Page 14 - Summer 17

Efficacy of homeopathy in livestock according to peer-reviewed publications from 1981 to 2014 (continued from p1)
2 The dismissal of the findings, because the same remedy was not used, illustrates the fundamental misunderstanding (and refusal to understand) of how homeopathy works and what it is trying to achieve, and at what level. Although later some consideration is given to the difference in prescribing of homeopathy to allopathic drugs in the Interpretation section. However, this statement is not reflected in the conclusions drawn by the authors.
3 The phrase of “The first priority....” is gold dust for us, and could be re-quoted over and over again! For example, In Geoff’s [Johnson; ed] investigation of osteosarcoma, when cure is “impossible” and pain relief, at best, very challenging, would not homeopathy, by these criteria, be the treatment of choice, seeing as conventional medicine does emphatically not “prevent unnecessary suffering in the animal, if only for reasons of animal welfare”?
4 The “lack of prognostic validity”, despite the paper admitting that 54% of the papers reviewed showed a positive outcome for homeopathy (or “found in favour of homeopathy”, to use their terminology) shows what the mind-set is. The “prognostic validity” is not talking about homeopathy; it is talking about individual remedies. Homeopathy showed a positive response in the majority of studies, just not with the same remedy every time. These authors, like most, are clearly used to having their research funded with the aim of finding a potential gold-mine in a newly discovered drug, and all findings from any future RCT will be with that aim. It is NOT going to try to see if homeopathy works, it will be to see, if an individual remedy works in a specific condition in a specific species in a reproducible manner. This removes the criteria, by which we select our therapy completely. These are the rules we have to abide by. No future research, which says “yes, homeopathy works, but there is no great new profit- generating drug for you pharmas with already bloated bank accounts, because you need a properly qualified homeopathic vet, who understands the methodology and medicines involved rather than routinist hard-sold drugs” is ever going to be acceptable.
5 The study title says it was reviewing the efficacy of “homeopathy”. Were this
actually the intended aim, then the outcome would have been very favourable, because, as a medical methodology, it clearly showed a positive outcome. However, no self-respecting researcher working at a big university wants his/her name on a paper that dares to say homeopathy actually works! So they subtly changed the outcome goals to assessing the efficacy of individual homeopathic “remedies”, so as to fulfil the standard aims of any research paper – as discussed in point 4 above – to make a big fat profit for someone, or to prevent a big fat profit currently being made form being out under threat.
6 It strikes me that our continued use of the word “remedies” should be actively discouraged. These are medicines. These medicines work to a level that conventional therapies do not and never can touch. The word “remedy”, sadly, does carry with it connotations of anecdote, hearsay, folklore etc. I have no problem with that, but for acceptance of the scientific community, I believe that we should actively move to always call them medicines in both written and oral communications. We treat medical cases and advocate homeopathic medicine, after all. We should also be quick to correct the use of this term when used by non-homeopaths, as this is a subtle way of trying to create an uneven playing field when comparing allopathic “medicines” to homeopathic “remedies”. Perhaps we should start writing our papers using homeopathic medicines: and allopathic “remedies”?!
7 Such comparisons are trying to compare like with like. This perception that such an approach is acceptable is, I believe, perpetuated by studies, which are using homeopathic medicines in a like for like way, such as the recent negative outcome study in hyperthyroidism in cats. There is such a fundamental difference, and this should be shouted form the proverbial rooftops. It is NOT about the clinical signs of the disease, it is the energetic disturbance of the patient that creates the bodily reaction, which we recognise as disease. And if we all accept this as true (which surely we do), why are we so reluctant to call our medicine “energetic medicine”; what are we afraid of? If we are scared to accept that this is energetic medicine, and be proud of it, we should throw away our copy (copies in my case) of the Organon and never prescribe a
potency over 12C. It is what it is, and we should stop hiding this fact and pussy- footing around! We are creating big holes for ourselves to fall into, and the anti- brigade are providing the shovels.
Retrospectively, I wish I had seen this paper at the time of publication, and written a slightly amended version of this critique to the Veterinary Record. Having said that, they always allow the right of reply but rarely the right of reply to reply, so the last word always ends with the establishment, not the forward thinker. Maybe the world is still to be ready to hear the true message of homeopathy. Let’s be honest, maybe some of us are not quite there yet either. I remember when I started using homeopathic treatment in my patients, I only ordered the tablets because I just couldn’t get my head around the idea of “Just One Drop” as the film says. Time, and understanding, move on. However, if we wait until we feel the time is right (in our limited perception of these things), we are failing to create the conditions, whereby such a time is created. I believe, we should start to be more vocal in our difference; be proud of our medicine; be honest and true to the principles of Samuel Hahnemann. We should not shirk the challenge of being the frontline troops of homeopathy in a demanding and hostile environment, but we should also not be prepared to be diverted from the purity of what we do, why we do it, and what these medicines really are, really represent. Generations of patients to come are waiting in hope and expectation.
I finish with a couple of quotes:
12
“Don't be afraid of being different, be afraid of being the same as everyone else”.
“You will never influence the world by being just like it”.