Dr. Dodds, the Rabies Challenge Fund, and PETA: Which side are you on?

How many years of work in canine health research does someone have to have under her belt before she gets a pass from the dog world on belonging to an organization some of us may not like?



Apparently more years than there are stars in the sky, if the recent reaction to a letter to PETA written by Dr. Jean Dodds is any indication.



Dr. Dodds is a regular speaker at dog clubs, including purebred dog clubs. She has assembled three decades of data on canine diseases both genetic and infectious. She operates a canine blood bank, Hemopet, and has published research on vaccination, thyroid disease, and other topics related to hematology. She is famous in the dog world for doing vaccine titer testing at a very reasonable price, as well as thyroid testing, and then getting on the phone with the dog owner to discuss the test results. Believe me, that kind of access is not typical.



Dr. Dodds is certainly no stranger to controversy. Some of her research leads to nothing much more than raised eyebrows among the veterinary community, while in other areas she's regularly published and quoted even by skeptics. Some vets find her "too alternative" while most alternative vets find her not "holistic" enough.



Lately the holistic camp has been loving on her, because she, along with leading vaccine researcher Dr. Ronald D. Schultz, is conducting the Rabies Challenge Fund Study, a long-term investigation into the real duration of immunity of canine rabies vaccines, in the hopes of reducing unnecessary vaccination and providing some science behind the perception that the immunity from rabies vaccination lasts far longer than the one to three years listed on the labels.



PETA hates the study because, at the end of several years, some of the dogs will be killed because they have been challenged with, and contracted, rabies, and they wrote to Dr. Dodds to tell her so.



Some background before I go on. As you may or may not know, this is how all your pets' vaccines get licensed: a group of animals is vaccinated, another group isn't, and at some point, usually a year, now and then more, all the animals are challenged with the virus against which they were vaccinated.



In many such studies, all the animals are killed at the study's end. In some, only those animals who become ill are killed, and that is the design of the Rabies Challenge Study.



The argument over the use of animals in medical research is a heated one, and I've hesitated to raise it here for that reason. But two days ago, a letter Dr. Dodds wrote responding to criticism by PETA, in which she defends the study and insists she is working hard to conduct it humanely, started making the rounds of the dog lists, and the fallout has been shocking to me.



This study is not being done by a vaccine manufacturer, but is funded by donations from dog owners who are concerned about the ill effects of unnecessary rabies vaccination. If a dog is already immune, there's no benefit to re-vaccinating him, and at least some risk. This study was designed to put some data out that demonstrates actual duration of immunity based not on an arbitrary study end-point, but the length of time vaccinated animals continue to resist challenge by the virus. It's an expensive study, but its goal is to save and protect millions of dogs from harm. Because rabies is a fatal disease that is transmissible to humans and many other mammals, dogs in the study who contract rabies are going to be killed.



In her response to PETA, Dr. Dodds says she belongs to AVAR, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. And while her tone was angry given that she felt she'd already answered many of their questions in earlier correspondence, she nonetheless was taking PETA's concerns seriously.



So suddenly I'm seeing, everywhere, statements like, "I'll never listen to Dr. Dodds again, now that I know she's AR."



So here's a question for you: how pure does someone have to be that their work and research can be taken on their own merits?



If we expect to put a litmus test of agreeing with us on political and social issues on every scientist, researcher, and veterinarian on the planet before we'll allow ourselves to look at the results of their research, we're going to cut ourselves off from critical information without which we cannot make educated decisions.



I have no doubt that Jean Dodds and I disagree on many issues pertaining to pets, what we like to eat for dinner, our favorite movies, and for all I know, a thousand other issues both trivial and important.



The only thing that matters is her work. Look at her data, the conclusions she draws from it. Look at the design of the studies, or the body of information on which she bases her advice. Evaluate it for what it is, not who she is.



Certainly one of the many questions we should be asking as regards all scientific research is about researcher bias -- every study is paid for by someone, designed by someone, conducted by someone. Knowing their biases helps us evaluate their work, and Jean Dodds is no different.



But that's not what's behind all those people saying they'll "never listen to Jean Dodds again" because she's "too AR." Because her work hasn't changed, her research hasn't changed, the facts of the Rabies Challenge Study have not changed.



I suspect you'd find, if other researchers put themselves out there and interacted with us on a personal level the way Dr. Dodds routinely does with dog owners, that many of them believe in things you don't. Many of them belong to organizations you would hate. And trust me, nearly all of them take money from drug companies, vaccine companies, and pet food companies, and then turn around and do research on the products of the companies who pay their bills. That concerns me a hell of a lot more -- and has a far greater likelihood of tainting science -- than the fact that Jean Dodds belongs to AVAR or actually replies to PETA when they write her.



As someone else who doesn't fit neatly into categories, who has been attacked for being "too holistic" and "not holistic enough," who refuses to get in bed with the commercial dog breeding industry just to protect the right to preserve purebred dogs, I say this:



Judge information on its own merits, not some litmus test of purity on the researcher, author, or speaker. Take bias into consideration, yes; but to throw out not just science but decades of service to dogs and dog owners because you think a researcher is "too AR" is neither rational nor helpful. And don't be so obsessed with the results of that litmus test that you miss the far greater conflicts of interest that threaten scientific objectivity.

Comments

[Lis]

The simple fact that Dr. Dodds is conducting research designed to meet FDA requirements and actually change the current rabies requirements based on real scientific data sets her apart from the "AR crowd" as a whole.

[Lisa]

I have spent a fair amount of time on dog lists defending Dr. Dodds from charges that she is "anti-breeder," a purveyor of "junk science," "thyroid-centric," and so on, ad nauseum. Invariably these charges are made without proof and offered up for public consumption in fora to which Dr. Dodds does not belong by people who usually know little about her work and know her not at all. The fact that she is, once more, at the center of a maelstrom of controversy with accusations being hurled at her from both ends of the spectrum tells me--if I needed to have the lesson brought home again--that Dodds is clearly doing something right, and doing so courageously, with honesty and integrity. She is not a saint, to be sure, but she comes pretty close to meeting my own secular definition of one.



BTW, Christie, I continue to read your work with respect and admiration for many of the same reasons. Anyone who is willing and able to speak truth to power in the superheated atmosphere occupied by animal lovers gets my vote.

[Anne T.]

Link to Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights Positions: http://tinyurl.com/6xx7od

Read for yourself and check out the rest of the website.

For myself I will continue to support Drs Dodd s and Schultz, Kris Christine and the Rabies Challenge.

[Lisa]

And also BTW: I hate shibboliths.

[slt]

The person with whom I agree on *everything* doesn't seem to exist. I don't expect it. That's how I talk myself into voting, hehe.

[H. Houlahan]

Don't care about the affiliations of the researcher, provided the research is sound and ethical. I think the rabies challenge is sound and ethical, and hope it remains transparent.



But the AVAR's positions statements, from the link above, reveal a lovely tension between abject cowardice and holier-than-thou-osity.



For example, read the statement on euthanasia, and see how they sidestep the issue of behavioral euthanasia for extremely aggressive animals.



Read their denunciation of hunting and fishing, and note how they frolic around the entire issue of eating meat. Not willing to denounce the raising of "so-called meat animals" outright -- but

[H. Houlahan]

Aaargh -- comment just posted by the "barn kitten!" I am, in case anyone was wondering, NOT in the barn at the moment. Yeah, the higher primates are *definitely* still in charge here, just keep telling ourselves this and it will be true. The barn kitten did NOT invite himself in this afternoon. His sister is NOT getting herself trapped in the kitchen recycling bin, and I did NOT come downstairs to find a 12-week-old kitten on the sofa, attempting to NURSE on a spayed bitch who is supposed to be helping me keep order around here.



Anyway ...



-- but they are happy to imply that it's very naughty and icky, while us nasty hunters are the naughtiest of them all (and tuna from a can is okay, catching your own trout is, you know, not evolved like us enlightened AVARistas).



Gawd, at least PeTA has solid brass ones. They are hypocrites, lunatics, and death-worshippers, but they are not niggling little nancies like whomever composed the AVAR position statements.



Rant over. Time to go remind the chicks that they are EDIBLE. And, I have it on good authority, TASTE JUST LIKE CHICKEN.

[Anne T.]

Notice how I carefully avoided voicing any opinion about AVAR when I posted the link, except to say I support the Rabies Challenge, which I think is a scientific study long overdo. I also am thankful for Dr Dodds' internet posting of an alternative diet for dogs with a compromised liver. If I hadn't found that, my guy with liver problems would have had to eat crap from Hill's.

Good luck with the barn kittens staying in their supposed accommodations. It's 'hard to keep 'em down on the farm once they've seen Paree'.

[Gina Spadafori]

Does it seem like PETA gets more bizarre by the day? Perhaps they're pulling out all the stops because the people who used to think the group was really looking out for animals are finally starting to question exactly how a group that takes in millions of dollars in donations and has a 90 percent kill rate while equating proven no-kill alternatives with cruel animal hoarding can have the cajones (brass or otherwise)to advocate for animals.



Their latest (thanks e-mailers) is to run an ad in Dog Fancy offering a free gift bag to new pet owners -- a gift that turns out to be a body bag. (An item PETA has a more than passing familiarity with.)



From PETA:



"Just bought a brand-new purebred puppy? Welcome him or her into your home with a free gift bag! Call us today at 1-866-834-6061 to claim your bag and hear about our products," reads a new ad appearing in the July 7 issue of Dog Fancy magazine, which is on newsstands now. But when respondents call the number, they'll learn that the ad was placed by PETA and that the bag offered is really a body bag--for the unlucky dog in an animal shelter who is "sentenced to death" because the respondents bought a purebred pup from a breeder or a pet store."



They just aren't going to be happy until all those body bags are full and there truly are no domestic animals to "exploit," are they?

[Susan]

<>



Clearly, she's doing something right.



Susan

[Susan]

Let me try this again. If some vets find that Jean Dodds is too holistic while others find that she's not holistic enough, I suspect that she's hit the appropriate middle ground.

[Anne T.]

Oh my dog, that rates up there in scariness with the use of Executive Privilege to cover Dick Cheney's misdeeds in the Valerie Plame leak. I am dragging this in because PETA is so adept at playing the game of dog politics through guilt manipulation, and we as a country and a culture, have proven time and time again we are vulnerable to that tactic.

I am off to hug the porcelain god now as this ad by PETA has so thoroughly sickened me.

[Caveat]

Excellent points made. I agree completely. I believe they used to call this kind of thing throwing baby out with the bathwater.



I took issue with one study where a very small sample size was used to indicate that vaccination could have a negative effect which got more play than it deserved among the keyboard activists.



However, I support the Rabies Challenge.



Peta has some nerve complaining about outcomes for study subjects. I suppose they assume everybody is drinking the Kool Aid, not just their acolytes. Who cares what they think anyway? As for the body bag ad, well, one could run the same ad for new members of Peta, couldn't one? And actually have some facts on hand to back it up.



The AVAR seems to have some contradictory policies. I agree with them that 'euthanasia' is usually misused and that 'put to death' or 'killed' is more accurate most of the time. What I find odd is that they say they oppose killing except out of kindness. then exempt animal shelters - the biggest killers of dogs and cats on the continent.



The bottom line is that even the H$U$ and their ilk are right some of the time, so people should base their opinion on the work, not the author.



I wonder if Dr Dodds has brought some of this on herself by making her personal views, which have nothing to do with her research, part of the overall package, leading people to expect a strong bias in her work as we've seen in publications by radical animal rights supporters (which AVAR and Dodds obviously aren't).

[Barbara A. Albright]

Dr. Dodds has been controversial for over 20 years and a pioneer in what has "now" been confirmed by accepted science.



Anyone that has had a pet develop vaccinosis and later auto-immune thyroid disease, in a time, when it was "poopoo-ed" can appreciate her all the more.



If she is in the middle between animal rights advocates and non-advocates, she's not alone, and it is my belief that she is for animal "welfare".

[slt]

"Dog Fancy" has a response to those contacting the mag about the PETA ad:



"Hello,



Thank you for contacting DOG FANCY about the fraudulent ad that appeared in our August issue.



DOG FANCY does not knowingly accept advertising from PETA and does not agree with its extremist views. Unfortunately, PETA resorted to guerilla tactics by placing an ad in DOG FANCY under a pseudonym to deceive readers with a free gift bag offer, opting to use shock tactics to try to get its message heard.



DOG FANCY promotes responsible dog ownership, including the responsible breeding and sale of purebred dogs. This is the first time in many, many years that PETA has succeeded in slipping past our screening measures, and we accept responsibility for the failure to catch this ad before going to press. We apologize to all who have been offended by PETA’s offensive and misleading stunt, and will continue to refine the systems in place to prevent our readers and advertisers from being exposed to such distasteful hoaxes.



I hope that you will continue to read and enjoy DOG FANCY magazine."

[2CatMom]

Looks like the PETA folks have really lost it for good. What do they possibly think will be outcome of their little advertising campaign?



Talk about alienating folks who might otherwise think it was a good organization. Let's give a big ATTA BOY to PETA. Keep up the good work, and you should be out of funds in a few years.



On the study - if it could lead to less frequent vaccinations for dogs (and maybe cats) I'm all for it.

[Joy]

I support the Rabies Challenge Fund because I believe it has great potential to save animal lives for years to come. Not only will pets be healthier and safer without these arbitrary 1-3 year vaccines but also… hopefully… longer duration vaccines will reduce the number of dogs and cats involved in bites who are killed “just to be safe” because they were a few months or even just a few days “overdue” for rabies vaccination.

[Janeen]

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to deal with this type of controversy. The lines between 'them' and 'us' would be clear cut and well-defined.



A perfect world would also, IMO, be perfectly dull and uninteresting to live in.

[Nadine L.]

Re: “Dog Fancy” has a response to those contacting the mag about the PETA ad...



Dog Fancy would do well to print this apology on a full-page (or in the centerfold, or on the inside front or back cover) in their next issue, addressed to all readers, along with a full and truthful revelation of PETA's offensive and misleading stunt. DF shouldn't beat around the bush. This hoax was not heresay. Print out in millions of DF issues that the "gift" was a body bag! Alerting their readership with truthful details of PETA's vile guerilla tactics would be the best protection of their entire readership. As stated, if Dog Fancy's intent truly is to inform readers in the interest of "responsible dog ownership," then they themselves should demonstrate responsible journalism by printing the entire story. With the enormous distribution of "Dog Fancy," the damaging, truth of the PETA hoax would be further spread like rapid fire by virtual word of mouth.



With their popularity and loyal following, DF can be very effective in exposing PETA, and the opportunity exists right now.

[Katie]

I support the Rabies Challenge and Dr Dodds. With the Rabies Challenge results perhaps all states can finally adopt the same vaccination protoccol and just maybe..there will be more acceptance of vaccination titers.



I thank Dr Dodds for all her work in Immunology. Countless numbers of dogs have benefited from her research.



Katie

[Sherry]

Very well written post. Thank you for bringing the issues to the fore in such a balanced manner. I'm very glad Dr. Dodd is performing this study. I believe that it will improve the lives of many pets, something that the various pet companies don't always seem to have in mind.



I have to happily agree with 2CatMom that PETA's tactics will turn away far more donors than they attract.

[Dianne Sever]

There is no room for argument about personas here, not in THIS!! You are either a dog person or you are not. This study will do nothing but reveal what all we dog lovers have known for years, and to banter on about Jean's "affiliations" is just stupid!!



For anyone who was awake during the '80's, this nonsense is mere drivel. Jean brought us out of the darkness of vaccine induced demodex, vaccine induced epilepsy (a.k.a. "seizure activity" as they liked to call it), and doG only knows what else I've not had the misfortune to encounter with my own dogs.



The facts of the matter is that the RCF is being conducted as per the current requirements mandated by the USDA. For PETA, or anyone, to attack this noble cause based upon the current USDA requirements of a challenge study, which dictates the rules, is just plain ludicrous. And for any true dog person to attack it because they THINK they have a political bicker with Jean is just plain dog-destructive.



If anyone has a problem with the fact that some, or all, of the dogs must die as a result of participating in the study then they need to take that up with the USDA because it is THEIR protocol that defines how this aspect of the study must conclude. On the flip side, it is my opinion that Jean, Dr. Schultz, Kris Christine, and all of the RCF staff, are doing their best to change these requirements before the study even reaches that phase because they ARE concerned for the welfare of these dogs.



I would also like to remind anyone who is troubled by what may happen to these dogs in the study to keep in mind how many millions upon millions of dogs have died by way of the currently available rabies vaccines and the protocols big pHARMa has established. Let us not forget that even if the RCF is unable to change the mind of the USDA as to their long established protocol for challenge studies, the loss of 70 dogs in the name of improved health for millions is a step in the right direction.



Also, do not let it be lost on you the impact this study will ultimately have upon other species............MANY other domestic species will be favorably affected by what we all know will be the outcome of the study.



Yes, we are all "wondering" the same thing and YES we are all correct....the currently available rabies vaccine manufacturers will not willingly support the findings of the RCF because it is not THEIR vaccine that is in the study. However, as one who has lost two of my own dogs and numerous beloved friends & clients to these same currently available rabies vaccs, I am not at all concerned with whether or not Fort Dodge, or those of their ilk, support the findings of the study or not. I was done with those folks long long ago, and wrong or right, I don't trust one word from their collective mouth nor the products they represent.



Dianne Sever

Ravette-Jodevin Collies

Owner/Co-Founder: "JstSayNo2Vaccs" @ yahoogroups.com

Owner/Founder: "HolisticGroomer" @ yahoogroups.com



"It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." - Bono

[Kim]

I don't know enough about her to give an informed opinion, but with my information being limited to what I know at this point, I'd say that I would not trust her research to be unbiased. I agree that dogs need less frequent vaccination, but I do wonder at her motivation for running the experiments that she does. At the risk of sounding dramatic, the Nazi scientists did a lot of research, some of it seeming beneficial, but their motivation and scientific method were both questionable. How do your trust research run like that? I wouldn't trust results form research run by the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) either--they are an AR affiliated group that routinely releases information about how bad it is for people to eat meat and drink milk.



My gut reaction is that I am more likely to be hyper-critical of her work than I would be of the research run by a non-AR affiliated doctor. If her work can check out, fine, but it needs to stand on its own merits in that case. I can honestly say that I would never be willing to take anything she said to me at face value, due to her affiliations.

[Gina Spadafori]

>I don’t know enough about her to give an informed opinion ...



Then why are you holding an opinion at all? Go do your homework and get back to us with an informed opinion.

[Lis]

Kim, are you familiar with Godwin's Law?

[Kim]

I don't know enough about *her* to give an opinion about *her,* but I know how I feel about the situation and how I have reacted to similar situations. I know that I cannot support anyone who is an animal rights supporter, but I see no reason to discount her research entirely; however, I would put it under extreme scrutiny and take her motivation with a grain of salt. As far as the Godwin's law comment, I am not comparing the doctor to a Nazi--I am saying that the research done by that group and the research done by any other fanatical organization must be held to the same standards. In any case, one of the places where this comment was posted recently had Nazi research under discussion, so that is where that particular thought came from.



Regardless--there is no need to attack me. I am perfectly right to have my own opinion, even if it differs from yours. You want to discuss logical fallacies? I can rip apart most AR/pro-AR writing that makes many appeals based on fallacies. Take care.

[The OTHER Pat]

Kim, Dr. Dodds is not performing this work in isolation. She is collaborating with Dr. Schultz (sp?) and I am assuming that at some point the work will be peer-reviewed.



Give the scientific community SOME credit.

[Lis]

As far as the Godwin’s law comment, I am not comparing the doctor to a Nazi—I am saying that the research done by that group and the research done by any other fanatical organization must be held to the same standards. In any case, one of the places where this comment was posted recently had Nazi research under discussion, so that is where that particular thought came from.



In other words, you're comparing her research to Nazi research. Which is ever so different from comparing her to a Nazi! Great, glad we got that cleared up.



And, Kim, you're the one introduced the comparison here.



