New York Times Magazine

Re: New York Times Magazine

Christopher Saul — Sat, 18 May 2013 07:54:27 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]The completely obvious[/quote]

if it's so obvious you won't have any difficulty in performing some basic statistical analyses, like the one ones I have already suggested to you

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Sat, 18 May 2013 03:51:34 GMT

The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer.

Edward R. Murrow

Re: New York Times Magazine

Christopher Saul — Thu, 16 May 2013 18:24:01 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]The onus is on the junk pet-food producers to demonstrate suitability and safety of their product[/quote]

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"] I’m a whistleblower raising concerns about the widespread poisoning of pets via junk food diets. It’s for vet school researchers to do longevity and morbidity studies[/quote]

Bull****. I would say it is your responsibility to provide evidence. Whistleblowing without any evidence is bordering on libel

Re: New York Times Magazine

Bob Russell — Thu, 16 May 2013 09:59:34 GMT

Nothing that most of us don't already know. Periodontal disease has to be taken seriously.

Flossing (humans!) increases average lifespan.

The dental health of my average patient has improved dramatically in the last decade despite the majority of my patients being fed commercial diets. As far as I know nobody is questioning the importance of diet and dental health.

It is your paranoia with reference to the commercial pet food companies that switches vets off.

The majority vet stance IMO is against your crack-pot views not sensible dietary discussion.

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Thu, 16 May 2013 01:13:34 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]Dear lord... Any from THIS millenium? Or still just your book?[/quote]

Twenty two years ago Breck and I sounded the alarm concerning the devastating effects of diet and disease — in particular the periodontal disease/systemic disease nexus. RMB Newsletter 11:2 20th Anniversary

Potentially it gave the vet profession a head start and opportunity for groundbreaking research and clinical excellence. But you know the story — backroom deals, integrity for sale, that sort of thing — resulting in the prostitution of this once honourable profession.

The dental and medical professions not in thrall to the junk food poisoners been busy ever since. Here’s a small sample:

===========================================

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23455329

Periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis: the evidence accumulates for complex pathobiologic interactions.

Bingham CO 3rd, Moni M.

Source

Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Clifton.bingham@jhmi.edu

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:

This review was conducted to focus on the recent clinical and translational research related to the associations between periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS:

There is a growing interest in the associations between oral health and autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. A number of epidemiologic studies have described associations between rheumatoid arthritis and periodontal disease. Recent clinical studies continue to support these reports, and are increasingly linked with biological assessments to better understand the nature of these relationships. A number of recent studies have evaluated the periopathogenic roles of Porphyromonas gingivalis, the oral microbiome, and mechanisms of site-specific and substrate-specific citrullination. These are helping to further elucidate the interactions between these two inflammatory disease processes.

SUMMARY:

Studies of clinical oral health parameters, the gingival microenvironment, autoantibodies and biomarkers, and rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures are providing a better understanding of the potential mechanisms responsible for rheumatoid arthritis and periodontal disease associations. The cumulative results and ongoing studies have the promise to identify novel mechanisms and interventional strategies to improve patient outcomes for both conditions.

================================================

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23559105

Periodontal disease and diabetes mellitus.

Negrato CA, Tarzia O, Jovanoviä L, Chinellato LE.

Abstract

Periodontal disease (PD) is one of the most commonly known human chronic disorders. The relationship between PD and several systemic diseases such as diabetes mellitus (DM) has been increasingly recognized over the past decades. Objective The purpose of this review is to provide the reader with knowledge concerning the relationship between PD and DM. Many articles have been published in the English and Portuguese literature over the last 50 years examining the relationship between these two chronic diseases. Data interpretation is often confounded by varying definitions of DM, PD and different clinical criteria were applied to determine the prevalence, extent and severity of PD, levels of glycemic control and diabetes-related complications. Methods This paper provides a broad overview of the predominant findings from research conducted using the BBO (Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia), MEDLINE, LILACS and PubMed for Controlled Trials databases, in English and Portuguese languages published from 1960 to October 2012. Primary research reports on investigations of relationships between DM/DM control, PD/periodontal treatment and PD/DM/diabetes-related complications identified relevant papers and meta-analyses published in this period. Results 7This paper describes the relationship between PD and DM and answers the following questions: 1- The effect of DM on PD, 2- The effects of glycemic control on PD and 3- The effects of PD on glycemic control and on diabetes-related complications. Conclusions The scientific evidence reviewed supports diabetes having an adverse effect on periodontal health and PD having an adverse effect on glycemic control and on diabetes-related complications. Further research is needed to clarify these relationships and larger, prospective, controlled trials with ethnically diverse populations are warranted to establish that treating PD can positively influence glycemic control and possibly reduce the burden of diabetes-related complications.

======================================================

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22437687

Increased levels of Porphyromonas gingivalis are associated with ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebrovascular disease in humans: an in vivo study.

Ghizoni JS, Taveira LA, Garlet GP, Ghizoni MF, Pereira JR, Dionísio TJ, Brozoski DT, Santos CF, Sant'Ana AC.

Source

Discipline of Oral Pathology, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, SP, Brazil.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

This study investigated the role of periodontal disease in the development of stroke or cerebral infarction in patients by evaluating the clinical periodontal conditions and the subgingival levels of periodontopathogens.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Twenty patients with ischemic (I-CVA) or hemorrhagic (H-CVA) cerebrovascular episodes (test group) and 60 systemically healthy patients (control group) were evaluated for: probing depth, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing and plaque index. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were both identified and quantified in subgingival plaque samples by conventional and real-time PCR, respectively.

RESULTS:

The test group showed a significant increase in each of the following parameters: pocket depth, clinical attachment loss, bleeding on probing, plaque index and number of missing teeth when compared to control values (p<0.05, unpaired t-test). Likewise, the test group had increased numbers of sites that were contaminated with P. gingivalis (60%x10%; p<0.001; chi-squared test) and displayed greater prevalence of periodontal disease, with an odds ratio of 48.06 (95% CI: 5.96-387.72; p<0.001). Notably, a positive correlation between probing depth and the levels of P. gingivalis in ischemic stroke was found (r=0.60; p=0.03; Spearman's rank correlation coefficient test). A. actinomycetemcomitans DNA was not detected in any of the groups by conventional or real-time PCR.

CONCLUSIONS:

Stroke patients had deeper pockets, more severe attachment loss, increased bleeding on probing, increased plaque indexes, and in their pockets harbored increased levels of P. gingivalis. These findings suggest that periodontal disease is a risk factor for the development of cerebral hemorrhage or infarction. Early treatment of periodontitis may counteract the development of cerebrovascular episodes.

=====================================

Thanks for reading this far. Did you notice that last sentence? 'Early treatment of periodontitis may counteract the development of cerebrovascular episodes.' Imagine what early prevention might do by, for instance, feeding pet carnivores their natural diet from three weeks of age. Let's face it, there's a mountain of information that renders the current majority vet stance completely untenable, hence my 2013 RCVS manifesto asking for this matter to be litigated at the earliest.

All the best,

Tom

Re: New York Times Magazine

Anthony Dennison — Wed, 15 May 2013 13:01:49 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]Mind you, I’ve done some number crunching in the past and will likely do some more in the future. Primarily, though, I’m a whistleblower raising concerns about the widespread poisoning of pets via junk food diets[/quote]

For some reason this sentence reminded me of the prohpets scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian.

Despite repeated, well intentioned questioning you continue to sit on your pedestal and rant about things, waving a (raw meaty) bone about saying everyone else is mad, not you.

As I have said previously, to save yourself time from your busy schedule of blowing that whistle (I bet the pea in it will be well worn out by now) maybe you should just have a few of your previous answers copied and pasted ready to put down, as you pretty much say the same thing over and over, with or without an advert for your book.

Re: New York Times Magazine

Christopher Saul — Tue, 14 May 2013 13:18:17 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]the sorts of studies that you suggest I should finance and carry out[/quote]

No Tom I am not suggesting a prospective study! I am just suggesting an observational case control study! Cost of the study = £0 + your time. You feed lots of patients RMB, so you already have the data on life expectancy, prevalence of various diseases etc of RMB fed dogs, or had it not occurred to you to keep data?

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:42:40 GMT

[quote user="Christopher Saul"]

So, how about another stab at this question ( which you ignored last time)

[quote user="Christopher Saul"]

If you really do believe in your diet why not undertake some scientific study and publish some hard data in a scientific fashion? You must have quite a large amount of data by now; why not do some analysis of longevity and morbidity etc in a population of RMB fed dogs and compare it with a control population of age and breed matched dogs fed a more conventional diet?[/quote]

I look forward to your answer

Chris[/quote]

Hi Christopher,

‘Fraid this question is upside down backwards way about. The onus is on the junk pet-food producers to demonstrate suitability and safety of their product (ie. lack of morbidity and same or increased longevity) as compared with the natural standard. (They never have and never can.)

Nevertheless in this topsy turvey world of veterinary endorsement of junk food without the said (impossible to obtain) validation data, I’m prepared to treat your question as if it were right way up.

Dreary number crunching, whilst adding to the store of knowledge, is not the only way to conduct science. Proposing bold new hypotheses with greater predictive and explanatory powers (I place Cybernetics in this category) or conducting ecological observations and research come higher in my list of scientific activities.

See this Mars junk-food funded research into wolf diets (and therefore modified wolf diets) as an example of an ecological approach. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/7/1923S.full

Mind you, I’ve done some number crunching in the past and will likely do some more in the future. Primarily, though, I’m a whistleblower raising concerns about the widespread poisoning of pets via junk food diets. It’s for vet school researchers to do longevity and morbidity studies using cheap PhD student labour over several years. In fact when the revolution comes there will be zillions of PhD’s on offer re-examining the studies of the current era.

You can be confident that the cashed up junk food makers have conducted the sorts of studies that you suggest I should finance and carry out. No chance of seeing the companies’ results though! Just in the same way you’ll never see (leastways in the foreseeable future) the results of comparison of diet and oral health in beagle dogs.

Have a look at the credentials of Professor Colin Harvey, one of only two vet periodontists in the world. http://www.vet.upenn.edu/RyanHospital/SpecialtyCareServices/DentistryOralSurgery/FacultyStaff/tabid/809/Default.aspx

In 1994 Colin had a nifty idea to do a relatively inexpensive ($150,000 per year) study comparing oral health effects on dogs fed either a) dry b) canned or c) ‘natural’ diet.

In the US, you may be aware, they have large colonies of beagles bred specifically for the research market. The dogs need to be fed anyway, so the idea was to randomise some pens of dogs and feed em different from the standard Science Diet consumed by the rest of the colony. I know this because I was consulted about the appropriate diet in category c). I also have a copy of Colin Harvey’s four page research proposal/study design.

Colin did not tell me in precise details who heavied him and what were the threats levelled, but I got the clear impression his job was on the line if he dared to progress the investigation.

If and supposing he’d been courageous enough to stare down Hill’s and the UPenn administrators and incurred the wrath of his peers and carried out the easy to perform study, he’d then have had the problem of finding a journal to publish the work. And as we’ve seen endlessly on this forum, it’s near impossible to get vets to consider the diabolical mess the profession is in — so it wouldn’t matter how erudite, incisive and useful any published information, it would still fall on deaf ears.

Also, please keep in mind, that since 1994 not only have a couple of generations of vets been deprived of Professor Harvey’s longitudinal study on the effects of junk food on dental health, but at the same time those many thousands of vets have been fed a diet of bogus information on the supposed benefits of various milk and rice chews and so-called dental diets.

It’s a two pronged attack: intimidate professors of veterinary dentistry and dupe a population of vets who in turn dupe a global population of pet owners. Don’t think about the pets: think about the money!

All the best,

Tom

Re: New York Times Magazine

James Laidlaw — Mon, 13 May 2013 12:20:38 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]

[quote user="Christopher Saul"]

It seems sensible to me that the lack of texture of homogenous commercial diets is in no small part responsible for the pandemic of peridontal disease we see nowadays. I am also painfully aware of the conflict of interests that arises from the fact that many studies supporting various diets were funded by food manufacturers. In short, I was open to persuasion. I tried to listen to you.

However you consistently disappoint.[/quote]

Hi Christopher,

Seems there may be a reprieve and due to the demand for EXISTING**** peer reviewed information shedding light on the pandemic of perio I offer the following for your delectation.

(Oh, but before going further, I must share my excitement with you. I’ve mislaid my copy of Periodontitits in Man and Other Animals: A Comparative Review. Fortunately Amazon still has copies and one is now winging its way. Brilliant.)

Frank Colyer is one of my heroes. If only he were alive today we could have some wonderful chats:

Dental Disease in Animals
Colyer F
British Dental Journal
Vol LXXXII No 2 January 17 1947

Here’s an old paper making a very simple point.

Control of Dental Calculus in Experimental Beagles
Brown M & Park J
Laboratory Animal Care
Vol 18, No 5. 1968

When the Australian Vet Association grudgingly undertook to review the literature on diet and disease they truncated the review and restricted it to a look at the Diet, Periodontal disease connection. The specially commissioned review conducted by Professor David Watson of Sydney University cost $7000. He was ‘aided’ by junk pet food sympathisers and remained in contact with Professor Colin Harvey at UPenn. (More on Colin Harvey later.) Here’s the paper after undergoing the peer review process:

Diet and periodontal disease in dogs and cats
Watson ADJ
Australian Veterinary Journal (1994) 71:10 313-318

Here’s the draft provided to me by the AVA.

Diet and disease in companion animals
ADJ Watson, Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, The University of Sydney
Review prepared for the Australian Veterinary Association, January 1994

You’ll likely note the extensive list of references.

The two with my name attached are: Preventative Dentistry in Veterinary Dentistry
Proceedings 212 14 - 17 June 1993 Post Graduate Committee in Veterinary Science
University of Sydney

And

Periodontal disease and leucopenia - Journal of Small Animal Practice (1995) 36, 542-546.

So Chris, as you can see for quite a while now ‘experts’ have been saying the same as you: ‘lack of texture of homogenous commercial diets is in no small part responsible for the pandemic of periodontal disease we see nowadays.’

All the best,

Tom

****Please note that this list is neither wide reaching in its scope nor comprehensive in a narrow focus. It does however provide an introduction.

[/quote]

Dear lord... Any from THIS millenium? Or still just your book?

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Mon, 13 May 2013 11:46:18 GMT

[quote user="Christopher Saul"]

However you consistently disappoint.[/quote]

Hi Christopher,

Seems there may be a reprieve and due to the demand for EXISTING**** peer reviewed information shedding light on the pandemic of perio I offer the following for your delectation.

Frank Colyer is one of my heroes. If only he were alive today we could have some wonderful chats:

Dental Disease in Animals
Colyer F
British Dental Journal
Vol LXXXII No 2 January 17 1947

Here’s an old paper making a very simple point.

Control of Dental Calculus in Experimental Beagles
Brown M & Park J
Laboratory Animal Care
Vol 18, No 5. 1968

Diet and periodontal disease in dogs and cats
Watson ADJ
Australian Veterinary Journal (1994) 71:10 313-318

Here’s the draft provided to me by the AVA.

Diet and disease in companion animals
ADJ Watson, Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, The University of Sydney
Review prepared for the Australian Veterinary Association, January 1994

You’ll likely note the extensive list of references.

The two with my name attached are: Preventative Dentistry in Veterinary Dentistry
Proceedings 212 14 - 17 June 1993 Post Graduate Committee in Veterinary Science
University of Sydney

And

Periodontal disease and leucopenia - Journal of Small Animal Practice (1995) 36, 542-546.

All the best,

Tom

****Please note that this list is neither wide reaching in its scope nor comprehensive in a narrow focus. It does however provide an introduction.

Re: New York Times Magazine

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 13 May 2013 10:20:36 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]Sorry Chris, it seems that expert on all things veterinary and media tycoon Professor Lord Guthrie does not agree. I was getting round to answering your question but seems that cannot now happen unless in some dark space called 101.[/quote]

If you'll excuse the expression, you're so full of shit, Tom.

What I said was:

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]When you have some evidence, and I mean evidence in the accepted sense (not just opinion and conjecture), PLEASE come and post again.[/quote]

I welcomed any evidence you would like to post. But that is something you have been unable to provide in over 3 years now.

Re: New York Times Magazine

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 13 May 2013 10:13:31 GMT

www.youtube.com/watch

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"

Re: New York Times Magazine

Bob Russell — Mon, 13 May 2013 09:55:42 GMT

If you answer the questions I am sure it will not need to go in to Room 101.

With due respect rather than explain why you cannot answer the specific question may I suggest you just answer it?

