Erny

Because she'll physically scruff her pup for certain mis-demeanours. That's P+. So the only quadrant she doesn't use is R-. When I've used the term "balanced" I do not mean it to mean equal parts of each or all of the 4 quadrants. I mean it to mean that I balance up the training as necessary but I tend to use more positive than otherwise. Sometimes with some dogs I get to use more positive simply because the negative (ie aversive) I've applied was enough to stop unwanted behaviour that was otherwise occurring more times than good behaviour. But when I apply an aversive, the dog receives bucket loads more positive (ie higher rewards and more of them) to counter balance that, when he's done good. "Balanced" doesn't mean either that I use all 4 quadrants with every dog. There are some dogs that need predominantly if not wholly positive, due to their temperaments and/or due to their past (poor) experiences. Remembering that I'm usually only with many of the dogs I work with for a snap shot in time by comparison to the rest of their lives. I expect that at some stage in their life-time later down the track, an aversive would be necessary, but the aversive needs to be balanced with that dog's temperament and demeanour. I see nothing wrong with the term "balanced" - I think it is others that need to accept it and if they aren't certain of what that person might mean by it, then just ask. I don't see it as a smoke screen for anything nor have I ever used it as one. I wonder, for those who are offended by it or think it obnoxious, whether they think that by not being categorised as a "balanced" trainer means that their methodology is "imbalanced" and that they have assumed a negative connotation from that word and line of thinking of themselves. Or maybe for some others who scorn anyone who uses corrections/aversives within their training, the word "balanced" is too nice for their liking and doesn't keep up the image of such people being evil and cruel nasty pasties. ???? Gosh - I'm not writing very well today. I hope that makes sense. Maybe another term that perhaps people could be happy to come to terms with would be something like "eclectic" trainer. A bit of this and a bit of the other - whatever works best for the dog in that moment of time for the purpose of long term training and harmony. IMO "humane" is something that should always count. The problem with that is that many have a different interpretation of what they regard as "humane". I've known of some "PP" worshippers as saying that they would never apply a physical correction (eg. from a check chain or whatever) even if it meant that without it (and the learning that would come from it - we were speaking hypothetically) the dog would be pts for its behaviour/s. They saw "pts" as more humane than the dog receiving a physical correction and then being able to live happily. I just don't share that view.

.... yes, but only if you eat the dirt with a silver spoon, as my sister insisted on doing when she was a toddler. She couldn't stand the thought of getting her hands dirty.

Are you saying that you've started a thread to ask a question that no matter what answers are given you won't take them on board anyway? You sound surprised Erny. Ummmmmmm, actually .......................................... I'm not. Going by another earlier thread by Corvus I thought Corvus was not going to simply be argumentative anymore, though. Leopards. Spots.

Are you saying that you've started a thread to ask a question that no matter what answers are given you won't take them on board anyway? ETA: I now see that PF is of the same thoughts as myself. I would say to you that your thread is pointless, if it wasn't for the fact that at least others are reading and may be willing to learn from it, if not - as is seemingly the case - yourself. And I'm interested in your response to this question to you by Cosmolo :

Hi Tony. I will counter that thought with another question. What if she's not? I don't see any gain by her in that event. ETA: Tony - are you talking about the person who owns the problematic dog (which is what I at first thought you meant when I replied above), or are you referring to Dr. Jean Dodds in the USA, who is the one who has supplied the information, a part of which is quoted above?

If I had been quoting you, I would have used quotation marks. What you said was : This is still arguable and what I said in my previous post in response to this, stands.

There is also a similar theory on worm burdens in dogs. Their systems are engineered to be able to deal with a light worm burden. But we keep their guts whistle clean of worms (with chemicals, I might add .... which don't really help the immune system either) and the system's immune response has nothing to do, so it looks for a job and this can lead to it fighting things it doesn't need to fight .... which appears as allergy skin. I don't worm my boy. Instead, I have a worm burden count done to keep an eye on things that way. Edited for spelling.

It can also be 'controlling' behaviour and/or conflict (which can occur in the onset of maturation). Difficult to distinguish unless one sees the dog in action.

The thing is that with some dogs and some owners, they are so into the "positive" without any balance that their dogs can reach the stage such as the above. These dogs may then require a higher level of correction than they otherwise might have needed had "positive" been balanced out with "consequence/correction" in the first place, and the dog might not have escalated to learnt behaviour of (eg) aggression which of course in itself can be complex. I'm not saying this is the case for your mother's dog, but I am using it as an example. Many of the problematic dogs I am called upon to assist with have got to the stage they have due to the lack of balance in terms of positive and discipline, even if that comes in the form of a well placed physical correction. So I disagree with the argument of 'mistakes caused by using only positive can always be fixed'. It's actually not rare that they can (indirectly or otherwise) lead to more extreme behaviours that aren't so easy to remedy.

Just to clarify as re-reading my post I may have written poorly. As per my conversation with Dr Jean, the Malinois is prone to thyroid issues. Thyroid issues can be linked to seizure activity. Dr Jean didn't say that the Malinois was prone to the seizure link, as such. Is that a bit clearer? I'd hate for Dr Jean's words to be minced around due to my poor transcription. One of the things the owner of this dog told me more recently indicated to me that its behaviour could well be seizure related. This from Dr. Jean on thyroid dysfunction/auto immune deficiency : "Another group of dogs show seizure or seizure-like disorders of sudden onset that can occur at any time from puberty to mid-life. These dogs appear perfectly healthy outwardly, have normal hair coats and energy, but suddenly seizure for no apparent reason. The seizures are often spaced several weeks to months apart, may coincide with the full moon, and can appear in brief clusters. In some cases the animals become aggressive and attack those around them shortly before or after having one of the seizures."

Pleased to do that, Aidan. I have come across a few dogs with unpredictable, unprovoked, inappropriate and inexplicable dog to human aggression cases before. Of them only one person has followed through with the USA thyroid bloods which did prove low levels, so for the others although I was highly suspicious that thyroid could have been the culprit, I have no way of confirming. In the case of the guy who did get the bloods done, there was no apparent seizure activity to my knowledge and I don't believe that seizure activity has to be present for this type of aggression to be linked to thyroid dysfunction. Although I have noted the aggression in those cases has been indiscriminative - ie. Could be towards anyone - even the owners. For some reason that person has dropped contact with me so I'm not certain what the outcome was - I think he received a lot of resistance from his Vet (who also argued the analysis) so I'm unsure whether he followed through with thyroid meds as prescribed by Dr. Jean. In the current case I am wondering if the dog's nerves (potentially weak) spark the seizure activity and that this might be the reason why the aggression is aimed to the lesser familiar people the dog is in the proximity of at the time and not towards the owner.

I've spoken further with the owner (previous communications were only by email). The aggression (which is coming with extreme fear response body language) is incredibly unpredictable and inexplicable. It might be fine for a time, then reacts. Recent information that came to light this morning leads me to believe that the responses are due to seizure activity. I could be wrong, of course, but I feel it needs to at least be investigated. I don't know - I'm no Vet. However I've spoken with Dr Jead Dodds on it and the Malinois is represented as a breed (being in the Belgian Shepherd line) prone to thyroid issues which can present with seizure activity. I've suggested bloods being sent to her in the USA for analysis be one of the first blood tests that are done. Beyond that, a full blood work-up and neurological exam. Thanks for your responses, guys. I'll let you know how things go with this one.

Following is a "copy/paste" of Dr. Jean Dodd's latest handout on vaccines, for those interested. Sorry - it makes for a long post. [c]VACCINE ISSUES REVISITED W. Jean Dodds, DVM[/c] BACKGROUND There is little doubt that application of modern vaccine technology has permitted us to protect companion animals effectively against serious infectious diseases. Viral disease and recent vaccination with single or combination modified live-virus (MLV) canine vaccines, especially those containing distemper virus, adenovirus 1 or 2, and parvovirus are increasingly recognized contributors to immune-mediated blood disease, bone marrow failure, and organ dysfunction. Potent adjuvanted killed vaccines like those for rabies virus also can trigger immediate and delayed adverse vaccine reactions in any species (vaccinosis). Genetic predisposition to these disorders in humans has been linked to the leucocyte antigen D-related gene locus of the major histocompatibility complex, and is likely to have parallel associations in domestic animals. It should be appreciated , however, that we can question conventional vaccine regimens and adopt effective and safe alternatives today primarily because the risk of disease has been significantly reduced by the widespread use of vaccination programs, which convey underlying population or herd immunity. ADVERSE EVENTS ASSOCIATED WITH VACCINATION The clinical signs associated with vaccine reactions typically include fever, stiffness, sore joints and abdominal tenderness, susceptibility to infections, neurological disorders and encephalitis, collapse with autoagglutinated red blood cells and icterus (autoimmune hemolytic anemia, AIHA, also called immune-mediated hemolytic anemia, IMHA), or generalized petechiae and ecchymotic hemorrhages (immune-mediated thrombocytopenia , ITP). Hepatic enzymes may be markedly elevated, and liver or kidney failure may occur by itself or accompany bone marrow suppression. Furthermore, MLV vaccination has been associated with the development of transient seizures in puppies and adult dogs of breeds or cross-breeds susceptible to immune-mediated diseases especially those involving hematologic or endocrine tissues (e.g. AIHA, ITP, autoimmune thyroiditis). Post-vaccinal polyneuropathy is a recognized entity associated occasionally with the use of distemper, parvovirus, rabies and presumably other vaccines. This can result in various clinical signs including muscular atrophy, inhibition or interruption of neuronal control of tissue and organ function, muscular excitation, inco-ordination and weakness, as well as seizures. Certain breeds or families of dogs appear to be more susceptible to adverse vaccine reactions, particularly post-vaccinal seizures, high fevers, and painful episodes of hypertrophic osteodystrophy (HOD). Therefore, we have the responsibility to advise companion animal breeders and caregivers of the potential for genetically susceptible littermates and relatives to be at increased risk for similar adverse vaccine reactions. In popular (or rare) inbred and line-bred animals, the breed in general can be at increased risk as illustrated in the examples below. Polyvalent MLV vaccines which multiply in the host elicit a stronger antigenic challenge to the animal and should mount a more effective and sustained immune response. However, this can overwhelm the immunocompromised or even a healthy host that has ongoing exposure to other environmental stimuli as well as a genetic predisposition that promotes adverse response to viral challenge. The recently weaned young puppy or kitten being placed in a new environment may be at particular risk. Furthermore, while the frequency of vaccinations is usually spaced 2-3 weeks apart, some veterinarians have advocated vaccination once a week in stressful situations; a practice makes little sense scientifically or medically. An augmented immune response to vaccination is seen in dogs with pre-existing inhalant allergies (atopy) to pollens. Furthermore, the increasing current problems with allergic and immunological diseases have been linked to the introduction of MLV vaccines more than 20 years ago. While other environmental factors no doubt have a contributing role, the introduction of these vaccine antigens and their environmental shedding may provide the final insult that exceeds the immunological tolerance threshold of some individuals in the pet population. The accumulated evidence indicates that vaccination protocols should no longer be considered as a “one size fits all” program. In cats, while adverse vaccine reactions may be less common, aggressive tumors (fibrosarcomas) can occasionally arise at the site of vaccination. A recent study from Italy reported finding similar tumors in dogs at the injection sites of vaccinations (Vascellari et al, 2003). These investigators stated that their “study identified distinct similarities between canine fibrosarcomas from presumed injection sites and feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas, suggesting the possibility of the development of post-injection sarcomas not only in cats, but also in dogs”. Additionally, vaccination of pet and research dogs with polyvalent vaccines containing rabies virus or rabies vaccine alone was shown to induce production of antithyroglobulin autoantibodies, a provocative and important finding with implications for the subsequent development of hypothyroidism (Scott-Moncrieff et al, 2002). For these special cases, appropriate alternatives to current vaccine practices include: 1) measuring serum antibody titers; 2) avoidance of unnecessary vaccines or over vaccinating; 3) caution in vaccinating sick or febrile individuals; and 4) tailoring a specific minimal vaccination protocol for dogs of breeds or families known to be at increased risk for adverse reactions. 5) considerations include starting the vaccination series later, such as at nine or ten weeks of age when the immune system is more able to handle antigenic challenge; 6) alerting the caregiver to pay particular attention to the puppy’s behavior and overall health after the second or subsequent boosters; and 7) avoiding revaccination of individuals already experiencing a significant adverse event. Littermates of affected puppies should be closely monitored after receiving additional vaccines in a puppy series, as they too are at higher risk. SEROLOGIC VACCINE TITER TESTING Some veterinarians have challenged the validity of using vaccine titer testing to assess the immunologic status of animals against the common, clinically important infectious diseases. With all due respect, this represents a misunderstanding of what has been called the “fallacy of titer testing”, because research has shown that once an animal’s titer stabilizes it is likely to remain constant for many years. Properly immunized animals have sterilizing immunity that not only prevents clinical disease but also prevents infection, and only the presence of antibody can prevent infection. As stated by eminent expert Dr. Ronald Schultz in discussing the value of vaccine titer testing, these tests “show that an animal with a positive test has sterilizing immunity and should be protected from infection. If that animal were vaccinated it would not respond with a significant increase in antibody titer, but may develop a hypersensitivity to vaccine components (e.g. fetal bovine serum). Furthermore, the animal doesn't need to be revaccinated and should not be revaccinated since the vaccine could cause an adverse reaction (hypersensitivity disorder). You should avoid vaccinating animals that are already protected. It is often said that the antibody level detected is “only a snapshot in time". That's simply not true; it is more a “motion picture that plays for years". Furthermore, protection as indicated by a positive titer result is not likely to suddenly drop-off unless an animal develops a medical problem such as cancer or receives high or prolonged doses of immunosuppressive drugs. Viral vaccines prompt an immune response that lasts much longer than that elicited by classic antigen. Lack of distinction between the two kinds of responses may be why practitioners think titers can suddenly disappear. But, not all vaccines produce sterilizing immunity. Those that do include: distemper virus, adenovirus, and parvovirus in the dog, and panleukopenia virus in the cat. Examples of vaccines that produced non-sterile immunity would be leptospirosis, bordetella, rabies virus, herpesvirus and calicivirus --- the latter two being upper respiratory viruses of cats. While non-sterile immunity may not protect the animal from infection, it should keep the infection from progressing to severe clinical disease. Therefore, interpreting titers correctly depends upon the disease in question. Some titers must reach a certain level to indicate immunity, but with other agents like those that produce sterile immunity, the presence of any measurable antibody shows protection. The positive titer test result is fairly straightforward, but a negative titer test result is more difficult to interpret, because a negative titer is not the same thing as a zero titer and it doesn't necessarily mean that animal is unprotected. A negative result usually means the titer has failed to reach the threshold of providing sterile immunity. This is an important distinction, because for the clinically important distemper and parvovirus diseases of dogs, and panleukopenia of cats, a negative or zero antibody titer indicates that the animal is not protected against canine parvovirus and may not be protected against canine distemper virus or feline panleukopenia virus. Finally, what does more than a decade of experience with vaccine titer testing reveal ? Published studies in refereed journals show that 90-98% of dogs and cats that have been properly vaccinated develop good measurable antibody titers to the infectious agent measured. So, in contrast to the concerns of some practitioners, using vaccine titer testing as a means to assess vaccine-induced protection will likely result in the animal avoiding needless and unwise booster vaccinations. Our recent study (Twark and Dodds, 2000), evaluated 1441 dogs for CPV antibody titer and 1379 dogs for CDV antibody titer. Of these, 95.1 % were judged to have adequate CPV titers, and nearly all (97.6 %) had adequate CDV titers. Vaccine histories were available for 444 dogs (CPV) and 433 dogs (CDV). Only 43 dogs had been vaccinated within the previous year, with the majority of dogs (268 or 60%) having received a booster vaccination 1-2 years beforehand. On the basis of our data, we concluded that annual revaccination is unnecessary. Similar findings and conclusions have been published recently for dogs in New Zealand (Kyle et al, 2002), and cats (Scott and Geissinger, 1999; Lappin et al, 2002). Comprehensive studies of the duration of serologic response to five viral vaccine antigens in dogs and three viral vaccine antigens in cats were recently published by researchers at Pfizer Animal Health (Mouzin et al, 2004). When an adequate immune memory has already been established, there is little reason to introduce unnecessary antigen, adjuvant, and preservatives by administering booster vaccines. By titering annually, one can assess whether a given animal’s humoral immune response has fallen below levels of adequate immune memory. In that event, an appropriate vaccine booster can be administered. OTHER ISSUES WITH OVER VACCINATION Other issues arise from over vaccination, as the increased cost in time and dollars spent needs to be considered, despite the well-intentioned solicitation of clients to encourage annual booster vaccinations so that pets also can receive a wellness examination. Giving annual boosters when they are not necessary has the client paying for a service which is likely to be of little benefit to the pet’s existing level of protection against these infectious diseases. It also increases the risk of adverse reactions from the repeated exposure to foreign substances. COMPLIANCE OR RESISTENCE TO CURRENT VACCINE GUIDELINES ? For more than a decade, the issues discussed above on overvaccination and vaccine safety for companion animals have been raised by vaccinologists and veterinary clinicians. But, how has this still controversial knowledge impacted the veterinary profession and pet owner today? Have veterinarians really embraced the national policies on vaccination guidelines? Does the public trust veterinarians to be up-to-date on these issues or are they unsure? Do they believe veterinarians have a conflict of interest if they seek the income from annual booster vaccinations? Given media information regarding autism and measles vaccination, the public is more aware and worried about vaccine safety. Some veterinarians today still tell their clients there is no scientific evidence linking vaccinations with adverse effects and serious illness. This is ignorance, and confuses an impressionable client. On the other hand, vaccine zealots abound with hysteria and misinformation. None of these polarized views is helpful. Veterinarians are still routinely vaccinating ill dogs and those with chronic diseases or prior adverse vaccine reactions. This is especially problematic for rabies boosters, as many colleagues believe they have no legal alternative, even though the product label states it's intended for healthy animals. See www.rabieschallengefund.org NEW BREAKTHROUGHS Failure to standardize the legal mandate for rabies vaccinations nationwide is medically and scientifically unwarranted. The fact that individual states, counties and cities elect to mandate annual rabies boosters despite federally licensed three-year rabies vaccines is misguided. Now that Arkansas and Rhode Island have passed new rabies laws authorizing a 3-year rabies protocol for dogs and cats, Alabama remains the only state that still requires them to be vaccinated annually against rabies. But this state is in the process of changing to three years as well. However, some individual cities and counties (e.g. Bell County, TX) still require annual rabies booster vaccination. For Cheyenne, WY and Wichita, KS, pressure from the public and the local veterinary associations effected a recent change to every three years. Despite these recent changes, the practice of rabies booster vaccination in these states and local areas has been left as optional at the discretion of the client’s veterinarian. So this is a Catch-22 situation, because if the veterinarian still believes the rabies booster should be given annually instead of as licensed, they usually can talk their client into doing so. RABIES VACCINES AND THE USDA/CVB Rabies vaccines are the most common group of biological products identified in adverse event reports received by the USDA’s Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB). Currently, 14 rabies vaccines are labeled for use in dogs. These vaccines must meet the standard requirements established in the Title 9 Code of Federal Regulations. This requires that the vaccine provide a protected fraction of ≥ 83% when comparing vaccinated animals versus control animals. Also, all rabies vaccines are evaluated for safety prior to licensure, which includes performance of a field safety trial. Additionally, each serial of rabies vaccine is tested for potency by use of the National Institutes of Health potency test or another test approved by the CVB, and is tested for safety in the host and laboratory animals. Safety Review Before licensure, a product must be shown to be safe through a combination of safety evaluations. The field safety trial is the most comprehensive evaluation and has the objective of assessing the safety of the product in its target population under the conditions of its intended use. However, safety studies before licensure may not detect all safety concerns for a number of reasons, as follows: insufficient number of animals for low frequency events, insufficient duration of observation, sensitivities of subpopulations (eg, breed, reproductive status, and unintended species), or interactions with concomitantly administered products. State and Local Authority for Rabies Control Programs Although the CVB licenses veterinary biological products for use in the prevention of rabies, it is the state and local authorities govern and administer their respective rabies animal control programs. Some of these programs allow exemptions to the vaccination requirements, if medical concerns exist related to potential adverse events, but more commonly, others do not allow exemptions, regardless of the justification. REPORTING ADVERSE VACCINE REACTIONS There is no mandatory reporting of adverse reactions in veterinary medicine. The 2007 World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) Vaccine Guidelines states that there is: "gross under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse events which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products." http://www.wsava.org/SAC.htm, Even in humans, where mandatory reporting of adverse vaccine reactions is required, Dr. David Kessler, former head of the Food & Drug Administration, reported that "only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA". [JAMA .269:.2785, 1993]. This problem of under-reporting has persisted for many years. Despite the serious under-reporting of vaccinal adverse reactions, the 2008 Report from the USDA’s CVB [JAVMA 232:1000-1002, 2008], states that between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2007, they "requested manufacturers of rabies vaccines to provide adverse event report summaries for their products. During this period, nearly 10,000 adverse event reports (all animal species) were received by manufacturers of rabies vaccines. Approximately 65% of the manufacturer's reports involved dogs." The USDA/CVB 2008 Report further states that "Rabies vaccines are the most common group of biological products identified in adverse event reports received by the CVB." During the 3-year period covered in this report, the CVB received 246 adverse event reports for dogs in which a rabies vaccine was identified as one of the products administered. Reports were assessed for causality, and of these: 217 reports were considered possibly related to ≥ 1 of the vaccines given, 7 were considered unlikely, and 22 were assessed as unknown. Of reports with age information (n = 206), 21.4% of the dogs were ≤ 6 months old, 33.5% were > 6 months old but ≤ 2 years old, and 45.1% were > 2 years old. Of reports with sex information (n = 209), 54.5% of the dogs were female. The following clinical terms were listed “to describe possibly related adverse events in dogs vaccinated against rabies “ and reported to the USDA/CVB between April 1, 2004-March 31, 2007. For 217 adverse event reports – the clinical term is followed by the % of dogs affected: Vomiting-28.1%; facial swelling-26.3%; injection site swelling or lump-19.4%; lethargy-12%; urticaria-10.1%; circulatory shock-8.3%; injection site pain-7.4%; pruritus-7.4%; injection site alopecia or hair loss-6.9%; death-5.5%; lack of consciousness-5.5; diarrhea-4.6%; hypersensitivity (not specified)-4.6%; fever-4.1%;, anaphylaxis-2.8%; ataxia-2.8%; lameness-2.8%; general signs of pain-2.3%; hyperactivity-2.3%; injection site scab or crust-2.3%;, muscle tremor-2.3%; tachycardia-2.3%; and thrombocytopenia-2.3%. The overall adverse report rate for rabies vaccines was determined to be 8.3 reports/100,000 doses sold. Adverse events considered possibly related to vaccination included acute hypersensitivity (59%); local reactions (27%); systemic reactions, which refers to short-term lethargy, fever, general pain, anorexia, or behavioral changes, with or without gastrointestinal disturbances starting within 3 days after vaccination (9%); autoimmune disorders (3%); and other (2%). In nearly 72% of the dogs of these reports, other vaccine or medicinal products were administered in conjunction with the rabies vaccine. In those instances, it was generally not possible to determine which product or products might be most closely linked to the adverse event. Additionally, in some instances, dogs had > 1 clinical sign, resulting in the coding of several clinical signs in a single report. But, IF one applied the only 1% estimated reporting figure of "serious" events from the former head of the FDA to the 10,000 adverse events reported for animal rabies vaccines, 65% of which were in dogs, then the actual number of dogs that had adverse reactions to the vaccine could be as high as 650,000 in that 3 year period with 3,575 (5.5%) of the dogs dying from their adverse reaction. TREATMENT OF VACCINOSIS The diagnosis of vaccinosis is an exclusionary one -- i.e. nothing will be found upon other testing to explain the symptoms. The animal is given the oral homeopathics, Thuja (for all vaccines other than rabies), and Lyssin to detox the rabies “miasm”. IF there are no holistic veterinarians in the area, these homeopathics can be obtained from www.naturalrearing.com. Our therapy typically uses steroids in tapering doses over 4-6 weeks to stop the inflammatory process and clinical symptoms. Therapy begins with an injection of dexamethasone phosphate first, and if the animal improves right away, is continued with prednisone at 0.5 mg per pound twice daily for 5-7 days, then tapered gradually over the next month to every other day. The use of steroids will cause an increase in water intake and urination, but the animal should be able to handle the drug at these tapering doses for a few weeks. IF a holistic veterinarian wants to try an alternative therapy to steroids, this approach can also work. Try it for several days to see if it will work. We advise that these patients receive no further vaccine boosters, except for rabies, where exemption can be sought on a case-by-case basis but may not be granted in the specific locale. REFERENCES ● American Association of Equine Practitioners, Infectious Disease Committee. Guidelines for the vaccination of horses.Vaccinations for adult horses, 2008. www.aaep.org ● American Association of Equine Practitioners, Infectious Disease Committee. Guidelines for the vaccination of horses Vaccinations for foals, 2008. www.aaep.org ● Carmichael LE. An annotated historical account of canine parvovirus. J Vet Med B, Infect Dis Vet Public Health 52:303-311, 2005. ● Dodds WJ. More bumps on the vaccine road. Adv Vet Med 41:715-732, 1999. ● Dodds WJ. Vaccination protocols for dogs predisposed to vaccine reactions. J Am An Hosp Assoc 38: 1-4, 2001. ● Dodds WJ. Vaccine issues evisited: what’s really happening ? Proc Am Hol Vet Med Assoc, Tulsa, OK, 2007, pp 132-140. ● Dodds WJ. Complementary and alternative veterinary medicine: the immune system. Clin Tech Sm An Pract 17: 58-63, 2002. ● Dodds WJ. Big shots: vaccination series, Parts 1-3. Equine Wellness Magazine, 2007. ● Goodman LB, Wagner B, Flaminio MJ et al. Comparison of the efficacy of inactivated combination and modified-live virus vaccines against challenge infection with neuropathogenic equine herpesvirus type 1 (EHV-1). Vaccine 24:3636-3645, 2006. ● Gore TC, Lakshmanan N, Williams JR, et al. Three-year duration of immunity in cats following vaccination against feline rhinotracheitis virus, feline calicivirus, and feline panleukopenia virus. Vet Therapeutics 7:213-222, 2006. ● Hogenesch H, Azcona-Olivera J, Scott-Moncreiff C, et al. Vaccine-induced autoimmunity in the dog. Adv Vet Med 41: 733-744, 1999. ● Hustead DR, Carpenter T, Sawyer DC, et al. Vaccination issues of concern to practitioners. J Am Vet Med Assoc 214: 1000-1002, 1999. ● Kyle AHM, Squires RA, Davies PR. Serologic status and response to vaccination against canine distemper (CDV) and canine parvovirus (CPV) of dogs vaccinated at different intervals. J Sm An Pract, June 2002. ● Lappin MR, Andrews J, Simpson D, et al. Use of serologic tests to predict resistance to feline herpesvirus 1, feline calicivirus, and feline parvovirus infection in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 220: 38-42, 2002. ● Larson LJ, Schultz RD. Effect of vaccination with recombinant canine distemper virus vaccine immediately before exposure under shelter-like conditions . Vet Therapeutics 7: 113-118, 2006. ● Larson, LJ, Schultz, RD. Do current canine parvovirus vaccines provide protection from the new CPV-2c variant ? Vet. Therapeutics 9 (2): 94-101, 2008. ● McGaw DL, Thompson M, Tate, D, et al. Serum distemper virus and parvovirus antibody titers among dogs brought to a veterinary hospital for revaccination. J Am Vet Med Assoc 213: 72-75, 1998. ● Moore GE, Glickman LT. A perspective on vaccine guidelines and titer tests for dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 224: 200-203. 2004. ● Moore et al, Adverse events diagnosed within three days of vaccine administration in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 227:1102–1108, 2005. ● Mouzin DE, Lorenzen M J, Haworth, et al. Duration of serologic response to five viral antigens in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 224: 55-60, 2004. ● Mouzin DE, Lorenzen M J, Haworth, et al. Duration of serologic response to three viral antigens in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 224: 61-66, 2004. ● Paul MA.Credibility in the face of controversy. Am An Hosp Assoc Trends Magazine XIV(2):19-21,1998. ● Paul MA (chair) et al. Report of the AAHA Canine Vaccine Task Force: 2003 canine vaccine guidelines, recommendations, and supporting literature. AAHA, April 2003, 28 pp. ● Paul MA (chair) et al. Report of the AAHA Canine Vaccine Task Force : 2006 AAHA Canine Vaccine Guidelines. J Am An Hosp Assoc 42:80-109, Mar-April 2006, 28 pp. www.aahanet.org ● Schultz RD. Current and future canine and feline vaccination programs. Vet Med 93:233-254, 1998. ● Schultz RD Conklin S. The immune system and vaccines. Comp Cont Educ Pract Vet 20, 5-18.1998. ● Schultz R D Considerations in designing effective and safe vaccination programs for dogs. In: Carmichael LE (editor), Recent Advances in Canine Infectious Diseases. IVIS, 2000. www.ivis.org. ● Schultz RD, Ford RB, Olsen J, Scott F. Titer testing and vaccination: a new look at traditional practices. Vet Med, 97: 1-13, 2002 (insert). ● Schultz RD. Duration of immunity for canine and feline vaccines: a review. Vet Microbiol 117:75-79, 2006. ● Scott FW, Geissinger CM. Long-term immunity in cats vaccinated with an inactivated trivalent vaccine. Am J Vet Res 60: 652-658, 1999. ● Scott-Moncrieff JC, Azcona-Olivera J, Glickman NW, et al. Evaluation of antithyroglobulin antibodies after routine vaccination in pet and research dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 221: 515-521, 2002. ● Smith CA. Are we vaccinating too much? J Am Vet Med Assoc 207:421-425, 1995. ● Tizard I, Ni Y. Use of serologic testing to assess immune status of companion animals. J Am Vet Med Assoc 213: 54-60, 1998. ● Twark L, Dodds WJ. Clinical application of serum parvovirus and distemper virus antibody titers for determining revaccination strategies in healthy dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 217:1021-1024, 2000. ● Vascellari M, Melchiotti E, Bozza MA et al. Fibrosarcomas at presumed sites of injection in dogs: characteristics and comparison with non-vaccination site fibrosarcomas and feline post-vaccinal firosarcomas. J Vet Med 50 (6): 286-291, 2003. CANINE VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS * • retrospective cohort study; 1.25 million dogs vaccinated at 360 veterinary hospitals • 38 adverse events per 10,000 dogs vaccinated • inversely related to dog weight • vaccines prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight. • increased for dogs up to 2 yr of age, then declined • greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs • increased as number of vaccines given together increased • increased after the 3 rd or 4 th vaccination • genetic predisposition to adverse events documented ____________________________________________________________ _ * from Moore et al, JAVMA 227:1102–1108, 2005 VACCINE CONCLUSIONS FOR CANINES * Factors that increase risk of adverse events 3 days after vaccination: • young adult age • small-breed size • neutering • multiple vaccines given per visit These risks should be communicated to clients _______________________________________________________ * from Moore et al, JAVMA 227:1102–1108, 2005 FELINE VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS * • retrospective cohort study; 0.5 million cats vaccinated at 329 veterinary hospitals • 51.6 adverse events per 10,000 cats vaccinated • inversely related to cat weight • increased for cats about 1 yr of age • greater for neutered versus sexually intact cats • increased as number of vaccines given together increased • Lethargy with or without fever was most common sign _________________________________________________ * from Moore et al, JAVMA 231:94-100, 2007 VACCINE CONCLUSIONS FOR FELINES * Factors that increase risk of adverse events 30 days after vaccination: • young adult age • neutering • multiple vaccines given per visit These risks should be communicated to clients, and the number of vaccines administered concurrently limited _______________________________________________________ * from Moore et al, JAVMA 231:94-100, 2007 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS * Q. Is there risk of overvaccinating with vaccines not needed for a specific animal ? A. Yes. Vaccines contain material designed to challenge the immune system of the pet, and so can cause adverse reactions. They should not be given needlessly, and should be tailered to the pet’s individual needs. Q. Are the initial series of puppy core vaccines immunosuppressive ? A. Yes. This period of immuno suppression from MLV canine distemper and hepatitis vaccines coincides with the time of vaccine-induced viremia, from days 3 to 10 after vaccination. Q. Can smaller doses of vaccines be given to toy dog breeds ? A. Yes, they can, although some vaccinologists believe that the whole amonut should be given because it represents the minimum immunizing dose. My view is that a half dose of vaccines, other than rabies, as required by law, should suffice and would be safer. Q. Can anesthetized patients be vaccinated ? A. This is not preferred, because a hypersensitivity reaction with vomiting and aspiration could occur and anesthetic agents can be immunomodulating. Q. Is it safe to vaccinate pregnant pets ? A. Absolutely not. Q. Should pets with immunosuppressive diseases such as cancer or autoimmune diseases, or adverse vaccine reactions/ hypersensitibvity receive booster vaccinations ? A. No. Vaccination with MLV products should be avoided as the vaccine virus may cause disease; vaccination with killed products may aggravate the immune-mediated disease or be ineffective. For rabies boosters that are due, local authorities may accept titers instead. Q. If an animal receives immunosuppressive therapy, how long afterwards can the pet safely be vaccinated ? A. Wait at least 2 weeks. Q. Should vaccines be given more often that 2 weeks apart even if a different vaccine is being given ? A. No. The safest and most effective interval is 3-4 weeks apart. Q. At what age should the last vaccine dose be given in the puppy and kitten series ? A. The last dose of vaccine should be given between 14-16 weeks. Rabies vaccine should preferably be given separately as late as possible under the law (e.g. 20-24 weeks). Q. Can intranasal Bordetella vaccine be given parenterally ? A. No. The vaccine can cause a severe local reaction and may even kill the pet. Q. Will a killed parenteral Bordetella vaccine given intranasally produce immunity ? A. No. Q. Can MLV parenteral vaccines for cats be used intranasally ? A. Never. Any mucosal (e.g. conjunctival and nasal) contact with these vaccines can cause disease. Q. Are homeopathic nosodes capable of immunizing pets ? A. No. There is no scientific documentation that nosdoes protect against infectious diseases of pets. The one parvovirus nosode trial conducted years ago did not protect against challenge. Q. Should disinfectant be used at the vaccine injection site? A. No. Disinfectants could inactivate a MLV product. Q. Can vaccines cause autoimmune diseases? A. Vaccines themselves do not cause these diseases, but they can trigger autoimmune responses followed by disease in genetically predisposed animals, as can any infection, drug, or chemical / toxic exposures etc. Q. Can a single vaccine dose provide any benefit to the dog or cat? Will it benefit the canine and feline populations? A. Yes. One dose of a MLV canine or feline core vaccine should provide long term immunity when given to animals at or after 16 weeks of age. Every puppy and kitten 16 weeks of age or older should receive at least one dose of the MLV core vaccines. We need to vaccinate more animals in the population with core vaccines to achieve herd immunity (e.g. 75% or higher, when probably only 50% of dogs and 25% of cats are vaccinated) and thereby prevent epidemic outbreaks. Q. If an animal receives only the first dose of a vaccine that needs two doses to immunize, will it have immunity ? A. No. A single dose of a two-dose vaccine like Leptospirosis or feline leukemia vaccine will not provide immunity. The first dose is for priming the immune system. The second for boosting the immunity has to be given within 6 weeks; otherwise the series has to start over again. After those two doses, revaccination with a single dose can be done at any time. Q. Can maternally derived antibodies (MDA) also block immunity to killed vaccines and prevent active immunization with MLV vaccines ? A. Yes. MDA can block certain killed vaccines, especially those that require two doses to immunize. With MLV vaccines, two doses are often recommended, particularly in young animals, to be sure one is given beyond the neutralizing period of MDA. Q. How long after vaccination does an animal develop immunity that will prevent severe disease when the core vaccines are used? A. This is dependent on the animal, the vaccine, and the disease. • The fastest immunity is provided by CDV vaccines -- MLV and recombinant canarypox virus vectored. The immune response starts within mins - hrs and provides protection within a day without interference from MDA. • Immunity to CPV-2 and FPV develops after 3-5 days when an effective ML V vaccine is used. In contrast, killed FPV-2 vaccine often takes 2 - 3 wks or longer to provide protective immunity. • CAV-2 MLV given parenterally provides immunity against CAV-1 in 5 to 7 days. • Time from vaccination to immunity is difficult to determine for FCV and FHV-1 because some animals will not develop any immunity. Q. Can dogs and cats be “non-responders” and fail to develop an immune response to vaccines ? A. Yes. This is a genetic characteristic seen particularly in some breeds or dog families. Boosting them regularly will not produce measurable ciculating immunity, but they may be protected against disease by their cell-mediated and secretory immunity. Q. Are there parvovirus and distemper virus field mutants that are not adequately protected by current MLV vaccines ? A. No. All the current CPV-2 and CDV vaccines provide protection from all known viral isolates, when tested experimentally as well as in the field. The current CPV-2 and CPV-2b vaccines provide both short and long term protection from challenge by the CPV-2c variant. Q. Are serum antibody titres useful in determining vaccine immunity? A. Yes. They are especially useful for CDV, CPV-2 and CAV-1 in the dog, FPV in the cat, and rabies virus in the cat and dog. Rabies titers, however, are often not acceptable to exempt individual animals from mandated rabies boosters in spite of medical justifcation. Serum antibody titers are of limited or no value for the other vaccines. * Excerpted from : J Sm An Pract 48, 528–541, 2007.

THANK you !! Very helpful info. I'm waiting for confirmation from the owner that I may share her emails that contain the information describing the behaviour and also answering to my investigative questions. Once I get that, I'll contact Amanda Russell and ask if she'd mind taking a read and commenting. I don't think it will negate having a medical check-up, but getting things into a perspective and understanding possibilities and options is sometimes helpful to be able to plan out a path of action to take.

My previous girl had Grand Mal seizures and in between times would exhibit the Petit Mal seizures. The Vet informed me that, especially for the Grand Mals, all I could do was to stop her from hurting herself during the episode. The smaller seizures weren't as bad. However, whenever she 'zoned out' I would follow her around to ensure she didn't come to any grief as there were times when she just wasn't 'there' and I often wondered if she was pacing around on some sort of remote control based on memory, rather than actually being able to 'see' in the moment. I think seizures are harder to watch than they might be to endure. Again - talking about the Grand Mals, my understanding is that once the animal comes out of them they don't have a memory of them. But they are exhausting. So having places to zonk out and peacefully sleep was something I made certain to provide. In my girl's case, she was always at her most comfortable when she knew I was around, so I had comfy beds and mats dotted in all the living areas I would hang out in within the home as well as outside. I'm not so sure that your little one would be the same as for my girl so perhaps I've not given a proper nor good answer. But if it helps you to know that I very much empathise with feeling a bit helpless for not being able to fix or stop these things, then this post has been worth it anyway. I'm sure there'll be someone else who will come along with experiences more closely related to yours than mine. So hang in there .

Nekhbet - yes, I'm already 'onto' the medical side of things ie having the dog checked out. But I just wanted to know if this 'condition' (for want of better words) is something that is known amongst some Malinois and whether it is potentially a genetic 'mis-wiring' (again, for want of better words) as I'd already thought along the lines of medical issues. From what I can gather (considerably lengthy emails) this person seems to know what she is about when it comes to socialising and training and from the information in her emails I have no reason to suspect that anything is amiss there. But this is all preliminary - I haven't met the dog yet and the owner is aware that I won't proffer a diagnosis until I do. I'm just doing some of the preliminary background checks to gather a bit more knowledge and understanding. There is much more detail that the owner and I have shared, including reference to breeder (names excluded) and breeder knowledge of this trait within the lines (to which there is none). Gospel? Heck no. Just an initial enquiry as a basis of a preliminary information platform. Thanks for the responses, everyone. I'm sorry that I can't give more information/specific detail on the actual situation at the moment. Diablo - your response was interesting to note that knowledge of this 'trait' is not completely unknown. It is likely something for which I need to refer to someone with a higher knowledge than I (eg Vet/Behaviourist) but I'm just trying to help this person with some of the ground work investigation first.

Hi Has anyone heard of Malinois (in particular) exhibiting unpredictable, inexplicable and inappropriate aggression? I have someone who is communicating with me at the moment and it's been suggested on a USA website (don't have the link yet) that this phenomenon is known to affect the Malinois and is a genetic temperament defect. These are my words and interpretation from the communications I have shared with this owner. I've not heard of it nor seen it. (To clarify - yes, I've heard of and witnessed inexplicable and unpredictable aggression and known of some of these occurrences to have an underlying medical reason, or a cause that relates back to bad training - but I've not heard of it being genetically linked nor associated to a representation of the Malinois breed.) I've personally worked only with few Malinois so I don't have a large cross-secion of experience to be able to suggest it does or doesn't happen. Due to respectful confidentiality I would prefer not to go into the detail of the dog's behaviour at this stage - but I'm talking fear aggression even though the dog has been well socialised and was not provoked nor seemingly uncomfortable 1 second prior to the onset of the behaviour. Just need to know if anyone knows of this peculiarity affecting members of this breed. I hope I don't spike anyone's breed sensitivities - this is NOT what this post nor thread is for. I am just hopeful for some honest straight up responses. I'm happy for them to be PM'd if that's anyone's preference and I'm happy to have this post/thread deleted after that, if anyone would prefer.