Regardless—there is no need to attack me. I am perfectly right to have my own opinion, even if it differs from yours.



The right to your own opinion does not include the right not to be disagreed with or the right not to be called on it when you use logical fallacies and nasty rhetoric.



You want to discuss logical fallacies? I can rip apart most AR/pro-AR writing that makes many appeals based on fallacies. Take care.



Not an Animal Rights supporter, so, sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere for that argument.



But with a background in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, the idea that a put-up job of fake AR "research" designed to hurt the corporate interests of the current major vaccine manufacturers surviving federal review is downright funny, so thanks for the morning laugh!

[Gina Spadafori]

Seriously, Kim ... don't threaten us here. We eat idiots for lunch, especially those who have opinions based on what they "feel" and who cannot be bothered to collect any information to back up those opinions.



As for your "right" to an opinion, you have a "right" to take your uninformed self somewhere else if you are determined to bring nothing to the discussion besides your "feelings" and "uninformed opinions."



In fact, I suggest you do.



Your "feeling" that the bloggers here are animal-rights supporters, by the way, is based on nothing at all, and shows another example of how you feel you have a "right" to an "uninformed opinion." We have been threatened with lawsuits by PETA, so much for our animal-rights support.



What we are FOR, fto save your lazy ass some effort in looking it up, is people doing their damn homework instead of spouting off-the-shelf opinions from special-interest groups, no matter which special-interest groups they are.

[Kim]

Glad to help you relax. I'm not so sure about what makes the comparison with the Nazis illegitimate, though. Animal rights is based on extremist rhetoric with the ultimate goal to wipe out domestic animals. It shares an extinction agenda with that of the Nazis. It is necessary to examine the motivation for research and the potential manipulation of results, don't you think, when a person belongs to a group like that? Results have been manipulated before, if you look at the tobacco industry and any PCRM "research."



btw, attacking a person making an argument instead of refuting the argument itself is in itself a logical fallacy. Please show me where my logic is flawed here, instead of attacking me.

[Gina Spadafori]

>Animal rights is based on extremist rhetoric with the ultimate goal to wipe out domestic animals. It shares an extinction agenda with that of the Nazis.



This is what I mean about off-the-shelf opinion. What, did you cut and paste that?



Why don't you try thinking for yourself? You might get farther in discussions.



As for your "logic," sheesh, one class at JuCo and you think you get it.



I'm not interested wasting my day with "me too" opinions I can just look up on a special-interest group's site.



If you cannot add to the discussion, go away.

[Kim]

Again, you attack me and not my argument. Sorry, that's me talking, not anything that I've plagiarized. I've come by my opinion over many years of observing the animal rights movement and see no reason to support it in any way, due to the acts and language used by the individuals involved. As for my credentials, I have a Master of Arts in Professional Writing and am seeking to begin a Master of Science degree program in Counseling Psychology in the fall.



Pardon me for not living up to your stereotype.



Again, I'm interested in seeing you refute my analysis. Since you continue to refuse to do so, I'm guessing that you cannot. Nota bene: At no time did I ever say that people posting here were AR supporters; however, it's becoming apparent that some people are based on the evidence I see. In addition, I tend not to give science too much credit, in that there are too many people out there trying so hard to *prove* something that they fail to used the scientific method as it was intended to be used. Therefore, while I always look at scientific results with a high degree of scrutiny, I tend to hold the research of people with potential bias to even higher standards of process, analysis, and report.

[JenniferJ]

Penn and Teller had a great little speech at the end of their show the other night, I should have recorded it. It was along the lines of (paraphrasing) "Sincerity is sometimes WORSE than lying because to lie, you need to know the truth and then fake it. To have a "sincere belief" requires no learning or research or proof whatsoever."



Anyway it reminded me of alot of the canned/ kool-aid arguments people use instead of taking the time to research and edu-ma-cate dem'themselves.

[Gina Spadafori]

>Master of Arts in Professional Writing



That and $12.95 will buy you one of my New York Times best-selling books.



That and a coupla quarters will buy you any of the dozens of papers that run our syndicated column.



Color me unimpressed, in other words.



It seems you're an educated person who's too lazy to form her own opinions. My mistake.

