Printable View
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING "JACK" IS NOT THE END ALL ....A INTELLIGENT PERSON STRIVES TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ALL SUBJECTS NOT JUST EXCEPT WHAT SOMEONE SAYS .... OH P.S. JACK IS GOING TO USE IT NOW (NOT FOR WORMER BUT USE IT NONE THE LESS) ..I THINK BY THE DEBATES ON THIS AND OTHER BOARDS ABOUT DE HE MYSELF AND OTHERS HAVE FOUND THE THE PRODUCT HAS HELP USES (OUTSIDE IF A WORMER) .....Quote:
Originally Posted by Marooda
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGFLA73
I certainly agree I am not the "end all," but I think the reason most people buy my book and trust what I say is that, unlike so many who post their claims online, I really do try to back-up my claims with actual facts. The products I sell, for example, are backed by published, scientific research which shows the effectiveness of sulfur (for example) on skin problems, turpentine (as another example) as an antiseptic, etc.
Therefore, before I go to singing the praises of DE, I am not going to do so because I read a post ... nor am I even going to do so because my dogs "look good" while using it ... I am going to read the published research (not quack websites) and make sure I am on firm, factual ground before I go to making bold claims. That said, here are some more actual, scientific findings which shows that DE does not eradicate intestinal parasites:
- "3.1. Fecal egg count in goats following treatment
Figure 1 shows the effect of DE on the number of eggs per gram (EPG) of feces in goats. Haemonchus contortus, Eimeria, and Trichostrongylus spp. were the predominant species of nematodes present throughout the trial. There were highly significant differences among treatment groups (P < 0.0001). Variations in fecal egg counts for weekly measurements also proved to be highly significant (P < 0.0001). Group 2 showed the lowest mean fecal egg count increase while Group 3 showed the highest after the administration of DE. The results of this study coincide with previous experiments involving DE which confirmed no significant reductions of fecal egg counts in sheep [8]. Despite the promoted useof DE as an effective anthelmintic [6,8], the evidence presented in this study does not support DE as an effective alternative de-worming drench for goats."
My Source Material
Diatomaceous Earth simply is NOT a first-line-defense wormer. It simply is not. There is no (ZERO) scientifically-published documentation that can support any belief system to the contrary. At best, there have been scientific studies showing "some" lowering of the worm burden, but no published study has shown DE to be more effective than conventional wormers. None. Zero.
However, I do concur that there does appear to be actual, measurable scientific evidence that supports the use of DE as a food supplement, which aids in both appetite, body mass, and fitness of offspring. However, a lot of these kinds of statements have been with regard to chickens. With regard to mammals, a lot of the findings have been divided, with some showing an increase of fitness while other studies showing that DE does not have this same effect in goats or cows. I still am working on finding any scientific documentation as it pertains to dogs.
Jack
MY COMMENT WAS DIRECTED AT THIS STATMENTI AM HERE FOR KNOWLEDGE AND I HAVE ASK FOR YOUR INSIGHT(JACK) SO IT WAS NOT DIRECTING IT AT YOU ,BUT I STILL STAND BY WHAT I SAID ......SOMETIME PEOPLE JUST NEED TO SIT BACK AND BE QUITE ... THE TREAD IS ABOUT WORMER. I DIDNT NEED THE SAMRT ASS REMARK .......Quote:
Originally Posted by Marooda
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGFLA73
I agree with you, no need for wise-cracks. I apologize for the remark, though I appreciate his passion for what he learned in a book. The truth is, book-writers can be wrong too and/or their material can become out-dated.
Honestly, BigFL I am not too proud to admit when I don't know something, and if I don't I will try to look-up the facts so that I try to have a leg to stand on when I speak about a subject. I simply don't know the facts about many things in life ... and I am still learning here as I go along ... so I am here to gain knowledge also. We never stop learning!
If, through my research, I would have learned that DE is positively a better wormer than conventional means, then I would be in the process of re-writing the worming section of my book. Believe that! Instead, what I have learned here is that DE *is* a beneficial product, and without your guys' input I would never have researched it this hard. In doing so, I myself have become more educated on the subject, and I hope so too have others. What is good to do is try to be rational and civil, and I thank you very much for having done so here. We may not agree on everything, but I hope we can both always remain courteous and realize we have BOTH learned some new things by way of this debate.
And, actually, that is the purpose of intelligent debate: for both parties to discuss their differences, in order to discover the truth, so that BOTH parties come away the better-off for it. So, in the end, I may be re-writing my book after all, but it won't be in the worming section, it will be in the nutrition section.
Cheers,
Jack
"A INTELLIGENT PERSON STRIVES TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ALL SUBJECTS NOT JUST EXCEPT WHAT SOMEONE SAYS"
"SOMEONE" applies to yourself as well. Not merely "other people".
Don't merely accept what YOU say either. Be open minded and accept TRUTH/FACTS! You'll be better off for it.
I won't use DE. Nothing positive for worming and no scientific proof of any kind supporting health benefits for dogs.
I'm glad you guys did all this. One less thing for me!