RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 10 Oct 2022 15:16:48 GMT

[quote userid="2249" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239479#239479"] I find it bizarre that people I would consider otherwise learned, would choose to use something so arcane to treat any disease. [/quote]

James Dunne Me too, but then I also find it hard to understand how learned people could believe in an ominpotent, benevolent white bearded old man (or whatever incarnation you choose) creating the world in seven days. Or Heaven. Or Hell. Or any of it.

I think the points you make are all contributory. But the single most important one, which both Bob Russell and Andreas Ege alluded to is ... BELIEF.

Belief that it works because you think you've seen it work.

[quote userid="13609" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239484#239484"]The problem with seeing things get better and attributing it to something that has been done is very much human nature.[/quote]

False cause fallacy, an incredibly powerful phenomenon, which I have only come to truly appreciate as a result of an endless search for effective medication for my daughter, all of which have proven ineffective but all of which I would have sworn blind were working because of false cause fallacy.

[quote userid="13609" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239484#239484"]and even notice things that confirm our opinion while more easily discarding or not noticing information that contradicts it.[/quote]

Second in my list of favourite human weaknesses. Hugely compelling.

If you take just these two, they more than explain why so many people still believe that homeopathy works, or in God, or indeed anything which just requires belief: ghosts and the supernatural, just about every form of quack medicine, and so on and so on.

[quote userid="2249" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239479#239479"]What is it within us as a society that allows us to accept nonsense, embrace it, nurture it and allow its propagation? [/quote]

Thing is, it is very, very, very hard to get people to understand that they should not trust their own eyes or mind. That that hopeless case likely did not necessarily improve because of the tincture of frog's wart that you applied, but just because it was self-resolving.

I think medical care would be improved hugely if everyone (patients and medical professionals) treated what their minds tell them with a healthy level of caution.

But I don't think that'll catch on!

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Andreas Ege — Sat, 08 Oct 2022 12:42:21 GMT

[quote userid="2249" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239479#239479"]We are very well-off as a society in the Western World. The threat of disease that will kill us is low enough due to vaccination, good sanitary conditions generally and high quality nutrition and housing. It is easy enough to take 'treatments' that make us better when we are going to get better anyway. The comfort obtained by doing something that 'made us better' is possibly a factor that strongly cements any tenuous belief.[/quote]

Don't think it's linked to how well-off people are. Homeopathy used to be a very big thing in India, including very rural and poor areas, would assume still is.

[quote userid="2249" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239479#239479"]None of us here are likely to take snake-oil, so you'd have to ask people who do, what would change their mind.[/quote]

Wish it where that easy. The wife believes in homeopathy and some other ... esoteric stuff. She is intelligent, well educated and a trained and practicing vet with a doctoral thesis under her belt. We solve the issue by mainly not talking about it. Just recently been told I'm not to tell her, that the scientific evidence for acupuncture is limited and mostly of low quality, even though I do think acupuncture can do more than what we have as evidence.

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239480#239480"]Some people peddling homoeopathy genuinely believe in it. They have seen it 'work'. They have seen hopeless cases get better.[/quote]

I would suspect possibly most of them. The problem with seeing things get better and attributing it to something that has been done is very much human nature. On top of that our brain is geared up to remember, and even notice things that confirm our opinion while more easily discarding or not noticing information that contradicts it.

Also seems human nature to weigh personal experience higher than 3rd party information or abstract statistical information.

Having said that, if we were all sticking to treatments only that have really good scientific evidence backed up by multiple good quality RCTs and meta-studies, we wouldn't be doing a lot.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Sarah McGurk — Sat, 08 Oct 2022 10:35:20 GMT

I’d add to James’ list that there are many chronic illnesses, some frightening and/or very unpleasant, for which modern medicine can offer no help, or in some cases, even find a diagnosis. Under those circumstances, I think there are desperate people who will try anything.

I realise this comes under «our own behaviours» but having experienced some very unpleasant neurological problems a few years back, I was told by a very dismissive doctor that it was probably psychosomatic (the modern day version of hysteria) based on the fact that she couldn’t find anything physical (an astonishing 2/3 of neurological referral cases apparently fall into this category)

I came to feel that modern neurology was hopelessly ill equipped to deal with the fact that the tools they have are still useless in such a large percentage of cases, and that at least some of the doctors working there try to cover up that inadequacy with the suggestion that some of their patients are only worthy of an annoyed eye roll.

