Gullibility, Research, Snopes, Hoaxes, and the Detriment of Social Media....

Been a while eh? Well... haven't really had anything strong on my mind. I do need to make another post on alternative medicines... Holistic medicine was the one I was planning on doing next. Just been busy... and not really inspired.

But... I'm inspired now. We've all seen them. The photos passed around, the news links that people get all shocked over.

Like Morgan Freeman being dead - https://www.facebook.com/pages/RIP-Morgan-Freeman/274408782669578

Or the guy on the World Trade Center with a plane behind him - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Tourist_guy.jpg

Or the newer one about Obama announcing his run for a third term - http://nationalreport.net/obama-announces-plans-third-term-presidential-run/

Or the viral "Privacy Notice" that was passed around on Facebook - http://mashable.com/2012/06/05/facebook-privacy-notice-fake/

They seem/seemed pretty legit right? And they feed into our emotions/beliefs. With Morgan Freeman, it plays into our ethos. Our emotions. He is a great actor and well loved. So the news of his death is something a lot of people will care about... and... of course... why would someone lie about something like that?

The World Trade Center plays onto our love of the shocking. It is shocking. We all know that planes hit the twin towers... and there had to have been people there... and this "found" camera by a tourist with this image on it? It seems plausible, and again, why would someone lie about something like that?

And the last two, politics and privacy. Two VERY strong belief systems here in the US of A. Presidents are extremely polarizing. People either love them or hate them. And both with an absolute passion. So a third term that goes against the 22nd amendment? People will jump on it. And privacy being taken away? Of course they'd do anything to avoid it, to share whatever they needed to in order to keep that privacy.


Nobody stops to think anymore.

I remember my first hoax that really pushed my ideas of what is real and what isn't... when I first watched it... my brain was confused... but I wasn't conditioned to question what news stories or authority figures told me. And so I watched this... and became extremely confused and upset... because it seemed fake... but... it must be real... right?

But instead of just accepting it, I moved on and decided to research... and found out about the Onion, a satirical/fictional "news" source... and from then on, if I see something shared on social media or told by friends/family that sets off my "alarms"... I research it. Sometimes the source can be hard to find... sometimes it's as simple as searching "snopes" along with the topic of interest.


Many others just don't do that... and just accept things as fact, and don't try to see if it's true or false. They share it in their emotionally blinded state and further the incorrect information out there. And then when the true information comes out, it breeds paranoia and distrust.

We wonder why our nation is so uneducated and misinformed... it's because people have stopped thinking for themselves. They don't know how to go to the source anymore... and just look at third party information... even many times removed. They decide that they trust their "friends/family", or a particular "lifestyle"... so will trust anything they say. Just think about all the misinformation floating around with PETA, or among dieters, or the "green/natural" movement, or within religion of any kind.


Sometimes it's a malicious desire of a few people to spread rumors and misinformation, but most of the time it's just a misunderstanding of facts presented by an outside group, that will somehow prove their point/belief, and further their cause.

Religion, politics, and health are particularly rife with these. Here are just a few you may have heard about/seen:
NASA finding a "lost day" - http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp
Airlines will not pair Christian pilots and co-pilots for fear of the rapture - http://www.snopes.com/religion/pilot.asp
Noah's Ark was discovered in Turkey - http://www.snopes.com/religion/noahsark.asp
Obama is a radical Muslim - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Obama's forged birth certificate - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp
Pepsi can omits "Under God" from Pledge of Allegiance - http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/undergod.asp
New US Dollar coins omit "In God We Trust" - http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp
Quran verse about the "Wrath of the Eagle cleaning the lands of Allah" - http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/quran911.asp
Oil pulling - http://www.snopes.com/medical/homecure/oilpulling.asp
Treating Burns with Egg Whites - http://www.snopes.com/medical/homecure/eggwhite.asp
Dangerous Growth Hormone in Milk Sold at Walmart - http://www.snopes.com/medical/potables/walmart.asp
Aspartame Evils - http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
Dangers of Canola Oil - http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/canola.asp
Antiperspirant Causes Breast Cancer -  http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp
Twinkies have an Indefinite Shelf Life - http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp
Pop Rocks and Soda caused death - http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/poprocks.asp
Warnings about Farm Raised Tilapia - http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/tilapia.asp
Onions will keep you safe from the flu - http://www.snopes.com/medical/swineflu/onion.asp

And so on and so on and so on.

And no, snopes is not the end-all-be-all. But it is helpful as a STARTING point if there is any information on the subject. Go to the very end of any article and you will find the bibliography. From there you can go straight to the source, and find out yourself. If snopes doesn't have any information, that is where it gets harder to find the source... but there is usually  a trail of information that can slowly be directed back to the source.


So... in short, do some research. We live in the age of glorious technology, where you only have to type in a few words into a search bar and you have a wealth of information in front of you. So don't just take what you see at face value. Dig a little deeper, and find out the truth before making assumptions, getting upset, etc. And it could be true. And in that case, by all means, get upset and mad and whatever. But just sharing something you saw someone else post on facebook with the words "OMG!" or "IMPORTANT INFO", not good. I've done it... and wished I could take it back once I found out the truth.



Oh... and go ahead and throw rice at wedding if you want. The birds are fine. ;) I'm not going to give that one to you though... research it on your own.

Knowing what is really important...

So, for those of you who don't know, one of my biggest fears involves natural disasters. I have never lived through one to my knowledge... but... they terrify me. Not seeing them in tv shows or on the computer, but ones that happen in real life near me/to me. The thought of losing everything I have to something that nobody has any control over... it's horrible.

Every time there is a tornado warning issued for my area, I will rush to grab the things I think are most important, and go hide in a closed bathroom, or go for the lowest ground I can find if I'm not indoors/in an area where the buildings are safe. Once I was even 5 minutes from jumping in the bathtub with my animals (two cats and a dog that hates cats... ^_^ ) and throwing my mattress on top of me.

I am thankful for every time it's just a false alarm, or a tiny tremor instead of a large quake. Because I know that there are others out there who did lose everything, because it wasn't a small storm, or a false alarm.

But it also gets me to thinking... what would I do? What would I try to save?

It's a question people ask a lot.

"If you had five minutes to grab something in your house then run, what would you grab?"

And then add details to see if that would change the answer, like if it's a zombie apocalypse and zombies are coming, or if it's a forest fire, or a hurricane.

All but the first are very real... and oftentimes people have far less than five minutes.

But... it's still an interesting thing to think about. And I think I have my own answer for what I would do/grab.


The most likely natural disaster that I would encounter at my current home is a tornado, so I will go off of that.

First, as soon as I knew it would be coming, I would write my name and phone number on various rags. Braid one into my horse's mane, one into her tail. And put on a breakaway halter with my name and phone number already on it (breakaway so that in case something happens and it gets caught, she can still get free). Don't let her out of anything but her stall. If I have a trailer at the time, she would be loaded up with the truck turned on and ready to head out.

If I had any other livestock the rags would be tied around necks, tails, whatever. Perhaps even numbers written on them with a quick picture of each from both sides for help in proof of ownership. (for large livestock, sorry chickens and ducks, you'll be let out of your coops and... well... good luck).

Second, I would grab all my indoor cats, meat rabbits, and any similar small animals, and put them in carriers, and either put them in a safe underground type location with food and water, or take them with me, depending on the situation.

Get all my dogs on leashes and take them with me. All of which would be microchipped if something happens.

If I had human relatives or friends with me, they would be the first to pack up. And we'd either be heading out in the opposite direction of the tornado, or we'd be hunkered down in a bathroom or underground location (in a solid building, not a trailer house), or a low spot. All my animals, humans and me.


That's it. My living animals and humans. Perhaps my computer and phone if I could remember to do it. But really... they are replaceable. A life is not.

Canine Protection...?

I will continue with the alternative medicines at a later date. But right now, I need to talk with y'all about the differences in why a dog might be aggressive or try to bite someone. Because there is a lot of confusion, or people thinking that resource guarding or fear aggression is the dog protecting you, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

This topic came into my mind because of this video:

This video was passed around with the vast majority of people saying "right on dog!" or "good dog!" or "I wish my dog was protective like that!".

And this concerns me. This dog is not protecting the baby inside the belly like everyone seems to think.  This is not good protective behavior even for just the mom, as this guy was not coming in aggressively or putting any pressure on the dog or the woman, just leaning over to touch. Which means he was not a threat, and there would be NO reason why this dog should "protect" the woman. At all.

While I can understand and identify various dog behaviors in a simple way, I cannot 100% identify what this dog IS doing. However, from asking around to those who do know more than me, resource guarding seems the best bet if this was not trained behavior. If it was trained behavior, it's more than likely that either the woman would protect the stomach so the dog caught on and was praised for doing so, or he was specifically trained to not let anyone touch her.

Either way, it's a dangerous scenario. Anytime you are dealing with anything even sort of relating to aggression and biting (which this dog did bite at the end of the video), you run the risk of that dog biting an innocent bystander when you are just on a walk or greeting a family member in your own home. Not to mention the high likelihood of this woman's baby or child running to mommy and the dog decides at that time to guard her. This dog does not understand what a threat is. This man is not doing ANYTHING to show this dog what a threat is, and the woman is doing nothing to correct or enforce one way or another. So everything is a potential threat... including a child.


So... what is actual protection, and what are these other things that are mistaken for it?

You're in luck. I plan on showing you.


Fear Aggression
A lot of people will have a dog that barks and barks and will even growl at people who seem threatening. And so they think "oh... my dog must be protecting me from a threat.". 99.99 times out of 100, this is not at all the case, but in actuality, the dog is displaying fear and trying to chase away something that scares them.

Here is a great example of fear aggressive behavior (and then the way this particular trainer chose to resolve it):

At the beginning of this video, the dog is barking and acting aggressively. Some would look at this and say "oh, my dog is protecting me from the big scary cameraman! Good dog!". And then reinforce this behavior by petting or loving on the dog. In the owner's mind, this dog is protecting its owner, because it won't leave its owner's side, and is barking and growling at the "threat". In actuality, this dog is scared and trying to act tough to scare away what it perceives to be a threat.

But if you look at her body language, you will see the dog's ears back, tail low with a slow submissive wag, tense body with head low, not to mention hiding behind her owner for additional protection.

This dog needs a confidence boost. Needs to be slowly socialized and introduced to new things in a calm and confidence building fashion. Slow and steady and allow her to get comfortable... and the fear and the subsequent fear aggression will dissipate.

This dog is not a dog protecting her owner. This is a dog that is scared and trying everything she can to make what scares her goes away.

This can be specific, like a dog barking and growling at men in sweatshirts, or anyone who wears a cowboy hat, or even race specific. Again though, the dog is not protecting its owner, it's trying to protect itself, and make its owner protect it. And if the owner wasn't there holding it, this kind of dog would bark, growl, bite, and then when possible, run off.


Resource Guarding
Resource guarding is another form of aggression that is often mistaken for true protection.... when the dog at hand is guarding their owner or some member of the family. Some dogs will resource guard babies and children, adults are far from the only ones that dogs will try to "own". The problem with this is the dog isn't defending the object/human from an actual threat, but from anyone who tries to come near.

They can be fine with other people, be happy go lucky dogs, but if they are around their "resource", and you try to touch it or take it, you could just end up with the stink eye, or you could end up with a bloodied arm and multiple puncture wounds.

This is more commonly recognized when it relates to a favorite bone or toy... or food. It's the same principle though. The dog is guarding something that it highly values, and is keeping it from everyone else.

Here's a video example as it relates to a bone.

This video has great points relating to the different signs of resource guarding. Had this person pressed further and put their hand over where the bone was, she would have gotten a much larger response and possibly even a bite.

Like the video at the start of this, there was no threat. Just the owner taking a video. So no reason for this dog to need to protect anything from anything. But as I said above, this can happen with people too, and then you have a dog that will bark and growl or obsessively watch either with both eyes or just sort of with the "half moon" eyes anytime anyone walks by. Sometimes it will just be a growl and the dog doesn't do anything more with the person touching "their" person... but sometimes it can escalate into a full out barking and growling and biting type guard. But as I have said. The difference between THIS and true protection, is that they will do this to just about anyone. Doesn't matter what they look like or how they are acting or anything.


"True" Aggression
These are the cases that are few and far between. VERY few and far between. Which is why I don't have a video to show you... because most, if not all, of these cases are very quickly handled with. These are dogs that were born with something just... not quite right in the head. And most things end up prompting an aggressive response. Towards the owners, towards strangers, towards everyone. These are the dogs that most people think of when they think of a dog being "born aggressive". However, these are the dogs that rarely make it far in life. Sometimes because their health problem that causes this becomes a much bigger deal than not, and sometimes because they are put down soon enough. Again, these are extremely rare cases. The norm is not that dogs are born mean and aggressive, but the completely opposite.


Trained Protection
And now, for actual trained protection. Whether you are talking about a military dog, a police dog, a personal protection dog, titled schutzhund/IPO/other sport dog (which may or may not protect you in an actual situation), or guard dog. All of these behaviors start with a strong nerved and confident dog... and then are reinforced and trained. The training teaches how to identify threats and ignore everything else. How to bite and hold, where to bite and hold, how to identify and disengage weapons, and so on. And overall, how to be a dog that is calm and trustworthy in any situation.

This is probably the best video I've seen that shows how a protection trained dog should behave.

The dog is calm and relaxed in public situations, is off leash yet in perfect control. Is attentive but not fearful or aggressive in any way.

And when the time does come to protect, the dog is confident and acts and holds. He knows what his job is in that situation, and acts accordingly. In addition, he also releases on command, and will leave his target. And he doesn't just identify a hoodie or a bite sleeve (which is underneath the hoodie) as being something he should bite. Only an actual threat.

This takes a lot of time and training though. Dogs are not born with this. They may be born with the right combination of nerves, temperament, build, friendliness (YES, being friendly and outgoing is very important), etc... but none of that will make a protection dog.

This is also not something that someone can train their dog to do at home. Even trained professionals make mistakes. This is something that ONLY a trained professional should do. Basic obedience, sure... but the moment you get into actual bitework and protection training, you need a professional trainer who knows what he/she is doing.



So... there you go. True protection vs the rest. And don't get me wrong, an untrained dog can protect their owner. However, even then it's only acceptable in the case of a true threat... not just any old guy who comes along and tries to give you a pat on the back.

"Alternative" Medicine, Part 1: Homeopathy

So, I you all know I feed my dogs and my cat a balanced raw diet. And for some reason, a species appropriate diet has to come with a seemingly hodge-podge semblance of holistic, homeopathic, natural, and other alternative ways of medicating and dealing with various issues. In particular, I'm a part of a raw feeding group on facebook. Will name no names, will not point out which, but it's really not all bad. Most of it is actually full of people who really care about their pets and just want the absolute best for them... which for the majority of active members, this means they are aiming for the most natural method as possible, vehemently cursing the failures in modern medical practices. This is not everyone, but for some reason, the more "natural" you are trying to become, the more you share this knowledge with everyone around you. Which can be a good thing... but can also come with some misconceptions.

So... over how long it takes, I'll be going practice/method by practice/method, doing a breakdown of the alternative medicine from a organization that heads up a lot if not all practitioners, giving an overview of beliefs and practices. I'll be looking for mention of studies, if not particular studies but at least a few things involving numbers, efficacy rates, etc. And then see what the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (government sanctioned source for simple up to date overview of the various topics with risks and side effects). First up... which might be the longest... I'm not sure... since it's one that is very very misconstrued and confused by most people, whether they are using it on themselves or their animals.

Homeopathy
This seems to be a term often used without real knowledge of what it means. Often people see "homeopathic" and just think natural and healthier. Which may or may not be the case. I will first show what homeopathy is from actual homeopathics, and show their side and point. From there, I will then give information from the "other" side, government medical sources.

According to The Society of Homeopaths (http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/), Homeopathy is "a system of medicine which involves treating the individual with highly diluted substances, given mainly in tablet form, with the aim of triggering the body’s natural system of healing." The key words here being "highly diluted". The entire principle behind Homeopathy is to treat using extreme dilutions, and the more diluted the substance, the better it's supposed to work.

They also believe in the principle of treating like with like. The example that the SOH gave was coffee. If too much coffee is consumed, a person becomes sleepless and agitated. So, in order to treat symptoms of sleeplessness and agitation, you give a highly diluted form of coffee, and the diluted coffee is supposed to trigger a muscle memory response to fix the problem of sleeplessness and agitation.

History as found on the SOH webpage: "It was discovered by a German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann, who, shocked with the harsh medical practises of the day (which included blood-letting, purging and the use of poisons such as arsenic), looked for a way to reduce the damaging side-effects associated with medical treatment." He found that with smaller doses of certain medications, people seemed to be getting better faster. An example the SOH gave was mercury on syphilis. Like treating like, and those who were medicating with dilutions of mercury instead of high amounts of it were being cured sooner. So, higher and higher dilutions became developed over the years since.

The SOH also has lists of evidence for homeopathic use: http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/research/evidence-base-for-homeopathy-2/ . Note, both their "Clinical Trials" and "Basic Science" links are broken. I hope they fix that soon.

Within these lists of evidence base, they try to show that they have clinical trials, show the viability of it through practice, show its cost effectiveness, the safety of it, and the basic science of using ultra-high dilutions. I will go through and share the basic gist of each (broken links will either be added in later or left as is).

The Clinical Trials link is broken.

The Homeopathy in Practice page shares case reports. The numbered bibliography says case reports can be found in various homeopathic textbooks and journals, and a news article is given that talks about a homeopathic hospital that treats 30,000 patients a year. So lots of cases. Next, it goes into detail about clinical outcome studies. 6,500 consecutive individuals were treated over 6 years at Bristol Homeopathic Hospital. 70% reported an improvement, 50% reported a major improvement.  A long-term outcome study was conducted with 3,981 patients in 103 German and Swiss locations. The conclusion was that those who were treated with homeopathic methods sustained a marked and significant improvement in quality of life and a decrease in disease severity. And the final study mentioned was of 500 patients. Many of those treated with homeopathic medications were able to stop conventional medication following a homeopathic treatment plan, however, for cancer patients, no reduction in conventional medicine was found. The rest of the page explains the validity of outcome studies in this situation.

The Economic Evaluations page explains the cost effectiveness of using homeopathic medications over conventional medicine. This one seems pretty obvious though, a very heavy dilution of various herbs, oils, and minerals is going to be cheaper to produce and then sell than traditional chemical medication which requires extensive studies for safety, rarer or more difficult to produce chemicals, minerals, and concoctions, not to mention synthetic or "lab created" stuff as well.

The Safety Studies page first explains that because they are strong dilutions, usually in tablet form with some sort of benign carrier such as solid lactose or alcohol. It then goes on to explain that in clinical trials, adverse effects with homeopathic drugs were mild or nonexistent vs the more conventional medication. It also makes sure to add that the effects that did occur were found more often in the groups given the actual homeopathic drugs rather than the placebo effect, so this is evidence that homeopathic drugs are different from simply placebo. But really, when you are dealing with actual medications that are not just in parts per million, but parts per BILLION even for the smaller dilutions, the adverse effects from the medication just won't be there... unless you have a reaction to the benign carrier.

The Basic Science link is broken.

So... in short, according to The Society of Homeopaths, Homeopathy is a safe and more effective treatment method for every single ailment....... except cancer. You should stick with conventional medicine if you have cancer.


Now, let's see what the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has to say about Homeopathy. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy

Let me just share the key points that NCCAM gives:

"1. There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition.
2. Although people sometimes assume that all homeopathic remedies are highly diluted and therefore unlikely to cause harm, some products labeled as homeopathic can contain substantial amounts of active ingredients and therefore could cause side effects and drug interactions.
3. Homeopathic remedies are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, FDA does not evaluate the remedies for safety or effectiveness.
4. Several key concepts of homeopathy are inconsistent with fundamental concepts of chemistry and physics. There are significant challenges in carrying out rigorous clinical research on homeopathic remedies.
5. Tell all your health care providers about any complementary health practices you use. Give them a full picture of all you do to manage your health. This will help ensure coordinated and safe care."

So, right off the bat, little evidence to support it as a worthwhile treatment for ANY condition. Hmm... I'd have to take a closer look at the studies the SOH provides, but I do have to agree. For every single FDA approved conventional medication, studies upon studies are done, with efficacy rates, blind studies, double blind studies, safety, etc. And above the government web page states that, while homeopathic remedies are regulated by the FDA, they are not evaluated.

There have been many rigorous trials to test homeopathy though. Granted, some will be flawed and biased. That is unfortunately the nature of the beast. But the vast majority show very little evidence in favor of homeopathy. In addition to this, not all homeopathic medicines are alike. Some do NOT have the high dilutions that other medications do, and can and do cause drug reactions or strong side effects.

In short, according to the NCCAM, there is very little quality control for the majority of homeopathic medicines. They do not recommend using homeopathic alternatives for conventional vaccinations or as a replacement for the more regulated, tested, and quality controlled conventional medications available.


In addition, something not mentioned in the above, homeopathic treatments are almost ALWAYS given alongside an extremely healthy diet. In the case of dogs and cats a balanced raw or limited ingredient cooked diet are often part of the treatment plan, and for humans, it also involves a much healthier way of eating. Far more whole foods, organic is often recommended, a more balanced and healthier diet, whether you eat meat or not. And a strong encouragement for exercise is also included for both animals and humans. So a lot of the outcome studies include full homeopathic treatment, not just the medication. So that includes a diet change as well as the medicines. And for many people and dogs, there IS a strong link between diet and health. So it could be that with healthier eating practices, skin issues and migraines went away on their own due to their body getting more of some nutrient or another... and they didn't go away due to the homeopathic medications.

What I have found in regards to homeopathy being discussed, there is a lot of "this saved my son's life" or "my dog was dying under conventional medicine, I switched to a homeopathic vet and medication and he's now 16 years old and the picture of health". A ton of very emotionally charged testimonies, with no desire to offer or even see the value in studies and clinical trials. For them, homeopathy is what saved their baby's life, and will save everyone else's if they would just give up all conventional medicine and dive into homeopathy in every possible aspect of their life.

In particular, my pup has had some itchiness problems in the past couple of weeks. I have her on an elimination diet since a couple days after it started, and have been considering all options for why this is occuring. From environmental factors to diet.... which she's on a raw diet. But yeah.

About half a week before any itchiness began, she was given her first puppy vaccination. Had mentioned this in my list of symptoms when I was first looking for ideas of what could be a cause, and how to treat. Got an overwhelming response of "it's the vaccine you gave her, don't ever vaccinate again." And then when I asked for more information or some solutions if it is the vaccine, and got people telling me I'm being stubborn and not wanting to listen to what they were saying, and just wanted to listen to what I wanted to hear. Whereas I was under the impression that I was open to it, and looking for a remedy. They then tell me to go to my homeopathic vet... which I don't have one, and then got upset and defensive when I said I don't believe in the premise of homeopathy, and gave me the sob stories.

And like with humans, homeopathic medications are often very very commonly confused with holistic or natural medications. They are not the same. Even had one person tell me to try a particular "homeopathic" drug... and when looking at it, it was not homeopathic in that it was not highly diluted, but a mixture of essential oils and herbs.

And then... some do claim to use homeopathic medications with their animals and find it works. One common homeopathic treatment a lot of people use without thinking of it as homeopathic is Rescue Remedy (do a google search, there are a TON of places that sell it). Here's a wikipedia (I know, not what you're supposed to be using in research, but oh well) page on the Bach Flower Remedies used in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_flower_remedies

In addition to these "remedies" (which, when looking at the claims for each remedy and the whole ingredients' normal use, just don't add up), it contains 36% alcohol. Now... unless you down several bottles of this you aren't going to be getting drunk... but when placed under the tongue by blood vessels... the alcohol could have a slight calming effect. Otherwise, placebo effect. There is nothing scientifically backed to indicate otherwise. Apparently the company who created rescue remedy has attempted blind and double blind studies, but none have passed peer review.

HOWEVER... the placebo effect is strong. People buy Rescue Remedy believing it works. So... to an extent... it will work, because you're expecting it to. Unlike something like cancer, placebo effect does cause a lot of changes in your body, both chemically and mentally. So... back to Rescue Remedy. When human beings use it on themselves, they take it when they are nervous. And in their head, they'll just take the rescue remedy and it'll all be better... and the vast majority of the time, it is. Not because the medication is forcing you into a more calm and submissive state, but because you told your brain that after you take this you'll be calmer and more relaxed. Kind of like having your "lucky underwear" on. If you define something as "lucky" or "special" in some way that it's not physically capable of being if it was just lying there, you have just made it so. So... next time you don't have your lucky underwear on when playing your game of baseball, your mind will be in a tense and worried state because you know it's not there, that it's not "right". So you play worse. Not because you were missing the lucky underwear, but because your brain associate it with playing well. Just like people associate rescue remedy with calming them down.

And... to make things simple... I'll use Rescue Remedy as the example with animals. The placebo effect can be transferred... to an extent. People use the product say... to calm their dog down on road trips. They put a drop or two into their water bowl, let them drink, and then, because THEY believe it has an effect, their demeanor is calmer (and they didn't have any of the rescue remedy themselves... ;) ), they aren't worried about a tense and nervous dog because that dog "took it's rescue remedy!". Dogs are extremely perceptive to moods and attitudes. Suddenly you are calmer about going into the car. The dog is no longer worried because you are worried, because you're not. The dog notices this difference, and as a consequence of you expecting it to work and calming yourself, the dog is calmer. Has nothing to do with the actual chemical or application of any of the Bach Remedies inside of the tiny drop in the water bowl... all in the transferred placebo effect (not the actual term, so don't quote me on this).

So the placebo effect is strong. Kinda like the Force... it's strong within you. And THAT is why most people will claim that homeopathic treatments work so well. It's not because it's scientifically or statistically proven to work... but because they believe.



So... in short... homeopathy has not been proven, through extensive clinical studies or other forms of data gathering, to actually work. It contradicts the way chemistry... well... works. However, the placebo effect is strong. REALLY strong. And if that placebo effect managed to cure you of your ailment, great!! However... for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and so many others... talk to your doctor, and if you want, get a second or third opinion from multiple types of physicians. And for your pets... there's nothing wrong with having a main holistic vet. However, realize that with most homeopathic treatments (not herbal tinctures, essential oils, etc), the placebo effect doesn't quite work the same way. And for serious issues, like with humans, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc... get a second, get a third, get a fourth opinion... and be OPEN to listening. And don't be afraid to research. There's a lot out there... if you just look. And don't be complacent. If you're buying from a company that doesn't test their medication in any way but just makes dilutions and then puts them up for sale... think twice. Don't just assume that it does what it's claiming... be a skeptic.

And for benign things, have fun playing with the placebo effect... except I think I might have just spoiled it for you.

And overall... no matter whether you are using homeopathic medications or not... a good diet is important. ;)

Becoming open minded does NOT mean you have to change your beliefs...

...just understand where the others are coming from.

It's a hard concept for people. Most think that being open minded means you have to accept all viewpoints, values, and beliefs. That you think that they are acceptable and just as correct as yours.

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, open minded means:

"receptive to arguments or ideas"


There is nothing in that definition that says that those ideas are correct in your eyes, that you have to agree with them, that you are flip flopping all over the place because you're so "open-minded". It just means being receptive.

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, receptive means:

"able or inclined to receive; especially :  open and responsive to ideas, impressions, or suggestion"


The other definition is "female willing to copulate with a male"... and that's not what I'm talking about here.




Able or inclined to receive. Ideas, impressions, or suggestion. Open and responsive. Still nothing in that about changing your current beliefs. Just being willing to receive others, and process them.




So many people think of being open minded as a bad thing. That if you are open minded you are never going to have your own beliefs. I disagree. Being open minded should be something EVERYBODY partakes in. And yet, I also think people should be firm in their beliefs. But those beliefs shouldn't be based on just one or five people's opinions, or the opinion you were raised to believe. It should be based on being open minded, and willing to at least look and hear other sides before either changing said opinion, or becoming firmer in the beliefs that you hold.


Being open minded doesn't weaken your resolve and your value system, it strengthens it. Seeing things from the other side doesn't necessarily mean you are admitting you are wrong. It could... after receiving the other side's viewpoint and objectively looking at both... or it could simply make it more clear in your mind how right you are.


Narrow minded and close minded people are living sad lives. They are gripping onto their belief systems so hard that anything can knock them down if people try hard enough. They are so tense that someone will prove them wrong if they open up their minds even a little bit that doubts start to come in. And so they refuse to listen to anybody, not because they truly believe that they are right, but because they are afraid of being wrong.


Nobody should be afraid of being wrong. Being wrong is a blessing. It allows you to see what is right.




So... encourage open mindedness. And encourage it so people can become stronger in their beliefs. When training a horse or a dog, encourage people to not just go with what they know, but look at many options, viewpoints, and ideas. And you may come right back to what you know, firmer in the knowledge that it's the best choice for you and the animal. But you'd never know that if you never looked.

When dealing with nutrition and the best way to feed your pet... or your child... or yourself... don't just go with what momma taught you, or what the pediatrician/doctor/veterinarian you use says. Do your OWN research. Don't try to silence people who are trying to help. And listen to everyone. And then make your own decision based on being open minded to what everyone has to say, and choosing the best option for you.

Those who are giving advice may vehemently disagree with your final decision. Well... who cares? As long as you were receptive to their advice instead of just dismissing it, you are doing nothing wrong. You made your choice. Your belief, your decision, whatever.

But still... always be open minded, always be receptive, to everything and everyone. Because you never know when some better idea, or more information, or something will come along that will blow your mind.

And people are also more willing to listen to people who listen to them first. ;)

You NEVER stop learning... EVER.

Had a great night with a few gal pals, and the discussion came around to horses and horse life and various people within the horse world. And what kept coming up again and again was the idea of people thinking that they knew it all. That they didn't have to listen to advice from anyone because they already knew how to do it. And how it was a very misguided way of thinking, because you NEVER stop learning.

With horses, think of the top competitors. Most, if not all, have coaches and trainers or at least an eye on the ground when they are getting ready for a competition. Olympic Show Jumping team has coaches, and these are people at the TOP of their game.

Take a look at the great masters. Like... of anything. In horses, to continue said theme, there is always something more to learn, either in your same discipline, or by diverging into others. Even the top trainers are never perfect. And you keep going until you die. Hiroshi Hoketsu was the oldest competitor in the 2012 Olympics, at the age of 71, competing in Dressage with his 15 year old mare. You would think that the age and experience of over 50 years of the Equestrian Pursuit would allow him to be pretty darn near perfect. He received a score of 68.72 (out of 100 for those who don't know), placing 17th out of 25.

The highest score ever received in Dressage was a 92.30, and even that was seen by many as controversial for many reasons, which means there is still definite room for improvement, and that's the world record by a horse and rider who are at the very very top of their game.

Ok, enough horses. Let's look at something more mundane. History. Say you want to be an expert and master of a specific town, a specific time period, and even a specific family. You can know a LOT. You can devote your entire life to learning about theirs... and you will still never know everything about them. You can know a lot, a whole lot more than other people, but you will never know everything.

In more classical training methods, whether that be in art, a craft, a job, etc... you apprentice underneath either an average worker or a master. You spend YEARS apprenticing before you become mediocre, or even workable. VERY VERY few become "masters", and even they can be showed up by something new or simpler or whatever by their students or even by another "master" of their craft.


And yet... that's the beauty of it. How boring it all would be if you could learn everything... and then you're just stuck with all of that knowledge, and nothing else to do. There is excitement found in opening your mind a little wider, in finding a new facet to a gem you've studied for years, to growing.

Progress should be encouraged, and desired. And if you are proven wrong, it should be something to rejoice about. Not get upset over. Getting proven wrong is a part of learning, and just means that there is something even better out there.

So... why wallow in the same place? Why tell yourself and others that you already know it all, or act like you know it all? All that does is hinder yourself and your talents. And why would you want to do that?

Artist by day, animal activist by night. Ok... correction. I'm not one of those crazy nutjobs who think all animals should fly free (whether or not they are physically capable of flying), that keeping a dog in a crate for 4-5 hours each day while the owner is at work is cruelty, that all zoos should be shut down, and meat should never be eaten, or fed to other animals. No.

I guess a better term would be animal welfare activist. I will advocate until I'm hoarse for an animal's welfare.

Now, let me look into that more. Welfare. What does welfare mean?

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, welfare means - "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity."

So, I advocate for animal welfare. I advocate for the state of animals doing well in respect to happiness and well-being (wealth and fortune aren't exactly necessary for animals). Happiness and well-being you say? What does that mean? It's a pretty broad term.

For most states the minimum requirements include food, water, and shelter. Other states and various legislations have more specific requirements, like minimum sized enclosures for certain animals, minimum tether length, chains vs no chains, temperatures where certain animals must be provided with specific types of shelter, etc etc etc.


For me, the end goal is the welfare of the animal. If an animal is happy, healthy, and safe while being fed free choice a poor quality food, tied on a 15 foot chain in a backyard with an old plastic igloo dog house with a couple old towels inside it when it gets colder... I really can't be overly upset. Yes, things could be done to improve the animal's welfare. A longer tether that isn't chain (or no tether). A few more blankets in the dog house. A higher quality food. And I will advocate for such. But in the end, if the dog is happy, healthy, safe, and its minimum requirements of physical and mental health are being cared for, I am content. Not happy, but content.

Unfortunately, a lot of these minimum requirements are not being cared for. Puppies dying because their mothers did not receive adequate care while pregnant, animals not being fed, being tied up too short with no shelter, etc. And these types of things are completely unacceptable, and must be immediately changed and dealt with.


So... yes. I advocate for animal welfare. And I advocate for the highest level of animal welfare. The minimum is granted. I expect better.


So, because I am always ranting and raving about something... that is what this blog is for. My rants and raves about something involving animal welfare, about ideas, things happening outside of the world of animals, etc. I will try to keep it as factual as possible after my emotional rant, and involve veterinary and medical journals for information, news sources, statistical data, and so on to prove my point. Nothing will be just pulled out of the air. Before I write something I am stating as factual, I will do 5-10 minutes google and google scholar search to make sure before I write it. If I'm wrong, I won't write it, or I'll write about how I was wrong.

I might also have some stuff about my own animals on here from time to time. My dog, my cat, and my horse. Hence the name, Canine, Feline, Equine. Hehe... so clever don't you think?

Some stuff involving my artwork, my showing, and various little snippets of random things might also come up, but this blog is primarily for information about various things. Puppy care, spaying and neutering, nutrition (from both a pro kibble and anti kibble stance, even though I am personally anti kibble), first aid and injuries, state of shelters, euthenasia (for all types of animals, what happens before, during, after), equine concerns with tack, bits, and such, and so on and so forth.

I don't know if anyone will actually read any of it... but I have so much going on in my head, I need to get it up and out and down.

So... here goes!