Please Support S. 1425: The Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2013.

Posted on November 20, 2013 by skeptvet

I have written previously about the woefully inadequate regulation of dietary supplements in the U.S. under the Dietary Supplement Health an Education Act (DSHEA). Much has previously been written at the Science-Based Medicine Blog on the subject of the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). Essentially, the supplement industry and sympathetic lawmakers created this law to pretend to regulate herbal remedies and other dietary supplements while effectively stripping the FDA of the ability to control the sale of these products for the prevention or treatment of disease. This was accomplished by classifying all such products as foods and codifying the principle that they must be assumed to be safe unless the government can generate substantial evidence to the contrary. There are some restrictions on the medical claims manufacturers can make on the labels of these remedies, but they are routinely ignored and the resources and will behind enforcement of them are manifestly inadequate.

Proponents of supplements claim they are inherently safe because they are “natural,” but this is patent nonsense. There is ample evidence of the harm such unregulated products can cause. While it is likely some of these products will have real benefits (as has been shown for fish oils and probiotics, for example), there is no reason not to require the same standards of evidence for safety and effectiveness applied to any other medical therapy.

Attempts to require some reasonable evidence of safety and efficacy before marketing supplements as medical therapies have been made, and these have consistently been defeated by the supplement industry and lawmakers influenced by their campaign donations. This year, another bill has been introduced to require just a little bit of oversight to these potentially dangerous products. It doesn’t, in my opinion, go far enough, but it is absolutely a step in the right direction. I urge everyone to call and write your U.S. Senators and urge them to support S. 1425: Dietary Supplement Labeling Act of 2013.

Here are some of the provisions of this law:

 1.      Manufacturers of dietary supplements will be required to list their facilities in a public registry so we can know who is producing supplements and what they are making.

 2.      Within one year of passage, the government will compile a list of supplement ingredients and mixtures that could potentially cause serious adverse effects, interfere with prescription medications, or harm vulnerable groups such as children or pregnant women.

 3.      Within 18 months after passage, the independent, non-artisan, non-profit Institute of Medicine will produce an evidence-based report evaluating the risks of potentially dangerous supplement ingredients or blends.

 4.      Within 2 years of passage, the Institute of Medicine will establish mandatory warning labels for potentially dangerous supplements.

Posted in Herbs and Supplements, Law, Regulation, and Politics | 5 Comments

Medical Use of Marijuana/Cannabis for Pets?

Posted on November 19, 2013 by skeptvet

The medical use of marijuana has long been a “hot-button” issue in human medicine. Now, the subject has become a growing focus of debate in the veterinary field as well. As is all too common in such debates, however, scientific facts get muddled and lost in the tempest of opinion, personal experience, and arguments about values. My attention was drawn to the issue recently when I was asked to look at the web site for a related product, Canna-Pet: Medical Cannabis for Pets.

What Is It?
Canna-Pet is claimed to consist of “100% organic hemp.” Though there are hundreds of chemical compounds in this plant, the web site refers only to general ingredient classes (phytocannabinoids and terpenes), except for claiming a level of THC (the compound primarily responsible for the psychoactive effects of marijuana) less than 0.2% by weight. The company specifically states that the raw material is minimally processed because they claim processing destroys the value of the compounds: 

Nearly every process of extraction will destroy many of these fragile and scarce compounds. Concentrated oils, tinctures, and pharmaceuticals have the natural terpenes absent (destroyed by refinement process), or may have a few supplemental terpenes added back in artificially. Likewise, refinement involving exessive heat, alcohol or harsh chemicals will reduce natural phytocannabinoid diversity and abundance.

Nevertheless, they claim, “we are able to vary the mix of phytocannabinoids and terpenes for each client, completely custom…the correct dosing of the product based upon the animal’s medical history, age and the pathophysiologic process is crucial. Phytocannabinoids and/or terpenes are significantly less effective when they are used in a ‘one size fits all’ approach.”

How this is done, and how the particular mixture appropriate for each individual is determined, is not addressed in the materials available on the web site. While it is certainly likely that the particular mixture of chemical compounds which is safest and most beneficial will differ from patient to patient, the problem with such claims of individualized treatment is that they are often based on completely haphazard, unscientific, and unproven methods of determining which therapy is best for which patient. This is the case with homeopathy, Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine, and many other CAM therapies that claim to individualize treatment. It is unclear if Canna-Pet is any different since no information is provided about how the best mixture for a particular patient is determined.

Does It Work?
The general subject of the medicinal value of marijuana and its constituent compounds is an area of active research. There is good in vitro and animal model research to suggest that many of the compounds found in Cannabis plants have significant biological effects, and that some of these may be beneficial. The clinical research in humans is limited in quantity and quality, but beneficial effects have been demonstrated for some compounds and some conditions. Good overview of the existing research can be found in this Institute of Medicine review from 1998 and on the web site of the National Cancer Institute (though it must be mentioned that this review was put together by an independent board largely composed of CAM proponents and does not represent official NCI or NIH policy).

There is reasonable evidence to support clinical benefit in humans of some compounds from Cannabis for:

  1. Chronic pain– “Currently available evidence suggests that cannabis treatment is moderately efficacious for treatment of chronic pain, but beneficial effects may be partially (or completely) offset by potentially serious harms. More evidence from larger, well-designed trials is needed to clarify the true balance of benefits to harms.”
  2. Pain associated with Multiple Sclerosis– “Cannabinoids including the cannabidiol/THC buccal spray are effective in treating neuropathic pain in MS.”
  3. Chemotherapy-associated nausea– “The superiority of the anti-emetic efficacy of cannabinoids was demonstrated through meta-analysis.” However, this review also showed, “The adverse effects were more intense and occurred more often among patients who used cannabinoids.”

Another review found, “In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.”

For a number of other conditions tested, the evidence has not supported the benefits of cannabis or cannabis-derived treatments: 

  1. Epilepsy– “No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy. The dose of 200 to 300 mg daily of cannabidiol was safely administered to small numbers of patients, for generally short periods of time, and so the safety of long term cannabidiol treatment cannot be reliably assessed.”
  2. Dementia– “This review finds no evidence that cannabinoids are effective in the improvement of disturbed behaviour in dementia or in the treatment of other symptoms of dementia. More randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials are needed to determine whether cannabinoids are clinically effective in the treatment of dementia.”
  3. Tourette’s Syndrome– “Not enough evidence to support the use of cannabinoids in treating tics and obsessive compulsive behaviour in people with Tourette’s syndrome.”
  4. Morbidity and mortality associated with HIV/AIDS– “…evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids in this setting is lacking. Such studies as have been performed have been of short duration, in small numbers of patients, and have focused on short-term measures of efficacy. Long-term data, showing a sustained effect on AIDS-related morbidity and mortality and safety in patients on effective antiretroviral therapy, has yet to be presented. Whether the available evidence is sufficient to justify a wide-ranging revisiting of medicines regulatory practice remains unclear.”
  5. Schizophrenia-“At present, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of cannabis/cannabinoid compounds for people suffering with schizophrenia. This review highlights the need for well designed, conducted and reported clinical trials to address the potential effects of cannabis based compounds for people with schizophrenia.”
  6. Pain– “Cannabinoids are no more effective than codeine in controlling pain and have depressant effects on the central nervous system that limit their use. Their widespread introduction into clinical practice for pain management is therefore undesirable. In acute postoperative pain they should not be used. Before cannabinoids can be considered for treating spasticity and neuropathic pain, further valid randomised controlled studies are needed.”

