Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome (EGUS) Owner Survey

It gets odder. The company which sells the supplement products created by Dr Marlin was compulsorily stopped from trading early this year. On the second of September 2016 the same director as that company had was listed as the director of three new companies, one of which now owns a website continuing to trade under the same name as the company which was compulsorily shut down. In addition, Dr Marlin's address as a director of several companies has never been listed as Cambridge, it is listed somewhere else entirely. He did, however, have a firm of accountants in Cambridge listed as a correspondence address. All this information is freely available online.

I wouldn't be surprised if this survey did not feature in the near future in some PR to promote commercial products and HHO have not been unwittingly used to create marketing material. Surveys are a very popular methods of getting column inches in papers to sell products. I regret filling it in now. I thought it was going to help horse owners, not sell supplements.
 
I don't think the other academics involved in this study would be very impressed to subject to the accusations being made on here. I support David, he's a personal friend, as well as someone who I have great respect for professionally, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I also know that his research and consultancy work has nothing to do with his commercial enterprises.

Equally, I support people right to express their opinion on posts made on this forum, but I feel that, in this case, some the comments are more about grabbing the opportunity, yet again, to have a dig at him personally, rather than inspired by conviction that his work is flawed, and he is a charlatan of the highest order. You;ve banged heads in the past. It happens. Get over it - and that applies to all the protagonists!

He hasn't stated that he is affiliated to Cambridge University, and he has explained the "Cambridge" thing in a previous post, where he got jumped on for exactly the same reason - is it REALLY that important?
 
Yes, it's that important. It's called ethical research standards. It's about trust. Does he even live in Cambridge or is it still just the address of his accountants?

I'm certainly not having a personal dig, I don't know him from Adam.

Regarding his colleagues, I still struggling to get my head around someone who has done postgraduate research into EGUS, Dr Ben Sykes, not knowing that pain was a primary cause.
 
Last edited:
Auslander said:
I don't think the other academics involved in this study would be very impressed to subject to the accusations being made on here. I support David, he's a personal friend, as well as someone who I have great respect for professionally, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I also know that his research and consultancy work has nothing to do with his commercial enterprises.

Equally, I support people right to express their opinion on posts made on this forum, but I feel that, in this case, some the comments are more about grabbing the opportunity, yet again, to have a dig at him personally, rather than inspired by conviction that his work is flawed, and he is a charlatan of the highest order. You;ve banged heads in the past. It happens. Get over it - and that applies to all the protagonists!

He hasn't stated that he is affiliated to Cambridge University, and he has explained the "Cambridge" thing in a previous post, where he got jumped on for exactly the same reason - is it REALLY that important?
Click to expand...

Is he as horrifically pompous, superior and dismissive in real life as he is here?
 
Auslander said:
Not at all - he's a really nice chap, and very passionate/knowledgeable about his subject.
Click to expand...

I'm prepared to believe it, few people who loves animals are foul human beings but transparency and ethics are everything in research and there are some highly qualified and experienced scientific researchers on here (not me) who do raise some valid points
 
Dr David Marlin said:
The survey was piloted with a small group of 50 horse owners and with freeform responses before it was widely released this week. The issue of pain was not raised by anyone nor has it been a comment made by anyone on the Facebook page where there is the option to comment after the survey. Maybe its not that widely believed to be a trigger?
Click to expand...
I find this response to be barely credible, as so many first opinion vets are sharing with their clients that pain is believed to be a factor in EGUS.

Aus, I have no axe to grind here, but please share again with your mate David that coming over as an arrogant twonk does him no favours.
 
Last edited:
Goldenstar said:
It's certainly the opinion of the vets I deal with
Click to expand...

Me too. I have three friends who have had horses diagnosed with grade 3 ulcers in the last 18 months. Three different vet practices were used, every one immediately suggested investigations to find a primary cause after the ulcers were diagnosed, and in all three, another serious clinical condition was subsequently found and treated.
 
Auslander said:
I don't think the other academics involved in this study would be very impressed to subject to the accusations being made on here. I support David, he's a personal friend, as well as someone who I have great respect for professionally, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I also know that his research and consultancy work has nothing to do with his commercial enterprises.

Equally, I support people right to express their opinion on posts made on this forum, but I feel that, in this case, some the comments are more about grabbing the opportunity, yet again, to have a dig at him personally, rather than inspired by conviction that his work is flawed, and he is a charlatan of the highest order. You;ve banged heads in the past. It happens. Get over it - and that applies to all the protagonists!

He hasn't stated that he is affiliated to Cambridge University, and he has explained the "Cambridge" thing in a previous post, where he got jumped on for exactly the same reason - is it REALLY that important?
Click to expand...

Aus, I have a huge amount of respect for you and love your contributions on here, and I would also love to see more research to be discussed on here because there are so many intelligent and interesting people on here to contribute. But this man's surveys are just odd and his responses to people's queries are so very dismissive....particularly when his responses become just stating how many people have responded - surely no man of science considers the number of respondents to a survey as the overriding barometer of success...??
 
I'm just genuinely baffled that it isn't included.

And I do like David and what he comes out with generally, it just doesn't seem to travel very well on to here??
 
DabDab said:
Aus, I have a huge amount of respect for you and love your contributions on here, and I would also love to see more research to be discussed on here because there are so many intelligent and interesting people on here to contribute. But this man's surveys are just odd and his responses to people's queries are so very dismissive....particularly when his responses become just stating how many people have responded - surely no man of science considers the number of respondents to a survey as the overriding barometer of success...??
Click to expand...

Can't really comment on the survey stuff, as I generally assume that there is a reason for the line of questioning. I just know that his papers and articles are excellent, and that he is highly respected by fellow professionals in the industry, so I would imagine that it's pretty upsetting/infuriating when his professional integrity gets a hammering on here. I'm not into blind adulation, and I have noticed that he's been a bit sharp on here a few times, but unless I've missed some, it's been to the same posters each time. Make of that what you will.
 
It's definitely fair to say that clinical governance in veterinary medicine is light years behind human medicine which I guess is where most of my questions come from
 
It's easy for him to safeguard his personal integrity. Follow the rules. Declare right up front any potential conflict of interest like his work for food companies selling gut friendly food, and his sales of supplements. Avoid giving a domestic or correspondence address when his colleagues are listed by their academic establishment. 'Independent researcher' would do the job nicely.

These are straightforward rules followed by most researchers. He must know this, so why he gets snippy when it's questioned is a mystery.

He cannot claim that the fact that the Cambridge thing is misleading is news to him. On his last survey about stirrup length he was told many times that people had felt they had been misled.

All he had to do to be respected is what other researchers do.

You might also advise him to get a better proof reader. Quite aside from missing a primary cause of ulcers, then arguing with people about whether it is a primary cause of ulcers, the typo in the title of his survey (survery) hardly radiates professionalism.
 
Last edited:
ycbm said:
It's easy for him to safeguard his personal integrity. Follow the rules. Declare right up front any potential conflict of interest like his work for food companies selling gut friendly food, and his sales of supplements. Avoid giving a domestic or correspondence address when his colleagues are listed by their academic establishment. 'Independent researcher' would do the job nicely.

These are straightforward rules followed by most researchers. He must know this, so why he gets snippy when it's questioned is a mystery.

He cannot claim that the fact that the Cambridge thing is misleading is news to him. On his last survey about stirrup length he was told many times that people had felt they had been misled.

All he had to do to be respected is what other researchers do.

You might also advise him to get a better proof reader. Quite aside from missing a primary cause of ulcers, then arguing with people about whether it is a primary cause of ulcers, the typo in the title of his survey (survery) hardly radiates professionalism.
Click to expand...

I was going to respond, but I find that I cannot be at all arsed....
 
ycbm said:
It's easy for him to safeguard his personal integrity. Follow the rules. Declare right up front any potential conflict of interest like his work for food companies selling gut friendly food, and his sales of supplements. Avoid giving a domestic or correspondence address when his colleagues are listed by their academic establishment. 'Independent researcher' would do the job nicely.

These are straightforward rules followed by most researchers. He must know this, so why he gets snippy when it's questioned is a mystery.

He cannot claim that the fact that the Cambridge thing is misleading is news to him. On his last survey about stirrup length he was told many times that people had felt they had been misled.

All he had to do to be respected is what other researchers do.

You might also advise him to get a better proof reader. Quite aside from missing a primary cause of ulcers, then arguing with people about whether it is a primary cause of ulcers, the typo in the title of his survey (survery) hardly radiates professionalism.
Click to expand...

But all of these things are true...its not personal, this is what all human medical doctors and researchers abide by, it surely cant be so different for vets and their researchers? Clinical governance and ethics are really important in ensuring transparency and lack of bias in techniques...David isn't inspiring much confidence that these standards re being observed
 
It wasn't as if he'd signed off "Kings College, Cambridge". Why on earth would anyone automatically assume just writing "Cambridge" would equate to the university? (For any academic affiliation, one would normally name the college they are affiliated with not just "Cambridge University"
 
For me it was that all the other contributors were associated with a specific university, this sort of pointed towards the suggestion that David was working with or for Cambridge University
 
According to much of the blurb that can be picked up on t'internet about Dr David Marlin, he is the Professor in Physiology at Oklahoma State University.

