Journal Articles Candellone A, Cerquetella M, Girolami F, Badino P, Odore R. Acute Diarrhea in Dogs: Current Management and Potential Role of Dietary Polyphenols Supplementation. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020 Aug 9;9(8):725. doi: 10.3390/antiox9080725. PMID: 32784917; PMCID: PMC7465157.
Shmalberg J, Montalbano C, Morelli G, Buckley GJ. A Randomized Double Blinded Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of a Probiotic or Metronidazole for Acute Canine Diarrhea. Front Vet Sci. 2019 Jun 4;6:163. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00163. PMID: 31275948; PMCID: PMC6593266.
Pignataro G, Di Prinzio R, Crisi PE, Belà B, Fusaro I, Trevisan C, De Acetis L, Gramenzi A. Comparison of the Therapeutic Effect of Treatment with Antibiotics or Nutraceuticals on Clinical Activity and the Fecal Microbiome of Dogs with Acute Diarrhea. Animals (Basel). 2021 May 21;11(6):1484. doi: 10.3390/ani11061484. PMID: 34063855; PMCID: PMC8223982.
Chaitman J, Ziese AL, Pilla R, Minamoto Y, Blake AB, Guard BC, Isaiah A, Lidbury JA, Steiner JM, Unterer S, Suchodolski JS. Fecal Microbial and Metabolic Profiles in Dogs With Acute Diarrhea Receiving Either Fecal Microbiota Transplantation or Oral Metronidazole. Front Vet Sci. 2020 Apr 16;7:192. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00192. PMID: 32363202; PMCID: PMC7182012.
Langlois DK, Koenigshof AM, Mani R. Metronidazole treatment of acute diarrhea in dogs: A randomized double blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Vet Intern Med. 2020 Jan;34(1):98-104. doi: 10.1111/jvim.15664. Epub 2019 Nov 19. PMID: 31742807; PMCID: PMC6979100.
Tong, J. O. P. (2019). In canine acute diarrhoea with no identifiable cause, does daily oral probiotic improve the clinical outcomes?. Veterinary Evidence, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v4i4.252
Moreno AA, Parker VJ, Winston JA, Rudinsky AJ. Dietary fiber aids in the management of canine and feline gastrointestinal disease. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2022 Oct 26;260(S3):S33-S45. doi: 10.2460/javma.22.08.0351. PMID: 36288203.
Moore, E., & Gordon-Evans, W. . (2022). Should we prescribe oral metronidazole or probiotics for acute gastroenteritis in dogs?. Veterinary Evidence, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i2.393
Holden, R. and Brennan, M. (2021), Does metronidazole increase the speed of recovery in dogs with acute diarrhoea?. Veterinary Record, 188: 33-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.44
Nixon, SL, Rose, L, Muller, AT. Efficacy of an orally administered anti-diarrheal probiotic paste (Pro-Kolin Advanced) in dogs with acute diarrhea: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical study. J Vet Intern Med. 2019; 33: 1286– 1294. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15481
Chaitman, Jennifer, and Frédéric Gaschen. “Fecal microbiota transplantation in dogs.” Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice 51.1 (2021): 219-233.
Rudinsky, Adam J., et al. “Randomized controlled trial demonstrates nutritional management is superior to metronidazole for treatment of acute colitis in dogs.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 260.S3 (2022): S23-S32.
I have written about the emerging liquid biopsy tests a couple of times before (here and here). These are blood tests that are intended to find signs of cancer circulating in the blood. This can be used for screening, testing individuals with no clinical symptoms or reason to expect cancer is present, or for help in diagnosing a cancer that is suspected to be there for some other reason. I have focused on the OncoK9 test because that was both the first onee I came across and because the company has been publishing some useful follow-up research on the test since it was first released. The specifics will likely be different for each type of liquid biopsy test, but the general principles are much the same.
The potential benefits of these tests are earlier detection of cancer, which is sometimes helpful in providing more effective treatment. However, for some cancers in dogs and cats we don’t have effective treatments available, and there is little actual evidence showing that earlier treatment improves outcomes for most veterinary cancer patients, so the benefit of earlier detection is difficult to assess.
There are also potential risks to these tests. Telling owners their pets have cancer when they really don’t, and reassuring them no cancer is present when it actually is, or when it could develop at any time after the test, can be harmful to owners and to their pets. Additional testing, particularly invasive tests like biopsies, can also cause harm, and this is not always balanced by a benefit to the pet. The subjects of overdiagnosis and the rational use of diagnostic and screening tests are ones I talk about often, though I’m not convinced I have yet had an impact on how vets make use of the tests we have available.
PetDx, the company making the OncoK9 liquid biopsy test, recently published a study looking back at test results and records from hospitals using their product and providing some information about how the test performs.
The study evaluated the results of 1500 tests submitted by veterinary clinics and attempted to determine the actual diagnosis and outcome for the patients to evaluate the accuracy of the test results. The results are broadly similar to those of the company’s previous study (discussed here), which is encouraging. It is worth noting, however, that both studies were funded and conducted by company employees, so the potential for unconscious bias to influence the methods and results is worth keeping in mind. The similarities may mean the test performs consistently in different populations of dogs, or it could be a reflection of the similar methods and biases in the design and execution of the studies.
About 64% of the tests conducted were run in patients without suspicion of cancer (screening), and 26% were submitted to aid in the diagnosis of a suspected cancer. Personally, I believe screening is the riskier of the two uses for this test, so it is disappointing that the company has been so successful at marketing this as a test to be used “just in case” there is cancer in health older pets. Those are the patients for whom the risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment are likely the highest. Of course, they are also more likely than younger dogs to have cancer, so some will benefit from this testing, but most will not have the disease, and the balance of risks and clinical benefits is far from clear.
The test performed about the same as in the previous study. Overall, the Positive Predictive Value (PPV- the proportion of dogs with a positive test that actually had cancer) was about 89% and the Negative Predictive Value (NPV- the proportion of dogs with a negative test that did not have cancer) was about 88%. These are decent numbers, but they do suggest that about 10% of dogs with a positive test don’t have cancer, which is still a fair number of owners frightened and dogs potentially subjected to unnecessary follow-up testing, or even potentially cancer treatment or euthanasia, to no purpose. Likewise, a bit over 10% of dogs with a negative test, might actually have cancer, and this result could delay needed testing and treatment.
In the most vulnerable group, healthy dogs being screened for cancer, only 4.5% had a positive result. The proportion of these who actually had cancer (the PPV) was 75%, compared with 98% of those tested to help confirm suspected cancer. This reinforces that we must be pretty cautious about how we react to a positive screening test when ¼ of those will not actually end up having cancer. As expected, the reverse is also true: the NPV of dogs screened was 94% (most who were tested didn’t have cancer and most testing negative didn’t have cancer) compared to an NPV of 67% for the dogs tested because of other signs of possible cancer (a fair number of these actually had cancer, and so negative tests were less consistently correct).
A relatively small number of patients in this study had failed tests or uncertain results, and most of these got a clear yes or no answer on repeating the test. This is still a source of anxiety, frustration, and delay for those patients and their owners, but no test is ever perfect.
All-in-all, I think these types of tests are reasonable to use for trying to help decide if a dog with findings suggestive of cancer which can’t be confirmed or refuted in a more definitive way. I have run the test in one dog with a heart mass that could either have been an aggressive or a slow-growing tumor (with very different paths for the owner to choose from) and which, for obvious reasons, we couldn’t biopsy. In that case, unfortunately, the test did not find evidence of cancer, but the patient declined rapidly, which suggested something more aggressive, though no definitive diagnosis could be made.
I have become a bit more positive in my view of these tests since I first wrote about them because the studies coming out suggests they are reasonably accurate. However, there is still no clear evidence that using these tests, at least in dogs with no other reason to suspect cancer, leads to longer life or delayed illness, and that is ultimately the point of screening. I hope this company continues to evaluate the real-world impact of the use of its tests, that other makers of such tests also do so, and ultimately that independent studies unconnected with the manufacturers of these products can provide data showing how they perform and what benefits, if any, they provide. New diagnostic and screening tests can be very valuable, but like anything in medicine they have risks as well as benefits, and it can take a bit of time and effort to determine what these are and when we should, or should not use a particular test.
Stookey GK. Soft Rawhide Reduces Calculus Formation in Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry. 2009;26(2):82-85. doi:10.1177/089875640902600202
Hennet P. Effectiveness of an Enzymatic Rawhide Dental Chew to Reduce Plaque in Beagle Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry. 2001;18(2):61-64. doi:10.1177/089875640101800201
Hooda S. In vitro digestibility of expanded pork skin and rawhide chews, and digestion and metabolic characteristics of expanded pork skin chews in healthy adult dogs, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 90, Issue 12, December 2012, Pages 4355–4361, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5333
Christine Arhant, Rebecca Winkelmann, and Josef Troxler. “Chewing Behaviour In Dogs – A Survey-based Exploratory Study.” Applied animal behaviour science, v. 241 ,. pp. 105372. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105372
Bellows J, Berg ML, Dennis S, Harvey R, Lobprise HB, Snyder CJ, Stone AES, Van de Wetering AG. 2019 AAHA Dental Care Guidelines for Dogs and Cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2019 Mar/Apr;55(2):49-69. doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-6933.
Harvey CE, Shofer FS, Laster L. Correlation of Diet, Other Chewing Activities and Periodontal Disease in North American Client-Owned Dogs. Journal of Veterinary Dentistry. 1996;13(3):101-105. doi:10.1177/089875649601300304
If you are interested in canine and feline aging, I have a new continuing education course available on the Veterinary Information Network (VIN). Two hours of a pre-recorded self-study course and two hours of live, interactive sessions focusing on:
Session 1 (self-study) Introduces key geroscience concepts and core physical, function, behavioral, and metabolic changes in aging dogs and cats
Session 2 (self-study) Covers the concept of frailty, reviews significant clinical disorders in geriatric dogs and cats, and begins looking at what we can do about aging
Session 3 (August 9, 2023 5pm PDT) Introduces specific clinical assessment tools and case study examples for the independent practice exercise
Session 4 (August 30, 2023 5pm PDT) A review of the case examples and course wrap-up
This is the proceeding summary and the slide deck from my presentation on Nutrition and Aging at the 2023 ACVIM Forum in Philadelphia.
Effect of Nutritional Interventions on Aging
INTRODUCTION While the clinical phenotype of aging is readily identifiable, a precise definition of this ubiquitous phenomenon is challenging. A useful pragmatic definition is the accumulation of changes over time that increase an individual’s susceptibility to disability, disease, and death. The passage of time is a key factor, yet it is not the primary driver of aging. Factors such as genetics, environmental exposures, and nutrition also play critical roles.
The cellular and molecular changes characteristic of mammalian aging are often grouped into categories known as hallmarks of aging (Figure 1).1 Though not exhaustive, this scheme provides useful starting points for investigations into the mechanisms of aging and for evaluation of interventions to influence this process and mitigate the negative health outcomes resulting from it.
Figure 1. Hallmarks of aging.1
The scientific understanding of these hallmarks, and how they can be manipulated, has reached a point at which aging can reasonably be viewed as a modifiable risk factor for disability, disease, and death. The length of time an individual lives (lifespan) and the proportion of that life free of significant age-associated disability or disease (healthspan) can be extended by targeting the underlying mechanisms of aging.
Interventions so far demonstrated to increase lifespan and healthspan in animal models include modifications of activity level and environmental conditions, pharmaceuticals, and diet.
There are various ways in which diet can potentially impact health and longevity-
Dietary interventions to prevent and treat age-associated disease (e.g. dietary therapy of chronic kidney disease in cats)2
Optimization of diet to match changing nutritional requirements throughout the lifecycle (e.g. differences in the protein content of diets formulated for puppies and for geriatric dogs)3
Optimization of diet for individual health (e.g. potential applications of nutrigenomics and metabolomics)4
Extension of lifespan and delay or prevention of age-associated disease through dietary interventions targeting specific hallmarks of aging
The last approach has been the focus of extensive research since at least the early twentieth century, when it was first shown that reduced food intake extend lifespan in rats.5 The field has progressed from rather crude, trial-and-error methods to the evaluation of specific cellular and molecular mechanisms that can be stimulated and inhibited to achieve substantial changes in median and maximum lifespan and in health. The primary, though by no means only, hallmark of aging targeted by dietary interventions is dysregulated nutrient sensing.6
NUTRIENT SENSING AND AGING Nutrient sensing involves a complex network that detects the availability of nutrients and energy and regulates cellular growth and metabolism, apoptosis and autophagy, protein synthesis, and other processes depending on the available nutritional resources. The functioning of these mechanisms changes in a consistent pattern with aging, though the rate of this change differs between species and even between individuals. These changes are a key element in the degenerative process of aging and the increasing susceptibility to disease and death.
Critical pathways maintaining an appropriate balance between the energy and nutrients taken in and the function and maintenance of an organism are highly conserved across organisms as evolutionarily distant as flatworms, fruit flies, rodents, dogs and cats, and humans. An example is the target-of-rapamycin (TOR) protein kinase, homologues of which regulates cell proliferation, protein synthesis, and many other anabolic processes in yeast just as in mammals.5,6
A recurring motif in aging biology is that nutritional stress, such as reduced availability of calories or specific nutrients, can suppress some nutrient sensing pathways and activate others, with a net effect of inhibiting age-related disease and extending lifespan. These pathways are complex and interact extensively with each other and with many other physiologic processes, so simple generalizations are inherently problematic. However, sufficiently consistent patterns have emerged in a variety of organisms to allow a broad but useful characterization of some key elements and their influence on lifespan and healthspan when activated or suppressed by dietary interventions. Table 1 provides a brief list of some key regulators in these pathways and their typical impact on lifespan when activated or suppressed.
Table 1. Key regulators of nutrient sensing pathways.
Regulator
Activities
Effects on Lifespan
“Bad Guys”
mTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin)
Increases cell growth, cell division, protein synthesisPromotes anabolism
Activity increases with ageHigh activity promotes aging and age-related diseaseSuppression increases lifespan
High activity reduces lifespanSuppression increases lifespan
“Good Guys”
AMPK (AMP-activated protein kinase)
Promotes catabolism and suppresses anabolismSuppresses mTORStimulates FOXO and SIRT
Activity declines with ageHigh activity increases lifespan
FOXO (forkhead box O transcription factors)
Coordinates nutritional stress responseRegulates energy metabolism, cellular proliferation and apoptosis, redox balance, autophagyInhibits mTOR
High activity increases lifespan
SIRT (NAD+-dependent sirtuin deacetylases)
Regulates energy metabolism and balance between anabolism and catabolismInhibits mTORStimulates FOXO
High activity increases lifespan
DIETARY INTERVENTIONS TO INCREASE LIFESPAN
Caloric Restriction (CR) Defined as significant reduction in calorie intake (typically 20-50%) without malnutrition or change in macronutrient ratios, CR has been consistently shown to increase lifespan and reduce the burden of age-related disease in multiple species, including rats and mice, primates, and dogs.5,7,8 The effects of this intervention are broad, but suppression of mTOR and activation of AMPK and SIRT are considered central mechanisms in this approach.6,9 Pharmacologic CR mimetics targeting these mechanisms have also extended lifespan and healthspan in some studies.10
CR is the most consistently effective dietary intervention for extending lifespan and healthspan. However, there are limitations to this approach. Some studies involved concurrent protein restriction or control animals with obesity and metabolic dysfunction, which complicates determination of the true effect size of pure CR. Genetic background also influences the impact of CR, and some strains of mice show no benefit or even reduction in lifespan.5 Such an extreme intervention is also too impractical and potentially dangerous for routine use in humans or companion animals.
Protein and Selective Amino Acid Restriction Rodent studies have demonstrated extension of lifespan with general protein restriction and with selective restriction of sulfur-containing amino acids (e.g. methionine, cysteine) and branched-chain amino acids (BCAA; e.g. leucine, valine). Some of these have also involved CR, but benefits have been seen with isocaloric protein and amino acid restriction, though the effect size is considerably smaller than that of CR. Inhibition of GH/IGF-1 and mTOR appear to be the main mechanisms for this effect.5,11
Timing of Feeding Manipulations of the timing of feeding, including fasting regimes, time-limited feeding, or cyclic intermittent CR have all been shown to extend lifespan. Most of these regimes amount to a form of CR, but they may be more sustainable in real-world use. A few studies of isocaloric manipulations of the timing of feeding have also shown positive effects on glucose, insulin, and IGF-1 and the induction of short-term ketosis, all of which might have beneficial effects on lifespan and healthspan, though this has not be conclusively demonstrated.5
Ketogenic Diets (KD) Carbohydrates-restricted diets which induce ketogenesis, as well as direct administration of some ketone bodies, have been shown in a few studies to increase lifespan and healthspan in mice and invertebrate models of aging. Such diets may mimic the effect of CR in shifting metabolism away from glycolysis and towards fatty-acid oxidation. Some KD formulations may also be protein-restricted and inhibit mTOR activity. The evidence supporting the effect of KD on longevity, however, is currently quite limited.
DIETARY INTERVENTIONS FOR LONGEVTIY IN COMPANION ANIMALS Extension of lifespan and healthspan by CR has been demonstrated in dogs, and there is some limited evidence that other dietary manipulations might increase longevity in cats.7,12 However, the potential impact of CR, protein restriction, and ketogenic diets on aging in companion animals is largely unknown, and most strategies are based on speculation and extrapolation from research in rodents or other laboratory animals.
Unfortunately, strong claims for lifespan extension have been made for various dietary interventions, including raw diets, “fresh food,” and ketogenic diets. These claims are not based on robust, target-species research and present a misleading picture of the state of the science in this area. The belief that an optimal diet for longevity is known and can be formulated for dogs and cats, or even for individual animals, is unjustified and places an unfair and unsupportable burden on pet owners to choose the “right” food.
Future studies investigating the hallmarks of aging and their response to dietary manipulations as well as clinical studies directly assessing the impact of novel feeding strategies on lifespan and healthspan are needed before clinical recommendations regarding diet and longevity can be made with confidence. Until that evidence is available, it is most appropriate to continue offering current, evidence-based dietary recommendations.
REFERENCES
1. López-Otín C, et al; Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe. Cell 2023;186(2):243.
2. Ross SJ, et al; Clinical evaluation of dietary modification for treatment of spontaneous chronic kidney disease in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;229(6):949.
3. Laflamme DP; Nutrition for aging cats and dogs and the importance of body condition. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2005;35(3):713.
4. Ordovas JM, et al; Personalized nutrition and healthy aging. Nutr Rev 2020;78(12 Suppl 2):58.
5. Lee MB, et al; Antiaging diets: Separating fact from fiction. Science 2021;374(6570).
6. Pignatti C, et al; Nutrients and Pathways that Regulate Health Span and Life Span. Geriatr 2020;5(4):1.
7. Lawler DF, et al; Diet restriction and ageing in the dog: major observations over two decades. Br J Nutr2008;99(4):793.
8. Pifferi F, et al; Caloric restriction, longevity and aging: Recent contributions from human and non-human primate studies. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2019;95.
9. Green CL, et al; Molecular mechanisms of dietary restriction promoting health and longevity. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2022;23(1):56.
10. Madeo F, et al; Caloric Restriction Mimetics against Age-Associated Disease: Targets, Mechanisms, and Therapeutic Potential. Cell Metab. 2019;29(3):592.
11. Brandhorst S, et al; Protein Quantity and Source, Fasting-Mimicking Diets, and Longevity. Adv Nutr. 2019;10(Suppl 4):S340.
