Why do animals respond to homeopathy?

[arthwollipot]

It's an often-made claim that animals respond to homeopathy.

Homeopathy's effects on people can be ascribed to placebo. But animals (not being very smart in most cases) can't be affected by placebo, because they don't know that the painful needle that the vet is sticking into them is supposed to help them to feel better. HOMEOPATHY WORKS OMGZ!!1!!

So what's the argument to use when someone trots out this as "proof" of homeopathy?

[fls]

It's an often-made claim that animals respond to homeopathy.

Homeopathy's effects on people can be ascribed to placebo. But animals (not being very smart in most cases) can't be affected by placebo, because they don't know that the painful needle that the vet is sticking into them is supposed to help them to feel better. HOMEOPATHY WORKS OMGZ!!1!!

So what's the argument to use when someone trots out this as "proof" of homeopathy?

Placebo is a combination of what was going to happen anyway and wishful thinking. It's just that with animals, the wishful thinking is on the part of the person trying to decide how the animal feels - "he looks to have a little more spring in his step, don't you think?"

Linda

[Blue Wode]

This from UK Skeptics:


What is really happening, is that the vet who is using homeopathic remedies, is using his authoritative position to convince the animal owner that the animal being treated with homeopathy is getting better.

Vets, like doctors, hold a lot of power over their clients; this leads to a placebo effect by proxy where the animal’s owner may be satisfied and reassured that the animal is responding to treatment; but of course the animal remains medically untreated.


http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=it_works_in_animals.php

[quixotecoyote]

Drop the why and you have a valid (if easily answered) question.

[nails3jesus0]

maybe the better question is 'why do people percieve that animals respond to homeopathy?'. its not like animals can very well tell you if they feel better.

and they should probably provide proof of it curing things that arent effected by that... a tumor growth or something maybe. something measurable by other means.

[Drummer]

Animals do not respond to homeopathy. The problem lies in the bias of the experimenter. In a properly blinded (medical) trial, it's not only the patient and the doctor who are blinded as to who gets what, the person evaluating the results must also be blinded. Homeopaths don't believe in blinding experiments (it's soooo closeminded Western science), so they know that an animal has been treated and therefor they'll see an improvement. This isn't fraud on their part, it's just human psychology. From Wikipedia:
"Experimenter's bias is the phenomenon in experimental science by which the outcome of an experiment tends to be biased towards a result expected by the human experimenter. The inability of a human being to remain completely objective is the ultimate source of this bias."
That is what's going on. Note also that in homeopathic experiments with animals, they almost always treat something that is measured rather subjectively, such as libido, nervousness, 'energy' etc.

[Mojo]

Placebo is a combination of what was going to happen anyway and wishful thinking. It's just that with animals, the wishful thinking is on the part of the person trying to decide how the animal feels - "he looks to have a little more spring in his step, don't you think?"


And often, of course, they will actually get better, either through spontaneous (i.e. unconnected with any treatment given) improvement, as a result of simultaneous treatments other than the homoeopathy or changes to the animal's general treatment, or through regression to the mean (in chronic conditions, new treatments are likely to be sought when the condition as particularly bad, and a return to "normal" can be claimed as a positive effect for whatever treatment has been used).

Homoeopathy relies on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that an apparent improvement followed the homoeopathic treatment does not mean that the treatment caused the improvement. Double blinded studies of veterinary homoeopathy have found that it doesn't work (there are only about half a dozen studies; I don't have the references to hand but I'm sure Rolfe can supply them).

See also the 2005 Bristol Outpatients Study (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/spence-jacm-05.pdf), which seems to have been designed to exploit the post hoc fallacy, and which was trumpeted to the world as evidence that homoeopathy works.

[Gurdur]

Why do animals respond to homeopathy?


For fear of worse things happening to them.

[Beausoleil]

Placebo is a combination of what was going to happen anyway and wishful thinking.


I'm not sure that's true.

If you do a trial where one group gets nothing and the other gets a placebo, are the results always identical?

I thought one had to use placebos in clinical trials specifically because in some cases just giving someone a sugar pill they think is medicine can have a reproducible effect

[Gurdur]

Placebo is a combination of what was going to happen anyway and wishful thinking.

That seems an oddly ignorant description of the placebo effect. It's much more complex than that, and your throwaway line mischaracterises it. I would expect someone in your position to be far more accurate.

[fls]

I'm not sure that's true.

If you do a trial where one group gets nothing and the other gets a placebo, are the results always identical?

I thought one had to use placebos in clinical trials specifically because in some cases just giving someone a sugar pill they think is medicine can have a reproducible effect

Yes, giving someone a sugar pill does produce a reproducible effect. Specifically, in the subject, it can alter subjective perceptions including perception of pain. "Wishful thinking" is my way of gathering subjective perceptions in the subject and the various cognitive biases that may influence the experimenter's assessment into one term. "Wishful thinking" has a powerful effect.

Linda

[fls]

That seems an oddly ignorant description of the placebo effect. It's much more complex than that, and your throwaway line mischaracterises it. I would expect someone in your position to be far more accurate.

I do strive for single line descriptions that can capture the complexity and subtlty of thousands of pages of information. That you would consider chastizing me for failing (although it does depend upon how you would define "wishful thinking" and "what would happen anyway" - which arguably defeats the purpose of using a single line, I suppose) tells me that you think it possible for me to succeed. Thank you! This gives me the confidence to press on!

Linda

[JoeEllison]

For fear of worse things happening to them.What, do you think a sick dog is reading veterinarian blogs and going "Rut-Row!"

[Big Les]

Where's a laughing dog smiley when you need one?

[timhau]

For fear of worse things happening to them.

I'm sure our oldest cat would be happier right now if we had treated her neck rash with homeopathy. It returned after the effects of an earlier cortisone shot took the symptoms away for several weeks. Now she had biopsy taken of the affected skin, and we're forcing her to wear soft wraps on her hind legs for a couple of days so she can't scratch the stitches in the area. Right now she hates closed-minded, non-holistic, evidence-based Western veterinary medicine from the bottom of her little feline heart.

[Ivor the Engineer]

That seems an oddly ignorant description of the placebo effect. It's much more complex than that, and your throwaway line mischaracterises it. I would expect someone in your position to be far more accurate.

Care to provide us with a better description?

[Drummer]

I'm not sure that's true.

If you do a trial where one group gets nothing and the other gets a placebo, are the results always identical?

I thought one had to use placebos in clinical trials specifically because in some cases just giving someone a sugar pill they think is medicine can have a reproducible effect

One problem with giving one group a homeopathic remedy and another a placebo is that you're in fact comparing one placebo with another. There is almost always an improvement (because of the placebo effect, regression to the mean, the natural course of the disease etc) and one always does a little better than the other by pure chance. Sometimes the placebo, sometimes the homeopathic remedy, albeit not statistically significant. The homeopaths will mention the ones where homeopathy does better and forget the ones where the placebo did better. And they cherrypick data. If a few patients (or even one) show significant improvement, they'll take those and leave out the rest. And if you repeat the trial often enough, sooner or later you will end up with a statistically significant result by pure chance. Which is of course the reason why results have to be repeated by others. And which is where homeopathy utterly fails.

[Ivor the Engineer]

One problem with giving one group a homeopathic remedy and another a placebo is that you're in fact comparing one placebo with another. There is almost always an improvement (because of the placebo effect, regression to the mean, the natural course of the disease etc) and one always does a little better than the other by pure chance. Sometimes the placebo, sometimes the homeopathic remedy, albeit not statistically significant. The homeopaths will mention the ones where homeopathy does better and forget the ones where the placebo did better. And they cherrypick data. If a few patients (or even one) show significant improvement, they'll take those and leave out the rest. And if you repeat the trial often enough, sooner or later you will end up with a statistically significant result by pure chance. Which is of course the reason why results have to be repeated by others. And which is where homeopathy utterly fails.

Blue pills "work" differently to Pink ones.

[Rolfe]

A few relevant examples (http://vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/cases.html). The last one is particularly interesting.

I remember a paper in the Veterinary Record a few years ago. It was about a herbal remedy, not homoeopathy, but the principle was the same. Basically, there were two groups of dogs with arthritis, one on the real herbal goo, and one on fake herbal goo. There were three methods of assessing the degree of lameness. One objective method, involving walking on force plates, also subjective assessments by both the owners and the attending vets.

The snag was that the blinding was broken. The herbal goo made some of the dogs on it smell funny. The effect of that was in fact to unblind the vets (who has the opportunity of noticing that several dogs in the trial smelled funny) more so than the owners, who were less likely to notice the relevance of the smell noticed in just their own animal.

Results: Vets (unblinding more of an issue) reported significantly better outcomes in treated compared to placebo.
Owners (maybe some of them had their suspicions) reported a better outcome in the treated group, but this was not statistically significant.
Force plates showed that all the animals were just as lame as one another.

Rolfe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I would also suspect some studies will get the Clever Hans effect.

If the humans believe the animal is getting a treatment, their expectations can be inadvertently communicated to the animal which could affect even "objective" measures.

BTW, participants in this thread (so far) are strictly "the choir" we're all preaching to, right?

[Civilized Worm]

If people want to choose to take fake medicine then that's their problem, just don't give it to animals and children for FSM's sake!

[Dr. Imago]

So what's the argument to use when someone trots out this as "proof" of homeopathy?

It's called "observer bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect)".

-Dr. Imago

[arthwollipot]

BTW, participants in this thread (so far) are strictly "the choir" we're all preaching to, right?

Of course! :)

Thanks for all your responses here. It's given me something to go on. The Clever Hans effect is particularly valid, in my view.

[autumn1971]

Blue pills "work" differently to Pink ones.
Well, Duh!
Blue homeopathic pills only work on boys, and the pink ones on girls.
Don't dare give a boy an homeopathic pink pill, as the infintesimally tiny amount of active ingriedient will instantly turn the male child into a girl.

I invite any homeopath to tell me why my scenario is not the logical conclusion of homeopathic theory (and I cringe at even giving homeopathy this much credit).

[Drummer]

Blue pills "work" differently to Pink ones.

If you want to get into the details of the placebo effect, then yes, different colored placebo pills have different effects, in humans. I seriously doubt that goes for animals too. Giving people 2 or 3 instead of just 1 pill also enhances the placebo effect. The research I've seen indicates that the most important factor in the placebo effect is the attitude of the person treating the patient. That's probably why woowoos who are really deluded get better results with crystal healing/ reiki/ homeopathy/ aura cleansing etc. then those who aren't.

[Diabolos]

I recall reading somewhere several years ago about a test that shows that animals might be able to respond to placebo. Trouble is, I can't find the reference so will relate from memory (so the following could be inaccurate):

The test was to measure the placebo's "evil twin", namely the "nocebo" effect. A group of rats was divided into 3 groups thus:

Group 1: Given a mild poison - enough to give illness but not die.
Group 2: Given a dummy pill.
Group 3: Given nothing.

Most of the rats in group 1 showed symptoms of the illness, and after a certain period the poison was switched for an identical dummy harmless pill. While some of the rats recovered, a number of them continued to show the symptoms.

If anyone knows more about this experiment (and assuming I didn't just dream it one night :)) perhaps thay can confirm or otherwise link a reference.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I recall reading somewhere several years ago about a test that shows that animals might be able to respond to placebo. Trouble is, I can't find the reference so will relate from memory (so the following could be inaccurate):

The test was to measure the placebo's "evil twin", namely the "nocebo" effect. A group of rats was divided into 3 groups thus:

Group 1: Given a mild poison - enough to give illness but not die.
Group 2: Given a dummy pill.
Group 3: Given nothing.

Most of the rats in group 1 showed symptoms of the illness, and after a certain period the poison was switched for an identical dummy harmless pill. While some of the rats recovered, a number of them continued to show the symptoms.

If anyone knows more about this experiment (and assuming I didn't just dream it one night :)) perhaps thay can confirm or otherwise link a reference.

Sounds like the conditioning used to stop coyotes eating sheep.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=gpwdcwp

[Rolfe]

Of course! :)

Thanks for all your responses here. It's given me something to go on. The Clever Hans effect is particularly valid, in my view.


I personally don't see anything I'd recognise as the "Clever Hans" effect in sick animals. What I see is a lot of observer bias and a lot of coincidental recovery. These things apply just as much to conventional medicine as woo. It's just that you try to notice when they're happening and discount them.

Since the observer bias effect is all on the owners, I don't see why different colours and shapes of pill shouldn't have some influence.

Rolfe.

[Drummer]

I personally don't see anything I'd recognise as the "Clever Hans" effect in sick animals. What I see is a lot of observer bias and a lot of coincidental recovery. These things apply just as much to conventional medicine as woo. It's just that you try to notice when they're happening and discount them.

Since the observer bias effect is all on the owners, I don't see why different colours and shapes of pill shouldn't have some influence.

Rolfe.

If the owners get to see the pills their animals are getting, I agree that it can have some influence on their judgement (and other things, such as professional looking packing etc). But I was talking about effects on the patient, not on the observer.
Allthough, come to think of it, there are plenty experiments with humans where they give food an unnatural color with a tasteless substance and it really changes what people taste. People seem to not like bright green steak for instance. It's likely that animals have the same problem with anything with 'unnatural' colors, so the color of any pills may have some effect on animals too.

[RSLancastr]

Sounds like the conditioning used to stop coyotes eating sheep.
This was somewhat more effective than the conditioning used to stop coyotes from chasing roadrunners, which consisted largely of making them run off of cliffs whilst holding anvils and such.

[arthwollipot]

This was somewhat more effective than the conditioning used to stop coyotes from chasing roadrunners, which consisted largely of making them run off of cliffs whilst holding anvils and such.

Ooh, can we try that on homeopaths?

[Rolfe]

If the owners get to see the pills their animals are getting, I agree that it can have some influence on their judgement (and other things, such as professional looking packing etc). But I was talking about effects on the patient, not on the observer.
Allthough, come to think of it, there are plenty experiments with humans where they give food an unnatural color with a tasteless substance and it really changes what people taste. People seem to not like bright green steak for instance. It's likely that animals have the same problem with anything with 'unnatural' colors, so the color of any pills may have some effect on animals too.


I don't really think there are any effects on the patient.

Dogs are essentially colour-blind, and cats only have limited colour vision, so pill colour is extremely unlikely to be noticed.

I also don't think the animals regard the pill administration per se as therapeutic. Personal attention, mummy kiss it better sort of behaviour may be perceived as "being helped", but shoving a pill down my throat? Why are you doing this to me you cruel monster?

One effect of the above may in fact be a degree of hypochondria. Rather than getting better quicker, the animal may associate the increased attention from the owner with the limp, and go on limping (or fake a limp from time to time) to elicit the "reward" of being fussed over.

Rolfe.

[Spiro]

Are there such things as coloured homeopathic pills? If so how do we know their unmeasurable effects aren't the result of the dye?

[timhau]

I also don't think the animals regard the pill administration per se as therapeutic. Personal attention, mummy kiss it better sort of behaviour may be perceived as "being helped", but shoving a pill down my throat? Why are you doing this to me you cruel monster?

Anyone who has ever de-wormed a cat by force rather than by guile can attest to this.

Anyway, there is no need for homeopathy to work on animals as long as it "works" on the one who has the wallet.

[Normal Dude]

Are there such things as coloured homeopathic pills? If so how do we know their unmeasurable effects aren't the result of the dye?

Well it depends. How diluted is the dye? :p

[Mojo]

I also don't think the animals regard the pill administration per se as therapeutic. Personal attention, mummy kiss it better sort of behaviour may be perceived as "being helped", but shoving a pill down my throat? Why are you doing this to me you cruel monster?


And how do you get a homoeopathic pill into, for example, a cat? Remember, you're not supposed to touch the pill. They're certainly not going to sit there calmly while you tip the pill into their mouth from the lid of the container.

One effect of the above may in fact be a degree of hypochondria. Rather than getting better quicker, the animal may associate the increased attention from the owner with the limp, and go on limping (or fake a limp from time to time) to elicit the "reward" of being fussed over.


Otherwise known as "look, I've hurt my paw" syndrome.

[Baron Samedi]

And how do you get a homoeopathic pill into, for example, a cat? Remember, you're not supposed to touch the pill. They're certainly not going to sit there calmly while you tip the pill into their mouth from the lid of the container.

Waitasecond. I missed this one in all previous discussions. You're not supposed to touch the pill??? Serious?

[Rolfe]

Yeah. It's quite a new one, but it will "earth" the subtle mysterious energies or something. Or you'll get the mojo and not the patient or something. If you look at the modern homoeopathic pill containers, you'll see that they're made to pop one pill into the lid (sort of like a saccharine dispenser), and you then tip it from the lid into your mouth.

Actually, this could be another question for BSM's "Larsen List" - when did the instruction not to touch the pill start to be given to patients, how did the homoeopaths who started this idea know that touching the pill was bad, and where does that leave everybody who ever indulged in homoeopathy before that date (as it's a racing certainty that most of them handled the pills)?

Rolfe.

[Baron Samedi]

So, to get this all straight, human touch will affect the solution (mystical energies and so one), organic compounds will affect the solution, inorganic compounds will affect the solution (like mercury, lead, or the Berlin Wall), but alcohol or sugar won't? the glass from the pipette won't?

