“And it’s pretty bizarre to see in one paragraph a complaint that I don’t provide scientific evidence, then a suggestion such evidence doesn’t matter anyway since “science changes,” and then an argument that good evidence concerning raw diets is impractical anyway so we should all just rely on anecdotes. Since you clearly don’t think science matters, it’s pretty hypocritical (and, of course, factually incorrect) to complain that I don’t provide any scientific evidence.”
Science is constantly changing and as a DVM I’m certain you were taught that in your classes. If not maybe consider going back and take a more up to date biology class. It was discussed frequently in all of my biology and psychology classes. Also I am a firm believer in science and I do not like to 100% give into an idea if I can not see any tangable evidence of the success or failure of an idea or practice. I simply said (and this is true) that it is impossible to do a feeding trial on ANY type of dog food be it kibble, canned, raw whatever long enough to 100% know the long term effects of feeding that food for years of a dogs life. And I did not say that anecdotes should be the only thing considered, I said that they need to be factored in and taken into account regardless of there lack of data based science BECAUSE feeding trials can not accurately show long term effects of feeding a certain diet to a dog.
If you are going to respond to something I say, please read what I wrote more carefully next time.
