Here's a question: has anyone looked to see if there is any pattern
(frequency, regional frequency, etc.) among OLD adrenal case records in
the U.S.?  It had been mentioned how rarely Aleutian Disease had been
mentioned in the past, and that got me trying to think (Oh, oh, DUCK!
She's immolating brain cells again!)
 
That got me thinking about rare adrenal mentions used to be.  Now LOADS
of things could account for that: from lack of looking for it, lack of
recognition of it, lack of information about it, etc.  Among the many other
possibilities, though, are some which might be interesting.  It has been
postulated by vets I've known that adrenal disease may have multiple things
create predispositions or act as triggers, including that there might be
a quiet viral trigger which affects predisposed (again multiple possible
causes) individuals.  IF that is the case then the lack of early cases
might reflect that virus having not having had the opportunity to spread,
yet, or perhaps of it not yet acquiring a needed mutation.  One way to
see if this might be a SUSPECT could be to see if there are patterns when
well-kept records are compared, noting that the early ones may only have
symptoms which could also be caused by things other than neoplasia
(including other adrenal tumors, improper spays, etc.).  This is just an
idea I'm tossing out with the question of whether it may be a feasible
thing to do at all.
 
Anyway, besides those same sort of factors also affecting INTERPRETATIONS
of ADV rates by readers there are several other things which must be kept
in mind.  Stories about cases get repeated so if they aren't being traced
back to original reports then what looks like 3 or 6 or 8 cases may
actually be only 1 or 2.  The more a topic is discussed, particularly in an
emotional way (and it's hard to not be emotional about deaths) the worse
the IMPRESSION of how common it is may seem.  That works in reverse, too:
the less commonly reported the less likely it seems to be around though it
might be.  Second, third, fourth, etc.  hand reports carry a LOT of chances
for messages to be altered.  Think back to the childhood party game of
telephone where a message was passed from ear to ear in the circle and at
the end the final version was compared with the first one (which typically
came from the adult in charge).  The message commonly changed rapidly and
greatly, but as the kids got more and more careful another game had to be
begun because the changes diminished.  Now, look at how many places there
are for error to be introduced in a third hand report received:
1. The original message could have errors.  (First hand report)
2. B's interpretation of the original message could have errors.
3. B's statement about the original message could have errors.  (Second
   hand report)
4. C's interpretation of what B has said could have errors.
5. C's statement of the message could have errors.  (Third hand report
   itself)
6. D's interpretation of what C conveyed could have errors.
 
That statement received by you could be in shorthand: ***I learned today
from an astronomer that he heard a first-hand report stating*** that lime
green bacteria ate a copy of G-Dubya's face at age 2 and 5 months into a
Martian cliff... Only twelve words in the part which describes the route
but the report which is being discussed would have six places into which
errors or alterations could be accidentally (or purposely -- though I
suspect that's much more rare) added.  When a topic has been as often
discussed and as emotionally discussed as ADV has recently been over the
last few months that leaves a LOT of room for changes in statements to be
introduced.
 
There have been some EXCELLENT posts recently in relation to ADV
discussions.  Have had great pleasure reading them.  Like the posters I AM
glad that research is on-going and that shelter options are being created.
 
Oh: quick note: Morris Animal Foundation did NOT do the rabies shedding
studies.  MAF, which you can read about on their webpage, is a 50 year
old foundation which provides MONIES to help OTHERS conduct studies
designed to HELP IMPROVE VETERINARY CARE.  Among their current studies is
one on reproductive difficulties to see if some approaches may work which
are hoped by the researchers to apply to both domestic ferrets and BFFs.
The actual rabies shedding studies were carried out by the CDC and major
veterinary universities' professors such as Deborah Briggs.  I have not
worked the numbers myself, but also have heard that the ferrets saved
within the first month of implementation of the improvements to the
Compendium of Animal Rabies Control within the full U.S. may have exceeded
the number of ferrets in the studies.  Do not know if that pans out or not;
certainly by now the number is exceeded.
[Posted in FML issue 2948]