The Art of Natural Dressage

Working with the Horse's Initiative
It is currently Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:04 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 627
Location: USA
A very interesting discussion, impossible to say what's right or wrong, everybody just needs to do what "feels" right for them and their families. :D
So here's my 2 cents. :green:

I have done a lot of research on the subject since I found out that the rattlesnake vaccine (as well as the rabies and FeLV vaccine) that I was planning to have administered to my kitty can cause vaccine-associated feline sarcoma (http://www.avma.org/vafstf/vafstf01.asp) because of the aluminum hydroxide adjuvants that are used.
Needless to say, no rattlesnake vaccines (http://www.hvjournal.com/home-mainmenu-1/archive/1963-New%20Rattlesnake%20Vaccine%20for%20Dogs.html) for us. We are keeping the grass short and try to make our property as uninviting to rattlers as possible. I haven't seen one in 3 years (knock on wood :D ). I also keep the dogs on a leash during snake time and the kitty only goes out for walks with me and the puppy anyhow.

I used to vaccinate my dogs every year as suggested by my vets. After more research I started to stretch the intervals at first, now they don't get any of the K9 vaccines anymore. My little dog is about 5, the big one is about 12, they never get into contact with other dogs, we always stay on our property. In regards to rabies, it's required by law here and there's a 3 year vaccine available now.
The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust (http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/) is going to determine the duration of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccines and the goal is to extend the required interval for rabies boosters to 5 and then to 7 years.
Hopefully it'll change the law. ....

The horses did get a rabies vaccine 3 years ago and I'm not going to think about it for at least another 2 years. I'll check how many rabies cases there are in our area and then I'm going to make a decision.

The kitty is not getting any more vaccines at all. Period. She was diagnosed with Eosinophilic Granuloma Complex, an auto-immune disease, 7 months ago and I'm tempted to think that she received too many vaccines. My vet had strongly recommended that she receives the FVRPCPC combi shot, the FeLV shot (since she had tested neg) and the 1-year rabies shot ("as an outdoors cat she needs boosters every year") for 2 years. Then she developed EGC ... Now she's a house cat, only goes out for a walk with me because even a little ant or bug bite wreaks havoc on her system, it gets infected, scabs up, the scabs spread, she tears them off because they are itchy, loses all the hair with it and is just a miserable mess. :sad:

Back to equine vaccines: The horses are a headache. ;) I cannot in good conscience NOT vaccinate them against EEE, WEE, and WNV because we have waaaaaaaaayyyyy too many mosquitoes here, year round.
With tetanus I’d be happier if I didn’t have to give it to them in the combi shot all the time. I’d probably give it every 5 years or so. If they get hurt they get a tetanus shot anyhow! Unfortunately my vet doesn’t carry single vaccines, just the combi’s so I’m out of luck. I don't want to order vaccines on the net because you can't be sure that the cooling chain wasn't broken, with my vet's office chances that the vaccines were handled correctly (and therefore are still effective!) are really good.
I don’t vaccinate as recommended every 6 months, I spread the shots a bit more, depending on how bad the bug situation is.
But other than EEE, WEE, WNV, tetanus and rabies I don't do anything else because they never get into contact with any other horses and are at home here with me.

I just received my tetanus shot but I’m not doing anything else. The flu vaccines are a hit-or-miss approach anyhow since the buggers are mutating all the time and my immune system is still doing quite well. As I'm getting older I will have to weigh the risk and benefits.

In my opinion there is a craze here in the US to put a band-aid, an easy-fix on everything. If you’re sick, take a pill, if you’re overweight, take a pill, if you’re aching, take a pill and to prevent getting sick, get a shot.
I believe that vaccines and antibiotics do have their place in modern medicine but they are administered too often unnecessarily and without much thought. Most of us have a healthy immune system that can do it’s job but sometimes it needs a bit of help.
Getting sick is normal (but almost unaccepted nowadays) and keeps our immune systems in check. Childhood diseases at my time were “normal”. I received some vaccines but in general you just had to develop your own immunity by getting sick.
I am grateful that we have a choice to use vaccines and antibiotics and I’m always educating myself so that I can make the best choices (which, of course is relative!) for my family. I always prefer a combination with alternative medicine to alleviate the side effect of allopathic medicine. :D

Hugs & love to you all :kiss: , just my personal opinion!!!!

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. D.Adams


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:10 pm 

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:11 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Barcelona
Hi All,

If it was just up to me my animals would only get their basic injections (the first 2) and then it's up to them.
My horses will stop getting all they crap when they are at our farm, but my boyfriend is so stuck on the idee that the cats and the dogs have to be ented that I don't know if I can change that.

Love,

Helene

_________________
without the bad, good would not exist


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:18 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:10 am
Posts: 184
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Here's a long but informative and interesting article on vaccines (esp. dog and cat) - I've cut the references for space, but can tell anyone interested where to find them.
Rita


Veterinary Vaccines-Fact and Fiction
June 24th, 2009

What Are Vaccines?
The principle behind vaccination is that small amounts of weakened or killed organisms that normally cause disease, or even just pieces of these organisms, are given to an animal. This stimulates the immune system to generate a protective immune response without an actual infection or illness.

The first experiments with vaccination in dogs were conducted by Louis Pasteur in 1884, but reliably safe and effective vaccinations for most disease were not routinely available until the 1950s or later. Since vaccination became commonplace, the incidence of rabies, distemper, parvovirus, and many other infectious diseases has decreased dramatically. Along with improvements in nutrition and the development of antibiotics, vaccines have been among the most successful medical interventions for reducing disease, suffering, and death in companion animals.

But like all effective medical treatments, vaccines are not without risks, and recently there has been an increase in concern about their safety. Fortunately, there has also been a great deal of research into the benefits and risks of vaccination, and this information can help veterinarians and pet owners to make appropriate decisions about the best way to safeguard their pets’ health.

Why Vaccinate?
There are many infectious diseases that affect dogs and cats. Some cause severe, life-threatening illness. Some cause mild symptoms that can resolve spontaneously or persist for years. And some, such as rabies, can cause disease in humans as well as our pets.

The most obvious benefit of vaccination is preventing illness in the individual given the vaccine. This is especially clear with vaccines that are highly effective at preventing potentially fatal infections, such as canine distemper, canine parvovirus, and feline panleukopenia. Even those vaccines that do not prevent illness can reduce the severity of symptoms, as in the cases of several upper respiratory viruses in cats.

A less well-know but very important benefit of vaccination is to prevent epidemics in a population of animals, through what is called herd immunity. If a large number of individuals are protected by vaccination, there are not enough susceptible animals to allow a disease to spread, and so even unvaccinated individuals are protected from infection. When vaccination rates drop, however, then a few isolated cases can turn into a widespread epidemic.

There have recently been outbreaks of measles and haemophilus influenza B among humans as a result of fewer people in some areas getting vaccinated for these diseases. And in 1994-1995 there was an epidemic of canine distemper in Finland, where the disease had previously been eliminated, largely because too few dogs were adequately vaccinated.

The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated for herd immunity to work depends on the prevalence of the disease, the effectiveness of the vaccine, and other factors, but in most cases more than 90% of individuals must be vaccinated for those who are not to be protected. So if even a few individuals do no receive adequate vaccination, an epidemic can potentially develop.

Finally, vaccination of pets can be important for the health of their owners and other humans. Human cases of rabies due to dog bites, which is nearly always fatal, were once a serious public health problem in the United States. Widespread vaccination of dogs has eliminated this threat, though it is still a serious risk for people, especially children, in countries where such vaccination is not available or utilized.

Do They Work?
For many serious diseases, vaccination is very effective. There is some variation between vaccines, but the efficacy for vaccination against canine distemper, canine parvovirus, rabies, feline panleukopenia, and feline leukemia is excellent, in some cases close to 100%. Other vaccines, such as those for feline herpes virus and feline calicivirus, may not prevent infection but may markedly reduce the symptoms the infected pet suffers. However, there are some vaccines that are considered only poorly effective and others for which not enough information exists to determine how well they work.

As already mentioned, herd immunity depends to some extent on how common the disease organism is in the environment, how effective the vaccine is, and what percentage of the population is vaccinated. Even for vaccines with weak efficacy, if most animals are vaccinated then epidemics are less likely. And even when a vaccine is very effective, if many unvaccinated individuals are present to spread the disease, epidemics can develop.

What, When, How Often?
When many of the common vaccines were introduced decades ago, there was limited information on how effectively they protected animals from disease and for how long. The common practice was to give vaccines for many different diseases routinely every year. Significant improvements in our understanding of how vaccination works to prevent disease has led to widespread abandonment of this practice. The precise vaccines to be given, when, and how often can only be determined on an individual basis, considering the exposure of the patient to specific diseases, the effectiveness and risks of available vaccines, and many other factors. Some general principles, however, are applicable to all individuals.

Puppies and kittens that nurse usually receive antibodies from their mothers. These antibodies offer some protection from infectious diseases, though how much protection and for which diseases depends on many variables and is very difficult to predict. These maternal antibodies, however, also interfere with the action of vaccines. As puppies and kittens mature, they gradually lose their maternal antibodies and, if vaccinated, develop their own. For most individuals and most diseases, maternal antibodies begin to decrease by 6-8 weeks of age and are effectively gone by 14-16 weeks of age. As the level of maternal antibodies decreases, the young animals are at more and more risk for contracting infections until they have produced sufficient protective antibodies of their own.

