Vaccine Theory Thread

I went through and edited some comments from Bevolasvegas, then changed my mind and decided to honour Janet Rose's request to have the thread deleted.   

You know, while I agree that it's baiting and ugly and abrasive, these folks don't have all their eggs in the homeopathic basket.  And in the den is the only place I'm willing to make these comments.

Dr. Jean Dodds is NOT some freak.  She has very sound reasons for her vaccine protocol.  Yes, I have heard that there are some newer vaccines that don't interfer with maternal immunity, but they are NEW and as with anything new, cause for caution.  PH6 was new.....look what it did.  I am sure not going to be the first one in line for a NEW human drug.......

We don't vaccinate our children every year for the same old stuff.  Why do we think we need to vaccinate our dogs yearly?  And why with combo shots that can and do cause problems, when a lot of the stuff we are vaccinating against is unnecessary?

As I see it, and I haven't read the original thread in question, but the way in which Ottoluv posts when she gets into the vaccine discussions is that anyone who doesn't agree with her is an idiot.  She comes at everything from a purely scientific, black or white, standpoint and she tends to be a bit condescending to anyone who holds a different view, based on Dr. Dodds stance.

I suspect that Ottoluv, being a young doctor, and very passionate about science, is the type who would blanche if a patient asked her to pray with them before surgery, or outright refuse.  She hasn't reached the point yet, as any good doctor will, to realize that sometimes its more than science.

OK, thanks for letting me say what I can't say in a thread.

Actually, Kelly is a practicing Christian and would likely be happy to pray with a patient before surgery.  

Touche!  But the impression I get from the way in which she posts when "battling" the heathens who follow Dr. Dodds protocal, is that she would not.  Do you understand what I'm saying?  She posts in a manner that makes many, myself included, wonder if she has a heart and if she simply blindly excepts everything that is "scientific".

I also follow Dr. Dodds protocal, but not because anyone on this forum suggested it.  I've done my own research and I think that the way in which she posts ASSUMES that we are just a bunch of sheep blindly following the leader.

Just my opinion, and as I said, one that I wouldn't share outside of the den.

Janet rose has asked that the thread be closed...I think Admin should make the call on this one...she also said she is getting nasty messages on and OFF forum about it. Admin might want to ask her about that, too.

I think we are all capable of, and do, sound condescending when we are discussing something about which we are an expert, or have a lot of experience.

I'd probably sound condescending if I were teaching someone about language, or photography.  So while I think it happens to everyone, in *this* case even if she does, I have seen her post repeatedly her scientific objections to Dr. Dodds - and if I recall correctly, it's not that she thinks Dr. Dodds is necessarily incorrect, but that she would have a problem with any medical professional who doesn't publish their research for peer review - I could be mistaken about that though.  People are entitled to disagree - how often do we see, or even say something ourselves, and someone disagrees and we think, or say privately, or here, that that person is an idiot?  That's just human nature. 

I do think "wondering if she has a heart" is a HIGHLY unfair thing to say about someone who's main concern is animals (or people) being harmed by bad medical advice from untrained people - my opinion. 

glenmar

You know, while I agree that it's baiting and ugly and abrasive, these folks don't have all their eggs in the homeopathic basket.  And in the den is the only place I'm willing to make these comments.

Well, I guess I'll hunker down and try to enjoy my stay in the dog house!

I don't believe I ever wondered if she has a heart.  I think my comment was that because she is a doc and follows a scientific bend she tends to post in a manner that can be construed as unfeeling.  The feeling I get from her posts is that she is rather cold.  I don't KNOW this gal, I don't chat with her off forum, so all I can go by is the feeling I get from her posts.  And the feeling I get is rather cold, rather sterile and with no tolerance for anything other than traditional medicine.

From the research I've done this morning, it appears that it would NOT be wise to get the youngest pup immediately vaccinated.  That being the case, it concerns me that anyone is suggesting it.  Be it Kelly, Janet Rose or Callie.  I would post my feelings about THAT issue, but I think it best that I stay out of it completely.  And unless I misread, Kelly DID say that the pup should be vaccinated immediately.

But, that's all I'm going to say on the issue since clearly I am the only one in this group who feels this way.  And that's fine.  We all have different  opinions, but clearly mine is not a popular one, so I'll keep it to myself.