Veterinary homoeopathy illegal?

[Sarah-I]

No Rolfe. All the cases that I have are extremely well documented from beginning to end and all contain conventional diagnoses with accompanying tests too.

Yes, this case with the dog may be poorly understood, as I am not a vet, but what I really want to know is if a dog would need to be put to sleep from what you would claim to call vestibular syndrome?

If I have understood your previous posts correctly you say that a dog with this condition will recover spontaneously with no treatment within a matter of a few days and that any vomiting can be controlled with medication. Is this correct so far? If so, can a dog have a second attack of this and if so would an attack that was so bad that they did not spontaneously recover from bring about the necessity for it to be put to sleep?

What I am talking about as I described above, was where the dog collapsed once and could not walk. Her head was listing heavily to one side and had to be supported for her. She could not drink unless it was offered, her breathing was laboured and she did not pass urine for a matter of 24 to 48 hours. She was restless and could not move herself during the night and her position had to be changed for her when she became uncomfortable or restless.

Her condition improved during the next week, but very slowly. She was able to walk again, but quite unsteadily and not very far. She was quite breathless and would also cough and cough. Towards the end of the week she started to go down hill again very fast. She was given some food and then vomited it. From this time she would not eat and would not drink. She could not move at all by herself and could not walk. Her breathing was again laboured and she was anxious and restless. In the end she had to be put to sleep as she just could not go on.

Do you not think that you would want to revise your diagnosis after this unless dogs can die from vestibular syndrome. This does not seem to be what you are saying at all and that they will all recover spontanously.

I have a friend who is a vet and he qualified from Cambridge University. He saw this dog and told me in no uncertain terms that she had had a stroke. You still want to stick with your vestibular syndrome then?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

No Rolfe. All the cases that I have are extremely well documented from beginning to end and all contain conventional diagnoses with accompanying tests too.

Your stroke dog does not have a well-documented diagnosis. One thing you have not specified is whether she had nystagmus. If she did then the diagnosis of IVS is almost guaranteed. If not, then it has a lower probability.

But, as Rolfe has said, retrospective diagnosis is impossible and if not confirmtory testing was done at the time then no contemporaneous diagnosis was made either. Show me the MRI scan. Without that your stroke diagnosis is empty speculation and all I have done is give you a more likely explanation, but I am not pretending it to be a definitive diagnosis.

I'll leave you to defend to other homeopaths your desire to label your patient with a diagnosis, but let's not get into that now


Do you not think that you would want to revise your diagnosis after this unless dogs can die from vestibular syndrome. This does not seem to be what you are saying at all and that they will all recover spontanously.

Read my post again. "More than 90% of cases are more than 90% better after 2 weeks." i.e. a small minority do not get so well and a few get put to sleep".

Whatever your dog really had, the one thing you do not have is a proper diagnosis. IVS, though, is more common that strokes by several orders of magnitude. Brain tumours are less common, but also more common than strokes. There is also a host of other more obscure CNS disease in older dogs.

I have a friend who is a vet and he qualified from Cambridge University. He saw this dog and told me in no uncertain terms that she had had a stroke. You still want to stick with your vestibular syndrome then?

I always find it curious that you and your ilk cite authority when it coincides with your prejudices, but stubbornly refuse to bow to authority when it does not. I suggest you ask your friend about IVS. I also suggest you reflect upon your experience of strokes in people and ask how a stroke would produce bilaterally symmetrical hindlimb paresis while at the same time it produces a lateralising head tilt. Also, how does a stroke produce pulmonary oedema (for that matter, how does IVS produce pulmonary oedema? It doesn't, which rather suggests that the diagnosis is not so clear cut). Next, ask yourself from your wide experience of strokes in your career as a nurse, how often does a second stroke yield identical symptoms to the first.

We don't know what was really wrong with your dog, all we are trying to point out is that a stroke remains very unlikely.

I also don't see what this has to do with homeopathy. I assumed we were given this anecdote to attest to the power of magic pills, but it seems the dog was put to sleep, so what point were you trying to make?

When citing Chris Day as an authority, have you read anything of the case the RSPCA took to court?

 

[Rolfe]

I have a friend who is a vet and he qualified from Cambridge University.

Since he hasn't mentioned it, I'll mention it for him. Badly Shaved Monkey is a vet who qualified from Cambridge University. (Oh, and not just with a first degree, but with a PhD on top of it.) Would you care to respect his authority for a bit?

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Since he hasn't mentioned it, I'll mention it for him. Badly Shaved Monkey is a vet who qualified from Cambridge University. (Oh, and not just with a first degree, but with a PhD on top of it.) Would you care to respect his authority for a bit?

Rolfe.

I like this citing authority. If that's the way to win an argument with a homeopath, let's go for the big one; the Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Exodus 22:18. I think that about does it for the purveyors of magic water, so Q, E and, I suppose, D.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

But seriously, this whole arguing from authority is really quite an insight into the naivety of the woo world view. They like to portray themselves as radical iconoclasts, but their grip on the apron-strings of certain authority figures is amazingly tenacious. So tenacious, indeed, that it precludes an ability to be truly iconoclastic and apply independent critical judgement of what that figure says. So, Sarah, how come you believe that weird diagnosis and not the arguments against it? And still, what the hell does it have to do with the matter at hand? Whatever the dog had, it was euthanased, how does that help support the case for homeopathy.

Talking of where people choose to put their faith and the human capacity for ability to place their trust in unreliable oracles, I am reminded of a friend of my step-mother's who was going through Alcoholics Anonymous. The programme requires that the EtOH dependent place their trust in a larger power in order to help them through the process (no, I don't know the details, I don't have an alcohol problem- I drink, I get drunk, I fall down, no problem). Anyhoooo... this chap has no faith in any higher being, so for the purposes of the exercise he chose to place his faith in his doorknob and when seeking the support of a great power to help him through the dark times he would draw on the support of the spirtual power of his doorknob. Only in America, folks! Makes reliance upon Dead Sam Hahnemann seem rational.

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose you're right, it must be Chris Day she's talking about. After all, do we know any other Cambridge graduate who has turned to the Dark Side? And she did say she knew him, too. (By the way, who do you think Niall was talking about at the start of his article? "After all, it's only water!" Quite.)

After having had the dubious privilege of reading through Chris's voluminous and utterly sickening case notes of the skin/ear case I mentioned, if he said it was a stroke, I'd put very good money on its being anything else at all.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I'll leave you to defend to other homeopaths your desire to label your patient with a diagnosis, but let's not get into that now.

Oh, I dunno, why not?

Did you notice the way Mark, whom Wim of course reveres, is touting a specific treatment for "hyperthyroidism" in cats? That is, the same remedies whatever the clinical presentation. (That's one of the things that made it so easy to call cascade on him.) But you know and I know that the clinical presentation of hyperthyroidism varies dramatically - from the manic, voraciously hungry, drinking like a fish, thin as a rake tachycardic ones to the dull, lethargic, anorectic ones. In our paradigm, we figure out the cause and address that - no matter exactly the clinical presentation, fix the underlying cause and the cat will get better. No problem. But the homoeopaths aren't supposed to be doing that by their own rules. How can Mark possibly justify recommending the same treatment no matter where on that spectrum of clinical signs the cat presents?

And how can he justify using three remedies mixed together, completely at variance with Hahnemann's explicit teachings? And giving the remedies so frequently - twice daily indefinitely? Isn't that also completely at variance with Hanhnemann? And he says that this isn't a cure, and if the twice daily remedies are stopped, the clinical signs will recur. Another complete contradiction of homoeopathic theory, which says that homoeopathy is a complete cure and unlike evil allopathy you won't find yourself on permanent medication. (And I have a feeling that at least one of his remedies is actually isopathy, which he seems very fond of.)

So is this another one Sarah? A specific treatment for "CVA"? Don't you even realise Hahnemann specifically forbade homoeopaths to try to find out the underlying cause of disease, and instructed them simply to divine the ideal remedy by concentrating on the symptoms?

Stuck record time, we're back at Snoopy and her belated exhortations to get a proper diagnosis once she realises you can kill people by making vague and content-free suggestions in the face of serious illness. But this is entirely unhomoeopathic. And it doesn't matter if it's Chris Day doing it, or Mark Elliott, or an unqualified amateur, it still isn't homoeopathy.

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

And it doesn't matter if it's Chris Day doing it, or Mark Elliott, or an unqualified amateur, it still isn't homoeopathy.

That's the problem with these particular doorknobs, they're not even true to their own brand of nonsense.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I suppose you're right, it must be Chris Day she's talking about.

Yes, you may well be right.

So, Sarah, is Chris Day the doorknob who diagnosed 'stroke' in your dog?

