I suppose it would be a fine line between actual practicing vs internet posting on a blog/website, with a potential new area of legality, but one that is definitely in need of exploring. We see this all too often now, dispensing medical advice on the net, and dangerous advice at that. I would hope a board would see through the generic disclaimers on a blog or website, as well as the faith based nonsense of a defense. One would think ethics should be a priority.

I’m tempted to report her, nonetheless.

I really would like to know as it is an expense I don’t need if it is not necessary.

Thank you and no insult intended, Art–I just can’t sort out the various comments and replies.

All this nonsense (humans and pets) has increased as the result of licensing (and thereby legitimizing) these practices–starting with the chiros, then acupuncture, naturopathy in some states, and all the rest. People who aren’t well informed in basic science assume that because these people are licensed, they are legitimate. Of course, it is all even worse when it comes from actual MD’s/vets who really ought to know better.

I’m sick to death of it and am approaching becoming a recluse due to the prevalence of all this. The number of people who will believe absolutely any anecdote they hear is just unbelievable, to say nothing of the lack of basic thinking skills to refute it–even in many college graduates and even MD’s and vets. It’s getting impossible to even find dog food that doesn’t make all kinds of silly and outrageous “health” claims on the bags–to say nothing of the load of nonsense you will get if you ask any of the staff about pat feeding.

Oh dear, I’m getting into a real rant and I apologize, but this post really set me off–thinking of that poor little dog getting a pointless and potentially harmful enema when he was already probably miserable was just awful. I’m not some overly sentimental person who uses my dog as a child substitute or anything, but this story really got to me.

They also talked about this having bee studied for 10 years and so on. You’d think that in 10 years, what with testimonials and whatever, there’d have come to light case histories and so on that would provide some proof that it could then be scrutinized in whatever way was necessary to separate it from snake oil.

I don’t understand when people talk about criticism and that such and such was shunned by the medical community when IF there was some actual experience by let’s say hundreds or even 50 people on a consistent basis for a specific aliment that was healed, wouldn’t that lead to some formal investigation as to its validity?

Can such a dangerous post and obvious practice by this quack, be reported to the state veterinary board in which state she practices? When does this NOT border on malpractice and disregarding state veterinary practice laws? I really want to know because this needs to be stopped before someone innocently believes her and ends up killing their pet because they found this on the net. Would she not be liable?