Vaccination recommendations

[MNM]

I have a 7 week old puppy who was given a 5 n 1 shot at 6 weeks and of course wormed several times. What shot recommendations do you recommend and at what age? Do I go with 5 n 1 or 7 n 1 and what ages?
Thank you

[MonsterDad]

http://drjeandoddspethealthresource.tum ... OTaEfnF_ng

Use this as a base, some others might be recommended depending on where you live like Lepto but that is a vaccine you use if you really need it.

One thing, don't waste your money or expose the animal to the Lyme vaccine, it is useless.

Your dog was vaccinated younger than what a growing number of breeders are doing these days.

[RoostersMom]

We vaccinate pups (fosters mostly since we don't breed) at 8 weeks or right before they go to their new homes at 9 weeks old. Then follow the Dodd's protocol for shots. Research seems to show overwhelmingly, that after the first year of shots, dogs have no real need (unless in an unusual area with outbreaks of something) for shots more than 3-4 years apart (and some studies even show immunities to last upwards of 7 years). We do a 3-4 year rotation on shots after the dog is a year old.

[MNM]

My puppy likes to pick up every stick, rock, or anything along the road while going for her walk, she also loved to chew on our plants and grass. Do you think I should stick with the 5 n 1 or go for the one with lepto?
Thanks,
Michelle

[MonsterDad]

My puppy likes to pick up every stick, rock, or anything along the road while going for her walk, she also loved to chew on our plants and grass. Do you think I should stick with the 5 n 1 or go for the one with lepto?
Thanks,
Michelle

That isn't a reason to give the lepto vaccine to a young puppy. Speak to your vet. A lot depends on where you live and the time of the year. Lepto is a warm and wet climate disease and the vaccine does not last long anyway. The risk of reaction is very high. If I remember correctly, Hawaii has the highest risk. Cold and dry states have very little risk.

Don't go overboard with vaccines, they can have negative long-term consequences.

[Sharon]

other reasons for lepto too. Has increased dramatically in Ontario. Vets definitely recommend the vaccine here.

https://ovc.uoguelph.ca/sites/default/f ... Z_2009.pdf

2014 stats: http://www.vetemergency.ca/docs/downloa ... 4%20JW.pdf

[MNM]

I'm down in southeast Texas where in the summers it is hot and always humid year around. All the vets around her give all shots, but not sure if really needed or just to make more money.

[ThreeBritts]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with not getting the Lyme's Disease vaccination.

It is true that it had only about a 40%-60% effective rate but, as told to me by my Vets(I have more than one), the newer formulations, if you will, are now at a good 80% rate.

I have had the misfortune to see a friends dog die a horrible death from Lyme's. Projectile vomiting,blood coming out of both ends. My buddy was at work and couldn't get home in time to have her put down humanely. It ripped my guts out.

My three have never had any problems with the vaccination and with us hunting in PA, Michigan, WV, and Kansas (where Lyme's is so prevalent) every year, I'd rather error on the side of some protection vs no protection. Especially if you are going to travel with your pup.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

I recently switched to a 3 year protocol from annual HDPP. Everything I hear lately is annual shots are not needed and my Vet concured. I set my shots up to coincide with my 3 year rabies shots that also coincide with our dog licenses.

[MonsterDad]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with not getting the Lyme's Disease vaccination.

It is true that it had only about a 40%-60% effective rate but, as told to me by my Vets(I have more than one), the newer formulations, if you will, are now at a good 80% rate.

I have had the misfortune to see a friends dog die a horrible death from Lyme's. Projectile vomiting,blood coming out of both ends. My buddy was at work and couldn't get home in time to have her put down humanely. It ripped my guts out.

My three have never had any problems with the vaccination and with us hunting in PA, Michigan, WV, and Kansas (where Lyme's is so prevalent) every year, I'd rather error on the side of some protection vs no protection. Especially if you are going to travel with your pup.

Less than 2% of dogs that are bitten by an infected deer tick (and not all deer ticks carry the disease) develop Lyme symptoms. So if you assume that half of the deer ticks are infected than the risk of symptoms is 1% of all deer tick bites.

Of that 1%, virtually all recover in a week when treated.

The Lyme vaccine must be given twice a year to be 40 - 60% effective and it can cause severe problems, which of course no vet will tell you about.

It is not worth it. A dog that tests positive for Lyme is not a dog that is sick with Lyme disease, keep that in mind. Also a dog that has been exposed to Lyme and fought it off should never get the vaccine.

If your friend's dog died of Lyme disease, it was probably not treated when the symptoms started and it went on for months and months.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/dogs-canine-lyme-vaccine

[ezzy333]

The Lyme vaccine must be given twice a year to be 40 - 60% effective and it can cause severe problems, which of course no vet will tell you about.

There were several statements in your post I would love to see the test results on such as the percent of dogs that get Lyme disease after being bit by a carrier tick. But am even more curious about the last phrase of the above quote as I am not sure I can see any reason for the result you report as a given.

Ezzy

[MonsterDad]

The Lyme vaccine must be given twice a year to be 40 - 60% effective and it can cause severe problems, which of course no vet will tell you about.

There were several statements in your post I would love to see the test results on such as the percent of dogs that get Lyme disease after being bit by a carrier tick. But am even more curious about the last phrase of the above quote as I am not sure I can see any reason for the result you report as a given.

Ezzy

"To quote from Dr. Allen Schoen, Clinical Assistant Professor at Tufts School of Veterinary Medicine (http://www.drschoen.com): “There is a great debate about how well [Lyme vaccines] actually work as well as potential side effects. There are publications concerning its safety, but the researchers only look 24 hours after the vaccine reaction. Research at Cornell University veterinary school brings up some suspicion that there may be potential long term side effects of the vaccine, though nothing is certain. These side effects may vary from rheumatoid arthritis and all the major symptoms of Lyme disease to acute kidney failure. Though nothing is definitively documented, I personally am very cautious and do not recommend vaccinating for Lyme disease even though it is so epidemic here. Many veterinary schools and major veterinary centers do not recommend the vaccine for the same concern regarding potential side effects. I have seen all the symptoms of Lyme disease in dogs four to eight weeks after the vaccine and when I sent the western blot test to Cornell, it shows no evidence of the disease, only evidence of the dog having been vaccinated, yet the dog shows all the classic symptoms of the disease. There is a new dog vaccine out that claims that it does not have any of the side effects, however, I still remain cautious and will wait for a year or two to see.”


Most vet schools report the rate of infection (ie carrier bites resulting in clinical symptoms) at 2% - 5%, that is how small the risk is. Also, keep in mind this vaccine was removed from the market for humans because of side effects. Cornell also reports that of that 2% - 5%, many dogs, I believe more than half recover without treatment. Then there is also the practical issue, any dog that tests positive should not get the vaccine, and in many areas that is 75% of all dogs tested.

It all comes down to risk/reward, the reward is not commensurate with risk, not even close.

[MonsterDad]

Ezzy, taken directly from Cornell's website:

"The fact that dogs showing antibody response only to vaccination, not to tick-induced vaccination, have been observed to develop classical signs of Lyme disease may indicate that the risk of vaccination with the whole-cell bacterin is greater than previously thought. If only one or two percent of vaccinated dogs in endemic areas experience this phenomenon, the possible advantages of the vaccine, which is reported to reduce cases of Lyme disease from about four and one-half percent to one percent of dogs at risk, would probably be offset by the risk of its use. However, the basis for the observation that vaccinated dogs develop Lyme disease is not understood and must be investigated further before firm conclusions can be drawn.

We cannot recommend vaccination of dogs in endemic areas with the whole-cell bacterin until questions are resolved about clinical Lyme disease developing in dogs that have been properly vaccinated. The risk of not vaccinating is minimal since the disease in dogs is probably self-limiting in the majority of cases and is effectively treated with antibiotics, even in cases of recurrent disease. Furthermore, the risk of ever developing clinical Lyme disease appears to be relatively low."

[ezzy333]

Ezzy, taken directly from Cornell's website:

"The fact that dogs showing antibody response only to vaccination, not to tick-induced vaccination, have been observed to develop classical signs of Lyme disease may indicate that the risk of vaccination with the whole-cell bacterin is greater than previously thought. If only one or two percent of vaccinated dogs in endemic areas experience this phenomenon, the possible advantages of the vaccine, which is reported to reduce cases of Lyme disease from about four and one-half percent to one percent of dogs at risk, would probably be offset by the risk of its use. However, the basis for the observation that vaccinated dogs develop Lyme disease is not understood and must be investigated further before firm conclusions can be drawn.

We cannot recommend vaccination of dogs in endemic areas with the whole-cell bacterin until questions are resolved about clinical Lyme disease developing in dogs that have been properly vaccinated. The risk of not vaccinating is minimal since the disease in dogs is probably self-limiting in the majority of cases and is effectively treated with antibiotics, even in cases of recurrent disease. Furthermore, the risk of ever developing clinical Lyme disease appears to be relatively low."

I am not arguing your facts but questioning a couple of things such as how do they know how many dogs are bitten and how many of the ticks were carriers. I do think they are some where near right but I still wonder how they come up with the figures. If you will read my post what I asked about is why won't the vets tell you and how do you know that is true since it doesn't even make sense. You skipped right over that I notice in both of your later post. Did you just throw that in to make it sound like your facts are more accurate than a vets or did you have some other motive in mind?

[MonsterDad]

Ezzy, taken directly from Cornell's website:

"The fact that dogs showing antibody response only to vaccination, not to tick-induced vaccination, have been observed to develop classical signs of Lyme disease may indicate that the risk of vaccination with the whole-cell bacterin is greater than previously thought. If only one or two percent of vaccinated dogs in endemic areas experience this phenomenon, the possible advantages of the vaccine, which is reported to reduce cases of Lyme disease from about four and one-half percent to one percent of dogs at risk, would probably be offset by the risk of its use. However, the basis for the observation that vaccinated dogs develop Lyme disease is not understood and must be investigated further before firm conclusions can be drawn.

We cannot recommend vaccination of dogs in endemic areas with the whole-cell bacterin until questions are resolved about clinical Lyme disease developing in dogs that have been properly vaccinated. The risk of not vaccinating is minimal since the disease in dogs is probably self-limiting in the majority of cases and is effectively treated with antibiotics, even in cases of recurrent disease. Furthermore, the risk of ever developing clinical Lyme disease appears to be relatively low."

I am not arguing your facts but questioning a couple of things such as how do they know how many dogs are bitten and how many of the ticks were carriers. I do think they are some where near right but I still wonder how they come up with the figures. If you will read my post what I asked about is why won't the vets tell you and how do you know that is true since it doesn't even make sense. You skipped right over that I notice in both of your later post. Did you just throw that in to make it sound like your facts are more accurate than a vets or did you have some other motive in mind?

The 2% rate came from memory, Cornell says its 4.5% in the above. Is Cornell's data point sufficient to vaccinate? I think not. I think what I did is adjust the rate for dogs that fought off the infection without treatment for a net infection rate.

In any event, what has been provided shows Lyme must be treated if it happens, no doubt, but for dogs there is no reason to risk the vaccine year after year after year.

[Sharon]

If you are interested in some good reads on the subject:

section: " How the disease can be prevented."

http://bakerinstitute.vet.cornell.edu/a ... hp?id=1101

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/dogs-canine-lyme-vaccine

[ezzy333]

Ezzy, taken directly from Cornell's website:

"The fact that dogs showing antibody response only to vaccination, not to tick-induced vaccination, have been observed to develop classical signs of Lyme disease may indicate that the risk of vaccination with the whole-cell bacterin is greater than previously thought. If only one or two percent of vaccinated dogs in endemic areas experience this phenomenon, the possible advantages of the vaccine, which is reported to reduce cases of Lyme disease from about four and one-half percent to one percent of dogs at risk, would probably be offset by the risk of its use. However, the basis for the observation that vaccinated dogs develop Lyme disease is not understood and must be investigated further before firm conclusions can be drawn.

We cannot recommend vaccination of dogs in endemic areas with the whole-cell bacterin until questions are resolved about clinical Lyme disease developing in dogs that have been properly vaccinated. The risk of not vaccinating is minimal since the disease in dogs is probably self-limiting in the majority of cases and is effectively treated with antibiotics, even in cases of recurrent disease. Furthermore, the risk of ever developing clinical Lyme disease appears to be relatively low."

I am not arguing your facts but questioning a couple of things such as how do they know how many dogs are bitten and how many of the ticks were carriers. I do think they are some where near right but I still wonder how they come up with the figures. If you will read my post what I asked about is why won't the vets tell you and how do you know that is true since it doesn't even make sense. You skipped right over that I notice in both of your later post. Did you just throw that in to make it sound like your facts are more accurate than a vets or did you have some other motive in mind?

The 2% rate came from memory, Cornell says its 4.5% in the above. Is Cornell's data point sufficient to vaccinate? I think not. I think what I did is adjust the rate for dogs that fought off the infection without treatment for a net infection rate.

In any event, what has been provided shows Lyme must be treated if it happens, no doubt, but for dogs there is no reason to risk the vaccine year after year after year.

Thank you. now we know your motive. I somehow expected that was it but didn't know for sure till you told us.

[MonsterDad]

Thank you. now we know your motive. I somehow expected that was it but didn't know for sure till you told us.[/quote]

Are you for real Ezzy, seriously, are you coherent? Does the English language confuse you?

[mask]

Thank you. now we know your motive. I somehow expected that was it but didn't know for sure till you told us.

Are you for real Ezzy, seriously, are you coherent? Does the English language confuse you?[/quote]
The short answer in no, no, and no.

[ThreeBritts]

My friend's dog showed no signs of any problems which is standard when the incubation period can be as long as five months or better. The dog literally was healthy one day and not the next and was at the Vet that evening. She didn't last but 5 days on antibiotics that were supposed to cure her.

The incubation time for his dog was nearly 7 months and coincided with a full moon which some believe is somehow a triggering factor, including his Vet but, that is hard to find any information on. Moon Blindness in horses is also somehow associated with a full moon and is how it got it's name.

He came up with the 7 month period due to the dog being in Kansas in that time period and the disease not being present in out part of the country for some reason. Or at least not nearly as prevalent as some areas and for the fact that it was winter(with sustained below 32 temps) here in the east when he got home from that trip, compared to temps in the 70's when he was in Kansas hunting.

I'll stand by my original statement and my dogs will all be vaccinated for it.

Best of luck to all our dogs.

[ThreeBritts]

I had my dogs in for their shots and told my Vet about this thread.

She studied the claims that were made here, did her own research and then called her former Professor at Perdue who is the most well versed on this, and then reiterated to me that the new Lyme's Disease vaccination is 80% effective.

Thought you'd like to know. Do what you will. Happy Easter.