The Homeopathy Survey

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Elerrina — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:59:14 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

The thing that fascinates me is how some people who understand the weakness of anecdotal evidence, and the importance of rigorous scientific trials are prepared to accept homeopathy based entirely on the former and a complete lack of the latter. I ask myself what makes people prepared to suspend critical judgement?

[/quote]

This is what always confused and intrigued me. I really don't understand how people working in a scientific profession can believe in something like this. What also confuses me is how some pick and chose. We have a homeopathic vet at work and she doesn't believe in homeopathic vaccines but does most other treatments, surely if you believe it works you believe all of it works why would some of it work and not others when its all the same thing? :S

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Zara Mitchell — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:12:47 GMT

I understand that it was about homeopathy entirely. Poor wording on my part, I apologise. In your opinion you don't think it would have added anything, I guess in my opinion it would have because then both parties would have been represented fairly. As it happens i think the outcome of the survey would probably still be the same but then you could at least say this survey was constructed involving both parties so it would carry more weight with the people who may criticise it. But I guess thats just my opinion, your the editor and I'm not.

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:11:41 GMT

Hi Zara,

My pleasure.

One thing I would like to emphasise is that our survey was about homeopathy specifically, and not 'alternative medicine' in general. Some other forms of alternative medicine seem to me to be more plausible, though in general they are still hampered by a lack of proper scientific evidence. The question goes: 'what do you call alternative medicine that has been proven in trials to be effective'. Answer: 'medicine'.

As to the question of having a homeopath involved in the construction of the survey, I don't feel it would have added anything to it. In other words, a survey asking whether or not you believe in homeopathy no more needs to be conducted by a homeopath than a survey asking whether you like ice cream needs to be conducted by Mr Whippy

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:52:38 GMT

That's right, Mark, I have nothing to gain either way. Honestly, if proponents of homeopathy were able to demonstrate efficacy in a properly controlled study that stands up to the scrutiny of brighter minds than mine, then I would revise my opinion. Meantime, I think it is a disgrace that the NHS spends £4M per annum peddling water, when that money could be so much better spent alleviating suffering.

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Zara Mitchell — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 08:46:53 GMT

Thank you for your justification. I take on board some of your points.

For me all this was about was merely a passing comment about how I felt the survey was constructed and what it actually achieved. And you are right, I have brought my personal beliefs into it which is incorrect when analysing overall. It has actually been quite insightful to converse with the pardon the pun " the horse's mouth" as you have given me a better understanding of your reasoning of why it was constructed that way. I guess (maybe naively so) I thought that if you were constructing a survey on this topic you would involve parties from both sides to ensure that both points of view were well represented and the questions asked were those that were agreed upon by the "conventional" and the "alternative".

Again thank you for your comments.

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 20:11:34 GMT

Apologies for intruding, but I read the topic on vetsurgeon.org where Arlo first brought up the subject of homeopathy. In my opinion Arlo has been very considerate in the way the final questions were phrased; this was by no means a first draft. Everyone on vetsurgeon.org was invited to view the questions and offer suggestions, and indeed several were modified from their original form because actually some vets thought the original phrasing was unfairly tilted against homeopaths. Arlo incorporated the suggestions received and in my opinion created a fair questionnaire.

Nobody was called a witch or wizard, and while I don't think the homeopaths on vetsurgeon.org were entirely happy with the end result, I believe that Arlo has honestly tried to solicit input from both sides.

The survey was solely intended as a 'what do you think and what would you do' questionnaire and never claimed to prove or disprove homeopathy.

As a matter of interest, herbal medicine and homeopathy is not the same; some of the oldest veterinary drugs were originally sourced from plants, herbs and fungi, containing active ingredients that were isolated, reproduced, manufactured, and developed into today's wide veterinary pharmacy.

I know Arlo is perfectly capable of defending himself, but I just thought I'd weigh in and say that while he's no believer in homeopathy, to my knowledge he doesn't gain or lose anything by being on one side or the other of the debate. (Arlo, feel free to correct me if I have misstated or misquoted your views in this respect.)

Kind regards,
Mark

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 19:37:51 GMT

Hi Zara,

The co author is Alex Gough MA VetMB CertSAM CertVC MRCVS, Head of Medicine Referrals at Bath Veterinary Referrals.

Alex is on record as saying that homeopathy is ineffective.

However, our own personal beliefs make not a jot of difference to the survey, because a) we didn't take part in it ourselves, and b) as I say the survey was carefully constructed in order to allow respondents the opportunity to respond positively about homeopathy. Indeed from memory, positive responses were usually the first options. Despite this, the majority denounced homeopathy.

At the end of the day, the survey was NOT a survey to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy, it was simply to measure what the profession thinks of homeopathy. It showed conclusively that the majority of practitioners think it is hokum.

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Zara Mitchell — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:09:47 GMT

Thank you for your response

Clearly we'll agree to disagree on this one. But it is clear which side of the fence you sit on. Just out of interest as you mentioned you were co-author, was the other author a devout homeopathic vet/herbalist or witch who sits on the other side of the fence?

Re: The Homeopathy Survey

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:40:40 GMT

Hi Zara

Sorry for the slow reply.

Of course, since I was a co-author of the survey, I'm bound to disagree with you that the survey was poor, or that it didn't achieve anything!

The objective was merely to judge attitudes to homeopathy amongst vets and nurses. We simply were not looking to measure anecdotal evidence of efficacy. I'm sure you know that anecdote, in whatever quantity, is not evidence of anything. Quite simply, our own subjective judgement of efficacy is too unreliable. Inidvidually, we frequently perceive an effect when there is none. We are all biased to some degree (we want to believe things work). We often draw unreliable conclusions (for an example, we see an effect and assume it was because of a treatment, when as often as not, the dog would have got better anyway. This is known as regression to the mean, and it is the rule that states that if you take a medicine when you're ill, such as an aspirin for a headache, the chances are you just got better anyway, and it had nothing to do with the medicine).

So it really would not be relevant to ask whether anyone has seen cases where homeopathy has worked. It wouldn't be evidence of anything.

Your other questions about conventional medicine are also (forgive me) beside the point. Just because conventional medicine has its flaws is not a reason to revert to witchcraft, homeopathy, or any other form of medicine which all the science directs us to believe is ineffective.

The facts are that currently (and this may change in the future, though I would be surprised), scientific evidence weighs overwhelmingly in favour of homeopathy being totally ineffective in animals, and no better than placebo in humans. It's not a medicine, it's a faith.

Think about it. Homeopathy requires first that you use a substance that is thought (not proven, mind you) to cause the symptoms of whatever disease you are treating. That substance is then diluted to the degree that there is unlikely to be even a single molecule of it left. It is argued that the more it is diluted (and succussed, which is just a fancy word for shaking), the more powerful it becomes. That just defies all the laws of physics and chemistry!

But more than that, the latest meta-analyses of studies into homeopathy show it being no more effective than a placebo in humans. There isn't a 'real' placebo effect in animals (though you could argue there is one by proxy), so there is no effect in animals.

So, the point of the survey? Firstly to see what proportion of vets and nurses believe it works. The answer is a tiny minority of vets. I'm about to look at the numbers for nurses. Secondly, and more importantly in terms of the 'service' the profession offers pet owners, is the question of how many vets are prepared to refer for homeopathic treatment despite believing it to be totally ineffective.

In terms of the questions we asked, they ALL offered a range of responses, from total disbelief to total belief. So I disagree with you that it was biased. Quite simply, if people believed in homeopathy, they had every opportunity to say so. They did not.

Now dons Kevlar body suit and hides in the bushes.