Just a thought, but could all this suspicion (on both sides) be the natural result of the increasingly litigious nature of today's society? Someone who fears they might be dragged through the courts and maybe lose their job is hardly likely to immediately say "Yes, it might be due to something I did, albeit with the best of intentions."

It maybe to do with litigation Jeangenie, although I think most people that lose a dog or cat in this situation just want the people involved to admit they did wrong and to show how they will do their upmost to prevent it from happening again.  They feel far to sad to start litigation - they know it won't bring their pet back!
Maria

You would hope that it would have been discussed with you first, that was certainly case with my old Dandies final year, and you were accepting the risk together.   I think we need to bear in mind that dogs of compromised health or age are more likely to succomb to these diseases which would be pretty upsetting too.

My old boy, nearly 14, hasn't been vaccinated since he was 8.  I don't think that older dogs' immune systems are necessarily up to the challenge and as they exercise far less when older, I also feel that the risks of vaccination outweight the risks of contracting the diseases, JMO of course.  That is leaving aside of course the matter of whether additional booster vaccinations are needed at any age.

Older dogs are not up to the challenge these diseases present either :)  My old girl may have slowed down a lot and walks were much shorter but they still involved areas where other dogs could be found which I think would be the case for many oldies not to mention any younger dogs living with them still getting out and about.  The best evidence we have, accepted by the veterinary profession, is that immunity is not life long. 

Yawn.

If you have run out of reasonable arguement there are more adult ways of leaving a debate :)

The best evidence is at this link, there is none showing for life because its never been done accept by Schultz!! or maybe the manu`s who don`t care to publisise it :rolleyes: Information in the links below is all accepted by & done by expert vet professionals, its a global issue not only relevant to UK!

http://www.news.wisc.edu/story.php?get=8413

the link below shows a study giving at least 55mths duration of immunity.
http://www.ebvet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=447&sid=4999aab49ed9baf3671187ee7057a37b

Link below is about adverse reactions & vaccines causing them

http://www.britfeld.com/vaccination-adverse.htm

and some people might find the link below interesting

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=16717

A

I'm sorry Christine :) but in my eyes, and the eyes of any scientific professional, the best evidence is that which emerges strongest from the bulk of evidence.  The BVA have access to it all and therefore we can be sure their policy is based on it all.

Your opinion Isabel, as I`ve said, its not mine or the experts I`ve given links to.

Looks like BVA is out of step or behind the times with rest of the world.

:D You are right that does look rather arrogant putting myself in there.  Please reread it as just the scientific profession :)
Can't help the rest of the world being out of step with the BVA.  If I don't accept the guidance of any relevent profession in my own country which country do I choose or do I just trawl the world looking for one that agrees with me :)  Might as well do away with professionals at all.

I`ll use one of your own sayings Isabel  *bulk of scientific evidence* ;)

I have no doubt at all the finding of other countries are including in the bulk examined in the UK but it still remains for the UK profession to make their decisions for us.

>>but it still remains for the UK profession to make their decisions for us<<

Thats where I differ, I choose to make my own decisions, I consider it too important to let any government choose for me.

not correct Isabel!

I agree Anne, from my perspective they've had enough vaccines by that age and should be protected for the rest of their lives.  I'm just not sure about Lepto, I kinda sit on the fence with that one but am seriously considering if the risks outweigh the benefits giving my 2 oldies that one as well.
 

Annie have a read at the info on link below, if a dog hasn`t seroconverted after 2 vaxs he isn`t going to no matter how many times he`s vaxed. A dog vaxed once after the age of 6mths will have immunity for life.

http://www.caberfeidh.com/Revax.htm
http://www.ivis.org/proceedings/Baker_Can_Inf_Dis/bpd/d21_frm.asp
http://www.ivis.org/advances/Infect_Dis_Carmichael/schultz/chapter_frm.asp?LA=1

Thanks Christine :)

Anne if you are going to study this subject further I would recommend that you first ensure your study skills are up to scratch :)  You should find this site useful.

It's Annie and thanks for your concern Isabel :)

Appologies it was a genuine typo   If it's any consolation there are not many Champdog days without a different spelling to mine :)

The veterinary profession have not accepted that.  They have access to all the information that you have Christine plus a great deal more, clearly the bulk of evidence does not support it.

The veterinary profession I read have accepted it, just as USA, Oz & other countries.

Just because UK doesn`t accept it doesn`t mean its wrong.

After all, you only have to look at the [url=]only report[/url] you give a link to, it goes explicity against all manufacturers advice that vax give minimum immunty of at least 3yrs :rolleyes:

>Just because UK doesn`t accept it doesn`t mean its wrong.

Equally, just because other countries do, doesn't mean it's right! :p :D

But the bulk of the profession as a whole, worldwide, has accepted it & at least 27 vets in UK have also accpeted it.

Lets face it, all the teaching vet Uni`s in US have accepted it, its just about to happen in Oz as well, manu`s have changed their protocol, UK is behind on this one :rolleyes:

At least 27 vets.  How many vets are in the UK?  When the majority hold that view we can expect the BVA to adjust their policy then.
Are you saying they are no longer boostering in the US?

I live in the UK.  It would make no sense to adopt another countries protocols, which one would I pick?
Which report are you referring to.  Is it the Defra one?  That predates the new protocols.

**That predates the new protocols**  So Defra is behind the times then, not kept up with the research.

Defra, of course, is a civil service Government department, and not a veterinary specialist body. We all know how slowly the wheels of Government turn.

How do you know that?  That is merely the report I found on NOAH's site.
DEFRA are not responsible for setting protocols anyway, the frequency that they might ask the appropriate agencies to report to them is obviously going to be dependent on whether issues have been raised, perhaps the last report was enough to satisfy them for some time to come :)

The protocols that should be used are the correct ones! Doesn`t matter where in the world you live.

There is enough scientific evidence showing lifelong immunity for the 3 major diseases (and don`t split hairs Isabel, you know which ones I mean).

I don`t really know where defra came into it to be honest

Wasn't aware that dogs' immune systems differed according to where they lived?   :)

Of course they don't Annie :)

>>Of course they don't Annie<<<

Well thats something we can all agree on! :D

To get back to the q`, do vax cause harm, yes they do, have a look at the links I`ve put up about vax induced fibrosarcomas in cats & now dogs. That is accepted (by the relevant bodies :) ) scientific research.

has nobody looked at them or just got nothing to say about it?

I think the sarcoma in cats issue has been known for a good while.  Nobody is denying that some harm may befall some animals when vaccinated but the issue is the proportion of risk as compared to the proportion of benefit.  The BVA believe continuing to vaccinate is the best course as did the Defra Report on reactions.

Yes its been known for a good while, not necessarily by the general public tho & now its also being found in dogs.

And yes it is about risk & there is enough evidence to show that re-vaccination is an unecessary risk, that vaccines do harm, can trigger auto-immune disease & do cause cancer.

Heres a link to the suggestions made by the UK Veterinary Products Committee working group & the UK governments answeres.

http://www.noah.co.uk/papers/vpc-catdogvetsurv.pdf

There is no need to re vaccinate when the evidence is there that immunity for the 3 major diseases is lifelong!

Hi Christine -

Can you give more links with research which show that boosters are unnecessary or which discuss this subject further?

As from this year I was going to just give the lepto and parainfluenza, since those need annual boostering.  (The other diseases are covered for 3 yrs according to the vaccine manufacturer and I was then going to review and either have a titre test or just leave things and assume they're covered for life against the biggies.) 

However, reading one of those links you posted (the deerhound one), the lepto vaccine is responsible for more vaccine reactions than any of the other jabs combined, so now I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't even bother with the lepto or parainfluenza ones annually either.  On the other hand, I know of someone whose dog was seriously ill with lepto believed to be caught from swimming in water which rats had swum in/lived by.  On the other other(!) hand this dog was supposedly up to date with jabs and there are many kinds of lepto and the vaccine can only protect against one kind, and this dog happened to catch one of the other kinds, so what's the point in having it at all?!!  ARG.

I'm also wondering - are there any statistics to show how many dogs die annually of these diseases?  I know this may be low, possibly due to most other people vaccinating, but it would also reassure me were I to decide not to vaccinate at all.

Hi 123, I`ll have a look & see what I`ve got :)

A lot of whats been published is no longer on the net so you may have to join a couple of groups that have them on file.

Re the Lepto, the vax covers for 2 but its believed there are another 2 just as common (besides hundreds of other serovars) causing it. Hal Thompson wrote a piece about it, heres what he says.

>>Dr Thompson also queried the choice of leptospira serovars used by vaccine manufacturers. Current products confer protection against L. canicola and L. ictero but having carried out post-mortem examinations of every dog that has died over the past 10 years at practices in the Clydebank area of Glasgow, he said he had not seen an incident of L. canicola. He suggested that UK vaccine manufacturers should follow their American counterparts in switching to alternative serovars such as bratislava or grippotyphosa.<<

**this dog was supposedly up to date with jabs and there are many kinds of lepto and the vaccine can only protect against one kind, and this dog happened to catch one of the other kinds, so what's the point in having it at all?!! **

Exactly my point! Thats the problem with the Lepto vax, it covers for 2 only but it can be caused by hundreds more & it only gives immunity for 1yr, well the Intervet vax says it does, think the others may only give immunity for 9mths.

I`ll have a look see what I can come up with for you :)

are you really sure they don't Isabel?

Well, no if you put it like that I'm not veterinary trained but it seems logical to me :)

>The protocols that should be used are the correct ones

Of course :)
I guessed the Defra one because you didn't complete the link, which one were you on about then?

I think you'll find it's something to do with income Isabel and nothing to do with our animals best interests.  Think about it, without yearly boosters an awful lot of vets would go out of business in this country.  True, there are some out there who are caring and open minded, but there are an awful lot that are not!
Maria

I think the idea that lots of vets are gleefully vaccinating without believing it to be in the animals best interest because of money is as insulting as suggesting those who don't vaccinate their dogs have the same reason in mind :(  The vast majority of vets are caring and openminded, as you say, and as they have access to all the information that the so called money driven ones it is pretty obvious they would not get away with that.
Vets would not go out of business because even without vaccinations as there services will always be required for other things that we cannot do without and would have to just pay more for to cover the surgery running costs.

"I think we need to bear in mind that dogs of compromised health or age are more likely to succomb to these diseases which would be pretty upsetting too. "

It is very upsetting :(

Appologies, a poor choice of words :) That is why I would always continue to booster as long as my vet thought it advisable.

I would hope if the vet was doing his/her job correctly then they should follow the manufactuers advice: only healthy dogs should be vaccinated.  I'm sure the vets do follow the advice so could the answer to your question Isabel be 'all the dogs were healthty'? 

Surely owners wouldn't over vaccinate knowingly?

I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread if the dog is not healthy the risks of disease do not magically go away out of kindness and he will, infact, be at more risk of succombing to them.  A vet can use his professional judgement to decide which is the greater risk even thought the manufacturers will be absolved, Doctors do this all the time.  At a large kennels I would imagine rescue vets would frequently vaccinate "off colour" dogs because the environment that they are entering will pose a much greater risk than the vaccination.
No the owners won't vaccinate after the kennels, I meant some of those dogs will have been vaccinated recently before being picked up.

I agree with what you say Annie!
Maria

how would one know beforehand Isabel?

The scientific studies.  Although of course they can only tell you about the dog population not individuals.