Why Should We Waste 4 Billion $$ Over The Next 10 Years?

[Steph M]

"There are only 3 possible groups who can be affected by the virus"

Nope.

Vaccination isn't 100% and different strains of viruses come and go. Any dog really can pick up the disease and spread it about.

Its like me saying I had the flu shot, so am totally immune to the flu now.

What actually happens is I can get the flu but the severity, symptoms and duration are less because my body has worked out how to fight the flu.

I think if you're going to push this agenda so hard you really need some immunology education, ideally not from google.

There will always be a vulnerable subset, seniors & the very young, immune system compromised and the sick, that's where herd immunity comes in and where its important those able to ensure their dogs are vaccinated.

[tdierikx]

Does Schultz's study take into account the living conditions and exposure to the diseases vaccinated for over time?

If his study was done using animals in a controlled and sterile environment, then maybe one could come to the conclusion that the vaccines will give "lifetime" immunity on their own - but the best way to keep up the immunity is by stimulation of the antibodies to propagate - and how is that done unless there is some small exposure to the diseases somehow - be it via regular vaccination or by the actual disease in the environment?

Interestingly, parvovirus in dogs was first seen in 1978, and that is when the first reccommendation for regular vaccinations of dogs was enacted (according to Schultz)...

Also - the rabies vaccine still only lasts a maximum of 3 years... not necessarily relevant here in Australia, but interesting, yes?

My old girl was a voracious copraphagic - and I know she actually ate parvo infected poop more than 7 years after her last vaccination for same - to no effect. I asked a vet friend of mine why that would be so, and she indicated that the number of foster puppies I had had over those years may have been carrying small amounts of various diseases in, which helped my own dogs' antibodies stay up to scratch.

T.

[Steve]

Does Schultz's study take into account the living conditions and exposure to the diseases vaccinated for over time?

If his study was done using animals in a controlled and sterile environment, then maybe one could come to the conclusion that the vaccines will give "lifetime" immunity on their own - but the best way to keep up the immunity is by stimulation of the antibodies to propagate - and how is that done unless there is some small exposure to the diseases somehow - be it via regular vaccination or by the actual disease in the environment?

Interestingly, parvovirus in dogs was first seen in 1978, and that is when the first reccommendation for regular vaccinations of dogs was enacted (according to Schultz)...

Also - the rabies vaccine still only lasts a maximum of 3 years... not necessarily relevant here in Australia, but interesting, yes?

My old girl was a voracious copraphagic - and I know she actually ate parvo infected poop more than 7 years after her last vaccination for same - to no effect. I asked a vet friend of mine why that would be so, and she indicated that the number of foster puppies I had had over those years may have been carrying small amounts of various diseases in, which helped my own dogs' antibodies stay up to scratch.

T.

Ive learned that asking a vet doesn't always get you the correct answer .Given the choice of saying it's probably because the dog got the shots when it was young and it is now still immune its better to give another answer that doesn't impact on their income.In fact that answer is pretty dumb in my opinion.

I had measles when I was a child about 60 years ago and I don't feel the need to run off and get a jab every year. My 40 year old daughter recently had to have anti body tests to ensure her immunity was O.K. to a variety of diseases to enable her to start work at a health related job and she is still immune to all of that stuff that she was vaccinated for or had in her few early years of life. Schultz's study took into account all of the variables using data from dogs from all different environments over decades. He started his study in the mid 70's and 100% were still immune 7 to 10 years after vaccination. About 28 % of puppies which get parvo have been vaccinated due to the presence of maternal anti bodies. The maternal antibodies for Parvo are unpredictable and studies show they can last for up to 26 weeks.

You only need one vaccination for your dog to be immune for life but the trick is to ensure the needle goes in when the maternal antibodies are low enough for it to produce the desired response.

Studies show that when puppies are vaccinated at 6 weeks, 9 weeks and 12 weeks of age their response to the vaccine by their titers to Parvovirus were At 6 weeks, only 52% of the puppies had developed an immune response,at nine weeks 88% and at 12 weeks 100%

Obviously there is a whole lot more to say but in the main Im with Willem. Get a titer test at 26 weeks and if it shows antibodies you don't need any more vaccinations.If it doesn't get a vaccination and to be sure another titer test after at least 3 weeks.

[Willem]

wrt vets: I fully understand if a vet sticks with the AVA guidelines first and won't offer a titer test as an alternative for a routine core vaccination. The reason: if something goes wrong (and there is always Murphy's law) after they recommended an alternative approach that doesn't comply with AVA guidelines, it might get them in a position where they have to defend themselves. Conversely, if e.g. a dog would die due to side effects following a routine core vaccination the vet can always refer to the AVA guidelines and is from the hook respectively covered by their insurance.

