|
Post by amyjo on Apr 21, 2004 15:27:10 GMT -5
Started a new thread because the other one is doing that funky thing so nobody can reply.
Nicki the ratios are 1:128 and 1:40. I asked 1 what to 128 what? And the vet said good question he doesn't really know and will find out and call me back.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 21, 2004 15:33:48 GMT -5
Hang on. I kept a copy of Reigns report. I am going to go get it.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 21, 2004 15:36:33 GMT -5
Okay. Which is the parvo and which is the distemper and I will tell you what range he is in.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 21, 2004 15:37:29 GMT -5
He just called back and said the bottom number is the number of times the blood can be diluted before anti-bodies cannot be found in the specimin.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 21, 2004 15:38:11 GMT -5
1:128 distemper 1:40 parvo
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 21, 2004 15:39:01 GMT -5
Right. My lab report tells you what protection range each number falls within but I have to know which is which.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 21, 2004 15:40:58 GMT -5
We are typing at the same time ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 21, 2004 15:47:35 GMT -5
For distemper you are in the protected range. A ratio of 1:32 and higher indicates probable protective immunity. Higher titers indicate better protection. That is what the report says. Reigns was 1:4096. I am assuming that he was exposed to the virus around the time we did the titer because that's off the chart
For Parvo 1:64 indicates probable protective immunity. Titers of 1:16-1:32 indicate limited protection against field virus. There is nothing said about between 1:32 and 1:64. I guess that would be between limited and probable. Reign's was 1:512. Again maybe he was exposed.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 21, 2004 15:49:20 GMT -5
Also, keep in mind that different labs may use different reference ranges.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 21, 2004 15:56:44 GMT -5
Yep - my vet said they like to see parvo at 1:80 in order to consider the dog "protected" but he also acknowleged that a low titer doesn' t mean low immunity necessarily and said he never saw parvo in a dog over 2 yrs old anyway. I decided not to re immunize but I already knew I was gonna decide that ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 21, 2004 16:08:54 GMT -5
I agree Amyjo. I also believe that a low titer does not mean no immunity. Right now I am putting Petey on a three year protocol, no matter what the titers say. And I will reevaluate my position in three years. Who knows what new information will come out by then.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Apr 21, 2004 16:21:04 GMT -5
I am on the three year plan as well - because that is what my hubby would agree too - I did these titers one time out of curiosity - but I am not going to do them anymore I don't think AND I am going to spend the next two years trying to convince my hubby that vaccinated is vaccinated is vaccinated. I will keep on the 3 year rabies because I have to...but I am eliminating all non-core vaccines for sure and will worry about parvo and distemper again in two years.
Just in case I never told all you wonderful people I am so grateful for all the knowlege and support here... it is really great to be able to learn together! I appreciate it so much! I never would have known about raw feeding, limited vaccs, limited heartworm prevention I just never would have thought to question those things - they were just all things we always did.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Apr 21, 2004 16:46:03 GMT -5
Well I am glad you have come to a decision you can live with I always used that plan way before I knew what I do now. The new vet I am taking Blade to thinks that the titers are a waste of money because they are inconlusive, he told me either you do all the vac's or you don't. He said he has dogs in that get yearly's and get sick and then he has dogs in that only get rabies and they are fine. I think the 3 year plan is a good thing. Hopefully they will have done enough research to give us more facts
|
|