Hi we have a 9 week old Chocolate Lab, last friday she had her 1st Vaccination, since then we have had diorrhoea, although this has started to cease, vomiting and loose stools.  The Vet has examined her and sees nothing physically wrong ie no temperature or discomfort, she was examined by a second vet who suggested she may be having a reaction.  We kept her off food for 24hrs and is now back on a rice & chicken meal, she did seem very restless over the past few day's but today seems to want to sleep, she is currently going over to Burns mini bites.  Has anyone else experienced this? she does seem fine otherwise although is very tired today but obvisously we are very concerned and not happy with the situation.  If we knew this was something that would pass then fine, but we don't like seeing her like this.  Thanks in advance for any info, this would be gratefully received.

Sorry to hear that your pup is not too well - I would say it's 99% certain that the vaccine has caused this reaction. The vaccine does not attack disease - it IS a disease.  So it sounds like your pup has caught a mild dose of one of the diseases the vaccine is supposed to prevent.
Hopefully this will soon pass and things will get back to normal but I would keep a very close watch on her and take her straight back to the vet (preferably the second vet you saw) if she gets any worse.  I would also ask the vet to submit an adverse reaction form.

Hope things improve soon.

This is why I use Natural Vaccines

Although a lot of Kennels don't reconise a Natural vacc they have worked for me.

Hope you get it sorted out.

all the best

Sorry to hear your pup seems to be another with a reaction to the vaccine.  If you have a Homeopathic vet near you, they'd be able to help, and you could pursue the homeopathic route in future.  I agree, fill out a reaction form, even if the vet won't do it, you can do it yourself.  I don't vaccinate my dogs for just those reasons.

Good luck, Sending Reiki

I have used Homeopathic Vacc for years and my dogs fine.

They did have a site called WYKKEN but it closed they have an agent who has set up an ebay shop and a website.

You can access these at Folklore.Directory4Shopping.co.uk or the ebay shop at http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Folklore-Products.

I have noticed over the years that companys if you look seem to be returning to including Natural ingredients in there products.

...............WHY.............. well must tell you something.    

Hiya,
It could be that your pup reacted to the vaccine because it was combined one, when you go back for the next lot ask for separate injections over time as this may help. I have been told most pups have a small reaction to the injection but are fine within a couple of days. Was your pup hand reared, or ill when younger? This has an effect on the pups immune system, it can cause immuno-compromisation which would give it problems with allsorts of bugs, including the products injected in the vaccine.

Sarah

DO NOT HAVE YOUR PUP VACCINATED AGAIN! If she reacted like this to the first one there is a damn good chance the next one will be worse. Do plenty of research into vaccines, there is enough evidence to help you decide, but I would seriously advise you to think carefully about it. I don't want to frighten you but a friend of mine had the same reaction in her pup and the vet told her it was coincidence. She had the second vaccine done and two hours later the pup was dead. The vet then admitted it could have been a reaction! A bit too late for Blaze. :-(

Not having a vaccination simply because you know someone whos dog died is not a good reason to scare someone into not having it. thanks to vaccinations a lot of the probs are no longer the threat they were. Certainly having the jabs individually is a good idea, also dont worm at or near the time of the vaccination as this will cause a reaction. As to booster time, I would have the dog blood tested then to see what part of the vaccination was actually needed, and only give that part. Sadly, like with children, vaccination can have adverse affects, but it really is not a reason not to do it. Distemper, parvo, lepto etc may be almost a thing of the past but this is only due to responsible owners taking precautions.

I've a friend who has a dog that had a severe reaction to a jab as a pup. She still believes in jabs and all her other dogs have had them until they are 10

Daisy

The idea that multiple vaccinations cause harm to children (I presume you mean the autism fears) has been pretty thoroughly put to bed since the latest research from Japan where single vaccine have been used for many years with no difference in the rate in the growth of autism to countries using multiple vaccines, even one of the two authors of the original report has backtracked totally on this issue.
The only issue with titre testing I have is how often do you test?  A result of sufficient antibodies doesn't tell you when the antibodies might drop to below what is acceptable, next week, next month, next year?  I believe you have to vaccinate within the period of time suggested by research and as I, personally, do not believe vaccine are damaging I will continue to do what veterinary advice suggests :)

*The only issue with titre testing I have is how often do you test?  A result of sufficient antibodies doesn't tell you when the antibodies might drop to below what is acceptable, next week, next month, next year?  I believe you have to vaccinate within the period of time suggested by research*

Dr Hal Thompson, senoir lecturer & expert at Glasgow Diagnostics recommends titres every year. They do know when antibodies drop thru scientific research :) Dr Dodds also has this scientific info, any good laboratory dealing with immunity/antibodies titres have it as well.
What can`t be measured is memory cells which also play an important role in protection.

There are a wide body of vets that still think multiple vaccines are linked/cause adverse reaction.

From personal experience I know vaccines can & do damage animals & have gone with advice of homeopthic vets to not vaccinate my animals anymore :)

Christine, Spain.

>They do know when antibodies drop thru scientific research

Do they? I have not seen any research determining this I thought the research had centred on the minimum period of cover   My understanding is that every dog will hold immunity differently, hence the boostering intervals have to been set to the shortest period of cover determined by research.  I think it would be great if the rate of drop could be quantified, in which case I would definately opt for titre tests but I can't see how, once you have already gone over the minimum period of cover, you know at what frequency to test.

Perhaps they have access to research that you don`t Isabel? :)
You could always ring & ask him to explain it, he`ll do it far better than I could :)

Christine, Spain.

Perhaps he has :)  I'm sure he has published in the journals though, so hopefully my vet will be familiar with his findings, I'll ask her when our next booster is due.

I believe he has, he knows his stuff :) Why not contact him yourself directly & get it straight from the horses mouth. You can see where he works in the link below & his profile in the one below. Link at the bottom for contacting Jean Dodds very nice people both of them & always willing to help & explain things :)
http://www.gla.ac.uk/faculties/vet/diagnostics/
http://www.gla.ac.uk/faculties/vet/diagnostics/people.htm
http://www.canine-epilepsy-guardian-angels.com/DrDoddsInstructions.htm

Christine, Spain

I'll wait until he changes the body of opinion :)  Personally, I don't think adopting the views of mavericks is a good idea, if the findings are sound others will be persuaded to the same view.  I have no veterinary qualifications, like all professions he needs to be judged by his peers :)
Meantime as any action has risks and benefits, the body of veterinary opinion suggests we continue to booster and the level of risk, as suggested by the Pooch report, appears to be very low I'll plod on with the status quo :)

* Personally, I don't think adopting the views of mavericks is a good idea, if the findings are sound others will be persuaded to the same view.  I have no veterinary qualifications, like all professions he needs to be judged by his peers*

Dodds & Thompson mavericks???????

*I have no veterinary qualifications,* Yes we know that :)

* like all professions he needs to be judged by his peers*

Holding the post of senior lecturer says he has been!!!!

And Intervet vaccines for distemper & parvo are guarenteed by themselves, the makers of it, for 3yrs, so no need for annual boosters when using those. :D

Christine, Spain.

I thought we were talking about the effective frequency of titre testing. 
I should have been more specific is saying his views on this subject needs to be judged by his peers :)

So did I, I gave my opinion in answer to your quote *we continue to booster and the level of risk, as suggested by the Pooch report*

I believe the Glasgow Diagnostics Service, run by Glasgow Veterinary University has already been judged by their peers, else why would they even run the titre service??????

Christine, Spain.

ohhh I only wanted to highlight the one word!!!! trying again!!

I expect they run the service because there is a demand for it and after all they do extract a fee for the service :) Why refuse people, particularly if those are the very people who might not vaccinate otherwise so clearly their motive may be on the level of welfare as well.  When the body of opinion suggested that is the best way to deal with immunology I will undoubtedly follow it but I would prefer them to get the majority of the profession on board with their findings first :)

So you are saying you do not believe that titre testing is any good, is a waste of time & all the Uni diagnostic services such as Queens, Edinburgh, L/pool etc & its done only from the commercial aspect for people who may not want to vaccinate, with welfare of animals being only a maybe?????
Have I got that right Isabel?

Christine, Spain.

No you haven't Christine :) I'm saying I do not think we know if it is sufficient to titre test on an annual basis, some vets are saying so but the majority are not, at this point, there is always the possiblity that the minority may be proved wrong and too many dogs will show a suficient response to one test but be below by the next. 
I certainly didn't say it was only done for commercial reasons and if you are inclined to twist my words then yes, if they are doing it because they fear people would not otherwise vaccination then it would be in the interest of welfare and I have no doubt they feel the whole project is in the interests of welfare but unfortunately until they have convinced their profession, we as lay people, do not know they are on the right lines.

They, as in specialists , as opposed to ordinary vets who are the equivalent of our GP. Drs. are of the opinion, from scientific based evidence that is & has been, peer approved, titre tests only need doing yearly.
It doesn`t matter what you think, the evidence is there & if you choose to disbelieve it, it thats up to you :)
Maybe you didn`t say its being done only for commercial reasons, you certainly implied it tho. I`m not of the inclination to twist anybodies words.

*When the body of opinion suggested that is the best way to deal with immunology I will undoubtedly follow it but I would prefer them to get the majority of the profession on board with their findings first*

As I`ve said, the body of opinion cannot dispute the evidence that they have, nor do they when asked, its the specialists you need to ask :)

Christine, Spain.

You asked "why would they even run the titre service??????" which I took to imply the mere fact they ran it supported the view that others thought that was the way to go, so I gave some others reasons why they might, I certainly did not say they would be the only reasons.
All professions recognise specialists but I'm afraid the body can dispute evidence and indeed should discuss it widely before settling on a majority view as even specialist views can differ and sometimes early data can be missleading.
I seem to be finding fifty different ways of saying the same thing :) - I do not think we should change established practice until the majority of a profession tell us to except perhaps in desperate circumstances where the majority view has been tried and failed, but I do not think that applies here.
Whether these vets are right or wrong I don't know but to me it is irrelevent, with all things scientific, I will wait for them to convince the profession.

Your comment
*The only issue with titre testing I have is how often do you test?  A result of sufficient antibodies doesn't tell you when the antibodies might drop to below what is acceptable, next week, next month, next year?  I believe you have to vaccinate within the period of time suggested by research...*

And I have answered that question. The evidence they have IS without question accepted by the veterinary profession as whole worldwide. They are not disputing it, it is you who is doing that.
*I do not think we should change established practice*
Times are changing, regardless what you think Isabel, what you think & what they know are 2 very different things Isabel :) As said before, Intervet already guarantee theirs for 3yrs now.
Perhaps me saying that one last time will save you & me both from saying it any other way for the umpteenth time...............& an established practice as boosters maybe, there is no way of getting away from the fact it was established without any scientific research whatsoever, just because a thing is established doesn`t make it right, especially when it`s done without any proof of it being needed.

Christine, Spain.

Are we not still talking about the frequency of titre testing? I don't think I have disagreed with you about the frequency of the Intervet booster
I don't know that their evidence is "without question accepted by the veterinary profession as whole worldwide" last time one of mine went for boostering I discussing titring with my vet and she told me that at present she could not advise me as to the fequency but I will ask her as to the state of play within the profession next time again.
I think you are twisting my words a little again :) the full quote was "I do not think we should change established practice until the majority of a profession tell us to" that is not the same as saying I don't think we should change at all one would always hope for progress.
I have no problems in knowing the limitation of what I know :), that is not to say I don't take an interest but I would always seek the opinion of the profession, when I speak to a individual professional though I expect to be given the majority view.

* don't know that their evidence is "without question accepted by the veterinary profession as whole worldwide"*

And the only way you will ever know one way or the other is to ASK them yourself Isabel :) And not only your own vet, she can not answer for her whole professional body, her answer is only her one opinion, or based on the last time she did any research on the subject in question, you want opinion of governing bodies not just from one who, for all we know, may be a maverick vet ;) Ask her governing body direct, get it straight from the horses mouth, that way there can be no misunderstandings either way :)

Christine, Spain.

I wasn't going to ask her what she thought, although I trust her judgement a great deal :) she may not be a specialist in this matter but her training will have taught her how to evaluate research, I was thinking more of asking her what was being said in the journals etc.

*last time one of mine went for boostering I discussing titring with my vet and she told me that at present she could not advise me as to the fequency but I will ask her as to the state of play within the profession next time again.*

How long ago, more or less, did you you discuss it Isabel?

Christine, Spain.

About 10 months ago.

In that case Isabel your vet isn`t up to date, she was unable to give you an opinion & unless you`ve read research that she hasn`t, your opinions are based on....well I don`t know what research you`ve read.

Also Intervet issued for immediate release 11mths ago that the guaranteed duration for parvo & distemper & adno using their vaccine was 3yrs.

Does your vet use Intervet/Nobivac vaccines Isabel?

Christine, Spain.

My vet and I did indeed discuss the Intervet vaccine but what has that got to do with this thread?  I thought we were discussing whether it was yet known how often titring would need to be repeated when boosters were not given regularly, to determine when they did need repeating?  If people are happy to follow the recommendations of the manufacturers why would we need a titring service at all?

As I`ve said already & she told you, your vet is not upto date with info on titres, nor if she use Intervet vaccines, their advice on the use of it..........

Duration of vaccines & titre testing are intrinsically entwined, if you need to ask me what has one got to do with the other or this thread, it is obvious you don`t understand any of it all.

Christine, Spain.

Or course they are intertwined, the manufacturers recommendations could not have been determined without titre studies.  But we were discussing whether titre testing can be used as a substitute to the regular boosters at intervals determined by the manufacturers research.   I could be tempted to comment on your inability to follow that basic premise but I don't generally do personal insults as you know, Christine, so if that is what you have moved on to I think it is better if we leave it at that.

Isabel, your first question on this thread

*The only issue with titre testing I have is how often do you test?  A result of sufficient antibodies doesn't tell you when the antibodies might drop to below what is acceptable, next week, next month, next year?  I believe you have to vaccinate within the period of time suggested by research and as I, personally, do not believe vaccine are damaging I will continue to do what veterinary advice suggests*

Your reply to my last post

*Or course they are intertwined, the manufacturers recommendations could not have been determined without titre studies.  But we were discussing whether titre testing can be used as a substitute to the regular boosters at intervals determined by the manufacturers research.* 

You have answered your own question......

I put part of your post in bold.

Christine, Spain.

No, Christine, my question was not how do you use titre testing to determine the minimum period of cover, we both understand the science of it sufficiently to follow that ;) but rather how can you use titre testing instead of just following the guidlines ie testing the level after the three years, or whatever is recommended for a particular vaccine, to see if a booster is necessary.  We know that some dogs will stay immune for longer as the recommended period will obviously have been set within the levels that dogs generally maintain but if at the end of the three years the titre levels are good what do we know about the likely drop off for that individual, how do we know for how long they will continue to maintain suffient cover and if on testing a year later they are still hanging in there what period do you use then?

Isabel, the hows & why of the length of circulating/decreasing antibodies will be better answered by the immunologists themselves :)

* but if at the end of the three years the titre levels are good what do we know about the likely drop off for that individual*
Schultz`s scientific research has shown that immunity to certain diseases last a minimum of 7yrs, if not a lifetime.

It is the general concensus of vets both in UK, US & Europe that titre testing need be done on a yearly basis & I`m happy with that :)

Christine, Spain.

Ok so another set of scientists say it lasts 7 years it makes no difference to my point.  You can go for Intervets 3 year or Schult's 7 years it makes no difference, if both are saying immunity drops below a safe level sometime between 3rd and 4th anniversary or the 7th and 8th for at least some dogs then your dog might be one of the unlucky ones who's level dropped before you titre tested at 4 years or 7 years, depending on who's research you are choosing to believe, exposing your dog to inadequate immunity before you were aware of it.  Even if the levels were good at that point my vet is saying that she is not aware of any research that suggests we know at what level you can be sure it is still high enough to leave another year the level may drop quite rapidly at times in other words she is telling me that although they have determined the shortest period that you can say all dogs will be covered you cannot predict the cover for individuals beyond that period as individuals vary and I must say that sounds logical to me.
Of course if you are choosing to believe that immunity lasts forever for all dogs then you are not going to be bothering with titring anyway.

Isabel I really don`t understand what you are questioning?
Now if its how do they know when the levels of anibodies drop, they know because of the research thats been done both in animals & humans. The rate of how & when antibodies drop is known & accepted by the veterinary establishment. I`m wondering why you keep asking me & not asking any of the many specialists in UK. I know full well you don`t take anybodies word, much less mine, so why don`t you ask them?? a simple & quick email asking for explanation on titres will get you all the answers you are looking for. I`ve found them to be very helpful people :)

*she is telling me that although they have determined the shortest period that you can say all dogs will be covered you cannot predict the cover for individuals beyond that period....*
Can she show us these findings???? What research says that??? And has she told you what the shortest period is for all dogs?????

*Of course if you are choosing to believe that immunity lasts forever for all dogs then you are not going to be bothering with titring anyway.*

And of course any one believing Schultz will be safe in the knowledge that he has done the research, it has been published, it has been accepted by the veterinary establishment & he has been judged by his peers & found not wanting, you can read about him at the link below :D

http://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/people/ronald%20d%20schultz

Christine, Spain.

I hardly know how to tell you again what I am asking because I cannot understand why you can't understand :) but I can tell you you are definately still not getting it :)

>Can she show us these findings???? What research says that??? And has she told you what the shortest period is for all dogs?????

That is what Intervet and Schultz have had a stab at!
I am not going to go into which piece of research is right but I would just say when there is a difference of opinion like that on minimum periods of cover it seems sensible to opt for the most pessimistic if you want to ensure you are falling within the safe period.
Of course Schultz has done research but as to it being "accepted" the academic world does not work like that it is not enough just to do research and say Aha I have the answer, you publish and it is discussed, peers may question methods others will comment that they have also done work in the same area, perhaps not yet published, that suggests a different outcome at this stage.  Only when no discenting voices appear or the governing body of a profession adopt a new protocol can you say that it has been "accepted" otherwise it's just another piece in the whole field making up a picture.
But all this has nothing to do with my point which is that we do not have any research evidence regarding what the levels do after the minimum period suggested by either of these pieces of research.  That is what people will titre test for at their vets, they will have completed the 3 or 7 years immunity guaranteed by which either research they are going with and want to know that their dog still has immunity, the test will say yes so they leave boostering until year 4 or 8, when they test again levels may now be below safety and they will not know when that level was reached so their dog was unprotected for....how long?  The only way this is not logical is if you believe immunity last for ever in which case you will not be checking with a tite test at any point :)
I am using bold a lot now so if you still don't get it I can't see any point in saying it all over again and just hope that others have got it.

Need to make things clear about Hal Thompson, just found out he is a professor....

Christine, Spain.

Good for him :)

Typical sarcastic remark :rolleyes:

For the *Good for him* post!!!

I don't know what else you wanted but a congratulations for him.  It didn't seem to have any other relevance, certainly didn't negate what I had said about peer review.

Well if I don`t get it why are you not asking the very people who do know??????????????

*I am not going to go into which piece of research is right but I would just say when there is a difference of opinion like that on minimum periods of cover*

I`ve not seen any research that disagrees with Shultz, Dodds etc. much less a difference of opinion.

*Of course Schultz has done research but as to it being "accepted" the academic world does not work like that it is not enough just to do research*

I know how it works & his work has been accepted by the veterinary profession, it`s only you saying it hasn`t.!!!!

*Only when no discenting voices appear or the governing body of a profession adopt a new protocol can you say that it has been "accepted"

There has been a new protocol regarding vaccines in the US & shortly after Intervet brought out their 3 yearly one in UK.  Can you show me any dissenting voices to Schultzs work???

*which is that we do not have any research evidence regarding what the levels do after the minimum period suggested by either of these pieces of research.*

I disagree totally. By the same principal that they know how long immunity lasts, they also know how frequently the levels of antibodies drop, thus knowing when to titre. Obviously if it`s recommended yearly the antibodies must be known to last a year before waning. But this seems to be your bone of contention, you are saying they don`t know & I`m saying they do......and just like you, if you have anything to contradict what I say, show me the evidence!