If someone nice had come along with a gentle approach and a convincing offer, I can imagine being drawn in quite easily. Indeed, I tried CBD oil for a while. My entire body was jerking as if I’d been given an electric shock every time I walked anywhere and especially where there was a lot of noise or visual stimuli. I would have tried almost anything, not least because the medical profession were not only unable to help, but also (in some cases) openly scorned me as well.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Bob Russell — Sat, 08 Oct 2022 09:13:42 GMT

Far more complicated. Some people peddling homoeopathy genuinely believe in it. They have seen it 'work'. They have seen hopeless cases get better.

Sensible people accept that many patients just get better, hopeless cases were actually not hopeless.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

James Dunne — Sat, 08 Oct 2022 08:41:15 GMT

hi Arlo and all. I find it bizarre that people I would consider otherwise learned, would choose to use something so arcane to treat any disease. What is it within us as a society that allows us to accept nonsense, embrace it, nurture it and allow its propagation?

Some theories, but these are not evidence-based either!!

1. We are very well-off as a society in the Western World. The threat of disease that will kill us is low enough due to vaccination, good sanitary conditions generally and high quality nutrition and housing. It is easy enough to take 'treatments' that make us better when we are going to get better anyway. The comfort obtained by doing something that 'made us better' is possibly a factor that strongly cements any tenuous belief.

2. Social contagion. The advent of social media has certainly helped whacky ideas gain traction and make minority nonsense practitioners feel like they are mainstream. Nothing like a few thousand 'friends' on a virtual platform to make you feel like you're suddenly not one in a few million.

3. Association of medical recommendations with government policy. This may be controversial, but most societies are now very suspicious of their governments (rightly or wrongly) and it is easy to see that medical recommendations that come from government organisations are going to be viewed with suspicion by some sections of the public. Likewise, politicians who are found to use alternative treatments will be viewed favourably by their followers and less so by their detractors. Objective thinking is going out the window generally and nearly everything becomes polarised-politicised.

4. The rise of influencers - another form of social contagion possibly. You need no qualification to persuade gullible and vulnerable people of the worth of something. If you have marketable aesthetics and wealth and a clear message, large sections of the public will swallow whatever you feed them.

5. General contrariness. This has always been a part of life. There will always be people who promote things that are contrary to the accepted wisdom, just to be contrary and there are always those who will take their offering for exactly the same reason. They feed off each other and technology has helped this no end.

6. Fear culture. Any time a medical practitioner or drug causes something adverse, this hits the headlines. Media are interested in hysteria and ratings rather than boring objective facts. This possibly causes some people to turn away from conventional treatment of disease.

7. Our own behaviours. We nearly all of us use treatments that are not brilliantly evidence-based.

What to do?

I saw a meme recently that stated: 'Pharmacists who sell homeopathy should be forced to accept payment using envelopes that once contained money.' Very witty, but that is the reality of the basis of homeopathy. And if their pockets were hurt, you could bet that the quacks would quickly move on to something else. None of us here are likely to take snake-oil, so you'd have to ask people who do, what would change their mind. I doubt you'd find too many who are willing to do so, but that is likely where to start!

Sorry for the pessimism....

Kind regards

James

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 08 Oct 2022 07:28:07 GMT

[quote userid="2208" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239474#239474"]

I doubt if you will find a scientific paper of any worth that says homeopathy "doesn't work", that's not how science works.

[/quote]

I know, but ...

[quote userid="2208" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239474#239474"]the better the quality of the study the more likely they are to conclude that homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo. But that is most definitely not saying homeopathy doesn't work.[/quote]

I disagree!

Placebo effect is not the effect of the active ingredient, therefore if there is no effect beyond placebo, to my mind, it doesn't work. Now it may work under a different set of circumstances, of course. But the more studies that show no effect beyond placebo, the safer it becomes to say 'it doesn't work' (for anyone, that is, that missed out on their science lessons at school, and who therefore hadn't already reached that conclusion!).

