Rockley Farm. Exciting evidence emerging in Navicular

[Booboos]

None of what you say supports the (extraordinary) suggestion that Leahurst would suppress legitimate research data in order to protect an income stream.

Leahurst is part of the University of Liverpool which is a public body. Their mission statement clearly states that their aims are to provide vet care to animals, services to vets, teaching to students and to do research, not to make a profit.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/equine/about-us/overview/

The University's accounts can be found here:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/finance/2011-2012.pdf

Finally a search of companies house doesn't show a "Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital" or a "Leverhulme Equine Hospital" - are you aware of them being registered under another name?

 

[cptrayes]

I have researched it a bit, and Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital at Leahurst is in fact a partnership, as are many/most veterinary practices.

My horse is having a kissing spines operation on September 3rd. If I was with the other equine vet that covers my area, who do not have a hospital, he would be having the operation at Leahurst, and the fee would be at least as high as it will be at Somerford Park.

That operation will be profit making.

How Leahurst spend that profit in order for the Partnership to end up non profit making is an entirely different matter. The fact is. loss of revenues for Leahurst if mainstream treatment for palmar hoof lameness becomes shoe removal will be very, very significant.

 

[cptrayes]

None of what you say supports the (extraordinary) suggestion that Leahurst would suppress legitimate research data in order to protect an income stream.

I have made no such assertion Booboos. There is a world of difference between choosing not to pursue a line of research when your time is limited and you have many projects to choose between, and suppression. I have NEVER suggested that Leahurst have suppressed this reearch.

 

[NZJenny]

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of BF horses recovering from navicular. Try any of the BF sites.

As an owner, I don't have thousands to spend on vet treatment and equine insurance is not that common here - certainly it is out of my price range. So, as an owner I tend to look for the simple solutions - I'm lucky to have a vet who thinks the same way.

About 10 years ago, my endurance mare strained a tendon. Standard practice is six weeks box rest, but like most here, I don't have stables so I rehabbed her out of the paddock successfully back to 3* level. I have lots of questions about the so called conventional treatment of lots of things - and I think that as an owner is the key.

Someone I know here has recently paid a lot of money to have cells of some description (red/white/ plasma - I can't remember) injected into a damaged ligament to speed up the healing process. That to me just sounds like quackery, but apparently it is a legit treatment. But I guess the proof of the pudding will be when the horse gets back to work. Or maybe the time out would have healed the original injury anyway. But tincture of time doesn't make anyone any money.

 

[amandap]

If owners did not have recourse to five or ten thousand of veterinary intervention paid for, how many would take the simpler, more natural and conservative approaches??

I think this is a very important point.

Insurance actually supports the current investigation and treatment options for caudal hoof pain (navicular) and the interventionist medical model has run with it. The more high tech the treatment the more the perception of best/better care.
I find it very depressing that most of the horses that are now working and sound with Rockley type rehabs had previously been through the medical model of treatments without success or any improvement. This alone should raise big red flags and prompt a radical rethink in the vet community.

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't made the research comment but to me the X Ray evidence of bone healing, although a tiny sample, is just astounding.

Great some vets are running with it, seeing the benefits and referring, there is hope and eventually the shear weight of numbers will hopefully bury old thinking.

 

[brucea]

Could the "Rockley Method" become mainstream veterinary practice? Can the "Rockley Method" scale up around the country to other yards and still be successful?

Who will make money out of the "Rockley Method"? It won't be the vets and farriers - so until it is in a format that hey can make money from it then it is unlikely to be accepted as mainstream - these are businesses and if a method makes no margin for their business, even if it is more effective than their approaches, it won't be recommended widely.

And - Rockley itself, while unquestionably the leader in the field, is not a cheap option, but it's an option that works. I'm sure many of the Rockley Rehabs will wish they had done this before they spent money on the unsuccessful approach.

 

[amandap]

Ah but brucea, this approach raises so many questions about the lifestyle we impose on horses. Really, looking at this seriously and widely is vital if we want to move to a preventative approach imho.

 

[Buddy'sMum]

Someone I know here has recently paid a lot of money to have cells of some description (red/white/ plasma - I can't remember) injected into a damaged ligament to speed up the healing process. That to me just sounds like quackery, but apparently it is a legit treatment.

Not quackery - there's actually a lot of published evidence supporting the use of stem cell-based therapies in horses.

 

[Booboos]

I have made no such assertion Booboos. There is a world of difference between choosing not to pursue a line of research when your time is limited and you have many projects to choose between, and suppression. I have NEVER suggested that Leahurst have suppressed this reearch.

Come on, it's all written down on the thread. You did say:
- research centres have big machines to pay for and an approach that doesn't cost the client money will be unpopular
- that vets are ignoring the evidence in an unethical manner
- the people who do barefoot get a small income from it, whereas the people suggesting the standard treatment 'earn huge fees' from it, implying that it's the fee that influences the treatment recommendation and not the best practice
- specifically on Leahurst/the Prof know that there are good results and are refusing to publish them so as not to lose the income stream and become unpopular with their colleagues


As for Leahurst, again it is not a commercial enterprise, or a limited company, or a partnership (all of which have legal and tax implications), it is a public body. Nobody stops Universities from making a profit, indeed they are expected to not make a loss, but that doesn't imply that they are primarily profit driven, or that they would prioritise profit over research or that they would suppress research to protect profits.

Could you please let me have the registered business number of Leahurst? That would just conclude this discussion very quickly.

 

[ozpoz]

I can't at the moment. I work full time, do my horses from home and am already involved with a charity which funds research. : )
I'm enthusiastic about the topic though, and given different personal circumstances, I would!.

Can i suggest that you set that charity up then Ozpoz, it's a great idea.

 

[cptrayes]

Come on, it's all written down on the thread. You did say:
- research centres have big machines to pay for and an approach that doesn't cost the client money will be unpopular
- that vets are ignoring the evidence in an unethical manner
- the people who do barefoot get a small income from it, whereas the people suggesting the standard treatment 'earn huge fees' from it, implying that it's the fee that influences the treatment recommendation and not the best practice
- specifically on Leahurst/the Prof know that there are good results and are refusing to publish them so as not to lose the income stream and become unpopular with their colleagues


As for Leahurst, again it is not a commercial enterprise, or a limited company, or a partnership (all of which have legal and tax implications), it is a public body. Nobody stops Universities from making a profit, indeed they are expected to not make a loss, but that doesn't imply that they are primarily profit driven, or that they would prioritise profit over research or that they would suppress research to protect profits.

I repeat, there is an enormous difference between suppression of research and failing to pick up a potential research project. It is entirely possible that the decision of which project Professor Clegg picked out of many available for him to spend his time on was subconsciously biased against Barefoot Rehabs, not even a conscious choice.

Please be careful what you accuse me of. I have never and will never accuse Leahurst of the deliberate suppression of research data, which was your accusation.

Could you please let me have the registered business number of Leahurst? That would just conclude this discussion very quickly.

Certainly.

Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital is owned by the Russell Group of Companies Ltd, with registered company numbers of 03881993 and 02810763.

 

[brucea]

Ah but brucea, this approach raises so many questions about the lifestyle we impose on horses. Really, looking at this seriously and widely is vital if we want to move to a preventative approach imho.

And about our expectations of horses.

 

[dalidaydream]

You know what - I decided a few years back that insurance was, overall, a bad thing for horses' welfare because it allowed owners and vets and farriers to pursue expensive and generally painful and unpleasant interventions to horses in the hope of effecting a "cure". Many of these interventions have dubious effectiveness, and when challenged to justify them it's often a simple trotting out of "recognised best practice" or some such nonsense.

I stopped supporting the insurance industry to the tune of £1800 a year for mine. They want to take all of the cash and carry none of the risk, Exclusions are ridiculous and excesses burdensome.

If owners did not have recourse to five or ten thousand of veterinary intervention paid for, how many would take the simpler, more natural and conservative approaches??

it's time that insurance companies recognised the values that Rockley can bring, but they won't because it is not a low risk option for them in that there is no formal background of Veterinary approval and farrier established treatment regimes (both with their own professional bodies, insured by.....).

Rockley - it is only one small yard that does what it does well partly because it is small.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Booboos]

I repeat, there is an enormous difference between suppression of research and failing to pick up a potential research project. It is entirely possible that the decision of which project Professor Clegg picked out of many available for him to spend his time on was subconsciously biased against Barefoot Rehabs, not even a conscious choice.

Please be careful what you accuse me of. I have never and will never accuse Leahurst of the deliberate suppression of research data, which was your accusation.





Certainly.

Philip Leverhulme Equine Hospital is owned by the Russell Group of Companies Ltd, with registered company numbers of 03881993 and 02810763.

What you said is down in writing and very clear, there is no need for me to accuse you of anything.

Thanks for the numbers but they don't make a lot of sense.
03881993 corresponds to a company called the Russell Group Limited but that is a risk management company providing services to the insurance industry in Nottingham. They don't mention any link to the hospiral and neither does the hospital to them. Do you think they secretly own a vet hospital?

02810763 is for the Russell Group of Companies Limited, a company which is currently dormant. They do not have a website but they seem to have an account descriptor as a small company and their finances are tiny https://www.duedil.com/company/02810763/the-russell-group-of-companies-limited
none of which really correspond to the accounts of a large vet hospital.

Are you perhaps thinking of the Russell Group of Universities? Liverpool uni is a member of this and it is a company (6086902). Fundamentally it's a collection of Unis trying to copy the US Ivy League idea in terms of prestige and impact. It is a company for promoting the Universities rather than one owning part of them though.

 

[cptrayes]

What you said is down in writing and very clear, there is no need for me to accuse you of anything.

Thanks for the numbers but they don't make a lot of sense.
03881993 corresponds to a company called the Russell Group Limited but that is a risk management company providing services to the insurance industry in Nottingham. They don't mention any link to the hospiral and neither does the hospital to them. Do you think they secretly own a vet hospital?

02810763 is for the Russell Group of Companies Limited, a company which is currently dormant. They do not have a website but they seem to have an account descriptor as a small company and their finances are tiny https://www.duedil.com/company/02810763/the-russell-group-of-companies-limited
none of which really correspond to the accounts of a large vet hospital.

Are you perhaps thinking of the Russell Group of Universities? Liverpool uni is a member of this and it is a company (6086902). Fundamentally it's a collection of Unis trying to copy the US Ivy League idea in terms of prestige and impact. It is a company for promoting the Universities rather than one owning part of them though.

It came off their website Booboos. Why are you bothered about it anyway? The fact is that every treatment of any horse for any disease which is carried out at Leahurst is profit making unless they choose to treat specific cases for free which they occasionally do if they are part of a research program.

The vast majority of treatment at Leahurst is profit making. Fact. End of.

What they choose to do with the profit is 100%, wholly, entirely, comprehensively, conclusively, totally IRRELEVANT to anything which has gone on in this thread. Apart from your own fixation with it. Which I am wasting my time responding to and will now cease to do so.

 

[amandap]

And about our expectations of horses.

Definitely yes.

 

[Booboos]

It came off their website Booboos. Why are you bothered about it anyway? The fact is that every treatment of any horse for any disease which is carried out at Leahurst is profit making unless they choose to treat specific cases for free which they occasionally do if they are part of a research program.

The vast majority of treatment at Leahurst is profit making. Fact. End of.

What they choose to do with the profit is 100%, wholly, entirely, comprehensively, conclusively, totally IRRELEVANT to anything which has gone on in this thread. Apart from your own fixation with it. Which I am wasting my time responding to and will now cease to do so.

Whose website? I am bothered about it because it appears to be completely incorrect! Why are you bothering to say it? If you are bothered enough to say it, cannot I be bothered enough to querry it?

You are confusing a profit making company with an entity that makes a profit. A profit making company is set up with the aim of making a profit, which is then distributed to the owners/shareholders. Such a company may also have other aims but it's primary aim is to make a profit so other aims are subordinate to that one. An entity that makes a profit will have a different primary aim and the profit making will be incidental, the profit will also be put back to the support the original activity. So for example, a profit making solar energy company will aim to make a profit, but may also benefit the environment, carry out research, employ people, create secondary benefits for the community it is based in, etc. A solar energy charity will seek to promote the use of solar energy, if it happens to make a profit while doing so, e.g. because through R&D they have discovered something that has profitable commercial applications, that profit will be put back into the charity. That the second entity is a charity does not necessarily mean that they will give you solar panels for free or for a cheaper price than the profit making company (as you seemed to expect Leahurst to do with their treatments), it just means that their aims are different and they cannot take their profits home. Similar applies to public bodies, like Universities, which belong to the public; if they make a profit the Vice-Chancellor cannot pocket it, it goes back into the insitution.

If Leahurst does make a profit this in itself doesn't tell you anything about how they prioritise that profit over their research aims or whether they would be likely to suppress research data for the sake of profit. On the whole people who chose to go into academia accept a lower earning potential than if they had gone into the commercial sector (where research findings are proprietary and unlikely to be freely shared with others) for the sake of pursuing their subject.

I am not in the least fixated with what Leahurst do with their profit. The reason I posted on this thread is this: any health related treatment (to include treatment of humans and animals) is a particularly sensitive area because it proposes to improve the welfare of vulnerable patients (both human and animal), and therefore assumes a strong duty of care on behalf of the provider of this treatment. Part of this duty of care is to offer the best treatment available and making a judgement about best treatment includes amongst other things having evidence as to its effects and effectiveness. The quality of the evidence matters in substantiating the treatment claim. When professionals provide this treatment (such as doctors, nurses, physios, vets, etc.) they are regulated by professional bodies and the law, they are trained them, supervised them and held to account according to specific standards (one of which is evidence based practice). When non-professionals provide treatment there are none of these controls and often claims are made about the efficacy of the proposed treatment that are simply not substantiated. This makes it impossible for either patients/owners or health professionals to judge whether this is indeed a good treatment or not.

The thread's title promised new evidence in an interesting area which attracted my attention, but I do think the claims and the way they are presented are not strong enough. I completely appreciate that it is very costly to do research and very difficult to get research grants (having applied and been turned down for many myself!), however that is different from saying that the establishment is trying to suppress evidence as it threatens their income stream (which, I am sorry to repeat, you did say). That claim led me to raise some issues with you.

I am sorry you feel you are wasting your time.

 

[ozpoz]

I think there are ways to compare evidence without being a doctor/vet etc. such as photographic computer aided graphics, measuring angles, filming bio mechanics for example. None of these will impact negatively on care or standards.
Technology from other industries can be used - look at pressure mat testing , which was not developed with the equine industry in mind.
I'm not decrying any veterinary work, so please don't think that, but thinking outside the box can found ground breaking studies.

 

[amandap]

The thread's title promised new evidence in an interesting area which attracted my attention, but I do think the claims and the way they are presented are not strong enough.

It may well be my poor understanding of words, to me it is evidence although as I said a tiny sample but obviously my wording is misleading to scientists. I have learned once again to choose my words more carefully.

Time, committed owners, professionals and the horses themselves will tell in the end it appears.

 

[Buddy'sMum]

True, though they are not current and I thought we were posting about right now. I have, perhaps erroneously, read into your posts that you feel she has some sort of obligation to publish research. If that is incorrect, I apologise.

