Dogs Itching To Try Homeopathic Remedies

[Capsid]

I stole the title from this article. I presume that our voodoo vets know about this trial to test the effectiveness of homoeopathic remedies for canine atopic dermatitis. It seems that this may be a definitive study involving both vet homoeopaths (John Hoare no less) and conventional vets. Does anyone know the background to this? I'm surprised that the homoeopaths have agreed to such a trial.

 

[Mojo]

A potential problem is that blinding and a control group do not seem to come into the trial until the second phase. By that point I suspect that the homoeopaths will already be claiming a success.

 

[Rasmus]

A potential problem is that blinding and a control group do not seem to come into the trial until the second phase. By that point I suspect that the homoeopaths will already be claiming a success.

It doesn't even mention blinding in the article, does it?

It says that phase two wil lbe controlled and randomized; I understand this to mean that there will be a controll-group (with either placebo or no treatment at all), and animals will be randomly assigned to either group.

A contact name is given; and Mrs Fryer appears to be a memember of the PR office. Maybe someone with a little more training and experiance in this field can approach the University and find out more?

Contact

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'm surprised that the homoeopaths have agreed to such a trial.

Well, I think that their enthusiasm is a partial answer to whether they are cynically engaging in homeopathy knowing it is nonsense, or whether they honestly believe it works. Those taking part in this probably fit the latter description. This still begs the question as to whether they are participating in a properly designed trial or one where it appeals to them because its design contains their favourite loopholes. If it is a properly designed trial one wonders what will they will say if it doesn't go the way they want it to, which is at least 95% likely.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"Phase one, which is really intended to establish proof of principle, is an open clinical trial in which the main measure of assessment will be the level of itching."

Having now read the link. I don't see why that part has been included. They have already formed their hypothesis, I can't see why they would want to do that bit.

Would they recruit a separate group of patients for the second phase? They surely must do.

Also, I don't understand what "proof of principle" is at stake in the first section. It just looks like a waste of subject numbers.

 

[Mojo]

"Phase one, which is really intended to establish proof of principle, is an open clinical trial in which the main measure of assessment will be the level of itching."

Having now read the link. I don't see why that part has been included. They have already formed their hypothesis, I can't see why they would want to do that bit.

Would they recruit a separate group of patients for the second phase? They surely must do.

Also, I don't understand what "proof of principle" is at stake in the first section. It just looks like a waste of subject numbers.

Simple: the first phase is uncontrolled and unblinded, and can be announced as showing that homoeopathy works whatever happens in the second phase. If the second phase doesn't give positive results it can be denounced as not following proper homoeopathic principles or what have you, or just brushed under the carpet.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Simple: the first phase is uncontrolled and unblinded, and can be announced as showing that homoeopathy works whatever happens in the second phase. If the second phase doesn't give positive results it can be denounced as not following proper homoeopathic principles or what have you, or just brushed under the carpet.

Then I begin to worry why credible scientists would co-operate with the exercise.

Time for an e-mail.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS SENT ON AN OPEN LETTER BASIS

Dear Dr Hill,

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=47768&nfid=crss

Your proposed trial of homeopathy in pruritic dogs has been brought to my attention. Clearly it is a good thing that homeopathic treatment is subject to the rigours of clinical trial.

However, some features of the trial design, as alluded to in the press release, give significant cause for concern. Specifically,

"Phase one, which is really intended to establish proof of principle, is an open clinical trial in which the main measure of assessment will be the level of itching."

What is the principle that is being proven by that phase? If you have a well-formed hypothesis then what purpose does that phase serve?

I hope you are aware that the homeopathic community has taken studies equivalent to that phase to be complete in and of themselves, for instance the notorious Bristol Homeopathic Hospital study;

Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a six-year University-Hospital Outpatient Observational Study. Dr. D.S Spence, Dr. E A Thompson & S J Barron. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2005; 11:5:793-798

The Society of Homeopaths noted its results thus, in a recent press release;

"In fact, there is considerable evidence to show that homeopathy is effective in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses, including a large study at the end of 2005, of the outcomes from 6,500 patients at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, over a period of six years, in which 75% reported improvement."

This was an unblinded, open study based on a questionnaire, yet you can see how its results were portrayed by the homeopathic lobby.

A significant danger in the design that is proposed is that the one phase will show apparent success and the controlled phase will not. The track record of the homeopathic community in these circumstances is then to reject the controlled trial as unhomeopathic in some way- wrong duration, limited assessment parameters, the excuses are endless. The open phase then risks being used as was the Spence study.

Do you have any protection built into the agreement with the participants to prevent this misuse from happening?

I look forward to hearing from you,


BSM."

 

[Meffy]

*thumbs up*

 

[Capsid]

BSM, let us know if you get an answer, please.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

BSM, let us know if you get an answer, please.

I got an "out of office" automated reply we'll need to hang fire for 3 weeks.

 

[Mojo]

Probably hiding under the desk.

 

[Bowser]

Canine atopic dermatitis seems like a lousy choice for a trial like this. Chronic conditions invariably require constitutional treatment to be effective. A good homeopathic vet should be able to make inroads in a dog's condition, but it is unlikely that a nonhomeopathic vet would understand how and when to use any effective remedies identified by this trial.

 

[steenkh]

A good homeopathic vet should be able to make inroads in a dog's condition, but it is unlikely that a nonhomeopathic vet would understand how and when to use any effective remedies identified by this trial.

Why?

 

[Deetee]

I got an "out of office" automated reply we'll need to hang fire for 3 weeks.

I emailed him too - mine seems to have been received tho.
Maybe he's climbed out from under the desk.
Remains to be seen whether I will elicit a reply.
I used a different approach to BSM's.

Oh, and Hello John! (if you're lurking as usual!)

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Canine atopic dermatitis seems like a lousy choice for a trial like this. Chronic conditions invariably require constitutional treatment to be effective. A good homeopathic vet should be able to make inroads in a dog's condition, but it is unlikely that a nonhomeopathic vet would understand how and when to use any effective remedies identified by this trial.

Excellent pre-emptove strike with that "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Always to good to start early with these things.

I hope you noticed that the named homeopathic vet is highly eminent within their world. Has he got this wrong?