The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan. 16, 2002
    Location
    West Coast of Michigan
    Posts
    36,321

    Default

    Show me a 4 year old human with osteoarthritis . . . [ . . . ] . . . my point exactly.
    Click here before you buy.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2010
    Posts
    2,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    An 85 year old human with OA got there by a different path than did the young Thoroughbred, no? Bottom line: what applies to one species can only be BROADLY applied to another, with a large number of caveats.
    An 85 year old human who tears their ACL has the same OA pathogenesis as a 14 year old human who tears their ACL. It just the pathogenesis is accelerated because the 85 year old's body is less able to handle it (I'm co-author on the equivalent of this study performed in mice, I'd be happy to share the manuscript with you). It's not the disease that is different, the body's reaction to the disease is different.
    Give those same two individuals the flu. I bet Grandma has a harder time handling it than Junior. It's not because the flu virus is different, or the pathogenesis is different, it's because Grandma's body can't handle it as well as Junior's.

    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    Bottom line: what applies to one species can only be BROADLY applied to another, with a large number of caveats.
    I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Did you know that anything that is put into a human's body is tested in animals as the step before clinical trials? It's not like there's a big jump here, otherwise we'd make no advancements in medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    Show me a 4 year old human with osteoarthritis . . . [ . . . ] . . . my point exactly.
    A study that found OA in 10 year olds (average age 18.5 years). Secondary to Perthes, which leads to abnormal loading on the joint and subsequent OA.
    I don't feel like going through 83 pages (20 results each page) to find one closer to 4 years of age. I found this result on Page 2.



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan. 16, 2002
    Location
    West Coast of Michigan
    Posts
    36,321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by morganpony86 View Post
    An 85 year old human who tears their ACL has the same OA pathogenesis as a 14 year old human who tears their ACL. It just the pathogenesis is accelerated because the 85 year old's body is less able to handle it (I'm co-author on the equivalent of this study performed in mice, I'd be happy to share the manuscript with you). It's not the disease that is different, the body's reaction to the disease is different.
    Give those same two individuals the flu. I bet Grandma has a harder time handling it than Junior. It's not because the flu virus is different, or the pathogenesis is different, it's because Grandma's body can't handle it as well as Junior's.


    I appreciate the replies, but you are sort of making my point for me. We are not in disagreement. Osteoarthritis is a disorder with multiple triggers, and although the microscopic appearance may be the same, the individual's history, genetics, age, weight, other health conditions, etc. play a large role in how the disease progresses and expresses itself. This was my point. Dosing oral products is iffy enough--extrapolating widely between different species and individuals just isn't possible, especially when talking about absorption of oral supplements. The response to a product has more (IMO) to do with the evanescent, relapsing/remitting nature of osteoarthritis SYMPTOMS than with some random supplement being "effective". In other words, grandma's hip is going to hurt worse on some days than on others because that is the nature of arthritic pain. Her using a supplement from the grocery store isn't going to change that fact, although she may swear that when they ran out of the chocolate flavor and she was forced to use the vanilla it made all the difference in the world. (<---actual patient story I was told, not that long ago)

    I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Did you know that anything that is put into a human's body is tested in animals as the step before clinical trials? It's not like there's a big jump here, otherwise we'd make no advancements in medicine.
    You may disagree if you like. I'm not saying animal testing has no role or that there are not some similarities. But on the other hand . . . do you know why tylenol is not used in cats? Why grapes should not be eaten by dogs? Chocolate? Why ivermectin cannot be given to certain breeds of dogs? Why benzodiazepines are lousy horse sedatives? Different chemicals and substances have different actions in different species. Fact.
    Click here before you buy.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    18,989

    Default

    Scientist types, got a question here.

    We're talking about the efficiency of oral supplements or medication, for that matter.

    We know that HA works as an injectable, as do many of the other anti-arthritis injectables. We also know, don't we, what chemical reactions take place in the digestive system and where and how the active ingredients are taken up by the rest of the body. We could probably test blood to see how much active ingredient actually makes into the blood stream, which would be the equivalent, wouldn't it?, of an injectable's method of working unless it was injected IA.

    Couldn't someone develop a computer model and plug in the variables to see (virtually) if an oral supplement even had a chance of working?

    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    I appreciate the replies, but you are sort of making my point for me. We are not in disagreement. Osteoarthritis is a disorder with multiple triggers, and although the microscopic appearance may be the same, the individual's history, genetics, age, weight, other health conditions, etc. play a large role in how the disease progresses and expresses itself. This was my point. Dosing oral products is iffy enough--extrapolating widely between different species and individuals just isn't possible, especially when talking about absorption of oral supplements. The response to a product has more (IMO) to do with the evanescent, relapsing/remitting nature of osteoarthritis SYMPTOMS than with some random supplement being "effective". In other words, grandma's hip is going to hurt worse on some days than on others because that is the nature of arthritic pain. Her using a supplement from the grocery store isn't going to change that fact, although she may swear that when they ran out of the chocolate flavor and she was forced to use the vanilla it made all the difference in the world. (<---actual patient story I was told, not that long ago)



    You may disagree if you like. I'm not saying animal testing has no role or that there are not some similarities. But on the other hand . . . do you know why tylenol is not used in cats? Why grapes should not be eaten by dogs? Chocolate? Why ivermectin cannot be given to certain breeds of dogs? Why benzodiazepines are lousy horse sedatives? Different chemicals and substances have different actions in different species. Fact.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2010
    Posts
    2,201

    Default

    I guess I just misunderstood your wording, then:

    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    and the causes of arthritis in one species may not be even remotely the same as it is in another.
    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    An 85 year old human with arthritis of the hip may look the same under the microscope as a 2yo TB with early hock arthritis, but on a non-molecular level it is not the same disease.
    This is why I thought you were saying in all of these people and animals, it is not the same disease. Which was why I was arguing that it is the same disease. There are many different causes of the disease, but the disease itself is the same.
    If you're arguing about treating the symptoms of OA, then that's a whole different ballgame. Symptoms are far different than pathogenesis.


