How do we champion veterinary science?

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Christina Smith — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:33:47 GMT

Sounds a great idea vaccinate the potential parents. But then when should the child be vaccinated ? My husband recovered from a polio infection at 2yo, he is still advised to update his immunity when travelling to endemic regions. There is some published evidence suggesting that the vaccine increases the risk of 'post-polio myositis'. Depends who you talk to and their level of knowledge[belief]. There is no consensus, I add my tuppence-worth and he is left thoroughly baffled. He developed vague man-flu symptoms after his last vaccine but no wonder !

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:34:49 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]For example, Dr Wakefield published his stuff about MMR around the time one of my daughters was being vaccinated. It was a concern for me (and I don't hold extreme anti-vacc views).[/quote]

My wife and I were offered the MMR vaccine by our GP surgery last year as they were offering it to anyone who hadn't had it as a child, and it wasn't around when we were children. It seemed like a good idea, particularly as neither of us had measles as a child so we both went ahead, but I did have a moment of doubt which must have been implanted in my head by all the scare stories, of course I then told myself that the stories were rubbish and got on with it, but it does show the power of a bad story.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:18:36 GMT

[quote user="vs0u "]I don't really get many clients who admit to views like these.[/quote]

Well, I only meant those as illustrative of extreme ends of the spectrum.

I think in reality, many more people hold less extreme versions of similar thinking.

For example, Dr Wakefield published his stuff about MMR around the time one of my daughters was being vaccinated. It was a concern for me (and I don't hold extreme anti-vacc views).

Also, there will be presumably a significant proportion of people who just don't share their views with you.

[quote user="vs0u "]If you can provide a leaflet to deal with that one I'd find it really useful![/quote]

OK. Coming up. This should be quite easy to produce an evidence-based argument for. I'll tangent this discussion because I think it deserves its own thread.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Robin Grimmer — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:13:18 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

To digress; why don't the famous cyclists hammer the wearing of helmets!!

[/quote]

Chris Boardman has been very vocal against the wearing of helmets.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Anthony Todd — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:52:32 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]The most effective way would be endorsement of material or a series of public broadcasts by Noel Fitzpatrick. He seems to be regarded as a deity by many of the animal owning public. [/quote]

Amen to that! Humans are influenced by people who have the innate ability to be believed [just compare the "believability" of politicians!]

I'm sure many pet owners would believe Noel if he told them the earth was,actually, flat.....

While most dislike Nigel Farage, he never dodges a question, usually has a sensible, direct answer but the current leader, even before his latest debacle just wouldn't convince me of anything.

I hate to turbo again but these abilities are encapsulated in "the art of practice".

To digress; why don't the famous cyclists hammer the wearing of helmets!!

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:28:10 GMT

The most effective way would be endorsement of material or a series of public broadcasts by Noel Fitzpatrick. He seems to be regarded as a deity by many of the animal owning public.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

vs0u — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:31:37 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

'All drugs have evil side-effects'
'Vaccination is dangerous / you're all out to over-vaccinate to make money etc.'
'All commercial pet food causes diseases / you're selling it to line your pockets (by treating the resultant disease)'
'Medical research is all false / drug companies are the spawn of the devil'
'Homeopathy / crystal waving / chanting cures everything, including cancer'
'Vets are raking it in at our (pet owners') expense'

[/quote]

I don't really get many clients who admit to views like these. Occasionally someone asks if annual vaccination is really required or whether a drug has side effects but it's rare and never confrontational or awkward. I find those topics quite easy to discuss openly. The only one that crops up a lot and causes me bother is 'Vets are raking it in'! I think that's more of a mainstream viewpoint whereas the others area a bit fringe. If you can provide a leaflet to deal with that one I'd find it really useful!

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Bob Russell — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:50:22 GMT

I just quote the hero of the hour!

Donald Trump spouting the term 'FAKE NEWS'!

Works a lot of the time to my great surprise.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Iain Richards — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:31:31 GMT

We are fortunate that the majority of our clients do trust us, so Arlo is right, if we have the correct explanations, we can talk to them and they'll trust us. The vehement antis are, to an extent, a lost cause, but still worth countering. It is human behaviour /frailty that our clients display and we are as guilty. Take the "imidacloprid is bad" thread. IMI certainly is toxic, the debate is how significant is it from pet treatment. There's opinion on the thread and some data is quoted, but how accurate is it and how selective? We need a good authoritative source for this - just as the client needs their vet.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:32:46 GMT

Good idea Arlo.

I think underpinning all of this is a loss of trust between the vet and the client. Providing evidence from well respected sources would certainly help matters but ultimately this is down to the vet and their communication with the client. Trust and a good reputation for trustworthiness has to be earned

Julie‘s example is very illustrative , the client does not want to believe how bad things are for her dog and is looking for a miracle. I expect that deep down she trusts Julie which is why she came back to talk it through rather than going to another practice and that ultimately she will accept the diagnosis.

Just having a client trust you is a great stress reliever, you earn it by being honest and sincere and communicating that you are on their side. Very nebulous but essential because without it you are constantly fighting a rearguard action against disbelief. I think this is one of the biggest problems causing stress today. This is probably not very helpful or constructive but I’ve been nobbled by the flu . I might have more positivity at a later date

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:00:27 GMT

[quote user="Julie Innes"]I've heard all of the above, unfortunately![/quote]

And do you have the evidence at your fingertips to counter these sorts of things? In other words, do you feel well-equipped to counter them with a succinct, evidence-based, non-confrontational but factual response?

[quote user="Julie Innes"]The other time is when they are given a very poor prognosis ,eg my interesting cardiac case: owner came in yesterday and politely doesn't believe me that the dog has an intra-cardiac tumour, despite it being confirmed by a cardiologist on echo, as the dog is so "bright" (apart from the fact it is coughing and can't walk the length of itself) She has been trawling the net, so we will see what she comes back with...[/quote]

Someone raised a similar point over on vetnurse, which led me to an idea for a piece of research.

A comparison of the accuracy of diagnoses made by veterinary surgeons vs pet owners.

No, I am not joking! After all, we live in an era when everyone consults Dr Google. Everyone thinks they know the answer. Wouldn't it be riveting to know just how often pet owners either don't know what is wrong, or get what is wrong, wrong (if that makes sense).

I know it is wrong to enter into research with an idea of the outcome, but presuming it found that vets were far better at diagnosing than pet owners, it would be a lovely stat to present to people who 'looked it up on the internet'.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Julie Innes — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:10:12 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

For example (I'm describing the extreme end of the mindset here, most won't perhaps feel as forcefully as I am describing below):

'All drugs have evil side-effects'
'Vaccination is dangerous / you're all out to over-vaccinate to make money etc.'
'All commercial pet food causes diseases / you're selling it to line your pockets (by treating the resultant disease)'
'Medical research is all false / drug companies are the spawn of the devil'
'Homeopathy / crystal waving / chanting cures everything, including cancer'
'Vets are raking it in at our (pet owners') expense'

Any of these? What else?

[/quote]

I've heard all of the above, unfortunately! I think sometimes the areas where "alternative" treatments are more commonly sought is in areas where there is no "cure", eg dermatology. I find that people are far happier to trawl the net for wonder treatments than to do a simple diet trial. I understand, to some degree- it's a lot less effort. The other time is when they are given a very poor prognosis ,eg my interesting cardiac case: owner came in yesterday and politely doesn't believe me that the dog has an intra-cardiac tumour, despite it being confirmed by a cardiologist on echo, as the dog is so "bright" (apart from the fact it is coughing and can't walk the length of itself) She has been trawling the net, so we will see what she comes back with...

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:55:02 GMT

Um, coming back from Australia for a moment, an idea about championing science ...

Can I ask (I may follow this up with a survey), which are the subjects about which

a) You find clients are most frequently misinformed

b) Tend to give you the biggest headache (either because it's time consuming to correct the misinformation, or it leads to clients failing to follow advice)

c) You feel least-equipped to counter (perhaps you don't have a well-developed response, or the facts and figures to hand).

