Romeo Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Because it would be a practical nightmare to have dogs kicking about clinics. It's easier to use machines, but you're wrong in saying that dogs can't sniff out cancer or other abnormalities; because they can. we'll they'd just need one dog, march everyone suspected of having cancer past the dog. Be done in about 5 minutes. Several million quid saved for the price of a can of dog meat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 From the cancer research website. "Her team trained six dogs to tell the difference between urine samples from bladder cancer patients and samples from healthy people. When the dogs were presented with new samples – six from healthy people and one from a cancer patient – the scientists found they could pick out urine samples from people with cancer 41 per cent of the time (22 out of 54 tests). If they were correct only by chance, we would expect the dogs to pick the right sample only 14 per cent of the time (i.e. one in seven)." Only 41% this time, 41 or 98? By chance they can do it 14% of the time and so could you just by guessing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) we'll they'd just need one dog, march everyone suspected of having cancer past the dog. Be done in about 5 minutes. Several million quid saved for the price of a can of dog meat.I'm not even suggesting we replace machines with dogs, I'm just refuting what you said which was incorrect. Also the dogs in the study which was highlighted in national geographic were rewarded with food when they correctly spotted the cancer. It's not really a flawed methodology for that particular study. Funny how you haven't mentioned the other study I linked though; Patient prognosis in lung cancer (LC) largely depends on early diagnosis. Exhaled breath of patients may represent the ideal specimen for future LC screening. However, the clinical applicability of current diagnostic sensor technologies based on signal pattern analysis remains incalculable due to their inability to identify a clear target. To test the robustness of the presence of a so far unknown volatile organic compound in the breath of patients with LC, sniffer dogs were applied. Exhalation samples of 220 volunteers (healthy individuals, confirmed LC, or COPD) were presented to sniffer dogs following a rigid scientific protocol. Patient history, drug administration and clinicopathological data were analysed to identify potential bias or confounders. LC was identified with an overall sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 93%. LC detection was independent from COPD and the presence of tobacco smoke and food odors. Logistic regression identified two drugs as potential confounders. It must be assumed, that a robust and specific volatile organic compound (or pattern) is present in the breath of patients with LC. Additional research efforts are required to overcome the current technical limitations of electronic sensor technologies to engineer a clinically applicable screening tool. Edited June 17, 2014 by DonnieDarko -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Because it would be a practical nightmare to have dogs kicking about clinics. It's easier to use machines, but you're wrong in saying that dogs can't sniff out cancer or other abnormalities; because they can. They manage alright with therapy pets. What nicer way to be told you have cancer than having a cute wee dog sniffing it out for you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 . Funny how you haven't mentioned the other study I linked though. And you ignored mine, away and do a bit of crystal therapy ya fucking loon ball. Or some acupuncture, studies show sticking pins in your feet can cure depression, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 They manage alright with therapy pets. What nicer way to be told you have cancer than having a cute wee dog sniffing it out for you? what could go wrong..... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blackburn-dog-attack-first-picture-3135808 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 From that link... "The researchers used a food reward-based method" quel suprise All sniffer dogs are rewarded are they not, it's why they are so keen to work - whether it be with a toy, food or even drugs - can't imagine a 'cancer' dog being any different !? (I'm not saying if they can or can't detect cancer though !) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 what could go wrong..... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blackburn-dog-attack-first-picture-3135808 But 41% of the time it works every time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Mibeez for the 98% test he dogs were reading the labels !? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 All sniffer dogs are rewarded are they not, it's why they are so keen to work - whether it be with a toy, food or even drugs - can't imagine a 'cancer' dog being any different !? (I'm not saying if they can or can't detect cancer though !) This is correct. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 But 41% of the time it works every time. It's big pharma keep the dogs down so they can make money selling scanners. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 My dog is so stupid, I could let off a ripper and she will turn round and think it was her, all this without a medical degree. I had a dog like that. I could let off a silent stinker - the dog would sniff its own backside and then look at me and wag its tail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Cuddy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 It's big pharma keep the dogs down so they can make money selling scanners. Well of course. I mean, the sources are all so reputable and widely acclaimed in the medical field so it all must be a massive stitch up. I blame that Cameron bloke. He's just trying to keep his mates in business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I had a dog like that. I could let off a silent stinker - the dog would sniff its own backside and then look at me and wag its tail. I would hate your dog, I want to glory in my own work, thank you very much, plagiarist dogs can get to f**k. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1974h Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Fux sake lads, can you stop arguing? there's a wee lassie missing here. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Fux sake lads, can you stop arguing? there's a wee lassie missing here. Better late than pregnant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Fux sake lads, can you stop arguing? there's a wee lassie missing here. Well apparently dogs can smell cancer 98% of the time but can't smell a decomposing corpse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebhoy123 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 As for dogs...... I used to work Airport security ( X-RAY ) so used to chat to a lot of the security guys / managers at various airports - As far as dogs go, I was told that they are better at detecting drugs than the chemical analysis systems you see ( the kind of thing they swab your laptop with before sticking it in a clever wee machine ) the problem with the dogs though is that they don't / can't concentrate for long enough - that's why they only have them on patrol for 20 mins a time..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 And you ignored mine, away and do a bit of crystal therapy ya fucking loon ball. Or some acupuncture, studies show sticking pins in your feet can cure depression, Least you're not riled at all. I just don't see how having dogs in hospitals and the like would be practical; some people may be acutely allergic to dogs and to have them around may harm the patients health. Plus to have people queue up like you say and wait to be sniffed is ignoring the fact that people may not like to be diagnosed or flagged up for potentially having cancer in front of what would be strangers. In the case of therapy pets, they are wonderful things, but they don't really require much training. You can stick a group of Lab pups in amongst a group of people and the people would be instantly happier (They did this at Dundee University). Cancer I'd imagine is a bit more of a sensitive issue, and like I said I think people would rather be seen on a one to one basis to be diagnosed (rather than the group centered environment which therapy pets usually operate in). Plus, dogs are unpredictable, and they can be easily distracted from tasks given to them, unlike machines; and it's this unpredictable aspect of their behaviour which I'd imagine is a factor in their denial as a legitimate cancer fighting resource. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 As for dogs...... I used to work Airport security ( X-RAY ) so used to chat to a lot of the security guys / managers at various airports - As far as dogs go, I was told that they are better at detecting drugs than the chemical analysis systems you see ( the kind of thing they swab your laptop with before sticking it in a clever wee machine ) the problem with the dogs though is that they don't / can't concentrate for long enough - that's why they only have them on patrol for 20 mins a time..... Exactly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.