PDA

View Full Version : Conventional Vaccines Vs Nosodes....



Maxxs_Mummy
7th July 2006, 05:58 PM
Anyone got any views on this?

I was going to treat both of mine with Nosodes instead of conventional vaccs, as Maxx has SM and I suspect Charlie of having it too.

However, when I told James yesterday, he almost choked and said I would be mad to do so as they lost 4 dogs with Leptospirosis and 6 or 7 with Parvo in their surgery alone last year. And also that his mate who is a homoeopathic vet treated his dogs with Nosodes and then tested their immunity and they had none.

I feel like I am at square one with the debating thing inside my head again. I had just made my mind up to Nosode vaccinate and now I am worrying that if I do then I might lose one of them.

I think I am more worried as, when Maxx was about 10mths old he picked up an infection similar to Parvo that almost killed him. The Vet said then that if he hadn't been Vaccinated then we'd surely have lost him - they lost several other dogs in that surgery with the same thing and the footpath, park and fields that I used to walk him in had to all be closed and sprayed.

Anyone got any advice on what they would do in similar circumstances please? I don't want to leave them unvaccinated & risk losing them but nor do I want to vaccinate and risk hurting Maxx's SM. HELP!!!!

misty
7th July 2006, 11:16 PM
Oh, this is a nightmare dilemma, isn't it?

I can't offer any help, but am facing a similar quandary with Cailean. He's had all his boosters up to last May and is now 6 years old.

Someone was telling me the other week about a breeder that had blood test on one of her dogs to see if its' vaccinations were still effective after a year. Apparently, it revealed the dog had full immunity still.

I'm torn about what to do about Cailean now. Generally, family can always 'babysit' him if we are going away. Also, pretty soon he'll be on a cocktail of heart meds., so I'd rather not fill him up with even more chemicals.

Good luck with your decision.

judy
8th July 2006, 02:11 AM
this is a new subject to me that i am trying to learn more about. from what i have learned so far, i don't see it as an urgent matter to have all the vaccinations, i mean, that i can take some time to study it, i don'thave to feel that it's now or never. As of now, Zack has had all his puppy shots except Bordatella and Rabies, and right now, i don't plan to have bordatella. I do plan to have rabies, but would like to postpone it until his immune system is mature and stable. He's 9 months old now.

One thing is, i don't think it should be black and white, there's lots of shades of gray.

The issues that interest me below are things i've learned mainly from reading discussions about these things. I don't know if they are true, i mean, i haven't verfied them. They are just ideas i've been introduced to that may be true. So these are my concerns:

One issue is, they give several vaccinations in one shot. There's evidence to suggest that vaccinations can stress a body's immune system. If so, might it be better to have just one of them at a time, spaced apart?

Another issue is, they give the same dosage size of vaccine to a chihuahua or a puppy that they give to a 100 pound dog. The drug companies don't make different sizes for different sized animals. It might be better if this was not the case, the problems associated with vaccinations might be reduced by giving an appropriate amount of vaccine.

Another issue is the adjuvant, the catalyst or substance that is combined with the vaccine. Drug companies are not required to fully disclose all of these, but one of them is mercury. There has been a movement among parents and other supporters of kids with autism because there is some evidence suggesting that autism has increased in frequency with the use of the mercury adjuvant.

Cats have been killed, apparently, by this adjuvant. I think this is no longer controversial--it has caused aggressive fatal sarcomas and other bone cancers in cats at the vaccination site. Just a small percentage of cats get it, but high enough of a risk that the manufacturer has finally made an adjuvant free vaccine for cats, and i believe conventional veternary practice is now to use the adjuvant free vaccine with cats (this is quite recent). But there is not yet an adjuvant free vaccine for dogs (this is with respect to rabies vaccine).

Another issue: There are one year and three year vaccines, and I have heard that there is no difference between them, it's just a matter of the local conventions of different states in the US, whether a three year vaccine protocol will be accepted.

The adjuvant free vaccine (for cats) only comes in a one year label right now.

So whether a pet is required to have a yearly or an every three year vacinnation depends only on where a person lives and what their vet is ok with, not necessarily on what is needed for protection.

Another issue is that some vaccinations are more necessary than others. Some diseases are a real risk and vaccinations play a clear life saving role, as with parvo and distemper. With other diseases, maybe the vaccinations should be more discretionary for an owner to decide between them and their vet. Reportedly, my dog has a better chance of being struck by lightening than of getting rabies in the area where i live, but in other areas, the risk is greater.

Many people report that the Bordatella or kennel cough vaccine causes kennel cough in a lot of dogs and they become sick and it takes time to get them over it. On the other hand, in a healthy dog, kennel cough is not a serious illness, no more than a cold or flu is serious in humans. It's self limiting and the dog will recover fully, and will not be very sick, although the cough is annoying. Is the benefit worth the risk of vaccinating?

That's the question with all these issues. These issues would be irrelevant if there was no problem with vaccinations. There is some evidence supporting the idea that they may contribute to some serious immune problems in some animals, or make them more vulnerable to such problems, and there is some evidence that over time, as use of vaccinations increases, veterinary practices are increasingly seeing illness that were never seen 30 years ago--back then, mostly they saw broken bones, foreign body ingestion and that sort of thing, but now there is a steady parade of allergic type illnesses and autoimmune things, cushings and addisons, stuff like that. And these can shorten animals' lives, but more importantly they can harm the quality of life.

Another issue is one you brought up Donna, of titers--the dog can have the first shots as puppies, and then, rather than routinely doing yearly booster shots, a vet can run titers on the level of immunity to various diseases to see if there is immunity, and if there is, then the shots are not needed, and the dog can be checked again the following year. One of my three vets volunteered, rather proudly i thought, that "we do titers." So may it's kind of cutting edge. Titers are not expensive.

There are lots of ambiguities about vaccinating.

here's a link i just found doing a search for the beyond vaccinations site--there is some simple info here in brief form, and some links.
http://www.4loveofdog.com/vaccinations.htm

Here is the UC Davis vaccination guidelines--they point out that these are general guidelines and that individual circumstances vary a lot, therefore how to vaccinate should be a case by case decision (and this is a totally pro-vaccination position):

http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/vmth/clientinfo/info/genmed/vaccinproto.html


These are only general guidelines, as the vaccine types recommended and the frequency of vaccination vary depending on the lifestyle of the pet being vaccinated, i.e. indoor vs outdoor pets, travel plans, kennel/boarding plans, and underlying disease conditions such as immune-mediated diseases or pre-existing infections such as FIV infection. Because these factors may change over time, we recommend the vaccination plan for each individual pet be decided by the owner at routine annual examinations, following a discussion between the veterinarian and the client regarding the animal’s lifestyle in the year ahead.

I think the following is an important resource--you can email dr dodds with questions about your individual situation and she will write back as soon as she can. She travels extensively, trying to get funding for research to provide an evidence base for new vaccination practices that are more enlightened and more healthy for animals.

http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/HEMOPET.HTM

This is an informative site. It's not anti-vaccination. It's pro information:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BeyondVaccination/

Kingofthehouse86
8th July 2006, 05:04 AM
Donna, u kno i this is kinda a new subject for me too....but i have heard of Nosodes before....My boss used a Nosode for the Dog Flu back in Dec...when it was very high in our part of NY...I'm not really sure if it worked but i can say that the pups never got the Dog Flu, but that can be that they never came in contact wit a dog that had it...The place we got the Nosode from was http://www.animalwellness.net/ that's where we also get the Vets Choice dog food from too...but that has nuttin to do wit this rit now...But in my opinion u should take to ur vet and see wat they feel is better cuz they would (hopefully) kno more then we do...

I have King vaccinated for Parvo-virus, Rabies, Lyme disease, and his Bordetella...I got the Bordetella because he comes to work wit me sometimes and i dont want him catching anything that our pups there might have or vis vera...

(Judy) My vet had given King his rabies when he was 5 1/2 months on around the same time he was neutered...He had the Bordetella from the breeder so when he was due for his up dated vaccinations i asked to have it done because of wat i said above. Although he was due for his Parvo, Lyme, and Rabies...so that would've been 4 shots in one day, my vet suggested i do 2 that day and 5-7 days later come back for the other do so not to mess up his immune system.

But i do agree that all the vaccinations are the same dosage, which i dont get like Judy said how does a vaccination treat a chihuahua or puppy and the same time treats a dog that is 100+lbs..that's wat kinda gets me worried bout vaccinations...

Donna i would also do some more research on Nosodes to see how many cases of dogs being given Nosodes did not contract the diseases...That's wat i would do before changing from one thing to another...

judy
8th July 2006, 06:30 AM
I have King vaccinated for Parvo-virus, Rabies, Lyme disease, and his Bordetella...I got the Bordetella because he comes to work wit me sometimes and i dont want him catching anything that our pups there might have or vis vera...r...

Under these kinds of circumstances, i might do bordatella too, i tend to think the individual situation should be taken into account. For example, i've never gotten any boosters for my cat, but she has always been a 100% indoor cat, not coming into contact with any other animals, and showing no interest in going outside.

Kingofthehouse86
9th July 2006, 03:13 AM
Judy that's fine for ur cat cuz they never come in contact wit the outside world...but Zack goes outside and might catch something...but i think (but this is my opinion) that u should get ur cat vaccinated cuz zack could bring something in and get the cat sick but the likely of that happening is slim to non, so i wouldn't worry but still it's my opinion and i cant tell u how to raise ur animals...but most indoor cats that i kno are so much more healthier that cats that live indoor/outdoor or just outdoor....like the 2 cats that live in my store aren't the healthiest cuz one their overweight and two they are also old so their immune system is low...but they are holding strong...but enough bout our cats...but all i wanna say is i want a KITTY but my mom says NO!!! but that's now...lol plus Judy hope Zack is making progress on feeling beter

judy
9th July 2006, 07:00 AM
Judy that's fine for ur cat cuz they never come in contact wit the outside world...but Zack goes outside and might catch something...but i think (but this is my opinion) that u should get ur cat vaccinated cuz zack could bring something in and get the cat sick...

