Milo and Shadys titre test results are back and neither need boosters as they are a few thousand above the level reccomended for booster . I'm so relieved as with milos allergy problems and reactions to things we were worried about having to make a decision about giving him a booster or not if he had no cover, due to his violent reactions to things.
My vet and I were discussing routine vaccination and what harm it must be doing to dogs that don't need it and I asked why can't all owners be offered titre testing before thier dogs are boostered and said couldn't there be a notice put in the waiting room about it and advising people to discuss it with thier vet before routinely boostering.
She said she will be offering it to everyone now and thinks a notice in the waiting room would be a great idea as they are seeing more and more vaccination related auto immune problems now than ever before.
I have done so much research into this and its great to have vets that understand the importance of it all.

thats great news :) ...i will be asking my vet about doing this i think . x

how much is the titre testing ? and do you know how long they are covered for before you need to titre test again?

Titre testing is approx £40 varies between vets but shouldn't be much more than this. (some vets will try it on or get the pricing muddled).
If your dog goes into kennels you will need a yearly up to date one.  I titre a year after puppy vaccs and then am guided by the results from then on as to when I feel the next one should be done.  This time there was about 20 months between tests.
It may interest those that don't know that Milo has only ever had his puppy vaccs, his titre results have been sky high since so he has never needed another vaccination and still doesn't.  He is 4yrs old now and i will test him again when he is about 5.5-6 yrs old.

It may interest those that don't know that Milo has only ever had his puppy vaccs, his titre results have been sky high since so he has never needed another vaccination and still doesn't.

Very interesting.  I took part in clinical trials for Nobivac, must be 25+ years ago?  I was running on 2 pups and was waiting for the results of their puppy vaccinations before taking them on holiday.  My Vet told me to ring Glasgow uni who were conducting the trials and that Vet told me then that their results were such that they would never need boosting again.

I find it amazing that with that sort of knowledge so long ago, there are still Vets who are still trying to vaccinate every year regardless. :(  Homeopathic Vets will tell you about the large number of dogs that they treat who have problems with their immune systems and their thoughts about the causes........

Great Posts Bev & Westcoast, thank~you both for sharing :)

I can second the comment about homeopathic vets. My sister-in-law  (ex vet nurse and homeopath ) has very strong views about vaccine and the problems it can cause and we have often discussed the pro's and cons' both with humans and animals. She does not vaccinate but I have chosen to do the puppy course and will probably titre test in the future.
Have just rung my vet they are amazed that i should be requesting titre teting thought I was leaving the country. Apparently the vaccinate annualy with a vaccine to cover 5 diseases. They guessed at titre testing and think it wil be 20.00 for each of the 5 diseases.
What do you guys think. btw I just said thank you  

Great news Bev; well done!  Just goes to show we can reduce vac without leaving our dogs uncovered.    The titre test is a great learning curve and tells us about our dogs immune system regarding these diseases without leaving it up to chance and vaccinating regardless.  More vac is not necessarily better.

> I find it amazing that with that sort of knowledge so long ago, there are still Vets who are still trying to vaccinate every year regardless.

Because they need to recommend a regime that covers all dogs not just individuals.

They guessed at titre testing and think it wil be 20.00 for each of the 5 diseases.

That will be if you sent a sample for each disease to be tested seperatly, but you can have them done as a package which works out much cheaper.  The individual cost is really only if you want to check one thing in paticular.
The vet will see the options on the forms.
Some vets use glasgow and you can find the prices out by looking on glasgows website and some like my vet use idexx

The big drawback for me following this (otherwise preferable) route is that the insurance for my dogs stipulates that they must be kept vaccinated against distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis & parvovirus. This is a general condition applicable to the whole policy with M & S.

I rang them about a year ago to ask if they would accept the titre testing instead, but the answer was negative. Therefore, if they are not vaccinated annually, the whole policy is void.

>The big drawback for me following this (otherwise preferable) route is that the insurance for my dogs stipulates that they must be kept vaccinated against distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis & parvovirus. This is a general condition applicable to the whole policy with M & S.

>I rang them about a year ago to ask if they would accept the titre testing instead, but the answer was negative. Therefore, if they are not vaccinated annually, the whole policy is void.

That is a very unfair term. I'd like to see them trying to use that one to get out of paying a claim on anything else other than for the disease that the vac covered for, in an unvac dog. 

To rely on a breach of contract, the insurer has got to show prejudice.  That means they have to show that that breech is directly connected with the loss (a loss is another word for claim) and the insured was required to do something under the contract, that they did not do and had they done what was required, it would have prevented the loss thus limiting the insurer's liabilities. 

In other words, if a term applied that the dog had to be vaccinated (requirement under the contract) and the insured did not do this and the dog caught parvo for example, then the insurer is rightly justified in repudiating the claim.

However, how can a dog vaccinated for Parvo prevent that dog from getting, say, an allergy?  It is NOT sufficient grounds to void the whole policy and they really cannot reject such a claim although some insurers might like us to think that.  Off to have a look at M & S Terms and Conditions...

Checked this point when I took out Ins in Oct with AXA, they said - not covered for any illness that vaccine would prevent but covered for other illnesses and any accidents etc.
Zuma had had puppy jabs when I got him at 4 mths, has had booster but almost certainly will not have future jabs - certainly not yearly, did discuss it with vet who advises lepto every year and others 3 yearly.
Chris

M & S disclosure at point of sale -

Other important points:

If your pet is not currently vaccinated as follows:

dogs - distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and parvovirus.
cats - infectious entiritis, cat flu and feline leukaemia.

You can still arrange insurance but there is no cover under any section of our insurance for anything that happens as a result of any illness your pet is not vaccinated against.

M & S T&C's -Specific exclusions and limitations

Section 1 - Veterinary fees * The cost of treating any illness that your pet should have been vaccinated against.

This relates to any illness that a vac is available for so having an unvac dog will not void the policy for treatment for any other illness other than the ones a routine vac is available for.

Had to get a quote to view the T&C's, £611.00 for a 9 yr old GSD - ouch...

My JRT is insured with M&S and yet he has only ever had his puppy jabs. But we have claimed a few thousand for his allergy problems and they have paid out no problem.  They would only not pay out if he caught one of the diseases he should be vaccinated against.
Another thing that always worries me about routinely vaccinating is that you don't actually know if your dog has taken up the vaccine and are covered as its surprising many dogs don't and although vaccinated have no cover or very little and go on to catch the disease.  At least with a titre test you can see what immunity your dog has against each thing.
I have heard of many vaccinated dogs that still get parvo etc yet I havn't as yet heard of one that is not vaccinated routinely and titre tested reguarly that is shown to have good immunity, actually getting parvo or anything of the other diseases.  If anyone can tell me of any cases I would like to know as I am always doing a lot of research into this and will soon be trying to campaign the insurance companies into updating thier ways of thinking regarding this.

Taken from the current M & S Pet Insurance Policy Booklet..... page 11 (note condition 2).

"General conditions applicable to the whole policy.
You must comply with the following conditions to have the full protection of your policy. If you do not meet these conditions we may cancel your insurance, refuse to pay your claim or only pay part of it.
1. You must be the owner of the pet and it must live with you at your home address. If you are no longer the owner or your pet stops living with you at your home address you must tell us.
2. You must arrange for your pet to be kept vaccinated against the following;
    Dogs: distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and parvovirus.
    Cats: feline infectious enteritis, feline leukaemia and cat flu." ... and so it goes on.

I would definitely prefer to have my dogs titre tested rather than routinely vaccinated if M & S would still agree to cover them for other conditions, but they have told me that they would not.

You must arrange for your pet to be kept vaccinated against the following;
    Dogs: distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis and parvovirus.
There lies the loophole.  If you titre test your dogs and they are covered or you titre test and they are not covered and then vaccinate to keep them covered then your pet is kept vaccinated.  The wording does not state yearly it states kept vaccinated.
My vets words 18 months ago after a titre test Was "your dogs vaccinations are all uptodate so no need for anymore this year again".  So according to my vet my dogs vaccinations are up to date and they don't need anymore at present, so if vet asked by insurance company are vaccinations up to date the answer would be yes.
As i said before they cover my dog for everything else but will not cover him if he gets one of those diseases, but again I repeat I have never known a dog that has been titre tested and proved to have a good level of immunity get these diseases but i have known plenty of yearly vaccinated dogs get them.

> Another thing that always worries me about routinely vaccinating is that you don't actually know if your dog has taken up the vaccine and are covered as its surprising many dogs don't and although vaccinated have no cover or very little and go on to catch the disease. 

If vaccination is taken up by sufficient numbers the risk is reduced by the herd protection.  Not sure that knowing would benefit you as depending on why the vaccine was not successful in raising immunity it may not be anymore so if repeated.

> I have never known a dog that has been titre tested and proved to have a good level of immunity get these diseases but i have known plenty of yearly vaccinated dogs get them.

I would imagine there are far greater numbers of yearly vaccinated dogs compared to a tiny number of titrated dogs so of course there will be more :-)  As I understand it Parvo mutates so whatever immunity is held some dogs will get some variations of it.

Hi Stroppimare,

For an insurer to have grounds to reject a claim, it must be on a material fact.  A fact that is relevant to the claim.  The most important thing in an insurance contract is disclosure, these are the questions the insurer asks and the answers the policyholder gives at the point of sale and this is what the contract is based on.

M & S state in their sales disclosure - 'You can still arrange insurance but there is no cover under any section of our insurance for anything that happens as a result of any illness your pet is not vaccinated against'.

Some aspects of the Terms and Conditions carry more weight than others depending on how they are applied.  Insurers can and often do, set aside terms that do not apply or would not carry weight to reject a claim.  Terms and Conditions are never as black and white as insurers would like us to think.  For any insurer to reject any claim for an illness in a non vac dog that is not an illness that could have been prevented by vac, they would need to show that it is a material fact.  It simply isn't and will not stand the test.  That does not stop them using it to reject a claim in the first instance though; it often depends on how persistent the policyholder is and how he/she presents their argument. 

>I would definitely prefer to have my dogs titre tested rather than routinely vaccinated if M & S would still agree to cover them for other conditions, but they have told me that they would not.

I spoke to M & S today, they are one of our partners at work and the clause on vac stands for an illness where a routine vaccination is available but the dog is not vaccinated.  It does not apply to the full policy although it does not make that clear under Gen Conditions.  Don't take my word for it though, give them a call again.  They've changed underwriters, used to be AXA, now Royal & Sun Alliance although I don't know if the change was over a year ago. 

Thanks for that Spender, I will give them another ring today. The way the policy is worded still concerns me though.

I've just come back from my vet after a third puppy vac :(  He had his two needles with duramune at 6 and 10 weeks.  My vet recommended a titre test as the first injection was so early and there could have been a conflict with the mother's immunity.  Boy am I glad I did.  Both his parvo and distemper and way lower than the recommended minimum of 40, at 20 and 14.  I'm hoping this third one will take and I will be titre testing again in another two weeks.  I wonder how many of the other owners have had this problem and blindly assume their dog is fully vaccinated when it isn't.  Had the vet not advised I would have simply assumed he was covered after that second injection.  It's interesting that some people say their dog got something even though "fully vaccinated" against it.  If one of my older dogs got parvo after puppy vacs and boosters I would maybe be looking at whether he was infact fully covered despite the yearly boosters.  If the vaccines haven't been taking all this time, they are as good as useless. We blindly vaccinate but don't think to test whether the vaccine has actually taken in our dog.  Also although not totally against homeopathic alternatives.  If herd immunity does go down, we really will see if nosodes work.  Look what happened with the mmr scares.  Suddenly there was a jump in affected kids.  The more educated will use nosodes and properly.  The other members of the public will simply stop vaccinating leaving our dogs at risk.  I don't dispute there are dogs that will have reactions but out of the millions that are vaccinated around the world what is the percentage that have a reaction ?  It's not nice if it's your dog, no, I totally agree and it's not on for the vet to discount the vaccine as a cause.

I wonder how many of the other owners have had this problem and blindly assume their dog is fully vaccinated when it isn't.

A Vet from one of the large vaccine manufacturers told everyone at a seminar that I attended many years ago, that out of every 5 pups that are vaccinated, only 3 will accept the vaccination and the other 2 will not, due to maternal antibodies.  Depending on the immunity passed on by the dam, that can mean that they will either be protected, or not........

I don't dispute there are dogs that will have reactions but out of the millions that are vaccinated around the world what is the percentage that have a reaction ?
I have no idea of the official figures.  I'm not sure that anyone would truly know because most Vets don't fill in the form that should be sent to manufacters if they suspect there might be a reaction to any drug.  All I know from personal experience is that I kept records of my parlour dogs in 1995 and out of the approx 200 dogs on my books, in a 12 month period, 12 died within a week of having their primary vaccination or boosters.  Another 25 were seriously ill but recovered. 

>He had his two needles with duramune at 6 and 10 weeks.  My vet recommended a titre test as the first injection was so early and there could have been a conflict with the mother's immunity.

That's why puppies are better having their first vaccine at 8 or even 10 weeks, with the second one two weeks later.

>The more educated will use nosodes and properly.

The BAHVS say that nosodes aren't supposed to be used as a preventative; they're supposed to be given during a local outbreak or when the dog has contracted the illness and needs help to fight off the infection.

>out of the approx 200 dogs on my books, in a 12 month period, 12 died within a week of having their primary vaccination or boosters.  Another 25 were seriously ill but recovered.

Blimey! I've been working at the vet for three years now, and the only puppies that have died were sick when the owner acquired them (tiny terriers from a traveller's camp) so the vet refused to vaccinate them, but was unable to save them. No other puppies have died in that time.

You can see why I changed my thinking then...... :(

I'd noticed a link for sometime but in 1995 I started to make written notes on their cards.

I would never vaccinate that early, always done it at 8 and 10 weeks,think that's soon enough and don't really understand doing it at 6 weeks.  Yeah Guide Dogs I understand as they get them out and about straight away but for a normal pet I wouldn't do it so early.

I agree with Jeangenie, in the 5 years i've worked at a vets i've never know pups die after their vaccinations.

Thats possibly because not all reactions are immeadiate.  Like with my two i lost to auto immune disease the boosters were obviously were not needed so the body started to attack itself and they got very sick.  My first dog was not even diagnosed as having auto immune disease as the vets were just not looking for it.  We battled for a year to get him well, he even had his tonsils out but sadly in the end i could watch him suffer no more and when the vets put him under anesthetic yet again and found the ulceration was spreading down his throat towards the stomach i decided enough was enough for the poor lad and told the vet not to wake him up. He was just 4 years old.
My other dog got exactly the same 6 months later and this time we got it diagnosed properly and tried all sorts of treatments she sadly after again battling for a year became unable to eat so I had to make that decision again, she was 7 years old.
Vets are just not recording it though and I have done a great deal of my own research with the help of a couple of vets who are very interested in it.  Its a lot more common than we think, just too often not recognised.
I have spoken online to several dog owners whose dogs had the same symptoms as mine which were never diagnosed properly either and some that were.
Perhaps if vets were to record these problems then other vets would pick up on it much quicker.
Just for the record I have known and known of dogs die within hours of vaccination due to an acute reaction.

I didn't mention the other 14 who developed auto immune problems after their boosters. :( 

You must live in a very unhealthy area. :-( Are there lots of powerlines or chemical works nearby?

I was in Berkshire and the dogs went to 7 large local surgeries (plus a couple from way out of the area) so not all from the same practice The smaller numbers from each surgery would have been less noticable than the number that I collated from a large area.  One practice was very interested as they had already sent 2 clients to the local homoeopathic Vet.  The others didn't consider that there could possibly be any connection.  Aldermaston was near, but nothing else with potential that I am aware of.

Even one puppy dying in a practice is noticeable - and we honestly haven't had any in three years (other than the two I mentioned earlier who were sick anyway and not vaccinated).

One tried to explode himself twice by eating more than his bodyweight in food (escaped from his crate!) in one go, but that wouldn't have been a suspicious death if the vet hadn't managed to save him. But he was the only other problem puppy.

i have worked in several veterinary practices for the last 10 years, started as a volunteer at pdsa when i was 14! in all that time i havent seen a puppy die after a vaccination. i saw many dogs when i was at pdsa with parvo, many died :( adults and puppies. horrible. worked at a vet school for several years and am now in private practice and seen nothing.

I haven't seen any deaths in recent years, but wouldn't wish what I saw with my mum's Pomeranian's a number of years ago after being vaccinated.  Vet didn't believe it was anything to do with the vaccinations for years until he ended up keeping two, he phoned at 9.00pm to say that they'd both been running around the surgery fit and healthy, 20 minutes later they were dead!  Unfortunately post mortems showed nothing but once we started using a dead vaccine on them that's when our luck turned around and we never lost any again.

Thats possibly because not all reactions are immeadiate.  Like with my two i lost to auto immune disease the boosters were obviously were not needed so the body started to attack itself and they got very sick. 
Thats obviously very traumatic for you. But don't forget there are also lots of dogs that develop autoimmune disease which is unconnected to the vaccinations? many dogs also get sick in between vacciantions, you cn only say there is a correlation, unless its immediate you can't neccessarily say it was a reaction.  I'm sure its the same with human vaccinations, unless they react very soon after how can you say if it was or wasn't? I'm not saying that your dogs condition and others weren't connected to their vaccinations but we can't neccessarily say every autoimmune problem is a reaction either.
I would have thought if it was such a big problem i would have seen more deaths in five years through two surgeries covering differnt areas?

A friend's puppy died from parvo after its jab, he was in the vets for one week but they couldn't save him.  He had not been out of the house and none of the other pups had problems.  I am sure these reactions are few and far between but they obviously do happen.

"All I know from personal experience is that I kept records of my parlour dogs in 1995 and out of the approx 200 dogs on my books, in a 12 month period, 12 died within a week of having their primary vaccination or boosters.  Another 25 were seriously ill but recovered"

You mean you own or worked in a grooming parlour and kept records of dogs - including very young puppies - and reactions to vaccines?  I assume based on owner reports? If valid, with the statistics you've kept no vet would ever vaccinate dogs again. 

Personally, I've known of no dogs that had a negative reaction to vaccines, except one of mine to Duramune.  When I was active in dog clubs there were a few people with certain breeds their breeds should receive the first shots later, and/or not receive the entire spectrum all at once.  My own dog's reaction was limited to a 24-hour period, but as a result I use a vet for vaccinations that uses another brand than my regular vet.   My regular vet said that *anyone* who has seen the results of a parvo outbreak - as he has - would understand why vaccinations are necessary.  And obviously, when I lived in a country with rabies no sane, responsible owner would hesitate to vaccinate against rabies; even though their might be negative reactions to some small minority of dogs.

That said, I am happy now that the vaccine manufacturers have changed their protocols so that dogs do not need the full booser every year.

That is brilliant news Bev, I think a lot more vets are becoming aware of the dangers of over vaccination, not quickly enough in my opinion but at least we are getting there.

I had my dogs titre tested because they needed to go into kennels and everything came back with high titres except distemper and I couldn't find a vet locally that would administer a single distemper vaccine - they all thought it would be ok to booster for everything.  After what happened to my previous dog there was no way I was going to accept it.  So the kennels that we were taking the dogs to said they would also accept homeopathic nosodes as long as they were administered by a vet and the certificate signed, which is what I did.

Interesting comment about the dog with very high titre readings and the vet saying they wouldn't need another booster, I spoke to a professor at Glasgow uni who told me that once dogs had immunity the immunity would last more than likely for life - no matter how they became immune (whether through vaccine or coming into contact with the disease itself)!

He also said that the lepto vaccine didn't cover all the strains in the uk and the dogs he had seen with lepto in the uk were the ones usually vaccinated against it too.

Personally, I've known of no dogs that had a negative reaction to vaccines

It's probably something you wouldn't know about unless it happened to you, my last dog died from an adverse reaction to a booster aged 3 years old.  Something like that makes you more aware and much more careful about chemicals I would pump into my dogs. 

Have a look at this :http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/

There is lots of information about adverse reactions out there if you were willing to look, but why would anyone unless it had happened to them?

> Something like that makes you more aware and much more careful about chemicals I would pump into my dogs

As I understand it, Spangler was thought to have suffered due to bacteria introduced at the time of the vaccination not chemicals.
I think most of us know many dogs so I think it is something we would be aware of if it was happening with any frequency.  Certainly I would expect those that work in veterinary surgeries to be in a good position to be aware of these matters.  We also have the research evidence such as the POOCH report.

As I understand it, Spangler was thought to have suffered due to bacteria introduced at the time of the vaccination not chemicals.

No you are mistaken

Slightly off topic but I would like to say what a brill website you have Perry.  I am sorry to hear you lost Spangler and especially so young, what a brilliant idea to put "Spanglers fund money" into helping other dog owners become more aware of the possible dangers of overvaccinating  :-).

Anyone heard about the new mutation of parvo.  My next door neighbour's neice lost her dog to it.  I'm in the merseyside area and when on a recent visit to my vet, he happened to have a student who was specialising it this stuff.  I can't remember if he called it C2 or something, it's not the one that's vaccinated again.  My vet said parvo is the best virus out there.  Kills in a short period, doesn't need direct contact to spread and survives on the ground for 12 months.  The perfect survival method, you've got to admire it as an organism. Oh and appears to mutate as we find a vaccine for it !

> No you are mistaken

I know we have discussed this before so people are best referring to previous threads and deduce what they can :-)
Personally, knowing the lives dogs lead, I would say the odds seem much higher on the bacteria suspicion, but perhaps we will never know.

what a brilliant idea to put "Spanglers fund money" into helping other dog owners become more aware of the possible dangers of overvaccinating 

Thanks Zajak, it was something I felt I had to do to make people aware of the dangers.  I am not anti vet, in fact I have a brilliant vet at the moment who works closely with a homeopathic vet so the best of both worlds really :)

Anyone heard about the new mutation of parvo

I had heard of a new strain being resistant to treatment, and the vaccines not covering the strain yes, very worrying!

> it was something I felt I had to do to make people aware of the dangers.

Why would you need money to do that?  The internet is full of such stories without any cost to the poster at all.  If there is money to be spent why not donate it to research helping to ensure that whatever choices owners make they are evidence based?

I am exactly the same as you Perry.  I have 2 vets who work closeley together, one of whom is purely holistic and they are both excellent.  Once again, I will say how much I liked your site. Spangle's awful experience should not be brushed aside in favour of purely scientific research, both have a place in my humble opinion.