Hi Bob...  Here is my two cents for all it's worth...
 
By your own writing you state these two things:
 
>One of those techniques involves the careful scrutiny of historic
>documents, including older books detailing ferret care, pamphlets,
>newspapers, and other such material.  Believe it or not, there is a
>surprisingly large amount of such information regarding ferret diseases.
 and...
>Early accounts of ferrets generally ignore their health aspects,
>concentrating on hunting and physical characteristics.
 
These two statements seem to contradict one another.
 
But you do go on to say this;
>This gradually changed with shifts in human attitudes towards animals,
>as well as the rise of veterinary medicine.  Between the 1600s and
>1800s, while reference is made regarding the health of ferrets, with
>a few exceptions nothing specific is mentioned.
 
I disagree with this though:
>Historic descriptions of those symptoms would be easily recognizable....
>(snipped)... In short, they are diseases that, if present, would have
>been recognized and described.  Arguments that early vets lacked the
>ability to recognize them are, well, obtuse.
 
I don't honestly feel this is obtuse thinking.  Although I have no
scientific data to substantiate what I believe, I do have my own
experiences to rely upon.  Five years ago, I took a ferret to a vet who
said he was familiar with ferret diseases but did not recognize simple
adrenal disease.  He did, of course, seem to remember once I brought a
copy of Modern Ferret to him with Dr. Bruce Williams' article in it.  He
was also the same vet that told me 4 years of age was too old for surgery
since ferrets barely live to the age of 6.  Just a mere two years ago, I
watched a vet tell a client who had a ferret with an obvious case of
adrenal disease, to pay for tests that included ruling out lice, mites,
and other internal disorders, and recommended an additional test that was
known at the time to be worthless in determining adrenal disease.  Two
days later the ferret was taken to a true ferret knowledgeable vet that
performed a successful adrenalectomy on him.  I don't feel my experiences
are unique or isolated.  My scientific mind says that if happened to me,
this must have happened to other folks too.
 
My point is that people take their animals to vets that *say* they
have particular knowledge.  People trust in their vets to have that
represented knowledge.  I have to ask myself how a person who has never
had a ferret before know they are not dealing with the right vet
especially way back then?  Since there was no internet, and I doubt there
were many clubs who gathered on a regular basis to discuss ferret related
issues, I think that even by simple word of mouth it may not have been
enough.  The vets of the time may have themselves not even be aware of
their own limitations for fear of loss of business.  Who can really say
what vet practices were like 100, 200 or even 300 years ago?  If I take
into consideration that there are good vets and bad vets out there in
today's society, then I must also concede that the same could be said for
vets back then.
 
I must also take into consideration that some people are like me and have
many ferrets in a household while the majority of ferret owners have
between 1-4.  Realizing that, then we also must take into consideration
that even a person who has 25 years experience with ferrets, may not see
a single case of adrenal disease or insulinoma, and recognize it for what
it is.  Add to that the inexperience of a so called ferret knowledgeable
vet within their area and misdiagnosis is a great possibility.  I must
also realize that if I am running into vets in this day and age that
cannot recognize these common and distinct illnesses now, that I must
ask myself how can we be sure that the reports you looked at were in
fact accurate?
 
In the following statement you say:
>I have scoured more than 1000 historic documents to graph the relative
>frequency of ferret illnesses, finding some 380+ mentioning ferret
>disease.
 
Although I understand how you are applying the numbers, the results can
be considered somewhat skewed due to the fact that out of this handful of
reports, many other factors may not have been looked for, reported, or
taken into consideration.  380+ out of a national population even way
back when is enough to skew the results in one direction or another even
given the best of research, and the best intent of the researcher.  We
already know that data can be looked at in many different ways, so I must
also ask myself how we can determine that we have chosen the best route
to analyze it?
 
I also need to ask myself how the records were obtained, and from where.
What if a major ferret farm kept its records in a place that was later
bombed or destroyed?  It could be deduced that information taken from
there would have revealed a different set of illnesses common to ferrets
in that and the surrounding area.  We already know that the number of
historical books and papers available to us today are only a mere drop
in the bucket simply due to the longevity of paper, and how it needs to
be stored properly and its limited life span.  I can't imagine vets way
back then all knowing how to safely store their documents.  Even if the
work was donated and properly stored and kept, one would still have to
understand that not everyone submitted their information or findings or
that they submitted accurate findings.  Your findings are based only on
the work available and unfortunately that leaves a lot to interpretation.
 
I give this example to you: Surveys were taken in the military many years
ago asking if the enlisted man was gay or not.  The outcome was that the
military decreed there were no gay individuals.  We all know that this
was not true.  People lied.  Does the document prove that there were no
gays in the military at the time?  Or does it simply prove that we cannot
always rely on the information, or the source it comes from?  Although
you may feel it is a stretch to compare the army with vets, I cannot
simply make a separation based on occupation alone.  Recently I watched
a program on children born with the genitalia of both sexes, and were
surgically altered to be one sex or the other based upon it being in
the best interests of the child involved.  In one case, which made the
rounds in medical journals, stated that the operation was a success and
that the now Girl had adjusted well.  It turned out it was not true at
all, and the child when older, took steps to have his male genitalia
reconstructed.  The doctor in this case, did not respond to earlier
criticisms on his findings, and later, when confronted with the child's
desire to be the other sex, he ended up blaming the family, the family
doctor and everyone else involved in the case, instead of coming to
terms with the fact the he initially reported his findings prematurely,
and incorrectly.
 
And lastly, I have to ask what of those people who did not take their
ferrets to a vet at all?  Without knowing what these animals died of,
again, the records are skewed to what has been presented which may be
misleading in the overall big picture.
 
Just my thoughts... still love ya Bob.
betty and her blur o'fur
for the love of ferrets
[Posted in FML issue 3968]