For this reason, young animals must receive a series of vaccinations between 6 and 16 weeks of age. Because it cannot be determined exactly how much protection each individual has from nursing or how long that protection lasts, a series approach to vaccination maximizes the development of the patient’s own antibodies and minimizes the risk of gaps in protection as the maternal antibody levels decline.

For adult animals, the vaccines that will best protect them depend on individual circumstances. Current recommendations divide vaccines into core and non-core categories. Core vaccines are those that protect against organisms which cause severe disease, are easily transmitted between animals, are widespread in the environment, and for which the vaccines are recognized as safe and highly effective. Non-core vaccines are those used for organisms that cause mild self-limiting disease, are not widespread or easily transmitted, or for which the vaccines are not highly effective or carry unacceptable risks. Non-core vaccines are still appropriate to use if warranted by circumstances, but unlike core vaccines are not generally recommended for all pets
Finally, a few vaccines are generally not recommended at all due to uncertainty about their safety or efficacy or other concerns.

It is generally recommended all animals receive core vaccines at regular intervals and only receive non-core vaccines if the individual’s circumstances suggest the benefit outweighs the risks. For dogs, most veterinarians consider core vaccines to be those against canine distemper, parvovirus, hepatitis, and rabies. For cats, feline panleukopenia, herpes virus, and calicivirus vaccines are generally consider core vaccines. There is some debate about whether rabies and feline leukemia vaccines should be considered core vaccines for cats, and this depends mostly on a given cat’s likelihood of exposure, age, and the local rabies vaccination laws.

How often to give vaccines to adult animals is a topic of vigorous debate. Differences in individual immune function, in vaccine efficacy and safety, in regional risk of exposure to specific diseases, in individual or breed predisposition to diseases and response to vaccines, and many other factors make it nearly impossible to make definitive and universal statements about how long a vaccine will protect a given patient. A broad consensus exists among veterinarians and researchers that the initial puppy or kitten series of core vaccinations and a booster one year later is appropriate for almost all animals. There is strong evidence that most core vaccines will provide adequate protection for most individuals if given at most every 3 years, and for some diseases protection likely lasts much longer. However, there is insufficient evidence for detailed and universal guidelines for most vaccines. A general principle of medicine is that the benefit of a treatment should exceed the risk, so much of the discussion about how often to vaccinate and for which diseases centers on what is know about the risks of vaccination.

Are They Safe?
Like any potent medical therapy, vaccines can have unintended effects. Since vaccines are commonly given, often multiple times over many years, it can be difficult to decide if an illness is related to previous vaccination. In humans, there has been much concern about vaccination being responsible for autism in children, since the disease tends to emerge at about the time most children are vaccinated. Only after years of extensive research in thousands of children throughout the developed world has this theory been convincingly disproven. High quality research on this large a scale is rarely possible in veterinary medicine.

However, some good quality studies have been done to determine what adverse effects vaccines might cause, and how common and serious these are. Estimates vary, largely because it is often impossible to determine what the total population of dogs or cats is, what percentage of these have been vaccinated when and for what, and to gather other information necessary to accurately determine how common vaccine reactions really are. On the high end, estimates of total adverse vaccine reactions, provided by manufacturers based on pre-clinical testing, are on the order of 100 reactions per 10,000 vaccine doses given. Numbers based on research in actual pet populations are much lower, ranging from less than 1 reaction per 10,000 vaccines given up to 13 reactions per 10,000 doses given in dogs and 20 per 10,000 doses given in cats.

The most common by far are local or systemic hypersensitivity reactions, usually called allergic reactions. These account for 30-60% of adverse vaccine reactions. The vast majority of these reactions that are seen by a veterinarian resolve spontaneously or with minimal medical treatments. Many localized allergic reactions are thought to resolve without ever being noticed by the owner or reported to a veterinarian.

The risk of allergic reactions is not the same for all pets. Smaller dogs are at greater risk than larger dogs, and the risk increases the more vaccines are given at one time. Some research suggests certain breeds may be at higher risk than others, but other studies do not support this.

More serious adverse reactions are much rarer. A disease in which the immune system attacks the patient’s own red blood cells (IMHA) has been reported in one study to be associated with vaccination at a rate of 0.01 reactions per 10,000 doses, though a more recent study of the same disease found no association with vaccination. Other autoimmune diseases have been reported in specific breeds (such as hypertrophic osteodystrophy after canine distemper vaccine in Weimeraners and localized vasculitis in Dachshunds), but these are uncommon to rare and linked with specific genetic predispositions in affected dogs. It is also important to remember that these diseases can also be triggered by the very infections vaccines are used to prevent as well as medications, natural substances in food and in the environment, and anything that stimulates a response in the immune system of a predisposed animal.

