Labradoodle & Goldendoodle Forum

Hi everyone,

I was looking a breeder's website (not my breeder) but it stated that anyone who purchased a puppy from them would invalidate their health guarantee  warranty by giving their puppy nexguard, bravecto, comfortis  and any internal flea prevention.  I thought that was strange.  It stated due to reports regarding kidney and liver damage.  I haven't heard this before.  

Views: 276

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was just looking at the vet medication website, and I see that Bravecto now has a topical medication. It's the same drug, fluralaner, and it is still supposed to be effective for 12 weeks. I think this is a new application, or I would have noticed. I'm curious if anyone has any insight to the pros and cons of the ingested vs. topical if it's the same drug. My understanding (which may be completely wrong) is that the topical is still systemic, ie it gets into their glands or something, and that's why they can have a bath and it doesn't wash off.

I'm reasonably comfortable with the medications I've chosen. All drugs, no matter how benign are going to have an adverse effect for someone somewhere. But then every time I hear something new I worry again!

I deleted my answer and did a little research.
Fluralaner, Afoxolaner, and Sarolaner are the isoxazolines in Bravecto, Nexgard and Simparica, respectively. 
I don;t know if they are safer given topically than orally. The FDA warning does not make a distinction. Jeter's breeder also doesn't make the distinction. Agree not to use these products period or she won't sell you a puppy, lol. 

I was just going to say that. Isoxazoline is the class of drug. All of these new flea and tick meds fall into the class.

It's interesting. I feel like there should be some logic behind creating a new drug to do the same thing that the old one did perfectly well. Preferably beyond just making more money for the pharmaceutical companies. Why do vets recommend Sentinel or Nexgard or ProHeart6 over Heartgard or whichever? How do they make that determination, especially if they aren't getting kickbacks from the drug companies. And it's especially egregious if they are making their recommendations based on kickbacks. Why Bravecto over Simparica, or the other way around? I don't have a good answer to that. I know that for many diseases one drug in a class won't be as effective for one person as another, and it's just down to individual differences. But if Heartgard equally protects all dogs from heart worms, why did they even look for something different? Sometimes I feel like I must be missing some of the data. But I have a vet so I don't have to do the research myself. I just can't read all the literature!

I feel like at some point you have to trust your vet, or fire them and find another. I know Jasper has an amazing breeder, but a lot of breeders put things in their contracts that are in the best interest of themselves and not the dogs. Katie's "warranty" was only in effect if I continued to buy MLM vitamins from the breeder. Hey, that's great for her. She either makes money off me indefinitely, or she doesn't have to stand behind her breeding if something goes wrong. You know how I feel about that woman, but it seems like a lot of breeders are specifying that you have to buy the MLM dog food and vitamins forever. She's not alone. Or the breeder that specifies that the dog has to be returned for them to honor the guarantee. Who is really going to do that? It's like I'm promising you something, but I'm going to make it so difficult that I'll never have to live up to my end of it. 

Anyway, I'm not saying that these drugs are good or safe, or that they're better than anything else out there. It just gets my brain going. One of those things that makes you go hmmm. And once I start thinking my brain goes all over the place!

I don't think there is any benefit to any breeder in specifying that you must not use X flea/tick preventative on your dog. The breeder isn't selling anything or getting a kickback for anything or making any commission, like they are when they say you must feed Life's Abundance or give Nu Vet vitamins. To me, saying "don't use X" is very different; it shows that the breeder is concerned about the welfare of her dogs. I've actually seen a top cat breeder stipulate that you must feed a raw diet. I've seen top (and I mean TOP) GSD breeders stipulate that you must not neuter one of her dogs before 18 months. These things make me think more of a breeder, not less. The ones who will sell to anyone and don't give a darn what you do with the pup once they get the money, those are the ones I look down on. 
I agree with you about the ones who want you to return the dog if there is a health issue that falls under the warranty. They know no one is going to do that. But I respect and admire the breeders who take their dogs back if you ever have to rehome them otherwise. And 10 years with DRC has shown me that very very few doodle breeders will take the dog back or assist in rehoming, even when their contracts say they will. 
I wonder about the reasons vets recommend one product over another, too. They do make a profit on the sales, just like they do with the RX foods. I don;t know if the profits are higher on one product over anyother; maybe they get a better deal on X, etc. I also wouldn't bet any money about them NOT getting kickbacks for the sales of prevents. 
As for trusting vets, I trust mine as much as I can trust any vet after what happened to Jack. Not 100% on everything, (0% on food, but that's ALL vets) and not without asking for a reason when something doesn't make sense to me or asking for options just because I like to know what my choices are.  
I can understand the need for alternative products in some cases. Collies and related breeds (including Australian Shepherds, Aussiedoodle owners!) can have a genetic mutation that causes them to have adverse reactions to ivermectin, so Heartgard is out for them. I also understand that some people are freaked out by the spot-on prevents. I don;t understand WHY they are, but I know they are, so I can understand why the manufacturers developed orals. And once one company has an oral, the competition has to get in on that market, lol. 

I totally agree with you that I respect the breeders who care about the health and well being of their dogs beyond the sale. I think it's good to find a breeder who you are on the same page with in regards to the health of the dog. I could definitely live without the medications your breeder doesn't like. But what if you didn't feel that what the breeder wanted was in the best interest of your dog? They might want you to vaccinate yearly for lepto or pediatric spay and neuter (though I think that's a whole different can of worms.) I guess we just have to find a breeder whose ideas mesh with ours. At the end of the day I think I'm a pretty good dog mom and there aren't too many people who could argue about the way I take care of my girls. 

I'm a lot like you. I do question, though I don't always get the answers I'm looking for. And I'm cautiously trusting, but that doesn't mean I don't do my own research. I can't imagine the next dog I have who needs to be spayed. I'm going to be a disaster. I don't know how anyone ever gets over stuff like that. 

I think people are freaked out by the spot treatments because they think that they are getting treated with flea and tick medication when they pet their pooch, or when they sleep with them. I personally like the orals because it's not as messy. They always end up with a greasy spot, no matter how careful I am. I'm always open to change my mind about which medication to use though.   I do wonder how long an evolutionary change to fleas would take - they reproduce very quickly. I wish we could just get rid of fleas and ticks and be done with it. I can't see any use for those nasty buggers in the world.

It's Jasper's sire's breeder, not Jasper's breeder, who specifies about the flea/tick stuff in her contract. But Jasper's breeder loved that I titered Jack rather than vaccinating, and I think that helped my relationship with her. I also think it helped my chances of getting a puppy some day from his sire's breeder, which is not an easy thing to do. 
I think the kinds of breeders who worry about these things are not ever going to want things like ESN or yearly vaccinations. I think if anything they are going to lean too far to the alternative medicine side for me. If a breeder wanted me not to use ANY prevents, or to use some alternative folk methods like diatomaceous earth or apple cider vinegar to ward off fleas, I would have a problem, lol. So your point is well taken, because I don't feel like those things are in the best interests of my dog any more than the yearly vacs.  Yes, I think you have to find a breeder whose ideas mesh well with yours. It amazes me when people fixate on getting a certain color & size puppy at a certain date and ignore all kinds of red flags about the breeder because they don't want to wait for a better fit. But I honestly think the vast majority of puppy buyers are like that.  

I know that people also say that fleas have developed a resistance to Frontline. That makes very little sense to me, because it would involve physiological changes in new generations of fleas, lol, and that doesn't happen so fast. I also know that fleas would have been catastrophic for Jack because of his allergies, and all of his vets and specialists still felt comfortable with my using Frontline on him. And it was effective for him. But I do think that idea/belief about resistance to some of the older products could be behind the development of these new (and apparently stronger?) products. 

I was told years ago by JD's dermatology vet that the oldest prevents are the safest. They have been around long enough for issues to have shown up. You will notice that you are not hearing anything "new" about Heartgard or Frontline, lol. 

I agree with that.  Murph is on Revolution instead of Heartgard because of his IBD.  I learned yesterday that they have just released a "new and improved" version which will now supposedly be effective against heartworm, fleas, intestinal parasites, AND TICS.  That in theory would mean I could stop the Frontline.  Until there is data to support this, I will continue to use both...I'm not ready to take that leap of faith.

Is that a topical? I would be interested in hearing how your vet feels about the efficacy of this is as time goes by. It would be nice to just have one medication cover everything, I think.

Revolution is a topical and according to JD's derm vet, the safest prevent around. But with drugs and chemicals, "safer" seems to equal "less effective" in some cases.

It's a hard decision to make sometimes. I'm particularly afraid of fleas and ticks, but obviously I don't want them to get heart worms either. But sometimes I wonder how much risk they are really at for heart worms. I see dogs at the shelter who are being treated for heart worms, but my dogs are not outdoor dogs. Their exposure time is much shorter. I'm not going to take a chance, but sometimes I wonder how a mosquito would get through all that hair anyway.



 Support Doodle Kisses 


DK - Amazon Search Widget

© 2019   Created by Adina P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service