Heartworm Injection

[DoBeRMaNN]

i got my dog heartworm injections ..my vet told me that as long as your dog is free of heartworm the prevention injection is fine and isnt harsh at all..but if your dog does have heartworm the injection to get rid of them is quite harsh on the liver..so if your dog doesnt have heartworm and is clear id say get it...think about it why would they do it if it was bad for your dog?

[Little Joe]

...think about it why would they do it if it was bad for your dog?

Probably for the same reason that thousands of woman in the 50/60s were given drugs that are now proven to cause cancer in the children that the drugs prevented them from miscarrying. :rolleyes:

Medical Science has made some monumental blunders over the years.

Drugs and chemicals that we use on our pets and our selves have side efects, we have to weigh up the risks. The product has been taken off the market in the USA that is good enough evidence that it is flawed.

[DoBeRMaNN]

ohh ok joe im gonna take your word for it over my vet :rolleyes: ..maybe medicines and things of that nature were not properly tested 50 years ago,but what the hell was safe back then?? tand also that was a lifetime ago in terms of how science has progresed these days medicines and other medical products have been tested for years and years to strict guidelines and with australia being one of the best for medical safety for humans and animals i would beleive that it is completly safe. and for all the people who say its not safe , where is your evidence?? and how are you qualified to make a statement that it is not ..when vets and the medical community say it is..

Edited September 4, 2005 by DoBeRMaNN

[Little Joe]

It has been taken of the market in the USA, They do not do this for no reason

have a little look at this

FDA Talk Paper

T04-37

September 3, 2004

Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242

Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

Fort Dodge to Comply with FDA's Request to Recall ProHeart 6 Injectable Heartworm Product from the Market Due to Serious Health Concerns

Fort Dodge Animal Health, of Overland Park, Kansas, at FDA's request, has agreed to immediately cease production and recall its heartworm medication ProHeart®6 from the market until the FDA's concerns about adverse reaction reports associated with the product can be resolved. FDA is requesting that the firm continue to conduct research to determine the cause of related adverse reactions and develop a strategy to help prevent such problems in the future before the product is marketed again. The FDA will convene an independent scientific advisory committee to thoroughly evaluate all available data.

ProHeart®6 is an approved injectable sustained-release heartworm prevention product for dogs. Heartworm disease is a serious and potentially fatal condition of dogs, cats, and other species of mammals. The parasite that causes heartworm disease is transmitted through the bite of a mosquito.

FDA is also advising veterinarians to avoid administering this product to dogs until further notice. Pet owners should consult their veterinarians regarding their pet's health care needs.

Since the product was approved in June 2001, Fort Dodge Animal Health has cooperated with FDA to investigate numerous adverse event reports. As a result, Fort Dodge has voluntarily changed the label to include post approval safety information including rare reports of death and a caution to practitioners that dogs should have a negative test for heartworm before administration.

Despite these label changes, FDA is still receiving unexplained adverse event reports, some of them severe. FDA's concern is based on voluntary self-reporting to FDA by veterinarians and owners whose dogs have suffered adverse drug experiences (ADEs) to ProHeart®6 (which contains the drug moxidectin) as well as the mandatory reporting of adverse events by Fort Dodge Animal Health.

Fort Dodge Animal Health has agreed to recall any product that has already been distributed to veterinarians.

As of August 4, 2004, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) had received 5,552 adverse event reports for ProHeart®6. The actual number of adverse events is likely even higher because studies show that only a fraction of actual ADEs are reported.

The Agency has observed an increase in the number of cases associated with liver and bleeding abnormalities followed in some cases by death.

There is a lot more information out there about this if you want to search.

[Little Joe]

AVMA-Proheart

[Do No Harm]

ohh ok joe im gonna take your word for it over my vet :rolleyes: ..maybe medicines and things of that nature were not properly tested 50 years ago,but what the hell was safe back then?? tand also that was a lifetime ago in terms of how science has progresed these days medicines and other medical products have been tested for years and years to strict guidelines and with australia being one of the best for medical safety for humans and animals i would beleive that it is completly safe. and for all the people who say its not safe , where is your evidence?? and how are you qualified to make a statement that it is not ..when vets and the medical community say it is..

Have you not heard of the controversy over Vioxx and in recent months even more NSAID's?

Veterinarians, like many MD's, get their post graduate 'education' from the salespersons representing the drug manufacturers. They then 'condition' us to comply with the recommendations that fill the coffers of their industry's sponsors.

Next time there is an AVA Conference take a look at the program and see how much sponsorship they get - and from whom!

[Rappie]

Veterinarians, like many MD's, get their post graduate 'education' from the salespersons representing the drug manufacturers.

I'm all for constructive criticism of individuals or a profession. Perhaps I just need to grow a thicker skin, but every time I read comments such as this I think "Ouch, that bites".

Your comment implies that "all" veterinarians are at the whim of drug companies, while only "many MD's" allow themselves to become brainwashed. You imply that all post graduate education received by veterinarians is from sales people. What a way to discredit those veterinarians that DO try to make a difference and advance their education with formal qualifications and attend regular Continuing Education courses. I would suppose then, that since I am well versed in the advertising and technical information supplied by the major drug suppliers, I would by default be one of "them". I would suppose also that it wouldn't be of too much concern that, while I may still prescribe and administer their products, I do not agree with their claims nor appreciate their pressure to sell their product. I believe that I maintain the integrity to make an educated recommendation for each patient that I see.

They then 'condition' us to comply with the recommendations that fill the coffers of their industry's sponsors.

Oh? I can't think of a good reason to recommend something just to get free coffee mugs. I suppose there are some veterinarians that may do that - but they are not representative of the profession.

Next time there is an AVA Conference take a look at the program and see how much sponsorship they get - and from whom!

I suppose next you will tell me that all veterinary students have been brainwashed by the very same companies. Appreciating and accepting sponsorship and support does not automatically result in an obligation to completely accept of a companies products, ethics or practices.

For example:

Hills Pet Nutrition sponsor a dinner for 3rd year Veterinary Students to mark the "half-way" point of their course. Students are asked to complete a weekly multiple choice quiz - the more responses, the higher the $ value of sponsorship. This activity has much more to do with team work on the part of the students than pressure from the company. Hills Pet Nutrition also generously sponsor information sessions (and supply food) for students that they might find relevant - and that have nothing to do with pet food or nutrition - such as finding employment, or inviting local veterinarian or visiting specialists to talk to students.

Let's not forget that the aim of sponsoring something or someone is usually because otherwise, there wouldn't be sufficient funds for it to happen. The AVA Conferences are occasions like that - inviting international speakers, providing quality venues, literature and so on costs money. If the members were to pay for it all through their registration fees, it just wouldn't happen.

I for one and grateful for the assistance of the companies to which you refer, but it does not, under any circumstance make ME feel that I owe them anything except a simple "Thankyou" of appreciation.

[DoBeRMaNN]

lol@salesperson thats bullcrap

[White Shepherd mom]

I used to give my two the annual heartworm injection without a problem. Then I changed to Sentinel Spectrum so as to take care of heartworm, fleas and worms in one go. Three months later, Casper had his first seizure. The vet told me to stop giving the Sentinel but also suggested I no longer give the annual heartworm injection as his immune system was now compromised and if he had a bad reaction to the vaccine, he would be stuck with it in his system for 12 months.