Jump to content
BC Boards
Carson Crazies

Concerned about over-vaccination??

Recommended Posts

>

 

By "research" I take it you mean reading stuff that people have written on the subject? And then choosing which ones you're going to believe, and which ones you aren't going to believe?

 

Yes, I think most of us have done that. I also suspect that vets have generally read more stuff than any of us non-vets have, and that in general they have better background knowledge (through both education and experience) to evaluate the validity and soundness of that stuff. So I would weigh the stuff a vet I know to be good says pretty highly.

 

BTW, I disagree with your statement that "there is a vet here giving advice." I think if you re-read the thread, you will see that the vet is giving information, including information about what the AAHA recommendations are, rather than giving advice.

 

>

 

You are stating a conclusion you have come to, or IOW, the stuff somebody wrote that you have chosen to believe. Some of us may be more inclined to put our trust in "research [that] says vaccines last x amount of years" than in people who says things like "However, I have no studies and statistics and web links to give you that will 'prove' that [immunizing your puppy is bad]. I cannot prove it. I just know it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Eileen.

 

Pause while I bang my head against the wall. I'm going to try not to be too intense here (no promises), but I have to wonder now why I spent all those years growing intimate with the intricate workings of the immune system, and all those hours trying to share the knowledge here, when something like this can come along and completely convince (some?) people that science is wrong, medicine is evil, vaccines are the work of the devil and no animal should have them. The quoted article is, IMO, poorly written and so unclear as to be almost unintelligible, and yet it apparently carries a weight of authority so complete that it has silenced, at least in some ears, the biological truths of the function and purpose of the immune system.

 

Perhaps it's a flaw in the way the quoted article (italicized) was written, but to me it's quite misleading. To say that the healthy individual is asked to "maintain a low-level stimulation of a state of distemper" (or parvo or rabies) via vaccination is incorrect. I'll say it again: THIS IS INCORRECT. It implies - in fact, you could argue it states outright - that vaccination for, say, rabies, CAUSES RABIES - and "maintains" it in the system. A low level of it to be sure, but a persistent state of rabies none the less. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how vaccines work. If that was indeed written by a vet and not paraphrased, he or she needs to go back to immuno 101 and get a refresher since apparently they slept through that the first time. They should also consider that it IS NOT POSSIBLE for a killed virus vaccine to cause the disease it vaccinates against.

 

No. No, no and no again. Rabies is a fatal disease. If your dog had a persistent level of rabies in his system, he would die. Sorry. That's how it is.

 

In case I was not clear in earlier posts, let me reiterate: the purpose of vaccine is to educate the immune system. Your immune system is getting educated all the time in the natural world, and if all goes well it will acquire the relevant education before you are killed by something about a billionth of your size. The PURPOSE of the immune system is TO REACT. That's what it's SUPPOSED to do. The reason we vaccinate is to give the immune system a chance to react and develop a good immunity to a disease agent BEFORE the disease agent, in its virulent state, comes along and kills us. It harnesses the immune system to perform the function FOR WHICH IT IS DESIGNED, but to do so in a situation that is vastly less risky to the animal. If your dog went out and got parvo, his immune system would get quite the education in parvo virus fighting - IF he survived it. In my expereince, hospitalized and agressively-treated pups have about a 70% survival rate. Pups treated at home with fluids and antibiotics have about a 30% survival rate. Pups not treated have less than a 5% survival rate - so the ability of the dog to survive the infection in the first place is in question. But if he DID manage it - and managed it without long-term defecits, such as intestinal scarring, failure to thrive and chronic immunosupression - is this somehow going to lead to the "evil" of immunostimulation? Is he going to die of mysterious disease syndromes because he got parvo? Maybe - just like a vaccinated dog. If your dog got distemper his odds would be considerably worse. If he got rabies, he's dead - and so might you be. And so might your child, or mine. If you choose to fail to comply with the law in your state about rabies vaccine, you should do so in the full awareness that your unprotected dog, if infected, stands as a potentially lethal threat to everyone with whom it comes in contact. This is why there are laws to govern rabies vaccination. There are no laws to govern diseases that are not fatal or otherwise risky to human health, so there the choice is yours - but you should realize that should your dog contract one of those dieases, he will be a nice little disease vector for other animals in your community - and not just other dogs, but other species (including wildlife) as well, depending on the virus.

 

It's all very well to say, "Yeah, but how often do distemper outbreaks occur, really? I'VE never heard of one!" No, of course not - BECAUSE OF VACCINES. So why should you vaccinate your dog? By all means, make your decision as you like - but be aware that the reason you DON'T see parvo and distemper outbreaks every year that decimate entire kennels (or somtimes entire towns) is VACCINE.

 

I don't even know where to start with the statement "Therefore, the vaccines provide protection by keeping the body in a diseased state of health." Say what? Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines "health" as "a state of optimal physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of of disease or imfirmity." It defines "disease" as "any deviation from or diusruption of the normal structure or function of the body that is manifested by a characteristic set of symptoms and signs whose etiology, pathology and prognosis may be known or unknown." Hence the term "diseased state of health" is nonsensical in and of itself. Further, if the body is "diseased" (without simultaneously being "healthy", one presumes), then the vaccines are providing protection how, exactly? And if the vaccines are providing protection, which means the avoidance of disease, then by definition is that not PREVENTING disease?

 

Now we get to the thing where the vaccinated dog will somehow not manifest the disease that it was vaccinated for (well, no, since that disease was prevented by vaccination ) and will instead manifest some other condition as a result of vaccination. And evidently "Usually these conditions are inherited weaknesses." I'm sorry, but vaccines are not inherited, so how is a vaccine causing an inherited weakness? That's like saying that you inherited your native language. You didn't. You learned it after birth. If you had been born in China you'd have learned Chinese. It isn't genetic. By the same token, saying that a vaccine causes an inherited disease is nonsensical.

 

Let me clarify something that often confuses people: there is a difference between INHERITED and CONGENITAL disease. Inherited is by defininition something that is present IN THE GERM CELL - egg or sperm - PRIOR to fertilization. A congential disease is one that occurs AFTER fertilization, but prior to birth - as in a mistake made during development, for whatever reason - including, perhaps, the vaccination of the bich during pregnancy. But here let me be VERY clear - the cause of that is the VIRUS - NOT THE VACCINE. A spontaneously-encountered virus which replicates in a susceptible pregnant bitch causes the same problems - and possibly worse ones, such as the loss of the entire litter and/or the bitch. Moreover, unless it causes a mutation IN THE GERM CELLS - ALL of them - IT DID NOT CUASE AN INHERITED DISEASE.

 

Now to the list of "possible manifestations." These are far too broad and nonspecific to be of any value. Let me cite an example in everyone's favorite, diarrhea. (You KNEW I was going to get here eventually, didn't you?) :rolleyes: Diarrhea is what is called a "non-specific" sign - in that a great many things can cause it, and diarrhea in itself is non-diagnostic. If every single time a dog had diarrhea it could mean only one disease, then it would be a specific, or pathognomonic, sign (one on which a diagnosis can be made with no other information - an example being the dendritic corneal ulcer in cats, which is diagnostic of feline herpes.) However, there are a GREAT many things that can cause diarrhea, and I'm sure every one of my readers can attest to that from personal experience. (I am NOT asking for testimonials, and please do not mail me samples.) :D Can diarrhea be laid entirely at the door of vaccines? Nope. Can it be laid partly at the door of vaccines? Maybe - but show me the proof before you ask me to believe it. The impassioned insistance of even another vet, in the absence of proof, is not enough. That is not science. It's proseletizing.

 

There are a great many diseases we see now that we used to rarely see - but you must be VERY careful not to overinterpret that. There are also a great many other variables that we did not used to see (such as pets living into their teens and twenties, global warming, and two different Presidents both named George Bush, to name but a few) - and unless you can completely control those variables and test every single one of them, alone and in combination, and compare them to vaccination changes in the last 20 years, you cannot conclude that vaccination has led to the changes in disease occurence. That's important, so I'll give an example. Let's say you went out and got a new dress and then your friends took you out for dinner for your birthday, at which you wore the new dress, ate sushi, and drank a quart of saki. Later, you feel crappy, vomit quite a lot, and have a terrible headache, stomach ache, nausea and (ta-da) diarrhea the next day. You could conclude that birthdays cause illness, or saki does, or sushi does, or your friends do, or that any of the variables or any combination of variables caused you to be ill. But before you decide that your new dress causes diarrhea and run around telling everyone that new dresses are the cause of all illness and no one should get one, don't you think you should maybe consider some other possibilites? Maybe run an experiment or two to try to rule it in or out? Consult a dress expert? Maybe you meet someone who says, "You know, I had a similar experience - I got a new dress, went out for my anniversary, drank three bottles of wine, and got sick! Well, the only thing in common is the new dress, so you must be right - new dresses DO cause diarrhea!" This doesn't make any logical sense when you look at it from a scientific point of view - yet there are bound to be people who fail to recognize that and draw the erroneous conclusion.

 

The fact of it is, there will always be people who fail to believe the evidence set before them, and who will listen to the neighbor before the feedstore guy, the feedstore guy before the farrier, the farrier before the vet. I don't know why this is, but it seems that for this segment of the population, the greater the level of competence, the less likely the person is to be believed. So be it. There's probably nothing I can do about that - but I can not in good conscience allow this to pass without comment. I don't know if anyone else felt there was an insinuation that all those idiots read all the information and STILL decided to "blindly" follow AN EPXPERT'S advice, proving that they're stupid, and if only everyone would read what the poster had read we'd ALL decide never to vaccinate - but to me there was a tone of implied insult in that - not just to the profession of veterinary medicine, not just to me personally, but to every person who has decided to vaccinate their dogs. Perhaps that was unintentional, but it smacks of the zeal of the recent convert.

 

As for the "horrible, senseless diseases we are giving our dogs by vaccinating them so much" - how about the horrible senseless deaths we give them by NOT vaccinating them? Until you have, as I have, literally crawled through blood and shit trying to save the life of one parvo puppy after another, I don't think that you're in a position to really understand just what horrible, senseless dieseases we do NOT see as a result of vaccines. These puppies die miserable deaths - ones that could be prevented by vaccination.

 

You want to talk seizures? Distemper causes ones so severe that they are usually completely unresponsive to medication and result in the death of the animal. You want to talk behavioral changes? Ditto, and add rabies to the list. You want to talk chronic diarrhea, poor body condition, failure to thrive? All consequences of parvo AND distemper. Conjunctivitis? Distemper. Hoarseness, bronchitis, pneumonia? Bordatella. Paralysis of the throat and tongue, drooling, agression? Distemper AND rabies (to be followed by death, don't forget.) Hepatitis? Adenovirus. Anxiety and behavioral issues? Poor training, insufficient time with the animal, inappropriate match between the breed and the owner, poor breeding, etc etc etc. Can I say that in any given case the dog is NOT affected with these things as a result of vaccination? No - you can't prove a negative. Can you prove that the dog IS afflicted with these as a result of vaccination? Let's see the proof - and I do NOT mean something that someone wrote as an observation or conculsion based on their impression. I want to see numbers, I want to see statistical analysis, I want to see good experimental design, I want to see controlled variables, I want to see refereed journals.

 

YES, we see more cancer now than we used to - but we also see more geriatric animals now than we used to - because medicine works. (And while age is not a disease, things accumulate over time, so cancer is in the main a disease of older animals.) If your dog dies of parvo at the age of two, he's not going to be sticking around to get cancer. Also, you have to consider the other factors, such as genetics. Look at the diff between a Chihuahua and a Mastiff. That's a lot of messing around with the genome. You start breeding for traits, as we do, and sometimes you'll inadvertantly get stuff you don't want, like a prediliction for cancer. On the subject of genetics, you must also consider that some breeds are more prone to cancer than others - so even if your premise is that they GOT cancer because of vaccines, you MUST (if there is an ounce of logic anywhere in the Universe) also concede that if vaccines were the only culprit, ALL dogs would get cancer at the same rate. This does not happen.