There is a large amount of clinical research evidence not yet appraised in systematic reviews such as these which suggests other possible benefits, though as always this evidence contains limitations and inconsistencies. Overall, there is reason to believe compounds derived from cannabis may have a clinically meaningful benefit in humans for a number of medical conditions, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty, and the evidence is not strong or definitive for most of the suggested uses.

As usual, I have not been able to find any formal clinical research involving cannabis-derived products and companion animals. Some of the basic science studying these compounds has been done in dogs, so there is some information about the effects of these chemicals on this species, but no formal studies designed to identify safety and efficacy of clinical use of specific compounds or products.

As for the Canna-Pet product, the marketing for this raises many of the red flags of snake oil. Dramatic claims of wide-ranging benefits with absolutely no risk of undesirable effects are made, which is the hallmark of questionable therapies:

We find medical benefits, behavioral benefits, prolonged life, reduced stress, and improved quality of life with our pets.

Improved vitality and overall health. Reduction in aggression, anxiety and behavior problems. Reduction of arthritic pain and digestive issues (IBD, diarrhea and constipation), reduction in nausea and improved appetite, improved quality of life, outstanding for palliative care.

Helps with aggression disorders, noise phobias, anxiety, self-trauma, cognitive disorders and dementia (canine), marking and spraying (feline), sleep disorders, OCD, excessive vocalization and inappropriate urination.

…phytocannabinoids often allow for much lower dosing of drugs that have potential negative side effects. Canna-Pet™ augments other medications…

We recommend Canna-Pet™ supplements as a daily food additive for all pets…

100% Safe. There are ZERO negative side effects and NO medical conflicts.

The evidence provided to support this apparently miraculous therapy appears, at first glance, to be impressive. A long list of links to research on cannabis-derived compounds is provided. However, much of this research is test tube, lab animal, or animal model studies which at best only suggest some compounds in hemp might have potentially useful biological effects. None of the studies linked to are clinical trials of Canna-Pet in companion animals.

The web site does seem to suggest that such studies exist:

Seventeen years in development, five years of clinical trials, now available OTC.

However, after failing to find these clinical trials in databases of published veterinary research or on the Canna-Pet website, I found a statement from one of the developers of Canna-Pet which suggests that this use of the term “clinical trials” is a bit misleading.

Six years ago I started using phytocannabinoids and terpenes with my own pets and the frequent rescues and fosters with which I deal. Finally, I started recommending this adjunctive and palliative therapy for the pets of family, friends and specific clients. The results have been universally positive and this is in part why I helped develop a specific mixing process and dosing regimens for animals.

This statement would appear to suggest that by “clinical trials” the company means uncontrolled individual trial-and-error use. It is not uncommon for promoters of new or unconventional therapies to suggest there is “research” showing that their therapies work when they really mean only that they have used it in their own patients and believe it works. If it were truly that easy to identify effective therapies, clinical trials wouldn’t be necessary, but unfortunately that’s not the case.

As far as I can tell, then, there is no evidence to establish the safety and efficacy of this product beyond pre-clinical research (which is suggestive but never definitive), extrapolation from limited and often conflicting research in humans (which is common in veterinary medicine), and anecdotal experience (which is highly unreliable). The most appropriate interpretation of the evidence, then, is that the product might work or might not, it might be safe or it might not, but no firm conclusion can be made. Use of such a product is risky but can be appropriate in some circumstances. It is simply unfortunate that the company makes claims for the product that go far beyond anything that can be reasonably substantiated by real scientific data.

The company does put a few caveats on its claims. The Quack Miranda Warning required by the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act is present:

FDA Disclosure: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These products and statements are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

The web site also appropriately points out that, “these compounds are not a cure-all wonder drug. They are to be used as directed and they are to be used expressly with any and all currently prescribed therapies and medications. As directed by your attending veterinarian.” Still, such warnings seem a bit tepid compared with the much more dramatic, assertive, and prominent claims of safety and benefits for the product.

Is It Safe?
Marijuana intoxication is relatively common in dogs and can be serious, though rarely life-threatening. It is likely that the primary compound responsible for the clinical symptoms is the THC, so a product with low levels of this compound might be safer than ordinary marijuana, but there is little research on the subject. And without direct studies of particular compounds or products, it is impossible to establish long-term safety.

The makers of Canna-Pet assure pet owners of complete and absolute safety, which is unrealistic for any product that has any biological effects at all. They appear to base this on the fact that it is “natural,” which of course is a completely arbitrary and meaningless claim, and that their own uncontrolled anecdotal observations haven’t identified any negative effects. This is certainly not a level of safety assurance that would be accepted for any drug, and it is no more appropriate to accept it for a gemish of chemicals found in an herbal product.

The specific claim is actually made that it is actually an advantage of the product that it is a complex mixture of chemical compounds: “When we apply ALL of these phytocannabinoids and terpenes simultaneously, the cumulative effects are exponential.” This is a common claim for herbal remedies. While it is true that sometimes multiple compounds in a mixture can have synergistic effects (working together to improve efficacy and decrease undesired effects), it is just as true that such compounds can interfere with one another or have additive undesired effects. It is important to determine the actual clinical actions of a particular product through appropriate clinical research. It is not wise or safe to assume that the more complex a mixture is the better and safer it will be.

Bottom Line
Like so many plant-based alternative therapies, there is sufficient pre-clinical basic research to suggest compounds derived from cannabis might be medically useful. And like many medically useful chemicals, these are likely to have risks and benefits, both desirable and undesirable effects. There is nothing about such supposedly “natural” products that makes them inherently safer or better than purified compounds. And there is nothing about cannabis that makes it any more or less likely to be a useful medical therapy or to have both benefits and risks.

The current research evidence supports a couple of uses in humans, including treatment of nausea and poor appetite and possibly pain. Most other uses are poorly supported by clinical research. And there are unquestionably side effects that make marijuana often less useful than isolated cannabinoids or other unrelated treatments.

There is virtually no useful research evidence in companion animals, so any use of cannabis products is based entirely on theory and extrapolation from the limited research results in humans. Canna-Pet as a specific product, is being marketed with very dramatic and aggressive claims about safety and efficacy that do not appear to be supported by specific research on the product but, again, are based entirely on theory and anecdote, both notoriously unreliable sources of evidence.

There are recognized behavioral and medical risks associated with marijuana use in humans. While the behavioral risks do not apply to use in companion animals, and the medical issues associated with THC do not apply to products with negligible amounts of this compound, the risks of cannabis-derived compounds in dogs and cats are largely unknown. Any use of such products, then, should be undertaken with a clear understanding of the high levels of uncertainty about the results, and claims should not be made for these products that go beyond the available evidence.

Finally, the moral and political issues associated with the use and regulation of cannabis are real, but they have little direct relevance to a scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of any medical use. Even if one supports legal recreational use of marijuana, that doesn’t imply one should support medical use without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy. And if one is opposed to recreational use of marijuana, that doesn’t make it appropriate to deny the possibility of medical benefits or to obstruct appropriate research into this possibility. As is always the case, a rational use of science to determine the facts is necessary to make an informed judgment, independent of any other concerns.

