veterinary medicine
This case report recounts the story of a cow in Brazil diagnosed with Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma. The authors from the Department of Research, Idis Lamasson Institute, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil reported that “the mass grew suddenly and then V.a homeopathic therapy by Injectcenter- Brazil was administered three times a week intramuscular close to the lesion with potencies D3, D6 and D9 close to the mass for eleven months.”
The authors observed that “after eleven months of treatment, that the clinical evolution of homeopathic V.a. in the
D3, D6, and D9 dynamizations promoted complete remission of the Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma, preventing metastases. The patient is currently (2025) in her fourth pregnancy and has achieved longevity without recurrence of the neoplasm. The in vitro articles that reported the antineoplastic action of homeopathic dynamizations of Viscum album contributed to the protocol used in this patient. Further research should be conducted on therapeutic proposals for production animals not intended for slaughter”.
The term “V.a homeopathic therapy by Injectcenter®- Brazil” refers to a homeopathic treatment utilizing the homeopathically diluted preparation of the plant Viscum album (V.a), i.e. mistletoe. It seems unclear whether the treatment was, as the authors stated, homeopathic or whether it was, in fact, anthroposophic. Viscum album is a standard therapy in anthroposophic medicine where it is not normally potentised but fermented and diluted.
A Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma is a malignant tumor that requires aggressive therapy (usually surgery) to prevent local spread, recurrence, metastases and eventual death. Without treatment, the tumor is expected to continue to grow.
For several reasons, the case report is difficult to interpret:
- It is poorly written.
- It lacks important detail; in particular, it does not state, for instance, that the mistletoe treatment was the only therapy the cow received.
- It probably confuses homeopathy with antroposophic medicine.
Therefoe, the cow’s survival could be due to:
- Conventional therapies.
- False-positive diagnosis.
- Spontaneous remission.
Of course, fans of homeopathy [including the authors of this case report] will argue that the outcome was due to the effectiveness of homeopathy. I am, however, unconvinced. What I am convinced of is this: it is unethical to treat a severely ill animal with an unproven therapy.
On this blog, we have often discussed the question whether so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) should be used for animals, e.g.:
- Reiki in Companion Animals?
- So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for animals is not evidence-based and borders on animal abuse
- Veterinary homeopathy: why are farmers allowed to use a disproven therapy on defenceless animals?
- SCAM for animals. Part 1: homeopathy
- SCAM for animals. Part 2
- Good news regarding homeopathy for animals: RCVS POSITION ON CAM
- And again: no good evidence that homeopathy works in animals
- Homeopathy works for animals – so it can’t be a placebo!
- HOMEOPATHY, does it really work in animals?
- Report of the French Working Group on Veterinary Homeopathy
- The ‘Austrian ‘Chamber of Veterinarian Medicine’ … and a storm in a homeopathic tea cup
- Homeopaths and bovine mastitis: tenacity or stupidity?
This article sheds more light on the issue. Here is its abstract:
The field of complementary and alternative veterinary medicines (CAVM) is rife with legal and ethical issues. At the heart of these issues lies a tension between the need to safeguard animal welfare and the recognition of the autonomy of pet owners seeking alternative therapies for their animals. Stricter regulations may limit the availability of certain therapies, denying animals access to practices that may have a therapeutic effect, whereas a more lenient regulatory approach may expose animals and their owners to unscrupulous practitioners. Veterinarians are both ethically and legally bound with society by rules of professional conduct to provide the best possible standard of care, considering current scientific knowledge. While individual veterinarians cannot be prevented from prescribing, applying, or referring CAVM, they are required to exercise transparency regarding the scientific evidence of efficacy of CAVM and their risks and side effects, and refrain from referring to these therapies as acts of veterinary medicine. A regulatory framework is needed that acknowledges the heterogenicity of alternative therapies, respects the autonomy of owners, and fulfils the duty to protect the welfare of animals under veterinary care.
