After working in a vet clinic for over 4 1/2 years I can honestly tell you that vaccines are NOT a main source of income for vets. Vaccines bring in VERY LITTLE income when you look at the practice as a whole, so don't bank on that being the reason for annual re-vaccination protocol.
it's not only the vaccines themselves as a product (though they do factor in), but yearly vaccinations are what gets the clients into the office. you have the charge for the office visit (or "wellness exam" as the case may be), for the vaccines, plus whatever else the client may need, or gets talked into.
i have read comments from (less conscionable) vets about the changed vaccine protocols that were published on "vets only" forums and forwarded to me by someone, and all i can say it was an "interesting" read. the stupid 6-month heartworm shot was something many were hoping would bring people in once or twice a year who might not come in for vaccines anymore every single year. when it was recalled, you'd think vets would be happy that a danger to people's pets has been removed from the market, but a certain group was again moaning about the loss of a steady source of income.
As an employee, I learned about the risks involved with both vaccinating and not vaccinating dogs. I do agree that dogs that have had a complete set (as in a 3-4 vaccines series as puppies) of vaccines in puppyhood probably do hold immunity for over a year, I do however, know that some immune compromised pets may not etc. The reason for yearly vaccine protocol is due mainly to the lack of research on how long our pets hold immunity.
why do you think there's a lack of research? the answer is quite simple - who has an interest to fund such studies? certainly not the pharma companies who want to sell a product, and independent studies are difficult to fund and coming along slowly - but they do exist!
i strongly urge people to check out bob rogers' website on the topic (
http://www.critteradvocacy.org,
http://www.newvaccinationprotocols.com), he's one of the few people who is actually putting an effort into getting the word out how certain vaccinations are fraud and deception. in addition to that, consider that additional stress from vaccinations is hardly what immune compromised pets need! vaccines should
only ever be given to healthy animals - check the package insert. immune compromised animals are
not healthy.
The bordetella vaccine usually only holds immunity for 6 months or less, so dogs that are around other dogs on a regular basis should be updated more frequently.
actually that is quite incorrect, since the more a dog is exposed to the environment and other dogs, the better the immune system will be able to "update" itself from the exposure. besides that, kennel cough has many causes and the vaccination only covers few of them. sadly many boarding facilities still require this, but it's definitely not a core vaccination.
Older "senior" pets are more at risk for fatal diseases and really do need to continue their vaccines on a regular basis.
this claim also has been refuted. one thing people need to be aware of is that repeat vaccination does
not increase immunity. if immunity is already present, a vaccination does not "strenghten" it. in addition to that, older pets are less likely to be in a state of health where vaccinations are without risk. again, please check out dr. rogers' site.
i'm not saying people shouldn't vaccinate their pets, or not take them to the vet for a wellness exam once a year - but the money you do spend at the vet's is better invested in blood tests, titers etc. rather than in willy-nilly vaccinating the animal every single year for every disease under the sun, regardless of state of immunity and risk of infection.