# Do vets get paid for endorsing products?



## Looney Tunes (Oct 24, 2009)

Does anyone know if a vet gets paid to endorse products and make comments like --

"I have used this product for 3 years in my practice and it is incredibly safe and excellent in relieving x, y ,z symptoms."

..especially on the internet?

Thanks.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Yes they do.

Not all vets recommend products just because they're getting lots of free gifts and perks from the manufacturers, but it's not uncommon.


----------



## Looney Tunes (Oct 24, 2009)

I will share a piece of advice. CHECK your vet out on the internet before trusting your pet's care with them.

I tried an "alternative vet" with so-called original credentials from an excellent vet school and after 2 visits, my dog wound up in the hospital -- still there. 

I went and checked this "alternative" vet on-line and saw product after product after product endorsed by this individual, some of which were "prescribed" to my dog.

I am devastated, but learned a tough lesson. I wish I had some recourse.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

This depends. If it's a commercial or other obvious advertisement, then, of course they get money for it. 

However, if a product is being recommended for a particular patient and that veterinarian receives money for doing so, then you should contact the state board immediately as this is in direct violation of the AVMA code of ethics. Veterinarians have lost their licenses over this so if you suspect it, investigate. It IS uncommon, but, there's always some bad apples in every bunch so this profession is no different.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

So the vets who peddle Hill's products are in violation of AVMA ethics? Because that cozy relationship between food-manufacturer and vet may be 'technically' legal (given how veterinary regs are nowhere near as stringent as they are in human medicine) but you'd be naive to think there's nothing profit-motivated going on there. 

Hills offers them lots of free and discounted goodies, student stipends, and seminars (that tout their own products), to convince a vet to 'prescribe' their food in response to certain health issues. Sounds shady to me, and so far as I know, plenty of vets see nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't call it 'uncommon' at all (heck, Hills has a huge presence in vet schools all across the nation). And once you've taught vet students that such a relationship is 'normal' what makes you think they wouldn't have a problem doing it with other products, too?

The pet care field has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry in the past 50 years, and that has had an affect on the types of people getting attracted to it. People need to be aware of the very real presence of profit-motivated rather than animal-motivated vets becoming more common, instead of blindly trusting them just because they wear a white coat.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pai said:


> So the vets who peddle Hill's products are in violation of AVMA ethics? Because that cozy relationship between food-manufacturer and vet may be 'technically' legal (given how veterinary regs are nowhere near as stringent as they are in human medicine) but you'd be naive to think there's nothing profit-motivated going on there.
> 
> Hills offers them lots of free goodies and seminars (that tout their own products) and a share of the sales profits, and all the vet has to do is 'prescribe' their food in response to certain health issues. Sounds a lot like 'kickbacks' to me, and so far as I know, plenty of vets see nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't call it 'uncommon' at all (heck, Hills has a huge presence in vet schools all across the nation). And once you've taught vet students that such a relationship is 'normal' what makes you think they wouldn't have a problem doing it with other products, too?
> 
> The pet care field has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry in the past 50 years, and that has had an affect on the types of people getting attracted to it. People need to be aware of the very real presence of profit-motivated rather than animal-motivated vets becoming more common, instead of blindly trusting them just because they wear a white coat.


My favorite part of the second link posted is where it says, "Use the weight of your knowledge. Don't let the client make choices about animal health." Yeah right, pull that crap with me, and my 3 dogs, 5 cats (3 of which have special needs) and my occasional fosters will walk and you will lose all of my money and my recommendations. What a crock!


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

The thing a lot of vets don't understand, is that criticizing the BAD ones is not attacking the GOOD ones. But the weaknesses in the industry _are_ blatant, and should be exposed so pet-owners can make educated decisions. People need to be aware of the reality of things.

Overall, I trust vets about as much as I trust auto repairmen (and I know some great auto repairmen). In other words, a good one is worth their weight in gold, but keep in mind that veterinary medicine is very underregulated, very profitable, and it's clients are generally people with very little knowledge about animal husbandry and a lot of blind trust in the person in the white coat. That's a bad combination. 

Also, I think it's ridiculous that many people expect a single vet office to offer an entire range of services (MRI, dental, specialist services, etc) all under one roof. You don't have that in HUMAN medicine, for crying out loud! That kind of economic pressure pushes vets who would otherwise not want to feel like they have to start making profit-based decisions in order to 'keep up with the Joneses'. It's an untenable position for a lot of new independent-practice vets to cope with. Conflict of interest exists in many places, and is tolerated a lot more than it would be in human medicine. The vets who resist the temptations deserve a medal, imo.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Looney Tunes said:


> I will share a piece of advice. CHECK your vet out on the internet before trusting your pet's care with them.
> 
> I tried an "alternative vet" with so-called original credentials from an excellent vet school and after 2 visits, my dog wound up in the hospital -- still there.
> 
> ...


Where do you check?


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

I have learned the secret about Science diet and why some vets here push it that I did not know before. 

The vet buys the food at market value. One of the big bags of something "healthy mobility" is only 30-40 dollars for the vet. They re-sell them at close to 85-90 dollars per bag, so they are making a really large profit.

One vet here pushes Science diet soooo hard. I brought Bella in when she was 8wks old to get her staples taken out from her botched spay at the rescue. Bella also could hardly walk as a puppy because of malnutrition and lack of muscle development. The vet told me my dog would never be able to walk without feeding her Science diet and that I am making my dog "go down a long path of self-destruction" and that I should feed the best to my dog(Science diet) and if I didn't, I didn't deserve to be a pet owner....

I started Bella on Evo and she was walking a couple weeks later.


----------



## LindaA (May 25, 2010)

I had to take Sadie to the vet monday night for an ear problem and right away the vet tech started talking about Science Diet allergy food, dry and canned. I know I stood there with my mouth open in astonishment because I know about dogs and allergies and foods! We expected the same thing from the vet when she came in, but she didn't say anything about Science Diet at all! I did feel like it was being pushed on me and wondered how much they were getting for promoting the Science Diet.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

You're talking about different things here Pai. I understand you're paranoid about the entire profession, but, saying that they're getting kickback implies they're receiving money on the side to push the product. Which is completely false. Free goodies? What exactly do you know that they get for free? The only thing I've ever received myself or seen any vet receive is just a bunch of crap like water bottles with the Hill's logo on it. Seminars? Please... Yea sure they show up at veterinary conferences. They should. As should every food company if they want their name out there. Is that what you're talking about b/c every medical conference in the nation has that going on. Do they make money from selling food. Of course. Just like they make money from selling interceptor, hartgard, or whatever else you buy from them. But "kickback" as you call it isn't there. And, AGAIN, if this really is going on then contact your state board and do something about it... quit barfing up conspiracy theory on the internet. Yes they have a presence at all the vet schools. So does every other company. Intervet, Pfizer, Merck, Hill's, Purina, Royal Canin, the list goes on. They hold dinner meetings and you can go if you want (they're always optional) and they talk about their products. Just because I see a Hill's rep come through my campus twice a semester doesn't mean anything to me. I have no allegiance to Hill's or anyone else so thanks for implying that I don't have the mental capacity to make objective decisions on companies and their products just because they show up on campus with a smile on their face. 

Tell me, how do you know how much veterinary medicine is regulated? What do you do exactly or what experience do you have that allows you to know anyting more than the vomit you've swallowed up on the internet? I'm not sure what kind of bad experiences you've had with vets that have left you so jaded, but, you're way off base here.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Mr V, does your vet practice sell Science Diet? And if so, do you sell ONLY SD foods?


----------



## Pynzie (Jan 15, 2010)

Wow, it sucks that there are so many vets willing to endorse random products just to make more of a profit, and others who will talk about nutrition and other things they don't really know about. I am going to vet school either next year or the year after and I am NOT going to be like that. I am so passionate about dogs its verging on insanity/obsession. There's no way I would want anything but the best for them. It makes me so mad that there are vets who don't live up to the standards that they should. It's bad enough that so many people don't know what they are talking about when it comes to dogs, it's insane that there are professionals that are supposed to know and care about dogs, and yet they clearly don't. I know it's not all vets, and there are people like that in every profession, but still! I guess all I can do is be the best vet that I can be and hope that others try to do the same.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Mr.V, if you're not part of the problem, then I'm not talking about you. I know it's hard not to take any criticism of your industry as an attack on your personal honor, but really, it's not. To claim that there hasn't been an increasing change in the priorities of large parts of the vet industry in recent decades is simply false. You might want to read the links I provided, from legitimate publications (and one veterinary seminar). When the companies selling certain products or drugs are the ones FUNDING 'EDUCATION SEMINARS' THAT PROMOTE THOSE PRODUCTS, you don't think there is anything problematic about that? Really? Because I find that incredibly naive. 

And yes, I consider Hills giving vet students stipends, gifts and discounts unethical. It may not fall under the legal definition of 'kickback', but it's close enough.

It's not a 'conspiracy theory', it's called 'conflict of interest', and it's all over the place. *Often in human medicine, too.* The more people are aware of that simple fact, the more they can make informed decisions about their vets and their pets health care. I'm not trying to 'sell' anyone anything, nor am I claiming all vets are crooked. But pet owners need to be able to recognize a shill when they see one, and be confident enough to say NO if they are being pressured to pay for unnecessary products or services. For pet owners, learning a little bit about BASIC animal health care concepts (like science-based vaccine protocols and nutrition) goes a long way.

Educated pet owners who know the facts and operate on knowledge instead of blind faith can make better decisions about their pet's health care, period.

From my above link on the Western Veterinary Conference:


> In human nutrition, it’s known that “Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors’ products, with potentially significant implications for public health.” So, exactly how much faith am I supposed to have in someone who works for a big pet food company talking to a room full of vets about home made diets and food safety issues?


Vets aren't infallible saints, and they shouldn't demand to be treated as such purely on the basis of them having graduated vet school, especially when the AVMA exists in a culture of such blatant corporate sponsorship. The vet industry is not held to anywhere near the legal standards of _human_ medical care, so stop acting as if it's somehow immune to corruption in exactly the same ways. This is a billion dollar industry we're talking about, it's ridiculous to be asked to believe it's populated on all levels by selfless James Herriot types (although, like I've said REPEATEDLY, there are MANY honest vets out there that people SHOULD seek out and support).

The AAMC has even admitted that industry sponsorship of medical education needs to end:


> Mounting scientific evidence indicates that gifts, favors, and other marketing activities, both explicit and implicit, prejudice independent judgment in unconscious ways.


In my opinion there needs to be a similar crackdown on corporate sponsorship and 'education' in the vet industry. Anyone who's had a vet tell them with horror that raw or homecooked diets 'will sicken or kill a dog', how you need to feed Science Diet for optimal health, or how you need to 'vaccinate for everything annually' has experienced firsthand the effects of biased corporate 'education' on their pet's veterinarian.


----------



## Looney Tunes (Oct 24, 2009)

In my case, I am talking about flower oils and holistic treatments, which unfortunately I even knew less about. I just assumed this "vet" was a caring individual who really had my dog's best interest in mind and would provide an alternative treatment after understanding my dog and her health. Bullshit. 

The vet provided two "catch-all" phrases --"detox" and "vaccine reaction" --and told me what my emotions needed to hear including denying a serious diagnosis made by a specialist; when in reality all that vet cared about was profit... 

When I googled this vet, nothing about the vet's practice came up. Not about providing services to the pet population or a local charity... Nope, just tons of comments and notes for endorsing several holistic products on multiple sites including the product makers website.

When I called back and reported the decline of my dog, the "vet" wanted to sell me more products -- "your dog is detoxing too fast." 

My dog is in ICU because of a vet who was poorly trained, a greedy, deceptive individual, ..... and me, an owner who was looking for anything to help heal my dog.

Call me stupid, but my dog was sick and I wanted to try anything. I hoped that all vets would be honorable individuals....I learned otherwise.

And worse yet, I have no clue if there is any regulating this...


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

What is your dog in the vet for?


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Hmm, Stipends? Wrong again. Where do you come up with this stuff? And lemme tell ya, getting a $10 or whatever it is (I don't buy hills) discount on food really is going to influence how medicine is practiced. HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE! Maybe you would be influenced so easily? I dont know. And, I clearly stated that there were some bad apples so if you had actually read what I said you would know that I don't "act like it's immune to corruption." I love how you post up a link of some random dude's blog as proof of anything. Wonderful. Lemme know when the next issue of Conspiracy Theory Quarterly is coming out.

And to answer DJsMom.

I am in school still so I don't have a practice of my own. I don't plan on selling Science Diet or any other non Rx food.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

What's your theory on why the vast majority of vets sell Science Diet and nothing else, then?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Out of my links to the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post articles, PAC Vet Conference notes, Eastern Vet Conference report, and the AAMC statement (which mentions practices that are all common in veterinary education as well), you point out that ONE link is to a blog by 'some guy' to completely avoid actually responding to the allegations behind my (or his) statements. 

Too bad 'that random dude' is actually the Director of Communications for Taxpayers Against Fraud and is actually an expert at exposing corruption in the human medical industry. He's far from a conspiracy theorist kook, so there goes your grasp at trying to discredit all my arguments by mocking one source.

But by all means, continue to exist in denial if you want. The people who actually bother to research the topic can decide for themselves what they want to believe. There's a lot more reading material out there than what I just linked in this thread.



> What's your theory on why the vast majority of vets sell Science Diet and nothing else, then?


It's not because Hills sponsors and contributes speakers to the nutritional education programs at most veterinary colleges/conferences and offers various perks to practicing vets, RBark! Those have NO BEARING whatsoever! And it's _crazy_ for anyone to claim it might!


----------



## secondchance (Sep 9, 2008)

Do you work in a clinic?


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Pepper said:


> I have learned the secret about Science diet and why some vets here push it that I did not know before.
> 
> The vet buys the food at market value. One of the big bags of something "healthy mobility" is only 30-40 dollars for the vet. They re-sell them at close to 85-90 dollars per bag, so they are making a really large profit.
> 
> ...


sounds like this vet doesn't deserve to be a veterinarian...


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Just to be clear - selling a product for a profit, even for what seems like an excessive profit - is not a kickback. It's capitalism.

I did it at every opportunity as a retailer and I recommended the products I believed were most appropriate for the project at hand.

That doesn't explain, of course, why anyone would recommend Science Diet.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

RonE said:


> That doesn't explain, of course, why anyone would recommend Science Diet.


Exactly! We own a retail business too (a dog boutique) & we have to make a profit - it how we make a living. But, I STILL wouldn't recommend (or PUSH) any product I wouldn't buy for my own dogs.
And it irks me that, IMO, some vets DO sell only SD. And I get a very uneasy feeling when a vet has never even heard of Nature's Variety - I know it's not the best, but certainly up there with the best of them.

Looney Tune, I'm so sorry about what's going on with your dog. Like someone else has said, it sounds like he/she shouldn't even be practicing. You know, some CROOKS are very very good at what they do & that's such a shame. 
I'll keep your dog in my prayers.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

RBark said:


> What's your theory on why the vast majority of vets sell Science Diet and nothing else, then?


Probably b/c a ton of people come in asking for it. Those individuals obviously do not post up on DF, but, they're out there in very large numbers. I personally don't like that SD is so popular b/c I don't like the food. But just because I don't really agree with so many vets selling SD doesn't mean I'm going to start barfing up some personal paranoia as an explanation for which I have no proof. This topic was started and fueled b/c there were acusastions about real kickback and that's what I have been addressing. Whether SD should be sold or whatever is a different topic.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

People want it _because vets recommend it._ Which simply begs the question again: why do vets recommend it? Keep on avoiding answering that question, Mr.V. 

I've already answered that myself, but here's the reason from the Hills people themselves (via 'some random vet student's blog):


> Take this excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article** (note that Hill’s is owned by Colgate-Palmolive):
> 
> “I was struck by the similarity of our world-wide toothpaste business, with the endorsement of the dentists being so important,” Mr. Mark says. “I knew if we did the same thing with Hill’s, it could be an enormous global brand.”
> 
> So, similar to Colgate’s spadework in dental schools, Hill’s now funds a nutrition professorship in nearly half of the nation’s vet schools. Hill’s employees wrote a widely-used textbook on small-animal nutrition that is distributed for free to students. Hill’s also sends practicing veterinarians to seminars on wringing more profit from clinics and offers the only formal nutrition-certification program for clinic technicians. In a savvy marketing coup now being copied by other pet-food companies, Hill’s each year donates tons of free food for the pets of cash-strapped veterinary students.


Folks can read more about the vet-school marketing strategy of Hills since the 70s and 80s here. Their ENTIRE shpiel revolves around _getting vets to sell their product for them.
_
Still, it's so CRAZY to think there's something shady about all these these 'minor coincidental connections' between pet food and pharmaceutical companies and many vets! Because apparently, working in an animal-based field automatically makes vets immune to all the conflicts of interest that such connections cause in_ human_ medicine. 

It's a 'conspiracy theory' to believe vets are human beings the same as anyone else, apparently.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

DJsMom said:


> Exactly! We own a retail business too (a dog boutique) & we have to make a profit - it how we make a living. But, I STILL wouldn't recommend (or PUSH) any product I wouldn't buy for my own dogs.
> And it irks me that, IMO, some vets DO sell only SD. And I get a very uneasy feeling when a vet has never even heard of Nature's Variety - I know it's not the best, but certainly up there with the best of them.
> 
> Looney Tune, I'm so sorry about what's going on with your dog. Like someone else has said, it sounds like he/she shouldn't even be practicing. You know, some CROOKS are very very good at what they do & that's such a shame.
> I'll keep your dog in my prayers.


 None of my regular vets have heard of what I've fed: California Natural, Taste of the Wild, Orijen, The Honest Kitchen but luckily, my holistic vet has


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I've read it here and said it myself: Do not get canine nutritional advice from your vet.

The only food I've ever bought from my (very good) vet was prescription food for a short-term condition. And he doesn't push food.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

RonE said:


> I've read it here and said it myself: Do not get canine nutritional advice from your vet.


That's great advice, it's just too bad that the many people DO put all their trust in their vet & takes his/her reommendations seriously- like my mom.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

I don't have to wonder if it's happening in that profession b/c that IS my profession so I know what happens and what does not (when you're talking about something on such a large scale). You can dance around it all you want Pai but I'm not avoiding anything. You stated that there was kickback and I called you out on it b/c you have no clue what you're talking about. That's what this topic is about, that's what I am focusing on, and that's where you are wrong. Again, i stated that there are plenty of bad apples that do shady stuff in every profession, this one is no different. So, APPARENTLY you still have no found the ability to read. 

Stick to what you know b/c you're clueless when it comes to this subject.


--Pay a little more attention to the quote in your sig...


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> I don't have to wonder if it's happening in that profession b/c that IS my profession so I know what happens and what does not (when you're talking about something on such a large scale). You can dance around it all you want Pai but I'm not avoiding anything. You stated that there was kickback and I called you out on it b/c you have no clue what you're talking about. That's what this topic is about, that's what I am focusing on, and that's where you are wrong. Again, i stated that there are plenty of bad apples that do shady stuff in every profession, this one is no different. So, APPARENTLY you still have no found the ability to read.
> 
> Stick to what you know b/c you're clueless when it comes to this subject.
> 
> ...


Wow, nice attacks. 

If she's wrong, it should be easy to debunk her with something other than "because I said so!"


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Pai said:


> People need to be aware of the reality of things.


I can't figure out why you linked to this article.

Also, while companies do provide fellowships, free (human and dog) food, and other goodies for both students and vets, and while these things fall into an ethically gray area, they aren't technically kickbacks as the receivers aren't required to sell or promote anything for those companies. I do think it creates a conflict of interest, that such as relationship does bias vets and students towards certain companies and products, and that anyone who thinks that isn't the case is incredibly naive. But they're not kickbacks.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I linked it because it describes how drastically the veterinary field has expanded since the 1980s, in terms of the money involved and the scope of services offered. That growth was reflected in the way large pharmaceutical and pet food companies began getting involved in it:



> *According to the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates drugs for the veterinary market, the pharmaceutical industry in recent years has begun shifting its energies away from the agricultural market and toward companion animals. *The number of new drugs approved for veterinary use has increased dramatically in the past decade, with special interest in drugs for behavior modification and pain relief.
> 
> [...] All of this has put new pressure on the ordinary neighborhood veterinary clinic. Vets, who 30 years ago needed little more than a stethoscope and an Army surplus field X-ray machine to set up a practice, now equip their clinics with an array of expensive diagnostic equipment, from blood-analysis machines to ultrasound scanners. Even setting up a small practice costs upwards of $500,000.
> 
> ...


Some people have the misconceptions about the scale and money involved in the veterinary field nowadays -- the change happened relatively rapidly, so lots of people still have the image in their heads of the 'simple country vet' being the norm, when that is increasingly not representative of the reality anymore. However, ethics laws and regulations surrounding the field have not kept pace with this evolution, and leave a lot of loopholes and allowances for things that would never be tolerated in human medicine. Pet owners need to be aware of this, and choose their vet with care.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Pai said:


> I linked it because it describes how drastically the veterinary field has expanded since the 1980s, in terms of the money involved and the scope of services offered. That growth was reflected in the way large pharmaceutical companies began investing and getting involved in it:


Ah, interesting. That's not what I got out of that section, but I can see why you read it that way. It has been a rapid change, hasn't it? I feel like when I first got into the field (about 10 years ago), vets were really starting to integrate pain management and vet students were just beginning to be trained in a way that made it an automatic course of action. For the better, I think. But I see what you're saying.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> Ah, interesting. That's not what I got out of that section, but I can see why you read it that way. It has been a rapid change, hasn't it? I feel like when I first got into the field (about 10 years ago), vets were really starting to integrate pain management and vet students were just beginning to be trained in a way that made it an automatic course of action. For the better, I think. But I see what you're saying.


Oh, I don't deny that TONS of good has come from the increased status of animals in our society, and what's considered 'basic standards' of veterinary care. However, it makes me VERY uncomfortable when I hear of how integrated and cozy corporate sponoship and influence has become in many vet schools and practices (with students being taught that it's normal and harmless). You hear many bad stories as is when just looking at malfeasance in HUMAN medicine, and regulation there is pretty stringent. There's nowhere near that amount of legal oversight going on in veterinary medicine, while at the same time a lot of the same big companies (like Pfizer) are involved in it just the same. It's a recipe for trouble, imo.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 27, 2008)

Do vets get any sort of canine nutritional training when going through vet school?


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

Pepper said:


> Do vets get any sort of canine nutritional training when going through vet school?


I don't know, but I've been looking into school to be a groomer, and all of them cover it. I can't imagine what they'd teach a groomer, when vets know as little as most seem to.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

RBark said:


> Wow, nice attacks.
> 
> If she's wrong, it should be easy to debunk her with something other than "because I said so!"


Attacks? Hardly. I was sticking to the topic at hand, not saying "Because I said so!" You two wanna drift off into whether this food is good and whether docs should recommend it is just fine. But, in this instance it has nothing to do with the question asked by the OP. She claims vet students get stipends and veterinarians get all this "kickback." I don't need some written proof or links to some blog to say that doesn't happen b/c I am there and see for my own eyes. What would you ask for? A written document saying this doesn't happen? Lemme know when ya wake up.

Some people will believe anything as long as it fits with their opinion, even when someone who is right there in the mix of the topic at hand is trying to tell them what really is happening.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Mr. V said:


> She claims vet students get stipends and veterinarians get all this "kickback." I don't need some written proof or links to some blog to say that doesn't happen b/c I am there and see for my own eyes.


Both Hill's and Purina provide scholarships and fellowships for vet students. Perhaps you're arguing the semantics of "stipend", but you can't argue that those companies don't provide money for education for students. Or perhaps you're still arguing about her using the word kickback. And I agree with you there, but that doesn't make the practice less ethically shady.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

If I change the word 'kickbacks' to 'lots of free stuff', it doesn't really make it sound that much better. Here, I'll even go back and change it right now.

The fact that all he has to argue over is the definition of a single word and not the actual corporate practices going on in his field says more than I ever could on the topic.



tskoffina said:


> I don't know, but I've been looking into school to be a groomer, and all of them cover it. I can't imagine what they'd teach a groomer, when vets know as little as most seem to.


Hills sponsors and runs the nutritional education programs for about half of the vet schools in this country.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Pai said:


> Oh, I don't deny that TONS of good has come from the increased status of animals in our society, and what's considered 'basic standards' of veterinary care. However, it makes me VERY uncomfortable when I hear of how integrated and cozy corporate sponoship and influence has become in many vet schools and practices (with students being taught that it's normal and harmless). You hear many bad stories as is when just looking at malfeasance in HUMAN medicine, and regulation there is pretty stringent. There's nowhere near that amount of legal oversight going on in veterinary medicine, while at the same time a lot of the same big companies (like Pfizer) are involved in it just the same. It's a recipe for trouble, imo.


Absolutely agree with this. I think some of it goes back to your previous statement that vets are asked to do too much. How can they be experts in everything?


> With the variety of veterinary pharmaceuticals increasing all the time, some critics worry that busy vets may rely too heavily on pharmaceutical company salesmen for their information about the efficacy and safety of new drugs.


 I think dog foods fall into the same category. With a busy practice - and does anybody know a vet who isn't swamped?? - I can imagine it becoming very easy to go with the foods you know, touted by the companies you know.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

waterbaby said:


> Absolutely agree with this. I think some of it goes back to your previous statement that vets are asked to do too much. How can they be experts in everything? I think dog foods fall into the same category. With a busy practice - and does anybody know a vet who isn't swamped?? - I can imagine it becoming very easy to go with the foods you know, touted by the companies you know.


I think the traditional independent-practice model is financially unsupportable in this day and age. 30-40 years ago when operating (and educational) costs were barely a fraction of what they are today it was possible, but I really don't think it's realistic today. That's why you see many new vets joining up with chains like Banfields or owning multi-vet clinics. The clinic I go to is actually a two-vet partnership, which I prefer rather than going to a big chain.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I can't believe I'm outing myself over this... with all the negativity about vets on this site I've kept this pretty close to my chest, but I'm a vet. And all I can say is I want to know when I'm going to start getting all my free stuff, cause these companies have about 15 years to make up for where I've seen jack from them.

Food is NOT a big money maker for any vet clinic I know. Clinics (with the exception of corporate practices) are generally small businesses and because they don't have the inventory space to buy in volume they usually have to BUY maintenance food for as much as someplace like PetSmart can SELL it for. Factoring in the costs of staff members who order, stock, and maintain food inventory, even prescription diets are not big money makers unless you move a tremendous amount of volume. Most vets I know would be happy not to stock food at all, but people complain if they have to go somewhere else to buy food.

As far as for why vets recommend any particular diet... I hate to break it to you but in general, it's because they genuinely believe that it's a good diet. Agree or disagree with their opinions, but it's as simple as that in my experience rather than being any vast conspiracy. I'd bet a dollar that 99% of vets couldn't even tell you who sponsored the last conference they attended, it's just not something that anyone really pays that much attention to.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

Mine has 5 or 6, and they do sell these foods, but they don't push it on people who know about food, and are ACTUALLY willing to learn. My vet gave criteria on something instead of presc foods, and said she'd watch how they do on alternative food and pass it on. And she recommended a company that custom makes home cooked dog food to medical condition needs, so there are a few out there who don't fall into the trap, even if they do sell the stuff.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

> And all I can say is I want to know when I'm going to start getting all my free stuff, cause these companies have about 15 years to make up for where I've seen jack from them.


Call them up then, because other people sure are. And I think you're greatly underestimating the deal vets get from Hills when they stock their products. I'm not talking 'food' in general, I'm talking specifically about a brand that is marketed towards vets and is almost exclusively SOLD by vets. The entire business model is built around vet practices.



> As far as for why vets recommend any particular diet... I hate to break it to you but in general, it's because they genuinely believe that it's a good diet. Agree or disagree with their opinions, but it's as simple as that in my experience rather than being any vast conspiracy. I'd bet a dollar that 99% of vets couldn't even tell you who sponsored the last conference they attended, it's just not something that anyone really pays that much attention to.


Which doesn't change the fact that Hills-employed speakers and Hills-provided written material is handed out to students. It doesn't matter if they 'realize' who it's from or not. That's a serious conflict of interest, when the same people who are paid to teach vets about food are the ones selling a specific brand of it. The same goes for drug manufacturers.

And seriously, please read and respond to the numerous links I've posted to statements from people around and in the industry who say there is serious problems with the way private companies are influencing and supporting both vet schools and veterinarians lately. Because the kind of corporate sponsorship and ties that many vets seem to wave off an inconsequential and harmless would be considered seriously shady stuff in human medical circles, and it's being noticed by many people, not just one random person on DF. I know checking sources requires reading, which is boring, and it's easier to just snap off a post rather than listen to the other side, but really, that's the only way to have a constructive conversation about this subject. Soundbites don't cut it, and I sure as heck won't copy+paste entire pages of articles here when you can easily read them offsite.

*Here even is every article I've linked to here, in one handy pile:*
Wall Street Journal article on vets selling food and Hill's (Since the archive past 2 years old is not available online from the WSJ site)
PAC Vet Conference notes
Washington Post article that describes the rapid growth of the Vet industry in the past 30 years
Personal observations on the Western Veterinary Conference
Description of the close relationships between and AAHA, AVMA, and drug/food companies
Video report on corruption in the human pharmaceutical industry (many companies that make human drugs also sell pet medication)
AAMC report on the need to regulate and publicize conflicts of interest in corporate-sponsored medical education
History of the development of Hill's vet-oriented business model
JAMA study concluding that the human medical field is not regulated enough to prevent problematic conflicts of interest between corporations, doctors, and patients
Hill's IVSA website
Wall Street Journal article on Pfizer's Rimadyl scandal
FDA's Rimadyl update and information
Vet suggestions for aspirin treatment for dogs
Pharmaceutical Rep Bribery and Conflict of Interest in Human Medicine (many these same companies sell pet meds)

Some 'conspiracy theory'. Never once have I said that vets are all in evil cahoots with big pharma and the dogfood industry. But you're kidding yourself if you can't see the very real problems with the way the field is being (under)regulated in regards to professional ethics. Because believe me, if there are problems every day in the human medical field due to these issues, you better believe it's frequently slipping through the cracks in an industry as unmonitored as veterinary medicine. The honor system only goes so far.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Sure, be all cute and go back and change the words. Doesn't change the fact that you have nothing to back up your original claims.

Hill's? As I said, I'm personally not a huge fan. Here's their presence in my school - they have a couple reps come through and give night time dinner talks twice a semester. They give out random crap like water bottles with their logo on it and provide dinner (WHOA, step back people. Useless crap and a meal sure is enough to change my entire view on how I practice medicine!) They are also permitted to have a rep come in and teach 1 (yes, ONE. Like not 2, or even 3, but 1) class in our nutrition class. The rest of my class is taught by either board certified specialists (like all my other classes) or PhDs in animal nutrition. So, no, they don't RUN any class. That's the job of the office of academic affairs (which is part of the school, not a company). That link doesn't even come close to suggesting that. Do you always just read something and pretend like it said something it didn't? 

As I said, maybe you're easily manipulated and this small amount of their presence would have a huge effect on you? I don't know. But it means nothing to me in terms of how I plan to practice.


----------



## FlashTheRottwuggle (Dec 28, 2009)

My vet is constantly changing what he recommends. Whether this means he is researching or has another reason for what he promotes is beyond me.

When I first started using him, he thought Purina Puppy Chow was great. Then he suggested that I "upgrade" what I feed my dogs from Dad's to Pedigree because it was a "better food".

After a two year hiatus when we were dogless , in December 2009 he recommended Iams. Then in May when we got Colt, he suddenly is selling Orijen and Taste of the Wild and recommended them. However I was raw feeding which he is totally against since "dogs are omnivores".  If that was so why is he selling the high protein foods now.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pai said:


> Call them up then, because other people sure are. And I think you're greatly underestimating the deal vets get from Hills when they stock their products.


And I'm telling you that you are greatly overestimating it. We stock Hill's Prescription diets (ETA: along with other brands of prescription diets) at the clinic where I work, and I assure you it is NOT a big money maker. This is the rule rather than the exception with _every_ vet I've ever personally spoken to about the subject. Nor do I know anyone who is getting all kinds of free stuff from Hill's. Honestly, I have no idea where this is coming from.



> I'm not talking 'food' in general, I'm talking specifically about a brand that is marketed towards vets and is almost exclusively SOLD by vets. The entire business model is built around vet practices.


Yes, Hill's limits sale of one specific line, their _prescription_ diets to veterinarians, despite the fact that they could make a sh*t-ton more money if they sold those diets over the counter. In fact, a few years ago there was a kerfluffle between VetSmart and Hill's because VetSmart wanted to sell Hill's prescription diets OTC through PetSmart. IIRC think they've kissed and made up by now, but at the time Hill's suspended all sales of their prescription lines to VetSmart rather than have their prescription foods end up sold OTC, again despite the fact that they lost a crapload of money by doing so. Why? Because these diets are formulated for specific conditions and can be harmful if fed to the wrong animal or under the wrong circumstances. D*mn them for caring that their diets are used appropriately. Iams and Royal Canin have the same policy with their prescription diet lines. 

Besides, food, _including prescription food_, is simply not a big money maker for small vet clinics. I don't know where anyone gets the idea that it is. IME most clinics barely mark the prescription food up enough to cover the costs associated with carrying it, although there's probably a lot of regional variation in that.





> Which doesn't change the fact that Hills-employed speakers and Hills-provided written material is handed out to students. It doesn't matter if they 'realize' who it's from or not.
> 
> And seriously, please read and respond to the numerous links to statements from people around and in the industry who say there is serious conflict of interest problems with the way companies are influencing and supporting both schools and veterinarians lately. Because the kind of corporate sponsorship and ties that many vets seem to wave off an inconsequential and harmless would be considered serious breaches of professionalism in human medical circles.


I honestly don't know any veterinarians who make their decisions about what prescription diet to use based on who sponsored a conference. There are 3-4 big providers of prescription diets: Hill's, Royal Canin, Iams, and Purina. Most vets I know will use any or all of them depending on what specific FOOD (not brand) they like for what specific condition they're treating or what an individual animal will eat. I'm sure there are bad apples out there, but I just really don't see all the kickbacks, free stuff, and incentives that you're talking about. Like, I have no idea what you are even talking about.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

This is from Hill's website:



> HILL'S NEW GRADUATE FEEDING PROGRAM
> 
> Special savings on Hill's® pet foods for veterinary students does not have to stop after graduation. New veterinary graduates beginning their career in veterinary health care now have an opportunity to continue purchasing Hill's pet foods at discount prices.
> 
> ...


