I have today had to sit and think about why the dogs and I are always at the vets recently.
Our home is clean, we use a parvovide disinfectant daily etc.
Today I am wondering do you think that dogs brought up in isolation from other dogs other than the odd show would have weaker immune system than those who are regularly in touch with other dogs. We have recently moved back to civilisation and the dogs appear to always be ill. It seems obvious that they would because they would not have come into contact with many of the normal bugs etc but they just seem ill all the time and I wouldn't have expected it to affect them that badly.

They are homepathically vaccinated!!! They eat Purina.

I wouldnt have thought that it is anything but a run of bad luck !

How is Beth ? Hopefully recovering well from OP

Lucy
xx

Beth is fine.

River is sick still and we are back at vets yet again tonight 3rd time this week. Taking a poo sample tonight although thats not what ir resembles!!! Plus I want bloods taken cos I am fed up with this now. She is hungry but she won't eat eggs, chicken etc she wants dog food which of course she can't have. Gonna get some canned i/d diet tonight and try that.

Brooke is down and I say roll on getting her spayed.

The rest of them are still running around like wild animals!!!

Think we are going to go back to raw diet cos I never ever had sick dogs on that. Also seriously thinking of vaccinating them all.

Some time ago Bruce Fogle reported in a magazine article about an American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association annual conference where Drs Susan Wynn and Ron Schultz reported on their unpublished studies where a parvo nosode failed to protect dogs against clinical parvovirus. It might be sensible to consider conventional vaccination when your dog's well enough.

Plus the recent Lancet meta-study which showed that homeopathy does not work at all.

And from what I've read recently neither do vaccinations!

http://www.vmd.gov.uk/WhatsNew.htm

The small numbers of reports received and the absence of a randomised sampling structure does not allow for a statistical analysis of the incidence

Whereas homeopathy does not work at all.

I'm sure there are many people who would disagree Jas. :)

I can't post the Lancet meta-analysis here because of copyright. But you should buy it and read it yourself if you depend on homeopathy for anything. It is quite devastating.

I have no axe to grind on behalf of homeopathy Jas but have to say I wouldn't expect any other conclusion from the Lancet. :)  All I'm saying is that many people do swear by homeopathic remedies and in the case of animals, there can't be a placebo effect.

The reason for my initial response is that you are perfectly entitled (as is anyone else) to believe homeopathy is useless but there is a long way between that and stating categorically that it doesn't work.

It's never yet been proven to work, though. It'd be marvellous if they could prove it worked because then everyone would have a rational choice.

The small numbers of reports received and the absence of a randomised sampling structure does not allow for a statistical analysis of the incidence
The numer is small because they are not prepared to print the facts!

It's on a parr with the way they react to adverse reactions to boosters - they say they are rare, purely because they won't acknowledge or accept the facts - they just pay out and hope we keep quiet!

Whereas homeopathy does not work at all.
Homeopathy does work in some cases as does conventional medicine in 'some' cases.

Homeopathy does work in some cases

Random double blind proof?

Aww poor you too. You have a good point they too must need the immunity building just as we do and in my experience it is kids from the cleanest of homes that have more trouble with sickness than mine, who lived and were brought up in organised chaos and still not the cleanest of homes.:rolleyes:
Karen

Also seriously thinking of vaccinating them all.   If I was in your position, I would definitely titre test before considering vaccination.  Also please remember that only healthy dogs should be vaccinated. :)

Out of interest, why did you take them off raw if they did well on it?

Stopped it cos I had a puppy who refused to eat any of it even though her litter sister would, tried everything. Also I used to buy the chicken in bulk but it was an all day job to go to Taunton to collect and back again so had no one there for the dogs.

I still have no supplier here now the butchers will not supply but nowadays you can order more of it. I was originally feeding raw about 8 years ago for nearly 3 years.

Had no ear infections, upset stomach, stiff joints etc etc. Common sense says go back to it. The dogs do have veg and wings / legs and beef bones now but the majority of their food is Purina.

Yes I think raw feeding is easier to source now. :)  I use Landywoods and get other bits from the supermarkets/butchers.

I had no luck with Somerset butchers but I can buy wings for 15p per lb from the meat seller at the market.

I have to agree with Annie on this one - get titre tests done and don't vaccinate an unhealthy dog!

You say the dogs are ill all the time but from what you say it's not an illness that you could vaccinate against anyway - I'd be looking at their food!

