I think it would take an awful lot of people complaining, probably the majority of dog owners, before vets would change their ways JG.  Sorry but I can't believe vets aren't aware they are misleading people, especially with regard to the double DHP booster when boosters are overdue. 

Unless people do their own research how will they know they are getting the wrong advice?

>I think it would take an awful lot of people complaining

An 'awful lot' is only made up of individuals, Annie. What it boils down to is that if anything really matters to people, they'll do something. If they don't think it's really important, they won't bother.

An 'awful lot' is only made up of individuals, Annie. What it boils down to is that if anything really matters to people, they'll do something. If they don't think it's really important, they won't bother

But an 'awful lot' of people are doing something JG, they're the ones of here and elsewhere doing their own research and maybe going down the titre testing, homeopathic routes! :-D  At the very least, they are making an informed decision whichever way they go. :)

The point is they aren't convincing their vets though as they don't speak to them about it they just" ignore their advice"

Ditto Claireys I boostered this year both dogs and will do again next year one a ISDS BC and one a cocker no problem. Lets not dictate policy here its like our kids we all do what we feel is for the best, I bet we all have stories to tell. But each to their own. My sons had MMR jabs I felt it was my duty to protect them, other parents would suggest i was an idiot and they do the best for their kids, its all the same really,  our life experiances dictate what we do.

katt that was a very good post

So without wishing to give offence to anyone, what some people appear to be saying is that it is the responsibility of the vets' clients to advise vets if they are not complying with the freely available correct vaccination protocols?

I shouldn't think most vets would take kindly to that and in fact I have even been told of one practice that removed a client from their lists for politely questioning their stated required frequency of boosters :(.

And no, I am DEFINITELY not trying to tell any other pet owner what to do (I think this completely wrong as it has to be a personal decision) - just suggesting that people research and then make up their own minds. :) 

No one is saying that as far as I can see but if vets are unaware of their clients concerns are they always prompted to maybe take a second look at things themselves? It has to be a two way street you can't accuse them of not listerning if no attempt to discuss concerns with them is made. Yes there are the ones that think they know best and won't listern. There are also ones who will be prompted to find out more.
Having had  discussions with my own vet I do know that not all vets dismiss you out of hand.

But are we really talking about 'concerns' here?  Yes, many of us have concerns about the pros and cons of booster vaccinations and might well want to discuss this with our vets, but what I was talking about before was actual vaccination protocols laid down by vaccine manufacturers - what, how much, how often, when not to - which surely all vets should be aware of and comply with without input from clients?

That should still be open to discussion. Asking about the protocols laid down by the manufaturer is only asking for information.
Edited to add my vet told me the protocals had changed long before it was ever mentioned on here as she knew I would ask about it if I'd found out elswhere first.

> katt that was a very good post

Thank you :)

Hi there, I work at a vets and would like to let u know what we advise re vaccinations.
We advise that u vaccinate against Lepto every year as the vaccine for this is a killed vaccine and has only shown to last for 13 months at the most. However DHP is a live vaccine and therefore lasts much longer. Tests have shown that this lasts a minimum of 3 years.
I would say that u should definately vaccinate against Lepto every year if your dog swims or drinks from rivers etc. We see many dogs at our practice with Lepto and Parvo.
If everyone decides to stop vaccinating we will start to see a reintroduction of the diseases that we are vaccinating against, eg like the MMR vaccine in children.

Part of Veterinary Surgeons oath:
"I PROMISE above all that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of the animals committed to my care."

We entrust our animals into Veterinary Surgeons care and as clients we should always be informed of the Contra-indications, warnings, protocols etc prior to vaccinations or taking of drugs. I personally believe clients should be given a leaflet (Patient information leaflet) as they do in human medicines so that we the clients can make an informed decision. Sadly some vets do not inform their clients this can be due to many reasons possibly time restraints, the client not wishing to know etc. As clients we also have responsibilities we should always be enquiring looking out for the welfare of the animal in our care.

Vets should be up to date on all protocols if not then I would take it up with the vet in question if no satisfaction then the only options would be to inform the RCVS and vaccine/drug manufactures that the vaccine/drug protocols where not being followed correctly. I would then seriously question if I would stay with that veterinary surgery.