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Mon, 13 May 2013 09:40:27 GMT

[quote user="Christopher Saul"]It seems sensible to me that the lack of texture of homogenous commercial diets is in no small part responsible for the pandemic of peridontal disease we see nowadays. I am also painfully aware of the conflict of interests that arises from the fact that many studies supporting various diets were funded by food manufacturers.[/quote]

Sorry Chris, it seems that expert on all things veterinary and media tycoon Professor Lord Guthrie does not agree. I was getting round to answering your question but seems that cannot now happen unless in some dark space called 101.

So much for intellectual honesty.

All the best,

Tom

Re: New York Times Magazine

Bob Russell — Mon, 13 May 2013 09:25:11 GMT

So the answer was Mr Lonsdale could not find peer-reviewed or even scientific articles over the weekend!

Re: New York Times Magazine

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 13 May 2013 08:49:29 GMT

Time for room 101 again.

Nothing has changed since Tom first started preaching on this site. The same old rhetoric. The same old conspiracy theories. And like all the very best conspiracy theories, this one has at its heart a kernel of something that sounds believable: the idea that 'natural' is best.

Actually, beguiling as that concept is, it is both oversimplistic and unproven when it comes to the food we feed our dogs.

Firstly, there are a range of commercial diets on the market today, of varying different quality. Some, it could be argued, are probably an improvement on nature. And the others, well, there is no evidence that they cause disease (indeed, with animals leading longer and healthier lives, the evidence weighs against that theory).

Secondly, what proponents of RMB prefer to ignore is that even if commercial diets caused mild disease (or more likely, don't help stave it off), RMB is simply not an option that would fit in with the lives of modern pet owners, who want convenience, value and cleanliness.

Tom, there really is very little difference between the quality of your discussion / evidence and that put forward by homeopaths and other practitioners of alternative medicine.

'Faith' has no place in medicine. I expect my doctor and my vet to treat me or my dog based on evidence.

When you have some evidence, and I mean evidence in the accepted sense (not just opinion and conjecture), PLEASE come and post again.

In the meantime I will move this post into room 101 this afternoon, where anyone who wants to continue this discussion is welcome.

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Mon, 13 May 2013 08:24:35 GMT

At 09:39 AM 6/05/2013, Cath Freemantle wrote:

Dear Tom,

I just wanted to write and thank you.

I came to your site via a slightly convoluted path - I was googling an answer to why our fur kids (Kato our 14 year old Staffy /Greyhound X; Spock 18 month old DSH, Missy 5 month old Brittish Shorthair X, Cleo 4 month old DSH) produce so much smelly poo! It didn't seem possible on the quantities of food they eat, and whilst I don’t expect it to smell of roses, the odour was worrying me. Having struggled with weight issues and poor health myself, i found that when i switched to a more 'natural' human diet, shunning processed foods and eating foods much closer to their natural state, my own stools became much less smelly, and I can tell when our boys (5 & 7) have been 'indulged' with rubbish when visiting the grandparents because they usually have much smellier bowel movements, often more frequently and complain of tummy gripes. I wondered if our pet’s food wasn’t the culprit. I stumbled across a US raw meaty bones site, searched for info closer to home and here I am!

The book just makes so much sense and confirmed that we made the right decision when we switched all our pets to a raw food diet a week ago - there was no difficulty, no food refusal and in just this short time they all seem more, I don't know, more settled? Certainly happier, and for the cats particularly, it's been as though a door to a different part of their being has been opened — they leap on the food with gusto, you can hear them munching and crunching and it just seems so right (geez, I sound like a new age hippy!)

We've only started with chicken necks, wings and some diced lamb for the cats, but I am really looking forward to adding whole prey foods — my parents in law are on a farm, and hunters regularly visit the property — I'm sure they would share their spoils, so we should have access to fresh rabbit and quail. We would gut the rabbit, but do we need to take the entrails from the quail, or can they have the whole thing?

I'm surprised at how well our two sons, Cameron and Jack, have adapted - both LOVE learning about animals and my Cameron (7) is a huge David Attenborough fan - give him the option of putting a DVD on and he'll choose the Life series over cartoon characters every time. He said the most sensible thing when I was explaining to them that we were going to switch the pets diets to raw meat and that this would mean being extra careful to stay away from them when they are eating (they are already very animal savvy) and that some parts or whole animals might look a bit yuck - "well, it's just natural for them to eat prey mummy - cats are predators and dogs are carn-il-vores".... smart kid! :)

Enough rambling - again, I just wanted to say thank you. It makes such sense, and I am thoroughly looking forward to happier, healthier fur kids.

