Some more musings on vaccinations...

[DennyK]

I'll be really interested to read them - I think others have said it on the other thread I started a few weeks ago about vaccinations: it's really a matter of personal judgment and choice.  I suspect that if Paddy didn't have colitis and had been a robust little lad, I wouldn't have hesitated and he would have been in the majority of dogs that have no problems at all.  Like Penel said - I'm now too worried that vaccs would be a "spanner in the works" when we've got him stable, lively and even lovelier than ever 

Denise

[Penel]

There have been a number of articles published recently that state that there has been a decrease in the uptake of vaccination - when I get back from agility, I'll hunt them out 

That's not what I asked though is it, I asked where you found out Parvo was definitely on the comeback 

[Cob-Web]

There have been a number of articles published recently that state that there has been a decrease in the uptake of vaccination - when I get back from agility, I'll hunt them out 

That's not what I asked though is it, I asked where you found out Parvo was definitely on the comeback 

AH, this is one of the ones I was looking for:
http://www.noah.co.uk/pressrel/2006/2006_08_24.htm

"Dog deaths from parvovirus are on the increase..................................now it seems that the number of dogs vaccinated ............ has dipped to a level where the virus can once more thrive
(NOAH Press Release - Aug 2006)"

I think there were a number of articles in the Dog Press that followed on from this NOAH report.....

[Helen]

There have been a number of articles published recently that state that there has been a decrease in the uptake of vaccination - when I get back from agility, I'll hunt them out 

That's not what I asked though is it, I asked where you found out Parvo was definitely on the comeback 

AH, this is one of the ones I was looking for:
http://www.noah.co.uk/pressrel/2006/2006_08_24.htm

"Dog deaths from parvovirus are on the increase..................................now it seems that the number of dogs vaccinated ............ has dipped to a level where the virus can once more thrive
(NOAH Press Release - Aug 2006)"

I think there were a number of articles in the Dog Press that followed on from this NOAH report.....

forgive me for being cynical....but check the notes at the bottom of the report....note 2.

If it was an independent authority giving me that information i would be more likely to agree with it - given this association is set up to represent companies that research, develop, sell and market 'animal health' products including vaccinations I am sceptical, plus there are no facts and figures to back it up, just a blanket statement.

[GingerLeo]

I've read so many threads with people's opinions on vaccinations that it really begins to make you wonder if your doing the right thing by your dog choosing to vaccinate them or not.
Before i ever got a dog i was under the (naive) assumption that they should be vaccinated and that was that or you would run the risk of them catching some potentially fatal disease . I only knew that there was an alternative when Leo's breeder mentioned how she only gives her dogs their puppy jags then they move on to homeopathic vaccines. She was quite strong in put this alternative forward and put a ton of articles into the puppy pack she gave us with Leo. My vet on the other hand, whom i trust, is very set on giving out yearly boosters and seems to dismiss any other alternative.

I've read for hours on the internet about the pro's and con's for both and i have to say I'm still stumped as to what would be safer in the long run , i hope I'm not the only one.

[Penel]

There have been a number of articles published recently that state that there has been a decrease in the uptake of vaccination - when I get back from agility, I'll hunt them out 

That's not what I asked though is it, I asked where you found out Parvo was definitely on the comeback 

AH, this is one of the ones I was looking for:
http://www.noah.co.uk/pressrel/2006/2006_08_24.htm

"Dog deaths from parvovirus are on the increase..................................now it seems that the number of dogs vaccinated ............ has dipped to a level where the virus can once more thrive
(NOAH Press Release - Aug 2006)"

I think there were a number of articles in the Dog Press that followed on from this NOAH report.....

forgive me for being cynical....but check the notes at the bottom of the report....note 2.

If it was an independent authority giving me that information i would be more likely to agree with it - given this association is set up to represent companies that research, develop, sell and market 'animal health' products including vaccinations I am sceptical, plus there are no facts and figures to back it up, just a blanket statement.

the mere mention of NOAH means its biaised. 

[Cob-Web]

given this association is set up to represent companies that research, develop, sell and market 'animal health' products including vaccinations I am sceptical, plus there are no facts and figures to back it up, just a blanket statement.

the mere mention of NOAH means its biaised. 