Have also had it where it has made an albeit small difference to a fear reactive dog and to a hyperactive dog. Not a huge difference as there was much learnt behaviour behind it all that need to be worked on. But when the diets were eventually changed there was a small edge of a difference. Anecdotal though, not scientific - there were so many other factors to take into account. But if things such as preservatives etc can affect our children's behaviour, I can't see why it would not lend itself to having an affect on our dogs. Also, if the system is not working properly, the body may not be converting certain vitamins (if, indeed, there is sufficient digestible vitamins/proteins in the diet to begin with) into tryptophan, which crosses the blood brain barrier and in turn converts to serotonin, which is the brain chemical that activates the hypocampus, which is the gland in the animal's brain that performs a regulatory function over the expression of fear. This is my take on some of the research I have done on the topic.

One of the things I might ask when I consult with dogs that exhibit poor behaviour is what diet they are fed. And if it is purely commercial (especially but not necessarily restricted to some of the commercial products that contain preservatives) I often recommend a well-balanced, more natural diet.

Ninkumpoop

But is it? Are any of the spot-ons? No way would I use them on children. I don't use them on my dog either. But admittedly, I don't have the need to. I'm happy that I can avoid yet another chemical.

But what about the nits? .

I don't know any of the instructors at the Adelaide Sportdog Club (although I might have met one or two of them) and of course any club is only as good as its instructor/s, however I agree that Schutzhund training is an excellent training discipline - for both dog and handler.

Dose him up on Active Manuka Honey (UMF 20+). From your health food store. Supermarkets only sell the low UMF stuff .... not going to help a great deal. Canine Cough in itself isn't such a worry. It's the potential for secondary infection (ie pneumonia) that is the concern. There's naught much a Vet can do/give for a viral infection (although they often do dish out antibiotics, which won't do anything to affect the virus) but if there are any signs or concerns of a secondary infection, then take him back to the Vet. Perhaps a different one. I agree that the one you saw should have known better than to have vaccinated an unwell puppy.

Me too .