New scientific findings re spaying/neutering

peasant

Recently there has been a re-examination of the accepted wisdom that spaying/neutering is beneficial or at best harmless to the dog/bitch in question.

Several studies have been carried out, two of them (with 759 golden Retrievers in 2013 and with 2505 Vizlas in 2014) have been published are being discussed scientifically and by vets

here is a link to a comment on the retriever study:
http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10498

and another one from a different site to the Vizla study:
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2014/06/13/neutering-spaying-cancer-risk.aspx

A quick internet search will show up more comments/interpretations for those interested.

For the TLDR faction some quick quotes from both articles: (Bold text highlighted by me)

The study revealed that, for all five diseases analyzed, the disease rates were significantly higher in both males and females that were neutered either early or late compared with intact (non-neutered) dogs.

Specifically, early neutering was associated with an increase in the occurrence of hip dysplasia, cranial cruciate ligament tear and lymphosarcoma in males and of cranial cruciate ligament tear in females. Late neutering was associated with the subsequent occurrence of mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma in females.

In most areas, the findings of this study were consistent with earlier studies, suggesting similar increases in disease risks. The new study, however, was the first to specifically report an increased risk of late neutering for mast cell tumors and hemangiosarcoma.

Furthermore, the new study showed a surprising 100 percent increase, or doubling, of the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males. Earlier studies had reported a 17 percent increase among all neutered dogs compared to all non-neutered dogs, indicating the importance of the new study in making gender and age-of-neutering comparisons.

Dogs of both genders neutered or spayed at 6 months or younger had significantly increased odds of developing a behavioral disorder, including separation anxiety, noise phobia, timidity, excitability, submissive urination, aggression, hyperactivity, and/or fear biting. When it came to thunderstorm phobia, all neutered or spayed Vizslas were at greater risk than intact Vizslas, regardless of age at neutering.

Dogs neutered or spayed at any age were at significantly increased risk for developing mast cell cancer, lymphoma, all other cancers, all cancers combined, and fear of storms, compared with intact dogs.

Vizsla Researchers Conclude More Studies Are Needed on the Biological Effects of Spaying and Neutering, and Also on Methods of Sterilization That Do Not Involve Removal of the Gonads.

We've been mulling over the question of if and when to neuter Benno ...well those findings have settled it for us, he's staying intact.

belongtojazz

I have a young (6 month old) collie cross pup and this topic is really high on my list of research topics at the moment, so thank you for this. I am so torn about what to do and when

El_Duderino 09

That's really interesting. Does spaying/ neutering have any protective effect or is it all bad?

Pretzill

My main reason for being pro neuter/spaying is there are far too many unwanted dogs out there - too many litters needing to be rehomed and too many rescue centers bursting at the seams.

I took what I believe to be the responsible decision to have my dogs spayed and neutered. I had one intact male dog (my first dog) 30 years ago - he lived until 13 and succumbed to kidney failure. More recently a neutered male who lived until 15 (and was treated for arthritis from abt the age of 12) and a spayed female who died at 14 from liver failure. None of the dogs suffered nervousness if anything the intact male was harder to come back on command.

I still have a spayed 4 yr old and a 1.5 year old neutered male both terrifically healthy dogs.

Having an intact dog is perfectly natural for the pet but my reason for neutering/spaying is I can't with 100% certainty trust my dogs won't slip off during heat/horniness! Even though they never leave the secure gates of my property without being on a lead! I don't want to add to the long line of unwanted litters - no matter how miniscule the chances of that happening.

And my experience has shown me no I'll effects of neutering/spaying.

It may well be worth the risk for others and breeders obviously have their reasons too.

All border collie BTW.

El_Duderino 09

Pretzill wrote: »

My main reason for being pro neuter/spaying is there are far too many unwanted dogs out there - too many litters needing to be rehomed and too many rescue centers bursting at their seems

And my experience has shown me no I'll effects of neutering/spaying.

Your point about unwanted litters is well made.

However the whole point of research is so we don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence. I'm happy your own dogs were healthy but I'm sure you don't mean your experience is a valid refutation of the research findings

Sobko

I'm glad to see Vets reexamine their ideas on this. Thankfully my vet is much more open and keeps up to date on this stuff. Thanks for posting OP.

peasant

FWIW, we have four dogs in different states

Harvey (Bobtail mix) was our first, came to us with 18 months, already neutered.
He's now 14 and on rheumocam for his stiff joints ...but hey he's 14 and fine otherwise and never had any issues.

