Track to Nature

09/06/2026

Written by and all credit to Deborah Norris ❤️.

"Why won't HM take up the offer of an independent scientific study"

An essay - sorry folks, it's me, I don't do short posts.

My background/qualifications on this topic: I worked as an engineer in R&D for over 25 years, with c.20yrs in medical devices. I have designed, reviewed, executed, analysed, reported and read through more scientific studies and papers than most folks will have had hot dinners.

TL:DR - there has been no serious approach or offer made. The approach itself is 'unconventional' (social media, instead of direct contact). There are significant holes in the logic of the 'outlined study' which calls into questions significant issues around ethics. Finally, there is a complete absence of indication of funding (and believe me, it would be expensive! - eyewateringly so with a price tag in excess of £0.5M).

Taken together, these are clear hallmarks of a dog-whistle being sounded to the folks who have chosen to follow destructive hate and fear-mongering of HM rather than stump up answers and evidence to prove their case. And it works. But you deserve to understand what is actually involved in a proposed multi-arm study. So I've condensed my decades of experience into this one very long post.

If you want the details to support my above summary - buckle in! (get a cuppa tea first).

I'm going to ignore her intro, laying out personal grievances and throwing out allegations simultaneously. I personally don't care, I'm interested in hoof care and things getting substantially better for horses. Without proof and evidence, I don't want to hear it - and even then, it's not my fight.

The offer: seemingly level headed, full of technical jargon and claims to be aligned with demonstrating the proof of what is taught here. Now, there have been a string of posts from this woman who has a PhD in veterinary science offering to run an 'independent study' where HM trimming forms part of the study arms, and where (importantly) HM would be invited to be part of the study design process.

Wonderful! And indeed, were it a genuine offer, and funded, it would be something of interest.

Why my skepticism? Well - firstly I transcribed her video so I could analyse the outlined offer in detail, I reviewed it, went through a more detailed study design jotted down on paper, and did a quick order-of-magnitude costing for her proposed "6 month" study... and once I checked things in detail, it sounds full of holes to me.

Now - it is worth highlighting, the verbal delivery was for a floated 'outline', not a fully thought through proposal and was framed as a starting point - so we must not judge too harshly, it is not a fully reviewed study design! But it was floated as a 'believable basis' - so we must take that part in good faith.

However, she outlines a proposal for a 4-arm study (each group is referred to as an 'arm' in clinical trials - take it up with the science community). This is ambitious, because as I will demonstrate in a moment, recruitment on her terms will be challenging - if we wish to get sufficient data points out with statistical relevance and control over experimental variables. Whilst most equine studies 'make do' with n = 6, that really won't cut the mustard here. Not if we want to generate hard proof.

She proposes that the study find horses, diagnosed with mild-moderate metabolic disease (i.e. blood tests confirm the horse suffers EMS) or endocrine disease (indication that she means PPID here, which I would think is not sensible to include, given this is different to metabolic disease, although they can have some overlapping symptoms such as flare-ups exacerbated by high sugar loading).
That these horses have been pasture exposed over the proceeding 6 months - so, despite having EMS/PPID, their owners persist on keeping them on grass... unlikely, but ok, we can find some.
Have 'hoof imbalance' (which is TBD in her opinion - aka cue lots of debate) but present with no active or acute laminitis - OK _ RED FLAG. We clearly have someone who does not wish to recognise that mechanical imbalance of the hoof creates inflammation markers in the laminae. Not only that, but there is no diagnostic in-vivo test to demonstrate inflamed laminae, just deduction from x-rays showing certain degrees of separation when taken alongside 'hot hooves and bounding pulses' that there is "laminitis". So from the outset, we don't have any extension of belief that distortion = laminitis (where laminitis is the wrong diagnostic label and criteria altogether is a very long different discussion). Sorry dear, but your prejudice is showing. You might wanna just tuck that back in...

She goes on to define further the inclusion and exclusion criteria - all very normal practices, though there are some ludicrous inclusions such as HPA - PASTERN IS JOINTED IT IS NOT A CONSTANT ANGLE. ANYWAY. She's a vet, not a hoof care specialist. I digress.

Note - she spends a long time expounding all of these criteria, and the clinical presentation to make it sound very well thought out, and it includes all the typical technical jargon of a clinical trial - aka exclusionary tactics for those 'not in the know'. She literally could have explained this in plain English and it would have been more appropriate given the forum on which she is broadcasting this generosity of hers - there is no minimum requirement in scientific literacy to be listening to a FB video.

Impartiality - now - she expounds on impartiality a LOT! Giving much credit to the scientific process being designed in such a way that it mitigates bias of the individual scientists involved. And this is true - up to a point. That point being, it is to guardrail against unconscious bias of the research team - which is why 'blinding' the study researchers becomes prominent, if you don't know what the treatment is, you can't accidentally favour the way you interpret the data. HOWEVER - there is literally no controls over conscious and directed bias. And, this individual has that in spades when it comes to 'evaluating' HM. Indeed, the whole offer is based around clearly misinterpreting or wilfully misunderstanding what HM teach around hoof capsule divergence and metabolic health in horses.

So - no, she is not an independent person and nor are any of the very vocal supporters rattling their cages at her offerings. One couldn't expect her or any of her hand-selected team mates to conduct a study without prejudice into a set of protocols they are extremely prejudiced against. And that prejudice (despite her commentary) is well documented within the comment sections of those who are clearly positioned against all HM has to stand for.

Now - data collection. There needs to be a lot of that. She barely touches on it - but here is where we have COST. And a lot of it.
Statistically, each 'arm' needs to come out with group data on at least 15 specimens, or any statistical work cannot be tested for normal distributions (that means the standard deviation is meaningless when n < 15 in the RESULTS). This is one of the many reasons so many equine research papers have a tagline of 'more research needed, preferably with a larger group' - because recruitment is hard and horses big and expensive to run like lab rats.

Any study of any significant duration (6 months is significant) should expect for there to be drop-outs. No matter how well the screening criteria going in, animals get sick or injured for other reasons that may exclude them from being included in the final results. Over-recruitment is dependent on risk, but an absolute minimum would be 10%; as we can't have 1.5 horses extra per group, that needs to be an additional 2. Each group n = 17.

There are 4 groups in her proposal. We need (as a MINIMUM); 68 horses recruited.
Recruitment costs money, BTW, it's not free. And recruitment criteria she defined involves blood tests and xrays - these need to be covered, as well as the professionals who take and interpret the data.

To recruit 68 horses, you're going to have to screen a lot more than the target number (indeed, you also commonly build a waiting list of extras, in case of drop-outs before study commences). So - you have to screen say 50% over the number you recruit (that is so conservative, it would normally be multiple times the recruitment number, but let's assume we have health history screening first which is substantially cheaper than full health checks).
Detailed screening needs to happen on approx: 100 horses (102 for the pedants who think this needs to be to the letter).

Once we have viable candidates, the owners then need to 'sign over' the care of their horses fully to the study. Because owners and their interactions are variables. They're controllable variables. Visitation rights, yes. Riding/training etc - no. It could skew the resuilts. Tricky getting suitable recruits. As a result, there needs to be benefit to the owner - covering the full cost of their horses livery, feed, veterinary and hoof care for the full period of the study would likely be the minimum. Anyone want to put together figures for 68 horses at full livery with full hoof care (which dear reader includes any fancy glue-ons, wedges, pads, clogs, rockers, heartbars, boots, pads required to keep Neddy sound and comfortable) and vet bills (pain relief, metabolic meds, any accident injuries, viruses etc occurring in 6 months in horses with known metabolic and endocrine disease!)?

All horses need to be managed in the same facility - or the least number facilities where the board and management conditions are, to all intents and purposes - identical. Let's say we have 3 yards that have the capacity - now you have three sets of management and livery staff. Because we can't have the owners interfering with results. You have to have travel between yards for all the trimming teams, because you must have samples from each study arm at each facility so there's no skew-bias from different geographical location (weather, surfaces, herd dynamics).

All livery management staff must have the same training and carry out care protocols for each animal identically.
All feeds must be identical for each test group that is on a like-for-like... the 'grazing groups' in her proposal need to be kept on the same field. Literally. or the groups need to be split so that each field has a half-half population in each of the two fields - and then someone needs to analyse the resulting data for any anomalies - but now each test group split is under 15 results per, so you might end up with skewed data... you could increase your target groups size... Regardless, if you don't, you have another layer of data analyses to perform and could have to make adjustments in your data analysis..

Hahahahaha - I'm not even half way into why this costs so much. Sorry (not sorry).

