Jed

chuckandsteve And your reference for that is? wherever it is from it's the only one so you should share it.

Hi Huski, there have been a few threads on this over the period. Here's one which was quite informative, with lots of brawls discussion. You might be able to use some of it on her I think the final advice in that thread was for the OP to buy a rabbit!! :D Happy reading http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...p;hl=vegetarian

Oakway The seminars only covered vaccination protocols really. She's done some interesting research on thyroid, bloat, seizures, but didn't discuss that at the seminars, I don't think.

This went off track somewhere. Most of us answered the op's question. I gave my reasons for my decision, which I made years ago, based on my own experiences, and a lot of research. If you don't agree, that's your right. I don't actually think that anyone stated that "vaccines cause every form of cancer imginable" etc, you wrote that because you don't agree. That's cool. Although I understand that cats get injection site sarcomas(?) I did the research years ago, and I no longer have links on my computer because I don't need them. And I'm not spending time finding them, because I don't care whether you believe in vaccinosis or not. However, if you are genuinely interested, I have given you the names of the acknowledged world authorities on vaccines. If you want more information, google them and contact them, as I advised earlier I've provided plenty of links over the years as this subject has been thoroughly discussed. I am disinterested in what others do, although I have provided the links so they can do the research, if they want - as you can. I do make recommendations to my puppy buyers because that is within my sphere of interest. Diablo, have no idea, you may have to google too.

Im yet to see one.... You will. Might be next week, might be in 5 years, but you will. If you vaccinated EVERY pom or chi, you would have by now. It's a numbers game. Course, it might be another breed, but my dough is on the chis or the poms.

Erny The problem is proving that the problems were caused by the vaccine. There is a compelling body of information out there, from lots of different researchers, but unfortunately, there are also websites which are hysterical. To actually prove anything at law would be a different matter. If you are drunk, and go to sleep on the highway, and wake up with a broken leg, and tyre prints on the skin over your tibia, on the balance of possibilities, you were probably run over by a car. But there is no enduring proof. And you probably can't sue the owner of the Holden who drives on that road nightly at midnight. Re the boxers and cancer - we are doing somthing to them that we began doing in the 80s. It could be environment, or it could be diet, or something else. It could be vaccinations too. There is nothing to suggest diet or enironment, but the British Journal of Cancer suggests long term over activation of the immune system could be a major cause of cancer. The only thing which changed with my own dogs was the vaccines. The ancestors of those boxers, and their immediate relations (uncles, aunts, sisters, brothers etc) all died from "normal" causes. So I cannot accept the diagnosis of "hereditary" or "genetic" which is bandied about so freely - without any proof. The diet was the same. There may have been cancer causing addtives that I was not aware of in the food from the 1980s on, but there is no proof of that, rather there is research which suggests that vaccines may be the problem. It's easy to say "hereditary" but in my case, I have records. If your parents and grandparents and greatgrandparents, uncles and aunts, etc died of non cancer related ailments, it is 100% unlikely that it is hereditary. Most people don't have accurate records going back 20 years - but one line isn't enough for a study or definitive proof. If you vaccinate 5 perfectly healthy pups, and 4 are flat and very ill within an hour, and despite supportive treatment, die within 24 hours, you may think the vaccines were responsible. Many breeders have had the same experience. How many chihuahuas and poms have either fits, or die following vaccinations. A lot. If your dog has atopic dermatitis, and you vaccinate annually, then cease the vaccinations when the dog is 6 and the dermatitis resolves 15 months later never to return, you might consider quite a few causes. Constant use of incorrect shampoo can derange the skin so much that atopic dermatitis is the enduring result, but that would not disappear when you ceased vaccination. If you sell a perfectly healthy pup, with no health problems, and it develops an extremely severe form of leukemia within 4 weeks of an annual vaccine, you might just wonder. When you sell a pup which reaches 3 years without any health problems at all, and it develops ketoneacidosis, without any prior signs of diabetes, and has to be pts within days, you wonder. When the dog has received annual C7 vaccinations religiously, and last one within 3 weeks of the problem appearing, you wonder. And when no related dog has ever exhibited any signs of diabetes you might discount hereditary issues. When a breeder friend phones because the pup she sold was vaccinated at 12 weeks, and given a heart worm injection too, and proceeded to have series of fits within 4 hours of vaccinations. The breeder took the pup back. The fits proceeded, but by the time the dog was two, had stopped. She wasn't vaccinated again. She has adult progeny now, none have had fits. You wonder. A lot of dogs have experienced very similar problems and many others, within x days of vaccinations. There is a lot of information from Dr Ronald Schulz, Dr Bob Rogers, WSAVA, and the AAHA Canine Vaccine Task force, all of which is well documented and researched. Legal liability and best practice, from where I am sitting anyhow - is not always the same. And I don't think anyone came here to bag vets, but when breeders are accused of being unethical because they have researched and come to conclusions which don't agree with those of some vets, there are bound to be defensive posts. But tincture of time will provide proof. The fact that the AVA has changed the vaccination protocol from 1 to 3 years is a positive sign, imho. Even if it took the threat of law suits to do it

