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

Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like "sucks" to
describe their findings. The numbers once explained speak loud and clear
for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above challenge
to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science Diet food is bad
for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck

Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like "sucks" to
describe their findings. The numbers once explained speak loud and clear
for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above challenge
to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science Diet food is bad
for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

--
"Its the bugs that keep it running."
-Joe Canuck

In ,
GAUBSTER2 composed with style:
From: "Cheryl"
Date: 10/22/03 3:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In ,
GAUBSTER2 composed with style:

...there you go. A Hill's basher come clean!

Ya know, just because you keep repeating the phrase "Hill's basher"
over and over ad nauseam isn't going to change anything except for
the
number of people who kill file you as they get sick of it. Think
about it. If I were Steve Crane (God forbid) or any other Hill's
rep
I'd consider you an embarrassment and seek an injunction to shut
you
up. Pronto. You're quite sickening.

I think you (and your ilk) just don't like being challenged.

This is just not true. Ilk? lol Is that what you call everyone who
doesn't agree with you, or is just flat-out sick of your defending a
company so many hate? Oh, ok.

It's
quite apparent to me that is the case since you resort to name
calling. If you're keeping score here on the number of Hill's
haters (how's that term for you?) vs the number of Hill's
supporters--what's the score? Are you losing? Is that why you're
all upset?

Keeping score? Are you for real? You're the one who is really
obsessed with your mission.

In ,
GAUBSTER2 composed with style:
From: "Cheryl"
Date: 10/22/03 3:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In ,
GAUBSTER2 composed with style:

...there you go. A Hill's basher come clean!

Ya know, just because you keep repeating the phrase "Hill's basher"
over and over ad nauseam isn't going to change anything except for
the
number of people who kill file you as they get sick of it. Think
about it. If I were Steve Crane (God forbid) or any other Hill's
rep
I'd consider you an embarrassment and seek an injunction to shut
you
up. Pronto. You're quite sickening.

I think you (and your ilk) just don't like being challenged.

This is just not true. Ilk? lol Is that what you call everyone who
doesn't agree with you, or is just flat-out sick of your defending a
company so many hate? Oh, ok.

It's
quite apparent to me that is the case since you resort to name
calling. If you're keeping score here on the number of Hill's
haters (how's that term for you?) vs the number of Hill's
supporters--what's the score? Are you losing? Is that why you're
all upset?

Keeping score? Are you for real? You're the one who is really
obsessed with your mission.

In ,
Joe Canuck composed with style:
Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like
"sucks" to describe their findings. The numbers once explained
speak loud and clear for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above
challenge to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science
Diet food is bad for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

I'd still like to see any evidence at all about Hill's diets for IBD.
I've asked several times here with no answers, also. You don't always
get an answer to your question on Usenet.

In ,
Joe Canuck composed with style:
Justin Case wrote:

I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks".

I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like
"sucks" to describe their findings. The numbers once explained
speak loud and clear for themselves.

I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above
challenge to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science
Diet food is bad for cats.

In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with
anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either.

I'd still like to see any evidence at all about Hill's diets for IBD.
I've asked several times here with no answers, also. You don't always
get an answer to your question on Usenet.

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


Well, I hate Hills for a number of reasons.

...there you go. A Hill's basher come clean!

L told you she worked at a clinic and that the
cats who would eat Hill's, did poorly on it and had very stinky poops from it.

I think I just figured it out- the term "worked" at a clinic. As in
past tense. Is there a possibility of a gisgruntled employee here? If
not, I'm sure L would be happy to provide us with the clinic name she
used to work for.

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


Well, I hate Hills for a number of reasons.

...there you go. A Hill's basher come clean!

L told you she worked at a clinic and that the
cats who would eat Hill's, did poorly on it and had very stinky poops from it.

I think I just figured it out- the term "worked" at a clinic. As in
past tense. Is there a possibility of a gisgruntled employee here? If
not, I'm sure L would be happy to provide us with the clinic name she
used to work for.

(-L.) wrote in message om...
"Phil P." wrote in message ...

I don't have a problem with companies doing LESS animal
experimentation, especially when a food product has been on the market
for awhile.

Sigh, probably not, since you don't accept peer reviewed published
studies anyway I suppose. You would rather we knew nothing about the
medical and nutritional needs of cats so we could gleefully go about
experimenting on everybody's pets instead. Because without
experimentation you end up with unknown values in foods which are then
"tested" on your pets. A terrific example is taurine deficiency just
reported in the October 15th issue of JAVMA. Dogs which had eaten
either 3 Nutro products, 1 Sensible Choice or 1 Nature's Recipe
product (all lamb & rice products) were found with dilated
cardiomyopathy. Typically the diagnosis of DCM means the dog has abut
60 days to live.


Guaranteed analysis is the same. I don't see a problem with this. I
don't care if my protein comes from beef, chicken, or whatever. If
the bag is pulled, it has to meet the guarateed analysis.


Sigh, another major flaw. A Guaranteed analysis is just about as
worthless as you can get. It guarantees ONLY the minimum or maximum of
4-5 nutrients. Thus a guarantee of 10% fat (min) could be 10% or it
could be 30%. Further there is NO guarantee that the analyticals are
in any way digestible. I could manufacture a guaranteed food meeting
all the normal ranges for protein, fat, fiber, ash and moisture out of
some old leather work boots, used engine oil, coal and some water. So
much for the value of guaranteed analysis.

(-L.) wrote in message om...
"Phil P." wrote in message ...

I don't have a problem with companies doing LESS animal
experimentation, especially when a food product has been on the market
for awhile.

Sigh, probably not, since you don't accept peer reviewed published
studies anyway I suppose. You would rather we knew nothing about the
medical and nutritional needs of cats so we could gleefully go about
experimenting on everybody's pets instead. Because without
experimentation you end up with unknown values in foods which are then
"tested" on your pets. A terrific example is taurine deficiency just
reported in the October 15th issue of JAVMA. Dogs which had eaten
either 3 Nutro products, 1 Sensible Choice or 1 Nature's Recipe
product (all lamb & rice products) were found with dilated
cardiomyopathy. Typically the diagnosis of DCM means the dog has abut
60 days to live.


Guaranteed analysis is the same. I don't see a problem with this. I
don't care if my protein comes from beef, chicken, or whatever. If
the bag is pulled, it has to meet the guarateed analysis.


Sigh, another major flaw. A Guaranteed analysis is just about as
worthless as you can get. It guarantees ONLY the minimum or maximum of
4-5 nutrients. Thus a guarantee of 10% fat (min) could be 10% or it
could be 30%. Further there is NO guarantee that the analyticals are
in any way digestible. I could manufacture a guaranteed food meeting
all the normal ranges for protein, fat, fiber, ash and moisture out of
some old leather work boots, used engine oil, coal and some water. So
much for the value of guaranteed analysis.