This was posted last year on an Akita list I am on.
Might give you something to think about to question
your own vet.
(She does believe in vaccines even though
on her Akita she does a yearly titer test, but on her Lab I believe she gives vaccines.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:23:28 -0500
From: "Rachel P., DVM" Subject: Re: Vaccine damage
Just like anything we do, the pros need to outweigh the cons. Since we have
had a lot of new persons join the list lately I posted below my thoughts on
the vaccination debate which I have shared at various times on the list.
For those for whom this is a repeat delete now to escape boredom!
Rachel
- - - - -
Vaccines are artificial means of inducing immunity to a disease without
actually having the disease. The immune system is marvelously adaptable and
when
it is exposed to a "new" invader is remembers that invader so that the next
time it encounters it the immune system will be ready to swiftly respond.
The first time the immune system encounters an invader it takes some time
for the immune system to get its defenses in order. Once the "battle" is
over
and the immune system has won (ie the animal is still alive), defenses are
left in place. These defenses are in the form of antibodies and memory
cells
(immune cells that are ready to crank out more antibodies the next time
around). Antibodies are the proteins that bind to a foreign invader to tell
the
immune system HEY this is something you need to destroy. Without antibodies
the immune system does not know that the invader is an invader and, thus,
will leave it alone. Thus, antibodies are considered a direct measure of
immunity to a given disease. The higher the antibody level the more invader
can be detected and destroyed. A certain minimum level is needed to
adequately protect the body against a given disease under routine exposure
(ie
exposure in the "real" world as opposed to exposure in an experimental
setting in which the invader is in much higher concentrations). Vaccines
work
because they induce antibody formation WITHOUT the animal having to
experience the disease. How? By either killing the pathogen (virus or
bacteria), by
modifying the pathogen so that it is still alive but unable to cause
disease, OR by only injecting part of the pathogen (a surface protein or
other
structure). The latter being the "latest" in vaccines called recombinant
technology or a recombinant vaccine. Killed pathogens require lots of
adjuvant
or irritating substances to get the immune system all fired up to respond to
this pathogen since the pathogen itself is dead and thus not creating much
fuss. These are the vaccine MOST LIKELY to cause a vaccine reaction --
short or long term. Modified live pathogen vaccines require less adjuvant
since
the pathogen will cause some trouble as it replicates and gets the immune
systems attention.
As to how often one needs to vaccinate: as with any drug or treatment one
must ask themselves what are you trying to accomplish with this. In the
case
of vaccines one is trying to create immunity aka antibodies of sufficient
amount to confer protection from a given disease on an animal. With
puppies,
one is fighting maternal antibodies (ie the antibodies mom gives them in the
milk and across the placenta) -- too high and these antibodies prohibit the
puppy's immune system from responding (if mom's antibodies will do the work
why should the puppy waste energy on responding?), too low and the puppy
gets
disease. When does the antibodies fall below the too high level to allow
the puppy to make its own antibodies yet not be low enough to allow disease?
Ahhh . . that is the 1,000,000 question and one that unfortunately has a
different answer for each puppy. Each puppy (in a litter) receives a
slightly different amount of antibodies from mom and in different litters
vastly different amounts depending on mom and her immune status. So each
puppy
starts off with a different amount and then each puppy loses these
antibodies at a different rate (thru metabolizing them and thru their
fighting off
infection). Thus, the reason that we vaccinate puppies multiple times at
regular intervals -- to catch all puppies when they can use the vaccine but
before they get sick. Puppies must receive vaccinations or they are not
protected from disease. Let me repeat that in a different way -- in order
for a
puppy to make antibodies to protect itself from a given disease it must (a)
have the disease and live through it or (b) be vaccinated for it. As
infectious disease are still out there, the risk of disease is there. So,
if you want your puppy protected you must either let it have the disease
(and
very potentially die) or have it vaccinated. The choice is yours.
After puppy vaccinations then what? Well, again what are you trying to
accomplish with vaccinations? Immunity. Which is what? A certain level of
antibodies. So in the ideal world one would check those antibody levels
and only vaccinate when needed. And in fact this is the approach I take
with
my dogs. Guess what? Zen was vaccinated as a pup and has not been
vaccinated since then (excepting Rabies which is a legal requirement to (a)
give and
(b) what intervals to give at) and his antibody levels are still protective.
In fact his distemper antibody levels went from 1:120 to 1:1048 this past
year (antibody levels are given as a maximum dilution amount that still
neutralizes the pathogen so the higher the number to the right the more
antibodies one has) meaning he got exposed somewhere and made more
antibodies. Now I will grant you that my dogs are probably exposed to more
than most
especially Zen who goes to work with me quite often. BUT the point is
ideally one would check antibody levels and only vaccinate when needed. Now
as
this requires that people bring the dog in and then possibly bring it back
not to mention the extra cost of the vaccine many just opt to go ahead
and vaccinate anyway. Which is fine IMO for the most part. BUT in certain
breeds (like the Akita) and in certain individuals vaccinations carry higher
levels of risk and, thus, IMO vaccination without need is not appropriate.
Akitas with their limited immune genetic variability are very, very, very
prone to auto-immune diseases of most any sort. Getting the immune system
"all riled up" when it does not need to be is NOT a good idea. Yes, if the
antibodies need to be raised vaccinate. Otherwise, don't. Here again risk
vs benefit and which maximizes benefits while minimizing risk.
I do think there is sufficient evidence that many vaccines confer antibodies
that last 2 or more years. Thus, I do not object at all to the every 2 year
routine. I still prefer to check titers annually but here again it is the
owner's decision ultimately.
Hope this helps muddy the waters a little :-)! Holler back with specific
questions.
Rachel
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks