Acceptable Risk

[Dianne Carter ~ Trinity Doodles]

The posting of this discussion was provoked by Erica's plea for help with her Kodi. Please see it especially if you have had adverse reactions to vaccines to offer what worked for you. In the meantime it seemed a good time to share my rather opinionated take on vaccines = )

ACCEPTABLE RISK. A very volatile topic with extreme opinions and it is always advised to do your homework and weigh the risk vs the benefit. The business of vaccines is very lucrative and unless you have a rare gem or you insist on being heard this is likely not a topic that your veterinarian will voluntarily bring about. There is abundant information to equip yourself in your own decisions, unfortunately there is just as much bad information as there is good so it is critical to go beyond the first article you find and find consistent and reputable sources. There are some vaccines that are routinely administered when they are of no benefit what so ever. Sometimes they are given past the age they are deemed helpful but more often than not they are given to early to even benefit hence often requiring a 3rd and frequently unnecessary dose.

Please understand that based upon the information I have collected this is only MY *opinion* and at this time it has influenced the vaccination protocol we provide and though it may spark debate or controversy it is only my opinion. Actually come to think of it this topic would be amazing in the debate group.

Personally I keep our puppies late now, they do not go home before 12 weeks and their first vaccine is given between 9-12 weeks. It may not make us popular with those who want their puppy at 8 weeks, veterinarians or even other breeders ~ but in the end we feel good about that and the families who choose us do as well. There are many who are of the feeling that vaccines administered at the customary 6 wk period are not as optimally effective as they may be if they were administered later. The puppies still have some immunity from mom and so do not fully benefit hence requiring a '3rd' vaccine in the series and of course a 3rd office call fee to accompany it. What we do is administer the 1st vaccine at 9-12 weeks, the 2nd 2-4 weeks following for those we retain or still have the pleasure of their companionship and do a titer for the 3rd in the instance of those we will retain as potential breeding dogs. A titer costs more initially than that vaccine but it tests the levels of immunity present to determine if another is needed. On occasion we have done the series of the first 3 doses with rabies and followed with titers after that. What is saved in the long run cannot be measured financially perhaps. Our dogs do get rabies #1 and often the second at 2 years, after that we titer and extend as long as possible. How it can even be considered appropriate for an identical dosage to be administered to a 10 lb. dog vs. a 100 lb. dog has always baffled me.

There are even vaccines to which do not seem to provide any benefit or do not 'prevent' what they immunize for but rather reduce the severity. The security to minimize the reaction is a good thing but one needs to ask themselves if for them the risk outweighs the benefit for their individual situation. Additionally they need to educate themselves as to those that only minimize so that they do not have a false security about their pets vulnerability.

Really I am not an extremist, I just do not happen to agree with cookie cutter medicine for 2 or 4 legged critters and for that matter cookie cutter anything. How can their be an absolute standard when the variables are often different? Ask many questions, get involved and do not assume just because the person standing in front of you went to school that they know more about what is better for you and your dog ~ after all these are the same folks who recommend Science Diet.

Stepping down now ~ but before I go here are some links you may find interesting:

http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/DODDS-CHG-VACC-PROTOCOLS.HTM

http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/RABIES-CHALLENGE-FUND.HTM

http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/depts-vth/vaccinations.aspx

http://www.dvmvac.com/HotTopic.shtml#bordetella (please note the part that states does not prevent)

http://www.dvmvac.com/HotTopic.shtml#skin

I know I have more, but will look in a bit.

Blessings ~ Dianne

[HANNAH 8/2/07 & HONEY 7/2/08]

Found this with the AAHA....

This is the recommended protocol..one set by AAHA/AVMA,
and all 27 vet schools..it is the one that ALL US vets have been made aware of and should be following.


Rabies
(killed) 16 weeks
One vaccination 1 yr after the initial
vaccination then every 3 years after


Distemper
(MLV) 8 weeks
12 weeks
16 weeks
one vaccination one year after initial vaccination
Will provide lifetime immunity there after. AAHA-Every three years (compromise) vaccination



Parvovirus
(MLV) 8 weeks
12 weeks
16 weeks
one vaccination one year after initial vaccination then none needed.Duration of immunity 7.5 years by studies. Probably lifetime. Longer studies pending.


Non-Core Only recommended where there is a high risk of exposure:

Bordetella


(Para influenza every 3 years?)
Para influenza only protects against 1 of 8+ causes of the illness.


Leptospirosis
1.) Side effects are common.
2.) The most commonly used vaccine contains the wrong serovars. (There is no cross-protection of serovars)
3.) The risk of side effects outweighs benefits.


Lyme
There is a possible side effect of polyarthritis from the vaccine.

Vaccines NOT Recommended For Dogs :

Distemper & Parvo @ 6 weeks or younger Not recommended.
At this age, maternal antibodies form the mothers milk (colostrum) will neutralize the vaccine and only 30% for puppies will be protected. 100% will be exposed to the virus at the vet clinic.

Corona NOT recommended.
1. Disease only affects dogs < 8 weeks of age.
2. Corona is a rare disease, only 1 case reported in 7 yrs at each of these Vet
Schools: TAMU, Cornell, Colo.St., U.Cal.@ Davis
3. Efficacy of vaccine questionable, IgA Mucosal antibodies needed


Giardia Not recommended
1. Efficacy of Vaccine unsubstantiated by independent study
2. Natural infection does not provide immunity.

[Noble Vestal Labradoodles]

Dianne,

I agree with you 100%.

[Dianne Carter ~ Trinity Doodles]

To the recommended protocol, Again ~ controversial. Some individual states like florida add lepto as part of the lemon law. That said pretty much nobody does it because they know how dangerous it can be. If a young dog can be titered and determined to already have sufficient immunity why would you administer a 3rd in the series? There are many that strongly feel that only two are necessary. At some point one has to ask themselves why are so many young dogs dying and contracting diseases and complications they never should. Of course we know food is a primary issue, but I think it goes beyond that as I have had too much contact with individuals from many regions, breeds, backgrounds, etc...that are victims and on occasion it is wise for us to look at the common denominators and question them.

[Lynne Fowler-Oodles of Doodles]

I agree, Dianne. I liken it to when my twins were little and I read everything I could get my hands on and looked at side effects vs benefits. I do the same for my dogs. I won't feed, give, or spot-on without researching first. Why many people look to vets/vet schools/associations as the ultimate authority, I don't know.

I believe the higher incidences of cancers. diseases and other problems with our dogs, including shorter lives, is directly connected to what we put in or put on them. One has to look at everything, combined and the combined effects over time, also. As far as vaccs. Why wouldn't you titer? I do it every year now.

For 3 years, I should have (according to the little postcard that came in the mail) given my 9 year old Bijon his annual boosters. For 3 years, I did titers instead. For 3 years, he came back with FULL IMMUNITY. I said to the vet, "if he has full immunity why should I vaccinate?" He said, "because that's the way we do it, just to make sure." HUH, I have a new vet, now.

[HANNAH 8/2/07 & HONEY 7/2/08]

I agree also...reasons why so many Vets are not willing to change shot protocols is because they are afraid people will stop bringing in their pets for yearly exams, which in return could trigger things being missed by an exam, and even more pups and young dogs loosing their lives. I have already asked two Vets to check Hannah’s titers and raised the same question about over inoculations, and they actually refused stating, "Your dog is due for her shots, these are the shots we give for her age"! I can see the concern of people not having an exam, and Vet's also being concerned if they do the titer and than it comes back your dog needs it's shots people won't vaccinate. There are already how many dogs and cats going around without proper shots. So how can you make it a win win situation for All is the problem.

[Adina P]

I saw Denise's reference to AVMA so I went to try to find it and read more myself. The first page I ran across was this:

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

What I found interesting are the following points (COBTA is "Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog vaccines"):

1) Vaccinations should be indivdualized to the patient (rather than a blanket cookie cutter, as you say Dianne, approach).

2) Admission that the science is still evolving/emerging as to the best plan and the one-year revaccination suggestion is based on historical precedent based on the best knowledge they had so far.

3) "Serologic titers may not accurately predict immunity from disease. With respect to many infectious diseases, it is not currently possible to determine the immune status of an animal without assessing response to challenge."

The rest was more recommendations to vets, but I thought I'd add it in here as another source of info.

Some abstracts from the site:

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2005.227.1102

Duration of serologic response to five viral antigens in dogs
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.224.55

Titers and cats
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.224.61

Lyme stuff
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.229.8.1260

-----------------------------------------
Then links to:

the AAHA Position Statement on Vaccines

The link to the task force report mentioned seems to be broken. Denise...can you give a link to the info you had found? Was it on AVMA or AAHA...I'm not doubting it, I just would like to bookmark it myself to have at hand.

[F, Calla & Luca]

The following represents my medical and personal opinions and I am sure some people think differently on this topic. I am a great believer in vaccines because they save lives, both human and animal. Parvo is deadly and leptospirosis can be too. I had my dogs vaccinated for lepto because my vet, who I trust completely, told me she just had a dog in her practice die of leptospirosis and she had her own dogs vaccinated. I agree that some vaccines like rabies, after 1 year booster, don't need yearly shots. Of course all vaccinations have possible side effects but the risk/benefit ratio has to be considered.Slightly off topic, but important I think, all the theories about vaccines and autism in children have not been shown to be true. There have been measles outbreaks, which can be a quite serious illness, due to lack of vaccinations, etc. I am on the board of health in my town and we are preparing for regular and swine flu vaccinations which I plan to have myself. In summary, I think one should prevent as much illness as possible through vaccination. It is not only cheaper but safer. As Adina has just added titers may not accurately reflect immunity.

[Adina P]

I agree. Definitely canine vaccines and protocols need more research, etc. But for now, as I added moments later after my post above, the AWFULNESS of getting lepto is a far worse outcome for me than the possible risk of vaccine reaction.

It is the fluke that gets reported after vaccines are given. If every single person who had a perfectly good outcome came onto the forum and said "My dogs were just vaccinated and are doing fine!" every single time they got their vaccines...I think it would be evident that there are more perfectly okay outcomes than problematic outcomes. But nobody says that because it's expected. People and media report the outlying cases.

I'm not intending to tell ANYONE what to do. I do agree such decisions should be made individually based on the evidence as one sees it.

[Adina P]

I have to admit that this has not been of major interest to me, but the frequency with which it comes up does pique my interest. The one vaccine that often gets touted as more risk than benefit is the vaccine for leptospirosis. But I find lepto a bit scary based on the potential outcomes AND because it IS a zoonotic disease that my dogs could give me if they were to get it themselves:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/leptospirosis_g.htm

And then when maristavet states: Make no mistake, leptospirosis is a life threatening disease with worldwide significance... it does make my skin crawl. I do NOT want this in my dogs or in me.
http://www.marvistavet.com/html/canineleptospirosis.html
So to ME, the risk of the vaccine is not as bad as the disease.

But it does sound like the vaccine does need to match what is IN the dog's environment since there are different types. I would like to see this vaccine better used because I Do NOT want my dog to get lepto and I certainly don't want to get it from my dog. Now, the little amount of traveling into "nature" I do with my dogs probably keeps them safe, but I just don't know for sure. So so far I've always gladly allowed the vet to give the vaccine. (it is one, for which that I am told immunity does NOT last years and years).
Ooooh I found another good one: http://www.labbies.com/lepto.htm

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

This year, my regular vet gave me a printed sheet explaining that the practice is recommending lepto vaccine for all their patients for the first time ever. Previously, the only dogs they saw who had lepto were dogs who spent time in the field or woods regularly, perhaps one or two cases a year. In the past 6 months, they had seen a half dozen dogs who never venture outside their own well- manicured suburban backyards, dogs like shih-tzus and bichons for whom a two block walk on suburban sidewalks was an adventure into the wild. I was told to ask Jack's specialist if he should have it, but their healthy patients were being told they definitely should. Jack's specialist concurred.
Previously, I had been told it was only necessary if he was going into wooded areas where there was water. The most dangerous time for lepto was the spring, because of the run-offs from the snow melting. Now, apparently, at least in my area, there are new strains being carried into suburban backyards by wild animals.
I was also told that the newer strains of lepto vaccines are safer than the old ones, for what that's worth.

[Jacquie Yorke (DRC)]

It isn't neccesarily the vaccines themselves but the vaccine "cocktails" that are being pumped into dogs by vets and agencies that offer "low-cost" immunizations at places like Petco and Petsmart etc combined with the frequency in which they are administered...

4 in 1
6 in 1

and so on.....

If vets would actually take the time to inform their patrons that titering is an option and stop charging rediculous fees for immunizations that cost them next to nothing it would certainly improve the situation...Unfortunately, as it is with medical care for humans in this country, one truly has to become an "educated consumer" before soliciting the services of a vet.....,..It's all a tremendous "racket"....

[Adina P]

I agree. It would be so much better if vets communicated with patients more. Here is what we do here...are you okay with that? Would you like to hear why we do it this way? We can give your dog a mix of vaccines, but you may also choose to take them one at a time. Most wouldn't know to choose otherwise, but it might spark a good discussion.

What I notice, though, is that either people generally TRUST vets or they think they are all ludicrous. That is merely my impression. I tend to trust vets as they have far more education in their field than any of us can get from a day of online searching. Yes, some vets (as anyone can be in any profession) seem to be stuck in the dark ages...but I don't understand the generalized mistrust and suspicion. YES, stay informed as a consumer, but that doesn't mean vets put blinders on when they go home and don't attempt to learn anything after their degree. I would recommend having a conversation with your vet and considering their thoughts on the matter (as they are an expert whereas as we are worried consumers) and weighing the options. If your vet is not open to a discussion...well find another one...

It's the same in any medical field. I find an enormous number of people don't trust those in the health field. Dietitians, like myself, experience it all the time. We expertise in diet and nutrition, yet people still prefer to listen to random friends, neighbors, cousins, and others when it comes to what they eat and what 'diet' they should follow. They fall into fads and gimmicks or grow unnecessarily suspicious of basic, well researched things like "eat your fruits and veggies" in favor of avoiding pasta until they can't stand it anymore.

Titering isn't fool proof though. There still is not quite enough evidence that a titer that shows immunity really means immunity nor that a titer that shows low levels really means lack of immunity. There isn't good data to say that level X means immunity in every dog or level Y means the dog needs another vaccination.