Quote:
Originally Posted by margaritaville  I don't really see much RESEARCH there. What I see is a lot a statistics re:heart worm prevalence,a lot of opinions, scare tactics and product promotion.
The last dog we had was on heart worm prevention, monthly. He died at 17 1/2yrs. I feel sad to think, I poisoned him all those years, he may have lived to be 100 
So, even in light of this "research", I choose to continue with the heart worm medication And Im out of this thread.  . <----- 2 healthy yorkies on heart worm protection |
Exactly why I laughed at the idea that I cannot read. The only thing I derived from that paper is that the author suggests that the reason vets encourage year round prevention is for money. Most of the paper is spent commenting on when to recommend heartworm prevention. He acknowledged that heartworms are a real threat....he was making a point that prevention is not needed year round (a fact that is already known).
The author of that paper did NOT say to test your pups every four months and then, if positive, give a heartworm preventative (that clearly will be too late). So, in my mind, I am not the one who is having a reading comprehension issue and sounding ludicrous.
What people fail to think about is that it is extremely difficult for vets to get people to bring their pups to them. Many times by the time a person gets a pet to the vet is it often extremely ill because it was not taken for routine check ups. I have spoken with my vet about this issue and she was clear about the fact that it breaks her heart to see pets come in sickly when it could have been prevented or at least picked up sooner had the owner not skipped routine check ups.
BTW, we all know that some vets are motivated by money; but I choose to believe that most of them truly love animals and act in the best interest of those animals.