2008 Rabies Vaccine-JAVMA Report Adverse Reactions in Dogs

[juliepoudrier]

I don't think areas of expertise necessarily = titles. But I do think that what people do for a living does have at least some bearing on their "expertise." For example, I write and produce magazines for a living (no advanced titles here, and in fact my education wasn't even in writing or literature), so someone might give me the benefit of the doubt when I state that taking on production of a magazine (say, American Border Collie) is not a task for the faint of heart or the nondeadline oriented person. I don't claim to know everything there is about writing and producing publications, but I have been in the industry for a couple of decades so might know a little more about it than someone who hasn't been there. I think it's human nature to assign value to experience. And experience doesn't necessarily come with a PhD, but just as you often relate how your work in your chosen field has given you insight into human medicine, might we not also consider that others' work in their chosen fields might do the same when discussions relating to that field come up? We all know of folks with titles who don't have a lick of common sense. And nothing frustrates me more than people who refuse to educate themselves about important topics, but would rather "leave it to the experts." I have one friend who will not educate himself on his dogs' care because he says his vet is the expert and he would never question his vet! How crazy is that?

 

We're certainly in agreement on the rabies vaccination laws. I am fortunate to live in a state that has a three-year law, but even that is a bit excessive in my opinion. When my animals reach a certain age, I just stop vaccinating them. That puts me on the wrong side of the law (just keep moving--they'll never catch up to you, LOL!), and I just have to hope no one gets bit by one of my geriatrics, but it's what seems right to me, based on my own research and self-education, and so it's what I do. It's a shame that in a case like this, using what to me seems like common sense could actually get me in a boatload of trouble. I suspect there are a lot of folks out there just like me in this regard though.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

The fact that my state *overrides* federal law to force me to give a 3 year vaccine every year doesn't make sense.

 

And that, beyond all the hoopla, is the problem.

 

Well, if that's the problem, it's not a problem that "science" or anyone here is causing. As Mark said early on, "The frequency of revaccination for rabies required by law IS NOT DRIVEN by facts and numbers; it is driven by emotional politics." No one here advocates giving a 3 year vaccine every year. In fact, I would think the overwhelming majority of people here support the rabies challenge studies (except for some who may be blanketly opposed to research conducted on animals).

 

Science is skeptical -- that is its great contribution to our ways of thinking. Scientists by training and experience are not quick to embrace "truth" without evidence. Lawyers are into skepticism and evidence too, but it's obvious to me from the many discussions I've had with people like Mark and Pearse that they can call upon a depth and breadth of knowledge in the scientific realm that I simply do not have, and it's that which I respect, not their "title." So don't worry, Julie -- I did not take offense.

[Pippin's person]

One thing that I think is missing in some of these discussions is acknowledgment of the probabalistic models that most scientifically-based studies (particularly dealing with medical outcomes) are based on and what such models can and can't tell you. They can never predict the outcome of a given individual case but they can give you a sense of the relative likelihood within a population of some particular outcome (or lack thereof).

 

If I know the likelihood of an adverse reaction to a vaccine vs the likelihood of death from a particular disease, I can make more informed decisions. If the likelihood of my dog having an adverse reaction to a vaccine is less than 1% (or even if it's as high as 10%--which is pretty high in epidemiology) and the likelihood of her dying of rabies if she happens to be bit by a rabid skunk is close to 100%, then, ***for me***, it's a no-brainer.

 

Do I want to know the best vaccination protocol in terms of frequency--absolutely. But it's scientific investigation that will tell me that and looking at the quantitative facts based on treatment-control studies is the most likely to give me an answer I can evaluate.

 

Knowing about means and the spread of the distribution of the measured phenomena can also be important for judging things like risk and likelihood, as is knowing something about the mathematical modeling being used to test for significance. So is knowing whether a particular outcome recommendation is based on true probability (out of 1000 cases, 1 will have a outcome X) or more on stochastic modeling (every case has a particular likelihood of having X occur) when judging how to assess the information being presented.

