Homeopathy - your experiences please

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Niall Taylor — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:03:17 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Is the Faculty of Homeopathy linked with a college of education or is it truly self-styled? [/quote]

It's a mish-mash:

The Faculty of Homeopathy was formed in 1944 from the British Homeopathic Society (founded in 1843). It was incorporated by the Faculty of Homeopathy Act 1950, which confers an educational function on the Faculty. The Faculty promotes the development of homeopathy.

Sounds like it's a faculty of one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Homeopathy

Niall

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Bob Russell — Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:49:12 GMT

Faculty is generally considered to be a group of university/college departments concerned with a major division of knowledge.

Is the Faculty of Homeopathy linked with a college of education or is it truly self-styled?

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:17:44 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Martin Whitehead"] self-styled British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons[/quote][quote user="Martin Whitehead"]self-styled Faculty of Homeopathy.[/quote]

Why the offensive "self-styled"?[/quote]

Just a riposte to Mark Elliott's original post in which he wrote:

[quote user="Mark Elliott"]"The self styled Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine writes many letters[/quote]

Fair enough. Just making the point that the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine is no more self styled than the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 18 Apr 2018 19:10:55 GMT

[quote user="Martin Whitehead"] self-styled British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons[/quote][quote user="Martin Whitehead"]self-styled Faculty of Homeopathy.[/quote]

Why the offensive "self-styled"?

[quote user="Martin Whitehead"]Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine [/quote]

Isn't that one self-styled?

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Niall Taylor — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:50:51 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I think this raises quite an important point, actually. I think there is a big difference between 'being respectful' and 'respecting'...[/quote]

Fair points in a well measured post. But I would go a step further and suggest that Mark, by his own standards, is being as 'disrespectful' of his critics as he claims they are being of him. If we have to go down this tit-for-tat dead end it should be pointed out that in his various posts he has implied his critics are ignorant, stuck in their comfort zones, incapable of seeking out or listening to advice, having a cavalier attitude to animal welfare, prejudiced, unquestioning of the status quo and, of course, disrespectful. Disrespectful? Possibly, but not something which should derail the argument.

If every criticism of homeopathy - no matter how carefully phrased and how much effort is made to point out we are all, not just homeopaths, subject to errors and bias and there is no shame in admitting that - is going to be interpreted in this way, as a criticism of homeopaths themselves, it has to be asked why. One reason might be that homeopaths see themselves as different from others in conventional medicine who readily admit to such normal human 'failings' as error and bias and will react to criticism or scientific evidence by adapting and changing the way they do things rather than seeing it as a personal affront. This would fit with the idea that homeopathy is a belief system and any criticism of a person's beliefs will be perceived as a criticism of that person.

Another possible explanation might be that ignoring the critics would mean having to address the actual criticism. And many homeopaths don't seem willing or able to do that.

Niall

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Martin Whitehead — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:17:58 GMT

[quote user="John Taylor"]I detest the way in which the debate has become so polarised. To be critical of homeopathy immediately makes you an acolyte of big pharma in many CAM supporters' eyes and hence the enemy.[/quote]

Interestingly, the skeptics who are most outspoken and critical about homeopathy are often the people who are most outspoken and critical about drug companies. The most famous is Ben Goldacre - he wrote 'Bad Science' about media misreporting/misunderstanding of science and about the nonsense and harm of alternative therapies, and 'Bad Pharma' about the misbehaviour and harm caused by drug companies. The reason is obvious, it is being guided by evidence. If the evidence says that either homeopaths or drug companies are getting it wrong, either will be criticised.

Homeopaths are part of a wider alternative 'philosophy' or worldview that, as a whole, is more faith driven than science driven. The psychology of that worldview is fascinating, and has been studied by psychologists and sceptics. To those within that worldview, science and evidence are great and to be encouraged, as long as the findings agree with their beliefs - if the science/evidence disagrees with their beliefs, clearly there is something wrong with the science/evidence (which is why homeopaths are not discouraged by overwhelming negative evidence). That lack of understanding of science is illustrated, for instance, in the way that homeopaths routinely claim that homeopathy is, or can be, explained by any number of phenomena that do not explain homeopathy - quantum physics, nanoparticles, hormesis, electromagnetism, vibrations/resonances, vital force, etc. Analogy or speculation about mechanism is sufficient if it fits their beliefs; proper understanding of the underlying mechanism, or proof that it actually does underlie homeopathy, is unnecessary. Alternative therapists have great faith in their own experience and in anecdote over scientific evidence, despite it being well-established - and abundantly proven by history - that personal experience and anecdote are unreliable indicators of the actual efficacy of medical therapies.

Believers in alternative therapies are more likely to believe a wide range of other weird things. For example, practitioners of one alternative therapy are more likely to believe in other alternative therapies that - from an outside perspective - do not seem to be related to their particular alternative therapy. They are also more likely to believe in other supernatural phenomena in general. There was a letter in the March 19th 2018 Veterinary Times by Geoff Johnson, a British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons (BAHVS) committee member who took part in the march on the RCVS, speculating about illness in animals being caused by fields of negative telepathic energy. Mark Elliott, who posted above, also a BAHVS committee member, has published a research paper (very poorly designed and executed from a conventional science point of view - sorry Mark, but that is true - although perfectly acceptable for homeopaths and published in the British Homeopathic Journal) in which he used "radiesthetic principles" - that's dowsing to you and me - to select the homeopathic remedies used to treat Cushings disease. (Mark's paper can be downloaded here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7359/5b29229415f1069402639d522c8ba54da548.pdf).

Holders of this alternative worldview are also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories in general. One such conspiracy theory is that all the skeptics are in the pay of drug companies, and the drug companies are actively attacking and persecuting alternative therapies, and that much of the negative evidence about alternative therapies is faked. This is another defence against overwhelming negative evidence.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

John Taylor — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 09:42:44 GMT

I detest the way in which the debate has become so polarised. To be critical of homeopathy immediately makes you an acolyte of big pharma in many CAM supporters' eyes and hence the enemy.

The distraction of continually dealing with criticism that is demonstrably wrong takes the spotlight away from much that is wrong in the pharmaceutical industry. Not registering trials, not reporting negative outcomes, burying negative results, not comparing against next best therapy, results fishing, marketing to the public, incorrect dosing of control groups etc. All these insidious practices need to be called out, but are getting ignored in favour of nonsense headlines about how vets are in bed with industry and conspiring to doom animals to a painful end.

The devil is in the detail, but we're caught up in an issue that should have been left behind when germ theory was proposed.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 08:58:27 GMT

[quote user="Mark Carpenter"]Final post, because the hope that this may remain respectful appears to be gone, sadly.[/quote]

Mark Carpenter and Beanolive - I think this raises quite an important point, actually. I think there is a big difference between 'being respectful' and 'respecting'. In other words, I can be respectful of you without actually respecting your argument. Of course I don't respect your argument, I disagree with it entirely (sorry!)

It sounds to me like you are actually closing down the debate because people people disrespect your argument, not because they are being disrespectful (I certainly didn't see any sign of that since your last post!).

I respect you for your good natured debating style. I respect that you believe what you say and you stick to your guns. I respect your intellect (I may disagree with your argument, but I don't take you for a fool). I respect your motivation - which is clearly the best for your patients. And I very much hope you think I am being respectful.

What I simply cannot get my head around is how you can think that taking a quite arbitrary substance and then diluting it to the point that none of it remains could have an effect on the body, in contradiction to decades and decades of scientific observation. I ask myself whether you think all the studies that have observed the reverse being true about dilution are somehow wrong. Whether you think all the organisations that have concluded that homeopathy cannot work, including the Royal Society, are wrong. And whether you see any possibility that the statistically more plausible reason for observing success with homeopathy is down to well-documented errors in human thinking (which, I repeat, affect us all; have affected me profoundly, and do not make you or me delusional!)

I DO accept I may be wrong in all this. I think it is extremely¹⁰⁰unlikely, but that doesn't make it impossible. But for that, I need some plausible explanation, or trials which show more than no effect, or some slight effect which can be down to a statistical anomaly (and in any event would never get a conventional medicine through licensing), or a one-off which could again be a statistical anomaly.

[quote user="Mark Carpenter"] Are the results of pharmaceutically-funded research always so reliable? Are the negative papers showing no response to a drug following such research by big business, always published? Are those encouraging us to use certain treatments, who's research is financially supported by pharmaceutical industries, always going to be totally unbiased?[/quote]

Of course you are right in all these questions, and I agree with you the answer is No, No, No. But that, for me, is a diversion from (and is quite separate to) the question of whether or not homeopathy works.

[quote user="Mark Carpenter"]We still have no vets who have responded to my challenge for any vet who has been properly trained in homeopathy finding it to be of no value.[/quote]

mike jessop, trained as a homeopath; member of the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 21:47:12 GMT

Funny how I read in this forum homeopaths demanding respect while in other forums I hear about threats being issued by pro-homeopaths.

Have any of these guys made any attempt to distance themselves from that very disrespectful behaviour of issuing threats?

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Martin Whitehead — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 21:10:30 GMT

Hello Mark

[quote user="Mark Elliott"]"The self styled Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine writes many letters trying to impose its views on the majority, and is given plenty of space in the Veterinary Red Tops, whilst letters of reply rarely seem to be given space – bias perhaps?[/quote]

I've have just checked the letters pages of Vet Times form the start of Jan 1^st 2016 up to this week looking for letters to do with homeopathy. I found 20 written by veterinary homeopaths, mostly (possibly all) members of the self-styled British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons and several by Peter Gregory of the self-styled Faculty of Homeopathy. In addition, there were three additional letters of support for homeopathy or homeopaths from three vets who – as far as I am aware - are not homeopaths themselves.

From those sceptical of homeopathy were 17 letters from the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine (CRVM) and their associates (including the March 12th 2018 letter you mention), and a further 10 against homeopathy by other vets not associated with CRVM.

So, a total of 23 letters pro-homeopathy vs 27 sceptical of homeopathy over 27 months. No clear indication of bias on the part of Veterinary Times. Indeed, considering there are vastly more vets sceptical of homeopathy than there are in support, arguably this indicates something of a bias towards publishing letters from homeopaths rather than from sceptics.

[quote user="Mark Elliott"]

Lees et al’s letter in Vet Times of March 12 2018 regarding the "RCVS Position Statement protects Animal Welfare” continues the trend of the self styled “Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine” to write articles multiply referencing their own opinion articles and letters in their attempts to persuade the profession of their beliefs. The use of references in this way is consistent with the advice of Joseph Goebbels which was:

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

[/quote]

As one of the co-authors of the Lees et al letter (with five co-authors each of whom are highly respected vets and/or academics) I agree that the arguments from the skeptics tend to concentrate on a few points, and so often refer to a few specific papers. Key among those points are that (i) anecdotal evidence is unreliable, (ii) homeopathy is found to be ineffective when assessed by evidence rather than anecdote, (iii) homeopathy is non-science based and irrational, (iv) homeopathy requires the existence of a supernatural force to be able to achieve what homeopaths claim it achieves and, therefore, it constitutes a form of magic, and (v) because it is ineffective homeopathy is likely to harm animal welfare if practiced on ill animals instead of proven effective therapies, which would be unethical practice by a veterinary surgeon.

In the pro-homeopathy literature there is a similarly restricted set of points - mainly (i) conventional medicine isn't perfect and has adverse effects, (ii) homeopaths' experience/anecdote proves homeopathy works, (iii) homeopaths are not fools or charlatans, so homeopathy must work, (iv) the sceptics are interpreting the evidence wrongly - really the evidence shows homeopathy does work, (v) we know it is difficult to believe and we don't understand it ourselves but homeopathy is not magic - actually it's explained by quantum physics / vibrations or resonances / hormesis / nanoparticles / electromagnetism / whatever the current trendy speculation in the homeopathic community is. Just like the arguments from the sceptics, these arguments often refer to a few specific papers...

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Beanolive — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 21:02:49 GMT

Dear Mark,

thank you for staying respectful in this forum - not an easy task as you now have realised, but you tried.

I have known you for many years and can vouch for your respect and compassion for all living beings including humans. But as I have sadly learned through the past few months, this bunch is just not ready to accept that there is something out there, which they cannot (or rather will not?) get their heads around and therefore dismiss, more often than not, in the most degrading and condescending way.

So now we can leave them be in their echo chamber confirming their narrow-minded beliefs amongst themselves in peace knowing that we did what we could to enlighten them.

This will also be my last post, because as you, I have also realised that this comment of mine will only stir up more of the same. And my time is not for that.

Have a good evening.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Iain Richards — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 21:01:56 GMT

That'll be a shame Mark, but, like Evelyn, I respect your contributions so far. It would indeed be marvellous if remedies without side effects produced cures, but it is stretching scientific understanding too far. From what I've read Hahnemann believes in miasmas or life forces that the succussion released from the remedy. He knew nothing (neither did anyone to be fair) of atomic theory, germ theory, hormones, indeed anything that contributes to our understanding of bodies and disease. I have however read that even he felt that there would be a limit to dilution, beyond which no particle would be left to have an effect.
I could, perhaps cope with observation of effect if there was a logical explanation for those effects.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Julie Innes — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:58:41 GMT

Mark, I wasn't having a go with my comment about coconut oil, just saying that often things are perceived to work, whether or not they actually do.

If you read the thread I have on incontinence, despite all my research my clients want to pursue the homeopathic route, and I have no issues with that. They told me the homeopathic vet asked them if they were sure their vet was ok with them going to her, in light of recent RCVS comments. In this case I don't feel that homeopathy will be detrimental or cause harm, so I won't oppose them. We can disagree and be civil, for sure.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Mark Carpenter — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 20:32:19 GMT

Final post, because the hope that this may remain respectful appears to be gone, sadly. I do not have the time, nor the forum space, to list the successes with which I have had the illusionary idea have got better, including many with "hopeless prognoses". If I did spend the time to tell you, I would feel that it would achieve nothing. Martin, you have answered my question. Yes, you do think I have wasted my last 27 years using homeopathy, and the cancer patients, uncontrolled skin patients, auto-immune disease patients etc, who have not responded to conventional intervention, but who were cured by homeopathy, were all but a dream. I find this so sad, that voices such as yours shout so loudly about a form of medicine that you have not even attempted to look into because it seems inconceivable. Thank goodness that the true scientists of our history have not limited themselves to the current state of knowledge (or ignorance) because they observe something that they cannot explain. I got into homeopathy kicking and screaming that it doesn't work. The difference between us is that I had the guts to challenge my own blinkered perceptions when challenged by a German homeopathic doctor, who is now a lifelong friend. I discovered for myself that many patients who have "no hope" actually do. I would say that anyone who is dismissing this based on someone else telling them that they should is potentially depriving some of their patients of something that might help. Personally, my desire to truly learn this medical modality was because I would leave nothing behind in my pursuit of doing everything I could for every patient. Neither you, nor anyone else using this forum as a sounding board for their narrow viewpoint, can tell me that these patients did not get better; that all the hundreds of owners who kept coming back to me were totally delusional; that the government of India and millions of Indians are all bloody idiots. Sorry, Martin, I am someone who is prepared to step outside of my comfort zone if it might help my patients, and who is prepared to re-assess long-held prejudices when I see the evidence in front of me. You can criticise a book once you have read it, not after reading other people's negative reviews and pre-ordaining what you are going to say before you have read it.

Arno, as I said before, I have so much sympathy for your position, and fully understand and respect your passion for the stance you are taking. My earlier post, I hope, explained why I feel that this does not mean that homeopathy is not worth considering in any case. Most of the cases I have been able to help over very many years were also the results of medical failure, but this time by the conventional approaches, frequently at consultant level. There is a time and a place for every modality of medicine. Again, no-one can tell me, from their position of no training, experience, or genuine knowledge of the subject, that it can't work, makes no sense, and therefore I am deluded; that is just plain wrong. Scientists investigate, challenge, ask questions. Are the results of pharmaceutically-funded research always so reliable? Are the negative papers showing no response to a drug following such research by big business, always published? Are those encouraging us to use certain treatments, who's research is financially supported by pharmaceutical industries, always going to be totally unbiased? Question, question, question. But question, too, yourself, your belief systems. And before you say so should I, I did, and my pathway already planned of a dermatology internship in the USA was radically changed many years ago, and I will be forever grateful.

I will not post on this thread again. I can predict what responses this will get - the same as all the posts considered to be pro-homeopathy. Actually, I am pro choice; pro- animal welfare and their right to get treatments that might work when all else has failed; pro clinical freedom, to choose the treatment that the qualified practitioner considers to be the most appropriate, least harmful, and most rapidly helpful, without someone who is ignorant of the facts decreeing that he should not; pro genuine questioning of what we are taught and recognition, or at least challenging, of the underlying motives for what we are told. Never stop being a true scientist. But please, please, never stop being respectful of your fellow professionals, even if their views may be far from your own.

We still have no vets who have responded to my challenge for any vet who has been properly trained in homeopathy finding it to be of no value. That's because those, all of them, who have actually had the courage to question, as true scientists do, have universally found it helpful. No wonder that this small band of vets are simply not prepared to allow homeopathy to be pushed underground, to the severe detriment of animal welfare in the UK. I respect your views, often understand the reasons for them being held, and I would have hoped that you could also respect mine, and those of the other homeopathic vets who have challenged themselves, and uncovered a lifelong, irreplaceable, additional tool in their passionate commitment to getting their patients better. . Have a good evening.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Julie Innes — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:54:10 GMT

Is coconut oil a form of homeopathy? Because according to my clients it cures everything- I even have one client who brushes her dogs teeth with it .

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Martin Whitehead — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:41:19 GMT

[quote user="Mark Carpenter"]I hope you can understand that when someone tells me that every one of the huge number of patients that have improved under my treatment were all an illusion, and that I am not allowed to believe the irrefutable evidence before me (and that of the first opinion vets) because no-one has given me the right to use this methodology because of "lack of evidence", it is tough to take.[/quote]

Of course we (by which I mean us sceptics) understand that will be tough to take. But we hope you can understand that what you have said is precisely the same defence as that of the practitioners of all the other discredited therapies, and other non-medical practices, that have been shown to be ineffective or even harmful. There is nothing special about homeopathy or homeopaths in that respect. Those practitioners all saw their therapies 'working' every day, they all found the (anecdotal) evidence of their own eyes to be irrefutable. Unfortunately, as both history and cognitive psychology attest, our perception and interpretation of our daily experience is an unreliable indicator of truth, as a result of numerous factors. That is why science, and in particular clinical trials, are so necessary; when done correctly, they show us how the world actually is, rather than how we believe it to be.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:53:18 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]A drink of fresh tap water has never caused active harm to a patient. Almost all conventional medications have a long list of recorded adverse reactions.[/quote]

Hmm, this gets to the heart of my involvement, my passionate support of the campaign for rational veterinary medicine, because I think actively promoting, prescribing, recommending something as a treatment when it is known beyond any kind of reasonable doubt to be ineffective, and in preference to something proven effective, is ACTIVELY harmful.

I'm sure Steve Jobs would have agreed with me if he were still around to say: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8841347/Steve-Jobs-regretted-trying-to-beat-cancer-with-alternative-medicine-for-so-long.html

I doubt the 280 patients who died early because of their reliance on alternative medicine in this trial would describe the recommendations they'd had as 'passive' either: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2017/08/18/choose-alternative-medicine-and-die-early.aspx

Nor do I think there is anything passive about the harm to these animals: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/cfs-file.ashx/__key/themefiles/b-5-1134eea604aa486c8f95a0e35f422581-files/homeopathy_2D00_harms_2D00_full_2D00_2.jpg

As I've said before, I have no problem with people of sound mind making whatever choice they want for their medical care. But as the often desperate parent of a sick child I feel very, very passionately that my daughter and all the others like her deserve medicines proven by science to be effective. I get very angry when people try and peddle me false hope through stuff (not restricted to homeopathy) which, according to the best available evidence, hasn't got a bat in hell's chance of doing anything.

Mark, this is the sole reason for my involvement in this campaign. For me personally, it's more about human medicine and the fact that veterinary endorsement sends a signal to human patients too.

We've never met. I've no reason to think you are anything other than a perfectly decent, honourable bloke. I bear you no ill whatsoever. In fact, I'm not confrontational by nature, and a large part of me is very uncomfortable campaigning against something which affects people's livelihoods. But then I come back to thinking about my daughter, and ...

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Liz Barton — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:31:50 GMT

This is great John Taylor.

Please be aware of the onslaught of abuse the RCVS and those individuals making a stand have suffered from the pro-homeopathy crowd. The more of us that stand up as loud voices, the more their abuse towards individuals will be diluted. It is not right that those who stand up for rational use of EBVM, entirely with the welfare of our animal patients in mind, should receive death threats.

Please be aware there is going to be another demonstration outside RCVS HQ on Monday so if you have a few minutes, please send the staff there an email of support. It doesn't matter if you love/hate RCVS, that's not what this is about. It's about individuals being threatened, called names and needing to know they are as supported by the majority as they are denigrated by the minority.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Bob Russell — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 15:28:52 GMT

A drink of fresh tap water has never caused active harm to a patient. Almost all conventional medications have a long list of recorded adverse reactions.

Replace homeopathy with that or 'watching a bird fly overhead' or 'listening to a breeze in the trees' or 'reading a good book' etc etc.

This is because they don't actually have any link with disease treatment. Homeopathy just complicates matters by making medicinal claims which these other things do not.

Linking efficacy (or otherwise) of homeopathy with the fact that medicines may have documented adverse effects is the type of comment that discredits homeopaths in the eyes of more scientific thinkers yet also attracts the less informed general public.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Mark Elliott — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:45:24 GMT

I thought for what its worth Id post one of many letters to the Veterinary Press that have not got published

"The self styled Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine writes many letters trying to impose its views on the majority, and is given plenty of space in the Veterinary Red Tops, whilst letters of reply rarely seem to be given space – bias perhaps? Lees et al’s letter in Vet Times of March 12 2018 regarding the "RCVS Position Statement protects Animal Welfare” continues the trend of the self styled “Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine” to write articles multiply referencing their own opinion articles and letters in their attempts to persuade the profession of their beliefs. The use of references in this way is consistent with the advice of Joseph Goebbels which was:

The profession should be wary of precedent setting restrictions of clinical practice and the freedoms that have always been enjoyed. The principles of the referenced RCVS statement clearly apply to ALL areas the profession and, as noted and singled out by RCVS, especially so when it comes to prophylaxis (2). Greater minds than mine have expressed concern that this RCVS mission creep will stifle innovation, development of new ideas and in itself be detrimental to animal welfare in the longer term.

No one has ever contended that homeopathy causes active harm and RCVS have confirmed there has never been a case against a Vet for causing harm when prescribing such. This has now been confirmed in Parliament in DEFRA’s responses to recent questions.

No one can dispute that almost all orthodox medications have a long list of recorded adverse reactions. No one should dispute, either, that for a drug to be tried (as appears to be endorsed by the RCVS) on the basis that its mechanism appears therapeutically promising, is to expose a patient to all sorts of potential unforeseen adverse consequences (1).

It may have been more logical for the RCVS, which is attempting to justify its statement against complementary medicines by reference to animal welfare, to have spent its time ensuring that owners are properly warned about the manifest and manifold risks (many of which are in the scientific literature) attendant on the use of more conventional therapies (1). After all such is a Code of Conduct requirement already, whilst adherence to a contentious position statement is not.

Mark Elliott

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:19:57 GMT

Personally I think homeopathy is nonsense, but Mr. Carpenter's posts put all the more rabid anti-homeopathy (homophobic? ) outbursts to shame. Why can the debate not be conducted on this level?

Please forget the quantum-theory stuff though. I asked my brother, who actually understands quantum theory (MSc in History of the Philosophy of Science) and he thought for five minutes and said "No".

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

bevs2251 — Fri, 13 Apr 2018 05:43:27 GMT

Some years ago, the homeopathic vet up the road dispensed an oil-based homeopathic concoction to a dog. It ended up at the university vet hospital with fulminant pancreatitis and subsequently died. Vet student working for me at the time told me about it.

A specialist dermatology lecturer, who studied at a German university and was taught this million dilution BS, himself put any so-called positive responses all down to placebo effect. It has been shown that placebo effect can account for up to 70% positive effects in humans, even when someone knows they are receiving a placebo. Animals respond to the owner's positive hopes.

I'd say it's harmful to use something diluted to the nth degree that doesn't work when there is a recognised prescription treatment available.

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Clive Ansell — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:02:24 GMT

[quote user="Mark Carpenter"]This is both an anecdotal case, and one involving a member of the public, not a veterinary surgeon.[/quote]

True enough. I have been left puzzled though why an owner would decline an easy and cheap diagnosis.

Demonstrates that the Nosodes didn't work though.

Maybe the owner though a +ve Parvo diagnosis would have discredited his nosodes ??? sorry, just me being cynical again (Too many years working with the great unwashed I'm afraid)

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Bob Russell — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:40:12 GMT

To continue to say that annual vaccination is ineffective is total tosh. It is as effective but probably no more effective than every two, three or even four years for live components. More lazy but not ineffective (nor in my opinion/experience dangerous). Just not necessary.

Lepto vaccination is not as clear cut and there is plenty of evidence to show annual vaccination is a wise choice.

Our last Springer Spaniel autoimmune case was thought to be associated with a tick bite reaction so apportioning blame on vaccines is also lazy and weak.

As an aside how do you ensure that any water used in preparation of homeopathic products lacks so called memory of a million other diseases?

RE: Homeopathy - your experiences please

Mark Carpenter — Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:55:30 GMT

Hi Clive Ansell. As a vet who used homeopathy alongside other therapies for most of my time in practice, I would also question the decisions made by this owner, (other than the fact that treatment if parvo is diagnosed would be the same as for any acute HGE patient, but prognosis and lateral spread could become more significant). It is such a false assumption that a) homeopathic vets are against conventional diagnostics and, where necessary, conventional treatments (as clearly indicated in the case here, although I would undoubtedly have used homeopathy alongside the conventional care) and b) that we all agree with everything homoeopathically-minded owners say and do. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and errors made through incorrect, though perhaps well-intentioned, reasoning. Similar problems arise with some in the medical profession. My experience was that the best clients from the medical side were consultants; they knew their strengths, accepted their weaknesses and where they lacked knowledge, and were prepared to let me get on with what I knew about more than them.

In many ways this case very clearly illustrates the problems ahead if homeopathy is banned from the tool-kit of qualified vets. It will never stop some owners choosing to use homeopathy, but takes away the right of a veterinary surgeon to advise them on its use. Many, many times I have had clients come to me for homeopathic treatment, and I advised to treat using other modalities, either with or without homeopathy; when they know that I have the knowledge, experience, and qualifications to use homeopathy should I have felt it appropriate, they then trust my decision to take another path. Take away that option, and home treatments resulting in unnecessary suffering, and even fatalities such as in this case, will become more common.

It is amazing to me that such cases are quoted in the campaign against homeopathy, when no vet, homeopathic or otherwise, would recommend not treating a parvovirus case with all the tools available to him, including intensive care. This is both an anecdotal case, and one involving a member of the public, not a veterinary surgeon. I'm sure we have all had cases of cats being given paracetamol, or dogs Ibuprofen. I don't understand that either, but don't blame conventional vets for the fact that they did not seek out (or listen to) proper advice. At least the channels were there to allow veterinary supervision of the case, even if they chose not to take it. Take away homeopathic vets and that channel is lost to those who would prefer a CAM approach where possible, to the potential (or inevitable) detriment of many animals. If animal welfare truly is a concern to the profession, this case amply illustrates the future ahead should homeopathy be outlawed. You may not agree with it; you may not understand it (hey, nor do I!); but keep it within the professional and avoid such sad and avoidable cases becoming even more common.