*accusing vets of anything as unprofessional as looking to give unnecessary treatments in pursuit of money. *

Giving a dog a vaccination twice for Pi in the same year is an unnecessary treatment for any reason

Not sure that you know that, Christine, as I said in another post the manufacturers may well have reason to believe those at risk from one respiratory disease may be found to be at greater risk of another, and therefore need greater cover, that that generally found sufficient.

Butif it's being done, is it being done for financial or altruistic reasons? The first would be wrong - the other would be acceptable.

No probs :)

If you need any help digging give me a shout I`ve got a big shovel that might be of help to you  :D

>I've read about some of Schultz's work before and that of Jean Dodd's too.

I have to admit I am finding Schultz's work rather elusive.  Where have you read it?  The only article I can find that is his is dated 1998 and that is on the Winconsin uni website.  I can't access the trends article at all but even if I could why can't I find reference to his academic work? 

I'm stuck :rolleyes:

Sorry don`t know. Spenders found it, I`ve found it, few others I know have as well. keept trying its there all right :)

What's the title of the article?

Which one?

Any of them that are research based

Don`t know any of his that aren`t researched based ;) :D

You know just for minute there it crossed my mind you were taking the Michael.......... perish the thought Christine! :D :D

Hmm  Yes perish the thought :rolleyes:

I'm deadly serious.  Everything I've ever commented on has been based on my own personal experience. I don't spout about information on this forum that I can't back up which is what you've done here.  I've seen the article on the net that talks about him doing blood tests on animals but this isn't sound research methods is it? To be reliable you need to sure by research so where is the work that says exactly what happened to change the US protocol?  It doesn't make sense to hide this sort of information from the general public if they want the general public to be aware and change their views.

When researching academics' works that is of any importance the least you will usually find on the internet is the relevant reference to the original research but this hasn't happened.  An article in a magazine by Shcultz doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid so all I can guess is that the research wasn't his but a meta-analysis conducted by some organisation with him at the forefront.   It also doesn't make sense that the university that he works for hasn't listed the research on his biography page.  It really does point to him not producing anything of his own since 1998.  It leads me to think that perhaps the work that led the US to change its vaccine protocol wasn't actually research based at all but based on current vaccine and medical records of animals.  This would be worrying indeed as it would point to Schultz's work being based on correlation rather than cause and effect. 

I've probably got this all wrong because obviously I am guessing, but you brought the subject up of whether boosters are needed and it looks like actually they are for some diseases if you want your dog to be safe because there isn't any evidence that the layperson can access to show otherwise. 

You know it crossed my mind that it was you taking the Michael ...........perish the thought, so what is the article title that you have read?

You may find this interesting Cheryl, if you are interested.  I haven't had time to search the net for academic research articles.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0120392429/qid=1136286371/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1669080-2650353?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Sorry, I couldn't find a copy in the UK.

I'm not sure about Cheryl but I was thinking more along the lines of peer reviewed articles.  This is also rather out of date :)  I've no doubt there are articles out there but as Cheryl, and I, have pointed out unless you have access to them all you cannot replicate that process of proper peer review.

A comprehensive view of veterinary vaccines and diagnostics is contained in this book along with papers from the First International Veterinary Vaccines and Diagnostics Conference (IVVDC) held in 1997 at the Montana Terrace Convention Center, Madison, Wisconsin. Illustrated and referenced.  Over 500 veterinarians, scientists, immunologists, physicians and epidemiologists reached a conclusion in July 1997 on canine vaccine protocols. That some of the core vaccines provide longer cover than 1 year, 3 years, 7 years and possibly covered for life.  But there are reasons why the 3 yr protocol has been adopted.  It's only taken 8 years to filter down and 7 years for manu's to change their protocols to 3 years.   It's been very well researched. 

Cheryl asked for info, but then again, Isabel, if you can do better, get searching :-D

That the point, Spender, this probably is the best stuff available to the public.

Yes I did mean peer reviewed work.  I don't think there is any on the internet by Schultz and Dodds.  Although Schultz is important in the area it doesn't seem that he actually adds anything by way of research material.  Before I get shot down, that's not to demean his position in his community, I am sure he is well respected but I mistakenly thought I was going to find some information on this thread that was research based.

The veterinary field regarding vaccinations appears to be a closed shop. 

* post in wrong place

Yes it is interesting to see a book with both the names that have cropped up on this thread.  Tantalizing to be able to read the index pages and not the reference pages.  Input by lots of different people by the looks of it.  Expensive though as academic books invariably are and a bit old now as review refers to book including conference papers etc from 6+ years ago.

