Human_And_Animal_Behaviour_Forensic_Sciences_Resea rch_Laboratory wrote:
HOWEDY malinda you pathetic miserable stinkin lyin
animal murderin punk thug coward active acute chronic
life long incurable malignant maliciHOWES mental case,

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nessa wrote:
I personally would be afraid my dogs would be hurt that way.
Paul needs stories to post here to get attention from folks
like you, so I think he deliberately puts his dog in harm's
way. It's all about the attention, and when you give it to
him it's payoff for hurting his dog, so I'd think twice
about responding.

SNIP BULLSHIT

Here's what happens when a TOURIST observes malinda
driving her HIGHLY TRAINED competitioin sled dog team:

From: (Melinda Shore)
Date: 25 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500

Subject: prong collar caution

In article Vu92j.7651$r81.6487@trndny05,
filly wrote:

Don't you love it when the dogs do everything
right and someone is actuallywatching!

Well, it's going to take a lot of doing everything right and
frankly a lot of training to make up for early last week,
where someone was walking her Australian Shepherd
cross along the road as we came up the section of trail that
paralleled it. My dogs went nuts, pulling towards them and
barking their heads off (and they rarely bark). Ideally I'd
be able to park the rig and pull the dogs around, but even
though I had the brakes locked on the rig they were still
pulling it. So, I knew that if I got off the dogs would
take off after her.

I dropped the snow hook, which I've been using as a ground
brake, but it landed prong-side up and that only compounded
the problem because as the dogs were pulling us forward the
snow hook was coming under the rig and the prongs were
inching towards the tires, which would have been shredded
(snow hooks:
http://www.nooksackracing.com/dog_sl...es_hooks.html).

This poor woman was clearly trying to pretend that a team
of four dogs wasn't barking their heads off at her, trying to
pretend that they weren't trying to come over for a visit,
trying to pretend it was just a normal walk down the road.
And in the meantime my dogs effectively got away with really
bad behavior.

So, a friend is coming over today to be an attractive
nuisance on the trails while we work on "on by," and yes,
I was pleasantly surprised when the dogs didn't try to go
visit Tom, standing in the hedgerow.

And this woman is a dog trainer? Kidding, right?

-- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community BWEEAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA~!~!~! Here's a other dose of malinda's REALITY: From: (Melinda Shore) Date: 22 Nov 2007 07:21:04 -0500 Subject: prong collar caution In article , Janet Boss wrote:
and here's a photo of the collar that I received in the mail, next to a
brand new collar (which I have sold HUNDREDS of w/out incident):
http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ingPuppyWizard

"Loop the lead (it's basically a GIANT nylon or leather
choke collar) over his snarly little head, and give him a
stern correction" --Janet Boss
http://tinyurl.com/5m6ppt

I really don't think that you have any reason whatsoever to
feel as if you've got to defend yourself against a dysfunctional
lunatic who can't let go of even the tiniest stuff.

I can't believe he's still whining about that stupid collar.

Here's hoping for a great Thanksgiving for the Americans
here. My mother is usually pretty precise in her language
but when we were talking about Thanksgiving plans the other
day she said "We have a lot to be thankful for, even though
we're Canadian." Sometimes despite your best efforts stuff
just comes out wrong.
-- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community LIKE THIS: Here's REALITY malinda. You and your lyin dog abusing punk thug coward active acute chronic long term incurable mental case pals CAN'T POST HERE abHOWETS nodoGdameneDMOO "J1Boss" wrote in message ... He was next to me and I could see his neck muscles pulsing. He didn't even blink an eye. Janet Boss "sionnach" wrote in message ...
"J1Boss" wrote in message
...
I can't imagine needing anything higher
than a 5 with it, even with an insensitive
dog like a Lab.

An INSENSITIVE DOG???

I can't remember what model of Innotek I have, but
I had a pointer ignore a neck-muscle-pulsing 9.

Oh that's sick! Forcing a dog to obey by using pain?



On 6 Feb 2006 17:41:08 GMT, Mary Healey
,
clicked their heels and said:

Does that include tone of voice? Some tools are easier
to ban than others.

yes - screaming banshees are told to shut up! And I
always have to remind spouses that they may NOT do the
"honey - you're supposed to be doing it like THIS"......
--
Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

Subject: Muttley: Now a question of Life or Death
"Paul E. Schoen" wrote

It is a shame that Muttley will probably be put
down (his appointment is next Wednesday),

Subject: Muttley: Now a question of Life or Death

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote

Hello everyone:

If you have followed some of my posts, you know
something about the ongoing story of Muttley, the
large GSD/Chow dog I have been trying to adopt
or place in a better home.

I will add a bit more history later in this post.

Last Tuesday, toward the end of Janet's obedience
class, Muttley and I had just finished fairly successfully
performing a sit/stay/come routine, and then he was
sitting by my side.

The final routine was to be a "down", which Muttley
has had some difficulty with, and frankly I have not
had the time to work with him much on that.

I was kneeling at his side, trying to hold his collar
while pushing his front legs down to the position,
while he resisted. Suddenly he lunged, knocking
me over onto the parking lot, and I lost grip of the
leash as I reflexively broke my fall.

Muttley took the opportunity to attack a young black
male Lab to my left, and it was a very brutal attack.
Janet and the instructors tried to gain control, and as
soon as I could get to my feet I grabbed the leash and
pulled him off.

That was the end of the class, and the other dog,
Bernie, was taken to an animal hospital for treatment.

When everyone had left, Janet counseled me about
what should be done about Muttley.

She said this was more than ordinary aggression,
and only intensive (and expensive) one on one
training would have any chance at working, and
in any case, he was not suited to group training.

She advised me that Muttley could be dangerous,
and she recommended that he be euthanized.

"They can't all be saved".

Sounds like vaccine damage. I noted that she *requires* that the dogs in
her classes are fully jabbed. And then she wonders why!

I had a dog that was aggressive to other dogs. Instead of killing her I
stopped giving her vaccinations and the aggression slowly went away.

I will never vaccinate a pet or myself again.

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:


Sounds like vaccine damage. I noted that she *requires* that the dogs in
her classes are fully jabbed. And then she wonders why!

GFY. I require RABIES VACCINATION. That is the LAW.

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

Janet Boss wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:

Sounds like vaccine damage. I noted that she *requires* that the dogs in
her classes are fully jabbed. And then she wonders why!

GFY. I require RABIES VACCINATION. That is the LAW.


And if you knew what I know about the horrible damage that vaccines
cause you'd still vaccinate them? It's more important to you to stay
within the law than keep your dog healthy?

That's sad!

The law doesn't say *you* have to require that vaccine of the poor folks
who take your class. Dogs gain immunity from everyday life. It's not
necessary to purposely hurt them.

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/...ineDamage.html

A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted
several studies (1,2) to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the
immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening
immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because
concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation
which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human
immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies
developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including
fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs -- ”but not the non-vaccinated
dogs”-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in
tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation
between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin,
which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion,
spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells.
Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence
of cells.

Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the
serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals
with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated
anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots
within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage,
bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing
autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the
protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our
bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them
with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997
study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility
problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What
Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated
dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA. Did the alarm bells
sound? Did the scientific community call a halt to the vaccination
program? No. Instead, they stuck their fingers in the air, saying more
research is needed to ascertain whether vaccines can cause genetic
damage. Meanwhile, the study dogs were found good homes, but no
long-term follow-up has been conducted. At around the same time, the
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Vaccine-Associated Feline
Sarcoma Task Force initiated several studies to find out why 160,000
cats each year in the USA develop terminal cancer at their vaccine
injection sites.(3) The fact that cats can get vaccine-induced cancer
has been acknowledged by veterinary bodies around the world, and even
the British Government acknowledged it through its Working Group charged
with the task of looking into canine and feline vaccines(4) following
pressure from Canine Health Concern. What do you imagine was the advice
of the AVMA Task Force, veterinary bodies and governments? "Carry on
vaccinating until
we find out why vaccines are killing cats, and which cats are most
likely to die."

In America, in an attempt to mitigate the problem, they're vaccinating
cats in the tail or leg so they can amputate when cancer appears. Great
advice if it's not your cat amongst the hundreds of thousands on the
"oops" list.

But other species are okay - right? Wrong. In August 2003, the Journal
of Veterinary Medicine carried an Italian study which showed that dogs
also develop vaccine-induced cancers at their injection sites.(5) We
already know that vaccine-site cancer is a possible sequel to human
vaccines, too, since the Salk polio vaccine was said to carry a monkey
retrovirus (from cultivating the vaccine on monkey organs) that produces
inheritable cancer. The monkey retrovirus SV40 keeps turning up in human
cancer sites.

It is also widely acknowledged that vaccines can cause a fast-acting,
usually fatal, disease called autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA).
Without treatment, and frequently with treatment, individuals can die in
agony within a matter of days. Merck, itself a multinational vaccine
manufacturer, states in The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy that
autoimmune haemolytic anaemia may be caused by modified live-virus
vaccines, as do Tizard's Veterinary Immunology (4th edition) and the
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.(6) The British Government's
Working Group, despite being staffed by vaccine-industry consultants who
say they are independent, also acknowledged this fact. However, no one
warns the pet owners before their animals are subjected to an
unnecessary booster, and very few owners are told why after their pets
die of AIHA.

A Wide Range of Vaccine-induced Diseases

We also found some worrying correlations between vaccine events and the
onset of arthritis in our 1997 survey. Our concerns were compounded by
research in the human field.

The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reported that it is
possible to isolate the rubella virus from affected joints in children
vaccinated against rubella. It also told of the isolation of viruses
from the peripheral blood of women with prolonged arthritis following
vaccination.(7)

Then, in 2000, CHC's findings were confirmed by research which showed
that polyarthritis and other diseases like amyloidosis, which affects
organs in dogs, were linked to the combined vaccine given to dogs.(8)
There is a huge body of research, despite the paucity of funding from
the vaccine industry, to confirm that vaccines can cause a wide range of
brain and central nervous system damage. Merck itself states in its
Manual that vaccines (i.e., its own products) can cause encephalitis:
brain inflammation/damage. In some cases, encephalitis involves lesions
in the brain and throughout the central nervous system. Merck states
that "examples are the encephalitides following measles, chickenpox,
rubella, smallpox vaccination, vaccinia, and many other less well
defined viral infections".

When the dog owners who took part in the CHC survey reported that their
dogs developed short attention spans, 73.1% of the dogs did so within
three months of a vaccine event. The same percentage of dogs was
diagnosed with epilepsy within three months of a shot (but usually
within days). We also found that 72.5% of dogs that were considered by
their owners to be nervous and of a worrying disposition, first
exhibited these traits within the three-month post-vaccination period.

I would like to add for the sake of Oliver, my friend who suffered from
paralysed rear legs and death shortly after a vaccine shot, that
"paresis" is listed in Merck's Manual as a symptom of encephalitis. This
is defined as muscular weakness of a neural (brain) origin which
involves partial or incomplete paralysis, resulting from lesions at any
level of the descending pathway from the brain. Hind limb paralysis is
one of the potential consequences. Encephalitis, incidentally, is a
disease that can manifest across the scale from mild to severe and can
also cause sudden death.

Organ failure must also be suspected when it occurs shortly after a
vaccine event. Dr Larry Glickman, who spearheaded the Purdue research
into post-vaccination biochemical changes in dogs, wrote in a letter to
Cavalier Spaniel breeder Bet Hargreaves:

"Our ongoing studies of dogs show that following routine
vaccination, there is a significant rise in the level of antibodies dogs
produce against their own tissues. Some of these antibodies have been
shown to target the thyroid gland, connective tissue such as that found
in the valves of the heart, red blood cells, DNA, etc. I do believe that
the heart conditions in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels could be the end
result of repeated immunisations by vaccines containing tissue culture
contaminants that cause a progressive immune response directed at
connective tissue in the heart valves. The clinical manifestations would
be more pronounced in dogs that have a genetic predisposition [although]
the findings should be generally applicable to all dogs regardless of
their breed."


I must mention here that Dr Glickman believes that vaccines are a
necessary evil, but that safer vaccines need to be developed.

Meanwhile, please join the queue to place your dog, cat, horse and child
on the Russian roulette wheel because a scientist says you should.

Vaccines Stimulate an Inflammatory Response

The word "allergy" is synonymous with "sensitivity" and "inflammation".
It should, by rights, also be synonymous with the word "vaccination".
This is what vaccines do: they sensitise (render allergic)an individual
in the process of forcing them to develop antibodies to fight a disease
threat. In other words, as is acknowledged and accepted, as part of the
vaccine process the body will respond with inflammation. This may be
apparently temporary or it may be longstanding.

Holistic doctors and veterinarians have known this for at least 100 years.
They talk about a wide range of inflammatory or "-itis" diseases which
arise shortly after a vaccine event. Vaccines, in fact, plunge many
individuals into an allergic state. Again, this is a disorder that
ranges from mild all the way through to the suddenly fatal. Anaphylactic
shock is the culmination: it's where an individual has a massive
allergic reaction to a vaccine and will die within minutes if adrenaline
or its equivalent is not administered.

There are some individuals who are genetically not well placed to
withstand the vaccine challenge. These are the people (and animals are
"people", too) who have inherited faulty B and T cell function. B and T
cells are components within the immune system which identify foreign
invaders and destroy them, and hold the invader in memory so that they
cannot cause future harm. However, where inflammatory responses are
concerned, the immune system overreacts and causes unwanted effects such
as allergies and other
inflammatory conditions.

Merck warns in its Manual that patients with, or from families with, B
and/or T cell immunodeficiencies should not receive live-virus vaccines
due to the risk of severe or fatal infection. Elsewhere, it lists
features of B and T cell immunodeficiencies as food allergies, inhalant
allergies, eczema, dermatitis, neurological deterioration and heart
disease. To translate, people with these conditions can die if they
receive live-virus vaccines. Their immune systems are simply not
competent enough to guarantee a healthy reaction to the viral assault
from modified live-virus vaccines.

Modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines replicate in the patient until an
immune response is provoked. If a defence isn't stimulated, then the
vaccine continues to replicate until it gives the patient the very
disease it was intending to prevent.

Alternatively, a deranged immune response will lead to inflammatory
conditions such as arthritis, pancreatitis, colitis, encephalitis and
any number of autoimmune diseases such as cancer and leukaemia, where
the body attacks its own cells.

A new theory, stumbled upon by Open University student Gary Smith,
explains what holistic practitioners have been saying for a very long
time. Here is what a few of the holistic vets have said in relation to
their patients:

Dr Jean Dodds: "Many veterinarians trace the present problems with
allergic and immunologic diseases to the introduction of MLV
vaccines..." (9)

Christina Chambreau, DVM: "Routine vaccinations are probably the worst
thing that we do for our animals. They cause all types of illnesses, but
not directly to where we would relate them definitely to be caused by
the vaccine." (10)

Martin Goldstein, DVM: "I think that vaccines...are leading killers of
dogs and cats in America today."

Dr Charles E. Loops, DVM: "Homoeopathic veterinarians and other holistic
practitioners have maintained for some time that vaccinations do more
harm than they provide benefits." (12)

Mike Kohn, DVM: "In response to this [vaccine] violation, there have
been increased autoimmune diseases (allergies being one component),
epilepsy, neoplasia [tumours], as well as behavioural problems in small
animals." (13)

A Theory on Inflammation

Gary Smith explains what observant healthcare practitioners have been
saying for a very long time, but perhaps they've not understood why
their observations led them to say it. His theory, incidentally, is
causing a huge stir within the inner scientific sanctum. Some believe
that his theory could lead to a cure for many diseases including cancer.
For me, it explains why the vaccine process is inherently questionable.

Gary was learning about inflammation as part of his studies when he
struck upon a theory so extraordinary that it could have implications
for the treatment of almost every inflammatory disease -- including
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis and even HIV and AIDS.

Gary's theory questions the received wisdom that when a person gets ill,
the inflammation that occurs around the infected area helps it to heal.
He claims that, in reality, inflammation prevents the body from
recognising a foreign substance and therefore serves as a hiding place
for invaders. The inflammation occurs when at-risk cells produce
receptors called All (known as angiotensin II type I receptors). He says
that while At1 has a balancing receptor, At2, which is supposed to
switch off the inflammation, in most diseases this does not happen.

"Cancer has been described as the wound that never heals," he says. "All
successful cancers are surrounded by inflammation. Commonly this is
thought to be the body's reaction to try to fight the cancer, but this
is not the case.

"The inflammation is not the body trying to fight the infection. It is
actually the virus or bacteria deliberately causing inflammation in
order to hide from the immune system [author's emphasis]." (14)

If Gary is right, then the inflammatory process so commonly stimulated
by vaccines is not, as hitherto assumed, a necessarily acceptable sign.
Instead, it could be a sign that the viral or bacterial component, or
the adjuvant (which, containing foreign protein, is seen as an invader
by the immune system), in the vaccine is winning by stealth.

If Gary is correct in believing that the inflammatory response is not
protective but a sign that invasion is taking place under cover of
darkness, vaccines are certainly not the friends we thought they were.
They are undercover assassins working on behalf of the enemy, and vets
and medical doctors are unwittingly acting as collaborators. Worse, we
animal guardians and parents are actually paying doctors and vets to
unwittingly betray our loved ones.

Potentially, vaccines are the stealth bomb of the medical world. They
are used to catapult invaders inside the castle walls where they can
wreak havoc, with none of us any the wiser. So rather than experiencing
frank viral diseases such as the 'flu, measles, mumps and rubella (and,
in the case of dogs, parvovirus and distemper), we are allowing the
viruses to win anyway - but with cancer, leukaemia and other
inflammatory or autoimmune (self-attacking) diseases taking their place.

The Final Insult

All 27 veterinary schools in North America have changed their protocols
for vaccinating dogs and cats along the following lines; (15) however,
vets in practice are reluctant to listen to these changed protocols and
official veterinary bodies in the UK and other countries are ignoring
the following facts.

Dogs' and cats' immune systems mature fully at six months. If modified
live-virus vaccine is giver after six months of age, it produces
immunity, which is good for the life of the pet. If another MLV vaccine
is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise
the antigens of the second vaccine and there is little or no effect. The
litre is no "boosted", nor are more memory cells induced.

Not only are annual boosters unnecessary, but they subject the pet to
potential risks such as allergic reactions and immune-mediated
haemolytic anaemia.

In plain language, veterinary schools in America, plus the American
Veterinary Medical Association, have looked at studies to show how long
vaccines last and they have concluded and announced that annual
vaccination is unnecessary.(16-19)

Further, they have acknowledged that vaccines are not without harm. Dr
Ron Schultz, head of pathobiology at Wisconsin University and a leading
light in this field, has been saying this politely to his veterinary
colleagues since the 1980s. I've been saying it for the past 12 years.
But change is so long in coming and, in the meantime, hundreds of
thousands of animals are dying every year - unnecessarily.

The good news is that thousands of animal lovers (but not enough) have
heard what we've been saying. Canine Health Concern members around the
world use real food as Nature's supreme disease preventative, eschewing
processed pet food, and minimise the vaccine risk. Some of us, myself
included, have chosen not to vaccinate our pets at all. Our reward is
healthy and long-lived dogs.

It has taken but one paragraph to tell you the good and simple news. The
gratitude I feel each day, when I embrace my healthy dogs, stretches
from the centre of the Earth to the Universe and beyond.

About the Author:

Catherine O'Driscoll runs Canine Health Concern which campaigns and
also delivers an educational program, the Foundation in Canine
Healthcare. She is author of Shock to the System (2005; see review this
issue), the best-selling book What Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines
(1997, 1998), and Who Killed the Darling Buds of May? (1997; reviewed in
NEXUS 4/04).
She lives in Scotland with her partner, Rob Ellis, and three Golden
Retrievers, named Edward, Daniel and Gwinnie, and she lectures on canine
health around the world.

For more information, contact Catherine O'Driscoll at Canine Health
Concern, PO Box 7533, Perth PH2 1AD, Scotland, UK, email
, website http://www.canine-health-concern.org.uk.
Shock to the System is available in the UK from CHC, and worldwide
from Dogwise at http://www.dogwise.com.

Endnotes
1. "Effects of Vaccination on the Endocrine and Immune Systems of Dogs,
Phase II", Purdue University, November 1,1999, at
http://www.homestead.com/vonhapsburg...nvaccines.html.

2. See www.vet.purdue.edu/epi/gdhstudy.htm.

3. See http://www.avma.org/vafstf/default.asp.

4. Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) Working Group on Feline and
Canine Vaccination, DEFRA, May 2001.

5. JVM Series A 50(6):286-291, August 2003.

6. Duval, D. and Giger,U. (1996). "Vaccine-Associated Immune-Mediated
Hemolytic Anemia in the Dog", Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
10:290-295.

7. New England Journal of Medicine, vol.313,1985.
See also Clin Exp Rheumatol 20(6):767-71, Nov-Dec 2002.

8. Am Coll Vet Intern Med 14:381,2000.

9. Dodds, Jean W.,DVM, "Immune System and Disease Resistance", at
http://www.critterchat.net/immune.htm.

10. Wolf Clan magazine, April/May 1995.

11. Goldstein, Martin, The Nature of Animal Healing, Borzoi/Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc., 1999.

12. Wolf Clan magazine, op. cit.

13. ibid.

14. Journal of Inflammation 1:3,2004, at
http://www.journal-inflammation.com content/1/1/3.

15. Klingborg, D.J., Hustead, D.R. and Curry-Galvin, E. et al., "AVMA
Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents' report on cat and dog
vaccines", Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
221(10):1401-1407, November 15,2002,
http://www.avma.org/policies/vaccination.htm.

16. ibid.

17. Schultz, R.D., "Current and future canine and feline vaccination
programs", Vet Med 93:233-254,1998.

18. Schultz, R.D., Ford, R.B., Olsen, J. and Scott, P., "Titer testing
and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices", Vet Med 97:1-13,
2002 (insert).

19. Twark, L. and Dodds, W.J., "Clinical application of serum parvovirus
and distemper virus antibody liters for determining revaccination
strategies in healthy dogs", J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024,2000.

Janet Boss wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:

Sounds like vaccine damage. I noted that she *requires* that the dogs in
her classes are fully jabbed. And then she wonders why!

GFY. I require RABIES VACCINATION. That is the LAW.


It's also the law that you don't abuse your pets and obviously from
prior posts you do it all the time. Shame on you!

Really...what are you saying? Just spell it out already. "I don't
like that law so I'm not going to abide it because I'M right and
EVERYONE ELSE is wrong" ?

You and Howe really need to get together.

wrote:
Really...what are you saying?

Read the damned link and you will know what I'm saying. There is an
incredible amount of information there that tells you about the harm of
vaccines. Are you blind or just stupid?

Just spell it out already. "I don't
like that law so I'm not going to abide it because I'M right and
EVERYONE ELSE is wrong" ?

Has nothing to do with "liking" the law. If there is a law that I think
will cause permanent harm it's my duty to keep my dog, kids, self safe.
I won't be intimidated by that!

[excessive crossposting snipped]

chardonnay9 wrote:

It's more important to you to stay within the law than keep your dog
healthy?

Vaccines keep dogs healthy. You're obviously too young too remember
the days when distemper and parvo would sweep though an area and
kill hundreds or thousands of dogs. The major problems with distemper
were before my time, but I do remember the parvo epidemic before there
was a vaccine for that. And haven't you seen "To Kill A Mockingbird"?
It used to be that a dog running loose and acting "strange" quickly
and automatically was subjected to the death penalty due to the risk
of rabies.

Read a little history instead of the goofball web pages you're so
into; you might actually learn something.

Oh, and if you're really so silly as to not vaccinate your dogs at
all, keep in mind that it is those that do who give you the freedom
to do so. If everyone stopped vaccinating tomorrow, we'd return to
the bad old days when bringing home an adorable puppy often ended
up with that puppy dying within days. It's the fact that most of us
DO vaccinate that keeps epidemics from taking hold.

Dogs gain immunity from everyday life.

Actually, they gain immunity to specific diseases by one of two
routes: 1) vaccination, or 2) being infected with the disease,
sometimes without the owner not realizing it. Their bodies don't
magically create distemper antibodies (just as an example) from
exposure to everyday life; they MUST be exposured to distemper
first.

A friend of mine once forwarded me a post from a whacko on an email
list who was posting because she was just FULL of pride that her
dog had had a very high parvo titer and had never been vaccinated
it. It was one of those totally jaw-dropping moments: had she been
in front of me, I would NOT have been able to resist whacking her
upside the head and saying "That's nothing to be proud of, you
moron. YOUR DOG HAD PARVO AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE IT. You're
not super-wonderful-owner for failing to vaccinate your dog; you
just proved yourself to be not only negligent but also unobservant.
doG help any pets that are unfortunate to come under your care..."

Dianne

(null) wrote:
[excessive crossposting snipped]

chardonnay9 wrote:
It's more important to you to stay within the law than keep your dog
healthy?

Vaccines keep dogs healthy.

Not when they are given over and over again. And sometimes not from the
first shot.


You're obviously too young too remember
the days when distemper and parvo would sweep though an area and
kill hundreds or thousands of dogs.

Obviously? LOL!

The major problems with distemper
were before my time, but I do remember the parvo epidemic before there
was a vaccine for that.

Your point? Did you have one? Do you know that a significant number of
pups jabbed for parvo get it right after the jab?


And haven't you seen "To Kill A Mockingbird"?
It used to be that a dog running loose and acting "strange" quickly
and automatically was subjected to the death penalty due to the risk
of rabies.

Read a little history instead of the goofball web pages you're so
into; you might actually learn something.