Warm regards,

Cath Freemantle

=====================================================

On 07/05/2013, at 4:55 PM, Tom Lonsdale wrote:

Hi Cath,

Thanks for kind message and glad things go well.

Best where ever you can to feed whole carcasses complete with fur, fins, feathers and guts. (Some provisos apply if in a Hydatid area and you're feeding sheep, goats and roos. Both Work Wonders and Raw Meaty Bones contain passages on the possible risks associated with feeding a natural diet.)

Would you mind if I share your email with a group of vets in the UK, some of whom are charged with regulating the 24,000 vets and the seven vet schools in the UK? They seem to think that it's just fine for the vet schools to indoctrinate the vet students with processed pet food dogma. They refuse to acknowledge the cruelty inflicted on pets and the financial burden and emotional stress imposed on pet owners as a result of the junk pet-food scourge.

Seems to me that your Cameron may be able to help the vets gain a different perspective. (Of course I perfectly understand if you prefer not.)

Wishing you all much (more) fun as you experience the joys of feeding as nature intended.

Cheers,

Tom

=================================================================

At 08:27 PM 7/05/2013, Cath Freemantle wrote:

Hi Tom,

Whole carcass suits me - less fiddling around! I'll hunt up the passages in Raw Meaty Bones on the possible risks. Hubby was a fourth gen farmer (until I dragged him back to Melbourne) and I've heard him mention that they were careful feeding the working dogs roo - something about worms and cysts.

Please feel free to share my email and Cameron's very sensible point of view - to him it was just so obvious! I hope you find a way to break through.

I note that when we adopted our two kittens at the RSPCA here in Melbourne we were heavily encouraged to purchase Hill’s Science Diet. In hindsight, I'm quite surprised — I would have thought a pro animal organisation to be amongst the first to embrace a natural diet... but then, I shouldn't be so naive — I can imagine there are plenty of politics involved.

Thank you for taking the time to reply — much appreciated :)

Warm regards,

Cath

=====================================================================

On 09/05/2013, at 7:23 AM, Tom Lonsdale wrote:

Hi Cath,

Thanks for permission. Thanks again to Cameron for comments based on the obvious. He has seen and heard his pets eating as nature intended.

Unfortunately most vets never have and never will if the vet schools, fake animal welfare organisations and the junk pet food industry get their way.

The RSPCA collusion with Hill's (Colgate Palmolive) gets an airing in Raw Meaty Bones Chapter 12.

Here's the Wall Street Journal's expose on Hill's manipulation of the vets http://www.twodogbarkery.com/articles/designer_chow.html

The New York Times article shows vets doing the bidding of their pet food paymasters http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/magazine/02pet-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Small wonder most pets' excrement stinks and their bowels, livers, kidneys, hearts and immune systems are stretched to the limit.

All the best,

Tom

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Mon, 13 May 2013 08:17:30 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]

I work in industry and it's not right that this comment is associated with my company...delete if you think anonymity is not warranted but...

Tom - since you have spent your career on RMB - why do you need to "hopefully" "dig out" articles. Surely if peer-reviewed articles that supported your views existed, you would be well aware of them. not have to dig them out? In fact, if someone had written a book reviewing a subject and wasn't aware of any evidence on the area...well...I wouldn't bother reading the book![/quote]

Hi An,

Sorry you're unable to speak openly about matters of great moral, ethical and legal importance. I'm intrigued to know what sort of 'industry' you work in that requires anonymity.

Regarding this clamour for peer reviewed papers, let's be clear: It's unwise to create artificial obstacles over something that turns on a definition.

Water is wet, birds fly in the air, carnivores eat other animals. I hope you understand it's a matter of definition not requiring anything other than a seven year old's grasp of English. Peer reviews won't tell you any more than you already know.

For the limited purposes of this current discussion it's a simple matter of either junk food is harmful or it's not; it's a matter of whether the natural standard is harmful or it's not. Every day, this past 20 plus years, I deal with the simple binary proposition: yes or no. Stop the junk food, start the animals on the natural standard and watch them glow with health. It's the same whether the animals belong to clients or to correspondents on the internet, none of whom, none of whom demand 'peer reviewed studies'.

