Morning Melissa,
Honestly I don’t know but six months comes to mind.. That could be way off though? I know once the worms are actually gone it still takes some time for the test to come back negative as the antigens are still present after the worms die off.
Regarding reinfection or infecting other dogs—-that’s why the doxy is so important in slow kill method. In killing the wolbachia bacteria, doxy actually sterilizes the adult worms. The infected dog can therefore not be a source of infection to other dogs. Since Ivermectin kills the microfiliria, wouldn’t it take care of any potential reinfection?
There is apparently a specific cycle (doxy is given intermittently) that makes the ivermectin / doxy the most effective. For that reason, and others, I would always suggest one work with a qualified vet who is knowledgeable with the method (or at least willing to do the research).
I would also feel completely comfortable using herbs IF I was under the supervision of Dr. Goldstein or one of his colleagues. And likewise (after her own trial is completed) I would feel completely comfortable using therapeutic grade essential oils under the supervision of Dr. Shelton. She wrote The Animal Desk Reference on essential oils and is the leading expert on EO’s for pets (including lizards, birds, zoo animals and other exotics).. I just attended a class in Des Moines Iowa on EO’s for pets. The guest vet, Dr. Fox, had some pretty impressive results on some pretty nasty illnesses and received journal exposure on one of the cases. I’m continuously amazed at the healing power of nature!!!!
PS — in this linked paper they are suggesting a couple months of treatment with doxy and ivermectin before using immiticide. First though, here’s a blurb about infective status of dogs given doxy “Mosquitoes that fed on blood from DOXY-treated dogs had L3 normal in appearance but were not infective for dogs.” “Preliminary observations suggest that administration of DOXY+IVM for several months prior to (or without) MEL will eliminate adult HW with less potential for severe thromboembolism than MEL alone.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18930598
