"Phil P." wrote in message ...
"Steve Crane" wrote in message
om...


Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the
stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and
turned what was once the most common cause of sick cats into a rarity,
but nobody seems interested. Ancient history I guess.

"Phil P." wrote in message ...
"Steve Crane" wrote in message
om...


Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the
stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and
turned what was once the most common cause of sick cats into a rarity,
but nobody seems interested. Ancient history I guess.

"Phil P." wrote in message ...
"Steve Crane" wrote in message
om...


Yes I was kind of hoping somebody would ask what that godsend was the
stopped hundreds of thousands of cats dying in less than a year and
turned what was once the most common cause of sick cats into a rarity,
but nobody seems interested. Ancient history I guess.

I also remember the late 50's
and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many
cats. Fortunately a wonder drug came along and saved literally
millions of cats from dying of ingesting rancid fats.

Yup. ..but the fanatics don't want to know about that because it conflicts
with their agenda...

From what I understand of the above paragraph written by Steve,
*rancid pet food* would kill lots of cats. PET FOOD. This thread is
talking about table scraps and fresh food. So, Phil, how did you
relate one to the other? In your understanding, is PET FOOD different
from COMMERCIAL CAT FOOD? I understand they are the same.

I also remember the late 50's
and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many
cats. Fortunately a wonder drug came along and saved literally
millions of cats from dying of ingesting rancid fats.

Yup. ..but the fanatics don't want to know about that because it conflicts
with their agenda...

From what I understand of the above paragraph written by Steve,
*rancid pet food* would kill lots of cats. PET FOOD. This thread is
talking about table scraps and fresh food. So, Phil, how did you
relate one to the other? In your understanding, is PET FOOD different
from COMMERCIAL CAT FOOD? I understand they are the same.

I also remember the late 50's
and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill so many
cats. Fortunately a wonder drug came along and saved literally
millions of cats from dying of ingesting rancid fats.

Yup. ..but the fanatics don't want to know about that because it conflicts
with their agenda...

From what I understand of the above paragraph written by Steve,
*rancid pet food* would kill lots of cats. PET FOOD. This thread is
talking about table scraps and fresh food. So, Phil, how did you
relate one to the other? In your understanding, is PET FOOD different
from COMMERCIAL CAT FOOD? I understand they are the same.

In article ,
(Steve Crane) wrote:

Alison Perera wrote in message
...
This article is about how dogs who eat less commercial food live longer
than dogs who eat more commercial food. This hardly supports Steve's
statement that commercial food extends life.

I think you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. That
study had absolutely nothing to do with eating less *commercial* diet.
Both sets of dogs were fed the same food. The difference was one set
of dogs was fed 25% LESS food. The purpose of the study was to prove
that keeping dogs slightly underweight would lengthen thier lives. To
draw the conclusion you have above is totally and completely illogical
and foolish, or perhaps it was a deliberate deception?

Steve, the food in the study was a commercially manufactured, kibbled
diet was it not?

That's all I meant. The study doesn't do squat to prove the point that
the *existence* and *consumption* of commercially manufactured, kibbled
diets increases life expectancy as a cause-and-effect relationship.

It certainly doesn't disprove said point either. It's simply tangential
to the topic at hand.

This is a heated topic that I don't have time to pursue fully. I'll just
say that it is my opinion that commercially prepared foods and routine
vaccination have, in fact, caused many of the disturbing and devastating
problems we see in our pets today

I know this is the common myth and everybody likes to fall into this
trap but it simply isn't even close to the truth. Vaccines have SAVED
millions of dogs. It's always hard to go back in time, when you never
lived there. In 1978 Parvo hit the streets and dogs died by the
thousands. Parvo vaccine stopped that epidemic. You have to seperate
*possibilities* from *probabilities*.

You have misread me. I don't think that vaccination is bad, in fact I
think it's a marvelous boon of modern veterinary medicine.

Unfortunately I think it is a tool that is being thoroughly misused.

It is my *opinion* (based on the evidence available to me, of course)
that *routine* vaccination--by which I mean frequent and not
individually tailored--is harmful.

Given the peer-reviewed studies in the literature today with regard to
duration of immunity, I can confidently state that my dog, who received
a full puppy course of vaccinations and demonstrated a positive antibody
titer for parvovirus and distemper a year or so ago, is not putting
anybody else's dog at risk by virtue of not having had an unecessary
cocktail of antigen and adjuvant injected into her annually for the last
four years.

On the other hand, if we look at *probabilities* the *probable risk* to
my dog increases with every vaccination given.

I choose not to play that kind of Russian roulette with my dog, who is
of a breed prone to immune dysfunction to begin with (and in fact
presents with various symptoms of immune dysfunction).

Does that make sense?

-Alison in OH

In article ,
(Steve Crane) wrote:

Alison Perera wrote in message
...
This article is about how dogs who eat less commercial food live longer
than dogs who eat more commercial food. This hardly supports Steve's
statement that commercial food extends life.

I think you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. That
study had absolutely nothing to do with eating less *commercial* diet.
Both sets of dogs were fed the same food. The difference was one set
of dogs was fed 25% LESS food. The purpose of the study was to prove
that keeping dogs slightly underweight would lengthen thier lives. To
draw the conclusion you have above is totally and completely illogical
and foolish, or perhaps it was a deliberate deception?