 

Do I want you to go out and vaccinate your dogs? Not my lookout. Am I trying to get you to change your position about it? Doubt anything could. Do I think you should stop trying to get OTHER people to do so, and stop implying that those who choose to vaccinate are stupid or uninformed? You betcha. Am I hoping to get you to recognize that there is a difference between an impression and a fact, and between impassioned breast-beating and fear-mongering and reasoned argument? Yes. Am I being a bit mean about all this? Well, perhaps - although that is not my intent, and if Eileen feels I should be censured for this post or it should be deleted for tone, I will abide by her judgement - and either way I will apologize if this hurts anyone's feelings. However, I cannot possibly convey just how frustrating this is; having felt that I did a reasonable job of explaining (at considerable length and effort) myself and the facts at issue, and then discovering that I apparently did NOT, by use of reasoned tone and cool head and hard fact, make my point, I am inclined to state my case more agressively. I sincerely apologize if that is offensive to anyone here.

 

Okay. Done with rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks AKdoc, for a well written post!

I have been doing titers now for a few years. I had my 9 year old Boxer in for minor surgery, and before we could do it, I was told he was due for D/P vax. I declined, asking, instead for a titer. Titer came back very very low. Vet told me I had to vaccinate him, that he was not protected. But, my other vet (the treating vet) told me that the titer doesn't measure all types of immunity, so he *may* be okay. I emailed a vetmed list and a few vets replied that he probably *was* okay- that he hadn't been challenged recently- as he was a 100% stay at home dog- and that I didn't do him any great shakes by vaccinating him. So, of course, that was after the fact. Since he received his vax, he has been having skin/ear issues- that he doesn't normally have. I guess I was so shocked at how low his levels were, I decided descretion was the better part of valour? Anyway, I really don't think a 10 year old dog who received every 3 year vaxs, necessarily needed the booster, but I did so anyway. I think much more research needs to be done on all sorts of immunity measures.

As for differing opinions- there are many well respected, and boarded vets out there who are opposite sides of the fence, and I chose to sorta sit on it, and determine what to do based on titers, and improved immunological knowledge....

Julie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TheRuffMuttGang

AK dog doc--There are some veterinarians who will say what you say and others who say the complete opposite. There is plenty of scientific research out there on this subject, not just so-and-so's website stating their point of view. It is research that you obviously do not want to accept and that is fine. But I AM entitled to make my own decisions and I AM allowed to present this side of the argument to other people without being beat down for it just because you don't accept it. If the topic has been discussed elsewhere on this board, well, again...I am sorry for bringing up a past topic which I could not find when I did a search. I found a lot of people here saying they would speak to their vet about it, etc, etc. Take that as an insult if you wish but that is not how it was intentioned.

 

Point taken though.

 

PS--I never said I do not vaccinate my dogs as pups so don't make generalizations that you don't know to be true. And yes, I can attest to the horrors of the above mentioned diseases. But you wouldn't know that because you don't take the time to find these things out before reaming people.

 

Be sure to remind that next owner of the dog who comes in with AIHA some of the potential reasons why their dog has the disease...don't leave out over-vaccination.

 

Note to self: Never try to start a discussion on an issue that the "important" people of the board do not agree with.

 

See ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

Right. But I think your lengthy quote and AK dog doc's reply illustrate that there are differences in the quality of those opposite "sayings."

 

>

 

You have not referenced any "scientific research," just so-and-so's website stating their point of view. The weight of the scientific research is in favor of vaccination, and therefore the consensus position of reputable veterinary professionals is in favor of vaccination (albeit less frequent vaccination than was formerly recommended). I guess that is what irritates you.

 

>

 

Sure you are entitled to make your own decisions. AK dog doc said as much. Anyone would say so. You are also allowed to present that side of the argument to other people, but it is quite appropriate for the weaknesses of that side of the argument to be pointed out.

 

>

 

You said, "I have opted to not vaccinate my current pets (dogs and cats) at all from here on out," and you included links to sites advocating not vaccinating at all, even pups. I don't see where AK dog doc (or I) said that you don't vaccinate your dogs as pups.

 

>

 

That is a truly offensive and unwarranted personal attack. It amounts to professional defamation. I hope you regret making it. I will give you a chance to edit it out of your post on your own. If you don't, I will delete it for you.

 

>

 

I would say "Never try to start a discussion on an issue that anyone on the board does not agree with, unless you are prepared for them to state their disagreement."

 

Did you not notice that everyone who has posted to this thread is opposed to over-vaccination? Of course everyone recognizes that there are risks connected with vaccinations, but articles that flagrantly overstate those risks while minimizing the risks of failure to vaccinate lead to a faulty risk-benefit analysis, and their inaccuracies should be pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for limiting vaccinations to essential needs as I do think they can wreak havoc with a body but I wouldn't want to live in a world without them nor do I think it's fair to make them the catch all for every immune related disease that our pups are now catching.

 

And I think we are able to poo-poo vaccinations nows because we aren't losing our pets on a regular basis to Parvo or Distemper. Dogs and cats are living to ripe old ages and dealing with the breakdown of the body the same as people are.

 

I was talking to my vet about Distemper a few months ago as there was an outbreak at our shelter, and she said, in her experience, that it goes in cycles.

The disease disappears almost because everyone vaccinates, but then as it's gone, people stop vaccination, and then there is an outbreak from one source or another, sending the community into a panic and everyone vaccinates all over again. And so it goes.

 

I've had dogs with cancer, wtih diabetes, with pemphigus (classic auto-immune condition) and quite honestly, I can't blame vaccinations for any of them. But I've seen dogs die of Parvo and I thank my lucky stars that prevention is available.

 

Life is a compromise, and for me, vaccinations are just that, not perfect, not evil, but necessary in proper context.

 

Maria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to AK Dog Doc, I'm on your side of this one, and to others for trying to understand how to give your dogs the best you can.

Anybody see the AnimalCops story about the full grown dog with an imbedded collar (I think) who was treated successfully for that inhumanity, only to have it contract Distemper and have to be euthanized while at the shelter for lack of an intact immunity for the disease (probably no vaccine history prior to it's surrender/confiscation.) ? (Long sentence!)

You have to do what you think is right and take responsibility for the outcome. Then again, figure in genetics, God's will, luck, fate and life's a crap shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last month or so, there has been a huge upswing in Parvo cases in the Intermountain West. (Through parts of Utah all the way up into Idaho). The vet clinics and hospitals have seen more than double to three times the amount of Parvo they usually see. They are attributing it to the number of dogs who are not being vaccinated.

 

I have a friend who has a 5 yr. old dog (Lab) who was just diagnosed with Parvo. (He hasn't gotten any of his jabs since he was a puppy -- and yes, he did get the very first set of shots when he was about 4 - 6 wks, but no follow-up). She has not done titers on him. Her reasoning was that because she had another dog (a pug) that had a very severe reaction to the puppy series and died as a result, she never wanted that to happen to another dog of hers again. However, now this poor dog is facing a very painful and long bout of problems which may affect him for the rest of his life and may, in fact, kill him.

 

I agree with the concept that over-vaccination is not a good idea. Yearly does seem excessive in most cases. The bulk of the recent articles and materials I have read seem to indicate that a 3 - 5 yr. plan is a good place to start with most dogs (once the puppy series has been given), or doing a blood titer to test immunity levels. I will be vaccinating my dog at least at the 3 yr. interval.

 

Why? Because I don't want my dog to suffer needlessly when a simple vaccination is available. Because I live in a city with a large population of dogs and I won't be the cause/perpetuator of an outbreak of a preventable disease. Because the possibility of side effects is relatively small opposed to the terrible problems my dog may face if she gets some of these diseases.

 

My 13 yr. old son's Jr. High School had a HUGE problem with Whooping Cough this year. They even had a few cases of Tuberculosis! Why? A segment of the students who attend this school have never received the vaccination for it and some of the other children's immunities to it have worn off. People are so used to these diseases being gone that they have become complacent and have not gotten basic vaccinations. (Boy, if you think dog vaccinations cause a heated discussion, you should see a gym full of angry Jr. High School parents!)

