If Vaccine Immunity Really Lasts for Years, Why Annual Boosters?

Vaccine manufacturers' true immunity expiration dates are kept secret
from recipients- who only hear the recommended earlier expiration dates
to promote re-vaccinations.

http://petcare.suite101.com/article....ing_pet_owners

chardonnay9 wrote:
If Vaccine Immunity Really Lasts for Years, Why Annual Boosters?

Your vet still uses annual boosters?

What, did you find him or her in the stone age?


Vaccine manufacturers' true immunity expiration dates are kept secret
from recipients- who only hear the recommended earlier expiration dates
to promote re-vaccinations.

They're not "kept secret". Good grief.
There is not such thing as an "immunity
expiration date" by the way.

Titers can be good things. As can edicated
assessments and periodic, but not necessarily
yearly, Vax-ing. Lots of people have known
this for years now (its been a discussion on
this very newsgroup for almost 10 years,
actually).

But to present it as a conspiracy?

Oh please.

http://petcare.suite101.com/article....ing_pet_owners


Oh yeah, that's a source I'd trust.

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
If Vaccine Immunity Really Lasts for Years, Why Annual Boosters?

Your vet still uses annual boosters?

What, did you find him or her in the stone age?

Most vets still do annual boosters.



Vaccine manufacturers' true immunity expiration dates are kept secret
from recipients- who only hear the recommended earlier expiration
dates to promote re-vaccinations.

They're not "kept secret". Good grief.
There is not such thing as an "immunity expiration date" by the way.

In a way you are right. The vaccine manufacturers don't want to know
when the pets lose immunity and especially don't want you and I (and
vets) to know either. Indeed I don't know of any who would waste money
on studies that could kill their bottom line.



Titers can be good things.

But they are very lacking in what they can tell us. Not only are they
outrageously expensive but it isn't really a show of immunity anyway.
Titers are not efficient if exposure is not recent. Immunity lies
dormant until needed. Titers do not detect this.


As can edicated assessments and periodic, but
not necessarily yearly, Vax-ing.

Is this a sentence?


Lots of people have known this for
years now (its been a discussion on this very newsgroup for almost 10
years, actually).

Actually most people still don't know it.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
If Vaccine Immunity Really Lasts for Years, Why Annual Boosters?

Your vet still uses annual boosters?

What, did you find him or her in the stone age?

Most vets still do annual boosters.



Vaccine manufacturers' true immunity expiration dates are kept secret
from recipients- who only hear the recommended earlier expiration
dates to promote re-vaccinations.

They're not "kept secret". Good grief.
There is not such thing as an "immunity expiration date" by the way.

In a way you are right. The vaccine manufacturers don't want to know
when the pets lose immunity and especially don't want you and I (and
vets) to know either. Indeed I don't know of any who would waste money
on studies that could kill their bottom line.

Studies are *always* done when someone
decides to put money omn the line to create a
solution to a need. Where the hell have *you*
been?

If you think this is critical, feel free to
get together a crapload of money and get s
research study together. Until then, stop
playing "victim of conspiracy" games. Its not
a conspiracy.

You got the information somehow, right? You
didn;t have to climb through barbed wire
fences on your hands and knees just to
discover a scrap of a hint of "The Truth".
Any dope with internet and google can go look
for themselves.

Sheesh.


Titers can be good things.

But they are very lacking in what they can tell us. Not only are they
outrageously expensive

No they're not.

They cost roughly what a vax would cost. A
little more in places where vax's are very cheap.

I don't know about you, but I don't expect
everyone else to financially support the
health and well being of my pets. That's MY
responsibility. If there's an option that I
prefer for the safety and well being of my
pets, I don't stomp my feet and whine that it
should be cheaper, or insist if its not that
"it must be a conspiracy".

but it isn't really a show of immunity anyway.
Titers are not efficient if exposure is not recent. Immunity lies
dormant until needed. Titers do not detect this.


As can edicated assessments and periodic, but not necessarily yearly,
Vax-ing.

Is this a sentence?

"educated".

If "spell ****s" are really how you prefer to
exchange info, then you truly can **** off.


Lots of people have known this for years now (its been a discussion on
this very newsgroup for almost 10 years, actually).

Actually most people still don't know it.

Well, you're announcing it in a place where
most do.

How helpful.

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
If Vaccine Immunity Really Lasts for Years, Why Annual Boosters?

Your vet still uses annual boosters?

What, did you find him or her in the stone age?

Most vets still do annual boosters.



Vaccine manufacturers' true immunity expiration dates are kept
secret from recipients- who only hear the recommended earlier
expiration dates to promote re-vaccinations.

They're not "kept secret". Good grief.
There is not such thing as an "immunity expiration date" by the way.

In a way you are right. The vaccine manufacturers don't want to know
when the pets lose immunity and especially don't want you and I (and
vets) to know either. Indeed I don't know of any who would waste money
on studies that could kill their bottom line.

Studies are *always* done when someone decides to put money omn the line
to create a solution to a need. Where the hell have *you* been?

Studies are only done up to the requirements of whomever they have to
please. That is why the studies done on dogs about nutrition suck so
bad. You only have to keep 5 dogs alive for 6 months to get a dog food
approved. You don't have to actually prove it's healthy long term.

Same with vaccines. They don't care how long the total protection is,
they do what will make the product legal and that's it.


If you think this is critical, feel free to get together a crapload of
money and get s research study together. Until then, stop playing
"victim of conspiracy" games. Its not a conspiracy.

You make a great point. Most times there isn't enough money to create a
study outside of the manufacturer. They will only do studies that
hopefully will help them sell more products.


You got the information somehow, right? You didn;t have to climb through
barbed wire fences on your hands and knees just to discover a scrap of a
hint of "The Truth". Any dope with internet and google can go look for
themselves.

Sheesh.

I was quoting an article. I don't necessarily believe in every word that
was written. If you get that pissy so easily why not write the author?



Titers can be good things.

But they are very lacking in what they can tell us. Not only are they
outrageously expensive

No they're not.

They cost roughly what a vax would cost. A little more in places where
vax's are very cheap.

Maybe they do where you are. Not where I am. However since a titer that
shows immunity at all means that there is immunity for life you'd only
have to get a single one done. Most vets want to keep on testing though.
That's rather stupid.


I don't know about you, but I don't expect everyone else to financially
support the health and well being of my pets. That's MY responsibility.
If there's an option that I prefer for the safety and well being of my
pets, I don't stomp my feet and whine that it should be cheaper, or
insist if its not that "it must be a conspiracy".

It's all about money. If you don't know that you shouldn't own pets.


but it isn't really a show of immunity anyway. Titers are not
efficient if exposure is not recent. Immunity lies dormant until
needed. Titers do not detect this.


As can edicated assessments and periodic, but not necessarily yearly,
Vax-ing.

Is this a sentence?

"educated".

If "spell ****s" are really how you prefer to exchange info, then you
truly can **** off.

Even changing that word it's still not a sentence. That was not what I
was referring to.

Feel stupid now? You should....



Lots of people have known this for years now (its been a discussion
on this very newsgroup for almost 10 years, actually).

Actually most people still don't know it.

Well, you're announcing it in a place where most do.

I'd truly be surprised if that were true, especially with all the old
fashioned thinking I've seen here. You guys are still in the dark ages!


How helpful.

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Most vets still do annual boosters.

Could you point us to your data source on that?
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Most vets still do annual boosters.

Could you point us to your data source on that?

Yeah, when you point me to data that shows otherwise.

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Yeah, when you point me to data that shows otherwise.

I think you made up that "most," and that's what I'm trying
to find out.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

chardonnay9 wrote:
Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Most vets still do annual boosters.

Could you point us to your data source on that?

Yeah, when you point me to data that shows otherwise.

Um, this pretty much proves you know nothing
about proofs, evidence or even assertions.

Thanks for helping me know for sure your
posts on the topics of proofs, evidence and
assertions are worthless.

That was easy.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
If Vaccine Immunity Really Lasts for Years, Why Annual Boosters?

Your vet still uses annual boosters?

What, did you find him or her in the stone age?

Most vets still do annual boosters.



Vaccine manufacturers' true immunity expiration dates are kept
secret from recipients- who only hear the recommended earlier
expiration dates to promote re-vaccinations.

They're not "kept secret". Good grief.
There is not such thing as an "immunity expiration date" by the way.

In a way you are right. The vaccine manufacturers don't want to know
when the pets lose immunity and especially don't want you and I (and
vets) to know either. Indeed I don't know of any who would waste
money on studies that could kill their bottom line.

Studies are *always* done when someone decides to put money omn the
line to create a solution to a need. Where the hell have *you* been?

Studies are only done up to the requirements of whomever they have to
please. That is why the studies done on dogs about nutrition suck so
bad. You only have to keep 5 dogs alive for 6 months to get a dog food
approved. You don't have to actually prove it's healthy long term.


Some studies are. Some studies aren't.

You see, not all research is done with an
agenda on the line. Not that I expect you to
have even the most basic understanding of NOT
having an agenda on the line....but it
*does* exist. I've known quite a few people
involved in just that sort of research in a
number of fields.

Same with vaccines. They don't care how long the total protection is,
they do what will make the product legal and that's it.

When you ascribe "Eeeeevil intentions" to
those you happen to disagree with, you render
your argument ireleveant and meaningless to
all people with a clue.

If you think this is critical, feel free to get together a crapload of
money and get s research study together. Until then, stop playing
"victim of conspiracy" games. Its not a conspiracy.

You make a great point. Most times there isn't enough money to create a
study outside of the manufacturer. They will only do studies that
hopefully will help them sell more products.

There are lenty of studies that are done that
*aren't* done by manufacturers. But nice way
to keep your conspiracy theories alive!!!

You got the information somehow, right? You didn;t have to climb
through barbed wire fences on your hands and knees just to discover a
scrap of a hint of "The Truth". Any dope with internet and google can
go look for themselves.

Sheesh.

I was quoting an article. I don't necessarily believe in every word that
was written. If you get that pissy so easily why not write the author?

This doesn't even make sense in regards to
what you were replying to. None.

My comment was solely focussed on *your*
incessant need to act as though you are some
Joan of Arc saving the masses. Without you,
where on earth would those poor unwashed
souls be? Yeah, right.

Titers can be good things.

But they are very lacking in what they can tell us. Not only are they
outrageously expensive

No they're not.

They cost roughly what a vax would cost. A little more in places where
vax's are very cheap.

Maybe they do where you are. Not where I am. However since a titer that
shows immunity at all means that there is immunity for life you'd only
have to get a single one done. Most vets want to keep on testing though.
That's rather stupid.

Oh, I dunno. My vet is pretty smart. She's
clearly got a lot up on you in the experience
and information departments, so I think I'll
continue to confer with her about things
involving hard science.

I don't know about you, but I don't expect everyone else to
financially support the health and well being of my pets. That's MY
responsibility. If there's an option that I prefer for the safety and
well being of my pets, I don't stomp my feet and whine that it should
be cheaper, or insist if its not that "it must be a conspiracy".

It's all about money. If you don't know that you shouldn't own pets.

And if you believe that, you shouldn't ever
leave the house.


but it isn't really a show of immunity anyway. Titers are not
efficient if exposure is not recent. Immunity lies dormant until
needed. Titers do not detect this.


As can edicated assessments and periodic, but not necessarily
yearly, Vax-ing.

Is this a sentence?

"educated".

If "spell ****s" are really how you prefer to exchange info, then you
truly can **** off.

Even changing that word it's still not a sentence. That was not what I
was referring to.

Feel stupid now? You should....

You mean like that last sentence you just wrote?

Oh please, the last thing in the world YOU
want to do is start in with the grammar flames.

I've *seen* your writing. Its barely
passable. Point fingers when you've got that
under control.


Lots of people have known this for years now (its been a discussion
on this very newsgroup for almost 10 years, actually).

Actually most people still don't know it.

Well, you're announcing it in a place where most do.

I'd truly be surprised if that were true, especially with all the old
fashioned thinking I've seen here. You guys are still in the dark ages!

Um, how would you know?

You have trouble with comprehension. You
believe everything that comes out of the
keyboard of a lying madman (and even his
friend that I know in person acknowledges
that he lies on a regular basis). You see
everything as a conspiracy. You are too busy
judging everyone who believes differently
than you to even know *how differently....or
even similarly....they actually think.

You're lost in your world of conspiracies and
bitterness. And frankly, I haven't seen you
so much as peek outside of that to even truly
know *what* others believe. Outside of
whatever pigeonholes you immediately place
them in, that is.

But, that's clearly your thing. So, have fun
with that.