Showing posts with label disease. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disease. Show all posts

Thursday, September 23, 2010

How Much is That Bulldog in the Window?

Back in 2006, I wrote of the English Bulldog:

The famed English Bulldog... is mostly Chinese pug -- a show ring creation with legs so deformed it can barely walk, a jaw so undershot it cannot grab a Frisbee, and with a face so bracycephalic it cannot breathe. Add to these problems a deformed intestinal system (a by-product of achondroplasia or dwarfism) which makes the dog constantly fart, and a pig tail prone to infection, and you have a dog that considers its own death a blessed relief.

I have not changed my opinion, but you do not have to listen to me to hear about the congenital defects inherent to the breed.

Listen to what a top AKC show breeder told ABC television's Nightline program in April of 2009:



Why should anyone care that English Bulldogs are genetic and conformation wrecks?

Well for one, because this dog is a Top Ten AKC breed, along with the Golden Retriever, whose health care costs I have previously described.

We are talking about scores of thousands of dogs that will spend a lifetime in misery, struggling for breath even as they sleep.

And this struggle is not some sort of accident or an unintended genetic aberration.

This is perpetual torture by design, and it is common to one of the most abundant dogs to be found in the American Kennel Club.

Then there is the expense of taking care of these dogs. As with Golden Retrievers, the financial costs can be jaw-dropping.

Consider some of the common health care expenses that Embrace Pet Insurance has documented with this breed:



Embrace Pet Insurance pulls no punches in their description of the health of English Bulldogs:

The Bulldog may be perfect in spirit, but in the flesh is a different story. These dogs are intolerant of warm weather, and may die if over-heated. Too much exercise or stress can make it difficult for them to breath. Without exception, Bulldogs must live indoors, and need air conditioning in all but the mildest summer weather.

More than 90 percent of all Bulldogs are born by C-section. Because breeding them is expensive, the puppies are, too. Love is an expensive proposition when you own a Bulldog....

...Bulldogs' hips and spines are often malformed, as are their mouths. They suffer from a long list of respiratory ailments. Their many wrinkles and folds, and tightly curled tails, mean lots of skin infections. Cherry eye, inverted eyelids, cataracts and dry eye are just a few of the eye abnormalities that can affect the Bulldog.

...Many conditions have no screening tests, even though they're known or believed to be genetic. These include seizure disorders, allergies and skin problems, several kinds of bladder stone, a long list of airway defects, birth defects, infertility and cancer, and more. Bulldogs are also at high risk for "bloat and torsion," where the stomach twists on itself, trapping air inside, and requiring immediate emergency surgery.


Of course, more could be said.

Embrace Pet Insurance mentions the high cost of Cesarean births, but they do not mention the rape racks that are used in mating because this dog is so deformed and defective that it can only rarely breed on its own.

Do you still want an English Bulldog?

So you still think they are "oh so cute?"

Are you still reading all-breed books that leave all the important information out?

Thursday, September 9, 2010

AKC and Pfizer Partner on Defective Dogs



The American Kennel Club and Pfizer are going to partner on dog research.

How perfect is that?

The AKC makes diseased and defective dogs, and Pfizer makes medications to treat the same.

And of course, the AKC also sells pet insurance so that pet owners can afford to buy all those Pfizer medicines that are needed to treat the diseased and defective dogs that are being cranked out by AKC breeders.

As the press release notes:

The partnership might also help Pfizer curry favor with veterinarians and win loyalty to brands such as its Vanguard vaccine against distemper and other viruses.

Medicines for pets and livestock have become a hot area for huge pharmaceutical companies trying to diversify in an effort to combat the potential loss of billions in annual revenue as their blockbuster drugs get cheaper generic competition.

Treatments for pets are particularly appealing because they rarely face generic competition and prices are not negotiated down by insurance companies and government health programs, as with drugs for people. In addition, global sales of animal drugs and vaccines have been rising at a steady rate of 5 percent a year, partly fueled by bigger livestock herds as the growing middle class in emerging markets eats more meat.

.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Gene for Pit Bull Brain Disease Identified

From the ScienceBlog comes news that the gene responsible for a genetic disorder in American Staffordshire Terriers (aka Pit Bulls) has been identified.

A North Carolina State University researcher has helped to locate and identify a gene responsible for a fatal neurodegenerative disease that affects American Staffordshire terriers. This same gene may be responsible for a similar rare, fatal disease in humans. Its discovery will lead to improved screening and diagnosis of the disease in dogs and is the first step in working toward a cure for both canines and humans.

Dr. Natasha Olby, associate professor of neurology, was part of a multi-national team of researchers who located the gene responsible for a variant of neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCL), a family of diseases that result in mental and motor deterioration — and eventually death — in the dogs....

....Olby saw the first case of a canine version of adult-onset NCL in American Staffordshire terriers in 2000. Over subsequent years, she found that the disease was a widespread and hereditary problem within the breed, affecting one of every 400 registered dogs. The disease kills the neurons in the cerebellum, which controls balance. Over time, the cerebellum shrinks, motor control deteriorates, and the patient dies or is euthanized.

“The disease became so prevalent because it was a recessive disease with a late onset,” says Olby. “Carriers of a single copy of the mutated gene never develop symptoms, and dogs with two copies of the gene might not show symptoms until five or six years of age, so the mutation was able to take hold in the breeding population.”


Though this class of diseases appears to be more common in Am Staffs, it has also been found in many other dog breeds, including Tibetan Terriers, Dalmations, Labrador Retrievers, Border Collies, English Setters, American Bulldogs, Dachshunds, Polish Lowland Sheepdogs, Miniature Schnauzers, Australian Shepherds, Australian Cattle Dogs, and Golden Retrievers, among others.

The disease tends to start late, and progresses over several years to include poor coordination, difficulty in swallowing, vision and hearing loss, rapid motion of the eyeball (nystagmus), and voice changes. In later stages, there may be seizures, tremors, and gait abnormalities.

