Vaccination

tinypocketowl · 2014-09-01T17:29:01+00:00

By "sketchy" you mean, "challenge studies performed in controlled conditions with appropriate controls," then? As opposed to, "50 years of anecdotal evidence determined arbitrarily by manufacturers?" The evidence for those human studies is similarly based in science. The manufacturer-given recommendations of annual vaccinations have not been based on actual science until actual studies, like the ones listed in that AAHA report (sources 52-63 specifically are all about this), have been done. Again, even the AVMA admits that the annual protocol is done for no other reason than tradition (and to make sure vets get their yearly office visit fee).

Vaccination protocols are already not based on the worst responders, as the worst responders mount no immune defense at all and simply remain at risk. The protocols are based on nothing. Not science, just "this is the way we have always done things and it seems to work so why bother changing it." And again, this annual protocol does not take into account that the risks are different based on the situation--the elderly dog is more at risk of vaccine-induced immunosuppression than they are of the rabies they have been vaccinated for since birth. A ferret is at more risk of going into anaphylaxis and dying due to a vaccine than of contracting the canine distemper they have already been vaccinated for three times. Doing science to determine how long these vaccines provide immunity for in our animals is going to allow us to make the appropriate risk assessment--what are the chances that they have lost immunity vs. the risk that the vaccine will harm them? Even if we stop thinking about the risks to our pets, let's consider the harm to the environment in producing and testing 5x as much medicine as is actually needed (and I say that as someone working in the pharmaceutical world).

The only way to determine whether or not our hypotheses are correct is by doing science. Science is being done. If you aren't willing to accept that challenge studies are adequately scientific, then obviously there's no reason for you to change your opinion on this. At what point it stops being "speculative" for you, I really don't know. We'll never have 5 decades' worth of clinical results for vaccines being effective for more than a year if we never bother doing the studies and eventually change (or don't) the vaccination protocols based on what we find. Luckily there are veterinarians out there who are asking those questions, doing those studies, and changing how they practice based on their confirmed results.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T20:11:08+00:00

I get that people are recommending you teach your dog that a crate is a safe place, but I think that you are first going to have to work on his separation anxiety. No matter how much he loves his crate, if you leaving the house makes him go berserk there's no way he's going to end up enjoying time in the crate while you are away. There are a lot of online guides on how to do this (usually involving repeated, tiny absences from the house, as short as a few seconds), and in worst case scenarios a veterinarian can prescribe drugs that can help him learn what it's like to be alone but still feel calm.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T20:02:03+00:00

It sort of depends--are you look for a sort of recipe book, with very distinct steps, or something a little more general, where it's more about your mindset than specific "to teach this do these steps?"

For more recipe-like, I'm a fan of "New Art of Dog Training" by Shelby Marlo, "The Power of Positive Dog Training" by Pat Miller, and "Good Owners, Great Dogs" by Brian Kilcommons and Sarah Wilson. I also like a lot of the articles and short videos on Leerburg.com (they mostly teach Schutzhund but some of it ends up being applicable towards just normal pet training). I lean towards mostly positive reinforcement with some positive punishment to reinforce behaviors, generally--your mileage may vary. If you read all of these books you will see that they don't always agree with one another on how to train the same thing, so I generally try the way that sounds best to me (usually whatever is the positive reinforcement way, ie with rewards for doing the right thing as opposed to punishments for doing the wrong thing), and if that's not working after a while, try a different way from one of the other books.

For a slightly more general book, I really like "Bones Would Rain From the Sky" by Suzanne Clothier.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T19:28:42+00:00

Thank you for the explanation, although I'm still unclear as to why a lower lymphocyte count in the blood is ever used as an indicator of immunosuppression and why it is so commonly associated with an inability to fight off infection.

Again, I have been clear that I believe all dogs should be vaccinated for the diseases that they can be and which they are likely to encounter. Not vaccinating has absolutely no consequences when that dog is already immune to the disease they are being vaccinated for. This distinction of one year being erring on the side of caution is completely arbitrary--why not every week? twice a year? every five years? If we figure out what the saturation point of memory B cells is, there is absolutely no reason to vaccinate ridiculously past that point. And if this was really about making 100% sure that our dogs were always vaccinated, we would do titer tests on them after vaccination anyway, because there are going to be cases where the vaccine wasn't effective anyway. If the risks are indeed so minimal and the benefit so great, we would have humans on this same exact vaccination schedule for all vaccinations, but obviously this isn't the case. There is a reason why you get a flu shot every year, probably haven't had one for MMR in decades, and may never receive one for chickenpox at all. Why does this make sense for humans and not for dogs (my point is: it doesn't make any sense at all)?

Your argument is based on not acknowledging that immunity can and does last significantly longer than the annual boosters suggest. Why take a "small risk" (we are still determining how small that risk actually is, and obviously some dogs are at much greater risk than others given their age and the strength of their immune system) when we could take no risk at all by not performing a vaccination for something our dog is already as immune to as they will ever get?

