Parvo

Diseases, proactive care, geriatric issues, etc.

Moderator: Moderator Pack

Re: Parvo

Postby hicntry » Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:11 pm

Doc, I missed you post at the top of the page when I wrote the last post. Possibly I misinterpreted your intent of the first posts. What do you say we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Disregard my last post unless you find something useful there. I am not a big fan of veterinary care as I believe, while it is good for the individual dog, it's easy access has been terrible for breeds as a whole.
Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Jim Beam in one hand, Airedale in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
hicntry
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:22 pm
Location: North Fork, CA

Re: Parvo

Postby huntnvet » Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:09 pm

I tried not to get pulled into this, but oh well, I am now.

Smabby, I'm not sure why everyone thinks vets ( or any other discipline) are always trying to be high and mighty, I don't realize what I did that made hctry or orhunter think such. I made the one comment about 50K dogs only because both of them continue to use experience as the reason they are right and I'm wrong. Just wanted to point out that practicing vets and other professional don't sit in a room reading books all day, they actually practice.

Hctry, I typed out a nice, well thought response and you didn't address any of it. Just forget about the experience and book learning non-sense for a moment and respond to my post. Would you agree or disagree that adding some scientific rigor to your program, or any breeding program, could in fact improve the outcome?

Orhntr, using a diagnostic test isn't book learning, that is using technological advancements to remove human error. Prior to the development of the scientific method, everyone relied on anticodatal information to guess, although some had a better guess than others, what was the best healthcare. That is the very reason why we had "humors" and "blood letting" for centuries, but once we devised a method to get past human error, science made huge leaps with great success.

I'll give an example: Let's suppose we have a group of puppies that are lethargic, diarrhea, vomitting, and have a fever, all common signs of parvo. This is my treatment: I place misters in the kennel. Three days later all the pups are better. Now what conclusions can we draw? If you said, misters are a good treatment for parvo puppies, you would be making the same error made by humans for hundreds of years prior to the development of the scientific method! Sure that seems like solid logic, and what makes it seem more real, is that sometimes, this approach does actually work, thus reinforcing the idea that you will make the same error again. So why is this logic not the best way to arrive at the conclusion; because, with each assumption you make, you increase the likely hood of error: 1. we assume the pups have parvo, but we can't be 100% sure, 2. we assume that the pups are actually getting enough water from the mister to replace that lost by diarrhea and vomiting but we can't be sure, 3. we assume that had we not given the mister, the pups would have died, when it is entirely possible that the pups could have lived without placing the misters in the kennel. Each of these assumptions just increases the likelyhood of error and thus arriving at an incorrect conclusion. To further the example, let's suppose that we did draw the conclusion that the mister is what saved the pups. So next time we have pups with the same clinical signs, we treat them the same, and they get better! Thus reinforcing our belief that the mister works. Unfortunately, this conclusion is horribly incorrect because: 1. you just committed the same error of assumptions as the 1st time, 2. and more importantly, this is a seperate event that the 1st, we don't actually know if the pups had the same disease, also the pups are different pups with different genetics, so we can't compare the two incidents.

OK, your turn....
huntnvet
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Parvo

Postby hicntry » Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:40 pm

huntnvet wrote:I tried not to get pulled into this, but oh well, I am now.

I made the one comment about 50K dogs only because both of them continue to use experience as the reason they are right and I'm wrong.


Doc, unless I am not understanding something here, I believe you were the one saying I was possibly wrong in my diagnosis and could only be "almost" certain if I relied on science rather than experience. Don't think it was the other way around and that "IS" the stand you are supporting.

huntnvet wrote:Just wanted to point out that practicing vets and other professional don't sit in a room reading books all day, they actually practice.


That word has always left me feeling uncomfortable...."practice". The beauty of it doc, when I practice it is on my own dogs!

huntnvet wrote:Hctry, I typed out a nice, well thought response and you didn't address any of it. Just forget about the experience and book learning non-sense for a moment and respond to my post. Would you agree or disagree that adding some scientific rigor to your program, or any breeding program, could in fact improve the outcome?


Of course I agree that it "COULD" in fact improve the outcome.....but very "POSSIBLY" it wouldn't improve anything....just serve in producing weaker dogs in the long run.

huntnvet wrote:Orhntr, using a diagnostic test isn't book learning, that is using technological advancements to remove human error. Prior to the development of the scientific method, everyone relied on anticodatal information to guess, although some had a better guess than others, what was the best healthcare. That is the very reason why we had "humors" and "blood letting" for centuries, but once we devised a method to get past human error, science made huge leaps with great success.

