Dog Food Advisor TRUSTED Business REVIEW: Dog Food Advisor’s editorial and service team are employees dedicated to 100% customer satisfaction. DFA's approach to reader support is focused on providing the highest quality customer satisfaction in the pet food review industry.
WHY THE ORIGIONAL Ripoff Report and other comments filed below are completely false.. Internet troll, blogger threatens and harasses owners of Dog Food Advisor, creating multiple fake identities when posting comments on the community website, retaliation for being blocked from forum.
By Mike Sagman
The person who created this fictitious Ripoff Report in September 2016 (including his 7 deceptive followup comments) did so because he had been previously denied access and blocked from participating in The Dog Food Advisor discussion forums and Disqus blog.
This action was taken by our moderators because of his repeated use of multiple false identities to threaten the owners and officials of The Dog Food Advisor blog as well as other members of its discussion community with malicious and alarming comments.
These sinister actions taken by this person even included illegally publishing the personal names of the minor children of other members of our social community.
We frequently received numerous complaints from members who feared for their personal safety as well as for the safety of their own families. He also illegally posted the personal information including addresses and phone numbers of other participants he had "scraped" from other sources (like Facebook).
We reached out to this individual and implored him to cease and desist his dangerous behavior. He responded by continuing his personal attacks.
Each time we blocked him from participation, he created new and fraudulent identities at Disqus and also on our own website. He also continued to threaten other members.
He retaliated by creating this false and misleading Ripoff Report --- because we blocked him from further participation in our blog.
We appreciate the opportunity and the help afforded us by the owner and staff of Ripoff Report in another attempt to reach out and publicly respond to this this person.
NOW TO THE ORIGINAL BOGUS REPORT THAT WAS FILED
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The editor of this page dogfoodadvisor.com and NONE of his co-workers have ANY training in dog nutrition yet they make outrages claims that has been making dogs sick! A lot of dogs get diarrhea from their high protein diets yet Shawna keeps claiming it is a detox process. As a vet tech and a nurse this is about the stupiest things I have ever heard. When we proved her wrong all of our posts have disappeared, and we were blocked!!!!!Don't put your dogs in danger by listening to them!!!!The dog food companies they recommend look at the Ash, Phosphorus and Calcium, it is not in proper balance, usually too high, this can cause health problems, I could write a book about them, and some day I will, it has to STOP!!!!Too many dogs get sick!!!!
Please don't listen to them on dogfoodadvisor about dog nutrition, your dog doesn't need more than 25-30% protein, and it is wise to mix kibble with canned because otherwise they get diarrhea. And diarrhea is NEVER a detox process, please believe me, I'm a nurse and vet assistant with diplomas unlike them. They banned me for speaking the truth, like many others. You are talking to houseviwes without any credentials on the dogfoodadvisor.
Mike Sagman is a dentist without training in dog nutrition and he for sure needs more training in anatomy as well. His background is hunting and fishing, no wonder he hates plant protein, that is good for dogs.
Dentist Michael Sagman, editor and owner,of this site, the dogfoodadvisor, and his co-workers Shawna Noffsinger, Marie Shavasta Danzell, Janice D. McCollan with nicknames Shawna, Inked Mary, Betsy Greer and JanMom2Cav as well as those others hiding their identity, such as Hounddog, Pattyvaugn, among most others should have been more humble because it turns out the majority of them are housewives and none of them have careers in real life and NONE of these contributors have ANY real credentials in DOG NUTRITION as of this date yet they have been making ridiculous claims about it.
When you look though the posts it is striking with what arrogance and rigidness they bully 'outsiders' and mistreat others but brown nose Mike. In the end he deletes unwanted posts and leaves those that suit him and makes outrages accusations, threatening people with legal action for speaking the truth, but the legal action or accusation are not based in fact and/or law. They will twist and turn facts as they please and talk and bully as they please, kind of mean kids in high school at times. It is very unjust the way they judge dog food based on a questionable bias on such a surface level. If you want a good dog food, look for a holistic brand and make sure they don't use any ingredients from China and most is USA sourced. How the food is made is important, not just the ingredients list that can be VERY misleading. The aforementioned website is not to be trusted and their star-rating system is wrong! It doesn't take into consideration the companies' practices, sources of ingredients, the question if it is human grade type quality, recalls how the food is made and where etc. Several of their 5-star foods have had several recalls, I think that says it all. The information is indeed BIASED and NOT unbiased as claimed. A lot of veterinarians challenging the flawed studies and erroneous data have been unfairly blocked from the site and they are not shy about making up stories in order to defend and construe facts not based in law. When they come back with an alternative email address he threatens to put them in prison! But he cannot do that and it was for them not unlawful to re-post their honest posts that have been deleted unfairly. All they wanting is provide HONEST not DISHONEST information! Also their calculations of ingredients is not accurate, often they take averages and the points could be off by as much as 4% yet if a food has 1% less meat protein it gets less 1 star; so that is just ridiculous. The website is not a trusted source of information. Just look at the credentials the people posting have that says it all.
Mike Sagman doesn’t allow unbiased information because he frequently deletes posts disagreeing with his theory making dubious claims against posters who disagree or makes certain posts pointing out his errors, ‘dissappear’.
Today HE DELETED SMITTY'S POSTS FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASONS AND YESTERDAY HE WAS MEAN-SPIRITED TOWARDS A VET WHO (AGAIN) PROVED SHAWNA WRONG JUST THE WAY I DID REGARDING HER HIGH PROTEIN RAW DIET CLAIM THAT SUPPOSELY SAFED HER DOG, YET NONE OF IT IS TRUE. THE DOG HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PROPERLY DIAGNOSED AND SHE LIES USING ARGUMENTS CONTRADICTING HERSELF TO MAKE HER CLAIM.
Mike's main point is that dogs should receive a very high protein diet and he rates dog foods very high in protein, with approx.. 38 %, higher than a dog food with 30%. He also falsely calls plant protein a by product such as peas or grains. Veterinarians generally recommend around 20% with 30% being the highest. The food with higher protein, however, may have a lot of recalls and could have quality issues, but amount of protein is more important in his rating system, particularly, meat protein even though this theory is clearly not scientific and contrary to what most veterinarians recommend or suggest. While he is trying to back himself up via a disclaimer and repeatetly suggests to talk to a qualified vet his actions clearly suggest a specific agenda that is evident all over the website; either in his articles or the blog section. His white coat on his picture makes him appear like an authority as a doctor.
What is also concerning that a lot of companies proudly state on their website things like ‘”5 star raging by the dogfoodadvisor”. Then they include extra cheap chicken meal (that is cheaper than plant protein) in order to receive their 5 stars; however, the very high protein (in many cases 40%) causes stomach upsets, diarrhea, colitis or looses stools in many dogs, for instance Blue Buffalo or Orijen. A lot of people don’t post there anymore because no matter how difficult it is for the dogs to digest too much protein, the ‘top contributors’ come to the companies’ defense but bash companies that provide plant protein. When someone mentiones it on the website, ‘star top contributor’ Shawna (who has no valid credentials in a related field) then falsely claims that would be a ‘detox prosess’ and a ‘good thing’, using false data or information from Quack Mercola, yet the dog could be dying from a condition. Mr. Sagman usually upvotes these posts making false claims like these based on Quack Mercola or Karen Becker. Their recommendations often put dogs in danger, for instance they frequently recommended a raw diet which made the dogs sick and ended up at the vet. After many people spoke up they are not as vocal about the raw food anymore though but still about the very high protein amounts and their choice on meat protein. Then Shawna frequently recommends not to listen to the veterinarian.
Just yesterday she was called on by a veterinarian about her kidney disease dogs she claims is thanks to her 50% high protein raw diet still alive-yet if it was true that the dog had kd then it would not be unusual, unlike she claims, that the dog is still alive. She then goes on and claims the dog would not be on ANY medication, whatoever, but later admits, it is getting renal kidney support. When I challenged her and showed the truth, my posts were conveniently deleted, claimed, I would be ‘fraudulent’, something that was never true. I was unlawfully banned from the site, because of my credentials I exposed the facts and they could not handle it.
You have to ask yourself: What does this very high meat protein diet do? Is it better to feed a dog 40% meat protein versus 25% meat- or even plant- protein? The answer is no. The excess protein will not be utilized but simply flushed out. Plant protein contains all amino acids like meat, it comes in the same form. Will your dog be more healthy on a dog food like Orijen rated five stars with 38% meat protein versus a two-star vegetarian dog food like V-dog or Halo around 20% plant protein? The answer is clearly no. Among veterinarians it is well known that vegetarian dogs can thrive on a vegetarian diet and they even recommend vegetarian diets for certain health conditions. Vegetarian dogs live, per statistics, very healthy and long lives, just like the rest of the dogs or they often even do better since the same amino acids in meat are found in plants. Testimonials of people using these foods are evidence that there is no health benefits in Mr. Sagman claims. To the contrary; most of his favorate foods have been causing a lot of health issues for dogs. Some of them don’t are AFFCO complaint or have too much or too little nutrients. Some of them had recalls or the heavy protein content is difficult to handle for dogs. Testimonials of most of veterinarians will state the same. In fact many veterinarians recommend vegetarian diets for health reasons and there is no ill effect. They also will recommend not to use more than 30% protein due to possible health issues this can cause yet they push people in giving more than 30% MEAT protein, all which is a health concern and unnessessary..
Mr. Sagman simplifies complex scientific studies and is intellectually dishonest when representing them. For instance he often quotes the famous Bovee Kornfeld study. While the ‘conclusion’ of the author was that a high protein diet had no severe ill effect on the kidneys , it was determined in the study that dogs fed a 56% protein diet had more glomeral leasons than the others on a lower protein, which reflects damages to the kidneys which then leads to a lower quality of life. He delibertly misconstrues this among other studies by claiming that ‘ a high protein diet doesn’t cause kidney failure’. Also he leaves the fact out that high meat protein comes with high phosphorus amounts which is scientifically proven to damage the kidneys.
Mr. Sagman has no scientific evidence to substantiate his claims the way he presents them. The general consensus among researchers is different than he presents it. Another example: Senior dogs may profit from a higher protein diet, but no responsible scientist suggests 40-50% protein also like him and his groupies do. They recommend to increase the amount from 18-26%.
Please speak up use your cell phone with a new email so they can't block you.