Homoeopathy in the Veterinary Record again

[Mojo]

Following on from last year's study of itchy dogs the Veterinary Record has published another paper about homoeopathy, this time in horses:

Mathie RT, Baitson ES, Hansen L, Elliott MF, Hoare J: Homeopathic prescribing for chronic conditions in equine veterinary practice in the UK. Vet Rec. 2010 Feb 20;166(8):234-8.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20173108

Abstract

Twelve Faculty of Homeopathy veterinarians recorded data systematically at 777 consecutive homeopathic appointments for horses over a period of 12 months. A spreadsheet enabled the recording of information, which included the date of appointment; horse and owner identity (anonymised); sex of horse; main medical problem treated; whether the condition was chronic or acute; whether the appointment was new or a follow-up; owner-assessed clinical outcome on a seven-point scale, ranging from -3 to +3, compared with the first appointment; homeopathic medicine(s) prescribed; and whether any conventional or other complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) was being used concurrently to treat the condition. Data from 289 horses comprised a total of 305 individual conditions identified as chronic in nature, of which 234 had a follow-up assessment. At the final appointment for chronic cases during the study period, 4.3 per cent were receiving conventional medication and 17.1 per cent were being given another CAM treatment in addition to homeopathy. The eight chronic conditions most frequently treated with homeopathy were: arthritis, headshaking, laminitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sweet itch, dermatitis, sarcoidosis and Cushing's syndrome.

Produced by (mostly) the same team as this paper from a few years back which concluded that "systematic recording of data by veterinarians in clinical practice is feasible and capable of informing future research in veterinary homeopathy. A refined version of the spreadsheet can be used in larger-scale research-targeted veterinary data collection" (discussed here and here).

Further coverage here, reporting "moderate or major improvement" in 86.7% of 234 cases (presumably those that had a follow-up assessment).

"Owner-assessed clinical outcome": i.e. another customer satisfaction survey.

 

[fls]

Following on from last year's study of itchy dogs the Veterinary Record has published another paper about homoeopathy, this time in horses:

Mathie RT, Baitson ES, Hansen L, Elliott MF, Hoare J: Homeopathic prescribing for chronic conditions in equine veterinary practice in the UK. Vet Rec. 2010 Feb 20;166(8):234-8.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20173108




Produced by (mostly) the same team as this paper from a few years back which concluded that "systematic recording of data by veterinarians in clinical practice is feasible and capable of informing future research in veterinary homeopathy. A refined version of the spreadsheet can be used in larger-scale research-targeted veterinary data collection" (discussed here and here).

Further coverage here, reporting "moderate or major improvement" in 86.7% of 234 cases (presumably those that had a follow-up assessment).

"Owner-assessed clinical outcome": i.e. another customer satisfaction survey.

What do satisfaction surveys typically return in veterinary medicine? In human medicine, it tends to be much higher (95 to 99% range). Is there a reason to find that it's lower in this population? Presumably it's based on the same sort of perceptions, and since the horses presumably also received whatever effective treatments were available (these are regular vets also, right?), they shouldn't be worse off than a population not given homeopathy.

Linda

 

[Rolfe]

Don't assume that a committed veterinary homoeopath will also be using "allopathic" medicines. They can be every bit as committed to the anti-allopathy line as the worst human homoeopaths - much more so than medically qualified homoeopaths treating human patients.

Rolfe.

 

[Asolepius]

Yes I well remember the itchy dogs. Is this the best that Mathie can do? He didn't mention the dogs to the Science and Tech committee. What sort of journal is Vet Rec? It seems to have no significant peer review. And what about a statement of interests? All the authors are from the Faculty of Homeopathy.

 

[Mojo]

...since the horses presumably also received whatever effective treatments were available (these are regular vets also, right?), they shouldn't be worse off than a population not given homeopathy.

"At the final appointment for chronic cases during the study period, 4.3 per cent were receiving conventional medication and 17.1 per cent were being given another CAM treatment in addition to homeopathy."

Don't assume that a committed veterinary homoeopath will also be using "allopathic" medicines. They can be every bit as committed to the anti-allopathy line as the worst human homoeopaths - much more so than medically qualified homoeopaths treating human patients.

In particular (although not relevant in this case) when organic farming is concerned.

 

[fls]

"At the final appointment for chronic cases during the study period, 4.3 per cent were receiving conventional medication and 17.1 per cent were being given another CAM treatment in addition to homeopathy."

Believe it or not, I can read.

What that doesn't tell us is which conditions were being treated with conventional medication and whether effective treatments were available or necessary for the remainder. Many of those conditions looked to be of a type where you'd provide symptomatic treatment, but not necessarily curative or disease-modifying treatment (at least, on a chronic basis).

Linda

 

[fls]

Don't assume that a committed veterinary homoeopath will also be using "allopathic" medicines. They can be every bit as committed to the anti-allopathy line as the worst human homoeopaths - much more so than medically qualified homoeopaths treating human patients.

Rolfe.

Hmmm...this seems unprofessional. Is there any consideration given to this issue by the Veterinary College (or whatever your professional organization is known by)?

Linda

 

[Rolfe]

As far as I can see, it is assumed that conventional treatment will be given.

The homoeopathic vets defend their practices to the RCVS in the main by saying it's far better for a homoeopathically-inclined owner to take their pet to an actual vet, than to some lay quack. So, in order to allow this to happen, you have to let us continue to espouse, study and advocate woo.

Actually, it's illegal for a non-vet to treat an animal, so it's an issue that shouldn't arise or should be dealt with if it does, but that doesn't seem to be a consideration.

Then, once they've kept the RCVS sweet by sort of implyng that of course no qualified vet would fail to treat an animal with the properly-indicated medication, they then go off and rail against the evils of allopathy on their web sites, blame vaccines for half the ills of the animal kingdom, and (for example) treat hyperthyroid cats with sugar pills. Which of course don't change the thyroxine concentration, but do produce a "clinical response".

For some reason the RCVS will come down on a vet misusing conventional medication like a ton of bricks, and in no way condones "individual clinical freedom" if it transgresses proper practice in that area, but suddenly the minute you're talking about homoeopathy, "clinical freedom" trumps the day.

Derogatory remarks against....

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Any chance of a PDF, Rolfe? I'm not in the BVA.