Hey you rumor-mongers you.  I got a handful of mail wondering why the
wonderful and wise Dr. Kemmerer blasted my adrenal posts.  I don't think she
was referring to me, because my info on early neutering has been in BIG's
hands for four days now, waiting an opening to be put in the FML, and hasn't
yet; so it couldn't be me.
 
I belive the misunderstanding stems from her post being under my Poncho post
and that I have been addresing the issue lately.  But even if Dr. Kemmerer
(or anyone else for that matter) had *ANY* disagreements, so what?  I'm no
authority, probably no one is.  I've just looked into the issues the best I
can and am reporting the results--many of which has changed my own opinions
of late.  The goal in *ANY* discussion of this form is to strive to get to
the truth.  Along that path, some will be right (including me) and some will
be wrong (including me).  If the goal is to discover truth, when who cares
who was right or wrong as long as the truth is achieved?
 
I have found *EVERY* vet on this list to be highly intelligent, strongly
motivated, and extremely concerned for the welfare of ferrets.  Not a single
exception.  I have nothing but admiration and respect for each one of them,
and I honestly value their opinions more than my own person doctor.  If
anyone has a valid debate for anything I've said, I always listen.  If a vet
debates me, you can be sure I will do more than listen.  And if my friend
Dr. Kemmerer says I've said something wrong, well, if I were smart, I would
stop what I was doing and look into it.  My guess is there would be some
validity to her statements.
 
One last thing I want to point out.  In science (or anywhere else) it is
extremely easy to criticize.  You can almost always find some "what if"
position that attacks any idea.  That is because an idea is not a fact.  A
bone is a fact.  A stone is a fact.  A fossil is a fact.  But *ideas* are
opinions based on facts, and as such, it is quite easly for error to slip
into and deflect that opinion from the ultimate truth, especially when one
is biased by emotion or personal prejudice.  That is the value of the
debate; it allows a testing of opinion to see if it is truely based on
facts.  That is also why scientific opinion changes as more facts are
brought into play.  Scientists are not unemotional automatons; they just try
to argue that way, and it is often misinterpreted as a emotional argument by
those who cannot separate their feelings from the debate.  Dr. Kemmerer's
post (and most others she has written) do not strike me as anything other
than a nonemotional discussion of the issues.  That shows good science and
better vet care.  If I lived within commuting distance, I would be more than
pleased to make her my vet, and I consider her patients to be in the best of
care and their caregivers quite lucky.
 
Bob C and 20 MO Musty Monkeys (with Poncho)
[Posted in FML issue 2225]