I came across an article recently about whether booster vaccinations are necessary for dogs.  I think it was in the Telegraph.  Anyhow, it appears that there is controversy as to whether booster vaccinations are necessary with some vets stating that many vaccines for life threatening diseases last for many years and sometimes provides life-long immunity.  This was supported by 30 vets who published a letter in the Veterinary Times. 

The vets claim that this makes annual boosters which are recommended by vaccine manufacturers unnecessary, based on recent research from the USA, which claims that annual boosters might even be harmful for dogs.  And suggested to change it from 1 year to every three years.

However, the veterinary surgeons professional body, BSAVA, rejected the claims. 

I'm a bit suspicious about this and have wondered in the past if 1 year boosters are rather excessive.   I wonder if this is more about £££ that it is about the safety of our dog's health.  Of course, vaccinations have eradicated the major diseases in the UK but I don't think any drug is without risk.  I don't know about you but I'd prefer not to have to give my dogs drugs every year. 

What does everyone else think?

Hi Spender,

I, too, have been wondering whether this is just a money-making exercise, so I will be interested to hear people's views.

My two are due their yearly's in December and I would prefer NOT to have them vaccinated again if poss.  I also think vets use the yearly vac as an opportunity to sell you wormer at greatly inflated prices..... :( - something I always got sucked into until I found CD and consequently Vetmedic!

I think the problem is that a lot of people, and I include myself in this batch, grew up with the thoughts that "responsible good" owners had their dogs vaccinated, and the "irresponsible and therefore bad" owners did not.

I await other people's input.

My boy is due his this month and im not really sure what to do, it will be his first booster as he is 13 months old.  I have read the info on the net and I still dont know, I would talk to my vet about it but I think he will just say that it is necessary .... any thoughts would be much appreciated :)

The only problem may be with my local kennel, as they ask to see up-to-date vaccination records :( before taking the dogs in...

This was what I was worried about, although my boys go to a dog sitter she asked to see their vacc cards, whether she will again I dont know.

Try this link to a vaccine companies site where even they have recommendation for different cycle of vaccinations

I personally do not booster after losing a dog to medically proven vaccinosis my dogs have been titre tested

My dogs get their puppy shots and then a booster 1 year later and thats it!

My dogs dont go in kennels,so it not a problem for me,however i think some kennels may accept titre testing results.

Same with me Frodo.  I'm certain that the vets only do it for  money and nothing else!!

My dog died three days after receiving a booster jab so I now only give the initial puppy jabs. 
It's unfortunate that owners who would prefer not to vaccinate often have to compromise their beliefs in order to comply with boarding kennel requirements. 

<<<<<< research from the USA, which claims that annual boosters might even be harmful for dogs.>>>>>>>

this would make sence as you hear of dogs doing funny things after they have been vacinated

we only have the two done as puppys i personally dont see the sence in it and over the years have heard some terible things caused by vacinations

fiona

i have just found this

http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/health/common/vaccinations.html

sorry cant link it up

fiona

There's a lot of info on here about annual boosters if you use the [Search] facility.

Personally, my dogs have the full puppy course and annual boosters up until the age of 12, when we go on to biannual for most but annual for lepto. In 40 years of dog ownership we've never had any problems using this regime.

My local vets' practice has seen many more cases of vaccinosis with the three-year booster than the annual one - presumably it's much stronger.
:)

*My local vets' practice has seen many more cases of vaccinosis with the three-year booster than the annual one - presumably it's much stronger.*

Thats strange J/G....the tri annual vaccines only been going for 2..3yrs at most????? *presumably it's much stronger* Thats a very serious presumption to make, are you quoting your vet on that??????
And I take it I can presume your vet has reported all these many cases of adverse reactions to the tri annual boosters, made by Intervet, (as far as I know they are the only manufacturers of it) to the VMD???

If they haven`t, then as I keep saying, all the reports about suspected adverse reactions are a load of rubbish!!!!

Because they dont get reported...........Did your vet report the many cases he`s seen?????

Christine, Spain.

Christine, Spain.

Yes, I am quoting my vet, Christine, and yes, the practice has sent in the reports. Whether the manufacturer takes any notice is another matter ...
:)

*Whether the manufacturer takes any notice is another matter ...*
The reports don`t get sent to the manufacturers, also its not up to them wether they take notice atall so not understanding why you`ve said this J/G????
Christine Spain.

I'm not sure of your point about the length of time the tri-annual vaccines have been going. 2-3 years is ample time for a significant number of adverse reactions to be noticed. After all, the new vaccine is given when the old annual one would have been - you don't wait three years since the last annual one before administering the new one.
:)

My point is that I don`t see how vets can say they are seeing more reactions in the 3yrly vax when its only been going for a couple of yrs. Also are vets using it properly, cos I know I`ve seen OP on this board & others saying their vets a re using the Intervet vax but have still been boostering their dogs yearly???