    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    I'm not saying animal testing has no role or that there are not some similarities. But on the other hand . . . do you know why tylenol is not used in cats? Why grapes should not be eaten by dogs? Chocolate? Why ivermectin cannot be given to certain breeds of dogs? Why benzodiazepines are lousy horse sedatives? Different chemicals and substances have different actions in different species. Fact.
    But this is true within the same species as well. Peanut butter can be consumed on a daily basis by one human, and kill another. It's the nature of biology and normal variation. We're all different.

    So should we say that what applies to one human can only be broadly applied to another, with a large number of caveats?? No.

    Sure, there are specific examples of where you cannot apply something across species, as you pointed out above, and that is well noted in research. But osteoarthritis is not one of these examples. That was the point I was trying to make.



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2009
    Posts
    6,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    Show me a 4 year old human with osteoarthritis . . . [ . . . ] . . . my point exactly.
    Kid's story was in the local paper - she's maybe 7 now

    Sometimes you are just amazing ...



  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan. 16, 2002
    Location
    West Coast of Michigan
    Posts
    36,321

    Default

    The odd peanut butter allergy is not an exception that proves the rule that peanuts are good sources of nutrition for humans. We don't feed cats vegetarian diets because we know CATS IN GENERAL don't thrive without at least some animal products. Trying to point out differences between species, not odd anomalies here. And the rare child with a rare form of joint disease (if the "local paper" is even accurate--not all arthritis is osteoarthritis) is not the exception that proves the rule that osteoarthritis IN HUMANS is generally a time-dependent, degenerative condition that has a lot to do with overuse, age, weight and anatomy. I still maintain that although under the microscope a young racehorse's knee arthritis may look similar to an elderly person's wrist arthritis, it is still not necessarily precisely the same disorder in that different factors had a role. Factors we almost certainly do not yet understand fully.

    A bruise from a hammer blow to the thigh is going to look the same under the microscope as a bruise on the sole of the foot from running barefoot on concrete.

    But I think this is straying far enough from the original topic that it is no longer worth belaboring. Suffice to say that I've been around long enough to never think that one size fits all. And this goes double and triple for the use of medications and/or supplements in one species and expecting it to be the same in others.

    As to computer modeling of drug absorption and distribution--probably it exists. There are actually studies on oral absorption of GAGs in multiple species, as well. But whether a given supplement manufacture is going to bother doing a study to show that their product does what it's supposed to do? Why would they bother? People buy it without any proof at all. Waste of money in their view.
    Last edited by deltawave; May. 22, 2013 at 03:16 PM.
    Click here before you buy.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2009
    Posts
    6,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deltawave View Post
    And the rare child with a rare form of joint disease (if the "local paper" is even accurate--not all arthritis is osteoarthritis)
    As I said, amazing ... the "local paper" was not inaccurate.

    You said
    Show me a 4 year old human with osteoarthritis . . . [ . . . ] . . . my point exactly.
    as if it were some unprecedented phenomenon, mere conjecture for the sake of argument.





    And this goes double and triple for the use of medications and/or supplements in one species and expecting it to be the same in others.
    I'm not sure what you're arguing here, we use human drugs in horses all the time, use vaccine methodology which is efficacious in human,cats & dogs & only marginal in horses ...

    ETA: Forgot my favourite
    Horse & Human DNA are more homologous than Human & (closest) Primate DNA



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan. 16, 2002
    Location
    West Coast of Michigan
    Posts
    36,321

    Default

    Oy. Yes, we use some human drugs on animals. After they've been TESTED FOR SAFETY AND EFFICACY, for the most part. And there are many, many human drugs which are NOT used on horses, cats, dogs, etc. because we know THEY DO NOT WORK THE SAME BETWEEN SPECIES and are UNSAFE or INEFFECTIVE. Humans are not horses are not dogs are not cats are not pigs, although many biological systems work very much the same. Supplements can just be sold with no testing. They are not drugs with evidence behind them. The topic is nutraceutical hyaluronic acid in oral form. It is absorbed and utilized differently between species and this is not a matter of opinion on my part! Jeez.

    Their DNA may be very close to the same, but would you give your collie a nice big dose of ivermectin while you're deworming your horse or your other dogs? Some nice tylenol for your kitty who just had stitches and seems a little sore? A nice little bit of xanax for your old dog who's afraid of thunderstorms? Of course you wouldn't. Because we know these drugs, while perfectly fine in the proper dose in the proper species, are unsafe or may have unexpected effects for these individuals.

    One can find 4 year old humans with advanced atherosclerosis and all manner of other diseases. Doesn't remotely mean that a young horse and an old human have the same story to tell when it comes to their bodies and what's happened to them. One-in-a-million freak occurrences are not what I was referring to. Apparently, however, it is imperative to find a single example of something to disagree with every last thing I write. Not atypical, of course.
    Click here before you buy.



Similar Threads

  1. Injectable Banamine given orally?
    By avezan in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: May. 9, 2008, 08:09 PM
  2. Hyaluronic Acid....experiences????
    By imaequiholic in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: Mar. 5, 2008, 08:49 PM
  3. Nice work
    By Rusty Stirrup in forum Dressage
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: Oct. 17, 2007, 07:32 PM
  4. Can't get search to work!
    By FrittSkritt in forum Help Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Oct. 21, 2006, 09:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •