re-read it folks, the cats were NOT tested with the IFA as far as i can
tell--just progressive SNAPs. they state that the IDEXX test is for ANTIGENS
(exposure) as i keep emphasizing, so the fact that the cat is ultimately
negative on a snap just proves what has actually been known for a long time:
trmckel...@charter.net wrote:
Thank you for this information, could you provide a reference, so I could
review the original work?
I'd also like to strongly caution that even though something looks really good
in a research article, it doesn't mean it is effective or even safe,
especially
I did a little searching and found a more detailed paper on what was done
with these few cats using antioxidant therapy and resulting change in viral
status to negative. I copied and pasted it.
EXAMPLES
In vivo testing was performed to demonstrate the startling effectiveness of
the treatment
Thank you for this information, could you provide a reference, so I could
review the original work?
I'd also like to strongly caution that even though something looks really good
in a research article, it doesn't mean it is effective or even safe, especially
when it involves animal testing for
The patent office website says the patent for this has been abandoned (they
didn't pay the fee to keep it an active patent). What I find really strange
about this is that if it is such an effective treatment - why did they
abandon a patent that could make them a fortune?
Gary
5 matches
Mail list logo