Is Vitamin C (and other nutritional suplements) safe for d..

External Since: Sep 07, 2004 Posts: 1

Is it safe to give my dog ascorbic acid? Are their any vitamins or minerals
that would be bad to give a dog?

Thanks

External Since: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 2604

HOWEDY Professor Dermer,

"Marshall Dermer" <dermer RemoveThis @alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:chj74m$892$1@uwm.edu...
> In article
<1C8%c.320104$OB3.14655@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
"Sherry298" <sherry298 RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> >Is it safe to give my dog ascorbic acid? Are their
> >any vitamins or minerals that would be bad to
> >give a dog?
>
> >Thanks
>
> Dear Sherry,
>
> Why do you want to do this?

Perahps she wants to make SHORE her dog
gets the best nutrition possible?

> At the appropriate dose the constituents in a
> human multiple-vitamin are safe for dogs, but
> you really ought to know the nutrients your dog
> is getting from his or her dog food before you
> start adding vitamins/minerals.

Right.

> There are also doggy vitmins and some
> do not have Vitamin C because dogs can
> synthesize this vitmain.

There's some evidence that dysplasia is
like scurvy, a lack of vitamin C.

> You can learn more by conducting a key word search here:

You could. But you might not be gettin
the best information on nutrition. Vitamin
C is alleged to be able to cure some deadly
DIS-EASES.

> --Marshall

> Dr. George VonHilsheimer writes in
> "Is there a SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?":
>
> "Valette 1966 is a complete trivialization of
> scientific findings. It overstates the case for
> reinforcement theory. No careful researcher
> would contend that operant techniques CAN
> ANY THING MORE than modify SHORT TERM
> BEHAVIOR in a highly controlled and limited
> environment with a large number of skillful
> experimenters. Certainly the most elaborate
> studies have shown that the withdrawal or
> temprary inefficiency of the reward system is
> immediately followed by CESSATION of the
> programmed behavior.
>
> In fortunate contrast to this depressing paper
> is the research reported by Whelan (1966) who
> makes the simple but profHOWEND caveat that
> "It is only through CORRECT, EFFICIENT APPLICATION
> (of operant principles) that children's behavor can
> be changed to the extent that they can subsequently
> contribute to the REAL WORLD in which they live." "
>
> "The Methods, Principles And Philosophy Of Behavior
> Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would
> Not Obtain Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
> For All Handler's And All Dogs, As Taught In Your FREE
> Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End
> Dog Training Method Manual," The Amazing Puppy
> Wizard. <{} ; ~ ) >
>
> Dr. Von continues:
>
> "Whelan illustrates the simple nature or the
> learning process by referring to Ferster's
> engaging study of two three year old
> chimpanzees taught mathematics through
> simple procedures. Whelan carries this
> EVIDENCE a step futher by pointing HOWET
> it's applicability to disturbed children."
>
>
> A Dog Is A Dog As A Child Is A Child As A Kat
> Is A Kat. All Critters Only Respond In Predictable
> Innate, Normal, Natural, Instinctive, Reflexive,
> Ways To Circumstances And Situations Of Their
> Environments Which We Create For Them.
>
> ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY
> MISHANDLING. Damn The Descartean War of
> "Nature Vs Nurture." We Teach By HOWER Words
> And Actions And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.
>
> In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
> FAILURE MEANS DEATH. SAME SAME SAME
> SAME, For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.
>
> Dr. Von continues:
> "If chimpanzees CAN LEARN mathematics
> through step by step learning AT THEIR OWN
> PACE, reinforced primarily by CORRECT
> ANSWERS rather than with "fruit loops and
> rasins", we can assume that even developmentally
> RETARDED or CONfHOWENDED children
> CAN LEARN as well. Moreover, Whelan
> makes the EXXXTREMELY important point
> that while most teachers assume that learning
> takes place verbally, primarily it is a non verbal
> process..
>
> Unfortunately Whelan limits himself to the problem
> that "teachers must not only modify or remove specific
> deviant behaviors, but must also develop socially
> acceptable behavior patterns in the classroom and
> classroom conditioned goals, NOT LEARNING.
>
> Other researchers have emphasized the importance
> ofadult behaviors in conditioning classroom behavior.
> An EXXXCELLENT review of this researchshowd that
> tantrum behavior, excessive crawling and dependency,
> isolated play, passivity, spelling failure, and other problem
> behaviorscan be managed by altering habitual adult
> responses to children (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964) .
> Such RESEARCHholds GREATER PROMISE in that
> alteration of the conditioning social environment seems
> to provide more STABLE and LASTING CHANGES than
> "M and M's". Moreover, a great deal of work has been
> done developing EFFECTIVE techniques of behavior
> modificaton through the conditioning social environment
> of peers (Hartup, 1964). These directions would seem
> more PRODUCTIVE than a simple minded trainslation
> of the Skinner cage to the classroom.
>
> Skinner (1963) pointed HOWET that operant techniques
> can "be utilized fully ONLY IF we REDEFINE the GOALS
> of education and the CONDITIONS in the educational
> environment under which those goals may be reached...
> (through) a DIFFERENT KIND of educational research
> which is much more closely concerned with the immediate
> dimensions of the student's behavior than with gross
> changes such as IMPROVED PERFORMANCES."
> UNFORTUNATELY, neither Skinner nor ANY OTHER
> learning theorist has provided us with a working model
> of a school or research enterprise based on systemic
> and thorough-going APPLICATION of LEARNING
> PRINCIPLES. Skinner (1948, 1953) approaches a
> definition of the philosophical issues involved, and
> provides an utopian model of a school, but generally
> psychologists seem STUCK at a level of MANAGEMENT
> of an aggressively disturbing child in the classroom,
> through peer approval, or the aplication of accelerating
> CONsequences in the classroom, or scientifically
> S-HOWENDING tactics like "TIME HOWET" (which
> we used to know more simply as "sendin the kid to
> the cloakroom").
>
> Hobbs (op. cit.) claims that the classroom is a
> natural environement for the child. Thelen (1965)
> contends that "classroom practices are UNnatural,
> UNreasonable, and 'against NATURE.' ". This
> would seem the central issue for the philosophy of
> education. Mere trivial application of research findings
> to an institution essentially unchanged from Sumerian
> academies (Kramer, 1962) will NOT create useful
> teaching for human beings.
>
> It seems relevant to ask EXXXACTLY WHAT do we
> know abHOWT the learning situation in which HOWER
> children find themselves, and why, in the light of HOWER