 

While scientific reasoning may not give us all the answers or tell us the "truth" (and indeed isn't designed to), I'm happy that it can be used to test "common sense" since "common sense" so often turns out to be wrong (like about that issue of the sun circling the earth or the earth being flat).

[Kate@JIm]

I don't know how to work this message board quote thing, guess I somehow put someone down?

 

QUOTE

Maybe it's good I didn't pay attention to science, biology in class, otherwise, maybe I wouldn't have on open mind.

Do you see anything insulting in that statement, or not?

 

That insult is for me! - no it's not insulting!

 

I got several emails telling me alternative medicine, vaccine protocol can't be discussed on here, apparently been problems in the past?

sorry, I didn't know, you may delete my posts. - as I see other posts are deleted as well.

I am sorry.

 

I will stick to other message boards for this subject- where people can share their stories, help each other, discuss and learn.

[juliepoudrier]

Kate@Jim,

Eileen is the moderator of this board. She hasn't said that vaccination protocols and alternative medicine can't be discussed on this board, and in fact, both do get discussed, and quite often. Whoever is e-mailing you must at the least be misinformed and at the worst have an ax to grind.

 

FWIW, the other posts that were deleted were deleted by their author. She apparently didn't like the reaction she got to some of her comments so went through and deleted her posts. You can choose to delete your own posts, but I don't think anyone else will delete them for you because censorship isn't something that happens here.

 

As for the implied insult, what you said could be taken to mean that you think anyone who did pay attention in science class is close minded.

 

J.

[Kris L. Christine]

Kris,

 

Wow, why would you ever want to go to a vet if all you think they are doing is trying to get you to spend more money?

I suggest you research the difference between a professional and trade organizations.

 

Mark

Mark,

 

If you will note, those quotes are all from veterinary professional and trade publications -- publications for veterinarians written by veterinarians/veterinary research scientists and they are an open acknowledgement among veterinarians that some of their colleagues do use vaccines as a "profit center" as Dr. Wolf stated and as a "vaccine hook" according to DVM. It does happen and dog owners should be aware of that possible motivation in some cases.

 

The quote from the American Animal Hospital Association about the ethical issue veterinarians struggle with over whether economics justify giving a vaccine or drug that is not required is from a professional organization, and Dr. Alice Wolf is a Professor of Small Animal Internal Medicine at Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine, while DVM magazine and Veterinary Economics are veterinary trade organizations. So, to be more accurate, I should have included educational organizations as well as professional and trade organizations.

 

Dog owners need to educate themselves about canine vaccines because many of them are not getting full disclosure from their veterinary care providers. If dog owners are informed, they will be able to have an open discussion with their veterinarian and arrive at an appropriate vaccination protocol for their particular animals.

 

Personally, I switched to a homeopathic veterinarian 4 years ago and have been very happy with the care my dogs have received. Unlike our other veterinarian who gave us no disclosure and was sending us reminders that our dogs needed 7 vaccines a year, including a 3 year rabies vaccine every 2 years, our homeopath does titers to determine if our dogs' antibodies are at adequate levels and does not send us reminders to come in for vaccinations every year.

[Eileen Stein]

I got several emails telling me alternative medicine, vaccine protocol can't be discussed on here, apparently been problems in the past?

sorry, I didn't know, you may delete my posts. - as I see other posts are deleted as well.

 

You were misinformed. Of course alternative medicine and vaccine protocol can be discussed on these Boards. In fact, if I recall correctly, you yourself have participated in such discussions on previous threads. Maybe the emailers meant that you can't discuss those subjects here without some people disagreeing with you? That would be accurate.

 

I did not delete any posts. Michelle Bernard apparently chose to delete all of her own posts.

[Sharon44]

I found your topic very interesting along with everyone's opinions. I have owned dogs all my life and have never really had any major problems with any of them. I have over the years stopped giving my dogs repeated shots once they received their puppy series. This is not based on nothing but my own experience and research. I changed vets recently when my old vet wanted to give one of my dogs a year rabies shot instead of a 3 year because I was a week late getting his rabies. I left and went to another vet who honored the fact that he was due for a 3 year. My new vet has never twisted my arm to get all the other shots updated. He only does what I ask him to do.

 

The people on this list all seem to be caring dog owners. What you do with your dogs is your own business. I find it hard to read the postings when people try to push their own beliefs down the throats of others without consideration. I like to read about people's experiences with alternative medicine, some of it makes sense. But it is up to me to decide what works best for my dogs. I think those that have opinions opposite of mine should have a say, but they should also respect what I think and leave it at that. I don't wish their dogs to come down with something that could have been prevented with a shot.

 

Some of the post dealth with what is suppose to be the effects of the rabies vaccine on the dogs brain, thus effecting his personality. Noise sensitivity, excessive barking, thunder phobic, the list goes on and on. Having 9 dogs each with a different personality wouldn't that theory be true in each and every dog? My dogs bark only when there is a reason. Two are thunderphobic, as for the rest I don't find anything really wrong with them. Oh, they do get excited when someone comes over to visit and act like idiots. Maybe the vaccine is the reason. H-m-m-m, taking this all in to consideration. I will continue to get them their rabies every 3 years as required by law. We live where rabies is very prevelent, losing one to rabies or animal control is a lot worse then dealing with a dog that gets upset when it storms.

 

Shar

[Root Beer]

Some of the post dealth with what is suppose to be the effects of the rabies vaccine on the dogs brain, thus effecting his personality. Noise sensitivity, excessive barking, thunder phobic, the list goes on and on. Having 9 dogs each with a different personality wouldn't that theory be true in each and every dog?

 

No, it would not necessarily be the same for each and every dog.

 

Not all humans who take a given medication experience the same side effects as others who take the same medication. One person may have a heart attack as a result of taking a medication while someone else just has a bit of an upset stomach that goes away and someone else might be just fine.

 

It would be the same for dogs and adverse vaccine reactions. Some dogs may have very serious reactions to a given vaccination while another has a mild reaction and another has no reaction.

[Sharon44]

It is interesting, so how do you contribute your dog's personality, to vaccine reaction or just plain old genetics? I can understand a physical reaction around the time of vaccination, but how can you determine the difference? My dogs for the most part have lived long and healthy lives. I can't remember any of them developing personality changes after they started their rabines vaccine. I have had an assortment of breeds besides Border Collies, and it has always been my practice to wait till they are at least a year old before receiving a rabies shot. Their personalities have pretty much been formed by then quirks and all. Thinking about them, I can honestly say I don't remember any of them developing any personality changes that would lead me to believe that the vaccine was at fault. Maybe I am wrong, but it makes no sense to me. I would be happy if someone could enlighten me with more information. I also would like to see the law changed to every 7 years.

 

Sharon

[Tassie]

As an aside, this whole discussion reminds me a bit of a "no vaccines" list I was on for a while. I am all for limiting vaccines (quantity and frequency), but when most of the discussion centered around how most wildlife believed/said to have rabies probably really just had distemper and that it was some sort of government conspiracy that kept the general public believing rabies is a problem (when it was really distemper and the rabies thing is just ONE BIG LIE) I had to step away. I think it's okay to believe that, but I'd prefer that those who believe that don't put me and mine at risk for the sake of their beliefs....

 

J.

 

I was interested to read about that argument that had been made by some about the rabies vacc program. Proponents of the "it was really distemper' school of thought had obviously not considered Australia - where distemper has been present at least since Europeans brought dogs in over 200 years ago, but where rigid quarantine laws have prevented the entry of rabies. Seems like if the 'it was really distemper' proponents were right, we should have seen rabies-like behaviour from our wildlife - but we haven't.

 

A bit O/T - sorry - but just a thought from this side of the world.

