Re: Vaccination risks

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
sionnach wrote:
"Tara Green" wrote:


Sure. Some do.

As I understand it, that usually NOT on first adminsitration though, if vaccinations are spaced out properly. The main problems are due to over-vaccination - giving too many vaccines at once, and/or giving boosteres too frequently.

Boosters do not boost immunity. Once an animal has immunity it will not change no matter how many boosters are given.

Um, people tend to know that.

No they don't. If they did they would not allow their vet to poke their pets every year and give combo shots.


Its just *called* a booster, but what it does is make sure the vaccine has taken.

No it doesn't. It does not change the amount of immunity at all.

Um, yes they do.

Boosters are the series of vaccines given after the very first one, and the vaccine given one year later.

All other vaccines are simply called annual vaccines.

Might want to get your lingo straight.

So "boosters" actually DO change immunity levels. Whether or not the risks associated with that are worth the immunity changes are what people need to decide for themselves and their pets.


And that's why I don't do annual vaccines.

Exactly. The ONLY vaccination my dogs get annually is bordatella; they have too much exposure to other dogs not to keep up with that one. I'm still debating whether to have Cen inoculated against Lymes.

SO stop being lazy and irresponsible in your borad, all encompassing statements. There are absolutely some vaccines that even the most extreme naturopaths recommend. For you to deny ALL vaccines and lump them all in the "no" category is the sort of thing that spreads misinformation and gets animals killed.

That's a flat out lie.


What is? That your broad brushstrokes that lump ALL vaccines in the same benefit to risk ratio is iresponsible?

Truth is never irresponsible. All vaccines are dangerous.

You made a charge about a lie. Care to answer the question?

Didn't think so.

ALL vaccines have an element of risk (or "danger" if you prefer) to them. That is not the same thing as saying ALL vaccines ARE dangerous.

This is another example of your lazy information.

Or that there are holistic vets
that DO suggest certain vaccines specifically *because* of the benefit to risk ratio?

Just the ones that don't know any better which makes them not really holistic.

Um, no. Just the ones that care enough to value lives over agendas.





You don't cite anything so don't ask for them.

In discussions with you so far, I have not made grand sweeping statements. It is THOSE that require cites.

If you insist on making huge assertions, you should be prepared to cite evidence. If not, then stop wondering why people think you are full of ***.
.

Loading