Of John Carter, CV 247 and curing cancer in dogs (and humans)

Years ago I remember reading something about a vet in Harrow who was having great success in treating cancer in pets (and humans!) but I never gave it much thought until one of our customers recently wrote and pointed out that part of the treatment was a raw, organic diet. So I did a little research and found that the vet concerned was called John Carter - sadly now deceased - and that his work had had quite a bit of publicity and is now (after many years of struggling) available in Hungary. As Hungary is in the EU I think this may mean the treatment is available here. Anyway, the website of the company which was set up to develop and research the treatment Ivy Medical Chemicals (www.ivymedical.com) is fascinating. Here is what they say about CV 247:

"CV 247 is a combination product comprising of Sodium Salicylate, Copper Gluconate, Manganese Gluconate and Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) taken as a solution. The product was conceived and initially developed by Mr John Carter, veterinary surgeon, who also advocated that in combination with the therapy a patient also followed an “organic Diet”.

Mr Carter established the treatment regime after many years of study and empirical research starting in around 1976. The work began after a number of friends and associates as well as many companion animals had succumbed to the effects of cancer. Mr Carter’s hypothesis was that the increasing rate of cancer affecting the human and animal world could have an association with modern food manufacturing methods and the environment. His theory and treatment was aimed at stimulating the individual’s immune system so as to resist the development or progression of cancer. The effect of this theory was repeatedly tested in his Veterinary practice on a compassionate treatment basis. Mr Carter’s interest and the success with the animals he treated led to word of mouth recommendations to tend to other animals suffering from cancer.

CV 247 was seen by pet owners to have a notable rate of success on their respective companion animals, and an anecdotal portfolio of satisfied dog owners was compiled. Credibility in the drug and treatment regime increased further when in 1993 Mr Carter was introduced to UCL Ventures, a division of University College London (UCLV). The anecdotal evidence collected persuaded UCLV that the claim should be investigated independently. UCLV agreed to carry out controlled trials and introduced Professor Peter Beverly who at that time was Head of the Tumour Immunology Unit of the Imperial Cancer Fund at University College London. Professor Beverly agreed to undertake a series of controlled experiments on the effect of the treatment on malignant cancers in mice. After gaining the necessary licence to undertake the experiment, the trials were carried out under a formal contract between John Carter and UCL.

Three controlled experiments were carried out. Professor Beverly concluded in his report that the treatment caused a statistically significantly reduction in the rate of tumour growth in the treated compared to the untreated groups and that there were no observable side effects attributed to the treatment."

You'll find tons more on the web about all of this. I don't feel qualified to say anything about the efficacy of the treatment but if I hear of any dog or person suffering from cancer I shall certainly pass the details on. Incidentally, I have a feeling that I read somewhere that you have to start treatment before chemotherapy.

Can dogs fly...?

We are looking into taking our American dogs (my wife is American and so three of our family dogs reside in the US) to our home in Ireland. The last time we considered doing this I did quite a bit of research and became so worried about their welfare that I gave it up. Now I have been introduced to Dana at Pet Movers (dana@petmovers.com) and she has been so reassuring about the whole thing that we are on for it again. She says that the secret is a) use only airports and airlines that treat the dogs as live cargo and not as luggage and b) get prior approval for everything so that there is minimal delay. She warned me against giving the dogs sedatives (which one vet had been suggesting) as it can endanger their health at altitude and told me that not once - ever - has she come across a dog that didn't recover quickly from the experience. It looks as if our dogs will fly after all!

Why your dog doesn't need crunchy food...

On the first night of my French Exchange (what a harrowing three weeks that was) the father of the family where I had been imprisoned became somewhat intoxicated and long after the rest of us were abed could be heard singing in the kitchen. At 2am he began to shout: 'Voltaire, au panier! Victor Hugo, au panier! De Saint Exupéry, au panier!' He must be seeing dead writers and philosophers the way other people see pink elephants, I thought to myself, as I attempted to sleep. Odd, though, that he should be trying to get them into a basket. I made a joke of it, in my broken (oh, OK, pathetic) French, at breakfast next morning to the considerable amusement of all present. Voltaire, Victor Hugo and De Saint Exupéry being the family's three Spaniels.

Why am I waffling on about this? Because the experience prepared me for dogs with unusual names. And so when a prospective customer called today to talk about her Dachshunds - Darwin and Hooker (no, no, not what you think, named for the famous 19th Century biologist) - I was not taken by surprise.

I convinced my caller that a raw diet would be better for her dogs but she was harder to persuade when it came to not adding mixer. 'They need it,' she kept saying, 'because they want something to chew on.' Well, we discussed it a good bit and in the end I dropped the subject because I could tell I was causing irritation (or maybe I should say more irritation than usual). The truth is, however, that dogs don't need mixer, kibble or biscuits in with their food because unlike we humans dogs don't chew much. Their teeth are designed to tear meat of the bone not to - um - masticate. That's why you see dogs gulping down their food. Their primary objective is to get it into their stomach as quickly as possible in order to start digesting it. There are lots of other reasons not to feed dogs mixer, kibble or biscuit, not least the fact that they shouldn't be eating more than a tiny amount of grain. Also, what they really want for their teeth and to exercise their jaws and upper body is bones. Foam rubber, incidentally, is not considered good for dogs. Just thought I would mention it.

Dogs versus cats. The great debate.

Quick. Nip into your local newsagent and pick up a copy of the latest New Scientist because the cover story by Kate Douglas is all about the relative merits of dogs versus cats. She looks at 11 different factors - size of brain, shared history, ability to bond, popularity, understanding, problem solving, vocalisation, tractability, supersenses, eco-friendliness and utility. The piece is packed full of fascinating canine and feline facts but as this is a dog blog I'll focus on the former. Here's a selection of things I never knew before:

• The oldest archaeological remains of dogs are 31,000 years old. The entire dog genome has now been sequenced, incidentally, and the results suggest domestication around 50,000 years ago. However, Peter Savolainen of the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden thinks it is only 16,000 years ago and that the first dogs to be domesticated were to be found around the the Yangtze river in China and were probably destined for the dinner table.
• Give a 4 month old puppy the choice between canine and human companionship and they choose us!
• Rico the border collie can understand 200 different words.
• Dogs, unlike say chimps, can understand gestures and looks, too. They are predisposed to inspect our faces for information, reassurance and guidance.
• Dogs learn in the same way as babies using a technique called pedagogy which entails implicit teaching. Other animals, such as dolphins, for instance, learn by emulation.
• Dogs see in the dark five times better than humans.
• A dog's sense of smell is up to 100 million times better than a human's.
• A medium sized dog's ecological footprint - the area of land required to keep it fed - is 0.84 hectares. Even a chihuahua requires 0.28 hectares.

Really, a fascinating piece if you can get hold of a copy. While I am on the subject of canine versus feline difference it is interesting to see their different begging techniques - as demonstrated by the photo above.

Thank you Canine Health Concern

I've just sent a long email to Catherine O'Driscoll, founder of Canine Health Concern (CHC), to thank her for her campaigning and to let her know how useful I have found her website. Catherine (I hope she won't think it impertinent of me to call her by her first name) is best known for her books explaining why canine vaccines are so detrimental to canine health. However, she has also been a fervent advocate of raw feeding and through CHC commissioned some interesting research which is summarised on their website (www.canine-health-concern.org.uk) as follows:

We asked people who had changed their dogs away from pet food and onto raw meaty bones to take part in some research. Our results showed that Natural Food - including raw meaty bones - is Better for Dogs than Processed Pet Food

Eighty-nine dog owners took part in the survey. Seventy-four per cent had changed to the raw meaty bone diet, and 13% were already feeding a similar diet. We were astonished by the results: there was a massive drop of 85% in veterinary visits shown by people whose dogs had �gone natural�. The 85% reduction was achieved by those who had been feeding the natural diet for a period of six months or more. Our own records show that, initially, feeding costs of a natural diet increase whilst vet costs decline. After about a year, quantity and feeding costs decline, too, as the dogs� nutrition rises to optimum levels.

The main visible health benefits reported by owners of the 126 dogs who were changed to the natural diet include . . more energy and activity, improved teeth and gums, glossier coats, and skin, and weight and behavioural improvements. Other benefits included lower susceptibility to fleas, improved appetite, an absence of stomach and digestive upsets, sweeter breath, cleaner ears, no more scratching, and veterinary medication no longer required.

Although dogs who had been on the diet for only a few weeks showed improvements, those on the natural diet for six months or longer were dramatically healthier than those whose diet had only recently changed. And - importantly - guardians were reporting multiple benefits for their dogs.

Canine Health Concern has been incredibly effective in its campaigning and in 1998 was the subject of a World in Action documentary. It only costs £16 to join (I've just joined myself) and it is money well spent.

Meat. You get what you pay for.

I have often felt that Radio Four should introduce a ‘Rant for the Day’ in which people with strong feelings on a topic – such as my good self – get an opportunity to let off steam about something that really, really upsets them. Like the cheap meat offered for sale by pet shops and other online suppliers.
Let me tell you why (he said his voice beginning to rise).

The amount that we spend on food has been falling as a percentage of income since the beginning of the Second World War. In 1939 the average person spent about a third of their money on food, whereas now the figure is likely to be one tenth. At the same time the cost of food has been falling in real terms thanks to intensive farming, imported food from developing countries and much lower standards.

Paying less for food is not necessarily a good thing.

Intensive farming causes serious environmental damage because it reduces biodiversity, requires harmful chemicals and creates pollution. It is cruel on the animals and birds as anyone with an open mind will see if they care to visit any of these so-called ‘farms’. It leads to huge health risks – think BSE, foot and mouth and all the extra drugs that humans now consume because they are already in the food we eat. Plus the food itself has barely any taste to it. When it comes to imported food there is one additional disadvantage: the wasted energy and resources used on transport. It is insanity to fly beans from Kenya to Britain. Sheer insanity.

Anyway, anyway, if the food we eat ourselves – especially the meat – is of poor quality (and by and large it is) and has been obtained at the expense of the environment and animal suffering, what about the food we give to our dogs? I am not talking here just about the meat that goes into processed dog food which is often what they call ‘Four D’ – the ‘D’ being meat that comes from dead, dying, diseased or down (disabled at slaughter) animals. No, I am also talking about the meat that you can buy for your dog that may cost as little as 30p a kilo or less.

30p?

The fact is, meat that costs this little can only be unfit for human consumption. It can only come from animals that have suffered.

Speaking as a former farmer I know that to raise a free range animal or bird, to feed it properly, to get it veterinary care if needed (although the worst problem I ever had with my herd of pigs was sunburn… a good farmer rarely needs to call out the vet) and to slaughter it in such a way as to minimise the stress and trauma (which takes time, thought and money) is expensive.

The only way to ensure that you are buying meat of superior quality is to know where it comes from and how the farmer approaches his business. Personally, I never buy meat from supermarkets because even if it is organic and free range you don’t really know where it comes from. Instead, I buy from a butcher I trust or direct from the farmer. It costs more, but it is worth it.

OK. Rant over.

Major R.F. Wall and Sir Frederick Hobday endorse Darling's raw food diet

On 1st December 2005 at 4.23pm (or was it 4.24, I forget now) Mrs Self and I met by the Information Booth in Grand Central and last year on the same day, and at the same time, and in the same place we got married there. (If you are very bored and really have nothing better to do you will find the story and photos in the NY Times). This year, wanting to celebrate the happy day, but feeling that a change of venue was called for, we decided to nip up to Hay on Wye for a couple of days walking.

It seems like 30 years or more since Richard Booth, a second hand bookseller, put the place on the map by declaring himself King of Hay. That's because it was 30 years or more. The media flocked to the sleepy little market town and so did other booksellers and now it is pretty much the most popular second hand book destination in the country.

HRH's main bookshop (there is a second one in the castle) hasn't changed much over the years (although it is now owned by an American who is smartening it up) and there is still a large section on DOGS. That's right DOGS. You probably thought I was never going to mention DOGS but I was leading up to it that's all.

So, when it rained and rained and rained on Sunday we pottered over to the Booth emporium and spent a happy couple of hours browsing. Mrs. S in the horse section, me in the dog section. Of all the books I ended up buying my favourite is: Keeping a Dog by Major R.F. Wall with a foreword by Sir Frederick Hobday (you couldn't make this up) published in 1933 and dedicated 'To Jumbo from Uncle John'.

There are many gems to be gleaned from this excellent and entertaining tome but I will confine myself to just one quote from the chapter on feeding: 'The majority of dogs readily digest and thrive on raw meat.' A useful reminder that before the pet food industry started brainwashing everyone it was generally accepted that dogs should be fed a raw food diet.