# Should I give heartworm preventative or not?



## Benjamin Maulis (May 27, 2010)

.


----------



## Michele Fleury (Jun 4, 2009)

I'm in a similar situation so I only treat for 3-4 months. But I do treat because the preventative is safer than the treatment. I've seen dogs almost die during treament, only to have to stop, wait and start treatment again. Dogs rarely have trouble with any of the popular heartworm preventative meds so i play the odds.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

> I live in an area where the climate would not allow the filaria to develop in mosquitoes to stage L3 except between July and October


Microfilaria only take 10-14 days inside the infected mosquito to the point where when they bite another dog, they can infect the new host. So yes, 4 months is plenty of time to become infected. See:

http://www.heartwormsociety.org/pet-owner-resources/heartworm.html#lifecycle



> However, heartworm disease is also geographically limited. Incidence reports for the last 10 years show 10 reports of heartworm disease in our county. Most of those were probably dogs infected in an adjacent state from which most of our population immigrates, but those population centers are hundreds of miles away. It is probable due to the climate that none of the mosquitoes in this county ever carry the microfilariae.


I'm not sure where you're from, but heartworm disease is reported in all 50 states. Heartworm disease is also found in cats and other wild mammals, not just dogs. But you are correct, people who move from endemic areas with infected animals can and do bring heartworm positive animals to areas they aren't as common and serve as microfilaria reservoirs and so spread them around. If you have 1 heartworm positive animal a year in your county that is reported, that doesn't mean there is one single mosquito that was infective. There's probably many more that were never tested and never reported.

As we found out from Hurricane Katrina where they tested dogs that were picked up, a massive 60% of dogs were heartworm positive, way more than they thought. And these adopted dogs likely spread the microfilaria across the country by the nice people who adopted them.

http://www.heartwormsociety.org/inthenews/3-9-06.html



> To provide protection between July and October would take two standard dosages of Heartgard 45 days apart (July 1st and August 15th).
> 
> My dog’s breed is not one at significant risk for the MDR1 gene mutation. Should I spare the Ivermectin or give the two doses?


The standard dose is every 30 days, not every 45. And ivermectin works by killing microfilaria the dog was exposed to in the previous 30 days, so you have to dose past the mosquito season. Something also important to consider is that giving heartworm medications like Frontline, Advantage Plus, etc. also kill intestinal worms, such as roundworms and hookwook worms, which are a public health issue as humans can be infected with both. This is another reason why the Heartworm Society recommends year round dosing. 

If you're looking at cost, ask your vet to prescibe a generic version, like Virbac Iverhart or Tri Heart Plus. If you get 12 doses, it's the price of a meal at the drive thru once a month (or less than 2 Happy Meals with or without the toy :lol. Most vets will also match the price of the online pharmacies, so that way you know the company will stand behind the treatment and pay for it your dog happens to test positive. Also keep in mind that in my area, it's $400 just for the heartworm treatment drug (not counting lab costs, office visits, hospitalization, etc) plus your dog has to be severely activity restricted for 8 weeks during treatment.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Where I live now my vet looked at me funny when I asked about preventative and gave me the "well if you really want to do it but you don't need to" lecture. Same thing when I was in Arizona. 
However, in upstate NY even though it's too cold most of the year, it was a necessity. I honestly believe that giving them doses through the mosquito season is the smartest plan of action, considering that it's like Parvo, in that the treatment is way more expensive than the preventative. Just my 2 cents though.

If cost is a major factor, see if your vet will give you the correct dosage for your dogs weight in liquid Ivermectin. That is what we use, it's the 1% for cattle and I pour it on some wet food rather than injecting. But ask your vet before you do this so you can be sure of a correct dosage - or as someone else suggested, get the generic version of Frontline. The bottle I got is 2 years old now and I still have about half a bottle, I was dosing once a month to 3 dogs - the bottle cost $36.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Ugh, I can't spell today...

Ashley, when I was on an externship in Denver last year, that was actually when I saw my first heartworm treated dog in an adopted Hurricane Katrina dog (a little chow mix). That was in 2009 and the dog was probably infected by 2005 in Louisiana or earlier, so any mosquito in Colorado that bit that dog for four plus years after it was adopted and moved an hour and a half north of you guys was spreading it around. I think it was most wise to stay on the heartworm preventative. And I think you mean the generic version of Heartgard, not Frontline (which does nothing for heartworms). :wink: 

As I've also said on other threads, using cattle Ivomec for dogs is off label use and the company does not recommend it for this use and takes no responsibility if you overdose your dog or if your dog ends up testing positive for heartworm.


----------



## Gina Pasieka (Apr 25, 2010)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Microfilaria only take 10-14 days inside the infected mosquito to the point where when they bite another dog, they can infect the new host. So yes, 4 months is plenty of time to become infected. See:
> 
> http://www.heartwormsociety.org/pet-owner-resources/heartworm.html#lifecycle
> 
> ...


I do agree that heartworm prevention is important. The preventative dosages of ivermectin and milbemycin are so safe that they can actually be given daily. I keep my dogs on year round preventative despite temperatures to guard against intestinal parasites as well. Temperature does play a role in how rapidly the larva can molt within the mosquite. The fastest is 10-14 days when the temperature is within the 80's. It needs to be around 57 degrees for it to occur at all...and at that temperature can take weeks for the complete molt to infective L3's. The treatment is terrible...an arsenic type compound...and at this time is currently difficult to come by. Please consider doing the prevention at least during the months that it is in the 50's or above. Remember the preventative actually kills the parasite after your dog is infected...it does not actually prevent the transmission, so it is important to give a dose the following month that the temps are high enough. As far I as remember, the 45 day rule is specifically for dogs that are on interceptor year round for a while, as they build up levels. I would not risk this if you are only doing it seasonally. Hope this was helpful.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Ugh, I can't spell today...
> 
> Ashley, when I was on an externship in Denver last year, that was actually when I saw my first heartworm treated dog in an adopted Hurricane Katrina dog (a little chow mix). That was in 2009 and the dog was probably infected by 2005 in Louisiana or earlier, so any mosquito in Colorado that bit that dog for four plus years after it was adopted and moved an hour and a half north of you guys was spreading it around. I think it was most wise to stay on the heartworm preventative. And I think you mean the generic version of Heartgard, not Frontline (which does nothing for heartworms). :wink:


Yeah that's what I meant, it's been a long day lol. 
I only just started giving it for the summer as we were still getting snow on and off through early May, but I do keep them on it until it's cold. Granted they have very few cases of it here but I don't need to be the exception to the rule.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Benjamin, since it is you and not me,Yes, give it to your dog for the few months it is warm enough. If it were me I would find out how many dogs there are estimated in your area. From that figure you can get an idea of what the odds are if 10 cases have been reported. With this in mind beware, the list of preventatives available to prevent different things can be highly detrimental to your dogs health even though the chance of your dog getting many of these things are almost non existent. The hook is yes, but what if your dog is that 1 in 1000 that contracts something. Just keep it in perspective. You can treat the dog for everything and have him die from kidney failure at 4. The doses of Ivo may be safe by themselves but few dogs just get that. There are flea preventatives, wormers, over, vaccinating, and a lot more things from the vet. It really isn't just a question about any one being safe, it is the numerous preventatives dogs are given that compound the problems.


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

What are your thoughts on this?
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2008/05/billion-dollar-heartworm-scam.html


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Wait...aren't you the one that puts sevin dust on your dogs (which is known to be toxic in mammals and not labeled for use in live animals, including humans, and is banned in several countries in the EU) and you're complaining about the toxicity of ivermectin, which is used extensively in veterinary and human medicine because of its safety? My grad school research was on endocrine disruptors, so I'm certainly not a fan of just dosing with whatever. But just cause it comes from the feed or garden store, doesn't make it safe.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Wait...aren't you the one that puts sevin dust on your dogs (which is known to be toxic in mammals and not labeled for use in live animals, including humans, and is banned in several countries in the EU) and you're complaining about the toxicity of ivermectin, which is used extensively in veterinary and human medicine because of its safety? My grad school research was on endocrine disruptors, so I'm certainly not a fan of just dosing with whatever. But just cause it comes from the feed or garden store, doesn't make it safe.


What would the dosage for invermectin be for an 85 lb dog ??



> My grad school research was on endocrine disruptors


Is that a Klingon weapon


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Kerry Foose said:


> What are your thoughts on this?
> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2008/05/billion-dollar-heartworm-scam.html


LOL, it's riddled with inaccuracies and lack of reference quotations. Love the "fear bottle," though. :roll: The vet I externed during January and February got his own "fear bottle" from his recently deceased patient, a local mid-Missouri dog whose bout with heartworms was fatal. He asked permission to use the dog's heart (the owner agreed) and I watched the preparation of the specimen, which was stuffed full of about 30-40 worms in the right side of the heart and pulmonary artery. I saw two dogs in four weeks on gross post mortem exam during my pathology rotation back in November with large adult heartworms visible in their hearts and pulmonary arteries, again from mid-Missouri. Our anatomy specimen from first year, a female pit bull sourced from Oklahoma (if memory serves), also had heartworms in the preserved cadaver.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> What would the dosage for invermectin be for an 85 lb dog ??


I don't discuss dosages of prescription meds over the internet, sorry gang...



> Is that a Klingon weapon


Yeah, make someone go into early puberty or into a hermaphrodite or give someone prostate cancer...awesome!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I use Ivermectin that I get at the feed store. Works great but it does nothing for Hook worm and a few other parisites that are controlled by Heatguard.
I don't worry about that because, other then new pups (usually round worm) I've only had one dog with worms (Hook) in the past 50 yrs. Heart worm, two cases! The first was 35 yrs ago and the second was 4 yrs ago.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I don't discuss dosages of prescription meds over the internet, sorry gang...


I will give you a bag full of Canadian Tire money :-|


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Wait...aren't you the one that puts sevin dust on your dogs (which is known to be toxic in mammals and not labeled for use in live animals, including humans, and is banned in several countries in the EU) and you're complaining about the toxicity of ivermectin, which is used extensively in veterinary and human medicine because of its safety? My grad school research was on endocrine disruptors, so I'm certainly not a fan of just dosing with whatever. But just cause it comes from the feed or garden store, doesn't make it safe.


Another example of thinking outside the box in your mind Maren? Seven dust has been used a lot longer than you have even been alive. As a matter of fact, look at flea powders for dogs....it's the same active ingredient. Yes, I use seven dust.....along with millions of others. You have to get out in the real world more Maren. As a matter of fact Maren, show me one thing that kills ticks that isn't toxic to mammals if used incorrectly.


----------



## Anne Pridemore (Mar 20, 2010)

I live in a high risk climent. I treat from sping to fall every 60 days with ivermectin. 

All heartworm medication is retro-active (not pro-active). So calling it a prevention is kinda silly- as it simply kills any possable infection before the worms become adults. Given bi-monthy the ivermectin will kill any possable worm infestion before they reach adulthood and start to damage the heart and blood vessels.

I have treated this way for about 45 dogs over the past 6 years and have never had a dog test positive on bi-yearly blood testing.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Anne, question.....Ivo may be retro active, but, does it "prevent" heartworm from killing your dog?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Since Maren brought up the sevin dust I googled flea and tick powders. Seems the active ingredients for them has changed over the years to Pyrethrins & Piperonyl Butoxide. Seems everything has changed. Actually, Sevin dust had directions for use on pets on the bag at one time and it is commonly used in the bedding and dog yards. I have been using it for over 30 to 40 years with no downside but I may cash it in tomorrow because I have had a good deal more than the dogs. I may be mistaken but I think it has to be ingested and is not absorbed per se. At any rate, it appears to have gone the way of the Happy Meal....but you can stand there shaking it all over your plants and that is acceptable if people breath it still.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

In a continuation of the last post. the FDA said they would ban products like frontline ans such because of the number of animals dying from their use but they figure the good outweighs the bad. I have never been in a vets office that doesn't have frontline and such available.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I really cannot believe I am reading this!. Heartworm is very real in my area!.

I guess growing up in Florida I saw plenty of HW positive dogs and it was not a pretty sight in the advanced stages-there was a characteristic chronic cough and CHF. 

When I got out of college I worked at the UGA vet school for my first job and my boss was also doing heartworm research and I had to necropsy a lot of dogs with heartworms so I saw enough to convince me. 

One of my dogs developed HW from missing winter meds when we moved to SC from NC later on. One was detected by the tests at the time, the other not - and while microfilaria free, still had some adults and eventually died of CHF. 

So I am pretty agressive with making sure my dogs get preventive which is, in most dogs, incredibly non toxic to them.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Nancy, heartworm is more of a problem in some place than it is in others. I think Benjamin said that there are no more than 30 days a year above 60 degrees. Where I live it is a problem during parts of the year and I use Ivo during those parts which is a lot of it. Would I use it where Benjamin is, probably no. If I did it would be at very specific times and I would figure the odds for the area even then.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> I will give you a bag full of Canadian Tire money :-|


They still have that? LOL! I remember that years ago, was right next to Tim Hortons!


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

We had 6 dogs die from using Promeris, we will never use that again! All within 24 hrs of giving it to them.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Another example of thinking outside the box in your mind Maren? Seven dust has been used a lot longer than you have even been alive. As a matter of fact, look at flea powders for dogs....it's the same active ingredient. Yes, I use seven dust.....along with millions of others. You have to get out in the real world more Maren. As a matter of fact Maren, show me one thing that kills ticks that isn't toxic to mammals if used incorrectly.


Don, the endocrine disruptor discussion is not something you're going to win with me. :lol: My adviser from grad school is basically one of the original researchers into endocrine disruption (and he definitely thinks outside the box). God knows how many chemicals were foisted on Americans with the promise that it was safe because it was used for years (diethylstilbestrol given to pregnant women) or even decades (bisphenol A and pthalates in plastics) when we found out later it was big time trouble. Bisphenol A (BPA) netted the plastics industry about 9 billion dollars a year. And what have we heard from them? "Oh, it's been used for 50 years, it's fine!" Uh huh...even though 100+ independent peer reviewed papers say otherwise. Hurm... :-k

Endocrine disruptor research boils down to two principles: the dose doesn't necessarily make the poison (i.e.-big effects from small doses) and the lack of research saying it is dangerous or extended use does not prove it is safe. Technically, ALL things are literally toxic at some dose (thank you, Paracelsus). 

Incidentally, I don't use permethrins (K-9 Advantix, Bio-Spot, etc) and I only use fipronil during early April through October (but I do heartworm/roundworm medications year round). Central Missouri is HUGE for tick borne disease for humans and animals (Ehrlichia, Rickettsia, RMSF, tick paralysis, Q fever, Potomac Horse Fever, and so on), so it's a cost benefit analysis. I also don't use any herbicides or pesticides on my lawn or garden and take other steps to minimize my exposure and my dogs' exposure to environmental toxins. Anyways, my point was that ivermectin *is* by and large quite safe at the doses we give for the prevention of heartworm infections in dogs, where as carbaryl is a known toxin. Especially at ubiquitous or constant exposure, even small doses are worrisome.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Don, the endocrine disruptor discussion is not something you're going to win with me. :lol: My adviser from grad school is basically one of the original researchers into endocrine disruption (and he definitely thinks outside the box). God knows how many chemicals were foisted on Americans with the promise that it was safe because it was used for years (diethylstilbestrol given to pregnant women) or even decades (bisphenol A and pthalates in plastics) when we found out later it was big time trouble. Bisphenol A (BPA) netted the plastics industry about 9 billion dollars a year. And what have we heard from them? "Oh, it's been used for 50 years, it's fine!" Uh huh...even though 100+ independent peer reviewed papers say otherwise. Hurm... :-k
> 
> Endocrine disruptor research boils down to two principles: the dose doesn't necessarily make the poison (i.e.-big effects from small doses) and the lack of research saying it is dangerous or extended use does not prove it is safe. Technically, ALL things are literally toxic at some dose (thank you, Paracelsus).
> 
> Incidentally, I don't use permethrins (K-9 Advantix, Bio-Spot, etc) and I only use fipronil during early April through October (but I do heartworm/roundworm medications year round). Central Missouri is HUGE for tick borne disease for humans and animals (Ehrlichia, Rickettsia, RMSF, tick paralysis, Q fever, Potomac Horse Fever, and so on), so it's a cost benefit analysis. I also don't use any herbicides or pesticides on my lawn or garden and take other steps to minimize my exposure and my dogs' exposure to environmental toxins. Anyways, my point was that ivermectin *is* by and large quite safe at the doses we give for the prevention of heartworm infections in dogs, where as carbaryl is a known toxin. Especially at ubiquitous or constant exposure, even small doses are worrisome.


Maren, I am not going to engage you in an "endocrine disruptor" discussion so let' s say you win that one. I will have to look up what you are even talking abouit. Whjat I can say is that the dogs in this yard that have had sevin dust used on them their whole life live from 12 1/2 to 14 1/2 years. This is with a breed that normally today lives about 10 years. With that said, I didn't bring it up, you did. Experience over the years leads me to question the validity of how terrible sevin dust is.....especially since it has been applied to plants for years using a duster while the person doing that application is standing in a cloud of it. It is still used that way today. Today, even Happy Meals are killers in some minds. LOL

You seemed to have totally missed the fact that I told Benjamin to treat his dog for heartworm during the bad season. I didn't even get any cudos for that.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic (Jan 10, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> God knows how many chemicals were foisted on Americans with the promise that it was safe because it was used for years (diethylstilbestrol given to pregnant women) or even decades (bisphenol A and pthalates in plastics) when we found out later it was big time trouble. Bisphenol A (BPA) netted the plastics industry about 9 billion dollars a year. And what have we heard from them? "Oh, it's been used for 50 years, it's fine!" Uh huh...even though 100+ independent peer reviewed papers say otherwise. Hurm... :-k


How many papers have been published on potential side effects of constant 'preventative' medication for dogs we currently use, in particular constant Heartworm and intestinal worm treatment? Cos for many that use monthly tablets, their dogs have a constant concentration of chamicals in their body. Is anyone even looking at this? My guess would be not many (if any). So lets say, what Don touched on, longevity of dogs that have been on constant 'preventative' vs no preventative. Is 4 years shorter lifespan a possibility? And imagine how many people would be willing to risk their dogs getting infected if they knew that for example, a particular treatment may save them from X infection, but it shortens their pet's life by several years on average... The problem however would be with intestinal worms where dogs live in a very close proximity to people and can transmit some of these to humans...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

For your reading pleasure and edification.

My brother a retired nurse, with "actual clinical experience" was reading this thread and thought this articale may shed some light on reality.....or light where there is darkness.



Monday, April 26, 2010
DDT AND WORLD MALARIA DAY

April 25 was World Malaria Day, reminding us of that wonderful magical chemical DDT, which conquers diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, fleas, and lice, from malaria to typhus, yellow fever, dengue, sleeping sickness, plague, encephalitis, and West Nile Virus. DDT kills a child every 12 seconds and 250 million adults every year; it’s genocide, said Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Art Robinson, and President Bush could reverse it.

A Wall Street Journal editorial has supported what Professor J. Gordon Edwards, specialist in DDT, professor of entomology, long suspected—the reason for environmentalists’ opposition to DDT. It decreases deaths, leading to overpopulation and therefore is bad for the environment.

In World War I, typhus killed more soldiers than bullets. It was then discovered that DDT has insecticidal properties. It rapidly curbed malaria in the U.S. and Europe. Then came a gifted writer, Rachel Carson, whose best seller, Silent Spring, taught the U.S. that DDT was a chemical, a pesticide, a killer, and would silence the birds and devastate the earth. (She died of cancer, and if she had taken DDT, she might have lived—but more of that below.)

The environmental banner opposing DDT is still being carried by an organization called Pesticide Action Network, but its influence is not what it once was. On June 30, 1972, “a date that lives in junk-science infamy” says Stephen Milloy, William Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, banned DDT. The U.S. Agency for International Development immediately spread the word throughout the world that any country that used DDT could bid good-bye to American grants. Ultimately, U.S. AID changed its position, but Pesticide Action Network has not given up. 

As for Ruckelshaus, in a speech to the Audubon Society (of which he was a member) in Milwaukee in 1971, he said, “As you know, many mass uses of DDT have already been prohibited, including all uses around the home. Certainly we’ll all feel better when the persistent compounds can be phased out in favor of biological controls. But awaiting this millennium does not permit the luxury of dodging the harsh decisions of today.” 

The millennium came the following year. Phase it out he did. On the appeal of the infant Environmental Defense Fund, Ruckelshaus overruled Administrative Judge Sweeney’s decision clearing DDT. Ruckelshaus banned DDT without attending a day of Sweeney’s seven-month hearing on DDT and without reading a page of the 9,300-page transcript. For he was the Administrator. He had the political power. As he wrote the American Farm Bureau Federation some months later, science can help decide these issues, but science is trumped by politics. 

Another steadfast friend of Pesticide Action Network is, or was, the World Health Organization, which reversed its anti-DDT position in 2006. Still another, still a friend, is the United Nations. It briefly accepted DDT but then returned to the opposition. The Secretary General has a special envoy for malaria, but to him, it’s insecticide-treated bed nets that are the defense against malaria. 

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962, ten years before the ban by EPA’s Ruckelshaus, taught that chemicals, especially pesticides, and particularly DDT, cause cancer. It was disinformation, but most of the country, and indeed the world, learned it and has not forgotten it. “For the first time in the history of the world,” intoned Silent Spring, “every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception to death.” Not so. Environmentalism got its start then; EDF takes pride in its role in banning DDT. Fear or distaste or distrust of chemicals, might have gotten its start then. 

Miss Carson dedicated Silent Spring to Dr. Albert Schweitzer, who said, “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.” Professor Edwards, an expert on DDT, got Schweitzer’s autobiography and on page 262 found the following: “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.” Schweitzer was worried not about DDT but about nuclear war.

There is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that Carson was wrong on cancer. The 130,000 men who sprayed DDT on the inner walls of mud and thatched huts in Africa never developed cancer, nor did the millions who lived in them. Employees of Monsanto Chemical Company who from nine to 19 years worked in unprotected clothing producing DDT, never developed cancer—not a one of them, though their bodies had from 38 to 647 parts per million of DDT. The average American ingests five or six parts ppm. DDT is so safe that canned baby food is permitted to contain five ppm. 

There is more. Wayland Hayes, U.S. Public Health Service scientist, for 18 months fed volunteers three times the quantity of DDT that the average American was ingesting annually. None experienced any adverse effect, then or six to ten years later. Indeed, entomology Professor Edwards believed that DDT inhibits cancer. “DDT in the diet has repeatedly been shown to enhance the production of hepatic enzymes in mammals and birds. Those enzymes inhibit tumors and cancers in humans as well as wildlife,” Edwards explained in 1992.

Research into DDT in the war on cancer may be useful. Meanwhile, we learn that the U.S. has started spraying the walls inside huts with DDT in Zambia and Mozambique under President George W. Bush’s policy, which President Obama so far is continuing.

