Re: Re: The Anti-BARFers strike back!

[Guest guest]

>On Mercola (sorry lost the link) he goes into the pet food

>manufacturers and how they have economic ties to the pet

>pharmacology businesses. In some cases the same ones with the bad

>food making our pets sick are the ones making a fortune treating

>them for the rest of their lives.

Not surprising, and yet still stomach-turning.

When I run into nonsense like that article and feel my blood pressure

rising, I try to remind myself that it's all part of an evolving

ecology. Tactics and information and market positions and everything

else evolve endlessly.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>>Finally, some animal experts are flabbergasted by the raw feeding

>>debate. Merwick, who rehabilitates wolves at Second Chance

>>Ranch animal rescue sanctuary in Washington state, believes that >>

>

>

>Oh, God, not her again!!

>

>Kathy A.

Haha! I was thinking the same thing. She's been " striking back " since the

dawn of time. Any rag that reports her drivel but not the other side of the

story is definitely suspect, IMO.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/19/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> Everyone at the feed store was so sure I was wrong to just give my

> hens scratch grains instead of the scientifically formulated

> crumbles. My hens are gorgeous and healthy. So what if they don't

> all lay an egg a day, I figure the ones they lay are more nutrient

> dense from their stores not being depleted. The chicks they raise

> are sturdy, strong, and healthy, so unlike the " formula " fed feed

> store chicks that are feeble and weak at first by comparison.

Some of the animal studies I've looked at on my article on vitamin A

and fracture risk are done on broiler chickens to see what the needs

are for the chickens. The feeds are fortified like crazy because the

genetic freaks they are raising have such high needs for nutrients.

They're saying that the National Research Council's reccomendations

are no longer applicable because the newest genotypes require 30% more

calcium than they used to, and like 8 times as much vitamin D. The

diets are often fortified through the roof but the chickens have

rickets and other Ca and D deficiencies anyway. The experiments are

showing that it's taking the equivalent of 20-30,000 IU per day for a

bodyweight adjusted human dose of vitamin D to prevent rickets. It's

pretty amazing.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Any rag that reports her drivel but not the other side of the

>story is definitely suspect, IMO.

I'm extremely disappointed in Salon for printing that tripe, but it's no rag.

Perhaps you or someone else familiar with the parties involved could

write a letter to the editor.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>>Any rag that reports her drivel but not the other side of the

>>story is definitely suspect, IMO.

>

>I'm extremely disappointed in Salon for printing that tripe, but

>it's no rag.

>

>Perhaps you or someone else familiar with the parties involved could

>write a letter to the editor.

I would definitely consider it if I wasn't so incredibly far behind on a

myriad of other commitments. I HAVE heard good things about Salon, too bad

they did a shody job on this story.