I am writing a couple of articles for www.best4pets.org about heartworm treatment, prevention, costs, etc. and came across some interesting information.
I want to ask those of you who work with animals every day and those who just love animals to give me your opinions on a question and to let you know I will probably use a few of those in the articles. (I will not use your name without prior email or messenger authorization).
Suppose for a minute I created a drug that was half the cost of standard heartworm treatment and was preparing to market it. It worked great and the cost was fantastic. This would truly impact HW infection rates, help animals get adopted easier, etc. BUT…
Then you learn that to prove how well my drug worked I had taken 30 dogs and created a group to be treated and a control group. All dogs were healthy and heartworm free. I infected them with heartworm and then tested them over time. Once they were proven infected, I began treatment on half and continued testing monthly.
At the end of 6 months of treatment, I killed all the dogs and did autopsies to see how well the drug worked. NOTE: this way absolutely proves which dogs had heartworms and which were cured. Yes, a test would likely prove it too, but could still be called into question.
So, if it saves thousands of animals is it worth it to you still? Is there a better way? Especially those of you who have scientific educations and love animals please respond!
But PLEASE provide reasoned opinions about this. We all love the animals and I cannot tell you my opinion, as it might skew some opinions of others. Remember I come from healthcare (RN) and I foster and rescue animals on a regular basis.
Also, please remember that spewing outrage does nothing to change the plight of the animals. Only people like you and I taking real action on the ground or with our donations can do that. Thanks to each of you and as always, For The Animals.