Doses and Immunity - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 01:39 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

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


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#32 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 01:46 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

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.

Dakotacakes is offline  
#33 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 02:05 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#34 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 02:08 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

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).


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#35 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 02:20 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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. 

Dakotacakes is offline  
#36 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 03:05 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#37 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 03:46 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

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.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#38 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 03:48 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
So wait, is it about weight or not?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#39 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 03:57 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

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. 

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#40 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 03:58 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

So wait, is it about weight or not?

Yes it is about weight.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#41 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 04:12 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So that quote bassically says, that they will give 1/2 doses to toy breeds, but in vaccinologists (and most vetrinarians) disagree with it because the vaccine is the already the smallest dose that will produce the required immune response. But yes they will do it, not surprised. They also will not do it for rabies because rabies is a vaccine required by law (and as explained, the 1/2 dose won't give sufficient immunity for the law). Other vaccines aren't required by law so yeah, you can get someone to 1/2 it though I am not sure why you want to halve the vaccine, half the other ingredients and not have immune response the vaccine is designed for because you arent't taking the required dose.

If this IS about weight My post in post 23 explains why Chihuahuas and mastiffs get the same vaccine dose but not the same antibiotic dose.

If ti is about vaccine ingredients that debate is taking place elsewhere and I am more than willing to have it, but that is unrelated to the weight/dose issue.
Dakotacakes is offline  
#42 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 04:32 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

Dr Dodds feels that a half dose is probably fine and safer, but they don't do it for rabies, I think she is implying they don't because of the law. As her and Dr Schultz's research is showing rabies titres are good for at least 5 and likely way more, years. 

 

Vets halve vaccines in small and toy breeds because they are finding the dogs are having more adverse reactions to the vaccines (as the research shows). Co-incidence?

 

The problem with vets like peds is they only know what they have been taught about vaccines, which is precious little, so it isn't surprising they tout the official line. The AVMA is all but bought and paid for by big pharma and the pet food manufacturers, so nothing new there. There are some vets like Dr Schultz, Dr Dodds, Dr Jordan, Dr Pitcairn etc that actually think for themselves.

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#43 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 04:42 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Except dont those vets also fall into the category of havin been taught "precious little?"
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#44 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 04:56 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

They at least had the insight to realize there was more to the subject than what was told to them at vet school and took it upon themselves to further their education. Rrrrrachel, haven't you sited Dr Dodds in relation to your dog's vaccine's in the past?

 

Anyway, as par for the course, this dialogue is going nowhere. So, you are welcome to talk amongst yourselves.

 

But more relevant, my apologies to the OP (and the mods), I just realized that I posted in the wrong thread this discussion is about waning immunity. Duh 

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#45 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 05:18 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
So the people who agree with you have insight, but the people who disagree are ignorant. Got it.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#46 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 05:19 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Yeah I thought this was a different thread too. Sorry.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#47 of 47 Old 02-17-2013, 05:41 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

So the people who agree with you have insight, but the people who disagree are ignorant. Got it.

Same could be said for you. Kind of a pointless comment IMO.

 

To keep this thread on track

 

Waning Antibody Levels and Avidity:Implications for MMR Vaccine Induced Protection

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Conclusions. Measles and rubella induced high avidity antibodies and mumps low avidity antibodies both after vaccination and natural infection. Waning of both the concentration as well as the avidity of antibodies might contribute to measles and mumps infections in twice MMR vaccinated individuals.

 


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off