Puppy Vaccinations....

The 6-week timeframe came about when the thinking was:

(1)  6-weeks is old enough that the shots won't make them dangerously ill,
(2)  vaccines are harmless, and
(3)  the pups need to be protected ASAP.

The vaccine companies also wanted to sell as much of their product as possible with as little expenditure on research as they could get away with.  They had no incentive, for instance, to research how much longer than 1-year the immunity produced by vaccine lasted. 

No, I am not saying that they are "bad guys".  They are in business and that is the way that business works most of the time.

We know a lot more about the canine immune system now.

It has *always* been a hotly contested topic of how much of a role "maternal antibodies" play -- and I've had many (right on here) who have argued hot and heavy with me that there is no such thing as maternal antibodies interfering with shots at 6 weeks. 

It's a grey area and, as such, has always been fodder for debate.  With the encroachment of cities out into suburbia, and generally the increase in how many dogs actually SEE a vet in their lifetime, one of the hallmarks of what vets have tried to instill is the need for vaccines for dogs.

Those initial vaccines *are* important -- it's just how much and when that's always been debateable.

Before the advent of killed vaccines it was always the fear that the vaccine would transmit the disease TO the dog -- and that can happen if certain circumstances prevail (like the dog being weak and unhealthy, and the dog potentially having actually been exposed TO the disease itself  -- the vaccine can actually push them over the line into actually getting it if it's a live vaccine (and improperly done).  I've even heard of vets deliberately vaccinating a dog who has been exposed as 'treatment'.

Veterinary science has changed radically in the last 50 years.  And, unfortunately, dog over-population in certain areas, and general unclean practices has seen disease rise right along with it.  Vets started out just trying to get folks TO vaccinate and use a vet for health issues, and it morphed into a business practice/marketing. 

Then politics gets involved -- and it's far easier for politicians to legislate vaccines as the "answer" to certain illness that people are afraid of (and nothing inspires terror as much as rabies threat) than it is to actually attack the problem of the wildlife who carry it. 

calliecritturs

Then politics gets involved -- and it's far easier for politicians to legislate vaccines as the "answer" to certain illness that people are afraid of (and nothing inspires terror as much as rabies threat) than it is to actually attack the problem of the wildlife who carry it. 

Yeh and sometimes when they do try to address an illness they attack the wildlife instead of just the illness.

Here in Florida they have finally begun dropping "bait" with rabies vaccine in it -- they say 86% of the racoons in Florida actually *carry* rabies (not the disease but the carrier portion of it) -- the statistics are scarey, but bait-dropping is pricey (and of course people are always terrified that some kid will get it or some fool thing).  But nobuddy's kid should be wandering around a swamp alone anyway!! They're gator bait then!

Johnny&Tessy

One thing I never understood was why people would give the first shots at 6 weeks.  I'm assuming lots of breeders do this just to get the pups out sooner with their first shot????  Why take an unnecesary chance of maternal antibodies affecting the shots?

I think a lot of buyers expect this.  A lot of buyers compare breeders based on things like registration, vaccine, health certificate, etc and assume that these things are what make a breeder good or bad.