Homeopathy can be an emotive subject, with many people having strong views on the use of this complementary therapy. Dedicated pet owners all want what is best for their furry companions. And many may seek out any and all treatments which they feel may give some benefit to their pet’s health and happiness. However, there is no existing scientific evidence that homeopathy works, and pursuing this route may in fact merely delay appropriate medical treatment.

Table of contents

What is homeopathy?

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine. Developed in Germany in the 1970s by Samuel Hahnemann, it is based on two principles. 

Firstly, the ‘treat like with like’ theory: ailments are treated with tiny doses of natural substances, which in larger quantities would cause the ailment itself. The second principle involves massive dilution and shaking (succession). 

Often, the substances used are so massively diluted there is statistically none of the original substance left. Homeopaths believe that the more a substance is diluted, the more powerful it becomes due to the ’memory’ effect of the water. Homoeopaths offer remedies for a vast number of conditions, including arthritis, cancer, diabetes and allergies. 

Homoeopathy should not be confused with some other alternative treatments such as herbalism (use of natural plant and other products to treat disease), which has a long and reputable history. 

What is the evidence?

There have been multiple robust scientific reviews of homeopathy. 

A review in 2017 (Mathie et al.) applied meta-analysis to undergo a systematic review of 75 trials. The review found that many studies were biased towards trials favouring homeopathy. When this was taken into account, the paper found no evidence that non-individualised homeopathy is distinguishable from a placebo.

A very thorough review was also published by Lees et al. a little later in 2017, which came to the same conclusions, and presented them very robustly.

Another review and meta-analysis in 2013 (Saha et al.) concentrated on homeopathic treatment of headaches and migraines. Again, there was significant publication bias, but analysis found no evidence that homeopathy is superior to placebo treatments.

In 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a thorough evidence review of 57 systematic reviews of homeopathic treatments for 68 medical conditions. They concluded that the evidence fails to show that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the 68 conditions.

This evidence has been countered by the British homeopathic Association using other studies, which appear more in favour of homeopathy. These include studies on upper respiratory tract infections and allergies (Bellavite et al., 2006 and Bergemann, 2011). However, both of these reviews were considered of low quality by the AMSTAR review criteria, with both methodological limitations and a complete lack of transparent statistical analysis.

There is currently no robust, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that homeopathy works. 

There’s a huge difference between anecdote (“it worked for me”) and evidence (we know that it really does seem to work). We looked at this in an article a couple of years back.

Official Guidelines

In 2010, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee produced a report that concluded that homeopathic treatments perform no better than placebos. In 2017, NHS England recommended that homeopathy should not be prescribed by medical professionals, due to the lack of evidence. And in 2018, this judgement was upheld by the High Court after a challenge by the British Homeopathic Association. 

In 2017, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) issued a position statement on homeopathy. The statement re-iterates the College’s adherence to sound scientific principles and robust evidence for treatments, and its commitment to animal welfare. The statement includes this paragraph: 

“Homoeopathy exists without a recognised body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognised evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do.”

The RCVS doesn’t suggest any form of ban; only that homeopathy should only be used as a complementary therapy, and under advice from a veterinary surgeon.

Is it safe?

There is no robust evidence that homeopathy works, but it is not directly harmful. 

In fact, it is well documented that even placebo treatments can have positive effects on certain symptoms in humans, such as pain and fatigue. The placebo effect in veterinary medicine is much less well documented; although one small study showed some improvement to seizure frequency in epileptic dogs treated with a placebo (Munana et al., 2010). 

However, a real danger of homeopathy is in using these treatments instead of seeking veterinary advice and receiving evidence-based medicine which is proven to work. Pets may be left in pain, illness or distress due to delays in treatment whilst homeopathic remedies are being followed to no effect. 

Animals cannot make the same choices as adult humans and are dependent on the decisions of their owners. Using treatments that have been proven ineffective may be detrimental to a pet’s health and wellbeing. 

References