Veterinary homoeopathy illegal?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

My God, was it really that long? I thought it just seemed that way.

I submitted 45 weeks "seeing practice" instead of the required 26 weeks, because I enjoyed it, I suppose!

Don't forget, with the 6 year course, the 3rd year was equivalent to doing an intercalated BSc at the other schools so was rather tangential to the vocational stuff.

Now, let me remember, what did I spend my 3rd year doing? Oh, yes, learning science! One of those classic Cambridge courses where you were left to sink or swim: just one lecture each day and your time mostly occupied with doing your own project. Mine was rubbish, but it had the strength of being designed and organised by me with no proper supervision. Part of me regrets not having taken one of the off-the-shelf projects, but in retrospect I probably learnt more by making mistakes that I could blame no one for but myself.

 

[Rolfe]

Don't forget, with the 6 year course, the 3rd year was equivalent to doing an intercalated BSc at the other schools so was rather tangential to the vocational stuff.

Now, let me remember, what did I spend my 3rd year doing? Oh, yes, learning science! One of those classic Cambridge courses where you were left to sink or swim: just one lecture each day and your time mostly occupied with doing your own project. Mine was rubbish, but it had the strength of being designed and organised by me with no proper supervision. Part of me regrets not having taken one of the off-the-shelf projects, but in retrospect I probably learnt more by making mistakes that I could blame no one for but myself.

Slacker!

My intercalated BSc (done in a weird order, following 5th year instead of 2nd, don't ask) took two further years. That is seven in total. The first of these two years was spent doing Junior Honours Biochemistry, which was the entire year's study for the non-medical lot, a pretty full programme of lectures and lab practicals, but which still left time for us to fit in Higher Ordinary Chemistry, which was half the study usually done by the non-medical lot the previous year, as they didn't consider the Chemistry component of the BVMS course to be strong enough. That was also quite a lot of lectures and lab practicals.

(This probably has a lot to do with the fact that an honours BSc in Scotland takes four years, not three.)

The second of these two years (Senior Honours Biochemistry) was more like your single one, a lecture a day then get on with your project. I learned a bit about radioimmunoassay, a bit about testosterone and canine behaviour, and a lot about really great ways to screw up your bench work which stood me in good stead when I started my PhD the following year.

I will be charitable and assume that you did just as much work for your PhD as I did for mine!

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

How about the following? Which of these are "real" homooepathic practice?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple tablets

Repeated dosing

Combination therapy as promoted by Wim and unchallenged by you

Adherence to and dependence on conventional medical diagnoses

Prescribing to those diagnoses without taking full homeopathic histories

Use of "constitutional remedies"

Using homeopathy as a complement to medicine rather than as an alternative

"Grafting"

"Plussing"

The lack of leather bound Bibles in pharmacies

All the other problems of manufacture that mean you have no idea what the pharmacies are really selling you or which of the various steps in manufacture are required to produce a successful remedy.

Did you miss my definition of homeopathy? If a remedy given matches the totality of the case - is the similimum - and produces an amelioration because it has the ability to produce said symptoms in a healthy individual then that homeopathy.

S, I guess thechnically if the remedy is discovered via dowsing, or psychic abilities or whatever then it is still homeopathy - not however classical homeopathy. so the key is what is classical homeopathy. Okay, now my a key is working but my shift key is acting up.

so does dowsing fit in classical homeopathy, no.

Multiple tablets - i assume you mean multiple tablets of the same remedy? Yes, if it is the lowest effective dose for the individual. Typically 1-3 pellets is considered a low, effective dose but of course individualisation is necessary.

Repeated dosing - depends on the case and the situation. An acute condition may require frequent repeated doses, this is part of classical homeopathy. In chronic cases it depends on the potency and the individual case as well. -

Combination therapy as promoted by Wim and unchallenged by you. I do not consider this classical homeopathy, nor do I think most classical homeopaths would either - however it doesn't mean it isn't effective. ANd it was challanged by me.

Adherence to and dependence on conventional medical diagnoses - I don't understand this comment. Do you mean homeopaths require a conventional diagnosis or don't require one.

 

[Barbrae]

Prescribing to those diagnoses without taking full homeopathic histories

Not classical homeopathy

Use of "constitutional remedies"

you need to define your use of "constitutional" people refer to this with regards to cases to mean different things

Using homeopathy as a complement to medicine rather than as an alternative
are you asking if this is acceptable? of course
"Grafting"
can be used in classical homeopathy - I don't do it however

"Plussing"
yes

The lack of leather bound Bibles in pharmacies
succussing can be done on any hard surface with give and also via mechanical devices - it is not the same as shaking however.

All the other problems of manufacture that mean you have no idea what the pharmacies are really selling you or which of the various steps in manufacture are required to produce a successful remedy.

 

[Rolfe]

Originally posted (unanswered) by Barbrae
All the other problems of manufacture that mean you have no idea what the pharmacies are really selling you or which of the various steps in manufacture are required to produce a successful remedy.

What about this general point, Barb? Real drugs have to pass final quality control to prove that they really do contain what it says on the bottle.

Real drugs are tested and quality controlled. If someone thinks that a drug might be inactivated by a cup of coffee, or an airport security scanner, then the pharmacologists wouldn't just sit around discussing it, they would design and carry out trials to find out for sure.

If someone said they thought that putting a bunch of blank pills into an bottle with a couple of aspirin in it would cause the blank pills to take on the properties of aspirin, again trials would be done to see if this was really the case, and how reliable the quality of the resulting product was.

We wouldn't be sitting around saying, well, I think, and so-and-so says. We'd find out.

But there's no way to test homoeopathic products. Not in vitro, not in vivo. We can't test to see if there is a defined expiry date, and we can't test to see if poor handling or storage has inactivated a remedy. We can't even tell who's right when different opinions are expressed about what the correct dose rate is.

How can you justify your faith in these products when none of this verification is possible, and in fact there is no way known to mankind to tell one homoeopathic product from another, or either from the stock carrier material?

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

What about this general point, Barb? Real drugs have to pass final quality control to prove that they really do contain what it says on the bottle.

Real drugs are tested and quality controlled. If someone thinks that a drug might be inactivated by a cup of coffee, or an airport security scanner, then the pharmacologists wouldn't just sit around discussing it, they would design and carry out trials to find out for sure.

If someone said they thought that putting a bunch of blank pills into an bottle with a couple of aspirin in it would cause the blank pills to take on the properties of aspirin, again trials would be done to see if this was really the case, and how reliable the quality of the resulting product was.

We wouldn't be sitting around saying, well, I think, and so-and-so says. We'd find out.

But there's no way to test homoeopathic products. Not in vitro, not in vivo. We can't test to see if there is a defined expiry date, and we can't test to see if poor handling or storage has inactivated a remedy. We can't even tell who's right when different opinions are expressed about what the correct dose rate is.

How can you justify your faith in these products when none of this verification is possible, and in fact there is no way known to mankind to tell one homoeopathic product from another, or either from the stock carrier material?

Rolfe.

Wow - all my little answers and this is the only comment? Your question was

"All the other problems of manufacture that mean you have no idea what the pharmacies are really selling you or which of the various steps in manufacture are required to produce a successful remedy."

Yet the post was about what fits into the definition of classical homeopathy and I didn't see how this fit that. What exactly are all the problems - be specific if you want comments on all of them. Otherwise, what you ask is if we know that what we are buying is really what we are getting with remedy and the answer is no - we trust in the homeoapthic pharmacies. As far as expiry dates go - homeopathic remedies don't expire.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Wow - all my little answers and this is the only comment?

"little" is the word! How many words did we have on your vague claims about a single patient with EDS?

Of "grafting" you say only;

"can be used in classical homeopathy - I don't do it however"


Well, if it can be used, follow on the logical implications of that.

Also, why would some homeopaths have a problem with the principle of "grafting"? On what basis is each group making their judgement

As far as expiry dates go - homeopathic remedies don't expire.

Well, that's a clear enough claim. We'll hang on to that one for use later.

 

[Rolfe]

Wow - all my little answers and this is the only comment?

what you ask is if we know that what we are buying is really what we are getting with remedy and the answer is no.

Well, the answers were obviously all we're going to get on that front, and all of them seem to lead to the single question, "How do you know?"

How do you know that plussing produces an active product? Or grafting? Or any particular method of succussing other than that used by Hahnemann? And I think a lot of the questions actually come down to this.

And I think I see the answer there too.

You don't.

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

Well, the answers were obviously all we're going to get on that front, and all of them seem to lead to the single question, "How do you know?"

How do you know that plussing produces an active product? Or grafting? Or any particular method of succussing other than that used by Hahnemann? And I think a lot of the questions actually come down to this.

And I think I see the answer there too.

You don't.

Rolfe.

Uh was I mistaken - I understood the questions regarding multiple doses, plussing, pendulum, combo remedies etc to be whether or not they fit into the definiation of homeopathy (or as I changed it to classical homeopathy) was I wrong abou tthat? It seems you have now convieniently changed the question to "how do you know if it works" not really fair to change the question and them claim I didn't answer it.

Youasked for a definition - you got it. Youasked if specific methods fit into that definition and you got that too. Now you complain I didn't give you enough of an answer - what exactly regarding the definition did I miss?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Uh was I mistaken - I understood the questions regarding multiple doses, plussing, pendulum, combo remedies etc to be whether or not they fit into the definiation of homeopathy (or as I changed it to classical homeopathy) was I wrong abou tthat? It seems you have now convieniently changed the question to "how do you know if it works" not really fair to change the question and them claim I didn't answer it.

Youasked for a definition - you got it. Youasked if specific methods fit into that definition and you got that too. Now you complain I didn't give you enough of an answer - what exactly regarding the definition did I miss?

It's meant to give you pause for thought.

If other homeopaths commend these non-classical practices, where do you draw your limits? Why is their experience, based as it is on false doctrine, not valid, whereas yours, based on correct doctrine, is valid?

You have failed to elucidate for yourself the intimate connection between the question of definition of 'correct' practice and the issue of whether any of it works. It's not a mistake, Barb, the efficacy problem is implicit in the definition problem. It's your problem.

How many times do you lead the horse to water before deciding to shoot the stupid animal and buy a car?

 

[Benguin]

The point about combo remedies has been pushed most vociferously by myself.

I note the lack of a clear statement of your position on that so far. Am I right in my impression that you would see it as straying too far from hahnemann to be acceptable without evidence?

Given he actually uses the word dangerous in reference to combination prescribing ...

 

[Benguin]

The lack of leather bound Bibles in pharmacies
succussing can be done on any hard surface with give and also via mechanical devices - it is not the same as shaking however.

How would you know this? prove it.

Hahnemann says a bible i necessary. Helios agrees. So do many homeopaths. Find us a study comparing the efficacy of biblically succussed remedies vs non-biblical ... if they are the same ... well I'm sure they will be.

 

[Rolfe]

How many times do you lead the horse to water before deciding to shoot the stupid animal and buy a car?

Hey! I'll have you know that finding out why "you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink" was my one original contribution to science in my PhD work.

(It has to do with salt concentrations in sweat. Like a fool, I explained it to Kumar once. Bad mistake!)

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Uh was I mistaken - I understood the questions regarding multiple doses, plussing, pendulum, combo remedies etc to be whether or not they fit into the definiation of homeopathy (or as I changed it to classical homeopathy) was I wrong abou tthat? It seems you have now convieniently changed the question to "how do you know if it works" not really fair to change the question and them claim I didn't answer it.

Barb, let me explain. When people have discussions like this, they often use one question to lead on to another. When the first question is answered, the next is then posed. We had assumed you were bright enough to see the connection.

People calling themselves homoeopaths say that all these procedures are valid. They base this belief on asserting that "it works". There appears to be no difference in the strength or nature of the evidence between any of the methods. They all rely solely on a self-proclaimed homoeopath declaring that they work.

So, if you say that some things are valid homoeopathic practice and others aren't, we wonder about your criteria for making the distinction. Do you have some way to measure whether remedies produced by one method are active, while those produced by another are not? Because remember, they all "work" according to the people promoting them.

Now you yourself, in the "grafting" thread, actually seemed to take what I would see as the rational scientific approach.

Rolfe: If there is real doubt about the quality or efficacy of a grafted remedy, then how can anyone ever justify using the procedure? .... Is this an ethical way to behave with people's health?

Barb: if they have evidence to support it's efficacy

So, a homoeopathic practice in that thread is acceptable if evidence can be produced that it is effective.

But when I ask you for evidence that your practices are effective, you just tell me that you believe it works, although maybe it doesn't (paraphrased from the bit about believing from personal observation, but not being able to exclude placebo or coincidence).

Would that be good enough "evidence" for you from another homoeopath about a non-standard technique? How can anything be scrutinised or rejected if your standard of evidence is simply that someone declares that they believe they've seen it work, and absolutely everybody is obviously going to say that?

Rolfe.

PS. Glad to see you got the A key unstuck!

 

[anonimouse]

How can anything be scrutinised or rejected if your standard of evidence is simply that someone declares that they believe they've seen it work, and absolutely everybody is obviously going to say that?

Barb is trying to play both sides of the fence, Rolfe. She's trying to be mildly skeptical of homeopathy that "doesn't work", yet at the same time trying to convey the notion that her version of homeopathy "does work". The problem is that she has no more proof that her version of homeopathy works as anyone else.

 

[Barbrae]

It's meant to give you pause for thought.

If other homeopaths commend these non-classical practices, where do you draw your limits? Why is their experience, based as it is on false doctrine, not valid, whereas yours, based on correct doctrine, is valid?

You have failed to elucidate for yourself the intimate connection between the question of definition of 'correct' practice and the issue of whether any of it works. It's not a mistake, Barb, the efficacy problem is implicit in the definition problem. It's your problem.

How many times do you lead the horse to water before deciding to shoot the stupid animal and buy a car?

SO your repeated questioning of the definition was just a little ruse and youreally didn't care what my definition was? okay, thanks for wasting my time ther with that one.

 

[Barbrae]

I have repeatedly said that I CAN NOT prove homeopathy's efficacy ACCORDING to your standards, if I come right out fromt he beginning and say that, why do you continue to try to ask me for the proof, you even ask in odd round about ways - don't you listen?

 

[Chris Haynes]

So it is scientifically impossible to prove homeopathy works?

We are expected to take it on faith that homeopathy is a valid form of medicine?

Why wouldn't the scientific method of inquiry work to prove homeopathy? Is there something in it that is beyond this world? Why would it be excempt for the natural laws of physics?... Including this form of the three laws of thermodynamics:

1) You can't get something for nothing.

2) You can't even break even.

3) You cannot leave the game.

( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm?CFID=16006213&CFTOKEN=10765055 )

This reinforces my opinion that homeopathy works only as a substitute where psychological therapy would be appropriate --- but without the stigma of seeing either a psychologist or a psychiatrist.

Even for pets --- where the owners are the ones calmed by thinking they are actually doing something their animals. That usually works for conditions that improve on their own, but not for other things which have been pointed out by both BSM and Rolfe.

 

[anonimouse]

I have repeatedly said that I CAN NOT prove homeopathy's efficacy ACCORDING to your standards, if I come right out fromt he beginning and say that, why do you continue to try to ask me for the proof, you even ask in odd round about ways - don't you listen?

Then what standards can it by proven by? How can someone objectively determine that it was the homeopathic remedy that caused the improvement in the patient? If your answer is "they got better after taking the remedy", well, that's not an answer. That's post ergo propter hoc.

 

[Zombified]

I have repeatedly said that I CAN NOT prove homeopathy's efficacy ACCORDING to your standards, if I come right out fromt he beginning and say that, why do you continue to try to ask me for the proof, you even ask in odd round about ways - don't you listen?

So, if you believe a remedy works, then if somebody walks into your office with the appropriate set of complaints, you have some reasonable expectation of being able to address those complaints, right?

And if you repeat this 100 times, you expect that you'd be able to address the complaints of some large fraction of those 100 people, right?

In fact, you have some confidence that if you didn't do anything, many of those complaints would not, by themselves, improve as quickly, right?

All we're asking for when we ask for evidence, is that somebody try the above, and count. Yes, there's more complicated statistics to demonstrate the degree of confidence and so on, but seriously, it all boils down to counting how many patients you can successfully treat.

Is that really an insurmountable barrier? By saying you can't pass the scientific test of efficacy, you're basically saying you can't help the next 100 people who walk in the door with the appropriate complaint any more than letting them alone. To me, you've effectively admitted that homeopathy doesn't work, even though I know that's not what you mean.

So what is so wrong with the scientific test of efficacy that you can't pass the test, yet still have what you claim is a real treatment?