MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

I have this minute learnt the following from this website:

RCVS POSITION ON COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES

“We have recently been asked questions about complementary and alternative medicines and treatments in general and homeopathy in particular.

“We would like to highlight our commitment to promoting the advancement of veterinary medicine upon sound scientific principles and to re-iterate the fundamental obligation upon our members as practitioners within a science-based profession which is to make animal welfare their first consideration. “In fulfilling this obligation, we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles. Veterinary surgeons should not make unproven claims about any treatments, including prophylactic treatments.

“Homeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do.”

END OF QUOTE

I think this is excellent and thank everybody who contributed to achieving this victory of reason over quackery.

63 Responses to Good news regarding homeopathy for animals: RCVS POSITION ON CAM

  • The RCVS statement allows treatments “not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles” to be provided so long as they do not delay or replace evidence/science based treatments.

    Quackery is okay alongside rationally underpinned treatments or if no such treatments exist.

    Respect – not!

  • “We have recently been asked questions about complementary and alternative medicines and treatments in general and homeopathy in particular.”

    Not recent at all, this has taken years of lobbying.

  • It is a shift from their position asserted in reply to us in 2006, which claimed that it would be wrong to deny clients the choice of using homeopathy while the efficacy of homeopathy remained an unresolved issue.

    The current statement remains short of the outright ban that would be the correct position.

    • It’s about as good as we could expect for now. Personally, even if a blanket ban on homeopathy wasn’t possible, I would like to have seen a ban on claims from vet homs they can cure cancer and that nosodes are effective replacements for vaccines. Still, beggars can’t be choosers, as Simon says, we’ve come a long way since 2006.

      Niall

  • The RCVS has made the AVMA look like wankers.

    Politics prevented the passing of a similar resolution on this side of the pond several years ago:

    https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/140301g.aspx

    • From the AVMA link: “Dr. Karen Bradley, the delegate from Vermont, said… that the AVMA should be an inclusive umbrella organization for veterinarians. She did not think AVMA leaders should debate the worth of each modality”

      I can never understand the reasoning behind remarks like this, it is simply double standards. Of course veterinary governing bodies ‘debate the worth’ of each modality, that’s why we don’t practice the firing of horses or the docking of dogs’ or horses’ tails any more. Like those practices homeopathy causes more harm than good, so what’s the difference?

      Niall

  • No one in the RCVS Council supports the use of homeopathy, and all agree it is ridiculous even as complementary to appropriate treatment. However, we took repeated legal advice and this was as strong as it could possibly be. It’s not within the power of RCVS to ban VMD licensed products from being used.

    This statement does mean that vets are accountable for any suffering caused due to using homeopathy and could be subject to Disciplinary action.

    • The GMC requires all doctors to secure fully informed consent to having treatment.
      If they do not, they are practising unethically and should be castigated for doing so. If not struck off.

      That means medically qualified homeopaths should advise: “The treatment I am recommending is regarded by the majority of conventional doctors as having no merit beyond activating placebo responses – do you consent to proceed with that understanding?”

      Are vets not required to be as ethical?

      • Seems that the founders of the veterinary guild defined veterinary medicine as using “rational scientific principles” to treat animals

        from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterinary_medicine.

        This would certainly put the profession at odds with homeopathy and several other cam modalities.

        As far a the PVME (Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics):

        “Veterinarians shall not promote, sell, prescribe, dispense, or use secret remedies or any other product for which they do not know the ingredients.”

        TCM herbals and homeopathic preparations are a often secret proprietary blends. Yunan Baiyao comes to mind.

        and as far as their choice of treatment goes:

        “attending veterinarians are responsible for choosing the treatment regimen for their patients. It is the attending veterinarian’s responsibility to inform the client of the expected results and costs, and the related risks of each treatment regimen.”

        both quotes are from:https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Principles-of-Veterinary-Medical-Ethics-of-the-AVMA.aspx

      • Vets also have a duty to inform but I’ve never had one provide me with a data sheet or explain possible negative effects of a vaccine or treatment they want to subject my pet too.

        Why shouldn’t we use mother nature to heal? After all, that’s where allopathic medicines started until humans tried to reproduce them through synthesis.

        I’d far rather lean towards the natural route on the basis of “first, do no harm” (limited side effects versus chemicals). I’m not against the allopathic approach, my JRT is currently taking steroid tablets to reduce ear inflammation, bot only because it’s the most effective short term treatment.

