So you are saying that even though the horse had been at the event for several days, the vet had not administered anything? That seems very odd.
I believe she was responding to your comment:
To which @enjoytheride responded:
Meaning AFAICR that the horse had never received that special blend.
Thanks for sharing.
It does provide some more clarity. It looks like he was given all these meds right before his death.
But⊠I didnât see specifics as to HOW they were administered. Were they given via multiple injections⊠some IM and some IV? Or were multiple meds mixed together and given via one IV injection? That just seems strange to me.
What does seem very clear is that anaphylaxis was VERY likely the cause of death. Iâm curious about the Traumeel and Arnica, and whether or not they were given via IV injections as well, and what the anaphylactic risks are.
I think the unspoken question at this point still has to do with team management, and what role they played in decision making on this particular medication plan for ârecoveryâ.
You asked how many times the horse had the injection that killed it without a reaction. I answered that question. The horse has never had that injection.
"He mentioned the horse was not brought to the veterinarian who injected him because of a problem, but rather received âthese compounds that were supposed to help him recover or whatever the notion is there for the use of those.
âTwo of them had label warnings that it could produce anaphylaxis."
Just because an administration of a drug has never caused anaphylaxis does not mean it will not. The fact that the drugs to deal with anaphylaxis were not with the horse after the administration of drugs with warnings about anaphylaxis is just beyond the pale.
Thereâs no way around that, âfolksâ.
I am disgusted by the fact that USEF tried to obfuscate the horseâs cause of death. That was an incredibly stupid and irresponsible thing to do (as was the injection given by the vet.) Was no one making decisions at USEF taught by their parents to face up to their mistakes and not try to lie their way out of it?
Theyâre supposed to be responsible adults managing an entity that is responsible for Equestrian sport in the U.S. our National Federation.
That they would shuffle and lie like a kid caught taking a cookie from a cookie jar just boggles the mind. Itâs an absolute embarrassment for equestrian sport in the U.S.
Excellent article. Dr. Madigan (UCDavis) really straightens it out.
" 'Madigan observed, âif youâre using drugs that have on the label that it can produce anaphylaxis, you better be prepared with epinephrine and corticosteroids, IV fluids etc. or donât do it. Then youâd have to say, `is it worth the risk to help enhance the recovery?â â
As he sees it, âSports medicine went from treating sports-related injuries and things like that to trying to optimize performance of the equine athlete. But that shouldnât really include the use of medications that produce at-risk.â
All the more reason to not administer parenteral drugs unless medically indicated.
.
Since the horse wasnât dead, it likely hadnât previously developed anaphylaxis from the listed medications.
Thatâs irrelevant in this case.
Anaphylaxis can happen without previous indication.
.
I had never had a reaction to clindamycin until I did.
Is there any reason to think the combination of the various medications all at once created a higher risk for an anaphylactic reaction?
Essentially⊠if it was just selevit alone, maybe he wouldnât have had the reaction. But the selevit, plus IV Legend, plus Traumeel and Arnica and Adequan⊠that actually impacted how his body reacted to the selevit, and the horse DID have a catastrophic reaction?
I hope my question makes sense. Iâm just trying to understand if something about the situation here amplified the risks of anaphylactic shock.
Unfortunately, legally it canât be addressed any other way. Their lawyers would quit and their insurance would drop them. You absolutely cannot admit liability.
However, they donât have to lie and say the cause of death was something that it wasnât.
Especially when it would be fairly easily disproved in this case by Veterinary testimony.
Changing the owner contracts immediately after this incident could also be taken as an admission that there was something that needed correcting.
For Peteâs sake. What I meant was if the horse had regularly been getting that by the FEI vets, and all medicines can cause adverse reactions, knowing whether the horse had been previously treated with those medicines without a reaction would be helpful. Geez Louise people, take a breath.
Youâve been answered several times. This was the first (and last) time this horse received selveit.
He could have had it a dozen times and then had a reaction on the 13th dose. It does not matter if he was having it for the first time or the 50th.
It does matter if it was being given for no discernible therapeutic purpose.
How would it be helpful?
After reading a lot of the owner/breederâs comments, the horse was not getting getting this kind of treatment by anyone, hence her anger. Take a breath and follow along.
I was clarifying that having had it in the past does not mean he would not have a reaction to the next dose.
It is crazy that it is being used to enhance performance.
It is.
Hose drops dead immediately after being injected, without the ownerâs permission, with a completely non-evidence-based concoction of substances known to cause anaphylaxis in order to âpromote recoveryâ and they try to claim it was due to EIPH from his round hours before ⊠itâs really unbelievable.
Just because you can do something, doesnât mean you should. A decent amount of what passes for âsports medicineâ in horses is really just voodoo anyway.