As much as I want to deny this, unfortunately it is probably very true. One main reason my old boss wasn't keen on changing, was because he was worried he'd stop seeing people. That and he is also very science based, and wanted hard evidence before doing so. Thing is, where I am now (vet I worked with at that old clinic left and bought his own clinic and I went with them) we have changed to the new protocol, using annual vaccines. Obviously he's assessing each animal, but so far most people have been very appreciative of the information. He's an awesome vet who only has the clients/patients interest at heart, so we're actually getting busier and people keep spreading the word about him! We have also found that most of our clients are the first to ask if they can still come in for an annual health check. As I see it, the biggest problem for practising vets who are not following the recommended protocol on vaccination is the problem of being sued. Advise the owner not to vac, dog gets parvo or something, vet has gone against the recommended protocol, he is liable. It's problematic. What was needed is what has happened - changing the protocol. And advising pet owners so they can make up their own minds. If we decide against the recommended protocol, then WE are liable, which, imho, is fair enough. Dr Bob Rogers court challenge will probably take years, but it will be interesting to see what the outcome is, and what happens then to protocols, depending on the outcome. On health checks - I still have my dogs checked. You didn't research any of this at all, did you?

Whippets, I think the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is the government regulatory body responsible for this. They have been asked to provide information to support revaccination product label claims but have not responded.

alanglen Hmm, didn't think the vets needed to "stand up for their profession". Where was the profession questioned? I must have missed that. *sigh* She's published I dunno how many papers, some is opinion, a lot is researched facts. *sigh*

Cavalier I understand your legal liability as a vet. The WSAVA Fact Sheets advise that duration of immunityafter vaccination is 7 years or longer, based on challenge and serological studies. I posted that earlier. The WSAVA didn't just pull that out of their arse because they wanted something to do, they did studies. The studies are out there, with proper references, for anyone to find. Professor Ronald Schulz says that if a puppy is immunized with the 3 MLV vaccines, there is every reason to believe the animal is vaccinated for life. I haven't seen any studies on this but he is an expert in immunology. I am sure there are proper studies to back his assertions. It's worth googling him too, for anyone who hasn't. Some of us didn't decide not to vaccinate so we could save a quid, or so we could spread parvo willy nilly around the dog population. We made an informed choice based on the best information available, for the welfare of our dogs, and for the future generations of dogs we are breeding. And we were happy to stand against "current" veterinary information (fuelled by drug company advertising) for the sake of our dogs. Now the tide has turned, and the information we acted on 10 or 15 years ago is now widely disseminated, I don't care whether you can find proper studies or not, they are there. I don't have to convince you, but I want pet owners to know what they are doing when they vaccinate their dogs. And you should too. Incidentally, where are the scientific studies showing that dogs need to be vaccinated annually? I've never been able to find any.

Almost EVERY vet practising south of Mackay in Queensland was invited to the Jean Dodds seminar in Brisbane, the ones in Brisbane by phone and letter, the ones further away, by letter. The vet school was advised too. Something like 600+ invitations were issued. If you are in Qld, your clinic was advised, via a letter to the clinic, and vets practising in the clinic were individually invited. The responses to the telephone invitations were - um - illuminating. Ranged from never heard of it, to yes we know, but they wont bring their pets in every year, so we will lose money so we wont do it, to a couple that seemed to think I was suggesting they attend a course in Bestiality 101. I can understand, if vets weren't aware of the AVA discussion a few years previous about changing the vac. protocols, they might not have been interested. But the response was deafening in its lack of response. However, Jean Dodds said that was what would happen.

You misunderstood me, I probably wasn't very lucid. You weren't a vet 20 years ago, and you seem to believe that vets at that time were not accurately able to detect cancer, or other causes of death. There are certainly results of more study and researh available today, but I can assure you that vets were able to diagnose dogs with most forms of cancer, and differentiate between cancer and other problems. There simply weren't many - and NONE in boxers. I hardly believe that many different vets would ALL be incompetent diagnosticians. I oversaw the vaccination of 500 - 600 pups annually over a 5 year period, and the development and spread or control of parvovirus in vaccinated and unvaccinated pups. What I discovered over that time is what led me to research further into parvo. And believe me, the mortality statistics on manufacturers' websites are vastly understated. Dog breeders do not live in caves surrounded by whelping bitches, you know, carefully sounding out each letter of the alphabet so they can comprehend the show results. Those "breeders" you see being collared by the RSPCA on a regular basis are the underbelly of dog breeding. They do it badly because they never learned, or stopped learning. There are proper breeders out there who understand world events, hold down well paid jobs, talk to leaders of industry, manage banks, own small busnesses, advocate in court, heal the sick both physically and mentally, drive buses, and put as much enthuiasm and study into their hobby as they do into their careers. They read, discuss, keep up with research, so they can breed better dogs. And so they can advise their puppy buyers how best to keep their healthy puppy healthy into old age. You might like to check the references I gave in my earlier post, where I quoted the information I give my puppy buyers. There are reference listed there. Some websites do give references. Like you, I don't believe anything without a link to a published paper. I've been reading Bob Rogers, Catherine O'Driscoll and Jean Dodds for 15 years. There are references for everything, or you can contact them, but a lot of the information has been transferred to other websites, and the references haven't moved with it. You need to search for it. I don't have time to reference it all, and I don't think you would believe it anyhow. But - it doesn't matter. You will do what your course has taught you, and I will do what I have learned is the right thing. If I find I am wrong, I will change. I haven't yet, in 14 years, but who knows?

We will have to disagree. I will go with veterinary experts who have spent 20 - 3o years researching vaccines in preference to anyone else with lesser credentials. And, I believe you have not been a vet for 20 years. I can assure you that there were sufficient tests and sufficient knowledge to diagnose quite a lot of cancers,and differentiate between them and other things. Vets did not diagnose ailments by the phases of the moon then, they used clinical tests, or elimination, and I can assure you that cancer was able to be diagnosed, as it was in people. There are sufficient published papers by well qualified researchers to provide proof. The fact that vaccination protocols worldwide have and are changing as more and more research brings proof should be a wake up call. You need to remember that lots of people are educated these days, and whilst their education may not have been in science streams, they have sufficient knowledge, and/or undergrad degrees or PhDs in other disciples, to be able to interpret information, which in most cases, is not couched in particularly scientific terms, but in simple terms which any yobbo can understand. And for those yobbos who can't understand, Jean Dodds was kind enough to couch the scientific mumbo jumbo in simple words of one syllable for us. So kind. Even I could understand. I haven't brought up the issue of thyroid, but there are thyroid cases in Aust which Jean Dodds attributes to vaccines, although not rabies vaccines. You need to do some further research. I think you should delve a bit more. Most of the websites do not have references, but the references exist. A lot of the cases of vaccinosis are not proven, but many are. Ergo, if a cat develops a cancer at the site of a vaccination (and many do), you could extrapolate that by the KISS method, the vac. caused the cancer. Although there is no proof. If x dogs are vaccinated and a large percentage develop lymphoma within z weeks, far higher than the general population, you might just consider that some of those figures were not just "chance". I don't think the AVA took the decision to alter the vac. protocol lightly. Changing the protocol was discussed at the AVA annual conference some years ago, and nothing was done. As more evidence comes to light and the chances of Aust vets having to defend numerous suits from owners of dogs affected by vaccinations, the only wise course was to change the protocols as far as the AVA recommendations to their members. Approximately 55% of vets in Aust are AVA members. Frankly, I'd prefer to believe a world acknowledged expert on vaccines who has done enormous research and study over 30 years, and who has published studies in journals world wide, backed by two other well qualified veterinarians who have similarly published results of research - not in the Womens Weekly, but in veterinary journals, with protocols and editing procedures. The longer you practise, the more adverse reactions you will see. You will kill chihuahuas who will drop dead in the surgery, you will kill obstensibly healthy pups, you will see dogs go flat, and despite supportive treatment, die; you will see dogs develop, over time, atopic skin problems, rheumatism and other problems believed to be caused by vaccinations and if you are open in your desire to learn more as you go, you will begin to wonder. Of course, you can put maltese deaths down to liver problems, or chihuahua deaths down to undiagnosed encephalitis, and other deaths down to "worms" or whatever your wish, but as they mount up, perhaps you will wonder if there just may be another cause. If not you will probably continue to ascribe the results as due to the general unhealthiness of the dogs affected, or other causes. I never ask pet owners to believe me - I ask them to check out the research. Most vets aren't even aware of the research, or, like you, discount it because it doesn't agree with their particular tenets, or is not in line with what they were taught at university. But things are changing. In 10 years, these protocols will be accepted as the norm. And, yes, we will have to disagree. You might think I am wrong, but I know you are wrong. Pets should be vaccinated, but they should be vaccinated to prevent the diseases the vaccines were developed for, not over vaccinated to cause other problems far worse than the original diseases.

