# Ever questioned the practice of annual vaccinations? Please read...



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Right, seems there is some confusion on exactly what has been stated here so:


> *Disclaimer: This thread was started to make people look more closely at / question vaccination requirements for dogs in the UK, as manufacturers have released new vaccines that have longer duration of immunity (see vaccine details at bottom of this post), which many UK vets are using, but the regulations in the UK are not up to date in accordance with this.*
> 
> _*People are not advised to stop vaccinating, but are encouraged to do their own research and speak to their vet about viable options that suit you and your pets.*_
> 
> ...


I must admit that I hadn't really even considered it before a few months ago - I mean that's what you do as a responsible pet owner...vaccinate every year? Or is it? I would urge you to please read on and look at the links I have posted and make up your own mind on this...to me it seems that something is not right here for sure and unless we all do something about it things will carry on as they are!

*The latest research says no, we should NOT be vaccinating annually for all diseases - read why below!* (please note this is not to say do not vaccinate at all - but please read up on it and understand when to vaccinate for which disease based on science, not on your vet sticking to old habits!)

Following extensive research by leading immunologists worldwide, it was found that viral diseases such as *parvo, hepatitis and distemper* do NOT require as frequent as annual re-vaccination. In fact some immunity studies have found that animals were immune for something like 8 years, or even life. Repeated vaccination DOES NOT provide further immunity - if an animal is immune, their body kills off the virus without increasing immunity.

Other vaccines, which are bacterial rather than viral, such as leptospirosis and non-core vaccines like kennel cough were also looked at. The findings were very interesting! The advice from these leading immunologists is that lepto should be non-core and only given in areas where it is rife! In the UK, lepto (also known as weils disease in humans) is so rare that the government do not even keep records of infection in humans or dogs (and yet they can claim outbreaks?)! In addition, there are about 12 strains, but the vaccine can only cover for 2-3 of these. Plus cover is variable with it running out in some dogs anywhere as early as 6 months! Therefore even if vaccinated, many dogs are walking around not covered for it and yet we are not seeing epidemics of this disease suddenly...so it begs the question is it actually necessary?

*Latest guidelines:*
Following all this research, the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) has released new worldwide guidelines on vaccinations. Their task force is made up of experts in microbiology, immunology and vaccinology from around the world, including UK, US & Europe.
Official WSAVA Guidelines: http://www.wsava.org/PDF/Misc/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf

You will see that vaccination with the usual DHP *vaccines are recommended NO MORE than every 3 years *(which means that in can be left longer). And all non-core vaccinations should not be required unless in a high risk area - such as lepto/kennel cough.

Other research has also shown that vaccines come with the risk of severe and life-threatening adverse reactions and diseases, so it makes sense to vaccinate as infrequently as possible to reduce these risks. These include cancer, epilepsy, allergies, arthritis, heart disease, thrombocytopenia, aggression and other behavioural problems, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, bone marrow failure, immune-mediated blood diseases, haematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukaemia), dysregulation of humoral and cell-mediated immunity, organ failure (liver, kidney) and autoimmune endocrine disorders - especially of the thyroid gland (thyroiditis), adrenal gland (Addison's disease) and pancreas (diabetes). (see details of all these in the 'Stop the Shots' Report below)

*Why hasn't the UK changed their policies yet? *Many vets are now vaccinating every 3 years following this info, but kennels and training clubs etc and many many vets are still asking for annual vaccinations because the VMD, despite the evidence, is refusing to officially change UK policy, as they said they are happy with the way things are currently - please note that the American and Australian Veterinary Associations have already adopted the new protocols!

*What can you do about this?* If having read the info, you feel that this is wrong and you want to have the choice to vaccinate your animals less frequently in line with the latest research (rather than being forced to annually for all diseases by vets guilt-tripping you and training clubs and kennels asking for it whilst they are none the wiser)...then please, please do something about this!

Please download the letter to send to your MP - Write to your MP - Stop the Shots - NOW

Non-UK residents, you can still help - please send the letter to send to the UK Chief Veterinary Officer: Non-uk residents - Stop the Shots - NOW

*Further info: *Some great sources of further info that I would urge you to read to make your own decisions:
Stop the Shots! Full report: Read Part One of the report to understand the side effects from vaccines your dogs and cats do not need. See Part Two to understand why the government, licensing bodies, vets, pet charities and the pharmaceutical industry might want you to over-vaccinate your pets. Stop the Shots - NOW - Home

You can just read the 10-page summary here: http://petvaccine.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/3/6/3036695/chc_summary.pdf

Natural Immunity, by Pat McKay - contains some great info around vaccinations, the problems with them, side effects, research showing annual boosters are unnecessary etc. Definitely gives you something to think about...
Natural Immunity, by Pat McKay

*edited to add: *please see further research I have been collecting on the information published by the actual manufacturers - posts towards the end of this thread:
*Intervet:* http://www.petforums.co.uk/1696442-post62.html
*Virbac:* http://www.petforums.co.uk/1696538-post63.html

*edited to add some more vaccines details:*
*Intervet Nobivac DHP vaccine:* Nobivac DHP - Overview Booster EVERY THREE YEARS.
There are others in their Nobivac range - all of which as far as I can tell require every 3 years for the Distemper, Hepatitis (sometimes named adenovirus as this is where it comes from) & Parvo elements.
*Virbac - Canigen DHP:* NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Canigen DHP - Dosage and administration Again, boosters EVERY THREE YEARS
*Virbac - Canigen DHPPi:* NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Canigen DHPPi - Dosage and administration - as above with the DHP (the viral disease components, as we are discussing) need boostering EVERY 3 YEARS - lepto is bacterial and so is Pi, so these components are annual still.
*Virbac - Canigen Parvo-C:* NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Canigen Parvo-C - Dosage and administration - recommended to be revaccinated EVERY 3 YEARS
Intervet also make Procyon Dog, again a range of different vaccs within this brand as above, but if we just take the multiple* Procyon Dog DA2PPi/CvL *for example: Procyon Dog Da2ppi/Cvl - Product Data Sheet - as above, the bacterial elements are recommended annnually - but the viral parts of this vaccine, are recommended to be done even less frequently - they say *EVERY FOUR YEARS*!!!

As you can see, they even state the 3 year boosters - so what reason has the UK VMD got to not update their policy now?! Call my cynical but it is very hard to see what ethical reason they could have when the manufacturers guidelines themselves do not suggest annual still!


----------



## WoodyGSP (Oct 11, 2009)

Great info. I'm wondering what to do about Woody's boosters. I think I will probably get his 1st year boosters and then maybe get a titre test or something next year before not vaccinating. I would probably still get him done for lepto as I live by the river and he loves swimming. We don't have boosters every year so I don't see why a dog needs to.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I dont have mine annually vacinated, i hate the thought of what is being done the dogs immune system by having them done yearly my vet actually agrees although if i hadnt told her my reasons then ime sure she wouldnt have told me. Its actually the drug companies that say that its nessessary not the vets, soorry if all this has been said in the article i didnt read it,


----------



## sunshineshelly (Jul 8, 2010)

Our vets vaccinate our dogs every year but do not give the full booster each time. They vaccinate for lepto every year and the others every 2-3 years which they discussed with me first. They said that lepto wears off after 12 months though and not 6 but will check with that coz their due soon.
Thanks for the advise though


----------



## hobbs2004 (Mar 12, 2010)

What a superb post! If i had any rep to give you I would but alas I need to spread it around.

You are on a roll today! :thumbup:


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

WoodyGSP said:


> Great info. I'm wondering what to do about Woody's boosters. I think I will probably get his 1st year boosters and then maybe get a titre test or something next year before not vaccinating. I would probably still get him done for lepto as I live by the river and he loves swimming. We don't have boosters every year so I don't see why a dog needs to.


Well luckily more and more people are becoming more informed - the problem is that as kennels, groomers, training classes etc are just going on the advice of their vets or even just their current understanding of vaccinations, it means that if you dont want to vaccinate every single year, many do not even accept titre tests!

So please send the letter to your MP too!

We need to get the policies changed, as why should we have to put our pets through unnecessary vaccines / blood tests for titres just because of outdated understanding of vaccinations and immunity!

Just bear in mind that whilst a high titre shows definite immunity, a low titre does not necessarily confirm no immunity...unfortunately it is not clear cut! So a low titre may not actually mean you need to re-vaccinate.

Dogs and cats immune systems are the same as humans...so yes, good point, we dont need repeated vaccinations - so why do dogs?


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

sunshineshelly said:


> Our vets vaccinate our dogs every year but do not give the full booster each time. They vaccinate for lepto every year and the others every 2-3 years which they discussed with me first. They said that lepto wears off after 12 months though and not 6 but will check with that coz their due soon.
> Thanks for the advise though


Thats good to hear about your vets!  but please send the letter to your MP too so that other people in the UK can benefit from this too!

Have a look at the manufacturers data sheets about lepto - you will see that they cannot confirm immunity for as long as 12 months for definite!

And the biggest issue with it is that this is the one that causes most immune-related allergies due to the type of vaccine.

Take a look at the 'Leptospirosis' section of the linked report - makes interesting reading!

I think it is every pet owners right to be able to make the most informed decision possible - the vets dont even give us the documents from the manufacturer that should go with vaccines that tell you what side effects to look out for!


----------



## gesic (Feb 19, 2009)

is this an american study?
Just the uk are way in front of the usa when it comes to vaccinations.
You want to risk your pet not getting those diseases fine, however they are still very much present but thanks to vaccines not so commen.
Titre test...yea proves the pet is immune on the day of the blood test, how about the following day? week? month?
People often say every 12 months is too much....12 months in a dog time span is something like 7 years? thats not too bad is it?
You also may find that most vets dont vaccinate against all diseases every year but lepto has to be topped up every 12 months.
Having seen dogs and cats die from preventable diseases i know what i will be doing.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> I dont have mine annually vacinated, i hate the thought of what is being done the dogs immune system by having them done yearly my vet actually agrees although if i hadnt told her my reasons then ime sure she wouldnt have told me. Its actually the drug companies that say that its nessessary not the vets, soorry if all this has been said in the article i didnt read it,


Yes exactly! They have always said annual vaccinations purely because this is the length of time the studies were carried out for and so they could not confirm longer immunity - so it was suggested to booster annually! Madness really when you think about it!

It is great that you have a clued up vet like this! Please please send the letter to your MP too so that we can get the whole of the UK to adopt this policy!


----------



## sunshineshelly (Jul 8, 2010)

Im happy with every 12 months. All though he loves going there and doesnt mind the injection wouldnt wana take him every 6 months. There are alot of rats round here so atleast he will have some protection, hopefully + he needs it to go it to kennels. Hes never had a reaction and neither have my other 9 dogs that i take so not too worried. Doesnt cost me a thing either which is another good thing coz i take them to Vets4Pets and their on the vac4life deal :thumbup:


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

gesic said:


> is this an american study?
> Just the uk are way in front of the usa when it comes to vaccinations.
> You want to risk your pet not getting those diseases fine, however they are still very much present but thanks to vaccines not so commen.
> Titre test...yea proves the pet is immune on the day of the blood test, how about the following day? week? month?
> ...


I'm with you on this.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

gesic said:


> is this an american study?


the studies are worldwide, as are the guidelines. the report is a UK report.

but immunity, is immunity - dogs and cats in the US and elsewhere in the world do not have different immune systems.

the US and australia have already changed their policies. the UK is slow to follow.

these are not just theories, these are actual statistics that the manufacturers themselves are now confirming in their leaflets that go with their vaccines...ask your vet for the leaflet next time...!

however, as nothing is being publicised and the vets are not being sent new policies by the VMD, they have no great reason to change.

it is not about leaving your pets unprotected - it is the fact that once immune, they are immune! they do not suddenly become not immune to viral diseases! same as in humans...

there is no scientific basis for ANNUAL revaccination.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> Yes exactly! They have always said annual vaccinations purely because this is the length of time the studies were carried out for and so they could not confirm longer immunity - so it was suggested to booster annually! Madness really when you think about it!
> 
> It is great that you have a clued up vet like this! Please please send the letter to your MP too so that we can get the whole of the UK to adopt this policy!


I will dont worry. The last time harvey was at the vets she looked on the computer records and said he wasnt up to date with his vacs when i said why, she just smiled a knowing smile, but not sure that if ide have said for her to vacs him imw sure she would have.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

sunshineshelly said:


> Im happy with every 12 months. All though he loves going there and doesnt mind the injection wouldnt wana take him every 6 months. There are alot of rats round here so atleast he will have some protection, hopefully + he needs it to go it to kennels. Hes never had a reaction and neither have my other 9 dogs that i take so not too worried. Doesnt cost me a thing either which is another good thing coz i take them to Vets4Pets and their on the vac4life deal :thumbup:


the thing i worry about is long-term effects of year after year of unneccesary poisons going into their bodies... surely this has to take its toll somewhere along the line. 

but why revaccinate for the diseases you know they are immune to from previous vaccines - the guidelines that have been released state that it is not necessary and that there are risks with vaccinating? so why would you want to risk it any more than necessary?


----------



## Snuggles (Nov 17, 2008)

katiefranke said:


> Well luckily more and more people are becoming more informed - the problem is that as kennels, groomers, training classes etc are just going on the advice of their vets or even just their current understanding of vaccinations, it means that if you dont want to vaccinate every single year, many do not even accept titre tests!


I can't speak for groomers or training classes but kennels insisting on vaccinations isn't anything to do with vets advice, it's one of the terms of the boarding license set by the local authority.


----------



## gesic (Feb 19, 2009)

Like i said earlier the uk is the world leader when it comes to vaccines.
The usa and similer countries care more about health and safety protocols regarding humans and the pos of being sued. this results in human complience being the number one in importance and the pets health comes further down that list.
Also said earlier, most vets dont over vaccinate they have health records and know which vaccine is due and which isnt.
Parvo is still very common in the uk as is lepto and kennel cough.
At the end of the day these diseases are fatal and yet so preventable with vaccination.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Snuggles said:


> I can't speak for groomers or training classes but kennels insisting on vaccinations isn't anything to do with vets advice, it's one of the terms of the boarding license set by the local authority.


yep but why do they set it in the first place? and if you actually check with the government, they state that it: "_does not have any statutory requirements regarding the vaccination of pets_"

kennels have always been asked to operate as per the licensing requirements of their individual councils. however, until the UK policy changes to be properly in line with the WSAVA vaccination guidelines, rather than an ad hoc adoption of some vets but not all, then nothing will change...


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

My vet reccommends every 3 yrs and Im happy with that.
(my indoor cats just get their initial vacs then a booster at a year, then nothing).


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

gesic said:


> Like i said earlier the uk is the world leader when it comes to vaccines....At the end of the day these diseases are fatal and yet so preventable with vaccination.


Do you know of any UK immunologigsts who have released research on vaccines? I would be interested if you have any as I have not found any in my research to indicate they are world leaders in this?

I am not saying not to vaccinate (neither do the guidelines), just to not vaccinate any more than necessary... as proven by DOI (duration of immunity) studies.

Lepto can be cured by a simple course of antibiotics and the vaccine does not protect against all strains anyway? Plus vaccinated dogs have still contracted it so it doesnt seem like the vaccine works too well to me...


----------



## Snuggles (Nov 17, 2008)

katiefranke said:


> yep but why do they set it in the first place? and if you actually check with the government, they state that it: "_does not have any statutory requirements regarding the vaccination of pets_"


Possibly because with lots of dogs in one area, the risk of diseases spreading is quite high?


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

catz4m8z said:


> My vet reccommends every 3 yrs and Im happy with that.
> (my indoor cats just get their initial vacs then a booster at a year, then nothing).


yes see thats one of the vets who is following the new guidelines, luckily there are becoming more and more - but not all in the UK do and until the VMD change their policy, kennels, training clubs and some vets still follow the old annual principle.

please send the letter to your MP so that all pet owners will have a vet like yours!


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Snuggles said:


> Possibly because with lots of dogs in one area, the risk of diseases spreading is quite high?


oh yes sure with certain things - but with parvo/distemper etc, if they have proven that duration of immunity is much longer, then they only reason that they still require annual vaccs is because the VMD has not publicised new guidelines for the UK to align with worldwide policy.


----------



## gesic (Feb 19, 2009)

uk study....

Animal Health Trust POOCH study - practice overview of canine health

and for further reading...

Do vaccinations cause more illness than they prevent?
As with any medicinal product, whether for human or animal use, an adverse reaction is possible. But serious adverse reactions are exceptionally rare. Pet vaccines are tested thoroughly for both safety and efficacy.

Claims by an anti-vaccine group, that vaccination causes high level of illness, were recently investigated in a independent epidemiological study involving almost 4,000 dogs. There was no evidence to suggest that dogs suffered any increased level of illness after vaccination.

No pet owner is under any legal or other obligation to vaccinate their animals  its something we recommend simply because it offers a significant health benefit: it protects your pet from serious illness.

Are combination vaccines more likely to provoke adverse reactions than single shots?
There is no intrinsic additional risk.

Combination vaccines must be tested as combinations and compared to the single components in respect of both safety and efficacy. There is no evidence to suggest that the combination vaccines currently available for pets are less safe or efficacious than single products.

Again i highlight the fact these diseases that we can protect our pets against ARE in a lot of cases fatal and those who are fortunate enough to survive are often left with life long debilitating conditions.

Please do not be scare mongered into not vaccinating your pets!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

The thing is as well is that dogs are getting other ilnesess that they wouldnt get if their immune system was better, but the vacs are weakening their immune system.


----------



## nfp20 (Jun 29, 2010)

If you want to kennel your dog or cat you have to vaccinate, if you want to keep your pets passport you have to vaccinate. If you want to be responsible then you should if your not going to vaccinate Titre test and vaccinate accordingly.

I would say though that not all vaccines work... I had my pups vaccinated with the Fort Dodge Dappi+lc puppy vaccinations and had no issues with the first but when the pups had the second vaccination my bitches head blew up like a balloon she had a facial odema that required veterinary care (although she could have just been given piriton which would have done the same job). I had her and her litter mates titre tested and the vaccination had not worked as it should have done, the Adenovirus for an example had no coverage whatsoever and other elements were very low so they had to be revaccinated with an alternative puppy vaccine.

I would NEVER recommend that vaccine to puppy owners although it is supposed to give a wider coverage of diseases it has killed and harmed puppies leaving them with long term consequences and after seeing the companies slide show (as a statistician I had to laugh because they know about these issues its more common than they like to admit and they like to bury it) which was full of holes if you know anything about statistics to try and stop me from making a formal complaint.

What you should look out for is when the second vaccination is given within the 24hr -72hr period watch your puppies carefully if they start to swell, become lethargic, anything out of the ordinary go to the vet asap or if you have it in the house give a small dose of piriton. 

I will always give a vaccination because the disease is worse than the cure but I test to make sure that they are working.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

gesic said:


> uk study....


lol, did you notice that the study was sponsored by a vaccine manufacturer??!

by the way, as i said before, nobody is saying not to vaccinate, just to be informed about the actual facts of length of immunity and not to vaccinate unneccesarily - i.e. if it only needs doing every 3 years, then why do we do it annually? this is already common practice in many UK vets, so it is nothing radical or new, but the main VMD policy has not been updated.

the veterinary bodies and vaccine manufacturers themselves are stating that they do not need doing every year now...so why is it people are still vaccinating annually - out of habit? if everything points at vaccinating every 3 years instead you really have to question the motives of the VMD for not updating accordingly...


----------



## nfp20 (Jun 29, 2010)

because of the reminder for vets its a good source of revenue.


----------



## gesic (Feb 19, 2009)

Time in an animals life is different to that of humans.
We have long accepted that different animals age at different rates...in dogs the average human year is 7 dog years approx.
If that is the case and most vets vaccinate against some diseases annually and other every 36 months then in dog years it is once every 7 years and once every 21 years....that doesnt sound so bad now does it?
As for vaccines weakening immune systems...i dont think u can pile all the blame on over vaccination?
What about bad breeding, bad feeding, enviromental issues so on and so forth.
Yes the i know the vaccine manufacturers did the study....to me they are the experts in immunology.
As for the revenue....u dont just get a vaccine u should also get a thorough annual ck over, looking at mouth,teeth, eyes, nose, ears coat, weight, any lumps, bottoms and bits heart, resp and temp....not bad really!


----------



## cavmad (Jan 27, 2009)

I didnt think that a dog needed thier yearly jabs until March this year when my 18mnth chi died of Parvo He had had his 2 jabs as a puppy but i hadnt done the one this year i didnt think he needed it.I have learnt the hard way that they do need yearly jabs and i will never leave my dogs un jabbed again until it is proved they dont need it. I had 6 weeks worrying about my other dogs and still cant have people with unvacinated dogs on my property as the germ can lie dormant for ages.I couldnt take my dogs out for those 6 weekks and nobody with un jabbed dogs could visit me.The worst thing is i killed Ike with my stupidity and that will never leave me he was so young and should be here with me.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

gesic said:


> Yes the i know the vaccine manufacturers did the study....to me they are the experts in immunology.


but gesic, thats what I am saying - the *manufacturers *themselves that you think are the experts in all this are not even disagreeing with the new length of immunity studies!

the report you quoted is to do with side effects which i think we all have to admit is going to be biased if produced in conjunction with the manufactuers...but that is a different issue altogether.

if you actually put aside the side-effects (and we are not just talking immediate reactions by the way - but long-lasting issues, diseases, and allergies) then *the fact still remains that leading immunologists, including *vets, veterinary bodies and *the vaccine manufacturers themselves have agreed that the new world guidelines should state the latest research findings which are no more regularly than every 3 years!!*

It is the UK vets that are not aligned - some are following this new research - some are sticking to the old tried and tested policy out of habit (and if you want to be cynical, out of concern for their income)... the VMD needs to standardise their guidelines, as per what the American and Australian vet associations have done...


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

cavmad said:


> I didnt think that a dog needed thier yearly jabs until March this year when my 18mnth chi died of Parvo


I am sorry to hear that - it is therefore likely that the initial puppy vaccs did not take unfortunately.

thats why many vets do not advocate just vaccinating, but actually vaccinating and 10 days later titre testing. this then confirms that the vaccination worked. there are many reasons for vaccinations not taking unfortunately - could be given too early and mothers antibodies interferred, could be because there was an issue with the dogs immune system etc...

It is actually extremely rare for an adult unvaccinated dog to contract and die of parvo - even rarer for a previously (successfully) vaccinated dog - so unfortunately you were in that small tragic minority.



cavmad said:


> i will never leave my dogs un jabbed again until it is proved they dont need it.


the thing is though, it HAS been proven...thats what my whole post is about! nobody is suggesting not vaccinating, but to do so based on the actual proven facts of duration of immunity.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

To be honest I will prob still vac for a good while yet, My area and the place i walk the dogs has alot of Parvo its gone around 3 seperate times already in 6months and i know atleast 12 dogs that have had it and two deaths for non-vac dogs. 

Also the money side of it, Insurence if one of the dogs got something that is covered in the vacs in then covered by my insurence were as if i do not vac i need to pay the poss ££££ for the vet treatment (a friends parvo treatment on a un-vac dog was £1.2k) This isnt money i have available to my self.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

gesic said:


> uk study....
> 
> Animal Health Trust POOCH study - practice overview of canine health
> 
> ...


I have to agree with your last statement i would never say dont vaccinate your pets mine are vaccinated but not every year and as pups have had all puppy jabs and vacs for the first 2 annuals


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> I have to agree with your last statement i would never say dont vaccinate your pets mine are vaccinated but not every year and as pups have had all puppy jabs and vacs for the first 2 annuals


well i agree too - nobody should let anybody scare them one way or the other. i doubt anybody is being scared into NOT vaccinating - quite the opposite...thats the whole point of this.

Nobody has said dont vaccinate - i think I have said this every post in reply to gesic!! lol, the study does not say do not vaccinate, neither do the vets, or the report, or me!

The whole point is - be aware of when you should really be vaccinating - be aware of the latest findings on this - be aware that your vet may not be up to date with the current research - and *be aware that the vaccine manufacturers themselves even state that vaccinations are not licensed to be given to a dog or cat if they are already sick.*


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

gesic said:


> is this an american study?
> Just the uk are way in front of the usa when it comes to vaccinations.
> You want to risk your pet not getting those diseases fine, however they are still very much present but thanks to vaccines not so commen.
> Titre test...yea proves the pet is immune on the day of the blood test, how about the following day? week? month?
> ...


absolutely.

there are several things in the OP that are just not right. Since when was leptospirosis not a risk and why on earth would the government keep a record of it!
It is carried by rats and as rats can be anywhere dogs are at risk. Humans are at risk too and do get it and do die of it - again why would the government keep records. Cattle on many farms are routinely tested to see if they are infected because infected rats will infect them. Farm workers etc get infected by getting rats urine on their hands and then eating their sandwiches and infecting themselves.

