|
Location: Fife, UK
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,695
|
29-11-2011, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by sandymere 
I do the love the idea of Holistic vets, especially when they promote raw feeding as a norm. Surely the whole idea of holism is that any intervention should be tailored to suit the individual? holistic basically means to treat a 'whole being'Now raw diets defiantly don’t suit a good number of dogs. and why not? and who is saying they should eat it if it truly "disagree's" with them?So it’s hardly holistic practice.erm, why not? How does someone know that a raw diet won't suit their dog if they don't try it? Who's to say the vet wont have another diet plan for the dog based on 'reactions'...? Why would someone go to a 'holistic vet' if they didn't care about a more natural, holistic approach? Then there is the concept that vets being professionals should be led by evidenced based practice,evidence being what they see with their own eyes in this instance what evidence are they basing their practice on? see last comment, plus common sense and research, education, sharing of resources...why don't you phone Nick Thompson and ask him? or any of the other Holistic Vets, I assume its vets like him you are talking about? I am sure he would be happy to explain why he is qualified to treat animals in a veterinary capacity and why he believes in a more natural approach at times Please ask your holistic vets what evidence they have and post it up for the world to see.Please ask for your own vet to post their un-biased, un-sponsored, independant research which proves that any other diet but raw is better As professionals they should understand the shortcomings of anecdotal evidence
which is?and so offer research to back their practice. (Anecdotal evidence can provide leads for research, but it is not reliable for establishing therapeutic utility, see link for further discussion of this topic.)and all research has to start somewhere http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/doyle.html
So in conclusion the pro raw give links to amusing videos, anecdotal evidence and web pages littered with self contradictions such as?and in a large part based on a misquote. who's mis-quote?
Hardly convincing to anyone with a critical mind
.Any critical mind does not simply take the lazy mans way out and take some companies word for it (a company that has millions£$£$£ to lose btw if we are not convinced) that their products are best, because after all they funded, sponsored, used client funding etc etc to have a bit of paper saying so, or, as you may have noticed, a vet on the books say so (hmm, seems you may have condradicted your self there )The Anti raw have research based papers Carried out and financed by whom?, referenced backed web sites written by respected members of the veterinary community as do "pro-raw"and a video made by a vet.as do "pro-raw"
Very telling
not really
Ps for those who are interested in critical thinking a couple of sites that might interest.
http://nightingale-collaboration.org/
http://www.badscience.net/forum/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/
http://skeptvet.com/Blog/
http://quackwatch.org/
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
29-11-2011, 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by Dobermann
Anyone else find it strange that a fairly new member joins and happens to not be a fan or natural feeding, yet seems to find themselves posting in exactly those types of threads?
|
|
|
Location: Scotland
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,600
|
|
|
Location: Surrey, UK
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 35
|
30-11-2011, 01:57 AM
I read your posts with great interest and am sad to see comments such as;
Not even going to waste my time on those links.
Perhaps you should? Enlighten yourself. Study real evidence based things. I'm sure evidence based training is ok. Do yourself a favour and read up on.
Posting links is NOT a problem. WHY the aggression?
These are valid links to evidenced based studies.
No links to evidence = none
This is a proper way to post on a good forum.
THANK YOU SANDYMERE
Regards,
Nicky
PS I rarely post, mostly read and learn,(But not from the [mod edit]and there are a few!)
|
|
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
30-11-2011, 10:20 AM
Originally Posted by nickynockynoono
Hi Sandymere, another Ben Goldacre/ Bad Science fan and all related sites I go to too.
I read your posts with great interest and am sad to see comments such as;
Not even going to waste my time on those links.
Perhaps you should? Enlighten yourself. Study real evidence based things. I'm sure evidence based training is ok. Do yourself a favour and read up on.
Posting links is NOT a problem. WHY the aggression?
These are valid links to evidenced based studies.
No links to evidence = none
This is a proper way to post on a good forum.
THANK YOU SANDYMERE
Regards,
Nicky
PS I rarely post, mostly read and learn, (But not from the [mod edit] and there are a few!
Not everyone has time to read dozens of links that are posted on a regular basis. Also, many of us have researched enough that we don't need to read articles/studies etc on raw feeding... most of which aren't that accurate. No one spends money on doing a 'proper' study on raw feeding... So what can be gained from the links? I don't even understand the relevance of most of the links, and lets face it, they are very long links... So, I have no need, or want, to read them.
My evidence for raw diets is MY DOG. He has been on a raw diet for nearly two years, and the difference in him is astonishing... So, I have strong feeling towards this type of feeding, and so don't always take it well when people repeatedly tell me it isn't a good way to feed... Maybe the raw feeders of the forum, should go to the diet and nutrition section which is primarily about commercial food, and start bashing kibbles etc... I am sure that wouldn't go down too well.
And what is aggressive about not reading links? Geez
My evidence...
BEFORE
AFTER
That is all the evidence I need...
|
|
|
Location: Nottingham, UK
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,540
|
30-11-2011, 10:58 AM
I've said it before too - our dogs are all the proof we need. It worked for Jake but it didn't work for VelvetBoxer's Boxers.. it's not always going to work but if it does then why shouldn't we feed it?
Louie did fine on his kibble then got squits - repeatedly - so much so that when Leanne saw a solid poo from Louie we celebrated it (
) because she'd never seen him solid. so raw has done that for him, it has also made him shinier (he was before but now he's proper shiny) his teeth are as white as his baby teeth were and I'm convinced its a great diet.. everyone can read and research but unless you try something you never know for sure... but people have the choice - they don't have to feed it. This is the Not feeding raw section and I'm sure us raw feeders respect your decision to feed alternatives but we feed what we feed and will sing it's praises and we don't bash kibbles or wet food (except me - can't stand wet food) but I don't care what others feed as long as it suits your dog.
|
|
|
|
Location: lancs uk
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 514
|
30-11-2011, 11:30 AM
There is no greater education than learning from personal experience.
If one wants advice one can ask on this site and get some useful information but that doesn't mean having persistent links and quotes off the internet rammed down ones throat.
|
|
|
Location: Somewhere
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 18,088
|
30-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Because I do.
I will feed my dog on what I consider best for her, and to those who object? Let me put it this way - I have the ability of expressing myself without having to use asterisked obscene expressions about other Dogsey members.
Especially from those who read but do not bother to post - unless, of course, it is to be insulting?
|
|
|
Location: Red Deer, AB, Canada
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,817
|
30-11-2011, 12:03 PM
I find it kinda funny, as I get told often (not by anyone on this forum, I have NEVER felt on this forum that people are pushing me to feed raw) that by using commercial foods, I am poisoning my dogs, that dogs weren't meant to eat that crap, and that it doesn't matter how good the food is, it's still poison... And now I'm hearing how raw feeders get told the same crap. Strong opinions on both sides, I guess."Feed as nature intended" is what I get most of, and the worst one I've heard yet "A GSD is a Corgi is a Wolf"
Those 2 quotes I got off an e-mail group for raw feeders, and that is what they believe. I joined the group in my never ending research into the best way to feed my dogs... They have thousands of members and over 50 e-mails a day... I read every e-mail for a couple of weeks, then left the list... They're so wrong!
For at least 20 000 years, dogs have eaten what people eat, what they scavenge, what they hunt, and what they dig out of the garbage pile... That's what nature intended, yet if we fed our dogs that way, we'd be charged with neglect!
I strive to give a mix and match variety to my dogs, to sort of mimic that variety that dogs evolved eating, I am not against raw, by any means, I dont want people thinking that, what I am against is wrong info and pseudo-science being given as fact! Lozzie's Jake and many, many others obviously thrive on raw, so it's best for them! Mine thrive on their mix and match, so it's best for them! That's all I'm saying. We all try to give our dogs what's best for them... why fight? I certainly dont feel that raw feeders are wrong, nor do I feel that high-end kibble feeders are wrong (I do, however, feel that anyone feeding Alpo or Kibbles'n'bits are horribly wrong)
|
|