Homeopathy response

RE: Homeopathy response

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 18:22:50 GMT

Where does homeopathy lie under the cascade? Since its practitioners think (and state) it's curative, then it's (in their view) a treatment, and, therefore, since unlicensed is automatically illegal if a licensed alternative exists

Wynne

I think I've nicely amalgamated the 2 campaigns (pat on back)

RE: Homeopathy response

Bob Russell — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:30:39 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37557083

Quite an interesting article regarding the steady but slow demise of homoeopathy in the NHS. Going steadily private so those with more money than sense can be effectively separated from their dosh!

RE: Homeopathy response

Anthony Dennison — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 11:58:46 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]F+ch off it is the Peoples Front of Judea![/quote]

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]My point was that a group concerned with the use of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) will start a campaign on that subject. While a Campaign Against the Continuance of the Repressive Veterinary Medicines Cascade is unquestionably a worthwhile cause it's not why the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine was set up.[/quote]

Splitters!

RE: Homeopathy response

Niall Taylor — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 11:25:45 GMT

[quote user="Timothy Miles"]And on that bombshell I'll think I'll rest my case.[/quote]

My point was that a group concerned with the use of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) will start a campaign on that subject. While a Campaign Against the Continuance of the Repressive Veterinary Medicines Cascade is unquestionably a worthwhile cause it's not why the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine was set up.

It can always be said by critics of any campaign that there are other issues more deserving of attention - if we took that to its ultimate extreme then no one would ever campaign about anything. We have chosen to make a stand on the topic of CAVM but it doesn't mean there aren't other worthy causes out there and it doesn't mean concerns about CAVM are any more worthy than any other issues - it's just one we, as a group, are particularly concerned about.

And I tried to make that point with a touch of humour as I know how easy it is for statements to be misinterpreted or to appear to be more confrontational or offensive than intended by the poster. Since yesterday was the anniversary of the first ever Monty Python show in 1969 I chose to paraphrase one of their sketches in an attempt to 'keep it light'.

None of the above is any reason to dismiss genuine concerns that homeopathy is harming animals.

Niall

RE: Homeopathy response

Bob Russell — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 10:03:50 GMT

F+ch off it is the Peoples Front of Judea!

(Sorry could not resist that one - anyone choosing to continue will need to start a tangent)

RE: Homeopathy response

Timothy Miles — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 10:03:12 GMT

And on that bombshell I'll think I'll rest my case.

RE: Homeopathy response

Anthony Dennison — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 09:41:00 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

[quote user="Timothy Miles"]If the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine were to fix its colours to a campaign against the continuance of the repressive veterinary medicines cascade I might be persuaded to append my signature[/quote]

No mate, you want the "Campaign Against the Continuance of the Repressive Veterinary Medicines Cascade" group - they're just along the corridor.

[/quote]

It's all gone a bit Monty Python... waiting for the Judean People's Front to pop up.

RE: Homeopathy response

Eamon McAllister — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 19:16:34 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

Prince Charles is a very enthusiastic proponent of Homeopathy. Could it be that they don't want to lose Royal Patronage when he takes the Throne? No more gongs and garden parties? Unthinkable! Don't underestimate the power and influence of the Monarchy.

[/quote]

Quite. Any reason why BVA who have the ear of politicians (or so we're told) can't take up the mantle on this? Apart from a salutary paragraph on their website, it seems not.

[/quote] British Veterinary Association - Patron HM The Queen and eventually King Charles III. Different organisation - same problem.

RE: Homeopathy response

Nhombokisheni — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:18:15 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Does that make me a scientist? Great! One for the CV.[/quote]

Ha, not quite. It makes you a member of the "group" that has an unhealthy faith in "science" as a true path of objective, value-free, knowledge; and, further, the conflating of "science" with "rationality" (is science always rational? What is rationality? Can you be rational and not scientific?). A brief reading of a Philosophy of Science text (The Oxford Short Introduction is perfect for this) as well as some psychology (e.g. Kahneman,Thinking, Fast and Slow) will show you your errors

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I'm not sure I am with you on that one (except to the extent that there is a shortage of good veterinary science, but that doesn't make it as dangerous as homeopathy).[/quote]

Again, see above recommendations. If you think of, say, a dog with an ear infection, how can you approach this in a scientific way? You can use science to decide treatment, and diagnosis, but this is not science (defined, superficially, as reliant on experiment and testing hypotheses). Use of science does not make something a scientific pursuit.

[/quote]

The deafest man is not one without ears.....but the one who refuses to hear!!!!

In your honest assessment, is homeopathy veterinary medicine???

RE: Homeopathy response

David Mills — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:49:01 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Does that make me a scientist? Great! One for the CV.[/quote]

RE: Homeopathy response

Bob Russell — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:15:38 GMT

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/veterinary_cascade/

Did not do too well unfortunately.

RE: Homeopathy response

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:12:10 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Careful. As I've previously said, this campaign is at risk of veering into Scientism.[/quote]

Does that make me a scientist? Great! One for the CV.

[quote user="David Mills"]Veterinary science as a way of doing veterinary medicine is possibly as dangerous as homeopathy.[/quote]

I'm not sure I am with you on that one (except to the extent that there is a shortage of good veterinary science, but that doesn't make it as dangerous as homeopathy).

RE: Homeopathy response

Bob Russell — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 15:08:14 GMT

[quote user="Timothy Miles"]

Single issue pressure groups have alway been anathema to me. On homeopathy, speaking of evidence where are all the bodies to justify this outrage?

If the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine were to fix its colours to a campaign against the continuance of the repressive veterinary medicines cascade I might be persuaded to append my signature.

[/quote]

Pretty much where I came in as a VetSurgeon newbie. We did try!

Including: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/archived/rcvs-elections/f/71/t/7853.aspx

and long before that!

Got into the papers too!

Nothing happened. Oh, nostalgia!!

RE: Homeopathy response

David Mills — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:44:38 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]

[/quote]

Quite. Any reason why BVA who have the ear of politicians (or so we're told) can't take up the mantle on this? Apart from a salutary paragraph on their website, it seems not.

RE: Homeopathy response

David Mills — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:41:41 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]It's certainly not the basis I want my doctor or veterinary surgeon prescribing medicine. I want their prescriptions based on one thing and one thing alone: the best available scientific evidence (even if it is a bit thin). [/quote]

Careful. As I've previously said, this campaign is at risk of veering into Scientism.

Veterinary science as a way of doing veterinary medicine is possibly as dangerous as homeopathy.

Veterinary and Human Medicine are practical, intellectual pursuits that use science but are not scientific in themselves. Yes I would want to use science - but quite how much should be used is not straightforward. It is far more phronesis than science.

"How Doctors Think" by Montgomery sets this out well in the introduction (and even better in the rest of the book) if you're a Kindle user you can read the intro for free before committing to the rest of it.

RE: Homeopathy response

Niall Taylor — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:20:23 GMT

[quote user="Timothy Miles"]On homeopathy, speaking of evidence where are all the bodies to justify this outrage?[/quote]

Denying patients real medicine, persuading cancer sufferers they can cure cancer with homeopathy, telling parents not to vaccinate their children against life-threatening diseases - see these links for the body count to date:

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.htm

http://www.1023.org.uk/whats-the-harm-in-homeopathy.php

http://edzardernst.com/2012/12/the-risks-of-homeopathy/

As for the veterinary body count - how would we ever know the actual total?

No mate, you want the "Campaign Against the Continuance of the Repressive Veterinary Medicines Cascade" group - they're just along the corridor.

Niall

RE: Homeopathy response

Eamon McAllister — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 13:26:45 GMT

RE: Homeopathy response

Timothy Miles — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 13:24:26 GMT

Single issue pressure groups have alway been anathema to me. On homeopathy, speaking of evidence where are all the bodies to justify this outrage?

RE: Homeopathy response

J G Wray — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:33:56 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]That's not quite right. The Executive determines the agenda and NO ONE ELSE is more accurate[/quote]

This makes depressing reading. To think that the elected, non elected and appointed have no influence on agenda is salutary and to think that RFPs pay but have no influence rankles.

Do you suppose a better name for RCVS is the [V]eterinary [E]ducation, [R]egulatory and Registration [A]uthority - VERA (it means "truth" dunnit?)?

Maybe the homeopathy question is destined to be the Big Issue for the profession and RCVS.

RE: Homeopathy response

Niall Taylor — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 12:03:18 GMT

[quote user="Timothy Miles"]

Interesting - what would come under the definition of snake oil ?

? probiotics, nutritional supplements ? et al?

[/quote]

The relative merits of those things can be argued in the usual way - trials, scientific testing etc - so the profession can make a rational decision about their use.

The problem with homeopathy is it has a collection of followers who are convinced it works no matter what the evidence says. This has put homeopathy effectively beyond science.

For every trial or even anecdote about homeopathy being ineffective or downright lethal there is always an excuse from a homeopath. Such matters are simply explained away and critics are instead pointed towards a whole heap of poorly constructed trials, weak data and uncoroborated anecdotes. For a homeopath, one positive anecdote will always trump solid evidence.

When questioned about possible mechanisms of action again proponents of homeopathy will resort to non-scientific tactics - it's quantum, or there's a 'memory of water' or its action depends on the practitioners 'intention to treat'. The fact is there is simply no evidence for any of these suggestions.

Homeopathy could certainly be described as a lifestyle choice or as a faith-based, or intuitive practice, but it could never be described as either rational or scientific and it really should have no more of a place in our profession than faith healing or intercessory prayer.

Niall

RE: Homeopathy response

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 11:11:23 GMT

[quote user="Timothy Miles"]Interesting - what would come under the definition of snake oil ?

? probiotics, nutritional supplements ? et al?[/quote]

VERY important point. The Campaign For Rational Veterinary Medicine does NOT call for ALL unproven medicine to be defined as snake oil and outlawed. Just those where the combined weight of research and scientific understanding has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that something is ineffective, and which defy scientific principles.

There are lots of things where the evidence 'for' may be weak, but equally there is little evidence 'against'. Homeopathy is in a class of its own, because there is now a mountain of evidence which shows it doesn't work AND it defies just about every scientific principle you care to mention (each of which in turn supported with years of scientific research).

RE: Homeopathy response

Timothy Miles — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:52:30 GMT

Interesting - what would come under the definition of snake oil ?

? probiotics, nutritional supplements ? et al?

RE: Homeopathy response

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:45:55 GMT

They can put it in the Guide to Professional Conduct that peddling snake oil is a disciplinary offence!

Wynne

RE: Homeopathy response

Bob Russell — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:38:15 GMT

If decisions regarding treatment options are to be based on making the patient feel better then homoeopathy may have a place in human care. I won't say medicine because it is not medicine, it is a glorified method of providing a placebo.

The epilepsy thread shows that there is a powerful placebo effect even when pets are treated therefore trial work has to be double blind pitting homoeopathy against the placebo.

Anyone with any form of scientific brain will place homoeopathy firmly where it should be - a form of counselling, up there with talking therapy.

With humans the decision is who pays for this? I can see no place for the NHS funding this.

There is no place for a veterinary surgeon to be using his or her qualification to lend credence to mumbo jumbo. Even if the RCVS insist on a disclaimer, the homoeopath will only explain it away by claiming they are unbelievers and misguided (bring on the religious zealots who argue the same thing).

The RCVS cannot win so whatever they do is going to be wrong. The only thing that can be done is to educate the general public about the realities of homoeopathy.

RE: Homeopathy response

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:34:10 GMT

The NHS doesn't point out to owners, they point out to patients. Our patients can't give informed consent, therefore I think it totally immoral to deny them conventional treatment. I would say the same about the use of homeopathy on either children, or the mentally infirm. They also are incapable of giving informed consent.

Wynne

( Although I suppose it could be argued that a belief in homeopathy automatically denotes insanity, so. in that case the NHS should ban it................especially as it wastes doctors time, and therefore taxpayers money)