Re: intranasal vaccine for strangles

[K S Swigart <katswig@deltanet.com>]

Okay,

Maybe I am going to show my ignorance here, but what is wrong with just
letting a horse GET strangles???

My experience is, if the horse is in general good health otherwise,
strangles is something to be gotten and gotten over.  And since the first
place I kept my horse was a "strangles barn," I have seen plenty of horses
with it, and plenty of horses just get over it.

It is a messy nuisance, but hardly life threatening.  And (from what my
vet tells me) getting it is a much better "immunity."

When there was an outbreak at the barn (I have since moved from there), I
figured that was as good a time as any for my horses to get it (since I
didn't have anything planned).  One got it, one didn't, but I figure both
of them carry pretty good immunity, since they have lived in such close
quarters with the disease (which can live outside the host for years).

I have never seen a horse die of strangles, and I have never seen one
suffer from any long term effects.

I have always considered the IM shot to be of little value in preventing
the disease (since, of all the horses that I have seen with the disease,
about half had had the shot and half hadn't), and have always considered
the risk of complications with the shot to far outweigh the risks of the
disease...which, BTW: has never cost me anything to treat (stall rest and
daily cleaning of a "wound" don't cost anything--except time).

kat
Orange County, Calif.

p.s.  I am also confused how a shot for a bacterial disease (which is what
strangles is) could have any effect on whther or not a horse would
contract the Washoe Virus unless the Washoe Virus wasn't a virus at all.
Does anybody know what the "Washoe Virus" was?