Question about not vaccinating?(65 Posts)
I always had our old dog vaccinated, wormed, flea treated, insured etc. Never occurred to me to do any other than the vet recommended.
I was speaking to someone this week who hadn't had their dog vaccinated, doesn't worm (but does a worm count in poo) as their dog is healthy. Their research has shown that all the treatment isn't really necessary and vets are just about making money
We are (hopefully) getting a pup, which will be vaccinated etc. Would it be ok for the two dogs to play together? Would they be any risk to either of them illness wise ?
Please excuse my ignorance but I've never considered it before.
I used to work in a vets for a long time, and all i can say is please vaccinate. Yes her dog is healthy now, until he isnt and then its too late. The amount of older dogs we used to see that contracted parvo even though they were vaccinated as pups used to really annoy me! If people work with animals we have to have a tetanus booster every 10 years, i wouldnt risk not having that done, so why risk your dog not being protected. I wouldnt knowingly allow my young, unprotected puppy to play with an unvaccinated dog. No. And as for worming, great do an egg count in poo (if you have a microscope) but by the time you see them you could have already got worms yourself. Worming and vaccination is to PREVENT worms and illness. Not so your pet gets ill and you have to try and treat the problem. Sorry for the long reply i am just passionate about animal welfare
i am sure the lady who hadn't got her ddog vac'd is also passionate about animal welfare Addicted - and you come from a vets brainwashing environment so your response is an expected one.
Do MNers get flamed here for offering alternative views, or anywhere out there once starting to talk about this topic of challenging the whole industry and its benefits to our dpets.
Many vets do now acknowledge that animals are pumped with far too many vaccinations (which is a huge assault on a very young immature animals immune system), and many of the over-zealous yearly boostering schemes have been pared back.
I think that probably doing your own research is the way. Animals kept in poor conditions, or overweight, or unfit, stressed will have weaker immune systems as will pups and the elderly. All those animals are at risk of falling prey to disease, as are people.
a puppy raised on a puppy farm for instance, will already have an malnourished bitch supply milk (part of the dog worm cycle) which is infested with worms (eggs). Cat fleas are a problem for dogs, dog fleas pretty much disappeared. The pup will be riddled with worms, get a poor supply of milk, be in overcrowded unhealthy conditions and therefore rife for disease where it will get a hold on those already weakened and something like parvo could wipe the whole litter out and the bitch too.
Care around pups is very specific to protect their environment and in the main vast numbers of well-bred and reared pups will thrive (and they have no vaccinations until they're older). Its not the vaccinations (or lack of) that mean such high numbers will survive but good husbandry. Although there are still relatively common congenital case deaths and pups that just won't thrive.
I know of very successfull working/breeding/show people who have never vaccinated their animals, for decades, and have never lost a litter to kennel cough/parvo, etc. So this is very contrary to what many/most would expect - believing this to not be possible.
The elderly ones, well they all die of something sadly, but mostly now awful emaciating and painful cancers or crippling and painful inflammatory diseases, and most of the blame for this is attributed to diet now and vets being receiving their 'dietician' element of their training from the commercial producers of these foods.
The only way to know for yourself is to review the research [from BOTH sides] and make your own mind up, but, like any sales and marketing machine, most vets will 'sell' you vaccinations 'programs' to keep you coming back. Vets didn't used to be like this but they are far more of a marketing machine now. There are some out there who no longer hold with dried food believing its the cause of massive rise in the terrible illnesses that most dogs die from far earlier than dogs used to die. It just depends on what you choose to believe.
I have a mixture of animals ranging in age from 15 to 1 year old, they all have brillaint white teeth and fresh smelling breath, something i'd not experienced [in my pets!] till starting to challenge for myself today's routinely followed 'regimes' advocated by vets. Previously my animals regularly had dental intervention and surgery for very poor teeth, now people comment on them, and their mouth is just the start of the rest of their body and reflects their health or otherwise.
Did ddogs/cats die younger generations ago, or live longer and die of different things?
Ask around, look for yourself, make your own decisions (but mostly people are very scared to flout the scare tactics of the medics - that your danimal will die the most horrific death and you will be letting them down if you don't do as prescribed - but todays manufactured illnesses are just as devastating and far more costly and difficult to support and very often resulting in years of suffering all round.
Its difficult to make such a big decision about your animals llife and with little access to the relevant experiences/information you can only fall back on what you think best for your own animals.
good luck with your investigations, be very interesting to hear other views and reasonings for choices here.
Best to speak to a vet about the disease risk re: coming into contact with unvaccinated dogs. One whose opinion you hopefully trust, not all vets are just out to make money!
In response to your comment about brainwashing Shriek I think it works both ways, some of the anti-vacc crowd are very evangelistic and there's lots of emotive talk of poisons/toxins/chemicals. I'm all up for discussion about holistic alternatives but so much of it is not evidence based or involves bunkum about homeopathy that it can be hard to take seriously sometimes.
Is important to know what the risks are in your area and how you can managed these in a manner that is a balance of cost and best practice for you. In an ideal world we would titre every dog before giving any vaccines, however, there are scientific and financial limitations to this.
Another example would be worming a standard worm count will not pick up lungworm eggs, more expensive Baermann testing is required and most people can not perform that at home.
I happily engage with clients about what is the best policy for their pet based on our local risks and we can make a plan to suit them - there is no one size fits all.
You will probably not get this approach in the corporate practices who have standard protocols to follow, however, small independent will almost always engage in discussion. We may not be as cheap as the corporates, but we tend to have more time to spend with you.
Regarding vaccines etc being about making money they are the least profitable item in the majority of veterinary practices, we make far, far more money out of treating a case of parvo, lungworm or Lyme disease.
I agree there does seem to be more brainwashing from anti vaccinations than pro vaccinations.
I do titre tests on my dogs and worm counts including lung worm - it costs way more than vaccination but having one dog react badly to vaccinations that is the path I have chosen to take. My vet is aware of this decision and on our yearly health checks we discuss the way forward for each year - it sounds like I have a great vet like Lonecatwithkittens.
There was a parvo outbreak in my area one year and my vet contacted me and I did on that year vaccinate all the dogs (apart from weird dog). It is an individual decision for pet owners and their vets to make without being brainwashed or threatened into the decision by others. However it is a minefield and one that I feel guilty if I do and guilty if I don't!
Shriek surely good husbandry will include the prevention of the puppies getting infectious illnesses. Do vaccinations affect teeth
i would say that vac's are a loss leader.
worming pills cost very little, so why are they being charged so much?
and the whole, your dpet has to come in for a check up in order to have them, that will be £25 then please.
Good animalcare affects teeth! I think you can see i was talking about all round good husbandry when it comes to disease control, and that is reliant on diet, exercise... ..blah blah lbha... anyway. I said all that already.
I'm not sure how much actual decision-making is affected by fear/vets talk. Don't most people vac out of fear? Fearful that their dpets will simply die without?
and no, i don't agree at all that pups should be having vac to early. Husbandry not being about vacs. I'm talking about the better one is the less need for the other.. you see now?
most of the cases of lungworm, parvo, etc. the animals have already been 'protected'!
one case in my park recently of ddog having had all its vaccines, routine regular worming/deflea, went down nearly dying of lungworm.
I don't understand!
as said further up.. feeling guilty if you do and guilty if you don't.
Not all wormers treat lungworm. For example milbemax does, drontal doesn't. Also depends where you live, it's not a huge problem where I am. As far as infectious diseases go, many can survive in the environment for months (leptospirosis is known as the 'lampost disease'). Some can also be carried and 'shed' by dogs showing no symptoms. Any unvaccinated dog is at risk.
