I returned to the paper as I skimmed it yesterday so here goes for a more thorough run.

This paper is presumably overseen by an ethics committee. Before they will clear an experiment they have to be satisfied the sample size has to be appropriate (not too large as its wasteful and not too small as it may give false results) This is the basis of the power calculation mentioned in the analysis section of the paper.

A more thorough explanation is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power

The authors state that 60 people would need to be tested to give reliable results. They in fact recruited 54 in total.

As stated the smaller the sample size the larger the difference but the population must have adequate size to allow the calculation to have reliability. even if our p value is 0.008 (or similar) there is still a chance that what is occurring here is a false negative. Had they had a adequate sample size then this would have been answered. As it is there is no way of knowing the probability of the false positive occuring.
The researchers were not blinded to the treatment options so it is possible they were influencing the trial. It would have been better if all parties were blinded til the final results were in.
In fact in the bottom of the paper in a summary box the authors conclude there is no difference from placebo. although the metaanalysis of all 4 trials is positive. However the underlying trials have to be good to allow for confidence in the final analysis.


I hope that makes sense.


It is not helpful to scaremonger about a drug. If there are problems with a drug document the evidence but don't throw accusations around. Its liable to induce a panic and people may stop using it. This will directly lead to an increase in animal suffering.

Here's the documented evidence of the side-effects she talks of:

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKETS/doc...-000003-01.pdf

Interestingly, the numbers of dogs involved in toxicity and safety studies were far fewer than those involved in the homeopathic studies.

I am VERY happy when people draw my attention to dangerous drugs. I don't stop taking them - I check out the facts. My own family members have been seriously harmed by drugs that are widely known to cause serious side-effects yet are still prescribed routinely and often unnecesarily by doctors that don't have time to keep on top of these things.

More here on the lack of safety testing in drugs for our pets:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...67225292_x.htm

Thanks Scarter.

Sadly, the trials for pet medications are flimsy at best because the regulations are flimsy - pets don't matter as much you see As a result, pet med trials (and some human ones) use selective or under reporting of the adverse drug events that they witness. You'll see with Deramaxx, in one of the trials they did not even detail if the dogs all survived, or if not, how many died.

I'm not scaremongering - I always check my facts on EVERYTHING. However, since you ask, I'll go Off-Topic and answer your question.

Deramaxx is closely related to the human equivalent Vioxx - both came on the market in 2002 - Vioxx was taken off the market in 2004 following links to heart attacks and stroke - Deramaxx however continues to be prescribed by vets - even though a dogs physiology is considered close enough to humans to be valid for vivisection and other lab tests. Ironic really, and little wonder over a hundred thousand of healthy dogs have been reported as "going to the vet for a limp" and then dying a few days later.

But don't worry, if you read the small print, after FDA pressure, Deramaxx does now say in the small print that "some" animals have died after using it.

Incidentally, Vioxx was conveniently tested on a healthy, young population, although it was intended for use by the old and sick.

THESE are the facts for the beloved clinical trials that many on this thread seem so keen on.

THIS is why I value pet-owner testimonials.

THIS is why I choose homeopathy, herbal and other alternative therapies in preference to conventional medicine and always try them first.

And I have to say that whilst I don't have any faith in any particular alternative treatment I will research them and consider them before taking conventional medicines myself or giving them to my dog. This is based upon bitter experience!

If I, a family member or pet was very ill then I'd never trust an 'alternative' practitioner. But if the condition wasn't critical I'd much rather take gentle preparations that 'supposedly' (I don't care if it's not proven to work) treat the condition without side-effects. I think in practice it's often the case that the alternative treatments are better tested and documented than the powerful drugs. This is simply because those that use alternative treatments very often do the research themselves and publish it. Conventional medicines for dogs seem to be half-heartedly tested and the results not made clear to pet owners.

Always the least invasive/least harmful procedure/treatment first for me and mine!

You brought Deramaxx into the conversation. I was discussing the evidence base for homeopathy.

It seems odd though to decry clinical trials and scientific analysis of medical interventions then point out that scientists are capable of reevaluating evidence as it is discovered. Exactly who do you think discovered there was a link to Vioxx therapy and cardiac deaths? As I understand it was epidemiologists using a scientifically designed adverse event post marketing system.

These people apply the same rigour or more that they bring to homeopathy.


If there is to be further discussion on the safety of NSAIDs I suggest a new thread. However I suspect this particular problem came about as it is so very safe in canines as compared to humans.

I can't find the data so perhaps you can (in a new thread) tell us the percentage of dogs taking deramaxx that have adverse events, how does this compare to other NSAIDs? What was it about the drug that caused the death, were they used as recommended


back to homeopathy I was going to look at more trials but as I don't wish to advise people that its useful. It is perhaps more apprpriate that its supporters provide the evidence if they wish to convince the more open minded amongst us

Open-minded?

Mmmm.... now let me see, I must recheck the meaning in my dictionary.....

Well I personally am convinced enough by the studies that Ziva has quoted to want to give this a try for my little atopic dog.

I'm giving her a daily dose of Yakult on the strength of a 12 person strong study carried out earlier in the year that found significant positive changes in symptoms and blood samples of human hay fever sufferers!

All that conventional medicine has to offer is very harmful drugs. My dog is nowhere near bad enough to warrant subjecting her to them at this stage. So both me and my vet are keen to try anything that :

a. Won't do any harm
b. Is reported to work for others

The fact that there have been positive studies of the use of homeopathy is a bonus!

So to those of you that have used homeopathy please tell me more about it - especially if you have any info on homeopathy for atopic dogs! I realise that the mechanisms are pure conjecture, and that it won't work for all dogs (Lets face it, some of the standard atopy treatments prescribed by vets only result in partial improvement in 20% of dogs - they have no idea why!).

Please don't be put off by those that just want to cross-examine everything you write. Just ignore them and address your posts to those of us that are interested in hearing about your experiences. At this stage I'd like to try a homeopathic treatment without seeing a homeopathic vet. That's not to say that I wouldn't change my mind in the future.

Well as I think I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, homeopathy is about matching the medicine to all of the symptoms, and with skin issues, that's a tough one to do without a fair bit of experience.

OTC preparations are great for the easy-to-symptom-match stuff like cuts, bruises, fevers, insect bites etc, yet the more complex stuff you would really need someone like a Classical Homeopath who will use preparations from a combination of medicines.

I'm fairly certain a Classical Homeopath would be just as happy to see your pup as they would a person, so it doesn't necessarily need to be a vet.

I do have the contact details of a lady who is studying Classical Homeopathy as it was suggested by a fellow rawfeeder that I contact her for one of my rescues, although fortunately I solved the problem without needing to. I can dig out her contact details if you would like? although you would kind of be contacting her cold.

I'm pretty sure that only someone who is a qualified vet can treat animals.

Wow, that'd be interesting to know for sure!

Alternatively, this is the book that most Natural Rearing experts recommend:-

"Homeopathic Care for Cats and Dogs: Small Doses for Small Animals" by Don Hamilton

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Homeopathic-...7269647&sr=8-1