Homeopathy

Re: Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:05:39 GMT

[quote user="Elerrina"]Personally I think the main reason for the increase in demand for a lot of the alternative therapies is due to the internet. Many people are now able to access articles which look scientific which look informed and in reality are not. [/quote]

Very good point (in fact, I've posted it over on vetsurgeon.org without naming the author).

I think more practices should publish information on their websites in the way that the NHS has done, here:

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Re: Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:26:46 GMT

[quote user="Caro Laithwaite VN,"]Sal re the sign part..l am getting bogged down like a clogged loo...[/quote]

Hi Caro,

The survey asks:

Do you think that before prescribing a homeopathic medicine, MsRCVS should be obliged to get clients to sign a statement that they understand that in trials, homeopathy has been shown to be ineffective?

Re: Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 07 Aug 2013 09:24:03 GMT

[quote user="Selena (Hypnorm) Carnell VN"]I work with a homeopathic vet, often clients will try homeopathy after standard medical treatment has failed.[/quote]

I would argue that the only proper rationale for using any treatment, alternative or otherwise, is compelling evidence that it works. Just because conventional medicine has failed, is not a reason to resort to something which is implausible and not backed up by proper evidence of efficacy.

[quote user="Selena (Hypnorm) Carnell VN"]I think it's unfair to discredit something when I know my boss has done a lot of training and does annual cpd for this too.[/quote]

Yes, Selena, I am uncomfortable with that too. But think about how weak that argument is from the pet owner's point of view: "Mr Pet Owner, we'd like to recommend something which is based on a preposterous notion AND which the best evidence available today shows is ineffective. But the boss has done lots of training and spent loads of money on CPD, so that's OK."

Whaaat?? I'm a pet owner. I rely on my vet to tell me what works. Not to put me in the direction of things proven not to work!

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:56:53 GMT

its when a client wants to try homeopathy and the vet doesnt believe in it - a disclaimer if you like

Re: Homeopathy

Caro Laithwaite VN — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:54:22 GMT

Sal re the sign part..l am getting bogged down like a clogged loo...

Is it the vets who do homeopathy who do the disclaimer signed

Or is it the vets who are asked to send for 2nd opinion?

or is it vets who are asked to give homeopathy a go and have to read up fast...or would they refuse

Re: Homeopathy

Selena Carnell — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:05:19 GMT

I work with a homeopathic vet, often clients will try homeopathy after standard medical treatment has failed. We also offer acupuncture, osteopathy and reiki. We don't push it but it is there if clients request it. What is worrying is the amount of hydrotherapy places that are opening with inexperience staff... We are getting clients to sign disclaimers that any problems resulting from hydrotherapy at their request we cannot be held responsible for any problems. This may be a different thread completely... I think it's unfair to discredit something when I know my boss has done a lot of training and does annual cpd for this too.

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 19:41:33 GMT

[quote user="Elerrina"]

Personally I think the main reason for the increase in demand for a lot of the alternative therapies is due to the internet. Many people are now able to access articles which look scientific which look informed and in reality are not.

[/quote]

and that I agree with, and I also feel that the internet has contributed to the increase into some really dodgy alternative therapies. If you think homeopathy is dodgy then the likes of amaroli to give you nice white teeth or cure your cancer will have you raising both eyebrows as high as they will go (well as far as the botox will allow these days)

Re: Homeopathy

Elerrina — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:58:36 GMT

I am forever seeing posts from people on facebook about x substance causing cancer with some Dr or scientist backing it. When you actually look it up for yourself you find that the person doesn't exist or conveniently is trying to sell some thing to protect against said illness.

I also think a lot will probably stem back to MMR type controversies. Many people nowadays seem to think that the drugs companies are trying to poison everyone (mercury in vaccines omg) although what they stand to gain from doing that is beyond me.

Re: Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 15:49:01 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]so what was wrong with adding a whole list of remedies and treatments and saying in one fell swoop that the veterinary profession didn't believe in them? [/quote]

Well, because precisely as you have just pointed out, vets will have a different levels of confidence in different treatments, and to measure that accurately, we need to look at them individually. You couldn't possibly lump a whole load of them together and hope to get a meaningful result.

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]so its not important then to find out what prompts somebody to use homeopathy over conventional treatment?[/quote]

Uh? I said that would be an interesting piece of research. I agreed with you

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]as to the disclaimer signing - its a very short step from there to suggesting to a client that their pet will only get better if they believe in the same as the vet treatment wise, could add up to a spectacular backfire when Felix or Fido 'drops off the perch' inspite.[/quote]

You've got to remember, the question was not asked by the regulatory authority as part of a decision-making process to decide whether to make disclaimer-signing compulsory. The question was asked by VetSurgeon.org purely as an indication of how strongly vets and nurses feel about offering clients a treatment regime that, if it were to work, would defy all the known laws of science accumulated over hundreds of years.

The fact that so many vets have indicated that they think clients SHOULD sign a disclaimer is an indication of the very great strength of feeling that homeopathy does not work.

In my experience, vets are generally pretty conservative, and would not indicate that a disclaimer would be appropriate without being VERY certain in their own minds.

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:20:19 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]I have to admit this whole homeopathy debate has got me riled, and not about what people do or do not believe but the high handed approach. I do not understand why homeopathy has been singled out when there are a number of other therapies that could equally be included.[/quote]

Yes, there are lots of other therapies that could equally be included, but we had to start somewhere. If we'd started with crystal waving, doubtless someone else would have complained that it was unfair to single out crystal waving.

[/quote]

so what was wrong with adding a whole list of remedies and treatments and saying in one fell swoop that the veterinary profession didnt believe in them? Would save a lot of time wouldnt it What would be wrong about issuing a blanket statement that all complementary /alternative remedies and treatment are sham ..... but then hang on a minute vets can attend a weekend course which entitles them to practice acupuncture exclusively on animals doesnt it? so that one couldnt be on the list could it?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]I think it may be of value in this debate to explore the reasons why clients are choosing homeopathy and try and work with them [/quote]

I think that would be an interesting piece of research, but doesn't 'working with them' mean educating them that water cannot treat anything (apart from dehydration, I suppose!)?

[/quote]

so its not important then to find out what prompts somebody to use homeopathy over conventional treatment?

as to the disclaimer signing - its a very short step from there to suggesting to a client that their pet will only get better if they believe in the same as the vet treatment wise, could add up to a spectacular backfire when Felix or Fido 'drops off the perch' inspite.

Re: Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 12:01:57 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]The suggestion that a client choosing to use homeopathy should sign some sort of document or disclaimer saying that their choice (in the opinion of their vet) is to use something that doesnt work I find is an affront to the client. I wouldnt have a problem if this is mentioned to the client but to go to the trouble of forcing a signature? This is what I meant by belittling or challenging somebody's faith if you are effectively telling them that what they are doing is wrong.[/quote]

And that's precisely why we asked the question, to discover what percentage of you think clients should sign it and what percentage think they shouldn't.

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]What this debate doesnt recognise is that the majority of clients who wish to use homeopathic remedies, certainly from my experience, do so as an adjunct to conventional medicine and are not using it as a stand alone. There are actually very few people who use it as a stand alone. It also fails to recognise that many of the clients who bring homeopathy into their treatment options are doing so because conventional medicine alone has not worked for them. [/quote]

Interesting point, but I wonder whether you're right. After all, you wouldn't know how many people go direct to the homeopathy store and circumvent the vet. An even if you are right, it still doesn't change the fact that in addition to conventional medicine, they are buying some very expensive water!

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]I think it may be of value in this debate to explore the reasons why clients are choosing homeopathy and try and work with them [/quote]

I think that would be an interesting piece of research, but doesn't 'working with them' mean educating them that water cannot treat anything (apart from dehydration, I suppose!)?

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:04:12 GMT

I dont think any less of anybody for their beliefs - thats not the way I work I am a live and let live sort of person.

I have to admit this whole homeopathy debate has got me riled, and not about what people do or do not believe but the high handed approach. I do not understand why homeopathy has been singled out when there are a number of other therapies that could equally be included.

The suggestion that a client choosing to use homeopathy should sign some sort of document or disclaimer saying that their choice (in the opinion of their vet) is to use something that doesnt work I find is an affront to the client. I wouldnt have a problem if this is mentioned to the client but to go to the trouble of forcing a signature? This is what I meant by belittling or challenging somebody's faith if you are effectively telling them that what they are doing is wrong.

What this debate doesnt recognise is that the majority of clients who wish to use homeopathic remedies, certainly from my experience, do so as an adjunct to conventional medicine and are not using it as a stand alone. There are actually very few people who use it as a stand alone. It also fails to recognise that many of the clients who bring homeopathy into their treatment options are doing so because conventional medicine alone has not worked for them.

I think it may be of value in this debate to explore the reasons why clients are choosing homeopathy and try and work with them

Re: Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 11:56:26 GMT

Hi Sal,

You raise an awful lot of very interesting points, and I do hope we can have a good debate about this without you thinking less of me!

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]to me this is nothing more than a witch hunt[/quote]

It's genuinely NOT meant to be anything of the sort. I really mean that. Actually, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of challenging something from which some people derive their livelihood, or have faith in.

That said, as someone who has been on the receiving end of no end of quack suggestions for my sick daughter, it is important that the more outlandish claims are rigourously challenged. That applies as much to conventional medicine as to anything else.

Of course conventional medicine does not have all the answers. Of course some conventional medicines have side-effects. Of course there are 'bad' trials for conventional medicines. Of course they are not 100% effective in 100% of patients. None of this presents an argument for reverting to an alternative method of treatment which has no basis in science.

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]Would you rather clients/ patients should be referred to somebody who doesnt have the veterinary training or knowledge to actually understand what is wrong with an animal just because you dont feel that being a vet and being a homeopath are compatible? Would you rather the client cleared off down the local health food shop and procured their remedies there?[/quote]

Really, I see little benefit in referring to a homeopathic vet over a non-vet homeopath. I'll explain why. Homeopathy is a faith-based medicine. That is to say:

It is based on the idea that you take a substance which is thought to cause a certain set of symptoms in animals. I say thought because even this has not been demonstrated in many cases. Then you dilute it. Not just a bit. You dilute it to the point where there will be not one single molecule of the original substance in the diluent (or to think if it another way, if you were to swallow all the water on earth, you still wouldn't have swallowed enough to ingest a single molecule of the 'active'). As you dilute it, in stages, you shake the preparation. This is called succussion, and it is meant to imbue the water will a 'memory' of the original substance.
This process would defy all the known the laws of science. OK, one could argue that perhaps there is something going on that is as yet undiscovered by science. Problem is that ALL the good quality research shows that homeopathy has no effect other than placebo in humans.
Therefore, belief in homeopathy is just that: a belief. No different to the fact that people used to believe absolutely that the world was flat, and that if you sailed too far out to sea, you'd fall off.

Personally, I would worry that a vet who operates on a faith-based system of medicine is likely to believe that what they are doing is working, when the reality is that it cannot. So I see no advantage in referring to a homeopathic vet over a non-vet homeopath. And against this we have the fact that referring to a homeopathic vet in and of itself lends it a cloak of respectability. I've experienced this first hand when I was referred for a 'belief' treatment for my daughter, and didn't realise until rather a lot later!

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]ridicule their belief system and they look elsewhere but not only do they look elsewhere they become more entrenched in their own beliefs and are less likely to accept anything you have to say.This is basic stuff - create an environment of intolerance and BOOM - this is the stuff wars are made of. I freely admit I do not believe in a lot of the alternative therapies and I am sure that there are plenty of people out there who dont believe in what I do either, but I dont go around declaring that what others are doing is a waste of time and money. Each to their own. What some find helpful some may find hopeless. I would rather try and work alongside a client than against them. I see no possible benefit to man or beast in creating a hostile client[/quote]

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you here, Sal. It is important not to belittle clients, or ridicule their faith, or otherwise alienate them.

That said, they come to a veterinary surgeon for their professional, educated and informed advice. I would argue that any vet or nurse who believes that homeopathy is ineffective is duty bound to explain that to the client. Not belittlingly, but simply by stating the facts. I believe that just to unquestioningly refer on the basis that you might retain some measure of control over the treatment (has that ever happened?), or because 'it's the client's choice', or because 'it won't harm the animal', or because 'we don't have all the answers' is selling the client short. They want your professional advice. If your professional advice is that it doesn't work, that's what you should be telling them, surely.

Re: Homeopathy

Caro Laithwaite VN — Sun, 04 Aug 2013 21:40:01 GMT

Actually if it was a proven witch doctor l wouldn't have a problem l used to have a friend who was one at the TTL next to the holiday camp l went to regularly and would have no problems getting her advice.

And can l suggest you widen this to complimentary medicine, homoeopathy is to narrow a band.

For certain things no l dont agree with homoeopathy such as vaccines seen to many puppies who have had them get parvo. That isnt to say l do believe in it as l have had no reason to use it and have only read how it is meant to work.

l believe in acupuncture it worked for me and l was sceptical till then, sadly it didn't work for pain relief for Santa but neither did conventional medicine.

I also believe in spiritual healing seen what happened when Brian used to channel it ....

Read my other thread l have just got a magnet to help with menopause l don't want HRT amongst other things only allowed max 10yrs then it is withdrawn and often all the symptoms it kept at bay return not counting high risk of cancer.

l like crystals and their uses.

l can see how colour therapy could help l have synaesthesia.

I believe in Angels l am spiritual but hate religion

It is my choice to use or not use and believe the above. People will sit there poopooing it but l dont live my life to please or justify things to others who mean nothing to me. I do what l do and pass on what l think may be of use to some, l learnt when Brian passed just how much time l wasted on things esp people that dont matter a **** when l should have spent energy on those that do and did matter.

You asked for opinions l have given mine.

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 22:03:00 GMT

[quote user="Elerrina"]

Every time they mention using it I say it doesn't work, and that I don't believe it to work or any form of homoeopathy. They know my belief and they expect that reaction from me when they mention it. They just say "oh well it works for me" majority of the time.

[/quote]

and thats ok I dont have a problem with that - you have your belief and your colleagues have their own belief born from their own experience of that remedy. My problem is when it is suggested that vet practices ask clients to sign a 'declaration' telling them what homeopathy is and isnt, its almost telling them that whatever they may believe their vet doesnt share their belief system (which again is fine) but in doing so goes on to suggest that the vet is always right and the client is wrong.

Unless vets are going to include all the other remedies and treatments they feel dont work ( and hey why not, we all know the veterinary world is perfect in every way, without faults or blemishes. Why not upset as many people as you possibly can in one fell swoop ?Why limit yourselves to only one group of people?) to me this is nothing more than a witch hunt

Re: Homeopathy

Elerrina — Sat, 03 Aug 2013 20:36:40 GMT

Everyone knows drugs have potential side effects its just a fact. So I don't see how that is any different from telling people homoeopathy hasn't been proven to work. A lot of people don't even understand homoeopathy, they think its the same as herbalism and works on the same principle as vaccination. So no, I don't think there is anything wrong with explaining it to a client.

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:56:18 GMT

[quote user="Elerrina"]

We don't do that with every medicine that is prescribed

[/quote]

but you are saying its ok to give a blanket explanation that all homeopathic remedies dont work?

[quote user="Elerrina"]

Many of the nurses at work swear by arnica too, but its just not something I can ever find myself believing in. No study has ever shown it to work beyond the placebo effect.

[/quote]

and do you condemn their belief in arnica? or is it something you can live with? do you feel the need to explain the placebo effect to them when they use it? and if you did so how would you imagine they would react?- just curious.

Re: Homeopathy

Elerrina — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:00:13 GMT

We don't do that with every medicine that is prescribed ofc not but a lot of the common ones such as meloxicam and things we do tell them the possible side effects. But in saying that telling people side effects can make them more likely to occur, at least in human research.

With regards to being open minded I agree with Derren Brown on this one "Being open minded isn’t about accepting things mindlessly. Being open minded is about having the information and then making the best decisions you can. A chap called Ian Rowland who wrote a good book on cold-reading made the point that if you’re a chef and you think, ‘well I know if I put poison in this soup and give it to these 200 people it’s going to kill them but, hey, I’ll be open minded’, that’s not being open minded, that’s just being ignorant. That’s just not working with the information you’ve got. So we have information on things like placebo effect and information about cold-reading. These things exists – false memories and anecdotal [evidence], all those things that are important – and taking that on board is just about being able to make better decisions. That’s about being truly open minded. Ignoring them and putting them to one side in this pursuit of easy answers and ‘intuition is the be-all and end-all of truth’, that’s not being open minded at all. I think that’s very narrow minded and certainly to laugh at people who say that evidence is important, I think that’s hypocrisy of the worst kind, to call them narrow minded."

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that's just my view.

Many of the nurses at work swear by arnica too, but its just not something I can ever find myself believing in. No study has ever shown it to work beyond the placebo effect.

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:29:55 GMT

[quote user="Elerrina"]

I agree Arlo, I feel clients should be given the information that nothing has been proven to work etc etc. That doesn't mean belittling anyone its just ensuring that the client feels they're making the right decision with the correct information.

[/quote]

but then to be fair shouldnt you also be pointing out some of the downfalls of the conventional medicines you are supplying ie - there is a small possibility that x might cause fits in your dog or y may cause an allergic reaction which in rare cases could be life threatening - and I bet you everybody does that

It cuts both ways

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:44:56 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

There are a series of arguments for offering or referring to a homeopath:

As you say, by being seen to offer it, at least you'll get owners through the door
To retain some level of control: if you refer to a veterinary homeopath, at least it is to another vet.
It's the clients' choice. If they want it, why not let them have it.
Homeopathy does no harm. It's water.

I can see that the first is possibly true.I struggle with the rest!

[/quote]

ok so you can possibly see that the first point might be true - I suppose its a start.

point two - retaining some level of control. Would you rather clients/ patients should be referred to somebody who doesnt have the veterinary training or knowledge to actually understand what is wrong with an animal just because you dont feel that being a vet and being a homeopath are compatible? Would you rather the client cleared off down the local health food shop and procured their remedies there? In fact when it comes down to it are you saying the client shouldnt involve a vet at all when they are concerned about their animal and find out what is actually wrong with it just because they dont fit in with the conventional approach to treatment?

At the end of the day the client is a consumer and just like any other consumer they like choice - deny choice or ridicule their belief system and they look elsewhere but not only do they look elsewhere they become more entrenched in their own beliefs and are less likely to accept anything you have to say.This is basic stuff - create an environment of intolerance and BOOM - this is the stuff wars are made of. I freely admit I do not believe in a lot of the alternative therapies and I am sure that there are plenty of people out there who dont believe in what I do either, but I dont go around declaring that what others are doing is a waste of time and money. Each to their own. What some find helpful some may find hopeless. I would rather try and work alongside a client than against them. I see no possible benefit to man or beast in creating a hostile client

Most people (I grant you not all) who use complementary therapies if you are at least prepared to meet them half way will be more than likely to consider what you see as 'conventional' treatment, the majority of 'alternative' people I know are willing to explore more than one method of treatment, there are very very few that will not look at other options. Write them off as nutters and the animal suffers because the chances are you will never see them again and never get the chance to offer them anything treatment wise.

Homeopathy can harm but I would argue that it is just as harmful to the animal to drive away the client seeking help. Homeopathy can 'work' fantastically when it is the owner that needs the cure rather than the animal.

Lets put this into perspective the 'conventional' approach, is not without its dangers either inspite of careful scientific testing and product licenses. Ever seen a dog die as a result of finadyne tablets - I have. Ever seen a cat nearly die from the application of a veterinary prescribed flea treatment? I have, it was my own cat that nearly copped it, remember Droplix anybody? Remind me why was nuvantop so hastily withdrawn?and DMSO? there are others I can name.

Please note I am neither for or agin homeopathy, I have used remedies in the past sure enough just as I have any other medicine. I am just not happy about the way a group of people with plenty of flaws and shortcomings are sitting in judgement of another group of people

Re: Homeopathy

Laura Ringsell — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:30:39 GMT

And just because I can't really do it in one word..... I was advised to take arnica prior to spinal surgery and I had not one bruise. For me arnica has a place and does work, it's a shame it is classed as homeopathy really, but there are probably a few which have their place. I try to keep an open mind, even to having to accept applying holy water after chemotherapy once in the past, sometimes belief is enough to ensure positive thought and attitude which lets face it, all animals benefit from. Don't get me wrong when it comes to 99.9% of treatments if it isn't in the formulary and comes in little pots full of icing sugar pills then it's not in my memory and as for homeopathic vaccines.....

Re: Homeopathy

Laura Ringsell — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 20:22:51 GMT

In general I agree but just for the sake of being controversial I will say one word and exclaim once at the same time ....... ARNICA!

Re: Homeopathy

Elerrina — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:37:20 GMT

Re: Homeopathy

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:38:47 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]whats the point its more than clear the majority dont agree with it. [/quote]

I'm not sure that is true amongst veterinary nurses!

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]At least get the client through the door and make a diagnosis - homeopathy is nothing more than a treatment option,and it might be that once the diagnosis has been fully explained and how the proposed treatment regime will aid their animals health that they will choose a more conventional treatment anyway, its a matter of choice for the client.[/quote]

There are a series of arguments for offering or referring to a homeopath:

As you say, by being seen to offer it, at least you'll get owners through the door
To retain some level of control: if you refer to a veterinary homeopath, at least it is to another vet.
It's the clients' choice. If they want it, why not let them have it.
Homeopathy does no harm. It's water.

I can see that the first is possibly true.I struggle with the rest!

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]belittling a client over their beliefs is a sure fire way to ensure their continued patronage (not) [/quote]

I'm not for one split nanosecond suggesting belittling anyone. Just that I would argue that those veterinary surgeons and nurses who have weighed up the evidence and concluded that a treatment is ineffective are duty bound to explain that to the client and not just refer 'because that's what the client wants', or 'well, it won't do any harm'.

I mean, you wouldn't recommend or actively refer a client to a witch doctor down the road. So where do you draw the line?

Re: Homeopathy

Sal the 1st — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:46:16 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I'm kind of surprised this thread hasn't proven a bit more controversial! Anyone want to argue for homeopathy?

[/quote]

whats the point its more than clear the majority dont agree with it.

How about conducting a consumer survey on how many clients choose to use homeopathy and their reasons for doing so? As long as you have clients who want to use homeopathic remedies there will be a need for vets who understand homeopathy unless you would rather the client sought their veterinary advice and diagnosis down the local healthfood shop. At least get the client through the door and make a diagnosis - homeopathy is nothing more than a treatment option,and it might be that once the diagnosis has been fully explained and how the proposed treatment regime will aid their animals health that they will choose a more conventional treatment anyway, its a matter of choice for the client. If a vet cannot provide the service the client wants then refer elsewhere - belittling a client over their beliefs is a sure fire way to ensure their continued patronage (not)

Like it or not complementary remedies and therapies are out there and clients believe in them, its a growing market - the choice the veterinary profession has is to at least accept that the client has choice or to carry on as it is now and risk demonising an awful lot of people both clients and practitioners