Jump to content


Photo

2008 Rabies Vaccine-JAVMA Report Adverse Reactions in Dogs


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#61 Mark Billadeau

Mark Billadeau

    Bill Nye Wannabe

  • Registered Users
  • 3,198 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middletown, MD
  • Interests:science, working dogs, sheep

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:08 AM

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
Support the ABCA Health & Education Foundation by using Amazon Smile

#62 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 5,536 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:08 AM

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.

Support the ABCA Health & Education Foundation by using Amazon Smile


#63 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 5,536 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:16 AM

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.

Support the ABCA Health & Education Foundation by using Amazon Smile


#64 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 16,103 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:30 AM

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.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh

mydogs_small2.jpg
Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA

Beloved, and living in memory:
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat (4/2000-6/2015, I miss you, my sweet, funny little clown), Twist (11/2001-11/2016, you were my once-in-a-lifetime dog and forever my BEST girl), and Phoebe (7/2006-8/2017, gone too soon).

The current pack:
Lark, Pipit (Pip), Birdie, Kiskadee (Kiss), Rue, Corbie, Kite, Cooper, and little Lonesome Dove!

Willow's Rest, Tunis, Tunis mules, Leicester Longwool, Teeswater, Border Leicester, Karakul, and Gulf Coast Native sheep


Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)

#65 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 16,103 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:43 AM

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.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh

mydogs_small2.jpg
Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA

Beloved, and living in memory:
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat (4/2000-6/2015, I miss you, my sweet, funny little clown), Twist (11/2001-11/2016, you were my once-in-a-lifetime dog and forever my BEST girl), and Phoebe (7/2006-8/2017, gone too soon).

The current pack:
Lark, Pipit (Pip), Birdie, Kiskadee (Kiss), Rue, Corbie, Kite, Cooper, and little Lonesome Dove!

Willow's Rest, Tunis, Tunis mules, Leicester Longwool, Teeswater, Border Leicester, Karakul, and Gulf Coast Native sheep


Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)

#66 Tea

Tea

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,539 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pacific Northwest
  • Interests:Wildlife, horses, sheep farming, sled dogs, falconry

Posted 22 April 2008 - 11:09 AM

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



#67 Kate@JIm

Kate@JIm

    Member

  • Registered Users
  • 88 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 11:12 AM

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!

#68 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 16,103 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 April 2008 - 11:32 AM

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.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh

mydogs_small2.jpg
Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA

Beloved, and living in memory:
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat (4/2000-6/2015, I miss you, my sweet, funny little clown), Twist (11/2001-11/2016, you were my once-in-a-lifetime dog and forever my BEST girl), and Phoebe (7/2006-8/2017, gone too soon).

The current pack:
Lark, Pipit (Pip), Birdie, Kiskadee (Kiss), Rue, Corbie, Kite, Cooper, and little Lonesome Dove!

Willow's Rest, Tunis, Tunis mules, Leicester Longwool, Teeswater, Border Leicester, Karakul, and Gulf Coast Native sheep


Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)

#69 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 5,536 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 22 April 2008 - 12:14 PM

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?

Support the ABCA Health & Education Foundation by using Amazon Smile


#70 Rebecca, Irena Farm

Rebecca, Irena Farm

    Together, We Can Move This Mountain

  • Registered Users
  • 6,636 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pilot Mountain, North Carolina, USA
  • Interests:Sheep (dairy), assistance dog (SD/full access and Emotional Service Animals), general training, stockdog trialing, dock diving, lure coursing, flyball

Posted 22 April 2008 - 01:04 PM

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.
Becca Shouse - Irena Farm, Semora, NC
Cord, Ted, Gus, Sam - plus Maggie, Zhi, Lynn, Jetta, Lu, Min, and Tully

Posted Image
http://irenafarm.blogspot.com/

#71 Lenajo

Lenajo

    Just be happy I'm not a Twin.

  • Registered Users
  • 2,237 posts
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 22 April 2008 - 01:26 PM

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.

#72 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 16,103 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 April 2008 - 02:36 PM

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.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh

mydogs_small2.jpg
Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA

Beloved, and living in memory:
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat (4/2000-6/2015, I miss you, my sweet, funny little clown), Twist (11/2001-11/2016, you were my once-in-a-lifetime dog and forever my BEST girl), and Phoebe (7/2006-8/2017, gone too soon).

The current pack:
Lark, Pipit (Pip), Birdie, Kiskadee (Kiss), Rue, Corbie, Kite, Cooper, and little Lonesome Dove!

Willow's Rest, Tunis, Tunis mules, Leicester Longwool, Teeswater, Border Leicester, Karakul, and Gulf Coast Native sheep


Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)

#73 Root Beer

Root Beer

    I'm east bound, just watch ol' Bandit run!

  • Registered Users
  • 7,529 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:06 PM

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.

Kristine
And Dean Dog, Tessa, and the Bandit
In Memory:  Sammie, Speedy, and Maddie

 

Tessa's Training Blog - Our Training and Experiences in Musical Freestyle, Agility, and Rally FrEe

 

Tessa+Snooker.JPG


#74 1sheepdoggal

1sheepdoggal

    Ain't it a wonderment!

  • Registered Users
  • 1,490 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tooele, Utah
  • Interests:I am an avid sheep dog gal and Certified Master Groomer, so anything dog is most interesting to me. But too, I love fishing, fishing, and oh, did I say fishing?!

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:24 PM

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.
Darci Johnson NCMG #UT16
http://1sheepdoggal.blogspot.com

"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does.

#75 Lenajo

Lenajo

    Just be happy I'm not a Twin.

  • Registered Users
  • 2,237 posts
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:29 PM

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.

#76 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 16,103 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:57 PM

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.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh

mydogs_small2.jpg
Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA

Beloved, and living in memory:
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat (4/2000-6/2015, I miss you, my sweet, funny little clown), Twist (11/2001-11/2016, you were my once-in-a-lifetime dog and forever my BEST girl), and Phoebe (7/2006-8/2017, gone too soon).

The current pack:
Lark, Pipit (Pip), Birdie, Kiskadee (Kiss), Rue, Corbie, Kite, Cooper, and little Lonesome Dove!

Willow's Rest, Tunis, Tunis mules, Leicester Longwool, Teeswater, Border Leicester, Karakul, and Gulf Coast Native sheep


Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)

#77 Eileen Stein

Eileen Stein

    Moderator

  • Administrators
  • 5,536 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Shady Side, MD, USA

Posted 22 April 2008 - 04:24 PM

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. :rolleyes:

Support the ABCA Health & Education Foundation by using Amazon Smile


#78 Pippin's person

Pippin's person

    Seeking more time and patience

  • Registered Users
  • 1,554 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 22 April 2008 - 06:39 PM

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).
Robin: One of the two people
Renzo: First dog, resident non-BC
Pippin, Rafe, Kyzer, Lad, Zac, and Scout: the BC crew
Fox, Lars, Milo, Xeno, Callie, and Barn Kitty: Kitties
Rest in Peace:  Theka, Macchi, Ness, Fritz, Inji and Tansy

#79 Kate@JIm

Kate@JIm

    Member

  • Registered Users
  • 88 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 08:34 PM

[quote name='Eileen Stein' date='Apr 22 2008, 01:14 PM' post='232093']
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.

#80 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 16,103 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 April 2008 - 09:36 PM

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.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh

mydogs_small2.jpg
Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA

Beloved, and living in memory:
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat (4/2000-6/2015, I miss you, my sweet, funny little clown), Twist (11/2001-11/2016, you were my once-in-a-lifetime dog and forever my BEST girl), and Phoebe (7/2006-8/2017, gone too soon).

The current pack:
Lark, Pipit (Pip), Birdie, Kiskadee (Kiss), Rue, Corbie, Kite, Cooper, and little Lonesome Dove!

Willow's Rest, Tunis, Tunis mules, Leicester Longwool, Teeswater, Border Leicester, Karakul, and Gulf Coast Native sheep


Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright: All posts and images on this site are protected by copyright, and may not be reproduced or distributed in any way without permission. Banner photo courtesy of Denise Wall, 2009 CDWall. For further information, contact info@bordercollie.org.