Read article here: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/en.....este.shtml

At the very least they can use it for obfuscation, and you will not likely ever hear how those numbers get used, but they will actually get used. Not for press releases, but for projections in future issues. Oh, and there will be future issues because the system will not change significantly or rapidly. But the impact is more clearly understood for the effort of having the data.

As someone who actually works with technical statistics to evaluate whether it is worth fixing a problem or not, I can clearly see that they HAVE TO COLLECT THE DATA in order to identify and attempt to fill the gaps in the future.

My last statements on this: Why are you so adverse to the concept that they HAVE TO GET THE NUMBERS before they can do anything at all. No, they won’t contribute to a final tally, and that is not the point, and it never really was.

If this event had happened to humans there would still be a lot of unconfirmed cases suspected but not proven to be related. That gap would be smaller than the one we have, and harder to fill because we already have a pretty solid system with the CDC and its connection to hospitals and their requirement to report issues.

Those numbers they will never use for anything to your satisfaction do, in fact, matter. It may well be that there is no practical way to significantly reduce the reporting gaps for pets. There have to have enough people who care enough to actually spend money to create a system like we have for humans, and we don’t enough of them today, not even now, not even after all of this.

Those numbers will, however, go into studies and contribute to a more clear understanding of the number of real cases to be estimated in future issues.

By the way, you really will probably never ever hear the ‘real numbers estimates’ projected during a crisis from this sort of agency. Those projections are used to guide their policy and actions, and are not usually in their press releases.

What WE do know is that the reporting made here at this site was very strongly correlated with the numbers reported to the FDA…

The power that provides is that outside the official channels that guide government policy and action we can create datasets during a crisis that are probably also strongly correlated to the numbers we will never see. Self reported numbers are unreliable, but in this case they were pretty good…

That information allows the people with access to it a clearer understanding of what is happening and to apply the influence they can bring to bear where they can reach. In this case those with access are everyone who can reach the website and know to do so…

The fact, and WE ALL know this here, is that those ‘over the top’ bloggers had a pretty strong grasp of the scope of the situation. They, well we, had a pretty clear picture of not only what was going on, but through the collective had a pretty systematic approach to working around the problems and also analysis of the broader implications.

So, even if THEY really do never use the data, that does not mean WE cannot… Since we have already written our representatives in government, all we have to do is keep it up and don’t let them forget it or kill the potential gains from the incident. That is your power, that is our power.

“But maybe you are right, they should not bother having anyone report anything. Then they could show they are doing a superb job.”

That’s *not* what I said.

I said that they collected reports knowing full well they had no intention of actually *doing* anything with the information. But by collecting reports, they create the *illusion* of activity, thereby deflecting a good share of the criticism they might have receive for their inactivity.

Why are you so averse to admitting that the FDA has utilized these kinds of obfuscation tactics?

if this had not hit our pets first…it would have hit us, even harder. We got the fallout later, with the contaminated seafood, toothpaste, etc.

Our country must, of necessity, now institute whatever safeguards which must be in place to protect both us and our pets. It’s not just about our pets now…it’s consumer safety in general.

Times change…and our government must change their systems to protect the people (and their pets).

We should have the right and freedom to choose whatever we want to feed our pets…without fear of contamination.

In asking for the reports and counting them they DO KNOW MORE - not that they can confirm many of the reports, but they know the gap between what probably is related and what can be proven. It is an enormous gap, one they have some data to measure by collecting those reports.

If they had not received the thousands of reports they would have no idea how to even speculate at the gap between known cases and a very large number would be basically unknown.

They also know that their own numbers match fairly well, really astonishingly well, with the reports right here. There’s certainly duplication - people who reported in both locations - probably the majority - maybe nearly all.

But maybe you are right, they should not bother having anyone report anything. Then they could show they are doing a superb job.

We have people on the Pet Connection staff who completely prepare pet food from scratch, always have, people who feed a mix of a small manufacturer’s product and raw, people who feed a store brand and people who feed a name brand.

What we are all agreed on: What’s in the bag, box, pouch or can shouldn’t be contaminated — and of course, it usually isn’t. But we need to be protected from contamination, and we need our government to be honest with us about deaths and illness.

The system fell apart (or its problems caught up with it, more likely) late in 2006. It needs to be fixed, so that the consumer — not the industry — is protected.

When we know the food isn’t contaminated, people can make their choices as they feel best.