Kacie,
So at what point do these up and comers decide to become prostate before the mammom god of Science Diet or Purina?

Randy

 Quote: randy allen

Kacie,
So at what point do these up and comers decide to become prostate before the mammom god of Science Diet or Purina?

Randy

Or even "prostrate" ! lol


I am guessing that the classes on "nutrition" that are paid for by Hills-SD help..... and maybe the explanations about how much of a cut they get of the waiting-room sales.......

 Quote: randy allen

Kacie,
So at what point do these up and comers decide to become prostate before the mammom god of Science Diet or Purina?

Randy

As someone who has been very close friends with someone before, during and after vet school I think I can answer this to a certain extent. It's simple really...Hill's gets them from all sides. Not only do they give them free food, gifts and shin-digs, vets are only ever confronted with SCIENTIFIC STUDIES (insert thunderclap here)! If it isn't "scientifically proven" they're trained not to consider it. And let's face it...vet school is just that: training, not free-thinking or debate. It's vet boot camp.

Also, as has been mentioned a lot--they get almost no nutritional classes. My friend went to Tuft's which is argued to be one of, if not THE the best vet school in the country and he got ONE class in nutrition. ONE class that didn't even last a semester AND it was an elective. Why would they need to learn about nutrition if they already have all of these SCIENTIFIC STUDIES (thunderclap inserted again)?

Let's face it...there will never be a scientific study on domesticated dogs on a raw diet. Why? Because no one stands to profit from it.

In order to make a study scientifically viable it would have to involve many, many dogs throughout their entire lifetime...feeding them a mostly or all meat diet, which let's face it can be expensive: Hundreds of dogs for years and years.

The only way anyone would ever do that study is if they could recoup the losses through the profit from selling a product. And who would stand to profit from such a study (besides all the dogs of the world, I mean)? Not even the meat industry because there are so many different kinds of meat involved--no one company would get the windfall.

Also, it would be hard to have a "control" in that study because of all the variables and differences in a raw diet.

There have been studies on WOLVES on raw diets though, funded by zoos, because the point of the studies is to keep them healthy NOT to make a profit on what they're feeding them. And they don't feed them kibble in zoos. At least not at good zoos.

But despite all of that, Kacie's right. There is a change coming. There already has been a change. I run into people all the time that are feeding raw diets and that wasn't true 10 years ago. This trend is evidenced by companies like Bravo and Steve's who have caught on to this.

People in general are interested in getting away from overly-processed food: How many organic sections were there in major grocery stores 15 years ago? Not many. And as people start becoming more interested in eating "naturally" then they turn and apply those priciples to their animals as well.

And as more people feed raw diets, more vets will be forced into seeing the benefits of it. My friend has had the dubious "luxury" of having me force-feeding him raw feeding information. We've had some lively debates--a lot of them, actually. But no matter what I've said--the proof is in my dogs. My GSD shines like an oil slick and my Corgi has had OUTRAGEOUS improvement in the symptoms of his autoimmune disorder since he's been put on raw. His face was quite literally falling off and nothing was helping. Raw diet and presto-chango, he's healthy, active and he grew his face back. He's had one relapse and it's been very mild and short-lived. So, my friend has seen it with his own eyes. Now, not only does he approve of raw feeding, he does it with his own dog now. One small victory that will spill over into other vets he talks to and certainly he will be yet another in a growing list of vets that will encourage the raw diet.

And at Tuft's, they do have representatives from Wellness and Innova there. These companies just cannot afford to woo the new vets like the bigger companies can. And you'll never see a representitive from the meat industry walking in there handing out cows or chickens for free!

So, while I agree that it's frustrating as hell that all vets don't "get it," I really do think the tide is turning. Remember how doctors used to tell people that bottle feeding babies was better than natural mother's milk? Now they've realized they're wrong. It took years for them to figure that out and that was with people! We'll get there. I really do have an optimistic outlook on this.

Thanks for the spell check Connie! I really do need help from somebody for proof reading. I'm blind to doing it myself.
So I am to gather that the criteria for the education of DVM's are incredibility lax or in the end the graduated DVM's are so graven as to sacrifice their patients to the persuit of money.
Do I have this right so far?


If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention.
Randy

 Quote: randy allen

So I am to gather that the criteria for the education of DVM's are incredibility lax or in the end the graduated DVM's are so graven as to sacrifice their patients to the persuit of money.
Do I have this right so far?


If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention.
Randy

That's how I see it for the most part.

.

 Quote: randy allen

Thanks for the spell check Connie! I really do need help from somebody for proof reading. I'm blind to doing it myself.
So I am to gather that the criteria for the education of DVM's are incredibility lax or in the end the graduated DVM's are so graven as to sacrifice their patients to the persuit of money.
Do I have this right so far?


If I'm not learning, I'm not paying attention.
Randy

You're assuming that vets inherently know that they are feeding crap. It has been my personal experience that they honestly think this food is better.

There is a difference between being a robot-thinker and intentionally harming animals.

Neither is good, but at least some of the robot thinkers can be "turned" .

It is unwise to generalize every single person in a profession, IMO. They are not all evil animal-harmers. I know some good vets along with the jerk-balls.

And just for the record, I wasn't trying to defend the way they are taught, so much as explain it and point out that there is a growing trend of open-mindedness with the newer vets that I'm seeing, anyway.

But I also remind myself that 23 of 27 (I think that was the number) vet schools receive funding from Hills-SD. Many have "nutrition" courses completely funded by Hills-SD.

Hills-SD is also "corporate partners" with many vet associations ..... meaning that they give them money.

And maybe young vets really still believe the Hills mantra; what else do they have to go by? But experienced vets .... I do not believe that they have not made the connection between fresh food and vibrant health. "Craven," yes..... and money-centric.

 Quote: randy allen

... So I am to gather that the criteria for the education of DVM's are incredibility lax or in the end the graduated DVM's are so graven as to sacrifice their patients to the persuit of money.
Do I have this right so far?

I don't see it quite the same way. The huge conglomerates that include dog food mfgs have a very effective marketing strategy that includes selling vets (and not just in the financial sense) on the benefits of their products while they're in school and it follows them when they're in practice. Virtually all the research and studies support using commercial dog food. Nobody questions the source or funding of those studies. All the evidence supporting raw feeding is anecdotal.

So, I'm happy with my vet who does not support raw feeding but looks at my dog, comments on what great shape she's in and says he can't argue with the results, basically saying, stick with what works. But at the first sign of any health problems, I know he'll put down the diet and want to sell me something else. This guy is a decent vet, incredibly busy and, I'm sure, has little interest in spending his spare time going against the grain by researching the benefits of raw feeding. Where is there any benefit to his practice? I think it's the same for everybody from medical doctors to auto repairs techs.

The dog owner/patient/car owner has to be informed enough and willing to try the alternatives to the mainstream treatments and solutions or else you're going to get the same thing the majority does. You gotta invest the time in your own research or expect to be treated like everyone else. Got an ache or pain is a certain area? Take these pills. Car not running quite right? Rather than find the problem, let's just replace $1K worth of parts. It's the easy way out. Move on to the next customer.

Mike

I agree there is hope for vets to learn proper and species appropriate nutrition. The tide is slowly coming in.

One argument I decided I would use if a vet would mock or put down my choice to feed raw to my dog is to ask him if he would recommend species appropriate foods for a parrot, turtle, snake, etc. He/she will probably agree with a diet appropriate to other species, then I'd ask why not for a dog or cat? I'd really like to hear their answer to that question.

The hardest ones to turn around would be the conglomerate manufacturers of grain filled kibble since profit is their bottom line.