tofu pup
Moderator
There's a big, big difference between these two scenarios:
A. We took the puppy in for her first round of vaccines. She a bad reaction to them. We aren't sure what happened, but it appears that something went wrong. Now we know that we have to be super-careful with vaccines with this particular dog, and are working with the vet to figure out alternatives that will keep her safe and healthy.
B. My neighbor took her puppy in for her first round of vaccines. The puppy had a bad reaction to them. They aren't sure what happened, but it appears that something went wrong. I'm really worried about vaccines now. I don't want to risk my puppy having a bad reaction, so I'm not going to get my puppy vaccinated at all.
In A, we've learned that this particular dog (or kid, or goldfish) doesn't tolerate vaccines well. Of course the dog's owner needs to learn from that experience and work with the vet to figure out a safer alternative for this individual dog. To just go in and keep vaccinating her like any other dog would be foolhardy. This is where you are: unfortunately, your puppies have neurological issues that seem to have been caused by vaccination. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you recognize that most dogs tolerate vaccines well.
In B, the owner simply assumes that his or her puppy will also have a bad reaction, and so doesn't get the dog vaccinated. It's more than likely that this puppy would tolerate the vaccines perfectly well - but the owner has decided that vaccines are terribly dangerous.
Vaccines don't cause autism. The paper around which that particular argument was built - and the doctor who authored it - have been discredited. Yes, when you're a parent and your child develops autism, of course you look at everything your child touched or ate or did - it's a natural emotional reaction. However, science, public health science included, doesn't run on emotional reactions.
Here's an example: 1 in 1000 cats develops untreatable cancer at the injection site - that's one-half of one percent of cats who get injected. The other 999 cats - that's 99.5%! - don't develop cancer, and are protected from catching or spreading a deadly disease. Yes, it's awful for that 0.5%. It's terrible, and it's unfair, and it sucks - but on the public health scale, it's an acceptable risk.
I think it's important to differentiate between "do we need to give annual boosters?" and "do we need to vaccinate at all?" I believe that the answer to the first is generally "No", and the answer to the second is a resounding "Yes". I should clarify that I'm not talking about annual boosters; I agree that they're generally unnecessary, and I applaud the efforts of those who are working to push for longer and longer mandated intervals between rabies boosters.
But we need to remember that there's an emotional side and a rational side. We need to support and nurture our emotional sides, but in the final assessment, we can't throw rationality out the window because all we can see are the risks.
