Best canned food vs. worst

In article ,
enlightened us with...

It does get confusing. I tend to read the posts quickly and what stuck
out was the excessive phosphorous part. Maybe not in this thread. I
don't know, sometimes the food threads all blur together, LOL. I just
didn't know if he's talking about a specific brand or type of food, or
in general.

Yeah, I know what you mean.
Plus, it took me a slight bit to realize there are *two* Steves and they are
different people, not one person posting from work/home (or the like). LOL
I never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the box.

--
--
~kaeli~
Why do they sterilize the needles for lethal injections?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

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

"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

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.

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.

Agreed - Looking back I can't recall a time when the "other" Steve
(Steve G) was into ad hominem flaming.

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.