# Morris study of goldens healt, are vets cooperating ? Why wouldn't you participate?



## GoneTooSoon (Jul 21, 2011)

I just enrolled my 7 month old into the study today. My Vet recommended that I do so. I know there will be blood samples and hair samples taken for this.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Enroll your puppy. You will get a list of vets who already have participated in the program. If there aren't any in your area, then you will have to take the information to your vet. Some vets charge more than others. 

And keep in mind - the results from this study probably are not going to add up to what everyone is dreaming it will. But it probably will be a good idea for your puppy's individual health, as the blood tests (sent out), urine test (sent out), and fecal test should be a yearly routine for _all_ dogs. Most of us have been doing this for many years and will continue to do so.


----------



## shepherdpal (Oct 8, 2013)

What is this study?


----------



## Max's Dad (Apr 23, 2012)

shepherdpal said:


> What is this study?


Check this thread:

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-puppy-up-1-year/199130-golden-retriever-lifetime-study-details-information.html


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

I would have done it in a heartbeat, but it's only open to dogs who live in the US. Boo.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Alaska and Hawaii dogs aren't able to either. So we're not in it. Not sure why.


----------



## Cookie's Mom (Oct 14, 2013)

Alaska7133 said:


> Alaska and Hawaii dogs aren't able to either. So we're not in it. Not sure why.


Could be that shipping all the samples to the lab to be tested may be too expensive to justify.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Alaska7133 said:


> Alaska and Hawaii dogs aren't able to either. So we're not in it. Not sure why.


It has to do with shipping time. The samples have to be collected and arrive at the lab in less than 24 hours. And that can't be guaranteed from Alaska, Hawaii or Canada.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

Actually, there are already results in from the study and it's only been 3 years.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Claire's Friend said:


> Actually, there are already results in from the study and it's only been 3 years.


What are these results? 

ETA - I actually am very curious. There has been no announcement, email, or release that I've been aware of....?


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

DanaRuns said:


> It has to do with shipping time. The samples have to be collected and arrive at the lab in less than 24 hours. And that can't be guaranteed from Alaska, Hawaii or Canada.


Yup - that's exactly what I was told.


----------



## Heart O'Gold (Jul 31, 2012)

goldengirl1960 said:


> I'm interested in enrolling our new puppy but wonder if most vets have heard of it and if any are reluctant to participate. I did email the program to ask if any vets in our area participate but did not get a reply.


So glad that you are interested in the study! That is awesome! Here is the link to enroll your puppy 

Golden Retriever Lifetime Study

You can invite your vet from there even if he's not on the list. Let me know if you have any trouble getting them to participate, I will be glad to help. :wave:


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

*"What are these results?







"
*Let me get one of the Morris people to respond to that, I am thinking you might believe them more than you would me...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Claire's Friend said:


> *"What are these results?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not exactly sure why you would make that snarky comment about what I would believe. I just have not seen anything posted as far as "results". And as far as I can see, there is nothing posted on the website. That's why I was asking. 

Currently, I'm just seeing a big enrollment drive everywhere with the promises of curing cancer and so on. If they've found a cure for cancer, I'm sure that would be something I'd be very interested in.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

I am sorry you found it "snarky", I didn't mean it to be. It's just that you are already questioning everything about the study, so I thought it might have more impact coming from the Morris people directly.:uhoh:


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Claire's Friend said:


> I am sorry you found it "snarky", I didn't mean it to be. It's just that you are already questioning everything about the study, so I thought it might have more impact coming from the Morris people directly.:uhoh:


I'm actually not questioning everything about the study. If you looked at my first post, you will see me telling the OP to enroll their puppy for that puppy's welfare. 

I just think that you have a lot of _people_ going nuts about this study and raving about their dogs being heroes who will cure cancer.... and it might be a turn off for a lot of people who honestly do not believe cancer is such a simple thing to identify and cure and of course the dogs themselves are not heroes who self elect to have their blood drawn and so on. This is something which their owners decide to do with their dogs. 

If you promote this study for the welfare of the individual pets as far as early detection of things like diabetes, renal failure... and at least getting these people over to the vet once a year to have their dogs thoroughly checked out.... this will improve the health and welfare of these individual dogs. It might help prevent cancer long term if, for example, the owners treat thyroid disease early. Who knows.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

I am sorry you feel that way.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

You are sorry I feel that owners SHOULD do this study for the wellbeing and welfare of their own dogs? And people promoting this study should make that the highlight?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

> noonynanas


Personally I find that terminology snarky. JMO.

I do not believe for a minute this study will cure cancer; however, it has promise/potential, as a research study, to shed light on a lot of different areas of Golden health, and possibly canine health. I also don't think you will find anyone from Morris Animal Foundation making claims about it curing cancer.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dallas Gold said:


> Personally I find that terminology snarky. JMO.


It actually was. Lightly meant of course. We all have to laugh once in a while, you know. The difference though is my snark was not directed at anyone here. 

There's been a lot of people posting about the study on almost every golden retriever group on the web.... and while the enthusiasm is charming, there should be a reality check. There is a value in having these blood tests done - for your own dogs. 



Dallas Gold said:


> I do not believe for a minute this study will cure cancer; however, it has promise/potential, as a research study, to shed light on a lot of different areas of Golden health, and possibly canine health.* I also don't think you will find anyone from Morris Animal Foundation making claims about it curing cancer*.


The Morris Foundation DOES use the term "cure". As do volunteers.



> Help cure canine cancer by joining 3,000 other Golden puppies and their owners in the most important observational study ever undertaken for canine health.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

goldengirl1960 said:


> I'm interested in enrolling our new puppy but wonder if most vets have heard of it and if any are reluctant to participate. I did email the program to ask if any vets in our area participate but did not get a reply.


My vet was not familiar with the study, and we were his first participating family. He was thrilled to join us in this journey, and joked that we would all be old and gray by the time it's over  I live near a veterinary teaching hospital, so I think most of the vets in my area are generally interested in participating in research studies.

The first year's visit took a pretty long time, but this year was a little more streamlined because we all knew what we were doing this time around.


----------



## tobysmommy (Jan 9, 2011)

Friends, please remember that everyone here is approaching any given issue from their own personal experience, and that their point of view is just as valid as your own. Please phrase your responses in a respectful manner, without condescension. No member of GRF should ever be ridiculed for their opinions, whether or not you agree with them. Thank you.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Note taken, TM. And Thank You. People _should_ be more respectful here of other people's thoughts and opinions.

The light comment I made, fwiw, was w/regards to what people post exhaustingly all over the web. I made no comment about people on this forum. No comment on what they do. No comment on what they say. 

I thought it was important to point out.... politely.... that there is value in participating in this study. For your own dog's sake.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

In terms of "deliverables" they intend to share findings as they have enough data to compile. Some won't be available for obvious reasons for over a decade. At a recent club meeting where a respresentative spoke, we asked these questions and received answers. They don't know exactly what they'll find but they intend on making info known. First, to sponsors, then to the public. I'd suggest you contact a representative to clear things up for yourself.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Just signed Sailor up a few days ago. My vet is unfamiliar with the study and could not promise to participitate, so a special forum member forwarded my vet's contact information to the Morris Foundation to have a rep contact them.

I personally do not think that cancer in humans or animals will ever be cured, but I do think this will give us some answers in preventing or delaying it. Especially if there is any kind of environmental causes.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Megora said:


> There's been a lot of people posting about the study on almost every golden retriever group on the web.... and while the enthusiasm is charming, there should be a reality check. There is a value in having these blood tests done - for your own dogs.
> 
> The Morris Foundation DOES use the term "cure". As do volunteers.


I'm not sure where you get that. I never hear them say "cure." What I do see on their website is this:



> We’re looking for a few good pups—3,000 to be exact—to be part of the most groundbreaking study ever undertaken to improve the lives of dogs. Morris Animal Foundation’s Golden Retriever Lifetime Study tracks volunteer dogs’ health for life in order to gain insights into *preventing and treating cancer* and other canine diseases.
> 
> Be Part of History
> This is the largest and longest study ever conducted to advance veterinary medicine for dogs.
> ...


...and...



> Why Should You Participate?
> More than half of Golden Retrievers die from cancer, and it is the leading cause of death in all dogs over the age of 2. By participating, you will help scientists
> 
> *Identify genetic, environmental and nutritional risk factors for cancer* and other major health problems in dogs
> ...


...and...



> Why Should You Get Involved?
> *This study will identify genetic, environmental and nutritional risk factors for cancer* and other health problems that affect Golden Retrievers.
> Puppies from the same lines are extremely valuable. Data collected from littermates that experience different environmental factors and diets may provide unique scientific insights that could make a significant impact on the long-term health of Golden Retrievers.
> Your participation will improve the health of future generations of Golden Retrievers and will help create a brighter, healthier future for all dogs.


...and in yet another place...



> More than half of Golden Retrievers die from cancer, and it is the leading cause of death in all dogs over the age of 2. By participating, you will help
> 
> *Identify genetic, environmental and nutritional risk factors for cancer* and other major health problems in dogs
> Learn how to better *prevent, diagnose and treat cancer* and other canine diseases
> Create a brighter, healthier future for all dogs


...and...



> WHAT
> Morris Animal Foundation’s Golden Retriever Lifetime Study is the largest and longest effort ever undertaken to improve the health of dogs. Over the next 10 to 14 years, observational data collected from 3,000 Golden Retrievers will help us learn how to *prevent cancer* and other diseases that take the lives of dogs too soon.


...and...



> “The Golden Retriever Lifetime Study will *determine how diet, genetics and environment affect a dog’s likelihood of developing cancer* and other diseases,” said Wayne Jensen, DVM, PhD, chief scientific officer for Morris Animal Foundation. “We are excited to have hundreds of owners and veterinarians joining us in this effort, and we look forward to recruiting the remaining dogs.”


...but I don't see where they are claiming to "cure" cancer.

A semantic question, though: What exactly do you see as the difference between "prevent" and "treat" cancer and "curing" it? Is it a distinction without a difference?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

cubbysan said:


> I do think this will give us some answers in preventing or delaying it. Especially if there is any kind of environmental causes.


I know the questionnaire which you get has you marking what kind of water you have, what chemicals (if any) you use on your lawn, and there were some other things similar to that which question your specific lifestyle. 

My thing is that I have no idea how people could accurately report the environmental exposure to their dogs. Like for example, you may not use any chemicals on your dog or around your property.... but there's chemicals everywhere. All the more so if you live in an urban area. 

And there is some effect as well as what goes into the water we bathe our dogs with even if we do not let them drink the water. 

I was joking with a friend that you could totally go neurotic about this whole issue if you wanted to really protect your dog from stuff that would cause cancer. Truly. Especially since I do know people who do everything possible, and their dogs still die (early) from cancer. 

These are the reasons why I just have a hard time believing that this study will uncover anything definitive that could be used to not just prevent cancer, but cure it. 

There's hereditary causes.... 

But I know just from my own family history that the living environment will cause cancer to be rampant. There's a neighborhood where my dad grew up in Missouri where every single family in that whole area had family members developing all kinds of cancer. Probably related to air pollution and pollution in the water they drank. And my family (both sides) do have all kinds of cancer (skin cancer from my mom's family, breast cancer/liver/colon/pancreas cancer from my dad's family).

I think all of us want to believe we can control what happens to our dogs long term, but we can't control a lot of stuff unless it means packing up and moving. 

Which honestly - if every dog I've owned from multiple breeders died early (meaning before senior years) from certain cancers (lymphoma, osteo, etc), I'd pack up my stuff and move long before there'd be results from this study.

**** I think the other turn off, might be the combative and defensive stance which many of the volunteers for this study seem to take. Whether that is assuming that people who comment (like myself) are actually attacking the study (I was not) or stating assumed things about all of the breeders and dog owners who have not signed their dogs up. I have not looked at the other threads on this topic in a while since members jumped all over me there when I asked questions then. People need to be a lot more civilized about this if they in fact want to promote this study for the wellbeing of our dogs. And a good beginning is not assuming the worst of people when they say anything on this matter. Based on what Dallas Gold said in her comment which I copy pasted above, she and I have the same viewpoint on this study. That to me, is fair enough. And there is no need to continue arguing and so on.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

DanaRuns said:


> I'm not sure where you get that. I never hear them say "cure."
> 
> ...but I don't see where they are claiming to "cure" cancer.



Posted on the website (front page):

That in addition to what people have been posting all over the web about this study. Yes, they do use the word "cure".


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Can you address my semantic question, too? I want to get your feeling about it.

I see that someone used the word "cure" one time, you're right, but you're picking that out of the literally dozens of references where they talk about "preventing" and "treating" and "identifying risk factors," etc. Seems disingenuous, a bit. And you cannot seriously hold the study responsible for what puppy owners are going around saying, can you?

You say...



> And a good beginning is not assuming the worst of people when they say anything on this matter. Based on what Dallas Gold said in her comment which I copy pasted above, she and I have the same viewpoint on this study. That to me, is fair enough


...but to me that seems completely at odds with what you said just above that:



> I just have a hard time believing that this study will uncover anything definitive that could be used to not just prevent cancer, but cure it.


I think a fair reading of that is that you've made up your mind that the study won't find anything definitive that will affect canine cancer. I guess I don't make the distinction between "prevent" and "treat" on the one hand, and "cure" on the other, that you do.

I'm usually a skeptic, but just understanding the scope and investigatory phases of this biggest study ever is enough for me to be optimistic about this one. Personally, I have hopes but no expectations, and I'm prepared to be surprised. In fact, I already have been. One of the odd little correlations they've discovered already just hit me in that way insignificant things sometimes will; that's the fact that they have already found that if your house's primary heat source is electric your Golden has a 150% greater chance of having skin problems. Huh. Makes sense, even. That just tells me that a study of this size and scope has the potential for discovering all sorts of things. Observational studies have found some pretty dramatic stuff, and this is the largest observational study in history. Not only that, but the data they collect will be made available to other studies, which can use it to find other things.

Personally, I think you're way underestimating the potential of this study. They may or may not find anything "definitive" about cancer, I'm I'm very optimistic that they will find all sorts of things that will improve the lives of all dogs to come. And the great thing is that it will find what it finds utterly without regard to whether or not you believe they will find anything.


----------



## Max's Dad (Apr 23, 2012)

There is no question that the Morris Lifetime Study is a worthwhile endeavor. However, the do promote the study using the word "cure." The word even figures prominently in their Public Service Announcement which is on the Morris home page, as well as YouTube. According to the web page, they still need nearly 2000 dogs to reach their goal of 3000 dogs for the study.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

As I think about it, all the cancer charities use the word cure in their advertising. They collect money to do these variations of these same studies. I remember in my twenties being asked to be in a cancer study like this for the next forty years.

So far I have only read half the survey, and it is very detailed in anything extra you give your dogs to eat, asking even all the extras, if vegetables are fresh, canned, or frozen, the dates of when your dog goes into heat or bred, if your dog spends time longer than two weeks outside of your home, exercise habits, where they go swimming, etc etc. I am sure they will find trends.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

DanaRuns said:


> Can you address my semantic question, too? I want to get your feeling about it.


Speaking of terms.... curing cancer is something different than preventing cancer - and where the lines get blurred is how people use those terms interchangeably. I don't. The study has on the front page of their website what I posted before, and I've seen a lot of people essentially talking about curing cancer and stopping cancer for good with this study. These are volunteers, not just "puppy people". Again, using the words interchangeably.

Cancer is preventable if you know the causes and they are clear-cut things you can avoid. Case in point would be smoking. If it comes down to just smoking causes a certain cancer, then yay - easily preventable. 

Skin cancer is another thing that basically is preventable and curable.... depending on the circumstances. My dad just had a thingy removed from his forehead which was cancerous. And my mom and one of my sisters have had melanoma type thingies removed. Knock on wood, I've been lucky except for one tumor thingy I had when I was little. It's very hereditary, but there are strong environmental triggers (we are outdoors type people - and spend a lot of time out in the sun when we can)... and then of course it's curable if they catch it early and cut the whole thing out before it can root and grow. 

Cancer is not preventable if there are myriad causes and nothing that a doctor can point out and tell you definitely was the culprit. 

My one sister has cancer - in her case, they removed the tumors and part of her liver and it is in remission... but technically not cured. She will have to keep going back for rechecks to make sure the tumors did not grow back. In her case, we don't know if the cancer was preventable. We only know it is highly hereditary. They have no idea what triggers it. Should add that this sister goes in for bloodwork every year and they saw nothing to suggest cancer when she had cancer. Prior to diagnosis, she kept going back to the hospital because she was very ill. From what I understand the doctors ran test after test and told her she was lactose intolerant as a diagnosis before they actually found the tumors. Should add as well, when they opened her up and went in to remove the tumors, they found a lot others that did not even show up on the scans. 

Speaking specifically about dogs.... 

Cure cancer as far as curing the type of cancer which affects our breed? Meaning hemangiosarcoma of the spleen which 99% of the time happens when the dogs are old? 

I do not believe there will be any cure for that. And I don't even believe they will find anything which could stop hemangio from occurring. I've said we do blood tests every year on our dogs. Right down to my Danny having clean ultrasounds (by specialists) and blood tests (sent out to lab) just a few months before we rushed him to the vet because of his spleen swelling up.

Cure cancer as far as curing the types of cancer which occur related to where the dogs live? That can only be done if the study can specifically finger point the causes. And as we all know already, there may be a myriad of causes. How many times have you had somebody tell you about how they only feed a raw or homecooked diet to their dogs, never use chemicals on their dogs or their property or in their home... yet their dogs die from cancer? If you are out in the dog community where you live, you know people who have gone through that hell. And probably the worst thing for those people is they spent a lot of time and effort trying to prevent the cancer which took their dog away, and yet there are dogs just down the street who eat junk food diets from the grocery store, are loaded up with all kinds of chemicals, and get vaccinations every year... who live well into their very old years. 

I had a moment just like that when I was taking my guys to the a microchip clinic done by the humane society in my area. While I was standing in line waiting my turn, somebody walked past me with a 14+ year old GSP in his arms. That dog was getting his vaccinations like normal. Later on, I was in line behind him and the owner was buying dog chow. 

The study may find interesting things for people.... who knows, dogs who live California with their owners are at a higher likelihood of developing cancer than dogs who live in Wyoming? And who knows if that's even true since there's going to be a lot of dogs living in California who are enrolled in the study... but only one dog in Wyoming? 

And what about where people are winging it while answering questions on the pre-visit survey? And you know people do that!  My sister was having a good laugh about her boss who had to fill out a form for his license to operate as a builder. And he just went down the list with checkmarks. My sister looked at the form and took it back to him to show he checked off a line where he apparently admitted being a felon.  

And my other sister who works in a hospital is one of those people that hands people health questionnaires to fill out to update their information in the system. And you have people who barely know how to fill out their OWN personal health information and go checking off stuff to get through it as fast as possible. 

You may have individuals here who are conscientious about really thinking through all of that information before filling out the surveys, but you really think everyone is going to be that thorough and truthful? 

*Where I agree with Dallas Gold whole-heartedly is where there is no argument from me about it being worthwhile for dog owners to sign up, if it means people taking better care of their dogs. Means having diabetes and renal failure and other serious health conditions diagnosed early enough to save the dog's life.*


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Megora said:


> Speaking of terms.... curing cancer is something different than preventing cancer - and where the lines get blurred is how people use those terms interchangeably. I don't. The study has on the front page of their website what I posted before, and I've seen a lot of people essentially talking about curing cancer and stopping cancer for good with this study. These are volunteers, not just "puppy people". Again, using the words interchangeably.
> 
> Cancer is preventable if you know the causes and they are clear-cut things you can avoid. Case in point would be smoking. If it comes down to just smoking causes a certain cancer, then yay - easily preventable.
> 
> ...


If you agree that this research and observational study has the potential to shed light on canine health issues and is worthwhile, *based on what the research veterinarians at MAF might discover days, months, decades down the road*, *then* we are in agreement; otherwise, no. I feel this is a worthwhile study, as a long term research study, as do many vets around the country who are encouraging their Golden owner clients to participate. I don't appreciate my name being mentioned like we are agreeing on something when all of your other posts are so discouraging for a study I strongly believe in. Just saying and clarifying!


----------



## Heart O'Gold (Jul 31, 2012)

It's early in the morning here, so forgive me if I am not entirely awake. I need more coffee to really respond with all my thoughts. 

It is my understanding that the GRLS goal is to find some of the causes of canine cancers and better ways to treat these cancers including curing them if possible. We all love our dogs and want them to live longer lives with us. This study in its unique comprehensiveness provides hope that dogs will live longer healthier lives one day. 

In my own life I have not had a dog with cancer. But I have lost too many loved ones to this cruel disease. When I was 5 my mother died from an invasive form of squamous cell skin cancer. When my sister was just 34 she lost her life to melanoma leaving behind her precious 10 year old son and 2 year old baby girl. 

My husband, however, is 12 year cancer survivor. Thankfully his cancer was cured. He had metastatic testicular cancer in his early 30s. It had spread to his abdomen, liver, and lungs. His doctor used proven protocol to treat his cancer and eliminate it. It was a harrowing process involving chemo, 2 stem cell transplants and extensive surgery. But he is effectively cured. I will expand to say that here, cured is defined as cancer free with no expectation of disease recurrence. The therapies and treatments developed to treat testicular cancer are highly effective today. Years ago this was not the case and many more men lost their lives. Still today it is not always curable and not every man is as fortunate as my husband. 

Anyway, I don't think it is necessary to focus our energy on the semantics of the word cure.
We should as a community of Golden lovers be more united in the effort to give our dogs better and healthier lives, including preventing, treating, and hopefully curing cancers and other diseases that affect them. 

I hope the OP will continue to pursue enrolling their dog in the study. There may not be any guarantees, but there is undeniably tremendous potential. 

On a side note, to address a question posed in another response, the hair and toenail clippings taken yearly will give scientists a clearer picture of what chemicals and toxins our dogs are exposed to. So it does not strictly rely on what we as owners are aware of, though our input is critically important.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Megora just makes it sound so hopeless. It's too complicated. There are too many causes. We can't avoid them. We can't even know about them. People who have made a commitment to the study will be careless or untruthful. They can't know the answers to the questions in the annual survey. Even what is found will be unreliable because there may be more dogs from California than Wyoming. And it's just inexplicable how one dog can be fed a raw diet and get cancer, and another dog can eat Dog Chow and not. There's nothing you can do, anyway. It doesn't matter what the study finds because cancer is not curable when there are so many causes. Tests don't even reveal existing cancers. And on, and on, and on.

Sounds like every naysayer of every scientific venture, ever. Yes, it's all just a big, depressing waste of time and money. Nothing will come of it. Yet people should enroll their dogs anyway; not so that science can be advanced, but so they can dupe the study people into paying for routine health checks that people should have for their dogs, anyway. Use them. Take advantage of them. But don't expect that they will advance science, just use it as a way to take care of your own dog at someone else's expense and effort.

Perhaps she will be right, in the end. Perhaps the GRLS will find nothing of use. But is that possibility a reason not to try? Is it really so impossible as Megora believes? How will we know unless we make the effort? Should we just throw up our hands as we watch our dogs die from cancer, and say there is nothing we can do?

No. We shouldn't. In fact, imho what we "should" do is to enroll our qualified dogs in the largest observational study in the history of history. Not so we can take advantage of those stupid study people's naive willingness to pay for routine veterinary care for our dogs, but because possibility exists. Because studies do find cures. Because doing nothing has never advanced science. Because (to paraphrase Walt Whitman) life exists, and the powerful play goes on, and _your_ dog might contribute a verse. Because our dogs will live and die, and their short lives could be made more meaningful if they are able to lengthen and better the lives of all other dogs to come. Because hope and effort harm nothing and no one, and have the possibility of doing great good. Because it is better to try and fail than not to try, at all. Because only those who dare to go too far can ever know how far they can go, and who knows how far this study might take us?

Or we can sit on the sidelines. Scoff at those who make the effort. Arrogantly predict failure. Sneer at those who hope. Carp about a word used. And discourage those who try to make life better.

This is the eternal human struggle: between great spirits and mediocre minds; between those who leave home on quests for knowledge or adventure and those who remain safe behind closed doors; between those who are content with things as they are and those who see things as they could be and try to attain them.

What if Megora is wrong? What if the GRLS _does_ find ways to prevent, treat and cure canine cancers? What if the lives of every dog born from now until the end of dogs is improved because of this study? And what if _your_ dog is a part of that? Wouldn't that be amazing? Couldn't you, years from now, look back with pride at your dog's participation?

Gibbs will live his short life and will leave me before I am ready. I have no choice in that, but I do have a choice in what his life means. He can live his life and leave no trace of it in the world, or there is the possibility that he can live his life and change the world forever. Either way, his life will end too soon. I think I'd prefer that he participate in this great scientific adventure than not, because imagine how incredible it will be if someday I can look at a puppy and know that my Gibbs' life made that puppy's life better. Imagine if you could say that about your dog's life, too.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

DanaRuns said:


> Megora just makes it sound so hopeless. It's too complicated. There are too many causes. We can't avoid them. We can't even know about them. People who have made a commitment to the study will be careless or untruthful. They can't know the answers to the questions in the annual survey. Even what is found will be unreliable because there may be more dogs from California than Wyoming. And it's just inexplicable how one dog can be fed a raw diet and get cancer, and another dog can eat Dog Chow and not. There's nothing you can do, anyway. It doesn't matter what the study finds because cancer is not curable when there are so many causes. Tests don't even reveal existing cancers. And on, and on, and on.
> 
> Sounds like every naysayer of every scientific venture, ever. Yes, it's all just a big, depressing waste of time and money. Nothing will come of it. Yet people should enroll their dogs anyway; not so that science can be advanced, but so they can dupe the study people into paying for routine health checks that people should have for their dogs, anyway. Use them. Take advantage of them. But don't expect that they will advance science, just use it as a way to take care of your own dog at someone else's expense and effort.
> 
> ...


:appl::appl::appl::appl:
Let's prove all the doubters and naysayers wrong! Even if only one thing comes out of the study that prevents or sheds light on one health condition, it is worth it IMHO.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dallas Gold said:


> If you agree that this research and observational study has the potential to shed light on canine health issues and is worthwhile, *based on what the research veterinarians at MAF might discover days, months, decades down the road*, *then* we are in agreement; otherwise, no. I feel this is a worthwhile study, as a long term research study, as do many vets around the country who are encouraging their Golden owner clients to participate. I don't appreciate my name being mentioned like we are agreeing on something when all of your other posts are so discouraging for a study I strongly believe in. Just saying and clarifying!


Anne, I thought I was being nice in pointing out that instead of trying to pick out differences in what we see and believe, we can spot the things that we agree on. It may help avoid arguments, personal attacks, anger, upset, and bad feelings - which many times I think I see come out of people in conversations like this. And for whatever it is worth, I do feel that any study which has people taking their dogs to the vet regularly will lead to good things first for those dogs, and who knows what other things these vets will discover. Might not be anything to do with cancer. I totally expect there to be stuff coming out which probably will challenge people and baffle them - particularly when it comes to lifestyle changes that the people made already or that the study suggests being made. 

I think it's more constructive to speak earnestly and truthfully as I had without fear of being attacked and have my words misconstrued. I think everyone who is speaking earnestly and honestly on subjects like this, while avoiding making personal assertions about other people.... should feel safe enough as far as not being hauled into yet another mindless... fight. I would add a word before "fight" which I do think applies here, but doesn't necessarily fit within the forum rules. 

@Dana - open your eyes and see that I spoke honestly, and unlike you and others, I did not have to attack anyone on this forum personally. Keep in mind as I said yesterday, that cancer is more than just the dog stuff for me. I live it with my family and in many cases if you have ever been in the position of experiencing a beloved sister or father or mother or other very close relative.... getting a cancer diagnosis.... you understand why I think people need to keep a level head and put everything in perspective. We had cancer survivors in my family long before breast cancer research advanced to where it is today where early detection is a definite lifesaver. My grandma and her sisters were boob-less (lol), but they were breast cancer survivors. I don't necessarily think that even surviving that cancer is a 100% cure, particularly as one of my aunts had breast cancer in her 20's, had her boobs removed and chemo done... survived.... and then 30-40 years later it came back as brain cancer. Had part of her brain removed and had it come back 5-10 years later when she finally gave up her battle. Cancer is not a simple thing to CURE and PREVENT. And it's not hopeless. How I see it with my dogs, I would rather lose them to hemangiosarcoma at 13 or 14 than lose them to renal failure at 5 or 6. 

And this study will help at least in early diagnosis of kidney problems or pancreatic problems... as well as other serious illness conditions which I'm not thinking of at the moment, but definitely would benefit from early detection. 

And that, is hope and very good news. 

This study, where it matters for people is that they have no excuses not to have blood tests and urine tests done on a yearly basis. Because basically, it is paid for already. 

These tests should be done on a yearly basis with your other dogs. And this is preaching to the choir, because I'm sure people here (I know Dallas Gold does) are already doing that on a voluntary basis and have been for years.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

Speaking as a social scientist, I will say that as for the owner survey, there are things that can be done statistically at the point of data analysis to weed out the people who likely went through clicking and didn't read the questions. 

I strongly believe that there are social factors at the root of many of the diseases we and our dogs face AND social factors are also at the root of the environmental degradation that may be contributing to those diseases. It's a very interesting field right now with many opportunities for scientifically grounded collaborative research that that involves social-ecological systems thinking, spatial analysis, etc. 

Now...if only they'd let me help with analysis, we'd be in business. Then again, who knows...10 years from now anything is possible!!


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I had reservations about this study - especially the handling of the remains once my dog died - this is a spiritual issue though so I did inquire of my vet.

They do not and will not participate. They are a huge practice and have 24/7 Emergency care with a fully staffed overnight ICU. So, my youngster is not a participant. Yes, there are vets who do not participate. If you chose to participate and your vet is not willing, you need to decide which is most important to you - in my case; I trust my vet and their practice and hope to never again have to transport a dying dog back and forth between ICU and a regular vets depending on hours of availability.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Friends, it never bodes well for a thread when there are lots of quoted posts going back and forth. We can all agree that we want the best for this breed. Let's try to put the differences that have arisen in the thread aside and move on from this point. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Megora said:


> @Dana - open your eyes and see that I spoke honestly, and unlike you and others, I did not have to attack anyone on this forum personally. Keep in mind as I said yesterday, that cancer is more than just the dog stuff for me. I live it with my family and in many cases if you have ever been in the position of experiencing a beloved sister or father or mother or other very close relative.... getting a cancer diagnosis.... you understand why I think people need to keep a level head and put everything in perspective. We had cancer survivors in my family long before breast cancer research advanced to where it is today where early detection is a definite lifesaver. My grandma and her sisters were boob-less (lol), but they were breast cancer survivors. I don't necessarily think that even surviving that cancer is a 100% cure, particularly as one of my aunts had breast cancer in her 20's, had her boobs removed and chemo done... survived.... and then 30-40 years later it came back as brain cancer. Had part of her brain removed and had it come back 5-10 years later when she finally gave up her battle. Cancer is not a simple thing to CURE and PREVENT.


I get that this is personal for you, and that it's something you've had to grapple with in your family. And I get that this reality affects how you think about, talk about, and approach the GRLS. Please understand that I didn't attack you or anyone personally, though I did address what you said. I think I did it in a respectful way. In fact, you know I like you and that we agree on most issues relating to our dear Goldens. You also know me well enough to know that if you speak your mind on something dear to my heart, I'm going to speak to it, too. I didn't do it after your first post on this subject, or your second, or your third. But I think there is another and better perspective than yours, and after a while I felt I needed to say something. And now I have, as you have.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dana, all due respect, but did you think that asking somebody a question and then basically categorizing their honest response as negative and disheartening and calling that person a naysayer and whatnot.... that was polite? 

Could you have rewritten your comment, offering your unique perspective without ripping into mine?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Megora, you are certainly entitled to your opinion; however, so am I and so is anyone else on this forum. I didn't actually didn't see where we agree on the study- I believe in that the study is valuable in and of itself in a broader sense, helping animals, particularly the golden breed, in general, and you are limiting your acceptance of the study to it will help individual dogs whose owners will get them annual exams. Granted that is true, but we disagree on the validity of the study objectives. I am certainly entitled to express my opinion, as are you. There is nothing personal about my disagreement with you- I just don't want my GRF name falsely associated with your POV. No one is attacking you personally, but there are many of us disagreeing with your opinion of this study, which we are entitled to do. There is a distinction here. I think we've gotten off point as the OP is asking


> I'm interested in enrolling our new puppy but wonder if most vets have heard of it and if any are reluctant to participate. I did email the program to ask if any vets in our area participate but did not get a reply


 Let's get back to the point of the OP's questions, which others have answered. To the OP, I hope you will consider enrolling your puppy. There is great promise with this study (IMHO).


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dallas Gold said:


> Megora, you are certainly entitled to your opinion; however, so am I and so is anyone else on this forum. I didn't actually didn't see where we agree on the study (I posted the obvious below) - I believe in that the study is valuable in and of itself in a broader sense, helping animals, particularly the golden breed, in general, and you are limiting your acceptance of the study to it will help individual dogs whose owners will get them annual exams. Granted that is true, but we disagree on the validity of the study objectives. I am certainly entitled to express my opinion, as are you. There is nothing personal about my disagreement with you- I just don't want my GRF name falsely associated with your POV.


 
Anne, I thought I was being nice in pointing out that instead of trying to pick out differences in what we see and believe, we can spot the things that we agree on. It may help avoid arguments, personal attacks, anger, upset, and bad feelings - which many times I think I see come out of people in conversations like this. And for whatever it is worth, I do feel that any study which has people taking their dogs to the vet regularly will lead to good things first for those dogs, and who knows what other things these vets will discover. Might not be anything to do with cancer. I totally expect there to be stuff coming out which probably will challenge people and baffle them - particularly when it comes to lifestyle changes that the people made already or that the study suggests being made.

I'm sorry, but as you tried saying that we all disagreed on stuff... I had to point out where you and I have the same opinion on this. Very much the same.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

All, please heed the friendly warning and let's get this back on topic. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Sunrise said:


> I had reservations about this study - especially the handling of the remains once my dog died - this is a spiritual issue though so I did inquire of my vet.


I'm curious to know more about this aspect that Sunrise mentioned. I may (possibly) have a puppy sometime in the somewhat near future and I'm definitely considering enrolling in this study for all the reasons mentioned. In looking through the website, the only thing I see mentioned about this is that they want the owners to "Be willing to consider a necropsy (post-mortem examination) when the dog's life ends." Which -- depending on a number of factors -- is something I would be considering anyway. Does the study take custody of your dog's remains after they die? Do they require their staff perform the necropsy? I appreciate any light those of you enrolled/involved with the study could shed on this for me. Thanks!

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I have read and read and read about this study and decided against participating in it for the same reasons Sunrise and Megora posted. 
I have my dogs checked twice a year. I do not do lyme vaccine and the heartworm I only do during the spring to fall days depending on the weather. I run a full blood profile and the Lyme/Heartworm blood test in September and March of each year. 
Since Rose had the OSS and Darcy is still intact we are doing ultrasounds once a year.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

Directly from the Morris site:
What if I suspect my golden has a mass or a tumor? 
If you find a mass and your veterinarian suspects that your dog has cancer, acquiring a tissue sample is essential for this study. We ask that your veterinarian (or a veterinary oncologist) take a biopsy (sample) of the suspected tumor tissue to send for examination by a veterinary pathologist. If you are referred to a veterinary oncologist for this task, the oncologist will need to work with your veterinarian to ensure that the study requirements are met.
Your veterinarian can request a Tumor Sample Kit that can be shipped to the clinic overnight.


When possible, please ask your veterinarian to request a Tumor Sample Kit at least 3 days prior to your dog's veterinary appointment.
Please request that the veterinary clinic schedule additional time for your dog's study-related health exam. We recommend an additional 15-20 minutes.
Instructions for your veterinarian will be included in the Tumor Sample Kit. These instructions will detail how the samples should be collected, preserved and shipped. Instructions can also be found on the veterinarian homepage of the website
This link should answer al most any and all other questions:
Golden Retriever Owner | Audience | Golden Retriever Lifetime Study

Thank you all for taking the time to read it, there is much misinformation out there.!!


----------



## Tennyson (Mar 26, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> I have read and read and read about this study and decided against participating in it for the same reasons Sunrise and Megora posted.
> I have my dogs checked twice a year. I do not do lyme vaccine and the heartworm I only do during the spring to fall days depending on the weather. I run a full blood profile and the Lyme/Heartworm blood test in September and March of each year.
> Since Rose had the OSS and Darcy is still intact we are doing ultrasounds once a year.


 I'm in complete agreement with CM but for different reasons.
MAF is a 501(C) (3) and their financial reports filed the last 2 years are suspect in my opinion. I don't agree with their disbursement of funds (donations) and their expenditures for administrative costs. I really dislike their investments for the private donations.
Recently the MAF sent out a box of bling (junk) to all that have signed up for the study. It wasn't a cheap endeavor either. Much rather the no bling and use the private donations on actually helping goldens.
Too many red flags.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Tennyson said:


> I'm in complete agreement with CM but for different reasons.
> MAF is a 501(C) (3) and their financial reports filed the last 2 years are suspect in my opinion. I don't agree with their disbursement of funds (donations) and their expenditures for administrative costs. I really dislike their investments for the private donations.
> Recently the MAF sent out a box of bling (junk) to all that have signed up for the study. It wasn't a cheap endeavor either. Much rather the no bling and use the private donations on actually helping goldens.
> Too many red flags.


Rather than tar them with vague innuendo, would you be so kind as to post the reports (or links to them) that you find "suspect"? Or at the very least copy and paste the portions of the reports that you are referring to?

Thanks.

I found the "junk/bling" kind of handy. I use the lead and the measuring cup, and I wear the pin to every dog event I go to. And I doubt they spent more than a few hundred bucks on it, in total, and had sponsors donate the items. Maybe it's not the best marketing tool. But this $28,000,000 study is all-in on the science; they just need to get the dogs enrolled and they are trying various methods of getting the word out. I don't think they anticipated that there would be any reluctance, much less people actively decrying the study.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

Much of the "bling" is donated by sponsors , do you have a problem with that too ???


----------



## abradshaw71 (Jan 13, 2014)

Tennyson said:


> I'm in complete agreement with CM but for different reasons.
> MAF is a 501(C) (3) and their financial reports filed the last 2 years are suspect in my opinion. I don't agree with their disbursement of funds (donations) and their expenditures for administrative costs. I really dislike their investments for the private donations.
> Recently the MAF sent out a box of bling (junk) to all that have signed up for the study. It wasn't a cheap endeavor either. Much rather the no bling and use the private donations on actually helping goldens.
> Too many red flags.


I've worked in the 501(C) (3) sector for over 20 years. If a donor sends a donation to a non-profit and does not restrict the way their gift is used then the non-profit can use that donation however they choose. I'm not arguing, but just stating how a non-profit can use funding. There is a difference between unrestricted and restricted donations. Most rescue groups, for example, have what is called an annual fund, which is always unrestricted. They can use these funds for an emergency, supplies, food, or basically however they see fit. If a donor was to give them a donation with the stipulation that the gift can only be used for food, then the non-profit needs to put that in a restricted account and only use that money for food per IRS guidelines.

For our items that we give out to donors (t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc), we typically have a vendor or sponsor pay for those things, so there is no cost to our non-profit. We see it as a way to thank our donors. 

Josie had just turned 2 when I heard about the Morris Foundation, so I was unable to register her. I wish she could be part of this study. I've lived with Type 1 diabetes for 34 years and in all honesty, I highly doubt there will be a cure in my lifetime. However, that doesn't stop me from participating in trials or research. Technology has come so far in the past 34 years. I used to take 4 shots of insulin in my stomach every day. I now wear an insulin pump. I haven't had an insulin injection in 8 years!  My quality of life has greatly increased because of research, so I think there's something to be said for what data is being collected and analyzed even if a cure may or may not happen.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

My puppy turns six months soon and I will need to decide. The biggest thing that keeps me from wanting to be involved is the fact that one of their biggest sponsors is Petco. Petco is also a supporter of HSUS. I went on a total Petco ban when they shared things on Facebook from "I Hate Dog Breeders." I am very hesitant to participate in a study where much if their financial backing comes from a company whose core beliefs of animals differs so much from my own.


----------



## Max's Dad (Apr 23, 2012)

No charity is perfect. Unfortunately, fundraising is a key component for any charity. Charitynavigator.com is an organization that evaluates charities to help people make decisions about the worthiness of charities that they may want to help. 

The Morris Animal Foundation is very highly rated. Here is a link to information about MAF.

Charity Navigator Rating - Morris Animal Foundation

I really do not understand the negativity about the Golden Study or Morris. So what if a few dollars were spent on some small bing for participants? It is small potatoes. What they are doing is worthwhile, and may lead, in the long run, to some results that might be beneficial to the Golden Retriever breed.


----------



## abradshaw71 (Jan 13, 2014)

Loisiana said:


> My puppy turns six months soon and I will need to decide. The biggest thing that keeps me from wanting to be involved is the fact that one of their biggest sponsors is Petco. Petco is also a supporter of HSUS. I went on a total Petco ban when they shared things on Facebook from "I Hate Dog Breeders." I am very hesitant to participate in a study where much if their financial backing comes from a company whose core beliefs of animals differs so much from my own.


Uh oh! Now I feel guilty for buying a pooper scooper from them on Saturday. 

I think the answer to participating with this foundation is basically what you feel is best for you and your dog. I like the fact that you are taking into consideration your view of Petco. I also like the fact that if Tennyson doesn't feel comfortable with how the foundation allocates their donations then that's okay, as well, to not support the foundation. Trust me, if everyone supported the non-profit I work for, my job would be a piece of cake! 

On the other side, I hope the foundation is doing great things for our beloved goldens. Someone at some point decided that golden retrievers were well worth all this effort and research. But, that's something we've all known for a very long time.


----------



## Max's Dad (Apr 23, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> My puppy turns six months soon and I will need to decide. The biggest thing that keeps me from wanting to be involved is the fact that one of their biggest sponsors is Petco. Petco is also a supporter of HSUS. I went on a total Petco ban when they shared things on Facebook from "I Hate Dog Breeders." I am very hesitant to participate in a study where much if their financial backing comes from a company whose core beliefs of animals differs so much from my own.


MAF is a fraction of the size of HSUS. $10M compared to $100M in donations. I also have concerns about the HSUS. HSUS is not as highly rated, either.

Charity Navigator Rating - The Humane Society of the United States

Morris is doing something that has potential to help the Golden Retriever breed. That is good enough for me. I hope you will put differences aside and consider participating in the study.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I chose to participate because I believe in the study.
As someone who works in research science, I can tell you that even if this study learns nothing, that is actually a result. In science a negative result is still a valid worthwhile result, and a negative result still tells you a lot. It says that your basic hypothesis was wrong.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I'd do it if my dogs had been young enough when the study started.

My mom is considering it, but she's having a hard time getting crystal clear answers as to the extra financial burdens it might place on her in terms of extra blood draws, samples, testing, etc. beyond what she'd be doing for her dog's care.

The necroscopy issue is also worth getting definitive answers on. I think I'd still want to do it with my dogs, but I'd feel better with firmer answers to these questions.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I think the problems with the crystal clear answers is that it varies by vet.
My vet charged me a normal exam fee, plus their blood-draw fee. The shipping of the samples and the testing of the blood is paid for by the study and your vet should never be billed for it, so they shouldn't bill you for it.
My vet did not charge me for going over the blood work results, but in theory they can, because it takes their time.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Jennifer1 said:


> I think the problems with the crystal clear answers is that it varies by vet.
> My vet charged me a normal exam fee, plus their blood-draw fee. The shipping of the samples and the testing of the blood is paid for by the study and your vet should never be billed for it, so they shouldn't bill you for it.
> My vet did not charge me for going over the blood work results, but in theory they can, because it takes their time.


Thanks. I was hoping this would be answered by somebody in the thread. The MAF people, probably trying to make sure they didn't accidentally commit the vet to doing anything for free, didn't give a very clear answer to that question.

I think my mom is OK with paying for the odd extra blood draw but is hoping that the normal regimen of a blood test every six months for SNAP 4Dx and/or welldog bloodwork will really just mean that most of the MAF blood draws will be an extra vial on the same stick.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> The necroscopy issue is also worth getting definitive answers on. I think I'd still want to do it with my dogs, but I'd feel better with firmer answers to these questions.


From the FAQs All | Programs | Golden Retriever Lifetime Study
on the lifetime study website- what is expected of owners of enrolled dogs:



> When applicable, allow collection of tumor samples for evaluation
> 
> Be willing to consider a necropsy (post-mortem examination) when the dog's life ends


"Be willing to consider a necropsy" is much different from requiring owners to send the dog's body to the study, as was suggested elsewhere in this thread. "Be willing to consider" allows free choice and an owner could elect not to do so.

I wish the FAQs were clear cut on the expense allocation of the annual exams. In my particular case with our vet I pay the appointment fee for the veterinarian's time, which is actually one hour, instead of 30 minutes. This isn't a problem for me since this study exam is in fact Yogi's annual exam. The $75 reimbursement covers all but a tiny portion of that fee. The labwork, nail clip and collection, urine and fecal samples are all free of charge, so I come out ahead. I get back a complete Antech lab report, with full blood panel, thyroid levels (not the MSU or Dodds panel though), heartworm test, fecal test, and urinalysis. These are things I'd pay for anyway in his annual exam, but since his annual exam and the study exam are one and the same, I come out ahead. The study does not pay for tick panels as far as I'm aware, so your Mom would be responsible for that cost. When Yogi turns 7 I will be adding in a second exam at the six month mark and that will be my responsibility.


----------



## Heart O'Gold (Jul 31, 2012)

I was nervous about the cost when I enrolled Bentley, too. I went into his 1st exam having no idea what it would cost me. We were my vet's 1st study participants. Thankfully I had a very similar experience to Dallas Gold and was charged for an extended exam which was just a few dollars more than the reimbursement amount. I think the best thing to do is call her vet and ask what they will charge.


----------



## CRS250 (Dec 31, 2012)

Murphy was also our vets first enrollee. Originally the vet tech said we'd be charged for a regular office visit or possible their extended visit fee. However we emailed with the vet directly and after she read about the study she decided not to charge us unless he needed to be sedated for the blood draw. 

Happy to say he had his first exam and it was very easy. In and out in about an hour, no sedation and no fees.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

My vet charged me nothing for the annual exam. She is donating her time to the study because she thinks it's important. I actually made money on it, as they sent me $75 (which I then gave to my vet, so I guess I didn't really make money).

I asked specifically about the necropsy. It is NOT required. You can choose not to do it. But if you do, the study takes your dog's body, and I understand you can get it back or (as would be my choice) get ashes. Before Theresa would let me enroll Gibbs, she wanted to make sure she could decide not to do a necropsy if she was uncomfortable with it.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Max's Dad said:


> Morris is doing something that has potential to help the Golden Retriever breed. That is good enough for me. I hope you will put differences aside and consider participating in the study.


It's not about just setting aside differences, it's about knowing I can trust the results aren't swayed by sponsors with an agenda. I wouldn't trust a lung cancer study sponsored by a cigarette company, so when a company has made alliances with groups that are against purebred dogs, I'm going to question them sponsoring a study focusing on purebreds. Not saying I won't do it, but I won't go into it blindly either.


----------



## Max's Dad (Apr 23, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> It's not about just setting aside differences, it's about knowing I can trust the results aren't swayed by sponsors with an agenda. I wouldn't trust a lung cancer study sponsored by a cigarette company, so when a company has made alliances with groups that are against purebred dogs, I'm going to question them sponsoring a study focusing on purebreds. Not saying I won't do it, but I won't go into it blindly either.


I do not trust the tobacco companies either. My recollection is that they did sponsor bogus studies about the safety of tobacco use. At least the Morris study has many sponsors.

This article has some good information about the study. 
Golden Retriever Lifetime Study takes off - VIN

Please do whatever you think is best and are comfortable with.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> It's not about just setting aside differences, it's about knowing I can trust the results aren't swayed by sponsors with an agenda. I wouldn't trust a lung cancer study sponsored by a cigarette company, so when a company has made alliances with groups that are against purebred dogs, I'm going to question them sponsoring a study focusing on purebreds. Not saying I won't do it, but I won't go into it blindly either.


Interesting. I'm sitting here trying to think of how results could be "swayed by sponsors with an agenda," and I admit I lack the imagination to do so. What is it that you are afraid might be done because of the study's sponsors?

By far the biggest donor is the Morris Family Foundation, followed by Blue Buffalo, then Petco, then VCA Antech, then Zoetis, the Golden Retriever Foundation and Mars Veterinary. Given that list of donors, and their order of contribution, what do you fear or suspect might happen? I frankly can't think of anything.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

I think the objective of the study is very worthwhile, a longitudinal study of a large group of Goldens. I've been reading some of the materials referenced in this thread and the other one. I'm not sure that everyone understands that this is just a data collection project with the data being turned over to others who will use it in their research.

The MAF materials do state that they will be turning over the data to their supporting partners in advance of making it generally available. I think this opens up questions like the one raised by Loisiana. 

Even though MAF is given a high ranking by the Charity Navigator, looking at their 2 most recent financial statements, it seemed to me that the portion of funds expended on fundraising, administrative etc. was substantial compared to their overall use of funds.

In thinking about whether to enter Gracie in the study I was concerned to read that the required blood draw is 10 times the volume usually drawn for canine blood tests and as a result a jugular draw is required. Some dogs apparently require sedation for this. I also am unsure about making the significant commitment to it over an extended period of time. I question whether when a health crisis arises that I will be willing to worry about scheduling tests and surgeries in a way that satisfies their requirements. 

When I asked our vet who practices in a well regarded group practice what she thought about the study, she was not aware of it but said she would be happy to look at any info I could provide.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

TheZ's said:


> Even though MAF is given a high ranking by the Charity Navigator, looking at their 2 most recent financial statements, it seemed to me that the portion of funds expended on fundraising, administrative etc. was substantial compared to their overall use of funds.


Just playing devil's advocate but when a group is launching a large, long-lasting, wide-reaching research project, wouldn't one expect them to devote a significant amount of time and money to fundraising to help finance the study? It just seems logical to me... especially when you're not indicating that this is a consistent pattern over numerous years but rather one that began at almost the same time this study launched. Not saying I'm right but just food for thought.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## abradshaw71 (Jan 13, 2014)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Just playing devil's advocate but when a group is launching a large, long-lasting, wide-reaching research project, wouldn't one expect them to devote a significant amount of time and money to fundraising to help finance the study? It just seems logical to me... especially when you're not indicating that this is a consistent pattern over numerous years but rather one that began at almost the same time this study launched. Not saying I'm right but just food for thought.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


You are correct on the fundraising logic. It's no small task to raise money on this scale. A $1 million gift or larger can take 2 - 3 years or more to acquire, so the fact that they are investing in a fundraising team is a good thing. I wish the president of our non-profit felt the same.  My office has one VP, three fundraisers, two gift processors, one administrative assistant and me, the database director. We raise between $5 - $6 million each year and receipt over 50,000 gifts. Our expenses range from our salaries, maintenance of our database software, travel expenses, fundraising event expenses, cell phones, laptops, and paper supplies. 

However, a good fundraiser also knows the importance of keeping expenses low so that those dollars raised go towards the donor intent and not the budget of the foundation. An efficient non-profit is able to apply 75% of their raised funds towards programming. If they fall at the 65%, there is room for improvement, but it is still considered average and acceptable to some. 

I haven't looked at the Morris financial reports, so I'm not sure what their percentage is, but just wanted to throw that out there for people that are curious and take that into consideration. If you ever hear a fundraiser say it takes a dollar to raise a dollar, run far far away from that charity.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

TheZ's said:


> I think the objective of the study is very worthwhile, a longitudinal study of a large group of Goldens. I've been reading some of the materials referenced in this thread and the other one. I'm not sure that everyone understands that this is just a data collection project with the data being turned over to others who will use it in their research.
> 
> The MAF materials do state that they will be turning over the data to their supporting partners in advance of making it generally available. I think this opens up questions like the one raised by Loisiana.
> 
> ...


In regards to them turning over the results to their sponsors before the general public, that is pretty standard. It doesn't change the results, it just lets the sponsors get a sneak peak. The results are still released publicly by MAF, not by the sponsors.

In regards to a crisis, I read somewhere when I was researching the study that you would not worry about the study in a true crisis. They can get some data after the fact. If it's a scheduled surgery to remove a mass, than yes, try to get a tumor kit from the study. If it's a ruptured spleen tumor (my example), then do what you need to do for the dog.

ETA: Kenzie had to be sedated for her first visit at 6mo old since she was too wiggly. At her second visit she was much calmer and didn't require sedation. My vet was surprised at the amount of blood, but said it was still totally in the safe zone.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

> What happens if my golden gets sick?
> Because the Golden Retriever Lifetime Study is an observational study, you would care for your enrolled dog as you would normally and schedule veterinary visits at your discretion. You and your veterinarian would be required to provide information for any additional veterinary visits that occur. Please login to your owner homepage and provide scheduled appointment dates. *If the visit is the result of an emergency, this information can be entered after the event.*


From their website, bolding mine. All | Programs | Golden Retriever Lifetime Study


----------



## CRS250 (Dec 31, 2012)

TheZ's said:


> In thinking about whether to enter Gracie in the study I was concerned to read that the required blood draw is 10 times the volume usually drawn for canine blood tests and as a result a jugular draw is required. Some dogs apparently require sedation for this. I also am unsure about making the significant commitment to it over an extended period of time. I question whether when a health crisis arises that I will be willing to worry about scheduling tests and surgeries in a way that satisfies their requirements.


We were also concerned for the extra blood draw and the possibility of sedation. Our vet had us wait till Murphy was 1 year 4 months in the hopes that he would settle down a bit from being a wild puppy. It worked out for us. She said when we brought him in for his annual vaccination visit he was calm and well behaved for her. That she thought the blood draw would be fine without sedation, but we withheld his breakfast the morning of his first study exam. They did not need to sedate him, he was calm for them throughout. I do not believe they did a jugular draw, as they shaved a small patch on his hind leg. He was tired for a few days after but in general didnt seem to have any ill effect from the exam.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Just playing devil's advocate but when a group is launching a large, long-lasting, wide-reaching research project, wouldn't one expect them to devote a significant amount of time and money to fundraising to help finance the study? It just seems logical to me... especially when you're not indicating that this is a consistent pattern over numerous years but rather one that began at almost the same time this study launched. Not saying I'm right but just food for thought.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


The 2 most recent years are what was available at the link provided, so I can't comment on other years. The financial statements did show very substantial unrestricted assets already. I'm quite familiar with financial statements but not so much for nonprofits. They did raise some questions for me.

With respect to providing data to sponsors, it wasn't just a few days or a week in advance. It was something like 12 or 18 months.

Thanks to others for info on the blood draw. I thought I had read in the MAF materials that a jugular draw was required. I can't at this stage imagine Gracie having that without sedation and not having any knowledge of blood draws it sounds like it may carry extra risk.

One of Gracie's litter mates may be signed up for the study. Does anyone know if they like or don't accept multiple dogs from the same litter?


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

They will take multiple littermates. I believe they have a limit on the number of littermates in the same household


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

They have an entire litter enrolled according to a post in the FB group. The limit right now is 2 dogs per residence. If I had 3 from one litter living with me, only 2 could be enrolled. If I have 5 unrelated goldens, same thing..only 2 can be enrolled.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> It's not about just setting aside differences, it's about knowing I can trust the results aren't swayed by sponsors with an agenda. I wouldn't trust a lung cancer study sponsored by a cigarette company, so when a company has made alliances with groups that are against purebred dogs, I'm going to question them sponsoring a study focusing on purebreds. Not saying I won't do it, but I won't go into it blindly either.


I asked and got some answers on this subject and the issue of sponsors getting data before the public does. According to the study folks:

Acquiring the data in advance of the public release is an incentive for the study's Partners to be a part of the study. Conclusions, on the other hand, are not being withheld from public release.

The incentive is getting the data in advance of the public release. This can provide them a competitive advantage and offers them a great reason to join the study. With the caveat that if they do discover anything harmful related to a vaccine, food , etc. the study would not delay the release of this information. It is the actual data sets that the Partners get advance access to. The Partners can then do what analysis they would like with the data, but in turn the Partners have to go back through the GRLS before they publish any results.