However, I assume most vets - at least my vet was - will be very happy to discuss the pro and cons of titer testing if the dog owner suggests it.

here another interesting article (not from R.D. Schultz): http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/17538/DeCramer_Efficacy%282011%29.pdf?sequence=1

[_PL_]

Steve this is probably a question for you.

I had a 12 to 16 wk pound litter with no known vaccine history vetworked at a vet I don't normally use, but it was due to location so saved travel. Anyway - I've only had pups done with C3 for littlies and a for older pups C5.

So I was really taken aback when they were given a C7! It seems complete over-kill and I wasn't happy that it was so routine for babies and that nobody checked my instructions. They didn't get visibly ill but it's always worried me. Were they lucky not to react in some way?

[tdierikx]

C7 does Lepto and Corona, yes? I'd say that at between 12-16 weeks, that wouldn't have been a bad thing if those diseases were prevalent in the area the vet was located...

As for my vet friend - she used to be the head of the AVA, and is well published herself in disease control - so I'd say she'd possibly be a little more informed than a regular suburban vet, yes? She did recommend that my old girl should get the nasal Canine Cough vaccine though... as many rescue fosters came with that one pre-loaded... *grin*

T.

[Steve]

Steve this is probably a question for you.

I had a 12 to 16 wk pound litter with no known vaccine history vetworked at a vet I don't normally use, but it was due to location so saved travel. Anyway - I've only had pups done with C3 for littlies and a for older pups C5.

So I was really taken aback when they were given a C7! It seems complete over-kill and I wasn't happy that it was so routine for babies and that nobody checked my instructions. They didn't get visibly ill but it's always worried me. Were they lucky not to react in some way?

So far they were lucky - the studies show that multi vaccines give a much higher risk of disease development later on . The breaking out in hives and getting obviously ill after a vaccine is pretty rare but there is ample documentation to show that if a puppy's immune system is already depleted due to stress or worms etc that multi vaccines can actually give the pup the disease its being vaccinated against - and long term side effects wont be known for a longer time. See references following.

Look everyone should vaccinate their dogs - its ridiculous to consider not doing so but its not a case of just jabbing them with everything available - its about risk assessment .Whether the potential problems are greater than the potential benefits. Parvo is horrible it kills dogs dead and in puppies its heartbreaking to watch a baby suffer with it .In my opinion the vet who gave your puppies a C7 was an idiot.

Quote.

On a related note, polyvalent vaccines (containing more than one disease component) also increase the risk of vaccine failure. The more antigens contained in a vaccine, the more viral replication the puppy will experience at once, meaning his immune system might be stretched to the limit, allowing one of the antigens to develop into full blown disease – and the risk is even greater in small dogs. The immune system is a finite resource and can only be stretch so far so it is safest to avoid giving multiple antigens on one vaccine (Moore et al, JAVMA, 2005]

And

The Purdue studies, although labelled as inconclusive at the time, reveal some unique insights into how vaccination can manifest as chronic disease. In this study, the vaccinated but not the unvaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals including:

• Fibronection (Involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs),
• Laminin (Involved in many cellular activities including the intelligence, proliferation and movement of cells),
• Cardiolipin (Frequently found in patients with Lupus Erythematosus and other autoimmune diseases. Cardiolipin is also significantly associated with fetal loss and neurological conditions),
• Collagen (Provides structure to bones and soft tissue and likely the reason why a high number of dogs developed mobility problems shortly after vaccination in the Canine Health Concern 1997 study),
• DNA (Yes, the vaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to their own DNA).

[Willem]

this comprehensive paper from June 2009 raises some inconvenient questions, which IMO are not answered respectively addressed by the current version of the AVA guidelines.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Willem

[_PL_]

Steve this is probably a question for you.

I had a 12 to 16 wk pound litter with no known vaccine history vetworked at a vet I don't normally use, but it was due to location so saved travel. Anyway - I've only had pups done with C3 for littlies and a for older pups C5.

So I was really taken aback when they were given a C7! It seems complete over-kill and I wasn't happy that it was so routine for babies and that nobody checked my instructions. They didn't get visibly ill but it's always worried me. Were they lucky not to react in some way?

So far they were lucky - the studies show that multi vaccines give a much higher risk of disease development later on . The breaking out in hives and getting obviously ill after a vaccine is pretty rare but there is ample documentation to show that if a puppy's immune system is already depleted due to stress or worms etc that multi vaccines can actually give the pup the disease its being vaccinated against - and long term side effects wont be known for a longer time. See references following.

Look everyone should vaccinate their dogs - its ridiculous to consider not doing so but its not a case of just jabbing them with everything available - its about risk assessment .Whether the potential problems are greater than the potential benefits. Parvo is horrible it kills dogs dead and in puppies its heartbreaking to watch a baby suffer with it .In my opinion the vet who gave your puppies a C7 was an idiot.

Quote.

On a related note, polyvalent vaccines (containing more than one disease component) also increase the risk of vaccine failure. The more antigens contained in a vaccine, the more viral replication the puppy will experience at once, meaning his immune system might be stretched to the limit, allowing one of the antigens to develop into full blown disease – and the risk is even greater in small dogs. The immune system is a finite resource and can only be stretch so far so it is safest to avoid giving multiple antigens on one vaccine (Moore et al, JAVMA, 2005]

And

The Purdue studies, although labelled as inconclusive at the time, reveal some unique insights into how vaccination can manifest as chronic disease. In this study, the vaccinated but not the unvaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals including:

• Fibronection (Involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs),
• Laminin (Involved in many cellular activities including the intelligence, proliferation and movement of cells),
• Cardiolipin (Frequently found in patients with Lupus Erythematosus and other autoimmune diseases. Cardiolipin is also significantly associated with fetal loss and neurological conditions),
• Collagen (Provides structure to bones and soft tissue and likely the reason why a high number of dogs developed mobility problems shortly after vaccination in the Canine Health Concern 1997 study),
• DNA (Yes, the vaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to their own DNA).

Jesus! How is it even allowed here in Sydney? I'm not sure I've ever heard of a dog getting Lepto here.

We had the WTF phonecall but it was all done by then.

[Steve]

Its about the risk factors for your puppies.

They are rescue pups, vaccination status of mother unknown,

nutritional status of the mother and earlier for the litter unknown

Recently been under stress

Worming history and parasite control unknown.

Obviously they need a shot for Parvo and because a live vaccine in this day and age comes with min 3 different diseases if you want a live vaccine given by a vet you get no choice but to take the C3

If the vet thought that your puppies should be vaccinated for these extra things - fine discuss it but don't jab them with the lot all at once when they are at high risk for an already lowered immune system.

A whole other discussion can be had for the ability for a person to be able to have a live vaccine for only parvo or any other under current options from a vet. Given that a C7 is way outside what is normally recommended and the potential risk versus potential benefits I think the vet was wrong.

What if anything that will mean later on wont tie that vet's decision in with the outcome.

[_PL_]

Thanks Julie :)

they're going on 4 yrs old and are still robust little critters. Maybe being slightly older helped? I don't know. For any pup their age my comfort zone is C3 + intranasal KC especially considering it's often a full vetwork & desex day.

I'm really nervy about yearly heartworm (not sure exactly why) so it's totally off the table. But everyone who uses it seems quite happy so maybe I'm being paranoid. I figure once something is injected you can't get it out again if there's a bad reaction!

[Willem]

Thanks Julie :)

they're going on 4 yrs old and are still robust little critters. Maybe being slightly older helped? I don't know. For any pup their age my comfort zone is C3 + intranasal KC especially considering it's often a full vetwork & desex day.

I'm really nervy about yearly heartworm (not sure exactly why) so it's totally off the table. But everyone who uses it seems quite happy so maybe I'm being paranoid. I figure once something is injected you can't get it out again if there's a bad reaction!

wrt the negative side effects of annual heartworm injections here an older thread: http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/80088-annual-heartworm-injections-adverse-reactions/

It is a mystery why annual shots are still available and allowed in areas where heartworm infections are seasonal!!!!!! ...and for areas where it would be really required all year around monthly administrations would keep the toxic levels at least on a much lower threshold.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Willem

[Steve]

Thanks Julie :)

they're going on 4 yrs old and are still robust little critters. Maybe being slightly older helped? I don't know. For any pup their age my comfort zone is C3 + intranasal KC especially considering it's often a full vetwork & desex day.

I'm really nervy about yearly heartworm (not sure exactly why) so it's totally off the table. But everyone who uses it seems quite happy so maybe I'm being paranoid. I figure once something is injected you can't get it out again if there's a bad reaction!

wrt the negative side effects of annual heartworm injections here an older thread: http://www.dolforums...erse-reactions/

It is a mystery why annual shots are still available and allowed in areas where heartworm infections are seasonal!!!!!! ...and for areas where it would be really required all year around monthly administrations would keep the toxic levels at least on a much lower threshold.

There is much which is mysterious. I live in an area where there are no mozzies - never. My property is miles from any other with dogs, and yet the vets still insist I need heartworm meds .In NSW you have to give heartworm meds unless the vet advises against it - same if it is a breeding dog. Vaccination every year unless the vet advises against it - no such thing as a vet that advises against it around here. So you can let your pet dog go without heartworm meds and yearly vaccinations without breaking the law but if its a breeding dog - who cares?

Follow the money.

[sandgrubber]

where I get p.o.'d about the $ is in the markups done by big pharma . . . not the vets.

Ivermectin is cheap. I buy the horse/cow formulations and work out dosage for my dogs and an $30 bottle will last me a couple years. I'd be paying $30/mo if I bought Heartguard or other formulations specific for dogs.

Likewise spinosad, as an insecticide, costs a tiny fraction of what it costs as the active ingredient in flea meds (no, I'm not brave enough to formulate my own flea meds from insecticides, but I wish someone else would work out a safe way to do so).

The big pharma companies view pet meds as a cash cow. Charge what they're willing to pay. And pet owners love their pets enough to open their wallets wide.

[Danois]

How about all the money that goes into developing those products, all the testing to ensure it is safe, cost of bringing it to market, product improvements etc

Your own post says it - wish someone would work out a safe way. That's what the costs get spent on...a company developing same medication.

[sandgrubber]

How about all the money that goes into developing those products, all the testing to ensure it is safe, cost of bringing it to market, product improvements etc

Your own post says it - wish someone would work out a safe way. That's what the costs get spent on...a company developing same medication.

I doubt that the cost of testing ivermectin for heartworm treatment exceeded two months profit. The tests they do are of a something of a sham anyway. They aren't required to test all breeds, and testing on laboratory beagles isnt going to tell you about genetic mutations that are concentrated in collie breeds.

If you spend a bit of time browsing the big pharma economics writings, you'll find that pet meds are considered an very high profit part of the business.

[Danois]

Lol! I don't need to read - I find it easier to talk to the people actually in the industry.

[Willem]

Lol! I don't need to read - I find it easier to talk to the people actually in the industry.

that's for sure a recipe to get unbiased information ....

http://www.thedogplace.org/VACCINES/Parvovirus-Vaccine-History_Andrews-0312.asp

[Willem]

while this link doesn't contain something new, it give a very good summary about the advantage of titer testing vs the widely adopted yearly vaccination regime.

The owner of our dog's lab friend told me a few days ago that he was due for his yearly vaccination shot - at the same vet clinic where I discussed the titer testing for our dog a few weeks ago. It just shows that if dog owners don't ask, they just go on and on with this risky vaccination scheme.

[sandgrubber]

while this link doesn't contain something new, it give a very good summary about the advantage of titer testing vs the widely adopted yearly vaccination regime.

The owner of our dog's lab friend told me a few days ago that he was due for his yearly vaccination shot - at the same vet clinic where I discussed the titer testing for our dog a few weeks ago. It just shows that if dog owners don't ask, they just go on and on with this risky vaccination scheme.

Very dangerous website. That window, between 8 wks and 16 weeks, is where most parvo deaths occur. There is good reason for the multiple jabs that most vets recommend. Sure, if you live out in the middle of nowhere where there are no potential sources of parvo around, one jab at 16 weeks is adequate protection. Most of us don't have that protection, and when you buy a pup from a breeder, the breeder probably doesn't have that protection either.

.

LISTS of possible adverse reactions are meaningless without data on how frequent the adverse reaction is. Most are VERY rare. ...less probable than the chance of getting in a car accident when you go out your driveway.

Arguments about yearly vs. three yearly are well supported by evidence . . . three yearly is adequate and annual is a waste of money as well as a tiny risk of adverse reaction. But you'll find this advice all over the place.

Shultz's work on the rabies vaccine, which it was hoped would show lifetime immunity, has, so far, shown that immunity has begun to wane at 5 years. To my knowledge, equivalent tests have not been done for parvo.

Risk:benefit studies often flounder on how you weigh the costs of a death . . . in these cases, a death with extreme suffering (parvo is a hideous disease). For communicable diseases, they also flounder on how to cost the risk of transmission to others . . . and the benefit of wiping out a disease in a community.

No question. . . there are vets and clubs and boarding kennels pushing vaccination regimes that aren't supported by science. But I'd hate to see people walking away from puppy jab schedules to save money . . . with the consequence that distemper comes back and parvo becomes even more prevalent.

Titer testing is no panacea. You can come out with an inadequate titer result when the dog is still immune, and the titer is generallhy much more expensive than a vaccine.

Edited May 21, 2016 by sandgrubber