# Panacure (fenbendazole)



## Homer

Anyone who enjoys reading up on some of the potential health effects of some of the drugs commonly advocated for frogs in some circles might find this report interesting.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/j ... 29je05.htm


----------



## Guest

I've never heard of anyone suggesting the use of *oxfenbendazole* for frogs. Who is doing this?


----------



## Homer

"2.1.1 Absorption, distribution and excretion

Oxfendazole, fenbendazole and febantel are three metabolically
related anthelmintics. *Fenbendazole and oxfendazole are
metabolically interconvertible, and febendazole is a prodrug of them
both.* Oxfendazole and fenbendazole both undergo further metabolic
oxidation and carbamate hydrolysis."

There you go, maybe that will clear things up. :wink:


----------



## Guest

No. I understand what that means. Do you? Are you suggesting that Oxfenbendazole has identical effects as fenbendazole? Or are you suggesting that Oxfenbendazole is "commonly advocated for frogs?"

Once again, who is suggesting this?


----------



## Homer

David, I posted this as a resource so that others can use it as a reference for greater understanding. If you want to read this paper, feel free.


----------



## Homer

By the way a prodrug is a precursor to another drug. So, essentially, a prodrug is metabolically converted into a drug. Therefore, fenbendazole is metabolically converted into oxfendazole. The chemical ratio of prodrug to drug varies with species and prodrug, but general side effects of a prodrug can usually be determined from a resultant drug's effects. because the prodrug is converted into a drug.

Yes, I took biochemistry.


----------



## Guest

Oh, I have read the paper you posted. It is Yugoslavian research of an American drug. I understand what the paper says. Your original statement was misleading at best, and I just wanted to make certain 1) people didn't believe that oxfenbendazole was commonly prescribed for amphibians, or 2) if some vet was doing this, I would just want to know who so we could discuss it.

If you have any worrys about any side effects of fenbendazole or oxfenbendazole, please bring them up here so we can discuss it and everyone can benefit from the disussion.

Interestingly enough, oxfenbendazole is a very safe dewormer that is FDA approved for cattle - even though cattle are the most adversely effected species. The LD50 is over 100 mg/kg, which means that a cow will need to eat more than 1/10th its body weight of pure drug to have a 50% chance of dying. When you take into account that the drug is only 22% of the powder, that means the cow would have to eat 1/2 of its body weight in powdered drug to have even a 50% chance of dying. Then realize that they mix this powder in water and the cow would need to drink more than its own body weight of liquid before reaching that 50% chance of death. Cows weigh thousands of pounds, Cows don't drink thousands of pounds of water each day. And remember that cows are the MOST ADVERSELY EFFECTED SPECIES IN THIS STUDY.


----------



## Homer

What is your source for your LD50 statistics, and what was the species tested? Note that the LD50 varies widely from species to species.

Regardless, it is apparent from this study (and others from DVM/PhD's I have talked to) that fenbendazole causes bone marrow suppression and can cause some liver damage when used long term.


----------



## Guest

Did you read the study that you posted a link to? I pulled the information directly from that link.


----------



## Guest

2.2.1 Acute studies

Table 1. Acute studies on oxfendazole


Species Sex Vehicle LD50 Reference
(mg/kg b.w.)


Mouse M&F distilled water > 6400 Hallesy, 1973

Rat M&F distilled water > 6400 Hallesy, 1973b
Chester & Bidlack,
1987a

Chester & Bidlack,
1987b

Dog F gelatine capsule > 1600 Hallesy, 1973c

Sheep F water > 250 Braemer & Bidlack,
suspension 1976

Cattle M&F water purified > 112.5 Bidlack, 1977

The graph in your link makes it much easier to understand.


----------



## Guest

Homer wrote, "Regardless, it is apparent from this study (and others from DVM/PhD's I have talked to) that fenbendazole causes bone marrow suppression and can cause some liver damage when used long term."

Actually this study did not look at fenbendazole, and every drug has some side effects at some dose. Asprin causes much much more bone marrow supression and liver damage than fenbendazole. Asprin also causes cartilage damage and gastric ulcers. Asprin is much more harmful and deadly than fenbendazole, but we use asprin all the time and many doctors recommend a daily dose of asprin.

What exactly do you mean by "apparent?"


----------



## Homer

Dr. Frye said:


> Oh, I have read the paper you posted. It is Yugoslavian research of an American drug. I understand what the paper says. Your original statement was misleading at best, and I just wanted to make certain 1) people didn't believe that oxfenbendazole was commonly prescribed for amphibians, or 2) if some vet was doing this, I would just want to know who so we could discuss it.
> 
> If you have any worrys about any side effects of fenbendazole or oxfenbendazole, please bring them up here so we can discuss it and everyone can benefit from the disussion.
> 
> Interestingly enough, oxfenbendazole is a very safe dewormer that is FDA approved for cattle - even though cattle are the most adversely effected species. *The LD50 is over 100 mg/kg, which means that a cow will need to eat more than 1/10th its body weight of pure drug to have a 50% chance of dying. * When you take into account that the drug is only 22% of the powder, that means the cow would have to eat 1/2 of its body weight in powdered drug to have even a 50% chance of dying. Then realize that they mix this powder in water and the cow would need to drink more than its own body weight of liquid before reaching that 50% chance of death. Cows weigh thousands of pounds, Cows don't drink thousands of pounds of water each day. And remember that cows are the MOST ADVERSELY EFFECTED SPECIES IN THIS STUDY.


Yes, David, I read the article. That's why I am perplexed by your LD50 analysis. First, the LD50 for cattle in the study was found to be 112.5 mg/Kg body weight.

That means that for every kilogram of bodyweight, it takes 112.5 milligrams of oxfendazole (not oxfenbendazole) to kill 50% of the cattle. Let's do the math on the percent weight here:

112.5 mg = .1125 grams

1Kg = 1000 grams

Therefore, .1125 grams ofendazole per 1000 grams of body weight of cattle will kill the cattle. That is not 10% of the cattle body weight, that is .01125 % --three orders of magnitude difference there between your calculation and the true LD50 calculation (1000 times off).

Plus, let's remember that we are talking about the effects on mammals here, which varies widely between species. Without actual lab data on its effects on darts, let alone on different species of darts, don't you think that there are going to be varying LD50 levels for different darts? It seems to me that arguing the safety or toxicity of a drug n amphibia based on its widely varying toxicity in mammals should give pause for concern. I thought you were giving me some new data from elsewhere.


----------



## Guest

Homer, you are correct. In my haste, I made a decimal place error. I keep forgetting how sensitive these cows are to their own medicine. According to Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry the recommended dose for amphibians is greater than the LD50 for cows. The dose for fenbendazole in amphibians is 100mg-200mg/kg. 

24.7 Anthelmenitics
"Fenbendazole is effective in reducing or eliminating many nematode infections in amphibians. Fenbendazole (100 mg/kg PO q 7-10 days) is used often for prophylaxis during quarentine or as therapy for confirmed gastrointestinal nematodiasis in amphibians. Granular fenbendazole may be used to dust insects for administration to small amphibians, but this modality renders it impractical to quantify the amount of drug ingested by an amphibian. *NO ADVERSE REACTIONS HAVE BEEN NOTED AT THIS DOSAGE*. In resistant cases, fenbendazole may be administered at a lower dose on a more frequent basis to effect a cure (e.g., 50 mg/kg PO q 24 hours for 3-5 days, repeated every 2-3 weeks).

Page 317 under Pharmacotherapeutics

It seems like Doctors Kevin Wright and Brent Whitaker missed the "apparent" problems with fenbendazole. :wink:


----------



## Homer

Dr. Frye said:


> Homer wrote, "Regardless, it is apparent from this study (and others from DVM/PhD's I have talked to) that fenbendazole causes bone marrow suppression and can cause some liver damage when used long term."
> 
> Actually this study did not look at fenbendazole, and every drug has some side effects at some dose. Asprin causes much much more bone marrow supression and liver damage than fenbendazole. Asprin also causes cartilage damage and gastric ulcers. Asprin is much more harmful and deadly than fenbendazole, but we use asprin all the time and many doctors recommend a daily dose of asprin.
> 
> What exactly do you mean by "apparent?"


David,

I thought you said you knew what a prodrug was. If you administer fenbendazole to an animal, you will get oxfendazole in vivo (in the animal). Therefore, you can extrapolate potential side effects of fenbendazole from an oxfendazole study. You are correct that they won't be at the same dosage because it is not a 1:1 ratio of fenbendazole being broken down into oxfendazole. Actually, it is widely held that oxfendazole is the active form of fenbendazole.

I will continue to post links to sites so that others can make an informed judgment as to what treatments they think are appropriate for their animals. However, I am not going to continue to explain the chemistry behind the science to you or correct your gross dosage miscalculations. In fact, I am now placing you on my ignore list.

By the way, who is recommending the use of Aspirin for dart frogs?


----------



## kenya_1977

*drugs*

Ok, lets bring a little layman logic to this. Drugs are typically meant to cure one ailing organism by killing a smaller one (parasite, bacteria, fungus). What we are doing by medicating is giving small doses of poison, large enough to kill the invader, but typically small enough to not significantly disrupt the host. 

Expecting absolutely no side effect from this process is not very realistic. 

Fenbendazole is used preventatively, but not to such a degree where one would see it being a harm to the animal they are treating. So, bringing an unnecessary light to the harmful effects of this drug might be creating an unnecessary concern of those that aren't as biochemically gifted. 

I think the ultimate take home message is that use these drugs cautiously. Don't over medicate. Consult with a doctor when you have questions, and don't look at drugs as a cure all.


----------



## Guest

and always get a second opinion =)


----------



## Guest

from a doctor.

Rich


----------



## melissa68

*good advice*

Getting a 2nd opinion is always a good idea. We have had fecals misdiagnosed before, so it is always a good idea to get the 2nd opinion. 

I think the most important thing, is whoever is doing the fecals (you, a friend, or a vet) need to know how to operate a microscope, proper procedures and materials to perform floats, stains, etc, and resources to identify what they have seen. A camera integrated with the microscope is an awesome benefit as well. 

