EXCESSO DE VACINAÇÃO E EFEITOS ADVERSOS?

[LFBM]

Deparei-me com este site - www.truthaboutvaccines.org - que faz referencia a diversos estudos ciêntificos onde se coloca em questão a vacinação anual de diversas doenças. Existem cientista que defendem vacinações mais personalizadas de acordo com saúde, idade e área de residência dos cães. Alegando que a vacinação excessiva pode provocar diversos problemas tais como defeciências renais, doenças auto-imunes, etc. e até morte devido á constante exposição aos virús das vacinas.
Como é óbvio não sou especialista mas sempre me fez um bocado de confusão pq é que todos os anos se tem que dar as mesmas vacinas. Com os humanos não é assim e por alguma razão os sistema imunitários tem "memória", por vezes, para a vida toda.
A minha boxer, qd levou a 1ª vacina desmaiou após alguns segundos. Passado um bocado lá acordou. Que existem efeitos advesos, existem.

Quais são as vossa opiniões? [/b]

[Pausanias]

Boa tarde

Falámos já disso imensas vezes, se pesquisar na arca irá encontrar umas dezenas de discussões

[LFBM]

Boa tarde

Falámos já disso imensas vezes, se pesquisar na arca irá encontrar umas dezenas de discussões

Olá Pausanias,

Por acaso tentei pesquisar com palavras como vacinas e vacinação enão consegui encontrar, poderia ajudar a encontrar?

Obrigado

[Debora20]

Eu não pesquisei, mas tenho uma opinião não muito formada e nem correcta deve ser, mas continuo a acreditar nela ate provarem o contrario...
Tal como nas nossas crianças e adultos quando necessario, acredito na vacinação como prevenção das doenças... tirando a tanga da vacinação contra a gripeA, mas isso sou eu...

Eu acho que parte tambem um pouco das atitudes defensivas que o dono deve ter principalmente em relação a segurança e aquilo que permite o cachorro fazer, como conviver com cães que não sabe se estão vacinados, andar na rua antes do periodo de vacinação inicial estar concluido...

Os meus cães nos 3 primeiros meses, fizeram o plano de vacinação normal, se não me engano 4 doses de vacinas, não sei agora especificamente para que doenças, e aos 7 meses a da raiva.
O meu veterinario dá esses iniciais, depois os reforços ainda em cachorros/juvenis, depois a anual da raiva... e dá reforços anuais dos virus/doenças uma vez por ano...

Não sei se hei-de concordar ou não, o certo é que nunca tive problemas com esse esquema de vacinação...

E friso que na minha zona há muitos surtos de parvovirose, infelizmente...

[Pausanias]

Boa tarde

Falámos já disso imensas vezes, se pesquisar na arca irá encontrar umas dezenas de discussões

Olá Pausanias,

Por acaso tentei pesquisar com palavras como vacinas e vacinação enão consegui encontrar, poderia ajudar a encontrar?

Obrigado

Pois não http://arcadenoe.sapo.pt/forum/search.php Boa sorte...falou-se muitas vezes das diferentes escolas e teorias

Quanto ao que refer de indicação de estudos cientificos eu não vejo nem um, vejo artigos de jornais e artigos de gente cuja unica capacidade é ter um cão...o que não os torna virologistas ilustres.. O proprio site é de uma denhora..enfim, eu não vou ficar a pensar muito se um vendedor de gelados abrir um site para discutir cientificamente a cura do VIH

[LFBM]

Pausanias, essa forma de pesquisa foi a que fiz e não aparece nada introduzindo as palavras vacinação ou vacina.

E este site, é de um veterinário! Se esta certo ou não não sei mas não são só pessoas que têm um cão a defender esta filosofia

www.drmarty.com

[Pausanias]

Dinudane, essa forma de pesquisa foi a que fiz e não aparece nada introduzindo as palavras vacinação ou vacina.

E este site, é de um veterinário! Se esta certo ou não não sei mas não são só pessoas que têm um cão a defender esta filosofia

www.drmarty.com

Ó LFBM... um veterinário que decidiu colocar-se num nicho de mercado para se diferenciar dos outros.É parte tão interessada que mais interesses só no freeport.. Assim não

Faculdades...estudos de faculdades sem patrocinios...é o que conta.

[cockinhas]

Pausanias, essa forma de pesquisa foi a que fiz e não aparece nada introduzindo as palavras vacinação ou vacina.

www.drmarty.com

Experimente com palavras tipo titulação, imunidade ou anti-corpos, por exemplo

[VeTonfire]

Aqui vai um artigo daqueles a que o publico em geral não tem acesso.
Só permite 10 downloads e não tenho tempo nem pachorra para o postar noutro local da web, no entanto quem o sacar está á vontade para o fazer.

Penso que responde directamente a algumas questões aqui colocadas.

Façam bom proveito dele!

http://rapidshare.com/files/344779135/v ... o.pdf.html

[RottLover81]

Fiz o download desse documento e se me é permitido vou então colocá-lo aqui:

Proceeding of the NAVC
North American Veterinary Conference
Jan. 8-12, 2005, Orlando, Florida
Reprinted in the IVIS website with the permission of the NAVC
http://www.ivis.org/

Small Animal – Infectious Diseases
483

HOW SHOULD WE DECIDE ABOUT VACCINE
PROTOCOL CHANGE??
John A. Ellis, DVM, PhD, Dipl ACVP, ACVM
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

WHAT RECENT DATA SUPPORT EXTENDED
VACCINATION INTERVALS?
Recently the first peer-reviewed studies that approach
duration of immunity (DOI) issues in small animal medicine
from a seroepidemiologic standpoint were published in
JAVMA. In those studies, hundreds of dogs and cats that had
been vaccinated at various intervals prior to enlistment into
the study served as subjects to address the question of the
duration of the serologic response induced by two
combination vaccines; one for dogs, and one for cats. In
other words, if an animal was vaccinated 1, 2, 3, or 4 years
ago, what is the serologic response now for the major
antigens? For all the antigens tested, serologic responses
remained within protective levels, according to the “cut-off”
values established by Cornell University, for the majority of
dogs and cats up to 4 years after vaccination.
Another parameter measured in the studies concerned the
memory response. One of the simplest ways to measure
memory and memory response is to stimulate an animal with
an antigen or infect it with an agent. A significant (4-fold
increase) response within 4 or 5 days after that challenge or
exposure indicates a memory response, not a primary
immune response.
This is a simple and elegant way to measure whether or
not memory cells exist. Therefore, these data indicated that a
serologic response can be measured for years after an initial
vaccination series, and that animals can be shown to have
memory cells, probably T and B cells, for the same period of
time. This is the first time that such data have been published
in refereed veterinary literature.
In another recently published study laboratory beagles that
had been vaccinated three years previously with a
combination modified-live viral vaccine experienced less
severe clinical disease when challenged according to USDAmandated
procedures. These data are similar to those
reported in the unpublished trade “literature” with at least one
other new combination viral vaccine.
These recent data suggest that currently available vaccines
may confer immunity for more than 1 year. The question is,
where do these novel studies using relatively small numbers
of experimental subjects fit into the big picture of vaccineinduced
duration of immunity at the population level?

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT TRADITIONAL
(‘ANNUAL’) VACCINATION PROTOCOLS WORK?
That vaccination in both human and animal populations
has worked incredibly well is best evinced by a low incidence
of infectious disease in vaccinated populations and an
associated low rate of adverse reactions. For those with
lingering questions about the overall efficacy of vaccines, the
best way to prove vaccine efficacy, of course, is simply to
stop vaccinating. History has done this experiment on
several occasions, usually with the same results;
reemergence of disease.

HOW DOES VARIATION IN A POPULATION CONTRIBUTE
TO DURATION OF IMMUNITY?
The relationship between individual variation in populations
of vaccinated animals and duration of immunity is not
understood, and this relationship is difficult to address in
laboratory studies, or even in field studies. The issue of
determining duration of immunity is much more complex than
the interaction between the vaccine and an individual
vaccinated animal. Other factors such as differences in
immune responses among individuals, differences in
virulence among isolates of the same pathogen, differences
in vaccine formulation, and environmental factors, such as
level of stress and level of microbial challenge, all contribute
to the duration of immunity, with the result being a very
variable, and often unpredictable response.
Likewise, if the frequency of vaccination is reduced, a very
different distribution of numbers of animals that are
susceptible to a given pathogen could occur. In other words,
a significantly different duration of immunity at the population
level could be observed if frequency of vaccination in the
population as a whole is reduced.