If you're getting your "latest nutrition information" from Hill's, of course you're going to think that Hill's is good. This isn't about conspiracies, this is about conflicts of interest. And it has been seen over and over again in human medicine.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

sassafras said:


> I can't believe I'm outing myself over this... with all the negativity about vets on this site I've kept this pretty close to my chest, but I'm a vet. And all I can say is I want to know when I'm going to start getting all my free stuff, cause these companies have about 15 years to make up for where I've seen jack from them.
> 
> Food is NOT a big money maker for any vet clinic I know. Clinics (with the exception of corporate practices) are generally small businesses and because they don't have the inventory space to buy in volume they usually have to BUY maintenance food for as much as someplace like PetSmart can SELL it for. Factoring in the costs of staff members who order, stock, and maintain food inventory, even prescription diets are not big money makers unless you move a tremendous amount of volume. Most vets I know would be happy not to stock food at all, but people complain if they have to go somewhere else to buy food.
> 
> As far as for why vets recommend any particular diet... I hate to break it to you but in general, it's because they genuinely believe that it's a good diet. Agree or disagree with their opinions, but it's as simple as that in my experience rather than being any vast conspiracy. I'd bet a dollar that 99% of vets couldn't even tell you who sponsored the last conference they attended, it's just not something that anyone really pays that much attention to.


Cool, Dr. Sassafras <g>
I'm just curious, if you don't mind me asking, what you feed your dogs? My last three vets don't know what my dog foods are, except the holistic vet. Only one of them "pushed" a food and it was for my dogs with icky teeth. They had dentals, I brushed, didn't help much. I know bad teeth aren't good for dogs but I'd rather feed a high quality food and give stuff to help the teeth, including more dentals. My current vet is pretty behind the times, very back-woods and he knows I do what I feel is best for my dogs.
Bless you for outting yourself LOL

I forgot to add that my fox terrier had been diagnosed with protein losing enteropathy, caused by lymphangectasia (sp). She was a lean 17lb when she got sick, got down to under 10lbs. I paid for a phone consultation to a Tufts animal nutritionist, who ended up recommending Purina HA. The ingredients sucked, it looked like Kix cereal on steroids but it helped my sweet Molly gain some weight and live a few more months. So, in this instance, a script food helped


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

waterbaby said:


> If you're getting your "latest nutrition information" from Hill's, of course you're going to think that Hill's is good. This isn't about conspiracies, this is about conflicts of interest. And it has been seen over and over again in human medicine.


Most vets are not gullible, suggestible, or idiotic enough to allow a few lunch meetings to influence their opinions on dog food. And they are big boys and girls who can make up their own minds about food without being told what to think about it by the big bad corporation. But it seems some are determined to believe their worst assumptions no matter what I say, so I'm getting close to stopping banging my head against this wall.



InkedMarie said:


> Cool, Dr. Sassafras <g>
> I'm just curious, if you don't mind me asking, what you feed your dogs?


Sure, I feed Orijen supplemented with small amounts of fruits, veggies, and cooked lean meats or fish. I am not necessarily in love with or opposed to any particular food, but Pip has some minor chronic problems and through trial and error I've discovered that this works best for managing those. He'd probably do well on raw but I just don't have it in me, I'm too paranoid about food-borne illness (in people, not dogs).


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Most vets are not gullible, suggestible, or idiotic enough to allow a few lunch meetings to influence their opinions on dog food. And they are big boys and girls who can make up their own minds about food without being told what to think about it by the big bad corporation. But it seems some are determined to believe their worst assumptions no matter what I say, so I'm getting close to stopping banging my head against this wall.


Out of curiosity, where else are they getting their nutrition information from post-graduation (especially since most vets do stock the big 4 despite their questionable nutrition value)? It's not a matter of being gullible or idiotic. I'm not slamming vets at all. I've never done that on these forums and I won't in the future. I _do_ think that everyone is suggestible, however, and in a crazy, busy world, it's easy to go with what's being pushed. 

If a human doctor got a free lunch and discounts on medications from a pharmaceutical company while the company touted the benefits of their latest drug, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Most vets are not gullible, suggestible, or idiotic enough to allow a few lunch meetings to influence their opinions on dog food.


Hill's provides nutrition educational materials and speakers for MANY vet schools in the U.S (via the Mark Morris Institute). Just look at the credentials of the people there. It's not 'seeing connections that don't exist' when the connections REALLY exist. Here's another example.



> If a human doctor got a free lunch and discounts on medications from a pharmaceutical company while the company touted the benefits of their latest drug, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?


THIS is my entire point. People want to hold vets to a different professional standard than human doctors, but you just CAN'T nowadays, when you're talking about the amount of money involved, and the simple fact that most of the companies who make pet drugs and food are owned/operated by companies who are also involved in human medicine and big business. Things have changed a LOT in the past 30 years, whether some folks want to accept that or not.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Most vets are not gullible, suggestible, or idiotic enough to allow a few lunch meetings to influence their opinions on dog food. And they are big boys and girls who can make up their own minds about food without being told what to think about it by the big bad corporation. But it seems some are determined to believe their worst assumptions no matter what I say, so I'm getting close to stopping banging my head against this wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I feed Orijen supplemented with small amounts of fruits, veggies, and cooked lean meats or fish. I am not necessarily in love with or opposed to any particular food, but Pip has some minor chronic problems and through trial and error I've discovered that this works best for managing those. He'd probably do well on raw but I just don't have it in me, I'm too paranoid about food-borne illness (in people, not dogs).


Thanks for answering! I;m on Acana now for one but we rotate with Orijen


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

waterbaby said:


> Out of curiosity, where else are they getting their nutrition information from post-graduation (especially since most vets do stock the big 4 despite their questionable nutrition value)?


It depends on the veterinarian and their level of interest. It's been my experience that there's little formal continuing education offered specifically on nutrition and it's something that a veterinarian has to be motivated to learn about on their own. It's more likely to attend a seminar about a specific disease in which it may be discussed what type of diet might be considered to manage it (and I've found most lecturers fairly reluctant to mention a specific brand, but rather will say something like "low-fat" or whatever) than a seminar specifically about nutrition. Although I have seen seminars about obesity, that was more about the advances being made in understanding all of the hormones involved in hunger and appetite than anything about a specific food.

I honestly think that most vets truly believe their recommendations and are also limited by what people are willing to spend on dog food. You have to realize that most average dog owners are NOTHING like the people who frequent his forum and are simply not willing to spend the money on foods like TTOW, Orijen, or similar foods or put forth the effort to feed raw, and so we see an awful, awful lot of dogs on diets like Science Diet, Iams, or whatever. Many of those dogs really do fine and live long, full lives. Many of them would do much, much better on a different diet but vets can't control what people feed their dogs (nor should they).



> It's not a matter of being gullible or idiotic. I'm not slamming vets at all. I've never done that on these forums and I won't in the future. I _do_ think that everyone is suggestible, however, and in a crazy, busy world, it's easy to go with what's being pushed.


Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't think for the most part vets are being pushed so much as there is not a belief that there is anything wrong with the diets in question.



> If a human doctor got a free lunch and discounts on medications from a pharmaceutical company while the company touted the benefits of their latest drug, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?


The free lunch is usually compensation for time spent and are often very informative. I guess I've never seen it as a conflict of interest because I am always suspicious of taking what drug company reps have to say at face value (as if they're going to ever say anything bad about their products).

But I still don't know who is getting all these discounts on medications -- which I would consider a conflict of interest. No pharmaceutical company drug discount woo is coming my way. The closest I get is buying drugs at cost from the clinic I work at instead of paying retail, which is a clinic policy rather than having anything to do with the drug company.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Pai said:


> Hill's provides nutrition educational materials and speakers for MANY vet schools in the U.S .


I've given you the low down on how they operate in schools.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

sassafras said:


> The closest I get is buying drugs at cost from the clinic I work at instead of paying retail, which is a clinic policy rather than having anything to do with the drug company.


 It's not what the vet pays, it's the markup. Vets can price their drugs however they want, fairly or unfairly. Notice that even the guy from Pfizer Animal Health recommends shopping around before you choose a vet! 

I really don't understand why the simple statement that 'choose a vet carefully' and 'there are problematic conflicts of interest in the vet field' gets some people screaming about how I'm calling 'all vets' either idiots or criminals. I've said no such thing. 

Where there are no laws, there are no 'criminals'. There are crooks in every field, but to be perfectly honest it's pretty easy for a crook vet to get along just fine with minimal legal blowback, because like I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, the entire vet industry is very loosey-goosey when it comes to corporate oversight and regulation when compared to human medicine. _That's_ what I'm trying to get across to people. But conversely, plenty of people do the honor system perfectly well. Choose one of THOSE people to be your vet.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

sassafras said:


> I
> But I still don't know who is getting all these discounts on medications -- which I would consider a conflict of interest. No pharmaceutical company drug discount woo is coming my way. The closest I get is buying drugs at cost from the clinic I work at instead of paying retail, which is a clinic policy rather than having anything to do with the drug company.