        An integrated approach looks at all options and utilises the best of both. That’s what “holistic” is about, whole of life approach.

        • Jeanie said:

          Vets also have a duty to inform but I’ve never had one provide me with a data sheet or explain possible negative effects of a vaccine or treatment they want to subject my pet too.

          If that’s the case, then that issue should be addressed: it is certainly not addressed by prescribing useless sugar pills.

          Why shouldn’t we use mother nature to heal?

          Because many times she doesn’t?

          After all, that’s where allopathic medicines started until humans tried to reproduce them through synthesis.

          And improve, resolve and prevent conditions that have always plagued animals and caused immense suffering.

          the basis of “first, do no harm” (limited side effects versus chemicals)

          Or, in many cases, do nothing and let the animal suffer as nature intended?

          An integrated approach looks at all options and utilises the best of both. That’s what “holistic” is about, whole of life approach.

          What best approach are you referring to? Please provide evidence with your response.

          • Excellent points!

            An oft neglected intricacy of the ubiquitous appeals to nature thrown around all over the alternative medicine belief system is that “mother nature”, quite often, is the original cause of suffering. Healing, thus, usually amounts to ruining Mother Nature’s careful plans for natural selection. But then again, people involved in the fallacy often don’t believe in evolution itself either

        • Jeanie, you seem to miss some of the most important aspects of medicine. There rarely is such a thing as “no harm“, especially in serious cases of pathology. Treatments carry risks and benefits, which are carefully and meticulously documented after long periods of cumbersome research and accurate and reliable assessments of the totallity of accumulated evidence.

          From then on, one weighs the risks against the benefits. In simple terms, when benefits “win“, the treatment is advised and, when rationality prevails, used, otherwise it is advised that the treatment be avoided. This imbalance of risks and benefits (hopefully, it is an imbalance… an imbalance facilitates reasoning, you see) is not constant throughout an individual’s life, be it human or not. The same treatment that would be very much one of choice for a 25-year-old person may not be suitable anymore when the same person is 60 years old.

          Mother Nature is notorious for being random and cannot be based upon using samples-of-one for evidence.

          A holistic approach is one that takes into account the living conditions of the individual and their health-related behavioral manifestations, among other things. It does not look at options. It simply means improving a person’s health by improving their behavioral manifestations in multiple directions. In even simpler terms, apart from treatment, lifestyle changes are advocated as a side-dish: exercise, nutritional improvements, sleeping more, spending less time standing, switch occupations if necessary, spend time with friends, laugh more, take it easy etc… All of these changes elicit physiological improvements on an individual and there is not one single doctor around that would not know that much. This bedtime story about “holistic” meaning “looking at the options” almost exclusively comes up just when someone wants to integrate an invalid option within a valid catalog.

        • Might I remind Jeanie that water (both shaken and stirred) and sugar are both chemicals both sugars and water can be produced syntheticly, even if that is usually not necessary.
          The sugars used for producing homeopathic drug replicas (aka remedies) is refined in factories using chemical processes.

          The simple and provable reason they produce no side effects in the quantities used for homeopathic purposes is that they do not produce any effects at all.

        • Jeanie
          What exactly is `mother nature’? One of the world’s foremost scientific journals is called Nature. Science is about explaining nature, and treatments developed by the scientific method do work in accordance with nature. Denying science in favour of a spurious notion of `nature’ is a false dichotomy.

          `Allopathic’ is a meaningless term. It was coined by Hahnemann to differentiate his illogical system from every other type of treatment. It means `different disease’. In 1796 when he invented homeopathy doctors generally tried to oppose symptoms. This is not the case now, as most modern treatments are based on a detailed understanding of underlying mechanisms. `Allopathic’ is now used by homeopaths as a derogatory term for everything that isn’t homeopathy. It means nothing to anyone else.

          `First, do no harm’. OK, try this lot, then tell me there is no harm from homeopathy.

          http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

  • For those that don’t believe homeopathy works I would just like to share my experience.
    I have a Springer with idiopathic epilepsy that suffered with bad cluster seizures and has had Status twice.
    She’s refractory to conventional meds and the phenobarb has done nothing but gradually destroy her body.I consulted a homeopath and since I’ve been using it my dogs seizures have been limited to one or two…so for a dog that had Status 3 months ago, and can have up to 9/10 seizures in a ‘normal’ episode, how do you explain that?
    So I’m very thankful for homeopathy and I won’t stop using it because for me it’s done what conventional meds can’t. Conv meds are making her sick and are still not doing the job.
    I’m a believer in big pharma keeping your dog sick and it’s inmoral.

    • Lucy, I’m please to hear your dog is better, but your story clearly demonstrates faulty logic. Do you think that real medicines such as antibiotics should be given licences by the regulator on the basis of stories such as this? Actually that is pretty much what used to happen before the modern era of drug regulation, and doctors killed more patients than they cured. Stories like yours are self-selecting – we only hear about the successes, not the many, many more failures. Have you looked up Cognitive Bias and Logical Fallacies on Wikipedia? Do you know what observer bias and confirmation bias are? All this is why we have developed rigorous methods to test treatments, called clinical trials. They are not perfect, but they aim to minimise bias by studying not one subject (like your dog) but many, often hundreds. So if one dog out of the 100 (say) in the trial gets better, we still dismiss the result because that could have happened by chance. When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, no reliable evidence is found. Some patients get better by chance, or (more usually) because the condition resolves over time. OK, homeopaths will cite trials that showed some benefit, but of course the more trials you do the more likely it is that a few of them will show false positive results – by chance. What is especially interesting is that the better the trial’s design and conduct, the weaker is the apparent effect of homeopathy. See http://www.bandolier.org.uk/band45/b45-2.html. So it’s the poor quality trials that homeopaths like to cite.

      Your last sentence encapsulates the problem. Science is not about belief, it is about evidence. If you claim that `big pharma’ is keeping your dog sick, you have the obligation to provide evidence of that. The ball is in your court.

    • Without knowing the exact details of your springer’s history it’s difficult to comment but there are plenty of reasons why an epileptic dog might improve or appear to improve without medication, I have seen many such cases myself over the years, none of which involved homeopathy. I can’t make out the time-scale of events from your post but epilepsy is notorious for its waxing and waning course; even long established epileptics, having frequent siezures can go months without a siezure for no apparent reason. I hope the improvement continues.

      For more information on this so-called caregiver placebo effect in epilepsy have a look at this paper: Muñana, K. R., Zhang, D. and Patterson, E. E. (2010) ‘Placebo effect in canine epilepsy trials’, Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 166–170 which looked at placebo-controlled trials of epilepsy medication and discovered that even some of the dogs given inert placebos seemed to improve.

      And I can’t speak for for big pharma but no veterinary surgeon I have ever met would ever want to keep an animal sick.

      Niall

      • “no veterinary surgeon I have ever met would ever want to keep an animal sick.”

        …..unfortunately I have, but no veterinarian who has a moral character of any worth would do such a thing.
        aside
        An example of poor character in the the profession is this fellow running a pyramid scam generating money by offering to help provide the funds for needed sx on poor helpless animals…. thing is to recieve those funds small independent veterinary clinics have to pony up dough to join his “foundation” and be on the referral list. After sending in the money, doing surgery and rehabilitating the animals (fur babies) the small independent is then stiffed by the charity……. That is the nature of commerce in the USA. Caveat Emptor.

    • Thanks for your little unverified and unverifiable anecdote, Lucy.

  • The RCVS are going to get a lot of letters about this. They will get advised of lots of cases where EB medicine failed, caused suffering and where homeopathy helped. This is back to front from the position of the statement. The RCVS will have to explain away these experiences and keep telling people that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes. That won’t be easy as many people will be upset about this attack on their valued homeopathic vet.
    More and more questions will be asked of the veterinary profession as a result of this statement as suspicions get raised and let us see how the majority of vets view this statement.

    • I hope the RCVS will use that as an opportunity to improve the critical thinking skills and CPD of its members so they can better challenge such nonsense in future.

      • “I hope the RCVS will use that as an opportunity to improve the critical thinking skills and CPD of its members so they can better challenge such nonsense in future.”

        The sad truth is that, certainly in the UK, the critical thinking skills of veterinary surgeons is not the problem. Many vets would agree that homeopathy is bogus but there is a feeling that one mustn’t criticise a professional colleague and also one which puts professional and clinical freedom above animal health and welfare. It’s this (and apathy) that has been most difficult to address. With luck the position statement from RCVS will indicate to the wider profession that tolerance is wearing thin.

        Niall

    • When suspicions really get raised is when the consumer realizes their doctor has been selling and profiting from the sale of remedies shown to be useless. When this happens the consumer will loose esteem for the profession and ultimately hurt the profession’s integrity. This type activity (the selling of useless medicines) has been going on for a long time and is the very definition of the word CHARLATAN.

      Helping the consumer sort through the noise of pseudoscience, separating the wheat from the chaff, builds confidence from the consumer and increases esteem practitioners and the profession are held in by the consumer.

      Quality research into homeopathy and all potential sources of medicine/medical treatments should be lauded and respected, but the marketing and sale of unproven, disproven (in the case of homeopathy) remedies and medical modalities should called out by any doctor with an interest in the patients they treat.

  • Just another attempt by the veterinary profession, hand in glove with the pharmaceutical industry to exploit the public and continue to make as much money as possible. Removing freedom of choice from the pet owning public.

    • So, you can’t provide any good evidence either?

    • If the veterinary profession wanted to ‘make as much money as possible’ for a start we wouldn’t do as much charity work as we do or reduce or even write-off bills in cases of hardship and we would also encourage homeopathy in a big way – those vet homeopaths don’t work for free you know and charging for remedies made from sugar and water is highly profitable.

      There is no conspiracy, homeopathy is a threat to no vested interests, not to pharmaceutical companies, not to conventional, science-based vets. The only thing homeopathy is a threat to is animal welfare. We campaign against it and take all the snide, unjustified criticisms from people such as yourself because we care about the animal patients entrusted to us by their owners, not because we feel threatened or want to make money.

      Niall

    • “Just another attempt by the veterinary profession…”

      Not dissuaded by Furtive Fallacy.

    • As a Veterinary Surgeon I naturally take offence at this. I have long campaigned against the use of homeopathy in animals and am very concerned at the resultant unnecessary animal suffering.
      I have been retired for two years and for the twenty years before that I was involved with emergency clinics, whose profit from drugs is insignificant.
      Hardly ‘hand in glove with the pharmaceutical industry’. I cannot even remember the last time I saw a drug rep!
      We do not exploit the public. We care.

  • Why are conventional vets so scared of this – how many have actually taken the time to work alongside a vet who uses homeopathy and see just how it fits in with conventional medicine. I have used a vet using homeopathy for many years, know them well and have never seen evidence of any pet suffering due to this method. Witches used to be burnt at the stake because people didn’t understand how herbs and other treatments could help – surely much conventional medicine is actually plant based – where would we be with good old peniclin ( a mould) and aspirin. Grow up RCVS and stop being scared of the unknown.

    • Nancy Griffiths said:

      Why are conventional vets so scared of this

      Are they?

      • By replacing fear of the unknown with curiosity we open ourselves up to an infinite stream of possibility. We can let fear rule our lives or we can become childlike with curiosity, pushing our boundaries, leaping out of our comfort zones, and accepting what life puts before us.
        Alan Watts

        Replace unknown with misunderstood!

    • “Why are conventional vets so scared of this…”

      Nobody is scared, there is no threat to any one – vets, pharmaceutical companies or anyone else. We fight against homeopathy because it harms animals directly by neglect, and indirectly by undermining real medicine and scare-mongering.

      Niall

  • I am sure that you do care Phil Hyde along with the other vets on here but please communicate your allegations of ‘animal cruelty’ to the thousands who will be campaigning against the RCVS statement. They care about their animals as well and will have plenty to advise you about.

  • Should researcher continue to subject animals to experimentation in order to promote and validate homeopathy?

    Seems it would be cruel to subject any animal to unnecessary stress in order to promote a dis-proven agenda.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1475939/

    after such a comprehensive and clear cut statement such as this:

    https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02

    would it be ethical to continue homeopathic research involving animal experimentation ?

    • “Should researcher continue to subject animals to experimentation in order to promote and validate homeopathy?”

      I couldn’t agree more, I was staggered when I realised how much vivisection was used in experiments trying to prove homeopathy.

      Niall

  • Bet no one on here thought that there would be such a reaction to this statement among animal owners and vets. You had better all have a council of war to try and get out if this mess. I did try to tell you.
    Oops!

    • It’s pretty much the reaction we expected- hysteria and anger caused by homeopaths spreading misinformation, petitions misprepreseting the RCVS Position Statement, and general science denial by people who don’t understand how to evaluate evidence.

      We weren’t expecting quite as many comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis though. Which is ironic as the Nazis really liked homeopathy,

  • I’ve been reading and following all the comments and debate with interest. The main theme that appears to run through from the vets opposed to homeopathy is that they say ‘animals suffer due to homeopathy’, and that seems to be the driving force behind the statement from the RCVS?

    If this suffering of animals has been happening, can someone kindly point me in the direction of disciplinary action against all of these vets that have been allowing this suffering to happen? I’m really interested to see cases and what the RCVS have done about complaints made? How many complaints have been made and how were they dealt with? It’s very worrying if this has been happening and I think others may also be interested to see this evidence. Thanks.

    • There have been a few cases of disciplinary action against vets, following the use of homeopathy in lieu of proper veterinary medicine and one or two other cases have found their way into the veterinary press – pups dying of parvo-virus when given nosodes instead of vaccines for example. I have co-written a book, ‘No Way to Treat a Friend’ which gives even more such examples – a dog dying of diabetes after being treated homeopathically, a cat likewise dying of hyperthyroidism and so on. And these cases are simply the tip of the iceberg of course. In veterinary medicine there are not the checks and balances – coroner’s courts, boards of enquiries, grieving relatives – that there are in human medicine. And when both owner and vet are thoroughly taken in by homeopathic dogma and happy to believe all the bogus excuses homeopaths put forward for such outcomes then cases of harm will rarely come to light.

      Giving ineffective remedies such as homeopathy in place of real, effective medicine results in harm by neglect, however well intentioned the end resut is still the same.

      Niall

  • Dismiss it all as hysteria Danny if you like or even put on Alan’s blindfold. However, you have many colleagues who are not happy with this statement. You might be happy defending your statement but many vets like my vet are concerned that this was done without consultation and has put them in potential conflict with clients. My vet will be writing to the RCVS about this. Are you going to ignore them and call them hysterical?

  • No one can have any issues with you writing articles against homeopathy. The main problem that you have Danny is with many of your veterinary colleagues who will want to know why the statement was posted without consulting the membership, bringing them unnecessarily into conflict with clients.
    Alan- if you really haven’t yet seen any reaction to the RCVS statement then you should just go back to sleep.

    • @JK

      There may well be reactions in many places, but I don’t know what specific reaction you’re referring to. Can you point to it or not?

    • JK said:

      The main problem that you have Danny is with many of your veterinary colleagues who will want to know why the statement was posted without consulting the membership, bringing them unnecessarily into conflict with clients.

      What do the RCVS’s rules, constitution, etc have to say about producing such statements?

      • I am not saying that the board has broken any regulation or that any board members should be subject to an inquisition for expressing their honest opinions in this way. However well intentioned though this statement is clearly controversial and has brought the RCVS in to conflict with many vets and members of the public, many of whom are not CAM activists. Even an enthusiastic campaigner like you Alan is going to be hard pushed to contrive this as some victory for your agenda.

        • JK said:

          I am not saying that the board has broken any regulation or that any board members should be subject to an inquisition for expressing their honest opinions in this way.

          Glad to hear that – it would have been quite an accusation.

          However well intentioned though this statement is clearly controversial and has brought the RCVS in to conflict with many vets and members of the public, many of whom are not CAM activists.

          All I can see are what would appear to be ‘CAM activists’. Can you say where you’ve come across those who aren’t?

          Even an enthusiastic campaigner like you Alan is going to be hard pushed to contrive this as some victory for your agenda.

          LOL! A major and respected body of vets has produced an accurate statement on homeopathy – what’s not to like?

    • “The main problem that you have Danny is with many of your veterinary colleagues who will want to know why the statement was posted without consulting the membership,”

      Our membership elected us to make decisions. Many of us were elected specifically because we stood up for evidence based medicine and do not condone pseudoscience. We are not in conflict with our members because except for a handful of homeopathic vets the overwhelming majority of the profession fully support this and are happy.

      • Sure your role is to make decisions. However, your petition suggests that you don’t have ‘overwhelming support’.
        Your comments about suffering due to homeopathy have gone viral and well beyond the homeopathic community. You will have to justify these comments and the statement to your members.

  • remember to most people, medical jargon is a foreign language!!

  • and remember Sadare dolorem opus divinium

    castigating poorly paid veterinarians is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    You cannot come out smelling like anything but scat, decrying the veterinary profession.

  • The RCVS are going to get a lot of letters about this. They will get advised of lots of cases where EB medicine failed, caused suffering and where homeopathy helped. This is back to front from the position of the statement. The RCVS will have to explain away these experiences and keep telling people that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes. That won’t be easy as many people will be upset about this attack on their valued homeopathic vet.
    More and more questions will be asked of the veterinary profession as a result of this statement as suspicions get raised and let us see how the majority of vets view this statement.

    This is pure wishful thinking! The malevolent type of course! First of all homeopathy doesn’t work, and, secondly,
    the grand majority of people that will write to the RCVS will either believe in homeopathy, or make money from homeopathy, or both. These cases will be correctly dismissed.

    I am sure that you do care Phil Hyde along with the other vets on here but please communicate your allegations of ‘animal cruelty’ to the thousands who will be campaigning against the RCVS statement. They care about their animals as well and will have plenty to advise you about.

    JK seems to claim an ability of clairvoyance. I’m sure those who will be campaigning against the RCVS statement have plenty to advise about.

    Bet no one on here thought that there would be such a reaction to this statement among animal owners and vets. You had better all have a council of war to try and get out if this mess. I did try to tell you.
    Oops!

    What reaction, really? Is JK imagining things, or extrapolates from some comments in this blog?

    Dismiss it all as hysteria Danny if you like or even put on Alan’s blindfold. However, you have many colleagues who are not happy with this statement. You might be happy defending your statement but many vets like my vet are concerned that this was done without consultation and has put them in potential conflict with clients. My vet will be writing to the RCVS about this. Are you going to ignore them and call them hysterical?

    This demonstrates absurd belief perseverance. Let’s go over this again:
    Animal welfare is, under circumstances, more important than clients’ interests, which are, under circumstances, more important than vets’ interests.
    To protect animal welfare AND the interests of clients, it is necessary to dismiss the idiocy (I particularly like Bjorn’s description actually) that homeopathy is. The de facto use of homeopathy by some vets, and the enjoyment taken by some clients are not good enough reasons to subject the animals to the delusion. The vets are not put in “potential conflict with clients“, this comes SECOND. FIRST they have a conflict of interest to resolve!

    I am not saying that the board has broken any regulation or that any board members should be subject to an inquisition for expressing their honest opinions in this way. However well intentioned though this statement is clearly controversial and has brought the RCVS in to conflict with many vets and members of the public, many of whom are not CAM activists. Even an enthusiastic campaigner like you Alan is going to be hard pushed to contrive this as some victory for your agenda.

    Nice, so now it is a conflict between the RCVS and the vets, one between the vets and the clients and one between RCVS and various members of the public. JK sees conflicts everywhere. Dear JK, your imaginary resistance, regardless of when it may manifest itself, albeit the levels you dream of will only be just about there (in your dreams), is not a good enough reason for resistance. Formulated logically, it has to be either resistance just for the sake of resistance, or resistance because of less money earned. What shall your vet write to the RCVS? That (s)he believes that homeopathy helps animals? Or that (s)he is losing money because clients may take the RCVS seriously? Yes, it’s gonna come down hard on some people’s earnings but that’s life! Justice doesn’t always come with a prize.

    It does however, come with a consolation prize, one of improved welfare. Don’t get overly excited though, that one is only for the animals. You probably wouldn’t know it even if it hit you right between the eyes

  • The RCVS will have a lot of letters to deal with and if they chose to decide that they all come from CAM activists then that will be their problem.
    So if they like they can ignore the letters from vets and members of the public and only listen to Alan, James and those vets who support the statement.

  • Yes… The alternative proposition of JK for the RCVS is to take some letters into account, think something along the lines:
    Hmm, it seems we are getting some letters here saying they want us to continue tolerating the use of the mistake that homeopathy is. Ok, let’s retract our statement and let the wrongdoing carry on“.

    And that they retract the statement and keep tolerating the propagation of homeopathic delusions.

    There is no room for debate with respect to the statement. Homeopathy is fantasy medicine and because the people at the RCVS are fully aware of that fact, they are trying to defend animal rights and welfare and bring the matter to public attention. They are nothing short of truly worthy of the respect of any rational veterinary medicine professional.

  • Alan said:
    ‘A major and respected body of vets has produced an accurate statement on homeopathy.’

    it is almost as if you have been involved in this fine mess Alan. I can only award you a beta for these efforts.

    Hopefully this statement has a half life of beta emitting Iodine 131.

  • You do have some imagination, JK. It’s a pity it couldn’t be channelled to something useful.

  • JK is imagining things again… Probably living in an alternate reality…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gravityscan Badge

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories