# Vacc



## Mia (Oct 4, 2010)

I have been readng up alot on vac. and wondering for those that do feed raw, what is your take on it?

Pros and Cons.
I have also met breeders who have done 23+ with kibble and vacc, then 28+ with raw and no vacc. They said their dogs live longer, healthier then the average breed.

Any advice welcomed.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

I've been raw feeding since 1994 and stopped vaccinating about the same time. I will never willingly vaccinate another animal. My dog is 17 and has not been to the vet in 10 years.
NL


----------



## Mia (Oct 4, 2010)

Awesome!
I am leaning towards that too...
But some vacc they say should be given. Esp with concerning the by-laws.

How does one get around that even?


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

That's why I said "willingly". I won't go to jail or even pay a huge fine if it comes to that, but so far enforcement is lax. This year animal control sent canvassers through my neighborhood to make sure all pets are licensed. An unlicensed pet will bring a $125 citation. They could easily cite people for having unvaxed animals by making proof of vaccination a requirement of licensing. I suspect this is already the case in some places. Some vets are so opposed to vaccination they will make out fake shot records (I used to know one) for things like boarding and border crossings, but they are few and far between. If by "by laws" you mean covenants, that will be tough to get around.


----------



## Mia (Oct 4, 2010)

Yeah we live way out in the country. Not like we live in the city. Enforcements are really lax here too.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Would you consider doing initial vaccinations and then titre testing rather than re-vaccinating every year?


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I still do initial puppy vaccinations, then booster once again at a year of age. I have seen WAY too many parvo puppies in my days at the low cost clinics to NOT do them...or endorse NOT doing them for others. I do however believe that once initial puppy shots are done that a dog doesn't need anymore vaccines. I won't change my mind on this one.....


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

"Would you consider doing initial vaccinations and then titre testing rather than re-vaccinating every year?"

No, there's no need. Titer testing is a flawed idea, based on the same mistaken assumptions and biased thinking that underlie vaccination.

Dog owners are increasingly suspicious that vaccination is not effective or necessary, but they're fearful of foregoing it completely. Titer testing plays on their fears and ensures that lost vaccination revenues keep flowing, at least to the vets who do titer testing.

I don't expect to convert any believers, but I have researched vaccination and found it to be much worse than just useless. It contributes to disease, both constructive and degenerative. Vaccination is about one thing and one thing only -- money.

NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

NatureLover said:


> "Would you consider doing initial vaccinations and then titre testing rather than re-vaccinating every year?"
> 
> No, there's no need. Titer testing is a flawed idea, based on the same mistaken assumptions and biased thinking that underlie vaccination.
> 
> ...


Have you witnessed a 5 week old puppy die a horrible, bloody death from parvo? Or had to put a dog with distemper down? Hopefully that is also a part of your research because THAT is what I think vaccination is good for. Keeping dogs protected against these diseases that DO kill dogs in a horrible way.


----------



## luvMyBRT (Mar 8, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> Have you witnessed a 5 week old puppy die a horrible, bloody death from parvo? Or had to put a dog with distemper down? Hopefully that is also a part of your research because THAT is what I think vaccination is good for. Keeping dogs protected against these diseases that DO kill dogs in a horrible way.


I totally agree. Working at a vet clinic for 6 years I saw plenty of parvo...and even some distemper. Have you ever had the pleasure of smelling bloody parvo diarrhea, NatureLover? It's something that stays with you...along with the poor tiny puppy dying from the disease that could have been prevented. So sad. :frown:

I vaccinate my puppies too....for sure.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I'm gonna have to agree with NL completely in this post. My dogs haven't had ANY vacs in 5 years. Thor had the basic puppy shots and one Rabies and thats it. I stopped vaccinating Abby 5 years ago.

Titers doesn't measure immunity. It measures antibodies in the blood which is related to immunity but not the whole picture. There are things called memory cells in the blood stream that will create antibodies once a particular problem has been recognized. Eventhough those antibodies weren't present, they soon become present once the body is invaded. Thats why titers doesn't really measure anything. My dogs have never had a titers.

Another problem with titers is that it wants to measure a level of immunity. There are no levels of immunity. Either your dog is immune or its not. No in between.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I agree that titers don't tell you much other than there are antibodies present. Enough to protect? Well that all depends on the individual dog. So I wouldn't waste any money doing them. 

The only thing that I'm adament about is people getting their puppies boostered. After that they don't need vaccines every year or even at all. 

The law here says that rabies must be current. There are rabies positive skunks and racoons here and if your dog comes into contact with one, kills one, or one is found dead on your property...your dogs had better be vaccinated. If they aren't, they will be either quarantined for 6 months or euthanized if there is no rabies vaccine history. So I other words I protect my dogs from the rabies law more so than the actual disease. It really sucks but it's true.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

*Fear mongering ...*

It’s important to recognize the tools that the veterinary industry has used to manipulate the marketplace. One is to prey upon peoples’ normal fears by using language that evokes images of pain and uncontrollable suffering. Believers do it without even realizing it, not always because they’re deliberately trying to manipulate somebody else but because they’ve been trained to do that, either by the system itself or by other believers. 

Health professionals of all stripes are required to unquestioningly accept certain flawed ideas as truth. There is never any independent investigation of the information that is presented because if the truth is learned and the person tries to publish it, s/he is summarily drummed out of the profession. It has happened to many health professionals. The threat of it happening is what keeps most of them in line. Remember, the system only profits when they frighten us into buying something from them. If word gets out that there’s nothing to be frightened of, the industry dies. That's why truth-seekers can't be tolerated within the ranks.

Puppies die for the same reasons that adult dogs die. In every instance where a puppy or a litter of puppies died, the true causes could easily be found if anybody would care to look. That being the case, nothing needs to be done to “cure” or even “prevent” the sickness from happening, it only needs to not be CAUSED. The mistakes that lead to such devastating illness are NOT small. They are EASY to avoid. It’s no coincidence that puppies and kittens in shelters and otherwise captive in the veterinary system die at an alarming rate once weaning begins. What’s the body supposed to do when the crap comes in so fast that even a little puppy with all its original vitality can’t eliminate it fast enough? It does the only thing it can do—it institutes extraordinary symptoms to get rid of the excess: namely, vomiting and diarrhea. Does it make sense to just stop the symptoms, force the body to retain the wastes and toxins, and not even try to figure out the CAUSE of the problem? These are the kinds of mistakes that the veterinary industry makes, and that’s why illness escalates. Sometimes the body is able to overcome both the original causes and the harmful intervention, but when it’s not, another animal dies unnecessarily. 

A few months ago I decided to adopt a kitten. It took a little doing but I found one that had not been vaccinated, wormed or de-flea’d. These routine procedures all have deleterious consequences on health (and contribute to illnesses like “Parvo”), and are completely unnecessary if an animal is treated and fed properly. When my kitten was 4 months old, I went out of town so I took him to a cat boarder. The woman was also fostering a litter of kittens at the time who were about the same age as my Sylvester. They were all very sick with runny noses, crusty eyes and diarrhea. I asked specifically that my kitten be allowed to play with them; not because I wanted his “immune system” to get practice at battling “invaders”, but because he’s an only cat at my house and I didn’t want him to miss the very valuable experience of playing with other kittens. Naturally the woman was concerned, but I assured her nothing bad would happen and that I would take full responsibility. Sylvester had 4 fun days of romping with other kittens and of course did not get sick. 

I must add that I feel very lucky to have met this woman because now I have a wonderful place to board my cat where he has the run of the house and doesn’t have to be poisoned with vaccines before staying there. Fortunately she showed herself to be an independent thinker from the first when I mentioned that I don’t vaccinate and she confessed she didn’t either. Even though she had figured out the truth about vaccination, she didn't know the real reasons that kittens, puppies, cats and dogs get sick. So I shared this information with her, and I also taught her how to feed her animals properly so they would never become ill. She promptly transitioned them and although it's only two months later, her previously fat and lethargic animals are now losing weight and regaining their lost vitality. 

As I mentioned, nothing I say is going to convert lifelong medical believers into critical thinkers. For those whose minds are open, the information is readily available to understand disease in a way that offers complete independence from the harmful veterinary industry. 

NL


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

> The law here says that rabies must be current. There are rabies positive skunks and racoons here and if your dog comes into contact with one, kills one, or one is found dead on your property...your dogs had better be vaccinated. If they aren't, they will be either quarantined for 6 months or euthanized if there is no rabies vaccine history. So I other words I protect my dogs from the rabies law more so than the actual disease. It really sucks but it's true.


Thats interesting about the titers, I didn't know that.
Would they still have to quarantine or euthanise if your dog had had their initial shots but had just been titered from then on?

If I could, I would just do the initial shots and then titer. My circumstances are different though as there is a good chance that my girls' will be taken overseas with me at some stage in their lives. To a country with no rabies or heartworm. 
So, I can't chance it, I have to innoculate and keep stringent records to ensure they will be allowed to enter the country.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

NL you must be careful at how you convey your beliefs. As you are saying that all who disagree with you are closed minded and are not critical thinkers. While I believe the same of you, I will not put that in emphasis I'm my posts. People tend to shut down and not pay attention to what you have to say when you have a "elitist" tone to your messages. 

You tell one single story about how your particular kitten didn't get sick after playing with kittens that were sick. Well, quite frankly that cannot be applied as any type of general knowledge but just as one case history. It would have to be preformed numerous times to show any kind of trend.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

MollyWoppy said:


> Thats interesting about the titers, I didn't know that.
> Would they still have to quarantine or euthanise if your dog had had their initial shots but had just been titered from then on?
> 
> If I could, I would just do the initial shots and then titer. My circumstances are different though as there is a good chance that my girls' will be taken overseas with me at some stage in their lives. To a country with no rabies or heartworm.
> So, I can't chance it, I have to innoculate and keep stringent records to ensure they will be allowed to enter the country.


If a dog has had at least one rabies shot they'd be safe and would only have to be quarantined. A dog with no rabies shot history would be euthanized immediately. Sad but true, at least here in the Rocky Mointain front range where rabies is still rampant.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

*Natalie ...*

Firstly, there's a difference between "belief" and knowledge. Belief has no obligation to reconcile itself to evidence, as knowledge does. These are not beliefs I am expressing.

Secondly, people whose minds are open don't mind the truth being represented unequivocally and plainly; in fact, this allows them to see that there is something worth listening to. It doesn't matter what the believers think about how the message is delivered, since they will not be persuaded by evidence anyway. 

Speaking of evidence, I did not offer my kitten story as evidence that vaccination is unnecessary, but as a testament to how empowering it can be to know the truth. I had no fear of allowing my kitten to be exposed to the sick ones, and that freedom is available to everyone whose mind has not already been poisoned with medical belief.

NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I actually think that you have a lot to offer but have yet to really share it. Most of what you post is your opinion and thoughts but not any of this "truth" or "knowledge" that you claim to have. I'm am open ears to it seeing as I'm always open to new things. But I cannot see what you're here to offer if you don't share it. 

Knowledge is subjective. What you know is truth may not be truth to someone else. There are no "true" truths out there seeing as we are all individual people with different thought processes. I see your knowledge as beliefs just as much as you see medical knowledge as belief. 

You're correct people who have open minds don't mind learning all sorts of things but telling someone that their mind is closed makes it close even more. Maybe change your attitude and delivery and you'd be surprised that more people might listen to what you want to share. Just food for thought.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

“I actually think that you have a lot to offer but have yet to really share it. “

**You are correct on both points. I am new here. 

However, it’s not my job to educate people for free. Nevertheless, I'm happy to answer questions, if you or anyone else has them.

“Knowledge is subjective. “

**No, it’s not. We all don’t have our own “truths”. We all have our own perspectives, but the truth exists independently of them. For example, you can jump off your roof if you think gravity doesn’t exist, but your opinion won’t keep you from hitting the ground. The facts about the biological needs of dogs (and humans) are known with as much certainty as any other fact of science. The medical industry benefits from perpetuating the idea that the truth is unknowable.

If you want to get back to the topic at hand, rather than diverting it to personal criticisms of me, just let me know. I’d be happy to clarify anything I’ve said that you think was vague. 

NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

NatureLover said:


> “I actually think that you have a lot to offer but have yet to really share it. “
> 
> **You are correct on both points. I am new here.


I'm glad to have you here. I really hope you do help people and spread your knowledge.



> However, it’s not my job to educate people for free. Nevertheless, I'm happy to answer questions, if you or anyone else has them.


Wow. Sounds like your wisdom is only good for the right price. That's a shame. I willingly help others with no benefit of my own other than the good feeling I get from knowing I helped them. My knowledge is free to all of those here. That is why I'm here. Why exactly is it that you're here?



> Knowledge is subjective. “
> 
> **No, it’s not. We all don’t have our own “truths”. We all have our own perspectives, but the truth exists independently of them. For example, you can jump off your roof if you think gravity doesn’t exist, but your opinion won’t keep you from hitting the ground. The facts about the biological needs of dogs (and humans) are known with as much certainty as any other fact of science. The medical industry benefits from perpetuating the idea that the truth is unknowable


Yes there are proven laws that are undoubtably true, like the law of gravity. But your "belief" or "truth" or "knowledge" or whatever you want to call it about vaccinating puppies is not law. It's not tangible. It's YOUR knowledge and that's it. Not a truth or law. You may know that it is, but that is just you. Now if you want to discuss every facet of WHY you know or believe this...in fact I will ask you since you said that anyone had to just ask to get your knowledge...What are your reasons for knowing that vaccinating puppies for each distemper, hepatitis, parvovirus and parainfluenza is not necessary? 



> If you want to get back to the topic at hand, rather than diverting it to personal criticisms of me, just let me know. I’d be happy to clarify anything I’ve said that you think was vague.
> 
> NL


Just trying to help you be a better teacher since you seem so passionate about what you know. Hopefully you will take it with a constructive attitude.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

Natalie,
You are reacting emotionally to information I shared that was not directed at you personally. Please stop trying to impugn my character or motives. It’s you who has the attitude problem. Nobody needs to account for why they are here, including me. If you help others for free, congratulations. I do that a lot, too. All I said was, it’s not my job.

“What are your reasons for knowing that vaccinating puppies for each distemper, hepatitis, parvovirus and parainfluenza is not necessary?”

Thank you for asking this question! I’d be delighted to answer. In fact, I answered it in my previous post. Here it is again, for your perusal:

“It’s no coincidence that puppies and kittens in shelters and otherwise captive in the veterinary system die at an alarming rate once weaning begins. What’s the body supposed to do when the crap comes in so fast that even a little puppy with all its original vitality can’t eliminate it fast enough? It does the only thing it can do—it institutes extraordinary symptoms to get rid of the excess: namely, vomiting and diarrhea. Does it make sense to just stop the symptoms, force the body to retain the wastes and toxins, and not even try to figure out the CAUSE of the problem? These are the kinds of mistakes that the veterinary industry makes, and that’s why illness escalates. Sometimes the body is able to overcome both the original causes and the harmful intervention, but when it’s not, another animal dies unnecessarily.”

Since you don’t seem to understand, I’ll further clarify:

The cause of all those diseases you mention is mostly dietary (although other factors contribute to a much lesser extent, like stress of confinement or new environment, etc.), because this is the primary source of waste which accumulates and creates the body’s need to express eliminative symptoms. Therefore, all that is necessary to deal with them is to remove the cause. The cause is not microbes. Bacteria show up where their food supply is, that’s why they’re always present at the site of disease. They don’t bring disease, much like flies don’t bring garbage. If you want to get rid of the garbage, killing the flies won’t help. You need to stop piling it up and you need to take what’s already there to the curb so it can be picked up. That’s what we do when we stop polluting the body with vaccinations, medications, indigestible foods, etc. The body does the rest. It’s a self-cleaning machine. 

I posted a response to a question on another thread that perhaps you missed, which had to do with whether the risk of salmonella in raw feeding is overrated. It is relevant to the direction this thread has taken so I’ll repost it here. If you have questions of a general nature, there is plenty of recommended reading. 

“No, it’s not ‘overrated’ ... it is just plain false. I have raw fed for 16 years, I do not follow the recommended sanitation rituals like hand-washing and washing countertops and cutting boards with antiseptic cleansers. I never use anything except warm water on my countertops, and sometimes go a whole day without even washing my hands. And when I do, I only use soap if I've been digging in the garden or something. Neither my dog nor I have been sick with anything resembling "salmonella" in all that time. Neither of us has even needed to visit a medical professional of any kind in 10 years.

The whole thing is a self-fulfilling shell game. The doctors see symptoms, they test to see if certain bacteria or viruses are present and if they find them, they automatically conclude that this was the "cause" of the symptoms. But the bacteria and viruses are present in asymptomatic people too. You can't say something is a CAUSE of a disease unless disease is found wherever the thing is found. Bacteria, "bad" and "good", are EVERYWHERE. 

Even the deified progenitor of the germ theory, Louis Pasteur, confessed on his deathbed that "the terrain" was the important thing, "not the germ". There is a lot more to the story, and it's all in the historical record. Pasteur was actually a fame-seeking wannabe who stole a colleague's information and peddled it as his own before the work was even completed. Henry Bechamp, the true scientist Pasteur stole from, later found that germs were not the cause of disease, but by that time the industries which profited from the idea were aready using it to their advantage. Now, some 160 years later, it gets taught in all the medical schools, and nobody dares question it. 

There are lots of books which explain the truth about the germ theory. My favorites are "Goodbye Germ Theory" by Dr. William Trebing, "Bechamp or Pasteur: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology" by E. Douglas Hume, "Toxemia Explained" by John Tilden and "The Great AIDS Hoax" by TC Fry. There are many more. Many brilliant, learned authors have attempted to get the truth out but unfortunately the germ theory makes lots of people rich, so it's like swimming against a tsunami. Here's a short 20-page essay if you don't want to buy a book: Article: Germ Theory. And there's a lengthy chapter in the Life Science Course on it, as well, here: http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/contagion-epidemics/”

NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I just want to make it clear that the only diseases that I'm talking about are the ones that are vaccinated for and not those that are NOT related to vaccination. These commonly include Distemper, hepatitis, parainfluenza and parvovirus (but mostly parvo and distemper). Not other diseases that can be picked up.



NatureLover said:


> “It’s no coincidence that puppies and kittens in shelters and otherwise captive in the veterinary system die at an alarming rate once weaning begins. What’s the body supposed to do when the crap comes in so fast that even a little puppy with all its original vitality can’t eliminate it fast enough? It does the only thing it can do—it institutes extraordinary symptoms to get rid of the excess: namely, vomiting and diarrhea. Does it make sense to just stop the symptoms, force the body to retain the wastes and toxins, and not even try to figure out the CAUSE of the problem? These are the kinds of mistakes that the veterinary industry makes, and that’s why illness escalates. Sometimes the body is able to overcome both the original causes and the harmful intervention, but when it’s not, another animal dies unnecessarily.


Since it seems that you may be a bit confused, I am only talking about diseases that are vaccinated for. Sometimes diarrhea and vomiting isn't just so the body can eliminate harmful substances or bugs. Sometimes, like in the instance of parvo, the puppy has bloody diarrhea because the virus is attacking its intestinal lining causing hemorrhaging. The CAUSE of the problem is that the puppy picked up a virus (from whatever source but parvovirus is very hardy in the environment) and now the issue is keeping the puppy hydrated enough to survive the outbreak of viral attack. The prognosis for a parvo pup is small (~10% survival rate if a young pup, its a bit higher in older pups). The way you try to save a parvo pup is to keep them hydrated as best as possible and let the virus run its course. There's not much you can do with these poor babies.



> Since you don’t seem to understand, I’ll further clarify:
> 
> The cause of all those diseases you mention is mostly dietary (although other factors contribute to a much lesser extent, like stress of confinement or new environment, etc.), because this is the primary source of waste which accumulates and creates the body’s need to express eliminative symptoms. Therefore, all that is necessary to deal with them is to remove the cause. The cause is not microbes. Bacteria show up where their food supply is, that’s why they’re always present at the site of disease. They don’t bring disease, much like flies don’t bring garbage. If you want to get rid of the garbage, killing the flies won’t help. You need to stop piling it up and you need to take what’s already there to the curb so it can be picked up. That’s what we do when we stop polluting the body with vaccinations, medications, indigestible foods, etc. The body does the rest. It’s a self-cleaning machine.


Actually I don't think that you understand what parvo  and distemper really are. They really have nothing to do with diet. They are serious, deadly viruses that ARE in the environment. A raw fed dog that has never seen a vaccine or any harmful toxic chemicals of any kind is still at risk for these viruses. Yes, a boosted immune system due to ideal diet and peaceful existence may help in aiding the dogs survival of these diseases, but its by no means a way to protect the dog from them. Remember that vaccines are for VIRUSES and not bacteria....

Another question for ya... What do you know about virology? Have you taken any college level courses on virology?


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

So you agree with me that Salmonella is a trumped up bit of nonsense intended to induce fear in the gullible and perpetuate the idea that disease is unavoidable, random and indiscriminate?  Just kidding.

I can see that I wasn’t clear in my post either. I thought you’d just assume that since I reject the germ theory, that “viruses” would be included in that as well. Viruses are not organisms (like bacteria), they are dead pieces of cellular debris that have no power to cause disease or organize an attack on any living organism. The “virus” theory of disease is what gets taught in schools and if I’d been formally trained like you were we would not be having this discussion because people who go through that process do not critically examine that which they are taught. It is left for ‘outsiders’ to do this. I have to keep reminding you that the purpose of the education system is to keep business going, and the business of veterinary medicine would not keep going if people were taught how to keep animals well (which, it turns out, is very easy to do and involves, to a great extent, doing things in the opposite ways that are recommended by vets).

I’m very glad we got the chance to have this discussion. There are lots of people reading this thread, and likely none of them even knew that there was another line of thinking about how and why disease happens. It sounds like you are among them. I was first exposed to this information 14 years ago and I let my curiosity guide me. That’s why I now know the truth. Fortunately I was just a life-long believer in the germ theory at the time, I didn’t have my entire world wrapped up in it (as medical professionals do), so I was able to approach the new info with a receptive mind. I’ve been working to educate people about the truth for the past 6-7 years (for free, mostly) and it never fails that the medical professionals are the ones who fight the dirtiest, because they have the most to lose. 

The AIDS book I referenced does a particularly good job of dismantling the virus theory of disease. I highly recommend it. It also thoroughly explains the very simple and elegant “unity” theory of disease, which stands in direct opposition to the germ (and virus) theory. 

NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Well, you and I are in agreement with the salmonella thing, that's for sure. Most people are brought up to be terrified of bacteria...which is why there are so many issues around the whole "germ" scare. It's plain pathetic in my honest and humble opinion. 

So another question...can you please explain (in a nutshell) the truth behind your knowledge about viruses and disease? What are the connections between a virus like parvo and disease that could be avoided other than vaccination? How do we keep our puppies safe from disease? Will you please share with us your line of thinking? 

I'm asking because I'd love to know the alternatives because I hate the idea of vaccinations and conventional medicine. If there are EFFECTIVE alternatives I want...no need...to know them. 

I will most likely buy the AIDS book you've mentioned because I'm very intrigued my disease and viruses...always have been. I haven't yet thought critically of the virology classes that I have taken because it all made sense to me and there wasn't a need to think critically of it....now I'm curious :wink:


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

I'd be delighted to share that information with you. 

I will warn you that for people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the germ theory, it generally takes lots of reading and reconciling before all the questions are answered and a deep understanding is achieved. 

I have a lifer RN on my listserv (about human health) who did this. Even though she knows that everyone she works with accepts the germ theory as truth, she kept her job and just keeps her mouth shut. She is a valuable contributor to my list because she has seen so much while on the job that corroborates the truth about how disease really works. 

I have the nutshell explanation you requested among my writings somewhere, I'll post it as soon as I have a chance to find it. Thanks for being so gracious.
NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Well, I'm well practiced in keeping my mouth shut at work. It pains me to even recommend doom nugget kibble to our clients here but it's what I must do to keep my job at present because I need to make money somehow! I just see it as the very few people I can't talk to about true health and nutrition about are the clients here where I work, so I just make a point in spreading the word elsewhere.


----------



## spookychick13 (Jan 26, 2010)

danemama08 said:


> Well, I'm well practiced in keeping my mouth shut at work. It pains me to even recommend doom nugget kibble to our clients here but it's what I must do to keep my job at present because I need to make money somehow! I just see it as the very few people I can't talk to about true health and nutrition about are the clients here where I work, so I just make a point in spreading the word elsewhere.


I'd love to read up on this as well. 

I am to the point where I refuse to recommend kibble to my clients now.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

Natalie,
I looked through my writings and can’t find anything that doesn’t presume familiarity with the principles of Natural Hygiene (the science of health) on the part of the reader, so I picked a few paragraphs out of an essay I have posted on my website, which is actually an excerpt from a book called “Neohygiene”. It’s about human health but it applies to all species. 
Basically, whenever an animal gets sick, it’s the body attempting to purge wastes and toxins that have accumulated to dangerous levels (a state known as “toxemia” or “toxicosis”). It should come as no surprise when the same symptoms afflict more than one puppy in a litter, as is often the case with “Parvo”, and which is presumed to be evidence of contagion. Yet the puppies have all been subjected to the same unhealthful influences, such as what the mother was fed, various medications like worming, etc., and, most egregiously, the inappropriate foods they are fed. So why shouldn’t they all be sick? Conversely, I’ll bet you’ve also seen situations where not all the puppies in a litter were symptomatic. This alone should give rise to doubts about the contagion theory of disease. If pathogens are responsible for disease, then exposure should be all it takes to create the disease. But there is much, much more than that which serves to invalidate the germ theory.

Anyway, there’s really no short cut to understanding the truth about how it all works. Medicine has gotten extremely complicated and convoluted, and with every new complication there’s another layer for truth seekers to unravel and expose. The blurb below should offer a beginning, and the other resources I mentioned will help as well. Btw on my website there are 17 more pages from the book (Article: Germ Theory) which discuss the evidence against the germ theory. This part that I posted was the most relevant to viruses specifically. Also, here’s a link to some used copies of the AIDS book: AIDS the Great Hoax - AbeBooks
Best wishes,
NL

*An excerpt from the book “Neohygiene” by Dan Hall*

_You've got to know a little something about molecular biology to really understand the argument against the existence of viruses. I'll briefly explain what has happened, but don't worry if you don't fully understand. I doubt there's more than a handful of molecular biologists who fully understand everything they believe. Like I said before, it's more a religion than a science.
Anyway, right now in your body, you have billions upon billions of cells-muscle cells, tissue cells, blood cells, bone cells, and so forth. All of these cells work together to form you. But while you can live many, many years (perhaps a lot longer than you currently believe), your cells only live for weeks or months at a time. After that, they undergo the process of cellular division. One cell splits into two cells, two into four, four into eight, etc. Cells can only divide so many times before they get kind of old, and then they die. Their progeny, of course, can go on forever. But cells do die. The process is known as apoptosis-a kind of cellular suicide. When this occurs to a cell, the cell dissipates inside the bloodstream and becomes a rather sloppy blob of genetic material and protein debris. Getting back to viruses, the definition for a virus is a genome wrapped in a protein sheath. A genome is nothing more than genetic material, so if a dead cell is genetic material and protein debris, then wouldn't it make sense that these materials could be misidentified on occasion as viruses? A genome wrapped in a protein sheath could easily be a dead cell or a virus.

During the 1940s, scientists did not know that cells died and dissipated in the bloodstream. Instead of finding viruses, they found dead cells, and their witch-hunt concluded with them believing that viruses were nonliving genomes wrapped in protein sheaths. But scientists still believe in viruses. Don't they? Sure they do, because as I have already mentioned, the germ theory of disease is rarely put to the test, and even when it is, any unwanted conclusions are written off as poor research. The germ theory is, for all intents and purposes, written in stone. It would be blasphemous to go against such a steadfast belief. But science still goes on. The medical establishment has learned about apoptosis-the death of a cell. And what's interesting is that they have admitted on many occasions that dead cells can be misidentified as viruses. The two are so similar until it is difficult to tell them apart! Could it then be possible that a virus is nothing more than a dead cell?_


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

*here's part two ...*

Concerning viruses, there is much more to the story. Viruses are said to invade living cells in order to force reproduction. When living cells eat dead cells (as they do all the time in the bloodstream), it could easily appear as though a virus is entering into a living cell. When living cells eat, it is known as phagocytosis. The process of phagocytosis, then, has been misidentified as a virus entering a cell. Keep in mind that no one sees this process in live action. It must all be interpreted on a series of electron micrographs, which are computer-printed shadows of images on black-and-white paper. It takes experts to read these micrographs, and even the experts have admitted that they have mistaken dead cells for viruses on many occasions. Couldn't they have also mistaken phagocytosis for a virus entering into a living cell? For what it's worth, viruses do not cause disease. They don't even exist. Viral diseases such as smallpox, AIDS, HPS, the flu, and even the common cold are not caused by viruses, and are, therefore, not contagious.
So, what causes smallpox? Smallpox supposedly does not occur anymore, because it was supposedly eradicated many years ago. Regardless, its symptoms are still around. We call these symptoms by other names now, such as chicken pox, German measles, etc. But are these symptoms really indicative of a disease? What you've got to understand is that the body, while complex by design, is very simple in operation. When you take drugs, eat what you shouldn't, drink, smoke, live without regards to health, take routine vaccinations, and stifle your symptoms with medications, your body has no choice but to find a way to get rid of all this toxic stuff you've been pumping into it. So, when it needs to, your body forces a detoxification to eliminate all of the toxins you have been consuming. What you normally consider disease is actually your body's way of making you healthier!
Children who are constant consumers of dairy products, who are given medications to stifle their cold and flu symptoms, and who are pumped full of toxic vaccinations a dozen times in their infancy are benefited by developing the symptoms of chicken pox, the measles, and other childhood diseases. These diseases are used by their bodies to eliminate a few years' worth of built-up poisons. Such diseases are actually very efficient, because the entire surface of the skin is used to eliminate toxins. As we grow older, the body becomes less efficient, and diseases with pox-like symptoms don't occur very often. Less efficiency is due to storage of too many toxins.
We are taught from a very early age that every time we have a slight cough or an upset stomach, it's okay to take the next best wonder drug to relieve ourselves of these symptoms. Again, the body is very simple in operation. If you put something into it that it cannot use, your body immediately tries to get rid of it. The more you put in, the more your body tries to eliminate, but there are times when these toxins are stored for too long. Usually, normal channels of elimination such as defecation, urination, respiration, and perspiration are enough to eliminate all toxic substances from the body, but when toxins are stored for prolonged periods of time, they must be eliminated through alternate channels, and that is why you develop symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting, sweating due to high fever, nasal drip, coughing, sneezing, pustules and boils, and so forth. All of these symptoms are liquid-releasing in nature. They serve the purpose of eliminating poisons that have been stored in your body for a prolonged period of time. Your body uses these alternate channels for the purposes of detoxification, but as we have all been taught, what are you supposed to do when you develop such symptoms? You take medications to relieve yourself of these symptoms. In essence, you stop the detoxification, which forces your body to restore the toxins, thus setting you up for a more harsh detoxification in the future.
The older we get, the more toxins our bodies are forced to store. Doctors have got the whole premise backwards. Liquid-releasing symptoms are not caused by bacteria and viruses. They are not symptoms of a disease. They are symptoms of a detoxification, and the purpose of a detoxification is to take something out of the body that does not belong there. Doctors who prescribe medications that stifle the detoxification are merely stifling the body's natural defense against disease! We need to detoxify. It is a normal part of living, and if we stifle these symptoms, we force our bodies to become inefficient, sluggish, and inoperative. True diseases are caused by the storage of poisons. AIDS, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune disorders such as lupus, lymphocytopenia, lung failure, arthritis, tuberculosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, aging, and even death are all caused by the unnecessary storage of toxins in particular areas of your body, thus leading to failure in those parts of your body. The storage of toxins in your pancreas can lead to diabetes; storage in your joints can lead to arthritis; storage in your muscles and bones can lead to fatigue. This information might seem radical and shocking, but it is the simplest explanation to disease symptoms, and in science, the most parsimonious or simplest explanation of the data is always the best explanation.

The medical establishment has become overzealous and complicated in their explanations for disease. They want us to believe that there are thousands of diseases with thousands of causes and thousands of cures. If they would just look at the body rationally, they would realize that it is a simple, elegant machine capable of keeping itself healthy with the proper nutrients, rest, love, and living conditions. Medical practitioners have become cold and impersonal, looking at the human body as nothing more than a pile of blood and guts, never fully understanding why it is alive and never fully understanding what disease is and how to prevent it.
The cold, hard truth is that the only cure for disease is the disease itself! When the body detoxifies, it is in the process of curing or healing itself, and any interference of this process spells disaster. All medications serve to stifle symptoms. All of them are neurotransmitter inhibitors or accelerators capable of tampering with the proper neurological functioning of the body. Tampering with this function causes malfunction within the body. Cells are forced to operate in ways they wouldn't normally operate, the nervous system is forced to shut down, and the body is changed dramatically. Liquid-releasing symptoms are stifled for purposes of curing the disease, and doctors never realize that these symptoms are the body's way of healing itself. All medications are toxic to cells. All medications, including vaccinations and antibiotics, are toxic to the body and capable of destroying the body from the inside out.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

"How do we keep our puppies safe from disease? Will you please share with us your line of thinking? "

I just wanted to do as much justice to your questions as possible, and further explain that the bodies of dogs have certain biological requirements. Those include proper food, clean water, clean air, exercise, psychological security, etc. If instead of these things a puppy gets contaminated mother's milk followed by weaning on inappropriate foods, medications, unnatural and stressful surroundings, etc., the body can't keep up with the inordinate eliminative burden. It then institutes symptoms aimed at getting rid of the excess, which is the equivalent of a cold or flu in humans. The outflow should not be stopped. However, not only is this often attempted, but even more toxins are administered in the form of antibiotics (which literally means "against life") and other medications. If vets would simply allow the outflow of waste and only replace lost fluids (puppies and kittens require frequent feedings), they would have a lot more success in overcoming these ailments. It may come as a shock to learn that it's not the disease that is responsible when "Parvo" or some similarly labeled condition kills a puppy, but the heroic treatments. At minimum, the underlying factors which necessitated the symptoms in the first place, and which nobody ever attempts to remove, caused the death. A puppy's intestinal tract is new and unprotected against the onslaught of new foods that are fed to it during weaning. This is what usually accounts for intestinal bleeding, not an attacking pathogen. 

Puppies may have no internal protection against harmful foods but one thing they do have is all their original vitality and it is for this reason that they don't all die. Very often they are not only able to overcome the original toxemia but the additional burden of remedies and treatments. It's a testament to the strength of the organism and none of the credit should go to the treatments. Usually, however, remedies are given all the credit when the pup survives and the "disease" is blamed when it doesn't. It's a self-fulfilling, self-legitimizing, self-aggrandizing system.

It really is very simple: The way to guarantee healthy puppies is to provide conditions which meet all the biological requirements of dogs, which have been established by their long history on the planet. When that is done, there is no disease.

NL


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

I still don't buy all of NL's claims about improper nutrition, water, and living conditions causing these diseases. BUT from other lists, I have seen breeders who have fed raw for several generations and don't vaccinate, produce puppies who are weaned to raw and NEVER vaccinated. These puppies seem to never get any of those diseases we routinely vaccinate for. Maybe it's luck? Maybe not. I don't know.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

RawFedDogs said:


> I still don't buy all of NL's claims about improper nutrition, water, and living conditions causing these diseases. BUT from other lists, I have seen breeders who have fed raw for several generations and don't vaccinate, produce puppies who are weaned to raw and NEVER vaccinated. These puppies seem to never get any of those diseases we routinely vaccinate for. Maybe it's luck? Maybe not. I don't know.


I think it has to do with the fact that those particular breeders take the highest precautions for total health, safety and nutrition into meticulous routine with their puppies. Not allowing their puppies to have any exposure to viruses like parvo (which doesn't mean it still can't happen). I'm sure there are numerous kibble feeding breeders who don't vaccinate and have similar results as the ones you mentioned.

I would say that most if not all the parvo pups that I have seen are from backyard breeders, puppymills or oops litters. These puppies didn't have the best upbringing to start with...


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

You may be right but all the ones I know are raw feeders and I don't think they take any special precautions about exposure. They seem to take their pups out for socialization regularly. I think they are just confident their pups won't get parvo, etc.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Maybe so. I know there is a direct link with proper nutrition and superior health overall. I just don't believe that viruses simply don't exist. But now that I've been exposed to people who do believe that I will do more reading into it to learn more. If there really aren't viruses the world needs to know it...


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

"Unnatural diets predispose animals to unnatural outcomes"
Dr. Tom Lonsdale 

“Cause” is the correct word, not "predispose". And there's nothing "unnatural" about the outcome when a dog is fed garbage that it can't digest. On the contrary, the outcome of that is entirely predictable and natural. Disease is nature's way of dealing with excess waste in the body. 

Dr. Lonsdale is to be congratulated for straying from flawed conventional thinking to the extent that he has but he is a formally educated doctor, a cog in a system that only thrives when dogs don't. It's going to be extremely difficult for a person in his position to go all the way to the deep understanding and full recognition of the causes of disease that will be necessary to help dogs reach their full health potential. Anyone following his teachings is going to be as fettered by his medical programming as he is, without even having been directly brainwashed themselves. Fortunately his ideas are more in line with what dogs need than most, but the measure by which he misses the mark will be manifest in dogs whose owners follow his recommendations.

NL


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

_“I just don't believe that viruses simply don't exist. But now that I've been exposed to people who do believe that I will do more reading into it to learn more. If there really aren't viruses the world needs to know it...”_

**Nobody is claiming that viruses “simply don’t exist”, Natalie, and you have definitely not been “exposed” to people who “believe” that, at least not in this discussion.

The article made it clear, in spite of its regrettable opening sentence, that viruses do not exist *in the way they are thought to*. Allow me to make it even clearer. They are DEAD. They have NO POWER. They cannot organize or attack. Check your biology texts. Here’s a blurb from “Microbial Life Educational Resources”: 

"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell". 

Rather than admit the unfortunate (for them) truth, medical scientists have attempted to blur the line between life and death, but even they have to admit that viruses “lack the machinery which characterizes life”. Notice that the ONLY time viruses are thought to “come to life” (some biology texts actually use this phrase) is when they enter a cell. This is not “life”! It is phagocytosis, or the cell eating (and thereby recycling) part of a dead cell. In its incredible wisdom and providence, the body recycles as much used protein material as possible. To use this as a way of making the claim that viruses “exhibit some of the activities” of life is ridiculous. Tires move when they’re on a car. Are they living things? Your car-chasing dog might think so, but we’re supposed to be smarter! The ONLY difference is that viruses are too small for anybody to see, so people just buy the nonsense that is perpetuated about them. They leave it to the “experts” – the ones that have so much invested in the lie that they’d rather die than examine it too closely or objectively. 

What it really comes down to is that when people or their dogs get sick, they like having a convenient scapegoat to blame. What’s not seductive about the idea that you never have to take responsibility for bad things happening to you? Does anyone have to wonder why the germ theory is so popular?

Make no mistake: Viruses exist. They just don’t cause disease.

NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

So is it just coincidence that when a particular virus is found in the body the host always seems to have the same symptoms of "disease" even though it's just the body's way of purging toxins? Like with parvo, every puppy will exhibit the same signs of disease and have the virus present in their system, how do you know that it's NOT the virus?

If viruses don't cause disease, what do they do?


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

_"So is it just coincidence that when a particular virus is found in the body the host always seems to have the same symptoms of "disease" even though it's just the body's way of purging toxins? Like with parvo, every puppy will exhibit the same signs of disease and have the virus present in their system, how do you know that it's NOT the virus?

If viruses don't cause disease, what do they do? "_

**No, it is not just coincidence. Here’s the typical scenario: Dog presents with symptoms. Vet surmises possible “diseases” and goes looking for “viruses”. If s/he finds one (which most typically happens, since viruses are so prolific in the body), the disease is automatically given the name of the “virus” and the innocent (dead) virus is blamed for the disease. If the virus that is thought to be connected to the suspected disease is NOT found, s/he goes down the list and looks for another one. If no virus that is thought to be "pathogenic" is found, bacteria are usually blamed or “digestive upset” or something similar, depending on what the symptoms are. The next step is treatment, which is always toxic, and never “cures” anything, no matter what the diagnosis was. If it changes or stops symptoms, it only means it’s given the body the more important task of eliminating the treatment.

Meanwhile, where is the causal connection between the virus and the disease? This is where medicine politely excuses itself from the normal rigors of scientific inquiry. It’s like telling you that you got sick because you drive a Ford instead of a Chevy (I seem to be stuck in automotive analogies today ); it’s fine to make that claim, but you’ve got to demonstrate the mechanism by which driving a Ford actually CAUSES disease. It is up to those making the claim to back it up with evidence. That’s where the germ/virus theory falls short. It’s not up to ME to explain why viruses DON’T cause disease -- I’ve already given you a perfectly sensible explanation about what’s going on when sickness happens. 

In addition, I know it’s NOT the virus because viruses are present in everyone’s body. They just aren’t looked for in people, or dogs, who aren’t sick. 

If puppies in the same litter all get sick, they usually do present with the same symptoms, and why wouldn’t they? Same unhealthful influences, same predisposed (inherited) relative bodily weaknesses, etc. In every disease there is a RANGE of symptoms that are sometimes present and sometimes not. The body only has so many ways of purging toxins, and it uses them in the best ways it sees fit, which is determined in all cases by the factors which caused the disease (toxins and wastes) combined with the inherited diatheses (relative weaknesses) of the afflicted. None of this serves to refute the unity (toxemia) theory of disease. 

Diagnosis is a self-fulfilling art form. It is 99% belief and preconceived speculation and 1% science. I give it the 1% because I like to be generous, and because they do use scientific equipment like microscopes and centrifuges. 

Viruses are spent cellular debris. They have no more significance in the body than any of the other innumerable parts of cells that are either cast off and eliminated or recycled. In other words, they don’t “do” anything. They just are. 

NL


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Everything just doesn't add up to me. There just isn't enough information to fill in the gaps and holes. I have about 1 million questions all about how to fill in these holes of information but I feel that I wont really get what I'm looking for. I will continue the search. Thanks for your further explanations of your beliefs :wink:


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

I know exactly how you feel and that's why I said it generally takes a lot of reading, thinking and re-thinking to come to a full understanding. It helps to have someone you can ask questions of as well. My website () will be launched in a month or so, and will include a blog. Feel free to drop by anytime.

The answers are there, if you keep looking, I guarantee. 

NL

P.S. They are not beliefs.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU (Sep 4, 2010)

This doesn't make sense to me either. You're saying that every dog has parvovirus present in their bodies? I know that some dogs, generally adults in good health, can be exposed and never display the usual symptoms but I've never seen an unvaccinated puppy exposed that wasn't affected. For example, one year my shelter ended up with a truck load of puppies and dogs of varying ages from Georgia (long story). There was no vax history on any of the puppies like there was supposed to be, and only about half of the adults. Two little pups from the same litter started with the bloody diarrhea and quickly went downhill. They had parvo and had to be euthanized. Within days, other puppies from other litters started to fall ill. Parvo. Despite bleaching everything, trying our damnedest to avoid cross-contamination, wearing gloves, etc, every puppy in our shelter ended up with parvo. Our vet tried to save the pups who weren't too far gone, but none made it. None of the adults became visibly ill. During the incident, we had a pregnant lab mix. When her puppies were about nine weeks old, one of them ended up with parvo syptoms just days after going to her new home. The adopter had been visiting the puppy almost daily for a week or so prior to adopting her, taking her into the front office to play or on a leash in front of our building. We believe she picked up the virus during one of those outings. She went straight to the vet as soon as they saw she wasn't feeling well, and with treatment she pulled through. THANK GOD the sick pup was adopted before she started to shed the virus and no other puppy in her litter ended up with it. 

Before that incident our shelter NEVER had an outbreak of anything more serious than kennel cough (which only ever happened when we pulled dogs from high kill shelters down south) and haven't ever seen an outbreak since. We have always done everything we can to keep our kennels and the rest of our building properly cleaned and sanitized. We are always complimented on having the cleanest and best kept shelter people have seen. 

So if it wasn't a virus that caused all those puppies to become ill to the point of death or euthanasia, what exactly was it? What exactly causes the horrible symptoms of pups who are diagnosed? 

What about viruses like HIV? People test negative for HIV all the time during regular STD screenings while others test positive before they even exhibit symptoms.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

NatureLover said:


> P.S. They are not beliefs.


For now, they are just beliefs to me. Maybe someday it will all become truth to me. But until then it's just your (and others) beliefs. Which is why I will continue reading and thinking. 

What I believe as of now: Proper, appropriate nutrition and restricted medical intervention leads to happier and healthier animals. I will still vaccinate any puppy I get and will continue to advise as such.


----------



## Spaz (Sep 3, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I will still vaccinate any puppy I get and will continue to advise as such.


So will I. Hannah is a parvo survivor and I never ever want to have to see one of my own dogs go through that again. :frown:


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I will still vaccinate any puppy I get and will continue to advise as such.


Ditto.
I do puppy shots, and then I quit for life. 


Parvo is real. Very, very real.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU (Sep 4, 2010)

CorgiPaws said:


> Ditto.
> I do puppy shots, and then I quit for life.
> 
> 
> Parvo is real. Very, very real.


Same here. The only one I do afterward is 3 year rabies, and only for licensing purposes. I live right on a town line and if my dogs ever escaped and were picked up in the next town I'd be screwed without licenses. Besides, it looks pretty freaking bad for an animal control employee to have unlicensed dogs when I have to ticket people for it regularly!


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

CorgiPaws said:


> Ditto.
> I do puppy shots, and then I quit for life.
> 
> 
> Parvo is real. Very, very real.


That is my plan with Millie. I will also do as the above poster said and do 3 year rabies shots for registration reasons. I also plan on titering her immunity because where I live you must provide up to date proof of vaccination for boarding, doggie daycamp, grooming, training classes, etc. If I titer I can get a waiver instead of having to vaccinate every year.


----------



## NatureLover (Sep 28, 2010)

Yes, just fire those questions at me and I'll do nothing except sit here at my computer and make sure that you get the answers. And then after spending hours typing my fingers to the bone, you will offer absolutely nothing to refute ANYTHING I've said, and will promptly tell me you're going to ignore all of it and continue vaccinating. I can't imagine a bigger waste of my time. The only thought that consoles me is that there may be one or two people reading this thread who have fertile minds where a seed might grow! 

In all situations where disease is present, its causes are as well. In spite of all their superhuman efforts to "sterilize" everything (which you point out, Rachel), and their neurotic adherence to the strictest vaccination protocols, shelters have more disease than any other place where dogs congregate. And it's because they refuse to feed properly or forego vaccination, or give dogs the fresh air and exercise they need. In every situation you mention, Rachel, there's one common denominator and it's NOT a "germ", it's a change in environment, which usually means the diet changes too (and not for the better), in addition to the extreme stress of being confined in a cage in a strange and unnatural environment. You, Rachel, admit that there were adults who didn’t get sick at all, despite being “exposed”. Doesn’t that tell you something is amiss with the theory? (That question is rhetorical, not requiring an answer.)

I explained in my previous posts what the real causes of disease are. If you want to know more, you’ll have to refer to the books and other resources I generously took the time to post. Fyi, HIV is the biggest load of nonsense of all. It is a money-driven hoax from start to finish, and the doctors who have attempted to blow the whistle on it had their careers ruined.

My dog has never been vaccinated, goes to a dog park everyday where he is exposed to hundreds of other dogs, and has not been sick in 10 years. And he’s almost 18 years old. It’s NOT “luck”. 

You all can continue vaccinating your dogs if you want to, and I’ll be off the hook, because I know I did everything I could to stop you. Thank goodness lots of others are listening, that's why the veterinary profession has to work so hard to find other fearful diseases (heartworm, et al) to frighten people with. 

Maybe the next time you hear the truth about disease, it’ll sink in. Of course it’s not likely to happen since the truth has to be sought out, it’s not on TV or in newspapers. 

NL


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Alright, I'm done lurking this thread. It's getting entirely ridiculous. 

I am NOT an advocate for vaccinating, but parvo is a big deal. A very big deal. And I have seen with my own two eyes puppies weaned onto raw, unvaccinated, who have DIED of parvo. NL, how will you feel when someone buys what you're spewing, and their next puppies flops dead? 




NatureLover said:


> And then after spending hours typing my fingers to the bone, you will offer absolutely nothing to refute ANYTHING I've said, and will promptly tell me you're going to ignore all of it and continue vaccinating.


Did Natalie not say over and over that she will research, but that as of now you have not given her enough to convince her?




NatureLover said:


> I can't imagine a bigger waste of my time.


Dude, this is a public forum. NO ONE here is going to PAY you for your thoughts, and I'm sorry if you feel they ought to. Share them or don't, but don't of your own free will decide to share them, and then complain that we waste your time. DO you not want to be here? Because no one is forcing you to. 




NatureLover said:


> The only thought that consoles me is that there may be one or two people reading this thread who have fertile minds where a seed might grow!


It's against forum rules to make attacks on other members, for the record. So I sure hope you're not implying that Natalie does not have a "fertile mind" because that would be quite rude of you....



NatureLover said:


> Fyi, HIV is the biggest load of nonsense of all. It is a money-driven hoax from start to finish, and the doctors who have attempted to blow the whistle on it had their careers ruined.


HIV is about as fake as Parvo....




NatureLover said:


> My dog has never been vaccinated, goes to a dog park everyday where he is exposed to hundreds of other dogs, and has not been sick in 10 years. And he’s almost 18 years old. It’s NOT “luck”.


Could be. I know people who eat fast food and smoke every single day, and they live well into their 90's. Is that not luck?



NatureLover said:


> Maybe the next time you hear the truth about disease, it’ll sink in. Of course it’s not likely to happen since the truth has to be sought out, it’s not on TV or in newspapers.


You know what, we're ALL here because our minds were open enough to not buy what the commercials spew on canine nutrition, so please STOP implying you're the only flippin' person on here who knows a thing or two, and STOP implying that you're so gosh darn above everyone. I think you have a lot to bring to the table, and I do enjoy many of your posts, and hope that other members read and learn, but the better-than-everyone attitude is VERY unbecoming. Food for thought.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU (Sep 4, 2010)

You've GOT to be freaking kidding me. Do you know anyone with HIV?! Because I do. Please, ENLIGHTEN ME as to how it's a hoax. Let me guess, is cancer just a big old hoax, too?

Furthermore, you know NOTHING about my shelter or the fact that we have volunteers who walk our dogs daily, or the fact that we have a huge fenced yard so our dogs can mosey around and get some fresh air DAILY. Our kennels are spacious and kept clean, our dogs always have access to clean, fresh water and dry beds. I'd also like to point out the fact that municipal shelters and probably most non-profits DO NOT have the option to be picky about diets. The financial resources are not there. We receive food donations and are glad that the dogs are not starving. So for you to say that shelters "refuse" to feed their dogs properly is about as ignorant as it gets. 

As far as adult dogs not getting sick...pretty sure I came straight out and said I was well aware of this fact in the very beginning of my post, no? Myself and the other members never once said we vaccinate our adult dogs annually for parvo. I believe all of us who shared this opinion agreed that we think it's important for *puppies* to receive their parvo vax and that's it. Had those puppies that came to my shelter been vaccinated, would the same thing have happened? Doubtful. Sure, they went from one situation to another; one SHELTER to another, and let me assure you that our shelter is several steps up from crowded high kill shelters down south where kennels are sprayed down with dogs still inside them and animals aren't fed because, who cares? They'll be euthanized after a three day stay, anyway. If it was only the change in scenery that brought on the mass death, why have we pulled so many other loads of puppies that didn't share the same fate? Hmmm...could it be because they were VACCINATED FOR PARVO?! 

I am not one to vaccinate for everything. I do puppy shots and one set of adult shots for certain things and only 3 year rabies afterward. But NOT giving a puppy a parvo vax is playing with a loaded gun and the puppy may have to pay with its life. If YOU can live with that, fine. In my opinion, it isn't worth the risk. 

Maybe YOU are the one spreading the load of nonsense. To tell people the things you're telling them is irresponsible, at best.


----------