*I've probably got this all wrong because obviously I am guessing, *

You`re right about that :rolleyes:

*but you brought the subject up of whether boosters are needed*

title of the thread is *Bit of info on Vax* & I quoted what Schultz has said :rolleyes:

If you're gonna quote me, please keep it in context ;)

>I've probably got this all wrong because obviously I am guessing, but you brought the subject up of whether boosters are needed and it looks like actually they are for some diseases if you want your dog to be safe because there isn't any evidence that the layperson can access to show otherwise

>title of the thread is *Bit of info on Vax* & I quoted what Schultz has said 

No, the topic is titled Bit of Info on Booster Protocols and in the first post you said:

>Lots of manu`s & vets are worried about considerable loss of income from giving less vaccines & that is why the vet profession worldwide are dragging their feet on this whole issue

So, did Schultz say that?

All I am doing is responding to your posts and trying to get a footing on what you've said re protocols and boosters.  From what I have gathered so far although some of it seems muddled up

1. It has been accepted by many vets (but not all) that some vaccines do not need to be boostered annually

2. Some vaccines 'run out' and need to be boostered.  How often depends upon the individual dog and this can be established by blood tests.  However, vets in this country and in the US (although not all of them) will booster some disease vaccines annually as a matter of course.

3. KC and PI are diseases that are caused by a variety of bugs.  It is not possible for dogs to be protected 100% but for those at high risk they should be vaccinated annually to minimise risk of catching the diseases.

4. Vets follow their own protocols

5.  There is no public access to information that can help people make informed decisions about what vaccinations should be boostered and how often other than through their vets or vaccine manufacturers

That seems a fair summing up.

I`m replying to J/G Is. & Ch. in this one post.

Its perfectly obviously to me (maybe others as well ;) ) you`ve no real interest in whether or not its proven that boosters are unnecessary, as 1 of you said * vaccines are the best thing since mothers milk* or something like that.

You don`t hold Schultz, Dodds, Thompson in any esteem whatsoever so I see no point in directing you to any of their papers/studies or why you`d even want them. Their studies have been proved, published, accepted by their profession & their work is held in high esteem throughout the world by the veterinary community & thats who`s opinion counts, to them at least.

I will print again what Schultz says about the KC vax & the risks of giving vax that are unnecessary.

*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."

Schultz says that it's important for veterinarians to recognize an individual dog's risk for developing a particular disease when considering the benefits of a vaccine. "Vaccines have many exceptional benefits, but, like any drug, they also have the potential to cause significant harm." Giving a vaccine that's not needed, he explains, creates an unnecessary risk to the animal. *

The above taken from this link http://www.news.wisc.edu/8413.html

Seeings tho I mentioned the AAHA here is the link to it that I managed to find on my first google search :)  http://malernee.blogspot.com/

I did say this

*Lots of manu`s & vets are worried about considerable loss of income from giving less vaccines & that is why the vet profession worldwide are dragging their feet on this whole issue.*

Try a google search of a few key words & see how many other people are saying it :D

>you`ve no real interest in whether or not its proven that boosters are unnecessary

Too true! I would be very alarmed to learn that anyone had a preconcieved idea about what concensus was to be reached in the future, I'll keep an open mind thank you! 
Yes I think vaccination has improved the health of humans and canine by a fantastic amount but I don't give a hoot about whether the profession advises us about the need for boosters or not, just so long as it is decided collectively and that they let us know and I'll be right there either for the jab or sat at home, whichever :)
I won't bother going all over the accademic process again it obviously is not a concept you buy into :(

The point of the matter is that Schultz accademic processes, conclusions & findings have been accepted by the veterinary institutions in the USA & his colleagues worlwide.

You can carry on questiong them all you like Isabel but it won`t change those facts :D

I wouldn't dream of questioning his findings Christine, that's been my point all along, I don't believe any layperson is qualified to do so.  If his findings are found to be sound by his peers we can expect to see them implemented, I'm perfectly happy with that process, as I have said previously I have no preconcieved ideas as to outcomes for the future I only wish for them to be determined by the correct accademic process which I'm sure they will be :)

>You don`t hold Schultz, Dodds, Thompson in any esteem whatsoever so I see no point in directing you to any of their papers/studies or why you`d even want them.

What a strange thing to say :rolleyes: I've made it clear enough for anyone to read that I would love to hold these people in high esteem if only I had anything to go by! Dodds, still haven't seen anything actually written by her, even the book seems to be a gathering of other people's articles which overall have been edited by Schultz, not written by him.  Schultz - haven't seen anything written by him either so it's not a case of not holding them in esteem, it's a case of not knowing anything about their work as I haven't seen any evidence of it.  The article link you've pasted I read yesterday, it's a university article about one of their own staff, it's not written by Schultz it only quotes him.  Who is Thompson? he/she seems to have sailed past me unnoticed.

>Their studies have been proved, published, accepted by their profession & their work is held in high esteem throughout the world by the veterinary community & thats who`s opinion counts, to them at least.

