Booster jabs - fraudulent vets?

Well, I'd still have obesity and its consequences top of my list, with skin, ears and teeth up there as well.

Instead of whingeing about how much it costs at the vet, if people fed their animals less they's save money on food and vets' bills. So accusations of mercenariness a wide of the mark here! I tell people, "Keep him slim or you'll be paying me for it when he gets older".
 
Hmm, and your strategy for achieving this when the pet is doing the whole routine from the big brown eyes to making a good stab at shredding your entire wardrobe would be....

.... waits with notebook, not letting Caramel see the screen....

It's true though. I keep telling him that fat cats are diabetic cats, and I'm damned if I'm spending the next ten years injecting a cat with insulin, so less of the begging noises and get out there and climb some trees. But I have some sympathy with people who can't resist the pleas. And yes, I have seen a Labrador so - cubical - at about two years old I have no idea how his cruciates were still intact. And the owner (my secretary's landlord), who threw a panic because the dog literally couldn't rise after lying down at the end of a walk, didn't even realise the dog was overweight.

I do think we have to separate the concept of regular health checks from booster vaccinations though. If we can vaccinate less often, then we shouldn't manipulate the schedule to force people to come back more often that need be (distemper this year, parvo next year and so on....) If health checks are advisable, we should be able to put that to the owners as a separate matter, rather than using vaccines as an excuse.

I've always said there's enough work out there that needs doing without inventing it.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe,

I'll keep getting him vaccinated every year then :(

Rolfe said:
I've always said there's enough work out there that needs doing without inventing it.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of two recent incidents....

Going to the dentist with a toothache but having a general inspection of every healthy tooth in my mouth - I had to return at a later date to have the affected tooth dealt with :mad:

Going to the watchmaker to have a battery replaced ($5) and having my watch cleaned and pressure tested as well ($45) :mad: :mad:

BJ
 
BillyJoe said:
This reminds me of two recent incidents....

[SNIPPED]
Click to expand...
Going to the car dealer I bought my car at for an oil change and get a big maintenance: about 350-400$ :eek:
I'm just glad I still had that much on my account at that time, or who knows, they might not have let me take the car home.
 
Since this thread is active, an update.

The clued-up "Paul" turns out to have been my friend Paul Burr, to whom we refer our serological testing, and who works for the firm which stands to make the most out of blood testing for immunity if it became widespread. Nevertheless he gave a perfect presentation of why the homoeopaths were spouting woo-woo nonsense and didn't try to talk up the scare at all.

When I mentioned what I'd heard to Paul's boss David, asking if I'd got the right Paul, David turned away from the phone and shouted, "Paul, she says you were talking a load of nonsense...!" I may have to speak to Paul privately. :D

Anyway, nice example of why the scare is woo-woo nonsense in today's Veterinary Times. A letter explains the usual stuff about lepto being needed every year, and variable length of efficacy of other components, then goes on to deal with the veracity of the allegations of vaccine side effects.

"We have had a reported 'vaccine reaction' which was seen and diagnosed by one of the homoeopathic contributors to the letter in the 26th January issue, which proved to be an aggressive cutaneous lymphoma, according to histology."

In other words, the so-called "vaccine reaction" was a case of skin cancer. There is absolutely no excuse for this scaremongering, and when the people dressing up their prejudices as calls for "research and scientific justification" of present vaccine practices are guiulty themselves of such dire misdiagnosis, well they're homoeopaths, what do you expect?

Rolfe.
 
Oh, yes. Aggressive lymphoma. A well-recognised feature of 'vaccinosis'! The hom-woos really are diagnostic geniuses.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Oh, yes. Aggressive lymphoma. A well-recognised feature of 'vaccinosis'! The hom-woos really are diagnostic geniuses.
Click to expand...
The bit that's left up in the air was whether or not the homoeo in question had actually diagnosed the lymphoma himself. One suspects not, since it was the writer (Dane Atkin) who seems to have had the histopathology done. However, I would guess that the standard homoeo riposte would simply be, so it was a lymphoma. So, it happened within 3 months of booster vaccination, therefore the vaccine was the cause. It weakened the immune system and so allowed the cancer to develop, doncha know? :nope:

I can't help but wonder whether these guys actually fill in the yellow form for each of these "vaccinosis" cases, and report them to the VMD as suspected adverse reactions. If they really believe they are, it's their duty to do that. Bet they don't though!

If they do, pity help the staff at the VMD.

Rolfe.
 
I thought I'd dig this out of the graveyard to post the update on vaccination regimes that appeared as an advertisement in yesterday's Veterinary Times.
The next time a client says "I don't want my dog vaccinated every year", what will you say?

Well, for a start you can say that Nobivac vaccines are now licensed to provide three years' proven protection against parvo, hepatitis and distemper. Should there be any accusations of "jumping on the bandwagon", you might alse wish to mention that Intervet has been working on extended duration of immunity since the mid-1990s. After all, long term studies - of the quality needed to convince licensing authorities - can't be done overnight.

And don't forget to point out that the same quality of research has gone into our leptospirosis vaccine. That although this now offers enhanced protection, the latest data still proves the need for annual boosting - otherwise protection starts to decline.

But will this satisfy owners, in the face of such a concerted anti-vaccination campaign? We hope so, because the alternative is a serious resurgence of disease, of the sort seen in Finland (Vet Rec 1997, 141, 380-383).

And let's be clear: if that happens, homoeopathic nosodes will provide little defence.
Click to expand...
I could quibble with the word "little", but the homoeopaths have now got Intervet playing hardball against them.

But of course they are a lying allopathic drug company. I mean, they're actually recommending people use less of their product, so they can't possibly mean a word of it!

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom