Talk:Navicular syndrome

Here is a different opinion about Navicular Disease

For a view of Navicular Disease that is different from both the barefoot movement and the traditional veterinary/farrier approach, please go to http://www.horseperspective.com/navicular.html.Equinewellness 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This link does bring up an important point about the body's ability to adapt, and our general inferiority in comparison to mother nature when it comes to really knowing what is right and wrong about a foot's balance. However, the article also speaks of "assumptions" about "certain changes in the navicular area" which have not been shown to be true. This is an unfortunate statement not based on any science: degeneration of the navicular bone is a very real thing, and a very real cause of lameness. It is true that over the years many cases of foot-related lameness were lumped, improperly, into the navicular disease category. With more advanced imaging techniques, many soft tissue injuries have been identified as causes of heel pain. These imaging techniques are also very good at identifying specific lesions within the navicular bone itself.--Getwood (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds interesting, but the horseperspective link doesn't work. Welcomebob (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is gallium nitrate is not mentioned?

I have found that gallium nitrate is very effective in treating navicular disease and arthritis in horses, but it is not approved and is so cheap that it will never be approved. See http://george-eby-research.com/html/nav.html for more information. Eby says navicular disease is an arthitis of the navicular joint, and that gallium has been shown effective as an anti-arthritis agent.

Gallium nitrate should be added as early studies of its use have shown some reversal of certain navicular symptoms. --AeronM (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider barefoot horse approach

I found some very interesting news about both navicular and laminitis in works from the barefoot horse movement (as an example, http://www.hoofrehab.com and http://www.barefoothorse.com ). See also the new articles barefoot horses and Jaime Jackson

I'm going to translate this article into Italian and I'll add some mention to barefoot point of view in Italian version.

To the authors: can you review your English page? --Alex brollo 04:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I will add some of the research that shows horses suffering from navicular can be managed (and in some cases, successfully reversed) when certain kinds of barefoot trimming therapies are used. --AeronM (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, please, not the "barefoot movement" again. That was the big edit spat (that I was NOT involved in) from over a year ago. All the various horse hoof articles got drug into it, the farriers were snarking at the barefooters, oh dear. Oh let's NOT crank that up all over again? Sincerely: How about checking out barefoot horses first and seeing if there is a section on it there. If, not, add one, that would fit there without too many people being upset. Then maybe put in a real brief section here, saying that the barefoot movement has a treatment approach, and wikilinking to that article. That would be a better way to handle this. (Trust me, vets and farriers surf these pages for POV on this issue. It's another one that gets people VERY upset.) Also, be sure to source claims of "cures" extremely carefully -- Navicular is very complicated, and there is more than one type of change now grouped under the heading "navicular." Been much new research, some in the past year, look up studies in TheHorse.com, lots of news out there. I say this as someone who rarely shoes my horses, OK? Sincerely begging you to take this to the appropriate page. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, you will have to make room here for all the points of view, not just your own. Therapies which are shown to be helpful to navicular horses belong on this page. More detailed discussion of barefoot trimming can go on the barefoot page. --AeronM (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, I have scarcely ever even edited this particular page. Your ad hominem attack is completely unwarranted in this situation. I have seen that you have spread your sweetness and goodwill to things other than the horse articles and a pattern is coming clear to me. This is not my POV on navicular disease; I have never owned a horse with it and I have interests in other types of lameness. The POV here is that of the mainstream veterinary profession, as I can best understand it, not having a DVM myself. Indeed, I most kindly and respecfully beg you to take your own advice and realize that your POV is not the only one out there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where is the ad hominem attack? --AeronM (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As it sits at the moment, it isn't too bad. I only tagged one section. The "research" is a little iffy, but what you have later on does keep the shoeing perspective too, without deletions, so I can live with it. Montanabw^(talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, Rockley Farm is having great success in rehabbing navicular/caudal hoof pain horses; they need to be mentioned. I have no affiliations with the farm, but if there is a way that works, even for some horses, it needs to be on this page. Dr. Tomas Teskey, DVM, talks about stimulating the hoof via varied terrain (http://www.thehorseshoof.com/TeskeyNavicular.html) and Rockley Farm currently has 24 horses in their study that have completed rehab. 21/24 have returned to full work, that's very good statistics. Stjs321 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's free advertising for Rockley Farms, which is not allowed here, and so removed. Something a peer-reviewed article on the technique would be acceptable, but not a business promo page. Dr. Tesky is a practitioner, if one promoting some fringe views, so his source is OK for now, as it does verify the statement made. However, given that he's on the editorial board for this fringe publication he is himself sort of a questionable source. In general, it's best to find the best sources, for example, I saw a passing reverence to a Tesky article, "The Unfettered Foot, A Paradigm Change for Equine Podiatry", was published in the Journal of Equine Veterinary Science in February, 2005. That would be a better source than what's there. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV added

From many months I added a remark into the talk page; there is an encreasing evidence that new opinions about navicular disease and its treatment need some mention. My English is rather poor; I tried to write an article "Horse hoof" but I see that the result is far from good... Please take a look to new opinions about navicular, following the links I mentioned in my first talk post (first to Pete Ramey article about navicular and links page of his website). Very different from anything in present wiki article! I think, no NPOV is possible, without a mention of those new ideas. And in my opinion, I can't merely add a link without a mention of its content inside the article!--Alex brollo 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the NPOV tag. Though the article needs sourcing and proper references (to say nothing of proper formatting and major wordsmithing), it is pretty much the standard info on navicular, no real POV problem (other than, perhaps, to those with a POV, I suppose). Montanabw 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Photos

This article would benefit from some photos showing the hoof, and maybe a radiographic xray showing the navicular bone. --AeronM (talk) 02:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If you can find one that's OK with the wiki gods, go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

More POV tags?

montanabw, the section you tagged, um, three times (can you say 'overkill??') about how the hoof works is actually common knowledge, not a POV. It's called the "tourniquet effect" and it is well-documented. I can supply a hundred verifiable references to support this, but I would have thought you knew enough about horse physiology already. There are many useful books and websites which can teach you how the hoof works. Meanwhile, I am removing tag. If you can find a reference that says a hoof does not work the way it works, I'd like to see it! Meanwhile, to get your education started, here is part of the article I used as my reference. (Did you even read the reference? Or just start slapping tags everywhere?):

When the shoe is applied, it does not allow the hoof to flex. This causes decreased blood flow into and out of the hoof, depriving nerves of blood supply thereby resulting in the hoof becoming numb. The shoe is usually made of steel, it is very inflexible, and is solidly fixated to the hoof. The vessels that supply the hoof with blood are also compressed decreasing the efficient blood flow into and out of the hoof. The limited blood flow causes waste products to build up in the hoof, minimizing nutrients and oxygen from entering, which in turn, causes decreased cellular metabolism and tissue growth.

In addition, as described above, the horses hooves cannot contribute to general circulation when they are restricted by horseshoes and confinement.

This tourniquet effect of horseshoes was dramatically demonstrated in a video produced in 1993 by Dr. Chris Pollitt Phd DVSc MSC of the Department of Companion Animal Medicine and Science, University of Queensland Brisbane Australia . This investigator using freshly prepared cadaever horse hooves compared shod and nonshod specimens measuring blood flow. The application of shoes resulted in a visible dramatic reduction in blood flow and alteration in the physiology of the horse's hoof. Despite the obvious implications of this work, it has not affected the veterinary or farrier practices within the horse community significantly.

Hope this is helpful. --AeronM (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored the tag because the tone of your edit implies that shoes inherently, by their very use, "cause" navicular. You take a statement about how shoes limit flexibility (which is true), and stretch it to say that, therefore, shoes cause navicular. Which is not. And your citation is to a well-known POV-pushing barefooter site that has minimal credibility within the mainstream community. The section can be repaired, which is why I tagged it instead of deleting or reverting it.

If you want to add a citation directly to the actual peer-reviewed study in 1993, that would be a better way to verify your claim. If there are "hundreds" of studies that say shoeing (or bad shoeing) can "cause" navicular, then there should be no problem with you using Google Scholar or Pub Med (ask Una to help, she knows how to use them) to find at least two or three. To say a section's neutrality is disputed is just that; to say it's neutrality is disputed. Nothing personal, just is. Improve the section with cites to the actual veterinary research instead of a generalized "research" statement from a known-iffy source, and then the tag can go away, particularly if there is a sentence or two tossed in that explains the other side -- why every shod horse does not develop navicular. Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, your statement that shoes can not cause navicular is not supported by current research. It is your POV, and an erroneous one. And I am not trying to verify MY claim, as I am not the one claiming that shoes can cause navicular. I did not say shoes always cause navicular, just that they can, and have. This is common knowledge among horse people, and I am happy to provide you with more sources if that would help you. PS It is amusing how every website that offers a viewpoint that is different from your own is a "POV-pushing website." It is a well-known website, yes. It is a well-respected website, yes. But as soon as it condradicts your limited ideas about horses, suddenly it is POV-pushing. --AeronM (talk)

Okay, I have added MORE refs. Is this sufficient, montanabw? Or are these ALL POV-pushing fringe theorists?? --AeronM (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Chris Pollitt, in his 1995 book Color Atlas of the Horse's Foot, does not mention his own "dramatic" demonstration. His recommendation for navicular disease in this book is to use egg bar shoes and to neutralize the hoof pastern axis. The 'reference' of someone's opinion on a webpage is a bit weak, particularly when the author claims that the study, (which was performed on cadaver limbs), causes numbness in the foot. Horses with navicular disease are anything but numb. I don't disagree that shoes alter blood flow. But I believe that improperly trimmed feet prior to shoeing are more often to blame than the shoes themselves most times.--Getwood (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, up until recently, that was the common thinking. We know a lot more about navicular now, for example, the numbness is now pretty universally accepted. It's logical really, if you think about what happens when the blood flow is restricted in the human body... like when your leg falls asleep... there is numbness, and then as the blood starts to go back in, there is sometimes pain or pricklies... same thing happens in the horse, although with shoes on all the time, they don't have the benefit of the blood being allowed back into the foot... that's when the real trouble begins.....There are lots and lots of sites you can look this up on.... I have listed a few, but there are plenty. There's actually international panel of experts over at my mother's house right now.... I'm going over to eavesdrop and hear what's new in Europe on shoeing......--AeronM (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The numbness is not universally accepted, and has never been proven in any scientific way. The international panels of experts whose journal articles and book chapters I read and that I hear talk about navicular disease do not mention your theoretical answer. It's logical, really, to understand that the foot is not numb, since the horse limps, and since a diagnostic nerve block relieves pain arising from this area. Furthermore, a restriction in bloodflow does not explain the increase in size of vascular channels which is one of the hallmarks of classic navicular disease. They increase in size because of an increase in bloodflow. But, please, let me know what websites the international panel of experts recommends next as 'proof' of these theories, and explanations for my naive misunderstandings.--Getwood (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now because I simply am tired of constantly arguing with you. I never said that shoes "cannot" cause navicular, in fact I suggested that poor shoeing may be a contributing factor. I don't have time to further research this particular question, given how much else I have to do at the moment. Please don't distort what I say and don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of POV-pushing. Disagreements are not POV-pushing, there is room for rational, reasoned debate. We'll see how this article shakes out in a few weeks and if anyone else weighs in. Montanabw^(talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that shoes can be a contributing factor in navicular, (which is what my contribution said in the first place), then why all the POV tags? And why this argument? Why is it so hard for you to concede a point without attacking the other person? You keep making this personal, montanabw, and it is not. --AeronM (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, I am most certainly not making this personal. Never have, I am just dedicated to accurate, balanced information. There is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon between saying that poor shoeing might be a contributing factor and saying that horseshoes "cause" navicular. (If bad shoeing caused navicular, then a lot more horses would have it and some breeds seem to be practically immune, no matter how poor their care is). But I will agree that at the moment, the article does not currently say shoes "cause" navicular. But I haven't had time to check the sites you put in, and frankly, given that I have other fish to fry, probably won't for a while. So for now, it can sit. Don't be offended by POV and fact tags, they used to raise my blood pressure too. It's just par for the course. Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I did not say shoes cause navicular. I said shoes CAN cause navicular. You agreed with that statement above. So what is the problem here? And before you summarily dismiss what I have said (even though you have agreed with it), why don't you take the two minutes to actually read the sourced material, before you jump all over me, ok? --AeronM (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility, people. No more comments about the other contributors, let's focus on the editorial content of the article and stop sniping at each other. We're all trying to make the articles better. Dreadstar † 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, Mntanabw, I made some changes which I hope could allow us to resolve the npov issue. See what you think. Thanks. Oh, and Curtis C, I appreciate your work to clarify; your changes to my text were all improvements. I hope these spirited discussions have spurred as much reading for all of you as they have for me. Dreadstar, thank you for helping to mediate...--Getwood (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Shoeing

Shoes sometimes do seem like they are helping to relieve pressure/pain, but sometimes these effects are only temporary. Happy to source this if need be. --AeronM (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Shoes can help to relieve pain. Not always, but they can. Even long-term. I love the way you say "seem like they are helping..." This is why you were questioned in the first place about bias. I agree that shoes sometimes relieve pain only temporarily, but the same applies for trimming. So, if your statement stays, so will mine. Happy to source this if need be. --Getwood (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't a game of "you said your piece, so I get to say mine." You must back up your contributions with sources, as I have done. Thank you. -AeronM (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a shoeing notion that I am certain will never make it to the Navicular disease article, that is the notion of aluminum shoes causing problems when secured with steel nails. This is a universal practice, but it is my hypothesis that it may be causing some foot problems, like navicular disease. Any one that has studied physics knows that two dissimilar metals in contact with each other when in a saline or acidic solution results in a battery, with a flow of electrons in one direction and a flow of metal ions in the opposite direction. It is called corrosion. Consider the horse with aluminum shoes while standing in urine soaked bedding. That clearly constitutes a battery. Does it actually do harm? No one has ever looked at this question, but I believe that aluminum ions do move via the electric field into the foot. Aluminum ions have been shown to damage bones by causing osteomalacia (softening of bone). Do they damage navicular bone? I doubt that anyone will ever investigate this question. Clearly aluminum shoes held in place with ALUMINUM nails would not cause problems. Ever see an aluminum nail? Clay soils also contain substantial amounts of aluminum ion. -Georgeeby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a real problem with your suggested mechanism. Aluminium is a very reactive metal, so much so that it oxidises very readily - even on simple contact with air. Aluminium oxide is very hard and chemically resistant to acids and also binds strongly onto the surface of aluminium. This may be referred to as passivation, which means that it's difficult to create an aluminium battery with another metal unless you supply a very alkaline electrolyte like potassium hydroxide. I seriously doubt that aluminium could be absorbed into a horse's body by the electrolytic action you suggest, sorry. Of course, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by research - and there's a very accessible overview at the Medscape article on aluminium toxicity if you're interested. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The "horseshoe nails are poison" thing is a "ZOMG!!!" axiom of the barefoot horse movement and for now is considered fringe of the first order. (Kind of up there with the "preservatives in vaccines cause autism" thing for people) Aluminum shoes are primarily used on racehorses and are changed quite frequently; they wear out pretty fast. I don't think aluminum nails could work, as aluminum is quite brittle compared to iron or steel and I think they'd shear off. Race horses also usually have their stalls kept pretty clean so it's not like they stand in urine all day (plus most urine seeps to the floor, so the bedding actually is a shield between the hoof and the waste). All that said, someone could do serious research on any impacts from metal nails in the hoof used to attach shoes, but until that happens, it's in the realm of the fringe. Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I don't have a horse, so it makes no difference to me. But there is something called a Lasagna Cell which easily demonstrates the point. See [1] Also see [2] Consequently, the aluminum iron reaction is quite visible. This is why I am trying to sound an alarm. Also, aluminum ion in the brain appears to cause Alzheimer's disease. See: [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've heard some discussion of those issues with aluminum-bodied horse trailers and road salt, particularly those with aluminum over a steel frame. But as for human health, (or horse health) once we get into that realm, just like the thimerosol in vaccines/autism thing, we get into the land of very intense opinions and the next stop is a lot of general craziness on wikipedia (though the fluoridation of water war on wiki is even crazier). Personally I do not even want to dip my toe into that whirlwind! I know some people who claim they don't use deodorant due to the aluminum chlorhydrate it contains because they worry about Alzhiemer's. Personally, I suspect that the stress of social ostracization would lead to just as much brain damage, so I am not one of these people! =:-O ;-P But the bottom line is that such claims are pretty hot topics on wiki in the human health articles, and a total no-win once the folks who are the defenders of the WP:MEDRS standard start weighing in. So best we just chat here and keep it out of the article for now. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I only use Tom's deodorant since it does not have aluminum in it. As far as I know, it is the only one to not have aluminum. Medical doctors take the Aluminum and Alzheimer's disease quite seriously - even if you don't. For example, there are over 900 medical journal articles published on Alzheimer's and aluminum. [4] Georgeeby (talk

Scientists and medical practitioners in the field, on the other hand, don't take seriously scare stories without proof, so most of us accept that [[Alzheimer's disease #Cause|"the cause for most Alzheimer's cases is still mostly unknown except for 1% to 5% of cases where genetic differences have been identified."] (reference is to http://alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=102). I won't try to change your mind, Dr Eby, but it is important that others reading this page understand that there is no review-quality evidence linking aluminium to Alzheimers - see NIH State-of-the-Science Conference 2010, probably the most recent review of the issues. The best previous systematic review was probably the one from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (2008) which found the evidence it reviewed from primary studies concerning Al and AD "inconclusive" and found that "the accumulation of aluminum in degenerating neurons presently appears to be secondary to the degenerative process of AD" (page 64). It's important to understand that correlation is not causality, but please feel free to believe whatever you feel comfortable with. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that the study of aluminum as being causative of Alzheimer's is an on ongoing process, one that started decades ago. Here is a 2010 study [5] that clearly states the aluminum is neurotoxic, no doubt about it, but whether or not it can cause Alzheimer's is still being studied. We aren't going to settle the question here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Before someone jumps on me, I have never and will never suggest that aluminum shoes cause brain issues in horses!!!!!

The review you suggested (PMC 3056430) concludes: "The characteristics of Al neurotoxity are complex, and further research is needed especially in relation to bioavailability, cellular effects, metabolism, and metal-metal interactions." That's the sort of (inconclusive) conclusion that nobody's going to be arguing with. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the paragraph above it read (less citations): Recent studies using mass spectrometry of Al have demonstrated that small, but a considerable amount of Al crosses the blood brain barrier, enters into the brain, and accumulates in a semipermanent manner. Therefore, Al can cause severe health problems in particular populations, including infants, elderly people, and patients with impaired renal functions, and unnecessary exposure to Al should be avoided for such patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 23:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

{I'm still sort of worrying about how well the all-natural deoderant works... but at least it's winter, so not that much of an issue this time of year... Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. Seriously, just use Tom's deodorant. It is "all natural" and does NOT contain aluminum. I have used it for many years. it is a top grade product. See: http://www.tomsofmaine.com/product-details/new-long-lasting-deodorant-stick

If you really want to get bogged down in extremely advanced medical science, look through this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=zb-3YzIn4ZcC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq=Nordenstr%C3%B6m+BE.Biologically+Closed+Electric+Circuits.+Clinical,+Experimental+And+Theoretical+Evidence+for+an+Additional+Circulatory+System.&source=bl&ots=UhxrYKByJ9&sig=SmwZDHAQtTxa3Xy2EWNg0e3moq8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z6zEUuSgAuO92gXIhoD4Dw&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Nordenstr%C3%B6m%20BE.Biologically%20Closed%20Electric%20Circuits.%20Clinical%2C%20Experimental%20And%20Theoretical%20Evidence%20for%20an%20Additional%20Circulatory%20System.&f=false It describes the electrical flow of electrons through the body with metallic ions flowing in the reverse direction. The author was a chairman of the Nobel Selection committee. I contributed to this science a bit with this article: http://coldcure.com/html/expert-reviews-published.pdf which describes the most well known BCEC. I am bringing this up, because BCECs are another way that metallic ions move around in the body, with them often moving in totally unpredictable ways. Therefore, I reiterate my idea that aluminum IONS can migrate to the navicular bone where the can be and perhaps are toxic to the navicular bone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words

"Some speculate" and "it is claimed" are weasel words (phrases). --AeronM (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"It is claimed" is short for "It is claimed by the reference". Independent of which "side" of the "controversy" the reference is on, it is a claim; no solid evidence is presented beyond the anecdotal (I did read the whole thing, but in a hurry, so I might have missed something). It seems to me at this point that we have claims that shoeing can cause or exacerbate navicular disease, and claims that it doesn't and can be used to treat it. NPOV consists of mentioning all these as claims. If there were a reference to a controlled study, or even a meta-analysis of a number of cases, that weighed in on one side or the other, that would be more than a claim. But at this point, "claim" seems to be an accurate reflection of at least the references I've read.

I object to "some speculate" because of the "some"; it implies an imprecise number of entities, when in fact there is a single reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, provided "claimed" is used equally for both sides of the issue. The only time I have a problem with "claimed" is when a contribution says 'one side says this, and the other side claims that,' which sounds uneven. Just want to be sure the terminology isn't subtly supporting one view or the other. --AeronM (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree totally about "claimed" in that context. Of course, the best is to be able to say "showed, as evidenced by...", and there's not a lot of that going around.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please hang on

I just made a change to that section, but I realized it still doesn't convey what I'm trying to get at. I need to go back and re-read the reference more closely, and then I'll give it another try. Please wait for my next attempt before editing it further.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's my issue with the reference (and please note that it is not a unique issue; this just happens to be the reference I an dealing with now): it makes statements, but gives no basis other than "appeal to authority" to evaluate them. It is stated that shoeing reduces blood flow, and reference is made to a study that shows that, but then it goes on to say that reduced blood flow causes numbness, but provides no direct evidence, even though it seems that it should be a simple thing to evaluate. It makes the analogy of people sleeping on their arms, but that's a complex phenomenon involving pressure on the radial nerve and reduced blood flow to the radial nerve as well as to the skin of the extremities (which is where most of the numbness is perceived, even though it doesn't originate there). And of course people are not horses.

What I had hoped to write was something along the lines of "so-and-so observed numbness in the hooves of x number of horses, and attributed it to shoeing, since it abated in those horses that had their shoes removed." But no such luck. I was a scientist before I became a bad actor, and I'm used to weighing evidence, but I don't see the evidence here that I'm looking for. Please note that other references on any side of this issue may have the same problems; this is just the one I happened to look at in detail.

I'll give the wording another try.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I appreciate your efforts here, CC. I will see if I can rustle up anything as well. --AeronM (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Research tip

Note to all: You may want to search for articles at The Horse. This the flagship mainstream publication for the American Association of Equine Practitioners, has all its articles online for free if you login. They have a number of articles discussing the most recent studies on navicular. (And everything else) Unbelievble databank of info. Best of all, once you find one, they have a good cross-linking of related articles. I also have to point out that, as the first paragraph of the article says, there are multiple conditions grouped under the heading "navicular," and this is an area of study in a lot of flux, so my suggestion to all is to footnote very carefully. I'm not participating on this one much because I have other fish to fry, but seeing as how there appears to be cooperation here, and that is GOOD, I wanted to mention some sources that I hope would be pretty NPOV in anyone's book. AAEP is about as mainstream as you can get. Montanabw^(talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that info... you are right, too, about the term "navicular" encompassing many different hoof probs..... so we need to be careful. --AeronM (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Assorted edits, comment

Overall I am real pleased with the direction this article is going (and that I have been able to stay out of it!). I think that the section on how shoeing may or may not "cause" navicular may need a little more of the nice terminology used in some other spots, saying "this specific groups says X, but this specific group says Y" phrasing rather than "research says..." to get the POV tag to go away, but other than that, it's proceeding apace. Montanabw^(talk) 04:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also pleased. AeronM, I am glad that we are able to craft this together in a way that lets both sides be heard. Your "one study" addition was absolutely appropriate. While I personally disagree about the numbness issue, I think that it does belong in the article. I won't complain about the mismatch between "several hoof experts" and one citation, because I know that there are many who do feel strongly about it. Could I suggest changing "several hoof experts" to "barefoot trimming experts" or "barefoot trimming advocates" or something like that? This would lay the cards on the table, answering Montanabw's "this specific group says X..." request. It would also effectively show that the belief is held by not only one person, but without the need to use several citations. On that note, it seems to me that we could clean up the references section. I don't mean eliminate, but consolidate. The Equine nutrition page uses a system that seems much cleaner. When the same reference is needed multiple times, it does't appear over and over in the list. Montanabw, I think this may be an area where you could advise?--Getwood (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrt "several hoof experts", I'd be happy with anything that accurately reflected what appears to be a single reference published by a foundation with no author attribution.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. While I'm gathering some sources for the numbing issue, check out this excellent article by Pete Ramey (one of the leading hoofcare experts in the US) if you haven't already: it's here then scroll down to "Digging For The Truth About Navicular Syndrome." --AeronM (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another great article. I love the part about the 'big, mean cops had tears in their eyes' when the horse got better. --AeronM (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's another site, and here's another one, in addition to the one referenced in the article, that mentions numbing in the hoof from shoes. Not that I'm trying to change your mind, Getwood (!), just illustrating that it is more than one person who thinks this.... --AeronM (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from one site: "In addition, and as a result of, the previously described macro vascular alterations, shoes anesthetize the hooves by affecting the micro vascular blood flow. The shoe does not allow the hoof to flex which causes limited, inefficient blood supply to the hoof. This limited blood supply does not allow ATP (Adenosine Tri Phosphate) to enter the neural cells within the hoof causing the nerve cells to not be able to fire. When the nerve cells cannot to fire, the hoof becomes numb. This scenario is like when a human sleeps on their arm and they wake up not being able to feel it because the blood flow has been greatly decreased by pressure from the body weight lying on it." --AeronM (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, can we revert back to "several hoof experts" now? Or would you like more refs? --AeronM (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, just trying to weign in as an NPOV here, I suggest that when you are making statements about theories that are in dispute between various practitioners, using neutral but descriptive terminology such as "barefoot trimming researchers" or "the American college of farriers," or "Veterinarians at the University of XYZ." This allows the reader to assess the material for themselves. "Several hoof experts" is pretty fuzzy. I mean, define "expert." PhD in exercise physiology? Farrier with 40 years experience? Licensed vet? Joe Schmo with a theory that he will tell you about if you order his $19.95 DVD? (grin) Also, "several" has no inherent meaning; four or five people can be "several" in my book, but is it five out of ten or five out of a hundred? You see the problem. IMHO, Clarity and footnoting settles many a problem. (If you ever want to dip a toe into the world of minutae in citation, try any military history article! gaah! Those folks are so picky it's scary!) Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

AeronM- The Ramey article makes no mention of numbness, but emphasizes the toe first theory. The hoofrehab article covers the same Ramey/Bowker/Rooney story as the Ramey article, again with no mention of numbness. In fact, these theories state that "Dr. Rooney proved and published that it was actually the unnatural toe first movement (usually caused by avoiding heel pain) that causes navicular remodeling." The third reference, the Drabek site, explains how numbness has been "proven to me time and time again" but gives as its only explanation the fact that horses are lamer barefoot than shod. Hmmm. The fourth quotes your currently used heal the hoof reference. Not just parallel, but verbatim. What you quote above is what we've already read. None of these proves numbness. And none even hint at any study in any concrete way that does. The only study that it cites is the Pollitt study. I will agree that the limbs in his study were numb, but only because they were disarticulated cadaver limbs. Can we just go with the "Barefoot trimming experts say X" line? No one disputes the absolute fact that barefoot experts say that feet are numb when shod.--Getwood (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Barefoot trimming experts" is fine. Just wanted to let readers know a) it was more than one person who mentioned the numbness, and b) that the people who do mention it are experts in their fields. BTW, all my cited references do mention numbness. You have to read the whole article. --AeronM (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per consensus, am changing to "barefoot trimming experts." -AeronM (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Defunct link

The b2b website link no longer seems to work. AeronM, can you double check that I didn't change something when I consolidated? Google brings up the archived page, but even the main page seems dead. Thanks,--Getwood (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You must have fixed it cuz I just checked it and it works.  : ) --AeronM (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Diagnosis

Is there anyone who could shed some light on methods vets use to diagnosis 'navicular' and its underlying causes? Welcomebob (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's in the queue with the other 2000 articles in Wikiproject Equine that aren't at least B-class (smile). There has been a lot of change in the medical research on this condition in the last 5-10 years, and the whole article needs some serious work, but we are spread pretty thin on worker bees here. If you want to help, I can point you to some good sources. Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested, what are the sources? Welcomebob (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The best starting point is The Horse magazine, which is the American Association of Veterinary Practitioner's mass market horse publication for the general public and has tons of summaries on all the research, usually with a link or citation to whatever peer-reviewed study they are reporting on. It's a gold mine. I did a quick search for "Navicular" and got 9000 hits there! Its a login required site but free to all. Go over there and dig to your heart's content! http://www.thehorse.com/search?q=Navicular I'll be glad to clarify any horse lingo or terms of art, etc... as would anyone else over at WikiProject Equine if you drop us a note! Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Fringe copyvio

Per user talk and tags on the article page, see this: Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Navicular disease. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Your edits are not only promoting a fringe theory but also constitute a clear violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies, as you are inserting a self-published source written by yourself, as evidenced here, and which is attempting to sell a product here. This is also clearly a copy and paste as shown here Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for showing where improvement is needed. I recognize that this article appears to be "fringe". I discovered in 1996 that gallium nitrate would be effective in treating navicular disease in my own horse (a 17-hand TB standing on size 0 hooves) who was scheduled for euthanization due to his severe navicular disease. Given gallium nitrate, he remained sound until he died in 2012 of a lightening strike. Early on, I took my discovery to a major veterinary medical research school here in Texas to see if they would run a formal clinical trial. They were very interested but wanted $250,000 to conduct the trial. I didn't have that much money, so I conducted the research trial through my research institute, thus it looks "fringe" and self-serving. The results were as reported in http://naviculardisease.com. In this page were two links to pages that were clearly commercial (http://george-eby-research.com/html/nav.html and http://galliumnitrate.com). I removed those links so that the page would not be commercial in nature. I have also greatly shortened the article so that it no longer has copyright issues. I hope that I have satisfied the Editors concerns. George Eby^(talk) 10:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

108.85.133.197 (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)== Copyright problem removed ==

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://galliumnitrate.com/navicular-disease-article.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have removed the copyrighted material and made other changes to satisfy the concerns of the Editors. User:Georgeeby (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2013

There was still some material copied directly from the source, so I have done some paraphrasing. I leave it to the experts on equine topics to determine whether or not the inclusion of the material meets the other Wikipedia requirements regarding the reliability of the source, the question of giving this one study undue weight, and the fact that the editor Georgeeby is citing his own research on Wikipedia, which is generally not allowed. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your comments. My MAIN goal is to get equine veterinarians interested in gallium nitrate for both navicular disease and arthritis in horses. I have had a number of clients tell me that it worked very well on arthritis in their horses. Gallium for human arthritis is patented by others. See: http://www.google.com/patents/US20050220895 User:Georgeeby (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2013

This is an improvement of the copyvio problem, but we have a situation where we have Someone's original research compounded by WP:COI. Also, WP:SYNTH and WP:SELFPUB clearly apply, as well as, at the moment, WP:FRINGE. However, I did do a thorough search and found enough to at least pique my interest. But, based on what WP:RS and WP:V say, I think all we actually can state is that gallium nitrate is being looked at as a possible treatment, but there are no clinical studies yet and thus no conclusive results. (Other than Eby's study) I did a search for any research on gallium nitrate for navicular other than the above self-published material and have found a couple things: this source appears to have demonstrated that horses will absorb gallium nitrate and established a way to administer it and a dose that might be useful for later studies on whether it works or not. But this wasn't a study of actual bioavailability or actual efficacy. this study indicates it isn't absorbed very well when given orally. this study used it as an anti-bacterial agent, not relevant here. A search of Google Scholar provided this, again, mostly material published by Eby, and four or five references to the same patent application. The most interesting thing I found was this article which has an English translation of the abstract that doesn't mention gallium nitrate, but I did a brief Google translation of the places where nitrato de galio appeared (significant material in collapsed box below), which basically says gallium nitrate is absorbed and recommends a dosage, but comments that there are no clinical trials that have evaluated it yet -- and so another "this interesting, but more study is needed". The arthritis connection is a "Synthesis" that we also can't use, as navicular isn't precisely arthritis (yes, it's a bone condition, but not the same thing) and this study of possible application even to arthritis treatment also said, essentially, "hm, this is interesting, but we need further study."

So, I guess I still feel a bit concerned about using the sources cited in the article due to their self-published and original research problems, but I would be OK with a mention of it as a proposed treatment that needs further study, citing to the third party published material. Maybe a sentence that says, "gallium nitrate has been hypothesized as a possible treatment, but at present, while it appears to be absorbed by [insert science here], reports of its benefits have not been confirmed by clinical studies." I'm also going to ping a couple veterinarians here on-wiki to see if they have any comments. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: A veterinary critique of possible harm - or at least ineffectiveness - is here (blogs aren't sources for WP, either, but presents an argument worth noting). Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess the superior editing skills used above defeat my best intentions. I give up. You win. The horses loose. However, if you want to see testimonials of gallium nitrate users, see http://naviculardisease.com/navicular-disease-article.html#testimonials . User:Georgeeby (talk) 2:58PM, 3 December 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor Montanabw, I interpreted your suggestion as to suitability above this way: "Gallium nitrate has been hypothesized as a possible treatment for navicular disease due to its remarkable activity against bone resorption according to Pollina. While it appears to be well absorbed, reports of its benefits have not been confirmed by formal clinical studies." If this is OK with you, I will post it tomorrow. User:Georgeeby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd also like feedback from RexxS on this too, but basically, if he's OK with it and IF you cite to the source that discusses absorbtion without a verbatim copy or close paraphrase from the source unless directly quoted (and not with the inline link, use a full citation footnote, I can help you with that), I could live with something like, "Gallium nitrate (GaN) has been hypothesized as a possible treatment for navicular disease, but its benefits have not been confirmed by formal clinical studies. One study examined horses given gallium nitrate in their feed rations. While it was absorbed slowly, it did stay in the animals' system, providing a baseline dosage for future studies. <ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21913939 </ref> Gallium is used in humans as a calcium resorption inhibitor to treat high calcium levels in the blood of some cancer patients. <ref> http://www.drugs.com/cdi/gallium.html </ref>" From here, I can run reflinks to put the URLs into a full citation format for you. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I fxed it like you suggested for the second time. However, I could not get the reference to be correctly numbered since I have so little experience editing. I did shorten it by leaving off the human usage material. Help needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeeby (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC) The human use info is on the gallium nitrate page.

I think RexxS got it. The ref tags make reference numbering automatic. I'm good with the most recent set of edits, will heck to see if we need cleanup. Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation of the Spanish material via Google Translate

"5.2.3.9 Gallium Nitrate : The gallium acts accumulate in trace amounts in metabolically active regions of bone mineral altering their properties , reducing its solubility . It also acts on bone cell components , reducing resorption and reducing acid secretion of osteoclasts ( Bockman , 2003 ) . Eby (2002 ) postulated that aluminum (III) ions are a major cause of bone resorption and osteomalacia ( not associated with vitamin D deficiency ) , causing bone pain and proximal myopathy ( muscle damage and associated tissues ) . Gallium , in excess of aluminum (III) , does compete with this in its absorption in bone displaces beneficially increasing the amount of calcium in the bone. 1 Bayer Animal Health Gallium nitrate hydrate should be used , if used as anhydride , has high oxidizing effect. Treatment should be performed in the early stages of navicular syndrome. In the work done by Bockman (2003 ) concluded that gallium nitrate is effective in humans, for the treatment of cancers that occur with hypercalcemia. Clinical studies suggest that this drug may have beneficial effects in other diseases associated with high bone resorption , such as myeloma , bone metastases , Paget's disease and osteoporosis. The treatment strategy for navicular syndrome is gallium nitrate administered by two weeks , to make 1 year. The treated animal lameness decreases rapidly, and about 3 months after starting treatment is begun to see an increase in the density of the navicular bone in radiographs taken at this stage. A 365 days of treatment, should show significant radiographic changes . If there is recurrence after treatment is completed , you should try again for 14 days with twice the dose used." ... "Currently, navicular syndrome has begun to treat with drugs that regulate bone metabolism. It is the case of the gallium nitrate. However, there are no clinical trials to evaluate its effect, but has a solid scientific foundation that makes it into account for future studies..."

Wikipedia requires its content, if challenged, to be verifiable by reference to reliable sources.

The opening sentences from Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

Additionally Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources explains that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Much as I sympathise with your good intentions, I do not believe that your source meets our standards for reliable sources. Your site has no mechanism that I am aware of for peer-review or editorial oversight, nor a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It fits our definition of a self-published source and cannot be used to support the content you have inserted. Contrast that with the other nearby references in the article which cite well-known scholarly publications.

As the onus always falls on the editor who adds content to supply reliable sources before adding the content. I will remove the disputed section until you can supply sources that meet Wikipedia's core standards, particularly verifiability, reliable sources and no original research. Your experiments are clearly original research and unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place to publish them.

Should you wish to get another opinion on the reliability of your site as a source, please feel free to consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where you can seek further input from experienced Wikipedians, but I would caution you against any further attempts to edit-war your disputed material into the article. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've done my best to incorporate Dr Eby's additions into the article as neutrally as I can, using full references to original material wherever possible. I hope I'm not linking to copyvios, but I am taking Dr Eby on trust, as I assume his intentions are good here. --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we're good to go now. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 03 December 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Navicular Disease → Navicular syndrome – More accurate name. Montanabw^(talk) 04:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support as nom. See comments below. Montanabw^(talk) 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support While trying to clean up the references, I found almost universal use of the term "navicular syndrome" in recent sources. I gain the impression that syndrome is now the preferred term. --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This fairly important article has languished for a time and as a start to a general and much-needed article improvement, it needs to be renamed. "Navicular" is a syndrome - not a single disease. Although calling it a "disease" is quite common, "syndrome" is more accurate and appears to now be preferred. Sources: simple explanation of the difference between a syndrome and a disease,peer reviewed source explaining that the "disease" is not one single disease UK source]US source, uses both terms recent article, explains why the term "syndrome" is now used. Also, online but behind a paywall with the newest issue not yet online, is Miller, Grant DVM. "Navicular Syndrome: No Longer a Scary Diagnosis," Horse Journal, December 2013. pp. 5-7. I think this is a non-controversial move, but as the article was once moved from syndrome to disease, and now I am requesting it be moved back, am submitting it to a formal review. Montanabw^(talk) 04:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comfrey as a treatment

Please DISCUSS adding the material on comfrey as a treatment or "cure" for navicular syndrome. Such material is WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE. Further, per WP:RS, you cannot use wikipedia to cite itself - one article is not a reliable source for another. Montanabw^(talk) 16:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw- Please don't put "cure" in quotations, as I never referred to it as such. I called it a preventative measure and a treatment. You call my suggested edit on comfrey pseudoscience, yet deleted my additions that contained several academic and scientific citations, including a clinical double-blind study from the University of Prague and an article from the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. Furthermore, I cited Wikipedia as a "See also" resource, not as the main support for the information on allantoin. It is called an internal reference and is completely normal and accepted in academia. Your flat-out refusal to even consider comfrey's value as an OPTION for prevention and treatment of navicular syndrome is so persistent, I am forced to wonder if you own stock in Upshur-Smith Labs (manufacturer of pentoxifylline)? I would have expected an intellectually curious and unbiased party to at least inquire about the veracity of using comfrey as a treatment, or reach out to me asking for better citations, rather than deleting my suggestions without consideration or comment.

Here is the edit I have suggested:

Comfrey can be used to prevent and treat Navicular Syndrome. Feeding horses 1 or 2 leaves of Comfrey each day has been found by some to help prevent and treat navicular by helping strengthen and heal bones. Comfrey's healing abilities may be due to its allantoin content. This is why comfrey is often called "knitbone." A poultice of comfrey may also be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skh812 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Navicular syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060917124407/http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/rirdc/articles/miscell/padua.htm to http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/rirdc/articles/miscell/padua.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Updated sources

Good new article. Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.thehorse.com/articles/37431/the-new-navicular-paradigm?utm_campaign=04-20-2016

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Navicular syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050805074532/http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02743.htm to http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02743.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)