We only have your word on that unless you have any other documents to support the *studies* have been proven (very strong word), published etc

>Another common vaccine that Schultz says is unnecessary protects against "kennel cough," an often mild and transient disease contracted during boarding or dog shows.

Well boarding kennels and dog shows might be where the highest risk of incidence to KC is but no one can say categorically that these are the only places a dog can catch it.  Think of assocations to dog shows, i.e. ringcraft, dog training clubs.  Afterall they only have to be in the same room as an infected dog i.e. vet surgery.  I hope that vets are a bit more savvy than to only suggest vax for KC for boarders and showers.  I would hope that if there was an outbreak/epidemic in my town or country or thereabouts that my vet would recommend KC at that time too.  The second link you pasted is more interesting even though much of it is subjective and based on experience: -

"current knowledge supports the state-ment that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective, and no vaccine is always indicated. However, the information that this statement is based on is in a con-stant state of flux; hence, the historical and current debate on appropriate vaccine use"  which explains why no one can agree and why nothing can be said to be certain or proven.

She says further down:

"Although many of these experts support triennial vaccination against core diseases, there is a rela-tive paucity of published scientific documentation to indi-cate that every 3 years is any more rational than every 2 years or any less rational than every 7 years." which explains even more.

Thanks for that.  I will read the rest when I have time.

*We only have your word on that.............*

Lol@ Ch funniest thing I`ve heard all day :D :D :D

Wouldn't it be more constuctive to give Cheryl the information she is looking for? Why not?

Why is that funny? Nobody will say where the relevant detailed information (as opposed to a subjective precis) can be read. :(

Must be my funny sense of humour :D

J.G & Isabel, I`ve give my reasons already. You`re all capable of doing searches, nothings hidden ;)

If she can't find them, why not just help her?   It seems little to ask.

To someone not in on the joke, it looks like you think it is funny that Cheryl cannot find the evidence that you have spoken of.   Instead of laughing wouldn't it be more sensible to give her the references that you have found?

>Schultz says that it's important for veterinarians to recognize an individual dog's risk for developing a particular disease when considering the benefits of a vaccine. "Vaccines have many exceptional benefits, but, like any drug, they also have the potential to cause significant harm." Giving a vaccine that's not needed, he explains, creates an unnecessary risk to the animal.

That makes perfect sense to me.  :-D 

Thank you for all of the information Christine.  Your patience is admirable and message not lost.   

kind regards, Teri :)

Hiya Teri, glad its not been lost ;) :D

Please consider me to be the village idiot, Christine, and avoid subtleties. :) It saves so much time when things are put into plain English. :D

By the way, you still seem to have missed my earlier question. :(

Parts of the US may be densely populated but according the Schultz the average pet dog rarely gets to meet other dogs, I've never been to North America, is he wrong then?

Parts of the US are densely populated.

I`ve never been to north america either, why don`t you ask him yourself???

>Parts of the US are densely populated :D

Thats not the bit I was questioning. 

Oh dear, I've been sent to Coventry :D :D :D

I won't get any answers then

Well if anyone is watching, could you point me in the right direction for Schultz's work.  Apart from one the only academic references I can find with his name on are in relation to other people's work that he has helped with.  He is the Chair of a uni department so I would expect him to have more than this so where do I look please?

According to his biography page at the university he has not had anything published for almost 8 years.

That's what I read and universities are keen to keep their academic staff's publications up to date.  It is a measure of success in that particular field as well as earning pennies for the coffers.

Well what bit are you questioning

That dogs there don't meet each other often, if that is the case it rather raises the question is their lives sufficiently different to affect the risk/benefit ratio associated with the KC vaccine or indeed any other.  Perhaps one countries protocols aren't a good model for anothers.

All I can suggest is you email him yourself & ask him direct!  He should know as he lives there & as we all know parts of US are extremely populated so he must have an answer.

Have you any evidence that vets are dragging their feet?  I don't know of any that haven't adopted the new protocols, in fact who didn't immediately.  Perhaps if there are any posters whose vets haven't they could let us know. The loss of income doesn't seem to have worried them in the intervening, nearly, two years.  I expect they just adjusted costs across the board on other items to ensure their businesses stayed viable, people do seem to be reporting quite high neutering costs on the board lately :)

Goodness me
 
Accusing UK vets and manufacturers of not adopting American protocols purely because of finance is fascinating and very worrying.  Which publication did you get this information from?

Oh well let them sue me :rolleyes:

Evidence for me is posts asking *are boosters needed* means the message isn`t getting out there. Vets sending out annual reminders for them. etc etc. Maybe we should do a poll and ask people are their vets making it clear enough for them :)

*The loss of income doesn't seem to have worried them in the intervening, nearly, two years. *

It`ll be 2 yrs in April actually & if they have a lot of people like you who insist on them being done regardless of the protocols then they won`t be seeing any dip in their profits will they ;)