For example (I'm describing the extreme end of the mindset here, most won't perhaps feel as forcefully as I am describing below):

'All drugs have evil side-effects'
'Vaccination is dangerous / you're all out to over-vaccinate to make money etc.'
'All commercial pet food causes diseases / you're selling it to line your pockets (by treating the resultant disease)'
'Medical research is all false / drug companies are the spawn of the devil'
'Homeopathy / crystal waving / chanting cures everything, including cancer'
'Vets are raking it in at our (pet owners') expense'

Any of these? What else?

My plan is to try to put together a group of people with the knowledge and expertise to put together some communication materials, including the latest evidence, to address/counter the main issues you face.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 17:57:19 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"] Shame ain’t it?[/quote]

No.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Phil Hyde — Sat, 20 Jan 2018 23:26:34 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

If Australians think it will make the slightest difference to them whether they have the British monarch or a president as Head of State, they are free to vote on the question.

[/quote]

Whereas, of course, we aren’t. Shame ain’t it?

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 20 Jan 2018 18:57:11 GMT

[quote user="bevs2251"]And to keep Australia in the empire ![/quote]

Australia is not in the British Empire. There isn't a British Empire. We gave it away.

Australia is of course in the Commonwealth.

If Australians think it will make the slightest difference to them whether they have the British monarch or a president as Head of State, they are free to vote on the question.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

bevs2251 — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 23:05:15 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]There was an article in the Torygraph today about how,in his book, Edzard Ernst has slammed Charlie for his irrational beliefs. The problem is that for all the money and education he is basically thick which is one reason the Queen is hanging on for as long as possible!![/quote]

And to keep Australia in the empire ! Once Prince Charles becomes king, Australia will have another referendum on a republic and this time, it might get up ! We all loved Diana here.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:27:01 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]You know him personally? Had some conversations?[/quote]

Touché...... I accept my one star (with quiet pride).

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]Richard Dawkins of all people is exactly the opposite.[/quote]

We all have our heroes.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Phil Hyde — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:26:07 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]The problem is that for all the money and education he is basically thick which is one reason the Queen is hanging on for as long as possible!![/quote]

You know him personally? Had some conversations? Done some tests?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]possessed of an almost evangelical faith. They brook no argument or discussion. They're right. That's the end of the matter. They go out and preach to the rest of the world.[/quote]

Yeah. People like Richard Dawkins. There's a couple of contributors on this forum who fit that description, too.

[/quote]

You know him personally? Had some conversations?

Richard Dawkins of all people is exactly the opposite. Show him the evidence and he will change his mind.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:39:29 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] He has been believably reported as saying that plants do better if you talk to them in a soothing and encouraging way.” [/quote]

A myth.

[quote user="J G Wray"]He fell for the fake anthropologist Laurens van der Post.[/quote]

I don't know what that was all about, but Laurens van der Post was a great writer.

To my mind, Prince Charles' efforts to combat rotten trendy inhuman architecture constitute in themselves a great commendation of his qualities.

However, the meeja have decided that their Charles' image will be [quote user="J G Wray"]empty sails are so rigged as to be swelled by any passing waft or breeze of crankiness and cant.[/quote] so that's that, obviously.

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]The problem is that for all the money and education he is basically thick which is one reason the Queen is hanging on for as long as possible!![/quote]

You know him personally? Had some conversations? Done some tests?

Yeah. People like Richard Dawkins. There's a couple of contributors on this forum who fit that description, too.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:48:17 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Hichens may have done one for homeopathy, which has out future King to champion the cause:[/quote]There was an article in the Torygraph today about how,in his book, Edzard Ernst has slammed Charlie for his irrational beliefs. The problem is that for all the money and education he is basically thick which is one reason the Queen is hanging on for as long as possible!!

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

J G Wray — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:29:48 GMT

What you are looking for is know as a "Hitchslap"

Hichens may have done one for homeopathy, which has out future King to champion the cause:

"..“We have known for a long time that Prince Charles' empty sails are so rigged as to be swelled by any passing waft or breeze of crankiness and cant. He fell for the fake anthropologist Laurens van der Post. He was bowled over by the charms of homeopathic medicine. He has been believably reported as saying that plants do better if you talk to them in a soothing and encouraging way.”

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:54:45 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"][quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

Disagree.

I have had a few clients over the years ask me whether it is worth them trying alternative medicines.

[/quote]

Yes, you are right with those, but they are neither believers or non-believers they are the one asking for advice. The believers already know and if there is any debate it's them you'll have it with. [/quote]

Well, for what it's worth, I think people fall into three broad camps. The believers, the 'understanders' and the fence-sitters.

The believers, as others have noted, are possessed of an almost evangelical faith. They brook no argument or discussion. They're right. That's the end of the matter. They go out and preach to the rest of the world.

The reason they are right (or think they are right) is interesting, and it affects us all, although most of us to a lesser degree. It's because they've seen the evidence of their own eyes. That is to say, they have wrongly associated cause and effect.

The understanders are people who've had at a reasonable grounding in science. So they know when something is utterly implausible, and would be more likely to question the evidence of their own eyes. A few them (I suspect not many in the grand scheme of things) are also versed in the basic errors in human thinking (false cause fallacy, confirmation bias, regression to the mean).

The fence-sitters probably haven't ever given it much thought. They'd probably be open to a recommendation of any 'ology' from a friend, because, well, it's an ology.

It's the 'understanders' and the 'fence-sitters' that science and scientists (a term which encompasses vets and doctors) need to engage with.

Dinu Catilina - yes, it's perhaps just the fence-sitters that might ask / start the discussion with you. I think scientists need to get better at starting the discussion themselves; at 'selling' the benefits of science.

And no, I don't think that means adopting the same evangelical approach about science as 'believers' have about quackery. I think it means being open and honest about when science doesn't know the answer; when the evidence is weak.

Question is, how? On an individual level, you presumably haven't got the time to engage in an interesting discussion about science with every client that walks through the door, or even to explain briefly the scientific rationale for each prescription!

Perhaps what we need is a famous, trusted, champion of science, and to produce some client communication materials with them which explain the broad principles in key areas of (say) vaccination / antibiotics / nutrition / side-effects. Robert Winston / Ben Goldacre?

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Anthony Todd — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:42:26 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]TBH Tony this is because (like homeopaths) you turbo post about the same unsubstantiated anecdotal rubbish treatment and ask the same question over and over even though several people have given you the answer yet you refuse to accept it.[/quote]

You make my argument, as usual, so well.

There is no point in continually telling anyone their view or argument is "rubbish" particularly when they have anecdotal evidence that it isn't. The answers if given, and they usually are absent, don't disturb the anecdotal evidence either.

If someone says homeopathy cured their cancer and you just say "rubbish" they, and I, could still believe it did. If you show why, but don't just dismiss the "evidence" as "rubbish" you may get somewhere.

Next time I challenge modern dogma just slowly and succinctly tell me why I am wrong.

Don't just say "rubbish" 'cos that never stopped any believer believing.

RE: How do we champion veterinary science?

Julie Innes — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:58:52 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]]Once again you're missing the whole point. The believers are so entrenched in their belief that no science or reasoned response is going to shift them, they all think we are conspiring against them. Its like telling someone with mental illness to get a grip on themselves - it 'aint going to work because they can't think rationally, if they could they wouldn't be like it in the first place.[/quote]

I had a friend years ago with schizophrenia. He was extremely logical, but the problem was he came from the premise that everyone was out to get him. So the men digging up the road were putting in cables (they were) that would listen in to all his conversations etc. (probably not) He was extremely plausible, and could argue his reasoning very effectively, it was his initial premise that was wrong. He was a very intelligent guy, but no, telling him to "get a grip" would not have helped