ridecamp@endurance.net: Re: Daily wormers vs paste

Re: Daily wormers vs paste

C.M.Newell (reshan@deyr.ultranet.com)
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 15:53:47 -0500

At 02:52 PM 3/21/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-03-21 01:27:45 EST, you write:
>
><<
> Perhaps if there are sufficient, independent, non conflicting ancedotes;
> one incident is generally useless. I certainly would chase every lead if I
> have the means to do so.
>
> Duncan Fletcher >>
>
>Agreed. One big trouble with anecdotes is that everybody's trying to change
>too many variables at once. Impatience. If you change five things and the
>horse gets better, you don't which of the five, or what combination of which
>of the five, was useful.
>ti
>
An example of the dangers of haphazard use of anecdotal data:

About a year or two ago, on another BB, someone opined that ivermectin was
the cause of the lowered fertility they were experiencing that year with
their breeding stock. No particiular workup had been done on either sires or
dams.
Well. The initial post provoked a torrent of "me too! I used ivermectin and
my mare lost her foal/didn't get pregnant/etc. etc." posts. I pointed out
that there were a host of variables to be considered, and that since
ivermectin was probably the most widely used anthelmintic in the country,
there was a high likelihood that any given horse had been wormed with it. I
also put forth my own theory, whcih had an equal amount of proof to support
it, that there was a virus being spread by farriers when they trimmed the
mares' feet.
Everyone told me I was full of it....
> --C.M.Newell, DVM

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff