Homeopathy: Declared unfit for animals, yet still the perfect prescription for gullability.

Homeopathy has been declared unfit for use on animals in the UK because of a complete lack of proven efficacy, but this late-18th century German fruitloopery is still available for those who suffer from gullibility or deliberately mimic the symptoms of complete and utter stupidity. Harsh words? Not really when you think that more common sense is being applied to veterinary medicine than our own.

The concept of homeopathy is that diluting  a substance which produces similar effects to the symptoms of a known illness and diluting it again and again (until it is basically indistinguishable from water ) actually increases its potency to cure that illness. Scientists have pointed out time and time again that the little success from homeopathy (supported only by anecdotal evidence) is due to the placebo effect.  One of homeopathy's main arguments against this claim has been that the placebo effect does not occur in animals (a very debatable point) so successful homeopathic remedies in veterinary medicine prove that it works. Recently, vets seem to have been asking "What success?".  In December 2010 the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) made clear that remedies could only be classed as medicines, and therefore be prescribed by vets, if they could scientifically demonstrate their efficacy- and that homeopathic remedies do not meet these requirements by any standard. The VMD Director of Operations, John FitzGerald, said:

“Some of these products are claiming to be effective and safe when no scientific evidence has been presented to us to show they are.

“Animal owners have a right to know if a product does what it claims. The products claim to treat diseases which can cause serious welfare problems and in some circumstances kill animals if not properly treated. So in some cases owners are giving remedies to their pets which don’t treat the problem.”

Other examples of unproven quack-shite under the axe of the VMD include:

• Animal food supplements – known as neutraceuticals, which claim to treat diseases or bring extra health benefits such as improved mental ability in pet animals.
• Herbal liquids, powders and pellets – sold as herbal wormers – claiming to irritate and repel parasitic worms from the guts of horses, livestock, and pets.

So why are homeopathic medicines still being funded by the NHS despite the fact that they're unsuitable as medicine for animals? The reason is simply because the government believes that it is very important to give people the choice to take alternative medicines rather than treatments which have been scientifically proven to work. It is yet another example of how confused the government is about the scientific evidence concerning particular substances and treatments and the moral implications of giving people the choice the use of them or endanger their lives.

Why is it that the government seemed reluctant to permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes (the benefits of which have been scientifically proven), yet is fine with the use of alternative medicines which have no proven medicinal benefit or may even exacerbate the problem. It also  supports giving people the choice to endanger their lives by ignoring medical advice and taking ineffectual preventative remedies when travelling to areas of the world stricken by malaria and polio - yet at the same time wastes millions and millions of pounds a year trying to stop people from choosing to use substances that they have made illegal for reasons which are contradictory to current scientific evidence.

They obviously can't decide whether patient health is more important than patient choice. In the Guardian, Drevan Harris explained the faulty reasoning behind the confusion:
"The Labour government of the day, in their evidence, defended the use of homeopathy on the NHS on the basis of "patient choice" and the fact that because some doctors swore by it, the efficacy question was not settled.
Some science teachers swear by creationism, but that does not mean that evolution is an unsettled question and that school science lessons should offer creationism as an alternative to their choosy consumers."

 The government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, also agrees that the the NHS should not fund homeopathy. The last labour government ignored him and now the new coalition government has issued an equally pathetic response based on the same wishy-washy 'patient choice' nonsense. I wonder how long a government which claims that severe cuts are needed everywhere can keep funding an alternative medicine based on scientific nonsense despite the fact it costs them "only a few million pounds" each year.

The other problem is a very, very misinformed idea that old traditional medicines are better for you. Old traditional medicines that have been proven to work are known as... medicine. Those that doesn't work are known as alternative medicine or new age quack-shite. For example the demand for traditional Chinese medicine is growing in western Europe. Remember that this area of medicine includes grinding up phallic like parts of endangered animals to cure problems like erectile dysfunction and infertility. Yet at the same time, these parts of the world have taken to western medicine with open arms. In Africa, they're dying (literally) for western medical aid because their traditional remedies don't work at all, yet 'new age' members of the middle class over here reckon they can cure all their illnesses by chanting ancient languages or touching 'magic crystals' which produce 'resonant frequencies' or 'energy'  and various other idiotically vague terms.

Personally I think that because the principles of homeopathy state that a substance becomes more potent the less it is used, the best way to use homeopathy is not to use it at all.

Recommended Reading

In his brilliant book Bad Science, Ben Goldacre explains and destroys pseudo-scientific nonsense such as homeopathy, aqua detox and advice from 'nutritionist' Gillian McKeith who claimed to have a PhD (one of a number of qualifications she basically bought on the Internet including a professional membership to the American Association of Nutritional Consultants which Ben Goldacre's dead cat, Hettie, is now also part of for a mere $60).

UK Government continues to ignore scientific advice on drugs

Downgrading the Importance of Scientific Advice

A new plan has been announced that will allow the UK government to make new policies on drugs without consulting expert doctors and scientists, effectively allowing them to change the law on controlled substances for reasons which are not supported by any evidence. The decision will come at the cost of a greatly reduced quality of scientific advice in government and a huge dent in the relationship between the government and scientists.
 
The changes are new amendments to the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which requires the government to seek advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) when making decisions to ban drugs and potentially criminalise large numbers of people. The ACMD is required to have at least 20 members, among them representatives of the practices of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry, and chemistry (other than pharmaceutical chemistry); and members who have a wide and relevant experience of social problems connected with the misuse of drugs. All are unpaid and have active careers in their area of expertise. The new plans are to remove the requirements for advisers from these professions.

The crime prevention minister James Brokenshire, on behalf of the government, said today:

"Removing the requirement on the home secretary to appoint to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs at least one person with experience in six specific areas will allow us greater flexibility in the expertise we are able to draw on."

I wonder though,  in what scenario wouldn't you want a medical doctor or pharmacist to give scientific advice on the misuse of drugs?



The Government do have a right not to take on board the advice from the ACMD, which they have exercised almost to its full potential over the last few years. On the Advice of the ACMD, Home Secretary David Blunkett downgraded cannabis from Class B to Class C in 2004. However, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith returned it to Class B in 2009. In February of the same year, the ACMD advised the government  to downgrade ecstasy from a Class A to a Class B drug. The ACMD's report on ecstasy, based on a 12 month study of 4,000 academic papers, concluded that it was nowhere near as dangerous as other Class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine. Once again, Jaqui Smith didn't listen to the advice.


Background: The Sacking of David Nutt

Senior Advisor to the ACMD, David Nutt, publicly condemned the UK government for ignoring scientific advice when making it's decisions. He believed that drugs should be classified according the the evidence of how harmful they are to the individual and to society. Nutt pointed out that alcohol and tobacco caused more harm than LSD, ecstasy and cannabis.

He also published a paper which showed that whilst there is one instance of acute harm for every 350 exposures to horse riding, there is only one instance of acute harm for every 10'000 exposures to ecstasy. His point was that the classification of drugs is obviously not based on how harmful they are but on an attitude fuelled by "scare stories" over the years. He backed up his claim for this distorted media attitude with a study of drug related news paper reports over a period of 10 years:

"the likelihood of a newspaper reporting a death from paracetamol was in per 250 deaths, for diazepam it was 1 in 50, whereas for amphetamine it was 1 in 3 and for ecstasy every associated death was reported."

Jaqui Smith received an enormous amount of criticism from the scientific community for bullying Professor Nutt into apologising for implying that horse riding was more dangerous than taking ecstasy, despite the fact he was doing his job as a scientist to set out the facts and that the paper was published outside of his ACMD role. Her successor, Alan Johnson, sacked David  Nutt, adding:

"It is important that the government's messages on drugs are clear and as an advisor you do nothing to undermine public understanding of them. I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as Chair of the ACMD."

However, he was never clear on how David Nutt had broken any guidelines or codes of practice.


David Nutt claimed that it was almost as if the ACMD was expected to find evidence to support the government's stance on drugs and that, in the end, they didn't like what real scientists were saying. His sacking delivered quite a blow to the relationship between scientists and the government and was followed by the resignation of many more scientific advisers on the ACMD. Many have also criticised the 'War on Drugs' for causing more harm than the drugs themselves.

"Science Opposing 'War on Drugs' is Overwhelming"

These are the words from  Dr. Evan Wood, the director of the urban health research initiative at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He is also the co-author of the Vienna Declaration, which calls on the world’s politicians to let scientific evidence guide their policies on illicit drugs.  Vienna was chosen as the site for the 2010 conference because it is home to the United Nations commission on narcotic drugs and a crossroads for Westerners to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where HIV infections from dirty needles are skyrocketing.

He believes that the war on drugs, waged by many governments worldwide, continues to ignore the health and social harms cased by their antiquated policies and described it as a "global catastrophe. Up until now, the scientific community hasn’t really been outspoken about it,” he said.

“Scientists have been attacked by groups seeking to maintain the status quo. I have been in a leadership position involved with the evaluation of the supervised injecting facility in Vancouver and have experienced first-hand how scientists promoting the notion that addiction is a public-health problem and a medical problem can be attacked for those views.” 

"One in 100 adults in Russia is already HIV-infected because of heroin use,” said Wood, chair of the committee that wrote the declaration. His main concern is the negative role the War on Drugs has played in the fight against AIDS, “It’s an injection-drug-related epidemic. Needle exchange is illegal.” He pointed out that methadone, one of the best substitutes for heroin to combat addiction, is illegal there, even if prescribed.

Wood points out the declaration stresses gang violence in cities such as Vancouver is directly related to drug prohibition.“When these drugs are made illegal, organized crime groups are enriched by that,” he said. "They fight one another to maintain those profits.”

He also stated that the money spent on combating drug related crime could be better spent elsewhere. “In California, they spend more on incarceration than they do on post-secondary education. It’s estimated that one in nine African-American males between the ages of 25 and 35 are in prison on any given day in the U.S.”

The World Health Organisation and Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS have also strongly endorsed the call for drug-policy reforms.

Public Opinion

The reception to the evidence from the experts has been met with mixed feelings. This is largely due to the fact that many haven't heard about the evidence  and don't seem to understand that people like David Nutt and Dr. Wood aren't just spouting out their innermost thoughts based on biases concerning drugs, the media and government. They're doing their job, which is to represent the facts in the best way possible and tell us what those facts are. It seems that people don't like what they're now being told. Many people seem to be against drugs, not because the facts tell them to be but because of some moral obligation to oppose them.

The main problem is, it's hard to shake off what we've been told for so long about drugs. And that is probably the main reasons that the government is not willing to change the laws on drugs because they think it will send people the wrong message: that on the subject of drugs, they didn't know what they were talking about.