Over 99% of Vaccine Reactions go Unreported

[mimimomo]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

I understand......I was just clarifying my view a bit more in detail. Some people seem to think it was a no vaccine stance I had but it had more to do with fewer to get the job done.

I'm sorry mimimomo, for your thread getting hijacked......I do agree that we need to do a better job at reporting, good article addressing this issue. Thanks for posting it. I lets people know they have the option to report a reaction themselves so it's a least on record somewhere.

I so agree w/you there & knew that's what you were stressing. No probs.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

I understand......I was just clarifying my view a bit more in detail. Some people seem to think it was a no vaccine stance I had but it had more to do with fewer to get the job done.

I'm sorry mimimomo, for your thread getting hijacked......I do agree that we need to do a better job at reporting, good article addressing this issue. Thanks for posting it. I lets people know they have the option to report a reaction themselves so it's a least on record somewhere.

I didn't see any place where you implied a 'no vaccine' stance at all. I just read it as concerns over unreported reactions, which is a very important issue really.

[gemy]

Yes and that concerns me. The under-reported adverse re-actions.

I never knew that there was not an independent reporting body that accumulated from the vets adverse re-actions to vaccines. It is really quite a bit of madness to report to the vaccine manufacturer, who is not obligated by law to report to an overseeing government body.

That has to change!

So I do believe in vaccines, but not over vaccinating. Also I believe in research. I believe in free accumulating of data to independent bodies.

Without accurate and complete reporting, how can the veterinary medical field make informed decisions and advice?

[jp4m2]

Originally Posted by gemy

Yes and that concerns me. The under-reported adverse re-actions.

I never knew that there was not an independent reporting body that accumulated from the vets adverse re-actions to vaccines. It is really quite a bit of madness to report to the vaccine manufacturer, who is not obligated by law to report to an overseeing government body.

That has to change!

So I do believe in vaccines, but not over vaccinating. Also I believe in research. I believe in free accumulating of data to independent bodies.

Without accurate and complete reporting, how can the veterinary medical field make informed decisions and advice?

I don't know how this can be changed into to make it a law but I'm in total agreement this has to change. This is just one study about the actual cases of adverse reactions:

In 2008 The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a report just on the rabies vaccine in its April 1, 2008 about the underreporting of vaccine reactions. Titled
"Postmarketing Surveillance of Rabies Vaccines for Dogs to Evaluate
Safety and Efficacy."

Between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2007, the Center for Veterinary Biologics, "nearly 10,000 adverse event reports (all animal species) were received by manufacturers of rabies vaccines.... ......Approximately 65% of the manufacturer' s reports, involved dogs."

In light of the 10,000 adverse reactions to the rabies vaccine in the JAVMA report, 65% of which were in dogs, the estimated 1% reporting of "serious" events by the former head of the FDA means that the
actual number of dogs that had adverse reactions to the vaccine would be more like 650,000!

When you see these numbers from just one vaccine I don't see how reactions can be looked at as "rare", I consider this is a serious problem with real reason to be concerned. For one thing every vet is supposed to inform the client of all risks before any pharmaceuticals are administered. I really wonder how many pet owners are given this info beforehand??

[ladyjane]

You know, I get all of you, I really do; but if you realized where your language sends people you might be a tad bit more informative in your posts. I consider myself fairly intelligent and some of your posts do come off as being anti vaccine, anti heartworm, anti dog food, etc. They don't read along the lines that say "we've come a long way baby" but could do more, which is the way I see veterinary medicine with regards to vaccines.

We ALL know there are risks to vaccines and medications in both humans and domestic animals.

My point is that while you all are going on about the vaccines, you are not even acknowledging the fact that this topic IS being addressed and we have come a long way.

When I hear the word "reaction" with regards to a vaccine it comes to my mind that many people automatically think it is a dreadful event. That is just not so....a rise in body temperature and a swelling at the injection site is considered a reaction. I am NOT trying to minimize the seriousness of vaccines; but I just think you all are kind of beating a dead horse at the expense of pups who belong to people who don't understand that AAHA has been addressing the problems with over-vaccination. This is an ongoing thing...I honestly think that it would be much more helpful to have threads that said this rather than to make it sound as if no one is listening or caring.

Here is a link to the AAHA vaccine guidelines as revised in 2011:

https://www.aahanet.org/Library/CanineVaccine.aspx

[jp4m2]

I don't see why we should not be discussing the issue of over -vaccination. We are always told as pet owners we need to be our pets advocate because they can't speak for themselves. The issues surrounding vaccination and over vaccination is the one issue will have to encounter over and over during our pets lives. So, this issue needs to be discussed at great length so the pet owners can get a greater understanding as to the risks versus benefits of that decision. The obvious conclusion is that pet owners who are concerned about the long term health of their companion animals must take it upon themselves to research vaccines, duration of immunity and vaccine dangers. At the very least, question every vaccine that goes into your animal. Just because some people may run in the other direction out of fear and misunderstanding does not mean that we pet owners should stop discussing this issue.

When we as the pet owner have to educate the professionals there is very little left in the area of trust when they have not earned it. Both the AAHA and the AVMA must do more than they have in their area of pet care. The science has been out for over 25 years yet they only started changing their vaccine schedule in 2003, even then it was not enough when the science proves the DOI is at least 7 years and up to the life of the animal:

The duration of immunity for Rabies vaccine, Canine distemper vaccine, Canine Parvovirus vaccine, Feline Panleukopenia vaccine, Feline Rhinotracheitis, feline Calicivirus, have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of 7 years by serology [blood antibody testing] for rabies and challenge [exposure] studies for all others.

Some veterinarians are regular readers of veterinary journals and attend the seminars of top experts. They’re always up to date on the latest scientific findings regarding vaccination. Others, not so much. So, we can't always direct the pet owner to speak to their vet about overvaccination when some of them are not keeping up on the changing science and are still recommending annuals. There should be no vets doing annuals, but that is not the case.

It is up to us to be educated consumers, to know what we are buying, to know what is needful, and to know what is non-essential to us. Many vets have admitted to Dr. Schultz that they don't care what the pet organizations say they will only change their vaccine protocol when they are forced to. This is a dreadful attitude for our pets. If you are fortunate to have a vet who is changing the way they practice as the science changes then good for you, but not all of us are as fortunate. If the vet refuses to change the way he administers vaccines then this is more reason why we need to educate ourselves and not rely on someone else looking out for our best interests.

[ladyjane]

You totally missed my point. I have always recommended that people speak with their vets about the AAHA protocols and that IF their vets are not following them, they may want to look elsewhere. Let us not forget that many people go to the cheapest vets they can find and that often means vets who are so out of date and not doing any continuing education. It is another reason I recommend AAHA accredited vets.

IMHO to start threads with a topic that is alarming will only do harm. Mind you, that is MY opinion. I know a lot of pet owners and I see a lot on here who are so terrified of vaccinating that they go the opposite way instead of middle of the road. That is so very sad for their pups. One exposure could be the pup's last....parvo and distemper KILL. That is a fact.

I am all about education, but NOT about fear mongering and whether you choose to believe that some of your statements could instill fear or not, is totally up to you. I feel it is something worth my mentioning since it directly affects those who cannot speak.

You keep mentioning Dr. Schultz....he does titers on his dogs but he is a vet. How much do you think he pays for them? The same as the general population of pet owners? I think not. Even if he did, his income is higher than most. Titers are not cheap. Vaccines are and the AAHA has recognized his work and revised their standards. It is hard enough for vets to get people to bring their pets in for exams and vaccines because of money...can you imagine asking them to pay for titers? Those of us who spend top dollar for quality care for our pets come far and few between. I am always astounded when my vet says what a wonderful pet owner I am when I do something like cook for a sick pup or something else very simple...how sad that she finds me to be an anomaly.

Maybe things are not moving quickly enough for you but Rome was not built in a day. I personally don't believe that adverse reactions are at the numbers that some think they are. I have been a pet owner for many many years and a foster parent to more than I can count off hand and I have never had an anaphylactic type event. Not wishing it on my pups, but just saying....and every single one of them was vaccinated as recommended. In the early years definitely more than they probably should have been, BUT they lived to a ripe old age.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

I don't see why we should not be discussing the issue of over -vaccination. We are always told as pet owners we need to be our pets advocate because they can't speak for themselves. The issues surrounding vaccination and over vaccination is the one issue will have to encounter over and over during our pets lives. So, this issue needs to be discussed at great length so the pet owners can get a greater understanding as to the risks versus benefits of that decision. The obvious conclusion is that pet owners who are concerned about the long term health of their companion animals must take it upon themselves to research vaccines, duration of immunity and vaccine dangers. At the very least, question every vaccine that goes into your animal. Just because some people may run in the other direction out of fear and misunderstanding does not mean that we pet owners should stop discussing this issue.

When we as the pet owner have to educate the professionals there is very little left in the area of trust when they have not earned it. Both the AAHA and the AVMA must do more than they have in their area of pet care. The science has been out for over 25 years yet they only started changing their vaccine schedule in 2003, even then it was not enough when the science proves the DOI is at least 7 years and up to the life of the animal:

The duration of immunity for Rabies vaccine, Canine distemper vaccine, Canine Parvovirus vaccine, Feline Panleukopenia vaccine, Feline Rhinotracheitis, feline Calicivirus, have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of 7 years by serology [blood antibody testing] for rabies and challenge [exposure] studies for all others.

Some veterinarians are regular readers of veterinary journals and attend the seminars of top experts. They’re always up to date on the latest scientific findings regarding vaccination. Others, not so much. So, we can't always direct the pet owner to speak to their vet about overvaccination when some of them are not keeping up on the changing science and are still recommending annuals. There should be no vets doing annuals, but that is not the case.

It is up to us to be educated consumers, to know what we are buying, to know what is needful, and to know what is non-essential to us. Many vets have admitted to Dr. Schultz that they don't care what the pet organizations say they will only change their vaccine protocol when they are forced to. This is a dreadful attitude for our pets. If you are fortunate to have a vet who is changing the way they practice as the science changes then good for you, but not all of us are as fortunate.If the vet refuses to change the way he administers vaccines then this is more reason why we need to educate ourselves and not rely on someone else looking out for our best interests.

Well, then, look for one! There are plenty of posts on this board about this very topic.

It is just like human medicine. Some vets are better than others and so are some human doctors. It applies to ALL professions.

You have to be an educated consumer.

The subject line is the issue in my mind. No offense to anyone, including Jenny. Maybe it was posted with another intent...I am only speaking from my frame of mind and my experience in speaking with many pet owners over the years. It did not say....How to report vaccine reactions. Maybe that was the point. BUT in my mind many people will read it and think dogs are dying right and left from vaccine reactions and no one is telling anyone.......that is just NOT TRUE.

[gemy]

The point is Linda that we don't actually know the number of adverse reactions to vaccines as elaborated in the article.

That is of huge concern to me, and should be for all dog or cat owners.

In my mind tittering should be as inexpensive as a shot. Yet I pay $242 dollars to titer for Rabies, and the shot is what $30 or so.

That is highway robbery.

There are many threads here on the necessity of vaccines and the timing of same.

This thread is very clear and to those who actually read will undertstand the concepts involved.

[lisaly]

I don't see how anything will change without education, so I appreciate this information. I choose to titer because I don't know the long term health affects that vaccines have, but I will definitely immunize if results show that Katie needs to be.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by gemy

The point is Linda that we don't actually know the number of adverse reactions to vaccines as elaborated in the article.

That is of huge concern to me, and should be for all dog or cat owners.

In my mind tittering should be as inexpensive as a shot. Yet I pay $242 dollars to titer for Rabies, and the shot is what $30 or so.

That is highway robbery.

There are many threads here on the necessity of vaccines and the timing of same.

This thread is very clear and to those who actually read will undertstand the concepts involved.

Everyone complains about the costs of medical and veterinary care. It is what it is. The point is that most pet owners will never pay it. Period. As for titers for rabies, most states to my knowledge will not accept it. Can't blame the vets for that one. The laws are there to protect everyone. Rabies is a killer.

Yep, the thread is clear now. As to your last comment, I did not totally understand the reason/concept at all. I clicked on two links and was informed that distemper is not common...so it alarmed the daylights out of me. Looked fear mongering and anti vaccine to me......Let me find it.

[ladyjane]

Click the first link, then click on the first link in that article and you get this:

Pet Vaccination: Risks and Benefits | Dogs Naturally Magazine

Read about distemper, the so called rare disease. Oh, and homeopathic remedies are superior to conventional...blah blah blah. Sorry, but I see all of this as simply a push yet again for holistic treatments...not an educational link about where to report vaccines. While the OP may have meant that, it was not that clear in what I read. I would rather have had something straight from the horse's mouth:
Schultz: Dog vaccines may not be necessary

Somehow Dr. Schultz's research is mentioned, but some of it was just as clear as mud to me.

[107barney]

Well said Linda. The majority of pet owners can't wrap their heads around the need to spay or neuter, clean teeth, or visit the vet once a year. Heck, some can't even dump their dog in rescue and opt for the side of the road.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by lisaly

I don't see how anything will change without education, so I appreciate this information. I choose to titer because I don't know the long term health affects that vaccines have, but I will definitely immunize if results show that Katie needs to be.

Titers do not tell the whole story, and that is why many vets don't offer it. The cost is another problem. As an aside, and despite that some on this thread have scolded me and assume I know nothing on the subject, titers may he getting cheaper. Last I heard, Dr Schultz was working with a pharm co on a cheap in house test for vets to use. I don't know the status of it, mostly because I'm not going to do titers, but it might open up the door for more vets to "profiteer" off the titers and stop pushing annual vaccines. Those vets are the problem in my view, and they are also the ones using injectable anesthesia and other questionable and archaic protocols. I wouldn't let them touch my dogs let alone treat them.

[107barney]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

I don't see why we should not be discussing the issue of over -vaccination. We are always told as pet owners we need to be our pets advocate because they can't speak for themselves. The issues surrounding vaccination and over vaccination is the one issue will have to encounter over and over during our pets lives. So, this issue needs to be discussed at great length so the pet owners can get a greater understanding as to the risks versus benefits of that decision. The obvious conclusion is that pet owners who are concerned about the long term health of their companion animals must take it upon themselves to research vaccines, duration of immunity and vaccine dangers. At the very least, question every vaccine that goes into your animal. Just because some people may run in the other direction out of fear and misunderstanding does not mean that we pet owners should stop discussing this issue.

When we as the pet owner have to educate the professionals there is very little left in the area of trust when they have not earned it. Both the AAHA and the AVMA must do more than they have in their area of pet care. The science has been out for over 25 years yet they only started changing their vaccine schedule in 2003, even then it was not enough when the science proves the DOI is at least 7 years and up to the life of the animal:

The duration of immunity for Rabies vaccine, Canine distemper vaccine, Canine Parvovirus vaccine, Feline Panleukopenia vaccine, Feline Rhinotracheitis, feline Calicivirus, have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of 7 years by serology [blood antibody testing] for rabies and challenge [exposure] studies for all others.

Some veterinarians are regular readers of veterinary journals and attend the seminars of top experts. They’re always up to date on the latest scientific findings regarding vaccination. Others, not so much. So, we can't always direct the pet owner to speak to their vet about overvaccination when some of them are not keeping up on the changing science and are still recommending annuals. There should be no vets doing annuals, but that is not the case.

It is up to us to be educated consumers, to know what we are buying, to know what is needful, and to know what is non-essential to us. Many vets have admitted to Dr. Schultz that they don't care what the pet organizations say they will only change their vaccine protocol when they are forced to. This is a dreadful attitude for our pets. If you are fortunate to have a vet who is changing the way they practice as the science changes then good for you, but not all of us are as fortunate. If the vet refuses to change the way he administers vaccines then this is more reason why we need to educate ourselves and not rely on someone else looking out for our best interests.

Don't bring your business to a vet that you're not on all fours with!! I will agree with you there - as a consumer you have options. I've dumped many vets for less than this kind of philosophical disagreement.