Where's the harm in homeopathy?

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Andrea Tarr — Mon, 08 Oct 2018 14:43:20 GMT

Some thoughts about the ruling about the using the cheaper sight drug in the NHS

https://www.veterinaryprescriber.org/free-articles/the-dogs-blog-no-18-does-the-legal-decision-about-a-sight-saving-drug

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Sal the 1st — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:59:37 GMT

[quote user="David Gibbins"]

I have had clients ask that only staff of their religion handle the patient. Because other "false religions" interfere with the treatment plan their homeopathic practitioner had devised.

[/quote]

Yep have had it happen to me - not connected with homeopathy but a Jehovah's Witness. They needed to know the religious viewpoint of any person involved in the treatment of their cat. I didn't fit their criteria.

[quote user="David Gibbins"]

Now, despite my strong opinions. I truly believe that the bulk of homeopathic veterinary professionals are not bad people, and despite the flaws in their logic can be reasoned with, and should still be treated with professional respect.

[/quote]

exactly

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

David Gibbins — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:59:20 GMT

The use of placebo as treatment is of questionable use in animals too.

What I think is very important for us all, is to ensure we keep ourselves up-to-date with developments in medicine and make our selves familiar with developments in the pseudoscience treatment industry.

We must not allow ourselves to just ignore or hate something from a position of ignorance.

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

David Gibbins — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:42:08 GMT

An interesting point to remember with a lot of the pseudoscience treatments is that a lot of their support comes as a result of the high personal medicine costs in America.

Due to those costs (and the damage to families the bills cause) it is much more appealing to spend $50 on an oil or homeopathic bottle, in the hope it avoids those big bills.

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

David Gibbins — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:34:55 GMT

Apologies for typos, I'm on a new phone and it's predictive text is "excitable".

Homeopathy is dangerous.

I'm not talking about the contents of the treatments, I'm talking about its role and the role of its users/practitioners in society.

They foster and encourage anti-science opinion and beliefs. And that is bad.

By giving homeopathy a place in our "tool kit" we legitimise it and all other pseudo sciences. We also create confusion and doubt .

After all , why use medicine when "harmless" homeopathy "works" ?

Why give money to "evil big pharma".. a term that makese angry. Our fellow colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry, biotech industry and other sciences ALL have their own professional codes of conduct, like ours.

The similarity between our ethics and morals are one reason why veterinary professionals can work towards becoming registered and chartered scientists too.

They are not evil money grabbing demons out to corrupt or polite humanity.

I have had clients ask me about pseudoscience treatments, entirely because it's offered to humans, or "they know a vet who does it".

I have had clients ask that only staff of their religion handle the patient. Because other "false religions" interfere with the treatment plan their homeopathic practitioner had devised.

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 10:15:45 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]not homeopathy - but watching this one with interest

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45588983 [/quote]

Yes, a lot of people are! I haven't yet had a chance to read up on it properly, but I will ...

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Sal the 1st — Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:24:44 GMT

not homeopathy - but watching this one with interest

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45588983

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Sal the 1st — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 20:17:48 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[/quote]

Admittedly that is a possibility

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

So you may have prevented that one person heading off to the health food shop, but you may also have caused 10 others to go straight there on the recommendation of their friend.

[/quote]

OR you may see the animals belonging to another 10 people and be able to examine, diagnose and treat effectively their ills just because you accept that the owners sometimes do things differently

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Yeah, it does sometimes seem just a bit wrong when a drug that has been in common use for many years comes back licensed and many times the cost. But that surely is a legislative issue, not dirty big pharma

[/quote]

It was the way it was done - one minute potassium bromide is a supplement and then it changes into a drug at 4x plus the cost for the same product made with the same dies in the same factory. They basically stuck two fingers up to both the practices and the clients and made a big show of saying you can't use any other product than ours because we have the licence.

But back to homeopathy - what do you propose? A warning to users like we have on cigarette and other tobacco products? We all know how well that works I see the gory pics and dire warnings every day when staff are making their rollies or going out for a fag break. Has it stopped them smoking? and neither has it affected their choice in whether they should smoke or not

Will you be tackling the insurance companies at any stage? Surely their acceptance of claims for complementary treatment also endorses homeopathy?

I totally get it that you are trying to do the very best by your daughter - any parent would do the same but we don't all live the same lives or have the same belief systems and my acceptance of homeopathy is in no way an endorsement as a treatment, more an acceptance of a belief system. Battles have been fought for centuries over belief systems - I just choose not to engage in combat and quietly (yep I can bite my tongue sometimes) get on with what I need to do.

I respect your stand on this - I just choose another route

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 18:42:19 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]You do realise that the term 'Alternative Medicine' is now very much a term of the 80's and despised by a lot of us? It was old school when I started training in the 90's. Most people use the term 'Complementary Therapy' these days - and that name gives a clue as to how perceptions have changed on the part of both users and providers[/quote]

I have a bit of a problem with that term, 'complementary' too, the dictionary definition of which is "combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasise the qualities of each other or another".

That lends certain 'complementary' medicines an air of respectability they do not deserve. Actually, I'll go further, in some cases it's just a bare-faced lie.

Take homeopathy. Really. I mean how on EARTH could anyone argue that a dilution-of-weedkiller-yes-weedkiller-till-there-is-no-weedkiller-remaining could be an effective treatment for anything is quite beyond me (not to mention dilution of condom, light from the planet venus and milk, yes they are all homeopathic remedies). And if you accept they cannot treat anything, then it is hard to fathom how they can complement anything else.

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]I would rather that than they get their advice down at the health food shop and they only turn up to be seen by either GP or Vet when its too late.[/quote]

I just don't buy the argument that by giving homeopathy one's tacit endorsement, one is somehow preventing people from running into the arms of the health food store.

The problem is that when a medical professional endorses homeopathy (either directly, or by refusing to say it how it actually is), it then causes the 'believer' to run off telling the world 'it's OK, because my vet / vet nurse said so'. So you may have prevented that one person heading off to the health food shop, but you may also have caused 10 others to go straight there on the recommendation of their friend.

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]Lets face it it isn't only the homeopaths who rail against 'big pharma' and big pharma have brought on a lot of this themselves (my dad used to work at Ciba Geigy /Novartis ) its a pretty dirty business[/quote]

I worked for Ciba Geigy / Novartis (indirectly; they were my client) for many years. I genuinely never saw any sign of any 'dirty business', just people like you and me doing their jobs.

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]A veterinary example potassium bromide used in epilepsy[/quote]

I'm not sure you can blame the company for that. It's the system surely. And I don't think it is fair to be quite so dismissive of the money invested in licensing and the benefits of licensing. Unlicensed = off piste use with no support. Licensed = animal specific treatment data and tech / marketing support (and I know the latter is a dirty word, but if you don't tell owners it exists!)

I know, I am very hard-nosed about all of this. It is the consequence of being the parent of a really sick girl. As far as I am concerned, she deserves treatment that is show by science to be effective. I think it is really just plain wrong when people like me are offered false hope from treatments not proven effective, or at the very least based on sound scientific principles.

Homeopathy, which is based on the ramblings of 'some bloke' who lived in the 1800s, has been shown time and time again to be ineffective. There is not one single disease or illness for which there is any decent evidence that it works. And the propose mode of action is, frankly, crackers.

It's high time it got called out as such.

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Sidonia — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:10:34 GMT

I've already said as long as clients are using homeopathy alongside conventional medicine, I don't see the harm! And this still stands. I also agree that it should never be used as the only form of treatment.

RE: Where's the harm in homeopathy?

Sal the 1st — Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:49:45 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

First point, that word 'allopathic medicine' to describe conventional medicine really irks me.

[/quote]

As it does myself - hence the '' '' - so on that point we can definitely agree.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

People often argue that it's OK when used in conjunction with conventional medicine. But there is no evidence that alternative medicine is used in conjunction (clue is in the name!). In fact, there's evidence of practitioners of alternative medicine actively condemning conventional medicine (presumably as a sales pitch for their own 'medicine').

[/quote]

You do realise that the term 'Alternative Medicine' is now very much a term of the 80's and despised by a lot of us? It was old school when I started training in the 90's. Most people use the term 'Complementary Therapy' these days - and that name gives a clue as to how perceptions have changed on the part of both users and providers

I may not agree with a lot of the complementary therapies, even as a complementary therapist myself, but to me it is important that people do keep using GP practices and Vet practices to get a diagnosis and treatment and if that means along the way you are dealing with people who are also using homeopathy then so be it. I would rather that than they get their advice down at the health food shop and they only turn up to be seen by either GP or Vet when its too late.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

This condemnation of conventional medicine, and the 'big pharma' conspiracy theories put about by the homeopaths is actually what I see as one of the biggest harms. It undermines public trust in science and conventional medicine.

[/quote]

Lets face it it isn't only the homeopaths who rail against 'big pharma' and big pharma have brought on a lot of this themselves (my dad used to work at Ciba Geigy /Novartis ) its a pretty dirty business - so while I don't condone homeopathy then 'big pharma' don't come out of this lilly white either. They are both as bad at this only 'big pharma' has deeper pockets

A veterinary example potassium bromide used in epilepsy - was used for years relatively cheaply and effectively then along comes Genitrix spends a bit of brass getting a licence, sacrificing animals lives to get it, gives it a new name of Libromide which raises the price x fold for the same product. What does this mean? - under cascade theirs is the only KBR that is licensed thus knocking out any competitors, clients have to pay more (which may result in some patients not getting treatment).

to be continued - run out of time - its my day off