I'm so confused

[timhau]

Yeah. It's quite a new one, but it will "earth" the subtle mysterious energies or something. Or you'll get the mojo and not the patient or something. If you look at the modern homoeopathic pill containers, you'll see that they're made to pop one pill into the lid (sort of like a saccharine dispenser), and you then tip it from the lid into your mouth.

So... you can touch it with your mouth, but not with your hand?

I suppose that makes as much sense as anything else in homeopathy.

[Amapola]

I personally don't see anything I'd recognise as the "Clever Hans" effect in sick animals. What I see is a lot of observer bias and a lot of coincidental recovery. These things apply just as much to conventional medicine as woo. It's just that you try to notice when they're happening and discount them.

Since the observer bias effect is all on the owners, I don't see why different colours and shapes of pill shouldn't have some influence.

Rolfe.

I think all this is absolutely true. In fact I would say "Homeopathy *does not* work on animals."

But there is one way that I think you can see the "Clever Hans" effect. Some vets use this stuff that is supposed to make animals calm if they smell it. (I only wish there were such a thing!) I've mostly seen this used on horses. Not mine, as I don't allow vets who do such things to touch any of my animals, but many of my friends believe in this stuff and take their horses to such vets. They even bring back tiny bottles of this magical fluid to use at home. Horses are such herd animals that if the owner is acting nervous or scared they will often become nervous, so the actual effect is on the owner! The owner believes it will calm the horse down and it does - but only because the owner is calmer.

Otherwise, yeah, what Rolfe said!

[Dogdoctor]

Everyone has covered this well but since I am a vet I will give you my perspective since you are probably wondering. People who believe in homeopathy have convinced themselves that it works and if they are reasonably smart they have rationalized some way to make the ridiculous and basically disproved philosophy seem better. Several things can happen with animals. Pets are often very responsive to their owners so if the owner acts a certain way the animal reacts to them. The owner thinks they are sick so they owner acts depressed the animal reacts to this. The owner thinks the animal was cured and the owner is happy and the animal reacts to this. Other than that it is mostly observer bias. While not homeopathy I will give you an example of observer bias that I saw with herbal stuff. I saw a cat for tumors, I removed some and the biopsy came back as a malignant type of tumor and it had spread every where so there was little hope for the cat. The owner wasn't satisfied and gave the cat some herbal stuff. The cat went into a coma and died. The owners interpretation is that the herbs helped the cat rest peacefully till it died. I have had one client who was doing all the latest natural remedies for fleas. I would see her evey year and every year it was some new and better natural treatment for fleas. Every year her cat had lots of fleas yet she was so convinced that it worked that she thought I should be telling my patients about these wonderful treatments. So people often point to animals as the proof of homeopathy but it is only because they haven't examined the issue closely enough and they lack the open mind necessary to do so. Just posting so you can quit wondering what I think . Everyone else has covered it pretty well so I don't have much to add other than some stories.

[Mojo]

Or you'll get the mojo and not the patient or something.


It can't be that because the patient themselves isn't supposed to touch it before it gets into their mouth.

[Ivor the Engineer]

So... you can touch it with your mouth, but not with your hand

...said the bishop to the actress.

[Baron Samedi]

...said the bishop to the actress.

Bad Ivor! Bad!
:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

This was somewhat more effective than the conditioning used to stop coyotes from chasing roadrunners, which consisted largely of making them run off of cliffs whilst holding anvils and such.
Ooh, can we try that on homeopaths?

Apply directly to the homeopath's head!
Apply directly to the homeopath's head!
Apply directly to the homeopath's head!
Apply directly to the homeopath's head!

http://joethejuggler.com/Weight.gif

[Rolfe]

It can't be that because the patient themselves isn't supposed to touch it before it gets into their mouth.


There you go, that logic thing again. You really have to give that up or you'll never make any progress.

Rolfe.

[Slimething]

Ah, yes, another product in the offing! NatursOwn (R) All Natural Winsulated Homeopathic Pill Holder with Energizing Crystal Top. (A film canister that costs about fifty cents with a plastic lens glued on the inner lid should sell for about thirty bucks, I'd say.) :cool:

[arthwollipot]

Everyone has covered this well but since I am a vet I will give you my perspective since you are probably wondering.

I was. Thanks for the stories.

[Strife]

This is a very interesting thread. Since I'm a crazy cat cat person I get to hear people singing praise to homeopathy all the time. I'm glad to have more material to use. Something I seen a lot is that people give cats who are nervous at cat shows or tomcats who behave badly homeopathic treatment. I feel like I want to slam my head against the wall when no one understand the argument that if the owner is calmer, of course the cat is..