Lynne wrote:
on Sun, 01 Apr 2007 04:17:00 GMT, Dale Atkin wrote:

snip

No, I'm just sitting here watching these threads, and I'm seeing very
few real *FACTS* going around, and a lot of speculation, and people
getting more and more worried.

snip

I started to reply point-by-point to your post, but it's clear to me by the
questions you are asking that you've done no research into this issue. If
you are interested in *FACTS*, as you say, then you should read something
other than Usenet. As a start, check out some of the links that are being
posted on the health group by buglady. She's been serving up the most
current *FACTS* since the beginning of this mess.


Actually I am very interested in the facts, and I've read quite a bit
outside usenet (including some (although not all) of buglady's links).
I'm quite interested in what is going on, and how people (and agencies)
are reacting to it (see footnote). The problem is, most of what is being
brought up isn't facts, its an interpretation of the facts, and there
are many different possible interpretations.

Lets look at the one with the large national practice that reported a
rise in the number of cats/dogs with kidney failure (unfortunately that
link has scrolled off my news reader here... I'll have another look at
it when I get home).

Fact:

There has been a rise in the number of cats/dogs reported with kidney
failure.

Questions:

1. Over what period was this?
2. Exactly what percentage rise over baseline did this make up?
3. How many animals were examined?
4. How many were brought in with acute symptoms, and how many did the
vets go looking for?

These are all important questions (some of which I believe were answered
in that link... some I'm pretty sure weren't). They all give some idea
of the reliability of their estimate of the number of dogs and cat
impacted.

Why these questions are important:
(1) If its the period leading up to the recall, then this is indication
that the numbers are more reliable.
If its the period following the recall, then I have less confidence in
their numbers (for reasons stated in earlier posts)
(2) and (3) These also help to show a confidence in the numbers they
gave. If they examined 100000 cats, and 50 of them showed evidence of
kidney damage as opposed to 6, yes that constitutes a doubling, but it
would seem to be with in a statistical 'blip'. If on the other hand they
examined 1000 cats, and 50 of them showed signs of kidney damage,
relative to 6 at the some time last year, this would be more significant.
(4) goes back to the same problems I have with if the reported period
was post recall. If as a vet you've just had one case of kidney failure,
you're going to be more on the lookout for kidney problems, and so be
more likely to spot them. Given that there was some rise that is
attributable to the contaminated food, then vets are more likely to have
seen a case of kidney failure recently, leading them to be more on the
lookout for (and hence more likely to find) cases of kidney malfunction.


Dale

**Other than the desire to keep myself up to date with what is
happening, I'm also interested as there is I think a pretty good chance
that if I get an interview with the vet college they will ask me some
questions about what is/was going on. (I'm told they like to ask about
current events impacting the veterinary profession, and that there
hasn't been much of interest happening lately other than this...)