Dogged Blog

Another day, another marketing campaign masquerading as health information

So, today I went to the vet with one of my dogs, and while I was waiting, I looked at the pamphlets in the little rack in the otherwise barren exam room. I picked up one that I'd never seen before.

It was from Fort Dodge, and it was a pamphlet about something called Canine Enteritis Complex. And I'm all, what the heck? I do tend to keep up on canine health issues, dear readers, and I had no clue what this dread new disease was.

That would be because it's not a disease and it's not new. "Many disease agents," it said, frighteningly, "can cause Canine Enteritis Complex, a potentially deadly inflammation of the small intestine. Some common enteritis-causing pathogens in dogs are parvovirus, coronavirus, and giardia lamblia, a microscopic protozoan that can severely damage the lining of the small intestine."

It goes on to tell us that "These pathogens are highly contagious and can be spread between dogs." What's more, "A published study"... will wonders never cease? A published study!... "showed a dual infection with parvo and corona was fatal in 90 percent of cases." And hey, they had a footnote, which I'll get to in a minute.

They also added that "Pre-existing Giardia infection can make disease from parvovirus more severe," and guess what? Another footnote!

So, after the obligatory advice to ask your veterinarian (or, as I'm sure Fort Dodge thinks of them, their marketing partners) "about a vaccination program that includes protection against enteritis-causing pathogens such as parvovirus, coronavirus, and Giardia," we get to the footnotes.

Now, you'd think for something I've never heard of before, this newly discovered trifecta of canine intestinal doom, we'd have some pretty cutting edge science. They must surely cite some new studies, hot off the presses, for me to not have seen them before. Right?

Wrong. Because those footnotes cite one study that is 19 years old, and another that is 25 years old.

No, dear dog lovers, the diseases are old, the citations are old, even the vaccines being promoted are old. The only thing new is the marketing campaign.

So, what is this campaign trying to get you to do? First, they want you to answer a few questions to determine if your dog is at risk -- although the cover of the brochure has already told you he is. "At risk" , they say,  would be any dog who drinks from puddles, is around other dogs, or is less than six months of age. So, "Don't take chances. Make sure your dog is protected from Canine Enteritis Complex by vaccinating routinely against parvo, corona, and Giardia."

Well, should you? Before asking if you should vaccinate your dog with this combination of antigens, ask about each one on its own -- starting with canine coronavirus. 

Except in very young puppies -- puppies too young to be vaccinated --  coronavirus does not cause clinical disease in dogs. Researchers cannot induce disease with it in the laboratory. Many, perhaps most, dogs have coronavirus in their intestine all their lives. (Schultz, "Emerging Issues: Vaccination Strategies for Canine Viral Enteritis," 1995.)

Texas A&M University's "Vaccine Protocols and Schedule" tells us, "(T)here are no studies that show that use of the vaccine reduces morbidity or mortality." (Mansfield 1996.) That means it neither makes vaccinated dogs get sick less frequently, nor get less seriously ill, nor die less frequently. I would guess that's why this one is so often called a "vaccine in search of a disease."

Perhaps the presence of coronavirus does make parvo more deadly, but -- and you can call me crazy -- if this virus doesn't cause illness on its own, but only if the dog also gets parvo, it seems that the proper response to that threat is to prevent parvo.

The problem, of course, is the second vaccine being promoted here, the one for parvo. That pesky vaccine is just too good. Apparently once a dog is immune to parvo, he's immune for years and years, probably his whole life. So, hey... it's tough out here for a drug company, in this post-annual vaccination age!

Fortunately, the third piece of this marketing puzzle, giardiasis,  is a vaccine for a protozoal disease, and, like all vaccines for protozoal diseases, this one totally sucks! That means you have to give it over and over and over, like, every single year!

In fact, the giardia vaccine sucks so bad at preventing giardiasis that it's not even licensed or labeled to prevent giardiasis! It's only supposed to be used as part of a total treatment plan.

The manufacturer doesn't even state that it cures or prevents giardiasis, simply that it decreases the shedding of cysts. One study showed "there was no significant difference between the (vaccinated and unvaccinated) groups. Vaccination was, therefore, not an effective treatment for asymptomatic canine Giardia infections in this setting."

Of course, that study was not absolutely dripping with cobwebs of antiquity like the ones Fort Dodge used, being only from 2004. ("Impact of Giardia vaccination on asymptomatic Giardia infections in dogs at a research facility," Canadian Veterinary Journal, Nov 2004.)

The 2006 AAHA Vaccination Guidelines list the giardia vaccine in the "not recommended" category.

If canine coronavirus is a vaccine in search of a disease, I would have to say that Canine Enteritis Complex is a disease in search of a marketing campaign. And it's found one. So if you do decide to ask your vet about it, as Fort Dodge advises, these are the questions I suggest you ask:

What evidence do you have that this vaccine protocol will actually protect my dog from any disease?

What is the benefit of this combination over vaccinating for parvo by itself? If my dog is immune to parvo already, is there any benefit in re-vaccinating him for parvo, or giving any of these vaccines at all?

Why isn't the giardia vaccine licensed to prevent giardia?

Why doesn't the AAHA recommend the giardia vaccine?

Why does not one single vet school in the United States recommend the canine coronavirus vaccine?

Advertising campaigns and marketing brochures from a company trying to sell you something are not good places to get medical advice. Not if you're a pet owner, and not if you're a veternarian either. Because given the facts, you have to ask yourself: Was this protocol designed to treat and prevent canine disease, or treat and prevent a diminished bottom line for the vaccine manufacturer?

I don't need to ask my veterinarian to know the answer to that.

Wherein I write about dogs and watch TV for money

Okay, so I haven't posted in nine days. And no, I haven't come down with diphtheria, scarlet fever or bubonic plague although I do still have a lingering cough.

I had a big deadline Friday, and two more on Monday, and it ate my life, that's all!

Deadline one won't be out for a while, but deadline two came out Tuesday over on SFGate.com:

I've had just about every nightmarish pet moving experience imaginable, including having one cat disappear for several days after I moved. I've boarded my pets, kept them in the car, brought them to someone else's house, emptied a room and kept them there, and hired someone to sit with them while I moved.

And none of it works.

Oh, you can read, and in my case, write, articles giving advice on stress reduction and safety for pets during a move. But let me tell you, as the author of such articles, most of the advice doesn't really make all that much of a difference.

You can put them in a covered container with food and water. You can play soothing ambient music. Heck, you can sit there next to them holding their little paws all day, but the bottom line is this: They don't want to move. Not now, not later, not ever. Not to a bigger house, not to a better house, just not.

Check out the rest of the horrific truth helpful hints here.

Deadline three came out just like, ten minutes ago. This blog is so cutting edge, dude. It's my history of gay teenagers on TV and yes, I have been watching As the World Turns but I'm only doing it for the money. I swear it:

American daytime TV has never seen anything like the fan reaction to the Luke and Noah romance on As the World Turns. And yet, although such representations are few and far between, this isn’t the first time America has seen gay teenagers on its television screens. From HBO’s 1986 drama The Truth About Alex to Greek’s Calvin and Heath, gay teenagers have been coming out, growing up, and (sometimes) even falling in love on TV for a long time now. What’s so special about Noah and Luke, and just who are television’s other gay teenaged boys?

Longtime fans of As the World Turns have known Luke Snyder (Van Hansis) since he was born, but most gay men didn’t know him until he came out late last year. He came to the attention of even more gay men this June when Noah Mayer (Jake Silbermann) moved to Oakdale, and half the Queer Nation sat up and took notice, starting a tidal wave of “Nuke” obsession the likes of which the American soap opera has never seen before.

Of course it’s not just gay fans avidly following the Nuke storyline, but there's no missing the buzz generated by the large number of first-time viewers following the show and talking about the relationship online. Since Luke has been out for more than a year, and he’s not even the first gay teen character on a soap, what’s behind the frenzy?

Check it out here.

This is work?

If someone had told me years ago that I'd one day be paid to watch television, and actually make a living writing about dogs and lesbian sex scenes in the movies, I'd have probably said, "No one can make a living only doing that!"

And yet, apparently you can. How odd and non-puritanical. It's almost unAmerican, isn't it?

So, lesbian sex scenes. I did two articles for AfterElton.com, one on the most groundbreaking gay male sex scenes on television and the next on the most groundbreaking gay male sex scenes in the movies. They asked me to write them, and I did, but no one asked me to write this one. No, I went to my editor at AfterEllen.com, Malinda Lo, and scuffed my high heeled boot against the curb and said, "Ummmm Malinda? Can I, could I, please please please?"

And she said I could. Then I had to reschedule it due the dread whooping cough, but I'm all better now and here it is:

It's hard to believe today, when women argue for and against their favorite lesbian films and compile rival top 10 lists, that not long ago there were no LGBT film festivals, no lesbian and gay sections at the video store, and no books cataloguing queer-themed films. Lesbian sex scenes outside of the porn industry only rarely made it onto the big screen, and when they did, it was likely in some obscure foreign film that played for one weekend at a small art house in New York City.

