I comprehend the significance of having your own sentiment on immunizations and wouldn't dream of attempting to impact others or being accusing of everybody for pet choices I simply feel that there are other individuals to consider when settling on decisions.
Yearly Vaccines?
-
-
Shelly, they did titers on most. Really it was pretty much a no brainer. Humans get vaccines as children and most last a life time. To think that most dog and animal ones wouldn't was insane. Some of course don't… kennel cough (like our flu) and others need more often.
The other thing that makes me spew is vaccines. About 10 yrs ago they tested 5 drug companies for how effective their parvo was. It ranged from about 12 percent to over 90 percent (progard). VETS KNEW, yet were still ordering the cheap stuff. If anyone is interested I'll dig out the report. Of course, 10 yrs and much has changed but it was a disgrace. I showed it to my vets who immediately changed vaccines.
-
However - mine are vaccinated at puppyhood and then are on a homeopathic regime for the rest of their lives.
Secondly, you could use the homoeopathic alternative instead. This has been used by many breeders and show people for years. Reports indicate that homoeopathically protected dogs are far healthier than vaccinated dogs. There are several scientific studies showing that the homoeopathic alternative works. [From the link you gave, Patty.]
What are the homeopathic regimes? Is there a book or website that gives this information? I have no idea what's being talked about here.
-
It is because most of the research used titers only that they are not able to be labeled as 3 year or more vaccines. In order to change the labeling the vaccines must be challenge tested to prove efficacy since there is controversy about the effectiveness of titers to predict immunity. Most vets are recommending a 3 year protocol based on the titer results alone. Intervet/Schering Plough did do 3 year challenge testing on their Continuum line of vaccines and was able to obtain 3 year labeling based on those tests.
-
And yet, titers testing has proven to be reliable in all human studies, apes, etc. The only reason to refuse it with dogs is, pardon my cynicism, because the drug companies and vets want more money and pretend they think it is different in dogs.
-
It is not the drug companies that mandate what needs to be done for labeling. The whole reason for the Rabies Challenge Fund is that in order to increase the labeling of rabies vaccines to greater than 3 years requires Challenge Testing to be done to prove efficacy. Titers are not good enough if a company wants to label their vaccine for longer duration.
-
Okay guess I wasn't clear. The drug companies and vets lobby to keep labeling requirements as they are. The truth is that most drugs by company A and B have the same lasting effect… and forcing testing by exposure does 2 things... risks dogs who are often then destroyed, ups the cost many folds, and in this case proves what has already been proven with human and ape and rat and other testing... which is that titers do indeed show immunity levels.
I do have to say that at least with rabies, the deaths of dogs MIGHT almost be justified. But most people don't realize that new products come about with LITERALLY thousands of deaths of animals. Frontline I am pretty sure killed well over 5,000 during the testing phase because they test, then the kill, then they do necropsy studies.
-
I emailed the RCVS to get their protocol, this is the reply i recievedDear Ms Cuff
Thank you for your e-mail enquiry.
The RCVS, as a regulatory body, is unable to offer independent clinical advice. We deal primarily with allegations of professional misconduct and we are required by statute to investigate complaints against registered members which may give rise to such an allegation.
Any questions about how often vaccinations should be administered should be raised with your veterinary surgeon. We are aware that there are some different views in the US, but this is not something the RCVS has commented on.
I am sorry I am unable to provide any further advice on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Laura McClintock
-
Very non-committal, but not a lot of help!
-
