I gues everyting that needed to be said has been said in most posts, wel kind of. repeating ourselfs is sensless . i belive people have enoughf to think about and do some google sirches, to find out..
like i said earlyer
there are always 2 sides to a story . thought i show that feeding raw isend as healty as people think ore claim it is.... Now please show of raw fed conditiond dogs..
Originally Posted by Limey Kennels
Actually, doing "Google searches" doesn't let you find out everything, precisely because there are a lot of biased articles (written by idiots) ... as well as articles who have slanted and/or hidden agendas
This may not seem relevant (yet I promise you it is), but I was an injury claims fraud investigator for over 12 years. In that capacity, I have read more doctor's reports than probably anybody in dogs (except for a practicing physician, nurse, etc.), and one thing I can tell you with 100% authority about these "reports" is that doctors can be paid $$ to say anything.
With this in mind, a lot of these "findings" you read online must be taken with a grain of salt, as you have to also consider the agenda of who the author is. Well, the same is true with "vet studies" ... consider the source and who funded the "research." In other words, if the major company Purina funded the research, then you can bet your ass that it is going to be "kibble-biased," as I have personally seen articles be.
Most "professional vets" have Science Diet on their shelves, and I can assure you that there is no "science" anywhere supporting the use of 85% of the ingredients of that garbage as optimal canine nutrition. Yet that is what at least 90% of vets suggest you buy for your dogs, which is criminal IMO.
Jack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote