, and he has been saying this since the 70s when and up until recently dogs were vaccinated every year. I imagine being a man of science he wouldn't be able to say longer than 3 years if there is no studies to proove it. He vaccinates his own dogs once in their lifetime however.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

^ An example of how vets are duty bound to make certain recommendations; people should remember this when they make comments about vets' vaccination protocols.

Vet Record 2011 - sorry for stupid pasting, I copied it from the PDF:

_The key issue for UK practitioners is
that the advice contained within guidelines
sometimes appears to conflict with advice
given by manufacturers and regulators in the
legal summary of product characteristics
(SPC), which defines how
an individual product (as
opposed to a generic class
of products) should be used.
The information contained
within the SPC is based
on experimental and field
regulatory studies and *the
SPC is a legal document that
defines how the vaccine should
be used*. The British Small
Animal Veterinary Association
(BSAVA) vaccination policy
statement also recognises
*the legal status of the SPC
over vaccination guidelines*
(BSAVA 2010 )._

There is a difference between the recommendations I make to clients and the way I vaccinate my own cat.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> You and Albatross should fly away, and both live happy ever after with each other.


I have no idea why you felt the need to be so rude. I asked a legitimate question and I had no idea what you meant by your initial answer, which was " someone who knows what they are talking about".
I gave a flippant answer in response.

Why the aggression?


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Well yea he says every 3 years, and he has been saying this since the 70s when and up until recently dogs were vaccinated every year. I imagine being a man of science he wouldn't be able to say longer than 3 years if there is no studies to proove it. He vaccinates his own dogs once in their lifetime however.


So, he goes against his own advice? Bizarre.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

His appears to me to be a rational, well considered view on the issue.

Routine Vaccinations for Dogs & Cats: Trying to Make Evidence-based Decisions | The SkeptVet


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> His appears to me to be a rational, well considered view on the issue.
> 
> Routine Vaccinations for Dogs & Cats: Trying to Make Evidence-based Decisions | The SkeptVet


Which includes, amongst other misleading statements: "Antibody titers can be useful in some cases, since a high titer does indicate a dog is protected and does not require additional vaccination. However, a low titer does not necessarily mean a dog is susceptible, so it is less useful in trying to decide when to revaccinate."

The fact, as Schultz well knows, is that you can get a high reading on one day and a zero reading the following day. Both high and low readings prove absolutely nothing except that, on the day of the test, the dog has some immunity.

This sort of misleading prose is precisely why people think that their animal will be protected if it exhibits a positive titre reading. It's rubbish. But I'd expect nothing else from this man.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Boosters Unnecessary


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

AlbertRoss said:


> Which includes, amongst other misleading statements: "Antibody titers can be useful in some cases, since a high titer does indicate a dog is protected and does not require additional vaccination. However, a low titer does not necessarily mean a dog is susceptible, so it is less useful in trying to decide when to revaccinate."
> 
> The fact, as Schultz well knows, is that you can get a high reading on one day and a zero reading the following day. Both high and low readings prove absolutely nothing except that, on the day of the test, the dog has some immunity.
> 
> This sort of misleading prose is precisely why people think that their animal will be protected if it exhibits a positive titre reading. It's rubbish. But I'd expect nothing else from this man.


According to Ronald Schultz, any positive titer reading means the immune system has responded. In the event of a threat the body would produce a secondary immune response. Any positive titer result be it high or low means your dog would respond to a challenge, in the event of a booster being administered, the body would fight it and no additional protection would occur. All the toxicity and no benefit.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> Which includes, amongst other misleading statements: "Antibody titers can be useful in some cases, since a high titer does indicate a dog is protected and does not require additional vaccination. However, a low titer does not necessarily mean a dog is susceptible, so it is less useful in trying to decide when to revaccinate."
> 
> The fact, as Schultz well knows, is that you can get a high reading on one day and a zero reading the following day. Both high and low readings prove absolutely nothing except that, on the day of the test, the dog has some immunity.
> 
> This sort of misleading prose is precisely why people think that their animal will be protected if it exhibits a positive titre reading. It's rubbish. But I'd expect nothing else from this man.


Er.....that's not from the Shultz guy. It's from a skeptic vet blog.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Boosters Unnecessary


Well,thats been penned by a Holistic vet" in other words a vet who believes in magical cures and who chooses to ignore scientific evidence. 
Not really very convincing, is it?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> According to Ronald Schultz, any positive titer reading means the immune system has responded. In the event of a threat the body would produce a secondary immune response. Any positive titer result be it high or low means your dog would respond to a challenge, in the event of a booster being administered, the body would fight it and no additional protection would occur. All the toxicity and no benefit.


Your knowledge of immunology is clearly lacking.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Well,thats been penned by a Holistic vet" in other words a vet who believes in magical cures and who chooses to ignore scientific evidence.
> Not really very convincing, is it?


The data is from Dr. Ron Schultz DVM and the article is writen by a holistic vet :confused1:


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Your knowledge of immunology is clearly lacking.


Come on then Dr. old shep dvm.....enlighten us?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

As I understand it titre testing measures the levels of antibodies in the system. They identify and mark a specific pathogen so that other white blood cells can come in and take care of it. Antibodies are produced when the body is exposed to the illness or to something similar enough as is the case with smallpox, they used cowpox which caused a harmless rash.

It doesn't give you complete immunity just means that the body can quickly identify and neutralise a threat.

Titre testing I can understand but nosodes supposedly work by giving you the symptoms of an illness so that your body can suddenly fight it. Those are the people who failed biology


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

No, never have or used flea treatments or any chemical products on my dogs. I now don't use 'pet safe' fertilisers on my garden/lawns either. This book explains in detail the immense damage that is being caused to dogs by many things that we'd think are simply everyday products. 
If there is supposed to be a thyroid epidemic, some may ask why more dogs don't have it. In fact they very well may but have been misdiagnosed because even when bloods come back as 'normal' many vets/labs are only looking at T4 readings and miss the more subtle oddities in other readings. Skin, heart, seizures, behaviour, energy levels and many more 'conditions' may very well be due to the early imbalance of the thyroid, so subtle that it gets missed and dogs are labeled as epileptic, allergic or aggressive because the thyroid test (if the dog is even lucky enough to have it done) has come back 'normal'. Once the test comes back as clearly positive, the thyroid gland has been destroyed beyond hope. 
So no, i would never vaccinate my dogs annually, or smother them in pesticides but i never knew i had put them at risk with things i use around the home. 
A must read for all dog owners and vets alike.










ETA - Over forty years of canine thyroid study has gone into this book.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> Well,thats been penned by a Holistic vet" in other words a vet who believes in magical cures and who chooses to ignore scientific evidence.
> Not really very convincing, is it?


I have to agree, we need unbiased studies. The trouble with a lot of this stuff is that it's all anecdotal.

I think some people confuse DOI with DOP as well.


----------



## victoria171168 (Apr 8, 2013)

I am considering titre testing and using nosodes in between.

However l found it amazing how many general household products gave off fumes and caused creations when l was researching stuff to help fight Max's cancer.so much so that l make a lot of my own cleaning products now.

I noticed the difference when this week l ran out of my washing powder l make so bought a packet of the shelf to get me through and the perfume smell nearly knocked me back.will finish it and go back to making my own definetly.

It also got me thinking how much we expose our dogs to without realising and l am not an eco warrior or anything just a normal average person.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sure just dilute poison a few hundred times until there's nothing left and it totally magically alters the structure of the water and makes your dog immune :yesnod:. Water is an amazing molecule, utterly unique and so vital but it's not that good.

Nosodes aren't natural either whatever they try to claim
https://www.homeopathic.com/Article...opathy/A_Condensed_History_of_Homeopathy.html

They were cooked up by a scientist in a lab.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> Sure just dilute poison a few hundred times until there's nothing left and it totally magically alters the structure of the water and makes your dog immune :yesnod:. Water is an amazing molecule, utterly unique and so vital but it's not that good.
> 
> Nosodes aren't natural either whatever they try to claim
> https://www.homeopathic.com/Article...opathy/A_Condensed_History_of_Homeopathy.html
> ...


They are pretty safe though, if that's what you are looking for.

Because they are just water.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Shoshannah said:


> They are pretty safe though, if that's what you are looking for.
> 
> Because they are just water.


Well yes :lol:


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> I have to agree, we need unbiased studies. The trouble with a lot of this stuff is that it's all anecdotal.


Unbiased studies are the only way to know for sure but who's going to do them? The expense would be mindblowing, not to mention the welfare issues of isolating 100s? of dogs from birth to late adult to prove the vaccine, by itself, works.



Shoshannah said:


> I think some people confuse DOI with DOP as well.


DOP is pretty much a legal requirement to obtain a licence to sell the vaccine, the manufacturer must provide study results to prove protection for the period stated. Hence we have the current 3 year cycle for some vaccs.

DOI could be the same or considerably longer.

Interestingly (or not) I found this research into the longevity of immunity for Smallpox.....



> Immune
> memory after smallpox vaccination (DryVax, vaccinia virus
> (VV)) is a valuable benchmark for understanding the kinetics
> and longevity of B and T cell memory in the absence of
> ...


Granted it's only one vaccine but 60+ years!

A dogs immune system must work in the same way ours does or vaccination wouldn't work for much more than a couple of months, never mind 3 years.

