02-16-2018, 05:31 AM
Rabies is a terrible disease, and there is always a worry with any companion animal in countries which have it. The vaccine has protected very many animals, and humans.
But only the other day I saw a video of a small dog (Chihuahua) who had been seriously injured as a result of his Rabies vaccination. It was a sad video to watch. The dog had been healthy before his vaccination.
I am sure the benefits with the vaccine outweigh the risks, but for some unfortunate ones, one shot and their life as they knew it, is over. The percentage of such animals will be quite low. But it does highlight the fact that vaccinations are not risk-free. And many reactions may not even be reported as being vaccine-related.
And the injections are "given out like sweets" in more or less every country.
So there is some element which is not coming under consideration, or is not being reviewed properly by manufacturers.
Vaccinating when under any form of stress or when there is any problem already with the immune system is one thing, and that can also affect older animals more severely. But the components of these vaccines are another.
My feeling is there ought to be some sort of regulatory body, which not only oversees the ingredients of these vaccines, and whether suitable non-damaging or lower risk adjuvant ingredients could be used, but would also mandate that manufacturers were obligated to include guidelines for use and warnings for inappropriate or untimely use.
Vets also should be more deeply educated and be willing to offer clients other options (such as Titer testing in certain instances), and be aware of the risks involved, which appear to equal the risks of anaesthetics, as far as I can make out. Some vets do stick their heads in the sand about this issue. Or they may simply be unaware.
But only the other day I saw a video of a small dog (Chihuahua) who had been seriously injured as a result of his Rabies vaccination. It was a sad video to watch. The dog had been healthy before his vaccination.
I am sure the benefits with the vaccine outweigh the risks, but for some unfortunate ones, one shot and their life as they knew it, is over. The percentage of such animals will be quite low. But it does highlight the fact that vaccinations are not risk-free. And many reactions may not even be reported as being vaccine-related.
And the injections are "given out like sweets" in more or less every country.
So there is some element which is not coming under consideration, or is not being reviewed properly by manufacturers.
Vaccinating when under any form of stress or when there is any problem already with the immune system is one thing, and that can also affect older animals more severely. But the components of these vaccines are another.
My feeling is there ought to be some sort of regulatory body, which not only oversees the ingredients of these vaccines, and whether suitable non-damaging or lower risk adjuvant ingredients could be used, but would also mandate that manufacturers were obligated to include guidelines for use and warnings for inappropriate or untimely use.
Vets also should be more deeply educated and be willing to offer clients other options (such as Titer testing in certain instances), and be aware of the risks involved, which appear to equal the risks of anaesthetics, as far as I can make out. Some vets do stick their heads in the sand about this issue. Or they may simply be unaware.
