Talk:Canine parvovirus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GreatDane15. Peer reviewers: Lilsharplilac, A3C7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding medical advice in article

Wikipedia policy says very clearly here, "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." While I appreciate that home treatment is necessary for many people treating CPV due to the high costs of veterinary care, it should not be phrased as medical advice, and it should not be in the second person (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Avoid second-person pronouns). I'm sure we can come up with a better way of phrasing this, preferably with a reliable source. I'll change it back for now, and if the editor who added it does not address this, I'll work on a compromise tomorrow. -Joelmills 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would advocate the removal of the statement that home treatment with IV fluids can be effective. Using IV fluids on an animal by anyone other than a vet is considered, in many countries with regulations involving veterinary science, an 'act of veterinary science'. While I am not saying that people should not be able to do so at there own risk, suggesting it here may appear that wikipedia supports such a statement. Remove the entire statement altogether, it is anecdotal at best and has no firm references supporting it's inclusion.benjicharlton (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The last addition was much better, in my opinion, but I still removed the info about flushing the tube and when to replace the catheter, not just because they constituted medical advice, but because that is general treatment info for dehydration and is not specific to CPV. I also removed the part about vets working for online pharmacies writing prescriptions for fluids, because it's not really ethical to write an Rx for an animal you've never seen. Otherwise, it's much better, although it still needs a reference, which I will try to provide tomorrow. -Joelmills 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the piece on "parvaid" under "unconventional treatments" sounds like someone trying to advertise for the medication. It's poorly written, cites no sources, and at the very least, is under the wrong heading, as it starts out "Although not an unconventional treatment..." I'm not a regular wikipedia editor, so I don't know exactly how to go about these things, or even how to format it here properly, but I thought this should be addressed. At the very least, it should be rewritten with a "citation needed" added to it. I don't know how to do this, but I figured I'd at least bring it up on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.221.188 (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Question on redirect for "Parvo"

Given that Parvo is just not a dog virus, take Parvo B19, one of the human forms, shouldnt simply typing in parvo link you to the general parvo page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parvovirus, instead of the canine page. I would see this as a source of confusion. Somebody comes along and types in Parvo looking for a human version of the virus and they are linked immediatly to a canine parvo virus page. The said link should then provide links to the individual strains of the virus for different species.Xcalibur27 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Parvaid?

what is this "parvaid" medication.i have found almost no scientific evidence for it's effectivness on the internet,though their seem to be multiple sites selling it,not one of the sites cited any scientific evidence n favor of it's use in canine parvovirus.however,i do not feel i can be sure enough that it is ineffective to remove the the info altogether.instead,i will put a duboius disscuss template next to it.Immunize (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a little more research into parvaid. The maker claims it to be entirely herbal, and it is taken orally. There are two reasons dogs with parvo are given fluids and drugs intravenously, which are firstly that they are usually unable to keep anything taken orally down, including food, fluids, and meds, and secondly that the stomach lining is generally unable to absorb any nutrients due to the nature of the disease. I've also found references to parvaid being homeopathic online, though not on the maker's site. If it's homeopathic, it's a placebo, if it's herbal and taken orally, it's probably ineffective, and if it were to somehow be effectively absorbed, the mix of ingredients is dubiously helpful, including a couple of herbs which would act as diuretics, thus hastening your pet's death. The one thing I DO find, everywhere I look, are posts on message board, blogs, and so on, making the claim over and over again that it's 80 or 90% effective, with absolutely no evidence to back it up, all written very similarly, and often with other posters claiming the posts are spam. I think what's most likely is that someone with a vested interest in this "drug" being sold edited this article to include this unverified claim, in order to make a few extra dollars. I can't prove that, of course, but it seems most likely. My conclusion is that this "medication" is a placebo, meant to bilk a few dollars from poor distressed dog owners willing to try anything to save their pet's life. Here is a link to the FDA warning letter sent to the manufacturer of parvaid to discontinue their claims that their products prevent or treat any pet illnesses. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm384594.htm

You appear to be spot on, all of the classic snake-oil quackery warning signs are present on the sites peddling this "Parvaid" product... They have outlandish claims such as "studies have shown 90% efficacy!" and yet none of them provide any details of these "studies", there are endless "testimonials" which have precisely zero scientific merit, many are confusing viruses with bacteria and parasites, there is plenty of scaremongering against existing evidence-based treatment protocols, and of course the pièce de résistance: "all-natural herbal ingredients!" - a phrase which is commonly plastered all over those penis enlargement pill scam websites and is solely designed to exploit public mistrust of the (far from perfect) medical establishment. Much of this could be forgiven if the offending article text was backed up by some high-quality sources citing reputable scientific studies in support of these wild claims, but of course there are no such sources, so I'm removing this text now. Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence folks... C 1 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdated information

This section:

Canine Parvovirus Trial

In April 2009; IMULAN BioTherapeutics, LLC initiated a study to examine the effects of a new biologic for treatment of canine parvovirus. The study is expected to be completed in 2009 and will evaluate clinical signs and diagnostics (company website).

.. is obviously out of date, since as of this writing it is late in 2010. Someone should update this information! Billcito (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Intro

I removed the weird "cardiovascular failure in puppies" fragment from the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetronics (talk • contribs) 00:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the feline strain of parvovirus being panleukopenia as the first sentence made it sound like cats are susceptible to the same strain. GreatDane15 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

"Variants" has misleading info; laboratory setting does not adequately imitate home setting

(My humble apologies for any formatting and/or content errors. I'm trying, but realize I am not well enough trained, at this point, to do everything correctly, per Wikipedia.)

Under "Variants," the article states: >>This has led to claims of ineffective vaccination of dogs,[29] but studies have shown that the existing CPV vaccines based on CPV type 2b, provide adequate levels of protection against CPV type 2c.[30][31]<<

Per the references given in the article, these challenges were performed using products from only 1 vaccine manufacturer: Schering-Plough Animal Health. Per Pub Med, Nobivac by Intervet was utilized. Intervet is now Merck, and has belonged to Schering-Plough under both names. Galaxy and Continuum by Intervet were also used for the parvovirus challenge, per Pub Med. We have already established that Intervet/Merck was/is owned by Schering Plough, and, per the Whole Dog Journal, the Galaxy brand of vaccines were also owned by Schering Plough. Thus, Nobivac and Continuum by Intervet/Merck, as well as Galaxy, were/are owned by one vaccine manufacturer.

I will pray on common sense to justify my grievance regarding the use of only one 1 manufacturer's vaccines being used in the challenge studies. Per the article's declaration that, "...studies have shown that the existing CPV vaccines based on CPV type 2b, provide adequate levels of protection against CPV type 2c," the insinuation being made is, since no qualifier was offered, that all brands of vaccines based on 2b provide adequate protection against 2c. *There is evidence to suggest that testing only one manufacturer's parvovirus vaccines is not enough research to give a blanketed clearance for all parvovirus vaccines to be declared effective against 2c. (*Parvovirus vaccine failure: Per Wood 8 TV, Parvovirus vaccine failure: Per Cavalier KC Spaniels Show Breeder, Parvovirus vaccine failure: Per Arizona Small Animal Clinic)

Per article reference #31, "All groups of puppies were challenged with a combination of virulent CPV-2b and CPV-2c (five) 5 weeks after vaccination." I would like to argue that the general public's pet puppies are expected to successfully face parvovirus challenges much, much sooner than 5 weeks after their last vaccination. VCA Animal Hospital states, "It usually requires ten to fourteen days before a reasonable level of protection is established." Thus, the typical pet owner would expect their puppy to have formed adequate parvovirus 2c antibodies within 2 weeks post vaccination.

Were the test puppies exposed to the parvovirus only 1 time during the oral challenge? The referenced research papers state, in effect: "All animals were challenged orally with a type 2c isolate of CPV and monitored for clinical signs..." To infer the test subjects were exposed repeatedly would be merely a guess. Reading the statement, as is, suggests a one-time oral challenge on puppies that are kept in a laboratory setting. In a real-life situation, if even one puppy in a litter is given a vaccine that reverts back to the virulent stage, resulting in this puppy becoming ill with parvovirus, this sick puppy will be exposing all other puppies in the litter for days at a time before the infected puppy shows symptoms. This type of exposure is far more extreme than 1 dose of infectant being administered orally by laboratory personnel.

Suppose you walk your puppy down the block daily. If there is contamination anywhere along the route, this puppy could find itself challenged daily by high amounts of virus particles. This is because, per the vet medicine section of about.com, "The Parvovirus family of viruses are particularly long-lived in the environment, lasting anywhere from 1 to 7 months -- commonly surviving 5-7 months in an outside environment."

The article's referenced material goes back to 2007 and 2008 as origination dates. This is the year 2015. Therefor, the age of the article's referenced research needs to be considered.Ptsdvirus (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:VET

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Bleach dilution

I have read several places the bleach dilution is 1:32 not 1:10 as stated in the article. 74.195.235.134 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Graham Beards (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request

NOTE: I’m proposing the following edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Elanco Animal Health. I’m a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. Please let me know of any questions or comments as you review. Thanks for your consideration.

Treatments in Development

Propose adding the following paragraph to the Treatments in Development section regarding a canine parvovirus monoclonal antibody treatment:

In May 2023, the USDA granted Elanco Animal Health conditional approval to develop a Canine Parvovirus Monoclonal Antibody (CPMA) which targets the virus instead of its symptoms to shorten the course of the disease and reduce risk of death. Initial distribution of CPMA to veterinarians began in July 2023.

References

Jon Gray (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Approved Regards,  Spintendo  03:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)