*if you still don't get it I can't see any point in saying it all over again*

And nor could I!
In fact I`m pretty cheesed off with your derogatory remarks about Dr Jean Dodds, Professor Hal Thomson being mavericks & now describing Schultz as *having a stab* at duration of titres. He`s only a professor & chair of Winsconsin.
And quoting your vet against them. Tell me, has she published any thesis, does she teach, is she a professor, does she have a speciality in immunology?????

Christine, Spain.

A resume of Jean Dodds below for anyone interested. :)

Dr. Dodds received the D.V.M. degree with honors in 1964 from the Ontario Veterinary College, University of Toronto. In 1965 she accepted a position with the New York State Health Department in Albany and began comparative studies of animals with inherited and acquired bleeding diseases. Her position there began as a Research Scientist and culminated as Chief, Laboratory of Hematology, Wadsworth Center. In 1980 she also became Executive Director, New York State Council on Human Blood and Transfusion Services. This work continued full-time until 1986 when she moved to Southern California to establish Hemopet, the first nonprofit national blood bank program for animals.

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.

Today, Dr. Dodds is actively expanding Hemopet's range of nonprofit services and educational activities. The animal blood bank program provides canine blood components, blood bank supplies, and related services throughout North America. Hemopet's retired Greyhound blood donors are adopted as pets through the Pet Life-Line arm of the project. 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.

>Obviously if it`s recommended yearly the antibodies must be known to last a year before waning

It doesn't follow that it must be known, it may be someones educated guess at what is a reasonable period of time, things are accepted as not black and white in medicine and while one practitioner may think it is reasonable to risk a year another may be more cautious.
I have not made any derogatory remarks, maverick just means to do not hold the majority view, maybe that will become the majority view someone has to start with the original thesis :) I am merely commenting that not all vets are agreeing with them.
As for making something of me using the terms "stab at it" :) its a tricky subject and there does not seem to be a definative answer yet, more than one piece of research has come up with varying answers why don't you seem to care that I used the same term for the Intervet efforts.
The CV are not relevent to any of the points I have made I'm sure most research vets have eminent histories thats why we have to allow them all to review the published works rather than just accept data off the shelf (and that is not meant derogatorily :))
I think I have already mentioned my vet is not an expect but she is my access to what is being said in the journals and I know she follows the debate on this subject.
As you seem to be taking matters to a very personal level again and I feel I have covered the same ground several times I think it better to leave it at that.

Still no answer despite repeated requests from me as to why you are not asking the specialists themselves.
why ????????
It is your opinion & your opinion only & I can`t even say an educated one as you repeatedly will not show any evidence to back up your claims.

Schultz does not have a vested interest, Intervet does

I am well aware of the meaning maverick. Professor Thompson, as acting senior lecturer at Glasgow University would not be a word I or I`m sure many others would use to describe him. The same for Dr Dodds!

Oh I think many, many people would say qualifications are extremely relevant when talking about immunity. I like to know the people I rely on to make informed & educated choices have the qualifications, experience & are held in high esteem by their peers, to help me make them :)

Christine, Spain.

If I asked the specialists themselves what they thought of their own research what do you think the answer would be? :)  The only people who could give you an unbiased answer would be the RCVS and I'm sure, like most professional bodies, they would not disuss one of their own's work with a lay person which is why the general public do not have ready access to their journals or web sites.  They have to be judged by their peers as you say, qualifications are important.  I'm sure all those commenting in the journals will have the relevant qualifications to cover the points they are making, the journals are published internationally so many research veterinaries will be contributing but of course all professionals will be qualified to comment on such things as sample size, bias etc.
I have not made any value judgements about the two pieces of research mentioned in this thread nor has my point had anything to do with their findings so I'm not sure what evidence you are looking for.

You`ll never know till you ask will you????????

Not going to bother answering anything else you have to say because now you are saying they are biased, your opinions are just that nothing more nothing less.

Christine, Spain.

Not only are you getting personal, it is isn't even sensible. 
When did I say they were biased? I mentioned that that is one of the common issues discussed in reviews that all professional will have been taught to judge, you know that as well as I do.  And what do you think I am biased towards, I pride myself in having a very open mind in these matters which is why I do not make up my mind until research has been thoroughly reviewed.  What I would never do is make up my mind on something and just look for evidence in support of that theory, which is the common error of internet researchers, I have been taught to always look for the largest body of opinion.