If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide anyone with the name and number for our vet. He charges $10 per fecal and performs two tests on each speciman. 1. a float and 2. a stain. 

Thanks,

Melis 






idea said:


> and always get a second opinion =)


----------



## Guest

Melissa,
It is important to know exactly what you are looking at, what you have found. Leave the fecals to a Vet, for $10 you can not afford to pass it up. Do you know how many different Coccidia there are alone? Knowing what you have found is THE most important part of a fecal exam, there are just too many critters out there for the average Joe to be making definitive guesses at what is in their fecals.

Rich


----------



## Guest

*Re: good advice*



melissa68 said:


> If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide anyone with the name and number for our vet. He charges $10 per fecal and performs two tests on each speciman.
> 
> 
> idea said:
> 
> 
> 
> and always get a second opinion =)
Click to expand...

dont think that she does these by herself, looks like she is offering a vet referal to me..... :wink:


----------



## Guest

whoever is doing the fecals (you, a friend, or a vet)




There have been other threads suggesting that it is not a difficult thing to do a fecal. Running a fecal should be left to a Vet.

Rich


----------



## melissa68

*Re: good advice*

Yes, I was referring to a vet, not doing them myself. 

Regardless, running a fecal exam is not rocket science. There are a lot of people who look through microscopes for a living who are not doctors, vets or people with PHds, I would welcome one of them to do fecals. 

Like I said before, with all the resources out there many of the people on this forum have the necessary skills and resources to learn and successfully run fecals. 


Melis




idea said:


> melissa68 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide anyone with the name and number for our vet. He charges $10 per fecal and performs two tests on each speciman.
> 
> 
> idea said:
> 
> 
> 
> and always get a second opinion =)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont think that she does these by herself, looks like she is offering a vet referal to me..... :wink:
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

Well Melissa,
Let's think about this in terms of "bang for the buck".

First off I need a microscope.....$$$
A digital camera with fittings for the scope...$$$
slides, fecolsol, ect., ect. more$$$$$$

Then I can only hope that I am as good at reading a fecal as someone who actualy went to school for it.

Worst case senario: I misdiagnose my frogs fecals and any number of bad things WILL happen after that.

You said it yourself, $10 for a fecal. Why would you TRY to run one on your own?

I can say with certainty that I could post a number of pics that the board, with all of its resources, would be unable to identify. Fecals are not easy.


Rich


----------



## andersonii85

When I used to work at the animal laboratory I had access to all sorts of useful chemicals, scopes, and vet's. My parasitology professor used to run my frogs fecals for me at no cost. The only thing I had to do was make slides of them and present them to the class. So, if you go to a University or even Joe Schmoe college- chances are pretty good that you already have access to everything you need to do the fecals.


Just be carefull though as sometimes things are misdiagnosed and a second opinion never hurts, esp. if you care about your frogs.

Justin


----------



## Guest

I would say that a parasitology professor is indeed qualified to run fecals.

Rich


----------



## melissa68

Justin,

Good post. Just like everything else in this world, reading fecals takes practice. 

You don't have to be an electrician to install a light bulb (except if it is a union shop!), nor be a car mechanic to change your oil. Most vets or professionals will assist hobbyists is learning how to do their own fecals. 

The most important part is to have the resources available when needed.

Melis




andersonii85 said:


> When I used to work at the animal laboratory I had access to all sorts of useful chemicals, scopes, and vet's. My parasitology professor used to run my frogs fecals for me at no cost. The only thing I had to do was make slides of them and present them to the class. So, if you go to a University or even Joe Schmoe college- chances are pretty good that you already have access to everything you need to do the fecals.
> 
> 
> Just be carefull though as sometimes things are misdiagnosed and a second opinion never hurts, esp. if you care about your frogs.
> 
> Justin


----------



## Guest

I am curious as to how many members out there have run their own fecals AND have pics of what they have found. I would then ask them if they could ID everything they found. 

I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.


Rich


----------



## Homer

The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> Well Melissa,
> Let's think about this in terms of "bang for the buck".
> 
> First off I need a microscope.....$$$
> A digital camera with fittings for the scope...$$$
> slides, fecolsol, ect., ect. more$$$$$$


Rich, I notice you did not include actual values in your "bang for the buck" theory. I think I know why.

Microscope--$60-$100 for a good used lab scope on ebay (I actually bid on a Bausch & Lomb variable 40-1000 x that closed at $30)

Digi cam and fittings for scope-- unnecessary for a hobbyist, but most of us already have a digicam

Slides, etc.--cheap, especially if you have them from your days as a bio major

So, for as little as $60, you can monitor your collection on a monthly or bimonthly basis yourself and contact a Vet if you see anything suspicious. That is what I do, and the cost was fewer than 4 fecals from your brother, Rich. 



> Then I can only hope that I am as good at reading a fecal as someone who actualy went to school for it.


I don't know of any vets that went to school just to do fecal samples. :lol: If that's the case, it creeps me out a bit. :shock: However, there are a lot of people on the forum who have had microbiology classes to identify at least the genera of a vast majority of what you will see in a fecal exam (or at least be able to identify it and contact a vet). It doesn't take 4 years of vet school to read a fecal, and I doubt there is a "dart frog excrement 101" at vet school, so even your brother has probably had to some research beyond his classes to identify some dart frog parasites.



> Worst case senario: I misdiagnose my frogs fecals and any number of bad things WILL happen after that.


That's an overstatement that assumes too much. I can understand the point you are trying to make, but the emphasis is a bit strong. It just reads like a scare tactic, and the assertion is just not correct in all cases. 

Simply misdiagnosing a frog does not ensure it's demise. If one normal gut flora is misidentified as a parasite, then a fecal is sent to the local vet, I doubt anything bad happens to the frog. There are lots of other scenarios where your statement just isn't right.



> You said it yourself, $10 for a fecal. Why would you TRY to run one on your own?


I can think of many reasons: personal edification, continuing education, a genuine curiosity, because I can take a VERY fresh sample, monitoring a collection on an ongoing basis, spot checking as part of a greater system you develop with your vet, etc. Further, not everyone charges $10 for a fecal, and some may have to add shipping charges as well, depending on if they have an exotic vet nearby.



> I can say with certainty that I could post a number of pics that the board, with all of its resources, would be unable to identify.


That is probably true (although there are some very educated people who lurk these boards, and I would not deign to insult them). However, very few vets (and likely no vet) will be able to independently and instantaneously identify every organism that might possibly show up in a fecal.



> Fecal are not easy.


Well, I have to disagree. Running a fecal is very easy. Identifying everything exactly can be difficult. So, one could theoretically use fecals to identify which animals may be infected, and then have your local vet check out a fresh sample to identify a parasite/organism and treat it. That is an imminently logical system in my humble opinion.


Hey, I have no problem admitting that there is no replacement for a good veterinarian or another specialist. However, I don't share your viewpoint that you should NEVER TRY TO DO ANYTHING BY YOURSELF, and never question what a doctor says. That just seems to be a little self-serving for you in this scenario. Further, if you check earlier in this post, you will see that vets are not infallible, and sometimes make dosing miscalculations that are 10-1,000 times off from reality. 

So, am I in favor of double checking and making sure I am informed enough to know whether my vet is a decent vet or a crummy vet? You bet, and that is exactly what these posts should be about--educating yourself about your animals and how you can ensure the best care for them. I just personally reject the theory that you should bury your head in the sand and follow any procedure a doctor recommends. 

As a board, I think part of the function is to help facilitate learning. Even if you don't do something yourself, you can know what is involved so you can ask the right questions. Yes, I have baseline fecals done by a vet to check my animals, then monitor them myself thereafter. That makes good sense to me, and I really don't see a logical reason not to do it that way.


----------



## Guest

Homer,

Please post pics. 

When I want to have a legal doccument looked over , I go to a lawyer.
When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet.
I can think of sooo many other ways to further ones knowledge in this hobby without taking chances on my frogs health.


Rich


----------



## Homer

The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> I am curious as to how many members out there have run their own fecals AND have pics of what they have found. I would then ask them if they could ID everything they found.
> 
> I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.
> 
> 
> Rich


Rich, I think you assume to much. For starters, taking pics of what you find is not necessary to ensure your animal is properly cared for--check my previous post. 

Further, none of the posts I have seen have recommended treating frogs yourself. I think I have started most of the threads about this, and indicated that I was going to run fecals myself, get a copy of Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry to educate myself and help my local vet determine how to treat. As it turns out, I found a local vet that didn't need to see my copy, but I still find the resource interesting and helpful.

I'm not really sure that I would call running a fecal "medical analysis." It might be a part of medical analysis, and identifying parasites or bacteria might be part of medical analysis, but I don't think that simply looking at smeared excrement is medical analysis. Regardless, I don't see the harm of doing it yourself in association with a larger plan (involving a vet) to care for your darts. Why are you so against having people educate themselves?


----------



## Homer

The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> Homer,
> 
> Please post pics.
> 
> When I want to have a legal doccument looked over , I go to a lawyer.
> When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet.
> I can think of sooo many other ways to further ones knowledge in this hobby without taking chances on my frogs health.
> 
> 
> Rich


Rich,

I would post pics, but, if you will read my last two posts, I don't have a camera adapter for my $30 scope. So, when I wasn't finding anything, I had a qualified vet run fecals. Guess what? He didn't find anything either. So, I guess I can't post a picture of nothing, even if I did have a camera adapter for my 'scope.


----------



## Guest

Homer,
Not ever against anyone furthering themselves.
What I am trying to get across is this:
It is not as easy as some , you, would have the members believe, to run fecals.
This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro.
Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious. 
I have never said that an attempt should not be made, in fact I believe it was my brother who first attempted to show Sarah and Melissa how to read a fecal.

They do not do their own fecals.

I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again. I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics.


Rich


----------



## melissa68

Rich,

FYI, we don't do our own fecals because we don't have time. When we have the time, we will begin to do them. It is not the lack of skill or want to learn, just a lack of time.


Melis



The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> Homer,
> Not ever against anyone furthering themselves.
> What I am trying to get across is this:
> It is not as easy as some , you, would have the members believe, to run fecals.
> This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro.
> Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious.
> I have never said that an attempt should not be made, in fact I believe it was my brother who first attempted to show Sarah and Melissa how to read a fecal.
> 
> They do not do their own fecals.
> 
> I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again. I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics.
> 
> 
> Rich


----------



## Guest

Melissa,


Did Homer not just tally up an extremely small amount to get started doing fecals?
He says he can do them for far less than a vet.

[/quote] It is not the lack of skill or want to learn, just a lack of money. 

Although Melissa edited her above post, most will agree: Time=Money :wink: 

Rich


----------



## Homer

The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> Homer,
> Not ever against anyone furthering themselves.
> What I am trying to get across is this:
> It is not as easy as some , you, would have the members believe, to run fecals.


Hey, Rich, for people who have taken microbiology and histology labs, it really isn't that difficult to run fecals. I understand that not everyone has that background, but those who do can learn to run fecals given the information that I posted. Justin has indicated that he has done it, and the link that I post in the "how to run fecals" post was written by a goat farmer.




> This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro.
> Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious.


If you find something suspicious and have your vet run fecals (yes, I would have more than one run if I found something suspicious and my vet did not), you don't have to take a picture. That is what should be obvious.



> I have never said that an attempt should not be made,


Really? Then why did you post this:



> When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet.


and 



> I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.


and 



> Why would you TRY to run one on your own?


It sure sounds like you were arguing that it shouldn't be tried. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you.



> I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again.


Yup, there's logic for ya'. If you don't see anything, and your vet doesn't see anything, it MUST have a parasite. That's just another self-serving scare tactic that is not beneficial to anyone.



> I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics.


Yes, I would not recommend that everyone go out and buy the cheapest 'scope they can find. Most of the "cheap" new ones are not good quality. However, the scope is well used but functioning Bausch & Lomb, is very similar to one that we used in labs, and I was lucky. Further, I don't think it takes a vet to determine whether a scope is good enough to use for finding micororganisms, and most afficionados look for 1950's scopes because they have good quality optics and all metal gears, and can be worked on. Most college bio students could figure that out within 5-10 minutes of fiddling with one, and there are people you can consult to help you pick one out if you are willing to call your old college professors. 

Is it what I would have if I was making a living off of doing this? No. But I don't need top of the line to see microorganisms, just like I don't need a Porsche to drive me to work when a Chevy will get me there--especially when I can buy more frogs with the money I saved.


----------



## Homer

Bottom line, Rich: I run fecals AND have a vet run fecals. I don't think you can argue that is a bad combination, or irresponsible. Others are free to do what they want, and providing them with that info is what the board is about. If they want to try doing fecals, I don't see why they shouldn't.

Personally, I wouldn't drill glass myself, but I wouldn't rant and rave at others that wanted to try it, and I wouldn't discourage others from posting information on how to do it. So we disagree. That's fine, man.


----------



## Guest

Hi again.


Quote:
Hey, Rich, for people who have taken microbiology and histology labs, it really isn't that difficult to run fecals. I understand that not everyone has that background, but those who do can learn to run fecals given the information that I posted. Justin has indicated that he has done it, and the link that I post in the "how to run fecals" post was written by a goat farmer. 

It would seem that you keep adding qualifiers as we go Homer. 

This is probably why you also send them to a vet, a pro. 
Pics are very important unless you have a photographic memory. This should be obvious. 

Quote:
If you find something suspicious and have your vet run fecals (yes, I would have more than one run if I found something suspicious and my vet did not), you don't have to take a picture. That is what should be obvious. 

I would ask anyone out there if they have ever taken a sample to a vet, been given a clean bill of health, and then went on their way thinking that their frog would forever stay in it's "clean" state. Tell me the downside to pics please.

I have never said that an attempt should not be made, 

Quote:
Really? Then why did you post this: 


When I want my fecals looked over ,I go to a vet. 

I do, I watch, I learn, from the vet.

and 


I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis. 

Are you kidding me???

and 


Why would you TRY to run one on your own? 

Taking COSTS into account.

Quote:
It sure sounds like you were arguing that it shouldn't be tried. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. 


I would also say that if you have never found anything, and your above statement sounds like you took a sample to a vet once, then you need to check again. 

Quote;
Yup, there's logic for ya'. If you don't see anything, and your vet doesn't see anything, it MUST have a parasite. That's just another self-serving scare tactic that is not beneficial to anyone. 

Self serving? I make zero on meds, fecals, ect. My brother makes less. Again, state of health changes.

Quote: 
I would also be a bit concerned if my scope costs less than an adaptor for pics. 


Yes, I would not recommend that everyone go out and buy the cheapest 'scope they can find. Most of the "cheap" new ones are not good quality. However, the scope is well used but functioning Bausch & Lomb, is very similar to one that we used in labs, and I was lucky. Further, I don't think it takes a vet to determine whether a scope is good enough to use for finding micororganisms, and most afficionados look for 1950's scopes because they have good quality optics and all metal gears, and can be worked on. Most college bio students could figure that out within 5-10 minutes of fiddling with one, and there are people you can consult to help you pick one out if you are willing to call your old college professors. 

Is it what I would have if I was making a living off of doing this? No. But I don't need top of the line to see microorganisms, just like I don't need a Porsche to drive me to work when a Chevy will get me there--especially when I can buy more frogs with the money I saved. 

Again, more qualifiers , now.


Homer, try your fecals, good luck. You make me tired.

With the above qualifiers, please try your own fecals, then take them to a vet.

Rich
Back to top


----------



## Guest

I've tried to stay out of this for a while.

I could care less who checks your frogs' fecals, but have it done. If you have a good vet that knows what they are looking at, you should be fine. If you've been trained in parasitology, you should be fine. But MANY MANY MANY people will miss the smallest microorganisms, and assume there was nothing there.

I remember trying to teach Sarah and Melissa how to see some of these tiny organisms. I had a $1800 scope locked dead center on some small parasite at 400 times magnification, and Melissa admitted that she couldn't see it and wouldn't be able to find it later herself. Sorry, Melissa, but you should remember that.

Homer, I'd really be suspicious of a vet who found no parasites in your fecal exams. Some fecals are negative. They are quite rare, but do happen. Yours on the other hand most likely have some tiny little parasites that you have over looked time and time again. 

For my part, I'd rather people use their own vets and other local vets than use me. I am no where near as inexpensive as S&Ms recommended vet, and I have other work to keep me busy. I will still offer this service, but will not be offended by anyone for using any other method possible.

Worms are huge and usually move. Worm eggs are much more important and quite a bit smaller. Protozoan and other parasites smaller yet, and often overlooked. Bacterial overgrowths are difficult to recognize without a decent amount of experience.

Homer, this post started off as you spouting off side effects of a drug related to Panacur. You state that you own a copy of Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry. Do you know of any better medical book for amphibians? What does Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry say about the safety and use of Panacur?


----------



## kyle1745

While I do not intend to push this already questionable conversation any further I do have some general points, and a warning. *Please keep to the topic and disagree without direct comments to each other.*

1. Anyone could easily learn to run a fecal, though I would not recommend that you do unless you can do a couple of things:
- also have a vet review them
- or take pictures of what you see to a vet

2. Remember that a med student that gets straight D's is still called Doctor after graduation. Get referrals and etc. Just because they have gone to school does not mean they have a clue. The point is anyone can learn to run fecals without that much work. Now making an accurate diagnosis is a whole different issue, but with frogs even most vets guess. This is why there are no standards for treatment. 

3. Most college today is nothing more than a formality to get your foot in the door, they by no means teach what you see in the real world. Now the medical field is a bit different in some cases, but not all. College is just big business anymore. I can tell you after doing many technical interviews we don't hire anyone without years of experience, college just doesn't cut it.

As for this comment yes I would agree that with a little training almost anyone can make *some* medical diagnosis. Is that to say its the best method? No, not at all. My point is this, you can go to college for 4 years for a CIS, and I could teach you more and have you doing more in 6 months. Most things are simple, but can not be taught in a class room.


> I would not group changing a light bulb or an oil change in with a medical analysis.
> Are you kidding me???


----------



## Guest

Kyle,
You can not graduate from vet school with any Ds. Or at least not MSU. I know that you can not graduate with all Ds from any vet school, barring posssibly some Carribian/Off-Shore schools.

Rich


----------



## kyle1745

That is true, but just a point, even if you get all A's. I've met book smart people that could ace any test that could not get themselves out of a paper bag. Grades and 4-8 years don't mean what they used to, anyone with dedication can do it, but that does not mean they know anything. Just means they can pass tests.

My over all point is referrals and experience means a great deal, not just a degree.



The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> Kyle,
> You can not graduate from vet school with any Ds. Or at least not MSU. I know that you can not graduate with all Ds from any vet school, barring posssibly some Carribian/Off-Shore schools.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Guest

Bump :evil:


----------



## Homer

Dr. Frye said:


> I've tried to stay out of this for a while.
> 
> I could care less who checks your frogs' fecals, but have it done. If you have a good vet that knows what they are looking at, you should be fine. If you've been trained in parasitology, you should be fine. But MANY MANY MANY people will miss the smallest microorganisms, and assume there was nothing there.
> . . . .
> Homer, I'd really be suspicious of a vet who found no parasites in your fecal exams. Some fecals are negative. They are quite rare, but do happen. Yours on the other hand most likely have some tiny little parasites that you have over looked time and time again. . . .


Yet again, suspecting parasites in a frog because repeated fecals come up clear even when performed by an exotic animal vet is not sound logic, and recommending that I be suspicious of my vetrinarian is unprofessional and uncalled for when you have never examined any of my animals. 

I would encourage everyone to consider having fecals done, but please be aware that you may come up with false positives if you are not careful in the way you harvest the fecal material. That is a point to ponder and may give some reason why the fecal material harvested from tanks can show up with organisms even if frogs are healthy and parasite free.

Regardless of what anyone decides, it is important to receive information from multiple sources and draw a logical conclusion. Relying on any one source for information is not encouraged academically or logically, and I encourage you all to consider those sources when you make decisions about your healthcare--both for your frogs and yourself.


----------



## Guest

Boy Homer,
I wish there was a way that I could get some "clean" samples from you to look at.

Rich


----------



## Guest

HHMMMMMMM :?:


----------



## Guest

Homer,
This could be an interesting study. 
You have a nice sized collection.
Take samples from all of your collection, send them to us, on us, and we will post the results. WITH PICS . We will know how fresh they are.

Rich


----------



## Guest

Homer wrote,

"Yet again, suspecting parasites in a frog because repeated fecals come up clear even when performed by an exotic animal vet is not sound logic, and recommending that I be suspicious of my vetrinarian is unprofessional and uncalled for when you have never examined any of my animals."


Not so, Homer. I am certain that if you think about it hard enough, you might figure out how I know what your collection might have without personally examining the feces of your collection

Let me know when you find something of interest in one of your fecals.


----------



## Guest

With that, we may wish to ask the breeders of your collection for permission to post pics. They are clean so there should be no problem?

Rich


----------



## kyle1745

I suggest this converstation stop its current path ASAP. The fact that this topic even came back up after months of silence is even more cause for concern.

Very little of the content over the last couple days adds anything of value to the forum, so take it private please if you want to bicker about each other collections, opinions. If you would like to stick to the topic then by all means post it here.

*While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

This forum system uses cookies to store information on your local computer. These cookies do not contain any of the information you have entered above; they serve only to improve your viewing pleasure. The e-mail address is used only for confirming your registration details and password (and for sending new passwords should you forget your current one).

By completing this registration you agree to be bound by these conditions.

DendroBoard also reserves the right to modify and amend this agreement at any time, and will be doing so soon. The most recent version of this user agreement will govern any conflict that arises.*


----------



## Guest

Alright, let us return the original topic. Homer began this thread with scare tactics stating the supposed dangers of Oxfendazole, and therefore fenbendazole (Panacur.)

I'd like to ask if anyone is aware of a single more important medical text for amphibians than Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry by Drs. Wright and Whitaker? Please speak up if you do, for this could benefit us all.

Next, I'd ask Homer (who says he has a copy of this text) to answer my last question posed to him. What does this amphibian medical text say about the safety and use of fenbendazole?


----------



## Guest

Kyle,
Was there a time limit on when one could add to a post?

Everything that has come up in the last couple of days has to to with this forum. This is the Disease Treatment end of the Board, we have been discussing meds, fecals, ect. Do not tell me that most topics with more than two or three replies do not spin off a bit. I have not been offended at all, I can not see how Homer or anyone else would be. We are talking fecals and meds, I will continue to do so. 

As I can not PM the counselor, I must pose questions publicly , he wants it that way.

Also , of the three who choose to add me to their ignore list, one also chooses to drop the "ignore", PM me, and then put the "ignore" back in place so as to block me from being able to PM her. What is up with that?

Homer, I await your answer pertaining to my proposed study.


Rich


----------



## Guest

There have been a large amount of hits on this thread since I posted last. I'd like to ask again if anyone is aware of a single more important medical text for amphibians than Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry by Drs. Wright and Whitaker?


----------



## -=Adam=-

> I'd like to ask again if anyone is aware of a single more important medical text for amphibians than Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry by Drs. Wright and Whitaker?


Dr. Frye,

Which point are you trying to make? That there is no amphibian medicine book better than Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry, or that whatever it says should be taken as fact and not questioned?

I have a book here that is considered the Bible of liquid rocket propulsion (NASA SP-125), but has many glaring mistakes and assumptions that people have questioned and continue to question to this day. I'm sure there are many more examples in just about every field.

The point that I, and I think Homer, was trying to originally make is that we should question what might commonly be held as the norm in hopes of providing the best possible conditions for our frogs as we can. There may very well be no better book than Wright and Whitaker's, but that doesn't mean its contents can't be questioned.

It may turn out that pancur (or any other drug) could be somehow used as a very effective long term drug for most darts, it (or other drugs) may also turn out to be detrimental in the long term. However, again, the point is that the more we ask questions and challenge what we may think is a generally accepted fact the more we will know, and the better our darts will hopefully do.

-=Adam=-


----------



## Guest

The point I was making is that Homer likes to ask questions, but chooses not to answer them. He knows that the best up to date medical book on amphibian medicine says that Panacur has been extensively used for years and years in amphibians and studied without ever finding a detrimental side effect. 
I like people to ask questions. I like people to try to better their animals and the hobby. But bettering the hobby isn't the same as turning a blind eye to research that has been done and evaluated.


----------



## bgexotics

Ok, I am a biology/animal science senior, so I can't resist offering my OPINION (note the highlighted word).

Most vet schools (and I know because I questioned friends who are currently attending) focus more on wither large animals (aka horses and cows) or cats and dogs. You are lucky if you have a few hours of lecture devoted to exotic animals. Many techniques used with exotic animal species have been developed through a collaboration of hobbyists/breeders, veterinarians, and numerous specialists. 

Very few vet schools train students how to treat fish or reptiles because it is not nearly as common as the other groups of animals, and less profitable. Those who do, often consult with breeders or specialists who deal with those species, including my vet. She has actually had my husband come out and diagnose her fish and consult her on treatment, since his job is primarily diagnosing and treating fish disease. He doesn't have a fancy degree, but has spent over 8 years working primarily in this area and spends hours reading research and consulting experts.

Another thing to note, is that in many vet clinics, fecals are ran by Vet Techs, who either have a 2 year degree or have been trained by the vet. Not many vets have the time to actually run fecals by themselves, unless something unusual is detected by the vet tech. I appreciate vets, but a properly trained person can run fecals, especially one who has taken microbiology and parisitology and learned the proper techniuque from a qualified professional.


----------



## Guest

The point that I would like to get across is this:
Be it a post in which I have strongly suggested sanding acrylic before trying to get stuff to adhere,
A post where my brother tries to give out free medical advise,
A post in which I try , nay, implore froggers , to keep track of bloodlines,
A post suggesting that I may have a hypo D. intermedius,

Neither my brother or myself can post anything without expecting a hounding by Counselor Homer or S+M or all three. Now I do not mind having a little sparring match for the sake of knowledge, but if you kick sand in my undereducated face do not expect me to play kissyface with you tomorrow.

Homer,
It is a simple offer, send fecals.
You can have them sent to......say one of the university's parasitologist we work with. The professor , my brother, and I can look over your stuff together.
Again , it is clean so there should be no problems on your end right?
I know you have read the posts today, I await your answer.

Rich


----------



## Scott

I do believe he has answered you.

I get it. 

"Silence is a strong reply"

s


The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> ... Again , it is clean so there should be no problems on your end right?
> I know you have read the posts today, I await your answer.


----------



## Guest

Are you saying, Scott, that he wishes not to take me up on a simple offer to screen his frogs? What could the down side be.............unless?

Rich


----------



## Scott

Look - you know it, I know it, *everybody* knows it.

You guys don't get along. We all have it figured out. Just leave it at that.

If he took you up on it, it's a no win proposition for him. He doesn't trust you enough to believe the results (one way or the other). And given the way you guys bicker - it's hard to blame him. Repeating your request over-and-over is not going to make him trust you on this - *So why bother?* 

I've got nothing against either of you - but it's really *very* obvious.

He's happy with his frogs. Leave it at that.

You're happy with your frogs. We can leave it at that.

s


The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> Are you saying, Scott, that he wishes not to take me up on a simple offer to screen his frogs? What could the down side be.............unless?
> 
> Rich


----------



## Guest

Interesting conversation here. 
is it about treating parasites or pride?


----------



## Guest

Scott,
Read again, parasitologist, not just my brother and I . I would let Homer suggest someone he may be happy with but let me tell you this:
It will never happen that either myself or my brother concoct a plan to give false medical info, or any false info for that matter. Do you realy think that a university prof is going to give B.S. results for the sake of proving Homer wrong?

Idea, 
If you read my post on sand in the face you will have the answer to your question.

Rich


----------



## Guest

The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> If you read my post on sand in the face you will have the answer to your question.


i would think that self-respect and experience would aleviate the necessity to protect your pride. especially in a public forum where the discussion revolves around a common passion for the hobby. It seems that the other antagonists in the disagreement have found that out already.


----------



## Guest

Idea,
The problem is that I think that there may just be a few froggers out there who are listening to the Counselor's medical advise. 
Bold statements were made by Homer, I do not believe them, this is the Disease Treatment end of the forum. I want to examine his fecals. Again, time after time we are questioned, not a problem, lets get to the bottom of this.

Who is that on your Avatar? He looks like he may have a few med issues , if you know what I mean. Cool pic. :wink: 

Rich


----------



## Guest

_The following statements are my observations as a member of this community and not as an administrator. Should this topic escalate I will regrettably deal with it as an administrator, but lets not get there._

Lets all step back for a second and analyze the genesis of this conversation. There are some real legitimate issue that are being discussed, including the risks and benefits of antibiotics and other meds, the risks and benefits of common hobbyists providing medical care for their collection, etc. The ancillary issues, including personal conflicts, the value of graduate education, and who is trying to screw whom, are not going to be resolved on this site. These ancillary issues are in no way relevant to this study and don't progress the hobby. Certain conflicts in this category even digress this study, since professionals who have a depth of knowledge rare in this community are destroying the confidence and trust they have built up. Even if you win this pissing match by going for the jugular, others not involved in the debacle will avoid you for fear of conflict should things not work out for some reason.

The reality is that this conflict has become a comedy of the absurd. If you all really want material for fecals, I have a large rottie that can keep large boxes coming indefinitely. Everyone should go home, take a Quaalude and chill the $%&@ out. Get back to the issues, because I would love an educated discussion of whether I can go buy the materials necessary for running preliminary fecals. Start a new thread about it if you want to leave these issues behind. Maybe a blank slate will keep people from trying to deal with 18 issues at once and merging the good stuff with the useless crap.

Enjoy,
Joe


----------



## edwardsatc

Snore ..... Same old pissing contest - different topic. Someone wake me up when the pissing contest is over and we get back to the issue if there ever really was one.


----------



## Guest

Joe,
This thread was started by Homer, it will be ended by someone else.

I do not want your dog crap. I want Homer to prove his statments, this is a medical discussion. I believe that the counselor is giving false/bad medical advise and it is in the interest of everone out there to find the truth.

There is a way to find out the truth.

This topic could not be all that absurd , else the hundreds of viewers checking in are as absurd.



Rich


----------



## Guest

The ReturnOfJ105 said:


> This topic could not be all that absurd , else the hundreds of viewers checking in are as absurd


oh, it's definitely absurd, but in a good way. Kind of like that "real world" show on TV: you know it's a complete waste of time, but it's just so gosh darn amusing :lol:


----------



## Guest

:lol: everyone wants to be a hero :lol:


----------



## Homer

Well, this has been pretty well hijacked. Joe, if you would like to learn more about the process of performing a fecal, give me a PM or check out the link I posted on "How to do Fecals" (I think that's the name). I intentionally only posted links to information to prevent conflict, and had hoped that the same tactic would work in this instance. Alas, I was wrong.

I'm sorry everyone has to deal with this situation, and I apologize for any of my involvement that may have inflamed things. However, I will, as stated earlier, continue to post information that I find interesting and that may be useful to others in the hobby. I will not be bullied into silence, and I don't believe anyone should. There is more than one viewpoint on any given subject, and it should be able to be presented without degrading to personal attacks.

Thank you for your time, everyone.


----------



## Guest

Homer Quote:

I intentionally only posted links to information to prevent conflict ...


Does anyone who has read his opening statement realy believe this, keeping in mind my brother is the only vet on the board?



Homer Quote:

I will not be bullied into silence .....

Homer, we are begging for you to speak, answer my brother's question and my offer for a study, please...


Homer Quote:

...without degrading to personal attacks...


Have I gotten personal yet Homer????? 




You are good at backpeddling and twisting Counselor, please answer us.

Rich


----------



## Scott

Repeatedly posting the same question, and "demanding" an answer can easily be seen as a personal attack.

I'm seeing it that way.

s


----------



## Guest

Sorry for the attack, not sure how to get an answer without asking a question.

It would seem that Homer is bullying himself into silence.


Rich


----------



## Guest

> You are good at backpeddling and twisting Counselor, please answer us.


Just to clarify for those who might be wondering what a personal attack is.


-Tad


----------



## Guest

That was written post statement Tad.
I would think that my statement may be an attack , had it been false.

Rich


----------



## Guest

Wow, just wow. Maybe it would make more sense if I could understand what exactly you are trying to say in your first sentence (but I can't). Your second statement seems to display a certain amount of ignorance about logic.



> I would think that my statement may be an attack , had it been false.


the statement you are referring to:


> You are good at backpeddling and twisting Counselor, please answer us.


Can that statement be proven empiracly? can it be disproven empiracly? 
I wont hesitate answer no to both questions, why? because its a matter of opinion. Its neither a true statement or a false statement, so I would say yes its a personal attack.

As to the first sentence I'm now going attempt to dissect it, 


> That was written post statement Tad.


Going to assume I can start with "That was written post statment, Tad."
So I'll just drop the last part as it only clarifies that you are addressing me.
Leaving us with "That was written post statement."
Possibly... "That was a written post statement." or "That was a written 'after' (the) statement"? Neither possible meaning would seem to add to your argument that what you said was not a personal attack. 

You seem to have possibly extrapolated much outside what I said. 

-Tad

/yes I realize that I'm being pedantic... but really anyone that uses "Have I gotten personal yet... <insert name here>?" in serious manner and then follows up with an ad hominem statement is just making a proverbial... ah nm.


----------



## Guest

Tad, 
You realy need'nt work yourself up so.

Written post statement : My statement you highlighted was written AFTER Homer had accused me of personal attacks. 

If I have already been accused and convicted of the sin, I may just have to do it.

Rich


----------



## Guest

Worked up? what an odd little world you live in. 


> Written post statement : My statement you highlighted was written AFTER Homer had accused me of personal attacks.


*shrug* 

You seem to infer an awful lot in a few lines of text. I don't recall making any claims as to when/how/why you made personal attacks, I was just pointing out a personal attack for anyone who might have been confused.



> If I have already been accused and convicted of the sin, I may just have to do it.


Are you now saying it was a personal attack? Is that backpedalling? or are you just reserving the right to use personal attacks in the future?

Please, these questions are rhetorical, you don't need to answer them. Feel free to practice some restraint, and not bite at the bait. I'm just trolling here and am a little curious to see if my hypothesis is true and that you do have this pathological need for the last word. 

-Tad


----------



## Guest

Tad, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)


----------



## Guest

Alright guys, take this stuff private or please stop. There is nothing relating to the topic in the past few posts.
j


----------



## Guest

OK


----------



## Guest

Will do.


-Tad


----------



## Guest

Bump


----------



## Guest

Alright boys, enough of this crap. It's very sophomoric-- neither is proving your cases, let it drop now. If either of you posts in a manner which does not edify this thread, I will suggest disciplinary action. It's frankly stupid I have to do this.
j


----------



## Guest

Okay, let’s bring this back to medicine.



Homer said:


> "2.1.1 Absorption, distribution and excretion
> 
> ... *Fenbendazole and oxfendazole are
> metabolically interconvertible, and febendazole is a prodrug of them
> both.* Oxfendazole and fenbendazole both undergo further metabolic
> oxidation and carbamate hydrolysis.":


and,



Homer said:


> By the way a prodrug is a precursor to another drug. So, essentially, a prodrug is metabolically converted into a drug. Therefore, fenbendazole is metabolically converted into oxfendazole. The chemical ratio of prodrug to drug varies with species and prodrug, but general side effects of a prodrug can usually be determined from a resultant drug's effects. because the prodrug is converted into a drug.
> 
> Yes, I took biochemistry.


 So let’s review. Febendazole is converted into fenbendazole (Panacur) and oxfendazole (according to Homer.) But then, he goes astray and states that fenbedazole is converted into oxfendazole. 

Then he wrote,



Homer said:


> David,
> 
> I thought you said you knew what a prodrug was. If you administer fenbendazole to an animal, you will get oxfendazole in vivo (in the animal). Therefore, you can extrapolate potential side effects of fenbendazole from an oxfendazole study. You are correct that they won't be at the same dosage because it is not a 1:1 ratio of fenbendazole being broken down into oxfendazole. Actually, it is widely held that oxfendazole is the active form of fenbendazole.


Homer, reread your own first quote. Febendazole = oxfendazole + fenbendazole not the other way around. Do you remember me asking, 



Dr. Frye said:


> No. I understand what that means. Do you?


So, if I give fenbendazole, I won’t get oxfendazole, if we can trust Homer’s original quote of 2.1.1 Absorption, distribution and excretion. So who exactly is it that “widely” holds the belief that oxfendazole is the active form of fenbendazole?

Just thought I’d bring it back to the original topic.

Yes, yes. I know I asked Homer two questions, and no, (even though these are not rhetorical questions) I don't expect him to answer.


----------



## Homer

David, I don't think your attempts to make me look bad due to a typo contributes anything to the conversation as to potential dangers of fenbendazole, and it doesn't change the fact that administering fenbendazole will result in blood serum levels of oxfendazole. You should be able to do the research to figure that out.

I think Kenya was right that my original post probably was not helpful to the average hobbyist. Therefore, I will quote Dr. Tabaka, D.V.M. (and staff veterinarian for the Memphis Zoo):



> 1. Panacur paste compounds vary in concentrations between the UK and US and other countries.
> 
> 2. There is not a universal dosage for every species and individual turtle or tortoise. [and, presumably various species of darts] Veterinary medicine is not that easy. It is an art as much as a science. For example, I would not treat a healthy captive bred red-footed tortoise with the same approach I would utilize in an Asian wild caught market animal.
> 
> 3. Panacur (fenbendazole) is a DRUG which can kill or cause a variety of problems including gastrointestinal impaction, loss of the mucosal lining, bone marrow toxicity, and even death. The treatment regimen below is extremely, extremely aggressive; too much so in this clinician's opinion. [note that the treatment level is equal to the 100mg/Kg amount cited earlier as an appropriate dose]
> 
> 4. All treatments should be based on the parasites found during fecal testing. Panacur is NOT effective against a wide range of parasites. A wide range of drugs are needed in different circumstances.
> 
> 5. The article is extremely unclear and confusing throughout. I've been contacted by a number of chelonian owners who have had problems understanding it.
> 
> 6. Major generalities are made in terms of dosaging information. Medicating animals requires precision in order to be effective. [dusting flies with a powder is not a precise dosage]
> 
> 7. In certain situations, the usage of panacur is inappropriate.
> 
> 8. Lastly, panacur is rapidly losing it's effectiveness as an anthelminthic (anti parasite drug) due to developing drug resistance in chelonia.


You can read the rest of his article at http://www.sloanmonster.com/index.php?p ... %20article . It is a very easy read, even for the unscientific. Yes, it relates turtles, but we are at least comparing herps here, and it draws upon multiple other studies from other herps.

Let's stop beating around the bush. I know of more than one breeder who has had multiple unexplained deaths immediately after preventively dosing frogs with Panacure (in powdered form) under a vet's direction. 

That, coupled with discussions I have had with my vet, and reading that I have done does make me think that this is a pertinent concern to have, and makes me wonder whether the dosing in Amphibian Medicine and Captive Husbandry may be a bit aggressive for darts (which is valid, given the wide variation of tolerance/toxicity among species for this family of drugs). Notice, that is me wondering, and not making a medical opinion. Anyone can feel free to disagree, but I've made my observation, and I will no longer respond in this post, given the unprofessional and personal nature of many of the comments here. 

Absolutely consult a vet, but don't be afraid to know something yourself when you ask for a treatment protocol. That can be a very beneficial conversation with both you and your doctor, and it can help you determine if a doctor is right for you.

--edited to add commentary to Dr. Tabaka's observations, noted by brackets


----------



## Guest

So you won't answer the two questions I posed in my last posting.

Homer, you didn't make a typo. You typed an exact quote and misinterpreted the meaning behind that quote, even though you took biochemistry and I warned you.

Febendazole turns into oxbendazole and fenbendazole in vivo.


My favorite quotes from the article you cited are still,

“While the internet is an incredible invention allowing vastly improved communications as well as conveying massive amounts of information rapidly, one of my primary concerns with it as a clinician is the amount of medical misinformation that is published on the web. While 99% of it is relatively harmless, it is the medical (as well as husbandry) misinformation that concerns me the most as a medical professional”

and,

“However, this doesn't stop some authors with no medical training from publishing non peer reviewed nor referenced medical information as gospel across the internet which is subsequently followed.”

And of course,

“Veterinary medicine is not that easy.”


----------



## Homer

Anyone who really is all that concerned with the metabolism of Fenbendazole into Oxfendazole can read this excerpt as well:



> Oxfendazole, methyl-5(6)-phenylsulfinyl-2-benzimidazole carbamate, is a member of the benzimidazole family of anthelmintics. It is the sulphoxide metabolite of fenbendazole and it is possible that fenbendazole owes much of its efficacy spectrum to oxfendazole. The probenzimidazole, febantel, when it is metabolized, also becomes fenbendazole, and finally oxfendazole, which is believed to be the active metabolite.


That was written by John J. Melancon, DVM (Robb, is that your dad? :wink: :lol: ) for anyone that cares.

David, I did take biochemistry. Perhaps you should brush up on yours.

edited to add this statement and question:

Yes, David, I did make a typo by highlighting the statement about febendazole (same as fenbatel) being converted to fenbendazole (panacure). I should have highlighted the statement about interconvertabiliy between fenbendazole (Panacure) and oxfendazole.

If you work out the reaction scheme, you can see how it would happen. Otherwise, you can check out the drug report I quoted. Do you now understand how fenbendazole (panacure) is a prodrug of oxfendazole? This really should not be an issue if you read the paper and understand biochemistry.


----------



## Guest

Homer Quote: 
I know of more than one breeder who has had multiple unexplained deaths immediately after preventively dosing frogs with Panacure (in powdered form) under a vet's direction. 



But Homer, TWO of these breeders are STILL having unexplained deaths, escapes, spindly, froglets with too many legs ect. as cited on this board, and Frognet..... Hmmmm. 


Homer Quote:
I will no longer respond in this post, given the unprofessional and personal nature of many of the comments here. 


Now that was not a true statement Homer, on a few of levels , was it?

Yes Homer, let's stop beating around the bush. I hate a one sided conversation.

Rich


----------



## Guest

I would also point out, Homer, that there is a big difference between unexplained, and UNEXPLAINABLE deaths. Until one of the affore mentioned frogs have a histopathy done, the deaths will remain unexplained.


Rich


----------



## Guest

Dr. Frye, would you be so kind as to post other resources that back your point? i am actually pretty interested in understanding this issue, and homer has put up a few good sites and journals that agree with the point that he is trying to raise. good informational reading (even if i didn't understand a good portion of it) and i would like to hear " a second opinion " on the subject that follows your point. if you have writen works yourself on the subject, being an exotic vet, i would be interested in those as well.
Thanks for sticking to the topic. i am actually interested in the idea now.


----------



## Guest

Idea, I took the afternoon off to go flyfishing and to take a ride on my BMW Airhead. I'm going to a party in about 1/2 an hour, so I'll give you some reading material if you want. These are a few of my posts from FrogNet. At the bottom, I'll add a post from Brian Monk, DVM - the only other veterinarian I know of posting on frog boards. Tomorrow, I'll pull half a dozen or so books off my shelf and give you some other quotes about Panacur.

*BUT MY MAIN POINT DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH ANY SPECIFIC MEDICINE! *My main point is this - every single drug you (or anyone) uses on themselves or their animals have a list of serious and life-threatening side effects that they MAY cause. Asprin, ibuprofen, viagra, the birth control pills, vitamins, EVERY SINGLE DRUG!!!! If you don't believe me, ask your doctor for a written list of all the side effects from any drug you want. Or just pay attention to the adds for drugs on TV. Even WOW potatoe chips can cause uncontrolled anal leakage. People can jump all over this and stand up and say, "Don't use any of those meds, because bad things will happen!!!" To that I say, then don't use any meds whatsoever (which I don't believe in.) 
************************************************************

Anyway, if you want to read some of my points.... You can also check Frognet Archives

I am the veterinarian who claims well over 90% of the captive bred Dendrobatid fecal samples I run (and I have literally run thousands now.) have internal parasites. Mostly worms such as hooks and lung worms mentioned earlier. I do not consider bacteria a parasite in my findings. Coccidia is the next greatest offender - however many frogs with coccida seem to thrive, and then again it can kill a stressed frog and cause bloody feces. I occasionally find other protozoa, but it is the worm burden that is astounding. Please, please collect as much as possible fresh feces from one of your tanks, place it in a small airtight container (such as a film canister) with a little moist paper towel to maintain humidity and rush it to your local vet. Have him/her run a fecal float and let the cover slip sit for at least 15 minutes. If the solution he/she is using is decent, and the vet will allow you peek through his scope - I can almost guarantee you are in for a wild ride. Really fresh poop will have a decent number of worm eggs. If you wait a day or three you'll see the worm young hatch and move beneath the lens. These crawling worms can invade your frogs through nearly any body opening, and even more remarkable than that, they can burrow directly through the skin of your frogs desperately seeking an intestinal loop. Sometimes they end up in aberrant locations - brain-kidney-bladder-eye-heart-etc. This isn't really that great for the frog. The frogs can live like this for some time. the problem is that they a shitting hundreds of infective worm eggs each day or so into a tiny space where they are constantly being bombarded with an ever increasing number of hungry little worms waiting to catch a ride into the next frog that happens by. How often do you all change the entire substrate of all of your vivaria. We know hookworms can live in damp soil for over 2years. 
Coccidia can be even worse. Their is no proven cure right now, and we know it can live in a moist environment for over two years, just waiting for a host. 
How many of you quarantined your frogs for at least 2 month and received 2 negative fecal samples before introducing your frogs into their beautiful naturalistic vivaria? Most of you introduce parasites into these enclosures that you will never be able to rid your tanks of. Not unless you scrap the entire furnishings and start with a freshly bleached bare tank. I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you will be shocked. TAKE YOUR SAMPLES TO A DECENT LOCAL VET!!! Have him give you the results and then honestly post them here. I have done many, many collector/breeders' fecal samples, and I have never lied. There are definitely people out there that can vouch that I gave them a negative result, when they truly believed that they had parasites. This usually turns out to be a bacterial overgrowth and is easily remedied. 
In closing, I really try to learn as much as possible about all of the aspects of medical care for these wonderful animals. I appreciate any knowledgeable information. I do not make enough money from doing amphibian medicine to make it worth my while, or worth the headache, but I love doing it. Please, Please, Please - go to a decent vet and have him run fecals from every tank you have. Pay the vet the $10-20 per sample (it is well worth it to everyone - especially if you post your results.) And finally let everyone know. I'm sure many, many people don't want the parasite problem broadcasted on frognet, but you seem to want to ask the question.......... many of you know that you have numerous parasites. Can anyone tell me how a parasite benefits your collection? 

I didn't mean to rant, but it is ridiculous to hear such scientifically minded people not run a simple scientific test on their pets. How many of you have dogs? Do you give Fluffy his monthly heartworm preventative or get the 6 month injection? Do you pick up a puppy and ignore the multitude of roundworms filling his intestinal tract? Most dogs dying of heartworm disease don't show any signs until they've been infected for about 2 years. 

Just a tired man's thought. 

Let me make this entirely clear. I do not wish everyone to treat every PDF in their collections weekly with anything. In fact, if we followed certain guidlines to eliminate dangerous parasites from our frogs (hookworms, lungworms, coccidia, etc) BEFORE we introduced them into a tank, there should be very little worry and nearly no reason to medicate for parasites - assuming you have fecals checked on occasion (I run my frogs fecals weekly to monthly. I'm a vet. I'd suggest others to run fecals yearly or every 6 months IN A TANK WHERE FROGS ADDED WERE KNOWN TO BE CLEAR OF PARASITES.) 

The whole weekly treatment thing is used for frogs in tanks contaminated with worms. The owner doesn't want to scrap the tank, but wants to keep the parasite burden low. I started recommending monthly treatments, but this had problems. The worms can actually be cleared from a frog (negative fecal samples daily for one week after Panacur) but when I tested them again 1 month after treatment they were already shedding eggs again. This means that the frogs were being exposed to infective worm larva in their vivaria, the worms invaded the previously treated frog, made it to the GI tract, matured, and started laying eggs within that month. After further studies it seemed that most frog worms had a life cycle (from invasion of the frog to laying viable eggs) between 12 and 18 days. In a puppy or kitten this usually takes longer than 3-4 weeks so we try to deworm them at least twice at 3-4 week intervals (get rid of all the adults and juviniles with the first dose, and the ju 
viniles 
(too young to lay eggs) in the second deworming.) 

So, now I had to use a little reasoning to come up with the idea that if the life cycle (reproductive life cycle) for frog worms appears to be much quicker than for mammals we should deworm in shorter intervals (shorter than the time it takes a frog to invade and start latying eggs) - hence I came up with 1 week. It's easy to remeber, and works incredibly well. Also - I still believe Panacur to be very safe. All of my breeding thumbnails have had Pancur treatments. 

The main difference between deworming a frog verses deworming a dog is that most of us don't make our dogs live in a very small environment full of their own feces and parasites. Those who do will have parasite ridden dogs (unless they use a good monthly heartworm product (ProHeart counts because it is in the system constantly.) ) Notice the monthly thing again. Heartworm products are actually given monthly to assure protection against GI worms. If Heartworm meds were given every 40 days they would still be 100% effective against heartworm (because it takes longer than that for the microfilaria (baby heartworms) to reach the heart and take up residence. I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE TO GIVE THEIR DOGS HEARTWORM MEDICINE EVERY 40 DAYS!!!!!!!! It would work for heartworms, though. 

