If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
OK, boys! Break it up!
I'm the one who started this thread, and I'm the one who's ending it. Find something else to argue about! -- Message posted via http://www.catkb.com |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"LemonPops via CatKB.com" wrote in message
... OK, boys! Break it up! I'm the one who started this thread, and I'm the one who's ending it. Find something else to argue about! ROLFMAO! Sweet innosence!! Hugs, CatNipped -- Message posted via http://www.catkb.com |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
LemonPops via CatKB.com wrote: OK, boys! Break it up! I'm the one who started this thread, and I'm the one who's ending it. Hm, you're new here, aren't you... Find something else to argue about! Our 'argument' has thus far involved the exhange of useful information with minimal ad hominem flaming - which is the point of the group, really. HTH HAND, Steve. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Steve G wrote: Steve Crane wrote: (...) You haven't heard anything "recent" because it was pretty much trashed. Er, considering the study was only actually published in March of this year, there has hardly been the time for it to be 'trashed': Lappin et al. (2005; Am J Vet Res 66: 506-511) The same data was presented at the ACVIM meeting in June 2004. While it is "new" in publication form, the data has been out there awhile. The inhouse boarded DVM virologist had seen this over a year ago. No, you have misrepresented the study; in particular, matched groups of kittens were vaccinated according to one of several protocols. I.e., a treatment was applied, and the effects of this treatment then sought. The study did not look at post-hoc associations without an experimental intervention. That is, it was not an epidemiological-style study. In essence, as well as a 'green pea' group, there was a 'carrot' group, a 'fish finger' group, and so on, and the experimenter chose who ate the different foods. Agreed - I did not read through it well enough - I thought it was an earlier epidemiological version that has been floating around for some time. Note also that "Cats administered an intranasal-intraocular vaccine did not develop detectable antibodies against either lysate." The small number of subjects (kittens) is a concern though. Agreed - 2 kittens in each segment makes for very little statistical relevance. The study gets "trashed" for this as well as the giant leap of logic that the development of antibodies to CFRK cells means that renal failure is likely to be the result down the road in time. The conclusions of the study are weak at best. 56 weeks is not nearly enough time to make a conclusion about the next 624 weeks of the cats life. Renal failure rarely ocurrs in the first 56 weeks of a cats life but rather out to the 624th week (about 12 years old). While the study never says that the development of CFRK antibodies will induce renal failure down the road - the anti vaccination crowd will leap on this as proof of their decision not to vaccinate. "CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Parenteral administration of vaccines containing viruses likely grown on CRFK cells induced antibodies against CRFK cell and FRC lysates in cats. Hypersensitization with CRFK cell proteins did not result in renal disease in cats during the 56-week study." The same "missing elements" can be found in all such studies. Where - in this case? In this case the missing 568 weeks, and any relationship between the development of CFRK antibodies and future renal disease. Steve. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed - Looking back I can't recall a time when the "other" Steve
(Steve G) was into ad hominem flaming. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Crane wrote: Steve G wrote: (...) Er, considering the study was only actually published in March of this year, there has hardly been the time for it to be 'trashed': Lappin et al. (2005; Am J Vet Res 66: 506-511) The same data was presented at the ACVIM meeting in June 2004. While it is "new" in publication form, the data has been out there awhile. The inhouse boarded DVM virologist had seen this over a year ago. OK - maybe so, but I tend to be very wary of basing too much on conference proceedings and data presented at meetings. Anyway, I've now got round to reading the actual paper. (...) intervention. That is, it was not an epidemiological-style study. (...) Agreed - I did not read through it well enough - I thought it was an earlier epidemiological version that has been floating around for some time. OK. (I don't swim in veterinary waters, so I don't know what treasure or turds are currently drifting to shore). (...) Agreed - 2 kittens in each segment makes for very little statistical relevance. The study gets "trashed" for this as well as the giant leap of logic that the development of antibodies to CFRK cells means that renal failure is likely to be the result down the road in time. The conclusions of the study are weak at best. But those are not the conclusions! I think you may be conflating what you think Lauren thinks with what the authors actually say. I think. p.510, "...it appears that even hypersensitization with CRFK was not associated with development of notable renal inflammation, glomerular disease,...Our data did not indicate that there is any risk of renal damage associated with parenteral administration of FVRCP vaccines" Basically, the authors found no evidence that CRF - or renal damage at all, indeed - was caused by the vaccines. They did make the weak suggestion, in passing, that maybe some individual cats might be found susceptible to damage from the CRFK lysates, in a larger sample of cats. Basically, antibodies to stuff in the vaccines were found, but no concomitant renal rot. 56 weeks is not nearly enough time to make a conclusion about the next 624 weeks of the cats life. That's true, although the authors blasted the cats with CRFK lysate every couple of weeks, in a (pretty odd?) attempt to simulate the volume of CRFK lysate the cats would experience over many years, if following a typical vaccination schedule. Sort of like an accelerated wear test. So, this seems like quite a stringent test, and the fact that there was no renal unpleasantness could be taken as a vindication of the safety of vaccines. Renal failure rarely ocurrs in the first 56 weeks of a cats life but rather out to the 624th week (about 12 years old). While the study never says that the development of CFRK antibodies will induce renal failure down the road - the anti vaccination crowd will leap on this as proof of their decision not to vaccinate. So what? The study is a) independent of the 'anti vaccination' crowd and should be interpreted as a piece of science, not as a piece of potential propaganda, and b) in any case, the authors found no evidence that vaccination induced renal failure! You are placing words in the authors mouth that don't belong there. The same "missing elements" can be found in all such studies. Where - in this case? In this case the missing 568 weeks, and any relationship between the development of CFRK antibodies and future renal disease. Well, I was referring to any mediating factors that existed within the duration of the study - but you are quite correct in the wider context. Having said that, if the authors had found renal damage in their study, I would certainly consider that a worrying result. The missing 568 weeks are doomed to always be missing in the literatu can you imagine anyone carrying out a longitudinal study over 12+ years? (With no guarantee of finding renal damage in the population studied anyway). Steve. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Senior canned food? (UK) | jmc | Cat health & behaviour | 5 | March 13th 05 12:27 AM |
Is dry cat food good enough, or do they need canned food too? | Lewis Lang | Cat health & behaviour | 13 | February 13th 05 01:58 AM |
A question about feeding canned food... | SummerC | Cat health & behaviour | 120 | September 25th 04 12:29 AM |
What is REALLY in your pet's food? | catsdogs | Cat health & behaviour | 2 | May 12th 04 05:57 AM |
THE PET FOOD INDUSTRY AND YOUR PETS HEALTH (vol 1) | WalterNY | Cats - misc | 2 | February 22nd 04 10:03 AM |