>Has anyone heard more about the DIM virus?  If you haven't heard of it,
>info is located here: http://ferret.org/news/052404a.htm
 
That is what the Burgess/Garner team is calling the current mystery
disease.  Not all teams working on it agree that a virus is very likely.
Things under investigation among teams include but are not limited to
virus, bacterium, fungus, and medication response.
 
This is the disease which causes the white counts that are through the
roof, "melting" of muscles.  sepsis, cellulitis, etc.  which has been
mentioned since Winter of 2002.  It is very rare.  Our Chiclet had it so
if you want to read a blow by blow you will find that in the archives,
both here and in the FHL
 
John wrote:
>If noticeably LONGER: plus `1` for the "anti-early spay/neuter side,"
>(my belief), : `0` for the "pro-early spay/neuter side!" AND a` PLUS`
>for SUKIE, on the "18 hrs. of Darkness" FACT, as a needed
>daily-ferret requirement!!  I think, thanks to sukie, this HAS been
>adopted as true by many reports & studies.
 
Okay, obviously, I have NOT across one of my main points!  Yes, many
aspects of the darkness and early neuter hypothesis have been proven, but
the entire sequence has not so it NEEDS to be taken as a hypothesis with
excellent basis instead of as if it is proven in its entirety.  Until it
is actually proven in its entirety there must remain some room for doubt.
 
Secondly, I have NOTHING to do with it being proven.  Proof is NOT a
matter of reading a lot, nor of being able to get an idea across, no
matter in how many ways to how many people.  Proof is not a popularity
contest.  Proof involves actual scientific experimentation -- real
research, not just reading a lot.  Yes, I read a lot and I pass along
what I read but time and again I mention people noting what is a
hypothesis and how important it is to always take such things with a
grain of salt if there isn't good experimental proof.  Proven Medical
Science is not debate nor is it preaching.  It is not technology nor
is it math nor is it engineering though each use each other -- each of
these being not only important but essential.  It is not theory though
it works from that often.  It is reading, learning, experimenting --
lots and lots of carefully designed experimenting, knowing that there
is variability, and so on.
 
It is essential to understand that for several reasons.  One is simply to
understand what happens.  That is the core.  Not knowing that leads to
emotional pain.  I've been involved with improvements in ferret medicine
for a very large number of years, and during that time I can't tell you
how many times I have heard tearful pain from those who assumed that well
debated hypotheses were fact -- only to have their ferrets ill or dying
just as early as before (a few times earlier).  I have heard this for
treatments (esp.  some alternative ones which were well preached but
lacked experimental proof), I have heard it for lifestyle changes, I have
heard it for more.  If you don't use that all important grain of salt and
if you don't acknowledge variability you set yourself up for avoidable
pain.  Belief has no place in science; in fact, it can decrease the
emotional distance which is needed to best notice where ideas are not
working to allow for finding a variation or a new concept which will, so
preferably researchers try to emotionally distance themselves from the
concepts, knowing that a number just won't pan out.  Steve's doctoral
advisor used to say that is a researcher has fewer than a 1/4 of his or
her ideas fail then the person isn't trying hard enough to be creative.
 
So, just because I read and I talk about something which has a number of
proven segments does not mean that all parts have been proven, nor that I
have proven anything.  Research is not just reading and proof is not
debate.
[Posted in FML issue 4668]