|
Welcome to the YorkieTalk.com Forums Community - the community for Yorkshire Terriers. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You will be able to chat with over 35,000 YorkieTalk members, read over 2,000,000 posted discussions, and view more than 15,000 Yorkie photos in the YorkieTalk Photo Gallery after you register. We would love to have you as a member! Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please click here to contact us. |
|
| LinkBack | Thread Tools |
04-10-2015, 05:11 AM | #106 | |
Furbutts = LOVE Donating Member Moderator | Quote:
__________________ ~ A friend told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn. ~ °¨¨¨°ºOº°¨¨¨° Ann | Pfeiffer | Marcel Verdel Purcell | Wylie | Artie °¨¨¨°ºOº°¨¨¨° | |
Welcome Guest! | |
04-10-2015, 06:59 AM | #107 | |
T. Bumpkins & Co. Donating YT Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: New England
Posts: 9,816
| Quote:
Since everyone keeps mentioning Apoquel, I had an interesting discussion about Apoquel w/ my vet derm just a couple of weeks ago when my dog was flaring. Obviously, this derm uses Apoquel all the time but wouldn't in my dog finding it harder on the liver than Atopica. There have been a couple of dogs who got really sick on Apoquel -- not reported in clinical trials, not widely seen, but discussed on listserves among vet derms. I found that very interesting. I learned also that Apoquel works within 4 hours so if it is a good match, it's great. It's also out of the dog's system in 18 hours if it doesn't work. It is a consideration for my dog as an "add on" if we get desperate but I would not want to use Apoquel in a yorkie unless I knew for sure the dog had a good liver.
__________________ Washable Doggie Pee Pads (Save 10% Enter YTSAVE10 at checkout) Cathy, Teddy, Winston and Baby Clyde...RIP angels Barney and Daisy | |
04-10-2015, 08:52 AM | #108 | |
Yorkie mom of 4 Donating YT Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: LaPlata, Md
Posts: 23,247
| Quote:
__________________ Taylor My babies Joey, Penny ,Ollie & Dixie Callie Mae, you will forever be in my heart! | |
04-10-2015, 09:23 AM | #109 | |
Donating YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Toluca Lake, CA
Posts: 5,491
| Quote:
__________________ CarolynBuster Brown "The happiest people don't have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything." | |
04-10-2015, 09:27 AM | #110 |
Donating YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Toluca Lake, CA
Posts: 5,491
| Thank you Taylor I also contributed to the exchange and I am sorry. I think everyone has made some great points and it is good for people to be aware of both sides.
__________________ CarolynBuster Brown "The happiest people don't have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything." |
04-10-2015, 09:36 AM | #111 | |
T. Bumpkins & Co. Donating YT Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: New England
Posts: 9,816
| Quote:
I don't think you've done a disservice to Buster at all. I totally understand the concerns with steroids and meds and I am very conservative myself. You've tried to help Buster and that's a lot more than many people would do! Allergies are hard.
__________________ Washable Doggie Pee Pads (Save 10% Enter YTSAVE10 at checkout) Cathy, Teddy, Winston and Baby Clyde...RIP angels Barney and Daisy | |
04-10-2015, 10:34 AM | #112 | |
Resident Yorkie Nut Donating YT 20K Club Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas
Posts: 27,448
| Quote:
__________________ | |
04-10-2015, 10:35 AM | #113 | ||
Resident Yorkie Nut Donating YT 20K Club Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas
Posts: 27,448
| Quote:
Quote:
__________________ | ||
04-10-2015, 11:35 AM | #114 |
Donating YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Toluca Lake, CA
Posts: 5,491
| Thank you all for your wealth of knowledge and support from all the members here even when I am resistant I am open and willing to learn. See you can teach an old dog new tricks.
__________________ CarolynBuster Brown "The happiest people don't have the best of everything, they just make the best of everything." |
06-29-2015, 02:44 PM | #115 |
YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Urbana, IL USA
Posts: 3,648
| Devastating review of the Nutriscan test by Skeptvet. From Canine Nutrigenomics by Dr. Jean Dodds: Science as Windowdressing | The SkeptVet Saliva Testing for Food Allergies (Nutriscan) “NutriScan, offered exclusively by author WJD’s Hemolife testing laboratory, is the new gold standard for identifying the cause of food intolerances/sensitivities in dogs. NutriScan is not only the most scientifically accurate method; it is also the most convenient and cost-effective for you, as well as the least invasive and most comfortable for your dog (Dodds, 2014).”A fair bit of effort in the book goes to promoting a test called Nutriscan, which uses saliva to identify dietary sensitivities in dogs. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Dodds’ company owns Nutriscan, and equally unsurprisingly the mainstream community of veterinary nutritionists and dermatologists do not accept the legitimacy of her test because she has not provided any controlled evidence to show it is an accurate and useful test. She does provide a lot of citations to support her claims for this method, but if one takes the trouble to investigate them, they do not actually turn out to be compelling evidence. For example, the first citation is to her own article in the Journal of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association (JAHVMA) making the same claims. Apart from the fact that the AHVMA is the leading advocacy organization for veterinary pseudoscience and its journal publishes mostly unscientific ideas, it is not considered legitimate to support your opinions in a scientific publication but citing your own opinions printed elsewhere. But Dr. Dodds goes even further when, in the JAHVMA article she says, “Salivary testing for food sensitivity and intolerance in animals differs significantly from all other food allergen tests available for use in animals. It is highly reproducible and clinically relevant.” To support this, she cites two of her own presentations at AHVMA meetings and, you guesses it, her book Canine Nutrigenomics! A clearer example of the forms of science without the content would be harder to imagine. The other citations above also fail to support the claims she attaches them to. Fekete and Brown (2007) is a review of the concept of nutrigenomics in veterinary medicine which does talk about the general principle that food compounds can affect gene expression and gives some examples, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of saliva testing for food intolerance. The second, Swanson et al. (2003) is a discussion of the potential of nutrigenomics and the importance of further research. Not only does the article say nothing to support Dr. Dodds’ claims about Nutriscan, it specifically contradicts her claims throughout the book that we already know which food have which kinds of genetic and health effects: Genomics has begun to be applied to nutritional research, but issues specifically relevant to companion animals have not been elucidated thus far. The study of genomics and proteomics will be crucial in areas such as nutrient requirement determination, disease prevention and treatment, functional ingredient testing and others. Nutritional genomics and proteomics will definitely play a vital role in the future of pet foods.In human medicine, where the research evidence is always more plentiful and better quality than in veterinary medicine, the gold standard for diagnosing food sensitivities is a dietary trial. Blood testing and skin testing are also used, though they are not as reliable. In veterinary medicine, the best evidence suggests that a dietary trial is the most reliable test, and blood and skin testing have not proven very reliable. Despite this, Dr. Dodds cherry picks a lot of in vitro and lab animal studies, along with opinion pieces from other alternative medicine doctors, to suggest that there is a sound scientific basis for using antibodies in saliva to detect food sensitivities. This might be a useful test, but the evidence does not exist to demonstrate this, and Dr. Dodds’ use of these citations is misleading. The other main source of evidence Dr. Dodds uses to support her claims about Nutriscan are uncontrolled reports from animals she has tested. This is weak evidence that can suggest hypotheses for controlled testing but cannot prove or disprove the hypothesis. One veterinary dermatologist has performed her own uncontrolled test of Nutriscan, with Dr. Dodds’ knowledge and permission, and found it entirely unreliable. Twelve samples were submitted for testing in a blind manner, from dogs with known food sensitivities based on dietary testing, dogs with environmental allergies, dogs without allergic disease, and one sample of tap water. All samples including tap water, environmental allergy dogs, and normal dogs showed reactivity to beef, corn, milk and wheat. Some samples showed reactivity to soy. In some cases, these obviously false results would have led to recommendations against diets which actually helped these dogs. While this is not a formal, controlled study, it is at least as relevant as the unblended cases Dr. Dodds promotes as evidence Nutriscan works, and it casts serious doubt on this supposed new “gold-standard” allergy test. Here are some resources illustrating the scientific consensus concerning food sensitivity testing, which is not consistent with Dr. Dodds’ claims: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Last edited by pstinard; 06-29-2015 at 02:45 PM. |
Bookmarks |
Tags |
dodds, nutriscan |
|
|
Thread Tools | |
| |
|
|
SHOP NOW: Amazon :: eBay :: Buy.com :: Newegg :: PetStore :: Petco :: PetSmart