[quote userid="2208" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239474#239474"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
I consider myself reasonably well-informed and still accepted a referral for my sick daughter to a cranial osteopath

Good grief, I'm sorry to hear that, that is pretty high-end quackery, I hope she was ok. Squeezing the heads of skeletally mature people to "realign spinal fluid pressure" is bad enough but some of those practitioners also squeeze babies' heads, open fontanelles and all.

[/quote]

And that wasn't the worst of it. He said to place her head between two piles of books at night.

And we did.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Niall Taylor — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 22:08:20 GMT

[quote userid="12930" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239475#239475"]Careful what you wish for![/quote]

Point taken and thanks for the clarification. I should have mentioned outlier individual trials vs the totality of the body of evidence which is why I chucked in the meta-analysis bit just before I pressed send. But I thought the post was verbose enough already .

Here's a quote from chapter ten of the book "No Way To Treat a Friend", on veterinary alternative medicine which I would humbly recommend for further reading [links below!] -

The big picture

The best way to properly assess the totality of evidence is to look, not at individual at studies, but meta-analyses and systematic reviews which take the results of several randomised, controlled trials and summarise the evidence for a particular claim. Properly performed, such trials are increasingly recognised as a major cornerstone of evidence-based medicine.

A 2007 article in the Lancet reports that five large-scale meta-analyses have been conducted in the field of human medicine.65, 66, 67, 68, 69 They all gave the same result: after excluding methodologically inadequate trials and accounting for publication bias, homoeopathy produced no statistically significant benefit over placebo.70

Cheers

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Beats — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 21:44:49 GMT

[quote userid="2208" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239474#239474"]has never been shown in good quality trials to be any more effective than placebo[/quote]

Careful what you wish for!

The paucity of "good quality trials" for any improbable treatment is merely a result of a lack of such trials being done (I mean they are surprisingly seldom done for probable treatments, let alone improbable treatments).

Should you take a benchmark of, say p<0.05 as is often found to litter veterinary papers*, then one would only need 16 "good quality trials" performed to consider yourself unlucky** to not have one of those trials demonstrate an effect beyond placebo (where no effect in reality existed).

probability of seeing an effect where no effect exists in one such trial = 0.05

probability of not seeing an effect where no effect exists in one such trial = 0.95

probability of not seeing an effect where no effect exists in 16 such trials = 0.95^16=0.44

probability of seeing an effect where no effect exists in at least one of those trials= 1-(0.95^16)=1-0.44 = 0.56 (i.e. a 56% probability of one of those "good quality trials" giving a p<0.05 versus placebo for an ineffective treatment).

The positive publication bias expects only the "good quality trial" showing an effect to be published - the other 15 don't show anything and no-one would want to read them.

The absence of "good quality trials" demonstrating a benefit of any individual improbable treatment, or indeed a collective range of improbable treatments all selected using some over-riding improbable method***, simply reflects the (understandable) lack of such trials being conducted.

However, implicit in your observation that you have not seen such a trial is that this absence matters. This could be misconstrued by the less than averagely well informed person to give the impression that the presence of such a "good quality trial" would matter and lead you to reconsider your position on any improbable method of selecting improbable treatments, no matter how improbable it was.

*see e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 or https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/P-ValueStatement.pdf

“The p-value was never intended to be a substitute for scientific reasoning,” Ron Wasserstein

** less than a 50% chance

*** say the name of the compound to be sniffed alliterates in Esperanto with the pet of the mother-in-law of the first person to name that disease's childhood sweetheart

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Niall Taylor — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 20:50:36 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239466#239466"]I consider myself reasonably well-informed and still accepted a referral for my sick daughter to a cranial osteopath[/quote]

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239466#239466"]... as more good quality studies have emerged, they all show homeopathy does not work[/quote]

I doubt if you will find a scientific paper of any worth that says homeopathy "doesn't work", that's not how science works. Papers have looked at individual remedies or the treatment of specific diseases and occasionally done meta-analyses and the better the quality of the study the more likely they are to conclude that homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo. But that is most definitely not saying homeopathy doesn't work. And even though anyone with an ounce of common-sense "knows" it doesn't work in real-world, practical, rational terms it is this type of ultra-cautious scientific jargon that the homeopaths are so adept at exploiting. Even gravity and evolution are technically "theories", something that is exploited by flat earthers and creationists respectively.

Any scientist or medical researcher who doesn't understand how homeopaths work to exploit the vulnerable in this way are themselves fair game to be fooled by homeopaths. In the face of their bluster and distortions a scientist unfamiliar with this field doesn't stand a chance, they are far too naive and trusting of the process that underpins EBM. If, as I think I have understood, the RCVS really attempted their own amateur-hour trawl of the "evidence" surrounding veterinary homeopathy then this was ill advised and doomed to fail. It's not veterinary homeopathy that's the problem, it's the whole field of homeopathy that is the problem and many other bodies, far better qualified than RCVS, have looked at the subject in great detail, have sifted the evidence, taken submissions and testimonials and found, on balance that state health schemes or insurance companies or whatever should not be paying for homeopathy because it had no discernible effect

If the RCVS wanted to rule on homeopathy they could very easly have argued it is not a science-based practice - it has no means of working, its base ingredients are ludicrous, as is its method of production. They could also have pointed out that homeopathy has never been shown in good quality trials to be any more effective than placebo and used the reports I mentioned above, all of which are in the public domain, to reinforce that argument. But in the end they tried to go it alone from the sound of things, and reinvent the wheel by doing their own little search and arguing the case as if homeopathy was just another drug. And once they had failed to find "proof it didn't work" they were able to say they had done something and then fudge the issue by allowing vet homs to continue to use it to the detriment of their patients, thereby avoiding a political backlash.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Sarah McGurk — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 20:07:54 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239466#239466"]Yes, but there is definitely a loser in all this, which is the less than averagely well-informed, and the vulnerable/desperate well-informed.[/quote]

And the animal, which is presumably being treated with something useless, in some cases for very significant problems.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Bob Russell — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 15:37:54 GMT

https://shop.naturalhealingsolutions.co.uk/cube/

There are obvious therapy claims including rejuvinating your DNA. Already claiming it is OK to do remote consultations at £35.

The Royal College is going to reap what it is sowing (sorry to hijack the thread a bit). Good luck to the averagely informed person!

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

David Bailey — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 15:27:00 GMT

Hi Arlo

see the following screenshot copied from

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legal-controls-on-veterinary-medicines

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Bob Russell — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 14:12:00 GMT

The RCVS were clearly informed by their legal advisor that being a charlatan would be enough to get someone in front of the DC. They clearly felt this would not hold legal water in the face of a last minute challenge.

Is the advice on remote consultation and under our care any more reliable than the DC legal opinion in this case?

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 14:00:19 GMT

[quote userid="25917" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239465#239465"]there is a burden and an obligation on you and any other recipient of what is being ‘ peddled’ to be an averagely well informed person.
despite what claims are made you also can chose to believe it or not. I don’t really know what aerobic oxygen does…. I can google it…. I’ll make up my own mind.[/quote]

Interesting point.

Is that a legal requirement? In other words, under British law, is there a requirement for me to be an averagely well-informed person?

If so, I find that very hard to stomach!

Two reasons I struggle with that idea. The first is who defines 'averagely well-informed'.

But much more important is that even the most well-informed people are vulnerable to being hoodwinked when they are desperate. Who knows, Steve Jobs might still be with us if he hadn't reportedly turned initially towards alternative treatments.

I consider myself reasonably well-informed and still accepted a referral for my sick daughter to a cranial osteopath (the referral was from a GP in France, so a) I presumed it was a bona fide medical treatment, and b) It was in French, so I didn't fully understand).

[quote userid="25917" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239465#239465"]I don’t know if they work. Some people believe they do. Others don’t. And this is where their argument will stalemate for the rest of their lives and not mine.[/quote]

Sure, it is difficult to argue with a belief system. Still as more good quality studies have emerged, they all show homeopathy does not work, so I'm not sure it will always be stalemate!

But I completely get that whether homeopathy works or not is irrelevant to your work. In the same way that it should be irrelevant to the lawyer whether someone actually murdered someone or not (that's perhaps not the ideal comparison to make, but you take my point).

[quote userid="25917" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239465#239465"]my understanding is the result was a stalemate…. No winners. [/quote]

Yes, but there is definitely a loser in all this, which is the less than averagely well-informed, and the vulnerable/desperate well-informed.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

David Bailey — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 13:18:56 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239459#239459"]David Bailey David, thanks for posting that. Quackery is an area I have a huge interest in because I have a chronically sick daughter, and we seem to have been surrounded by ducks for a lot of her life. [/quote]

im sorry to hear that. I wish you and her both good health.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239459#239459"]Must say, I am in two minds about your post, thinking that on the one hand you're a bit like a speeding lawyer finding a technical reason why the driver should be let off, or on the other hand you're a bulwark against over-zealous authority. [/quote]

yes. I do a lot of legal work. Criminal, civil and regulatory matters.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239459#239459"]But on balance, it seems so patently obvious to me that the stuff being peddled here, like homeopathy, is so completely off-the-wall-bonkers, running contrary to hundreds of years worth of scientific understanding, that anyone peddling it is guilty as charged. [/quote]

when I read that , I focus on the phrase ‘ But on balance….’

there is a burden and an obligation on you and any other recipient of what is being ‘ peddled’ to be an averagely well informed person.
despite what claims are made you also can chose to believe it or not. I don’t really know what aerobic oxygen does…. I can google it…. I’ll make up my own mind.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239459#239459"]

David Bailey said:
Do these products work? I don’t know.

But surely you should. I mean, you are a highly trained man. I'm a layperson, and even I can see these things for what they are, based on what I learned in the science classes.

[/quote]

no I don’t. And wether they work or not , is a distraction ( for me) to the instruction I had.
I have copied them here to assist:

are the claims false?
is there intent to mislead?
would an average well informed person believe the claim?

I don’t know if they work. Some people believe they do. Others don’t. And this is where their argument will stalemate for the rest of their lives and not mine. I’m not going to enter that forever argument. While some claim homeopathy is an inert featureless ‘thing’ and others claim otherwise, I find the topic to be one of the most flammable topics in veterinary science and far from inert and featureless.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239459#239459"]

David Bailey said:
Do I have a strong view on these things? No.

Again, surely you should. People selling quackery offer false hope to some of the most vulnerable in society. I know. I've been on the receiving end of it. Medical and veterinary professionals are, or should be, the guardians of good quality evidence-based advice (or at least so much as is available)

[/quote]

no… I still don’t.

The VMD who control a lot of the wording around veterinary medicinal products (VMP) are one of the tightest wrapped organizations that I have ever come across. Thalidomide in 1968 and Harold shipman in the 1990’s have created a very strict version of the VMD in terms of addressing quality, safety, efficacy as well as sale, supply and distribution of VMP’s in this jurisdiction. and it is right that they are so tightly wrapped.

wether homeopathy works or not just isn’t important ( to the rcvs-v- Meacock matter) What is important is the claims that one can make about it. and this includes the things people will ( or want to ) believe.

The outcome of the rcvs case is not an indication of the efficacy of homeopathy although I fear that some people will triumphalise the outcome in favor of homeopathy and/ or criticize the RCVS.

my understanding is the result was a stalemate…. No winners.

the website was agreed to be amended and I haven’t heard anything since.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 12:57:14 GMT

[quote userid="2208" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239461#239461"]That's harsh - why not simply someone doing the job asked of them?[/quote]

Absolutely didn't mean it to be, and sorry if it did - I'd be the first person to hire a good speeding lawyer!

And I did recognise the value of being a bulwark against an over-zealous authority (ie the College acting without a sufficiently good case).

I just meant that for all the discussion about the technical aspects of the case, the reality is that we all know it is quackery, that anyone with the slightest scientific grounding also knows it is quackery, and it's therefore very hard to think how it can be anything other than deliberately misleading.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

David Bailey — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 12:37:58 GMT

I don’t mind you asking. I found the post and realized that the result of the DC investigation may not have been disseminated. I was in a position to provide some clarity and I chose to share.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

David Bailey — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 12:17:37 GMT

Ok. I find homeopathy to be quite a flammable subject. This is ( for me) not about homeopathy. It is about claims that one can make about homeopathy.

There are three ‘ things’ the rcvs needed to address ( in my view)

1. is the statement false?
2. Is there an intent to mislead?
2. is the recipient or reader of these claims an averagely well informed person?

The rcvs chose to do an extensive EBM search on the ‘ properties’ of the products in question.

This was ( in my respectful submission) a flawed approach.

It doesn’t matter if the products work ( or they don’t) see points 1-3 above.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Niall Taylor — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 12:00:48 GMT

That's harsh - why not simply someone doing the job asked of them? The fact the RCVS's case had holes in it so large you could have driven a coach and horses through them is entirely down to the RCVS and the advice they took as to how to proceed on this complaint. The big question is why the advice the RCVS acted on was so incompetent as to allow the subject of the complaint off with a slap on the wrist and did they really want to censure him in the first place and risk the political backlash from the extremely vocal and well funded homeopathic lobby who had conducted a full-on DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) campaign. RCVS had been visited by a delegation of Vet Homs at the time of the hearing and I and others had received threats of legal action if we didn't back down from exposing veterinary homeopathy for the confidence trick it is. We will never be told what actually went on behind those closed doors but I know where I'd put my money.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Bob Russell — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 11:55:44 GMT

The rules is the rules and if a quack can get away with it because the duck-hunters have not done their job properly then the quack flies free.

Most people who refused the MMR jab fortheir children were welll educated and should have known better. Many people taken in by homoeopathy are reasonably well educated (including our new King) therefore any person using their qualification to peddle blatant nonsense would appear very much in the wrong.

There seems to be a defence of bonkerism. Electromagnetic waves make your eyeballs explode so we must all wear helmets lined with tin foil if you are crackers enough to believe it.

It sounds as if the DC were not in a strong legal position so why was this not picked up earlier by their legal advisors?

How much did this cost us?

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 07 Oct 2022 08:39:58 GMT

David Bailey David, thanks for posting that. Quackery is an area I have a huge interest in because I have a chronically sick daughter, and we seem to have been surrounded by ducks for a lot of her life.

[quote userid="25917" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239403#239403"]Where the RCVS got slightly distracted ( in my view) was that they tried to use a single approach and tried to ( only) demonstrate through an evidence based medicine approach that the advertised products didn’t ( or don’t) work. [/quote]

Must say, I am in two minds about your post, thinking that on the one hand you're a bit like a speeding lawyer finding a technical reason why the driver should be let off, or on the other hand you're a bulwark against over-zealous authority.

But on balance, it seems so patently obvious to me that the stuff being peddled here, like homeopathy, is so completely off-the-wall-bonkers, running contrary to hundreds of years worth of scientific understanding, that anyone peddling it is guilty as charged.

[quote userid="25917" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239403#239403"]Do these products work? I don’t know.[/quote]

But surely you should. I mean, you are a highly trained man. I'm a layperson, and even I can see these things for what they are, based on what I learned in the science classes.

[quote userid="25917" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/24994/rcvs-the-dc-and-wildly-unlikely-science/239403#239403"]Do I have a strong view on these things? No.[/quote]

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Niall Taylor — Thu, 06 Oct 2022 20:36:35 GMT

David, do you mind if I ask why you decided to release this report at this time?

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

cairncross — Thu, 06 Oct 2022 18:26:21 GMT

A late friend of mine worked in a practise which had a resident homeopathic fundamentalist and he changed the labeling software for their non medicines to read " keep out of reach of children, WE DONT KNOW WHY ITS ONLY WATER"

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Bob Russell — Thu, 06 Oct 2022 16:15:03 GMT

Perhaps legal opinions sought by the Royal College are not infallible after all!

I would have thought this situation should have been sorted out well before the DC hearing.

I don't believe crackpot ideas and treatments should be pushed by professionals but I have sympathy with any vet awaiting a DC hearing. If the case was so weak that the DC folded at the last minute because they read another legal opinion perhaps they should be looking harder at their legal advisors and their processes.

RE: RCVS, the DC and wildly unlikely science!

Niall Taylor — Thu, 06 Oct 2022 11:13:11 GMT

Thank you for posting this, David, I look forward to reading it in detail.

The evidence-based medicine approach to bogus alternative treatments such as homeopathy is a flawed one.

Alt med practitioners are able to point to inumerable papers of dubious quality, published in so-called peer-reviewed journals which even respectible scientists will take as "evidence" if they haven't studied the background to these practices in detail.

The starting point for any inquiry has to be an a priori asessment. Homeopathy claims that, for example, a honey bee, diluted in water to an infinitessimal level until not a single atom from the bee remains will produce a remedy which will treat pruritus.

This isn't just not evidence based it has no basis at all in science and this should be taken into account when considering alternative veterinary medicine.