 

Vaccinations are a Catch-22 kind of thing. However, as long we live in areas that are populated by other people and animals, the only way to keep these diseases from occurring is to use the tools we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AK DOC - thank you for the in depth discussion. While as a responsible dog owner, I do try to keep up with current research on health issues for my pets, I do not have a science background and rely on my vet, whom I trust implicitly. The two of us talk about what is appropriate for that pet and then decide what to vaccinate. A lot of it depends on the age of the pet - in other words, my vet doesn't have a "one size fits all" mentality.

 

I am old enough to remember when dogs weren't routinely vaccinated for anything except rabies. Families had a new dog every year or so - in part due to painful contagious diseases such as parvo. Dogs may develop a disease process due to vaccinations but they live a lot longer.

 

Bordatella -IMO is like getting a flu shot. It will protect against some but not all strains of the disease. On 2 occasions I boarded 3 dogs at a clean well cared for kennel. Each dog reacted differently: Cassie did not get kc; Sara had a mild case which cleared up with amoxy in a few days; Meg required two courses of amoxy each time and was sick for @ month. Both Cassie and Meg died of cancer - was it caused by vaccinations? Doubtful as neither form of cancer has been related to vaccinations. Cassie was 17 and Meg 9 so even if it was related to vac., they lived a lot longer than most dogs who have not been vaccinated. (And yes, I know some dogs have lived well into their teens w/o being vaccinated but compared to the number which died, old age was not common).

 

Sorry for the long post but it is a volatile issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thank you yet again, Eileen - I appreciate the backup. Also thanks to all the others who have posted in support.... and I thank you not just for your support, but for making me feel I have not wasted my time here.

 

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 :rolleyes: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks AK. It's nice to see someone present information in a clear and logical manner, and to share freely of her own time and education on a topic that interests many of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Melanie - and I'll return the compliment, having many times benefitted from your own clear, logical, thorough, well-informed and extremely well-thought-out posts. (Not to mention that you can write like nobody's biz! :rolleyes: ALWAYS a pleasure to read.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto to what Melanie said. It always amazes me when someone comes here and accuses the rest of us of being uneducated boobs blindly following outdated medical advice. FWIW, many of us are highly educated, some in science fields, and speaking for myself I can say that I enjoy learning new things. But I won't take hearsay as gospel, so if you're going to make blanket statements regarding scientific topics, it's only smart to be prepared to point us in the direction of the good scientific studies that support your claims. (It's sort of like coming here and proclaiming that a raw diet cures all diseases--some of us just aren't going to believe it without some sort of credible proof.)

 

At any rate, *I* don't think you were unnessecarily harsh AK Dog Doc, and the kind of flaming Debbie** has done to you would get her a lot worse in many venues.

 

If I haven't said so lately, let me say thank you for all the time and effort you put in to educating people on this forum. I greatly appreciate it!

 

**Just to clarify, as several Debbies have posted here, that I am referring to Debbie aka RoughMuttGang.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, and thank you, too, Julie. You've never given me to think that you're anything but appreciative, and for my part it is deeply gratifying (and readily apparent) that you DO have an interest in learning and are more than capable of making good decisions based on assmiliation of information and not just 'taking the party line'. Plus I'm glad you don't think I'm being unreasonable... it's not always easy to know how one is coming across, so I appreciate the reality check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must add my appreciation for all the time and effort AK dog doc has contributed in offering helpful and educational posts to many threads, particularly those dealing with health issues.

 

There are a number of dogs who have directly benefited from her expertise on these boards, when their owners and veterinarians were stumped by a puzzling malady.

 

We consider our veterinarians to be an indispensable resource in helping maintain our dogs as healthy members of our family and farm. We often don't give veterinarians the credit and support they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TheRuffMuttGang

I am so glad you know so much about me without ever having talked to me or met me, AK dog doc.

 

I've got better things to do than waste my time showing you research which you claim to have already seen and do not accept. How on earth do you have the time to run a successful practice when you are on here so much? Don't bother answering as I won't be back to read your reply.

 

Eileen, please remove my username from this message board (I am sure you've been dying to hear me say that). I've had my obligatory 24 hr "cool down" period and need no longer to know that this is not a place where I want to spend my time. There are only a certain few people who are welcome to voice their opinions here and I am certainly not one of them. Whether or not people agree with me is beside the point here--no one needs to have a book-long post(s) written DIRECTLY to them when the entire context of said post is completely derogatory.

 

To those who read, learn and don't have the guts to reply (you all know that they exist, many times in greater numbers than reg'd users)...I don't blame you!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's the crux of the problem:

I've got better things to do than waste my time showing you research
RuffMuttGang, you haven't shown us any research. This is research. You gave us a few essays, and we'd like to see some science.

 

AK dog doc wrote:

The fact of it is, there will always be people who fail to believe the evidence set before them, and who will listen to the neighbor before the feedstore guy, the feedstore guy before the farrier, the farrier before the vet.
Yep. They're the same folks who don't know PubMed or Google Scholar from their elbow, yet they "know" that vets are just the brainwashed pawns of pharmaceutical companies :rolleyes:

 

For the record, my holistic vet doesn't administer vaccinations. And yet, mirabile dictu, she recommends a vaccination protocol for puppies, as well as titers (and in some cases vaccinations) for adult dogs. She does this because she is knowledgeable, ethical and has decades of experience as a veterinarian. She and my traditional vet (the dogs see both) work together to ensure that my crew gets the best possible health care.

 

Sue R wrote:

I must add my appreciation for all the time and effort AK dog doc has contributed in offering helpful and educational posts to many threads, particularly those dealing with health issues.
Amen. bowdown.gif bowdown.gif bowdown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

If this is a subject you care about deeply (as apparently it is), and if you have research to show to us, why wouldn't you show it?

 

>

 

Why on earth would you think that? You are very welcome to post here (except for personal attacks), but when I or others disagree with you, we will say so. That's the point of a discussion board, and since you ended your first post on this subject with "Alright, fire away!" that is what you must have expected.

 

>

 

The cool-down period is a week, which is just as well since it's pretty clear you haven't cooled down yet. There's certainly no requirement that you spend any time here against your will. But based on my impression of you from your posts prior to this thread, I honestly believe you will want to apologize to AK dog doc when you have had time to cool down.

 

>

 

Again, you are welcome to voice your opinions, and others are welcome to take issue with them. If you voice your opinions without personal attacks on someone who does not deserve them (thank you for editing your defamatory post, BTW), I think you would have a better chance of attracting support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll answer anyway.

 

The remarks made in my first post of 5/29 were directed at the information you presented in your posts, not at you personally, with the sole exception of the remark that I was hoping to get you to recognize that there is a diff between fact and impression (etc) and to stop trying to get other people to do as you have chosen to do, based on faulty information. Clearly you FELT personally attacked, despite the fact that what I took issue with was the misinformation in the post you quoted (as I believe would be clear if you read the post for content, rather than just being offended by the fact that your 'authority' was called into question.) Evidently you then felt justified in making what WAS a personal attack against me.

 

My second post of 5/29 was addressed at defending myself after your personal attack, and presenting the facts in another format (hopefully a logical one) so that there would then be no misunderstanding about what my position is and the facts of the situation are. I'm sorry if you feel ill-used when someone defends themselves against your agressive actions. Bear in mind that YOU were the one who initiated personal attack in this thread, and I believe we have the right to defend ourselves against attacks here.

 

Nowhere in this have I claimed to "know so much about you" - my posts have been directed, as stated, against the misinformation given (first) and toward laying out the facts about myself, not you, in the context of your attack on me (second). Nowhere in here have I said anything that I considered or intended to be derogatory (despite the fact that YOU at least appear to have intentionally been derogatory) - and evidently I am not alone in this opinion (based on what other posters have written). If we're looking for derogatory, I believe you have supplied the only examples (as in your remarks to Eileen, the Boards and Board members in general, and myself in specific, which seem to me to be gratuitously snide and rather immature.) PLEASE NOTE: This is me saying "I think this", not "You ARE this." I am stating my opinion that you have given offense, whether or not you intended to. If you did not intend to give offense, the correct course of action is to apologise. If you DID intend to give offense, then you have just proven me correct.

 

As for having better things to do than waste your time directing me (and others) to legit research - again, it's easy to SAY you have such research. Prove it. That's what science is about. And it seems mighty weak as an argument, leading me (and perhaps others) to specuate that you don't HAVE a solid scientific foundation for this, and are using the "I wouldn't waste my time" argument as a misdirector to draw attention away from this fact. Perhaps that's the reason behind the personal attacks as well. No idea what your agenda is here.

 

At any rate, whether or not you read this, the bottom line is that in a forum such as this it is unreasonable to turn up, make some wild (and incorrect) statements about medicine, unsupported by legitimate science, and then expect them to pass unchallenged. It is also, IMO, unreasonable to expect to be able to make personal attacks without being corrected for them. If my unwillingness to lie down meekly and let you make whatever personal attack you wish against me makes me a bad, evil person, then so be it. And for the third time - I am willing to be corrected if I am overstepping my bounds or misbehaving here. I await the judgement of the Boards, should I have earned a correction.

 

Oh, yeah - thanks, Sue and Luisa! That was nice of you to say! And yet again, Eileen, you are my hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was 19 I took in a 6 mo. pound puppy. He was GS/mix. A month after I got him, he started getting sick. His nose was running, he had a fever, was not playful, loosing interest in food. I took him to the vet and they said he had distemper. That I should let them put him down. At 19 I ruled the world and believed he could survive. I took him home and "doctored" him. I fed him concentrated home made broth. I kept his nose clear of the very thick mucus that came. I gave him asprin, I put him in the bathroom with the shower on hot, for the steam. I sat up at night with him. Oh, yeah, I had a 10mo baby too! He survived. When I found out it could have been prevented with a shot, I swore I would never let a dog go though this again. Say what ever about vaccines you want. But if my animal gets sick or dies because I was trying to HELP it, is easier to live with than for one to die because I did nothing. Titers interrests me and am planning to speak with my vet about it as my guys are due now for vaccines. Jackson is done with puppy shots so now is a good time.

 

AK dog doc, I think you are awesome. I have no idea what kind of vet you are, but I know what kind of person you are. You care and you are always willing to give out info. You never tell someone their vet is full of poop and you are right. But you give them info to help them decide if their vet is full of poop. I love reading the info you give and appreciate it! Thank you!

 

P.S. Lest anyone misconstue the statement of what kind of vet she is, it is not meant derogetory. Just that I have never taken an animal to her. But she could always come down here and give my guys the once over, then I would know! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT-I read page 2 to catch up on the discussion, caught the remark to "Debbie" and thought 'now what did I say?' I knew I was tired from the last few weeks of dog-and-pony shows, but Gee-Whiz!!

 

Thanks Julie for the Debbie-Clarifications!!

 

AK Dog Doc, as usual, the voice of intelligent reason--you rock! Eileen too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by TheRuffMuttGang:

To those who read, learn and don't have the guts to reply (you all know that they exist, many times in greater numbers than reg'd users)...I don't blame you!!

As one who has very diverse opinions on many things from others on this particular board, what you've said, in my opinion, is unfair..especially as you pack up your bags to leave. I've been on the opposite side of opinion various times but all in all, that is where I may learn something...or maybe enlighten someone. (Stop snickering everyone). :rolleyes:

 

I think that there are many bright people on this board and couple that with an intense love of breed/dogs, it's bound to get volatile quick, especially when it comes to the ultimate well being of our animals. We all want to do right by them, we're all looking for a way to keep them with us as long as possible.

 

I love the internet, I've learned so much, but I must confess that it's so easy to be more judgmental, more confrontational, more volatile, simply because there is no face to face. I always think that if we were all face to face, we would most likely keep our opinions, but feelings would most likely be spared.

 

I personally did not see anything accusatory in AK Dog Doc's posts, given her background, I would expect no less from a medical person. If anything, she should be applauded for coming through so often with insight that another vet may very well prefer to keep quiet about. Not too many professionals will go online, heck, some vets will barely talk to you on the phone. But the good ones make times for you and that should never be taken for granted, nor should their dedication.

 

There is never going to be a perfect solution but let's at least give credit where credit is due, to owners who are dedicated enough to educate themselves and to vets who support and help them to the best of their ability.

 

Maria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×