Sick Rabbits Dying

Rabbit Talk  Forum

Help Support Rabbit Talk Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The term ‘contagion theory of disease spread’ presumably refers to physicians from the 1700s and before that first postulated that what they called ‘animalcules’ were responsible for causing diseases. Fortunately we have moved on a bit since then, and can now identify a whole range of bacteria and viruses that are known to cause a whole range of symptoms in our rabbits and in our own bodies.

To say that there is not enough science to back up this important understanding of human and animal health is not just wildly inaccurate, it is also potentially harmful.

Unfortunately when statements of this kind are posted on public forums, most people avoid challenging them because of the enormity of trying to explain some of the key concepts that have been developed over three hundred years of research. :(
Yep, as a past infectious disease PA, I just rolled my eyes at the prior post and scrolled past it. There's no way I was getting sucked down into that sort of anti-science rabbit hole waste of time.
 
accepted scientific concepts
I'm sorry, and it's totally fine to be too tired to discuss... but "accepted science" is an anti-science term.

I'm so sorry to be abrasive, I am trying to share these idea without abrasion. If anyone has suggestions about saying it with more tact I am willing to by held accountable in that way, even in the face of others not.

I feel the responsibility to be quiet, kind, and short in my responses is on me (rather than the people who tout the mainstream ideas). But... I am disappointed at seeing the "accepted" or "proven" being used in a discussion about science. It exposes a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Edit: if it's worth anything, our last discussion convinced me that ultrasounds were not as dangerous as I previously thought! You really changed my view and helped me accept others who use US. It's really cool to have that happen because it doesn't happen often, since most people hardly ever take the time to engage in these uncomfortable topics. Especially when they are highly educated and the discussion is with a self identified un(formally)educated conspiracy theorist. I value you highly! And don't consider you, specifically, anti scientific. Just the use of "accepted science", you are wonderful and hardly are anti-science compared to most mainstream believers who beliefs are based on a religious belief in authorities rather than the actual practice of science.
 
Last edited:
a whole range of bacteria and viruses that are known to cause a whole range of symptoms
Can you show how they are "known" as no bacteria or viruses meet Koch's postulates, they had to change the entire system away from Koch's postulates because they kept finding the opposite of this hypothesis - that germs do not cause symptoms. Symptoms are found without germs, and germs are found without symptoms. We should question what we believe is "known", before calling it known at least.

"To say that there is not enough science to back up this important understanding of human and animal health is not just wildly inaccurate, it is also potentially harmful." If it turns out that terrain theory is accurate and ger theory is less accurate, than the harmfulness is actually on the end of people who continue to spurt germ theory and my questioning is healing and helpful (and that is my intention, because I have looked into the science and truly believe I am being helpful).

The statement about lack of science is factual, if you look into the science of germ theory. There were studies using horses (not rabbits, but similar) where they tried to pass disease onto horses by directly taking the snot and spit from sick horses, and directly putting into non-sick horses. They did not get sick. They later also used these same methodologies with humans, even going to far as to have a sick person expel all of their air and another healthy individual inhale the entirety of the sick other's exhale directly, yet no sickness was found to be achieved from any of these direct applications of germ-exchange. There's a lot more if you wish to learn...

The Contagion Myth: Why Viruses (including "Coronavirus") Are Not the Cause of Disease by Sally Fallon

Good-Bye Germ Theory: Ending a Century of Medical Fraud by Dr. William P. Trebing (this one is less professional, has some mistakes, and has a lot of parts that might be distasteful to non-conspiracy-minded folks)

There are others but I don't want to take over the thread, if you're interested you can PM!
 
Last edited:
If I keep saying, friendly and quietly, "the earth is flat, just look on the horizon", it's pointless to discuss that with me if I just keep doing it. That is the tiring aspect, everyone correcting me would waste his/her time since every try would be my reward. I would be stealing the lifetime of well meaning people.

You don't really think the peak of medical science is horse snot experiments, do you? Of course there are a lot of "convincing" experts and books, there's a lot of money to make. I can even understand the fun in indulging in such things, the human need for mysticism and beliefs is woefully neglected in the modern world. Religions are becoming obsolete, that leaves a huge void. Not measureable in Dollars.

Old ways to explain things sometimes have merit, like Feng Shui - much of it, and the way it's expressed sounds like nonsense, but are ways to put the way our animal brains work into concepts.

Taking old timy folklore at face value and ignoring what changed in the last 300 years, well, that takes some spirit.

I do not say that there isn't a lot going wrong in modern medicine, especially in the US where it's all about profit, but that is not the point here.
 
Last edited:
The "evidence" you want us to read is a book co-authored by a doctor who surrendered his medical license (who'd already been on a 5-year probationary period from the state's medical board for mistreating a woman with breast cancer) which claims that the Covid pandemic wasn't caused by a virus, but was instead caused by 5G cell towers? Seriously?

Sorry, but I'll continue to quarantine my rabbits for infection control to stop the spread of viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens based on my actual education and professional experience in infectious disease. If I get Strep throat, it's an antibiotic I'll turn to to protect my heart, not a snake oil salesman charging $375 for supplement "consultations."
 
I'm sorry, and it's totally fine to be too tired to discuss... but "accepted science" is an anti-science term.