The use of SCAM for animals is tricky not least because animals connot consent to it. Therefore, it is particularly importnat the the owner of the animal is responsibly informed anout the SCAM in question. But can vets who earn money through offering this or that SCAM be relied upon to provide evidence-based information? If they did, they would have to tell the animal owner in the vast majority of situations:
- The SCAM I am suggesting is not supported by conclusive evidence of efficaacy.
- The SCAM I am suggesting is not free of adverse effects.
- For the ailment of the animal, there are treatments that are of proven efficacy.
If they did followed these lines, animal owners would refuse the treatment and the vet would lose income. I see no easy solution to this conflict of interest … other than to forbide the treatment of animals with SCAMs that are not evidence-based. But this step would be drastic because it would abolish about 90% of SCAM use in vererinary practice.
I came across this remarkable chapter entitled “Reiki in Companion Animals “. As it comes from the Department of Clinical Studies and the Department of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the paper ought to be taken seriously, I thought. It seems that I was mistaken!
Here is the unaltered abstract:
The word “Reiki” is derived from two Japanese words “Rei” and “kei” meaning spiritually guided life energy. Reiki helps an individual to feel from disease, grow emotionally, spiritually and mentally. In case of animal, Reiki helps to build trust between pets and owner, promotes healing decrease psychological issues and keep an animal healthy. The major energies Reiki attunement include earth energy, heavenly energy and heart energy. Furthermore, the three degrees of chakra i.e., the heart chakra, the throat chakra and third eye chakra, allow an individual to love unconditionally, open path to consciousness and build trust, respectively. Some practitioner in Reiki train for years to understand the energy and how to navigate delicate and subtle energy which shifts within themselves and their participants, where instead of realigning your bones and muscles tension. The process of Reiki is something anyone can learn and something you can learn fairly swiftly, especially for animals. Reiki allows us to perform at a level where our positive energy flows freely. Reiki should not be an alternative to veterinarian medical care, but seen instead as an aid in the diagnosis to recovery.
Are you as baffled as I am? Here are some of my most immediate questions:
What is “Reiki attunement”?
What is “earth energy”?
What is “heavenly energy”?
What is “heart energy”?.
What is “the heart chakra”?
What is “the throat chakra”?
What is “the third eye chakra”?
What is an “open path to consciousness”?
What is “a level where our positive energy flows freely”?
None of these terms or concepts are defined. Why not? The answer is that they are not definable; they are mystical notions without meaning aimed at a gullible public (a polite way of avoiding the word bullshit).
Needless to say that the rest of the chapter is packed with some of the worst proctophasia and pseudo-science I have ever come across. The fact is that Reiki is nonsense, and nonsense should not be used to treat either humans or animals. If you are not convinced, please explain to me what this sentence tries to tell us: “Some practitioner in Reiki train for years to understand the energy and how to navigate delicate and subtle energy which shifts within themselves and their participants, where instead of realigning your bones and muscles tension.”
QED!
It is already 7 years ago that I listed several ‘official verdicts on homeopathy‘, i.e. conclusions drawn by independent, reputable bodies evaluationg the evidence for or against homeopathy:
“The principles of homeopathy contradict known chemical, physical and biological laws and persuasive scientific trials proving its effectiveness are not available”
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
“Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness.”
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia
“These products are not supported by scientific evidence.”
Health Canada, Canada
“Homeopathic remedies don’t meet the criteria of evidence based medicine.”
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary
“The incorporation of anthroposophical and homeopathic products in the Swedish directive on medicinal products would run counter to several of the fundamental principles regarding medicinal products and evidence-based medicine.”
Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden
“We recommend parents and caregivers not give homeopathic teething tablets and gels to children and seek advice from their health care professional for safe alternatives.”
Food and Drug Administration, USA
“There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition”
National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health, USA
“There is no good-quality evidence that homeopathy is effective as a treatment for any health condition”
National Health Service, UK
“Homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos, and that the principles on which homeopathy is based are “scientifically implausible””
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, UK
Since then, there have been many more statements from similar organisations (does someone know of a complete list? if so, please let me know). One such statement is from French veterinarians: Avis 2021- 3 sur l’Homéopathie vétérinaire. Aloow me to translate the crucial passages for you:
Opinion 2021- 3 on Veterinary Homeopathy. The Report of a Working Group on Veterinary Homeopathy, an Opinion on Veterinary Homeopathy adopted in the academic session on May 6, 2021. The report ecommends that :
no medical discipline or practice claiming to be a medical discipline should be exempt from the ethical duty of testing its claims;
in this respect, clinical studies on the individual, reconciling scientific rigor and practical constraints, be explored, and in particular the N of 1 trials described in human medicine;
veterinary medicine be defined as evidence-based medicine, and not as allopathic medicine;
it is reaffirmed that veterinary medicine must above all be holistic, and that consequently the label of holistic veterinary medicine cannot be monopolized by particular practices;
homeopathy in veterinary medicine, as in human medicine, is not currently recognized nor can it be claimed as an exclusive veterinary medical activity;
institutional communication provides ongoing information on the scientific approach, evidence-based medicine and complementary medicine, tailored respectively to veterinarians, the general public and, in particular, animal keepers;
veterinary surgeons who, in the absence of recognized scientific proof of the efficacy of homeopathy in particular, wish to pursue this activity, particularly as a complementary medicine, should be fully aware of their increased responsibilities due to the current lack of scientific confirmation of efficacy;
it is possible to use homeopathic preparations, insofar as the medical decision to use a complementary and non-alternative therapy systematically requires informed consent, and does not result in a loss of opportunity by delaying the diagnostic procedure and/or the establishment of a recognized effective treatment;
that, in order to provide the information needed to obtain informed consent, a prescription for a homeopathic preparation should be accompanied, on any suitable medium, by a statement to the effect that, in the current state of knowledge, veterinary homeopathy has a contextual effect;
that the term “homeopathic medicine” be eventually replaced by “homeopathic preparation” in national and European legislation, that labelling state that “the efficacy of the preparation has not been demonstrated in accordance with current standards”, and that homeopathic preparations cannot claim the properties of vaccines or replace them, without incurring criminal sanctions;
in veterinary medicine, no university diploma in homeopathy be awarded by schools and other public establishments, and that training in homeopathy only take place within the framework of training that takes into account the realities of the scientific approach;
as part of their initial training, veterinary schools are places for debate and training in critical thinking, by offering interdisciplinary seminars on non-conventional approaches;
_____________________________
So, the next time someone claims “homeopathy has been proven to work in animals”, let’s show them what the experts think of this notion.
Homeopathy is ‘First-Line-Medicine’ – at least this is what a German pro-homeopathy website recently proclaimed. The notion, it informs us, is based on EU law.
But is that true?
Does the ‘Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production (…)’ really recommend homeopathy for treating animals?
This is what the EU law states (my translation from a German original):
‘Diseases shall be treated immediately to avoid animal suffering; chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products, including antibiotics, may be administered, if necessary, under strict conditions and under the responsibility of a veterinarian, when treatment with phytotherapeutic, homeopathic and other remedies is inappropriate … phytotherapeutic and homeopathic preparations are preferable to chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products, including antibiotics, provided that their therapeutic effect is guaranteed for the species concerned and the disease to be treated’.
Let’s analyse the text and find out what it really means. It states that:
- Vets should treat suffering animal without delay.
- They should use conventional therapies when homeopathy is inappropriate.
- Homeopathics are preferable, if their therapeutic effect is guaranteed for the species concerned and the disease to be treated.
So, homeopathy is recommended under two important and well-defined conditions:
- They have to be appropriate.
- They have to be proven to be effective.
It is amply clear that homeopathy has not been proven to be effective in any condition that afflicts animals. As this is so, homeopathics are evidently inappropriate.
But why, does the EU make it so complicated?
I don’t know the answer to this question but suspect that there was plenty of lobbying going on, and they had to find a phraseology that apeases the homeopaths and their industry.
We have discussed the homeopathic obscession with bovine mastitis before. For instance, we have looked at this systematic review which did exactly that. Its authors are highly respected and come from institutions that are not likely to promote bogus claims:
- Département de Sciences Cliniques, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Canada
- Département de Sciences Cliniques, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Canada
- Canadian Bovine Mastitis and Milk Quality Research Network, Canada
- Canadian Bovine Mastitis and Milk Quality Research Network, Canada
- Sherbrooke Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
- Canadian Bovine Mastitis and Milk Quality Research Network, Canada
- Département de Pathologie et Microbiologie, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montreal, Canada.
A total of 2,451 manuscripts were first identified and 39 manuscripts corresponding to 41 studies were included. Among these, 22 were clinical trials, 18 were experimental studies, and one was an observational study. The treatments evaluated were conventional anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 14), oxytocin with or without frequent milk out (n = 5), biologics (n = 9), homeopathy (n = 5), botanicals (n = 4), probiotics (n = 2), and other alternative products (n = 2). All trials had at least one unclear or high risk of bias. Most trials (n = 13) did not observe significant differences in clinical or bacteriological cure rates in comparison with negative or positive controls. Few studies evaluated the effect of treatment on milk yield. In general, the power of the different studies was very low, thus precluding conclusions on non-inferiority or non-superiority of the treatments investigated. No evidence-based recommendations could be given for the use of an alternative or non-antimicrobial conventional treatment for clinical mastitis. The authors concluded that homeopathic treatments are not efficient for management of clinical mastitis.
Did this finally stop homeopaths from claiming that their placebos work for mastitis?
I would not count on it!
Will it stop homeopaths to conduct trials of the subject?
No!
Recently a new study has emerged. Its aim was to assess the potential of a novel homeopathic complex medicine in managing bovine mastitis. Twenty-four lactating Holstein cows with mastitis were divided into two groups: the homeopathic complex group received a homeopathic complex daily for 60 days at a dose of 20 g/d; the placebo group received the calcium carbonate vehicle without homeopathic medicines at the same dose and repetition. The main outcome measure was somatic cell count (SCC; cells/mL), with additional outcome measures including milk production (kg/d), milk constituents (percentage of protein, fat, lactose and total milk solids), and serum levels of cortisol, glucose, ammonia and lactic acid. All outcomes were measured at the beginning of the study and after 30 and 60 days. Milk samples were also collected from all animals at the beginning of the study, confirming a high (>0.2) MAR index for isolated bacterial cultures.
Assessment of SCC showed a statistically significant difference favoring the homeopathic complex versus placebo group at day 60. A reduction in serum cortisol levels and an increase in fat, lactose and total milk solids in animals treated with the homeopathic complex at day 60 were also seen. Other outcome measures did not show statistically significant inter-group differences.
The authors from the Paranaense University-Praça Mascarenhas de Moraes, Umuarama, Paraná, Brazil, concluded that the results of this non-randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled trial suggest the potential for a novel homeopathic complex medicine in management of multiple antibiotic-resistant bovine mastitis, thus offering dairy farmers an additional option to antibiotics and making dairy products safer for consumer health and milk production more sustainable.
Here are just some of the most obvious points of concern:
- The trial was supported by the manufacturer of the homeopathic product, yet the authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- The exact nature of the product remains unknown to anyone like me who tried to obtain the information by searching the websites of the manufacturer, etc.
- The trial was non-ramdomized and open label, i.e. wide open to bias, yet the authors do not shy away from drawing firm conclusions.
- There is no plausible rationale for homeopathy in this (or any other) indication.
- Homeopathy for animals contradicts the gospel of Hahnemann, its inventor.
- Overwhelmingly, the evidence fails to show that homeopathy is effective for bovine mastitis.
I do understand that manufacturers smell a lucrative market, but I still think that, for serious veterianarians, scientists, journal editors, etc., the subject should be closed.
I have been informed by the publisher, that my book has been published yesterday. This is about two months earlier than it was announced on Amazon. It is in German – yes, I have started writing in German again. But not to worry, I translated the preface for you:
Anyone who falls ill in Germany and therefore needs professional assistance has the choice, either to consult a doctor or a non-medical practitioner (Heilpraktiker).
– The doctor has studied and is licensed to practice medicine; the Heilpraktiker is state-recognized and has passed an official medical examination.
– The doctor is usually in a hurry, while the Heilpraktiker takes his time and empathizes with his patient.
– The doctor usually prescribes a drug burdened with side effects, while the Heilpraktiker prefers the gentle methods of alternative medicine.
So who should the sick person turn to? Heilpraktiker or doctor? Many people are confused by the existence of these parallel medical worlds. Quite a few finally decide in favor of the supposedly natural, empathetic, time-tested medicine of the Heilpraktiker. The state recognition gives them the necessary confidence to be in good hands there. The far-reaching freedoms the Heilpraktiker has by law, as well as the coverage of costs by many health insurances, are conducive to further strengthening this trust. “We Heilpraktiker are recognized and respected in politics and society,” writes Elvira Bierbach self-confidently, the publisher of a standard textbook for Heilpraktiker.
The first consultation of our model patient with the Heilpraktiker of his choice is promising. The Heilpraktiker responds to the patient with understanding, usually takes a whole hour for the initial consultation, gives explanations that seem plausible, is determined to get to the root of the problem, promises to stimulate the patient’s self-healing powers naturally, and invokes a colossal body of experience. It almost seems as if our patient’s decision to consult a Heilpraktiker was correct.
However, I have quite significant reservations about this. Heilpraktiker are perhaps recognized in politics and society, but from a medical, scientific, or ethical perspective, they are highly problematic. In this book, I will show in detail and with facts why.
The claim of government recognition undoubtedly gives the appearance that Heilpraktiker are adequately trained and medically competent. In reality, there is no regulated training, and the competence is not high. The official medical examination, which all Heilpraktiker must pass is nothing more than a test to ensure that there is no danger to the general public. The ideas of many Heilpraktiker regarding the function of the human body are often in stark contradiction with the known facts. The majority of Heilpraktiker-typical diagnostics is pure nonsense. The conditions that they diagnose are often based on little more than naive wishful thinking. The treatments that Heilpraktiker use are either disproven or not proven to be effective.
There is no question in my mind that Heilpraktiker are a danger to anyone who is seriously ill. And even if Heilpraktiker do not cause obvious harm, they almost never offer what is optimally possible. In my opinion, patients have the right to receive the most effective treatment for their condition. Consumers should not be misled about health-related issues. Only those who are well-informed will make the right decisions about their health.
My book provides this information in plain language and without mincing words. It is intended to save you from a dangerous misconception of the Heilpraktiker profession. Medical parallel worlds with the radically divergent quality standard – doctor/Heilpraktiker – are not in the interest of the patient and are simply unacceptable for an enlightened society.
The use of and interest in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) for animals is often said to be increasing. But only a few reliable data exist on this subject. This survey is based on online research of 1083 German veterinary homepages for contents of veterinary SCAM performed in September and October 2017. “Veterinarian” and “Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons” were used as search items. Homepages of small animal medicine were included. They were surveyed for modes of SCAM treatments and corresponding qualifications of the offering veterinarian.
In total, 60.7 % (n = 657) of homepages showed contents of veterinary SCAM. The highest percentage was found in the Chamber of Veterinary Surgeons of Saarland (91.7 %, n = 11 out of 12). Homeopathy was cited most frequently (58 %, n = 381). Out of all homepages with relevant content, 31.4 % (n = 206) gave information about user qualifications, with continuous education programs named most frequently (52.9 %, n = 109).
The authors concluded that the given data illustrate the high number of German veterinary homepages with contents of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine, corresponding to actual data of a high usage in veterinary and human medicine. Therefore further scientific research in this field seems reasonable. Modes of treatment and qualifications are highly diverse and despite of controversial public discussions, homeopathy was the most frequently cited treatment modality on German veterinary homepages.
The authors also added this: We like to thank the Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation for the postgraduate scholarship.
