CandoAviary wrote:
Even before the studies done by Dr. Rob Marshall that created S76 based on his studies of killing air sac mites. There was Morning Bird Iverlux that was the product on the market to kill mites. They happen to contain the same ingredients...
Correct - Iverlux (Morning Bird) and S76 (Rob Marshall) are identical in ingredients and composition and they were developed independently based on studies performed in Australia regarding the use of Ivermectin in the treatment of Air Sac and other internal and external parasites.
I'm pretty sure Dr. Marshall 'designed' the product based on those previous studies because there are no ASM "research papers" published by Dr. Marshall in any avian health journals (that I can find).
S76 was actually developed prior to Morning Bird because Dr. Marshall is in Australia where birds are predominantly exposed or indicated as threatened by the parasites.
CandoAviary wrote:I believe you offer this product for sale and I would hope that you would sell it to someone with a bird suffering from ASM... though I am sure you would not encourage the purchase just to make money. Of course without being a veternarian or examining the bird in hand how would you ever know if the product was indeed necessary.
I offer and sell Iverlux because I always treat incoming birds for ASM during
quarantine but not as a routine treatment. The only thing I do not sell that I use commonly during quarantine is Baycox and SCATT.
I prefer SCATT but most people like the convenience of Iverlux and I do not have a distributor agreement for the company that manufactures SCATT - I always indicate it as my preference and offer Iverlux as an alternative.
The difference is I certainly would never advise (as LG.com does) to treat birds persistently during breeding and molting which would result in roughly 8+ solid months of treatment out of an entire year (better to maybe just hook a constant drip IV of Ivermectin up to the birds??), and continued treatment monthly even after that.
When anyone approaches me at a booth or emails me with respect to ASM I tell them the same story I stick to here.
I always explain to people my personal opinion on the matter and as others have said - if their cup of tea is to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on medicating their birds with this stuff for something that very well might not be a problem, then that's their prerogative.
However, I still feel it is my responsibility to explain my position to them in so far as I do not buy into the drama or doom and gloom associated with "ASM infestations" in domestic captive bred US Gouldian populations.
I still, however, will stand behind my decision to treat incoming birds because you "just never know." And I treat incoming birds for almost everything, not just ASM.
CandoAviary wrote:I think the theory behind routine medicating is very much like routine dosing your dogs with a topical flea treatment/prevenative.. Just in case the dog does come in contact with fleas that it won't turn into a flea infestation problem for the dog. The fleas would die before they could reproduce and lay more eggs that would in turn hatch and feed off the dog which could easily affect the dogs health. This regular monthly dosing is to keep the number of the parasites in check.
You're right, it is, but I also do not routinely treat my dog for fleas and ticks. I used to - but I found it to be a waste of money because none of my animals have ever had problems with fleas or ticks with or without the medication.
And here is the million dollar difference. There has been years and years and
years of studies and research done on flea and tick treatment and prevention because, let's face it, dogs and cats are common household pets and have been for centuries, and fleas and ticks are not only a concern for the animals but also for people; as fleas will bite people if the dog is not around, are known to harbor and spread diseases (black plague was spread by fleas on rats) and ticks transmit Lymes disease.
The difference with a flea and ticket topical treatment is that it is proven to prevent reinfection for up to a month.
Iverlux (S76) is not proven or indicated to prevent reinfection but only to address an existing infection. So, treating a bird with Ivermectin (in the form of S76 or Iverlux) will only address an existing problem, it will not prevent a future one.
So the logic applied to treating constantly to "prevent" them is no different than saying I'm going to treat my birds persistently with Ronivet in the hopes "preventing" a protozoal infection.
It's a fundamentally flawed argument.
