Scientists never make very good advocates because they are compelled to see both sides of an issue and 'argue against themselves.'
This is a problem on the internet, which favors agenda greatly over rationality, and allows people to cut and paste part of an argument and say 'see- even he agrees and argues my side!'
In this case, as in most 'absolutists are always wrong'. While I may bristle at marymrumfelt's tone, I understand what she is saying , and to a certain extent agree.
It has been said that the period from 1970-2000 will be known as that anomalous period when veterinarians had the archaic idea to give all dogs annual vaccinations for every disease. There were good reasons for this - veterinary hospitals in the 60s were full of dogs dying the horrible death of distemper, there was a saying that if you got feline panleukopenia in your hospital the best thing to do was to burn it down and build another. It was extremely contagious , and the first sign of cat distemper was often a dead cat.
These situations no longer exist, as largely neither does rabies, due to intensive and rigorous vaccination.
(You're welcome.
)
However, in retrospect, yes, we WERE overvaccinating, we know that now. And while we have largely policed ourselves there is NO DOUBT that the activities of anti-vaccination advocates have done a great deal to give that correction momentum.
(Aside- there was quite a scandal in the 1960s that swine veterinarians used political clout to continue hog cholera vaccination programs after they were no longer indicated. This sort of thing is what we are accused of doing. As has been stated above, small animal veterinary organizations generally support extended vaccine schedules, as does the AVMA and its committees.)
On the other hand, when I see Megansmom agonizing over the 'terrible decision' of whether to get puppy shots for rabies and distemper at the same time, with advocates telling her that 'everyone knows' that is dangerous, i just have to shake my head and say 'Oh for Pete's sake. Why are we alarming people and causing such anxiety over nothing?'
So, yes, we DO need people to be skeptical, and to argue for, even if they don't know they are doing it 'evidence based medicine'. Marymrumfelt's argument that we overvaccinate for rabies as a profit generator for veterinarians is worth discussion, as long as the discussion is constructive rather than emotional.There is a saying in business, and medicine, that if you are doing anything the same way you were doing it two years ago you had better take a fresh look. I have no problem with discussing the issues raised in the anti-vaccination article recently submitted- your doctor should be able, and willing to discuss why and how they do what they do. That particular article was simply so agenda driven that its facts were inarguably incorrect, that was my problem. - Dr. Mac
!!
