PDA

View Full Version : yearly vaccs



lily
6th January 2007, 10:12 AM
is it right dogs need these forever?? tried looking but cant find anything though i bet its here somewhere....

Flynn
6th January 2007, 11:22 AM
Yes dogs need to have yearly vaccinations throughout their lives to keep them safe from all the diseases they can pick up.

lily
6th January 2007, 11:39 AM
thanks

yeah i know what they are for its just i thought their was a debate about the reasons NOT to get it done.... maybe read it on another forum. ;)

Alison_Leighfield
6th January 2007, 11:53 AM
No, it is in here....somewhere. we all have our own choices for many different reasons.
I use nosodes like many others do after the first puppy shots, which again with a Cavalier I would leave until as late as possible. It is known and thought that we over vaccinate here in the U.K. I believe the U.S vaccinate every 3yrs? our U.S members can/please confirm this.

Vaccinations should only be carried out on a dog that is 100% fit and healthy.

Alison, Wilts, U.K.

Karlin
6th January 2007, 12:20 PM
Dogs do NOT need annual vaccinations -- though many vets continue to push them (usually because this guarantees an annual visit, which owners should always schedule anyway, for a general check-up) the recommendation of most major vet schools now is every THREE years -- every year is probably not just unnecessary but places dogs (and cats) at potential risk for cancers that can develop at the site of vaccinations (particularly in the case of cats) and of other diseases resulting from overly pressuring the immune system. Many vets including my own are switching to the three-year recommendation.

If you search on 'vaccinations' you will find many, many threads on the board discussing this, and many links.

Vaccinations are covered (as is noted in the forum description) in the Health section of the information library -- and the discussion is posted near the top of that forum:

http://www.cavaliertalk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=137

All my dogs and cats are on a three year schedule and I will not vaccinate once they get past around 7 -- most studies indicate animals probably have lifetime protection by that point. My cats are also all indoor cats anyway and are not exposed to other disease-carrying cats.

I give my dogs leptospirosis annually but that is it.

All that said, the risk of annual vaccinations is FAR LOWER than the risk of not protecting your dogs. Most of us will have had animals in the past vaccinated every year who lived to good ages with no side affects at all.

Personally, I do not trust nosodes not least because there's very poor medical evidence that they work (eg as far as I know no or very limited double blind tests to measure their effectiveness -- the ONLY accurate way of determining the efficacy of any treatment), but others are comfortable with them as a choice. Titers are not considered to be accurate by many researchers as they can show protection when there is none and show none when there is protection -- this IS well documented. I would use nosodes for animals that cannot be vaccinated as the only other option but I wouldn't use them as the only source of protection. I have seen puppies and adult dogs dying from distemper and parvo -- it is highly contagious and very long-lived in outdoor environments and can survive both low and high temperatures -- and I'd need a lot more convincing before I'd trust nosodes on the medical evidence available and I don't know any kennels that will accept them over here, as an alternative to vaccinating dogs, which also may be a consideration if you plan on taking holidays and have no one who will mind your dog.

If someone has some convincing medical studies on nosodes, I'd be happy to post info/links on them to the vaccinations section.

My advice is read widely and throroughly and make a decision on how you want to proceeed. But I sure wouldn't vaccinate yearly any longer.

Karlin
6th January 2007, 12:44 PM
Regarding the dearth of literature showing any documented effectiveness of nosodes for veterinary use, from a generally sympathetic to homeopathy article published last May (2006), in the Journal of Evidence Based Alternative Complementary Medicine, Oxford University. Concludion of the abstract:


Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials.

In the paper's concluding discussion:


As the veterinary research is concerned, the authors of this review have searched literature regarding immunostimulating effects of homeopathy and/or protection from infectious diseases. In addition to Internet databases, books and conference proceedings, we have also directly asked homeopathic veterinary associations and private foundations to provide available literature. Unfortunately, we were able to find only a few articles on these topics. The Carstens Foundation kindly provided a list of veterinary studies but most of them were unpublished university dissertations. So, to the best of our knowledge, the question of the potential utilization of homeopathy in the infectious diseases of domestic animals or in natural farming is still largely unexplored, or unpublished.

Complete article:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1475939

One interesting point -- on reading thru this article you will find several of the studies mentioned repeatedly by proponents of nosodes and homeopathic treatments as proving the success of homeopathic treatments actually are cited as showing they did no better than placebos. One study I have seen cited many times by the pro-homeopathic side is one on bovine mastitis, for example -- here the full results are summarised. Note that while the authors conclude there may well be advantages to homeopathic treatment in animal medicine, almsot nothing has been adequately tested or documented, and this is my basic concern and objection:


Few Randomized Trials
A veterinary randomized clinical trial was carried out in order to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy in treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows (100). A three-armed, stratified, semi-crossover design comparing classical (individualized) homeopathy, placebo and a standardized antibiotic treatment was used. Significant reductions in mastitis signs were observed in all treatment groups. Two-thirds of the cases both in the homeopathy and placebo groups responded clinically within 7 days. However, homeopathic treatment was not statistically different from either placebo or antibiotic treatment. The latter treatment was significantly better than placebo. Evidence of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond placebo was not found in this study, but authors suggested that the design can be useful in subsequent larger trials on individualized homeopathic treatment. Furthermore, the use of a homeopathic nosode in the treatment of bovine mastitis was unsuccessful in a randomized trial (101).
Another study conducted in pigs showed that various combinations of Lachesis, Pulsatilla and Sabina, or Lachesis, Echinacea and Pyrogenium, associated with Caulophyllum (all in low dilutions, from 1x to 6x) have prophylactic and therapeutic effects on infections (metritis and mastitis) of sows and on diarrhea of piglets (102). A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of a homeopathic treatment of neonatal calf diarrhea was performed (103). Calves with spontaneously derived diarrhea were treated with either the homeopathic remedy Podophyllum 30x or a placebo. No clinically or statistically significant difference between the two groups was demonstrated in the duration of diarrhea, inappetence and fever.

Knowledge of non-invasive treatments with few or no side effects that have the potential to heal animals should be welcomed, and homeopathy, as well as other complementary therapies, fits this description (104). Homeopathy may offer great advantages in animal farming, particularly for its potential immunostimulating effects, which in turn would reduce the need of chemical treatments, but documentation of these effects is largely insufficient.

I do think there's reasonable anecdotal evidence that homeopathic treatments work in some situations for some people. But for something as important as vaccination for immunity to serious diseases, I don't feel there is even a reasonable level of evidence that this approach works any better that just running the risk that an animal will never be exposed to the relevant diseases and I'd only use them when there is absolutely no other option.

This is one of the few areas where I will make a very strong stance on making sure people know the evidence that exists for the various choices available, because this is a very basic and crucial part of animal healthcare and the most essential level of primary protection for the lifetime of you cavalier. We all have different comfort levels and beliefs, but people need to make sure theirs, and their acceptable risk level, is based on an informed choice. :thmbsup:

Alison_Leighfield
6th January 2007, 01:01 PM
I know in the U.K now P.A.T dogs are accepted using nosodes along with many Dog training schools and Boarding kennels...alot of breeders use them, I know my girls breeder uses them.

I know a while back Judy posted alot of information about nosodes, seemed like pages of it!

While there is a question of there being any possiblity of brain swelling as a reaction/trigger of any vaccine, especially with Cavaliers and the SM health issues, I in my own opinion will not take that risk, however small.

This is my main concern about vaccinations and Cavaliers. I vaccinate my Shelties without any worries at all. I am not against vaccinations, please do not think this.

Again I'm sure the info Judy posted contained a piece about this?

If there is any clear clinical evidence with statistics that this is nothing to be worried about regarding Cavaliers and SM I would most welcome it.

Alison, Wilts, U.K.

Cicero's Mummy
6th January 2007, 01:13 PM
Our teaching vet hospital here in Columbus, Ohio (I am sure you can guess which one) is pretty much along the lines of what Karlin says... about every 3 years once all the first shots and everything are done. There are some medical exceptions I think, but anywho... I would just go with what your vet recommends is the best, seeing as I am not a vet, I can just tell you what I have been told by my vets, please don't take this as medical advice.!

Karlin
6th January 2007, 01:33 PM
All I can say is I'd rather run the miniscule risk of a reaction to a vaccine than the much higher risk of a dog being exposed to, and die from, distemper or parvo -- both hideous, protracted deaths. If there were no possibility of vaccinating for health reasons, then I would opt for nosodes as being better than nothing at all. I've never encountered a dog that had a bad vaccine reaction, though I know they rarely happen. I have however seen MANY in vets with distemper/parvo or needing to be put down when taken from the pound, for same -- on a regular basis.

I note again that the journal in which the above article was published is actually one of the recognised, respected journals of alternative medicine. The authors conducted an extensive search of available literature and even approached practitioners and homeopathic organisations asking for a very basic level of support for homeopathic claims -- any published studies (eg like the ones that do get cited on homepathic sites). As they note: no one could produce much except some postgraduate dissertations (these would not constitute adequate studies in any area of medicine or research -- that is one of my huge problems with homeopathy and the citing of 'studies' as there are REAL studies and there are 'citations' which can be little more that a postgrad research project poorly performed). I would not base something as important as immunisation decisions on postgraduate dissertations.

If you take the article above, which is very recent and looks at every homeopathic trial/study done to date (see footnotes, where they cite 126 studies), even in cases where good results were reported, the authors make repeated conclusions of this sort:


Acceptance of the homeopathic claims requires supporting evidence of plausible mechanisms and high quality studies exploring its effectiveness in experimental settings.


Homeopathy may offer great advantages in animal farming, particularly for its potential immunostimulating effects, which in turn would reduce the need of chemical treatments, but documentation of these effects is largely insufficient.


n synthesis, the homeopathic complex medicine may be effective and economical in the management of bovine mastitis, but definitive conclusions are premature due to the design of the studies that did not include radomization and blinding.


The authors concluded that extremely small amounts of antigen are enough for specific immunomodulation and, in particular, that homeopathic dilutions beyond Avogadro's constant still have some effect. However, they also acknowledged that, in view of the vast implications of these findings, the experiments must be rigorously repeated and confirmed.


All the literature available in Medline, conference proceedings and books was searched, we also report experiments done in our laboratory. As in the previous article reporting studies on cellular models, due to the relative scarcity of literature in this field, the lack of replication articles and the heterogeneity of experiments, we could not perform meta-analysis of data.

In other words, there is no adequate, or even minimal, body of evidence demonstrating or proving anything. All that is available are some random studies, most of them unpublished, which vary enormously in how quantities of substances were tested and make-up of substances tested, and in the different ways in which measurements were taken and experiments conducted, and experiments/studies are small and have almost never been repeated to confirm results. This has made it impossible for the authors of the overview of existing research to draw any conclusions from that material except that some areas look promising -- significantly, some aspects of veterinary immunology perhaps not being one of them.

I never trust what other people do as an argument for doing something myself, and certainly , far more breeders vaccinate than do not. On the basis of available evidence I couldn't in good conscience take the risk of using nosodes and titers (there are many boards and lists where people discuss nothing but this, and people are very welcome to go there for that perspective and further discussion should they desire it). Of course people have every right to draw their own conclusions, and to make their own choices, but in the very important area of vaccinations, I don't want them put forward, unchallenged, as reasonable alternatives when the evidence is so meager.

lily
6th January 2007, 01:51 PM
thanksloads of info to read.... :flwr:

judy
7th January 2007, 08:25 AM
is it right dogs need these forever?? tried looking but cant find anything though i bet its here somewhere....


There's solid research discussed in the American Animal Hospital Association task force report on vaccinations of 2003 which was studying duration of immunity for the parvo and distemper vacccinations, and according to this document, dogs were exposed by researchers to these diseases yearly for 5 and 7 years after only one vaccination shot, and they did not get sick from the exposure! After the studies ended (the ones where the dogs wer exposed to the disease) they continued to follow the dogs with titer measures (blood tests of immune response) and the dogs continued to show evidence of immunity to these antigens (germs).

Given these research findings, the report recommended that the common practice of yearly vaccinations be replaced by use of a general guideline of every three years vaccinations, for parvo and distemper (and rabies). They were very emphatic that every three years was meant to be a guideline, not a rule. They emphasized that a dog might be vaccinated more often than that or less often than that, depending on circumstances, and they advocated that vets should make this decision based on an examination and consideration of each patient, and not decided in advance as a fixed automatic schedule.

Their recommendations have been embraced, as Karlin said, by the major vet schools and by the American Veterinary Medical Association. The people who staffed the task force or who's work contributed to their position are highly respected.

This makes me wonder why some continue to advocate yearly vaccinations.

On the other hand, the bacterial vaccinations do not have a long duration of immunity, and the report stated that vet might want to give these more frequently than once a year, if they believed a dog needed the vaccination. At the same time, they described these as being optional, not to be given automatically to every dog.

here's a copy of that report:
http://leerburg.com/special_report.htm

judy
7th January 2007, 09:30 AM
....I know a while back Judy posted alot of information about nosodes, seemed like pages of it!

I think it was Donna who posted that. Someone posted a long detailed essay or letter on the subject from their homeopathic vet, with his permission.

I wasn't at all familiar with nosodes until it came up here and there was a long discussion about it. I'm interested in these discussions. I've had such good results with homeopathy, but i've never tried nosodes. Zack was already vaccinated by the time i heard of them as an alternative.

here's the thread with a lot of discussion of nosodes (i'm sure there are some others too)
click (http://www.cavaliertalk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2478&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=nosodes&start=15)


While there is a question of there being any possiblity of brain swelling as a reaction/trigger of any vaccine, especially with Cavaliers and the SM health issues, I in my own opinion will not take that risk, however small.

This is my main concern about vaccinations and Cavaliers. I vaccinate my Shelties without any worries at all. I am not against vaccinations, please do not think this.

Jean Dodds is a respected influential vaccine researcher (currently leading efforts to have an independent controlled study of the duration of immunity for rabies vaccination, in the interest of changing laws that require unnecessarily frequent exposures to this vaccine). She is knowledgeable and experienced in holistic health and has holistic values. I took Zack to her for titer tests and a consult. At that time, we talked about SM and i asked her if there was any sign that vaccinations played a role. She shook her head and said there was no evidence of any environmental cause. She noted hereditary evidence. She was well informed about SM, has written an article on it consistent with information reported by experts in the field specializing in SM and by SM researchers, and she clearly said there is no sign of vaccination causing SM, nor any other environmental factors. I respect her opinions a lot and i thought if anyone would have information about any associations with vaccination, it would be her, she must be as in tune as anyone with vaccination related problems.

Still, from reading SM discussion lists, i know that many people remain open to the possibility of environmental factors, including causal factors, and they have made some good arguments for staying open to this.

i hadn't thought of the possibility of a vaccination causing swelling of the brain. I can understand why you would not want to risk this. Not to say that the vaccination would cause SM but that for an SM dog, it would seem to be the last thing you'd want to risk happening.


Again I'm sure the info Judy posted contained a piece about this?

The thing i've been posting a lot about, related to vaccinations, is the evidence of the very long duration of immunity for parvo and distemper vaccinations, which raises doubts about the long embraced common practice of frequent and regular boosters, and the related subject of the efficacy of titer testing to assess immunity following vaccination. If there is considerable evidence that the duration of immunity from one vaccination is many years, and likely lifelong, and if seriologic testing (titer measures) are reasonable reliable tests of immunity as claimed by leading veterinarians and vaccine researchers, then if a dog shows an adequate titer following vaccination, not only would a booster be unnecessary--it would have no positive effect. The immune system would simply prevent it from affecting the animal. But there would be the risk of negative effects such as allergic reactions and long term undermining of normal immune function.

Reportedly, there is a big difference between the kinds of conditions vets frequently treat in their practices today compared to 30 years ago. In the old days, they mostly treated broken bones, ingested foreign bodies, and old age. Now, there are so many cases of severe chronic allergy, cancers, autoimmune disorders, that were rarely seen before. Over-vaccination is suspected as being related to this change, since the increase in vaccine use has parallelled it. So, the facts about duration of immunity and the role of titers in testing immunity is of great importance.


If there is any clear clinical evidence with statistics that this is nothing to be worried about regarding Cavaliers and SM I would most welcome it.

At least if the duration of immunity research findings are credible, there might not be a reason to repeatedly vaccinate, given adequate properly measured titers, and even your shelties might be spared the risk of swelling of the brain!