However yes I agree, the old recommendations of repeating all vaccines yearly was definitely over zealous, some (leptospirosis and kennel cough), however, are still deemed to be required annually.
You also have to consider whether your dog might require boarding, day care or dog walking? If so any reputable one will require upto date vaccinations.
Shriek in 17 years I have only seen 1 case of parvo in a 'protected' dog all the multitude of other cases were in unprotected dogs. The 'protected' dog had a less severe form and survived, the vast majority of the unprotected dogs despite extensive treated died. It was later discovered that the 'protected' dog had other issues that prevented him from mounting and adequate response to vaccination.
Every case of Lepto has been in unprotected dogs only one of those survived the rest died.
Lungworm all of them untreated several of the ones who survived have long term chronic health problems as a direct result of the lungworm.
Lyme disease all in dogs with no tick control they all died despite extensive treatment.
Every single one of these dogs are permanently etched on me due to the extensive hours of time I spent trying to save their lives, most vets bear these 'scars'.
The UK in general is excellent at responding to changes in vaccination schedules to reduce the 'load' to dogs. I believe most of the distrust stems initially from countries where there are laws that enforce vaccination schedules on dogs that are based on bad science ( America and France I'm looking at you), good science shows that rabies vaccination protects for at least 3 years, but in these countries it is a legal requirement to vaccinate your dog yearly against rabies.
UK vets also have their hands tied by insurance companies we are asked to state when the dogs last vaccination was and for many policies not following a prescribed schedule invalidates the insurance policy.
Finally you try to give the right advice, your dog is at risk of kennel cough, client declines vaccination, but dog contracts kennel cough, client claims on insurance, insurance refuses to pay as they deem dog should have been vaccinated, clients has a go at vet and says we should cover cost.
Being a vet lose lose situation.
As others have said dogs are not vaccinated against everything every year. They follow a schedule. Lungworm isn't prevented with General wormers, has to be specific wormers licensed for lung worm. And why risk your dog Contracting a possibly fatal virus such as parvo, when it can be prevented with a vaccine? I believe in science and I most definitely have not been brainwashed. I have treated the puppies and dogs myself and seen them dying slowly and painfully from parvo, my own dog in fact I have as a result of parvo and the owner simply not wanting to pay for his treatment. And when I look at these dogs I get so angry because it could be prevented. Yes some dogs have strong immune systems and perhaps don't require the level of protection as the majority, and of course good husbandry in the home at the start of puppies life plays a massive part in the development of a dogs immune system. What it does not do however is still them contracting deadly and infectious diseases if they come into contact with it.
how do you explain decades of breeding without ddogs getting anything?
Having vaccine against KC is no guarantee of not acquiring KC. There are so many strains.
I did remember stating that she was supposedly 'protected' - said because her ddog was already taking the stuff the vet used to treat her with (but in higher doses). However, anecdotally.
Do we have any evidence of the efficacy of vaccinations? Proper research i mean? As in, proper scientifically based research with control groups and exposure.
Yes I agree there certainly is a case for regular treatment of animals with less than robust immune system and systemic weaknesses.
The point might be that we dont know? but how does a someone whose had hundreds of ddogs pass through their hands that have travelled all over the country showing, working with exposure to everything, why are they not dropping like flies, in fact less, none got even kennel cough?
its also very wrong to pair 'reputable' or quality of kennel care with their choices around vaccines, etc.
as a vet to be fair, you only see sick animals, your experience is also anecdotal. You do no random sampling, or good scientific research, and can't guarantee the true fitness or good animal husbandry of any of the animals you see, cannot detect the stress that they may have in their lives,etc. All these variables make the sick ones more prone to sickness.
Isn't it the nature of the virus?
This is a consensus statement out together by the three leading veterinary immunologists reviewing all the data available ( there is a very large number of good quality studies and veterinary drug companies now publish regardless of results something made the standard by the quest study). These immunologists are not employed by drugs companies.
