Re: Re: Re: Animal By-Products in Feed

["Duncan Fletcher" <dfletche@gte.net>]

One of the great things about traditional western medicine is they keep
running studies checking on whether 'traditional' ideas and therapies are
valid. Take that evil medicine called aspirin. As a result of a never ending
list of studies we now know that it shouldn't be used on children (didn't
understand a bit about Reyes syndrome when aspirin was nothing more than
herb). We also know its effect on the possibility of thrombosis. We are
beginning to learn its possible positive effects on preventing endocrine
cancer. There is still much we don't know. But it is traditional medicine
which subjects its current  knowledge to more studies - studies designed to
learn, not studies designed to sell (although they do exist also). Try and
find the same in depth studies on any alternative drug or modality.

Some of the diseases you mentioned have increased, others have decreased
(all based on an age adjusted basis which considering the fact that we
really all do eventually die, means that some fatal diseases must increase
if others decrease if you don't use age adjusted figures). The ones that
have increased on an age adjusted basis are for the most part related to
diet and exercise (but not to preservatives, etc.) - we know how to prevent
them, but we would rather ride a horse than take a 10 mile hike. Yes your
starch based diet is better and a diet of hay for horses (as has been said
time and again on this list by Susan and other western medicine advocates)
is generally preferrable.

The feed companies may not fund the research, but a lot of research takes
place that is not funded by feed companies. My guess is Bayer didn't fund
the research of Reyes Syndrome - and neither would the folks selling willow
bark.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robyn Levash" <questarabians@inreach.com>
To: "Susan Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 3:21 PM
Subject: RC: Re: Re: Animal By-Products in Feed


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Susan Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>
> To: Robyn Levash <questarabians@inreach.com>; Maurisa Payne
> <maurisap@erols.com>
> Cc: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Animal By-Products in Feed
>
>
> > Although I've had a fair amount of human physiology and nutrition
classes
> > along with the animal nutrition classes, I wouldn't presume to tell
people
> > what foods are right or wrong for them in their diet.
>
> Marissa and I were only offering information for those interested in
> learning. Traditional medicine is not always correct as you might believe
or
> have learned. No offense, there is another side to health that you just
have
> not learned. I spent several years going to pre-vet school along with
> several personal experiences, only to find along the way that Traditional
> medicine is not always what it is cracked up to be. Going back to history,
> everyone at one time believed that the world was flat. Very few ventured
or
> cared to know that the world was actually round. Most doctors learn from
> their teachers (in a sense) that the "world is flat". They never venture
or
> care, or simply do not know to dig any deeper into things.
>
> > However, I think that there's alot of mileage that gets bludgeoned out
of
> > taking what are some pretty innocuous livestock feed manufacturing
> practices
> > and turning them into vile, evil and corrupt conspiracies meant to
poison
> > the entire human and animal population.  Believe me, there would be alot
> > more seriously sick people and humans around if preservatives were *not*
> > included in commercial feed.
>
> Who's to say there aren't seriously sick people and animals out there?
Wake
> up! Look all around you at all the people out there with cancers, obesity,
> arthritis, Altheimer's disease, high blood pressure, heart disease,
Chronic
> Fatigue, headaches, hormone relate problems, osteoporosis, high
cholestrol,
> intestional disorders, Diabetes, kidney disease, liver failure, stroke,
> etc.ect. ect.  These diseases are as common as the flu it seems. There is
> something seriously wrong with affects of the rich American diet. Not only
> that, our pets are getting these very same diseases as readily as
ourselves.
> Just because there are no noticeable effects from that preservative, that
> instant or a few years down the road, does not mean that it is not harming
> us in one way or another. Many things are diagnosed as something else.
What
> about  hundreds of  years ago? There were not even a fraction of the
> diseases that our pets and ourselves suffer today. So tell  me then, what
is
> really wrong with the picture of today? These diseases don't just happen
> they are the CAUSE of  "something".
>
> You wanna grow your own organic veggies, and
> > never buy a container of pre-prepared food?  Fine, more power to anyone
> who
> > does that.  Most people are more concerned about convenience in their
> lives
> > and want someone else to do the majority of their food prep, and that
goes
> > for horse feeds as well.  If you make that choice, then yes,
preservatives
> > have to be somewhere in the equation---if it wasn't, there'd be no way
to
> > adequately control spoilage and ther'd be ALOT of horses colicking from
> > moldy feed.  Take your pick.
>
> The point that Marissa and I were making is that there are ALTERNATIVES
out
> there for people that care to know.  For instance, instead of prepared
feeds
> there are good old fashioned oats, pasture, or hay. It is that simple, if
> people want an alternative without preservatives.
>
> >
> > > The consumption of BHA, BHT, or ethoxyquin affects cellular
mechanisms,
> > > causing gene instability and a higher mutation rate. As a result,
these
> > > substances have been linked to a higher incidence of cancer in both
> humans
> >
> > Any references to independent studies to support this contention?  Any
> data
> > produced in species other than lab mice (where they've also been able to
> > produce neoplasias as a result of diets high in purified, distilled
> > water...)
> >
>
> Of course no studies exist! Why would feed companies want to fund studies
> that might show that their products have any ill effects, even if those
> effects are not immediately life threatening? Plus studies are expensive
to
> conduct. Most holistic practitioners -who'd like to have studies funded
> simply do not have the resources available to do the research.
>
> I do not need to have studies done to know that I feel TONS better eating
a
> starch centered plant based diet vs. the rich American diet I used to eat.
I
> do not need studies to know that what I am eating now has clearly helped
my
> serious past medical problems. I am my own study. I listen to my body. I
> listen to my animals. The drastic improvements in our health have spoken
for
> themselves. For instance with my cat, I almost lost her due to high kidney
> BUN levels. I put her on a raw meat/vegtable/starch diet (yes, with the
help
> of my vet) and her blood tests have turned and stayed at normal levels. I
do
> not need studies to tell me that this clearly "saved" her life. Science is
> great, but can only go so far. It is results in the end that speak for
> themselves. Results are either temporary or permanant. It is our choice of
> what it is to be.
>
> Robyn Levash