I wonder which diseases they can catch from each other.
Zack has all his puppy shots except rabies and bordatella, and when his booster is due, i'll have titers run on him and see whether he needs them or not.

how come your mom says no kitty? If i should outlive Fluffy (one never knows) i'd like to get a kitten. But i think i would like to take a holiday from routinely facing the cat box.

Maxxs_Mummy
9th July 2006, 11:17 AM
I don't think it's necessarily catching diseases from each other Judy but more if Zack picked anything up on his paws or you on your shoes and then transferred it back into the house where the cat is.

We used to have a rabbit who never left the garden, he only went in his hutch to sleep & would let us know when he was ready for bed by jumping into his hutch and thumping! Anyway, as he never left the garden I wondered about vaccinations but was advised to have them done by several local people who had lost their rabbits to disease. These rabbits had never left the garden either but their other animals had brought diseases in :(

Aaron, if you still live at home, can I ask how old you are? Your Mum is pretty tolerant already letting you have King and a Lovebird - when I was at home I was only allowed a goldfish - until my Dad let me sneak a rabbit in unbeknown to my Mother :lol: :lol: :lol:

judy
9th July 2006, 07:55 PM
I don't think it's necessarily catching diseases from each other Judy but more if Zack picked anything up on his paws or you on your shoes and then transferred it back into the house where the cat is.

i hadn't thought about that. It's something to weigh into the decision about vaccinating, the risks of tracking in germs against the health risks for the vaccinations, i need to learn more about what the risks are in my area of the different things that are vaccinated for in cats. In deciding, i need a vet i can trust. My trust in the one i've been seeing mainly is growing with experience. I'll talk to her about this.

I upgraded Fluffy's health insurance recently and the 30 day waiting period ends on 7/19, where conditions noted before that date are excluded, so I am planning to take her in this month and will address all these things.

Another thing I didn't mention in my list of concerns about vaccinations, or certain vaccination practices, is i don't believe a sick animal or an animal with potentially chronic immune system type problems should be routinely or automatically vaccinated--it should be a carefully considered decision, and if possible, vaccination should wait until the animal is clearly well.

This probably sounds obvious, like a no brainer, but my experience ended up being that some vets are ready to vaccinate a sick animal, when it''s not even known what the diagnosis is. And i have to assume this is because they are very experienced and are assessing whatever the illness is to be not serious enough to hesitate. But my developing opinion is that i would rather err on the side of caution.

When i first got zack and he had bloody diarrhea and i took him right to the vet, she suggested i finish his shots that day, all of them, the last puppy shot combo, the bordatella and the rabies. I think some day, this will no longer be standard practice, i think lots of vets are already thinking differently about this. People had said things to me that had scared me that zack was at high risk of catching the diseases until his vaccinations were finished so it seemed urgent to me, but i did say (just from what i konw from human experiences with illness) i would choose to postpone the vaccinations until zack's diarrhea was cleared upk because i didn't want to confuse what was going on.

she gave him flagyl, the diarrhea cleared up the next day, i thought whatever the germ was was killed by the medication and it was all over--i still had a lot to learn, i didnt yet know that flagyl is an effective antidiarrheal medication independent of its antimicrobial effects, so it may not be killing whatever is causing the symptoms but it can still ease or make the symptoms go away. but i didn't know that then. I thought he was cured. So, the following weekend i came in and got his last puppy shot. but instinctively or intuitively, i still wasn't ok with getting the rabies and bordatella at the same time, that seemed like a lot of chaos to put his immune system through.

He had been a happy energetic puppy, even with the diarrhea, but the day after the shot he was lethargic all day and the vaccination site was very sore. I thought this was to be expected. by the next day, the diarrhea was fully back. Did the shot lower his resistance, so that the worms or parasites or whatever it was could flare up and make him sick? No way of knowing but i wouldn't rule it out. I also had Advantage put on him that day, the day of the shot.

Last Sunday i went to that same vet because my main vet was booked and i wanted someone to see those skin lesions and go over the blood test with me. When i checked in, the woman at the front desk asked me if i would be getting the rabies and bordatella shots that day. It's such a philosophical difference. I was bringing Zack in because he had been sick for three days and got lesions all over him--to me, a dog who has an undiagnosed possible immune problem or allergic reaction to something unknown, or signs of infection, should not be vaccinated--it can wait. but to some, since this is done without known ill effect in many animals, there is no reason to hesitate. (but such ill effects may not be noticed, and may be attributed to other causes and not noted as coinciding with the vaccinations).

Additionally, if an animal has a chronic illness, particularly one involving the immune system, i might not ever vaccinate, depending on what the risks are in the animal's living circumstances of getting an illness protected against by the vaccination. I know there are vets who will write waivers for the rabies vaccination to excuse certain ill animals from complying with the rabies vaccination law.

Karlin
10th July 2006, 12:20 AM
Judy, I would not postpone rabies if you are taking Zack out to parks and so forth. Not only is it dangerous to him but a potential health risk to YOU. Rabies is extremely painful to treat for any human exposed to it.

Be aware that titers are not considered wholly reliable for testing for antibodies. So you are always leaving a window of risk for a dog that is tested on titers alone. I would not trust titers; instead I'd use the recommended spacing from Dr Jean Dodds and others of three years.

eg: after the one year booster. three years for the general vax items is considered a safe distance apart. After age 6 or 7, I wouldn't bother to continue giving vaccines.

If I were not vaccinating a dog that might have a weak immune system I also would NOT be taking that dog to areas where it can easily be exposed to all the things that could make it sick: eg dog parks, parks generally, walking in area frequented by other dogs, leaving in kennels, and so on.

A big problem with not vaccinating annually and not giving bortadella isd that it will be very hard to find any kennel or boarding operation that will accept the dog. You only need to give bortadella a week or so before the dog goes into kennels, however.

It is very rare for dogs to get something like kennel cough from a vaccine -- I have been told this is merely coincidence, that the dog was exposed at some period prior to the vaccine or before it was effective against KC. The flip side of this is, if you are exposing a dog to KC you are exposing it to risk of what can turn into pneumonia amd be very serious indeed. We have one list member who nearly lost their dog to KC-based pneumonia.

More on titers from the ever useful Vetinfo.com site:


Vaccinations and titers

Question: What is your opinion of using titres to determine whether a dog should
receive booster vaccinations? I have read in several articles that the
current thinking is dogs are being vaccinated more often than is needed.
[snip]
...It has now been three years since Russell has had any vaccinations except
for rabies. One of the residents at the Veterinary Teaching Hospital
suggested we have titres run to show his antibody level. We did this
through our regular vet and the results showed that he's in good shape.
Later when we mentioned this to another resident at the NC Vet Hospital she
said no one really knows what these titres mean. So, Dr. Richards, what do
you think (besides that we're way too overprotective of our dogs)?

Thanks for any advice you have. I really enjoy reading the Digest every
month, and I appreciate all the effort that goes into it and your website.

Miriam

Answer: Miriam-

It is likely that dogs which are vaccinated yearly are vaccinated more
often than is necessary for several diseases (the viral illnesses) and that
they are not vaccinated as often as necessary to provide protection from
others that are necessary in some situations (bacterial illnesses such as
leptospirosis and bordetellosis). However, there is a great deal of
controversy and confusion regarding this topic.

One problem is that there are several vaccine strains used to provide
protection for the various diseases vaccines protect against. Studies have
generally looked at one or two vaccine strains and it is hard to be sure
that all of them provide the same length of protection. However, I think it
is likely that distemper vaccine provides protection for at least three
years and that parvovirus vaccine probably provides lifelong protection
after the one year booster is given. If vaccination for leptospirosis or
bordetellosis is necessary for your dogs, these vaccines usually provide
protection for less than a year.

The major problem with using titers to evaluate when to give vaccines,
other than expense, is that there isn't much agreement on what represents
a protective titer at the present time. It is known that some dogs with
high titers will develop distemper when exposed to the virus. It is also
known that some dogs who have been vaccinated but who have no measurable
titer will resist infection when exposed to the virus. The only really
reliable way to tell how long a vaccine will provide protection is to do
challenge studies -- to vaccinate a group of dogs and then expose them to
the virus after specified intervals, to determine how long the vaccine will
provide protection. Ideally, this would be done by each vaccine
manufacturer or an independent party willing to test every vaccine strain.
Once it is known how long a vaccine provides protection, it would be easier
to figure out reasonable vaccination intervals.

At the present time, the best approach to deciding how frequently to
vaccinate is to evaluate the potential risks to the patient of the virus
and then the potential risks of the vaccine and then to balance those
against the need for protection. I think that it is usually safe to go to
longer vaccine intervals and that three years is reasonable at this time.