[Eileen Stein]

Mark,

 

If you will note, those quotes are all from veterinary professional and trade publications -- publications for veterinarians written by veterinarians/veterinary research scientists and they are an open acknowledgement among veterinarians that some of their colleagues do use vaccines as a "profit center" as Dr. Wolf stated and as a "vaccine hook" according to DVM. It does happen and dog owners should be aware of that possible motivation in some cases.

 

Yes, the quotes are taken from veterinary professional and trade publications, albeit not current ones. They span the period from 2001-2004, a time when emerging data about vaccination risks was causing the profession to re-evaluate the routine administration of vaccinations (the AAHA guidelines were issued in 2003). I am glad that you provided links to most of the articles, and I hope people will read the full articles, because I think the quotes you pulled were cherry-picked to suggest that vets vaccinate more than they believe medically advisable, just for profit. I do not think the quotes fairly reflect the overall thrust of the articles. In fact, they remind me a lot of the current political campaign, where passing comments are jumped on, taken out of context, and held up as "proof" of something they do not prove.

 

The standard of care in veterinary medicine, and human medicine, evolves over time as more data accumulates. A phenomenon is noticed, hypotheses about it are formed and tested, and the outcome may (or may not) advance the sum of knowledge and lead to changed attitudes and practices. There are paths that lead to genuine advancements and breakthroughs, and paths that lead to dead ends or worse. If you're an early advocate of the former, time and further information will prove you a visionary. If you're an early advocate of the latter, time and further information will prove you misguided. But in both cases, until time and further information yield the verdict, you will think you were right.

 

Anyone who runs a viable business has to figure out how to price his goods and/or services. At a time when the standard of care was annual vaccination, it made sense, in figuring out the budget that would enable you to keep your veterinary practice afloat, to anticipate a certain amount of revenue from vaccination. In that sense, it is a profit center -- as are physical exams, as are spay/neuters, as are euthanasias, etc. That doesn't mean that vets would try to keep up that level of vaccinations despite increasing data indicating that less-frequent vaccination is equally effective and safer, any more than a vet would try to maximize euthanasia income. It just means that s/he has to rethink the pricing formula, so that more income will be derived from other goods and services. In fact, this is what a couple of the articles you cite are trying to help the vet to do.

 

I am not saying there's no such thing as a vet who is money-hungry, and who would perform unnecessary procedures to make more money. There almost certainly are a few like that. But in my experience they are far, far outnumbered by the ones who are struggling to figure out how to make a decent living without pricing their services so high that people won't give their animals the care their animals need. And since the number of vets who would treat an animal in a way contrary to its best interest for money is so tiny, I am really turned off by anti-vaccination advocates who disparage the veterinary profession rather than sticking to the merits, where the argument belongs and where their case is strongest.

[Kris L. Christine]

An important piece of information from the Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine Teaching Hospital to consider when deciding on an appropriate vaccination booster protocol for your dogs.

 

http://www.geocities.com/kremersark/CSAP.html The USDA requires challenge data two weeks after last vaccination for licensure for all vaccines (except rabies). The USDA does not require titers or challenge data at one year for any vaccine except for rabies vaccines. Manufacturers yearly vaccine recommendations are arbitrary for all but rabies vaccines.

[Kris L. Christine]

Channel 5 News WCVB Boston Woman: Rabies Shot Killed my Poodle May 28, 2008

 

http://www.thebostonchannel.com:80/news/16...bos&taf=bos

[kajarrel]

I'm having a hard time understanding what the owner of the dog is implying. Is she implying that if her dog's titer was low and it got the rabies shot that it wouldn't have died? Or that it had a high titer and, because of this, it died? I'm confused.

 

Kim

[Root Beer]

I'm having a hard time understanding what the owner of the dog is implying. Is she implying that if her dog's titer was low and it got the rabies shot that it wouldn't have died? Or that it had a high titer and, because of this, it died? I'm confused.

 

Kim

 

I think she was trying to say that if her dog's titer indicated that the dog still had immunity and the dog had not gotten the shot at all, the dog would not have dropped dead.