[Kim]

Gina, again you attack me instead of my arguments. To quote a particular individual in this thread, "If you cannot add to the discussion, go away."



Jennifer, I can't prove that I have done research in any way to please you; however, I assure you that as an active member of the dog fancy, I have spent a great deal of time reading and researching the animal rights agenda. Regardless, I am not the topic of discussion here and, like anyone else who has posted to this thread, I am entitled to express an opinion. Just because I am not familiar with this particular researcher does not mean that I am unfamiliar with the animal rights agenda or the "research" that is done to further it. I have a somewhat jaded opinion of anyone that belongs to an extremist group that wishes to eliminate a population and then does research that claims it wants to help that population. To me, that position seems extraordinarily contradictory and merits extreme scrutiny of the procedures that individual uses as well as the results obtained by the research.

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by Kim — July 18, 2008 @ 8:16 am



"Therefore, while I always look at scientific results with a high degree of scrutiny, I tend to hold the research of people with potential bias to even higher standards of process, analysis, and report."



Fine. How about applying those standards to the work that has been done ONCE IT HAS BEEN DONE rather than assuming before the work has even been completed that it will be tainted. Can you hold your OWN analysis of the results to the same high standards you're insisting on for Dr. Dodds?

[Dianne Sever]

I have talked with Jean Dodds on numerous occasions over the past fifteen years or better about vaccines, dogs etc.. I am truly having a very difficult time understanding why ANYONE is taking the "Jean's an ARista" posts seriously.



SO!!! Stop this bull-shite here and now. What in doG's Name does any of this have to do with the importance of this study?



I mean truly, I'm certain Jean really appreciates all of you who are coming to her aid, but what are we REALLY here for? Don't you all see that these idiots who are taking you off in tangents are doing it on purpose? They WANT to take you away from the ultimate purpose.



Don't LET them DO IT!!!!!!



Fund the RCF through your own words and your own dollars. Don't give the naysayers (aka PETA-philes) the time of day!! IGNORE THEM!!!!!!!!!! 'Cause ya know what? PETA-philes should NEVER get air time....never, Never, NEVER!!



jmo,

Dianne

Ravette-Jodevin Collies

Owner/Co-Founder: "JstSayNo2Vaccs" @ yahoogroups.com

Owner/Founder: "HolisticGroomer" @ yahoogroups.com



"It's not enough to rage against the lie...you've got to replace it with the truth." - Bono

[Gina Spadafori]

Kim, your laziness is truly remarkable, even in the context of all the Kool-Aid spewing sound bite robots we get in here.



You cannot even be bothered to realize that in fact, I cannot go away, since this is MY BLOG. I have to read comments by people who can't be bothered to do the slightest bit of research to figure even that out.



Despite repeated entreaties, you have yet to offer anything beyond your self-admitted uninformed opinion that you have had handed to you by others. Despite repeated requests, you haven't added anything to the discussion except those me-too opinions.



You're done here. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.



(Note to self: Must get espresso machine fixed to return personal tolerance levels for idiocy to previous levels.)

[Caveat]

Knee-jerk reactions are always counter-productive. Stereotyping/tribalization is rampant these days. One can't help but wonder if it's all due to the success of the Homogenization Project.



People really need to stop being partisan and look at what's sitting right in front of them - unfilterd by cultmasters, media gurus or the guy down the street who knew somebody who knew somebody who...

[Pamela Picard]

This is a beautiful post. Very well said. I would only add that the reason the costs are affordable at Dr. Dodd's HemoPet practice? It's a not profit organization. How many veterinarians can say the same?

[The OTHER Pat]

Hey Gina - I see in your picture you've got an ergo keyboard. Which one do you have, and how do you like it? (I'm keyboard shopping, I have a Mac, and I don't want a black keyboard!)

[Gina Spadafori]

y’all are obnoxious. especially this “gina spadafori.” who does she think she is anyway? like i want to know about her espresso machine…doesn’t she know this is a PET blog???



Comment by shirley — July 25, 2008 @ 12:21 pm



Yeah, I kinda do know it's a pet blog. And my espresso machine's return to service is important to the functioning of the blog in that caffeine is what keeps me smiling around people who appear to be unable to click "about" in the site navigation.

