Two new campaigns which call on the veterinary profession to unite against the practice of homeopathy have been launched this week.
Both campaigns raise concerns about the ethics of veterinary surgeons using irrational, unscientific and ineffective remedies to treat ill animals or in place of conventional vaccinations.
The Campaign For Rational Veterinary Medicine presents the case against homeopathy on a new microsite, and asks the profession to unite around a call for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to issue a public position statement that homeopathy is ineffective in animals, bringing it into line with the NHS, the findings of the British government's own review of homeopathy, and the BVA.
The campaign also asks that veterinary surgeons who prescribe homeopathic remedies be required to get owners to sign a consent form, prepared by the College, giving the College’s views on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy.
Lastly, the campaign asks that promotion or advertising of homeopathy by veterinary surgeons should abide by Advertising Standards Authority regulations and carry a statement from the College.
The Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine has been set up by a group of practitioners including the BSAVA Past President, Mike Jessop, Alex Gough, Martin Whitehead, Niall Taylor, Phil Hyde, Martin Atkinson and Brennen McKenzie, supported by VetSurgeon.org Editor, Arlo Guthrie. It also has the support of the noted author, academic and erstwhile dog owner, Professor Edzard Ernst.
Arlo said: "This is not just about the ethics of prescribing or tolerating the practice of prescribing water to animals that are dependent on us. There are 13m pet owning households in the UK. As well as visiting the vet, they will all be patients at some stage in their lives. So what you and the College say about homeopathy in animals has the potential to affect the choices they make for themselves too. Think how much money and false hope you could save them, and the consequent benefit to human welfare."
By complete coincidence, another campaign against veterinary homeopathy was launched last week. This one, by Danny Chambers MRCVS goes further, calling for a complete ban on the prescription of homeopathic remedies by veterinary surgeons. The petition has already gathered over 750 supporters.
Arlo said: "I think it’s important to say that the two petitions are not mutually exclusive. If you think both represent acceptable solutions, then sign both!"
Visit the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine here, and sign the petition here.
Sign Danny Chambers' petition on change.org here.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Hi again Jan,
I must correct your analysis of what I wrote about scientific understanding.
You say that I'm putting forward the argument that homeopathy cannot work because we don't understand it.
That's not what I said! What I said was that it is unlikely to work because it would mean rewriting everything we DO understand about physics and chemistry.
In other words, a more accurate way to paraphrase what I said would be: Homeopathy cannot work because we DO understand it!
As to your other references:
Kleijnen - outdated by newer trials, and actually concluded that poor trial quality trials and publication bias meant no conclusions could be drawn.
LInde 1999 - This study simply concludes that the better quality the trial, the less positively homeopathy is show to perform.
Cucherat - Apparently, methodological flaws. Did not conclude in favour of homeopathy. On the contrary, concluded that the better quality trials included in the analysis were more likely to be negative.
Further reading here:
edzardernst.com/.../homeopathy-where-the-truths-are-diluted-even-more-than-the-remedies
"Here are the promised references"
These are some of the top favourites of homeopaths which they use to try and convince people homeopathy works.
They have been thoroughly critiqued over the years and found wanting. Whatever they show the certainly do not in any way prove (or even suggest) that homeopathy is anything other than placebo.
Jan - do you mind if I ask if you have read them yourself? If so, what did you think of them as examples of scientific research?
Niall
Jan, I'll come back to the others later, but Linde 1997 was re-analysed no less than 6 times after publication, not least by Linde himself, and on each occasion produced a negative result. So we can strike that one off the list very quickly!
PS: Arlo, you write that any credible evidence in favour of homeopathy would mean turning the world upside down and rewriting most of what the human race has come to understand about physics and chemistry. I think I can classify myself as a 'scientist' and, to me, the more I read or try to investigate, the more I realise how very little we know and the more humbled I feel. Therefore I do not understand the 'it can't be true because we don't understand it' logic. Well I do understand it perhaps - it very much appeals to our collective human arrogance - but I don't think it is very helpful. If homeopathy cannot be shown to do any good, that's another matter; but "it CANNOT work because I cannot understand it" seems silly to me. Human beings have been wrong so many times, and current 'science' can only give us today's snapshot; surely, already our children's children will laugh themselves silly when they analyse our accepted beliefs and 'science'? I hope so, because otherwise there would be no progression...
Hi Arlo, sorry - I got sidetracked. Here are the promised references. Yep, they all deal with human homeopathy - but that may just be because veterinary studies are unlikely to attract significant funding (as there is little money to be made in vet homeopathy, practiced by very few). It appears to me that homeopathy may work but that you have to choose your cases wisely.
Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. Br Med J 1991; 302: 316–23.
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43.
Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.
Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy – A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 27–33.
Oops, sorry, I've posted the same link twice! Martin's second critique is here - http://tinyurl.com/j5r2re7
Many people who are sceptical about veterinary homeopathy have studied a lot of the papers put forward as evidence by homeopaths in great detail and they present consistently as being of poor quality or even, in some cases as not even saying what the homeopaths claim they say. Martin Whitehead has reviewed a couple of the more significant papers here [http://tinyurl.com/jm8w7zr] and here [http://tinyurl.com/jm8w7zr]. I have also spent some time looking at the long lists produced by some of the homeopathic groups out there. You can read the critiques here [www.rationalvetmed.org/the%20best%20they%20can%20do.html], and there are more papers also considered here [www.rationalvetmed.org/academic%20papers.html]. Jan, I would greatly appreciate your comment on the information given in the links but I don't think it's fair to criticise those who have found homeopathy wanting by claiming they haven't looked at the evidence - we have!
Of course, for every one paper that is painstakingly analysed and critiqued, it's easy for a homeopath just to throw in another ten claiming that they too, offer proof. It's a never ending task so long as homeopaths are prepared to accept poor quality research and claim it supports their position.
The BAHVS have produced a list of 800 papers which they claim support the idea that homeopathy works. I'm no more hopeful they will prove to be any more convincing than the ones dealy with above, but if you'd like to critique them I'd be genuinely interested in your opinion of them.
Jan, I'm not sure I would agree that "homeopathy is bad for animal welfare when a sick animal is prescribed water as a medicine instead of a proven treatment that would have relieved symptoms or offered a cure" is a belief-based statement. It's a self-evident fact, surely?
Perhaps the more pertinent question - you're right - is what scale it occurs on, for which I have no evidence beyond cases reported here, and the existence of homeopathic practitioners both within and outside the veterinary profession (not all of whom prescribe homeopathic to the exclusion of conventional treatment, of course).
Anyway, I'll look forward to the references. I'm going to be surprised if you're able to present good quality studies / analyses that haven't already been discredited, not least because it will mean turning the world upside down and rewriting most of what the human race has come to understand about physics and chemistry. Not impossible, of course, but unlikely.
That's not evidence, that is belief - exactly what you accuse the homeopathists of. 'Common sense' is not evidence.
Will post the references later.
Hi again, Jan,
I am GENUINELY not trying to ridicule anyone. I presume you are referring to the paragraph in which I say that "homeopaths ask us to believe that condoms, placenta (Welsh), light from the planet Venus are indicated for the treatment of disease."
Whilst I am not trying to ridicule anyone, I do agree that these things sound ridiculous. But they are documented homeopathic remedies. I'm just stating facts.
Could you give me a reference for the 4 or 5 large meta analyses that have shown results in favour of homeopathy?
You say that narrowing the spectrum of treatments available is not going to serve animals. I would argue that on the contrary, focusing on those that are effective will serve animals. Significantly.
You ask for evidence that homeopathy is bad for animal welfare. I would have thought that self-evident: when a sick animal is prescribed water as a medicine instead of a proven treatment would have relieved symptoms or offered a cure.