By the way this is not a new vaccine & nor is it stronger like people are claimimg it to be. Anybody who`s interested can get in touch with Intervet direct & see what they tell you :)
Christine, Spain.

i have three dogs and i get them there puppy jags and there first booster. then after that i leave it 3 to 5 years between jags . although i tend to get a bitches done before she comes into season if i plan to breed her that time. my vet recommmends only getting them every 3 years.

do you have to have the yearly boosters done to be able to show your dog?

No.

... I wonder why not  ?

In 'the olden days' you used to have to queue up for a vet examination before your dog was allowed into a show, but that was stopped donkey's years ago - probably either too expensive or too time-consuming. (It's still done at cat shows though.) Sick dogs or those with fleas etc were refused entry ...

with the three-year booster than the annual one - presumably it's much stronger.

I do not see the point of this so called stronger 3 year vaccine,if people are going to use this they may as well booster yearly :rolleyes: I know there are people out there who boost every 3-5 years,but i thought they use the normal yearly dosage,not something 3 times stronger

I don't get quite get the logic of that one either.  

I've been looking into titer tests but could only get info on American sites.   Does anyone know if they readily available in the UK? And are they affective?

I tried searching through old posts as I'm sure I saw someone mention them before but my PC is playing up.

Titre testing was pretty much thrashed out in this thread:-http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?pid=477157;hlm=and;hl=titre#477157
if you can make any sense of it ;)
Sorry it's a cut and paste job :)

Ohhhhh, was it really *pretty much thrashed out in this thread*???? And what was the conclusion of the thrashed out subject of titre testing?????? Just your opinion of it, of course, Isabel  ;) :)

*if you can make any sense of it *

Made perfect sense to me :)

Christine, Spain.

By thrashed out I mean discussed at length I made no comment about conclusions, Christine, I merely pointed the way to the thread where everyones opinion is plain to see :)
It makes sense to me too but I felt the reader might find it rather long winded :)

*By thrashed out I mean discussed at length I made no comment about conclusions, Christine, I merely pointed the way to the thread where everyones opinion is plain to see*

Then don`t try to imply any conclusion was thrashed out Isabel, when clearly there was no conclusion arrived at.

Christine, Spain.

I beg your pardon, you mentioned conclusions I did not, nor anything that implied it, I left it for the reader.

You were the first to mention conclusions Isabel, but sorry if I twisted your words, didn`t mean to :)

Like you, I`ll leave it to the reader/s to make their own minds up :D

Christine, Spain.

I accept your apology :)  Perhaps in return you will allow me to be pedantic and point out that this was the first mention of conclusion

>And what was the conclusion of the thrashed out subject of titre testing??????

Thanks for that link Isabel :-)

Hi Spender,

I'm very fortunate in that I live within walking distance of Glasgow University Vet Hospital and my own vet has cover from them one day every week in addition to holiday periods, days off, sick leave etc which affords me the opportunity to pick the brains of some of the leading specialists in a variety of fields ;)
Some ordinary vet practices are not as forward thinking as they should be and often some clients not sufficiently confident or experienced to question why certain treatments should or should not be carried out.  I'd urge anyone who has doubts about an important health issue to seek specialist advice - after all no-one with any common sense would continue seeing a family GP who plodded on with A/Bs and a sick note for every ailment and didn't investigate further recurring illnesses would they?  They'd want to be sent to the appropriate hospital department for specific tests! Yet for some reason certain people accept continuing with a bog standard route of advice or meds for their pets when no improvement has been made and in some cases what could have been a treatable condition is allowed to go too far.

I too was similarly advised years ago that my own dogs had no need for annual vaccines and had the reasons for the lepto element being administered annually and quite separately explained in detail.  Regards Teri :)  

 

Hi Teri,
Couldn't agree more.  And lucky you having access to the experts. :-)

I give you a little story.  Six months ago, my dog (Spender) was in pain, he'd cry out when he moved.  So, we went to the vet and he said it was hip discomfort.  I remained unconvinced and said it was his spine.  Anyhow, he gave him Rimadyl and he appeared to be improving.  But I wasn't convinced that there wasn't anything more serious going on and I began taking notes ref his behaviour, gait, the way he walked, mood etc, researching on the net and so on. You know when you get this feel that there is something wrong and yet the vets think you're delusional.

A few weeks later, he lost function of his hind legs, severe ataxia and knuckling of the paws.  I took him back to the vet and he said it could possibly be CDRM.  But this just didn't fit and I told him (nicely and firmly), that I wanted to see a neurological specialist, I wanted the best in the country and I wanted an appointment now.  He asked me that if he required surgery, would I allow them to operate on him.  Maybe he thought he was past it.  I said that none of us were in the position to make that decision and I would leave that one to the specialist.  Anyhow, he tried to get us booked into Newmarket but there was a waiting list of three weeks.  But that the animal hospital at Rotherham could see us in two days time.

