Evidence-Based Medicine

Evidence-Based Medicine

in humans and animals

“Scientists should be on tap but not on top” Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)

A phrase of the moment is ‘evidence-based medicine'. Those who genuinely strive to ascertain the evidence base for everything they do in medicine are to be applauded. It is an extremely worthy objective.

Sadly, this ‘high ground' has been hi-jacked by those who would like to see the end of alternative medicine in general and homeopathy in particular. The argument is that homeopathy (in particular) has no evidence base. This is, of course, complete nonsense. It is true that there is not the huge volume of published work that characterises conventional medicine and it is also true that research and publication in homeopathy can never attract the multi-billion rewards that await those who work with drugs. Research in natural medicine is necessarily altruistic and therefore difficult to fund.

There are a few of the web references that show that there is indeed an evidence base for homeopathy:

It would appear that conventional medicine is struggling to ascertain its own evidence base. The BMJ's Clinical Evidence website recently stated that only 15% of the 2,404 orthodox (conventional) medical treatments reviewed were effective and 47% were of unknown effectiveness. www.clinicalevidence.com. Worthy and unbiased efforts are being made to improve the evidence base of conventional medical interventions.

Yes, we want evidence-based medicine in an ideal world. Let us stop wasting time and energy in a fruitless war of words and let us examine, properly and objectively, what we do on a daily basis, for our patients. The patient's needs, whether human or animal, should be paramount in all medical endeavour.

True science first observes, later draws conclusions or theories.
In ethical medicine, any methodology that claims that it may be able to help patients should be thoroughly investigated, not vilified out of hand.

Anyway, Big Pharma, the so-called scientists who do its work and the publication of medical papers is rife with fraud. Massive revelations of fraudulent publication in recent times may only represent the tip of the iceberg. If we can't trust the so-called ‘evidence base' of modern drugs, where is the much-vaunted scientific basis of modern medicine?

Just to illustrate some of the nonsense that goes on, here's a link to a recent (July 2012) case of fraud in Big Pharma: http://www.anh-europe.org/news/gsk-have-admitted-they-are-guilty-of-fraud-let%E2%80%99s-boycott-their-products – big fines they can afford and they have slipped out of a legal noose by paying up.

Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't: http://www.ncope.org/summit/pdf/Footnote1.pdf

In the interests of transparency, we have also uploaded the results of ongoing case outcome monitoring, for interest. Click the link: Outcome Study.

N.B.: This study includes only cats, dogs and horses.

Let us have science, not doctrine. Let us have patient welfare, not bigotry. Let us have ethics, not vested interest.

Please observe first and then try to make sense of the observations.

See also: Animal ExperimentsVivisectionSide-EffectsIatrogenic Disease

Other comment: http://chris-day.live-blog.net (has word-search facility).

I would have more respect and patience for ‘sceptics' if they were to take the time and effort to educate and inform themselves. Healthy scepticism is a justifiable position on first acquaintance with something different. However, it becomes unjustifiable when the object of that scepticism is not then examined in great detail, in practice, in real life. No resolution can be obtained by theorising and writing sceptical articles from the comfort of the computer seat.

Beware ‘The King's New Clothes'.

The words ‘science' and ‘scientific' are used in such a way as to prevent the listener or reader questioning the material. Do you remember the boy who hadn't been told about the King's New Clothes? Whenever the words are used to support an assertion or a commercial interest, take a really objective look and you might see the real ‘King' behind the illusion.

The AVMC is unable to support animal experimentation (vivisection) under its many euphemisms:
animal procedures – laboratory animal procedures – animal tests – animal testing – animal experiments – laboratory animal experiments – laboratory animal experimentation.

We are also unable to support much of the biotechnology of today, in the shape of: GM – GMO – genetic modification – xenotransplants – xenotransplantation – cloning – hybridisation – human-animal hybrids