“No evidence that washing after a walk is of any benefit” – Anderson Moores.

In January 2016 Anderson Moores Vet Specialists in CRGV / Alabama Rot said:

“Current knowledge suggests the skin lesions are the result of what is happening internally and are not the site of entry of the ‘triggering’ factor/agent. We have no evidence at the moment to suggest that washing after a walk is of any benefit; however, some people are concerned that the possible causative agent may be on the dogs coat.” Source: Anderson Moores, January 2016 on facebook.

5 Replies to ““No evidence that washing after a walk is of any benefit” – Anderson Moores.”

  1. The bottom line, everybody is that I believe AM’s advice may be seriously flawed, and the studies only seem to indicate the opposite of what they are saying. If dogs frequently get the lesions first, or the lesions appear without the renal failure, then the lesions cannot be the result of the “internal injury”, and it seems more likely that the cause is external but can be internalised later. Sorry, this just seems so obvious.

    I am still waiting for evidence to support AM’s claim that “Current knowledge suggests the skin lesions are the result of what is happening internally” and that there is “NO” evidence” to support washing. The fact that lesions occur on parts that are closes to or in contact with to the ground and that dogs get lesions there without getting any internal symptoms is evidence enough for me that washing might help. If the cause is a contaminant – and AM cannot rule that out – then it must help, to wash it off before the dog licks and swallows it. The fact that one dog that died WAS washed does not prove otherwise. Washing may not save every dog, but hey, it just MIGHT save yours. What does everyone else think?

  2. Precisely what is this “current knowledge” that skin lesions are caused by the internal problem. Caused internally but only affects the bits that touch the ground, paws, legs and nose. How does that work?

    1. Anderson Moores are referring to the acute kidney injury.

      “Alabama Rot is also known as CRGV (Cutaneous and renal glomerular vasculopathy). CRGV is characterised by blood clots in small blood vessels aka TMA. The cause (aetiology) of CRGV is unknown. So what causes CRGV in dogs? Unfortunately the cause is unknown at the moment, but their is one strong candidate – aHUS (atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome). CRGV causes dogs to have skin lesions and acute kidney injury.” (1)

      More info (2).

      Source: (1) https://alabamarot.co.uk/peer-reviewed-crgv-research-by-david-walker-et-al/

      (2) Peer Reviewed paper: https://alabamarot.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Veterinary-Record-2015-Holm-vr.102892.pdf

      1. Much obliged for the links, but not impressed :0(.

        From the linked studies:

        “An …ENVIRONMENTAL trigger for CRGV MAY be suspected, given the number of in-contact dogs in this case series that developed skin lesions WITH OR WITHOUT ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY.

        Please point out the bit of the study that says that the skin lesions are CAUSED by the kidney injury, as you and AM appear to be asserting.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.