PDA

View Full Version : Why does a site called 'cavalier health' (UK version)...



Karlin
19th November 2009, 08:00 PM
Have only this misinformed, factually incorrect view on whether to scan dogs or not?

http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/scanor%20not.htm

Much of this is out and out untrue and it is strange to have it there on the site as the *only* piece of information offered from a breeder perspective (unless the intention is to deliberately confuse?). Surely intelligent breeders wish for something more substantive and balanced, much less current?

Where in the world did this garbled information come from? For example, no study ever conclusively showed, or claimed to show, that head shapes had 'nothing to do with SM'. A limited initial study showed no direct connection of outward shape but even that showed some connection -- see

http://www.roycroftinformationcenter.com/Cavalier%20Infosite/Cavalier%20InfoCenter%20Health%20SM%20MRI%20to%20S kull%20Comps.html

(perhaps the writer has never actually read any of the papers?) but several studies since including the foetal tissue research funded directly by the UK CKCS Club shows head shape, in terms of internal skull shape and development, does indeed seem very likely to be a source of the problem -- a mismatch in internal skull development and brain development. In addition researchers do believe there is a relationship between the shape of the very back of the head, the occiput (as opposed to whether a dog simply has a large head or small head) and dogs with SM. But, because of ear set and fur on both cavaliers and Brussels Griffons, the breeds that have been studied, it is very hard to see actual head and skull shape to start with. Xrays are more useful, as Laura Lang has shown on her site of xrays and MRIs (see the link above, which is very thought-provoking and interesting).

There also is not any major disagreement on 'the way forward' between Dr Rusbridge and Mr Skerritt. The way forward is establishing the BVA scheme and EBVs and supporting research to determine the genetic cause and NOT to continue breeding affected dogs or dogs that scan really poorly. The only issue of disagreement (which would be normal between professionals) has been only one of degree over which dogs should continue to be used for breeding given what they both strongly agree is a dire situation for the breed if left unaddressed. Dr Rusbridge wrote a proposal (at the request of breeders) that she feels best balances limiting the spread of ever more severe forms of CM/SM while keeping the genetic pool as wide as possible and fitting the MVD protocol. Mr Skerritt takes a far more compressed view of which dogs should be bred and feels breeding any dog with a syrinx or herniation should not be done. I certainly haven't seen much preference amongst breeders for Mr Skerritt's more restricted recommendations even though he does scans for so many breeders, much less a major rush to support Dr Rusrbidge's SM breeding recommendations. What this statement really seems to want to be is a 'get out of jail free' card to allow people an excuse to do nothing whatsoever, while artificially setting up some supposed conflict between researchers.

As for A dogs producing SM and SM dogs producing clears -- first off, basic high school genetics would predict this could happen, but also predicts the low likelihood of either, especially the latter. In addition, there's a body of actual breeding data now that is showing strongly that clear dogs are related to clears, affected dogs are related to affecteds, and that A crossings produce few affecteds, while D and F dogs produce many affecteds and as far as I know at last count, no clears at all.

And no pun intended, but grades are thrown around by many breeders cavalierly... when most of these dogs have NEVER actually been graded. These are only assumed grades based on scans by neurologists who are not part of the scanning group who issue grades. These are mostly breeder assumptions of grades, and there's never an indication as to when the dog received the (assumed) grade and how close it was to the breeding (eg was the dog an A a year ago? Three years ago? 'Graded' at under 2.5?).

Finally the concluding paragraph makes no sense. A perusal of Sarah Blott's own explanation on the CKCS Club site, or indeed the same cavalier health UK site (http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/ebv.htm), or Carol Fowlers' Cavalier Campaign website:

http://www.cavaliercampaign.com/ebv.htm

would help this writer to understand that scans are currently PART of the EBV scheme and are necessary to actually produce the EBVs in the first place :sl*p: (so by not encouraging scanning, this sadly would risk creating EBVs of poorer quality for other breeders who may wish to use them, due to less data on which they can be based, and means, hypocritically, that the writer is happy to have all the rest of us who have paid to scan, create the EBV program for their benefit). And of course the whole point of EBVs is to reduce and eventually eliminate the need to scan for *breeders* (although scans will still be needed to diagnose affected cavaliers).

The writer and all others who are similarly confused are fortunate though that their website has information on a seminar to be held shortly in Bristol on the current situation with SM, research and EBVs -- and so could learn and then correct this poor information. Also someone with a better informed perspective might help breeders make decisions rather than spread misinformation.

If the site wishes truly to be a resource on CKCS health, rather than appear as a whitewash, how strange to have this lopsided, limited information on such a central health issue in the breed!

Karen and Ruby
19th November 2009, 09:04 PM
Well said Karlin cl*p

Margaret C
20th November 2009, 12:03 AM
Have only this misinformed, factually incorrect view on whether to scan dogs or not?

http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/scanor%20not.htm

Much of this is out and out untrue and it is strange to have it there on the site as the *only* piece of information offered from a breeder perspective (unless the intention is to deliberately confuse?) !.

This was a website set up shortly after the Pedigree Dog Exposed film was shown, while many of the top breeders were still in deep denial about the extent of the syringomyelia problem in cavaliers.

When you look at the items they have, or rather do not have, on the site it is comical.

Lots of articles denying there is any health issues in the breed and many articles attacking PDE, but nothing at all about MVD under health issues, although heat stroke, not really a leading cause of death in this Country, is mentioned in another section.


If the site wishes truly to be a resource on CKCS health, rather than appear as a whitewash, how strange to have this lopsided, limited information on such a central health issue in the breed!
CavalierHealth.co.uk always was a whitewash, and it shows.

These leading breeders put out a worldwide appeal for 8,000, to hire a PR firm to prove that cavaliers had no health problems.

I understand that CavalierHealth.co.uk, & the much vaunted sister site, called CavalierPlanet (which has not been updated since June) are what the money was spent on.
I wonder how many MRI's that money would have paid for?

I do feel it is really irresponsible not to update these sites. Especially now there is a fairly general acceptance that cavaliers do have serious health problems, and that breeders do need to cooperate with researchers if there is to be any future for this breed.

Newcomers to that website looking for information about the breed would not receive an honest picture of the situation, nor be told the important questions to ask when considering buying a cavalier as a family pet.

Bet
20th November 2009, 09:47 AM
Could I be allowed to clear up a statement mentioned on the Site Karlin mentioned.

Yes I am the Person quoted as being involved with the Cavalier Heart Problem and the Longevity of our Cavalier Breed,and yes I was approached by Jemima Harrison,maker of the PDE TV FILM.

This is to set the Record straight .

At the time I did believe that the request to help to get a Cavalier who was dying from Heart Trouble was wrong, I had always believed for around 20 years when I was trying to get Cavalier Breeders to acknowledge that our Beloved Cavaliers were dying a young ages from a Heart Problem, the Best way to do this was Catchee,Catchee Monkey .That many Cavalier Breeders might listen to me by doing this .

How Wrong I Was.

It was'nt till after the PDE TV Program was Broadcast and I started to think about the Cavaliers' Health Problems of both SM and MVD,I realized how wrong I had been in the way I was believing the best way to tackle their Problems was.

It had to be done the way the PDE TV Program ,and this was the only way to do it, many Cavalier Breeders' Minds had to be being focused to the suffering of our Cavaliers from MVD and SM.

I will be contacting the Site Owner to get the mention of me removed from the Article.

sins
20th November 2009, 11:55 AM
This article really needs to be removed too.
http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/murray.htm

Talking into account the number of scans in the possession of neurologists and the information that they hold,I'm afraid it's impossible to refute their findings and still maintain any semblance of credibility.
Is this Dr Ingpen any relation to a Mrs S Ingpen who owns the full sister to the Dog in the PDE programme?
The article doesn't say...
At this point,a site offering information on cavalier health should not carry opinionated essays,but only scientific facts if it's to be of any value to breeders and potential cavalier owners.
Sins

Margaret C
20th November 2009, 12:59 PM
Is this Dr Ingpen any relation to a Mrs S Ingpen who owns the full sister to the Dog in the PDE programme?
The article doesn't say...



Well, that was something I did not know. That fact was kept very quiet, presumably because it would have thrown some doubt on the impartiality of this gentleman.

I checked and you are right, Mrs Ingpen, in Australia certainly owns a bitch from a repeat mating in January 2005.

It explains just why Dr Ingpen visited the breeder and how he came to be shown the MRI scan.

*Pauline*
20th November 2009, 01:12 PM
It was no secret, though he kept quiet about it himself, which makes it more laughable that his opinions were flashed about by breeders in denial. Even Dylan's breeder sent me his essay, talk about kicking me when I was down.

Karlin
20th November 2009, 01:29 PM
What a farce then, all that fussing and posturing by some breeders at the time of PDE, putting up this man as an independent, neutral expert and posting widely to that effect!! :sl*p: That article should be pulled -- that is a major conflict of interest, and cannot believe should have been revealed when the article was written -- but perhaps they have no shame.

First that cluster of club breeders conveniently failed to mention that his wife was involved in the Australian Club, then failed to reveal that they were friendly with the breeder of Rollo, and now it turns out that they OWN a Rollo sibling.

Well, well, well. Wonder if they breed and show that dog? icon_nwunsure

I wonder if neurologist Geoff Skerritt, whose professional reputation was impugned in that 'critique' by Ingpen and who I know felt very hurt by the breeders involved in highlighting and crossposting that article (many of whom he has performed low cast scans for), is aware of this piece of information?

Murphy
20th November 2009, 02:43 PM
Karlin,
I have every respect for what you are trying to achieve, but, I am sorry to say that nothing which you have posted in your previous 2 mails is news.
This is 'old hat'.
I have worked very hard to avoid posts of this kind because they cause trouble: people, such as Bet, perhaps add a comment, retorts are made which they find hurtful, and, immediately the whole acrimony begins again.

Perhaps to focus on the future might be a better way to proceed, rather than digging up the past.

Elspeth Glen

*Pauline*
20th November 2009, 03:39 PM
Perhaps to focus on the future might be a better way to proceed, rather than digging up the past.

As long as that article remains on the website, it isn't the past, it's the present and future as anyone can read it and be mislead.

Karlin
20th November 2009, 05:03 PM
Exactly. Seems the breeders there have every desire to have this remain current history, or they'd have clarified this farcical situation and removed the article.

Given that the KC is challenging the content of PDE and Dr Ingpen's response was directly to that programme and widfely cited as proof that Mr Skerritt could not properly read his own MRI scans and that PDE was wrong, and given that there's a complaint in to OFCOM still from breeders and the Kennel Club is disputing the APGAW report and claiming pet owners are non-experts whose solicited contributions are not as valuable as the 'expert breeders' -- well, Dr Ingpen's article certainly casts an interesting light on the motivations of the 'experts'.

Professional ethics usually require a disclosure of information that represents a conflict of interest... at the very least, there should be a disclaimer at the top of the Cavalier Health page with this article acknowledging the fact that the couple own one of the scrutinised dogs' own siblings.

Bet
20th November 2009, 05:37 PM
Could I just say I do take exception to the Comment ,"People such as Bet),

I have never made a personal attack on any-body ,that is not my style.

To get back to the Site we have been discussing ,I am glad it has happened, I had no idea the Rubbish I was spouting at the time of the PDE TV Program ,and unfortunately I was believing at that time was still on the Site for all to see.

I have contacted the owner of the Site to get my Blethers removed ,also the article Bet Hargreaves writes, I am so ashamed of saying what I said at that time.

Still you live and Learn.

All I can say in answer to Murphy, where the Health of our Cavalier Breed is concerned ,it was ever Thus.

The only difference between the Feuds about the MVD Problem in Cavaliers 20 years ago, it was'nt Venemous and Vindictive like it is to-day about the SM Problem, is there more money involved for some of to-day's Cavalier Breeders.

Murphy
20th November 2009, 05:49 PM
Pauline,
That may well be your opinion, to which you are entitled.
However, the point I was anxious to make was that the whole business of what is contained on the CC Health page has been addressed, more than once, by M Carter.
If you are a member of CC, as I think you are, it would perhaps be appropriate to post your opinion on their health article to that Forum?
Elspeth

Murphy
20th November 2009, 05:57 PM
[QUOTE=Bet;343818]Could I just say I do take exception to the Comment ,"People such as Bet),

I have never made a personal attack on any-body ,that is not my style.


Bet, I am sorry that you have taken exception to what I wrote. That was not my intention.
I was trying to point out that sometimes those who add a comment - not necessarily yourself - which is why I said 'such as Bet' - might be drawn into a situation not of their making.
Since I know that you have already been similarly hurt, your name came to mind, that was all.
The last thing I would wish to do is to perpetuate that hurt. In fact I am anxious that it should not recur.That was one of the main reasons for my post.

Elspeth

*Pauline*
20th November 2009, 06:00 PM
It doesn't really matter where I post my thoughts, most people read both forums. Point me in the direction of the person who is responsible for putting that propaganda on the website and I'll address them directly.

Bet
20th November 2009, 06:06 PM
Elspeth ,why mention my name at all.

You could have mentioned ,Margaret or Carol.

Why me.?

You have know me long enough ,to know that I have always fought for the Heart Trouble afflicting our Cavaliers ,by the way Elspeth lives about 20 miles form me.

Margaret C
20th November 2009, 06:13 PM
Karlin,
I have every respect for what you are trying to achieve, but, I am sorry to say that nothing which you have posted in your previous 2 mails is news.
This is 'old hat'.
I have worked very hard to avoid posts of this kind because they cause trouble: people, such as Bet, perhaps add a comment, retorts are made which they find hurtful, and, immediately the whole acrimony begins again.

Perhaps to focus on the future might be a better way to proceed, rather than digging up the past.

Elspeth Glen

Elspeth,

I am sorry to disagree, but it is news to me, and I think perhaps Karlin, that Dr Ingpen's wife owned a full sister to the dog that was featured in PDE.

I don't get angry very often, but I am furious today that this article, that was used to cast doubt on my truthfulness, was written by someone who was so completely biased, and the despicable breeders that trumpeted it to the world knew that to be so.

The person who posted Dr Ingpen's email to every internet cavalier list introduced the subject thus..............

"I found this Email fascinating and balanced.
For those who are interested, please read
on.... I feel it's worth the time just to
get a true perspective from an unbiased
source who has expertise in this subject, so
asked for permission to forward his email..

best wishes,

Veronica"

The owners and moderators of CavalierChat and Cavalierhealth.co.uk are part of the 'In Crowd' they would have known about Dr Ingpen's close connections with the owner of the BIS dog.

What fools they have made of so many people who believed in them, and how little they care, if they can leave that article on their site despite their apparent acceptance of the need to MRI...............

"Thanks for printing the letter from Dr Ingpen Veronica -it is the most sensible and balanced letter I have read yet on the whole subject - not just because it echoes my own views - but it is fair, impartial and professional".

That was from a retired vet........

RodRussell
20th November 2009, 06:21 PM
The contents of that website may be old news, but it remains new news to new viewers. To rely so heavily on the uneducated opinion of a non-veterinary-neurologist about CM/SM just shows that they really don't have anything they like which is both substantive and from veterinary neurologists, and are throwing up on a webpage something they find comfortable and written by a "doctor".

New viewers need to be informed of the facts about such websites, regardless of how many times the older viewers have read the same thing.

There are a couple of similar websites in the USA. They present themselves as being concerned about the genetic health of the CKCS, but when you read them, you realize that they are anti-testing, anti-breeding-protocol sites designed for anti-testing and anti-breeding-protocol breeders to link to them in hopes of diverting the puppy buyers' attention from the seriousness of the breed's major health problems (especially MVD and SM) and to downplay those disorders.

The USA sites of this type have not been updated since 2004, and yet most Cavalier specialty clubs and many breeders' websites link to them because these "health" websites encourage puppy sales rather than educate puppy buyers about what questions to ask.

Murphy
20th November 2009, 07:02 PM
Elspeth ,why mention my name at all.

You could have mentioned ,Margaret or Carol.

Why me.?

You have know me long enough ,to know that I have always fought for the Heart Trouble afflicting our Cavaliers ,by the way Elspeth lives about 20 miles form me.


Why, indeed? Except that you recently posted about how hurt you had been by remarks made: hurt enought to make a complaint to the UK Club. Neither Margaret nor Carol did that.

