This topic is locked
Debbie, if we're now going to talk about posting without bothering to find things out, allow me to point out that YOU have completely failed to "take the time to find these things out before you ream someone." You also have failed to condsider the evidence before you on a logical basis. Here are the facts:
1) You have no idea what is or is not my biggest "money maker". You also have no idea if my pay depends on the number of vaccines I give. As a point of logic, let's say I AM paid by production - the more I charge, the more I make. If so, it would be cutting my own financial throat to advocate vaccinations, since I'd make TONS more money treating sick distemper and parvo and Bordatella patients. TONS. And yet, here I am, telling people that vaccines work for a reason. How silly of me.
2) As a further point of logic, here I am telling this to people who A) are not my clients, so I will never see a dime of money from them, whether or not they vaccinate, and
I am POSTING THIS BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR FREE AND ON MY OWN TIME. If money were my biggest concern, wouldn't I be out gouging someone and not wasting my personal time and (expensive-to-obtain) professional skills here for free?3) Accusing me of lining my pockets at the expense of the health and well-being of my patients is beyond insulting. As Eileen, an attorney, has pointed out, it's defamatory, and you need to retract that statement. Moreover, it's irrational: if money were my biggest motivator, I'd be in human medicine where I could do EXACTLY the same work for four times as much money. (As it is significantly harder to get into vet school than med school - and I was admitted to vet school twice, having turned it down the first time to finish my master's degree - I assure you I'd have been capable of making this choice had I been financially motivated.) And I'll reiterate point number 2 here - if I was more concerned about money than health, information, and helping people and animals, I would NOT be wasting my time here, for free, to try to explain medicine and to try to help people (and possibly through that, animals.)
4) As pointed out by Eileen, you have failed to present your research. It's quite easy to make a wild statement about there being tons of research out there and I just don't want to believe it. However, since you are not now and have never been living inside my head, you have no idea what I think, or what I would think if I were presented with research that supports your point of view (and here I'm talking GOOD research, as crappy research abounds, but proves nothing.) Moreover, you did not bother to ask.
5) You posted "It's all good and well that people only give them every three years because the vet said it's okay...but do they know why they are doing so (my guess is YOU do but I don't get that feeling about everyone)? Are they doing it because "research says vaccines last x amount of years" or because they have educated themselves about the horrible, senseless diseases we are giving our dogs by vaccinating them so much?" Whether you intended it or not, that is insulting - you state that you think maybe this one person understands the issue, but you feel no one else (perhaps with the exception of yourself), does. You also say that having read other posts, you discovered that everyone went ahead and got vaccines anyway, including the "useless and dangerous bordatella vaccine!" So now you have accused people (and, by implication, their vets) of foolishly endangering their dogs, and done so in a tone of incredulity. Subsequently you have implied, via your attack on me, that in the case of the vets this was done with money as the motive. Do you not see how that might be insulting? Really?
6) As Eileen points out, no one (including me) has ever suggested that you don't have the right to make your own choices or the right to your own opinion. What I said was that I wanted for you to stop trying to get OTHER people to make the same choice YOU did, particularly by spurious means, and I wanted you to stop insulting (whether overtly or covertly, and whether intentionally or by accident) those people who DID choose differently than you. You are not qualified to give medical advice. If you want to present another side of an argument, fine, have at it - let's see what you have to say and let's assess the information for accuracy and quality. By all means, start any discussion you like with any member of this board, no matter how "important" they might be. FWIW, I don't think of myself as an "important" member of this board if by that you mean one that someone can't take issue with. I am, however, in posession of a medical education and more than a decade of experience in the trenches of medicine. I'm not willing to stand by while pseudoscience is presented as fact, to the possible harm of unknown numbers of animals. Sorry. Also, if you present information that is incorrect, particularly in the field of medicine, why would you expect me not to correct it or take issue with it? And why would you take the position (which it at least appears that you have) that being corrected for wrong information is the same as "I'm not allowed to start a discussion with this board member since they might disagree"? The purpose of the Boards is to discuss. However, you should be prepared that other people might not agree with you, and that if they have more or better information or experience than you, they may feel inclined to back up their disagreement with fact.
7) Several people on the Boards have posted about older (non-puppy) dogs who got parvo or other preventable diseases both before and since your posts. When I made reference to unvaccinated animals who are vulnerable to disease, that was not an assumption that you didn't vaccinate your dogs as puppies. That was a reference to the fact that BOTH dogs and puppies can be vulnerable to preventable diseases, if not protected by vaccine. What constitutes "protection" in an individual animal will vary.
8) Until you come to work with me and see how I practice, don't assume I would "leave anything out" - for financial or other reasons (and again, I refer you to Eileen's comments about defamation.) I may leave out explanations that YOU feel are necessary, if *I* feel they are spurious (and I would feel this based on my education, my continuing education, and my experience.) If someone came and asked me why their dog had gotten pneumonia, I'm not going to include night vapours in the list of possibilities, since I think that's a false reason. If YOU think it's a correct reason (and this is just an example, I'm not saying you do) then you might accuse me of leaving it out - but since I'm the one with the medical education I'll reserve the right to make that decision for myself, thanks.
At any rate, Eileen, please feel free to edit or ask me to edit this post, if you feel I've been unjust or unduly harsh. I admit it's galling to have to field this sort of accusation and I may have been more aggressive in my response than is typical for me. If I've overstepped the bounds of what it acceptable or appropriate, I bow to your authority and will correct myself as necessary and appropriate.
