Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As there are so many dog owners on here, I would love to know your opinions on dog vaccination.


Twenty/thirty years ago, if you had a dog, you just got their first vaccinations done as puppies, then their

yearly boosters, without thinking about it, no questions asked.


Things changed slightly, around 10 years ago, when a TV programme outlined 'over-vaccination'.


It stated that dogs needed their initial course, but after that, there were pro's & con's to yearly boosters.


One of the arguments was that the vaccines last a lot longer than a year, but vet's will never tell you this, as

they are only out to 'line their pockets!'


If you google 'pro's & cons of dog vaccination', there is a lot of info, backing up claims that over-vaccination

can do more harm than good.

Malignant tumours forming at the back of the neck (where vaccine is administered), vaccines (which are viruses),

being injected regularly into the body, overloading the immune system & creating problems, rather than reducing

them. Not to mention the chemicals/toxins that are mixed in with the vaccines.


My two dogs were vaccinated as puppies, but I decided against their annual boosters, after reading an article

about the above programme & doing some research.


However, we moved to a more dog-populated area 3 years ago, so they have been vaccinated yearly since then.


The reason for this thread:


Their booster was due last month, so has to be done by the end of this month or whole course will have to be

repeated.

I've done further research on-line & read so many horror stories about I'm apprehensive about doing so.


My dogs are almost 9 years old, (over-vaccination problems increase with age, because their bodies find it harder

to cope with the viruses suddenly being injected into them),

They never come into contact with other dogs, apart from every 4 months, briefly, at their groomers,

They only get walked round the roads, never in the park.


My daughters dog was vaccinated as a puppy, but has never been done since, & has always been fit & healthy.


How likely is it to catch parvo/leptospirosis/distemper?

Puppies maybe....but with a 9 year old immune system?


Any thoughts, opinions from dog owners/professionals etc. would be appreciated, to help me decide.




I love my dogs and just want them to continue living a happy, healthy life.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/20486-dogs-to-vaccinateor-not/
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this aquarius moon as I am wondering the same thing about my two dogs. My girl is nearly 3 and my boy 2yrs old. Both of them had their two puppy vaccinations and their yearly top ups. She is now due for this years but I wondering if I need to bother! They are advocated monthly as I can't stop them from eating slugs which can carry lungworm. I am very interested to hear others thoughts on vaccinations as I too think it may just be the vets lining their pockets!

You need to be really careful with this kind of debate - it's not any old opinion that you're looking for, it's an educated independent medical assessment of risks and benefits.


The MMR debate created a crisis in UK childcare precisely because of people drawing conclusions from fabricated scare stories without reference to medical advice - principally on the advice of their mates and general gossip.


Your dogs are predominantly safe now BECAUSE most people vaccinate their dogs.


If you start a debate suggesting it's vaccination isn't necessary, then the percentage of vaccinations will go down, and the incidence of viral canine infections will rise dramatically.


The odds that your own dogs will get these infections will also rise, and this debate will prove pointless.


It's noticeable that most of these debates kick off with some completely unjustified and abusive claim that doctors are just there to steal your money.


So be warned.

Thanks First Mate, I will have a look.


Huguenot,

I haven't said vaccination isn't necessary.

I'm simply asking people's opinions to help me make a decision, as I want to do what is best for my dogs.


If I decide that yearly vaccinations are the best option, I will continue to get them done.

Here is a vaccination schedule- easy to read as recommended by Jean Dodds who is an expert in canine autoimmune conditions. She has also done a lot of work on vaccinations. This is a schedule you can print and take to your vet to discuss.


Everyone must vaccinate their dogs, that is puppy innoculations; the question is how often to booster. Humans are not vaccinated every year for various diseases, so it begs the question why dogs need to be. It is a difficult one to answer, and none of us want to harm our dogs by over-vaccinating. Nonetheless, there are diseases, like lepto, that probably do require annual boosters.The key thing is to discuss with your vet and then decide. The other point is that blood titres are very pricey and they are necessary in order to test for antibodies which will indicate whether or not the dog has sufficient immunity against x,y,z disease.

http://www.weim.net/emberweims/Vaccine.html

There are doctors and nurses on this site who know a lot more than me, but there are several human vaccines that require more than one injection over a period of time.


These include diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, haemophilus influenzae type b, polio, MMR, meningococcus and Hepatitus B for example.


Some of these are lifetime: for high risk indidivudals tetanus requires boosting every 10 years.


It's a good example of where something sounds believeable, but your mates might not have the best advice.


Jean Dodds appears well informed, but I do notice she suggests homeopathic alternatives (so long as you sign a disclaimer).

H


Yes, some human vaccinations require a booster, but not all. I think if you have a careful look you'll find the debate is not whether to vaccinate at all but how often to give boosters and where is there risk.


I believe that the AHHA canine task force as well as Dr Jean Dodds probably have a reasonable grasp on the latest evidence.


I do agree with you that a debate about how often to booster should not get contorted into whether to vaccinate at all. Then again, there's nowt to queer as folk.

I am a cat not a dog owner - but anyway would like to point out that it may be the case that - like human flu vaccines - the vaccines for dogs and cats are probably also NOT 'live' so in that context they don't have the same after effects and may not have the same other effects when mixed with other stuff. This is just for info. I am really pleased you posted this as I am now reading and learning a lot! I agree about getting professional advice on this but the irony is as vets are in business they have a vested interest in keeping you coming back. Tough one.

Hi PR,


If you look at the first link it goes through all the different vaccines licensed in the USA, both live and non-live, and gives loads of info- see the various tables.


Jean Dodds is a quickie guide and she is careful to say that her view is not the only view and to check with the vet etc..


Some vets may have a vested interest, always bad apples in the barrel. However, I think most vets are merely cautious and tend to stick with tried and trusted methods. There are risks whichever way you look at it. I believe the best approach is to go to your vet with as much information as you can, including, if your dog is pedigree, health information about the breed and your own dog's lines. The vet also has your dog's clinical history- whether there is an autoimmune issue and so on, together you can work out the best way forward for that dog.


Hugo is right in that most dogs are probably more protected now than they were because they are vaccinated. The other way of looking at it is that in days gone by, viruses picked off the weaker animals, leaving only the strongest to work and breed.

'If you start a debate suggesting it's vaccination isn't necessary, then the percentage of vaccinations will go down, and the incidence of viral canine infections will rise dramatically'. Thanks Huguenot that is a really good point.


I am going to take my girl for her booster anyway and ask my vet whether every year is neccessary or not. We go to Barrier Animal Care Clinic in Charlton and have always found them to be really helpful.

  • 2 weeks later...

After a couple of weeks of deliberating, I decided to go talk to the vet & express my worries.


He actually agreed that the whole course of vaccines do not have to be administered every year, due

to a change of policy.


Distemper/hardpad/parvo boosters do last longer so only need repeating at 3 yearly intervals.

However lepto/parainfluenza & kennel cough do need doing yearly, so I'm getting those done.


I'm really happy that my dogs will be protected, without being given unnecessary drugs that they don't need.


I don't know if this applies to all vets, but I suggest you ask them to explain their vaccination programme,

if you are worried about over-vaccination.

Hmmm...I've had lots of cats and grew up with dogs. And I've done both in that I've had pets who only had the initial vaccinations...and others where I paid for annual boosters. Not a single one of my vaccinated pets ever got ill from the things they were vaccinated for so I tend to think the initial vaccinations are enough. But the argument that says that it's because most pet owners vaccinate that my pets are ok with just the initial vaccinations makes some sense to me as well.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...