which is my point exactly. while there are patterns and contributing
factors nothing when it comes to health is set in stone. tiger never had a
hint of crystals until a month or so after we started the cats on wellness.
every other cat in the house did fabulously on it, he did not, the other
cats got shinier coats, more energy and bla bla bla, but tiger did NOT
flourish... now i am not saying the wellness caused his issues because i am
not sure about that but now that they are all on c/d they are all fine...
and as an aside, in june of that same year Miss Violette was given a clean
bill of health by the vet just after that i switched them to wellness... by
november she was dead from kidney cancer. fast acting and very sad but
again i can't blame the food, Lee
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
"Dragoman" wrote in message
Bill Graham wrote:
"Kelly Greene" wrote in message
"Stormmee" wrote in message
i agree about not using the old pills but i DO NOT agree on the wet
only option, if you can switch him and that is what your vet
reccommends fine, but my tiger was so bad we thought we would lose
him, he has now been crystal/infection free for over five years on a
diet of dry c/d and is healtheir than ever. Lee
There are people who smoke heavily all their lives like my mother who
died at 90, and never get lung cancer.
You too, huh? - My mom started smoking at 15 and quit when she was 90
because "they are too expensive". She went on to live to 97. So she
smoked for 75 years! When I tell doctors that, it blows them away!
If it blew them away, they were not very good doctors. Individual
variation and resilience plays a very big role in human and cat health.
Risk factors are important only for the mediocre, susceptible part of the
population, that would have gotten the disease easily anyway. Fit,
healthy, genetically advanced individuals (cats that we would like to
have, humans that we should strive to mate with) do not care about risk
factors. And if they succumb to them - well, they were not that superior
to begin with, and their loss is indicative, if painful.
I had a brother in law who died of lung cancer, and he never smoked
anything in his entire life. I also know that the national cancer
institute attributes every lung cancer death in the entire world to either
their smoking, or to their ingestion of second hand smoke....IOW, they
don't believe it's possible for anyone who dies of lung cancer to have
contracted the disease any other way besides tobacco smoke. So I take
these, "TV" statistics with a large grain of salt......