MY CHILD ISN’T VACCINATED EVERY YEAR, HOW
COME YOU’RE TELLING ME MY DOG SHOULD BE?
The issue of children not receiving vaccinations every year
has been raised as evidence for why dogs and cats do not
need annual vaccinations. While the immune systems of all
mammals are similar, humans, by virtue of their living in
“large herds” are constantly exposed to a whole variety of
microbes, which, no doubt, extends the duration of immunity
by providing the opportunity for “free vaccination” that results
from natural exposure to clinical and subclinical infections,
such as measles and Bordetella pertussis. The same level of
natural exposure is probably not as likely to occur in dogs
and cats that live, increasingly, in isolation from other
members of their species. Dogs evolved as a herd species,
much like humans, and their immune systems evolved in the
context of constant interaction with microbes. This is a very
different scenario than currently occurs, for instance in dogs
living as isolated members of a human family in an apartment
building.
Our counterparts in human medicine have tremendous
resources, both human and financial, to deal with these
issues related to duration of immunity. These resources are
not available to the veterinary practitioner, and veterinarians
do not achieve the same level of detail in animal vaccination
studies as that found human studies. In addition, no good
mechanism for reporting disease in veterinary medicine, that
is, for understanding prevalence and incidence, currently
exists. This makes it difficult to assess vaccine efficacy from
an epidemiological standpoint in veterinary medicine.

HOW MIGHT COMPLIANCE EFFECT DURATION OF
IMMUNITY?
Certainly, no one would dispute the fact that vaccination is
only a small part of veterinary practice and wellness.
However, can we assume that compliance will be the same if
the recommendation changes from annual to triennial
vaccination? Clearly, variation in the behavior of the owners
will occur. Some owners will be compliant, and some will not.
There are few data that address compliance in veterinary
medicine, although some relatively recent data—provided in
a PhD thesis from the Western College of Veterinary
Medicine—document how poor compliance can be in terms
of the response rate to recall for vaccination. Can we
Published in IVIS with the permission of the NAVC Close window to return to IVIS
www.ivis.org
www.ivis.org
The North American Veterinary Conference – 2005 Proceedings
assume that compliance, which is already far from perfect,
will not decrease further with the introduction of the proposed
new protocols that call for a decreased frequency of
vaccination?
484

ARE DURATION OF IMMUNITY AND DURATION OF
PROTECTION THE SAME THING?
Infectious disease is in many ways a race between the
pathogen and the immune response. Not all pathogens are
the same, in terms of their ability to compete in this race. In
the case of a mildly virulent pathogen, or a pathogen that
replicates relatively slowly, or in other words, has a relatively
long incubation period, such as canine distemper virus, for
instance, the memory responses induced by vaccination
probably have a good chance of being effective. The efficacy
of memory responses, versus ongoing effector responses, is
likely less for other types of pathogens that replicate rapidly,
or cause damage at the site of entry, such as herpesvirus.
Clinical efficacy will thus vary with the pathogen. The duration
of immunity, almost by definition, is the duration of the
existence of memory cells, that is, something that can be
measured, whereas duration of protection is a much more
complex phenomenon that may be dramatically affected by
vaccination interval.
Duration of immunity is probably years for many
pathogens; whereas, the duration of protection is probably
much less than that for many pathogens. For example,
Bordetella is a pathogen with an short incubation period,
usually a few days. It replicates at the site where it causes
damage by inducing inflammation. For effective or optimal
clinical immunity in Bordetella infections, an effector
response at the time of infection is needed to reduce
morbidity. Based on the different lifestyles of various
pathogens, if increased intervals between vaccinations are
universally adopted, it is likely that “vaccine breaks” in small
animal practice will result in an increased prevalence of
respiratory disease in cats, and maybe, to a lesser extent, in
dogs.

