On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:08:52 -0500, 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.

Facts are good. But proper use of those facts is even better.

However, I see a lot of misuse (and abuse) of the facts.

For example, using them to suggest that dog food companies are all bad
bad bad. That feeding kibble is bad bad bad. That feeding canned food
is bad bad bad. That feeding raw is better better better. Etc.

Humans are capable of doing some remarkably stupid things when they
panic.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

A liberal stands up to the Surrender Lobby!
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007212.htm
Not everyone in Europe is a stupid as Rosie O'Donnell:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...474636,00.html
Your United Nations at work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEw0lZ3k_Y&eurl=
A Moronocy of Dunces!
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/...ocy-of-dunces/
How modern liberals think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&eurl=
Gore's Global Warming Religion:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19927
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature':
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm
Liberal eco-preeners: Do as we say, not as we do!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...599714,00.html
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science...-012154-7403r/
Scientists threatened with death for 'climate denial'!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen211.xml
The Great Global Warming Swindle - the video:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...global+warming

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...)

Thats striking news but heres another one purina also added their name to the list voluntarily to the FDA they found the chemical melamine a fertilizer that they use in food menues yuk

__________________
Discover Health foods for dogs and cats

HealthyPetNet Premium Natural Health Dog Foods -
The HealthyPetNet Business Opportunity -
Life’s Abundance Premium Cat Food -
Health Food For Puppies -
Dog Training Treats
Health Business

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:59:30 +0100, Aaron111
wrote:

Handsome Jack Morrison;295671 Wrote:
But hours after the government's assurances, Hills, a major pet food
maker, announced that one of its dry brands is contaminated. Hills
recalled the brand: Prescription Diet m/d Feline Dry Food...

'STLtoday - News - Nation' (http://tinyurl.com/yt23o9)

Thats striking news but heres another one purina also added their name
to the list voluntarily to the FDA they found the chemical melamine a
fertilizer that they use in food menues yuk

Would you please translate that into English for me?

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

A liberal stands up to the Surrender Lobby!
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007212.htm
Not everyone in Europe is a stupid as Rosie O'Donnell:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...474636,00.html
Your United Nations at work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMEw0lZ3k_Y&eurl=
A Moronocy of Dunces!
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2007/...ocy-of-dunces/
How modern liberals think!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c&eurl=
Gore's Global Warming Religion:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19927
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature':
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0315101129.htm
Liberal eco-preeners: Do as we say, not as we do!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...599714,00.html
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science...-012154-7403r/
Scientists threatened with death for 'climate denial'!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen211.xml
The Great Global Warming Swindle - the video:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...global+warming

on Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:27:00 GMT, Dale Atkin
wrote:

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.

Ah, well then I misunderstood you. I concluded you were not keeping
current since a couple of the questions you asked were addressed in
published reports. I do agree with you that some/much of what is being
published is not factual, which doesn't help the situation AT ALL.

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.

IIRC, the period leading up to the recall was noted to have a dramatic
rise in cases of kidney disease, but I did not re-check the link and I
may be remembering incorrectly, so take that FWIW.

If its the period following the recall, then I have less confidence in
their numbers (for reasons stated in earlier posts)

snip

I'll agree, to a point. Maybe a small point. There will not be a
significant rise in the number of young, previously healthy animals who
test positive for kidney disease just because they are tested for it.
If they were also consuming the recalled foods, I think it would be fair
to conclude there is a causal relationship in a vast majority of cases.

**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...)

Just curious, are you applying to get into vet school?

--
Lynne

I have always fed dry food and always fed Purina dog food. Awhile
back I was given a case of Alpo dog food. I fed it to my dogs because I
was out of dog food. Now I see Alpo canned dog food has made the list
of recalled dog foods. It is manufactured by Purina. I can't help but
wonder about my old stand by Purina dry food.


Be Free.....Judy

Every animal is going to react differently to the levels of poison in their
body. If an animal is young it may take more time or larger amounts of
poison to show signs, older less active animals would hold poison longer,
small animals would take less time to show poisoning but again all factors
must be considered. Here is one no one wants to think about and it must be
addressed, it could take years before symptoms show. Get blood work on your
pet if you have any worries. Also dog food may not be completely consistent
in how it distributes its ingredients per batch.



"Julia Altshuler" wrote in message
. ..
Lynne wrote:

What's really scary to me is that the FDA is saying the level of melamine
found in the food doesn't explain the symptoms they are seeing in pets
who consumed it.

Tip of the iceberg?


Here's what I don't understand: Why aren't more dogs and cats sick? I
know that sounds horribly callous so let me explain myself before everyone
jumps down my throat. The recall was/is huge. The number of pets exposed
to possibly tainted pet food has to be huge. Yet I'm hearing very
relatively few reports of sick or dying pets. Believe me, I think that's
a good thing, but it doesn't make sense. When you look at the numbers, it
seems like there should be more. In my neighborhood, all the dogs and
cats are fine. You have reports of veterinarians working overtime testing
animals, but they're all fine. It doesn't seem possible that the food
isn't really tainted since some animals have died from poisoning. What
explains the fact that so many exposed animals haven't gotten sick?


(How was your trip, and would you email me privately your notes on airport
recordings?)


--Lia

I'd reply more fully, but I have to run to my Biochemistry class...

Just curious, are you applying to get into vet school?


Yep, I've applied, waiting to hear back if I get an interview or not.

Dale

Just Saskatoon. I'd much rather go there than U of C.

In theory, last I heard U of C was planning on opening September 2008. When
it was first announced, the goal was September 2006.

Dale

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rocky"
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.behavior
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: Now it's dry food...


"Dale Atkin" said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

Just curious, are you applying to get into vet school?

Yep, I've applied, waiting to hear back if I get an
interview or not.

Where did you apply? A friend finally gave up on the U of C's
"soon to be" program and went to Saskatoon.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

on Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:50:24 GMT, "Dale Atkin"
wrote:

Yep, I've applied, waiting to hear back if I get an interview or not.

Good luck!! I went to the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech which
also has a vet school. A couple of my close friends were in the program so
I got to hear a lot of 'war' stories. Even though it was gruelling, they
are very happy with their career choices. One is a large animal vet, the
other is a small animal vet and they both have their own practices.

My daughter (age 11) says she wants to be a vet but only if she never has
to euthanize an animal. I keep telling her what a wonderful option it is
for us to have for our beloved pets and that if she's a vet she can
euthanize me when my time comes. As appealing as that idea is to her, she
remains unconvinced.

--
Lynne