Dogs need vaccinating annually against lepto therefore need to go to the vet annually for a booster. The vet will not vaccinate against other disease annually and kennels etc will obviously accept that the dog is fully vaccinated when it has had its annual booster entered into its vaccination certificate.

Distemper vaccine does NOT last 8 years. Risk it if you like but dont come crying on here when there is a local epidemic and your 'vaccinated' dog dies. Because it will happen, I have seen it happen to a great number of dogs.

I cant imagine why anyone would want to put their dogs lives at risk because of anti vaccination propaganda.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> why on earth would the government keep a record of it!


because they keep a record of instances of zoonotic diseases, expecially ones that are apparently so prevalent that they need vaccines and because if they are claiming outbreaks, how would they be able to state this if they have no figures recorded?



Blitz said:


> Dogs need vaccinating annually against lepto therefore need to go to the vet annually for a booster. The vet will not vaccinate against other disease annually and kennels etc will obviously accept that the dog is fully vaccinated when it has had its annual booster entered into its vaccination certificate.


But that is exactly the point of this - many vets are still vaccinating for ALL diseases annually, as the general UK guidelines have not been updated in line with the duration of immunity that has been proven. so they want to get it updated so that all vets are consistent with confirming that parvo, distemper etc are to be given no more than every three years.



Blitz said:


> Distemper vaccine does NOT last 8 years.


Again, the guidelines that I refer to state no more than every 3 years as the guideline - and many kennels I have checked with in my area still require ALL diseases to be up to date - when I asked what up to date meant, they said within the last year for all of them!

The 8 years I quoted is what they have determined for all viral diseases. But as I said, guidelines are saying every 3 years which is what is being suggested here.

The point is that there is no consistent guideline on this...that is the whole point of the petition - getting the VMD to update the guidelines/policy so that it is in line with the 3 year vaccination so that ALL vets, kennels, groomers, training clubs etc will be asking for one consistent thing...


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

By the way, for those that doubt the credentials of the WSAVA and their vaccination group that have produced the guidelines on vaccination frequency etc, please see here: World Small Animal Veterinary Association - WSAVA - Vaccination Guidelines Group

gesic - you mentioned the UK is far advanced re vaccines - Dr Michael Day (Uni of Bristol, UK) is actually chair of the committee. It also includes:

Professor Ron Schultz (University of Wisconsin Maddison, USA) who also sits on the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccination Committee

and Professor Marian Horzinek (formerly of Utrecht University, The Netherlands) who is chair of the European Advisory Board on Cat Diseases.

"Collectively, the VGG has extensive academic expertise in microbiology, immunology and vaccinology."


----------



## Joolz1975 (May 17, 2010)

I will be vaccinating my pup when I get him and he will get his boosters annually.

I don't know what's right or wrong in all this but what I do know is that if I didn't have my dog vaccinated and he died of some awful disease that may have been prevented then I'd never forgive myself! 

Too many dogs around me that havnt been vaccinated for me to risk it!


----------



## gesic (Feb 19, 2009)

These studies show that only in some an immune response may last 8 years, the majority it is around 3 years.
You cannot tell by looking at an animal if its immune system is fully covered. Yes u can titre test however it will not tell you how long that immunity will last....in order for that u would have to blood test every few days.
Most vets do not annually vaccinate against everything....lepto and parvo yes every 12 months....kennel cough yes 12 months.
their are other factors that can and do affect immunity, like enviromental challenge, age, medications etc.
I am fully confident in my vet and will be vaccinating my dog this week.
And the antibiotics for lepto....tell that to a friend of mine whos dog contracted lepto and died despite veterinary attention within 4 days of becoming ill. A very sudden and horrible way to die.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

gesic said:


> These studies show that only in some an immune response may last 8 years, the majority it is around 3 years.


But that is what I am saying - I mention that some studies have shown the 8 years thing - but I also state that the guidelines are recommending every 3 years (this is more to be on the safe side than anything)...I never stated anything different.



gesic said:


> You cannot tell by looking at an animal if its immune system is fully covered. Yes u can titre test however it will not tell you how long that immunity will last....in order for that u would have to blood test every few days.


well no, thats the point of the DOI research they have done. you titre test 10 days after the vaccine - and then you know the vaccine has worked. You know that immunity will not run out the next day - as the extensive research that has been carried out to confirm duration of immunity tells you that it will last for a very long time - and so the guidelines now state every 3 years for the main DHHP vaccines (as they know it lasts longer so by saying 3 years they are covered and everyone is happy).



gesic said:


> Most vets do not annually vaccinate against everything....


thats where you are wrong - many do still vaccinate against all! there was even a thread on here a while back about it where there were many vets who did - even my parents vet (my old vet) still push annual vaccs for all! this is the whole point of this WSAVA group - they need to communicate this more widely as not everywhere has adopted it and the UK VMD have not updated their policy accordingly.

Because of this, many kennels etc are still asking for ALL diseases to be up to date (i.e. within the last 12 months) not just lepto etc.

It is clearly up to you what you do re vaccs - but I do find it odd that you seem to be arguing with me and yet what you say is actually agreeing with me and the main point of this thread which - i.e. the main vaccines do not need doing annually, they should be done every three years.

The main point that I have made in the inital thread and in all subsequent ones is that the UK need to update their guidelines/policy in line with the WSAVA guidelines so that ALL vets (and therefore councils, kennels, groomers, training clubs etc) adopt the same policy - booster of all core vaccines no more then every 3 years.

Dont you agree that it is stupid that lots of vets may be giving them every 3 years but many are still doing annual and because they do not know any better, many kennels, clubs etc want them every year too?!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

There is no doubt that the practice of yearly vaccinations should be questioned.

Some of you may have seen my other thread about my friends dog and the problems he is having  - the symptoms for his problem started almost immediately after his booster  coincidence? I am guessing we will never know.

The full immunity from the vaccines actually lasts (according to the vets) around 18 months, so if you return within that period for a vaccine, you are OK - it is only after this you need to start them again. (I am only aware of this because two of my bitches had litters over the period their boosters were due and needless to say, didn't have them at that point).

Having said all that - be VERY careful about taking the decision into your own hands - many insurance policies become invalid if the dog isn't up to date with their jabs and I would hate to see anyone caught out at a time when they needed it because of something that has raised questions on a forum - so before making any such decisions, read the small print in your insurance policy, and ring if you feel it necessary.

Also, think about how you would feel if your dog was left permanently scarred or died as a result of contracting a preventable condition.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

swarthy said:


> The full immunity from the vaccines actually lasts (according to the vets) around 18 months, so if you return within that period for a vaccine, you are OK - it is only after this you need to start them again. (I am only aware of this because two of my bitches had litters over the period their boosters were due and needless to say, didn't have them at that point).


Of course - anyone considering changing their vacc schedule should obviously discuss it all with their vets.

Just a point on the restarting thing - thats another thing that differs you see - some vets say you need the initial puppy ones again and some dont.

The new guidelines state you do not - the basis for this is that the only reason two are given initially is because the mothers anitbodies that the pups carry may mean that the first one doesnt work... so when vaccinating an adult dog there is no basis for this. Hope that makes sense.

Anyway, just goes to show again that there is a big difference of opinion from one vet to the next and there really needs to be one set standard that is based on scientific research and not on what the vets have always done.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> Anyway, just goes to show again that there is a big difference of opinion from one vet to the next and there really needs to be one set standard that is based on scientific research and not on what the vets have always done.


Although I have a vague recollection that dogs weren't vaccinated regularly when I was a kid (vague being the operative word it was a long time ago )


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

Great post Katie, And something I have been trying to hammer home since the first time I was her!

You sure have a way of making it sound better though!! so hoping it gets through!

Note lepto is mentioned in there, myself I would NEVER miss that out annualy as we walk near the river a lot and the dogs are always in the water!

DT


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> My vet reccommends every 3 yrs and Im happy with that.
> (my indoor cats just get their initial vacs then a booster at a year, then nothing).


It's a tough one!
My moggie is 21 & never had a vaccination in her life, she's been to the vet twice in her life...once to be speyed, then 2 weeks ago as I thought even though she appears in good health it was time for a once over...the vet was very happy with her,

A for my dogs i do vaccinate every year but my last vet recommended every 2 years. However my insurance cover is not valid if they are not up to date with vaccinations so even if the original post facts are prooved correct because of kennel rules,insurance,dog clubs etc we will all still have to do it annually.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

All good and well but if we miss our booster by 2 weeks we have to do the starter 2 vaccines all over again. More money, more stress for the dog, more upset all round.

Our vets stresses at us if we miss it by a few days and we have been told 2 weeks is the max. We even had to have Scorcher re-vaccinated with the puppy injections because we missed her booster.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

thereasa said:


> It's a tough one!
> My moggie is 21 & never had a vaccination in her life, she's been to the vet twice in her life...once to be speyed, then 2 weeks ago as I thought even though she appears in good health it was time for a once over...the vet was very happy with her,
> 
> A for my dogs i do vaccinate every year but my last vet recommended every 2 years. *However my insurance cover is not valid if they are not up to date with vaccinations so even if the original post facts are prooved correct because of kennel rules,insurance,dog clubs etc we will all still have to do it annually*.


I would prefer to vacinate every 2 or 3 years - however for the same reasons as you I do them every year, If I ever need to kennel or board them they need up to date vaccinations. I'm also planning on getting my 2 pet passports so need to keep vac's up to date plus I don't want to invalidate my insurance.
I't needs everyone to change their policies not just the vets.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2010)

Fleur said:


> I would prefer to vacinate every 2 or 3 years - however for the same reasons as you I do them every year, If I ever need to kennel or board them they need up to date vaccinations. I'm also planning on getting my 2 pet passports so need to keep vac's up to date plus I don't want to invalidate my insurance.
> I't needs everyone to change their policies not just the vets.


I actually would love to only have vacs when necessary and not annual, but we won't be allowed in the hydro pool, so I am being forced to continue


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

rona said:


> I actually would love to only have vacs when necessary and not annual, but we won't be allowed in the hydro pool, so I am being forced to continue


see this is excactly the reason we all need the VMD to update their details! please everyone - you must send in a letter to your MP.

seriously if you read the info on WSAVA website you will see what i mean - this is not just speculation, this is actual fact that parvo etc (the main multiple vaccine they get for core diseases) only needs to be done every 3 years...and many vets have already changed to this way because it is backed up with science.

if the UK VMD update their policy and it is publicised, then the places like kennels, the groomers, the hydo pool etc etc will not need to require annual, as they are only going along with their council policies, which in turn are basing their info on the VMD policy!

as for insurance - same again - most policies say they will not cover any disease which could have been prevented by vaccination - they still cover everything else. plus they say they have to be up to date - but again they go by the VMD policy...so 'up to date' would mean the core vaccines every 3 years and lepto annually in high risk areas.

having read into this lately I am disgusted that the VMD have not updated their policies yet as it means we are all being forced to vaccinate annually for ALL diseases if we want to make use of any of these services - when there is no scientific basis for it!!


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

shetlandlover said:


> All good and well but if we miss our booster by 2 weeks we have to do the starter 2 vaccines all over again. More money, more stress for the dog, more upset all round.
> 
> Our vets stresses at us if we miss it by a few days and we have been told 2 weeks is the max. We even had to have Scorcher re-vaccinated with the puppy injections because we missed her booster.


hey shetlandlover -see this is another misconception - there is no scientific basis for having to have the double one and starting again! it is insane that some vets still do this. see my post above...the only reason the puppy vaccs are given in this way is to ensure the initial ones work in case mothers immunity destroys the first. so there is absolutely no need for an adult dog to have this - especially when they are now saying that it is every 3 years as they wouldnt be out of immunity anyway by that rationale!

ALL vets in this country need one common policy - it is terrible that they are allowed to just all have their own policies on it when we are dealing with the health of our animals!


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I've said before I'm all for titre testing. IMHO from the biology behind immunity it will not fluctuate much from day to day at all. If a dog has strong immunity one day, their body will still be capable of this the next week, its just a matter of there may be less memory cells and thus the actual immunity isn't showing as strongly as the body is actually capable of, but vets do bear this in mind which is how they decide which level of immunity is enough depending on the disease in question. If a dog has been in a parvo ridden area and has more antibodies when titre tested for parvo due to this, the immunity is actually likely to be higher for a while to come than if the dog had not come into contact with parvo, purely because the body has been stimulated into producing antibodies meaning it is likely there will be more memory cells with the antibodies for parvo in the body. If the dog did not come into contact the memory cells would not have been stimulated and would have declined in number over time which would cause a decrease in immunity.

Roo had his boosters last year because his immunity was considerably poor in a couple of areas. He is due for his boosters around October time, I think I'll get him titred about mid September, if the results are OK get him titred again start of November when the vaccines are past being due, and then get him tested at least every 6 months, if the immunity appears to be dropping rapidly then I'll get him tested every 3 months.

I will not vaccinate every year unless the titre results show I need too, however *I would also never not vaccinate just because I think I don't need to*. I think that is on par with just vaccinating and that unless there is some vague evidence you need to vaccinate or not vaccinate, you should do neither. I would always titre test, its the most accurate test we have and doesn't cost too much so I will take advantage of that.

With titre testing its not they are or are not immune, its a matter of their immunity is this strong, do you and your vet feel that is good enough, do you want to do another test in a couple months or do you want to vaccinate.


----------



## Mum2Alfie (Jan 4, 2010)

Wow thanks for that, great post! :thumbup: 

My 2 are due soon, but now might wait. Or might just give them this one, then do it every 3 years.


----------



## Twiggy (Jun 24, 2010)

My vet has refused to yearly vaccinate my girls since about 1990. At the moment they get the full jab every four years and lepto etc every two years. By the time they get to 8/9 years old, he looks at their certificates and says they are swimming in the stuff!!

But then he is a very moral man who puts the animals first.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Twiggy said:


> My vet has refused to yearly vaccinate my girls since about 1990. At the moment they get the full jab every four years and lepto etc every two years. By the time they get to 8/9 years old, he looks at their certificates and says they are swimming in the stuff!!
> 
> But then he is a very moral man who puts the animals first.


I wish I had a vet like yours - please, please send the letter off (linked from my intial post) to your MP too so that everyone in the country can have a vet with a good policy rather than being allowed to force annual boosters!!


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> I wish I had a vet like yours - please, please send the letter off (linked from my intial post) to your MP too so that everyone in the country can have a vet with a good policy rather than being allowed to force annual boosters!!


sent letter as requested & a copy to my vet:thumbup:


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

I don't vaccinate past puppyhood, and now my boy has Pancreatitis I never, ever will.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

thereasa said:


> sent letter as requested & a copy to my vet:thumbup:


Thank you so much theresa - please do post back on here or PM me to let me know the response you get! :thumbup:


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Jesi said:


> I don't vaccinate past puppyhood, and now my boy has Pancreatitis I never, ever will.


oh no thats horrible to hear, so sorry...is your vet ok with it or do they still try and get you to vaccinate?

I have found that even when my sisters cat was diagnosed with early stage kidney failure they wanted her to vaccinate still - and ANNUALLY!!! crazy...

The vaccines are actually not even licensed to be given to animals that are sick...in fact they have disclaimers on them to say so - but it is very rare that the vets provide the leaflet to us as owners


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> oh no thats horrible to hear, so sorry...is your vet ok with it or do they still try and get you to vaccinate?
> 
> I have found that even when my sisters cat was diagnosed with early stage kidney failure they wanted her to vaccinate still - and ANNUALLY!!! crazy..


It's never come up in conversation really, even before the PC. Once it did and he said there wasn't anything going around at the moment anyway, so I took that to mean he was ok with it lol

I have changed vets recently so I guess I'll see if they mention it. I'm going back soon for more blood tests, so I'll see if it comes up. 

If it does I will just politely refuse.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Twiggy said:


> My vet has refused to yearly vaccinate my girls since about 1990. At the moment they get the full jab every four years and lepto etc every two years. By the time they get to 8/9 years old, he looks at their certificates and says they are swimming in the stuff!!
> 
> But then he is a very moral man who puts the animals first.


I dont think he is a very moral man who puts animals first - I would say he is taking a terrible risk with other peoples pets.

Vets vary because they use different makes of vaccines produced by different drug companies with different guidelines. If they do not stick to the recommendations and a dog was to get one of the vaccinated diseases then the vet would be liable.

Our vet changed makes a few years ago so that they could start vaccinating less often, though lepto does not last 2 years so rather silly to cut that down.
I had already chosen to only vaccinate against lepto annually and I can assure you my vets did not try and make me restart the course when I took my dog back for a full booster every third year.

A while back they offered an amnesty on lapsed vaccinations and gave the full course for the price of one which helped get older dogs back to their full status.

I really cannot understand anyone not vaccinating their dogs in the same I cannot understand anyone not vaccinating their children, it seems such a stupid risk to take. I suppose so many people are of an age where they do not remember a percentage of puppies and young dogs dying and the same with babies and young children. Then suddenly the deaths stopped when vaccinations started and the diseases were cut down on, but how long would they take to come back if everyone had this irresponsible attitude to vaccinations.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I really cannot understand anyone not vaccinating their dogs in the same I cannot understand anyone not vaccinating their children, it seems such a stupid risk to take.


I guess each to their own with the decisions they make for their pets and children.

I personally do not understand why people would choose to do anything with vaccinations without knowing the full story - whether it is vaccinating or not vaccinating - i believe we should all understand the pros and cons and make our choice based on knowledge & logic. Whatever decision someone makes, at least then they know the full responsibility that they are taking on.

But just to reiterate, the new vacination protocols/guidelines do not suggest not vaccinating - they simply state new frequency guidelines, which have been created with manufacturers agreement - based on duration of immunity studies that have been carried out.

The new guidelines simply state that core vaccines do not need to be given any more then every three years. So this is to say dogs would have puppy vaccs, their first booster a year later, then every three years after that.

Although some would also say this is debatable, at least this is better than some vets still insisting on annual vaccs for all diseases plus double injection courses for 'restarting' vaccs...


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

I thought people might find these of info:
*Intervet (the animal health arm of Shering-Plough, a Merck corportation company), the maker of one of the most popular vaccines for distemper, hepatitis, parvovirus and parainfluenza (Nobivac DHPPi) state the following on their website:*


> _*Does a single vaccination protect my pet for life?*
> Each pet responds differently. Legally, the manufacturer's authorisation to sell the vaccine and the recommendations for its use are based on the minimum period of protection for any animal vaccinated with the product in question.
> 
> Major studies have already been carried out to determine whether this minimum period can be extended. As a result, some vaccines are now licensed to protect pets for up to three years against some diseases._


And from their product literature on the vaccine:


> _Just like human vaccines, the immunity provided by each vaccine will wane and we recommend your dog is boosted every three years to maintain optimum protection against distemper, hepatits and parvo virus infection._


This is also a very interesting section of the product leaflet:
*Contra-indications, warnings, etc.*


> _"Only healthy dogs should be vaccinated."_





> _"Animals that have received immunosuppressive drugs should not be vaccinated until an interval of at least 4 weeks has elapsed."_


 (so this would include any dog receiving for example steroid treatment for allergies - Maggie was given a steroid shot following a severe bout of colitis and yet they wanted to carry out her boosters the following week!)

Intervet also provide information about vaccination reactions and what to do in the event of a reaction - except I have never known anyone to have been given the product literature on their vaccines to be able to read this information.

Again off the Intervet website:


> _*Why do puppies and kittens receive two doses of vaccine?*
> Maternal immunity is conferred on the puppy or kitten in its mother's first milk. This declines over the first few weeks, but while levels remain high this can interfere with the efficacy of the vaccine. Two doses ensure early protection against disease if this acquired maternal immunity is inadequate and also aims to provide a smooth transition from maternal to vaccinal protection. The potential for an "immunity gap" when puppies and kittens could prove susceptible to infection is thereby minimised. _


And this is info for kennels and catteries - and yet I know of at least 4 that do not follow this in my area and instead still insist on everything to be annual:


> _ *Extended duration of immunity*
> In recent years, some vaccines for dogs have been able to extend the duration of immunity to three years for canine parvovirus, infectious canine hepatitis, canine distemper and rabies components. For cats the duration of immunity for panleucopaenia of some vaccines has been extended to three years. So, if an animal has been vaccinated for one of these, re-vaccination against these diseases will be due 36 months later, not 12 months later._


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

And another one for - *Virbac, another of the popular vaccine-makers in the UK (i.e. Canigen DHPPi) state the following on their product literature:*



> _ A duration of immunity of at least three years has been established for the canine distemper virus, canine adenovirus and canine parvovirus vaccine components.
> 
> *Primary Course Vaccination:*
> A single injection should establish active immunity to canine distemper, infectious canine hepatitis and disease caused by canine parvovirus infection in dogs of 10 weeks of age or older.
> ...


And again from their product literature on the contra-indications, warnings, etc:


> _ Only healthy dogs should be vaccinated.
> Animals that have received immunosuppressive drugs should not be vaccinated until an interval of at least 4 weeks has elapsed._


As per Intervet, Virbac also provide information about vaccination reactions and what to do in the event of a reaction  except as above, I have never known anyone to have been given the product literature on their vaccines to be able to read this information.

...interesting don't you think?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I've emailed my local MP - I'll let you know if I hear anything back.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Fleur said:


> I've emailed my local MP - I'll let you know if I hear anything back.


Thank you! :thumbup:


----------



## pickle (Mar 24, 2008)

Forgive me if this was brought up before, I have not read every post, bit tired, but did anyone mention the fact that vets insist on starting a new course of vacs if you miss the deadline date for the annual booster? This is what is so annoying, if I wanted my dogs booster, lets say 3 yearly, then my vet would say the dog would start from scratch (so to speak).


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

another thing is that it costs intervet approximately £1.75 to produce nobivac DHPPI...which they sell to the vets for approximately £4.00 so why does it cost me £25 just for the vet to do it.:
Yes they get a brief health check & a signed vaccination card, but it is not however illegal to purchase your own vaccs


----------



## alphadog (Jan 29, 2009)

Apologies in advance if I'm repeating other posts - not read all of them I confess

Several years ago my friends attended a seminar on just this topic. He is a leading animal behaviourist, she is a respected forensic scientist. After listening to all the information, she asked one question....

'why is it that dogs need an annual vaccination booster when humans do not, when both species are, afterall, vertibrates?'

They floundered at this question and couldn't offer a sound answer


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

gesic said:


> i know the vaccine manufacturers did the study....to me they are the experts in immunology.


Do you think makers of pedigree, bakers, wagg etc are the experts in animal nutrition?

If pedigree did a study that low and behold showed us that pedigree chum is THE best dog food on the market, would you believe it? No you'd roll your eyes and see it for the crap it was.

Manufacturers are looking at one thing and one thing only - how much cash they can make. Do you honestly think there is a single world wide corporation that gives a flying hoot if our dogs are properly vaccinated? As long as we've paid the cash for the vaccine, they're happy, we could inject our pets with banana milkshake for all they care.

Sorry, don't mean to rant, it's just that people seem to think manufacturers care about things besides their wallets.

As for the vac, to be honest I've long since thought yearly vacs aren't needed. But I do take mine in for vac because the insurance policy requires it.

Plus it's something that's been drummed into me since I got my first dog at age 2. So a little hard to shake. Also, I've been unfortunate enough to see my cousin lose her dog to parvo after missing a booster. Yes it could have zip to do with that, but I think when you lump all those together I'm not sure I'd actually have the bottle not to get their boosters.

The governing bodies need to let it been known, and have it backed up by vets that some vacs don't need to be done yearly. Reassuring the public would go along way to people not over vaccinating. Trouble being, vets wont do that because it'll dent their profits.


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> I guess each to their own with the decisions they make for their pets and children.
> 
> I personally do not understand why people would choose to do anything with vaccinations without knowing the full story - whether it is vaccinating or not vaccinating - i believe we should all understand the pros and cons and make our choice based on knowledge & logic. Whatever decision someone makes, at least then they know the full responsibility that they are taking on.


If I could, I'd rep you for that. Too many pet owners blindly follow vets advice or advertising, old wives tales, friends etc when they really should be finding out for themselves. Getting all the knowledge they can to make an informed decision about what's best for THEIR pet.