I do feel that Nic has an obligation to publish her findings. As an owner, I want to see high-quality, published data proving that barefoot rehab works, including pre- and post-rehab imaging and long-term follow up.

And yes, we are posting about right now. To quote a comment from Nic on her blog post dated 22 August 2013: "...yes, I think the veterinary community are gradually becoming interested especially if we can get more research funded."

 

[Booboos]

I do feel that Nic has an obligation to publish her findings. As an owner, I want to see high-quality, published data proving that barefoot rehab works, including pre- and post-rehab imaging and long-term follow up.

This is my feeling as well.

It's a very interesting thread amandap, thanks for posting.

 

[TPO]

Very interesting discussion. When I was shoeing I started a thread on this topic and did feel that if Nic/Rockley had the evidence and the " secret" to curing horses then where was the evidence etc Now understanding it more and being BF, doing my own studying I can see how it isn't that easy and while they continually prove it works why do they need to pay to prove it; the proof is in the sound, rehabbed horses.

It's up to us owners to do our own studying and to further our own knowledge. If I'd known 5yrs ago what I know now lots of things would be different and no doubt in 5yrs time I'll look back on this time and think "if only"

 

[amandap]

Very interesting discussion. When I was shoeing I started a thread on this topic and did feel that if Nic/Rockley had the evidence and the " secret" to curing horses then where was the evidence etc Now understanding it more and being BF, doing my own studying I can see how it isn't that easy and while they continually prove it works why do they need to pay to prove it; the proof is in the sound, rehabbed horses.

It's up to us owners to do our own studying and to further our own knowledge. If I'd known 5yrs ago what I know now lots of things would be different and no doubt in 5yrs time I'll look back on this time and think "if only"

Proof in science is still in the eye of the beholder in my understanding. Many studies and results are poo pooed by those that see things differently, even scientists argue vehemently among themselves. lol

In this case as I said horses will have the last word, I was just hoping that a non invasive approach might be more interesting to the doubters with evidence of bone actually healing. There are thousands upon thousands of horses now sound worldwide with this approach.

This isn't a "miracle cure", no such thing exists, this is about allowing the horse and hoof to function normally and enabling the hooves to become strong enough to do what we ask.

I may have a simple way of thinking but to me it is all so simple if we just look to the horse and put aside our preconceived and traditional beliefs.

 

[cptrayes]

I do feel that Nic has an obligation to publish her findings. As an owner, I want to see high-quality, published data proving that barefoot rehab works, including pre- and post-rehab imaging and long-term follow up.

Why does Nic have an obligation because you want to see it?

If you want it, is the obligation not on you to pay for it?

Rather than on Nic, who has no personal need of it whatsoever, aside from personal curiiosity or academic pride, because she sees the results daily out of her kitchen window, and has a waiting list of about two months in cases waiting to come to her from people who are not as sceptical about the success of barefoot rehabs.

And yes, we are posting about right now. To quote a comment from Nic on her blog post dated 22 August 2013: "...yes, I think the veterinary community are gradually becoming interested especially if we can get more research funded."

We in that context meant 'all of us'. You, me and everyone else. We all need funding to be found if we want to see results published in academic journals.


Meanhwhile, we are extremely lucky to have a phenomenal free resource in Nic's blog, which is published about five days a week.

 

[Buddy'sMum]

Why does Nic have an obligation because you want to see it?

If you want it, is the obligation not on you to pay for it?

Rather than on Nic, who has no personal need of it whatsoever, aside from personal curiiosity or academic pride, because she sees the results daily out of her kitchen window, and has a waiting list of about two months in cases waiting to come to her from people who are not as sceptical about the success of barefoot.

Cptrayes - just to be clear, I own several barefoot horses, I'm entirely supportive of the work Nic and others are doing in barefoot rehab. But until we have publlshed data, Rockley (and places like it) will continue to be a last resort for a small minority of owners who have a) even heard of it b) exhausted all other treatment options and c) can afford it. Very few vets will accept anecdotal evidence. Even fewer insurance companies will. And that won't change without published data.

 

[amandap]

There are thousands upon thousands of horses now sound worldwide with this approach.

Out poo picking, I realized I have made an error with this claim as I haven't scientific evidence to back it up. I have 10 years of reading anecdotal evidence on t'internet, failures as well as successes in horses with various problems.
Also, by "this approach" I meant the way of thinking/management not specifically Rockley's approach.

But until we have publlshed data, Rockley (and places like it) will continue to be a last resort for a small minority of owners who have a) even heard of it b) exhausted all other treatment options and c) can afford it. Very few vets will accept anecdotal evidence. Even fewer insurance companies will. And that won't change without published data.

This is what is so sad. So many invasive treatments are carried out with little if any science to back them up, remedial shoeing is one that springs to mind. Much of it is through experience and traditional thinking and teaching the same thing over generations. Navicular is traditionally deemed a degenerative condition with only one end after remedial shoeing options etc. fail.
Why does a non invasive option have to be proved anyway? Nothing with side effects is done to the horse and there is hope and yes, anecdotal evidence of return to soundness and usefulness to humans.

Obviously many will argue that X Rays have to be taken under controlled conditions to be valid, but really the soundness is the important part and many throughout the world have demonstrated a return to soundness with horse centred management, with and without trimming. Rockley approach isn't technically a treatment it's rehab and is completely non invasive. What's not to try as the first option instead of in desperation?

ps. My great hope and belief for this approach is for prevention in the longer term.

 

[cptrayes]

Cptrayes - just to be clear, I own several barefoot horses, I'm entirely supportive of the work Nic and others are doing in barefoot rehab. But until we have publlshed data, Rockley (and places like it) will continue to be a last resort for a small minority of owners who have a) even heard of it b) exhausted all other treatment options and c) can afford it. Very few vets will accept anecdotal evidence. Even fewer insurance companies will. And that won't change without published data.

I do not understand why you feel that that creates an obligation in Nic Barker, the owner of a tiny rehab yard in Devon that pays her a fraction of her previous income in the City, to spend what will be a not inconsiderable amount of her time (which will cost her money) and of her money, working any harder than she already does to find research funding to publish her success.

I do not agree with you that it is any longer a tiny proportion of people who know of barefoot rehabs. There isn't an equine forum in the country where people saying that they have a diagnosis of foot lameness won't be advised by someone about it. THe information is out there and it is spreading exponentially. For example, my entire hunt know that I have hunted with two horses which should have been either dead or hanging around as a paddock ornament. They will tell others, who will tell others.

It is also increasingly being used as treatment of first resort, mostly by people who tell their vet that they will not go down the conventional route, and latterly by one vet who has now referred three horses, and will inform other vets and owners of the success of the treatment.

I find it absolutely astonishing that even vets who are told about the results coming out of Rockley and other barefoot rehabs are not only not pushing for more research, but they are still advising owners of horses with curable problems like collateral ligament damage to have their horses put to sleep because their unresearched, outmoded treatments have failed to bring the horse sound.

I can't wait until someone sues their vet for the unnecessary loss of a horse, and I'm not a suing person.

Interestingly, I find that the people who are most determined not to believe that barefoot rehabbing is indeed achieving the results which it is are those who have previously lost a horse to it. I can understand that. It must be almost unimaginably painful to have to look back and realise that there was probably something like an 80% chance that the horse you had put down for 'navicular' is dead for no good reason. I'm sorry that what I write upsets those people. But there is no point one more horse dying in vain just because others have in the past.

 

[amandap]

I can't wait until someone sues their vet for the unnecessary loss of a horse, and I'm not a suing person.

Ha, do we know any billionaires?

I can't understand the resistance to barefoot thinking either, it's everywhere. I put it down to the implications it has to the way we traditionally manage horses and the total upheaval in thinking and practicality and human ego and limpet like adherence to 'Tradition'.

 

[Booboos]

Reseach is done under controlled conditions, which can be replicated by others and which are published and open to scrutiny (which is why scientists argue amongst themselves).

Here are a few reasons why research is better than anecdotal evidence:
- in a research project you need to start by carefully setting out the criteria for the horses that you will admit to the trial, i.e. you want to include horses that indeed have a particular condition, and exclude horses that do not actually have it, otherwise any results are muddled. This means you need to specify your condition and have an effective way of identifying that horses have it (navicular is notoriously misdiagnosed for example, so MRIs may well be necessary here). If, for example, you have a specific treatment for navicular but you make a mistake and include horses with foot ligament injuries in your trial you will never know whether the treatment is effective or not.

- then you need to stop or eliminate the influence of all other interventions so that you can isolate the effect of the proposed treatment. As a child I once had a horrific bout of vomiting and diarhea and couldn't keep any meds down for it. I finally managed to keep down some anti-emetics and at the same time my mum's friend also called a woman who specialised in removing the evil eye (people who dislike you curse you with the evil eye which makes you ill and then you need a specialist 'lifter' of the curse to be well again - allegedly). A short while later I was much better. My mum's friend proclaimed this to be a miracle by the evil eye curse lifter - at 10 years old even I knew she was talking rubbish!

- you also need a control group or more than one control groups. Some conditions gone into spontaneous remission so if 50% of horses would have gotten better on their own anyway, the new treatment has to show a statistically significant increase over the 50% base rate to be worth pursuing. The new treatment must also be shown to be substantially better (either more effective, or less effective but cheaper, or some such combination of effectiveness, cost, length of treatment, availability, long term results, etc.) than any existing treatment. So again if the current treatment has a 50% success rate the new treatment must be shown to be better in some way.

- then you need an objective observer (ideally a 'double blind' observer, i.e. someone who does not know if he is seeing horses who have had the treatment or not) to assess the horses before and after treatment. Observational bias is a very common bias that would certainly affect those who are most invested in seeing an improvement, so it's best to get an outsider to judge results especially with something as subjective as 'how lame is this horse?'.

- during the study you need a pre-identified protocol for checking on progress (at what times, how, etc.) which is mirrored in the control group.

- through-out the study there should be set protocols for identifying side-effects adn action plans on what to do about them, including conditions under which the trial should be terminated on welfare reasons (either because the new treatment is so harmful the test subjects should not be subjected to it, or because the new treatment is so overwhelmingly beneficial it should be rolled out to everyone as quickly as possible. An example of the latter where the retroviral drug trials for HIV, at the time HIV was a death sentence and the retrovirals appeared immediately effective. Since the alternative was death, even serious side-effects would have been acceptable so the drugs were made available to all patients before the end of the trials).

- at the end of the study you need to repeat the exams curried out at the beginning ,e.g. the MRI, to compare results and you also need to look at long term effects, so you need to see whether 6 months, 12 months or a few years down the line the results of the treatment are still positive.

Anyone who makes a claim to have a medical treatment has a moral obligation to engage in research and make those results publicly available because this is the only way they themselves and other people, including vets and owners, can also judge for themselves the validity of their claims. Research is the way researchers put their own ideas under scrutiny.

P.S. you cannot sue a vet for offering standard treatment, because that is the treatment that has been proven by research and evidence to be best practice.

 

[Buddy'sMum]

Because Nic Barker is writing posts on her blog challenging the traditional opinion that navicular is a degenerative disease. She may or may not be correct. I absolutely hope she is, btw. But the scientist in me squirms when I read claims like this being made without robust data backing them up. Vets are scientists and scientists need high quality, reproducible, published data to be convinced of new treatment approaches. Without it, the Rockley rehab approach will never be accepted by the veterinary profession as a mainstream treatment.