12. Cupp C, et al; Effect of Nutritional Interventions on Longevity of Senior Cats. Int Jounrla Appl Res Vet Med. 2007;5(3):133.
Back in February, I announced that I had received the VIN Veritas Award in recognition of my efforts to promote science-based pet health and combat misinformation about veterinary medicine. Subsequent to that announcement, I have also received a lot of kind and supportive comments from people who have found my work here useful. That has always been my only goal, and I am very grateful to know that the blog has helped so many people.
Of course, one of the nice things about such recognition and feedback is that it helps to balance the steady stream of hate mail that is an inevitable consequence of challenging people’s beliefs and assumptions publicly. I have grown a pretty thick skin in the 14 years since I started the SkeptVet Blog, but I do keep track of this feedback as well. I don’t of course, provide a platform here for people to vent their anger or disinformation since that would be counter to the very purpose of the blog, and there are plenty of other places people are free to rant away unhindered.
However, I do periodically post anonymized selections from this collection. Here are the previous selections-
While some comments are just bizarre enough to be entertaining, the main reason to do this is to remind the more reasonable readers that such intense anger and pervasive misconceptions are not rare and that there is still a critical need for more and better public communication about science and medicine. These selections also highlight some of the leading concepts that underlie the popularity of unproven or ineffective treatments. These include-
The mistaken belief that anecdotes can prove what causes or cures disease and that controlled scientific research is unnecessary or no better than opinion
The only way to “know” if a therapy works is to try it and “see for yourself,’ and if you do this then scientific research is pointless
That expertise is meaningless and just a form of ideological or financial bias or an attempt to suppress truth and control people
That “research” is just people haphazardly searching for opinions and evidence that support their beliefs, and that doing such “research’ makes one’s views as reliable and informed as a formally trained “expert.”
These are all expressions of core cognitive biases that none of us are free from. No amount of information can overcome the power of such biases unless we first have the humility to recognize we are vulnerable to them and that formal methods for reducing bias and error (aka science) work better than personal experience of trial and error. This is the core message that has to be understood before anyone enamored of unscientific practices will even begin to see contrary scientific evidence as a reason to question their own beliefs.
I have to admit I feel that the problems this blog aims to address have only gotten worse since I began writing it. That doesn’t make the effort meaningless, as all the kind comments I have received in the last couple of months attest. But it does mean the effort must continue and must grow. More and more scientists should participate in the public conversations and debates about the nature of scientific information and pseudoscience or anti-scientific misinformation. We are well beyond any time in which bizarre fringe ideas could be ignored. The fringe has a way of becoming mainstream even when it remains bizarre and disconnected from reality. We have seen the very real harm that leads to over the last few years, and if ever there was a time to push back against the dismissal or distortion of science, it is now!
I have left all the typographical quirks of the comments as they were posted or emailed, and organized them into broad categories reflecting the major themes. Enjoy (and learn)!
But it Worked for ME!
I’ve been using Essiac for several months. I’ve known about it for several years. All I can say is it DOES work!… Obviously, bigP and Doctors don’t want you to believe that God’s medicine works! It’s NOT snake oil…1,000 and 1,000 of people don’t lie. But science always lies!…How dare you assume we liars.
People can do a study of one and document their experience. This is not “anecdotal evidence”, it is scientific. If treatment coincides with a cessation of symptoms, discontinuation coincides with a recurrence of symptoms, and this process can be repeated, that is scientific evidence that the treatment is effective. Note that I said evidence, not proof. Proof doesn’t seem to exist anymore. Also, placebos have immense value. Why not let them be if they appear to be helping? Why are you so eager to burst people’s bubbles?
Nutriscan worked for my dog…My dog had Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Jean’s test showed he is allergic to 19 out of 24 foods….He now is FREE of IBD, with no surgery and no lifetime on drugs.
Homeopathy is incredibly effective. There are many scientific studies in India and elsewhere proving its effectiveness, which you will naturally close your eyes to. The irrational, dogmatic yoke of the allopathic system and it’s mindless religious adherents who shriek in terror whenever their brainwashing is threatened is what boggles the mind.
You do not have all the answers….Our bodies are not only made up of matter, but they’re also made up of energy. We can use that energy to diagnose and treat disease. Just because there hasn’t been a scientific study to prove it, doesn’t mean for one minute that it’s not so. I was skeptical. I didn’t expect any results. But, I’m telling you a CranioBiotic technique worked on my body within hours and eventually cured me of an illness many are suffering with
Dr Jones is a Saint for holistic methods. You can process your opinions until Hell freezes over but you cannot dissuade those of us who have been blessed by Dr Jones & his unrelenting desire to help pet owners.
You are flat refusing to believe that anything outside of your facts could be true…I know in your opinion that just counts as anecdotal evidence, not fact, but it’s a fact.
As a homeopath for more then 20 years, I know it works, and so much better then allopathic medicine. Before you poo poo homeopathy, study it…, until you do this, I know your wrong.
No, they don’t! They try and give your dog every vaccine known to man every year!! And yes, the lifespan of dogs has absolutely gone down!! Everything you said is backwards!!
Horrible article, one-sided and arrogant. My dachshund was irreparably damaged by a vaccine, as was my daughter. Science does not thrive with the blind adherence to YOUR type of misinformation, driven by greed. Thank God the ineffective and dangerous Covid vaccine is going to blow this false, profit driven narrative wide-open!
Traditional Chinese Medicine has been around several thousand years and has served both humans and animals very well, without double blind studies, peer- reviewed articles etc. It’s only thanks to the Rockefeller and Rothchild families that modern medicine has decided these are necessary. A paradigm shift is well overdue.
Anecdotal Evidence is pretty much people stating what they have used that has worked for them. When there are thousands of people stating the same thing it is usually accurate!! I believe what these thousands of people say MUCH more than I believe studies that are done to the corporate worlds specs to achieve the results that the corporate world wants, and if the study shows results that the corporate world does not like, they simply end the study and start again with a modified study that will show what they want even if the results are grossly deceptive!!!
Sorry… great article up till your baseless comment on raw food. Please do more homework and gain some personal experience with raw before scaring readers
Shill for Big Pharma, Big Kibble, etc.
It does make me wonder if you are paid by the Big Pharma companies as this is what pays for the ‘scientific research papers’ to back Conventional Medicine;
This writer sounds exactly like the pharmaceutical companies… Why? To protect profits. Billions and billions of dollars in profits. And this article reeks of profit-protection scare-tactics. Bottom line (to the writer): You’re trying way too hard. After reading your article I did a few minutes research on colloidal silver. Is it a miracle drug? No. But is it snake-oil? No. Is skeptvet desperately trying to steer/scare the reader away from colloidal silver? Yes.
skeptvet. Just another useless quack from the pharmaceutical companies that try to sell his vaccines and bullshit chemical induce medicine that kills everything and one on this planet, and doesn’t work at all. You are the real quack hear.
Please, you main stream vets are a joke. Selling”prescription” diets with low quality ingredients all the while filling your pockets to the max. This has gone on way to long. After all, you cant sell meat bought at a grocery. Now there’s a concept. Real meat for dogs wow. Your time has come!!
I am a vet student- how they teach you to keep your pet healthy is actually scary. what they teach you is how to cut into your pet, how to remove tumors, how to give chemo, how to make money…
You are not listening. You can’t. You shouldn’t be near animals. After trusting vets and spending over 10000$ ….i don’t give a crap about your so called clinical trials.
You are obviously a quack…. This guy is a being paid by someone to spread this disinformation.
Vaccines are promoted by big pharma to sell more drugs and inces the millions of dollars the CEOs make.
Who the fuck is the QUACK that published this article…….and who paid for you assanine services…… If you want to call it that? Furthermore what dog food company do you work for? Lol
You sound like you might also get kickbacks from the fossil fuel industry by peddling windmill cancer, mister vet. Empaths: discern the drive behind this website. Anyone else getting the pharma vibe here?
Good luck, mister “vet”. The world is waking up. Let go or be dragged, dear.
Are you sponsored by the AMA or a pharmaceutical company?
how you still decide to defend kibble is BEYOND me. is Royal Canin making you do this post? Lol
Every field wants to squash any competitive field when dollars are at stake
Dear Skeptvet, you also come across as very biased. When I read your posts there is a consist thin veil and right underneath is always support for the meat industry like they the FDA and USDA are always doing what is right. Give me a break. I have been left wondering, after reading your review, how much of your education and training has been funded by the meat industry.
Sorry but vet like you only look for the money not for the health of our animals.
Skeptvet is obviously a shill for big pharmaceuticals or is just recklessly ignorant.
You’re a vet who stands to lose a lot of money in your own ineffective cancer treatments and surgeries. If people found out about a cheap herbal alternative that actually cures cancer, you’d go out of business, just like the medical mafia cartels. I trust nature over educated fools.
Logic?
There are those who are religious who insist that only their religion is the true one. However, commonsense alone says they can’t all be right – or can they in some fashion?
Lucky your not English you may be in the Tower of London, by calling our Queen a witch. The Royal family The a Queen Morher and our own dear Queen both users of homeopathy for there medical care, and look how well they have lived…. God Bless you and may the Holy Spirit fall in you.
Lol, your incompetence is showing. If you took this much time to unnecessarily write something like this, imagine putting effort into actually helping someone. This just screams that you find a competitor threatening because they practice a different method of healing.
All I can say is Science fails us thus we turn to other ideas that sound more logical and when we see positive results in our pets we are satisfied….Scientists are so adamant about studies and more studies.. then what studies have they DONE and what are the results? People and their pets are all disposable.. population control seems to be the true goal in the Scientific world.
I love you skeptvet, even though you are probably a machine! You are proof at how one-sided and close minded ‘science’ can be. Ha! It’s laughable.
Your fear of unpasteurized milk is causing you to form an opinion based on cherry picking evidence as “facts” that changes the trajectory from “Science” to fear mongering germaphobe jargon to form or change a person’s opinion. I’m a diabetic, drink grass fed raw milk through many stages of my life, and here I am doing great! Just live your life. stop trying to control people. Funny you source FDA links, because they are responsible for more deaths than any war.
LOL vaccines extend a pets life, hahaha more like the opposite in actuality…I guess as a ‘skeptical vet’ we know what side of the fence you’re on…the one for veterinarians who are ‘general practitioners’ of fake bandaid medicine vs those who better understand the holistic approach of more natural remedies that aren’t full of toxins or bandaid solutions
Sir, your not doubting these people’s stories, your doubting God’s abilities for ‘He created all things’, therefore he also created ways for the body to natural heal itself with proper nutrients. These herbs are pasted down from generations of ancestors. ….That is science! ….
don’t be so naive as to believe anything from the FDA. they are completely corrupt, like most of the federal government. if you want to bury your head in the sand, believe in easter bunnies and santa clause and the FDA then bless you, wonder off into the woods blind.
you can’t trust Vets, you can’t trust the government, you can’t trust pet food companies. RAW is the ONLY way to feed.
Honestly, the claim that this page is scientific is laughable. You’d get an honest F from a highschool teacher when it comes to citations. Honestly, learn how to post credible links and not just “here’s my page again”
Fluoride is pure poison..it comes from China as a hazardous waste. and we do need detox…This whole page and comments are a cluster F%%%…
If you really are a vet, which I doubt SERIOUSLY!! You should do your own study instead of pontificating about a product you’ve only read about. Proof is in the pudding, buddy. And science is experience, of which you’ve said nothing about. You’re the snake ? oil!
Science my ass!
You would make a good democrat. Your innuendoes are sickening.
Time for Some Anger Management
The only quackery that is happening here is this BS article some angry person who goes by the vet school books aka purina guide on how to keep your animal alive..(or dead id say) This article made my blood boil 1 because Dr.Karen Becker has more balls than any of you tiny brainwashed humans coming out of vetschool… if your veterinarian is anything like this quak continue searching for another…I LEGIT HATE u whoever u are.
Why dont you shut the F up , people do put negative posts on websites , your problem is you believe everything the vet tells you , your Probably a vet anyways
So go fuck yourself skeptvet. You miserable pessimistic piece of shit. Not helpful. Just shut your face. Zip it. Sew it up. Shovel dirt in your face and your mouth. No one cares for your opinion. You probably just like accepting defeat and yeah like you’ve live enough etc etc.
You should be ashamed for writing this article. You make me sick to my stomach and I hope one day you learn your lesson. I doubt you will though, people like you are what is wrong with the world.
And your answer .. is Scotch .. even jokingly that just tells why your brain cells are deteriorated.. and you are obviously a closed minded, stubborn know it all Democrat . One day when you discover the truth about the same stances you ridicule I hope you don’t have a melt down .
These people who wrote this damn article are clueless!!!
This critique comes across as pathetic, petty, and desperate.
Wow, do you really believe that? There are literally hundreds of studies, if not thousands, from around the world that say otherwise. Do your research you lazy quack.
you are trash bich fuck you ass hole
Clown
Unfortunately your attitude in common with most vets I have had the misfortune to encounter over 40 years… which is always an unpleasant experience…because of the self serving attitude of the veterinary know all, the lack of social abilities, the appalling system which makes animals suffer by extensive waits and the desperate need to make as much money as possible based on fear.
You are PRECISELY what is wrong with today’s Veterinary Medicine, you should be ashamed
This skeptic is an evil arch enemy of the cure that costs little compared to the vet pharma!!! Ive seen this work!!! SHAME ON THIS SKEPTIC FOR WITHHOLDING CURES FROM ANIMALS AND PEOPLE!!!
What an evil, hateful, fake person you are. How do you live with yourself? Shame on you for lying to and misleading people who are trying to give their beloved pets the best care. What’s your motivation? Do you feel like a super special big shot now? Or money, I bet. Who’s paying you, big pharma, dry dog food companies? You disgust me.
Based on this arical I will not refer to skeptvet ever again for anything. My opinion of Skeptvet is this: Skeptvet is a worthless source. I hope the writters for this site don’t have animals. They surley don’t know a thing about them.
God skeptvet, you are Sincerely an idiot, without a clue…like most vets your a stubborn Ass,
Skeptvet please take your “science” and shove it up to your a#$$%%. Not all science works all the time. Some of my patients have been saved with a combination of holistic/natural and western medicine. So please make us all a favor and stfu.
My guess is that you are a bored, unemployed and clearly disgruntled, dog walker perhaps?
You’ve got that manipulation tactic down pat!! If you weren’thiding behind some pseudonym, I’d report you to the Veterinary Licensing Board myself!! And I sure as heck wouldn’t visit your practice with a flea as a pet. You’re awful!!
I am so glad you’re not my pets vet! Oh wait, we don’t even know if you are a real vet! This blog smells like snake oil! Happy trails Mr. Mystery Vet (what does that matter who you are).
You, Mr. Author of this article, are full of crap. You are an asshole writing this article to hurt this small company. I do not care about studies – proof is in miraculous results. I do not care about your B.S. You need to pull your head out of the sand & stop writing false propaganda.
It has been proven that vaccine cause disease. But you are one of these idiot who will trust his alternative doctor (who just don’t know any fuck about all the FDA cartel) Wake the fuck up before saying that and go read the full list of all doctors murdered by FDA because they found 100% cancer/HIV cures. You, kind of person like you make me angry as i can’t even believe how people can be sooo much idiot thinking that cancer cure didn’t exist, but still, we went to moon. Read the full story of FDA before saying something. Man you just can’t be serious ???? This is why i lost faith in humanity. Wow. I just can’t believe.
The Tone Police
Wow, you really look down to people who comment on your post and have a different views than your own. So rude.
I do not appreciate your verbiage referring to dr Jones. Very inappropriate and unprofessional. Shame on you skeptvet!
The skeptvet in my opinion is too negative and harsh….The manner skeptvet responds is in my opinion heartless.
Clearly no one will ever win an argument with Skeptvet because he ‘knows it all’ and enjoys patronising people who don’t agree with him – just like all the TV doctors and medics that seem to think that only what they say matters and the rest of us are clueless idiots, unable to think or research for ourselves
One of the most common topics over the lifetime of this blog has been treatments for osteoarthritis in dogs and cats. I’ve talked about pharmaceuticals, acupuncture, electromagnetic fields, laser, and other treatments, but the bulk of the articles have addressed the most popular over-the-counter (OTC) remedies for this condition, dietary supplements.
Supplements are ubiquitous, recommended by vets and used by owners frequently despite scientific evidence that is inconclusive or that outright shows they don’t work. Over the time I have been covering this topic, science-based medicine has provided new tools for treating arthritis, such as the use of monoclonal antibodies to reduce pain and inflammation in dogs and cats. For most pets, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) also remain a safe and effective treatment. There are also promising approaches, such as CBD and physical therapy, that have some encouraging supportive evidence, though more research is certainly needed for these. Despite this, pet owners, and even vets, have a tendency to stick with outdated OTC remedies that are unproven or even clearly ineffective.
The paragon for this is glucosamine/chondroitin. I wrote about the poor evidence supporting use of this supplement in arthritis pets in the very first month of this blog, June, 2009. At that time, I stated-
There is virtually no good quality research on the use of glucosamine and chondroitin in veterinary patients. The best study so far, done in dogs, found a combination of these agents to be of no benefit for patients with osteoarthritis. Further research in animals with osteoarthritis is warranted, but at this time the evidence does not support the use of glucosamine and chondroitin in these patients.
Since then, the negative evidence has piled up, in humans and in animals. My most recent summary in 2020 concluded-
The failure to find consistent and compelling evidence of clinically meaningful benefits after decades of extensive research strongly suggests such benefits are negligible or nonexistent.
Despite the seemingly minimal impact of such consistently negative findings on pet owner behavior, I feel obliged to continue to review the evidence and encourage both vets and owners to use therapies with real evidence of safety and benefit whenever possible. A recent systematic review (the highest level of evidence available) has once again looked at glucosamine, along with a host of other diets and dietary supplements for arthritis in dogs and cats, and hopefully their findings will shift the zeitgeist a bit on how we manage this condition.
The figure below illustrates the quality of evidence for five categories of potential therapies. The proportion of studies showing the highest level of evidence, an effect compared with a placebo (Effect), an intermediate level of support, improvement over time without such a comparison (Improvement), or no effect at all (Non-effect) are shown.
The authors also evaluated the number and methodological quality of the research showing these effects and provided conclusions on each intervention. Here are those conclusions-
This meta-analysis supports the use of omega-3 supplementation for the management of canine and feline OA.
The results of this meta-analysis [for cannabis] are promising, but further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy, doses, formulations and combinations recommended for the treatment of canine OA pain. Further studies will also be necessary to conclude on the use of cannabinoids in cats since none have been carried out to this day.
It, therefore, appears impossible to rule, at the present time, on an indication for collagen in canine OA based on the results of this meta-analysis.
Like these previous reviews, the results of the present meta-analysis led to the conclusion that chondroitin-glucosamine nutraceuticals should not be prescribed in canine or feline OA.
All the other nutraceuticals evaluated did not present sufficient evidence of efficacy to decide on their indication.
I am not naïve enough to imagine that this will lead to a widespread abandonment of glucosamine, but I hope that the consistent buildup of evidence over decades showing that this is an ineffective treatment, and the active recommendations against it by experts in both human and veterinary medicine, will at least discourage the substitution of this failed approach for treatments with much better evidence for real effects.
I recently did this interview with the VIN News Service regarding the VIN Veritas Award and my work as a skeptic and advocate for science. We had a great chat about the start of SkeptVet and the critical need for active science communication and advocacy. And there’s a cute picture of my dog!