2008 Rabies Vaccine-JAVMA Report Adverse Reactions in Dogs

[Mark Billadeau]

You do know that 0.1cc/10lbs of Ivomec (1%) is way higher than needed for heartworm preventative (100 microgams/lb vs. 2.72 micrograms/lb); at this amount of ivermectin you could be near a level where chronic exposure could yield problems in some non-sensitive dogs.

 

Mark

[Lenajo]

You do know that 0.1cc/10lbs of Ivomec (1%) is way higher than needed for heartworm preventative (100 microgams/lb vs. 2.72 micrograms/lb); at this amount of ivermectin you could be near a level where chronic exposure could yield problems in some non-sensitive dogs.

 

Mark

 

And that's where I can give you a dozen vets, varying from conventional to alternative, who say you have no idea what you are talking about. That is the standard dose for every farm dog, hog dog, bird dog, and cow dog I know that anybody bothers to give anything too.

 

But all that aside, the same results happened on Heartgard, which, anecdotally of course, would lead one to believe that its the chemical, not the dose.

[Pearse]

Pearse said:

 

"Homeopathy involves taking a dilute preparation of some natural extract or tincture and diluting it serially many times until there is less than 1 molecule of the active ingredient per dose (ie: you are administering water or alcohol only). The theory is that the diluent (water or alcohol) magically retains the shape of the active ingredient and exerts a pharmacological effect.”

 

Because of the way homeopathic remedies are prepared, the energy of the substance remains.

 

The problem is that no one can explain, define, or demonstrate what the "energy of the substance" is. You are administering water/alcohol. There is no known principle in physics, chemistry, or biology that can explain how you can administer plain water and get a pharmacological effect particular to a drug or other bioactive substance.

 

Until someone can prove and explain how this works, I won't put any stock in homeopathy.

 

 

Pearse said:

 

“There has never been (to the best of my knowledge) a single double-blind clinical trial with a homeopathic remedy that has shown that it produces a better result that giving plain water or alcohol.”

 

You are right. Who would pay for it? Drug companies?

 

Homeopathic practitioners perhaps, or people who wish to use homeopathic remedies and want to be sure that they aren't just flushing their money down the drain.

 

Pearse said:

 

“Holistic practitioners often combine homeopathy with behavioral therapy and nutritional counseling and many of the GI dermatological and behavioral issues addressed by homeopath can be attributed to these other methods.”

 

You are confusing a "Holistic Practitioner" with a homeopath. A true homeopath does not use behavioral therapy. Homeopathy will work better if the individual is consuming a good diet and practicing a healthy lifestyle, but if a remedy is going to work, it will work regardless of what the individual is eating or doing. There are a lot of holistic practitioners practicing in the US, very few good homeopaths.

 

That may be true, but I would bet that were I to do the study, many of the people who are consulting a homeopath are also working with other holistic practioners.. I don't know that. I can't prove it, but in the absence of a single double-blind study showing that any homeopathic remedy has any efficacy at all, it's as good an explanation as water cures disease by retaining the "energy of the substance" that is no longer there.

 

Pearse said:

 

“A bad analogy. Polio still exists in many places. In fact, it exists anywhere where there is not an active vaccination program. “

 

Exactly. Polio still exists in areas of the country where there is poor sanitation, nutrition, etc. Many people believe that polio was not eradicated in this US because of the vaccination but because of better sanitation.

 

Better sanitation does not explain the fact that in the US during the 1950's some of the highest incidences of polio were among middle to upper-middle class families with access to proper sanitation and nutrition, and not among the poor as would be expected by your hypothesis. In fact, better sanitation was blamed for the fact that many of the victims in the 50's outbreaks were teenagers and adults who developed more severe manifestations of the disease because they had not been exposed to the virus as children due to better sanitation in those demographic groups.

 

Polio is a virus. The vaccine confers immunity. The decrease in polio in the US correlates precisely with the introduction of the vaccine.

 

I was not talking about the US in modern times. Polio is endemic in many areas of the world to this day.

 

Pearse said:

 

“MS has always been around, as has cancer. Problem is, in the good old days before bad old reductive Western medicine, people died of acute diseases long before they lived long enough to die of chronic diseases. Only people who succumbed to MS or cancer at a relatively young age died from them in the good old days."

 

You are right, however, in looking at a timeline for MS:

 

In 1935 Dr. Thomas Rivers demonstrated that nerve tissue, not viruses, produced a MS-like illness. This animal form of MS, called EAE or experimental allergic encephalomyelitis, paved the way to our present theories of auto-immunity, for it demonstrated the body can generate an immunologic attack against itself.

 

In 1965 White blood cells that react against a protein in nerve insulating myelin were discovered in MS.

 

Auto-immune diseases and damage to myelin are both tied to vaccines. http://www.vaccinetruth.org/myelin_sheath.htm

 

Don't think I ever said or implied that MS was caused by a virus. The symptoms of MS are caused by an auto-immune reaction according to the best available evidence. The cause of MS is still unkown. The point I was making is that MS has been around for centuries and has been killing people for that long, but it and other chronic disease cause a greater proportion of deaths today because fewer people die of acute disease.

 

{stuff deleted}

 

It’s probably a good thing that the homeopathic remedy, belladonna, does not contain the actual substance given that it’s poisonous, but belladonna has been extremely useful to me over the years in bringing down fevers. Belladonna is one of many remedies that are useful for treating the symptoms of rabies vaccinosis.

 

Almost all medications are poisonous in the wrong dose. Atropine is a component of belladonna. It's used by ophthalmologists to this day. Belladona was also used in many cultures as a hallucinogen, and is FDA approved for the treatment of some gastrointestinal ailments. It's also one of the most toxic poisons known. The known medications derived from belladonna use a small but significant dose of the drug.

 

However, take a small amount of belladonna and dilute it such that there is zero belladonna in the mixture, as is done in the preparation of hemeopathic remedies, and while it is no longer toxic it also can have no pharmacological effect.

 

What has been extremely useful for me in bringing down fevers is lying down with a cold compress on my head. I could say that some mysterious energy was transmitted from the water on the towel, through my skull, into my blood and killed the fever. Or, I could admit that the cold compress simply made me feel better until my body's immune system dealt with the infection that had caused my immune system to create the fever.

[juliepoudrier]

And that's where I can give you a dozen vets, varying from conventional to alternative, who say you have no idea what you are talking about. That is the standard dose for every farm dog, hog dog, bird dog, and cow dog I know that anybody bothers to give anything too.

 

But all that aside, the same results happened on Heartgard, which, anecdotally of course, would lead one to believe that its the chemical, not the dose.

Wendy,

I'm sure Mark can defend himself, but I'd like to point out to others who might be reading this thread that Mark is a research chemist who works in the pharmaceutical industry (drug development I believe), so I would trust that he does know what he's talking about (or at least has the sense and research skills to obtain the appropriate information on the subject), even if you and your dozen vets do not. I give ivermectin at a lower dose rate that what you've quoted here, as do many of the other folks I know who use it (the sheep or cattle version, not Heartguard) for HW prevention. In fact, when Twist was pregnant, my holistic vet had me giving her a total monthly dose of 0.1 mL (for a 37 pound dog), not the 0.37 (or 0.4) that your host of vets recommends. That was the minimum effective dose, and most people I know dose a little higher than that (the 0.1 mL for a nearly 40 pound dog), "just to be safe," but I just wanted to point out that at least one vet I know recommends a much lower dose rate than you have described. Of course maybe my vet has no idea what she's talking about either, but since she's basically worked miracles with a couple of my other dogs, through alternative medicine, I'll trust her to not lead me astray.

 

J.

[Gary Scott]

The discussion of homeopathy is interesting. Since several links have been posted, I thought this one might illuminate.

 

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

 

Gary

[mbernard2424]

<post removed>

[Kris L. Christine]

And the truth comes out, Mark B. works for a drug development company! No wonder why he doesn't want to have any part in the use of something other than pharmaceutical drugs or minimizing the use of a vaccine.

 

This raises an interesting aspect to the recommended vaccine booster schedule not discussed in detail -- the financial angle. Veterinary trade publications have frankly addressed the issue of the link between vaccines and income.

 

A related story Improving Veterinarians' Income a Top Goal of AVMA President-elect candidate Childers. can be found at http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar04/040315g.asp.

 

In an August 2004 cover story in Veterinary Economics entitled Targeting Changing Vaccine Protocols by Roger F. Cummings, they state that: "In the 1970s and ’80s many veterinarians derived a substantial percent of their total incomes from vaccinating dogs and cats. .....And in many practices today, the vaccination reminder is the one thing that drives visits from healthy pets. So changing your vaccine protocols could have a significant affect on practice finances."

 

Dr. Alice Wolf, Professor of Small Animal Internal Medicine at Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine, stated in an address (Vaccines of the Present and Future http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub/SearchPB/Proce...00/PR00141.htm) at the 2001 World Small Animal Veterinary Association World Congress that: “some veterinarians use the recommendation for vaccinations as a way to ensure client visits for yearly examinations and, least appropriate, as a ‘profit center.’”

 

In an October 1, 2002 DVM Newsletter article entitled, AVMA, AAHA to Release Vaccine Positions, http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/article...il.jsp?id=35171, Jennifer Fiala reports, "The statement stresses AVMA's stance on education, a reduction in the profession's dependence on vaccine sales, which account for a significant portion of practice income, ..........Veterinarians must promote the value of the exam and move away from their dependence on vaccine income. "

 

DVM's July 1, 2003 article, Developing Common Sense Strategies for Fiscal Responsibility http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/article...il.jsp?id=61694 declares that, "The purpose of this article is to focus on the third of these essential cornerstones: the economic realities of protocol changes, and how medical and surgical standards including reduced frequency of vaccination can be compatible with financial viability; and, yes, even success. ........For a real eye-opener of potential revenue loss, research practice records for the most recent 12 months of client activity to determine the estimated number of adult canine patients that were seen for annual vaccinations. Multiply this number times the revenue loss calculated above on an individual patient basis to determine the total potential lost income. "

 

From a July 1, 2003 DVM article entitled, What Do We Tell Our Clients? , http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/article...il.jsp?id=61696, "It has finally happened. The American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) has released canine vaccine guidelines. Some practitioners may dread it and consider the recommendations as a 'practice buster.' ......The concern of course is the loss of our 'vaccine hook.' "

 

On Page 18 of the American Animal Hospital Association's 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, the task force declares: "However, the ethical issue that our profession struggles with today is whether economics justifies giving an animal a drug (vaccines are biologic drugs) that is not necessarily required. As a minimum, we should allow pet owners to make this choice rather than make it for them."

___________________________________________________________________________

Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and Don't Know, Dr. Ronald Schultz http://www.cedarbayvet.com/duration_of_immunity.htm

 

What Everyone Needs to Know about Canine Vaccines, Dr. Ronald Schultz http://www.puliclub.org/CHF/AKC2007Conf/Wh...%20Vaccines.htm

 

World Small Animal Veterinary Association 2007 Vaccine Guidelines http://www.wsava.org/SAC.htm Scroll down to Vaccine Guidelines 2007 (PDF)

 

The 2003 American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines are accessible online at http://www.leerburg.com/special_report.htm .

 

The 2006 American Animal Hospital Association's Canine Vaccine Guidelines are downloadable in PDF format at http://www.aahanet.org/PublicDocumen...s06Revised.pdf .

 

Veterinarian, Dr. Robert Rogers,has an excellent presentation on veterinary vaccines at http://www.newvaccinationprotocols.com/

[juliepoudrier]

Wow Michelle, that's quite an accusation you're making. You have no idea what Mark's personal vaccine schedules are like for his own dogs, so making such comments as you have here is completely baseless. I don't work for any drug manufacturers and I choose holistic practices for my animals when it makes sense for me to do so, yet I don't actually believe in the practice of homeopathy. Too bad you can't as easily try to paint my unease with homeopathy as based solely on my occupation. I think what Mark, Pearse, and I might have in common is backgrounds in science, which simply has led us to look for some sort of unbiased proof (i.e., double-blind studies) that a practice is sound and works. To do otherwise is to operate completely on faith, and I personally save that sort of faith for religion.

 

I for one would appreciate it if you would save your attacks for ideas and not for people. Attacking people does nothing for the credibility of your arguments. All you're doing is making yourself look bad at this point (and that goes nowhere toward helping your cause). As for my holistic vet, she operates within the bounds of my wishes. But I don't think I need to explain my or my vet's choices on HW prevention to you. It's quite irrelevant to the discussion of rabies vaccines (although it was relevant to Wendy's assertion that all vets prescribe ivermectin at X dose).

 

See, I was able to come up with an example to support my contention without attacking Wendy or her vets personally. Maybe you could try to give everyone else the same courtesy. If your arguments don't stand on their own merits, trying to shift the focus by relying on personal attacks is just childish.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

And that's where I can give you a dozen vets, varying from conventional to alternative, who say you have no idea what you are talking about. That is the standard dose for every farm dog, hog dog, bird dog, and cow dog I know that anybody bothers to give anything too.

According to the Merck Veterinary Manual the standard dose (licensed by the USDA) is 6 micrograms/kg or 2.72 micrograms/lb; it is the same minimum effective dose listed on the product inserts for HeartGard. Vets are allowed by law to prescribe meds "off label"; but should one consider this off label dose as "standard"?

 

Mark

[Mark Billadeau]

Julie was close, I am a research chemist. But I do not work for a pharmaceutical company. I work for a company that develops test kits (immunoassay) which are used by pharmaceutical companies during pre-clinical and during clinical trials of their drugs. Some of our tests are destine for use in clinical diagnostics (testing sick people), environmental and food testing (looking for things like salmonella), and biodefense (i.e. anthrax).

 

Meso Scale Discovery

 

Mark

[Mark Billadeau]

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

[Eileen Stein]

And the truth comes out, Mark B. works for a drug development company! No wonder why he doesn't want to have any part in the use of something other than pharmaceutical drugs or minimizing the use of a vaccine. Pearse do you work there too?

 

Michelle, this is a libelous personal and professional attack on another member of the Boards, and will not be tolerated. I would delete it, but for the fact that it is you it reflects poorly on, rather than Mark. Do not do it again. If you can't defend your position effectively on its merits, don't resort to character assassination.

 

And Kris, your "This raises an interesting aspect . . ." post is cut-and-paste material you have posted at least twice on these Boards before, in exactly the same form, and are recycling yet again here to piggy-back onto Michelle's flame directed at Mark. It is shabby stuff. If you post it again in the future, I will delete it.

[Eileen Stein]

What do you mean the Canine Health Concern report does not prove cause and effect? Of the ___ # of dogs who were vaccinated ___ dogs suffered ___ disease? What is wrong with that?

 

Well, look at just one example of what it said:

 

"Other diseases that were highly represented within three months post vaccination included cancer (35.1%) , chorea (81%), encephalitis (78.6%), heart conditions (39.2%), kidney damage (53.7%), liver damage/failure (61.5%), paralysis of the rear end (69.2%), and pancreas problems (54.2%). . . .

 

Interestingly, our study showed that arthritis and Chronic Destructive Reticulo Myelopathy (CDRM - a degenerative disease affecting myelin in the spinal cord) occur in clusters nine months after vaccination, suggesting that the damage from vaccines resulting in these two diseases takes longer to develop or to show their symptoms."

 

Look at the whopping assumptions here! Because there is a cluster of arthritis and CDRM diagnoses nine months after vaccination (supposedly, anyway -- we don't know if the methodology of their study actually supports that conclusion), that must mean it takes nine months for those diseases to develop, whereas cancer (which is known to take years in most cases to develop from the first cancerous cell to diagnosis) must take only three months to develop, since there is a cluster of reported cancers within three months after vaccination. Why must this be so? Well, because otherwise it wouldn't fit the preconceived point -- that all these diseases were caused by vaccinations. If there were clusters of hip dysplasia diagnosed six months after vaccination, I guess that would show that hip dysplasia takes six months to develop or to show its symptoms, and prove that vaccinations cause hip dysplasia. Why, you only need to look at the ominous increase in hip dysplasia being diagnosed nowadays, now that vaccination is so prevalent!

 

This is the very opposite of science. It leads people to think they "know" something which in fact they do not know.

[juliepoudrier]

Mark,

Sorry about the misstatement--I should have ended the sentence at research chemist. At any rate, what your occupation says to me is that you know how to research relevant scientific data and draw informed conclusions from those data, and that's the point I was trying to make. I should have known someone would come along and try to twist it into something else.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

If there were clusters of hip dysplasia diagnosed six months after vaccination, I guess that would show that hip dysplasia takes six months to develop or to show its symptoms, and prove that vaccinations cause hip dysplasia. Why, you only need to look at the ominous increase in hip dysplasia being diagnosed nowadays, now that vaccination is so prevalent!

 

This is the very opposite of science. It leads people to think they "know" something which in fact they do not know.

The problem I (and apparently others) have with these kinds of arguments (the one present by Kris and replied to here by Eileen) is that there are just too many variables involved to state definitively that X (vaccination) causes Y (a host of diseases). I am willing to believe that vaccines are the cause of some problems, and it's partly why I have my own animals on a greatly reduced vaccine schedule (the other reason being that I believe, but don't know--and that's a huge difference--that immunity lasts longer than 3 years), BUT I am making this decision based on gut belief and not on any real data that proves that vaccines cause harm. I think we can all agree that over-vaccination is likely harmful, but I for one don't buy the argument that just because an animal was vaccinated and then developed a problem months down the road the two are necessarily related. I do believe that individuals who have reactions within hours of vaccination can probably draw a correlation between the two, but drawing that out to months just doesn't make sense unless you can know that the dog hasn't been exposed to *anything* the least bit harmful in the intervening months, or even in the time up to the actual vaccination.

 

I have a friend whose dog was recently diagnosed with cancer. He actually believes that it's likely the dog's exposure to agricultural chemicals (and perhaps even the spraying the government does for mosquitoes where he lives) is the culprit for the problem now, or maybe it was just the luck of the genetic draw. But hey, he could blame vaccines too....

 

J.

[Tea]

Now I am really freaked as I had to get rabies shots myself because of my work!

[Kate@JIm]

Mark -, I find it insulting to say, "maybe the weight scale gave my dog a reaction." He almost died, seized hours after being vaccinated, couldn't walk for days, had a fever of 104. Now, thats not over reacting, it's very true.

 

Quackwatch has been around along time, just about everything is put down on there, that is, anything that's outside normal realm or different. - from chiropractic's to acupuncture it's all quackery on that site - and I've had both of them with excellent results. - My dogs too. It's a very questionable site, about who's writing this stuff and why. - I've read many reports on why, but frankly, I don't care, I wouldn't rely on that site for anything.

 

When health issues face you or your dog, or your family, you do start searching. I never thought I'd be using Homeopathy, Chinese herbs, chiropractic's,- But I've seen results. - excellent results. I can't explain it, give you facts, numbers. - It just does.

 

I think there are very bad vets out there, just as there are bad chiropractors, homeopaths, holistic vets as well. Lately I've read so many bad articles on vitamins, till I read the study was funded by a drug company. In some ways the drug companies are right, because there are very few excellent quality vitamins out there. Usually they study something off the drug store shelves, which usually is worthless.

 

This is just one example, Lately in our local paper had several articles on the use of Enchincea, that it has no effect. ( funded by a drug company) Well the drug company is right, it had no effect, there are so many bad qualities at your local stores. Probably 95% of the stuff available out there is worthless. It's all in the quality and manufacturer. It's an herb that must be processed at just the right time frame to be effective, processed in a clean way, preserved just right. Many companies just throw in stems, the wrong part of the plant, catalog's advertisings buy one get one free - - and yes, it won't work. So, yes, the drug companies are right...kinda. Which give other "alternatives" a bad rap. Maybe it's the way we look at things?

 

Finding a local Naturpath to help me and my family was a godsend. You do need to open up to the idea that maybe there is something to other alternatives. As someone said on here, - Maybe it's good I didn't pay attention to science, biology in class, otherwise, maybe I wouldn't have on open mind. I have a much more open mind then when I was young.

 

There is hope, my 87 year old father is voting Democrat for the first time in his life.....there is hope.

 

Sorry I got off track from vaccines. I feel vaccines are wonderful, but way over used. To the point where we are hurting are animals. This does need to be looked at, seriously.

 

 

It's a beautiful day and week, going out to enjoy my animals-

Everyone have a most beautiful day!

[juliepoudrier]

Mark -, I find it insulting to say, "maybe the weight scale gave my dog a reaction." He almost died, seized hours after being vaccinated, couldn't walk for days, had a fever of 104. Now, thats not over reacting, it's very true.

