And I pointed out that I noticed that behavior in my own dog, and
that I eventually figured out that it didn't seem to be linked to
anything.

 In my first response, I merely suggested that he might want to take
another look at the possibility that he may have fooled himself when
he concluded that his dog could predict his seizures. Scientist have
shown that this type of error in judgment is very common and very
difficult to analyze objectively. I then offered some resources that
describe some of the reasons why people are so easily mislead when
doing this kind of subjective self validation in a non controlled
environment.

 Just now, as I started writing this message about "seizure dogs", my
beagle came up and sat beside me and started staring at me. It was as
if he knew what I was writing about. If I was so inclined, I might
believe that he somehow knows that I am writing about dogs, and that
is why he came over to me.  I might also forget the fact that 20
minutes ago, I was writing about astronomy, and my dog came up and did
the same thing. One tends to ignore those things that don't support
their beliefs, and pay special attention to those things that do seem
to support them. Scientists, while having learned the importance of
looking at things objectively, are unable to do this without help.
That is why double blind studies are required.
 
 In the case you describe above, you are not suggesting that the dog
had some sixth sense.  You are just giving an example of a dog being
very keen to his owners behaviors. This is not that extraordinary of a
claim, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that it
actually happened.
 However, when it is suggested that dogs possess powers akin to ESP,
powers that are beyond anything known to science, that is when you
should step back and ask yourself whether you should require more
substantial evidence. After all, you would be suggesting an
explanation that would win you the Nobel prize if you could prove it.

 The links I posted were not posted just to rain on his parade. The
books and links I posted are valuable tools that can also be used to
help someone determine if a "new miracle cure", can be trusted.
People who are seriously ill will sometimes become very frustrated
with medical science's inability to help them. They will sometime seek
out alternative medicines that could possibly be very dangerous to
them. These people could benefit greatly by learning critical thinking
skills. There is a lot of valuable information in the links I posted,
and in the books that I recommended.  Information that has saved
peoples lives. That is why I use every opportunity I can to bring up
the subject.

My news server doesn't' have the original post.  It sound like it was
one of those countless whiny mini-manifestos about the idiocy of others.

Simply put, THERE ARE DOGS that can "predict" seizures. It is not ESP,
it is b/c their sense of smell allows them to detect rapid fluctuations
in sweat, etc (various chemical reactions associated with the onset of
grand mal seizures) Rapid epidermal chemical reactions have been
identified in a variety of different type of seizures. These chemical
reactions often begin BEFORE the actual seizure thus it appears these
dogs are predicting the seizure itself when in actuality they have
identified onset before the actual seizure.

The whole thing is not magical or unexplainable.

Why haven't their been controlled studies about how well these animals
detecting these specific  chemical reactions at the speed necessary ? My
guess is that no one has yet put in the time to identify a group of dogs
to do be able to do this, control for the myriad of other variables,
create an identical control group, etc. I am sure though there are at
least some papers worth reading on this topic if one wanted to do enough
hunting.  I have been involved in the  neurological research community,
specifically at the Brain Research Institute in LA (my area was
specifically dendritic sprouting as a result of neurological damage in
various localized areas of the brain) to know that there is definitely
some work somewhere in this area.

It is important not to assume a conclusion or even a major scientific
theory retains validity only if there has been a controlled scientific
experiment.  No questions Darwin's contribution to science despite his
total disregard for this process.  Also the obvious corollary is not to
expect that there is validity in conclusions from so called controlled
research, b/c of the question of how controlled the experiment truly
was.  In my cases variables that are deemed negligable and are not a
focus for isolation in studies prove to be very important.

My dog does have the capability to detect the onset of a seizure before
I lose consciousness.  I did not teach it to him, I have no idea exactly
how the process works for him, I never expected him to have any useful
skills whatsoever, it just happened. I did help him respond
appropriately before and during the seizure.  He is still working on
this, it is difficult to teach him this for obvious reasons since I am
having a seizure at the moment he needs the most training help.  I have
not tested if he can detect seizures in others w/ a similar diagnosis as
mine; I really don't care so I wouldn't waste my time.

For those who find this topic difficult to believe, they should explore
the idea thoroughly.  Waiting for others to prove the topic via
personally acceptable ccriteria is unfulfilling, it will never be a
substitute for personal education. If everyone did that, where would
research be today?  The most exciting learning and research is that
which opens one's mind to new ideas rather than the droll (but no doubt
necessary) work of just reinforcing old ones.