You haven't made a point yet. Let me know when you do.


Oh, and if you're really so silly as to not vaccinate your dogs at
all, keep in mind that it is those that do who give you the freedom
to do so. If everyone stopped vaccinating tomorrow, we'd return to
the bad old days when bringing home an adorable puppy often ended
up with that puppy dying within days. It's the fact that most of us
DO vaccinate that keeps epidemics from taking hold.

Actually, no it's not.


Dogs gain immunity from everyday life.

Actually, they gain immunity to specific diseases by one of two
routes: 1) vaccination, or 2) being infected with the disease,
sometimes without the owner not realizing it. Their bodies don't
magically create distemper antibodies (just as an example) from
exposure to everyday life; they MUST be exposured to distemper
first.

Now my turn. Being exposed to something doesn't mean you actually had
it. A pet can build antibodies from the vaccine shedding of other dogs
for instance.

"Shedding is when the live virus that is injected via vaccine, moves
through the human body and comes back out in the feces, droplets from
the nose, or saliva from the mouth. Anyone who takes care of the child
could potentially contract the disease for some time after that child
has received certain live vaccines. This was a huge problem with the
oral polio vaccine, and was one of the reasons why it was taken off the
market in the US."
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/24/secondary-transmission-%EF%BB%BFthe-short-and-sweet-about-live-virus-vaccine-shedding/

And of course, this happens with dogs too.



A friend of mine once forwarded me a post from a whacko on an email
list who was posting because she was just FULL of pride that her
dog had had a very high parvo titer and had never been vaccinated
it. It was one of those totally jaw-dropping moments: had she been
in front of me, I would NOT have been able to resist whacking her
upside the head and saying "That's nothing to be proud of, you
moron. YOUR DOG HAD PARVO AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE IT.

You are the one needs a slap in the head. A high titers can mean it was
exposed but didn't get it.

You're
not super-wonderful-owner for failing to vaccinate your dog; you
just proved yourself to be not only negligent but also unobservant.
doG help any pets that are unfortunate to come under your care..."

Dianne

Which means you didn't read the article about vaccine damage. Stay
stupid if you want to, I surely can't force you to see. So who is the
negligent one? The person that digs and finds the truth or someone like
you that assumes everything you hear is real?

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/...ineDamage.html

Have you not heard how states are slowly increasing legal time between
rabies shots? Have you not heard about the study being done on how long
immunity to rabies lasts?

http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/
The Rabies Challenge Fund Charitable Trust will determine the duration
of immunity conveyed by rabies vaccines. The goal is to extend the
required interval for rabies boosters to 5 and then to 7 years. This
project depends primarily upon grassroots gifts for funding the costs of
conducting the requisite vaccine trials. Our contributions to date have
come mostly from kennel clubs and private individuals. The Challenge
fund is a federally registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization [Fed.
EIN # 84-6390682].



"A few years ago, the Colorado State University School of Veterinary
Medicine became the first veterinary college to issue a vaccination
schedule that recommended against annual vaccinations. In their new
protocol they wrote, "We are making this change after years of concern
about the lack of scientific evidence to support the current practice of
annual vaccination and the increasing documentation that over
vaccinating has been associated with harmful side effects. Of particular
note in this regard has been the association of autoimmune hemolytic
anemia with vaccination in dogs and vaccine-associated sarcomas in
cats...both of which are often fatal."
http://www.caberfeidh.com/Revax.htm

Observe this and tell me

"More and more pet owners understand now that vaccines do not provide
immunity. A healthy immune system does. Veterinarians in general don't
know much about vaccines, they know little about immunology and even
less on canine nutrition. Many are still giving yearly shots, even
though research has shown that is an arbitrary timetable. Vaccine
companies have also really taken advantage of this schedule that was
devised in the 1970’s. Vaccine companies and Vets thrive on vaccinating
your pet. They will vaccinate now and attempt to repair damage created
later in your pets life, usually providing no long term benefit or being
able to view and your dogs health from a position of surviving to
“thriving” to your animal. Increasingly Holistic Vets and in particular
those who study immunology tell us over and over again that if you feed
a species appropriate raw diet (prey model), eliminate toxins in the
form of vaccines, heartworm, flea/tick medications and allopathic meds.
Strive to provide clean water, fresh air, exercise combined with
reasonable amount of exposure to diseases (distemper/parvo via dog-dog
socialization then you “should” have a healthy dog and she/he "should"
resist disease, including fleas and ticks!

Unless a veterinarian has a special interest in immunology, he or she
probably will not have all the information needed to give you an
informed response on vaccinations. I also wish I could tell you that
there is a definite answer to these questions, based on science and
research; there isn't. I have read so much information on this subject
(some of which is conflicting -so keep an open mind about this subject),
I have also queried Vets and homeopaths about it. Ultimately, no matter
what your Vet suggests, or what I believe, or what you read as you
research this issue, this is your decision to make."
http://healthydogs.org/2005/12/vaccinations.html

chardonnay9 wrote:
I wrote:

Vaccines keep dogs healthy.

Not when they are given over and over again. And sometimes not from the
first shot.

You've just contradicted yourself. Your second statement is true: some
vaccines need to be repeated in order to build adequate levels of
immunity (the rabies and hepatitis B vaccines for humans come to mind).
However, that contradicts your first assertion; for those two vaccines
being given "over and over again" is essential. QED.

OTOH, the reason that the parvo vaccine doesn't reliably convey immunity
on the first vaccination is different; the issue with that one is
maternal antibody interference. (If you haven't heard of that, Google
it.)

The major problems with distemper
were before my time, but I do remember the parvo epidemic before there
was a vaccine for that.

Your point?

There was enormous suffering before the parvo vaccine, both canine and
human. But as I said, you're obviously too young to remember that.

Do you know that a significant number of pups jabbed for parvo get
it right after the jab?

That's not surprising, given the issue of maternal antibody interference
and the fact that parvo's incubation period can be as long as 14 days.
However, that does not mean that the vaccine *causes* the disease. Big
difference.

Also please note, the word "significant" has a specific meaning in
medical research, and (not at all surprisingly) you misused it.

Oh, and if you're really so silly as to not vaccinate your dogs at
all, keep in mind that it is those that do who give you the freedom
to do so. If everyone stopped vaccinating tomorrow, we'd return to
the bad old days when bringing home an adorable puppy often ended
up with that puppy dying within days. It's the fact that most of us
DO vaccinate that keeps epidemics from taking hold.

Actually, no it's not.

"What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?" -
http://cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

This information concerns vaccinations for humans, but is equally
applicable to dogs.

Being exposed to something doesn't mean you actually had it. A pet
can build antibodies from the vaccine shedding of other dogs
for instance.

Cite, please?

"Shedding is when the live virus that is injected via vaccine, moves
through the human body and comes back out in the feces, droplets from
the nose, or saliva from the mouth. Anyone who takes care of the child
could potentially contract the disease for some time after that child
has received certain live vaccines. This was a huge problem with the
oral polio vaccine, and was one of the reasons why it was taken off the
market in the US."
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/24/secondary-transmission-%EF%BB%BFthe-short-and-sweet-about-live-virus-vaccine-shedding/

And of course, this happens with dogs too.

Do you actually bother *reading* the stuff that you quote? I think
not. Please read the second sentence of what you quoted: "could
potentially contract the disease". Nowhere in the article you cited
(and yes, I did check that link out) did the author claim that exposure
to virus shed after vaccination could confer immunity.

You are the one needs a slap in the head. A high titers can mean it was
exposed but didn't get it.

I'm tempted to reply with "cite, please" but I know that's hopeless.
All I can say is that in my 16 years of working in medical research
(including a stint in a virology lab) I never saw a doctor view a
positive titer as anything other than proof that either a person had
been vaccinated or had actually had the disease.

Which means you didn't read the article about vaccine damage.

I've read a few reputable articles on the subject, and a whole lot of
nonsense. I didn't bother to check out what you posted because, frankly,
considering the source I figured it would be a waste of time.

Dianne

(null) wrote:


You are the one needs a slap in the head. A high titers can mean it was
exposed but didn't get it.

I'm tempted to reply with "cite, please" but I know that's hopeless.
All I can say is that in my 16 years of working in medical research
(including a stint in a virology lab) I never saw a doctor view a
positive titer as anything other than proof that either a person had
been vaccinated or had actually had the disease.

Which means you didn't read the article about vaccine damage.

I've read a few reputable articles on the subject, and a whole lot of
nonsense. I didn't bother to check out what you posted because, frankly,
considering the source I figured it would be a waste of time.

Then why bother asking for "cite please" if you don't read it? I think
you'd rather argue than learn something.


Dianne