Comments on: Dr. Dodds, the Rabies Challenge Fund, and PETA: Which side are you on?

By: Deirdre Curran

Deirdre Curran — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:05:51 +0000

Right on Paul, right on. There is no reason they can’t establish the same information with the use of titer tests or something along those lines, in a more highly developed format that the scientific community would find acceptable as proof. And Justine, I beg to differ - this IS about MY dog, YOUR dog AND all those other dogs for generations to come. I don’t support PETA and their insane tactics, but I cannot differentiate between two animals suffering needlessly, one a beloved family pet and one a puppy raised purely to be a scientific experiment. Suffering and cruelty are the same, no matter which animal it’s being done to.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 09 May 2009 03:08:44 +0000

First of all you need to get your facts correct: the USDA, which Dodd is following in their beagle killing experiment-project, requires that ALL exposed animals are killed. Period. SO quit trying to minimize what they are doing here, and want to do without justification.

I am disturbed that you all would support this deceptive research project on your site!!

These people have actively engaged in soliciting funds for a project that will be a beagle killing mission ultimately sacrificing 80+ dogs for what reason??? These means justify the endpoint? and yet Ms. Dodds and her research team refuse to describe on their website what exactly the word “challenge” in fact means as in what will be done to the animals used in the experiment (exposed to live rabies, suffer the symptoms and then be killed to examine….all of them whether they show signs of infection or not because they have now been exposed to the virus per USDA req)

And you all support this, when the research team hasnt even 1st acquired a valid basline of adverse report events traceable to rabies compared to the millions of vaccines given each year??

Shame on you.

I will ask the same question I asked ms. Dodd and her team, would you offer your own pet-animal to be part of this experiment-study in order to save the lives of other animals? How about animals that noone owns or cares about as Ms. Dodd is doing here, yet shows happy smiling dogs on her site.

Absolutely unreal and just sad.

You all need to carefully evaluate what you are supporting.

By: Justine

Justine — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:46:48 +0000

Deirdre - you wrote:

“In this day and age, there HAS to be a better way to get your scientific resulsts. I don’t want any dogs suffering for MY dog’s sake anymore.”

Actually there isn’t a better way. And this isn’t about your dog, my dog or the dogs in the study. The findings will affect millions of dogs for generations to come.

By: Deirdre Curran

Deirdre Curran — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:34:06 +0000

I went to the Northeast Rabies Challenge Fund lecture given by these two vets in early March, 2009 at Rutgers Univ. in NJ. I had whole-heartedly supported the research project. Naive person that I was, I’d worked on the assumption that surely this study was being conducted through evaluating Titer tests long-term. It had never ocurred to me that the research would involve laboratory dogs. And I can tell you without a shadow of misunderstanding in my mind, Dr. Schultz HIMSELF VERY CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED that at the end of the study ALL THE DOGS were to euthanized, NOT just the ones who contracted the disease. As much as I applaud all these folks have done to better the lives of our family pets, I cannot reconcile this with my love for ALL DOGS. Those dogs should not be suffering like that in the name of our family pets. HOW DO YOU DRAW THE LINE between the two types of dogs?? I have withrawn my support of the Rabies Challenge Fund because of their barabaric research methods. In this day and age, there HAS to be a better way to get your scientific resulsts. I don’t want any dogs suffering for MY dog’s sake anymore.

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:34:25 +0000

I was a little hard on her, to read back over it.

But honestly, it’s deju vu all over again when people come in with an opinion that has been handed to them pre-formed, they haven’t thought it through, and their idea of “defending it” is to stamp their little feet and say, “because it’s MY OPINION.’

We have a bit of a higher standard here. And sometimes I hold people to it. So it goes.

As for the cap lock key … well … I haven’t used it in 20 years online, unlikely to start now.

By: Margo

Margo — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:48:27 +0000

This was a very written and informative article about something which obviously gets a lot of people’s panties in a knot. It was a good read at least until I got to the comments. Nice job on shouting down the sole dissenting voice. Great personal jabs too. Next time y’all don’t forget to hit the Caps Lock for extra effect.

By: The OTHER Pat

The OTHER Pat — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:01:40 +0000

Hey Gina - I see in your picture you’ve got an ergo keyboard. Which one do you have, and how do you like it? (I’m keyboard shopping, I have a Mac, and I don’t want a black keyboard!)

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:09:18 +0000

y’all are obnoxious. especially this “gina spadafori.” who does she think she is anyway? like i want to know about her espresso machine…doesn’t she know this is a PET blog???

Comment by shirley — July 25, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

Yeah, I kinda do know it’s a pet blog. And my espresso machine’s return to service is important to the functioning of the blog in that caffeine is what keeps me smiling around people who appear to be unable to click “about” in the site navigation.

By: The OTHER Pat

The OTHER Pat — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:24:03 +0000

It sure is. It’s GINA’S pet blog!

LOL!

By: shirley

shirley — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:21:55 +0000

y’all are obnoxious. especially this “gina spadafori.” who does she think she is anyway? like i want to know about her espresso machine…doesn’t she know this is a PET blog???