Hi All, :)

A seemingly fit ,active & healthy puppy, independantly assessed by 2 individual Vets, and passed as fit etc, goes for 1st vaccination and a week later is dead

What would you think has happened?

chocymolly

Very sad C/M :(

Can you give us more info, how old was the pup, did he show any symptoms of illness before he died, is it known what caused the death, what was he vaxed against??

Hello,

The puppy was just over 9 weeks old when PTS, she'd had her jab the previous Monday(last Monday), I'd seen her on Sunday, when she was eating well, urinating, very healthy.

Went to have her jab, within a couple of days had lost her appetite, was making grunting noises when breathing, by Weds/Thurs which got worse, collasped on Sunday, PTS yesterday morning, I assume she vaxed for the normal things,

chocymolly

Hiya C/M what did the vet say,didn`t he say what he was treating for, theres just so little to go on at the moment I don`t suppose a post mortem was done was it?

A suspected adverse reaction report can be made out & the makers of the vax should be informed.

Sorry Christine,

according to the Vet, (BTW, it wasn't my puppy, one I'd sold, so only have the vaguest facts) after addmission she was x-rayed, which showed an enlarge heart and treated her for heart failure, and they are now saying how she ever lived to 8 weeks is beyond them and they have never seen anything like it, all this after passing her fit and well just 1 week before.

What I don't understand, is how she can be passed by my own Vet and the new owners Vet as fit, and then within in a week, be so poorly she has been PTS, if her heart was as they say, so bad, why was she showing no symptoms whatsoever whilst at home with me and in those 5 days previous to the jab, with her new owners.

She was the fittest, boisterous, bossiest little madam when with me, and put the rest of the litter in their place frequently, she was so well, she was my 2nd choice of puppy to keep from the litter, and I cannot beleive that they now say she was saeriously unwell all of her life.

I personally think they don't want to accept that the jab has had any effect on her.

Oh dear C/M :(

I would have thought an enlarged heart would show symptoms beforehand too, at least some sort of cough or breathlesness doesn`t sound quite right does it, coming on so quickly?

>>> personally think they don't want to accept that the jab has had any effect on her.<<<

Whether they do or not it needs to be reported C/M, they have to do that. If the vet doesn`t do it yourself & once the manu`s have been informed they are then obliged to report it themselves also.

So sorry to hear about this.  From the info you've given it sounds as if the jab was responsible.  Unfortunately a lot of vets don't accept that vaccinations can have very serious side effects and will give other reasons for the cause of death.  I've never heard that vaccinations can cause a heart to become enlarged but that's not to say this couldn't happen.   Where vaccinations and adverse reactions are concerned nothing would surprise me.
It's just so sad that the little pup didn't make it.

Some info on link below, scroll down to about half way down the page :)

http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html
[url=][/url]

Hi Christine,

Had a quick peek at the article and was v interesting, I'll read it through more thoroughly later as I'm off to work in a mo'

Who would I contact for reprting the effects of the Vaccine? a regulating body or the makers of vaccine?

The new owners are sticking by their own vets explanation of what has happened, which is understandable, will the 6 weeks free insurance through KC cover any expenses incurred including the purchase price?

Thanks for your help and ideas, I'm now very worried about doing the 2nd jab on my own puppy :(

chocymolly

You can make the report yourself by downloading the form from site below C/M

http://www.vmd.gov.uk/General/Adverse/forms.htm

and link below is more info about reporting it

http://www.vmd.gov.uk/General/Adverse/adverse.htm

It is most definately a suspected reaction, going ill couple of days after 1st vax then dying within a wk, this has to be reported. Vets are obliged to do this! As breeder of pup I`m sure that entitles you to get in touch with vet who treated the pup & inform him you intend to make the report yourself & you`ll also be reporting it to manu`s of the vax.

Anyway you will need the little vax sticker that is in the pups vax book to get that info & that will also give details of manufacturer as well. After you make the report to the VMD I`d contact the manufacturer direct by phone then follow up with email making sure you note down names of people you speak to about it :)

Sorry can`t help with KC insurance etc, maybe someone else will tho or maybe ring KC & ask them were you stand??

Regarding the insurance, they will be better off it it is found to be vaccination damage because if it was congenital the insurance may not pay out for a pre-existing condition.

I'm now very worried about doing the 2nd jab on my own puppy

Hi chocymolly

don't do the second jab, have a titre done - I think you'll find that only 2 jabs are given to confirm immunity, when immunity could already be there anyway!   A titre could help confirm this.

I'm only giving my puppy one jab.
Maria

Have you spoken of your concerns to your vet? I'm sure s/he'll be happy to explain the reasoning behind the protocol. However the manufacturers can't guarantee your dog's immunity if their dosage and timing recommendations aren't followed.

I'm sure you'll find this of interest.

Hi JG
Yes, I've spoken to our new vet about my concerns, and she was willing to explain the reasoning behind the protocol.  She was also willing to listen about my experience with Spangler.   We came to the decision together that we would vaccinate once and then titre afterwards!
I'm not sure what to do if the titre comes back with a low reading, we'll just have to make that decision at the time.
Maria

:)

>>>To get the full benefit of a vaccine it is important that the dog is healthy ............When faced with an animal with long-term disease such as heart disease or diabetes, most vets will advise that vaccination should be continued.

Bit of a contradiction really :rolleyes:

Not really - an individual with a controlled condition isn't actually ill. After all, diabetic humans still have their holiday jabs. :)

Diabetics are advised to have flu jabs every year.  Healthy people can shake off common illnesses more easily than those people suffering from some conditions.  If you have a heart condition your life can be put at risk from some common illnesses.

The point is manufacturers state only healthy bodies be vaccinated.....

Isn't that because that is the limit of the licensing and it absolves them of responsibility beyond that?  Which I think is fair enough :) Many drugs are used by health professionals in circumstances they are not licenced for using their professional judgement.

An individual can have a longterm medical condition and still be healthy. That's the point of medication.

ROFLOL

JG is quite correct.  If you are asymptomic you are healthy.  Some conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes will never cause any damage if controlled.

I think what you have here are people disputing the definition of healthy. 

I think the definition people most commonly head to is the World Health Organisations one :-

>Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

Doesn't really help does it :D but I would say if you have no symptoms you could fit within that all right.

>if you have no symptoms you could fit within that all right

Yet, you could drop dead with an aneurism (sp?) that you have had all your life

edit: Not had the aneurism all your life but a weak vessel that causes the aneurism

In that case one could be defined as being perfectly healthy until one died. :D

Yep :D :D

World health organisation, don`t even get me started on them & going totally off topic! :rolleyes:

Annie, would you say that Sir Steve Redgrave is unhealthy? He's diabetic, as are many top sportspeople.

People on long term medication are having their conditions controlled by the medication - in no way is that the same to me as someone being healthy.  Still if you want to think that way, I have no intention of taking this thread more off track to argue with you.

But is he unhealthy? Obviously the Olympic team doctors don't define those with such conditions as being unhealthy per se - and surely they're the experts.

Healthy to me means freedom of disease or abnormality. 
And on no medication whatsoever.

Defining abnormal is a tricky one to say the least. 

I suffer migraines and probably always will but I don't consider myself unhealthy because of them.

Also you have plenty of obese people in this country who are not "ill" in anyway but are they unhealthy.

Is this going off topic?

I should say so :D

There are probably as many definitions of 'health' as there are people - it's very subjective. This makes for interesting reading (for instance, is someone with a broken leg 'healthy'?), as does the World Health Organisation bulletin.

Lets stick to dictionary`s definition of healthy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/healthy

>Lets stick to dictionary`s definition of healthy

Why? It's a very broad definition and in fact, rather ambiguous

The synonyms make it clearer. :)

Spender, that definition raises problems regarding blindness and deafness - an individual can be blind (which is an abnormality) and healthy. I prefer 'currently free from detectable symptoms of illness'.

Certainly not healthy, nor is someone suffering log term heart disease.

I`ve already told of my mother being given the flu jab by the health nurse without asking for her medical history, of how angry I was & suggested my mum ask her consultant should she have it. How he told her no

All the other elderly people had it, no history taken, no questions asked & it happens every year

Wouldn't she have had access to her notes before surgery?

What surgery??

and its the visiting health nurse that does the vax & as far as I know doesn`t carry them round, don`t even know if she does have access. Point is before giving any vax long term meds & health should be known before they`re given.

The nurse's surgery :)  Ok If she came to her home, won't she have had access to the notes before going there?

I`m talking about sheltered accm, whole bunch of people live there & in others across the country. The district nurse arrives, the residents & warden line up in the lounge, hold their arms out & get the jab! No questions asked at all to any of them.

District Nurses have access to the patient's medical history from the patient's doctor.

I think I can see the some of the pitfalls of seeking medical histories from the residenst not withstanding many may have a memory better than mine :) but why do you think the records were not looked at prior to the session?

My father had a longterm heart condition (several heart attacks so quite a severely damaged heart) which in turn caused affiliated breathing and circulatory problems, yet he was advised by his specialist that annual flu jabs were vital for him, and that the holiday jabs for tropical diseases were fine as well (only when he was going abroad, obviously! :D).

I understood the link to mean that to get premium benefits from vaccines a dog should be healthy and vet checked beforehand to ensure this.  However, vets advise that dogs with specified illnesses such as Diabetes and Heart Diseases should have the vaccines anyway.  To me this means that for this particular group the benefits of having the vaccine outweigh the risks.