What are your views on this?

I've treated myself and my animals for years with homeopathic treatments.  I can understand some peoples' views on the placebo effect when using these treatments on people but that doesn't account for why it works on animals too ;)  Obviously if anything serious occured I'd be seeking advice from my vet (or doctor if it was for me :d ) but for minor things and for psychological issues (like fear of fireworks/crowds/etc) I always use homeopathy.

Debs

You can apply the placebo effect to the animals because of the human involvement.  After all it is our perception whether an improvement has occured not the animals and that perception can contribute to an actual change.  For instance I used to give my old terrier Green Lip Mussel, I believed it did help and as a consequence I almost certainly offered her more in the way of exercise and felt she coped with it better but did she really and if she did was it perhaps because I felt less "cruel" in taking her for a little walk and that bit of gentle exercise was actually what was doing her good rather than me leaving her to rest more?
I'm afraid the countless studies that have failed to demonstate that homeopathy works knocks it on the head for me :)

I understand what you're saying Isabel, but with things like skin, rashes or coat conditions, etc, you can SEE the difference, it's not percieved.  I know science can't explain how it works but this just makes me giggle.  I like the fact that scientists who think they know how everything works can't figure certain things out :d  Maybe they will someday.  I've used homeopathy too many times over many years to think of the dramatic effects as coincidence.

My Mum suffered for years wityh ME until she saw a homeopath.  The improvements in her are staggering.

Debs

>but with things like skin, rashes or coat conditions, etc, you can SEE the difference, it's not percieved.

Again these things can improve if we treat the dog differently for instance lowering their stress levels by exhibiting less stress ourselves :)

>I know science can't explain how it works but this just makes me giggle.  I like the fact that scientists who think they know how everything works can't figure certain things out

I am not talking about science working it out.  I am talking about using scientific methods such a good sized double blind trials to demonstrate whether skin rashes, coat condition etc does change.  This is where absolutely no evidence has been found that it works which also takes in my point about placeb, when you remove the human nature element it fails to deliver.
In terms of your Mother's experience I am all for people using something that makes them feel better.  In that sense placebos do work :) and at least homeopathy, unlike some alternatives, can't possibly do any harm.  Apart from of course if proper scientific medicine is neglected.

I am talking about using scientific methods such a good sized double blind trials to demonstrate whether skin rashes, coat condition etc does change.  This is where absolutely no evidence has been found that it works which also takes in my point about placeb, when you remove the human nature element it fails to deliver.

The British Medical Journal and The Lancet have published reviews of several trials into homeopathy, and have still not provided a strong conclusion one way or the other.  They did not find that it doesn't work.  So yes, you can say there's no evidence that it works - however, there's no evidence that it doesn't work either ;)  Why is it, that if medical practitioners and scientists believe it doesn't work (not just alternative therapists), that it's available on the NHS and has been for many years? (since 1948 I think).

Anyway, this is what the OP asked for - peoples' views on homeopathy.  It's good to see both sides of the debate :)

Debs

I don't think that is strictly true.  In 2005 the Lancet published an analysis of 110 placebo-controlled randomised trials of homoeopathy showing there is no evidence that homeopathic tablets perform any better than placebos.  Now you could look at it as not really evidence that it does not work but you would think in so many trials you would see some evidence of improvement better than placebo when every homeopathic practitioner claims such good results.

>Why is it, that if medical practitioners and scientists believe it doesn't work (not just alternative therapists), that it's available on the NHS and has been for many years? (since 1948 I

Because as we both agree placebo can be beneficial for people.  Personally I think we should spend money on more scientifically proven methods of stress control such as cognitive therapy, which is how a friend of mine is learning to manage her ME, but GP's have the power to spend their own budgets and I guess they know how best to treat their patients :)

In 2005 the Lancet published an analysis of 110 placebo-controlled randomised trials of homoeopathy showing there is no evidence that homeopathic tablets perform any better than placebos.

Yes I am well aware of the trials in the Autumn of 2005. The researchers told doctors that they 'need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy's lack of benefit' already a biased statement.  It was based on a meta-analysis that reviewed 110 clinical trials in homeopathy.  The researchers originally agreed that all the trials were of a high quality and were scientific.  The majority of trials found that homeopathy worked or had 'a beneficial effect', as the research team put it.  However, the researchers decided to reject 102 of these trials from their final analysis.  Eight of the 'rejects' were trials on patients with upper respiratory tract infection that had such positive results in favour of homeopathy that they could 'not be trusted'.  So, the researchers were already convinced that homeopathy didn't work, and so rejected trials that proved otherwise.  In fact, they said so.  When they set out to research homeopathy, they viewed it as 'implausible'.  After weeding out all the positive studies, they were left with just eight trials - and all of them  'proved' homeopathy didn't work. :rolleyes:

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.  The OP has probably had enough of our 'opinions' :d

Debs

>The researchers told doctors that they 'need to be bold and honest with their patients about homeopathy's lack of benefit' already a biased statement.

These were 110 different trials.  I can't see that they were all conducted in that manner.
Nevertheless it is inconcievable to me that if homeopathy was half as effective as it practioners claimed they could not easy come up with a double blind trial to demonstrate, in fact again and again.

I'll just pop my head over the parapet to say I don't like it at all as it has it's roots in Alchemy and spells!  As a Christian I can't be involved in ANY of that! Herbal stuff I don't mind. Now I'm running for cover! :D :)

Herbal remedies are effective but I would like to see them far more regulated not least as there are many misconception as to how safe they are.

I thought some regulation has occurred?

What I will say one place I worked recently a chap broke his nose playing rugby.
He looked dreadful - very bad bruising, swollen face eyes that could barely open etc etc.
I saw him 2 days later and he looked so much better.

He'd not gone to his Dr's but had used internal and externally arnica.
The difference was amazing in such a short space of time.

I also used arnica cream on a finger injury - door slammed on nail/finger.
It really helped with the swelling and bruising.
I've not lost the finger nail -although I still have the purple blood blister bruise
in/under the nail.

But do agree with Isabel that just because it's herbal doesn't mean it's 100% safe.

Not nearly enough regulation.  You can go into a shop and buy anything.  Arnica is an excellent example, works very well on bruising as you have seen :) because it thins the blood breaking down the haematoma but for the same reason inappropriate when there is a wound and you want to achieve haemostasis, after an operation for instance, but how often to you hear people recommending it.

Arnica all the time ;)

I thought they'd taken dosages off labels etc?
Whatever if you don't know what you are doing then herbal can cause you problems.

I have to be careful as I have liver problem (fatty liver not caused by alcohol I hasten to add)
so have to be careful with any medication, herbal or otherwise.

>I thought they'd taken dosages off labels etc?

Brilliant. That should sort it! :D

Homoeopathic preparations - even when prescribed by a qualified practitioner - have never had any effect on my, or my animals', condition. Not even a placebo effect. Nada.

My old Lab had jarred her shoulder very badly.  After medication it was still no better, she eventually had X-rays and it was decided to keep her on medication. Now after 6 months on Meticam there was still no improvement. Went to a show one day and there was a lady selling all the 'potions'.  She suggested Arnica rubbed into shoulder and Ruta Grav.  Elsa became sound in her movement within one week. So as far as I'm concerned I'm a believer. I'm sure some will say (and I will put money on it) that she was due to get better eventually. Well I am not listening!!!!

Was that homeopathic arnica or herbal though?

>I'm sure some will say (and I will put money on it) that she was due to get better eventually. Well I am not listening!!!!

Well, I'm not going to say then ;)

>She suggested Arnica rubbed into shoulder

I was led to believe that homoeopathic remedies are only taken internally, not externally. If so, the arnica would have been a herbal, not homoeopathic remedy, with the added bonus of being a very useful method of ensuring a helpful massage is administered. ;)
Homoepathic arnica studies.

How about the GP who told their patient to start taking Arnica before she had her knee replacement as it helps the healing time because it helps with the bruising. Was that just for a placebo effect?

AlisonGold can you confirm if you are talking about herbal or homeopathic arnica as there is a world of difference?
If it was herbal I would imagine the GP thought it would help the bruising although I think it very risky during the surgery and I hope the patient informed the surgeon so that the routine anticoagulants given following surgery could be adjusted.  If it was homeopathic, then yes, he could have felt the patient would benefit from something he thought would make him feel better :)

Deleted, not reading things properly :)

Thank you everyone for all your information

Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't have seen it for myself. 

Tried a remedy on Spends last year, first one ever.  What was truly amazing was that old symptoms reappeared, then disappeared again.  Like the time he had a slight stumble with his left front leg, we hadn't seen it for months and it wasn't severe enough to put him through testing.  Well it started again shortly after using the remedy and lasted roughly a week, more often than before and then it disappeared and I haven't seen it since.

We used a remedy to help his nerves after the disc op, definitely helped, about 10 days later he was able to go back to 15 mins in the pool without his nerves annoying him.  Exercise can exacerbate the symptoms of nerve regrowth.

I found the results of Arnica amazing, I was advised to use this myself by a Consultant and it worked! 

So in my opinion there is a place for homeopathy :D

Going back to our doggy friends, I think metacam seems to mask the pain but doesn't actually help cure anything - my old vet prescribed this for Spangler from being 3 months old - advised to take it every day   I did quite a lot of research on this and found that it did have side effects, this was confirmed afterwards when an orthopeadic vet prescribed it when necessary :rolleyes: and not every day.

Again, is this herbal arnica or homoeopathic arnica? Herbalism and homoeopathy are totally different.

Unravelling the confusion.

Homeopathic remedy that the consultant advised me to take which I did and as I said, the results were excellent - whether it was the placebo effect I don't know but it did work so I didn't really care!

But going back to dogs, no matter what has been said on this thread I don't believe you can have a placebo effect on animals, something either works or it doesn't on them IMO :P :P :P

I do think that loving owners can sometimes see a response that an impartial observer might not, especially if they're looking for one ... ;) :D Marvellous when a condition improves, though, no matter what the reason. :)

Metacam is an anti-inflammatory so can have an effect in correcting a condition as well as acting as a pain killer.  This is why pet owners should always check with the vet exactly what it was prescribed for before deciding to omit the prescription for instance after surgery when the vet may have seen considerable inflammatory response that he wants to correct before any danger of ruptured sutures.

Metacam, long term can also 'pickle' the kidneys. I personally think that my dog was allowed to have it too long at six months plus and certainly a young puppy should have no real need to be on it long term. Certainly for a short period of time to see how the dogs 'injury' reacts to it but surely if something isn't working then something else should be tried.  Yes! I have changed my Vet since!

I agree Alison, it can pickle the kidneys as you say, and like you I have also changed my vet!

Unfortunatley at the time when Spangler was only 3 months old I still had blind faith in what I thought was 'an expert' and thought that if the vet said he'd need this everyday for the rest of his life then that's what I'd do because he knows best

Thank goodness I did some research for myself and had a second opinion - although he did take the prescribed amount every day for about 9 months before I started to question it - I think a lot of 'novice' owners (as I was then) fall into this trap