I'm so sorry to be abrasive, I am trying to share these idea without abrasion. If anyone has suggestions about saying it with more tact I am willing to by held accountable in that way, even in the face of others not.

I feel the responsibility to be quiet, kind, and short in my responses is on me (rather than the people who tout the mainstream ideas). But... I am disappointed at seeing the "accepted" or "proven" being used in a discussion about science. It exposes a religious belief, not a scientific one.
In this case I intended to mean "accepted" in 2 ways.

1. "Accepted generally by rabbit talk members", such as mendelian genetic inheritance as opposed to the Lamarckian evolution or some other system of inheritance. Generally non-controversial.

2. Concepts backed by peer reviewed scientific literature. This is my area of expertise. I do not have expertise in other areas and I therefore do not have contributions to make in those areas.

I have tried to have a lot of patience for these discussions, but it starts to feel like trolling when my words are nitpicked like this. I am doing the best I can. I ask for a little more grace, please.
 
I would definitely use the ivermectin. I'm wondering how something like this gets started. Where did it come from?
My guess would be that the ick their rabbits are suffering from most likely came into the rabbitry with the new bunnies. It's a good idea to isolate new arrivals of any type for a couple of weeks, even if they seem healthy. That gives them time to develop symptoms, in case they've been exposed to some illness, so they won't pass it to your existing stock.
 
Well....I am not sure what you are really asking....

I am not sure how dosing with ivermectrin got started.

Ivermectrin is for parasites, and if you dose at low levels constantly, you build resistant parasites. Then when you need to treat for parasites you need a new drug.

I know if you are in the "ivermectin is a miracle drug for everything" camp, my point will not be helpful, but please consider that this is literally how antibiotic resistant super bacteria is made--low level constant "preventative" antibiotic doses in factory farming, and overuse in hospitals. I do not want to duplicate that effect in my home grown meat. I doubt you will grow an extra head from constant antibiotic use either, but talk to me if you end up with an untreatable staph infection.

I think, though, you are asking where any respiratory infection might come from. I would say we all probably have birds and rodents in our barn or feed storage, which can be a vector for many diseases when their droppings or other leavings contaminate food or bedding.
Ivermectin was isolated from a soil sample the researcher took from his family's farm (in Japan, I think), and cultured. (I probably don't have the story perfect; but that's essentially what happened.) It's not an antibiotic. It's an antiparacitic and won him a Nobel prize because it was so effective in a surprisingly broad spectrum of diseases, saving many lives. It really took hold in developing nations where the ppl were subject to all sorts of parasitic diseases... they take it as a prophylactic against worms, microbes & amoebae, and use it to keep malaria under control.

I don't know why Iver works so well for respiratory diseases. In addition to worms, amoebas, etc., it appears also to work against viruses and/or bacteria (which I guess might justifiably also be called parasites.) On top of all that, it's incredibly safe. (Note: it's best not to use the drench forms, esp internally, as drenches often contain a bit of diesel to make it cling to the animal's fur.)

When I was a kid, like a million years ago, our dog got red mange and had to be put down. It was awful. We had another dog that got heartworm and also had to be euthanized. That was in Florida (hot & humid & loads of biting insects), and happened before Ivermectin was developed. Today both of those are easy to cure and/or prevent. I wish we'd had it back then. I still feel sad over losing those two 😢 sweet doggies.

A lot of ppl think Ivermectin is primarily intended for animals (and of course it works great for them). That's not actually the case, though. It was originally produced for and primarily used in the treatment of humans.

The big problem with Ivermectin is that anyone with the means to, can make and sell it. It's out of patent, so it doesn't make the kind of money that the industry demands. Plus, it works too well. A cured patient is an unprofitable patient. I'm not saying your doctor doesn't want to cure you; she probably wants very much to cure you. But the powers behind the pharmaceutical throne (who founded & continue to support the schools that trained your doctor) primarily want to make money. They're not unusually evil or anything. It's just the way of the world, and sadly, always has been.
 
Unless the respiratory disease is being exacerbated by a case of lungworm (Nematode genus, and not totally unreasonable to expect that humans could have indeed come in contact in regions where it is endemic), Ivermectin has no reason to directly have an effect on viruses or bacteria.

However if you are fighting two diseases at once, curing one will make your body more effective at eradicating the other. That is the ONLY reason I can logically understand that Ivermectin could be useful to people with a respiratory disease. I suspect there are cases where that is exactly why it works.

It would be infinitely better to find out the correct dose and course of medication for your specific parasite, but at a minimum it would be wise to complete a full course at the correct dose for treating parasites for a human. I assume that is documented somewhere, at least that way you know you won't be accidentally creating ivermec resistant parasites.

Lowering the dose and increasing the length of time used is a selection pressure we use in the lab all the time to create a resistant bacteria/critter. The ones that don't die, breed. It is exactly how nature works, and how we select for traits in our rabbits. It is a powerful tool or a dangerous hazard depending on whether you do it on purpose or not. Please do not accidentally create superbugs.

I am not trying to be mean, I am just worried about y'all. And your bunnies and your kids. I can picture a future where ivermectin no longer works. For anything. It would suck.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top