So, my dog went to Rotherham and I cannot praise the medical team enough.  I went in there with 2 A4 pages of a list of symptoms over the previous two months. When the neurological specialist gave him a physical exam it made your standard vet look like an amateur.  Spender had a MRI scan and they found the offending disc, T13.  He had spinal surgery to remove the disc and decompress the spinal cord.  Afterwards hind leg function and co-ordination returned.  Today, he's in no pain and runs around with a permanent grin on his face.  Although you can see...it's like a spongy affect in the hind leg movement which is reflective of nerve damage. It's difficult to explain. And the odd scrape of the nails in the leg hind leg.  But he has a good quality of life, is walked 3 times a day and is a very happy dog.
 
Now I'm not criticising my vet. Vets are very much constrained. My vet saw my dog for 10 minutes; I live with him 24/7.  I know him like the back of my hand, my vet doesn't.  Even if he took an x-ray which he did mention, not all disc problems show on x-ray.  And if he had have done, he doesn't have MRI facilities, never mind the skills to perform a delicate surgical procedure.  And Spender would've had 3 anaesthetics instead of 2.  My vet might see, say 10, maybe 15 suspect disc cases in a year, even if that.  An orthopaedic specialist will see a lot more and have the skills and experience to deal with them effectively. 

I'm tough with my vets, I like to question, research, and have an idea what they mean when they come out with big words.  I like to know when a vet is a good one and when a vet is a bad one.  And I will test them over and over again.  There's no harm in it, you're doing it for the benefit of the health of your dog and any decent vet should respect that.

Hi again Spender ;)  We can have a mini mutual admiration society going on - I agree with your posts too :P   I'm glad you insisted on a specialist's opinion, your dog properly diagnosed and able to get the treatment needed to live a good quality life.  There are instances when us knowing our animals better than our vets makes a HUGE difference & providing the client has the gumption to push for answers and further investigation if not happy with those answers.
Specialist referrals may be pricey but worth their weight in gold for an accurate and speedy diagnosis which can make the difference between saving your dog's life or quality of life and save a heck of a lot of cash wasted anyway on repeat visits to a regular GP Vet who's getting nowhere.  If it comes to choosing between paying £25 + VAT for a 15 minute consult with a vet and several repeat visits at around £20 + VAT each with goodness knows what paid out on "maybe-meds" I'd sooner have a couple of GP visits and if not resolved then pay £105 + VAT to have around 2 full hours discussing my pets' entire case history with an expert in the particular field of concern that's bang up to date with the latest treatments available and has the top technology in the bulding ;)  Best wishes to you & yours, Teri  

>i thought they use the normal yearly dosage

Apparently not, according to the vet. It certainly seems more likely to cause reactions.

Perhaps the response may be stronger as antibodies will have dropped to a lower level.  After discussions with my vet I have decided to continue with annual vaccinations.  Due to research such as this piece, an appreciation that all illnesses have a 1 in 12 chance of happening within a month of vaccination ;) and no experience of anything other than minor adverse responses over the past 25 years I don't have any great concerns about this. 

What a pity they did not send me one as I would have forwarded the autopsy results for my dead dog who died within days of being vaccinated

Send you what Moonmaiden?
I thought you did report the death.

Not in the survey which was paid for by Intervet of course & done at random(allegedly)but to the vaccine company directly who pooh poohed it as the scientist that did the autopsy was not a vet(just one of the top forsenic pathologists in the country though)

What survey paid for by intervet? Have I missed a bit of this thread?

The one that you quoted was done by the AHT & funded by Intervet

The AHT is a registered charity, and receives no government funding.

As they say on their site, apart from the professional fees it earns and the grants it receives for specific projects, the AHT is wholly dependent for its existence and pioneering work on charitable income.

I have never seen any mention of Intervet in any report on this study, can you give a reference?

Your link &Intervet link

You might be very surprised to see which companies give money to the AHT including Proctor & Gamble(shock horror :O), Du Pont(the GM people), Bernard Matthews to name but three I haven't got the AHT financial report to hand but there are "donations"shown from all the major drug &vaccine companies as well as the above

Yes, of course companies will fund research. If you're saying the AHT skews the results deliberately to mislead, then you should report them to the Charities Commission with your evidence. That's a very serious accusation.

Sorry I still can't see any reference to Intervet funding it as far as I can see they are just reporting it on their website.
I won't ask for evidence of the others funding the AHT because it is not relevent to vaccinations but I do wonder what you mean by shock horror? I don't have any objections to GM research either so maybe thats wasted on me too :)

Personally I wouldn't ever seek a vet's opinion on this subject - they can hardly be deemed impartial.  They wouldn't want to risk losing the income from yearly jabs nor the incentives they receive from the vaccine companies.

It's their profession who else are you going to ask? :)  I think for most people one of the the definitions of professional is trustworthy.  The research piece I have done a link for is by an independent body by the way.

I think it is wise to ask your vet, but to go down there armed with all the other research you have done so you can question your vet and know what you are asking :)