Following recent sales off verm x ( discuss)

Hello ester, I agree with you there. These things always need to be monitored in the long term to really know what is going on. I have had blood tests which have shown that there is not a tape problem although this is not something I have ever really had as a problem. I agree that worm management of pasture and poo picking and such like is what really helps, whatever the product of choice

YasandCrystal you also make some very good points. The product must have some powerful ingredients in it that are able to get the results people are seeing with it. I first used Verm-ex as I am a bit of a worrier when it comes to resistances with chemical wormers. After a course though my horses do look very shiny and they love eating it (I use a pelleted version) and I do think they have a great ability to eat what they know is good for them. Heaven knows how difficult it is to get a chemical wormer into my section A!!:p
 
After one year pf lots of health and skin problems, I decided to use Verm-X on my Cushings boy as I didn't want to use chemicals. The supplier rang me to advise a FEC first as it wouldn't clear a high worm burden. It turned out he did have a high worm burden, even tho he had always been regularly wormed along with the yard programme:eek:
After a course of 5 day Panacur and then a clear FEC, I did use the Verm-X along with poo picking for the next year and never had any problems with getting my very picky boy to eat the granules, and the subsequent FEC's were all <50wpg.
Of course I still had to use chemicals for tape and bots twice a year.
Another reason for preferring to use herbal remedies, I thought it would help to lessen the problem of worms being resistant to the chemicals by only using them when essential.
 
The ingredients of the liquid

"Allum sativum, cinnamomum zelandicum, mentha piperita, thymus vulgaris, galium aperine, capsicum minimum"

(Garlic, cinnamon, peppermint, thyme, cleavers and cayenne)

So after using it you could make a curry with it.
thumbsup.gif
 
Why do people automatically assume that "herbal" products are better/safer/gentler/more natural than commercially available drugs.

1) Commercially available wormers are tested to the Nth degree for both safety and efficacy before they are allowed for sale. There are no such requirements for "herbal products," the only limits on them are what the ASA slap on their misleading adverts!

2) Many many drugs are originally derived from plant compounds anyway.

3) "Herbal" does not necessarily mean harmless. Ricin, yew, belladonna, rhododendron family, privet etc etc are all very poisonous to various species, yet all are plant compounds.

Just my 2 pennorth worth.
 
lauraandjack said:
Why do people automatically assume that "herbal" products are better/safer/gentler/more natural than commercially available drugs.

1) Commercially available wormers are tested to the Nth degree for both safety and efficacy before they are allowed for sale. There are no such requirements for "herbal products," the only limits on them are what the ASA slap on their misleading adverts!

2) Many many drugs are originally derived from plant compounds anyway.

3) "Herbal" does not necessarily mean harmless. Ricin, yew, belladonna, rhododendron family, privet etc etc are all very poisonous to various species, yet all are plant compounds.

Just my 2 pennorth worth.
Click to expand...

Hello lauraandjack, I personally do not doubt that chemicals have been tested thoroughly but they are still relatively 'new' to us especially compared to the use of herbs and we are already seeing resistance troubles and horses that cannot tolerate them, I just want to make sure I am not reliant on them. I am certainly no professional but it seems although there are a lot of chemical wormers many use the same 'active ingredient' (if this makes sense!)
Testing is importnat to me and this is why once a year I do use a good 'all round' chemical wormer aswell but I think that there is a lot of clever marketing about and so I worm count a lot on my own horses and so know Verm-ex has been successful for me and my little lot do look well on it.
Out of interest which products do you tend to use? I prefer using products that come with a recommendation :)
 
WelshieMare said:
Hello lauraandjack, I personally do not doubt that chemicals have been tested thoroughly but they are still relatively 'new' to us especially compared to the use of herbs and we are already seeing resistance troubles and horses that cannot tolerate them, I just want to make sure I am not reliant on them. I am certainly no professional but it seems although there are a lot of chemical wormers many use the same 'active ingredient' (if this makes sense!)
Testing is importnat to me and this is why once a year I do use a good 'all round' chemical wormer aswell but I think that there is a lot of clever marketing about and so I worm count a lot on my own horses and so know Verm-ex has been successful for me and my little lot do look well on it.
Out of interest which products do you tend to use? I prefer using products that come with a recommendation :)
Click to expand...

what makes you think Verm-Xs weasel worded adverts are any less 'clever marketing' than 'chemical' wormers?
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
what makes you think Verm-Xs weasel worded adverts are any less 'clever marketing' than 'chemical' wormers?
Click to expand...

I completely agree that their wording is not very clear but when I have spoken to them they have been helpful and informative and aware of the restrictions against them. I would like to make it very clear and I not against chemicals at all I just find it interesting how many people question Verm-ex and whether it works but no-one really does the same with chemical wormers. I just guess this is down to the marketing more than anything.
 
WelshieMare said:
c I just find it interesting how many people question Verm-ex and whether it works but no-one really does the same with chemical wormers. I just guess this is down to the marketing more than anything.
Click to expand...

