Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:
“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”
How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.
You should actually read the “Study Limitations” section for this one.
Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it’s way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is “rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine”
I’m aware i’m cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren’t the silver bullet you seem to think.
Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it’s a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.
Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles
3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.
I’m aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.
No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.
Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.
However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.
I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.
Just as an aside, I’ve noticed “moving the goalposts” is one of new favorite fallacies for people to slap around when they don’t know what they’re talking about.
The funny thing is he moved the goalpost, but in the right direction. His argument was stricter on itself than required. It’s so funny when these people cry out fallacy, when in fact they are arguing using a fallacy.
TL;DR;
Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don’t seem to have actually read isn’t a good basis for an argument
Scientific evidence, sure, but if you’d actually read them you’d see they aren’t as inline with your argument as you seem to think.
Do you mean the one behind a paywall
Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results
Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:
“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”
How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.
You should actually read the “Study Limitations” section for this one.
Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it’s way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is “rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine”
I’m aware i’m cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren’t the silver bullet you seem to think.
Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it’s a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.
Now you’re moving the goal posts that “vegan diets are not safe for dogs”.
Another indication you haven’t actually read any of the papers, even the titles
3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.
I’m aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.
No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren’t going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.
Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.
However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.
I’m assuming you don’t have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn’t actually change the content of the response.
Feel free to surprise me though.
Just as an aside, I’ve noticed “moving the goalposts” is one of new favorite fallacies for people to slap around when they don’t know what they’re talking about.
The funny thing is he moved the goalpost, but in the right direction. His argument was stricter on itself than required. It’s so funny when these people cry out fallacy, when in fact they are arguing using a fallacy.
deleted by creator
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension the he in this sentence is directed at senal.