Forgot to put this..........

And here is what Schultz says about Kennel Cough

Another common vaccine that Schultz says is unnecessary protects against "kennel cough," an often mild and transient disease contracted during boarding or dog shows. "Most pet dogs that do not live in breeding kennels, are not boarded, do not go to dog shows and have only occasional contact with dogs outside their immediate family," Schultz recommends, "rarely need to be vaccinated or re-vaccinated for kennel cough."

and

"Kennel cough is not a vaccine preventable disease." It's a complex, resulting from exposure to several agents. Bordatella is only a small component, so it's really useless to vaccinate for bordatella.

and that really is my last word on it :D :D
"Veterinary Therapeutics" has published these manufacturer sponsored studies. 

You are right, Christine, whether you understand the accademic process is irrelevant but those that do will understand it is pointless keep trotting out pieces of research.  As with all science, the best way forward for the layperson without the specialist knowledge and access to all the data in context is to allow the process to complete amongst the relevant profession.  To suggest that people can do their own "research" and draw a proper conclusion leads to things like the reaction to the MMR/autism redherring.  We see changes all the time as new evidence is replicated and accepted, it does happen so the sensible course is to be patient and thereby limit the danger of falling into any traps that can prove very damaging. 

>the best way forward for the layperson without the specialist knowledge and access to all the data in context is to allow the process to complete amongst the relevant profession.  To suggest that people can do their own "research" and draw a proper conclusion leads to things like the reaction to the MMR/autism redherring.

I agree with this.  This is a huge subject and still under debate.  Before changes are made research has to be replicated under strict controls by a number of experts.  Researching through the internet only uncovers a fraction of the literature that will have been written by the various universities.  It generally serves no purpose for academics to plant their material on the internet as they lose publishing money for themselves and their organsations and more importantly, to their professional standing as they lose important citations.

*Before changes are made research has to be replicated under strict controls by a number of experts......*

As I`ve said, that has already been done, accepted, published in the med journals & acted on by the universities. Which is why America has the protocols it does today.

But like I also said earlier, some people choose not to listen :rolleyes:

I doubt very much the UK veterinary profession are unaware of what has been adopted in the US and I doubt very much they are not listening to that and including it in their deliberations here as I'm sure the US will be doing to the outcomes of anything the UK decide is appropriate.

What I actually said is  

*Whether you think I understand accademic progress or not is besides the point & irrelevant  ;)

For what it is worth :) I do think you understand the accademic process, what I am not sure about is that you believe it is a worthwhile one ;).

It's difficult for me as a pet owner and not having a clue on dog vaccines to do anything other than is advised by my vet.  My vet is qualified in looking after dogs and I am not so I have to bow to his expertise and judgement.  Of course this doesn't mean that vets don't make mistakes or on occasion are biased by their experience but on the whole they have the inside and indepth knowledge that I don't have.  It is relatively easy to research on the internet but as I said before you only get a fraction of what is actually relevant and without access to the documents that the Americans are basing their decisions on it is difficult to assess why the UK hasn't adopted the same practices as the US. 

The UK generally does take notice of American research as the Americans generally take notice of the UK research, each respects the others in academic areas as far as I am aware from my own experience.  Perhaps the UK is just being cautious until the current research is proven reliable and valid before chopping and changing about.  As Isabel has mentioned it was only one article from an expert that got into the public domain that caused the MMR controversy.

Cheryl there are a lot of relevant documents to be found on the net, you just need to know where to look for them. There are forums where some vets/immunologists are members & you can put your questions to them, 1 I`ve even mentioned here. You also find whatever docs/research has been published, on them as well :)
I do agree, its very difficult for pet owners to be able to make decisions on vax & I really do empathise, but people can learn, ask questions, get explanations... after all I did & I knew next to nothing when I started questioning them :D

Are you saying that all relevant academic published papers are on the internet?  Because if you are, how do you know they are all on the internet?  Without all of them you can't evaluate can you?

*Are you saying that all relevant academic published papers are on the internet?  *

here is what I said   *You also find whatever docs/research has been published, *   :rolleyes:

and you seemed to have ignored me saying you can put questions to some vets/immunologists, some of the ones I`ve mentioned in this thread direct....yourself.....

Maybe that would be better & then they can answer any more questions you have themselves ;)

The difficulty in doing thorough research is that there are many articles and papers published but which aren't available on the internet. Unless one has special access to these as well, one's conclusions will be based on incomplete data, and therefore not wholly reliable. :(

Whatever position you may have found yourself in, Christine, in terms of researchers willingness to treat you as a peer and discuss the subject and their findings with you you can be sure none of that information will not already be under discussion within the profession it is highly unlikely that your conclusions will be better informed than theirs.

*Whatever position you may have found yourself in, Christine, in terms of researchers willingness to treat you as a peer and discuss the subject and their findings with you you can be sure none of that information will not already be under discussion within the profession it is highly unlikely that your conclusions will be better informed than theirs.

No where have I ever said my conclusions is/are/will ever be better informed than theirs

I have no idea why you question the consensus of the profession in the UK then, Christine, or suggest people do their own "research" when even someone as dedicated to the subject as you cannot replicate their level of information.

Why shouldn`t I or anybody else for that matter, question it Isabel ??

A decision has to be made by me as to whether my dogs need vax or boosters, as it does by other animal owners. I choose to base my decisions on what scientific studies I`ve read, by speaking to immunologists/vets about them, peoples experience of them & my own observations of course.

How can people make an informed decision by doing otherwise???

*when even someone as dedicated to the subject as you cannot replicate their level of information. *

And I wouldn`t even delude myself otherwise..........but by asking questions of people who do have that level of info I can make the most informed decisions I`m capable of :D

>How can people make an informed decision by doing otherwise???

You can't, that is why we pay professionals to study, discuss and then inform us of their conclusions.  To try to replicate that process yourself when not fully informed can lead to erroneous decisions.  I believe the role of the public is to ensure that the best people for the job are recruited and that they receive the necessary resources to do this work for us.  In the UK I am satisfied that the veterinary colleges use the highest entrance criteria possible and the veterinary governing body is a fully reputable one.

*You can't, that is why we pay professionals to study, discuss and then inform us of their conclusions*

You can`t have it both ways Isabel

in case you missed this   *Schultz, professor and chair of pathobiological sciences at School of Veterinary Medicine, has been studying the effectiveness of canine vaccines since the 1970s; he's learned that immunity can last as long as a dog's lifetime, which suggests that our "best friends" are being over-vaccinated.

Based on his findings, a community of canine vaccine experts has developed new veterinary recommendations that could eliminate a dog's need for annual shots. The guidelines appear in the March/April issue of Trends, the journal of the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA).

The protocol that is used in the states & now the UK is based on his findings.........

I believe the majority of his peers must believe him to be one of the best at his job

Can't have it both ways? I don't know what you mean I don't plan to reject anything the British veterinary profession decide on collectively.  That is the only sensible way in my view whats the other one you think I am asking for?
I can't understand what you are saying about our protocols being based on Schultz's findings either, when he is suggesting no boosters are necessary, I really don't know about the US but I'm pretty sure that has not won the consensus here yet and been adopted as protocol.  If his peers regard his research as more valuable than any others then I am sure he will win them over :) in which case we can all be reassured and save a bob or two as well :)

>I choose to base my decisions on ....... peoples experience of them

Then you'll appreciate knowing that my experiences of vaccines and annual boosters have been entirely satisfactory; none of my dogs have had a bad reaction to any vaccine and none have caught any of the relevant illnesses. :)

I can add to that with exactly the same, together with all the dogs my family and friends have ever owned.  Like we were saying a while ago about meeting nasty dogs not enough people give their positive experiences on the internet about anything really :)

>not enough people give their positive experiences on the internet about anything really

That's very true.  My dog is my first as an adult so I am still learning a lot but my experience of vaccinating my children seem to be similar in many respects.  Until the research results are found to be reliable I will continue to vaccinate my dog as my vet advises.  Not just because I want her to be protected but also because if everyone stops vaccinating the incidence of disease is likely to increase.  IMO the reason that so many unvaccinated dogs are disease free is because the vast majority of dogs are vaccinated which keeps the prevalance of these diseases down.

The link that Christine guided Spender to re KC is interesting as the vet proposes that KC vaccine is not necessary for most dogs as most do not board or show.  I would hazard a guess that if vaccination was stopped as he suggests that the incidence of KC would be significantly increased and put the wider population of dogs at risk.

As ever when one looks for something in support of ones views ;) there is also independant research supporting the view that vaccines are harmless for the majority.
In the KC link the author also states that pet dogs only occasionally meet other dogs outwith the family.  I think this illustrates how different countries will be meeting different criteria, our Island is far more densely population than so very much of the US, certainly I think not a day goes by without my dog passing in very close proximity to another dog if not actually pausing for a sniff around some muccous membraney areas :p

I would agree that the density of population and the incidence of disease is certainly very relevant. One only has to study the health of battery-farmed livestock in comparison to genuine free-range livestock to se how much quicker infection spreads in a highly dense population.

I haven't got too much to go on, having only two dogs that have been vaccinated/boostered and I doubt that the dogs that we had as children were vaccinated. However, I've tried researching but feel that I am not, nor ever will be sufficiently knowledgeable to ever go against my vet's recommendations. I do have a very experienced friend - she has currently 10 dogs, has had dogs all her life, worked in many aspects of dog welfare all her life including veterinary nursing and running a pet crematorium. One of her dogs (now aged 10) had a severe reaction to his initial vaccinations leaving him with severe auto-immune problems. She has researched all this, but still vaccinates and boosters her dogs.

Daisy

I don't doubt there will be dogs as there are humans that react to drugs.  The lady with the 10 dogs must worry everytime she vaccinates but has probably judged that the pros outweigh the cons.  There is always the 'chance' /'coincidence' element as well which you can't be certain are not playing a part.

I found a lot of people with many positve experiences about many things on the net depends where you go & what you`re looking for

I didn`t sat it was the only criteria my decisions are based on but I appreciate most peoples experience

I was just asking you to clarify because you seem to be saying that it is ok to take what you can find and accept it without without questioning it.  This is what you are criticising owners for, accepting vets' advice without questioning :rolleyes:

>there are a lot of relevant documents to be found on the net, you just need to know where to look for them.

That's clear then, but a lot is not all and not even nearly all so you can't evaluate the consensus.  You might be thinking that if US has changed its vax procedure that is consensus but I want to understand why the UK hasn't changed and for that I would need to see all the relevant documents arguing both sides not just a percentage.  A lot is the same as asking how long is a piece of string :rolleyes:

>There are forums where some vets/immunologists are members & you can put your questions to them, 1 I`ve even mentioned here

Members of forums are a self selecting sample.  Regardless of who they are they might not necessarily reflect the views of the majority .........

>You also find whatever docs/research has been published, on them as well

..........and therefore neither will their relevant documents/research

*That's clear then, *

Its exactly what I`d written the first time can`t imagine why I had to repeat it for it become clear

*Regardless of who they are they might not necessarily reflect the views of the majority .........*

Maybe not.......but when a member happens to be an immunologist whos work & findings have been the basis of these changes ;)

as I said, if your that interested join one & ask away yourself directly.........

Unless you belong to an academic organisation you are unable to access all the relevant documents necessary to form an objective assessment.  However, I have just looked at ScienceDirect and there are articles on Leptospira but unfortunately these have to be paid for if you want to view the whole article.  The first abstract I looked at was quite alarming as it graphically outlines what happens to puppies who contract Lepto without vaccination.  I am not very good at links and I am afraid this one might not work.  Nevermind I am sure you have probably seen it before, what with all your contacts in the area   "Prevention of renal infection and urinary shedding in dogs by a Leptospira vaccination" 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_aset=V-WA-A-W-WW-MsSWYVW-UUA-U-AABYYAUUUA-AABZBEUYUA-CZZACWAWY-WW-U&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_udi=B6TD6-4G1MD8K-2&_coverDate=06%2F15%2F2005&_cdi=5190&_orig=search&_st=13&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b06913a75e8d0cc5d3845f3387d46f87

  I would be interested to know how to access all the relevant documents that you say are available on the internet Christine

Cheryl's Link
I find the best way to do links now, Cheryl is type your title, highlight by dragging the cursor over it then clip on the url above, then move cursor to immediately after the = within the first brackets and paste in your previously cut addy.  But beware for some reason if you edit your post after this the link goes all wonky!

Thanks, but if I find links challenging what chance do I stand with microbiology? :D

:D

*However, I have just looked at ScienceDirect and there are articles on Leptospira but unfortunately these have to be paid for if you want to view the whole article.*

So you`ve found one way how to access relevant documents then......

*Nevermind I am sure you have probably seen it before, what with all your contacts in the area *

Try going to a few seminars where the people I`ve mentioned are speaking/holding. You will find them all extremely helpful, knowledgable, friendly & what comes across most of all is their willingness to share their knowledge & their findings.

I have no more or less contacts than anybody else who is interested in the whole issue of vaccination & its risks.

I don`t take kindly to sarcastic remarks so I`ll ignore your posts from now on.

I really can't see it is sarcastic to point out that you have often said how involved in this subject you are and have spoken to many people about it.  I would have presumed you had already seen this piece too.

I`m just going to reply in one post instead of individual..

You are questioning Schultz, Thompson, Dodds etc & their findings. You either believe these experts/professionals or you don`t. So rather than hazarding or guessing any further I suggest you put any doubts you may have, to them directly. Your vets also rely on these & other professional/experts. Well either them or the manufacturers :rolleyes:

You want scientific proof, when its given to you you say its not enough but on the otherhand are prepared to accept boosters without any

If you are really interested, Schultz holds seminars & on the net are papers from them, now they are worth a read ;)

The only thing I thought about the lepto link was how very sad in this day & age that 12 puppies were bred purposely to be given the vaccine/disease before being euthanised when there is by far enough already known about that vaccine  :( :( :(

>You are questioning Schultz, Thompson, Dodds etc & their findings.

No I am not, that's the whole point I may find them interesting but I am neither qualified or in a position to judge them as I do not have access to all the research and all the professional discussion emanating from that.  We have spend half this thread discussing the accademic process which you claimed you understood.   If the work of these people is replicated and supported by the profession as a whole it will hold sway and I will be more than happy to accept it.  This is also what I hope my vet does, I would be very disappointed if she rejected this process and responding to single pieces of research that she read.
I don't have any problems with animal research when it is done humanely and for the greater good of the population as a whole, many puppies are euthanased as unwanted anyone at least these little mites helped others.  You seem to be wanting it both ways now saying we don't have scientific evidence about vaccines and then bemoaning it when more work is done in that area.

Ahhhh but thats for me to know & you to find out  :D :D :D

I find this rather amazing, the majority of practices locally bar one have moved to the 3 year vaccination protocol to Parvo, Distemper and hepatitis.  Lepto PI annually.

However, as soon they decided to move to the 3 year protocol along comes a 12 month vaccination for kennel cough (at just the right time for vaccine protocol change I might add) which is now a recommended annual vaccination.  Since when did kennel cough become a compulsory vaccination?   :rolleyes:

Kennel cough is not compulsary, nor are any of the ones Spender.

I don't mean compulsory as though there is some law that says it has to be done, I mean from vets recommendations.  Sorry for the confusion.  For some strange reason, local vets are pushing to booster annually for kennel cough regardless of the lifestyle of the dog.  Just started this year, in August.    Sorry I mean last year, 2005. 

This may be in response to a local outbreak, Spender.

Mmmmm.......it would be very coincidental if a local outbreak just timed itself to occur just before or at exactly the same time as the practices adopted the 3 yr protocol, and the KC vaccination was licensed for 12 months.  

My vet did say they are now recommending it because it now gives 12 months protection and therefore suitable to use as an annual vaccination.   But he didn't ask me if I wanted it because he probably knows the answer, lol.  Can't be that serious an outbreak then.  Just wondered where the recommendation originated from and if all vet practices on the 3 yr vac protocol were doing the same.

>Since when did kennel cough become a compulsory vaccination?

I wasn't aware it was.  Can't find any reference to this on the Intervet site, all I found was a recommendation of use before a kennel stay and I wasn't offered it (I don't think any vaccination is compulsory ;)) when I had my dog's, Lepto PPI done this year.

Heres a link Spender, you can see what Schultz says about K/C :)

http://www.news.wisc.edu/8413.html

I think some statements here need to be clarified and/or elaborated on.

The provision of Insurance does not depend on whether the dog is vaccinated or not, however you need to read the policy to understand whether your dog will be covered if it suffers from an illness which could have been vaccinated against.  Iinsurance companies will cover treatment for dogs that have been vaccinated and still suffer from the illness (No vaccination is 100% for 100% of dogs and it is still perfectly possible for the dog to contract a disease despite vaccination).

Again, whether or not your puppy has been vaccinated or not does not prevent it from going out, my puppies go out before their first injection as this is my personal choice.

Thanks for clarifying Tohme.  I didn't make myself totally clear.

post in wrong place

An unvaccinated dog is perfectly able to achieve natural immunity to disease. An unvaccinated dog is not at any risk of having an adverse reaction to vaccines :)

A vaccinated dog may or may not have immunity to disease. All dogs that are vaccinated are at risk to have an adverse reaction from them.
Christine, Spain.