New Journal/Magazine - How about this then?

[puddicat]

The British Equine Veterinary Association is the professional body for equine vets, it organises training days, publishes 2 journals, EVJ and EVE aimed at the veterinary preofession and scientific researchers and... well have a look at their web site if you're interested.

So what if they (as a flagship organisation for science and veterinary medicine) started a new journal/magazine which was aimed at horse owners. The aim would be to explain the latest scientific breakthroughs to horse owners in non technical language. It could deal with issues like magnetic boots, massage, supplements and give authoratative information written by leading scientists and veterinary professionals. It could publish reviews on well established subjects like 'firing' but giving the scientific evidence in a non-technical way. I could also publicise the results of the various horsey research projects that are happening in the UK.

Would you buy it?
What else would you want to see in it?

 

[Bess]

I would be interested in a magazine such as you have described. It could also include an examining 'old chestnuts' section for example trotting on roads and current ones like rolkur (sp?), chiropractors, depths of sand schools etc.

 

[Prudence]

I would find that absolutely fascinating!!

 

[pocket]

I think it sounds like a great idea, anything that will help to educate people is of great benefit, I would buy it. It will also be good reading for people who are doing equine studies.

 

[Ginn]

Oh! Very good idea - do tell more!

 

[hussar]

I would definitely buy it.

 

[vicijp]

'Trainer' magazine is already very similar, but one aimed at general horsey public would be great!

 

[Theresa_F]

Yes it would be very interesting to read provided it was in layman's terms so we could understand it.

I would buy something like this.

 

[ClareMc]

my immediate thought was that I would not buy it. Probably because I find it difficult to get to grips with any science type writing however simply written - never simple enough for me.

Then I was thinking there are things I would really like to get a better understanding of eg worming/wormers when? what is best etc, feed and supplements, massage and back treatments.

So may no buy regulalry but would certainly look at and buy if something of interest.

 

[Beanyowner]

Yes...would definetly be interested in buying/subscribing to it!!!

Do tell more!!

 

[Marilyn]

sounds great...are they looking for writers!!?

 

[baybeejay01]

Definitely! Sounds very interesting, is it in the pipeline then? Keep us informed please.

 

[ihatework]

Yes, most definitely.
Please keep us informed if this does go ahead

 

[tuscanyD]

Sounds very interesting
I'd particularly like to see a vet/scientific viewpoint on varios alternative therapies and practiotioners. Undercover vet!

Not just poo pohing the theory of back people in a scientific way but actually getting them out to a horse and listening to what they say, watching what they do and offering a proper viewpoint.

See the Back people thread - I believe in the 'you can't move bones' standpoint BUT I have seen the one hip lower than the other shove it back into place thing done. No obvious explanation that I could see [ie horse not standing square or something]

Would love to read an openminded but educated vets viewpoint on that kind of thing.

 

[puddicat]

Not just poo pohing the theory of back people in a scientific way but actually getting them out to a horse and listening to what they say, watching what they do and offering a proper viewpoint.

Its interesting that you think a 'proper' viewpoint cannot be expressed without engaging with these people. Excluding physiotherapists... there is no need to listen to back people because they are too ignorant to be able to say anything worth listening to. Despite it being a taboo to say something like this bluntly in this country the fact remains it is absolutely correct. People don't realise it because evaluating knowledge is difficult to do when you haven't got the knowledge - its a catch-22. There are clues though, as I've said before on this forum vet student come up to university already having excelled academically, usually 3+ As at 'A' level plus Duke of E awards, grades in music, etc etc and worked with animals. They then study VERY HARD for at least 5 years. Now imagine this, try studying a subject for a week from some books or the internet at see how much you can learn - if you are diligent, it will feel like a lot. Now imagine multiplying that knowledge up through the duration of a professional medical degree - get the picture? The knowledge of scientists and vets is simply incomparable to back people. Does it matter? - yes very much indeed. living organisms are unimaginably complicated. Vet/Med/Dentistry courses demonstrate that it physcally takes a very bright person 5+ years hard study to gain a reasonable general understanding of how living systems work. Your vet's view is the one you should always listen to, as a society we take this seriously enough to restrict diagnosis and treatment of animals to qualified vets by law.

So, you are making a mistake when you assume that back people must know something significant that is not known by a medic or scientist who has researched the subject. You are also making a mistake if you interpret a scientific criticism as 'poo pohing'. The job of a scientist is to be objective, you're interpretation of 'poo pohing' comes from your baseless disbelief that back people can be so wrong. They can be, but it all comes down to ignorance in the literal meaning of the word.

 

[puddicat]

sounds great...are they looking for writers!!?

If it goes ahead, all most certainly.

 

[puddicat]

well it's just an idea at the moment but it's an idea' that's going to be discussed at BEVA Congress next week so I'll let you know if it looks like there is support for it to go ahead!

 

[TGM]

[ QUOTE ]
Your vet's view is the one you should always listen to, as a society we take this seriously enough to restrict diagnosis and treatment of animals to qualified vets by law.

[/ QUOTE ] Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, it can be dangerous to solely rely on an individual vet's advice - despite all the training they are human and can still make mistakes! Typical example I encountered recently was a vet advising that a horse had either a fractured pedal bone or fractured fetlock and should be sent to Newmarket for further investigation. A day later the farrier released a whole lot of pus from it's toe ...

 

[_jetset_]

Don't suppose you would need any writers???

 

[puddicat]

Yep, vets/medics will always get things wrong because noone can ever know everything, what matters is how often they get things wrong (this is a more active debate in GP training than vet). So there's a balance between training and subsequent likelihood of error - vets/medics are trained to a level so that they will get it wrong in an acceptably small number of cases - which is incidentally very small.

I think it's a good point you make and I agree with you although it's human nature (and also very British) to seize on failures and that is not the way to understand professional competence. You have to look on average and in which case vets get it right almost all of the time where there is a possibility of getting it right . There is a big increment between a professional medics knowledge and any other person purporting to be able to tell you the condition of you/your animal so you would resaonably expect noone else to approximate this.

Statistically, getting a second opinion from an equally qualified professional increases the probability that the diagnosis is correct (if confirmed).

 

[baybeejay01]

*thinking* Having second thoughts now - how can we be sure that the mag is going to be unbiased after you have just shot down the back man as basically an uneducated charlatan?

 

[puddicat]

That's a really good question. Well one way of looking at it is that the mag *will* be biased of course towards evidence based understanding using a philosophy called science. What's the problem? Science is about understanding the physcial world, its been pretty succesful at giving us DVD players, nuclear weapons, mobile phones, hip replacements, MRI scanners so I think that's kinda reasonable. Your use of the work biased is interesting. Are you suggesting that unbiased means that the two sides of this particular argument have equal weight? If so that is simply wrong, there are times when ideas are just wrong because people dont have enough education to know any better.

Unfortunately there is a genuine problem here. I'd agree that people are not receptive to idea that all back men are fraudsters because its difficult to believe given the amount and diversity of other information sourses that say they do great things. So what do you expect and want an authorative science based journal to do? It can either tone down its language and stick in a few caveats and token positive comments. Or it can say it like it really is. Now I acknowledge that in the course of saying it like it is it has to present a persuasive argument with evidence in a manner that can be appreciated by anybody. That's a really difficult thing to pull off but IMHO that's what it needs to happen.

Incidentally, if the mag does come off, it won't have my radical views in it.

 

[tuscanyD]

Puddicat.



<puts troll gloves on>

Puddicat -

What are you arguing against? The idea that a veterinary professional witness a unconventional back person carry out their treatment then write an article [or a series] that explains what we as layman are seeing and what is happening when a hip appears to be ‘put back in’ [or whatever may have taken place] and why the practitioners theory is unsound.?

Why are you against it? Because will have been to uni and a back person hasn’t?

Because “there are times when ideas are just wrong because people dont have enough education to know any better.”

You believe that as we, the great unwashed, have not spent 5 years at uni we cannot, therefore, be worth giving the time of day to and are too uneducated to even ask a valid question?
How can anyone learn anything new if we are judged too stupid tohave our questions answered?

You say ”Unfortunately there is a genuine problem here. I'd agree that people are not receptive to idea that all back men are fraudsters because its difficult to believe given the amount and diversity of other information sourses that say they do great things. So what do you expect and want an authorative science based journal to do?”

Please see the first paragraph for an answer to this question. We want an objective viewpoint that offers us enough information to allow us to make up our own minds. Not some lofty academic telling us we are stupid not to believe everything they say without question.


I believe that Back People are fakes and the manipulation of bones they claim they are carrying out is not true. BUT if you want to educate Joe Public out of believing such things then you don’t insult them by claiming them to be too ignorant to even have their question given credence to. This attitude is highly typical of many vets and is pretty much what drives the public to alternative treatments. The veterinary profession’s refusal to ‘engage’ [possibly ‘listen’ may be a better word] is what allows the fakes to thrive as they remain unchallenged by those in the best position to refute them.

You are right that you must offer them a persuasive argument by following the scientific approach of gathering evidence. To do this yes, you must allow the other side of the argument equal weight. Not to do so makes the investigation pointless – and the point is to educate people - I suggest the following:

· A vet visits the horse to be treated and gives it a thorough examination and soundness check prior treatment – logging the findings.

· The vet witnesses a back practitioner carry out treatment [suggest the vet is not identified as such to avoid intimidating the practioner]

· The vet hears and notes the practioners theory behind his/her methods.

· After treatment the vet carries out another thorough examination and soundness check to determine if there is any change.

The scientific findings are reported in as plain English as possible and the vet writes his thoughts and comments plus, if possible, also printed are comments from the horses owner and the practitioner as to their own views.


Is there a problem with this approach? Is science not confident that it CAN prove it’s own argument? Is it hugely damaging to a vet’s ego that they may possibly have to say “ I don’t know why…”

 

[baybeejay01]

If the magazine is definitely going to be biased towards science and not open minded then maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. I know from personal experience that spinal manipulation is possible - it saved my mare form being put down, and therefore think that if people can't be open minded the whole exercise is pointless.

Why can't scientists throw their hands up occasionally and admit that they don't know how it is possible but it works? Not just with areas like the "back man" but others too. If it works and they can't explain why, do some more research and try or give in and admit defeat at this time. Science does have a large part to play in our lives but just cos it can't be explained yet doesn't mean it can't happen. I draw your attention to the humble Bumblebee.

 

[tuscanyD]

Do you think the word objective may be more relevant than biased?

I don't think it's reasonable ask a scientific magazine not to have a scientific approach - but they can report their findings on whatever subject they may cover in an objective way.

My interest in the whole back people thing is exactly because I would like to see the experiment I outline above and what results it yields - whether it provides irrefutable proof for or against or neither!

 

[baybeejay01]

Yes, objective would be a better word than biased and I am not against them trying the science bit first, but if it is going to be a mag for the horse owner in layman's terms, then I think to not try an open minded approach as well is cheating us. Yes, I would like to know the science behind how something works, or not, what I am saying is that sometimes maybe it can't be explained but it still works and therefore shouldn't just be discredited.

 

[puddicat]

I'm glad you express your view because I'm sure lot's of people would agree with you but it contains serious misconceptions.

If the magazine is definitely going to be biased towards science and not open minded then maybe it isn't such a good idea after all.

Sience is not the opposite of open indedness, open mindedness is one of the fundamental requirements of science and scientists. You are confusing certainty and closed-mindedness. Enough is known about anatomy and physiology to discredit most of the claims made by back people with certainty. That's not closed mindedness its just knowing something back people don't. The only thing required to go from a position of believing some of the claims back people make and getting to a position where you know that beyond all reasonably doubt they cannot possibly be true is education. It is a mistake to believe the knowledge doesn't exist, it does.

I know from personal experience that spinal manipulation is possible - it saved my mare form being put down, and therefore think that if people can't be open minded the whole exercise is pointless.

Not possible to comment without detailed info on the situation.

Why can't scientists throw their hands up occasionally and admit that they don't know how it is possible but it works? Not just with areas like the "back man" but others too. If it works and they can't explain why, do some more research and try or give in and admit defeat at this time.

They do all the time, showing something works without understanding why is very common in experimental science. Again you're assuming that science does not understand exactly what it is your backman or muscle massager is doing/can achieve. That's wrong, knowledge in this area is incredibly detailed. Science can explain why people believe things work when in reality they don't, it can show whether or not manipulation etc works regarless of how, and it can predict what is likely to be the result of a certain manipulation and how likely that is. So we're back to the idea that the problem is not that scientific knowlegde doesn't exist, but that people don't know about it. Isn't this is a good reason for a magazine then?

Science does have a large part to play in our lives but just cos it can't be explained yet doesn't mean it can't happen. I draw your attention to the humble bumblebee

I presume you're referring to the longstanding myth that "bumblebees cannot fly, according to conventional aerodynamics". If so it can be explained by a phenomenon known as vortex shedding.

 

[tuscanyD]

I absolutely agree with you - the purpose of Science is to
investigate open mindedly and from observations, formulate a theory.
When evidence comes to hand that seems to invalidate the theory, then either the evidence is investigated and found flawed, the theory is abandoned or the theory is amended.

We can make the comparison with alternative medicines,
osteopaths and Chinese medicine. Some can be shown to be false, with some there appears to be an effect that can't be explained (in terms of what we call medicine) and some have caused Western medicine to modify its perspective. That's Science, it ain't fixed for all time.

So I would hope that if this, or any other, magazine were to run such an article they would have the courage to report their findings objectively and, as we have both said, be honest if they cannot find evidence against or find evidence that contradicts their theory.

In other words it would be a logical article simply for the sake of the scientific experiment and to evaluate the results.
It would NOT be just a self-promoting piece of publicity.

 

[baybeejay01]

[I presume you're referring to the longstanding myth that "bumblebees cannot fly, according to conventional aerodynamics". If so it can be explained by a phenomenon known as vortex shedding.

[/ QUOTE ]

It did take a long time for them to work that out and give it a name though didn't it? That's my point - accept it and the figure it out but don't write it off straight away.

As for the info on my mare - she is an ex-racehorse and liked a jolly with the others in the field until it became a physical impossibility for her to canter properly. Her back legs would not move in the appropriate direction at the speed needed to perform the gait. She got very depressed and confused and was a sorry sight to see, from behind, she looked *not right*. A McTimoney chiro was called in as a last resort and, after watching my mare walk away from her, agreed that the pelvis was *out*. She manipulated it (and I don't mean waved her hands over it or farted about, it was very physical) and watched her walk away again and confirmed it was ok. Standing behind her immediately afterwards, she looked right and it wasn't until she looked right that it was blatantly obvious how wrong she had looked beforehand. That was 3 years ago and she still gives the youngsters a run for their money now!

Yes, a scientific magazine is a good thing so long as we are all not treated as second class citizens for not having a college education and letters after our names, there is often a lot to be said for a good dose of common sense and the same amount of prctical experience - after all it is us great unwashed that will be buying the thing! Don't treat us as fools.

 

[tuscanyD]

Hear Hear Ladylynney

I also have a story of a vet getting it quite unbelievably wrong .
Don't get me wrong I usually have great respect for what they have to say but I think even puddicat's jaw might drop a bit at this.

It's a guinea pig story not a hoss based tale though.
I presented a guinea pig to my local vet with a badly swollen foot.
I gave the vet the information that the pig had been a fight with another pig the day before.
I pointed out the teeth marks on the guinea pigs foot.

Vet said [and I am not kidding] that the Gpig had a tumour and his foot would have to amputated.

I pointed out the teeth marks in the foot again – and suggested that perhaps the pigs foot was infected from the bite and could we try anti biotics first?

Vet [now visibly annoyed] gave the pig an injection of Baytril with no follow up anti-biotics [I may need to be corrected here but is it not right that anti-biotics only work if taken over a course?] and told me to book the pig in for amputation of his foot!

Practically thrown out of his office for disagreeing I was faced with little choice. I certainly didn’t have enough money at the time to get a second opinion so I took my pig home. I soaked a piece of animalintex as per directions and taped it onto his foot with parcel tape.

Two days later I went back to see the owner of the practise this time who was astonished to hear this story – gave the pig’s foot a clean bill of health, congratulated me for my initiative and was clearly embarrassed by his colleagues behaviour.

This vet was a man of 45+ with all that scientific education behind him – he didn’t just get it wrong – he refused to believe the plain and simple evidence presented to him.

A blind and lemming like faith in authority and education is dangerous. As authority has often educated itself to the point of arrogance.