[kajarrel]

This involves a couple of unproven assumptions. I find it kind of scary that a news story is based on such flimsy evidence (but what am I thinking? - sensation, not substance, sells).

 

Kim

[Sue R]

I read only the article. Many years ago, my husband's puppy began seizures and died shortly after receiving her first rabies vaccine. He always felt it was some sort of reaction to that shot that killed his much-loved puppy. But, regardless of that, we vaccinate our dogs and cats (and our cows and horses) for rabies. I think the benefit to the many in avoiding this horrific disease is worth the risk to the few that might have adverse reactions.

 

I do have to say that I do not agree with states that mandate vaccination more often than the vaccine is labelled for, and am not sure why this is so in many states other than a sense of fear and alarm. If the vaccination is "good" for three years, then it should be good for at least three years.

 

I don't believe this woman had any proof of what killed her dog, and neither did my husband. However, my husband's firm belief is that is was a reaction to the vaccination (or some component of it) that killed his pup. And we will continue vaccinating all our pets and livestock for rabies - there have been two cases of livestock diagnosed with rabies in this state already this year alone.

[AK dog doc]

Unfortunately, the state - which is the entity that decides what is the legally required interval for rabies vaccination - may make the decision based on other factors than the biology of the vaccine and its efficacy in a normal immunocompetent adult animal. Sometimes those factors are intended to protect public health - as in, states that have a high endemic level of rabies, or those that have had an outbreak in recent years, may mandate more frequent vaccination than before (shortening the inter-vaccinal interval), or may just maintain a shorter interval than the next state over. However, you'd have to poll your legislature to see if other factors (such as revenue generation or liability protection FOR THE STATE) apply in a given area.

 

Also unfortunately, it's very common for people to claim or percieve a link between events of which they have an incomplete understanding, without any proof whatsoever that there is any causative relationship or any linkage of any kind. There may be; there may not be. In the absence of proof, nothing further can be said about it. I've used this example before, but I'll repeat it: If you decide to get a new dress so you can go out with your girlfriends for a night on the town, and then you go to a sushi bar and drink a lot of saki and eat a lot of sushi, and then you go home and vomit half the nitght, you MAY be tempted to decide that new dresses cause vomiting. After all, the LAST time you went out with your girlfriends and had sushi, you did NOT spend the night vomiting, and so the new dress MUST be the cause, right? Yes, that HAS to be it, it's the only novel factor, new dresses cause vomiting!... Or not. Maybe it was bad sushi. Or maybe you had too MUCH saki. Or maybe it was a coincidental virus. Or maybe it was those leftovers you had for lunch. Or maybe there's something bad in the water at your work. Or maybe you have pancreatitis. Or maybe a zillion other things, including the possibilty that your dress had an ink in it whch cased an allergic reaction and subsequent vomiting. But you can't make that claim without more information.

 

This sort of leap-to-conclusions behavior is, however, quite a hard thing to avoid, because there IS an inborn mechanism for this. If you were, for instance, to eat two foods, one that is novel and one that is not, and later you get sick, you will be far more likely to develop an aversion to the novel food than the common one. An example: When I was 7, we had hot dogs and artichokes for dinner one night. Then we watched Frosty the Snowman. Later that night I was violently ill. To this day I cannot look a cooked artichoke in the face (or even smell them cooking) without feeling nauseated, but I'm good on the hot dogs. I still don't want to hear the "Frosty" theme song. Frosty and artichokes were the novel items (not brand-new events, but relatively uncommon ones); hot dogs were a lot more common in my experience at the time, and they were the thing I had the weakest and most transient aversion to. Even though I know logically and in retrospect that it was a stomach virus (no one else got sick that night from eating the same food and watching the same TV, but two days later another kid was down, and so on til we all had it), I still, nearly 40 years later, have aversions to the novel items - despite many interveneing years of not vomiting to the "Frosty" theme song or from smelling artichokes cooking. This is an inborn protective mechanism, and it applies to other things besides foods... so any novel event that is followed by some distinct outcome tends to take the blame or credit for the outcome, whether or not it is responsible. Without some kind of proof, however, I'm not going to jump for that. I want to see some kind of provable link before I buy it.

 

And, yet again, you are my hero, Eileen. I'm really QUITE sick of being accused (sometimes obliquely or covertly, sometimes overtly, sometimes merely by association with my profession) of being in vet med for the giant salary I obviously must be generating off of advocating vaccination based on the AAHA guidelines. I'll say it again: Anyone who can make it through vet school is smart enough to make it through med school. If money was the motivation, there would BE no vets, because we could all make 4x as much money (or more) doing THE SAME WORK on people.

 

Plus, if it were all about money, we wouldn't be on fora such as this, sharing our expertise FOR FREE.

[Sue R]

I'll say it again: Anyone who can make it through vet school is smart enough to make it through med school. If money was the motivation, there would BE no vets, because we could all make 4x as much money (or more) doing THE SAME WORK on people.

 

Plus, if it were all about money, we wouldn't be on fora such as this, sharing our expertise FOR FREE.

 

Amen! And human doctors don't (usually) have to be concerned that their patients might bite or claw them, live in drafty barns, or need emergency calls out on frozen pastures.

 

And I just love the use of the correct Latin plural for forum. You go, girl!

 

I have the greatest faith in my vet and all the vets at the practice where he works. They do their work for love of the animals and the desire to help them, not for love of the dollar, and I've never met a vet personally that felt otherwise. There surely must be a bad apple here and there, but the vast majority are genuinely caring, considerate folks who don't make much money for what they've learned and what they do.

[Mark Billadeau]

Hil,

 

Thanks for posting; I love you're example showing the difficulty of proving cause and effect with an epidemiological like study.

 

I'd say add this one to your growing list of "great posts".

 

Mark

[Kris L. Christine]

The show poodle in the story was 12 years old. Were rabies titers accepted in lieu of vaccination in Massachusetts, the dog most likely would have had an adequate titer count if it had been properly vaccinated in the past and would not have had to receive the booster that she believes killed it.

 

According to the The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association's report (see first post in this thread) Death was reported in 5.5% of the dogs suffering adverse reactions to rabies vaccination and declares that 6,500 adverse reactions to the rabies vaccine in dogs were reported to vaccine manufacturers, meaning 357.5 of the dogs died. If that represents the 1% of serious vaccine adverse events that Dr. David Kessler, former head of the Food & Drug Administration, states get reported to the FDA, then the actual number of deaths would be 35,750.

 

Again, the point being that there are significant adverse reactions associated with the rabies vaccine and they should not be given any more often than is necessary to maintain immunity.

 

What is needed to fix the situation is rabies immunization laws based on science demonstrating long-term duration of immunity to the rabies vaccine by challenge so that dogs are not required to have rabies boosters any more often than is necessary to maintain immunity -- which will protect the human population as well as them.

 

This becomes more interesting in drawing the analogy with human rabies vaccination. If you click on this link http://www.theodora.com/drugs/rabies_vacci...ert_chiron.html for the Populations at Risk for Rabies sheet from Chiron Corporation, manufacturers of the RabAvert rabies vaccines for humans. Their pre-exposure vaccination recommendation for veterinarians, who are at greater risk than the general population for contracting rabies because their profession brings them into physical contact with potentially rabid animals, is for a “Primary course. No serologic testing or booster vaccination.” In other words, after the initial series of rabies vaccinations, it is not recommended that veterinarians receive further boosters or serological testing.

 

The American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines http://www.leerburg.com/special_report.htm reports on Page 18 that “There is no indication that the immune system of canine patients functions in any way different from the human immune system. In humans, the epidemiological vigilance associated with vaccination is extremely well-developed and far exceeds similar efforts in animals whether companion or agricultural. This vigilance in humans indicates that immunity induced by vaccination in humans is extremely long lasting and, in most cases, life-long.” This strongly suggests that, like the human rabies vaccine, the canine rabies vaccine may provide life-long immunity as well -- something which could be determined by long-term challenge studies.

 

A titer of 1:5 is considered adequate to confer immunity in humans and dogs, yet our dogs are required to be repeatedly boostered with the rabies vaccine no matter what their titer count is. At the age of 9, my Meadow qualified for a medical exemption under the law due to his metasticized cancer. He hadn't had a rabies booster since he was 6 years old and he had a titer count of 1:5,8000 -- more than 1,000 times the level at which he would be considered protected.

[kajarrel]

Again, the point being that there are significant adverse reactions associated with the rabies vaccine and they should not be given any more often than is necessary to maintain immunity.

 

Christine,

I respect your work and agree that there should be more research conducted concerning the link between titers and immunity. However, whether or not this number (~350) can be considered significant (in a global sense, not to the owners) is relative to the number of vaccines that are actually given. IOW, what is the proportion of dogs who had serious side-effects relative to the number that didn't?

 

I think the push here should not be to use titers before we have compelling evidence which level titers confer immunity in canines (especially since we know that the rabies vaccine prevents rabies), but rather for more research and for giving the vaccine no more frequently than the recommended intervals.

 

Kim

[Lenajo]

I respect your work and agree that there should be more research conducted concerning the link between titers and immunity. However, whether or not this number (~350) can be considered significant (in a global sense, not to the owners) is relative to the number of vaccines that are actually given. IOW, what is the proportion of dogs who had serious side-effects relative to the number that didn't?

 

If it's your child, your parent, or your dog...does it matter if it's 1, or 1 million?

 

I think the push here should not be to use titers before we have compelling evidence which level titers confer immunity in canines (especially since we know that the rabies vaccine prevents rabies),

 

If the dog has antibodies to the disease (a titer) how would that not indicate immunity? I'm really curious on this one. I've been titered for Hepatitis B for example, and that was adequete by medical standards to indicate I needed no further vaccination. Is it not the same in dogs?

 

but rather for more research and for giving the vaccine no more frequently than the recommended intervals

 

The recommended interval is 3 years right now - per *federal* law based on the science availabel at the time of the decision. I could actually live with that, but I'm in a state that overrides that to 1 year. There is no science indicating a benefit to vaccinating that often for Rabies, only potential harm.

 

Regarding the 12 year old Poodle: As with any news thing...I'm mistrustful - both of misquotes, and just plain old mangling of the facts on both sides. If the time frame is correct (20 minutes after the shot the symptoms started) it would be difficult to blame the issues on anything but the vaccine. If it happened in human med post any injected substance they certainly would be highly suspecious, probaly actually considering it guilty until proven otherwise. But because it is Rabies Vaccine...which is controversial already...we are prone to doubt on both fronts.

[Kris L. Christine]

I think the push here should not be to use titers before we have compelling evidence which level titers confer immunity in canines (especially since we know that the rabies vaccine prevents rabies), but rather for more research and for giving the vaccine no more frequently than the recommended intervals.

 

Kim,

 

That is precisely what The Rabies Challenge Fund is doing -- financing the 5 & 7 year challenge studies according to the USDA vaccine-licensing standards upon which state laws are based. These are not serological studies, these are challenge studies.

 

Regarding the number of overall adverse reactions to the rabies vaccine, Dr. W. Jean Dodds states that "It has been estimated that the adverse reaction rate of serious nature to rabies vaccinations is in the order of 0.38- 0.50% , with another 1-3% of vaccinates experiencing less severe reactions of the millions of dogs that must be vaccinated by law annually."

 

Based on the estimate of 72 million dogs in the country, if all of them receive the rabies vaccinations required by law, that would translate into 273,600 to 360,000 dogs having an adverse reaction of a serious nature to the vaccine; with another 720,000 to 2,160,000 dogs experiencing less severe reactions.

 

Those numbers are unacceptable, and The Rabies Challenge Fund is doing something to address them.