[Wylie's Mom]

I think it's absolutely great to question the norm and the "way we do things". Otherwise, we'd never advance from anything to anywhere else. So hopefully this thread will muster up some good discussion.

To augment this discussion, I've attached some incidence maps from 2007 and 2010 below.

I'm in Arizona...you can see that our incidence is very low. Regardless, I choose to treat my kiddos rather than risk them getting heartworm. Ivermectin is a broad spectrum antiparasitic that I feel is much less toxic, monthly, than the risk/toxicity of getting the actual disease and the subsequent treatment w/ arsenic.

Here's a little story. About 5 years ago, we found a GORGEOUS female black lab stray in our neighborhood - beautiful temperament, trained, purebred. We tried to find her owners for weeks, to no avail. Some friends ended up adopting her. At their first comprehensive vet check, they found out she had heartworm...which is/was an utter shock given I can't imagine a dog contracting it here in our dry, non-mosquito DESERT where we live. But, she had it. What are the chances? SO SLIM to none. I cannot tell you how glad I was that I happened to be treating for the just-in-case heartworm disease. The lab, Ella, went through just horrendous treatments to get rid of it - it was treated w/ arsenic, which is typical. Some will say that the "slow kill" version of treatment is effective, but there is also evidence/thought that it is not. Either way, they elected to go the arsenic route as recommended by 2 different vets.

Personally, I don't ever want to risk my dogs having to go through treatment for heartworm disease.

Sure, every med has potential side effects, and every med on the planet will likely and unfortunately result in some very rare deaths. In terms of Ivermectin, any severe poisonings due to it seem to be related to a gene anomaly in that particular dog. For my dogs personally, I don't observe any side effects whatsoever. Can some effects be happening, but not observable? Sure. But again, the risk/benefit outweighs the risk of getting the disease for my dogs.

As far as the warning that if ingested by humans, a doc should be seen immediately: I need more information. It could be that on ANY dog/animal med, it's required to have that disclaimer (I don't know). It could be that, genetically, heartworm meds metabolize differently in humans than in dogs. So, unless I know more about that part -- it really means nothing to me presently.

I respect the choices of others to do what's best for their pets and who knows, maybe someday I'll be against heartworm meds bc of new information...but for now, I'm for the prevention of heartworm that these meds offer.