008Zulu said:
I wonder if this is why they don't allow dogs in hospitals? Then they wouldn't be able to charge $10K for a body scan.
They could call it a... LAB TEST!
... as in labrador. The cats can do the cat scans.
Zachary Amaranth said:
I think a part of the point also comes down directly to the fact that while those cancer-detecting dogs will actually be life savers, Max is being equated to one with no evidence that anything out of the ordinary actually occurred.
...
But then, there's the distinct possibility that she survived due to nothing more than random chance. That this dog could not detect cancer and was not offering a warning. There are so many things potentially wrong with that chain of events.
I just have to ask... so what? Taking the anecdote at face value, the woman noticed her dog acting strangely towards her breast, she got it checked out and the tests came back negative, but the dog's behaviour was clearly odd enough to convince her to get a second look - and lo and behold they found cancer. The dog's behaviour reportedly returned to normal after the cancer was removed.
Given that we know dogs
can smell cancer, and are being trained to detect cancer and other issues, the observations fit the hypothesis. Yes it could have been countless other things, yes we can't know for sure unless we wave tumours in front of the dog's nose to see how he reacts, but why is that important? If you were using this anecdote as evidence of dogs being able to detect cancer of course it's flimsy, but it's just an anecdote about something we already know can occur. It's like if I told you a story about the time I ate five hotdogs and you asked for evidence that I had a working digestive system before you'd consider it. In this case I think the woman's testimony is sufficient evidence to say it's plausible her dog reacted to the smell of her cancer.
Captcha: agree to disagree.
Nevaaaar!!!
