I am not affiliated with this site at all, but I would like to say something to everyone on this site. Vaccines have gotten very dangerous and I have a friend who vaccinated her poor old dog once again with rabies, and it resulted in paralysis of his back legs.
Please read the paper "Science of Vaccine Damage" (http://www.drcarley.com/Science_of_vaccine_damage.pdf). This is a concise paper about a study done by the Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine, and found that vaccines do indeed cause all kinds of problems because of the autoimmune response they trigger, encephalitis, mental and emotional problems, and other things.
Humans and their pets do NOT need to have all of these physical problems - they ARE due to the vaccines, and both people and their veterinarians and MDs have GOT to figure this out soon. As I scrolled down this forum, I saw MANY problems that I KNEW were due to vaccinations - Cushings, paralysis, seizures, allergies, mental problems, etc etc etc.. I hope all people reading this will also read that paper - it's the most important information anyone could have concerning the health of their pets and themselves.
Every time you or your pets get vaccinated, you are playing Russian Roulette, and every single time there WILL be damage done, at the very least to the immune system itself.
Thank you very much for posting your opinion in regard to using vaccines in our pets. This post shows owners the importance of the veterinarian-patient-owner relationship.
Owners should open a discussion about vaccinations with their veterinarian. The owners should be made aware of the benefits versus risks of vaccinating their beloved pet.
This is no different than the discussion we have with our doctors, or our children's doctors. We have the ability to make decisions for ourselves, or on behalf of our children, as to what vaccinations we will or will not give. The doctor's responsibility is to discuss the vaccine(s) in questions, give us all the information pertinent to the vaccine(s) and offer their recommendations. It is up to us to use this information to determine whether or not to get the vaccine(s). This is a personal decision that we must make, understanding the benefits and risk, and it is of paramount importance that we trust our physicians.
In veterinary medicine, the same holds true. The owner and veterinarian need to have an open discussion concerning vaccinations. Each veterinarian will have their recommendations for each pet and it will vary pet to pet. The owner can then make an informed decision as to what vaccinations their pet receives. Only rabies is required by state law.
Again, thank you for making this post in the interest of our animals. I hope it shows pet owners everywhere the importance of communicating with their veterinarians. This holds true for not only vaccinations, but all aspects of pet health care.
I would also like to add my comments to Dr. Hurley's that it is VITAL that pet owners speak with their veterinarian prior to making any sort of decision about vaccinating or not vaccinating their pets.
Vaccination is a medical procedure and it does come with risks and benefits as well. We see the benefits of vaccination programs everyday with the fact that it is rare for our dogs or owned cats to develop rabies and people in the US who die from rabies now normally only get it through bats. Although canine parvovirus is still prevalent in the US, the number of dogs that die from this dreaded disease has been greatly reduced due to vaccines. The same can be said of canine distemper, feline distemper and many other disease, human and pet alike.
So...while I applaud your efforts to improve communications among pet owners and veterinarians about vaccines, I fear that you may scare some people away from getting their pets vaccinated at all. Having spent the majority of my adult life working with pets in some capacity, I have no desire to see a repeat of what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s when canine parvovirus ravaged our canine friends.
The points of risk versus benefit have been covered and should be considered with all medical treatments, not just vaccines. However, if vaccines are totally discontinued as you suggest, the number of puppies dying from just parvo and distemper will be astounding. Also, if pets are not vaccinated against rabies, the number of rabies cases in humans will increase tremendously and the disease is deadly. I do believe some animals are vaccinated for diseases more often than they need to be and some are given vaccines they may not need. And there are potential risks involved with all vaccines. However, to say all vaccines are bad and should not be given is incorrect. I started practicing in 1979 and without parvo vaccine, very few puppies would be living past 6 months today. Most would have died before any would have a chance to develop autoimmune diseases at an older age.
The original post in this string raises a larger issue than just the subject of immunization. I will touch on that at the end of this post.
While the required frequency of followup immunization for any given disease may today be in question, the premise that never immunizing an animal for a disease it may be challenged by during its life is scientifically faulty. The risk of adverse effects most often does not outweigh the risk of disease and its sequelae.
The immunization of humans against smallpox through the 1970s, for example, has saved millions of lives (check your left shoulder for a scar if older than 45). As Dr. Judd has succinctly stated, immunization of dogs against parvovirus, canine distemper and other common diseases has saved many lives. The adverse effects notwithstanding, on a population basis, immunization is a success. If only an effective vaccine against malaria could be developed, millions would be saved EACH YEAR!
Simply because animals do not die as commonly from formerly common diseases, is not a reason to give up immunization. Those diseases could easily resurge in a naive population, which is what we would have within 5 years if all immunization stopped.
So called experts, who "know better" than the mainstream of the medical professions, seem to appeal to those who see conspiracy in the actions or words of authority figures. If their pronouncements were not so harmful to the public health (and animal health) it would be easy to ignore such ignorance.
And by the way, we immunize pets against Rabies to protect people, not pets. Pet protection plays no role in that mandate. Even at the cost of some adverse consequences or illness in pets it would be irresponsible if not criminal to knowingly allow our pets to forego immunization against Rabies. The interaction potential of pets and wildlife on a population basis makes clear that pets are our link to the environment of wildlife, some of which are rabies vector species: raccoon, fox, skunk and others. Rabies immunization is about people, not pets. If you doubt this, go pet some free running dogs in Mexico, China or India. Affairs in order first, please.
Finally, the larger issue I refer to at the beginning of this post is the decline of respect for science and an understanding of the scientific method that today pervades the minds of the public, the popular press, the non-professionally oriented internet and even practitioners in my and other professions. Many fancy themselves to be experts, but based upon anecdote, personal experiences and what other self proclaimed experts make money on, purveying to a scientifically ignorant public. Worse, there has been a politicization of science which ultimately brings discredit to itself and allows charalatanism to grow. Because two events occur together in time or space, does NOT mean they are necessarily related. Thats an idea worth pondering the next time someone hawks a product or method that "worked just great for Uncle Joe and he still swears by it."
See my MedHelp blog on "raw diet" for an example of this anti-scientific thinking with respect to raw meat diets in pets. Also read today's Wall Street Journal editorial page for an example of this sort of thing with respect to climate change.
Studies and research can at times give conflicting results depending on the focus of the person interpreting the data. I do agree with you that vaccines, or any medical procedure is not 100% free of potential adverse effects. I do know that the number of people and animals whose lives have been spared the horrors of preventable diseases vastly outnumber those who have experienced conditions brought on by attempts to do good and not harm. Vaccine protocols have been modified over the years to provide the best protection with the least chances of complications. Which vaccines are needed to protect a pet is based on life style and age of the pet. The best one to determine which are needed is a team effort....the veterinarian and the pet owner. The goal...to have a pet age as successfully as possible.
I am sorry to learn that your friend's dog is now experiencing hind leg issues. It is possible that there has been nerve irritation due to the vaccine. This is often a self limiting condition and may take several weeks to months to fully resolve. I would ask your friend how the pet is doing now. I pray that it is improving that he/she has a good relationship with their veterinarian and will continue to work together for the welfare of this pet.
I grew up in the 50s when polio was still a common ailment. Thankfully because of a massive effort to vaccinate people against this deadly disease, this condition has basically been eradicated. Research is bringing us closer to a vaccine effective against such diseases as HIV, which has not been erased from the human population by education and awareness programs alone.
Do I recommend vaccines for my patients?....yes. Do I vaccinate my own pets?....yes. Do I get vaccinated for the flu and other diseases?....yes. Whether or not you vaccinate your pets or yourself is a personal matter. Making others aware of the pros and cons is the spark needed for a well thought out discussion between a health care provider and client/patient.
Copyright 1994-2018MedHelp.All rights reserved. MedHelp is a division of Vitals Consumer Services, LLC.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. MedHelp is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.