Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi
Sounds like an evasion.
I played along anyhow. Here's what I found:
|
No. It's not an evasion. Just surprise that anybody who has actually been reading along this thread expects there to be one paper that supports what I said - which is the uniform position of the discipline of veterinary medicine, as proven by the research.
You might read the entirety of the thread where this has been discussed already?
So now that you've "played along" superficially and shallowly, you can "play along" for real, and quote the other multiple studies that do exactly what I said, which was: Lasix has been proven to markedly decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in a quantitative and qualitative manner.
You might also read the thread, where the concepts of "prevention" and "cause" and "attenuate" and "reduce incidence and severity" have already been discussed.
Because it appears that you are wrongly thinking that there is a claim that lasix prevents bleeding in all horses. Which nobody has ever maintained. It's clear you are confusing the different things, "prevent" and "decrease the incidence and reduce the severity".
In fact, two of the studies you superficially quoted, above, prove exactly what I said. Like this one:
-Comparison of average and maximum EIPH scores of 44 horses with a minimum of 4 observations (2 nontreated, 1 saline-treated, and 1 furosemide-treated) indicated that although furosemide did not stop EIPH, it did
reduce the EIPH score in 28 (64%) horses.
-In conclusion, although both modalities (nasal strip and furosemide)
were successful in mitigating EIPH, neither abolished EIPH fully as evaluated via BAL. (2001)
And one of the studies you quoted, above, about not working, isn't even talking about lasix, but an entirely different drug.
Again, as discussed throughout this thread: clinical practice and research shows that lasix works to decrease the frequency and severity of EIPH in race horses. All horses? No. Completely eliminate? No, but it has in some. Does it not work in some animals? That's right, due to what has previously been discussed here.