No I'm not saying that the illnesses could be prevented by vaccination. I am just starting to have a rethink about what I do with the dogs in general

The dogs definately won't be vaccinated until well enough.

River now has another antibiotic but apparently they could react badly and make her more ill and sick. We have to ring tomorrow morning if she is ill on them and he will sort it out. Apparently he has seen other dogs with this and they are not reacting to treatment either. It is weird cos although River isn't herself she is still bouncy and wagging. She is however very nervous and if someone looks or goes near her she backs off and looks to me. She growled at the vet nurse at the vets who tried to touch her and that is def not her. We will see how she goes. She also has some w/d diet to try.

>I'd be looking at their food!

Ditto!

If homeopathy is such a load of BS,what are we to make of homeopathic vets??They are often a port of call for pet owners who's convential vets cant seem to help them further or even find what the problem is,often times they are treated with positive results. Millions of people and their pets use homeopathic remedies with great success,myself included.It's such a shame that people are afraid of that of which they dont understand :(

If homeopathy is such a load of BS,what are we to make of homeopathic vets??

The same as what we should make of homeopathic doctors, one of whom is an old friend. They are BS merchants.

It's such a shame that people are afraid of that of which they dont understand

I don't understand the premises that homeopathy is built upon. No one could for it is ridiculous twaddle. I do understand the evidence showing that homeopathy does not work. I am not afraid of it, just sorry for people who spend money on it and sorrier for animals that are unable to give consent to being treated with water instead of with the appropriate medicine.

do you think that dogs brought up in isolation from other dogs other than the odd show would have weaker immune system than those who are regularly in touch with other dogs. *

Not sure to what extent you mean in isolation, but yes, I`d say dogs in isolation would have weaker immune systems! But I don`t think the isolation you`re talking about with your dogs would cause it :)

You could try some supplements, vit C for a start, it`s a known immune booster. I could give you some to try if you`re interested :)

As for h/pathy, I see a few people are banging on about no scientific evidence :rolleyes: so what, like thats the be all & end of everything :rolleyes:

There are a number of things that don`t have *scientific* evidence supporting them, but millions of people find they work for them & their animals, just like h/pathy does ;) :D

I`d also consider going back to raw feeding :)

I`m off for my chiropractor therapy now, don`t know if theres any *scientific* evidence that it works, just know it does it for me :D :D

By total isolation I should have said they were brought up on the black mountains. Our neighbours were cows, ponies and sheep. We did have pigs, sheep, chickens etc ourselves but obviously when the dogs went for walks (not that much) as we had land of our own, it was on the mountains and we never saw anyone. Also we had very few visitors to the property as we used to tend to go and visit people to save them coming all the way out to us.
We used to go to a few shows but due to ill health not that many.

Now we are walking the dogs in places with other dogs, we don't see people but I know that the fields are used by most people in the area.

Dogs which have been brought up in a fairly sterile (in the nicest sense) environment and haven't had much contact with other dogs would probably have less immunity to certain pathogens than those which have been exposed and built up some natural immunity.  I don't claim to be an expert on homeopathy so will say only this; I think alternative medicine has a valid place (my cat's CRI was treated for many years with acupuncture) but a good alternative vet will work alongside your regular vet to provide the best possible level of care.  Please remember that the vast majority of people in the veterinary world have your pet's best interests at heart.  Perhaps I've been lucky but every practice I've worked for has been open to alternative treatments and tried to put the patient first.  Incidentally, we'd never vaccinate an unhealthy animal.

Personally speaking, I live above my surgery so my dog is probably exposed to all manner of nasty bugs.  In spite of this he seems to have developed a pretty robust immune system!  He is vaccinated and although I'm not dismissing alternative forms, until I see sufficient evidence I shall continue to rely upon this method.  It was brought home to me last weekend when a client lost a litter of eight puppies to parvo, just what a horrible disease it is.  I'm not saying vaccination is 100% safe, or the only option, but I do believe that because pups are almost universally vaccinated now, it's very rare to see distemper or parvo.  If everyone were to stop vaccination, I wonder how much more prevalent these diseases would become.

JMHO

a client lost a litter of eight puppies to parvo

Just out of interest Mary-Caroline, were these pups lab tested for Parvo or treated for Parvo like symptoms?  :)

Hi Val

The pups died before we could do much but the bitch has been lab tested at the owner's request, and she's positive for parvo.  She's now being treated at the RSPCA so fingers crossed.  I can't imagine how devastated the owners must feel, I really hope she pulls through.

Edited as first post made no sense! 

I understand that parvo is something we need to be aware of, but I have spoken with a well known Professor  on this subject and he advised that distemper is not a threat in the UK at present (although parvo is)!  Annoying and surprising that the vaccination for parvo is then combined with distemper!

He also advised that the Lepto vaccine does not cover all strains in the UK - and may only be effective between 3-7 months so for a few months of each year even if the dog has a Lepto vaccine he/she won't be covered!  What's the point of pumping these chemicals into their bodies if they are not protecting them? 

I know someone who had their litter vaccinated and they all reacted badly to the vaccine. Their story is on my website for those of you who are interested.

It's a very emotive subject and we can only do what we believe to be the best for our dogs with all the evidence we have.

Maria

Distemper is less of a threat than it used to be (we had a dog die of it) mainly due to the herd immunity due to mass vaccination. If that drops away that awful disease, rife in countries where vaccination isn't common, will no doubt be back. Regarding the lepto; the dog might not be protected for the whole year, but it's protected for most of the year, which IMO is better than nothing. As you say, we all have to do what we think is best having studied as much evidence as we can lay our hands on.

I do remember you mentioning one of your dogs died of distemper, that must have been awful for you.  When was this?  I ask the question because I was advised that distemper hasn't been seen in the UK for over 10 years.

If, as you say distemper is less of a threat because of 'herd immunity' then we could ask why mass vaccination hasn't made parvo less of a threat too?  Rather than the parvo vaccine not protecting as we are now seeing!

The dog died back in the early 60s, Maria, when vaccination was uncommon and the disease used to wipe out entire kennels during a 'flare'. It was an horrendous death, and something nobody would want returning. 'Herd immunity' is fact in humans as well as dogs; the vets at work have heard that the parvovirus is developing resistance to the current vaccine (it's still a relatively new virus and still mutating) which is why more animals are showing symptoms of the clinical disease, albeit usually in a milder form.

With more dogs travelling to and from the country due to pet passports we can't rely so heavily on the incidence of disease here at the moment being a factor in the likelihood of it being brought in by a visiting or returning animal.

I ask the question because I was advised that distemper hasn't been seen in the UK for over 10 years.


Didn't see this until today. As I've told you before I know of two puppies (littermates) with distemper in 1999 -one of them was mine, and yes it was proved by lab tests, somewhere I have copies of all the paperwork.....the other pup's owner gave me copies of her entire file as it was needed for action against the breeder. So whoever adviced you was incorrect.

Thank you for the facts, Marianne. I certainly hadn't heard that distemper had been eradicated from the UK; obviously because it hasn't!

When we finally get to move (that sounds like a chant now, doesn't it!) hopefully I'll get all my papers and stuff organised and can find the lab papers about that pup.

so what, like thats the be all & end of everything

Yes, evidence proven using the scientific method IS the be all. I fail to understand why special pleaders for homeopathy argue that it works when it fails evidence based double blind randomised testing again and again.

I realise you are not answering my post jas, but out of interest with your scientific background maybe you could explain why parvo seems to be increasing now as opposed to being eradicated?  As JG mentions, distemper is no longer a threat becasue of herd immunity/mass vaccination!  Why not the same with parvo?  It doesn't really add up to me

Just a comment to all to say that it might be fairer to the OP to start another thread on conventional treatment v homeopathy for those who wish to discuss this further. :)

I'd quote again "The small numbers of reports received and the absence of a randomised sampling structure does not allow for a statistical analysis of the incidence" You said above that there is a small number because we are not being told the truth. I'd say it is because the number is indeed small. Then there are anecdotal stories of puppies that have been lost to parvo where parvo has been assumed rather than demonstrated. It is of course possible that a new strain is emerging and I have no doubt that the vaccine companies are looking closely at that. But all in all there is no doubt in my mind that vaccination offers the best protection against parvo available. The only litter I know of that was lost to parvo was unvaccinated and my vets, who in this area never see parvo, all tell tales of seeing it weekly in urban practices when in urban areas with a low uptake in vaccination.

I don't know if distemper has been eradicated or just has become rare due to herd immunity. Parvo was always more highly communicable and so would be harder to eradicate. But if parvo IS increasing I'd wonder if the increase is not down to an increase in the number of people not vaccinating.

BTW I'm not a diehard for annual vaccinations for the viral diseases. I vaccinate annually for lepto because this is a high risk area and every 3 years for the viral diseases. I'm even semi-convinced that the viral vaccines may give lifelong immunity. But I do think it is essential to get puppy vaccines done and also the first booster in case a puppy slips through due to lingering maternal immunity.

