Posted by Noofies on 12/28/2004, 10:11 am, in reply to "comment" I would assume that the "Cornell pure viruses" used in the challenge studies were the virulent forms of the "modified live" antigen in the commercially-available vaccines that had been administered to the dogs. (Cornell used a commercially available vaccine in their challenge studies.) I'm not sure I get your point about the street viruses not being the same as the Cornell viruses - if the vaccine antigen wouldn't provide immunity to the "street viruses", what's the point of vaccinating in the first place? If a client ran a titer test on their dog instead of routinely booster vaccinating - whether at one-year or three-year intervals - and the titer result was at or above the level which indicates sterilizing immunity, what would be the point of revaccinating? Further, if, as per the 2nd quote in my message above (and reiterated below), even a titer below that indicating sterilizing immunity would protect against clinical disease, what is the point of revaccinating?
206.148.228.112
If you'll take the time to read the report, I think you'll find it pretty interesting. Keeping up with current thought/practice is a good thing, and not prohibited by retirement. 
Dogs with a CDV antibody titer, no matter how low when challenged, may become infected if antibody levels are below titers which provide sterilizing immunity (i.e., resistance to infec-tion), but they will have protection from clinical disease mediated by an anamnestic humoral and CMI response.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread