Alexandra quoted me:
Yesterday, written in the FML:
>There are enough studies with people, cats and dogs that show that annual 
>vaccination is not necessary and is harmful. >>

And replied with something about people in foreign countries begging
for vaccines? I don't understand the relevance of that reply? What
does that have to do with the topic of overvacination? Or are other
countries in the practice of vaccinating year after year after year
for the same disease and that was the meaning of that post? :confused:

Sukie wrote:
><Have you ever been around an animal with either Canine Distemper or
>Rabies (esp. the violent version), and seen the changes that happen in
>them as their brains are damaged by the diseases reproducing in there?
>It's the sort of horror that stays with a person forever.

No, I never have thankfully. But I have been around animals that have
a poorer quality of life because of vaccine damage, and I have had a
ferret that at the very least a vaccine hastened his death, and at the
worst set in motion the cause of his death. Along with a dog that had
a pretty costly health problem, which still is a health issue 6 years
later. I think it is pretty safe to say a person has a higher chance of
getting in a car accident than having a pet get distemper or rabies,
yet you wouldn't question driving. And IMO, the risk of harm from
overvaccinating is greater than the risk of the animal contracting
distemper or rabies. That is what people need to look at and be aware
of. While it is terrible for a ferret to get distemper, it is also
terrible to see a ferret with a poorer quality of life because of
a disease that may have been brought on by overvaccinating and/or
chemical and poisons all used in the name of prevention. Is it any
easier to watch an animal's health get progressively worse, and to be
shortened when that didn't have to happen? Each person will have to
weigh the risks based on their particular situation, and what risks
they are willing to take. I personally cannot see the reason to over
vaccinate with almost guaranteed health repercussions, over taking the
risk of distemper or rabies. You can say, rightfully so, how horrible
either of those diseases are, yet make it sound that health problems as
a result of over vaccinating are not really a big deal? On one had you
have overvaccinating and the likely hood of a major health problem
as a result, and on the other you have the lesser risk of contracting
a disease that will surely cause death. It seems the first one is
considered an acceptable risk, but the second one isn't? I don't find
accepting one disease over another acceptable, especially when they are
not even close to being evenly balanced on the chances of getting.

>That is why one of the rabies vaccines which was tested for use
>in ferrets because it worked so well and so long in dogs wound up
>providing ONLY 6 months of protection when challenge studies were
>done.

The current vaccines used in ferrets have proven track records for
providing protection. The lack of an actual duration of immunity study
with ferrets does not give me reason to think that the immune system
of a ferret works any different than other mammals.

All pets, not just ferrets, have shown an increase of disease and
health problems being steadily on the rise. We are seeing diseases and
health conditions that used to be seen primarily in older animals,
showing up in younger animals more and more. We may be preventing the
risk of some diseases, but I personally can't see what good that has
done when the overall health of our pets is declining. I don't think
swapping the possible risk of something, for the almost guaranteed risk
of something else any benefit, and is saddens me that health problems
are starting to be considered ‘normal' and part of having companion
animals. I include the over use of 'preventatives' and not just
vaccines, as contributors to these health problems also.

Let me put it this way, XYZ disease will kill you. There is a vaccine
for XYZ disease. The risk of contracting XYZ disease is not very high,
but the possibility does exist. Because XYZ disease will cause death
in almost 100% of cases and it hasn't been proven what the duration of
immunity is from the vaccine, it is recommended to vaccinate for it
yearly. With the yearly vaccinations comes a price though, you are
very likely to come down with a health problem as a result of all
those vaccinations at some point, and possibly a disease that won't
immediately kill you, but will cause you problems and possibly eventual
death. What do you do? Do you get vaccinated yearly and feel safe from
XYZ disease but wonder what health problems you will get and accept
that while you will not die from XYZ disease, your quality of life
may be affected as the price for that safety? Or do you either not
get vaccinated at all and chose the very low (but possible) risk of
contracting XYZ disease, or get vaccinated but don't booster yearly,
basing that decision on how the immune system works and that the
vaccinations will protect much much longer than one year?

~Amy~

[Posted in FML 5706]