A test for NCL is available for Tibetan Terriers, Dachshunds, Border Collies, American Bulldogs and English Setters.
.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

You Will Know It By ... Her Master's Voice



In a world of 6.7 billion people, it seems only a trusted and much-loved member of the Kennel Club could chair the new Advisory Council on Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding in the U.K.

The new chair, Sheila Crispin, is a veterinary opthamologist who has spent decades in dogs and yet has never been vocal in criticizing the Kennel Club about it practices, and never mind the obvious pain and misery caused by those practices.

Is this opthamologist blind? We shall see.

Here's what I suspect will happen: a lot of movement and not much action.

Look for Crispin to tackle everything but the real issues of contrived standards leading to deformed dogs in misery, and inbreeding practices leading to jaw-dropping rates of disease.

Open the registries? Require working dogs to work in order to win rosettes? Those are words that will never pass her lips.

Instead, look for her to launch off on a campaign against puppy mills, and perhaps to initiate a drive to mandate microchipping.

Those are worthy problems deserving attention, but they are not why this Advisory Council was created.

They will be within her comfort zone, however.

Her comfort zone, after all, has always been close to the Kennel Club's hierarchy which has given her an honorary membership and tapped her as a member of its own "Breed Health and Welfare Strategy Group" which, you will remember, is the cause of the current mess.

Will I be wrong?

Nothing would make me happier if I am! But when it comes to dogs, I have learned to keep my expectations low, and this is a good example.

Patrick Bateson promised that this new Advisory Council on Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding would be appointed on the Nolan Principles. I am not sure how appointing a Kennel Club member and insider to "reform" the world of dog breeding fits those principles. In fact, let me say quite clearly that I think it does not.

Job One for Crispin, if she is serious (and I hope she is!), is to repudiate the nonsense put out by the Kennel Club which says that "the vast majority of breeds and dogs are healthy." This is demonstrably not true as even the most cursory examination of the Kennel Club's own health surveys make clear.

Truth and reform cannot start with lies and distraction. Let us see which way Crispin heads...
.

Friday, June 18, 2010

The Humane Society did WHAT?

Has Hell frozen over?

You might think so.

You see, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) is quoting this blog in the cover story of All Animals magazine, which is HSUS's full-color bimonthly membership magazine which goes out to their 10 million members.

In a long, well-written, and fair piece, author Carrie Allan lays out The Purebred Paradox whose strap line is "Is the quest for the 'perfect dog' driving a genetic health crisis?"

Once upon a time, people believed that purebred dogs were naturally healthier than mixed breeds. How have we arrived at a point where it may be safer to presume the opposite? ....

.... The more limited the number of mates, the greater the chance a dog will be bred with a relative who shares similar genes. Genetic diseases are caused by recessive genes, so a good gene from one parent will trump a bad gene from the other. But if both parents have a bad gene—such as one that predisposes them to hip dysplasia or blindness—the likelihood of a sick puppy increases.

“What happens when you have a small and inbreeding population is that the probability of two negative recessive genes finding each other increases as the gene pool chokes down to a smaller and smaller pool,” says Patrick Burns, a Dogs Today columnist who frequently writes about genetic health issues on his blog, Terrierman’s Daily Dose.

A closed registry that allows no “new blood” into the mix exacerbates the problem, he argues: “In many AKC dogs, the founding gene pool was less than 50 dogs. For some breeds, it was less than 20 dogs.”

This year’s Westminster champion, a Scottish terrier named Sadie, hails from one of these tiny gene pools and is “very heavily inbred,” says Burns. The limited ancestry for AKC-registered Scotties, he adds, helps explain why 45 percent die of cancer.

“We do not need to have a closed registry to keep a breed,” Burns says, pointing out that breeds existed long before there was an organization to track them. “We did not create the dogs we love in a closed registry system—we have only ruined them there.”


Read the whole thing. The HTML version (multiple jump pages) is here, and the PDF version (8 pages) is here.

This is one of the longest and best articles done so far on the American "dog mess" that is a confluence between disease, deformity and defect caused by inbreeding and contrived and twisted breed standards, and the sick internacine economic relationships that exist between puppy mills and the AKC.

This article also details what has been going on in the United Kingdom since the advent of Pedigree Dogs Exposed. As Carrie Allan writes:

[I]in the United Kingdom, at least, there seems to be momentum for change. Whether that momentum will gather steam in the U.S. remains to be seen


Spread this article around!

Remember that if you want the Humane Society of the U.S. to move in the right direction, you need to click and treat.

I assure you this is the right direction. They have not taken any gratuitous swipes at pedigree dogs or dog breeders. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Take this line for example. Anyone think this is not fair and well-said?

At The HSUS, we’re big fans of adoption. By going to a local shelter or rescue group, you stand a good chance of both saving a life and finding a purebred — after all, they make up an estimated 25 percent of dogs in shelters.

When you can’t find the dog you’re looking for, however, responsible breeders are another option; they are devoted to their animals’ well-being and committed to placing them in loving homes. And if every shelter dog were adopted and every puppy mill were shuttered, there would still be a need for good breeders to supply dogs to American households.


Full applause to HSUS for this article, and to author Carrie Allan in particular. This is a big subject, and she has done an extraordinarily good job of wrapping herself around it and presenting it in a cogent and fair manner.

Monday, June 14, 2010

What the Hell Is a Congo Terrier?


Click to enlarge. Art work by Kevin Brockbank (note dog in a pot at right!)

This piece is from the July issue of Dogs Today.

Out of Africa

A single breed - the Congo Terrier - sums up the history of dogs.


Have you noticed that in the world of dogs, names and places never quite line up?

Look at Welsh Terriers.

I know digging men in Wales, but none that use a Kennel Club Welsh Terrier to hunt fox to ground.

I know digging men in Scotland, but none that use a Scottish terrier.

Afghans?

There are no Kennel Club Afghan dogs coursing in South Central Asia.

Show line German Shepherds?

Not too many of those herding sheep in Germany!

And in central Africa, the locals are not using "Congo Terriers" that have Kennel Club papers.

A Congo terrier?

What on earth is that?


The Kennel Club's Pariah Dog

The “Congo terrier” was discovered by explorer Georg Schweinfurth on an expedition to Africa in 1869.

He called the dogs "Niam-niam dogs," which described the tribal region where they were found, and he noted they were often quite fat, as the Niam-niam people loved dogs so much they thought nothing of tossing them into the stew pot for dinner!

The dogs themselves were spitz-like and barkless, with erect ears and curled tails, as is often the case with primitive dogs. Where the Niam-niam dogs were different was in their relatively small size, their short coat, and the fact that they often featured a white band of fur around their neck.

Though Schweinfurth called them Niam-niam dogs, similar animals were found across a wide belt of central Africa, stretching from Liberia in the West, to Sudan in the East.

Like many other primitive landrace pariah dogs, the Niam-niam dog had only one estrus a year and rarely barked, but instead vocalized with howls, yodels, and whines similar to those of the wolf, coyote, dingo, or jackal.

Of course, a largely silent dog in thick cover is not necessarily an asset. No matter; this deficit was corrected by African hunters who attached a wooden "bell" or clapper to the necks of their dogs so they could more easily drive small game out of thick cover.

In 1895, the Niam-niam dog was displayed at the Crufts dog show as the "Congo terrier."

The name did not last too long.

In the late 1930s, the Congo Terrier was formally brought into the Kennel Club and renamed the "Basenji" -- a Bantu name that meant "village dog."

The first order of Kennel Club business was to craft a narrow appearance-based "standard" for the Basenji. This was not hard to do, as only seven dogs were initially admitted.

Clearly these seven dogs were perfect specimens of their type!


Inbreeding to Failure

Seven dogs, of course, is not much of a gene pool. In fact, the gene pool of the Basenji never grew much bigger than this. Over the course of the next 60 years, no more than 30 dogs comprised the entire founding stock of the breed in the U.K., the U.S., and Europe.

Inbreeding within this small stock of foundation dogs quickly led to a crushing genetic load and a rise in disease.

The first issue to raise its head was Hemolytic Anemia. When testing was started, twenty percent of all Basenjis carried this recessive gene. What to do?

The answer: Cull.

And cull they did, with about 18 percent of Basenjis weeded out of the American Kennel Club gene pool over the course of a decade.

Of course, this deep reduction in an already narrow gene pool sped up the inbreeding merry-go-round.

Within a decade, another health problem had popped up: Fanconi syndrome, a type of kidney failure. A health survey found 10 percent of all American Basenjis had Fanconi syndrome, and of these dogs, 76 percent were being bred.

What to do?


The Outcross Solution

The solution, of course, was an outcross.

The good news was that there were was no shortage of excellent dogs in Africa. After a 1988 visit to the Congo, AKC judge Damara Bolte reported that:

"In five days and 800 kilometers of driving, we saw at least 200 dogs of which only three were not Basenjis."


Could anyone driving down the road see the same number of Welsh Terriers in Wales, or Scottish Terriers in Scotland? Impossible!

In 1990 the Basenji Club of America successfully petitioned the American Kennel Club to open the AKC registry to African dogs, and 12 were admitted.

The addition of 12 African imports helped, but it was not enough. With popular sire selection, inbreeding within the Basenji gene pool continued. And how could it not, with less than a dozen dogs comprising over 95% of the Y chromosomes in Kennel Club dogs across the U.S., Europe and the U.K.?


Form, Function and Fantasy

As noted earlier, Basenjis have always been found across a wide swath of central Africa. The early dogs came from the Sudan, Sierra Leon, Liberia, the Cameroon, and the Congo.

In 1998, an American Peace Corps worker in Benin reported the country was awash in Basenjis, and that they could be acquired for as little as a dollar.

In 2004, an American imported six of these dogs, and they were shown at the 2004 Basenji Club of America Nationals. By then, however, the AKC registry had once again closed.

The Basenji Club petitioned the AKC to reopen the registry. This was done in January 2007, with a new closing scheduled for 2013.

Will opening the AKC Basenji registry a second time really matter?

Yes and no.

It will not matter to the Basenjis in Africa, which have never needed saving.

The hunting dogs of Africa are protected by those who hunt them. In this regard, they are no different from the working terriers of Wales and Scotland, the coursing dogs of South Central Asia, or bird dogs the world over.

But the Basenji community will not be dissuaded. They insist they are "saving" a breed.

But what is it that they saving, and who are they saving it from?

One thing is clear: Basenji enthusiasts are not trying to save hunting dogs in Africa.

You cannot save dogs in Africa by removing them from the continent, and you cannot save a hunting breed by not hunting them at all.

So what are the Kennel Club enthusiasts really trying to save?

Mostly, they are working to preserve a romantic notion of their own making.

For their breed to be special, a Basenji has to be more than another village dog, even if the word "Basenji" means just that in the Lingala language of the Congo.

And so, Basenji owners tighten down on what they see as the “special essentials” of their breed.

They insist no Basenji should ever bark, and never mind if some always have, and that a barkless dog is such a liability that the Africans themselves bell their dogs when they hunt.

And, of course, all Basenjis must have a tightly curled tail, and no matter that a tightly curled tail serves no function in the field.

Function? The American and European Basenji is not about function! This dog is about form and fantasy.

Hunting? What does hunting have to do with the Basenji? Nothing!

Why should Basenjis be held to a working standard when the Kennel Club Welsh Terrier and Scotty are not? This is the Kennel Club, not the African bush. Form trumps function; everyone knows that. And form is maintained by inbreeding right up to the edge of genetic failure. Why should the Basenji be any different in this regard?

And so Kennel Club Basenji enthusiasts hold tightly to a breed standard invented in England based on seven dogs. And when shown pictures of small hunting dogs in central Africa that do not quite conform to every aspect of "the standard,” they sniff disdainfully.

“Those aren’t Basenjis. Those are nothing more than village hunting dogs."

Right. No irony there!

Just ask any Welshman with mud on his boots, calluses on his hands, and a terrier at his heels. What does he know of Welsh terriers? Not a thing!