Both client and vet/s should always be working in harmony with each other for the animal's health. Thankfully the vets I have are very informed and do take the time to inform me :)

>We advise that u vaccinate against Lepto every year as the vaccine for this is a killed vaccine and has only shown to last for 13 months at the most

But it doesn't cover any of the serovars of Lepto in the UK so what does it protect the dog from exactly ? Serovars that occur in the USA ! This is why Lepto vax'd dogs still get Lepto

My father's dog died from the reaction to his Lepto vax(fact backed up with a PM)& in the opinion of Veterinary experts(not GP vets) in the field of canine immunology, Lepto vaccine causes the worst reactions & because it actually lasts for much less than a year & as mentioned about doesn't cover any Lepto dogs may encounter in the UK, it is not an essential vax for dogs in the UK

It has nothing to do with the vax being live or dead BTW

If all dogs HAVE to be vaccinated, explain away why my BC from an unvax'd mother had titre results that showed he never needed vaxing at all, in fact in the opinion of a Professor of Canine Immunology, to have had him vax'd at all(apart from Rabies)could have resulted in a severe adverse reaction of his immune system. So if he had been vaxed & died as a result that is ok because he would have died from disempter etc anyway ?

L.canicola and L. icterohaemorrhagiae both commonly occur in the UK, both of which are covered by the Intervet vaccine. 
I don't think we should forget that these are zoonotic diseases and that the dog is natures reservoir of L.canicola.  In Europe the incidence is decreasing which is attributed to widespread vaccination. 
Of course vaccination is not compulsory and is a matter of choice but wouldn't it be nice to think that one day all these diseases were also on the decline in the UK, maybe even eradicated as some diseases in humans have been by widespread vaccination programmes leading ultimately to no requirement for vaccination?

I've worked at a vets for 4 years and never seen any reactions, i have never known any dog outside of work to have had one either. I vaccinated my dogs according to manufacturers reccommendations.
I personally had a reaction to the whooping cough vaccine, but i wouldn't reccommend to anyone else not to have it, its personal choice at the end of the day, and with all things medical there is always going to be the odd one or 2 that it causes a reaction with, but surely the illness you are vaccinating against is a bigger killer?

> but surely the illness you are vaccinating against is a bigger killer?

not is the dog is immune to it anyway, hence the titre testing. no ones advocating winging it and hoping it won't happen to you

so do you guys just not believe that some dogs have negative reactions to these shots?

> so do you guys just not believe that some dogs have negative reactions to these shots?

Of course I don't.  If the vaccine did not cause a reaction there would be no point and individuals will vary but research has to be conducted and results demonstrated before any pharmaceutical product is licenced. 
At that point the incidence of severe adverse reaction would be weighed against the value of immunity achieved.

>so do you guys just not believe that some dogs have negative reactions to these shots?

Those do not believe that reactions occur because they have"never seen it"are waiting for the vax companies to provide money to do the research to show that their vaxs do cause reactions & deaths in dog-as if that is going to happen

As for being licenced proving that medications are safe-Thalidomide was licenced in the UK & look what happened as a result of this safe drug !

I wonder why the DWP has a Vaccine Reaction fund for victims of Human reactions to vaccinations after all the vax were all licenced for use in the UK & USA so must have been safe  ?

At that point the incidence of severe adverse reaction would be weighed against the value of immunity achieved.

The point is, if the dog is already immune, why boost it anyway and risk an adverse reaction?

Regarding your previous post, dogs have been know to contract over 10 lepto serovars in the UK. The vaccine will also only last for as little as three months in some dogs, so what about the other 9 months of the year?

>Those do not believe that reactions occur because they have"never seen it"

You're missing the point entirely, MM. Nobody here is saying that negative reactions never occur - we're saying that they are far more rare than the current internet-forum climate would have us all believe. I saw figures some weeks ago in a vet mag that the incidence of vaccine reaction in dogs was rarer than a strawberry allergy in humans - and yet we don't go around advising people not to eat strawberries!

>if the dog is already immune, why boost it anyway and risk an adverse reaction?

If the dog is already immune then a booster will have a similar effect to contracting the disease.

> dogs have been know to contract over 10 lepto serovars in the UK.

If only we did have cover for them all but as I understand it research is continuing to include further cover.

> The vaccine will also only last for as little as three months in some dogs, so what about the other 9 months of the year?

Again, a balance of benefit against risk and, in this instance I think, what the public are likely to participate in.   Looking at what they are finding in Europe, regular vaccine is reducing the incidence of disease so it would appear the cover is largely of value.

> research has to be conducted and results demonstrated before any pharmaceutical product is licenced

As with Thalidomide and several others .......

> At that point the incidence of severe adverse reaction would be weighed against the value of immunity achieved

Scant comfort to those either suffering from, caring for and/or losing the affected don't you think?

What was scientific fact yesterday can differ from today and be turned upside down tomorrow.  When anyone has direct negative experiences to draw on, it is only natural that they should be sceptical of the system(s) relating to same (canine, human, equine, etc).  Equally, better that they contribute their personal stories to a wider audience so that choices can be made on the basis of varied information.

> As for being licenced proving that medications are safe-Thalidomide was licenced in the UK & look what happened as a result of this safe drug !
>

lol moonmaiden great minds eh? first thought that entered my head as well :)

> As for being licenced proving that medications are safe-Thalidomide was licenced in the UK & look what happened as a result of this safe drug !
>

There is always a risk that the process will allow a new drug to go into use with unpredicted outcomes but these vaccines have been in use for a great many more years that Thalidomide was without throwing up anything as damaging.   Let us also consider the very many thousands of pharmaceutical products that have run true to their initial research findings.  It is always a case of balance.

> I saw figures some weeks ago in a vet mag that the incidence of vaccine reaction in dogs was rarer than a strawberry allergy in humans - and yet we don't go around advising people not to eat strawberries!

which is totally fair enough, but the option is there to not risk infection and not risk reaction through titre tests so why not have them instead of just boostering?

> Scant comfort to those either suffering from, caring for and/or losing the affected don't you think?
>

Indeed, I would never underestimate the impact such events would have on those individuals.

>but the option is there to not risk infection and not risk reaction through titre tests so why not have them instead of just boostering?

And if the results come back saying that a booster is needed and the dog has a serious reaction you're no better off. Plus, of course, having blood taken carries a small risk of infection itself.

The risk of Lepto to dogs in this country really isn't that great. Studies on feral/stray dogs have shown that around 25% contracted the disease and survived.

My own vets insist on telling me the risk of lepto is massive, but then admitted to seeing maybe one case per year and a very small number of fatalities.

It's just not worth the risk to me.

Aside froma ntyhign else, the fact is still, if you titre, you know you're dog is immune, so a vaccine is not needed.

> without throwing up anything as damaging

i'll tell Kizzy that next time she fits then and i'm sure thats of comfort to moonmaiden and her parents as well as the thousands of other dog owners with booster related probs. personally i regard death as fairly damaging but maybe thats just me...

> Let us also consider the very many thousands of pharmaceutical products that have run true to their initial research findings

but we're not talking about things that work without problems, that would be a fairly boring discussion :), we're discussing the negative effects these drugs can have and why they are still used anyway when other options are available

> which is totally fair enough, but the option is there to not risk infection and not risk reaction through titre tests so why not have them instead of just boostering?

You certainly could choose to do that, although the value of this does not entirely go without question as I am sure you have found in your research.  For others it would not be their choice because of cost or additional stress for the dog, to have bloods taken plus a possible further visit to have vaccine administered.  Venepuncture on a hairy, somewhat unhygienic animal is not entirely without risk either.

And if the results come back saying that a booster is needed and the dog has a serious reaction you're no better off. Plus, of course, having blood taken carries a small risk of infection itself.

The risk of a reaction in a dog that is not already immune is much smaller. I don't know anyone who has actually titred and then needed to vaccinate though.

Vaccinating carries as much risk of infection as a blood test and it is negligable if good practice is followed.

a very small risk indeed, else i'm rather in trouble having it done at least once every week :)

if the results come back negative then its decision time, but if there is a chance to avoid it why not? i don;t mind spending the extra cash to avoid the possibility of effectively poisoning Tio.

several of us have explained our reasons for getting additional tests before having shots done, can anyone explain the reasons for not bothering? the apathy of believing it simply won't happen to you seems a poor reason to take even such a small risk to me.

>> without throwing up anything as damaging
> i'll tell Kizzy that next time she fits then and i'm sure thats of comfort to moonmaiden and her parents as well as the thousands of other dog owners with booster related probs. personally i regard death as fairly damaging but maybe thats just me...
>

I was referring to the level of adverse incidence not the individual impact.  I appologise if the misunderstanding upset you.

