>From:    sukie crandall <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Just so you know, the Frontline neural damage reports I have read to
>date (and I'll have to look at your links later) have been almost
>entirely based on a misreading of case studies in Australia.
>
> http://www.apvma.gov.au/chemrev/fipronil.pdf
 
With respect, I think you've been somewhat selective in your reading of
that Australian report.
 
Here's what this report *actually* says.
 
"The first reports of adverse effects in humans were received in 1996 for
the veterinary spray formulation and involved reactions in humans who had
applied the spray to pets.  Since then, 53 reports of suspected adverse
effects in humans involving both the spray and the concentrated spot-on
formulation have been received.  Of these reports 43 have been considered
by the APVMA as possibly or probably linked to product use."
 
"Reports of adverse effects in animals were first received in 1997 and
have been recorded in every reporting period since then.  Of the 120
animal reports to date 80 have been classified by the APVMA as possibly
or probably linked to product use on cats and dogs.  A further 27 reports
have been linked to off-label product use in rabbits."
 
"In Australia there have been 56 suspect adverse experience reports for
dogs classified as being either probably or possibly associated with
fipronil.  In 21 of those reports (38%) there was concurrent infestation
with the dog paralysis tick, Ixodes holocyclus."
 
So in 62% of those reports there was no concurrent infestation.  The only
issue I can see discussed in the report concerning the dog paralysis tick
is how effective fipronil is in the control of that tick.
 
And the Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority isn't
the only regulatory authority to have concerns about fipronil's safety.
I believe that the Department of Pesticide Regulation (Californian
Environmental Protection Agency) also initiated a review of products
containing fipronil in November 2001?
 
It may well be though that immune mediated responses or tissue irritation
are more common adverse effects of fipronil use than neurological damage.
And if that is indeed the point you were trying to make than I'd probably
be inclined to agree with you.
 
Eric Corbett
[Posted in FML issue 4836]