Page 3 - Summer 17

Committee – BAHVS
President – Jane Keogh j.keogh5@btinternet.com
Senior Vice-President – Mark Elliott homeopathicvet@btinternet.com
Junior Vice-President – Chris Day cday-avmc@hotmail.co.uk
Hon. Secretary – Stuart Marston sec@bahvs.com
Treasurer – Wendy McGrandles wendy@glenbrae-vet.co.uk
Magazine Editor – Malene Jørgensen malene@laforcevitale.eu
Communications Officer – Nick Thompson nickthompson@holisticvet.co.uk
IAVH Representitive – Nick Thompson nickthompson@holisticvet.co.uk
Faculty Veterinary Representitive – Peter Gregory pg.ahimsa@virgin.net
Mag distribution – Cheryl Sears cheryl.sears31@btinternet.com
Committee – IAVH
President – Edward de Beukelaer 12edb3@gmail.com
Treasurer – Sara Fox Chapman sfc.holistic@gmail.com
General Secretary – Petra Weiermayer petra.weiermayer@gmx.at
Coordinator subcommittee for education – Stefan Kohlrausch stefan.kohlrausch@arcor.de
Newsletter subcommittee – Malene Jørgensen malene@laforcevitale.eu
IAVH Communications Officer – Nick Thompson nickthompson@holisticvet.co.uk
LIGA contact – Marc Bär info@homeopatte.ch
Efficacy of homeopathy – in livestock according to peer-reviewed publications from 1981 to 2014
by Mark Carpenter, UK
(Veterinary Record Vol 174. No. 24)
OK, firstly, hands up, I am not the greatest at ripping open the cover of this scintillatingly exciting journal as it hits the doormat, so perusal of old editions tends to come when the pile is so great that the recycling bin beckons – and, let’s be honest, it was nearly Christmas and there were a lot more important things going on at that time! However, comments made in this paper illustrate precisely, why I have reservations about trying to prove to the disbelieving and blinkered scientific community that homeopathy is effective when constrained by the rules of their medicine, which rules are clearly inappropriate.
The paper concerned was “Efficacy of homeopathy in livestock according to peer- reviewed publications from 1981 to 2014”; the authors were C. Doehring DVM and A. Sundry PhD, DVM, from the Department of Animal Nutrition and Animal health, University of Kassel, Germany (VR 179.24). The study only looked at publications from peer-reviewed scientific journals and doctoral theses, and looked at the efficacy of homeopathy in treating “production diseases” of pigs, cattle and poultry under European or “comparable” conditions. The article was based on a total of 48 publications, involving 52 clinical trials (34 cattle, 12 pigs, 6 poultry). In total, 54% (28) were “in favour of homeopathy”, with 26 trials showing “significantly higher efficacy of the homeopathic remedy in comparison to a control group”. 42% (22) showed no benefit, and two trials were inconclusive.
In Results:
The “Interpretation” further states:
The Main conclusion states:
those single case studies on the potential of homeopathy to reduce or replace antibiotics can only be very limited.”
• “The use of the same remedy administered to the same species with a comparable medical indication was not repeated once. Thus, the results lack any reproducibility”.
• “A considerable number of studies reported a significantly higher efficacy for homeopathic remedies than for control. Therefore, the potential medical efficacy of homeopathy under certain conditions cannot be ruled out. This is especially true for the context- sensitive treatment strategy of homeopathy, which considers (despite clinical signs and the pathogen responsible) behaviour, constitution and conditions the animal is living in”.
•“The first priority, when medically treating animals, should always be to apply the most effective treatment or remedy and thus prevent unnecessary suffering in the animal, if only for reasons of animal welfare”.
• “Due to the lack of prognostic validity, replacing or reducing antibiotics with homeopathy currently cannot be recommended unless evidence of efficacy is reproduced with randomised control trials (RCTs) and proven in various farm conditions”.
•“It [the study] revealed that more peer-reviewed publications were in favour of homeopathy than those showing no medical effect”.
• “Within the studies considered, the use of the same remedy administered to the same species with a comparable medical indication was never repeated. Accordingly, conclusions drawn from
The British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons (BAHVS) was formed in 1981, to advance the understanding, knowledge and practice of homeopathy. It aims to stimulate professional awareness of homeopathy and to encourage and to provide
for the training of veterinary surgeons in the practice of homeopathy.
It is an open forum for differing approaches to the subject of veterinary homeopathy and it’s application, allowing for constructive interchanges of ideas.
Continued on p12
This publication is copyright. No part of it may be reproduced without the permission of the Editor. Material published does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the BAHVS or the Editor.
The BAHVS does not necessarily endorse products or the companies advertised.
This creates several areas of concern for me.
1 Why use the phrase “in favour of homeopathy”, which implies an author bias, rather than “found homeopathy to have a positive medicinal effect”, which states unbiased factual findings.
Design / production / advertsing: phil@delnorte.co.uk