I too have seen the distinctions between homeopathy and herbal remedies, blurred. I have always read and been taught that homeopathy involves serial dilution and a resulting lack of active ingredient. However, natural/herbal remedies aren't always subjected to this, but still seem to come under the same umbrella? I wouldn't hesitate to use tried and tested natural remedies, but it's the serial dilution element of homeopathy that I just won't buy.

My last vet was qualified in various complementary therapies as well as vet. science and she introduced us to acupuncture which certainly worked. I saw it work before my eyes. She also supported the use of homeopathy and Chinese Herbs but these didn`t help my dog at the time. She preferred to use methods that would not bring their own problems (side effects etc. ) where possible.
I think that if there is a chance something can help your dog, and that will not hurt the dog, then you have to try it. I know Cod Liver Oil and Glucosomine / chondroitin helps my arthritic dog because I can see the deterioration if we run out.
Having a friend who is qualified in Reiki - which I just don`t understand either - but knowing people who swear it has helped them, I like to keep an open mind.

Dr David Reilly and his team at Glasgow Royal Infirmary carried out 3 small studies on humans using placebos for the control group and each time homeopathy was proved effective.

Even though his results were published in the Lancet, the accompanying editorial called the dilution principle of homeopathy "absurd", and so the fact the people using homeopathy got better during the trials must be due to some other cause.

It would seem in many cases that it doesn't matter what you prove, you can still be dismissed as absurd.

Anyway, I haven't read the book, however George Vithoulkas's "The Science of Homeopathy" is said by many experts to be an extremely informative read for anyone interested.

As I understand it, homeopathy is based on the principle of treating 'like with like' - in a similar manner to vaccine theory I suppose. The difference between vaccines and homeopathy of course is that a vaccine contains a significant dose of the disease whereas homeopathy is in an extremely diluted form of medicines that produce similar symptoms of the disease.

Where it wins is that unlike conventional medicine, these treatments go with, rather than against, the body's own efforts to regain health.

Conventional medicine follows the priniciples of either taking the place of normal body processes (hormonal drugs), inhibiting body responses (pain killers, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines) or weakening or killing bacteria or cancer cells (antibiotics, chemotherapy, radiation therapy), and each symptom is treated with it's specific medicine, so if you go to the doctor with a headache, stomach ache and depression you will be given 3 medications.
Conversely, homeopathy considers all of the symptoms as being one disease and gives one medication that is found to be the best catalyst for the body's total defense response - so homeopathy isn't curing the disease it is stimulating the body to cure it itself.

The homeopathic preparations are made up from minute doses of herbs, minerals or animal products such as bee venom. They are repeatedly diluted and agitated so that only miniscule amounts actually enter the body - it is not the medication itself that does the work - the medication simply carries a healing energy derived from the original material.

And this is where homeopathy falls down in the eyes of mainstream scientists - when you start talking about "healing energy" they glaze over and start mumbling about quack theories.

Here's a simplified example taken from Dr Pitcairn's book:

Many years ago I was also a sceptic. A non-believer and yet I still had a homeopathic GP and a homeopathic Dentist because I have always disliked the concept of what conventional medicine does to the body, so I figured homeopathy wouldn't do me any harm and could do me some good.

I have "felt" rather than known that it has helped me in the past, yet was still a sceptic based on the placebo theory. That was until I started using it on my dogs. They don't know what I'm giving them, and when it cured my rescue pups sarcoptic mange earlier this year the final piece of my sceptical puzzle fell into place for me.

In the UK, you can not be a homeopathic vet, unless you are first a conventional vet. Therefore, if you go to a homeopathic vet you have all the benefits of conventional medical learning PLUS all the benefits of homeopathic learning. I think it's a win-win personally.

I bow down before you!!!!!!!

I have three degrees directly related to animal health (well 2.95 at the moment) and I still can't make the point as lucidly as this!!!!!!

Thank you

..me too m2p if people get some relief from using it all well and good but it is not for me. Did you see the Horizon programme about homeopathy, very interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...meopathy.shtml

On the other hand I think some herbal preparations can be very effective.

I think it would be foolish to discount anything that can't be proven to be ineffective - especially if it's safe and has no side effects. Many of today's conventional treatments are known to be harmful, often treating symptoms and disregading cause. Holistic approaches at least set out with the right goal in mind. There are circumstances where I'll try well researched alternative therapies before subjecting my dog to conventional treatments that are known to do harm.

I wouldn't be happy with a vet that wasn't intelligent enough to realise that 'not proven to work' is a world apart from 'proven not to work'. With regard to homeopathic treatments my vets comment was "when I see the devestating effect on someone with a peanut allergy when they come in contact with a washed cooking utensil that previously came into contact with nuts I realise that we simply don't know enough about the workings of the immune system to conclude that tiny concentrations of substances can't have a significant effect on the human body".

Our 1 year old dog has developed allergies. They are mild, but it's suprising in a breed that's not really known for allergies to develop them so young. There is no history of this condition in her pedigree. Now these things happen of course.

But our little dog had a few routine doses of antibiotics as a youngster (spaying op, tummy upset, kennel cough with swollen glands). I did express concerns but was told that it was well tested and known to be completely safe in dogs.

But human studies are starting to connect antibiotic use in children with fairly substantial increases in liklihood of developing hayfever. This has been accepted as a possibility by the NHS, and I recently read one of their allergy leaflets that actually stated that people that those on antibiotics have a greater chance of developing allergies. It is speculated that the good bacteria in the gut play an important part in determining the immune response - the exact mechinism is not understood. A very recent, but small study has found significant improvement in hayfever sufferers after taking Yakult every day for 5 months.

In humans allergies can improve with age. It's certainly not considered to be something that will inevitibly get worse each year. Yet in dogs the prognosis is not so good. It's almost expected that the condition will worsen and the dog will gradually become allergic to more and more things. Interestingly, once a dog develops allergies it tends to have frequent outbreaks of pyoderma requiring repeated doses of antibiotics. So you see how it's very possible that the treatment is setting up a vicous cycle that's feeding the condition.

So 'proven' conventional treatments have serious question marks over them. If we want to help allergic dogs all we have at our disposal is a bunch of unproven alternative treatments. Some people report miracle cures where all else has failed. If we don't understand why something is working it's hard to devise an appropriate test to reproduce results. An open minded conventional vet can be a real help in guiding you towards the treatments that show most promise.

I wouldn't be happy to use a holistic vet simply because I feel that you can't put complete faith in something that's not even close to being proven to work. Some people do get good results with them though - and it could even be because they're staying away from the harmful conventional treatments that are feeding their condition!

Hi Carter I am well aware of this and posted links on the subject in one of your threads, but I don't think this has anything to do with homeopathy.

I know many people who have tried homeopathic treatments and they have been ineffective .

I don't have a problem with anyone using anything which they think is helping a condition but I personally would never recommend homeopathy, I have seen people spend a lot of time and money on it suffering needless pain which was only alleviated with the use of conventional medicine.

I am sceptical with homeopathy, especially with respect to dilutions and water supposedly having a 'memory' of particles that were originally dissolved in it.

I think if people want to try it, especially for a minor ailment it's harmless enough or even as an adjunct. My concern is when it is used in place of conventional medicine in a serious health issue. This could have a deterimental impact in terms of health deteriorating to a stage where it might not be easy to repair.


Edit:

Herbal medicine is a different matter, altogether.

Sorry Minihaha, I din't make myself clear enough.

I wasn't suggesting that all that stuff about allergies had anything to do with homeopathy. I was illustrating my point that in it's blinkered attempts to aleviate symptoms, tried, tested and accepted conventional treatments often do considerable harm.

I like the philosophy behind many alternative approaches to medicine. I would much rather treat the problem than the symptoms in both myself and my dog.

Now I agree that if you place blind faith in unproven methods you are setting yourself up for a fall. However, the same has been proven over and over again to be true by placing blind faith in PROVEN, TESTED, AUTHORISED conventional treatments. Many are later found to be extremely harmful and at best some only treat symptoms leaving the underlying cause festering away.

My point was really that we can't possibly say that homeopathic treatments don't work as we don't know enough about how the body works. As long as it's working for some people then if it's known to be safe and harmless it's got to be worth a try when the only other options are harmful conventional drugs. A conventional vet with an open mind is a huge help in guiding people towards treatments that are both harmless and more likely to work.

I haven't tried a homeopathic treatment for allergies, but as homeopathy is completely harmless I'd have nothing to loose but a few pounds if someone suggested one that might help. I'd give it a go if the alternatives are do nothing and be forced into accepting very damaging conventional treatments.

I was diagnosed with arthritis a few years ago by a top specialist. I cured myself. (In actual fact, I suspect I never had the condition - and I suspect that most people diagnosed with it are in the same boat as me). My point is, tried and tested conventional medicine is often way off the mark. They don't understand a lot of conditions yet we're all happy to pop pills that we don't need because we place faith in Western medicine.

I think it's very dangerous when humans or pets are forced to seek help from alternative practitioners as their treatments aren't comprehensive enough and hit and miss at best. Also practitioners often don't have sufficient medical training. If conventional doctors/vets use their common sense and accept that sometimes these treatments will work bettter (for reasons yet unknown) they can keep people within in the safe confines of conventional medicine whilst still giving them the chance to try alternative treatments that in many cases will work better.

Would you include `Rescue Remedy` with homeopathic treatments? I know several people who have used it and say it works. I personally don`t `get` Bach flower treatment or aromatherapy for that matter, but I`d be willing to give it a go if I thought it would help. After all - what harm could it do?