But people do question whether various chemical wormers work, all the time, due to resistance being built up against various chemicals.
 
the chemicals are licensed and scientifically trialled against the parasites they are supposed to kill/paralyse, as such they are 'proven' to work. As far as I know this is not the case with Verm-x.

worm counts have their place but equally are not the be all and end all, despite the laboratories marketing it wishing you to think otherwise at times. For starters I don't think most owners stick an entire dropping in the food blender before getting their sample to send off.
 
ester said:
the chemicals are licensed and scientifically trialled against the parasites they are supposed to kill/paralyse, as such they are 'proven' to work. As far as I know this is not the case with Verm-x.

worm counts have their place but equally are not the be all and end all, despite the laboratories marketing it wishing you to think otherwise at times. For starters I don't think most owners stick an entire dropping in the food blender before getting their sample to send off.
Click to expand...

Now I said that my vet had told me you needed to do this and therefore worm counting provides a lot of false negatives so stick with chemicals (in vet - thread about worming horses with ulcers) and got told how very behind the times my vets were because all vets now recommend a worm count based programme. I didn't bother to argue the toss, but the lack of knowledge out there with regards to worm counts being some panacea is just alarming!
 
faecal egg counts are fine if you interpret the results correctly, past posts on here from people with results suggest that this is not always the case. The lab stages are fine and well documented as methods it is the other bits ;) this is mostly problematic when dealing with individuals as opposed to assessing whether to treat a whole herd or flock which tends to be done on cost effectiveness. (my history is in sheep fec btw!) a few issues are:

worms in the gut are known to not release eggs regularly, they release them in bouts, a bit like a circadian rhythm, therefore if you are taking one sample of poo you might miss the release.

Horse guts are big, fact, horse poos are also big. To take say a 10g sample from that is not a lot and greatly increases the risk of over or underestimating the burden.

Droppings also need to be as fresh as possible and not from contaminated ground (there are natural, non parasitic nematodes on grass etc which might increase the count). If I were to use them I would attempt to collect several droppings throughout the day, mix them thoroughly and then take my sample from that.

In essence I would be very wary of using a single <50 epg result as a basis not to worm your horse. If your horse had a good history of <50 epg counts this would be much better evidence that your horse does not need worming with a chemical wormer.

As it stands in the knowledge that I have good worm management (field poo-picked daily- twice weekly is sufficient in summer temps to prevent re-infection). I treat for tapes twice a year and encysteds at christmas anyway and due to the above management only treat once in the summer grazing period (as an in case), Using an epg once would not give me the quality of result I desire to replace that.

I do not underestimate the threat of resistance but it is important that this is not reduced by witholding drugs from animals that do actually need treatment either :).
 
WelshieMare said:
I just find it interesting how many people question Verm-ex and whether it works but no-one really does the same with chemical wormers. I just guess this is down to the marketing more than anything.
Click to expand...

I would guess it's probably down to the fact that "chemical wormers" (I taste my own bile using that description) have been proven to work, whereas Verm-x has not.
 
I will see if I can find any of the original research from that summary, one thing I noted from that is that it only shows ovicidal activity ie growth of larvae from an egg which occurs on the pasture (cycle basically goes egg in dung> larvae 1>larvae 2>infective larvae 3>horse>adult worm) so ovicidal activity would be of less importance than actually killing the adult form.

eta that's a no it doesn't seem to have been published properly, having googled the person I suspect it may have been an undergrad project maybe :confused: no apparently publications from them anyway.
 
Last edited:
WelshieMare said:
Just had a google of trials to see what I could find. I see Verm-ex can't publish their own as they are not classed as a medicine due to being herbal but this is a independent one I found: http://www.cabcalor.be/testresultaten/vermx_green.pdf
Click to expand...

That is one of the most misleading pieces of research I have seen in a while. The ovicidal effects of a wormer are 99% irrelevant to its action. As stated above me, egg to larva (L1) occurs on pasture for cyathostomes, so unless you were planning on sprinkling your wormer on the fields this research has no relevance to worming your horse.

The research needed is incredibly simple. Take say 100 horses with high worm burdens. Measure their FEC. Give 50 of them (chosen at random) Verm-X, give the other 50 an inert substance of similar composition (placebo control). Wait 2 weeks. Repeat worm egg counts. If Verm-X works then the horse's it was given to will have significantly more reduced follow up counts than those given a placebo. This could be done for the price of 200 worm egg counts (at bulk around £600-800), plus the price of the Verm-X (to the company, effectively nothing).

It is so simple and cheap to prove that it works, that it implies that if the evidence is not there, that it has been done and found to be ineffective. If the research has not been done then it is equally amoral to sell a product without any proof that it works.

Just to note, there are no rules regarding the publication of any trial data about any substance, regardless of whether it is a medicine or not. If the company has told you this, they are pulling the wool over your eyes.
 
alsiola I wondered about your last point too, there is nothing stopping verm-x paying someone to a do controlled trial for them like the drug companies do. We do various trials for companies all the time, the only issue with it is if the company has funded it they get say so over publication of the results.

The final statement in the link is incredibly misleading and incorrect and there is a huge standard error for the fenbenzadole anyway.

I think it is an excellent illustration of not taking something that is written in a vague scientific manner as 'proof'.