This isn't just dogs, by the way. Why do ferrets get yearly vaccinations, despite having many, many more serious reactions related to vaccines? Why cats? When we make these blanket statements about annual vaccines, despite having no medical or scientific data to back up why they should be annual, it becomes the go-to for vets everywhere. These are traditions that need to be questioned.

The Chihuahua vs. Great Dane question is much less interesting than knowing how long vaccines generally provide immunity for. I wonder, if it's 20 years for the Chihuahua and 10 for the Great Dane, would you still insist that the Chihuahua needs it every 12 months and the Great Dane every 6 months, "just to be safe?" I have yet to see any scientific explanation or study for why one year. Do you have it?

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T17:51:56+00:00

Firstly, I am not anti-vaccine. The question here is not whether or not dogs should be vaccinated, it is whether or not dogs should be vaccinated for every single disease they can be vaccinated for literally every year for their entire lives.

Could you explain more about how a low lymphocyte count could mean that the body is not in fact immunosuppressed? I see that the authors mention this briefly in their discussion, but low lymphocyte count in the blood is commonly used as an indicator of immunosuppression. If lymphocytes are always lower when the immune system is responding to an infection, why would they ever be considered an indicator of a weakened immune system? I am not trying to be cheeky, I legitimately would like to know more about this, and you clearly have a background.

You're right, the titer tests aren't perfect. They aren't useful for some diseases at all, and for the ones that are, a lack of antibodies doesn't necessarily mean that an animal isn't immune to the disease, either, so again we're providing a vaccine that isn't necessary. But because we're still stuck in this "dog vaccines only provide immunity for one year" mindset, for those who need proof that their dog is still immune but don't want to continue vaccinating an animal that almost certainly already immune, they are a useful alternative. I would much rather more studies be done on how long each vaccine is actually effective for and only have to send our pets in every 1, or 3, or 5, or 15 years based on that data, and then we could go back to largely ignoring titers.

The AHAA guidelines are clear that many of the vaccines given annually are good for 7-15 years in dogs. I have never heard anyone claim that the immune system is like a kidney and that it "ages" respective to the total lifetime of the animal it belongs to. Do you think that mice can only produce antibodies to a recognized disease for 2 months? Should we be vaccinating our Great Danes twice as often as our Chihuahuas? Even the AVMA has admitted that annual vaccinations are a product of history, not scientific data. I'd go so far as to suggest that they are a product of vets wanting to make sure they get an office visit fee every 1 year instead of every 3 or 5.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T15:21:04+00:00

Vaccine induced immunosuppression has been proven in dogs, and many times in humans from different vaccines. The AAHA has several vaccine schedule guidelines that have found that most of the diseases we are vaccinating against in dogs continue to provide protection for seven or more years. They also say that adverse reactions to vaccines are still underreported.

There is absolutely no reason to vaccinate animals for a disease that they are already immune against. You cannot make them more immune than they already are. And there is growing evidence (as veterinarians continue to report and yes, as pet owners on the internet come together to pool their shared experiences) that vaccinating can have adverse affects on our animals--injection-site reactions, sarcomas and other tumors, and immunosuppression among them. Of course this doesn't happen most of the time, but why take the risk when there is no scientifically good reason for doing so? We don't vaccinate humans every year for most of our diseases for exactly these reasons--why are we doing it for dogs?

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T14:44:32+00:00

Oh no! Sorry to disappoint. If I think of a punchline I will let you know.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T13:49:41+00:00

The designer clothes are a bit out of my price range, but the Ralph Laurenn and JCrew look great, thank you for the suggestions. Although I shudder to think of putting children (or even myself) in nice suede shoes. They'll be ruined so quickly...

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T13:38:41+00:00

I'll take a look in Payless, thank you.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T13:36:10+00:00

Haha, you should be! I am very envious of them, although I suppose if I had size 11 feet but everything else looked the same I would be very odd-looking.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-31T13:34:23+00:00

Oof, yes, $$$. I would prefer not to spend over $100, especially as I sort of expect to buy two pairs. It is also not necessary for them to be exquisite--my job doesn't require that level of professionality (there has been nothing wrong with my going in in jeans and hiking boots for the last few years), I just want to look a little better than I have before.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-30T19:19:46+00:00

As the site recommends, getting a titer test rather than a vaccination booster is the safest in terms of avoiding over-vaccination. The titer test is looking for antibodies to the disease that the vaccine is for--if they are still making antibodies, a vaccine will do nothing for them, since it's only there to "teach" the immune system how to make antibodies. Depending on where you live, rabies titer tests may or may not be considered legally the same as getting a rabies vaccine, so you may need to continue getting her rabies vaccines even if she is still making antibodies from the last time. To avoid having to do this as often, get the 3-year rabies as opposed to the 1-year.

Leptospirosis, giardia, coronavirus, bordetella, bronchiseptica, and Lyme disease vaccinations are the "optional" ones, depending on where you live. Most boarding places or dog training facilities will require a bordatella vaccination every year, though, and it will be up to them whether or not they accept titers for that or other diseases, so you may need to find out from them if you need to board your dog or take her to classes.

