Unvaccinated dogs

[Mojo]

Dogs died from ‘virus on shoes’

Mrs Wilde had thought that the homeopathic medicine she gave her dogs was sufficient enough to vaccinate against the deadly virus but it wasn't until her dogs became ill that she found out it wasn't.

...

"I didn't believe that Parvovirus was something I had to worry about, particularly for the puppies as they had never left my house and all the dogs were on homeopathics at the time of contracting the disease."

I wonder who told her that homoeopathy would protect her dogs from Parvovirus.

 

[six7s]

I wonder who told her that homoeopathy would protect her dogs from Parvovirus.

Maybe it was the dogs... and she's deaf to any Fing logic

WOO = WOOF - F;

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Vaccinate your dogs and cats, sterilize/neuter/spay your dogs and cats.

As for homeopathy on animals, big mistake. Unlike humans, dogs don't realize the pills are supposed to help and thus the placebo effect never kicks in.

 

[Rolfe]

The placebo effect works even better in animals than it does in people. The addition of an interpreter between the patient and the practitioner simply allows one more layer of bias to creep in (or rather, barge rudely in!). The animal may be entirely the same as it was, but the rose-coloured glasses donned by the gullible owner transform this situation into a massive improvement.

But the placebo effect never protected anyone from a viral infection.

This parvovirus stuff has been a running scandal for years. See this letter here:

http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes.html#newcombe

then further down the page this similar experience from another vet, and the letter below that, which was dredged from the archives and is dated 1991.

http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes.html#farr

Rolfe.

 

[soetkin]

Derailing the thread a tad; one of my email lists about cats claims that vaccines can cause tumors in pets at the injection site. They say to insist that the vet inject in the leg and not in the scruff of the neck as - ofcourse - limbs are easier to remove when necessary.
I've looked around and find info for and against so what do our resident vets think?

 

[zooterkin]

I wonder who told her that homoeopathy would protect her dogs from Parvovirus.

Sadly, quite a lot of dog owners seem very credulous where woo is concerned, and there are plenty of sites that apparently endorse homoeopathic 'vaccinations', such as this one.

A nosode is simply a homeopathic remedy that is made from a disease product. Nosodes are not in any way infections, and can be used in the same way as vaccines, that is, to prevent viral infection. Like vaccines, nosodes sensitize the body to a particular virus, so the immune system can react quickly and effectively to natural exposure. Nosodes are at least as effective as vaccines, and in some cases have been shown to be significantly more effective than vaccines in preventing infection.

The biggest advantage of nosodes over vaccines is the fact that they are completely safe. There are no risks or side-effects whatever. And they can be safely given to puppies and kittens much earlier than vaccines can. In fact, the mother can be treated before she gives birth, giving the puppies or kittens protection from the moment they are born.

Nosodes, like all homeopathic remedies, are very easy to administer: they are given by mouth, and don't even need to be swallowed. They are also very economical - far less expensive, in fact, than vaccination.
...
In addition to helping prevent specific viral diseases with prophylactic use, nosodes can be used even after exposure to a virus has taken place. If given immediately after exposure, before symptoms develop, these nosodes can prevent the development of clinical disease.

Viral diseases such a feline leukemia, feline infectious peritonitis, canine distemper and canine parvo virus are usually incurable with conventional medical treatment (antibiotics, steroids, etc.). However, they frequently respond very quickly and favorably to homeopathic treatment.

Is it actually legal to give this nonsense as advice?

ETA: I notice that site also supports tail-docking, so that's two things they're wrong about. Oh, it's for poodle fanciers, which makes three...


And "Hi!" to soetkin; I wonder if our names are etymologically linked? (A quick google suggests not, since it seems a fairly common name albeit one I've not encountered before, and mine's supposed to be an insult )

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Dog owner listens to quacks. Dog dies.

DIES.

Shouldn't SOMETHING be done about this???


Oh yeah. Wait. Dog owner is stupid... buyer beware. Her fault. People can lie and cause dogs to die because others are stupid enough to listen to them. Freedom of speech leads to death, cuz people are dumb enough to listen to others that are free to lie.

Otay.

All good. Death is nothing compared to being able to freely lie to dum dums that can fall for your lies.

Nothing to see here. Just another dumb consumer falling for what others are allowed to lie about.

It really doesn't matter that lies kill.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Derailing the thread a tad; one of my email lists about cats claims that vaccines can cause tumors in pets at the injection site. They say to insist that the vet inject in the leg and not in the scruff of the neck as - ofcourse - limbs are easier to remove when necessary.
I've looked around and find info for and against so what do our resident vets think?

More lies.

Um. I mean... vaccines are scary, don't use em... use homeopathy cuz it's "safe". Might kill your pets cuz it don't work, but at least it won't give them cancer, um... I mean homeopathy is safer than this scary stuff we say about vaccines.

 

[Rolfe]

Derailing the thread a tad; one of my email lists about cats claims that vaccines can cause tumors in pets at the injection site. They say to insist that the vet inject in the leg and not in the scruff of the neck as - ofcourse - limbs are easier to remove when necessary.
I've looked around and find info for and against so what do our resident vets think?

This is entirely true. (Sorry, Eos.)

It is only a concern in cats, and while some vaccines (rabies, FeLV) have been said to be implicated more than others, there is also some evidence that any injection has the capability to do it. And indeed, there has been the occasional report of a cat developing the condition with no history of having had injections.

