Van een barefoot forum in UK gecopieerd:
Thought some of you guys might like to know whats going on out there
today:
Copied post from another board.
STRASSER TRIAL CURRENTLY IN COURT
PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM ONLY REPORTING WHAT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE. THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE WHAT HAPPENED IN ACTUALITY. THANKS,
Matt
I had been shoeing Horse A and Horse B for a period of 12 months.
Background on Horse A: 30 yr old hanoverian x t/b with Chronic
Laminitis, foudered in all 4 feet but particularly bad in n/h with
severe rotation. Shod with open toe heart bar shoes, with reverse
wedge on n/h. Solar appearance of all four feet indicated convexity
of sole in front ot frog and reaction to hoof testers in this area.
The horse was in relative comfort although not clinically sound.
This was being managed by prescribed phenylbutazone, one sachet
daily. This had been the status quo for c. 15 years
The horse developed an abscess in the n/h in feb 2004, medially ,and
in front of the frog apex. This was excavated by myself and a
veterinary surgeon and serum was removed. The foot was poulticed etc
and obviously a cavity remained. The horse however did not recover
as quickly as anticipated and the abscess recurred. It was suggested
by myself that radiographs of the foot be taken to determine if
there was some demineralisation or remodelling of P3 with necrotic
tissue that was causing this recurrence. This proved not to be the
case and the recurrence was put down to poor management. It was
around this time that the client expressed an interest in the
Strasser technique, which she had seen at a recent equine event. I
expressed concern at the time, citing reports I had heard.
Around June, the client expressed a positive intention to use the
strasser tecnique on both Horse A and Horse B. ( the relevance of
Horse B is not as great as he had good strong feet and didn't suffer
as greatly). This would involve transporting Horse A to a registered
Strasser livery yard to experience the complete lifestyle change
that Strasser demands.
The client asked if I could remove the shoes of Horse A to save the
Strasser trimmer having to do it. I refused to carry out this demand
and again expressed concern, stating that I felt the degree of
foundering that the horse had would not suit this lifestyle, and I
felt the horse would be placed in extreme discomfort. The veterinary
surgeon was consulted on the matter, and agreed with me. That was
the last time I saw the horse.
The horse was transported to the Strasser approved livery yard on
July 6th 2004, and the shoes were removed. The feet were trimmed
radically and the horse began it's treatment programme, under the
instruction of a Strasser Certified Hoofcare Practitioner. To
familiarise you with some of the basics of what this entailed, the
horse was denied bedding and rugs, introduced to an unfamiliar
equine social group( in which she was bullied) and was forced to
walk for an hour a day, although in extreme discomfort.
The owner was assured that this was normal and that it was to be
expected that a period of deterioration of health would occur with
an indivdual like this, but that she would rehabilitate successfully
and moreover, be stronger through it.
The horse was seen by a veterinary surgeon on Aug 3rd, who expressed
a degree of concern but was assured that the horse was in recovery.
The feet were being trimmed every 3 days at this stage by the CSHP,
and on occasion there was exposure of live tissue. The owner was
told that this was abscessing being exposed, that it had been lying
dormant for a period of months and ignored by the vet and farrier,
and this exposure was necessary to allow the foot to
regenerate "properly" and allow re attachment of P3 to the wall. At
one stage the sole was trimmed on the n/h to the extent that P3
perforated at it's distal border, and was exposed.
As would be expected, the horse lost condition and weight and became
increasingly recumbent.This was, of course, necessary for successful
rehabilitation. The owner was (somehow) convinced that this was the
case and left for a holiday on Aug 15. Her mother, not possessing
vast equine knowledge, was left as first point of contact should
anything be amiss. She was instructed to visit Horse A periodically,
and relay any concerns.
On Aug 17th, the same veterinary surgeon was on the yard, attending
another matter, and was asked to give her opinion on Horse A by the
yard owner.
She recommended euthanasia as she felt that the horse could not
recover from it's condition, having severe abscessing in all feet,
one of which had exposed coronary tissue and had been subject to
maggot infestation. The horse was extremely emaciated, with pressure
sores on it's flank, head , fetlock and elbow, due to being
recumbent and struggling to get up from the hard floor. The sore on
the elbow was to the extent that bone was exposed.
The veterinary surgeon was told that the owner would be contacted to
give consent to euthanasia, and it would be arranged with Horse A's
current vet.
The owner's mother was not contacted, and when she contacted the
yard owner on Aug 19th, was informed that Horse A was "on the mend"
and there was nothing to worry about. She communicated this
information to her daughter who was satisfied that this was the
case.
On Aug 25th, the owner's mother visited the premises to find that
Horse A had been moved "away from prying eyes" as her condition had
worsened again, but was assured that recovery was imminent. At this
point the feet were being trimmed every 5 days and the horse was
being administered 4 doses of phenylbutazone daily, a decision taken
by the CSHP, although it was still recumbent. This gives you an idea
of how much pain the horse was in.
On Aug 26th the owner returned from holiday, and visited the yard to
inspect the condition of Horse A, having been told that the horse
had improved greatly by her mother a week previously.
Upon seeing Horse A, the owner summoned a veterinary surgeon and the
horse was destroyed.
The RSPCA were contacted, and in conjunction with the owner, are
attempting to bring a prosecution against this particular Strasser
disciple, for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal.
When I find out the outcome of this trial, I will post it on here,
but it may be some time in the future as the trial has overrun and
may continue later in December.
Dr Strasser is in the witness box today, to my knowledge, to defend
her practitioner.
Hope that's illustrated the blinkered fascism of some of these
brainwashed people
Warboel
