Robin Nuttall wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:


Spot-On Pesticides such as Frontline, Zodiac, Defend, Bio Spot, Adams
and Advantage trigger adverse reactions in dogs and cats, shorten life
spans, cause terminal illness, and premature death.

Again to the OP, the person writing this has no factual data to back up
her claims whatsoever.

When it cautions on the label = Do not inhale. Do not let this touch
your skin. Harmful to eyes. Use with ventilation. Poisonous. If ingested
call Poison Control. Wash hands immediately after applying . . .

DO NOT USE ON YOUR DOG!!!

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
When it cautions on the label

You made some very specific claims, and apparently you can't
back them up.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

chardonnay9 wrote:

How can he get another kind of worm? It has to do with what you feed the
dog. Kibble fed dogs are much more likely to pick up worms, infections
etc because their health is compromised.

What a crock of ****.

Parasites are eliminated during the processing of pet food. There is simply
no host to live off. On the other hand, raw meat is MUCH more likely to host
parasites that are more than happy to jump off their current home and settle
into a pet.

If kibble fed dogs' health was compromised because of the kibble, why has
the average lifespan of domestic dogs grown substantially over the decades?

In article ,
Sharon Too wrote:
If kibble fed dogs' health was compromised because of the kibble, why has
the average lifespan of domestic dogs grown substantially over the decades?

At one point she asserted that it's shortened, in case
further evidence was needed that she really has no idea what
she's talking about.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Sharon Too wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:

How can he get another kind of worm? It has to do with what you feed the
dog. Kibble fed dogs are much more likely to pick up worms, infections
etc because their health is compromised.

What a crock of ****.

Parasites are eliminated during the processing of pet food. There is simply
no host to live off. On the other hand, raw meat is MUCH more likely to host
parasites that are more than happy to jump off their current home and settle
into a pet.

Parasites are picked up all sorts of places in the environment and not
likely in the food. I guess you'd not say such silly things if you
actually understood what was posted.

What I said was that rawfed dogs are healthier than kibble fed dogs
which means they can fight off parasites, disease, all that much better
than kibble dogs.


If kibble fed dogs' health was compromised because of the kibble, why has
the average lifespan of domestic dogs grown substantially over the decades?

Who said it's grown?

chardonnay9 wrote:

What I said was that rawfed dogs are healthier than kibble fed dogs

Cite please! TIA! HTH, and HAND!

Dianne

chardonnay9 wrote

What I said was that rawfed dogs are healthier than kibble fed dogs

No, what you said was:

"Kibble fed dogs are much more likely to pick up worms, infections
etc because their health is compromised."

Parasites are not biased in terms of healthy vs non-healthy hosts. They see
a live host - they attach. Symptoms may appear quicker in unhealthy dogs,
but parasites are equal opportunity suckers.

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:51:34 -0500, "Sharon Too"

Parasites are not biased in terms of healthy vs non-healthy hosts. They see
a live host - they attach. Symptoms may appear quicker in unhealthy dogs,
but parasites are equal opportunity suckers.



but wouldn't a dog who is less stressed and older and more stable be
better able to fight it off?

I ask because while Harley keeps getting worms and crypto and such,
Hannah who is with him 24/7 doing the exact same thing in the exact
same place is free of any problems...

and they eat exactly the same thing.

newfondly yours,

Nessa
----
Dog Mom to:
Hannah age 6.5 Pitador rescued age 9 weeks
Harley small shaggy cow that pretends he's a newfoundland rescued age 10 months
(Angel) Bagel went to Rainbow Bridge 9/18/08 my Newfandstuff age 8.5

Sharon Too wrote:


Parasites are not biased in terms of healthy vs non-healthy hosts. They see
a live host - they attach. Symptoms may appear quicker in unhealthy dogs,
but parasites are equal opportunity suckers.

You just keep thinking that so you can believe that in your own mind.

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
When it cautions on the label

You made some very specific claims, and apparently you can't
back them up.

And when I do, you ignore the post instead of admitting I have backed
them up.

Do some research on the Internet and you'll find that the medical and
scientific community still has little knowledge or understanding
regarding skin absorption of various chemicals and/or substances. [Note
that the medical and scientific community often likes to refer to skin
absorption as percutaneous
absorption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percutaneous_absorption).] And
so many factors are involved
with skin absorption -- the health of the human or animal at the time of
application, the condition of their
skin, the size of the molecule of the chemical in question (the smaller
the molecule, the more readily it
might be absorbed through the skin), for example. Is the skin
well-moisturized and healthy? Is it dry, chapped, cracked, & split, or
otherwise, prone to skin problems/diseases? Is the skin compromised in
any way -- cuts, scrapes, scratches, punctures (might this include bug
bites or vaccination sites, as
well)? If an adverse reaction to a spot-on flea treatment or any other
topically applied
chemical/medication is suspected, there can be many other factors that
need to be considered.

And while we might assume that there's no way for our pet to ingest any
of the product once we've
applied it to their skin, in my opinion, they might still be ingesting
some it. The manufacturers tell us that these products collect in our
pets' oil glands and are gradually wicked onto their hairs. In the case
of a
cat, it licks itself and swallows its own hairs, so doesn't that mean
it's swallowing some of the spot-on
flea treatment? Another possibility is that the owner has mistakenly
applied the product to an area
where their pet is able to lick the application site. Or, in the case
of a dog, he might scratch the
application site, then lick his foot, thereby ingesting some of the
product. While that might seem like
too small of an amount to cause an adverse reaction, it brings you right
back to the possibility of a
particular animal having an extreme sensitivity to a particular
chemical. It also brings you back to the question of cumulative effects
-- what if your pet is ingesting small quantities of the stuff after each
monthly application? What are the cumulative effects of that? It also
brings up other questions again,
as well. Is the pet ill (known or unknown) at the time of possible
ingestion? Has the pet been exposed
to other chemicals/pesticides at the time of possible ingestion
(pesticides or herbicides in your yard,
the neighbor's yard, or a local park that you and your pet frequent)?
At the time of possible ingestion,
was the pet also given other medications or vaccinations that might have
overloaded its body with chemicals? In the case of multiple pet
households, one pet might lick the spot-on application site of
another pet. When applying a pesticide to your pet's skin, there's too
many variables to consider in
trying to determine whether it's really safe.

In my opinion (I have no facts to base this on), I believe that
pharmaceutical companies will sell products
that they know may harm or even kill some people or animals if they
think that the profit margin is high enough. Given recent evidence, we
also know that the FDA has previously approved drugs that have harmed or
killed people (Fen Phen, Vioxx, & Celebrex to name a few). It's just my
opinion, but I don't
believe that you can rely on FDA approval to guarantee that you or your
pets are safe when using any medications, treatments, chemicals, etc.

Finally, here are the links to the toxicology study results that I found
[Fipronil is an active ingredient in
Merial's Frontline Top Spot & Frontline Plus. S-Methoprene is a 2nd
active ingredient in Frontline Plus. Permethrin is an active ingredient
in Bayer's K9 Advantix & Farnam's Bio Spot for Dogs. (Permethrin
is known to be toxic to cats.) Imidacloprid is an active ingredient
found in both Bayer's K9 Advantix & Advantage.]:

I apologize if some of these links contain redundant information.

Fipronil:

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles...il_tol_798.htm
http://fluoridealert.org/pesticides/...s.may.1996.htm
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST...-26/p30949.htm
http://fluoridealert.org/pesticides/fipronil--page.htm

Methoprene:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopes...eet_105401.pdf
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/methopre.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultatio...tml#bookmark03

Imidacloprid:

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/imidaclo.htm
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/imidaclo.htm
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr...01pr07.htm#2.2

Permethrin:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...tionNumber:7.1

Last, but certainly not least, what are the so-called "inert/other
ingedients" in these spot-on flea
treatments? Such vague package labeling would not be allowed for
human-grade topical treatments/medications, so you really have to wonder
why all of the ingredients aren't listed on the
spot-on packaging. Unless the manufacturers reveal what the
"inert/other ingredients" are in their
spot-on products, I, like everyone else, have no way of knowing what
they are, but I did find some
chemicals that *may* be used as synergists in conjunction with some
pesticides. If any of these
chemicals are some of the "inert/other ingredients" used in spot-on flea
products for pets, it's just
another reason that you might really want to reconsider putting this
stuff on your pets. According to
Page 1 of this document
(http://www.pesticide.org/PiperonylButoxide.pdf), Piperonyl Butoxide can
synergize both fipronil & methoprene (the document also discusses
piperonyl butoxide's toxicity).
And Page 18 of this document
(http://www.ivis.org/advances/Beasley/Cpt2D/ivis.pdf -- last two
bullet points under the heading "Mechanism") lists other possible
pesticide synergists and
describes how when combined with a pesticide, synergists can make a
pesticide's effect in
the body more toxic. Something as benign as sesame oil can act as a
pesticide synergist.
Following that information, is the statement, "Small animal poisonings
occurs principally in
cats." Some synergists that might be used with a pesticide can also be
toxic as a stand-alone
product.