 

 

 

Posted in Herbs and Supplements | 83 Comments

Another Reminder of the Real Dangers of Veterinary Homeopathy

Posted on November 18, 2013 by skeptvet

The biggest danger of homeopathy is not, of course, the remedies themselves, which are nothing more than placebos in most cases. The real danger is that many homeopaths have the delusion that their therapies can replace real medical care, and they sometimes convince others of this. There are many examples of this leading to unnecessary suffering and even death. (1, 2) Of course, many homeopaths deny that they reject or discourage conventional therapies, and some claim their methods are scientifically validated, though these claims don’t stand up under close scrutiny. However, the mainstream representatives of veterinary homeopathy regularly promote the myth that homeopathy can replace real medical care even in the case of serious illness. The Academy of Veterinary homeopathy often goes even farther, as seen recently on its Facebook page, promoting the claim that conventional veterinary treatment is not only ineffective but actually the cause of much disease.

The AVH recently promoted a series of web articles entitled Stop Killing Your Pet. When I followed the link, this turned out to come from Dr. Will Falconer, the same veterinarian I recently discussed regarding his claims that his advice and “homeopathic emergency kit” can replace conventional emergency medical care. In this series of articles, he hits on a number of popular, and mostly unfounded, beliefs about the dangers of conventional methods for preventing infectious disease and infestation with common parasites.

The Top Five Ways to Healthy Pets

Here are the five things that will have the greatest impact in keeping your animal vital, healthy, and living a long, joyful life with you.

(doing the opposite has been the biggest predictor of illness and dying too soon that I’ve seen in my 30+ years of practice)

1.      Stop Vaccinating Them.

2.      Feed Them What Their Ancestors Ate.

3.      Stop Using Pesticides to Kill Fleas.

4.      Stop Using Poisons for Heartworm Prevention.

5.      Give Them Raw Bones (for the whitest teeth and freshest breath ever).

 Dr. Falconer goes into more detail about several of these recommendations. His page discussing vaccination is chock full of misleading oversimplification. He claims that  initial vaccination generates lifelong immunity and so only one vaccine is ever needed to protect your pet. This is likely true for some vaccines and some individuals, and most certainly not true for others. Vaccines are given as a series to puppies and kittens because some have varying levels of antibodies gotten from their mothers through nursing, and these antibodies can temporarily block the effect of vaccination. Exactly how much of this maternal immunity a given pet has, and for how long, can’t be determined, so the series of vaccines given to young animals ensures that the majority will develop effective protection against common and serious diseases.

This issue of duration of immunity and booster vaccination is much more complicated. Immunity from vaccination is probably lifelong for some diseases, lasts from a few to many years for others, and can fail to develop even with an appropriate series of puppy or kitten vaccinations in some animals. In our local area, we recently had a dog infected with rabies who had received an appropriate puppy vaccination but not a booster at one year, and who clearly did not get lifelong effective immunity from that first vaccine. How many vaccines are needed is a complex and often uncertain issue for any individual pet, and simplistic claims that one vaccination provides lifelong immunity for every pet and every vaccine are dangerously wrong.

Of course, the reason this issue is of interest to CA proponents like Dr. Falconer is that they want to discourage vaccination because they believe it to be actively harmful. In this series of articles, he claims vaccines are responsible for all kinds of chronic diseases, from allergies, to autoimmune anemia, to cancer. Once again, this is an argument that builds a misleading web of deception on top of a tiny core of truth. Like all medical therapies, vaccines have risks. We know about some of these (such as acute allergic reactions, vaccine-associated fibrosarcomas). We suspect some others, though the evidence is weak and inconsistent (some autoimmune disease). And there are many that are pure fantasy (such as the catch-all “vaccinosis,” a meaningless term used to blame any and every disease imaginable on vaccination).

Balancing the potential risks of vaccination against the benefits can only happen with an accurate understanding of both. Dr. Falconer and the AVH routinely exaggerate the risks, including blaming many diseases on vaccines for which there is zero evidence of a connection, and they fail to acknowledge the dramatic benefits, including prevention of serious, sometimes deadly diseases which are common when vaccines are not available or not used.

Adding to the distorted picture created by this misrepresentation of the risks and benefits of vaccines, these homeopaths recommend (and sell) all kinds of alternatives which have no demonstrated benefit. This includes supposed “immune boosters” (a term which Dr. Mark Crislip has eloquently shown to be egregiously nonsensical pseudoscience) which have never been tested to verify any protective benefits against the disease pet owners are being told not to vaccinate against. Homeopathic nosodes are also recommended, despite the fact that these are as magically inert as most other homeopathic remedies and have never been shown to prevent serious disease. This trifecta of exaggerating the risks and underrating the benefits of vaccines along with selling unproven or completely ineffective alternatives is the perfect strategy for bringing back all kinds of infectious diseases that have been brought under control by vaccination.

Dr. Falconer’s claims about pet nutrition are equally erroneous and misleading. He falls into the myth that our canine companions are really just wolves in funny outfits and that the best way to keep them healthy is to feed them what wolves eat. This is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds, as I have discussed many times before.

The same tired and vapid reasoning is applied to the issue of flea and tick preventatives and heartworm prevention. Risks are implied or exaggerated well beyond anything established by any kind of scientific evidence, based mostly on the mythology that conventional parasite controls contain “chemicals” and “toxins” while supposed “natural” alternatives (which haven’t actually been proven to do anything) are somehow magically safe and effective. Once again, the risks are misrepresented or exaggerated, the benefits are ignored, and unproven or completely useless alternatives are suggested with no evidence to show they are of any use at all, much less better than existing preventatives.

The bottom line is that there is a quasi-religious mentality at work here that makes belief sufficient evidence in itself for any claim regardless of the absence of supporting scientific evidence, or even evidence disproving the claim. Homeopathy works not because it’s been shown to in good quality research studies but because the people using and selling think it does. “Chemicals” are bad (despite the fact this term is arbitrarily and capriciously applied to some substances and not others), whereas “natural” things (again, arbitrarily defined) are good; you know, like radium, botulism, rattlesnake venom, and the plague. And the gold standard of proof is the opinion of people who have “tried it for themselves,” despite the overwhelming historical and experimental evidence that this is an unreliable way to prove or disprove medical claims.

It is important that pet owners consider the underlying point of view when deciding whether or not to believe the claims made by these homeopaths. It is, of course, everyone’s right to reject the determination of science and follow recommendations based on faith, intuition, anecdote, and other less trustworthy kinds of evidence. But at least pet owners should be able to make such a choice fully informed, and not be misled into thinking there is any scientific legitimacy to these claims. Homeopathy is not a scientific medical practice. It is a faith-based belief system inconsistent with established science. Veterinarians who practice it have chosen to reject the mainstream use of science as the foundation for medicine, and as examples like the AVH and Dr. Falconer illustrate, they often recommend pet owners reject conventional medicine as unnecessary, or even actively harmful.  Such a perspective, in my opinion and based on the evaluation of scientific investigation, threatens the health of our animal companions.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Homeopathy | 27 Comments

Encouraging Study of Platelet Therapy for Arthritis in Dogs

Posted on November 10, 2013 by skeptvet

Though I write frequently about potential arthritis therapies, particularly emerging treatments and those that are established but seem to have a questionable evidence base, I haven’t yet run across the therapy evaluated in a study recently published in the journal of the American veterinary Medical Association: injection of a dog’s own platelets into an arthritic joint.

Fahie MA, Ortolano GA, Guercio V, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of autologous platelet therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis in dogs. JAVMA 2013;243(9):1291-7.

This was a small but nicely done trial which involved dogs with documented symptomatic arthritis in a single joint. Though this is an unusual situation, since most dogs with arthritis have it in multiple joints, this population was selected to minimize confounding variables and simplify the evaluation of the test treatment.

 Subjects were appropriately randomized to placebo or the test treatment, and all treatments and evaluations were done by individuals blind to the treatment group. This helps to minimize potential bias or placebo effects. At the start of the study, two subjective measures of comfort and function (questionnaires) were completed by owners, and an objective measure (amount of weight placed on the affected leg) was also evaluated. Dogs in the test group received a single injection of their own concentrated blood platelets in the affected joint, and control group dogs received a saline injection in the affected joint. The subjective and objective measures were repeated at 12 weeks after treatment.

One encouraging feature of this study was the consistency of the outcomes. Both subjective and outcome measures were statistically improved in dogs in the treatment group and not in dogs in the control group. Subjective measures improved by 55%, and the objective measure improved by 12%.

There are, of course, a few caveats. The study was quite small, and in some of the objective tests only 5 dogs were evaluated in each group. The influence of chance on the results, and the potential applicability of the results to the general population, are always uncertain with such a small number of subjects.

And there is also always the question about the clinical significance of the effect. A 55% change in perceived symptoms seems a large enough difference to be meaningful, though as always it is being assessed indirectly through the owner, so whether the discomfort experienced by the dog is truly that much improved is impossible to know. However, a 12% difference in the measure of weight bearing is quite a bit smaller, and it is not clear how significant such an improvement would be in the comfort and function of a dog with arthritis.

Overall, this is a well-done study that provides an encouraging tidbit of evidence for this particular treatment. The authors’ conclusion is supported by the data, and they do not oversell the results. Larger studies will certainly need to be done to confirm the findings, and studies of more typical patients with multiple arthritis joints and other concurrent medical conditions will be needed before we can confidently predict the results of such a therapy in the general population. As with stem cell therapy, autologous platelet therapy seems promising, but hopefully the scientific research will lead the way forward rather than the commercialization and marketing efforts for this therapy.

 

 

Posted in Science-Based Veterinary Medicine | 13 Comments

Raw Diets for Pets

Posted on November 7, 2013 by skeptvet

I have covered the raw diet debate since the beginning of this blog, and the evidence has been remarkably consistent:

  1. There is no evidence to support claims that raw diets are healthier than cooked commercial foods.
  2. There is consistent evidence that raw diets are contaminated with potentially harmful bacteria.
  3. It is not yet clear what the likelihood of infections in people or pets from these bacteria.
  4. Raw bones, often included in raw diets, may reduce calculus and periodontal disease risk, though this isn’t clearly demonstrated. However, they also present a real danger of injury, including broken teeth.
  5. Most homemade raw diets, and some commercial raw diets, may have significant nutritional deficiencies.

The bottom line so far is that there are not convincingly demonstrated benefits to feeding raw, and some potential risks, though it isn’t clear how serious these risks are. Most of the claims made for why raw diets are better are myths and nonsense or based entirely on anecdote. Overall, there seems little reason to feed raw when there is more evidence of risk than benefit.

 

Raw Diet Posts

Raw Diets for Dogs and Cats

Give a Dog a Bone (Not!)–FDA warns of dangers of feeding bones to dogs

Raw Meat and Bones Diet for Dogs: It’s Enough to make you BARF

Raw Pet Diet and “Natural” Pet Product Recalls

Raw Diets for Pets: Still No Evidence of Benefit but a Real Risk of Harm

Salmonella and Other Risks of Raw Pet Diets

Cooking increases the caloric value of meat and starches

Veterinary News Network (VNN) Video Discussing Raw Pet Diets

Raw Pet Diets Often Contaminated with Dangerous Bacteria: Campylobacter

Misleading Advertising for Raw Pet Food (again)

Raw, Cooked, and Dry Cat Diets–A New Study Examined

New Study on Raw Diets for Dogs Adds Little to Ongoing Debate

FDA Study Shows Raw Pet Diets Contaminated with Potentially Deadly Bacteria Much More Frequently than Cooked Pet Foods

Evidence Update-Review of the Risks and Benefits of Raw Diets for Dogs and Cats

More Evidence of the Risk of Infectious Diseases Associated with Raw Pet Foods

Yet Another Study Shows the Real Dangers of Raw Diets for Dogs

Actually, Raw ChickenLikely Can Lead to Paralysis for Dogs

New DogRisk Study Compares Risk of Allergies in Dogs Associated with Raw and Processed Foods

Are Unconventional and Raw Diets Becoming More Popular?

From SkeptVet TV- Raw Diets for Pets

Posted in Topic-Based Summaries | 44 Comments

FDA Study Shows Raw Pet Diets Contaminated with Potentially Deadly Bacteria Much More Frequently than Cooked Pet Foods

Posted on November 7, 2013 by skeptvet

Numerous studies have demonstrated that raw diets are likely to be contaminated with potentially harmful bacteria, including Salmonella, E. coli, and others that can cause serious disease. (1, 2) Though cases of illness have been documented caused by these organisms in raw foods, it is not clear how great the risk is for pets or for humans handing raw pet food or living with pets eating such diets. And it is true that cooked commercial diets have been found to be contaminated with such bacteria as well, which advocates of raw foods have sometimes used as evidence that raw diets are no riskier than cooked. A new FDA study, however, shows quite clearly that the risk of bacterial contamination is far greater for raw pet diets than for cooked commercial foods.

The Pet Food Study was a two-year survey of pet foods that evaluated over 1000 samples. Raw foods were only included in the second year of the study, in which 196 samples of commercial raw diets were tested.  The table below compares the occurrence of two important pathogenic bacteria in dry cooked diets and raw diets.

fda pet food study table

 

Clearly, both bacteria are far more likely to be found in uncooked than in cooked pet foods. The prevalence of Listeria was particularly alarming because 90% of people infected with this bacterium are hospitalized, and 20-30% die. While the annual number of cases of this disease is small, it makes no sense to risk a serious and frequently deadly illness in order to provide a raw diet for your pet which has not been shown to have any health benefits for them.

 

Posted in Nutrition | 31 Comments

How Important Was Acupuncture in Ancient China?

Posted on October 27, 2013 by skeptvet

Acupuncture is arguably one of the more popular alternative therapies, after dietary supplements and chiropractic. The mystical explanations for its supposed benefits, such as balancing the mysterious energy force known as Ch’i, are not generally accepted in the mainstream medical community. But there are a fair number of healthcare providers who believe acupuncture has meaningful clinical benefits, and some individuals make attempts to explain these in more conventional scientific terms. In my opinion, the evidence is still most consistent with the position that acupuncture is an elaborate placebo that affects how people feel without truly altering the state of their physical health. But there is room for debate about the effects of sticking needles in patients.

Regardless of the issue of whether or not acupuncture is a beneficial therapy in some instances, however, many of the claims made to promote it are clearly exaggerated or simply false. In the veterinary field, for example, it is often claimed that acupuncture has been used to treat animals for thousands of years. Yet a close look at the actual historical record shows this to be untrue. And while acupuncture is more popular than some other alternative therapies, its popularity is routinely exaggerated, and conventional therapies are preferred even in China and other places where acupuncture has been a generally accepted practice for some time.

A recent article in the Journal of Integrative Medicine provides some interesting information concerning on of the most common claims made for acupuncture—that it was a popular and successful therapy in ancient China for thousands of years. The author, a practitioner and advocate for so-called Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), makes the case that acupuncture was actually a marginal practice in ancient China and that its current popularity is a recent, 20th century phenomenon. Though the author probably wouldn’t agree, it strikes me that this fits quite well with the hypothesis recently discussed in Slate magazine that TCM is not actually an ancient historical method but an ad hoc collection of unrelated, even competing practices pulled together in a bit of nationalist historical revisionism by Mao Tse Tung.

Lehmann H. Acupuncture in ancient China: How important was it really?J Integr Med. 2013; 11(1): 45-53.

The abstract summarizes the author’s conclusions that acupuncture was never a popular or important therapy even in ancient China.

…the clinical application of the needle therapy in ancient China was always a limited one. From early times there have been warnings that acupuncture might do harm. In books like Zhang Zhongjing’s Shanghanlun it plays only a marginal role. Among the 400 emperors in Chinese history, acupuncture was hardly ever applied. After Xu Dachun called acupuncture a “lost tradition” in 1757, the abolition of acupuncture and moxibustion from the Imperial Medical Academy in 1822 was a radical, but consequent act. When traditional Chinese medicine was revived after 1954, the “New Acupuncture” was completely different from what it had been in ancient China.

Of course, the author puts a positive spin on these conclusions, suggesting that the marginal role of acupuncture historically doesn’t negate its benefits (despite the fact that these are often justified by claiming a long, successful history) but simply, “The best time acupuncture ever had was not the Song dynasty or Yuan dynasty, but is now – and the future of acupuncture does not lie in old scripts, but in ourselves.”

The author reviews the written records of ancient Chinese medicine and concludes that while there is discussion of the theory and practice of acupuncture, there is no evidence that it was widely accepted or employed. He also discusses the artifacts often cited as evidence of ancient acupuncture practices and why they do not support the idea that an intervention similar to modern acupuncture was widely used. The author also identifies several mentions of the risks of historical acupuncture, which include the same problems of infection and organ damage that still occur today.

And although people in ancient time knew nothing about microbes, they knew very well that needling could do harm to the body. For example, the Zhenjiu Juying  talks about “poison” contained in iron.

Moreover, there were always warnings of the dangers of the needling. As early as in 81 BC, the Yan Tie Lun criticizes incompetent physicians with the words: They

stab in their needles at random, without the least beneficial influence on the illness, and only succeed in injuring the flesh and the muscles. And Wang Tao writes in his Wai

Tai Mi Yao: Acupuncture can kill healthy people, and cannot revive those who are dead. If one desires to adopt this technique, I am afraid he will harm life. [Therefore] at this present compilation I do not adopt [the technique of ] the Acupuncture Classic, I only adopt moxibustion.

He then goes on to cite prominent ancient Chinese medical authorities to illustrate that they rarely recommended acupuncture and sometimes recommended against it. And he emphasizes that while the best and most esteemed therapies would have been employed for the emperors in ancient China, it appears the emperors almost never received acupuncture.

He also makes a particularly interesting point that claims about acupuncture as an ancient “lost art” may simply be part of the tradition of complaining that previous generation possessed medical skills and techniques that have been lost and must be rediscovered:

…when Xu Dachun in 1757 lamented acupuncture as a “lost tradition”, this is only a proof that it was not widely used at his time. It does not prove that it really had been very important before. Remember: complaining that the medical art of the ancients was lost has been part of Chinese medical writing from its very beginning – the Huangdi Neijing itself does nothing else.

This seems consistent with the ubiquitous human tendency to imagine the past as a Golden Age better than the present. Certainly, this is a mainstay of the marketing of alternative therapies, which are often promoted as a rediscovery of or return to better ideas and approaches despite the convincing evidence that human beings today enjoy the longest and healthiest lives of any who have ever lived.

Finally, the article discusses an event often ignored or downplayed by acupuncture advocates who wish to portray the modern practice as a well-established and historically continuous practice handed down from ancient times, rather than a politically motivated invention of the 1950s communist leadership. In 1822, the emperor officially prohibited acupuncture from being taught or practiced at the Imperial Medical Academy.

Emperor Daoguang, in the second year of his reign and at this time 40 years old, declared: Acupuncture and moxibustion, as not being suitable to be applied to the Emperor, will be banned forever from the Imperial Medical Academy.

This move is sometimes portrayed as the result of Western influence, however the author of this article claims that the move predates any significant influence of European medicine on China:

One reason which makes it so interesting is the time of the decree: this was the last period in Chinese history where medical aspects were discussed WITHOUT comparing TCM to scientific medicine.

Indeed, the conflicts with Western countries had already begun. However, it was not before 1830 that the foreign missionaries adopted “the idea of making the practice of medicine an auxiliary in introducing Christianity to China.”

Whatever came later (for example Wang Qingren’s Yi Lin Gai Cuo in 1830, in which he attempted to correct some of the many errors in TCM literature) could not escape the everlasting struggle in which traditional practitioners tried to defend TCM theory against the superior methodology of scientific medicine. We might say: Banning acupuncture from the imperial court was the last independent act in the history of traditional Chinese medicine.

Furthermore, he argues that the ban was almost certainly not a whim on the part of the emperor, but a considered rejection of the practice by the most prestigious Chinese scholars of the day:

In fact, it is unlikely that the idea of the edict originally came from the emperor himself…Like today, such things were left to a court commission. There, specialists discussed the matter and presented a suggestion.

…So, we can be sure that there were extensive discussions among court advisors, physicians and teachers of the Imperial Medical Academy before the edict was decided. And we may believe that the men deciding this question were the most learned scholars of their time. Even if some of them were no medical experts we can be sure that they listened very carefully to what the physicians and the teachers of the Imperial Medical Academy said.

And if this commission nevertheless recommended the abolition of acupuncture, we can be sure of one thing: that they saw very good reasons to do so.

This author also argues that there was no outcry against this edict from the physicians of the day, suggesting that acupuncture was not widely valued in the medical community. And there appears to be little evidence of acupuncture being commonly used in China after the 1822 edict, until “re-invented” in the 1950s. His conclusion starkly contrasts with the usual acupuncture mythology:

When acupuncture was revived after 1954, this was no continuation of an unbroken tradition,but in fact a completely new invention… the methods and experience of ancient acupuncture are mostly irrelevant for us.

Now clearly, it is irrelevant how old acupuncture is or how commonly practiced it was in ancient times to the issue of whether or not it works. If it were true that modern acupuncture were a revival of a long-standing ancient practice, this wouldn’t be evidence that it was safe or effective any more than the long history of bloodletting somehow validates that therapy. However, from a marketing point of view, people appear to find the claims made for modern acupuncture more palatable or believable if they imagine it as the revival of  ancient wisdom, instead of a politically motivated invention of the 1950s. It may be useful, therefore, to recognize this as an unsubstantiated myth that does not help us in evaluating the risks and benefits of acupuncture today.

Posted in Acupuncture | 8 Comments

When Homeopathy Becomes Truly Dangerous

Posted on October 23, 2013 by skeptvet

I have often written about homeopathy, not because it is a particularly popular or important therapy (only about 3.5% of Americans, for example, report having tried it) but because it is one of the clearest and most egregious examples of pseudoscience. The case against homeopathy is very strong, and it is clearly theoretically implausible and clinically proven to be nothing more than a placebo.

Proponents of homeopathy try to claim it is scientifically reasonable and even “evidence-based,” but the evidence they present is consistently deeply flawed and unconvincing. What is more, individuals and groups advocating for homeopathy often deny that they reject or discourage the practice of science-based medicine even while clearly doing just that. The Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy (AVH) has gone so far as to hire a public relations consultant to facilitate misleading the public into thinking homeopathy is a safe and effective therapy and that veterinary homeopaths do not discourage the use of necessary and effective scientific medical therapies.

However, if one keeps an eye on their marketing efforts, it is easy to find clear examples of accepted members of this group engaging in practices that seem difficult to view as anything other than malpractice or fraud (though I suppose the latter requires an awareness of misleading clients, and unfortunately I do not doubt the individuals involved believe the nonsense they are selling).

A recent post on the Holistic Care for Animals Facebook page (which is described as “the Facebook presence of the Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy.”) directed readers to a page promoting “Emergency Vet Alternatives.” This page, part of a site run by homeopathic veterinarian Will Falconer, provides some of the most egregiously dangerous advice for pet owners I have come across. Dr. Falconer promotes his “homeopathic emergency kit,” which he suggests can substitute for a visit to an emergency veterinary clinic even in the case of serious I injury and illness.

I wanted a way for you to be able to have this safety net at home and avoid the E.R. like my many patients have successfully done with my help over the years.

But I can’t be everywhere and serve thousands of clients. It’s just not practical. Even the broader category of holistic vets are not yet in every town and city.

Here’s what I’ve decided to do to “clone” myself, and give you holistic medical options when your animal is in a pinch and you need emergency help right away.

I’m building a custom homeopathic emergency kit, with remedies that will get your animal well in the common emergencies you are likely to confront. Things like:

  • parvo
  • vomiting after eating spoiled food
  • bee stings and worse, the allergic reactions to them that can shut off airways
  • burns
  • injuries: car accidents, tails in a car door, sprains, etc.
  • bite wounds, cuts, gunshot wounds
  • bloat
  • pain from overexertion
  • splinters, fox tails, thorns
  • abscesses
  • shock

This custom kit will include remedies in various potencies, or strengths, that you won’t find without buying multiple kits elsewhere. I’ve individually chosen potencies that match the seriousness of the various emergencies you may find your animal in.

That’s right! Dr. Falconer is suggesting homeopathic remedies can “get your animal well” and possibly “avoid the E.R.” even if your pet has parvovirus, bloat, or shock or if they have been bitten by another animal, hit by a car, or shot! These are serious, often life-threatening emergencies for which there is absolutely no evidence that homeopathy has any value at all. Even with the best treatment, these emergencies can be fatal, and to suggest these things should be treated at home by an owner, with homeopathy or any other remedy, is completely irresponsible.

Dr. Falconer does promise this kit will come with some support.

To go with this excellent emergency kit, and help you use the remedies properly, a practical ebook (now at the publisher) explaining how to choose the best remedy for your animal’s emergency, how to dose, and an introduction to this amazing art and science that I practice daily, called homeopathy.

A webinar series that will visually and audibly help you learn each remedy, so you’ve got them already in mind ahead of time, and can choose the proper remedy quickly in a time of need.

Unfortunately, advice about how to use a placebo therapy to treat life-threatening medical problems, even if provided by a (*sigh*) licensed veterinarian, is not in any way safe or appropriate. Yet Dr. Falconer goes on to suggest, yet again, that his ebook and homeopathic emergency kit can substitute for real, in-person veterinary care.

Imagine: your dog or cat or horse finds herself suddenly in a crisis, and you can treat that crisis on the spot, with powerful medicine that’s got a long history of curing people and animals quickly and effectively.

In most cases, you’ll likely be able to avoid a trip to the emergency vet, and all the stress and side effects and expense that goes with that. In the worst case scenario, you’ll give a remedy on the way, and help the healing process get a great start before you arrive. You might even arrive at the E.R. and be told you can head home, everything’s well, thanks to your efforts on the spot.

This is one of those situations where all the good intentions and honest belief in his own advice cannot excuse recommendations which endanger the lives of pets. The idea of homeopathy as a primary treatment for authentic emergencies is so laughable it has been the subject of televised parody. And even the ridiculously lax and irrational laws that govern homeopathy in the U.S. specifically prohibit claims that homeopathic remedies can be used to treat “diseases that require diagnosis and treatment by a physician.” The FDA has recently warned manufacturers of over-the-counter homeopathic remedies intended for unsupervised use at home that they cannot claim these remedies are appropriate for treatment of serious illness or injury. Handing clients a bag full of homeopathic remedies and an ebook to treat such serious illness in their pets makes no more sense, and may quite possibly be illegal (though the FDA has historically paid little attention to the use of homeopathy in animals, so that would be a matter for the FDA or the courts to decide). Regardless of the legal technicalities, in my opinion such a practice cannot be reasonably viewed as sensible or ethical.

Now individual veterinarians may not always be representative of a whole method of practice. I have no doubt homeopathy proponents could produce lots of stories of conventional veterinarians practicing in unethical and indefensible ways, and yet clearly such stories don’t fairly represent, much less invalidate, all of conventional medicine. Though the principles and evidence of homeopathy clearly mark it as ineffective pseudoscience, I am sure the majority of homeopathic veterinarians are ethical by their own standards. Then again, so is Dr. Falconer. He undoubtedly believes he has found a better way of treating his patients and that he is doing good while I and the rest of the profession who do not share his delusion are doing harm. Does this justify making the recommendations he makes?

And while many veterinary homeopaths might agree that Dr. Falconer’s recommendations regarding emergency care are inappropriate, I have not found any evidence to suggest the AVH repudiates them. After all, the AVH promoted his claims on its Facebook page. And Dr. Falconer is still listed on the AVH web site as a member and certified veterinary homeopath. The AVH describes this certification this way:

Accredited veterinarians have demonstrated a basic level of competency in theory, principles and philosophy, remedies, and prescribing in veterinary homeopathy. Currently, this certification process is the best method available to the AVH to ensure competency of homeopathic veterinarians to the public.

Plenty of caveats are given elsewhere on the page, and likely this cannot meet the legal definition of an “implied warranty” or anything, but it seems reasonable to infer that the AVH at least does object to Dr. Falconer’s practices.

The remainder of Dr. Falconer’s web site reads like a pretty typical example of the most extreme type of alternative medical practitioner. He tells a frightening story of his conversion experience from conventional to alterative practice.

I put the antibiotics away for good when my own cat Cali, in trying to have her first kittens, did so out in the wilds of Haleakala on Maui, and came dragging herself in with a horribly infected uterus, leaking a foul smelling discharge, and clearly seriously ill. I knew even antibiotics would have a hard time helping her, but I also knew I had something deeply curative to offer now: homeopathic medicine.

Cali was treated with pyrogenium 30C, a remedy made from rotten beef, and described by Dr. H.C. Allen, a brilliant homeopathic MD of the mid-1800s. He wrote, “In septic fevers, especially puerperal (pertaining to child bearing, around birth time), Pyrog has demonstrated its great value as a homeopathic dynamic antiseptic.”

After a few doses of this remedy and a couple of uterine flushes with a bit of anti-infective Chinese herb (Yunnan Paiyao), Cali made a full and remarkable recovery. It was as though she’d never been sick. I had an “Ah-ha!” moment, and tossed my antibiotics in the trash.

In my view, the treatment of a serious illness in a suffering animal with unproven and almost certainly useless homeopathic remedies is not justified by the good fortune of the cat in surviving such inappropriate treatment.

Apart from his recommendations for treating emergencies, Dr. Falconer promotes a pretty standard list of unproven or clearly false alternative medicine claims:  

  1. He presents the usual exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about the dangers of vaccination.
  2. He provides similarly exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about the dangers of heartworm preventatives and goes further in claiming that alternative methods are effective, which is not accepted by experts on this disease or even by most proponents of alternative veterinary medicine (it is not clear specifically what alternative preventative he recommends since you have to buy another ebook from him to find out).
  3. He promotes raw diets despite the lack of evidence to support such claims.
  4. He even recommends a local practitioner of Gerson Therapy, a thoroughly discredited mélange of practices that include coffee enemas.

As I’ve often said before, reasonable people can disagree politely and substantively about the merits of alternative therapies. But even honest belief and a kind heart cannot excuse practices which clearly and needlessly endanger patients. Dr. Falconer is clear and direct in his claims that conventional medicine is often ineffective and outright harmful, yet likely believers in his methods, and even others who doubt them, will feel my criticism of his claims and actions is unkind or wrong.

I have no doubt that clients of Dr. Falconer, who genuinely believe his absurd claims and feel he has helped their pets, will make all sorts of personal attacks and insinuations about me in response to my criticism of him, as supports of Dr. Plechner and Dr. Andrew Jones and others I have criticized have done in the past.

Though it is probably pointless, I will make try to make clear ahead of time that I don’t consider myself any smarter or any better a person than Dr. Falconer. I don’t believe he is a bad person or that he deliberately misleads anyone.  However, I do believe that some ideas are true and others are false, and that science is the best way to tell the difference. Science has clearly identified homeopathy as nothing more than a placebo, so it is genuinely wrong to claim it is an effective therapy for serious medical problems.

Furthermore, testimonials and other personal experiences, intuition, and faith are not reliable ways to decide if a therapy works, and they do not justify denying therapies which have been proven effective (like vaccination and antibiotics, which Dr. Falconer largely rejects) or recommending implausible, unproven, or outright bogus therapies. Good intentions notwithstanding, making such recommendations harms patients, and challenging these claims is a duty for those of us who honestly believe them to be wrong.

That said, I understand true believers in homeopathy, or in Dr. Falconer personally, will be deeply offended by my having the temerity to criticize his methods. While I do not expect to change any already made-up and solidly closed minds, I do hope some pet owners considering substituting a homeopathic emergency kit and an ebook or webinar for actual emergency veterinary care will consider the real danger for their animal companions in such a choice.

Posted in Homeopathy | 47 Comments

Dr. Plechner Rallies Supporters to Correct the SkeptVet & Other “Disease Care Providers”

Posted on October 14, 2013 by skeptvet

Last spring I wrote an article about a Dr. Al Plechner, who claims to have discovered a glandular imbalance, which he has named Plechner Syndrome and which he claims is responsible for a wide range of health problems. Dr. Plechner’s web site includes many of the classic warning signs of medical nonsense, including: grand claims that a lone individual has discovered, through trial and error rather than formal scientific research, a major breakthrough that the rest of the medical profession has missed; that there is one entity responsible for an enormous number of seemingly unrelated diseases; that one simple  therapy can cure or improve many seemingly unrelated diseases; that mysterious “toxins” in the environment can be blamed for health problems without specific evidence for such a connection; that anecdotes and personal experience is sufficient to demonstrate these claims; and that scientists and veterinarians who disagree with Dr. Plechner are motivated by ignorance, greed, or other malign motives rather than a genuine interest in the truth and the welfare of patients.

Following my earlier criticism of Dr. Andrew Jones (here and here), his followers leaped to his defense through a combination of anecdotes and personal attacks on me. The same has now happened with Dr. Plechner’s followers, and this time it appears he has actively solicited people to come forward in his defense. Starting a couple of days ago, I began receiving a number of comments on my original post, most offering anecdotes suggesting Dr. Plechner had helped their pets, often after conventional veterinarians have failed or given up. I have, according to my usual policy, approved these comments and tried to offer reasonable and polite responses. I am always open to constructive debate and discussion focused on ideas and facts.

A fair number of the comments have also included personal attacks or abusive language. I do not generally approve such comments since they are both uncivil and not productive. In the past, I have collected anonymous examples of the sort of abusive or hysterical hate mail I get just so people can understand the kind of tone and thought processes so often marshaled in support of unconventional medical practices.  In this instance, a supporter of Dr. Plechner has forwarded to me an email in which Dr. Plechner asks his supporters to set me straight. I think this provides some additional insight into Dr. Plechner’s approach and why pet owners should be highly skeptical of his claims.

His original request to his followers is as follows:

 

When you have time to waste, Google drplechner.com and go to Plechner’s Syndrome and the Art of Making Things Up

Now I know why my son said, “Pop do not look at the comments against you on the internet”!

WOW!

I think the time has come to have you comment on the statements that have been made about my faulty research!

What a shame that a person that is so “academically impaired”, has so little to do accept to show their “ignorance with an attitude”, by trying to discredit new research studies that have not been included in their education in schools of medical learning just yet.

Treating the cause of disease is just as important as treating the effects, if not even more important!

The fact that my profession does not know the cause of a disease at this time, does not mean that a cause does not still exist.

On line notifications like this only hurts the patients based upon this contributors ignorance!

I know how busy all of you are, but the time has come when venomous misconceptions like what this person is preaching, must end.

If you have time, I would really appreciate you sending your comments and experiences using Plechner’s Syndrome to the website information at the end of the article.

My only feeling is that this kind of article is only hurting people and animals with health problems and keeping them from getting proper treatment.

The time is coming, when my research findings will be accepted by the medical professions and make a huge difference for their patients.

Thank you for understanding and believing in me.

Sincerely,

AL

This message contains a number of clear examples of Dr. Plechner’s belief that he is a misunderstood visionary and that the reason the rest of the veterinary profession rejects his claims is because we are all ignorant. It is a remarkable display of arrogance to assume you are right and the vast majority of other medical professionals are wrong, so this somewhat contradicts the more sympathetic descriptions of Dr. Plechner by his supporters.

He also refers to “new research studies that have not been included in their education,” yet neither he nor any of his supporters ever produce any published research on his claims for us to evaluate.

And while I understand that no one likes to be criticized, it hardly supports Dr. Plechner’s case that he responds to this criticism not with evidence or substantive arguments but simply repeated assertions that he is right and the rest of us are wrong and with personal attacks on a critic he knows nothing about. Phrases like “academically impaired” and “ignorance with an attitude” are just vacuous, petty attempts to insult, not an argument against anything I have written. And “venomous misconceptions” is not only a silly attempt to imply some sinister motive for my lack of acceptance of his claim, but also a bit hypocritical given his personal attacks in this message to his supporters.

In a follow-up message thanking one of his supporters for defending him, Dr. Plechner goes further, revealing his conspiracy theory driven agenda and his underlying rejection of the scientific and medical profession generally.

 

One crucial pt to always keep in mind: “Follow the money trail”

“HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER, CALLS THE TUNE”

Much of so called ‘science’ operates on this basis.

And most of the medical/ big pharma colluded industry has a cozy little relationship with

government, msm and the educational institutes to boot.

We should class them as ‘Disease Care’ providers, and not Health Care!

Once again the pharma shill gambit and the blithe dismissal of all doctors who don’t agree with Dr. Plechner as greedy and more concerned about money than about the welfare of their patients. This sort of insulting nonsense deserves no respect or response other than to show it for what it is and let the public judge whether it is fair and reasonable or extreme and self-serving.

While some of Dr. Plechner’s supporters have, as I pointed out earlier, have been civil and even thoughtful in their defense of him, others have been even less reasonable and less substantive in their attacks on his critics than he has. Here are some samples from comments and messages posted to this site or sent directly to me. Such hysterical ranting and abuse belongs in the realm of debates about religious cults, not about the causes and treatments of disease in our animal companions.

“That Skep Vet is a jerk”

“Some scientist YOU are!!! With NO evidence or EXPERIENCE of using Dr. Plechner’s Protocol, you have MADE UP a MOST INCREDIBLE diatribe which amounts to character assassination. This article is outright libelous you should be sued for for an attempt to destroy the reputation of someone who has worked hard for fifty years and has saved countless lives. You have NO actual scientific experience with this protocol, yet you have judged it in the extreme. HOW can you do this and call yourself a scientist??? Talk about a personality disorder, this is cognitive dissonance.

The truth is geniuses are ahead of their times and the little minds always do what you are doing.”

“Well, the above diatribe from one self-proclaimed know-it-all,”skeptvet,” just goes to prove that any pompous ass with a computer and keyboard can make denouncements of Biblical proportions denigrating the findings of others, about which they neither have any direct knowledge or proof to the contrary.

Yes, Mr. or Mrs. Skeptvet, we who have first hand experience with Dr. Plechner and what’s possible when the mind is not a steel trap, encourage you to waste more of your time, attempting to deny and negate the life work of one man who has actually been in the thick of it for 5 decades. A man who has demonstrated his enormous heart and compassion and humanity countless times, while you’ve been at your keyboard, “working” hard at slicing and dicing someone’s reputation.

We absolutely encourage you to waste more of your value-less time, along with all the other flat-earthers. Opinions cannot sway those with FIRST-HAND knowledge of what works! I bet we could give a damn whether science agrees or not.

Personally, I’d rather have a live cat and pass (or piss) on the studies.”

It seems pretty clear from the information cited in my original post, and from the responses of Dr. Plechner and his supporters to that critique, that Dr. Plechner believes himself to be a visionary possessed on an insight not appreciated by the rest of the veterinary profession, and that his followers are willing to accept his claims based on anecdotes alone, without concern for whether there is any real scientific evidence to support them. That is, of course, their right. However, history is littered with the work of such iconoclastic visionaries who were wrong, and justly forgotten. And, unfortunately, history is also littered with people hurt and killed by mistaken beliefs about health and ineffective or dangerous medical therapies, and a greater understanding of the value of scientific assessment of these therapies could have saved many of them

As I’ve discussed before, the kind and brilliant pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, guided much of the childcare practices in the English-speaking world for decades with his incredibly popular book Baby and Child Care. Among his many insights, unfortunately, was a tragic mistake. Based on his own experience and reasoning, he decided the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) could be lowered by putting babies to sleep on their bellies, so they wouldn’t choke if they vomited. Most parents from the 50s to the 90s followed this advice. But from the 1970s, there was good scientific evidence Dr. Spock was wrong. A systematic reviews of the subject has concluded that:

Advice to put infants to sleep on the front for nearly a half century was contrary to evidence available from 1970 that this was likely to be harmful. Systematic review of preventable risk factors for SIDS from 1970 would have led to earlier recognition of the risks of sleeping on the front and might have prevented over 10 000 infant deaths in the UK and at least 50 000 in Europe, the USA, and Australasia.

When a campaign was instituted in the U.K. to reverse the practice Dr. Spock had recommended, the number of SIDS cases dropped dramatically. That is the danger or following the intuition or experience of one person, however smart or well-intentioned, and ignoring the need for real scientific evidence. I bear no personal ill will to Dr. Plechner, but I stand by my assessment that his claims are implausible, not supported by meaningful scientific evidence, and a dangerous assertion of the intuition of the individual over objective research as the measure of medical hypotheses.

 

 

 

Posted in General | 57 Comments

What is a Spay: Ovariectomy versus Ovariohysterectomy for Female Dogs

Posted on October 13, 2013 by skeptvet

This is a short informational handout that I developed for my clients discussing simply and briefly the two most common approaches to spaying female dogs. For those interested in more detail, the relevant references are provided.

What is a Spay?
“Spaying” refers to any surgical procedure which removes the ovaries, the source of hormones that cause female dogs to have estrus cycles (“heats”) and allows them to reproduce. There are actually several different ways to spay a female dog. Removing only the ovaries is called an ovariectomy. This can be done through a surgical incision into the abdomen, which is most common, or through several small holes using a special instrument called a laparoscope. Removing both the ovaries and the uterus is called an ovariohysterectomy, and this procedure also can be performed through open surgery or laparoscopy.

Historically, veterinarians in the United States and Canada have mostly performed ovariohysterectomies, while vets in Europe and other places have more often done ovariectomies. However, ovariectomies are becoming more common in the U.S. and are now being taught as the procedure of choice in some veterinary schools.

Why Spay a Dog?
There are several benefits to spaying female dogs. Spaying prevents them from reproducing, which helps reduce the large number of unwanted puppies that must be adopted or euthanized every year. Spaying also prevents infections of the uterus (pyometra). Research has also suggested that spayed female dogs are less likely to get mammary tumors (breast cancer) than intact females, though not all studies agree. And there is some evidence that spayed females may live longer than intact females.

As with all medical procedures, there are also some risks to spaying. Complications associated with surgery are generally uncommon and mild, but serious complications can occur. Spayed females may also be at increased risk of urinary incontinence (leaking urine) later in life, and some orthopedic problems and types of cancer may be more common in spayed dogs of some breeds, though the information on these risks is quite incomplete.

Which Type of Spay is Better?
There is very little difference in the outcomes of different types of spay surgeries. The benefits are the same whether the ovaries and uterus are removed or only the ovaries. Because ovariectomy involves a smaller surgical incision and is generally quicker to perform than overiohysterectomy, there may be a slightly lower risk of surgical complications and a little less discomfort for the patient with this procedure. Laparoscopic procedures require even smaller incisions, so they might be less uncomfortable than open surgeries, but they take quite a bit longer and require expensive specialized equipment.

Some vets believe it is safer to remove the uterus as well as the ovaries in older females who have gone through several heat cycles or have had one or more litters, though there is little research on this subject.

Bottom Line
Since there are no universally accepted guidelines for when to perform different types of spay surgery, individual veterinarians may make different decisions about the best procedure for any individual pet. A pet’s medical record will reflect which procedure was performed so there is no confusion in the future about whether or not the uterus has been removed.

References

  1. van GoethemB. Schaefers-Okkens A. Kirpensteijn A. Making a rational choice between ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy in the dog: a discussion of the benefits of either technique Vet Surg. 2006;35(2):136-43.
  2. Lee, S. S.  Lee SeungYong. Park SeJin. Kim YoungKi. Seok SeongHoon. Hwang JaeMin. Lee HeeChun. Yeon SeongChan. Comparison of ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy in terms of postoperative pain behavior and surgical stress in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Clinics. 2013;30(3):166-171.
  3. McKenzie, BA. Evaluating the benefits and risks of neutering dogs and cats. CAB Reviews: Persp in Agricul, Vet Sci, Nutr, Nat Res. 2010;5(45).
  4. Okkens AC, Kooistra HS, Nickel RF. Comparison of long-term effects of ovariectomy versus ovariohysterectomy in bitches. J Reprod Fertil Suppl. 1997;51:227-31.
  5. DeTora M, McCarthy RJ. Ovariohysterectomy versus ovariectomy for elective sterilization of female dogs and cats: is removal of the uterus necessary?J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2011;239(11):1409-12.

 

 

 

Posted in Science-Based Veterinary Medicine | 12 Comments