(sorry welshiemare not getting at you and well done for finding it and I think it brings up some important points.)
 
University Trials show Verm-X to be more effective than some chemicals &#8211; and kinder.
Click to expand...
1) What university? This isn't mentioned.
2) More effective? Only in terms of misleading effects
3) Some chemicals? One chemical of the 4 tested.
4) And kinder? Kinder on who? Kinder has no scientific meaning. This trial did not look at kindness, however one might define it.
Scientific literature suggests that 100% of U.K. equines have some level of cyathostomin (small redworm) infection due to poor worming protocol
Click to expand...
1) It is usually considered proper to cite your sources.
2) Modern worming techniques would aim to keep a low worm burden to minimise drug resistance (see "refugia")
Using an in vitro egg hatch/larval development experiment, the wormers were compared for their ovicidal effectivity i.e. how many eggs developed into larvae
Click to expand...
1) What was the experimental protocol? Anyone reading a scientific paper should be able to repeat the experiment for themselves.
2) As mentioned before, this is not a relevant test for efficacy of an anthelmintic in horses.
Verm-X was found to reduce larval hatching by 91.3%, even when only using a single dose and not the recommended 5 day administration. Fenbendazole based wormers were only 28.6% effective. (See graph below)
Click to expand...
1) Using what dose of fenbendazole?
2) What about the other results? I.e. those that show other wormers to be more effective than Verm-X? Why not write about those?
The action of Verm-X in these trials shows this 100% herbal formulation to be just as effective as leading chemical dewormers but with a gentler action on the horses system and no destructive environmental pollution when excrete
Click to expand...
1) Neither the "gentler" nor the "no pollution" claim was tested in this study, nor are there any references to where they have been studied.
2) It doesn't show Verm-X to be "just as effective", it shows it to be marginally less effective. (although no effort has been made to see if there are any statistically significant differences)
safe and natural alternative
Click to expand...
1) Safe? Not tested in this study, nor cited. Given it wasn't even given to horses in this study, that's a fairly bold claim to make.
2) Natural? What is the relevance of this? Anyway, moxidectin (Equest) is more or less natural - it is only a slight change from a fermentation product of the bacterium Streptomyces cyano-griseus. Ivermectin is a naturally occuring compound generated as a fermentation product of Streptomyces avermitilis, a soil actinomycete.
horse owners have reported that their horses have an improved glossy coat and improved appetite after using Verm-X
Click to expand...
Reported to whom? Not to this study, and not to any referenced study.
This blend of herbs encourages healthy gut microflora function and helps improve specific immune responses to invading parasites
Click to expand...
There is literally zero data presented here to support this assertion.

No offence to the original author intended - this may have been a well designed study, well written up elsewhere. This abomination is proof of nothing apart from the author's preconceptions and the sorry state of scientific writing. I would hate anyone to use it as justification for risking their horse's health and welfare by relying on an unproven product for the management of such a critical part of the horse's health.
 
WelshieMare said:
Just had a google of trials to see what I could find. I see Verm-ex can't publish their own as they are not classed as a medicine due to being herbal but this is a independent one I found: http://www.cabcalor.be/testresultaten/vermx_green.pdf
Click to expand...


Ur haven't read the entire thread but am very suspiscious. I can't find a mention of this paper apart from this PDF file and that is NOT on a UNIVERSITY site- SO NOT CONVINCED this is genuine. Any one have the original paper with References please?
 
To everyone thinking that the PDF is valid- anyone could have made that up and posted it- THere is no trace of any "real" university paper - I DO NOT BELIEVE IT! It would be very unusual for a University to do such research with a BHSAI! The uni isn't named and besides nothing but this PDF comes up when doing a google search- if it were "REALLY" published research the original research paper would come up! RUBBISH!!!!!
 
you will note that the PDF has already been brought up and noone on this thread has claimed it is valid, welshiemare just posted it as an example. I believe that the author did a BSc in equine science at Aberdeen but because BHSAI is on that PDF that this may have been an undergrad practical project, hence why no further info can be found, because it would have been unlikely to have been published in the usual places.

Regardless of whether it is a 'real university paper' (whatever one of those actually is :confused:) we have already discredited the contents.
 
University paper- one that is actually published in a scientific journal and can be found. Undergraduate work can be published if it is good enough.

How do you know the Author did a B.Sc.?

No- didn't read whole thread - rarely do read whole threads - didn't even read the whole PDF- just enough to think rubbish! Reads more like an advert.

Excellent- then it is established that it's rubbish and no one will be thinking there is real evidence that Verm X works as an effective wormer.
 
Bsc.. Because I googled her name and found who I suspect it is on her current place of employment's website.

I know I had work published (on parasites as it so happens) as an undergraduate (get me ;) ).

ah, I would always refer to that as just a published paper, perhaps a peer-reviewed published paper but certainly not a university paper as plenty come out of institutions that aren't universities :), I just wasn't sure if you mean something the university published per se :).
 
The implication from the PDF was that it was published work done by a university. So University paper as opposed to one published by private industry. I think you are nit picking but whatever!

How do you know you got the right girl when you googled?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top