 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Pet Forum / Miscellaneous / Animal Health / March 2008Thoughts on vaccinations --- required community immunity?
Been thinking since buglady posted her article about "Rabies Challenge underway" some time ago, about what an acceptable standard would be to judge whether or not a vaccine it effective for a given length of time. I was looking at a post over in rec.pets.dogs.health, which reference this site (http://www.cedarbayvet.com/duration_of_immunity.htm ). I found it interesting that the yardstick they used to measure 'duration of vaccine' was that 95% of vaccinated dogs would be immune. It seems to me like the 95% cutoff, (while standard in scientific literature) is too low in this case. What we'd be more interested in, is a 95% chance that an infected dog will not pass it on to another uninfected dog. If we assume that the diesease stands a 100% chance of being transmitted to another dog in the same 'social group' and that a given dog's social group is about 50 dogs (rough estimate based on my own experience), then in an average group of dogs with 95% immunity, there will be 2.5 dogs who are not immune, so one gets infected, the other 1.5 dogs likely will too (with the potential for further spread). Am I missing something here? Dale HOWEDY dale you pathetic miserable stinkin rotten lyin animal abusin punk thug coward active accute chronic life long incurable malignant maliciHOWES mental case, > Been thinking since buglady posted her article about "Rabies Challenge > underway" some time ago, Actually dale, BugF'nNUTS didn't have much at all to say abHOWET it: Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: "buglady" <buglad...@bigfootdog.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:31:31 -0500 Subject: Re: MAINE RABIES LAW--Action Alert! "Kris L. Christine" <Kris.L.Christine.1ff9...@dogbanter.com> wrote in message news:Kris.L.Christine.1ff9978@dogbanter.com... > Greetings! > The *Maine *Director of Animal Welfare, Norma Worley, is trying > to change the rabies immunization requirement for puppies from 6 months to > 3 months .........good on ya. What brainless nimrod came up with this idea? buglady take out the dog before replying Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: "buglady" <buglad...@bigfootdog.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:11:23 -0500 Subject: Re: MAINE RABIES LAW--Action Alert! "Kris L. Christine" <Kris.L.Christine.2009...@dogbanter.com> wrote in message news:Kris.L.Christine.2009699@dogbanter.com... > The same Director of Animal Welfare, Norma Worley wanted to introduce > legislation in 2004 that would have made it a *CRIMINAL* or civil > violation to be late boostering dogs & cats for rabies! Scary, isn't it? .......Hmmmmm, she hired or elected? Maybe she can be unelected. Seems there's more and more of these petty dictators wanting to turn everything into a criminal event..........they're trying to do that with code enforcement violations. Around here they can tow a car out of a driveway which has been sitting for a while (even though the tires aren't all flat and it's not so obviously a JUNK car) if it does not have current registration. The world's gone mad. I'd like to move out of Flori-duh, but there are places I won't move - those with idiotic state legislation like breed bans and that idiotic legislation in CA regarding spay/ neuter timing. .....anyway, I honor you for your actions! buglady take out the dog before replying > about what an acceptable standard would be to judge whether > or not a vaccine it effective for a given length of time. If the protocols was changed your veterinary malpracticioners would SUFFER EXXXTREME hardship, wouldn't they, dale. And that would probably effect your ability to obtain a student loan if your projected earnings as a veterinary malpracticioner was cut in half. WOULDN'T IT, dale <{}: ~ ( > Newsgroups: alt.med.veterinary From: toucan...@aol.com Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:49:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Rabies Challenge underway The Rabies Challenge Fund is pleased to announce that the canine rabies challenge studies have begun!!! Permission is granted to post and cross-post the text of our press release below. Regards, Kris L. Christine Founder, Co-Trustee The Rabies Challenge Fund http://www.RabiesChallengeFund.org Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: MikeEisenf...@webtv.net Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:58:25 -0400 Subject: Rabies Challenge Front Page Greetings! Just out (10/12/05 issue) on the front page with the full poster in COLOR!!! (!!)-- Aaron Miller's Lincoln County Weekly story Rabies Challenge Kicks Off Fundraiser http://www.courierpub.com/articles/2005/10/12/lincolncountyweekly/loc... Rabies Challenge kicks off fundraiser BY AARON MILLER ALNA - A world-renown vaccine research scientist has teamed up with a local woman to raise money to fund a seven-year rabies vaccine challenge study. Dr. W. Jean Dodds of California and Alna resident Kris Christine are spearheading The Rabies Challenge Fund, <SNIP> Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: "Tee" <crappolagozh...@netscape.net> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:16:24 -0500 Subject: Rabies Vaccine Fund [I saw this on a rescue list and thought it was a good *health topic. Permission for crossposting is granted below --Tara] Important news for companion animal owners about a 7 year canine rabies vaccine challenge fund and a national pet vaccine class action lawsuit (see below and read Aaron Miller's Lincoln County Weekly story Rabies Challenge Kicks Off Fundraiser http://www.courierpub.com/articles/2005/10/12/lincolncountyweekly/loc... Kay Liss's story Nationwide Campaign Launched to Fund Rabies Vaccine Study in the Lincoln County News at http://www.mainelincolncountynews.com/index.cfm?ID=14204; Denise Flaim's 9/19/05 story Challenging the Rabies Vaccine in Newsday http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-lspets4432971sep19,0,1274963.column and Nancy Freedman Smith's Story in Maine Today, News, The Rabies Challenge Fund http://blogs.mainetoday.com/dogslife/002976.html) -- permission is granted to post and cross-post this message. Please help to spread the word so we can get these studies underway as soon as possible. Anyone wishing to have a copy of the 1992 French challenge study data from a research team led by Michel Aubert in which dogs were demonstrated to be immune to a rabies challenge 5 years after vaccination, please e-mail me. Regards, Kris Christine The Rabies Challenge Fund World-renowned vaccine research scientist and practicing veterinarian, Dr. W. Jean Dodds of California, and pet vaccine disclosure advocate, Kris L. Christine of Maine, have established The Rabies Challenge Fund to raise money to fund a 7 year canine rabies vaccine challenge study in the United States. In addition to the challenge study, the fund will finance a study of the adjuvants used in veterinary rabies vaccines and establish a rabies vaccine adverse reaction reporting system. Nationally, rabies vaccination is the one immunization required by law to be administered annually or triennially to domestic dogs and cats. Researchers believe this vaccine causes the most and worst adverse reactions in animals. The Rabies Challenge Fund has been founded to improve the safety of rabies vaccines and to determine, by challenge, if they confer immunity for 5 or 7 years. <SNIP> > I was looking at a post over in rec.pets.dogs.health, which reference this > site (http://www.cedarbayvet.com/duration_of_immunity.htm ). > I found it interesting that the yardstick they used to measure 'duration > of vaccine' was that 95% of vaccinated dogs would be immune. Perhaps you should read it REAL S-L-O-W, eh, dale? I'd suggest trying to break it down in to its component pieces to read it.: Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: "Dale Atkin" <labrad...@ibycus.