Gaubster's Outlandish Claims (was: "Science Diet" Hairball Control Sensitivity )

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...

You are unbelievably just plain stupid!

...and you're not? You're also an unbelievable *liar*...

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...

You are unbelievably just plain stupid!

...and you're not? You're also an unbelievable *liar*...

You're no one to criticize or mock Chris... or anyone else. He may make
mistakes, occasionally, but at least they're *honest* mistakes... unlike
you - you *deliberately* misinterpret, misrepresent, manipulate and falsify
studies, surveys and who knows what other information you've manipulated to
suit your obsessive agenda...

Thanks, Phil. I joined this group to learn some things and I am. Any mistakes
I make AREN'T deliberate or intentional. I want to be right all the time (I
won't ever get there), so if there is enough factual evidence to support a
position that I don't currently hold, of course, I'm willing to reexamine my
positions and change them if neccessary.

You're no one to criticize or mock Chris... or anyone else. He may make
mistakes, occasionally, but at least they're *honest* mistakes... unlike
you - you *deliberately* misinterpret, misrepresent, manipulate and falsify
studies, surveys and who knows what other information you've manipulated to
suit your obsessive agenda...

Thanks, Phil. I joined this group to learn some things and I am. Any mistakes
I make AREN'T deliberate or intentional. I want to be right all the time (I
won't ever get there), so if there is enough factual evidence to support a
position that I don't currently hold, of course, I'm willing to reexamine my
positions and change them if neccessary.

In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going?

I'm not the one w/ the problem, it's the whackos on this group that are
against
(or at least they seem to be) products w/ MSDSs.....like synthetic
antioxidants
for example.

You're kidding. Somebody here really cited "has an MSDS" as a reason not
to feed ethoxyquin? As I've pointed out just about everything under the
sun has an MSDS. Now, if the MSDS showed an unacceptable hazard that
would be something else entirely.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend against a lame-o argument.

-Alison in OH

In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going?

I'm not the one w/ the problem, it's the whackos on this group that are
against
(or at least they seem to be) products w/ MSDSs.....like synthetic
antioxidants
for example.

You're kidding. Somebody here really cited "has an MSDS" as a reason not
to feed ethoxyquin? As I've pointed out just about everything under the
sun has an MSDS. Now, if the MSDS showed an unacceptable hazard that
would be something else entirely.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend against a lame-o argument.

-Alison in OH

I do not subscribe to having to see peer reviews of a suggested course of
treatment if current medical indications show its efficiency in field use.

After all peer reviews showed no harm in using thalidomide in pregnant
women, no addictive properties of nicotine, no harm in the use of asbestos
in closed work space, etc, etc.

And No, there is little in the way of peer review or even funded case
studies in the use of probiotics in the feeding of healthy felines. However
there are many people at various web sites who have used probiotics to help
with the treatment of one or more health related problems in their pets. If
a pet food manufacturer is choosing to use a more expensive ingredient with
the intention of "preventive" treatment, then my hat is off, or is that just
too hard of a concept to understand?

I merely implied that there is a beneficial reason for the use of probiotics
in pet diets since numerous clinical studies have yet to be preformed. What
is really interesting is that the majority of studies done on human
intestinal function used dogs for the model, yet scientists have failed to
move the use of antioxidants and probiotics into the "mainstream" pet food
industry, even though the "case" studies showed marked improvements with the
use of antioxidants. Only in the last two years has FSU Vet college even
offered antioxidant and free radical testing on small animals now that more
and more clinical field history is demonstrating that if free radicals are
removed through the use of antioxidants then pets recover quicker from
injuries and have less need of emergency medical treatments.

I am glad to see the strong support that each poster has for their food of
choice and while I personally believe that a raw diet is the best for any
pet, I choose to feed my cats and dogs a premium dry pet food for
convenience.

I think that we should applaud any person who uses Hills S/D, Wellness, or
even Life's Abundance, or any other "better" brand as at least taking a
positive step in a better direction for the health of their pet, or would
you imply that wholesale purchased pet food sold in the mass market is a
better choice?

And you are certainly right in the statement that "Misunderstanding
nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food companies!" But there are
improvements being made and some premium holistic pet food producers are
going to be on the cutting edge of this new wave of technological
breakthroughs.


--
Jeremy Lowe
www.healthypetnet.com/jeremy

Have you hugged your pet today?

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
Added not only to dog and cat food but also to most cattle and swine
feed to
assist in building healthy flora in the intestinal tract.

Thank you for a clear explanation. You have to understand that no matter
what
you post, Gaubster2 will never understand.
________

That wasn't an explanation, that was a monologue. (and probably a run-on
sentence!)

Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate
the
need for this in HEALTHY cats?

Sadly misunderstanding ingredients is the problem here. Lactobacillus
acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, are yeast culture and non-viable
fermentation products that are probiotic feed additives that provide a
continuous supply of two effective and complementary lactic
acid-producing
bacteria to encourage maintenance of proper digestion and peak
performance
at every stage of animal development.

Misunderstanding nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food
companies!
No?

I do not subscribe to having to see peer reviews of a suggested course of
treatment if current medical indications show its efficiency in field use.

After all peer reviews showed no harm in using thalidomide in pregnant
women, no addictive properties of nicotine, no harm in the use of asbestos
in closed work space, etc, etc.

And No, there is little in the way of peer review or even funded case
studies in the use of probiotics in the feeding of healthy felines. However
there are many people at various web sites who have used probiotics to help
with the treatment of one or more health related problems in their pets. If
a pet food manufacturer is choosing to use a more expensive ingredient with
the intention of "preventive" treatment, then my hat is off, or is that just
too hard of a concept to understand?

I merely implied that there is a beneficial reason for the use of probiotics
in pet diets since numerous clinical studies have yet to be preformed. What
is really interesting is that the majority of studies done on human
intestinal function used dogs for the model, yet scientists have failed to
move the use of antioxidants and probiotics into the "mainstream" pet food
industry, even though the "case" studies showed marked improvements with the
use of antioxidants. Only in the last two years has FSU Vet college even
offered antioxidant and free radical testing on small animals now that more
and more clinical field history is demonstrating that if free radicals are
removed through the use of antioxidants then pets recover quicker from
injuries and have less need of emergency medical treatments.

I am glad to see the strong support that each poster has for their food of
choice and while I personally believe that a raw diet is the best for any
pet, I choose to feed my cats and dogs a premium dry pet food for
convenience.

I think that we should applaud any person who uses Hills S/D, Wellness, or
even Life's Abundance, or any other "better" brand as at least taking a
positive step in a better direction for the health of their pet, or would
you imply that wholesale purchased pet food sold in the mass market is a
better choice?

And you are certainly right in the statement that "Misunderstanding
nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food companies!" But there are
improvements being made and some premium holistic pet food producers are
going to be on the cutting edge of this new wave of technological
breakthroughs.


--
Jeremy Lowe
www.healthypetnet.com/jeremy

Have you hugged your pet today?

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
Added not only to dog and cat food but also to most cattle and swine
feed to
assist in building healthy flora in the intestinal tract.

Thank you for a clear explanation. You have to understand that no matter
what
you post, Gaubster2 will never understand.
________

That wasn't an explanation, that was a monologue. (and probably a run-on
sentence!)

Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate
the
need for this in HEALTHY cats?

Sadly misunderstanding ingredients is the problem here. Lactobacillus
acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, are yeast culture and non-viable
fermentation products that are probiotic feed additives that provide a
continuous supply of two effective and complementary lactic
acid-producing
bacteria to encourage maintenance of proper digestion and peak
performance
at every stage of animal development.

Misunderstanding nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food
companies!
No?

Alison,

If I remember correctly, no one here stated an aversion to products with
MSDSs. It was mentioned during one of the many on-going arguments about
ethoxyquin. G2 is exxagerating here a bit.

Alison Perera wrote:

In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:


How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going?

I'm not the one w/ the problem, it's the whackos on this group that are
against
(or at least they seem to be) products w/ MSDSs.....like synthetic
antioxidants
for example.


You're kidding. Somebody here really cited "has an MSDS" as a reason not
to feed ethoxyquin? As I've pointed out just about everything under the
sun has an MSDS. Now, if the MSDS showed an unacceptable hazard that
would be something else entirely.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend against a lame-o argument.

-Alison in OH

Alison,

If I remember correctly, no one here stated an aversion to products with
MSDSs. It was mentioned during one of the many on-going arguments about
ethoxyquin. G2 is exxagerating here a bit.

Alison Perera wrote:

In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:


How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going?

I'm not the one w/ the problem, it's the whackos on this group that are
against
(or at least they seem to be) products w/ MSDSs.....like synthetic
antioxidants
for example.


You're kidding. Somebody here really cited "has an MSDS" as a reason not
to feed ethoxyquin? As I've pointed out just about everything under the
sun has an MSDS. Now, if the MSDS showed an unacceptable hazard that
would be something else entirely.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend against a lame-o argument.

-Alison in OH