My small stand...am I silly?

[KBCraig]

Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise. (sacarstic tone)

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

[kola]

Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise.

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

KB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular). I do not wish to run about the woods and vaccinate wild animals for the main reason being that vaccines do not work and they cause more harm than good. There are alot of attempted vaccine programs (in the wild) to reduce the rabies disease in animals. (raccoons and skunks are common carriers). The article has admitted that prior vaccines have been ineffective. The rables vaccine for canines have been questioned as well with little proof that it prevents rabies. Of course we have the CDC and vaccine manuafacturers (who btw do studies on their own products) that try to put a good spin on the issue.   

There are courageous DVM's who 100% oppose the rabies vaccine and many others who only recommend one dose for life and no more. They further state a dog who is ill or elderly should not be exposed to any rabies vaccines. I can supply sources at your request to back my claims.

I enjoy engaging in a discussion about vaccines if both parties act like adults and if they are truely interested and sincere. In the past I have found trying to discuss vaccines becomes quite similar to a discussion about politics or religion...things get ugly, no one changes their opinion and it becomes a waste of time and energy.

Kola   

[kola]

The whole farce regarding vaccinations is just another notch in Big Brothers belt which was meant to invoke fear and then have the sheeple beg the government to protect them. Its a pretty good money maker too.
Yes Bigt Gov is saving the world and making it a safer place for me and you...cough cough.,,

just my opinion,
Kola

[mvpel]

KB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular).

Perhaps the difference in efficacy is in the difference in path of administration?  Because it is apparent that the vaccination of dogs and other domestic animals has proved effective in the years since the effort was begun in the 1940's:



A grand total of 497 cases in all domestic animals in 2001, with cats as the most numerous among them at 249 vs 114 in dogs nationwide, down from around 4,000 in 1955.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabies/Epidemiology/Epidemiology.htm

n this century, the number of human deaths in the United States attributed to rabies has declined from 100 or more each year to an average of 1 or 2 each year. Two programs have been responsible for this decline. First, animal control and vaccination programs begun in the 1940's have practically eliminated domestic dogs as reservoirs of rabies in the United States. Second, effective human rabies vaccines and immunolglobins have been developed .

[KBCraig]

Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise.

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

KB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular).

Sorry, I was being too sarcastic. That was my point: that scattering oral medicines in the wild can't possibly produce the same efficacy as individual injections.

I do not wish to run about the woods and vaccinate wild animals for the main reason being that vaccines do not work and they cause more harm than good. There are alot of attempted vaccine programs (in the wild) to reduce the rabies disease in animals. (raccoons and skunks are common carriers). The article has admitted that prior vaccines have been ineffective. The rables vaccine for canines have been questioned as well with little proof that it prevents rabies.

Do you have cites of domesticated dogs or cats that have contracted rabies despite current vaccinations? The low incidence of rabies in vaccinated animals looks like pretty good evidence, given that the decline is correlated to widespread vaccinations.

Questioning whether we're over-vaccinating animals is a good discussion. I have read good arguments for two- and three-year cycles. But flatly stating that "vaccinations don't work" makes it sound like a point of faith.

Kevin

[Henry]

Here is a interesting piece. They say their "old vax" for rabies was not very good but the "new" one shows great promise.

What does that have to do with canine vaccinations?

Feel free to run about the woods injecting skunks and raccoons if you wish.

KB, The same vaccines are used in the wild(oral) and for domestic animals (intra muscular).

Sorry, I was being too sarcastic. That was my point: that scattering oral medicines in the wild can't possibly produce the same efficacy as individual injections.

I do not wish to run about the woods and vaccinate wild animals for the main reason being that vaccines do not work and they cause more harm than good. There are alot of attempted vaccine programs (in the wild) to reduce the rabies disease in animals. (raccoons and skunks are common carriers). The article has admitted that prior vaccines have been ineffective. The rables vaccine for canines have been questioned as well with little proof that it prevents rabies.

Do you have cites of domesticated dogs or cats that have contracted rabies despite current vaccinations? The low incidence of rabies in vaccinated animals looks like pretty good evidence, given that the decline is correlated to widespread vaccinations.
Questioning whether we're over-vaccinating animals is a good discussion. I have read good arguments for two- and three-year cycles. But flatly stating that "vaccinations don't work" makes it sound like a point of faith.
Kevin

I wish I cared enough to follow this thread closely. However, I do know for a fact that, in general, regulations that are for animals are almost always a precursor for regulations that are intended for humans. Anyone following both the new national mandatory animal tagging laws and Fox news knows this to be true. California proposing mandatory animal sterilization, many states have animal chipping. I'm not saying to not vaccinate animals, but just realize that the overlord architects of our society CLEARLY plan these things many years in advance, and animal regulation is part of how they set the stage for getting inside your own bloodstream.

[kola]

mvpel,
I appreciate your work and by posting the CDC graphs regarding rabies.

From your CDC "report" it is unclear where the information came from and the specifics of it. It is not a scientific peer review study. The CDC is a reporting agency and rarely (if ever) do they disclose how there numbers and stats were compiled. The CDC has a long track record of serious conflict of interest issues. It makes it difficult to find the truth. I find some of their information valid and others are nothing more than opinions or they have fudged numbers to line their pockets or their financial supporters.

back to the graph, remember it has been proven that many vaccines cause the disease instead of preventing it thus this could be the explanation for the spike in the wild.

Kola

[kola]

Do you have cites of domesticated dogs or cats that have contracted rabies despite current vaccinations? The low incidence of rabies in vaccinated animals looks like pretty good evidence, given that the decline is correlated to widespread vaccinations.

here is a case of a vaxed dog who got rabies ( and it is from the one and only CDC..) 


: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000874.htm

I think I have gone off topic here. My apologies. If anyone wants to continue we could start a new thread.

or research Dr Sherri Tenpennys work, Dr Tim Oshea, Dr Tedd Koren but my favorite is Neil Z Miller's book entitled "Vaccines, Are they Safe and Effective".

Kola

[J’raxis 270145]

Many people in this thread seem to be forgetting that just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it ought to be a law. I would compare the vaccination requirement to things like compulsory insurance—many people would consider it downright foolish to not have health insurance if one can afford it, or if one drives a lot, to do so without auto insurance—but that doesn't mean it should be legally required. There are plenty of other examples. Smoking tobacco in public is potentially dangerous to others—let's ban it. Smoking tobacco is very bad for you, too—so let's ban that, too. Driving without a seatbelt is very dangerous—let's require them. Riding a motorcycle or bike without a helmet is dangerous, too. And so on, and so on...

The evidence that vaccination is a good thing is in my opinion overwhelming, and if I had a dog, I would have it vaccinated—for its safety, for mine, and for my neighbors'. However, I would still oppose having a law requiring vaccination, and I would refuse to pay any government fees associated with licensing, with the vaccination, with filing reports/proof-of-vaccination with the city, &c.

[Ogre]

Excellent point.  I think the line is only crossed when there is "present danger to others."  In other words, no matter how many times someone doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle, that's not going to be dangerous TO ME.  There should be no law requiring helmets.

Now, does rabies present a present danger to others?  Only when it's present -- in other words, I can see a law that prohibits people from owning a dog that has rabies!

[J’raxis 270145]

Excellent point.  I think the line is only crossed when there is "present danger to others."  In other words, no matter how many times someone doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle, that's not going to be dangerous TO ME.  There should be no law requiring helmets.

Now, does rabies present a present danger to others?  Only when it's present -- in other words, I can see a law that prohibits people from owning a dog that has rabies!

Yeah...maybe something along the line of "If you have a dog who has rabies, you must put the animal down or seek treatment within x amount of time, or your dog will be taken away and treated at your cost." - That seems fair to the animal, to you and me...etc.

I don't know...at once I feel that it is none of the gov'ts damn business if my dog has rabies...but I live in Manchester, there are tons of people around me who could care less about rabies. I don't want to be bitten by a rabid dog.

A reasonable law might also allow the person to leave the dog untreated if they keep it restrained: locked indoors and around no other people but the owner, or something along those lines. Since rabies is terminal, I doubt few people with an actually rabid dog would leave it be, so such a provision in the law would very rarely be taken advantage of anyway—and anyone who does so easily falls under the "you're a fool but that's your right" heading.

Naturally if the dog escapes and bites someone else, said fool is responsible for it.

[Bald Eagle]

Now, does rabies present a present danger to others?  Only when it's present -- in other words, I can see a law that prohibits people from owning a dog that has rabies!

Yeah...maybe something along the line of "If you have a dog who has rabies, you must put the animal down or seek treatment within x amount of time, or your dog will be taken away and treated at your cost." - That seems fair to the animal, to you and me...etc.

I don't know...at once I feel that it is none of the gov'ts damn business if my dog has rabies...but I live in Manchester, there are tons of people around me who could care less about rabies. I don't want to be bitten by a rabid dog.

Stop thinking about normal everyday mundane animal ownership and start thinking about amateur or completely free-market scientific research.  If I'm going to study rabies, I need infected animals.  Having a law against owning and keeping animals with rabies sounds good, except that now no one can study rabies except the select elite who are exempt. 

Kind of like trying to study Schedule I drugs with "no accepted medical use" - since no one is allowed to own or use them, and therefore study them - except the select elite who are exempt - and funded by the govt to publish research reports about the horrors of those drugs.

[Sam Adams]

First, I have not had time to read the entire thread. I am a NH native and have some things to add.

I admire the outrage, but outrage without knowledge can sometimes be like a blank cartridge.

It is important to know how and why all these little laws came into existence, and it doesn't hurt to know something about how governments have come to be "budgeted" and funded.

Keep in mind that the worst takings of freedoms have been made "for a good reason."

Many of you are probably too young to remember when there were no leash laws. I remember. Dogs were not routinely spayed or neutered, and they ran free. Many damaged other people's property and/or bit animals and people (sometimes killing livestock, often running deer in packs).

Someone said, "There oughta be a law," and laws were enacted. How was that sold to the public?

Here's just a few of the rationales used then, and used today.


Problem: It costs money to have a dog catcher go get an abusive dog and take it back to its owner, and we don't know who can be held accountable in civil court for damages to property/people.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed (for a fee to offset the expense), collared and tagged so the DC will know where to return them and/or who can be sued for damages.


Problem: The DC picks up a stray dog (abusive or not) and doesn't know where to take it. It costs "public" money to kennel the dog and it may not even have an owner.

Solution: Require dogs to be licensed and limit the amount of time that government must pay to take care of unlicensed animals.


Problem: If a dog bites, we don't know if the bitten animal or person is at risk for contracting rabies (at that time a positively fatal disease — and still lousy odds).

Solution: Require that all dogs be vaccinated for rabies.


Problem: People go to city or town hall to register/license their dogs, but they forget to take the rabies documentation. Oops. Need to make a second trip.

Solution: Require vets to notify city/town clerks of all vaccinations and that will speed up time at the window.


That's just a small example of how we have come to be buried under unfathomable amounts of petty laws governing every aspect of our lives, and fees that raid our pockets.


Now about the "fees." There are various laws governing how city/town clerks are to be paid, essentially involving either hourly pay, annual salary (funded from the general fund — more on that later), the fees for processing the paper work, or a combination of wages/salary and fees. Those decisions are ostensibly made by local legislative bodies (voters).

State and local government is funded through a combination of taxes and fees, which FOLLOW the amount budgeted. The budget limits or expands the amounts that may be spent, and in most cases individual (department) budgets are funded out of the general fund, comprised of taxes and "all other revenues" raised from fees, fines, etc.

At the local level, the local governing body (elected officials) proposes an annual budget and the people get to amend it or not, and then vote yes or no. Procedures are different for towns and cities. If they vote no, there are provisions for reverting to prior budgets with limited changes.

At the town level, anticipated revenues from (user) fees, fines, other governments and other sources are estimated and subtracted from the overall budget amount (general fund). THEN taxes are levied to make up the difference.

Everything is controlled by "the budget." At the local level, people need to vote no on spending. At the state level, legislators need to vote no on spending.

Voter spending authorization is the bottom line cause of all ills. Voters have the power to fix things. They just don't bother.

[coffeeseven]

Edgar Friendly: See... According to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak of the barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fried". I want high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese, ok? I wanna smoke a cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I wanna rin through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading PlayBoy magazine, why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, ok pal? I've seen the future, know what it is? It's a 47-year old virgin sitting around in his beige pyjamas driking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an oscar meyer wiener"

[FTL_Ian]

Great movie.