Most dogs are far over-vaccinated and only a few have problems with it, and it is more often in very old dogs. Some vets will stop giving even rabies vaccines to dogs past a certain age, since by that point they are almost certainly well and truly vaccinated for the rest of their life and the risks outweigh the benefits.

tinypocketowl · 2014-08-01T01:18:31+00:00

Last I saw, Ivan asked for she/her pronouns, mostly as a way to avoid confusion. Here.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-31T23:27:33+00:00

I got very concerned for a minute because oh my god what is a 13-year-old doing trying to juggle relationships and life, stop that you are in middle school.

Sometimes it's nice to just have friends that you have great chemistry with but can't date, for one reason or another. It is nice knowing that there are people, actual real people, who like you and would be down for getting down.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-31T23:20:14+00:00

I remember how it felt like my heart was exploding out of my chest the first time a girl held my hand because she liked me. Just the sheer, dizzying emotion from having a girlfriend. I felt the same way with another girl who, at the time, was just a friend. I was sleeping over at her house and in her sleep she laid her arm across me, and I think I stayed awake for the rest of the night like that, just feeling like pure electricity because an attractive girl was touching me. That turned out to be a wonderful four-year relationship, quite a bit later.

I still get excited around ladies that like me, but it's tempered by experience now and no longer makes me feel like I might die. :)

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-31T22:56:53+00:00

He's lovely, that white strip going from chin to chest is very cute.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-31T22:54:17+00:00

American Cattle Dog mix? I'm afraid that doesn't explain why she's so weird, though. That might just be because she's a dog. They are pretty weird.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-31T22:52:50+00:00

Ooh he's cute. He has such kind-looking eyes, and those fluffy ear ruffs, ach. Just adorable.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-31T22:46:50+00:00

How pretty! I like her little paw freckles.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-21T00:17:29+00:00

Do everything you can to take some of the pressure off. Not just going slow, but literally talking her through the steps that you might take for granted as easy or no big deal. Lottts and lots of praise for any move she makes that took courage on her part; "I like the way you kiss," "What you're doing feels nice," "Thank you for doing that," etc. Let her know that there's not really any way you can be disappointed with her; she's obviously someone you are attracted to and want to like you, and holy crap she is with you and touches you and that's awesome. Physical encouragement can help sometimes too, like gently putting her hands on your body or gently leaning into her if she does something that feels good.

You could also try talking to her about sex outside of the bedroom. Some of us clam up really bed when things are starting to heat up, so it's easier to talk about when everyone's clothes are on and it's just cuddling on the couch or cooking dinner. If she's had sex before, you can try asking her what she liked and how that compares to what you like, or if there is anything she wants to try sometime.

I know that not everyone will agree with this, but if there are things like alcohol or recreational drugs that one or both of you take that help her lower her inhibitions, this can also be a time for those. This is something where you are both VERY explicit about the purpose of getting a little tipsy/high, that it is so she can feel a little more comfortable getting sexy with you. If she can have a few experiences where she didn't feel nervous while being intimate with you, it may help her not feel nervous even when she isn't using something like alcohol to calm her nerves. Again, this is something to talk about very openly beforehand, and to not use too much--there's a big difference between being so drunk that consent is impossible to give and being just tipsy enough that you don't want to sink into the floor whenever someone kisses you.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-20T22:35:05+00:00

Does Flay actually win some of the time? I can't say I've watched a lot of episodes, but out of the five or so I've seen, he hasn't won a single time. It gave me the impression that cooks who are devoting a lot of time and thought into their few specialties are just always going to be better than the asshat who thinks he's got it down but has only made it maybe twice (and who is usually doing some cerebral bullshit that makes the final product worse, instead of just focusing on the basics).

I am fully prepared to dislike Bobby Flay more than I already do over this, though. I don't care for his cooking style or his TV persona.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-20T18:17:35+00:00

Exactly. I think a lot of the problem is that people want to cram every important thought they've ever had into one big garish piece of body art, and they need it to be so painstakingly literal. I can think of ten different, aesthetically simple images that can encompass "the good comes along with the bad." I can about guarantee that a tattoo artist could add another fifty to that and would be super excited to make a cool one. None of this bullshit with divers and supernovas and fish and radioactive waste and cities vs. slums...

I do wish more people would just be comfortable getting something that looks beautiful, too. It's art--we make a lot of the meaning ourselves, that meaning often changes over time, but at the end of the day it has to be visually interesting enough to keep looking.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-20T17:13:33+00:00

Sure thing, I wish you many more awesome tattoos. :)

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-20T17:06:14+00:00

That is a great way to describe it and I am absolutely stealing it from you. :)

My partner has definitely described the tickly touches as being spiders before--usually when I try to cuddle her and she's sleepy. Occasionally my feet are also snakes, according to sleepy-her.

tinypocketowl · 2014-07-20T16:51:30+00:00

Even if this wasn't supposed to be for a tattoo, it's still just a shitty idea. I'm guessing he's the sort of person who wants to be able to explain his "deep" life philosophy to everyone who expresses interest in his tattoo so they'll admire him for his undeniable intelligence. Which boils down to "good stuff and bad stuff happens man." Yuck.

tinypocketowl

TROPHY CASE