And then in the early '80s, two very different films — both from straight male directors — hit American theaters, and the standard for lesbian sex scenes in movies changed for good. The first, released in 1982, was a glossy mainstream film from director-screenwriter Robert Towne. Personal Best starred Mariel Hemingway as Chris Cahill, a young athlete who falls in love with teammate Tory Skinner (Patrice Donnelly).

The second, which came out a few months later, was a very different kind of film. Made by indie darling John Sayles, it was the story of an unhappily married faculty wife at a small American college who leaves her husband after she falls in love with another woman. That film was Lianna, and the year was 1983.

Although the sex scenes in both films are tame by today's standards, they clearly and overtly showed women having sex with each other on-screen — something even most of those arty foreign films only hinted at.

We're going to take a look at the most important sex scenes between women in movie history — not always the best or the hottest (although we've got those, too), but those that broke new ground in their depictions of women having sex with other women. We'll start with a sort of golden age of lesbian sex that began in 1996, come up to the present, and then take a look at groundbreaking films of the early '80s, and even the roots of lesbian sex in films going back to 1929.

It's all here... pages and pages and pages of it! Have fun!

More whooping woes

I had a humongous life-eating deadline yesterday, and now that it's behind me, and I'm back to a full work and dogwalking schedule after my long bout with whooping cough, this morning for the first time since I got sick I picked up my weights and worked out.

Oh dear readers! FIFTY PERCENT LESS WEIGHT than I could lift before I got sick!

I want to curl up into a little ball and cry like a baby.

Instead, on Monday I'm going to go to the gym I finally decided to join since moving here 11 months ago and leaving my beloved Sebastopol gym behind. I'm not wild about it, but it's nearby and has good parking, so I'll actually go, unlike all the gyms I like a lot better but are far away and in areas where parking sucks, so, well.... you do the math.

It also has a pool, and since being immersed in water is one my favorite things ever, I hope it's not too full of either chlorine or kiddy urine for me to enjoy after I work out.

Now, back to my pathetic little ten pound hand weights.

*sobs again*

And I thought my hate mail was bad...

I get a fair amount of hate mail, generally from people who don't believe in amputating dogs' legs, spending money on veterinary bills, or  lesbianism.

I once heard from someone who felt... I can hardly bring myself to type this... that Lucy Lawless cannot sing.

Gina and I both frequently get hate mail from the vocal minority that hates all pets and believes that those of us who write about them are going to the hot place, and as far as they're concerned, the sooner the better.

Lastly, I get a lot of hate mail over at PetHobbyist.com from people who believe that actually enforcing our Terms of Service is an act infringing on their most precious liberties. I believe a lot of them think I should go to the hot place, too.

But the next time I'm feeling sorry for myself about any of that, I'm going to read media god Mark Morford's hate mail, because you know? People really, really hate him. Case in point:

Conservative values and the people who adhere to them are going to crush you liberals. I don't care if you do elect Hillary, which you won't, we will crush you. I despise liberal values, your cowardice and blind stupidity. We will finish you off. You are a danger to the country and with the help of talk radio we will destroy you. You are cockroaches, nothing else. Reading your newspaper is like paying the cops to beat you, then thanking them.

Feel the hate at SFGate.com.

Speaking of SFGate.com reminds me -- my column there ran a day late this time, because of the holiday Monday. It's a scintillating... SCINTILLATING, I TELL YOU!... piece on canine bladder infections.

If I absolutely swear to you it's interesting and even a bit funny, will you go read it? I'm arguing with someone in the comments section, too. And you know you love it when I do that.

If not, please direct all my hate mail to Mark Morford, kthnx.

Shameless self-promotion

As I posted about before, the South by Southwest Internet conference in Austin next March is considering having Ben from itchmo.com, Therese from PetSitUsa.com, and me as panelists (and maybe a couple of others!) to talk about the role our blogs played in covering the pet food recall. If you haven’t already, it would be extremely helpful to us if you went over and voted for the topic — full info on how to do that is here. Comments are also very welcome!

And if you’re in the San Francisco area, I’ll be speaking on “The Pet Food Recall: What’s happening now and did it make a difference?” at the Bay Area Pet Fair next Saturday, Sept. 8, at 10:30 A.M. on the indoor stage at the Marin Center in San Rafael, CA. Directions and information on how to get there, as well as a full schedule of other speakers — including Mary Straus of DogAware.com talking about canine nutrition — can be found on the Bay Area Pet Fair website. Please let anyone you think might be interested know.

/shameless self-promotion