Mike Richards, DVM
9/15/2000


Distemper vaccine

Question: This is in regard to a reply by Mike Richards, DVM about concerns of
distemper. In his reply he states "Some people think that the solution
to the "window of opportunity" for the virus -- the time when it will cause disease even
if a puppy has been vaccinated --- is simply to vaccinate more frequently. The flaw in this
logic is that there are studies that demonstrate that vaccines for the same
virus administered closer to two weeks apart may interfere with each
other -- and lead to DECREASED immune response. Plus, no matter how frequently
vaccines are given there is a short time period when the puppy is not
protected. We choose a three week interval for vaccinations at our
practice, starting at six weeks, just because it seems like a reasonably
practical interval. "

I would like to know the references he used for this statement as a DVM
I know vaccinates puppies every 2 weeks until 16 weeks and I am
concerned we may be vaccinating too much. I would like to pass his
refernces to the Dr.

Thank You Mark


Answer: Mark-

The concept of antigenic interference is mentioned in several textbooks but
I have had a hard time tracking down the initial research on it. However,
there is a study done in greyhounds (search on "McMillen GL" on the PubMed
web site to find it) that examines this concept. In this study, there was
no particular benefit, nor any particular disadvantage, to vaccinating very
frequently, although there was slightly (key word -- not significant, just
slightly) better immune responses in the dogs vaccinated less frequently.

Of course, there is a lot to be said for vaccinating less frequently if it
works just as well.

I am glad that you sent your question, as it made me search again for
information on this topic.

Mike Richards, DVM
3/2/2000


Link -- http://www.vetinfo.com/dogvacc.html#Vaccinations%20and%20titres

I don't think that vaccinating has any effect on SM -- they shouldn't be connected at all. Unless the dog is very ill from SM I'd vaccinate. I vax Leo for example and would never not consider doing this as long as he is out and about and exposed to other dogs and the areas those dogs frequent. I always ask that the vax be given in a leg however, not the neck.

Kingofthehouse86
10th July 2006, 02:27 AM
When King was a pup he was given Albon and Metro for deworming...he has rarely needed to be taken to the vet...only 2 times other then for check-ups and vaccine updates...1st time he had really loose stool, almost like water, and couldn't figure out y...tried brown rice at first, no luck...so i brought him to the vet....had his stool tested came back negative, but he did put King on "Tylan SM Powder" to help firm his stool...It was a very horrible tasting MED...Vet said to mix it wit Pnut Butter to make sure he got it...Well one day my mom was giving it to him and i came home from work and she said "Here, finish this!!" and i didnt know wat she was tlkin bout so i licked the pnut butter covered spoon...my mom shouted "NO!!!!!!!" but it was to late, i took some of King MED :yuk: ...was so horrible took 20 mins to get the taste out of my mouth...i said "Now i kno y King hated it if we just put it on his tongue" was so BAD..Then a couple months ago i had to take King in cuz his ears we so dirty and i couldn't get them clean...i tried cleaning everyday but nuttin worked...He had the start of an yeast infection...So King was put on "Otomax Ear Ointment" it took bout 2 weeks and his ears cleared up...King didnt like the fact of getting his ears cleaned 2X daily for a week then everyday for 1 week..but he need to get his ears cleaned...those were the only 2 times King ever needed MEDs other then the vaccines..

judy
10th July 2006, 08:30 AM
Judy, I would not postpone rabies if you are taking Zack out to parks and so forth. Not only is it dangerous to him but a potential health risk to YOU. Rabies is extremely painful to treat for any human exposed to it.

This is what i thought when i first got Zack, but there is a lot to learn about this subject.

Rabies is an extremely rare disease, especially where i live, unheard of in domestic animals. The statistics kept by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for 2001 show that there were about 7000 reported cases of animal rabies in the year. Out of the 10's of millions of dogs in the US, i dont' know how many of the 7000 reported were dogs, the CDC says the majority of the reported cases are wildlife animals. That year, there were 18,000 humans treated for rabies, who may or may not have actually been exposed. Again, most are accounted for by contacts with wildlife. Almost all of them occured on the East coast.

I live in an urban area with far less wildlife than other areas, and the risk to me and to dogs in my area is very very small. (the Los Angeles area).
I appreciate your concern and caution. I too have been very concerned about Zack, both about having necessary vaccinations, and about avoiding unnecessary vaccinations due to the health risks of vaccinations, some serious.

When i first got zack, I began learning and found that one of the animals who carry rabies is racoons. Once in a while, every few years, a racoon or a family of racoons comes through my yard. They don't stay, i don't see them more than one day or so, but they are racoons. I also have possums almost every year, though apparently not this year, i haven't seen a one. None of these animals i've seen have ever acted strangely or ill.

Some people I consulted assured me that the risk of exposure to rabies by racoons, or possums, in my area, was nil.

Here is a link to the CDC rabies website. It shows graphically that i live in an area where the frequency of reported rabies in animals is extremely rare. If you look at the racoon map, you will see there were zero cases of racoon vector in Southern California that year. In fact, there were zero reported racoon cases in the entire western United States. And except for a few in Texas, there were no reported racoon cases in the whole central United States either.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/Epidemiology/Epidemiology.htm

The only reported cases were of bats, 15 cases. I've never seen a bat in person in my life.

Here are some statistics on rabies prevalence and incidence in the US and UK:

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/r/rabies/stats.htm

Because there are real risks to Zack's heath from the rabies vaccine, I do not want to administer it unnecessarily or mechanically, without researching it. Because it's required by law, and because i want the reassurance that he is protected against rabies, however remote the risk, and to insure that he won't have to be quarantined in the unlikely event that he is believed to have bitten anyone, i plan to have him vaccinated, but advice from a respected breeder in my area was to try to wait until after a year old. so i have sort of kept that time frame in mind, while researching the situation as best i can, for Zack's sake.

The law also says dogs in my state must have yearly boosters, yet there is mounting evidence, increasingly less controversial, that this is not necessary, that even re-vaccination every 3 years may not be necessary but certainly more reasonable than yearly. Thank goodness this is gradually changing. The change is established for cats, i believe.


Be aware that titers are not considered wholly reliable for testing for antibodies. So you are always leaving a window of risk for a dog that is tested on titers alone. I would not trust titers; instead I'd use the recommended spacing from Dr Jean Dodds and others of three years.

I believe Dr Dodds recommends using titers and not vaccinating if the titers show immunity. The problem isn't one of reliability of titers, they are clearly reliable. the problem is one of inconsistent interpretation, varying methods, and non-uniform standards, and this is in the process of being worked out. Titer testing is useful for several purposes, such as verifying immunity in puppies, where vaccinations can be rendered ineffective by maternal antibodies, as well as gaining information about duration of immunity provided by a given vaccination. Titer results can reliably show whether an animal has immunity or not. In the quote you gave below from Mike Richards, he says there is a lack of agreement, not that titers are not reliable information. And from titers, as he says, we can know that vaccination against parovirus for example gives lifelong immunity. Yet people continue to give yearly boosters, because vets recommend it. And vets recommend it because they go according to what the pharmaceutical companies tell them, since those companies and not the vets do the research on which those recommendations are based.


If I were not vaccinating a dog that might have a weak immune system I also would NOT be taking that dog to areas where it can easily be exposed to all the things that could make it sick: eg dog parks, parks generally, walking in area frequented by other dogs, leaving in kennels, and so on.

That is wise advice, imo.


A big problem with not vaccinating annually and not giving bortadella isd that it will be very hard to find any kennel or boarding operation that will accept the dog. You only need to give bortadella a week or so before the dog goes into kennels, however.

That is a real problem for people who need to board their dogs or who need professional grooming. Dr Dodds and others have participated in campaigns to persuade legislators in various states in the US not to pass laws mandating such establishments to require documentation of yearly vaccinations, or in support of nondisclosure bills. She and others do this out of care for the animals, striving to protect them from the known and predictable harmful effects of forced overvaccination.

see this link regarding Dodds's advocacy against a New York law.
http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/NY%20Pet%20Vax%20Bills%20S02164%20-%20A14253.htm
http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/DODDS-VAC-LEGISL.HTM
(scroll down for Dr Dodds's letter in support of a Maine law)


It is very rare for dogs to get something like kennel cough from a vaccine -- I have been told this is merely coincidence, that the dog was exposed at some period prior to the vaccine or before it was effective against KC.

Maybe so, but this is controversial. It's speculative.


The flip side of this is, if you are exposing a dog to KC you are exposing it to risk of what can turn into pneumonia amd be very serious indeed. We have one list member who nearly lost their dog to KC-based pneumonia.

Some claim that the risk of serious illness from bordatella is minimal in healthy adult dogs. Immuno-compromised dogs or puppies are the ones who are at risk, just as human babies are at risk of contracting infectious diseases, and as you said, it's wise not to take puppies or sick dogs to places where a lot of dogs congregate, just as it's inadvisable to take newborns into crowded public places. An adult can have a mild disease that in a baby could be fatal, or very serious.

Bordatella is not considered a core vaccination by the American Animal Hospital Association which issues vaccination guidelines to educate the veterinary profession in the US and encourage them to treat each of their patients individually rather than using blanket procedures. Bordatella is a non-core or optional vaccination under these guidelines. Considerations of the task force in categorizing a vaccine as noncore include exposure risk, but also that the disease being protected against is mild and self limiting, and easily treatable. again, in individual cases, bordatella can cause life threatening pneumonia, as the flu can cause this in certain humans, but in normal adults, vaccination is considered optional because the risk of harm is not high.

