Hey, people are catching on.

Yes, that is my whole argument is genetics.

If we have the same vaccine given, to a litter, why would only one or 5 out of 10 react. The only variable is human error. The site it went in, the exact amount of the vaccine, so forth.

I think all health problems come down to genetics. In some way or another. Do the vaccines add to this...hmm, interesting theory. Is it possible by not vaccinating we are breeding weaker immuned dogs? Lets explore this. Lets use the 1 1/2 year old Dane. If he had never been vaccinated, and was bred. Would he be passing on a genetic deficiency? Did the vaccine allow us to see this. And thus get an interesting version of natural selection.

I don't know...but makes for an interesting arguement, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Todd E. Gaster:
If we have the same vaccine given, to a litter, why would only one or 5 out of 10 react. The only variable is human error. The site it went in, the exact amount of the vaccine, so forth. So is it human error or genetics? Thats what I am confused about in regards ot your argument- Are you saying that the human factor, site given, amount given, has no effect and that no matter what the human factor is the resulting problems were the product of a genetic deficiency int he dog?


I think all health problems come down to genetics. In some way or another. Do the vaccines add to this...hmm, interesting theory. Is it possible by not vaccinating we are breeding weaker immuned dogs? Lets explore this. Lets use the 1 1/2 year old Dane. If he had never been vaccinated, and was bred. Would he be passing on a genetic deficiency? Did the vaccine allow us to see this. And thus get an interesting version of natural selection.

I don't know...but makes for an interesting arguement, doesn't it? As for the breeding question I dont think that you can say vaccinating or not vaccinating will create healthier animals. Vaccines dont alter the gentics of a dog, they dont change the DNA- if that were the case we would not need vaccines because our parents were vaccinated- it does not transfer that way- via colostrum and milk, maybe- but not on a DNA level.

Have a great weekend everyone!!Sorry about the bolding of my first part fo this post- I could not figure out how to turn it off.

See look at this...we got the arguement away from the vaccine...that wasn't too hard was it?

No the vaccine doesn't change the DNA. That is not what I am saying. My question is back to the Dane.

The Dane was perfectly healthy. As far as we knew. He died after the vaccine. (Still don't know if that was the cause or not).

Now, for the sake of argument say he was not vaccinated. He was later bred. Would he be passing on a genetic deficiency? Thereby weakening the breed.

I think it would be interesting to study the genetic corelation to the vaccine debate. Have we as humans begun screwing it up again? You know we always have to step in and make it 'better'

Lets go around this debate...we over vaccinated so the dogs immune system never had to fight anything...then we take those dogs with weaker immune systems don't vaccinate and then breed them. What do we get?

Ok, I have an hour at work before I have to be productive again, so back at it. Todd, I may disagree with the genetic premiss just a bit. I would lean more to a genetic problem if more dogs in the litter had problems with similar vaccines. It could be a limited problem with one dog that is genetic and the not the rest, but by statistics I would be more inclined to buy into a problem with the vaccine.

There are vaccine reactions of different types for every vaccine there is. Soome are very mild, some profound. Part of the theory behind vaccination is the "greater good" for the population susceptable to a disease. With most vaccines the complication rate is less than 1%. Now if you or your animal are the 1%, it is bad for you, but great for the other 99%.

As a hypothetical lets look at a disease. If you have a 1,000,000 dogs and unvaccinated 10% will get the disease. That would be 100,000 dogs with the disease. If 25 % die from the disease (25,000) and 50% (50,000) are left with a permenant disability as a result of the disease and 25% (25,000) recover with no problems. That means that 75,000 of the dogs will be severly affected out of the 1,000,000. If the dogs are vaccinated and a full 1% have profound reactions that would be 10,000 dogs. By leaving your dog unvaccinated there is a 7.5 times greater probability that any one dog would be severely affected by not vaccinating.

These probablities vary based on the relative exposure the dog has to getting the disease. You may be lucky and never come in contact with the disease. You may not. But everybody gets to make their own choice as to what they feel is riskier.

There are 2 types of data that have value in this type of discussion. One is anectdotal. Stories told by Vets and Owners based on their experience. These stories shouldn't be discounted. They form the basis to suggest increased research is indicated. The other type of data is controled research where the variables can be limited. Over the long haul this type of data is more reliable. It isn't based on memory, it takes in to account most of the variables, and limits the difference in control animals and test animals to the thing being studied. Now a true cause and effect can be studied. Over the long haul this will be better information.

Every book and web site I have ever looked at that recomend against vaccination rely totaly on anecdotal data. 50-100 dogs over a period of years in comparison to millions of dogs and cats vaccinated annually. This data could be 100% correct, and caused by the suggested cause. But is it worth a much greater risk of the disease? For me no, for you yes.

The other problem with this argument I have is the assumption that most Vets are KNOWINGLY selling a bill of goods to make money. Are the majority attempting to do this, or are they making the best recomendations based on available data? My feeling is that for most Vets it is the later. Just as with a MD there is no requirement that you follow their advise, they may decide not to treat based on your descision, but you don't have to follow their recomendation.

It comes down to an area that we have to agree to disagree.

Unless I see some foul language and blood, I'm gonna close this thread. We were so close there. . .

Quite the Moderator, aren't I. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I vote this "Thread of the Month". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Its a bitch to agree or disagree with any one premise. Nice job guys and gals.

Hey don't close this before I get out my load of crap!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Many folks have decided to take responsibility for the health of their dogs through the use of proper diet in lieu of vacs etc.. It would be a lot easier to simply put your complete faith/trust in the doctor like so many people do. The problem I have with these quacks, with all of their "formal training", is that very few are qualified to instruct you in exactly what a proper diet is, how important it is, and what it can do for you. Instead we are a society of McDonalds and Twinkies, Penicillin and Chemo. All have been aproved and tested by people who are supposed to have a clue, folks we are supposed to trust. The standard american diet however, is akin to feeding your dog the worst kibble you can find. But *don't worry* these real smart guys tested it, and no proof has been found bla bla bla. Aparently, they're too busy figuring out what drugs to sell you when you get sick, instead of filling you in on how to avoid getting sick in the first place, unless that involves selling more drugs in the form of vacs. In fact, most of them don't even know what the word Trophology means, and their idea of a "balanced diet" is no doubt (in my mind) what leads to most health problems in the first place. I believe that there IS a sort of conspiracy driven by food and drug manufacturers that have the forces that be "in their pockets". If you don't see this around you then how nice it must be to live in your little cocoon of denial. Here's to the folks who have open eyes and come to their own conclusions, because it would be much easier to just follow the rest of the lambs to the slaughter.

Jason,

I'll tell you what, don't call me names and I won't call you names.

If you chose to feed whatever I don't care. If you think that information gained from Aunt Fannies Mother in law is better than controled studies you are perfectly free to do so.

Don't question my Vets integrity nor my ability to maintain a healthy animal based on your decisions. Go back and look at the ages of my dogs and then come back and tell me I haven't done just fine with them feeding and vaccinating the way I do. I don't and haven't called people names based on the descions they make that I disagree with.

The only sure fire way to be wrong in these types of matters is to attempt to deal in absolutes. The world isn't that black and white. If it were this would be no problem.

Van Camp

Is that more like what you had in mind?

I think the odd thing is that when you ask for facts, and articles from peer reviewed journals people get defensive and angry. Seems odd to me. Why not give people the facts - that would shut them up?

And also that those who think all vaccines are bad, assume those that are looking for facts disagree and happily use every vaccine on the market. I vaccinate 2 of my dogs against rabies, and that's it. My other 2 have health problems (1 has EPI and one is a frail senior), and they get no vaccines.

Parvo is a killer and wipes out adult dogs in shelters, regularly. Distemper is also awful, and if they survive can be brain damaged.

I wonder how much the greed argument works when there are all kinds of books and anti-vaccine remedies and homeopathic vets (who even charge for phone calls when they have never even seen the dog or run any tests, and are going solely on the owner's observations which often are off the mark or missing pertinent details), more than happy to sell you stuff instead of vaccines. The money argument doesn't wash with me. And doctors of course always get pulled into the fray and accusations they are making money off drugs, tests, vaccines, chemo, etc. Where I live healthcare is free, and most doctors give diet advice, so I don't believe vets and docs are in it solely for the money, any more than any other profession.

Genetics can be an important cause of reacting badly to vaccines (apart from the bad vaccine). There is the whole new discipline of pharmacogenomics coming up. Essentially, it means that medicines need to be optimized for each individual. Currently this is not so. e.g. the dose of antibiotics mg/kg body weight is the same for all humans. In the future, pharmacogeomics will explain why someone reacts to a vaccine and some dont. It all comes down to genes.