Allergies, Linear Granuloma, and Diet

This is where the big fault in our scientific method lies. We should
not understand the implications only to the field, but to the world.
Papers should be reviewed by professionals of different fields before
they are published.

Holy cow. You DO realize how utterly illogical this is, right?

Easy. You are taking my observation to an extreme. I did not say a
historian or an economist should review that study done by the civil
engineer, but someone who has deeper knowledge of soils. The logic
here would be for the paper to be reviewed by different professionals
of related fields to evaluate the implications of the study in their
fields. Besides, as you mentioned, people from unrelated fields
wouldn´t even understand the vocabulary.

Liz, I don't have a higher degree. In fact, it was the rigors of
academia that turned me off of continuing to pursue studies in my field,
which was not chemistry. I now work in the chemistry department of a
large research institution. And I look around and respect the immense
amount of work that the students are putting into their studies--even
the major slacker who nearly didn't get his degree is spending weeks
away from his newlywed wife in order to finish his experiments and write
his dissertation--and the amount of knowledge the professors have.

I respect that too but that does not keep me from being critical when
looking at their work. I am not taking away their merit, that was
never my point. My point all along has been to tell people to not
remain passive before an intimidating title.

Yeah, chemists are not humans, they are killing machines since
everything they have done to date is ultimately bad. But it always
takes a businessman to pull the trigger! I know that´s not what you
meant, but this is what I have learned.

...is patently ridiculous. Where on earth do you get off forming an
opinion like this? Do you even know what chemistry IS? How about
physicists, are they on your **** list too? And those
mathematicians--obviously the world is going to hell in a handbasket
thanks to the crap those *******s have foisted off on the world.
-Alison in OH

Oh dear, I don´t even know what to say. You took what I wrote too
literally. I don´t have a **** list of careers, I pointed out a
failure in the system. If that study on the toxicity of DDT on insects
had been reviewed by a physician before it was published, the
physician might have pointed out that DDT could be toxic to humans
too. If it had been reviewed by a biologist, the biologist might have
asked if this substance bioaccumulates and biomagnifies. Besides,
research in itself does not do any harm save in some rare occasions.
What does a lot of harm, and I thought I made that clear, is someone
who uses the knowledge produced by research innapropriately to make
money. Therefore, the chemists or researchers of any other area are
not devils. A gun will not hurt if the trigger isn´t pulled. I believe
a lot of countries in the world are very aware of this. Today, in many
countries Brazil included, for every factory you want to build and
every product you want to produce, you need to do an environmental
impact assessment and you only go on to building the factory and
producing that product if you get a greenlight from the local
environmental agency (at least here). Also here, when you do a
research project, you also need to include the social impact of your
project (what benefit will it bring to society?). If there´s no
benefit, there´s no money to finance your project.

This is where the big fault in our scientific method lies. We should
not understand the implications only to the field, but to the world.
Papers should be reviewed by professionals of different fields before
they are published.

Holy cow. You DO realize how utterly illogical this is, right?

Easy. You are taking my observation to an extreme. I did not say a
historian or an economist should review that study done by the civil
engineer, but someone who has deeper knowledge of soils. The logic
here would be for the paper to be reviewed by different professionals
of related fields to evaluate the implications of the study in their
fields. Besides, as you mentioned, people from unrelated fields
wouldn´t even understand the vocabulary.

Liz, I don't have a higher degree. In fact, it was the rigors of
academia that turned me off of continuing to pursue studies in my field,
which was not chemistry. I now work in the chemistry department of a
large research institution. And I look around and respect the immense
amount of work that the students are putting into their studies--even
the major slacker who nearly didn't get his degree is spending weeks
away from his newlywed wife in order to finish his experiments and write
his dissertation--and the amount of knowledge the professors have.

I respect that too but that does not keep me from being critical when
looking at their work. I am not taking away their merit, that was
never my point. My point all along has been to tell people to not
remain passive before an intimidating title.

Yeah, chemists are not humans, they are killing machines since
everything they have done to date is ultimately bad. But it always
takes a businessman to pull the trigger! I know that´s not what you
meant, but this is what I have learned.

...is patently ridiculous. Where on earth do you get off forming an
opinion like this? Do you even know what chemistry IS? How about
physicists, are they on your **** list too? And those
mathematicians--obviously the world is going to hell in a handbasket
thanks to the crap those *******s have foisted off on the world.
-Alison in OH

Oh dear, I don´t even know what to say. You took what I wrote too
literally. I don´t have a **** list of careers, I pointed out a
failure in the system. If that study on the toxicity of DDT on insects
had been reviewed by a physician before it was published, the
physician might have pointed out that DDT could be toxic to humans
too. If it had been reviewed by a biologist, the biologist might have
asked if this substance bioaccumulates and biomagnifies. Besides,
research in itself does not do any harm save in some rare occasions.
What does a lot of harm, and I thought I made that clear, is someone
who uses the knowledge produced by research innapropriately to make
money. Therefore, the chemists or researchers of any other area are
not devils. A gun will not hurt if the trigger isn´t pulled. I believe
a lot of countries in the world are very aware of this. Today, in many
countries Brazil included, for every factory you want to build and
every product you want to produce, you need to do an environmental
impact assessment and you only go on to building the factory and
producing that product if you get a greenlight from the local
environmental agency (at least here). Also here, when you do a
research project, you also need to include the social impact of your
project (what benefit will it bring to society?). If there´s no
benefit, there´s no money to finance your project.

This is where the big fault in our scientific method lies. We should
not understand the implications only to the field, but to the world.
Papers should be reviewed by professionals of different fields before
they are published.

Holy cow. You DO realize how utterly illogical this is, right?

Easy. You are taking my observation to an extreme. I did not say a
historian or an economist should review that study done by the civil
engineer, but someone who has deeper knowledge of soils. The logic
here would be for the paper to be reviewed by different professionals
of related fields to evaluate the implications of the study in their
fields. Besides, as you mentioned, people from unrelated fields
wouldn´t even understand the vocabulary.

Liz, I don't have a higher degree. In fact, it was the rigors of
academia that turned me off of continuing to pursue studies in my field,
which was not chemistry. I now work in the chemistry department of a
large research institution. And I look around and respect the immense
amount of work that the students are putting into their studies--even
the major slacker who nearly didn't get his degree is spending weeks
away from his newlywed wife in order to finish his experiments and write
his dissertation--and the amount of knowledge the professors have.

I respect that too but that does not keep me from being critical when
looking at their work. I am not taking away their merit, that was
never my point. My point all along has been to tell people to not
remain passive before an intimidating title.

Yeah, chemists are not humans, they are killing machines since
everything they have done to date is ultimately bad. But it always
takes a businessman to pull the trigger! I know that´s not what you
meant, but this is what I have learned.

...is patently ridiculous. Where on earth do you get off forming an
opinion like this? Do you even know what chemistry IS? How about
physicists, are they on your **** list too? And those
mathematicians--obviously the world is going to hell in a handbasket
thanks to the crap those *******s have foisted off on the world.
-Alison in OH

Oh dear, I don´t even know what to say. You took what I wrote too
literally. I don´t have a **** list of careers, I pointed out a
failure in the system. If that study on the toxicity of DDT on insects
had been reviewed by a physician before it was published, the
physician might have pointed out that DDT could be toxic to humans
too. If it had been reviewed by a biologist, the biologist might have
asked if this substance bioaccumulates and biomagnifies. Besides,
research in itself does not do any harm save in some rare occasions.
What does a lot of harm, and I thought I made that clear, is someone
who uses the knowledge produced by research innapropriately to make
money. Therefore, the chemists or researchers of any other area are
not devils. A gun will not hurt if the trigger isn´t pulled. I believe
a lot of countries in the world are very aware of this. Today, in many
countries Brazil included, for every factory you want to build and
every product you want to produce, you need to do an environmental
impact assessment and you only go on to building the factory and
producing that product if you get a greenlight from the local
environmental agency (at least here). Also here, when you do a
research project, you also need to include the social impact of your
project (what benefit will it bring to society?). If there´s no
benefit, there´s no money to finance your project.

She only reaps what she sows.

Oh, c'mon now. That's just plain vicious.


That's not vicious, that's my opinion and the opinion of others as expressed
here lately. You have a weird definition of the term, "vicious". I would
actually label some of the things she has said against Phil P as being
closer
to "vicious".


LOL. Oh, sure. Lauren was vicious to Phil P? Right. You must have missed a
lot
of flame wars in this ng.

I'm sure I've missed some of them and others have flamed me for expressing my
opinion. You claim to be impartial, but you stick up for Lauren. That isn't
the definition of impartiality.

Lauren hates Hill's and takes every opportunity to
bash away even if it means making things up.

I don't see evidence of a specific vendetta against Hills.

You've absolutely got to be kidding.

Vendetta: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts
or exchange of such acts.

You don't think that Lauren has a verbal vendetta going against Hill's?

Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and
her
vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet
concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems.

I don't ever remember Lauren saying that her vet thought that Science Diet was
the problem; rather, it was, "try taking the cat off of Science Diet and see
what happens." You may have read more into it than that, but I'm sure Lauren
would have made that point if it had happened that way.

It's natural that if a
person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the
food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication
because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon.

It's more that she never misses an opportunity to bash anything Hill's does and
when I directly asked her a couple of days ago if she had ANYTHING POSITIVE to
say about Hill's....she said "no". Not to mention the fact that she seems to
"remember" health problems (that she hadn't mentioned before) that she
attributes to Science Diet anytime someone else mentions a problem they are
running into. That's not curious enough for you?

Look, you can't claim to be "impartial" and then only see it Lauren's way.

Listen, I had a really bad experience with a particular cat food--after
shelling out $1100 to the vet and bringing my cat home after four days in the
hospital, do you suppose I would not have some hard feelings about that
particular food?

Which food was it? If you followed Lauren's example you would take every
available opportunity to bash that company; yet you don't.

She only reaps what she sows.

Oh, c'mon now. That's just plain vicious.


That's not vicious, that's my opinion and the opinion of others as expressed
here lately. You have a weird definition of the term, "vicious". I would
actually label some of the things she has said against Phil P as being
closer
to "vicious".


LOL. Oh, sure. Lauren was vicious to Phil P? Right. You must have missed a
lot
of flame wars in this ng.

I'm sure I've missed some of them and others have flamed me for expressing my
opinion. You claim to be impartial, but you stick up for Lauren. That isn't
the definition of impartiality.

Lauren hates Hill's and takes every opportunity to
bash away even if it means making things up.

I don't see evidence of a specific vendetta against Hills.

You've absolutely got to be kidding.

Vendetta: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts
or exchange of such acts.

You don't think that Lauren has a verbal vendetta going against Hill's?

Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and
her
vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet
concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems.

I don't ever remember Lauren saying that her vet thought that Science Diet was
the problem; rather, it was, "try taking the cat off of Science Diet and see
what happens." You may have read more into it than that, but I'm sure Lauren
would have made that point if it had happened that way.

It's natural that if a
person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the
food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication
because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon.

It's more that she never misses an opportunity to bash anything Hill's does and
when I directly asked her a couple of days ago if she had ANYTHING POSITIVE to
say about Hill's....she said "no". Not to mention the fact that she seems to
"remember" health problems (that she hadn't mentioned before) that she
attributes to Science Diet anytime someone else mentions a problem they are
running into. That's not curious enough for you?

Look, you can't claim to be "impartial" and then only see it Lauren's way.

Listen, I had a really bad experience with a particular cat food--after
shelling out $1100 to the vet and bringing my cat home after four days in the
hospital, do you suppose I would not have some hard feelings about that
particular food?

Which food was it? If you followed Lauren's example you would take every
available opportunity to bash that company; yet you don't.

She only reaps what she sows.

Oh, c'mon now. That's just plain vicious.


That's not vicious, that's my opinion and the opinion of others as expressed
here lately. You have a weird definition of the term, "vicious". I would
actually label some of the things she has said against Phil P as being
closer
to "vicious".


LOL. Oh, sure. Lauren was vicious to Phil P? Right. You must have missed a
lot
of flame wars in this ng.

I'm sure I've missed some of them and others have flamed me for expressing my
opinion. You claim to be impartial, but you stick up for Lauren. That isn't
the definition of impartiality.

Lauren hates Hill's and takes every opportunity to
bash away even if it means making things up.

I don't see evidence of a specific vendetta against Hills.

You've absolutely got to be kidding.

Vendetta: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts
or exchange of such acts.

You don't think that Lauren has a verbal vendetta going against Hill's?

Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and
her
vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet
concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems.

I don't ever remember Lauren saying that her vet thought that Science Diet was
the problem; rather, it was, "try taking the cat off of Science Diet and see
what happens." You may have read more into it than that, but I'm sure Lauren
would have made that point if it had happened that way.

It's natural that if a
person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the
food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication
because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon.

It's more that she never misses an opportunity to bash anything Hill's does and
when I directly asked her a couple of days ago if she had ANYTHING POSITIVE to
say about Hill's....she said "no". Not to mention the fact that she seems to
"remember" health problems (that she hadn't mentioned before) that she
attributes to Science Diet anytime someone else mentions a problem they are
running into. That's not curious enough for you?

Look, you can't claim to be "impartial" and then only see it Lauren's way.

Listen, I had a really bad experience with a particular cat food--after
shelling out $1100 to the vet and bringing my cat home after four days in the
hospital, do you suppose I would not have some hard feelings about that
particular food?

Which food was it? If you followed Lauren's example you would take every
available opportunity to bash that company; yet you don't.

In ,
Yngver composed with style:

Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on
it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health
improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to
the problems. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience
with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably.
Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because
she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon.

Same here. I don't want to keep baiting Gauby but I agree 100% with
Lauren. Go ahead and let them call me stupid for continuing to feed
one formula after another when one vet said ZD and the other said ID.
Another yet said, "no no no Sensitive stomach". Been there, done
that. So I bought a ton of each formula when it was recommended and I
still have most of it. My cat food cabinet is full of food I can't
feed anymore. The dry stuff was donated to a rescue group soon after
it was opened and I hope that it helped at least some cats but it did
nothing for Shadow.

In ,
Yngver composed with style:

Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on
it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health
improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to
the problems. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience
with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably.
Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because
she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon.

Same here. I don't want to keep baiting Gauby but I agree 100% with
Lauren. Go ahead and let them call me stupid for continuing to feed
one formula after another when one vet said ZD and the other said ID.
Another yet said, "no no no Sensitive stomach". Been there, done
that. So I bought a ton of each formula when it was recommended and I
still have most of it. My cat food cabinet is full of food I can't
feed anymore. The dry stuff was donated to a rescue group soon after
it was opened and I hope that it helped at least some cats but it did
nothing for Shadow.

In ,
Yngver composed with style:

Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on
it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health
improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to
the problems. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience
with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably.
Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because
she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon.

Same here. I don't want to keep baiting Gauby but I agree 100% with
Lauren. Go ahead and let them call me stupid for continuing to feed
one formula after another when one vet said ZD and the other said ID.
Another yet said, "no no no Sensitive stomach". Been there, done
that. So I bought a ton of each formula when it was recommended and I
still have most of it. My cat food cabinet is full of food I can't
feed anymore. The dry stuff was donated to a rescue group soon after
it was opened and I hope that it helped at least some cats but it did
nothing for Shadow.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...

As a fairly impartial
observer, in reading through Lauren's statements in this thread I don't
find
evidence of untruthfulness.

In this thread...? What about her conjured up, buit-to-suit stories for the
last year or so...? ....from "never" feeding SD ... to "once" ... to "the
only time"... to "a steady diet"... to "was raised on".... to "fed
mostly"....


From: Darnit7 )
Subject: Hills pet italia
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2001-02-24 18:14:03 PST
message

"I would never feed Hills to my pets"


From: PawsForThought )
Subject: IAMS is owned by Procter and Gamble
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2002-07-31 15:46:04 PST

"IMO Innova is a better choice than SD. SD uses too many chemicals in their
food for my liking. I tried it once with my last cat but she threw it up.

From: PawsForThought )
Subject: Dry vs. moist Science Diet cat food
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2002-08-25 14:01:11 PST

"The only time I ever fed my cats Science Diet, they threw up all over the
place and had diahrea.

From: PawsForThought )
Subject: big improvement in CRF cat
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2003-02-08 17:56:19 PST


"Secondly, my CRF cat was raised on a steady diet of 9 Lives and Science
Diet."

From: PawsForThought )
Subject: phosphorus content of Wellness

Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
Date: 2003-05-23 06:09:23 PST

"I don't remember what I fed two of my cats that died from CRF because it
was some time ago. But my last cat also died from CRF. I fed her mostly 9
Lives and Science Diet,

....from "never" ... to "once" ... to "the only time"... to "a steady
diet"... to "was raised on".... to "fed mostly".... Nope... No evidence of
untruthfulness there! ROTFL!

If I'm ever on trial, I'd sure want you on my jury! LOL!