It is impossible for those adamantly against it to just let others discuss, isn’t it? SMH
1 Like
IIRC, within guidelines set by the mods, when somebody posts on a discussion to say what they think, other people get to do the same. Some agree with one poster, some with another, and some are actually informative–for a fine example, see Leather’s post above.
6 Likes
@Leather thank you for the excellent post. I for one don’t know much about FDA processes, and your post clearly explained the issues around this product in context. Much appreciated.
2 Likes
I believe reviewing the lack of research, FDA oversight & approval, illegal distribution, concerning manufacturing and questionable (at best, haha!) truthfulness of the owners all falls under the umbrella of “discussion”? 🤔
Seriously, none of that is really open for debate ya know? Leather has kindly gone over the FDA and distribution issue, Summit provides no research, we have a report of where it’s manufactured, and Summit has certainly lied, repeatedly, before settling on their current fib of “it’s a supplement!”
”‹”‹
6 Likes
I appreciate Leather’s post. I don’t see an issue with starting a new thread, or asking for documentation besides “I read it on a BB”. I did email and FB message Summit and asked for more information on their manufacturing process. I explained I was hesitant to use the product as my vet was concerned about the safety of compounding facilities and I’d heard that the “supplement” wasn’t made in a clean facility. They said they’d email me more info so I’m waiting on that.
What I’ve noticed is that the sponsors always say “supplement” when I message interested parties and explain that it’s an injection quite a few people immediately withdraw as they clearly understand the difference between a supplement (which most people feel is harmless if it doesn’t work) and an injection (which most people feel needs some more rigorous testing).
Anytime that you buy a supplement it comes with a lot of claims and not a ton of research. Pretty much all of them. I think that’s why horse people are willing to wing it on a supplement. Especially when sponsors say that their vet approves it.
I found this article, which certainly makes Summit sound legit with mentions of research and clinical studies although I imagine the last sentence gets unread.
https://horsesdaily.com/article/summ…e-how-it-works
An informative brochure says it’s FEI and USEF complaint and not improved for use in humans by the FDA.
@enjoytheride that article makes a lot of claims, right? That Summit is the purest form of chondroitin ever developed, that Cornell did a study, that this used to be used in corneal transplant surgery, that there are years of additional research that shows “incredible” results in the joint of horses and dogs.
This is an article that should have a list of cites at the bottom. A list of studies, a link to the testing or research to show it’s the most pure, a link to the information about the corneal surgery media claim.
There’s nothing there.
People have asked, repeatedly, for data to back up those claims. People have searched, deeply, for information to back up those claims.
Summit refuses to provide. And nothing is out there.
So, what does that mean about that article?
It’s fiction.
I get that, hey, it sounds pretty good. It’s supposed to. But there is NOTHING to back up what’s being said there.
And yeah, supplements are often lean on the research. But… this isn’t a supplement. This is something you inject into your horse. Things you inject into your horse come with research. They come with the guarantee of sterility. A guarantee of purity. A guarantee of potency. This comes with none of those things.
1 Like
Something that is helpful for this discussion is to clarify what is meant by an article. To my knowledge, Summit has yet to provide anything that resembles a peer-reviewed article. A peer-reviewed article is the type of article that we are looking for as providing legitimate supporting data. The articles they have provided are at best from trade publications, and most of what is available is written by Summit themselves. This describes the difference between the types of articles: https://library.sdsu.edu/research-services/research-help/peer-reviewed-articles
There are supplements out there that actually provide this type of peer-reviewed information. Nutramax Labs (the makers of Cosequin) make all of this information available.
https://www.nutramaxlabs.com/animal-health-research/research-references
This is why Cosequin (manufactured by Nutramax) tends to be the only joint supplement that many veterinarians will recommend. Nutramax is also very transparent that their products are manufactured following GMP requirements so you have a reasonable level of assurance that the product inside of the package meets what is on the label. Now note that Nutramax isn’t above reproach - they got into some pretty serious trouble with the FDA and FTC over claims they were making on their human supplements a while back. But this is likely what makes them be above board on all of their products - they know they are being monitored.
When I have some time for fun I might do a line by line “interpretation” of the information from the Horsesdaily.com link.
Here’s a quick example:
In just 72 hours, over 80% of cases had a noticeable change in the quality and viscosity of their intra-articular joint fluid.
The important part is that there are no qualifiers related to these “noticeable changes?” For all we know, the noticeable changes were that the quality and viscosity were reduced rather than were improved.
“Noticeable” changes: The word noticeable means nothing unless there is some sort of statistical power included - you can “notice” a change but it doesn’t mean that it’s significant enough to support a claim.
“Quality” of intra-articular joint fluid: What exactly was measured in this quality assessment? Also to my previous point the word “quality” without a qualifier means nothing. You can have low quality and you can have high quality. How is it demonstrated that whatever change was noticed is beneficial?
“Viscosity” of intra-articular joint: This is just how thick the joint fluid is - again without knowing if it went up or down and whether any conclusion of benefit can be drawn from whatever change was observed is missing. Also which is better - the viscosity increasing or the viscosity decreasing, and how is that known?
“In just 72 hours” is included to make it sound like this is fast acting. There is no discussion of how long these supposed effects last. Does it matter if there are changes that occur in 72 hours if they only last 72 hours?
If anybody wants an example of the type of data that is required/available for a drug to claim it can be used to treat degenerative joint dysfunction (aka arthritis) in horses, check out the Adequan summary: https://animaldrugsatfda.fda.gov/adafda/app/search/public/document/downloadFoi/2487
3 Likes
I’m in the same region as OP and seeing much the same things. I work in medicine - there’s too many unknowns and questionable things for me to use this product, but I will share some things answered when I asked many of the same questions just so they’re available publicly:
- I was concerned about the consistency in the CS as a number of articles talked about (https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../abs/pii/S0003269707007269 & https://academic.oup.com/glycob/article/19/8/813/1988709) the known inconsistencies in CS-4 purity and chemical composition [LIST]
- "The base product is made in Argentina and Spain because the bovine trachea coming out of those countries is the most pure (no mad cow disease in those countries)." [LIST]
- Doesn't answer my question really, but okay..
- Just asked that I e-mail Dr. Farmer
- "The product is manufactured in Alabama and in Colorado. The product is made in an ISO 4 cleanroom under a laminar flow hood that makes the manufacturing space a ISO 3 or better. The bottles and caps and stoppers are gamma irradiated. The product itself is run through a .2 micron filter that filters out any bacteria, endotoxin or fungus. The manufacturing facility undergoes spot inspections by the FDA required by all cGMP facilities."
2 Likes
Oof. Just got this today after accepting a friend request on Facebook.
“Good afternoon! I have a new product I’m distributing called summit joint performance and it’s been awesome for my horse and many others. It’s a affordable way to keep your horse comfortable and smooth where they need it most! The best part about this product is it only has TWO ingredients, chondroitin 4 sulfate and sterile water!
I’m offering a free vial of summit joint performance for each loading dose or representative sign up until April 28th!
One of my favorite testimonials about summit was the horse named squirrel. The owners couldn’t afford a 10,000 dollar surgery for a fractured hock so they decided to try summit. This was the result after just one loading dose!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xCUGyD…ature=youtu.be
My profile is summitjp.com/JLelectrotherapy if you wanted to see the products!”
🤨
That sets all sorts of alarm bells off!! First, the MLM is super sketchy.
Second, and most alarming of all, is WTF is in that drug if it makes a horse with a fractured hock that much better with one injection?
1 Like
My sketch meter is exploding…
1 Like
I just got an email notification that this company is a major sponsor of the HITS Ocala Circuit. The product is described as “the leading drug-free equine joint supplement,” and McClain Ward is quoted endorsing it.
The website still describes the MLM sales structure.
How is it not a drug if you inject it? I had thought this had died off as fewer people I knew were hawking it.
The new thing seems to be “NRF2” or something like that. I got blocked asking someone hawking it for more research 
Also, man this thread brought back some memories of how people get really weird about starting new threads on things.
1 Like
Ah yes, that one was big up here in Ontario a while ago. Big as in “one or two people comment on EVERY. SINGLE. POST. for horse health/lameness questions that they should use NRF2”. When asked what it is, how it works, where to buy, if it’s an MLM, or for research studies, you get directed to PM that person. I still see it pop up these days, although less than before.
I’m starting to see collagen now as the wonder cure. I did go to one of the websites that I saw referenced, and I don’t think it’s a MLM as anyone can buy directly online without a middleman. The people posting say it’s researched and proven, but from what I could tell, the research was not on horses.
It still pops up, and it’s VERY common in the Barrel world, as are many of these sketchy things 
Protandim has been a round quite a few years, and comes in waves. See above about Barrel racers LOL I have a saved file on the “research” around it, which tends to shut up anyone trying to convince me of how majikal it is 
What gets me the most about this one is that the pushers can’t even understand what they’re saying about the product, they just regurgitate the marketing material, which is so, so badly eithe rmis-interpreting the research, or is just flat out lying to make make a point
Yes, wonder cure BUT, there’s actually quite a good bit of more recent research on the benefits of the different types of collagens. I’m not sure which product you’re referencing, I know some of the products are MLMs, most aren’t. Like with Protandim (because the NRF 2 product is just a product, it’s not the company), most aren’t even an MLM, it’s a 1-layer distribution model
The other one that comes and goes in waves is CEP products, also a 1-layer distributor model.
1 Like
