The PROOF that venomoid snakes are not safe!`

Originally Posted by SPJ

So let me see if I am reading this right.
Vipers cannot regenerate even if tissue is missed but elapids can?
Sabatini micro chips his voids?
Gabbys are freehandled? The fangs on those snakes are HUGE and could cause serious damage whether or not they inject venom.
Why void a snake if you cannot guarentee the surgery and state they should be treated as an intact snake? Seems to me that if you follow your own advice, there is no need for the surgery in the first place.

What I am taking from his postings are he does not want to hurt the business of Sabatini. See if Sabatini was really worried about being sued he could put in his paper work that it has been seen that venomoids repair gland that is missed to become venomois again. But this would also lose him business and he knows this. that is why it is a dance around it to word it were it hides this fact. But leaves him in the clear.

It is simple Sabatini is human and not perfect. the said thing is that it may take a snake he has done the surgery to kiling a huan for him to rethink his selling ways.

I know that voids are not going away but at the same time a vet and a supporter that wants the FACTS out should include these important facts that a vet is human and can make a mistake............

Originally Posted by Gary O

What I am taking from his postings are he does not want to hurt the business of Sabatini. See if Sabatini was really worried about being sued he could put in his paper work that it has been seen that venomoids repair gland that is missed to become venomois again. But this would also lose him business and he knows this. that is why it is a dance around it to word it were it hides this fact. But leaves him in the clear.

It is simple Sabatini is human and not perfect. the said thing is that it may take a snake he has done the surgery to kiling a huan for him to rethink his selling ways.

I know that voids are not going away but at the same time a vet and a supporter that wants the FACTS out should include these important facts that a vet is human and can make a mistake............

Gary,

I would like to correct you. Please do NOT make false statements without any knowledge. Any opinions I have stated were my personal examples to simply answer Mr. Moore and your questions. If you want a concrete answer, please turn your head away from the monitor and pick up the phone and call (631) 745-7746 . Ask Dr. Sabatini directly so you don't have to dance around this for the rest of your life, then post the answer. I'll give you some rope, but I aint gonna pull you out my friend.

Nobody wants to kill anyone or cause harm Gary. What's wrong with you? Why is it that you can discuss things in a mature manner and you always have to go in the deep end. You might have to move to England where voids are against the law that way you can say you saved a lot of people. Who has died? Who has gotten killed from a venomoid? Please let me see some real actual evidence about that? What snake sold by Dr. Sabatini since 2000 has been able to produce, inject, or partially grow anything?

Finally, I understand what you want as far as stating veterinary malpractice in a document. I understand your point of view and the only thing i can say and only as an opinion is that document represents a legal liability release form. I'll say it again before someone quotes me to construct a well craft reply. It is ONLY my subjective opinion that the document presented to buyer when a venomoid is paid is a liability release form.

Now, can i call Jeremy myself? sure. Can i find out for you? maybe. Why is it that i won't do it? Because since 2004 the topic of venomoids has been a hot item that several people like to express their opinions here, but when i asked anyone to give me a call or call someone or stop by the table to ask the question directly, nobody can do it, why? I've done plenty to put up information on my website, research for facts, find out information from Dr. Fry, contact AVMA, contact multiple venomoid owners and I even have spoken to Rich Richie. I did all of that because i had an interest in providing info to the general public so the confusion about voids can stop. These issues that you are concerned about should be directly addressed with the business in question. call or email Dr. Sabatini and tell him Christian sent you.


I think I even gave you myphone number Gary and you never called me.

Originally Posted by SPJ

So let me see if I am reading this right.
Vipers cannot regenerate even if tissue is missed but elapids can?
Sabatini micro chips his voids?
Gabbys are freehandled? The fangs on those snakes are HUGE and could cause serious damage whether or not they inject venom.
Why void a snake if you cannot guarentee the surgery and state they should be treated as an intact snake? Seems to me that if you follow your own advice, there is no need for the surgery in the first place.

A) Reparative regrowth is the ability to regenerate tissue on reptiles. Venomous snakes have that ability. Due to the distance between fangs and venom gland, according to Dr. Fry, it has been proven that Elapids that ONLY had a ductectomy whether partial or full can potentially regrowth duct tissue that can "reconnect" fang to venom gland. However, because on vipers the distance between venom gland and fangs is not as close as elapids, vipers could reconstruct partial tissue, but not sufficient enough to reconnect the gland to the venom duct. This is ONLY possible on elapids and if and ONLY if the venom glands are intact. That's why if a venomous snakes had a full adenectomy (removal of glands), this entire statement is false.

Logic formula:

p --> q only True when p is true and q is true

If the gland is intact after a ductectomy on an Elapid (p), then the snake can potentially regrow duct tissue (q).

B) Venomoid, Inc has been implanting microchips all venomoids sold.