Ever wonder why eminent vets with reputations to protect — Oliver Graham-Jones, Tom Hungerford, Doug Bryden, Richard Malik — never demand peer reviewed studies? Perhaps central to their acceptance, and despite they are very busy people, they actually read Raw Meaty Bones complete with all its references. Ever wonder why thousands, perhaps millions of pet owners feed raw meaty bones? They don't allow pathological scepticism to cloud their judgement; they simply go ahead and switch the diet from junk to natural and NEVER go back.

Ever wonder why this site is crawling alive with vet naysayers without a theoretical or practical clue as to how best to feed carnivores? Ever wonder why the junk pet food makers and their lackeys in the universities and their lackeys in the RCVS don't ever raise their heads to defend their activities? Why is it that rank and file vets rush into the breach in defence of the indefensible, in denial of the undeniable?

For sure 'peer reviews' can be of value. Conway and Horrobin acknowledge that.

Doubtless, however, there were zillions of peer reviews of the Flat Earth Theory — every one on message and every one wrong.

Buggy whip makers doubtless referred to their peer reviewed journals when fashioning state of the art whips to make horses gallop faster. But all the buggy whip literature laid end to end not much use when trying to work out how to make an express train go faster.

Put another way: 'We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.' Albert Einstein

Peer reviewed bogus veterinary product development and marketing founded on fallacy, living a lie ain't about to suddenly help us go back to the basic natural standard.

Here's a bit of free advice for you: Let go of your prejudices, chuck out your vet school invetrination and start again. There's an article here from the first edition of the Rawinstincts Magazine that may help: Feeding A Raw Diet For The First Time

Then, go on, force yourself. Read Raw Meaty Bones from cover to cover and note all the peer reviewed information. Note how sometimes it's used in support of the new way of thinking. See how sometimes old information needs to be reinterpreted in a clearer light. Try to keep an open mind and maybe stuff will start to register. It's only 22 years since the whistle was blown; time methinks for folks to get serious.

================================

Typically I get a regular mailbox of happy pet owners recounting their joy at finding a way to healthier, happier, longer lived pets. I'll post a recent exchange in case it helps with your understanding.

All the best,

Tom

Re: New York Times Magazine

Christopher Saul — Sat, 11 May 2013 22:07:01 GMT

Tom,

Do you know what the worst of it is? I was - am- perfectly open to listen to [some of] your ideas. It seems sensible to me that the lack of texture of homogenous commercial diets is in no small part responsible for the pandemic of peridontal disease we see nowadays. I am also painfully aware of the conflict of interests that arises from the fact that many studies supporting various diets were funded by food manufacturers. In short, I was open to persuasion. I tried to listen to you.

However you consistently disappoint. You have repeatedly been asked by several people perfectly sensible questions on this forum ( a couple of times by me), yet you consistently fail to answer any of them. You either ignore questions or reply by saying in effect that we are brainwashed.The whole basis of your strategy seems to be to discredit your oponents, rather than to persuade people to your point of view.

In the words of Oliver Graham Jones FRCVS, whom you like to quote...

" it was Tom Lonsdale — slammed down the desk top and said in a shattering bold voice of scepticism: ‘I don’t believe a word of this.’ In the ensuing shocked silence of the other 65 students I asked him: ‘Why?’ He then parried by declaring that I had no proof of the veracity of what I was saying, nor of the references.'

Where is the proof of the veracity of what YOU are saying? Why should we ignore the works of others and buy everything you have to say?

So, how about another stab at this question ( which you ignored last time)

[quote user="Christopher Saul"]

I look forward to your answer

Chris

Re: New York Times Magazine

Christopher Saul — Sat, 11 May 2013 21:19:50 GMT

[quote user="Elisabeth Knappett"]Do you have any . . . articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that support your theories on diet in small animals? [/quote]

That's a 'no' then

Re: New York Times Magazine

An On MRCVS — Sat, 11 May 2013 21:17:03 GMT

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]

[quote user="Elisabeth Knappett"]any articles from peer reviewed scientific journals[/quote]

Hi Elisabeth,

Hopefully at the weekend shall dig out some peer reviewed articles supporting my position on diet and disease.

[/quote]

I work in industry and it's not right that this comment is associated with my company...delete if you think anonymity is not warranted but...

Re: New York Times Magazine

Tom Lonsdale — Sat, 11 May 2013 13:56:26 GMT

[quote user="Elisabeth Knappett"]Do you have any . . . articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that support your theories on diet in small animals? [/quote]

Hi again Elisabeth,

I rather wonder what you know about ‘my theories’ on diet, disease and a better set of scientific paradigms. Have you read Raw Meaty Bones five times and the supporting texts too? http://www.rawmeatybones.com/alisontyler.php

Did you notice the references at the end of each chapter oftentimes derived from so-called peer reviewed journals and veterinary textbooks?

Since Raw Meaty Bones is a carefully considered 389 page distillation of peer reviewed information, itself supported by top class signed peer reviews, I think we should start with a link to that.www.vetsurgeon.org/.../0508.Raw-Meaty-Bones_2D00_Rivetco.pdf

If you’ve had anything to do with the sly, anonymous back-stabbing journal peer review system you’ll know that Ashley Conway and David Horrobin’s scorn is well targeted. (Although doubtless Dr Frankenstein featured in the NYT Magazine expects his production-line Royal Canin, Iams, Hill’s manuscripts to be published as a routine formality -- after all his peers control the mags.)

However, where eminent members of the vet establishment, in public, bestow lavish praise on alternative theories of health and disease that question the very fundamentals of the dominant junk pet-food based paradigm then you know this is peer review of the highest order.

The late great Oliver Graham-Jones FRCVS, lecturer in small animal medicine at the RVC had this to say: www.vetsurgeon.org/.../1184.RawMeatyBones_2D00_foreword.pdf

The late great Tom Hungerford OBE , grandfather of the Australian veterinary profession had this to say: ;[quote]Dear Tom,

Thanks for the book - BRAVO

Tell the people who won't review their views that: 'The foolish and the dead never change their opinions.' Maybe that is an overstatement - as the 'brain-dead' may also refuse to revise.

Anyhow there are many who adopt the stance of: 'Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.'

Congratulations on the book.

Tom Hungerford
3 October 2001[/quote]

The renowned Douglas Bryden AM had this to say:Dr Douglas Bryden AM — August 2001

Richard Malik, in 2004 undertook to write a review of Raw Meaty Bones but then changed his mind. Noting the importance of the work he nominated it for a glittering prize. Nomination

Elisabeth, according to the RCVS register you qualified in 2006, several years after the above information was very publicly available. It’s not too late to find out more. And once you do, I hope you’ll begin to question why the Cambridge vet school chose to keep you and your peers in the dark on fundamental aspects of animal health and research.

Have fun, best wishes,

Tom

Re: New York Times Magazine

Christopher Saul — Fri, 10 May 2013 20:05:45 GMT

Tom....

[quote user="Tom Lonsdale"]how useless peer review mostly is.[/quote]

Peer review is not perfect, or even close to perfect, most academics will agree. However it far far better than the alternative, which is nothing at all of course. Without it, how can any research ever be subject to scrutiny? Without it all that would matter would be the personal opinions of the editors of popular press.

Democracy is not perfect, but would you rather live in, say, a communist state such as North Korea?

Just because peer review is not perfect does not justify your position which seems to be that the whole scientific establishment is corrupt and we should all bow down and ignore all hard earned knowledge just because you feel that the cure to all the animal world's ailments is RMB.

Chris

Re: New York Times Magazine

Bob Russell — Fri, 10 May 2013 13:46:07 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"]

But the first two articles are talking about research funding, not the actual quality of the research itself and the third article is over 20 years old discussing individual shortcomings of certain papers. The point of peer review is that the data is made available and the reader can make their own assessment, The data should be reproducible and stand up to reasonable scrutiny. taking the final article as an example, if one car is a bad design, then the whole car industry is wrong. Plainly nonsense, Lets see some scientifically reproducible facts on your diet.

Ian

[/quote]

Over and over again this is requested and the response is to quote his own 'newsletters'. I look forward to seeing the scientific data that Mr Lonsdale is going to look out this weekend.

The biggest thing lacking in the Lonsdale 'argument' is data, reproducible or not. It is a personal opinion, nothing more.

I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong!

Re: New York Times Magazine

Ian Mostyn — Fri, 10 May 2013 11:55:38 GMT

Ian