[The OTHER Pat]

It sure is. It's GINA'S pet blog!



LOL!

[shirley]

y'all are obnoxious. especially this "gina spadafori." who does she think she is anyway? like i want to know about her espresso machine...doesn't she know this is a PET blog???



<3

[Gina Spadafori]

I was a little hard on her, to read back over it.



But honestly, it's deju vu all over again when people come in with an opinion that has been handed to them pre-formed, they haven't thought it through, and their idea of "defending it" is to stamp their little feet and say, "because it's MY OPINION.'



We have a bit of a higher standard here. And sometimes I hold people to it. So it goes.



As for the cap lock key ... well ... I haven't used it in 20 years online, unlikely to start now.

[Margo]

This was a very written and informative article about something which obviously gets a lot of people's panties in a knot. It was a good read at least until I got to the comments. Nice job on shouting down the sole dissenting voice. Great personal jabs too. Next time y'all don't forget to hit the Caps Lock for extra effect.

[Deirdre Curran]

I went to the Northeast Rabies Challenge Fund lecture given by these two vets in early March, 2009 at Rutgers Univ. in NJ. I had whole-heartedly supported the research project. Naive person that I was, I'd worked on the assumption that surely this study was being conducted through evaluating Titer tests long-term. It had never ocurred to me that the research would involve laboratory dogs. And I can tell you without a shadow of misunderstanding in my mind, Dr. Schultz HIMSELF VERY CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED that at the end of the study ALL THE DOGS were to euthanized, NOT just the ones who contracted the disease. As much as I applaud all these folks have done to better the lives of our family pets, I cannot reconcile this with my love for ALL DOGS. Those dogs should not be suffering like that in the name of our family pets. HOW DO YOU DRAW THE LINE between the two types of dogs?? I have withrawn my support of the Rabies Challenge Fund because of their barabaric research methods. In this day and age, there HAS to be a better way to get your scientific resulsts. I don't want any dogs suffering for MY dog's sake anymore.

[Justine]

Deirdre - you wrote:



"In this day and age, there HAS to be a better way to get your scientific resulsts. I don’t want any dogs suffering for MY dog’s sake anymore."



Actually there isn't a better way. And this isn't about your dog, my dog or the dogs in the study. The findings will affect millions of dogs for generations to come.

[Paul]

First of all you need to get your facts correct: the USDA, which Dodd is following in their beagle killing experiment-project, requires that ALL exposed animals are killed. Period. SO quit trying to minimize what they are doing here, and want to do without justification.





I am disturbed that you all would support this deceptive research project on your site!!



These people have actively engaged in soliciting funds for a project that will be a beagle killing mission ultimately sacrificing 80+ dogs for what reason??? These means justify the endpoint? and yet Ms. Dodds and her research team refuse to describe on their website what exactly the word "challenge" in fact means as in what will be done to the animals used in the experiment (exposed to live rabies, suffer the symptoms and then be killed to examine....all of them whether they show signs of infection or not because they have now been exposed to the virus per USDA req)



And you all support this, when the research team hasnt even 1st acquired a valid basline of adverse report events traceable to rabies compared to the millions of vaccines given each year??



Shame on you.



I will ask the same question I asked ms. Dodd and her team, would you offer your own pet-animal to be part of this experiment-study in order to save the lives of other animals? How about animals that noone owns or cares about as Ms. Dodd is doing here, yet shows happy smiling dogs on her site.



Absolutely unreal and just sad.



You all need to carefully evaluate what you are supporting.

[Deirdre Curran]

Right on Paul, right on. There is no reason they can't establish the same information with the use of titer tests or something along those lines, in a more highly developed format that the scientific community would find acceptable as proof. And Justine, I beg to differ - this IS about MY dog, YOUR dog AND all those other dogs for generations to come. I don't support PETA and their insane tactics, but I cannot differentiate between two animals suffering needlessly, one a beloved family pet and one a puppy raised purely to be a scientific experiment. Suffering and cruelty are the same, no matter which animal it's being done to.