Between mid 1970s to relatively recently vaccination levels were sufficiently high that unvaccinated dogs were protected by herd immunity, but now there is not sufficient level to maintain herd immunity.
Every vet: owner relationship has to take a balanced view bearing in mind the local situation, the costs and the owners appetite to risk.
OP, based on the beliefs of vets around vaccines, your dpup would present no danger to a fully vaccinated animal.
Dpup will have inferred immunity from dam's milk and like you say, vaccines done on top of that.
I'm also not sure why 'emotive talk of toxins' etc is different from 'emotive talk of death and disease?' - not that i'm agreeing that talking about the toxins necessary to make an innert (dead) virus stimulate an active immune system to respond (i.e. naturally if the virus was dead it wouldn't so necessitates the introduction of a toxin like mercury, or similar, to stimulate an immune response)
its your own decision, and not one that anyone can make for you, OP. What sort of dpup are you getting? how soon?!
'the owners appetite to risk'
Do you test frequently whether ddogs might already have immunity before vaccinating as just one condition that is not being controlled for potentially in research. Are all these animals equally exposed to the disease,etc.
Owners appetite for risk for is very real, you know the diseases exist, but feel that the relative risk is low so choose not to vaccinate - you have a medium appetite for risk.
Many, many owners not because I have scared then because I don't do that feel that even a tiny risk of the disease is too big and choose to vaccinate - they have a low appetite for risk.
I discuss with clients all the options, the level of risk in my area, listen to their concerns. Together we formulate a plan for them, appetite for risk is part of that. You may not like the term, but it adequately sums it up.
You appear to believe that all vets are hell bent on causing more harm than good to line their own pockets.
I had my children vaccinated and likewise I have my animals vaccinated. It's not ideal to have to flood a young child/animal's system with these chemical mixes but when the effects of the disease is greatly outweighed by the possible side effect of the vaccination then imo there's no question, it has to be done.
Our pets have a far greater life expectancy than ever, yes, that will be down to diet and great strides in general veterinary treatment but surely regular vaccination must play a huge part in that.
no .. certainly not 'hell bent' - an extremist comment.
appetite - no, as it infers the relishing of something having an appetite for it.
its an odd term. Risk tolerance might be a more tolerant approach/term.
I guess it all comes down to who each person listens to. God forbid that vets or doctors have ever been majorly wrong, and i'm not being personal to either profession.
Here's about debating, and each medicine has its own inherent risks/harms to the body or side effects, and that risk is different for each also.
As you say Pigs 'IMO' - absolutely, it is to each own opinion, but decisions are very often based on fear and in the main the medical model prevails/has the louder voice.
Notsomuch about changing others opinions but bringing differing opinions out for airing.
But when you're looking at the devastating effects of these diseases Shriek, against potentially life saving inoculation, I really don't understand why anyone would pass that up.
Yes, you're right it is fear that makes people have their animals inoculated, fear of seeing their beloved pets fall prey to something that will probably kill them if they contract it when they aren't inoculated.
Inoculating won't save every animal, but it will make sure a hell of a lot of them don't die; I don't want to take that risk and gamble with my dog's life.
No doubt this is a debate that will rubble on for a very long time as it's something people do seem to have strong opinions on and I suspect no one's mind is going to be swayed on an internet forum.
i do understand that you wouldn't get why 'anyone would pass that up'
I can see both sides here. I do understand why people do it and also why people don't do it and the hard scientific evidence showing the general public how viral/bacterial infections work and the actions of a vaccine are not clearly published. There is also as we acknowledge, the fear, that people vaccinate because otherwise they put their ddog in 'danger' or 'not', and the words you used too there 'gamble with my dogs life'. A very scarey thing to say. The emotive language you were talking about
Yes, I agree its a healthy debate to have and its good that people are having it
i believe that they teach in schools now that introducing a dead virus into the bloodstream will stimulate an immune response. Teaching bad science.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.