Basset Hounds Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

9,837 Posts
It's "presumed" because the researchers were not the ones who gave the rabies vaccinations, rather they relied on the veterinary medical records of the dogs to determine the site and date of the vaccinations.
exactly so lets say a tumor appear on the tight rear leg of a dog that once got a vaccine in the right rear leg. the Tummor could be at the spot of the vaccine or of by several inches or more. How do thing that was recorded as corrolation of vaccine to injection sight. Because the injection sights were not likely percisely indicated there is going to be a presumption that any tumor in the vacinity of the injection site is more than casual where when percise records and measurment are made at least so of these casual associations are weeded out.

While it certainly raise some warning it is not anywhere near the level of certanty that it is being portrayed in some media out lets.

Some veterinarians deny that dogs develop cancerous tumors at vaccination sites --this study suggests otherwise!
and this studies does nothing to change that perception. by vets

also you intially mischaracterize the study "fibrosarcomas at presumed rabies vaccination sites" when in fact only six of the fifteen dogs with presummed injection site tumors where vaccinated for rabies

Fibrosarcomas at Presumed Sites of Injection in Dogs: Characteristics and Comparison with Non-vaccination Site Fibrosarcomas and Feline Post-vaccinal Fibrosarcomas​
All dogs had been vaccinated regularly against the most common canine infectious diseases (infectious gastroenteritis, distemper, infectious
hepatitis and leptospirosis), and six dogs received also rabies vaccines.​
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.