Re read the post if you are still confused. I misread your post to think you were talking about injectable ivermectin in the second sentence. The paste is impossible to dose accurately if it is not diluted.
- I GAVE, dammit!
That is very interesting! I'm assuming this was oral, right? Did you then dose topically with the injectable? You may be proving my point and not realizing it!
The first pig I EVER had that did not respond to the oral ivermectin horse paste was Bosco. I have not had nearly the amount of pigs you have, so that makes sense.
And no, the vet still has not called, and I'm going out of town for a couple days to pick up my newly engined van! YIPPEE! A frigging car, finally.
So perhaps instead of resistant (still not sure of the word) should we say that oral ivermectin MAY prove to be less effective? I'm not advocating dropping the oral method, until Bosco it was all I used.
Apparently Charybdis had pigs not respond to oral ivermectin also. I think she believes that horse paste and injectable are not comparable, but I'm not sure I believe that.
I can say, however, that knowing what I now know, I'll treat all my pigs topically. For me, there is no point dosing for 5 weeks and have to start all over again. I have better things to do with my time and money.
Of course I don't think people should post any information they come across as if it were absolutely true, unless they have proof. I DO think that when we come across new information we should discuss it and research it, learning as much as we can, as we see happening on this thread (which I always thought was the great thing about GL). I assume we have no argument with each other on this, and that we simply miscommunicated (my fault).
As a scholar and a teacher, I know a bit about the dissemination of ideas, and I would never miss out on an opportunity to educate and be educated, even if the topic seemed dangerous. Even as a child, my mother knew that talking about drugs would be more effective than avoiding the topic in a vain effort to 'not give me any ideas'. Red flags went up when, much earlier in this thread, I got the feeling that ideas were being squelched simply because they were new and threatened traditional knowledge. When KM's Ivermectin information came up, it seemed like a great way to learn something (not by taking the info at face value, but by following up with further questioning)... that's all.
It seems now that I may have misunderstood the issue. And I certainly wouldn't argue with the spectacular way some posters responded through research. As E noted, I'm pretty new to GL and probably don't fully understand all the issues involved. Chary, Lynx, and E all seemed to have similar opinions and I, of course, defer to the experts on these matters. I'm just having a hard time seeing where the problem lies when a board like this comes across information that even the experts can learn from. But I don't run a rescue or have to deal with the problems that arise, so again, I defer.
'Taint my board no-ways. :)
- I GAVE, dammit!
My problem, as I see it, was twofold.
1) I don't have at my fingertips the article my vet quoted, so therefore, instead of sound medical advice, it DOES sound like hearsay.
2) I should have, once I had the article, and my own experience with Bosco and Priscilla, started a new thread on this topic alone.
I have no idea why my vet is not calling me back, it makes even ME suspicious. I value her experience and opinions, and it makes me nervous that she is not calling me back. I gave the receptionist the reason I needed the info, that I needed the article's author and the publication.
I'm hoping she's just too busy to do the research, and not that she is avoiding me. I wonder if she thinks I put her on the spot.
And yes, putting it in its own thread might have worked better.
I'm glad there is valuable research information that can help us dose better.