I think the titters test would give documented proof of immunity if I'm not mistaken.

 Quote:

I think the titters test would give documented proof of immunity if I'm not mistaken.

Not exactly, though a titer test can give a pretty good idea. It isn't definite.

From http://www.caberfeidh.com/Titers.htm: "Many people who are trying to reduce vaccination are interested in using "titers" as a test to measure whether or not their dog is still immune to a disease. They often speak of titers as showing "high" or "low" immunity, or of "having to" re-vaccinate when a titer is low. While there is not a tremendous amount of research on titers in dogs, I think it's fair to say there is quite a bit of misunderstanding on the part of pet owners, and even many veterinarians, as to what a titer test does or does not tell us....A titer test does not and cannot measure immunity, because immunity to specific viruses is reliant not on antibodies, but on memory cells, which we have no way to measure. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies and dispatch them to an infection caused by the virus it "remembers." Memory cells don't need "reminders" in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies. (Science, 1999; "Immune system's memory does not need reminders.") If the animal recently encountered the virus, their level of antibody might be quite high, but that doesn't mean they are more immune than an animal with a lower titer."


From http://www.doghobbyist.com/articles/TiterChat.html (not exactly an 'official' site, but it does serve to back up the previous link and explain a little further): "Many people who want to minimize vaccines hope to be able to use "titers" to see if their dog needs a "booster shot. Many people will tell them that these tests are not reliable, and encourage them to re-vaccinate instead. What is the truth? Do titer tests tell us anything? The truth is, in nearly all cases, the only thing titer tests might "miss" is not a dog who IS NOT immune, not a dog who IS immune. In other words, if your dog has a protective titer to a virus, you can feel pretty confident that they are, in fact, protected against that virus. Bacterial immunity is different, as is immunity to some types of virus we don't currently vaccinate against in dogs. Where titer tests are unreliable is that a dog might show a low titer but actually be immune. This is because titer tests don't measure immunity directly. Immunity is a function of cells known as "memory cells," but we cannot measure this."



So your dog might show a low titer, but still be immune and justnot have had any recent exposure to the virii titered for. In that case, you would probably be encouraged to give a booster, and it might not even be needed. You just don't know 100% for sure. It couldn't hurt any more than just giving yearly vaccines, but it would still be just as unnecessary.


I'm really not trying to start an arguement. I'm genuinely interested in where Ed came up with the ages that he stated, since nothing I've found, including answers from vets, has agreed.

For me I look at the 10 healthy dogs I have right now.. and the many I have had over the years that never got anything but puppy shots and rabies. THAT is proof enough for me. I will take what is in front of my eyes over what someone wrote on paper and called research!

 Quote:

I will take what is in front of my eyes over what someone wrote on paper and called research!

But other people who are new to the idea of doing fewer vaccinations and not vaccinating every year want carved-in-stone proof that their pet is not going to die if they don't vaccinate him every year. My pets are also an example for them, but they want more than that.

There is a lot to consider when giving vaccinations, this is where research is essential. Whilst I agree with the articles posted about titers (where the antibodies rally when exposed to a potential contagion), but yearly vaccinations are not in the best interest of pets.

In a nutshell, modified live vaccines are the best to administer to healthy, non-pregnant dogs that do not have a comprised immune system. Generally, these vaccines would only need to be boostered every 3-5 years. Personally, I only booster when the threat level is high for a potential virus, what is endemic in my area and where I'm travelling to. With the live vaccines, it is prudent to clean up your dogs feces.

The killed vaccines are the least potent and require the repeat boosters (and also have the potential adverse effects.) Look up the history of the polio vaccine.
Combo shots are not that wonderful, but also hard to avoid, try to only vaccinate for the dogs' needs.

Here is another vet's point of view:
Vaccinations

I lost two cherished pet cats to vaccine related diseases. The GSD recently came out of surgery for removal of a benign lump (Thank God!) which just so coincidentilly corresponded with the injection site of her (killed)rabies shot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Let the *other* people do the research and they may find that more animals die from vaccine-related deaths than from not being vaccinated.

 Quote:

.......I'm genuinely interested in where Ed came up with the ages that he stated, since nothing I've found..... has agreed.

My own vet had recently stopped doing boosters as a matter of course.*

She now does the two Parvo & Distemper shots at 8 weeks and 12 weeks. I'm not positive about the rabies vaccination -- I think it's at 4 months.

Also, Kathleen Hutton, DVM, is cited on a couple of web sites as recommending this minimum: two vaccinations (comb. distemper and parvo) given three to four weeks apart by the age of three months, plus the vaccination against rabies, with "vaccinations against coronavirus, Bordatella, or Lyme disease based on owner's needs and veterinarian's advice."

As far as boosters go, DVMs who no longer recommend boosters abound, on the web and elsewhere.

Dr. Larry Siegler believes that boosters are not necessary, and explains why in "The Truth About Pet Vaccinations" at OnlyNaturalPet.com.

Also, Dr. Ronald D. Schultz, Ph.D..- "Annual revaccination provides no benefit and may increase the risk for adverse reactions. The percentage of vaccinated animals (those vaccinated only as puppies) protected from clinical disease after challenge with canine distemper virus, canine parvovirus and canine adenovirus in the study was greater than 95%." Dr. Ronald Schultz is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Pathobiological Sciences at the School of Veterinary Medicine, UW-Madison.

Yes, Dr. Dodds (at, for example, http://www.doglogic.com) has a different schedule involving more innoculations, but her basis doesn't strike me as any more or less informed than the others.

I've seen and read about a lot of bad effects from vaccinations and boosters, and if credentialed professionals back me up in my personal desire to use the least necessary to do the job, then I check them out, weigh their opinions, and then trust them.

As we all should, given the incredibly fast revisions in protocol in this area.

Good thread!

*She now explains the current schools of thought, and that she herself no longer believes that they are necessary for most dogs, and cause too many problems to administer them as a matter of course (as we know has been done for years).

 Quote:

....I check them out, weigh their opinions, and then trust them.
As we all should, given the incredibly fast revisions in protocol in this area.....

I didn't mean we all should trust the opinions I trust <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.........just that we'd all do well to check this subject out for ourselves and not take one vet's word on such a quickly-revising area. Not only do many vets agree with the two-shots and no boosters for Parvo and Distemper -- but many are saying ONE shot, preferably separate if possible, for each, and no more.

There's a ton of info out there. I kept a record of all the sites I read on this topic, so PM me if you want any of the URLs.

My vet wants shots at 6 9 and 12 and 16, I gave the 6 and 12 weeks shots, as I was looking around for inexpensive vaccines (as my vet charges $50, and ultimately I went to a country vet and got the vaccine for $15), one receptionist at a vets office told me that I would have to "catch her up on her shots", and they wanted me to let them administer the shots for 8 weeks, 10 wks, and 12 wks all at once! I've never heard of anything so rediculous, even if they did need that many shots, you can't turn back time what good would 3 shots at once do??? Anyway, most of these vets wanting to give boosters or shots every 2 freaking weeks, are just looking for some extra cash and are not educated enough to think about what that can do to a young pup! We don't give our babies the same vaccines over and over and over and over again...why would we do our puppies that way?

 Quote:

.....a vets office told me that I would have to "catch her up on her shots", and they wanted me to let them administer the shots for 8 weeks, 10 wks, and 12 wks all at once! .....

If I were you, I would call back, make sure I had heard this suggestion correctly from the *vet*, then I would ask what VetMed association the vet was a member of. If no answer was forthcoming, I'd call the Tennessee Veterinary Medical Association.

JMHO.

The only reasoning I'm aware of for giving puppies a course of vaccines is because the antibodies from the dams milk fight the vaccine just as they would fight off any other foreign substance i.e., germs, bacteria, virus. Once the antibodies from the dams milk are no longer a force within a puppys system the vaccine will last. I have waited up to 12 weeks to vaccinate a puppy I was keeping.