Vets. Radiographers. Trimmers, Farriers. They all need paid.
So do the researchers, the analysts which include vets and/or radiographers who must be blinded to the active treatment teams. They need paid.
Livery yards and the management team need paid.
Feed, medications, emergency treatment bills - all need paid.
Each review point of the study needs to be funded - and to be in line with HM's standards, there is a full set of radiographs, photos, videos and measurements to be recorded and analysed (two separate teams, blinded to the activity of the other) EACH MONTH.

The study design needs outlined, written up, reviewed.
Then submitted to the board of ethics. They make observations, the paper goes through revisions until it passes. It may not make it, you have an outlay of many thousands of £ EVEN if the study cannot go ahead as proposed! (this is done before screening, it's ok, you don't have that huge cost on the possible failure to start).

Now comes the fun part. How do we get the results for 68 horses taken within an equivalent time-point? I reckon it might be reasonable for 1 vet to process 10 horses in one day for the full set of checks... if all horses are at one facility. Who knows, it might even be they can do 20 (sounds like a lot to get through, given xrays take time, so do bloods). But you can't leave it strung out over many days, certainly not weeks - your study only spans 26 weeks, you have 7 check points including admission, and the horses in each group need to be in the equivalent environmental conditions - including grass - weather dependent much) - so... hmmm. Time sensitivity matters here.
Photos and videos and measurements are taken by trained but don't need to be vets team members. Each horse will likely take at least half an hour - so let's say we can process 17 horses a day (ambitious). 4-days... or do we speed it up by having more teams qualified to do the job?

If we do - we need more pieces of equipment. Including xray machines.
The cameras need to be the same make and model, they need to have rigs to ensure the photos are all taken at the same focal length and distance and lighting is adequately controlled.
Any software used to process any image must also be considered as a piece of equipment.
The calipers used to measure the hooves.
All of it either needs to be duplicated per team - or you must take a hit on staggering the time point for recording results and put all your eggs in one basket when it comes to trained team members.

A study this size, you would make sure at the very least you have a duplicate of everything, and where it is lower cost (such as calipers) you would have many more than that.

The calipers are not your £20 off Amazon jobs - BTW. no. they're scientific instruments. Last time I was buying these, with calibration certificates (so they measure repeatedly and accurately to what they claim they do) - about £400-£500 PER CALIPER is reasonable. That includes the calibration cert. Drop the caliper, it MUST be recalibrated (expect this to take at least 1 week and cost at least £150). So you carry spares of these, as these are - trust me in context of this study equipment needs - low cost.

Sooooooo - why go into all this detail. Because then you might just find it more credible to believe how much this should actually cost. I haven't finished by the way - sorry. Get another cuppa.

Right - we have say 2 teams that can do data recording - this helps provide insurance for people being off sick at data measurement day and also helps process the horses faster when everyone is present. Since a 6 month study with intake recording will have 7 data point recording days per horse - better believe we need insurance!

Okiedokie. That's all good then.
No, we have multiple pieces of equipment and multiple operators for each piece of equipment. Any rigs and fixtures and software are included in 'equipment' by the way.
So now we need to design, review, execute and analyse a Gage R&R (go google it) - this is essentially a study specifically designed to check the operating protocols for each piece of equipment tests for any data skew that may be attributable either to the human (operator) or equipment. If you're looking at 2 operators and 2 pieces of equipment - each operator must use each piece of equipment at least 3 times to measure the same object... and then expand that to multiple objects (typically again at least 3) - because hooves are organic and have 'interpretation' when deciding where to measure them - both in xray and in caliper.

See - now we have this study to run - and you have to pay the people that design it and run it, the people who participate in it, and the people who analyse and report it. (it's all part of the research team - but they need paid). And you need equipment etc etc.

If there are operator or equipment skews in your result - you then need to work out how to mitigate them (e.g. automation, reducing number of operators, extensive training programmes, double checking - e.g. measurements are performed three times and averaged for each measurement; or multiple operators perform measurements to average out the result taken). All of which takes time and - yup, MONEY.

And this is all BEFORE YOU ENTER THE STUDY. You are hundreds of thousands of pounds in before you set a single horse into the study proper.

Welcome to peer reviewed research papers.

NOW - one could of course argue that these steps are unnecessary... but they've been designed for a reason. There's a reason we go to these lengths to control variables and remove skews and biases etc. (technically, originally it was to exclude women and POC from science - but I'm not to get side-tracked). Because it is a lot of time and effort to run a study - so you really want to make sure that the things you record are the right things, they're not subject to 'weird thing happening in my data set' - oh, crap, we forgot to check if Fred measures the same way that Ginger does... start again?

