Thread continued from HERE


If we all held back, those diseases we don't see so often these days, could well become more prevalent again and I suggest it could well be that the fact you (Tommee) don't booster, could be because others do??


So if Parvo spreads or mutates it's down to me, whose dogs have been titre tested & vaccinated on the advice of Glasgow Veterinary School for over 40 years & despite at times living in Parvo etc "hotspots" NEVER had a dog contract any of the diseases. The only one of my dogs to contract s disease for which there is a vaccine had actually been vaccinated against the disease before I got him & it affected him very badly(he almost died from Kennel Cough) Interestingly none of my other dogs developed it even though they were constantly with him(no way of separating at the time)

My dogs have a natural raw diet with no additives so can someone explain how I will be responsible for spreading these diseases ?

You arnt . Mine are raw fed vaccinated as.pups and thats it .I don't titre as no point  it can't show the cell mediated immunity nsonwoild tell me nothing.also as they have allergies aarnt consideed healthy so arnt candidate for vaccines imo .Any future pups I would vaccinate around 14 weeks and titre about 6 weeks later when antibodies shoidl be circulating

I don't booster, mine get either puppy shots or their last booster from rescue/previous home and that's it, and I don't feel responsible for the resurgence in these diseases.  Who I do feel are responsible are all the people pushing zero vaccination of dogs including puppy shots.  Herd vaccination fails very quickly when that happens - it's been seen in people with measles.

If I ever have another pup I'll be doing the same as ff.

I'm not keen on adding to what's been said on the other thread BUT my quoted comment was along the lines of if MORE PEOPLE didn't vaccinate/booster, those diseases that are not often seen these days, Parvo/KC apart, could become more often seen???   Clearly what ONE contributor here, alone, does or doesn't do, isn't going to cause an increase in these diseases.     Further looking at the quote, I should have said that 'maybe' the reason that contributor doesn't have problems with her un-vaccinated/boostered dogs is because others do so those diseases are rarely seen these days.   Unlike in the past?

Bottom line - I'll continue doing what I have found is best for my hounds, over many years.   And when I need the advice/help of my trusted vet, that's where I'll be looking.

>>Bottom line - I'll continue doing what I have found is best for my hounds, over many years.   And when I need the advice/help of my trusted vet, that's where I'll be looking. >>

And that's perfectly fine IMO.

I have no dogs now but my last one had only puppy vaccines and one booster and the other only puppy vaccinations. First was 15 and second was 12 when they died.

Each to their own

Bottom line - I'll continue doing what I have found is best for my hounds, over many years.   And when I need the advice/help of my trusted vet, that's where I'll be looking.


Surely your"trusted"vet will recommend continuing to vaccinate as they have been doing so "against the manufacturer's advice"since your dog has been on medication. After all, ALL the manufacturer's have the "get out advice"of only healthy dogs should be vaccinated ergo any vet who advises & carries vaccination on a dog on ANY medication is going against manufacturer's advice & therefore is legally responsible for any adverse reaction to the vaccine sadly this does include premature death

As I wrote a strain of Parvo appears to have mutated & is affecting only vaccinated dogs(so far)this must be worrying to owners who put their faith in the omniscience of their vet & the efficacy of canine vaccines

While talking about mutations parvo was  a.mutayes virus that until the late 1979s didn't exist but came from a feline disease while being researched https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22043787

I do what Nikita says.  I do puppy shots and then 1st year booster and no more.  I've previously given lepto bundled in with those shots but with my next puppy I plan to insist they leave out the lepto and I might also wait until the pup is 14wks old so she only needs one shot and not two...

I would never not vaccinate at all, I believe vaccinations are essential.  Just not every year or even every 3 years.

My dog had 2 puppy vaccinations without incident, then had a reaction to her first annual booster so hasn't had any more.
I titred her a couple of years after which showed immunity.

In my situation it would be good for my dog if others were vaccinated to give herd immunity, but I quite understand why people don't.

If she had positive titres her immunity should be fine .this is the point of titres at the right time  Many of us don't revaccinate  because once we have proved that immunity is present there is no need to continue . If we did we are at risk of over vaccination to no purpose.of course there is always cases where things go wrong.some dogs can be non responders to vaccines but can gain immunity from natural exposure so continuing to vaccinate would be pointless and possibly harmful
There is also  questions as to if artificially induced immunity ie  from vaccines actually gives herd immunity and that for herd immunity u need to have exposure and gain natural immunity . Still lots to be research
.currently it suits all concerned , government ,manufacturers etc to suggest vaccines will give herd immunity
.who knows what will eventually be honestly proven .
There are many factors involved in the decrease in disease some of which may be vaccines but some is better nutrition and hygenie ,living conditions and general health care bith for dogs and humans
.a very mixed bag indeed

Agreed furriefriends.

I don't titre because titre tests can't determine the presence of memory cells - they only determine if there are any antibodies to the disease present in the blood.  So if the dog hasn't recently been vaccinated and also hasn't been challenged by meeting the disease in the real world and responding by making antibodies, their titre test may well come back negative - suggesting that they need to be revaccinated.  All when they probably don't need to be, due to the fact that memory cells remain which will manufacture antibodies should the dog be exposed to the disease. 

I also find titre testing a bit invasive, involving a blood draw and would rather not subject my dogs to that stress unnecessarily.  (Bad enough doing progesterone tests for breeding without also doing annual titre test blood draws.)

So I prefer to go by the research which suggests that dogs are covered for at least 7yrs from the big 3 diseases and that memory cells probably cover them from then on. 

There is no perfect solution - there are risks however you play The Vaccination Game - but we all have to look at the risks and make our own decisions about which option involves least risk for our dogs.

Here's something to get your teeth into - if most here haven't already of course

https://www.noah.co.uk/medicine-topics/vaccines-and-vaccination/dog-vaccines/


The National Office of Animal Health Ltd represents the UK animal medicine industry:


Says it all they have to support vaccination of all dogs don't they ? They are part & parcel of the manufacturer's industry

Why titre test yearly ??

What the anti titre tests pro vaccination peeps forget is that titre tests ARE accepted for just one condition-rabies rather odd when they diss titre testing for all other conditions !!

All I can say Tommee is yep

I know this is an older post, but didn't think my comment warranted a whole new thread..

I wasn't planning to vaccinate my dog every year after his 1st booster,  at the max maybe once every 4 years or so.

But this discussion reminded me of two dog owners who my daughter walks her dogs with, both of which contracted parvo.

One was fully immunised, up to date shots every single year, the other hadn't been vaccinated for years. The latter died, and the vaccinated dog pulled through with vet treatment paid for fully by the vaccs company. My daughter follows the every 3-4 year protocol of vaccinating. So, going by this, it's the luck of the draw. Some dogs will catch it, and others will not, and being up to date with shots does not full proof it make...
Parvo is pretty common in her area, but practically non existent on my side of town. I hate taking my dogs for walks up there, as I'm always paranoid about this horrible disease.

Vaccine companies never claim that their products prevent an animal from contracting the disease, only that the vaccine will reduce the severity. So I am confused as to why they would pay for treatment.

I was speaking to a very experienced vet(who supports vaccination)they had been treating dogs who had contracted Parvo, but the unusual thing was that only vaccinated dogs were contracting this latest version. The vaccine company never even considered paying for treatment.

BTW the protocol is no longer blanket yearly vaccinations except for Lepto(& that's a whole different ball game)

Tommee I’m in Australia, so don’t know if the protocol is different here, or if it’s up to the discretion of the vaccination company or what. But in this case it would have behooved the vacs company to do everything it could to keep one of their “customers “ happy and work closely with vet to figure out why/how this happened.

It's very rare for a drugs company a anywhere to do this so am thinking something else must have caused them to pay the bills.  Current research says that assuming immunity has been conferred at time of vaccination a dog should be covered for at least 7 years . As tomee says excepting lepto and kennel cough. Different vets do choose different protocols even with in the same country but broadly not more frequently than every 3 years. Theu shpild be floeing the wsava protocol but variations do occur.   Parvo vaccine also sheds some say up to 6 weeks after vaccine which adds to any risk of other developing the disease much like kennel cough vaccine . It also depends on when mothers immunity has waned as to if the dog has ever been covered .again as tomeee :) says  nothing is 100%

Parvo vaccine also sheds some say up to 6 weeks after vaccine which adds to any risk of other developing the disease

Listening to local radio earlier today and phone in with a local vet. Someone rang about his bitch 'her pups will be 2 weeks old when she is due for her boosters, should I get her done?'. Vets answer - Yes she will be fine and it will give added imunity to the pups. ...
Really?

Fwiw.   I'd NOT do this until after the puppies are weaned - and actually away from her too!

Parvo, like any virus, can mutate but in general terms, even if a dog goes down with Parvo, they will probably survive where an unvaccinated dog/puppy is less likely to.

I made sure my bitches were utd with their boosters, before being mated.   I can't honestly remember any of mine coming due when nursing.

Vets know nothing about anything preventative.  They receive almost zero hours on things like vaccinations, worming, ticks, nutrition - do not do what a vet says, if it is anything preventative.  Do your own research.

As for vaccine companies, again:  Take anything they say with a pinch of salt.  Nobivac are still claiming on their data sheet that a single vaccination at 10 weeks will confer immunity for DHP.  When we know from research that maternal antibodies interfere up to at least 12 weeks and sometimes up to 16 weeks - and the WSAVA recommend that the final vaccination is given at 16 weeks or later. 

I'd consider myself to be a pretty well educated and experienced dog person and I feel like I will only start to get vaccinations right with my next pup.  Which will be vaccinated only once at 16 weeks, for DHP only and no lepto.  And I might titre test after to check this has worked, because I won't be giving any further vaccinations for the life of the dog unless I do another titre at 7 years old and decide to vaccinate again. 

No way would I be vaccinating a dam with pups.  Unless the pups are just a few hours old, they won't receive any antibodies from the colostrum.  (Any vet should know this - if they know anything about reproduction - which again, they don't.)  And there is no urgency to schlepping a lactating dog to the vets for a vaccine they probably don't even need if they were titred anyway.  (OR even without being titred.)  Honestly...

As for parvo and those two dogs getting it - I've been told parvo is mainly a 'puppy' disease and is unlikely to cause severe (life threatening) illness in adult dogs unless they have a compromised immune system for some reason.

"Vets know nothing about anything preventative.  They receive almost zero hours on things like vaccinations, worming, ticks, nutrition - do not do what a vet says, if it is anything preventative.  Do your own research."

This is simply untrue having slogged through an entire module for which the sole material is parasites, their treatment and prevention!

This is simply untrue having slogged through an entire module for which the sole material is parasites, their treatment and prevention!


Solely for dogs ?? Or covering all domestic & livestock & wild animals(& including ALL zoo kept species) ??

I know most vets will sell Bravecto for use on any dog including epileptic dogs~for the prevention of ticks etc. Oops one of the known contraindications is seizures!!! Was this covered in your module what drugs should not be used as a blanket preventative/treatment because of known contraindications ? What about Invermectin & derivatives of Invermectin & MDR 1 ? Again know vets who sell these to dogs of unknown origins & possible affected breeds. If so much time is spent covering the subject why do vets still put their patients at risk ? The module must have serious faults to not cover these species specific matters.

Vets are still vaccinating dogs with pre existing conditions again manufactures guidelines(the wonderful" Only healthy animals" get out clause

Glasgow require 71 hours on this subject which covers all animals. Not much per species over 5 years. 14 hours per YEAR of study

That specific module was dogs, cats, cattle, sheep and horses. Pigs and poultry a separate module. Exotics and "small" animals another. Hours - about 200 for the dog/cat/farm one.

Side effects, contraindications and breed specifics were covered both in that module and repeated in a pharmacology module. In fact, I did a paper on Bravecto and it's off license use in the treatment of mange also and another on the pet passport scheme and it's possible role in the importation of novel foreign parasite borne diseases.

I think the point to take away here is that younger vets are more likely to have extensive preventative medicine and nutrition training than before which is a good thing and certainly a response to public demand. I do vaccinate but also titre test and only top up as necessary, I use worm counts and worm strategically (lung worm is what will catch you out here if sampling isn't done correctly) not just on a 6 or 12 week schedule, I also raw feed (and raw diets are now taught including differences in blood parameters you might see related to them)

Which is why a younger vet prescribed Bravecto for a dog from a breed with a known high risk of seizures without telling the owner-result one dead dog who started uncontrollable cluster seizures on the same day as Bravecto was first given. His boss(practice owner)no longer sells the drug. So why didn't this extensively trained vet tell the owner about the known link between the drug & seizures ? Could it be he didn't know which breeds have high seizure risks despite all his training-my vet does & he's been qualified for over 30 years & keeps all his knowledge updated

Great  vet springwell . Good to know vets are also taking the difference in blood parameters into consideration. Like any profession u get the good the bad and.the ugly.  Lol much like clients I guess !

I obviously can't speak for one vet Tommee - however, you are more likely to find extensive training in parasitology and nutrition in younger vets. Again, all vet schools are not equal if Glasgow dedicate less time as you mention.

Sadly it is not just 1 vet who has sold Bravecto for use for breeds with a known predilection for seizures(Border Collies, Tervuren, Labradors etc)& not given the information leaflet nor advice to the owners of the known risks.

The majority of vets will vaccinate dogs with existing health conditions despite the manufactures clearly stating only healthy dogs should be vaccinated. I've heard young vets advising against feeding raw because of the damage caused by the bones involved. Not just for dogs but cats too !!

>This is simply untrue having slogged through an entire module for which the sole material is parasites, their treatment and prevention!

This doesn't reassure me at all.  It will be education along the lines of information about worms, what they do, how dogs get infected, how to prevent those infections - ie - by plastering them with preventatives.

Nothing about assessing the risk factors for individual dogs and only treating when needed.  Nothing about the risks of the *medications* themselves.

>This doesn't reassure me at all.  It will be education along the lines of information about worms, what they do, how dogs get infected, how to prevent those infections - ie - by plastering them with preventatives.
>Nothing about assessing the risk factors for individual dogs and only treating when needed.  Nothing about the risks of the *medications* themselves.

And you know this how? I assume you've done the module yourself to be so emphatic. Which university was that at?

Because that is the standard fare taught to vets at ALL unis.  I have yet to meet, talk to or hear from a vet who has learnt otherwise at vet school.  Those who have managed to find another way, and become more holistic, are those who have questioned what they were taught and learnt to think for themselves.

Vets are 'taught' what drug manufacturers say about their own products, which they sell - to make huge profit.  You think they are going to be independent?  Think again.  Read Feed your Pet Right by Marion Nestle, which has a whole chapter on the relationship between drug companies and vet schools/universities and the way that relationship directly affects what vets are taught.

These differing opinions is why I asked about how much people trusted their vets.   Frankly if I had such a low opinion of a vet I'd registered with, I'd move on..... and did, more than once.   And is why I so trusted my Canadian vet who I respected for his knowledge and he me, for my knowledge of MY BREED.   He was a vet I felt happy to work with and would have loved to have been able to bring him back to the UK with me.

I have moved on, many times.  The best I can find is a vet who I do trust when it comes to 'here is a problem - what is it, and what can we do about it?'.  But I have never found a vet I would trust with preventatives; vaccinations; nutrition; neutering (which could come under preventative health care) etc.  Even vaccinations can be seen as 'preventative health care'.  And so could nutrition. 

So yes, when I have a problem, I go to the vet with it.  If I want to prevent problems, I do not consult vets.  I do my own research and read widely and I do pay attention to some holistic vets.  (Although I don't believe in homeopathy and am quite science-based.)

> So yes, when I have a problem, I go to the vet with it.  If I want to prevent problems, I do not consult vets.  I do my own research and read widely

mirrors my own views.  I expect that vets are experts in the treatment and diagnosis of illness and injury. 

The general care and well being of my dogs is for me to educate myself about and decide.

I really don't understand people thinking that Vets are the expert on everything to do with animals.

I don't expect my GP to tell me how to live my life, what to eat, how to bring up my children, etc.

I have a friend who is a vet. She feeds her dogs raw, titre tests rather than vaccinates and has a huge number of friends who trust her completely with their dogs. She competes in agility at champ level and her services are used by a lot of people in my area who also compete in agility because her knowledge of sports related injuries is fabulous. Unfortunately her practice is just that little bit too far away to have her care for my dogs.

Another friend, who moved hundreds of miles away, brought her dog back down here when it came time to let her oldie go because she wanted J to be the person who helped him on his journey.

I use two different vet practices because I have found they have different areas of expertise and I am more than happy with the care they give my dogs.

> I have never found a vet I would trust with preventatives; vaccinations; nutrition; neutering (which could come under preventative health care) etc

For me, I have never bothered with a vet for the situations stated here much as I have taken their opinion re vaccination to confirm or otherwise, my views about that!  

Further, searching the internet is all very well, but it has to be remembered that 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing', and can scare unnecessarily when it comes to a seen condition.  So I'd NOT automatically rely on what I find on the internet.    One vet I used since moving West, was into alternative medication BUT she annoyed me because she would push her alternative ideas above routine veterinary treatment.   I did use her once however, to give one of my current hounds two sessions of acupuncture.