I would like your opinion on this....

[JerseyisCutest]

...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[philomycus]

We do all of our every 3 years.

 

[OSJ]

Why not do titers for vaccine levels then? We do that with animals who have had a history of reactions. We ask owners about each dogs lifestyle to determine if lepto is needed. We do bordatella only if requested by the owner, usually for boarding.
I think everyone needs to be on the same page for vaccines, owners, vets, researches, kennels, etc. We had a patient turned away from a kennel for boarding because her lepto was not up to date. Her lifestyle did not warrant the vaccine.

I think alot of owners would do the titers yearly, but alot would rather just get the vaccines then have to make an appointment to get the blood draw and then possible have to come back if the titers are low.
I also think some vets would go without yearly vet checks if they did not need vaccines or titers and I think for the majority of pets, the risk of missing their yearly vet check, heartworm test, heartworm preventative refill etc, is greater than the risks of most of the vaccines.

 

[nyanko]

I think the only problem is that antibody titers are more expensive for owners than vaccinations are.

We need to be damn sure that the efficacy of these vaccinations lasts until the dog's next vaccination before changing vaccine protocols so drastically. Do you have any sources to back up what you are claiming, that they can last for seven years? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific studies saying this? That would make a more convincing argument for you.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[bakaduin]

Over the summer I went to a CE seminar on vaccinations by Dr. Gerryl Hall. She had some interesting things to say, especially regarding the efficacy of injectable bordatella vs. intranasal. I recommend anyone who gets the chance to listen to her talk.

Its tough being pre-vet and giving my opinion on this because I havent been through vet school to really see all the sides of the argument. But up until now my opinon is that you really have to go on a case by case basis. Giving lepto to a dachsund is a bad idea. They are very reactive to it and personally I don't like giving lepto to dogs because it is high risk. Working in South Florida I think Lyme is something that should be given only to dogs traveling a lot to places like New England.

That being said I see no problem giving vaccinations like Rabies, Parvo, Distemper, on a yearly basis, even if they last longer. For one, it brings the client in for a checkup which if you give 3 year Rabies it means, barring injury, many clients wont come in until they get that next reminder in the mail. Another thing is people assume that vaccination=immunity, which is not the case. If you give a Rabies 3-year vaccination that for whatever reason doesnt stimulate the immune system, the said animal will be unprotected for 3 years. Overall though, I think it depends on where you live, what diseases are prevelant, what each individual animals titers are, and a few other factors on if you should vaccinate. These vaccines are tested on 8 week old beagle puppies to see effectiveness but they are only tested on an individual basis. I think the combination of a bunch of vaccinations at once is more harmful than the actualy injection. By splitting up vaccinations you avoid a lot of reactions.

 

[pressmom]

I also think some vets would go without yearly vet checks if they did not need vaccines or titers and I think for the majority of pets, the risk of missing their yearly vet check, heartworm test, heartworm preventative refill etc, is greater than the risks of most of the vaccines.

I also agree that some animals would also go without their needed yearly appointments if we didn't have to do vaccines. It's a chance to interact with the patient and the client to see how things are going and get a handle on problems before they get bigger.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[nyanko]

I don't think that the rabies vaccination laws are statuatory, at least for licensing purposes. I worked for a practice in Florida that had 3 clinics in different counties (close together still though) and for a long time only one of the counties allowed 3 year rabies vaccinations to be valid for registration. The other two have only recently caught up to this.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

I don't know about this. It's 2 years here. Hopefully we catch up.

 

[StealthDog]

A lot of people won't come in annually if not for shots... Dr. Jean Dodds recommends putting something like "vaccination consultation" on reminder cards to avoid that situation. That way you get the clients in the door and at least can talk about whether their annual shot is necessary rather than feel obliged to give a vaccine regardless.

Some people mentioned that clients would rather get the vaccine than titer because the vaccine costs less. Let's not forget about those clients out there who want what's best for their pet, not necessarily what's cheaper. If someone feels that the risk of boostering vaccines outweighs the benefit, it's nice to be able to offer titers.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[nyanko]

Some people mentioned that clients would rather get the vaccine than titer because the vaccine costs less. Let's not forget about those clients out there who want what's best for their pet, not necessarily what's cheaper. If someone feels that the risk of boostering vaccines outweighs the benefit, it's nice to be able to offer titers.

I don't know any vet that doesn't OFFER titers. That said, in an ideal world everyone could afford what is best for their pet. Nobody would buy Ol' Roy and Meow Mix, everyone would do bloodwork and have IV fluids run for any surgery, nobody would try to haggle vets down in prices and everyone would get yearly titers for infectious diseases. The fact is this is not an ideal world. Of course there are clients who can afford to get titers every year, but there are also clients who can't but who still want to ensure that their pets are protected from these diseases. I still haven't actually been linked to specific studies about the efficacy of various vaccinations, but you can only really go by what the vaccine label says. If the label says it's good for 3 years, then hell do it every 3 years, but if the label is for yearly use then you can't in good conscience only do it every 3 years in the absence of an antibody titer.

 

[PAThbrd]

I will probably post this in the Vet thread too.

Not allowed, SDN only allows a thread to be posted in one forum.

Good topic though, most of the vet students will probably check in at some point

 

[chris03333]

Well my opinion is...
Core:
FVRCP and DHPP every 3 years

Dogs 3 year rabies vaccine
Cats 1 year (because the 3 year has an adjuvant, you'll learn all about adjuvants in veterinary immunology) Unless there is now a 3 year vaccine out which is not adjuvanted, I do not know, I am not in private practice.

As for all the others, my decisions are based on geographic region and habits of animal (go to the lake with family, go to the dog park, hiking in the woods...)

 

[Angelo84]

The clinic I work at does one year rabies followed by 3 year rabies thereafter if you come in by the date of the one year rabies. We also do three year distempers (again not the first one). Bordetella is a one year vaccine. Lyme is a one year vaccine (in New England). We don't do Lepto due to high probability of reactions and short immunity offered by vaccination.

As far as titers go there is some argument about whether titers are a good indicator of an animals ability to fight off a given disease if challenged. The main reason most vaccines aren't listed as being affective for more than three years is because getting the vaccine relisted would require doing another series of studies where animals are vaccinated as puppies and then challenged with the live vaccine at say 7 years old. No vaccine company wants to care to house/feed etc the animals for that period of time.

 

[StealthDog]

I don't know any vet that doesn't OFFER titers.

I've never been offered a titer by my dog's vet I see your point, and know that more often than not we will be struggling with clients to get the in door rather than struggling to keep them from spending too much money. I'm just saying that we need to be careful about assuming that every client would rather save a buck than run a titer.

As far as titers go there is some argument about whether titers are a good indicator of an animals ability to fight off a given disease if challenged.

My question is, if we can't trust titers... why do they take my titer for rabies every two years instead of just giving me a booster? I think as data trickles in we'll see more and more evidence that titers are indicative of immune status. I know they only measure humoral response, but since we have no good way of measure T-cell mediated immunity, I don't think we should fault titers for not giving us a complete picture. If you body was able to mount a sufficient B-cell response to an antigen, it seems safe (to me) to assume that the rest of the immune system responded as well.

That said, Dr. Dodds is raising money to fund two concurrent independent rabies challenge studies to help determine duration of immunity- one for 5 years and one for 7 years. You can see more information or donate money here (I know it's a rotten format and hard to read... sorry!).

I just got to listen to Dr. Dodds speak at the AHVMA conference this weekend, and she was incredibly eloquent and very science-based. She's passionate about getting to the truth of duration of immunity and vaccine reactions. It sucks that she has be the driving force being the rabies challenge study, but vaccine companies have no incentive to learn that their products could be effective in only two or three doses rather than annual doses over the pet's lifetime.

 

[chris03333]

The clinic I work at does one year rabies followed by 3 year rabies thereafter if you come in by the date of the one year rabies. QUOTE]

This is law for licensing in many areas.

 

[StealthDog]

http://www.newvaccinationprotocols.com/

This website was created by a vet, and is a good compilation of what data is available and what we still know nothing about.

 

[OSJ]

Chris- do you mean dhpp given as a 3 year and then lepto as a 1 year? As far as I know there is a 3 yr dhpp vaccination for adult dogs, but lepto is still a 1 yr. The dhlpp is a 1 year vaccine.
I don't think there is a non adjuvanted 3 year rabies for cats yet.

 

[chris03333]

Chris- do you mean dhpp given as a 3 year and then lepto as a 1 year? As far as I know there is a 3 yr dhpp vaccination for adult dogs, but lepto is still a 1 yr. The dhlpp is a 1 year vaccine.
I don't think there is a non adjuvanted 3 year rabies for cats yet.

Yes you are correct. I meant DHPP. Lepto I would classify as a geographic/lifestyle necessity type vaccine.

Thanks for the clarification

 

[sofficat]

3 year vax protocol could still get the owner in every year for 2 main reasons.

1- some vax (bord) are still yearly, ditto with hwt.
2- seperate the 3 yr vax, it's better for the pet anyways...
ex- in 2006 give 3 yr RV, bord
2007 give 3 yr distemper, bord
2008 bord only
2009 back to 3 yr rv, bord

that is what we started and it worked very well. i am for minimizing vax, but they are still needed 1-3 yrs apart.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[JerseyisCutest]

http://www.critteradvocacy.org/Are We Over Vaccinating Our Pets.htm

the survey at the bottom is pretty neat

 

[david594]

I have just heard/read about too many terrible reactions to vaccines as well as read about all the things over-vaccinating can cause to believe that the benefit outweighs the risk.

Does anyone have any overall stats for the incidence of reactions? Is it also possible that due to our interest in veterinary medicine we are oversensitive to the issue of vaccine reactions? We hear 1 or 2 people talking about reactions there pet had and of course we dont hear of the 50 or 100 whose pets didnt have reactions.

Where I work we see a fairly low rate of vaccine reactions. When we do, then will go the titer route. We do 3 year rabies if they are currently vaccinated. Everything else is 1 year.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[sofficat]

Even if there is only 2,3, or 4 that reports reactions per 100 that's enough to consider the risk IMO. You don't know that your dog won't end up being one of the 2, 3, 4........etc. Plus that's the reactions that are REPORTED. (IN my made up data.) Who knows how many times the reaction happened days later and was thought to be unrelated or wasn't reported. There is also a whole list of stuff that may happen as a side effect of being over vaccinated, such as allergies, hyperthyroidism, etc.
And besides, if the dog is already immune, why keep vaccinating it? It's a waste of money and considering there IS a risk.......it's not worth it to me when my dogs are my life.
If you're in ANY medicine, you need to stay open minded to new research IMO.

Also, why in your opinion is it okay to do rabies every 3 yrs and everything else as a 1 yr?
I have read time and time again that Corona virus (a part of most combos) doesn't even affect dogs over 8 weeks, whether they were vaccinated or not. Plus it's very very rare. So why do that at all? (Not implying that anyone does, but just asking in general.)

first of all, vaccine reactions occur within hours, not days.
secondly, corona is not included in many of the new formulations of distemper vaccines (the last practice where i worked we haven't had corona in over a year).
and last... i know that you have probably come across the tern 'vaccinosis' during your research for your paper. *THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL TERM OR CONDITION* it is a stupid, made up term for people who are not educated about vaccines. (ex- the newest edition of saunders vet dictionary doesn't even have it in there)
one more thing- the reason the corona virus is so rare now is b/c the vax was effective and we no longer have a natural form of the corona virus... at least that is what i have been told.

 

[david594]

Not trying to be argumentative at all...

Even if there is only 2,3, or 4 that reports reactions per 100 that's enough to consider the risk IMO. You don't know that your dog won't end up being one of the 2, 3, 4........etc. Plus that's the reactions that are REPORTED. (IN my made up data.) Who knows how many times the reaction happened days later and was thought to be unrelated or wasn't reported.

Why didnt the person report it? What was the severity of the reaction? A small lump that persists for a few days at the injection site would be an adverse reaction of statistical significance. I am from the northeast where Lyme is very common. So would a minor reaction(temporary lump) from the reaction outweigh the benefits of the vaccination? Its an individual choice at that point

Also, why in your opinion is it okay to do rabies every 3 yrs and everything else as a 1 yr?

Rabies vaccinations should kind of be considered in a class of their own as there are multiple rabies vaccines available. We have both a 3 year version and a 1 year version. Those time periods are from the manufacturer as to how long they have been tested effective for. Not a local clinic/vet decision as to how long they are good for.

I think one of the biggest factors is the cost effectiveness of it all. $20 for the vaccine or $60+ for the titer where you may still need to vaccinate anyways. On the other hand you have Petco with $10 vaccines and no option of titers... I think it would be a hard sell to convince the 90% of the population whose pets havent had adverse reactions that they need to be doing bloodwork at double the cost yearly.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[OSJ]

The vets I work for tell clients that a reaction can occur up to 48 hours after the vaccine is given, but that most severe reactions occur within 15 minutes to 2 hours or so. The vet I work for gives vaccines to about 25-35 dogs and cats per week. I have been here 12 weeks, 12x30=360 vaccines and we have had 3 reactions both to lepto.

 

[sofficat]

I have come across vaccinosis.......it seems to be a general term used to describe several different things, not a "technical" term I guess but I do know professionals (vets) who use it so I don't know that it's necessarily a "stupid term made up by people who don't know anything about vaccines" I don't think it's all that important to discuss whether or not it's "stupid"........but thanks for informing me on that opinion because I have heard it used a lot.


There is already research suggesting that vaccines provide immunity for 7+ years......if you notice above Dr. Jean Dodds is currently collecting funding for more research for this, and if this is the case, which might very well be, then the cost of a titer every 5 or 7 years or whatever would be well worth it.

1- it's interesting that you know vets that use that term. i'll have to ask my genetics prof if he knows it (he just created a new parvo vax). b/c the fact it is not in any vet books (that i know of) and due to what i read about vaccinosis online, my opinion is that it's a stupid coverall term for symptoms people (not vets i know) think are related to vax. but that is just me

2- i think it woul be awesome if we could prove some vax lasted more than 3 years!

 

[Bill59]

The largest study of acute vaccine reactions is:

Moore GE, et al. Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005 Oct 1;227(7):1102-8.

The found an adverse event rate of 0.38% (38.2/10,000 dogs) within 72 hours of vaccination.

All of the major viral vaccine manufacturers have duration-of-immunity studies going out 3 years. Regarding titers, in adult dogs titers have no negative predictive value. A high titer should correlate well with protection. But a low titer doesn't mean that the dog is susceptible since you aren't assessing cell mediated immunity or memory cell response.

Lepto is different because it's a bacterin and high-risk dogs may need to be vaccinated as often as every 6 months

 

[JerseyisCutest]

..

 

[StealthDog]

There were two retrospective studies done on data from Banfield recently- one for dogs and one for cats- and they found that the risk for an adverse event occurring was about 38 per 10,000 dogs vaccinated and 51 per 10,000 cats. They also found that for both dogs and cats, the likelihood of a reaction occurring correlated inversely with the adult size of the animal (so smaller breed dogs were more likely to have a reaction), and correlated positively with the number of vaccines given at the same time and with animals that had previously received 1 to 3 vaccines.

Keep in mind, this was a retrospective study, so there are a lot of ways that the data could be skewed- did owners think to bring their dog back when he was limping after his shots? Did they see a different vet after their dog puffed up? Etc. Also, the study only looked for reactions within three days of receiving vaccines (although I believe the cat study went out a little farther).

Dr. Dodds believes that you can see vaccine reactions as a result of delayed-type hypersensitivity (due to the creation of antibody/antigen complexes)... So in addition to the acute anaphylaxis-type reactions, she also includes things like seizures or autoimmune disorders that appear as long as 45 days after vaccination as vaccine reactions. This would be the "vaccinosis" idea, and the idea that has earned her much flack from fellow vets.

Her point is not that pets shouldn't be vaccinated against anything, but that pets with problems post-vaccination should not be vaccinated again, and if we can reduce the incidence of vaccine reactions by only vaccinating as often as is necessary to produce protective antibodies, why give any more?

 

[dyachei]

the vets I worked for this summer gave out a sheet with the information concerning any and all reactions that allergy shots might cause. Although the ones that you're worried about were on there, Jerseyiscutist, while I was there nobody came in with any of those concerns (the sheet was very specific with what to look for and to come in if any were found). It's hard to correlate diseases like hyperthyroidism with vaccines. I would love to know the process that would cause that reaction myself.

As for the not vaccinating again idea, well it would be nice if that would work with 1 or 2 vaccinations early in life and no others throughout the life, but that isn't how immunology works. For some antigens, memory is retained for a long time, for others it isn't and they're not really sure why. A different, but probably more expensive solution than getting a vaccine every year would be to check for memory every year and only vaccinate when needed. Some of the vaccines that are given are also given more often because testing in research showed that most animals didn't have memory for those antigens after a specific amount of time.

Not trying to attack anything that was said, I just think the topic is interesting (and we were just talking about it in class because someone in our class who had been vaccinated for mumps got it anyway).

 

[Bill59]

There are no data from controlled studies showing a cause-and-effect relationship between vaccinations and seizures, hyperthyroidism or allergies. There was one study showing a temporal relationship between vaccination and autoimmune hemolytic anemia.

 

[StealthDog]

There was no data that taurine was an essential amino acid in cats for quite some time until the results of the deficiency showed up....

Not saying that there *is* a link, but a lack of data does not mean that the data will not eventually show up. Keep in mind that vaccine studies are also generally performed on beagles, who are not necessarily representative of all breeds.

If you have a client who is sufficiently scared of vaccine reactions to be willing to titer, it's important to let them know that the current data doesn't indicate that seizures, etc are vaccine related- BUT, there are people who, no matter what the data says, don't feel comfortable re-vaccinating. You could titer and retain that client, or throw data at them and lose them.

 

[Bill59]

Not saying that there *is* a link, ...

Then why bring it up? Hinting that that vaccination *may* cause seizures or hyperthyroidism only serves to cause unnecessary concern for pet owners. This is similar to the unsubstantiated links between MMR and autism that decreases compliance with life-saving vaccines in children.

...but a lack of data does not mean that the data will not eventually show up.

... and there's no data showing that feeding your dog Purina will cause him to get hit by a car, but that doesn't mean such data will not eventually show up. That sort of reasoning is bad logic and bad science.

If clients are "scared of vaccines" the solution is to provide accurate science-based evidence. The situation is complicated enough without unsupported assertions of the risks of vaccines.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[abou]

well then how does "immunology work" then? Because I was under the impression, from my own research, what others posted here, and from talking to vets, that titer tests showed antibody levels but not memory cells or anything wil cell-mediated immunity. So therefore, if you are referring to why some immunity levels might be for life and others not, why do you believe this? SEveral people have posted now that low titers don't necessarily mean that the immunity is not there, which is also what I've read and been told. I'm not including lepto or Bordatella intranasal because these ARE different.

Ideally, after immunization you would check their antibody levels for a primary response. Sometime later you would re-inject them with the toxoid or other antigen and then measure their secondary response, which should be more vigorous and long lasting.

Unfortunately, doing that on a per-animal basis is not practical.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[abou]

Well, you asked. There are a number of things about immunology that are currently unknown. Tetanus vaccines in humans only last for about 10 years at max - hence why I am getting a booster before I go to Costa Rica for my ecology class even though it has only been 7 since my last injection.

Personally, I think you are looking very hard for answer or a response from the posters that may or may not be there. You claim it is practical, but I would say it isn't - especially considering the number of clients my father's clinic sees in a day. Even then (unless I'm misreading this whole thing) wouldn't the animal need to be injected again with a toxoid just to get a decent response in a titer test simply because a low titer does not mean lack of immunity? Wouldn't the injection of that toxoid then act as a (albeit out of date) booster? You have to be sure, right?

Also, 38 out of 10,000 and 51 out of 10,000 is a really low number. There are still deaths from anesthetic applied during surgery - I had to witness that too, btw. Should we just start using hypnosis then?

I agree that research is starting to point to a longer lasting immunity, but to decry so strongly the current practice is quite specious at this point; especially considering that it prevents your pet from being spayed and thus avoiding a host of other health problems. Remember, the current health of our animal population is based in wide-spread vaccinations, and as a result those few with allergic reactions or other complications is an acceptable consequence in my mind.

To conclude, if we can find that vaccines last at least three years then by all means, let's do that. Do them on a rotational basis or something. That would great! Until then, I'm pretty confident that there are far less complications from vaccinations than there would be if there were a lack of them.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[abou]

First of all, there are vaccines taht last at least 3 yrs, that's one we've discussed several times now. The AVMA recommends vaccinations every 3 yrs (for most vaccines) and so don't all US vet schools.

Okay, my bad. This topic has gotten quite long so I hope that you will excuse me for missing that.

So to say "IF we can find that vaccines last at least 3 yrs..." is wrong, it's already been done. There is research to indicate they last 5, 7 or more years as well.......that's another thing we've already discussed, including how Dr. Dodds is trying to get funding for more research.

Okay, that's fine, but I would question your understanding then of how research works. If they are still trying to get funding for research then nothing has certainly been proven. Where are the charts with long term studies? Where is the data showing serum concentrations over X amount of time?

Oh, it isn't here yet. When it is, then great. But don't storm in here showing that a few small studies provides incontrovertible proof that vaccines last 5-7 years all the time every time. Hell, you would probably want to re-vaccinate before the efficacy of the previous one decreases. If it is shown to decrease among a wide range of animals at 2 years and 10 months then you would probably want to vaccinate every two years.

And like you said earlier:

Just because a vaccine label states something, that does not mean it's necessarily the best thing for any or all pets.

Hence the need for serious long term and extensive research on the subject.

And you can't compare anesthesia (sp?) to vaccines......I don't know anyone who has their dog put under just for the fun of it or once a year like clockwork. You have anesthesia done when absolutely necessary.

Oh, I can't? It seems to me that I can - especially since not only would I argue that vaccinations are incredibly necessary, but it also seems as though you consider them as "just for the fun of it."

 

[dyachei]

well then how does "immunology work" then? Because I was under the impression, from my own research, what others posted here, and from talking to vets, that titer tests showed antibody levels but not memory cells or anything wil cell-mediated immunity. So therefore, if you are referring to why some immunity levels might be for life and others not, why do you believe this? SEveral people have posted now that low titers don't necessarily mean that the immunity is not there, which is also what I've read and been told. I'm not including lepto or Bordatella intranasal because these ARE different.

Dr. Rogers I mentioned earlier is one who only gave the intial vaccinations + another at a year old and now his dog is 9 yrs old I think? and he takes him to his clinic with him where he is obviously exposed to parvo, distemper, etc., yet the dog is healthy. That *could be* by chance or it could be because he is still immune. I suppose he could be lying, but I don't know why he would do this. I know other vets/people who have done the same things with their dogs and have never ever had a problem. These are dogs that travel to shows, events, seminars, clinics.......one vet I know just recently had his 24 yr old large breed dog pass away (old age) and he vaccinates all his dogs in this manner. This was obviously a healthy dog, how many people know someone with a dog this old? He has another still alive that is 20 yrs old or so. But he also feeds a completelly raw diet, which probably supports a healthy immune system.
It would interesting to know how many adult dogs (at least 1 yr old) actually pick up something like parvo. I've never seen or heard of one........so has anyone else? It would be interesting to know statistics on something like that. I know of a GSD breeder/schutzhund competitor who now does not vaccinate at all and hasn't had any problems.....so it's not that there's no adult dogs running around who haven't been vaccinated and not lived to tell the tale. And what about wolves? Can they also get parvo and distemper? I'm sure it would be difficult to figure out, if so, how many do, but that would be something else interesting to know.

And frankly, even if it's 38 dogs per 100,000, that's still 38 dogs too many for me when this is something that probably doesn't need done as often as it is. How do I know my dogs won't be one of those 38? I'd rather just be safe and not vaccinate if they dont' need it. A titer test every 3 yrs as opposed to getting vaccinted every 3 yrs is well worth the money to me.

Its obvious to me from your responses that you actually wouldn't like our opinions. It seems to me you really just want people to agree with you.

I was merely stating that for some reason, memory doesn't seem to last the lifetime of the animal, which is why it is recommended for those vaccines that they be administered every year for example. Immunologists don't really understand why, which I also mentioned. I think that unless you are regularly checking for antibody that it is irresponsible to expose your dog to a disease like parvo. Or rabies. And I might have missed it, but I'm fairly certain that rabies can last more than every year but it is required by law (where I've lived anyway) to vaccinate annually because of the risk to the community (which, by the way, is part of the vet's oath)

Are you saying that if there's a treatment that can help 99.96% of animals, you'd rather not have it because of the .04% that might have a reaction? In my opinion that's a little unreasonable.

 

[StealthDog]

... and there's no data showing that feeding your dog Purina will cause him to get hit by a car, but that doesn't mean such data will not eventually show up. That sort of reasoning is bad logic and bad science.

All I'm saying is that you can (and should) tell pet owners what we know (that as of now, there is no evidence of a link)- but you can never assume that what we know now is perfect. There are some very smart people in the field who believe there is a link, and there will inevitably be a lag between the observation of anecdotal data and the completion of studies that show a statistically significant correlation. The studies haven't been done in every breed, or every size dog, or with every brand of every vaccine.

I am certainly not advocating that people stop vaccinating, and I don't think anyone that's exploring the possibility of reduced vaccination protocols advocates that. 38/10,000 is a very small number, and the number of dogs that would die of preventable diseases like parvo, etc would be way higher than that without vaccination. But I'm not trying to compare no vaccination with annual vaccination, I'm trying to compare annual vaccination with reduced vaccination. If we could achieve the same immune status with a reduced protocol AND reduce the risk of vaccine reactions, why not?

This is only assuming that your client is willing to pay for a titer. I'm not going to force anyone to titer rather than vaccinate.

 

[StealthDog]

but it is required by law (where I've lived anyway) to vaccinate annually because of the risk to the community

I believe there are only two states that still require annual vaccination for rabies. I know Minnesota allows a three-year rabies.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

...

 

[ri23]

I think that until there is conclusive evidence that in all breeds of dogs the vaccination will last longer than currently believed we really shouldn't change the vaccination protocols. For example, I've heard (though I haven't done research on this) that Rotts are prone to getting parvo even if they have been vaccinated. Overprotection is better than underprotection. These are life threatening diseases, and the small risk of a vaccine reaction is worth it in my opinion. People also get vaccine reactions, but the majority of people still think it's worth the vaccinations (and don't get me started on those that don't!)

 

[Tiraka]

No I think vaccines are possibly necessary ( I don't say certainly are, because if you know what you're doing and are responsible--as the example I gave above with the guy who doens't vaccinate at all--it may be possible to go without vaccinating, or course rabies is required by law)

Antecdotal evidence, such as your example of the GSD breeder who doesn't vaccinate, doesn't really hold a lot of sway for me. People need to realize that failure to vaccinate isn't a guarantee that your dog will get a disease - the diseases we vaccinate against are bad enough that as Ri23 said, it's worth the risk of a reaction. Your lifestyle, and how it affects your dogs, can certainly reduce the risks of getting parvo or distemper, but you can't completely eliminate the possibility of your dog being exposed. Examples like that remind me of stories of people's grandmothers who chain-smoked until dying at the age of 99. It doesn't mean that smoking isn't dangerous - just that circumstances, genetics, and sheer luck are different for all cases. It should also be noted that the one unvaccinated dog in a vaccinated population probably is safer. It reaps the benefits of other's vaccinations without risking the reaction. But, from a public health standpoint, it is also much more responsible to vaccinate than risk propogating and spreading deadly disease through that unvaccinated dog.