Natalie Sirkin


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Ok, now I am not getting into an argument either way but how can this statement be put into anything with a straight face:

There is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that Carson was wrong on cancer. The 130,000 men who sprayed DDT on the inner walls of mud and thatched huts in Africa never developed cancer, nor did the millions who lived in them. Employees of Monsanto Chemical Company who from nine to 19 years worked in unprotected clothing producing DDT, never developed cancer—not a one of them, though their bodies had from 38 to 647 parts per million of DDT. The average American ingests five or six parts ppm. DDT is so safe that canned baby food is permitted to contain five ppm. 

Think about it. Regardless of the cause of the cancer that is epidemiologically impossible.
Else DDT would have to be the magic cure for all cancers.............................................


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Ok, now I am not getting into an argument either way but how can this statement be put into anything with a straight face:
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that Carson was wrong on cancer. The 130,000 men who sprayed DDT on the inner walls of mud and thatched huts in Africa never developed cancer, nor did the millions who lived in them. Employees of Monsanto Chemical Company who from nine to 19 years worked in unprotected clothing producing DDT, never developed cancer—not a one of them, though their bodies had from 38 to 647 parts per million of DDT. The average American ingests five or six parts ppm. DDT is so safe that canned baby food is permitted to contain five ppm.
> 
> ...


So let's assume there were some undocumented cases of cancer. Obviously, DDT is not the carcinogen it was made out to be or everyone mentions would have cancer. In the context of this discussion, Ivo has been made to sound almost non toxic to make a point. Actually is is pretty strong stuff. I wonder how many people know that many of the medications they take contain strychnine and, and, the other known poison which the name is escaping me at the moment. The world doesn't come to an end. Of course Sevin dust is toxic......it wouldn't kill things if it weren't. Like I said, I have used it for close to 40 years along with millions of people. It is still on the shelf in every store that has bug killers. People have been breathing the stuff for decades.Let's look at the reality here. I don't own a dog that has been in a vets office but I they have had sevin dust put on them from about 8 weeks on when tick are bad. The dogs here live 3 to 4 years longer with sevin dust than they do if I take them to a vet regularily. I have to wonder which is more toxic. 

One statement that I had to laugh at because it is so true is this one.

"The millennium came the following year. Phase it out he did. On the appeal of the infant Environmental Defense Fund, Ruckelshaus overruled Administrative Judge Sweeney’s decision clearing DDT. Ruckelshaus banned DDT without attending a day of Sweeney’s seven-month hearing on DDT and without reading a page of the 9,300-page transcript. For he was the Administrator. He had the political power. As he wrote the American Farm Bureau Federation some months later, science can help decide these issues, *but science is trumped by politics.*"

Now Happy Meals from McDonalds are hitting the controlled substance list. Since I have heard the term used a number of times I am going to use it because I see a lot of it in these discussions....it is fear mongering for money.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Don - my issue is that the credibility of the article just dropped to zero based on some of the silly statements. It neither proves nor disproves any point.

I thought 5ppm sounded rather high.
The FDA sets action limits for foodstuffs and I don't see ANY food where 5ppm DDT is allowed:

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceCom...emicalContaminantsandPesticides/ucm077969.htm

There ARE also plenty of documented studies that do show a strong and significant correlation between DDT blood levels and testicular and breast cancer. Now any good scientist knows that correlation does not necessarily mean causation but it is definitely documetented. 

Of COURSE they have to allow DDT in food. It is stuff put out decades ago is still in the environment becasue it breaks down very slowly.......


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

That's fine Nancy.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

I'm going to have to go with Don's side on the Sevin dust. We put it on all the animals at the ranch back home, all which lived or are still living a longer than natural life. My mom's cat, for instance, was prone to ear mites. We'd dump sevin dust down her ears, she's 20 years old and still going (she looks her age for sure though) so I can't say I've ever seen negative effects from it's use and still use it on plants and such outside. 

Moderation is key? I'm not saying take a bath in Sevin dust but occasional dustings to remove parasites? Probably much less harmful than the parasites. Isn't that the point of heart worm preventatives? Yes we know it's poison because it's killing the parasites, but we risk the use of a poison because the effect of the parasite is much worse than the poison.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I had never heard of Sevin dust until last week when someone on another forum used it on her dog (very lightly, she insists) in the evening after the dog started the kind of panic-stricken scratching she does with flea exposures. (The dog is hypersensitive to fleas and has had pretty bad bouts of flea allergy dermatitis.) The dog was near the end of the Comfortis treatment period but wasn't due for three days. She was in itchy/scratchy misery.

Anyway, she ended up pretty sick by early the next morning. Severe lethargy, inappetence, vomiting, etc. 

The dog was on fluid support for 24 hours and is OK now (was OK after about 72 hours of gradual improvement). The only thing the owner can identify as new to the dog is this Sevin stuff.

Is it something that's unpredictable in the amount that can be toxic?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Connie, dogs die all the time from Frontline and the rest of that group of insectacides. The spray on variations are killers in the wrong hands. Then there are sensativities any specific dog may have to it. It is a fine dust and has to be ingested I believe. I would trust it more than a new miracle product for sure. It is soluable so I would keep the dog dry to avoid absorption. Maybe the dog in question got wet?


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Just google Sevin MSDS.

In the scope of poisons it is a pretty safe poison but does that make is safe? The symptoms you listed are consistent with oral ingestion in the MSDS.

I certainly remember using it in the days before safer and more effective flea products. No residual effect so it had to be applied frequently. 

Maybe some don't care about the environmental effects of all this stuff but the bees sure do and they are extremely important to us, you know.....

How many of remember playing with mercury and asbestos as kids? Does that make them safe too?

Devils advocate - you know what are the impacts of ivermectin on water supplies - a lot of this goes in cattle and horses and hence the groundwater......

I think it is a real balance there. Heartworms are definitely nasty critters.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Have a Happy Meal while you can Nancy.Sit back and watch how bad Happy Meals become according to those that are for the ban. Lead paint was on everything whe I was a kid. Never met one kid that was screwed up from it. Then someone decided???................you may catch on.


----------



## Anne Pridemore (Mar 20, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Anne, question.....Ivo may be retro active, but, does it "prevent" heartworm from killing your dog?


Heartworm kills a dog once the worms have reached adult stage and attack the heart. It takes a long time for HW to really kill the dog -they can do alot of damage the longer the dog is infected - and you have to be pritty neglectful to manage that. I'm talking months to a year living infected - under normal care- to die from this. If the dog is not cared for , it is weaker and will die faster. 

By killing the egg and larve stages through bi-monthy treatment you never get the adult that attacks the heart and harms the dog. And that is assumeing the dog is ever infected at all. This is like pre-treatment for the big "what-if".

I don't like dumping tons of chemicals into my dogs. I don't vaccinate excessively, I don't use chemical flea prevention, I don't fill them with monthy worm posion, and I don't feed crap food. Aside from getting a dog with medical issues, I haven't had one dog come down with anything that all these "preventions" are for. No HW, no fleas, no kennel cough, etc.

My way is not for every one, I'm just lucky enough to have a good vet that will work with me to keep the crap out of my dogs. Most vets want your dog on every prevetion out there - it's toxic IMO.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> .... Maybe some don't care about the environmental effects of all this stuff but the bees sure do and they are extremely important to us, you know..... I think it is a real balance there. ....


I think so too.

One of the first things I read when I started looking up this Sevin stuff was that it kills bees. 

I'm always juggling things like flea stuff, vaccines, food additives, and so on. All I can do is become as well-informed as possible before using and then weigh the probable outcomes. I do use Heartgard, but I stop during the few relatively safe months where I live, and then have a blood test done before resuming it again.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Lots of things kill bees but bees kill lots of people.


----------



## Anne Pridemore (Mar 20, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Lots of things kill bees but bees kill lots of people.


Humans are fragile and most anything can kill a person - but global distruction will kill us all.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Anne, the only thing to fear is fear itself. Don't fear Obama, he is only one person, fear those that voted for him. Sorry Mods, it was just a weak moment and when Anne mentioned *global destruction* it just came out and my 10 minutes for editing was over before I knew it.


----------



## Anne Pridemore (Mar 20, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Anne, the only thing to fear is fear itself. Don't fear Obama, he is only one person, fear those that voted for him. Sorry Mods, it was just a weak moment and when Anne mentioned *global destruction* it just came out and my 10 minutes for editing was over before I knew it.


:lol: I fear no man or woman that my dogs can bite. :twisted:


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Have a Happy Meal while you can Nancy.Sit back and watch how bad Happy Meals become according to those that are for the ban. Lead paint was on everything whe I was a kid. Never met one kid that was screwed up from it. Then someone decided???................you may catch on.



LOL Thanks but no thanks.......I will shed no tears for the demise of the Happy Meal, a nutritionless pile of fat,refined carbs, and sodium. However it is/was? a great recycling program for old dairy cows [I don't know - can we still process aged out dairy cows as food any more--I know that is where the bulk of fast food hamburger came from - and also the predominant source of vCJD in Great Britain.]

-------------

And I would ask that we keep politics OUT of it. Believe it or not, EVERYONE on this forum is not a right wing conservative.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I'm watching now! =; :-$ :-#


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> I'm watching now! =; :-$ :-#


LMAO....I made my point and apologised Bob. Won't happen again on this thread. LOL

What I am really tickled about is Nancy's last post,


> LOL Thanks but no thanks.......I will shed no tears for the demise of the Happy Meal, a nutritionless pile of fat,refined carbs, and sodium. However it is/was? a great recycling program for old dairy cows [I don't know - can we still process aged out dairy cows as food any more--I know that is where the bulk of fast food hamburger came from - and also the predominant source of vCJD in Great Britain.


Here she is trying to discredit the article I put up and that post of Nancy's, in itself, makes mine more credible. Gotta luv it. I fear Nancy if you get my drift. LOL


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Here she is trying to discredit the article I put up and that post of Nancy's, in itself, makes mine more credible. Gotta luv it. I fear Nancy if you get my drift. LOL


Just about all the "let's bring back DDT!" so called "articles" are typically written by either chemical industry hacks or the PR spin groups (sometimes even called "think tanks") that are employed by them, such as the Weinberg Group. We dealt with this particular PR spin group in regards to bisphenol A in plastics who insisted that because it was used for 50 years, it must mean it's safe. Interestingly and perhaps unsurprisingly, they have worked closely with the tobacco companies for years. They basically manufacture doubt for their multi million/billion dollar clients because if they manufacture doubt, they can keep on producing a product and make more $$$ until it's finally banned. A fantastic book on the subject is "Toxic Sludge is Good for You!" by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. A thoughtful reply from another great site about the DDT debate:

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/ddt/2003/2003-0808chenandrogan.htm

There's better ways to rid the world of mosquitos than just chemicals.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> LOL Thanks but no thanks.......I will shed no tears for the demise of the Happy Meal, a nutritionless pile of fat,refined carbs, and sodium. However it is/was? a great recycling program for old dairy cows [I don't know - can we still process aged out dairy cows as food any more--I know that is where the bulk of fast food hamburger came from - and also the predominant source of vCJD in Great Britain.]
> 
> -------------
> 
> And I would ask that we keep politics OUT of it. Believe it or not, EVERYONE on this forum is not a right wing conservative.


Yep, we have a saying that all dairy cows are beef cows.  And on the last point, very true. I'm a registered Republican, but I'm an independent moderate for all intents and purposes. So I can't make anyone happy! :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maren, what is amusing about all of this os that in anothe 20mor so years, all the stuff you are swearing by today will be banned by the next generation of fear mongers so they can get it off the shelf to make way for new products.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Aww, Don - you have to understand.....I played with mercury, asbestos, ate too much lead paint and Mickey D's as a kid while playing with Sevin dust and DDT - what the heck do you excpect? 

Of course my father, aunt, uncle, and grandmother all died of cancer too-too bad they did not spray DDT so they could still be alive and healthy.

Seriously, I do think we muck with things way too much sometimes. But there really are more specific regulations to the processing of cattle over 30 months old.....incubation periods being and lifetime accumulation being what they are.......such as old dairy cows which get fed a lot of crap.

Personally, I think there are many good arguments in favor of limiting beef consumption to grass fed animals. . 

Besides, Don, you can still get that happy meal that county in CA. You will just have to do something else for the toy [prollly made in China and full of lead anyway]


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

Anne Pridemore said:


> Heartworm kills a dog once the worms have reached adult stage and attack the heart. It takes a long time for HW to really kill the dog -they can do alot of damage the longer the dog is infected - and you have to be pritty neglectful to manage that. I'm talking months to a year living infected - under normal care- to die from this. If the dog is not cared for , it is weaker and will die faster.
> 
> By killing the egg and larve stages through bi-monthy treatment you never get the adult that attacks the heart and harms the dog. And that is assumeing the dog is ever infected at all. This is like pre-treatment for the big "what-if".
> 
> ...






I have always maintained the less is more attitude. I believe in the evidenced based medical practices in both animal and human applications. It does not make sense to me to falsify the dogs (or humans) immune system response by introducing a chemical or biological antigen. 
That is like saying I will take an antihistamine in case I get stung by a bee. There are bees everywhere and the statistics say that bee stings can be deadly, and the preventative measure is an antihistamine - so I take antihistamines all season. Well if you took that antihistamine for years in the event that you may get stung and may die from that sting, well . . . one can only hope you have any immunity left at all in the event that you actually did get stung by that point!
So my motto is, all things in moderation...yes including the occasional Happy meal or seven dust...not in that order lol!
kerry


----------



## Chris Noxwell (Feb 26, 2010)

I agree that treating during the season is likely the best idea. Better be safe than sorry and I woud be more worried about treating than the low risks in preventing. I also sometimes use Flys-Off, its is a spray that you can use anywhere to get rid of mosquitoes.


----------



## Amy Swaby (Jul 16, 2008)

All I know is I will keep buying my ivomec and treating my dogs. It's not that hard to find out what the dosage is online if your vet is the foam at the mouth sort. At least when I measure for myself I get accurate dosages to weight instead of the nearly 30 lb range of most heartworm preventatives.


----------

