# Rockley Farm. Exciting evidence emerging in Navicular



## amandap (22 August 2013)

http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.ie/2013/08/degenerative-disease-0-rehab-5.html

Surely this warrants research funding?


----------



## mjcssjw2 (22 August 2013)

only if people are open minded and want to listen, and not with their fingers stuck firmly down their ears singing lalalala


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2013)

One problem is that the research centres have very big machines to pay for and anyone who supports an approach which does not require   MRI or any drug bills is going to be very unpopular with the men in grey suits who do the books 


But it is now clear in spite of what we have all been told, periosteum or no periosteum, the navicular bone can and does heal itself.


----------



## amandap (22 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			One problem is that the research centres have very big machines to pay for and anyone who supports an approach which does not require   MRI or any drug bills is going to be very unpopular with the men in grey suits who do the books 


But it is now clear in spite of what we have all been told, periosteum or no periosteum, the navicular bone can and does heal itself.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but they could use their MRI's etc. to document changes. After all, surely they and we all want what's best for horses at the end of the day. Sod profits. 

ps. I actually think to ignore this is very unethical. I see Nic has posted that vets are becoming interested so there is hope for horses.

I was well aware bone could remodel but this evidence showing healing is just mind blowing to me, though it does make sense. Just shows what enabling truly correct biomechanics and function can do.


----------



## cptrayes (22 August 2013)

What I was always told was that the navicular bone could never remodel because unlike other bone it does not have a periosteum 'skin' around it. I always thought that was nonsense and I'm glad I'm right 

 I agree with you, it's completely unethical for the results being achieved by barefoot rehabs to be ignored by vets or farriers any longer. The difference in prognosis between traditional treatment and barefoot rehabs is astounding.


----------



## TPO (22 August 2013)

I've posted before about how I lost two mares to navicular, tried bf with the first, and vets could not have been more against barefoot.

I see horses that vary from unlevel/ slightly short to crippled and, despite this information being available, owners/vets/farriers are not prepared to change. They keep doing what they are doing while turning a blind eye to carry on doing what they want to do eg riding and jumping.

It's so frustrating. 

I wish I'd had this information or even known 1/5 of what I know now then.

Through certain circumstances the vets at my old practice ended up with my Feet First, Jaime Jackson & Pete Ramey books and completely wrote it all off. The only thing they latched into (to ridicule) was 'the wild horse trim".

Like someone else posted I can't understand the ethics of leaving a horse in pain after shoeing etc. The amount of people I know who think it's acceptable for a horse to be sore after shoeing ' for a few days' is ridiculous. Why isn't every owner always looking for a better way?


----------



## Leg_end (22 August 2013)

Buddy is my horse and I am thrilled with the results we have had thanks to Nic and barefoot. I am lucky that my vet is incredibly supportive and is talking about Rockley to anyone who will listen (Buddy's feet were shown to three other visiting vets yesterday) and he has since had two other referrals to Rockley and views it as a genuine treatment programme. Even he couldn't believe that we had positive improvements on the X-ray as Buddy was written off 11 months ago. 

However, I don't think it helps that there are lots of fluffy people who are also involved in barefoot and this reduces the credibility. When i first spoke to my vet about it he was concerned it was all strasser trims and crystals but Nic is so normal, no nonsense and speaks in a way that vets and scientists can relate to so that helps - but my vet was expecting something else and was surprised. 

I think the more traditional people that learn about and go down the barefoot route will help to increase its credibility and remove the fact that people still believe you cannot have a barefoot performance horse. Until then we will have to continue to self fund this and create more evidence (of which I am convinced will continue to grow) and hopefully will become more mainstream.


----------



## NooNoo59 (22 August 2013)

well I am firmly convinced that my pony would not be sound if I had not gone down the bf route, he is so much happier and freer in his movement. vet was supportive and very interested in my research into it, farrier supportive but still doing pasture trim which is not really what I am aiming for so keeping an eye on that one


----------



## Holly Hocks (22 August 2013)

My horse was diagnosed with navicular from x-rays - they showed moderate bone degeneration.  That was October 2010. Earlier in Jan this year (so about 15 months after diagnosis), she went lame and the vet wanted to convince me it was the navicular degenerating and I wanted to prove to him that it was an abscess so I took her for x-rays.  No sign of degeneration to the navicular bone. (The lameness was a stubborn abscess!).  I still believe my mare has ligament issues in the area as she finds tight circles difficult but it was a good sign that the navicular bone appeared good.


----------



## toomanyhorses26 (22 August 2013)

This makes me so excited for my horses future - he is hopefully off to Rockley in sept if I can find some transport and Icannot wait to see what happens


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2013)

While I am glad that some people are seeing positive results with their horses and I have no problem with individuals seeking this type of treatment, this is certainly not the way to make research claims.

There is an established research culture, that includes standards of research trials (control groups, blind controls, recording of results, etc.), publication of results in peer reviewed journals and opportunities for others to replicate the research...what it does not include is random musing on websites counting as evidence.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			While I am glad that some people are seeing positive results with their horses and I have no problem with individuals seeking this type of treatment, this is certainly not the way to make research claims.

There is an established research culture, that includes standards of research trials (control groups, blind controls, recording of results, etc.), publication of results in peer reviewed journals and opportunities for others to replicate the research...what it does not include is random musing on websites counting as evidence.
		
Click to expand...



And no such research exists for current remedial shoeing based treatments even though vets and farriers continue to tell people that there is no alternative for their horses, and then go on to say retirement/euthanasia is the only option when it fails.

Also, if people like me have been told that regeneration of the navicular bone is impossible because it has no periosteum, and there is even one set of xrays showing that to be incorrect, then that is clear evidence that under the right circumstances the current medical belief is out of date and requires further investigation.

No one is claiming that this is peer reviewed research, but all research has to start with an observation somewhere, to know where to allocate the research effort.


----------



## amandap (23 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			And no such research exists for current remedial shoeing based treatments even though vets and farriers continue to tell people that there is no alternative for their horses, and then go on to say retirement/euthanasia is the only option when it fails.

Also, if people like me have been told that regeneration of the navicular bone is impossible because it has no periosteum, and there is even one set of xrays showing that to be incorrect, then that is clear evidence that under the right circumstances the current medical belief is out of date and requires further investigation.

No one is claiming that this is peer reviewed research, but all research has to start with an observation somewhere, to know where to allocate the research effort.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! My point is that this should generate interest in research funding from 'the established culture' or even research scientists.

It is a non invasive horse centred approach that is demonstrating good results in performance, this very small sample of bone healing imo should shake the research establishment and Veterinary community awake and get them looking at other thinking and treatments not based on tradition and non research based rationale to back up that tradition.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (23 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			And no such research exists for current remedial shoeing based treatments even though vets and farriers continue to tell people that there is no alternative for their horses, and then go on to say retirement/euthanasia is the only option when it fails.

