Lol, thought you meant a new vaccine.  I couldn't find it anywhere.

I see your point though, and appreciate your concerns.

Incidentally, my vet has a concern about giving Lepto on its own annually.  He claims he has seen more adverse affects with this regime than vaccinating with the whole lot once a year. 

**Sigh** There appears to be a lot of conflict in the vet world about this at the moment.

I'm sure the conflict will settle down in time and papers will be published on results from the new regimes :)

>and I made my decision based on the risks and benefits as I see them. 

sorry Isabel, just to be pedantic and this is meant in complete humour but .............. I thought you left your vet to make decisions for you, after all you wouldnt want to do the work you pay him for  :D :D :p ;)

Very true ClaireyS, and I appreciate the humour of it :D :D But I certainly gave a great deal of merit to her considerable experience and the end decision was unanimous as it happens ;)

I thought it would be interesting to see what other vets in the local area thought of the 3 yr vaccination regime so I called them today.

Lepto and PI have to be done annually.

But out of 4 vet practices, only 1 is still vaccinating for all annually. Can't be that much of a risk to move to 3 yr then.  

Interesting enough, this particular vet gave me a selling technique of how he doesn't use Nobivac (Intervet) but uses another brand and it is sooooo much more affective.  But lo and behold it has to be done annually.  Oh, and there's a parvo outbreak in Glasgow.  Needless to say, I wouldn't touch his practice with a bargepole and that was before I spoke to him today.

I'm not really following what you are saying.  Do you mean you don't think anyone should use any vaccine except Intervets now?  Why do you think his choice less suitable than the other vets?  And lastly :) what does the parvo outbreak comment mean, are you blaming him?

<<<<Do you mean you don't think anyone should use any vaccine except Intervets now?>>>>

No, not at all.

<<<<<Why do you think his choice less suitable than the other vets? >>>>

Not less suitable at all. What I am trying to say is that this particular practice has a bad reputation. They have been sued for mal practice.  But instead of speaking about the different options and considering them, he launched into an attack on Introvet which I thought was very unprofessional, considering there are other practices that use nothing else. In my opinion, he was simply scaremongering.  And no I'm not blaming him for the alleged parvo outbreak. Lol

Well obviously I don't know this particular practice so can't comment on them :) but I do feel where more than one treatment is licenced, as in human medicine, the practitioner should be able to exercise their professional judgement on which they think most suitable for their client.  I would hate to see all choice disappear and I must say I would feel a bit uncomfortable at handing a monopoly to one company.
Actually it has just occured to my by "not at all" do you mean you don't think they should use other vaccines at all or no "not at all" you were not saying they should not use other vaccines? Confusing this typing business isn't it :)?

BBut if the vets don`t tell their clients the options they have choice becomes irrelevant Isabel.
For people to be able to make a choice they need to be informed whats on offer first in the first place :)

Christine. Spain.

Absolutely. :) And they need to be told the pros and cons of all regimes. I'm personally satisfied my vet does that.
:)

And the clients choice becomes irrelevent if there are no options for the professional to offer them :)

Thats not going to happen Isabel. These are big pharmaceuticals & if I was a betting person I`d lay odds on that the others will soon be along saying theirs offer the same or more duration than Intervets :D
They can`t refute the scientific evidence forever, so there will always be options :D

Christine, Spain.

I don't think the other companies will go out of business either Christine :) as I don't think the average client will insist that their vet use Intervet.  I think most people believe their vet to be their guide and will continue with what they choose for them that is what they pay a professional for.  As you say the research will continue and it is entirely possible that others will recommend that their product provides longer cover than first thought.
I have no wish to refute the evidence forever it would be very nice to only vaccinate 3 yearly :) but until I feel it has run long enough for the evidence to be well established I will continue as I am.

I`d also wager a lot more of the average clients are asking about this 3yr booster & possibly hearing about it from debates such as this one. No bad thing having your vet guide you, but that doesn`t mean they should allow themselves be blindly guided. Even more important because of the fact your paying for their opinion, to at least have some basic knowledge of whats going on, canine wise. So much importance is placed on other aspects of dog ownership ie; training etc, this sort of thing is just, if not more important. I call it taking a very healthy interest & just because they are professionals they`re still human & as we all know, none of us are perfect...yet :D
As far as I`m concerned theres enough research been done to convince me, after all it`s a hell of a lot more than has been done regardings boosters being needed in the first place.

Christine, Spain.

Decided to see if there was any new info on vax this morning & look what I found, talk about coincidence after me just saying last night that it won`t be long before the others start stating their vaxs give a longer duration than 1yr!!!! :D
PLEASE NOTE These are not new vaccines at all,  the only difference is that the makers of them say they now give immunity/protection to the dogs for 3yrs or in Fort Dodge one, 39 months.

*Product Name: Protech Duramune C3 Canine Distemper, Adenovirus & Parvovirus Live
Vaccine
Applicant Name: Fort Dodge Australia Pty Limited
Summary of Use: The changes included the instruction leaflet to indicate that
the vaccine are efficacious and protective in six week of age and older dogs for
up to thirty-nine months following a second vaccination.
Date of Variation: 4 April 2005
Label Approval No: 51487/0205
You'll find it on this page -
http://www.apvma.gov.au/gazette/gazette0506p12.shtml
It is listed under '4 -
Variations, towards the bottom of the page.

C hristine, Spain.

Doesn't using a live vaccine mean more virus is shed into the community? I understood dead vaccine was far safer for both the recipient and the unvaccinated community.

*Doesn't using a live vaccine mean more virus is shed into the community?  Yes it does J/G. Below is a snippet from what Schultz says about dead vax, don`t know where the link to the whole article is right now but its one I`ve put up in the past;
"Killed vaccines, especially those which contain adjuvants, are more likely to cause adverse reactions than do modified live vaccines"

Nearly all of vax used now are M.L.V. Have a look in you dogs vax book & read the labels, you`ll find unless you`ve asked your vet to specifically use dead vax they`ll all be modified/attenuated/recombinant live vax for parvo/distemper/adno. Rabies & Lepto ar the only killed vax.

Christine, Spain.

<<<<<I would hate to see all choice disappear and I must say I would feel a bit uncomfortable at handing a monopoly to one company>>>>

Funnily enough, that's exactly what he was doing.

<<<<you were not saying they should not use other vaccines>>>>

No reason why people shouldn't use other vaccines if they are happy to do so.

I do think he is entitled to make his professional choice as to what vaccines he wishes to favour, the choice still remains for those who have feelings about these things they can either request he orders something else for them or if he won't they have the choice of attending another vet.  Do those who offer the Intervet also offer other vaccines?

<<<<I do think he is entitled to make his professional choice as to what vaccines he wishes to favour>>>>

Of course, he's entitled to make his professional choice.  However, do you honestly think that attacking another vaccine manufacturer is professional in order to convince a client that his choice is better?  I don't.

<<<<<<Do those who offer the Intervet also offer other vaccines? >>>>>>>>

My vet uses a range of other vaccines.

I wasn't there so it is hard for me to say :)  One mans attack is anothers explanation ;)
I would imagine the opportunity to offer different vaccines will vary with the size and turnover of the practice together with storage capabilities.

What difference does the size of the practice, turnover and storing capabilities for 100 Intervet vaccines make as opposed to 100 vaccines from mixed manufacturers? You still need the storage space and dogs to vaccinate.  Unless of course they come in different sized bottles and you get discount for buying in bulk ;-) Lol.

And the other way of looking at it is if that vet has a personal choice for a particular vaccine and he justifies that by attacking Intervet, does that mean that any vet who vaccinates with Intervet's vaccination is putting a dog at risk? ;-)

A vet is just as entitled to his opinion (bearing in mind he sees the results more often when things go wrong) as anyone else.
:)

There may very well be a difference in price between the 100 vaccines that you stock on a regular basis as your preference and the 10 you might buy to meet the needs of those that choose something different, discounts may very well be offered plus delivery costs will be proportionately higher.  Those 10 may also sit around going out of date because for that period of time nobody objects to the practitioners first choice plus he has to find fridge space for them alongside his usual turnover.
No I don't think he needed to attack Intervet, if that is what happened, and of course that does not mean another vet should not use Intervet but as a practitioner using a licensed product he doesn't need to justify his choice at all :)

Okay, not even a choice between a 1 year or a 3 year?

To be honest Isabel, I would be really annoyed if my vet vaccinated my dogs annually with drugs that may have hidden or unhidden side affects, short or long term without discussing the benefits or risks of using a 3 year vaccine.  So that I in conjunction with my vet could make an informed decision.   That really how I see it. :-)

The vet in Gib used to use Intervet, he had recently changed to Merial when he vaccinated my pups. As soon as the biopsy & diagnosis came back for pup whe cancelled Merials contract & changed back to Intervet which as far as I know is still being used there. Vets usually have different brands for different diseases, but my vet here in Spain also uses Intervet but is happy to try & get a particular brand if he`s asked for it.

Christine, Spain.