I don't believe I have ever dealt with Spanglers death insensitively but if his demise is to be used as an example by his owner to warn against vaccination I think it right that that is explored.

>One is that Spangler somehow had the bacteria on his skin and it was pushed inwards by the needle. Another is that it came from the needle. And a third is that it came from the vaccine.

You are right these are all possible causes but if we consider a needle or a vaccine processed and packaged in labarotory conditions as opposed to a hairy animals skin, an animal that lies on the ground inside and out, sniffs about under hedges seeking out where other animals have been I know which holds the strongest probability in my mind.
Bacterial infection of this nature does multiply at an alarming rate which is why we see cases in the pages of toxic shock killing people where doctors had examined them shortly before.

>If some vets are hell bent on boostering our pets then the least they can do is take the vaccine manufacturers advice and booster every three years - to do otherwise questions their integrity and motives.

I think you will find this is what the vast majority are doing exactly as the manufacturers advise but of course the Leptospirosis and parainfluenza is recommended annually.
I think if you have had a tragic event it is easy, perhaps, to lose sight of the benefit gained from vaccination.  The independent research indicates adverse reactions are very rare so even 'unhealthy' dogs can still benefit from vaccination when the risk from disease is far greater than the vet can reasonably expect to be the risk of vaccination based on the clinic history of an individual.  The owners vet is the best person to help an owner decide in each case not an internet poster.

The owners vet is the best person to help an owner decide in each case not an internet poster.

Isabel - in my view you're assuming far too much about the competence and integrity of vets. They are not all the wonderful god-like beings you seem to think they are.  I have learnt more from the internet about canine welfare and behaviour than I have from anyone in the veterinary profession.  Obviously your experiences must have been very different...

I think we will have to agree to disagree about who has the most competence in veterinary medicine.  Trained and accredited vets........... or internet posters......mmmmmmm a tricky one :D
As to integrity, well obviously we cannot judge idividuals but the fact they have a Governing body that issued guidelines rather takes care of the need to.
If you wish to continue making health judgement on behalf of your animals via the internet (assuming you are not breaking the law by not seeking veterinary care when suffering is involved) that is up to you but I could never regard that as 'Gold Standard' care.

Isabel - your amazing arrogance and assumed superiority never cease to amaze me :)

I think you need to read again and decide who thinks themselves superior to vets and is too arrogant to need them ;) but really it's best to just discuss a subject without getting personal.

Isabel - your amazing arrogance and assumed superiority never cease to amaze me

and me :) :)

Same reply as above :)

I don't think anyone should own any pet unless they have located a vet they feel they can trust and WILL use as there will always be times you DEFINITELY need a vet -and this is possible, it might just take a bit of searching if you're picky (which I am). I'd trust either of the 2 vets I use with anything. They're not the ones closest to us, nor the cheapest, but they are the ones that have proved their worth and give me a feeling of security. We even chose our new house according to if it would be possible to still travel to the same vet.We timed the journey from the house to the vet before we decided to buy it! :D

Let's get this straight - if my animals are ill they will be taken to see a vet, no question.
All I'm saying is that I've learnt more about things like vaccination, behavioural issues, feeding etc from those who don't have anything to gain from sharing their knowledge and experience, than I have from any vet. 

Behaviour isn't a vet thing unless they also are a behaviourist. As for the rest -sounds like you HAVEN'T found the right vet, doesn't it. Keep looking! :)

So in effect you are saying that if you have the right vet, you needn't worry your pretty little head about these issues?  If so, cannot agree. 

You can worry if you like Annie but at the end of the day a vet can only be judged by their peers therefore all a lay person can do is satisfy themselves that the Goverment has in place legislation to ensure only qualified people can act as vets and then leave it up to the profession to govern itself and ensure each other competencies.  Personally I think both the level of entry to training and the general health of the pet population reassuring that they are managing to achieve and maintain very good standards.

Those people may have nothing to gain, may even have the best of intentions, but without qualification to show they really have that knowledge and understanding to impart you do not know whether you are mislead.
As I say, individual vets cannot be vouched for but because they are a profession and have a Governing body they have guidelines and even ethics that are established from the wisdom of the entire professional as a whole so you know you have that assurance.

I don't think anyone should own any pet unless they have located a vet they feel they can trust and WILL use as there will always be times you DEFINITELY need a vet -and this is possible

Oh golmali you are so right on this one - trouble is most pet owners believe that a vet is a vet is a vet - and as you have so wisely pointed out not all of them can be trusted ::D :D :D

Oh golmali you are so right on this one - trouble is most pet owners believe that a vet is a vet is a vet - and as you have so wisely pointed out not all of them can be trusted ::-D :-D :-D

No, my actual words were to find a vet you FEEL you can trust. Not one that can be trusted. If they couldn't be trusted they would never have qualified to start with. We don't all get along with the same people and we don't all have the same pets/breeds/problems/whatever, therefore one vet that is perfect for one person doesn't have to be perfect for another. Not to mention that different vets may specialise in different things.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about who has the most competence in veterinary medicine.  Trained and accredited vets........... or internet posters......mmmmmmm a tricky one

Well, we are all internet posters on this forum - are we not?  And it certainly doesn't stop each and everyone of us having our own beliefs and opinions, and doing what we think is best for our pets :D

And as for breaking the law Isabel, which planet are you from ?

Regarding Spangler's death, yes you do come across as insensitive - maybe that's just your way, who knows?  Sad but it takes all sorts I guess :P

I'm sorry if you think I have been insensitive.  I'm afraid I am unaware of what I have ever said that has expressed anything other than sadness at your loss but perhaps if there was something you could point it out to me.  I do not of course regret mentioning the points regarding the issues raised by our discussion and cannot see how you can expect me not to.

>And as for breaking the law Isabel, which planet are you from ?

Are you referring to my comment to tyby?  On planet earth the law requires that an owner does not deny veterinary attention when it may lead to suffering.  This is the planet I live on :)  There are several laws covering these owner responsibilities here is a link that rounds them up pretty well.
Now can we get back to discussing things without the personal comments, they don't really do anything to enhance anyones points :)

I'm sorry if you think I have been insensitive.  I'm afraid I am unaware of what I have ever said that has expressed anything other than sadness at your loss but perhaps if there was something you could point it out to me

The very fact that you don't know you've been insensitive Isabel should answer your question.  Are you sorry that you don't KNOW you have been insensitive or sorry for appearing insensitive?

the law requires that an owner does not deny veterinary attention when it may lead to suffering

Quite right too!
Who on earth would deny a pet they loved veterinary attention if needed?  I don't think you'd find many on this forum.

Only today on this forum someone posted about a dog that they found at the side of the road, not their dog, but they tried to help as much as possible - it's a pity the vet that was called didn't feel quite so strongly about helping this poor animal   As for the RSPCA 'it's not my job' stance - well it is just too disgraceful for words   These 'bodies' are supposed to be animal lovers. 

I thought it was also breaking the law if a vet didn't help an animal who was suffering?

No I'm not having a go at all vets, some are brilliant,  but there are one or two that really shouldn't be practicing and I'd quite happily add this one to my list.

    

>Are you sorry that you don't KNOW you have been insensitive or sorry for appearing insensitive?

Neither and I think continuing to try to divert the discussion into this area is not necessary.  I am afraid you will have to spell it out if you wish me to be sorry for any insensitivity as, as far as I have seen, I have shown none, only discussing matters that you have been perfectly happy to raise yourself.

>the law requires that an owner does not deny veterinary attention when it may lead to suffering

>Quite right too!

I have no idea what your 'other planet comment' referred to then. 

If you have any response to my comments regarding the RSPCA or as to why a vet may feel reluctant to treat an animal without the owners permission then I suggest you put them on the appropriate thread and keep this one to the relevent issues.

Isabel quote:  I'm sorry if you think I have been insensitive.  I'm afraid I am unaware of what I have ever said that has expressed anything other than sadness at your loss but perhaps if there was something you could point it out to me.  I do not of course regret mentioning the points regarding the issues raised by our discussion and cannot see how you can expect me not to.

Maria C quote:Are you sorry that you don't KNOW you have been insensitive or sorry for appearing insensitive?

Isabel quote: Neither and I think continuing to try to divert the discussion into this area is not necessary.  I am afraid you will have to spell it out if you wish me to be sorry for any insensitivity as, as far as I have seen, I have shown none, only discussing matters that you have been perfectly happy to raise yourself.

And as for your comments regarding the RSPCA Isabel - I was merely stating a fact - you quite rightly said that owners denying veterinary care to their sick animal would be breaking the law - I have to agree whole heartedly on that.  Surely the same rule must apply to the vet and the rspca?  So not going off topic really!

I wasn't aware that you were the administrator of this website Isabel, so I will not follow your orders to post elsewhere!

You have been so busy quoting you have forgotten to give a response as to what exactly you mean by insensitivity in discussing a subject you have brought up yourself :)

>Surely the same rule must apply to the vet and the rspca?

No, I don't think the law does apply to them in the way that owner responsibility does.  Vets may have obligation to not allow an animal to suffer but I am not sure what obligation they have to attend to the animal in the first place.  I am pretty certain the RSPCA have no legal obligation to pick up animals and take them to vets.
But that is by the by, whether they do or not does not remove the responsibility by law that owners have and as you now say you agree I remain at a loss why you think I live on another planet to think so :)

You have been so busy quoting you have forgotten to give a response as to what exactly you mean by insensitivity in discussing a subject you have brought up yourself

No I didn't forget to respond, I never intended to :D

You are the one who forgot what you had posted - I just reminded you.

I think it's best letting this drop now Isabel otherwise you'll be starting world war 3 with the way you twist everything  :) :)

I have no idea what you are on about Maria, if you are unable to articulate what you find insensitive, I am more than happy to leave it.  I have not forgotten any of my posts and they remain for others to read and decide who has twisted and tried to make issue of something that wasn't there :)

As I was the one who brought up the issue of sensitivity, Isabel, this is the sort of statement that I, personally, found a bit harsh :-
                    
Your dog may have died following a booster but, according to your account, it was due to bacteria introduced by the injection itself

This suggested to me that, because the culprit was bacteria, you didn't think it should be classed as a 'genuine' adverse reaction. 

Perhaps it's just me being sensitive to your unintentional insensitivity :)

I didn't think it was particularly insensitive to point out that, according to Maria's own account, it was the injection going into the body that introduced the bacterium, not the contents of the syringe. If this is so (and it appears so from her words), if the syringe had contained simple saline, the terrible result might still have occurred.

>you didn't think it should be classed as a 'genuine' adverse reaction. 

Yes, that is correct, I don't I think so.  It's not what I would have ever understood would be taken as an adverse reaction to the components of a vaccine itself and the events it is designed to stimulate in the body.  It seems to me to be an accidental infection that could have occured with any injection or blood sampling.  I appreciate that this was a terrible event for Maria and I hope I have always used words that recognise that but it is entirely pertinent to the discussion and I do not think opinions can be stiffled in the name of some supposed insult.

This suggested to me that, because the culprit was bacteria, you didn't think it should be classed as a 'genuine' adverse reaction.

Surely the end result being the same, losing a beloved dog, is just as upsetting no matter what the cause was and Isabel never even hinted at a bacterial infection NOT being anything to worry about -but if it was a bacterial infection that could have been caused by any injection at all, it is unfair to worry other people by claiming the dog definitely had a vaccine reaction. Better to warn of the bacteria possibility. When I worked as a vet nurse we ALWAYS wiped the area to inject clean first, I never see that done here.

Yes, it has made me seriously consider asking the vet to maybe even shave a little area and swab it down something I would never have thought about in the past but I don't think we should get too anxious about it because I really don't think it can be at all common, thinking about all the needles dogs get for one thing and another and I have never seen one swabbed either and yet I have never heard about this happening before, thankfully.

I wasn't going to post on this thread again as it is becoming quite repetitive.  However, it's difficult not to when people are posting about me, about my website and quite simply getting it wrong!

I think if you read my website and understand as you read you will see there are THREE possible explanations and not one which seems to have you fixated Isabel!

1) Spangler somehow had the bacteria on his skin and it was pushed inwards by the needle (Isabel fixation)
2) Another is that it came from the needle.
3)And a third is that it came from the vaccine.

Spangler died due to the illness caused by an adverse reaction to his booster.

What you are saying Isabel is misleading and inaccurate - (libellous).
Isabel,  obviously wasn't there at the time, didn't see or speak to any vets or indeed the vaccine manufacturers, and has not seen any of the correspondence from these.  Therefore she has no right to pass clinical judgement unless she is a veterinary surgeon which she isn't.

However you do appear to excel at twisting and changing anything that you don't agree with Isabel, and I'm sure you will have to have the last word as you cannot let it rest.....................

If you wish to say I have fixated on the first of your, repeated, list I could equally level that you have fixated on the third.
I am entitled to my opinion, I have given my rationale for believing it the most likely and people are free then to draw their own conclusions.  You are right I am not a vet but then neither are you and I comment only on what can be read on your website.  I fail to see that anything I have said can possibly be viewed as libellous.
I have no issue with you disagreeing with my conclusions, Maria, and I am happy to discuss them with you but making matters personal, talking about fixations, insensitivities, twisting words, libel etc does nothing to enhance your relevent points.

1) Spangler somehow had the bacteria on his skin and it was pushed inwards by the needle (Isabel fixation)
2) Another is that it came from the needle.
3)And a third is that it came from the vaccine.

Spangler died due to the illness caused by an adverse reaction to his booster.

You've lost me. How can it have been a VACCINE reaction if the case was either 1 or 2? To me it sounds like it was a 2 in 3 chance it WASN'T the vaccine.

I wasn't going to post on here but having read the last couple of posts felt the need. Maria, while I feel for you as losing a pet in ANY way is horrendous to have seen him suffering must have been doubly awful. But I think you have just said yourself that there is only a 1 in 3 chance that it was the actual vaccine that caused it. Which means that there is a 2 in 3 chance that it wasn't. I'm useless at maths but even I can work that out. Like I say though I do sympathise.

When a vaccine company pays all the expenses without being asked

When the vet says, 'had Spangler not had the vaccination he wouldn't be going through all this'

When there is none of the lepto batch of vaccine to test at the vets

That's when you know it's pretty near as conclusive as you are going to get!

If I was heartless and insensitive I guess I could dispute that one or two of your dogs had died from distemper or parvo - we only have your word for it

The vaccine company may feel that is cheaper than conducting a court case to decide liability, I believe this is often done 'without predudice' and saves any unpleasant publicity when people jump to conclusions whatever, it may also have been an act of compassion.

>'had Spangler not had the vaccination he wouldn't be going through all this'

that is true but that could be said due to any of the three possibles you have outlined.

>When there is none of the lepto batch of vaccine to test at the vets

I am not sure what you are concluding from this.

You say yourself that there are three possibles, I do not understand why you admit this if the case has been declared conclusive by either the vets or the vaccination company.

>I guess I could dispute that one or two of your dogs had died from distemper or parvo - we only have your word for it

Indeed you could :)

Paula, I do think you should have a look at the story on the website and see the context in which that is written!

Hi Maria.

I have looked at your website the other week and read Spanglers story.

Having determined not to keep this discussion going by adding any further points, it feels to me like there is some Big Brother type bullying going on here, which I'm finding distressing so can only imagine how Maria must feel.  Maria went through some horrendous experiences with Spangler.  Anyone who wants to read and make up their own mind can see details on her website.  I don't see the point in endless discussions on the whys and wherefores and I think we should all remember just how painful it is to lose a dog and how we would feel if it was our dog being discussed in this way.  Please don't bother to answer this post as I won't be discussing it further.

I think anyone who puts details of their dog's death on a website  (which I get the impression was created for the purpose? To inform of it? ) AND a public forum is surely inviting discussion on the subject, wanting it? As an example; yes I posted details here when I last lost a dog of mine, but I have not said anything on my website on WHY he had to be PTS as I simply don't feel able to discuss it with total strangers that may contact me. And people will never ALL agree on any one given subject.

Likewise I could have made mentions of my recent experience in some recent threads here where there were similarities, but I feel I need to put it behind me now and so therefore I have stayed quiet on those subjects. Maria could have done the same had she not wanted to discuss her dog.

From what I've read about all your unhealthy animals globmali I'd be looking at vaccinations being the cause!

But thanks to all for highlighting the adverse reaction that Spangler suffered, I've had lots of people contact me since this thread has been running so not all bad!
Maria :)

This jaut seem to have got way of topic and is going round in ever decreasing circles and getting more personal by each post

From what I've read about all your unhealthy animals globmali

Now that WAS insensitive. FWIW I think Isabel, Goldmali and JG have been more than patient with you.

I would rather you gave your points than the personal comments.  I have given my rationale as to why I believe one of the probabilities more than the other two since then I have been accused of fixations, insensitivities, twisting words, libel and now bullying.  As ever when accusations of bullying occurs it is not always clear who is doing it :rolleyes:.   All I ask to see is straight forward opinions and reasons without all these personal comments as the best way for any of us to advance our thoughts and understandings.

Also vaccines can cause epilepsy

I've said it many a time before and I'll say it again -the great majority of these cases are nothing but personal belief and hearsay and NOT proven. Had my epileptic dog been vaccinated when she was meant to she would have had her first fit the day AFTER being vaccinated, now as it was delayed she had it the day BEFORE. And had she had it the day after, the wrong conclusion would have been VERY easy to jump to. As it is she was an unvaccinated dog when it started. Not to mention that it was proved she'd had distemper and the likelihood is the epilepsy was caused by brain damage caused by that -so you might as well say that NOT vaccinating dogs is what causes epilepsy!

As JG says, most cases of epilepsy are diagnosed as IDEOPATHIC.

As JG says, most cases of epilepsy are diagnosed as IDEOPATHIC

Of course SOME cases of epilepsy have no environmental cause and are genetic - likewise some vaccines can cause epilepsy. 

Most end up with no known cause at all, whether environmental or genetic - that's what 'idiopathic' means. They're just down to the make-up of the individual.

As I said JG some cases of epilepsy have no environmental cause and are most likely genetic (genetic meaning down to the make up of the individual)

The meaning of Idiopathic is 'having no known cause' so JG you are correct on that one! 

'Genetic' is usually considered to be 'hereditary', but there are very many individuals with epilepsy where none of the ancestors or relatives are affected. So heredity can be ruled out. These are often individuals where there is no other discernable cause - environmental or medical influences can also be ruled out. In these cases, suggesting possible reasons is pure conjecture. Many allergies and random vaccine reactions would also come under the umbrella of unpredictable misfortunes.

I had a male rough collie who began having fits at 7yrs of age he was insured so my vet after blood test etc suggested he have a brain scan in case of a tumour. The scan revealed that he had water on the brain pushing his brain to one side causing the fits. He was put on Pheno and predisilone (very unusual case according to the prof) his scans are still being shown to educate students according to my vet.
He stayed on pheno for the rest of his life , he lived util he was 15 and half vet would not vaccinate and he never had another fit once medication stabilised him.

Roni

>Also vaccines can cause epilepsy

According to recent (2006) research it appears not, in humans at least; what appeared to be vaccine-related in fact wasn't.

I'm well aware that dogs and humans are different species whose bodies respond in different ways, and the vaccines they're given are different so extrapolating a conclusion from one to another is fraught with hazard, but to state that 'vaccines can cause epilepsy' might be inaccurate, so best avoided.