1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pet Health Insurance

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by finyank13, Jun 10, 2013.

  1. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    And somehow you think that proves you right. Hahahaha... Answer my question... If you think that shows purebreds are less healthy, why did the study come to the conclusion that it did? Let me guess... Conspiracy? Neo-con scientists? Just to piss you off? Lol
     
  2. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Here is a great article. Simple, unbiased, and straight forward:


    Ask a diehard fan of mixed breeds or shelter dogs and they will probably tell you that you can do a lot of good by adopting a dog from a shelter. These dogs are often unwanted and may be euthanized unless they are adopted by someone.
    Survey data suggests that, in general, mixed breeds that are adopted will live as long or longer than the average purebred dog. There are a few exceptions. Small and Toy breed purebred dogs usually outlive all dogs.
    There’s usually no limit to what you can teach your mixed breed dog either. Mixed breed dogs have excelled at agility and many other dog sports that are open to them. If a mutt has an owner who is willing to take the time to work with them, then a mixed breed dog stands a good chance of doing very well in an activity.
    On the other hand, devotees of purebred dogs can point to many areas where these dogs excel. In most cases purebred dogs have been bred for centuries, sometimes millennia, to do specific tasks. They look and act the way they do because they have or had a purpose. People who are devoted to these dogs take a justifiable pride in their dogs’ history.
    There is a great deal of misinformation on the Internet that suggests that purebred dogs are sickly or unhealthy because they are inbred. This is actually not particularly true. Yes, purebred dogs do have what are called “closed registries,” meaning that they have studbooks and all of the dogs are related to each other through the founding dogs of the breed. But there are different degrees of close breeding. Many dogs are not very closely related in animal breeding terms.
    As far as health goes, dedicated breeders typically perform health tests and genetic screening before breeding to reduce the chance of passing on any health problems to the next generation. The Orthopedic Foundation for Animals tracks these tests in each breed if breeders submit the information. Some breeds keep their own registries for health information.
    Not all purebred dog breeders and owners have their dogs health-tested but many do. Unfortunately, it’s not usually possible to track the health and genetics of mutts because the parents are usually unknown. Many people believe that mutts are healthier than purebred dogs but this is not true. They believe in something called “hybrid vigor.” Hybrid vigor does exist – in agriculture, in crossbreeding species or subspecies – but it doesn’t usually apply in the case of mixed breed dogs. (True hybrids are usually infertile, for instance, like a mule.) Instead, simple genetics come into play. You may not know if your mixed breed dog’s father had terrible allergies, for instance. If he did, he may have passed them down to your dog.
    If your mixed breed dog is a cross between a Labrador and a Poodle – two breeds which are prone to hip dysplasia – then it’s very likely that your mixed breed dog will also develop hip dysplasia. That’s simply a matter of genetics. No amount of “hybrid vigor” is going to prevent the puppy from getting these genes.
    Of course, if the Labrador and the Poodle both have good hips, without any degree of hip dysplasia, then it’s much more likely that your mixed breed dog will also have good hips. Again, simple genetics. (Although hip dysplasia isn’t really a simple condition.)
    So, mutts are not as healthy as many people believe. Hybrid vigor is largely a myth when it comes to dogs as pets. And, purebred dogs are typically much healthier than many people believe.
    That’s not to say that you shouldn’t adopt a mixed breed dog! Mixed breed dogs can make great pets. But you should be aware that a mixed breed dog is subject to the same health problems as any other dog: allergies, dysplasia, PRA, and so on. Don’t adopt a mutt with the belief that your dog will be healthier than other dogs.
    There are also advantages to getting a purebred dog. Because purebred dogs have been bred to do certain tasks and to conform to a standard, you will know what you’re getting. You will know how big the dog will be as an adult, what his temperament should be like, what his coat will be like and what the grooming needs will be, and whether you might be allergic to the dog. You can also choose a breeder who does health testing on the parents to try to choose a healthy puppy. All of these things are good reasons to get a purebred dog.
    If you have a mixed breed dog there are more opportunities for these dogs to compete and earn titles than ever before. The AKC has now started enrolling mixed breeds in their Canine Partners Program. Mixed breed dogs are now eligible to compete in agility, rally and obedience events when they are offered by participating AKC clubs.
    Whether you love mutts or purebreds, there is no “right” dog. Both kinds of dogs make great pets. The important thing to keep in mind is to get the right dog for you. Consider your needs and what kind of dog will fit your lifestyle. Consider what you find important in a dog. After you’ve thought things over carefully, then you can decide whether you want a mutt or a purebred.


    http://dog.petsgo.org/dog-breeders-mutts-versus-purebreds/
     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Are you insane? Seriously?