I don't think anyone is saying that individual cases don't happen, since it's pretty obvious that they do. As I've stated before I think that in cases where reactions happen immediately (or shortly) after an animal (or human) receives a vaccine or multiple vaccines, vets or doctors would be remiss in not considering that the vaccine might be the cause for the reaction. Mark's point, with which I agree, is that it's much more of a stretch to draw a correlation between events that happen months apart because there are too many other potentially intervening causative events (that is, cause and effect is much easier to show or believe when one immediately follows the other and not so easy to prove or believe when a long time elapses between the two. It doesn't mean that the latter is unprovable, just that it would require a little more rigorous review to say it's so). Anyway, if you choose to be insulted by another's skepticism, you can't be stopped, but it really doesn't change the argument that it's difficult to prove cause and effect when the two are separated over a long period of time, at least not without some sort of study where all other potential causative variables are controlled.

 

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.

[Eileen Stein]

Mark -, I find it insulting to say, "maybe the weight scale gave my dog a reaction." He almost died, seized hours after being vaccinated, couldn't walk for days, had a fever of 104. Now, thats not over reacting, it's very true.

 

Mark didn't say that about your dog, did he? He mentioned alternative causes only when talking about a study which attributed multiple illnesses to vaccinations which had occurred months earlier. Where is the insult in that? I don't think he ever disputed the fact that acute reactions to a rabies vaccination can occur in individual dogs, did he? In fact, I don't recall any party to this discussion saying that acute reactions to vaccinations don't ever occur, or that overvaccination isn't a concern.

 

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?

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I'm finally starting to formalize, this summer, a lifelong love of science - returning to school. I only hope, at this late date in my life, to learn how to discipline my thinking as well as some of those here who have undergone rigorous training already and earned my respect.

 

I believe there is merit in many holistic approaches. My amateur reading in my field of interest (molecular biology), makes me think there's an awful lot science doesn't know at this point.

 

I don't think there's a reason to be looking for the black helicopters however. And it does bother me that a lot of good results are achieved in what seems to be a very subjective or random method - and methods that are not reproducible. Why does prey model raw feeding work for my allergy dog? It is not because he is a "domestic wolf" - but we don't really know for sure what it is, do we?

 

I personally try to strive to keep an open mind, and let those who want to pursue very alternative paths for their dogs, do so without judgment. In return, I hope those who have that freedom, will be considerate and non-judgmental of those who find their comfort on the conventional side of medicine.

[Lenajo]

It's all a balance really..

 

I just find it sad that in the end of all these type discussions we come down to a "my degree is better than your degree" war, followed closely by thorough and detailed reasons that one group is definately wrong because the other group couldn't possibly be, and that the thought process of the dissenting group must just be confused or emotional. Then there is a the cherry on top of a few people who rather say the earth is flat that admit that science is only right until the next science comes out, and that some lowely non-collegic might actually have some valid points based on reality experience.

 

or vis versa - the person who's earth is so round that it falls out of orbit occassionally.

 

We *all* have points of validity.

 

I've been rereading the books by legendary herbalist/dog breeder/shepherdess Juliet de Barclai Levy lately. It was amazing how inciteful she was, without any type of degree. There is docteral level research out there with equally good insight. There is also substantial garbage out there on both sides (remembering the horrible raw diet "research" in JAVMA that was retracted in very small letters in the next issue)

 

Regardless of source, none of them had all the answers. Those that swore they did have been disproven more often than not.

 

From the human medicine standpoint I'm formally trained in, I see so much that was "cure-all" that dissapates with time. It never seems to do so without taking hostages and victimizing some innocents. Does that matter? Well if it's your kid or family....

 

It doesn't mean the system is bad, it means we have to **think** before we accept anything in our bodies (or in this case the dogs) based on the opinion of the research of the profiting party. I

 

And on that note, that's why I'm glad to see the Rabies Challange fund and the related information out there in the face of us all. It's time to address this fear driven vaccine program and just do what it was supposed to be about to begin with - prevent the disease.

 

I don't refer to Quackwatch either. I used to deal with some doctors who did, but now that they themselves get Acupunture, chiropracty, and other holistic treatments that make their lives better they've stopped referring to it.

[juliepoudrier]

It's all a balance really..

 

I just find it sad that in the end of all these type discussions we come down to a "my degree is better than your degree" war, followed closely by thorough and detailed reasons that one group is definately wrong because the other group couldn't possibly be, and that the thought process of the dissenting group must just be confused or emotional. Then there is a the cherry on top of a few people who rather say the earth is flat that admit that science is only right until the next science comes out, and that some lowely non-collegic might actually have some valid points based on reality experience.

