On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:38:13 -0400, Char
wrote:

[...]
Nearly all of the dogs in the CHC vaccine survey - which involved over
4,000 dogs and is still ongoing - contracted distemper, parvo, lepto,
hepatitis, etc, within three months of being vaccinated.

"CHC" is Catherine O'Driscoll, a radical anti-vaccination zealot who
has ZERO medical or scientific credentials. Why not you tell people
that, Char?

Why don't you read what she writes? She uses valid studies and quotes
from experts. IOW, she posts truth, not fairy tales.

She does no such thing! This so-called "study" is her own (the "CHC"
is Catherine O-Driscoll!), and the specifics of this "study" have not
been published, not can it even be found.

Stop trying to fool people, Char. Catherine O-Driscoll is a zealot,
not a scientist, not a medical professional, not even a credentialed
researcher!

I repeat: SHE HAS NO CREDENTIALS! Just like you.

"Vaccines are not just for babies and young children. As children get
older, the protection provided by some early childhood vaccines can
wear off."

The same principle applies to dogs and cats too, and you can always
google for more information.

This study is showing that not to be true.
http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/

And many dogs who have never been vaccinated still titer high for
diseases, even years later.

Yes, that's true for some dogs, but not true for others. And no one
yet knows what levels of immunity are enough to prevent disease.
Hopefully, one day we will. Until then, the smart money is on
vaccinations, but as infrequently as possible.

You think the vaccine companies are going to test their own products?
You are really dreaming! That is why the Rabies Challenge came about.
It's being paid for by dog owners and kennel clubs because the vaccine
companies don't want anyone to know they are selling harmful products.

Again, they can be harmful for some dogs, just like vaccinations can
be harmful for human beings. But there is no harm to the vast majority
of dogs, only benefits.

Q.E.D.

No one really knows for certain what level of immunity (antibodies) is
the correct amount, so we tend to err towards safety, especially for
fatal diseases like rabies.

Which is why, in my opinion, a middle-of-the road approach is the
smart way to go about this. I.e., only vaccinate when absolutely
necessary,

That is exactly what I do! I've not found it to be necessary ever.

No, that's not what you do. You claim not to vaccinate your dogs.
Period. That's not a middle-of-the-road approach, that's radical
approach. Not to mention unlawful and potentially dangerous, even
fatal, to others around your dogs.

If those vaccines work so well how can it be dangerous? Make up your
mind, do they work or not?

Both!

Riding in automobiles and airplanes can be dangerous! Like when they
crash. But they're a safe means of transportation for the overwhelming
majority of us.

Getting admitted to a hospital for a procedure can be dangerous, but
we still go, don't we? Because the risks from not going are much
greater!

[...]
I'll say it again: I was among the first in the dog world to routinely
call for fewer and less frequent vaccinations for dogs. I'm
continually checking the literature, and I always have, plus
consulting with some of the finest veterinary minds in the country at
the University of Missouri - College of Veterinary Medicine.

You couldn't have picked a more backwards school. Maybe this is why.

It's one of the best vet schools in the country, and getting better
every year. And one of the first vet schools to call for less
frequent vaccination! Again, you need to leave your sweat lodge more
often.

Wise up, Char. There's no reason to put your dogs (if you even have
any) at risk. And let's not forget that it's AGAINST THE LAW, too.

There have only been a handful of rabid dogs
in the entire huge state of Florida in a decade.

Yes, thanks to the rabies vaccination!

But rabies kills ~55,000 humans each year, with ~60% of the deaths the
result of *dog* bites. And with almost all of them happening in
countries, primarily in Asia, where they do not vaccinate dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies

Grow up, Char. Find a freakin' clue.

--
Dogman

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:27:40 -0400, Dogman wrote:



Maybe Kiba can get a part in the next X-Men movie?

That would be kewl. Kiba could make some money to help pay for his
food, something I've been trying to get my dogs to do for years
without success.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:49:45 -0400, Char
wrote:

On 8/22/2010 1:27 PM, Dogman wrote:
What does "nearly all" mean here? 3900 out of 4000? 3800 out of 4000?
That's what it would mean to me.

Which would suggest that "nearly all" of the dogs in, e.g., the U.S.,
should be dropping like flies! Meaning it should virtually be
impossible to take a walk and not see a couple of dogs keel over! It
would mean that since the vast majority of our dogs are vaccinated,
even*over* vaccinated, we should have run out of dogs altogether
about 6 months ago!

It didn't say they all died. It said they contracted diseases. Try
reading slower for better comprehension.

