I suspect that just given normal product distribution patterns, the contaminated food did end up clustered in a few areas. This would explain why most vets are reporting no increase at all in kidney failure cases, while a few are reporting a major increase.
NYC’s Animal Medical Center, a big teaching/research hospital that gets referral cases from all over the region, scrutinized the test results of 143 pets they treated for renal failure between March 17-20, and found only 5% to be related to contaminated food.
http://www.amcny.org/foodrecall/renalfailure.pdf
That would be 7.5 our of 143 pets and how many dogs and cats in this county? If 5% of the human population was sick and dying fromt he food supply perhaps this would get more serious attention.
And you don’t think a 5% increase in deaths related to ARF is significant?
Why are you minimizing this? What is the point of trying to minimize this?
And please cite your source for saying that “most vets are reporting no increase at all in kidney failure cases.” The article you linked doesn’t say anything like that, so where are you getting that information, or are you making a completely illogical and unrelated leap from the 5% illness statistic reported in the link you posted?
I am dumbfounded as to why you are trying to minimize this huge and severe issue.