Here is a link to the 2003 AAHA task force on vaccinations report. It deals with seriologic testing (titering), adverse events and the problem of underreporting of such, consensus recommendations for protocols, assessing each patient as an individual--interesting. They came out with a new version in 2006 which basically recaps what they said in 2003, with the intention of showing that experience continues to support their reasoning. The 2006 version is (importantly) divided into two parts, the first being for regular pet owner situations, and part two addressing the special and different needs of shelter dogs.

http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/sMKxRCQ2q8JWPc3nQd2-ttcHOJiIOF2U42xrb5pMBQ9mmSELsPFfS59bKfK59akJoTXRJo tJ0MOo1HdB6O2KVnw_MA/CanVaccGuidelines.pdf

Here are some other relevant links:

this piece is by Ronald Schultz, professor and chair of the department of patho-bioloical sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of
Wisconsin/Madison, in which he discusses duration of immunity, titering, and the necessity (or lack of) of certain vaccinations. Dr Schultz will be running the rabies challenge study that Dr Dodds and others are laboring to raise money for.

http://www.cedarbayvet.com/duration_of_immunity.htm

I'm curious about what you think.

Here is a piece by Christie Keith http://www.doggedblog.com/about.html, who created the Beyond Vaccinations website providing information on this subject:

http://www.caberfeidh.com/Revax.htm

here's an excerpt:

I know we'd all like to think we can put a magic barrier around our animals that will protect them from all disease and have 100 percent effectiveness and no risk. The closest you'll ever get to that is to build a barrier of radiant good health, which comes from excellent breeding practices, never suppressing disease symptoms, and excellent holistic husbandry including diet, environment, exercise, and TLC.

In the real world, such a barrier will never be perfect. We have to accept some risk in one direction or another.

Those who don't vaccinate at all must accept the risk that the animals in our care might get sick from an infectious disease; with puppies, the risk is great that they will die, and even if they live, they might have lingering effects from the disease, and the vet bills (and feelings of guilt) might be considerable. Those who do vaccinate must accept the risks of side effects, allergic reactions, vaccine failures, cancer, and autoimmune disease.

judy
10th July 2006, 10:05 AM
....he had really loose stool, almost like water, and couldn't figure out y......so i brought him to the vet....he did put King on "Tylan SM Powder" to help firm his stool...It was a very horrible tasting MED...Vet said to mix it wit Pnut Butter to make sure he got it...Well one day my mom was giving it to him and i came home from work and she said "Here, finish this!!" and i didnt know wat she was tlkin bout so i licked the pnut butter covered spoon...my mom shouted "NO!!!!!!!" but it was to late, i took some of King MED :yuk: ...was so horrible took 20 mins to get the taste out of my mouth..

:yuk: :yikes :oops: yeah, tylan... a vet put zack on tylan when he had bloody diarrhea. I used to mix it in with his boiled chicken and rice, it was a fine yellow powder. I would put a small portion of his chicken and rice in a separate bowl and mix the tylan in with it, because i didn't want to ruin the whole serving. But zack liked the chicken and rice so much that he always ate it without hesitating.

How much Tylan were you supposed to give King? I was supposed to give him "a little less than 1/16th of a teaspoonful once a day." But my smallest measuring spoon was 1/8. it was really hard trying to estimate "a little less than 1/16th tsp" by eye. She prescribed it by his weight. Then, at Bed Bath and Beyond, i found these little measuring spoons that were smaller, the were a dash, a smidgeon, a pinch, and one other that i can't remember, and the one that was like 1/16th tsp was the pinch. so i would give him a little less than a pinch spoonful, that was so much easier than having to try to take half of 1/8 tsp and then give a little less than that.

Many times, the fine powder got airborn and i breathed it and got it in my mouth. :yuk: It's like you said, the bitter taste of it lasts and lasts. My friend has a dog with Addisons who had diarrhea for years and tylan was the only thing that worked, and she could not believe that zack would eat it mixed into the chicken and rice, because of how bad it tastes. She would get quantities of capsules and cap it herself and give it to her dog in the capsules, she used it for years, and then stopped it and the diarrhea did not come back.

Nicki
10th July 2006, 10:35 AM
This is a very difficult one, you can only make a decision based on your research and personal feelings. I have been mulling over whether to even reply as I know this will be controversial.

I have one vaccine damaged dog - Rupert did indeed contract Kennel cough from the vaccine - he was treated wtih childrens cough mixture, as per the vets' instructions, the cough mainly cleared up but we didn't realise it had given him bronchitits.

WIthin a few months, he had really slowed down and had started to go deaf - he was still coughing a little.

He had x-rays and ECGs, fearing MVD - fortunately his heart was clear [and still is] but the x-rays showed the bronchitis. Once this was clear {following a course of antibiotics}, he was back to his normal lively self, but he went completely deaf. He was only 2 1/4. He underwent a full neuro assesment at the ANimal Health Trust, including a BAER hearing test, to 100 decibels - he had no hearing at all. They didn't find any other cause - he wasn't showing any SM signs at that age - but I'm not sure they would have recognised them then anyway.

From the trace pattern, the hearing loss wasn't treatable - it's believed that the infection tracked up and caused the hearing loss.

I did ask my vet to submit a vaccine reaction form, but I'm not sure if they did or not, I never heard back anyway. I wasn't as forceful in those days!!

Rupert was fit and healthy prior to the kennel cough vaccine, it is just too much of a coincidence to accept that it could be anything else.

Since Rupert's SM diagnosis, he has not had conventional vaccines, just homoeopathic nosodes. My homoeopath has over 400 clients relying SOLELY on nosodes for their animals, none of whom have EVER had any problems - many of these are valuable show dogs, their guardians would not be risking this if they doubted their effectiveness.

Christopher Day {homoeopath} did a study on Kennel cough and nosodes, I'm sorry I don't have a link for it, but basically most of the conventionally vaccinated dogs contracted the disease, the ones treated with nosodes didn't! The vaccine only covers about 3 strains of kennel cough....likewise the Lepto vaccine is only effective for about 3 -6 months, and again only contains about 3 strains, none of which are the current most common ones.

I agree that vaccines are also not 100% effective...and sadly people are not aware of this. I heard recently of a 9 year old B&T, who was in good health. He had had puppy shots, and boosters EVERY year. He contracted Parvo and died. :(

I am lucky in that I live in an area with minimal exposure to other dogs. However I don't feel that I could ever vaccinate another animal anyway.

My homoeopath suggests that if people are really worried, they give nosodes but also give puppy shots - at SIX months, not before - to reassure themselves. Many holisiic practioniers also give this advice.

I would not vaccinate an SM affected dog - anywhere on the body. Mercury is still used as a preservative in dog vaccines, and this has been PROVEN to cause brain swelling in mice in laboratory tests. As they already have compression issues, and generally hydrocephalus, this does not seem to be a good idea to me.

TedBear has not had ANY conventional vaccines - this was one reason for having him. There was a theory around of a link between vaccines and SM, and at that point, I was not aware of any unvaccinated dogs who had been diagnosed. Sadly we have disproven that, as TedBear is moderate to severely affected.

Jack only had puppy shots, he had quite a severe reaction to his 2nd shots, causing swelling in his lymph glands and high temperature, fortunately he is ok. But I would not risk vaccinating him.

ALL the vaccine manufacturers say only to be given to healthy animals, so I'm horrified that vets are vaccinating sick animals - esp something like diarrhoea, where it's obvious that the immune system is comprimised.

I would recommend reading the section on VACCINATION in this book - very interesting.

Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs Small Doses for small animals
Don Hamilton
ISBN 9781556432958



You may also like to look at this site:

http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk/

Karlin
10th July 2006, 11:41 AM
This is an area of strong feelings. Also one in which people MUST educate themselves thoroughly before making choices and weighing risks as this is an area very central to animal health. Personal choice in this are also affects the overall population of dogs, too, as dogs are removed from the pool of vaccinated dogs.

My perspective: I'm afraid I know of far too many dogs and puppies that have suffered horribly and died, or barely pulled through at phenomenal costs to rescue or to owners, because they didn't get basic puppy vaccinations. Eeven the rescue folks I know here who are fairly strict homeopath followers would never not give the initital year round of vaccines.

I don't know of a single rescue that would take in a dog from Ireland that isn't conventionally vaccinated either -- this again, regardless of whether they choose homeopathic approaches to vet care otherwise.

The chances that a dog kept at home in a conventional pet environment will ever get distemper, parvo, lepto etc is very small anyway, so it would not be surprising for people not to know dogs that have had this, either when treated by nosode or vax. It doesn;t mean one isn;t riskier than another-- just as the chance is small that a child not vaccinated will acquire measles or rubella. I believ the use of nosodes ends up relying on the low chance that a dog will be ecposed anyway. But proper double-blind clinical trials clearly show dogs with nosodes only, to be at *high risk* of dying when exposed to parthenogens they are supposed to protect against (see below).

In addition, once a level of herd immunity is lost the incidence of disease gradually increases. I've no doubt that if no one was vaccinating, we'd be seeing regular losses to distemper, parvo and so on, as it is so darn difficult to eradicate from the encironment and can live for months and m,onths in grass, on pavement, etc. Disinfecting after parvo is an utter nightmare and usually means a rescue muct close down entirely for months to be safe. I have read that a few years ago, Sweden had a deathly wave of both parvo and distemper after people decided to switch to no vaccinating or to nosodes. This is anecdotal info though.

Likewise it is a known fact that incidence of serious illness is on the rise in children where people have stopped vaccinating (eg the UK in particular). This worries me as I had measles about 15 years ago -- before it was realised you need a booster to ensure resistance. I got it despite having had the vax and as a result of a huge wave of measles passing thrugh California because of the booster issue. I got what would be considered 'mild' measles. I have never been so sick in my life. I can't imagine being a tiny child with full blown measles. My grandparents and parents well remember the days when children routinely died from these diseases -- and sometimes, adults as well, before vaccines.

I wouldn't want my dogs to be among the small number that die from exposure to parvo, distemper, lepto.

I haven't seen any clinical studies that to me, confirm nosodes are reliable, or titers. By contrast, there's lots of evidence that reactions to vaccines are extremely rare and I'd rather deal with a post-0vax illness due to a dip in immune system strangth than deal with parvo! I've not seen a single dog lost or seriously ill following vaccination, of the thousands that have been taken by the rescues I know from Irish pounds. But I know of dozens that have died because they weren't vaccinated.

To me, that is the compelling evidence that keeps me from using nosodes or not vaccinating: my own personal experience and that of a dozen people working in rescue.


The vaccine only covers about 3 strains of kennel cough....likewise the Lepto vaccine is only effective for about 3 -6 months, and again only contains about 3 strains, none of which are the current most common ones.

I hear this said a lot by people who oppose these vaccines but I have never seen a single, double blind, proper clinical study that backs this, with all due respect; just lots of casual trials or else things people believe, and which are now widely quoted, but no one cannot verify. If there were any real evidence I'd be delighted to use nosodes but to date I haven't seen a shred of any that would stand up to the most basic scientific scrutiny whereas there are years of double-blind tests on vaccines that are sold commercially (which is why they are sold commercially). The lepto vaccine and bortadella cover all the most common strains at this time. I don;t give bortadella as a matter of course but mine both must have it for boarding and I have no chpoice but to occasionally board my dogs. I give lepto because I firmly believe, looking at all available evidence, that it is safer to my dogs to give it then not give it, given where I live and the lifestyle the dogs have. It is quite likely that protection offers resistence to other strains as well (just as the flu vaccine is believed to offer some protection against some flu strains not specifically targetted in a given vaccine).

I respect the right of others to make different choices, of course, but I feel many of those choices are made more on what we would like to be so than what has been shown to be so; and are made by people not considering individual cisrcumstances and risk factors but on asumptions that 'one size fits all'. That is why I cannot in any good conscience use any method that I feel puts my cats and dogs at risk. I have seen what happens to animals not vaccinated. The results from nosodes and titers is so contradictory that I won't trust lives to that uncertainty. I would welcome further proper clinical trials.

Ultimately as Nicki says this is a personal choice -- and one also needs to take the individual case of an animal into consideration. If the dog is trupy immuno-compromised then I think there's an argumant for alternative approaches (but this also included keeping the dog FROM exposure to the best of one's ability).

Anyone considering nosodes needs to read this:


Homeopathic Alternatives to Vaccines: Are Nosodes an Effective Substitute for Vaccines?

Homeopathic (isopathic) approaches to immunization have been utilized throughout the centuries and are currently advocated by some modern-day homeopathic practitioners and even some veterinarians in dogs who are considered to be at high-risk for adverse reactions to vaccines. However, a distinction must be made between those practitioners who advocate homeopathic alternatives to vaccination in dogs who are at high-risk of reaction and those practitioners who profess that all dogs should use homeopathic alternatives in lieu of vaccines: The first recognizes the importance of vaccines for maintaining the health of our general dog population while seeking potential alternatives for those in the population who are not candidates for vaccination; the second is simply promoting negligence.

“Homeopathic vaccines” called nosodes are prepared using high, serially agitated dilutions of infectious agents (i.e. infectious body fluids, vomitus, feces, or other tissue) which are administered to the animal orally for the purpose of protecting against later infection with the respective pathogen. Though some pet owners report efficacy of nosodes for protecting against infectious disease in their dogs, controlled clinical studies exploring the ability of nosodes to protect animals who are directly challenged with infectious disease indicate that nosodes are not effective for this purpose. In a clinical study by Larson and colleagues, nosodes administered to dogs completely failed to protect against death due to parvovirus when these dogs were administered nosodes of parvovirus-infected tissue over a period of time and then subsequently challenged with the pathogen. In another controlled clinical study by W.B. Jonas comparing efficacy of vaccination to nosode protection against infectious disease, though it was found that nosodes did increase the survival time following challenge with infectious disease, efficacy of protection was only 22% for nosodes compared to 100% protection with vaccination; that is, about 4 out of every 5 animals administered nosodes died from the infectious disease when challenged. This 22% efficacy is, in fact, the highest reported efficacy for nosode protection in any controlled clinical study to date.

In light of the data showing inefficacy of nosodes for protecting against infectious disease, why are some practitioners still promoting nosode use? Proponents of nosode-use such as Jean Dodds, DVM and others in the field do not promote the use of nosodes in lieu of vaccination of dogs in general; they promote the use of vaccine alternatives like nosodes in dogs that have a suspected predisposition (certain bloodlines with genetic risk) or underlying health conditions (as those discussed above) that put these particular dogs at higher risk for developing adverse reactions to vaccines. As will be discussed in the next section, although nosodes do not provide the assurance of protection that vaccines do, nosodes may provide some benefits over not vaccinating these dogs at all. The wide-spread notion, however, of totally replacing vaccination with the homeopathic alternative of nosodes is purported rather by some in the field of alternative medicine who continually use the reports of Dr. Dodds and others out of the context in which they were initially written.

Are nosodes a viable alternative for protection against infectious disease in dogs that cannot be vaccinated due to health complications? Vaccination remains the single most effective method for protecting against infectious disease in healthy animals. In those dogs with higher risk for developing vaccine-associated complications, alternatives such as nosodes will not provide effective protection against infectious disease if the dog is exposed to a moderate- or high-dose of infectious pathogen sufficient enough to bring about active disease or in cases of infectious disease outbreak. If one considers low-dose exposure to a pathogen, however, it is conceivable that nosodes could possibly provide some protection in regard to reducing severity of the disease. Ironically, however, this nosode protection would only be most effective in the presence of a widely vaccinated population.

The current wide-spread use of vaccination in the dog population creates a condition known as “herd-immunity”. Herd-immunity occurs when vaccination of large numbers of individuals within a population decreases the occurrence of infectious disease within a population and thus actually protects those few in the population that may not be vaccinated from being exposed to and acquiring infectious disease. Though many vaccines do not prevent a carrier state (that is, a vaccinated dog that may be exposed to an infectious pathogen will be protected from disease but may still shed the pathogen in the environment), vaccination typically reduces the amount of pathogen and the duration of time that the pathogen is shed into the environment and thus decreases likelihood of exposure to and contamination of other dogs. Therefore, herd immunity alone does not assure freedom of risk from disease. In light of the Jonas’ finding that nosode treatment did provide some protection, albeit minimal, to treated animals as evidenced by longer survival times prior to succumbing to infection, administration of nosodes to dogs with high-risk for vaccine reactions may provide some marginal benefit in reducing risk of infectious disease but only in a population protected by herd-immunity and only if these nosode-protected dogs were to receive very low exposure to a pathogen. More controlled, clinical studies, and not anecdotal reports, in this area are clearly needed, however, before one can make any assumptions on the reliability of nosodes to effectively protect against low-grade infections. As more dog owners, however, turn to using nosodes in lieu of vaccinations based upon the unsubstantiated claims that vaccines are dangerous to all dogs in general, herd-immunity will decline and with it any hopes of using nosodes as a vaccine-alternative in dogs that are verifiably at higher-risk for vaccine side-effects.

Finally, in absence of controlled clinical studies to evaluate nosode protection in the face of low-grade infection and the improbability of assuring that an individual dog is only exposed to low levels of a particular pathogen, to date the safest alternative for reducing risk of secondary vaccine side-effects while also providing effective protection is the use of alternate types of vaccines (i.e. killed-vaccines, sub-unit vaccines or mono-valent vaccines) rather than multivalent vaccines in dogs with an underlying health condition, as those discussed above, or with a suspected predisposition to vaccine side-effects. For example, recent clinical studies have demonstrated that using vaccines with a lower valency (i.e. monovalent, tri-valent) significantly reduces adverse side-effects that frequently occur with multivalent vaccines while still providing effective protection against infectious disease.



from http://www.labbies.com/immun.htm#Nosodes

Maxxs_Mummy
10th July 2006, 12:28 PM
Thanks everyone for your replies, I have read them all and I think my mind is now virtually made up :D

{{{{{{{{Nicki}}}}}}}} I don't think your reply is controversial at all. As you probably already know I am extremely distrusting of conventional medicine. They do say a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, well in my case, a lot of knowledge deeply disturbs me. I am not adverse to a lot of medication but some of it and it's side effects completely horrifies me :yikes .

I would never again give any dog that I owned a conventional KC vaccine. When we had our beautiful GSD girl we had her completely vaccinated but after the KC avcc she wasn't very well - I couldn't put my finger on the problem at first but then a few days later we had to leave her in kennels overnight whilst we went to a funeral. Unfortunately, even though she had been vaccinated, she contracted KC and we almost lost her. It does make me wonder whether the vaccinations that we gave her also contributed to her other health problems leading to her having to be PTS when she was only 5 :(

I have contacted the homoeopathic Vet whom I would be getting the Nosodes from, asking him for statistics etc. Also, I am not at the moment panicking about having unvaccinated dogs as James himself admitted that there is a school of thought that now says only vaccinate every two years. I said 'What about the schools of thought that say every three years or every five years then?'. I think he dreads my visits to the surgery as he knows that I question most things like most other pet owners don't! I question my GP too but she is so used to me now that before she prescribes anything for either myself or my youngest she will hand me the BNF so that I can check the side effects etc.

I do tend to use natural or homeopathic medicines for 99% of illnesses in this household so why should that be different for my dogs? For instance, after years of conventional pain relief for my nerve damage I actually find an accurately positioned TENs machine and Bromelain tablets far more effective.

