Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=Stacia link=topic=5285.msg67848#msg67848 date=1397341444] I do believe that people who do not believe in neutering will find all manner of statistics to prove their point. I tend to look at my experience. [/quote] I think that's a bit harsh, Stacia - I was not "finding all manner of statistics", or indeed arguing the case was proven, and neither was the study I referenced. Of course people (all people) suffer from conformation bias, which is why it's important to try a look at the available evidence. (In my case in a totally amateurish way, no doubt, but I still think I should try and figure it out). The 2nd reference in the article you quote (Ava.com) is the 12th reference in the article we were originally discussing (polsone.com). This is the systematic review of all the literature and can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01220.x/full The article at polsone.com places weight on this review, as I quoted above. The article at Ava.com dismisses this review, saying that it is counter to current thought, and states that they continue to recommend early spaying. I can't see a reason why the systematic review should be dismissed in this way. I don't know whether the authors are nutcases with a biased agenda? Or maybe the conclusion that vets should not be recommending early spay doesn't sit easily with everyone in the profession?
