food diatribe (sorry but honest)
C. A. Brown
anyway. For starters; I feed Eukanuba large breed to my 15 month old mixed
breed Bullmastiff/Shepperd X (just to get that up front)
Maybe it's not the best food but I know it's not the worst. It may be hard
for some to believe but I have done a fair bit of research on this and
continue to do so.
Why is it that so many on this group seem to think that the veterinary
professionals aren't as capable as themselves at doing research and
continuing to educate themselves?
Why is it that many who have chosen their preferred feeding for their pet
are so sure that their decision is the only good one?
It seems to me that most of the super premium foods recommend supplements
while the petstore premiums come with the assurance of the manufacturers and
the veterinary establishment that they contain everything needed (except for
a fresh bowl of water and love).
I'm almost sure that I will live to regret this message. I've received some
great advice and comfort from this group over the past year but I'm puzzled
as to the anger and belligerence that greets me nearly every day.
BTW - We're celebrating the one year anniversary of Molly's rescue from the
shelter today. For anyone wanting to see her she's at
http://acmepet.com/photo/MollybyCarolAnn.gif
mookeys.mom
there are too many foods and each person has opinions on the best.
I myself get my vets advise on food I choose, each dog is different, & so
are needs..
at least with all the food talk, our dogs are not starving, LOL
C. A. Brown wrote in message ...
Ron Hardin
reason.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Toni
C. A. Brown <cab...@lefca.com> wrote in message
news:EMZk4.75$vU6...@198.235.216.4...
> Why is it that so many on this group seem to think that the veterinary
> professionals aren't as capable as themselves at doing research and
> continuing to educate themselves?
It is not that they are unable to do so........... it seems that they just
do not have the time and/or inclination.
My veterinarian is a wonderful, supportive lady who understands that I need
to look up and understand stuff for myself.
She feeds her own dogs (the dreaded) Science Diet.
I groom those dogs....... I see their skin, their ears, their condition up
close and personal, and frankly there is a lot to be desired there.........
my animals are in MUCH better condition.
If she asks what I'm doing in terms of management or nutrition, I tell her.
Obviously, she chooses, for whatever reason, not to change.
There is the normal human range of behaviors and attitudes within the
veterinary community. They have human foibles, inadequacies, and virtues
just like the rest of us.
She's a great vet, but I'm taking my own advice (and that of other long
timers in my breed) regarding feeding, i.e. finding out for myself.
--
Toni
www.irish-wolfhounds.com
Check the "Update on Steve"
Tracy Landauer
"C. A. Brown" wrote:
>
> Why is it that so many on this group seem to think that the veterinary professionals aren't as capable as themselves at doing research and continuing to educate themselves?
I don't think anyone posited that a vet wasn't *capable*, but IMO (and
leaving aside the issue of how much nutrition education they receive in
vet school and who funds it for the moment), veterinary medicine like
human medicine is focused primarily on disease *cure*, not disease
*prevention*. I firmly believe from my research that how I feed my own
dogs supports their immune system in ways that commercial food never
can. This is not to say that cancer or some other scourge will never
visit my house, and since my dogs are rescues, I can't comment on how
genetics may or may not influence their future health. But I can tell
you that the health particularly of my 13yo GSP is noticed on a daily
basis by my vet, other vets, friends, etc. Outwardly, his coat, skin,
and teeth are much improved over when he was fed a straight commercial
kibble, and internally, his bloodwork is normal, reminiscent of a much
younger dog. I have no doubt that were I to return to a straight
commercial diet and cease his supplementation, he would suffer. (Btw,
the supplementation came after the diet switch, so I have a pretty good
idea of what a control-group study for him would comprise.)
> Why is it that many who have chosen their preferred feeding for their pet are so sure that their decision is the only good one?
I have never seen any natural feeder on this board advocate that
everyone feed their pets the way we do or else. I know I don't. We all
want what's best for our pets, and your mileage may vary; what works for
Roland and Sabrina may not be appropriate for your dogs and your
circumstance.
> It seems to me that most of the super premium foods recommend supplements while the petstore premiums come with the assurance of the manufacturers and the veterinary establishment that they contain everything needed (except for a fresh bowl of water and love).
I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion. Solid Gold is the only
so-called superpremium I know of that strongly advises you to feed their
SeaMeal trace mineral supplement in conjunction with their
Hund-n-flocken food. Wysong and PHD encourage you to add fresh, whole,
raw foods to their diet, but unlike Solid Gold do not at all imply that
if you don't, you're not feeding a balanced diet.
I personally supplement b/c I believe after much research that *no*
commercial kibble, even my preferred Innova, can be a complete diet in
and of itself b/c the high-heat cooking process required of commercial
foods kills off entirely or significantly reduces the effectiveness of
any vitamins, minerals, enzymes, or probiotics in the food. And I've
seen how my dogs thrive with a variety of foods in their diet. You're a
nurse, correct? (unless I've mistaken you for another poster) Do you
eat the same food day in and day out? Don't you believe that certain
veggies, for example, contain trace minerals that another veggie might
not? Do you take a multivitamin supplement?
And with respect to the manufacturers, don't discount the heady allure
of a healthy bottom line. Marketing is a dominant force. Think about
it.
> I'm almost sure that I will live to regret this message. I've received some great advice and comfort from this group over the past year but I'm puzzled as to the anger and belligerence that greets me nearly every day.
IME the anger and belligerence is coming from the "Science Diet must be
good because the vets sell it" crowd, which provokes some people (not
all) into heated reply. I'm not knocking the veterinary establishment
at all - I'm happy with my choice and regularly discuss it with my vets
- but *you* sound like you're taking this personally and resent people
who want to think outside the box. The bottom line is the health of
your own dogs. If your dog is doing well on Eukanuba, there may be no
reason to switch, but don't knock those of us who feed differently and
are legitimately happy with the results.
> BTW - We're celebrating the one year anniversary of Molly's rescue from the shelter today. For anyone wanting to see her she's at
> http://acmepet.com/photo/MollybyCarolAnn.gif
What a cutie! - bless you for rescuing a shelter dog!!
Tracy Landauer
Stephen Wilson, DVM, Ph.D., DACVN
there is much bad information out there.
I recommend a balanced dry kibble with periodic augmentation of fresh green
beans.
Pinnacle, Eukanuba, and Hills Science Diet Lamb and Rice are all very good,
balanced and tested kibble products and there are many others - more
difficult to get. There is nothing wrong with them!!
Do not let the "recreational nutritionists" who are merely guessing, tell
you what you ought to feed your dog. Many of their concoctions (BARF, etc)
can harm your dog.
Again, do not allow yourself to fall prey to the kooks who think they have
all the answers with no real education. And also, there is no vast
conspiracy by veterinarians and Hill's.
S. Wilson
DVM, Ph.D., DACVN
"Tracy Landauer" <tra...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3894936D...@ix.netcom.com...
Ma-Le
I am what you would term as a Kook. What I know is purely from
experience. My dogs were on ANF, switched to Canidae and now,
it's a modified BARF diet with I spponful of Canidae. I believe
that Can is a good dog kibble and there were some noticable
changes in their coat, their eyes and activity level. But,
Sinbad was plagued with some skin problems which he further
aggrevated and I was not happy with the way his teeth and gums
looked. His tongue was not pink and sometimes he was a bit
lethargic. My worry was that his health has generally not been
so good but the vet check up drew a blank. I read a lot about
BARF on the net, also from this very knowledgabe newsgroup and
gradually I switched him to it. It's been 2 weeks on chicken
wings, veggie slop, liver, heart, eggs, raw carrots, cooked
chicken soup, multi vitamins ( the multi vits were there when he
was on kibble ) and essential oils nd this is what I
noticed................1. he is producing more oil on his coat.
Looks like a natural protection 2. He is REALLY eager for his
food. He jumps when he sees me opening the freezer and there
were time he HOWLed ( ever heard a Chihuahua howl ? ) And he
really enjoys his bone ( more than those expensive nylabones )
He burys it, digs it out, chews on it, hides it in his bed,
sleps , digs it out again for chewing and so on........3. The
stubborn tarter is about gone 4. The gums look better 5.
There's very little doggie smell 6. And hot spots ? hey it's
not bothering him ( and me ) too much nowadays.....it's still
there, but it heals faster. 7. He is defintely more active.
8. Urine looks good, less yellow, less crystals and 9. Poop,
much harder than b4, no constipation noted. But then, since I
AM a kook, please tell me why BARF is bad ? apart from the times
I worry that he will choke on the bones or it will damage his
stomach, intestines, whatever...........................Rdgs
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tracy Landauer
I greatly respect your veterinary degrees, but it is considered common
courtesy to lurk on a group before leaping into the fray, let alone
start name-calling.
I suppose I'm one of these so-called "recreational nutritionists."
Several of the books I read and recommend for natural diets were written
by veterinarians. Would you dub them "kooks" as well?
Dr. Richard Pitcairn
Dr. Ian Billinghurst
Dr. Kerry Brown
Dr. Martin Goldstein
Dr. Susan Wynn
Dr. Cheryl Schwartz
Dr. Don Hamilton
Dr. Strombeck (first name escapes me at the moment)
Dr. Allen Schoen
Dr. Wendell Belfield
These men and women also earned the same DVM behind their names that you
earned. And your quarrel with them would be... what, exactly? Have
*you* ever read one of their books?
I'll put the health of my dogs up against yours (if you have any) any
day of the week.
Tracy Landauer
Denna Pace
DACVN" <Wil...@uswest.com> wrote:
>Do not let the "recreational nutritionists" who are merely guessing, tell
>you what you ought to feed your dog. Many of their concoctions (BARF, etc)
>can harm your dog.
Actually, BARF is the concoction of a veterinarian, not a
"recreational nutritionist."
But I agree wholeheartedly with you on one point; never let ANYONE
tell you what to feed your dog. Listen to the knowledge and advice of
those more experienced than yourself, then do your own research and
make your own decision based upon what makes the most sense to you,
and what works for your dog.
Denna
http://www.picantes.com/pitbull - The Real Pit Bull
http://www.picantes.com/happythoughts - Pics from my exciting life
http://www.picantes.com/windwolf - My art, pets, and twisted world view
BelShp4Me
Please let us know why feeding real food ie: the BARF diet or a modified BARF
diet would harm our dogs?
I have a 13 1/2 yr old and an 8 yr old that has not seen a vet in years. I do
take them yearly and do a full blood and urine analysis yearly and both of them
come back normal.
I am really offended being called a "recreational nutrtionist".
Welcome to the group Dr. Wilson. <g>
Betsy and the Raw Belgians who are glad that their mom did not dable in
"recreational nutrition"
>From: "Stephen Wilson, DVM, Ph.D., DACVN"
>I recommend a balanced dry kibble with periodic augmentation of fresh green
>beans.
>Do not let the "recreational nutritionists" who are merely guessing, tell
buglady
wrote those books to make money! ;-)
buglady
take out the dog before replying
Tracy Landauer wrote in message <3895291A...@ix.netcom.com>...
buglady
buglady
take out the dog before replying
Stephen Wilson, DVM, Ph.D., DACVN wrote in message
<872pi6$eca$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
C. A. Brown
stand on all of this is somewhere between the two messages quoted below. I
didn't take our first vet's word as pure truth when he suggested Molly go
off puppy food at five months and instead spent some time researching and
discussing large breed needs with others and the vet. I also have no problem
with others choosing to feed differently than me. My dog is healthy, likes
to eat her dry food and also likes the kitchen prep extras (fruits,
veggies). I'm not beyond believing that I too may someday alter my opinion
of what is best for my dog.
I guess what prompted my initial post as much as anything was that while
lurking for some many months I keep reading 'take your dog to the vet' and
at the same time read over and over that most vets know squat about
nutrition. Does anyone else see a contradictory message there? Try that
message from the point of view of a new dog owner/parent. I guess I'm new
enough to know that there are tons of lurkers getting confused who may not
do good research before giving up commercial foods and I worry about their
dogs.
"Denna Pace" <wind...@SPAMMENOTpicantes.com> wrote in message
news:3894f25a...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:46:23 -0600, "Stephen Wilson, DVM, Ph.D.,
> DACVN" <Wil...@uswest.com> wrote:
>
> >Do not let the "recreational nutritionists" who are merely guessing, tell
> >you what you ought to feed your dog. Many of their concoctions (BARF,
etc)
> >can harm your dog.
>
staf...@webtv.net
but honest)
while lurking for some many months I keep reading 'take your dog to the
vet' and at the same time read over and over that most vets know squat
about nutrition. Does anyone else see a contradictory message there?>>>
It's not contradictory if you've done your homework. Ppl on this NG send
others to vets to treat illness. That's what they're good at. For true,
valid nutritional information, you'll have to go elsewhere. They only
know to recommend something with AAFCO on the label. What a joke that
organization is! But please, find out for yourself. Find out how much
*true* nutritional education vets get. Find out which species that
'education' is focused on. Find out which companies fund research. One
popular 'kook' studied nutrition at Cornell University, where every one
of her professors worked for a dog food co., except one. Now there's
some unbiased education for you!!!!!!!
I use a vet that sells SD. Every time I go in, he raves about the
condition of my dogs, expecially how 'diligently' I clean their teeth.
And I do..... with fresh, raw, wholesome, human grade foods! I use him
for rabies vaccinations, and to spay and neuter rescues. He never sees
me otherwise. And he has never once asked me what I feed. I can hardly
wait to tell him, but I shall let him broach the subject first. And, by
the way.... compared to my dogs, his look like crap. They eat Science
Diet.
<<<Try that message from the point of view of a new dog owner/parent.
I guess I'm new enough to know that there are tons of lurkers getting
confused who may not do good research before giving up commercial foods
and I worry about their dogs.>>>
True BARFers will tell you to go out and get the information for
yourself. I am mentor to 7 new barfers right now, and I *will not* help
them until I see that they have done some reading and research on their
own. To start the BARF diet by throwing some raw chicken at your dogs
is as ill-advised as taking nutritional recommendations from ppl with
products to sell. Especially vets with rooms full of Science diet!!!!!
If you do your research, you will know, for *yourself*, that what's in
that damned bag *cannot* possibly be the right thing for your dog. Do
your homework, and not just on the net.
Go to the library.... that's a good place to start. Invest in some
books..... you'll soon see for yourself who the real 'kooks' are. And
it's not the ppl feeding their dogs fresh, clean, human grade food.
Find out what's allowed in dog food, and how easily it's disguised on
the label, if you have the stomach for it. Most get to the rendering
process... and quit. Good luck, have fun, and let us know how your
research goes.
Debbie
Tracy Landauer
And I worry, too! That's precisely why I state very clearly (and
usually more than once) that it's imperative that you know your dogs as
well as you know yourself AND do your homework before just blithely
leaping into natural diets. It's not excessively complicated, but you
do need quite a bit of background so you don't inadvertently throw off
the balance of nutrients, and reading just one book isn't enough.
Tracy Landauer
"C. A. Brown" wrote:
snip
> I guess I'm new enough to know that there are tons of lurkers getting confused who may not do good research before giving up commercial foods and I worry about their dogs.
>
> "Denna Pace" <wind...@SPAMMENOTpicantes.com> wrote in message
> news:3894f25a...@news.mindspring.com...
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:46:23 -0600, "Stephen Wilson, DVM, Ph.D.,
> > DACVN" <Wil...@uswest.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Do not let the "recreational nutritionists" who are merely guessing, tell
> > >you what you ought to feed your dog. Many of their concoctions (BARF,
> etc)
> > >can harm your dog.
> >
MARK ALEXANDER JOHNSON
C. A. Brown <cab...@lefca.com> wrote in message
news:EMZk4.75$vU6...@198.235.216.4...
> I have really tried to keep myself from writing this but here it goes
> anyway. For starters; I feed Eukanuba large breed to my 15 month old mixed
> breed Bullmastiff/Shepperd X (just to get that up front)
>
> Maybe it's not the best food but I know it's not the worst. It may be hard
> for some to believe but I have done a fair bit of research on this and
> continue to do so.
>
> Why is it that so many on this group seem to think that the veterinary
> professionals aren't as capable as themselves at doing research and
> continuing to educate themselves?
>
> Why is it that many who have chosen their preferred feeding for their pet
> are so sure that their decision is the only good one?
>
> It seems to me that most of the super premium foods recommend supplements
> while the petstore premiums come with the assurance of the manufacturers
and
> the veterinary establishment that they contain everything needed (except
for
> a fresh bowl of water and love).
>
> I'm almost sure that I will live to regret this message. I've received
some
> great advice and comfort from this group over the past year but I'm
puzzled
> as to the anger and belligerence that greets me nearly every day.
>
>
judy
health pet food) was recommended by the Whole Dog Journal
Feb.1999 issue. No by-products, no artifical preservatives
or colors, no ethoxyquin BHA or BHT. It is oven-baked for
better nutrition, palatibility and digestibility. It is
concentrated so you feed less and it will costs you less
than
the eukanuba brand. Flint River Ranch delivers right to
your
home. Can eukanuba do all this? Can Science Diet or Iams?
No. If you would like more information, please email me at
car...@mediaone.net
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Andy Ruigh
answers out there as to what to do. As someone mentioned, it is hard to do
double-blind tests with animals and food. People digging in their heels
and being angry with each other aren't going to get us anywhere. I wish
people would think about just a few things here:
1. There are respected vets, nutrionists, researchers, and "recreational
nutritionists" on BOTH sides of this argument. All of them, on BOTH sides,
can't be idiots. Either that, or they are ALL idiots!
2. This means we are left with the fact, that possibly, just possibly, BOTH
sides may be right, and BOTH sides may be wrong.
3. Perhaps we should realize that there is a LOT to learn about this
subject.
4. Stating cases, based on anectodal evidence ("my 3 dogs eats IAMs and are
healthy","my 3 dogs are on the BARF diet and are healthy"), and declaring
"answers" from that are very dangerous. How many of us have heard about a
perfectly fit, nutrionally-minded, etc. person who dies at the age of 50?
How many of us have heard about a 100 year old person who smokes their cigar
or cigarettes or chew snuff daily? If we look at just those anectodal
cases, we could declare some pretty scary "answers" about that.
Continued research and DIALOGUE are needed. Not arguments. (I'm sure part
of that comes from the anonymity of the net. People are much friendlier
face to face).
Have a good evening.
-Andy
Scott Weese
Tracy Landauer wrote:
>
> These men and women also earned the same DVM behind their names that you
> earned. And your quarrel with them would be... what, exactly? Have
> *you* ever read one of their books?
>
> I'll put the health of my dogs up against yours (if you have any) any
> day of the week.
Just to provide a little insite. The DACVN after Dr. Wilson's name
represents that he is board certified in veterinary nutrition. The PhD
was probably nutrition related. I don't know him but thought you should
be aware that he apparently has some pretty solid credentials behind
him.
ps. Just because a DVM wrote a book, doesn't mean it's right. You can
find DVMs, MDs, PhDs...that will write anything. I saw a book by an MD
claiming large doses of water could cure cancer. I'm not saying anything
about the list of DVM authors that was previously listed, I'm just
saying that there is more to consider than the degree. If a publisher
thinks that there's a market, they will publish pretty much anything.
Books are not peer reviewed.
Scott Weese, DVM
Lorian Gray
staf...@webtv.net wrote:
> I guess I'm new enough to know that there are tons of lurkers getting
> confused who may not do good research before giving up commercial foods
> and I worry about their dogs.>>>
>
> True BARFers will tell you to go out and get the information for
> yourself. I am mentor to 7 new barfers right now, and I *will not* help
> them until I see that they have done some reading and research on their
> own. To start the BARF diet by throwing some raw chicken at your dogs
> is as ill-advised as taking nutritional recommendations from ppl with
> products to sell. Especially vets with rooms full of Science diet!!!!!
> If you do your research, you will know, for *yourself*, that what's in
> that damned bag *cannot* possibly be the right thing for your dog. Do
> your homework, and not just on the net.
> Go to the library.... that's a good place to start. Invest in some
> books..... you'll soon see for yourself who the real 'kooks' are. And
> it's not the ppl feeding their dogs fresh, clean, human grade food.
> Find out what's allowed in dog food, and how easily it's disguised on
> the label, if you have the stomach for it. Most get to the rendering
> process... and quit. Good luck, have fun, and let us know how your
> research goes.
> Debbie
What books or websites do you recommend for researching how pet food
manufacturers disguise the contents of the food they produce?
WalterNY
> ps. Just because a DVM wrote a book, doesn't mean it's right. You can
> find DVMs, MDs, PhDs...that will write anything. I saw a book by an MD
> claiming large doses of water could cure cancer. I'm not saying anything
> about the list of DVM authors that was previously listed, I'm just
> saying that there is more to consider than the degree. If a publisher
> thinks that there's a market, they will publish pretty much anything.
> Books are not peer reviewed.
You make a very valid point. Too many people rely on a book as a Bible on
whatever subject they are interested in. No one book has all the correct
answers. For example, Pitcairns diet uses grains for much of its formulas.
Dogs really should not be eating grains in any great form. Like humans, the
physiology of animals are not properly equipped to digest and assimilate
grains in large quantities. There is a reason why beans cause gas, and the
reason is detrimental to the body, but we make a joke of it and it becomes
acceptable. There is also another argument on this BBS about who qualifies
to be the authority on any subject. The answer is not necessarily in a
degree. We live in a society where degrees are the verification of
intelligence. This is a misconception. What is never taken into account is
that a person studying nutrition in their home as a hobby can know just as
much as a person with a degree. Remember that Einstein was a patent clerk.
Many of the great discoveries in science were discovered by people who had
not formal education. I would also like to say that peer review science is
also not always the final answer. If it was, then more of what doctors do to
people would be documented, but less than thirty percent of all medical
practices actually have valid science behind them. Peer review science is a
valuable tool. But it should not be the "say-all". For every peer review
article which proves something, I can find another that says the first is
wrong. I think all too often science tries to cheat time in order to prove a
point. The problem is that sometimes cheating time or using one species of
animal to predict how another would react is not the correct formula. We
live in a society that has taken all responsibility for health away from us.
We are taught that we have no control over disease. This is entirely
incorrect. If that were true, then I would have gotten the flu from the
thousands of people I was exposed to in the last few months. The answer to
health is not in a drug, or a treatment. The answer is in a word coined by a
Harvard researcher which many health practitioners don't even know the
meaning of- homeostasis. The problem with the methods of teaching medicine
do not take this word into account. I think many people are starting to see
that the dogma of medicine isn't always the answer. One should look into
books like "The curse of Louis Pasture" if they want to know what has gone
wrong with medicine and why it will never "cure" anything it treats.
staf...@webtv.net
food manufacturers disguise the contents of the food they produce?>>>
I came to the NG after answering this as a private post..... Debbie
buglady
buglady
take out the dog before replying
Scott Weese wrote in message <38970435...@ovc.uoguelph.ca>...
Tracy Landauer
details. :)
Tracy Landauer
BelShp4Me wrote:
>
> Scott:
> >Just to provide a little insite. The DACVN after Dr. Wilson's name
> >represents that he is board certified in veterinary nutrition. The PhD
> >was probably nutrition related. I don't know him but thought you should
> >be aware that he apparently has some pretty solid credentials behind
> >him.
> >
> And your point is ???? This "Dr. Wilson" came into this newsgroup and called
> us "recreational nutrionists". Those of us that feed a raw or modified raw
> diet did not do this overnight. I did not wake up one morning and decide to
> feed a raw diet. I did read and learn. My vet didn't have any answers but,
> encouraged me to find out what I could. They didn't really teach nutrtion in
> vet school. I decided to feed this way because it was in the best interests
> of my dogs. My vet knows exactly what I do. My vet has never fed this way. He
> just knows that he does not see my dogs because of illness and the blood and
> urine levels are right. (13 1/2 and 8) He has supported me from the
> beginning, even though he admitted that he did not really know that much about
> raw feeding. Kinda sad, from my view point that more vets will not support
> their clients into the feeding of a natural diet and just say feed
> SD.........or whatever comes out of a bag.
>
> Betsy the kook, I think to young to be a hippie, (40) and her kookie Belgians
> ???
BelShp4Me
Ma-Le
recommends only certain types of kibbles and tops it up with
veggies. Would you in your capacity as a professional make
specific kibble recommendations ? In addition, his post was
quite impolite and I would think inappropriate for a person of
such deep education. Even stranger is that he has chosen not to
reply to any of our questions despite being welcomed into the
group discussion.
Arab Talk
>
> Scott:
> >Just to provide a little insite. The DACVN after Dr. Wilson's name
> >represents that he is board certified in veterinary nutrition. The PhD
> >
> And your point is ???? This "Dr. Wilson" came into this newsgroup and called
> us "recreational nutrionists". Those of us that feed a raw or modified raw
> diet did not do this overnight. I did not wake up one morning and decide to
> feed a raw diet. I did read and learn.
But what did you read? There is the problem. The point being made is that
there is a REAL difference between peer reviewed scientific journal
published studies and what was read on the internet or read in the latest
book in print. In all these long debates no one has yet to show me
any hard science, merely opinions and conjecture. There IS
hard science about home made diets, published in peer reviewed scientific
journals. The results have not been favorable.
MaryBeth
> ps. Just because a DVM wrote a book, doesn't mean it's right. You can
> find DVMs, MDs, PhDs...that will write anything. I saw a book by an MD
> claiming large doses of water could cure cancer. I'm not saying anything
> about the list of DVM authors that was previously listed, I'm just
> saying that there is more to consider than the degree.
Very true. So therefore Dr. Wilson's proposal that anyone that.....
"Do not let the "recreational nutritionists" who are merely guessing, tell
you what you ought to feed your dog. Many of their concoctions (BARF, etc)
can harm your dog.
Again, do not allow yourself to fall prey to the kooks who think they have
all the answers with no real education. And also, there is no vast
conspiracy by veterinarians and Hill's."
..........ought to follow along the same theory. I don't just consider
Dr. Wilson's degree, when reading his post. A degree does not make him a
know-all/be all, to me. I do respect the fact that he has gone to school and
has attained his goals, but he is not the one who owns our dogs. <G>
I LOVE my vets, they are the best, and they have saved my dogs' lives.
I, for one, feed Innova and C Nat. My vet's recommend SD, but everytime I
take my dogs in they ALL remark on their coats and teeth. (They, literally,
don't believe my soon to be 8 Golden is that age. They keep insisting he is
a quite a few years younger, and they just screwed up the DOB when I adopted
him. I adopted him at 8 weeks old. <BG>)
I started on my journey with foods, because my golden has severe
allergies, one to flea saliva, and the rest was cured when I switched from
SD/Eukanuba/Iams. I tried them all. Then I found Avoderm, he thrived on it,
no more hotspots. I move to East Coast and couldn't get Avoderm, unless I
paid more for shipping than for the food. Lynn K. recommended I try Innova
and C Nat. I did. The Innova brought back his healthy coat, but he gained
too much weight, even cutting way down. So, he is now thriving on C Nat.
My other dog, a lab female, was being fed BillJac/SD/etc., not all at
the same time, but trying various foods. I decided to switch her also. The
difference in her coat is absolutely STUNNING. So both my lab and my lab mix
are on Innova, and Rudy is on Cal. Natural. They get veggie and fruit and
some lean beef mixed in, and they are all very healthy.
Sometimes we feed a dog a certain food, as recommended by our
vet/friends/whatever. And they do well. But then you go up to a higher
quality food, and they just *sparkle*. I've seen it happen, not only to my
dogs, but friends' dogs as well, to whom I've mentioned the Natura products.
I'm contemplating supplementing, (not totally switching) with BARF also.
So you see Dr. Wilson, WE are the ones with the HEALTHY dogs, very
changed dogs, most of them, after switching to our "kooky" diets. We SEE it
with our own eyes, and appreciate more than our vets do, the healthy glow,
and energy they have. We live with them. Our vets see them once in awhile.
Who would know them better?
I believe you have your own agenda and right to your opinions, but
please don't insult ppl that have spent much time and effort researching,
changing and WITNESSING firsthand the wonderful blossoming of a healthy
happy dog. Many of us have degrees in other fields, so we're not just a
bunch of 'kooky', crazy, mad pseudo-scientists. <G> We are intelligent
humans, and can judge for ourselves. I personally have much mistrust in
Drs., as they over Rx'd a drug that has caused avascular necrosis,
warranting much pain and many surgeries. Plus there were two of them that
dismissed my complaints of pain for 5 years, saying it was my 'age', about
32 at the time. :( The fact is, we are ALL, yes even you, human and
therefore still capable of not being omnipotent.
MaryBeth
Ralph E. Ergas
www.api4animals.org/text/petfood.htm
GAUBSTER2
>www.api4animals.org/text/petfood.htm
>
Some of the info here is accurate; some is not. I find the disclaimers at the
bottom of the article somewhat humorous.
Tracy Landauer
do you reject the very positive results and very healthy dogs we have
who are fed a raw or modified-raw diet? I would be only too happy to
email, fax, or snail mail you the last five years' worth of vet records
for my GSPs, including bloodwork, other lab tests, radiographs, the
works. I can tell you the exact dates I began to switch to a different
diet, when I added a new supplement, when I tried chiro, when I stopped
vaccinating. I did not make the changes overnight; I did this one step
at a time, so I could best evaluate how each dog reacted. I'd be
willing to bet that you could see the improvements over time for your
own eyes. I know *I* can. And while my vet neither feeds not treats
his own dog in this same manner, he's certainly taken note of how my
dogs have remained healthy and energetic even into old age. And if you
don't see what I see, I invite you to come see for yourself. And if we
*still* don't see eye to eye, well then, at least we tried. :)
Tracy Landauer
Joe Ozelis
>
> Steve, why do you discount so the anecdotal evidence that we have? Why
> do you reject the very positive results and very healthy dogs we have
> who are fed a raw or modified-raw diet?
He probably rejects it because it *is* anecdotal. Anecdote is not
*science* !! We had plenty of anecdotal evidence that the world was flat
1000 years ago - does that make it so ?? You have *no way* to know, or
prove, that your dog would not have been equally healthy had you fed it
purina puppy chow instead - because you have never done the experiment
!! The level of scientific ignorance among these 'recreational
nutritionists' propounding these home-made diets is alarming - not
ignorance of some selected facts about canine physiology, but ignorance
of the scientific method. You *can't* prove something by citing an
example - it doesn't work that way ! You must objectively establish a
causal relationship via a controlled experiment, the results of which
must be peer-reviewed and able to be duplicated. And yes, you are a
"recreational" nutritionist if you are not a professional nutritionist
with the extensive education and training that one who makes his/her
living as a nutritionist must have. After all, you are doing it as a
recreation/hobby.
> I would be only too happy to
> email, fax, or snail mail you the last five years' worth of vet records
> for my GSPs, including bloodwork, other lab tests, radiographs, the
> works. I can tell you the exact dates I began to switch to a different
> diet, when I added a new supplement, when I tried chiro, when I stopped
> vaccinating. I did not make the changes overnight; I did this one step
> at a time, so I could best evaluate how each dog reacted. I'd be
> willing to bet that you could see the improvements over time for your
> own eyes. I know *I* can.
Again, it's anecdotal and there is no way to prove or disprove that your
dog would not have been equally healthy without the change, or that any
other dog would likewise show an improvement. Just because you can't
tell otherwise, doesn't mean that the world is flat.
> And while my vet neither feeds not treats
> his own dog in this same manner, he's certainly taken note of how my
> dogs have remained healthy and energetic even into old age.
Taking "note of how (your) dogs have remained healthy and energetic even
into old age" does not constitute acceptance of your methodology or
proof of it's general effectiveness.
And of course, the reason that vets don't recommend these home-grown
diets or use them themselves, is all because they are part of the
processed pet food industry conspiracy...
Funny how the people who espouse home-grown, natural, and/or raw food
for their dogs, and criticize vets for not embracing this, and fault the
veterinary education system for breeding close-minded vets, are the
first to run to these same vets whenever their dog has a real disease or
injury that can't be treated with herbs and incense. What's the matter -
if you think you know more than your vet about canine nutrition, why
don't you know more than he/she about disease treatment and/or
prevention ?? What, we don't have any "recreational surgeons" here ??
Joe
--
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Technical Division / Development & Test
PO Box 500 MS 316 Batavia, IL 60510
Kristine Hensel
> You have *no way* to know, or prove, that your dog would not have
> been equally healthy had you fed it purina puppy chow instead -
> because you have never done the experiment!!
No. However, if 500 dogs were fed puppy chow and every single one
turned out healthy, neither does that guarantee that MY dog is going to
do well on puppy chow. Dogs are individuals.
Reminds me of the physics joke - "Consider a spherical chicken ..."
> The level of scientific ignorance among these 'recreational
> nutritionists' propounding these home-made diets is alarming - not
> ignorance of some selected facts about canine physiology, but ignorance
> of the scientific method. You *can't* prove something by citing an
> example - it doesn't work that way ! You must objectively establish a
> causal relationship via a controlled experiment, the results of which
> must be peer-reviewed and able to be duplicated.
I find a lot of the literature concerning 'natural' diets to be alarmist
enough to put me off - cautioning me not to give my dog tap water is not
the way to win me over. And no, I don't believe that the scientific
method is a priority for most of the natural diet proponents.
That being said, I was quite willing to try a natural diet for my dog.
Regardless of whether or not the beneficial effects of feeding raw have
been proven for all dogs everywhere, I'm willing to perform an
experiment on MY dog, to see whether it will benefit HIM to the extent
that I can observe the results. Given the fundamental good sense behind
feeding a dog what he evolved to eat, I didn't consider that to be too
much of a risk.
Kristine Hensel, Ph.D. (Chemistry)
& Oscar (um ... won a trophy in obedience class?)
Joe Gwozdecki
Much of the great science we take for granted today started out as
"anecdotal" results.
It's a great cop out to say diets like BARF are nonsense because there was
never any true experiment set up and run to show the positive results as
claimed by its proponents.
It is also a great cop-out to say because you don't have a college degree(s)
in nutrition, you don't know what you're talking about.
Someone should have told that same thing to men like Leonardo Da Vinci and
Thomas Edison because they were certainly uneducated and ignorant by any
standards past and present.
There are many books on nutrition and if you can read, anyone can became as
knowledgable and even more so than any PhD degreed person if they put in the
time.
The gist of the matter is no company in the pet food industry is willing nor
will they ever want to fund any kind of major and long term study comparing
the trash they foist on the public to real edible food.
Anecdotally speaking, the evidence shows it would be suicide for a company
to do just that. Why would they want to scientifically verify it all.
There is no BARF association people belong to and hence there is no base on
which to raise money to scientifically prove their side of the argument.
For the time being, the evidence will remain anecdotal.
buglady
life time? Does *science* provide us with any indication if there is less
or more cancer, arthritis, immune system problems later in life based on the
food the test animals ate? Just because a beagle (the favorite *test*
animal) does well or doesn't do well on some food doesn't mean that all
canine breeds will do well on it. At one time they used genetically immune
deficient cats to determine what the vaccine dose ought to be for the rabies
vax. You call this good science? I don't even call it science, much less
good science. And if the medical/veterinary world totally absolutely
totally ignored *anecdotal evidence* they would not be prescribing drugs off
label that they've *seen* work, but haven't been backed up by science. Only
difference here is that the vet or Dr. *saw* them work, not the lay person.
Please don't assume we don't know what scientific methodology is and that we
all just fell off the turnip truck for doG's sake.
My vet recently told me of a bitch with 3 puppies who contracted parvo
virus. One puppy was very ill and died, one got sick for a couple of days
and recovered, one didn't get sick at all. Presumably they all were in the
same environment, so it was a matter of genetics and the health of the
immune system that made the difference. Even in the same litter of puppies
you'll have a vast difference in how they respond to the *real world.*
Whether or not your dog does well on a certain food depends on its genetics,
the environment it lives in and the overall health of the particular dog.
There is no one size fits all. This is the myth of the dog food
manufacturers.
*Science has taken over from religion and it has become a rather corrupt
church. It's in its medieval theological phase.* - James Lovelock
buglady, who appears to have a bug up her butt today, hmmmmm, maybe it was a
dog hair
take out the dog before replying
Joe Ozelis wrote in message <389F42CA...@fnal.gov>...
WalterNY
> He probably rejects it because it *is* anecdotal. Anecdote is not
> *science* !! We had plenty of anecdotal evidence that the world was flat
> 1000 years ago - does that make it so ??
Without good guesses, and experimentation by people as a hobby, science
wouldn't be where it is right now. Look how many men pursued science not
from their conventional education, but from their hobby. Why you could name
at some of the worlds most renowned scientists, and see that what brought
them to science was their own personal exploration, prior to any formal
education. Enrico Fermi (one of the fathers of "the bomb") is a perfect
example. He received a very traditional education from the public schools.
His interest, exploration, and educational basis in science came from his
self exploration and as history is written, from a few books he bought
second-hand on physics and mathematics. His hobby was mathematics and
scientists. By the age of seventeen he had knowledge of classical physics
comparable to an advanced university graduate. It was then that he continued
his exploration with a formal education. If it wasn't for this mans interest
an self taught knowledge in the area of physics, one wonders if there would
be accelerators in his name, and jobs in that area of science. Makes me
wonder if someday, some of the greatest discoveries in animal nutrition,
will come, not from Waltham, but from a pet owner who simply experiments and
make a discovery that formal education has not the time, nor the patience to
explore. Considering I have seen both sides of the coin, I think it is a
good question. As a man of science, I can not disagree in the statement that
you must objectively establish a causal relationship via a controlled
experiment to establish methodology. Problem is that we have come to rely on
this method as being the only valid method. We have learned how to breath
but not how to feel. Science is about exploration and questioning. With what
is going on right now, I wonder exactly how objective science is becoming as
we find that ever increasing published articles are faked and manipulated to
prove a point. I wonder what Fermi, one of the great theoretical scientists
in history would have to say about the thinking that if it isn't published,
it doesn't exist.
Tracy Landauer
it's more than fair to say that I am more inclined to see his viewpoint
than, say, a Science Diet rep, but this is quite thought-provoking. And
I find his example of Fermi perfect, considering that Joe Ozelis, the
poster whose quotes are in italics in reply to me, works for the Fermi
National Accelerator Laboratory.
I thank you for saving me some keyboarding time tonight.
Tracy Landauer
Joe Ozelis
>
> Much of the great science we take for granted today started out as
> "anecdotal" results.
No. Anecdotal results may have been the inspiration to study a certain
phenomena, but they do not take the place of the scientific method.
>
> It's a great cop out to say diets like BARF are nonsense because there was
> never any true experiment set up and run to show the positive results as
> claimed by its proponents.
No, it's responsible science to say that BARF, etc., have not been
tested in a controlled manner and therefore claims as to their efficacy
can not be objectively evaluated.
>
> It is also a great cop-out to say because you don't have a college degree(s)
> in nutrition, you don't know what you're talking about.
You *may* know what you are talking about - but you will *not*, in
general, be as knowledgeable as someone who has studied and practiced in
the field all of their professional lives. You only learn so much by
reading the work of others.
> Someone should have told that same thing to men like Leonardo Da Vinci and
> Thomas Edison because they were certainly uneducated and ignorant by any
> standards past and present.
Uhmmm... Thomas Edison actually performed countless experiments, he was
a pretty good adherent of the scientific method. He didn't just read
other people's work and then draw conclusions.
>
> There are many books on nutrition and if you can read, anyone can became as
> knowledgable and even more so than any PhD degreed person if they put in the
> time.
This is the biggest misconception about what it takes to get a PhD. A
PhD in the sciences is a friggin RESEARCH degree - you don't get it by
doing a literature search on the stupid web !!! You devise and perform
a series of original and sophisticated experiments in order to learn
something about the natural world, you write up your results with a
complete analysis of the errors, you defend your work in front of
experts in the field, you get it published in a peer-reviewd journal,
etc., in *addition* to taking all your classes and passing your
candidacy exams, major area orals, etc. You learn science by DOING
science - not by reading about it !
>
> The gist of the matter is no company in the pet food industry is willing nor
> will they ever want to fund any kind of major and long term study comparing
> the trash they foist on the public to real edible food.
Well, like it or not, the pet food industry or university/vet school
research groups are much more likely to perform any useful (i.e,,
peer-reviewable, scientifically sound) nutritional studies than are pet
owners.
>
> Anecdotally speaking, the evidence shows it would be suicide for a company
> to do just that. Why would they want to scientifically verify it all.
Companies might not - but surely some young PhD candidate or post-doc
might be looking to perform some ground-breaking research ??
>
> There is no BARF association people belong to and hence there is no base on
> which to raise money to scientifically prove their side of the argument.
Well then, sounds like it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
Joe Ozelis
> Without good guesses, and experimentation by people as a hobby, science
> wouldn't be where it is right now. Look how many men pursued science not
> from their conventional education, but from their hobby.
In the past this was true - but as the fundamental questions of science
become more and more complex, and require increasingly specialized
education, research facilities, and analyses, the days of the amateur
scientist have long since passed.
> Enrico Fermi (one of the fathers of "the bomb") is a perfect
> example. He received a very traditional education from the public schools.
Uhh... I didn't know you considered the University of Pisa (1918-1922)
and the Universities of Leyden, Gottingen, and Rom to be "public
schools" He became Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University
of Rome in 1927.
> His hobby was mathematics and
> scientists. By the age of seventeen he had knowledge of classical physics
> comparable to an advanced university graduate. It was then that he continued
> his exploration with a formal education.
I'm sure his formal education didn't hurt him any - he did after all,
get his doctorate in 1922. Pretty much everyone I know who is in my
field had an "interest an(sic) self taught knowledge in the area of
physics" to some degree. So did Feynman. So did Gell-Mann, etc.
> If it wasn't for this mans interest
> an self taught knowledge in the area of physics, one wonders if there would
> be accelerators in his name, and jobs in that area of science.
Not to diminish Fermi, but seeing as how Lawrence invented the
cyclotron, it's pretty safe to assume there'd be accelerators (and high
energy physics research(ers)) without Fermi.
> Science is about exploration and questioning.
No argument there. In fact, the questioning goes beyond just questioning
"nature", but also entails questioning other people's work - to make
sure that it stands up to scrutiny.
> With what
> is going on right now, I wonder exactly how objective science is becoming as
> we find that ever increasing published articles are faked and manipulated to
> prove a point.
But wouldn't you agree that if we *know* that they were faked, then the
peer-review process/scientific method is at least working ?? "Bad"
science is being "found out". Without a peer-review process, how can we
tell if "anecdotal" evidence is true or not ??
> I wonder what Fermi, one of the great theoretical scientists
> in history would have to say about the thinking that if it isn't published,
> it doesn't exist.
He was a very scrupulous experimentalist - he would question someone's
results and methodology quite closely, and would expect the same of his
work. He would not accept anecdotal science.
Joe Ozelis
> Does *science* provide us with any indication if there is less
> or more cancer, arthritis, immune system problems later in life based on the
> food the test animals ate?
The point is that *it can* - anecdotal evidence can not. Just because a
study methodology is not optimal done not mean that it is bad science,
only that it's conclusions/scope may be limited. It's certainly better
than no science at all.
> At one time they used genetically immune
> deficient cats to determine what the vaccine dose ought to be for the rabies
> vax. You call this good science? I don't even call it science, much less
> good science.
And since you happen to know about this, it must mean that the
methodology was (at the very least) found to be flawed and the
conclusions suspect. It did not pass peer-review. The scientific method
worked.
> And if the medical/veterinary world totally absolutely
> totally ignored *anecdotal evidence* they would not be prescribing drugs off
> label that they've *seen* work, but haven't been backed up by science.
Anecdotal evidence is fine as a *starting point* for scientific inquiry
- but it can not and does not take the place of legitimate scientific
study. If the veterinary world wants to *understand* why a given drug
seems to be beneficial, then they must perform scientific experiments to
determine the causality and phenomenology regarding the drug/organism
interaction. Otherwise you never learn anything about disease mechanisms
and prevention protocols.
> Even in the same litter of puppies
> you'll have a vast difference in how they respond to the *real world.*
> Whether or not your dog does well on a certain food depends on its genetics,
> the environment it lives in and the overall health of the particular dog.
> There is no one size fits all. This is the myth of the dog food
> manufacturers.
>
Well, of course all individuals of a species will have genetic
variations that are manifested in their behaviour and physiology. Just
like humans. That does not mean that one can't perform a valid
experiment to determine the general response of the species to certain
stimuli/compounds/drugs, etc. There are plenty of humans who survive
just fine on a high fat diet with no exercise while smoking two packs of
cigarettes a day - would such anecdotal evidence be valid grounds for
recommending such a lifestyle to others ?
> *Science has taken over from religion and it has become a rather corrupt
> church. It's in its medieval theological phase.* - James Lovelock
Oohh.. straight from Gaia boy. An independent scientist who formulates a
theory that can't be tested. How nice. Not exactly what I'd consider a
person with high regard for the scientific method.
Tracy Landauer
want to engage in conversation.
Joe Ozelis wrote:
>
> Well, like it or not, the pet food industry or university/vet school
> research groups are much more likely to perform any useful (i.e,,
> peer-reviewable, scientifically sound) nutritional studies than are pet owners.
The pet food industry is the MOST UNLIKELY group to want to perform any
"useful (i.e, peer-reviewable, scientifically sound) nutritional
studies" studies of a fresh-foods diet because of a serious conflict of
interest!!!
>> There is no BARF association people belong to and hence there is no base on which to raise money to scientifically prove their side of the argument.
> Well then, sounds like it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
As though thousands of conscientious, informed pet owners, as you so
derogatorily refer to us, could compete on a monetary scale with
corporate monoliths.
Tracy Landauer
Joe Ozelis
> The pet food industry is the MOST UNLIKELY group to want to perform any
> "useful (i.e, peer-reviewable, scientifically sound) nutritional
> studies" studies of a fresh-foods diet because of a serious conflict of
> interest!!!
>
In the same message that to which you responded, I also wrote (re: pet
food company sponsored research) :
"Companies might not - but surely some young PhD candidate or post-doc
might be looking to perform some ground-breaking research ?? "
Do you disagree with this premise ?? If there is enough anecdotal
evidence that BARF et al. are really superior nutritional protocols,
then don't you think some clever independent grad student would want to
make a name for themselves by performing this research ??
> >> There is no BARF association people belong to and hence there is no base on which to raise money to scientifically prove their side of the argument.
>
> > Well then, sounds like it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
>
> As though thousands of conscientious, informed pet owners, as you so
> derogatorily refer to us, could compete on a monetary scale with
> corporate monoliths.
How is my referring to you as a "pet owner" derogatory ?? Don't you
consider your dogs as pets ?? Or don't you like being thought of as
their "owner" ??
As far as funding research - if there really are "thousands" of you -
for the sake of argument lets say 5000 - then if you each funded the
research at the level of $10/person/year (a pittance !) that would raise
50K$ - that buys a *lot* of grad student effort (assuming that the grad
students perform their own lab work, blood assays, subject maintenance,
etc. But, that's what grad students are for.)
It's not as unrealistic as you think. The majority of NSF/NIH/DOE grants
are less than 100K for multi-year programs.
Tracy Landauer
>
> Do you disagree with this premise ?? If there is enough anecdotal
> evidence that BARF et al. are really superior nutritional protocols,
> then don't you think some clever independent grad student would want to make a name for themselves by performing this research ??
So you're positing that "some clever independent grad student" came up
with commercial dog food?
> How is my referring to you as a "pet owner" derogatory ?? Don't you
> consider your dogs as pets ?? Or don't you like being thought of as
> their "owner" ??
Oh, give me a break, "sir." It's your TONE. Going on about how people
who aren't willing to see the scientific method as the only acceptable
proving as "just pet owners." Anecdotal evidence *can* be meaningful.
Alternative therapies and diets *can* help. Notice I said "can," and
not "are always." I don't really care to learn whether my dogs would've
done just as well on some generic black-label dog food, when I see how
well they *are* doing on this diet plan. Similarly, I don't really care
to learn experientially how I would fare on a diet of potato chips and
ice cream. I have pretty good genes in the health dept., and not to
sound like a Geritol commercial at age 39, but I exercise, eat well, and
am rarely ill. Pretty commonsensical.
Tracy Landauer
Joe Ozelis
>
> Joe Ozelis wrote:
> >
> > Do you disagree with this premise ?? If there is enough anecdotal
> > evidence that BARF et al. are really superior nutritional protocols,
> > then don't you think some clever independent grad student would want to make a name for themselves by performing this research ??
>
> So you're positing that "some clever independent grad student" came up
> with commercial dog food?
????? I simply can't see how one logically infers your statement from
mine.
> Oh, give me a break, "sir." It's your TONE.
I didn't realize you were taking such umbrage at my tone. Perhaps too
many years engaged in "scientific dialogue" have left their mark. One
learns to separate "attacks" on one's work from one's person.
> Going on about how people
> who aren't willing to see the scientific method as the only acceptable
> proving as "just pet owners."
I'm pretty certain that the intersection of the sets {pet owners} and
{those who accept the scientific method} is not null. I never claimed it
was.
> Anecdotal evidence *can* be meaningful.
> Alternative therapies and diets *can* help. Notice I said "can," and
> not "are always." I don't really care to learn whether my dogs would've
> done just as well on some generic black-label dog food, when I see how
> well they *are* doing on this diet plan.
I agree also. But I disagree in that I feel that it is additionally
useful to understand *why* and *how* such therapies/diets work from a
scientific basis, so that one could have high confidence in adopting
them as protocols suitable for a more general population than 1 specific
dog. Or to understand how they might be improved/developed to increase
their effectiveness.
> I have pretty good genes in the health dept., and not to
> sound like a Geritol commercial at age 39, but I exercise, eat well, and
> am rarely ill. Pretty commonsensical.
Well, we have something in common after all.
Toni
Joe Ozelis <oze...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:38A07ABF...@fnal.gov...
> I agree also. But I disagree in that I feel that it is additionally
> useful to understand *why* and *how* such therapies/diets work from a
> scientific basis, so that one could have high confidence in adopting
> them as protocols suitable for a more general population than 1 specific
> dog. Or to understand how they might be improved/developed to increase
> their effectiveness.
We do understand *why* and *how*, and are quite confident regarding their
benefit to all canines.
We also strive to perfect our programs.
Why do you debate with such fervor?
Now......I really must ask some simple questions....
Do you have dogs?
What kind, and how many?
How long have you raised dogs?
What diseases do they typically die of, and at what age?
What other dog specific groups do you participate in... clubs, rescue
groups, performance events, etc.
--
Toni
www.irish-wolfhounds.com
Check the "Update on Steve"
Tracy Landauer
quotes here because since my server has a hissy fit about posting really
long msgs to ng's.
Joe Ozelis wrote:
>
> ????? I simply can't see how one logically infers your statement from mine.
One could infer that you were implying that a grad student years ago
first developed the concept of kibbled dog food. I doubted that's what
you meant, but my irritation got the best of me. :)
> I didn't realize you were taking such umbrage at my tone.
Well, I DID mention it in a previous post. I'm usually of the "catch
more flies with honey" crowd, and while I realize my way isn't
everyone's way, I firmly believe that even a valid message can be lost
or ignored when delivered by a provocateur. I can keep a civil tongue
only so long, though. :)
> I'm pretty certain that the intersection of the sets {pet owners} and
{those who accept the scientific method} is not null. I never claimed it
was.
No, nor did I say you did. And I don't reject the scientific method
just by dint of its being the scientific method, either. What I do
reject is the notion that (mild hyperbole to make a point, sorry)
science (method, peer review, et al) is the answer to everything,
either. I think that many people are capable of thinking for
themselves, doing some research (lit reviews are a good start), talking
to vets, investigating alternative approaches, and determining what
makes good common sense for their pets and their circumstances. It may
well be true that for the overwhelming population of dog owners, feeding
kibble is the most comfortable or convenient route, they're happy with
how their dogs look and act on this diet. Fine. I never advocated that
everyone feed their dogs as I do. But attacking me (or my work, if you
will) for my choice which I am very confident in, did not choose on a
whim, and for which I believe I have significant and documentable(?)
reason to continue given the results I've achieved, gives the scientific
community of which you are a part no brownie points.
> I feel that it is additionally useful to understand *why* and *how* such therapies/diets work from a scientific basis, so that one could have high confidence in adopting them as protocols suitable for a more general population than 1 specific dog. Or to understand how they might be improved/developed to increase their effectiveness.
In a perfect world. I do believe that certain elements of feeding whole
foods have been tested and at least somewhat explained, but I can't find
the cites right now. Even if that weren't the case, I don't believe you
*can* adopt a protocol applicable for a more general population, in the
same way that I really don't feel comfortable feeding, say, the same
brand of kibble to generations of dogs. Even with my diet plan, I feed
each dog as an individual; they have different genetics, different food
tolerances, etc. And it continues to trouble me that, if kibbled food
is generally presumed to be digestible and bioavailable to the dog, the
portion amounts listed on the bags would cause many a dog to gain weight
in a hurry. I end up feeding my dogs far less than I would on kibbles I
previously fed, because the nutrients (and yes the ingredients) are so
readily available to their system, and more biologically appropriate
than a mostly grain-based kibble.
>> I have pretty good genes in the health dept., and not to sound like a Geritol commercial at age 39, but I exercise, eat well, and am rarely ill. Pretty commonsensical.
> Well, we have something in common after all.
:) Ah, but do you eat processed foods day in and day out? <evil grin>
Tracy Landauer
Joe Ozelis
Toni wrote:
> We do understand *why* and *how*, and are quite confident regarding their
> benefit to all canines.
You do ?? Where's the objective scientific research/documentation
supporting your assertion ?? All canines ?? Gee - everyone else here
has stated that it depends on the individual dog, they are all
genetically different and respond differently to the same
therapies/diets, etc. Which is it ??
All I've seen posted are anecdotal stories, pointers to web sites, or
references to books that are not peer-reviewed. As others have stated,
anyone can write a book and purport to be an expert on canine nutrition.
I make no such claims, personally.
> We also strive to perfect our programs.
Then you should have no qualms about these methods undergoing strict
scientific study and scrutiny.
> Why do you debate with such fervor?
Seems I've gored someone's sacred ox (to mix metaphors). As a
professional practicing scientist perhaps I feel obligated to inform,
educate, and instruct people about scientific methodology, and how to
separate fact from fiction. I've had similar discussions with people
about herbal remedies, homeopathy, cancer risks from electromaqnetic
fields, zero-point energy sources, etc. Frankly, the level of science
education among the general public in the US is alarmingly poor, even
among the college educated, and this manifests itself in the types of
attitudes that embrace psuedo-science without critical inquiry.
>
> Now......I really must ask some simple questions....
Go ahead. Though the questions (rather personal in nature) are
irrelevant to the points I'm making.
>
> Do you have dogs?
Personally, no. My family had dogs when I was a teen. My live-in
girlfriend has (had) two dogs and a cat. One dog died recently, from
complications arising from parvo. (Yes, the dogs were annually
vaccinated, and the one that died was vaccinated 5 months before
contracting the disease.)
> What kind, and how many?
Family had a mutt, Malamute, and Husky. Girlfriend has Lhasa Apso,
American Eskimo - Eskimo died.
> How long have you raised dogs?
I wouldn't consider that I've ever "raised" dogs. I helped feed, bathe,
walk the family dogs, took them to the vets, etc., for ~ over 12 years.
But for the past 10 years or so didn't have much involvement with the
family's dogs (I don't exactly live at home anymore). Girlfriend
"raises" her own dogs (of course I also help feed & exercise them, look
after them, take them to the vet, etc.)
> What diseases do they typically die of, and at what age?
Family mutt died at the age of 10 or so (we never knew how old he was,
as he was an abused stray that my family adopted). Don't remember
exactly what he died from - some hip problem, that grew worse and caused
considerable pain - was operated on, but eventually had to be put down.
I was in my teens at the time ~ 20 years ago.
The family Malamute died at the age of ~ 13 (again, we weren't sure of
her age when we adopted her). I don't recall what she died from (I'm
tempted to say old age/arthritis - but I wasn't living at home at the
time and was not involved much with the "raising" of that dog).
Present family Husky is ~ 4-5 years old (again, she's adopted), and as
far as we (and the family vet) can tell, in excellent health.
My girlfriend's Eskimo, as mentioned above, died recently of parvo, aged
11.
Her Lhasa Apso is about 12 years old, and while he occasionally suffers
from constipation, is spunky and playful, and quite the character.
Her cat is about 3 years old, and seems fine.
> What other dog specific groups do you participate in... clubs, rescue
> groups, performance events, etc.
None.
So - have I answered your questions to your satisfaction ?? Do my
answers disqualify me from being an expert on canine nutrition ?? Well,
I should hope they do - for I never made such claims.
My only claim is that of a practicing scientist who understands
scientific methodology, and would like to see it applied to anecdotal
claims about therapies/diets/nutrition, etc. If these therapies and
diets are truly useful and effective as general protocols, then they
should withstand scientific scrutiny, and their practitioners should not
fear this.
Toni
> My only claim is that of a practicing scientist who understands
> scientific methodology, and would like to see it applied to anecdotal
> claims about therapies/diets/nutrition, etc. If these therapies and
> diets are truly useful and effective as general protocols, then they
> should withstand scientific scrutiny, and their practitioners should not
> fear this.
I do not fear scientific scrutiny...neither do I require it to proceed
confidently.
That is simply the difference between us.
And I have 30 years in dogs to fall back on.
Haven't you heard?
Raising dogs is an art...... not a science.
Joe Ozelis
> What I do
> reject is the notion that (mild hyperbole to make a point, sorry)
> science (method, peer review, et al) is the answer to everything,
> either.
I'm not sure it is either. One of the most difficult aspects of doing
science, or using science to solve problems, is knowing which questions
to ask. Ask the wrong (i.e., irrelevant, simple, ill-posed) question,
and, no matter how carefully you do the study/experiment, you get a
useless answer. But it's important to keep asking the questions, and
keep looking for the answers.
> I think that many people are capable of thinking for
> themselves, doing some research (lit reviews are a good start), talking
> to vets, investigating alternative approaches, and determining what
> makes good common sense for their pets and their circumstances.
Ultimately, this may not be enough. Doing lit searches and talking to
others in the field only tells you what is *already* known. New
knowledge requires experimentation, study, etc. - formulating a problem
to be answered, and then developing an approach to answering the
problem. What you describe is what I'd consider the first step -
background work - for answering a scientific question. Most people,
unfortunately, do not have the training/resources to go any further.
(Who has a lab in their garage... ??)
> But attacking me (or my work, if you
> will) for my choice which I am very confident in, did not choose on a
> whim, and for which I believe I have significant and documentable(?)
> reason to continue given the results I've achieved, gives the scientific
> community of which you are a part no brownie points.
I should have been more careful in specifying that I was "attacking" the
practice of recommending something based on anecdotal evidence, from a
statistically small sample size, without providing an appropriate
disclaimer, and concurrently attacking the "veterinary scientific
establishment" for complicity or ignorance. Actually, you appear to be
one of the more moderate and reasonable proponents of "alternative"
nutrition, and perhaps it is just ill-luck that I happened to respond
initially to your post !!
> Even if that weren't the case, I don't believe you
> *can* adopt a protocol applicable for a more general population,
You may, but you may have to generalize it sufficiently that it ends up
losing it's value as a protocol/guideline. But this is exactly the
research that needs to be done. Much like drug research - you start by
finding something promising, something that works for a small subset,
then study its effects on a wider sample size, or more genetically
diverse sample, all the while trying to determine not only the
effectiveness of the drug/therapy, but also it's mechanisms, so that one
can understand its limitations, and the parameters/factors determining
those limitations.
> And it continues to trouble me that, if kibbled food
> is generally presumed to be digestible and bioavailable to the dog, the
> portion amounts listed on the bags would cause many a dog to gain weight
> in a hurry.
Apparently a matter of degree ?? Perhaps the ratio of nutrients/gm of
food convoluted with absorption rate of a particular nutrient leads to
the discrepancy.
> I end up feeding my dogs far less than I would on kibbles I
> previously fed, because the nutrients (and yes the ingredients) are so
> readily available to their system, and more biologically appropriate
> than a mostly grain-based kibble.
If it's worse to feed a dog more mass for the same amount of nutrition,
then why not feed the dog concentrated protein/vitamin supplements
(i.e., minimal mass) to get the same nutrient level ?? In other words,
if you say it's better to feed your dog the raw/natural diet because you
feed smaller amounts to get the same nutrient level, why not extend the
argument ?? I'm not saying this is appropriate - but only use this as an
example of the type of objective research that should be pursued. I am
far from an appropriate person to recommend canine nutrition
methodologies.
> :) Ah, but do you eat processed foods day in and day out? <evil grin>
Does beer count ??
WalterNY
>>If these therapies and
> > diets are truly useful and effective as general protocols, then they
I for one agree. The only problem is that in many areas science is no longer
interested in unbiased exploration and debate. It would be very easy to get
funding for a study on the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical drug, but I
doubt seriously whether anyone would be interested in funding a study which
brings no profit to anyone, but only demonstrates that you do not need to
purchase a conglomerates product for health. As a person with a background
in both human and animal nutrition, (we may even have a commonality- I
studied astrophysics at the University of Arizona), I do agree that most
people are not feeding their dogs a homemade meal in a proper fashion. It
took me about a year and a half before I was able to formulate a product for
my pets that met their physiological needs.
Whether these people are off the mark in their food preparation or not, I
would rather see an animal fed a fresh meal that may not be 100% balanced
than a processed "dead" meal which has pesticides and heavy metals in it,
and is lacking balance in the area of assimilation. For some who prescribe
to this home-cooked method, the results they see may not be completely from
what they are including in their animals meals as much as what they are not
including. The first thing I tell people who have any health problems with
their dogs is to take all grains out of the dogs diet. I have yet to have a
person who has not seen a considerable difference in their dogs health as a
result. Many of these so-called "BARF" diets do just that.
What you have on boards like this are some of the greatest unpublished
epidemiological studies of dog health related to nutrition. You are going to
find a large group of people who have first hand experience in feeding their
animals both a processed food diet and a home-made diet on this board. These
people have seen results first hand. All the published science in the world
is not going to replace what one can see with their own two eyes. Rather
than walking around smoking a pipe and throwing diatribes at these people,
why not learn a bit? You're not going to make any friends on this system by
telling people who have reversed disease in their pets that what they are
doing is wrong. If you're interested in the published science, unless you
look at the ten year published work of Pottenger which proved conclusively
that processed food had detrimental effects on animals, then you will not
find much "science" on the subject. It would probably behoove you to sit
back and take some notes here though.
You said once in a post that :
<but as the fundamental questions of science become more and more complex>
This is a juxtaposition. The essential components of life have not changed,
its human bureaucratism which has.
Life has not gotten any more complicated. What has gotten complicated is how
we treat life. We used to long for a simpler time. Now we are so far removed
from it, that we could not imagine what life would be like in it.
buglady
Joe Ozelis wrote in message <38A047DA...@fnal.gov>...
>The point is that *it can* - anecdotal evidence can not. Just because a
>study methodology is not optimal done not mean that it is bad science,
>only that it's conclusions/scope may be limited. It's certainly better
>than no science at all.
................Oh sure it *can*, but it won't because no one is doing life
studies on canines and dog food, much less the manufacturers of said dog
food. There must be 10 billion things that would be interesting to *know*,
but if there's no product at the end of the search, the research doesn't get
done because its not *sexy* enough. At the Fermi Lab you're in the Ivory
Tower, not out in the trenches.
>And since you happen to know about this, it must mean that the
>methodology was (at the very least) found to be flawed and the
>conclusions suspect. It did not pass peer-review. The scientific method
>worked.
................Unfortunately the studies are only being redone *now*, with
titers run before and after vaccination.
>Anecdotal evidence is fine as a *starting point* for scientific inquiry
>- but it can not and does not take the place of legitimate scientific
>study
................Some of us aren't content to sit around and wait for the
science to catch up. Instead of all the ranting and raving you hear from
the professional quarter, I'd think an open mind and an ear to the ground
would be more beneficial. Even a blind hog gets an acorn once in a while.
>Well, of course all individuals of a species will have genetic
>variations that are manifested in their behaviour and physiology. Just
>like humans. That does not mean that one can't perform a valid
>experiment to determine the general response of the species to certain
>stimuli/compounds/drugs, etc.
...............Just seems to me that the variables one chooses to measure in
such a complex biological organism as a human or dog are driven by the
*current thinking* and you could end up chasing your own tail down a blind
alley. Its the people who think *out of the box* that actually make the
difference, whether they're in the sciences or not.
>> *Science has taken over from religion and it has become a rather corrupt
>> church. It's in its medieval theological phase.* - James Lovelock
>
>Oohh.. straight from Gaia boy. An independent scientist who formulates a
>theory that can't be tested. How nice. Not exactly what I'd consider a
>person with high regard for the scientific method.
.........Whoo boy, I'd say you proved his point though, huh!
Say hi to the buffalo
buglady
take out the dog before replying - Hey do you actually HAVE a dog or did
Steve Crane send you over?
Tracy Landauer
>
> Ultimately, this may not be enough. Doing lit searches and talking to
> others in the field only tells you what is *already* known. New
> knowledge requires experimentation, study, etc. - formulating a problem
> to be answered, and then developing an approach to answering the
> problem.
By that definition, then, I *have* been using the scientific method.
I'm just not using peer-reviewed lit as my guide. Something else I
stress in each of my posts on the subject is that what I am doing may
not be appropriate for every pet in every situation; you have to have
spent a lot of time in observation of your own pet and know his/her body
as you know your own, in addition to your research, so that you can
evaluate (yes, anecdotally) what is working and what is not.
> I should have been more careful in specifying that I was "attacking" the practice of recommending something based on anecdotal evidence, from a statistically small sample size
It may be statistically small if this is the only group you've monitored
- and I don't think on a public forum you can even *count* stats, since
far more ppl are subbed to the group than post - but wellpet, maybe the
original natural-diet and pet care email list, is some 1500 members
strong, and if you were to type in "BARF" on the onelist.com site (and
allowing a little for folks like me on more than one natural-diet email
list), I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who are not
satisfied with what the pet-food industry and what science is behind
that have provided us so far.
> without providing an appropriate disclaimer
Actually, several ppl who post regularly here say "your mileage may
vary" or something similar, as well as stating they are not vets and
that all diet changes should be discussed with your vet.
> and concurrently attacking the "veterinary scientific establishment" for complicity or ignorance
While there are some here that do so, I am not among them. I believe
that vet school is set up much as human med school: focusing on disease
cure and care, not prevention. I had to listen to my brother whine
about that for years when he was in med school :) and a lot of vets
would probably appreciate more nutrition study, particularly if it was
authored by an independent source that did not stand to benefit from
sales of its own products, but what would have to be removed from their
course of study to accommodate it?
> Actually, you appear to be
> one of the more moderate and reasonable proponents of "alternative"
> nutrition, and perhaps it is just ill-luck that I happened to respond
> initially to your post !!
Ah, the old "flattery will get you everywhere" trick. :) No, it would be
ill luck had you responded to someone as testy as you were when you
first shot out of the gate.
> Apparently a matter of degree ?? Perhaps the ratio of nutrients/gm of food convoluted with absorption rate of a particular nutrient leads to the discrepancy.
I'm sure I didn't state that well earlier, but this is almost a
universal truism. Even Innova, one of the higher-calorie, top-drawer
foods out there, recommends more than I would feed my GSPs.
> In other words, if you say it's better to feed your dog the raw/natural diet because you feed smaller amounts to get the same nutrient level
Well, that wasn't my argument. I started to ramble at the end, but a
lot of ppl worry that feeding raw/natural/high-quality kibble is much
more expensive than feeding generic Brand X dog food, when in fact the
opposite is ultimately true in my experience: it costs more up front,
but because the dog gains more nutrients from the improved diet, you're
feeding less (therefore spending less) and in my experience vet visits
for things like dental cleaning are no longer needed (therefore spending
less).
> I am far from an appropriate person to recommend canine nutrition
methodologies.
You sure like to argue the point, though, dontcha?? :)
Tracy Landauer
buglady
Joe Ozelis wrote in message <38A0A9DD...@fnal.gov>...
>One of the most difficult aspects of doing
>science, or using science to solve problems, is knowing which questions
>to ask. Ask the wrong (i.e., irrelevant, simple, ill-posed) question,
>and, no matter how carefully you do the study/experiment, you get a
>useless answer. But it's important to keep asking the questions, and
>keep looking for the answers.
...................Well Joe, as a group of people who meet on email lists
and not solely in this type of public forum, we're asking questions ALL the
time, looking at results and sharing the results. Never will meet your
standards for *science*, but we're not operating in an alternate reality.
>Ultimately, this may not be enough. Doing lit searches and talking to
>others in the field only tells you what is *already* known.
.............There's lots of stuff that was known and ignored or tossed out
as *old-fashioned*. I used to read Agricultural Circulars from the early
1900's and was amazed at the things that were known then and ignored when we
entered the modern age of chemicals and eventually *rediscovered*.
New
>knowledge requires experimentation, study, etc. - formulating a problem
>to be answered, and then developing an approach to answering the
>problem.
................Don't necessarily need a whole world full of new knowledge,
just a new point of view. Lots of it is out there already. I just read an
article today in Trends in Ecology and Evolution entitled Why egg yolk is
yellow. Basically its yellow because of the high levels of carotenoids,
which protect the developing embryo from peroxidative damage from free
radicals and reactive oxidative metabolites when the fatty acids are
oxidized (the major source of energy for the developing embryo). They also
mentioned that there are synergistic relationships among antioxidants and
used Vit. E as one example. A female bird will rob her body of these
nutrients to supply the egg. Many birds use carotenoid pigments (orange and
red) for coloration, expecially as sexual signals. If there is a lack of
these nutrients in the body, the coloration of the bird will not be as
brilliant, thus perhaps choosing a partner based on the brilliance of the
coloring is a behavior likely to continue the species, as it ultimately
reflects the fitness of the eggs. They also spent some time talking about
the immune system and the fact that chicks cannot sythesize their own
antibodies until several days post-hatching. In this interval they depend
on IgG deposited in the yolk by the female parent. Antioxidants protect
this IgG against catabolism. Chicks hatched from hens fed extra Vit E had
increased retention of passively-acquired IgG. They also mentioned that
body carotenoid levels can vary dramatically within a short period of time -
challenged with coccidia, plasma levels of carotenoid fell 80% in poultry.
.........By now many might be saying - who give's a moldy rat's patoot?
After all, these are egg-laying critters (birds, reptiles, fish) that this
article refers to, not dogs. Well maternal antibodies protect puppies and
kitties too. Puppies also get coccidia. Yes, dogs are not chickens, but I
think that many biological systems are similar, as we all get where we're
going on ATP. Many of us already know that illness requires more Vit A, E,
and C. I have a hard time believing that mammals have an alien chemistry.
If medicine and vet medicine keep approaching disease from the perspective
of illness instead of health, then we'll never get anywhere. Where are the
experiments and science on health? All we've got now are gene jocks - find
the genes and we'll have the answer. Hrmmmph.
>Actually, you appear to be
>one of the more moderate and reasonable proponents of "alternative"
>nutrition, and perhaps it is just ill-luck that I happened to respond
>initially to your post !!
.............So you're just another Yarrow (been to the alt.folklore.herb
NG?)? There's quackery everywhere - on the web, in your doctor's office, at
the pet food store. Better to have read for a while than make a judgment on
the people who hang out here. This is one of the few forums you can
actually carry on a discussion with minimal harrassment from any side. Not
saying there aren't disagreements. And we all get to howl occasionally cuz
its a dog forum. <g>
Joe Ozelis
>
> >>If these therapies and
> > > diets are truly useful and effective as general protocols, then they
> > > should withstand scientific scrutiny...
>
> I for one agree. The only problem is that in many areas science is no longer
> interested in unbiased exploration and debate.
Well, perhaps in the life sciences, or other fields where corporate
involvement is high, this is a valid assertion. My own experience is in
a field that is supported essentially entirely by government agency
funding (Department of Energy, National Science Foundation) which are by
definition not tied to any corporate/industrial partners or benefactors.
So there is basically no pressure to conform to corporate wishes or
biases.
Also, I have friends who do research in the biological sciences, and
they are funded exclusively by NIH. Of course, they are not doing any
particular drug research, but studying the mechanics of disease, so
probably not beholden to the pharmaceutical companies. So not all
research in the life sciences is "tainted" by corporate backing.
>
> What you have on boards like this are some of the greatest unpublished
> epidemiological studies of dog health related to nutrition. You are going to
> find a large group of people who have first hand experience in feeding their
> animals both a processed food diet and a home-made diet on this board. These
> people have seen results first hand. All the published science in the world
> is not going to replace what one can see with their own two eyes.
But my point is that these results are valid only for the particular
dogs that the "experiment" has been carried out on - and that everyone
(probably) uses a different variation on the diet, to some degree. It
would be most useful if proper research could be performed to
investigate the benefits of these alternative diets in a controlled
manner, and compare them to the "standard" diets, and with a
comprehensive understanding of the nutritional mechanisms and feedback
involved. Then, if positive, you could make much more valid claims about
the alternative diet's preferabilty as a general nutritional protocol,
and cold in fact improve upon that protocol. It's the difference between
saying something like "Well, when I have a headache I take a tincture of
salicylic acid, and it makes the pain go away. You might want to try it,
but it may not work for you, might hurt you, and be careful how you mix
it up" and saying "Take aspirin - it has been found to be safe and
effective, as long as you are not allergic to it". (Obviously not the
best example, but it (hopefully) makes the point.)
> Rather
> than walking around smoking a pipe and throwing diatribes at these people,
> why not learn a bit? You're not going to make any friends on this system by
> telling people who have reversed disease in their pets that what they are
> doing is wrong.
Didn't say they were doing anything wrong. And I *was* trying to learn
from what's posted here - it's only when I saw people disparaging others
for not accepting anecdotal evidence as proof, and railing against the
"veterinary establishment" for being in the pocket of the dog food
companies, that I began to ask for some objective proof of these
statements.
> you will not
> find much "science" on the subject. It would probably behoove you to sit
> back and take some notes here though.
It's a pity there isn't more "science" on the subject. As far as "taking
notes" - how am I, as a person who will readily admit to being almost
wholly ignorant on the subject of canine nutrition, to discern the wheat
from the chaff in something found on Usenet or the Web ?? You really
can't (that's been my point), and so I look to sources of scientific
studies for (more objective) guidance.
>
> You said once in a post that :
>
> <but as the fundamental questions of science become more and more complex>
>
> This is a juxtaposition. The essential components of life have not changed,
> its human bureaucratism which has.
>
> Life has not gotten any more complicated. What has gotten complicated is how
> we treat life. We used to long for a simpler time. Now we are so far removed
> from it, that we could not imagine what life would be like in it.
Ahh... but I do believe the fundamental (maybe that's not the best
adjective) questions of science, at least physics, have gotten more
complex. We once wanted to know why/how the planets revolved around the
sun, or how gravity operated here on earth, or why like charges
repelled. Now we want to now how heavy the Higgs boson is, and why
things have mass, and are there supersymmetric partners to the quarks
and leptons (and do gluons have mass), and why do some material exhibit
superconductivity at high temperatures. What's the origin of symmetry
breaking, and where's the dark matter ?? These are more complex
questions because their study and answers require that we develop more
sophisticated models and mathematics, and more sophisticated experiments
to answer them. Whereas before we could find the answer using calculus,
and table-top experiments, now we have gauge field theories,
renormalization, tensor fields, and multi-billion dollar particle
accelerators, million dollar vacuum chambers, multi-million dollar space
probes and telescopes, etc.
Perhaps the fundamental questions still do remain the same - why are we
here, what's it all about, what happens next... but the path to the
answers has gotten more complex - not because of the failures of man
(bureaucracy), but because of his successes.
Joe Ozelis
> By that definition, then, I *have* been using the scientific method.
> I'm just not using peer-reviewed lit as my guide. Something else I
> stress in each of my posts on the subject is that what I am doing may
> not be appropriate for every pet in every situation; you have to have
> spent a lot of time in observation of your own pet and know his/her body
> as you know your own, in addition to your research, so that you can
> evaluate (yes, anecdotally) what is working and what is not.
I do not disagree with this - it is the extension of this to a
recommendation for others to follow, and sweeping claims that it is
preferable, that I disagree with. (Not saying this is something you
personally do.)
>
> > I should have been more careful in specifying that I was "attacking" the > practice of recommending something based on anecdotal evidence, from a > statistically small sample size
>
> It may be statistically small if this is the only group you've monitored
When I said "statistically small" I was referring to the population of
animals for which any given person who has "performed" an experiment on
"alternative diets" has used - i.e., typically their own pets - from one
to a few animals. These experimental results are therefore based on the
reactions of small sample. Though one may be tempted to consider all of
the animals "treated" with alternative diets by these 1500 or whatever
proponents as a statistical ensemble of data points, they really aren't
because of the individual diet protocols used (as many as there are dog
owners using the diet).
> I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who are not
> satisfied with what the pet-food industry and what science is behind
> that have provided us so far.
I might not be surprised (I'm comfortable with quantum mechanics and
curved space-time... people are a piece of cake !) - but I am surprised
that there hasn't been a greater level of serious independent research
performed. We, as a society, wasted tons of money performing (and
re-performing, and re-performing...) research over and over again
looking for links between electromagnetic fields and cancer, or trying
to develop cold fusion even when the original experiments could not be
duplicated and were found to be fatally flawed (duh !) - none of which
it could be argued were supported/sponsored by established corporate
financiers with a vested interest. If we can spend money on that, why
can't we spend money on something that would appear to be more relevant
??
> Ah, the old "flattery will get you everywhere" trick. :) No, it would be
> ill luck had you responded to someone as testy as you were when you
> first shot out of the gate.
Well, I sometimes fell that I must defend the scientific method, and
critical inquiry, more and more these days... there is so much
pseudo-science out there (and the Web has not made it any easier -
figures we high-energy physicists invented the damn thing), that I truly
become exasperated by what people choose to believe, and their reasoning
for it. If Columbus were alive today, and had returned from his journey
offering proof of a round earth, there would be those that would reject
his proof and say that he should be more open to the earth really being
flat, and that maybe geometry and trigonometry really don't have all the
answers, and he's probably just part of some globe-making-industry
conspiracy.
> > I am far from an appropriate person to recommend canine nutrition
> methodologies.
>
> You sure like to argue the point, though, dontcha?? :)
I'm arguing the methodology of choosing a methodology... ;-)
John
- Domesticated dogs have been around for 14,000 years. Commercial dog food
has been popular for no more than 50 years. If "100% complete and balanced
nutrition" can only be provided by "scientific" formulations provided by pet
food manufacturers, how could all those older generations of dogs have
possibly survived? Nutrition *is* very complex and exceeds our current
*scientific* knowledge. What we know is constantly evolving (as a result of
research). The AAFCO (provided by the NRC) nutritional guidelines for dogs,
for example, are in the process of changing yet again. It is thus
impossible for anybody to scientifically formulate, with any degree of
certainty, a complete and balanced diet. Yet, nature has been providing the
same for thousands of years. Science helps us understand how/what to feed
our dogs, but nature provides the best ingredients.
- Are our dogs really so different from us. What do we eat? Do we eat a
100% balanced diet every single meal? The same thing, every single day of
our lives. Do you really think your dogs like this? True, our dog's
physiology is different from ours, but the same basic principles can apply.
Give your dog lots of natural variety that is consistent with their
heritage. Science does offer some good guidelines on how to achieve that.
On average, it will provide complete and balanced nutrition! And your dogs
will love it, too.
- Some pet food companies are like cigarette companies. Their existence is
dependent on income, but their product tends to kill off their source of
revenue. Income also requires expense control & low cost. Quality and the
health of your dog is secondary to profit. Read Ann Martin's book "Food
Pets Die For" to (amongst many others) to get an idea of what you are
feeding your dog with cheap commercial brands. Or check out the API article
at www.api4animals.org/Petfood.htm. You don't need a big degree to
understand this stuff and be concerned.
- Dr. Goldstein (The Nature of Animal Healing) says: "Twenty-five years ago
when I started out in practice, the pets I saw with these diseases
<arthritis, kidney or liver failure, cancer> were old... Of the cases I see
now, many are young and don't live past the age of five... If the age of
these patients is troubling, so too is the rate at which their diseases now
grow."
- Dr. Pitcairn (Natural Health for Dogs and Cats) says: "Since I graduated
from veterinary school in 1965, I've noticed a general deterioration in pet
health."
- Both of these well respected long time practicioners (as well as many
others) tell you that their perspective has changed significantly over the
years - spurred by observations and anecdotal accounts. They believe that a
significant factor in the deterioration in our pets health is due to
commercial pet food diets. Science is constantly evolving. A flat earth
and blood letting were facts way back. Tomorrow we may find current facts
about nutrition to be akin to blood letting. Good science demands an open
mind and keen observations. And there is no better source of observations
than us. There are good scientific reasons as to why thousands of
generations of dogs have thrived on natural diets. We understand some of
it. *Our* observations can lead science to better understand more.
John
PeppyPooch.com
Joe Ozelis
> ................Oh sure it *can*, but it won't because no one is doing life
> studies on canines and dog food, much less the manufacturers of said dog
> food. There must be 10 billion things that would be interesting to *know*,
> but if there's no product at the end of the search, the research doesn't get
> done because its not *sexy* enough. At the Fermi Lab you're in the Ivory
> Tower, not out in the trenches.
There's a much better chance that research funded by a non-corporate
agency would be able to explore questions which do not result in a
product at the end of the search. I'm not convinced that funding from,
for example the Dept. of Agriculture, or Natl. Sci. Foundation or some
other foundation (AKC ??) couldn't be available for a well formulated
study.
Oh... and just as background, before coming to Fermilab, I was in the
"trenches" - worked in corporate R&D for a few years just out of grad
school. A good fraction of my work did not make management happy - I
once proved through modeling and experiment that the fluid system of one
of the products would be unstable under certain not-very-rare operating
conditions, requiring a significant design overhaul ($$$). I was allowed
to publish this research, and even developed a patentable solution to
the problems. So not all corporate R&D must be "good news" only.
> ................Unfortunately the studies are only being redone *now*, with
> titers run before and after vaccination.
Well, they are being re-done, and hopefully correctly. Real science does
take time.
What's that old saw about science being 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration ?? It's really true. Also (I think Asimov said this) the
sign of discovery in the sciences isn't marked by the exclamation
"Eureka !", but by "Hmmm... that's weird..."
> ................Some of us aren't content to sit around and wait for the
> science to catch up.
Maybe it's taking time for the science to catch up because it is
difficult to do it well and thoroughly (not to mention that every
proposal must compete with others for $$$, resources, etc.).
> ...............Just seems to me that the variables one chooses to measure in
> such a complex biological organism as a human or dog are driven by the
> *current thinking* and you could end up chasing your own tail down a blind
> alley. Its the people who think *out of the box* that actually make the
> difference, whether they're in the sciences or not.
But one must perform the appropriate studies before the boundaries of
the box can be enlarged to incorporate the new out-of-the-box ideas. And
until the "box" is enlarged, there's no real way to utilize the new
knowledge. It has to be understood within the framework of what already
is known. Newton once said that "If I have seen more, it is only because
I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Science has always advanced
by someone thinking "outside the box" - that's just a new buzzword of
the 90's.
>
> >> *Science has taken over from religion and it has become a rather corrupt
> >> church. It's in its medieval theological phase.* - James Lovelock
> >
> >Oohh.. straight from Gaia boy. An independent scientist who formulates a
> >theory that can't be tested. How nice. Not exactly what I'd consider a
> >person with high regard for the scientific method.
>
> .........Whoo boy, I'd say you proved his point though, huh!
I think theories that can not be proven are useless, and are not
science. They are faith. One who propounds such theories, and is angered
when they are not universally accepted, is not really in a position to
argue the merits of the scientific method or process.
WalterNY
> My own experience is in
> a field that is supported essentially entirely by government agency
> funding (Department of Energy, National Science Foundation) which are by
> definition not tied to any corporate/industrial partners or benefactors.
> So there is basically no pressure to conform to corporate wishes or
> biases.
Not all things in established science are always as they appear to be. Take
for instance the FermiLab which is controlled by the US Department of
Energy. The ultimate purpose of this facility is for security purposes, or
in simpler terms, the development of weapons and next generation energy. The
Department of Energy likes to advertise itself as an agency whose research
supports our nation's energy security, national security, environmental
quality, and contributes to a better quality of life for all Americans. This
all sounds wonderful. We have a wonderful group of people working in the
area of particle physics. The PR division of Fermi might tell you the nice
story that the Fermi labs goal is to learn how and why matter came to be,
how and why it stays together, how and why it was formed in the beginning of
the universe--and, of course, how we came to be here. This all sounds like
the Fermi lab is out to make life a better place. Yes some of the "side
effects" of the Fermi labs real purpose and some of the secondary
experimentation does benefit man. But most all of this recearch is secondary
to the need to discover new ways of manufacturing weapons and methods to
"protect" the US. This is not bad, but what it means is that there may mot
be a visible agenda, but there is.
>
> Also, I have friends who do research in the biological sciences, and
> they are funded exclusively by NIH. Of course, they are not doing any
> particular drug research, but studying the mechanics of disease, so
> probably not beholden to the pharmaceutical companies. So not all
> research in the life sciences is "tainted" by corporate backing.
The NIH is about as corrupt as any private company. Just because they are a
government agency does not mean they do not have agendas.
I could tell you many stories of their agendas. They were twice convicted of
wrongdoing in federal cases, but since they are a government agency they
continue without any recourse.
> Didn't say they were doing anything wrong. And I *was* trying to learn
> from what's posted here - it's only when I saw people disparaging others
> for not accepting anecdotal evidence as proof, and railing against the
> "veterinary establishment" for being in the pocket of the dog food
> companies, that I began to ask for some objective proof of these
> statements.
I do hate to see the "barf" feeders who tell everyone else that what they
are doing is wrong. It may be wrong, but educating a person as to why is
always better than "sticking it down someone's throat". Vets are not
knowingly in anyone's pocket. I think only ignorance brings them there.
Joe Ozelis
>
> Not all things in established science are always as they appear to be. Take
> for instance the FermiLab which is controlled by the US Department of
> Energy. The ultimate purpose of this facility is for security purposes, or
> in simpler terms, the development of weapons and next generation energy.
OK - right now I realize you are either clueless, a conspiracy-theorist,
or have your own agenda, and I obviously won't be able to convince you
that we are not involved in any sort of defense-related work, perform no
secret research, and do not work on energy sources like fusion or
fission or anything else.
Perhaps the fact that we have no security system here (this isn't Los
Alamos), are open to visitors 10 hours a day, offer tours of every part
of the Laboratory (except the accelerator enclosure when beam is on -
wouldn't want to fry the tourists, now would we ??), and host literally
thousands of researchers from around the globe, including China, Russia,
Iran, Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., all who have full access to our
facilities, computing infrastructure, etc. might convince a rational
person. I don't expect you to believe me.
> But most all of this recearch is secondary
> to the need to discover new ways of manufacturing weapons and methods to
> "protect" the US.
Patently not true. How about a little proof ?? I know... I know, the
govm't has squashed all proof !!
Look behind you... Booo!! Big Brother is watching !! See the black
helicopter over our site ??
Go back to your lead-lined room now.
WalterNY
way. I couldn't decide how to post it and get cross the :) part, so I just
went full bore. Hope I made you smile after the frustration wore off. Your
reaction was fantastic.
Is Peoples still there? I met John a few years ago at a conference in DC.
I'm heading back to the iron lined room, but I think the neutrinos the
Martians are sending here are getting through, any ideas how to help?
Walter
"Joe Ozelis" <oze...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:38A1BBBE...@fnal.gov...
Joe Ozelis
it be good for him ?? It was *raw* after all... ;-)
Joe
WalterNY
> I e-mailed Walter my response. I'd post it too, but my dog ate it. Will
> it be good for him ?? It was *raw* after all... ;-)
Actually Joe, it was processed if it was paper.
Tracy Landauer
a) kill the dog - it's not been peer-reviewed, experimented with in a
garage laboratory, or tested on a large enough population;
b) need supplements - you have to supplement all commercial foods b/c of
the high-heat cooking processes required in the manufacturing process;
c) cause a blockage in his stomach, requring surgery - you should only
feed cooked email;
d) create larger stools;
e) create smaller stools;
f) cause an allergic reaction - email is one of the three most common
doggie allergens;
g) boost his immune system and prevent all cancers and organ breakdown;
h) require calling a vet - oh, scrap that, vets don't know much about
canine nutrition;
i) all of the above?
Tracy Landauer
Joe Ozelis wrote:
>
> I e-mailed Walter my response. I'd post it too, but my dog ate it. Will
> it be good for him ?? It was *raw* after all... ;-)
>
> Joe
>
> WalterNY wrote:
> >
> > Joe, I was only pulling your leg. Boy, you sure took that diatribe the wrong
> > way. I couldn't decide how to post it and get cross the :) part, so I just
> > went full bore. Hope I made you smile after the frustration wore off. Your
> > reaction was fantastic.
> >
> > Is Peoples still there? I met John a few years ago at a conference in DC.
> >
> > I'm heading back to the iron lined room, but I think the neutrinos the
> > Martians are sending here are getting through, any ideas how to help?
> >
> > Walter
> >
> > "Joe Ozelis" <oze...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
Tracy Landauer
birth, this was intended as a JOKE. :)
Tracy
Steve Crane
>
> Seems I've gored someone's sacred ox (to mix metaphors). As a
> professional practicing scientist perhaps I feel obligated to inform,
> educate, and instruct people about scientific methodology, and how to
> separate fact from fiction. I've had similar discussions with people
> about herbal remedies, homeopathy, cancer risks from electromaqnetic
> fields, zero-point energy sources, etc. Frankly, the level of science
> education among the general public in the US is alarmingly poor, even
> among the college educated, and this manifests itself in the types of
> attitudes that embrace psuedo-science without critical inquiry.
Therein lies the biggest issue of all. And also the most
frustrating. The average citizens utter lack of any scientific
understanding makes it possible for every kook and crazy person
to sell the latest cure for death. It is a frightening thing to
realize that most people in this country have so little basic
knowledge of science that cannot discriminate between fact
and fantasy. They don't recognize the difference between testimonial
and anecdotal evidence and real scientific evidence.
The market for selling the latest fad is huge and
billions of dollars are being spent by people searching for
answers. 99 out 100 people could not tell what the p value means
when they looked at a study in the first place. We truly are
creating a society which functions on emotional decisions and
completely ignores the hard facts presented by science.
Rocky
<38A1D13D...@ix.netcom.com>:
>Quick! Take a poll. Will the *raw* email:
And! Raw email and even *good* kibble email (to stretch a point)
as opposed to snail mail, has no "powdered cellulose".
Unlike some Hill's formulations.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
AllBen's Border Collie Rescue
John <Jo...@PeppyPooch.com> wrote in message
news:sa33dh...@corp.supernews.com...
buglady
http://thyroid.about.com/library/weekly/aa020700a.htm
buglady
take out the dog before replying
Kristine Hensel wrote in message <389F4C10...@earthlink.net>...
>I find a lot of the literature concerning 'natural' diets to be alarmist
>enough to put me off - cautioning me not to give my dog tap water is not
>the way to win me over.
Tracy Landauer
appreciate your tone, and God help you if you address people in person
the way you're willing to lambaste me. I've gone out of my way to reply
nicely to you, and in the past, you at least were gracious enough to
agree to disagree with me. We obviously trust vastly different sources
of information, and perhaps I was wrong to give you the benefit of the
doubt, even considering you're a rep for Science Diet. I'm not saying I
could *cure* the list you threw down like a stupid gauntlet, but I know
several of those issues CAN be addressed by a properly researched
natural diet, especially under the care of a holistic vet.
Have a nice day.
Tracy
Steve Crane wrote:
>
> Tracy,
> That is utter nonsense. The pet food companies
> themselves sponsor millions of dollars in research every
> year. That's MILIONS. Your problem is that you prefer
> to ignore the results of that research if it doesn't suit
> your particular needs. That's fine. But to say the companies
> don't do any research is utter foolishness.
>
> Where do your think the following came from:
> Diets to solve stone formation in pets.
> Diets to radically reduce the rate of renal failure
> Diets to treat the side effects of cancer
> Diets for Large Breed dogs
> Diets for puppies versus senior pets.
> Diets to treat obesity
> Diets to remove plaque and gingivitus
> Diets to treat pancreatic insufficiency
> The list could go on for several pages.
>
> Tracy Landauer wrote:
>
> >
> > The pet food industry is the MOST UNLIKELY group to want to perform any
> > "useful (i.e, peer-reviewable, scientifically sound) nutritional
> > studies" studies of a fresh-foods diet because of a serious conflict of
> > interest!!!
> >
> > >> There is no BARF association people belong to and hence there is no base on which to raise money to scientifically prove their side of the
> argument.
> >
> > > Well then, sounds like it's time to put your money where your mouth is.
> >
> > As though thousands of conscientious, informed pet owners, as you so
> > derogatorily refer to us, could compete on a monetary scale with
> > corporate monoliths.
> >
> > Tracy Landauer
Tracy Landauer
I'll reply at length later, but please don't confuse me with someone who
disparages "some of the better commercial diets." Unless I've become
very irritated with the tone of a particular person, and on occasion I
have, I submit I'm one of the more moderate natural-diet folks on the
board who DOES NOT advocate everyone feed their dogs as I do, precisely
because I know many people would skip the homework, throw ground meat in
a bowl, and consider it complete. And I've already stated clearly and
repeatedly that I have no idea if genetically my dogs would do great on
dumpster diving or Purina Dog Chow or even the brand YOU sell.
I know about bloodwork and the 75% rule. Not news to me. But the same
holds true for dogs on commercial foods: the 75% rule is just as true of
dogs on fresh foods as commercial. Fallacy of faulty comparison, and
it's a scare tactic I don't appreciate, quite frankly.
"What is it about hard science that so irritates some people on the
NG's" - probably the same reason that statements like this "Anecdotal
evidence is worthless" irritate people. I at least try to be respectful
of other people's opinions and find the "catch more flies with honey"
approach is kinder. When you stomp all over people, you can be assured
you're going to get the same in return. Anecdotal evidence is NOT
worthless. Giving one a direction to look in is valuable. It may be
worthless to *you*, though, and in which case, state it that way, rather
than sounding like it's a proclamation from on high.
Honestly, Steve, you've always replied to me in a reasonable fashion;
I've obviously offended or angered you, and for that I'm sorry. But
I'll go to my grave believing in my heart and mind that there is No One
Way, and on that point, we do seem to be at a fundamental impasse. I am
not defensive about my choice, but this statement ("We focus on the
graphite golf clubs, and the fast car, instead of on our families. It's
a symptom of the times I suppose") *I* find offensive and entirely
uncalled for. You don't know me.
Have a good day.
Tracy
Steve Crane wrote:
>
> Tracy,
> I have no doubt that for you and your dogs it
> appears that what you have done works. Anecdotal evidence
> is worthless, other than to give us a direction to look at.
> I don't disagree with your right and choice for your self.
> You may be one out of 10,000 who can and do feed home made
> successfully. You may have animals whose genetic stucture
> is such that even if you fed Pruina Dog Chow it would work
> fine.
> Please don't misconstrue what I am saying. I do not
> object to your decision as it pertains to your dogs. I do
> object to the constant barrage which the BARF crowd applies
> to the Newsgroup aas if it is the solution ot every medical
> and genetic problem that exists.
> Anecdotal evidence does NOT trump FACTS. The facts
> are that home made diets have been examined repeatedly over
> the years at variosu universities with the same results.
> 98% of them were deficient or over efficient with various
> nutrients. The fact that your animals are doing fine does
> not connote that everyones else will be as careful in their
> preparation and spend as much time doing the work you have done.
> Obviously 98% will not do so.
> I further consider that you are looking at only
> the "external" things and not the internal. You have no idea
> what state you animals kidneys are in. None whatsoever.
> You have to wait until the kidney is nearly 75% destroyed
> before it will show up in any blood tests you may have done.
> 70% of your dogs kidneys could already be toast and neither
> you nor your vet could tell. BUN, Creatinine SGOT etc, none
> change enough to show a difference until it is too late.
>
> By the same token, why do you constantly make remarks
> against some of the better premium commercial diets? Especially
> those where there is 50 years of ongoing scientific proof
> to back up the scientific decisions made. What is it about
> hard science that so irritates some people on the NG's. Is
> it becasue they have an emotional defensivness about some
> decisiont hey have made and are simply going to refuse to
> listen to any facts that exist? I don't know. I am about as
> cynical as you can get. I don't believe much of anything until
> it has been proven to me in a couple of double blind
> university studies published in peeer reviewed medical journals.
> This attitude has proven a good one over the years as it has
> kept me form making judgments about people and things too
> hastily.
>
> Again I don't object to your personal choice,
> I don't even object to your promotion of your choice. That's
> what a free country is all about. By the same token you should
> not object to me pointing out some fallacies when they are there
> as well. We have become way too focused on external things in life
> and have forgoteen it is the internal things that matter. This
> true of our lives as well. We focus on the graphite golf clubs,
> and the fast car, instead of on our families. It's a symptom of the
> times I suppose.
>
> Steve Crane
>
> Tracy Landauer wrote:
> >
> > Steve, why do you discount so the anecdotal evidence that we have? Why
> > do you reject the very positive results and very healthy dogs we have
> > who are fed a raw or modified-raw diet? I would be only too happy to
> > email, fax, or snail mail you the last five years' worth of vet records
> > for my GSPs, including bloodwork, other lab tests, radiographs, the
> > works. I can tell you the exact dates I began to switch to a different
> > diet, when I added a new supplement, when I tried chiro, when I stopped
> > vaccinating. I did not make the changes overnight; I did this one step
> > at a time, so I could best evaluate how each dog reacted. I'd be
> > willing to bet that you could see the improvements over time for your
> > own eyes. I know *I* can. And while my vet neither feeds not treats
> > his own dog in this same manner, he's certainly taken note of how my
> > dogs have remained healthy and energetic even into old age. And if you
> > don't see what I see, I invite you to come see for yourself. And if we
> > *still* don't see eye to eye, well then, at least we tried. :)
> >
> > Tracy Landauer
> >
> > Arab Talk wrote:
> > >
> > > BelShp4Me wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Scott:
> > > > >Just to provide a little insite. The DACVN after Dr. Wilson's name
> > > > >represents that he is board certified in veterinary nutrition. The PhD
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > And your point is ???? This "Dr. Wilson" came into this newsgroup and called
> > > > us "recreational nutrionists". Those of us that feed a raw or modified raw
> > > > diet did not do this overnight. I did not wake up one morning and decide to
> > > > feed a raw diet. I did read and learn.
> > >
> > > But what did you read? There is the problem. The point being made is that
> > > there is a REAL difference between peer reviewed scientific journal
> > > published studies and what was read on the internet or read in the latest
> > > book in print. In all these long debates no one has yet to show me
> > > any hard science, merely opinions and conjecture. There IS
> > > hard science about home made diets, published in peer reviewed scientific
> > > journals. The results have not been favorable.
Toni
The simple fact is that company reps being PAID to sit and post rebuttals
have an obvious advantage over those of us actually living with and caring
for our animals.
They have nothing better to do.
Tracy-- I admire your tenacity and energy in taking the time to battle the
NON dog folks who see fit to tell
the rest of us how to best care for our animals.
The simple fact is, there is no doubt ANYWHERE that a diet of fresh food is
preferred to a diet of "Total cereal" 24/7 FOR HUMANS, regardless of the
ingredient/nutrient numbers.
Otherwise we'd all be living on cereal.
To assume that it is any different for our dogs is ridiculous. Asinine.
STUPID.
SCIENCE be dammed. I'm NOT waiting for any clinical trial or peer reviewed
study- double blind, triple blind, or headless to tell me how to feed my
animals.
My opinion is as good as anyones, and better than most where dogs are
concerned.
I will preceed confidently, because I KNOW that what I am doing provides
superior nutrition for my dogs.
Period.
The end.
GAUBSTER2
>as opposed to snail mail, has no "powdered cellulose".
>
>Unlike some Hill's formulations.
>--
There you go again!
GAUBSTER2
>have an obvious advantage over those of us actually living with and caring
>for our animals.
>
>They have nothing better to do.
>
Where's the proof of this? I seem to remember a post from Steve Crane a while
back that said that anything he states here is his own personal
opinion/experience and that he does not speak officially for Hill's.
And why would "company reps" have an advantage over your own personal
experience??
Toni
GAUBSTER2 <gaub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000214004415...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> >They have nothing better to do.
> And why would "company reps" have an advantage over your own personal
> experience??
See the first line....
WalterNY
>We truly are
> creating a society which functions on emotional decisions and
> completely ignores the hard facts presented by science.
Actually I think we are seeing a society that is tired of being lied to.
GAUBSTER2
>
>
>
>> And why would "company reps" have an advantage over your own personal
>> experience??
>
>
>See the first line....
That doesn't really answer my question. Just because someone has "nothing
better to do" then that takes precedence over all of your actual experience w/
your own dogs?
Toni
> That doesn't really answer my question. Just because someone has "nothing
> better to do" then that takes precedence over all of your actual
experience w/
> your own dogs?
Didn't say that.
They have more TIME to sit around and argue pointlessly.
I'm out dealing with dogs.
staf...@webtv.net
Why do kibble feeders have to brush their dogs teeth, or have
expensive, yearly dentals done? Debbie
Tracy Landauer
>
Hi, John, and welcome!
I agree with a great deal of what you said, and I agree that the sources
of information that each of us trust will greatly impact our
perspectives. WRT the last paragraph, however, I need to point out that
the "food diatribe" thread is probably three weeks old now :) so I guess
we ARE back on track.
Tracy Landauer
John wrote:
> I'm new to this group, so pardon my waxing philosophical a bit here as I read through all the punching & counter-punching on this "food diatribe"
<snip rational post>
> Maybe all this is just my long winded way of saying, can't we get back on track here folks. There's a ton of learning we need to be about with respect to feeding our dogs. We all love 'em. Let's learn more about how to best care for 'em!