Pat, what a fantastic effort to pull together those relevant studies and to take the time to highlight the conclusions.
I certainly hope some of the breeders debating this issue will read what you have posted (maybe they are, *cough*,
unfamiliar with any of the studies?) , because it is just beyond belief that UK breeders are debating level of MVD incidence. There are so many studies already, as you say, that researchers are actually looking towards research that might help dogs with better medications or care regimes, or might produce new information to help the breed and breeders, rather than rehash what has been shown again and again and again and again and again… :sl*p:
The fact that there are people with the word “health” attached to their club roles
who are disputing these figures is just extraordinary. Can they possibly, truly believe heart statistics are incorrect after more than 20 years of compiling statistics internationally? Do they think their own cardiologist within the club makes up figures? That Sarah Blott does? And one has to seriously wonder why the prominent kennel names who dispute the figures and therefore, these studies are so reluctant to share the results of their own cardiology tests (assuming they actually use cardiologists and not vets, as was common particularly in the UK club, and in contrast to best practice internationally and in the US clubs).
What some in the club want is that classic diversionary tactic: to keep asking the same question in different ways, in the hopes that at some point the answer will suit them better. This is such a waste of time as well as research effort that could be better directed at moving things forward for the breed, rather than having to re-answer old questions. This faffing about is a depressingly consistent approach within some breeder circles. We have also seen this for a long time with SM research yet in study after study, the percentage of affected dogs keeps coming back with a (depressing and alarming) consistency regardless of where in the world the studies originated.
And at the end of the day, one really has to wonder what the hell it matters if by some long stretch of the imagination, it turned out the incidence is 40% or even 30% that have murmurs by age 5? I think any researcher (or intelligent breeder) would be astonished to see the incidence drop down to, say, 30%–and yet that is still a shocking
one in three dogs that would have visible signs of disease that should only be seen in the elderly, not in the young and middle-aged cavaliers!! If somehow tomorrow we could achieve a reduction down to 30%, the breed would
still be in a devastating situation in relation to its number one killer disease and this would
still impact the life expectancy for the breed reducing it many years below the normn for toy breeds, and the problem would
still bereave owners regularly and long before their dogs should grow ill and die.
So whatever these breeders' intention in wasting time on this point–and we all know that the breed does not have the luxury of time given the array of serious health issues it faces– it certainly is of no benefit to individual dogs, the breed, owners, or (as you would think some of these club members might notice) the breed club's battered profile. This rump of breeders continuously comes up with these ideas that make the entire club look like ignorant fools. Arguing about the incidence of MVD in the face of the breed's
internationally recognized MVD epidemic is like worrying about how many deck chairs have been set out on the deck of the Titanic and whether the arrangement is pleasing.