Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [FH] Azodyl + nitrogen trap (was Cozette Update + Azodyl)

Expand Messages
  • Sara
    Thats wonderful that there are other options out there other than Azodyl that caregivers can do for a nitrogen trap if they so choose for whatever reason,
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 2, 2007
      Thats wonderful that there are other options out there other than Azodyl that caregivers can do for a nitrogen trap if they so choose for whatever reason, monetary or otherwise. I just wanted to show the other spectrum and share my experiance with it, since I've had tremendous success with it and continue to have success with it.

      Also FYI - I dont make countless trips to the vet to get it - I only got it from him the first time and I now go through www.discountpetdrugs.com and buy it in bulk at a discounted price and it comes to me in 2 days, shipped cold. Its a prescription, but I add my vets name and number to the order and DPD calls him to approve it.


      ----- Original Message ----
      From: "Savionna@..." <Savionna@...>
      To: sara5266@...; feline-heart@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:35:11 AM
      Subject: Re: [FH] Azodyl + nitrogen trap (was Cozette Update + Azodyl)

      Hi Sara,

      In a message dated 12/29/06 2:30:58 PM, sara5266@... writes:


      I know this is going off topic


      This isn't really off-topic, b/c access to affordable health care chosen by the consumer is an important topic that applies to all domesticated animals (and humans). And the same issue that we're talking about with probiotics could just as well apply to the other dietary supplements used for heart cats, incl Q10, carnitine, taurine, etc.


      but couldnt alot of that be said for most of the human drug companies out there too?


      Not quite. Drug companies by and large mfr and sell "drugs"...that is, (primarily) synthetic medications with (usually) one isolated compound that has been patented for use in treatment of disease.

      Probiotics are a dietary supplement. Not a drug.


      If I had to choose between getting all of those ingredients individually, trying to add in foods that cats especially tend to be picky about, or spending a little extra and having it be a one stop shop, I'm going for the 1 pill form


      And that's entirely your choice. No one is preventing you from purchasing a product from a veterinarian. But what about caregivers who can't afford "a little extra"? Who, eg, can't take time off from work to take their cat, who gets so stressed in the car that he vomits, to a vet ofc visit for $50, then pay another $30 for a product? Or what about cats who get stressed from being pilled with a #1 size capsule 1-3x/day but would eat 1/2 tsp pumpkin in their food?

      And what would you think if we knew that 1/2 tsp of pumpkin, which costs a fraction of a penny, traps 30% waste in your cat...while a capsule from the vet, which cost $50 for an ofc visit and $30 for the product, traps 10%? As caregivers, we can't decide which approach is more effective for our cats, b/c no study results have been released on Azodyl use in cats (if such studies have even done...and I'm not talking about one vet's observations. For the record, controlled clinical trials are not required for dietary supplements. But without them, what is Vetoquinol's basis for its claims?).


      , in which the gel coating is additionally helpful in allowing the probiotics extra time to be able to get into the lower intestines before total dissolution to get at the toxins that lie there.


      Enteric coating is a terrific idea. What evidence has Vetoquinol made public that the enteric coating on their product is providing benefit to the cat either in itself or as compared with similar products that don't have enteric coating?


      I just dont see how packaging probiotics and marketing it to make it more readily available to consumers for the renal health of our beloved animals is unethical and detrimental to common welfare.


      B/c this doesn't make it "more readily available." Since vets are the gateway to this product, it is "readily available" only from vets who sell it. From http://www.dvmnews.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=338568: "This month, Azodyl´┐Ż becomes available exclusively to veterinarians."

      This isn't a perfect analogy...but say you have a cardiac cat and the vet tells you there's a great "new" product for heart disease (altho you have to take the mfr's and the vet's word for it b/c there are no studies on it for cats), but you can only get it from him. So you buy the product for, say, $20...plus the $50 ofc visit...and find out that the product is taurine. How is that of greater benefit to caregivers and their beloved animals than spending $5 for taurine at the health food store...or $1 for beef heart at the butcher?

      And let's further imagine that the brand of $5 taurine you've been buying at the health-food store for your cat...who is doing great on this supplement and readily accepts the product, so you don't want to change...is suddenly no longer available except from vets, for $20 plus an ofc visit charge. How does that help a caregiver take care of a cat?


      Its no different than marketing any other allergy medicine, birth control pill, sleep aid etc.


      Yes, it is. B/c these beneficial bacteria are not medications. They are dietary supplements.

      You cannot buy Zyrtec-D (allergy), Ortho Tri-Cyclen (contraception), or Ambien (sleep) without an Rx. You can buy Benadryl (allergy), Ortho-Gynol (contraception), and Unisom (sleep) from any pharmacy or online, without going to a doctor's ofc or paying for an ofc visit.


      This is just a senstive subject for me because not too long ago my dog was on his death bed in renal failure, and after the mounds of research I had done on nutrition, supplements, sub q's, my brain felt like a huge pile of mush.


      Sorry to hear about your dog. You are completely free to use whatever products as you see fit. And if you are happy with a particular product that is working well for your animals, that's great.

      But there are caregivers who cannot afford to buy dietary supplements thru a veterinarian...and who may benefit from knowing that there are other ways to approach the same goal in caring for their sick cats as buying a vet-exclusive product. What they buy is ultimately their choice...but making informed decisions requires information. More generally, medicalizing dietary supplements is a dangerous, let alone costly, trend. Perhaps you don't remember the battles around the DSHEA in 1994 (that continue to this day) or the uproar in 2002 when the AAFCO got involved in trying to ban dietary supplements for animals...and aren't aware of ongoing attempts at restricting use of dietary supplements for animals (and humans) or prohibiting veterinary compounding. The issue with Azodyl is one small part of a much larger picture...and it leads in the direction of limiting choices and increasing costs in health care for animals and humans incrementally. But slow drips erode just as
      surely as floods.


      For me to find 1 pill that accomplished this "intestinal dialysis" was a godsend.


      That's great. I hope it works well for your animals. // Rosemary

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ian Hudgings
      Rosemary: Thank you for that informative review of Azodyl (and other diet supplements) versus drugs. I whole-heartedly agree that patenting and restricting
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 4, 2007
        Rosemary:

        Thank you for that informative review of Azodyl (and other diet
        supplements) versus drugs. I whole-heartedly agree that patenting and
        restricting the distribution of "veterinary drugs" such as Azodyl is a
        disheartening trend. While I'm not as informed as I would like about
        Azodyl, the same company manufactures Epakitin which is nothing more
        than calcium carbonate and chitosan. In the case of Epakitin they
        have chosen an less effective phosphorus binder, calcium carbonate,
        that often exacerbates the common CRF complication of hypercalcemia
        rather than using a more effective (and expensive) phosphorus binder
        such as aluminum hydroxide. For a company that spends millions of
        dollars on marketing Azodyl and Epakitin there is shockingly little
        clinical research on these products.

        Ian Hudgings
      • Sara
        A side note to this, not every CRF cat or dog needs a more effective phosphate binder, like Alternagel or Renagel. Bogey has been in CRF for almost 1 year,
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 5, 2007
          A side note to this, not every CRF cat or dog needs a more effective phosphate binder, like Alternagel or Renagel. Bogey has been in CRF for almost 1 year, and has always had normal, or near normal phosphorus levels, so putting him on straight alum hydroxide could run the risk of running phosphorus level too low, also not a good thing. Even though I could go out and buy some chitsan and calcium carbonate separately, Epakitin is the right combination that works for us for now, just makes my life easier. One day, that is hopefully far off, we probably will get to that point where he needs something stronger, these diseases are so unfair :(



          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Ian Hudgings <ian@...>
          To: feline-heart@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2007 6:56:35 PM
          Subject: Re: [FH] Azodyl + nitrogen trap (was Cozette Update + Azodyl)


          Rosemary:

          Thank you for that informative review of Azodyl (and other diet
          supplements) versus drugs. I whole-heartedly agree that patenting and
          restricting the distribution of "veterinary drugs" such as Azodyl is a
          disheartening trend. While I'm not as informed as I would like about
          Azodyl, the same company manufactures Epakitin which is nothing more
          than calcium carbonate and chitosan. In the case of Epakitin they
          have chosen an less effective phosphorus binder, calcium carbonate,
          that often exacerbates the common CRF complication of hypercalcemia
          rather than using a more effective (and expensive) phosphorus binder
          such as aluminum hydroxide. For a company that spends millions of
          dollars on marketing Azodyl and Epakitin there is shockingly little
          clinical research on these products.

          Ian Hudgings



          Your reply will go to the author of this message. If you feel your reply will benefit the entire group, please change the "To:" line to feline-heart@yahoogroups.com
          Yahoo! Groups Links



          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.