>I don't know anyone who has actually titred and then needed to vaccinate though.

There have been several posts on here in the past from people who've found it necessary.

>a very small risk indeed, else i'm rather in trouble having it done at least once every week

I'm assuming you haven't recently been swimming in a dirty river or rolling in foxpoo before having the blood taken, and that your skin is wiped with surgical spirit first? ;-)

>can anyone explain the reasons for not bothering?

It seems to me to be unnecessary, but if people want to do it then that's their choice.

jg, do you know which magazine or study it was? just i wonder about the validity of those figures given that 2 people on this site (namsly MM and I) have had dogs who ahve suffered a reaction. i do not know of anyone with a strawb allergy. since this is a pretty small forum it seems strange if those figures are accurate that 2 of the rare few are both on it.

my thinking is its more likely that these are not fed back by vets and so the figures are questionable.

> Vaccinating carries as much risk of infection as a blood test

Yes.  As few jabs as possible, both me and my dog say.

>i do not know of anyone with a strawb allergy

I do (ex flatmate's ex-wife), so that's one. I can't remember which mag it was, but I'll have a look tomorrow and see if it's still there.

> I'm assuming you haven't recently been swimming in a dirty river or rolling in foxpoo

damn right i have, my idea of a great night out :P

no, but neither has my dog (and if he's been in fox poo he'd defo have had a bath- stinking!), and vets do use sterile equipment. bloods are taken in as sterile a manner as possible and serious infections in that kind of wound are very unusual and far easier to treat than a dog dropping dead after its booster

> It seems to me to be unnecessary, but if people want to do it then that's their choice

of course its peoples choice but i just can't get my head around people being willing to risk their dogs when its so easy to avoid.

>vets do use sterile equipment.

Skin isn't sterile, though, and it's very easy to introduce bacteria that way, and the infections can prove fatal.

sorry, that was a bit of a snippy reply...

for me, who's dog has had a fairly mild reaction compared to many, despite it being really rare its still there, it does still happen and there are very few reasons not to try and avoid going through that again

Well none of mine have & I have been having titre tests done for nearly 30 years, I started at the behest of my then(now retired)vet who way back in the 1970s was getting concerned about the number of adverse reactions he was seeing in the dogs attending his practice.. If only my parents had followed my lead(the PM showed he did not actually need the boosters)their dog would not have died an early death.

I have a friend who has to blood test her dog daily(diabetic)she uses the same equipment I do to take & test the blood. Her dog's skin & coat isn't sterilised before the test is done & at 13 & being diabetic for 6 years(starngely enough he too was ill after his lepto booster-can't be boostered now as being a diabetic means he is classed as not being fit)he's never had any infection because of the testing. He has free running on their estate where there are foxes etc etc by the dozen(& yes there are fences to keep him safe-but they don't keep the wildlife out)

no its not but as someone said a minute ago if proper practise is followed its pretty easy to avoid.

In fact Beattie had her Lepto booster this afternoon. I'll let you know how she gets on.

> Skin isn't sterile, though, and it's very easy to introduce bacteria that way, and the infections can prove fatal.

The protocol in our local hospital for taking blood is 30 continuous seconds of wiping with 30% chlorhexidine, 70% alcohol.  Not even any point attempting that on a hairy skin.

Hi Astarte

> given that 2 people on this site (namsly MM and I) have had dogs who ahve suffered a reaction

this subject has been done to death on CD over the years on multiple threads and unfortunately there have been many posters who have owned dogs suffering adverse reactions, some fatal :(

The "Dogs today" artical on Lepto is a good read.
Link for the artical : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/k9health/wwwchc/Dogs%20Today%20Lepto%20Article%20Nov%202006.pdf

yes but as has been detailed above its pretty rare to get an infection from a blood sample site.

those dogs that are being refered to, the ones who got an infection, were they by chance ill already? my assumption would be that in an animal as robust as the dog that can cope with injury exceptionally well (to well sometimes as we all know, damn stoics :)) its unlikely that a healthy animal would get an infection from a tiny wound when they can often avoid it in larger injuries.

> 30 continuous seconds of wiping with 30% chlorhexidine, 70% alcohol.  Not even any point attempting that on a hairy skin

and they manage on my delightfully hairy (steriods! so much fun!) arms lol :) not quite as hairy as a dog though