Sophie (Bearded Collie) is now 12 and still intact. She's never had any health issues either (some mental problems, but that's inbreeding and a different topic)

Patch is now 11, was intact until last year when she got mammarial cancer and was neutered while that was operated on to stop further hormonal stress on her mammaries. She did have a few false pregnancies and they may well have caused or at least influenced her mammary cancer. This cancer may not have happened had she been spayed earlier.
Since having been spayed her temperament has changed ..she always was a bit of a tomboy before ...now she's a cranky old man (think Clint Eastwood, not Victor Meldrew) with very few female traces left. Otherwise fit and healthy.

As we had only one neutered male so far, there was no need really to spay the bitches ...so we didn't.

Now Benno has arrived, currently one year old and the "normal" thing to do would have been to neuter him asap ...simply because he's sharing the house with an intact female.

He's a big, heavy dog and by no means fully grown yet ...all research warned to not neuter big breeds until they're fully grown as it can have a detrimental effect on their bone and joint health (which with big breeds is always a concern). So we've delayed the decision and after having found the above studies I don't think he will ever get neutered ...we will cross the bitch in heat bridge when we get there and separate them for the duration.

Sobko

We were advised by our breeder to keep our male dog intact until at least 24 months and if possible keep him intact. We plan to keep him intact.

We have a female who we got spayed at six months and regret it now. We have not adopted a second female from the pound and she is two weeks into her first heat. So far we have been able control the intact dogs without any issue. But then again I work from home.

borderlinemeath

peasant wrote: »

FWIW, we have four dogs in different states

Harvey (Bobtail mix) was our first, came to us with 18 months, already neutered.
He's now 14 and on rheumocam for his stiff joints ...but hey he's 14 and fine otherwise and never had any issues.

Sophie (Bearded Collie) is now 12 and still intact. She's never had any health issues either (some mental problems, but that's inbreeding and a different topic)

Patch is now 11, was intact until last year when she got mammarial cancer and was neutered while that was operated on to stop further hormonal stress on her mammaries. She did have a few false pregnancies and they may well have caused or at least influenced her mammary cancer. This cancer may not have happened had she been spayed earlier.
Since having been spayed her temperament has changed ..she always was a bit of a tomboy before ...now she's a cranky old man (think Clint Eastwood, not Victor Meldrew) with very few female traces left. Otherwise fit and healthy.

As we had only one neutered male so far, there was no need really to spay the bitches ...so we didn't.

Now Benno has arrived, currently one year old and the "normal" thing to do would have been to neuter him asap ...simply because he's sharing the house with an intact female.

He's a big, heavy dog and by no means fully grown yet ...all research warned to not neuter big breeds until they're fully grown as it can have a detrimental effect on their bone and joint health (which with big breeds is always a concern). So we've delayed the decision and after having found the above studies I don't think he will ever get neutered ...we will cross the bitch in heat bridge when we get there and separate them for the duration.

I think the "normal" thing to do would have been to spay the female rather than consider Benno for neutering (he's half giant breed, isn't he?). The research around neutering large and giant breed dogs has been around for a good few years, although the info was slow enough getting out to some vets, but thankfully more are coming on board and are advising to leave large and giant breeds until they are at least 18 months if not longer.

The pro camp for male neutering always hinged on the elimination of testicular cancer, as well as curbing the population. But the initial risks of testicular cancer were always quite low.

The risks of leaving females intact was always more straightforward, pyometra and mammary cancer were always touted as being huge risks, and the older a female was left intact the higher the risk. The fact that hormonal changes occur during biannual heats added to the risk.

As for leaving females intact to go through heat, and false pregnancies (of which my female suffered from before spaying), it can still arouse and distress neutered males and they can still tie with intact females, which can be dangerous. We spayed our female as she showed aggression during her false pregnancy towards our neutered rescue boy. It wasn't worth the hassle of keeping her intact given her tendency to have false pregnancies.

At the end of the day, it is a personal choice, but there are a lot of irresponsible owners out there still who will not bother neutering/spaying and letting their dog roam. While the message regarding the health benefits is probably taken on board by responsible owners, I fear that the irresponsible owners could use it as a "why bother" excuse. Rescues should still have neutering as part of their policies, as they are the ones to pick up the pieces when reckless breeding leads to unwanted litters.

Pretzill

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Your point about unwanted litters is well made.

However the whole point of research is so we don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence. I'm happy your own dogs were healthy but I'm sure you don't mean your experience is a valid refutation of the research findings

I agree 'shown me' not a valid refutation of research findings not anecdotal evidence either just personal experience which informs 'me'.

boomerang

borderlinemeath wrote: »

The pro camp for male neutering always hinged on the elimination of testicular cancer, as well as curbing the population. But the initial risks of testicular cancer were always quite low.

Not only for eliminating the risk of testicular cancer, but reducing the risk of perianal adenoma, too. Have seen a few of those. If ever there was a reason to castrate a dog, this is it! (Google at your peril!) The surgery is very hard on the dog and as this cancer typically affects elderly dogs, you're looking at a greater anaesthetic risk as well.

El_Duderino 09

I'm delighted this is a topic of conversation and research. I'm still wondering if the increased risk of illness after neutering outweighs whatever risks are associated with not neutering.

For example my mother's peers are tending towards having their ovaries removed to avoid ovarian cancer. They take the risk of dieing during an elective surgery but it's generally regarded as a sound decision in the long run.

The research would need to compare neutered vs not neutered in terms of length of life overall, length of healthy life (free from serious illness), quality of life, compare types of illness they tend to get. Then look at dog population as a whole and look at the impact of increased or decreased neutering. Less neutering will likely increase unwanted litters and dogs are more likely to end up in homes that don't really want them or being destroyed

It's a complicated issue and discussion can only help.

I don't know what to think now. Quick someone tell me what to think.

Knine

I prefer the look, coat & attitude of intact dogs. I spayed a Border Terrier bitch 2 years ago & her undercoat all fell out & her skin is awful since. She dribbles urine at times. We neutered a male terrier cross & he has joint problems now.

If you spay/neuter the Italian Spinone breed early, they will likely die of cancer much younger then their intact littermates. My entire dogs live longer although I do get bitches spayed around age 7 or 8.

Rescue dogs are a whole other issue & I think it is definitely in their best interests to be spayed/neutered.

Edited to add I have had a great many dogs & none have died from issues relating to not being spayed or neutered.

peasant

Knine wrote: »

Rescue dogs are a whole other issue & I think it is definitely in their best interests to be spayed/neutered.

Is it really though?
Just for example ..if that rescue dog ended up with a responsible owner who could ensure that no pups were produced (and all other issues avoided) ...why should that particular dog be spayed/neutered?
At the end of the day it comes down (as always) to responsible owners and as much as I admire rescues for the good work they're doing I personally resent the fact that I'm automatically deemed to be irresponsible because I won't be given a choice whether to neuter/spay or not.

But coming back to the study ...what should definitely not happen is neutering before the dogs have reached sexual maturity ...reminder ...

Dogs of both genders neutered or spayed at 6 months or younger had significantly increased odds of developing a behavioral disorder, including separation anxiety, noise phobia, timidity, excitability, submissive urination, aggression, hyperactivity, and/or fear biting.
Furthermore, the new study showed a surprising 100 percent increase, or doubling, of the incidence of hip dysplasia among early-neutered males.

There are alternatives to spaying/neutering as well.
In bitches the womb can be removed while the hormone producing ovaries are left intact. That prevents pups and should improve health ..but the bitch still goes into heat of course, so it's not a clear-cut choice.

For dogs there is vasectomy and quite frankly I don't understand why that is not the standard procedure (as I can't see any drawbacks) instead of cutting everything off.

tk123

Is this "new" research though?! I've already ready studies like this a few years ago?

Lucy was spayed at 17 months. I had planned on letting her grow before spaying and had her on a slow growth diet advocated by breed clubs in the US.. Our vet was on board with the decision when she asked what my plan was at Lucy's 6 month checkup. Her one and only season was not something I'd want to be dealing with every 6 months as frankly, it was quite messy - lets just say it wasn't just the odd drop of blood that people talk about(!). I had her hips and cruciates x-rayed at the same time and all good and stuck rigidly to her 5 mins per month of age for exercise. If and when I get another male I don't think I'd be getting it neutered at all unless there was a medical issue? My aunt's crossbreed had testicular cancer and was neutered recently though so it does happen - the anti-neutering side implies it never does?

Anything to do with joints/bones has a lot more factors than neutering/spaying early though imo - exercise and the dog's weight would be huge factors in it too? When Bailey started having issues early on I had a smug person in the park telling me that's why he'd never have a "purebred" dog because his cross breed around the same age would never have joint issues - the dog is crippled now having had it's cruciates go and had it's legs run off it from day one.

borderlinemeath

peasant wrote: »

Is it really though?
Just for example ..if that rescue dog ended up with a responsible owner who could ensure that no pups were produced (and all other issues avoided) ...why should that particular dog be spayed/neutered?
At the end of the day it comes down (as always) to responsible owners and as much as I admire rescues for the good work they're doing I personally resent the fact that I'm automatically deemed to be irresponsible because I won't be given a choice whether to neuter/spay or not.

But coming back to the study ...what should definitely not happen is neutering before the dogs have reached sexual maturity ...reminder ...



There are alternatives to spaying/neutering as well.
In bitches the womb can be removed while the hormone producing ovaries are left intact. That prevents pups and should improve health ..but the bitch still goes into heat of course, so it's not a clear-cut choice.

For dogs there is vasectomy and quite frankly I don't understand why that is not the standard procedure (as I can't see any drawbacks) instead of cutting everything off.

For vasectomy, I am of the understanding that the dog still gets very aroused and distressed in the vicinity of intact females in heat. For some it's manageable, for others it's not, it depends on circumstances, facilities and the iron will of the dog in question! I have heard of major acrobatics when an intact dog wants to get to a female. And when a dog is outside of it's secure confinement - anything can happen - attacks, car accidents, sheep worrying, aside from being able to impregnate, he could still tie, which is dangerous to both dogs.

One of my daycare dogs had to get neutered when he got so aroused and distressed with a neighbouring dog in heat that his penis got stuck outside the foreskin. This happened overnight and the owner came down to find her poor dog with a very enlarged and dry penis stuck outside his foreskin after he "worried" it so much.

I mentioned before about having a facebook argument with a person selling husky cross pups just before Christmas. Her excuse was that a dog just "turned up" in her porch and wouldn't leave and low and behold a few months later her dog had his pups. That's the kind of stupid that rescues have to deal with and as much as somebody can convince them that they can be responsible with an intact dog, it's too much of a leap of faith and it can lead to trouble (many will tell you of getting suckered in by very believeable adopters). Why should a rescue bend it's policies for people who get insulted when asked to adhere to their rules if they've been caught before? It's like the sign you see in every shop and warehouse, "please do not ask for credit as refusal often offends"

Nody

peasant wrote: »

Is it really though?
Just for example ..if that rescue dog ended up with a responsible owner who could ensure that no pups were produced (and all other issues avoided) ...why should that particular dog be spayed/neutered?
At the end of the day it comes down (as always) to responsible owners and as much as I admire rescues for the good work they're doing I personally resent the fact that I'm automatically deemed to be irresponsible because I won't be given a choice whether to neuter/spay or not.

And how do you as a rescue organization decide that for a random person wanting a dog (and working in a rescue organization it's scary how clueless people are; I'd guess we turn away at least 50% if not 75% of people because it would be animal cruelty to give it over the animal to them)? If people were responsible we'd not have the puppy issue we do in the same way if people knew how to drive properly speeding limits would not be needed but in neither case is it true and hence the rule accordingly.

ShaShaBear

We got Shadow neutered at 5 years old due to him escaping to roam. He was scaling a 7 foot gate to get out at females, and was TERRORIZING children in the estate.

Neutering stopped all of that, stopped him trying to escape, and made him much calmer around children. It made all the difference to him dying peacefully in my arms at 11 years of age after a short battle with cancer and him being surrendered to a pound by my mother for being aggressive with children when I was too young to intervene.

Opie was 3 months old when we adopted him, and he was neutered at 8 months. I have seen a massive improvement in his temperament and attention span. I can never be held responsible for adding to the population of unwanted litters and I'm removing a risk of cancer as well.

peasant

Nody wrote: »

And how do you as a rescue organization decide ...

