Sharon Too wrote:
"Char", "Chardonney9" is a conspiracy theorist. She will now tell people
that I kill dogs. Classic.


Thanks for reminding me that you kill dogs. There is no conspiracy
Sharon, except for in your head.

You sell Frontline and it kills dogs. Why do you feel it is ok to sell a
pesticide that is known to be fatal and cause horrible side effects?

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/avictim.htm

http://www.biol.sc.edu/~coull_lab/staton/ab17.html

In article ,
Char wrote:
Thanks for reminding me that you kill dogs. There is no conspiracy
Sharon, except for in your head.

You're as likely to notice Teh Crzy as a fish is to notice
water. I.e. you're soaking in it.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Thanks for reminding me that you kill dogs. There is no conspiracy Sharon,
except for in your head.

Amazing how you know so much about my practice. You are the only one
claiming that I "kill dogs". So far the only stat I've come up with is that
in the past ten years in our practice the average life expectency for a dog
has gone from 10 to 12. So much for your theory.

And how about answering that question about your lying and altering my post.
You never answer that.

Sharon Too wrote:
Thanks for reminding me that you kill dogs. There is no conspiracy Sharon,
except for in your head.

Amazing how you know so much about my practice. You are the only one
claiming that I "kill dogs".

I've located an old post by you that does say you sell Frontline. End of
story!

I've posted several times about the dangers of Fipronil (Frontline)
Sharon. Now that you know it's dangerous you could always stop selling
it but I don't see that happening. You'd rather pretend there is a
conspiracy than admit you are selling dangerous pesticides.

In article ,
Char wrote:
I've posted several times about the dangers of Fipronil (Frontline)

Oh, please. That doesn't make any of it true. I mean,
seriously - you're irresponsible and sloppy about research,
and you can't tell the difference between peer-reviewed
scientific publications and some crackpot's opinions. You
don't even know what a "hypothesis" is. So if your argument
here is *really* that you've posted several times, well ha
ha ha.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

I've located an old post by you that does say you sell Frontline. End of
story!

I have never denied that or even implied that I didn't. Only that I don't
kill dogs. Your conspiracy fogs your head otherwise, but that's not my
problem.

I've posted several times about the dangers of Fipronil (Frontline)
Sharon. Now that you know it's dangerous you could always stop selling it
but I don't see that happening. You'd rather pretend there is a conspiracy
than admit you are selling dangerous pesticides.

I choose who and who not to believe, and you are NOT one to believe.

"Sharon Too" wrote in message
. ..
I've located an old post by you that does say you sell Frontline. End of
story!

I have never denied that or even implied that I didn't. Only that I don't
kill dogs. Your conspiracy fogs your head otherwise, but that's not my
problem.

I've posted several times about the dangers of Fipronil (Frontline)
Sharon. Now that you know it's dangerous you could always stop selling
it but I don't see that happening. You'd rather pretend there is a
conspiracy than admit you are selling dangerous pesticides.

I choose who and who not to believe, and you are NOT one to believe.

IMHO it is best to be open minded and do a lot of research. There are
probably dangers as well as benefits to using Fipronil and sometimes one
must balance these depending on circumstances. I used Frontline on Muttley
in 1996 with good success and no apparent ill effects, when he had a bad
infestation of fleas, but he has been flea-free since then.

Ticks were a big problem for a while, and I have found several on me and
him, but not so many lately. The big danger, of course, is Lyme disease as
well as other infections, such as ehrlichia and babeosis, that can be even
more serious. But it seems that treatment of the disease with antibiotics
is effective, inexpensive, and without serious side-effects, so that must
be weighed against the toxicity of Frontline and its true effectiveness in
repelling or killing fleas and ticks. I found an interesting discussion
from a year ago:

http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=97514

and from a link the
http://www.apnm.org/publications/res...leachemfin.pdf

and an extensive article:
http://www.dogsey.com/dog-articles.php?t=20146

These seem to be relatively unbiased and it is always best to err on the
side of caution and least catastrophic consequences.

Paul and Muttley
www.MuttleyDog.com

IMHO it is best to be open minded and do a lot of research.

The thing is, we read research every blessed day, while at work, at home, at
CE conferences, on vacation. We are trained to read and dissect scientific
studies. Chard thinks that I should bow to her word and cut/pastes from the
internet. If medicine was practiced based on doctors saying, "oh, well then,
absolsutely" just because someone says they read it on the internet we'd be
in deep crap.

The doctors at our practice do very deep research and critical independant
thinking based on such before implementing anything. But Chard throws out
conspiracies as the only truth and anything else as "killing". Yet, she has
no adequate education or personal experience (we're talking following
hundreds and thousands of patients over many, many years) to base anything
on.

She is a conspiracist and people who read here should know that. She'll
suggest that we kill dogs at our practice because we sell prescription
PFC's, but it hasn't happened, not once in thousands of patients. But she'll
throw that out there. You bet I take that personally. It's time people stop
implying that that is OK for her to do that.

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
Char wrote:
I've posted several times about the dangers of Fipronil (Frontline)

Oh, please. That doesn't make any of it true. I mean,
seriously - you're irresponsible and sloppy about research,
and you can't tell the difference between peer-reviewed
scientific publications and some crackpot's opinions. You
don't even know what a "hypothesis" is. So if your argument
here is *really* that you've posted several times, well ha
ha ha.

I'm going to start posting that I've won
first place in marathons.

Cuz that really would be cool.

Sharon Too wrote:
IMHO it is best to be open minded and do a lot of research.

The thing is, we read research every blessed day, while at work, at home, at
CE conferences, on vacation. We are trained to read and dissect scientific
studies. Chard thinks that I should bow to her word and cut/pastes from the
internet. If medicine was practiced based on doctors saying, "oh, well then,
absolsutely" just because someone says they read it on the internet we'd be
in deep crap.

The doctors at our practice do very deep research and critical independant
thinking based on such before implementing anything. But Chard throws out
conspiracies as the only truth and anything else as "killing". Yet, she has
no adequate education or personal experience (we're talking following
hundreds and thousands of patients over many, many years) to base anything
on.

She is a conspiracist and people who read here should know that. She'll
suggest that we kill dogs at our practice because we sell prescription
PFC's, but it hasn't happened, not once in thousands of patients. But she'll
throw that out there. You bet I take that personally. It's time people stop
implying that that is OK for her to do that.


I am a member if quite a number of holistic
and natural rearing pet groups (for more than
one species. I work with a rescue that leans
towards alternative medicine (used to have
both feet firmly planted in it, but there
were too many deaths, so they've found that
using all aspects of medicine, whether
natural or western, is the way to go). I have
a source for colloidal silver that is a true
colloid with a high ppm ratio, and I but
transer factor and other alternative
supplements as often (if not moreso) than I
buy western pharmaceuticals.

And I also think Chard has very little
ability to apply critical thought to any
situation without her personal agenda
blinding her. I also think she is an
incredible hypocrite in that she doesn't
hesitate to use western pharmaceuticals when
it comes to her own health, well
being....heck, even when it comes to pain
killers. But when it comes to dogs, she would
withhold that treatment simply because of it
not being based in her "purist" agenda; an
agenda she doesn't hold herself to.

She rails about how people who don't feed raw
are killing and damaging their dogs, but
failed to answer my direct challenge about
whether or not she herself ate raw as well
(at the time *I* was eating an all raw diet,
because if its supposed to be so good for my
pets, then I should at least explore its
benefits and disciplines myself).

So, the bottom line: she spouts an agenda
that she doesn't apply critical thought to,
and then only applies it to everyone else and
their pets, and perhaps her own pets. She
herself is apparently exempt.

That's my summary of that chick. So far, I
haven't seen anything that gives me reason to
suggest there is anything more than that to
her at all.