WHAT IS THE CRITICAL EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE
WHICH VACCINATION PROTOCOL IS THE CORRECT
ONE? DO WE REALLY NEED ANNUAL VACCINATION?
If the definition of need is to produce the result of better
clinical immunity, or reduction of morbidity, then the answer is
not known. No one has actually tested the correct hypothesis,
although expert opinions have been offered. What has been
tested to date is the difference between no vaccination and,
for example, triennial vaccination. Not surprisingly, some
benefit can be shown with triennial vaccination, compared
with no vaccination. For the past 20 to 30 years, veterinarians
have recommended annual vaccination and checkups. This
practice has been associated, most likely causally, with
dramatic reduction in the prevalence of infectious diseases.
The real test, therefore, should be determining the difference
between annual vaccination and triennial vaccination.
In reality, then, the proposal to alter successful vaccination
protocols is a large experiment; a big “field trial” using clientowned
animals. Although it is believed that protocol change
will not result in reduced vaccine efficacy, the outcome is
truly unknown. What is known is that most pathogens are
endemic at some level in populations, and are likely to
reappear, clinically, as soon as herd immunity diminishes.
What is also known is that vaccination as practiced now
works incredibly well with very few adverse reactions, but a
critical experiment has been proposed in the form of modified
vaccination protocols. The question then becomes are
veterinarians and, by extension, their clients willing
participants in this experiment.

WHAT DO WE REALLY MEAN BY “VACCINE EFFICACY”
Efficacy can be defined as the production of desired
results. What are the desired results when it comes to
vaccination? Although antibody titers can be measured,
protection from clinical disease is actually the desired result.
A deductive argument is one in which the outcome directly
follows from the premise, by definition. In the experimental
approach to the deductive argument, animals are vaccinated
and then challenged, either in the laboratory or, preferably,
under natural conditions in the field (natural challenge). One
can then conclude, deductively, that a vaccine is efficacious if
the animals are protected from challenge. By deduction,
history can be shown to demonstrate the efficacy of
vaccination, in human and domestic animal populations. An
inductive argument is one in which the outcome does not
necessarily follow the premise, although it may. Inductive
reasoning, as best exemplified by seroepidemiology, has also
been applied to evaluate DOI. In other words, measuring
anitibody responses and associating those responses with
protection. This is the approach that is routinely, and usually
successfully, used in human medicine to assess vaccine
efficacy. The success of this inductive approach rests on the
large amount of data available to the human medical
profession, the type and extent of data we are unlikely ever to
have in veterinary medicine. So, even though the newest
serologic data are good, and, in fact, landmark, they are
inductive and suffer from the limitation of relatively small
numbers. Therefore, the question still remains: Are
veterinarians willing to do the critical deductive experiment on
their clients’ cats and dogs; that is, to stop using the current
protocols—which work—and institute other, new protocols
the success of which are unknown, and let history do the
rest?

REFERENCES
1. Report of the American Animal Hospital Association
(AAHA) Canine Vaccine Task Force: Executive
Summary and 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines and
Recommendations. J Am An Hosp Assoc 2003; 39:119-
134.
2. Abdelmagid O, Larson L, Payne L, et al. Evaluation of
the efficacy and duration of immunity of a canine
combination vaccine against virulent parvovirus,
infectious canine hepatitis virus and distemper virus
experimental challenges. Vet Therapeutics 2004;5:173-
186.
3. Adams V. An investigation of veterinary client
compliance in companion animal practice. PhD Thesis,
University of Saskatchewan, 2003
4. Campos M, Godson DL. The effectiveness and
limitations of immune memory: understanding protective
immune responses. Int J Parasitol 2003;33:655-661
5. Mouzin D, Lorenzen M, Haworth J, King V. Duration of
response to three viral antigens in dogs. J Am Vet Med
Assoc 2004;224:55-60
6. Mouzin D, Lorenzen M, Haworth J, King V. Duration of
response to three viral antigens in cats. J Am Vet Med
Assoc 2004;224:61-66.
Published in IVIS with the permission of the NAVC Close window to return to IVIS
www.ivis.org

[LFBM]

"WHAT RECENT DATA SUPPORT EXTENDED
VACCINATION INTERVALS?
Recently the first peer-reviewed studies that approach
duration of immunity (DOI) issues in small animal medicine
from a seroepidemiologic standpoint were published in
JAVMA. In those studies, hundreds of dogs and cats that had
been vaccinated at various intervals prior to enlistment into
the study served as subjects to address the question of the
duration of the serologic response induced by two
combination vaccines; one for dogs, and one for cats. In
other words, if an animal was vaccinated 1, 2, 3, or 4 years
ago, what is the serologic response now for the major
antigens? For all the antigens tested, serologic responses
remained within protective levels, according to the “cut-off”
values established by Cornell University, for the majority of
dogs and cats up to 4 years after vaccination.
Another parameter measured in the studies concerned the
memory response. One of the simplest ways to measure
memory and memory response is to stimulate an animal with
an antigen or infect it with an agent. A significant (4-fold
increase) response within 4 or 5 days after that challenge or
exposure indicates a memory response, not a primary
immune response.
This is a simple and elegant way to measure whether or
not memory cells exist. Therefore, these data indicated that a
serologic response can be measured for years after an initial
vaccination series, and that animals can be shown to have
memory cells, probably T and B cells, for the same period of
time. This is the first time that such data have been published
in refereed veterinary literature. "

Ou seja a conclusão deste estudo ciêntifico é que os cães (na grande maioria) mantêm a imunidade até 3 ou 4 anos (mas tb há cães vacinados todos os anos que adquirem as doênças). Para se implementar este protocolo de vacinação era necessário a concordância dos veterinários e dos seus clientes.

Pois, estou mesmo a ver os veterinário aceitarem reduzir os seus lucros e chatearem o lobby das farmaceuticas. Faz-me lembrar a história das rações: fazem mal mas os vets continuam a vender e a recomendar.

De facto os interesses económicos prevalecem no mundo actual, cada vez mais.
Pois estou mesmo a ver

[Pausanias]

Boa tarde.

Parece-me que não leram bem o que foi escrito.

Vou resumir e traduzir

O que está referido é:

Reconhece-se que a vacinação anual tem evitado a prevalencia em grande numero de doenças contagiosas entre os animais.

Não há provas de que seja tão eficaz vacinar de 3 em 3 anos, como é vacinar anualmente.

A única forma der o saber seria alterar em massa a vacinação de animais de 1 para 3 anos e depois comparar os resultados com a vacinação anual.

Baseado nessa comparação poder-se-ia então ter uma ideia se é indiferente vacinar de ano a ano ou de 3 em 3 anos.

Fim de citação.

Agora falo eu...quantos de nós aqui aceitariam fazer a experiência de potencialmente expôr os nossos animais a infecções somente para saber se um método é tão eficaz como o outro ? ?

Eu não...

Quanto ao sr que abriu este tópico, desculpe que lhe diga mas o sr não leu o texto que colocou aqui agora mesmo...se tivesse lido e percebido não viria com essa historia dos veterinarios afrontarem as farmaceuticas e dos lóbis...e de juntar para mais às rações...faça o favor de ler com atenção aquilo que o sr aqui mesmo citou...eu vou assumir que foi pos distração pois acho estranho o sr colocar aqui um estudo que desmente as suas proprias afirmações...ou melhor, não é um estudo, é o resultado de um brainstorming de uma apresnetação... em que se diz que para se saber uma coisa...tem que se fazer um estudo.,.,

eu por mim sei que não gostaria que o veterinario a quem pago usasse o meu animal para ujm estudo que pode potencialmente evitar a sua imunização...

[LFBM]

Caro Pausanias,

Eu introduzi o tópico referindo que existem estudos e há quem defenda que o programa de vacinação anual poderá não ser o mais adequado para todos os cães, dependendo de vários factores.. Aqui está um excerto do estudo sobre o assunto

"HOW DOES VARIATION IN A POPULATION CONTRIBUTE
TO DURATION OF IMMUNITY?
The relationship between individual variation in populations
of vaccinated animals and duration of immunity is not
understood, and this relationship is difficult to address in
laboratory studies, or even in field studies. The issue of
determining duration of immunity is much more complex than
the interaction between the vaccine and an individual
vaccinated animal. Other factors such as differences in
immune responses among individuals, differences in
virulence among isolates of the same pathogen, differences
in vaccine formulation, and environmental factors, such as
level of stress and level of microbial challenge, all contribute
to the duration of immunity, with the result being a very
variable, and often unpredictable response. "

Também é referido no estudo que é possivel verificar o nível de imunidade de um animal a diversas doenças

"In other words, if an animal was vaccinated 1, 2, 3, or 4 years
ago, what is the serologic response now for the major
antigens? For all the antigens tested, serologic responses
remained within protective levels, according to the “cut-off”
values established by Cornell University, for the majority of
dogs and cats up to 4 years after vaccination.
Another parameter measured in the studies concerned the
memory response. One of the simplest ways to measure
memory and memory response is to stimulate an animal with
an antigen or infect it with an agent. A significant (4-fold
increase) response within 4 or 5 days after that challenge or
exposure indicates a memory response, not a primary
immune response.
This is a simple and elegant way to measure whether or
not memory cells exist. Therefore, these data indicated that a
serologic response can be measured for years after an initial
vaccination series, and that animals can be shown to have
memory cells, probably T and B cells, for the same period of
time. This is the first time that such data have been published "

Portanto e concluíndo nem todos os animais precisam de ser vacinados todos os anos e como tal podemos concluir que o programa de vacinação anual não pode ser considerado uma "verdade absulota" mas sim relativa e que, quem quiser, pode optar por outro plano de vacinaçaõ mais adequado ao seu animal e ao seu estilo de vida e saúde em geral.

Por outro lado temos o potencial efeito negativo das vacinas

"In 2000, the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents (COBTA) presented their consensus, stating:

When an annual booster vaccination with a modified live virus (MLV) vaccine (i.e. Distemper , Parvovirus or Fe Distemper) is given to a previously vaccinated adult animal - no added protection is provided. Modified live virus vaccines depend on the replication of the virus for a response. Antibodies from previous vaccines do not allow the new virus to replicate. Antibody titres are not boosted significantly, memory cell populations are not expanded. No additional protection is provided.

There is no scientific data to support label directions for re-administration of MLV vaccines annually.

Vaccines are not harmless. Unnecessary side effects and adverse events can be minimised by avoiding unnecessary vaccinations.

In short: annual vaccination is a waste of time. Once immune, no added protection is provided by repetition. Crucially, “vaccines are not harmless”.

COBTA announced that we should vaccinate every three years instead. But you don’t need to vaccinate your animals every three years, either - because immunity lasts for years or life (RD Schultz, et al). And every shot comes with risks.

The Merck Manual, produced by a giant vaccine manufacturer called Merck, states that patients with B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies, or from families with B and/or T cell immunodeficiencies, should not receive live virus vaccines due to the risk of fatality (ie death). Features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies include inhalant allergies, food allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart disease. Does your dog fit this picture?

Scientific studies link vaccines in with a wide range of ‘itis’ (inflammatory) diseases.

In 1983, Frick and Brooks demonstrated that vaccines trigger conjunctivitis and dermatitis in dogs. Canine Health Concern’s (CHC’s) vaccine survey, involving over 4,000 dogs, found that 56.9% of all dogs in the survey with conjunctivitis first developed it within three months of a vaccine shot, and 61.2% of dogs with dermatitis first manifested symptoms within this crucial timeframe. Our premise is that if the vaccine has no bearing on subsequent illness, then only 25% of all illnesses should begin within each three-month period of the year. Most conditions began within a week of the shot.

We also found that 2.7% of all dogs surveyed had colitis, with 56.9% of cases occurring within three months post-vaccination.

Inflammatory reactions are explained by Dr Larry Glickman, and Dr Harm HogenEsch at Purdue University. The team studied the effects of routinely used vaccination protocol on the immune and endocrine system of Beagles. One control group was not vaccinated and the other group was vaccinated according to manufacturers instructions.

The vaccinated group developed significant levels of autoantibodies of fibronectin, laminim, DNA, albumin, Cytochrome C, transferring, cardiolipin, and collagen. When vaccinated, dogs begin to attack their own biochemistry: they become allergic to themselves. One finding in the CHC survey, for example, was that 53.7% of dogs with kidney damage first developed the condition within three months of a shot. In the Purdue study, one of the biochemicals being attacked post vaccination is laminin - and laminin coats kidney cells.

Similarly, autoantibodies to collagen might explain the locomotor conditions recorded against cats and dogs in a veterinary practice record survey conducted by the vet Ilse Pedler. Vaccine components have also been found in the bones of arthritic patients, and other studies show that vaccines cause arthritis.

We need also to be alarmed that the Purdue study showed that vaccinated dogs develop autoantibodies to their own DNA, indicating that vaccines cause genetic damage.