I wonder how many people go to a doctors and get an injection without asking the doctor what's in the needle?

But I bet millions do it when taking their pet to the vets.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

pickle said:


> Forgive me if this was brought up before, I have not read every post, bit tired, but did anyone mention the fact that vets insist on starting a new course of vacs if you miss the deadline date for the annual booster? This is what is so annoying, if I wanted my dogs booster, lets say 3 yearly, then my vet would say the dog would start from scratch (so to speak).


yep a few people mentioned this - well there is no basis for 'restarting' the DHHP ones. take a look at the manufacturers instructions for two of the most common ones I posted (links below) - they state that the puppy ones are only given two because of maternal antibofy inteference and that adults only need ONE shot to develop immunity.

Intervet: http://www.petforums.co.uk/1696442-post62.html

Virbac: http://www.petforums.co.uk/1696538-post63.html

Lepto is different, but this one is given annally anyway.

So any vets that are insisting on this are VERY wrong as they are practicing outside of the license and direction of the manufacturers - so if there was any adverse effect from them, there would be absolutely no come-back to the manufacturer...

...this is why it is SO important to get the VMD rules updated in this country so that every vet must practice within the correct guidelines.

I would urge you to show your vet the vaccine manufacturers product leaflet and point this out to them!

Please please send a letter to your MP to get this looked at!! Without us all pushing for this, nothing will change and we will be forced to subject our pets to more vaccines than necessary just out of ignorance or old habits of vets! 



katiefranke said:


> Please download the letter to send to your MP - Write to your MP - Stop the Shots - NOW
> 
> Non-UK residents, you can still help - please send the letter to send to the UK Chief Veterinary Officer: Non-uk residents - Stop the Shots - NOW


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

alphadog said:


> Apologies in advance if I'm repeating other posts - not read all of them I confess
> 
> Several years ago my friends attended a seminar on just this topic. He is a leading animal behaviourist, she is a respected forensic scientist. After listening to all the information, she asked one question....
> 
> ...


well yes, this is actually my opinion completely - but baby steps hey??  lets get the rules updated to at least be in line with the manufaccturers guidelines and the world small animal veterinary association guidelines first...then tackle the bigger issue next! you can already see the push back from people even over this change, and yet it is what is being called for by the vaccine manufacturers themselves by their own leaflets!!! 

I think it is disgraceful that the VMD have not updated their policy in line with the manufacturers guidelines at the very least!

Please please help the cause too!



katiefranke said:


> Please download the letter to send to your MP - Write to your MP - Stop the Shots - NOW
> 
> Non-UK residents, you can still help - please send the letter to send to the UK Chief Veterinary Officer: Non-uk residents - Stop the Shots - NOW


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Lyceum said:


> The governing bodies need to let it been known, and have it backed up by vets that some vacs don't need to be done yearly. Reassuring the public would go along way to people not over vaccinating. Trouble being, vets wont do that because it'll dent their profits.


Good post and many are in the same situation, we have all had it drummed into us, so we dont know what to do!

I have had enough with all the deceit around this - its terrible! To be honest, nobody can expect the manufacturers to do more than they are, as they are a business and why should they publicise the change in policy and guidelines more widely? They are already state clear instructions on how frequent to booster and Intervet even have a dedicated section on their website to inform people! But the real culprits here are the UK VMD, as they are meant to be an independant body (ha ha! excuse me while i cough) and they have been found to be seriously lacking here!

If the manufacturers themselves are stating 3 years, the WSAVA vaccination task force (made up of worldwide leading immunologists, vaccinoligist etc - see full credentials here: http://www.petforums.co.uk/1693941-post37.html) are stating this - then what possible reason do the UK VMD now have for not updating their policy? Greed! Sorry but after this amount of dragging their heels with something this important I have no faith in their view being independant to any extent any longer...

Thats why it is so important we all send letters to our MPs to get this looked at! Its crazy when you look at the information out there!

Please help us change this for the better so we all have a consistent set of rules that all vets must follow:


katiefranke said:


> Please download the letter to send to your MP - Write to your MP - Stop the Shots - NOW
> 
> Non-UK residents, you can still help - please send the letter to send to the UK Chief Veterinary Officer: Non-uk residents - Stop the Shots - NOW


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> And another one for - *Virbac, another of the popular vaccine-makers in the UK (i.e. Canigen DHPPi) state the following on their product literature:*
> 
> And again from their product literature on the contra-indications, warnings, etc:
> 
> ...


are you given the product leaflet when you get your tetanus vaccination? of course not, the leaflet is there for the vet.

Also all your quotes about 3 yearly boosters state that 'some' vaccines last that long. Not every drug company is giving out the same guidelines and as I said before the vet has to follow the guidelines for the make of vaccine they are using.
At one point our vet was using one that stated the pup had to be 18 weeks before being vaccinated. This was ridiculous as it meant that pups were not being socialised, but though the vet was against it they had to stick to the drug company's recommendations. Other makes were being given at 10 weeks.


----------



## michaelasi (Oct 29, 2009)

This article is meant to inform you of research, opinions, and personal reflections that might be useful to you in determining a disease prevention program for your pet. It is educational in nature, and is not intended as veterinary advice. The author cannot be held responsible for any unfavorable results from the use of this information. Readers should seek professional veterinary advice for any health decisions involving their pets.

Annual shots: Many veterinarians insist on them, boarding kennels and groomers require them, and keeping "current" on vaccinations has become one of the hallmarks of responsible pet ownership. But are they really necessary? And are they safe?

In recent years, these questions have risen to the forefront of veterinary medicine, and it's more common than it used to be for pet owners as well as veterinarians to be struggling with them. I also wish I could tell you that there is a concensus about the answers to these questions, based on science and research; there isn't. All I can tell you is that ultimately, no matter what your veterinarian suggests, or what I believe, or what you read as you research this issue, this is your decision to make.

Are Vaccines Really Harmful?
Some have attributed every ill of the canine and feline pet populations, from allergies to arthritis to severe immune system breakdowns, to excessive use of vaccines. Others, most notably vaccine manufacturers, insist the vaccines are harmless and that the benefits outweigh the risks. Where does the truth lie?

A few years ago, the Colorado State University School of Veterinary Medicine became the first veterinary college to issue a vaccination schedule that recommended against annual vaccinations. In their new protocol they wrote, "We are making this change after years of concern about the lack of scientific evidence to support the current practice of annual vaccination and the increasing documentation that over vaccinating has been associated with harmful side effects. Of particular note in this regard has been the association of autoimmune hemolytic anemia with vaccination in dogs and vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats...both of which are often fatal."

There is some evidence to suggest to even the most ardent vaccine supporter that there are risks to vaccination. In cats, there is an alarming incidence of injection site sarcomas, an aggressive and often fatal cancer. In dogs, there is a correlation between autoimmune hemolytic anemia and vaccination (Dodds, 1985; Duval and Giger, 1996), and an ongoing study at Purdue University has found that vaccinated dogs, but not unvaccinated controls, have formed antibodies to their own cells (Larry T. Glickman, DVM, "Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Vaccination," Advances in Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 41, 2001). Immunocompromised dogs vaccinated for canine distemper have been reported to develop post-vaccinal encephalitis (Meyer, "Vaccine Associated Adverse Events," Veterinary Clinics of North America, May 2001). Dogs with inhalant allergies are known to worsen after vaccination (Frick and Brooks, 1983).

According to leading canine vaccine researcher Dr. Ronald Schultz, Chair of the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, and editor of the textbook Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics, "It is becoming increasingly more evident that it is no longer true to say, 'Well, even if the vaccine doesn't help, it won't hurt.' There are some canine vaccination programs that have no scientific justification that may have the potential of causing harm."

So What Do You Do?
I know we'd all like to think we can put a magic barrier around our animals that will protect them from all disease and have 100 percent effectiveness and no risk. The closest you'll ever get to that is to build a barrier of radiant good health, which comes from excellent breeding practices, never suppressing disease symptoms, and excellent holistic husbandry including diet, environment, exercise, and TLC.

In the real world, such a barrier will never be perfect. We have to accept some risk in one direction or another.

Those who don't vaccinate at all must accept the risk that the animals in our care might get sick from an infectious disease; with puppies, the risk is great that they will die, and even if they live, they might have lingering effects from the disease, and the vet bills (and feelings of guilt) might be considerable. Those who do vaccinate must accept the risks of side effects, allergic reactions, vaccine failures, cancer, and autoimmune disease.

Everyone has to educate themselves the best they can, weigh the risks vs. benefits, and come to their own decision. If what you want is zero risk and all benefit, it doesn't exist and you will never find it.

Am I saying vaccines are harmless? No. I think they do a lot of harm. I manage to believe that while still knowing and acknowledging that they are also effective in protecting against certain acute diseases. They are in fact so effective that most people reading this, whose dogs have already been immunized against parvo and distemper, really are on very solid ground when they stop vaccinating, because their dogs are already immune.

For those people, the decision not to vaccinate at all is not on the table. The animals have already been vaccinated. The only question is, do you need, or want, to give them "booster" shots? If not, how can you be sure your animal is fully protected against disease? If yes, what boosters should be given, and how often?

There are some general guidelines and immunology studies that might be useful to you in researching whether or how to give booster shots to your dogs. First, I want to stress that all of this information is based on an assumption that your dog was successfully vaccinated in the past. That is a big assumption to make, and before making it, please be sure you have read my section on puppy vaccination. Just because your dog had vaccines given in the past does not guarantee that those vaccinations were successful and that your dog is in fact immune to those diseases.

What Vaccines are We Talking About?
Let's look at the commonly used canine vaccines.

Other than rabies, the two most serious canine viral diseases are canine parvovirus and canine distemper. (Since rabies vaccination is a matter of law, rather than science, I'm not going to discuss it here.) According to Dr. Schultz, protection against canine parvovirus and canine distemper from successful vaccination is long term, probably lifelong. (Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XIII; 2000; "Vaccines and Vaccinations: Issue for the 21st Century", Richard B. Ford and Ronald D. Schultz; (Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XI, "Canine and Feline Vaccines," Phipps, Schultz; R.D. Schultz, "Considerations in Designing Effective and Safe Vaccination Programs for Dogs," May 2000; (Schultz, "Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and Don't Know.")

What About the Other Vaccines?
The other common canine vaccines are Canine Adenovirus-2 (CAV-2), also known as Canine Infectious Hepatitis; Canine Bordatella (a bacteria that is part of the kennel cough complex); Canine Parainfluenza (a virus that is part of the kennel cough complex), Leptospirosis (a bacteria that causes kidney disease), and Canine Coronavirus, an intestinal virus. Other canine vaccines that are sometimes given are for Lyme disease and Giardia.

Canine Infectious Hepatitis (CAV-2)
There has been no case of infectious hepatitis in the US in 20 years, according to Dr. Schultz. This vaccine does cross-protect against CAV-1, part of the kennel cough complex (see below).

Kennel Cough
The kennel cough complex (bordatella, parainfluenza, CAV-1) is a set of treatable diseases similar to a cold. A normal, healthy animal shouldn't become seriously ill with any of them. Immunity to CAV-2 (infectious hepatitis) gives cross protection to CAV-1, and the CAV-2 vaccine provides a similar duration of immunity to parvo and distemper (many years, probably lifelong). The bordatella vaccine is not long-lasting, since both natural and vaccine bacterial immunity are always temporary, and I believe, considering how often you have to repeat it, the risk mounts up until it outweighs the benefit. Parainfluenza vaccine (a virus) is considered to be extremely effective, however, again, I consider the risk to outweigh the benefit for the whole kennel cough complex. I have never given any of these vaccines in the period since November 1985 and have never had a dog get any of them, despite being at shows, classes, dog parks, and living with someone who worked in shelters and had foster dogs at our house who had active kennel cough.

Some dogs do develop pneumonia or other complications from kennel cough. I consider this to be rare, and also a sign that the dog had a pre-existing susceptibility to respiratory problems. However, it's important to realize that the risk, even if rare, does exist, when deciding on a course to follow as regards kennel cough vaccination.

Leptospirosis
This vaccine has more adverse effects reported than all other canine vaccines combined. It's not very effective and even when it does give protection, it doesn't last very long. Most dangerously, while it prevents expression of disease in dogs, it does not prevent them from shedding the bacteria. This carrier state makes them a risk to other animals and people, because they can "have" lepto and you don't know it. (Lepto is transmissible to humans.) Again, to me, the risk outweighs the benefit.

Lepto is treatable if caught early. In most cases, the reason lepto is so dangerous is that owners and veterinarians don't think of it fast enough. Learn the symptoms of leptospirosis and if your dog shows any of them, don't delay; have him or her tested and treated for lepto immediately. As with kennel cough, a few dogs do become very ill, or even die, from leptospirosis, despite treatment. I have an article specifically on the risks and benefits of lepto vaccination here.

Giardia
Giardia is an opportunistic pathogen. If a dog is healthy, giardia will naturally be kept in check by beneficial microbes and the dog's immune system. Very large numbers of dogs in California who are totally asymptomatic can have giardia cultured from their stool. I am not aware of any veterinary schools, or immunology or vaccine researchers, who recommend the use of this vaccine.

Coronavirus
This is the classic "vaccine in search of a disease." Except in very young puppies, coronavirus does not seem to cause clinical disease in dogs. They cannot induce disease with it in the laboratory. Many, perhaps most, dogs have coronavirus in their intestine all their lives. (Schultz, "Emerging Issues: Vaccination Strategies for Canine Viral Enteritis," 1995.) According to Texas A&M University's "Vaccine Protocols and Schedule," "(T)here are no studies that show that use of the vaccine reduces morbidity or mortality. (Mansfield 1996.) The risk has to be said to outweigh the benefit on this one, as there doesn't appear to be any benefit.

Lyme Disease
Lyme Disease is caused by an organism called Borrelia burgdorfieri, which is transmitted by a tick. Borrelia is a spirochete, a highly coiled bacterium.

Lyme Disease is very serious in humans, although scientific opinion generally holds that it is rarely serious in dogs. Most experts contend that it causes only brief acute illness in dogs, or no symptoms at all. Dogs in endemic areas will often test positive for Lyme and have no symptoms, or at least, no observable symptoms.

Many dog owners, and some veterinarians, don't agree with this view, and claim to have observed serious debilitating disease in their dogs as a result of infection with Borrelia.

There is also debate over how widespread Lyme disease really is. Some argue that since 90 percent of human Lyme cases occur in 100 counties in eight states, it's not widespread at all. Others point out that Lyme is grossly underreported and underdiagnosed, and epidemiology information on this disease is probably a few years behind, as well.

I don't know the truth of the situation. There are many tick borne diseases that we know, but more that we don't. Most ticks do have more than one of these, and if a dog has contracted Lyme, they probably also contracted one of the others. Perhaps both groups are correct, and one of the other tick diseases is actually responsible for the sick dogs' symptoms. Or perhaps current conventional thought is wrong, and Lyme really is serious and common in dogs.

Despite these controversies and despite the potential seriousness of the disease, the following points convince me that this vaccine is not a good one, even in endemic areas:


----------



## michaelasi (Oct 29, 2009)

and part 2 ....

One, 19 of 27 veterinary colleges in North America do not give Lyme vaccination, and the other 8 only give it if the owner requests it.

Two, it can often cause inflammatory arthritis in dogs who get it, just like Borrelia itself can. However, unlike natural Borrelia infection, antibiotics have no effect on the vaccine-induced form of the disease.

Three, the human version of this vaccine was removed from the market.

Four, like all bacterial vaccines, immunity doesn't last long and thus the vaccine needs frequent repetition to be effective, which means you are exposing your dog to the risk again and again, unlike viral vaccines which provide years, probably a lifetime, of immunity.

Five, I question how useful this vaccine is:

"One study in an endemic region demonstrated that 89.6 percent of healthy dogs had positive Lyme titers. There is no apparent correlation between positive Lyme titers and the occurrence of clinical signs. Only 4.8 percent of naturally exposed seropositive dogs demonstrated a limb or joint disorder with lethargy, fever, or inappetence; however, 4.6 percent of seronegative dogs also demonstrated such disorders. Most dogs that are seropositive for Lyme disease have not exhibited clinical signs of the disease." (Why I Don't Use Lyme Disease Vaccines, Meryl P. Littman, VMD, ACVIM; Department of Clinical Studies School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian, November 1997.)

[UPDATE: A more recent study found that nearly all dogs deliberately infected with Lyme did show symptoms. However, while this changes the concept of whether or not to TREAT asymptomatic Lyme infection, it does not change my view on whether or not the vaccine is a good one. It's not.] Read more about Lyme disease in dogs here.

How Long Does Vaccine Immunity Last?
The only correct answer to this is that no one really knows. Duration of immunity tests are done by vaccine companies, but usually run only for one year, although there are, as of 1995, two approved and one pending canine combination vaccines with three-year duration of immunity tests. It's not that the vaccination "wears off" after a year or three years, but that the test ended at one year or three years.

The difference between the one-year and three-year vaccines is they ran a longer duration of immunity test to be able to make a label claim of three years. It's a marketing strategy, period. Any seroconversion that takes place after a modified live virus vaccine for parvo, distemper, parainfluenza, or adenovirus-2 (the "DHPP" of the combo shot) is just as good and as lasting as any other seroconversion, whether obtained from a vaccine with a one-year label claim or a three-year label claim.

Since epidemiology tells us that canine parvovirus and canine distemper are almost unheard of in vaccinated adults, we can conclude that in most cases, the immunity from those vaccines lasts many years, probably a lifetime. What about the others?

Vaccines for bacterial disease do not usually provide long-term immunity. This is true of natural infection, also. It's why you never get chicken pox (a virus) again after you've had it once, but you could have strep throat (a bacteria) many times during your life. Bacterial vaccines for dogs are bordetella, leptospirosis, and Lyme disease. If you have decided to use these vaccines, you need to be aware that the immunity they provide will not last, and you will need to repeat the vaccinations at certain intervals. What those intervals are will depend on your own unique circumstances. Obviously, this need to give the vaccine repeatedly increases the risk of the vaccination.

Specific duration of immunity information for these and other canine vaccines is available in Dr. Schultz's article "Considerations in Designing Effective and Safe Vaccination Programs for Dogs."

No "Booster" Effect
Since no one can be absolutely sure that an animal is immune to something unless they actually encounter it, some people feel that it's best to give "booster shots" to increase immunity. Some breeders like to give "booster shots" to their bitches before breeding them, so they'll have plenty of immunity to pass on to their puppies. Other owners just feel safer giving "booster shots," and of course, most veterinarians truly believe that they should be given "just in case," on a schedule that will commonly range from every year to every three years.

The only flaw in this reasoning is that it doesn't appear that giving shots to already-immune animals "boosts" much of anything. You cannot make an immune animal "more immune." Re-vaccinating an already-immune animal has little or no benefit; the previous immunity will act like maternal antibody and inactivate the vaccine, and immunity is not "boosted" at all. So you have all the risks of the vaccination, and no benefit. (Schultz, R.D., "Current and Future Canine and Feline Vaccination Programs." Vet Med 3: No. 3, 233-254, 1998.)

What Can I Give My Dog to Minimize the Negative Effects of Vaccines?
The same thing that protects your dog from disease is what will protect them from the ill effects of vaccination: Radiant good health. There are no shortcuts to good health. It involves breeding and feeding for health, as well as giving clean air, clean water, plenty of appropriate companionship, mental stimulation, and exercise. Most of us have dogs whose genetics are not in our control, and in many cases, neither were their early lives. Those animals are probably not healthy enough to resist disease on their own, but sadly, they are the very dogs who are most likely to be negatively affected by vaccination.

Many people routinely use and recommend the homeopathic remedy thuja to counteract vaccine effects. Thuja's reputation for helping with vaccine reactions arose during the days when the only vaccine that existed was the smallpox (cowpox) vaccine. The blanket use of thuja to protect after a vaccination is not based on homeopathic principles, and using thuja in this way is at best pointless (unless it happens to be the right remedy to match your dog's unique symptoms). What you need to do, if you decide to vaccinate and want to address side effects with homeopathy, is observe the dog for his or her own unique reaction and symptom picture, and pick the single most similar remedy. In other words, the remedy which, when given to healthy people, produces the same symptom picture which your ill dog has. This is not something a pet owner should do on their own, but only with the advice of a skilled homeopathic veterinarian.

Make sure that your animal is extremely healthy when they are given vaccines. Not only are vaccines licensed for use in healthy, clinically normal animals only, an animal who is sick will probably not be able to form good immunity in response to the vaccination. They will suffer increased risk and reduced benefit.

Many people like to give herbal supplements before and after vaccination. Gentle herbs such as Echinacea, Oregon grape, and others might well have some benefit to your dog. For more information on using herbs or supplements to combat the negative effects of vaccination, consult a holistic veterinarian or the book Herbs for Pets by herbalists Mary Wulff-Tilford and Greg Tilford.

References

Note: In the references below, I cite two editions of Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy, the 11th, published in 1995, and the 13th, published in 2000. The 14th Edition was published in May of 2005, and is available here. Kirk's is the single most clicked-on book title on my site, but is rarely purchased as it costs around a hundred dollars. It is, however, a very valuable reference book and I highly recommend it.

1. "The incidence of canine distemper, canine parvovirus, canine adenovirus, and feline panleukopenia among vaccinated adults (>1 year of age) is virtually zero. The correlation among vaccination, the development of a "positive" antibody response, and protection from exposure to virulent virus is excellent. Furthermore, protection from exposure derived from immunization is sustained for periods as long as 5 or 6 years or more." (Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XIII; 2000; "Vaccines and Vaccinations: Issue for the 21st Century", Richard B. Ford and Ronald D. Schultz.)

2. "A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal." (Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XI, "Canine and Feline Vaccines," Phipps, Schultz.)

3. "In our studies, puppies vaccinated annually with modified live CPV-2, CDV and CAV vaccines received no added benefit from annual revaccination throughout a period of 7 years when compared to dogs that were vaccinated as puppies then challenged with virulent virus at 7 years of age. Both groups of dogs were protected from challenge infection with CPV-2, CDV and/or CAV." (R.D. Schultz, "Considerations in Designing Effective and Safe Vaccination Programs for Dogs," May 2000.)

"(W)e have found that annual revaccination, with the vaccines that provide long term immunity, provides no demonstrable benefit and may increase the risk for adverse reactions." (Schultz, "Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and Don't Know.")

4. "Companion animal vaccination guidelines are currently undergoing critical scrutiny by representatives from private practice, industry, and academia. Despite widespread recommendations for annual revaccination, information available today suggests that current vaccination practices in North America do not necessarily correspond with the body of knowledge pertaining to duration of immunity from licensed vaccines. As a direct result, companion animal practitioners should expect significant changes in the current standard of practice pertaining to the administration of vaccines to dogs and cats.

"Among the most significant changes anticipated in the future will be the recommendation to discontinue routine administration of annual booster vaccinations to adult dogs (distemper virus and parvovirus) and cats (panleukopenia, feline herpesvirus 1, and feline calicivirus). The incidence of canine distemper, canine parvovirus, canine adenovirus, and feline panleukopenia among vaccinated adults (>1 year of age) is virtually zero. The correlation among vaccination, the development of a "positive" antibody response, and protection from exposure to virulent virus is excellent. Furthermore, protection from exposure derived from immunization is sustained for periods as long as 5 or 6 years or more. (Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XIII, published in 2000:"Vaccines and Vaccinations: Issue for the 21st Century", Richard B. Ford and Ronald D. Schultz.)

5. These notes were taken by Betty Lewis, AHT, from a seminar she attended given by Dr. Schultz in August 2001, and are used with permission:

Core Vaccines are distemper, adenovirus, parvo and rabies. He says all dogs must have these.

His protocol is to give a single vaccine (he recommends the 5-way with the lepto left out) at 12-14 weeks of age. Wait two weeks and run parvo and distemper titers. If the dog has an adequate titer measure at Cornell as 1:100 or higher, there is no need to repeat either the vaccination or the titer for the life of the dog. Rabies is given separately and has to be re-vaccinated by state law.

**Giving multiple vaccinations does not boost immunity, and, in some cases may erode it.

Even though he recommends that the titer level be 1:100, he does not recommend re-vaccination unless there's a really low titer. He says it probably won't improve immunity, though it may make you feel better.

Principles of basic vaccine protocol include having breeders give vaccinations at home so puppies don't go to the vet's office (sources of infection).

The rabies vaccine is the most reacto-genic, he said, so best to give it separately. Benadryl can be given prior to a rabies vaccine. It will "dampen" the reactive effect of the adjuvants, but won't interfere with the immune response.

Giardia vaccine is not recommended and a side effect is granulomas at the site.

Immunologic imprinting
This refers to the fact that the immune system should be vaccinated only when it is ready and at its optimum. If you vaccinate an immature immune system or one not capable of responding fully for any reason, and you get only a partial response, re-vaccinating will never give a better response.

There has not been a recorded case of canine infectious hepatitis in the US in the last 20 years. (CAV-2)

"Of course vaccines can trigger neurological and endocrine diseases; didn't I say that there is an intimate relationship between the immune, neurological and endocrine systems?"

By law the vaccine companies have to put 2-3 times the required dose into the vial.

If a breeding dog can't develop a titer, it's not a good breeding prospect b/c it will pass on the poor immune system.

The three species with the most tendency to auto-immunity are humans, dogs and inbred mice.

He said that boosting a mother's vaccine prior to pregnancy will not increase the level of maternal immunity in the puppies. It is safer for the bitch to wait until after weaning to vaccinate.

6. "In the past, it was believed that annual vaccination would not hurt and would probably help most animals. However concerns about side effects have begun to change this attitude. One disadvantage to over-vaccinating is cost. The client is paying for something with no effect or with the potential for an adverse reaction. I believe that adverse effects are increasing because we are putting more and more components into these animals ...There is a real concern that vaccines may predispose certain genetically susceptible individuals to immune-mediated disease. The more antigens we administer, the higher the potential for hypersensitivity. Type 1 is IgE mediated; type 2 cytotoxic antibody mediated; type 3 immune-mediated, type 4 cellular mediated. All of these hypersensitivies are natural parts of the immune response, but they cause a certain amount of tissue damage. In many cases it is impossible to show a direct connection between damage and a vaccine, since it is the accumulation of many antigens over many years that results in clinically evident disease." (From The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 207 Aug 15, 1995.)

7. "A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal." (Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XI, "Canine and Feline Vaccines," Phipps, Schultz.)

8. "Dogs' & cats' immune systems mature fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus (MLV) vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it produces an immunity which is good for the life of the pet (i.e. canine distemper, parvo, feline distemper). If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens of second vaccine, and there is little or no effect. The titer (level of immunity) is not 'boosted' nor are more memory cells induced. -Schultz, R.D. - Current & Future Canine & Feline Vaccination Programs. Vet Med 3: No. 3, 233-254, 1998." (Summary from Bob Rogers DVM, Critter Fixer Pet Hospital).

9. "Since the mid 1970's we have done a variety of studies with various canine vaccines to demonstrate their duration of immunity. From our studies it is apparent, at least to me, that the duration of immunity for the four most important canine vaccines (core vaccines) is considerably longer than one year. Furthermore, we have found that annual revaccination, with the vaccines that provide long term immunity, provides no demonstrable benefit and may increase the risk for adverse reactions." (Ronald D. Schultz, Professor and Chair, Department of Pathobiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, "Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and Don't Know."

http://www.caberfeidh.com/Revax.htm


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Also all your quotes about 3 yearly boosters state that 'some' vaccines last that long. Not every drug company is giving out the same guidelines and as I said before the vet has to follow the guidelines for the make of vaccine they are using.


yes exactly the 'some' is referring to the ones I then posted the statements from - clearly as I mentioned they do not claim this for lepto - hence only saying 'some'...

it is your choice - if you dont want to research it further, then dont...i prefer to know exactly what is going into my animals and why - not just following outdated advice.

*you will find that the two i posted are actually the most common in the UK - if others are being used that given less immunity I would be questioning why your vets are using old products...

Can you suggest others that vets are using now then? Please do let me know and i will post the manufacturers advice for their administration also!*


----------



## michaelasi (Oct 29, 2009)

Immunisation

Vaccination is an extremely profitable business,
both to the manufacturers of vaccine and to the distributors.
The purpose of vaccination is to protect your dog from potentially fatal infections by viruses such as distemper, rabies, and others. However, as with any medical procedure, we must ask the simple and direct questions, "Is it safe? Is it effective? Do the benefits outweigh the risks?"

"Booster" vaccination, as it is practiced today, is not always effective, and frequently has adverse sideeffects, either short or long term. With the use of combination 
(4 in 1, 6 in 1) vaccines that are repeated year after year, the frequency and severity of these sideeffects in our dogs has increased dramatically. 
Not surprisingly, most of the problems involve the immune system. After all, the immune system is what vaccines are designed to stimulate. But they do so in a very unnatural way that can overwhelm and confuse the immune system. The body may overreact to normally harmless substances with allergies and other skin disorders, or even produce antibodies to itself (autoimmune disease). At the same time, the body may be sluggish in responding to those things that it should reject, such as common viruses, bacteria, fungus, and parasites. This can result in increased susceptibility to acute infections, chronic tapeworm problems, or in more degenerative cases, cancer.

Booster vaccinations are unnecessary. Studies are now showing that these vaccinations are effective for many years and most probably for life. Vaccinated animals do not need any boosters.

All Veterinary Schools in North America Changing Vaccination Protocols:

Recent editions of the Senior Dogs Project's newsletter have reported on the ever-broadening trend of eliminating vaccinations for adult dogs, except for rabies, where required by state law.
All 27 veterinary schools in North America are in the process of changing their protocols for vaccinating dogs and cats. Here are the new guidelines under consideration:

"Dogs immune system matures fully at 6 months. If a modified live virus (MLV) vaccine is given after 6 months of age, it produces immunity, which is good for the life of the pet (i.e., canine distemper, parvo, and feline distemper). If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralize the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The titer is not 'boosted' nor are more memory cells induced. 
Not only are annual boosters for parvo and distemper unnecessary, they subject the dog to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.

If, for whatever reason, you decide that you must vaccinate your dog, I would make the following recommendations:

avoid multivalent (combination) vaccines
give parvo separately from distemper
never give the rabies vaccine at the same time as any other vaccine
vaccinate every 2-3 years, instead of yearly
after vaccination, give Echinacea, Propolis or Dermisal for seven days as a detoxification therapy
Mr. James Baldwin, greyhound authority and breeder of German shepherd dogs wrote in Dog World:
"Vaccination has an insidious effect on general canine health and it is noted by many observant dog-breeders that it is one of the causes of chronic skin disorders, especially of demodectic mange."

booster vaccinations for dogs


----------



## michaelasi (Oct 29, 2009)

thereasa said:


> another thing is that it costs intervet approximately £1.75 to produce nobivac DHPPI...which they sell to the vets for approximately £4.00 so why does it cost me £25 just for the vet to do it.:
> Yes they get a brief health check & a signed vaccination card, but it is not however illegal to purchase your own vaccs


because when u go and see a vet , they charge u for the privilege £21-22 then u have the rest of the £4 on top and here u r £5-26 more lighter . :eek6:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I do wonder why some of you ever go to the vet. I am sure you could find the info on your sick dog far easier on the internet and save so much money. After all vets go to vet school just to fill in time after they have left school dont they. And their premises and equipment is all for show, they could just as easily work out of the back of their car at the side of the road.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I do wonder why some of you ever go to the vet. I am sure you could find the info on your sick dog far easier on the internet and save so much money. After all vets go to vet school just to fill in time after they have left school dont they. And their premises and equipment is all for show, they could just as easily work out of the back of their car at the side of the road.


I cannot speak for everyone else on this forum, but the information I have been posting in this thread is compiled by vets, experts in immunolgy, microbiology, vaccinology and the vaccine manufacturers themselves!! I am not sure you can really class that as some random findings on the internet...

It is actually quite laughable (or perhaps even just quite sad) that just because many choose to be well-informed about the health of their animals rather than just leaving it to someone else, that you feel this way...

I have not once mentioned money personally - it is not a question of money at all, it is a question of health. If it was anything to do with the money then I would not be titre testing at a price 5 x the amount of the boosters...

Clearly there are dubious sources of info out there on the internet, but thats where intelligent research comes in - there are also very dubious vets out there, so non-internet research is not the answer either. Basically you are implying that education is bad thing...? :confused1:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> I cannot speak for everyone else on this forum, but the information I have been posting in this thread is compiled by vets, experts in immunolgy, microbiology, vaccinology and the vaccine manufacturers themselves!! I am not sure you can really class that as some random findings on the internet...
> 
> It is actually quite laughable (or perhaps even just quite sad) that just because many choose to be well-informed about the health of their animals rather than just leaving it to someone else, that you feel this way...
> 
> ...


I dont think it was you that mentioned money but others did and always do when a vet thread of any sort comes out.
Do they live with a blocked toilet because the plumber will charge £60 just to have a look at it!


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I do wonder why some of you ever go to the vet. I am sure you could find the info on your sick dog far easier on the internet and save so much money. After all vets go to vet school just to fill in time after they have left school dont they. And their premises and equipment is all for show, they could just as easily work out of the back of their car at the side of the road.


Please don't twist words. Katiefranke is suggesting you look into the new guidelines about vaccinating your pet, that's all. Nobody has so much as even suggested not going to the vet at all, we're having a discussion about the latest research and guidelines showing it may not be absolutely necessary to vaccinate yearly. Nobody has suggested missing vaccinations all together, nor has anyone said ditch your vet.

IMHO, that's a very childish retort. It's a public forum, if you don't want to hear any opinions that differ from your own, a forum really isn't the place to be. No need to twist words and be sarcastic about it. You could have simply said 'lets agree to disagree'.


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I dont think it was you that mentioned money but others did and always do when a vet thread of any sort comes out.
> Do they live with a blocked toilet because the plumber will charge £60 just to have a look at it!


No, but if the plumber told us he's need to come out and unblock our toilet once a year, at a charge of anything from £20 to £50 (my vet charges £45 for a booster) even though there may actually be zero reason to do so, we'd start to moan about the cash.

I'll pay out any amount of cash to ensure my pets health, it's when all the money I'm shelling out is doing is lining vets pockets that I get issues.

For me, the jury is still out on this, I do have an appointment for Novak's booster next week and will be talking it over with my vet. If they say three yearly vaccs are fine, I'll go with that from now on.


----------



## kazschow (Oct 23, 2008)

I use the three year protocol on my two, with an annual lepto...


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I dont think it was you that mentioned money but others did and always do when a vet thread of any sort comes out.
> Do they live with a blocked toilet because the plumber will charge £60 just to have a look at it!


ok yes fair enough - some have mentioned money and no I do not really understand money as the main concern in this issue either.

however, as lyceum rightly pointed out, I do understand peoples annoyance at being charged for something that is not necessary - but this should not by any means be the motivating factor. rightly or wrongly, i actually believe that many vets are not doing it for money though, they are simply doing it through lack of knowledge on the subject...

I believe in being informed and that everyone has the right to this information in a clear and consistent way - currently we are not getting this within the UK veterinary industry...as I think this thread clearly highlights!



kazschow said:


> I use the three year protocol on my two, with an annual lepto...


:thumbup: great for you! an informed vet? or at your own request?

please write or email your MP to get the guidelines updated for the whole of the UK so that all vets are operating under the same principles!! 



katiefranke said:


> Please download the letter to send to your MP - Write to your MP - Stop the Shots - NOW (you may want to change this to your own words/pick and choose the bits you want, but at least it is all there for you to cut and paste!)
> 
> Non-UK residents, you can still help - please send the letter to send to the UK Chief Veterinary Officer: Non-uk residents - Stop the Shots - NOW


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I do wonder why some of you ever go to the vet. I am sure you could find the info on your sick dog far easier on the internet and save so much money. After all vets go to vet school just to fill in time after they have left school dont they. And their premises and equipment is all for show, they could just as easily work out of the back of their car at the side of the road.


Maybe you should enquire where some of us got our information from?
Just to let you know I recieved mine from a vet
There is nothing wrong with self education as long as you consult your vet on your finding...IMO


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

Heidi is due and I have felt v pressured to make a decision. I had done but wasnt 100% happy with it.

This has helped me to go through my options again and I have reached the same decision but now I am happy with it. Because of the issues with Mum's immunity and puppy vaccs, I am having her done this year but from here on, it will be every 3 years

I have found this v helpful - thank you.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Having been over this in a parallel thread (which seemed to have been started just to try and keep this dead issue alive) I'm just going to add some facts.

1) NO UK insurance company will pay out on a preventable disease unless the vaccinations are up to date. Most list the preventable diseases in their policies.

2) They don't accept titre tests. Why? because they aren't sufficiently accurate.

3) They don't accept homoeopathic vaccines. Someone, somewhere said that Marks and Spencer do. They don't. End of.

So, argue all you like over whether or not your opinion on vaccinations is correct but at the end of the day if you want to insure your pet you better make absolutely certain that its vaccinations are up to date _according to your insurance policy_.

And do rave on about this issue. As I said on the other thread - the vast majority of published veterinary evidence is that manufacturers protocols are correct. If they weren't they wouldn't be licensed.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Interesting post Albert, but I think you are missing the point (or rather many of the key points) raised throughout this thread.



AlbertRoss said:


> Having been over this in a parallel thread (which seemed to have been started just to try and keep this dead issue alive) I'm just going to add some facts.


If you check the date and time the other thread was posted you will see it was nothing of the sort - it was posted just after the main one as clearly there are other people that also feel that we as pet owners are not being told all the facts and are sick of the inconsistency we are getting from vets. This one is in the dogs section and a corresponding one was posted into the cats section (not by me) for people who do not look in here as it is just as relevant for cats as dogs.



AlbertRoss said:


> 1) NO UK insurance company will pay out on a preventable disease unless the vaccinations are up to date. Most list the preventable diseases in their policies.


You will see that we have already discussed this issue in this thread - as I and others have already discussed, it appears that most insurance companies are quite happy to cover for everything except those diseases vaccinated against - however, nobody is saying not to vaccinate, so there should not be an issue. For instance, some insurers Ts&Cs state that the vaccinations have to be done in accordance with manufacturers guidelines and kept up to date in line with these - so every three years is sufficient for the viral diseases, and as already discussed as well, annually for lepto, as this is what the manufacturers state on their vaccine leaflets. So nobody is doing anything wrong by following the guidelines. So not really sure what your point is here...other than that people should of course check their insurance details regularly as Ts&Cs can be quite vague sometimes.



AlbertRoss said:


> 2) They don't accept titre tests. Why? because they aren't sufficiently accurate.


Nobody said they did, but at worst case, we are basically saying that insurance will not cover any treatment related to the diseases vaccinated against - but if you are titre testing you will actually have a much better idea of your animals health and immunity than someone who simply vaccinates anyway and so why would an animal with immunity from their last vaccine contract any of these anyway? I am not going to get into the ins and outs of immunity and titre testing with you as anyone who already does this will I am sure understand it. And anyone considering it would discuss with their vets and research it before doing anyway.



AlbertRoss said:


> 3) They don't accept homoeopathic vaccines. Someone, somewhere said that Marks and Spencer do. They don't. End of.


Again, not really sure what this has to do with anything - I would imagine that anybody that has consulted a vet to get homeopathic nosode vaccines will be fully aware of these issues! I didnt actually see anyone talking about homeopathic vaccination on this thread to honest, so will go back and see what you mean - but this is not really the point of this thread.



AlbertRoss said:


> So, argue all you like over whether or not your opinion on vaccinations is correct but at the end of the day if you want to insure your pet you better make absolutely certain that its vaccinations are up to date _according to your insurance policy_.


Albert, this really is scaremongering. Yes of course people should check their insurance policies, and as I said this has come up in this thread already. But as above, different policies have different requirements, but most that we have discussed here cover everything except those related to the diseases vaccinated against and ONLY if they are not vaccinated in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines. But when the manufacturers are themselves recommending every 3 years for boosters of the viral diseases (which are the ones we are discussing) then this is really a moot point.



AlbertRoss said:


> And do rave on about this issue. As I said on the other thread - the vast majority of published veterinary evidence is that manufacturers protocols are correct. If they weren't they wouldn't be licensed.


But this is the point, the manufacturers themselves have new protocols and we are finding that many vets are not administering the vaccines in line with these! Please refer to the product documents that you said you had read for Intervet and Virbac vaccines for parvo and distemper and you will see that they specifically state (as I have already said many times) that boosters are required every 3 years...

There is one thing you are right about - yes people should definitely not just believe the first thing they see on this - as I have said all along, please do go and do your own research on this. Look at manufacturers details, talk to your vet, see which vaccines they use and their policies for vaccinating - check your insurance details - always a good idea to anyway, as many try and catch you out on all sorts of things, least of which vaccine details, as these are normally quite straightforward. This way you can make a decision based on facts and your own circumstances, whatever that may be. Even if it is to vaccinate annually, that is peoples choice - the whole point is, do it with based on knowledge rather than on old habits.

Anybody that is a pet owner is responsible for the health and well being of that pet and should be as clued up on these issues as pos. :thumbup:


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> So, argue all you like over whether or not your opinion on vaccinations is correct but at the end of the day if you want to insure your pet you better make absolutely certain that its vaccinations are up to date _according to your insurance policy_.


Is this not a given? If you don't want to vaccinate, like myself, contact you insurance company and see their position on that. It's the same as if you wanted to board your dog, you'd ring ahead and check the policy with the kennel, you don't just turn up and 'hope for the best'.



katiefranke said:


> Anybody that is a pet owner is responsible for the health and well being of that pet and should be as clued up on these issues as pos. :thumbup:


Absolutely!!!!
Why not question _why_ we are doing these things? We do it for our children, don't we?!
I honestly don't see the issue with wanting to educate yourself on issues such as this.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

It's a shame that we dont all feel confident to leave it to the experts but when they get it wrong - the affects can be dire. 

In different walks of life I have occasionally found loopholes which now make me question things a lot more so yes, I like to be informed so that I can make my own decisions.

If it were something that I felt I had read before, wasnt interested in or may be didnt want to delve into that can of worms - then I would by pass it.

There is no way I would vaccinate my dog if I felt it wasnt necessary. I would rather not use kennels and insurance. 

We all have to live with our decisions however we make them and we probably go about it differently but it doesnt make us wrong.


----------



## Allana (Jul 7, 2010)

During my time at college we were told by lecturers who were trained vet nurses and even our college vet that boosters were a way of vets and pharmaceutical (sp?) companies ensuring a steady income and if they were needed yearly why aren't our own human injections given every year?

Obviously this is just their opinion but the argument they gave at the time has always stuck with me.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I do wonder why some of you ever go to the vet. I am sure you could find the info on your sick dog far easier on the internet and save so much money. After all vets go to vet school just to fill in time after they have left school dont they. And their premises and equipment is all for show, they could just as easily work out of the back of their car at the side of the road.


That is so beautifully put. Sadly you are trying to make the point in a thread where most people (including the OP) are convinced they know better than the veterinary profession. Doesn't stop their dissemination of ill founded claptrap though.

And the chief claptrapper wrote:


katiefranke said:


> Albert, this really is scaremongering. Yes of course people should check their insurance policies, and as I said this has come up in this thread already. But as above, different policies have different requirements, but most that we have discussed here cover everything except those related to the diseases vaccinated against and ONLY if they are not vaccinated in accordance with the manufacturers guidelines. But when the manufacturers are themselves recommending every 3 years for boosters of the viral diseases (which are the ones we are discussing) then this is really a moot point.


Absolutely not.

YOU are the person scaremongering.

The facts about vaccination in the UK contradict almost everything you've said and that has been said in 'support' of your increasingly ridiculous campaign.

Let's deal with some of your facts-

It is not the case - as you claimed - that our licensing authority for vaccines hasn't 'caught up' with the WSAVA. It IS the case that, as a matter of FACT, they have put out a statement disagreeing with the WSAVA. Part of that shows that the WSAVA wants MORE vaccinations at the puppy/kitten stage of life. But, funnily enough, you don't mention that. Perhaps that's because, in the veterinary world in general, the UK is reckoned to be at the forefront of vaccination research. And that doesn't suit your argument.

Further, manufacturers recommendations for the use of their products have to go via licensing. There's not a single manufacturer who is going to say "My product is licensed for prevention of disease for one year. Hey, I don't care about that - you use it every three years". If they can provide evidence that the booster is only needed every three years then that's what it will be licensed for. Duh! The WSAVA tries to get round this by saying that there's a difference between the 'fact sheet' that applies to vaccines and how they really should be administered. That's pure rubbish. The fact sheet is what delineates the efficiency of the vaccine as proven by reliable data.

Let's look at the WSAVA statement, which claims to represent 70 countries. (Everything I say here about the WSAVA comes from its own report - not the interpretation by _katiefranke_ - please follow her link in the first post in this thread to read it). Yet only 27 countries seem to have taken any further interest in these 'guidelines'. Of these 27 only 18 seem to have disseminated them amongst the vets in their countries. So, only 18 out of 70 so far. Hardly unanimous support, is it? This is all in their report.

Let's look further. Only 13 out of that 27 had guidelines in place and they weren't those of the WSAVA. The WSAVA claim - and please note my italics - " in 12 of 14 countries without vaccination guidelines, the national organizations had either fully adopted or recommended the WSAVA guidelines _or were currently using them to develop their own national recommendations_. Funnily enough, they don't give the figures for those who have, as _katiefranke_ suggested, adopted their guidelines. It may only be one. It certainly isn't true - as she implies - that everyone has signed up to these guidelines except the UK.

And, surprise, surprise, almost all of the papers cited as support in these WSAVA 'guidelines' were written by or had some connection with the authors of the report. So, they go and rehash their own work and present it as factual recommendations. Hmmm. That's roughly the same as the guy who told parents that the triple vaccination caused autism. The science stinks.

As a side issue, there was much condemnation that the Animal Health Trust study (which proves zero risk from vaccinations) was sponsored by vaccine manufacturers. Guess who one of the WSAVA sponsors is? Bayer Health (and Hills Pet Food). Neither of those has any vested interest in animals. Do they? Really?

Please don't take my word for anything I post here. Go and check it for yourself.

It is NOT the case that vaccinations cause problems. I keep drawing attention to the huge AHT study done in the UK which totally and completely proves that a) vaccinations don't cause problems and b) pets that are vaccinated are more healthy than pets that aren't. Strangely, you ignore that too.

It IS the case that every UK pet insurance company insists on up to date vaccinations. That's not scaremongering. That's what pet owners need to do if they want their insurance to be valid. You can check the policies of over 20 pet insurers via my website. ALL of them insist on up to date vaccinations. Try getting your facts right - but that's not a strong point is it?

It is a FACT that titre testing isn't accurate enough to prove immunity for any period of time. Do the research yourself. There are plenty of scientific papers available on the Internet. You can test an animal today and get a positive result - and it can contract the disease tomorrow.

I could go on - but you've obviously got an agenda of your own which, in my opinion, is encouraging people to put their animals' health at severe risk.

Yes, people should investigate for themselves. But the simple facts are these - the licensing authority in the UK fixes what periods various manufacturers vaccines are effective for. It's not your vet who decides - it's what the vaccine is licensed for. If your vet deviates from those rules and your pet contracts a disease which he says he has immunised against then not only is he liable for damages at law from you but it's likely that the RCVS will pull him up too.

Bottom line - you can listen to _katiefranke_ and her biased points of view. Or you can do the research yourself (I did, last time this got aired - and I've got solid scientific evidence to prove almost everything she's claimed is false). Or you can just ask your vet.

When _katiefranke_ can show me that she's as well qualified as a vet on this subject she deserves listening to. Until that point, following any advice not to vaccinate your pets in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations is irresponsible and dangerous. And contacting your MP to try and change something which is likely to endanger pet health is just unbelievably stupid.


----------



## Allana (Jul 7, 2010)

I'm just wondering but are you a vet AlbertRoss?


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

_During my time at college we were told by lecturers who were trained vet nurses and even our college vet that boosters were a way of vets and pharmaceutical (sp?) companies ensuring a steady income _

Just curious, did they commit themselves to how often they to be done??


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Mum2Heidi said:


> _During my time at college we were told by lecturers who were trained vet nurses and even our college vet that boosters were a way of vets and pharmaceutical (sp?) companies ensuring a steady income _
> 
> Just curious, did they commit themselves to how often they to be done??


whoever was stupid enough to say that (always supposing they did and it wasnt taken out of context) deserves to lose their job.


----------



## flufffluff39 (May 25, 2009)

I have had a mongrel injected up to 4 years and he lived till he was 18!! But I would'nt do that with my crossbreeds or pedigree, as I think a mongrel ( heinz 57) has a better immune system. I asked my vet whether dogs still get all the illnesses when injected and he said YES!! But not as bad. So I am on the fence with the debate but would'nt risk my doggies!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> Bottom line - you can listen to _katiefranke_ and her biased points of view. Or you can do the research yourself (I did, last time this got aired - and I've got solid scientific evidence to prove almost everything she's claimed is false). Or you can just ask your vet.


Is this the same scientific evidence you have to prove that all health testing is a waste of time? also putting many dogs lives at risk - and invariably vets have scant and often no knowledge of what is required.



AlbertRoss said:


> Bottom line - you can listen to _katiefranke_ and her biased points of view. Or you can do the research yourself (I did, last time this got aired - and I've got solid scientific evidence to prove almost everything she's claimed is false). Or you can just ask your vet.


Is this the same scientific evidence you have to prove that all health testing is a waste of time? also putting many dogs lives at risk - and invariably vets have scant and often no knowledge of what is required.

=========================

I failed to see anyone (possibly bar you) giving advice on the subject - simply intimating that it might be an idea for readers of this thread to look at the facts a little closer.

If you had read the whole thread, you would see that the issues of insurance and validity were covered off long before you posted.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Edit made post appear twice


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

I don't quite understand why AlbertRoss has to be so rude when airing their views, but maybe thats just me...



AlbertRoss said:


> following *any* advice not to vaccinate your pets in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations is irresponsible and dangerous.


Thanks very much, but the manufacturer knows nothing of my dog, his history or health.
So why I would simply follow their advice is beyone me, I guess I am just irresponsible and dangerous.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Is this the same scientific evidence you have to prove that all health testing is a waste of time? also putting many dogs lives at risk - and invariably vets have scant and often no knowledge of what is required.


Right - so vets have scant and no knowledge! How dumb can you be? I guess they just sit round in vet school waiting for the course to finish so they can fleece you. That is definitely the most idiotic remark I have ever seen posted in this forum. I guess you never take an animal to a vet, so why are you bothered with this at all?

I don't know where you get the idea that I've ever said health testing is a waste of time. What I've said is that titre testing is fallible as an indicator. Funnily enough, that's exactly the view endorsed by the RCVS. Oh, sorry, I forgot, vets don't know anything, do they?

As for putting dogs lives at risk - how? The Animal Health Trust tested 9000 dogs (possibly more than you own) and said there was NO evidence of ANY risk. What part of that showed "dogs lives were at risk"?



swarthy said:


> I failed to see anyone (possibly bar you) giving advice on the subject - simply intimating that it might be an idea for readers of this thread to look at the facts a little closer.


Gosh, have you actually read anything here? _Katiefranke_ has continually asked people to write to their MPs to change the rules. Is that not advice? If you read my last (long) post I continually urge people to check what has been cited - because the vast majority of the information given in support of her views is, at best, suspect and quite often at odds with the way she's presented it - not just in this thread but elsewhere too.

One of her original citations is simply a rant about how vaccinations ought to be changed. It's got no authors, quotes no research but it is full of highly emotive language presented as if it's an authoritative report. Nothing in it is 'factual'. Is that the sort of 'fact' you think we should be looking at?



Jesi said:


> Thanks very much, but the manufacturer knows nothing of my dog, his history or health. So why I would simply follow their advice is beyone me, I guess I am just irresponsible and dangerous.


Well, if you don't vaccinate according to the licensing conditions of the vaccine then, yes, I guess it does. I suppose also that you never, ever take a prescribed medicine from your doctor because, after all the company that made it know nothing about you, your history or health either.


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> Well, if you don't vaccinate according to the licensing conditions of the vaccine then, yes, I guess it does. I suppose also that you never, ever take a prescribed medicine from your doctor because, after all the company that made it know nothing about you, your history or health either.


I look at the contraindications of any medication, be if for myself or my dog. 
Paracetamol is one of the safest pain killers for humans, for example, but if you have liver damage it can worsen the damage. So I doubt a doctor would prescribe that, just like my Holistic vet would not prescribe my Pancreatic dog a vaccine. So by following *any* advise (as you said), that being advice from my vet, by your view, I am irresponsible. Ok.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> Gosh, have you actually read anything here? _Katiefranke_ has continually asked people to write to their MPs to change the rules. Is that not advice? If you read my last (long) post I continually urge people to check what has been cited - because the vast majority of the information given in support of her views is, at best, suspect and quite often at odds with the way she's presented it - not just in this thread but elsewhere too


I don't have a particularly high opinion of politicians - but even I know as many people can write to their MP as they like - they then have to research it, and if there is a foundation for the letters backed up by research then maybe, just maybe, they may look at changing the regulations.

How on earth can asking people to write to their MP's looking for a review on vaccination processes be construed as 'telling people what to do' - for such a highly qualified academic your interpretation of the written word varies markedly from just about everyone elses.

=======================================

I would welcome a review of yearly vaccinations - there is no doubt that they can cause severe, potentially life threatening reactions in a very *small *number of dogs, and someone needs to be undertaking research to establish whether frequency .

Likewise, if they MUST be given yearly, why is it then that my vet will only start courses agin if more than 18 months is left between boosters? If that's not a clear indication of extended efficacy, I don't know what is.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> The facts about vaccination in the UK contradict almost everything you've said and that has been said in 'support' of your increasingly ridiculous campaign...


goodness me you HAVE got your knickers in a twist - I think people can make up their own minds on this! 

what exactly do you think i have to prove or gain here? to me it sounds like you have more of an agenda than anyone as you are so adamant and clearly ignoring many outright facts - like the one where many actual manufacturers themselves are recommending more infrequent schedules - i notice you keep ignoring this part!? And the fact that you appeared to read an older VMD position paper and not their most recent response paper.

many of your supposed 'FACTS' are not facts at all...or you are taking facts that are irrelevant to the actual discussion? :confused1:

i really cant even be bothered to read your full post this time...if you have a differing opinion fine, thats what a forum is all about, but please dont try and make out like anyone is out on a 'campaign' as you say...as i and many others have said all the way along, we want people to wake up, open their eyes and go research this for themselves! if this thread does nothing else other than make people think about the issues then great.

isnt that the whole point of a forum? to debate things? to maybe learn something you didnt know? to exchange views and ideas? but instead you are being very childish and nasty to people when it is completely uncalled for.

i clearly wrote my thread to get people thinking! i again and again have stated that it is about their policy around ANNUAL BOOSTERS specifically and to be honest, you dont even know my views on this - you act like i have told everyone to suddenly not vaccinate at all and go and spit on their vets!!!! i am as frustrated as everyone else in that i find it hard to know what to do because i find my vet says one thing, one 5 mins down the road says another, the manufacturers directions are stating 3 years but the local kennel wants annual - and all the time the VMD are not updating their policy to include the fact that there are now vaccines which are recommended for every 3 years! what out of that is not true??? these are all facts? i dont understand what you have such an issue with?



AlbertRoss said:


> Gosh, have you actually read anything here? _Katiefranke_ has continually asked people to write to their MPs to change the rules. Is that not advice?


no asking people to write to their MP is not ADVICE, it is a REQUEST and people who can make up their own minds will read the info and decide for themselves! the reason i want people to write to their MPs as i have said about 20 times is because i think the situation is disgusting with all the inconsistency and something should be done to have a consistent policy! tell me what is wrong with that?


----------



## zoeeoo (Aug 17, 2009)

i didnt read it al coz im being lazy soo the injections they have everyyear isnt needed only the 1st lot as a puppy?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I am very lost on what you are trying to do here katiefranke. Are you trying to stop people from vaccinating at all or saying that dogs should only be vaccinated every 3 years. If the manufacturers recommendation is every 3 years then of course it should be every 3 years but the dog still has to be vaccinated against lepto every year so to the average pet owner the dog is going for annual boosters. I cant imagine why any vet would go against the recommendations and vaccinate more frequently unless they know they are in a high risk area and their expert knowledge makes them think it is safer.
Certainly when I was vet nursing the frequency and age for first vaccinations varied enormously from area to area depending on whether distemper was known there. Vaccinated dogs will get natural immunity when they meet infection but if they never meet the infection they are relying totally on the vaccine so it is possible they may need more frequent vaccinations. If you go to a vet you trust and your own knowledge is scanty then far more sensible to take your vet's advice rather than internet forum advice.

Having said that my dogs have only had lepto annually for many years with infrequent boosters for the other diseases. This was my choice because I am fairly isolated and my dogs were seldom leaving the farm, but it was also my risk and could have backfired on me. My vets now use a vaccine that recommends less frequent use and I am down to one dog so will follow their protocol for the time being. But I would never ever recommend to anyone else that they would make the same choice that I made years ago as it is high risk. Do as I say, not as I do!


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I cant imagine why any vet would go against the recommendations and vaccinate more frequently unless they know they are in a high risk area and their expert knowledge makes them think it is safer.


Because it makes them millions every year.

You know, the same way the government wont stop selling **** even though they know smokers are a massive drain on the NHS, but they make so much money from **** that stopping selling them would lose them more money than paying for the treatment of smokers on the NHS does. Same goes for alcohol, junk food etc.

Yes, vets care for our animals, but at the end of the day, they're a business. They're not there for a laugh, they want to make cash. They recommend hills, royal canin or whatever food they're getting a kick back from selling, does that make it the best diet for our pets? No, it makes the vet money. I'm sure those vets who have specialised in nutrition know this, but they'll push it anyway because it makes them cash.

Example, my vet just charged me £17 to fax a piece of paper. Seriously, £17 to fax a piece of paper.

As I've said earlier, I intend to talk to my vet about this when I take Novak for his booster next week. If the vet says that the vaccine manufacturers recommend every three years, I'll go with that and look into changing his insurance to one that suits. I don't have a single problem with giving the vet money, but if it turns out I'm paying for unneeded treatment, I won't be impressed.

We all want to do what's best for our dogs, I don't understand why people are having a go at katiefranke for thinking people should be aware of all aspects of their pets health.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I am very lost on what you are trying to do here katiefranke. Are you trying to stop people from vaccinating at all or saying that dogs should only be vaccinated every 3 years. If the manufacturers recommendation is every 3 years then of course it should be every 3 years but the dog still has to be vaccinated against lepto every year so to the average pet owner the dog is going for annual boosters.


all I was trying to do was make people THINK about this...and i think i have probably succeeded by the looks of the thread!! lol

I am not completely against vaccines no, i never once said for people not to vaccinate at all - i just think people should do it knowledgably - i just stuck a load of info on my first post and stuck it out there for people to think about, as you do on a forum usually - I have seen enough things around the inconsistency of policies to know that something needs to change!

Just as one example, my sisters vet gave her dog vaccinations annually for EVERYTHING - we read the leaflet that goes with the vaccine just today actually and it states to do ONE puppy vaccination, not two (as long as after 10 weeks which it was), and then a first booster the following year and then THREE years after this. but her vet gave her pup two puppy shots and is doing the whole lot (NOT just lepto) annually. this is against the manufacturers guidelines.

then there is my own vet, who says every three years so i thought oh right thats good - however, i then read the manufacturers guidelines for the particular vaccine they used (Virbac Canigen DHPPi) and it is recommended ONE puppy shot (not two as maggie was given) and then they do NOT need a booster after the first year, but only every THREE years, this is in the directions for the vaccine. available from the manufacturer. but my vet, whilst saying they do every 3 years, still wanted to give maggie a booster this year (her first year) and then every three after that? but why? on what basis i asked?

so that is just a couple of examples...i have many more! so clearly you can see there is something not right her!

so my whole point here is, as i have said MANY times in this thread, that people should ask questions, make sure they are being given the right things for their vets...and in an ideal world, yes, i would like to see one consistent policy in the UK. that policy can have variations for manufacturers directions (due to differences with different vaccines manufacturers) sure, but the VMD state annual vaccs, as a blanket policy...they have not even updated their policy to take account of these three year vaccines now available. therefore kennels and catteries and many insurance companies etc etc etc, as we have said all through this thread, go by the VMD guidelines - therefore, even if i have my dog vaccinated in accordance with manufacturers instructions and by my vets advice i still would not be insured by certain companies, and cannot get her into many local kennels for instance!! how mad is that? so i have to over-vaccinate, against manufacturers guidelines to do so...now i dont even use kennels, but i think this is a terrible situation - and something should be done about it. its madness that there is so much confusion around it.

now as i said, everyone has to make up their own mind on what they actually do with the vaccines, but what i am asking people to do is just consider all these things...do you get what im saying?


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

zoeeoo said:


> i didnt read it al coz im being lazy soo the injections they have everyyear isnt needed only the 1st lot as a puppy?


hiya, please have a read of the posts through the thread. but no thats not right.

the point is that there are now vaccinations available for the viral diseases such as parvo, distemper, hep etc that are boostered every three years (instead of annually). some need a first annual booster, then every 3 years, some just have puppy shots and then booster three years later. leptospirosis would still need doing annually if you give this however as it works differently to the other vaccines, but this can be given on its own in the interval years between the other boosters.

you basically need to chat to your vet, see what their vaccination policy is, see what brand they use and what the directions are for this - and make sure they are vaccinating to the guidelines as we are finding that there are a lot of people out there whose dogs are being given more frequent vaccs than necessary.

some people choose to titre test to determine whether they need to give boosters etc, but you would need to have a read around this subject and preferably get some advice from your vet about it before going down this route.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I am very lost on what you are trying to do here katiefranke. Are you trying to stop people from vaccinating at all or saying that dogs should only be vaccinated every 3 years.


I am beginning to think I am reading a different thread to some :

The thread was set up to encourage people to think about the issues around vaccinations.

It has been made VERY clear on the thread that, at present, insurance companies require owners to vaccinate their dogs every year - what isn't clear is whether this means they that if they are not, they won't cover just the conditions directly linked to the vaccinations, or whether all insurance is null and void.

Most pet insurance won't cover bitches during pregnancy, whelping and raising litters or any conditions arising thereof - however, they will still cover the bitch for any other condition where the cause is unrelated to pregnancy.

It is also clear that people need to be aware there are risks either way - as I've said above, the fact that my own vet allows 18 months between jabs without the need to restart the course, whereas in other areas, this can be as short as 2 weeks after the year is up, and in others it can be as much as 3 years, not withstanding differences in manufacturers guidelines (and there aren't THAT many manufacturers).

I always advise people to follow the guidelines from their vet, however, the above clearly screams that something, somewhere isn't right 

Some vets ARE in the business to make money - yes, they are a business, but sometimes, what they charge is nothing short of scandalous.

Recently, my vet prescribed some diazepam for one of my girls to see if we could get her to rest because of a bad leg - knowing me and what a regular customer I am, there was no charge.

I returned a few days later for a check-up and was given another prescription, but the vet, a foreign 'locum' spotted that I hadn't been charged for the previous script - so he charged me for two.

The prescriptions cost *£12 each* to print them. The private prescription charge at the pharmacy was £5.88 (and yes, people in England, you might find you are losing out)

So they charged over double the cost of a private prescription to type 4 words and print a piece of paper - that is scandalous and at 30 seconds a time - that equates to *£1,440 an hour* - that's without the consultation fee, that is nothing short of scandalous.

Yes, they go to University, but so do lots of other people - many including myself, staying on to do Masters and Doctorates - so spend just as long, if not longer studying.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> all I was trying to do was make people THINK about this...and i think i have probably succeeded by the looks of the thread!! lol
> 
> I am not completely against vaccines no, i never once said for people not to vaccinate at all - i just think people should do it knowledgably - i just stuck a load of info on my first post and stuck it out there for people to think about, as you do on a forum usually - I have seen enough things around the inconsistency of policies to know that something needs to change!


In fact - amongst other disinformation - you quoted a paper that seems to have been totally made up and, throughout this whole 'discussion' you keep reiterating things that aren't true. That you do so is only to bolster an argument that people shouldn't have annual vaccinations.

You continually do so, in spite of the fact that almost all of what you posted in support of a position of stopping current vaccination policy was just outright untrue.

If you wanted them to 'think' why were you so keen for them to ask for a change? You've continually and consistently made the case for change - there's no neutrality about your postings at all.

There's already been someone who said they are going for 3 yearly boosters here - without any reference to what the license for that vaccine would be or its efficiency. I do hope that if that person's pets get ill as a result of following this thread that they come back and tell us. How will you feel then?

You keep claiming manufacturers are recommending different schedules. If that were true then that's what they'd be licensed for. So, please explain, if they are so keen to change, why don't they? And don't give us the "it makes money for them" argument because it just doesn't wash. Any more than the "vets do it because it makes money".

And, of course, you couldn't read my previous post because it simply showed all the things you've posted that weren't true and asked people to check for themselves. Funny that.


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

_There's already been someone who said they are going for 3 yearly boosters here - without any reference to what the license for that vaccine would be or its efficiency. I do hope that if that person's pets get ill as a result of following this thread that they come back and tell us. How will you feel then?_

I am not sure if this is directed at me but any decision I make regarding this isnt taken lightly and I wasnt aware that I had to explain how I reached it. Surely the aim is to avoid pets becoming ill not to hope for feedback if they do.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> You keep claiming manufacturers are recommending different schedules. If that were true then that's what they'd be licensed for. So, please explain, if they are so keen to change, why don't they?


I have actually read your other post since posting above, but it still doesnt say anything new or anything that I havent already answered - you clearly seem to have your own agenda here, so i dont think there is any point anyone even answering...but here goes:

Why do you keep saying the same thing over and over, even though your points have all been answered, do you have difficulty understanding what people are saying? - it is getting quite tiresome...just because you say something enough times doesnt make it TRUE! 

*If nothing else, please read this part:
In reference to the piece above about vaccine manufacturers, THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!!!! MANY ARE LICENSED FOR EVERY 3 YEARS!!!!! So who knows why the VMD wont update a currently blanket policy to include the fact that some manufacturers are producing 3 year vaccines?!*

Seriously, look at some of these examples, I am not making this up:

*Intervet Nobivac DHP vaccine:* Nobivac DHP - Overview
Take a look in the 3rd line down - booster EVERY THREE YEARS.
There are others in their Nobivac range - all of which as far as I can tell require every 3 years for the Distemper, Hepatitis (sometimes named adenovirus as this is where it comes from) & Parvo elements.

And some more:
*Virbac - Canigen DHP:* NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Canigen DHP - Dosage and administration
Again, boosters EVERY THREE YEARS

*Virbac - Canigen DHPPi:* NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Canigen DHPPi - Dosage and administration - as above with the DHP (the viral disease components, as we are discussing) need boostering EVERY 3 YEARS - and as already stated a number of times, lepto is bacterial and so is Pi, so these components are annual.

And another: *Virbac - Canigen Parvo-C:* NOAH Compendium of Animal Medicines: Canigen Parvo-C - Dosage and administration - recommended to be revaccinated EVERY 3 YEARS

Ok so then Intervet also make Procyon Dog, again a range of different vaccs within this brand as above, but if we just take the multiple* Procyon Dog DA2PPi/CvL *for example: Procyon Dog Da2ppi/Cvl - Product Data Sheet - as above, the bacterial elements are recommended annnually (but nobody has stated otherwise) - but the viral parts of this vaccine, are recommended to be done even less frequently - they say *EVERY FOUR YEARS*!!! now tell me, you think its ok to use this every year when it is licensed for every 4? 

The list goes on - clearly there are some brands that are annual still - but I never said there weren't - I just said that there were vaccines from two of the major manufacturers used in this country that are now much longer immunity and the VMD should be updating their policies accordingly. Otherwise, everyone that is using these VERY common vaccines are outside the policy, even though done in good faith, to manufacturers directions and with vets advice...*seriously, how is that right?*

I never said I was neutral to all ideas, so i dont know where you got that from - I said I have not told people not to vaccinate - go and find where I actually say not to vaccinate - you wont find it as I didnt ask people not to.

As I said, yes I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE CHANGE!! what, do you work for the VMD or something? That would make sense with your very odd and one-sided responses.

Even if you do not agree, why are you so insistent on trying to make out I have quoted things wrongly and made things up? Its ridiculous, as it just ruins any argument you had - as what you are saying is just made up? 

Each to their own, but I do find your way of dicussing things very odd.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Katiefranke - I am glad you replied to the poster who thought you were meaning that dogs only need one vaccination in their lives. Whatever you might have meant this is how it came over and that is very dangerous. Inexperienced pet owners will come on here, see a post with a lot of info and take it as gospel. Also the thread title very much intimated that dogs do not need annual boosters.

As I said before, the average pet owner does not know or care what the dog is being vaccinated against, it still needs an annual booster and the fact that it is only for lepto does not make any difference to the majority.

I certainly did not know that either kennels or insurance companies would expect a dog to be vaccinated more frequently than the manufacturers and vets recommend. Has anyone actually got proof of this. I can imagine that some very ignorant kennel owners might not understand what is necessary but they are wrong. Council licenses state that all dogs must be vaccinated so maybe if anyone comes across a kennel that insists on unnecessary boosters it might be an idea to approach the relevant council department and sort it out from that end. I also would not want to be insured with a company that would use this as an out for paying up, as what else would they use to wriggle out of paying.

There are problems with horse vaccination too with some vets still liking to vaccinate annually for tetanus and others doing it every 3 years. Again dependent on the make they use. But also some venues (such as racecourses) insist on flu vaccines being much closer together than the recommendations so if you are competing your horse at these venues you have to alter your vaccination regime to conform. Annoying but a fact of life.


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> goodness me you HAVE got your knickers in a twist - I think people can make up their own minds on this!
> 
> what exactly do you think i have to prove or gain here? to me it sounds like you have more of an agenda than anyone as you are so adamant and clearly ignoring many outright facts - like the one where many actual manufacturers themselves are recommending more infrequent schedules - i notice you keep ignoring this part!? And the fact that you appeared to read an older VMD position paper and not their most recent response paper.
> 
> ...


I have found more frequently with some members that they only have selective reading skills?


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I certainly did not know that either kennels or insurance companies would expect a dog to be vaccinated more frequently than the manufacturers and vets recommend. Has anyone actually got proof of this. I can imagine that some very ignorant kennel owners might not understand what is necessary but they are wrong. Council licenses state that all dogs must be vaccinated so maybe if anyone comes across a kennel that insists on unnecessary boosters it might be an idea to approach the relevant council department and sort it out from that end. I also would not want to be insured with a company that would use this as an out for paying up, as what else would they use to wriggle out of paying.


It appears that the councils follow the VMD recommendations - so they wont change their suggestions to kennel owners until the VMD update their details!!

Some of the manufacturers actually have info on their websites for kennel owners to help explain that different vaccines have different lengths of duration, but I am sure there are many who are not clued up.

Pet Plan are an example of an insurance company who will not cover you for the diseases vaccinated against unless you have all of them done EVERY YEAR regardless of manufacturers or vets.

So anyone insured with Pet Plan who think they are covered, if your vet gives one of the vaccines that is due less frequently (which a huge amount do), then even though you are going by the guidelines of the vaccine and your vets recommendation, then you would still not be covered. now it doesnt state this in their Ts&Cs for frequency of vaccinations, but I called to clarify and this is what they told me.

Apparently if people get their vets to write to them they would then consider individual cases - but who wants to have to do that?! Again, they said they rely on information from the RVC & VMD!!

So you see why this is so frustrating!


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

Lyceum said:


> Because it makes them millions every year.
> 
> You know, the same way the government wont stop selling **** even though they know smokers are a massive drain on the NHS, but they make so much money from **** that stopping selling them would lose them more money than paying for the treatment of smokers on the NHS does. Same goes for alcohol, junk food etc.
> 
> ...


As i posted b4 it cost Nobivac £1,75 to produce a vaccine...how much does it cost you? £25 is average.
Money should not be an issue however what do I do?...my 2 rotti's have been insured with the same company since they were 9 wks old. It costs me £52.29 for both every 28 days, now they were 6 years old when they are 7 the insurance company will not insure them! So do i continue with the vaccine? My vet has advise me not to. She suggested just bringing them in for a yearly MOT.
I have never claimed a penny from the insurance, my girls have only ever been to the vets for speying & vaccinations, however I wouldnt have took the risk of not having it.
To be honest I would rather give the cash to charity than line a medical companies pockets, from a vaccine thats not neccessary:confused1:


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

thereasa said:


> I have found more frequently with some members that they only have selective reading skills?


Don't they just 

===========================================

Katie - feel free to tell me to 'bog off' - but can I suggest to cover your own back that you edit your first post to put a clear disclaimer (in bold) at the top of it - something along the lines of

"This thread was started to make people look more closely at / question vaccination requirements for dogs in the UK.

People are not advised to change their current vaccination practices but encouraged to do their own research and speak to their vet about viable options.

Please be aware, the majority of insurance companies require your pet to be up to date with their vaccinations and in failing to do so, you may find that your policy is invalid. If in doubt, speak to your insurance company.

If you do not vaccinate in line with manufacturers recommendations, you could be putting your dogs life at risk, if in doubt, speak to your vet'

==============================

I think you make a good case - the evidence is there that someone is not doing what's right - but people really should do their own research - and it is quite clear that there is a need for vaccination schedules to be examined more closely.

I would also like to think that the majority of pet owners are more responsible than to take as gospel a single post on a forum in respect of something so important.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Inexperienced pet owners will come on here, see a post with a lot of info and take it as gospel. Also the thread title very much intimated that dogs do not need annual boosters.


Ok, disclaimer added - hopefully this will stop any confusion. The thread title says to 'question the need' for them...because that is exactly what it is all about...or it was in my mind as we are talking about not needing annual boosters and instead needing three year ones for the viral diseases. I do state that it is not about not vaccinating right at the top of the original post. I also state that it is parvo/distemper/hep (viral diseases) that I am talking about where three year ones are concerned... so I had tried to make it as clear as possible when writing it but I guess everyone perceives things differently.



swarthy said:


> Katie - feel free to tell me to 'bog off' - but can I suggest to cover your own back that you edit your first post to put a clear disclaimer (in bold) at the top of it - something along the lines of...


Added!


----------



## Lyceum (Sep 25, 2009)

thereasa said:


> As i posted b4 it cost Nobivac £1,75 to produce a vaccine...how much does it cost you? £25 is average.
> Money should not be an issue however what do I do?...my 2 rotti's have been insured with the same company since they were 9 wks old. It costs me £52.29 for both every 28 days, now they were 6 years old when they are 7 the insurance company will not insure them! So do i continue with the vaccine? My vet has advise me not to. She suggested just bringing them in for a yearly MOT.
> I have never claimed a penny from the insurance, my girls have only ever been to the vets for speying & vaccinations, however I wouldnt have took the risk of not having it.
> To be honest I would rather give the cash to charity than line a medical companies pockets, from a vaccine thats not neccessary:confused1:


It costs me £45 for a booster. So £90 in total per year. Not a bad mark up is it.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

thereasa said:


> As i posted b4 it cost Nobivac £1,75 to produce a vaccine...how much does it cost you? £25 is average.
> Money should not be an issue however what do I do?...my 2 rotti's have been insured with the same company since they were 9 wks old. It costs me £52.29 for both every 28 days, now they were 6 years old when they are 7 the insurance company will not insure them!


Why won't they insure them? My girl is 7.5, had major surgery last year and still insured.

Remember also, that puppies and older dogs are, by their very nature, more susceptible to infection.



thereasa said:


> To be honest I would rather give the cash to charity than line a medical companies pockets, from a vaccine thats not neccessary:confused1:


It's not just about how much it costs to make, there are transportation and storage costs to add on to that.

In addition, the manufacturers have put the research into creating and refining the product - which can take many many years and huge investments.

I am not sure if Veterinary products work on the same basis as human drugs - but they are only patented for a period of time, before any generic manufacturer can copy the product and sell for a markedly reduced price - at this point, the drug companies are unlikely to be able to make any significant recoup on investment - hence why many drugs appear to cost far more than they do to make - if they didn't have this investment, there would be no more drugs, and inevitably, lives would be lost, human and canine - on that basis, the drug companies making profits really is a relatively small price to pay.

If the average price seems to be around £25 and someone is paying £45 - I would say it's more the vets pockets being lined rather than the drug companies making the product.

=================

I think it is very good to question what is going on with the products, I don't think however it is such a good idea to make a knee jerk reaction in terms of limiting the frequency of vaccinations without considerably more evidence - hence the reason to question and challenge the practice first.


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> Ok, disclaimer added - hopefully this will stop any confusion. The thread title says to 'question the need' for them...because that is exactly what it is all about...or it was in my mind as we are talking about not needing annual boosters and instead needing three year ones for the viral diseases. I do state that it is not about not vaccinating right at the top of the original post..


Didn't you realise we have to treat everyone as though they are imbeciles? I mean, frequently I see someone random post something on a forum and take it as gospel, with no research of my own. 

It would seem you have ruffled a few feathers here and I can't for the life of me see why. You have simply posted your findings and left people to make their own minds up. Go figure. ut:

Clearly you have strong personal views on it, but thats a good thing! Doesn't mean anyone had to follow suit. I also don't understand why certain memebers have found the need to be rude and try to ruin this thread, but that says a lot about them don't you think. 

As a side note, Argos have just paid out £1,500 for my unvaccinated dog. Some companies WILL pay out, just check the policy first to make sure.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Jesi said:


> Didn't you realise we have to treat everyone as though they are imbeciles? I mean, frequently I see someone random post something on a forum and take it as gospel, with no research of my own.


Sadly, some people do take what they see on forums as gospel  I am not saying it applies to anyone here - although that have been a few posts along the lines of "so we don't need to bother".

Unfortunately, there are also those on forums who opt to cherry pick the good and bad points they can target  no names :lol:


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Sadly, some people do take what they see on forums as gospel


Kinda like 'I read it in the Daily Mail so it must be true' lol

TAKE TIME AND COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS PEOPLE!


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Jesi said:


> As a side note, Argos have just paid out £1,500 for my unvaccinated dog. Some companies WILL pay out, just check the policy first to make sure.


Thats good to know Jesi!! thanks for your input


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> Thats good to know Jesi!! thanks for your input


Interestingly, I've just had a look at a couple of policies, and am struggling to find anything mentioning vaccinations in some of them


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Interestingly, I've just had a look at a couple of policies, and am struggling to find anything mentioning vaccinations in some of them


Yep well thats what I was saying to albert - he stated point blank that NO uk policy would cover it. But from what I have been reading some are not too worried - some obviously have set policies on it etc etc...

So as always, people need to check their own policies to see what exactly is covered and also make sure the wording is clear and you understand what is required for cover to be in place.

Pet Plan's policy just states 'up to date' but on calling them they said it is annual for all diseases - but surely for that to stand they would have to have it in writing if they require a set frequency of vaccination. as it reads at the mo, surely 'up to date' implies as per manufacturers instructions for the vaccines and your vets advice.

I think if anything were to go further, they wouldnt be able to turn down the claim, as there is nowhere in the Ts&Cs that state annual. And if you are having vaccs administered as per the manufacturers instructions then surely they are 'up to date'? :confused1:


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Interestingly, I've just had a look at a couple of policies, and am struggling to find anything mentioning vaccinations in some of them


Argos, Homebase, Kennel Club. They're the only ones I have experiance of, but I'm sure there are others.

If he were to get a condition the vaccs could have prevented they won't pay - fair enough. 
Other than that they don't even ask if the vaccs are up to date when you apply for a claim. 



katiefranke said:


> So as always, people need to check their own policies to see what exactly is covered and also make sure the wording is clear and you understand what is required for cover to be in place.


I just rang them and asked them outright before insuring with them, so as there was no confusion. They also emailed me conformation of the fact in case of a problem later on.


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Why won't they insure them? My girl is 7.5, had major surgery last year and still insured.
> 
> Remember also, that puppies and older dogs are, by their very nature, more susceptible to infection.
> 
> ...


Nobivac sells to the vet depending on the amount it sells(Bulk buying) for the average of £4 per vaccination dose...it is the price the vet charges I have the issue with.
My vet is sort off ok, said they are happy to health check for free as I'm considered a regular...my 22 year old cat gets the princess treatment from them 
The insurance company i'm with said its standard practice "high risk " dogs...yeah I know!! Due to hip problems, arthritus ,lesser life span etc. I didnt realise this until last year when I had a leeter from them stating this, if I'd have known this I'd have changed companies, it maybe my own fault for not reading the small print? If anyone can reccomend another insurance company i'd be really grateful, its on my "to do" list.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

thereasa said:


> The insurance company i'm with said its standard practice "high risk " dogs...yeah I know!! Due to hip problems, arthritus ,lesser life span etc. I didnt realise this until last year when I had a leeter from them stating this, if I'd have known this I'd have changed companies, it maybe my own fault for not reading the small print? If anyone can reccomend another insurance company i'd be really grateful, its on my "to do" list.


If you don't mind me asking, what breed have you got?

I've always been rather blase about the fact I've never claimed - and then last year my girl had a neck injury requriing about £2.5K worth of surgery.

Her premium doubled this year (she will 8 during the year) which I wasn't overly happy about - although that said - she was relatively low to start with.

I did look around and DirectLine offered me a price lower than I was paying last year - I did contact them about previous claims etc and they advised that they didn;t ask the question until a claim arose - it is highly unlikely that her injury would cause a future problem, as the offending article (a ruptured disc) has been removed.

Eventually, being a bit apathetic  I stayed where I was - but the cover is out there


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

swarthy said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what breed have you got?
> 
> I've always been rather blase about the fact I've never claimed - and then last year my girl had a neck injury requriing about £2.5K worth of surgery.
> 
> ...


Rottweilers. They are 6.5. I've been so lucky so far that they've never had a days illness.just had a look at some quotes online,a few companies do senior policies..
I have a crossbreed to,got a quote for her yesterday only 6.99 per month!: Yet she is crossed with 2 "high risk" breeds!:confused1: Double trouble?


----------



## waking_on_sunshine (Jun 13, 2010)

More food for thought

PET VACCINATION
An Institutionalised Crime
Extracted from Nexus Magazine,Welcome to NEXUS Magazine! (Oct 2005).
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. [email protected]
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381 by Catherine O'Driscoll ©2005
Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533
Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK Email: [email protected]
Website: Canine Health Concern

A Contentious Issue
The Science behind Vaccination
The Current State of Play for the Animals
The Barriers to Knowledge
The Science of Vaccine Damage
A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases
Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response
A Theory on Inflammation
The Final Insult

Pet owners should be aware that vaccines compromise the health of their cherished pets, causing serious side-effects including allergies, arthritis, behavioural problems, cancer, paralysis and, at worst, death.

My partner Rob and I attended a Crosby, Stills and Nash concert recently. It was a wonderful, rare treat, and fulfilled a dream I've nurtured for many years. I was particularly moved by Dave Crosby as he sang, "Speak, speak out against the madness". We have to do that, don't we? We have to speak out when our loved ones are being harmed. If we don't, then it seems to me that we are just part of the problem. Later in the same song Crosby sang, "It appears to be a long time before the dawn". And this is true, too: it seems to be taking so long for the truth to pre*vail and be acted upon by the veterinary communityfor the profession is committing a crime by vaccinating animals year after year until they drop.

I've been saying this since 1994, when I formed a group called Canine Health Concern (CHC). The aim of this group is to educate pet owners in an attempt to stop the carnage that is being visited upon the animals by the corporations and professionals who profess to be helping them. My mission is quite personal, since the science points towards the horri*fying fact that vaccines have killed three of my young, beautiful canine friends. The first shock came when Oliver suffered from rear-end paralysis and died when he was only four years old. Prudence died a slow and agonising death from leukaemia when she was only six; and Samson had a reaction to his puppy shot and first-year booster, and died of cancer at the tender age of five. All of these conditions are linked scientifically to vaccination. My other dogs were also unable to escape the damage that vaccines can cause. Chappie had thyroid disease, Sophie had arthritis and Guinnevere suffered from allergies. Again, these conditions can be scientifically shown to relate to vaccine damage.

I believe that vets of the future, and our children's doctors, will look back upon the vac*cination era with horror and shame. The horror will come from the knowledge that so much pain and misery was caused by healing professionals acting in ignorance, and the shame will come from the wilfulness of that ignorance.

A Contentious Issue
If you will forgive me for making one more personal comment before I move on to substantiate my outrageous claims, I would like to address the issue of "contentiousness", which is a label I've grown used to but which I do not intend preventing me from speaking the truth.

You may have noticed that I've been using some pretty strong language in the opening paragraphs of this article. This is deliberate. It's deliberate because doctors, veterinarians and scientists have been numbed or socially moulded into language and behaviour that follow strict codes of professional etiquette. The pressure is upon them to be polite and refrain from offending one another with ideas, which means that the truth is continually stifled. By speaking directly, it is my intention to shock that numbness out of the system which perpetuates such catastrophic error. Besides which, the truth needs to be heard.

I believe that my dogs died prematurely, and millions of other dogs, cats and horses have died and are continuing to die because of the false ideas or beliefs held by our med*ical and veterinary professions. This faulty structure of belief is built, supported and held rigidly in place by a system which is killing the life on this planet. This system ensures that professionals are taught in colleges which rely upon big business for funding, which means that their education is faulty. Research organisations also rely upon big business for funding, which means that we can rarely trust the research. The media rely upon big business for funding, so we can scarcely believe what we read. And professionals in prac*tice rely upon big business to stay in business. More worrying, perhaps, is the fact that our governments seem, from my direct experience, to put big business interests before life.

We are, in fact, looking at a juggernaut of death which is hurling itself at top speed towards the grave. We will not stop it by whimpering quietly in its face. We must educate ourselves with the truth and stand firmly in line together and shout, "No!" Failing this, the lives of your children, and your animals, depend at least upon your taking the time to understand the issues.

The Science behind Vaccination
Vaccination was born in England in 1798, when Edward Jenner observed that people who worked close to cows didn't get small*pox. He injected cowpox into humans and deduced that those humans were prevented from getting smallpox. You can imagine that, during the days of poor nutrition and appalling sanitation, the concept of a miracle cure for infectious disease would have been seized upon. And it was.

During the 1800s, Louis Pasteur developed the technology still further by attenuating vaccines, i.e., rendering them less harmful. It naturally took little time for vaccines to become big business, and over 200 years on there are vaccines against a wide array of bacterial and viral diseases in humans and many species of animal. Ignoring the fact that epidemics go in cycles and die out naturally (like the plague, for example), and ignoring the fact that our understanding of hygiene and nutrition might have something to do with the reduction in epidemics, vac*cines have been given the largest slice of the credit.

Conventional medicine works on the risk/benefit ratio. All conventional Pharmaceuticals come with the risk of unwanted side-effectsbut if they can be shown to help more people than they harm, then their dangers are ignored. It is no wonder, then, that the multibillion-dollar international vaccine industry has sponsored absolutely no long-term studiesin humans or animals to ascertain what the risks of vaccines might actually be. And when individ*ual scientists take the bull by the horns and conduct their own under-funded research, they are routinely discredited, usually by "experts" who have shares in, or lucrative consultancy income from, the vaccine industry. Even government-funded research gives those with vested interests full voice.

I guess if you can inject substances that make humans and animals sick, then you can also make a lot of money from supplying drugs that promise to alleviate these vaccine-induced illnesses. Politically and economically, it also makes sense to keep industry thriving and people in employment, and it also helps if big busi*nesses enrich political campaign funds.


----------



## waking_on_sunshine (Jun 13, 2010)

The Current State of Play for the Animals
This is what I have seen happening, time after time, over the last 12 years. A "responsible" pet owner takes their dog (or cat or horse) to the vet for their annual booster. Shortly after, the animal develops epilepsy, or arthritis, or behavioural problems, or thyroid disease, or diabetes, or skin complaints, or allergies, or heart failure, or liver or kidney damage, or paralysis of the rear end, or colitis, or even cancer, leukaemia or another life-threatening immune-mediated disease shortly after the shot.

Usually neither the pet owner nor the vet suspects a link. If the owner has been particularly close to their animal friend, however, they will start to ask questions. They may ask their vet if he or she suspects a link between the booster and the subsequent illness. The answer will invariably be "No". Very occasionally the owner won't let it rest there. They'll start to seek an answer to the ques*tion, "Why did my friend die?" They will then discover that a vaccine can indeed cause any of these illnesses and thatmuch to their horrorthere was actually no need to give their friend an annual booster.

There will, however, be no recourse. They cannot bring their dead animal back to life. If they go through the courts, the system is such that very little impact will be made for their own case or for the health of any other animals. The best that can happen is that individuals, one at a time, slowly change their vaccine practices.

The Barriers to Knowledge
It's not easy to get your message across when you're engaged in the vaccine debate. The real problem lies in the fact that the science is somewhat complex and, bizarrely, the logic of vaccination is somewhat faulty. It just doesn't make senseso it's very much easier to hand the decision-making process over to an expert in a white coat.

Unfortunately, this leaves many people turning away from the effort involved in looking at the issues surrounding vaccination, relying instead upon someone else's judgement while at the same time suffering incredible anguish. I have had letters, emails and phone calls from so many people who worried about revaccinating their animals but who did it anyway because a vet told them to, and who now need grief counselling.

If nothing else, the 12 years I have spent running Canine Health Concern have shown me that this is the next necessary stage in human evolution: to take responsibility for our lives and the lives of those in our care. The system is so complex, and so swayed by the dominating effect of economics, that we have no choice now.

You cannot afford to subject your animals, or your children, to medical interventions that you do not understand. The belief system upon which the conventional medical model is founded is so faulty, so corrupt and so dangerous that you simply cannot afford to follow blindly.

Now I appreciate that many doctors and vets reading these words might be enraged by what I have said. They spent so much time, energy and money in obtaining their qualifications, after all. They actually do know more than most of us, and their whole lives are dedicated to healing the sick. Indeed, there is much in the conventional medical model that is good.

But doctors and vets will also resonate with the truth of what I am saying, however uncomfortable or angry it makes them feel. Recent studies show that three times more people in the UK die each year from drugs their doctors prescribe than they do in road traffic accidents. Doctors and vets do not have time to study all the side-effects of every drug: much of their understanding about drugs comes from pharmaceutical company representatives. They also have to concern themselves with income from their practice. And no one is able to know everything.

Drugs like Vioxx and Co-Proxamol in the human medical field, and Rimadyl and Deramaxx in the canine field, have now been shown to have death as a potential side-effectbut only after they passed all the safety and licensing requirements and after tens of thousands died. In America, where the FDA took action, Rimadyl comes with data sheets to warn dog owners of potential death if their pet is given the drug, and the makers of Deramaxx have had their knuckles rapped. And yet newly qualified student vets, who come on our Foundation in Canine Healthcare course, have been told in college about only the benefits of these drugs.

Patients and clients, on the other hand, do have time and often the motivation to research their own illnesses or the illnesses of their children and animals and the medications that are prescribed. All of us are far better educated than we used to be, even if we don't possess the same qualifications as the healthcare professionals. We have minds, and we know how to use them. And because the buck stops with us, we have a duty of care to ourselves and our loved ones. All too frequently, however, animal guardians are moved to research after their friends have died.

My aim, and the aim of Canine Health Concern, is to provide information before tragedy occurs. Sadly, I cannot make you read this information: only your love can do this. I can say, though, that the animals have been concerned with human evolution since the beginning of time, and they will continue to sacrifice themselves upon the altar of science until we humans get it. Truly, if only we knew the full extent of the love being poured out by the animals towards humanity, we would bow down in gratitude to them, and no effort would be too much for their sakes.

The Science of Vaccine Damage
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies 1,2 to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no long-term follow-up has been conducted.

At around the same time, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000 cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their

vaccine injection sites.3 The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines4 following pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on vacci*nating until we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most likely to die."

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

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

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

A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases

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

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

Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.8

There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis: brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox, rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well defined viral infections".

When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.

I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that "paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can also cause sudden death.

Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:

"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture contaminants that cause a pro*gressive immune response directed at connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would be more pro*nounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although] the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of their breed."

I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.

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

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

Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years. They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline or its equivalent is not administered.

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

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

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

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


----------



## waking_on_sunshine (Jun 13, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual vaccination is unnecessary.16-19

Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years. But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of animals are dying every year unnecessarily.

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

It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond

About the Author:

Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines (1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in NEXUS 4/04). She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine health around the world.

For more information, contact Catherine O'Driscoll at Canine Health Concern, PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email [email protected] , website Canine Health Concern. Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, and worldwide from Dogwise at Welcome to Dogwise.com - Dog Books.


----------



## waking_on_sunshine (Jun 13, 2010)

Endnotes

1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs, Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at haywardstudyonvaccines.

2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.

3. See Vaccine Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (VAFSTF) Home Page.

4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.

5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.

6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 10:290-295.

7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985. See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.

8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.

9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at Immune System - Dr. Jean Dodds.

10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.

11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1999.

12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.

13. ibid.

14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at Journal of Inflammation content/1/1/3.

15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002, http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.

16. ibid.

17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.

18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13, 2002 (insert).

19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> I have actually read your other post since posting above, but it still doesnt say anything new or anything that I havent already answered <snip>


Except that you haven't answered.

In your original post, in support of your 'argument', you cited http://petvaccine.weebly.com/uploads...hc_summary.pdf as a document and I quote "great sources of further info that I would urge you to read". That document has no source, no proof of ANY of the points it raises and reads so much like a conspiracy manual I was half expecting them to say that vaccine manufacturers shot Kennedy.

You keep saying that you are trying to educate people about the dangers of over vaccination. But you repeatedly ignore the only study the proves that there is NO danger.



> Even if you do not agree, why are you so insistent on trying to make out I have quoted things wrongly and made things up? Its ridiculous, as it just ruins any argument you had - as what you are saying is just made up?


A lot of what you say is taken out of context. The most serious example: You claim that the WSAVA recommendations are being taken up by its members. The FACT is that they aren't. Even their own report says so. Less than 14 out of their 70 member countries are even considering using their recommendations. That's not my reading of it. It's what their report says.

That's not what you said - at all. You said that



> Each to their own, but I do find your way of dicussing things very odd.


In other words - you can't/won't give specific answers to the points that I've raised.

Nor is what you write evenly balanced. For example you've quoted the WSAVA report (inaccurately but at least you've tried to provide backing). However, you completely ignore the the BSAVA who say:"In Europe and the United Kingdom, the discussion on these issues has been far less prominent. This may reflect the fact that there are far fewer licensed vaccines available for use in Europe compared to North America. The single most significant contribution has been the report of the UK VPC on feline and canine vaccination, published in full in 2002, and summarised in the Veterinary Record (2002). The majority of the recommendations were accepted by the government and their response published in (2003). The VPC report emphasises the safety and value of vaccination, and presents UK data on the very low prevalence of adverse reactions to these products in dogs and cats.

*On the issue of extended booster intervals, the VPC recommends that until such time as more extensive scientific evidence is presented, there is insufficient basis to alter the current data sheet recommendations for companion animal vaccines.*"

The BSAVA is a member of the WSAVA and supposedly would endorse the WSAVA report. Yet the paragraph in bold above indicates the opposite. Why didn't you present this?

The other main, misplaced, argument is that vets are somehow conspiring to keep people giving their pets annual boosters when it's unnecessary. The RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct says: Veterinary surgeons (and veterinary nurses) must  use their professional status to provide *only factual information* to the general public about veterinary products and services. If they don't they can be struck off. So, how many vets are going to put their livelihoods in danger by not telling you the facts about the vaccines they use?

I'm not a vet. I have nothing to do with vaccine manufacturers. I'm simply a pet owner. I was originally drawn to this thread because it wasn't made clear that it is a condition of ALL pet insurance policies that a dog/cat's vaccinations have to be 'up to date'. 'Up to date' means for the period for which they are licensed - no more, no less. But I did do research to PhD level which involved looking at some research in this area so when you started to make claims about what was being said in current research I looked for myself.

And again, and again, you have misrepresented the actual research and what it says. So, rather than opening a balanced debate, what you've really done is present a very one sided view which is totally opposite to that of the veterinary profession and the licensing body here in the UK.

I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of people won't bother to find out for themselves. They will, quite rightly in my opinion, trust what their vet says. There are a few (thankfully only a few) who will ignore their vet's advice.

It's really simple - the vet uses a particular make of vaccine. That vaccine is licensed (and proven) to provide a period of protection. It is NOT proven to provide any longer protection - that's why it has the license it has. The vet is bound by his professional body to give accurate, factual advice about a product he uses or recommends. Those products may vary between vets.

A vet may disagree. A vet may well give an opinion that a vaccine should last longer. You, as the owner, may override the license conditions. But the bottom line is that until such time as the license conditions change you are taking a grave risk with your pet's health if you do so.

There is no 'danger' to your dog from overuse of vaccines. None. Zero. Not any. That's been proven. It may not be something you'd want to do if it is genuinely unnecessary but if the vaccine has a license for a period -whatever it is- you would be being totally irresponsible not to re-vaccinate after that period.