The most widely known adverse vaccine reaction in animals is a rare type of cancer in cats known as Vaccine Associated Sarcoma (VAS). Identified by careful research in the early 1990s, this tumor has been linked to specific vaccines for rabies and feline leukemia. Similar tumors can occur spontaneously or in response to trauma, foreign bodies, local infections, and other things that stimulate the immune system. However, the risk of VAS is significantly increased by these vaccines, and it is suspected that the reason is certain ingredients, such as aluminum, that were added to the vaccines to increase their stimulation of an immune response. Estimates vary, but the most reliable figures suggest VAS occurs at a rate of 0.3-2 tumors per 10,000 vaccine doses given.

The discovery of this tumor stimulated much concern about the safety of vaccinations. While it is quite rare, great efforts have been made to reduce the incidence of VAS by developing new vaccines and researching the safest way to use these vaccines to protect cats from infectious disease while minimize such reactions. The debate and research has even spread beyond feline leukemia and rabies and stimulated a significant change in vaccination practices generally for both dogs and cats.

Finally, it is vital not to forget that the risks of vaccination must be considered in light of the benefits. For most core vaccines, the diseases they protect against represent a far greater threat to the health of our pets than the vaccines.

Vaccine Myths
While careful evaluation of the risks and benefits of vaccination, and cautious and thoughtful use of this potent medical tool, is absolutely appropriate, irrational fear of vaccines has unfortunately led to the spread of many myths about them. Some of the concerns raised about vaccines used in humans have been extended to companion animal vaccination, despite the evidence that many of these concerns are unfounded. And it has become all too common to identify vaccination as a possible, or even probable cause for any disease that is not yet completely understood. While unknown and unpredictable risks are always possible, careful scientific research has discovered even such rare adverse effects as Vaccine Associated Sarcomas, and many of the purported negative effects of vaccines are merely wild speculations with no basis in fact.

The most common myth about vaccines is that they are not necessary since the diseases they protect against are rare. The diseases for which we have core vaccines in dogs and cats all continue to exist in the population as a threat to unvaccinated individuals. And in cases where vaccine rates have dropped due to this misconception, epidemics of some of these diseases have occurred.

Another common concern are the immune system diseases caused by vaccines. Though auto-immune diseases such as IMHA may be associated with vaccination, this has not been conclusively demonstrated. And if vaccines do precipitate such diseases, so do infectious organisms, natural substances in food, and many other possible environmental factors. These conditions are uncommon, and any risk of them posed by vaccination is undoubtedly outweighed by the protection the vaccines offer against serious infectious diseases.

Some vaccinated animals have been shown to have antibodies against normal proteins in their own bodies, including the thyroid gland and the kidneys, and this has stimulated speculation that diseases in these organs may be the result of vaccination. However, the relationship between vaccination and such antibody formation is inconsistent, and no actual immune-mediated disease has ever been shown to result from the presence of vaccine-induced auto-antibodies.

Much publicity has been generated by concerns over “toxins” in vaccines. Thimerosal, aluminum, formaldehyde, anti-freeze, and many other substances have been claimed to be present in vaccines and to be harmful to vaccinated people or animals. Some of these substances are present in minute quantities in vaccines, though others are not. The primary misconception that creates unjustified fear about these ingredients is the notion that substances are inherently either toxic or safe. Water and oxygen can be poisonous, even fatal in high enough amounts even though they are vital for life. And while large amounts of some vaccine ingredients can be dangerous, the minute quantities in vaccines have never been shown to be harmful.

Preservative such as thimerosal and formaldehyde prevent bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines, and research in humans has shown they do not cause harm at the amounts given in vaccines. Aluminum adjuvant has not been associated with significant risk in humans. In cats, aluminum is believed to increase the risk of VAS, and non-adjuvanted vaccines are now recommended in this species.

Some people have expressed concern over the number of vaccines given in the puppy or kitten series, or over the lifetime of the pet, and have put forward the notion that so many vaccine antigens (the part of the disease-causing organism that the immune system reacts to) may “overload” the immune system, causing health problems. However, the number of foreign antigens animals are exposed to in vaccines is far less than what they encounter in the course of everyday life. We and our pets ingest and inhale antigens continuously, and we are exposed to more through wounds, insect bites, and many other sources. The relative contribution of vaccines to the total antigen exposure of any individual is miniscule. And the capacity of the immune system to generate a response to possible disease-causing organisms is so vast that even the extensive vaccination schedule recommended for children has been calculated to require only about 0.01% of this capacity.

It is commonly supposed that vaccines should be dosed by body weight the way most drugs are in veterinary patients. This is a misconception. While most drugs work by being distributed throughout the body and acting in proportion to their concentration in the blood or tissues, vaccines stimulate the immune system locally where they are administered. The Minimum Immunizing Dose (MID) is the amount of antigen necessary to stimulate a protective immune response. This varies by species and vaccine, but it has little relationship to body size. Horses only receive twice as much rabies vaccine as dogs, and elephants only twice as much as horses. The difference in size between individuals within a species is too small to affect the MID, and if only partial doses of vaccine are given there is a real risk on not triggering an adequate response to protect the patient.

Finally, there has been some talk of a vague, generalized illness attributed to vaccination and sometimes referred to as “vaccinosis.” There is no consistent definition of this supposed illness, but it is generally described with a series of anecdotes about animals that were vaccinated and became ill sometime afterwards, with no explanation of why the vaccine should be considered responsible for the illness. There is no evidence that “vaccinosis” is a real clinical entity or that the practice of blaming any illness of unknown cause on vaccines is justified.

A large-scale study of over 4000 dogs completed by the Animal Health trust in the UK found no association between vaccination and any specific illness, or ill-health in general, in the 3 months following the vaccination. Careful and controlled research is needed to document any adverse reaction to vaccines, and without such research there is no basis for concluding that vaccines cause disease beyond the uncommon, and rarely serious reactions already identified.

Alternatives to Vaccination?
The most commonly chosen alternative to vaccination is simply to not vaccinate. Unfortunately, this replaces the very small risks from vaccines with a much greater risk of disease for the unprotected individual and for other animals and even humans. While it is true that natural exposure to infectious organisms can stimulate a protective immunity, this comes with a risk of disease that is much more dangerous than the adverse effects of vaccines.

It has been suggested that proper nutrition in general, or special diets and dietary restrictions, can prevent disease and make vaccination unnecessary. While the immune system does function poorly in malnourished animals, those individuals who are fed adequate amounts of a balanced diet and are in good general health have normal immune function. There is no evidence that special diets or dietary limitations can improve on this normal function, and diet is certainly no substitute for appropriate vaccination.

Some alternative products claim to provide protection from disease without the risks of vaccines. The most common of these is the homeopathic nosode. Nosodes are prepared by extreme dilution of blood, urine, pus, or some other substance associated with the infection the preparation is supposed to prevent. Like all homeopathic preparations, nosodes do not contain any of the original ingredients due to the extensive dilution, so they consist only of the vehicle used, usually water or alcohol. Despite the lack of a plausible scientific rationale behind nosodes, some clinical studies of their effectiveness have been done, and these have shown them to be ineffective at preventing canine parvovirus and other infectious diseases.

Finally, blood antibody titers are sometimes recommended as an alternative to vaccination. This is a complex subject, and it is not possible to make definitive, universal recommendations about when titer testing is helpful. For some diseases, such as canine parvovirus, rabies, and feline panleukopenia, high antibody titer levels have been shown to reliably predict resistance to infection. However, due to other elements of the immune system which titers do not measure, animals with low titers to these diseases may still be protected from infection.

For other diseases, titers do not reliably predict whether the patient is resistant to the disease or not. And the predictive value of antibody levels also depends on how common the disease is in the population, so for an uncommon disease a negative titer is more likely to be an error, which makes deciding which individuals need vaccination based on their titer unreliable. Titers are useful in certain circumstances, but they are not appropriate as a routine alternative to vaccination for the general population.

Summary

? Vaccination is an important tool that has reduced the risk and harm of infectious disease dramatically in companion animals.

? While they vary in their efficacy, most commonly used vaccines are highly effective at preventing infection or reducing the symptoms of disease.

? Puppies and kittens need a series of vaccinations between 6 and 16 weeks to develop their own protective immunity as the maternal antibodies they get from nursing disappear.

? Which vaccines need to be given to adult animals, and how often, should be decided on the basis of unique individual circumstances and risk factors.

? Vaccines are generally very safe, but some adverse effects do occur. These are uncommon and usually easily treated, but more serious effects are possible, and the benefits of vaccination should always be weighed against the risks for each patient.

? The fears that vaccines contain harmful toxins, that they overwhelm the immune system, or that they routinely cause serious illness are unfounded and not supported by any real evidence.

_________________
"There is always an alternative to every cruel act".


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 627
Location: USA
Quote:
Veterinary Vaccines-Fact and Fiction

A very appropriate title ... ;) Very biased article, no further comments needed. :green:
Vets are fear mongers sometimes because one of their major sources of income is ... *drumroll* ... VACCINES!!!! Combine the YEARLY vaccines with a health exam and heartworm test and within 15 minutes you'll make $140.00 (that's our vet's "annual special"). (I know that this is not pure profit but expense versus profit is definitely in inverse proportion here. ;) )

I just read the little book "Stop the shots" by John Clifton and I REALLY like his down-to earth approach. Highly recommend it.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. D.Adams


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:49 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:10 am
Posts: 184
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Is the book you mention specifically veterinary?

