12/05/2025
Whether you're about to get a puppy, you have a young dog, or your dog is starting to slow down, if you have 5 minutes I urge you to read the below article.
Zak suffered with Osteoarthritis, and whilst we tried our very best, the start of his life, where I didn't know any different (We're all on the paths we're on) put his body into a state of inflammation, those first 3 years of his life were relentless stresses on his body :(
Learning comes from reading, and education outside of what you already know, and what you've been told 2, 3, 5, 10, 20 years ago right?
Times change...
This is quite a specific article relating to Librela, however it discussss the fundamentals of inflammation, and ways to help slow, and manage Osteoarthritis.
https://www.facebook.com/share/1EqZ7qTgSM/
DING DING DING....ROUND 3 FOR LIBRELA!
Well, that post yesterday discussing the study showing Librela has nine times the risk of side effects to comparative drugs for osteoarthritis (OA) and, despite being out only 18mths in the US, many times more adverse event reports than it's nearest rival Rimadyl, which has been on the market since 1996, went viral!
Tens of thousands of people have read it. Most of them appreciating the heads up. Sadly, many reporting harm and even death following its use.
But there was also a chosen few who took exception to the details of the study.
I'm going to address each of their comments below so we can all learn together.
😠 "I WOULD RATHER LIBRELA THAN HAVE THE DOG PUT TO SLEEP" 😠
Yes, if those were the only two options presented to you by the vet, I can see why you would choose Librela.
But just to be clear, you are saying you and your vet made your way through the attached checklist of simple, cheap, highly effective, natural, VERY PROVEN with studies (far more robust than the ONE Librela used to get on the market) and, most importantly here, SIDE EFFECT FREE options (everything in green, essentially) before reaching for the pain meds?!
I highly doubt that. The reason is that conventional vets know nothing about virtually everything on that list, actively discouraging some of them.
If you have made your way through the first 12 points, has your vet tried all the other, SAFER pain-relief options in light red?!
I bet they haven't.
😠 "RAW DOG FOOD DOESN'T CURE ARTHRITIS" 😠
Only someone going through the current veterinary curriculum could utter such a statement.
First, nobody said anything about cure, but ameliorate?! Certainly.
You've heard of the Mediterranean diet, yes? You can literally Google hundreds of studies that show shifting your diet VASTLY improves the symptoms of osteo arthritis in humans.
When I highlighted that the answer was "these are dogs, not people".
This young vet was utterly convinced diet has no effect on inflammation...despite numerous studies showing us fresh dog food reduces inflammation in dogs when compared to kibble.
The current medical system has failed this young vet, teaching her that arthritis in the joints is an issue entirely localised in the joints, which of course it's not.
ANYTHING that reduces systemic inflammation now is a good thing. Good food, losing weight, clean teeth, keto diets, reduced stress, good sleep, fasting, sunlight, ALL add up to major gains in the stiff joint department (studies show...do I have to keep saying that?!).
But it goes deeper than that. Raw dog food contains lots of fresh calcium (shown to beat the pants off calcium carbonate, the crap used in dry food, for improving joint health), as well as glucosamine, chondroitin, collagen type 1-4, hyaluronic acid, etc, you know, all the stuff they sell you when your middle aged dog is hobbling around on rotten joints, caused by a deficiency of these crucial compounds since a young dry-fed pup.
These are not OPTIONAL ingredients for the dog. They need them EVERY day. They are essential.
Dry food has none of this stuff.
More than that, higher protein diets promote better weight loss as well as the retention of lean muscle, key factors in the osteo arthritis debate.
😠 "THERE WERE ONLY 19 DOGS IN THE STUDY" 😠
Ahhh, NOW you care about the number of dogs in a study?!
OK, we're agreed, it was a small sample size. Wish it were bigger. Only now, seeing the level of side effects from Librela I personally could never OK a study using more dogs.
When a small study shows major harm, it doesn't need huge numbers. If 10 men were kicked in the nuts and asked if it hurt, you don't need to ask 100 more. In the same way, if 19 people are given a drug and half them have severe reactions to the medication within weeks, no ethics committee would approve a trial using more people. It would be curtains for that drug. That's how it works.
But the main point is, to get the drug on the market, Zoetis used 8 young and healthy dogs in each treatment group.
8 dogs.
And at the end of the trial they seemed OK.
