Administering Vaccinations at home
- Thread starter LilahRoot
- Start date
GO I am very surprised you are a wannabe vet and you don't know who Dr Dodds is? Actually I am more along the lines of shocked...
And no you don't need to be licenced in many cases/states to buy vaccines.
I am a little disappointed that someone working towards becoming a vet knows so little about some of these things. And yet you wonder why some people don't trust vets.. THIS is the exact reason. I just had a debate with a vet on Reddit. At the end (after I had provided peer reviewed proof) she was like "oh well I didn't know that" but for years had been telling clients the opposite. There is no shame in saying "I don't know" There is shame in acting like you do when you don't.
And no you don't need to be licenced in many cases/states to buy vaccines.
I am a little disappointed that someone working towards becoming a vet knows so little about some of these things. And yet you wonder why some people don't trust vets.. THIS is the exact reason. I just had a debate with a vet on Reddit. At the end (after I had provided peer reviewed proof) she was like "oh well I didn't know that" but for years had been telling clients the opposite. There is no shame in saying "I don't know" There is shame in acting like you do when you don't.
Unlike some whom have never taken a class in vet School Jean Dodds is a DVM and has been published, a simple search will show you publications in
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and Clinical techniques in small animal practice. All of which are peer reviewed and I think qualified as being a "respectable journal publishment".
you could also check out her partner in the Rabies challange studies, Ron Schultz, a researcher for longer than you've been alive. and he states that core vaccines other than Rabies have shown 7 years and greater of protection when studied under vaccine challenge.
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and Clinical techniques in small animal practice. All of which are peer reviewed and I think qualified as being a "respectable journal publishment".
you could also check out her partner in the Rabies challange studies, Ron Schultz, a researcher for longer than you've been alive. and he states that core vaccines other than Rabies have shown 7 years and greater of protection when studied under vaccine challenge.
When, exactly, did I say I didn't know who was?
You do though if buying from the original sources (IE not online from the 'diverted product' I was talking about earlier). At least in Texas.
What 'things' do you think I don't know exactly?
Now there we go! There's a respected name in the industry. And again, once you get the USDA to agree to those guidelines...
Fun fact: most vets hate having all the vaccines on their shelves. Most vets hate inventory period. It's not as profitable as services and if they could get rid of it all, they'd be happy. It is NOT the vets who are the 'enemy' here.
You do though if buying from the original sources (IE not online from the 'diverted product' I was talking about earlier). At least in Texas.
What 'things' do you think I don't know exactly?
Now there we go! There's a respected name in the industry. And again, once you get the USDA to agree to those guidelines...
Fun fact: most vets hate having all the vaccines on their shelves. Most vets hate inventory period. It's not as profitable as services and if they could get rid of it all, they'd be happy. It is NOT the vets who are the 'enemy' here.
I give everything except rabies myself, and I don't give the rabies because of the fact a vet has to sign off on it. Back home we would have the vet out for something or another with the horses and had ordered the rabies vaccine and she'd sign off while we did all the dogs (but my mom has like 10 dogs). That's not cost effective for me like it is my mom.
Though with that being said, I don't give it every year either. I gave puppy shots and then the 1 year booster...and then don't do it again, except rabies and only that because it's required by law.
I also get vaccines from the local vet supply store by my house, that supplies to the vet clinic next door to it. So if they provide the vaccines for the vet's office and I can buy the exact same thing - either the vet is getting improperly stored products to begin with and it doesn't matter, or they know what they're doing.
Though with that being said, I don't give it every year either. I gave puppy shots and then the 1 year booster...and then don't do it again, except rabies and only that because it's required by law.
I also get vaccines from the local vet supply store by my house, that supplies to the vet clinic next door to it. So if they provide the vaccines for the vet's office and I can buy the exact same thing - either the vet is getting improperly stored products to begin with and it doesn't matter, or they know what they're doing.
Yet there's a lot of vets (and anyone else who has access to VIN can back me up on this) who've dealt with her and think she's a load of crock. She's prescribed thyroid meds (or rather, asked another vet since she wouldn't prescribe them herself, why not?) without blood work, does diagnosis' based on bloodwork alone (no physical exam). And that directly contradicts her 'holistic' view to boot. So how are we supposed to take her seriously? THAT'S why I don't trust 'what Dr. Dodds says'.
I am aware of who she is. I just don't trust her based on what the vet community has said her practices are. Now, you can give her the status of martyr if you'd like, but I'd be more willing to trust someone like Schultz (who's study isn't concluded yet, not sure where y'all are getting that it is?) who seems to know what they're doing than Dodd who has at least 4 accounts of prescribing thyroid meds (thyroxine specifically) to dogs with levels in the normals.
I am aware of who she is. I just don't trust her based on what the vet community has said her practices are. Now, you can give her the status of martyr if you'd like, but I'd be more willing to trust someone like Schultz (who's study isn't concluded yet, not sure where y'all are getting that it is?) who seems to know what they're doing than Dodd who has at least 4 accounts of prescribing thyroid meds (thyroxine specifically) to dogs with levels in the normals.
GO, read your previous post. You said
10 second google scholar search...
AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 217(7):1021 - Abstract
and there is lots more...
oh and btw Dr Dodds is female..
But acting all high and mighty like you know more than everyone else, when a few seconds of checking could make you look 1/2 as educated as you would like us to believe..
The whole world doesn't live in Tx. Perhaps you should preface all your statemets by 'valid only tx'? I live in Ontario, in another country, NOT planning on being a vet and I seem to know more than you about what is legal and what is not in the US.
I too am a student. But I try really hard to know what is going on in my field. Particularly the movers and the shakers that even the public knows about. I want my clients to have faith in the advice I give them. How much faith would they have if they found out they knew more about the basics of care than I did?
Do you know how common it is for people to pull up the AAHA guidelines to point things out to vets? I have had to do it. Maf has had to do it. Her vet was pissy when she ended up being right that dhpp is now good for 3 year vs 1. If you don't know something be gracious, people are usually ok with people not knowing everything. But to act like you (generic you, not specific you) are the fount of all knowledge and then be pissy when you are proven wrong is not going to bode well for business.
That said I LOVE my vet. They are fantastic. Even when I don't agree with them lol. They don't try to say they know everything. In fact they are very open to looking into new things. They don't get all huffy, if you say something they are unsure of go look it up or ask for the info. They don't try to make the client look stupid or feel bad.
AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 217(7):1021 - Abstract
and there is lots more...
oh and btw Dr Dodds is female..
But acting all high and mighty like you know more than everyone else, when a few seconds of checking could make you look 1/2 as educated as you would like us to believe..
The whole world doesn't live in Tx. Perhaps you should preface all your statemets by 'valid only tx'? I live in Ontario, in another country, NOT planning on being a vet and I seem to know more than you about what is legal and what is not in the US.
I too am a student. But I try really hard to know what is going on in my field. Particularly the movers and the shakers that even the public knows about. I want my clients to have faith in the advice I give them. How much faith would they have if they found out they knew more about the basics of care than I did?
Do you know how common it is for people to pull up the AAHA guidelines to point things out to vets? I have had to do it. Maf has had to do it. Her vet was pissy when she ended up being right that dhpp is now good for 3 year vs 1. If you don't know something be gracious, people are usually ok with people not knowing everything. But to act like you (generic you, not specific you) are the fount of all knowledge and then be pissy when you are proven wrong is not going to bode well for business.
That said I LOVE my vet. They are fantastic. Even when I don't agree with them lol. They don't try to say they know everything. In fact they are very open to looking into new things. They don't get all huffy, if you say something they are unsure of go look it up or ask for the info. They don't try to make the client look stupid or feel bad.
I'm not sure when exactly did I act all 'high and mighty'? I've given my reasons (above) for not believing Dodds. Additionally there's a lot of stuff on 'common' websites that are attributed to Dodds, but not stuff she ever said. For instance:
1 and 2 are from Schultz. 3 is a misquote, and 4 and 5 are flat out wrong (not even soemthing Dodd's said).
For one, I doubt it's 'valid only in tx'. And two: shouldn't that go without saying? Y'all expect me to know the rules for all 50 states and 200ish countries?
1 and 2 are from Schultz. 3 is a misquote, and 4 and 5 are flat out wrong (not even soemthing Dodd's said).
For one, I doubt it's 'valid only in tx'. And two: shouldn't that go without saying? Y'all expect me to know the rules for all 50 states and 200ish countries?
Well you said you were planning on doing acupuncture even though you thought it was a crock.. How seriously do you expect your clients to take you?
you said
this leads us to believe you have no idea who she is...
how are these journals? do these meet your level of 'respectability'?
The American Society of Hematology
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Advances in Veterinary Medicine (formerly known as Advances in Veterinary Science and Comparative Medicine)
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
Journal of Immunoassay and Immunochemistry
British Journal of Haematology
etc
And the interesting thing is that she has been published from the 70's all the way to last year. So for someone discounting her its interesting you didn't do a quick search first.
you said
this leads us to believe you have no idea who she is...
how are these journals? do these meet your level of 'respectability'?
The American Society of Hematology
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Advances in Veterinary Medicine (formerly known as Advances in Veterinary Science and Comparative Medicine)
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications
Journal of Immunoassay and Immunochemistry
British Journal of Haematology
etc
And the interesting thing is that she has been published from the 70's all the way to last year. So for someone discounting her its interesting you didn't do a quick search first.
And, once again for the fifth or so time, I said that it would be a last resort for if 1) all other options failed and 2) if the client absolutely insisted. Why give up the revenue stream? And again: my personal beliefs should have NO bearing on whether the treatment works, so that's a moot point.
They do actually. But again I've given previous reasons for not believing her.
They do actually. But again I've given previous reasons for not believing her.
You said you didn't believe her because she wasn't published. Who cares what people attribute to her. That is one the reasons you are coming across high and mighty... you first say you don't give her credit due to the crap said on non legit sites. Which I totally agree with! But then when people start coming up with peer reviewed journals you back track and still discount...
Exactly what we were talking about..
its not about whether you believe her science. Its about whether you care to learn enough about it to discount it from your own knowledge base.
