Mango Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I have just booked my dog in to the local vet as he is still itching his bottom a lot despite being regularly wormed, so I've realised something else may be going on. I was very unimpressed with my conversation with the vet when booking in so need some advice. I have always been particular about yearly vaccinations until the information came out from the AVA saying that they are no longer required on a yearly basis, so I was thinking of going every second year now instead. When I rang, the vet gave me the big guilt trip for not bringing the dog in to his vaccinations 3 months ago. I advised I was aware of the AVA information and had discussed it with the other vet (his wife) when I was there 15 months ago. He also poo-poo'ed the worming products I get from the supermarket, saying they are from Africa and America and generally no good. I am starting to see red and inclined to cancel the appointment. I also deal with another excellent large vet surgery in the area when this little one is too busy, it's just that I like to give the small family concern my business when I can. Can anyone please give me some current opinions/advice on the yearly v 3 yearly vaccination debate, and also supermarket worming products? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 The best advice I can give you is to find a vet that you don't feel the need to argue with or justify your decisions. I don't use the supermarket wormers so can't comment on them but the adjustment by the AVA to three yearly vaccination protocols is hardly revolution - its been that way in the USA for years. You can also titre dogs and that's an increasingly common service offered by vets here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minxy Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I'd find a new vet too, if possible. I changed my vets because ALL of the reception staff were horrible. Extremely rude each and every single time, which I just didn't see the need to put up with. I think it's important to find a vet that you trust and get along with. As for the worming medicine, I can't really say much about them for sure. I use the supermarket stuff on my two cats, and they've never once had any issues. I purchase the more expensive vet line stuff for my puppy though. (I buy this online so it's a lot cheaper - buying medicine from your vet is usually about twice the price of what you can find it online for). Another great thing about my vet - when we first bought Kyojin and just took him to get looked over, the vet asked what worming/flea treatment we were going to use. So I told him what we had decided on, and he went and grabbed me a pack of each. I said oh sorry, I've found them really cheaply online so I was going to do that. He said okay yea sure thing, and gave me a free single use of each to last me until my online order would arrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inevitablue Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Hi I worked for a big animal pharma company and they produced all the Exelpet products under licence. Same manufacturing process, same quality ingredients as listed on the packet. Its the marketing costs and the route to market the product takes that pushes up the price (maunfacturer to supermarket vs manufacturer to wholesaler to vet to consumer) Its understanding the capabilities of the particular chemicals that should influence purchasing.... eg Febantel vs Fenbendazole for Giardia. If I see the ingredients and the mg/kg are the same as the higher end products I'm happy to use a supermarket brand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Here is a link to the AVA vaccination protocol: http://ava.informz.net/ava/data/images/doc...inal-june09.pdf Many of us have been using this protocol or similar for years before the AVA 'approved' it though. If you are not comfortable with the vet I would make an appointment with a different one. You need someone you can work with and discuss things with, not someone you feel you have to argue with or who makes you feel stupid and defensive. They are a partner in your animals care and you have a say too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 No vet should belittle you they should hear you out and if they do not agree present their opinion to you as to why they recommend their protocol, then you take it or leave it. I rang my vet and told them I wanted to order the 3 year vaccine they told me that they would not be recommending it and I said fine Dogs are all done with triennial vaccine, excpet for the old dog who hasn't been vacc'd for a number of years now. I might add I find the younger vets who have done their own research are more likely to accept the new protocol, A young new grad and I had a discussion aout it many eyars ago and she recommended that I no longer vacc my older dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leema Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Vaccinations are a matter of considerable debate within the dog world. You should conduct some research of your own and reach a decision you are most comfortable with - with it sounds like you have, and you need to stick to your guns. My recommendations are: • If you choose to give your dog ‘booster’ vaccinations, you do so every 3 years at maximum. You may wish to titre test prior to vaccination, to determine is vaccination is necessary. Vaccinate with either Duramine (3 yearly vaccine) or Parvac. • You should only vaccinate for kennel cough if you intend to board your dog and if the kennels you use require this vaccination. Use the intranasal vaccination 3 days prior to admission to the kennels. • Vaccinations for conditions other than Parvovirus, Distemper, Hepatitis and Kennel Cough are not recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Vaccinations are a matter of considerable debate within the dog world. You should conduct some research of your own and reach a decision you are most comfortable with - with it sounds like you have, and you need to stick to your guns.My recommendations are: • If you choose to give your dog ‘booster’ vaccinations, you do so every 3 years at maximum. You may wish to titre test prior to vaccination, to determine is vaccination is necessary. Vaccinate with either Duramine (3 yearly vaccine) or Parvac. • You should only vaccinate for kennel cough if you intend to board your dog and if the kennels you use require this vaccination. Use the intranasal vaccination 3 days prior to admission to the kennels. • Vaccinations for conditions other than Parvovirus, Distemper, Hepatitis and Kennel Cough are not recommended. I'm afraid I still don't fully understand this "3-yearly vaccine" (which is often confused with the concept of annual vaccine being given once every 3 years). My understanding is that with the vaccines we generally use annually, the new concept is that using these any more frequently than once every 3 years is over-vaccinating. That being the case, why does anyone (Vet or otherwise) recommend the "3-yearly" vaccine? And I don't mean for political/financial gain reasons. Edited January 7, 2011 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 That being the case, why does anyone (Vet or otherwise) recommend the "3-yearly" vaccine? And I don't mean for political/financial gain reasons. Because to use a 12month vaccine and sign off for three years is contrary to the labelling insructions so if a