The study used 19 with OA and found it promoted joint disease.
So, you're OK with just 8 young, healthy dogs being used as the safety study for this pain medication, a medication that couldn't gain approval in humans due to harm, a medicine that is now shown to be causing the same harm in dogs, a medicine that has more adverse events than competitors on the market since 1996.
Your refusal to even consider the findings until "more information is available" is exactly the point of the whole post.
How fascinating that some people have this absolute wall when it comes to changing their minds.
There will never be enough data for those people. The studies will never be robust enough.
I think it's pretty bloody rich on one hand accepting a short trial of a tiny handful of dogs conducted by bloody Zoetis, while on the other demanding more evidence than a study of 19 dogs before the deluge of adverse events filed with FDA from multiple owners of harmed and dead dogs are to be believed.
😠 "ZOETIS REPS SAID IT WAS FINE" 😠
Despite my post poking clear holes in the tiny safety study used to launch the product, despite the litany of adverse event reports, despite the FDA twice telling Zoetis off in the last 18mths for bu****itting about how safe and effective their treatment was over competitors (on both counts they can't support it with evidence....), and now this study, despite all that, some vets are still more than willing to come on the page and publicly state they would rather trust the word of a Zoetis rep over lunch.
If anything highlights the trouble our young vets are in, perhaps that paragraph above does it best.
Yes, apparently Zoetis reps said that actually Librela was fine, that the harm was actually coming from vets accidentally using NSAIDs with it (don't do that).
The vet concluded, "if it brings the dog comfort and good quality of life, why not do it?".
BECAUSE this particular treatment, while effective in some, has very major SIDE EFFECTS in too many others.
Side effects are a strange one. When you deal drugs, it seems they are a perfectly acceptable part of doing business.
Can you imagine if one of my lovely, cost-effective, highly effective natural supplements had the side effects of some of the meds recommended by vets today?!
I would be hung drawn and quartered.
ZERO side effects are permitted our side.
We have a multitude of studies showing high-dose omega-3 is effective. ETA. Curcumin. Acupuncture. CBD. PEA. Boswelia. On and on. A far more impressive library of studies supports their use in osteoarthritis than the two junk works used to launch Librela, with NONE of the side effects, and few if any will be recommended by a conventional vet.
Acceptable side effects?
Acceptable by whom?!
TELL IT TO FREYA'S MUM AND THOUSANDS LIKE HER.
The problem vets have today is that their industry is completely captured. They are now on the wrong side of most arguments, not that they can easily realise that from the inside.
Vets are still today recommending high-carbohydrate kibble made by candy companies, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They actively advise against fresh food. Can you imagine?! They recommend chemical parasite control for animals with no parasites. They recommend annual boosters for animals already adequately vaccinated for viruses.
It's all bu****it, all completely at odds with the literature. Needless, expensive treatments that come with SIDE EFFECTS.
The sad state of affairs today is the information supporting vets today is completely corrupted. With some reports suggesting up to 50% of some populations are now feeding fresh food to their pets, contrary to their vets advice, an ever-growing portion of the population is now listening aghast to what young vets are saying in clinic. They KNOW what the vet is saying is wrong and the result is vets at the coal face are going to feel the increasing ire of pet owners sick and tired of paying good money for questionable advice.
And vets are going to feel hard done by. They got into the business to help animals. They worked their asses off in college. They work hard in clinic. They're not paid enough for the stress of the job. Above all, they want to help your pet as much as you need them helped, but here they are now copping s**t from every second client.
It's a s**t situation, and it's all Big Pharma's fault.
Queue "Conor hates medicine".
I hate that one. So childish. Conor loves medicine, used appropriately, but fair to say I try to avoid it if I can. I don't want the side effects, if I can help it. I don't believe that joint inflammation NEEDS drugs. Rather, we NEED to reduce inflammation, that would be my focus.
It's like the use of the word "allergies" which instantly requires Apoquel and Cytpoint for life. Why is it, when those dogs come to us and we make some simple changes, those "allergies" disappear?! The amount of dogs that continued to need those drugs-with-side effects after we have spoken I can count on one hand.
Vets need to understand there may be other ways to control inflammation, from arthritis to "allergies" to autoimmune conditions, that Zoetis didn't tell you about over your (fresh food) dinner.
But how we get that message across without hurting their feelings is another matter entirely.