I am so sorry about Ruby, so sad. Sometimes conservative treatment works, sometimes not. A vet here was working on graduated exercise etc to build up the muscles, particulaly in immature dogs. It did seem to work. However, it may not have worked with Ruby. All you can do is your best. And you did that. Ruby knows. It's very important to speak to the breeder, seriously, whether the pup is pure or cross bred, to ensure they understand HD and LP and are onto it before you buy. Even then, things go wrong. Pups from low scoring parents can have high scores, it's a matter of shit happens I think. I have a chi x here who has the most appalling patellas and hips I've ever seen. She is a very stressy dog, and the vet is adamant that an op will kill her. Her hindquarters are quite wasted, I think the hips are worse than the LP but she does seem to manage, she is careful with herself. She is 6 now, and I am sure that the HD will be the end of her, but all you can do is give them the best life for as long as that life is a joy to them. And ease them out of it when the suffering escalates. And accept, I think that some people, and some animals, have handicaps, and work with what you have. Some of those websites are gorgeous, and you never find out the reality is vasty different, until you get caught. I do feel for you.

8 weeks is the figure given, but some pups could have a sufficiently mature immune system earlier. W Jean Dodds But the present risk is the most important one.

My pleasure, Erny. Dr Bob is a fiesty one - as Cavandra says, he is sueing - if he wins, the you know what will hit the fan worldwide!! This is what I give my puppy buyers in my information pack. Just for interest.

Cavalier Bullshit. The reason we are seeing more of these diseases is because there ARE more of them. NO boxer from any of the "big" kennels in Q (I know, because I asked EVERY one) died from cancer pre 1980s, pre combined vaccines. They all died at 9+ from heart failure etc. Some lived well into their teens. I lost one at 15, and one at 12. The diagnostics were good enough to differentiate cancer from heart failure. Now you are lucky to get a boxer to 10, and cancer seems to be in a lot of lines. Yes, it's probably hereditary, but it's interesting that cancers became prevalent in boxers from the 1980's onwards. Pups were vaccinated with the temporary measles vaccine at 6 weeks, and given a permanent distemper shot at 12 weeks prior to that. The combines MLV vaccines were introduced to Aust late 70s, early 80s. We've deranged their immune systems so much that they are throwing defective immune systems. I'm not a scientist, and I can see that. And additionally, more and more breeds are now dying from mast cell tumors, lymphomas, bone cancer blah blah. Smaller dogs seem to be have less incidence of cancer than big ones Dogs have 35 times more skin cancer, 4 times as much breast cancer, 8 times as much bone cancer and twice as much leukemia as humans. Research published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2001 suggests long term over activation of the immune system could be a major cause of cancer. There are no proper studies because there is no money in studies. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence going back to Jean Dodds study on the poodle kennel in USA in 198something. Google Jean Dodds Vaccinosis Catherine O'Driscoll Bob Rogers I too vaccinate at 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 12 - 14 months and never again. I've been doing that for 14 years. I've had pups (not mine) here with confirmed parvo. None of my dogs or pups contracted parvo. I don't vaccinate against kennel cough. There are many different strains, and kennel cough is rarely fatal, if treated competently from the beginning. In fact, none of my dogs have ever had kennel cough. And I've had rescue dogs here for years, coming and going. Two cavaliers I have sold which were vaccinated annually died from ketoneacidosis within a week or diagnosis despite not having diabetes; and leukemia within 6 days of diagnosis - both within 8 weeks of their annual C7 vaccination. Which is in line with published research. Before the combined vaccines when we only vaccinated against distemper, dogs acquired ongoing immunity from contact with other dogs, and it was thought the immunity was therefore boosted. I believe the same thing happens with parvo and hep. I personally know of 3 adult dogs, a staffy, a rottweiler, and a brown dog which died from parvo (the staffy belonged to a vet) despite having annual vaccinations. 75% of breeders in this country only give the 3 vaccinaations, and I am quite sure the incidence of parvo in registered dogs is lower than in the general dog population. Not because they are purebred, but because they have sufficient immunity from those vaccinations and they are not over vaccinated. The World Small Animal Veterinary Association has been vigorously campaigning against annual vaccinations for quite some time. The AVA, as far as I am aware, adopted that protocol this year, because of the threat of being liable for vaccinosis. North American Universities adopted and recommended that protocol in 1997 WSAVA state that dogs properly vaccinated with MLV core vaccines have >98% protection from disease. The WSAVA fact sheets advise that duration of immunity after vaccination is seven years OR LONGER based on challenge and serological studies. The evidence is out there, but it's easier for universities to blame those bastard dog breeders for breeding dogs with hereditary cancer, than to read the bloody studies which show (and have shown for years) that over vaccination is a huge and largely unrecognized problem, apart from some sentient and switched on members of the veterinary profession, and quite a lot of dog breeders. And I'd gouge my eyes out with a spoon and eat my own vomit before I vaccinated a bitch pre mating. And probably pluck my nose hairs with a crowbar And vaccinating them when they are pregnant kills the foetuses. Stone dead. And to those confused about vaccinating your dog - I've been saying this for at ;east 6 years, please do google the vets I've given above as a reference, read what they have to say, read the studies, and make your own decision. They are the major veterinary researchers on vaccines in the world. The information is out there. Dr W. Jean Dodds came to every capital city in Australia last year to explain about vaccines to the public and vets, and hardly any vets in Australia could be arsed to go and listen to the major researcher in the world. Sad, eh?

May I ask why you are seeking a vet in Sydney, when you give your location as Qld? Would be much better to return the dog to the breeder and not have to spend a lot of money on it. Get another one without problems. I do realise that you are now fond of the dog, but it is a big responsibility, and imho, the breeder's responsibility.

Yes, Erny, it does do heartworm. I used it on my guys. They were fine. However, I developed a serious dermatitus on my fingers from it. I "feel" through the dogs' coats every day for fleas, I groom them ete. The skin around my fingernails has cracked and peeled. Very painful. Doctor had a fit. At least the dogs are ok

Never on the ground in any pubic place until 10 days after the 2nd and final puppy vaccination. Parvo virus can persist in the ground for years. Pups should be carried in public places for socialisation, not put on the ground.

Do you think that because you have a coe you ignore? A COE has been proven to be better than no code Those who break it are not ignored by the CCs - they are usually dealt with, which can include removing their membership. It has happened, and it does happen. Those people then may breed dogs without registration, and aren't required to follow any code of ethics, so they can do pretty well what they like. And most of them do. There is nothing the ANKC can do about that. The greatest number of dogs who are tested are registered dogs. As far as I know, non registered dogs, including working dogs aren't tested for anything. And working dogs and non registered dogs have health issues and hereditary problems too. If you don't test for anything, it's easy to claim you don't have anything, whether you do or not. And the people who paid to have the tests developed are registered breeders, and only registered breeders, with some grants from research foundations, bequests etc. No other class of breeder has ever contributed a cent towards any tests at all. Because unregistered dogs are not as visible, have no pedigrees which can be sent to universities, those problems are generally not recognized as a class. A vet may see a dog with a hereditary problem, but the information is not collated or disseminated. And I thought this discussion, on a purebred forum, was to advise how best to buy a PUREBRED pup, not yet another registry/purebred dog bash?

And websites are a trap for the unwary. Some of them look fantastic - and the breeders aren't the ones you should be buying from. All the health tests look impressive, all the information (which they copied and pasted from elsewhere) looks great. But some great looking websites belong to some great breeders, buf if you don' know, you haven't any idea which is which. Brooke said it - if a couple of breeders recommend a breeder, and give them a glowing report, go there. Ask people who have the breed where they got their dog, and if they are happy, go there.

shortstep Just moving away from HD and tracheas, there is some information that suggests that diet has much bigger impact on a lot of areas of dog health than any studies have so far proven. Steve often refers to Pottingers cats, which is incredibly interesting, and worthy reading for any serious breeder. There is an accumulating body of evidence that a raw diet and the addition of enzyme Q10 arrests the progression of murmurs and MVD. There is a lot of unproven information out there, and if you have any knowedge at all, it is worth reading a lot of it, whilst bearing in mind there is no proof. I've tried a few things on my lot but a trial is not a study, and I don't have enough to do a study, but I keep the information for future reference, and hope that over time, I might have a study.

Skysoaring Magpie Oh, goodie, I'm a bullshit artist

puggy puggy Do you have any reference to that? My vet doesn't agree with that, and many non-brachy breeds do it.