Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
No it doesn't. It does not change the amount of immunity at all.

DY-NO-MITE!

You rite like a real eddycated persun.

How would a moron like yourself even know?

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 ****.

Tara Green wrote:
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.

Um, no they don't.


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

There is no need for a series of vaccines. Indeed, there is no need for
any vaccines.


All other vaccines are simply called annual vaccines.

Might want to get your lingo straight.

I'm referring to the many other people who call any vaccines given after
the first one boosters. It is not my definition. I'm sure anyone reading
this thread realizes that you aren't interested in truth, you just like
degrading people. Would that make you a dry drunk like our last
president? Or are you afraid readers might figure out you lie so you
feel the need to attack people who think differently than you? Are you a
part of the RRR?


So "boosters" actually DO change immunity levels.

What you refer to as boosters have to be given a few times because their
original protection from their mother wears off but not at a predictable
time. Unfortunately this practice is dangerous as well.

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.

Bordatella is nothing more than a doggie cold and is less dangerous than
the "treatment" to prevent it.

I'm still debating whether to have Cen inoculated against Lymes.

"As far as prevention goes, this is a sticky wicket. There is a great
deal of controversy concerning the dog Lyme vaccine. There is a great
debate about how well they actually work as well as potential side
effects. There are publications concerning its safety, but the
researchers only look 24 hours after the vaccine reaction. Research at
Cornell University veterinary school brings up some suspicion that there
may be potential long term side effects of the vaccine, though nothing
is certain. These side effects may vary from rheumatoid arthritis and
all the major symptoms of lyme disease to acute kidney failure. Though
nothing is definitively documented, I personally am very cautious and do
not recommend vaccinating for Lyme disease even though it is so epidemic
here.. Many veterinary schools and major veterinary centers do not
recommend the vaccine for the same concern regarding potential side
effects. I have seen all the symptoms of Lyme disease in dogs four to
eight weeks after the vaccine and when I sent the western blot test to
Cornell, it shows no evidence of the disease, only evidence of the dog
having been vaccinated, yet the dog shows all the classic symptoms of
the disease."

" I have found certain homeopathic remedies that may sometimes be
helpful. The most successful of these include homeopathic Ledum and a
Lyme nosode. Lyme nosode is a homeopathic remedy that is made from the
killed organism, diluted, successed and potentized to the point that
nothing of the original organism remains. For appropriate dosages of
these remedies, you should contact a homeopathic veterinarian."
http://www.drschoen.com/articles_L1_11.html


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?


But it isn't irresponsible at all. There are a great deal of people who
think that way, and it's growing at an increasing rate. They think that
way because side effects are more common that you obviously think.
Instead of sticking your head in the sand wake up and smell the coffee.



Truth is never irresponsible. All vaccines are dangerous.

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

The statement you made is a lie. How exact do I need to be before it
sinks in?


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.

All vaccines have side effects. It can happen to any dog at any time.
Not only that but even when those side effects happen too many people
don't have a clue what it indicates and sometimes obviously injured pets
are vaccinated again and again and again.

Many vets vaccinate when they shouldn't like when an animal is sick or
has shown previous problems. I've even known vets to go behind the
owner's back and give shots against the wishes of that owner.


This is another example of your lazy information.

Ya know, one day you will look back and see just how off the mark you
are. Until then, you don't get to judge me or lie to people about me
being "dangerous" or whatever.

It is very plain to see that you have no idea how to discuss things in
any kind of a civil manner. Don't know how all that hate got into you
but I pray you find your way out some day.



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.

Unfortunately, the way you think about treating dogs is actually
increasing the chances of your pets suffering and dying. It is so ironic
that you and Melinda and a few other unenlightened posters actually
think that following my way of having dogs in anyway increases the
chances of health problems.

I hate to think how many people reading here might listen to your points
of view and hurt their pets. Pesticides, poisons and violence abounds here.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
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.

Um, no they don't.

Do so.

If you are using the definition of what a
Booster vaccine really is, then they most
certainly do change immunity levels.

Whether that is something desired or not is
an entirely different conversation.

But first, its important to deal with truth
and reality before then embarking on whether
these are desired impacts.

All I'm trying to get you to do here is deal
with the facts first. Judging whether or not
you *like* the facts or appreciate the
impacts of those facts is for *after* you
actually *grasp* said facts. Which you seem
to be resisting.

The immunity is changed.

Whether or not that is a good thing is, as I
said, a separate issue to be dealt with after
the facts are understood.


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

There is no need for a series of vaccines. Indeed, there is no need for
any vaccines.

That is irrelevant to the statement "Boosters
don't change immunity levels" which is what
you were asserting....and which is wrong.


All other vaccines are simply called annual vaccines.

Might want to get your lingo straight.

I'm referring to the many other people who call any vaccines given after
the first one boosters.

In other words, you're making up the
definition that you want it to have.

Everyone I know who gets their dogs annual
vaccines call those shots....(pay
attention)...."annual vaccines".

The only one I've heard call an annual
vaccine a "booster" is you. Don't assume that
no one else knows what a booster is just
because you don't.

It is not my definition.

Well, it isn't anyone else's that *I* know.
And after 20+ years in rescue, training, and
being an active part of my city's dog
community I know a LOT of pet owners.

I'm sure anyone reading
this thread realizes that you aren't interested in truth, you just like
degrading people. Would that make you a dry drunk like our last
president? Or are you afraid readers might figure out you lie so you
feel the need to attack people who think differently than you? Are you a
part of the RRR?


So "boosters" actually DO change immunity levels.

What you refer to as boosters have to be given a few times because their
original protection from their mother wears off but not at a predictable
time. Unfortunately this practice is dangerous as well.

Ah, so you now admit that Boosters DO change
immunity levels.

You don't have to like whether or not they
also impact other things. But what you
described right here is something that *does*
change immunity levels. At intervals.

Whereas before you tried to say that they do not.

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.

Bordatella is nothing more than a doggie cold and is less dangerous than
the "treatment" to prevent it.

I'm still debating whether to have Cen inoculated against Lymes.

"As far as prevention goes, this is a sticky wicket. There is a great
deal of controversy concerning the dog Lyme vaccine. There is a great
debate about how well they actually work as well as potential side
effects. There are publications concerning its safety, but the
researchers only look 24 hours after the vaccine reaction. Research at
Cornell University veterinary school brings up some suspicion that there
may be potential long term side effects of the vaccine, though nothing
is certain. These side effects may vary from rheumatoid arthritis and
all the major symptoms of lyme disease to acute kidney failure. Though
nothing is definitively documented, I personally am very cautious and do
not recommend vaccinating for Lyme disease even though it is so epidemic
here.. Many veterinary schools and major veterinary centers do not
recommend the vaccine for the same concern regarding potential side
effects. I have seen all the symptoms of Lyme disease in dogs four to
eight weeks after the vaccine and when I sent the western blot test to
Cornell, it shows no evidence of the disease, only evidence of the dog
having been vaccinated, yet the dog shows all the classic symptoms of
the disease."

" I have found certain homeopathic remedies that may sometimes be
helpful. The most successful of these include homeopathic Ledum and a
Lyme nosode. Lyme nosode is a homeopathic remedy that is made from the
killed organism, diluted, successed and potentized to the point that
nothing of the original organism remains. For appropriate dosages of
these remedies, you should contact a homeopathic veterinarian."
http://www.drschoen.com/articles_L1_11.html


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?


But it isn't irresponsible at all. There are a great deal of people who
think that way, and it's growing at an increasing rate. They think that
way because side effects are more common that you obviously think.
Instead of sticking your head in the sand wake up and smell the coffee.

Ok, now I'm going to make my first ever
personal insult to you in this exchange.

You're a complete idiot.

If you think I am pro vaccinations, you are
an idiot.

If you think that because I dislike how you
make widespread pronouncements and assertions
that end up rendering what you are trying to
say flat-out wrong that I am suddenly all for
them, then you are an idiot of the highest order.

Its that kind of all or nothing, black and
white, extremist, grand sweeping statements
(even when it doesn't apply) thinking that
makes your advice dangerous.

You can't see context, nor can you see
anything but "us or THEM". You see fluidity
and flexibility when it comes to your *own*
health issues (or you wouldn't have devoted
yourself to allopathic treatments to help you
with your own set of ailments), but when it
comes to pets, you are suddenly all or nothing.

So, in that vein....I'll ask you again:

You insist on a biologically appropriate raw
diet for animals. Do you hold yourself to
that same standard? Or do you simply impose
that on those that have no choices?

I asked you this weeks ago, and you avoided
the question.

Here's a hint: if the answer is "no" then you
are also a hypocrite of the highest order.
Won't that be fun?


Truth is never irresponsible. All vaccines are dangerous.

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

The statement you made is a lie. How exact do I need to be before it
sinks in?


Just calling it a lie over and over and over
again isn't really the same thing as proving
that assertion.

A mensa member would know that.

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.

All vaccines have side effects.

Eating has a "side effect"

As does exercising.

And sleeping. Boy does THAT have a bunch of
side effects. I really like most of those
side effects :-).

Unless you specify what the specific side
effects of each vaccine are, and assess those
side effects against the potential benefits
of the specific vaccine, then there is no
worthwhile information whatsoever in that
general "All vaccines have side effects" comment.

It can happen to any dog at any time.

Only in the same sense that the diseases
themselves can "happen to any dog at any time"

(scare tactics as a debating tool are
stoopid, by the way. They can always ALWAYS
be turned around and
ised....validly....against your own argument)

Not only that but even when those side effects happen too many people
don't have a clue what it indicates and sometimes obviously injured pets
are vaccinated again and again and again.

I know this is true as well.

But none of that has anything to do with your
**** poor sweeping generalizations that are
not only far too general to mean much, but
wrong to boot.

Many vets vaccinate when they shouldn't like when an animal is sick or
has shown previous problems.

Sure. I know that. And it sucks and needs to
stop. No vet should ever vaccinate a sick
animal, and far too many do.

But that doesn;t change all the really REALLY
wrong things you've been asserting in your
agenda driven, and pretty erroneous
statements here.


I've even known vets to go behind the
owner's back and give shots against the wishes of that owner.

So do I.

But you're not suggesting that all of it be
not allowed because some people are idiots,
are you?

Or that NONE of them should ever be given
because some people don;t know how to do it
correctly and safely?

Because, if you applied that thinking to
almost any other aspect of life (like the
ability to post on the internet being
curtailed because some zealous nutjob can't
stop giving dangerous advice)....well, that
that would be just stupid.


This is another example of your lazy information.

Ya know, one day you will look back and see just how off the mark you
are.

Funny. With every post you wrote, I think the
same thing of you.

Eventually, when you stop being an agenda
driven zealot and start being more able to
apply a fair and assessing mind to the topic,
you might find that you've been waaaayyyy
farther off the mark than you believe.

You see, I come at this from a more balanced
perspective. You come at it from zealousness
and no ability to leave your own agenda.

Which oe is less likely to be able to make
the mark? The one who can see both sides, or
the one that can;t even tell which side the
other person is on?


Until then, you don't get to judge me or
lie to people about me
being "dangerous" or whatever.

As long as you post irresponsibly presented
crap, I get to judge you all I choose.

And you get to choose whether you are going
to do your homework and learn to be more
responsible in how you present
information....or whether you insist on
staying defensive and spending all your time
justifying some really bad information.

Ain't usenet grand :-)


It is very plain to see that you have no idea how to discuss things in
any kind of a civil manner.

Up until this post, I never called you a
single name.

You started calling me names almost immediately.

Yeah, namecalling is the height of civility.
You keep telling yourself that.

Don't know how all that hate got into you
but I pray you find your way out some day.

"hate"?

I don't even "hate" you.

I think you're irresponsible as hell, but I
don't "hate" you. That would be an overly
strong emotion for me to carry for just
another overzealous online semi-informed
agenda pusher.



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.

Unfortunately, the way you think about treating dogs is actually
increasing the chances of your pets suffering and dying.

Oh really?

So homeopathy as my main way of preventing
disease in now a BAD thing?

Or did you just show your hand about how much
you base your arguments on a lot of assumptions?

Cua that would be funny :-)


It is so ironic
that you and Melinda and a few other unenlightened posters actually
think that following my way of having dogs in anyway increases the
chances of health problems.

Um, you're now having a conversation with ghosts.

I have no idea what your actual "way" is, and
since you have a tendency to not own up to
mistakes, I wouldn't believe much of what you
said about how you've treated and raised your
dogs anyway.

My sole issue with you has *always* been
about how you present information *here* in a
very irresponsible manner. Full stop.
I could give a crap what way you "have" your
dogs. And, as I said, I doubt you'd be very
honest about it if I did.

I hate to think how many people reading here might listen to your points
of view and hurt their pets. Pesticides, poisons and violence abounds here.


My views?

Or my corrections of *your* views.

Because that's been the extent of my posting
here lately....correcting how you've
presented *your* views.

Fact is,as evidenced in many of your posts,
you really don't even know what my views are.

but here's a hint: if I'm going to implement
a health program for my dogs, I'm going to
implement a version of it for myself.

I feed my dogs a biologically appropriate raw
diet, and I eat one myself so that I know
firsthand how it feels and what some of the
pitfalls can be. I won't impose restrictive
(and sometimes not so enjoyable) dietary
restrictions on my beloved pets if my own
preference is to sit there and wallow in the
joys of ice cream. That would be super duper
hypocritical.

Besides, if I really REALLY believe that its
the best thing, then why not put that belief
to the test? If I believe its the best, then
I'll do it too. If I *don't* believe its the
best....then why would I impose it on my dogs?

Ok....your turn.

Tara Green wrote:

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.

Um, no they don't.

Do so.

If you are using the definition of what a Booster vaccine really is,
then they most certainly do change immunity levels.

"the definition"?

According to whom? You?

Got a God complex or what?

Tara Green wrote:

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.

Even though they aren't needed once a year? Do you know the definition
of annual? That would be pretty impossible.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:

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.

Um, no they don't.

Do so.

If you are using the definition of what a Booster vaccine really is,
then they most certainly do change immunity levels.

"the definition"?

According to whom? You?

Got a God complex or what?

According to how the term is used in vets
offices. And by the vaccine companies.

The only one trying to change the definition
from how its used is you.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:

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.

Even though they aren't needed once a year? Do you know the definition
of annual? That would be pretty impossible.

Red herring.

You still were misusing the term "booster shots"

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:

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.

Um, no they don't.

Do so.

If you are using the definition of what a Booster vaccine really is,
then they most certainly do change immunity levels.

"the definition"?

According to whom? You?

Got a God complex or what?

According to how the term is used in vets offices. And by the vaccine
companies.

Bullshit.


The only one trying to change the definition from how its used is you.

I'm not trying to change the definition at all. Delusions too huh?

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:

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.

Even though they aren't needed once a year? Do you know the definition
of annual? That would be pretty impossible.

Red herring.

You still were misusing the term "booster shots"

Nope. Many people call the yearly shots boosters. What planet were you
born on?


You still were misusing the term "annual".