Click this link for the previous article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Misuse Revisited
Broken Hartz would like to step back for a moment and place some increased attention on Dr. Charles T. Gaskins’ involvement in this ugly affair.
If you’ve downloaded Dr. Melinda’s shameful “Executive Summary” document, you’ve already seen this nasty little bit of deception, titled “Figure 3”:
THE FOLLOWING FIGURE COMES FROM HARTZ MOUNTAIN CORPORATION
THE PREVIOUS FIGURE CAME FROM HARTZ MOUNTAIN CORPORATION
Dr. Melinda used this violently false chart, provided by Dr. Charles T. Gaskins to make the following statement:
(Hartz’ Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products, Page 5, Paragraph 5)
“As you can see, Methoprene used in products like Hartz Ultraguard® FLEA Eggs & Larvae treatment for cats and Kittens totaled just over 1000 reactions for all of 2008, while the products the consumer pointed out at [sic] ‘safe alternatives’ (i.e. Frontline® (which contains Fipronil) and Advantage® (which contains Imidacloprid), accounted for over 15,000 reactions for 2008.”
Dr. Melinda packs the lies in tight on this one but here’s what it boils down to:
- This chart does not represent total Adverse Reactions for 2008. Look back at the asterisk notation in Figure 3, “*Some reporting periods <24 months” This forgotten artifact leads to the logical conclusion that all non-asterisked products had reporting periods of 2 years or greater, not only 1 year, as Dr. Melinda falsely stated. This revelation clued our affiliate in to the fact there was more to this chart than met the eye and led, in part, to the discovery of Dr. Gaskins’ full report. Discovery of this report confirmed that, among other things, the true reporting period was from July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2008.
- Dr. Melinda takes the liberty of comparing (s)-Methoprene to multiple chemicals at once in an attempt to make (s)-Methoprene’s numbers looks smaller, but the lies don’t stop there.
- Dr. Gaskins’ report includes minor human incidents, such as skin rashes, along with the animal reports. Interesting, but irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
- Dr. Gaskins’ “Imidacloprid” section does not just represent Advantage, it represents Bayer’s Advantix product as well. Our affiliate never mentioned Advantix and this product features a combination of active ingredients (8.8% Imidacloprid and 44% Permethrin). Also, the “Fipronil” section of Dr. Gaskins’ “Figure 3” includes products with roughly equal amounts of (s)-Methoprene and Fipronil.
Logic would dictate, the best way to handle products with more than one active ingredient would be to report the product in both active ingredient chemical classes, but that’s not how Dr. Gaskins saw it. Instead, he decided to solely assign these numbers to the class where they would do the most damage to Hartz’ competitors. This is a shameful act.
By Dr. Gaskins’ raw data, the true numbers for sole-active-ingredient occurrences (minus human incidents) of Imidacloprid, Fipronil and (s)-Methoprene breaks down thusly:
- Imidacloprid only – 1,866
- Fipronil only – 1,395
- (s)-Methoprene only – 1,022
That’s a far cry from Dr. Melinda’s unscrupulous claim, but a true comparison can’t be made at this point either. As previously mentioned, the EPA makes it quite clear that comparing absolute numbers for these products is incorrect because some products are more popular than others. Because of that, we need to look at these numbers as we have in the past.
The following chart shows, in the case of an adverse reaction during the timeframe of Dr. Gaskins’ report, the percentage likelihood of a dog or cat experiencing Death, a Major Event or a Moderate/Minor Event from either (s)-Methoprene, Fipronil or Imidacloprid:
As you can plainly see, in the case of an Adverse Event, (s)-Methoprene seems to be more dangerous than either Fipronil or Imidacloprid.
This is a vastly different story than the one portrayed by Dr. Melinda and, as mentioned before, Dr. Gaskins’ dismissal of the difference between Moderate and Minor events is another example of poor practice.
Interestingly, if we humor Dr. Melinda and allow (s)-Methoprene to be compared to Fipronil and Imidacloprid combined, we get the following chart:
The following chart shows, in the case of an adverse reaction during the timeframe of Dr. Gaskins’ report, the percentage likelihood of a dog or cat experiencing Death, a Major Event or a Moderate/Minor Event from either (s)-Methoprene or Fipronil and Imidacloprid combined:
The willful attempt to deceive the public by these two culpable individuals and Hartz Mountain Corporation is, in a word, disgusting.
Click this link for the next article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: “Misinformation on the Internet”