Our dogs (aged one and two) got cards through for their boosters recently.

Last year when the oldest was one and due for her first annual booster we asked our vet whether it was really necessary. Her view was that the initial jags and the first annual booster are very important. This coupled with the fact that she wouldn't be allowed to go swimming and various other activities if she wasn't up-to-date was enough to convince us.

This year the vet advised the full booster for the youngster (his first booster), and a cut down vaccination for the older one. I don't remember exactly what's in it, but in short she explained that it provided necessary protection against a variety of things that a booster doesn't provide very long-term protection against. I can find out more detail if anyone's interested.

She also went on to say that she personally would always give her own dogs the full booster. But she felt that the mini-booster was an acceptable solution for those that feel more comfortable keeping vacination/medication to a minimum.

I think it comes down to how you'd feel if the worst happened - and that will vary from person to person. If my dog had an adverse reaction to a booster I'd feel bad. But I'd feel a whole lot worse if she/he died because I'd failed to inocculate.

Very good questions Lucky star. Lets look at them in a little detail.

1. My opinion versus any other. yes my opinion is of no more value than anyone elses. However if there is such a clinical entity that can be fairly described as "over vaccination" it is up to those who believe so to provide robust evidence. Thus far in all cases they have failed to do so and therefore there is no justification for advising no vaccination or stopping boosters.

2. What evidence would be required to demonstrate adverse effects? Randomly sampled cohort controlled studies might be evidence enough. Though this provides correlation not causation.

3. We all have average dogs. The disease incidence data in the UK supports the standard vaccine protocol which covers all dogs. It has been successful for a number of years with little evidence of problems. I am all for informed consent but the reality is that most people and the information available to them, including myself,do not support deviations from the regular booster wide based coverage protocols that are standard to vets in the UK.


4. Its a rich western world fad. I find it hard to believe that a mother in sub saharan africa would refuse vaccination for her child and this refusal for dogs is an extension of that idiocy.

5. I am always open to evidence. Data and studies are of interest but it is for those who wish to change the status quo to bring the data to the table.

No, it is not just up to them but up to people who have any opinions, either way. If they are not based upon fact that can be backed up, they should be declared as personal opinion only. As yours are.

I do find your point 4 interesting. 'A rich Western world fad?. Yes, we have the luxury of better hygiene, nutrition and sanitation, such that the diseases that might kill in other situations are more readily dealt with here.

http://www.britfeld.com/vaccine-uk-vets.htm

Open Letter to the Vet Times, UK - January 2004



From Catherine O'Driscoll

Ten years after the start of the Canine Health Concern campaign to end annual vaccination, the following letter appeared in Veterinary Times, UK - at the end of January 2004. In the world of science, ten years is a very short time in which to expect a sea change. We and others whose dogs have suffered vaccine reactions; we whose beloved friends have died and suffered unnecessarily, have been pilloried and castigated for speaking the truth for long enough now. Time to take this letter to your vet; time to post it to other vets in your neighbourhood; time to show this letter to all the dog lovers you meet in the park or at classes. Time to get the truth out there once and for all. Time to stop our beloved animals suffering. Time to say 'YES!' - but not yet time to stop the campaign. We shall not be finished until annual vaccination is a thing of the past.
I dedicate this post to my own dear friends who had to die for this letter to appear in Veterinary Times: Oliver, Prudence and Samson, and to the thousands, or even millions, of animals and children whose lives have been terminated because people in scientific and veterinary communities saw a way to make a quick annual buck.
My respect and gratitude go to the courageous veterinarians who have signed the letter below.
Catherine O'Driscoll
Please feel free to cross post far and wide:

Letter from UK Vets which appeared in Vet Times, UK January 2004

Dear Editor
We, the undersigned, would like to bring to your attention our concerns in the light of recent new evidence regarding vaccination protocol.
The American Veterinary Medical Association Committee report this year states that 'the one year revaccination recommendation frequently found on many vaccination labels is based on historical precedent, not scientific data'.
In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that 'there is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year. In fact, according to research there is no proof that many of the yearly vaccinations are necessary and that protection in many instances may be life long'; also, 'Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both benefits and risks for the patient'; further that, 'Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'
Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative or combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'
The report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003) is also interesting reading: 'Current knowledgte supports the statement that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective and no vaccine is always indicated'; 'Misunderstanding, misinformation and the conservative nature of our profession have largely slowed adoption of protocols advocating decreased frequency of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides durations of immunity for core infectious diseases that far exceed the traditional recommendations for annual vaccination. This is supported by a growing body of veterinary information as well as well-developed epidemiological vigilance in human medicine that indicates immunity induced by vaccination is extremely long lasting and, in .most cases, lifelong.'
Further, the evidence shows that the duration of immunity for rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for rabies and challenge studies for all others.
The veterinary surgeons below fully accept that no single achievement has had greater impact on the lives and well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability to prevent infectious diseases than the developments in annual vaccines. We, however, fully support the recommendations and guidelines of the American Animal Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce vaccine protocols for dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines unless otherwise scientifically justified.
We further suggest that the evidence currently available will soon lead to the following facts being accepted:

• The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six months and any modified live virus (MLV) vaccine given after that age produces immunity that is good for the life of that pet.
• If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens from the subsequent so there is little or no effect; the pet is not 'boosted', nor are more memory cells induced.
• Not only are annual boosters for canine parvovirus and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
• There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.
• Puppies and kittens receive antibodies through their mothers' milk. This natural protection can last eight to 14 weeks.
• Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at less than eight weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralise the vaccine and little protection will be produced.
• Vaccination at six weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of the first effective vaccine.
• Vaccines given two weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the immune system.

This would give possible new guidelines as follows:

1. A series of vaccinations is given starting at eight weeks of age (or preferably later) and given three to four weeks apart, up to 16 weeks of age.
2. One further booster is given sometime after six months of age and will then provide life-long immunity.

In light of data now available showing the needless use and potential harm of annual vaccination, we call on our profession to cease the policy of annual vaccination.
Can we wonder that clients are losing faith in vaccination and researching the issue themselves? We think they are right to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic well-being of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical companies should not be a factor in making medical decisions.
It is accepted that the annual examination of a pet is advisable. We undervalue ourselves, however, if we hang this essential service on the back of vaccination and will ultimately suffer the consequences. Do we need to wait until we see actions against vets, such as those launched in the state of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He asserts that the present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception.
The oath we take as newly-qualified veterinary surgeons is 'to help, or at least do no harm'. We wish to maintain our position within society, and be deserving of the trust placed in us as a profession. It is therefore our contention that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of new evidence may well be acting contrary to the wefare of the animals committed to their care.
Yours faithfully

• • Richard Allport, BVetMed, MRCVS
    Sue Armstrong, MA BVetMed, MRCVS
    Mark Carpenter, BVetMed, MRCVS
    Sarah Fox-Chapman, MS, DVM, MRCVS
    Nichola Cornish, BVetMed, MRCVS
    Tim Couzens, BVetMed, MRCVS
    Chris Day, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
    Claire Davies, BVSc, MRCVS
    Mark Elliott, BVSc, MRCVS
    Peter Gregory, BVSc, MRCVS
    Lise Hansen, DVM, MRCVS
    John Hoare, BVSc, MRCVS
    Graham Hines, BVSc, MRCVS
    Megan Kearney, BVSc, MRCVS
    Michelle L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS
    Suzi McIntyre, BVSc, MRCVS
    Siobhan Menzies, BVM&S, MRCVS
    Nazrene Moosa, BVSc, MRCVS
    Mike Nolan, BVSc, MRCVS
    Ilse Pedler, MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS
    John Saxton, BVetMed, MRCVS
    Cheryl Sears, MVB, MRCVS
    Jane Seymour, BVSc, MRCVS
    Christine Shields, BVSc, MRCVS
    Suzannah Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS
    Phillip Stimpson, MA, VetMB, MRCVS
    Nick Thompson, BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS
    Lyn Thompson, BVSc, MRCVS
    Wendy Vere, VetMB, MA, MRCVS
    Anuska Viljoen, BVSc, MRCVS, and
    Wendy Vink, BVSc, MRCVS