In reply to your question please allow me to quote another article on this topic...they express it so much better than I could:

In the study, spayed and neutered dogs were also more likely to develop behavior disorders than intact dogs. This included fear of storms, separation anxiety, fear of noises, timidity, excitability, aggression, hyperactivity and fear biting. Another study found neutered dogs were more aggressive, fearful, excitable and less trainable than intact dogs. (Parvene Farhoody @ M. Christine Zink, Behavioral and Physical Effects of Spaying and Neutering Domestic Dogs, May 2010)

This is contrary to the popular belief that neutering reduces aggression and other behavior problems.

These findings also present a conundrum for shelters and rescues who advocate spay/neuter. Although reducing the number of dogs in shelters is an important goal, it’s more important to prevent them from ending up at the shelter. While most people believe that shelters are full because of over population, behavior problems are the most common reason owners give up their dogs. Moreover, is it fair for shelters to burden adoptive families with the increased risk of cancer and joint disease?

source: http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/three-reasons-to-reconsider-spayneuter/

While I understand and sympathise with the connundrum of rescues who have to deal with a constant flood of unwanted dogs, the above could at least provide food for thought and perhaps make them consider alternative ways of preventing unwanted pups (vasectomy, uterus removal only, etc)

borderlinemeath

Actually plenty of unneutered males if they aren't socialised properly do suffer from inter male aggression. I do my best not to have more than one unneutered male here to avoid it (unless I know them and their socialisation skills). A good few male foster dogs from a couple of different rescues that I foster for have shown aggressive tendencies towards other intact males and such need to be kept apart. A vasectomy wouldn't do anything for these dogs, and the likelyhood is the dogs that come into rescue are the unsocialised type and as such would affect their rehoming if they aren't neutered by gonadectomy as the testosterone fuels the aggression. As a fosterer I have to give a frank assessment of their behaviour and socialisation skills to ensure the right home is found and it's something that would really limit their options if living with another intact male (along with the arousal if they go to live with an intact female.)

muddypaws

peasant wrote: »

In reply to your question please allow me to quote another article on this topic...they express it so much better than I could:




source: http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/three-reasons-to-reconsider-spayneuter/

While I understand and sympathise with the connundrum of rescues who have to deal with a constant flood of unwanted dogs, the above could at least provide food for thought and perhaps make them consider alternative ways of preventing unwanted pups (vasectomy, uterus removal only, etc)

I think its brilliant to have the discussion, but if its going to be scientific, I wouldn't recommend posting links to dogs naturally magazine, as most of their articles have no basis in proper scientific research.

In an ideal world, yes, rescues could evaluate each case on its own merit, and wouldn't it be great if they had the financial resources to look at other surgical options, but whilst most of them are struggling simply to stay open, that really isn't an option. It is heartbreaking how many adopters present as responsible, really caring people, but then turn out not to really give a damn, and dump their dogs in the pound, return to rescue or just let them stray. Unfortunately rescues cannot take the chance that a dog they have rehomed will go on to add to the over-population problem. If we lived in an ideal world of course, there wouldn't be that problem in the first place.

The other thing to consider with regard to behaviour, is that a lot of dogs are neutered/spayed because they present with behavioural problems, however, the neutering doesn't cure the problem, so then a dog can be seen as having behavioural issues because of neutering, if the owner only goes for help after the op.

Dyr

I've always considered surgery/alteration of an animal for non medical reasons to be a dubious proposal.

peasant

muddypaws wrote: »

... wouldn't it be great if they had the financial resources to look at other surgical options, but whilst most of them are struggling simply to stay open, that really isn't an option.

From my understanding and research it seems that a womb only removal / vasectomy should be no more expensive than the traditional method. The issue seems to be that so far nobody has really considered it as an alternative and most vets have no training in these procedures. It was/is just the "done thing" to neuter/spay fully.

This, I think, is an area where rescues could start applying positive pressure, after all they do have quite a bit of "buying power" if they all combined.


(as for the dogs naturally article ...it IS a comment on the Retriever and Vizla studies)

tk123

muddypaws wrote: »

I think its brilliant to have the discussion, but if its going to be scientific, I wouldn't recommend posting links to dogs naturally magazine, as most of their articles have no basis in proper scientific research.

+1 very very one sided and skewed "evidence" to back up their ideas. Don't spay/neuter/vaccinate/only feed raw blah blah blah

With any of these studies/articles you need to think for yourself and make the best decision for you and your dog and what fits into your life at the end of the day.

borderlinemeath

I would be more dubious about the behavioural findings. Who's to say that the skillset of the particular owners exposed their dogs to all the issues listed and the general nervous disposition of the pup in the first place. I would imagine something like thunderstorms are quite hard to expose a dog to as they can be so few and far between, and if a pup isn't exposed to them within the fear imprint period, who's to say just how they'll react? Benson was a very nervous boy at the start, so many things affected his confidence, yet he never bats an eyelid at a thunderstorm, ever. Even when dogs around him are in panic mode.

I wonder why the study was done on viszlas? GRs are known to be a dog with numerous health complaints and tendencies to have joint and particular cancers, but I don't know a whole pile about viszlas, other than they can be very clingy, and they're also known as the velcro dog like weimeraners. I wonder were they chosen because they are prone to particular ailments, thus would skew the study favourably?

By the way, there's a 9yr old intact GR boy here this weekend, stiff with arthritis and another regular intact GR boy has had 2 removals of mast cell tumours. They're the only intact GRs that come to me and are both affected by issues. I still think choosing your pup when parents are health tested is still the way forward for a healthy dog.

peasant

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I wonder why the study was done on viszlas?

Somebody had to pay for it ...the Vizla club did

In 2008, the Vizsla Club of America Welfare Foundation
sponsored and funded the Vizsla Health Survey
to examine health issues in that breed.

From the original [url=]http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/HealthyPets/61314_Pets_Lead Article_VizslaStudy.pdf[/url]

borderlinemeath

peasant wrote: »

Somebody had to pay for it ...the Vizla club did




From the original http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/HealthyPets/61314_Pets_Lead%20Article_VizslaStudy.pdf

That's what I'm saying, was it published because they are a particularly affected breed? Were studies done on other breeds - beagles, collies, setters etc and the findings were not exactly what they needed so were never published?

peasant

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Were studies done on other breeds - beagles, collies, setters etc and the findings were not exactly what they needed so were never published?

Don't quite follow ...who are "they" and what was it "they" needed?

A scientific study is just that, a study. The results are what they are.

And before any conspiracy theories start ...please note the bit in red in my OP

borderlinemeath

peasant wrote: »

Don't quite follow ...who are "they" and what was it "they" needed?

A scientific study is just that, a study. The results are what they are.

And before any conspiracy theories start ...please note the bit in red in my OP

"They" would be Mercola, the site that has the vizsla study, they are full of homeopathy/natural remedies and are very much anti vaccination, both human and pet, even blaming the recent measles outbreak in the states on "recently vaccinated persons". They do have an agenda. I'm not questioning the study, I'm questioning why vizslas were used, rather than a more popular breed seen in vets for routine vaccinations. GRs are popular and well known for having both joint and cancer issues.

peasant

Just to clarify:

The Vizla study was done and published independently.
Mercola had nothing to do with it, they are just commenting on it.

If you want to read a comment on the study from a different viewpoint, try this for size: http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2014/02/benefits-risks-of-neutering-an-evidence-update-cancer-and-behavioral-problems-in-vizslas/

EDIT:
Please also note that half of my quoted comments in the OP stem from an article of the University of California on the Retriever study.
I don't know what their stance on vaccination,homeopathie etc is ...but I suspect that they would be considered fairly neutral


And another EDIT
The reason why I quoted articles and not the original studies is simplicity ...copy & paste from a scientific paper does not make easy reading and the articles both provide a correct summary of the scientific findings.
The links to the studies themselves are in the quoted articles if anyone wants to follow them.

borderlinemeath

peasant wrote: »

Just to clarify:

The Vizla study was done and published independently.
Mercola had nothing to do with it, they are just commenting on it.

If you want to read a comment on the study from a different viewpoint, try this for size: http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2014/02/benefits-risks-of-neutering-an-evidence-update-cancer-and-behavioral-problems-in-vizslas/

Another homeopathy proponent:D

Like I said above, I am not questioning the viszla study. I am remarking that the likes of Mercola and that skeptvet as linked above are jumping on it as it fits in with their agenda.