The full warning regarding LACK OF EFFICACY IN ALL PARVO VACCINATIONS IN UKfrom the VMD is :-

Preliminary investigations suggest an overall increase in the numbers of reports of suspected lack of efficacy from 2003 to May 2006. The small numbers of reports received and the absence of a randomised sampling structure does not allow for a statistical analysis of the incidence, but it appears that there is an emerging trend towards reduced effectiveness in immunisation against this disease. This trend is consistent across the range of vaccines on the UK market.

You said above that there is a small number because we are not being told the truth. I'd say it is because the number is indeed small.

It isn't a small number.  As I mentioned before, the vaccine manufacturers pay out and hope we keep quiet about these adverse reactions.  It's impossible to get them to admit that they have ever had one reaction reported let alone a number - and we all know that is not the case.  I can only reiterate that we are told the numbers of adverse reactions are small because the powers that be won't acknowledge they happen.

In a letter I received from Virbac they stated that 'in an ideal world every dog would have a titre test to establish if a booster was necessary'.  So why advise this if there wasn't some risk attached?

It would make sense to me if distemper had become rare due to herd immunity, then surely parvo would follow the same?  Surely parvo hasn't become more prevalent because of lack of vaccinated dogs, the parvo vaccine is combined with distemper, therefore distemper would become more widespread if dogs were not vaccinated too? This clearly isn't happening!

I do agree that it's important to get puppy vaccines done, but again only one vaccine is necessary at 12 weeks of age and not the usual two (one at 8 and one at 10 weeks).  The early vaccine overrides the maternal antibodies and that's the only reason 2 jabs are given.

The Professor that I spoke to advised that a puppy be vaccinated once at 12 weeks, this would ensure the vaccine was effective, at this stage the maternal antibodies had waned. He also advised to have a titre test when the booster is due (about 12 months afterwards).  As we can now titre for all the diseases including lepto that has to be a safer way for our pets! 

Maria

>and we all know that is not the case.

I'm certainly not part of that "we" :) 
When the powers that be tell us the incidence is small they are reiterating what theirs and independant research suggests in my view.

>So why advise this if there wasn't some risk attached?

I don't think anyone would deny that any pharmaceutical intervention carries a level of risk.  If a product has an effect on the body that will always be the case but that does not suggest anything to degree of risk.  Without seeing the full context of the letter and the points being answered it is difficult to say how they see that level of risk.
Each disease is different.  I believe parvo is capable of mutation I am not sure that distemper is which is maybe why it has stayed better control by vaccine.

>As we can now titre for all the diseases including lepto that has to be a safer way for our pets! 

Apart from all the issue we have discussed before regarding whether a titre test can "predict" future immunity anymore effectively than research analysis we should perhaps again look at the risks of different interventions.  Following the tragic events befalling Spangler you will know as well as anyone the risks of bacteria ingress from any injection through a dogs hairy skin.  Might not we need to consider that by taking extra bloods tests we have some other elements to add into the equation of risk and benefit.
Personally I would stick to the best course of action as advised by the governing veterinary body.

>It isn't a small number

It's certainly a small number when compared with the total number of vaccines given annually. In the 10 months I've been working at the vet's practice we haven't seen a single case of anything that could possibly be classed as an adverse reaction.

I can only reiterate that we are told the numbers of adverse reactions are small because the powers that be won't acknowledge they happen.

How do you know that? I've vaccinated and boostered many dogs and puppies and have never had even a mild adverse reaction. Nor has anyone I know.

In a letter I received from Virbac they stated that 'in an ideal world every dog would have a titre test to establish if a booster was necessary'.  So why advise this if there wasn't some risk attached?

Of course there is a small risk attached to any pharmaceutical that works. But my understanding is that titre tests can be misleading.

It would make sense to me if distemper had become rare due to herd immunity, then surely parvo would follow the same?  Surely parvo hasn't become more prevalent because of lack of vaccinated dogs, the parvo vaccine is combined with distemper, therefore distemper would become more widespread if dogs were not vaccinated too? This clearly isn't happening!

Parvo is a relatively new virus and is still mutating. If there is an increase in parvo and it is due to a mutated virus the pharmaceutical companies will be looking at it very closely. However parvo is rare now compared to the epidemic conditions before the vaccine came out.