Yes, Bet we are old friends and I know how deeply affected you were by the deaths of your girls.
Let us do our best to keep it that way.
Because I happen to post On CC , I have NOT, suddenly turned into a monster.
Best Wishes,
Elspeth

Murphy
20th November 2009, 07:10 PM
It doesn't really matter where I post my thoughts, most people read both forums. Point me in the direction of the person who is responsible for putting that propaganda on the website and I'll address them directly.

Pauline, You spoke to him on CC at 7pm this evening.
Elspeth

*Pauline*
20th November 2009, 07:19 PM
Thanks.

Karlin
21st November 2009, 12:59 AM
Yes, this is what I was referring to:


"I found this Email fascinating and balanced.
For those who are interested, please read
on.... I feel it's worth the time just to
get a true perspective from an unbiased
source who has expertise in this subject, so
asked for permission to forward his email..

best wishes,

Veronica"

And:

"
Thanks for printing the letter from Dr Ingpen Veronica -it is the most sensible and balanced letter I have read yet on the whole subject - not just because it echoes my own views - but it is fair, impartial and professional".

If both these people knew of the fact that the Ingpens owned a Rollo sibling then both knew that such a letter was not impartial, unbiased, blah blah blah.

That some attacked me, Margaret and many others for questioning Ingpen's 'impartial' position, and that he then came out defending it and STILL never mentioned he owned a sibling... :eek:

well I guess some view the whole situation as 'only being about dogs'.

I would lose my job were I to publish a story strongly promoting a view, with a close personal connection and involvement left undisclosed -- where certain perceptions could have a direct personal or friends/family benefit -- and where I questioned another professional's skills to the benefit of myself, a friend or relative...

meljoy
21st November 2009, 12:48 PM
A message to Bet.......

Can I just say I admire you for admitting you now feel that what you originally said was wrong.
It takes a lot of guts to admit when we're wrong and I take my hat off to you for your honesty.....

I hope other people take note of this and think about what they have said in the past and re-examine their opinions.

I agree with Pauline that this is not in the past but very much in the present and the more correct info we get the better.

Mel

Bet
21st November 2009, 01:00 PM
Meljoy,thank you so much for your Post, it has made my day.

I have made a number of Enemies because of what I am saying now, hopefully the Folk I miscalled in the Past ,understand that at the Time I was believing what I said, but that is no excuse for saying what I said .

Having re-read some of the things I was saying ,I am so ashamed of my self.

Just to say . I am so pleased that my Letter has been Published in this Week's Dog World's Letter Page agreeing with everything that Carol has said in her Letter to DW the Previous Week.

chloe92us
21st November 2009, 01:09 PM
Bet, I have to agree with Mel. You and I have never been "cyber buddies", we've disagreed many times, and probably have a personality conflict, but I do respect the fact that you looked at all sides, read as much as you could about SM and its research, and admitted that your initial opinion may have been wrong.

We have to all keep in mind that others may be doing the same thing.

Margaret C
21st November 2009, 01:25 PM
If both these people knew of the fact that the Ingpens owned a Rollo sibling then both knew that such a letter was not impartial, unbiased, blah blah blah.

Well, I have slept on it and I am still angry, although logically this is no different from all the manipulative cover ups that have been part of the cavalier breeding scene for years.

A person who broadcast Dr Ingpen's email was threatening to sue the owner of a SM cavalier back in 1999.
That is how these sleazy people kept the lid on the problem for so many years.

The retired vet probably did not know about the litter sister, she is just an example of how cynically these leading breeders make fools of nice people.



That some attacked me, Margaret and many others for questioning Ingpen's 'impartial' position, and that he then came out defending it and STILL never mentioned he owned a sibling... :eek:

...


The Doctor is not an honourable man.
At no time did he indicate that he had a very real interest in the reputation of that breeder, in fact in his article he was at pains to suggest he was an impartial observer on the periphery of the cavalier world.

When I read his article I emailed to ask if he was saying that when he looked at the BIS cavalier's scan he had not seen a syrinx.
His answer was......

"I can neither confirm or deny the presence of a Syrinx on the MRI you refer to. In my opinion the imaging was inadequate to make any clear diagnosis.
Murray Ingpen"

I think enough UK breeders have looked at their cavalier's scans by now to know that a syrinx is obvious enough to see, especially when it was so bad that the Neurologist said the fourteen month old dog should never be used for breeding

Karlin
21st November 2009, 05:17 PM
I have scans from both the older MRI the Skerritts used and the current machine. I also have the films with select images. In two of the scans, one old, one new, a dog had a small syrinx. It was VERY easy to see. And as many pointed out, including Mr Skerritt, the films are not nearly as high a resolution as the actual digital scans from which a diagnosis is made. One would assume the person who wrote the foundational UK text on using and interpreting MRI -- Mr Skerritt -- and who is involved on the BVA MRI interpretation scheme for the UK CLub and KC, would be able to read a digital MRI and give an accurate diagnosis, having viewed over a thousand scans now of cavaliers? I wonder how many cavalier MRIs Dr Ingpen has viewed? I wonder if the Ingpens MRI at all? Especially as they own a Rollo sibling...?

Interestingly, the same people who have publicised the letter continue, and their friends continue, to go to Mr Skerritt for very low cost MRI scans. I have never heard a single one of these people express any concern about the quality or interpretation of their scans or go elsewhere to have them done or reinterpreted. And the clubs keep working with Chestergates/Mr Skerritt for scans on breeding dogs, presumably a type of scan for which breeders want utmost accuracy in equipment and reading.

How odd that of all those hundreds of scans done, only one, the one for a sibling of a dog they own, implying at least some contact and a relationship with the breeder, could not be interpreted. And a very strange way of wording things... in which actually one does not say anything at all except admit to being unable to read the scan, yet allowing it to be assumed to mean in the letter on the Cavalier Health UK site, that there was no syrinx.

Bet
21st November 2009, 05:25 PM
Chloe,

It's not that my inital Opinion May have been wrong about SM, it was so wrong.

I sure am paying the price now, about saying how wrong I was in those early days of SM making it's appearance in our Cavalier Breed.

I never knew there could be so much Hatred in the Cavalier World,but I do understand now what Margaret ,Carol and Karlin have had to Thole,(Scots Word for having to endure).

I know now about the saying, When youve lost the Argument ,you stop Talking about the Issues ,but go for the People instead.

It sure looks like it.

Karlin
21st November 2009, 05:30 PM
Dr Ingpen's very odd way of phrasing things and clearly he calls Mr Skerritt's work and ability into question here. It is absolutely shameful that he has said such things and yet never revealed he and his wife owned a Rollo sibling (indeed all he says is that he lives 'on the periphery' of the cavalier world' -- an odd way to describe being married to a breed club committee member, show breeder, and owner of numerous cavaliers...).

Of course, the breeder involved bred Rollo many times AFTER the diagnosis, as can be easily verified from UK puppy registrations, so I guess this is the 'responsible action'... taken afterwards:


While in the UK in 2007, I was invited to examine a number of MRI images relating to this problem. There was one that was clearly diagnostic and it is my understanding that the breeder took responsible action. I also had the opportunity to view the MRI referred to in the BBC programme. I think the images were poor, inadequate and certainly not diagnostic anatomically.

How useful to the breeder and Dr Ingpen that this scan has never been presented to be reinterpreted... surely the first thing anyone would have done.

Bet
21st November 2009, 05:50 PM
I could do with a wee bit of advice about this, I have E-Mailed the Owner of the Site we are discussing yesterday, asking that my Name be Removed , where it was mentioned about the Cavalier and the request from Jemima Harrison for a Cavalier with Heart Trouble and the PDE TV Film Program, also my Waffle that I had also Spouted in an other Article that I now know to be untrue.

Just checked both are still on the Web Site, what can I do about this.

Any -body any ideas.

Margaret C
22nd November 2009, 11:48 AM
I could do with a wee bit of advice about this, I have E-Mailed the Owner of the Site we are discussing yesterday, asking that my Name be Removed , where it was mentioned about the Cavalier and the request from Jemima Harrison for a Cavalier with Heart Trouble and the PDE TV Film Program, also my Waffle that I had also Spouted in an other Article that I now know to be untrue.

Just checked both are still on the Web Site, what can I do about this.

Any -body any ideas.

Bet,

I am not very computer savvy, so I don't know how long it would take to remove these articles.

People can get very busy, so I do think, to be fair, you should give the owner of the website a little time.

Why not write a letter, keeping a copy, and give him one week's notice to withdraw those items?

If it was me I would tell him that those articles no longer represented my view of the situation and he no longer had my permission to display them.

Margaret C
22nd November 2009, 12:02 PM
http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1496

Post number 3

This has to be one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.

Bet
22nd November 2009, 01:05 PM
Thanks Margaret for the Advice, I had already E-Mailed the Owner of the Site in Question, so I will now send him a written Letter.

I think others on the List will maybe the Distress I am being caused by what I had said in those earlier Days,when I Spouting a Load of Rubbish . that my Articles have not been removed , .

Brian M
23rd November 2009, 12:38 PM
Hi Margaret

I am in total disbelief I didnt know Elvis and Jesus were members of CC ,and that they too were Cavalier owners ,you learn new things every day ,bless em.:p:fool:

Margaret C
23rd November 2009, 04:17 PM
Well, it sounds as if that is the company where the writer feels she belongs. Most people have more modest expectations.

Bet
24th November 2009, 05:57 PM
I would like to say Again that on the Cavalier Health ,Messages of Support, that the Owner of this Site most certainly does NOT have my Permission to Publish my Comments .

I want them to be Removed immediately.

Also my Comment about the Cavalier suffering from Heart Trouble for the PDE TV Film.

Karlin mentioned about an update to the PDE TV Program, I hope I could be able to give my thoughts about the Cavalier Health Problems for this forth- coming Program, now that I realize that my Remarks were so insulting to Jemima Harrison after her first TV Film.

Margaret C
25th November 2009, 11:52 PM
This article really needs to be removed too.
http://www.cavalierhealth.co.uk/murray.htm

Talking into account the number of scans in the possession of neurologists and the information that they hold,I'm afraid it's impossible to refute their findings and still maintain any semblance of credibility.
Is this Dr Ingpen any relation to a Mrs S Ingpen who owns the full sister to the Dog in the PDE programme?
The article doesn't say...
At this point,a site offering information on cavalier health should not carry opinionated essays,but only scientific facts if it's to be of any value to breeders and potential cavalier owners.
Sins

This article continues to be shown on the CavalierHealth website. It seems outdated and discredited views are to be left for newcomers of the breed to read even, as in Bet's case, when the author has asked for the article to be removed.

Written by a Human Rheumatologist, Dr Ingpen's "I live on the periphery of the Cavalier world" article, was praised as "a true perspective from an unbiased source who has expertise in this subject"

His article, written in August 2008, was sent to every cavalier list & forum and published in the Dog World Breed notes.

This was despite the fact that the group of top breeders, responsible for the widespread publication of the Doctor's views, knew that in Spring 2006 the Ingpen's had bought the full sister to the SM affected, widely used stud dog shown in Pedigree Dog's Exposed, and so he was scarcely the impartial onlooker he claimed.

Dr Ingpen said "I also had the opportunity to view the MRI referred to in the BBC programme. I think the images were poor, inadequate and certainly not diagnostic anatomically"

Mr Skerritt's scan was perfectly readable. I have always been puzzled how anyone, let alone a medical man, could look at that image and not identify the syrinx.
It was large enough to make me wince, considering that this was the image from a fourteen month dog.
Reminds me of my old Mum's saying........"There are none so blind that will not see"

I'm sure that this is a thread that will be revisited very often.

If the owners of this site are sincere in their expressed wish to move forward, then I'm sure they will revise the contents very soon. A little more specific information on SM & MVD would perhaps be helpful to those looking for information on the breed.

Karlin
26th November 2009, 05:43 PM
Bet's ownership of the article, as she is the author, is fully and unequivocally protected under UK and EU and US copyright law.

For them to leave up an article they do not own the rights to is an actionable violation of copyright law, and a very straightforward violation.

If they are wise, the owners of the site will pull the article in compliance with Bet's wishes, immediately.

There are many solicitors who would be delighted to take on a case they'd be so certain of winning. As Bet has clearly expressed her distress several times in public forums on this particular matter, it would also be quite easy to provide evidence of the kind of frustration and distress caused to the plaintiff that courts generally award well.

I have suggested Bet talk to a few solicitors. An out of court settlement that might wipe out the famed PR fund would be a reasonable expectation going on past experience.

Bet
26th November 2009, 06:03 PM
Karlin,

Thanks for your help with this Problem, I have taken your advice.