Hello, Helen, let me try to answer your points.
More useful information would be the incidences of Kennel Cough that are strains the vaccine doesn't cover which was my point.
I disagree. The information you need when trying to decide whether you want to vaccinate is the percentage chance of your dog being infected despite the vaccine. That is what I provided. There is no point trying to get technical because it is not relevant and would be more difficult to interpret. The number of strains covered will never be a complete indicator of how effective a vaccine is. In any case, KC is more complex than you indicate.
Antibiotics are ineffectual against Kennel Cough (they do not treat viruses, only bacterial infections)
KC is a multi-factorial disease according to the Merck Manual.
"Bordetella bronchiseptica may act as a primary pathogen, especially in dogs <6 mo old; however, it and other bacteria (usually gram-negative organisms such as Pseudomonas sp, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae) may cause secondary infections after viral injury to the respiratory tract"
Although it can be secondary to viral infection, many other sources identify it primarily a bacterial infection, and the KC vaccination is frequently known as the Bortedella vaccination. Under some circumstances, prescription of antibiotics can be perfectly sensible treatment.
I note your cynicism about drug company data and agree that they have not always behaved with total transparency or, in some cases, honesty. That is regrettable. What I don't see however is why it might then be sensible to reject all of their output as unsafe and instead, put your faith into an anti-vaccination movement that, as far as I can see has never produced any convincing evidence to support their case.
I do not believe you have presented any hard information in support of your argument, and no references to where your information comes from. You have just made assertions that vaccinations are not very safe. It is not possible to construct a compelling argument like that. Human vaccination adverse affects are in the 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 range. (NHS). The VMD says that:
"During the period 2005-2010 (to date), 12.9 million doses of dog vaccines were sold in the UK and 2,392 adverse reactions were reported from the use of authorised dog vaccines. This represents an incidence rate of 18.5 per 100,000 doses (0.0185%).
The majority of these reactions will be relatively minor, and although there are some serious reactions, the risk benefit ratio of vaccinations is overwhelmingly positive. Vaccination is a massive success story for medicine, both in humans and animals. It is so easy to forget the massive reductions in deaths and damaged lives that vaccination has delivered. Perhaps you will let everyone know about the equivalent contribution to mankind from nosodes and other homeopathic “treatments”.
I have never posted information on here in the expectation that the die-hard "alternative medicine" proponents will be either impressed or convinced. This is for the (hopefully) majority of readers who would like to make rational decisions about treating their dogs, and are in danger of being confused by the recommendations for unproven treatments.
I keep mentioning how poor anecdote is as evidence, so let me finish with one of my own. Lurcher Girl explained how she uses nosodes for KC and implies that this is therefore an effective treatment. Dylan was with us for nearly 15 years. He was never vaccinated against KC and never caught the disease. (He was not boarded at kennels). I did not give him nosodes but gave him water to drink every day without fail Does this prove that water is effective against KC? And if not why does Lurcher Girl's story give any confidence that nosodes should be used?
