ok asked at vets yesterday what age they vac pups at. expecting 1st one at 8 weeks 2nd at 10 weeks.

but they will do the first "from" 6 weeks & then the 2nd will still be at 10 weeks.

now i have a dilemma.
pup is coming at 6 weeks & 2 days. i "feel" that 6 weeks & 3 days (which will be the monday) is "abit" too early for such a young pup,but clearly would give some protection.
do others think this is too young to vacc?
the benefit i suppose os that there will then be a 3 1/2 weeks till the next vacc, which i feel might be better than after just  two weeks.

or i could just spilt the difference & get the first obe done at seven weeks..... or should i wait till 8?

i think i prefered it when there was NO choice

Is there a reason why he's leaving the litter so early? I'd have thought another week at least to learn better canine social skills (including a start on bite inhibition) would be beneficial, but I know other people have different views! ;) As for the vaccinations, personally I'd let the pup settle into his new home before adding to the stress by vaccinating him. 7½ to 8 weeks should be fine. (The second vax must be at least 2 weeks after the first, and not before 10 weeks of age.)

yes there is a good reason! being the strong view of a experinced breeder!

as these are obedience pups she STRONGLY believes they bond better at 6 weeks.

shes one of the most successful handlers in the country & is famed for her puppy training, &  puppytrained the record holder  of obccs (53 ccs to date...maybe 54 now)

i had nel at 7 weeks & flynn at 8, so i will be interested to see if theres any difference (positive & negative)

Well probably it means you get better dog to human bonding, which is why they send Guide dog pups to walkers at 6 weeks.  Most dogs though destined for a life as a Pet certainly benefit from the extra time with a litter learning canine social skills, as many of the problems owners have with their pet dogs, especially with other canines is lack of dog to dog socialisation.

which is really what ob dogs should be like. also there are plenty of other dogs here to learn canine manners from

Guide dogs have to have good dog to dog relations too and it is something the walkers work on but I think the idea of making humans their main focus would probably be a good idea for the average pet owner too :)

Maybe it is just my local classes, but very few of the dogs have any problems with people, but a hell of a lot of them are just totally unable to function properly with their own kind.  These are mainly dogs/pups without other canines in the household.

Those of us who are doggy usually have multiple dogs or are involved with canine activities that make it likely that our dogs associate frequently with other canines.

As few of these dogs coem from responsible breeders it makes you wonder if their social problams are aminly to do with beng taken from their mothers and litters too young, or having Dams with poor social skills and coming from an  environment deprived of social opportunities.

The guide dog puppies have been vaccinated at this age for years and thats about 2000 puppies a year so if there was any major problems with it I think it would have surfaced by now.  I think they do this as, although they are not walked out until vaccination is complete they often go to homes with other dogs and begin meeting people straight away so infection risk may be seen as higher.  If that is the expected situation with your new puppy I would certainly be considering it.

Simple answer Mish have him blood tested to see if he needs to be vax in the first place, I did Rjj & he did need vaxing(without the lopto as I don't do lepto vax ever) A repeat titre test after a month showed full cover & at a year he didn't need boosting

He was 13 weeks old at the first vax

pup is coming at 6 weeks & 2 days. i "feel" that 6 weeks & 3 days (which will be the monday) is "abit" too early for such a young pup,but clearly would give some protection.

Not if he is still protected by his Dam's immunity.  He'll reject the vaccination all together and if his maternal immunity wanes around 8 weeks, then you'll be lulled into a false sense of security. :(

A Vet from Intervet told me (and a hall full of another 199 people! :) ) that 2 out of 5 puppy vaccinations don't take at 8 weeks due to maternal antibodies.

So three out of five do :)

Yes that's right and the other 2 owners who've paid their money and think that they've protected their puppies have not. :(

They don't tell owners that they have just over a 50% chance of protecting their pup, do they?

>think that they've protected their puppies have not.

Because they are actually already protected by maternal antibodies :)  You could say that was wasting money but then if you paid for a titre test to demonstrate whether they were ready or not and found out they were, that could be wasting money too :)
I understand there is a failure as with most preventative medicines anyway.  You have to view the whole thing in balance ie the failure rate, the herd effect, the adverse reaction rate and taking the balance of all those things the profession believe this is a reasonable course of action.  Yes, they could spend an elongated consultation time going through the entire pros and cons but then many people would see that as a waste of money preferring to pay our professionals to consider it all for us :)

>2 out of 5 puppy vaccinations don't take at 8 weeks due to maternal antibodies.

Which is exactly why my old vet used to give the vaccines at 10 and 12 weeks.

It is what I prefer to do to, especially as my girls will still be topping their pups up until they leave or even 10 weeks for the pups I keep.

I don't vaccinate before 10 weeks if I can help it.  If I do then any pups still here will be done, as the shedding of vaccine by a vaccinated pup to it's unvaccinated littermates worries me.

I prefer to send my pups to new homes unvaccinated (because the new owners vet will most often start a fresh course as they may use a different vaccine or the timing may be out, and so the pups get over vaccinated) untless thy are going to be picked up after 10 weeks when I will time it that they are fully vaccinated before they go.

6-8 weeks is far too young to vaccinate your puppy!

Since our 3 year old Golden Retriever Spangler died I've done lots of research and we now have a new puppy so I didn't want to make the same mistakes with him.

The whole vaccine issue is a minefield, but this is what I have found out and how I am vaccinating my new puppy.

Dogs are unlikely to come into contact in the UK with distemper but parvo is a threat.  Unfortunately, we cannot get a parvo vaccine without it being combined with distemper. 

The way we protected our new puppy was to give one vaccine after 12 weeks of age and omitted the Lepto.   Apparently once the maternal antibodies have waned then a puppy only needs 1 vaccine - so it's annoying when the vets say 2 shots are needed. As long as it's given after 12 weeks, only one shot is necessary.  This advice was given to me by a Professor on vaccines and titre testing at Glasgow Uni.

I was also advised at the same time that Lepto was a threat, but to give this separately from the other vaccine.  And everything I've read about Lepto only lasting a few months was dismissed when he confirmed that only one Lepto vaccine is needed in a lifetime!!   I know this goes against everything we read and he also said that the Lepto vaccine, didn't cover all the strains in the UK anyway!

He also advised me to have a titre test when his booster is due next year!  And I won't do Lepto after his first shot - unless I know there is a threat in the UK!

So we vaccinated our puppy in this way:  one parvo/distemper vaccine at 12 weeks of age, and 3 weeks later he had his Lepto.

I also found out about a homeopathic remedy Thuja which is supposed to help protect against adverse reactions if given before and after the vaccine.   This was from Richard Allport's website.  The dose is to give 30c three times a day, three days before and five days after vaccines. Which is what I have done for our puppy.

There are so many people with different opinions for and against vaccination.   However, after seeing Spangler suffer so much after a vaccine he did not need, I had no alternative but to find out more about vaccines and their side effects; so that I could make an informed choice.

I have learned this week that another dog who attended the same vet as Spangler has recently suffered in a similar way, although the dog has not died he is extremely ill and will never lead a normal life.  The vets are funding all the treatment which is on-going!

The vets are funding all the treatment which is on-going!

It's refreshing that the Vet is accepting responsibility.  I suspect, and only my opinion of course ;), that in the light of current knowledge that is now available to the public but has been known for many years behind the scenes, that the vaccination routine will be changed over the next few years. :)

It would be refreshing if they are taking responsibility, although I'm not sure they would accept they are responsible.  Virbac the vaccine manufacturere who paid all costs for Spangler's treatment deny all responsibility (which doesn't add up)!

I think the manufacturers fully accept than reactions happen occasionally.  All pharmaceutical drugs carry this risk, no effect on the body, no point.
Reading your web site it appears the problems Spangler had resulted from the introduction of bacteria with the injection rather than a reaction to the vaccine itself not withstanding any delays in treatment which is a seperate issue.   I would imagine that is always going to be a risk injecting hairy animals unless we all agree to our animals being shaved and swabbed with antiseptic prior to injections.

It is admirable that you do lots of research but I think you can rest assured vets do too :) and whatever regime their governing body supports will be the best suggested by the currect available data.  This will of course be the best for the vaste majority of dogs, there will always be a few unfortunates that do not benefit as the herd do and if people choose to take alternative courses such as extra testing that is up to the individual but will not necessarily be appropriate for everybody.

We are not always given the 'true' outcome of the research from our so called expert vaccine manufacturers Isabel.
Therefore, I cannot rest assured with the data made available.

As you say, what suits one doesn't always suit another, so better to be safe than sorry in my opinion.   And, I have to add, I have taken advice from 'experts'.

The vast majority of dogs boostered every year will more than likely suffer some type of illness caused by these vaccines.  It is very difficult to pinpoint the vaccine, in some cases even the owner wouldn't associate the illness with the vaccine.  

But keeping on topic, 6 weeks is far too young to vaccinate.

I think data in general is reported accurately.  The researchers reputations and funding depend on it, not to mention their self respect.  Who wants to work hard for years on a project just to publish false data?

>The vast majority of dogs boostered every year will more than likely suffer some type of illness caused by these vaccines.

Were have you got that information?  It is rather at odds with the independent research such as the POOCH report.

>It is very difficult to pinpoint the vaccine, in some cases even the owner wouldn't associate the illness with the vaccine.

Just as likely, owners will blame a vaccine erroneously.

>But keeping on topic, 6 weeks is far too young to vaccinate

Not according to the protocols or from the experience of people like the GDB
You may have done some research, although having plumped for a homeopathic solution it would appear it has not been in the scientific journals ;), but I don't think can come out with such statements with such assumed authority.  I think you need to say "In your opinion" :)

Were have you got that information?  It is rather at odds with the independent research such as the POOCH report.

Yes and it is after all only a few weeks ago that we here on CD between us counted up AT LEAST 100 dogs that we personally have bred or owned that we know have never had a vaccine reaction...... And that was only between 3 or 4 of us I seem to remember!

Yes and it is after all only a few weeks ago that we here on CD between us counted up AT LEAST 100 dogs that we personally have bred or owned that we know have never had a vaccine reaction

There are certainly lots of people who have had pets suffer that find it too heartbreaking to post on the forum regarding their experiences. For no other reason than we are 'bullied' for the want of a better word by a minority who have inflated opinions of their own knowledge!

So the 100 dogs counted, are not a true figure.

>For no other reason than we are 'bullied' for the want of a better word by a minority who have inflated opinions of their own knowledge!

On an anonymous internet forum everybody is equal; if people don't want to say anything they needn't, but of course without their input the overview will be skewed. There was plenty of opportunity for anyone to put forward their experiences - if they didn't it can safely be assumed they had nothing to they that they felt was either important or relevant.

The 100+ dogs counted are as likely to be the tip of the iceberg as they are to be rare exceptions. I would suggest that the 'silent majority' are the ones who have no adverse reactions to report, because people are usually very vociferous with complaints. :)

On an anonymous internet forum everybody is equal; if people don't want to say anything they needn't, but of course without their input the overview will be skewed. There was plenty of opportunity for anyone to put forward their experiences - if they didn't it can safely be assumed they had nothing to they that they felt was either important or relevant.

The 100+ dogs counted are as likely to be the tip of the iceberg as they are to be rare exceptions. I would suggest that the 'silent majority' are the ones who have no adverse reactions to report, because people are usually very vociferous with complaints

I disagree on every point - but we are both entitled to our own opinions

>I disagree on every point - but we are both entitled to our own opinions

Absolutely! :) And because neither of us feel 'bullied' about calmly putting forward our own opinions, nobody else need feel 'bullied' either. :) It seems it's not important enough for them to share their opinion. Pity.

There was plenty of opportunity for anyone to put forward their experiences - if they didn't it can safely be assumed they had nothing to they that they felt was either important or relevant.

I think the reason Maria gave is nearer the mark.

>I would suggest that the 'silent majority' are the ones who have no adverse reactions to report, because people are usually very vociferous with complaints

I think this is demonstrated time and again on the internet not just with this issue.

So the 100 dogs counted, are not a true figure.

All I can say is :rolleyes: !Looking towards the ignore button.

>For no other reason than we are 'bullied' for the want of a better word by a minority who have inflated opinions of their own knowledge!<

If I were to choose posts which I felt had a "bullying" tone, I would choose these:

>6-8 weeks is far too young to vaccinate your puppy!<

And

>And, I have to add, I have taken advice from 'experts'.<

>The vast majority of dogs boostered every year will more than likely suffer some type of illness caused by these vaccines.  It is very difficult to pinpoint the vaccine, in some cases even the owner wouldn't associate the illness with the vaccine.<

>But keeping on topic, 6 weeks is far too young to vaccinate.<

I would like to add to previous requests for evidence to support the statement that "The vast majority of dogs boostered every year will more than likely suffer some type of illness caused by these vaccines."

but I don't think you can come out with such statements with such assumed authority.

The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind !

Those who've never lost a dog to an adverse vaccination reaction will never really understand the heartache and devastation that goes with it.  [This is only my opinion, of course :)]

>The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind

Pardon?  As my comments are always directing people towards whatever the current professional view is I'm not sure what you have based yours on.
I can certainly understand how devasting it is to loose a dog to an adverse reaction something similar to loosing them to disease I would say.  It seems sensible for people who have lost beloved animals to either circumstances to look to the best available advise as to the best way of avoiding either.

I'm basing my comments on the fact that, in my opinion, most of your posts on this subject have an air of 'assumed authority' about them. 

Perhaps you could quote where I have ever given an opinion on what people ought to be doing other than be guided by the professionals.  I think they are the ones with the "authority" :)

Those who've never lost a dog to an adverse vaccination reaction will never really understand the heartache and devastation that goes with it.

And then there's those of us who have lost dogs to DISTEMPER and Parvo..........

It is rather at odds with the independent research such as the POOCH report.

Independent research???  Not relying or dependent on others, completely self governing, acting for oneself, not subject to bias.
The pooch report was funded by vaccine companies!!!

And as with all research, you only find what you are looking for. :(

And as with all research, you only find what you are looking for

Indeed we do Val, that's why if we research for ourselves at least we have an informed choice.

How will you be informed if you are only looking at research that gives you the answer you expected.  Have a look at this site Maria and it may help you appreciate the need for good study skills in the scientific arena to avoid that trap.

Not if you have been taught good study skills Val, which is certainly what you can expect of vets.

The research is carried out by people employed by drug companies.  Having worked for a pharmaceutical company, I've seen the system in action, as well as personally distributed 'gifts' when prescription targets have been met. ;)

If you are familiar with the scientific world you will know that research is replicated again and again by others.  If researchers were so disreputable as to falsify results they would soon be exposed.  Prescribing targets is not data.
If we are going to doubt the integrity and data of research should be not do this across the boards including the data found in support of pet theories ;)  If we are never going to believe what science tells us we may as well live as we did in the dark ages.

Scientific research is continually disproved by others.  Which ever side of the fence you sit, there will always be "experts" with evidence to prove otherwise.

Prescribing targets is not data.
Certainly but it's a good enough reason for many to keep doing what they've always done to pay their bills and take their families on holiday!  Yes, I've distributes holidays too. :(  If GPs used generic drugs instead brand names they'd save the NHS a fortune to save other peoples' lives. :(

I have seen the veterinary and human medical professions work from the other side of the fence, which of course will influence my views.  Anyway, I'll not continue.  Everyone knows my views on ethical vaccination and boosters by now.

Contradictions are found but there would generally be a difference in degree from that of totally false data which would soon become obvious.  The contradictions are smoothed out by the academic process, the true "experts" are the ones that weight it all up :)

I am sure you have read the Animal Health Trust's
codicil many times Maria

>NOAH submitted a proposal for a scientifically valid study, but AHT stressed that they were prepared to undertake the project only on the clear contractual understanding that the work would be completely independent and that NOAH could not influence either the outcome or the eventual publication of the results.

Note:

>The Animal Health Trust is a registered charity committed to improving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of injuries and diseases which affect companion animals.

I can read your posts perfectly well, Maria, there is no need to enbolden all your comments except perhaps if you are using that method to define quotes :)  It looks a bit like shouting :)

>The vast majority of dogs boostered every year will more than likely suffer some type of illness caused by these vaccines.

Where is your evidence? As Goldmali says, the anecdotal evidence from this site is the exact opposite.

>It is very difficult to pinpoint the vaccine, in some cases even the owner wouldn't associate the illness with the vaccine.

Then it's just as likely to not be caused by the vaccine.

And what about the very many dogs which are boostered every year and never get ill?

i think im going to do at 8weeks & 10 weeks then, which is what i had with flynn.

i wouldnt want it left later than that idont think

Sometimes things are not as they seem when first introduced for public use even though research and data supporting the drugs is available - thalidomide falls to mind.

That is always a risk, yes, with all advances in medical science to go with all the benefits but as nothing more recent than thalidomide, which occured nearly 50 years ago now, springs to mind I think we can get the impression of how great this risk might be :)