When anyone queries the effectiveness of homeopathy I refer them to Samuel Hahnemann's successes at his clinic with chicona against Malaria whilst the conventionally treated patients were dropping like flies!

Also, aspirin (the wonder drug of the 90's :roll: ) is actually developed from the bark of the Willow tree - how much more natural than that can you get?

When my eldest was a small baby he had a bad ear infection that just would not clear up. He was almost permanently on antibiotics for the first three years of his life. One day, after a particularly bad night with him, I was visiting a friend whose sister (a practising Homeopath) was also there. She offered to mix me up something for Rhys and went away and did it. He had a pleasant tasting liquid to be taken six times a day until he saw the ENT specialist a few days later before being admitted for gromets and a clean out. Well, even the ENT surgeon couldn't believe the change in him. He even went so far as to say that he would have thought Rhys was a different child to the one he had examined two weeks earlier & put on an 'urgent' list, his ears were so clean and clear of infection.

Karlin, you speak of the measles vaccine - well I was vaccinated against measles and unfortunately I contracted it not once but twice - the second time I was extremely ill :( My cousin was also vaccinated against measles and that afternoon she became seriously ill. She was admitted to hospital and almost died - she is now profoundly deaf and that was attributed to a rare reaction to the vaccine.

My youngest son contracted whooping cough after his seond dose of the triple vaccine & as he was severely asthmatic from birth this made him seriously ill. We were advised by the Paediatric consultant not to have the 3rd part of the Whooping cough vaccine as it could kill him. I thought I was doing right by having my children vaccinated as I myself had whooping cough as a child and still remember it to this day. In fact I still have a phobia of vomiting because of it :(

Anyway, James has assured me that as Charlie is only just due his booster and Maxx is almost 7 and has been vaccinated conventionally up until now, I don't have to panic about it - they will both have a good degree of immunity left in their systems for a while yet. I will await the email from the Homeopathic Vet and see what he has to say :D

Kingofthehouse86
10th July 2006, 04:08 PM
How much Tylan were you supposed to give King? I was supposed to give him "a little less than 1/16th of a teaspoonful once a day." But my smallest measuring spoon was 1/8. it was really hard trying to estimate "a little less than 1/16th tsp" by eye. She prescribed it by his weight. Then, at Bed Bath and Beyond, i found these little measuring spoons that were smaller, the were a dash, a smidgeon, a pinch, and one other that i can't remember, and the one that was like 1/16th tsp was the pinch. so i would give him a little less than a pinch spoonful, that was so much easier than having to try to take half of 1/8 tsp and then give a little less than that.

King had to be given 1/8tsp of the tylan...Yea Judy i was hard not to breath it in when it got airborne...but imagine tasting it like i did :yuk: so nasty...

Donna where is this Homepathic Vet located, cuz I've been doin a lil research like u and was thinking on putting King on Nosodes too... King is on a liquid herbal "Heartworm Med" which is easy to distribute that I got from a Vet from Huntington,NY (through my boss)...the active ingredient in it is"ivermectin"...

This Vet also has a liquid herbal preventitive for giarrdia/coxcidia (think that's how u spell them) Not sure what's in it, cuz it's in the fridge @ work...he's also got a herbal liquid to cure pnemonia (not sure if it works cuz we never had to us it on our pups) he's also got others but not sure wat they do...only heard bout them

Karlin
10th July 2006, 05:59 PM
Karlin, you speak of the measles vaccine - well I was vaccinated against measles and unfortunately I contracted it not once but twice - the second time I was extremely ill My cousin was also vaccinated against measles and that afternoon she became seriously ill.

That's actually the point: the vaccine was known not to have been strong enough for those vaccinated early on, so the reason you and I got it is not that we had the vaccine, but that *we didn't have sufficient protection from the vaccine* so we were vulnerable to infection. Since the early 90s, precisely because of your experience and mine, all children are now given a booster. And it is precisely because people are not vaccinating that you and I got it in the first place. Measles is nearly eradicated as a disease in many places (though no longer in the UK) -- but if just a few unprotected/unvaccinated people get it, it is of sufficent strength to infect even those who had some basic protection. Believe me what you got was a much milder dose than you would have had with no vaccination as you were partially protected.

This is also what happens if a dog or person or cat has insufficient levels of vaccine or nosode in the system, so you can see how very serious it is to KNOW that something works -- and unfortunately, titers are not considered an accurate measure as they routinely show protection when there's none, and vice versa. This is widely reported.

I stress again: the MAIN REASON people may expect to currently give nosodes, even if they have no affect at all, and have them seem to be effective, is that the mass vaccinating of dogs continues to provide herd immunity. This means that the vast majority of dogs cannot either get these illnesses or pass them on. Unvaccinated dogs benefit from the fact that almost everyone else vaccinates. If a titer is not reliably showing whether a dog is protected, and two clinical trials have shown that dogs have a high rate of illness when exposed to the diseases that a nosode is supposedly protecting them against, the conclusion must be that at best, there's a serious degree of risk in using nosodes alone rather than vaccinating, and you'd want a very good reason to opt for them. If I see clinical, double blind tests that show otherwise, I'd have more confidence in nosodes.

Most conventional medicine is actually based on 'real' agents like willow bark/aspirin. However aspirin can be lethal in the wrong doses and causes stomach bleeding in many people even from minor use, because willow bark causes stomach bleeding. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is without risks and that included homeopathic treatments. If people choose to opt for what may seem like more 'natural' remedies 9though I'd debate this!!) then be sure the advice and guidance is coming from a trained homeopathic vet. There's a lot of people making potentially risky and even lethal independent decisions on what to use with no guidance (especially due to the internet!), and no one should be trying various substances without informed advice and oversight of a homeopathic vet if that type of treatment is their choice.

Some real statistics for thought on what life was like before human vaccines:


COMPARE THE RISKS

RISK OF DISEASE AND SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS: RISK OF SERIOUS REACTION FROM BEING VACCINATED:

Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib disease): Hib Vaccine:

Before vaccine: 1 in 200 children developed meningitis
or other invasive Hib disease by age 5.
Approximately 20,000 invasive Hib cases per year; 2/3
meningitis; 1/3 other life-threatening invasive Hib
diseases
Hib meningitis once killed 600 children each year and
left many survivors with deafness, seizures, or mental
retardation.
After Vaccine: Incidence of Hib has declined by 98%
Between 1994-1998, fewer than 10 fatal cases were
reported each year.

Risk of serious side effects from vaccine: None reported to date.

Diphtheria: DTaP Vaccine:

Before Vaccine: 206,000 cases and 15,520 deaths in
1921
Due to decreased immunizations in Russia, epidemics
began in 1990, with more than 150,000 cases and
5,000 deaths between 1990-1999.
Death: 5-10% death rate, with higher rates in the very
young and the elderly.
After Vaccine: 2 reported cases in US in 2001.

Tetanus:

Before Vaccine: 1314 cases in 1922-1926
Death: 20% of reported cases ended in death
After Vaccine: 41 cases in US in 2000

Pertussis:

Before Vaccine: 150,000-260,000 cases reported each
year; 9,000 pertussis-related deaths.
Can cause pneumonia, brain damage, seizures, and
mental retardation.
After Vaccine: From 1990-1996, 57 deaths from
pertussis; 49 of these were less than 6 months old

Measles: MMR Vaccine:
Before Vaccine: Nearly everyone in US got measles.
Complications:

Karlin
10th July 2006, 06:12 PM
Here are the rest; for some reason the formatting wouldn't allow the rest to be shown on the first post.

Measles:

MMR Vaccine:
Before Vaccine: Nearly everyone in US got measles.
Complications:
Pneumonia: 1 in 17
Thrombocytopenia: 1 in 6,000
Encephalitis: 1 in 2,000
Death: 3 out of every 1,000 persons with measles will
die in the US.
After Vaccine: 99% reduction in measles.

Mumps:
Before Vaccine: 212,000 cases of mumps in 1964.
Complications:
Encephalitis: 2 in 100,000
Testicular swelling: 1-2 in 5 adults
Deafness: 1 in 20,000
Death: 1-3 in 10,000
After Vaccine: 266 reported cases in 2001.

Rubella:
Before Vaccine: 20,000 cases of CRS, 2100 neonatal
deaths, 11,250 miscarriages in 1964-1965.
Complications:
Arthritis: 7 in 10 adult women
Thrombocytopenia: 1 in 3,000
CRS (deafness, cataracts, mental retardation)
in 8 out of 10 infants if women are infected in
early pregnancy.
After Vaccine: Only 6 cases of congenital rubella
syndrome (CRS) in 2001.

Serious side effects of vaccine:
Seizures caused by fever: 1 in 3,000 doses
Thrombocytopenia: 1in 30,000 doses
Serious allergic reaction: 1 in 1,000,000 doses

Hepatitis B:

Hepatitis B Vaccine:
12.5 million Americans have been infected at some
time in their lifetime.
1.25 million Americans have chronic infection; 20-
30% acquired infection in childhood
About 25% of children who become infected with
Hepatitis B virus would be expected to die of liver
disease as adults.
Death: About 5,000 persons per year.
Number of new infections has declined from 450,000
in 1980s to 80,000 in 1999.
Severe allergic reaction: very rare.

Varicella (Chickenpox):
Varicella Vaccine:
Before Vaccine: 4 million cases; 11,000
hospitalizations; 100 deaths per year
Complications include: secondary bacterial infections,
loss of fluids, pneumonia, central nervous system
involvement, shingles later in life.
Highly contagious.
After Vaccine: Prevents chickenpox in about 70% to
90% of people who get the shot, and prevents severe
chickenpox in over 95%

Serious side effects caused by vaccine:
Seizures caused by fever: less than 1 in 1,000 persons
Pneumonia: very rare.
Children may come down with mild rash and fever.