One last thing (I have to say something controversial) - I have read that people believe giving dewormers is very stressfull to the frogs (and even to the worms.) Someone mentioned that the worms were so upset that they started to burrow through the frog to get away from the medication. Please think about this statement. GI worms need to be in the GI tract to live normal wormy lives. They burrow INTO the GI tract normally (maybe these were the worms seen on necropsy.) The dewormers we use work by basically shutting down the worms nervous system and paralyzing them. If they were exposed to the drug 1) they'd probably be too paralyzed to start digging an escape tunnel, and 2) THEY ARE NOT REASONING CREATURES. The worms didn't feel the Panacur coming and say," Hey guys we gotta get out of here. Lets do something entirely new and burrow OUT of our beloved homeland." 

As for being stressful to the frog, I've never experienced this. The dewormer is either dusted on the feeder insects or applied by a dropper to the frog's back. None of mine seem to mind at all. 

Let me know what you think, 
David 


Christina, 
Take a few of your darts and place them individually in a brand new "shoe box" set up with a wet paper towel bottom with fake or real plants for cover. Feed them normally and collect all the feces 3 or 4 days later. Take this sample to a good veterinarian. Wait for the results. 
If and when you find dozens of worm eggs/ squirming worms in the samples (and I am in no way trying to say that your collection definitely has parasites or is any way more contaminated than any other,) will you be able to agree that the worms came from the frogs? They wont come from the paper towels. They wont come from plastic fake leaves (even though I prefer to use real plants.) 
Try this out on 10 or so of your frogs. Pick the healthiest looking ones. 
Please, do not think that I am in any way trying to protect my livelihood here. I don't make enough money doing medicine for frogs to make it worth my time. I have had my busiest two weeks ever at my hospital these last two weeks. It takes me about 1/2 hour and 2 bucks worth of material to talk to the frog owner, set up the, fecal, read the fecal, record the results, photograph the parasites (but my wife dropped my KoolPix 995 and I replaced it with a KoolPix 5400 and the microscope adapter is still on order,) explain the results to the owner, explain my recommendations, mix/weigh/package the meds, give my receptionist the directions to print and have the whole thing boxed up and sent to the owner's door. This is not how I want to make money. This is not a money making venture. I do medicine for frogs for the same reason most of you keep frogs - not for the money, but because we are passionate about it. I have the ability to treat these amazing creatures – therefore I feel it is an obligation. 

I used to advertise that I would charge $1 per minute for medical consultation (and trust me I can make a lot more than that doing my routine small animal/exotic practice.) I am sure I have talked to a lot of people on this board who called me up asking advice. Can anyone out there say that I charged them for my time? Ever? 

I am truly glad that you don't think you have problems with parasites. Your collection is obviously doing very well. You and Todd are very respected and have done great things for the hobby. Do you have any dogs or cats? Would you allow them to have hookworm, whipworm, roundworm, or heartworm infections without treating them just because you couldn't see the problem? Most animals with worms show no outward signs. You probably all know someone who was shocked to find out their dog was infested with heartworms. Anyone? 

I am a vet. Fighting infection and parasitism and disease is what I do. It is part of who I am. I'm not trying to convert people or scare you into doing anything. I urge everyone to go to their vet (please not me) with samples collected as I mentioned above. Be honest with the rest of us. Let's find out what is in our frogs. Ask your vet to let you look through the microscope using the 10x and 40 x objectives (100 & 400 times magnification total with eyepiece.) 

Thanks for your time. 


I like Ed's suggestions much better than my own earlier suggestions, but I doubt many people will be able to accomplish this (or are willing to - to be exact.) I do, however, recommend that everyone try Ed's method (with just a few changes that I will mention later.) This was the original reason I mentioned fake plants for cover. I use small clean clippings of pothos (never ever taken from a vivarium - I have pots of hanging pothos just for this purpose) which I rinse very well multiple times. They certainly could still carry non-pathogenic nematodes, but I can not think of how they could introduce amphibian lungworms or hookworms into the quarantine environment (and even if they did - the worms need to enter the frog, take up residence, and start laying eggs - which takes a good deal more than 3 days - for these eggs to be shed into feces.) 
I do not believe that taking the first feces a frog sheds into it's quarantine tank is representative of it's parasite load for 2 reasons. Firstly, parasites are shed sporadically - when a frog, dog, cat, etc has internal parasites, you will not always find the eggs of those parasites in each and every BB sized sample of feces. Secondly, parasite shedding dramatically increases when the frog is stressed. So if you were only to collect one tiny sample, you should move the frog to a new "sterile-ish" environment every day for 3-5 days and take a sample from one of these later days. This will much increase the odds of getting one tiny pile of s*&^ containing an accurate account of the parasites within the frog. I really like to look at more than one turd at a time. 
Many times hobbyists send me samples of only the frogs they are concerned about. These usually, but not always contain parasites. Many breeders and advanced hobbyists have sent me samples from every single group in their collections (EVEN THE ONES THEY WERE NOT AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT,) the prevalence of parasites are nearly identical. Once again, I'm sure there are some of my clients out there that were surprised (and delighted) when I gave them negative fecal results, and conversely I have clients out there that were disappointed when I found huge loads or potentially devastating parasites in their "healthiest" of frogs. 
I don't name names, and I don't tell people who has what, but there are many frog breeders that have actually come to my hospital and watched me perform samples on the feces their frogs shed in brand new deli cups with new paper towels and no other containments (such as plants or soil) on the drive over to my hospital (these were brand-new short transport containers.) Many of these samples had 2 or 3 types of worm eggs in them and some had protozoan parasites (yes, I know that not all protozoans are parasitic - these were.) The owners got to sit there, watch me set the sample up, and look at their frogs' poop under my beautiful Olympus microscope. I pointed out the eggs and the differences of each type. I showed them what mites and mite eggs look like (and not to confuse them with parasites.) I got to show a couple of people amoebas, and those unlucky enough to have coccidia received a glimpse at this evil little bastard. 
I know these breeders have a good reason not to post on this board what they saw. Think about it. I really don't get a whole lot of resistance in this hobby, and I know most people have just heard about me recently, but the resistance I get is usually about what medicines I recommend and how to use them. I understand. These are newish protocols and don't have years of field study on PDFs to prove their safety. (Who has run years of medical research on medicines given to PDFs?) People have mentioned the nicest newest amphibian medical book many times on this and other forums. I take most of my dosages and recommendations from there. I have a few more amphibian formularies. I try my best, have had amazing results, and use all the meds on my own frogs. I am successfully breeding many species of frogs right now that have gotten Panacur nearly weekly for many months at a time. Many of these species are considered difficult to work with and/or breed) I work with a breeder that is much more bold than myself, and he doubles, triples, and sometimes 20 times the dose of my recommendations. I do not endorse this, but I am lucky enough to be able monitor his collection and see if any of the drugs have caused any noticeable problems. I necropsy his frogs for free, and have done so for about 1.5 years. The frogs necropsied before he started using meds had much, much more liver and kidney damage than any I have seen in the last 8 months. 
My next bit of information is not for the squeamish. Next week, call around and find a vet willing to do this. Next time one of your frog dies, call the vet immediately and rush the body to him/her. Have the vet open the abdomen, take a look at the kidneys and liver, and remove the entire GI tract. Now, have the vet use the entire gut contents to set up a fecal float and wait for the results. This sidesteps all of the hesitancy about whether or not the worms and eggs came from the frog or not. If the vet is willing and capable, have him/her set up histopath slides of the heart, heart blood, liver, kidney, reproductive organs, bladder, and lungs. The brain is quite tricky, and takes some practice. Have the vet look for bacterial, parasites, and pathology. THE FROG HAS TO BE VERY FRESH TO GET GOOD HISTIOPATH RESULTS!!!! I can't stress enough, that I will not waste my time or my clients' money on rotten frogs, and your vet will not take kindly to feeling obligated towork on a putrid corpse. 
Just some more of my opinions. Let me know what you all think. I respect the level of intelligence that subjects are handled with on this forum. 


My main point that I keep stressing is that we should just make certain that our frogs don't carry parasites when we introduce them into our vivaria. This is my bottom line. Keep all new animals in quarantine until you are certain they are not contaminated with parasites. Treat all parasites in these quarantined animals until they test negative for at least 2 consecutive fecal exams, and then you can add them to an uncontaminated environment without the concern of prolonged antiparasitic treatments. 
The problem is that very few hobbyists have done this, and almost all of the beautiful, large, and expensive (monetarily and emotionally) vivaria that hobbyists have set up, have had contaminated frogs added to them from the start. I'd much rather have my clients treat their collection for 3-5 weeks, obtain 2 negative fecals, and move to all new and clean vivaria, BUT many of my clients (if not all) are unwilling to completely destroy the vivaria they have worked so hard to create. 
The drug resistance issue is definitely a possibility, but what are your main concerns? Christina had a good point (if the cheapest dewormer is very safe, we would like it to work on our animals when they seriously need it.) Well, there are already worms out there resistant to Panacur. 
Yes, bacteria (which has a life cycle measured in minutes) will constantly evolve and gain resistance to new antibiotics. Worms take weeks to reproduce. If you deworm every week for some time, you should be able to destroy all the worms not already resistant to the drug. It is not as if giving the worms a dewormer will speed up the reproductive cycle so dramatically that we will create super-worms able to reproduce in a tenth the time of normal worms. 
Also, I ask again - how can you be worried about creating panacur-resistant PDF parasites to the point of not treating them at all? What exactly is the main concern? The worms can be destroyed with the next drug (or the second to next) up the line of ever increasing dewormers if a major threat occurs. 
Bacteria become resistant so quickly it is amazing, but Penicillin and Amoxicillin are still extremely effective drugs for MANY MANY bacterial infections and are widely used successfully throughout the world. 
There are extremists that would like antibiotic use completely stopped in all non-human animals so that the resistance will slow down. Does this sound reasonable to anyone? Trust me when I say it is humans carrying most of the antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria out there. Should we stop doing research, creating new meds, and using medicine, and just let god sort things out? 

In general, if a worm is able to reproduce within a host, it is considered a parasite (hence the recommendation to look at the entire GI contents.) Protozoan, etc are much trickier. Remember that the number of protozoan and worms on this planet far outnumber the number of vertebrates. Far, far outnumber them. 

Please, anyone considering sending me a necropsy in the future, I would like to suggest using pathologists instead. I would be most interested in getting copies of the reports, and would be willing contribute to the cost of this. I can't say how many people will take me up on this, so I can't guarantee I can do it forever, but for the first 100 reports sent to me from complete histopaths on PDFs from Mike Garner, I will contribute $5 for the cost of the tests. Thanks a lot. I am extremely excited to have another source of data input. 

David M. Frye, DVM 
Milan Area Animal Hospital 
517 West Main Street 
Milan, MI 48160 
fax (734) 439-0556 

Many parasites can infect multiple hosts (cat,dog, people, etc) and many need intermediate hosts such as insects, snails, crayfish etc before they can wind up in their definitive host. Tapeworms are a good example. 

You can add a clean lid or petri dish to the big spacious vivarium and monitor it for fecal deposits. If it is a clean dish, replaced often, and you know the pile of shit on it wasn't there 2 or 3 hours ago, you can be certain it is a nice fresh sample, eh? You don't have to wrangle frogs.

*From Brian Monk, DVM
"Hi y'all,

Fenbendazole, when used at safe dosages, dose NOT cause bone marrow 
suppression. It is a well-known and well-used drug, with no known side-effects as 
serious as this at proper dosage levels. It is also very effective against a 
broad range of nematodes, other "worm" parasites, and a variety of protozoa. "

and

"Unfortunately (for the frogs, I mean), yes David's numbers are validated by 
my own. About 90% of the fresh, well-handled fecals I see contain what I 
consider parasite eggs. 100% contain protozoa of various sorts, but whether these 
are parasitic or commensal, and potentially harmful and at what levels, is a 
much more subtle topic. ALL (100%) of the frogs that I have sent for 
histopathology have had some evidence of parasitism. Yes, this means that they were 
dead. No, I don't kill all of the frogs I see. Occasionally, I save one."*


----------



## Guest

There you go, Idea. Glad I could interest you.


----------



## rmelancon

Homer, where is John J. Melancon, DVM from? As far as I know he isn't directly related.


----------



## Homer

Robb,

John J. Melancon wrote a scientific review of Oxfendazole for Merial, a manufacturer of veterinary pharmaceuticals. I was just kidding when I asked if the gentleman is your father . . . I hope you didn't take offense. You can read the report at http://us.merial.com/Pdf/page_pdf/Oxfen ... Cattle.pdf .

I'm sorry I haven't been in touch online as I am currently hiking in the mountains in Utah. All the best.

Homer


----------



## verbal

Hey everyone just thought I'd throw in my two cents. I've follwed this thread for awhile now, and thought I could add a little to the discussion.

I'm a veterinarian as well (graduated in 2001), currently in a residency in small animal surgery (dogs and cats). My interest in dart frogs is that of a hobbyist, and I make no claims that I have any kwowledge of dart frog medicine (or amphibian medicine in general).

I can, however, tell of the typical training we get in vet school. Most schools still mandate study of both large (cows, pigs, horses, etc.) and small animal medicine (dogs and cats). We did have a few courses pertaining to "exotic", including avian medicine, wildlife medicine, and basic reptilian/amphibian husbandry. These courses, for the most part, were designed to provide a rudimentary understanding of the physiology and husbandry of these species, and really focused on problems arising from inadequate/improper husbandry, but were cursory at best. Sure the lecturers were specialists in their respective fields, but the level of knowledge of my classmates regarding animals that were "exotic" was amazingly low (myself included in much of this); therefore, lecturers taught the basics.

In terms of exotic species knowledge required for licensure, the national board examination (which must be passed to practice) had some questions about chickens, one or two about other avians, and a single question regarding green iguanas. Some states have separate exams that one must take, others have none.

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is that even though I'm a vet, I'm in the same boat with most hobbyists when it comes to herp medicine - I really don't know any. However, there is knowledge out there for everyone who has an interest in pursuing it, and if your interested in learning - GREAT! go for it. We all started somewhere (yes, even the veterinary specialists). I still remember the first weeks in vet school thinking "What the hell is a spleen?" and "How do you fix a broken leg?" and not knowing any of the answers. The same is true here. Do my frogs have worms? Do these worms make them sick, or do they cause no problems at all? If they have worms, do I treat them even if they seem healthy? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm eager to learn and eager to be shown or taught, much like many on this board appear to be. We're all just looking for information, and sometimes where not quite sure where to look or who to trust. If you can help us, great ... if you can't, that's OK too. Just please don't pick on us for not knowing, for wanting to learn, or for caring enough to ask or try. I see nothing wrong with a hobbyist who loves the hobby so much as to want to make it better and to continuously "interact" with it; we all should be this way.

Sincerely,
Ryan Fulcher, DVM


----------



## kyle1745

I think one of the things that frustrates some people is that a lot is just not known. The key think is to find what works for you and maybe others and stick to it.


----------



## Twny4svn

*WORMS*

bump


----------



## Twny4svn

*WORMS*

So I just have to ask this question after reading all of these posts. If we quarantine are darts check and treat for parasites if any are found(most likely some will be found) and then place them in there new vivaria. What is to stop them from getting parasites from the soil, bark, wood, and plants that we used to make the vivaria? Even with washing plants and baking the wood. Should we really be concerned with treating frogs that are heathy and active if they are found to have worms and are doing fine regardless. Most frogs are not bothered by these parasites unless they are stressed out. I would think we should be more concerned with the frogs that don’t seem very active and struggle to put on weight. I am no vet, but would like to see opinions of others on this.

Okay on a new note, organisms prey on other organisms. So what types would prey on worms(parasites), that are found in the intestines of darts and still may prey on them when passed into the vivarium? This could help cut down on the worms in vivariums because they would be killed by a predator before they made it back into the frog or at least most would be killed before returning to the frog keeping the worm problem under control outside the tank(same would go for inside the frog). Just a thought I have not taken any parasitology classes yet! Just finishing with Organic Chemistry so all the good stuff starts next semester.
Alan


----------



## EDs Fly Meat

*Hi Alan*



> Should we really be concerned with treating frogs that are heathy and active if they are found to have worms and are doing fine regardless.


Hi Alan,

Interesting post. And your question is one many dart froggers have been banging their heads together over for a long time. There is one school of thought similar to your question. If it ain't broke don't fix it kind of a thing. It's simple logic, and a good advice. Someone asked me once, if my frogs eat, are active, call, and breed for me, they must be happy. True enough. But which would _YOU_ as a person rather have? If you had for instance _Ascaris lumbricoides_ I.E. The giant intestinal round worm. You would probably be able to function fine even with the occasional stomach ache, and explosive watery stools. You may want to stay home from school or work for a day while you have to deal with the pesky migrating worm as it looks for less crowded real estate. It's a pain in butt (pun intended) to have but you can live for a long time with a parasite load of _Ascaris_. Now would you want to?

My example was extreme as Dendrobates don't get infections of Ascaris, but they can harbor many other parasites. I have never been able to ask a Dendrobates how it was doing. Amphibians have been around for millions of years, and the flukes, roundworms, protists, and bacteria have been evolving right along with them. They are survivors for sure. However, I personally am drifting towards the side of treating frogs rather than not treating them. But that is by personal preferance only. It is not the right thing to do, or the wrong thing to do, as your earlier point holds a great amount of logic. My research has taught me that the drugs are safe, and very effective for the frogs getting treated.

There are a couple of ways I know of to go about treating frogs if one decides it is the choice for them. Some will quarentine their frogs for a few weeks (8-9) and offer weekly treatments, while creating sterile environments for their frogs to live in. Baking corks and leaf litter, boiling soils etc, alcohol baths for the plants. Others will accept that soil can harbor parasites and will simply offer periodic treatments of their frogs in order to kill of parasite loads and to keep those loads in check.

Treating frogs for parasites is easy to do, but it can be expensive. It is a personal choice, not an ethical one. I believe that despite this topic being another "sensitive one" (I don't know why?) people should respect how others value and treat their frogs. I am no veterinarian, but you would be surprised how very helpful they can be. There are a few really good ones out there who can help if you know who to ask.

Dave

p.s. Take a parasitology ASAP, by far one of the best classes I took in college. Almost steered me into a PhD. Really fun, very interesting. There is so much that we know and don't know about parasites.


----------



## Twny4svn

Very good points Dave, I will get some fecal checks done just to see. I cant wait to take parasitology, it should prove to be a very interesting class.
Thanks for your advice
Alan


----------



## vet_boy77

If I can add a little, I inherited some apparently healthy frogs from another hobbiest (one I know who takes excellent care of his frogs). I eventually got around to doing some fecals a few months later, and found abundant strongylid or Rhabdias eggs (hard to differentiate species). Luckily, I had not combined them with my other collection, just yet. However, it goes to show that even very healthy animals can carry parasites. I opted to deworm with fenbendazole (Panacur) at 100mg/kg three times, and had no negative side effects. I chose to deworm despite their apparent health in order to prevent the worms from infecting the other frogs in my collection, from causing problems later in their life, and, if and when, I decide to give these frogs to someone else, I know they are parasite free. 

Regarding the environment, I can say some eggs are heartier than others, and you always run the risk of cross contamination when you transfer plants, bark, or other cage items, no matter how clean you are (unless they're made of plastic and you can soak them with bleach/alcohal/quat)

Alan, you broght up an interesting point of using nematode predators to control their populations. I'm not of any used in vivariums or for frogs, but it has been explored for other animals. Several fungal Deuteromycetes species (such as _Duddingtonia flagrans_) feed on a variety of nematodes, and they are being used to control several primary sheep/goats parasites.


----------