And you continually refer to the VMD as specifying that all vaccines have to be used annually. Read their guidelines by clicking on the link. You will see that they continually say: "With some
UK vaccines there is no requirement to re-vaccinate dogs at twelve months of age as recommended in the WSAVA Guidelines." That doesn't sound to me like they are promoting over vaccination. And, if you actually read their document and check their database you'll see that some products do have licenses of longer that 1 year. In some cases 4 years. But some only have a one year license.

By the way - you didn't tell us that the WSAVA thinks that leptospirosis vaccinations should be "restricted to geographical areas where a significant risk of exposure has been established". Would you be so good as to tell us which areas of the UK those would be? The VMD thinks that it's such a danger that every vet in the UK should vaccinate dogs annually for it. The WSAVA doesn't think so. It thinks we should vaccinate every 6-9 months - assuming we're in a risk area. (BTW because lepto has mutating strains the vaccines are constantly changing. The only published research that I can find indicates that 12 monthly cover would be adequate).

One glaring problem is that you keep saying how protection (in some cases) can last for many years. I guess that your authority for this - as it is for the WSAVA - is from various pieces of manufacturer research which were reviewed by Schultz. Here's the problem: "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."

Let me translate - they aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Now, if you want to chance your animals' health - go ahead. But please stop trying to persuade other people to do so when it's simply not the consensus of the veterinary world that it's safe.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> Let me translate - they aren't worth the paper they are written on.


You have the audacity to call me aggressive (it's a good idea to make sure you post on the right profile when making public statements) - when your arrogance shines through in every post you make.

I know what I know, and what I don't know I will question and learn about - unlike some who clearly know everything about everything and everyone else is wrong 

==========================

There are what - two people saying vaccination is right and a lot more questioning the existing protocols.

To question is healthy - to make knee jerk reactions is irresponsible - to believe there are no grey areas is blinkered.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

waking_on_sunshine said:


> The Current State of Play for the Animals
> This is what I have seen happening, time after time, over the last 12 years. A "responsible" pet owner takes their dog (or cat or horse) to the vet for their annual booster. Shortly after, the animal develops epilepsy, or arthritis, or behavioural problems, or thyroid disease, or diabetes, or skin complaints, or allergies, or heart failure, or liver or kidney damage, or paralysis of the rear end, or colitis, or even cancer, leukaemia or another life-threatening immune-mediated disease shortly after the shot.


You are obviously painfully ignorant that for many years that in the UK there has been a reporting mechanism for vets that whenever a dog develops any sort of problem, fatal or otherwise, after a vaccination or booster that all details are reported and logged onto a database.

The collection of such data allows the examination of any such links. To date no causal links appear to have been made. Funny that. The world's largest collection of data and there are no links proven.

The Animal Health Trust study - a different study - shows NO problems with 9000 animals.

Yet you claim there is. And as evidence - an OU student who thinks that "The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in order to hide from the immune system"

Wow. You've got to hand it to Gary. An OU student who knows more than the whole medical world. Yes. You just have to believe him.

What a complete and utter pile of rubbish. It's stuff like this that is so dangerous to animal health.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

AlbertRoss said:


> What a complete and utter pile of rubbish. It's stuff like this that is so dangerous to animal health.


It's so much fun being ignored :thumbup::thumbup:

How come you can find myriads of studies to back up your arguments yet when anyone else does, it is rubbish or "disinformation".

You criticise people for questioning the risks that vaccines can cause, yet argue until you are blue in the face that health testing is a waste of time. 

and you call others dangerous to animal health 

==========================

Many many conditions are likely to be linked to vaccinations, yet frequently those links are seldom recognised and therefore never recorded.

It is becoming increasingly likely there is a direct correlation between my friends dogs IBD and his vaccination - would it stop me vaccinating my dogs - NO - would it make me question the process - YES.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of people won't bother to find out for themselves. They will, quite rightly in my opinion, trust what their vet says. There are a few (thankfully only a few) who will ignore their vet's advice.


I like the way you are ignoring every single point that anyone makes!? Those people who ask their vets are very often being told to vaccinate every three years - is this deja vu or what? How many times have I had to say the same thing to you...? I really think you are living in some kind of alternate reality?



AlbertRoss said:


> if you actually read their document and check their database you'll see that some products do have licenses of longer that 1 year. In some cases 4 years. But some only have a one year license.


*Are you serious? I told you that?*



AlbertRoss said:


> You are obviously painfully ignorant that for many years that in the UK there has been a reporting mechanism for vets that whenever a dog develops any sort of problem, fatal or otherwise, after a vaccination or booster that all details are reported and logged onto a database.


that was very rude to one of our newer members? but you seem not be able to help yourself.

Personally I think it is YOU who is painfully ignorant - you see what happens to all those dogs and cats who develop terrible allergies, diseases etc etc that cannot be 100% linked to the vaccine because it wasnt immediately afterwards - or because the owner/vet didnt consider it, or because the owner didnt know where to report it? ...how many more animals do you think there could potentially be out there that have not even been included in these numbers?

Oh and *now i see you have increased the POOCH study's participants to 9000!!! when in actual fact the information states 4000 dogs *- which i might point out is how many were also surveyed in an independant survey - which the report you say wasnt based on anything, was actually based upon! except this independant report did show adverse effects:



> In total, more than 9,000 postal questionnaires were sent to the owners of a randomly selected population of dogs. *Just over 4,000 were returned and subsequently analysed*.


 http://www.future-of-vaccination.co.uk/animal-health-survey.asp

--------

So come on, answer some questions as you seem to 'know' a lot about this topic - *so tell me, how do you explain the fact that many vets ARE recommending 3 year vaccinations for the DHP components?* Are they all wrong? should they be struck off?

And please also *tell me how I managed to post every single one of those vaccination datasheets showing directions for boostering/revaccination the DHP components on a 3 or even 4 year basis?* Are these manufacturers wrong? have I somehow fabricated the evidence?

Did I make these up? Perhaps I am a web techie and I actually hacked the manufacturers sites to make up my own datasheets 

I pity your very narrow view of the world...and your clear lack of desire to find any other answers than those presented to you on a plate by organisations that its in their interests to have you believe their findings...


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> I was originally drawn to this thread because it wasn't made clear that it is a condition of ALL pet insurance policies that a dog/cat's vaccinations have to be 'up to date'. 'Up to date' means for the period for which they are licensed - no more, no less.


thats simply not true - why dont you actually read the thread - read the posts and the conversations properly, please...this is getting ridiculous...

for instance, just one example which i have already posted about not many posts ago - I looked at Pet Plan (as they are the largest pet insurance company)... Pet Plan state that the vaccinations have to be 'up to date' but if you read my earlier posts you will see that on calling them to clarify, it seems they want EVERY disease vaccinated against ANNUALLY regardless of what manufacturers say in their directions or what your vet advises...

dont you see, this is the whole point of this? it is a disgrace that there is no clear information and no clear policy! Pet Plan said they are taking advice from the Royal Veterinary College and the VMD's guidelines...so what do you make of that?

and just to add - you might not like what I have posted on there, but i never claimed to have written the thing for goodness sake! it is just something i have read and personally i feel it raises questions - some too close to the truth to simply ignore...so i wanted to find out more...having dug around i found out all these inconsistencies...

*...so instead of picking apart the report i linked to as one small part of a whole issue - (and lets be honest how many people would have actually bothered to read it anyway?) - why dont you just join in the debate normally? some of the info you have posted is quite informative and would have added to the discussion, but you have phrased things in such a way that you have alienated everyone reading and posting on the thread!*


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

swarthy said:


> It's so much fun being ignored :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> How come you can find myriads of studies to back up your arguments yet when anyone else does, it is rubbish or "disinformation".
> 
> ...


surely even you would have to admit that Waking on sunshine is putting out some fairly contentious (total rubbish) sort of info!
Before vaccinations dogs died of the diseases.  If vaccination stop dog will die of the diseases.


----------



## thereasa (Jan 18, 2010)

Can I ask without bombardment of"havnt you read it all" cos to be frank I havnt cos I was getting a bit lost in the long posts....if you have an older pet thats had vaccinations all it s life, can you over vaccinate it so that it becomes immune to the vaccination....sorry if this has already said but a brief answer would be great


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

thereasa said:


> Can I ask without bombardment of"havnt you read it all" cos to be frank I havnt cos I was getting a bit lost in the long posts....if you have an older pet thats had vaccinations all it s life, can you over vaccinate it so that it becomes immune to the vaccination....sorry if this has already said but a brief answer would be great


well unfortunately there appears not be one answer on this! some vets say they dont need them after a certain age...but then you have to consider that older pets are also potentially more susceptible to disease. you can do titre tests which can show if they have antibodies/immunity to certain diseases if you would prefer...but I would suggest that whatever you want to do it needs to be looked into properly.

at the moment, with no clear guidelines either way the best thing to do is to start reading up about it - have a look at info that shows BOTH sides of the argument, weigh it up, discuss this with your vet and see what they say...and go from there

...only you can make the decision on what to do, knowing your pets and their circumstances I'm afraid.


----------



## waking_on_sunshine (Jun 13, 2010)

IMO the annual boosters are what keep the vets in business and if you read my earlier posts you will realise why


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Blitz said:


> surely even you would have to admit that Waking on sunshine is putting out some fairly contentious (total rubbish) sort of info!
> Before vaccinations dogs died of the diseases. If vaccination stop dog will die of the diseases.


I have not referenced Waking on Sunshines posts - neither have I supported the need for less frequent vaccination - I vaccinate at frequencies I believe to be right for my own dogs, based on the facts presented to me by my vets.

What is my decision based on? two bitches in whelp over the time they were due for their boosters - on both occasions, I was advised under any circumstances not to booster before mating - but to wait until the pups were off mum - which is what I did.

The vets advised me that within 18 months, my dogs were not at risk - over 18 months, I would have to start the course again.

Now - if a bitch can be considered to have immunity to cover her and her pups for a good 8 to 10 weeks after the supposed expiry of the vaccinations, that says something.

=================================

I also am aware that there is anecdotal evidence indicating that if a dog is vaccinated less frequently than every two years, they run a greater risk of developing a reaction to the vaccine, unfortunately, I cannot substantiate this.

What I do recognise however is the fact that the research and / or facts from the manufacturers themselves, and governing veterinary bodies across the globe appear to vary massively from the facts as being provided by many vets.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that something somewhere isn't right.

The vets may have very good reason for insisting on, yearly, 18 monthly, two yearly, three yearly boosters - what doesn't make sense is the significant variations in all these recommendations - they cannot all be right.

====================================

I have not said anyone should take this information as gospel, I've made it clear that people should not make knee-jerk reactions - but I also don't think it hurts to ask questions - one of the things wrong with society is we are too willing to take what doctors and vets say at face value - often only questioning it when something goes wrong 

If I had listened to a doctor when my daughter was 13, she may not be here now - I made the appendicitis diagnosis - the doctor wanted to send her home to bed - I refused to leave the hospital - she was in something of a mess when they opened her up less than 12 hours later 

I am very lucky in that, in the main, the permanent vets in my surgery work with me with my dogs, they haven't always done so, but they know I have strong views and they support them - they have learnt from me in terms of some of the health testing, and I have learnt from them in terms of more intricate matters.

I do think that some vets conveniently forget that it's the customers that pay their bills, helping to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed.

No-one is saying they don't have to invest many thousands of pounds in equipment, or spend many years in Uni before being let loose on an unsuspecting public - what I do feel however, is that there are some who could be more receptive to the customers and their animals - and if a vet can put forward a good enough argument without treating someone like an imbecille why a dog should be vaccinated yearly for a condition when the manufacturers recommendation is three yearly, then I will listen to the facts and make an informed decision rather than blindly following protocol because that's the way we've always done it.

=============================

Re: erradication of diseases - Britain has been free of rabies for years, first through enforcing quarantine, and now through the pet passport system.

Britain requires dogs to be vaccinated inline with manufacturers recommendations (two to three yearly) while France requires dogs to be vaccinated yearly - yet which country has had the most reported cases of rabies from in country dog bites since the pet passport scheme was introduced? it certainly isn't Britain.

France hadn't regained it's Rabies free status in 2009 after an outbreak in 2008.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

thereasa said:


> Can I ask without bombardment of"havnt you read it all" cos to be frank I havnt cos I was getting a bit lost in the long posts....if you have an older pet thats had vaccinations all it s life, can you over vaccinate it so that it becomes immune to the vaccination....sorry if this has already said but a brief answer would be great


Who knows? only informed research, manufacturers and vets can answer that question - again, it doesn't hurt to ask - it does potentially hurt to make knee jerk reactions without being aware of the facts.

It does surprise me that some people simply cannot see that there are grounds for questioning vaccination protocols - and with that may come solid reasons why these protocols are in place (without being just to line vets pockets  )


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Who knows? only informed research, manufacturers and vets can answer that question - again, it doesn't hurt to ask - it does potentially hurt to make knee jerk reactions without being aware of the facts.
> 
> It does surprise me that some people simply cannot see that there are grounds for questioning vaccination protocols - and with that may come solid reasons why these protocols are in place (without being just to line vets pockets  )


I actually agree with you wholeheartedly.:scared: And if you had read my posts you would see that I have not had my dogs vaccinate, except for lepto, annually for many years. My vets accepted this and I did not have to restart each time I took them for a booster! They now use a vaccine that is licensed to be done less frequently and they gave an amnesty so that dogs could get a free second injection to get them up to scratch before starting on the new protocol.
So not money grabbing, and eminently sensible. I would not be happy to use a vet that did not discuss and be flexible but then I was a veterinary nurse in my dim and distant past and am a farmer so working with sick animals and drugs all the time.

For the average pet owner I think they just want to take the vets advice and be sure their dog is safe and long drawn out discussions like this are confusing as can be seen by some of the questions - where it is obvious posters have read it that their dog only needs puppy vaccinations or does not need any boosters after a certain age.

Swarthy, even you and I are going round in circles so much that we actually agree with each other at times :lol:


----------



## gesic (Feb 19, 2009)

waking_on_sunshine said:


> IMO the annual boosters are what keep the vets in business and if you read my earlier posts you will realise why


At the end of the day its thir livelyhood.
Far too many people are so used to the nhs they do not have a clue re the cost of drugs, equipment, licences, training of staff etc!
With ur annual vaccine u also get a thorough ck up, hopefully to ensure ur pet is healthy.
If not an oppertunity to discuss any concerns and pos discover the early satages of a problem that if left could end up more costly.
But fine if u quibble the cost of treatment then why may i ask do you have a pet?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Swarthy, even you and I are going round in circles so much that we actually agree with each other at times :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Flossiemum (Jul 16, 2010)

I believe you could have hit on a winner here - I'd just like to add a couple of ideas into the mix here:

worming - it was always though normal to worm horses regularly ie every 10 weeks or so. Now vets belive you should test horses for worms then worm accordingly which could be much less regularly.

Tentanus - use to jab humans every year - now every 10 years is normal...


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Flossiemum said:


> I believe you could have hit on a winner here - I'd just like to add a couple of ideas into the mix here:
> 
> worming - it was always though normal to worm horses regularly ie every 10 weeks or so. Now vets belive you should test horses for worms then worm accordingly which could be much less regularly.
> 
> Tentanus - use to jab humans every year - now every 10 years is normal...


Actually I know it is slightly off-topic, but did you know regarding the worming that following concerns relating to antiparasitic overuse, leading to concerns of developing resistance (for instance we all know Frontline is apparently becoming less effective to fleas due to widespread use and now resistance) Scandinavian countries such as Denmark have "developed helminth [worm] infection risk assessments prior to initiating therapy as a formal legislative requirement for small animals".

So basically vets in Denmark have a legal requirement to assess whether worming is really necessary before dispensing wormers (i.e. via a simple stool sample check for worm eggs.



gesic said:


> With ur annual vaccine u also get a thorough ck up, hopefully to ensure ur pet is healthy.
> If not an oppertunity to discuss any concerns and pos discover the early satages of a problem that if left could end up more costly.


I definitely whole-heartedly think that people should take their pets for annual (or even more regular for older pets) check ups regardless of vaccination protocol followed...it would be nice if the annual check up was actually made independant from the vaccinations in fact.

Unfortunately many vets dont even give the bare minimum health check over when giving vaccs, which I think is very poor...my old vets were a case in point!


----------



## Mum2Heidi (Feb 17, 2010)

Off topic again and re the worming.

I always pooh picked my paddock and my horse was the only one that used it. We had worm counts done regularly for years and they always came back < 50EPG. 

When Heidi's tum is better, I am going to use diatomacious earth and to check it does what it's supposed to - I will have worm counts for Heidi. DE sounds like brilliant stuff totally natural and with so many uses against pests I can wait to put it to the test.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> now as i said, everyone has to make up their own mind on what they actually do with the vaccines, but what i am asking people to do is just consider all these things...do you get what im saying?


Why do you keep making these blanket statements that all you are doing is asking people to look when you continually present arguments/quotations that are one-sided and inaccurate. In the same post as you made the statement above you also said:



> ..... but the VMD state annual vaccs, as a blanket policy...


No, they don't. You can find the VMD statement here. Nowhere in that document is there any endorsement of annual vaccinations as a blanket policy. Nowhere.

What you will find there (if you can be bothered to read it instead of just inventing it) is that some vaccines can be licensed for longer periods. It goes through the appropriate diseases one by one and gives recommendations for maximum intervals. It also says that, despite your previous claims, that hardly any vaccines are demonstrably more effective than a four year period and most for less. If you read further it also gives the criteria by which a vaccine is licensed and the standards of proof which need to be shown.

It also challenges evidence the WSAVA rely on to make their recommendations, that you have so heavily relied on, as being unsound. (They phrase it very nicely but in academic speak they basically say that it's not worth the paper it's written on).

I note that you have now changed the original posting you made in this thread (after prompting) to try and present the argument you have been making as much more neutral than it originally was. Perhaps you'd also like to go back and alter some of the provably false statements you've made?

Here's another one..


> Pet Plan state that the vaccinations have to be 'up to date' but ... it seems they want EVERY disease vaccinated against ANNUALLY regardless of what manufacturers say in their directions or what your vet advises...


Here's what Pet Plan's policy says:


> You must keep your pet vaccinated against the following:
> Dogs - Distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and parvovirus.
> Cats - Feline infectious enteritis, feline leukaemia and cat flu.
> Rabbits - Myxomatosis and viral haemorrhagic disease.
> If you do not keep your pet vaccinated, we will not pay any claims that result from any of the above illnesses.


I don't know who you spoke to but, because I have a pet insurance website, I checked this out with them. The policy document is correct and overrides anything you were told. You must keep your pet vaccinated. If the vaccination is licensed for and covers a period over the one year then that's perfectly fine. All they ask for is the vaccination to be up to date according to the license of that vaccine. Should your pet get a disease that is on the list they won't pay if the vaccination isn't in force. (I'm also checking out all the others that I have on my site with a view to adding this information there).



> it is a disgrace that there is no clear information and no clear policy!


The information in any insurance policy is quite clear. Many people choose not to read it or think it means something different but it is very, very clear. The army of lawyers that drew it up make sure of that. And that means that you can rely on the wording of it in court. If it doesn't say "annual vaccinations" then it cannot be claimed that is what is meant.

You've also said


> so instead of picking apart the report i linked to as one small part of a whole issue..


The fact is that you have posted a number of links to a number of reports and then 'quoted' bits from them. In almost every case what you quoted didn't represent what the report said at all - in fact most of your extrapolations from what those documents said were twisted to suit your particular stance.

We both know that the vast majority of people won't read those reports. So why object when I extract what they really say? You claim you wanted to air the issue - but it seems when anyone points out flaws in your argument that all you really want to do is impose your point of view. That's perfectly OK but you should expect to be challenged when again and again you write things that simply aren't true.



> ...you see what happens to all those dogs and cats who develop terrible allergies, diseases etc etc that cannot be 100% linked to the vaccine because it wasnt immediately afterwards - or because the owner/vet didnt consider it, or because the owner didnt know where to report it?


The RCVS require vets to report anything which could possibly be linked to vaccination. So, no it won't get reported if the animal isn't taken to a vet. But if the animal has a problem why would the owner not take it? (Perhaps they have the veterinary expertise and don't need to). It doesn't have to be immediately afterwards but the likelihood of anything being linked to the vaccination diminishes over time. Please do give just one provable example of any 'disease' being linked to a vaccine being given. Your post is an over dramatic presentation of something that just doesn't happen. But then, why would I expect anything different?


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

swarthy said:


> It's so much fun being ignored :thumbup::thumbup:


That's largely because most of what you post deserves to be ignored. However, since you are so desperate...



> How come you can find myriads of studies to back up your arguments yet when anyone else does, it is rubbish or "disinformation".


There's a huge difference between 'evidence' about vaccinations which means researched by experts using data that is checkable, reviewed and challenged by experts and published in respected scientific/veterinary journals and the sort of 'studies' that have been cited in support of the arguments here. And I can find them because I take the trouble to look. Why don't you?

I'm not questioning those that you think support your view. Experts are. That's why the BSAVA and the VMD - both panelled by veterinary experts - a) won't implement the WSAVA findings and b) have called for more accurate information. Both recognise that there may be a case for longer vaccination intervals. And, equally, both have said that 'expert' evidence does not, as yet, support the claim.

If you seriously think that 'evidence' from an OU student which totally contradicts evidence from the whole medical/veterinary profession is valid then I really do think you need a reality check.



> You criticise people for questioning the risks that vaccines can cause, yet argue until you are blue in the face that health testing is a waste of time.


No, I don't. I have cited the only major study of vaccination risk/damage which showed there was no risk. I've also pointed out that there is a long term study and data collection by the RCVS which addresses this. So far they haven't shown any links. Please do cite any peer refereed research that shows otherwise.

You also continually claim I'm against 'health testing'. No, I'm not. (Although I'm not sure what you mean by 'health testing'). You can test an animal as much as you like. What I am against is drawing suspect conclusions from some tests. Again and again the scientific community has demonstrated that titre tests are only 100% accurate at the time they are carried out and that generalising the results and applying them to an individual carries a huge risk of them being wrong. Thus a test today might indicate that, according to general data, your pet will be immune for the next three years. However, you could perform the same test next week and find that your animal's immunity has completely vanished.



> and you call others dangerous to animal health


No, I call people like you dangerous to animal health when you make statements like this:


> Many many conditions are likely to be linked to vaccinations, yet frequently those links are seldom recognised and therefore never recorded.


There is NO veterinary evidence to support that wild accusation. None. The facts are simple. If an animal develops any sort of condition that is even possibly linked to a vaccination then that incident has to be reported to the RCVS by the vet. (Of course, you know so much about treating your animals that you probably don't use a vet, so your animals won't ever take part in such a scheme). The RCVS has been collecting such data for years in order to show any correlation between vaccinations and resultant conditions. Yet, so far, after years of collecting data they simply haven't shown any links whatsoever.



> It is becoming increasingly likely there is a direct correlation between my friends dogs IBD and his vaccination - ....


I'm so glad your veterinary expertise allows you to make that judgement.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Mum2Heidi said:


> When Heidi's tum is better, I am going to use diatomacious earth and to check it does what it's supposed to - I will have worm counts for Heidi. DE sounds like brilliant stuff totally natural and with so many uses against pests I can wait to put it to the test.


DE does look very interesting - for anyone who wants to read about it you can find info here: Diatomaceous Earth - Food Grade Diatomaceous Earth Health Benefits (it has to be food grade though!)

I was advised that this wasnt very good for animals that suffered digestive type upsets though as it is too abrasive apparently? So it could potentially produce colitis type symptoms...

I need to do some more researching on it before I make a full opinion, but definitely something to look into.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

waking_on_sunshine said:


> IMO the annual boosters are what keep the vets in business and if you read my earlier posts you will realise why


They do openly admit that this is a big amount of their revenue so you can see why they would want to hold on to this practice.

But luckily many do seem to be changing - but we are still coming up against the issues that kennels/catteries etc are not as clued up on it as they go buy outdated rules


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Flossiemum said:


> Tentanus - use to jab humans every year - now every 10 years is normal...


Sorry yes meant to say as well that there are many interesting conclusions that can be drawn from human vaccine studies too, as after all, whilst they are different diseases, a dogs immune system works on the same principles as a humans.

I was reading a couple of articles around some of the findings in human vaccines in a journal a while ago - i will see if i can dig them out as definitely bears relation to this issue...


