Have privately heard from several folks who had or have late-neuter ferrets
with early-age adrenal growths.  Also, heard more than once that when they
mention these to other people (even with actual surgeries and pathology
done) there sometimes is the tendency (among multiple people) to assume
that the diagnosis must be wrong.
 
*****Sorry, but concepts have to be fit to the data, not the other
     way around, if we are to get a handle on any medical problem.*****
 
It may well be that late neuters do provide some protection (or protection
when certain other factors don't also come into play) but they are not a
cure-all in relation to adrenal growths at any age (including early ones),
and the reality is that the numbers do not exist to know if late neuters
make any difference in rates of adrenal growths.  People should be able to
be frank when such situations occur.  We all need good hard data on this
topic BEFORE final conclusions are drawn, but that doesn't yet exist and
can't until some studies by competent researchers emerge.  Let's LISTEN to
the people who have reports to make even when they say what we don't want
to hear -- because it may be what we NEED to hear and learn -- and then
we'll all learn, plus maybe folks won't mind making such reports publicly
if people here just behave in a kind enough fashion to bring them to the
conclusion that others won't jump all over them once they speak.  (BTW, the
person's point about neglect -- when she clarified what she meant -- was
that perhaps there are aspects of neglect which increase the chances of
adrenal growths happening, which is a very reasonable point, not that each
case is caused by neglect.)
 
While I most definitely agree that there are interesting HYPOTHESES
out there I have to add that these are ONLY hypotheses so far -- only
interesting directions in which to look.  They are NOT firm answers or
facts.  Treating them as matter of faith can only undermine both medical
care and advancement in veterinary knowledge.  It makes complete sense to
take precautions based upon such hypotheses, but it does NOT make any sense
to assume that ANY of them MUST be correct.  Some of them may be correct
and some of them may be completely wrong.  The only way to know is with
studies by people who understand study design, sampling techniques, the
math involved, etc.  That is the ONLY way to actually unravel the
mysteries, especially when the problem may be a complex enough one that
several factors are interacting.  The fact that I have followed a good
number of ferrets through the years (approaching two decades in a couple
of years), does NOT change the fact that I've got one heck of a limitation
when it comes to knowing causes that haven't even been studied, same as
anyone else.  ACKNOWLEDGING OUR OWN LIMITATIONS rather than making up
labels that seem as if more is known than really is can often be one of
the most important moves we can make toward improving ferret medical care.
 
There seems to be a mistaken feeling here that endocrinology and genetics
are easy topics which can be learned with a few texts and a few classes.
The truth is quite different.  These are two extremely complex puzzles
which are still in their infancies in surprisingly many aspects, and
therefore largely unraveled in many subsets.  There are things which are
affected by hormones that one wouldn't expect to be affected, things which
aren't which a layperson might assume should be affected, things which
release hormones that people don't expect to do so such as fat, etc.
Meanwhile, the layperson doesn't know enough genetics to know where
population genetics fits in or where molecular genetics does, or... Plus
your typical layperson tends to think that being a dominant allele means
that the representation of that allele in the population will somehow
magically increase.  These are NOT easy topics.  People who have doctorates
in them are at least as often stumped as not, so laypeople have to be
VERY careful about reading things into the subjects and making assumptions
based on those actions.  Having formally studied them a bit and read some
afterward, I know just about squat and perhaps even less than that about
these topics, but at least I know and admit that limitation, which is an
important starting point.
 
There seems to be a feeling here that things have been "proven" which
simply have not -- whether that topic is hormonal supplementation,
causes of illnesses, what constitutes membership in the category of
hormonally-related neoplasias, how phytoestrogens behave, etc.  Be careful!
"Proven" is very, very strong word so don't use it so lightly or you'll
most likely use it incorrectly.
 
There are things ferret people, esp.  those who have been involved with
many ferrets or over many years know very, very well.  There are ways
in which ferret medical care has been helped due to that.  Still, that
doesn't mean that each Gordian Knot is one which we can unravel ourselves.
I strongly respect everything which has been accomplished by the ferret
community and it's members -- heck, I'm in that membership myself --
but sometimes we need to step back and see when our best
efforts/abilities/backgrounds are not up to what the problem demands, and
instead find ways to help those who do have the abilities needed to solve
those complex puzzles.
 
The Dutch study completed what it's goal was -- to give an overview of
adrenal neoplasias in Holland, but the further conclusions were derived
from questionable math.  Have had it reviewed by mathematicians (name
people) who say that the math, when done properly, shows no patterns at
all.  There are other weaknesses in methodology which were discussed
extensively in earlier FML issues by multiple people, such as their
sampling techniques that weakened strongly anything taken from the work.
So, in part it was goods and in part it was bad.  One point: when
non-research professionals conduct a study, PLEASE, remember that there is
no shame in consulting with university research professionals for technique
AND in having the mathematicians at a good university check the math
beforehand.  There was an article a good while back in which mathematicians
reviewed a number of medical studies only to come to the conclusion that
a great number could have really used help from a professional in
mathematics, that many conclusions were unwarranted once the math was
corrected.
[Posted in FML issue 3105]