Administering Vaccinations at home

[elegy]

maybe i'm spoiled but i just cannot fathom a pet coming in for a yearly visit/vaccines and not being thoroughly examined. how on earth are you going to know what's going on with the pet and chart changes over the years? so many things are so much more easily and better treated if caught early (heart issues for example).

but i have to say, even when i was in college and taking my cats to the banfield vaccine clinic where all you paid for were the vaccines, they got thorough exams. overvaccinated also, but thorough exams.

 

[GlassOnion]

lol how can you know that? You didn't even know she was published... let alone dozens of times in highly respected journals? There is NO WAY you have read one single article...

I'm not sure exactly what y'all want? It seems to me that y'all are arguing that vaccines can be good for longer. I don't think I've denied that. In fact, I know for certain that I agreed on that count earlier in the subject. I disagree with Dodd's, I agree with Schultz. They're saying essentially the same thing, but Schultz does things right. Dodds prescribes and does diagnosis' without ever seeing the dog. She's been known to be one of the 'no exam' people ya'll are complaining about. So yah, I don't like her and if her ethics slip in that area, why should I not hold the rest in suspect?

Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that vets are legally obligated to follow certain rules set forth by the USDA and the state agricultural boards that dictate how long the animals can go without a vaccination. They HAVE to follow those guidelines or risk their license. If I have to put my future license in jeopardy just to be y'alls definition of a 'good vet', then I'm sorry, that's not going to happen.

There are some asinine rules, no doubt. One, in NY I believe, says that if you're on the 3 year rabies vax and get vaccinated even one day late, the new vax has to be a 1 year vax and then you start over again on teh schedule. There is nothing a vet can do about that except fudge paperwork, and that's not ethical nor legal.

And with the dog food the main issue is that there is no one not connected to the manufacture of the big name brands. BUT that doesn't mean one shouldn't' be aware of all the articles. Medical science is held to higher standards than dog nutrition...

Erm....dog nutrition IS medical science though. It impacts it greatly. There's whole fields and specialties dedicated to animal nutrition.

maybe i'm spoiled but i just cannot fathom a pet coming in for a yearly visit/vaccines and not being thoroughly examined. how on earth are you going to know what's going on with the pet and chart changes over the years? so many things are so much more easily and better treated if caught early (heart issues for example).

No, you're not spoiled, that's the way it's supposed to be done. If you're not getting your money's worth either complain, or walk. You can also report the vet to the BBB and the state licensing board. A lot of people think that that results in naught but there's a lot of discussion on VIN of vets being brought up on such and similar charges (IE only offering the 'high end' package, not giving options, not referring, etc) so something is obviously done.

 

[corgipower]

The fact of the matter is that vets are legally obligated to follow certain rules set forth by the USDA and the state agricultural boards the dictate how long the animals can go without a vaccination. They HAVE to follow those guidelines or risk their license. If I have to put my future license in jeopardy just to be y'alls definition of a 'good vet', then I'm sorry, that's not going to happen.

Then how come there are so many vets willing to go longer than three years? Not only willing, but suggesting it.

I have two dogs who haven't been vaccinated in nine years each (except rabies). I have yet to be told that I need to vaccinate them.

I seriously doubt THAT many vets are risking their license. The only REQUIRED vaccine is rabies. And whether or not to do that one at home - the original topic of discussion - is a moot point, because legally it must be done by a vet.

 

[Dekka]

I'm not sure exactly what y'all want? It seems to me that y'all are arguing that vaccines can be good for longer. I don't think I've denied that. In fact, I know for certain that I agreed on that count earlier in the subject.

I have NEVER in this conversation been talking about vaccines.. I have been talking about YOU having made up your mind with out most of the information. The point of this current convo was people forming opinions based on heresay

The fact of the matter is that vets are legally obligated to follow certain rules set forth by the USDA and the state agricultural boards that dictate how long the animals can go without a vaccination. They HAVE to follow those guidelines or risk their license. If I have to put my future license in jeopardy just to be y'alls definition of a 'good vet', then I'm sorry, that's not going to happen.

Yep we all know that and all agree. Can't say there is much argument here. Other than vets here who try to force people into yearly vaccs for things like rabies when legally every 3 is just fine. But a vet can't 'make you' vacc your pet. They can only recommend.

There are some asinine rules, no doubt. One, in NY I believe, says that if you're on the 3 year rabies vax and get vaccinated even one day late, the new vax has to be a 1 year vax and then you start over again on teh schedule. There is nothing a vet can do about that except fudge paperwork, and that's not ethical nor legal.

Same here. So you just pay attention and if you forget you go back to once a year. No one really has argued or cared about that in this thread. Heck my vets do the same and I am fine with it.

Erm....dog nutrition IS medical science though. It impacts it greatly. There's whole fields and specialties dedicated to animal nutrition.

They get away with a lot less rigorous testing to put out a dog food than they do a new drug. Once again please at least google before you try to tell other people they are wrong. There are much more strict guidelines for medicines than there is for even human food...

 

[GlassOnion]

Then how come there are so many vets willing to go longer than three years? Not only willing, but suggesting it.

I have two dogs who haven't been vaccinated in nine years each (except rabies). I have yet to be told that I need to vaccinate them.

Surely you do titers though? Titers are reasonable substitutes for the actual vaccine. If you don't, how do you know your dog has the appropriate response levels present in the long run?

I seriously doubt THAT many vets are risking their license. The only REQUIRED vaccine is rabies. And whether or not to do that one at home - the original topic of discussion - is a moot point, because legally it must be done by a vet.

Rabies is what I'm talking about. And yes, it's the only required vaccine but there's a lot that are secondarily required. By that I mean we get clients coming in with requests for us to sign off on boarding slips, pet day care slips, show slips, etc. Bills of health essentially. We go "hey we haven't seen your dog in 4 years" "Oh it's no problem, <X> on the internet says that we can go for 8, 10, lifetime without more vax" "Well will they accept titers? Ok do you want to do one? No? Well we're not going to sign off on your form then" "Oh my god you're such a terrible vet!"

If we signed on that form, and that dog transmitted something in their new location, we ARE held liable for that. I don't see why that's hard to understand?

I have NEVER in this conversation been talking about vaccines.. I have been talking about YOU having made up your mind with out most of the information. The point of this current convo was people forming opinions based on heresay

The whole discussion is about vaccines!

They get away with a lot less rigorous testing to put out a dog food than they do a new drug. Once again please at least google before you try to tell other people they are wrong. There are much more strict guidelines for medicines than there is for even human food...

And I said there wasn't? I said that nutrition IS medical science. I think the problem here, and this is with NO offense intended, is you have set in your mind things you want to discuss and are twisting my words when they don't jive with that. All I said is that nutrition IS a medical field, because it kind of sounded like you were saying it wasn't.

All you have to do for nutrition is prove that it keeps the dog alive. That's it. that's why we have **** like Ol' Roy and Pedigree.

 

[Dekka]

No saying nutition is medical science is like saying all things about any living mammal is medical science. Its related but not the same...

No I was fine till you started saying that you doubted Dr Dodds was ever published. Personally I don't care whether you believe her stuff on vaccines or not. I do care if someone planning on being a vet can't find the dozens of journal articles she has published... Or that someone who will be entrusted with the care of people's beloved pets is so willing to let others think for themselves.

I can totally respect someone who has different opinions than me. As long as they have reasons and can explain it and back it up. So far your backing up of your beliefs sound more like faith than science. THAT is what concerns me.

 

[GlassOnion]

How is it faith? I've given you my reasons as to why I discredit her. Why would I even begin to search for journal articles from someone I don't think is ethical?

Y'all (general y'all) seem to put so much value on ethics and not paying attention to people y'all don't think are ethical (see the acupuncture discussion) but hold me to a different standard. Why?

 

[bubbatd]

I looked into home shots years ago and found that some companies sell the almost expired vaccines the vets returned . I've given both dog and horse shots with vaccines given me from the vets . I'd rather be safe than sorry . Luckily I've had 2 great clinics in the past 50 years and their once a year checkups are very complete .

 

[Dekka]

How is it faith? I've given you my reasons as to why I discredit her. Why would I even begin to search for journal articles from someone I don't think is ethical?