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:45:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Metacam WARNING > Several years ago my now 9 year old cocker spaniel was prescribed Metacam > for minor arthritis. Something to consider... Did the drug give him extra life, or take away life? How minor was minor? > Metacam is apparently the drug of choice by vets for > this condition. Bigger profit margin than on aspirin!!!. My vet recommends asprin for 'one off' use, and something else (dependent on specifics of the dog) for longer term. *(dale is fixin to start his own dog on metacam <{}: ~ ( >) <SNIP> > She was very thirsty as well. A trip to the vet confirmed my worst > fears, kidney failure....... Her prospects are not good . Getting back > to Metacam, my vet said to read the insert in the package. > > Guess what? In small print it states that it could kill your dog. Not in > those words, but rather in cruder language. Vetamanese. Can be confusing if you're not used to it. As a general rule, I'd suggest trying to break it down in to its component pieces to read it. > In short term theraphy it is a good drug apparently, but in > the long haul no no. There are no warning not use for extended periods. > My problem, not reading the small print. Dog Owners take caution, METACAM > can kill...... Sometimes you have no choice but to use for long periods, which is why monitoring is so important. Dale BWEEEEAAAHAAAA~!~!~! Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.health From: Kris L. Christine <Kris.L.Christine.1eec...@dogbanter.com> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:29:18 +0000 Subject: Kris L. Christine, New Member Introduction Greetings! My name is Kris L. Christine. I live in Maine and am the Founder and Co-Trustee of THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND (www.RabiesChallengeFund.org). My precious canine companion, Meadow, developed a malignant mast cell tumor directly on the site of his rabies shot at the age of 6 (syringe hole still visible in the tumor) and died in July after repeated surgeries failed to yield clean margins and the cancer metasticized throughout his body. It is my goal to make available to all dog owners the scientific data on the known durations of immunity for canine vaccines and the adverse reactions associated with them so that they can make informed vaccine decisions for their beloved companions. In 2004 I launched a successful effort to change Maine's rabies immunization regulations for dogs from 2 to 3 years and insert a medical exemption clause; later that year Representative Peter Rines introduced the nation's first pet vaccine disclosure legislation on my behalf. If anyone would like copies of the American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines, the 1992 French challenge study demonstrating that dogs were immune to a rabies challenge 5 years after vaccination, the 2003 Italian study documenting fibrosarcomas at the presumed injection sites of rabies vaccines in dogs, as well as Dr. W. Jean Dodds' papers on vaccinal adverse reactions, please e-mail me at ledgespr...@lincoln.midcoast.com. The *2003 American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines *are accessible online at 'Special Report' (http://www.leerburg.com/special_report.htm) . The *2006 American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines *are downloadable in PDF format at 'About AAHA' (http://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocumen...s06Revised.pdf) .  SignatureKris L. Christine ============= > It seems to me like the 95% cutoff, (while standard in scientific > literature) is too low in this case. What we'd be more interested in, is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > infected, the other 1.5 dogs likely will too (with the potential for > further spread). It's bigger than your head can wrap arHOWEND, dale. > Am I missing something here? You mean, missin sumpthin besides MORALS, ETHICS, PRINCIPLES, HUMAN DECENCY and good judgement? > Dale From: "Human_And_Animal_Behavior_Forensic_Sciences_Research_Laboratory @HotMail.Com" Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 Subject: Veterinary Ethicks??: BOTTOM LINE BLURS VET PRACTICES From: Dr Andrew Jones Author: Veterinary Secrets Revealed Website: http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com Re: Vets are having a serious lapse of ethics? ////////////////////////////////////////////// I was sent to a copy of a VERY interesting story on Newstarget. It speaks to MANY of the issues that I have been discussing. ................................. BOTTOM LINE BLURS VET PRACTICES ................................. Imagine if every time you went to the doctor you were given vaccinations that you don't need; vaccinations that offer no benefit but all of the risks of harmful side effects. Or you were given medications with no explanation or information provided. Or tests were being done for no reason. Now imagine that you can't speak and you have no way to tell those who care for you that those vaccinations make you feel sick; you don't want those tests; and the medicine is causing more harm than good. That's exactly what many of our cat and dog friends experience. We bring our best friend to the veterinarian with unquestioned trust and faith that our vet has our animal's best interest at heart but according to Veterinarian Dr. James Busby, author of "How To Afford Veterinary Care Without Mortgaging the Kids", his profession is suffering from a serious lapse in judgment and ethics that is rooted in making money. ........................................ IT'S NOW ABOUT MON**EY ........................................ Dr. Busby, who has been a practicing vet since 1966, loves his work and comes from a family of Veterinarians; but admits if he had to practice the way vets practice today he would not enter the profession. Dr. Busby feels "the profession has slowly turned from what was once an honest, caring one to a situation where many clinics and doctors are interested more in the bottom line, than what is necessary and best for your pet." If you thought the veterinary world had escaped the 'bottom line' mentality of the Medical Community you are wrong. The world of veterinary medicine has become equally entangled with Drug and Insurance Companies. The result is not only rising costs for the animal guardian but also unnecessary treatments, over-the- top testing, and over vaccination for the animals. Dr. Busby says, "Veterinarians today seem to assume they have the OK to run every test and perform any and every procedure on your animal they can, unless you tell them differently. Then they usually get irate and try to shame you for being a non-loving pet owner." .......................................... USING GUILT AND PRESSURE ......................................... Veterinarians are great at using guilt and pressure to strip animal guardians of their power. They can be brusque, condescending and intimidating and in the end, the animal guardian, wanting to do whatever they can to support their animal friend, goes along with whatever the vet says. The only way to change this is for animal guardians to become as well informed about their animal's care, as they are about their own. Until recently, Vets have held an unquestionable 'high moral' mark where guardians assumed that whatever a vet wants to do must be in the best interest of the animal, but that unquestionable morality is gone now. ................................................... TOO MANY VACCINES...TOO OFTEN ................................................... Let's start with vaccinations. The standard operating procedure is for animals to receive a multitude of vaccinations on a regular schedule. Most animal guardians don't question the vaccination schedule. If the vet says it's needed, then it must be. For those who do question it, they are met with hostility or condescension or frightened with the horrors of what will happen if an animal isn't vaccinated regularly. And in several cases, have been asked to find another vet altogether. But here's the truth about all animal vaccines: The drug manufactures label determines the frequency of revaccination. There is nothing scientific about the current animal vaccination schedule. Neither the FDA nor the USDA requires drug companies to prove the maximum immunity conferred; they only require that immunity be conferred for the duration of their testing. Which means if the drug company tests for one year, the label states vaccinate yearly. This manufacturers' recommendation ultimately influenced rabies laws in each and every state across the country. Those laws are not based in scientific study, but rather on the research done by drug companies necessary to get approval for their drugs. It has been proven as well that vaccine boosters do not increase immunity. Once the body has immunity, that same immunity will knock out the virus in the vaccine, leaving your animal to experience none of the benefits from the vaccine but all of the risks from the adjuvants; and, leaving the guardian to pay for something that does nothing. .......................................... CANCER FROM A VACCINE ......................................... Kris Christine, Founder of The Rabies Challenge Fund Trust and vaccine reform activist, stated during a recent interview on Conscious Animal Radio that this practice fit the definition of fraud. Christine joined this fight when her own dog Meadow developed an injection site sarcoma with the needle mark visible in the center of the tumor. After her vet informed her that Meadow most likely had immunity to rabies for life, and carelessly let it slip that it was the distemper shot Christine should really watch out for as that one had many side effects and was ultimately unnecessary for older dogs, Christine jumped into action. Since, she has had the rabies vaccination requirement revised in her home state of Maine extending it to every three years; challenged the state to introduce a veterinary disclosure law, which was defeated and has started the Rabies Challenge Fund Trust along with Dr. W. Jean Dodds, a highly noted Veterinarian for her work and opinion on vaccine reform. The Rabies Challenge Fund seeks to prove through a challenge study that the rabies vaccine confers immunity for seven years. ........................................... IMMUNITY LASTS MUCH LONGER ........................................... Dr. Ronald Schultz, who is also involved in the Rabies Challenge Fund, has already demonstrated through serology (blood testing) that the Rabies vaccine lasts at least 7 years. He's also demonstrated that the distemper vaccine lasts at least 15 years; parvovirus at least 7 years and the adenovirus at least 9 years. By now you are beginning to see that there are two roots to this issue: The drug manufacturers who are not required to test for maximum immunity conferred and the veterinarians that go along with the recommendation of the drug companies without question. ////////////////////////////////////////////// P.S. The BOTTOM LINE is now blurring MANY VETERINARY PRACTICES. The days of James Herriot are LONG GONE. IF you DON'T have the MON**EY, then your beloved Pet may be Out of Luck. Now is the time for you to TAKE CHARGE of your dog or cat's Health Care. TAKE MATTERS into your OWN HANDS. QUESTION what your Veterinarian Advises. BE AWARE of ALL the Holistic, NATURAL OPTIONS. ................................. DO you NEED to buy my products? ................................. NO ........................... Do You NEED to TAKE ACTION? ............................ YES Do Something DIFFERENT. EDUCATE yourself on ALL of the OPTIONS and Alternate ways of Healing and PREVENTING DISEASE. I am in the FORTUNATE position of SEEING what INVOLVED Pet Guardians are doing to KEEP their Pet's Healthy.. SO if you would like a KICKSTART to a BETTER WAY to Keeping Your Pet Healthy and Alternate Ways of TREATING DISEASE at Home check out my book at: http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com P.P.S. If you DON'T yet own a copy, AT LEAST make a comittment to making some of the changes I SUGGEST so that YOUR PET stays healthy. Go through my newsletters. Go to my blog. http://www.theinternetpetvet.com Go through many of the Quality Alternate Sites on the Internet, such as Canine Health Concern, and Shirley's Wellness Cafe. DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. It's Your Pet. Heal Them At Home! Best Wishes, Dr Andrew Jones, DVM PRIVACY POLICY: We will never rent, sell, loan, provide, barter, exchange or in any way make available your personal information to others. You can unsubscribe or change your email address at any time using the links at the bottom of this email. Copyright 2007 Four Paws Online Ltd. Tel: 1-800-396-1534 Fax: 1-250-352-1901 http://www.theonlinevet.com http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com http://www.theveterinarysecret.com http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com/course http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com/manual.php http://www.theveterinarycode.com http://www.thepetfoodrecallreport.com supp...@veterinarysecretsrevealed.com 2124 Ymir Rd, Nelson, BC V1L 6Y9, CANADA Your concerns are mine (partially) and are the main reason I haven't switched to a 3-year vaccine schedule, yet. The idea of a vaccine's duration of immunity is based on population medicine, so that a vast majority of the population will be immune for "x" number of years. If the percentage of immune dogs 3 years after a vaccine is truly 95% (and I don't know if it is, but I know it's the high 90's), then 5 out of 100 of my patients will have diminished immunity 3 years from my vaccine. If any of those dogs gets the disease we've vaccinated for, I'll be upset and I'm sure my clients will be, too...not to mention the sick dog. I think more challenge tests need to be conducted to truly determine the duration of immunity, or at least run challenge tests to determine what titer level will truly protect our patients. The typical "greater than 1:5" titer means nothing. It's an arbitrary number and doesn't tell us anything about whether a dog is truly immune to a disease. Regarding your second paragraph, Dale, I think you're right that some dogs may get infected and may pass the disease to another dog, however, that number should stay at a low level assuming there is a herd immunity. The herd immunity is what we've been working on lo these many years of vaccinating for contagious diseases in our pets. I don't want to get into the whole vaccine discussion, but suffice it to say, I don't think we have all the answers just yet. Sandy, DVM > [snip] I found it > interesting that the yardstick they used to measure 'duration of vaccine' [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > immune, so one gets infected, the other 1.5 dogs likely will too (with the > potential for further spread). Am I missing something here? I am no expert on the subject, but it would appear that a balanced discussion of the issue would include: a.) Downside (risks, etc) of not vaccinating. b.) Downside (risks, etc) of vaccinating when not needed. Particularly in older animals with potentially compromised immune systems. We will seldom if ever know precisely when a vacc is really needed in mature critters? I >Your concerns are mine (partially) and are the main reason I haven't >switched to a 3-year vaccine schedule, yet. The idea of a vaccine's [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> immune, so one gets infected, the other 1.5 dogs likely will too (with the >> potential for further spread). Am I missing something here? > We will seldom if ever know precisely when a vacc is really needed in > mature critters? There are titers that can be done to check the level of protection existing, but it's another cost of a blood test at this time sent out probably, and more expensive than the vaccination. And if the titer is too low you have to get the vax anyway. It's hard enough to get some pet owners to free rabies clinics. I can't imagine they'd do this to comply with the law. However, it could be an option at some point. Our staff is vaccinated preventively against rabies (a series of 3 shots in the arm), then every two years they get blood tests to check titers. It's expensive for both. -Sharon >>We will seldom if ever know precisely when a vacc is really needed in >>mature critters? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Sharon I've been getting titers done for my dog for years. Besides rabies, he gets vaccinated every 4 years, without checking the titers the 4th year. But is is more expensive and I doubt the general public would go for it. Kate >> We will seldom if ever know precisely when a vacc is really needed in >> mature critters? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >more expensive than the vaccination. And if the titer is too low you have to >get the vax anyway. I had sorta assumed all that. Thanks for confirming. >It's hard enough to get some pet owners to free rabies >clinics. I can't imagine they'd do this to comply with the law. However, it >could be an option at some point. I don't think it (rabies titer) is a legal option where I live. It should be, if only for older and/or sick animals. >Our staff is vaccinated preventively >against rabies (a series of 3 shots in the arm), then every two years they >get blood tests to check titers. It's expensive for both. But worth it, I should think. I >I am no expert on the subject, but it would appear that a balanced > discussion of the issue would include: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We will seldom if ever know precisely when a vacc is really needed in > mature critters? I think the problem goes a little deeper than what you're seeing. The precise answers to these questions rely on what everyone else in your local population is doing. For example, imagine a case where everyone except for you is vaccinated, and has an immunity to a particular disease. If they are all immune, your chances of getting the disease are 0, because there is no one to pass it to you. In such a population, the 'cost' of not vaccinating is 0, and there are non zero benefits to not vaccinating. (if nothing else, vaccines cost money, but other than that there is the cost in terms of taxing the immune system etc), so the 'equation' comes out and says 'don't vaccinate'. Unfortunately if everyone does that, you loose the benefit incurred by the immunity of the group. When it comes down to establishing a vaccine schedule, there is more that we need to know than just 'how long the vaccine lasts'. Lets say for the sake of argument, we've done a detailed study, and found that length of time a rabies vaccine confers immunity for is normally distributed with a mean of 9 years, and a standard deviation of 1 year (these numbers are 'out of a hat' I have no idea what the real numbers are). This means that for (roughly) 5% of the population, the vaccine will 'last' only 7 years. Is this acceptable? This means that there is a a 1 in 20 chance that there are 2 years in your animal's vaccine cycle where your animal unprotected against rabies, when you think that he is. What makes this an 'acceptable risk'? Obviously, the population in which the animal is living has to be considered. If its a large mixed population, then the probability of being exposed to an animal with rabies is higher than if its a 'stay at home cat'. My feeling is that the 'acceptable risk' cut off should be that there is a less than a x% chance of an animal, once infected, infecting another animal in the same population. (probably set x to 5%, as that's the 'typical' value chosen). The first infection could just be 'bad luck', but once the virus starts spreading beyond the initial source, you start to have a problem. To answer this question, you need data about 'herd size' (i.e. how many other dogs your dog comes in to contact with), and 'herd immunity' (how many of these dogs are immune?). The second question requires you to know how many of these dogs are vaccinated, and the expected level of immunity that these vaccination would induce. It seems to me, like most of these studies are focusing on the question of the level/duration of immunity that the vaccines are expected to induce, and totally ignoring the first group of questions (which are necessary for establishing a reasonable vaccine schedule). Dale >>I am no expert on the subject, but it would appear that a balanced >> discussion of the issue would include: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >It seems to me, like most of these studies are focusing on the question of >the level/duration of immunity that the vaccines are expected to induce, They had to start -somewhere-. Given industry and legal bias for over- vaccination, it seemed a logical starting point to me. >and >totally ignoring the first group of questions (which are necessary for >establishing a reasonable vaccine schedule). Answers to the "local population" questions vary by all manner of factors (i.e. geography, legal custom, economic, etc)? If your point is that individual owners should consider "local population" (and exposure) factors in a vac decision, I concur. My dog will be due for rabies vac at age 13, roughly her life expectancy. She had a 3-yr vac at age 10. We are more-or-less joined at the hip. If I determine that a vac might well do her more harm than good at ages 13, 14, 15, what options would be left me? If we had some relatively air-tight studies of harm induced in older animals by unnecessary vac's, it might eventually result in more reasonable (state) laws, and could help owners make important vac decisions. I >>It seems to me, like most of these studies are focusing on the question of >>the level/duration of immunity that the vaccines are expected to induce, > > They had to start -somewhere-. Given industry and legal bias for over- > vaccination, it seemed a logical starting point to me. Is it over vaccination? I don't know. I'm happy with a three year schedule, but only because its the status quo. I get concerned when I see things like x person has shown that vaccine y lasts for z years. Thats when you start to have people automatically assume that anything less than z years constitutes 'over vaccinating', when it doesn't necessarily. It all depends on how that number of z years was established. >>and >>totally ignoring the first group of questions (which are necessary for >>establishing a reasonable vaccine schedule). > > Answers to the "local population" questions vary by all manner of factors > (i.e. geography, legal custom, economic, etc)? Of course they do, so its important to know information about your local population, to be able to establish guidelines to recommend to that local population. There needs to be knowledge of what these factors are, and how much of an impact they have on the risk in order to make good recommendations as far as what an appropriate vaccine schedule is. This isn't impossible. In general we're talking about fairly large local populations, that should be reasonably homogeneous (I imagine that all dogs who visit off leash parks in Calgary will have similar 'herds') > If your point is that individual owners should consider "local population" > (and exposure) factors in a vac decision, I concur. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in more reasonable (state) laws, and could help owners make important vac > decisions. You're of course pre-supposing that the vaccines are unnecessary. I'm looking one question more 'basic' than that, as far as when they are necessary and what level of 'herd immunity' do you need to insure that you have a low probability of disease outbreak. Once we know that, and how sensitive they are to perterbation, then we can start to make some real, informed decisions on what our goals should be. What I imagine, is that there will be a critical level of 'herd immunity' required to insure that you don't get a disease outbreak. Anything above that level, won't really help that much, but anything below that level could be excessively bad. (something like a curve like this one http://www.math.duke.edu/education/postcalc/predprey/logistic.gif ) If this were the case, then we should aim for target 'herd immunities' somewhere somewhat above the critical level. That way the herd's immunity help protect the older, or less 'fit' animals. (heck we may find that without legislation, we're already well past the critical level, and show that legislating it is just a stupid/pointless thing to do) Dale >>>It seems to me, like most of these studies are focusing on the question of >>>the level/duration of immunity that the vaccines are expected to induce, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Is it over vaccination? I don't know. I'm happy with a three year schedule, >but only because its the status quo. If you are happy with the status quo, perhaps you are not interested in considering both sides of the coin (costs and benefits). >I get concerned when I see things like x person has shown that vaccine y >lasts for z years. Thats when you start to have people automatically assume >that anything less than z years constitutes 'over vaccinating', when it >doesn't necessarily. It all depends on how that number of z years was >established. Anything less than z years? Don't they normally quote something like "... mean of z years and standard deviation of x years." ? Isn't "z" determined statistically? The Rabies Challenge (see http://network.bestfriends.org/minnesota/news/21709.html) implies that dogs remain immune to rabies 5-7 years after vaccination. We are talking about effective durations that are perhaps 2, 3 or more times the specified duration? >>>and >>>totally ignoring the first group of questions (which are necessary for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >populations, that should be reasonably homogeneous (I imagine that all dogs >who visit off leash parks in Calgary will have similar 'herds') No offence, but off leash parks in Calgary are, I fear, a very small part of the picture. I doubt you'd find much in the way of homogeneity in most areas of, say, the US. >> If your point is that individual owners should consider "local population" >> (and exposure) factors in a vac decision, I concur. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You're of course pre-supposing that the vaccines are unnecessary. I'm pre-supposing that, in general, we rarely know if a particular adult and previously vacc'd animal in a particular environment truly needs an additional vac. >I'm >looking one question more 'basic' than that, as far as when they are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >without legislation, we're already well past the critical level, and show >that legislating it is just a stupid/pointless thing to do) In practical terms, there's a good deal I don't understand, here. Who are "we"? Vets? Legal authorities? Statisticians? All the above? What you say is relevant at one or more levels, but ... Do you recognize conditions sometimes described as "vaccinosis"? Adverse reactions to repeated rabies vacs: http://www.drpitcairn.com/talks/looking_at_vaccines.html http://www.canineworld.com/drdym/rabiesalert.htm http://www.wellpet.org/vaccines/rabies.htm http://www.doglogic.com/vaccineinfo.htm http://www.charlesloopsdvm.com/Vaccinosis.htm http://www.tallywood.com/health.html I >>Is it over vaccination? I don't know. I'm happy with a three year >>schedule, >>but only because its the status quo. > > If you are happy with the status quo, perhaps you are not interested > in considering both sides of the coin (costs and benefits). In fact I am quite unhappy with the status quo, but if I'm going to deviate from the status quo, I need some hard evidence to back it up. My default position, in lack of being properly informed is the status quo (please note here, that my standard for what I consider being 'properly informed' is probably very high, relatively speaking. >>I get concerned when I see things like x person has shown that vaccine y >>lasts for z years. Thats when you start to have people automatically [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > http://network.bestfriends.org/minnesota/news/21709.html) > implies that dogs remain immune to rabies 5-7 years after vaccination. Reading that particular page, I see nothing that tells me the distribution of the effectiveness times, but even if it did, thats what my whole problem centres around. Lets say for the sake of argument that it had been conclusively established that the existing rabies vaccine will confer immunity for a period of 6 years in 99% of dogs. Is this 'good enough'? I for one don't know. That means that 1 out of 100 dogs is susceptible when they are supposedly protected. How does the risk of this compare with the risk of an adverse reaction. This is the relevant information, but none of these sites seem to present more than anecdotal information (which quite frankly is completely worthless IMHO). > No offence, but off leash parks in Calgary are, I fear, a very small > part of the picture. I'd imagine they will apply to any average city of 1,000,000 or so people. I have no idea of the average variation etc. I only mentioned Calgary because that is where I am. > I doubt you'd find much in the way of homogeneity in most areas of, say, > the US. Why? What is so different about these areas? Average number of dogs/capita? Population Size? Mixing of dogs? My guess (and it is only a guess) is that most 'city dogs' who visit off leash parks would be fairly homogeneous, and those who don't would constitute another 'grouping'. >>If this were the case, then we should aim for target 'herd immunities' >>somewhere somewhat above the critical level. That way the herd's immunity [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In practical terms, there's a good deal I don't understand, here. Who are > "we"? Vets? Legal authorities? Statisticians? All the above? "We" is anyone with a vested interest in understanding, and having an informed opinion on an appropriate vaccine schedule. Without the above knowledge, I do not believe that one can make good recomendations as far as what an appropriate vaccine schedule is. > What you say is relevant at one or more levels, but ... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.charlesloopsdvm.com/Vaccinosis.htm > http://www.tallywood.com/health.html I had a cursory look at those pages (I'm on my way to bed at the moment). From what I can see, I'm not particularly impressed with any of the ones I looked at (although as I said, I haven't had chance to properly go through all of them). The last page in particular contains information that at the very least is out of date (I haven't been a dog owner for long enough to know for sure if it was ever true, and I'm not familiar with historical laws). They claim that "It is however manufactured to be effective for three years but Canadian law requires a yearly vaccine!". This is totally untrue. As far as I'm aware, there is no federally mandated vaccine schedule in Canada. If you filter these pages down to actual "informational content" rather than people's stories and personal feelings, there doesn't seem to be much left. Dale if I'm going to deviate > from the status quo, I need some hard evidence to back it up. .....Funny, there was zero scientific evidence for yearly parvo shots. It was just something they just started doing. Now that people want to stop, we need evidence. [shrug} Lets say for the sake of argument that it had been > conclusively established that the existing rabies vaccine will confer > immunity for a period of 6 years in 99% of dogs. Is this 'good enough'? I > for one don't know. That means that 1 out of 100 dogs is susceptible when > they are supposedly protected. ......You know, somewhere in there you have to factor in individual dog health/risk with this fascination with herd immunity. Wild animals get rabies (canids, racoons, bats ) and unless you want to eliminate them from the earth, nothing will be 100%. > I'd imagine they will apply to any average city of 1,000,000 or so people. ..............Most people do not live in metro areas this large. > "We" is anyone with a vested interest in understanding, and having an > informed opinion on an appropriate vaccine schedule. Without the above > knowledge, I do not believe that one can make good recomendations as far as > what an appropriate vaccine schedule is. ..............I certainly don't want any vet of mine recommending a vax schedule based solely on trying to maintain the herd immunity. buglady take out the dog before replying > if I'm going to deviate >> from the status quo, I need some hard evidence to back it up. > > .....Funny, there was zero scientific evidence for yearly parvo shots. It > was just something they just started doing. Now that people want to stop, > we need evidence. [shrug} I recognize that, but it seems as though the risk of not giving the shot when its needed are greater than those of giving the shot and having it not needed. > Lets say for the sake of argument that it had been >> conclusively established that the existing rabies vaccine will confer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from > the earth, nothing will be 100%. Of course you do. My feeling is that once you have a good handle on what level of immunity you want to obtain in the population, and what level of immunity you have, then you can start to reasonably make exceptions in cases of higher health risk animals. If you don't have a handle on these things, its perfectly possible that you're putting the animal in to a higher risk category than he was already by trying to act conservatively. >> I'd imagine they will apply to any average city of 1,000,000 or so >> people. > > ..............Most people do not live in metro areas this large. I recognize this, and obviously recommendations will have to vary by demography. For example, for a dog that lives on the indian reserve just west of here, I'd recommend a fairly agressive vaccine schedule, as diseases like parvo, distemper are not uncommon there. In the city, where the proportion of unvaccinated animals is much smaller, one can afford to be more conservative. >> "We" is anyone with a vested interest in understanding, and having an >> informed opinion on an appropriate vaccine schedule. Without the above [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ..............I certainly don't want any vet of mine recommending a vax > schedule based solely on trying to maintain the herd immunity. Did I ever suggest that the decision was to be based "solely on trying to maintain herd immunity"? If so, it wasn't my intention. Maintaining herd immunity is important though if we are to confidently forgo vaccinating individuals of a higher health risk. Dale >I recognize that, but it seems as though the risk of not giving the shot >when its needed are greater than those of giving the shot and having it not >needed. Like when your life-time quad-pedal companion is in his last year or so, is weak, and when there is a material probability that a (i.e. rabies) vac will shorten his life (given he will be virtually quarantined to house and fenced yard with -or- w/o the vac)? 'Tis possible that you could give the impression of an amateur epidemiologist in search of a biased justification for the vax status quo. Does anyone know of a list of US states where an acceptable titer is allowed in lieu of a rabies vac? I > Like when your life-time quad-pedal companion is in his last year or so, > is weak, and when there is a material probability that a (i.e. rabies) > vac will shorten his life (given he will be virtually quarantined to > house and fenced yard with -or- w/o the vac)? That would almost certainly be a case where I'd be ignoring the law, whatever it happens to be. What's the fine/punishment for non-compliance? How do they find offenders? (I assume it isn't up to your vet to report you). > 'Tis possible that you could give the impression of an amateur > epidemiologist in search of a biased justification for the vax > status quo. I just worry about people jumping to conclusions based on incomplete/misunderstood data. I am for vaccinating as little as possible to achieve the desired effect, but I'm not totally sure how to quantify the "desired effect", nor am I sure that I agree with the way I've seen in quantified when I've seen it quantified (seems arbitrary). On a side note, anyone know if similar side effects are expected for DNA vaccines? (for those unfamiliar with the idea, here is what seems to be a good link http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/dnavac.htm ) Dale > That would almost certainly be a case where I'd be ignoring the law, > whatever it happens to be. > What's the fine/punishment for non-compliance? How do they find offenders? > (I assume it isn't up to your vet to report you). Just FYI, our state requires 1 year first rabies vaccination, and every 3 years thereafter with free clinics throughout the summer staffed by volunteers from shelters and animal hospitals. Vet's are not obligated to report delinquent clients. We're not police agencies. However, your community (town/city/village/county) that takes care of licensing can canvas for a census. When discovering an unlicensed dog, they may give a few days for dog licensing which requires rabies vaccinations before the courts are involved. Citizens can also report unlicensed dogs to the municipality as well. What hurts is when a cat or dog is involved in a bite case (or even just accused). If there is no proof of vaccination the courts or health department will do one of two things: either quarantine the pet for ten days, or more likely, have the pet euthanized and a sample of brain tissue sent for testing. These potential consequences are personally not adequate for me to waive rabies vaccination and fly under the radar. -Sharon > Does anyone know of a list of US states where an acceptable titer > is allowed in lieu of a rabies vac? ........Don't think there is such a thing in any state. There is a national Animal Control site which lists the state sites and rabies vax requirements I think. The Rabies Compendium is a national document which states that titers are not acceptable in lieu of vaccination. OTOH it's been saying for years that a 3 yr vax lasts 3 yrs and until a yr ago some counties in FL were still requiring yearly vax - with a 3 yr vax or a 1 yr vax, they didn't care. buglady take out the dog before replying >> Does anyone know of a list of US states where an acceptable titer >> is allowed in lieu of a rabies vac? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >were still requiring yearly vax - with a 3 yr vax or a 1 yr vax, they >didn't care. Thanks. I truly didn't know. Thought maybe a city or county or 2 might've relented, at least for pets in dire med straits and given promise of quarantine. I > Thanks. I truly didn't know. Thought maybe a city or county or 2 > might've relented, at least for pets in dire med straits and given > promise of quarantine. If a pet has bitten a person and there is no proof at all of any rabies vaccination, in our area the health department requires euthanasia and brain tissue testing. If there is at least one vaccination somewhere in the pet's history *proven by certificate* then the quarantine option is almost always given. > I recognize that, but it seems as though the risk of not giving the shot > when its needed are greater than those of giving the shot and having it not > needed. ......That's an assumption you need to do a lot more reading on to justify. > Of course you do. My feeling is that once you have a good handle on what > level of immunity you want to obtain in the population, and what level of > immunity you have, then you can start to reasonably make exceptions in cases > of higher health risk animals. ......No, if you want to be a vet, you deal with the animal in front of you first. That means any vaccination schedule needs to be tailored to the animal for risk vs. benefit. > I recognize this, and obviously recommendations will have to vary by > demography. For example, for a dog that lives on the indian reserve just > west of here, I'd recommend a fairly agressive vaccine schedule, as diseases > like parvo, distemper are not uncommon there. In the city, where the > proportion of unvaccinated animals is much smaller, one can afford to be > more conservative. .......More assumptions. My guess is there's more unvaccinated animals running around your city than you think. > Did I ever suggest that the decision was to be based "solely on trying to > maintain herd immunity"? If so, it wasn't my intention. Maintaining herd > immunity is important though if we are to confidently forgo vaccinating > individuals of a higher health risk. ..........Nope, it's not. If I bring my animal in I expect you to address that animal, not a mythical number of animals you want to keep vaccinated. buglady take out the dog before replying >> Did I ever suggest that t > he decision was to be based "solely on trying to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ..........Nope, it's not. If I bring my animal in I expect you to address > that animal, not a mythical number of animals you want to keep vaccinated. Its very important *FOR THAT ANIMAL* what kind of environment hes in. I really don't care about what the rest of the herd is doing *EXCEPT* where it influences the risk/benefit for the animal in front of me. Let me see if I can be a bit more clear here. The ultimate goal, is optimal health for the animal... correct? If we know that for 95% of dogs, the rabies vaccine will last for 7 years, then there is 5% of animals for which it will last less than 7 years, so a 1 in 20 chance that the animal in front of me isn't protected against rabies. In order to determine how big of a deal that is, we need to know the chances that the animal will come in contact with rabies. If the animal is in a low risk environment (lets say he's a stay at home dog), then the chances of him getting rabies is essentially 0 (in fact it may even be advisable *not* to vaccinate at all, regardless of the health of the animal). Contrast this with a dog who lives with a bat researcher, and helps his owner out in the field. The chances of him coming in to contact with rabies is much higher, so a 1 in 20 chance that he isn't protected isn't acceptable. (obviously these are both extreme cases, and the actual recommendation will vary depending on the details of the environment). To put this more in to the 'herd immunity' context that I've been talking about, imagine this same dog going in to a totally unvaccinated population vs. a totally vaccinated population. The animal is far more likely to come in contact with another animal with rabies in the unvaccinated population, and hence we need to be more concerned about the 5% chance that he's not protected. The animal in the totally vaccinated population is relatively unlikely to come in to contact with another rabid animal, hence the 1 in 20 chance might be more acceptable (how much more though, I don't know which was the whole reason for the thread). Anyone know how soon after infection with rabies an animal becomes contagious? What kind of statistics are circulating in regards to probability of a severe adverse reaction? (i.e. something life threatening) The cut off point (i.e. where not vaccinating makes sense) is obviously where the probability of a severe adverse reaction is greater than the probability of being infected with the disease. Dale If the animal is in a low > risk environment (lets say he's a stay at home dog), then the chances of him > getting rabies is essentially 0 (in fact it may even be advisable *not* to > vaccinate at all, regardless of the health of the animal). ......That's not logical. Racoons run around all over the place. Foxes appear on my street regularly. The rabies issue is a human issue, so it's not just about health/disease of dogs. Recommendations are made based on keeping human exposure to rabies as low as possible. Rabies isn't so much the issue anyway. It's the 7 in 1 or 5 in 1 vaccinations that are overused, annually, without regard to the animal's health, the risk vs. benefit or immunity. One is hard pressed to find single vaccines in most vet's offices. If risk vs. benefit were used for each vaccine, this wouldn't be true. > The cut off point (i.e. where not vaccinating makes sense) is obviously > where the probability of a severe adverse reaction is greater than the > probability of being infected with the disease. ......There is no magic cut off point. Effects of vaccines on the body are regularly unappreciated. We just don't know what all the effects of annual vaccinations are. buglady take out the dog before replying HOWEDY dr. sandy, veterinary MALPRACTICIONER, FRAUD, SCAM ARTIST, and professional IMBECILE <{}: ~ ( > Seems that bein a highly successful veterinary malpracticioner means your time is SO valuable that you may feel EXXXEMPT from common usenet courtesy and top post at will, eh? Or does bein RUDE and INCONSIDERATE come with the priviledges of your veterinary malpracticioner's degree? dale is PREYIN to become a veterinary malpracticioner like yourself. His own dog is DYIN from STRESS INDUCED AUTO-IMMUNE DIS-EASE a.k.a. The Puppy Wizard's Syndrome <{}: ~ ( > >> Been thinking since buglady posted her article about "Rabies Challenge >> underway" some time ago, about what an acceptable [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> gets infected, the other 1.5 dogs likely will too (with the potential for >> further spread). >> Am I missing something here? BESIDES MORALS, ETHICS, and PRINCIPLES? >> Dale > Your concerns are mine (partially) INDEED? Ain't that called featherbeddin? "All Professions Are A Conspiracy Against The Layman" - GBShaw. > and are the main reason I haven't switched to a 3-year vaccine schedule, > yet. You mean, besides that not EXXXCESSIVELY vaccinating innocent defenseless dumb critters owned by guilible pathetic ignorameHOWESES like dale would cost you nearly half your SCAM BUSINESS? > The idea of a vaccine's duration of immunity is based on population > medicine, so that a vast majority of the population will be immune for "x" > number of years. You mean the VAST MAJORITY of your CASH CUSTOMER'S DON'T NEED your TOXIC vaccinations, dr. sandy <{}: ~ ( > > If the percentage of immune dogs 3 years after a vaccine is truly 95% (and > I don't know if it is, but I know it's the high 90's), then 5 out of 100 > of my patients will have diminished immunity 3 years from my vaccine. And THAT would COST YOU MONEY, wouldn't it, dr. sandy, as the PREDICTABLE SIDE EFFECTS of your UNNECESSARY, INAPUPRIATE, EXXXCESSIVE vaccination program would likeWIZE diminish your TREATMENT of vaccinosis / auto-immune DIS-EASES. > If any of those dogs gets the disease we've vaccinated for, I'll be upset > and I'm sure my clients will be, too... > not to mention the sick dog. You mean, despite that most of those "DIS-EASES" like parvo and bortadella are EZily treatable and not lethal, and other vaccines are simply not effective, and those DIS-EASES are generally PREVENTABLE simply by DOIN EVERY THING EXXXACTLY PRECISELY OPPOSITE of HOWE you recommend in your veterinary malpractice <{}: ~ ( > > I think more challenge tests need to be conducted to truly determine the > duration of immunity, or at least run challenge tests to determine what > titer level will truly protect our patients. Of curse, if everyWON titer tested you'd still be able to PROFIT despite not SELLIN your ineffective inapupriate toxic vaccinacions. > The typical "greater than 1:5" titer means nothing. It's an arbitrary > number and doesn't tell us anything > about whether a dog is truly immune to a disease. CITES PLEASE, dr. sandy? Or do you EXXXPECT us to take *YOUR* word on it as a professional veterinary malpracticioner, fraud an scam artist FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE? > Regarding your second paragraph, Dale, I think you're right that some dogs > may get infected and may pass the disease to another dog, You mean, to other IMMUNE dogs, dr. sandy? Where's the LOGIC in THAT?? > however, that number should stay at a low level assuming there is a herd > immunity. ESPECIALLY if the dog owner simply DOES EVERY THING EXXXACTLY PRECISELY OPPOSITE of HOWE you recommend in your veterinary malpractice SCAM <{}: ~ ( > > The herd immunity is what we've been working on lo these many years of > vaccinating for contagious diseases > in our pets. No, the herd BRAINWASHING is all you've been interested in. > I don't want to get into the whole vaccine discussion, Naaaah? DO TELL?? > but suffice it to say, I don't think we have all the answers just yet. That's CONvienient, AIN'T IT, dr. sandy? Here's the ANSWERS, dr. sandy: IMMUNITY LASTS MUCH LONGER Dr. Ronald Schultz, who is also involved in the Rabies Challenge Fund, has already demonstrated through serology (blood testing) that the Rabies vaccine lasts at least 7 years. He's also demonstrated that the distemper vaccine lasts at least 15 years; parvovirus at least 7 years and the adenovirus at least 9 years. By now you are beginning to see that there are two roots to this issue: The drug manufacturers who are not required to test for maximum immunity conferred and the veterinarians that go along with the recommendation of the drug companies without question. > Sandy, DVM BWEEEAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~! http://www.freewebs.com/thesimplyamazingpuppywizard/nutritionhealthcareve.htm ----------- From: Dr Andrew Jones Author: Veterinary Secrets Revealed Website: http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com Re: Vets are having a serious lapse of ethics? - BOTTOM LINE BLURS VET PRACTICES IT'S NOW ABOUT MON**EY I was sent to a copy of a VERY interesting story on Newstarget. It speaks to MANY of the issues that I have been discussing. BOTTOM LINE BLURS VET PRACTICES Imagine if every time you went to the doctor you were given vaccinations that you don't need; vaccinations that offer no benefit but all of the risks of harmful side effects. Or you were given medications with no explanation or information provided. Or tests were being done for no reason. Now imagine that you can't speak and you have no way to tell those who care for you that those vaccinations make you feel sick; you don't want those tests; and the medicine is causing more harm than good. That's exactly what many of our cat and dog friends experience. We bring our best friend to the veterinarian with unquestioned trust and faith that our vet has our animal's best interest at heart but according to Veterinarian Dr. James Busby, author of "How To Afford Veterinary Care Without Mortgaging the Kids", his profession is suffering from a serious lapse in judgment and ethics that is rooted in making money. ........................................ IT'S NOW ABOUT MON**EY ........................................ Dr. Busby, who has been a practicing vet since 1966, loves his work and comes from a family of Veterinarians; but admits if he had to practice the way vets practice today he would not enter the profession. Dr. Busby feels "the profession has slowly turned from what was once an honest, caring one to a situation where many clinics and doctors are interested more in the bottom line, than what is necessary and best for your pet." If you thought the veterinary world had escaped the 'bottom line' mentality of the Medical Community you are wrong. The world of veterinary medicine has become equally entangled with Drug and Insurance Companies. The result is not only rising costs for the animal guardian but also unnecessary treatments, over-the- top testing, and over vaccination for the animals. Dr. Busby says, "Veterinarians today seem to assume they have the OK to run every test and perform any and every procedure on your animal they can, unless you tell them differently. Then they usually get irate and try to shame you for being a non-loving pet owner." .......................................... USING GUILT AND PRESSURE ......................................... Veterinarians are great at using guilt and pressure to strip animal guardians of their power. They can be brusque, condescending and intimidating and in the end, the animal guardian, wanting to do whatever they can to support their animal friend, goes along with whatever the vet says. The only way to change this is for animal guardians to become as well informed about their animal's care, as they are about their own. Until recently, Vets have held an unquestionable 'high moral' mark where guardians assumed that whatever a vet wants to do must be in the best interest of the animal, but that unquestionable morality is gone now. ................................................... TOO MANY VACCINES...TOO OFTEN ................................................... Let's start with vaccinations. The standard operating procedure is for animals to receive a multitude of vaccinations on a regular schedule. Most animal guardians don't question the vaccination schedule. If the vet says it's needed, then it must be. For those who do question it, they are met with hostility or condescension or frightened with the horrors of what will happen if an animal isn't vaccinated regularly. And in several cases, have been asked to find another vet altogether. But here's the truth about all animal vaccines: The drug manufactures label determines the frequency of revaccination. There is nothing scientific about the current animal vaccination schedule. Neither the FDA nor the USDA requires drug companies to prove the maximum immunity conferred; they only require that immunity be conferred for the duration of their testing. Which means if the drug company tests for one year, the label states vaccinate yearly. This manufacturers' recommendation ultimately influenced rabies laws in each and every state across the country. Those laws are not based in scientific study, but rather on the research done by drug companies necessary to get approval for their drugs. It has been proven as well that vaccine boosters do not increase immunity. Once the body has immunity, that same immunity will knock out the virus in the vaccine, leaving your animal to experience none of the benefits from the vaccine but all of the risks from the adjuvants; and, leaving the guardian to pay for something that does nothing. .......................................... CANCER FROM A VACCINE ......................................... Kris Christine, Founder of The Rabies Challenge Fund Trust and vaccine reform activist, stated during a recent interview on Conscious Animal Radio that this practice fit the definition of fraud. Christine joined this fight when her own dog Meadow developed an injection site sarcoma with the needle mark visible in the center of the tumor. After her vet informed her that Meadow most likely had immunity to rabies for life, and carelessly let it slip that it was the distemper shot Christine should really watch out for as that one had many side effects and was ultimately unnecessary for older dogs, Christine jumped into action. Since, she has had the rabies vaccination requirement revised in her home state of Maine extending it to every three years; challenged the state to introduce a veterinary disclosure law, which was defeated and has started the Rabies Challenge Fund Trust along with Dr. W. Jean Dodds, a highly noted Veterinarian for her work and opinion on vaccine reform. The Rabies Challenge Fund seeks to prove through a challenge study that the rabies vaccine confers immunity for seven years. ........................................... IMMUNITY LASTS MUCH LONGER ........................................... Dr. Ronald Schultz, who is also involved in the Rabies Challenge Fund, has already demonstrated through serology (blood testing) that the Rabies vaccine lasts at least 7 years. He's also demonstrated that the distemper vaccine lasts at least 15 years; parvovirus at least 7 years and the adenovirus at least 9 years. By now you are beginning to see that there are two roots to this issue: The drug manufacturers who are not required to test for maximum immunity conferred and the veterinarians that go along with the recommendation of the drug companies without question. ////////////////////////////////////////////// P.S. The BOTTOM LINE is now blurring MANY VETERINARY PRACTICES. The days of James Herriot are LONG GONE. IF you DON'T have the MON**EY, then your beloved Pet may be Out of Luck. Now is the time for you to TAKE CHARGE of your dog or cat's Health Care. TAKE MATTERS into your OWN HANDS. QUESTION what your Veterinarian Advises. BE AWARE of ALL the Holistic, NATURAL OPTIONS. ................................. DO you NEED to buy my products? ................................. NO ........................... Do You NEED to TAKE ACTION? ............................ YES Do Something DIFFERENT. EDUCATE yourself on ALL of the OPTIONS and Alternate ways of Healing and PREVENTING DISEASE. I am in the FORTUNATE position of SEEING what INVOLVED Pet Guardians are doing to KEEP their Pet's Healthy.. SO if you would like a KICKSTART to a BETTER WAY to Keeping Your Pet Healthy and Alternate Ways of TREATING DISEASE at Home check out my book at: http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com P.P.S. If you DON'T yet own a copy, AT LEAST make a comittment to making some of the changes I SUGGEST so that YOUR PET stays healthy. Go through my newsletters. Go to my blog. http://www.theinternetpetvet.com Go through many of the Quality Alternate Sites on the Internet, such as Canine Health Concern, and Shirley's Wellness Cafe. DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. It's Your Pet. Heal Them At Home! Best Wishes, Dr Andrew Jones, DVM Copyright 2007 Four Paws Online Ltd. Tel: 1-800-396-1534 Fax: 1-250-352-1901 http://www.theonlinevet.com http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com http://www.theveterinarysecret.com http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com/course http://www.veterinarysecretsrevealed.com/manual.php http://www.theveterinarycode.com http://www.thepetfoodrecallreport.com support@veterinarysecretsrevealed.com 2124 Ymir Rd, Nelson, BC V1L 6Y9, CANADA |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.