So here is the update on Mars Veterinary *escalation process* & how it went. I was contacted via phone & email by Angela Huges, DVM . I called her back. She was the most pleasant person I had talked to at Mars thus far. That being said, I can tell you this: People from Mars READ SCRIPTS. Even the DVM...Not kidding. I called her & identified myself, & she quickly identified herself--then went into a VERY LONG script--I could tell she was reading it,--she was reading way too fast, complete with run on sentences, weird inflection, it was a bunch of statements about MARS & how their DNA analysis is accurate & why people become confused over the results. *It provided NO USEFUL INFORMATION* & some was also the same exact wording as what was in previous emails. I couldn't get a word in edgewise & after more than 5 minutes straight of her *READING SCRIPT* I asked her to please stop reading so fast, because I wanted to talk about Tessa and the results. Her response was "Oh, sorry, ha! Ok..." The script is designed like a defense. Some people *MIGHT* buy it. *Might*. Kind of like a disclaimer about side effects that is read lightning fast at the end of one of those drug commercials, or after a car sale comercial. A true re-analysis wasn't run. They reviewed the same exact results. I was told: "the Maltese appears to be a false positive" & this was blamed on the computer. Everything is blamed on the computer. I *DID* try to talk about the DNA, I was told Tessa is 1/2 golden retriever & the other 1/2 they do not know-they could not get a clear picture, she then gave a list of breeds Tessa could possible be a mix of. She ran down a list from various spaniels & retrievers & briefly mentioned bull mastiff. I asked, because it was reading a list--did any actual DNA get identified or are you only giving me probabilities--are there any actual percentages of DNA??? I never got a clear answer. It was a yes or no question. I asked the same question a couple of times. We did have a *brief* discussion of why I was sure the test was not accurate. She told me she understood because she saw the pic of Tessa's paw. She said retrievers can sometimes be big, in the 70-80lb range & more, & that I could expect Tessa to be in that range when full grown.. . I explained at 7 months Tessa is just about there already, & I would find the test results more acceptable if it had any traces of Newfoundland, mastiff, TM, Gr Pyr etc. ********Here is where the tone changed a bit******: I was met with an "Oh, Oh, well I guess she is going to be a big girl" & she sounded genuinely shocked & got quiet. At this point she mentioned I could be sent a new kit for an actual re-test, but that she felt confident the results would be exactly the same. She repeated that statement more than once--that the results would be the same--with conviction, & a degree of apathy. This lead me to *feel* that really, while I WILL get a new test kit with swabs--nothing *REALLY* happened with it. We discussed briefly the tan point genes-and she assured me that Tan points ARE carried by golden retrievers but they are not expressed. She also mentioned perhaps Tessa was mixed with a breed they do not test for. I got a lot of "maybe, perhaps, or could be..." I did not get a DNA is so mixed on that side we cannot tell--I more got an "we don't know" but that was not exactly stated in those words--but all of the *GUESSING* about what breed could be on Tessa's other 1/2 was pretty clear. It was like she kept mentioning breeds hoping I would say "yes--that's it!!" Problem was, none was believable, & all were smaller than a golden retriever. About the tan pointing gene-I've done my research---it is a HUGE debate on whether or not this is actually true with golden retreiver breeders. It is a rarity. But if you look at the history of what originally went into the golden retriever's breed-yes, it is entirely possible for tan pointed genes to be passed, but so rare with purebred goldens that a breeder is called into question if it occurs. With a mix, it's possible. Anyway, basically, I am still not satisfied. I am honestly not a picky person. I really just want what I paid for. A re-analysis wasn't really done. A person called me back on a specific day--reading a script of pro-Mars definsive CRAPOLA. Mars protocol is that you do not receive any info on the re-analysis until the 21st business day. The re-analysis is *NOT REALLY* a true re-analysis as a consumer would think was supposed to be performed. It is a person reading a script & trying to convince you why the results you are questioning are correct. There is NO NEW INFORMATION. When you ask the deeper questions, it begins to fall apart. Most people with rescue pooches & mutts aren't going to dig like I did, so most would buy it all. You really get stone-walled. I wanted to talk dog. Everything with Mars Veterinary is *MARKETING*--They have a protocol & they NEVER break protocol. *I will get a retest kit*-- However----I was told my results will be exactly the same--multiple times. I said-"since the confusion of my name & Tessa's name, twice- I feel either the test was contaminated or the wrong swab was tested & put under my name"--I was told that was impossible. I will do the re-swab-re-test once I receive the kit, because maybe--just maybe--the test actually gets re-done. I did not leave the call with that feeling at all though, I got the distinct impression that basically the test is sent to appease my request, but that NOTHING WILL CHANGE. To me, the consumer, that reads: you will get a new test kit & nothing will be tested-your results will not change, we will just stick to our story. At this point, my feeling is that this DNA is a waste of time & $$$$$. This is not so much because of the DNA results specifically, though that is what started this all--but it *IS* the way Mars handles business. The stonewall protocol with Mars Veterinary "Escalation Process" is designed specifically to make you wait in hopes you give up. The scripts are written in such a way as to not give you a chance to get a word in edgewise & to try to beat you down into accepting what Mars says & not to question & to make you feel like there is no way Mars is wrong. Probably written by a paralegal with some backround in Persuasive Writing.