A vet's inside track on homoeopathy.

[Rolfe]

Yes, I know there are too many homoeopathy threads right now, but I haven't started one for ages!

This letter appeared in last week's Veterinary Times. I didn't want to post the whole thing to the forum, but I seem to have identified a solution to that.

Homoeopaths 'guilty of deliberate fraud'

This seems to me to encapsulate many of the difficulties we have with the homoeopaths - including selective reporting of data, misrepresenting published literature, cheating (by using real drugs in conjunction), massive profiteering, and quite frankly, lying. The trouble is, although we might strongly suspect all this, when we make such accusations without absolute chapter and verse, we are often excoriated for criticising professional colleagues. Well, here is chapter and verse.

Rolfe.

Edited to add: Depomedrone is a very powerful and long-acting corticosteroid preparation. It's very good at "suppressing the symptoms" of skin disease, but has very definite drawbacks (including causing diabetes in cats) and has to be used with extreme caution. The over-use of this drug is one of the main complaints the homoeopathically-inclined have against "allopathy", though I have to say I think most vets know the dangers and are pretty careful with it. Now, why would a "primarily homoeopathic" practice be using a lot of that stuff, we ask ourselves?

Also, what did I say about the profit margins? And about the ease with which animal owners can be bamboozled by the unscrupulous?

 

[Mojo]

Good grief! Did this guy really not do any kind of investgation of the actual research results before deciding to invest?

I'm also slightly puzzled by the comment that "Remedies charged out at over £10 actually cost pence to produce (including materials and labour)." Surely all that succussing involves hours of work by highly qualified personnel.

 

[geni]

Good grief! Did this guy really not do any kind of investgation of the actual research results before deciding to invest?

I'm also slightly puzzled by the comment that "Remedies charged out at over £10 actually cost pence to produce (including materials and labour)." Surely all that succussing involves hours of work by highly qualified personnel.

To make a remedy up by hand from scrach takes quite a while but since you can make thr stuff up in huge batches it is a non issue.

 

[Rolfe]

Good grief! Did this guy really not do any kind of investgation of the actual research results before deciding to invest?

I don't entirely blame him. He's a clinician, not a research scientist. And the homoeopaths can be very deceitful. You know the way they selectively quote the bits of the papers they like, and dress it all up in a mantle of apparent respectability. And a vet is conditioned to believe tales of good clinical results when related by a colleague. Someone coming at it cold, only being fed the homoeopaths' line, has to be remarkably astute to realise the truth. And one thing I keep noticing about my professional colleagues is that they are remarkably reluctant to consider that a fellow-professional is outright lying to them.

To put it in context. One of the smartest cookies I know was Professor of Experimental Veterinary Medicine in the department where I used to work. He has his little ways, as do we all, but one of my abiding memories is of him spotting the fatal flaw in a paper I'd been involved in authoring, about 90 minutes after the journal hit his desk. It had taken me weeks to spot it, and too late to prevent my supervisor from railroading my erroneous draft through. I had acquiesced, believing that the scrutineers would pick up the problem. They didn't. Bob did. Instantly.

Anyway, one evening after a meeting the conversation turned to homoeopathy. Bob remarked that he'd looked closely at the human literature on the subject, and it did seem to him that there was something there. The veterinary literature, on the other hand, he freely admitted was a complete crock. Now I didn't challenge him on this because it happened before I'd really got my brain round it myself, but I can only assume he was talking Kleijnen, Boissel and Linde. Of blessed memory.

Now, if even someone like Bob could reach that view, I don't blame Mr. Edwards for being scammed. This is what we're up against professionally. It takes very close dissection of the homoeopaths' house of cards for it to be revealed as the smoke-and-mirrors show it is, and many people aren't prepared to go into it that deeply. There's also a slight inbuilt prejudice against the "nay-sayer" until the truth dawns, and if boredom sets in before that point, the homoeopaths can end up with the moral high ground.

And the profit margin on homoeopathic remedies is astronomical. Even if it's "done right". There are ways of minimising the labour costs, as Geni has outlined. (At least this one isn't as bad as another one I heard during another of these after-meeting discussions. A vet bought a practice from a woman who did a bit of homoeopathy on the side. When she was doing the final hand-over, she showed him a vat half-full of slightly coloured water. That, she said, was the homoeopathic medicine. Every time the level was getting a bit low, just top it up with water - it gets stronger that way. OK, that one has to be in the urban legend category, but it shows what could happen.)

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Bump. I want BSM's opinion.

Rolfe.

 

[iain]

Oo - a new word for me : contraindicated. Now I've just got to find somewhere to use it

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bump. I want BSM's opinion.

Rolfe.

I think we have them bang to rights. Anybody have a live membership at Hpathy? They could do with that in the Veterinary Hom forum.

Seriously though, he has confirmed what I suspected when I first came at this with my worries about the treatment of a hyperthyroid cat as described in a radio programme. It was damn obvious that the woo vet was scamming someone even if it was only himself, but the prooofs were rather indirect.

I shall be interested to see what the homs' reponse is. I suspect something along the lines of a "No True Scotsman" defence, but would they really dare to break ranks and cast him out?

Did the author of that letter acquire the mission statement that must have been hung on the wall of the woo practice?

"You don't have to be a crap vet to work here, but it helps"

 

[Rolfe]

I shall be interested to see what the homs' reponse is. I suspect something along the lines of a "No True Scotsman" defence, but would they really dare to break ranks and cast him out?

You heard it here first. I agree with you about "No True Scotsman", but I think it will be of the form "he was no true homoeopath because he used all that depomedrone". You and I can see the relevance of the depomedrone angle of course, but I predict the homoeopaths will latch on to it as their get-out-of-jail card.

*

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Why do you all post like mad in Kumar's threads? What has he got that I don't?

*

*

I've just been on the phone to Mr. Edwards and honestly I'm surprised the handset didn't melt. His foray inside homoeopathy has left him convinced that veterinary homoeopaths are hypocritical frauds, who have realised the huge profit margins available. One of the reasons he is convinced of deliberate fraud was the way the evidence was presented to him - a series of cherry-picked "success stories", which once he had access to the full case records he could see had been selectively culled from scores of animals who weren't getting better at all. This is something Badly Shaved Monkey has been banging on about to Bach and others for some time, but they don't seem to get the point.

Another piece of evidence of fraud was that a large number of the patients had been injected with depomedrone without the owners realising. These were skin cases, and depomedrone is a powerful corticosteroid which lasts for 6 weeks with just one injection. It is extremely good at stopping animals from scratching, but it has to be used with great care because of side-effects - it frequently causes diabetes in cats among other things - and normal vets only use it as a last resort after much discussion of the drawbacks with the owner. So, just give a little injection when the owner maybe isn't noticing, or really picking up on what you're saying or doing, and talk a lot about the homoeopathy, and hey, isn't it wonderful how well that works!

There was more - much more - but it gets too confidential. However, chalk up one more emphatic vote for deliberate fraud.

Rolfe.

 

[geni]

You heard it here first. I agree with you about "No True Scotsman", but I think it will be of the form "he was no true homoeopath because he used all that depomedrone". You and I can see the relevance of the depomedrone angle of course, but I predict the homoeopaths will latch on to it as their get-out-of-jail card.

The other problem is, we may think we know who the homoeopath in question was, but we can't prove it. (Yet?)

Rolfe.

They will dump him and run. "homeopathy never fails but sometimes the homeopath does".

 

[Mojo]

Why do you all post like mad in Kumar's threads? What has he got that I don't?

He asks dumb questions, but at the moment I'm finding it diverting to remember far back enough, and, if necessary, to do the basic research, to try to answer his dumb questions.

On the other hand, you seem to know what you are talking about, so I tend to leave your posts to be answered by people with the appropriate qualifications.

So, basically, what you lack here is ignorance.

 

[LostAngeles]

As of 4:48PM PST, there's a post on Hpathy.com with regards to this by one "Homeoskeptic." It was last edited at 10:26 today according to the board and has 24 views, no responses.

Linkalicious.

 

[Mojo]

he is convinced of deliberate fraud

Is he planning to sue them? It would be interesting to see the "evidence" come out in a court of law.

 

[Zep]

Oo - a new word for me : contraindicated. Now I've just got to find somewhere to use it

"Pickles are contraindicated in most Big Macs."

Don't mention it...

 

[Zep]

Incidentally, Rolfe, I'm loving just watching the unfolding progress on this. I would hope that a number of other vets will come forward soon with similar stories about failed homeopathic practices, particularly with good solid evidence. Perhaps, just perhaps, something will be done, at least in the veterinary arena.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

As of 4:48PM PST, there's a post on Hpathy.com with regards to this by one "Homeoskeptic." It was last edited at 10:26 today according to the board and has 24 views, no responses.

Linkalicious.

I think it's a fairly safe be that that "homeoskeptic" is not NHSCoraHSarah on this occasion. She'll have her fingers very firmly in her ears and her eyes tightly shut.

I wonder whether Sarah and murthy, or even Bach are still lurking here? Their names don't seem to come up listed as logged in members any more, but they could have logged out and just browse as guests. It's a shame they're so scared, well not so much scared, just hypocritical.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Barb's just popped up on the thread at Hpathy effectively questioning the veracity of the story instead of dealing with the issues.

Go on Rolfe, burn an Hpathy membership and give her a Glaswegian kiss.

 

[Mojo]

It's nice to see that Barb seems to think that doing some "homework" would have prevented the guy from buying the practice.

 

[Rolfe]

Barb's actual response:

huh, that is interesting. Why would someone choose to shell out money for a practice they are admittedly skeptical of, have absolutely NO experience in, no education in, no reseacrch in, no practical training in?? Sounds odd to me.

I guess this feller will do his homework better next time.

It's certainly interesting that this is the only retort she can think of.

I think she may have missed the part of the original letter where it was made clear that the purchasing practice intended to take on the "trained and experienced" homoeopaths as employees. I understand there were three homoeopaths involved, *. Essentially, what was proposed was that the large, multi-centre practice would acquire the small homoeopathic practice and run it as a branch, continuing with the original staff.

It's not unusual for a practice to expand in this way. Acquiring a specialist branch that was doing, say, all bird work, or fish work or whatever, even if you as a principal know nothing at all about birds or fish, and keeping on the bird and fish experts as employees, is perfectly sensible. Richard was unfortunately persuaded by the homoeopaths that their "speciality" was a legitimate branch of medicine. So who is at fault here? The innocent who believed the lies, or the liar?

I understand that the large practice has now severed all ties with the homoeopaths, who are back working on their own again. I also understand that there are legal issues still outstanding, though I don't have any details.

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Oh, for ◊◊◊◊'s sake! Sarah is stupid even for a homeopath. She is complaining that there is not a "proper link" to the "article" so hasn't read it. She hasn't realised she can simply C&P the URL into her browser.

COULD "HOMEOSKEPTIC" ENLIGHTEN THE SILLY MARE, PLEASE?

Edit the OP or give her a new link. I would very much like that story rammed very firmly down her throat and see if she makes any response.