Removing Ticks
Spring will be here soon and the ticks will soon be showing their heads. Here is a good way to get them off you, your children, or your pets. Give it a try.
Please forward to anyone with children... or hunters or dogs, or anyone who even steps outside in summer!!
A School Nurse has written the info below -- good enough to share -- And it really works!!
I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. This is great, because it works in those places where it's some times difficult to get to with tweezers: between toes, in the middle of a head full of dark hair, etc.
Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tick with the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20), the tick will come out on its own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. This technique has worked every time I've used it (and that was frequently), and it's much less traumatic for the patient and easier for me.
Unless someone is allergic to soap, I can't see that this would be damaging in any way. I even had my doctor's wife call me for advice because she had one stuck to her back and she couldn't reach it with tweezers. She used this method and immediately called me back to say, "It worked!"
Please pass on. Everyone needs this helpful hint.
The Official Blog of The Animal Guardian Society.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A Major Cause of Canine Disease
A Major Cause of Canine Disease
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies 1,2 to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence. The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
Go to link below for complete article
http://odriscollhealthcare.weebly.com/vaccine-science.html
A team at Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine conducted several studies 1,2 to determine if vaccines can cause changes in the immune system of dogs that might lead to life-threatening immune-mediated diseases. They obviously conducted this research because concern already existed. It was sponsored by the Haywood Foundation which itself was looking for evidence that such changes in the human immune system might also be vaccine induced. It found the evidence. The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.
Go to link below for complete article
http://odriscollhealthcare.weebly.com/vaccine-science.html
Heartworm by Jeffrey Levy. DVM
Heartworm by Jeffrey Levy. DVM
Heartworm Meds Danger -
This parasite is a source of great anxiety among dog caretakers. Thanks in large part to the scare tactics of many veterinarians in promoting preventive drugs, many people believe that contracting heartworms is the equivalent of a death sentence for their dogs. This is not true.
I practiced for seven years in the Santa Cruz, California area, and treated many dogs with heartworms. The only dogs that developed symptoms of heart failure were those that were being vaccinated yearly, eating commercial dog food, and getting suppressive drug treatment for other symptoms, such as skin problems. My treatment, at that time, consisted of switching to a natural (that is, homemade) diet, stopping drug treatment whenever possible, and eliminating any chemical exposure, such as flea and tick poisons. I would usually prescribe hawthorn tincture as well. None of these dogs ever developed any symptoms of heart failure. (danger of: vaccines, commercial petfood, and antibiotics)
I concluded from this that it was not the heartworms that caused disease, but the other factors that damaged the dogs' health to the point that they could no longer compensate for an otherwise tolerable parasite load. It is not really that different from the common intestinal roundworms, in that most dogs do not show any symptoms. Only a dog whose health is compromised is unable to tolerate a few worms. Furthermore, a truly healthy dog would not be susceptible to either type of worm in the first place.
It seems to me that the real problem is that allopathic attitudes have instilled in many of us a fear of disease, fear of pathogens and parasites, fear of rabies, as if these are evil and malicious entities just waiting to lay waste to a naive and unprotected public. Disease is not caused by viruses or by bacteria or by heartworm-bearing mosquitoes. Disease comes from within, and one aspect of disease can be the susceptibility to various pathogens. So the best thing to do is to address those susceptibilities on the deepest possible level, so that the pathogens will no longer be a threat. Most importantly, don't buy into the fear.
That having been said, there are practical considerations of risk versus benefit in considering heartworm prevention. The risk of a dog contracting heartworms is directly related to geographic location. In heavily infested areas the risk is higher, and the prospect of using a preventive drug more justifiable. Whatever you choose to do, a yearly blood test for heartworm microfilaria is important.
There are basically three choices with regard to heartworm prevention: drugs, nosodes, or nothing. There are currently a variety of heartworm preventive drugs, most of which are given monthly. I don't like any of them due to their toxicity, the frequency of side effects, and their tendency to antidote homeopathic remedies. Incidentally, the once-a-month preventives should be given only every 6 weeks.
The next option is the heartworm nosode. It has the advantage of at least not being a toxic drug. It has been in use it for over 10 years now, and I am reasonably confident that it is effective. It is certainly very safe. The biggest problem with the nosode is integrating it with homeopathic treatment. But at least it's less of a problem than with the drugs.
The last option, and in my opinion the best, is to do nothing. That is to say, do nothing to specifically prevent heartworm, but rather to minimize the chances of infestation by helping your dog to be healthier, and thereby less susceptible. This means avoiding those things that are detrimental to health, feeding a high quality homemade diet, regular exercise, a healthy emotional environment, and, most of all, constitutional homeopathic treatment. Of course, this will not guarantee that your dog will not get heartworms, but, under these conditions, even the worst-case scenario isn't so terrible. If your dog were to get heartworms, s/he shouldn't develop any symptoms as a result. For what it's worth, I never gave my dog any type of heartworm preventive, even when we lived in the Santa Cruz area where heartworms were very prevalent. I tested him yearly, and he never had a problem.
Heartworm Meds Danger -
This parasite is a source of great anxiety among dog caretakers. Thanks in large part to the scare tactics of many veterinarians in promoting preventive drugs, many people believe that contracting heartworms is the equivalent of a death sentence for their dogs. This is not true.
I practiced for seven years in the Santa Cruz, California area, and treated many dogs with heartworms. The only dogs that developed symptoms of heart failure were those that were being vaccinated yearly, eating commercial dog food, and getting suppressive drug treatment for other symptoms, such as skin problems. My treatment, at that time, consisted of switching to a natural (that is, homemade) diet, stopping drug treatment whenever possible, and eliminating any chemical exposure, such as flea and tick poisons. I would usually prescribe hawthorn tincture as well. None of these dogs ever developed any symptoms of heart failure. (danger of: vaccines, commercial petfood, and antibiotics)
I concluded from this that it was not the heartworms that caused disease, but the other factors that damaged the dogs' health to the point that they could no longer compensate for an otherwise tolerable parasite load. It is not really that different from the common intestinal roundworms, in that most dogs do not show any symptoms. Only a dog whose health is compromised is unable to tolerate a few worms. Furthermore, a truly healthy dog would not be susceptible to either type of worm in the first place.
It seems to me that the real problem is that allopathic attitudes have instilled in many of us a fear of disease, fear of pathogens and parasites, fear of rabies, as if these are evil and malicious entities just waiting to lay waste to a naive and unprotected public. Disease is not caused by viruses or by bacteria or by heartworm-bearing mosquitoes. Disease comes from within, and one aspect of disease can be the susceptibility to various pathogens. So the best thing to do is to address those susceptibilities on the deepest possible level, so that the pathogens will no longer be a threat. Most importantly, don't buy into the fear.
That having been said, there are practical considerations of risk versus benefit in considering heartworm prevention. The risk of a dog contracting heartworms is directly related to geographic location. In heavily infested areas the risk is higher, and the prospect of using a preventive drug more justifiable. Whatever you choose to do, a yearly blood test for heartworm microfilaria is important.
There are basically three choices with regard to heartworm prevention: drugs, nosodes, or nothing. There are currently a variety of heartworm preventive drugs, most of which are given monthly. I don't like any of them due to their toxicity, the frequency of side effects, and their tendency to antidote homeopathic remedies. Incidentally, the once-a-month preventives should be given only every 6 weeks.
The next option is the heartworm nosode. It has the advantage of at least not being a toxic drug. It has been in use it for over 10 years now, and I am reasonably confident that it is effective. It is certainly very safe. The biggest problem with the nosode is integrating it with homeopathic treatment. But at least it's less of a problem than with the drugs.
The last option, and in my opinion the best, is to do nothing. That is to say, do nothing to specifically prevent heartworm, but rather to minimize the chances of infestation by helping your dog to be healthier, and thereby less susceptible. This means avoiding those things that are detrimental to health, feeding a high quality homemade diet, regular exercise, a healthy emotional environment, and, most of all, constitutional homeopathic treatment. Of course, this will not guarantee that your dog will not get heartworms, but, under these conditions, even the worst-case scenario isn't so terrible. If your dog were to get heartworms, s/he shouldn't develop any symptoms as a result. For what it's worth, I never gave my dog any type of heartworm preventive, even when we lived in the Santa Cruz area where heartworms were very prevalent. I tested him yearly, and he never had a problem.
Are You Poisoning Your Pet with Toxic Flea and Tick Products?
Are You Poisoning Your Pet with Toxic Flea and Tick Products?
Each year, Americans purchase and apply to their pets a vast array of toxic chemicals intended to kill fleas and ticks. These include collars, sprays, 100% Safe Natural Organic Flea and Tick control for all animalsdusts and more. Other pet owners take their pets to veterinarians to be dipped in chemicals. Many consumers probably assume that the products they and their vets use have been subjected to rigorous testing, and must, by virtue of their very ubiquity, be safe. After all, how could the government let deadly poisons be sold on grocery store Natural Organic Flea and Tick Control for All Animalsshelves without applying stringent standards?
Spot-On Pesticides such as Frontline, Zodiac, Defend, Bio Spot, Adams and Advantage trigger adverse reactions in dogs and cats, shorten life spans, cause terminal illness, and premature death. . The active ingredients in these solutions include chemicals such as imidacloprid, fipronil, permethrin, methoprene, and pyriproxyfen, all of which have caused serious health problems in animals in laboratories.2 Even some of the inert ingredients can be hazardous to your animal companion’s health. Other forms of flea control—powders, collars, and sprays—are no less dangerous to you or your companion animals. Labels may warn not to get these substances on your skin, to wash your hands after applying it, and to keep it away from children, yet these chemicals are absorbed by your animal’s skin. Immediate effects of pesticide overdose include vomiting, diarrhea, trembling, seizures, and respiratory problems. If your dog or cat shows any of these symptoms after the application of a pesticide, immediately wash the product off and seek veterinary care. Learn about Safe and Effective Flea, Tick and Lice Prenvention and Eradication
Each year, Americans purchase and apply to their pets a vast array of toxic chemicals intended to kill fleas and ticks. These include collars, sprays, 100% Safe Natural Organic Flea and Tick control for all animalsdusts and more. Other pet owners take their pets to veterinarians to be dipped in chemicals. Many consumers probably assume that the products they and their vets use have been subjected to rigorous testing, and must, by virtue of their very ubiquity, be safe. After all, how could the government let deadly poisons be sold on grocery store Natural Organic Flea and Tick Control for All Animalsshelves without applying stringent standards?
Spot-On Pesticides such as Frontline, Zodiac, Defend, Bio Spot, Adams and Advantage trigger adverse reactions in dogs and cats, shorten life spans, cause terminal illness, and premature death. . The active ingredients in these solutions include chemicals such as imidacloprid, fipronil, permethrin, methoprene, and pyriproxyfen, all of which have caused serious health problems in animals in laboratories.2 Even some of the inert ingredients can be hazardous to your animal companion’s health. Other forms of flea control—powders, collars, and sprays—are no less dangerous to you or your companion animals. Labels may warn not to get these substances on your skin, to wash your hands after applying it, and to keep it away from children, yet these chemicals are absorbed by your animal’s skin. Immediate effects of pesticide overdose include vomiting, diarrhea, trembling, seizures, and respiratory problems. If your dog or cat shows any of these symptoms after the application of a pesticide, immediately wash the product off and seek veterinary care. Learn about Safe and Effective Flea, Tick and Lice Prenvention and Eradication
Friday, April 16, 2010
Help Find Tommy
LOST
BRING TOMMY HOME
REWARD!!!!!
Our beloved TOMMY, a 9 year old, 45 pound, friendly, German Shepherd, is LOST.
Last seen Thursday, April 15 at 9pm AT 23 BOYTON RD IN THE DAVISVILLE VILLAGE AREA.
Tommy is microchipped.
If you see him or find him, please call 416-484-1108 or 647-296-5647.
BRING TOMMY HOME
REWARD!!!!!
Our beloved TOMMY, a 9 year old, 45 pound, friendly, German Shepherd, is LOST.
Last seen Thursday, April 15 at 9pm AT 23 BOYTON RD IN THE DAVISVILLE VILLAGE AREA.
Tommy is microchipped.
If you see him or find him, please call 416-484-1108 or 647-296-5647.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Bake Sale a Success!!
Thanks to Elaine for putting this together and everyone who donated baking and
came out and made a purchase!
The Sale raised over $500.00, awesome!!!
Since we have been hit with some high vet care lately this will be a huge help!!
Love our TAGS Team, what a great bunch of Volunteers who give so much of themselves
for the animals!
came out and made a purchase!
The Sale raised over $500.00, awesome!!!
Since we have been hit with some high vet care lately this will be a huge help!!
Love our TAGS Team, what a great bunch of Volunteers who give so much of themselves
for the animals!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Humane Society
From the Toronto Sun today:
Animals are biggest losers in Humane Society dispute: Worthington
By Peter Worthington
After months of turmoil, arrests for alleged cruelty, accusations hurled back and forth, the Toronto Humane Society is back in control ... of the Toronto Humane Society.
The OSPCA “raided” and took over the THS some six months ago, removing its president, head veterinarian and others in handcuffs, charging them with cruelty.
As hearings were to go before the Ontario Superior Court to have the THS board of directors thrown out, a deal was cut with the OSPCA for the board to resign.
Instead, the THS will take over control of their animal shelter and shut it down for two months, cleaning up the joint, re-training staff, and electing a new board of directors whom Justice David Brown urged to show “vigilance and diligence” to ensure things don’t get out of control.
So what’s the net result of the crisis that shocked the local animal world?
Eleven hundred animals housed in the shelter at the time of the celebrated OSPCA raid — well-attended by media who’d been forewarned — have been reduced to around 200. Most of these will be disposed of before the THS re-opens.
