>And one never knows ... something that may seem very bad back then, may
>have a related link to an unknown positive thing. For example, okay ...
>maybe the food was indeed "bad" for them after all upon examination,
>but.. the consequence of going to the bathroom more, having more bulk
>prevented something. See?
Yes. No way to know at this point. You are right. IF there was an
effect that was useful it could have been one that doesn't immediately
jump out at people.
Connie, I know that they are debulking his pancreas today and checking
his adrenal, but did he have a complete blood chemistry panel to check
other things like his kidney and liver function? I ask because of your
description of his odor, though it is entirely possible that I am just
reading something into that.
Bob, yes, one of the things we are trying to get straight is which of the
physiological things under discussion MAY be different for ferrets due to
derived changes. There are and have been questions in that regard for
some of the aspects, and if what is most typical (even among researchers)
holds then some of the ideas discussed may pan out and others may not.
My problem isn't with discussing these things because discussing them is
good. My problem is that there are always readers who take what is said
then attach the weight of a proven concept to some hypotheses which don't
carry a pile of qualifiers to show that they are not yet proven. There's
the problem that some may not pan out even if they look likely to --
which too often continues to cause problems even after more is known --
like when a ferret specialist vet thought that blood tests could be
diagnositic for lymphoma/lymphosarcoma which looked very promising even
in early testing but then did not pan out, BUT a number of folks
(including some vets) still held to it after it was known to be false so
that many people wound up needlessly scared and some ferrets even were
killed to prevent possible future suffering. The problem wasn't with the
researcher or with discussing and checking into a hypothesis. The
problem was that too many folks ran with the hypothesis as if it were a
proven thing. So many times I have seen the folks who take these things
and treat them like they were known wind up hurt, and their ferrets hurt.
They do it to themselves, but I think that if folks know that they are
acting upon hypotheses then they have a better chance of saying later
"Well, it was worth a try but it didn't pan out." or of being more
cautious for some ideas (like the lympho thing). I think that if folks
are very careful to repeatedly point out what is not proven with piles of
qualifiers it helps everyone in the long run. This need for caution is
especially true if the people discussing the hypotheses are considered
to be experts, because then the readers weight the words accordingly,
which is fine for proven things but for those ideas which remain in the
conceptual stage it can really open a major can of worms. That means
that knowing downsides and knowing possible weaknesses in arguments, and
knowing that the authors put in a pike of qualifiers can prevent people
and ferrets from being hurt accidently.
*****I really enjoyed your post today. It was classic Bob -- had the
qualifiers, acknowledged the weaknesses, but built the case for the
hypothesis while stating the importance of studies. Top notch job.*****
>In 1998, 62% of the Texas corn crop tested exceeded government-approved
>levels (20 parts per billion) of aflatoxin ("Texas Journal," Wall Street
>Journal, July 29, 1998) and was deemed unfit for human consumption.
>Some samples tested indicated levels as high as 1,000 parts per billion.
>Most of the rejected grain had aflatoxin levels of fewer than 300 parts
>per billion and was approved for sale as animal food.
Interesting, Nancy. I had no idea.
It's amazing what can be a carcinogen sometimes: this, the compounds
formed in meats and starches cooked at high temperatures, the products
of some bluegreen algae (which are actually cyanobacter), some viral
triggers, etc.
If were a yenta, Ora -ora-ora -ora-ora-ora-a-cle...
[Posted in FML issue 3959]
|