dog contracts the disease the vet could be liable. The Trienniel vaccine is registered and tested for three years therefore can be signed off on for 3 years and therefore the vets backside is covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 That being the case, why does anyone (Vet or otherwise) recommend the "3-yearly" vaccine? And I don't mean for political/financial gain reasons. Because to use a 12month vaccine and sign off for three years is contrary to the labelling insructions so if a dog contracts the disease the vet could be liable. The Trienniel vaccine is registered and tested for three years therefore can be signed off on for 3 years and therefore the vets backside is covered. I wonder why they would 'invent' a new vaccine and test it so they could sign off on it for 3 years, rather than testing the existing annual vaccines for the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormie Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 That being the case, why does anyone (Vet or otherwise) recommend the "3-yearly" vaccine? And I don't mean for political/financial gain reasons. Because to use a 12month vaccine and sign off for three years is contrary to the labelling insructions so if a dog contracts the disease the vet could be liable. The Trienniel vaccine is registered and tested for three years therefore can be signed off on for 3 years and therefore the vets backside is covered. Yep this is why we elected to use it. Plus it keeps boarding kennels, training clubs happy too. We can be confident when we tell people they are covered for 3 years and won't need another. If people want to use the annual vacc triennially, we're happy to do that too. One company is soon to have a vaccine which doesn't have a set time in it's registration, but rather, it's open to vet's discretion, in line with the new protocol. So I think this means that however the vet choses to use it (within a 3 year period I think??) then they are covered. I'm not 100% sure whether it's only up to 3 years or if you could use it say ever 7 years with cover, but hopefully will find out more soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormie Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 That being the case, why does anyone (Vet or otherwise) recommend the "3-yearly" vaccine? And I don't mean for political/financial gain reasons. Because to use a 12month vaccine and sign off for three years is contrary to the labelling insructions so if a dog contracts the disease the vet could be liable. The Trienniel vaccine is registered and tested for three years therefore can be signed off on for 3 years and therefore the vets backside is covered. I wonder why they would 'invent' a new vaccine and test it so they could sign off on it for 3 years, rather than testing the existing annual vaccines for the same thing. I think this is what they did. It's not really a 'new vaccine' as such, it's still covers the same diseases but with more updated strains, eg the newer parvo strain. But to get registration is still a big process. They have to prove that it offers protection for 3 years after administration, so that involves at least a 3 year study, a control group of dogs (which means dogs kept in isolation in sterile conditions for 3 years who are given the virus at various stages to compare to the ones who have the vaccine) and the ones who had the vaccine. They don't just titre test because they don't actually know enough about titre testing to be able to prove 100% that the results equate to cover. It's why I find the whole vaccine issue so difficult. Obviously I'd love to see all vaccines gain a longer registration, but knowing what needs to happen in order to get this, makes me upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) That being the case, why does anyone (Vet or otherwise) recommend the "3-yearly" vaccine? And I don't mean for political/financial gain reasons. Because to use a 12month vaccine and sign off for three years is contrary to the labelling insructions so if a dog contracts the disease the vet could be liable. The Trienniel vaccine is registered and tested for three years therefore can be signed off on for 3 years and therefore the vets backside is covered. Yep this is why we elected to use it. Plus it keeps boarding kennels, training clubs happy too. We can be confident when we tell people they are covered for 3 years and won't need another. If people want to use the annual vacc triennially, we're happy to do that too. One company is soon to have a vaccine which doesn't have a set time in it's registration, but rather, it's open to vet's discretion, in line with the new protocol. So I think this means that however the vet choses to use it (within a 3 year period I think??) then they are covered. I'm not 100% sure whether it's only up to 3 years or if you could use it say ever 7 years with cover, but hopefully will find out more soon. Yep as I attend training at our local dog club my dog has to be vaccinated and my vet will not sign off on a 12month vaccine for 3 years. The new vacc sounds interesting Stormy. Erny it would seem sensible to test the current 12 monthvaccine to see if immunity lasts for a longer peoriod but that would be too simple, don't you know you need the experts to come up with all the long winded expensive ways of doing things!! I do know the parvo in the three year one is different, I am wondering - due to the fact many vaccinated dogs in Perth have died from Parvo - wether or not the new vaccine with the different paro strain (I believe that is what it is) might be a good thing? From what I have heard samples were sent to vaccine labs and it was a different strain than the one currently vaccinated against. Edited January 7, 2011 by OSoSwift Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leema Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The 'new' vaccine (Duramine vaccine) is pretty much the same as any other C3 vaccine, however, it has been empirically tested to show it is effective for 3 years. No other vaccination has this empirical testing, and no other vaccine will have a vet sign off for 3 years. This was a significant investment for the company - to use a sample of dogs and keep them in controlled conditions for 3 years - and probably why they chose to make and market a new vaccine, to cash in on this investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmandaJ Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 On the worming products - some of the research which was provided in the MDBA Parasitology course indicates that the anthalmic levels in the supermarket (lower quality) products is below the effective level. Since there is already evidence to show that intestinal parasites are becoming "immune" to anthalmics the research suggests that you should stay away from the "cheaper brands". It also suggests that where possible treat for known parasites individually - don't treat for something you don't have - use parasite specific drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) On the worming products - some of the research which was provided in the MDBA Parasitology course indicates that the anthalmic levels in the supermarket (lower quality) products is below the effective level. If you read your labels you will find brands that are identical to your name brands. Not all cheaper brands are crap, far from it. Edited January 7, 2011 by Crisovar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now