National Vaccination Month

Its just started , dogs have to be over 18 months .

To apply follow the link

http://www.vaccinationmonth.co.uk/

Our vets are doing it, I think it's a good idea.

I think it's a terrible idea. I groaned inwardly when I saw it on TV.

Vaccinations are bad enough, yet advertising vaccines? Really, this is just a money spinner for the pharmaceuticals and the vets and will only lead to over-vaccination which will lead to all sorts of health issues.

Take a look at http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk for the real vaccine information.

Or the videos on the other National Vaccination Month thread !

Why will it lead to over-vaccination? They are only offering it to dogs who's vaccinations 'dates' are over the recommended time.
It's because people are stopping vaccination that diseases are on the increase.
Becky

Because for all diseases that are viral, immunity lasts for life - once you have the antibodies you are immune, you can't become more immune. The dates on the vaccines are there purely because that's the duration the manufacturer has tested it for, it's nothing to do with duration of immunity. It's a money thing.

When you revaccinate, all you do is mess up the immune system which can lead to all sorts of health issues in the longterm - particularly autoimmune diseases.

Vaccines for bacterial diseases are different, they don't give immunity for life - in fact they are so short lived, that for Leptospirosis, independent tests have shown as little as 2months duration. Plus, this vaccine is extremely detrimental to health.

There's lots of information on this at: http://www.truthaboutvaccines.org

Disease is on the increase because we have a declining breed health due to genetic disease and vaccine induced genetic disease, as well as unnatural diets, environmental factors, neurotoxins for flea/tick control (which are only needed because of ill-health - parasites don't like healthy bodies) etc etc. It's the health of the animals we should be looking at, not trying to overload them with vaccinations that are contributing to that ill-health.

The surveys that have been carried out about canine longevity are very clear that improved veterinary care is purely compensating for declining breed health as longevity is either staying the same or reducing when logic says improvements in veterinary medicine should be increasing life spans.

Is this from a substantiated study? as I've seen no reliable reports of this.

Immunologists say that vaccines shed in the environment and revert to virulence - which basically means that a disease can be caught from a vaccinated dog - how do you know that it is not vaccinations causing disease rather than the other way round?

Vaccines are big business for the vets and pharmaceuticals and there are alot of smoke and mirrors and fear mongering involved in getting you to part with your money unnecessarily!

The first part of your statement is incorrect, not all vaccinations for viral infections provide lifelong immunity, if that were the case disease would die out very quickly. Also that would mean that you should be recommending that every single person vaccinate their dogs at least once to eradicate the diseases. I agree that in the past vets recommended annual vaccinations but some are more enlightened these days and I have always done a 3 year vaccination system with my dogs.

No more messed up then the dog being 'naturally' revaccinated when exposed to the disease, that is how the immune system works, it 'remembers' what has gone on before and kicks in to eliminate the threat.

Yes Lepto is the one where immunity has shown to decline at approx 13-18 mths post vaccination. Not sure how you came to the conclusion that it is extremely detrimental to health as if that truely were the case a vast number of dogs would be suffering with problems associated with this vaccine.
I do accept that some dogs have suffered problems with vaccines as all things in life carry a risk but in the main it is a tiny proportion of the population that have problems although that doesn't stop it being tragic for the dog and their owners when it does happen.

I would appreciate a link to the research regarding genetic damage due to vaccination.
I agree that todays society is chemical laden and as with everything it carries risks and people need to be aware of that and act in a sensible manner. However, I do not see that vaccinating animals that are overdue is overloading them with vaccines.

What declining breed health? The vast majority of dogs that I know that have suffered ill health are due to poor diet and, in the main, lack of exercise.
A survey carried out by The Dogs Trust (I think) found that 10% of dogs are NEVER walked, a further 3rd are walked only once of twice a week. That ammouts to 43% of dogs in this country are severely under exercised. That to me is far greater risk of causing bad health than a vaccine.
Becky

The Canine Diversity Project have studied canine longevity.

http://www.canine-genetics.com/health.htm#pblong

They also recommend the work of Dr. Kelly M. Cassidy who has compiled a number of breed longevity trends http://users.pullman.com/lostriver/trends.htm.

The Purdue University have done two studies on vaccine induced disease - one on beagles and one on danes.

Anyway, I'll dig out more links later, but for now, I think all of your questions are answered in these two letters compiled by some very prominent UK vets, complete with studies and references!

http://www.homeopathicvet.co.uk/pdf%...et%20Times.pdf

http://www.homeopathicvet.co.uk/pdf%...ccines%202.pdf

I quite agree.
This also applies to human vaccinations. People have stopped their children having the MMR, because it is given as a single injection. As a result these 3 horrible diseases are becoming rife again.
Exactly the same will happen in the dog world if owners do not vaccinate their dogs.

Your first link states that over aggressive vaccination can cause issues. I agree I have already said that I don't agree nor do annual vaccinations as the efficacy of these vaccines lasts longer than a year.
The link pertaining to longivity is meaningless without the causes of death. The reason for the decline could be that a lot of young dogs died of accidents and was disproportionally represented.
Your other two links are the same, as I have said I do not agree with annual vaccination.
What I don't agree with is NO vaccination at all. No vaccination is the biggest risk because it creates a reservior for disease to affect the wider canine community.
Becky

It's not just that. It should be about using circumspction - evaluating every vaccine with its inherent adverse effects with respect to the disease. With MMR and single vaccines, as an example, the rubella component was never given to babies previously as it is not generally a terrible disease for them. It used to be given to young adolescents before they were to become sexually active to protect any unborn babies they might have. It is given to babies now in order to protect the unborn babies of other pregnant women who are not immune. Unfortunately, the babies being vaccinated are are also exposed to the excipients (eg neomycin) and the potential adverse effects of the vaccine, plus being given with two other diseases.