Double standards then isn't it if he is willing to possibly compromise a very young puppies immunity system by vaccinating it untested when it could still have maternal im munity yet won't take blood to titre test until another two months have elapsed :rolleyes:

I suppose if he titre tests too young then it'll pick up the maternal antibodies and give a potentially misleading result.

But if the puppy still has maternal immunity it shouldn't be vaccinated

I'm told that's because the vaccine will be overridden and of limited efficacy (just as a booster would be if the immunity is naturally high). This is why many vets won't give the first jab till the pup is 10 weeks and the second at 12. Whatever age the first jab is given, the second must be 2 weeks later and not before 10 weeks. :)

Yep, exactly the same as vaccinating while pups have their maternal immunity so that the vaccine doesn't take.  Tthe owner's money is wasted and the pup is unprotected once the maternal immunity has waned.  A Vet from the vaccine manufacturers told a seminar that exactly this happens in 2 out of every 5 pups vaccinated.  And their owners are oblivious.

Just have to hope you are one of the 3 until boostering at one year then :)  Clearly the herd effect has been effective up to now, just hope it stays that way.

Hope isn't good enough for me Isabel, especially when it's only just more than 50%!  My dogs are too precious.  And I've never been a sheep! :D

I think that I've recommended "What Doctors Don't Tell you " before as a good read?  Without typing (badly) whole chapters, let me just give some headings to give food for thought to those who have never thought about it.

From Chapter 6 : Vaccination:  Knee-Jerk Jabs.
Myth No1 Diseases have been eliminated purely as a result of vaccination.
Myth No2 The Diseases you are vaccinated against are deadly.
Myth No3 Vaccinines will protect you against these diseases.
Myth No4 The side-effects of vaccines are rare and mostly mild.

ISBN 0-7225-3024-2  Really worth getting from the library if you don't want to spend any money :D

In research work you are generally advised to stick to quality publications and journals that are peer reviewed.  You would be looked for the majority view not the minority one.
If what you say about the number of puppies take up immunity it true and I'm afraid I'm not one for hearsay ;) I still don't see the value in not trying to be one of those succeeding.  Clearly if this is the case too, the herd effect has been sufficient to keep these diseases at bay from the numbers that used to succumb before we had wide vaccination.  Either way, a good incentive to continue I would say.

If what you say about the number of puppies take up immunity it true and I'm afraid I'm not one for hearsay

It's what a Vet from Intervet said at a public seminar Isabel.  Heard by me and another 120 or so people in Bradfield Village Hall.  If you want to call that heresay - fine ;)

I wasn't there. That is the clear definition of hearsay, Val, I'm afraid :)  In fact it was hearsay to you if it wasn't this fellows actually piece of research evidence.

Wouldn't have thought that someone from Intervet would want to say that if it wasn't true Val.

>Myth No2 The Diseases you are vaccinated against are deadly.

Really a myth?
This is today's news.

JG the poor children in Africa have poor diet, insanitary living conditions and therefore pathetic immune systems.  I'm sure a dose of cold virus would have a detrimental effect of them too!

The religious cult that avoids vaccination also avoids ALL forms of medical treatment.  Basic medical attention - not just vaccination.  Normal medical treatment would have saved those children.  The world is a mad place. :(

That doesn't escape the fact that measles is a killer even in the UK nowadays.
World Health Organisation information.

It might have saved some of them but many would still die.  It has already happened in Britain.

It then goes onto say >>There was no official confirmation today that the latest death was caused by measles<<

Rather inflammatory piece of journalism maybe..........

and as Val says, those people & children in Africa are totally malnourished & living in squalour :(

Some vaccines are licenced to be given as early as 4 weeks so not sure what you mean by not safe to start at 8 weeks.  Of course it does mean repeating it later due to maternal antibodies as explained in the Intervet datasheet. 

The only reason a further vax is given again at 10wks is exactly because maternal antibodies will interfere! Therefore if titre testing is done at a later stage the lab will be able to tell you at what rate the pups maternal antibodies have/are waning & when the appropriate time for the first vax should be!

Why on earth would anybody want to vax a 4wk old pup?  A puppy of that age has an imature immune system, Intervet state >>
A good immune response is reliant......and a fully competent immune system<<< how does that work with a 4yr old pup

A single injection should establish active immunity to disease caused by canine parvovirus infection in dogs of 10 weeks of age or older.

No other vax needed as they also state A duration of immunity of at least three years has been established for the vaccine.

>Why on earth would anybody want to vax a 4wk old pup?

Intervet states quite clearly the answer to that "Where earlier protection is required"  I take that to mean when a vet has identified a specific problem in the area or perhaps in a kennel environment when cross infection is a high risk.  They are not saying puppies have to be started then just that the vaccine is licensed and has therefore been trialed in this use if required.

>No other vax needed as they also state A duration of immunity of at least three years has been established for the vaccine.

Not sure what that has to do with this particular issue?

I`m aware of what they say :rolleyes: just couldn`t imagine anybody wanting to vax a 4wk old pup.

Still, they also go on to say one vax at 10 wks should confer immunity, says it in black & white :)

I suppose the pups in some rescue centres where the residents are of unknown immune status would need vaccinating if there was an outbreak of disease.

The thing is JG that if the pups are too young to give a sufficient immune response - perhaps through maternal antibodies or just an immature immune system - what is the point in giving them the vaccine?  Surely they are more likely then to contract the illness from the actual vaccine?

>Surely they are more likely then to contract the illness from the actual vaccine?

As the dog population has been generally well protected from these diseases since the inception of vaccination I think it is safe to assume that does not generally happen.  I think most owner would baulk at going back and paying for repeated (uncertain) testing prior to vaccinating when the vast majority have never experienced any difficulties with it.

We don't know that it is 'safe to assume that does not generally happen'.  Doubt that vaccine related disease would be detected in such cases Isabel, it would just be assumed that the pups had caught the disease from the outbreak.

The fact that outbreaks are so much rarer these days suggests to me that the vaccination of puppies when still carrying maternal immunity is not a problem but as you say we cannot be sure.  They may simply be being protected by the herd effect but we can conclude that the vaccination is not damaging in itself by the lack of disease amongst them.

That makes sense to me Annie!

I disagree - and if pet owners are not happy then they don't have to have titres!

I think I might have mentioned in another post that Virbac, the drug manufacturer of Canigen and Lepto (the one that killed Spangler) wrote to me and said 'in a perfect world every dog would have a blood test each year to establish whether or not they needed vaccinating'  now this is straight from the horses mouth ' so to speak'!  Evidence for those that need it!

Maria

And in a perfect world Lepto immunity would be testable. Until then ...

As you say, owners have choices; whether or not to vaccinate at all, whether or not to booster, whether or not to titre test, whether or not to use homoeopathic products. There's no single 'correct' route.

until then.....animals die of over vaccinating

Or of under-vaccinating ...

rarely

would help a lot if there were reliable independent statistics of both wouldn't it?

Most certainly. :)

50/50 I should think. And equally hard to bear. What's certain is that fewer dogs die from the vaccinatable (is that a word?) diseases then in the days before vaccinations.

Yes but what about after the vaccination, how many die then?

Of the diseases the vaccines are developed to prevent? I don't know. But certainly fewer than before vaccines, when it wasn't uncommon for whole kennels to be lost in an outbreak.

Was it particularly bad in some parts of the UK, JG?  My OH had dogs in the 60's/70's and they did vaccinate but stopped parvo and distemper when the dogs reached 10.  He lost one which was stolen, a 5 year old Lab who was vaccinated only to find him later with distemper.  The vet at the time thought he had been taken by students and induced with distemper through injections.  He had site marks on him.  I was living in Ireland at the time, although we were aware of it, it wasn't a concern in our region.  He said it was a horrible awful disease. :-(

Parvo didn't appear in the UK till 1978, so your OH's dogs wouldn't have been vaccinated against that till the very late 70s. And yes, distemper is a very unleasant disease for the dog and very distressing for the owner.

He says it would have been roughly 1975 when the dog in question was stolen.  You could be right about the parvo vac, but according to him they were fully vac, distemper anyhow, I must ask the family. :-)

Ah...unless he meant fully vac for whatever was about in those days in their particular area.  Distemper is the one that sticks out in his mind.  :-)

In those days the vaccines were for distemper, hepatitis and two strains of leptospirosis. :)

Thanks JG, I just asked him and he said he thought he could remember 3 vaccines.  We didn't vaccinate at all back then so I hadn't a clue.  He was devastated at the time; he worshipped that dog, was in tears tonight when we spoke about it.  So sad. :-( 

I'm not surprised he's still upset - it was a terrible thing to happen. :(

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with Maria, that the dog population suffered more disease before vaccination?  Of course owners don't need to have titre testing, not sure it helps anyway, they could just not vaccinate if that is what they want to do there is no law about it.

I was disagreeing with your post:

As the dog population has been generally well protected from these diseases since the inception of vaccination I think it is safe to assume that does not generally happen.  I think most owner would baulk at going back and paying for repeated (uncertain) testing prior to vaccinating when the vast majority have never experienced any difficulties with it!

Sorry still not sure what you are disagreeing with :)  That the dog population has been well protected or that people will object to paying for repeated testing prior to vaccination, or both :D?

I imagine (you probably know more about it than me because this is the first I've heard of it!) the vaccine for very young puppies is a killed virus, so won't actually cause the disease, but will trigger a response. Pups that have been hand-reared, for example, won't have any maternal antibodies at all because of the lack of colostrum.

Don't think so JG, I think the vaccine is MLV the same as would be used for older pups.

>Still, they also go on to say one vax at 10 wks should confer immunity

Yes, the vaccine at 4 weeks is obviously not necessary for immunity it just provides some earlier cover.

So what is the point of putting our dogs at risk at 4 weeks if they have to be repeated later?  Definitley double standards!  The more I hear the more I'm convinced the whole vet/vaccine/drug manufactuer issue needs to be investigated! 

>the more I'm convinced the whole vet/vaccine/drug manufactuer issue needs to be investigated! 

It is MariaC :)  All drugs, vaccines etc are subjected to trials prior to licensing they cannot simply market them willy nilly.