Hill's Feline S/D, Hill's Feline CD-S

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...

3) Corn is one of the least allergenic grains out there.


For cats specifically or for all mammals? I only ask because my mother
recently tested positive for an allergy to corn (amongst other foods). She
has eaten corn in one form or another her whole life, but never realized she
was allergic to it. It seems her reaction to it did not come in the form of
typical allergy symptoms (no itching, hives, swelling, etc. Just coughing
and occasional headaches). I would guess that many others have undiagnosed
food allergies--including allergies to corn--for the same reason.

rona

--
***For e-mail, replace .com with .ca Sorry for the inconvenience!***

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: (GAUBSTER2)

Karen, I called the company about 8-9 months ago and asked about that.
They
had no idea what I was talking about!

Probably because you never called them, LOL

Unlike you, Lauren, I'm not a liar. Why don't YOU call them and see what
kind
of answer you get?

Tell me exactly what I've lied about? mmm?????????


How about your plethora of "me too" and "he said/she said" stories for
almost *every* adverse effect post about Science Diet in the last couple or
so years, for openers?

I don't know of any *100* cats *combined* that experienced 1/50 of the
adverse effects you claim your cats experienced from SD.... and I've fed
Science diet to literally *thousands* of animals over the last few years!
All our vets' *combined* haven't heard as many complaints about SD from all
their clients *combined* as you conjure up. Even all the clerks *combined*
in all *three* large pet stores where we have adoption centers haven't heard
as many complaints from all their Science Diets customers *combined* as you
conjure up. If 1/50th of your stories were true, your cats would have been
dead *years* ago!

More compelling evidence that your stories are *obviously* conjured up
bullsh!t stories and downright lies: most reasonably intelligent and sane
people would have switched brands after their cats experienced the *first* -
or at the most, *second* adverse effect while the cat was being fed a
particular brand -- not after *numerous* (I lost count after the first dozen
or so) adverse effects like you claim...

That leaves only two possibilities for your stories: either you're a
complete idiot for continuing to feed your cats a diet that produced
numerous adverse effects (very possible), or you're a compulsive liar (more
likely) and conjured up almost all of your adverse effects stories as a
result from your morbid hatred for Hill's. Which are you? Idiot or liar?
Tough call because you fit both.

Although I don't think you're very bright, I don't think you're a complete
idiot, either (almost). That leaves only one reasonable possibility....
you're a *compulsive liar* and that its a safe bet to assume that 99.9% of
your negative "me too" and "he said/she said" stories about Science Diet are
nothing more than conjured up bullsh!t stories due to your obsessive,
pathological, vicious and malicious hatred for Hill's.

You keep conjuring up new adverse effects as you go along... Case in point:
You recently conjured up a "me too" story about your cats developing anal
sac disease from SD. Many people posted that their cats had anal sac
disease in the last few years. In all that time, you *never* once
mentioned your cats developed anal sac disease from eating SD. It seems you
feel cocky now that you have another amoral liar and manipulator supporting
you... so you conjure up more bullsh!t stories.

Don't forget - I remember when you began posting here... It seems your
cats developed *more* adverse effects from Science Diet *after* you
*stopped* feeding SD than they did when they were *actually* eating SD!
What's your explanation for that? A "residual effect"?

You can't be very bright if you think people actually believe your cats
experienced all the adverse effects that you conjure up... I don't think
you realize that a "brainstorm" for you is a light drizzle for most people.

You say you never recruit or "invite" people to the newsgroup to support
youe position - yet Pearson admitted that you "invited" her. I also
received an email from a participant of a Yahoo group you subcribe to -
You're "mickey4paws2000" -- to wit:

Sender:
Message-ID:

"In case your interested rec.pets.cats.health+behav"


There's really nothing wrong with inviting people into the group, so why do
you compelled to *lie* about inviting people -- unless lying comes so
naturally to you and/or your reasons for inviting people aren't
honorable.... My guess is *both*


That's what you've lied about.... How's that for openers???

"PawsForThought" wrote in message
...
From: (GAUBSTER2)

Karen, I called the company about 8-9 months ago and asked about that.
They
had no idea what I was talking about!

Probably because you never called them, LOL

Unlike you, Lauren, I'm not a liar. Why don't YOU call them and see what
kind
of answer you get?

Tell me exactly what I've lied about? mmm?????????


How about your plethora of "me too" and "he said/she said" stories for
almost *every* adverse effect post about Science Diet in the last couple or
so years, for openers?

I don't know of any *100* cats *combined* that experienced 1/50 of the
adverse effects you claim your cats experienced from SD.... and I've fed
Science diet to literally *thousands* of animals over the last few years!
All our vets' *combined* haven't heard as many complaints about SD from all
their clients *combined* as you conjure up. Even all the clerks *combined*
in all *three* large pet stores where we have adoption centers haven't heard
as many complaints from all their Science Diets customers *combined* as you
conjure up. If 1/50th of your stories were true, your cats would have been
dead *years* ago!

More compelling evidence that your stories are *obviously* conjured up
bullsh!t stories and downright lies: most reasonably intelligent and sane
people would have switched brands after their cats experienced the *first* -
or at the most, *second* adverse effect while the cat was being fed a
particular brand -- not after *numerous* (I lost count after the first dozen
or so) adverse effects like you claim...

That leaves only two possibilities for your stories: either you're a
complete idiot for continuing to feed your cats a diet that produced
numerous adverse effects (very possible), or you're a compulsive liar (more
likely) and conjured up almost all of your adverse effects stories as a
result from your morbid hatred for Hill's. Which are you? Idiot or liar?
Tough call because you fit both.

Although I don't think you're very bright, I don't think you're a complete
idiot, either (almost). That leaves only one reasonable possibility....
you're a *compulsive liar* and that its a safe bet to assume that 99.9% of
your negative "me too" and "he said/she said" stories about Science Diet are
nothing more than conjured up bullsh!t stories due to your obsessive,
pathological, vicious and malicious hatred for Hill's.

You keep conjuring up new adverse effects as you go along... Case in point:
You recently conjured up a "me too" story about your cats developing anal
sac disease from SD. Many people posted that their cats had anal sac
disease in the last few years. In all that time, you *never* once
mentioned your cats developed anal sac disease from eating SD. It seems you
feel cocky now that you have another amoral liar and manipulator supporting
you... so you conjure up more bullsh!t stories.

Don't forget - I remember when you began posting here... It seems your
cats developed *more* adverse effects from Science Diet *after* you
*stopped* feeding SD than they did when they were *actually* eating SD!
What's your explanation for that? A "residual effect"?

You can't be very bright if you think people actually believe your cats
experienced all the adverse effects that you conjure up... I don't think
you realize that a "brainstorm" for you is a light drizzle for most people.

You say you never recruit or "invite" people to the newsgroup to support
youe position - yet Pearson admitted that you "invited" her. I also
received an email from a participant of a Yahoo group you subcribe to -
You're "mickey4paws2000" -- to wit:

Sender:
Message-ID:

"In case your interested rec.pets.cats.health+behav"


There's really nothing wrong with inviting people into the group, so why do
you compelled to *lie* about inviting people -- unless lying comes so
naturally to you and/or your reasons for inviting people aren't
honorable.... My guess is *both*


That's what you've lied about.... How's that for openers???

"Alison Perera" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Phil P." wrote:

"Alison Perera" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:


There are plenty of cats thriving on Science Diet and other dry
commercial cat
foods, so your point doesn't stick!

Define thriving.

Suffering from oral disease?

Developing renal failure and hyperthyroidism?

You're not going to disappoint me and blame all the world's feline
diseases
on Hill's, now are you? I'd expect that kind of nonsense from Lauren
and
Liz because they're amoral, but I gave you much more credit than that
and
thought you were in a much higher echelon than they are....

Step in to my echelon, said the spider to the fly...

My fanciful portrayal of ill cats that are still described by their
owners as "thriving" was generic and broad. In other words, owners are
unlikely to create a connection between chronic illness and diet, so the
idea that "plenty of cats are thriving on...dry commercial cat food"
doesn't hold a lot of water with me. Sci Die or no.


Its a well known fact that I'm no proponent of *any* dry food. But the fact
remains that many cats do thrive (objectively) on dry food.... which makes
my argument for canned food very difficult with some of the people I meet
in pet stores.


I do have to admit that the connection between chronic oral inflammation
and infection, and chronic degenerative disease, is compelling and has
me pretty convinced of a causal relationship.

The problem with making accurate comparisons of disease and raw vs
commercial food is multifaceted. First, most raw fanatics don't subscribe
to the mainstream veterinary community and thus have no central medical
database that stores cases for reference. You can't make medical
comparisons if there're no records.

Second, most raw fanatics are notoriously obsessed fanatical liars and
manipulators - at least that's been my experience with most of them for the
last several years - so even if their cat or dog had punctured intestines
and died from peritonitis or sepsis or overwhelming parasitemia or
bacteremia from the boat-load of pathogens present in raw meat, they'd never
admit it.

So how can any real comparisons be made when one side alters or conjures up
data at will?

Phil

"Alison Perera" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Phil P." wrote:

"Alison Perera" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:


There are plenty of cats thriving on Science Diet and other dry
commercial cat
foods, so your point doesn't stick!

Define thriving.

Suffering from oral disease?

Developing renal failure and hyperthyroidism?

You're not going to disappoint me and blame all the world's feline
diseases
on Hill's, now are you? I'd expect that kind of nonsense from Lauren
and
Liz because they're amoral, but I gave you much more credit than that
and
thought you were in a much higher echelon than they are....

Step in to my echelon, said the spider to the fly...

My fanciful portrayal of ill cats that are still described by their
owners as "thriving" was generic and broad. In other words, owners are
unlikely to create a connection between chronic illness and diet, so the
idea that "plenty of cats are thriving on...dry commercial cat food"
doesn't hold a lot of water with me. Sci Die or no.


Its a well known fact that I'm no proponent of *any* dry food. But the fact
remains that many cats do thrive (objectively) on dry food.... which makes
my argument for canned food very difficult with some of the people I meet
in pet stores.


I do have to admit that the connection between chronic oral inflammation
and infection, and chronic degenerative disease, is compelling and has
me pretty convinced of a causal relationship.

The problem with making accurate comparisons of disease and raw vs
commercial food is multifaceted. First, most raw fanatics don't subscribe
to the mainstream veterinary community and thus have no central medical
database that stores cases for reference. You can't make medical
comparisons if there're no records.

Second, most raw fanatics are notoriously obsessed fanatical liars and
manipulators - at least that's been my experience with most of them for the
last several years - so even if their cat or dog had punctured intestines
and died from peritonitis or sepsis or overwhelming parasitemia or
bacteremia from the boat-load of pathogens present in raw meat, they'd never
admit it.

So how can any real comparisons be made when one side alters or conjures up
data at will?

Phil

From: (GAUBSTER2)

mb-m07.aol.com

You obviously don't know the nutritional benefits of corn! LOL

Why don´t you tell us what they are?


Oh boy. shaking my head in frustration We've gone over this so many
times
before....

1) Ground and cooked corn is about 99% digestible for starters.

2) Corn is high in linoleic acid for a healthy skin and coat.

3) Corn is one of the least allergenic grains out there.

...and there's many more.


References? didn't think so...
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

From: (GAUBSTER2)

mb-m07.aol.com

You obviously don't know the nutritional benefits of corn! LOL

Why don´t you tell us what they are?


Oh boy. shaking my head in frustration We've gone over this so many
times
before....

1) Ground and cooked corn is about 99% digestible for starters.

2) Corn is high in linoleic acid for a healthy skin and coat.

3) Corn is one of the least allergenic grains out there.

...and there's many more.


References? didn't think so...
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message ...
From: (GAUBSTER2)

mb-m07.aol.com

You obviously don't know the nutritional benefits of corn! LOL

Why don´t you tell us what they are?


Oh boy. shaking my head in frustration We've gone over this so many
times
before....

1) Ground and cooked corn is about 99% digestible for starters.

2) Corn is high in linoleic acid for a healthy skin and coat.

3) Corn is one of the least allergenic grains out there.

...and there's many more.


References? didn't think so...

Small Animal Clinical Nurition 4th Edition

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message ...
From: (GAUBSTER2)

mb-m07.aol.com

You obviously don't know the nutritional benefits of corn! LOL

Why don´t you tell us what they are?


Oh boy. shaking my head in frustration We've gone over this so many
times
before....

1) Ground and cooked corn is about 99% digestible for starters.

2) Corn is high in linoleic acid for a healthy skin and coat.

3) Corn is one of the least allergenic grains out there.

...and there's many more.


References? didn't think so...

Small Animal Clinical Nurition 4th Edition

3) Corn is one of the least allergenic grains out there.


For cats specifically or for all mammals?

I'm talking dogs and cats here.