I'll give an example: Let's suppose we have a group of puppies that are lethargic, diarrhea, vomitting, and have a fever, all common signs of parvo. This is my treatment: I place misters in the kennel. Three days later all the pups are better. Now what conclusions can we draw? If you said, misters are a good treatment for parvo puppies, you would be making the same error made by humans for hundreds of years prior to the development of the scientific method! Sure that seems like solid logic, and what makes it seem more real, is that sometimes, this approach does actually work, thus reinforcing the idea that you will make the same error again. So why is this logic not the best way to arrive at the conclusion; because, with each assumption you make, you increase the likely hood of error: 1. we assume the pups have parvo, but we can't be 100% sure, 2. we assume that the pups are actually getting enough water from the mister to replace that lost by diarrhea and vomiting but we can't be sure, 3. we assume that had we not given the mister, the pups would have died, when it is entirely possible that the pups could have lived without placing the misters in the kennel. Each of these assumptions just increases the likelyhood of error and thus arriving at an incorrect conclusion. To further the example, let's suppose that we did draw the conclusion that the mister is what saved the pups. So next time we have pups with the same clinical signs, we treat them the same, and they get better! Thus reinforcing our belief that the mister works. Unfortunately, this conclusion is horribly incorrect because: 1. you just committed the same error of assumptions as the 1st time, 2. and more importantly, this is a seperate event that the 1st, we don't actually know if the pups had the same disease, also the pups are different pups with different genetics, so we can't compare the two incidents.

OK, your turn....


Doc, it was a simple question could it be of benefit or not and why. Never said it was a cure as it didn't help the 50/50 pup. It died misted. As we are sitting here debating this,a commercial in the other room just finished. One was by a law firm looking for anyone that has been taking this particular drug that has killed numerous people. They have a class action suit going against the manufacturer. The other was a warning to stop taking this other drug because it is causing enlarged hearts or something. This is science today.

Actually doc, parvo lives in the ground and is in the environment 24/7. When the ground is disturbed it becomes air born much like valley fever. Flies can move it easily. Misting keeps the spores from getting air born, and keeps flies out of the area. Misting also help keep the pups temperature down and possibly may help hydrate them. You have no control over air born particles but you can control them in an area if you prevent them from being air born.

Science can be a double edged sword doc. I went 2 years and only produced 2 viable pups in that time. Had lots of pups, but, they were all fully developed but stillborn. Talked to several vets and they didn't have a clue. One day I saw an article about stillborn lambs in a livestock journal. They were using almond hulls as filler and the problem was the black mold that gets on all nuts when they get damp and sit on the ground. There are about 100 oak trees in my dog yards. We had had a lot of rain and snow those last two years. My dogs ate acorns like popcorn. Science solve that one but it wasn't dog science. I have to control that to this day.
Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Jim Beam in one hand, Airedale in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
hicntry
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:22 pm
Location: North Fork, CA

Re: Parvo

Postby huntnvet » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:52 pm

huntnvet wrote:
Hctry, I typed out a nice, well thought response and you didn't address any of it. Just forget about the experience and book learning non-sense for a moment and respond to my post. Would you agree or disagree that adding some scientific rigor to your program, or any breeding program, could in fact improve the outcome?

hctry réponse:
Of course I agree that it "COULD" in fact improve the outcome.....but very "POSSIBLY" it wouldn't improve anything....just serve in producing weaker dogs in the long run.



The above exchange gets at the very fundamental difference in our disagreement. Thus, I'm going to agree to disagree.
Best of luck with your dogs and happy hunting!
huntnvet
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Parvo

Postby hicntry » Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:00 pm

Agreed. No harm no foul, just different perspectives on things. Have a good one.
Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Jim Beam in one hand, Airedale in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
hicntry
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:22 pm
Location: North Fork, CA

Re: Parvo

Postby RCNZ » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:12 am

Question for you Hicntry, at what age are these pups getting parvo?
RCNZ
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:04 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Parvo

Postby hicntry » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:44 am

RCNZ, these pups .....at about 9 1/2 weeks.
Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Jim Beam in one hand, Airedale in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
hicntry
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:22 pm
Location: North Fork, CA

Re: Parvo

Postby RCNZ » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:15 pm

What about the ones you've had with Parvo in the past?
RCNZ
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:04 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Parvo

Postby hicntry » Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:40 pm

About the same age, maybe a week to a week and a half older.
Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Jim Beam in one hand, Airedale in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
hicntry
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:22 pm
Location: North Fork, CA

Re: Parvo

Postby orhunter » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:00 pm

Hicntry: Are you sure it wasn't salmon poisoning?
SARCASM, one of the many free services I offer
orhunter
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 7290
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:29 am
Location: nw oregon

Re: Parvo

Postby hicntry » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:12 pm

orhunter wrote:Hicntry: Are you sure it wasn't salmon poisoning?


I hope not. If it was the treatment must be the same for both. LOL
Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about.

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Jim Beam in one hand, Airedale in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
hicntry
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:22 pm
Location: North Fork, CA

Re: Parvo

Postby RCNZ » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:53 pm

hicntry wrote:About the same age, maybe a week to a week and a half older.


Interesting. When you've outcrossed and seen the dropped resistance are you bringing in an outcross bitch or just semen? How is the resistance in that first cross litter vs subsequent litters from surviving pups bred back to the line?
RCNZ
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:04 pm
Location: New Zealand

Previous

Return to Healthcare

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: NEhunter and 8 guests