Polio:
Polio Vaccine:
Before Vaccine: 13,000-20,000 cases of paralytic polio
per year in US
Permanent paralysis: 2 in 100
Death: 1 in 20 children and 1 in 4 adults with paralytic
polio.
After Vaccine: Eliminated in US

Serious side effects caused by vaccine:
Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV):
Permanent paralysis: 1 in 2.5 million doses
Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV):
Severe allergic reactions very rare; no other
severe reactions reported to date.
*
Adapted from the CDC, What Would Happen if we Stopped Vaccinations, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/fs/gen/WhatIfStop.htm and Vaccine Side Effects, available at
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/side-effects.htm

judy
10th July 2006, 07:11 PM
... the vaccine was known not to have been strong enough for those vaccinated early on, so the reason you and I got it is not that we had the vaccine, but that *we didn't have sufficient protection from the vaccine* so we were vulnerable to infection.

Titer testing could've avoided this. There is no such thing as partial immunity. Either an individual is immune or they are not, based on the existence of memory cells (T and B cells). Seriologic testing, i.e. titering, measures this and if done, can bring to light those cases of vaccination failures. There have always been and always will be vaccination failures. without follow up titer testing, it can't be known if a vaccine was efffective in stimulating immunity or not. The AHAA task force report cited previously goes into this at length. This is why some vaccinated puppies still become ill. There are different reasons for vaccination failure (see the AHAA report). These include a bad batch of vaccine, problems with the vaccine as a whole, host problems (an individual who is unable to mount immunity, whether in response to the vaccine or exposure to the actual disease), and interference with the effectiveness of the vaccine by presence of maternal anti-bodies in puppies--there is a window of time when vaccinating puppies is ineffective for this reason. Following up with titering provides information as to whether an individual should be re-vaccinated, follwoing vaccination failure. The recommendation s that the individual be re-vaccinated with a different strain or brand or lot of the vaccine. If after two re-atttempts of this nature, immunity does not develop, it may be concluded that the problem wasn't one of impotent vaccine or transient maternal antibodies, but of immune system incompetance in the individual.

Those individuals should not continue to receive vaccinations, and should receive other forms of protection and should take precautions.

As you know, there were far more people vaccinated for measles in those decades who never contracted the disease--the vaccine did not fail in most people who received it. Vaccine failures are the exception. Poeple who contract the disease despite the vaccination have either received compromised ineffective vaccine or there is a problem with the immune response in that individual.

There is an important role for follow up seriologic testing (titering) in this context. In the past it has been expensive and not cost effective but that has recently changed.


Since the early 90s, precisely because of your experience and mine, all children are now given a booster. And it is precisely because people are not vaccinating that you and I got it in the first place. Measles is nearly eradicated as a disease in many places (though no longer in the UK) -- but if just a few unprotected/unvaccinated people get it, it is of sufficent strength to infect even those who had some basic protection. Believe me what you got was a much milder dose than you would have had with no vaccination as you were partially protected.

I don't believe there is such a thing as partial protection in this sense. Either immunity exists or it doesn't, based on the presence of memory cells. Those who were/are not immune to measles, despite vaccination, likely received faulty vaccine and could've been revaccinated, had this failure been detected with follow up testing for immune response.

Boosters are needed in the case of vaccines that provide short term immunity. It's not that the level of immunity decreases but that immunity as such ends after a period of time in the case of some diseases. In the case of other diseases, immunity is lifelong following initial exposure. Each disease and typical host response has its own peculiarities. The blanket approach to giving all vaccines at once, with the same time frame, being that of the shortest duration of immunity, has to do with cost effectiveness and convenience (or insuring patient compliance), not optimum health decision making.


This is also what happens if a dog or person or cat has insufficient levels of vaccine or nosode in the system, so you can see how very serious it is to KNOW that something works -- and unfortunately, titers are not considered an accurate measure as they routinely show protection when there's none, and vice versa. This is widely reported.

are the sources these reports are based on available? Highly respected expert sources familiar with evidenced based research have reported otherwise in the case of many vaccines. I provided links in the previous post.


I stress again: the MAIN REASON people can currently safely give nosodes, even if they have no affect at all, is that the mass vaccinating of dogs continues to provide herd immunity. This means that the vast majority of dogs cannot either get these illnesses or pass them on. Unvaccinated dogs benefit from the fact that almost everyone else vaccinates. If a titer is not reliably showing whether a dog is protected, and two clinical trials have shown that dogs have a high rate of illness when exposed to the diseases that a nosode is supposedly protecting them against, the conclusion must be that at best, there's a serious degree of risk in using nosodes alone rather than vaccinating and you'd want a very good reason to opt for them.

It's not clear to me as we go along, whether we are talking about whether to vaccinate at all, or whether we are talking about the need or lack of need for boosters in the case of various diseases.

Herd immunity is also explained by the way in which, without any vaccinating, the weaker members of the herd die of the disease while those able to resist it or recover from it in good health, with natural immunity developing in the herd.

Catherine O'Driscoll has a site called Pet Vaccine Myths.

http://www.rainbowremedies.co.uk/index.php?section=pet_vaccines

Here is what she says about the claims that vaccines have wiped out epidemics. I don't know what her evidence basis for this is, this could be checked.


Vaccines have eradicated epidemics.

Wrong!

Vaccine manufacturers like to claim this. But research shows that vaccines are generally introduced after the disease has died out: diseases die out after 67% of a population has been exposed to it. The smallpox vaccine is often quoted as having eradicated smallpox. In fact, scientists stopped using it when they finally admitted that it was causing too many side-effects. Only then did the disease die out.

There are strong arguments to suggest that vaccines keep diseases in the eco-system. For example, the only cause of polio in the USA today is the vaccine itself. (You can get polio if you change the nappy of a baby who has recently been vaccinated against polio.) Vaccines also shed into the environment, so a vaccinated or unvaccinated dog or cat can contract a disease from the urine and faeces of a vaccinated dog or cat.


If the level of existing herd immunity were to change because people stop vaccinating generally, I have absolutely no doubt you'd see spiking rates of serious illness in dogs, just as already, there are spiking rates in the UK on serious cases of measles and other diseases protected by the MMR vaccine. This is a hugely serious issue.

I would like to learn more about this. It seems the choice to stop vaccinating with MMR is related to a belief supported to some extent by evidence that the incidence of autism is increasing with the increased use of the MMR vaccine, and believed to be related to the thimersol (mercury) additive in the vaccine. Autism is a lifelong tragedy, and harms whole families, and parents who choose not to vaccinate because of concerns about this possible risk are trying to be responsible and are thinking of safety. These are the same people who would automatically vaccinate, because they care for their children, if they believed a vaccination was safe. Autism involves some very painful losses to the well being of a child and of their family, and to society in general. Pharmaceutical companies sometimes need the motivation of people boycotting their product in order to develop safer products. Thimersol is the variable suspected of causing the aggressive lethal sarsomas and other cancers in cats. Thanks to people refusing these vaccines, wanting to protect their animals, the pharmaceutical companies developed an adjuvant free vaccine for cats, with a 3 year vaccination recommendation, good progress for the benefit of cats, against a problem involving terrible suffering and astronomical financial costs to owners, it has been one of those terrible traumatic tragedies where people pay huge vet bills in a losing effort to save a cat stricken with aggressive cancer, suffering both from the disease and from the invasive attempts to fight it, with a miserable heart breaking end of life.

Drug companies don't change their products without the influence of effects on their bottom line. This how progress is made.

Vets slow down this process when they fail to report adverse events possibly related to vaccinations (as Mike Richards discussed in the excerpt you quoted), a serious problem (underreporting) addressed at some length by the AAHA task force reports of 2003 and 2006. Underreporting probably is related to a fear of scaring patients away, should the possibility of vaccine dangers be discussed with them, before and after the fact. The task force also goes into the issue of informed consent at length. There is also the issue of malpractice lawsuits impairing the free flow of information about this important subject. The task force addresses this legitimate realistic concern of vets as well.


Some real statistics for thought:

Is a source available for the following? [edit: i just saw your second post where you got the whole thing on, with sources, thanks]


COMPARE THE RISKS*

RISK OF DISEASE AND SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS: RISK OF SERIOUS REACTION FROM BEING VACCINATED: .....

Maxxs_Mummy
10th July 2006, 09:45 PM
Thanks Karlin and Judy for both of your posts.

Karlin, ref your info on the vaccines. Polio in particular, I know of a few families who have been affected by Polio after one of the children have been vaccinated :( Also, my own sister-in-law has had lung problems all her life because of a Polio vaccine and was unable to have children due to the damage it did to her body :(

Rubella vaccine is not without side affects either. I knew a family whose child had been left severely disabled after a routine jab went wrong :(

You know, reading down the list of all the vaccines taht you put up, I don't know why my mother bothered getting me vaccinated at all - I contracted ALL the childhood illnesses with the exception of chickenpox & there wasn't a vaccine for that at the time!

My youngest son had an extremely nasty reaction to a TB booster (first one didn't work) and ended up having 3 courses of antibiotics to clear the deep infection left in his arm. Extremely preferrable to contracing TB I know but you try telling that to a sobbing child who is in agony :roll:

Judy, the two scientists involved in the whole MMR/Autism debacle have now been totally discredited and have admitted that they were wrong. I personally know a family who had their first daughter vaccinated, only to find out at around 18mths old that she was Autistic. When their second daughter was born, they refused to have her vaccinated at all. Sadly, at 11mths old she too was diagnosed as Autistic. This was particularly upsetting for them as they had high hopes for both girls (don't we all for our children?) as she is a Teacher and he is a Scientist. I do actually wonder if it is caused like other things, by a faulty gene or environmental factors - all the pesticides used etc cannot be good for our reproductive systems.

