# Heartgard lawsuit



## schtuffy (May 17, 2010)

So I saw this floating around on the internets today:

Heartgard lawsuit

Apparently it's not completely new news :frown: I don't use Heartgard, but I have some generic form of it leftover from the Banfield days. My new vet actually suggested a maximum of 3 doses a year for our area (actually he really encourages no heartworm meds for mostly indoor dogs). 

Anyone heard about this too? If so, what do you think?


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

schtuffy said:


> So I saw this floating around on the internets today:
> 
> Heartgard lawsuit
> 
> ...


A few things come to mind about this issue:

1) I would like to see the actual study. We are all hearing about this THIRD HAND. It's reported in an article about someone who talks about the study. It's basically hearsay. And the fact that this "news team" is "reporting it" is almost joke-worthy. Sadly, TV news is more about ENTERTAINMENT rather than NEWS. Which is scary considering many people get their information via TV these days.

2) Anyone in this country can sue about anything, REGARDLESS of whether or not the suit has merit. The fact that there is a lawsuit in progress means absolutely nothing. We have no idea about what the actual statement of claim is or basis for damages (if any).

Meanwhile, since we're in FL, we're basically forced to use some form of heartworm protection year round, just like we have to use flea/tick/moquito topicals. As it happens, our dog is on Heartguard. (When he finishes his current batch, we have a chemically identical generic that we'll be using.) Even though we've switched to another clinic for our dog and this vet doesn't use Heartguard, she didn't have any negatives so say about the product. In fact, she had no problems submitting a script to the online pet pharmacy for the generic we wanted.

I think we should all just "wait & see" about this lawsuit.


----------

