I am posting this to a new thread as I want to share some thoughts on the above that might help us to organize our thoughts when making decisions on this stuff.
When trying to evalute the risks and benefits of things such as heartworm 'preventives', remember that we can not escape risk, only trade one in for another.
I like the comparison of natural rearing to that of driving a car. There is deadly risk involved in driving cars and we see the carnage daily on the news. But it is a risk that we are willing to take in exchange for the benefits and convenience that driving a car affords us...driving cars gives us a much better quality of life, even though we have increased our chances of sudden death of dismemberment.
Try to view natural medicine in the paradigm.
I think Mogens Elliasson has an excellent guideline for making these decisions:
There are five criteria that drugs or vaccinations should be evaluated against:
1) The disease must be fatal or having a high mortality rate.
2) The cure must be non-existent or of dubious nature.
3) The vaccine or drug must be proven effective.
4) The side effects of the vaccine or drug must be acceptably small or negligible.
5) The overall risk of the disease must be greater than the overall risk of
the vaccination or drug.
1) The disease must be fatal or having a high mortality rate.
Heartworm infestation has a 90% mortality rate (I think...if anyone finds different, let me know) if not treated. The adult heartworms usually take several years to kill, but they do in fact kill once they take hold. NOTE: this does not mean that dogs who have a positive heartworm test have a high mortality rate...we are talking about dogs who's hearts are full of adult worms. Many dogs who test positive for a few heart worms will test negative the next time around.
2) The vaccine or drug must be proven effective
The cure is existent and the mortality rate is between 1% and 2% when treated with the newer Immiticide as opposed to Caparsolate (which used to cause more deaths due to clotting and created liver and kidney damage which the Immiticide does not seem to do). Expected lifespan after heartworm treatment is now the same as a dog who was not treated.
3) The vaccine or drug must be proven effective
Ivermectin is effective in that it will kill eggs and larvae (not adult heartworms)...that is why we need to administer the drugs monthly: to rid the body of any possible eggs before they grow into adults. I should also add that it is not 100% effective and dogs on preventives do still get heartworm. OVerall however, it is effective. Now, this may be interesting: http://web.archive.org/web/20040612065623/cal.vet.upenn.edu/merial/hrtworm/hw_3.htm
If you look, you will find that the incidence of hearworm has vastly increased in the last 30 or 40 years...about the same timeframe that we have been giving multiple vaccinations!
4) The side effects of the vaccine or drug must be acceptably small or negligible
Well, in the case of Proheart 6, this certainly is not the case!! The drugs used in heartworm preventives are neurotoxins.
Ivermectin acts on insects by potentiation of GABA-ergic neural and neuromuscular transmission but since mammals have only central GABA-ergic synapses which are to a large extent protected by the blood-brain barrier they are relatively resistant to ivermectin. Some penetration of the blood-brain barrier does occur at relatively high doses, with brain levels peaking between two and five hours after administration. Symptoms seen in a range of mammalian species are CNS depression, and consequent ataxia, as might be expected from potentiation of inhibitory GABA-ergic synapses (Hayes & Laws, 1991).
Canine Heartworm Medication Adverse Reaction Comparisons
(Source, FDA, As of 5/03/2004)
Drug Total Adverse Reactions Total Deaths Year Approved Avg. Reactions Avg. Deaths Form
ProHeart 6 (Moxidectin): 4499 415 2001 1500 138 Injection
Revolution (Selamectin): 8695 181 1999 1737 36 Topical
Interceptor (Milbemycine oxime): 1922 84 1995 214 9 Oral
Heartguard (Ivermectin/Pyrantel): 2840 51 1996 355 6 Oral
Sentinel (Milbemycine oxide/luferon): 892 25 1999 233 6 Oral
Dont forget that most reactions are vastly under-reported.
Dr. Martin Goldstein states: "Only a small percentage of dogs who get heartworm die of it, especially if they're routinely tested twice yearly for early detection. Even in untreated dogs, after a period of uncomfortable symptoms, the adult worms die... The chances of a microfilaria-infected mosquito biting your dog the first time are slim. Of it happening to the same dog twice? Very slim...Early in my career, I saw and treated hundreds of cases of heartworm disease, most with routine medication, yet witnessed only three deaths (the last was in 1979). By comparison, we're seeing, cancer kill dogs on a daily basis. To my mind, the likelihood that toxicity from heartworm pills is contributing to the tremendous amount of immune suppression now occurring, especially in cases of liver disease and cancer, is far greater and more immediate than the threat of the disease they're meant to prevent...
As a precaution, I recommend that all dogs be tested twice a year for heartworm. For clients who insist on a more active form of prevention, I suggest doses of black walnut given two to three times a week, as I've actually reversed clinical heartworm with it..."
This takes us to: 5) The overall risk of the disease must be greater than the overall risk of the vaccination or drug.
In the case or heartworm, I'm not convinced this is the case. Once again, our dogs are literally dropping dead or suffering from immune related diseases such as allergies, skin issues, cancer, thyroid problems, kidney and liver failure...
There are enough coyotes and wolves out there with positive heartworm tests who live long lives, and lots of pet dogs. We have the ability to test for heartworm yearly or more if desired to catch heartworm before it becomes enough of a problem that damage from treatment becomes an issue.
But, if ten different people add up these five criteria, they may all come to different conclusions because risk is also relative to each individual.
I know hundreds of people who live in heartworm infested areas that don't give preventives and have never had a case of heartworm. I also know people who have successfully treated heartworm naturally without the danger and exercise restrictions of traditional medicine. There are plenty of effective natural remedies for heartworm including: http://www.danebytes.com/heartworm-cures.htm
Finally, infected mosquitos can pass heartworm on to people too. Usually in humans, the worms migrate to the lungs instead of the heart. There are normally few symptoms noticed with human heartworm infestation.
Why do you think that is ???
This is a completely biased report, but there is enough information out there to support heartworm testing that I thought it necessary.
Back to the car driving paradigm...if you choose to forego heartworm treatment, yes you may be risking an accident. It may be fatal or it may just be a fender bender..you never know and that is life. You could choose to give preventives or take the bus, but you will be missing out on a lot in life and your dog might too...he may suffer from liver disease or chronic ear infections from the chemical onslaught.
So, you can drive or you can take the bus and be happy either way...that's what makes the world go round 8)
Anyway, I though I would share these criteria so you all can come to your own conclusions
When trying to evalute the risks and benefits of things such as heartworm 'preventives', remember that we can not escape risk, only trade one in for another.
I like the comparison of natural rearing to that of driving a car. There is deadly risk involved in driving cars and we see the carnage daily on the news. But it is a risk that we are willing to take in exchange for the benefits and convenience that driving a car affords us...driving cars gives us a much better quality of life, even though we have increased our chances of sudden death of dismemberment.
Try to view natural medicine in the paradigm.
I think Mogens Elliasson has an excellent guideline for making these decisions:
There are five criteria that drugs or vaccinations should be evaluated against:
1) The disease must be fatal or having a high mortality rate.
2) The cure must be non-existent or of dubious nature.
3) The vaccine or drug must be proven effective.
4) The side effects of the vaccine or drug must be acceptably small or negligible.
5) The overall risk of the disease must be greater than the overall risk of
the vaccination or drug.
1) The disease must be fatal or having a high mortality rate.
Heartworm infestation has a 90% mortality rate (I think...if anyone finds different, let me know) if not treated. The adult heartworms usually take several years to kill, but they do in fact kill once they take hold. NOTE: this does not mean that dogs who have a positive heartworm test have a high mortality rate...we are talking about dogs who's hearts are full of adult worms. Many dogs who test positive for a few heart worms will test negative the next time around.
2) The vaccine or drug must be proven effective
The cure is existent and the mortality rate is between 1% and 2% when treated with the newer Immiticide as opposed to Caparsolate (which used to cause more deaths due to clotting and created liver and kidney damage which the Immiticide does not seem to do). Expected lifespan after heartworm treatment is now the same as a dog who was not treated.
3) The vaccine or drug must be proven effective
Ivermectin is effective in that it will kill eggs and larvae (not adult heartworms)...that is why we need to administer the drugs monthly: to rid the body of any possible eggs before they grow into adults. I should also add that it is not 100% effective and dogs on preventives do still get heartworm. OVerall however, it is effective. Now, this may be interesting: http://web.archive.org/web/20040612065623/cal.vet.upenn.edu/merial/hrtworm/hw_3.htm
If you look, you will find that the incidence of hearworm has vastly increased in the last 30 or 40 years...about the same timeframe that we have been giving multiple vaccinations!
4) The side effects of the vaccine or drug must be acceptably small or negligible
Well, in the case of Proheart 6, this certainly is not the case!! The drugs used in heartworm preventives are neurotoxins.
Ivermectin acts on insects by potentiation of GABA-ergic neural and neuromuscular transmission but since mammals have only central GABA-ergic synapses which are to a large extent protected by the blood-brain barrier they are relatively resistant to ivermectin. Some penetration of the blood-brain barrier does occur at relatively high doses, with brain levels peaking between two and five hours after administration. Symptoms seen in a range of mammalian species are CNS depression, and consequent ataxia, as might be expected from potentiation of inhibitory GABA-ergic synapses (Hayes & Laws, 1991).
Canine Heartworm Medication Adverse Reaction Comparisons
(Source, FDA, As of 5/03/2004)
Drug Total Adverse Reactions Total Deaths Year Approved Avg. Reactions Avg. Deaths Form
ProHeart 6 (Moxidectin): 4499 415 2001 1500 138 Injection
Revolution (Selamectin): 8695 181 1999 1737 36 Topical
Interceptor (Milbemycine oxime): 1922 84 1995 214 9 Oral
Heartguard (Ivermectin/Pyrantel): 2840 51 1996 355 6 Oral
Sentinel (Milbemycine oxide/luferon): 892 25 1999 233 6 Oral
Dont forget that most reactions are vastly under-reported.
Dr. Martin Goldstein states: "Only a small percentage of dogs who get heartworm die of it, especially if they're routinely tested twice yearly for early detection. Even in untreated dogs, after a period of uncomfortable symptoms, the adult worms die... The chances of a microfilaria-infected mosquito biting your dog the first time are slim. Of it happening to the same dog twice? Very slim...Early in my career, I saw and treated hundreds of cases of heartworm disease, most with routine medication, yet witnessed only three deaths (the last was in 1979). By comparison, we're seeing, cancer kill dogs on a daily basis. To my mind, the likelihood that toxicity from heartworm pills is contributing to the tremendous amount of immune suppression now occurring, especially in cases of liver disease and cancer, is far greater and more immediate than the threat of the disease they're meant to prevent...
As a precaution, I recommend that all dogs be tested twice a year for heartworm. For clients who insist on a more active form of prevention, I suggest doses of black walnut given two to three times a week, as I've actually reversed clinical heartworm with it..."
This takes us to: 5) The overall risk of the disease must be greater than the overall risk of the vaccination or drug.
In the case or heartworm, I'm not convinced this is the case. Once again, our dogs are literally dropping dead or suffering from immune related diseases such as allergies, skin issues, cancer, thyroid problems, kidney and liver failure...
There are enough coyotes and wolves out there with positive heartworm tests who live long lives, and lots of pet dogs. We have the ability to test for heartworm yearly or more if desired to catch heartworm before it becomes enough of a problem that damage from treatment becomes an issue.
But, if ten different people add up these five criteria, they may all come to different conclusions because risk is also relative to each individual.
I know hundreds of people who live in heartworm infested areas that don't give preventives and have never had a case of heartworm. I also know people who have successfully treated heartworm naturally without the danger and exercise restrictions of traditional medicine. There are plenty of effective natural remedies for heartworm including: http://www.danebytes.com/heartworm-cures.htm
Finally, infected mosquitos can pass heartworm on to people too. Usually in humans, the worms migrate to the lungs instead of the heart. There are normally few symptoms noticed with human heartworm infestation.
Why do you think that is ???
This is a completely biased report, but there is enough information out there to support heartworm testing that I thought it necessary.
Back to the car driving paradigm...if you choose to forego heartworm treatment, yes you may be risking an accident. It may be fatal or it may just be a fender bender..you never know and that is life. You could choose to give preventives or take the bus, but you will be missing out on a lot in life and your dog might too...he may suffer from liver disease or chronic ear infections from the chemical onslaught.
So, you can drive or you can take the bus and be happy either way...that's what makes the world go round 8)
Anyway, I though I would share these criteria so you all can come to your own conclusions