Steve, the food in the study was a commercially manufactured, kibbled
diet was it not?

That's all I meant. The study doesn't do squat to prove the point that
the *existence* and *consumption* of commercially manufactured, kibbled
diets increases life expectancy as a cause-and-effect relationship.

It certainly doesn't disprove said point either. It's simply tangential
to the topic at hand.

This is a heated topic that I don't have time to pursue fully. I'll just
say that it is my opinion that commercially prepared foods and routine
vaccination have, in fact, caused many of the disturbing and devastating
problems we see in our pets today

I know this is the common myth and everybody likes to fall into this
trap but it simply isn't even close to the truth. Vaccines have SAVED
millions of dogs. It's always hard to go back in time, when you never
lived there. In 1978 Parvo hit the streets and dogs died by the
thousands. Parvo vaccine stopped that epidemic. You have to seperate
*possibilities* from *probabilities*.

You have misread me. I don't think that vaccination is bad, in fact I
think it's a marvelous boon of modern veterinary medicine.

Unfortunately I think it is a tool that is being thoroughly misused.

It is my *opinion* (based on the evidence available to me, of course)
that *routine* vaccination--by which I mean frequent and not
individually tailored--is harmful.

Given the peer-reviewed studies in the literature today with regard to
duration of immunity, I can confidently state that my dog, who received
a full puppy course of vaccinations and demonstrated a positive antibody
titer for parvovirus and distemper a year or so ago, is not putting
anybody else's dog at risk by virtue of not having had an unecessary
cocktail of antigen and adjuvant injected into her annually for the last
four years.

On the other hand, if we look at *probabilities* the *probable risk* to
my dog increases with every vaccination given.

I choose not to play that kind of Russian roulette with my dog, who is
of a breed prone to immune dysfunction to begin with (and in fact
presents with various symptoms of immune dysfunction).

Does that make sense?

-Alison in OH

In article ,
(Steve Crane) wrote:

Alison Perera wrote in message
...
This article is about how dogs who eat less commercial food live longer
than dogs who eat more commercial food. This hardly supports Steve's
statement that commercial food extends life.

I think you need a refresher course in reading comprehension. That
study had absolutely nothing to do with eating less *commercial* diet.
Both sets of dogs were fed the same food. The difference was one set
of dogs was fed 25% LESS food. The purpose of the study was to prove
that keeping dogs slightly underweight would lengthen thier lives. To
draw the conclusion you have above is totally and completely illogical
and foolish, or perhaps it was a deliberate deception?

Steve, the food in the study was a commercially manufactured, kibbled
diet was it not?

That's all I meant. The study doesn't do squat to prove the point that
the *existence* and *consumption* of commercially manufactured, kibbled
diets increases life expectancy as a cause-and-effect relationship.

It certainly doesn't disprove said point either. It's simply tangential
to the topic at hand.

This is a heated topic that I don't have time to pursue fully. I'll just
say that it is my opinion that commercially prepared foods and routine
vaccination have, in fact, caused many of the disturbing and devastating
problems we see in our pets today

I know this is the common myth and everybody likes to fall into this
trap but it simply isn't even close to the truth. Vaccines have SAVED
millions of dogs. It's always hard to go back in time, when you never
lived there. In 1978 Parvo hit the streets and dogs died by the
thousands. Parvo vaccine stopped that epidemic. You have to seperate
*possibilities* from *probabilities*.

You have misread me. I don't think that vaccination is bad, in fact I
think it's a marvelous boon of modern veterinary medicine.

Unfortunately I think it is a tool that is being thoroughly misused.

It is my *opinion* (based on the evidence available to me, of course)
that *routine* vaccination--by which I mean frequent and not
individually tailored--is harmful.

Given the peer-reviewed studies in the literature today with regard to
duration of immunity, I can confidently state that my dog, who received
a full puppy course of vaccinations and demonstrated a positive antibody
titer for parvovirus and distemper a year or so ago, is not putting
anybody else's dog at risk by virtue of not having had an unecessary
cocktail of antigen and adjuvant injected into her annually for the last
four years.

On the other hand, if we look at *probabilities* the *probable risk* to
my dog increases with every vaccination given.

I choose not to play that kind of Russian roulette with my dog, who is
of a breed prone to immune dysfunction to begin with (and in fact
presents with various symptoms of immune dysfunction).

Does that make sense?

-Alison in OH

In om,
Liz being of bellicose mind posted:
I also remember the late 50's
and early 60's before we knew that rancid pet food would kill
so many cats. Fortunately a wonder drug came along and saved
literally millions of cats from dying of ingesting rancid fats.

Yup. ..but the fanatics don't want to know about that because
it conflicts with their agenda...

From what I understand of the above paragraph written by Steve,
*rancid pet food* would kill lots of cats. PET FOOD. This thread is
talking about table scraps and fresh food. So, Phil, how did you
relate one to the other? In your understanding, is PET FOOD
different from COMMERCIAL CAT FOOD? I understand they are the same.

Do you recall that Garfield cartoon where Garfield is caught in the
kitchen late at night swapping the labels on his cans of Cat Food
with the labels on his owner's (can't recall the fellow's name) cans
of people grade tuna?

The dialog line read: So THAT's the reason for the zesty new taste
of my tuna casseroles!!
--

~~Philip

"Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"