Quote:
Originally Posted by jglass38
No, I'm aware that its been used successfully by large breeders as an appetite stimulant. So is that to mean that in each case the animals had parasites?
|
I'm sure that wasn't it in every single case--some of them were probably coincidence.
And of course, just because it's USED as an appetite stimulant doesn't mean the snakes actually behaved any differently afterward. People can convince themselves of all sorts of things when they believe something--say a person has a dozen picky eaters, treats them with Flagyl, and 3 of them start eating again right away.
Truth of the matter is those 3 might've done so anyhow, but that person will pin it on the Flagyl treatment, and ignore the fact that 9 others didn't appear to respond to it at all. They will be convinced Flagyl caused the 3 to start eating.
That's why scientific testing is necessary. Unless you're comparing it with a control group, and you do this with a lot of animals on several different occasions, you aren't going to show anything definitive. When it's been tested, nothing has shown up to imply it's any kind of appetite stimulant. I have to side with the scientists on such things.
It's logical to assume that if a large breeder does have some sort of protozoan parasite in their collection which Flagyl can treat, that it could quickly spread to a lot of their animals. So if they use Flagyl widely to 'stimulate appetite' in all of their animals that aren't feeding well, they're going to wipe out the parasites, and of course most of those animals will regain their appetites as a result. I see no reason to believe that big breeders never have runs of such parasites in their collections. It only takes one animal, or one contaminated rodent, to start that up. If they never test the animals, and just treat with Flagyl, they'll never be aware of what happened.
Especially since several ball pythons who aren't feeding well are prone to start up again at the same time on their own. I personally think the weather might have something to do with it, you never know. lol
It's the same with B-12, sans the parasites. There's no sign that B-12 stimulates appetite, but it would be easy for a person to convince themselves that it did if any animals started eating a short time after having it given to them. That doesn't mean the B-12 caused them to eat. To determine that, you have to test it against control groups given nothing or given a placebo.
Based on my experience this year with 3 clutches, any stubborn hatchlings that won't start eating only need to be assist or force-fed twice, and then they will freely eat on their own every week after that. Works every time! It worked with all 3 of the stubborn hatchlings I had, so it must work every time, right?
Of course not, but that demonstrates what I'm talking about. You can't claim something as a remedy without having tested it properly. I have no problem with someone saying "I tried this, and it seemed to work for some of my animals (or all of them), so you might consider trying it too"...but insisting that people definitely should, or that it's proven to work, or works every time, or that they're causing suffering by not doing it--that's not really valid if it hasn't been properly tested.
Linear Mode
