07/04/2024
A trend well worth considering!
RAW-FED DOGS SEE THE VETS A LOT LESS...
This is crazy. Not sure why I didn't lay it out this way the first time!
I’ve mentioned this before but just to recap - two years ago, a study was published that suggested feeding VEGAN kibble to meat eaters like dogs and cats, helps them to live TWO YEARS LONGER!!!
Remember that?!
The Vet Times had it on their front page and mainstream media, haters of meat, small farmers and carbon in general, positively lapped it up. The Guardian in the UK ran multiple pieces on it.
MAJOR study with MAJOR findings so MAJOR news, right?!
And on the surface, where the vast majority of people remains - 2600 participants, conducted by a Professor in a University, peer-reviewed “study” - it was quite convincing.
The you look into the study and see it’s a survey. Nothing too much wrong with that. Surveys can be useful, particularly if conducted properly (you can slant the questions to suit your agenda) and, most important, if the numbers are large (such as the Helsinki University survey of 16,750 households, totally more than 80,000 dogs and equating to many millions of dog meals that found raw feeding was incredibly safe…the Vet Times and Guardian sadly missed that one though…).
Sadly, when you look into the numbers, this was a survey of little more than 100 vegans. They asked the vegans if they thought their dogs were healthy? Sure!! And how much longer do you THINK they are living thanks to this new diet? Oh, about two years!!!
Honestly. This was enough for the Vet Times, the voice of the evidenced-based veterinary sector, to put the “vegan fed dogs live 2 years longer” on their front page and for the ever-vocal, white coat vets on social media to spread it far and wide, like a tractor and trailer spreading slurry on a field.
What was glossed over in this survey were other, FAR MORE INTERESTING results - such as raw-fed dogs seem to use the vets less.
That’s right. Raw fed dogs were nearly twice as likely NOT to see a vet at all in a year than kibble-fed dogs.
(I say kibble-fed but I took some liberties with the data to make it easier to compare to my previous survey - “kibble-fed” here includes all vegan-fed dogs and all dogs fed standard cereal-based meals by their owners, whether they received meat treats or canned food etc was not pulled from the data. As the vast majority of these dogs, statistically speaking, were undoubtedly kibble-fed dogs, I used “kibble-fed” to identify the group as a whole. We could also have used the term “ultra-processed-fed” or simply “non-raw”. In fact, I like the latter name more now so I will use it from here on!).
And, better still, they were nearly twice as likely NOT to go the vet more than once than the non-raw-fed dogs (data table from the study in the comments, you have to add up the 2-4 visits for “meat-based” fed dogs and vegan).
So that was interesting and the fact the veterinary rags decided not to mention it on any of their covering pieces tells you exactly where their allegiances lie, and it ain’t with you guys.
(Now, you can absolutely say that raw-feeders distrust vets more (studies show) so they will use vets less. That's likely a confounding factor. Also raw-fed dog owners are better read and more likely to tackle small issues themselves. Surely a factor too. No doubt. But with now a multitude of studies showing dry is inflammatory, upsets gut flora and increases skin, ear and gut conditions in dogs (the #1, 2, and 3 reasons for visiting the vet today) how much each contributes to the overall effect is right now impossible to determine).
But what’s even more striking is that these results were virtually IDENTICAL to the findings of a poll conducted by moi 6 or 7 years ago. I polled 1600 dog owners, divided them into dry and raw feeders and asked how many times they’ve been at the vet.
Check out the differences in those bars - VERY significantly more likely TO NOT SEE a vet in the first year and more than twice as likely NOT TO SEE a vet more than once.
Of course, these are only surveys. They’re not worth anything (or, to be more exact, the finding that 100 vegans THOUGHT their dogs were living longer is HIGHLY RELEVANT but the statistical difference in veterinary visits is most certainly not worth mentioning…).
Like when the CEO of a major guide dog school in Australia reported 82% savings in vet bills changing 220 dogs from dry to raw. Worthless anecdote.
And the studies showing harm (inflammation, more, skin, ear and gut conditions) are not big enough, need more numbers etc etc etc.
The point is, we need MORE data before we can even humour if kibble is driving illness and vet visits in pets.
Until WE can get that together for you (Mars Inc., who owns most of the US veterinary sector, has access to the health records of many millions of dogs and cats…you don’t think they have this data?!), best you don't even TRY feeding real to your pet (even though enormous safety studies show this is an incredibly safe thing for you and particularly them, considering the death toll from kibble, to be doing).
Get the game? As we learned over the last few years, the bad guys do not use science to discover, they use it as a shield.