So what has happened to the other 900 animals?
The OSPCA says some were adopted, some went into foster care, some to the OSPCA, some to Toronto Animal Services (TAS). The sick or injured were euthanized.
Put bluntly, it seems a safe bet that most of the animals were put down — killed, because that’s what the OSPCA and TAS does best. Gone, forever, is the THS’ reluctance to kill. Its celebrated 7% kill rate under President Tim Trow is no more. It’s likely to rise to the 50% rate of other shelters.
Go ask the TAS what cats and dogs they have for adoption. They’ll likely tell you none are available at the moment and that they euthanize on Fridays — which is fair enough, since the TAS is more a pound than an animal care centre.
At the time it was raided, THS policy was not to kill healthy animals even those that couldn’t be adopted. Volunteers walked dogs daily, and there was a foster care program for others. Adoption more or less hinged on what the person could pay.
In this sense it was more “humane” that many humane societies.
Even on Monday, THS spokesman Ian McConachie assured the public that animals are not being destroyed. “We are not abandoning the animals in our care and simply putting them down.”
No question, the THS erred on the side of not killing — even for animals it would be humane to euthanize. Directors may have been negligent, inattentive or wrong, but proving “cruelty” may be difficult.
In short, if the THS couldn’t get a dog or cat adopted, no one could. Torontonians who pay attention to animals, know this.
Which is why I’m uneasy about the Association to Reform the Toronto Humane Society (ART), which wants the current board members banned from running for election again.
Not very “democratic.” There’s a vigilante or vindictive quality to ART.
A new board may well include people like acting President Bob Hambley, who for decades has served on THS boards, and seems ideal for bridging the gap.
Some 3,000 THS members should know the personalities of those they elect, just as they know most of the animals the OSPCA rescued form THS “cruelty” have likely since been dispatched to the Great Kennel in the Sky. Some rescue!
*
Animals are biggest losers in Humane Society dispute: Worthington
By Peter Worthington
After months of turmoil, arrests for alleged cruelty, accusations hurled back and forth, the Toronto Humane Society is back in control ... of the Toronto Humane Society.
The OSPCA “raided” and took over the THS some six months ago, removing its president, head veterinarian and others in handcuffs, charging them with cruelty.
As hearings were to go before the Ontario Superior Court to have the THS board of directors thrown out, a deal was cut with the OSPCA for the board to resign.
Instead, the THS will take over control of their animal shelter and shut it down for two months, cleaning up the joint, re-training staff, and electing a new board of directors whom Justice David Brown urged to show “vigilance and diligence” to ensure things don’t get out of control.
So what’s the net result of the crisis that shocked the local animal world?
Eleven hundred animals housed in the shelter at the time of the celebrated OSPCA raid — well-attended by media who’d been forewarned — have been reduced to around 200. Most of these will be disposed of before the THS re-opens.
So what has happened to the other 900 animals?
The OSPCA says some were adopted, some went into foster care, some to the OSPCA, some to Toronto Animal Services (TAS). The sick or injured were euthanized.
Put bluntly, it seems a safe bet that most of the animals were put down — killed, because that’s what the OSPCA and TAS does best. Gone, forever, is the THS’ reluctance to kill. Its celebrated 7% kill rate under President Tim Trow is no more. It’s likely to rise to the 50% rate of other shelters.
Go ask the TAS what cats and dogs they have for adoption. They’ll likely tell you none are available at the moment and that they euthanize on Fridays — which is fair enough, since the TAS is more a pound than an animal care centre.
At the time it was raided, THS policy was not to kill healthy animals even those that couldn’t be adopted. Volunteers walked dogs daily, and there was a foster care program for others. Adoption more or less hinged on what the person could pay.
In this sense it was more “humane” that many humane societies.
Even on Monday, THS spokesman Ian McConachie assured the public that animals are not being destroyed. “We are not abandoning the animals in our care and simply putting them down.”
No question, the THS erred on the side of not killing — even for animals it would be humane to euthanize. Directors may have been negligent, inattentive or wrong, but proving “cruelty” may be difficult.
In short, if the THS couldn’t get a dog or cat adopted, no one could. Torontonians who pay attention to animals, know this.
Which is why I’m uneasy about the Association to Reform the Toronto Humane Society (ART), which wants the current board members banned from running for election again.
Not very “democratic.” There’s a vigilante or vindictive quality to ART.
A new board may well include people like acting President Bob Hambley, who for decades has served on THS boards, and seems ideal for bridging the gap.
Some 3,000 THS members should know the personalities of those they elect, just as they know most of the animals the OSPCA rescued form THS “cruelty” have likely since been dispatched to the Great Kennel in the Sky. Some rescue!
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)