    The conclusion of the study was that mixed breeds aren't always less susceptible than purebreds to CERTAIN genetic disorders. That means if you go by 13 of 24 disorders, they're equal, but if you go by total disorders purebreds are still likely to be susceptible to more. Again, what's a bigger number 23 or 14. How in the hairy hell are you not understanding this? For 13 disorders they are equal, but there's still another 10 disorders on top of that purebreds are susceptible to.

    [table="width: 700, class: grid"]
    [tr]
    [td][/td]
    [td]1[/td]
    [td]2[/td]
    [td]3[/td]
    [td]4[/td]
    [td]5[/td]
    [td]6[/td]
    [td]7[/td]
    [td]8[/td]
    [td]9[/td]
    [td]10[/td]
    [td]11[/td]
    [td]12[/td]
    [td]13[/td]
    [td]14[/td]
    [td]15[/td]
    [td]16[/td]
    [td]17[/td]
    [td]18[/td]
    [td]19[/td]
    [td]20[/td]
    [td]21[/td]
    [td]21[/td]
    [td]23[/td]
    [td]24[/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]PB[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td][/td]
    [/tr]
    [tr]
    [td]MB[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td][/td]
    [td]X[/td]
    [/tr]
    [/table]

    So this chart is based off the study you posted. Each X represents a possible genetic disorder. The red X represents the genetic disorders there's no difference in susceptibility based on breed/mixed. So, the study's conclusion is that in the cases of that are a red X, mixed breeds are just as likely to contract the disorder as purebreds. However, what you are neglecting to comprehend is that there's still 10 other disorders that purebreds are MORE susceptible to than mixed breeds. That means purebreds are MORE likely to contract 23 of the 24 genetic disorders than a mixed breed. You cannot keep pretending you won with this info.
     
    Ohio Fanatic likes this.
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Hahahahahahahahahahhaha.

    - The article has no author.
    - The footer for the page says:
    - The only other page on the site is an ABOUT page with the following text:
    This is getting ******ed.
     
  5. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,073
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    Then you would be mistaken in your assumption. You seem like a bright guy that understands science at a pretty good level, despite your tunnel vision in this debate, but you're really out of your league here.
    - i have a bachelors degree in biochemistry and genetics
    - i have a masters degree in organic chemistry with minor in biochemistry
    - i have a PhD in organic chemistry
    - i work at one of the top-rated, most innovative biotechs in the world
    - i have almost 20 years experience as a medicinal chemist, developing expertise in virology, anti-inflammatory, oncology and more recently neurobiology and have put 3 compounds in human clinical trials - a rarity in our field
    - i was just ranked as one of the best young scientists (top 15) in a company of over a 1000 scientists

    you don't believe me, you can look up my record in Scifinder - Michael Philip Clark

    I'm not going to keep regurgitating why you're incorrect here. you've taken a small subsection of the debate and are driving on it. with that small subsection, I've said I agree with you. but that's not the original debate. maybe you should go back to the start of the thread and reread it. If you tried this in a scientific forum in my company, you'd be ripped to shreds.
     
    Two Tacos, Boik14 and Fin D like this.
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He's already been ripped to shreds and I'm not a scientist.
     
    Ohio Fanatic likes this.
  7. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    Things I've learned from this thread: ... 1) if I have a degree/PHD (pretty huge d***) and brag about it or mention it in an argument, I automatically win (in my mind)..... 2) nothing about the actual topic.
     
    Ohio Fanatic likes this.
  8. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    If it has no author does it really exist? lol

    I quoted the article because it was written well and seems very fair and balanced. (NO, not in a FOX News sense).

    You seem like a great pet owner. That's great. I've shown you the most recent, up to date study concerning the topic we've been debating for a few days now. The conclusion of this study shows that purbred dogs are no less healthy than mix breeds. That is a fact. If you don't want to accept this fact that's up to you. However, I am not going to keep rehashing this with someone who simply won't change their mind even when presented with evidence that proves their beliefs wrong.
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    The article is garbage on an bs site. You've no idea who wrote it. There's no references, there's no anything.

    You have shown no such thing. The study does not support you...it does not say what you're saying it says.

    Look at the damn numbers. You're the one who refuses to accept the truth. You've been soundly beaten by any and all measure.
     
