If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil P." wrote in message
12% incidence is not low! In the at risk segment of the feline population, 12% = *millions* of cats! Maybe if I write short sentences you might understand. 15% are susceptible to FeLV 85% are not susceptible to FeLV Therefore, there must be some kind of natural immunity. Work on your comprehension skills. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
In article , c864320
@yahoo.com enlightened us with... "Phil P." wrote in message 12% incidence is not low! In the at risk segment of the feline population, 12% = *millions* of cats! Maybe if I write short sentences you might understand. 15% are susceptible to FeLV 85% are not susceptible to FeLV Therefore, there must be some kind of natural immunity. Work on your comprehension skills. I didn't see him dispute the immunity (though I only read the message this was a rely to). I saw a dispute over the fact that 15% is somehow not a number to be worried about. I would certainly worry over 15%. That's 15,000 cats out of 100,000. So, if we have say, a million strays, that's 150,000 cats that could be infected. Nothing to sneeze at, anyway. -- -- ~kaeli~ Dancing cheek-to-cheek is really a form of floor play. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
In article , c864320
@yahoo.com enlightened us with... "Phil P." wrote in message 12% incidence is not low! In the at risk segment of the feline population, 12% = *millions* of cats! Maybe if I write short sentences you might understand. 15% are susceptible to FeLV 85% are not susceptible to FeLV Therefore, there must be some kind of natural immunity. Work on your comprehension skills. I didn't see him dispute the immunity (though I only read the message this was a rely to). I saw a dispute over the fact that 15% is somehow not a number to be worried about. I would certainly worry over 15%. That's 15,000 cats out of 100,000. So, if we have say, a million strays, that's 150,000 cats that could be infected. Nothing to sneeze at, anyway. -- -- ~kaeli~ Dancing cheek-to-cheek is really a form of floor play. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
(Steve Crane) wrote in message . com...
(Liz) wrote in message om... Oh, one more thing. Do you have any proof that adult cats actually acquire FeLV? I don´t want lab experiments with vaccines. Would you have something like cats that once tested negative (true negative) and later developed the disease through natural exposure? I´m trying to find the study that supports that vet´s statement that adult cats don´t get FeLV but still haven´t managed. You can't find a study that doesn't exist...... Sure you can, you just need to look *very hard indeed*. (...) than usual by such fringe lunatic ideas. All one has to do is walk through a few vet clinics and find the adult cats that have never been vaccinated and are now dying of FELK. That would seem to be a very easy way to disprove such a fringe lunatic theory. Well, if 1 in 8 or so (adult) cats are susceptible (as some posts in this thread have suggested), then that is certainly a minority ... but a pretty bloody large minority... Steve. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Liz" wrote in message om... "Phil P." wrote in message 12% incidence is not low! In the at risk segment of the feline population, 12% = *millions* of cats! Maybe if I write short sentences you might understand. Maybe you shouldn't write your nonsense at all.... 15% are susceptible to FeLV 85% are not susceptible to FeLV Therefore, there must be some kind of natural immunity. No sh!t! That wasn't the issue, Slick, now was it?. You said "adult cats don't get FeLV"... that's not that same as some cats have some kind of natural immunity, now is it? This is another one of your lame attempts at convoluting the issue when when one of your utterly stupid and asinine theories and information have been proven ridiculously *wrong*. Work on your comprehension skills. My comprehension skills? LOL! You're not only not on the same page, you're not even in the same book! LOL! No one, including me, *ever* disputed the fact that *most* cats resist their FeLV infection. Otherwise, FeLV would rapidly deplete the general feline population in the matter of a few years. I've been saying this for *years* - long before you even heard of FeLV! This information has also been on my site since *1998*! Let me refresh your manipulative memory: Originally, you said "adult cats don't get FeLV" - which everyone (except you) *knows* is patently *false*. FeLV-negative *adult* cats *do* indeed become infected from FeLV-infected cats. "Very young kittens are the most susceptible to FeLV infection following exposure to the virus. Susceptibility to persistent infection decreases rapidly for older kittens and adult cats. Ultimately, about 60 to 70 percent of adult cats that are exposed to FeLV develop immunity and do not become persistently viremic." "Multiple-cat households in which the FeLV test-and-removal program has not been implemented have experienced infection rates over forty times greater than those experienced by households in which the program has been successfully introduced." FC Scott, Former Director & JR Richards, Director, Cornell Feline Health Center Excerpt from the Cornell Book of Cats http://maxshouse.com/feline_leukemia_virus.htm If you'd stop trying to show people how "smart" you are, people wouldn't know how stupid you are.. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Liz" wrote in message om... "Phil P." wrote in message 12% incidence is not low! In the at risk segment of the feline population, 12% = *millions* of cats! Maybe if I write short sentences you might understand. Maybe you shouldn't write your nonsense at all.... 15% are susceptible to FeLV 85% are not susceptible to FeLV Therefore, there must be some kind of natural immunity. No sh!t! That wasn't the issue, Slick, now was it?. You said "adult cats don't get FeLV"... that's not that same as some cats have some kind of natural immunity, now is it? This is another one of your lame attempts at convoluting the issue when when one of your utterly stupid and asinine theories and information have been proven ridiculously *wrong*. Work on your comprehension skills. My comprehension skills? LOL! You're not only not on the same page, you're not even in the same book! LOL! No one, including me, *ever* disputed the fact that *most* cats resist their FeLV infection. Otherwise, FeLV would rapidly deplete the general feline population in the matter of a few years. I've been saying this for *years* - long before you even heard of FeLV! This information has also been on my site since *1998*! Let me refresh your manipulative memory: Originally, you said "adult cats don't get FeLV" - which everyone (except you) *knows* is patently *false*. FeLV-negative *adult* cats *do* indeed become infected from FeLV-infected cats. "Very young kittens are the most susceptible to FeLV infection following exposure to the virus. Susceptibility to persistent infection decreases rapidly for older kittens and adult cats. Ultimately, about 60 to 70 percent of adult cats that are exposed to FeLV develop immunity and do not become persistently viremic." "Multiple-cat households in which the FeLV test-and-removal program has not been implemented have experienced infection rates over forty times greater than those experienced by households in which the program has been successfully introduced." FC Scott, Former Director & JR Richards, Director, Cornell Feline Health Center Excerpt from the Cornell Book of Cats http://maxshouse.com/feline_leukemia_virus.htm If you'd stop trying to show people how "smart" you are, people wouldn't know how stupid you are.. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Well, if 1 in 8 or so (adult) cats are susceptible (as some posts in this thread have suggested), then that is certainly a minority ... but a pretty bloody large minority... Steve. Agreed!! Maybe some perspective might help. Less than 2% will ever have urolith problems - FELK at 11-15% would be ~5-7 times as common as bladder uroliths. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Well, if 1 in 8 or so (adult) cats are susceptible (as some posts in this thread have suggested), then that is certainly a minority ... but a pretty bloody large minority... Steve. Agreed!! Maybe some perspective might help. Less than 2% will ever have urolith problems - FELK at 11-15% would be ~5-7 times as common as bladder uroliths. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Feeding time! | Lois Reay | Cat anecdotes | 4 | October 15th 03 12:09 AM |
Tube feeding for liver disease?? | Bill from Tampa | Cat health & behaviour | 10 | August 20th 03 12:25 AM |
Fixed But Randomly Aggressive Male Cats | Ian | Cat health & behaviour | 2 | July 3rd 03 08:45 PM |