[headstorm]

Repeating yourself doesn't answer my question as to what makes the statement wrong. The more interesting question to me is why there are so many sources, including many government documents, referring to it as a veterinary tranquilizer going back almost 50 years if it does not have that effect.

[sneak]

Look two items up in that link, under "source", where it is correctly identified as an anasthetic.

People without training conflate the two.

[headstorm]

I fail to see why I should believe that it is only an anesthetic (never anasthetic, as you consistenly keep writing) and not a tranquilizer as well when I can find thousands of documents on .gov and .edu sites supporting its use as a tranquilizer. Surely you can come up with veterinary medicine documents that explain why it's not usable as a tranquilizer rather than making unsupported claims - since it's mentioned as a tranquilizer always in veterinary and not human contexts.

[sneak]

iOS spellcheck has failed my pre-coffee fingers. :/