Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener I've looked at his web site a few times. I didn't think he was particularly controversial - not in favour of blanket neutering, thinks Alpha stuff is a myth... ok, not convinced by his jingler and claims to solve pulling on lead with a product to sell, and he is definitely not a fan of the RSPCA. Not sure he is an outlier there though. Which bits do you think are controversial?
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=JulieT link=topic=5285.msg66518#msg66518 date=1396796981] Which bits do you think are controversial? [/quote] He clearly has the welfare of animals at heart, although he is not very complimentary. about the RSPCA, forums and neutering but maybe that is necessary? I was just trying to test the water. Roger
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener I read articles on his website ages ago and like his aproach , on most things . Like Julie , I am not convinced of the jingler , seems to be a sales gimmick , but to me , he talks a lot of common sense on many issues
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener The neutering article was a bit long on assertion and a bit short on properly cited evidence (e.g. what's the evidence to support his claim that neutering is associated with a higher risk of cruciate tears or other joint problems?).
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=Oberon link=topic=5285.msg66616#msg66616 date=1396820910] The neutering article was a bit long on assertion and a bit short on properly cited evidence (e.g. what's the evidence to support his claim that neutering is associated with a higher risk of cruciate tears or other joint problems?). [/quote] It's true he is sloppy with his references, but there are some studies around which support his view. Eg: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055937 I have to point out that Charlie, had he been included in this study as a young intact male with cruciate problems, would have changed the abstract if not the overall conclusions - and this was a breed specific study. It is not an unusual view to express that female and neutured dogs are at a greater risk of developing CCLD: Eg: https://www.acvs.org/small-animal/cranial-cruciate-ligament-disease
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener If there are studies to support his view them that is good, but they should be cited by him if he wants to be more credible.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener They are just too many confounding factors in the top reference which have not been factored into the statistical analysis, also the fact that the study was retrospective which means collecting existing historical data..as apposed to prospective - designing a study to with primary and secondary endpoints in mind. I would like to see more robust clinical data presented around the risks associated with neutering labradors both late and early taking into account of demographics such as diet, environment, exercise, genetics etc..
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=Beanwood link=topic=5285.msg66676#msg66676 date=1396861831] They are just too many confounding factors in the top reference which have not been factored into the statistical analysis, also the fact that the study was retrospective which means collecting existing historical data..as apposed to prospective - designing a study to with primary and secondary endpoints in mind. [/quote] That's interesting, do you have a moment to expand a bit more on your views? For example, it would be interesting to hear why you think the particular retrospective data used here should invalidate the results of this study? And what particular factors do you think have been ignored that would change the results? Do you have the same concerns with the studies in the supporting references?
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=JulieT link=topic=5285.msg67444#msg67444 date=1397153571] [quote author=Beanwood link=topic=5285.msg66676#msg66676 date=1396861831] They are just too many confounding factors in the top reference which have not been factored into the statistical analysis, also the fact that the study was retrospective which means collecting existing historical data..as apposed to prospective - designing a study to with primary and secondary endpoints in mind. [/quote] That's interesting, do you have a moment to expand a bit more on your views? For example, it would be interesting to hear why you think the particular retrospective data used here should invalidate the results of this study? And what particular factors do you think have been ignored that would change the results? Do you have the same concerns with the studies in the supporting references? [/quote] Sorry think I typed that post a bit quick..no.. I don't think the fact it is retrospective invalidates the results as such, just usually those studies are used to identify whether a particular theory is worth exploring further i,e a prospective study