And so we come to the ultimate irony: What are Basenji enthusiasts trying to protect their American and European dog from?

Why inbreeding within the closed registry system of the Kennel Club, of course!
.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The Real Numbers are Numbing Enough ....



I don't think anyone has ever accused me of being a defender of inbreeding.

I'm against it, and I am not shy about saying so. In fact, I have been pretty vocal on the subject for a pretty long time.

Having said that, it's important to note that sometimes folks wade into debates a little too quickly. While their heart may be in the right place, their enthusiasm may exceed their attention span.

Such is the case in an article from In These Times, which was forwarded to me this morning. The author (a summer journalism intern) writes on the perils of canine inbreeding, noting that:

In some breeds, dogs have a 75 percent inbreeding coefficient (the indication of how related they are), according to Susan Thorpe-Vargas, a breeder of Samoyeds who holds a Ph.D. in genetics. (A brother and sister have a coefficient of 25 percent.) John Armstrong, a veterinarian with the Canine Diversity Project, reports that certain lines of standard poodles have an inbreeding coefficient of 70 percent.

According to data from the University of Pennsylvania school of veterinary medicine, three-fourths of puppies with a 67 percent or higher coefficient will die within 10 days.


I have to say I paused here. You see I saw a couple of obvious red flags.

The first is that there is NO breed of dogs that has a coefficient of inbreeding of 75%.

None.

The average coefficient of inbreeding (COI) of pedigree dogs is not 70 percent or 60 percent or 50 percent or 40 percent. The average COI is not 30 percent of even 20 percent. It is less than 15 percent. [see Golden Retriever example with sample of over 275,000 dogs].

The second red flag is the notion that a COI of X percent will result in a specific neo-natal mortality of Y percent.

Not true. Things are not that simple.

If a couple of dogs with no negative recessive genes at all (a very rare thing) are bred together, a very high COI can be achieved without a jaw dropping level of neo-natal mortality.

YES, as a general rule, the higher the COI the more likely there are to be both generalized and breed-specific health problems, but there is no specific mathematical health outcome like neo-natal mortality.

Things are not that simple.

The third point is that John Armstrong is dead and has been for a number of years.

This is a small point, I know, but it jumped out at me as "reports" is an active verb and John Armstrong is not doing much of it these days.

Armstrong, of course, did write about the health outcomes that befell a particularly inbred strain of standard poodles, but that example was chosen because it was an extreme example of inbreeding, not because it was an average.

So where did this young reporter get her information?

It appears she gleaned it from a not-too-well written online "genetics tutorial" put out by the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine.

I went to the link supplied, and found no footnotes and no author. By backlinking, I discerned it was an online tutorial to provoke thought (and perhaps discussion) among young veterinary students.

A quick Google, and I found that the beagle colony example given (it was not all dogs as suggested in the In These Times article) applied to only a single heavily inbred beagle colony at the Argonne National Laboratory.

As for the reference to Scott and Fuller, I assume it is to their book, entitled "Genetics and the Social Behavior of Dogs." You can read that book yourself, but it does not quite say what the In These Times author or the University of Pennsylvia veterinary school web site suggests. In fact, the evidence is a bit contrary.

For example Scott and Fuller note that Basenjis are among the most-inbred dogs in the Kennel Club (at the time they had a COI of .25) , but they also note that they also had the lowest neonatal mortality rate of the five breeds listed -- half that of beagles, and even less than half that of shelties, cocker spaniels and fox terriers.

Whoops!

Did Scott and Fuller say hybrid dogs (cross- and mixed-breeds) had lower rates of neonatal mortality than pure bred dogs? Of course!

No one is arguing that hybrids are not generally healthier than pure breeds, or that higher coefficients of inbreeding are not related to defect and disease.

But numbers and data exist for a reason, and the case for Kennel Club change can be made without misusing data or ignoring it.

Of course, error of fact exists from one end of the Internet to the other.

So why have I not rolled over and just let this one go?

Well for one thing, the article is sufficiently shocking in message and sufficiently "science sounding" that it has already popped up several places.

And yet it is wrong.

And it is not just a little wrong. It is very wrong.

And it is not just wrong in fact, it is wrong in message.

You see, if you read this article and believe it, you might think there is no hope for pedigree dogs.

After all, if pedigree dogs have a 75 percent inbreeding coefficient, as this article suggests, then everything about the Kennel Club has to change, and yet we all know that is not going to happen.

But suppose you know that the average coefficient of inbreeding in pedigree dogs is around 10 percent, and that only a "sick minority" of breeders are producing dogs with a COI of more than 20 percent?

What then?

Well then, there is hope!

Then there is no excuse for the Kennel Club not taking action.

After all, if they ban the registration of new puppies that have a coefficient of inbreeding (COI) of more than 10 percent, it will not flip the boat, but only change its course.

They can embrace a common sense policy, and do right by the dogs without engaging in economic suicide.

Perfect!

So let's ask them to do that.

In fact, let's demand it!
.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

AVMA Says Fear Your Pet and Go to the Vet



This nonsense video is from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and once again it is paid for by Fort Dodge Animal Health, a division of Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer.

The pitch here is that if you do not take your dog or cat to the vet at least twice a year, you might catch some horrible disease and get sick yourself.

Nice fear mongering!

Of course, it's complete and total bullshit.

I used to rat with my terriers, and my dogs still routinely slide into tick-filled dens, and face every dog-borne zoonotic disease there is, from rabies to Lyme disease, and from roundworm to hookworms. Guess what? I am not going to get sick from my dogs, and neither are you.

There has not been a known case of dog-transmitted rabies in this country in more than 40 years, and leptospirosis is almost unheard of even among people who chase rats with terriers every weekend (and yes I do know such people).

In fact, a Lepto vaccine is more likely to kill your dog from a bad reaction than it is to prevent an infection!

Ticks?

This country is crawling with them, but if you are going to catch Lyme disease, I assure you it will have nothing to do with your dog! Lyme is carried by deer ticks, and is so rare in dog ticks that it was only recenly discovered. As for Lyme, it is easily and cheaply treated with Doxycyline, which you can order without a prescription. Yes, you can dose your dog yourself without a vet visit at all.

Roundworms? They are all around you in the soil, carried there by fox and raccoon, but you are not likely to get them unless you eat dirt, or are very careless while handling raccoon and fox crap.

Do you handle a lot of raccoon and fox scat? More than I do?? I bet not!

The bottom line is that the AVMA and its pharmaceutical company sponsors will say anything to get more people to take their healthy, asymptomatic dogs to the vets twice a year.

They are not above fear-mongering, and they are not above lying.

Go to the vets twice a year if you want to. But be advised that this is an intelligence test, and if you are following the AVMA's advice on this matter, you have failed.

The AVMA is fanning the flames of economic predation.

They are appealing to fear -- trying to trigger a visceral reaction in people who are completely ignorant or who have some sort of mental disorder such as phobia, obsessive compulsive disorder, neurotosis, or hypochondria.

This is evil. And this is who is representing the veterinary trade in America today.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Pfizer, Pfrauds and Pfools


Profits leap with price-gouging, upcoding, and medically unecessary products!


Yesterday morning I booted up the computer and got an unsolicited full-on email screed from someone I did not know, who had never communicated with me before.

Mark Tye wrote:

You are pretty quick to generalize an entire profession with your loose OPINIONS. You have described less than 10% of the veterinary profession in your rant. Most veterinarians are honest hard-working people who give away way too much, work way too long, for WAY too little.


Eh? Who was this person, and what was he on about?

From reading his stream-of-consciousness email (it went on for several paragraphs), it appears he had just stumbled on a fact- and link-filled post on this blog called Veterinary Trade Says It's Time to Rip-off the Rubes.

Ah! Good. Glad someone is reading the internets!

Mark Tye, of course, called me a pinhead and an ignorant but provided no links and no facts to back up his own ... (wait for it!) ... opinion.

I had provided links to trade publications, documented pharmacy kickbacks to trade associations, and provided PowerPoint instruction sheets from the industry on how to price-gouge, upcode and suggest the medically unnecessary. Most readers of this blog know I am not short of evidence!

And what did Mark Tye have to support his contention that all was sweetness, light, and high moral fiber in the world of veterinary care?

Not. a. thing.

Nor did he explain his own passionate interest in the subject matter at hand.

Much amused I fired back a short note:

Why don't you Google my name and "pharmaceutical fraud" and see what you come up with?

Good luck on your travels. You are clearly very new to the show.


Not smart enough to take a hint and leave well enough alone, Mark Tye fired back.

I have forgotten more about this industry than you know. Why don't you go spend a few years (or 10) getting to know something about the people that make up this industry.


Much amused I fired off another email:

Why don't you tell me all about yourself?

Ten years! Wow. I am floored.

And you have a hotmail account too!


Yes I was being a little sarcastic.

I have spent a little more than 10 years in health care, and a little more than 10 minutes in the world of dogs!

And a hotmail account? Hillbilly, please!

Who was this fool?

A few seconds after asking the question, I had the answer, and I nearly spilt my coffee I was laughting so hard.

Whoo-ee!

I fired off a short email to Mr. Tye:

Never mind. I found you.

Area sales manager at Pfizer Animal Health in Texas for 6 years.

You think that's a lot of experience??

Formerly a recruiter at Matrix Resources and a sales manager at Ed Kellum & Son.

Graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University.

Not much.

Shall I find out what you sell, and write about how you sell it?

Pfizer is a shit company that just got nailed for the largest criminal and civil fines in U.S. history.

Google my name and Pfizer, and see what you get.

You still want to play?


A Pfizer Animal Health rep is lecturing me about health care ethics?

Priceless.

For the record, Pfizer was nailed last year for the largest criminal and civil fraud charges in U.S. history.

As I told Reuters at the time, "What you see here is a company which essentially has a culture of corruption."

And it's not like Pfizer has only been nailed for fraud once, is it?

Along with record fines for illegal marketing and illegal kickbacks which were paid to increase the sales of Bextra, Pfzer has also been nailed for illegal promotion and/or kickbacks for Geodon (an anti-psychotic drug), Lipitor (a cholesterol drug), Norvasc (an anti-hypertensive drug), Viagra (an erectile dysfunction drug), Zithromax (an antibiotic), Zyrtec (an antihistamine), Zyvox (an antibiotic), Lyrica (an anti-epileptic drug), Relpax (an anti-migraine drug), Celebrex (an anti-inflammatory drug), and Depo-provera (a form of birth control).

Add in to the mix previous settlements for the illegal marketing of the epilepsy drug Neurontin ($430 in criminal and civil penalties), another settlement for more illegal Lipitor sales ($49 million in civil fines), and illegal marketing of human growth hormone Genotropin ($34.7 million), and the words "continuing criminal conspiracy" spring to mind.

And now a Pfizer salesman wants to lecture me on veterinary drug sales?

Oh joy and mirth!


Your Daily Dose -- now fortified with irony.


Since a salesman for Pfizer Animal Health was stupid enough to shoot me a "nasty gram" email to my home, I figure I might as well go ahead and use his résumé and his company's already soiled name to illuminate how pharmaceutical sales work in general, and how veterinary pharma sales work in particular.

I've got to write about something after all, and it's been a while since I beat this particular drum.

To begin, let's look at Mark Tye's experience.

He is a graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University with a degree in Spanish.

No science background at all.

In fact this is normal in pharmaceutical sales, and for a reason.

As filmmaker and former pharma sales rep Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau explains:

When I first came to work for [pharma companies] I was 23 and a year out of college. I majored in political science. That was my “science background.”

I really avoided science like the plague as an undergrad; it was just not my strength. I went to work for the cellular phone industry right out of college selling phones for about a year. Then one day I got a call from a recruiter who had asked me if I had ever considered pharmaceutical sales. I said “No, I don’t have a science background.” He basically said that they can teach you all that you need to know. They’re just looking for someone with sales experience....

When I look back, I think [the lack of any science background] is part of the reason that they recruit people like me – political science majors, history majors, business majors – because I didn’t have the ability to question anything they told me.

I can’t tell you how quickly I could get in over my head if I was talking with a physician about these things. Although I might have known a specific amount about my specific pill or a specific disease stage, once the doctor started asking questions outside of that, I would start to glaze over.

The typical course of my day would be going out, driving around to different physician’s offices, making appointments, and schlepping in a lot of food.

We used to joke that you don’t even need a political science degree for this job; you need a professional caterer’s license.


Mark Tye fits this mold perfectly.

While he claims vast experience and deep knowledge it's mostly bluff, bluster and bunk.

His real background is just 6 years and four months in veterinary sales, and for a single company.

Mark Tye's first job out of college was as a regional sales manager for a consumer finance company (June 1986-April 1991). His next job was as a sales manager for a consumer electronics concern (April 1991-December 1999), and after that he worked as a recruiter for an information technology company (December 1999 to December 2001). He then worked in sales for his family's document copying company (December 2001 to February 2004), before being hired on at Pfizer.

Nothing wrong with any of this, but let's be clear; Mr. Tye's expertise is in separating people from their wallets. It's not dogs, it's not cats, and it's certainly not health care policy, law, ethics or economics!

So that's Mr. Tye, and the company he works for.

Now what about his division, and the products they sell?

Pfizer Animal Health has a lot of products, and I don't have the time or energy to go through them all of them, but I'm going to look at a few products targetted to dogs so you can get a general idea of how it goes.

One of Pfizer's main sales products is Rimadyl. As I have noted in a previous post, Rimdayl is a COX-2 drug, and most of the COX-2 drugs like Bextra (see previous mention of Pfizer's record criminal and civil fines) and Vioxx were pulled from the market after they proved to be harmful (Vioxx, to put a point on it, may have killed over 25,000 people in just four years according to the FDA).

Pfizer Animal Health's COX-3 drug, Rimadyl, (aka Carprofen) is not approved for human use because it has so many serious side effects it could not compete against the other COX-2 drugs in the human market, and this was even before those other COX-2 drugs were withdrawn from the market.

But don't take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 13, 2000 that "Most Arthritic Dogs Do Very Well On This Pill, Except the Ones That Die".

Except the ones that die?

Woops! I'll bet that's an article that never made it into Mark Tye's veterinary sales kit!

For the record, my objection to Rimadyl is not that it might kill your dog (a very low chance), but that it is unnecessarily expensive due to Pfizer and veterinay practice price-gouging, and because it requires an expensive visit to the vet for a prescription.

For the record, COX-2 drugs have never been proven to be better than common COX-1 drugs (i.e. NSAIDs) such as Aspirin and Ibuprofen. They are simply more expensive and less safe for dogs (cats are a different issue), and NO, they are not gentler on the stomach than buffered aspirin.

Knowing that, why would anyone dose a dog on Rimadyl?

Of course there is an answer, but it's not an answer that Mark Tye or any veterinarian wants you to hear.

That said, if you know where to go, you can hear it being said and see it too.

At a Pfizer-specific online bulletin board for veterinary sales representatives, for example, someone wrote in to note that "A family member of mine paid $58 for 6 pills and they were Rimadyl and I work for [Pfizer Animal Health], so I know that these mark-ups can go this high."

Right. Point made, and by a Pfizer Animal Health employee to boot! Nice.

Another drug being sold by Pfizer is "Slentrol." This is the drug you are supposed to give your pet if it is obese.

What??! We are supposed to be drugging our dogs because they are obese??

Anyone else see a problem here? Gina Spadafori over at Pet Connection did.

She notes that obesity in pets is a human problem, not a pet one, and that the cure is not drugs for the dog, but self-restraint on the part of the owner.

Want to save yourself $2 a day? Take a walk with your dog (it’s good for you both), or play with your cat. Cut back on the treats. Use the tried-and-true trick of substituting shredded green beans for some of the volume in your pet’s dish, and steel yourself against begging.


Excellent advice!

But, of course, it's not the kind of advice you are going to get from a Pfizer Animal Health sales representative struggling to make his or her quota, is it?

Another drug marketed by Pfizer is Convenia. As I noted in a previous post:

[This] drug is a one-time injection which provides up to 14 days of antibiotic treatment for common skin infections.

The injection must be administered by a veterinarian, which will cost you about $80 for the visit.

What neither a vet nor Pfizer will tell you is that you can get cephalexin to treat skin infections at a fraction of the cost and without a visit to the vet or a prescription.

Shhhh! Tell no one!.


OK, so Pfizer's sales force has its full share of fools, the company has embraced a culture of corruption, and at least some of the products are crap.

But what about the veterinarians? Surely they are all models of cost containment, self-restraint and probity?

Well some are, but certainly not all of them!

As I have noted in the past, vetererinary ethics are about the same as you will find in any poorly regulated trade with few consumer protections, and a public that is not too sure of what it is that they are actually buying.

Are all vets price-gougers, bill padders, and flim-flammers?

No, of course not!

That said, all vets are human, and they are not any more (or less) honest than car mechanics, human doctors, or anyone else.

Caveat emptor with all vendors, and especially when you are being "handled" by a "vet tech" or receptionist whose job description is to set you up for "additional services."

To be clear: these front-office people know next to nothing, and generally have been hired to give the real veterinarian cover in case the client calls "bullshit" to the veterinary equivalent of "Can I Super-Size your meal?"

A word to the wise should be sufficient: use Google to get informed and cut costs, do as much basic veterinary stuff as you can yourself, and negotiate pricing with the veterinarian, not the receptionist.

Finally, never forget the best money-saving advice ever, in terms of canine care: Breed choice matters a hell of a lot.

For more on that, read Making and Breaking Dogs In the Show Ring and peruse the canine health links in the blog roll at the right.


Once again, you do not have to take my word for anything.

