What research do you think we have access to that the vet won't? Aren't most of them likely to use the internet too :)  Of course they have access to professional journals, seminars etc that we lay bods do not have access to so the idea of us bringing them up to scratch seems a bit of a long shot to me :)

What makes you think some of us"lay bods"don't have access to professional journals etc ?

Well of course your vet may allow you access to them :) but for many professional journals you do have to be a member of the profession to subscribe to them, similarly they would not publicly invite lay people to professional seminars.

What makes you think I need to have my vet give me access &  that lay people cannot go to seminars ? I been to  seminars arranged for vets on the diagnosis & treatment of syringohydromyelia, HD, Epilepsy & several other canine ailements like everyone else there I paid for the privilege

You have your experiences & opinions & I have mine sadly one vets opinion re boosting one of my dogs cost him his life A price too high for my boy to pay

There are public seminars arranged by vets and there ones just open to the profession as there are with most things scientific.

These were most definitely NOT open seminars & were for vets primarily I am not that thick that I donot know the difference, these were veterinary seminars perhaps I know the right people to know to get access to such things a bit more personally than most of the other lay bods

Then you are very fortunate :) but you can hardly say that is an option available for the average pet owner nor would the average pet owner cope with following to the full a seminar pitched at a qualified vet.
Have you found the reference as regards Intervet and the POOCH report?

what im saying is that alot of vets have their opinion and will stick to it, not all vets like to think "outside of the box" so yes they may have their journals and all that garb but at the end of the day they will stick to their beliefs.  So if you go to the vet without having done your own research there is no point questioning the vet because you may as well go along with what he says anyway because really you know no better.

Sorry that was garbled but I hope I got accross what I meant :)

But it is not just an opinion like yours and mine :)  A professional is someone that has been tutored and examined by their peers and found to have knowledge and understanding of their subject.  To be honest the last thing I want is someone "thinking out the box" what I expect from a professional consultation is very much a reflection of the majority view in the profession.  When you know that the vast majority of vets consider vaccinations to be both useful and harmless, in the vast majority of cases, you know that the chances of that opinion being based on personal bias, greed, ignorance etc are pretty much ironed out.  The views of an individual are not similarly supported.

Im well aware what a professional is, and I believe anyone, especially proffesionals should "think out of the box" there is more ways than one to do a lot of things and some ways are better than others, by "thinking out of the box" you explore all of these ways and find the best way for you. 

I have to disagree with you there a professional is member of a profession.  There is nothing wrong with examining a hypothesis but, after data is produced, it should be examined by the profession and agreement reached before acting upon it.  This is the normal pattern of behaviour in the scientific world.

Actually that's not always the case. Many vets are not experts on some breed specific problems and can (and are more than willing to) be educated. My boy had a problem which was picked up by a specialist, from discussing the condition with him I then knew far more than my own vet with regards to this particular condition. He looked at medical journals and they still didn't bring up half the information I had. My boy needs his first booster in about a month and I will discuss it with my vets but as yet I am undecided whether or not to give it to him. I may just have him titre tested. I had my bitch done so am not against yearly boosters but his second set of injections had to be postponed due to ill health which is why I am thinking this over.

The income they receive from yearly jabs is far less than the income they'd receive from treating sick dogs.

Ok, thats a fair point but thats not what im saying (if that was in response to me) all im saying is that if you are going to go to the vet to question whether you dog should have its booster surely its better to do your own research first (even if it is stuff the vet obviously has access to) so at least you know what you are talking about and so that you might be able to understand what the vet is talking about, I think consultations are only 10 minutes long so at least if you do your own research the vet wont have to explain every little thing to you ? :)

Why not just pay the vet to do the research for you?

maybe because I like to look at all different options and dont want to rely on just one persons opinion - one of the reasons I like champdogs really ;)

Trouble is at the end of the day you have to opt for one of those opinions.  For me, the logical one would be the one held by the vast majority of the veterinary profession but as you say no harm in looking :)

I dont do logic, I do scientific reason ;) :)

Then you will understand how a scientific profession functions.

Totally, which is why I would want a number of opinions, the same reason you go to maybe two or three vets for different opinions for an illness, because different vets have had different experiences, not everything they know is from a book.

I may see a specialist. where appropriate, but I doubt very much I would seek 2 or 3 opinions. They may have different experiences which no doubt influences them where concensus has not been reached but I would very much expect them to follow an established protocol within the profession.
Again I think you are doing their work for them :) they work out a consensus between them to save you the job of trawling round looking for it.

I dont think im doing their work for them - its not like they are going to take advice from me :p  I just like to know my facts and yes my vet can advise me but there is always another side to every story - even a scientific story ;)

I think there are always different sides to every story which gives us all sorts of things to take into consideration and avenues to explore.  I like to get lots of different opinions as some people have had different life experiences and perhaps more knowledge in a particular subject than I do.

Anyhow, I spoke to my vet today just to get his opinion as my two are due their boosters next month.  There's a difference in opinion going on in his practice too.  Apparently his partner wants to change the duration of boosters from 1 year to 3.  My vet is still unconvinced though.  He claims he has had 2 cases (it was one if the diseases, can't remember which one) in the last couple of months.   He's also concerned about lepto as he says that does require an annual booster and is unconvinced as to whether it's as successful given on its own??? And he also spoke about recent outbreaks of mumps in the area.  According to him, the three year booster is the exact same as the one currently given annually???

I'll have a more in-depth chat with him when I see him as this was on the phone.

Anyhow he's happy to do a titre test if we decide to explore that avenue of inquiry and take it from there. 

*For me, the logical one would be the one held by the vast majority of the veterinary profession but as you say no harm in looking *

Logic doesn`t always come into it though and besides, health/illnesses/bodies & just plain nature, a lot of the times....defies logic!!!!!! Humans/animals/plants/nature whatever you want to call living things is beyond logic. The scientists have a long way to go to understanding it, let alone a cure for all ailments. Nothing will beat a healthy immune system & thats the key to good health & well being for all :)

Christine, Spain.

Obviously we have very different views on this :)  I believe the living body is entirely logical and able to be examined in a scientific manner, there are still unknown areas to be unwrapped but they will be :) I think science has already gone a very long way towards understanding Humans/animals/plants/nature and can cure a great many ills.  A healthy immune system is clearly very important and thankfully there are now scientific ways of supporting it :)

*I believe the living body is entirely logical and able to be examined in a scientific manner, there are still unknown areas to be unwrapped but they will be*

Well I certainly won`t be holding my breath till they do!!!!!!!!!!!

* A healthy immune system is clearly very important*

That has got to be the most underestimated statement I`ve heard for a long long time :D :D :D :D

Christine, Spain.

By the way, as far as I`m concerned if you haven`t got a healthy immune system you will be/are unhealthy. And in that case the issue of giving or being given vaccines becomes a moot point.

Well holding your breath for more than 5 minutes is probably going to be fatal so I wouldn't recommend it :D but having seen what science and medicine has achieved in the ...........well less than 50 years ;) that I have been on the planet and the rate of acceleration of that knowledge I don't think we are talking another persons lifetime before all bodily matters are understood.  The mind might take a little longer :)
I don't think any of us underestimate the value of the immune system :)

*The income they receive from yearly jabs is far less than the income they'd receive from treating sick dogs.*

And how do you know that J/G?????

Christine, Spain.

Because £30 a year for the jab is less than the £200+ (and possible on-going costs of the side-effects) it would cost to treat a dog which caught distemper, say. Of course, that's as long as you take the dog to the vet for treatment, and it survives. If you let nature take its course then it won't cost you a penny.

£200 plus many many +`s is what it cost me to treat my pups after they had their pupy vac J/G. And thats not including the cost to treat the *side effects* initial vaccine!!! Only for him to die of the disease caused by the vaccine....don`t know what price you can put on that. Oh & the vet still billed me for the vaxs, then decided to waive it afterwards.

Christine, Spain.

I agree with you tyby, I have seen vaccine damage first hand and I know what it can do. We only use homeopathic nosodes to protect our animals. I realise that because of this they are unable to go into kennels but we made the decision to forego holidays abroad etc. because of this reason. I would rather feel at ease knowing in my mind I have done what I can for them, in my opinion, without causing any further damage to the breed.
Ellie

*After discussions with my vet I have decided to continue with annual vaccinations*

You vet obviously must know more than Intervet Isabel.

Christine, Spain.

We both know what intervet says but I don't feel comfortable letting their antibodies drop particularly in the light of anecdotal evidence that the 3 yearly ones appear to cause a more marked response, what we discussed is the level of risk of boosters which helped me decide to continue to the yearly ones.

*particularly in the light of anecdotal evidence that the 3 yearly ones appear to cause a more marked response, *

What anecdotal evidence Isabel? Who from, your vet? From whom? What marked response are you talking about?
Are you, or your vet is saying that Intervets vaccine, the one that only needs repeating every 3yrs, is causing in your or your vets words *a more marked response*??? Please expain that.

I am presuming you are talking about Intervets vaccine as I know of no other manufactures that make give a 3 yr duration????

Christine, Spain.

Anecdotal means unpublished, Christine, not my vet as it happens, who has not used it much.  Who knows if the stories amount to anything I suspect it is early days to draw any real conclusions but in balance with the published evidence of low risk from vaccines it is my choice to continue yearly.

I did not ask the meaning of *anecdotal* Isabel, I do know what it means, but thanks anyway :)

I asked you for evidence on what you based your statement & I`m quoting you now

*particularly in the light of anecdotal evidence that the 3 yearly ones appear to cause a more marked response *

That`s a pretty strong statement against the 3yr vax, but now you say its *stories*........ as I said in a reply to J/G, pretty strange considering its only been out for a couple of yrs?????

Then you go on to say

*I suspect it is early days to draw any real conclusions*

Any real conclusions to what?????

Please show us the published scientific evidence you have of low risk vaccine.

And please please show us the published scientific evidence that requires the need for boosters :)

Christine, Spain.

:D :D

How can you provide evidence of anecdotes? All you can do is throw them into the balance when trying to evaluate risks and benefits and hopefully not over value them.  I don't think it was a strong statement at all, I have explained that I think further time has to be allowed to see how the 3 year vaccine goes, then we may have some idea as to whether there is any thing behind these anecdotes, after which I may very well consider it but as I do not have any strong fears about yearly vaccinations either I am choosing to continue. 
I have already posted a link to the POOCH report.
I've never really looked for reports on whether vaccinations are necessary I'm afraid I just rather take it as read because the deseases that used to kill and debilitate dogs in my young days don't appear to bother the population to any great extent anymore but I suppose it could just be coincidence :)

* I have explained that I think further time has to be allowed to see how the 3 year vaccine goes, then we may have some idea as to whether there is any thing behind these anecdotes,*

Well I really don`t see Intervet saying their vaccine is only needed every 3yrs if they had the slightest doubt about it, after all they would be leaving themselves wide open to all kinds of lawsuits. Not to mention the fact they would be forced to take it off the market due to lack of efficacy!
* think further time has to be allowed to see how the 3 year vaccine goes*
That comment means you don`t think Intervets yrs of research, as well as the rigorous trials vaccines go thru before being allowed on the market is enough Isabel. Its obviously good enough for the very many vets using it tho ;)
I think it will also be good enough for the people who`s vets use it, rather than anything anecdotal you or others may say about it :)

I do believe vaccines have been through vigorous trials and indeed have been used for the majority of the population for a great many years now, for this reason I believe they are safe to use annually, the risk being very small in proportion to the benefit.  This new regime of 3 yearly has not been used for anything like that number of dogs yet, if it was the only choice of getting my dog protected against disease then I would definately opt for it but as I have no worries about the annual vaccine for my dog I feel the option is there for me to leave it a bit, others may choose differently that is entirely up to them :)

*This new regime of 3 yearly has not been used for anything like that number of dogs yet,*

Yet it is through scientific research Intervet are able to say the duration of their vaccine is 3yrs.

*for this reason I believe they are safe to use annually, the risk being very small in proportion to the benefit.*
Annual vaccines were & still are being used without any scientific that they are or ever were needed, let alone have any benefits from them. I believe the majority of adverse reactions to them go unreported, therefore the safety/risk of them is being totally misjudged. The fact is there is scientific evidence that once dogs have had the initial course they are immune for at least 7yrs, if not life.
It`s my belief that as there is no evidence to the benefits of boostering & having witnessed a disease caused by & the inefficacy of vaccines & boosters they are of no benefit to my dogs whatsoever :)

Christine, Spain.

I expect some incidences aren't reported but on the other hand some incidences will be reported when in fact they are coincidental to the vaccine so it would be hard to say what the balance is.  The POOCH report was random though and covered 4000 dogs so chance is pretty much reduced.  We all have experiences that perhaps influence our perception of risk, when I was a child we chose a puppy that I never got to have because it died of distemper so perhaps that is where my influences lie :).

*We all have experiences that perhaps influence our perception of risk, when I was a child we chose a puppy......*
Yes what happened to my pups certainly did influence my perception of the risk of vaccines. It made me seek out the facts about them, talk to experts/specialists about them & as an adult, made me more able now to make an informed, educated choice about them.
The family who were waiting for my pup never got to have him either Isabel & I know how upset they were, even more so for children ;(  He was recovering very well from I.N.P when he got parvo but he had nothing left to fight it ;(

Christine, Spain.

*We both know what intervet says but I don't feel comfortable *

So just to make clear your point Isabel, its only you that doesn`t feel *comfortable* with what Intervet says about its 3 yearly vaccine. And just to let others, besides you & me *know* about what Intervet says about their vaccine I`ve quoted part of what they say about it below.

"Intervet extends booster intervals in dogs
The current interest regarding over-vaccination of our pets continues to be a concern amongst pet owners.   But, there is excellent news on the horizon for those who want to take a closer look at their dog's vaccination regime.
Thanks to years of research, Intervet can now offer an extended duration of immunity on its canine vaccines giving proven protection against killer diseases like parvovirus, hepatitis and distemper for three years.  
*Indeed, Intervet is the first manufacturer in the world to be able to make this claim and we hope it allays pet owners' fears regarding the need for annual vaccination of all diseases every year.*

Our company reiterates, however, that it is still important for pet owners to visit their vet every year for an annual health check and to boost dogs against other diseases such as leptospirosis.    Leptospirosis is zoonotic, which means it can easily be transmitted from dogs to humans if the animal is not properly protected.   The same level of research has also gone into our own leptospirosis vaccine and we know scientifically that protection starts to decrease after a year.    Therefore annual boosters for this disease are absolutely imperative.
So, if your pet is due a booster, take heed and book in to see your vet for a consultation to discuss its future vaccination schedule.  As part of the consultation, your vet will also offer a full health check and advice about your individual pet's needs.
Without doubt, science has changed the way we look at vaccination regimes in this country and it is important that you remember the benefits of vaccination and think about the real risks you face if you cease to protect your pet against infectious diseases!
Further information on this topical subject can be found in the attached files.  These and similar files are also available for download for Intervet customers by clicking here"

Intervet extends booster intervals in dogs (51Kb)
26/04/04
View | Download
Are killer diseases a thing of the past? (55Kb)
View | Download

And just to highlight something they say that might be of interest to you (seeings tho you always want the logic/science/research/proof etc *Without doubt, science has changed the way we look at vaccination regimes in this country*
That is what Intervet are saying about their 3 yearly vaccine ie = if you use their vaccine for parvo/distemper/hepatitis you do not need a booster every year, only every 3 years.
Please remember, its not me saying this, its one of the largest/leading manufacturers of vaccines(besides many other drugs both for human & animal) in the world, with a whole schooboodle of scientific reseachers putting their name to it.

A question regarding your quote *letting their antibodies drop*
How do you know the antibody levels have dropped, how did you or &/vet determine antibodies have dropped? What basis was that decision formed on?

And another question (albiet repeated) as to your quote *what we discussed is the level of risk of boosters which helped me decide to continue to the yearly ones.* What  basis did you &/or your vet decide that boosters every year are needed? What level of risk of boosters do you mean?

Christine, Spain.



  
 

Christine, I would just like to thank you for the information you provided in the thread on vaccine reaction.  I spoke to Dr Hal Thompson at Glasgow Uni this morning.  A most friendly and helpful gentleman.

Now bearing in mind we spoke about my particular case and not in general, I will post some of his comments that may be helpful to others. 

I am one of these owners who vaccinate my dogs (who are now 9 & 10) every year. According to him my dogs are immune without any further vaccinations for the rest of their lives. There is no doubt in his mind.  Although, owners are welcome to test as reassurance.  

For Lepto, the vaccine does not induce detectable antibodies so they cannot test for it.  Owners can vaccinate for this one on an annual basis.  However, with regards to my situation, in his opinion it's extremely unlikely that they would ever get it.  And there are no problems with giving a lepto vaccine without the other components.

He acknowledges that there is a particular sort of dog that does have a bad reaction but in dogs that have been vaccinated successfully without any reaction in the past, it is unlikely they would be harmed.  He doesn't think regular vaccinations - (i.e. every year) do any harm (although some holistic vets may say otherwise), he admits they don't do any good either.

I too favor a specialist's opinion, over a standard vet. There is no comparison when it comes to those who specialize in a particular medical subject as opposed to a vet who knows a little about everything. And how much that is depends on the vet.  

That is very interesting Spender. 
Two of my puppies took part in clinical trials for Nobivac Parvo-C about 18 years ago.  I was waiting to take them on holiday but wanted confirmation that they were protected before taking them from their home environment.  My Vet told me to ring Glasgow, who were carrying out the trials.  I was told that the titre levels in my pups were so high that they would never need boosting.  He added, "But don't tell your Vet that I told you!!"
For me that confirmed what I was told as a Veterinary Nurse in the late 60s, that all pups should be vaccinated, but boosters were Vets' pocket money!

You`re wecome Spender :)
Yep Mr Thompsons a very nice man :)

*I too favor a specialist's opinion, over a standard vet. There is no comparison when it comes to those who specialize in a particular medical subject as opposed to a vet who knows a little about everything. And how much that is depends on the vet*
My sentiments exactly :D
Christine, Spain.

As I have said Christine as I don't have any great concerns about vaccinating my dogs and the 3 year vaccine is relatively new I think I'll wait until it has been used for a little longer if you don't mind :)
I didn't form any decision about when or how the antibodies dropped the actual quote should have been

>Perhaps the response may be stronger as antibodies will have dropped to a lower level

You have already apologised once for twisting my words I would hate for you to have to do it again :)
As to the level of risk, we discussed the POOCH report and my vets experience of incidents and levels of adverse reactions and I made my decision based on the risks and benefits as I see them. 

** confused**

Where is the information that this 3 year vaccination is a new one?  From what I have heard the 3 yr vaccination is one from Intervet - Nobivac r DHPPI, the same one that has been around for quite a while.  In 2004, I understand that Intervet obtained a license for this vaccine with three year immunity against pavo, hepatitis and distemper. I checked my dog's vaccination card and three years ago they got this same vaccination.  My vet also claims it is the same one.  Am I missing something? 

The regime is new, Spender, so the effects may not be the same.