Do-overs are expensive.

Anyway. For fun (I wrote this post for fun, so better believe the budgeting was fun too) - I did a rough costing out. For a smaller study (3-arm, as we don't need the grazing group, but do need a true control group to assess whether Standard of Care is better than 'just how the trimmer deals with the feet regardless of diagnosis'... because that has never been tested folks. Yup, they scream about HM, but literally, their methods are untested and unproven - and the infield data shows alarming trends that should be ringing big alarm bells for them).

That smaller by a whole 17 horses study cost came to around £500,000. That was me being conservative. I didn't go bells and whistles, I estimated the bare minimum. To do a 4 arm study, given much of the cost is in labour and equipment and analysis - would increase the costs significantly - probably not exactly by another third of the cost, but north of £600k is reasonable.

Beware of benign offers of independent scientific rigorous study on the social media pages of axe-grinders. They likely do not wish to put their money where their mouth is.

The side-effect of this post may also help you understand why HM take the approach they do - using a very small dedicated highly trained team to consistently care for each horse and have the time available to make sure each data point taken is performed in an equivalent manner. It is a sane and simple way of reducing the mighty overhead costs of a massed arm study where everything must happen all at once. That and the fact that to-date, HM case studies have been focused on rehabilitation and the effects of balancing the trim - it would be ethically questionable to perform this as a multi arm study since inclusion criteria may never be met for sufficient numbers, it would always be staggered intake and treatment programmes.

Hope you enjoyed your tea. Bonus points if you can identify the labelled parts of this diagram (picture for tax works best on fluffy foals, right?).

05/06/2026

Horses Are Not Grazing Animals… They’re Specialist Browsers

This might be one of the biggest misconceptions in horse management.

We often describe horses as grazing animals, standing with their heads down eating grass all day. While they certainly graze, their natural feeding behaviour is actually far more complex than that.

Wild and feral horses spend huge portions of their day browsing. They don’t just eat grass. They seek out hedgerows, shrubs, leaves, bark, herbs, flowers, seed heads, weeds and even certain tree species. They constantly move across the landscape, selecting different plants to meet different nutritional and behavioural needs.

Think about a horse turned into a field with a healthy hedge line. How often do you see them reaching through the hedge for hawthorn, blackberry, rosehips or fresh leaves rather than standing in the middle eating grass?

That isn’t boredom. It’s natural behaviour.

The irony is that many of our modern horse paddocks bear very little resemblance to the environment horses evolved to live in. Vast areas of single-species grass provide plenty of calories but very little variety.

Much of the UK’s improved pasture has been heavily selected for agricultural productivity, particularly for cattle production. Ryegrass has become a dominant species because it produces high yields and supports milk and meat production extremely efficiently. The problem is that what works brilliantly for a dairy cow doesn’t necessarily work brilliantly for a horse.

Many improved ryegrass pastures contain significantly higher levels of readily available sugars than the diverse meadow systems horses would naturally encounter. Yet we continue to place animals designed to browse a wide variety of plants onto fields dominated by a single, energy-dense grass species.

Then we scratch our heads and wonder why we are seeing increasing numbers of horses struggling with obesity, insulin dysregulation, laminitis and other metabolic disorders.

Of course, metabolic disease is multifactorial. Genetics, exercise, management and overall diet all play a role. But it does raise an interesting question:

Are we feeding horses in a way that matches millions of years of evolution?

Browsing provides:

🌿 Nutritional diversity
🌿 Natural enrichment
🌿 Increased movement
🌿 Mental stimulation
🌿 Opportunities for self-selection of plant material
🌿 Access to a wide range of plant compounds not found in monoculture grass systems

Perhaps the question shouldn’t be “How much grass does my horse need?”

Perhaps it should be “How much variety does my horse need?”

Because when given the choice, many horses don’t behave like lawnmowers.

They behave exactly as nature intended — as specialist browsers.

28/05/2026

This is an excellent post answering questions.
Having attended a 3 day course to learn more about the hoof, it just makes sense and is backed up with significant research and evidence.

Garry Hinton, Academic Director, HM International School of Horse & Hoof Care - addresses some of the concerns that have been raised online regarding HM.

——————

Over the last week, HM have deliberately stayed focused on what we have always done - supporting owners, students, professionals, and, most importantly, horses.

However, because of the volume of misinformation, outrage, and speculation currently circulating online, I feel it is important to address a number of claims directly and calmly.

Before people continue to sharpen pitchforks on social media, perhaps it is time to pick up cameras, x-rays, measurements, and evidence instead.

1. HM has never been banned anywhere in the world.

Neither HM, Lindsay, nor myself have ever been banned from Germany or any other country. The document currently circulating online was sent to a horse owner in Germany who was independently rehabbing her horses. Importantly, the document itself acknowledged that the horses appeared clinically well at that stage, but expressed concern about the long-term implications of distorted hoof capsules.

At no point did the vets involved contact us directly, request information from us, or seek clarification regarding the rehabilitation process. They instead relied on assumptions formed from outdated online material.

The owner in question had never undertaken formal HM training, had never completed HM courses, and had never received direct personal support from us. In other words, this was not an HM-managed rehabilitation case.

Despite the online narrative, HM were never served with court orders, never prohibited from teaching, and never banned from holding seminars in Germany. In fact, shortly afterwards, we conducted a well-attended 3-day workshop in Germany, with a welfare vet present throughout, and we are returning again this September.

2. Claims regarding horses being euthanised due to HM practices.

These accusations are deeply serious, and we do not take them lightly.

From all the information and communication we have across our students, trimmers, professionals, and rehabilitation cases, we are not aware of horses being euthanised as a result of HM rehabilitation protocols.

The reality is that many owners find us when they are already at the final stages of desperation, after months or years of failed interventions elsewhere. Some horses are already suffering severe pathology by the time we become involved. We do everything we can to help, but not every case can be saved.

What we do maintain is extensive photographic records, measurements, videos, correspondence, and, where possible, serial radiographs. We document our cases carefully and transparently.

3. HM is not a “method.”

HM and The Phoenix Way are not based on subjective interpretation of the hoof. We are focused on teaching owners and professionals to recognise and respect internal anatomical relationships, species-appropriate management, and biological balance.
Methods rely on opinion. We rely on observable anatomy and measurable consistency.

4. The “long toe” criticism.

The distorted toes that attract so much criticism online are not something we celebrate, they are evidence of pre-existing pathology growing out through rehabilitation.

The horses arriving to us commonly present with stretched and torn laminae, compromised sole depth, elevated heels, distorted capsules, and, in many cases, pathology within P3 itself. Those distortions were not created during rehabilitation, they existed before rehabilitation began.

Healing damaged laminae and restoring internal balance is a process. The distorted capsule must grow out over time while correct proportions are gradually restored.

Because critics continue to claim that these feet must inevitably damage soft tissues, we have recently invested heavily in ultrasound investigations to monitor those structures throughout rehabilitation. Thus far, we have not identified evidence supporting those claims. What we are consistently observing instead is horses becoming progressively more comfortable and functional as dorsopalmar balance improves and vertical toe depth is restored.

5. Why we publish sequential radiographs.

Some of our critics have dismissed our monthly radiographs as “worthless.” We fundamentally disagree.

Sequential radiographs are one of the few ways to document changes inside the hoof capsule over time. Most importantly, we do not wait until a horse looks “perfect” before sharing the data. We show the process as it happens, including the difficult stages.

If we lacked confidence in what we are observing, we would simply publish polished “before and after” photographs once rehabilitation was complete. Instead, we openly document the progression month by month, because transparency matters.

6. Research and peer review.

We are actively compiling longitudinal case studies and data for formal write-up and future scrutiny.

Our working hypothesis is that chronic hoof capsule imbalance and divergence play a major role in the tearing of the laminae and the pathology currently labelled under the broad umbrella of “laminitis.”

We fully expect our conclusions to be challenged and scrutinised, and they should be.

Scientific progress requires open examination, not social media hysteria.

7. The accusation that HM is abusive or cult-like.

This narrative is both painful and profoundly inaccurate.

Those who actually know HM, privately and publicly, know that our community is supportive, compassionate, educational, and deeply committed to horse welfare.

What we will not do is endlessly host hostile arguments on our pages from people whose sole intention is disruption or personal attack. We moderate our spaces accordingly.

Lindsay and I have both openly acknowledged that, years ago, we followed many of the same mainstream approaches promoted throughout the industry today. We changed because we observed biological consequences that we could no longer ignore.

It is also important to recognise that the owners who come to HM are not naïve or vulnerable people looking to blindly follow someone. They are often intelligent, thoughtful horse owners who have already tried multiple mainstream approaches, sometimes over many years, before seeking alternative answers. Many arrive after feeling repeatedly failed by existing systems, and some have heartbreakingly lost horses or donkeys despite doing everything they were advised to do. To dismiss these people as somehow manipulated or incapable of critical thought is not only insulting to HM, but also deeply disrespectful to a wider community of caring horse owners who are simply trying to prevent further suffering and loss.

Disagreement is acceptable. Abuse, baiting, and personal attacks are not.

Importantly, while many online discussions about HM have become deeply personal, we do not spend our time targeting individuals across the internet. We defend our work, our observations, and our right to respond, but personal destruction is not our ethos.

Lindsay nor me, send anonymous letters, emails or messages, that is simply not how we operate. If we ever have anything to say, we sign it.

8. Evidence and scrutiny.

HM is probably one of the most scrutinised organisations in modern hoof care, and despite that, we continue to produce sequential data publicly.

The equine industry has historically lacked meaningful longitudinal documentation showing how trimming practices alter hoof capsule morphology over time. That gap in evidence matters.

When we ask for evidence demonstrating healthy, balanced hoof capsules suddenly “failing due to diet alone,” we are not mocking anyone. We are asking legitimate scientific questions that deserve proper investigation.

This industry cannot evolve if uncomfortable questions are treated as hearsay, or mocked by the very industry perpetuating some of these issues (however unintentionally).

9. Diet and laminitis.

We have not abandoned the importance of diet. Nutrition remains critical to equine health.
What has changed is our understanding of what initiates many cases of hoof capsule divergence and laminar pathology.

As we continue analysing radiographs, hoof morphology, and rehabilitation progressions, we are increasingly observing that distortion and imbalance within the hoof capsule appear to precede, and potentially initiate, the tearing previously attributed almost exclusively to dietary causes.

That observation requires further study, not outrage.

If we continue treating every case exclusively through a laminae-centric or pharmaceutical lens, while ignoring long-term mechanical imbalance within the hoof capsule itself, we risk missing critical pieces of the puzzle.

10. “HM only show successes.”

This accusation is categorically untrue.

Anyone who spends time inside TPW will see owners openly discussing both the successes and the very real challenges involved in rehabilitation. Rehab is not a polished before-and-after fairy tale. It is often messy, emotional, slow, and complex, especially when horses arrive with years of pre-existing pathology.

At GTL, where we are conducting structured case study research, we are selective about the horses we take on. We will not knowingly accept horses where we feel there is no realistic prospect of achieving meaningful comfort or future soundness, not because of rehabilitation itself, but because of the severity of damage already present when the horse arrives.

That said, some horses do arrive with permanent structural damage. Not every horse will grow a textbook-perfect hoof capsule again. However, those horses are carefully monitored throughout rehabilitation, and at no point would we knowingly allow suffering to continue unchecked. If we believed a horse’s welfare was compromised beyond what was acceptable, appropriate action would be taken immediately.

No horse is denied pain relief. However, it is also no secret that, during our rehabilitation case studies, horses are frequently reduced off or removed from metabolism-calming medications either immediately or shortly after rehabilitation begins. This is done under veterinary oversight and careful monitoring. If at any point we believed medication was still necessary for welfare, those horses would absolutely be returned to it.

We also undertake regular blood panel monitoring on horses at GTL throughout rehabilitation. Thus far, we have not identified bloodwork patterns that correlate with worsening rehabilitation outcomes or ongoing laminar collapse.

What we are consistently observing is a general reduction in insulin levels as rehabilitation progresses. Some horses maintain very stable insulin levels, while others fluctuate over time. Importantly, even among horses whose insulin values occasionally sit above the traditionally cited “safe zones” promoted within some laminitis research models, we are not observing the catastrophic clinical deterioration those models would predict.

These horses are remaining comfortable, functional, and importantly, are not demonstrating ongoing laminar collapse during rehabilitation.

That does not mean insulin is irrelevant. It means the real-world clinical picture appears to be significantly more complex than the current narrative often presented online.

11. “It’s the track system fixing the horses, not the trim.”

This argument makes very little biological sense.

Are critics genuinely suggesting that if distorted, imbalanced hoof capsules were simply left untouched, then movement and improved management alone would somehow restore internal hoof balance and repair the pathology?

That is not an experiment we are willing to conduct on compromised horses.

Movement, environment, diet, and management are absolutely important, we have never denied that. But balanced trimming matters enormously because the hoof capsule itself directly influences loading, mechanics, internal stresses, and how the horse functions.

Importantly, because this criticism has become so widespread, we have actively followed horses who are not maintained on track systems 24/7 and who also have controlled grass access. So far, our observations suggest that where hoof balance is maintained appropriately, we are not seeing the catastrophic hoof deterioration critics continue to predict.

Again, this is precisely why ongoing observation and longitudinal data collection matter.

12. “HM experiment on horses and allow suffering.”

No. Absolutely not.

Our entire ethos is centred around improving horse comfort through restoring balance to the hoof capsule and respecting internal anatomy.

The suggestion that we deliberately allow suffering is profoundly upsetting to those of us involved in these rehabilitations daily.

What is true is that many horses arrive to us with severe pathology already present, including significant P3 damage and osteonecrosis. We did not create that pathology.

What we are finding, through careful radiographic monitoring, is that in some osteonecrotic cases, mild degeneration can continue for a period even after balanced rehabilitation begins. Importantly, this does not appear to correlate with worsening comfort levels in the horse itself. In many cases, horses become more functional and comfortable despite the pre-existing pathology still stabilising internally.

We monitor these cases extremely closely taking different radiographic views. If we believed rehabilitation was causing suffering or deterioration, we would stop.

13. Cadaver limb transport and workshop standards.

There has also been misinformation spread regarding our cadaver workshops and transportation procedures.

Following similar online accusations many years ago, HM worked directly with Trading Standards and DEFRA in the UK and received formal permission to responsibly transport cadaver limbs for educational purposes.

The limbs are sourced professionally through suppliers who also provide the veterinary industry. We do not solicit body parts from random owners or handle these materials irresponsibly.

The limbs are transported frozen, securely contained and locked during transport in accordance with guidance provided to us. The “blood leaking from bins” narrative currently circulating online is entirely false. What people are seeing is condensation moisture resulting from frozen limbs thawing during transportation, not blood leakage.

We take these educational workshops seriously because understanding internal anatomy matters. Our standards surrounding sourcing, transport, handling, and respect for these specimens are extremely high.

14. Misinterpretation of rehabilitation protocols.

Another issue that needs clarifying is that not everybody discussing or attempting “HM rehabilitation” has been formally trained, licensed, mentored, or assessed by HM.

Like any educational organisation, we have qualified professionals, students at varying stages of learning, owners undertaking guided rehabilitation, and individuals attempting to replicate aspects of rehabilitation independently based only on public material or partial understanding.

Rehabilitation of severely compromised hoof capsules is nuanced and case-dependent. It requires careful observation, ongoing assessment, accurate interpretation of anatomy, and appropriate management decisions throughout the process.

Where individuals misunderstand, oversimplify, or incorrectly apply concepts without proper education or support, that does not automatically mean the principles themselves are responsible for poor outcomes.

This is precisely why HM places such strong emphasis on structured education, mentoring, licensing, case review, and longitudinal documentation. We actively encourage owners to seek qualified support and not attempt to manage complex rehabilitation cases purely from internet commentary or isolated images online.

15. Public educational content and owner interpretation.

Educational information about hoof care exists everywhere. There are countless books, courses, videos, clinics, trimming diagrams, and social media pages from many different approaches within the equine industry, including traditional farriery, barefoot trimming schools, veterinary guidance, and independent educators.

Owners have always learned from publicly available material and, rightly or wrongly, many will attempt aspects of hoof care themselves.

HM is not unique in providing educational content online.

The difference appears to be that HM is currently being held to a standard that no other educational organisation or methodology is expected to meet. Namely, being held directly responsible for every individual who may misunderstand, partially apply, or incorrectly imitate information they have seen online.

That is neither realistic nor consistent with how education functions in any other area of equine care, or horse training, or any other equine practice or discipline where owners learn online.

This is precisely why we continue to emphasise the importance of proper education, mentoring, structured learning, case review, and qualified support for complex rehabilitation cases.

Our online material is intended to educate, provoke discussion, encourage observation, and challenge people to think differently about the hoof. It is not intended to replace comprehensive training, ongoing mentorship, or responsible case management.

16. The claim that HM students only receive “10 days of hands-on trimming.”

This is also completely inaccurate.

Our HMB Pro students undertake two intensive residential training camps across the duration of the 2-year programme, alongside continual assessment throughout their studies.

Importantly, the majority of real learning does not happen from isolated workshop days alone, it happens through ongoing case management, mentorship, observation, and practical application over time.

Students are required to submit and document their own rehabilitation case studies throughout the course. These are monitored and assessed continuously through online trimming sessions, instructor reviews, radiographic discussions, photographic analysis, and ongoing mentorship from qualified instructors.

This model has allowed us to successfully educate and support students internationally, which has always been central to HM’s vision.

We recognised early on that if meaningful change in hoof care understanding was ever going to occur, it could not remain confined to small localised teaching groups within one country. The problems we are discussing are global, and therefore education also needed to become global.

Modern technology allows us to mentor students all over the world in real time while they work directly with horses in the field, often documenting cases longitudinally over months and years. In many ways, this gives us more continuous oversight of student progression and case development than traditional short-format educational models.

To reduce the entirety of that process down to “10 days of trimming” is not only misleading, it fundamentally misrepresents how the school actually functions.

It is also worth clarifying that learning within HM does not stop at formal course requirements alone.

Students are strongly encouraged to attend additional 3-day practical workshops whenever possible, both to further develop their practical skills and to assist owners and rehabilitation cases in real-world environments. These workshops allow students to deepen their understanding through direct observation, anatomy work, trimming discussions, case progression reviews, and collaborative learning alongside instructors, professionals, and peers.

Education within HM is designed to be ongoing, immersive, and progressive, not something limited to isolated classroom sessions.

Likewise, qualified HMB Pros are required to undertake Continuing Professional Development (CPD) each year in order to remain affiliated, licensed, and recognised within HM.

We believe that hoof care, rehabilitation, anatomy, and case management should never become stagnant. As new observations, data, radiographic analysis, and case progressions emerge, our professionals are expected to continue learning, refining, and developing their understanding accordingly.

That commitment to ongoing education and scrutiny is one of the reasons HM has continued evolving while much of the wider industry remains fixed within long-established assumptions.

17. Finally, I want to say something about Lindsay.

The online portrayal of Lindsay bears no resemblance to the person known by those who actually work alongside her, learn from her, or have rehabilitated horses with her support.

She is driven, relentless, intensely studious, and deeply committed to understanding the hoof at a level few are willing to pursue. At times, she pushes herself far too hard because she genuinely cares about solving problems that continue to devastate horses and owners worldwide.

Without Lindsay, many of these conversations would not even be happening.

She is not a narcissist, a cult leader, or an abuser. Not only does Lindsay, her family and friends, find that intensely distressing to read, but those of us who know her personally find it’s like reading a fantasy novel about someone where reality absolutely does not fit with the character being portrayed.

But as we often say here at HM, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good drama.

This industry needs a shake-up that is without doubt now very obvious. But she is not the industry scape-goat. Have we not seen enough of the damage that personal social media attacks can do to people.

Lindsay is someone willing to challenge long-held assumptions in an industry that often reacts emotionally when deeply established beliefs are questioned. HM and Lindsay have garnered much hate over the years because we continue to call out the damage that is being done to horses via personal interpretation of hoof balance. However, she does not attack ad hominem anyone, she is challenging the industry as a whole.

There have been many, many times that both Lindsay and myself have attempted to work and discuss our findings with industry professionals, but sadly it is they, not us that chose not to listen and therefore closed the doors of communication, replacing it with mockery or disdain.

What option do we both have at that point, but to keep moving forward growing our network ourselves. Some call it a movement, I’m happy with that if it drives change. Many professionals have already joined us, and many more will no doubt continue to do so in the future. For that we are grateful.

The last week has shown just how quickly online outrage can overtake meaningful discussion. But despite the noise, we will continue documenting, studying, questioning, teaching, and above all, advocating for horses.

Because in the end, this should never have been about internet drama, speculating without context or proof that we have indeed caused any harm whatsoever.

It should always be about improving welfare, not stagnating with the status quo. And when the drama and the HM pile-ons, with scant truths ensue, is the horse really in our hearts? Or is it the drama that is more powerful, egged on by that random reward hit of serotonin.

I hope I have made it as clear as I can in this post, that the horse remains central to what we do.

So before condemning people from behind keyboards, perhaps the better question is this:

Are we prepared to honestly investigate what the hoof is showing us, even if it challenges what we thought we knew, even when it challenges personal identity?

Garry Hinton

HM.