Carnival of Bogus* ; Homeopet: A rep emails me.
It's time for another installment of the Ziztur vs Homeopet saga.
For those of you who don't recall, Homeopet is a homeopathic veterinary product company that sells homeopathic products purported to help with animal ailments such as anxiety, cough, digestive upsets, hot spots, bladder incontinence, flea bite itch, travel anxiety, worms, bovine mastitis, etc.
I first came upon Homeopet's products ordering pet supplies online. Not long ago, they claimed to be the only homeopathic veterinary company to be approved by the FDA. As it turns out, they had approved labeling, but not FDA approval as such, because no homeopathic products are approved by the FDA and all products marketed as medication have to have approved labeling.
To give you an idea, if you make a substantial claim for efficacy (such as, "shrinks your tumors 50% in 2 weeks) you have to prove that your product can do this. If you make an unsubstantiated claim (such as, "boosts immunity!") then you don't have to prove your product can perform because your language is ambiguous. The FDA will approve the labeling of products with claims such as this, because essentially the labels aren't saying anything. The products are not approved, but the labels for the products are approved. This may sound like a small difference, but it prevents people from claiming that their drug can cure diseases it can't actually cure. What it does not prevent is a company making nonspecific and vague but scientific-sounding claims.
Homeopet also used to claim that their products were organic. To claim your product is organic, you have to have approval from the USDA. They did not have such approval.
Homeopet has since removed FDA approval claims and organic claims from their product page. You can find my original four blog posts on the subject here, here, here and here.
The other day I received an email from a marketing rep for Homeopet. Said marketing rep said these things:
1. They are an evidence-based company, given that they have funded and documented double blind placebo controlled trials "conducted in Universities by veterinary professors".
I am especially happy that this company has funded such robust trials, because they indeed have conducted double blind, placebo controlled trials. However I was only able to located the published article of one of the trials, and the results indicate (quote directly from article): "No evidence for the specific efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of fear of noises was found in this study." My original thoughts on this article are here, and an online abstract is here.
Overall (2009) similarly concluded that there was no evidence for the efficacy of the homeopathic treatment in this study, suggesting that the conclusions could be made to be more robust, I.E. "there is no effect of the homeopathic 'treatment'" and that "dogs suffering from fear associated with the noise of fireworks will not benefit from the 'treatment' with the homeopathic preparation". I will be writing up my thoughts on the Overall article in a future post, because it was an extremely well written account of why medicine must move past observation and into the testing of mechanisms and hypothesis if it is to be robust science. To put it bluntly - if a treatment does not work any better than a placebo, then the treatment doesn't work.
In order to make an informed decision, individuals need to not only know that these studies were carried out, but the methodology and results of these studies. This information can best be covered by access to published research articles, publications indicating the ratio of unpublished articles to published articles, the ratio of studies with positive findings to neutral or negative findings, etc. Thus far, all of the evidence I have leads me to conclude that the treatment testes is no more effective than a placebo. Homeopet asserts on their website that they have conducted double blind trials of their products, but does not tell the consumer the methodology and results of said trials.
2. Homeopet keeps very complete records of products they sell, and no adverse effects have ever been reported.
Lack of adverse effects does not tell me about the efficacy of a product. If the product were chemically identical to a water solution, one would not expect adverse effects from it. If the product has no evidence of an effect, one would assume it would also have no evidence of adverse effects.
3. The rep sent me the abstract of a presentation in which results of another study would be presented. The abstract told me a few things, but I still feel the evidence for the efficacy of their treatments is lacking.
4. The rep gave me the names of individuals who had published research related to Homeopet, but gave me so little information that I was unable to locate journal articles. Perhaps my readers can help me locate the articles written by these people:
a. Peter Knowlan, published somethin in the Irish Veterinary Journal
b. Dr. Kersti Seskel, giving a presentation at the AVA conference
(I found information on someone named Kirsty Seksel giving a presentation on homeopathy at the conference (ref)
c. Dr. C. Edgar Schaefer, published a paper on bovine mastitis.
d. Dr. Shelia Andrew also published a mastitis treatment paper in Blackwell
I e-mailed them back and thanked them for the info. The rep responded, telling me I should ask the FDA for copies of their labeling approvals. The rep also said that as a research student I should understand that they could not provide copies of articles.
I replied, telling them that I did understand that, but nothing should preclude them from providing me with complete references. I gave an example of what a complete reference looked like by giving them the reference from the one article I was able to locate.
The rep responded, saying that the particular article I referenced (the one that said there was no evidence for the efficacy of their remedy) should be a great example of their research. He told me he would ask someone else (on vacation currently) to provide me with complete references and told me to review the case studies at the Homeopet pro site. Last, he mentioned that samples of the products are given out to veterinary professionals, and asked me to "ponder the logic in any company sending out ineffective products to a professional."
I am not sure why he cannot provide me with the research articles itself, and the Pro site gives a bunch ofcase studies anecdotes, which are such weak evidence that they can hardly be labeled as such.
Later, he e-mailed me again to let me know that they are the first veterinary homeopathic company to apply for drug registration in Canada, that they have a marketing permit in Australia and the UK.
It is interesting that Homeopet sells so many different products, but have only tested a few of them. The evidence for the efficacy of these few products is thus lacking, and so I feel that I can appropriately apply the title of bogus* to the use of homeopathic remedies to treat ailments in animals (and also humans, for that matter). It stands to reason that given the 95% confidence intervals commonly used in various research studies, that if all of a company's ineffective products were tested, 5% of the tests would result in a false positive. I'd like people to ponder the logic of claiming that a product a company sells is effective when it's efficacy has not been tested. I'd like to see companies doing research on all of their products, not just a select few, and I'd like to see more robust, repeatable results.
*deliberate deception not implied
Refs:
Overall, K., Dunham, A., Homeopathy and the curse of the scientific method. The Veterinary Journal (2009) 180: 141-148
Online abstract
For those of you who don't recall, Homeopet is a homeopathic veterinary product company that sells homeopathic products purported to help with animal ailments such as anxiety, cough, digestive upsets, hot spots, bladder incontinence, flea bite itch, travel anxiety, worms, bovine mastitis, etc.
I first came upon Homeopet's products ordering pet supplies online. Not long ago, they claimed to be the only homeopathic veterinary company to be approved by the FDA. As it turns out, they had approved labeling, but not FDA approval as such, because no homeopathic products are approved by the FDA and all products marketed as medication have to have approved labeling.
To give you an idea, if you make a substantial claim for efficacy (such as, "shrinks your tumors 50% in 2 weeks) you have to prove that your product can do this. If you make an unsubstantiated claim (such as, "boosts immunity!") then you don't have to prove your product can perform because your language is ambiguous. The FDA will approve the labeling of products with claims such as this, because essentially the labels aren't saying anything. The products are not approved, but the labels for the products are approved. This may sound like a small difference, but it prevents people from claiming that their drug can cure diseases it can't actually cure. What it does not prevent is a company making nonspecific and vague but scientific-sounding claims.
Homeopet also used to claim that their products were organic. To claim your product is organic, you have to have approval from the USDA. They did not have such approval.
Homeopet has since removed FDA approval claims and organic claims from their product page. You can find my original four blog posts on the subject here, here, here and here.
The other day I received an email from a marketing rep for Homeopet. Said marketing rep said these things:
1. They are an evidence-based company, given that they have funded and documented double blind placebo controlled trials "conducted in Universities by veterinary professors".
I am especially happy that this company has funded such robust trials, because they indeed have conducted double blind, placebo controlled trials. However I was only able to located the published article of one of the trials, and the results indicate (quote directly from article): "No evidence for the specific efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of fear of noises was found in this study." My original thoughts on this article are here, and an online abstract is here.
Overall (2009) similarly concluded that there was no evidence for the efficacy of the homeopathic treatment in this study, suggesting that the conclusions could be made to be more robust, I.E. "there is no effect of the homeopathic 'treatment'" and that "dogs suffering from fear associated with the noise of fireworks will not benefit from the 'treatment' with the homeopathic preparation". I will be writing up my thoughts on the Overall article in a future post, because it was an extremely well written account of why medicine must move past observation and into the testing of mechanisms and hypothesis if it is to be robust science. To put it bluntly - if a treatment does not work any better than a placebo, then the treatment doesn't work.
In order to make an informed decision, individuals need to not only know that these studies were carried out, but the methodology and results of these studies. This information can best be covered by access to published research articles, publications indicating the ratio of unpublished articles to published articles, the ratio of studies with positive findings to neutral or negative findings, etc. Thus far, all of the evidence I have leads me to conclude that the treatment testes is no more effective than a placebo. Homeopet asserts on their website that they have conducted double blind trials of their products, but does not tell the consumer the methodology and results of said trials.
2. Homeopet keeps very complete records of products they sell, and no adverse effects have ever been reported.
Lack of adverse effects does not tell me about the efficacy of a product. If the product were chemically identical to a water solution, one would not expect adverse effects from it. If the product has no evidence of an effect, one would assume it would also have no evidence of adverse effects.
3. The rep sent me the abstract of a presentation in which results of another study would be presented. The abstract told me a few things, but I still feel the evidence for the efficacy of their treatments is lacking.
4. The rep gave me the names of individuals who had published research related to Homeopet, but gave me so little information that I was unable to locate journal articles. Perhaps my readers can help me locate the articles written by these people:
a. Peter Knowlan, published somethin in the Irish Veterinary Journal
b. Dr. Kersti Seskel, giving a presentation at the AVA conference
(I found information on someone named Kirsty Seksel giving a presentation on homeopathy at the conference (ref)
c. Dr. C. Edgar Schaefer, published a paper on bovine mastitis.
d. Dr. Shelia Andrew also published a mastitis treatment paper in Blackwell
I e-mailed them back and thanked them for the info. The rep responded, telling me I should ask the FDA for copies of their labeling approvals. The rep also said that as a research student I should understand that they could not provide copies of articles.
I replied, telling them that I did understand that, but nothing should preclude them from providing me with complete references. I gave an example of what a complete reference looked like by giving them the reference from the one article I was able to locate.
The rep responded, saying that the particular article I referenced (the one that said there was no evidence for the efficacy of their remedy) should be a great example of their research. He told me he would ask someone else (on vacation currently) to provide me with complete references and told me to review the case studies at the Homeopet pro site. Last, he mentioned that samples of the products are given out to veterinary professionals, and asked me to "ponder the logic in any company sending out ineffective products to a professional."
I am not sure why he cannot provide me with the research articles itself, and the Pro site gives a bunch of
Later, he e-mailed me again to let me know that they are the first veterinary homeopathic company to apply for drug registration in Canada, that they have a marketing permit in Australia and the UK.
It is interesting that Homeopet sells so many different products, but have only tested a few of them. The evidence for the efficacy of these few products is thus lacking, and so I feel that I can appropriately apply the title of bogus* to the use of homeopathic remedies to treat ailments in animals (and also humans, for that matter). It stands to reason that given the 95% confidence intervals commonly used in various research studies, that if all of a company's ineffective products were tested, 5% of the tests would result in a false positive. I'd like people to ponder the logic of claiming that a product a company sells is effective when it's efficacy has not been tested. I'd like to see companies doing research on all of their products, not just a select few, and I'd like to see more robust, repeatable results.
*deliberate deception not implied
Refs:
Overall, K., Dunham, A., Homeopathy and the curse of the scientific method. The Veterinary Journal (2009) 180: 141-148
Online abstract
Labels: alternative medicine, research, science, testing
posted by Ziztur
at
8:00 AM
7 Comments:
When you're in the market for selling snake oil, this is precisely the kind of stuff that you do. Vague claims, sideways misdirection, and giving the appearance of evidence and efficacy without actually saying anything substantial. This person seems very well-versed in the art of PR.
When your focus isn't to make something that works and helps people, but is to sell more product, the methods you use are quite different, and, from someone from an evidence-based medicine background, aneurysm-worthy.
My dog Monty died Thursday from a horrific car strike. I'm still incredibly upset by it and hearing about this sort of bullshit pisses me off to no end. I really wish people would make sure what they're giving their pet, and for that matter, children is safe and actually works.
My dog is way too smart to fall for such disingenuous poofetti.
Aww Ing, I am sorry to hear that. it is terrible when pets die.
I think the idea of "natural" remedies is so popular because people get this idea that there is no side effects. the problem, of course is that if there are no side effects, there is a good chance there is no effect, at all. They think they are being the good parent or the good pet owner, but...
If you really think about it, most medicine, medicine that works, is a poison. A poison that attacks, affects and alters something about your body, simulating a chemical here, stimulating a response there, messing up your body's systems in some way. Medicine's just the craft of applying those poisons specifically, in a controlled manner, in order to counteract some part of your body that's going wrong. Chemo is a poison that kills bad cells faster than good ones. Morphine, tylenol, poisons your pain reflex. Benadryl interferes with your body's self-defense mechanism against foreign invaders.
Medicine with no side effects can only be so in the case of medicines that have no effects at all. Medicine that works applies what would otherwise be harm in ways that are useful to us. If it causes no harm, it's because it does nothing.
I found your post via a google search on the HomeoPet Anxiety drops. My mother bought the stuff from a homeopathic vet (who was really a good PRACTICING vet, but closed that practice to make a FORTUNE doing PHONE CONSULTATIONS with rich yuppies on what to feed their pets so that they "never get sick," etc.) and I had to use it on my elderly male cat yesterday, as he freaked-out over nothing, and acted as if his back leg was having some sort of spasm. As my vet closes @ noon on Tuesdays, it was my only option to alleviate his panic & pain, and it worked.
But since I'd never heard of the company, I wanted to do research on them, in order to find out if it was safe to give to him (and his sister) again in the future. I wish that I had time to read all of your other articles about Homeopet, but this post alone is enough to make me wonder how it actually worked, as he was so upset (he's 11 years old and THE most laid-back cat on the planet, so this was very disconcerting) and then he went into total zen-mode. I observed him for several hours, and as he slept well through the night and has displayed no panic or muscle spasms today, I'm hoping that the HomeoPet Anxiety drops did him no harm. I don't want to be naive about this; I used to wrangle feral cats for TNR (CatHaven.org), so I've had to do a lot of guerrilla first-aid in the field, and would never give any cat any medicine or herbal aid that I wouldn't take myself.
If you know of any reasons why I shouldn't continue to use this product, I'd appreciate your feedback. Thank you for posting about this, as you are providing an invaluable public servie.
I can't think of any reasons not to use it if you already have it - its certainly "safe" in that it has some ingredients that are diluted to 30C (that's diluted to a ratio of 1:100 with 60 zeroes behind it, meaning that it's not likely that there is even one molecule left in it) and 6c (1:1,000,000,000,000) which means you probably have some, but very very few molecules in the solution. These ingredients are diluted in alcohol and then the bottle contains 80% water and 20% alcohol. So given that it contains 80% water, 20% alcohol, and maybe some molecules of the ingredients listed on the bottle, it's very safe, assuming your animal is night highly sensitive to alcohol, since you only give animals a few drops.
It is interesting that you gave the cat the anxiety remedy and afterward he appeared to stop having muscle spasms and then went back to his normal self. The remedy is not for muscle spasms.
So here is a question: if you were having a muscle spasm, and you took something like a Bach Flower Remedy (often used for anxiety in humans) and your muscle spasm went away afterward, would you attribute the resolution of the muscle spasm to the Bach Flower Remedy?
My guess is that the cat was having a muscle spasm and it, like most muscle spasms, resolved on its own. You probably know that if a cat is in pain, once the pain is gone the cat pretty much forgets about it right away Obviously though, I was not there and don't know the details and so cannot say for sure.
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home