severe mites--need Dex dose quick

Post Reply
Evangeline

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:06 pm


Yes, that's what I was talking about.

User avatar
Lynx
RESIST

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:07 pm


Injectable ivermectin can be given straight effectively if accurately measured.

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.

HollyT
Get on your bike.

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:17 pm


I'm just posting to get to page 10.

User avatar
Paravati
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:20 pm


What is the matchstick method?

As a person who buys her Ivermectin pre-compounded already, I have no idea about any of the hand-mixing methods. Can somebody enlighten me or point me to the right link?

HollyT
Get on your bike.

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:26 pm


It's taking some of the paste straight from the tube and putting it on the end of a matchstick for the pig to lick off.

Just go to the Ivermectin link on the home page.

User avatar
Paravati
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:26 pm


Oh wow. The pig actually licks it off? What if you put too much (or too little) on the end of the matchstick?

Paisley

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:28 pm


Paravati,

The "matchstick method" of dosing with Ivermectin is where one takes a dose of the ivermectin paste the size of a match head and gives it to the animal.

Please note: I do *NOT* recommend this method as it is not an accurate way of dosing Ivermectin.

User avatar
Paravati
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:29 pm


Yeah, now.. See... THAT seems scary to me.

HollyT
Get on your bike.

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:33 pm


Well, on CG they recommend bathing your pig in Lysol for stubborn mite problems. No shit either.

Evangeline

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:48 pm


Please, oh please tell me you're kidding!

HollyT
Get on your bike.

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:52 pm


No I'm not either! All the long time posters say it.

Evangeline

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:53 pm


Why am I not surprised?

HollyT
Get on your bike.

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:01 pm


I sent you an email you won't be suprised about either.

Evangeline

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:06 pm


Nope. Not surprised.

critterluv02

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:16 pm


Chary, how are the little ones doing? The two that I have hear are finally starting to feel relief from their treatments and for the last 3 days have not been having such severe itching fits. Hopefully we will start to see some improvement in their skin and hair regrowth.

User avatar
Paravati
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:37 pm


Hey, I want to see the unsurprising email.

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Thu Aug 21, 2003 10:59 am


>>I know of several pigs who did not respond to the horse paste mixture<<

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.

Bilbrey

Post   » Thu Aug 21, 2003 11:46 am


Charybdis, I think I misrepresented myself. The sentence you quoted from my post does appear pretty ridiculous on its own. Sorry about that.

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. :)

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Thu Aug 21, 2003 12:06 pm


I never expected this info to be taken at face value. We have way too many smart and learned people on this board for that.

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.

User avatar
Lynx
RESIST

Post   » Thu Aug 21, 2003 12:34 pm


Yes, it felt like heresay. The article Paisley found made aspects of your comments more understandable. It also would seem that anyone using the horse paste should use water to mix as there is less carrier to interfere with absorption. And it would seem not further diluting the oral injectable dose would also be wise, though it can be hard to measure accurately. We'll have to give it all some thought. It would be valuable to track down the reference studies in the article to see the data and determine how reputable a journal they appeared in.

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.

Post Reply
383 posts