Sealtainn:
I am enjoying this conversation even though much of it is outside of my realm of understanding. What I am enjoying the most is the interchange of opinions. I will admit, however, to being totally confused by your last post. If I deciphered your point correctly, you are saying: 1). ETS is in fact a real syndrome that afflicts cannines, 2). there are definitions of ETS even though they may be slightly incorrect/confusing/non specific in at least some cases, but, 3). if you can actually find a cause of ETS in a specific dog, then by definition, that dog is not suffering from ETS. I am now totally confused.
See
http://www.awesomepaws.us/early-takeoff-syndrome/ & the various articles linked from that page.
Since the original definition of ETS was published, the definition was expanded into various sub-definitions where primarily the new definition of "classic ETS" is equivalent to the original definition of ETS, however, with more exposure & consideration of the broader range of causes of early take-offs other sub-definitions were termed.
ETS (and classic ETS) by definition states that the cause is unknown at this point even though the suspicion is that it is likely primarily related to vision, the exact cause, or causes have not been identified (IMO it is unlikely that there is one root cause given the diversity of identified causes of similar early take-offs).
Let's say you go through all the tests & nothing is found wrong at all with the eyes yet the early take-offs can be regularly observed, etc... and your dog is considered a classic case of ETS. Hypothetically say you have the dogs eyes & related structures checked thoroughly & extensively on a regular basis from different experts in the field (i.e. not your average vet).
If an abnormality that could not be originally detected no matter how thorough the tests were progresses to the point of being able to be detected or if a (new or repeated) test is undertaken by a different expert or the same expert at some other time on a dog for which an abnormality can now be detected but may or may not be degenerative then the cause of the early-takeoffs may no longer be considered an unknown due to the newly discovered abnormality.
Had such a dog not been tested to an extent beyond that of the average "ETS"-labelled dog then it's abnormality would continue to go undetected, remain unknown, and so continue to be considered a case of a classic ETS dog.
Since there are many ways for which vision can be affected there are many different possible abnormalities that would have to be tested. The issue that I believe for ETS research at this point is being able to identify what needs to be tested. The current tests for which an ETS dog would have to pass (i.e. the absence of a detectable abnormality) is quite limited IMO.
