yeah this is from 2009--i pulled the actual journal article a few years ago, it\'s online now.
you can read it here:
http://www.rmtcnet.com/resources/Study-_JAVMA_Furosemide.pdfproblems with the study:
despite 5 years, the study has not been replicated.
the sample size is too small to draw conclusions from.
because the data doesn\'t indicate each horse\'s individual lasix vs. saline outcomes, the results are meaningless. there is no way to evaluate the likelihood of causation, as opposed to just correlation. we don\'t know if any of the horses were a lasix level 2 and a saline level 0. we don\'t know if the level 1\'s were basically the same horses each time. and even if both saline level 4\'s were lasix level 0\'s, that result could be completely spurious. there\'s no way to tell.
the tests were not conducted over a long enough time period to establish each horse\'s average. there is no way rule out that horses don\'t bleed at different rates--some races not at all, some races a little, some races a lot. there is no way to rule out that the results were not the result of a horse\'s bleeding cycle, as opposed to lasix administration.
one group ran lasix first, saline second; the other ran saline first, lasix second--this makes the two groups incomparable. this is plain bad science--the article would have been rejected outright from a human publication because of this alone. there is no way to rule out that the order of the lasix v saline didn\'t make a difference. maybe horses that have raced on lasix in one race, have a higher chance of bleeding next race out? who knows? this article certainly doesn\'t tell us.
and finally...the numbers break down too perfectly to be chance--and i don\'t mean this proves lasix\'s efficacy. even if lasix does prevent bleeding, the breakdown here is too \"neat\" for it to be the random outcome of an experiment. in fact the break down is so near to perfect, the 68.5 looks almost like someone altered it a little just so that fact that the numbers showing each each level dropping almost exactly by half wouldn\'t be so obvious (just slide 4 over to level 3 and 2 over to the empty level 4...you wouldn\'t need a scope to see level 4, but there is no mention in the article of any horses bleeding visibly by the nose...):
65 horses were level 0 on lasix; 32 on saline.
67 horses on saline were level 1;
75 lasix: 67/2 = 33.5 + 32 =
65.535 horses on saline were level 2; 12 on lasix: 35 + 33.5 =
68.516 horses were level 3 on saline; none on lasix.
2 were level 4 on saline; none on lasix.