Also, if people like me have been told that regeneration of the navicular bone is impossible because it has no periosteum, and there is even one set of xrays showing that to be incorrect, then that is clear evidence that under the right circumstances the current medical belief is out of date and requires further investigation.

No one is claiming that this is peer reviewed research, but all research has to start with an observation somewhere, to know where to allocate the research effort.
		
Click to expand...

Agree - the hypocrisy is maddening. But also have to agree with the point Booboos made - some (most?) vets will demand to see properly conducted studies and peer-reviewed publications before they will even begin to take barefoot rehab seriously. I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?


----------



## Mrs. Jingle (23 August 2013)

'''I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?'''

Genuine question here? Why doesn't she do this? Surely if the evidence is there to back up these claims in more than one case, then it would be the most obvious thing to do to help bring on board other vets, and maybe even prick the interest of equine research scientists?


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			Agree - the hypocrisy is maddening. But also have to agree with the point Booboos made - some (most?) vets will demand to see properly conducted studies and peer-reviewed publications before they will even begin to take barefoot rehab seriously. I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?
		
Click to expand...


It would cost a fortune. Each post-MRI will be over £1000.  Nic's business cannot sustain those costs.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2013)

MrsJingle said:



			'''I wish Nic would publish some of these case studies with pre- and post-rehab MRIs and xrays - wouldn't cost a fortune and would surely generate interest among the more open-minded vets and maybe even lead to funding for further research?'''

Genuine question here? Why doesn't she do this? Surely if the evidence is there to back up these claims in more than one case, then it would be the most obvious thing to do to help bring on board other vets, and maybe even prick the interest of equine research scientists?
		
Click to expand...


Why do you think this is Nic's job?

She's pretty busy rehabbing horses that vets and farriers can't help, time after time after time. Her yard has a waiting list and she has no need to advertise and no capacity to save any more horses than she does now.

Why doesn't the FRC or the BVA pick this up and run with it. They have far more money than one little rehab yard ever will.


----------



## dogatemysalad (23 August 2013)

Why can't the money for a research project be found ?

 In recent years with the demand for hoof boots/ products, the industry has grown along with training courses for trimmers and clinics etc. Its enconomic sense for the industry to fund a research project which might prompt further research from other sources.

The BHS funds research in conjuction with the uni at Cirencester and the 100 club. Has anyone approached these organisations for funding ? 

I fail to understand why hoof boot makers/ hoof trimming organisations cannot even fund a small sample of MRI's for successfully rehabbed horses at the very least.


----------



## soot (23 August 2013)

Fascinating. 

I am a scientist and I like to think I am a no nonsense person, I event, I hunt ... and I have barefoot horses. I have always credited this to the way they kept - we have a long, narrow, flinty field (almost 40 acres of long and narrow) and the horses have to navigate it 24/7. Would love to track them overnight some time to see how much ground they cover - the feet get a lot of use over a lot of different terrains and I do believe this allows for the right balance of growth and usage.


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2013)

dogatemysalad said:



			Why can't the money for a research project be found ?

 In recent years with the demand for hoof boots/ products, the industry has grown along with training courses for trimmers and clinics etc. Its enconomic sense for the industry to fund a research project which might prompt further research from other sources.

The BHS funds research in conjuction with the uni at Cirencester and the 100 club. Has anyone approached these organisations for funding ? 

I fail to understand why hoof boot makers/ hoof trimming organisations cannot even fund a small sample of MRI's for successfully rehabbed horses at the very least.
		
Click to expand...


Why should the people you mention fund it or spend time campaigning for funding? They are the ones getting minimal income from doing it right. The people who need to fund it and organise it are the ones earning huge fees from medical treatments and remedial shoeing.

You overestimate, I think, how 'joined up' the various people and organisations involved in barefoot are.


----------



## dogatemysalad (23 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Why should the people you mention fund it or spend time campaigning for funding? They are the ones getting minimal income from doing it right. The people who need to fund it and organise it are the ones earning huge fees from medical treatments and remedial shoeing.

You overestimate, I think, how 'joined up' the various people and organisations involved in barefoot are.
		
Click to expand...

 Because they make an income from horses wearing boots and not being shod. It makes good business sense unless they are in it for the short term.

The BHS funds research, has anyone lobbied them ?

I don't think they are joined up as you quite rightly say, but I do see a lot of passion and effort from owners put into keeping horses barefoot and it seems a shame that this energy can't be used to further research. Nic's work is impressive but it is in reality a small venture with no time or capacity to search for funding. Edited to add.. has anyone approached the equine insurance companies who would actually have a lot to gain if the claims stand up to scientific research.


----------



## Mrs. Jingle (23 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Why do you think this is Nic's job?

She's pretty busy rehabbing horses that vets and farriers can't help, time after time after time. Her yard has a waiting list and she has no need to advertise and no capacity to save any more horses than she does now.

Why doesn't the FRC or the BVA pick this up and run with it. They have far more money than one little rehab yard ever will.
		
Click to expand...

I have not stated that I do think it is her job have I? I merely questioned why she hasn't done so, as one would assume from the title thread that there has been a breakthrough in proving that barefoot rehab for navicular does work? If this is the case I just wonder why we have not heard more about it and that MRI scans aren't being done to prove the theory? A very reasonable question I think, and thank you for your reply.  I now understand that it is the financial cost of doing follow MRIs that is the issue.

That information would have been sufficient without getting defensive but thanks anyway.


----------



## Booboos (23 August 2013)

Research funding is a very complex topic, but very briefly:

- if you can get a private company to fund you, then all you have to do is convince them that you might make them money and off you go (subject to REC approval if necessary), so let's leave this possibility to one side.

- public bodies and charitable trusts set up to fund research receive an enormous number of applications for very, very limited funds. Application success rates can be as low as 2% in some areas. To have ANY chance of success applicants have to show a previous record of successful publications (to establish their credibility and evidence the claim that their current work is likely to prove fruitful), have a very well thought out research plan (to prove value for money for the grant and to convince the peer reviewers this is good research) usually in a 'target funding' area for the research body (research granting bodies usually have priority areas identified in advance).

Despite the difficulties though evidence based claims are still the best way to advance our knowldge, otherwise anyone can upload anything they like on the internet and there is no way to evaluate the claims.


----------



## dogatemysalad (23 August 2013)

Thank you Booboos, that's informative. So basically, you have to approach someone with a proven tack record of research, like, for instance the Animal Health Trust or Liverpool uni ?


----------



## paddy555 (23 August 2013)

I cannot see why anyone would want to fund it as I cannot see anyone is going to make money out of it. The drug companies won't. The main company producing boots is a US company. If horses are totally barefoot people are not going to want their boots. AFAIK Nic does not rehab. by booting  so why should they offer support. 
There is not much in it for the vets. No drugs, take it's shoes off, put it on a track and get it walking. 
Not much for farriers, the maximum required is a £30 trim. 