It's unlikely we will have firm answers in the near future, the cost & resources are prohibitive, until our science improves.

Some (well, one) say it's a belief, I disagree... it's logic


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

The argument that what works for humans works for dogs is somewhat flawed.

Human eats chocolate. No effect, except pleasure. Dog eats chocolate. Dog dies.
Dog eats raw chicken with salmonella. Dog happy. Human eats raw chicken with salmonella. Human dies.
Human has pain. Human takes paracetamol. Dog has pain. Human gives dog paracetamol. Paracetamol contains acetaminophen. It's toxic for dogs (and cats).

Going back to the facts, rather than anything else.

FACT: Titre testing determines extent of antibodies ONLY at the point of test. It does not, and cannot, indicate any future extent. Anybody who believes otherwise is living in fairyland.
FACT: Schultz is not a 'respected immunologist' except amongst a very small coterie of supporters. If he were then his arguments and methodology would be accepted by veterinary bodies through out the world. The FACT is that they aren't because those veterinary bodies only have his 'word' for what he says. 
FACT: There is data available on long term immunology (supposedly - as Schultz claims he has it). However, Schultz will not release it. It is that, and that alone, which calls into question everything he says. The argument above that "the data was provided by Schultz" is untrue. Schultz doesn't provide data. Ever.
FACT: (And do research and read his 'scientific' papers for yourselves). Schultz argues that because he has seen long term immunity in some dogs for one disease that ALL dogs will have immunity for ALL diseases. That, as they say, is total b****cks.
FACT: Nosodes are not an alternative. They are not accepted by any insurance company as a reliable 'vaccination' protocol. (Nor by any mainstream vet - although some homoeopathic vets may recommend them).

I can quite understand the beliefs of people who wish that what Scultz says is true. Until such time as proof is available what he says is pure conjecture. If you can provide factual proof of immunity over a long term for the 'core' diseases do so. Until then, accept that it doesn't exist and go with current veterinary recommendations. Or, alternatively, put your animal (and potentially others) at risk.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

AlbertRoss said:


> The argument that what works for humans works for dogs is somewhat flawed.
> 
> Human eats chocolate. No effect, except pleasure. Dog eats chocolate. Dog dies.
> Dog eats raw chicken with salmonella. Dog happy. Human eats raw chicken with salmonella. Human dies.
> Human has pain. Human takes paracetamol. Dog has pain. Human gives dog paracetamol. Paracetamol contains acetaminophen. It's toxic for dogs (and cats).


Pretty much totally irrelevent to this discussion.

The fact is that the immune system works the same way in both dogs & humans (possibly all mammals), it must for vaccination to be successful in providing immunity for any extended period of time.

The same immune system cells are proven to exist in both species & the immune system response to vaccination is identical in both.

I don't understand your reluctance to accept the possibility that immunity for certain diseases (in dogs) isn't comparable to human immunity I.E lifetime.

The current 3 year booster cycle in dogs isn't a scientific or Biological limit for DOI but a financial/welfare constraint, the drug companys must prove DOP to acquire a licence to sell the vaccine, to prove greater DOI/DOP would cost &, with my cynical head on, why would they do that? For them to publish study supporting lifelong DOI would be akin to shooting their own foot off... no more booster sales!

The only thing I do agree with is that until proper research has been conducted into long term immunity then we are stuck with the 3 yearly booster regime, quite who will fund such (costly) research is anyones guess.

I have followed the route of initial puppy shots followed by a 12 month booster then nothing more for more than 20 years, way before I'd heard of Schultz & have never had a problem, at all! There are others on this thread who do the same...I guess we're all just lucky.

I have to say that your obsession with Shultz & Titer testing is rather peculiar but whatever floats your boat


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

BlackadderUK said:


> Pretty much totally irrelevent to this discussion.


Why? Because it floors your argument about the similarity between dog and human physiology?



> The fact is that the immune system works the same way in both dogs & humans (possibly all mammals), it must for vaccination to be successful in providing immunity for any extended period of time.


That's not a fact. It's a conjecture on your part.



> I don't understand your reluctance to accept the possibility that immunity for certain diseases (in dogs) isn't comparable to human immunity I.E lifetime.


That's rather because there's no proof that you can carry over what happens in humans to other species (see what I wrote above about food). After all thalidomide was 'safely' tested on animals prior to giving it to humans. Yes, that worked. Duh!



> The current 3 year booster cycle in dogs isn't a scientific or Biological limit for DOI but a financial/welfare constraint, the drug companys must prove DOP to acquire a licence to sell the vaccine, to prove greater DOI/DOP would cost &, with my cynical head on, why would they do that? For them to publish study supporting lifelong DOI would be akin to shooting their own foot off... no more booster sales!


What a sad argument. Try this. IF immunity could be guaranteed for lifetime then the first drug company to provide the necessary licensed drugs would completely corner the market. It would take about 10 years rigorous research to do this. It might cost, at maximum £10m over that period (using current protocols for testing). The financial rewards for such a small outlay would be incredible. Way beyond providing boosters every 3 years to only part of the dog population. They'd have every dog in the world as a client.



> I have followed the route of initial puppy shots followed by a 12 month booster then nothing more for more than 20 years, way before I'd heard of Schultz & have never had a problem, at all! There are others on this thread who do the same...I guess we're all just lucky.


I guess you are. But by pushing your argument with no factual justification I contend that you are trying to persuade people to follow an untested regime that is potentially dangerous to their pets.



> I have to say that your obsession with Shultz & Titer testing is rather peculiar but whatever floats your boat


I don't have an 'obsession' with Schultz or titre testing. What I do have is a fundamental dislike of anyone who is attempting to push false statements onto a public that, generally, can't be bothered to find out why he shouldn't be trusted and who, by his very nature, is possibly putting millions of pets at risk. For what? His own puffed up sense of self-aggrandisement and enrichment. And, do please provide me with any evidence that what I've said about titre testing is, in any way, incorrect. I find it very peculiar that you would rely on something that guarantees absolutely nothing.

It's not just that I don't trust him, or his acolyte Dodds, but that because I won't follow them, like some sheep do, I looked into his (and her) claims and background. Given the way they treat dogs in their 'care' - specifically the keeping and bleeding of greyhounds at a far higher rate than is recommended anywhere else - for the sole purpose of monetary gain, I find it very suspicious that they are portraying themselves to be 'helping' animals in any way. There's much more - look for it yourself. The only rational conclusion is that both are solely in it for the money. And, simply, if Schultz is right why won't he show his supporting data? Perhaps you have an answer for that?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> I don't understand your reluctance to accept the possibility that immunity for certain diseases (in dogs) isn't comparable to human immunity* I.E lifetime.*


(My bold)

Where did you get that particular piece of misinformation? Human immunisations do not last a lifetime. They last for variable lengths of time, depending on th particular vaccine. Some diseases are more serious and more easily contracted, when you are young, therefore there is less necessity to reimmunise. BUT this is only for some diseases.

This is why I have had to have tetanus, Hep A, Hep B, influenza and many other vaccines repeated through my life.

Immunisation is an extremely complex issue. It's never a one size fits all.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

AlbertRoss said:


> Why? Because it floors your argument about the similarity between dog and human physiology?


No, it's nonsense. How on earth can you compare food items with vaccination? Horses won't do well on pork chops, so what? Most people would know that! However most human antibiotics are also effective on dogs...go figure!



AlbertRoss said:


> That's not a fact. It's a conjecture on your part.


It is fact, the immune system of dogs (probably all mammals) reacts the same way or vaccination would be pointless. Why do you assume that we are special, that we are the only mammalian species that can derive long term immunity from vaccination?



AlbertRoss said:


> That's rather because there's no proof that you can carry over what happens in humans to other species (see what I wrote above about food). After all thalidomide was 'safely' tested on animals prior to giving it to humans. Yes, that worked. Duh!


Again you quote something totally unrelated to vaccination!

Research proved that excessive animal protein consumption caused kidney damage & this myth was carried over to dogs. Sadly the research was performed on mice but, since mice aren't carnivores, the study was flawed. Excess protein is excreted by dogs.
It's all very well testing anything on mice, dogs, chimps etc it's only when you test on the target species that the results become meaningful!



AlbertRoss said:


> What a sad argument. Try this. IF immunity could be guaranteed for lifetime then the first drug company to provide the necessary licensed drugs would completely corner the market. It would take about 10 years rigorous research to do this. It might cost, at maximum £10m over that period (using current protocols for testing). The financial rewards for such a small outlay would be incredible. Way beyond providing boosters every 3 years to only part of the dog population. They'd have every dog in the world as a client.


If it's such a winner why has nobody done it?



AlbertRoss said:


> I guess you are. But by pushing your argument with no factual justification I contend that you are trying to persuade people to follow an untested regime that is potentially dangerous to their pets.


Not at all, the title of this thread is "Does your dog get vacinated every year?"
I don't & I've explained why... I may be wrong. Others are free to do as they choose.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> (My bold)
> 
> Where did you get that particular piece of misinformation? Human immunisations do not last a lifetime. They last for variable lengths of time, depending on th particular vaccine. Some diseases are more serious and more easily contracted, when you are young, therefore there is less necessity to reimmunise. BUT this is only for some diseases.
> 
> ...


Been there & done this, not all vaccinations last long term...read up.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> Been there & done this, not all vaccinations last long term...read up.


Excuse me!
It was you who claimed human vaccines lasted a lifetime! I was refuting it.