I didn't say they all died! But all the diseases you named are
potentially FATAL diseases, even when treated, so if "nearly all" of
the 4000 dogs in the "study" contracted potentially fatal diseases
(3800 out of 4000 would be 95%!), within just 3 months of being
vaccinated, even when treated, "nearly all" of the dogs in the U.S.
should be keeling over! Whether they drop dead, or keel over from
sickness, we should be seeing "nearly all" of the dogs in the U.S.
keeling over!

Think about it. If "nearly all" U.S. dogs ("nearly all" or, say, 95%?)
were contracting potentially fatal diseases (distemper itself, for
example is ~ 50% fatal, even when treated!), it wouldn't take very
long for canis familiaris to virtually disappear as a species in the
U.S., Canada, etc.

Which is freakin' crazy, right?

So that's what happens when you rely on *uncredentialed* zealots for
your information.

Real scientists publish their "studies," so that other scientists can
review and critique the "study's" design, etc. (i.e., peer review),
and especially to see if other real scientists can replicate them.

Catherine O-Driscoll has done no such thing, and you know it.

But you don't care.

--
Dogman

"Char" wrote in message
m...
On 8/21/2010 11:08 PM, Phyrie wrote:


"sighthounds & siberians" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:12:55 -0400, Dogman wrote:

A kibble fed dog will in general have more illnesses

That's pure hogwash, as my own experience, and the experience of
millions of other dog owners, clearly illustrates.

This is what pisses me off about Char. There really are benefits to a
raw diet, but when she spouts unsubstantiated crap like the above, she
destroys her own credibility. I don't care about that, but such
extremism may lead some people to believe that all or most raw feeders
are nutjobs who don't believe in vaccinations and spout garbage
science.

Too true! I was terribly afraid to admit that I am raw-feeding Kiba, for
fear I would be grouped with her. I would be happy to discuss the
benefits of raw feeding here, but there's no hope of that with Char
proselytising her stupid ass off, and making us all look like rabid
fanatics. And the way she writes her posts is SO misleading, it's almost
illegal.

Show me what is misleading. Details please. Facts too. I base what I know
on real studies, not hearsay.

The second one above this, in which she starts, "There is only
one vaccine required by law where I am and I would not hurt my dog to
comply with a law that was passed without cause. There
were no pets with rabies in my area when that became law and the numbers
since then are almost non-existent." sounds like she wrote it herself,
relaying her own experiences. But as you read down, you start to think
that she may be quoting someone, but you can't tell where her words
start and end, and she gives no credit to anyone else. To me, that is
plagiarism, plain and simple. She's a fraud, without a single original
thought in her head. She pretends other's words are her own, and when
she's called on it, she protests that she's being flamed. As my old
friend Jack would say, "What a maroon!!"

So now you have to make up things to attack me. Those are my words. Simple
enough to find out. Copy them and put them into a search engine and see if
it exists anywhere else. I know the rabies numbers because there is a
Florida government website that keeps track of what animals if any had
rabies in any given year. I've also had discussions online about other
states that passed laws mandating the rabies vaccine in the same way.
There was much less of a chance of contracting rabies than of acquiring a
fatal autoimmune disease from the shot. That is a fact.

It's called *research* which is much different that personal experience,
even 50 years worth. Times change and even kibble is not what it was years
ago.

You need to prove it's plagiarism.... well?

Oh, really? Which ones here are yours, and which did you cut and paste from
some website, hmmm? This is your post, copied and pasted exactly as you
"wrote" it, lacking only a link to some website at the bottom. There is NO
attribution, no credit all. The first paragraph sounds like it MIGHT be
you, but the rest, I highly doubt it. I am not adding quotation marks as
I should, so as not to confuse you. Show me which are YOUR words:

There is only one vaccine required by law where I am and I would not
hurt my dog to comply with a law that was passed without cause. There
were no pets with rabies in my area when that became law and the numbers
since then are almost non-existent.

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies
developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including
fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs -- "but not the non-vaccinated
dogs"-- were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in
tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation
between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin,
which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion,
spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells.
Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence
of cells.

Autoantibodies to cardiolipin are frequently found in patients with the
serious disease systemic lupus erythematosus and also in individuals
with other autoimmune diseases. The presence of elevated
anti-cardiolipin antibodies is significantly associated with clots
within the heart or blood vessels, in poor blood clotting, haemorrhage,
bleeding into the skin, foetal loss and neurological conditions.

The Purdue studies also found that vaccinated dogs were developing
autoantibodies to their own collagen. About one quarter of all the
protein in the body is collagen. Collagen provides structure to our
bodies, protecting and supporting the softer tissues and connecting them
with the skeleton. It is no wonder that Canine Health Concern's 1997
study of 4,000 dogs showed a high number of dogs developing mobility
problems shortly after they were vaccinated (noted in my 1997 book, What
Vets Don't Tell You About Vaccines).

Perhaps most worryingly, the Purdue studies found that the vaccinated
dogs had developed autoantibodies to their own DNA.

"Char" wrote in message
m...

and let me know when you've found what I'm supposed to have plagiarized ok
hun?

Done. Read my answer, bitch. And in the meantime, how the **** can Kiba be
sick when he's raw-fed, you moron!! Isn't that against your manifesto?
Kiba will be living forever, disease-free, according to you and your gurus.

On 8/22/2010 4:07 PM, Phyrie wrote:


"Char" wrote in message
m...

and let me know when you've found what I'm supposed to have
plagiarized ok hun?

Done. Read my answer, bitch.

Is it invisible? I don't see an answer.

And in the meantime, how the **** can Kiba
be sick when he's raw-fed, you moron!! Isn't that against your
manifesto? Kiba will be living forever, disease-free, according to you
and your gurus.

Let's give you a little lesson in quoting better. Raw fed dogs can get
sick too, especially if vaccinated. It just happens a lot less than
kibble crap fed dogs.

Getting a little angry there hun! Maybe you should give yourself a time
out before hitting that send button.

On 8/22/2010 3:12 PM, Dogman wrote:


Stop trying to fool people, Char. Catherine O-Driscoll is a zealot,
not a scientist, not a medical professional, not even a credentialed
researcher!

I repeat: SHE HAS NO CREDENTIALS! Just like you.


You really love that word zealot don't you? LOL! Look in the mirror for
a great example. You have been around dogs all those years and have no
clue what is going on around you. I think a better name for you would be
Caveman.

On 8/22/2010 3:12 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:38:13 -0400,
wrote:

[...]
Nearly all of the dogs in the CHC vaccine survey - which involved over
4,000 dogs and is still ongoing - contracted distemper, parvo, lepto,
hepatitis, etc, within three months of being vaccinated.

"CHC" is Catherine O'Driscoll, a radical anti-vaccination zealot who
has ZERO medical or scientific credentials. Why not you tell people
that, Char?

Why don't you read what she writes? She uses valid studies and quotes
from experts. IOW, she posts truth, not fairy tales.

She does no such thing! This so-called "study" is her own (the "CHC"
is Catherine O-Driscoll!), and the specifics of this "study" have not
been published, not can it even be found.

Stop trying to fool people, Char. Catherine O-Driscoll is a zealot,
not a scientist, not a medical professional, not even a credentialed
researcher!

I repeat: SHE HAS NO CREDENTIALS! Just like you.

She present 100% more evidence than you do.


"Vaccines are not just for babies and young children. As children get
older, the protection provided by some early childhood vaccines can
wear off."

The same principle applies to dogs and cats too, and you can always
google for more information.

This study is showing that not to be true.
http://www.rabieschallengefund.org/

And many dogs who have never been vaccinated still titer high for
diseases, even years later.

Yes, that's true for some dogs, but not true for others.

Show me how you got that conclusion.

And no one
yet knows what levels of immunity are enough to prevent disease.
Hopefully, one day we will. Until then, the smart money is on
vaccinations, but as infrequently as possible.

You think the vaccine companies are going to test their own products?
You are really dreaming! That is why the Rabies Challenge came about.
It's being paid for by dog owners and kennel clubs because the vaccine
companies don't want anyone to know they are selling harmful products.

Again, they can be harmful for some dogs, just like vaccinations can
be harmful for human beings. But there is no harm to the vast majority
of dogs, only benefits.

Again, show me how you came to that conclusion. Where are your statistics?


Q.E.D.

No one really knows for certain what level of immunity (antibodies) is
the correct amount, so we tend to err towards safety, especially for
fatal diseases like rabies.

Which is why, in my opinion, a middle-of-the road approach is the
smart way to go about this. I.e., only vaccinate when absolutely
necessary,

That is exactly what I do! I've not found it to be necessary ever.

No, that's not what you do. You claim not to vaccinate your dogs.
Period. That's not a middle-of-the-road approach, that's radical
approach. Not to mention unlawful and potentially dangerous, even
fatal, to others around your dogs.

If those vaccines work so well how can it be dangerous? Make up your
mind, do they work or not?

Both!

I guess I should have asked if you had a mind first huh?


Riding in automobiles and airplanes can be dangerous! Like when they
crash. But they're a safe means of transportation for the overwhelming
majority of us.

Getting admitted to a hospital for a procedure can be dangerous, but
we still go, don't we? Because the risks from not going are much
greater!

No, sometimes we don't go and sometimes we check out of the hospital
when we feel the docs are clueless. I wish I had walked out when a
doctor insisted I needed my hand worked on. I'd still have feeling in it
now. I should have listened to my intuition. And there are lots of times
when I decide not to take medication given to me because I feel it's in
my best interest, especially when that doctor owns a pharmacy.


[...]
I'll say it again: I was among the first in the dog world to routinely
call for fewer and less frequent vaccinations for dogs. I'm
continually checking the literature, and I always have, plus
consulting with some of the finest veterinary minds in the country at
the University of Missouri - College of Veterinary Medicine.

You couldn't have picked a more backwards school. Maybe this is why.

It's one of the best vet schools in the country, and getting better
every year.

If you feel that way why did you cut out what I found about the school?
It is funded by kibble companies and drug companies. You really think
there is no bias? That school kisses ass for money!


Wise up, Char. There's no reason to put your dogs (if you even have
any) at risk. And let's not forget that it's AGAINST THE LAW, too.

There have only been a handful of rabid dogs
in the entire huge state of Florida in a decade.

Yes, thanks to the rabies vaccination!

Prove it was the vaccine that caused those figures, especially when the
rabies rate was already low before the law was passed and before the
vaccine was given out at all.


But rabies kills ~55,000 humans each year, with ~60% of the deaths the
result of *dog* bites. And with almost all of them happening in
countries, primarily in Asia, where they do not vaccinate dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies

Oh, I'm so impressed! You finally posted a link! Wait a minute, the link
is to wikipedia where anyone can post anything about any subject.

And those rabid dogs were fed what?

"Char" wrote in message
...
Is it invisible? I don't see an answer.

So you're blind in all things, not just dogma? Or is it that you just can't
see anything that might prove you're a fraud?

Getting a little angry there hun! Maybe you should give yourself a time
out before hitting that send button.

Yep, I admit it, you **** me off. For lots of reasons, but mostly because
you are dangerous to dogs. You stealing other people's words isn't really
my problem, although the authors of that drivel might be a wee bit annoyed
that you take credit for their "work".

On 8/22/2010 3:43 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:49:45 -0400,
wrote:

On 8/22/2010 1:27 PM, Dogman wrote:
What does "nearly all" mean here? 3900 out of 4000? 3800 out of 4000?
That's what it would mean to me.

Which would suggest that "nearly all" of the dogs in, e.g., the U.S.,
should be dropping like flies! Meaning it should virtually be
impossible to take a walk and not see a couple of dogs keel over! It
would mean that since the vast majority of our dogs are vaccinated,
even*over* vaccinated, we should have run out of dogs altogether
about 6 months ago!

It didn't say they all died. It said they contracted diseases. Try
reading slower for better comprehension.

I didn't say they all died! But all the diseases you named are
potentially FATAL diseases, even when treated, so if "nearly all" of
the 4000 dogs in the "study" contracted potentially fatal diseases
(3800 out of 4000 would be 95%!), within just 3 months of being
vaccinated, even when treated, "nearly all" of the dogs in the U.S.
should be keeling over! Whether they drop dead, or keel over from
sickness, we should be seeing "nearly all" of the dogs in the U.S.
keeling over!

Think about it. If "nearly all" U.S. dogs ("nearly all" or, say, 95%?)
were contracting potentially fatal diseases (distemper itself, for
example is ~ 50% fatal, even when treated!), it wouldn't take very
long for canis familiaris to virtually disappear as a species in the
U.S., Canada, etc.

You are assuming that nearly all dogs get vaccinated. Facts please.


Which is freakin' crazy, right?

So that's what happens when you rely on *uncredentialed* zealots for
your information.

Real scientists publish their "studies," so that other scientists can
review and critique the "study's" design, etc. (i.e., peer review),
and especially to see if other real scientists can replicate them.

Catherine O-Driscoll has done no such thing, and you know it.

Nobody said she was a scientist. Stop making things up! She did use
information from scientists to write her articles though. Same as I can.
Yet you don't use scientific evidence to support your views, not at all.
It's all hearsay. I don't even know if you've ever really had a dog.