  10. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Bottom line: The only thing you and I disagree about is that you believe I changed the parameters of the argument. Correct? You assert that when I wrote "mix breed dogs are no more healthy than purbred dogs" (or something to that effect) that I was including all dogs across the spectrum. Maybe I should have been more clear. If I were writing a thesis or doing my own research I would have been, but for the sake of this forum I assumed that nobody would assume I was talking about either backyard breeders or two headed mix breeds. I never assumed that FinD was talking about every mix breed out there. I assumed, and still believe, that he's talking about your typical mix breed dog that appears healthy at birth and whose parents appear healthy at the time of their birth. IMO, a backyard breeder, ie someone who just breeds to breed, even those who claim to be breeding purbreds, are creating nothing more than a mix breed dog. Without the proper research nobody can just look at a dog and be certain that it's a purebred.

    I've asked repeatedly for ANY peer reviewed studies that shown FinD to be right. Nobody, including FinD, has provided that. I, however, have shown the most up to date study on this topic that shows I am correct.
     
  11. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    I can only go by what is written in here in regards to what/who people say they are. I understand that FinD has been here for awhile, like you have, and there is that "loyalty" factor so you try your best to side with him.

    What do you think about the study I posted? Do you just dismiss it like FinD does? Maybe you can explain to him why he's wrong about what the numbers he believes show him to be right actually show him to be wrong? Hell, the very first sentence about this study on UCDavis' website states:
    If you think your mixed-breed pup is naturally hardier than the neighbor’s purebred, you may want to think again.

    http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10613


    Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Prevalence of genetic disorders in both populations was related to the specific disorder. Recently derived breeds or those from similar lineages appeared to be more susceptible to certain disorders that affect all closely related purebred dogs, whereas disorders with equal prevalence in the 2 populations suggested that those disorders represented more ancient mutations that are widely spread through the dog population. Results provided insight on how breeding practices may reduce prevalence of a disorder.

    http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/full/10.2460/javma.242.11.1549?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528purebred%2Bhealth%2529&searchHistoryKey=


    It doesn't get any more simple than that. lol
     
  12. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    One more thing, FinD. If you think that just because some purebreds show a prevalence for certain disorders that that makes them less healthy... you're wrong. Sickle Cell disease (and trait) are more prevalent in African Americans. Are they less healthy, overall, than Asian Americans or whites?
     
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Jesus christ man.

    The post #2 of this thread, that thing you lost your **** about:
    It was that statement you went off the goddamn deep end about and you have yet to disprove. In fact, every attempt you've made has shown that statement to be 100% accurate. Purebreds are more likely to have genetic disorders overall, than mixed breeds. Its a true statement, proven to you by not only the study you posted, by 4 other studies, PetMd, Cambridge Universty, and the effing Humane Society.

    Purebreds are more susceptible to 23 out of 24 genetic disorders. Mixed Breeds are more susceptible to 14 out 24. You cannot argue that and it proves my original statement. Quit changing my statements. Quit avoiding questions. Quit changing the parameters of the argument. Just put on your big boy pants and admit you're wrong then quietly go away.
     
  14. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013

    Instead of trying to understand the science, which you obviously don't, just read the conclusion.

    That's fairly easy to understand. I realize that it disagrees with your stance. Learn to accept that you can be wrong sometimes. Just like the rest of us mortals.
     
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sigh. It is fairly easy to understand, which is why its a mystery you continue to not understand it.

    Please stop insulting my intelligence considering you don't have the capacity to understand what you're posting.

    The study is saying that in 13 genetic disorders there's no difference. That's why they:
    I said purebreds are more likely to get sick because of genetic disorders. The study shows exactly that because purebreds are likely to get 23 out of 24 disorders while mutts are likely to get 14 out of 24.

    If you had two cars and Car X was likely to have 23 of the 24 engine problems and Car Y was likely to have 14 out of 24 engine problems, you could say that Car X is MORE likely to have engine problems.

    If you keep arguing against this, you'll have proven yourself to be a troll.
     
  16. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Obviously, for you at least, it's not easily understood. You cherry pick a sentence or two and think it proves your beliefs.

    To quote the most recent and most thorough study ever done on this subject:

    If you think your mixed-breed pup is naturally hardier than the neighbor’s purebred, you may want to think again.

    You, FinD, may want to think again. You accuse me of avoiding your questions (even after I've answered them) yet you haven't answered any of mine.

    Why do you think the study reads that mixes are no more healthy than purebreds if you think the evidence in that study prove otherwise? Either you think it's a mistake on their part or you don't understand the information.
     
  17. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    And this is what you wrote: ALL purebreds, regardless of the breed, are more likely to have serious and expensive medical issues (its the lack of diversity in their genes. Its the same reason why products of incest have problems). Rescue a mutt. Its cheaper, they're generally healthier...

    This study proves you wrong.
     
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    This is like beating my head against the stupidest wall I can find.

    You're taking the entirety of your argument from the intro of the article by the author of the article, who has nothing to do with the study. Meanwhile, in info from the study, it shows:

    If you're trolling, you should stop because its against TOS. If you're not trolling, you should demand restitution from whomever taught you to read.
     
  19. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    I've tried to let you learn something on your own.

    Just because more purbreds show signs of certain diseases (as do some mix breeds) it doesn't mean that purbreds, "in general" (your words) are less healthy. You are worng.


    Author of the article: Anita Oberbauer.
    People who performed the study: Thomas P. Bellumori, MS; Thomas R. Famula, PhD; Danika L. Bannasch, PhD, DVM; Janelle M. Belanger, MS; Anita M. Oberbauer, PhD

    You just can't help it, can you? lol
     
  20. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yes, I was wrong about the author of the article. See, real men can admit when they are wrong. Why don't you try it? Its literally been the only thing you've gotten right so far.

    Be honest now, are purebreds more susceptible to a higher number of genetic disorders then mixed breeds? Yes or no.
     
  21. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    Now who's changing the topic?

    What you wrote in post number 2 of this thread: "ALL purebreds, regardless of the breed, are more likely to have serious and expensive medical issues...

    That's just not true. Like I wrote...
     
  22. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    To answer your question...Yes...purebreds have more KNOWN genetic defects. But, let me ask you..are "mutts" some other form of animal? Are they dogs? Are they mixes of purebreds?

    If a Basset Hound and a Mastiff were crossbred and the Basset passed on its long back while the Mastiff passed on its long legs and barrel chest, the resulting puppies would likely suffer from serious back problems. Most mutts don’t come from bloodlines where responsible breeders keep careful track of the health of every dog in the line. Purebreds may have more known health problems in their background, but sometimes this is only because better records have been kept. It's more of a "we don't know what this dog is mixed with so we can't tell you if he will die sooner, be sicker etc etc. There’s no foolproof way of predicting potential health problems for dogs. You claim that just by knowing the breed and if that dog is a purebred they will be sicker. Again, that's just not true. As with people, how healthy we are often boils down to five main factors: environment, diet, our parent’s DNA, preventative maintenance and pure luck. Do you think that mix breed dogs somehow don't abide by these rules??
     
  23. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    WTF? So you're telling me that even though purebreds are susceptible to more genetic disorders there's not more of a chance for them to get sick? Are you honestly even paying attention anymore? I didn't change anything. Purebreds are more likely to get sick BECAUSE they are more susceptible to MORE genetic disorders than mixed breeds. Stop effing trolling.

    Don't give me that argument about mixed breeds being made up of purebreds, take that up with the concept of genetics and all the people involved in the study you linked. They are the ones telling you that purebreds get more genetic disorders than mixed breeds.
     
  24. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013
    You are now more than lost...you are irretrievable.
     
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah. Sure.

    You're the one telling me even though purebreds are susceptible to 23 genetic disorders there's not more chance they'll be sick than mutts who are susceptible to 14 genetic disorders. Oh, and you're questioning the whole concept of diversification of genes on top of it.

    But yeah, I'm the one that's lost.
     
  26. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,073
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    Just like all arguments in this forum, stats are meaningless without context. I briefly read the 1st article and if I were to interpret it, I would still say that on average a purebred will likely have more issues, but the gap isn't as big as I thought it would be. You can also look at how the article was worded

    that's a typical wording from people who have run studies where they are trying to make a point, but the data doesn't necessarily backup their claim, therefore "don't necessarily" can be interpreted either way. Overall, while it's a study with a pretty big dataset, they are really pushing to make it look like there's very little difference. again, no context in this article. did they breakdown certain purebreds or combinations of certain purebreds to see if the discrepancy is smaller or larger?
     
  27. Justright

    Justright Banned

    2,360
    314
    0
    Feb 23, 2013

    I posted a link to both the article and study. The second link goes more in depth. You actually think there's an agenda being pushed by UCDavis and the AVMA. What I take out of the parts you quoted is that all the questions haven't been answered, but purebreds are no more likely to be sick than a mutt. At least that's what the data supports.
     
  28. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,073
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    no, at best the first study (I haven't read the 2nd one) says for half the disorders, the probabilities are about the same, but the other half, purebreeds are more likely to have issues.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  29. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    85,620
    51,681
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    yes and yes... they were fine living quarters wise until after I changed the water... i left the water out over night to adjust before I added it to the bowl. And I only added 1/2 the bowl or so...not a full amount. they were dead within a few hours.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  30. bigbry

    bigbry Huge Member

    5,278
    3,071
    0
    Dec 18, 2008
    Colorado
    Stop drinking your water
     
    Fin D likes this.

Share This Page