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Flossiemum said:


> Tentanus - use to jab humans every year - now every 10 years is normal...


I can't ever remember them being every year - I did my nurse training about 25 years ago, and then it was every 5 years, more recently extended to 10, nevertheless the principle is the same.



AlbertRoss said:


> I'm so glad your veterinary expertise allows you to make that judgement.


That is FAR from my judgement - but when a dog goes for a booster, and just a day or two later develops bowel problems for the frst time, that do not go away with the normal advice, and susbequently gets diagnosed with IBD - and still isn't out of the woods - it's not a difficult connection to make.

You know d*mn well what I am talking about in terms of health testing - you wrote a whole diatribe aimed at me on a public forum on the subject.



AlbertRoss said:


> That's largely because most of what you post deserves to be ignored..


I think you should take a good hard look at what you post - people in glass houses springs to mind


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

swarthy said:


> I think you should take a good hard look at what you post - people in glass houses springs to mind


lol! very well put


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

AlbertRoss said:


> The RCVS require vets to report anything which could possibly be linked to vaccination.


Ok, I am going to try once more and am going to discuss in a bit more detail the one particular point of mine that you responded to.

Can I ask you to please keep your reply as it is meant to be? In the tone expected on a discussion on a forum about an interesting topic, which people disagree on but can still stay civil about and put across their thoughts in a normal way. At the end of the day, I am assuming you want the same as the rest of us, healthy pets?

----------
*Submission of adverse event reports*
The VMD actually acknowledges in its position document that adverse events to vaccines are under-reported. Vets are not experts in the field of immunology and vaccinology - they know the basics - about administering a vaccine and how this works in general with the immune system - so they are very likely not trained to recognise vaccine reactions. Therefore they rarely submit adverse event reports to the VPC because they have very little idea of what a vaccine reaction looks like unless it is an immediate allergic reaction (such as anaphylactic shock) or a vaccine site issue. But of course we dont know how many that go unreported...

This is why I and many others would like the VMD to change their policy so that vets cannot just make up their own minds to continue using annual vaccines when the VMD even acknowledge that most of the vaccines are 3+ years revacc schedules. The VMD are the regulatory body in this, so they need to lead the way and encourage use of the longer frequency vaccines. Currently there is no reason for vets to move away from annual vacc and use the 3 year ones.

Now I know you dont think that vaccines have any major statistical adverse affects but I am not alone in feeling that the surveys to say so are not independent and there is too much bias involved, so unfortunately not really very reassuring...plus the facts of above with the under-reporting. Plus the studies I have seen compare all the vaccinated animals...but they dont then compare them to unvaccinated animals to see how the health issues compare - so i dont understand how they can confirm that just for instance the rate of cancers/allergies/autoimmune diseases etc is not higher in vaccinated animals than non-vaccinated animals...?

Interestingly an expert in immunology and vaccinology in animals states:


Dr Jean Dodds said:


> _"Some vets today still tell their clients there is no scientific evidence linking vaccinations with adverse effects and serious illness. This is ignorance, and confuses an impressionable client. (Abstract of presentation: Compliance or resistance to current vaccine guidelines?."_
> Presented at The 5th International Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference, July 19-24, 2009, Madison, WI USA.)


_(please do not just discredit Dr Jean Dodds out of hand as someone spouting rubbish, as you will see she is actually well-respected in the field of immunology/vaccinology)_

So it does seem that there IS evidence that they are linked...now I don't know what all this evidence is as I am still researching into this myself, but if experts in the field think so then who are we to be saying that there is no link?

Which comes back to the point that if there is ANY level of uncertainty as to whether there could be more health issues with frequent vaccination, then surely by at least reducing the frequency of vaccinations to the 3 year+ suggested intervals we would still be covering them fully against the diseases but at the same time limiting any risk to their health from frequent vaccines.

*Pet Plan Insurance:*
Now re the point about Pet Plan - I seriously did call them. And I do know what they state in their terms, thats why I did say in my posts that they say 'up to date'...but like I said, I dont know about you, but I personally feel that 'up to date' is slightly ambiguous, considering no two vets seem to even agree on which vaccination protocol to follow!

So I called them as I wanted to make certain what interval they classed as 'up to date'. I called their customer service number and the woman confirmed that this meant annually for every disease. I asked her to double check this for me as the vaccines I & my sister give our dogs are recommended every 3 and this is what our vets say and she went to speak to her supervisor and came back and confirmed that it was indeed anually and that apparently this would have been confirmed to my sister on the phone when taking out the policy. I said that surely this should therefore be in their Ts&Cs then? And she said that they had got a lot of questions about it but they go by what the RVC tell them...and that if she wanted to my sister could get her vet to submit a detailed letter with the exact details of the vaccinations being given for which disease (which brand etc etc)...at this point they would consider it and add a note to her account if they were happy with this...but that they would not update their main policy at this time. That seems a pretty detailed thing to be telling me if they dont actually require annual revacc?

However I know that customer service can sometimes be crap, so if you have had a different conversation with them and they have confirmed that it is in line with manufacturers instructions, then did they send this in writing? Or did you get their name so that I could speak to them and get this confirmed?


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

For anyone interested to know more - in reference to the 'P.O.O.C.H.' study conducted by the Animal Health Trust (AHT) that a few of us have mentioned now through the thread, please see vet Chris Day's thoughts on the way it was conducted below - whatever you believe about vaccinations, he raises interesting points about the way the data was collected:



Chris Day MA VetMB MRCVS said:


> "...This [study] failed to make the same finding of post-vaccinal coincidence that we have observed at the Alternative Veterinary Medicine Centre (AVMC) and is often cited in defence of vaccine and to repudiate concerns. This is not the paradox it may seem. The [AHT] survey was by questionnaire. *Dogs that had died in the three months following vaccination (especially the first vaccination) would not have been included, inevitably. Healthy animals featured in the study*, whereas the AVMC was only observing ill animals. Furthermore, incidence of new disease or changes in ongoing disease were noted, instead of looking at *when* an ongoing chronic disease first started. Only in the latter way could comparable results have been obtained.
> 
> The collection of real data, of this nature, is an extremely painstaking process, requiring lengthy interviews with the owners, *before* the dates of vaccination are checked (to prevent premature conclusions being drawn). Cases in which a precise start date cannot be defined must be excluded. Only in this way can properly objective, unbiased and meaningful data be extracted from case studies. Without a painstaking study of the veterinary clinical records for each patient (whence came the AVMC data), the P.O.O.C.H. study could not fail to miss the problems we have highlighted and does not counter our findings."


http://www.alternativevet.org/Vaccination Problems WS067-07.pdf

And his thoughts on the reporting scheme for potential adverse reactions to vaccines:


Chris Day MA VetMB MRCVS said:


> "In the UK, there is a reporting system for suspect adverse reactions, called the SARSS or Suspect Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme. Sadly, it is only voluntary, so many immediate post-vaccination reactions are not reported by vets on form MLA252A, let alone the more serious and more difficult-to-recognise long-term reactions. Vaccine reactions are thus often 'filtered' at source, rather than being reported, perhaps because vets are unsure, although it is only a scheme for reporting suspect reactions i.e. there is no need to be certain that a reaction has taken place. Data are not being forwarded, so no record is made and no pattern can be determined."


More info on the SARSS scheme: SARSS


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

> Originally Posted by Chris Day MA VetMB MRCVS
> "In the UK, there is a reporting system for suspect adverse reactions, called the SARSS or Suspect Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme. Sadly, it is only voluntary, so many immediate post-vaccination reactions are not reported by vets on form MLA252A, let alone the more serious and more difficult-to-recognise long-term reactions. Vaccine reactions are thus often filtered at source, rather than being reported, perhaps because vets are unsure, although it is only a scheme for reporting suspect reactions i.e. there is no need to be certain that a reaction has taken place. Data are not being forwarded, so no record is made and no pattern can be determined


Sure I said that 

It stands to reason that if pets fall ill shortly after a vaccination and the dog makes a full recovery, the association will seldom, if ever be made, no less reported.

Longer term illnesses usually trigger such concern in owners, the last thing on their mind will be, blimey - I must report it to the SARSS (which they will probably know nothing about) - and what's in it for a vet to make the association and report it if the percieved benefits of regular vaccinations to vets are correct.

Maybe stupidly, I had never considered the income element - I will speak to my vet, but will continue to vaccinate as per their stance in respect of efficacy between boosters.

My friend has been offered post vaccination desensitisation treatment for her boy - it will be mighty fascinating to see if it works - because if something isn't done, there is a high chance this previously healthy young boy will die


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Sure I said that


 yeah I think you did!



swarthy said:


> My friend has been offered post vaccination desensitisation treatment for her boy - it will be mighty fascinating to see if it works - because if something isn't done, there is a high chance this previously healthy young boy will die


do you know what is involved in this - would be interested to find out? they were saying something about this for maggie, but we havent discussed properly yet...although they said they were not so sure it would work as it is not just her allergies, it is likely a proper immunodeficiency issue - so I wasnt too hopeful in her case...

fingers crossed it works for your friends dog !


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

To all of you who think we are mad for questioning our vets PLEASE watch BB1, Thursday @ 9pm.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Jesi said:


> To all of you who think we are mad for questioning our vets PLEASE watch BB1, Thursday @ 9pm.


Yes should be interesting hey?


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> Yes should be interesting hey?


Sky + set lest I forget


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> Yes should be interesting hey?


I think more upsetting, but perhaps an eye opener for some :


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Jesi said:


> I think more upsetting, but perhaps an eye opener for some :


The problem is it is all done for TV, so whatever is shown people will still think that this wouldn't happen to them and that it has been overly dramatised to make good TV (which it quite possibly will have)...


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> The problem is it is all done for TV, so whatever is shown people will still think that this wouldn't happen to them and that it has been overly dramatised to make good TV (which it quite possibly will have)...


Yes, as per other recent 'bad dog' related programmes 

Let's hope it's a more balanced view  The biggest risk with any of this, from sensationalised claims on TV to genuinely raising concerns over vaccine schedules as has been done here (and that's not a criticism, personally I don't think most of us don't ask enough questions of doctors or vets), is that some people will have kneejerk reactions, and could unintentionally put their animals lives at risk as a result


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

swarthy said:


> some people will have kneejerk reactions, and could unintentionally put their animals lives at risk as a result


true - but then I guess that is down to the nature of that person and you can bet your life they would make knee-jerk reactions about equally important things in general anyway...even if they didnt see it on TV or read on a forum, they would hear something from a friend of a friend, or read something in a magazine, or somewhere else online...

...not a lot that can be done about that and it happens in all areas of life unfortunately


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> ...not a lot that can be done about that and it happens in all areas of life unfortunately


Very true  you can't legislate for everyone and everything however much someone might want to


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

katiefranke said:


> The problem is it is all done for TV


I believe they are using hidden cameras, questioning ridiculous charges/bills and one of the vets get struck off, too. Don't know how they can change much for TV?

My dad has already seen it (I don't know how), and said it is very sad. So I'm not looking forward to watching it, but think it's something people should be aware of. Especially for those who seem to treat them like Gods who we are mad to even question.


----------



## AlbertRoss (Feb 16, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> _(please do not just discredit Dr Jean Dodds out of hand as someone spouting rubbish, as you will see she is actually well-respected in the field of immunology/vaccinology)_


I regret that other obligations mean that I can't give your post the fulsome reply it deserves. However, when I have time I will respond

But I have to take issue with your request.

Jean Dodds is an expert in rabies/hypothyroidism (but not other diseases). She runs a not for profit canine blood bank and a greyhound rescue centre in California and promotes titre testing (amongst other things).

What else should you know about her?

Her published vaccination recommendations include:

DO NOT vaccinate for leptospirosis. In her view the risks outweigh the results.
She claims, apparently without any authority to back it up, that vaccinations against distemper and parvo-virus, given at 12 months of age will protect for 7.5 years. (That's about double the length of protection that even the most lengthy period claimed by any manufacturer).
She doesn't suggest any follow up testing - although her lab does offer titre testing which must be arranged by a vet.
She does rely heavily, in most of her publications, on the work of Schultz. That's the same Schultz whose studies are rejected by the BSAVA as not being reliable.

Her 'blood bank' is essentially a dog farm. (She calls it a colony). Dogs are kept there with the sole purpose of being harvested for their blood. At the end of their 'useful' donor life they are rehomed. She claims that they have a normal life because, amongst other things, she arranges people to visit them and is particularly proud of visits from people with learning difficulties. Dogs are 'bled' without anaesthetic - apparently because that 'dilutes' the usefulness of the blood. It doesn't seem to matter that the donor dog might suffer any pain.
--------
Now, you may want to rely on her as a source but her views on lepto are, frankly, insane and her treatment of dogs as a commodity as a source of blood I find totally repulsive.

So, in a small area she has expertise, but she isn't an immunology expert - and the particular area of expertise that she has which is relevant to this discussion is rabies. (Thyroid problems aren't generally vaccinated for.) I don't think it's very convincing to argue that rabies is part of most owners vaccination schedule - unless they are frequent travellers.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

AlbertRoss said:


> Her 'blood bank' is essentially a dog farm. (She calls it a colony). Dogs are kept there with the sole purpose of being harvested for their blood. At the end of their 'useful' donor life they are rehomed. She claims that they have a normal life because, amongst other things, she arranges people to visit them and is particularly proud of visits from people with learning difficulties. Dogs are 'bled' without anaesthetic - apparently because that 'dilutes' the usefulness of the blood. It doesn't seem to matter that the donor dog might suffer any pain.
> --------
> .


Damn, now I have lost confidence in everything you say after that odd statement. Taking blood from a dog will not cause pain, dogs that are used regularly will take it as part of their life. To give an anaesthetic would be ridiculous as the drug would be in the blood stream so the blood would have no use at all.
I dont know whether I approve of having a dog farm, it would depend on how the dogs are kept - but I am sure we would all be grateful for the blood product if our pet dogs were in need.


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Taking blood from a dog will not cause pain, dogs that are used regularly will take it as part of their life. To give an anaesthetic would be ridiculous as the drug would be in the blood stream so the blood would have no use at all.


Yes a friend of mines dog donated blood, she was very brave and it didn't phase her at all. 
I think an anaesthetic would be far more dangerous, and having given blood myself I know whats faster to get over! Although my sis did almost pass out watching lol

I have read a lot from Jean Dodds as my dog also has Hypothroidism, and she is always where people point you if you enquire about it.

With regards to the blood bank - I'm sure it is possible for dogs to be happy AND give blood. I'm not sure of how the animals are kept, so that would concern me, but yes, I'm sure we'd all be happy to use the blood if it would save our pet! I do also think that research has to be done, as long as it is in a humane way.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I dont know whether I approve of having a dog farm, it would depend on how the dogs are kept - but I am sure we would all be grateful for the blood product if our pet dogs were in need.


Don't judge her - go and have a look at her website  obviously without seeing it it's impossible to formulate a true opinion - but's it not quite as suggested, and she also does what appears to be a lot of good work in assisting homing retired racing greyhounds and teaching children how to be good with dogs. I would imagine it also goes some way towards stopping families buying puppies that quickly go out of fashion.

I think it's a far cry keeping dogs for taking regular blood samples providing they are well cared for and have frequent socialisation opportunities and then clearly rehomed responsibly, to some of the other perceived testing which has gone on with dogs and other animals.

I am totally bemused why on earth you would want to go to the distress for the dog of giving it an anaesthetic - also risking it's life - when blood can be taken quickly, and discretely, and in the large majority of cases, with no pain.

And yes, I've had dogs who've had regular blood taken from them for pre-mate testing etc - yes, the samples may be smaller (we don't really know) but the principle is identical, and I've yet to have one even whimper.

I know which would worry me more, and that's my dog going to the vets for a GA / sedation.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Jean Dodds is a veterinary research/clinician scientist, who has been actively involved in vaccination issues for more than 40 years...I guess it depends on your definintion of an expert but...

She has studied the result of vaccines on the immune system in general, but has gone into more depth on particular diseases, because they seem to have a big link to vaccines and the immune system by their nature.

She has also focused in depth on vaccination protocols for those animals with immune issues/autoimmune diseases etc - studying and advising on how owners with these animals can vaccinate as safely as possible without putting them at unnecessary risks. This is why she is a big believer in titre testing as she is an expert in interpreting the results (which she feels is a major issue for uptake - ignorance of vets in understanding the results and therefore wrongly writing them off).

And just a few things I found:



> From 1965-1986, she was a member of many national and international committees on hematology, animal models of human disease, veterinary medicine, and laboratory animal science. Dr. Dodds was a grantee of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH) and has over 150 research publications. She was formerly President of the Scientist's Center for Animal Welfare; and Chairman of the Committee on Veterinary Medical Sciences and Vice-Chairman of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Academy of Sciences. In 1974 Dr. Dodds was selected as Outstanding Woman Veterinarian of the Year, AVMA Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado; in 1977 received the Region I Award for Outstanding Service to the Veterinary Profession from the American Animal Hospital Association, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; in 1978 and 1990 received the Gaines Fido Award as Dogdom's Woman of the Year; and the Award of Merit in 1978 in Recognition of Special Contributions to the Veterinary Profession from the American Animal Hospital Association, Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1984 she was awarded the Centennial Medal from the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. In 1987 she was elected a distinguished Practitioner of the National Academy of Practice in Veterinary Medicine. In 1994 she was given the Holistic Veterinarian of the Year Award from the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association. She is an active member of numerous professional societies.
> 
> On behalf of Hemopet, she consults in clinical pathology nationally and internationally, and regularly travels to teach animal health care professionals, companion animal fanciers, and pet owners on hematology and blood banking, immunology, endocrinology, nutrition and holistic medicine. She was also the Editor of Advances in Veterinary Science and Comparative Medicine for Academic Press.


I am not an expert, but I would have thought these would show that she was well thought of in the veterinary industry, especially as she has also published over 150 research papers and is asked to speak at prestigious veterinary conferences.

Some info on the rabies challenge fund she is currently involved in with anther world leading expert on the subject of immunology & vaccines - Dr Ronald Shultz:
Rabies Vaccine Research Underway


----------



## delightfuldior (Jul 15, 2010)

I read up alot about annual vaccinations and early this year at both of my two lhasa's booster dates I decided to get a titre test done instead. I discussed it with the vet and he didnt discourage it in the slightest in fact he encouraged it (). 
They took the blood from their necks and about 3 weeks later the results were in. 
I was shocked tbh! 
I thought Joey my boy would have had a low immunity to the diseases vaccinated for as he has allergies etc but in fact he was way over the average confirming his immunity to the diseases!!!! He had a lepto jab which is recommended yearly anyhow but that was it.
However Gemma my girl was ZERO to one disease and very low immunity to the other. I thought she would be the other way round. :confused1: So the vet advised A BOOSTER not another course of vaccinations.
I will continue to do the titre test yearly. It cost me £57 each then the boosters on top at £18 each. Yes its costly on top of everything else but if it means me not overloading my dogs with unnecessary vaccinations then I am willing to pay it. 
The only problem I have now is when talking to a new vet recently (I moved), they didnt know what a titre test was, seemed uneasy that Joey had not had a full course of boosters and if anything was quite patronising! I guess all vets are different and have different views. BUT I am determined to stick to this for as long as possible. 
As far as I am aware... the titre test confirms that Joey is VACCINATED against the diseases with or without a booster. As long as I show this to the necessary people there hopefully should be any problems. They dont go into kennels and no longer go to groomers or classes so fingers crossed!!!!
:thumbup:


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

delightfuldior said:


> As far as I am aware... the titre test confirms that Joey is VACCINATED against the diseases with or without a booster. As long as I show this to the necessary people there hopefully should be any problems. They dont go into kennels and no longer go to groomers or classes so fingers crossed!!!!
> :thumbup:


Yes unfortunately I think there are a lot of misconceptions about titre tests which is why some vets dont recommend etc - they think it is some dodgy practice thats isnt accurate, but actually if you know what you are doing it is a definite science.

I think the confusion comes in with the fact that viral diseases and bacterial diseases need different readings.

So for instance, with parvo, distemper and hep, they are viral and a titre is a great thing for these. If the titre shows ANY reading for one of these diseases, even a low one, it means that the body has been able to produce antibodies, which means there are memory cells created...so even if the number of actual antibodies fluctuates over time, this is irrelevant for these diseases as the fact that there are any means that the memory cells are there and ready for action (i.e. producing the necessaru antibodies) next time the dog comes in contact with particular disease. Preferably after inital puppy vaccs, 14 days later the dog would be tested. As long as this showed a high reading (showing it worked) no matter what the results were from then on (as long as more than 0), you know the dog has the memory cells to mount an immune response.

However, with bacterial diseases such as lepto, immunity does not last - a bit like when you are a child you might get measles (viral) and then you would be immune after that. However, you could get a sore throat (bacterial) over and over, as the body does not retain the immunity for long. So a titre for these types of diseases would need to have a count of 'x' or above to show immunity and the count couldnt drop below that...so therefore it would be necessary to do this one quite regularly...so i think thats why sometimes vets mistakenly think that they all work like this... 

Some good info about titres here:
http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/EquineTiterTesting NaturalHorseMagazine2009.pdf (great article explaining what titres are and how they work. It is written for a horse magazine, but the concept is exactly the same no matter what animal)

http://www.caberfeidh.com/Titers.htm
http://www.caberfeidh.com/CanineTiters.htm
http://www.caberfeidh.com/FelineTiters.htm


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Katie

You asked me to update you on my friends dog once starting the anti-vaccine therapy - the difference in the dog in one week has been phenomenal - I am not going to post it all again here - but there's a thread with pictures on Page 1 and Page 3 (along with an update) which may be of interest

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-health-nutrition/110603-ibd-weight-loss-help-needed.html


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

There has been a lot of argument over this, but the fact remains that if your dogs are insured, they won't be covered if they are not vaccinated every year. That is the terms of my insurance company, anyway, and most of the others I have looked at.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> There has been a lot of argument over this, but the fact remains that if your dogs are insured, they won't be covered if they are not vaccinated every year. That is the terms of my insurance company, anyway, and most of the others I have looked at.


I am not saying to anyone they should not vaccinate their dogs - I vaccinate mine and will continue to do so. However, if you look at insurance policy small text - this is not correct across the board.

The reason for my additional post was I was lambasted for saying there was potentially an association between the vaccination and how ill this dog has been - he was quite probably less than a few weeks from death - he is now being treated for Vaccine relief and I was asked to update on the outcome - and from what I can see - it's there in black and white 

I am told this vaccine relief homeopathic remedy can actually be given to any dog to limit any nasty side effects of such vaccines.


----------



## Jesi (Jul 9, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> There has been a lot of argument over this, but the fact remains that if your dogs are insured, they won't be covered if they are not vaccinated every year.


I've said this many times and I will say it again. This is simply not true. Many companies will still cover you if you dog is not vaccinacted, they just wil not pay out for an illness the vaccs would have covered - which makes perfect sense!!

I have just claimed £1,500 for my unvaccinated dog. And I know of two others that have done the same, insured with different companies to myself.

Saying that, the 'insurance won't pay out' argument would not push me into a decision anyway.


----------



## JSR (Jan 2, 2009)

Mine get vaccinated once in their lifetime. My elderly dog has suffered for the last 7 years of his life with a horrible blood disorder thought to have been bought on by reaction to vaccinations. I won't ever risk my animals blindly again, I trust me vet who has confirmed what I always suspected that vaccines are over used purely for the convience and profit of those who provide them (drug companies and vets) so I will run the small risk of my dogs contracting something due to not being vaccinated over seeing another of my dogs suffe in the way Cromwell has and does.


----------



## houndies (Aug 8, 2008)

Jesi said:


> I've said this many times and I will say it again. This is simply not true. Many companies will still cover you if you dog is not vaccinacted, they just wil not pay out for an illness the vaccs would have covered - which makes perfect sense!!
> 
> I have just claimed £1,500 for my unvaccinated dog. And I know of two others that have done the same, insured with different companies to myself.
> 
> Saying that, the 'insurance won't pay out' argument would not push me into a decision anyway.


Same here - completely agree. we're with petplan - have been for almost 12 years. Lula had a £2,000 vet bill for an emergency op in February and she has not been vaccinated in about 4 years for virals (we've been blood testing for immunity yearly) . They paid for all the Op directly to the vet - no questions. I asked my vet about this and she said maybe if my dogs got parvo, distemper it may be different but even then as they have shown immunity in their blood tests as far as she's concerned they are vaccinated.


----------

