free feeding VS fixed feeding

"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.

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

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

(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.

(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.

"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..

"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..

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.

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.