The only places to make anything will be barefoot rehab yards and there is not going to be the profit margin there unless they increase their charges considerably in which case many won't be able to afford them. 
At present a horse with foot problems is a source of profit for vets and farriers. What is going to be in it for them? 
The only ones who stand to gain are the horses and I'm not sure how they are going to fund it.


----------



## dogatemysalad (23 August 2013)

I think the insurance companies would gain, if the research endorses the anecdotal evidence. More horses without shoes, less lameness.

I also feel its a bit disappointing that the organisations training trimmers, whose courses aren't cheap, aren't ploughing anything back into research.
 The hoof boot market both here and abroad is doing very well, its big business with new companies appearing over the last couple of years, shouldn't they fund some research or do they not wish to increase the market even if they feel no obligation to equine welfare.

Not even a thousand pounds for a single scan ? No one ?


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2013)

You, if you want it?

Do you understand how tiny the trimming organisations are?  All the money they get for training a handful of trimmers a year is spent on training those trimmers!


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2013)

MrsJingle said:



			I have not stated that I do think it is her job have I? I merely questioned why she hasn't done so, as one would assume from the title thread that there has been a breakthrough in proving that barefoot rehab for navicular does work? If this is the case I just wonder why we have not heard more about it and that MRI scans aren't being done to prove the theory? A very reasonable question I think, and thank you for your reply.  I now understand that it is the financial cost of doing follow MRIs that is the issue.

That information would have been sufficient without getting defensive but thanks anyway.
		
Click to expand...

You're welcome


----------



## Brightbay (23 August 2013)

dogatemysalad said:



			I think the insurance companies would gain, if the research endorses the anecdotal evidence. More horses without shoes, less lameness.

I also feel its a bit disappointing that the organisations training trimmers, whose courses aren't cheap, aren't ploughing anything back into research.
 The hoof boot market both here and abroad is doing very well, its big business with new companies appearing over the last couple of years, shouldn't they fund some research or do they not wish to increase the market even if they feel no obligation to equine welfare.

Not even a thousand pounds for a single scan ? No one ?
		
Click to expand...

First of all, I have yet to hear of an insurance company sponsoring any form of research. For example, their health insurance claims would be much less if we all ate healthier, drank less and smoked less - but oddly, they don't sponsor research into health promotion and illness prevention.

Secondly, a research programme that will carry any weight is not "a single scan".  First, there's the cost of the research.  You need to get a team of vets and probably veterinary radiographers on board. You need to recruit a group of horses who meet agreed criteria, and you will most likely need a control group who don't receive treatment. There's initial diagnosis - including a scan - and this needs to be done by one vet and confirmed by at least one vet to ensure consistency and reliability.  Then there's treatment, which needs to be documented and monitored, with regular veterinary reports.  Then there's post treatment scans, again needing to be done by one vet, and then confirmed (ideally by another vet "blind" to whether the horse was in the treatment group or not.  There's also the issue of numbers - in order for any result you have to be scientifically meaningful, you need quite large numbers of horses in your study, not just two or three - and allowing for drop outs, you need to over recruit.  The cost of the treatment needs to be covered as well.

Then there's the cost (not insignificant) of collating, analysing and writing up the data, and finally there's the happy dance of presenting your findings to a journal, getting feedback, potentially resubmitting, or if rejected, starting the submission process again with another journal.  This process can take literally years...

So - given that even a small scale study is likely to cost a minimum of about £100,000 - who's paying?


----------



## paddy555 (23 August 2013)

dogatemysalad said:



			I think the insurance companies would gain, if the research endorses the anecdotal evidence. More horses without shoes, less lameness.

I also feel its a bit disappointing that the organisations training trimmers, whose courses aren't cheap, aren't ploughing anything back into research.
 The hoof boot market both here and abroad is doing very well, its big business with new companies appearing over the last couple of years, shouldn't they fund some research or do they not wish to increase the market even if they feel no obligation to equine welfare.

Not even a thousand pounds for a single scan ? No one ?
		
Click to expand...


but lameness is big business. Vet's, farriers, drug companies etc do very nicely, thank you, out of lame horses. What on earth would happen to them if suddenly everyone rehabbed their horses by removing their shoes and got them walking. Cost would be minimal to the owner, loss of profits (and vets and farriers are in business to make a profit) would be enormous. 
Ethics, obligations and welfare are all very well but profit is what they are looking for. When a  horse gets lame the "cash tills" start ringing. 

The insurance companies simply increase their premiums if they want to gain. Horses who are booted are the ones (for the most part) who cannot manage without. What is in it for the hoof boot manufacturers? as for the small retailers they simply don't have the margins to fund research. 

How many single scans at £1000 each are you going to need to convince the sceptics? It would cost a fortune. Do the sceptics even want to be convinced? Financially why would they?


----------



## dogatemysalad (23 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			You, if you want it?

Do you understand how tiny the trimming organisations are?  All the money they get for training a handful of trimmers a year is spent on training those trimmers!
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't want or need it. I am genuinely confused as to why not one organisation or university is doing this research. I'm equally at a loss to understand why the professionals of the horse world, with a small exception, still continue to shoe.
 It doesn't make economic sense. Surely,if you had worked in the business for years, say, for arguments sake, in dressage, trained countless horses and witnessed career ending lamenesses - wouldn't you want your horse's career to have the best chance ?
Professionals have excess to the best vets, physiotherapists and experts in equine science to advise on horses costing upwards of six figures- why would they ignore the latest approach to maintaining life long soundness ?

Do private owners know something that the professionals don't ?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (23 August 2013)

I agree with much of your post and share your frustration. 

There are plenty of private owners who shoe without thinking why, or even if the horse needs shoes.

In the Comp section of this forum, there is a thread about working hunters having to be shod in a full set, or they are eliminated.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?630290-Learned-something-new!-Shoes-WH


----------



## MotherOfChickens (23 August 2013)

Petplan funds research-at least, they did-Petplan Charitable Trust or some such. I think dogatemysalad is correct wrt, if the insurance companies begin to wake up to the amount of vet fees claims and remedial shoeing they are paying out for-it may be worth their while.

However, most of you don't seem to understand how much it costs-to employ me for example, a scientific research assistant at a research institute costs about £70-80K a year full time-I don't get anything like that much! Its the overheads from the institute, then you have consumables, a percentage of my PI's time etc etc and with this sort of study, you'd be talking years to get meaningful data with enough cases.

ok, so I had a gin and now I see that the cost ant details of research have been much better described previously. Remember, equine research is all charitably funded in the UK-if you want more research support those charities supporting it and tell them what you want to see researched! Noone else is going to fund it and there are many research projects competing for very small amounts of money.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (23 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Why do you think this is Nic's job?

She's pretty busy rehabbing horses that vets and farriers can't help, time after time after time. Her yard has a waiting list and she has no need to advertise and no capacity to save any more horses than she does now.

Why doesn't the FRC or the BVA pick this up and run with it. They have far more money than one little rehab yard ever will.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, in the majority of cases, it's probably not financially feasible for owners or Rockley to cover the costs of post-rehab MRIs but in her post, Nic mentioned four horses that did have post-rehab MRIs or x-rays. Don't see any reason why cases like these couldn't be published or presented at congresses. I just think it's a real shame that very few owners (and even fewer vets) get to hear about these results.


----------



## amandap (23 August 2013)

http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.ie/p/research-results.html

I posted the original link in the hope of a wider audience. lol


----------



## cptrayes (23 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			Yes, in the majority of cases, it's probably not financially feasible for owners or Rockley to cover the costs of post-rehab MRIs but in her post, Nic mentioned four horses that did have post-rehab MRIs or x-rays. Don't see any reason why cases like these couldn't be published or presented at congresses. I just think it's a real shame that very few owners (and even fewer vets) get to hear about these results.
		
Click to expand...

There is a thread last year started by me about how Nic was turned down to present at the BEVA conference. She and a pro researcher put a lot of work into putting a paper together. It was refused.


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2013)

dogatemysalad said:



			Thank you Booboos, that's informative. So basically, you have to approach someone with a proven tack record of research, like, for instance the Animal Health Trust or Liverpool uni ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes that's the way to go about it. Find a well known research centre, with a proven research track record and the expertise in making research applications and create a proposal with them. They will also have equipment like MRI scans which will reduce the costs.


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			There is a thread last year started by me about how Nic was turned down to present at the BEVA conference. She and a pro researcher put a lot of work into putting a paper together. It was refused.
		
Click to expand...

Disheartening as it may be, being turned down is part of being a researcher and not a conspiracy to keep one person or one set of ideas down. 

For example, I have been turned down by every major publisher, every major peer reviewed journal and every major conference in my profession...and have still published 4 books, 9 papers in peer reviewed journals and 7 papers in edited collections. A mid-level peer review journal can easily have a 10% acceptance rate, while this can drop to 2% for the top journals. The top specialist conference in my area has a 10% acceptance rate, with about 80 to 110 papers submitted each year for only 9 slots (just reviewing all the papers takes 4-5 months!). Specifically for conferences there is a question of balance, so at a general vet conference you don't want to have 9 papers on shoeing and 1 on cardio-vascular, but have to have a nice balance of papers to interest a diverse audience.


----------



## dogatemysalad (24 August 2013)

Faracat said:



			I agree with much of your post and share your frustration. 

There are plenty of private owners who shoe without thinking why, or even if the horse needs shoes.

In the Comp section of this forum, there is a thread about working hunters having to be shod in a full set, or they are eliminated.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?630290-Learned-something-new!-Shoes-WH

Click to expand...

How very odd. I tend to feel more secure on slippery ground with the horses that aren't shod.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			Disheartening as it may be, being turned down is part of being a researcher and not a conspiracy to keep one person or one set of ideas down.
		
Click to expand...

I was replying to someone who asked why Nic Barker did not present her findings at conferences or publish them that she has tried.

She has also been working in the past with a Professor at Leahurst on a a project that they named 'Dexter' after the first horse on the program. I believe that he initially said that when it reached ten horses, he would publish. Then the number went up, and up, and now she's got so many that her rehabs have a reunion taking up three days at Milton Keynes Equestrian Centre every year it's looking like he has no intention of publishing ever.

We might ask why not, since it's clearly not a failure of results. Something to do with the proportion of revenue that Leahurst gain by MRI, scintigraph and subsequent treatment of palmar hoof lame horses maybe? The cynic in me says that any Professor whose published research decimated the revenues of his employer would not be the most popular person in town.


----------



## dogatemysalad (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			We might ask why not, since it's clearly not a failure of results. Something to do with the proportion of revenue that Leahurst gain by MRI, scintigraph and subsequent treatment of palmar hoof lame horses maybe? The cynic in me says that any Professor whose published research decimated the revenues of his employer would not be the most popular person in town.
		
Click to expand...

I see your point.


----------



## paddy555 (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			We might ask why not, since it's clearly not a failure of results. Something to do with the proportion of revenue that Leahurst gain by MRI, scintigraph and subsequent treatment of palmar hoof lame horses maybe? The cynic in me says that any Professor whose published research decimated the revenues of his employer would not be the most popular person in town.
		
Click to expand...

says it all really. The horses who will benefit will be those with private owners who educate themselves. 
It would be interesting to know if Rockley have any numbers of the horses referred to them where the vet was the first person to initiate and suggest it against those where the owner has had to fight to get their horse there.


----------



## Jesstickle (24 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			Research funding is a very complex topic, but very briefly:

- if you can get a private company to fund you, then all you have to do is convince them that you might make them money and off you go (subject to REC approval if necessary), so let's leave this possibility to one side.

- public bodies and charitable trusts set up to fund research receive an enormous number of applications for very, very limited funds. Application success rates can be as low as 2% in some areas. To have ANY chance of success applicants have to show a previous record of successful publications (to establish their credibility and evidence the claim that their current work is likely to prove fruitful), have a very well thought out research plan (to prove value for money for the grant and to convince the peer reviewers this is good research) usually in a 'target funding' area for the research body (research granting bodies usually have priority areas identified in advance).

Despite the difficulties though evidence based claims are still the best way to advance our knowldge, otherwise anyone can upload anything they like on the internet and there is no way to evaluate the claims.
		
Click to expand...




Booboos said:



			Disheartening as it may be, being turned down is part of being a researcher and not a conspiracy to keep one person or one set of ideas down. 

For example, I have been turned down by every major publisher, every major peer reviewed journal and every major conference in my profession...and have still published 4 books, 9 papers in peer reviewed journals and 7 papers in edited collections. A mid-level peer review journal can easily have a 10% acceptance rate, while this can drop to 2% for the top journals. The top specialist conference in my area has a 10% acceptance rate, with about 80 to 110 papers submitted each year for only 9 slots (just reviewing all the papers takes 4-5 months!). Specifically for conferences there is a question of balance, so at a general vet conference you don't want to have 9 papers on shoeing and 1 on cardio-vascular, but have to have a nice balance of papers to interest a diverse audience.
		
Click to expand...

Great posts on how research funding and publication works!

Which doesn't mean I don't think the research would be worthwhile but there are many,many things which are worthy of research that can't find funding. 

Sadly scientific funding is very hard to come by and scientific research is very expensive to carry out!


----------



## Buddy'sMum (24 August 2013)

Booboos' point was a valid one - having an abstract rejected by one congress is not a disaster or a conspiracy on the part of the congress scientific committee. Could've been any number of reasons why Nic's abstract wasn't accepted for presentation at BEVA - it certainly wasn't the only abstract that was rejected. But BEVA is just one congress - there are others. And if the Prof at Leahurst isn't prepared to publish after all this time, find another vet who is.


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			We might ask why not, since it's clearly not a failure of results. Something to do with the proportion of revenue that Leahurst gain by MRI, scintigraph and subsequent treatment of palmar hoof lame horses maybe? The cynic in me says that any Professor whose published research decimated the revenues of his employer would not be the most popular person in town.
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea who this Prof is or why he does not want to publish but there are two possibilities:
either, as you suggest, because the results are ground-breaking and likely to cause a massive shift in diagnostic and treatment options for this condition,
or because there is insufficient evidence.

Somehow the second option seems more likely for a variety of reasons:
- ground-breaking research brings prestige, professional achievement and fulfills the purpose of an academic life, i.e. to get a step closer to the truth - therefore it's not an easy thing to ignore
- ground-breaking research brings bucket loads of research money
- if a diagnostic clinic is at the centre of a new discovery one would imagine that they would attract all the clients for this condition so again the financial argument is questionable 
- your assumption that the bulk of Leahurst's work is with such horses and would disappear with this research sounds a tad exaggerated
- I have never heard of the academic community turning its back on research that resolved a problem because of potential loss of income, do you have any other examples? If a researcher were to find a cure for cancer, for example, I think it's more likely that they would be awarded the Nobel prize rather than to be ostracised for eliminating the need for all that lovely chemotherapy income.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2013)

Not enough evidence? How much more do you want? These horses even form their own control group, since most of them have already been through remedial shoeing and medication and been told to retire or put  to sleep!  

Buddy's Mum. - WHO  do you expect to go round chasing someone to publish this research?

Booboos I did not suggest that the majority (you used the term 'bulk')  of Leahurst revenues come from palmar hoof lameness treatment. Any exaggeration on that point has come from you, not me.


I do not accept your assertion that a commercial organisation, of which Leahurst is one, will allow its employees to engage in research that will reduce its revenues. You won't find my Astra Zeneca friends working on any project that will replace the need for a drug with a free alternative.

Interestingly, when I told the senior partner of my vet practice that we could cure navicular with barefoot rehabs, he didn't say 'what rubbish' or even 'how interesting'. His first words were 'you'll put us out of business'.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			Somehow the second option seems more likely for a variety of reasons:
- ground-breaking research brings prestige, professional achievement and fulfills the purpose of an academic life, i.e. to get a step closer to the truth - therefore it's not an easy thing to ignore
		
Click to expand...


No commercial organisation would pay its researchers to work on any project which will reduce its revenues. Leahurst is a very commercial organisation.




			- ground-breaking research brings bucket loads of research money
		
Click to expand...

 The research wouldn't even get started at Leahurst, for the reason given above.




			- if a diagnostic clinic is at the centre of a new discovery one would imagine that they would attract all the clients for this condition so again the financial argument is questionable
		
Click to expand...


The whole point is that no treatment is required. There would be no patients coming in with the condition, they'd be at home with their trimmers and farriers or in little rehab livery yards.



			- I have never heard of the academic community turning its back on research that resolved a problem because of potential loss of income, do you have any other examples? If a researcher were to find a cure for cancer, for example, I think it's more likely that they would be awarded the Nobel prize rather than to be ostracised for eliminating the need for all that lovely chemotherapy income.
		
Click to expand...


My comment was about Leahurst, not about the academic community, though I think it also applies to any academic employed by a commercial organisation. There are loads of examples in medecine and in fact a charity which we give money to exists with the objective of funding research that cannot otherwise find funding due to there being no potential for  commercial gain. One example would be a research program into the use of exercise to treat osteoarthritis, which a friend of mine is currently on.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2013)

paddy555 said:



			says it all really. The horses who will benefit will be those with private owners who educate themselves. 
It would be interesting to know if Rockley have any numbers of the horses referred to them where the vet was the first person to initiate and suggest it against those where the owner has had to fight to get their horse there.
		
Click to expand...


There is now at least one vet referring to Rockley as a first option. I think he has sent three there so far. The knowledge is spreading exponentially now. Some day not miles  too far in the future a barefoot rehab will be the recommended treatment for palmar hoof lameness.


----------



## amandap (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			There is now at least one vet referring to Rockley as a first option. I think he has sent three there so far. The knowledge is spreading exponentially now. Some day not miles  too far in the future a barefoot rehab will be the recommended treatment for palmar hoof lameness.
		
Click to expand...

I hope not too far in the future. Hopefully more owners will have the confidence to go against advice and prognosis they are given and unhappy with but it's such a shame it appears it mostly has to be this way.

Ah well seems like institutional science will remain behind. No change there then. Still no real research to validate traditional Navicular treatment and in that model it will only degenerate! 
Mind you, going against cultural and endemic beliefs can also ruin a scientists career! 

Seems like owners and horses themselves are at the forefront here with the support of some 'out of the box' thinking professionals.


----------



## ozpoz (24 August 2013)

A suggestion - if the hoof boot makers, barefoot trimmers, and enthusiastic owners got together, they could form a charity to fund research with post grad students (for example) vets,farriers and other practitioners who were interested  in research on navicular findings. People need to collaborate to make something like this move forward.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Buddy's Mum. - WHO  do you expect to go round chasing someone to publish this research?
		
Click to expand...

cptrayes - why the aggression? Funding bodies don't hand out money on the back of a few blog posts, no matter how interesting they might be. If Nic wants to get funding for research she needs to publish/present her data. That's how it works.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2013)

What aggression?

Why do you assume Nic wants finding for research?

You asked me why she has not published and I have explained. I do not understand why you think that she is, or should be, seeking research funding.

We all want research but none of us can see who has the inclination and the time and the money to obtain it.


----------



## cptrayes (24 August 2013)

ozpoz said:



			A suggestion - if the hoof boot makers, barefoot trimmers, and enthusiastic owners got together, they could form a charity to fund research with post grad students (for example) vets,farriers and other practitioners who were interested  in research on navicular findings. People need to collaborate to make something like this move forward.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Booboos (24 August 2013)

Just briefly:

Leahurst is part of the University of Liverpool which is a publicly funded body as per the conditions and charter of almost all higher education institutions in the UK - it is not a company or a profit seeking institution. While of course no one wants to see public bodies making a loss, the primary aim of universities is research for the sake of knowledge and not for the sake of profit.

Control groups cannot, by definition, be the same as the group under study, because otherwise they cannot function as a control.

The number of participants in a study will depend on what is being studied but one needs enough subjects to ensure a good case for causation and not coincidence. 

As I said before research is not funded exclusively by private, profit-seeking companies, there are a huge number of non-profit trusts and government organisations. For example in my area the major grant making bodies are the AHRC and the ESRC with charitable bodies like the Welcome Trust and the Nuffield Foundation also giving out enormous amounts of money. Sites like this one: http://www.researchresearch.com/ collate opportunities.


----------



## brucea (24 August 2013)

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.


----------



## Leg_end (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			There is now at least one vet referring to Rockley as a first option. I think he has sent three there so far. The knowledge is spreading exponentially now. Some day not miles  too far in the future a barefoot rehab will be the recommended treatment for palmar hoof lameness.
		
Click to expand...

This is my vet - he is actively pushing Rockley as a treatment option and is offering it to his clients now  However it was me that initiated it, we are still a long way from this becoming mainstream unfortunately


----------



## Buddy'sMum (24 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			What aggression?

Why do you assume Nic wants finding for research?

You asked me why she has not published and I have explained. I do not understand why you think that she is, or should be, seeking research funding.

We all want research but none of us can see who has the inclination and the time and the money to obtain it.
		
Click to expand...

Um, because she has mentioned it several times in her blog, see for example:

http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/of-research-and-soundness.html
http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/or-alternatively-shoot-horse.html
http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/funding-more-mris.html

?


----------



## Buddy'sMum (24 August 2013)

brucea said:



			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??
		
Click to expand...

Good point. I've told more than one vet off for asking 'is he/she insured?' before they've even clapped eyes on the horse. I don't tell them until they've done a basic work up and we've discussed the options.


----------



## cptrayes (25 August 2013)

Booboos I can't quote you because the pointers are going wrong. 

Leahurst is a teaching hospital, yes.

But it is also a commercial veterinary hospital operating in competition with several other veterinary hospitals in the North West. It is indeed a commercial enterprise, making a profit from treating horses just like any other veterinary practice.  I have not seen their books, but it would be unusual if they do not actually have a company registration, since the veterinary hospital is  a profit making organisation operating within a publically funded body. That would be the normal way these things are done in the public sector.


----------



## cptrayes (25 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			Um, because she has mentioned it several times in her blog, see for example:

http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/of-research-and-soundness.html
http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/or-alternatively-shoot-horse.html
http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/funding-more-mris.html
?
		
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2013)

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 (25 August 2013)

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 (25 August 2013)

Booboos said:



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

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 (25 August 2013)

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 (25 August 2013)

brucea said:



			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??
		
Click to expand...

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 (25 August 2013)

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 (25 August 2013)

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 (25 August 2013)

NZJenny said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (25 August 2013)

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!.




cptrayes said:



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


----------



## cptrayes (25 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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.
		
Click to expand...


Certainly.

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


----------



## brucea (25 August 2013)

amandap said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

And about our expectations of horses.


----------



## dalidaydream (25 August 2013)

brucea said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more


----------



## Booboos (25 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (25 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...


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 (25 August 2013)

brucea said:



			And about our expectations of horses.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely yes.


----------



## Booboos (26 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

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 (26 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

This is my feeling as well.

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


----------



## TPO (26 August 2013)

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 (26 August 2013)

TPO said:



			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"
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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."
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

amandap said:



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

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.



Buddy'sMum said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

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 (26 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



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

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 (26 August 2013)

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 (26 August 2013)

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.


----------



## ozpoz (26 August 2013)

I'm not sure if following a protocol for drug trials is the way forward in this case. Surely a way to collect and examine all the existing info and evidence would be a better starting point.


----------



## criso (26 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			(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.



.
		
Click to expand...

Then we need to dismiss published research on traditional methods that I saw when I was reading up when my horse was having problems as it 

1) Combine both bone conditions (navicular cysts, changes to the navicular bone etc) and soft tissue injuries 
2) Was not blind
3) Did not have a control group
4) Used subjective evaluations by asking owners to fill in questionnaires about their horses lameness pre and post treatment
5) Did not MRI after but used the work level of the horse post treatment to judge recovery.

So while this desire for perfect research is great I don't see it being replicated for other treatments for similar issues.

What I find interesting about about this which is the one constant we were always told with all the treatments was that once there were changes to the bone it could not be reversed, that was a fixed no matter what.  Now we have a few cases (not research) that contradict that and that in my mind should be enough for anyone interested in horses feet from a professional point of view to take a second look and ask if there's something going on that should be investigated further.


----------



## Orangehorse (26 August 2013)

Because the results haven't been "officially" made, even reviewing the literature wouldn't be possible for veterinary research students, as the literature doesn't exist, let alone undertaking research into outcomes - or could they?  Or would be a bad move career-wise?

But I agree that most of the horses sent for rehab to Rockley and other places have already been through the standard veterinary treatment of remedial shoeing, injections, etc.  and several have had the "PTS" verdict.  

What is needs is a retired research scientist/or vet who has a mission to bring this information to the veterinary profession who has the time and correct methodology to collate all the information that is available.  Any volunteers?


----------



## cptrayes (26 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...


Are you happy that current treatment protocols for palmar and caudal hoof lameness have none of what you are asking for?

And if so, why would you be resistant to a more effective protocol that does not have it either?

Your assertion that vets will never accept a barefoot rehab without it is clearly incorrect for three reasons.

1. They already use an approach which has NO research meeting your or Booboos requirements. Lack of research of a decent standard is clearly no barrier. My horse is having a kissing spines ligament desmotomy in one week. There's no research of the standard you require for that either.

2. There is one vet doing it already, because he has seen it work and has an open mind.

3. Because owners are already beginning to refuse conventional treatment and demand barefoot rehabs, because they work.


Just because evidence is anecdotal does not make it untrue.

Nic is not 'claiming' anything without evidence. She is posting picture after picture of horses which leave her care either sound or markedly sounder and which generally go on to perform at or above their previous level. This is not a 'claim', it's visibly a fact, a.s is reversal of damage in five horses. 

If you doubt it I suggest you pop along to Milton Keynes Equestrian Centre in September, where you can see the whole place taken over for three days by people riding their Rockley Rehabs.


----------



## cptrayes (26 August 2013)

Booboos.

Hardly any veterinary medecine meets the demands for research that you have so lengthily listed above.

No treatment protocol  for foot lameness, including laminitis, does. No treatment for kissing spines does. No treatment for laryngeal hemiplegia does. Those are just the ones I know personally. There are thousands more.

If a procedure clearly works, as the new interspinous ligament desmotomy operation that my horse is having done next week does, then it is simply adopted into the mainstream. And in this particular case, extremely quickly too.

You also seem unaware that 'navicular disease' meaning navicular bone damage, is very, very rarely found without soft tissue damage. And since 50% or so of horses xrayed have navicular bone changes, and those changes do not correlate at all strongly with lameness, and a lame horse returns to soundness once the soft tissue is repaired ....

then


the evidence is strong that the  overwhelming majority of 'navicular disease' is actually collateral ligament,impar ligament or ddft damage inside the foot.


----------



## Leg_end (26 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			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.
		
Click to expand...

What Nic is stating on her blog is fact and is one I have seen with my own eyes. If I had the latest X-rays available I would post you the comparison pictures. 

The vet profession state that Navicular is degenerative - if you have bone damage (as my horse does) then the prognosis is very poor. On the 25th Sept last year my vet told me that I would be lucky if B returned to light hacking and that the only way we would return to dressage would be on bute. Buddy went to Rockley in Nov 12, he was sound in Jan 13, was in full work by end of Feb, did his first dressage test in April and started jumping (on grass & surface) in July with a tentative aim to do his first event at the end of Sept. 

He had his X-rays last week, just under 11 months after his original diagnosis and 6 months after returning home from Rockley and my vet was amazed that we had actual, positive changes on the X-rays. 

As far as I understand there are 4 other horses who have had secondary X-rays/MRI post Rockley and all have shown improvement and evidence of healing/healed issues. The reason there are only 5 of us is that most horses at Rockley are there as a last change Saloon and have reached their insurance limit so if their horse is sound why would (or should) they spend hundreds or thousands of pounds to prove a point? I must admit it is something I plan to do again and keep track of as I am so interested to see if we can completely undo the damage that was caused and how long that will take.


----------



## Holly Hocks (26 August 2013)

I've been reading this and it seems that the scientists are wanting the proof and research to show that barefoot can work.  Would it be possible for one of you science bods to point in me in the direction of the research to show that remedial shoeing works please.   I'm genuinely interested. Thanks.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (26 August 2013)

Leg_end - I'm not denying that you and other owners had fantastic results with your horses. Really, I'm not. And I'm genuinely happy for you. All I've said all along is that I still would love to see these data published. Because I really think that's what it's going to take for the veterinary profession to take notice.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (26 August 2013)

Holly Hocks said:



			I've been reading this and it seems that the scientists are wanting the proof and research to show that barefoot can work.  Would it be possible for one of you science bods to point in me in the direction of the research to show that remedial shoeing works please.   I'm genuinely interested. Thanks.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose I'm one of the 'science bods'!? I've been waiting for someone to bring this up, surprised it's taken this long!! I'm not arguing with you - my own horses are unshod so I'm not exactly an advocate of farriery. And, clearly, remedial farriery doesn't work in the long-term in navicular cases. BUT it remains part of the traditional treatment algorithm. So what I'm saying is, publish the data showing the fantastic, ground-breaking data for barefoot rehab and change the treatment algorithm. Because waiting for one vet and a few owners to spread the word is going to take far too long.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (27 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Are you happy that current treatment protocols for palmar and caudal hoof lameness have none of what you are asking for?
		
Click to expand...

No, not at all. But they are established protocols. I'm not saying I agree with them - what I'm saying is that in order to challenge established protocols, you need robust, reproducible, published data in support of an alternative.



cptrayes said:



			Your assertion that vets will never accept a barefoot rehab without it is clearly incorrect for three reasons.

1. They already use an approach which has NO research meeting your or Booboos requirements. Lack of research of a decent standard is clearly no barrier. My horse is having a kissing spines ligament desmotomy in one week. There's no research of the standard you require for that either.

2. There is one vet doing it already, because he has seen it work and has an open mind.

3. Because owners are already beginning to refuse conventional treatment and demand barefoot rehabs, because they work.
		
Click to expand...

1. OK, so if we take KS as an example - since the Croomer technique data was first published last year the technique has received a lot of publicity and is fast gaining acceptance among vets worldwide. Hope all goes well with your horse next week.

2. One vet already? Great. And how many years has that taken?

3. Some are, yes. But most will continue down the traditional treatment path because they trust in their vets and farriers. And the majority of vets and farriers think barefoot is quackery. And as long as we only have anecdotal evidence in support of barefoot rehab, that's not going to change anytime soon.



cptrayes said:



			Just because evidence is anecdotal does not make it untrue.
		
Click to expand...

No, of course not, but anecdotal data is less credible than peer-reviewed, published data. Fact.



cptrayes said:



			Nic is not 'claiming' anything without evidence. She is posting picture after picture of horses which leave her care either sound or markedly sounder and which generally go on to perform at or above their previous level. This is not a 'claim', it's visibly a fact, a.s is reversal of damage in five horses.
		
Click to expand...

OK, please publish these data then. And just maybe navicular treatment algorithms will change for the better in my horses' lifetimes.


----------



## amandap (27 August 2013)

Buddy'sMum said:



			Well, I suppose I'm one of the 'science bods'!? I've been waiting for someone to bring this up, surprised it's taken this long!!
		
Click to expand...

Some of us have asked this question a few times on here and no substantial or follow up research has been cited. One or two very small, short term studies as I remember.

What galls me is the current protocol is based on traditional thinking and treatment not backed up by rigorous research and it doesn't work in the long term, in fact is palliative yet new thinking has to be subject to rigorous science to even be considered.

This all brings to the fore the causative factors, caudal hoof pain/discomfort causing improper biomechanics which stresses ligaments, tendons and eventually erosion of the navicular bone. This is the thinking I am familiar with and tbh I don't know what the traditional thinking on causation is. If the former thinking is correct then it leads directly to Rockley style rehab... strengthening the caudal hoof, through enabling correct movement (including hoof landing), exercize and diet.

Horses can become sound with damage to the navicular bone so that in itself isn't the key to soundness and useability.


----------



## Booboos (27 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			1. They already use an approach which has NO research meeting your or Booboos requirements. Lack of research of a decent standard is clearly no barrier. My horse is having a kissing spines ligament desmotomy in one week. There's no research of the standard you require for that either.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know why you keep making claims that only take two seconds to refute. Here's published research on ks ligament desmotmy. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

It's a small study which is exactly where Rockley could start at, but if you notice there is a control group, a specific way of diagnosing (a difficult) problem, the same post-treatment protocol, etc.


----------



## cptrayes (27 August 2013)

Booboos said:



			I don't know why you keep making claims that only take two seconds to refute. Here's published research on ks ligament desmotmy. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

It's a small study which is exactly where Rockley could start at, but if you notice there is a control group, a specific way of diagnosing (a difficult) problem, the same post-treatment protocol, etc.
		
Click to expand...


 Thank you for that Booboos. Most reassuring. I couldn't find it when I googled it.

Now if you could just find me similar research for current conventional treatment of foot lameness we could all get out of this revolving door we are stuck in.

We ALL want research published

But with no money to be made out of the answer, quite the reverse for most vets, I  can't see where it's easily going to come from


----------



## ester (27 August 2013)

I think given the lack of quality evidence in either direction it will be a numbers game, currently many more horses undergo traditional treatment and of those some remain sound (at least for a time) therefore giving vets anecdotal evidence that it can work. As/if numbers of horses going barefoot instead increases, with some success that anecdotal evidence will build up and it will be taken on more (which has already been identified as happening). 

I cannot see it ever reaching the proper scientific results point, those who do it are doing it, get sound horses, job done. - they have no requirement to see quality data. Those that aren't doing it just wouldn't be interested enough. It would also be a project that required a fair bit of funding with regards to the imaging - and even postgrads aren't that cheap . Plus I can't imagine anyone wanting to take it on for a postgrad project- the intro/literature review for my thesis on a bug that was only isolated in 1989 (quite recent as bugs go!) was bad enough .


----------



## Booboos (27 August 2013)

cptrayes said:



			Thank you for that Booboos. Most reassuring. I couldn't find it when I googled it.

Now if you could just find me similar research for current conventional treatment of foot lameness we could all get out of this revolving door we are stuck in.
		
Click to expand...

OK I see the problem! Sorry it should have occured to me. This is how you access research, which includes vet, medical, humanities, etc, anything you want:
- not Google, never Google. It brings up the crazies and you can't tell the wheat from the chaff!!! What you want is Google Scholar (go to Google, click on "More" the top right tab, then "Even More" and scroll until you find Scholar. Scholar indexes peer reviewed journals and academic books, all you need is the right keywords.

- most papers are accessed either if you pay or through an academic institution. If you are somehow affiliated with a university you will have access to them for free, but the public have to pay. There is a big movement in academia pushing for free access and gradually more and more people are putting things on the web for free. Once you know what you want check out Academia.edu you may find it there for free, or the person's website, they may have uploaded the paper. If all else fails, e-mail the author directly they may well send you a copy.

- when you find one relevant article check the references for further leads. Also look up the author's personal webpage because usually people follow lines of research and have more than one papers in the same area.

- if you know the book you want and you are looking for a specific reference in it, try Google books. It only allows access to small parts of books but you may be lucky.

- other ways to get access to specific papers/books are the British Library which has an online lending system. For a fee they will photocopy and e-mail you an article or a chapter off a book. Your local public library will have an inter-library loan system where for a smaller fee they will get the book/journal for you. If you are anywhere near London or Boston Spa you can visit the British Library directly.

- you may end up with more info than you know what to do with, after all not all published research is equally good. Try looking for papers that are Reviews or Literature Reviews that give an overview of what is available in an area as they will also include a critical discussion of the relative merits of different studies. Also of huge importance are meta sites that judge the importance of particular research studies (they will use a number of factors such as number of participants, double-blind requirements, control groups, etc.) and collate the results of many studies, see for example for medical research:
http://www.cochrane.org/about-us
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/about_us.htm
http://www.hta.ac.uk/about/index.shtml

As for research on shod horses and navicular I think we need to narrow it down as Scholar shows 4,110 articles for the terms "navicular disease in horses". If you know the name of the Prof at Leahurst who specialises in navicular use Scholar to look up all his papers, that should be a good start.


----------



## cptrayes (27 August 2013)

Booboos I've been given examples by various people of the best research they can find for both laminitis (given to me by  a vet)  and navicular. They all suffer from similar problems, often very small numbers and always no control groups.

My favourite study for remedial shoeing had a big number. The started with 82 horses if my memory serves me correctly. They deemed 27 to be beyond help and shot them. The remaining 55 were all remedially shod and around half of them improved short term.  Some of those were described as not noticeably lame, so how they claimed them in the 50% that were improved is beyond me.

And of course 27 out of 87 is nowhere near a 50% success rate, and we won't even start to talk about the fact that 'improved' was not defined and is definitely not 'cured' 

Thanks for your guidance Booboos, but the only research I am interested in is recent stuff I am aware of indicating that conventional treatment for foot lameness in the navicular spectrum returns only around 20% to work, and many of those only to  unstressful work on good surfaces. 

It would be a pointless waste of my time to find and read any research returning results like that when what people all over the country are achieving is, anecdotally, at least four times as successful.

I've been closely involved with three myself.

1. A horse gifted to me when his owner cancelled an appointment to have him put to sleep after I offered to try and sort him out. Lame for over a year, adequan, tildren, HLA, remedial shoes, still unsound. Barefoot rehab, sound in twelve weeks. Still sound and in full work, dressage winner, showing winner, occasional hunter three years and counting.

2. A horse I used to own. Leahurst gave him a 20% chance of ever cominv back to any level of work, after maxing out his insurance with scintigraphy and MRI    Owner sought a vet who would refer to Rockley and rejected the suggested treatment by Leahurst. Horse was sound inside eight weeks (it was already barefoot)  and remains sound two years approaching now.

3. Gifted to me. Unsound on and off through remedial shoeing and periods of rest for the best part of five years. Sound and hunting fit in four months.

With continuing results like these, why would anyone want to see any research behind remedial shoeing and drugs, even if it existed? But no one I challenge has ever found any that comes anywhere near meeting the standards you laid down earlier, so I don't currently believe that it exists.


----------



## cptrayes (27 August 2013)

ester said:



			I think given the lack of quality evidence in either direction it will be a numbers game, currently many more horses undergo traditional treatment and of those some remain sound (at least for a time) therefore giving vets anecdotal evidence that it can work. As/if numbers of horses going barefoot instead increases, with some success that anecdotal evidence will build up and it will be taken on more (which has already been identified as happening). 

I cannot see it ever reaching the proper scientific results point, those who do it are doing it, get sound horses, job done. - they have no requirement to see quality data. Those that aren't doing it just wouldn't be interested enough. It would also be a project that required a fair bit of funding with regards to the imaging - and even postgrads aren't that cheap . Plus I can't imagine anyone wanting to take it on for a postgrad project- the intro/literature review for my thesis on a bug that was only isolated in 1989 (quite recent as bugs go!) was bad enough .
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely here Ester.


----------



## amandap (27 August 2013)

Thanks for those instructions Booboos. 
The scholar brings up some fascinating abstract reading about Navicular shoeing options.
I find them fascinating as many are around the pressures exerted on the N. bone by DDFT and concentrate on comparisons between wedging and shoeing options in the main. One article (Hickman) disagrees with Rooney's assertion the N. bone forms a constant angle of insertion for DDFT (my interpretation ie so the angle doesn't change and cause the tendon to pull it's attachment) which I found very interesting. It appear overwhelmingly clear this is considered a degenerative disease and 'treatments' are around alleviating symptoms to enable usefulness as long as possible.

ps. After my little foray into the science I have to believe ester is correct. The difference in fundamental thinking is huge as far as I can understand.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (27 August 2013)

amandap said:



			Thanks for those instructions Booboos.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Booboos! PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed is also excellent.


----------



## Leg_end (28 August 2013)

http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/research-facts-evidence-and-reasons-for.html


----------



## amandap (28 August 2013)

Thanks Leg_end. Just came to post that myself.


----------



## cptrayes (28 August 2013)

amandap said:



			Thanks Leg_end. Just came to post that myself.
		
Click to expand...


Me too 

Looks like we haven't been claiming enough, doesn't it? I've been suggesting 80% improved, but it's actually 100% in Project Dexter, most of those back to full work and not the typical conventional treatment result of 'He's sound but of course we don't canter on hard ground or jump any more'.

If only we could collate all the private rehabs too. I've done two and know another, two out of three successful. The failure had a bone spur and I would be very wary of trying to rehab any horse with a bone spur.


----------