I think I have opened up a whole can of worms with this thread - sorry!

judy
10th July 2006, 10:31 PM
I think I have opened up a whole can of worms with this thread - sorry!

I'd rather have the worms out in the open than not. :shock:
thanks for the info on the autism thing, i had only been hearing (on TV just recently) about the people testifying in congressional hearings, trying to get laws to protect against thimerosol, related to autism, but the ideas i have just come from stuff like that, and from like you, and karlin, people bringing forth what they know and/or believe.

really sorry to hear about all those bad experiences you went through--it's the last thing you want, to have your kid have a reaction that doesn't just go away in a day or so, though as you say, not as bad of a nightmare as the disease itself.

it just seems wise to me to take in information, especially conflicting information, in order to weigh it all, and continue to keep the mind open because there's always more to learn. i'm glad you brought this up. I had just been hearing stuff about vaccinations but there's only so many hours in a day and i hadn't had enough reason to read the original source material people were talking about, and im glad i read those things yesterday, i'm that much better informed, still more to look into.

Karlin
11th July 2006, 01:18 AM
Sounds like you have had some unusually bad reactions to vaccines amongst those you know, Donna -- I quite honestly have never, ever met or known of a single case of a vaccine reaction in my life (and I ain't a young 'un either!).

While any reaction to a vaccine is unfortunate, most reactions if any are very minor,especially in comparison to the consequeces to the general population of no vaccine at all, as the statistics show. Polio was a major killer right up to about the decade I was born. In Ireland, the vaccine was introduced later than in the US and I actually know two people my age who are disabled from polio and wear braces/are in wheelchairs. Sadly many who are affected in this way get a very serious onset of llness in old age as well so they get struck twice by the disease. I have never met anyone in the US of my own age, affected by polio, as the vaccine simply wiped out this disease very quickly. It was a shock to meet people my age in Ireland with polio -- it was an elderly person's disease by the time I was a child. I still remember going to my grade school and getting a sugar cube in a little paper cup with the vaccine.

The alternative to not having the rubella vaccine was, as indicated, huge numbers of miscarriages and deaths every year directly attributed to rubella -- the fatality rate was extremely high. Few would want to trade those risks again.

I feel we are so distanced from how things used to be that we now have the luxury of thinking it might be nicer to dispense with the vaccines that mean childhood death is now very rare -- where at one time it was the norm to have some of your siblings die before they became teenagers. Meanwhile huge numbers of children die in developing countries that still do not have access to basic vaccines, from diseases long since all but eradicated in the developed world.


Titer testing could've avoided this.

Judy, titers are often not accurate so this is simply not true. You can google accuracy and titers and this comes up all over the place. Or ask a doctor. There is indeed such a thing as partial immunity -- this is thoroughly discussed in the matter of flu vaccines for an epidemic that will eventually happen, for example. It is recognised as well in people who were vaccinated a long time ago for smallpox (before it was eradicated) and who, upon testing years later, retained partial or full immunity to it. And as it was my father, an emeritus professor of internal medicine, who noted that I'd only have had partial protection/partial immunity, I will take his word for it.


Poeple who contract the disease despite the vaccination have either received compromised ineffective vaccine or there is a problem with the immune response in that individual.

On what are you basing this interpretation? This is not true or scientifically accurate (unless by lack of immune response you are agreeing with my point -- that a single vaccine gave only partial cover to many people which could be said to be a 'problem with the immune response in that individual'). Most people did not get measles again simply because they were not exposed to it -- just as most people do not get the flu every year despite it being a lot more common than measles. I had a classroom full of students I was teaching at the time and about a fourth got measles and gave it to me. Even when exposed to an illness you don't always get it, of course. The vaccine did not 'fail', it gave only some rather than full immunity to many people. It needed a booster to ensure it was effective. That is what is now done.

As noted people are of course entitled to do as they please with their animals when it comes to vaccines, but they need to understand the risks involved with their choices. And also to make those choices under informed guidance eg a holistically trained vet.

Maxxs_Mummy
15th July 2006, 09:38 PM
OK then, here is an email that I received from a qualified Homeopath with regards to Nosodes.....


Homeopathic vaccination does not work in the same way and
conventional
vaccine. The theory of Conventional vaccine is that when it enters the
body the immune system makes antibodies and then when , if the disease
is picked up by the dog/person etc the anti bodies present will attack
the disease and cure the body. This does not actually work as commonly
believed. The 'disease' is introduced to the body in an abnormal way,
that is it is injected into the body bypassing the major immune system
defences. The anti bodies are not therefore produced as they should be
and are often inadequate. Hence conventionally vaccinated dogs/people
still get the disease and some do still die from it. This is entirely
due to the individuals own ability to deal with specific invasions of
disease.

Homoeopathy encourages the immune system to be strong and thereby as
soon as it is exposed to a disease it recognises it and can attack.

So a titre test will not show an increase in antibodies as a
conventional vaccine will but the immune system is markedly stronger.

The conventional vaccine is not required every year. New independent
research ( available on the internet) shows after the first vaccines
the
dog is covered for life. but with lepto, kennel cough and parvo these
are very poor vaccines anyway and often offer less than 6 months
'cover'.

I have been using the homoeopathic vaccinations for 20 years. My last
4
dogs ( 3 Newfoundlands and one Russian Black Terrier ( currently the
Russian and an 8 month Newfy boy) are wholly vaccinated with
homoeopathic nosodes. In all those years despite them coming into
contact with these diseases ( confirmation of dogs they have been with
going down with the diseases, despite being conventionally vaccinated)
our dogs have never experienced one sick day due to these diseases. I
have over 200 clients who vaccinate solely with nosodes to maintain a
strong active immune system and none have ever had a problem, I know on
no dogs that have dies of any of the vaccinated diseased who have had
homoeopathic as well as conventional or homoeopathic protection alone.

Your vet is likely to have a fit if he is unaware of either the
research
the changes in the germ theory that has been religiously taught for
many
years, since Pasteur's time in fact and never questioned, until now and
now it is shown to be incorrect, yet still it is taught in all teaching
hospitals and colleges both in human medicine and veterinary medicine.

It is something you have to decide upon for yourself , no one can make
that decision for you but I can say this. no one can be more
protective
of their dogs as I am and I would never put them at risk knowingly, I
am
happy to have all my dogs treated with homoeopathic vaccine and know
they will be healthier and more able to fight any disease with a strong
immune system because they are treated this way.

I have several clients with cavaliers who have Syringomyelia and they
are vaccinated homoeopathically. Any animal or person who is less than
100% fit in all ways should, in my view be subjected to vaccination by
conventional methods. That view is shared by thousands of doctors and
vets and even the manufacturers of the vaccines so if it is better not
to vaccinate conventionally at that time why is there a problem giving
them homoeopathic nosodes to protect them (that have no side effects
whatsoever) whilst they are compromised?

<<However, my Vet is convinced that Nosodes do not work and will leave
the dogs with no immunity to Lepto and Parvovirus - both of which he
informs me are still around in enough measures to have killed around a
dozen dogs in that surgery alone last year.>>

But does he tell you how many dogs have died or been severely life long
affected by conventional vaccine in the same amount of time???) the
combined medical and veterinary) professionals take great pains to
publicise the benefits and usually this follows with and the side
effects are far outweighed by the benefits. Except of course for those
effected by the side effects!!!!!

Lepto, KC and Parvo are not very good vaccines anyway and the more you
pump in to the animal the less effective its immune system becomes.

The dog press carried an articles some years ago stating dogs over 8 no
longer required vaccination, now the research has proven after the
initial vaccines the dogs should not have more.

If you are still worried then you can give Thuja and homoeopathic
nosode
after conventional vaccine and minimise the side effects but for me my
dogs will never be subjected to conventional vaccine again and from
what
I have seen in the last 20 years my dogs have had very strong immune
systems, have had minimal health problems and even when having been in
contact with disease have shown no sign of it even though the dogs they
have been with have gone down with it. All but 2 dogs ( these belong
to
the same person) in the search unit are now covered by homoeopathic
nosodes and several who had occasional skin problems or other allergy
related problems are now fit and healthy.

As I say the choice is yours, only you can make that decision but
please
do as much research as you need and see what you come up with both for
and against conventional vaccination, especially in connection with an
animal who's health is compromised already.


www.gentletouchremedies.co.uk enquiries@gentletouchremedies.co.uk 0871-7176871 10am - 5.30pm Tues - Fri ONLY!!!!!!!

The writer of the email has consented to me posting it on here and has asked that if anyone wants to buy remedies etc can they please only do so in the stated times above. (emails obviously OK anytime but will only be answered Tues-Fri).

judy
11th November 2006, 10:12 PM
I know this is an old thread, but i just ran across a commentary by Christie Keith, list owner of Beyond Vaccination, on the subject of nosodes, which i think belongs on this thread as yet another voice on the subject which may overlap with some others.

http://www.caberfeidh.com/Nosodes.htm

If i understand what she's saying, she expresses concerns about risks of using nosodes prophylactically on healthy dogs, based on homeopathic theory as she reads it, and she agrees with the view that the role for nosodes is in epidemic situations where there has been high risk of specific exposures, as a preventive, but again, she believes that if overused, as if in place of conventional vaccinations, in healthy puppies and dogs, this could undermine their health.