I was making a comparison to the specific deal Hill's offers vets (which I quoted above). You get discounted pet food for setting up lunch seminars where your staff learns about the latest in pet nutrition (from a Hill's rep).


----------



## Looney Tunes (Oct 24, 2009)

I find it fascinating the direction my thread went.....from my issue with a Holistic Vet endorsing flower oils and being poorly trained --- to prescription foods, endorsed by vets. 
Perhaps many see it as the same thing....I actually don't think so anymore.

I did tons of research on dog foods, called almost every company to find out what ingredients came from China, studied ingredients, and purchased some top dog foods (Orijen, EVO, etc) for my dogs.

However....what my Husky requires to keep her out of the hospital is Royal Canin LF- prescribed by the Specialist. Why? 

My dog needs to eat the lowest fat food on the market. 
Royal Canin LF = 5%. 
Natural Balance RF = 7.5% (max). 
Eagle Pack Holistic (what the Holistic Vet suggested) = over 10%
Most others = 15% or more

And yes, that small % difference made a big difference in my dogs health. 

I CRINGE at feeding her a prescribed diet and I cook for her frequently, but these prescribed diets are not always the wrong choice. The Specialist (Internal Medicine) I have been seeing is an expert in the disease my dog has...his recommendation for RC food is based on his years of study and practice and understanding the disease. 

Something like NB RF might be a better dog food and may work for some dogs with acute disease, but my dog has chronic disease and needs a prescription diet.

He also supports home cooking guided by a nutritionist.

The point here is that (a) not all cases are alike, (b) consumers need to understand why and for what reason the diet is being prescribed, and (c) people should not be afraid to ask questions. 
If my dog had acute disease, I would use a prescription diet to get her well -- and introduced her regular diet over time. But my dog has chronic disease. For me, it seems better for her to eat a prescription diet, stay out of the hospital and alive -- than be in the ICU or dead.

I made a mistake once of looking for "alternative treatment," and not listening to the Specialist. Within a couple days, my dog was back in the ICU in tremendous pain... 
That won't happen again.

I don't know about regular vets, because none of mine have ever "endorsed" a food. I do know that the Specialist knows his field and I don't think it is endorsing, as much as keeping my dog alive.


PS: Here is an analogy.
In medical schools, there are free lunches, free dinners, free books, free seminars, free squeeze balls, free coats, free pens, and free samples. If you goto the doctor and are prescribed a medication --- chances are that drug company visited within the past week. If you had syphilis, would you refuse penicillin? -- if you did, you might be dead once tertiary syphilis settles in -- and who knows how many others you infected along the way while the disease was in its latent stage.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

> If you goto the doctor and are prescribed a medication --- chances are that drug company visited within the past week. If you had syphilis, would you refuse penicillin


A more apt analogy, would be why would a vet prescribe Pfizer's Rimadyl instead of Vetrin for short-term use, when one is much more expensive and has a small chance of fatal side effects (and whose human-market equivalents have been pulled because of them), while the other does the same thing and is safer and cheaper? If you found out that a 'Rimadyl-for-everything' vet was really involved in Pfizer-sponsored events and seminars, would it not make you wonder if there was a connection (even if it was simply because that vet trusted what the sales reps were telling him)? 
If a _human_ doctor neglected to inform you of other options/generic drugs and simply told you to get a certain name brand that he prescribed (and controlled the sales price of), and then you found out or had a bad reaction to them, he would be in HUGE trouble. But on behalf of pets, who are the legal equivalent to furniture in most state laws, there are limited options for recourse.

Regulation and safety testing requirements for animal medication is much more loose than it is for people. Food for thought.

And once again I will say, that people need to be aware of the reality of things. Don't choose a vet lightly -- find someone you can trust. A good vet is worth more than anything when it comes to your pet's health. But folks need to realize, that the veterinary industry as a whole does not operate on anywhere near the the same consumer/patient legal protection level as human medicine does. And because of that fact, _individual vet ethics_ become HUGELY more important. Which is why I keep harping on the very-obvious problem of conflict of interest when it comes to certain aspects of veterinary education and business. 



> The point here is that (a) not all cases are alike, (b) consumers need to understand why and for what reason the diet is being prescribed, and (c) people should not be afraid to ask questions.


This is 100% true and very sound advice.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

sassafras said:


> I honestly don't know any veterinarians who make their decisions about what prescription diet to use based on who sponsored a conference. There are 3-4 big providers of prescription diets: Hill's, Royal Canin, Iams, and Purina. Most vets I know will use any or all of them depending on what specific FOOD (not brand) they like for what specific condition they're treating or what an individual animal will eat.


I have never been to a clinlic that sold anything other than Hill's and that has to be aggressive marketing by Hill's. My guess is that most prescription diets are mostly for convenience and for the profit of the manufacturer and clinic. I've compared ingredients of prescription diets to other brands and the ingredient's are very similar except for the large amount of cheap grains in the prescription diets. You can always find a formulation in a non-prescription diet that closely matches the ingredients and the nutritional values of a prescription diet.

I've never had a dog that really liked a prescription diet (which a vet has given me on occasion), and they don't work so well for finicky eaters. I'd much rather give a dog with tummy problems some real chicken and rice and a nutritional powder or one of the chicken/rice formulas from a higher quality food.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Pai said:


> It's not what the vet pays, it's the markup. Vets can price their drugs however they want, fairly or unfairly. Notice that even the guy from Pfizer Animal Health recommends shopping around before you choose a vet!


I do not mean to sound like I am down on vets because I am not but I choose to have three dogs. I chose to adopt an 11yr old dog with issues and because of those choices, I also made the choice to change my vets, some of it because of money. I paid $30 more A BOTTLE for Metacam. I pay about the same for levothyroxine but I get 180ct instead of 60ct. When my girl has bloodwork done for thyroid, I pay about $5 less but there is no charge for shipping it. Both vets shipped to IDEXX but for the first time, I paid a $5.95 shipping fee. Second time (4mos later I think) I paid $14.95 for shipping. When I asked why the shipping was so much more, they said I was "mischarged" the first time. My current vet still ships it to IDEXX but told me the price includes shipping. I don't get it. I know people have to make money, I know my first vet has a mortgage on the building she opened her practice in but we have a mortgage and bills too. This vet made the choice to charge what she charges but somewhat because of that choice, she lost myself as a client and my dogs as her patients.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

> If a human doctor got a free lunch and discounts on medications from a pharmaceutical company while the company touted the benefits of their latest drug, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?


Excuse me? Do you know anyone who works in a clinic or is a pharmaceutical rep? Pharmacy lunches are legendary.

Attempts by vendors to influence professionals are not unique to vets. It's a staple of capitalism. When I was a full-time SCUBA instructor, nearly all my gear was supplied by ScubaPro and other vendors at little or no charge. Do you think it's a coincidence that nearly every photojournalist uses a Nikon when they get out of school (a very fine camera, but not uniquely so?)

Whether a professional is overly influenced by such favors depends on the working ethics of the professional. And whether we, as the consumers, are "victimized" by such attempts depends on our own ability to think independently and do some research.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pai said:


> It's not what the vet pays, it's the markup. Vets can price their drugs however they want, fairly or unfairly. Notice that even the guy from Pfizer Animal Health recommends shopping around before you choose a vet!


Every store on Earth that sells products marks up. This covers the very real costs of stocking products as well as (gasp!) making a profit. 



> I really don't understand why the simple statement that 'choose a vet carefully' and 'there are problematic conflicts of interest in the vet field' gets some people screaming about how I'm calling 'all vets' either idiots or criminals. I've said no such thing.


I haven't said you've said vets are criminals, either. And I don't take issue with But I do take issue with broad generalizations of vets as unethical, money-grubbing company stooges which is what you have been implying over and over and over in this thread and I am going to defend my profession when the bad apples are the exception rather than the rule. Yes, there are money-grubbing company stooges out there. But some of the examples you are using -- things like marking up the cost of drugs or limiting sale of prescription foods to veterinarians -- have legitimate reasons and don't make sense from my perspective in a "do vets get paid for endorsing products" discussion.



Pai said:


> A more apt analogy, would be why would a vet prescribe Pfizer's Rimadyl instead of Vetrin for short-term use, when one is much more expensive and has a small chance of fatal side effects (and whose human-market equivalents have been pulled because of them), while the other does the same thing and is safer and cheaper?


This is a bit off-track but many, many vets would take issue with the claim that aspirin is safer than carprofen (and dogs with bleeding stomach ulcers would beg to differ). Once again, the assumption is that it's all about the money when there are legitimate medical reasons to choose one drug over another. 



> Regulation and safety testing requirements for animal medication is much more loose than it is for people. Food for thought.


This is patently untrue. To be _approved_ for use in veterinary medications, drugs have to go through an FDA approval process just like human drugs do. This is part of the reason why there are very, very few drugs approved for use in cats, companies don't want to spend the time and money on the approval process. There _are_ allowances for using drugs off-label, but there are laws governing their use.



Again, I am not a pollyanna who doesn't think there are any bad or unethical vets out there. But I think you are seeing broad conspiracies where there really are none and drawing conclusions that do not hold true for this profession as a whole.


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

RonE said:


> Excuse me? Do you know anyone who works in a clinic or is a pharmaceutical rep? Pharmacy lunches are legendary.


And many people inside and outside the medical field think the relationship between pharm reps and MDs is toeing an ethical gray area. Which is why many hospitals don't allow lunches,etc. anymore.



> Attempts by vendors to influence professionals are not unique to vets. It's a staple of capitalism. When I was a full-time SCUBA instructor, nearly all my gear was supplied by ScubaPro and other vendors at little or no charge. Do you think it's a coincidence that nearly every photojournalist uses a Nikon when they get out of school (a very fine camera, but not uniquely so?)
> 
> Whether a professional is overly influenced by such favors depends on the working ethics of the professional. And whether we, as the consumers, are "victimized" by such attempts depends on our own ability to think independently and do some research.


That's pretty much exactly the point. I don't think anyone has claimed this situation is unique to vets and Pai's made many comparisons between the medical field and the veterinary field. As I see it, the question has shifted from: Do vets receive compensation from companies to sell or tout their products? to are vets (or anyone else) influenced by companies that: (1) give them free stuff and (2) provide them with the latest nutrition information or the latest pain management information. I think it's naive to think that it doesn't happen - even despite the best intentions of whoever is taking the free stuff (lunch, scholarship, water bottle, whatever). And there are a lot of great examples of this happening in the medical field. 

I'm in a field that's hypersensitive about conflicts of interest and we do a lot of self-policing by being as transparent as possible (though even that doesn't always work). I'm not trying to be insulting when I point out that this is exactly the kind of situation that sets up a conflict of interest, I'm just being realistic. For me, if someone told me that being funded by an oil company while I was doing research on the effects of well drilling on sage grouse was a conflict of interest, I would agree with them - not be insulted. And I would be up front about it any time I talked about my research.

And again, Pai has pointed out many times that consumers need to do their research when choosing a vet or a course of treatment for their pet.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

> This is patently untrue.


The FDA's requirements for testing are much smaller for animals. Rimadyl for example, was tested on 300 dogs before being pre-approved for the public. Human drugs have to be shown safe in THOUSANDS of people before being deemed 'safe'. Rimadyl's human equivalents used to be sold for human use, and were pulled because of reports of heart and liver dysfunction and death in some people. The same has been seen in dogs. There was a big scandal soon after Rimadyl was released because of dogs dying from it unexpectedly. Pfizer pulled the commercials for it off the air when the FDA told it to list 'death' as a potential risk in ads. That's enough for me.

Oh, and Pfizer offered vets 'points' for buying Rimadyl that they could redeem for prizes. Seriously now, how do you think that looks to people?! I have no clue if that still happens now or not, but it really doesn't affect my opinion of the drug.

So frankly, if my dog had a sprain, and a vet told me to get Rimadyl, I would ask why he felt that was better than veterinary Aspirin. Rimadyl has a lower chance of stomach ulcers (though that's still a labeled side effect), so I'm not sure why for a minor swelling or pain someone would prefer to use that and risk a 'small chance of sudden death' rather than pop an Aspirin, which vets have used for years to treat similar problems. 

If we're talking longterm arthritis where quality of life is impaired and it's worth the small risk, then sure, I can understand prescribing Rimadyl. But some vets suggest it for all kinds of short-term pain relief that in my opinion is completely unnecessary. Whether that's a case of them innocently buying into the hype or whatever, *that's all the same to me.* It's my job to look out for my dogs' welfare, so I would rather be paranoid and informed.



> Whether a professional is overly influenced by such favors depends on the working ethics of the professional. And whether we, as the consumers, are "victimized" by such attempts depends on our own ability to think independently and do some research.


Exactly my point.


> Again, I am not a pollyanna who doesn't think there are any bad or unethical vets out there. But I think you are seeing broad conspiracies where there really are none and drawing conclusions that do not hold true for this profession as a whole.


I've never said the entire profession is unethical ANYWHERE. I will even come out and said I don't even think MOST vets are shady. But some are, yet a lot of people just blindly go to whichever clinic is closest/cheapest/most convenient, never do background checks, and just assume everything's great without having ANY knowledge. You hear awful stories all the time of people who's trust was betrayed because they put blind faith in a vet and found out later it wasn't justified. Like the OP. It doesn't matter if it's the minority if it happens to YOUR dog.

And it's not a 'conspiracy', it's called conflict of interest and lack of regulation. And I've already illustrated numerous examples of it. It doesn't mean that every vet is 'tainted' but it means there are problematic influences in many places that folks need to be aware of. Even HUMAN doctors aren't immune, so why on earth would a vet be?


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Oh man this topic got so much better. So in the beginning of this topic you're blasting away about kickback, stipends, and God knows what else. We've now moved away from that and you're making claims about the federal regulations on the pharmaceutical industry and also judgements on NSAID use? Priceless, just priceless. 

So, Pai, why don't you educate all of us on these topics? Tell us, in detail, what role the FDA plays in regulation of veterinary prescription drugs and step by step what processes these drugs have to go through in order to be approved for use. Now compare this to human pharmaceuticals and show us exactly how it is so much looser in vet med. After you're done with that, explain the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aspirin in the dog vs carprofen since "that's all the same to [you]." Tell us why Dr. Pai thinks "just popping an aspirin" would be just as good.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

When you point out one untruth I've posted, I'll take you off ignore, Mr.V

Since you're the one incapable of contributing anything other than accusations that I'm full of crap, the burden of proof is on you. I've linked all my sources so far, while the fact-content of your own posts is firmly stuck at zero.



> *Here even is every article I've linked to here, in one handy pile:*
> Wall Street Journal article on vets selling food and Hill's (Since the archive past 2 years old is not available online from the WSJ site)
> PAC Vet Conference notes (from a presentation given by Fritz Wood)
> Washington Post article that describes the rapid growth of the Vet industry in the past 30 years
> ...


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

You've provided links. OH yea. But they are either opinion blogs or don't say what you claim they say. This isn't proof. But, please, continue to make ridiculous claims (like the regulations and NSAID use ones) and then side step me when I call you out on it. Well done. 

You don't just spew garbage and then tell me I am the one who has to prove your point for you. No thanks. Start showing links with something real in them.

PS: still waiting on those lectures...


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> You've provided links. OH yea. But they are either opinion blogs or don't say what you claim they say. This isn't proof. But, please, continue to make ridiculous claims (like the regulations and NSAID use ones) and then side step me when I call you out on it. Well done.
> 
> You don't just spew garbage and then tell me I am the one who has to prove your point for you. No thanks. Start showing links with something real in them.
> 
> PS: still waiting on those lectures...


You sound exactly like KaseyT, who dismissed empirical data that we overvaccinatate our dogs as the opinion of one researcher. His proof was "No other vet believes that!". 

Sorry but, it's clear as day you've completely and utterly lost this debate and are just crying foul because you can't prove a single thing you say. Pai is not "moving away" from the original subject, you have not disproven a *single* thing she has said, and she has only added more to the pile since.

Please, repeat yourself for the thousandth time. I know you're going to say the same response: "That's not how it is! I'm a *student* vet and therefore I know how the profession is in the entire world!"


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Oh yea, like I didn't see this coming. RBark steps in b/c he's obviously the authority on debate - I've yet to see you contribute any valuable information the entire time i've been on DF. What I have noticed is that any time I've been in any sort of debate with anyone on here you have jumped in as if you're the ultimate debate official and like clockwork have tried to jump on the other person's side. Not sure what your hang up with me is, but, it's a little weird. 

If someone is making claims about how it is in a vet school I think my own experience is enough to say how it is (as you said *student!*). And, btw, you have a practicing veterinarian saying the same things, bud. 

Btw, it's funny that I'm getting quite a few PMs telling me what a fool Pai is and how they know she's talking out of her ass and I should just let it be b/c there's no way I'll convince someone who's head is so deep in the sand. I should probably take their advice.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr. V said:


> Oh yea, like I didn't see this coming. RBark steps in b/c he's obviously the authority on debate - I've yet to see you contribute any valuable information the entire time i've been on DF. What I have noticed is that any time I've been in any sort of debate with anyone on here you have jumped in as if you're the ultimate debate official and like clockwork have tried to jump on the other person's side. Not sure what your hang up with me is, but, it's a little weird.
> 
> If someone is making claims about how it is in a vet school I think my own experience is enough to say how it is (as you said *student!*). And, btw, you have a practicing veterinarian saying the same things, bud.
> 
> Btw, it's funny that I'm getting quite a few PMs telling me what a fool Pai is and how they know she's talking out of her ass and I should just let it be b/c there's no way I'll convince someone who's head is so deep in the sand. I should probably take their advice.


I have no hang-up with you. You need to grow up a bit  I disagree with a lot of what you say, and I disagree with how you say a lot of things (Pai has been nothing but courteous to you in this entire debate, despite your constant attacks and attempts at intimidation). That doesn't mean I have a personal beef with you.

It does sound like you need to spend time outside the Dog Health forum lol.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Oh, there's a nice tactic. Just say "grow up." And, honestly, that goes a little far to act like she has been a little saint about all of this (myself and the sassafras aren't the only ones who have been offended here - as I said, I've now received at least 5 PMs from people on this forum who say how ridiculous she is being and that she is being very offensive). It's hardly intimidation so I'm not sure where that's coming from - funny though that that's how you interpreted it. 

And, I don't really care for the other forums. Most of them are just rants about whatever is bothering that person that particular moment in that particular day.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Pai said:


> Mr.V, if you're not part of the problem, then I'm not talking about you. I know it's hard not to take any criticism of your industry as an attack on your personal honor, but really, it's not.





Pai said:


> The thing a lot of vets don't understand, is that criticizing the BAD ones is not attacking the GOOD ones.





pai said:


> Never once have I said that vets are all in evil cahoots with big pharma and the dogfood industry.





Pai said:


> I really don't understand why the simple statement that 'choose a vet carefully' and 'there are problematic conflicts of interest in the vet field' gets some people screaming about how I'm calling 'all vets' either idiots or criminals. I've said no such thing.





Mr. V said:


> I understand you're paranoid about the entire profession,





Mr. V said:


> quit barfing up conspiracy theory on the internet.





Mr. V said:


> than the vomit you've swallowed up on the internet





Mr. V said:


> Maybe you would be influenced so easily?





Mr. V said:


> So, APPARENTLY you still have no found the ability to read.





Mr. V said:


> Stick to what you know b/c you're clueless when it comes to this subject.





Mr. V said:


> --Pay a little more attention to the quote in your sig...





Mr. V said:


> Lemme know when ya wake up.





Mr. V said:


> Do you always just read something and pretend like it said something it didn't?





Mr. V said:


> You don't just spew garbage




Hence, grow up. Cited just for you!


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

OK i started veterinary school last September and yes you do get many "offers" especially from hills. Knowing what i know about dog foods i take advantage of the free stuff (such as my recent weeks trip to florida for a 2 day seminar) and go on my merry way and don't let any of it change my mind but the people who are in school who are not "dog people" and don't know much about nutrition believe 100% that hills foods are wonderful.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

katielou said:


> OK i started veterinary school last September and yes you do get many "offers" especially from hills. Knowing what i know about dog foods i take advantage of the free stuff (such as my recent weeks trip to florida for a 2 day seminar) and go on my merry way and don't let any of it change my mind but the people who are in school who are not "dog people" and don't know much about nutrition believe 100% that hills foods are wonderful.


Thank you! 
Mr V - that is coming directly from a vet student! Must have been 1 of of those that didn't pm you.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

DJsMom said:


> Thank you!
> Mr V - that is coming directly from a vet student! Must have been 1 of of those that didn't pm you.


That person doesn't count, she's only been going to vet school since Sept! What a noob! Hehehe. (just teasing)


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

****wades in to express a simple opinion******

Veterinarians do not get enough nutritional background in school. Absolutely. Neither do enough human doctors. Especially when it comes to managing or treating acute or chronic conditions. We all have to do our own research in those cases and make the best decisions we can.

Kickbacks, hahahahaha...yeah. One free bag of every six weeks per registered employee and a crappy catered lunch while you listen to a basic talk on r/d and obesity and the occasional free pen or, wait for it, a plastic desk clock that doesn't work is not likely to cause anyone to push excessive amounts of SD on their clients. Wooohooo. Grey area, sure. But the world is made up of black white and grey. 

Now regarding markups. One clinic may charge a higher dispensing fee on medications while another may instead mark up their vaccines. There are great variations from BUSINESS TO BUSINESS on where the profit margin is set for each and every product and service that is offered. Food is sold for a slight profit and for convenience of the clients, but the markup is high because the volume is low.

When I first started working at a clinic I was pretty blown away by the invoices charged the clients. Coming from a small town the costs seemed exorbitant. 

But when I got promoted and started working on the bills and invoices and saw the books...well, my tune had to change. It cost the clinic I worked at (15 years ago) upwards of 80 grand a month to OPERATE. Mortgage, utilities, insurance, supplies, maintenance on the equipment, taxes, staff of eight people (many of which our clients did not even realize worked there) etc. 

Is the whole profession perfect? Nope. Are there issues? Yep. 

So how many of you here can suggest a way that the vets can do better? Who will sponsor the studies on the meds and foods and surgical procedures? Who should? How can that be done? How would you integrate it into a viable business model in a non government supported industry? 

Just sayin.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I must admit I find it amusing when, in a discussion on the internet, linking to places on the internet is supposed to invalidate the information that's linked to. I mean, heck, if people want to go find the physical issues of the Wall Street Journal articles, FDA report, history of Hill's, etc, it's not hard. One is kind of limited on an online message board to not really being able to do much _else _than use websites to back up one's statements. And contrary to popular belief, there's plenty of reputable information sources on the web. But since you have to pay to access issues past a certain age in many print publication websites, you sometimes have to make do with third party sites. For example, anyone can check the credentials of the authors of the WSJ articles I've referenced: here and here. They don't look like fringe conspiracy theorists to me. Quite the opposite, in fact, and Mr. Adams is a respected investigative reporter. So... yeah.

And really, I could care less if people disagree with me. I'm not telling people to never go to a vet or never buy prescription medicine for their dog. But if I can encourage even one pet owner to be more shrewd and careful about their pet's health care decisions, that's good enough for me.



> So how many of you here can suggest a way that the vets can do better? Who will sponsor the studies on the meds and foods and surgical procedures? Who should? How can that be done? How would you integrate it into a viable business model in a non government supported industry?


Most of us aren't in any position to dictate how the veterinary field should change, or how vets should run their practices. But as consumers and pet owners, it's basic sense for us to want to protect our own (and our pet's) interests. Staying informed is a big part of that, and not having unrealistic expectations.

Vets need to make a living, pet owners want what's best for our pets (and our wallets), and hopefully everything balances out fairly for everyone involved.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Cracker said:


> Is the whole profession perfect? Nope. Are there issues? Yep.


And I think that's been the point all along.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

you know...twere i a vet/vet student...i think id be taking a different approach to some of the stuff expressed in this thread...

regardless of the truth of the claims being made, how true they are..etc..

for a vet...this is how people feel...this is how people feel about veterinary practices...so logically one can assume that you have or will have clients to whom the evidence presented by Pai is in fact a concern...maybe there's a sort of..lesson here...in how to deal with clients...

personally..if i have an issue with my vet...i flat out confront them in no uncertain terms and not demand..but strongly suggest that if they want my business..they'll give a cogent and professional response to my concerns...certain folks in this thread...well...if you responded to me like you responded here....you'd never see me, my money or anyone else i know's money ever again...

just a thought for the future..


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

Cracker said:


> Is the whole profession perfect? Nope. Are there issues? Yep.
> 
> So how many of you here can suggest a way that the vets can do better? Who will sponsor the studies on the meds and foods and surgical procedures? Who should? How can that be done? How would you integrate it into a viable business model in a non government supported industry? Just sayin.


These are exactly the questions that need to be addressed to avoid ethical conflicts. I don't have answers for the veterinary field per se, but I address them on a regular basis in my work. Humans are human and we probably can't come up with a perfect model, but if we constantly acknowledge that we need to keep our eyes open and constantly look for weaknesses in our current model, we can at least be transparent about potential conflicts. And that means admitting they exist rather than being offended by the suggestion. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges has acknowledged that "Mounting scientific evidence indicates that gifts, favors, and other marketing activities, both explicit and implicit, prejudice independent judgment in unconscious ways." If you google scholar "medical gifts pharmacy" you get several pages of peer reviewed research looking at the effects of industry perks on practioners' perceptions of those companies. From a recent BMJ article (Lee, 2008; the bolding is mine):



> Most doctors believe that they are immune to influence from industry but that their colleagues are not. Yet research in social science shows that *gifts of any size* from drug companies create feelings of obligation and reciprocity.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

This thread has the potential, some of it already realized, for some interesting discussion, but please don't call it debate. That's an insult to debators.

And please keep it civil or the whole thing will just up and disappear.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

DJsMom said:


> Thank you!
> Mr V - that is coming directly from a vet student! Must have been 1 of of those that didn't pm you.


That was good, Cathy!


----------

