Not that new a scam, I know. The trick they use is to find a journal listed on Pub Med so they can then claim that the finding is 'proved' or 'scientific'.
In this case they've managed to nobble the Uk Vets Journal - getting them to publish some very shoddy research. Already this has been cited in a magazine about Horse Health - to homoeopathy has new lies with which to spread.
I've sent an e-mail to the editor, asking for a retraction. It explains the flaws in the science and the danger to animals of leaving the article unretracted. There has been no response.
You can help by passing the details of this scam to your journalist, scientist or health professional friends.
Then, if you feel so moved, you can also write to the editor of the Vets Journal asking for a retraction - and, if you like, let the press know about the scam and how it potentially exposes horses, and animals in particular, to cruelty.
Here's my letter:
To:
The Editor, The Veterinary Record, published by British Veterinary
Medicine: letters@bva-edit.co.uk
Sir,
This letter relates to:
Vet Rec. 2010 Feb 20;166(8):234-8.
Homeopathic prescribing for chronic conditions in equine veterinary
practice in the UK.
Mathie RT, Baitson ES, Hansen L, Elliott MF, Hoare J.
The above research has been reported in 'The Horse' where it suggests
that the homeopathic treatment had been successful: 'For the 234
cases, a final score of +2 or +3 (moderate or major improvement) was
reported in 86.7% of cases.'.
This article can be found at:
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=16095
This research is unscientific and it is irresponsible for a scientific
journal to publish it.
Since your Journal is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, it is
likely that many readers of such secondary publications, or readers of
your journal who are naive to the methods of science, will interpret
this as being a scientific endorsement for homeopathy as a treatment
for animals in general and horses in particular. This is likely to
lead to an increase in the use of homeopathy in treating animals.
Since there is no evidence that this works, it is likely that this
will increase animal cruelty because otherwise the animals could have
been treated by conventional, scientifically tested methods. To
prevent such cruelty, I request that you retract this article from
your publication. This will ensure that it is removed from Pub Med and
similar authoritative citation sources, which should prevent further
articles claiming support for homeopathy from this article.
The reasons that this research is unscientific, are:
1. The sample size is small enough as to make the findings simply
anecdotal - 289 animals in 777 consultations is a small sample if
evaluated against one condition. In this case they are treated for
more than 100 conditions, with 8 cited as most common. All animals had
an initial and final consultation, so, with the average number of
consultations per horse being 2.6, only had these two consultations,
with the remaining 199 spread among the rest. The figures are even
worse when you add the fact that 4.3% were being treated
conventionally, taking 12 horses out of the study because it might be
the conventional treatment that worked, and, further, 17.1% were being
treated with some other unconventional treatment, taking a further 49
horses out of the study. If these were independent, this could mean
that as few as 228 horses were legitimate subjects from which a
conclusion could be made.
2. The study is not blinded, let along double-blinded, meaning any
conclusions are meaningless. The authors are from the Luton Faculty of
Homeopathy so clearly are not unbiased in their judgement. This makes
the conclusion worse than useless - because it is misleading. In
layman's terms, though, this means that the study, if anything, shows
that homeopathy does not work at all. If a vicar did a verbal survey
of his regular parishoners and discovered that only 86.7% of believed
in the existence gods, then he could, rightly, conclude that his
sermons were, if anything, turning his flock into atheists.
3. No independent assessment is made of any of the conditions
initially, or finally by a qualified vet who is not already a
supporter of homeopathy.
4. The assessment itself is not made on any medical examination of the
animals at all. The assessment is made of the owner's opinion of the
improvement. The owners are not medically qualified to judge the
improvement, so their judgement is of variable value at best.
Furthermore, since they have invited a vet to 'treat' the animal with
homeopathy, they are clearly not unbiased in the matter and are more
likely than not to report improvement. Given this, the claimed
improvement in only 86.7% of the cases suggests that the results are
often poor - which means the animals have suffered longer than they
should have.
5. The result claims 86.7% of these biased owners claimed either
moderate' or 'major' improvement. The article, as reported in The
Horse, does not indicate what proportion gave moderate against major
ratings. It is perfectly possible that most of the ratings, even given
this positive audience, were only 'moderate'.
6. There are no controls. It is not possible to know what percentage
improvement these horses, or horses with any of the more than 100
conditions involved, would have improved under conventional treatment.
We don't even know how they'd have improved in the opinion of their
owners.
In summary, the article is unscientific and misleading and does not
support the conclusion that homeopathy has made any positive
difference to any of the horses with any of the conditions. Please
retract it to prevent its misuse. I would also suggest that, to
prevent similar future problems, you ensure that at least one
scientifically trained person is on your review board to weed out such
sloppy and misleading articles in future.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Brooks
CC:
RSPCA: campaigns@rspca.org.uk
Medical Editor, The Telegraph: Rebecca Smith rebecca.smith@telegraph.co.uk.
Animal Aid: info@animalaid.org.uk
Editor, The Horse: editorial@thehorse.com
Another Veterinary Record paper about homoeopathy (and some responses to it) was discussed on the JREF forum last year:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138044
Yes, it's the same Journal. Not only that, but at least one of the authors is the same, Dr Mathie [yes, he has a PhD - it might be in knitting or media studies, but he has one].Originally Posted by Mojo
This abstract is also scientifically illiterate. They report that, in three cases in which they had a blind, the blind didn't work! 'The owners correctly distinguished between the placebo and homeopathic remedies' says that they could tell, in other words, were not blinded at all!
There must be somebody on the editorial board with a deep sympathy for this magic. The journal publishes plenty of perfectly respectable stuff, so it would otherwise be a most peculiar mystery.
Five people, with science degrees, apparently, have not understood what a blind means - then there are the reviewers and the Editor of the magazine and his editorial board. It is enough to cast doubt on all they've published in this journal.
As I say, though, it is all the more remarkable as most of the research articles seem genuine and of high quality. It's like finding a turd nestling in a basket of good quality oranges in a reasonably good supermarket - how on earth did it get there? How was it allowed to stay? Now attention has been drawn to it, why aren't staff rushing
to get rid of it?
If you follow the thread I linked to, you'll find that they published some responses to it.
Four of the same authors published a paper in another journal a few years back which concluded that vets can record data and a spreadsheet can be used to do this (OK, that's a paraphrase, but only a slight one).
Mathie, by the way, appeared as a witness in the recent House of Commons inquiry into the evidence for homoeopathy.
I wouldn't read too much into the abstract. What they mean is that they could distinguish the effects.This abstract is also scientifically illiterate. They report that, in three cases in which they had a blind, the blind didn't work! 'The owners correctly distinguished between the placebo and homeopathic remedies' says that they could tell, in other words, were not blinded at all!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks