PARVO!!! - Page 5

I didn't get to finish that, I meant rest is for the whole body, not just the uterus.

True, but a healthy female is designed to reproduce; pregnancy is not an illness. Granted, most American dogs fall way short of the "optimum health" mark, I look at it like this- if a bitch was wild, how often would she be bred? She would be bred every heat, if she was healthy enough. That's how her body is designed to work. If she wasn't physically prepared for a pregnancy, her body would say so, by not conceiving. But in the dog world, people don't seem to want to listen to the dog or nature. They go to repro specialists instead of look at what nature might be trying to tell us when a bitch doesn't conceive despite no "obvious" issues (sperm quality, timing, etc.)

 I think that the evidence pretty clearly points to breeding often and young being the healthier/safer route than every other year or once per year until the dog is middle-aged. I also think it's safe to say that an older body needs more recuperation. 

Absolutely on the mark, Jenni. However, wild canid, wolves, cayotes, etc. only come into heat once a year; domestication has screwed that up for the majority of dog breeds but there are some primitive breeds that still only come in once a year.

"However, wild canid, wolves, cayotes, etc. only come into heat once a year; domestication has screwed that up for the majority of dog breeds but there are some primitive breeds that still only come in once a year. "


Exactly.  Fox and wolves only come into heat once/year, Dingos may come in to  heat twice, but only breed ONCE per year.
We can hardly compare our dogs to wild animals when we  have pretty much created the breeds as they are today. 
I also do not agree with nature knows best.  Anyone who has seen how any species reproduces knows  mother nature does not wait for a healthy animal before she becomes pregnant.
  Nature is designed to reproduce and create more of the species more so as  not to  go extinct than to create healthy young, or a healthy mother.  Many mothers are unhealthy, thus their offspring are unhealthy only to be weeded out later by disease or predators.

Joanro, I'm not saying breeding every heat is mandatory. I'm just saying that doing what a dog's body naturally "does" if NOT impeded should not be considered irresponsible or dangerous. I know breeders of "wild" canids and they don't all cycle that way, fyi. Capri cycles 3x per year, as does her daughter, but no way in hell am I having THOSE puppies 3x per year.   The fact is every heat leaves a canine uterus in worse shape than it was before, so why not eliminate some of the opportunity for complications in breeding by breeding younger, more often, rather than older (more damaged uterus)?  Breeding is not without risk, so the stronger the whole dog is, the better able to cope with any unforseen stress or even normal stress on the body. 

RS, if people would go back to that, we wouldn't have the weak-ass dogs we have today. I have no problem with allowing nature's consequences. I won't even rotate puppies in a big litter. The strong ones will get enough to eat. The weak will die. LOL about not agreeing that nature knows best. That is just an entertaining thought to me, for someone to disagree with nature. Plus, you cited that nature even fixes its own "mistakes" so saying nature doesn't know best sounds even more bizarre. Of course the design is centered around proliferation...I had no idea that was also being debated. LOL

BTW, never lost a pup due to not interfering. 

I don't want to talk about this here anymore. This was a parvo thread that went way off-topic because some of the ideas thrown out were kind of off-the-wall and I couldn't keep quiet any longer.

Ditto:)

Don't quite get the whole roll eyes thing, mfh, but whatever.  Just wanted to clarify that the actual rabies "vaccine" will not prevent the disease if the person has never been immunized for it before and was exposed to rabies.  You are correct that the immunoglobulin and the first dose of the vaccine are given on the same day, but typically the IgG is given first because you would want to infiltrate the wound immediately with the IgG (if possible) and then spread out the rest of the full dose in different anatomical sites as separate injections.  The rabies vax is then given after that because you wouldn't want to give it in the same area as the IgG.

Most people with whom I've been acquainted who reproduce at every opportunity should never have been allowed to in the first place.  Just sayin'...

Vertigo, I can tell you are not of the medical profession.

Rabies takes on average 3 to 7 weeks to incubate; but could be as short as 10 days or as long as 7 years.  The half life of rabies IgG is 3 to 4 weeks.  Post vaccination, it takes on average 2 week for the body to build up enough antibodies to rabies to cure themselves.  So therefore while the rabies IgG will cure the shortest incubating virus; the active antibodies produced by body from the rabies vaccine will cure the average and longer incubating virus.

The treatment protocol for rabies always includes the vaccine and sometimes includes the IgG.  You will never see a patient treated with just the IgG.

My statement is correct, rabies vaccine can and will cure a person or animal with rabies.  But nothing so far has cured a patient once symptoms appear.

No, people who have never had the rabies vaccine and are exposed to rabies should always get the immunoglobulin and the vaccine.  Please point out to me where I stated they would only get the IgG??  I still stand by my statement that the vaccine and the IgG will not cure rabies, it willonly prevent the disease from occurring post-exposure.  One would actually have to have the disease already for it to be cured.