"Eternal Home Again" Microchips



"Professional" microchip insertion at a clinic

 Microchip ID has been widely touted for use in recovery of lost pets and facilitating returns to owner. Since our pets can’t give a phone number or address when they are lost, no doubt microchips can be very advantageous. I choose to have my dogs microchipped.



However, the State of California wishes to remove that choice from us. Los Angeles already has a mandatory microchip law on the books, enacted based on promises from the “Found Animals Foundation” to provide the city with millions of dollars worth of microchips. Shelters in many areas routinely microchip animals prior to adoption. And now the legislature is advancing a bill (SB 702) which mandates microchipping of all animals released from shelters. The owner or prospective owner would have no choice in the matter.

Since the cost of the microchip will be borne by the owner, this will probably result in higher adoption/impound fees. For at least some pets, this will reduce the chances of being adopted or reclaimed.


A microchip can be a wonderful tool, but they are not without pitfalls. There have been rare instances of microchip insertion resulting in illness and death. Dogs have bled to death after insertion and suffered from infecton at the insertion site. Some have had the chip inserted improperly into muscle tissue or even the spinal canal, and there are even instances of lethal cancer formation at microchip sites. (See articles linked below). Chips can migrate in the body or fail, rendering them useless. Microchips also vary considerably by manufacturer and there is no universal scanner at this time.


Other forms of identification such as tattoos or tags can be immediately read by anyone who finds a stray dog, allowing rapid return to owner and reducing the burden on local shelters. Animal welfare groups such as AKC and OFA consider tattoos to be an acceptable form of permanent ID. Freeze branding is also an option worth considering.


Information on a microchip may not always be updated upon transfer of ownership. If there is increased reliance on microchip without another form of ID, the result may be the death of a beloved pet who could have survived with the use of a more visible form of ID.

Animals who are stolen will most likely never be scanned, rendering a microchip uselss in such situations. The thief can even have the microchip surgically removed. This is another instance where a more visible form of ID like a tattoo might be more useful than a microchip.


In regard to microchipping, the American Veterinary Medical association states on their website:

"As with almost anything, it's not a foolproof system. Although it's very rare, microchips can fail and become unable to be detected by a scanner. Problems with the scanners are also not common, but can occur. Human error, such as improper scanning technique or incomplete scanning of an animal, can also lead to failure to detect a microchip. Some of the animal-related factors that can make it difficult to detect a microchip include the following: animals that won't stay still or struggle too much while being scanned; the presence of long, matted hair at or near the microchip implantation site; and a metal collar (or a collar with a lot of metal on it). All of these can interfere with the scanning and detection of the microchip."


The AVMA further states on this same page:


"It looks like a simple-enough procedure to implant a microchip – after all, it's just like giving an injection, right? Well, yes and no. Although it looks like a simple injection, it is very important that the microchip is implanted properly. Using too much force, placing the needle too deeply, or placing it in the wrong location can not only make it difficult to detect or read the microchip in the future, but it can also cause life-threatening problems. Microchips should really be implanted under supervision by a veterinarian, because veterinarians know where the microchips should be placed, know how to place them, and know how to recognize the signs of a problem and treat one if it occurs."


Yet, in Rebecca May’s bill analysis for SB 702 from July 8, there are reassuring statements made regarding microchip safety. Ms. May asserts "The material is inert and biocompatible, thereby there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip. Also, implanting the device is similar to that of a vaccination, resulting in minimal pain for the animal - and can be implanted by veterinary techs and other personnel."



The statement that "there is no health risk to the animal from the insertion of the microchip" is patently false. And the AVMA seems to feel that veterinarians should be there to at least supervise the insertion, in light of the complications that may occur.


Here are two documented cases of the microchip being implanted in the spinal canal. One is dated 2009 and the other case is dated 2010.


Who is responsible if the microchip is placed in the spinal canal? Will it now be the State?

Case 1:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19151873

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2009;22(1):63-5.

Surgical removal of a microchip from a puppy's spinal canal.


"A 1.6 kg, six-week-old Tibetan Terrier was admitted with a 12-hours
history of acute onset of progressive tetraparesis following insertion of
a microchip to the dorsal cervical region. Neurological examination
indicated a lesion to the Ce(1) to Ce(5) spinal cord segments.
Radiographic examination confirmed the intra-spinal location of a
microchip foreign body at the level of the second cervical vertebra.
Microchip removal was achieved following dorsal hemi-laminectomy;
significant intra-operative haemorrhage was encountered. The puppy was
ambulatory at day seven. Follow-up telephone interview 18 months
postoperatively confirmed that the patient had made a good recovery
although it had a mild residual right- sided torticollis."



Case 2:



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422127

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2010;23(3):213-7. Epub 2010 Apr 26.


Delayed spinal cord injury following microchip placement in a dog.

"A three-year-old female, entire Yorkshire Terrier dog was examined because 
it had progressive non-weight-bearing left forelimb lameness and
tetraparesis of two weeks duration. Clinical signs were first observed
following mating. Examination confirmed non-weight-bearing left forelimb
lameness and tetraparesis. Left forelimb muscle atrophy was also noticed.
Survey radiography revealed a metallic foreign body consistent with a
microchip in close proximity to the left articular facets between the
fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae. Computed tomography identified the
exact location of the foreign body encroaching on the left dorsolateral
vertebral canal, and osteolysis of the lamina of the sixth cervical
vertebra. Surgical removal of the foreign body was performed via a dorsal
approach to the caudal cervical vertebral column. Two weeks following
surgery the dog showed return of left forelimb function and resolving
tetraparesis. Microchip implantation had been performed three years
previously."

Risks from microchips are rare, but problems do occur. Microchip insertion should be a personal choice and an individual decision, based upon weighing the risk vs benefit. Such a procedure should not be mandated by the state.

For further information: 

"Implants Linked to Animal Tumors"
Todd Lewan, A.P.
September 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html


"Chipped Pets Develop Fast-Growing, Lethal Tumors
http://www.antichips.com/press-releases/chipped-pets.html


The Scientific Evidence
http://www.chipmenot.org/scientificevidence.htm


Case Histories
http://www.chipmenot.org/casehistories.htm


CASPIAN Releases Microchip Cancer Report
http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2011/05/18/caspian-releases-microchip-cancer-report/

A Cancer Specialist questions early spay-neuter

Vets are finally noticing the overwhelming evidence regarding the adverse health effects of sterilization, particularly early sterilization. Attitudes are slowly changing. Hopefully the mantra of "overpopulation" will soon begin to crumble away also. 
From the Mercola website:

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2011/02/17/dangers-of-early-pet-spaying-or-neutering.aspx

A very legitimate concern, pet overpopulation, has been the primary driving force behind 30 years of national and local spay/neuter campaigns.

When it comes to deciding at what age a companion animal should be sterilized, the standard for most spay/neuter campaigns has been sooner rather than later. This is especially true in the case of adoptable abandoned and rescued pets that wind up in shelters and foster care.

Recently, however, some animal health care experts have begun to question whether early sterilization is a good idea for every pet.

Dr. Alice Villalobos, a well-known pioneer in the field of cancer care for companion animals, asks the question:

"But what if large-scale studies found that early neutering jeopardizes the health of our pets?"

"What if we found enough epidemiological evidence that early neutering of pet dogs may open them to orthopedic, behavioral, immunologic and oncologic issues?"

Back in 1977, Dr. Villalobos founded a rescue organization called the Peter Zippi Fund for Animals, which has to date rescued and re-homed nearly 12,000 pets. Her organization was one of thousands that looked at the tragic situation in U.S. shelters and determined early spay/neuter was the best way to lessen the suffering and ultimate euthanasia of so many feral and abandoned animals.

As a veterinary oncologist and founder of the pet hospice program Pawspice, Dr. Villalobos concedes, "It is earth shattering to consider that some of the cancers we have been battling may have been enhanced by early neutering instead of the reverse."

Sources:

Veterinary Practice News

CanineSports.com

Buyer Beware

crowd of postop frontal lobotomy patients

The “I Heart Puppies” store in Corona Del Mar just opened in July and already they have been targeted for assassination by animal extremists. These groups attempt to shut pet stores down by any means possible. They do not limit their activities to peaceful protest, they go into the store looking to find technical violations of fire and safety laws. And then even brag about having them shut down for a few days! A protest was held last weekend, intimidating anyone within walking distance, including this child.





Child traumatized by the hate-mongering protestors. Police were there to control the rabid mob.

It’s always fun to visit a site dominated by sky-is-falling shelter and rescue abuse apologists. Their tired old arguments are so easy to pick apart. So easy, in fact, that they will generally ban you from commenting once they find that they can’t refute your evidence.

Last weekend I found a low-traffic junk site article about pet store protesting of the “I Heart Puppies” pet shop in Corona Del Mar. The ignorance of the postings by the shelter apologist crowd was actually laughable. Although I have to admit, it was also quite entertaining.

These anti-breeding drones believe that breeders do not participate in rescue. If breeders only would work at a shelter or rescue, the drones reason, they would surely support the extremist view of banning breeding.



The assumption that no breeders are involved in "rescue" is just plain  ridiculous. The vast majority of breed rescues are run by breeders and breed clubs. And, the assumption that everyone in shelter and rescue work agrees with this extremist viewpoint is dead wrong, too. Not everyone is a Chicken Little. Many of us quietly work to genuinely improve society; while the loud-mouthed protestors only cause harm on many levels. Very sad. But then, what can we expect from people who think it is grand to import puppy mill dogs from China, a country where dogs are bred for meat, and now for the US pet market? 


The fact is that it is nearly impossible to find PUPPIES in shelters. The USDA, under the auspices of the Animal Welfare Act, regulates commercial breeders, or those who breed for profit (which is the American Way, whether or not the kooks like it). There is a federal PUPS bill proposed which would place almost every breeder in the US under USDA regulations. In other words, every breeder out there will be considered "commercial" and slurred by the malicious extremists as being a "puppy mill".


These folks want you to obtain dogs only from shelters or rescues. Sadly, I haven't heard of a rescue yet who can get enough "product" to sell from their local shelter. Most all of them import dogs from other cities, counties, states, and even from other COUNTRIES. There is even a "rescue" group in LA called "Dogs Without Borders" that lets people "order" a dog from another country. Often, this country is China, where dogs are commercially bred without any USDA or AWA oversight. Many dogs in China are bred for MEAT. That's right, they are eaten for dinner by the Chinese. And now, the Chinese are breeding dogs for profit, to export to the US shelter industry.


It's not only China who supplies our rescue market with pets. Many groups import from Romania, the Caribbean, and of course, Mexico. Dogs and in particular PUPPIES are getting so scarce that there was just a big LA Times expose about puppies being smuggled in through LAX.


But yeah, it's better to import dog with parasites and rabies (many documented cases of this) than to allow pet stores to sell regulated and inspected and guaranteed dogs from licensed breeders. There is a puppy lemon law to protect pet buyers/consumers in the state from pups that are unhealthy, but of course if you buy a shelter dog all bets are off. There are many wonderful dogs in shelters, but remember, there are also many animals there because of health or temperament issues.

And there is no puppy lemon law to protect you from getting a sick dog from a shelter or rescue. Buyer beware.



The Russian Roulette Diet

Having done extensive research on canine nutrition, I noted with interest Caroline Coile's article "How Would You Like That Cooked?" in the August issue of the AKC Gazette. However, eager anticipation soon gave way to disappointment as I realized that the article included flawed studies and reasoning commonly spouted by the staunchest critics of raw diets. There was some valid information, but the poor data predominated.


A study was cited that found that cats fed frozen raw rabbit developed taurine deficiency, while those fed a commercial kibble did not. There are several problems with this study. First, it only included cats with malabsorption issues. It is well known from human studies that highly refined and processed foods are more easily digested by those with malabsorptive digestive disorders. It is possible that the underlying health condition caused the difficulty with taurine absorption, and not the food itself. A commercial food is, in effect, "predigested" by being highly processed, a situation that may be beneficial for animals with malabsorption problems.


A diet consisting exclusively of rabbit is not advisable because taurine levels in rabbit are much lower than other meats. A 2003 UC Davis lab study tabulated taurine content in various meats fed to pets:


Whole rabbit carcass ....... 373 (+/- 399) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Chicken dark meat.......... 1690 (+/- 370) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Turkey dark meat .......... 3960 (+/- 690) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
clams fresh ................. 2400mg taurine per kilogram wet weight

So if the kibble-fed cats had a diet that included other meats that just rabbit, and was supplemented with powdered taurine as well, they of course were not as prone to develop taurine deficiency as those fed rabbit exclusively. The act of freezing may be a consideration too. It is possible that freezing may destroy taurine, just as high heat cooking does. Grinding also destroys taurine.

And, we might need to remind ourselves, cats are not dogs. Dogs can produce at least some taurine from other amino acids, while cats cannot.

The take home message from this study is that frozen, ground raw rabbit should not comprise the sole diet for months on end of cats with malabsorption problems. That's it! This is even more evidence of the need for variety in the diet.

Then, a large portion of the artice was devoted to bacterial contamination of food. That section highlighted concerns about salmonella. It is interesting to note that a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of diet. The AVMA admits that, based on studies done on kibble-fed dogs, a full 36% carry salmonella in their GI tracts. Salmonella can be transmitted to dogs from humans, and salmonella is also, incidentally, transmitted to humans from other humans, not just by food or kisses from a pet. Salmonella is in the environment, and is a natural part of life for our pets, and for us too. Naturally, it can be a concern for the immunocompromised.


However, commercial dried foods have been recalled for salmonella contamination frequently; more often than raw diets. Once a food is processed at high heat, all microbes, both good and bad, are killed. This leaves the resultant meal in effect a petri dish, ready to be overrun by the first disease-causing micro-organism the food comes in contact with after processing. There no longer are beneficial bacteria in the food to help keep disease-causing organisms in check.


I would be interested to see the 2009 study the article refers to, that claims NO pathogens in the stools of kibble-fed dogs. I would be very skeptical of such results. I have seen multiple other studies out of University of Guelph, cited as part of an agenda to ban therapy dogs from partaking of a raw diet. However, studies used as "evidence" have been either statistically insignificant due to small numbers, or did not include a group of dogs fed kibble. In the studies with large numbers of participating dogs, most all of them have done a great job of highlighting the bacteria in the stool of raw fed dogs while ignoring the significant amount of pathogens in the stool of kibble-fed dogs. In most studies, the amount of pathogens is comparable and for some pathogens (such as C. difficile and MRSA) the rates are significantly HIGHER in kibble-fed dogs.

The article seems to attempt to justify use of highly processed "sterilized" commercial pet food by highlighting overblown salmonella risks. If the risk of transmission of salmonella varied with diet, then health care personnel would be ordered to not to eat peanut butter, almonds, eggs, mayonnaise, a rare-cooked burger, strawberries, or any of the other foods that have been found to carry salmonella. 

An example of a raw diet included in Ms. Coile's article involved the practice of feeding racing greyhounds inferior foods. It should go without saying that when feeding a home-made diet, the ingredients should be fresh; not stale, rotting or rancid.  Concerns about parasites are certainly valid, and the reason that even most raw feeding advocates do not recommend feeding of raw fish or raw game animals. Deep freezing can also help reduce the risk of parasites.

Ms. Coile's article pointed to studies that analyzed home-prepared recipes, claiming they were "unbalanced". This thought process is also flawed, as home-prepared diets are based on the concept of variety rather than eating the same, homogenized recipe each and every day. You do not need "balance" in each bite. What is needed is balance over time. This wrong-headed thinking about balance needed in each bite comes from the habit of opening a bag and pouring out the same dry formula every day, day after day.

A diet made of shredded shoe leather, motor oil and ground coal could also pass AAFCO certification as "complete and balanced". Still, it's certainly not something I'd like to feed my pet.


In this article, much ado was made of nutrient deficiency or excess in home prepared diets, but nothing is mentioned about the multitude of deaths and recalls related to the use of "balanced" commercial foods. These foods can be dangerously "imbalanced" and it is a most serious situation when the naive consumer buys and feeds one food exclusively, trusting it to be "complete and balanced".

Vitamins and minerals have to be supplemented in commercial diets due to the poor quality and overprocessing of the ingredients used. When measurements are off, the results can be deadly. Many deaths and recalls have resulted due to thiamine deficiency, the most recent in 2011 by Wellness brand. In 2006, Mars' Royal Canin brand was recalled due to massive overdosing of Vitamin D. Other vitamins and minerals have been problematic over the years in commercial "balanced" diets, including zinc, calcium, and Vitamin A. Then there are the hazards of incidental ingredients such as fluoride in rock phospate, an ingredient included in almost all pet foods to provide minerals. We also find potential carcinogenic preservatives and even drugs like pentobarbital and tylenol in some commercial pet foods.

You can be certain of three things: death, taxes and future recalls for mycotoxins in pet foods. Recalls for deadly aflatoxicosis and vomitoxicosis are common; the risk for those is unavoidable in commercial foods where dry ingredients sit in warehouses prior to production, and then once manufactured, the food sits on a shelf for months prior to purchase. High levels of aflatoxins kill outright, but chronic, longterm consumption of low levels of aflatoxins (present in virtually ALL kibbles) eventually produces liver cancer.

Let's not forget the frequent recalls for metal shavings and pieces; as well as the horrific 2007 near-universal contamination with melamine and cyanuric acid which were INTENTIONALLY added to foods to make protein content look higher. I daresay such "ingredients" are just as risky (if not more risky) to dogs as any bone fragment in a raw diet ever was. Bones don't kill thousands of dogs in one fell swoop.

Commercial diets have killed countless dogs, yet we are left with the impression in the closing statement that "dogs are living longer than ever now on diets formulated for health."

Is there actual evidence that dogs really are living longer today, on average, than those who lived decades ago? And if so, is that attributable to diet or to other factors? Yes, many owners ARE feeding their pets higher quality foods today; and not necessarily just commercial, over-processed foods. But aside from that, fewer dogs are allowed to roam these days, reducing the possibility of accidental death which was the major cause of death "back in the day". There have been great advances in veterinary care, and more and more pet owners these days take their pets in for routine care and dental cleanings, thereby promoting a longer life. On the other side of the coin, some breeds suffer from genetic health problems that shorten lifespans, and these factors are unrelated to diet or quality of veterinary care. So please let's not jump to conclusions about lifespans based on nonexistent, faulty or incomplete evidence.

We need to quit relying on meals poured from a bag, and begin to use our common sense when feeding our animals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to formulate a balanced diet for dogs; just a bit of information. Look for some of the many excellent canine diet resources available now. Lew Olson, a canine nutritionist, has a book out on raw and natural nutrition for dogs and has great articles on her website; http://www.b-naturals.com/

A good eye-opener to the perils of commercial canine cuisine is Ann Martin's book "Food Pets Die For". Another interesting book with good research is "See Spot Live Longer" by Steve Brown and Beth Taylor.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the AVMA, BVMA, and the CVMA may have opposition to a raw diet (as stated by Ms. Coile) not because of health concerns, but rather due to a conflict of interest brought about by the financial support these groups garner from the pet food industry. Perhaps the AKC and the "Gazette" have a similar conflict, considering the heavy advertising and financial support they accept from Purina and Eukanuba. I can think of no other reason for AKC to print such a biased and flawed article on diet for dogs in the "Gazette".

Feeding commercial kibble? You may well be playing "Russian Roulette" with your dog's life.

It's Just Another Meatless Monday.....

"It's just another manic Meatless Monday.
I wish it were Sunday. 'Cause that's my Funday."