Exactly what we were talking about..
its not about whether you believe her science. Its about whether you care to learn enough about it to discount it from your own knowledge base.
You're twisting my words. I never once said that she wasn't published any where good, I just asked (or told dependent on how you read it) her to find me the journals.
Based on what I've read/heard from others who've been in the field and know a LOT more than I do have said about her. Again you can label her as a martyr if you'd like but there's a lot I've heard from vets that makes me doubt her integrity. She is a part of the community and vets interact with her all the time (clients ask them to). When talking to her, she comes off as a bit of a crackpot in her diagnosis'. I've already shared some examples..
Based on what I've read/heard from others who've been in the field and know a LOT more than I do have said about her. Again you can label her as a martyr if you'd like but there's a lot I've heard from vets that makes me doubt her integrity. She is a part of the community and vets interact with her all the time (clients ask them to). When talking to her, she comes off as a bit of a crackpot in her diagnosis'. I've already shared some examples..
For the record: I will not be surprised in the least if vaccines go to 7 year or beyond schedules (though lifetime immunity will take several additional years to prove), especially at the conclusion of Schultz's current study which is designed within the USDA guidelines. This is assuming the results support the hypothesis.
However, they'll have to be repeated as well, as to base something on just one study is fallacious. The very nature of science is that it can be repeated. That takes time when you're dealing with years.
However, they'll have to be repeated as well, as to base something on just one study is fallacious. The very nature of science is that it can be repeated. That takes time when you're dealing with years.
sometimes people should learn to stop shoveling when they find themselves in a hole.
You said which tells anyone reading that #1 you thought this Dodds guy was a guy. #2 that this "guy" hasn't been published, therefore you do not care what this "guy" has to say or how people interpret what this "guy" has said. You then implied that nobody would be able to find this Dodds guy's work because there was a conspiracy at work to deny such publications.
Only problem was, this guy is a she, and this woman is a vet, and this woman has been published and this woman has been published for a long time. This woman also has garnered enough respect from some people like a guy i've met and listened to before in Ron Schultz, that he teamed up with her to do some research to further a cause they both find common ground in. he's a guy that's been published for years and in all journals. People doing research today cite his work.
and as an ethical provider I could send somebody to someone for a treatment that I thought may or may not help, to somebody that fully understood and believed in what they were doing. I could not in good faith, go thru the motions of something I thought was a crock, just for the revenue source.
You said which tells anyone reading that #1 you thought this Dodds guy was a guy. #2 that this "guy" hasn't been published, therefore you do not care what this "guy" has to say or how people interpret what this "guy" has said. You then implied that nobody would be able to find this Dodds guy's work because there was a conspiracy at work to deny such publications.
Only problem was, this guy is a she, and this woman is a vet, and this woman has been published and this woman has been published for a long time. This woman also has garnered enough respect from some people like a guy i've met and listened to before in Ron Schultz, that he teamed up with her to do some research to further a cause they both find common ground in. he's a guy that's been published for years and in all journals. People doing research today cite his work.
and as an ethical provider I could send somebody to someone for a treatment that I thought may or may not help, to somebody that fully understood and believed in what they were doing. I could not in good faith, go thru the motions of something I thought was a crock, just for the revenue source.
Sorry that I don't know the sex of every person out there? You can't tell sex when they're referred to as just 'Dr. Dodds'. Even in her journal articles it's just 'Dr. Dodds'.
I told you why I don't care what this 'guy' has to say. Sorry that I didn't include that from the get-go but usually in a discussion/argument/debate you don't put everything that you know about the subject onto the table and then weed through it all; it's a bit of back and forth.
This was a bit of a preemptive strike that failed in this case. That argument has been used several times on this board and other boards in other debates (things like autism and vaccines, for instance). Sometimes you just want to nip problems in the bud instead of wasting two posts having someone go "but..."
And if you go hunt down the post where the whole acupuncture ganking occurred you can see that was my secondary plan. There's a lot of DVMs who provide services they don't support. Ear crops being one of them. Why, you may ask? Because 1) there's been cases where people decided to do at home ear croppings (frightening, I know) when the vet denied, 2) the business will just be taken else where, 3) you lose a future client, 4) there may not BE someone to refer to in the area, and so on.
I told you why I don't care what this 'guy' has to say. Sorry that I didn't include that from the get-go but usually in a discussion/argument/debate you don't put everything that you know about the subject onto the table and then weed through it all; it's a bit of back and forth.
This was a bit of a preemptive strike that failed in this case. That argument has been used several times on this board and other boards in other debates (things like autism and vaccines, for instance). Sometimes you just want to nip problems in the bud instead of wasting two posts having someone go "but..."
And if you go hunt down the post where the whole acupuncture ganking occurred you can see that was my secondary plan. There's a lot of DVMs who provide services they don't support. Ear crops being one of them. Why, you may ask? Because 1) there's been cases where people decided to do at home ear croppings (frightening, I know) when the vet denied, 2) the business will just be taken else where, 3) you lose a future client, 4) there may not BE someone to refer to in the area, and so on.