> knowledge, do we do any of the things that schools do?"
>
> We know that there is little agreement among adults
> as to what it is they are SUPPOSED to be DOING,
> what something to do could be that MIGHT be
> EFFECTVE, and what it IS that other people who
> have authority over children ought to be doing (Mc-
> Eachern and Taylor, 1967). Wherefor the child's
> CONfusiHOWEN?
>
> It is NO WONDER hat the marked changes in
> deviant behavior of children can be achieved
> through brief, simple educative routines with
> their mothers which modify the mother's
> social behaviors shaping the child (Whaler,
> 1966). Some clinics have reported ELIMINATION
> ofthe need for child THERAPY through changing
> the clinical emphasis from clinical to parental
> HANDLING of the child (Szrynski 1965). A large
> number of cases improved sufficiently after
> preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
> of children was required, and almost ALL cases
> SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
> Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
> treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
> the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
> SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966).
>
> Probably the most absurd figure in Amaerican mass
> media is the TEACHER (Gerbner, 1966). HOWE can
> we EXXXPECT children to LEARN responsible P-HOWER
> from models of IMPOTENCE? We KNOW that LEARNING
> a complex ritualized social role, is facilitated by observation
> of an INTELLIGIBLE MODEL much more effectively than
> by trial and error with REINFORCEMENT. roles which are
> relatively arbitrary and senseless are the most difficult to
> learn (Luchins, 1966). Do we make ANY EFFORT as
> teachers to CORRECT the massive impact of media?
> HOWE can the ARBITRARINESS and SENSELESSNESS
> of IMPOTENT ADULT MODELS be redeemed by anything
> short of RELEVANCE and COMMITMENT?
>
> As an engaging final comment on the PROFESSION
> let me mention the little study by Dittman et al (1965)
> tha when 15 psychotherapists and 9 professional dancers
> evaluated facial and bodily expressons for effect the
> dancers ere much MOORE accurate. Need we say
> MOORE abHOWET the training of therapists?
>
> THE OPERANT FALLACY
>
> Programs utilizing the "contingencies of reinforcement
> model" proposed by Skinner (1963) ar no more well
> established in research than the various dynamic
> therapists. Research in four areas : 1) direct evaluation of
> programmed systems for elarning; 2) reinforcement;
> 3) cognitive dissonance; and 4) motivation, MOST
> SURELY DEMOLISH eth claims of operant programers.
>
> The 190 studies annotated by Schramm (1964) when
> inspected display NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
> in SUCCESS among approaches and modifications.
> Programmed instruction is no worse than conventional
> instruction, and takes less time, but time reductions in
> conventional instruction has frequently been shown
> possible without detrimental effects. If you draw your
> controls cagily you can always show the superiority of
> your PET technique.
>
> Moore and Smit (1964) compared variations on
> programmed materials, machines, texts, written
> responses, merely reading, free response, multiple
> choice, and iving or not giving the students results.
> There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES despite
> Skinner's insistence on the importance of the
> CONTINGENCY of REINFORCEMENT. Carpenter
> and Greenhill (1963) could find NO DIFFERENCE
> in RESULTS even after eliminating the self-pacing
> feature by presenting the materials by TV or Video.
>
> Krumboltz and Kiesler (1965) reported that a two month
> follow up test showed NO DIFFERENCE between students
> given a variety of reinforcement schedules. Mayo and
> Longo (1966) report that naval and marine trainees
> saved 30% of time in learning electronics fundamentals
> through a programed course witrh superior scores on one
> measure but not on another, and with no follow-up reported.
> The same authors reported a reductionj from 26 HOWERS
> to 19 HOWERS in instruction time through the use of
> program with NO DIFFERENCE in test scores, except
> that as longer blocks of materiallearned through programmed
> meanswere tesed the scores DECREASED.
>
> When the control instruction is manipulated an entirely
> DIFFERENT picture emerges Jacobs and Kulkarni (1966)
> assignedstudents in three different schools to classes
> with standard programmed material giving immediate
> knowledge of results to classes without results and to
> classes with the order of sections of the program inverted.
> In two schools the groups without knowledge of results
> and the groups with inverted material SCORED HIGHER.
> In one school there was NO DIFFERENCE. So much for
> THEORY. Reid and Taylor (1965) presented a linear
> program on paper-making to 60 paid undergrads with
> a 12 week follow up test. The group which merely
> read learned the same material in 154 minutes to
> 243 minutes for the group given responses- a
> REVERSAL of the usual BIASED RESULTS based
> on POOR CON-TROLLS. There were no differences
> on post tests. Spagnoli (1965) reports on a study
> exposing the control and programed group to the same
> material in a concentrated effort over a limited period
> of time. There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
> Sassenrath and Garverick (1965) gave 4 matched
> groups of 120 students four procedures: 1) looking
> up the wrong answers, 2) having questions discussed
> by the instructors, 3) checking answers from correct
> ones on the board, and 4) no feedback. The discussion
> method proved best.
>
> Finally, in studying means of training men to perform
> a 72 action prcedure on Nike-Hercules equipment,
> Cox and Boren (1965) demonstrated that the time
> required to learn the procedure to critterion was NO
> DIFFERENT when the actions were organized into
> seven operant spans and taught in reverse order, in
> natural order, or without grouping into operant spans
> at all.
>
> IT IS CLEAR that as comparisons became more
> sophisticated programed instruction and other
> operant teaching techniquesreveal tehemselves
> as simply another prestigiHOWES FAD--somewhat
> better than conventional instruction in saving time,
> but certainly not providing a better or better organized
> or more independently useful GRASP of KNOWLEDGE.
>
> The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
> technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
> (1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
> procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
> disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys.After twenty-
> six days the boys are reported to have been learning
> new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
> were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
> learning immediately deteriorated. Despite this, and
> despite the fact that there was no evidence of cognitive
> association with the words, the authors leap to the
> conclusion that the fact that the boys improved in the
> acquisition of Norwegian words WITHOUT REWARDS
> while still being given English words WITH REWARDS
> suggest hat the children may be able to acquire new
> behaviors on their own. The need for this study escapes
> one, particularly in view of the very well established fact
> that schizophrenics condition quite readily (Mednick, 1958)
> One can see the "SCIENTIFIC" PRECISION by which the
> authors drop contingent reinforcements thus PROVING
> that the parrot behavior was indeed caused by the schedule
> and NOT by some other mystical force. The useof Norwegian
> to demonstrate learning that could not even remotely be
> related to previous history is a grotesquery too bizarre to
> be credited. Who could possibly doubt that this useless
> and probably damaging trained seal routine depended on
> the psychologist's antics? What on earth led them to
> believe that a schizophrenic needs even more other-
> focused responsiveness?
>
> Lovaas et al (1965) reportedthree programs carried
> out on five year old autistic twins conditioining them
> to "social behavior" and to eliminate pathologial
> behaviors such as self-stimulation and tantrums.
> Affectionate and other social behaviors toward
> adults increaseed after adults had been associated
> with shock reduction. The routine for this treatment
> brings immediate relief to mind Sawrey and Wesz
> (1956) routine for producing ulcers in monkeys. I
> suppose it is USELESS to speculate on the source
> of SO CALLED THERAPISTS willingness to experiment
> on human beings with procedures for which there is
> sound experimentally established WARNINGS. If the
> "double blind" theory of the origin of schizophrenia
> (Bateson, 1956) is at all valid, HOWE DEVASTATING
> the experience must ULTIMATELY BE. Do Lovaas et
> al REALLY BELIEVE the schizophrenic has no cognitive
> processes and DOES NOT KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
> FOR THE SHOCK? Greger (1965) criticized this study
> on the basis that trainsfer CANNOT be generalized. That
> issue can be answered by experience, and, of curse, the
> "social" behavior of these children deteriorates as soon
> as the psychologists LOOSE INTEREST. The IMPORTANT
> ISSUE for a SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR is why not attempt
> those things which are KNOWN to WORK at least in some
> cases if only for control puporses. Kanner (1954) reports
> that 13 classically autistic children improved enough to
> go to school without "anything that is regarded as good
> psychotherapy or as psychotherapy at all..." Autistic
> children have been known to become permenantely
> social by deinstitutionalization, BY REMOVAL from
> the parents, BY RADICAL CHANGES in other environments,
> and by MASSIVE DOSAGE of TOUCHING, HOLDING,
> FONDLING LOVE DESPITE THE REJECTION OF THE
> CHILD. My case, Larry, (vonHilsheimer, 1965b), demonstrates
> a recovery by using the mother as an autistic boy's teacher
> in an open millieu. It is curiHOWES that the operant technicians
> provide as few, and as UNIMAGINITAVE controls for thier
> "research" as the Freudians.
>
> REWARD / PUNISHMENT
>
> Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
> reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING
> THEORY model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.
> Of curse, Skinner has never to my knowledge,
> demonstrated HOWE we escape the phenomenon
> that an expected reward not received is experienced
> as a punishment and can produce extensive and
> persistent aggression (Azrin et al, 1966).
>
> MIMICRY, PLAY, EXPLORATION AND
> THE NEED FOR DATA
>
> Complex activities are LEARNED MORE QUICKLY
> through OBSERVATION (copying, if you will) than
> by trial and error with reinforcemet (Luchins,).
> Observers of subjects making a first trial of a multiple
> choice bolt head maze made fewer errors than the
> practiced subjects in the second run, while subjects
> who have been shocked for error on a first trial made
> more errors than either (Rosenbaum & Hewitt, 1966).
> Students will modify their beliefs more when rewarded
> for the way in which they carried out arguing for a
> disagreeable position (role reward), than when rewarded
> for the content of the argument (Wallace, 1966).