> Yes, but what has been your role in that?

This is my own personal research.

A few Questions for you.
You seem to advocate vaccinations. Do you advocate vaccinating dogs that have had adverse reactions and those that have proven clinical diseases?

> wow all this as made me sit up and think about the jabs my vet gives our dogs every year !!! , the thing is sometimes i have to kennel our dogs and if the yearly jab wasnt given the kennels wouldnt take them !!! things need to change alot i think after reading this !

white lilly your dog maybe having the three year vaccine and just the yearly lepto you can check by going to the Noah compendium website.

> Do you advocate vaccinating dogs that have had adverse reactions and those that have proven clinical diseases?

I would advocate having a vet consider whether it would be appropriate :-) I think it would depend on the nature and severity of the adverse reaction.  Obviously something that had a continuing effect could be classed as severe but many dogs are simply off colour for a few days or perhaps mild reactions that are transient or respond well to treatment.  
Again any clinical condition would need to be evaluated by the vet but it may have no bearing on the efficacy or safety of the vaccination. I would certainly expect a vet to consider the relevence of the condition but I am aware that they would also need to evaluate against the risk of disease to any dog whose health was already impaired in some way.  My dog for instance is elderly and has an enlarged heart and suffers from cardiac asthma but she has never responded badly to vaccination and I doubt she would survive any of the diseases we are protecting her from, so I expect to continue having annual boosters as long as it is advised.

Sadly Isabel some vets do ignore the manufacturers own protocols on the vaccines :( I have come across a few thankfully the practice manager had a word with the vets.

The practice manager witnessed my dog's last adverse reaction we had words last week when my boy had to have some bloods done and I was told from next year three year vaccinating will start :) , the practice manager said it was watching what had and has happened to my dog that sparked the change. This is very much good news for our fur friends :) when I got home that day I did nothing but smile but it still saddens me that other vets have not went down the same road.

My min pin is a reactor to vacines.  We now pretreat her with anti-histamines and predisone before her vacines and I no longer give her the vacine for Lepto, as here they feel that is the vacine that is most likely to cause a reaction.  Have had no trouble in the last 4 years, since I started this.  I also have her vacines done early in the morning, on the day that my vet is open late so that if there is a reaction I do not have to deal with the emergency clinic, as it does not have her full records, and in an emergency it is easy to forget some deals.

> The practice manager witnessed my dog's last adverse reaction we had words last week when my boy had to have some bloods done and I was told from next year three year vaccinating will start :-)

If your dog suffered a serious adverse reaction I can't see that you will be vaccinating even every three years but I suppose if you are just needing to take remedial steps to alevient an unpleasant lesser reaction at least you are doing it rather less often.

That seems like a very sensible course of action, Impish, and I hope that will be reassuring to those who have dogs that do suffer from a inflammatory response.

I agree Katt. I am lucky in that I have a vet who is always very up to date on new protocol and also he is open to "natural and homeopathic" approach where possible.  Not all vets have the same approach however, as I have mentioned in a previous post I know of several vets in my area who all recommend different vaccination regimes.

Good news that your vet has noticed a link between the vacc and your dogs reaction, I am hearing of more vets nowadays who are now aware that these things happen :-)

the thing is sometimes i have to kennel our dogs and if the yearly jab wasnt given the kennels wouldnt take them !!!

Some kennels will take dogs with high titre levels or nosodes as long as they have been administered by a homeopathic vet, I have found a kennels in my area that do, there are others around and I think in time (not soon enough though) more and more kennels will start to accept nosodes and high titre levels.  Like everything though it takes time, but they are out there you just need to look.

Have a look at Canine Health Concern website  http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/ 
there is a new dvd out which doesn't cost very much and it is full of info on alternative ways to keep our pets safe, nosodes v vaccination, and conventional vets talking about over vaccination and the damage it causes.  Well worth investing the £10 or so to keep your pets safe in my opinion.

> If your dog suffered a serious adverse reaction I can't see that you will be vaccinating even every three years but I suppose if you are just needing to take remedial steps to alevient an unpleasant lesser reaction at least you are doing it rather less often.

Isabel my dog will never be vaccinated again.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote I will explain again. 
The vet practice has changed from yearly to three yearly for the core vaccines.
The blood test he had done happens every two months it's not related to vaccines.
I smiled because other dogs would no longer be over vaccinated at the surgery.

> I think you misinterpreted what I wrote I will explain again.

I did not realise you intended never to booster again but what I said still applies to others who have experienced less severe reactions.

> I am hearing of more vets nowadays who are now aware that these things happen

I would be astonished to learn any vet has qualified and practiced with no knowledge of adverse reactions. 
Of course their understanding of the level of risk may not correspond with some posters :-) but the idea that they can have training, understood how vaccination worked sufficiently to pass examination and then continued in professional practice never having read a professional journal or taken note of something that is rife over the internet and popular dog press even, seems a little far fetched to me.

I would be astonished to learn any vet has qualified and practiced with no knowledge of adverse reactions

I was astonished too, but the more people you speak to who have had a pet experience an adverse reaction will tell you the same, the vets almost always say ' this has never happened in my experience before'  or 'this is so rare'  or 'I've never witnessed anything like this' or 'it can't possibly be the booster' or 'totally unrelated'....   the list and excuses are endless :(

> the vets almost always say ' this has never happened in my experience before' or 'this is so rare' or 'I've never witnessed anything like this'

Well, all that can certainly be true. They might also use their clinical judgement to assess it as unlikely to be attributed to a booster.  Sometimes other likely causes are very much stronger and far less rare.  This does not indicate they are unaware of the possibilites.  The information is there in the data sheet of every vaccine they open after all.
It works the other way too, Perry, when we see every illness occuring within a couple of months of a booster suspected of being caused by it!

Well, all that can certainly be true. They might also use their clinical judgement to assess it as unlikely to be attributed to a booster.  Sometimes other likely causes are very much stronger and far less rare.

And even far less likely to be diagnosed Isabel, it's a sad fact that when a dog is suffering from an adverse reaction to a booster the vet althouth stresses how it is unlikely to be the booster they are never able to come up with what  exactly has caused the illness/reaction :( 

> it's a sad fact that when a dog is suffering from an adverse reaction to a booster the vet althouth stresses how it is unlikely to be the booster they are never able to come up with what  exactly has caused the illness/reaction

So, who has diagnosed the adverse reaction?   If there is uncertainly in medicine you would generally go with the most likely cause.  If an experienced clinician regards it as unlikely I am not sure that any of us would be able to determine anything different.

>I did not realise you intended never to booster again but what I said still applies to others who have experienced less severe reactions.

In our case it was the vaccine company and three vets that agreed that vaccination should not happen. They all have given us letters to state this and forwarded copy's of the letters to the insurance company as the insurance company questioned us about not vaccinating.

As I said before sadly we have come across vets that have attempted to persuade us to vaccinate dismissing the manufacturer's advice. The vets are not the ones that created and manufactured these vaccines they are certainly not qualified to dismiss the scientist and manufacturers advice I do think some vets need re-educating about vaccines.

I don't understand why you are having any difficulties, vaccination is voluntary :-)   I am not sure why the insurance company are questioning you either as they generally do cover for all other diseases or incidents apart from the vaccination ones if people do not wish to vaccinate.  Are you trying to get them to cover what you are no longer vaccinating against?

So, who has diagnosed the adverse reaction?  
Usually the vets give in and say 'maybe it is the booster' and the manufacturers will pay all the fees while denying ALL responsibility. 

if there is uncertainly in medicine you would generally go with the most likely cause

It would be good to keep an open mind until the cause is confirmed rather than denying it through their teeth until they realise they have no other option than admit it. 

I found this (US) homoepathic site which is very much in favour of homoeopathy ... but even they say categorically:

"Some nosodes seem to work more effectively than others.  None produce titers against disease like a vaccination, so they are not vaccine replacements.  They do seem to moderate a disease condition if the animal is exposed, even if they don't prevent it."

>the manufacturers will pay all the fees while denying ALL responsibility

Very generous of them then. 

> It would be good to keep an open mind until the cause is confirmed

Yes, it would :-)

Some nosodes seem to work more effectively than others

Exactly the same with vaccines isn't it?  I have a friend who lost her dog to lepto after having the vaccine.  There are also cases of dogs coming down with parvo who have been vaccinated.  Nothing is 100% unfortunately; we can only do what we believe to be the best to keep our pets safe.

>Sometimes other likely causes are very much stronger and far less rare.

it's always worth remembering that the cause of something will usually be the most common cause, not the rarest. Serious adverse reactions are rare, which is why vets will logically think that a more common (known) cause has applied. For example, a cut on a dog is more likely to be the result of running into a barbed wire fence (a not unusual event) rather than (a rare but possible cause) being deliberately stabbed.

>Nothing is 100% unfortunately; we can only do what we believe to be the best to keep our pets safe.

Absolutely right. :-)

Zajak the vets are all in agreement if it was not for all sides working with each other he would not have survived long. My dog has a good quality of life as long as he does not suffer we will carry on doing what they tell us to do but I will always ask qestions and research making sure he receives the best health care. One of vets calls him little miracle I am not sure about that but he is one hell of a fighter and has a zest for life :)

> I don't understand why you are having any difficulties, vaccination is voluntary :-)   I am not sure why the insurance company are questioning you either as they generally do cover for all other diseases or incidents apart from the vaccination ones if people do not wish to vaccinate.  Are you trying to get them to cover what you are no longer vaccinating against?

Yes vaccinating is voluntary but the way some vets and insurance companies act you wouldn't think so.
Some insurance companies now will not insure you if you do not give vaccinations.

Insurance companies are private companies and can accept or decline what business they want but I'm sure there are plenty that will :-)

> Insurance companies are private companies and can accept or decline what business they want but I'm sure there are plenty that will :)

So true and we can take our business elsewhere :)

Yes vaccinating is voluntary but the way some vets and insurance companies act you wouldn't think so.
Some insurance companies now will not insure you if you do not give vaccinations.

Hi Katt some insurance companies won't insure you I agree, but there are lots that will, you just need to phone and ask the question.  Your dog wont be covered for illness that a vaccination could have protected but will be insured for everything else.  Sometimes you will need to speak to a few people before you get the answer and always get it in writing as well.  My boys are with Pet Plan and they seem fine. 

> Hi Katt some insurance companies won't insure you I agree, but there are lots that will, you just need to phone and ask the question.  Your dog wont be covered for illness that a vaccination could have protected but will be insured for everything else.  Sometimes you will need to speak to a few people before you get the answer and always get it in writing as well.  My boys are with Pet Plan and they seem fine.

Perry I took my business elsewhere and insured him with Pet Plan :) Pet Plan where very helpful and understanding of our situation the insurance is pricy but well worth it for peace of mind. But I do think it is disgraceful that some insurance companies make it seem that vaccinating is compulsory when it is not.

But I do think it is disgraceful that some insurance companies make it seem that vaccinating is compulsory when it is not

I understand completley :(  but usually we are speaking to people in call centres who read from a script and are not thinking for themselves so haven't a clue, they can only answer what is written in front of them.  And to be honest most are ignorant of the dangers, none more so than me before a dog of mine died from an adverse reaction to a booster :(

> I understand completley :-(  but usually we are speaking to people in call centres who read from a script and are not thinking for themselves so haven't a clue, they can only answer what is written in front of them.  And to be honest most are ignorant of the dangers, none more so than me before a dog of mine died from an adverse reaction to a booster

They all learn in the end when they notice the insurance sales have went down and other companies have increased, that's when policies change. We all have to remember we are the ones in control we decide who we give our hard earned monies to :)

> And to be honest most are ignorant of the dangers

The people dealing with the protocols may not know the ins and outs but the underwriters will be well aware of the actual data surrounding vaccination.  That is their profession.

the underwriters will be well aware of the actual data surrounding vaccination.  That is their profession.

Only the data that is available to them yes.

I don't think it is a problem anyway.  It is obvious that the underwriters put a clause in the contracts that any dog not vaccinated and having an illness that vaccination could have prevented will not be paid out if the dog becomes ill with that disease. 

> Only the data that is available to them yes.

Not only will they make use of all the published data they also have the advantage of their own statistics garnered from claims.  I doubt there is anyone better placed to understand the real balance between risk and benefit.

I doubt there is anyone better placed to understand the real balance between risk and benefit.

The underwriters are not the slightest bit concerned about the benefits to animal health, all they are concerned about is not paying out if they don't need to.  So they will use any excuse.

If for example you take car insurance underwriters, let's say your car is stolen and you admit that your spare keys were locked in the glove compartment, then the insurance company will not pay out.  It doesn't matter in the slightest that the keys were out of sight and the car is broken into by smashing a window and then starting in the way only criminals know how, the keys were not in any way helpful to the theif at all.  But if an insurance company has a cop out they will use it, that is how the underwriters earn their money.  But I am going off topic here.

I can't see how your analogy relates Perry.  If the underwriters were finding they paid more claims for vaccine related illnesses that the illnesses that vaccines prevent, then you could bet your bottom dollar it is vaccinated dogs that would find a clause against them.  They may only have money in mind but that directly leads to a preference for the best prevention of ill health for an animal as, obviously, less claims will be made.

You probably don't understand my reasoning because you don't want to Isabel :)

There is no way that the underwriters would know about vaccine related illnesses (illnesses caused by the vaccine itself) because they are not admitted by the vets and manufacturers pay up as soon as they know there is a problem so it wouldn't involve the insurers anyway.  The underwriters would never get to know the numbers involved likewise the majority of the public.

But we are just going round in circles on this one, and will have to agree to differ again :)

> You probably don't understand my reasoning because you don't want to Isabel

I don't think that is the case at all :-) I just do not think the insurance companies will be unaware of vaccine related illnesses as opposed to disease caused by lack of vaccination. Not all owners would report to manufacturers they will just put their claims in.  If you have insurance in place it would be a lot simpler and more assured of pay out so why wouldn't you?

>The fact is all dogs react to vaccines.  There really would be no point in having them if they didn't.

That's not strictly true; some dogs show no reaction at all; not even off colour...

A dog with sufficient antibodies will neutralise the booster anyway and no further stimulation of cellular immunity will occur.

It is cellular immunity which matters here and the speed and efficiency of the immune response.

If they produce antibodies they are reacting it doesn't have to be a physically visable reaction or an adverse reaction.

>A dog with sufficient antibodies will neutralise the booster anyway and no further stimulation of cellular immunity will occur.

And there will also be no reaction that wouldn't occur if the dog came into contact with the 'real' virus.

> A dog with sufficient antibodies will neutralise the booster anyway and no further stimulation of cellular immunity will occur.
>

Appologises, you are right if immunity is already sufficient and what I mean is those dogs that are requiring a boost.   This is also why the notion of "over vaccinating" in nonsense, of course.  If already immune there will be no reaction.

>Some insurance companies now will not insure you if you do not give vaccinations.

This is rather strange because vaccination will not reduce risk per se apart from the illnesses that the vac is supposed to protect against. 

The insurance company will not pay out for an illness in an unvaccinated dog which vac could have prevented, had he been vaccinated.  

Which insurance companies are these BTW?  I'm wondering how unvac dogs protects their liability in the main, apart from the obvious as above.  

>This is also why the notion of "over vaccinating" is nonsense, of course.

Is it?  Anything is possible.

They said decades ago, man would never fly:-D.

> Is it?  Anything is possible.

Only if we rubbish your theory :-D

>If they produce antibodies they are reacting it doesn't have to be a physically visable reaction or an adverse reaction.

Of course that's true, if they are producing antibodies and likewise, in that line of thinking, it may be there is a reaction of some sort occurring in the body, even though we can't see it.  Doesn't mean it's the one we want...

> This is rather strange because vaccination will not reduce risk per se apart from the illnesses that the vac is supposed to protect against. 
>
> The insurance company will not pay out for an illness in an unvaccinated dog which vac could have prevented, had he been vaccinated.  
>
> Which insurance companies are these BTW?  I'm wondering how unvac dogs protects their liability in the main, apart from the obvious as above.  

http://www.sainsburysbank.co.uk/common/html/pdf/petinsurancepolicy_aug08.pdf
General exclusions applicable to all sections of the policy
Section 1 - Veterinary fees
Any costs resulting from vaccinations, spaying, castration, pregnancy or
giving birth.

General conditions applicable to the whole policy:
You must comply with the following conditions to have the full protection of your policy.
3. Vaccinations
You must ensure that your pet is vaccinated in accordance with the recommendation
of your vet against distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and parvovirus for dogs.

Thanks Katt :-) A bit harsh, I think.

It's underwritten by Axa, I might have known...... 

Still, the vac clause would be immaterial to a loss (i.e. claim) for an illness not directly connected to the breach, so I'd like to see them get out of that one.  I work in insurance BTW.

However, they can refuse cover upfront if they ask the question 'Does the pet receive the required vaccinations' and the answer is no.

> Thanks Katt :-) A bit harsh, I think.
>
> It's underwritten by Axa, I might have known...... 
>
> Still, the vac clause would be immaterial to a loss (i.e. claim) for an illness not directly connected to the breach, so I'd like to see them get out of that one.  I work in insurance BTW.
>
>However, they can refuse cover upfront if they ask the question 'Does the pet receive the required vaccinations' and the answer is no.

Your welcome Spender :)
I'm with Pet Plan now but if they change policy I will be the first to pm you for advice lol :) :-p