Is your dog sick as a human?

I guess it’s not enough that people everywhere are urged to get a flu vaccination every year, now we have to worry about our dogs as well.


I just received an urgent e-mail written in large text in various shades of RED, urging me to vaccinate my dog against canine influenza due to an outbreak in my county.

I’m not worried. First, because unfortunately my dog passed away almost a year ago, and secondly because, according my research:

Canine influenza is a disease of dogs; no evidence exists that people can catch it. Like human flu patients, dogs with canine influenza develop respiratory symptoms such as coughing and sometimes runny noses. And like humans, most dogs that contract the flu will be only mildly sick and recover on their own.


I’m not downplaying the problem of having a sick pet, and I realize respiratory problems in creatures who rely heavily on their noses to detect danger, food, friends etc, can be serious, but I sort of get the idea that, as with people, someone who makes money on selling and administering the vaccine wants to make sure everyone is too scared not to get it.

I had a dog for 12 years and never ONCE even heard of canine influenza. Now, all of a sudden, it’s a thing and pet owners need to be acutely aware of it. Yes, I discovered dog adoptions in the County have been suspended due to an outbreak, and obviously no one wants to take on an already sick pet and be on the hook for medical care that should have been provided and paid for by a shelter, but can we all say it slowly together – OVER RE ACTING?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against vaccines at all, and I don’t want to see any pet become ill any more than I want to be ill myself, but just as with myself, I’m less than enthusiastic about running to the doctor to get shot full of chemicals as a reaction to a panicked e-mail.

Let’s stop all this hyper-awareness and fear-mongering now while we still can. That’s something I’d be willing to be vaccinated against.

Risk vs. benefit - what's worth it?

Yesterday's post was sidelined by computer problems.

Today I'm up an running on a laptop and surfing the web for more imponderables. Today's question - is the benefit really worth the risk?

Apparently the FDA has approved another new diabetes drug called Victoza despite some evidence that the drug may cause a rare form of thyroid cancer. {The Victoza website includes the cancer warning as the first line under Important Safety Information}.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get why someone would feel the risk of getting cancer is better than trying some other drug to control diabetes. The instance of cancer may be small [and so far seems only to have occurred in laboratory rats], but nevertheless, why should a patient accept the prospect of a debilitiating [at best] and deadly [at worst] disease in order to fight another debilitating and often deadly disease? What really is the trade off?

Sure it's fine if you're not one of the unlucky few to develop cancer as a side effect of your treatment, but what if you are? Then was the risk worth it?

I think the real issue here is, the cost of defending the pharmaceutical company against lawsuits should someone develop cancer as a result of taking the drug, is minimal compared to the profit the company will make by selling the drug and having their reps convince doctors the drug is safe and effective in most cases.

Let's call a spade a spade here. The financial benefit outweighs the financial risk and the cost of human life has nothing to do with the equation.

Eating may be hazardous to your health

I came across this article put out by the Associated Press discussing the need for more warnings on food labels. Pediatricians are apparently spearheading the movement in response to the alarming number of choking deaths of children.

As a mother of children who were once small, I’m all about fear of choking. I can vividly recall several incidents of having to jam my finger into a tiny mouth and pull out something dangerous that should not have gone in there in the first place and I can also recall those missed heartbeats any time one of my kids got that ‘I can’t swallow this’ look in their eyes.

It’s terrifying to say the least and it’s one of the hundreds of job hazards that come with being a parent. Constant vigilance over what goes in your child’s mouth is…well…constant.

However, I have to ask myself how many warning labels are really necessary before we can deem our children completely safe. When does it end? The article cites hot dogs as a particularly dangerous food and mentions a parent by name who lost her child in this horrible way. Just like hot dogs, grapes, raisins, lollipops, beans, berries, even peanut butter can pose a risk – not only for children but adults as well. Bread, bagels, hard candy, meat of any kind, apples, carrots…anything that doesn’t melt quickly at body temperature has the potential to cause a choking hazard. Do all these foods really need labels stating that?

I have no desire to blame the victim or cast aspersions on a grieving parent, but the line in the first paragraph of article that states his anguished mother never dreamed that the popular kids' food could be so dangerous is a head/desk moment for me. Kids are born knowing how to swallow, but they’re not born knowing how to chew. Any food you put in your kid’s mouth has the potential to be dangerous. If you’ve never dreamed something could choke your child, you’re sleeping a little too soundly to be a parent.

It occurs to me also that putting these warnings on foods, though they’re meant to spare parents the agony of losing a child, may in fact cause more problems than they solve. If, after reading the warning label on a package of hot dogs, a parent gives their child a hot dog anyway and the child does choke, is that parent now guilty of child abuse or even worse, negligent homicide? After all, a family services agent could certainly ask – ‘If you knew this food posed a choking hazard, why did you give it to your child?’ Imagine the horror of having your child choke to death being compounded by guilt that you didn’t heed a warning label.

Instead of putting warnings on every single food product on the market, since they all could potentially cause a choking hazard if you have to put them in your mouth, maybe children should now come stamped with a universal warning: Small objects, if inserted into an orifice, can cause damage. This includes ALL foods. Proceed with caution.

Lead us not into cheap jewelry

As if parents don’t have enough to worry about, now we have to fear the cute little necklace or charm bracelet we bought at Wal*Mart will give our kids brain damage.

I’m all for laws protecting children from dangerous products, but I wonder if the terror associated with the possibility of lead poisoning isn’t being taken just a little too far.

This article is basically a big pat on the back for the Chairman of the Consumer Safety Commissions, who is cracking down on jewelry and toys imported from China which may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The danger posed by exposure to these two heavy metals, according the article, is extensive. Children can suffer brain damage which can lead to severe developmental disorders.

The mere idea that such harmful substances might be found in items given to children is reprehensible and the Commissioner should be congratulated for her vigilance and dedication to protecting American families. I can’t really argue with that – but if you read the article carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does it explain exactly how lead or cadmium poisoning occurs.

Answer.com has this to say about Cadmium poisoning:

Cadmium can be very toxic, and is dangerous if it is swallowed or inhaled.

And this to say about lead:

Lead poisoning occurs when a person swallows or inhales lead in any form.

Note the danger seems to lie in the swallowing or inhaling of these metals, not the wearing or touching of them. Now, of course I realize that young children do often put things they’re not supposed to in their mouths. They swallow small toys, suck on them, and occasionally even stuff them up their noses. Hence the danger of poisoning – but the article doesn’t explain this. It sort of insinuates that if your child happens to be wearing a cheapo pendant from one the brands in question, rip it off her little neck. Slap that bracelet right off her wrist this instant because it’s giving her brain damage.

Clearly, the proper response to this information should be panic, clear and simple.

Let me repeat, I’m all for product safety, especially when it comes to toys, but I think the important bit of information that’s neglected here is this: Parents, don’t allow your children to put jewelry in their mouths. If your child can’t keep that necklace or bracelet or small toy out of her mouth, don’t let her play with it.

I realize a warning like this would put the responsibility for a child’s safety on the parents, and let’s face it, what parent has the kind of time these days required to actually supervise their child? Seriously. So, rather than caution parents to make sure their kids aren’t eating things that were not intended to be eaten, the message is: You too could be a victim!

If only a dose of reality were better than a pound of litigation, maybe parents could get the real facts from articles designed to warn them about potential dangers, rather than more hype designed to scare them senseless.

You must have read my mind

Despite the usually negative theme in popular science fiction, I’ve always thought it would be kind of cool if someone could read my mind. First of all, they’d probably find my jumble of thoughts to be endlessly entertaining and two, they would know when to take out the garbage, change the channel, turn the heat up…whatever. I wouldn’t have to actually tell people [meaning my family of course] what I wanted them to do, and thus waste time having to 1) find them, 2) get their attention, 3) make my wishes clear in a language they can understand, 4) repeat myself.

I don’t think that would be so bad. But after having read this article the other morning, I’m rethinking my stance on the benefits of telepathy.

Due to the recent airport security snafus there’s a scramble to figure out better ways to keep airplane passengers safe. I have no problem with increased security at the airports. I hate to travel by plane, and the harder it gets to do so freely, the more money I will save by not paying the ridiculous prices they charge these days for airfare. Eventually, it will just be too expensive to fly and either the airlines will all go out of business and we’ll have to learn to flap our wings, or the airlines will lower their prices and we’ll be able to afford to fly.

In the mean time, the people who do fly will have a much harder time getting from the ticket counter to their seats. Especially if airport security is doing some of the things mentioned in this article. First you’ll have the mind readers – hey, at least psychics will be able to find work in this economy. The problem with mind readers is, what do they do with someone whose mind is blank? Blink. Blink. Or someone who’s taken a handful of Dramamine and is seeing pink elephants in the duty free shop? What about every kid over the age of 4 whose mind is on the last rock’em, sock’em shoot up video game they played? If they’re going to be looking for real thoughts of violence and mayhem, they’ll have to wade through all the thoughts of virtual violence and mayhem first.

Next, apparently they will be flashing disturbing images at people. This could be a problem depending on the images they show. For instance, if they flash me a picture of my latest real estate tax bill, I would certainly entertain dangerous thoughts. Lie detectors would be a problem too. Suppose they’re going through your suitcase and pull out the new bathing suit you just bought for your trip to the Bahamas. Their question: “Ma’am, do you really think you can squeeze yourself into a size 14 spandex?’

Come on. How do you answer that without being hauled off to jail? Either you lie or you kill someone.

Seriously, though – the bottom line is, in order to be ‘fair’ and ‘constitutional’ the airlines have to treat all passengers the same way. They can’t profile and that means, as the article says, they’ll be forced to waste time confiscating grandma’s knitting needles while the guy with the bomb strapped to his testicles waltzes by because he has no problem fitting into a size 14 spandex and he’s wearing flat shoes.

My question is, don’t we have the right to be safe, even if it means some people are inconvenienced and others are offended? If you want to know what I think, you’ll have to read my mind.