I think you and I apparently have very different approaches to disussion of "controversial" topics. I, for one, like to know where people's areas of expertise lie. If we're talking about things scientific, then I would expect the scientist to give me more informed answers (informed in the sense that I'd expect such a person to be able to read the data and clearly understand its meaning) than the lawyer (sorry Eileen!) or accountant. If you're reading those types of discussion as "my degree is better than your degree" then you're likely reading something into the conversation that really isn't there. When someone comes along and says, "My panel of experts say you don't know what you're talking about" what's wrong with saying, well, here's my education and occupation, so maybe I do? Expecting to make such a statement and not have someone take exception to it by later claiming that it's become a "my degree is better than yours" discussion is just a form of bullying. You can't have it both ways. If we were having a religious discussion, I certainly would defer to the theologians among us at least on points about which my knowledge is limited (and that would be, ahem, A LOT of points). That doesn't mean I'm going to take what the expert says on blind faith (funny, that's exactly what some folks said about some of the discussion here), but I'll at least understand that the person speaking may be privy to knowledge/education that I don't have. I don't see anything wrong with that. Folks can't just say things like "drug companies are out to make the almighty dollar at the expense of so-and-so's health" and not expect that there are those who will disagree, either fully or partially. That's what discussions are about.

 

At any rate, I didn't get from this discussion that one side has flat-out dismissed the "other side" as being completely wrong. It seems to me that many of the people who have joined in this discussion are actually more middle-of-the-road than anything. I don't think anyone has come on here, for example, and stated that *all* alternative medicine is quackery. I get the sense from the numerous posts that most people have tried at least some form of alternative medicine on themselves or their pets. Nor have I seen anyone post any belittling comments to people without degrees (I don't even know where that comment comes from!). Heck, the only person who anyone has obviously attempted to belittle in this discussion happens to have a degree. I imagine had similar comments been directed at a "non-collegiate" the response would have been the same.

 

I do agree that basing any actions or decisions on fear, be it whether to vaccinate or go to war or anything else, is a big mistake. But fearmongering goes both ways, and I just don't think anyone will win real converts (and not just those who are easily made fearful) without logical, rational discussion.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Why does prey model raw feeding work for my allergy dog? It is not because he is a "domestic wolf" - but we don't really know for sure what it is, do we?

 

It's interesting to me that when it comes to allergies in people, nobody has any problem with the fact that certain dietary protocols will help certain people when others might require a different one. Someone who is allergic to nuts, for instance, should avoid nuts. Someone who is allergic to milk can have nuts.

 

But when it comes to dogs, it seems to me that a lot of blanket statements are made. I hear things like, "grains cause allergies - avoid all grains for your dog." And yet, one dog might truly be allergic to all grains, but another dog might just have an allergy to one particular grain and could eat other grains with no harm.

 

I know this is a bit of a tangent, but I think it relates to the original topic. Rabies Vaccines can easily cause different reactions - both short term and long term - in different dogs. That's why I see the 3 year booster law as something that needs to be seriously questioned. A scientific study of the length of immunity provided by the original vaccination should, of course, be a part of such a study.

[1sheepdoggal]

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 accually did ask my vet about that very thing, while talkng shot protocals with him. His words were that shots did not make up the bulk of the practices income and if they werent there, he doubts he's miss the money. Besides, he agrees that we do over vaccinate, and is very willing to discuss different protocals and titers. I like this fella more and more everytime I get the chance to talk to him.

[Lenajo]

I think you and I apparently have very different approaches to disussion of "controversial" topics. I, for one, like to know where people's areas of expertise lie.

 

I'm not so interested in titles as I am actions and experience anymore. Perhaps I've become jaded by daily exposure to education used as a weapon against commen sense. I tend to want to sort through and give it all a realistic review.

 

I do agree that basing any actions or decisions on fear, be it whether to vaccinate or go to war or anything else, is a big mistake. But fearmongering goes both ways, and I just don't think anyone will win real converts (and not just those who are easily made fearful) without logical, rational discussion.

 

Now here's where we really differ. I'm not interested in converting anybody at this point. If they like what I do that's peachy, but otherwise I do not care unless you tell me I can't do what I want to do, or imply its somehow invaluable or erronous because you don't agree.

 

It's been shown that research exists on both sides. It's up to us to decide what to do with it. With Rabies says the law decides even before science. That in itself, doesn't make sense. 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.