Came across the notion of "overvaccination" the other day. Apparently it's a bad idea to vaccinate your dog annually. Could you do me a favour and check this link (http://designerbostons.homestead.com/misc.html) and let me know what you think?
I'm particularly interested in finding out if this part is solid science
Quote2. It is the consensus of immunologist that a modified live
virus vaccine must replicate in order to stimulate the immune system,
and antibodies from a previous vaccination will block the replication
of the new vaccinate virus. The immune status of the patient is not
enhanced in any way. There is no benefit to the patient. The client
is paying for something with insignificant or no effect, except that
the patient is being exposed to unnecessary risk of an adverse
reaction.
http://www.noah.co.uk/pressrel/1999/990701b.htm
I'd look there before making any decisions.
Me, I have no stake in this. I can't find any hard evidence either way, just many veterinarian opinions, sensationalist news articles, and the above link from the National Office of Animal Health. I'd take a close look at the information in the above link if I was a pet owner and worried about this issue.
I've often wondered why pets require annual vaccinations. It seems like a vaccination would offer protection for longer than a year.
Quote from: Nigel on July 04, 2009, 10:56:33 PM
I've often wondered why pets require annual vaccinations. It seems like a vaccination would offer protection for longer than a year.
I do know for distemper there is a reason they vaccinate so often when really young. The reason is that you aren't always sure when the mother begins weening their pups, and when they do the milk no longer carries antibodies. So they give distemper vaccines often to catch the puppies at the earliest time they would be vulnerable.
I also should add that domesticated animals often have screwed up immune systems due to years of inbreeding. A pure bred dog is much more susceptible to infection than a mut, generally.
If my vet friend ever actually manages to come back from Bristol, where I suspect he has been eaten by wild animals, I shall ask him.
Thanks Cain.
Also, Pentagram, I just considered something. The quote in your OP must assume that antibodies would continue to be present in high numbers upon the time of the concurrent immunization. If this were true, there would be no reason to immunize that soon. If this were not true, however, the immunization would be useful.
I guess "to immunize or not to immunize" poses to make blanket statements about widely different individuals (and breeds) of domesticated animals, which all have different powers of immunity. Some dog breeds, like I said above, have horrible immune systems from inbreeding. Others such as mutts are much better off. Perhaps immunization should be individually prescribed rather than on a mass prescribed schedule? This is why you should always have extensive conversations with your doctors and veterinarians, and ask lots of questions. Don't let them off easy.
Quote from: Kai on July 04, 2009, 03:32:25 PM
http://www.noah.co.uk/pressrel/1999/990701b.htm
I'd look there before making any decisions.
Me, I have no stake in this. I can't find any hard evidence either way, just many veterinarian opinions, sensationalist news articles, and the above link from the National Office of Animal Health. I'd take a close look at the information in the above link if I was a pet owner and worried about this issue.
Yeah, me neither. Just figured if anyone would know it'd prolly be you. Fuck it, my animals health is in god's hands :x