No data will be ever withheld, so when each data set is released to the public, ALL of the data in that data set will be there, and of course at that point the GRLS and their Partners will no longer have any control over what analysis is done with the data. Once it is in the public domain, anyone with a computer can download the data for any analysis they want. For each data set, the Partners get access to the data before it is made public. 

Each Partner has a different idea on what the data set might mean to them, so for example: For the pet food companies it could tell them, in this cohort of 3,000 dogs, what the top brands of food are, what the feeding habits of the participants are, and how pet food usage might be changing over time. For others, it might tell them the prevalence of the use of certain medications for heartworm, fleas/ticks, etc., or other real-time information that might be of interest to their Marketing groups. 

While the Partners have their own access to the data, the analysis the GRLS is doing on the data is independent from and not influenced by their Partners. The study intends to publish scientific papers at a regular frequency (2 or more/year) to keep the public and the scientific and veterinary communities abreast of the ongoing findings, and these publications are also done independently and not influenced by their Partners. Any publications from their Partners must be approved in advance by the study's Publication Committee, which is a separate committee that is exclusive of their Partners. Additionally, they have a Scientific Steering Committee that is comprised of around 15 diverse individuals representing veterinary medicine, human epidemiology, toxicology and even dog owners that meet annually to discuss the results. Partners are welcome to attend this committee but are non-voting. 

If the data were to show that a certain food type or product is culpable in causing cancer, the study would be unable to hide that fact once the data is released to the public, so I think a good safeguard to either us or the Partners fudging the data to their benefit is that the study is releasing the data to the public.

FYI


----------



## Kylie's Mom (Jun 23, 2013)

Why do all these discussions have to become so negative and argumentative??? It seems like there are always the same people that have negative comments about every discussion on this forum.
I personally have enrolled my puppy and been accepted. We had her first check-up in January. My Vet was very anxious to do his part for the best results we can accomplish with this study. We both have no expectations of the outcome, but we are hopeful that we can be a part of any good information that will be provided by this study.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

TheZ's said:


> The 2 most recent years are what was available at the link provided, so I can't comment on other years. The financial statements did show very substantial unrestricted assets already. I'm quite familiar with financial statements but not so much for nonprofits. They did raise some questions for me.
> 
> With respect to providing data to sponsors, it wasn't just a few days or a week in advance. It was something like 12 or 18 months.
> 
> ...


I read that it is very beneficial to them to have related dogs, especially litter mates living in separate homes.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

TheZ's said:


> Thanks to others for info on the blood draw. I thought I had read in the MAF materials that a jugular draw was required. I can't at this stage imagine Gracie having that without sedation and not having any knowledge of blood draws it sounds like it may carry extra risk.


One thought here... I don't understand why people rush to have the first visit done ASAP. After you enroll your puppy, you have 2 years to schedule that first visit. You don't have to do it the first year. 

Besides the fact that I couldn't fathom turning my puppy into a blood bank while he was a scrawny 6 month old, I also felt he would be a lot calmer closer to 2. 

I waited until Bertie was well over a year old before I took him in. And generally speaking, the only issue we had was getting enough pee out of him and getting enough nail clippings. He is a show dog so not a lot of toenail to be clipped - even with me "growing" the nails out. I had the vet stressing out about making him bleed while getting the 6 or so clippings. The other thing too was making sure they clipped fur from his undercoat where it was thickest (wouldn't show) and not the top coat (I can't believe the stories I read here about vets shaving legs?!). <- All of these things are a lot less stress the older the dog is. I see no sense in putting a puppy through that unnecessarily. Always put your own dogs first.

Cost, btw... depends on the vet. I paid about $30 for an exam - and I made sure I picked a vet who is also a golden person and had put her own golden puppy in the study. The money that came back from the foundation went to MBF (dog show entry fees). 

The other thing I was thinking, btw.... there is nothing in the study which forces you to stay in program if things change down the road. You can always drop out if things change. <- Bertie has been enrolled in the study since 2012. There's been a few times that I've considered dropping out or letting the time run out before his visit. And you never know what the future may bring so may or may not go in for that next visit. Nobody signed my name in blood and as far as I know I don't lose any self-proclaimed trophies if I drop out. They won't take my new leash and collar back LOL. :]


----------



## dborgers (Dec 7, 2011)

I would gladly have enrolled, but my goldens have all been rescues. With no AKC papers they don't want them in the study.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I did Smooch's first visit about 2 weeks before she turned two. It was not stressful for her at all and they had no issue getting the blood sample from her. The funny part was even though I let her nails grow for several weeks, my vet's tech was still convinced they were too short to cut, so I did that part for them. I also chose where the hair sample was taken and cut it myself since she is being shown right now. Otherwise it was a longer visit but next time will be much quicker. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Michelle - I took over the clippers as well. The vet was convinced they were going to bleed.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Megora said:


> @Michelle - I took over the clippers as well. The vet was convinced they were going to bleed.


I dremmel my girls' nails every week. Since they run quite a lot I do not want any body stress on them due to longer nails. Darcy took about a little over month of clippers and demmel until I got her nails to an appropriate lenght. 

The nails I could clip would be more like shavings instead of nails.


----------



## lestat1978 (Oct 9, 2012)

Maiya, 6.5 months, had her initial appt. yesterday. Other than also having short nails, there were absolutely no issues - not even with the blood draw.

I've been told her sister will also be enrolled - someone had mentioned having siblings - so that would be nice for the study.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

We had Gibbs' first appointment at right about 6 months old. There were no problems with the blood draw, and like others the only challenge was his short nails.

With Ziva, we are waiting until she is a bit older. She's more squirrelly than Gibbs was, so I don't think she'd sit still for the blood draw at this point. But we still want the first one to be when she is young, so right now we're aiming at 9 mos., but we'll see.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Yogi went at 6 months and his vet said he was so still for his blood draw. At his 2nd one she came back and suggested he would be an excellent blood donor dog because he cooperated so well.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> The nails I could clip would be more like shavings instead of nails.


That's about what the study got from Bertie.  The funny thing was they swept the floor trying to salvage as much as possible. There really wasn't much to be trimmed off.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Rose was supposed to have her nails done with the surgery. So I did not dremel them the Sunday before the surgery. The vet looked at her nails and said - I cannot do anything to these nails. I told her that Rose can always use a nice long brushing! 

I have two more months to enter Rose. I am just hesitant. I do not like to quit even though I did not sign my name in blood.


----------



## grls.volunteer (May 3, 2013)

Cannot have more than 2 litter mates living in the same household.


----------



## grls.volunteer (May 3, 2013)

maximum of 2 litter mates in same household.


----------



## grls.volunteer (May 3, 2013)

Yes, genetics are the same but environmental and nutritional aspects may differ.


----------



## grls.volunteer (May 3, 2013)

You can have more than 2 dogs in the study, but only 2 can be litter mates. There are many people who have 3 or 4 Goldens enrolled in the same household.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)




----------



## Heart O'Gold (Jul 31, 2012)

*That unacceptable reality has to change.* I hope Bentley and all his fellow Golden Heroes will help make a new normal for future generations, one that allows them longer and healthier lives.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

IMHO I would rather have as many litter-mates as possible (in the same household or not). As far as I understand hip and elbow has been determined to be hereditary by consensus and not actual research which was inconclusive. Thus the lack of progress in eliminating this problem even with careful breeding.
I also did not see anything about having all the clearances done on the dogs participating in the study which in my opinion shows the overall health of the participating dog.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> IMHO I would rather have as many litter-mates as possible (in the same household or not). As far as I understand hip and elbow has been determined to be hereditary by consensus and not actual research which was inconclusive. Thus the lack of progress in eliminating this problem even with careful breeding.


Huh? Cleared dogs produce dysplasia in their offspring at less than half the rate of dogs with dysplastic hips or elbows (even mildly dysplastic). That's pretty conclusive hard research with hard numbers. Just because we haven't isolated the genetic cause of something doesn't mean we can't determine it's hereditary beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.

Plus, the rates of dysplasia have gone down among subsets of dogs who have been bred with clearances for multiple generations. How can you say there's been a lack of progress?

Check here: In Goldens, overall hip dysplasia has dropped by a 1/3 from all evaluations vs. evaluations in 2006-2010, and the rate of excellent hips has doubled in the same period!

Let's not perpetuate myths in this thread.


----------



## Heart O'Gold (Jul 31, 2012)

From what I've heard, whole litters are enrolled.  I believe the 2 litter-mate per household limit is to help differentiate between genetic and environmental factors.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Tippy - could you point me to the study of bred dysplatic dogs? I honestly cannot find it. I would like to see which dogs were dysplatic and bred.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

This thread is not about dysplasia. Perhaps you could start a new thread about that.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Ziva turned six months old today. The study sent me an email inviting me to fill out the questionnaire and set up her first appointment. I did the questionnaire. I think I'll wait a bit before doing the appointment. But I have two dogs in this study.


----------



## 1stGold13 (Dec 1, 2013)

DanaRuns said:


> Ziva turned six months old today. The study sent me an email inviting me to fill out the questionnaire and set up her first appointment. I did the questionnaire. I think I'll wait a bit before doing the appointment. But I have two dogs in this study.


I'm registered and already verified my vet is participating. I'll now wait for her to be old enough. Looking at the questionnaire it seems pretty thorough and they will definitely be able to enlighten on trends they find, I'm pleased to be involved.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> Tippy - could you point me to the study of bred dysplatic dogs? I honestly cannot find it. I would like to see which dogs were dysplatic and bred.


If you'd like to discuss dysplasia further, let's start a thread. For now, here's the OFA's FAQs, which point out some clear results with very large cohorts. Its footnotes comprise a nice list of sources on the subject that firmly demonstrate that elbow and hip dysplasia have strong hereditary components which can clearly be reduced by clearing the dogs. Did you think the breed experts at the GRCA had gone off half-cocked when they added those clearances to the CoE?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

DanaRuns said:


> This thread is not about dysplasia. Perhaps you could start a new thread about that.


Fair enough, but when something demonstrably false is posted about large-cohort, longitudinal research, I think it's beneficial to have it rebutted, since that's the kind of science that MAF is trying to do.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

This is Claudia's pet peeve. You will never convince her. All that will happen is that the thread will devolve into arguments about clearances. It is happened doesn't times before.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Tippy - since you like "rebuttals":

Sirius Dog

A number of environmental factors can affect the incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs -- ScienceDaily

Hip Dysplasia

Introduction

And to the ones complaining about "deviating" from the OP. It is not. This study since they do not require to my knowledge the OFA AND PennHip (which in my opinion says more about the dog than just the OFA) obviously they do not take into consideration the overall health/structure of the dog. It says verifiable pedigree not verifiable clearances. If they are so important for breeding purposes they should be just as important for determining the health of the offspring. Another reason why I will not participate in this "study". I hope them the best but I think they start on empty info unless of course most of the participating puppies/dogs have clearances done.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> This study since they do not require to my knowledge the OFA AND PennHip (which in my opinion says more about the dog than just the OFA) obviously they do not take into consideration the overall health/structure of the dog. It says verifiable pedigree not verifiable clearances. If they are so important for breeding purposes they should be just as important for determining the health of the offspring. Another reason why I will not participate in this "study". I hope them the best but I think they start on empty info unless of course most of the participating puppies/dogs have clearances done.


I don't know why I keep taking the bait, but here I go...

First, I'm not going through your links to rebut anything because if anybody else feels like clicking through to them and _actually reading them_, they prove my point (and the point the GRCA has accepted in endorsing clearances), not Claudia's. They discuss the environmental factors, but they assume significant heritable factors as well, which is the whole point and proof of clearances. All of them acknowledge that the disease is mostly heritable and somewhat environmental. Did you not read them, Claudia? There is really no point in debating something so clearly settled by the evidence and the experts, especially when as a purported rebuttal, you list evidence that demonstrates the opposite of your own claim.

Second, your post contradicts itself. Why do you you think clearances are important if you don't think they work?

Third, this research is trying to figure out the causes and progress of major diseases. There's no reason to screen out dogs who might have health conditions. They want pedigrees so they can track ancestry and heritability (I presume), but the idea of trying to clear dogs in order to study a healthier group makes no sense in terms of this research. There's no reason for them to prefer ethically bred dogs for this research.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Tippy - there is no "bait" - and there is no contradiction. The clearances are necessary IMHO for the care and health of the pup. Simple as that. Therefore, again IMHO any study (cancer or not) should start with a basic structural health of the pup, which will therefore affect the dog's immune system and therefore predisposition to other diseases including cancer. 
But thank you for letting me know that you are not interested in any links, no matter of where they come from or what they actually say!


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

mostly, somewhat, maybe, general consensus because we have no facts - means exactly what those words mean. An assumption! 
And this study does the same thing, starts in the middle with crazy hopes to get to an end. 
As Megora stated, it is good for the health of the pup to have these tests done unless the owner will do them for their own pup's good and not because they enrolled into something and thus they gave their word to do them. 
My Trooper dies of a tumor; why? because he had grand mal seizures since he was 6 years old, at best fair hips (were not rated since it was visible as a pup) and his body gave all the immune system it had to fight it in spite of the meds and supplements. He still made it to almost 13.
My Jack died of a tumor; why? because he had Lupus and his body gave all the immune system it had to fight it despite the meds and supplements. And he still made it to almost 16. 
What they both had was immediate and preventive care from a very young stage. One was "top bred" and the second was a mutt. Belle was a BYB and had no health issues, died of old age at almost 16. And I can go on and on with all the dogs raised in our house from puppy hood since 1972.


----------



## shepherdpal (Oct 8, 2013)

Claudia what do you do to boost the immune system? I lost my GSD at age 8 to hemangiosarcoma and my current GSD is 5 and my new Golden Pippin is almost 10 weeks. I want to give them the best chance to fight cancer.

I had cancer that had metastasized into several places and was given about 1 year to live in 2002. I had 6 rounds of chemo and my body kept craving foods i never usually cared for such as persimmons, tomatoes and salmon. I ate little else and was down to 80 pounds. In 2003 I was declared cancer free and the cravings were gone! I later learned that that the foods i craved were full of anti oxidants that boost the immune system

I am NOT saying these foods cure cancer (I wish). But I would like to keep my family ( human and canine) with a healthy immune system to give them a fighting chance.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

All the family members including the dogs have been taking Mannatech Ambrotose for years. Dogs after the age of one. As far as dogs, depending on their joints they have been on different levels of Glycoflex from age one to one and a half. 

On the first year of your pup you want to make sure you feed a good puppy diet that you will change to a good adult diet around 5 to 6 months. You want to make sure that they get exercise but they do not over -do it and as much as zoomies are fun to watch they have to be controlled so they do not injure themselves. Avoid going up and down stairs very often and only after about 4 to 5 months. Get blood tests twice a a year both the CBC and the lyme/heartworm tests. And most importantly know your dog and trust your instinct.


----------



## Nancy Kay Clark (Sep 17, 2012)

In response to Megora's post on 4/5/14.
I would suggest this the other way around. We would much prefer that you work with your existing veterinarian and encourage them to join the study with you. If your veterinarian has concerns about participating in the study, we would love for them to ask us their questions by calling our study customer service team at 855.447.3647. We do offer a list of veterinarians who have signed up with us, but please discuss the study with your veterinarian first.


----------



## 1stGold13 (Dec 1, 2013)

Nancy Kay Clark said:


> In response to Megora's post on 4/5/14.
> I would suggest this the other way around. We would much prefer that you work with your existing veterinarian and encourage them to join the study with you. If your veterinarian has concerns about participating in the study, we would love for them to ask us their questions by calling our study customer service team at 855.447.3647. We do offer a list of veterinarians who have signed up with us, but please discuss the study with your veterinarian first.


Happy to say my vet is on board and enthusiastic about the possibilities of this study (in fact one of the reasons I chose him)


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Megora said:


> Enroll your puppy. You will get a list of vets who already have participated in the program. If there aren't any in your area, then you will have to take the information to your vet. Some vets charge more than others.


 This is what I said on 4/5 that this person is responding to. 

I asked my regular vet about the program and they were basically clueless. And I'll be honest, I did not care to have clueless people drawing blood, clipping fur, toenails, etc from my dog. I found a vet through the list provided and that made a lot more sense. 

I understand why you guys would want people to take leaflets and all kinds of stuff to our vets. But the way I'm approaching this is as a concerned pet owner. It is not my role to advertise for you guys.


----------



## Golden999 (Jun 29, 2010)

Claudia M said:


> Mannatech Ambrotose


Cure for Your Disease or Empty Promise? - ABC News


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Megora said:


> This is what I said on 4/5 that this person is responding to.
> 
> I asked my regular vet about the program and they were basically clueless. And I'll be honest, I did not care to have clueless people drawing blood, clipping fur, toenails, etc from my dog. I found a vet through the list provided and that made a lot more sense.
> 
> I understand why you guys would want people to take leaflets and all kinds of stuff to our vets. But the way I'm approaching this is as a concerned pet owner. It is not my role to advertise for you guys.


"this person" is with Morris Animal Foundation and is one of the administrators. Nancy, if you come back to this thread, sorry I don't have your official title on the top of my head. 

If anyone reading this thread has any questions about the study you can contact MAF online and Nancy will probably answer you, quickly!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dallas Gold said:


> "this person" is with Morris Animal Foundation and is one of the administrators.


I know Dallas Gold. I just wanted to clarify what she was referring to since she was using my name without actually quoting anything. I didn't want people to get all confuzzled about what she was talking about.  And responding to her, specifically as far as why it's not always the best or sanest thing to switch vets just because of this study. There is a reason why they include a list of vets in your area to contact and set up a appointment with. People just need to use their common sense and not get all worked up about changing vets because their own vet is undesirable for things like this.

And guys - you don't have to be all bashful and email the study. They have nice people you can contact on the phone.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Just want to clarify some misconceptions about necropsy and tumor biopsies for dogs participating in the study. I am a member of the Lifetime Study FB group and Dr. Michael Guy, Director of the study, posted this in response to a question:


> ......... We ask owners to complete a questionnaire and visit their veterinarian every year but those are the only 'requirements'. IF (and this is a BIG IF) you and your veterinarian ever decide to do a biopsy we want to help you with the analysis but we will never require a biopsy be taken. At the end, we suggest that you allow for a necropsy to be done by your veterinarian but we do not require one.


Someone posted elsewhere in this thread that you must ship your dog's carcass to Colorado for the necropsy. That's problematic for 3000 participants. Based on Dr. Guy's response, no, you don't ship the dog's body to Colorado for necropsy. It is done by your participating veterinarian if you, the owner, elect to do so. 

source: Facebook, Golden Retriever Lifetime Study Supporters post on 4/25/14.


----------



## california gold (Feb 28, 2014)

Claudia, do you use the powder form or capsule of mannatech ambrotose? Advanced or complex? What dosage do you use for your dogs? Does it say on containers what dosage for us humans? Thank you Claudia.


----------

