Someone Muzzle that Idiot!

It seems that some people just can't help themselves when it comes to talking garbage. Especially to a child, erm adolescent. Thinking an adult should know best certainly isn't the always the case.

Blaine took me out the other night and whilst walking off the lead a man with a Staffy decided to point out that as a dangerous dog I should be on the lead and stated that is what it says on the dangerous dogs act.

Well, dad's a bit more responsible than that. Even as he first brought me home he did his research to find out what the score was with the dangerous dog act. I just wish others would do a bit of homework too, before trying to claim knowledge of things they have no clue about.

There are currently only four types of dog listed as prohibited in the UK. These are as follows:

• Pit Bull Terrier
• Japanese Tosa
• Dogo Argentino
• Fila Braziliero

A Rottweiler does not appear on that list, nor is considered a "pit bull type".

However, the act also prevents owners from having a dog which is dangerously out of control in a public place. Which is defined as:

Any dog is dangerously out of control if:

• it injures a person, or
• it behaves in a way that makes a person worried that it might injure them.

Which could be hugely misinterpreted by the lay-person, that if the person is afraid of dogs that any dog could be considered dangerously out of control. This is not the intention of the act.

Now, if you're the type of person that owns a dog and walks over to another dog owner, with their dog, and believes the dog to be dangerously out of control, wanting to make your point about it. Do you really think the sensible course of action is to bring your dog with you and launch into a tirade about how dangerous someone else's dog is, just because of their breed?

So please if you're in any doubt feel free to visit the UK Government website DEFRA and you'll find all the information you need.

DEFRA - Animal welfare: The Control of Dogs

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

I'm sure most visitors here won't be affected or require such literature and I guess my little rant is preaching to the converted, but for the sake of completeness the link is here anyway.

The Anti-blogger

This site was and is a reference for me and hopefully some interest to others. I do it for my benefit, not to raise cash for me or any other organisation. But somewhere along the line it seems there are way too many people out for a fast buck.

I'm no social networker, just a schlub who figured I'd use the Internet for something useful - to me that is, and if anyone else got some joy or, god forbid, something helpful from my efforts, then that's just great.

I never signed on to be some Internet mogul aiming for millions from something that to be quite honest, has cost me nothing to provide. Sure, I invest some time, but I'm not paying anyone to host my site. So why should I expect a return on my lack of investment?

But, if you spend a few minutes going around looking at blogs you'll see many have been lured into the quick buck, money for nothing schemes. Monetise your blog and grab some wealth. Well not for me.

You won't be seeing any advertisements on here from me... maybe Google, the provider of this free resource, may feel like getting some payback someday, but it won't be through my doing.

Spend some time writing your own blog and you'll find masses of people just trawling the net to get you to come visit their site, raise their sites visitor count to attract more revenue. They'll play the "I visited your site, now please visit mine", or "I voted for you will you now please vote for me?" games, well that's not a game I play. So thanks for the visit, or vote, but don't go expecting any guilty feelings from me for not returning the favour.

If you have something on your site that is relevant that you think I'd be interested in then that's different. You'll demonstrate this by having read some of my sites content and then brought to my attention something that you have on your site that may be of some further value. But dropping by to say "Come visit my site about solar powered rollerskates" shows you've no interest in the topics contained within my site and are what I would call a "Fly Poster".

The frustrating thing is that I'm sure many people who put ads onto their site don't even give it a second thought. They just throw them on thinking of the money rolling in. But what about those other people like me? I'll just ignore the advertising and if it's too much just won't go back to that site again. Then you've lost a reader of any article you may have actually thought useful and lost any revenue you thought you were going to get.

So if you're a social blogger, drop the ads and go back to having some fun.

Guardian Angels

Since my first seizure dad’s been trawling the Internet for information to help him to cope with and understand my condition. He spends ages online anyhow, but this was different. The Internet is a fantastic resource full of useful information, the problem is mining for it effectively. You can dig and dig and miss all the great stuff that you’re really after.

Well recently dad encountered a particularly useful website that anyone with a dog suffering from Epilepsy must add to their favourites list.

http://www.canine-epilepsy-guardian-angels.com/

The site is a vast seam of knowledge in regard to canine epilepsy. Quite simply it puts in one place almost all of the knowledge dad spent so long to gather from many, many resources over several months.

But there’s one other factor that makes this site so good, and that’s the people behind it. After dropping a brief line of hello and thanks for a great resource, we got a friendly reply offering support should we need it. What a kind and valuable gesture.

So the site’s not merely a “Read This” but it’s driven by people who have been or are in the same predicament as us, with more experience to share. They've been there and seen it and done it. Access to that kind of feedback would have proven extremely valuable in the early days where dad really was finding his feet.

Your vet is a useful resource and very knowledgeable and nothing should detract from that. But it can be a little clinical and you can feel isolated. Just knowing there’s someone else out there who’s been through what you are going through can help enormously.

So if you've come across this site looking for answers about your pets condition, by all means come back, but first visit Guardian Angels and whilst you’ll spend hours reading – you’ll still save days of mining, reading, mining, reading, getting frustrated and feeling alone.

Tonight - 16 March 2009

I guess this is a relatively old article now as the program was a week ago. But having watched the Tonight program - "Undercover Pets" on my "Generic Digital Video Recorder" I thought it worthy of a mention.

The program could have gone into much more than it did. I appreciate it focused on those vets deliberately fleecing their clients, or just plain abusing them. Most of the program seemed to deal with the issue of where a number of vets "played the system" and charged for unnecessary treatment.

The most interesting aspect for me though wasn't the abusing and bad behaving vets, but the savings claimed by buying drugs online. It really is true that huge savings can be made, and I've ranted on this before (see here) - but what the presenter completely skipped is the fact that even making these savings online will require you to pay a prescription fee. A fee that could heavily outweigh the savings.

My recent treatment suggested I take on some more Diazepam for emergency use. So rather than take 1 box of 5 10mg rectal tubes the vet recommended double that, to use 2 x 10mg at each episode. I guess dad fell into the trap of accepting the easy solution and not having found them at the regular online pharmacy, ordered the 2 boxes.

They said it would be a week before they had them in stock, which wasn't an issue as I still had a while before my next cluster, if it followed the current schedule.

So today dad went to collect the Diazepam. I guess he should have got the price first as they came in at £63.98, £31.99 for each box of 5. There was a thud and some smelling salts involved. But Dad being dad still took them and paid, after all he'd made the deal and ordered them.

After emailing the online pharmacy they said whilst it wasn't available online as it wasn't in their usual supply, they could source exactly the same product, with only a one day turnaround for £13.44 per box of 5!!! So even if we paid £12 for a prescription the total would be £38.88 (£13.44 x 2 + £12) a huge saving of £25.10 - and the vet still makes £12 out of the deal.

Now remember that the consultancy which recommends these drugs is being paid for. So now to get a prescription - which is just putting into writing what has been said in the paid for consultancy, I must now pay again. Which in real terms makes the consultancy £20 + £12. But now take a step back as this isn't a one off £12.

In my case I need 4 prescriptions - 1 for Epiphen, 1 for Potassium Bromide, 1 for Previcox and 1 for the Diazepam - and I need to pay for each and every one of them! Sure I get a discount from the £12 on each subsequent prescription (they aren't always at the same time so mostly £12 a time), but now I'm paying more for prescriptions than I am for consultancy... still a saving overall, but surely the RCVS must concede this is a foul practice?

Is this why pet insurance cost are rising?

Now what other industry could practice like this?

Let's say you have a car and it has a problem - you're no expert so you take it to a mechanic. The mechanic charges you £50 to look at your car and says you need 4 new tyres and some oil and he can supply them for £500. So you go and find the same brand tyres and oil and can buy them for £250. But the laws says you can't buy them unless the mechanic writes you a note - and he's going to charge you £100 for the note for your tyres and another £50 for the note for your oil.

You still have made use of his technical ability, his qualifications and knowledge - but you paid him for that. Do you think the car industry would survive, would the consumer stand for it? So, why is it different with pets? Because we are emotionally attached and in most cases will pay whatever to keep our loved ones with us, that's why.

There is a link to my current pharmacy on this site. I have no affiliation and make no revenue, nor make any gains from your clicking the link. It's there only to open your eyes and offer up a place for you to start.

So next time - THINK BEFORE YOU BUY. Don't rush into taking your vets offer before you've checked online for the product your vet is offering. Not only can you save money but you could even learn more about the medication and question why the vet has prescribed that particular product. Something cheaper or with less ill effects may be available. The Internet is a wonderful resource that is free to use - so invest your time to save your money.

Bear the Rottweiler (as featured on the Tonight program) what a gorgeous dog and so fortunate to have Tamara Baker his owner so driven to do everything she could for him. We're sorry for your loss and know that Bear has nothing but love and gratitude for your efforts.

Vaccinations

Some time ago dad did a lot of research on my vaccinations and asked questions of the vet in regard to annual boosters.

There was a very interesting TV show that explained the data used to demonstrate vaccination results in humans and animals was highly flawed. It showed that even without vaccination many diseases like measles and flu were actually in decline prior to the vaccinations even being manufactured.

The charts used showed that basing the declines of such diseases only by showing a year or so immediately prior to vaccination, or in using a logarithmic scale, hides the fact that the trend was significantly downward anyway.

After making this find on the net I thought it worthy of posting and may be of interest to those also questioning the need for annual boosters.

It is therefore our contention that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of new evidence may well be acting contrary to the welfare of the animals committed to their care.

Letter from UK Vets which appeared in Vet Times, UK January 2004

Dear Editor

We, the undersigned, would like to bring to your attention our concerns in the light of recent new evidence regarding vaccination protocol.

The American Veterinary Medical Association Committee report this year states that 'the one year revaccination recommendation frequently found on many vaccination labels is based on historical precedent, not scientific data'.

In JAVMA in 1995, Smith notes that 'there is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year. In fact, according to research there is no proof that many of the yearly vaccinations are necessary and that protection in many instances may be life long'; also, 'Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both benefits and risks for the patient'; further that, 'Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase their risk of adverse post-vaccination events.'

Finally, he states that: 'Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative or combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunise, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections and/or long-term infected carrier states.'

The report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Taskforce in JAAHA (39 March/April 2003) is also interesting reading: 'Current knowledge supports the statement that no vaccine is always safe, no vaccine is always protective and no vaccine is always indicated'; 'Misunderstanding, misinformation and the conservative nature of our profession have largely slowed adoption of protocols advocating decreased frequency of vaccination'; 'Immunological memory provides durations of immunity for core infectious diseases that far exceed the traditional recommendations for annual vaccination. This is supported by a growing body of veterinary information as well as well-developed epidemiological vigilance in human medicine that indicates immunity induced by vaccination is extremely long lasting and, in .most cases, lifelong.'

Further, the evidence shows that the duration of immunity for rabies vaccine, canine distemper vaccine, canine parvovirus vaccine, feline panleukopaenia vaccine, feline rhinotracheitis and feline calicivurus have all been demonstrated to be a minimum of seven years, by serology for rabies and challenge studies for all others.

The veterinary surgeons below fully accept that no single achievement has had greater impact on the lives and well-being of our patients, our clients and our ability to prevent infectious diseases than the developments in annual vaccines. We, however, fully support the recommendations and guidelines of the American Animal Hospitals Association Taskforce, to reduce vaccine protocols for dogs and cats such that booster vaccinations are only given every three years, and only for core vaccines unless otherwise scientifically justified.

We further suggest that the evidence currently available will soon lead to the following facts being accepted:

• The immune systems of dogs and cats mature fully at six months and any modified live virus (MLV) vaccine given after that age produces immunity that is good for the life of that pet.
  
• If another MLV vaccine is given a year later, the antibodies from the first vaccine neutralise the antigens from the subsequent so there is little or no effect; the pet is not 'boosted', nor are more memory cells induced.
  
• Not only are annual boosters for canine parvovirus and distemper unnecessary, they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia.
  
• There is no scientific documentation to back up label claims for annual administration of MLV vaccines.
  
• Puppies and kittens receive antibodies through their mothers' milk. This natural protection can last eight to 14 weeks.
  
• Puppies and kittens should NOT be vaccinated at less than eight weeks. Maternal immunity will neutralise the vaccine and little protection will be produced.
  
• Vaccination at six weeks will, however, DELAY the timing of the first effective vaccine.
  
• Vaccines given two weeks apart SUPPRESS rather than stimulate the immune system.
  

This would give possible new guidelines as follows:

1. A series of vaccinations is given starting at eight weeks of age (or preferably later) and given three to four weeks apart, up to 16 weeks of age.
   
2. One further booster is given sometime after six months of age and will then provide life-long immunity.
   

In light of data now available showing the needless use and potential harm of annual vaccination, we call on our profession to cease the policy of annual vaccination.

Can we wonder that clients are losing faith in vaccination and researching the issue themselves? We think they are right to do so. Politics, tradition or the economic well-being of veterinary surgeons and pharmaceutical companies should not be a factor in making medical decisions.

It is accepted that the annual examination of a pet is advisable. We undervalue ourselves, however, if we hang this essential service on the back of vaccination and will ultimately suffer the consequences. Do we need to wait until we see actions against vets, such as those launched in the state of Texas by Dr Robert Rogers? He asserts that the present practice of marketing vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence and theft by deception.

The oath we take as newly-qualified veterinary surgeons is 'to help, or at least do no harm'. We wish to maintain our position within society, and be deserving of the trust placed in us as a profession. It is therefore our contention that those who continue to give annual vaccinations in the light of new evidence may well be acting contrary to the welfare of the animals committed to their care.

Yours faithfully

Richard Allport, BVetMed, MRCVS

Sue Armstrong, MA BVetMed, MRCVS

Mark Carpenter, BVetMed, MRCVS

Sarah Fox-Chapman, MS, DVM, MRCVS

Nichola Cornish, BVetMed, MRCVS

Tim Couzens, BVetMed, MRCVS

Chris Day, MA, VetMB, MRCVS

Claire Davies, BVSc, MRCVS

Mark Elliott, BVSc, MRCVS

Peter Gregory, BVSc, MRCVS

Lise Hansen, DVM, MRCVS

John Hoare, BVSc, MRCVS

Graham Hines, BVSc, MRCVS

Megan Kearney, BVSc, MRCVS

Michelle L'oste Brown, BVetMed, MRCVS

Suzi McIntyre, BVSc, MRCVS

Siobhan Menzies, BVM&S, MRCVS

Nazrene Moosa, BVSc, MRCVS

Mike Nolan, BVSc, MRCVS

Ilse Pedler, MA, VetMB, BSc, MRCVS

John Saxton, BVetMed, MRCVS

Cheryl Sears, MVB, MRCVS

Jane Seymour, BVSc, MRCVS

Christine Shields, BVSc, MRCVS

Suzannah Stacey, BVSc, MRCVS

Phillip Stimpson, MA, VetMB, MRCVS

Nick Thompson, BSc, BVM&S, MRCVS

Lyn Thompson, BVSc, MRCVS

Wendy Vere, VetMB, MA, MRCVS

Anuska Viljoen, BVSc, MRCVS, and

Wendy Vink, BVSc, MRCVS

Source: http://www.britfeld.com

'Deaths from infectious diseases have declined dramatically, mainly because of improved water supply, sanitation, adequate food supply and birth control. Immunisation programmes have played a part, but graphs show these [diseases] were declining before the immunization programmes began.'

Margaret Stacey, 1988, The Sociology of Health and Illness

Other sources of interest: http://www.homeoint.org/

Alternative source: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/

Minimising Liver Damage

One of the worrying side effects of the Epiphen (Phenobarbital) drug that I've been prescribed to counter my seizures, is that the higher the dosage and duration the higher the risk of liver damage.

In order to respond to this there are really only two courses we could take at this stage. As it's not an option to reduce the dosage and the duration is going to be life time we can introduce another drug, Potassium Bromide, which would allow the Epiphen dosage to be lessened.

However, at this relatively early stage in the treatment we're still trying to figure out what the dosage of Epiphen is required in order to be within the therapeutic serum range (15 - 45µg/ml) ie. to be effective in controlling my epilepsy. Hence the need for regular blood tests. So mixing the medication at this stage is not a good idea.

The other option is to look towards a "Complimentary or Alternative" medicine to try to minimise the effects on my liver.

Milk thistle is believed to have protective effects on the liver and improve its function. It is typically used to treat liver cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis (liver inflammation), and gallbladder disorders.

Source: nccam.nih.gov

Dad's gone back to the Internet and ordered up a supply of tablets from a previous source of supplements and we're now going to add these tablets to my medication. If we add many more I will rattle when I walk!

Rottweiler Rescue

In my search of support and answers relating to my treatment I've taken all kinds of sidetracks investigating the Rottweiler breed. Their origin, typical behaviours and any know affliction the breed suffers from. Along the journey I've crossed paths with some folks utterly devoted to the breed. To the extent that they organise or support charities that often pick up the pieces after something goes wrong when people take home a Rottweiler.

There are groups of dedicated people who take in those Rottweilers where the owner is no longer able to offer it a home. These are the people who run charitable rescue shelters and spend huge amounts of time attempting to rehome an unwanted pet.

Reading up on just how many Rottweilers are put up for rehoming each month, year after year is just staggering. Those surrendering dogs claim to do so for many, many different reasons. The reality is there is only one reason to rehome a dog, and that is money.

Excuses like "I'm having a baby", "the dog doesn't get on with my kids/dogs/other pets", "our new home won't allow us to bring pets with us", just aren't the real reason, no matter how you try to justify it.

Here's why it is purely financial - If you were rehoming your Rottweiler for any other reason than money, this is how you would do it.

Find a charitable rescue shelter that is willing and able to take in your pet. Don't attempt to explain your reasons - they've heard them all before. Of course they'll ask a lot of questions about your pet and its condition and behaviour. Now simply ask them for their bank account details. When you have them, calculate how much money you should be spending on your dog each month, include all the food you would need, the incidental medicines for worming and fleas, now add on the cost spaying/neutering and monthly pet insurance. Now setup a Direct Debit for that amount and let it run for the remainder of your pets life expectancy of around ten years.

Not prepared to do that? Well then your reasons for rehoming are quite simply for the money.

The very least you can do for making a mistake, is to ensure that no one else is expected to cover your losses. If you can do that, I sympathise with you in having to make a tough decision.

For those of you who run a rescue shelter, or offer foster homes to dogs (Rottweilers included), there aren't enough words in the English language to offer as reward for your efforts.

For all of us others - THINK BEFORE you take on a Rottweiler, or any dog. Do some homework, find out what you need to do, what is expected, how much it will cost - you'll step back once you get your calculator out. The cost of buying the dog is incidental compared to keeping it once you get it home.

If you still want a Rottweiler, go talk to one of the rescue shelters, ask them for information and do them the biggest favour you can by being a responsible adoptive parent for one of the kindest, most loving dogs you could ever ask for.

Anatomy of a Seizure

As I'm always completely unaware of what is happening when I have a seizure I thought I'd get dad to write up what actually happens when I have one. It may be useful for others to know just what to expect from someone who's actually there when someone experiences one.

There are different types of seizure, classed depending upon the affect they have on regions of the body. The type of seizure that I generally suffer is called tonic clonic, or as it used to be called a grand mal.

Dad sees me going through the typical stages of the seizure, aura, tonic then clonic and the pattern is clearly identifiable. It is very scary to watch and definitely extremely distressing on family who can do little but watch and wait. But what has to be remembered is that the sufferer is totally unaware and will have no memory of the events - and is therefore in no pain.

Aura

For me there is no behavioural identifier until the seizure hits. I go into a very trance like state, pupils dilated and appear to intensely stare at an object that isn't there. Often accompanied by an uncomfortable twisting of the head and neck to stare at something behind me.

If I'm standing my legs will be frozen in place. This is the point where I need to be really looked after and moved away from anything that I could cause to fall or hurt myself on.

I also start drooling heavily and saliva runs in streams from my jowls. Then my jaws will go into a snapping motion, causing the saliva to froth.

This phase which dad refers to as "chomping" only lasts between 20 and 30 seconds.

At this stage I've usually begun to fall into the next phase, tonic, but just recently the seizure has stopped here and I begin to return to consciousness.

Tonic

I fall over as my muscles start to contract uncontrollably. Muscles all over distort my body into what looks like very uncomfortable positions.

This stage is very brief and is only a few seconds.

Clonic

There are two distinct phases within the clonic stage. Firstly the falling over and spasming.

The muscles tense and go rigid and wildly convulse. Dad tries hard to keep my head from banging on the floor. My legs lash out and claw wildly so anything in range (usually dads feet) can get nastily clawed.

My whole body jerks uncontrollably with legs flailing and jaws gnashing. Dad makes sure that nothing gets in the way of my teeth!

During the convulsions it's not unusual for me to wee all over the place, so mum makes sure there's a big towel handy for dad to put under me.

The second phase of this dad calls "paddling". The convulsions have calmed and the muscle rigidity has relaxed to the point where I am lying down and seeming to swim.

The whole clonic phase lasts around a minute to two minutes, and is by far the scariest and disturbing part of the whole seizure.

Postictal

The postictal stage is the point at which the seizure has come to an end. However, the effects are still noticeable. For me I can now get up to walk, but initially I appear completely blind, thankfully the blindness doesn't last that long.

Dad tries to make sure I don't go bumping into things, which is difficult because I'm so big and so driven to go to the bathroom, eat and drink, and pace backwards and forwards at speed as if my paws are on fire. All this not necessarily in that order.

The pacing and hunger at this stage can last as long as an hour. During which I may be so tired I have to lie down, but then every so often frustratedly get up and pace and eat some more. I'm also very confused, so there's no point using commands, as I have no clue what is being said.

At this point mum or dad makes sure I've got something to eat. I'll devour a whole bowl of food like I haven't eaten for a week!

The more seizures I have in one day, the more the period of disorientation lasts. Dad also thinks I must get headaches as I'm often lying panting and moaning for a while afterwards. Not so different from when dad has a migraine.

So that's what happens to me. I hope it makes others realise that you're not alone. Yes, it's not pleasant, but with understanding the seizure can be managed without panic. The next steps are to get the balance of treatment correct to minimise their occurrence/frequency.

Epilepsy isn't curable, but hopefully it is manageable.

Training

Dad took me to the woods again over the weekend. I just love it there. On the way around we occasionally bump into other dogs and people and it surprises me how differently the behaviour of some are.

Take for example one dog we ran into. A lovely big German Shepherd male. He was safely on his lead and his walker pulled him off the path a little so we could pass. Seeing this dad called me over and I slipped my head into my chain. You can spot the nervous dog walker a mile away - the ones who are either scared of a big rottweiler, or worried how their dog will react.

As we walked past the person kept saying "Be good, be good, be good" to his dog. I'm sure that was confusing for the dog. As we passed the dog jumped and snarled at me and we just walked past quietly. The owner was obviously in need of some training - a dog that size must know how to behave, but equally the owner should know how to treat his dog to behave.

The "Be good, be good, be good" means nothing to the dog. The owner should simply get used to correcting his dog when it makes a mistake. Don't try to coerce it before hand. Standing there acting nervous only makes the dog nervous. The dog reacts to the owners state of mind and assumes his pack leader is scared, so he should be too.

Now this was no great incident, no clash of jaws or other. But it just goes to show how a little training with a professional, for both dog and master, could significantly change their relationship and behaviour.

So if you have a dog - any size of dog, take it to a training school. You can read all the books, watch all the videos but believe me when I say, you can't beat a live school. You'll get to meet other dogs in different stages of training - so you can assess how successful the school is. Your dog will also benefit from regular socialisation. You also get a real person correcting you, not your own interpretation of what a book or video says.

They are called dog schools out of convenience only. What they should be called is Dog AND Human schools. The owner is equally trained about their behaviour, if not more so.

Lastly - it's also very cheap, really! For 10 lessons, dad paid £35 - £3.50 per lesson. A real bargain for an hour of a professional and experienced dog handler.