The Professor that I spoke to advised that a puppy be vaccinated once at 12 weeks, this would ensure the vaccine was effective, at this stage the maternal antibodies had waned. He also advised to have a titre test when the booster is due (about 12 months afterwards).  As we can now titre for all the diseases including lepto that has to be a safer way for our pets!

Which Professor is that? Maternal antibodies can linger up to 20 weeks in some puppies, even if they have waned in the rest of the litter. Because of that I think with my next litter I will advise the first booster at 6 months. As to titre testing, I would have to be well convinced that it is totally accurate and reliable before I used it.

I can only reiterate that we are told the numbers of adverse reactions are small because the powers that be won't acknowledge they happen.   and you asked  How do you know that?

It is has been my experience in dealing with them.

I don't believe that titre tests are misleading, and the Professors name?  I'm not sure I should give out a name on the board, but he has recently written an article in one of the dog magazines.     

Parvo is a difficult one for anyone to comment on - some indications are that it was created by the vaccines themselves!

Again - the Professor that I spoke to who I have more confidence in than the vaccine manufacturers, confirms that maternal antibodies have subsided by 12 weeks.

I don't think any of us should be convinced that vaccinations are 100% reliable or titre testing is 100% accurate, life is not black and white.  This being the reason we  make our decisions based on our experiences, knowing that sometimes we have to dig a little deeper to get to the facts and not take as gospel what 'some bodies' preach!

There is proof that immunity after the first puppy vaccination lasts for 7 years and probably life.  It's time vets became more aware of the harm they are causing by over vaccinating - IMO.

>This being the reason we make our decisions based on our experiences

Even those that have owned many dogs over many years will have such a miniscule amount of "experience" compared by the data available to veterinary science, few here could put together a study of more than say 50 dogs, pretty irrelevent in statistical terms.  Even if we did, as non professionals, have full access to it all which one of us has sufficient scientific and veterinary qualifications to be able to interpret more effectively that the Veterinary Governing Body.
I would be terrified for my dogs well being if their best recourse was to rely on my experience for their health care :D

>It's time vets became more aware of the harm they are causing by over vaccinating

That may be your opinion but I believe they are likely to be every bit as aware of the level of risk and indeed the level of benefit as anyone else with an interest in the subject.
I am not aware of any rules that would prevent you naming your Professor by the way.

>only one vaccine is necessary at 12 weeks of age and not the usual two (one at 8 and one at 10 weeks).  The early vaccine overrides the maternal antibodies and that's the only reason 2 jabs are given.

Not necessarily so. If the vaccine given is a killed vaccine, then it needs to be repeated two weeks later to give full immunity, whatever age the puppy is, with the second vaccine being given no earlier than 10 weeks of age. It's the MLVs that only need one dose to confer effective immunity.

Parvo/Distemper is usually a live vaccine, and it is this vaccine that only needs to be given once!  It is the lepto which is not a live virus and for this to be effective then 2 shots are necessary for the 3-7 months protection it MAY give.

It's best to give one shot of parvo/distemper at 12 weeks and if lepto is giong to be given should be done 2-3 weeks after.  Splitting the vaccines like this helps prevent adverse reactions.

Do you mean start the course of two lepto shots 2-3 weeks later? That would mean three jags all together though, increasing any risk factors associated.  Who is saying this would be best?  Or do you just mean the usual course of events when the first shot is give with the other vaccine in which case this is done because that is what is required for efficacy and is nothing to do with preventing adverse reactions as I understand it.

To clarify - 1 shot of parvo/distemper at 12 weeks and two weeks afterwards the first shot of lepto.  Apparently not combining the vaccines reduces the chances of adverse reaction.  Doing it this way the dog receives only the one parvo/distempter and the usual amount of lepto vaccine.  The lepto is not a live virus so 2 shots are required to make this effective.  Only one shot of the parvo/distemper is required if it is a live virus and NOT two. 

Normally a vet would combine the parvo/distemper and add the lepto to that, at say 8 & 10 weeks.

So the pup has three injections: parvo/distemper at 12 weeks, the first lepto at 14 weeks and the second (as you rightly say, two are needed) lepto at 16 weeks? That's an awfully long time for a pup to be at risk. Usually, with the second lot of vax being completed at 10 weeks the pup can be out and about and socialising normally by the time you recommend it has its first. As it takes about 2 weeks for immunity to develop I'd be loth to wait that long, knowing the behavioural risks of too long isolation and the closure of the window of learning. But that's just my personal point of view, and I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with me. :)