[107barney]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I agree, 80% does seem like it's not good enough, plus the study only included 5 dogs, so this percentage could very well be off. Challenge studies are very difficult to do, because you have to follow a large number of dogs for a long period of time, and then expose them to rabies, which could result in death. But until they develop alternatives that are proven to be as good as challenge studies, challenge studies are the way to go in proving immunity. Nine years is definitely too long to go without a rabies vaccination, and seven years doesn't look that great. Maybe they will eventually settle on a shorter time like five years, but they need to collect more data first. Basically, they need to come up with a length of time where the risk of catching rabies is less than the risk of adverse effects from vaccination, and balance that with the risk to humans and other animals of having a dog with rabies running around. They thought they could get around doing challenge studies by measuring antibody titers, but as Wylie's Mom points out, titers don't tell the whole story--hence the existence of animals with high titers that are not immune to rabies. I've been blessed that Bella does not have a bad reaction to rabies vaccine, so for now, we're content to have her vaccinated every three years.

I'm totally with you and Ann on titers. We do rabies every three years also. It seems stupid when they're getting old but mine are pushing 16 and vaccines haven't killed them yet. I do wish my state had a tight medical exemption for dogs with immune mediated diseases where the rabies vaccine is truly contraindicated. They voted to do it, then it never made it. For now, I'm ok with three years. In my state if you are one day overdo on 3year paperwork, you have to vaccinate and then again in 1 year. So basically it's not worth missing it.