What exactly are you saying?


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> Excuse me!
> It was you who claimed human vaccines lasted a lifetime! I was refuting it.
> 
> What exactly are you saying?


Like I said... read up! It's all here


----------



## Wildmoor (Oct 31, 2011)

My dogs are on the 3yearly protocol which I have followed since 2003 
so some yearly others 3 yearly


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Are you refuting your earlier statement 

"I don't understand your reluctance to accept the possibility that immunity for certain diseases (in dogs) isn't comparable to human immunity I.E lifetime."?

That's what you said.

You inferred that immunity to disease in humans was for "lifetime".

This is not the case. 

And in any case, how can you compare the seriological response in humans to human diseases to the response in dogs to canine diseases? It's completely illogical. 

Dogs don't actually get vaccinated against human diseases. Go look it up. Preferably in a book.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> The argument that what works for humans works for dogs is somewhat flawed.
> 
> Human eats chocolate. No effect, except pleasure. Dog eats chocolate. Dog dies.
> Dog eats raw chicken with salmonella. Dog happy. Human eats raw chicken with salmonella. Human dies.
> ...


that's not strictly true, lots o dogs have eaten chocolate and survived, and lots o dogs have eaten grapes, or raisins, and survived, so I'm not sure what you comparison is. Oh, and lots o humans have eaten meat contaminated with bacteria, and survived. So your acts are in act assumptions 

None o that would ever make me vaccinate my dogs as oten as even the WSAvA recommends.


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Nope....my girls are on the puppy vac and booster protocol!.....heading towards their 10th and 13th years.....both have been on herbal nosodes since a year old, i am happy with my choice and this is really what it comes down too.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Old Shep said:


> Are you refuting your earlier statement
> 
> "I don't understand your reluctance to accept the possibility that immunity for certain diseases (in dogs) isn't comparable to human immunity I.E lifetime."?
> 
> ...


What I think is clearly posted on this thread, if you take the time to read all of it!

I may be right like others on this thread, I/we might be wrong... either way we are going over the same points, post after post.

Lets just say we agree to disagree!

BTW: Quoting without including context is naughty!


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

mollydog07 said:


> Nope....my girls are on the puppy vac and booster protocol!.....heading towards their 10th and 13th years.....both have been on herbal nosodes since a year old, i am happy with my choice and this is really what it comes down too.


Certainly - providing that none of your dogs contract serious illness or pass them on to others.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Maybe Albatross and Dr. old shep dvm should look more towards the potential devastating effects of vaccination, instead of scientific research on how long vaccines protect your dog?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Maybe Albatross and Dr. old shep dvm should look more towards the potential devastating effects of vaccination, instead of scientific research on how long vaccines protect your dog?


*hysterical laughter*

Since vaccination was scientifically developed under Edward Jenner in the 1700s (and in fact had been used for over 1000 years before this in other societies) I'll not hold my breath for the "vaccine catastrophe" all the vaccine deniers have been predicting since....well, since the internet started spreading frankly laughable, pseudoscientific, ignorant, misinformation.

And people who who give their dogs water instead of actual medicine are, quite frankly, deluded (and the vets who promote this are charlatans)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

One thing is always predictable about these threads, i you choose not to vaccinate you dogs as regularly as those who are anatical about vaccination protocols, then you are called names and pretty much accused o being too stupid to understand anything scientiic. Not really the best arguments or debating skills to convince anyone to even take part in a reasoned debate about the subject.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

How can you possibly enter into reasoned debate with people who favour water over actual medicine?

Ps. See my signature.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> How can you possibly enter into reasoned debate with people who favour water over actual medicine?
> 
> Ps. See my signature.


I you cannot accept that others will have a dierent opinion to you, whether or not you agree with what they believe, then you are incapable o debating in a reasonable manner in any case. And to resort to name calling isn't the most mature approach.


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

I do vaccinate my dogs as the dogs go into kennels if I go into hospital


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Maybe Albatross and Dr. old shep dvm should look more towards the potential devastating effects of vaccination, instead of scientific research on how long vaccines protect your dog?





Sleeping_Lion said:


> One thing is always predictable about these threads, i you choose not to vaccinate you dogs as regularly as those who are anatical about vaccination protocols, then you are called names and pretty much accused o being too stupid to understand anything scientiic. Not really the best arguments or debating skills to convince anyone to even take part in a reasoned debate about the subject.


I think you have your 'name calling' aimed at the wrong side. It's those without reasoned arguments who seem to be resorting to name-calling, largely because they don't accept (or, perhaps, understand) the science, but rely on misinformed opinion or beliefs (not facts).

Simply,

If vaccinations are more dangerous than vaccination - show PROOF
If vaccinations are effective over a longer period than they are approved for - show PROOF

In each case give the data that underlies your proofs. Cite the studies, the names of those who provided the results, who published such proofs. Postings on the internet which 'claim' these things are not proof. Your personal experiences are precisely that - personal. They do not hold for everyone else.

If you cannot do that you are simply misleading anyone who comes to the subject and, potentially, persuading them that they should follow procedures with their pets that are untested, unproven and, most likely, dangerous.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> I think you have your 'name calling' aimed at the wrong side. It's those without reasoned arguments who seem to be resorting to name-calling, largely because they don't accept (or, perhaps, understand) the science, but rely on misinformed opinion or beliefs (not facts).
> 
> Simply,
> 
> ...


So saying people who have chosen to use nosodes are deluded, is air because *you* believe in vaccination?

You yoursel posted a couple o acts earlier on about dogs eating chocolate and grapes will die, when that is patently not true. Both are toxic to *some* dogs depending on their sensitivity and the amount they eat, but plenty o dogs eat chocolate, ruit cakes, mince pies etc, and are absolutely ine. O course you wouldn't knowingly eed your dogs substances that are known to be toxic to cause them harm, but how many dogs eat let overs that probably have onions in, which are toxic in large amounts, and they are absolutely ine with small amounts.

I choose a route or my dogs that ater reading up on both sides o the debate, I believe is best or my dogs, just because you believe dierently, doesn't make my belie less credible because *you* don't agree.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

And there's the rub...

Its not about "belief".

It's about the facts of the matter.

People who choose to use water instead of vaccinations "believe" they work, whereas the scientific community know- and can prove- that they do not.

You may believe there are unicorns living in your shoes, but when that belief starts to impact on the well being of others, it should be challenged.

Unvaccinated dogs are a danger to others. They reduce herd immunity and they are a serious risk to those dogs who cannot be vaccinated for genuine medical reasons.

Likewise those who choose not to worm their dogs with proven anthelmintics. Not only do these people threaten the health of other dogs, they also threaten the health of humans- in particular, children.

_That_ is why I am so angry about this subject.

And while I'm on here, where have a I called anyone names? Saying to use these bogus treatments is foolish or ignorant, is not name calling.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Looking at my previous dogs vaccination record. She was receiving all 5 vaccinations every year....last one being 2009....that is only 5 years ago. So old shep can you explain to me why she was receiving these vaccines every year when we are now being told every 3 years? Every year we were sent a reminder card 'to keep her safe' it wasnt keeping her safe as she was already protected.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Maybe Albatross and Dr. old shep dvm should look more towards the potential devastating effects of vaccination, instead of scientific research on how long vaccines protect your dog?


That's a bit rude and unnecessary - make your point by all means but there's no need for patronising name-calling.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I you cannot accept that others will have a dierent opinion to you, whether or not you agree with what they believe, then you are incapable o debating in a reasonable manner in any case. And to resort to name calling isn't the most mature approach.


Your 'f' key on the blink again SL? :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> And there's the rub...
> 
> Its not about "belief".
> 
> ...


And there's a prime example o how to misread my post. I believe, ater reading up on vaccination protocols and various sources o inormation, that the course I've chosen or my dogs, is the right choice based on acts. So you don't believe you'e doing the right thing or your dog(s)? I don' have to justiy my choice(s) to you or anyone else who thinks/believes dierently, the same as I wouldn't ask you to justiy your choices or you dog(s). But these threads always go the same way rom a ew individuals who decide they are right, and the rest o the members are *deluded* and wrong; having had the experience o an adverse reaction to vaccinations, with one o my dogs, and mysel (yellow ever), and my dad (who was given 24 hours to live ater being given the wrong cocktail o vaccines), I'd say I've got plenty o reason to question the type and level o vaccinations suggested or my dogs and any medical issues *we* might have, and will always research and base decisions on what I believe is right or mysel and my dogs. And yes, you're right, it also makes me angry that anyone has the gall to tell me I'm deluded JUST because I don't choose to blindly ollow their chosen route when it comes to the health o their dog(s) and vaccinations.



Shoshannah said:


> Your 'f' key on the blink again SL? :lol:


*sigh* the joys o owning a dog that likes to do a hal pike dismount, thus knocking drinks over let, right and centre


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Cups of tea destroy mine...I go through a keyboard a year  lol


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Looking things up on google is not research.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> Looking things up on google is not research.


You are unnecessarily rude on these threads, how on earth you can even bring yoursel to type such rude assumptions is beyond me. Unless you're just trolling or a rude response which you're not going to get. I suggest i you want to know more about adverse reactions, levels and duration o protection rom vaccines, you go and do your own research, rather than just blithely carrying on throwing accusations about or those who make dierent choices to you.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You are unnecessarily rude on these threads, how on earth you can even bring yoursel to type such rude assumptions is beyond me. Unless you're just trolling or a rude response which you're not going to get. I suggest i you want to know more about adverse reactions, levels and duration o protection rom vaccines, you go and do your own research, rather than just blithely carrying on throwing accusations about or those who make dierent choices to you.


My point is, to make claims which go against the majority of the veterinary profession by saying "I've done research" is laughable.

Unless, of course, you have a background on immunology and have been involved in actual research.

Have you? Or have you just looked things up on google?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Looking at my previous dogs vaccination record. She was receiving all 5 vaccinations every year....last one being 2009....that is only 5 years ago. So old shep can you explain to me why she was receiving these vaccines every year when we are now being told every 3 years? Every year we were sent a reminder card 'to keep her safe' it wasnt keeping her safe as she was already protected.


Perhaps that would be better directed to your vet. I cannot answer for him/her.


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> And there's the rub...
> 
> Its not about "belief".
> 
> ...


IN YOUR OPINION.all this anger aint good for you.take a chill pill.....


----------



## DirtyGertie (Mar 12, 2011)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> Looking at my previous dogs vaccination record. She was receiving all 5 vaccinations every year....last one being 2009....that is only 5 years ago. So old shep can you explain to me why she was receiving these vaccines every year when we are now being told every 3 years? Every year we were sent a reminder card 'to keep her safe' it wasnt keeping her safe as she was already protected.


I'm not sure what the protocol was five years ago as my dog is 4 years old. But presently it depends on who is the manufacturer of the vaccine as to how often to give the different vaccines.

Nobivac and Canigen are two that I know of who use the 3 year protocol.

Nobivac's schedule

Canigen's schedule - page 7

My vet uses Canigen and sends me a reminder every year but the yearly one is Lepto only, the others every 3rd year.


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> My point is, to make claims which go against the majority of the veterinary profession by saying "I've done research" is laughable.
> 
> Unless, of course, you have a background on immunology and have been involved in actual research.
> 
> Have you? Or have you just looked things up on google?


Dr. Ronald schultz is an expert in his field and you dismiss his claims?


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

mollydog07 said:


> IN YOUR OPINION.all this anger aint good for you.take a chill pill.....


Jeez!

Opinion and belief are not the same as fact, as I have been trying to explain.

:frown2:


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Perhaps that would be better directed to your vet. I cannot answer for him/her.


Well they are going by the guidelines you are saying we should stick by, so you should know?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> My point is, to make claims which go against the majority of the veterinary profession by saying "I've done research" is laughable.
> 
> Unless, of course, you have a background on immunology and have been involved in actual research.
> 
> Have you? Or have you just looked things up on google?


Oh yes, because I orgot vets are omnipotent and o course I'm a mere mortal pet owner, so my brain and personal experiences don't count.

You do what you want to with your dogs, but don't try to tell me what I should do, because your opinion is made even less worthwhile to me by your lack o ability to question and debate things in an adult manner.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I gave up rational discussion on the subject of pseudoscience on this forum a long long time ago. Right after I realised that some people prefer to hold on to their illogical beliefs no matter what evidence you present them with.

I'm not incapable of reasoned debate, it's just a waste of time with people who are in denial of the actual facts of the matter.

Beliefs are not facts.

....and I'm done.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Old Shep said:


> I gave up rational discussion on the subject of pseudoscience on this forum a long long time ago. Right after I realised that some people prefer to hold on to their illogical beliefs no matter what evidence you present them with.
> 
> I'm not incapable of reasoned debate, it's just a waste of time with people who are in denial of the actual facts of the matter.
> 
> ...


Good God you really are struggling to grasp the concept that some people are perectly capable o researching on their own, discussing options with their vets and making their own decisions based on the acts available to them. And yes, some o those decisions are, God orbid, dierent to what *you* would decide.

And having had one o my pets killed with a botched treatment I can unhappily inorm you that vets are not actually omnipotent, that bit was sarcasm, based on a vet killing an animal and then not having the guts to even discuss with me what had gone wrong, and my concerns about how they'd handled the situation. So orgive me i I preer to question and research things thorougly or my pets and that includes vaccinations, but that is my choice and neither you, nor anyone else has the right to tell me otherwise.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

SleepingLion, I am unable to "like" your posts but by heck I do

I entered into this sort of jabber (wish I could call it debate) a.............long time ago but gave up. No idea why, if Old Shep "gave up on rational discussion of the subject here years ago," they are still thrashing away posting same ole, same ole...

Just because I'm not able to hold my own in a debate, or put my point across as strongly does not make my point wrong!!

It would be good if people trying to make up their minds on such an important subject were allowed to see both sides of the coin. Dogs can and do have adverse reactions to vaccination/over vaccinating and some may not manifest themselves until later in life. (I don't need research and links to prove it-I know of people in that predicament). Denying them that right by shouting down everyone that tries to make it known is not clever IMO.

As for name calling - I stooped to it years ago when I entered into these debates. It becomes v frustrating when you are continually put down, ridiculed and your comments classed as "laughable"

Now I leave it to those who can hold their own and put forward the other side of the coin - which needs to be said:mad5: 

Unfortunately my post will be the next in line for nit picking and tearing apart but I hope those with concerns will read what Sleeping Lion has said and take note.


----------



## GertrudeJekyll (Sep 4, 2010)

This thread is hilarious, not in the least someone who claims to know more than virologists, microbiologists and immunologists doesn't actually know the meaning of the word "omnipotent" :lol:.

Do you think science is as easy as doing a Google search? Dear me...some laypeople will always astound me in their arrogance to deride true science.

Science isn't based on experience - science is knowledge, dedicated learning and erudition.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Mum2Heidi said:


> SleepingLion, I am unable to "like" your posts but by heck I do
> 
> I entered into this sort of jabber (wish I could call it debate) a.............long time ago but gave up. No idea why, if Old Shep "gave up on rational discussion of the subject here years ago," they are still thrashing away posting same ole, same ole...
> 
> ...


the most absurd part is that I'm not anti-vaccinating at all, but I object to being told I'm stupid simply because I choose the levels o vaccination, and use other ways to see i their immune system's giving a good level o protection. I'm the same with lea and worming treatments, I don't use them to prevent parasites these days, as they show no signs o having them, so why use loads o chemicals which could cause more harm than good?

the act that many pet owners choose to vaccinate their dogs at a higher level than I do, or the WSAvA recommends even, that's their choice, but at least i they know there are other options, not everyone thinks the same way about vaccines, then it's a choice rather than just being told this is what you must do, and going along with it because they have no other knowledge or experience on the subject.

I will be titre testing my lot within the next ew months to see where we're at, particularly given I'm planning a litter next Spring. I the litter goes ahead, I'll be advising the new puppy owners to have puppy vaccinations, irst annual booster, and then titre test rom there on beore having any more boosters. Whether they do or not is up to them, but I will be giving them as much ino as possible, including about leptospirosis, but again, that will be their decision. I do think vaccination has been, and remains to be important, but I also know rom experience that it is possible t over vaccinate and just how painul adverse reactions are, also that there are very real side eects, it's no coincidence that the most *suspected* adverse reactions year on year rom igures released by the vmd are to dogs, including the most serious cases, and we need a lot more urgent research generally in this area.

As a side issue, one o the reasons I regularly drink g&t is because I can't take ant malarials, I have an adverse reaction to them, and you can't have t without g


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

GertrudeJekyll said:


> This thread is hilarious, not in the least someone who claims to know more than virologists, microbiologists and immunologists doesn't actually know the meaning of the word "omnipotent" :lol:.
> 
> Do you think science is as easy as doing a Google search? Dear me...some laypeople will always astound me in their arrogance to deride true science.
> 
> Science isn't based on experience - science is knowledge, dedicated learning and erudition.


Oh look, another rude post rom someone who assumes such a lot about someone they don't know. I eel my ignore list growing again, I can't bear the arrogance o people who make assumptions without knowing all the acts about others.


----------



## GertrudeJekyll (Sep 4, 2010)

Oh, this is really is making me laugh - thank you!

I wouldn't have the arrogance to express my opinion on the structural capabilities of a railway bridge, so I'm not sure why you believe you have the authority to comment on a subject that is clearly beyond your academic depth. 

Unless, of course, it's for the amusement factor? In which case, please continue! Has brightened my day!


----------



## GoldenRetrieverman (Sep 7, 2012)

GertrudeJekyll said:


> Oh, this is really is making me laugh - thank you!
> 
> I wouldn't have the arrogance to express my opinion on the structural capabilities of a railway bridge, so I'm not sure why you believe you have the authority to comment on a subject that is clearly beyond your academic depth.
> 
> Unless, of course, it's for the amusement factor? In which case, please continue! Has brightened my day!


What makes you an expert?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I've completely lost track, I can't really grasp what the original point of the thread was. I'm trying to strip back to basics here; based on the thread title here are what I consider facts.

I'm sure many of those reading already know this, so it is for information for anyone who has become confused by what is, frankly, a minefield. It is not intended in any way to be patronising.

*1. Datasheet (and SPC - Summary of Product Characteristics) recommendations differ between vaccine brands.*
The three-year protocol for DHP is recommend by Nobivac (MSD), Canigen (Virbac) and Duramune (Zoetis). Eurican (Merial) and Vanguard (Zoetis) follow an annual protocol; interestingly (disappointingly?) Virbac's new brand Canixin has also just been introduced on an annual protocol.