You're having a great weekend, tending your vegetable garden, bathing the dogs, spending a bit of time taking up arms against the animal rights extremists. Toss in some family funtime at the beach. And then, just when you take a deep breath after a nice weekend, and head back to work, you are hit with

MEATLESS MONDAY

in the cafeteria

Now I'm not saying I didn't enjoy that spaghetti squash casserole....it was delicious! but Oh Dear LORD! I felt like I really should have had a frontal lobotomy done before eating anything presented under such a theme.

The vegetarian/vegan agenda is relentlessly being pushed under the guise of "good health" and "better for the environment". Now it is even hitting the workplace cafeteria! The concept originated in the GRACE Spira Project at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. No, GRACE is not a lady. GRACE stands for "Global Resource Action Center for the Environment", an anti-agriculture project funded by animal extremists. "Spira" refers to Henry Spira, who is widely regarded as one of the most extreme animal rights fanatics of the 20^th century.

Not surprisingly, Meatless Monday is being promoted by the fanatic animal extremist group PETA. I guess they don't actually eat the thousands of animals they kill in their Virginia "shelter" every year. Bully for them!


Meatless Monday aims to reduce meat consumption worldwide by 15 percent. The organization’s Web site claims that going meatless once a week could not only reduce the risk of developing cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity, but would also reduce greenhouse gases and preserve natural resources such as fresh water and fossil fuel.

That seems just a tad far-fatched to me. We found when diabetics went onto the Atkins diet they did much better on meat and veggies instead of carbs. How does meatlessness preserve fresh water? If the animals are not eaten, do they drink less? Less meat eaten means more soybeans grown. Soybean fields need water. Plenty of water. And when did animals learn to use fossil fuels? Who knew! As to cancer, there has been no proven link between meat and cancer. That's just a bunch of tripe. Mmmmm. Menudo sounds pretty good right about now. I must be craving Vitamin B-12 after that vegetarian lunch.


“Meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests,” writes Mark Bittman in a New York Times article from 2008.

Meat factories? Meat can't be manufactured. Well, after all, it's the New York Times. We can't expect objective journalism from them. And, I don't believe for a moment that eating meat is destroying the rainforests. If people eat less meat and more grains and veggies, they'll need to cut down even MORE of the rainforest for crops. Quite a conundrum. A possible solution might be better birth control for humans?

Some vegetarians are not satisfied, however, simply to reject eating meat. They also believe that milk, eggs, leather, fur, and feathers are a product of cruelty to animals. They even oppose eating honey! Those poor oppressed bees, you know. Never mind the fact that bees work just as hard for their queen as they do for us. That doesn't matter at all! These no-animal-products-at-all type of vegetarians are known as "vegans". Vegans are not so much anti-cruelty as they are anti-human.

The reality is that veganism is not simply a choice related to health, fitness or the environment. It's actually a religious belief held dear by fanatic idealogues. The vegan religion proclaims that all animal products should be opposed on moral grounds. These are the same extremists who believe that animals are not ours to use in any way....THAT is the true ulterior motive in the promotion of veganism. Health and the enviroment are not REAL concerns, but manufactured ones intended to send the vegan agenda mainstream.

Even Nathan Winograd, the king of No Kill sheltering, has fallen prey to the mind-numbing mantra of meatlessness and veganism. I LOVE Nathan's No Kill pet sheltering methods, but I'm sorry to see that he has swallowed hook, line and sinker the animal rights nonsense regarding veganism. The guy even has a book out called "All American Vegan" and has blogged that he is an "ethical vegan" who raises his kids and dogs on a vegan diet.

So, if he is an "ethical vegan", wonder what the heck an "unethical vegan" would be? No, I don't think that is the meaning intended behind that phrase. Seems the not-so-subtle implication is that vegans are ethical while the rest of us are sinful, animal-abusing barbarians.

My mother should be so ashamed! Look what a terrible person she raised.  

Not content to push the vegan diet on just humans, the HSUS markets a vegan dog food, based on soy. Figures they'd try to make even dogs into vegans. Seriously, feeding dogs or cats (carnivores) a vegan diet is abuse.
Dogs are carnivores and require complete proteins found in meat. Their digestive tract is not set up to extract proteins from vegetation, like herbivores. A vegan dog is a sick dog.

Human children also need animal products in their diet for proper growth and development. Animal products are the only source of vitamin B12 in the diet, a vitamin essential for proper brain and nervous system function. Well, you can try to include blue-green algae for the B12 content, but it is an unreliable source from what I understand. Not to mention, it tastes like shit.

I believe if God intended us to eat algae, we'd have been born with either fins or flippers.

There are more hazards involved with following a vegan diet. The other nutrients at risk for deficiency are riboflavin, calcium, iron, and the essential amino acids lysine and methionine. Vegan children not exposed to sufficient sunlight are at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Zinc deficiency can occur in vegans because the phytic acid in whole grains binds zinc, and there is little zinc in fruits and vegetables. Other risks of veganism are osteoporosis, rickets, iron-deficiency anemia, macrocytic anemia and poor growth in children. There was even a recent study published that shows that vegetarians have smaller brains than those who eat meat.

Winograd recommends a diet based heavily on soy. Without soy, vegetarians are at risk of protein deficiency. However, soy is extremely high in phytoestrogen content. If one chooses to forego animal products and eat a predominantly soy-based diet, then you can expect as a side effect some hormonal imbalances. Phytoestrogens that are so abundant in the popular vegan food soybeans (think tofu, including "tempeh", "tofurky" etc.) also cause thyroid, reproductive and liver problems.

Based on animal studies, soy also causes aggression, high cortisol levels, low tolerance to stress, neurodegenerative brain disease, and there is a strong suspicion that soy also can produce depression.

Most soy is also the genetically modified variety of crop. Let's not even attempt to go over that subject here. I'll let you do your own research on GMO foodstuffs. How many rainforests have been burned to make way for mass-produced, GMO soy? That's actually a big issue in current events. Look it up! Don't foget the pesticides they are sprayed with!

 WHOA! I think the evidence is in. Meatlessness is certainly not healthier, nor is it in any way "greener" than a traditional diet. And we can conclude that moderation, variety, and a full spectrum of nutrients provided by foods, including animal products, is necessary for a balanced, healthy diet.

Nature evolved the food chain for a reason. That is the reality of life. Veganism is fantasyland thinking, like the bullshit anthropomorphism you see in the Disney movies.

What's next? Treeless Tuesday? Waterless Wednesday? Fat-Free Friday?

Maybe Disney's next film will feature teens hard at work promoting veganism, starting with Meatless Mondays in the school cafeteria. I'll take that lobotomy now, please. That'll make the whole vegan experience SOOO much easier to swallow.

More info on GRACE detailing the connection to PETA:
http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/grace.pdf

"Study Finds Vegetarians Have Smaller Brains":
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/study-finds-vegetarians-have-smaller-brains

"Does Meat Make Us Sick?":
http://theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/does-meat-make-us-sick-q-a-on-veganism-nuts-and-more/2443343/

Dr. Blaylock on dangers of soy:
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/dr_blaylock/dangers_of_soy/2011/01/20/372072.html?s=al&promo_code=B858-1#ixzz1Bxcbef5f

Here's the study with the big splashy headlines about "Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters". Then if you read the report, you find that their vegetarians were MORE likely to have cervical and bowel cancer. So the headline was totally false!
Supposedly those who eat LOTS of RED meat are more prone to blood cancers, while fish eaters do better than either vegetarians or meat eaters. All in all, the finding are meaningless. We are not told what proportion of those studied were in the various groups, and what other lifestyle factors were involved. Maybe meat eaters are also more likely to smoke? Maybe they are older? Who knows? No mention of other factors. And the study relied on subjective  report of diets which could be faulty.Was the red meat grilled or cooked in high heat? Grilling or frying are known to produce carcinogenic substances. Was the risk lower if the meats were baked, roasted, poached or cooked rare? Was there a large percentage of processed meats or meats with preservatives among the cancer group? Could be that THOSE are the culprits for any presumed cancer risk.
It's a rather worthless study but here is the new article if you care to read it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/01/vegetarians-blood-cancer-diet-risk

Pet store protest bimbos

Photo of bimbo from "D Cups Saving Teacups" website

Yes, folks, it's the Blonde leading the Blonde in southern California.

If it isn't bad enough that there are self-proclaimed bimbos calling themselves "D Cups Saving Teacups", we continue to have other empty-headed morons protesting pet stores on a regular basis.

 The animal extremist group "Companion Animal Protection Society" or "CAPS" is planning a protest tomorrow of a pet store in Orange County. It seems that CAPS is buoyed by their successes with previous pet store protests. In several communities in southern California, CAPS has achieved legal bans on sales of pets in stores, and they plan to continue their crusade.

And now, a CAPS leader has stated in a public forum that no one should breed dogs as long as there are animals in shelters. (In other words, no breeding until hell freezes over.) Now anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that there will ALWAYS be animals entering shelters. But then, these gals don't seem to have two brain cells among them.

Are these pet store picketers really such empty-headed bimbos as they portray themselves?

Apparently, yes. Those who want to ban sales of pets in pet stores (except for "rescues") are completely clueless about the demographics of pets in our nation. They are asking for "proof" of the decline in shelter numbers in our nation. Seems they think that shelter numbers have INCREASED since the 1970s and 1980s. WRONG! DUH, ladies.

It seems ludicrous that the people who want to force everyone to stop breeding are totally ignorant of shelter statistics.


According to “Maddie’s Fund” president Richard Avanzino, in the 1970s, our country’s animal control agencies were killing, on average, about 115 dogs and cats annually for every 1000 human residents. This amounted to about 24 million shelter deaths every year, or a rate of 11.5% per population.


In recent years, according to Avanzino, annual shelter death numbers have dramatically declined to about 12 per thousand human residents, or about 3.6 million deaths each year. This amounts to a staggering 85% reduction in killing since the 1970s.

We have reached a nationwide pet shelter death rate that averages just 1.2% per population. Down from 11.5% in the 70s. I think that's pretty darn impressive progress.

Source:


Fry, Mike,"Reflections from the No Kill Conference in Washington DC":


http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/3A078C33CD079D17862575AD00471A9B


We already have "rescues" importing dogs into the US by the hundreds of thousands from Taiwan, Mexico, Romania and the Caribbean. "Dogs Without Borders" right here in LA advertises on their website that they will "order" a dog for you from another country if you want it.


There are actually breeders in these other countries who are breeding for export to meet the pet market in the US. This is a horrible practice because not only are the dogs bred under questionable conditions, they can also bring with them rabies and parasites. In 2004, a dog from Mexico came in to LA with rabies and just last year, dogs imported from the Caribbean by a rescue group suffered a parvo epidemic where many died. Another dog recently imported brought screwworm with it...a livestock pest that had been eradicated here in the continental US.

But hey, it's OK for rescue groups to import dogs that are bred under unknown conditions, with unknown health history and ancestry, but not OK for pet stores or breeders here to sell dogs who are raised under strict regulation. Go figure.

Let's see now, we sterilized almost all the dogs, (over 75% of owned dogs in the US are sterilized), and then for good measure, we will criminalize public sales, internet sales, newpaper sales, pet store sales, and private sales unless breeders are willing to allow strangers into their homes, thereby subjecting themsleves to theft and assault. If we ban imports (as we should) then where will the pets of the future come from? Why aren't we prosecuting these terrorist bullies, under the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act, who brag about shutting down legitimate businesses?

Yep, the animal extremists' plan to end pet ownership is moving right along. Pretty soon there won't be any teacups left for the D cups to save.



Animal Enterprise Terrorists-HEY! It's Miss D Cup. Whaddayaknow.



The sleazy bimbo on the far left recently attended a public shelter event pretending to be "looking for good breeders". Yeah, right!