Threats to/from homeopaths

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Niall Taylor — Wed, 06 Jun 2018 10:11:09 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Strikes me that the RCVS position on homeopathy is now completely in line with the medical profession.[/quote]

And it's interesting the BHA is using the same arguments as BAHVS - a/ it's a conspiracy and b/ lots of people want it the NHS (i.e. free) therefore it should be available. There is never any consideration of exactly why the authorities should be conspiring to restrict tha availability of homeopathy if, as homeopaths claim, it is so effective, cheap and useful. The fact is, they wouldn't, they would jump at the chance of using it. The reason is it simply doesn't work, not that people are dogmatically opposed to it. If there is any irrational conspiracy it comes the other way, in the attitude of homeopaths, many of whom are dead set against useful and safe conventional medicine.

Niall

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 06 Jun 2018 09:47:06 GMT

Well, good news last night when there was a landmark ruling in the High Court which supports NHS England's decision to put homeopathy on a list of products that should not ordinarily be prescribed (and which doctors should now start de-prescribing for any patients already on it).

https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2018/06/05/nhs-wins-high-court-backing-for-decision-to-stop-funding-homeopathy.aspx

Interesting looking at some of the other treatments on the list, too...

Strikes me that the RCVS position on homeopathy is now completely in line with the medical profession.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Niall Taylor — Fri, 11 May 2018 08:30:18 GMT

Very sad that it's all politics, very little science. And of course there will be much pressure from the massive pro-homeopathy lobby behind the scenes too, 'spider memos' flying into in-boxes and all that

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Iain Richards — Fri, 11 May 2018 08:28:11 GMT

Good grief! I know that politicians can waffle about nothing, but that was a masterclass. I'm slightly troubled that one of the speakers suggested that the BVA's view, "was mellowing".

I do hope not.

Crikey, it gets worse. Who is George Eustice to state that homeopathy is effective in equine cushings? I trust someone will take him to task in addition to Arlo's excellent letter. Eustice is wrong to say the RCVS can't ban homeopathy, as this is the role of the VMD. If RCVS decide that homeopathy was unethical, then it would be effectively banned. The college's view is entirely sensible. The views and statements in that debate were not.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Niall Taylor — Fri, 11 May 2018 08:19:23 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I sent last night cc'd to Mr Tredinnick (from whom I had not had a reply to an earlier message I sent him), and to the RCVS for good measure[/quote]

Keep us posted, it will be interesting to see what, if any, the response is.

Niall

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 11 May 2018 07:49:46 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Dear Mr Eustice,

Etc

[/quote]This letter is absolutely spot on.

From the heart yet totally right. Not exactly short, but very readable.

Send it. [/quote]

Thanks Phil. Actually, I rushed it a bit, as working very hard on all the techy stuff on vetsurgeon at the moment, so didn't prune it has much as I might have. But it is quite a complicated subject, so difficult to be really succinct!

Anyway, I sent last night cc'd to Mr Tredinnick (from whom I had not had a reply to an earlier message I sent him), and to the RCVS for good measure.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Kate Richardson — Thu, 10 May 2018 21:42:37 GMT

You can add my signature as support, as you could many others I am sure

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 19:48:42 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Dear Mr Eustice,

Etc

[/quote]This letter is absolutely spot on.

From the heart yet totally right. Not exactly short, but very readable.

Send it.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 10 May 2018 18:42:19 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]https://goo.gl/HEht14 This is the section right at the end of the days proceedings.[/quote]

Wow, I was truly flabbergasted at the misinformation being put out there by Mr Tredinnick, and how the Secretary of State seemed, to some degree, to be adopting a policy of appeasement.

Anyway, I thought worth emailing Mr Eustice:

Dear Mr Eustice,

I watched your exchange in the House of Commons with Mr Tredinnick on the subject of homeopathy and the RCVS position statement.

I write to you both as the parent of a profoundly and chronically sick young girl and also as the publishing editor of the leading online community for veterinary surgeons.

I am going to assume you are very busy and try and keep this email as short as possible. I would be more than happy to expand on any of the points I raise should you wish.

1. I hope you agree that human or veterinary medicines should be properly regulated, and not allowed to be sold to the public without being tested and licensed as both safe and effective. As the parent of a sick child, I demand (and my daughter deserves) nothing less. Not just because we need medicines that are safe. Not just because we need medicines that have been shown to work. But also to stop people who are not able to make rational decisions for themselves (either because they are cognitively impaired, too young, or because they are simply desperate), from being taken advantage of; from being peddled false hope from quackery in all its forms.

2. A scientist will never say anything is impossible. But I think most of us can understand that anything diluted 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 to 1 (the dilution typically recommended by Hahnemann, the inventor of homeopathy) will not have an effect on the human body. However, that is only one of a number of reasons why we know homeopathy is ineffective. Another is that the proposed active ingredients are, forgive me, bonkers. Berlin Wall, condom and light from the planet Venus are but three examples (there are a few more below). All of them selected arbitrarily. There are other reasons too, but we are already past the realms of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

3. Why people believe homeopathy has worked for them is fascinating, and it is largely due to a number of now well-documented errors in human thinking: false cause fallacy, assessment errors, confirmation bias and regression to the mean. If you are unfamiliar with these, you can google them, or refer to the section on VetSurgeon.org here: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/microsites/private/rational-medicine/p/homeopathy-works.aspx

4. Why belief in homeopathy persists is also interesting. It is a faith-based system. In other words, the errors that cause people to believe in homeopathy also cause them to believe in it with great fervour, and often to evangelise about it. Combine that with good branding (it’s an ‘opathy’, isn’t it), a whiff of conspiracy (big pharma trying to suppress the truth about homeopathy for commercial reasons), and it makes for a heady mix. Look no further than the very small, but nevertheless passionate crowd of pet owners who protested against the RCVS position statement for evidence of that.

The reality is rather more prosaic. Homeopathy is just water (or sugar pills) with a fancy label. Those, like me, who campaign against its use do so because we care about the harm that it does.

And it does do harm, very real harm, as was demonstrated in this study: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2017/08/18/choose-alternative-medicine-and-die-early.aspx

At the end of it all, though, there is only one really important point in this debate: government exists in part to protect the most vulnerable in society. We regulate medicines in order to protect these groups in particular from being taken advantage of.

If you accept that medicines should be demonstrated to be safe and effective before being sold to the public, then there is simply no reason to exclude homeopathy from this requirement.

If you think homeopathy CAN be excluded from this requirement, then I would like to ask you if it would be OK for me to pop down to the potting shed and brew up a mixture of soil, petrol and weedkiller and sell it as a medicine?

Do not delude yourself, this is what homeopathists do. Here you can order soil (https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/fukushima-soil-torako-yui), petrol (https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/petroleum) and weedkiller (https://www.helios.co.uk/shop/dichloro-weedkiller) as homeopathic treatments.

So whether or not you believe, or anyone believes homeopathy works is quite beside the point. I hope I have made a strong case for the fact that homeopathy, whether for human or animal use, should FIRST be proven safe and effective for a condition before being prescribed to the public. Just like any other medicine.

We would not tolerate it if a big pharma company came along and said: “Look, we have this new treatment. It’s not based on any known science. Actually it contradicts all the known science. And we don’t have any evidence it does anything. But hey …"

Defra’s position on this is important for two reasons. Firstly, as the MP mentioned in Parliament, it is all well and good if a mentally capable adult human decides to treat themselves with a dilution of brick dust, but there are very serious ethical considerations if we inflict our belief systems on other species. It is also deeply irresponsible to endorse the idea that homeopathy represents a way of reducing farm animal antibiotic use. It does not.

Secondly, and this is the most important thing from my perspective as the parent of a sick child, is that tolerating quack veterinary medicine lends it a veneer of unjustified credibility which has a profound effect in the human arena. If the vet said it works, then there must be something in it, right?

The RCVS position statement said nothing new. In fact, under the cascade regulations, veterinary surgeons have for many years been obliged to prescribe authorised treatments over anything else: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-cascade-prescribing-unauthorised-medicines (note that there are NO homeopathic medicines authorised for veterinary use).

I urge you to give the RCVS your wholehearted support for its statement on complementary medicines. It is a pragmatic compromise which protects consumers (and farmers) and will help everyone focus on proper solutions to some of the pressing issues, such as antibiotic resistance.

Yours sincerely,

Arlo Guthrie

Editor www.vetsurgeon.org

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 17:39:17 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]But that is the whole point. This is not rational 'medicine' but a belief system. It is not possible to have a rational debate with any of the more extreme believers religious or otherwise.[/quote]

True, but my aim is to inform. There are many vets out there who may be tempted to dabble in alternative medicine, believing those who whisper 'magic' in their ears pretending it is science. If these people see mudslinging, they will be less inclined to listen. If however we give evidence, facts and rational debate, they will be more inclined to listen to us.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Bob Russell — Thu, 10 May 2018 11:32:53 GMT

But that is the whole point. This is not rational 'medicine' but a belief system. It is not possible to have a rational debate with any of the more extreme believers religious or otherwise.

Seems very odd that someone, presumably with a reasonable education, would cut and paste US law (inappropriately as well) rather than do a little more research to produce a more credible document!

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Kate Richardson — Thu, 10 May 2018 11:23:20 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

Are these threats to all of you likely to be made public knowledge?

[/quote]Although we could do, I‘d rather stick to a discussion based on rationale rather than personal mudslinging. Possibly a vain hope?

[/quote]

How can you have a rational discussion with people who behave like this?

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 11:14:29 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

Are these threats to all of you likely to be made public knowledge?

[/quote]Although we could do, I‘d rather stick to a discussion based on rationale rather than personal mudslinging. Possibly a vain hope?

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 11:10:17 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

We now know that a fringe group of homoeopaths are acting in a manner all too familiar to those on the wrong end of Scientology!

If you have run out of arguments and evidence then threaten!

The wording looks so pseudo-legalese that it is almost laughable!

(Edit: Looked up Affidavit of Obligation from the law forum!!

"I do not know of any "affadavit of obligation"in UK law.

Are you in the UK?

It appears to be some sort of American concept which various barmpots try to convert to uk law.

An affadavit "of truth" appears similarly wierd. All affadavits are supposed to be truthful as they are a sworn document.")

My advice is to return a copy with 'see you in court' but that is just me!!

[/quote]You are quite right. The entire document is written in a legal form that does not exist on planet Earth. We were given deadlines which have long past. We await the next instalment with interest.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 11:07:41 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]

Ah, I know who you mean now! The DC

Does he count as a homeopath though?

[/quote]

He is but one of the Vet Homs that have made threats. A notable official of the BAHVS has made similar threats.

And yes, homeopathy is one of the forms of alternative reality that this guy uses.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Bob Russell — Thu, 10 May 2018 11:03:27 GMT

If someone is so unhinged that they are using dodgy templates introducing US law quotes then perhaps their suitability to practice may be questioned.

http://www.harassmentlaw.co.uk/comm.htm if the threats continue?

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 10 May 2018 10:55:15 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]My advice is to return a copy with 'see you in court' but that is just me!![/quote] A better response would have been to quote Arkell v Pressdram 1971 but the problem is that some of these people are seriously unhinged and even though they don't have a legal leg to stand on its best not to inflame them too much as it is difficult to predict how they may react.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Bob Russell — Thu, 10 May 2018 10:15:37 GMT

We now know that a fringe group of homoeopaths are acting in a manner all too familiar to those on the wrong end of Scientology!

If you have run out of arguments and evidence then threaten!

The wording looks so pseudo-legalese that it is almost laughable!

(Edit: Looked up Affidavit of Obligation from the law forum!!

"I do not know of any "affadavit of obligation"in UK law.

Are you in the UK?

It appears to be some sort of American concept which various barmpots try to convert to uk law.

An affadavit "of truth" appears similarly wierd. All affadavits are supposed to be truthful as they are a sworn document.")

My advice is to return a copy with 'see you in court' but that is just me!!

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Kate Richardson — Thu, 10 May 2018 09:49:06 GMT

Are these threats to all of you likely to be made public knowledge?

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Jo Dyer — Thu, 10 May 2018 09:37:35 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]This relates to a complaint that I made to the rcvs about a website run by a veterinary surgeon. I had previously written to the Veterinary surgeon concerned, outlining my concerns, but had received no reply. This was in April 2014. Although this finally went to disciplinary 2 years later, there was no publicised result; agreements were made behind closed doors.[/quote]

Ah, I know who you mean now! The DC hearing was reported by Arlo on vetnurse.org here

https://www.vetnurse.co.uk/b/veterinary-nursing-news/archive/2016/10/24/157872.aspx

Does he count as a homeopath though?

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Have you contacted the RCVS?[/quote]

RCVS Council members have individually had a couple of legal threats from homeopaths as well.

RE: Threats to/from homeopaths

Kate Richardson — Thu, 10 May 2018 08:53:49 GMT

Just outrageous.

RE: Threats from homeopaths

Niall Taylor — Thu, 10 May 2018 07:34:17 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]I've just checked back. it was only £50,000. I must have been thinking in euros...[/quote]

The £60,000 figure was the final sum, which included VAT . Others had greater sums demanded of them as they had tweeted about the issue as well.

Niall

RE: Threats from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 06:45:22 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Have you contacted the RCVS? Have you spoken to the legal helpline if you are a BVA member?

Threatening behaviour as seems to be the case here is both unprofessional and potentially illegal.

If the only way these people can function is to issue threats then really they have little place in the profession.

How about someone posting these threatening letters (with personal details obscured) perhaps under anon so we can judge for ourselves the ethical standards of this type of person?

How pathetic!

[/quote]

Yes, i have contact the rcvs. Although I am very pleased that they have finally come off the fence regarding alternative veterinary medicine, I'm afraid that their response to my complaints has been somewhat laggardly.

This relates to a complaint that I made to the rcvs about a website run by a veterinary surgeon. I had previously written to the Veterinary surgeon concerned, outlining my concerns, but had received no reply. This was in April 2014. Although this finally went to disciplinary 2 years later, there was no publicised result; agreements were made behind closed doors. I further complained in April 2017 and included details of threats made to me.

I received confirmation of receipt on 12 September 2017 stating "I am unsure as to why you have not yet received any response from us. I have passed this and your previous emails on. We will endeavour to respond as soon as possible."

I have heard nothing further. I guess that they're waiting for me to shuffle off my mortal coil. It may just work. In the period of time that this complaint has been going on, I have sold up, retired, and moved to France. No sign of shuffling as yet though...

RE: Threats from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 06:29:27 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]For example, I have beed ordered to pay £60,000 by one such vet[/quote]

As you know, me too. Actually, not sure the figure was £60K in my case, but somewhere in that region. Having said that, the obviously DIY nature of the legal threat meant I didn't take it very seriously.

[/quote]

Seriously? a veterinary professional and colleague did that??

[/quote]

I'll try to cut and paste a bit of the threat here from a pdf file. It was in response to an article co-written in the Vet Times were this gentleman was NOT named.

---------

Should you be able to provide me with proof in substance to justify all accusations in

the letter published inVeterinary Times Volume 46 No. 50 as stated above in full I

will unconditionally relinquish my claim that you have defamed me and I will

unconditionally relinquish my claim that by so doing you have created and offered a

contract. If you cannot provide the required proof in substance I specifically reserve

all my rights to remedy and recourse, and serve you notice with this Affidavit of

Obligation that my Fee Schedule is as follows:

1. £50,000 for the defamatory letter published in the Veterinary Times.

All monies are to be paid on demand in full in the functional £ Sterling currency of

the United Kingdom.

------

There's a lot more, but the point of this post was to find out what threats have been made TO homeopaths (Arlo had changed the title, which may mislead a little).

RE: Threats from homeopaths

Phil Hyde — Thu, 10 May 2018 06:22:11 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]For example, I have beed ordered to pay £60,000 by one such vet[/quote]

[/quote]

Seriously? a veterinary professional and colleague did that??

[/quote]No. I've just checked back. it was only £50,000. I must have been thinking in euros...