C) Vipers are not free handled behind the table due to what you said; however, Gary claims as well as other people that a few years ago someone was handling a void Gabby. It is what it is, if someone was doing that, it's not done anymore. If the culprit was wearing a hat, then maybe i'm guilty.

D) Only my subjective opinion, but I will guess it is a liability release form.

Originally Posted by lucille

I can't believe the argument is still going on. After all agreed that physicians and vets make errors, even the best of them, that should have been the end of it.
But then again, in my readings, I seem to remember that people passionately argued at one time that the world was flat.

People will defend the indefensible, I suppose it is human nature. But sadly, there are consequences, and sometimes it is the purchasers of voids not the producers, who may pay the price and a terrible price it is.

That's why a business owner will hire a lawyer and the lawyer will write a legal liability release form. the seller will require a signature from the buyer. no signature, no sale. signed liability release form means buyer agrees with terms as disclosed. terms are written by laywer to protect the business and the seller. buyer and seller make a decision based on some residual risk. buyer is accountable for their decision.

Originally Posted by devenomized

That's why a business owner will hire a lawyer and the lawyer will write a legal liability release form. the seller will require a signature from the buyer. no signature, no sale. signed liability release form means buyer agrees with terms as disclosed. terms are written by laywer to protect the business and the seller. buyer and seller make a decision based on some residual risk. buyer is accountable for their decision.

This is clearly an admission that there IS something to worry about in voids, which is what many of us have been saying all along.

People don't spend money on lawyers unless there is a reason, and to get a release of liability drawn up by an attorney, clearly the seller is admitting that in fact there are situations where he may be liable and wants to be released from responsibility.

Originally Posted by lucille

This is clearly an admission that there IS something to worry about in voids, which is what many of us have been saying all along.

People don't spend money on lawyers unless there is a reason, and to get a release of liability drawn up by an attorney, clearly the seller is admitting that in fact there are situations where he may be liable and wants to be released from responsibility.

I do not want to insult your intelligence, but I hope you have realized by now that my responses to any document provided by "Venomoid, Inc" are nothing but my own subjective opinion. Do you own a business? or do you have any knowledge about business law? What you have shown "clearly" is ignorance at thinking a business wouldn't consult with a lawyer regarding many aspects of its operation. This includes liability, risk, penalties, regulations, laws, etc. Do you even proof read what you type?

We're talking about a business vs. John Smith selling his captive breed copperheads that he butchered in his basement. John Smith might want to have people sign off on something so nobody knows about his series of inaccurate procedures on the copperheads; however, a release of liability is a common practice and if you don't know then you have just learned something new.

What do you think happens when you take your cat for a surgical procedure to a vet? I'm afraid that if you do not understand these basic business practices that you may not have a great baseline to be discussing anything here, but I will read your posts since that's your right to express your opinion. I will listen to anyone.

"Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even to the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story. "

The basic truth is that there is a horrendous risk a purported void can pose to life. There is no question in anyone's mind that a release of liability in void production is not geared toward the ordinary run of the mill business risks, it is for the purpose of shifting risk when the purported void is found to be hot and someone is injured or dies.

Originally Posted by lucille

The basic truth is that there is a horrendous risk a purported void can pose to life. There is no question in anyone's mind that a release of liability in void production is not geared toward the ordinary run of the mill business risks, it is for the purpose of shifting risk when the purported void is found to be hot and someone is injured or dies.

Ok. So, let's assume here again. (btw, has anyone contacted Dr. Sabatini? I posted his phone number and email address)

[Example only, once again]
The "release of liability" document requires a buyer's signature in order to buy a venomoid and it only serves one purpose which is shifting accountability to the buyer to protect the seller in case the buyer dies. yeah right, but let's assume that.

now, ask yourself a basic question. Do you honestly think that if a buyer dies that piece of paper will truly protect the seller? do you honestly think if someone drops dead tomorrow because two glands grew overnight that Dr. Sabatini is going to pull up his copy of the document in a court of law and say "haha in your face! you signed this paper and you can't do nothing!" Come on! Are you really that ignorant? Rather than wasting time here, why don't you Google some basic veterinarian malpractice laws or contact a lawyer.

Your assumption is just ridiculous; however, i would like to give you another example; one that's more quantitative rather than relying on subjectivity. Please follow me here...

Which has a lower risk level?

A) Reparative regrowth on elapids w/o a full adenectomy presents a level of risk because a tissue could reattach a duct to a fang. If a veterinarian makes a mistake and leaves a gland intact someone will get hurt or die. An experienced veterinarian has devenomized over 300 snakes per year since 2002 which brings a number to 1800, but today he makes a mistake and leaves both glands out. The DVM sells the snake to the buyer the day after the surgery (even though animals do not make it to buyer's hands until more than a few weeks after the surgery, but again, we are assuming). Buyer handles his snake and never signed anything because the DVM does not have any documents at all for people. Buyer dies.

B) If 300 snakes are sold by the DVM in letter A, we must assume that the number of venomous snakes sold by other venomous snake dealers is much greater. Let's say for every DVM selling venomoids, we have 10 venomous snake dealers (we know the ratio is 1 dvm vs. the rest of the venomous market here in the US). So now we have 300x 10 snakes sold per year and since 2002, we'll have a total of 18,000. That's 18000 thousand venomous snakes sold and kept by venomous snake keepers. If a DVM made a mistake operating on a venomous snake, wouldn't you say 18,000 buyers could potentially make a mistake too? if 18,000 people purchased venomous snakes in a 6 year period, I'm only assuming but I think at least more than one got tagged and died based on simple statistics.

Is option B less risky than option A? or is option A the choice with a much higher risk level? Of course, the biggest difference is that the buyers that keep hots won't handle the venomous snakes while the void keepers will touch them every day. Even if we assume that, one person drops dead based on a veterinary malpractice vs. maybe more than one dying because it is more likely that 18,000 people will make more mistakes than 1 person.



----------------

Nobody wants anyone to get hurt or die here, but i'm just showing you how keeping venmous snakes regardless how careful you are has a much higher risk than a veterinarian malpractice. I see more posts on KS about people getting tagged by venomous snakes and to my knowledge in 6 years, i have not seen a single case where a venomoid killed someone.

Now, does this mean that venomous snake keepers have a higher risk tolerance? does this mean that venomous snake keepers are not concerned with their safety and others? Of course not. They made a decision based on "risk management" and their acceptable risk was to keep a venomous snake by following basic procedures and standards used by all if not most venomous keepers. So, how come we do not ask venomous snake dealers to provide documentation to buyers stating that if they do not properly follow some basic guidelines, the snake will kill them. Why don't we ask them to post that on their websites stating that it is low and maybe unlikely but as a buyer, you will make a mistake and die. Why ? Why can we ask Glades, Diamond Reptiles, or our friend Al Cortiz to publish that on their websites?

Are we really being fair here? or are the opinions expressed by those individuals opposed to the venomoid practice targetting the venomoid dealers ONLY?

Please elaborate.

Also, can I have an update on the cobra that bit someone and some links to that incident as well as facts? Can I have links to the reports mentioned on previous posts? Can someone tell me what Dr. Sabatini said when you called him ? come on guys!

Originally Posted by devenomized

That's why a business owner will hire a lawyer and the lawyer will write a legal liability release form. the seller will require a signature from the buyer. no signature, no sale. signed liability release form means buyer agrees with terms as disclosed. terms are written by laywer to protect the business and the seller. buyer and seller make a decision based on some residual risk. buyer is accountable for their decision.

I don't agree with this. A liability release is only as good as your lawyer or the buyers lawyer. That is why people still get sued and lose money. I have personally seen a business get sued with a liability release in hand. They lost and had to pay a large amount of money.

Now I know that this subject has been beaten a lot but I have to put in my 2 cents worth now. Do I believe in altering an animal just for my own personal gain or happiness? NO I do not. I think that it is very errogent of people. Do I feel that people should handle a reptile as a tame pet such as a dog or cat? No I do not. They are wild animals and there is nothing that can be done about that. Should people feel that there animal is 100% safe (venomous, Venomoid, Constrictor, dog or cat) no. I personally own pit bulls, a croc, rattlesnake as well as large constrictors. I understand that they are animals and should be treated as such. I do feel that a venomiod COULD be viewed as a cuddly pet. To that there was just recently a person on this site looking to get a rattlesnake for here husband. Had no idea how to care for it, properly and safely handle it or really have any knowledge about reptiles. I later saw this same person asking about a venomoid cobra.

I think what people are trying to get across on here is there is a risk of the wrong people getting one of these snakes that really should not have them. Now does that mean that you, me or anyone else is going to stop them? No! But the video is atleast a start to trying to inform people about some of the risks involved. Even if it is to just get them to buy from you instead of someone else, it is still information that may change someones plans to buy one.

Lets try to leave the animals the way that they were created. We don't need to change them for our own benefit. Lets learn about them, educate people that don't and stop fighting amongst ourselves.

Have a great evening!

Christian,
I understand what you are saying about video....I think. Here's the problem, though: You want to use it to warn people away from animals produced by nonvets, and toward V.Inc, by saying (in essence) This could happen to you, if you buy from somebody else. The obvious problem with that is that it seems you are saying that the same thing cannot happen with a void produced by an experienced vet...but, in practically the same breath, you admit that it can.

As for the other issue, I think we can all agree that if this procedure is going to be performed, it should be by a licensed vet experienced in the surgery (and, by necessity, one intimately familiar with the anatomies involved) - simply because that choice would be expected to provide safer, more humane conditions for the animal (including anesthesia, pain management, and infection control), and result in both improved survival rates AND greater safety to the end purchaser. That acknowledgement is a far cry from not recognizing & acknowledging the potential dangers, or being supportive of the theory & practice.