New Vaccine??

[Yorkiemom1]

I just ordered my vaccines...I use Pro-Gard 5 and have never had any problems with it...seems the two pharmaceuticals have joined and that particular vaccine is no longer available. The reps said the replacment for ProGard 5 is "Nobivac Canine 1-DAPPv......they have told me it is the same vaccine, just a different name...Now, I am reading on the forum about the ER vet that told a lady there has been an increase in reactions since a new vaccine hit the market...... I am very uneasy about using this vaccine now. Have any of you breeders used this vaccine? Do you have any idea what "new vaccine" this ER Vet could be referring to? I did post this under the Breeder thread, thought I would put it here to for any breeders that give their own vaccines.

[msyorktown]

Bumping this yorkiemom...

[Yorkiemom1]

Thanks! I thought breeders would have been all over this, especially with what that ER vet told the poster on here...I dont understand why it double posted.....operator error, I guess.....

[msyorktown]

When I read the post I thought the same thing...weird, not a peep from anyone....

[carmen in nj]

I am sorry I just saw this been very busy with my dolls and puppy, yes, I was talking to my son and his boss at the clinic the other day, when I went to pick up some stuff and Doc said to watch Dyson well because of the new vaccine is a bit stronger than the original, Dyson got two doses so far and no reaction, but then again I do give them 1 /4 teaspoon of children's benadryl 30 minutes before vaccine to prevent any reaction. I do that with every litter too. but she has seen a few more cases of reactions at the ER clinic than usual and most of the cases were toy breeds.. she remembers a little s**t zu was the worse case so far. and the common vaccine was the new Nobivac Canine 1 DAPPv.
hugs,

[Yorkiemom1]

Dad gummit!!! I am going to have to contact the manufacturer....wondering if decreasing the dosage would prevent reaction and yet be effective.....will let you know what I find out. If they are having that many reactions to this crap, they need to address it!

[jp4m2]

Yorkiemom, have you considered monovalent vaccines? That way you can control the contents and it would avoid unnecessary additives and antigens. Just trying to help in thinking this out with you....

[carmen in nj]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

Dad gummit!!! I am going to have to contact the manufacturer....wondering if decreasing the dosage would prevent reaction and yet be effective.....will let you know what I find out. If they are having that many reactions to this crap, they need to address it!

Doc was going to contact them and see what is the problem, I asked her that too since Dyson is due for his last set this week and she said no, reducing the dose will not be effective. one thing I did notice was that with this new vaccine Dyson's injection area was very sensitive for a few days, he was playing with my mom's Ruby and he cried shen she accidentaly pawed his injection site.. that is one of the reasons we were talking about it..
hugs,

[navillusc]

I was watching this thread too...and thought it odd there were no replies. I had no answer so, I was just watching...and looking on the internet...but mostly because of my stance regarding vaccines and vaccinations. New stuff in this field is always cause for alarm for me. I hope there is an alternative if this vaccine is an issue. No need to cause harm...but isn't that part of that oath thing..."do no harm"...or do vets not take that oath...I do not believe pharma companies are held to that promise and they make the stuff. I am just not all that trusting, I guess. I hope you find good answers and have no issues.

[Yorkiemom1]

I called Nobivac and spoke with their "adverse reaction review" department....directly from the horses mouth, I am told to date they have had no increase in reported cases of adverse reactions to this vaccine. They also told me the dose of parvo in ProGard 5 was actually a little stronger than it is in this "new" vaccine. Can not adjust the dosage of the vaccine... I am still doing research...Thanks jp4m2, will assess monovalent vaccines, pros and cons.....

[jp4m2]

The problem with knowing if the vaccine is dangerous or not is the reporting of such problems is voluntary. The reporting is so poor it's estimated to be at only 1%. Trying to get the info from the manufacturer isn't really going to give a accurate picture of the problems, if any, without this valuable info.

Also vets are very reluctant to admit that the pharmaceuticals they administered might have been a problem so they tend to say it was just a coincidence. Until the reporting becomes mandatory we will never get the info we need to determine if a drug is worth using.

[navillusc]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

The problem with knowing if the vaccine is dangerous or not is the reporting of such problems is voluntary. The reporting is so poor it's estimated to be at only 1%. Trying to get the info from the manufacturer isn't really going to give a accurate picture of the problems, if any, without this valuable info.

Also vets are very reluctant to admit that the pharmaceuticals they administered might have been a problem so they tend to say it was just a coincidence. Until the reporting becomes mandatory we will never get the info we need to determine if a drug is worth using.

Many times, reactions are handled by ER staff, not the doctor who administered the vaccine, and so the 'reaction' tends not to ever be 'linked' to the vaccine and/or reported to the doctor who vaccinated that patient, and may not be reported for these reasons also. Plus, adverse and/or 'inconvenient' documentation/complaints/etc. may fall victim to "misfiling" as well.

[Yorkiemom1]

I would hate to think that a vet would give a vaccine, and the pup have a reaction, especially a bad one, and it is simply forgotten, "misfiled" or covered up....I certainly hope MY vet would immediately notify the pharmaceutical company, if their vaccines are causing an increase in adverse reactions!! I just dont want to believe that!!! It is no skin off the vets nose...it even kinda clears them from the blame game....shifts the blame where it belongs......to the vaccine.

[jp4m2]

Originally Posted by Yorkiemom1

I would hate to think that a vet would give a vaccine, and the pup have a reaction, especially a bad one, and it is simply forgotten, "misfiled" or covered up....I certainly hope MY vet would immediately notify the pharmaceutical company, if their vaccines are causing an increase in adverse reactions!! I just dont want to believe that!!! It is no skin off the vets nose...it even kinda clears them from the blame game....shifts the blame where it belongs......to the vaccine.

Sometimes what seems logical to us isn't. I remember reading about a court decision that was made in the 1990's. it essentially relieved vaccine manufacturers in every state as defendants in tort cases, unless the vaccine was improperly made. So essentially the liability will fall to the vet administering the vaccine. If a pet suffers a serious adverse reaction or worse, the pet dies. The vet is the one that can be held liable for many thigs such as: professional negligence, vet malpractice, administering medical product without informed consent from the pet owner, and if the vet claimed the vaccine was safe and effective, he could be looking at a breech of warranty charge.

It would be as if the vet is admitting to malpractice, so there isn't much incentive to report this sort of thing. Also,the breech of warranty would more likely not be covered by malpractice insurance.

Also, many vets have no idea what a vaccine reaction is or what it looks like. They also tend to believe reactions are rare and they only happen within minutes of the vaccine being administered. And as the other poster pointed out a lot of times the EC is who would treat this.

more likely treat this.

[Yorkiemom1]

Originally Posted by jp4m2

Sometimes what seems logical to us isn't. I remember reading about a court decision that was made in the 1990's. it essentially relieved vaccine manufacturers in every state as defendants in tort cases, unless the vaccine was improperly made. So essentially the liability will fall to the vet administering the vaccine. If a pet suffers a serious adverse reaction or worse, the pet dies. The vet is the one that can be held liable for many thigs such as: professional negligence, vet malpractice, administering medical product without informed consent from the pet owner, and if the vet claimed the vaccine was safe and effective, he could be looking at a breech of warranty charge.

It would be as if the vet is admitting to malpractice, so there isn't much incentive to report this sort of thing. Also,the breech of warranty would more likely not be covered by malpractice insurance.

Also, many vets have no idea what a vaccine reaction is or what it looks like. They also tend to believe reactions are rare and they only happen within minutes of the vaccine being administered. And as the other poster pointed out a lot of times the EC is who would treat this.

more likely treat this.

Thanks...another angle to the picture! .....Is it safe to say "logic has NO place in the legal system"?