A reader of this blog is a veterinarian, who left the retail vet trade to work in the regulatory arena. As Sara B notes in A Vet Writes About the Veterinary Business Model:

About five years ago, I was a young enthusiastic new grad and I was looking forward to serving my patients and clients. Instead I was constantly reprimanded for not adhering to 'protocol'. I was chastised in front of the staff for scripting out medications to local human pharmacies where I knew my clients would get a financial break for drugs that were exactly the same as those on our shelves. I didn't always want to use the laser for surgeries. I told people to purchase bottles of goat Panacur at the local farm & barn store instead of selling them pricey Drontal Plus tablets. I didn't recommend the Lyme vaccine. I didn't vaccinate everyone every year for distemper. I will surely burn in hell for mentioning the use of ivermectin rather than selling boxes of HWP to my beagle & coonhound kennel clients. I constantly spent too much time talking with the clients in each appointment. I would "give away" recheck exams. I didn't really care what brand of food people fed their pets (Most of the time they were being fed too much anyway!) And, most egregiously, I was forever giving away nail trims.


Now to be clear, good honest vets DO exist, and you CAN find them if you look.

But as I noted in the very blog post that seems to have gotten Mark Tye's underwear in a knot, the best thing any of us can do to contain costs and push back on chiseling corruption is to begin doing a few things ourselves.

Above all, we can stop going to the vet for “well pet” visits and unneeded shots.

We can end the yearly teeth cleaning nonsense, and take control of end-of-life decisions.

We can give our pets their own vaccines.

We can worm our own dogs, and we can stop giving heartworm medicines all winter long.

We can treat our own dogs for Lyme disease, and stop the testing altogether.

We can stop buying "diet” dog foods from the vet and start feeding less.

We can learn more about cruciate ligament injuries and be a little less quick to operate at a cost of $3,000 per leg.

And, of course, the most important thing we can do is find an honest non-price gouging veterinarian.

They exist within 15 miles of all of us if we will only take the time to research and look.


THIS is heretical information?!

Apparently it is if you are a salesman working for Pfizer Animal Health!

Caveat emptor!


Get your own Pfraud t-shirt here!

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

When Cancer Comes With a Pedigree




From The Wall Street Journal:

Cancer is all too common in dogs, especially golden retrievers: 60% of them die of it, more than twice the average rate for all breeds. That includes lymphoma, a cancer of the white blood cells; osteosarcoma, a cancer of the bones, and hemangiosarcoma, a particularly nasty cancer of the cells that line the blood vessels whose first symptom may be sudden death.

"A dog can be literally chasing a ball in the backyard, come in for a drink of water and collapse and be dead within minutes," says Rhonda Hovan, research facilitator for the Golden Retriever Club of America.

While it's tempting to see cancer as the Curse of the Golden Retriever, all breeds have their health scourges. Bulldogs have respiratory problems; dachshunds have back issues; Labrador retrievers have heart disease and diabetes and even with a much lower rate of cancer, die at roughly the same age as goldens.

... All purebred dogs are essentially inbred. And the genes become more concentrated with each generation, because most pet dogs aren't bred and breeders select only a few dogs with the most desirable traits to reproduce.

"It's possible that some trait that we desire in goldens is linked to something that puts them at risk for cancer. We just don't know what it is," says Ms. Hovan, who has also bred goldens in Akron, Ohio, for the past 30 years.

A couple of bits here: The American numbers seem to be quite a bit higher than the U.K. numbers, where just under 40% of Golden's die of cancer, not 60%.

The second bit is the notion that "all breeds have their health sourges" is nonsense. Not true.

Some breeds of dogs are famously healthy, while some breeds are notoriously unhealthy. For example, the Border Terrier is a very solid and healthy dog that lives, on average, to age 14, while Bull Terriers are dead, on average, between the age of 6 and 7.

Does that mean that any dog lives forever? Of course not. But the idea that it's a "pick your poison" kind of situation, or that all decisions are equal is parent nonsense.

You want to pick a healthy breed? Here's a simple set of tips that will save you money, time and grief in the long run.
.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

The Billion Dollar Lyme Disease Scam


Center for Disease Control (CDC), Lyme disease cases (human) for 2006.


"Lyme disease vaccines and testing, as well as Lyme treatment of asymptomatic dogs, is a huge scam costing American dog owners hundreds of millions of dollars a year."

In a previous post about Lyme disease, I gave good medically-sound advice, which can be summarized as follows:

  1. Just say NO to Lyme disease vaccination. This is junk billing.


  2. Just say NO to Lyme testing; the tests ALL give false positives, none of the tests tell you if your dog has the disease, and ALL the tests cost more than Lyme treatment which is the only definitive test of the disease.

  3. Treat suspected Lyme disease with doxycycline (5 mg per pound of dog) which you can purchase without prescription and without visiting a vet. If your formerly lame, lethargic and stiff-jointed dog shows marked improvement after a few days, keep the dog on doxycycline for a full 5 week regime.
In response, I got an anonymous post saying that there was a new Lyme test that was 100 percent accurate, that this fool-proof test should be followed up with more tests, that capsules given to a dog were "problematic," that doxycycline would upset a dog's tummy, and that doxycycline should be administered longer than 5 weeks. In addition this anonymous person wanted me to know that doxycycline will not cure Babesiosis.

My tolerance for nonsense is low, and it's even lower from anonymous posters, and so I let fly, calling prattle exactly what it was, and noting that the medical literature agreed with me.

In response, I got back a short nasty-gram from someone signed "Gil" who did not give an email address or offer a single corrective citation to what I said.

No matter. The world is a small place, and it was not hard for me to figure out who "Gil" was.

Gil Ash has a small web site about Lyme disease in which she suggests that folks should ignore what anyone else says (including their own veterinarian) and keep looking around until they find a vet who will take their money to do Lyme testing, Lyme titers, and Lyme treatment. The veterinarian she seems to lean on for Lyme disease information is a "holistic" vet in Texas (where there is very little Lyme it should be said -- see map) who specializes in ... horses.

A second poster then chimed in, suggesting I needed to take a chill pill because Lyme was a really serious disease, and she should know because she owned a "potential" Search-and-Rescue dog that had been wrecked by Lyme disease. Her evidence for the horror of Lyme is that her own dog had tested positive for Lyme and was fearful of noise, lights and sounds, and was aggressive to other animals (but not to humans).

Whoo boy!

Now, to cut to the chase, Gil's advice on Lyme disease is not supported, and I assume Gil knows it, as it's simply NOT that hard to find good information on Lyme disease.

I will cover Lyme disease in detail in a second, but for now let me get rid of a stray strand of worry and confusion that Gil attempts to throw into the mix: Babesia.

If you are worried about Babesia, you probably shouldn't be, as it turns out you are 20 times more likely to be hit by lightning than to catch Babesia microti, the human version of the disease, while Babesia gibsoni, the more serious canine version of the disease is not much more common, and its occurrence seems to be almost entirely limited to Pit bull terriers. Babesia canis, the less virulent (and more common) form of Babesia is generally asymptomatic, and does not require treatment. Finally, it should be noted that Babesia symptoms in dogs (when they occur) are not the same as that for Lyme, which generally presents as lameness and stiff joints.

As to the second poster, it turns out that blaming an animal's unrelated problems on Lyme disease is such a common phenomenon it is actually mentioned in the literature on Lyme. Here's a hint: a bit of bacteria does not tell an animal to bite other dogs but to leave the human in the house alone.

Fear and aggression are NOT symptoms of Lyme disease. Fear and aggression are, more likely, due to a twist of genetics and/or poor socialization of the animal.

OK, now back to Lyme disease. First, a little history.

America is a huge country, and we are no longer a new one. With a population of well over 300 million people, and the modern historical time line going back more than 300 years, I think it's safe to say there have a few hundred million dogs in the U.S. over that time. And yet, Lyme disease was not diagnosed in humans until 1975, and was not diagnosed in dogs until 1984.

What does this suggest?

Well, for one thing, it suggests that Lyme disease may not be very common.

Which it isn't.

In fact, Lyme disease is very rare over most of the U.S., and the prevalence of the disease is heavily skewed to a few relatively small regions of the country (see map at top).

And while relatively few humans catch Lyme disease, dogs are even less likely to catch it.

The good news is that since 1984, when Lyme was first identified in dogs, a heck of a lot of stuff has been written about Lyme disease's prevalence, symptoms, epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment in dogs.

Most of this literature is marketing stuff cobbled up by drug companies trying to sell Lyme tests, Lyme vaccines, and Lyme cures, but some legitimate research on this disease has been done as well.

This legitimate research has, for the most part, shown that most of the "problems" associated with Lyme disease, other than leg lameness, joint stiffness, and lethargy, cannot be replicated in a laboratory setting in which dogs are intentionally infected with Lyme disease.

I could reference all of this literature, but it's not necessary, as the "Consensus Statement of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine on Lyme Disease" offers an excellent "best practices" paper as to what can and should be done regarding Lyme.

Read the whole thing if you want, but I will summarize -- in plain English -- the basics of what you need to know, with appropriate highlighted text to be found on the PDF:


  1. Lyme disease in dogs is very rare nationally, and Lyme disease itself is endemic to only a small portion of the U.S.

  2. It is much harder for a dog to catch Lyme disease than it is for a human.

  3. 95 percent of the dogs that catch Lyme from a tick are asymptomatic (no symptoms).

  4. An asymptomatic dog does not need to be tested for Lyme, as an asymptomatic dog does not need treatment, and treatment will not completely rid the dog of Lyme infection in any case.

  5. All Lyme tests and titers give false positives or otherwise offer up only meaningless information that tell you nothing about whether the dog actually has Lyme disease or will come down with it.

  6. A dog with symptoms of Lyme disease should not be tested for Lyme, as tests and titers do not prove that Lyme is the causal agent of any observed problem. The ONLY 100% indication that Lyme disease is a causal agent of a problem in a dog is if the dog responds to appropriate antibiotic treatment. Said treatment is cheaper than either a test for Lyme disease or an assay titer.


  7. The best treatment for Lyme disease is oral doxycycline (5 mg a pound) for five weeks. Longer treatment periods have not been shown to be therapeutic. Doxycycline is also an effective treatment for several other tick-borne diseases such as Ehrlichiosis, Anaplasmosis and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Note that neither doxy nor any other treatment will rid a dog of Lyme antibodies; they will remain in the dog forever, and repeated infection from another tick bite is always possible.


  8. Most dogs that come down with Lyme-related lameness, lethargy, or joint stiffness get dramatically better after 2-3 days worth of treatment with doxycycline. If so, continue doxycycline treatment for a full 5 weeks. In humans, long-term doxycylin treatment has not been shown to be more effective than placebos, and there is no evidence to suggest it as a sensible regime for dogs


  9. Lyme vaccines are more likely to do harm than good, and should NOT be given even in Lyme-endemic areas.


  10. Some dog owners and veterinarians are only too happy to blame other medical issues on Lyme disease. However, if your dog does not get better after a five-week treatment of doxycycline, the problem is probably something other than Lyme, such as an a congenital autoimmune disorder.
What's all this mean?

Boil it all down, and what you have is a simple fact: Lyme disease vaccines, testing, and medically unnecessary treatment of asymptomatic dogs is a huge scam costing American dog owners hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

As noted in my earlier post, you should say NO to Lyme disease vaccination and NO to Lyme testing. If your dog comes up lame or stiff, do nothing for two weeks; it's probably as simple as a sprain, bruise, or cut pad. If the dog does not get better, however, and no other problem seems evident, treat the dog with doxycycline that you have ordered on your own and without a prescription. If the dog dramatically improves in 2-3 days, then the issue is Lyme disease, and continue to treat with doxycycline for a full 5-week regime.

Bird-biotic doxycycline can be ordered from Amazon or Revival Animal Health, and contains a 100 mg dose of doxycycline, which is a perfect dose for a 20-pound terrier. Scale up or down for a larger or smaller dog, dosing 5 mg per pound of dog, twice a day (once every 12 hours).

This is a repost from April 25, 2008.

.