Links of interest relating to this story

Guardinian Unlimited -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1184067,00.html

BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3588457.stm

Telegraph, UK - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004
%2F04%2F02%2Fnpet02.xml

BBC Radio -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/zthursday_20040401.shtml
scroll down to the 0640 time slot and click on the word vet to download the audio clip of the interview.

TBH my vets seem a little confused by the whole thing
When I took Ben in at 1 year I was told that they only do the full thing every 3 years and boost lepto every year - but she believed that lepto only lasted about 6 months anyway
Then this year the vet said no they do it all every year
I declined - I will get titers done next year

and - I thought titers can only give a false nagative
Basicaly they only show up if the dogs imune system has actually been chalanged by the virus and so antibodies are in the system
If the dog has not been exposed to the virus (either with sick dogs or with dogs shedding the vaccine) then it would give a negative with the titer when infact they could still be protected

So if the test showed positive then the dog is protected and its OK

Change your vet!!!

Seriously. Vets undergo a tremendous amount of training and only the best and brightest are accepted. We can research things and decide the type of approach we want to take to our pets care but we really do need a vet that we can trust to listen to our concerns and wishes and come up with a course of action that keeps us happy without putting our pets in danger. We can't possibly hope to understand these things in enough depth to make sound decisions without the guidance of a GOOD vet that's up to date in the latest research.

How are you going to get reliable answers to your questions and concerns without a vet you trust? From the internet?

We go to one in Barrhead who's very good. She'll always listen to your concerns, research them and take on board what you say. She's open to a lot of ideas and is very flexible, but won't let us do anything that she feels is putting our dogs at risk. We're now living out in Ayrshire but are keeping the old vet - mainly because she understands the importance of communication!! I'm sure most vets are competent but I think it's important to have one that works with you instead of insisting on their way or no way.

I've always had my dogs vaccinated. It's a habit I don't feel comfortable breaking.....

i have a dog with AIHA, not triggered by vacination i hasten to add it was nearly 12 months after her boosters when she nearly died from it.

I was concerned about not vacinating due to the number of dogs that come through my house, my vet and i discussed it at length after her recovery got to an acceptable level, his view was as there is evidence that vaccines may trigger auto immune responses if she were his dog he would titre test and only vacinate for the things she needs, so thats what we did, she is fine for Hepatitis and distemper and border line for parvo so we will retest in 6 months time and if she is still borderline we will vacinate for parvo only, this is the decision for one out of my four dogs, the rest are vacinated yearly for lepto and 3 yearly for the others.

I am lucky in that my vets are very forward thinking and up to date with the latest information as well as being willing to listen and discuss my concerns

I think the biggest "fly in the ointment" with regards to vaccs is always going to be that without your annual booster, you are never going to be able to kennel your dog if you so wish, and also I believe most if not all training classes insist on sight of a vacc certificate. For many people this alone is going to be enough to make them annually boost their dogs.

I personally would never put my dog into kennels, so it would never be a problem, but there must be countless thousands of people who want to and do, several times a year.

Until kennels will accept that dogs do not need to have annual boosters, once they have had the puppy vaccs and the first annual booster, then I cannot ever see the situation changing. I remain to be convinced that the puppy vaccs are unnecessary, followed by 1 annual booster, but after that I have formed the opinion now that further vaccinations are unneccessary, with the possible exception of lepto if you live in the countryside where there is a high population of foxes. Is lepto rife amongst urban foxes does anyone know?

lepto is more to do with rats