Doses and Immunity - Page 2

[Rrrrrachel]

Those things (some of them at least) are present in very very tiny amounts.

[prosciencemum]

Very very tiny amounts in fact for most of them.

[Dakotacakes]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Can you elaborate on your first sentance, Essentialy it comes down to vaccines not being like antibiotics or the like, I have no clue what that means. It isn't just about the antigen, its about the other toxic excipiants in the vaccine.

  Sure, I can elaborate though I am not sure what you don't understand.  Vaccines are not like antibiotics and other drugs that are given based on weight. Antibiotics and other drugs must reach and effective level in the blood and tissues for them to do what they are supposed to do.  Therefore the more blood and tissue the more that needs to be given to reach that level in the blood and tissue.   Vaccines on the other hand do not need to reach an effective level in blood and tissues because they are designed to elicit an immune response.  Immune systems in animals and humans are not measured in weight as body tissue is, therefore you do not need to have more vaccine or more weight, just the amount that is needed to trigger the immune response (again which is not based on weight).

Yes there are more to vaccines than antigens.  But again, none of those things are base on weight.  If a large animal and a small animal both eat a pear, they are both receiving the same amount of formaldehyde (which is a naturally occurring substance), if a large animal and a small animal eat the same fish, they get the same amount of Mercury.  And the antibiotics present in vaccines are below the smallest amount that would be given to the smallest individual ever receiving the vaccine, so while antibiotics are based on weight, the amount of antibiotic is based on LESS than the smallest dose given, not the largest and therefore is not relevant to the discussion of weight an dosage either. HTH.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Those things (some of them at least) are present in very very tiny amounts.

Why do I bother? 

Round and round we go...... back to the difference between ingested vs injected arguement. 

Bottom line more there are more vaccine adverse events is small breed dogs, this is more than likely due to their size, therefore dosage is relevent. The callous one-size fits all vaccination program occurs in both human and animal medicine unfortunately.

[prosciencemum]

There must be reasons we test drugs for humans on humans not dogs...... Even if I were convinced that drug testing on dogs was held to the same standard as human trials, I think they have diferences in their metabolism more than just size. Is that really the best you can do?

The amounts are so tiny, that even if more gets into the blood stream from injections than ingestion it's irrelevant. I think that's been explained a few times too. In fact the amounts are so small it's irrelevant full stop.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Dakotacakes 

  Sure, I can elaborate though I am not sure what you don't understand.  Vaccines are not like antibiotics and other drugs that are given based on weight. Antibiotics and other drugs must reach and effective level in the blood and tissues for them to do what they are supposed to do.  Therefore the more blood and tissue the more that needs to be given to reach that level in the blood and tissue.   Vaccines on the other hand do not need to reach an effective level in blood and tissues because they are designed to elicit an immune response.  Immune systems in animals and humans are not measured in weight as body tissue is, therefore you do not need to have more vaccine or more weight, just the amount that is needed to trigger the immune response (again which is not based on weight).

Yes there are more to vaccines than antigens.  But again, none of those things are base on weight.  If a large animal and a small animal both eat a pear, they are both receiving the same amount of formaldehyde (which is a naturally occurring substance), if a large animal and a small animal eat the same fish, they get the same amount of Mercury.  And the antibiotics present in vaccines are below the smallest amount that would be given to the smallest individual ever receiving the vaccine, so while antibiotics are based on weight, the amount of antibiotic is based on LESS than the smallest dose given, not the largest and therefore is not relevant to the discussion of weight an dosage either. HTH.

If my 190 lb Mastiff ate a bar of chocolate he would probably be fine, if a 2 lb chihuahua did he would likely be a goner.

I am not particularly concerned about antigens and immune response in relation to body mass. I am concerned about the other ingredients in the vaccines and their ability to cause harm in relation to size. I am also concerned that immature immune systems that are designed to be non-reactive and rely on maternal antibodies are hyper stimulated by vaccines. 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

There must be reasons we test drugs for humans on humans not dogs...... Even if I were convinced that drug testing on dogs was held to the same standard as human trials, I think they have diferences in their metabolism more than just size. Is that really the best you can do?

The amounts are so tiny, that even if more gets into the blood stream from injections than ingestion it's irrelevant. I think that's been explained a few times too. In fact the amounts are so small it's irrelevant full stop.

And your explainations so far have done nothing to convince me full stop.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

If my 190 lb Mastiff ate a bar of chocolate he would probably be fine, if a 2 lb chihuahua did he would likely be a goner.

Yeah but both of them coukd eat an amount of chocolate the size of a full stop and be fine. And that's a fairer comparison to the amounts of the scary sounding ingredients in vaccines.

[prosciencemum]

PS "full stop" = "period" (this thing: "."). My American husband says you (meaning Americans, not Mirzam who I have no idea of the nationality of) might not understand "full stop".
Edited by prosciencemum - 2/17/13 at 1:45pm

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

PS "full stop" = "period" (this thing: "."). My American husband says you might not understand "full stop".

How condescending of your American husband. I am British and know quite well what it means full stop.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

If my 190 lb Mastiff ate a bar of chocolate he would probably be fine, if a 2 lb chihuahua did he would likely be a goner.

Yeah but both of them coukd eat an amount of chocolate the size of a full stop and be fine. And that's a fairer comparison to the amounts of the scary sounding ingredients in vaccines.

Ingestion is not he same as injection. And chocolate is not aluminum (or aluminium for your benefit). Unfortunately injecting a full stop amount of chocolate might cause a reaction in the animal and subsequent ingestion of even a tiny amount chocolate would cause an anaphalatic shock and kill my poor doggy.

ETA: Charles Richet's (Nobel Prize winner) lecture on anaphylaxsis.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-lecture.html

[Dakotacakes]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

If my 190 lb Mastiff ate a bar of chocolate he would probably be fine, if a 2 lb chihuahua did he would likely be a goner.

I am not particularly concerned about antigens and immune response in relation to body mass. I am concerned about the other ingredients in the vaccines and their ability to cause harm in relation to size. I am also concerned that immature immune systems that are designed to be non-reactive and rely on maternal antibodies are hyper stimulated by vaccines. 

Good thing that canine vaccines don't contain chocolate.  As I said some things relate to body weight (such as antibiotics) and other things don't (like vaccines)  Chocolate may work by bodyweight, whereas vaccines do not.

The other items in canine vaccines are not present in sufficient amounts to cause damage to even small weight.  Like I said when antibiotics ARE present which is not all the time.  The amount present in the vaccine is LESS than the Chihuahua would be given for an infection, the Formaldehyde present is LESS than would harm a Chihuahua and LESS than they get from naturally occurring sources, same for mercury.

[Rrrrrachel]

I think the best way to think of it may be that everyone gets the smallest dose. It's not that children get an adult sized dose, it's that adults get a child sized dose. Due to the way vaccines work (not necessary for them to circulate through the body at certain levels) that small dose is sufficient.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Dakotacakes 

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

If my 190 lb Mastiff ate a bar of chocolate he would probably be fine, if a 2 lb chihuahua did he would likely be a goner.

I am not particularly concerned about antigens and immune response in relation to body mass. I am concerned about the other ingredients in the vaccines and their ability to cause harm in relation to size. I am also concerned that immature immune systems that are designed to be non-reactive and rely on maternal antibodies are hyper stimulated by vaccines. 

Good thing that canine vaccines don't contain chocolate.  As I said some things relate to body weight (such as antibiotics) and other things don't (like vaccines)  Chocolate may work by bodyweight, whereas vaccines do not.

The other items in canine vaccines are not present in sufficient amounts to cause damage to even small weight.  Like I said when antibiotics ARE present which is not all the time.  The amount present in the vaccine is LESS than the Chihuahua would be given for an infection, the Formaldehyde present is LESS than would harm a Chihuahua and LESS than they get from naturally occurring sources, same for mercury.

It is not about the quantity it is about a substance whether natural or not being injected into a body that shouldn't be injected into it, causing a sensitivity (read the lecture by Charles Richet I posted for an understanding of what I am getting at).

[Dakotacakes]

Then it is about weight and never was?  The entire debate I thought was about reducing the amount of Vaccines for smaller animals.  That is not appropriate because vaccines are not based on weight because they don't work the same ways as antibiotics.

The constant discussion of "Scary ingredients" is outside of why the size of vaccines doesn't vary by weight.  We are having two different discussions.  I am only speaking to why it is inappropriate to cuts rabies vaccine dosages by weight not whether or not someone should vaccinate at all because of the trace ingredients in the vaccine. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Yeah this thread actually is about dose vs weight/size. Not the actual ingredients. I'm more than happy to have that discussion, but ts a different thread and all been hashed out before.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yeah this thread actually is about dose vs weight/size. Not the actual ingredients. I'm more than happy to have that discussion, but ts a different thread and all been hashed out before.

Here is more information on dose vs size, again in dogs

http://www.dogs4dogs.com/blog/2009/09/30/vaccinating-small-dogs-risks-vets-arent-revealing/

Quote:

The researchers report: “Vaccines, in contrast to virtually all veterinary pharmaceuticals, are prescribed on a 1-dose-fits-all basis, rather than by body weight.”

The study’s researchers go on to say that during a vaccine’s pre-licensing trial, manufacturers investigate the safety of excessive doses of vaccines “but only in a limited number of dogs. The results of this study suggest that trials in dogs that weigh [22 lbs.] underestimate the expected VAAE rate in smaller dogs.”

The risk of a vaccine reaction in this study population was inversely related to a dog’s weight. This weight/response relationship was also suggested by a study in which toy breeds had significantly more reactions than other dogs, although body weight was not evaluated.

[Rrrrrachel]

So wait, is it about weight or not?

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Dakotacakes 

Then it is about weight and never was?  The entire debate I thought was about reducing the amount of Vaccines for smaller animals.  That is not appropriate because vaccines are not based on weight because they don't work the same ways as antibiotics.

The constant discussion of "Scary ingredients" is outside of why the size of vaccines doesn't vary by weight.  We are having two different discussions.  I am only speaking to why it is inappropriate to cuts rabies vaccine dosages by weight not whether or not someone should vaccinate at all because of the trace ingredients in the vaccine. 

Through googling this subject, I am finding out that it is not unusual for vets to give toy/small breed dogs half-dose vaccines, although half-dose rabies vaccination is not generally given because it is required by law.

From Dr Jean Dodds 

http://www.iwclubofamerica.org/Health/FAQs_Vaccine_Issues.pdf

Quote:

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. 

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So wait, is it about weight or not?

Yes it is about weight.