 

[Sarah-I]

I am not trying to make any point at all here for homeopathy or otherwise. I was just trying to find a clear cut diagnosis. This dog was put to sleep eventually and was not treated for this homeopathically at all.

I also realise that this case is not well documented. You have also made one massive and incorrect assumption that the Cambridge trained vet that I was referring to was Chris Day. I have to tell you that you are wrong. For one thing, I do not even know Chris Day. The only way that I know of him is through the HPTG website where he is one of the vet tutors and I did not know that he trained at Cambridge either.

The person I am referring to is a family friend who happened to train as a vet at Cambridge and also saw the dog and said that he thought she had had a stroke and felt that it could have been caused by a calcium plaque in the neck breaking away.

The other vet that was called at the time said that it was a stroke too.

I am not making any point at all here, just trying to find a diagnosis.

I have had plenty of experience at caring for humans who have suffered CVA's. More so than I care to remember throughout my career.

 

[Rolfe]

I have a friend who is a vet and he qualified from Cambridge University. He saw this dog and told me in no uncertain terms that she had had a stroke.

The person I am referring to is a family friend who happened to train as a vet at Cambridge and also saw the dog and said that he thought she had had a stroke and felt that it could have been caused by a calcium plaque in the neck breaking away.

OK, we'll absolve Chris of any involvement in this case. Do we also absolve all homoeopaths of having anything to do with this case? You never did explain why this particular shaggy dog story was getting an airing in this thread.

Now, please compare and contrast these two quotes, both of your own words. First, this unnamed genius "told me in no uncertain terms that she had had a stroke." But then "he thought she had had a stroke." Bit of a difference, no?

Now, you tell me how "a calcium plaque in the neck breaking away" can cause a stroke, or how that calcium plaque got there in the first place, or how your friend knew it was there.

Sarah, this is complete piffle. I'm not prepared to criticise your friend, assuming he exists, because I think it's far more likely that you're completely misreporting anything that was said.

So, you tell us about a dog with collapse, head tilt, dyspnoea, anuria and a degree of paresis, who was not treated homoeopathically and who was eventually put to sleep. You agree that the case is not well documented (despite claiming that "All the cases that I have are extremely well documented from beginning to end and all contain conventional diagnoses with accompanying tests too"), and that we really don't have any definite diagnosis.

If there was a point to mentioning this, we've all completely missed it. Care to elaborate?

By the way, the most comprehensive exposition of the cascade thing is here. Just in the vague hope of reminding us what the thread is actually about.

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I am not trying to make any point at all here for homeopathy or otherwise. I was just trying to find a clear cut diagnosis.

So what was the point of introducing this case into this thread with the words;

"What would you consider to be a serious case in an animal, namely a dog? Is a CVA good enough?

If so, I have an extremely good case example that was seen and diagnosed by a conventional vet."

in response to Rolfe's;

"I don't know about "not sick", but they'll be patients that aren't in serious need of real medicine, put it like that. (Or they'll be patients already on the real medicine, and the homoeopath will be adding a little bit of magic on top of it.)"?

felt that it could have been caused by a calcium plaque in the neck breaking away.

How often does such a thing occur in dogs? Do you think human strokes are caused by "a calcium plaque in the neck breaking away"?



I am not making any point at all here


See the quote at the start of this reply and you! You aren't making a very good point, but you did introduce this issue in response to a criticism that homeopathy does not treat serious disease.

, just trying to find a diagnosis

Well that 's not possible. As I have aready said, it's empty speculation.

 

[Prester John]

So next time i see a Vet on TV proclaiming his use of homeopathy, who do i write a letter of complaint to ?

 

[Rolfe]

So next time i see a Vet on TV proclaiming his use of homeopathy, who do i write a letter of complaint to ?

You could try:

STEVE DEAN, BVetMed, DVR, MRCVS,
VMD Director and Chief Executive,
Veterinary Medicines Directorate,
Woodham Lane, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3LS.

Since he's the one who has declared that homoeopathy falls within the cascade and therefore cannot legally be used by veterinary surgeons.

Rolfe.

 

[Lothian]

Rolfe,

I am concerned by the statement that

Thus, assuming a homoeopathic remedy is authorised either as a veterinary or human medicine, it may be used under the cascade using exactly the same rules as any other veterinary medicine.

I imagine that it is unlikely that there will be special homeopathic animal cures and that the dubious logic which justifies a homeopathic medicine’s application to humans applies to animals.

I read the above quote as saying that if a medicine (of whatever source) is licensed for humans then it can be used for animals.

I am however mixing up my terms. I have used the term licensed and Steve Dean used the term authorised.

Homeopathic medicines are registered in the UK.

To achieve
registration You need to pass 3 criteria.

· be for oral or external use. This includes all methods of administration with the exception of injections;
· be sufficiently dilute to guarantee their safety;
· make no therapeutic claims.

So I would therefore expect that the sugar pills sold to gullible people could therefore be administered under Steve’s wording. However he goes on to say there are currently no homoeopathic remedies authorised for use as veterinary medicines in the UK.

What does authorised mean ? Is it different to registration ? Does it mean the same as licenced ?
I note that all medicines homeopathic, herbal and conventional may be licensed but unreasonably the authorities seem to want proof that they actually work

 

[Rolfe]

What does authorised mean ? Is it different to registration ? Does it mean the same as licenced ?
I note that all medicines homeopathic, herbal and conventional may be licensed but unreasonably the authorities seem to want proof that they actually work

I'm a little hazy about this myself. It will be addressed in a follow-up letter. So far as I know there are no homoeopathic medicines "authorised" for human use in the sense that Steve means (which I take as having a product licence after being tested for safety and efficacy, and having specitic therapeutic indications). But I agree, it's something that has to be clarified.

However, even if there is some way in which homoeopathic remedies are regarded as "authorised" for human use, this is by no means a get-out-of-jail-free card. One is only allowed to use a human-licensed drug in the absence of any veterinary-licensed drug. And one is only allowed to use a drug licensed for use in another veterinary species in the absence of a drug with a specific licence for the species you are treating. (It was that last one that Mr. Swift got caught on.) This is why it's called "cascade". The vast majority of the veterinary homoeopaths' cases would be caught out by the existence of properly licensed veterinary dugs before they got near to looking at human-licensed drugs.

Which I don't think homoeopathic remedies are in the intended sense anyway. Apart from anything else, they all have to have the words "with no specific therapeutic indication" on the packaging, which puts them pretty much beyond the pale.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, I've just looked up the British National Formulary, a wonderful publication that lists everything available to UK doctors in the way of pharmaceuticals. From the latest anti-cancer drugs to aspirin and zinc-and-castor-oil.

No entry for homoeopathy (any spelling). I also looked up arnica, belladonna and pulsatilla. No entries for the first or last, and belladonna just gets a name-check as being present in a couple of OTC anti-diarrhoea preparations (non-homoeopathic), with the comment that this is an "outmoded treatment, any clinical virtues being outweighed by atropinic side-effects."

I also checked what that august publication had to say about extemporaneous preparations.

A product should be dispensed extemporaneously only when no product with a marketing authorisation is available.

Which is exactly the same as in veterinary medicine. You could theoretically (and the human homoeopaths probably do) sneak homoeopathic prescribing in under this category. The difference is that with the cascade legislation also operating in the veterinary field, the restrictions are that much tighter. See Steve's first letter.

I think the key is the phrase "marketing authorisation". That's what replaced the "product licence" some years ago, though we do still tend to talk about product licences 'cos we're lazy. Steve, however, is using the correct term, authorised medicines. And it does not appear that any homoeopathic product has a marketing authorisation for human use.

Rolfe.

 

[Capsid]

Here is a list of homeopathic products with a product licence.

http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/inforesources/productinfo/june02hom.pdf

All granted in 2002.

The current legislation is set out here

http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/licensingmeds/types/homoeopathic.htm

"The homoeopathic registration scheme, implemented under a European Directive 92/73 EEC, is a simplified regulatory procedure, whereby products are assessed for their quality and safety and can then be marketed without specific medical claims. The simplified registration scheme thus enables a rapid introduction of new homoeopathic medicines onto the UK market.

Registration under the scheme is compulsory only in respect of homoeopathic products new to the UK market. Products that were previously on the market by virtue of PLRs continue to be available."

I don't undertsand this position by the MHRA, they know these products do not pass clinical trials for efficacy yet they are happy for the NHS (my tax money) to spend their money on it.

 

[Benguin]

Furthermore quality testing is logically impossible.

There is no way they could tell apart the different 30C potions, and I suspect it would be hard to actually come up with sensible confidence margins for lower dose stuff like 4C as the mixing/potentising process could mean the actual strength is very variable.

 

[Rolfe]

It says "registration certificates". Would that be something different?

Like, how come none of these things are in the BNF?

Rolfe.