Author Archives: Niall Taylor

Frei 2005 – CAM Papers

Frei, H., Everts, R., von Ammon, K., et al. (2005) ‘Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial’, European Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 164, pp. 758–767.

Links: [abstract, pubmed]::[abstract, springerlink]::[fulltext, ResearchGate, OA]
Responses: [Adler, 2005]

Homeopathic papers – Adler 1999

Adler, M. (1999) ‘Efficacy and safety of a fixed-combination homeopathic therapy for sinusitis’, Advanced Therapeutics, vol. 16, no. 2, pp.103–111.

RVM says: An open label, practice based survey, no blinding, no placebo control, yet bizarrely referred to as “evidence” by homeopaths… Just another customer satisfaction survey masquerading as science.

Links: [abstract, pub med]

Homeopathy – very much to be sneezed at: Aabel 2000

Aabel, S,. Laerum, E., Dølvik, S. and Djupesland, P. (2000) ‘Is homeopathic ‘immunotherapy’ effective? A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with the isopathic remedy Betula 30c for patients with birch pollen allergy’, British Homeopathic Journal, vol. 89, pp. 161–168.

Birch trees Ontario Georgian Bay uid 1045989

RVM says: Apart from a couple of days there was no statistically significant difference between trial groups although for 10 days out of the 4 week test period the authors felt there was a “clinically interesting” (whatever that means) difference. No mention of randomisation in the abstract or of how blinding was achieved. The staggering conclusion: “treatment with Betula 30c during the pollen season deserves further attention“. Well, it might if you’re desperate to sell homeopathy to people who trust you and you’re happy to turn a blind eye to the fact it simply doesn’t work.

Links: [abstract, pub med]
Responses: [comment, apgaylard]

Give a dog a bone, and some germs and bugs too!


van Bree, F.O.J, Bokken, G.C.A.M., Mineur, R., Franssen, F., Opsteegh, M., van der Giessen, J.W.B., Lipman, L.J.A. and Paul A M Overgaauw, P.A.M. (2017) ‘Zoonotic bacteria and parasites found in raw meat-based diets for cats and dogs’, Veterinary Record, vol. 182, p. 50, (DOI: 10.1136/vr.104535).
[full reference and links]

Yet another paper has just been published confirming the less than startling fact that raw diets for dogs contain what we professionals call ‘germs and bugs‘. A team of Dutch researchers looked at thirty five samples from eight commercially available brands of raw meat based diets (RMBD) and discovered bacteria such as E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella, as well as parasites including Sarcocysts and Toxoplasma gondii in them. A staggering 80 per cent of the samples contained antibiotic resistant E. coli bacteria. This seething collection of flora and fauna can cause illness in humans ranging from gastro-enteritis through haemorrhagic colitis and kidney-failure, to death in new-born babies and abortion in pregnant women. The organisms can transfer from dog to dog as well as to owners either directly from the raw-fed dog or indirectly by the contamination of the surfaces and utensils used to prepare the raw-food; they will multiply at room temperatures in food bowls. In many cases dogs can carry these micro-organisms, all the time shedding them into the environment, without showing any signs of ill health themselves. Furthermore such diets have been reported to cause problems in the dogs who eat them such as damaged teeth, perforated guts, hyperthyroidism and nutritional imbalance.

The study concludes, in that typically dispassionate way that published papers do, that owners should be made aware of the risks of feeding raw food to pets. RationalVetMed would venture a step further – just don’t! There is no good reason to feed raw food to your pets and there are serious risks to you, your family and your pets if you do. If, despite the risks, you insist on feeding raw then that is up to you but don’t kid yourself it has anything to do with supposed health benefits, because there are none, your decision is purely and simply a lifestyle choice.

See for the full reference and links.

Homeopathy, science and whale omlettes


Well‘, said the homeopath, drawing breath during a particularly bruising facebook debate, ‘science doesn’t know everything. Those conventional medicines, they always do more harm than good and hardly any have been tested by your so-called Gold Standard, the double blind placebo controlled trial (DBPCT). Just the other day I heard that Cartrophen took down a bunch of Labradors!

Apart from this typically egregious example of the kind of emotive, vague and unsubstantiated ‘evidence’ homeopaths favour, the point is science doesn’t begin and end with the DBPCT. Science is a system, a method which at its most basic is just a way of asking questions and investigating claims. Science actually comes down to one particular question: ‘Prove it!’. So in the unlikely event that Carprophen [a useful, safe and popular painkiller for dogs] did ‘take down a bunch of Labradors‘ that should, and would have been investigated through the official suspected adverse reaction surveillance scheme (SARSS) and steps taken, as actually happened in cases like Thalidomide in human medicine or the use of avermectins in certain collie dogs or any one of a number of other cases. It’s easy to do, you can report drug reactions online at the click of a button from a whole load of different official government websites or you can phone the drug company direct and they’ll do it for you or, if you’re old fashioned like me, you can fill out a garish yellow Veterinary Medicines Directorate SARSS forms using your favourite fountain pen and pop it in the post – I’ve got a pile of them on my desk and use them or their online equivalents regularly.

This is science in progress – a self-correcting system working to put itself (and medicine) in order. When did you last hear of anyone using vitamin E to treat heart disease? Yet this was a very popular treatment in the middle of the last century, used by intelligent, highly trained veterinary surgeons who, like homeopaths, swore it gave good results ‘in their cases’. It’s the same with the treatments of heroic medicine – no one practices purging, firing or bleeding now, the thought of doing so would horrify any contemporary veterinary surgeon. Yet they were the go-to treatments of their day and anyone who didn’t believe in them at the time would have been regarded as being thicker than a whale omlette.

The reason these long-discredited treatments are no longer mainstream as they once were is that science-based (rational) practitioners were, unlike homeopaths, able to recognise and accept a treatment practitioners had been using for generations was doing more harm than good and were willing to change based on scientific evidence rather than just personal experience. The problem with homeopaths is they don’t change, their methods of treatment are based entirely on personal experience. When presented with actual science – evidence homeopathy is ineffective – all we hear are increasingly implausible excuses about why it really does work, despite all appearences, and how critics are always wrong. Homeopaths’ starting point is first and foremost that homeopathy works, after that any evidence which comes their way is cherry-picked, filtered or dismissed to support that core belief, not to test it as should be the case. And that ain’t science, and it ain’t right!

And the daft thing is, after all that, even if proper drugs were utter rubbish, even if they did all the dreadful things homeopaths pretend they do, it STILL wouldn’t mean that homeopathy works!

How is this not torture? Parmen 2014

Parmen, V. (2014) ‘Electroacupuncture Analgesia in a Rabbit Ovariohysterectomy’, Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 15-24.

To be frank, this is one of the most cruel papers on any subject I have come across. I was so utterly shocked by it I couldn’t believe what I was reading and hoped I had misunderstood what the experimenters had done here in the name of acupuncture research. So I asked Martin Whitehead, of the Campaign for Rational Veterinary Medicine to take a look for me. It turns out I hadn’t misunderstood, the authors of this paper had actually operated on rabbits, surgically opening their abdomens and removing their uterus and ovaries while they were fully conscious and tied down to a metal frame, without the benefit of any form of anaesthetic or pain relief, while at the same time administering electric shocks to them and claiming this was “acupuncture anaesthesia” (a discredited technique which is illegal in many countries). As a colleague said when I mentioned this paper to her, “how is that not torture?

Comment from Dr Martin Whitehead:

This paper makes me feel queasy. That it had ethical approval from the university make me feel even more queasy.

It is clear that the acupuncture group rabbits were given no anaesthesia or analgesia (other than any resulting from the acupuncture and unknown-intensity electric currents passing through the rabbit).

The neuroleptanalgesia group were given ketamine (no analgesic action) and xylazine (which does have some analgesic action) but no other analgesia.

From Table 1 it appears that the rabbits were tied down in the metal device shown in Fig. 1 and receiving the electroacupuncture for at least 42-55 mins. Even if there was no surgery, not a nice thing to do to a rabbit – assuming they are conscious throughout, which certainly seems to have been the case.

In section 2.3. it says “the intensity of the electric current stimulation was slowly increased from zero until the animals showed signs of discomfort and twitching. After that, the intensity was slowly increased to 4, 6, and finally to 8 V for the abdominal site; for dorsal stimulation, the intensity was slowly increased to 2.2 V and then to 2.7 V.” That sounds grim.

Only voltages are stated, with no idea what current was being used (e.g., for comparison with a TENS machine), so it is not possible to tell what sort of effect this current would have on nerves or muscles.

From Fig. 3, the heart rate was lower in the electroacupuncture group, except at the time of actual surgery when it was much higher, which is not a promising sign. The respiratory rate was far higher in the electroacupuncture group before and during surgery, also not a promising sign. Those findings could be interpreted as indicating that the electroacupuncture rabbits were feeling more pain than the neuroleptanalgesia rabbits.

The one scrap of comfort I get is the very last sentence of the Results section – there was no “screaming related to stress or pain”. I hope that means there was no screaming at all.

So, the next time someone says, with regard to Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine, “where’s the harm”, you might like to point them to this paper. How delusional and a priori convinced of the merits of acupuncture, must the authors be to think this was, in any way, a humane procedure?

Links: [full text (OA)]