In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
And when I do, you ignore the post instead of admitting I have backed
them up.

The stuff you post as "support" tends not to support you but
instead be about something else, but you don't have the
skills (or whatever) to recognize that. Cutting and pasting
means that you don't even have to read something to repost
it, and I suspect you don't. The stuff that doesn't
disagree with you tends to be either opinion pieces written
by undergraduate students as classroom assignments or
another set of random, unsupported assertions by another
random crank.

When, of course, it exists at all.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

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

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
And when I do, you ignore the post instead of admitting I have backed
them up.

The stuff you post as "support" tends not to support you but
instead be about something else, but you don't have the
skills (or whatever) to recognize that. Cutting and pasting
means that you don't even have to read something to repost
it, and I suspect you don't. The stuff that doesn't
disagree with you tends to be either opinion pieces written
by undergraduate students as classroom assignments or
another set of random, unsupported assertions by another
random crank.

When, of course, it exists at all.

And once again resorts to a personal attack instead of answering the
post....

Of course you don't have the skills to train dogs. Anyone that keeps a
bark collar on a dog for a year is mentally unbalanced.

Apparently Melinda can't dispute what I've posted because she's turned
into a flame fest.


chardonnay9 wrote:
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.

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Apparently Melinda can't dispute what I've posted because she's turned
into a flame fest.

Look, you just make stuff up, and that doesn't deserve the
respect implied by going through your idiotic posts point by
point - it's not worth the effort. If you didn't have a
well-established record of fabricating your arguments and if
there were one person - *one* - who didn't know that you're
a serial liar there might be a point to it. But your record
stands and nobody here listens to you.

I think it likely that you're an attention freak, too.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

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

Melinda Shore wrote:
If you didn't have a
well-established record of fabricating your arguments and if
there were one person - *one* - who didn't know that you're
a serial liar there might be a point to it.

Is that what goes through your head? That somehow I'm fabrication
things? It doesn't matter what proof I give, you have a reason to reject
it or else when you can't find a reason you ignore it was said and
refuse to give credit where it's due.

Aren't you the one fabricating stories about me? My dog is blind, or I
don't know what I'm talking about or you attribute other people's
statements to me and on and on....

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Aren't you the one fabricating stories about me? My dog is blind,

Your dog is blind from malnutrition.

or I
don't know what I'm talking about

You've got to be joking. Is there anybody here who thinks
that chard knows what she's talking about. *Anybody*?

or you attribute other people's
statements to me

Name one.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

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

chardonnay9 wrote:

That somehow I'm fabrication things?

You're fabrication things? WTF is that supposed to mean?

OTOH, it's completely obvious that you fabricate things all
the time. "Dogs don't have the metabolic pathways to digest
carbohydrates" - well, Dale did an extremely elegant job
nailing you on that one, didn't he. "Kibble has had all the
nutrition cooked out of it" - patently, obviously untrue.
"Vitamin E isn't measured in milligrams" - well, that one
wasn't made up; it was just a measure of your true ignorance
on the subject of nutrition. Oh yeah, then there's your
"cancer cure".... shudder.

FYI, it's the fact that you give advice so dangerous that
it'll result in dead dogs that still has people replying to
you. Otherwise we'd all have you KF'd just like we do this
group's other resident nutter.

Dianne

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Aren't you the one fabricating stories about me? My dog is blind,

Your dog is blind from malnutrition.

You don't even know if I have a dog oh clueless one.



or I
don't know what I'm talking about

You've got to be joking. Is there anybody here who thinks
that chard knows what she's talking about. *Anybody*?

or you attribute other people's
statements to me

Name one.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
And when I do, you ignore the post instead of admitting I have backed
them up.

The stuff you post as "support" tends not to support you but
instead be about something else, but you don't have the
skills (or whatever) to recognize that. Cutting and pasting
means that you don't even have to read something to repost
it, and I suspect you don't. The stuff that doesn't
disagree with you tends to be either opinion pieces written
by undergraduate students as classroom assignments or
another set of random, unsupported assertions by another
random crank.

When, of course, it exists at all.

And once again resorts to a personal attack instead of answering the
post....

Of course you don't have the skills to train dogs. Anyone that keeps a
bark collar on a dog for a year is mentally unbalanced.


What? No reply from Melinda?

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

*Possibly*, but unlikely. They are probably still hosts but do not exhibit
symptoms as prominently - probably co-exist with the critters. Fecals are
only 50% accurate. We advise anyone with a pet in a household with young
children or folks that are immuncompromised to do strategic deworming as a
preventive.

A good site to check out is the Companion Animal Parasite Council at
www.petsandparasites.org