The little addendum makes it less puzzling, I think, why the paper is almost totally devoid of any critical input. Animals can obviously not give informed consent to medical treatments. Like humans, they need the most effective therapy when ill. It is hard to deny that homeopathy, for instance, does not belong in that category. Thus, veterinary SCAM is confronted with a considerable ethical problem. It is beyond me how an article about SCAM use in animals can not even mention this or other critical issues.
But at least, you might argue, the paper informs us which SCAMs are currently the most popular. Wrong! SCAM use is highly prone to changes in fashion. This paper tells us merely which SCAMs were popular several years ago! The time lag between doing the research and publishing it is something I find all too often in SCAM.
The two authors have recently published another paper. Have a look at this article:
The international use of and interest in veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine are increasing. There are diverse modes of treatment, and owners seem to be well informed. However, there is a lack of data that describes the state of naturopathic or complementary veterinary medicine in Germany. This study aims to address the issue by mapping the currently used treatment modalities, indications, existing qualifications, and information pathways. In order to map the ongoing controversy, this study records the advantages and disadvantages of these medicines as experienced by veterinarians. Demographic influences are investigated to describe distributional impacts on using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine.
Methods: A standardised questionnaire was used for the cross-sectional survey. It was distributed throughout Germany in a written and digital format from September 2016 to January 2018. Because of the open nature of data collection, the return rate of questionnaires could not be calculated. To establish a feasible timeframe, active data collection stopped when the previously calculated limit of 1061 questionnaires was reached. With the included incoming questionnaires of that day a total of 1087 questionnaires were collected. Completely blank questionnaires and those where participants did not meet the inclusion criteria (were not included, leaving 870 out of 1087 questionnaires to be evaluated. A literature review and the first test run of the questionnaire identified the following treatment modalities: homoeopathy, phytotherapy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), biophysical treatments, manual treatments, Bach Flower Remedies, neural therapy, homotoxicology, organotherapy, and hirudotherapy which were included in the questionnaire. Categorical items were processed using descriptive statistics in absolute and relative numbers based on the population of completed answers provided for each item. Multiple choices were possible. Metric data were not normally distributed (Shapiro Wilk Test); hence the median, minimum, and maximum were used for description. The impact of demographic data on the implementation of veterinary naturopathy and complementary techniques was calculated using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test for metric data and the exact Fisher-Test for categorical data.
Results: Overall 85.4% (n = 679 of total 795 non-blank data sets) of all the questionnaire participants used naturopathy and complementary medicine. The treatments most commonly used were complex homoeopathy (70.4%, n = 478), phytotherapy (60.2%, n = 409), classic homoeopathy (44.3%, n = 301) and biophysical treatments (40.1%, n = 272). The most common indications were orthopedic (n = 1798), geriatric (n = 1428) and metabolic diseases (n = 1124). Over the last five years, owner demand for naturopathy and complementary treatments was rated as growing by 57.9% of respondents (n = 457 of total 789). Veterinarians most commonly used scientific journals and publications as sources for information about naturopathic and complementary contents (60.8%, n = 479 of total 788). These were followed by advanced training acknowledged by the ATF (Academy for Veterinary Continuing Education, an organisation that certifies independent veterinary continuing education in Germany) (48.6%, n = 383). The current information about naturopathy and complementary medicine was rated as adequate or nearly adequate by a plurality (39.5%, n = 308) of the respondents of this question. Further, 27.7% (n = 216) of participants chose the option that they were not confident to answer this question and 91 answers were left blank. The most commonly named advantages in using veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine were the expansion of treatment modalities (73.5%, n = 566 of total 770), customer satisfaction (70.8%, n = 545) and lower side effects (63.2%, n = 487). The ambiguity of studies, as well as the unclear evidence of mode of action and effectiveness (62.1%, n = 483) and high expectations of owners (50.5%, n = 393) were the disadvantages mentioned most frequently. Classic homoeopathy, in particular, has been named in this context (78.4%, n = 333 of total 425). Age, gender, and type of employment showed a statistically significant impact on the use of naturopathy and complementary medicine by veterinarians (p < 0.001). The university of final graduation showed a weaker but still statistically significant impact (p = 0.027). Users of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine tended to be older, female, self-employed and a higher percentage of them completed their studies at the University of Berlin. The working environment (rural or urban space) showed no statistical impact on the veterinary naturopathy or complementary medicine profession.
Conclusion: This is the first study to provide German data on the actual use of naturopathy and complementary medicine in small animal science. Despite a potential bias due to voluntary participation, it shows a large number of applications for various indications. Homoeopathy was mentioned most frequently as the treatment option with the most potential disadvantages. However, it is also the most frequently used treatment option in this study. The presented study, despite its restrictions, supports the need for a discussion about evidence, official regulations, and the need for acknowledged qualifications because of the widespread application of veterinary naturopathy and complementary medicine. More data regarding the effectiveness and the mode of action is needed to enable veterinarians to provide evidence-based advice to pet owners.
This paper seems at first sight a bit more informative. But it suffers very similar problems: the data were outdated before they were even published, and this article too lacks critical input.
So, what purpose might these two articles serve?
None!
Oh, sorry – they probably did manage to get the doctor’s title for one or two poor vet students who had been hoodwinked with the help of the the Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation into conducting some rather useless pieces of research.
In one of my last posts, I was rather dismissive of veterinary chiropractic.
Was I too harsh?
I did ask readers who disagree with my judgment to send me their evidence.
Sadly, none arrived!
Therefore, I did several further literature searches and found a recent review of the topic. It included 14 studies; 13 were equine and one was a canine study. Seven of these were cohort studies and seven were randomized controlled clinical trials. . Study quality was low (n = 4), moderate (n = 7), and high (n = 3) and included a wide array of outcome parameters with varying levels of efficacy and duration of therapeutic effects, which prevented further meta-analysis. The authors concluded that it was difficult to draw firm conclusions despite all studies reporting positive effects. Optimal technique indications and dosages need to be determined to improve the standardization of these treatment options.
This, I think, can hardly be called good evidence. But I also found this more recent paper:
Chiropractic care is a common treatment modality used in equine practice to manage back pain and stiffness but has limited evidence for treating lameness. The objective of this blinded, controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of chiropractic treatment on chronic lameness and concurrent axial skeleton pain and dysfunction. Two groups of horses with multiple limb lameness (polo) or isolated hind limb lameness (Quarter Horses) were enrolled. Outcome measures included subjective and objective measures of lameness, spinal pain and stiffness, epaxial muscle hypertonicity, and mechanical nociceptive thresholds collected on days 0, 14, and 28. Chiropractic treatment was applied on days 0, 7, 14, and 21. No treatment was applied to control horses. Data was analyzed by a mixed model fit separately for each response variable (p < 0.05) and was examined within each group of horses individually. Significant treatment effects were noted in subjective measures of hind limb and whole-body lameness scores and vertebral stiffness. Limited or inconsistent therapeutic effects were noted in objective lameness scores and other measures of axial skeleton pain and dysfunction. The lack of pathoanatomical diagnoses, multilimb lameness, and lack of validated outcome measures likely had negative impacts on the results.
Great! So, we finally have an RCT of chiropractic for horses. Unfortunately, the study is less than convincing:
- It included just 20 polo horses plus 18 horses active in ridden or competitive work all suffering from lameness.
- The authors state that ‘horses were numerically randomized to treatment and control groups’; yet I am not sure what this means.
- Treatment consisted of high-velocity, low-amplitude, manually applied thrusts to sites of perceived pain or stiffness with the axial and appendicular articulations. Treatment was applied on days 0, 7, 14, and 21 by a single examiner. The control group received no treatment and was restrained quietly for 15 min to simulate the time required for chiropractic treatment. In other words, no placebo controls were used.
- The validity of the many outcome measures is unknown.
- The statistical analyses seem odd to me.
- No correction for multiple statistical tests was done.
- Most of the outcomes show no significant effect.
- Overall, there were some small positive treatment effects based on subjective assessment of lameness, but no measurable treatment effects on objective measures of limb lameness.
- The polo horses began their competition season at the beginning of the study which would have confounded the outcomes.
What does all this tell us about veterinary chiropractic?
Not a lot.
All we can safely say, I think, is that veterinary chiropractic is not evidence-based and that claims to the contrary are certainly ill-informed and most probably of a promotional nature.
The McTimoney College of Chiropractic just announced that it has established a new four-year program in veterinary chiropractic for college students:
It means that those without a prior degree can undertake the training and education necessary to enter this coveted career. To date, animal chiropractors were required to have a prior qualification in human chiropractic or a degree in the relevant sciences.
Applications for the new program are being accepted from September 2023. Students will attend Abingdon-based University, Oxford, and a variety of practical locations, enabling the development of academic knowledge and the application of practical skills together . Modules include anatomy and physiology, veterinary science, practice and professionalism, and clinical skills, with a research dissertation running over the four-year course.
University director Christina Cunliffe said the new program was an exciting step in the development of chiropractic care for animals.
“Building on our decades of experience graduating confident, competent, and highly-skilled animal chiropractors, now is the time to open up this exciting career opportunity to college students.”
For the past 50 years, McTimoney College of Chiropractic has been training and educating human chiropractors to the highest regulatory standards. Over the past 20 years, animal chiropractic has developed to meet the requirements for this gentle, holistic treatment in the veterinary world.
Prospective students are invited to a Open House at McTimoney College of Chiropractic in Abingdon on February 16.
McTimoney Chiropractic for Animals identifies areas of stiffness, asymmetry, and poor range of motion within the skeletal system, particularly the spine and pelvis. This affects the muscles that surround these structures, as well as the nerve impulses that pass from the central nervous system to the periphery of the body. The adjustments are very light and fast, stimulating an instant response in the affected soft tissues and joints, promoting relaxation of muscle spasms, improving nerve function, and helping the skeletal structure regain better symmetry and movement again.
In many cases, animals suffer from underlying conditions such as arthritic changes or degenerative diseases that force them to compensate in their posture and movement in an attempt to remain comfortable. However, these offsets become increasingly entrenched and can be painful or uncomfortable, requiring chiropractic care to provide some relief. In other cases, the animals are working hard or competing and as such accumulate tension and asymmetries due to the demands of their work. Once again, chiropractic care helps relieve pain and promote performance, whether it’s faster speeds over hurdles for racehorses and events, better jumping style in showjumpers, or more extravagant movements for dressage stars.
Two recent graduates of the school’s Master of Animal Handling (Chiropractic) program did not hesitate to recommend the university. Natalie McQuiggan said that she had wanted to do McTimoney Chiropractic from a very young age, “but the process of doing it always seemed really daunting.
“But from the start, the staff and teachers were lovely and welcoming, and queries were answered promptly. I have really enjoyed my two years in the Master of Animal Handling (Chiropractic) program and would recommend anyone thinking of doing it to just do it.”
Pollyanna Fitzgerald said the university offered a supportive and welcoming learning environment, allowing her to grow and develop as a student and future professional. “There is always someone to talk to and offer encouragement when needed. As a student I have learned a lot and have been encouraged to believe in myself and it has been a wonderful place to learn.”
A free webinar, McTimoney’s Animal Chiropractic as a Careeron January 24 at 7:30 p.m. (GMT), is open to those who wish to learn more about the McTimoney technique and its application, and the training paths available to those interested in becoming a McTimoney Animal Chiropractor.
________________________
I think this announcement is puzzling on several levels:
- I was unable to find an ‘Abingdon-based University, Oxford’; could it be this institution that is a college and not a university?
- Christina Cunliffe seems to be (or has been?) affiliated with the McTimoney College of Chiropractic which is a bit odd, in my opinion.
- The college does not have ‘decades of experience’; it was founded only in 2001.
- Most importantly, I am unable to find a jot of good evidence that veterinary chiropractic is effective for any condition (see also here, here, and here). In case anyone is aware of any, please let me know. I’d be delighted to revise my judgment.
If I am right, the new course could be a fine example of quackademia where students are ripped off and taught to later rip off the owners of animals after the academically trained quacks have mistreated them.
