I have deleted 2 allegations about commercial dog chow. They were inserted into a threads that were neither appropriate for such, or for me to challenge them there. Time after time I have challenged people on their allegations against commercial dog and advocating alternative diets. I always ask for real proof to their allegations. What I get is proof of what is on the labels of any bag of dog food, plus anecdotal evidence, and links to sites full of emotional appeal and hyperventilating over ingredients. Is it asking for just one controlled study proving the allegations? No, that is not how the junk science behind it all works. Maybe a vet here and there believes in it, but the AVMA condemns it along with the FDA and the CDC. Until you can post something here more than allegations proved by baseless allegations, please refrain from sticking your allegations in inappropriate threads.
One of the more extensive and objective web sites I have seen on dog nutrition is Woodhaven Labradors Training-Nutrition Articles It has to be objective since I disagree with part of what they say. It is a huge site, and I have only poked around the edges. All I know about them is what I have read on the site. It has links to many other sites it would take weeks to ferret out who is behind them and what agenda they may have. I really like to know something about who is behind a website. That is why I often post links to organizations such as AVMA or AKC. I at least know who is behind them and their agendas and what filters I need to run their information through. I don't know anything about the sites Woodhaven links to discussing dogs on the BARF diet suddenly dying of pancreitus.
So if you have proof, lets see it here. If not, quit bringing it up in threads on other subjects.