Jamie wrote: > > But let me give you my two cents on what your vet said. Ok, so 90% of > cats w/ this cancer were vaccinated for Felv. Can we really draw that > correlation? Afterall, cats who are treated for cancer are normally > cats who are "owned" by people who provide good care for them anyway. > Most people do what the vet says, which is vacciante the crap out of > your pets. Every year they are brought in for all of their shots, and > most vets DO give the annual Felv booster along with the rest of them. > The real question is, of the cats who he/she is treating for cancer, > how many belonged to owners who regularly brought them to the vet for > annual vaccines? I'd say probably most of them.
Ok the on the behalf of this vet, One this is a Holistic vet who only vaccinates on requests of owners. Most of her clients are people who have a cat or dog with cancer or something a regular vet can't cure or gives up hope on. When I had brought Charmed there we got in to that discussion and that's where she told me that. So for her to say that 90% of what she has seen would not be unreasonable. And yes I have come to the conclusion like you said our vets have us over vaccinate. This vet was really good with felv, fip and cancer. But she got too busy and I had to switch vets unforturnately the new holistic vet I found it was too late for Bamama but maybe not for one of my others. But that vet was not a vet that vaccinated she was against it. > It reminds me of that presidential election where the statitcians who > predicted that the Republican candidate would win by a landslide ended > up eating crow. I can't remember which election it was, but it was > back when most telephones were in the homes of wealthy people. Rich > folks tend to vote Republican. The population used to poll voters was > a phone book. That didn't encompass the true population they were > after, which was really all registered voters. So when the Democratic > candidate won by a huge margin, everyone freaked out. The early > addition of the news paper even had a huge headline about the > republican candidate winning and it was out in circulation before the > votes were all counted! The unwealthy people (who didn't have phones) > were not in the phone book so they weren't polled, but they DID go > vote. So, all that to say we need to be careful when relying on > statitistics! That is why you will hear vets tell you that the info > you bring them on Felv, or anythi! ng else, isn't "proven" and just > blow it off. So, right back at them! > Yeah some vet's tend to be in a denial stage I guess they don't like that we the client happen to know a little more then them sometimes. My regular vet laughs at me when it comes to homepathic etc but he does listen and he does work with me when it came to Bamama and Spider. (He wasn't Charmed's vet so I can't say much on that) But when I did speak with him on felv issues on what I learn he is pretty open and does agree that not all felv are alike in virus but it's hard to tell which one it is. But being a vet he does tend to like the black and white like show me the proof and I will follow. But when I brought up things about Bamama trying immunoregulin he looked it up and gave me his feed back and let me know the pro's and cons that he had in his book and was willing to try thing. Knowing Bamama better than this specialist that I found on immunoregulin that vet gave me some ideas on using different things for ringworm, urinationg too much and it was funny cos my vet said "Oh yes I forgot about that I will look it up and see if it safe with her immune systems" So he is open in a lot of things and I am happy with a vet who does work with me. Carla >
