Here are sections of a news story from Great Britain:
In December the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) in the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – which governs the use of medicines in animals – made clear that homeopathic treatments could only be classed as medicines, and thus prescribed by vets, if they were able to demonstrate efficacy.
Homeopathic products cannot demonstrate efficacy to any satisfactory degree and so this means that they can’t be used by vets to treat animals.
———————————————-
Their conclusion…
———————————————-
The logic of the VMD’s decision is unquestionable. If it doesn’t have efficacy, it can’t be a medicine. And, ethically, if a medicine doesn’t work then a sick animal deserves to have real treatment not sham treatment.
——————————————-
Allowed in people
——————————————-
The BBC report and the debate in the studio afterwards identified the obvious irony: that homeopathic medicines can’t be provided by veterinary professionals to animals, but can be provided by healthcare professionals to humans.
P.S. My thoughts?
I don’t agree
My personal experience has been very positive with specific homeopathic remedies, in spite of the so called “lack of proof”.
That the authors of the report have a clear bias against homeopathy- there is no mention of the supposed “efficacious” drugs and their incidence of side effects.
Nor is there any mention of the influence of the large pharmaceutical companies on individual veterinarians- via drug trials, “positive” drug reports in journals, and the sponsoring of veterinary conferences.
Homeopathy lacks these financial backers.
Does it lack the “gold standard” of clear scientific proof?
Yes
Does it do ANY harm?
No
Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide.
Although it appears large governing bodies want to do that for you.
P.P.S. Yes, I do have a video on “gasp” homeopathy.
The remedies that I have found to be helpful for a variety of veterinary conditions.
But beware.
Not a lot of proof.