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=JulieT link=topic=5285.msg66623#msg66623 date=1396825316] [quote author=Oberon link=topic=5285.msg66616#msg66616 date=1396820910] The neutering article was a bit long on assertion and a bit short on properly cited evidence (e.g. what's the evidence to support his claim that neutering is associated with a higher risk of cruciate tears or other joint problems?). [/quote] It's true he is sloppy with his references, but there are some studies around which support his view. Eg: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055937 I have to point out that Charlie, had he been included in this study as a young intact male with cruciate problems, would have changed the abstract if not the overall conclusions - and this was a breed specific study. It is not an unusual view to express that female and neutured dogs are at a greater risk of developing CCLD: Eg: https://www.acvs.org/small-animal/cranial-cruciate-ligament-disease [/quote] Just wanted to add that Penny would be the same as Charlie - not neutered but developed joint problems at a young age. Though it can be argued hers are hereditary, despite the fact there is actually no malformation of the joints, they're just loose. The physio also said she's hyper flexible :s
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=Penny+Me link=topic=5285.msg67642#msg67642 date=1397245856] Just wanted to add that Penny would be the same as Charlie - not neutered but developed joint problems at a young age. Though it can be argued hers are hereditary, despite the fact there is actually no malformation of the joints, they're just loose. The physio also said she's hyper flexible :s [/quote] The results are different for both females and HD - those are shown in table 2. Later neutered females do better (in these results) for HD than intact.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener The first study (www.plosone.org ) was interesting. I see they took weight of the dogs into account but I suppose there are other variables which weren't allowed for - I'm thinking of amount and type of exercise and type of food (quality), and I'm sure there must be others. At my vet practice the two young vets I've seen since having Molly were adamant that she should be spayed before 6 months. However the senior vet gave me a much more balanced picture and said there were pros and cons for both early and late neutering (as this study suggests). I asked him what he would do if it were his dog and he said he would wait for at least one season, so that's what I've decided to do.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener [quote author=Joy link=topic=5285.msg67808#msg67808 date=1397323662] At my vet practice the two young vets I've seen since having Molly were adamant that she should be spayed before 6 months. However the senior vet gave me a much more balanced picture and said there were pros and cons for both early and late neutering (as this study suggests). I asked him what he would do if it were his dog and he said he would wait for at least one season, so that's what I've decided to do. [/quote] Very interesting. There seems to be quite divergent views amoung vets. I too have found younger/newer vets to be more "black and white" about neutering. [quote author=Joy link=topic=5285.msg67808#msg67808 date=1397323662] The first study (www.plosone.org ) was interesting. I see they took weight of the dogs into account but I suppose there are other variables which weren't allowed for - I'm thinking of amount and type of exercise and type of food (quality), and I'm sure there must be others. [/quote] That's true. But there is no reason to suppose that these variables differed by the categories used in the study. That is, all the intact dogs tended to be slimmer, and all the neutered fatter - for example (or good or bad quality food). It could have been the case of course, but more likely to think there was a range across the categories.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener Of course you're right. I think what I meant was that just because there was a higher incidence of cancer among late-spayed bitches than early-spayed and intact bitches, it doesn't necessarily follow that late-spaying was the cause of the cancer, or a contributing factor. To be thorough, you would need to know whether the 3 groups had similar diets, or whether (by coincidence) the late-spayed group had a poorer diet. However, it was a good sample-size, so it seems reasonable to assume the groups were balanced in the range of diet and life-style.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener Yes, absolutely, that must be the case. And when you drill down to the individual results in each category, the number of dogs doesn't seem massive. Still, food for thought.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener Intact and later spayed bitches will be more predisposed to mammary cancer that earlier spayed bitches.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener Why do you say that, Stacia? You may very well be right, but I don't think that is shown by this study (but please to point out if i'm wrong, i was mainly looking at the ccl results). This study does states that: ...evidence for neutering as a protection against a dog acquiring one or more cancers is weak. The most frequently mentioned is mammary cancer [ref - 12]. However recent systematic review of published work on neutering and mammary tumors found the evidence that neutering reduces the risk of mammary neoplasia to be weak, at best [ref - 13].
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener Too late to look up references. It was my understanding from working with vets and reading (years ago) that this was the case.
Re: Stan Rawlinson - Dog Listener Have just quickly found this. 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. MAMMARY TUMORS - Australian Veterinary Association Link to article development of mammary tumours in the bitch. Intact females have a seven-fold increased risk of developing mammary cancer compared to neutered females. (Link fixed - Rachael )