*2. All brands recommend Lepto vaccination annually.*
Not much more to be said about that - they all recommend the above.

Source for points 1 and 2: NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Therapeutic Indication - For dogs

*3.. Datasheet recommendations are set by the manufacturer, not the vet.*
Vets using annual protocols with a brand licensed on an annual protocol (Eurican, Vanguard, Canixin) are just following the datasheet guidelines. No criticism can be made of that; however it can be argued (reasonably, IMO) that these practices should consider swapping to a different brand on a three-year protocol.
Vets using annual protocols with a brand licensed on a three-year protocol (Nobivac, Canigen, Duramune) need to re-read the datasheets and adjust their policies, IMO.

Source: NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Overview - Introduction

*4. The datasheet is a legal document that has to be followed by those using the product.*
There is flexibility, but it has the potential to be controversial. Vets deviating from the datasheet are going 'off-licence' and must be prepared to justify this should they ever come in front of a DC (Disciplinary Committee) for doing so. This would be rare, but the principle remains. Off-licence use should always be with the informed consent of the animal owner.
The upshot of this is that while using a different vaccination protocol for a specific dog can be done, vets need to be careful about making generalised 'off-licence' recommendations off their own back, if you see what I mean.

I quote this from an editiorial in the Veterinary Record in 2011:



> However, despite this apparent conflict, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) has made it very clear that UK practitioners may use the information contained within the WSAVA guidelines in formulating an optimum vaccination schedule for any individual animal. *If that particular schedule involves off label use of a vaccine, then such use should be with the informed (and preferably documented) consent of the owner of that animal.* The VMD advice is that:* A veterinary surgeon is empowered to make a clinical benefit/ risk judgment based on the local reports of infection and taking account of the age, health, home environment, travel plans and lifestyle for each individual animal presented for vaccination and discuss recommended vaccine schedules with the owner.* Thus, the decision to vaccinate the individual patient and the frequency thereof is a matter for the veterinary surgeon and his client to discuss. It is not an issue where the VMD should
> intervene (VMD 2010).


Source: Vaccination of dogs and cats: no longer so controversial? -- Day 168 (18): 480 -- Veterinary Record

*5. The WSAVA (World Small Animal Veterinary Association) publishes independent guidelines on vaccination protocols, which differ from datasheet recommendations and therefore suggest 'off-licence' use of vaccines.*
You can read them here: Vaccination Guidelines | WSAVA
The WSAVA Guidelines are formulated by the VGG (Vaccination Guidelines Group), a panel of veterinary immunologists. The VGG is chaired by Michael Day, Professor of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Bristol; the other members are Marian Horzinek, an eminent veterinary virologist now retired from teaching, and Ronald Schultz, Professor of Pathobiological Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Veterinary School.
The first guidelines were published in 2007 and last updated in 2010.

Source: Vaccination Guidelines | WSAVA

*6. The WSAVA Guidelines are not free of controversy.*
Earlier this year the Veterinary Times - the main newspaper for the veterinary profession - reported that the discrepancies between WSAVA guidelines and the vaccine manufacturer's datasheets were causing confusion and even concern. NOAH's statement on the subject can be viewed here: http://www.noah.co.uk/papers/2014-04 NOAH statement on canine vaccination.pdf

Source: http://www.vetsonline.com/news/late...h-issues-statement-on-canine-vaccination.html

*7. The WSAVA Guidelines are guidelines only and are still currently superseded by the SPCs.*
This goes back to point 4. I quote again from the Veterinary Record editorial in 2011:



Shoshannah said:


> _The key issue for UK practitioners is that the advice contained within guidelines sometimes appears to conflict with advice given by manufacturers and regulators in the legal summary of product characteristics (SPC), which defines how an individual product (as opposed to a generic class of products) should be used. The information contained within the SPC is based on experimental and field regulatory studies and *the SPC is a legal document that defines how the vaccine should be used*. The British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) vaccination policy statement also recognises *the legal status of the SPC over vaccination guidelines* (BSAVA 2010 )._


Source: Vaccination of dogs and cats: no longer so controversial? -- Day 168 (18): 480 -- Veterinary Record

*8. Anecdotal evidence and expert opinions are the lowest level of EBM/EBVM.*
EBM (evidence-based medicine) and it's veterinary equivalent, EBVM, are taught as part of modern medicine and veterinary medicine courses. It involves finding and critically appraising research, papers and other evidence in order to form an informed conclusion about something.
While anecdotal evidence (personal experience, recommendations from others etc) and opinions (from experts, GPs/vets and the internet, for example) are not worthless, their value as evidence is much lower than that obtained from a RCT (randomised controlled trial), which is top of the list for strength as evidence.

This diagram explains it well - the bottom of the pyramid has the most numerous but least useful sources; the top has the least numerous but most useful sources.










Wikipedia provides a similar example as a list:

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 designs 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.*

Therefore, while anecdotal evidence and opinions are not useless, they cannot be used as 'strong' evidence when taken into context during any scientific argument where stronger evidence exists. Anyone conducting personal research on a subject (as in 'appraisal of the evidence') should be aware of how to critically appraise evidence to decide how useful it is, whether or not it is biased, and whether the methods used to reach the conclusion were fair and reliable.

EBM/EBVM is an entire subject in itself and I personally find it exhausting sometimes.

Source: http://www.cebm.net/

*9. Stronger evidence surrounding vaccination of dogs and cats exists and many papers suggest that DOI (duration of immunity) exceeds 3-4 years in the case of DHP.*
It would take a very long time to search through all the available literature on vaccination and durations of immunity, adverse events etc. It would also be expensive, as I don't have subscriptions to all the journals out there and with every paper costing up to £30 a pop I don't have the funds available! I can certainly scour the veterinary journals to which I do subscribe and have a looksee, but for now here's some stuff based on abstracts:

This 2004 paper found that immunity to canine core vaccines lasted 'at least' four years:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/15578450

This one from 2005 more or less agreed, concluding that core vaccinations in dogs provided immunity for a 'minimum of three years':
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/15906266

This 1997 short communication concludes: "these results show that the duration of immunity after vaccination with attenuated live distemper virus vaccines probably lasts much longer than indicated by the manufacturers' documentation."
http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/141/25/654.short

This review of the literature conducted by Schultz in 2006 draws similar conclusions (note that the DOI for Lepto vaccination is reportedly less than the core vaccines):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113506001489/

*10. Titre testing is recommended by the WSAVA Guidelines.*
I quote from the guidelines:



Shoshannah said:


> The VGG recognizes that at present such serological testing has limited availability and might be relatively expensive. However, the principles of evidence-based veterinary medicine would dictate that *testing for antibody status (for either pups or adult dogs) is a better practice than simply administering a vaccine booster* on the basis that this should be safe and cost less. In response to these needs, more rapid, cost-effective tests are being developed.


Source: Vaccination Guidelines | WSAVA

*11. Titre testing does not take into account CMI (cell-mediated immunity).*
The immune response is complex and beyond the scope of my post, but for simplicity's sake let's agree that the basic immune response consists of two parts:
1. The humoral response - including the complement system and the antibody response.
2. The cell-mediated response - carried out by CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells and macrophages, to name two of the main cell types involved.
Titre testing only measures antibody levels, and therefore does not take into account other types of immunity. It also does not ascertain the presence of memory B cells in the germinal centres of the lymph nodes, which can still produce protective antibody even if titres have fallen since infection/vaccination. Therefore it is still possible for an animal to have immunity to certain pathogens even in the presence of a low antibody titre. This could still lead to technically unnecessary boosters in immune animals.

Source: my immunology training - if someone wants a copy of my student notes I can sure scan 'em in and send it over.

*12. Cell-mediated immunity is more important for some diseases than others.*
Humoral immunity is, overall, more important than cell-mediated immunity in the case of parvovirus and distemper. Titre testing comes in more useful for these diseases. I quote from this very useful 2001 paper from the Veterinary record:



Shoshannah said:


> Observations of dogs that have survived naturally acquired infections with CPV and CDV, together with serological and challenge data from experimental studies, suggest that long-lasting immunity may result. *For these diseases, because humoral immunity tends to be well correlated with protection from clinical disease, the measurement of antibody titres can be useful for determining when an animal may need to be revaccinated*.


Source: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/149/17/509.short

*13. Vaccination against Lepto in dogs is complex due to the number of different strains of Lepto out there.*
There is one relevant species of _Leptospira_ in dogs, _L. interrogans_, but there are several serovars ('strains') which can complicate vaccination and titre testing. In the UK at present, bivalent vaccines only cover the serovars Canicola and Icterohaemorrhagiae (including copenhageni). Nobivac L4 also covers the serovar Australis (including Bratislava) and _L. kirschneri_ serogroup Grippotyphosa.

There is differing information published on the prevalence of these different serovars. MSD, who manufacture Nobivac L4, published figures stating that copenhageni and Bratislava accounted for more than half of all positive Lepto samples submitted to the AHVLA between 2007 and 2011.

Source: http://www.charlesworthvets.com/nobivac_l4_datasheet.pdf

However, an unpublished 2010 study from the University of Liverpool found that copenhageni and Bratislava together made up only 7.3% of UK canine diagnoses.

Source: http://vetsci.co.uk/2011/01/06/leptospirosis/

Depending on which data you look at - data accumulated by the vaccine manufacturer or that from an unpublished study with no available details about size etc - dogs vaccinated with bivalent Lepto vaccines are either at very great risk or very low risk of contracting a non-covered serovar. No UK vaccine covers against Pomona, but NADIS report that Pomona does not occur in the UK at this time.

*14. Titre testing for Lepto can also be difficult for the same reasons.*
There is considerable cross-reactivity between serovars when it comes to serology, so working out to which serovar the antibodies are produced can be extremely difficult. Moreover dogs, as maintenance hosts for the Canicola serovar, can be infected with Lepto yet have a low antibody titre.

Source: http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/generalized_conditions/leptospirosis/overview_of_leptospirosis.html

*15. The reported incidence of adverse reaction to vaccines is low.*
2010 figures from the VMD reveal that the incidence of adverse reactions is 18.5 reactions per 100,000 vaccines sold. These adverse reactions include mild signs such as transient lethargy or mild fever, all the way through to death (which is obviously rarer than mild signs).
However, these figures rely on SARS submissions and it is likely that there are many unreported adverse reactions which cannot be included in official VMD figures. This highlights the importance of reporting all suspected adverse reactions to the VMD.

Source: Vaccination of dogs and cats: no longer so controversial? -- Day 168 (18): 480 -- Veterinary Record

*16. There is no high-level evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic nosodes.*
This goes back to point 8. While there may be anecdotal evidence about the efficacy of nosodes, there are no scientific studies from the top end of the pyramid to support this.

Source: a PubMed search.

I think vaccination is going to remain a controversial subject for quite some time, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Of all my points above, I would really like to highlight point 8. There is soooo much information on the internet, and sadly a great proportion of it is crap. There is good information out there, but it needs to be sought out and read with a critical eye.

There is soooo much more I could post on my list of facts, but I'm a bit tired of reading through papers right now.

My own views on vaccination are easily found on this forum; I have done my best to (largely) keep them out of this post.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

GoldenRetrieverman said:


> What makes you an expert?


I must have missed where Gertrude said she was an expert? Please point it out to me. I must be slipping.

Well, i suppose if you put two and two together to make five, it's fairly easy to see text where there is none.


----------



## mollydog07 (May 26, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Jeez!
> 
> Opinion and belief are not the same as fact, as I have been trying to explain.
> 
> :frown2:


 your opinion and your belief.not mine,as I have been trying to explain to you :frown2:


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

mollydog07 said:


> your opinion and your belief.not mine,as I have been trying to explain to you :frown2:


Please check your dictionary to understand the difference between opinion, belief and fact.

That there is even confusion over this speaks volumes.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Old Shep said:


> Please check your dictionary to understand the difference between opinion, belief and fact.
> 
> That there is even confusion over this speaks volumes.


But surely, even when people are in possession of the facts, they still have the right to make an informed decision?

For instance, when my Sons were babies, there was some doubt as to whether the whooping cough vaccine could cause brain damage.

Whooping cough wasn't common, but could make a child critically ill.

Many Parents had to decide, in a nutshell, whether to risk their child contracting whooping cough or whether to risk their child developing brain damage.

Even when the facts are there, people will make their own decisions and those often differ.

It doesn't mean that if someone takes the opposite road to you, they are stupid or ill informed.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sweety said:


> But surely, even when people are in possession of the facts, they still have the right to make an informed decision?
> 
> For instance, when my Sons were babies, there was some doubt as to whether the whooping cough vaccine could cause brain damage.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you're saying, Sweety, but I think the critical word here is 'informed' decision. Informed decisions are fair enough. However, sometimes people make their judgements based on anecdotal or unsubstantiated evidence and could potentially put their pet (or child) at risk either way. I've written more about it in my post above (point 8).


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Shoshannah said:


> I agree with what you're saying, Sweety, but I think the critical word here is 'informed' decision. Informed decisions are fair enough. However, sometimes people make their judgements based on anecdotal or unsubstantiated evidence and could potentially put their pet (or child) at risk either way. I've written more about it in my post above (point 8).


Yes, I agree. That's fair enough.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

But the facts are clear. They are not opinions or beliefs. The facts are:

Vaccination works
Vaccinations are safe for the vast majority of dogs
Herd immunity protects those who, because of genuine medical reasons cannot be, or are not yet, vaccinated.

These are facts.

The earth is round. This is a fact. It is provable. Yet there are some people who believe the earth is flat (I kid you not. Check it out.) they are clearly wrong.

There are no such things as "chem trails" (look it up if you've never heard that particular chunk of wisdom). This is a fact. However there are hundreds of deluded individuals who believe the worlds government are spraying the population with chemicals to keep them acquiescent (not working very well, if they are,)


The above examples are mildly amusing and don't actually do any harm, but not vaccinating/worming your dog does do harm. Not just to your dog, but to mine, and In The case of worming, to my grandchildren.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Old Shep said:


> But the facts are clear. They are not opinions or beliefs. The facts are:
> 
> Vaccination works
> Vaccinations are safe for the vast majority of dogs
> ...


What amuses me more about all of those is that people believe the incompetent idiots that run governments are capable of covering it all up :skep:. They give them far too much credit.

But as I said facts have no place in these debates for some people. If people look at arguments from both sides and make an informed choice then fair enough. But how many people make the decision from a post on fb? :frown2:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

the problem with the anatical ew is that they are only willing to look at acts that back up their argument, any other acts are discounted or any possible reason they can give. the act is, vaccinations can produce adverse reactions, preventative medicines mean pumping chemicals into our dogs and us, and as I've said previously, as the suerer o an adverse reaction to the yellow ever vaccine, I am unwilling to simply be told it's sae without researching, and making my own decision as to whether it's a vaccine I eel sae and happy letting my dogs have. As it happens, working on the railways I'm very aware o leptosporisis/weils, and the incidences o people contracting this disease. there is no vaccine or humans, and having looked at the levels o leptospirosis inection in wild rats, it's airly low. 

I honestly ind it mind boggling ignorant that someone can accuse me o putting their grand children at risk because I don't use prescriptive wormers all o the time, or vaccinate my dogs as oten as they would want me to. I my dogs had a problem with a worm burden, I would worm them, but I'm simply not willing to stick strong chemicals on/in my dogs as requently as the manuacturers o these products tell us it is necessary. I haven't had a lea or tick on my dogs, or any signs o internal parasites or a good two years. It's blinkered views like this that scare monger people into believing everything the companies manuacturing these products want you to believe, so that *you* are unable to look at both sides o the situation, and are scared into shoving everything down your dog's throat, or into their skin. I my dogs needed worming, I would worm them, i we had a lea problem, I would use something stronger than the natural preventatives I currently give them in their diet, i I saw evidence to change my mind that I should use a vaccine more requently, or at all, because it was proven sae enough or my liking, then I would do so. But the sheer arrogance o some people to try and tell me that I'm unable to read and understand peer reviewed articles, and advice rom the vmd and others and make up my own mind is just beyond belie. 

I should probably have my lot on royal canin, or hills science according to those who aren't willing to develop their own personal viewpoint, and just rely on what the vet tells them.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> the problem with the anatical ew is that they are only willing to look at acts that back up their argument, any other acts are discounted or any possible reason they can give. the act is, vaccinations can produce adverse reactions, preventative medicines mean pumping chemicals into our dogs and us, and as I've said previously, as the suerer o an adverse reaction to the yellow ever vaccine, I am unwilling to simply be told it's sae without researching, and making my own decision as to whether it's a vaccine I eel sae and happy letting my dogs have. As it happens, working on the railways I'm very aware o leptosporisis/weils, and the incidences o people contracting this disease. there is no vaccine or humans, and having looked at the levels o leptospirosis inection in wild rats, it's airly low.
> 
> I honestly ind it mind boggling ignorant that someone can accuse me o putting their grand children at risk because I don't use prescriptive wormers all o the time, or vaccinate my dogs as oten as they would want me to. I my dogs had a problem with a worm burden, I would worm them, but I'm simply not willing to stick strong chemicals on/in my dogs as requently as the manuacturers o these products tell us it is necessary. I haven't had a lea or tick on my dogs, or any signs o internal parasites or a good two years. It's blinkered views like this that scare monger people into believing everything the companies manuacturing these products want you to believe, so that *you* are unable to look at both sides o the situation, and are scared into shoving everything down your dog's throat, or into their skin. I my dogs needed worming, I would worm them, i we had a lea problem, I would use something stronger than the natural preventatives I currently give them in their diet, i I saw evidence to change my mind that I should use a vaccine more requently, or at all, because it was proven sae enough or my liking, then I would do so. But the sheer arrogance o some people to try and tell me that I'm unable to read and understand peer reviewed articles, and advice rom the vmd and others and make up my own mind is just beyond belie.
> 
> I should probably have my lot on royal canin, or hills science according to those who aren't willing to develop their own personal viewpoint, and just rely on what the vet tells them.


What about vets with their own viewpoints? 

Have you got a 3D printer, SL? Get yourself one of these printed out:










I admire the valiance of your efforts, but it's amazing how missing just one letter makes something more difficult to read!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I think she's saying we only look at research that says what we want to hear . You're possibly confusing us with fanatics who don't accept any viewpoint but their own. See the Westboro baptist church or Dawkins and his worshippers for examples. Go on prove to me nosodes work and I'll use them, but if the best explanation you can give is they cause the symptoms then


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I think she's saying we only look at research that says what we want to hear . You're possibly confusing us with fanatics who don't accept any viewpoint but their own. See the Westboro baptist church or Dawkins and his worshippers for examples. Go on prove to me nosodes work and I'll use them, but if the best explanation you can give is they cause the symptoms then


I've never said nosodes work, in act I asked about them on here, and was persuaded to research urther, and personally I wouldn't rely on them with a clear conscience and think my dogs were ully protected. I've put what my I currently believe (yes, believe) is the best course action is or my dogs, ater researching the acts. So tell me, have you ever suered rom an adverse reaction? Have your dogs? Have you been told a amily member only has 24 hours to live because o being given the wrong cocktail o vaccinations? Perhaps you might have a dierent viewpoint, and not be quite so willing to accept that vaccines are completely harmless, i you'd had a dierent set o experiences. I've not said vaccines do not have a place, and haven't been/are not useul, but I do not believe you should just accept they are 100 per cent sae, and or me, I preer to research things and make my own decisions. I will continue to use some vaccines, but I do not accept they are sae enough to use as oten as some recommend. Just a couple o days ago, on a Labrador group on acebook, someone posted their vet had recommended they restart the vaccination course or their dog, because he was three weeks overdue. that sort o advice is so outdated, and wrong, and yet some on this thread just want everyone to blithely accept what their vet says is 100 per cent right, and ollow without questioning. Well I'm sorry, but that is not my experience, and I will always question on behal o my dogs, and ensure I am happy that any treatment they have, is what I believe is in their best interests. I a minority eel that makes me a bad owner, I couldn't give a rig.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

Your posts are so funny withou the "f".


However, human nature being what it is, it can be difficult to reach a conclusion on dispassionate data. Humans being what they are, they are usually influenced by their life experiences.

While this can interfere with rationality, it is part of being human.

And everyone, but everyone (expect possibly Spock) is affected by confirmation bias. We look more carefully at information which backs up our world view.

None are immune. Arghhhhh!

:thumbup1:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I've never said nosodes work, in act I asked about them on here, and was persuaded to research urther, and personally I wouldn't rely on them with a clear conscience and think my dogs were ully protected. I've put what my I currently believe (yes, believe) is the best course action is or my dogs, ater researching the acts. So tell me, have you ever suered rom an adverse reaction? Have your dogs? Have you been told a amily member only has 24 hours to live because o being given the wrong cocktail o vaccinations? Perhaps you might have a dierent viewpoint, and not be quite so willing to accept that vaccines are completely harmless, i you'd had a dierent set o experiences. I've not said vaccines do not have a place, and haven't been/are not useul, but I do not believe you should just accept they are 100 per cent sae, and or me, I preer to research things and make my own decisions. I will continue to use some vaccines, but I do not accept they are sae enough to use as oten as some recommend. Just a couple o days ago, on a Labrador group on acebook, someone posted their vet had recommended they restart the vaccination course or their dog, because he was three weeks overdue. that sort o advice is so outdated, and wrong, and yet some on this thread just want everyone to blithely accept what their vet says is 100 per cent right, and ollow without questioning. Well I'm sorry, but that is not my experience, and I will always question on behal o my dogs, and ensure I am happy that any treatment they have, is what I believe is in their best interests. I a minority eel that makes me a bad owner, I couldn't give a rig.


As I said if someone does the research from all sides of the argument and makes an informed choice on the path to take then good for them. But how many people have you see make decisions or go into hysteria based on a fb post with no research. I agree that restarting because a dog is three weeks overdue is ridiculous.



Old Shep said:


> Your posts are so funny withou the "f".
> 
> However, human nature being what it is, it can be difficult to reach a conclusion on dispassionate data. Humans being what they are, they are usually influenced by their life experiences.
> 
> ...


Even the Vulcans couldn't do it :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> As I said if someone does the research from all sides of the argument and makes an informed choice on the path to take then good for them. But how many people have you see make decisions or go into hysteria based on a fb post with no research. I agree that restarting because a dog is three weeks overdue is ridiculous.


very ew, but you get a ew alarmists who say that the end o the world is nigh because a ew people choose to make their own decisions when it comes to vaccinations, yet in reality, the highest risk isn't those who research and make an inormed decision, it's those who don't care enough to bother even taking their dogs to the vets, those who take their dogs on holiday without researching thoroughly about the types o parasites they might bring home, those who buy pups rom byb's who could have imported them rom abroad. Yet those who make an inormed decision based on acts they've researched are told they are ignorant, deluded and so on.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

Shoshannah said:


> I agree with what you're saying, Sweety, but I think the critical word here is 'informed' decision. Informed decisions are fair enough. However, sometimes people make their judgements based on anecdotal or unsubstantiated evidence and could potentially put their pet (or child) at risk either way. I've written more about it in my post above (point 8).


Totally agree but how does anyone make an informed decision regarding dog vaccination? There are no peer reviewed studies to prove the actual longevity of immunity, due to the constraints I've previously referred too.

In your excellent post you have linked to articles which speculate that immunity to certain diseases could last far longer than the current 3 year schedule but there is nothing to say that is actually true so...

Owners are left with a choice, either follow the present guidelines (something I'm not comfortable with) or follow a different path based on the human vaccination protocol... for certain diseases vaccination is for life.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> very ew, but you get a ew alarmists who say that the end o the world is nigh because a ew people choose to make their own decisions when it comes to vaccinations, yet in reality, the highest risk isn't those who research and make an inormed decision, it's those who don't care enough to bother even taking their dogs to the vets, those who take their dogs on holiday without researching thoroughly about the types o parasites they might bring home, those who buy pups rom byb's who could have imported them rom abroad. Yet those who make an inormed decision based on acts they've researched are told they are ignorant, deluded and so on.


Then you have more faith in humanity than I do, the false widow mass hysteria was enough to show some people will believe anything if it's posted on fb. Or indeed should someone utter the word natural they can sell practically anything, is there any proof apple cider vinegar is some magic cure all capable of anything?

I agree that unvaccinated puppies being brought in are a big risk and that is down to people doing no research and buying from the first person who comes along. Not people making informed choices on where to buy a puppu


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

BlackadderUK said:


> Totally agree but how does anyone make an informed decision regarding dog vaccination? There are no peer reviewed studies to prove the actual longevity of immunity, due to the constraints I've previously referred too.
> 
> In your excellent post you have linked to articles which speculate that immunity to certain diseases could last far longer than the current 3 year schedule but there is nothing to say that is actually true so...
> 
> Owners are left with a choice, either follow the present guidelines (something I'm not comfortable with) or follow a different path based on the human vaccination protocol... for certain diseases vaccination is for life.


But it's so flexible. Those are not the only two choices. 

You could, as an example, do the puppy vaccinations and first year booster (something I would personally recommend as there is a small proportion of pups who don't respond adequately to the puppy course due to MDA) then give one - maybe two, if you felt it necessary - booster throughout the dog's life.

As I said, just an example. I don't believe in a 'one-size-fits-all' approach in any case.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> Then you have more faith in humanity than I do, the false widow mass hysteria was enough to show some people will believe anything if it's posted on fb. Or indeed should someone utter the word natural they can sell practically anything, is there any proof apple cider vinegar is some magic cure all capable of anything?
> 
> I agree that unvaccinated puppies being brought in are a big risk and that is down to people doing no research and buying from the first person who comes along. Not people making informed choices on where to buy a puppu


Oh don't get me wrong, one o my avourite sayings, "you can take a horticulture, but you can't make her think", but the assumption that dog owners who don't vaccinate their dogs annually, or use worm/lea treatment as oten as manuacturers advise, are stupid, deluded and unable to decipher any remotely scientiic article is really pathetically short sighted.

And i their only argument is to pick on a aulty keyboard, then really, that says it all to me.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> But it's so flexible. Those are not the only two choices.
> 
> You could, as an example, do the puppy vaccinations and first year booster (something I would personally recommend as there is a small proportion of pups who don't respond adequately to the puppy course due to MDA) then give one - maybe two, if you felt it necessary - booster throughout the dog's life.
> 
> As I said, just an example. I don't believe in a 'one-size-fits-all' approach in any case.


My approach is exactly this, puppy, irst annual boosters (although I don't allow lepto with my lot at this current time) and then titre test.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, one o my avourite sayings, "you can take a horticulture, but you can't make her think", but the assumption that dog owners who don't vaccinate their dogs annually, or use worm/lea treatment as oten as manuacturers advise, are stupid, deluded and unable to decipher any remotely scientiic article is really pathetically short sighted.
> 
> And i their only argument is to pick on a aulty keyboard, then really, that says it all to me.


I like your aulty keyboard.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, one o my avourite sayings, "you can take a horticulture, but you can't make her think", but the assumption that dog owners who don't vaccinate their dogs annually, or use worm/lea treatment as oten as manuacturers advise, are stupid, deluded and unable to decipher any remotely scientiic article is really pathetically short sighted.
> 
> And i their only argument is to pick on a aulty keyboard, then really, that says it all to me.


Could you maybe put f onto copy and then paste it in when needed? Might be easier to understand your posts then. I don't assume people who don't vaccinate every year are deluded, those who believe magically altered water will protect their dogs maybe.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I don't 'de-flea' Rosie on a regular basis. I feel very uneasy about dumping chemicals on the back of her neck. If I find a flea on her, then I'll do it.

Likewise with worming.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> I like your aulty keyboard.


Oh please, I'm heartily ed up with it, only one key that provides capitals (type it and realised without the missing consonant it wasn't acceptable on a amily orum) is working. I just hope (please any God listening) it dries out and works soon.....



Nicky10 said:


> Could you maybe put f onto copy and then paste it in when needed? Might be easier to understand your posts then. I don't assume people who don't vaccinate every year are deluded, those who believe magically altered water will protect their dogs maybe.


Just insert missing ephs, and I've never said I believe magically altered water will protect my dogs, but I think it's pretty demeaning to those who have researched thoroughly and believe in nosodes, perhaps you ought to ask them or more ino? rather than just belittle people or their own choices.



Sweety said:


> I don't 'de-flea' Rosie on a regular basis. I feel very uneasy about dumping chemicals on the back of her neck. If I find a flea on her, then I'll do it.
> 
> Likewise with worming.


then you're in the same boat as me, I'm risking the grand children o others by not regularly dumping chemicals on/in my dogs just in case they have parasites.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I did look into it, diluting the poison so many times apparently changes the structure of the water somehow and opposites work to fix each other, take caffeine to make you sleep etc. Water's a cool molecule, I had a chemistry teacher who insisted it was the one thing that could make him believe in a creator but it's not that awesome. And I still have no idea how something causing the symptoms makes you immune :skep:


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Oh please, I'm heartily ed up with it, only one key that provides capitals *(type it and realised without the missing consonant it wasn't acceptable on a amily orum)* is working. I just hope (please any God listening) it dries out and works soon.....


Sorry, SL, please forgive me - but this did make me laugh...  :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I did look into it, diluting the poison so many times apparently changes the structure of the water somehow and opposites work to fix each other, take caffeine to make you sleep etc. Water's a cool molecule, I had a chemistry teacher who insisted it was the one thing that could make him believe in a creator but it's not that awesome. And I still have no idea how something causing the symptoms makes you immune :skep:


So what's your problem, you've looked into it, and decided it's not something you believe would provide eective protection, so you don't use it. I don't think anyone on this thread has said, whatever you do, don't ever vaccinate your dogs, and only ever rely on nosodes.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So what's your problem, you've looked into it, and decided it's not something you believe would provide eective protection, so you don't use it. I don't think anyone on this thread has said, whatever you do, don't ever vaccinate your dogs, and only ever rely on nosodes.


I think it was you said people who ask for proof they work only look at research that says what they want to hear. I was pointing out that actually some of us looked into them before dismissing them on the basis that there was no evidence they worked.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> Sorry, SL, please forgive me - but this did make me laugh...  :lol:


Oh it made me laugh when I realised that the key you press to get a capital letter is so much ruder without my missing consonant! I had to think o a way quickly to try and express why I couldn't use that particular key!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I think it was you said people who ask for proof they work only look at research that says what they want to hear. I was pointing out that actually some of us looked into them before dismissing them on the basis that there was no evidence they worked.


I said some, unortunately, a ew posters seem to assume lots o things about those who choose not to use annual vaccinations. We are all deluded, putting children at risk, and are obviously not intelligent enough to read up on this subject on our own, unless o course, we agree with the annual vaccination regime.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I said some, unortunately, a ew posters seem to assume lots o things about those who choose not to use annual vaccinations. We are all deluded, putting children at risk, and are obviously not intelligent enough to read up on this subject on our own, unless o course, we agree with the annual vaccination regime.


And equally on the other side you have the you must never vaccinate or your dog will drop dead the second the needle touches their skin because some homeopath told them so types. Both extremes are as misguided imo.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> And equally on the other side you have the you must never vaccinate or your dog will drop dead the second the needle touches their skin because some homeopath told them so types. Both extremes are as misguided imo.


But where have I said that?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But where have I said that?


I didn't say you did


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I didn't say you did


Your posts directed towards me would say you assume I've said as much, and that I advocate nosodes, otherwise why would you ask me to explain how they work, i you aren't capable o looking these things up yourel?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Well, as far as I'm aware, the only way the Grandkids could be at risk would be if they played with poop from a wormy dog.

I'm sorry, but if you're the Grandparent who allows kiddies to do that, then you need to sweep your own corner before you start demanding rigid worming programmes for dogs belonging to others.

I'll do what I believe is best for Rosie. I would never try to tell someone else what they should be doing about fleas and worms, but neither will I be told to start flinging chemicals around willy nilly.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

TBF I haven't seen too many people who don't vaccinate at all. Most do the puppy shots then leave it, or perhaps titre test.

I think there has been some rather unnecessary unpleasantness on this thread, not actually involving anyone who is currently posting, which just makes a mockery of the whole discussion.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Well, as far as I'm aware, the only way the Grandkids could be at risk would be if they played with poop from a wormy dog.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if you're the Grandparent who allows kiddies to do that, then you need to sweep your own corner before you start demanding rigid worming programmes for dogs belonging to others.
> 
> I'll do what I believe is best for Rosie. I would never try to tell someone else what they should be doing about fleas and worms, but neither will I be told to start flinging chemicals around willy nilly.


I remember as a child, a toddler dying rom inection rom dog poo let on the grass verge, inadvertently wiped into their eye. I absolutely agree whole heartedly wit controlling risks, it's the levels o control I question, and juggle with to ensure I don't douse my dogs with chemicals, but I don't expose others to risk. I despair o dog owners who don't bother to pick up on walks where the stick phlick (apols or the mispelling, but the lack o consonant would be worse), wouldn't be possible.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I think we're actually saying the same thing that people should do the research and come to an informed decision, maybe I came across wrong sorry .


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I think we're actually saying the same thing that people should do the research and come to an informed decision, maybe I came across wrong sorry .


We probably are, and I'm sorry i I've come across wrong, my bug bear is with those who are pro vaccination ONLY, and don't allow or any other point o view. God I wish my keyboard would work....


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> We probably are, and I'm sorry i I've come across wrong, my bug bear is with those who are pro vaccination ONLY, and don't allow or any other point o view. God I wish my keyboard would work....


If they're not willing to do any research on the other possibilities and blindly buy into you must vaccinate every year then I agree with you.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> If they're not willing to do any research on the other possibilities and blindly buy into you must vaccinate every year then I agree with you.


TBH, a great many people will go with what their vet recommends and they can hardly be blamed for that. While people are free to read around and form their own opinions, it's hardly a pre-requisite for a owner-vet relationship.

As I have highlighted in my longer post, vets are not always at fault either as they are bound (to an extent) by manufacturer's guidelines.

The main onus here is really on the manufacturer's guidelines. It's contentious and I don't wish to be accused of anything defamatory, but IMO there's no excuse to produce DHP vaccines that require annual boosters when the three-year protocols are now widely used with other brands.

I had a... shall we say 'disagreement' once with a drugs rep who insisted that parvo immunity was only three years. I was arguing that it was potentially longer. But as far as they were concerned, it was set in stone.

Much of the change has to come from the top, if you ask me.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> If they're not willing to do any research on the other possibilities and blindly buy into you must vaccinate every year then I agree with you.


A lot are unortunately, I've seen it such a lot, and to be honest, with built up areas particularly, I sort o think well what's the worst outcome or someone who hasn't got the where with all t research themselves, to take vet advice, same re neutering, i people haven't got the time and intelligence to research these issues, then yep, err on the side o caution. But don't label those who are intelligent enough, to research what they believe, ater looking at acts, what is the best course or their pets.

And or the beneit o those who don't understand the dierence, i you research something, and ind a course o action is in the best interest or your dogs, you do that because you believe it to be so. You are not basing that belie on anything other than the latest inormation, ie you are not looking up at the stars and hoping they might help because you can't be @rased to actually research anything. clear enough??


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shoshannah said:


> TBH, a great many people will go with what their vet recommends and they can hardly be blamed for that. While people are free to read around and form their own opinions, it's hardly a pre-requisite for a owner-vet relationship.
> 
> As I have highlighted in my longer post, vets are not always at fault either as they are bound (to an extent) by manufacturer's guidelines.
> 
> ...


I'd like to see a lot more research done, unortunately, it's either by those pushing the vaccinations, or by those saying they're not necessary, so it's rock and hard place.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I love the way I have been accused of advocating annual vaccination for everything and worming/flea treatment as per manufacturers recommendations.

At no point have I actually said that.

I HAVE stated that my vet does NOT vaccinate for everything on an annual basis.


I only said dogs should be wormed and flea treated with medications which actually work. I never said how often.


Please don't accuse me of saying thing I did not.

Anyway, the missing "f" is f-ing hilarious!


----------



## Yorkshire Vets (Aug 19, 2014)

Though we have already had input from one vet on this discussion, I thought it might be worth linking to an article written by one of our vets about vaccinations from a vets point of view. This might help some some of the vaccine doubters amongst you understand why we recommend what we do.

How And Why We Vaccinate Our Pets - Vets in Leeds and Bradford - Yorkshire Vets


----------



## PennyGSD (Apr 16, 2012)

I have a theory why SL's f has worn out.

Too many threads like this where what she's initially been typing, in bold and capital letters, 'missing letter' 'missing letter' S!, before deleting and typing something politer.

I have to admit much of the thread has now gone over my head as all I keep looking out for is SL's posts


----------

