A group of vets in the UK have stated we are spending millions of dollars[pounds over here] to have our dogs unnecessarily injected every year. They state this is unnecessary and is causing harm to the dogs over the long term. One injection should last years, the winners are the drug companies and the vets. Any comments about this. Gustav the gsd.
I've seen a lot of stuff about this in the past 2 or 3 years. Many veterinarians are going with this in the US as well. The logic being, vaccinations build up immunities in humans once the initial boosters are done, why not in dogs as well? I think it's believable, but I also think that for many people, the only thing that gets their dog to the vet for a checkup annually is that their dogs need annual shots. How many people would stop taking their dog to the vet completley for any health checks whatsoever if they weren't required to get shots annually? A whole freakin lot. If titer tests were of a reasonable price, they could give the shots the first year, then after that people could bring their dogs in to the vets every year to check their antibody levels for the vaccines to know if they were still effective.
Well, unfortunately, the money has never been there to test this out on a large enough group of animals to dictate a change in what the AAHA sees as "best practise". If we drew titres on every dog, it could well bear out that some vaccines DO last longer than the year, but that would cost an extraordinary amount of dollars, and also would the result for one breed translate as the rule, or the exception? Basically, veterinary science doesn't have a definitive answer on this, and so the best practise rule has to prevail. Until there is sufficient evidence to CHANGE best practise, the rule will remain as it is. I suppose you could resort to drawing titres on each dog, but that would get astronomically pricey, and I don't know that labs would be able to keep up with the demand. Added to that, many folks already think that shots are too expensive (one of the many excuses given for NOT getting them), and to add to the cost burden would be to risk a decline in the numbers of animals being innoculated, and a proportional increase in the numbers of animals getting sick from preventable disease. I would consider drawing titres if a dog were hypersensitive to vaccine, in the interest of not over-innoculating.