It is rare, but not that rare. I have seen a number of cases. It is said to be commoner in the USA than in Britain.

It appears to be related to some peculiar quality of cat skin.

The question is, is the risk of the vaccine greater than the risk of the disease. Generally, no. However, weighing up the pros and cons I decided not to give my cat any more FeLV vaccine, as he's had enough already that he should be solidly immune, and in any case the disease prevalence where we live is low. I would generally recommend limiting the number of booster FeLV vaccines a cat gets, where there is low risk of disease.

Rolfe.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

That's alright, I didn't even look it up this time, and had remembered a post of yours that maybe addressed this once, but I wasn't sure. So, I figured you'd set that one straight

I just couldn't resist the chance to be sarcastic again, since most of the time the claims are downright outrageous.

 

[zooterkin]

Following up on my earlier post, I was looking at a site that does training weekends for dogs, and was disappointed to find the first entry was

1 JUNE 2nd/3rd JAMES NEWNS MRCVS " HOMEOPATHY -THE MODERN MEDICINE"

This course will not only discuss the underlying principles of homeopathy but also gene therapy, stem cell activation and gem therapy. Discussing case histories and plenty of opportunities to ask questions and to use James as an "agony aunt" are a feature of this weekend.

Not only homoeopathy, but gene therapy and gem therapy in the same sentence.

If the average dog owner finds this sort of course, presented by a qualified vet, is it surprising they would tend to believe it?

 

[Rolfe]

Newns. That's a new one on me. (Reaches for the RCVS Register....)

Ah. Qualified in 1965 from the Royal Veterinary College, University of London. Address in Cornwall.

Date of graduation is July. At that time the RVC had a four-years-two-terms course, with the first tranche of final examinations held in March. This suggests (though does not prove) that this gentleman had to have a second go.

43 years since graduation. Usual minimum age at graduation in England, 23. Estimated age, 66 years.

I know many senior members of the profession of this age and older, who are first-class scientists with a lifetime's experience in clinical research. However.

I'm just intrigued that this is the first time I've come across this particular homoeopath, in spite of the fact that he's been in practice for so long. It's also odd that he isn't on this list here [delete disparaging remarks against....]. Funny.

Rolfe.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm just intrigued that this is the first time I've come across this particular homoeopath, in spite of the fact that he's been in practice for so long. It's also odd that he isn't on this list here [delete disparaging remarks against....]. Funny.

A little googling suggests he is now retired:
Here:

She also said that she knows a retired vet who works with homeopathic remedies who would prescribe "Aristendo". His name is James Newns. His number is ...

There's one other instance of a quote from him on a "natural animal health" site, and in the google cache there was a listing for him giving the same course in Derbyshire in 2006.

So, perhaps he's only started with the homoeopathy since retiring?

 

[Rolfe]

He's not on the "retired" list in the Register, he's on the "practising" list. However, many vets do continue to pay the higher sub to stay on the practising list after retirement to allow them to continue to do locums and consultancy work.

Rolfe.

 

[six7s]

Not only homoeopathy, but gene therapy and gem therapy in the same sentence.

This ain't rock'n'roll. This is petocide!

Come out of the dark-ages, baby
You'll catch your death in the woo

​

 

[korenyx]

This is entirely true. (Sorry, Eos.)

It is only a concern in cats, and while some vaccines (rabies, FeLV) have been said to be implicated more than others, there is also some evidence that any injection has the capability to do it. And indeed, there has been the occasional report of a cat developing the condition with no history of having had injections.

It is rare, but not that rare. I have seen a number of cases. It is said to be commoner in the USA than in Britain.

It appears to be related to some peculiar quality of cat skin.

The question is, is the risk of the vaccine greater than the risk of the disease. Generally, no. However, weighing up the pros and cons I decided not to give my cat any more FeLV vaccine, as he's had enough already that he should be solidly immune, and in any case the disease prevalence where we live is low. I would generally recommend limiting the number of booster FeLV vaccines a cat gets, where there is low risk of disease.

Rolfe.

My cat never got the FeLV vaccine because the vet said it would be too hard on her. She lived for ten more years before she got a tumor on her jaw that spread to her brain.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's another reason to keep your rabies vaccines up to date on those doggies and kitties. We've had a rash of rabid bats in this state. A friend of mine's dog brought a dead bat home and it turned out it was rabid. If the animals had had no rabies vaccine, they would have been put down, no choice as far as I know. Because the animals (she had a dog and a cat) had had vaccine but it wasn't current, the animals were both confined to 90 days indoor quarantine.

 

[Rolfe]

My cat never got the FeLV vaccine because the vet said it would be too hard on her. She lived for ten more years before she got a tumor on her jaw that spread to her brain.

I think you must have misunderstood. Very few (and mostly superseded) vaccines are "hard" on anyone, and the FeLV vaccine is just some bits of viral antigen. It doesn't do a thing apart from stimulate immunity to FeLV (assuming the cat doesn't get injection-site-associated fibrosarcoma that is, and you can't predict which cats are going to get that).

In fact, keeping up to date with vaccines is generally a firm recommendation in animals with other illnesses, because the last thing such an animal needs is a dose of something else. The only reason for not going ahead with an FeLV vaccine that I can think of is that the cat already has FeLV. In which case it would simply be a waste of money.

Rolfe.