Comments for The SkeptVet Blog http://skeptvet.com/Blog A Vet Takes a Science-Based Look at Complementary and Alternative Medicine Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:51:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Misleading Advertising for Raw Pet Food (again) by skeptvet http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/01/misleading-advertising-for-raw-pet-food-again/comment-page-1/#comment-48044 skeptvet Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:51:23 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=1261#comment-48044 I certainly agree. I believe that ethics and values, which are predicated on feelings and beliefs, are the primary driving forces behind our decisions. My concern, of course, is that facts must be included in the chain of reasoning somewhere or the output is often absurd. While I'm not convinced objective ethical or moral facts exist as such (I'm a bit of a relativist in that regard), I think facts about the physical world do exist and can be determined through science to a high degree of probability. So I think we can only make appropriate and sound ethical judgements if they are based on an understanding of the world that is factually as correct as possible. Most of my objections to claims and arguments made in favor of unconventional diets is that regardless of the ethics and values behind them, they often have their facts wrong or simply don't care what the facts are. I certainly agree. I believe that ethics and values, which are predicated on feelings and beliefs, are the primary driving forces behind our decisions. My concern, of course, is that facts must be included in the chain of reasoning somewhere or the output is often absurd. While I’m not convinced objective ethical or moral facts exist as such (I’m a bit of a relativist in that regard), I think facts about the physical world do exist and can be determined through science to a high degree of probability. So I think we can only make appropriate and sound ethical judgements if they are based on an understanding of the world that is factually as correct as possible. Most of my objections to claims and arguments made in favor of unconventional diets is that regardless of the ethics and values behind them, they often have their facts wrong or simply don’t care what the facts are.

]]> Comment on Misleading Advertising for Raw Pet Food (again) by rita http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/01/misleading-advertising-for-raw-pet-food-again/comment-page-1/#comment-48030 rita Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:27:28 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=1261#comment-48030 I think there's some interesting potential in people thinking ethically instead of faddishly both about their own diets and what they give to the nonhumans for whom they are responsible, but then I would, wouldn't I? I think there’s some interesting potential in people thinking ethically instead of faddishly both about their own diets and what they give to the nonhumans for whom they are responsible, but then I would, wouldn’t I?

]]> Comment on Neoplasene-The Latest Head of the Escharotic Hydra by Jennifer Markman http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2009/07/neoplasene-the-latest-head-of-the-escarotic-hydra/comment-page-2/#comment-47930 Jennifer Markman Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:21:08 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=71#comment-47930 Eloquently put and true to a point, however, when faced with believing that my dog has been saved by some other-worldly miracle or by an alternative cancer treatment that has had the same result for 100’s if not 1000’s of other pets; I’m going to have to bet on the drug. I understand that case studies are not conclusive, but you would have to prove that it fails 100% of the time to write it off completely. I have to concede to the fact that Neoplasene does not work in every situation, but that fact that it does work in others tells me that we have a lot more to understand before we are able to dismiss it as a potential alternative treatment. There are big pieces of this puzzle still missing for me and I’m not convinced that everything is known about this drug and its effects. And the argument that it’s detrimental and causes more harm than good is incredibly debatable. If we applied this reasoning to human medicines, chemotherapy would be the first to go. I understand that a pet’s life is not as valuable as a human’s life. For a person, there is obviously a higher tolerance that allows for pain and suffering in order to prolong life. I’m not suggesting that we should do this to our pets. In many ways our society is kinder to its animals than to its people. If we experienced any negative effects, we would have reconsidered the use of Neoplasene. It is a quite potent drug and protocols need to be followed. We have done everything to the letter and we are thrilled with the outcome. Is it possible that our dog developed some antibody to cancer or was saved by the prayers of us and our friends?? I guess it could be, but statically probability leaves me with the conclusion that this drug is what’s making the difference. If you chose to believe in divine intervention, I’m right there with you, but I believe it was in the finding of this drug and not in God’s healing rays of light miraculously curing him of a terminal illness. Could he still die form this cancer? Absolutely, but we have more than beaten the odds and his test results have come back clear after 7 months of treatment. Our doctors are as amazed as we are and they've come to the same conclusions that we have - something is working here other than our prayers. Eloquently put and true to a point, however, when faced with believing that my dog has been saved by some other-worldly miracle or by an alternative cancer treatment that has had the same result for 100’s if not 1000’s of other pets; I’m going to have to bet on the drug.

I understand that case studies are not conclusive, but you would have to prove that it fails 100% of the time to write it off completely. I have to concede to the fact that Neoplasene does not work in every situation, but that fact that it does work in others tells me that we have a lot more to understand before we are able to dismiss it as a potential alternative treatment. There are big pieces of this puzzle still missing for me and I’m not convinced that everything is known about this drug and its effects.

And the argument that it’s detrimental and causes more harm than good is incredibly debatable. If we applied this reasoning to human medicines, chemotherapy would be the first to go. I understand that a pet’s life is not as valuable as a human’s life. For a person, there is obviously a higher tolerance that allows for pain and suffering in order to prolong life. I’m not suggesting that we should do this to our pets. In many ways our society is kinder to its animals than to its people. If we experienced any negative effects, we would have reconsidered the use of Neoplasene.

It is a quite potent drug and protocols need to be followed. We have done everything to the letter and we are thrilled with the outcome. Is it possible that our dog developed some antibody to cancer or was saved by the prayers of us and our friends?? I guess it could be, but statically probability leaves me with the conclusion that this drug is what’s making the difference. If you chose to believe in divine intervention, I’m right there with you, but I believe it was in the finding of this drug and not in God’s healing rays of light miraculously curing him of a terminal illness.

Could he still die form this cancer? Absolutely, but we have more than beaten the odds and his test results have come back clear after 7 months of treatment. Our doctors are as amazed as we are and they’ve come to the same conclusions that we have – something is working here other than our prayers.

]]> Comment on Misleading Advertising for Raw Pet Food (again) by skeptvet http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/01/misleading-advertising-for-raw-pet-food-again/comment-page-1/#comment-47925 skeptvet Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:06:55 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=1261#comment-47925 All great points. In the absence of real research evidence, the only basis for discussion is personal experiences and theoretical considerations, which leave lots of room for diagreement since they aren't really proof of anything. I certainly don't object to people saying "Here's wat I think" or "Here's what happened to me," it's just that unfortunately we all tend to put too much faith into our theories and experiences and too little into objective research. I would be pleased to recommend raw diets if real evidence of benefits greater than the risks were available. While I doubt such benefits exist based on the rationales usually offered, the state of the evidence currently doesn't allow us any convincing conclusions. But when folks like Dr. Lonsdale go well beyond any reasonable theory or evidence and then invent conspiracies to explain skepticism, we're in the realm of pseudoscience and nonsense. Such passion would be better directed at controlled research to either demonstrate, or disprove, the claims being made. All great points. In the absence of real research evidence, the only basis for discussion is personal experiences and theoretical considerations, which leave lots of room for diagreement since they aren’t really proof of anything. I certainly don’t object to people saying “Here’s wat I think” or “Here’s what happened to me,” it’s just that unfortunately we all tend to put too much faith into our theories and experiences and too little into objective research. I would be pleased to recommend raw diets if real evidence of benefits greater than the risks were available. While I doubt such benefits exist based on the rationales usually offered, the state of the evidence currently doesn’t allow us any convincing conclusions. But when folks like Dr. Lonsdale go well beyond any reasonable theory or evidence and then invent conspiracies to explain skepticism, we’re in the realm of pseudoscience and nonsense. Such passion would be better directed at controlled research to either demonstrate, or disprove, the claims being made.

]]> Comment on Misleading Advertising for Raw Pet Food (again) by zyrcona http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/01/misleading-advertising-for-raw-pet-food-again/comment-page-1/#comment-47918 zyrcona Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:27:36 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=1261#comment-47918 I think there is some interesting potential in low carbohydrate/ raw animal food diets for both people and animals, and I would love to see some more research on this. As it stands, there is a small, but slowly growing, amount of evidence in favour of the human diets, and as yet no evidence I am aware of for the animal diets. Evidence for heterocyclic amines in cooked meats and for acrylamide in cooked starchy foods, for example, can be found with a search engine. I admit a medical condition I have, which medicine has been unable to help me with, has improved significantly since I started eating more towards a RAF/paleo diet. I do also feed my dog low-risk raw meat products from the same sources as I acquire meat for my own consumption, although I admit that my dog got gastroenteritis after I rather foolishly allowed someone to give her raw pork. The dog enjoys them and the stuff with cartilage and soft bones in seems to improve her oral health, but I certainly wouldn't claim there is any proven benefit, and I would neither suggest anyone feed their dog an entirely homemade diet because of the risk of incomplete nutrition. The variety in my dog's food also did not prevent her from on one occasion stealing rancid butter out of the kitchen bin (which caused her to projectile vomit all over herself and my bedroom) or on another occasion stealing a digestive biscuit base from a cheesecake. But I am so very tired of seeing these claims made about 'scientifically proven' and 'research' that are nothing of the sort. I am sick to death of seeing people drag out that old argument that things that are 'natural' are better than ones that are artificial. I am tired of listening to people claim that a dog is the same as a wolf, and that exposure to small amounts of bacteria is 'immunisation' against food poisoning, and I have had enough of seeing diagrams and lists that 'prove' a dog is a 'carnivore', or a human is an 'herbivore'/ 'omnivore'/ 'carnivore'. And more often than not the people who support these ideas are irrational and rude and have no idea how to debate. When someone posts in a forum etc. in an attempt to explain the nature of genuine science and research, the person is subjected to abuse and ad hominem attacks casting aspersions on their intelligence/ ancestry/ education. A rational person will provide evidence to back up their beliefs while admitting they aren't perfect, but an irrational person will hash out the same old arguments while denying any fault to their philosophy, claiming it is a wonderful panacea that will help everyone. The most ridiculous case against the philosophy I've yet seen so far is this website http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/ which is ironically intended as an advertisement for the 'Raw Meaty Bones (TM)' crusade, headed by apopleptic and highly unprofessional disgraced vet Tom Lonsdale. The site is full of idiotic conspiracy theories and claims that feeding dogs commercial food is 'animal abuse' (a disgraceful suggestion I feel belittles all the animals who are genuinely being abused) and features several very lucid letters from rather kind and patient vets that the site owner seems to be harrying about. A shame when there probably is something worth investigating behind the idea. I think there is some interesting potential in low carbohydrate/ raw animal food diets for both people and animals, and I would love to see some more research on this. As it stands, there is a small, but slowly growing, amount of evidence in favour of the human diets, and as yet no evidence I am aware of for the animal diets. Evidence for heterocyclic amines in cooked meats and for acrylamide in cooked starchy foods, for example, can be found with a search engine. I admit a medical condition I have, which medicine has been unable to help me with, has improved significantly since I started eating more towards a RAF/paleo diet. I do also feed my dog low-risk raw meat products from the same sources as I acquire meat for my own consumption, although I admit that my dog got gastroenteritis after I rather foolishly allowed someone to give her raw pork. The dog enjoys them and the stuff with cartilage and soft bones in seems to improve her oral health, but I certainly wouldn’t claim there is any proven benefit, and I would neither suggest anyone feed their dog an entirely homemade diet because of the risk of incomplete nutrition. The variety in my dog’s food also did not prevent her from on one occasion stealing rancid butter out of the kitchen bin (which caused her to projectile vomit all over herself and my bedroom) or on another occasion stealing a digestive biscuit base from a cheesecake.

But I am so very tired of seeing these claims made about ‘scientifically proven’ and ‘research’ that are nothing of the sort. I am sick to death of seeing people drag out that old argument that things that are ‘natural’ are better than ones that are artificial. I am tired of listening to people claim that a dog is the same as a wolf, and that exposure to small amounts of bacteria is ‘immunisation’ against food poisoning, and I have had enough of seeing diagrams and lists that ‘prove’ a dog is a ‘carnivore’, or a human is an ‘herbivore’/ ‘omnivore’/ ‘carnivore’.

And more often than not the people who support these ideas are irrational and rude and have no idea how to debate. When someone posts in a forum etc. in an attempt to explain the nature of genuine science and research, the person is subjected to abuse and ad hominem attacks casting aspersions on their intelligence/ ancestry/ education. A rational person will provide evidence to back up their beliefs while admitting they aren’t perfect, but an irrational person will hash out the same old arguments while denying any fault to their philosophy, claiming it is a wonderful panacea that will help everyone.

The most ridiculous case against the philosophy I’ve yet seen so far is this website http://www.ukrmb.co.uk/ which is ironically intended as an advertisement for the ‘Raw Meaty Bones (TM)’ crusade, headed by apopleptic and highly unprofessional disgraced vet Tom Lonsdale. The site is full of idiotic conspiracy theories and claims that feeding dogs commercial food is ‘animal abuse’ (a disgraceful suggestion I feel belittles all the animals who are genuinely being abused) and features several very lucid letters from rather kind and patient vets that the site owner seems to be harrying about. A shame when there probably is something worth investigating behind the idea.

]]> Comment on Neoplasene-The Latest Head of the Escharotic Hydra by skeptvet http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2009/07/neoplasene-the-latest-head-of-the-escarotic-hydra/comment-page-2/#comment-47893 skeptvet Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:50:09 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=71#comment-47893 I'm glad things are going well for you, but of course you understand this proves nothing. Case reports are a weak form of evidence, and that's when all the medical details of a case are reported. SImple anecotes or stories like yours tell us nothing about whether or not a treatment works. After all, the same stories were used to support bloodletting, exorcism, and many other useless or harmful therapies for thousands of years. Anything that truly works this well will easily pass the test of rigorous scientific study. If it fails to, then perhaps we should consider the possiblity that it is not doubt which blinds the skeptic but hope and faith which blind the believer? I’m glad things are going well for you, but of course you understand this proves nothing. Case reports are a weak form of evidence, and that’s when all the medical details of a case are reported. SImple anecotes or stories like yours tell us nothing about whether or not a treatment works. After all, the same stories were used to support bloodletting, exorcism, and many other useless or harmful therapies for thousands of years. Anything that truly works this well will easily pass the test of rigorous scientific study. If it fails to, then perhaps we should consider the possiblity that it is not doubt which blinds the skeptic but hope and faith which blind the believer?

]]> Comment on Neoplasene-The Latest Head of the Escharotic Hydra by Jennifer Markman http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2009/07/neoplasene-the-latest-head-of-the-escarotic-hydra/comment-page-2/#comment-47882 Jennifer Markman Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:21:19 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=71#comment-47882 Just wanted to say that we're using Neoplasene and it's been WONDERFUL! It's prolonging our time with our dog. We understand that he will be on it for the rest of his life. It's not a cure, it's a treatment. He was diagnosed with internal malignant Histiocytic Sarcoma, a very aggressive and always fatal cancer. He was treated at UPENN and we were told to expect no more than 4 months. It's now been 7 months and Indy is happy and cancer free as of this week! He had an x-ray and ultrasound done and they can't find any signs of the cancer! No side-effects at all. It's been amazing! We were prepared to lose him months ago and we have FULL faith now in the Neo. Nothing else can explain it. UPENN is a very good vet hosptial and two doctor's there are now paying attention to Neoplansene because of our case. They've told us that they've never seen anything like it and can't explain Indy's recovery. I understand that anything new will be met with doubt, but don't steal hope from those of us who need it. You may yet be surprised with how this drug progresses. It's always good to be cautious and question things we don't understand, but don't let that blind you completely. Best wishes. Just wanted to say that we’re using Neoplasene and it’s been WONDERFUL! It’s prolonging our time with our dog. We understand that he will be on it for the rest of his life. It’s not a cure, it’s a treatment. He was diagnosed with internal malignant Histiocytic Sarcoma, a very aggressive and always fatal cancer. He was treated at UPENN and we were told to expect no more than 4 months. It’s now been 7 months and Indy is happy and cancer free as of this week! He had an x-ray and ultrasound done and they can’t find any signs of the cancer! No side-effects at all. It’s been amazing! We were prepared to lose him months ago and we have FULL faith now in the Neo. Nothing else can explain it. UPENN is a very good vet hosptial and two doctor’s there are now paying attention to Neoplansene because of our case. They’ve told us that they’ve never seen anything like it and can’t explain Indy’s recovery. I understand that anything new will be met with doubt, but don’t steal hope from those of us who need it. You may yet be surprised with how this drug progresses. It’s always good to be cautious and question things we don’t understand, but don’t let that blind you completely. Best wishes.

]]> Comment on EBVMA Symposium 2012– Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: It’s Happening Now! by skeptvet http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/01/ebvma-symposium-2012-evidence-based-veterinary-medicine-its-happening-now/comment-page-1/#comment-47744 skeptvet Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:08:27 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=1254#comment-47744 There are lots of resources to get you started. Here are a few: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Evidence-Based-Veterinary-Medicine-Cockcroft/dp/1405108908" rel="nofollow">Handbook of Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine</a> <a href="http://www.vetsmall.theclinics.com/issues?issue_key=S0195-5616%2807%29X0032-9" rel="nofollow">Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Medicine, special Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine issue</a> Of course, the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicien Association website (www.ebvma.org) <a href="http://waggingtail.banfield.net/files/2010/01/EBVM_Jul-Aug.pdf" rel="nofollow">A quick primer</a> <a href="http://www.unc.edu/~cjmahone/ebvm/home.html" rel="nofollow">An online tutorial from UNC</a> There are lots of resources to get you started. Here are a few:

Handbook of Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine

Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Medicine, special Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine issue

Of course, the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicien Association website (www.ebvma.org)

A quick primer

An online tutorial from UNC

]]> Comment on Veterinary Vaccines-Fact and Fiction by two of the same vaccination - Page 2 - City-Data Forum http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2009/06/veterinary-vaccines-fact-and-fiction/comment-page-1/#comment-47710 two of the same vaccination - Page 2 - City-Data Forum Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:30:32 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=55#comment-47710 [...] Vaccinosis is by no means a settled issue in the scientific world. Just for a touch of balance: Veterinary Vaccines-Fact and Fiction | The SkeptVet Blog [...] [...] Vaccinosis is by no means a settled issue in the scientific world. Just for a touch of balance: Veterinary Vaccines-Fact and Fiction | The SkeptVet Blog [...]

]]> Comment on EBVMA Symposium 2012– Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine: It’s Happening Now! by michelle stjohn LVT,VTS cardio http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2012/01/ebvma-symposium-2012-evidence-based-veterinary-medicine-its-happening-now/comment-page-1/#comment-47703 michelle stjohn LVT,VTS cardio Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:11:13 +0000 http://skeptvet.com/Blog/?p=1254#comment-47703 Would like more information on what evidence based vet medicine is. Would like more information on what evidence based vet medicine
is.

]]>