A high number of behavioural problems were found to arise post-vaccination in the CHC survey: 73.1% of dogs with short attention spans first developed them within three months; 72.5% developed nervous/worrying dispositions; and 64.9% began to display behavioural problems.

Encephalitis, inflammation of the brain, is an accepted sequel to vaccination. The Merck Manual states, "In acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (post infectious encephalitis), demyelination can occur spontaneously, but usually follows a viral infection or inoculation (or very rarely, a bacterial vaccine), suggesting an immunologic cause." This points to a connection between vaccine-induced brain inflammation and behavioural problems in both humans and animals.

Our research recorded 73.1% of dogs with epilepsy developing it within three months of a vaccine event. Merck lists epilepsy as a symptom of encephalitis. I wonder how many vets think to report post-vaccinal epilepsy? Merck, you will remember, lists epilepsy as a symptom of encephalitis, and vaccines as a cause of encephalitis.

In America, vets are vaccinating cats in the tail or leg so that they can amputate when cancer appears. 81.1% of dogs reported to have a tumour or growth at vaccine site in the CHC survey first developed it within the three-month post-vaccine period.

These are but some of the studies linking vaccines to life-changing or life-threatening illnesses. Dr Jean Dodds, an American vet and researcher, has also written a number of scientific papers to correlate MLV vaccines and a rise in immune- and blood-mediated diseases such as cancer, leukaemia, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia, thyroid disease, and Addisons. "

O objectivo do tópico é discutir se, de facto, existem outras opções ou se devemos aceitar religiosamente o conceito standart. Assim podemos tomar uma decisão informada, pesando os pró e os contras. Parece-me, que ter dúvidas e procurar respostas é uma atitude positiva.

Em relação ás rações (que de acordo com o Pausania ñ têm nada a ver com o assunto). è do conhecimento geral que a saúde e bem estar de um ser dependem, sobretudo, de exercicio físico e boa alimentação, certo?

Em relação aos Loobys farmaceuticos e dos fabricantes de rações e a sua relação com veterinários basta ter como exemplo a relação que existia, até a alguns anos atrás, entre laboratórios e médicos. O sr. Dr. receitava medicamentos desta ou daquela marca e recebia prendas e viagens de presente.
Não sejamos ingénuos ao ponto de pensar que os outros(incluindo médicos e veterinarios) irão pôr os nossos interesses á frente dos deles.

Para finalizar concorda/m ou não que devemos informar-nos o mais possivel, com várias fontes, e tomar-mos opiniões informadas e conscientes? E não será dever dos vet informar-nos dessas opções?

Cumprimentos

[Pausanias]

Continuo a dizer que o sr não sasbe ler bem inglês e volto a repetir o que está dito naquilo que nos meteu aqui na arca mais acima...



Vou resumir e traduzir

O que está referido é:

Reconhece-se que a vacinação anual tem evitado a prevalencia em grande numero de doenças contagiosas entre os animais.

Não há provas de que seja tão eficaz vacinar de 3 em 3 anos, como é vacinar anualmente.

A única forma der o saber seria alterar em massa a vacinação de animais de 1 para 3 anos e depois comparar os resultados com a vacinação anual.

Baseado nessa comparação poder-se-ia então ter uma ideia se é indiferente vacinar de ano a ano ou de 3 em 3 anos.

Fim de citação.

Agora falo eu...quantos de nós aqui aceitariam fazer a experiência de potencialmente expôr os nossos animais a infecções somente para saber se um método é tão eficaz como o outro ? ?

Eu não...

[LFBM]

Parece-me que o sr. só leu a parte do estudo que, fora do contexto, até lhe dá razão. Agora se lermos VARIAS partes e vários estudos (como eu disse reunir informação de várias fontes) tb vemos que se fala dos efeitos adversos do excesso de vacinação e que muitos animais não precisam desse excesso pq os seus sistemas imunitários são mais fortes e que é possivel avaliar individualmente as necessidades de cada animal.

Ora o que estamos aqui a discutir é haver a possibilidade de cada pessoa avaliar (através de exames) as necessidades individuais dos seus animais e agir de acordo, fazendo assim apenas a vacinação necessária e não por excesso. Não estamos a discutir um plano mundial de vacinação

Percebeu agora o objectivo do tópico que coloquei?