11/06/2026
This is literally the opportunity of a lifetime. LS - if you have developed a method you believe in, you have absolutely nothing to lose here.
Unless..... you don't believe it can stand up. Unless you've got something to hide?
If you accept this amazing opportunity, and your method is shown to be beneficial, I will issue a public apology to you.
I will also attend your course, host your courses for free and commit to 17 horses in my care undergoing HM trims.
I will eat every one of my HM negative words, and wear your branded kit in every video and at every trade show I attend.
I will also issue a press release about my dramatic U turn in your favour, and fully fund one scholarship placement to complete your training course and become a 'licenced' trimmer.
Dr Fowler awaits your response.
📩To Deborah Norris 📬
Thank you, Deborah for your detailed explanation as to why HM wont take up the offer of an independent scientific study posted on Longmarsh Track Livery
🔍Let’s explore in detail your public statement, which I will assume is on behalf of HM.
👌We actually agree on many points (related to scientific methodology not HM), so let’s explore them and discuss further the areas where we are not aligned.
✔️We are in agreement that high-quality equine research is expensive, logistically complex, and requires careful control of variables, especially when studying metabolic and endocrinopathic laminitis.
✔️No one (especially not me) disputes that a gold-standard, multi-arm randomised controlled trial would require serious funding, appropriate ethical approval, adequate statistical power, controls for confounding variables such as diet, management and environment, and clear protocols for handling withdrawals and welfare concerns. All of these considerations were included in my proposed draft methodology. However, none of these challenges are insurmountable with a willing and collaborative team.
✔️Thank you also for agreeing that my offer to design and bring together relevant experts to execute an independent study, in which HM trimming forms part of the study arms and where HM would be invited to participate in the study design process, is “wonderful and of interest”.
✔️Given that we are making good progress in finding common ground, I would like to respond further to some of your critiques for accuracy and balance.
✔️I offered a first draft proposal for HM review, critique and collaboration. I explicitly welcomed HM feedback and alternative suggestions. Thank you for being the only person (presumably on behalf of HM?) so far who has recognised my invitation and engaged with the draft proposal itself.
📝I disagree that metabolic and endocrine horses need to be excluded from the study. I carefully outlined the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This study is specifically designed to test the HM hypothesis that correction of chronic hoof capsule imbalance reduces the incidence and severity of laminar tearing (laminitis) compared with standard care.
📝In this study the primary outcome measure is the incidence of laminitis. To detect any difference between treatment groups, we must recruit a population of horses/ponies at sufficient risk of developing laminitis (that could lead to lamellae tearing) during the study period. Without the possibility of naturally occurring laminitis, there would be no meaningful way to assess whether one intervention performs differently from another. We have designed the study to allow for development of chronic hoof imbalance, metabolic and endocrine related laminitis.
📝You commented that it would be unlikely to find owners who, despite their horses having metabolic or endocrine disease, continue to keep them on grass. The pasture exposure (required for inclusion) would primarily be during the winter period preceding the study. There are many horses with well-controlled metabolic and endocrine disease that remain at pasture during winter that could be recruited.
📝I am also struggling to understand the “red flag” you have attached to my inclusion criteria. My proposal is to recruit horses with hoof imbalance but no active or acute laminitis. You suggest that this reflects a failure to recognise that mechanical imbalance of the hoof creates inflammatory changes within the laminae. However, my inclusion criteria specifically allow such horses to be recruited (all groups start with hoof imbalance - remember they are also randomised to treatment group) and for chronic hoof imbalance to manifest. If hoof imbalance is indeed the only causative problem, then during the course of the study that imbalance would persist in the standard-care group and, according to the HM hypothesis, should result in a greater incidence or severity of laminitis.
📝To be clear, the exact definitions of “active” and “acute” laminitis would need to be agreed by all parties before recruitment began. Establishing precise definitions and controlling variables as tightly as possible is a fundamental part of robust study design.
📝We are testing the HM hypothesis that correction of chronic hoof capsule imbalance reduces the incidence and severity of laminar tearing compared with standard care. Therefore, we must recruit horses exhibiting hoof imbalance and compare outcomes between those receiving HM trimming and those receiving standard care. I have also proposed including pasture exposure in both groups because any robust scientific design should account for potential confounding variables, including those that HM may not consider central to the disease process. This is exactly what good science is intended to do.
📝Hoof-pastern axis would be measured using the same methodology for all horses. That point is straightforward.
📝Regarding your comments about my impartiality, I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding my proposed role. I would not be collecting data, assessing outcomes or conducting statistical analyses. My offer is simply to help bring together experts from both sides of the discussion to collaboratively develop a scientifically valid protocol that could obtain ethical approval and withstand peer review. Thank you, however, for acknowledging that scientific methodology exists precisely to minimise bias. It does, regardless of who initially proposed the study, or indeed who is involved in the study.
📝I have not wilfully misrepresented HM teachings. Rather, I have directly translated HM’s stated claims into a testable scientific hypothesis. If you feel that the hypothesis I have proposed does not accurately reflect HM’s position, I would welcome an alternative suggestion. I would be happy to modify the study design accordingly, provided HM also agrees that the revised hypothesis accurately reflects their claims.
✔️Your comments regarding costs are excellent and largely align with my own.
❌One small clarification: my expectation would be that the study would ultimately be funded as a complete project rather than as a series of separate mini-studies. However, I acknowledge that pilot studies (not case studies) are all established approaches within research and could be considered if appropriate.
❌A larger and more important point concerns your understanding of ethics approval. Ethical approval is obtained before any horses are recruited and before any substantive research activity begins. While protocol development and ethics submissions do require time and effort, it does not require research funding for interested parties to collaborate on designing a study, preparing an ethics application and exploring potential funding opportunities.
📝I contributed my first draft proposal voluntarily and in my own time, for free. I am more than happy to continue refining a study design collaboratively on the same basis.
📝Ethical endpoints are what are monitored throughout a study. Decisions about whether an individual horse remains enrolled would be based on predefined welfare criteria agreed in advance. Even if animals were withdrawn because welfare thresholds had been reached, the resulting data is likely to still provide valuable and scientifically valid information, provided the study had been designed appropriately from the outset. Such an outcome would not represent a failure; it would itself be an important finding.
📝Social media outreach for collaborative research ideas is not unheard of in veterinary science. Researchers frequently use public platforms to gauge interest, identify collaborators, recruit participants and stimulate discussion where traditional routes may be slower. A scientist publicly offering input on study design and presenting an outline for discussion is not the same as demanding immediate commitment to a completed protocol. Genuine collaborations often begin this way because stakeholder input is necessary before a final protocol can be developed.
📝Please also note that the absence of attached funding does not make a proposal a “dog whistle”. Preliminary concepts are often discussed and refined before collaborators are identified, protocols finalised, ethics approval sought and funding applications prepared. Dismissing such proposals outright risks overlooking opportunities to generate precisely the evidence that everyone claims to want.
✔️Scepticism of an as-yet unfunded draft proposal is healthy and entirely expected.
❌However, framing the proposal as hate-mongering or prejudice, rather than engaging with the invitation to collaborate, risks further entrenching divisions. Horses suffering from laminitis deserve stronger evidence regarding all interventions, including both HM trimming and conventional approaches. This is precisely why both groups were included in the proposed design.
🥅If the shared goal is improved welfare through evidence, then the most constructive path forward is to refine the proposal collaboratively, agree a scientifically robust design, seek ethical approval and funding, and then test the competing claims under controlled conditions.
⚖️HM practitioners report success in rehabilitation cases. Conventional farriery practitioners report success too. Let us test these claims under properly controlled conditions.
✅Owners deserve transparent information not prolonged tribalism.
I think we should write this all down now to build the methodology. My inbox is open.
Disclaimer: I do not endorse Hoofing Marvellous methods. I am a strong critic. I believe the method is causing unnecessary suffering. I am advocating for valid data so horse owners can make ethical decisions. This neither makes me vile, a hater, a bully, insincere or a biased scientist. I am the null hypothesis(H0).
