Good medicine or profiteering?

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:52:13 GMT

Thankfully my catchment area is suburban, so as long as a wormer does toxocara and angiostrongylus I'm fine Practices not far away whose patients are exercised either on the marshes or up the valleys also have major hydatid and tick problems, so a fully comprehensive programme is far more difficult for them

Wynne

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Bob Russell — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:34:06 GMT

I struggle to have confidence in a product that claims to treat ear mites but fails and claims to treat demodex and also fails. I admit I have not used it for years and use Milbemax routinely.

Via the jungle drums I have heard that a practice in the area had a confirmed lungworm death recently (apparently a working gundog) but this was being treated with Advocate (preventative). This is gossip rather than fact!

As this is a major tick area the priorities are flea and tick prevention.

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:44:53 GMT

PS Routine surgeries all given Advocate 1 week before-unless I trust the owner in which case they're given panacur, but with Advicate at least I know it's had it-because I've applied it May seem contradictory to my previous post that I prefer Panacur, but it's a case of choosing the best for the individual dog

Wynne

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:41:25 GMT

I've had a couple(not many ) clinicalcases after Advocate-but I am in such a high risk area that the challenge here is extreme-Advocate is probably sufficient in most places

Wynne

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:28:00 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Not really One of the few (very very few ) times I think I'm justified in going against the cascade [/quote] Are you suggesting Advocate is not much good at treatment or prevention as well. I treat clinical cases successfully with Panacur but I would like to believe Advocate is good for prevention from the amount we sell!

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:49:50 GMT

My previous practice was in a high risk area for lungworm, and before I started they had 2 animals with post-op haemorrhaging due to lungworm, so practice policy was that all dogs were treated with Advocate 2 weeks before elective surgery. We also strongly recommended long-term treatment, and they would have had a discussion about lungworm and Advocate at 1st and/or 2nd vacc.

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:04:45 GMT

Not really One of the few (very very few ) times I think I'm justified in going against the cascade My prefered wormimg regime is milbemax (normal dose ) 1 month and 7 days of 1/2 strength panacur the next I find this very effective for prophylaxis-though for treatment of clinical cases you need 21 days panacur Advocate is better than nothing if owners won't pay for the above + frontline

Wynne

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Bob Russell — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:44:18 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

If the animal has lungworm applying it post op is far too late

Wynne

[/quote]

You are clearly in a high risk area Wynne. Do you rate Advocate highly? I have found it a less than impressive performer for other tasks it is supposed to do. Is it really good at treating lungworm.

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:33:21 GMT

If the animal has lungworm applying it post op is far too late

Wynne

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Rajat — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:26:59 GMT

sorry I meant totally agree with only the crazy bit not the latter bit- misquoted it!

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Rajat — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:26:12 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

If they were selling it with a view to preventing post op complications then it is crazy, if they are using it as an opportune moment to reinforce flea and worm control why not?

[/quote]

Totally agree- crazy AND misleading AND unethical- preying on the client's fear of post op haemorrhage to sell a product is not right - even if it is a sensible product to use longterm- and when the bitch has recovered, client's prob feel the risk of haemorrhage is gone so will stop using it, eh?

And why sell it at spay, and not at first/second vax?

Re: Good medicine or profiteering?

Mark Holmes — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:14:12 GMT

If they were selling it with a view to preventing post op complications then it is crazy, if they are using it as an opportune moment to reinforce flea and worm control why not?