_________________
"There is always an alternative to every cruel act".


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 627
Location: USA
Yes, specifically dogs & cats.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. D.Adams


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:29 am 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:32 am
Posts: 3270
Location: New York
Again, this is a hot topic for a lot of people, so I ask that we all make sure to couch our comments carefully.

Bine, you know I adore you, but I get a little curly around the edges with discomfort at a broad-based accusation that vets vaccinate simply because it makes them money.

That may be true for some vets, but it certainly isn't true where I live. Vets frequently give at-cost vaccination clinics (this is true in both large and small animal practices) where they don't make a dime for their time and they don't make any profit on the vaccine. They also give away the vaccines at cost to people who are comfortable doing their own vaccinating. My own vet cuts me deals right and left on this kind of thing, even though I argue with him about it. I figure that paying him a reasonable fee for vaccinating my animals is part of my ongoing care for them as well as part of my investment in him, justifying his investment in me -- it gives me a much cleaner conscience when I call him at 2 in the morning because we've got a crisis, knowing that I've turned to him and supported his practice in those moments that I'm not in desperate need.

Beyond that...

I know that there are differing opinions about the validity and risks of vaccinations. I have strongly held opinions that not vaccinating is exceedingly irresponsible, especially for those diseases that are highly contagious. A ranch down the road from us just lost two horses to Strangles because people were careless about vaccinating, for example. I've seen a horse die horribly from this disease.

I recognize that scientific research on vaccinations isn't always complete, and there is always learning to do. And I recognize and am empathetic with the belief in traditional medicine, and am particularly personally fascinated by herbal medicine. I know that it can get frustrating that the Western medical community tends not to value such medicine, in part because it's difficult to get funding for empirical studies on things like herbs because there isn't the profit center likely on them that there is on synthetically manufactured drugs because they can't be patented.

However, that doesn't negate the decades of research that has been done on vaccinations and the risks, benefits, and impacts of vaccinations not only on individual animals but animal and human populations in managing disease and extending life and health.

So, while people can obviously have individual dislikes about vaccinations and choose not to utilize them, I ask, please, that we keep the "don't talk negatively about people or things" AND thought in mind as we discuss this rather complicated and touchy topic.

I'm not saying that anyone has done this here, but a lot of the anti-vaccination arguments that I have seen are incredibly dismissive and rude (and often ignorant) about medical professionals, their competencies and training, and their ethics. Often these same people are perfectly willing to take the word of someone with absolutely no scientific training as gospel.

So, perhaps a more healthy way for all of us to discuss this is to actually discuss it! I read the article that Rita posted and find that it jives with the other scientific reading that I've done about vaccinations, even down to comments such as:

Quote:
How often to give vaccines to adult animals is a topic of vigorous debate. Differences in individual immune function, in vaccine efficacy and safety, in regional risk of exposure to specific diseases, in individual or breed predisposition to diseases and response to vaccines, and many other factors make it nearly impossible to make definitive and universal statements about how long a vaccine will protect a given patient.


and

Quote:
A general principle of medicine is that the benefit of a treatment should exceed the risk, so much of the discussion about how often to vaccinate and for which diseases centers on what is know about the risks of vaccination.


Statements such as these seem to me to open the door for healthy debate.

Hugs,
Leigh

_________________
"Ours is the portal of hope. Come as you are." -- Rumi
www.imaginalinstitute.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 627
Location: USA
Quote:
Bine, you know I adore you, but I get a little curly around the edges with discomfort at a broad-based accusation that vets vaccinate simply because it makes them money.


No need to get curly, Leigh! :funny: ;)
I'm sorry that it obviously got across wrong. What I wanted to say is that vaccines are definitely a major source of income for the vets but I'm not accusing ALL vets of riding the pharma bandwagon.
Some vets do take a more sensible approach like the vet I used to have down south. He recommended the combi vaccines for my dogs every 3 years instead of the yearly boosters.
Rabies in our area is approved for 3 years now too, so things are definitely changing.
I'm not completely against vaccinating, I'm just suggesting a more sensible approach that takes people's specific situation into consideration. There's a big difference if you have a kennel full of dogs with lots of critters coming and going or just a small pack who doesn't get into contact with any others.
So everybody has to evaluate their own situation and need for vaccines.
That's what I was trying to say. :D
(I hope that I didn't step into another pile of doodoo with my explanation. :green: I read it 3 times now, rephrased a bit and I think it's ok now. We'll see ... ;) )
Hugs, love & peace,
B

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. D.Adams


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:01 am 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:32 am
Posts: 3270
Location: New York
Ahhh!!

