I'd like to tell you about something I read yesterday which on the face of
it doesn't seem to be ferret connected, but there IS a moral which is VERY
connected to many discussions here.
 
Trying to be brief: as many of you know it had been thought that perhaps
many menopausal women can be helped by phytoestrogens and thereby reduce
the chances of using HRT (hormonal replacement therapy).  Although it was
known that some of the areas might be effected by an economic inability to
consider HRT, the low use in Japan was one thing which helped feed this
conclusion since the Japanese diet is high in such naturally derived
chemical compounds.  In a strange way, however, it is coming out that the
degree of menopausal effects such as tissue reduction may be greater there
than thought.  With the legalizing of Viagra women who had not complained
before are now doing so.  Why had they not complained before?  Because
Japan has not okayed the low dosage estrogen compounds used in the West,
so the only compounds available are the old high level ones which have a
dramatically greater list of unwanted side effects for some people.  This
has led to hormonal therapy being publicly (and medically until the much
safer ones are okayed) being equated with discomfort and increased risk
rates in that nation) and therefore has led to it being avoided.  Until the
womens' husbands became more active their tissue loss went undiagnosed.
(Hopes are now that Japan will allow low level hormones, which have long
and excellent use in the West, sometime this year.)  (It may STILL be that
the symptoms may be less in degree of incidence or in degree of effect, or
that other benefits exist, or both -- but now it really is a matter of
knowing that the data thought to be valid might have problems.)
 
What is the moral?  The moral is that sometimes it is VERY easy to ask the
wrong question, and then to build a thought structure (or research focus)
based upon the wrong foundation.  It is important that this be taken into
consideration now and then.  I posted this because we often see people here
who take hypotheses as fact, confuse partial evidence in another species
with firm knowledge, avoid part of the information which does not agree
with their construct, act as if non-cure short term Quality of Life drugs
for special cases should also be treated as if they are cures, behave as if
simply because something is popular among some subsets that it must be
correct, etc.  Everyone makes such errors now and then, but it is important
for your ferrets' health that they not become routine, and that you USE
YOUR VETERINARIANS and take all aspects of the information they give you
when you make your choices.
 
I am personally VERY leery to have ferrets with things like rabbits,
prairie dogs, sugar gliders, etc.  That said, it is possible IF a person
REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY knows what he or she is doing.  If
you can get Metro Pets (on MSG Metro around here -- NYC area) ASK THE HOST
HOW HE DID IT.  He's got a ferret, dogs, cats, parrots, rabbits, prairie
dogs, and a pile of other birds and mammals (but have NOT seen a sugar
glider) out together interacting in each show, but HE'S NO AMATEUR and
there is only one ferret he uses.  I've had extensive experience with a
range of animals but doubt I'd try unless I knew for CERTAIN that I had
an extremely unusual individual, or had raised the ferret from very young
kithood (possibly younger than usually seen in stores) already interacting
with other species.
[Posted in FML issue 2662]