Reply #100: This information actually demonstrates the fallacy of anecdotal data.

[yellowcanine]

If this were a controlled experiment where you had several dogs having the same health problems being tested with a raw food diet against another group with a standard diet (better yet, several other groups on several different non raw food diets) you might have something. But you have one dog whose diet was changed and his problems cleared up. What else was being done besides the diet change? Furthermore, how do you know it wasn't the original diet causing the problem but a different non raw food diet might have had the same beneficial results? You don't, because it was not a controlled experiment. And all it will take is one slip up and you might have a very sick or even a dead dog (or handler!)- even after several non eventful years on the raw diet. I would not be willing to take such a chance. This whole discussion reminds me of the raw milk discussions I have gotten into on DU. Everyone has their favorite anecdotes that seem to refute the overwhelming scientific evidence against the advisability of the practice. But in the end, they are just anecdotes and as such, not to be trusted.