Well . . . (you already know before I get started what I'm going to say, right?)
Or, should I just play dumb unless it's brought up to me--and then reject it citing it being a new vaccine without a long-term amount testing having been done?
I'd go with this option. You feed them a very healthy, raw diet. You monitor and research everything. They get fresh air, exercise and lots of love. My personal opinion is that if the animal is healthy, their immune system will be strong enough to fight off viruses and bacteria, and diet is a HUGE part of keeping them healthy. You're already doing that.
As for Vlad . . . I still think I'd wait. I know he has Addison's, but that said, I'm not sure I would be comfortable having his immune system deal with a vaccine (and all the stuff in it) when he already has enough going on. Besides, vaccines are to be used in
healthy animals only, not ones with chronic or acute diseases, and it says this on the label (or at least, they used to).
And to your point: this is a new vaccine. We don't know what the long-term effects are when using it. Until the manufacturer does long-term studies, or there's more information, I wouldn't be too anxious to have it given to my pets.
Here's my other issue: viruses usually enter the body via the mucous membranes (eyes, nose, mouth). The body has a system in place to deal with them when they enter that way. I don't like vaccines, like the human flu shot, because you are bypassing the body's natural defenses and putting the virus (and preservatives) directly into the bloodstream, which is what the body's normal defenses try to prevent. I would think that actually stresses the immune system even more than normal exposure to the actual virus. If the vaccine was a nasal spray, I would have less of an objection (but still have the other objections).
Just
from the "Anti-Vaccine Queen."