Quite true - although one would assume they had at least some evidence to back up such a sweeping statement 

They do have access to research facilities - and are one of the few *organisations* which are taking a scientific approach to this issue (all be it with a bias towards lining the pockets of their members  ) It was research done by a drugs company that led to the marketing and licensing of the "three year" vaccine.....even though that meant the drugs company concerned had to totally change their marketing policy to remain profitable - and imo, that is a step in the right direction

It does seem a shame that there is not a similar alliance of companies that manufacture and market "alternative" veterinary products - this would then put them on an even footing with NOAH, and hopefully, they would invest in research aimed at proving the scientific basis for not vaccinating every year 

[Helen]

given this association is set up to represent companies that research, develop, sell and market 'animal health' products including vaccinations I am sceptical, plus there are no facts and figures to back it up, just a blanket statement.

the mere mention of NOAH means its biaised. 

Quite true - although one would assume they had at least some evidence to back up such a sweeping statement 

They do have access to research facilities - and are one of the few *organisations* which are taking a scientific approach to this issue (all be it with a bias towards lining the pockets of their members  ) It was research done by a drugs company that led to the marketing and licensing of the "three year" vaccine.....even though that meant the drugs company concerned had to totally change their marketing policy to remain profitable - and imo, that is a step in the right direction

It does seem a shame that there is not a similar alliance of companies that manufacture and market "alternative" veterinary products - this would then put them on an even footing with NOAH, and hopefully, they would invest in research aimed at proving the scientific basis for not vaccinating every year 

do you really honestly think that the "alternative' practitioners have anywhere near the money and investment that NOAH has access to to even try and compete for 'press'? 

fraid none of that sits easy with me rachel - unless you can give me evidence that they have a basis for their statements then it's worth nowt to me.

and as for their research, i wonder how much of it is 'influenced' by huge drug manufacturing companies?

I'm actually quite surprised that you think that this is an accurate and truthful piece of press when they are showing no statistics or references  to support their (money laden) research results.

[Cob-Web]

do you really honestly think that the "alternative' practitioners have anywhere near the money and investment that NOAH has access to to even try and compete for 'press'? 

Of course they don't, but what is the answer? All the while the efficacy of alternative treatments and approaches is based on anecdotal, rather than scientific evidence then there are going to be barriers to it becoming more widely adopted by veterinary practitioners.........

and as for their research, i wonder how much of it is 'influenced' by huge drug manufacturing companies? I'm actually quite surprised that you think that this is an accurate and truthful piece of press when they are showing no statistics or references  to support their (money laden) research results.

As a former drug company funded reseacher, I'm not sure I fully agree that research results can be "influenced", although I fully concede that any results that may undermine the stranglehold the drugs company have over the market are unlikely to be ever see the outside of a research lab 
Even if the evidence backing the NOAH press release is flimsy  - the fact that it was released at all suggests that there has been a significant reduction in vaccination uptake. NOAH does, after all, represent the companies that profit from the process, and so would only target vaccination as an issue that needed promoting if profits were dropping 

If the fact that vaccination is on the decline can be assumed from the sheer existence of the NOAH press release, then basic epidemiological principles come into affect; the reproductive number of the infection will increase because fewer dogs have immunity, which increases the risk that an isolated outbreak will not "fizzle out", but instead become endemic, as it was prior to routine vaccination 


At the moment, I am still firmly on top of the fence....there is scientific evidence to support the fact that vaccination can cause complications and illness in dogs, and also evidence that if enough dogs are un-vaccinated then the re-emergence of endemic disease becomes a real possibility..........but very little evidence of any alternatives, as yet

[spanielcrazy]

The thing these studies don't tell you is where and how they get their statistics, i.e; is this from interviewing vets?, shelter statistics? (certainly this is where the most parvo is usually seen as these dogs often come from long lines of unvaccinated dogs, and shelter dogs are on a huge rise)

What is the percentage rates of parvo to dog population? The dog population is exploding, does the study reflect this fact? (In other words, X% of the population gets parvo, up X% from whatever number of years ago?  Or is it holding steady?

Is parvo becoming vaccine resistant?

Studies like that raise more questions in my mind than they answer.

[Penel]

and of course is parvo being caused by vaccination ?  and how was parvo caused in the first place - that's always a good 'un to research 

[Cob-Web]

The dog population is exploding, does the study reflect this fact? (In other words, X% of the population gets parvo, up X% from whatever number of years ago?  Or is it holding steady?

Epidemiology studies focus on a statistic called the reproductive number - which is the number of cases of infection caused by a single case.

For instance, if 10 dogs have parvo, and five new dogs catch it from these 10, then the reproductive number is 0.5. If one dog with parvo gives it to one other dog, then the reproductive number is 1. Obviously, this is simplified, as it is based on larger numbers of effected dogs, but you get the idea 

The closer to 1 the reproductive number gets, the more chance their is of the infection not fizzling out, but becoming endemic, and once it gets close to or above 2, then the words epidemic and pandemic begin to be used