I get it! Cool. I've had such amazing dealings with so many vets over the years (most recently my good buddy John) that I tend to get frustrated when I feel like there are sweeping "vets are just in it for the money" statements -- it's so not true in my experience! (And if they were, sheesh, most of them just aren't that smart...there are a LOT easier ways to make money!) :yes: :funny:

I agree with you, Bine -- I think that there are lots of differentiating factors, and so there isn't one way to go about solving the vaccination conundrum with our beloved animals.

And not only vaccines, I guess.

I was reading back in the thread about your discoveries about the rattlesnake vaccination -- interestingly, even though we have big rattlesnake populations here, too, I've not heard of any vet suggesting that here, so I didn't even know there was one available!

But there are clinics here that people give on rattlesnake avoidance -- we thought about this for our dogs, but decided against it. They use live rattlesnakes so the dogs can hear the real rattle (the snakes are neutralized somehow -- I'm think they wrap tape around their mouths so they can't bite), and then the dog is hit with a pretty aggressive electrical shock when they go near the snake when it's rattling.

Classic negative reinforcement training -- and it does work with dogs, no doubt. But I thought about Orion, my sensitive poet dog, and decided that he would never be the same if this was done to him -- so we've chosen to be careful and think about where we're wandering instead.

So -- I don't think there are black and white answers, by any means!

Thanks so much for taking the time to expand on your thoughts, Bine...

xo
Leigh

_________________
"Ours is the portal of hope. Come as you are." -- Rumi
www.imaginalinstitute.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:38 pm
Posts: 701
Location: UK
The question of to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. I use both homeopathic nosodes and conventional vaccines for my animals depending on the circumstances. Below are links giving the views of two homeopathic vets.

http://www.homeovet.net/content/lifestyle/section2.html

http://www.austinholistic.com/PetVaccinationsI

Our horses are vaccinated for flue and tetanus with the conventional vaccines. When the Andalusians came in from Spain we started them with the tetanus vaccine in order to reduce the amount of stress to their system. Our own vet was very supportive and thought this an excellent idea suggesting that we introduce the flue vaccine after about 6 months. When Gaucho went to Rossdales, one of the top equine hospitals in the UK, for colic surgery, they also felt giving the two vaccines together created to much stress.

I am a natural healer practitioner and it is my understanding that if our bodies and our animals are in perfect balance and harmony we have the ability to withstand any virus etc. Taking horses as an example, the way they are kept and treated means in most cases that they are subject to constant stress. Because of this their system may be unable to deal with the threat posed by a virus and even though not ideal artificial vaccination would offer some form of protection.

The solution for me was to gather as much information as possible on both conventional and homeopathic vaccines, keep an open mind and then base my decision on the circumstances surrounding each individual animal.

Eileen

_________________
Listen! Or your tongue will make you deaf.

Cherokee Saying


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:39 am 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:32 am
Posts: 3270
Location: New York
Eileen, this sounds like a fabulous solution to me:
Quote:
The solution for me was to gather as much information as possible on both conventional and homeopathic vaccines, keep an open mind and then base my decision on the circumstances surrounding each individual animal.


That makes a great deal of sense to me!

Thanks also for the links, I look forward to doing some more reading when I get a chance...

:smile:
Leigh

_________________
"Ours is the portal of hope. Come as you are." -- Rumi
www.imaginalinstitute.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:29 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 4733
Location: Belgium
That sounds logical Eileen :)

In Owen's case, it were the vaccins that made him ill.
He got much better after I've stopped.

_________________
www.equusuniversalis.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:27 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:10 am
Posts: 184
Location: Barcelona, Spain
It's looking to be ever more the case that it's vaccine intervals which should be carefully considered:

http://www.avma.org/issues/vaccination/vaccination.asp

for the interested in this thread.
Rita

_________________
"There is always an alternative to every cruel act".


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:51 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:36 pm
Posts: 195
Location: USA
I think this is jsut one of those things as individual as each of us. Because mainly, "It depends".

Like right now I have 3 dogs, a 11 y.o. poodle, a 6 y.o. beagle, and a 2 y.o. Catahoula Leopard dog. The poodle is old enough that even my vet no longer reccomends vaccination, he's pretty much covered for life. The beagle has allergies, and vaccines aggrivate them quite a lot. She will break out with a red rash from nose to tail after vaccines, so she hasn't had any in 2-3 years. She doesn't go anywhere, or meet any strange dogs or animals.

My catahoula is vaccinated though. He goes everywhere with me, meets new dogs and animals daily, and goes many public places. I believe in puppy shots, and he had all those. Then this year I decided to get him done again. I might have him titer tested next year and only give what he needs.

I used to work at a vets office and we used to have to do quarantine's on dogs that bit or where suspected of biting someone. If they were not UTD on Rabies, automatic quarantine and by law if the dog is acting 'strange' he can be euthed. and tested for rabies. The dog did not HAVE to bite someone, they only had to be SUSPECTED of doing it. In my county the dog would be sent to the humane society for the quarantine. I don't want this to happen to my dog, it was a horrible thing to watch, and so my dog will be UTD on rabies. I don't think he'll ever bite anybody, but even if he bit them for attacking me, he'd be in the pound for 30 days. :sad: As long as he's UTD he might be 'monitored' and maybe checked by a vet, but there would be no manditory quarantine and possible euthanasia without my consent (which they sure wouldn't get!) So my catahoula with be UTD on rabies, and probably just titered yearly on everything else.

I have a friend who lives on the river, and has to vaccinate her hroses for Patomic Horse Fever, it about killed her gelding a couple years ago. I don't live near stagnant water, and my horses aren't at risk, so it's a needless vaccine to me. But for her horses it is definately necassary as they not only have gotten it, but it is often fatal.

I think there is a right way to not vaccinate and a wrong way. Not vaccinating because it saves money and trips to the vet, without research into your local disease or risk factors, is begging for trouble. But to not vaccinate because you understand what is needed in your area, you understand your animals risks and health, because your animal has an allergy or other problem, and while still getting your animals regular vet care and possibly titer tests, you can improve the health of your animals with not vaccinating.

Most vets don't make money on the vaccines so much, it's the exam. The vaccines are just to get you in the door. You'd be amazed how many diseases and problems we often caught early through physical exams, heartworm/lyme/erlichia tests, fecals, FIV/Felv tests, etc. Most owners won't bring their animals in for these "needless tests" without the "needed" vaccines. Were most the time the real help of the animal is through these "needless tests", much more so then the vaccines. ;) Most vets will agree vaccines are only needed every other year, or every third year, and no longer needed after a certain due to immunity levels. But these tests and exams should be conducted yearly, and people just won't do it without the vaccines to get them there. People blame the vets for being 'money hungry' and causing this, but look at it from their veiw, owners are too cheap to get health care, so they have to twist their arms a bit. ;) If everyone would just stop and consider the ANIMALS NEEDS FIRST this would no longer be an issue.

_________________
If you talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them you will not know them and what you do not know, you will fear. What one fears, one destroys.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:50 am 

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:02 pm
Posts: 1072
Location: UK Worcester/Hereford border
Whew, I now have an overload of information on a subject I have not researched.
I respect all of you as I am sure you base the choices you make responsibly for those who you love and are in your care.
I have more than one vet, one who is nearing retirement and vaccinates against tetanus, as this is a danger being ubiquitious and having a higher risk with equines and their handlers.
The other vet is also very knowledgeable, charges three times the fees and does a lot of surgery, has state of the art operating theatre for horses, and has a big income from insurance claims and drug companies.
Most of the horses on his list are competitors and performance horses. In order to compete and show they must be up to date with an annual 'flu vaccine.

Some vets would never suggest adding pumpkin seeds to horse and human diets instead of using chemicals to control tapeworm.

I had a pony who was vaccinated so that he could attend pony club meetings and rides, after one child bringing a sick pony to a ridden childrens meet, (you would think the stewards would have asked the family to leave and care for a poor pony with thick green mucas streaming from her nostrils), my pony then developed equine influenza. I stopped bothering to vaccinate.

Regardless of the science, I vaccinate my dogs and cats as babies, have my horses vaccinated against tetanus every two to three years and never vaccinated for flu, and have never been tempted to vaccinate against strangles. I do feel sceptical towards the pharmacuetical giants and worry that many animals still suffer through vivisection and experimentation.
I did home weak stray dog, low immune system and he grew well but who survived parvo virus only because he had some defence from his vaccine a year earlier. When I had taken him in, the vet advised because he was so poor he required annual vaccination for the first 2 years whilst he build his own defences.


My instinct, not research tells me I feel mostly aligned with Nicole, Jessplum, Eileen and Josepha, although I recognise Leigh's scientific understanding, I feel that sometimes science still has some of it's jigsaw pieces missing. MMR is a product designed to save money, the UK government does not offer parents the choice of single vaccines. I have not been vaccinated for these diseases, although it was only polio, diptheria available and my parents had me vaccinated with whatever was suggested at the time.
I am definate that I have no intention of being vaccinated for swine flu.
Susie xx

_________________
Susie xx
http://www.flickr.com/photos/piepony/


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited Color scheme created with Colorize It.