The Wonderful World of Search Engine Optimization

We at BH see many interesting search terms used by individuals, causing them to stumble upon our site. We thought it may be best to share some of these and offer assistance to those seeking advice. We hope these answers will help future Googlers.

10) hoax hartz is killing dogs

Perhaps this EPA data will help to settle your question. The following screenshots are from the individual reports for both of Hartz Mountain Corporation’s dog products named in the EPA Public Advisory, Published in March 2010 (EPA Registration numbers 2596-150 and 2596-151)

Of course, you must also remember these are only the deaths Hartz has actually reported for only two of their spot-on products, this has been going on for decades, these reports only reflect 2008, plus it is suspected the majority of incidents go unreported or are left out due to technical limitations. These are the untold numbers.

Comparitively, how did Hartz’ dog products stack up against the other dog products named in the EPA’s Public Advisory?

The following chart shows, if a dog experienced an adverse reaction to any of the Spot-On dog products listed in the EPA Public Advisory Published in March 2010, what the likelihood was (based on percentage of reported events) of a dog experiencing Death or a Major, Moderate or Minor event. As you can see, in the case of an adverse event, dogs were 2.5 times more likely to die from a Hartz product than any of the other brands found in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010. Hartz also topped the list for Major events and Moderate events, clearly making it the most dangerous of these products.

Likelihood of Death, Major, Moderate or Minor Event if Your Dog Experiences an Incident With a Manufacturer’s Product Listed in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010:

For more fun with charts, click back there.

9) why does everyone hate hartz

We imagine this person now knows the answer to that question.

8) melinda dr. krazy dynotaku

??????????????

7) is hartz campaign by competitors

Umm… no.

6) “i am brokenhartzpets

No, you’re not. We wish to state this next bit is pure speculation, however, this seems like a lame attempt at investigation by an individual resembling the following illustration:

5) why are all these people blaming hartz

Because Hartz is to blame.

4) should i buy hartz flea and tick powder or sergeant’s household flea and tick spray?

Let’s see… there’s Hartzy… or Sarge.

May we kindly offer a third option?

3) is hartz victims for real

2) hartz organization that fights the hartz corporation

Welcome, new BH Warrior!

1) only positive feedback on hartz drops pro for dogs no negative remarks!

Why research the product if you are so thoroughly convinced it’s safe and do not wish to see evidence to the contrary?

We find it amusing you used an exclamation point. It’s almost as if you had lost patience with Google after numerous failed attempts to find the “Holy Grail” you seek.

We also find it quite amusing you broke down and visited our site anyway.

=^..^=

It “Figures”

---

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Dr. Gaskins’ report includes minor human incidents, such as skin rashes, along with the animal reports. Interesting, but irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
4. 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”

---

More Fun with Charts!

---

Click this link for the previous article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Rite Aid Corporation Still in Bed with Hartz

---

In a previous post, we had some fun with charts, using data from all individual reports for the products listed in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010.

Here are two more interesting charts, representing legitimate interpretations of the incidents reviewed in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010.

The following chart shows, if your dog experiences an adverse reaction to any of the Spot-On dog products listed in the EPA Public Advisory Published in March 2010, what the likelihood is (based on percentage of reported events) of your dog experiencing Death or a Major, Moderate or Minor event. As you can see, in the case of an adverse event, your dog is 2.5 times more likely to die from a Hartz product than any of the other brands found in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010. Hartz also tops the list for Major events and Moderate events, clearly making it the most dangerous of these products.

Likelihood of Death, Major, Moderate or Minor Event if Your Dog Experiences an Incident With a Manufacturer’s Product Listed in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010:

This next chart shows, if your cat experiences an adverse reaction to any of the Spot-On cat products listed in the EPA Public Advisory Published in March 2010, what the likelihood is (based on percentage of reported events) of your cat experiencing Death or a Major, Moderate or Minor event. As you can see, in the case of an adverse event, your cat is 3 times more likely to die from a Hartz product than any of the other brands found in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010. Hartz also tops the list for Major events and comes in second for Moderate, clearly making it the most dangerous of these products.

Likelihood of Death, Major, Moderate or Minor Event if Your Cat Experiences an Incident With a Manufacturer’s Product Listed in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010:

These charts speak for themselves.

More to come.

---

Click this link for the next article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Hartz and Its Nasty Little Habit of Putting Words in the EPA’s Mouth

---

Fun with Charts!

---

Click this link for the first article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Proof of Hartz’ “Commitment” to Providing Factual Information

---

As Broken Hartz continues to expose Hartz Mountain Corporation for the liars they are, we’d like to talk about Hartz’ love of charts. Hartz thinks charts can hide its lies, but we’ll show a different use for them. To do this, we turn to another portion of the soon-to-be-notorious Hartz document, entitled “Executive Summary of EPA Evaluation of Pet Spot-On Products” (Word document).

Within this document, Hartz claims (on four separate occasions) the information used to create the charts found in their “Executive Summary” to represent all adverse reactions reported to the EPA in 2008.

This is false.

The report responsible for Figures 3 and 1 in Hartz’ “Executive Summary”, was created by Dr. Charles T. Gaskins (more on him in another post), using information from Hartz, gathered from the EPA (using FOIA), spanning July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2008. Dr. Gaskins’ “independent statistical analysis” can be found here.

Continuing, the EPA is quite clear in pointing out it would be inappropriate to try and extrapolate absolute numbers of incidents among the different spot-on products in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010:

(EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010, Page 4, Paragraph 3)

“A comparison of the absolute numbers of incidents among the different spot-on products in this report is not appropriate. This is because some products may have more incidents than other products because more of that product is sold and because incident information is voluntarily submitted by pet owners, with varying levels of detailed information, and routine reporting is sometimes lacking. The incidents have not been verified and may have causes other than exposure to the pesticide.”

This same caution is given, with greater emphasis and detail, on page 12 of the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010 as well as other places. Despite this caution, Hartz has seen fit to make a comparison of the absolute numbers of incidents among the different spot-on products in attempt to show themselves as being the safest, even though a true analysis of these reports proves Hartz to be the worst by far.

Additionally, in this document, Hartz continually tries to focus attention on (s)-Methoprene.

Broken Hartz is not interested with (s)-Methoprene, although we’re sure Hartz wishes we were. Rather, we are interested in the inert, unlisted ingredients. So is the EPA:

(EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010, Page 16, Paragraph 2, Sentences 1-3)

“Incidents were reported for all products, including two products containing s-methoprene as the sole active ingredient. Companion animal safety studies were not required for these products because s-methoprene, which is an insect growth regulator, is of low toxicity to mammals. There are concerns for the potential toxicity of a formulant ingredient being responsible for toxicity of these products in cats.”

While a comparison of the absolute numbers of incidents among the different spot-on products in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010 is not appropriate, we have found legitimate methods for interpreting the data compiled by the EPA.

We accessed and analyzed the individual reports for every product listed in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010.

The EPA’s “DATA EVALUATION RECORD FOR ENHANCED SPOT-ON REPORTING CAT PRODUCT”, concerning EPA registration numbers 2724-504 (Wellmark), 2724-504-270 (Farnam) and 2724-504-2596 (Hartz) reveals some intriguing information in support of an inert ingredient problem in the Hartz product. These three products are identical in terms of active ingredients (40% Etofenprox, 3.6% s-Methoprene), varying only in the contents of these products’ inert ingredients.

This chart reflects the percentage of adverse events that resulted in deaths and major incidents from dermal exposures only (i.e. proper use).

This next chart is another valid way to use the data gathered by the EPA through their review of pet spot-on incidents.

All products associated with only one chemical class were included in this chart. Since manufacturer specifics have been removed, sales data becomes irrelevant. The data included accurately represents all deaths, resulting from proper use; that can be uniquely attributed to a specific chemical class.

The previous chart is important because it shows Insect Growth Regulators [(s)-methoprene and pyriproxyfen] to be the primary culprits for death from products with only one active ingredient even though insect growth regulators are widely accepted to be non-toxic to mammalian species. Again, this suggests the real problem is with the inert, proprietary ingredients found in these products.

Although this is not the case for the other Hartz products in the EPA Public Advisory published in March 2010, the (s)-Methoprene product (2596-147) was exempt from having to conduct Companion Animal Safety studies, even though previous Companion Animal Safety studies for these products were deemed unacceptable by the EPA.

We’ll have more fun with charts in a future post. Stay tuned.

---

Click this link for the next article in our Hartz “Executive Summary” exposé: Hartz Claims Advantage Doesn’t Have FDA Approved Drugs

---