Y'all (general y'all) seem to put so much value on ethics and not paying attention to people y'all don't think are ethical (see the acupuncture discussion) but hold me to a different standard. Why?

I don't. You posted one thing which you said pointed to her ethics. (not saying yay or nay as I have not had the time to look into it) But some of the medicine we use today is due to break throughs nazi scientists made using VERY unethical methods. Facts don't care about ethics. Something can be true or false.

You openly stated you would do something for a patient that you don't believe in just cause you are ok with making money off a last ditch effort by someone for their pet. (also setting yourself up to have not so great results, just like any treatment, it works best if you don't wait till the condition is really advanced)

You also stated that you didn't think this person was published. And that you would think of listening if they were... You didn't say they are unethical from the start...

Her ethics have nothing to do with this conversation really. It was about you going back on what you said. Its about people (in general) letting others do the thinking (I don't care if its one or ten) IMO one of the most important things a person can do is learn to think critically. I don't care if she was horribly unethical (ok well I do care if people are unethical, but its not relevant to this point), but if her experiments produce robust reliable results then they shouldn't be discounted just cause people aren't a fan of the results.

 

[Grab]

After we had a rash of pups come down with parvo in the area last year when their owners self-vaccinated with vaccines bought at a local feed store (I am assuming the vaccines were not stored properly) I would not vaccinate myself with vaccines bought locally where I didn't know how they were stored. All it takes is one person leaving the shipment out too long before storing it, and they're no longer effective.

This is not to say that people cannot vaccinate at home, I'd just suggest making sure you order them yourself or get them from a trusted source.

I work at a vet, so it's cheaper for me to have them done there rather than buying the vaccine elsewhere, so that's what I do. I vaccinate the pups through their series, booster at a year, then titer every three years. (except rabies, which is legally required..I do that every 3 years)

 

[Pam111]

maybe i'm spoiled but i just cannot fathom a pet coming in for a yearly visit/vaccines and not being thoroughly examined. how on earth are you going to know what's going on with the pet and chart changes over the years? so many things are so much more easily and better treated if caught early (heart issues for example).

but i have to say, even when i was in college and taking my cats to the banfield vaccine clinic where all you paid for were the vaccines, they got thorough exams. overvaccinated also, but thorough exams.

I used Banfield a couple times for shots and to get heart worm tests and meds. They did want to give more vaccines than were necessary, but I was actually happy with the exam they gave, too. It was pretty detailed and I was happier with them than the 120 dollar puppy shot visit I had with Mason.

 

[LilahRoot]

Seriously?

WOW I guess I'm VERY lucky to have the vet we have. when we go in for our yearly (and YES... vaccinations) she is very thorough. She gets right down on the floor with my dogs. checks their teeth and ears. listens to their heart and breathing. feels around the stomach and nether regions to make sure everything is good there and basically puts her hands over every inch of my dogs to make sure there isn't something there that isn't supposed to be there.

she's WONDERFUL. and not only is she thorough but you can tell she really likes dogs because she also spends a couple minutes just petting them and talking to them and giving them scratches behind the ears or belly rubs.

why would anyone go to a vet that doesn't actually LOOK at your dog.

No vets aren't over rated... you jsut have a bad one I suppose

If i thought I could handle administering a vaccine to my dogs on my own I might consider it. but I know I am definitely NOT cut out for that lol

Yes, seriously.

I go to this vet because it is the best one that I have found so far. We haven't been in this area very long, and we've already been to three different vets.

Back in pa I was more than happy with my vet. They were even great with my rats.

I guess I'll look into Banfield or another vet for now.

 

[LilahRoot]

Find me this Dodds guy in a respectable journal publishment and not Dr. Google and I'll be more inclined to listen. Anyone can put something on the internet, not everyone can get something published, in a legit journal at least. <insert "no way such an edgy scientist will get published in today's scientific world" conspiracy theory here>

And again, I do not doubt that vaccinations last longer than a year, or three years even, hell, I know they do. But we can only use what the USDA allows us to use, and that's what's been done in studies. Study's that ARE funded by vaccine companies. They have a vested interest in proving their product works to some degree, they're required to, as much as you might like to think they can just slap any old product on the market.



And in California, Colorado, and Kansas IIRC this is not the case.

Edit: Nevermind, the California case got overturned, which, believe it or not, is a good thing. Vets often have to work within people's budgets and can't give the so-called 'Cadillac Package' every time, so it really is innane to be able to sue for emotional damages when it could've been prevented by running pre-op bloodwork, that was declined due to expense, before the surgery.



Vet scare talk? Really? Sigh....I'm not even going to debate with you any more, this is ridiculous.



You have to be licensed to buy vaccines. What happens is the vaccines/products on 'grey area' websites are 'diverted product', meaning that the website contacts a vet, the vet sells the website the product they ordered, and then the website sells it online. This is illegal and the vet, if rooted out, can lose her license. Very much a grey area.



And yet we've had it happen three times. Owner comes in "I don't know what's wrong, he's lost feeling in that leg after we gave him a vaccination at home!" "How'd you do it?" "We just stuck it in, that's what y'all do right?"




You need to find a better vet then.



Shoot the vets I worked under for the bulk of my experience weren't AAHA accredited and they did exams on every patient that came in that door. She just has a crappy vet. But likely they wouldn't be happy with an AAHA vet either because those are inherently more expensive.

WTH is your problem? Your attitude right here is a good example of why I would rather do them myself. It isn't the expense at all. It is the quality that I am getting for the expense. I could do a much better job for far less money at home. Why not?

Now you're starting to tick me off.

 

[GlassOnion]

Well you didn't want to go to the vet because it was expensive, did I misunderstand that? AAHA vets are, for the most part, more expensive, so I didn't really see that solving the problem. It was just a statement, sorry if you took offense.

You openly stated you would do something for a patient that you don't believe in just cause you are ok with making money off a last ditch effort by someone for their pet. (also setting yourself up to have not so great results, just like any treatment, it works best if you don't wait till the condition is really advanced)

There's a difference in letting a disease progress vs treating it and failing to get results. I'd try to treat it with Western medicine, if that failed, I'd try or suggest Eastern or refer them to a specialist in either discipline, dependent on circumstances.

Her ethics have nothing to do with this conversation really. It was about you going back on what you said. Its about people (in general) letting others do the thinking (I don't care if its one or ten) IMO one of the most important things a person can do is learn to think critically. I don't care if she was horribly unethical (ok well I do care if people are unethical, but its not relevant to this point), but if her experiments produce robust reliable results then they shouldn't be discounted just cause people aren't a fan of the results.

They have everything to do with the conversation. Y'all are wondering why I don't trust her, I told you. And I'm not as convinced as you are that the ends justify the means.

 

[Dekka]

LOL you are too funny GO, and very good at ignoring what you previously said...

 

[AGonzalez]

Yep, I agree with Dekka. I can not trust someones ethics that I know absolutely nothing about other than hearsay...way to paint with a broad brush GO.

 

[GlassOnion]

So what do you do about people that you can't, for the most part, meet? Say, politicians? Do you hunt them down to talk to them or form an opinion based on what you read and they do?

LOL you are too funny GO, and very good at ignoring what you previously said...

What am I ignoring?

 

[AGonzalez]

I'm not getting into politics as compared to medical treatment and affairs, it's a crap shoot with politicians doing as they say they will, but medicine is a whole separate ball game. But, that being said, yes I vote for politicians that state the same views as I do, after READING what they have to say in things that are published, not just going on something my neighbor said they don't agree with.

 

[GlassOnion]

And as part of any debate, the vets do include their sources (her, in other words), so yes, I've read her stuff, indirectly at the least. Now granted it may be taken out of context (though usually it's pointed out if it is), but it's not like I'm believing people who are just going "Oh yah, she prescribes without seeing the dog and...oh right! Murders babies too."

To preempt again: I'd include mine but it's against the TOS. The vets pay good money for a place just for vets and I'm not going to risk my membership (to a very valuable database) just to prove I'm right to a buncha folks I don't know. And the RL stuff, well, can't really quote that...

 

[release the hounds]

LOL you are too funny GO, and very good at ignoring what you previously said...

yes he is.