That is quite a commute from Cambridge, UK.

He may well have perfectly good reasons for not declaring his assocation with OSU for this survey.
 
Tiddlypom said:
According to much of the blurb that can be picked up on t'internet about Dr David Marlin, he is the Professor in Physiology at Oklahoma State University.

That is quite a commute from Cambridge, UK.

He may well have perfectly good reasons for not declaring his assocation with OSU for this survey.
Click to expand...

Transparency is all with clinical research
 
Casey76 said:
It wasn't as if he'd signed off "Kings College, Cambridge". Why on earth would anyone automatically assume just writing "Cambridge" would equate to the university? (For any academic affiliation, one would normally name the college they are affiliated with not just "Cambridge University"
Click to expand...

Because the other three contributors are listed with their educational establishments. The obvious conclusion is that the fourth is too. As far as I can tell from directors records online. Cambridge is not even David's place of residence, but a correspondence address at his accountants. Now why would anyone use that as an identifier on a piece of research?

Many people felt misled, if you look at the previous research thread.
 
Last edited:
Auslander said:
That's very true! I have given up trying to explain my differing opinion about the person under fire though
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you feel you haven't been listened to. I fully accept that he is a great person to have as a friend, a nice person and that his research published so far is very respected. I've found some of it very useful myself.

It is possible for him to be all that and yet for the criticisms on this and the last thread also to be true. It is a shame that he tarnishes his reputation with the kind of responses he gives on this forum.

And a great shame that none of his collaborators knew the basic fact that ulcers are often caused by pain, because it completely devalues this particular piece of research.
 
I have done the survey.

My ha'pennyworth...

I have only known a few cases of ulcers and in most of these, there was an underlying cause of pain from something else.

I also originally assumed Dr Marlin was connected to Cambridge Uni. Whether it was intentionally misleading or not, the way the names are laid out gave me that impression on first glance. If this was something that has been pointed out before, I am surprised this hasn't been addressed this time.
 
ycbm said:
Because the other three contributors are listed with their educational establishments. The obvious conclusion is that the fourth is too. As far as I can tell from directors records online. Cambridge is not even David's place of residence, but a correspondence address at his accountants. Now why would anyone use that as an identifier on a piece of research?

Many people felt misled, if you look at the previous research thread.
Click to expand...

Maybe a little more clarity would help for the general public; I think most people who are involved in academia, industry and/or research wouldn't automatically assume that "Cambridge" would be the university.

I can see how that could be confusing, though.

Many correspondence addresses are not the authors place of residence; especially if there is an international collaboration, or one where a particular author may have affiliations with multiple academic establishments.
 
I don't, but I suspect that is only because I know he isn't. I can't decide if I knew nothing and I'm really not sure whether the academic side of me would have made that assumption or not

With multiple affiliations it is usually the one paying them the most that gets the nod.
 
For my 2 pence:

I put my point about pain in this survey in an others box somewhere. I did it some time ago so I can't remember where.

However, my own personal opinion is that not nearly enough horse owners know that in 90% of cases, ulcers are a secondary symptom and result from pain somewhere else. Even on here there are posts responded to with 'have you checked for ulcers', or 'you could treat for ulcers', or 'classic ulcer response' with a link to *that video*. The responses on various FB posts in specific groups demonstrates a woeful ignorance (including the specific ulcer ones on occasion).

I am on a Barefoot page and dear Lord, the number of times they suggest bad behaviour could be a result of ulcers.... Largely the bad behaviour on that group is because none of them actually ride their horses enough to keep their minds occupied, but that's by the bye. Then of course you get the 'hind gut ulcers' brigade jumping on the bandwagon. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen the suggestion that there could be other issues at play.

There was a lady on my last yard with a young ID xTB that she swore had ulcers. He probably did from the enormous amount of worm damage he came with. But she absolutely wouldn't have him scoped, and flat refused to believe it was from anything else other than his temperament despite the fact the poor thing rode like an ironing board that had been wrapped around a lamp post and practically dropped to the floor when he was tacked up. For this, she had the chiro and the physio every week. So she went straight for the drugs without any diagnosis. She had her BHS Stage III exams - really you would have thought that she should know better. She wouldn't be told, no matter how nicely you tried. Nope, horse did not need a vet, nothing wrong with him, he just has a sensitive stomach and gets ulcers.I

I won't name names but I had a discussion with a well known eventer who had a friend's horse in training - horse going badly - oh, he has ulcers. Why? He just does...

And then you get the crib biters....

So, whilst I agree that there should have been a means to include pain as a cause category, I do think that outside HHO there is a general ignorance on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top