This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for

the

BSc (Honours) degree in Agriculture

of the

Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester.

Is there a Role for Homoeopathy

in the Treatment of the Farm Animal?

M. Christine Lees.

June 2000

Supervisor. Mr Paul Murray. 5th June 2000.

Declaration of authors rights.

The copyright of this dissertation belongs to the author under the terms of the

United Kingdom Copyright Act. Due acknowledgement must always be made of

the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this dissertation.

I declare that the dissertation embodies the results of my own research or advanced

studies and that it has been compiled by me. Where appropriate, I have made

acknowledgements to the work of others.

M.Christine Lees. 5, June 2000

i

SUMMARY

This paper concentrates on the possible role for homoeopathy in the treatment of the

farm animal. It does not seek to suggest homoeopathy is a panacea. Using a form

of participatory research methodology the paper discusses why homoeopathy has

not been accepted in the mainstream of modern medicine. In observing the

difficulty of the evaluation of homoeopathy, and the concerns of many scientists

about the limitations presented by the modern scientific view, the paper looks at

homoeopathy within its own ontology, as well as within those of molecular science,

and finds increasing evidence of homoeopathic principles being supported by

contemporary research in modern science. It discusses the antagonism of the

veterinary profession to the use of homoeopathy, makes a survey of some of the

trials that have been published, and looks at the advances made in the homoeopathic

treatment of people.

The study finds that farmers are using homoeopathy, some successfully, but do not

have easy access to qualified help. An assessment is made of the factors influencing

attitudes to the use of homoeopathy on the farm in the light of current changes in the

perception of farming today, and of the opportunities these present for

homoeopathic treatment.

The study finds that to be of value, homoeopathy needs to be prescribed within its

own principles and that its success lies in the skill of the practitioner, who needs

experience and commitment.

The investigation concludes that there is an increasing role for the homoeopathic

treatment of the farm animal as a management tool for efficient farming, and

highlights the need for investigation of the use and efficacy of homoeopathic

remedies to be made, on the farm, in a concerted move between agricultural

ii

institutions, organisations and practitioners, in conjunction with the farmers

themselves.

CONTENTS

1.0. FOREWORD......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 3

3.0. ONTOLOGY......................................................................................................................... 5

4.0. EPISTEMOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 11

4.1. THE RESERVATIONS SCIENTISTS HAVE ABOUT SCIENCE.........................................................11

4.2. A PAUSE FOR REFLECTION ALONG THE JOURNEY..................................................................15

4.3. THE RESERVATIONS SCIENCE HAS ABOUT HOMOEOPATHY....................................................16

4.4. HOMOEOPATHY.................................................................................................................. 18

4.5. THE RECENT GROWTH OF HOMOEOPATHY...........................................................................23

4.6. HOMOEOPATHY AND MODERN SCIENCE...............................................................................26

4.7. TAKING STOCK OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED................................................................32

4.8. HOMOEOPATHY AND VETERINARY SCIENCE.........................................................................33

4.9. HOMOEOPATHY AND RESEARCH..........................................................................................39

4.10. THOUGHTS ON WHY THERE IS SO LITTLE HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT OF FARM ANIMALS.. 48

4.11. A RECAPITULATION.......................................................................................................... 52

4.12. HOMOEOPATHY AND THE FARM........................................................................................53

4.12.1. The changes in farming............................................................................................53

4.12.2. Homoeopathy and the farmer....................................................................................55

4.12.3.Disease and the farm animal......................................................................................60

4.12.4 Standing in the Farm Yard.........................................................................................61

4.13. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE USE OF HOMOEOPATHY IN THE TREATMENT

OF THE FARM ANIMAL................................................................................................................ 61

4.13.1. Organic farming......................................................................................................62

4.13.2. Concerns about antibiotics......................................................................................62

4.13.3. The public perception of food production.................................................................64

4.13.4. The changes within the veterinary profession...........................................................65

4.14. THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HOMOEOPATHIC TREATMENT.........................66

4.14.1 Advantages............................................................................................................... 66

4.14.2. Disadvantages......................................................................................................... 67

4.15. WHAT INFORMATION IS THERE TO HELP THE FARMER?......................................................68

iii

5.0. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS................................................................................................70

6.0. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 72

7.0. RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................74

7.1. TO INCREASE THE UNDERSTANDING OF VETERINARY HOMOEOPATHY...................................74

7.2. TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF EXPERT ADVICE AND SUPPORT TO THE FARMER............75

8.0. FOOTNOTE........................................................................................................................ 78

9.0. BIBLIOGRAPY................................................................................................................... 82

10.0. OTHER REFERENCES................................................................................................97

iv

1.0. FOREWORD

In choosing to address the question of using homoeopathy in the treatment of the

farm animal I unwittingly stepped into a battlefield. I took part in a skirmish of

what is becoming known as the “paradigm wars” (Whitehead 2000). It took me five

months to realise this.

As a student of a science based degree I was expected, and wished, to write a

concise, well reasoned scientifically based assessment, probably concentrating on

the treatment of a single disease, preferably of the dairy cow, which would be well

researched and offer valid conclusions. I soon realised this was not possible. It was

obvious that, for the majority, any evidence that homoeopathic treatment worked

would be dismissed as anecdotal or empirical; not sound. There is no more

damming phrase from the British establishment than that of not being sound

To work very hard for six months on a dissertation which would be dismissed as

based on false evidence was unacceptable to me. I might have chosen another topic,

but for a chance comment that an investigation into homoeopathy, particularly in

running a workshop on its use was very brave. The word “brave” ran round my

head and gave me resolve, not so much to prove that homoeopathy could profitably

be used for the farm animal, but rather to find out why there could possibly be such

antagonism.

This dissertation, therefore, is not a collection of evidence, as would be appropriate.

It is the story of my own search for a truth. Instead of beginning, where I would

have preferred, in the farmyard, I was forced to begin with the roots of modern

medicine and modern scientific thought.

Thus the methodology of the work is not the clear structure that I had hoped for, as

there is no clear evidence to produce. I was forced to go back through science to

philosophy and the ancient Greeks, about whom I knew very little. I began to

1

participate in a debate as old as the hills around Athens, which is being played out

again, today, in the 21st Century.

Heraclitus’ understanding of the world as a “becoming”. Plato’s concept of the

whole. Aristotle’s concept of exclusion by deduction (Skolimowski 1994). The

western: if its black it can’t be white, the eastern: there must be white in order for

there to be black, as one evolves from the other. Western Civilisation (pushed along

by Descartes and Popper) chose Aristotle’s road, and the other, well known to the

East, has been eschewed and even vilified. I was to discover that even the value of

participation (Plato and Socrates) against detachment (Aristotle) is being replayed

by proponents of action or participatory research rather than scientific method. By

finding my way into the heart of this battle, by not being prepared to stand apart,

using a form of participatory research, I found I had to go back, rather than

forwards, to make any sense of the conflict.

This dissertation is, therefore, the narrative of my own learning, of my own quest to

make some sense of all the conundrums and dichotomies I found inherent in the

study of agriculture.

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - -

I took the one less travelled by

And that has made all the difference.”

Robert Frost. The Road Not Taken.

It has proved a fascinating road. The first part describes the road, which was very

unfamiliar to me, and so, for others equally unfamiliar with its terrain, I pause

occasionally for recapitulation. The reader more familiar with the journey can skip

through these places. The second part looks at homoeopathy in the light of those

findings. The last part draws conclusions and offers recommendations for the

farmers and practitioners who have also set their faces to “the road less travelled by”

2

2.0. INTRODUCTION

When trying to address this question “Is there a role for homoeopathy in the

treatment of farm animals” my first concern was not to try and justify it in the terms

of conventional science. It seemed unlikely that I could succeed where very

eminent scientists had failed, or perhaps succeeded, depending on what they set out

to prove.

As homoeopathy is a treatment of the whole being, applying the principles of a

mechanistic science does not seem appropriate. How, otherwise, to find my way

into the heart of the discussion? I seemed to be walking around the outside all the

time collecting a huge amount of information but unable to understand how to use

it.. At this point I took my problem to my personal tutor, Dr John Conway, who,

rather than crush my emerging ideas back into the confines of his science, evaluated

them, recognised them to be contrary to, and out of step with, his own sciences, and

took appropriate action. “You are talking” he said “to someone who does not know

which end of a cow gets mastitis, but I have the feeling that what you may need to

be doing is something called action research. This is not a field I understand but I

think you should perhaps go and see Paul Murray”. “Be warned” he added, “this is

not an easy option”, and he was right. But it has proved to be a very rewarding

option, and I am very grateful to him.

However, it moved me from the firm world of fact, to the insecure disciplines of

psychology and the social sciences. Here, not a place I would chose to be, I have

read authors whose work is quite new, and in many cases, quite beyond me. But,

what I found, was ideas to reconcile many of the contradictions that have made the

study of agriculture, at the end of the twentieth century, such a mystery to me.

It has been a great relief to find, in the mind of the tutor to whom Dr. Conway

passed (perhaps with some relief) this apparently controversial topic, an enthusiastic

sounding board for ideas. A mind which will not only hear but listen (the Chinese

always use both words, ting jien, in the assumption one without the other has no

3

meaning) to what I am trying to say, will challenge without refuting and discuss

without belittling and guide without dictating. As Professor Colin Spedding

explains, because one is ignorant about a subject it does not mean one is stupid. The

Chinese have a neat phrase for this too, he who asks a question appears a fool for

five minutes, he who does not, remains a fool for the rest of his life.

In the writings of Harman, Phillips, Kuhn, Skolimowski and others I have found

thoughts that have unblocked the path and allowed me to move forward, making

more sense of what I have observed.

I began to take a journey. It was as if one were walking in conversation with these

minds. But in exploring a little of the post-positive path I quickly realised that the

authors whose hand I was holding were leading me into the study of sociology, and

that this was not the path to follow. Its exploration, however, offered some very

exciting ideas. Armed with those new concepts I was able to return to modern

science and, via the veterinary sciences, to the farm. But without them I would not

have been able to make sense of the subject because I would have been asking the

wrong questions, and ignoring the evidence available me.

4

3.0. ONTOLOGY

This paper concentrates on the possible role for homoeopathy in the treatment of the

farm animal. It does not seek to suggest homoeopathy is a panacea, a magic bullet,

or a “substitute for good management” (Brough. 2000). The agricultural industry

today, at the beginning of the 21st Century, is very different from that which Dr

Christopher Scofield worked in 1984 when he published a similar paper. It therefore

seemed valid to revisit the question, and move the discussion on. These are

interesting times for farming. To live in interesting times is a Chinese curse.

The exploration has led me into a rabbit warren of interrelated subjects.

Appropriate, when the word multifunctionality is entering the language of farming

legislation and directive (Pretty 2000). The discipline in returning to the centre of

the labyrinth has been enormous. It has been commented upon “Christine’s

tendency to run down rabbit holes” (Lane 1995). Undoubtedly one must keep ones

eye on the ball. I think I have. Indeed I would suggest that as homoeopathy is itself

a totality, and a totality is intrinsically the sum of everything, to have taken a narrow

approach would be to deny the principles on which homoeopathy is based.

Therefore I am comfortable about the rabbit holes.

As a mature student one stands a little apart and observes. Where the younger

student embraces the new, the older can recall precedents and question assumptions.

One has a long memory of education. What was once taught as fact is now seen as

laughable. What was once ridiculed is now embraced in legislation

As a student of agriculture in a time of farming crisis, one is well aware of the

strains and constraints put upon the profession. On the one hand, increasing costs,

regulations, forms and red tape, on the other, decreasing prices, profits and returns.

One has observed the industrialisation of farming and the application of

management theory applied to an industry without the power to control most of its

externalities and therefore it’s risk. One has been taught the principles and practice

of modern scientific farming, and at the same time watched the demise and

5

disintegration of farming and farmers all over Britain. One has been taught that

modern farming is based on “good science” and the only arguments for organic

farming are “emotional” (Fell 1999. Lecture at RAC), while observing increased

anxieties about pollution, environmental loss, soil erosion, reduced yields, reduced

incomes and increased costs, and that at the same time organic farming expands and

is profitable.

The theme of sound science, good science, scientific principles and the general

assumption that science knows best began to fascinate me. It was like being a child

again. Science knows best, and will brook no contradiction. I could hear the voice

of lofty adults, “be told child!” The evidence of any discipline or philosophy

contrary to accepted scientific thought being immediately swept away because it did

not conform was surprising. For a discipline, whose proper role it is to answer the

questions society asks of it, simply to state that a phenomena does not exist because

it does not fit into the theories of accepted science seemed remarkable. Was not

science created to enquire into all the things we did not understand, beginning with

why we could not produce a reliable calendar? When men of learning realised the

earth went round the sun rather than being itself the centre of the universe, things

fell into place and a calendar was constructed. Surely it is the job of science to

investigate the unexplainable?

In his book “When Corporations Rule The World” David Korten says he was

nagged by the same sorts of questions: “Are things really as bad as they seem to

me? Why don’t others seem to see it? Am I stupid? Am I being intentionally

misinformed?”

As an itinerant one has absorbed, if not always subscribed to, cultures not based on

the Western concept of logic, reductionism and atomisation. Whole medicine

systems are built on a different perception of disease. Whole nations holding a

different philosophy of life.

6

As a student of homoeopathy brought up in conventional medicine one is aware of

the conflict of concepts. One is also aware of a basic contradiction, that

homoeopathy has always been enshrined in the National Health System but not

accepted by the official bodies of veterinary science.

It is from this standpoint that I have approached my subject. From a dichotomy, a

sense of total contradiction. As a student hoping to achieve a Bachelor of Science

degree, but seeing all the time the contradictions and the limitations, as well as the

immense achievements of applied science in our modern life.

I have chosen to take “the road less travelled by” (Frost). I have chosen to suggest

that there are options to the path of modern science. This path could have any name,

I have simply chosen homoeopathy because, in the words of Martin Heidigger, it is

where I could find a fire break, a place to hold my ground. From the standpoint of

homoeopathy I could explore the paths. Already knowing that those paths,

conventional medicine and homoeopathy, diverged before the time of Christ.

As conventional, mechanistic, rational objective science is able to measure and see

today things it could not see or measure yesterday, as scientists shift their base a

little and see today what they felt was non-existent yesterday, as unconventional

science finds other paradigms, or windows, into the world, many of those things

previously known but unproovable are being found to have validity.

As children we laughed when Bottom greeted Cobweb… “I shall desire of you more

acquaintance good Master Cobweb. If I cut my finger I shall make bold with you…

I will keep you beside me lest I cut my finger” (A Midsummer Nights Dream. Act 3

Scene 2.) Now we know that cobwebs hold an antiseptic property. The

Elizabethans knew cobwebs healed, but they did not know why.

It is nonsense to assume that because it is not possible to understand how something

happens, it does not in fact happen (Spedding.2000). It was originally known that

only gentlemen were able to reason well enough to decide whether an experiment

7

proved the hypothesis to be a “matter of fact”. Some, on reading my paper, may

well still be of that opinion!

As I have no pretensions to veterinary expertise, and wish this paper to be easily

read by lay person, farmer, student of agriculture, the man on the Clapham omnibus,

how best to present material and how best to evaluate that information?

Reading through the literature and some of the acid correspondence on the subject

of homoeopathy in the Veterinary Record one is quickly aware of a conflict. Strong

opinions and arguments from informed sources. What voice could I offer in this

already entrenched debate about the efficacy of homoeopathy? If respected

members of the veterinary professional were unable to agree, where could I find a

basis for observation? It seemed important to explore the conflict rather than enter

it.

To find out if there is a role for homoeopathy in the treatment of farm animals, one

must contextualise all the parts of the premise. It is necessary to examine

homoeopathy itself, and its place in medicine, and the reservation science has about

homoeopathy and the reservations scientists have about science. These form the

first parts of the paper. In them I explore the expansion of the understanding of

science itself, and find a considerable body of thought out of sympathy with the

main stream of mechanistic science. Then I explore the understanding of

homoeopathy, through the eyes of a homoeopath. After this I move to the conflict

between homoeopathy, modern medicine and modern scientific thought, and finally

find the areas of convergence.

Then I look at the treatment of the farm animal and the other things which happen to

it, and why these things happen and with what effect and for whom?

As, in most of these fields, I have a very superficial knowledge base, it is only

possible to observe and report, as an outsider, with the curious, detached eye of a

stranger, or better still, the wondering eye of a child. So I would like to offer these

findings with a child-like eye, of one who can see what is happening but is not able

8

to understand. With the eye of one unable to reconcile the demands of agri-business

with the requirements of farming. As one who has spent three years studying the

principles and practice of agriculture, and observed those principles, and that

practice, create cheaper and cheaper food, which is valued so little that it’s

producers, human and animal and soil, are exploited as if they were an ore body,

and then abandoned for cheaper areas of production.

There is a general feeling within the public unconscious that there is something not

quite right with the way our scientists, governments and businesses are moving.

This ground swell, erupting, rightly or wrongly, to the catalyst of transgenic crops,

would describe my own position.

The study of society, the environment and the soil have all found that a study of the

component parts is not sufficient to understand the whole. They all move us away

from the mechanistic (what I was to learn is the Descartean) world, and into a

natural world, where everything is interconnected and nothing exists for no reason

although we may not yet understand that reason. They are all concerned with the

study of the whole. Even physics, that most predictable and replicable of sciences,

has found a new standpoint, from which particles can be measured only in relation

to other particles.

It is my fundamental belief that there is never one shining path. In offering the

child’s eye, I am also offering the eye of the outsider, the disinterested, the

mediator. Simple, naïve or childlike, however one judges it, perhaps as in the kings

new clothes, that eye can often see into the heart of the matter. In this journey,

which involved the exploration of the ontology of the social sciences, I found a

paper which discussed the problem of the validity of action or participatory research

and the problems of communicating their findings to groups who hold widely

differing assumptions about the nature and significance of what is being done.

9

This is precisely the problem faced by homoeopathy, explaining the validity of

homoeopathic research done within the ontology of homoeopathy, to others with

differing ontologies.

The analogy used by Southgate (1981) is that of “The Troubled Fish”. Using a

concept called “problematizing” he describes barriers to dialogue created where

people approach a situation in such different ways they are unable to conceive any

other. The fish is unable to understand the concept of wetness since it has no idea of

what it means to be dry.

There are four different ways of approaching information.

A. Subjectivist (each is right within his own light, in his inner self).

B. Eclectic-pluralist (find out all the facts and what is common ground, and then

debate)

C. Dialectic-organic (there is no common ground as the aim is different it is not

possible to communicate sensibly)

D. Causal-determinist (there is some simple causal reason for your dilemma. Lets

find out what it is.)

It is common to use different positions in solving different problems, and to shift

between the stances. He found that by explaining these positions before presenting

his findings, the audience was better able to understand their own reaction and

realise the judgements they were making. This opened the dialogue and took the

heat out of the debate.

I would like to think I am putting myself in the position of D for the purposes of this

debate. I would like to present the fact of a differing ontology being possible and

the discussion within the epistemology of that different paradigm. In Southgate’s

illustration the debate (whether to knock down or preserve a house) is answered by

D who goes back to the owner of the house and finds he has given the demolition

contractor the wrong address, so the discussion is really about the wrong question. I

would like to suggest that the debate about the use of homoeopathy is actually

10

asking the wrong questions. But before that I had to find out whether the

methodology of modern science would allow us to ask the right question at all.

11

4.0. EPISTEMOLOGY.

4.1. The reservations scientists have about science

Skolimowsky in his book “The Participatory Mind” sees modern scientific thought

as a form of yoga, a moulding of the mind to become the servant of science. “In the

scientific world view the mind has become a hostage to a selective vision of reality.

The yoga of objectivity is a very gentle form of lobotomy”. He is very damning of

the “objective” attitude of scientific method which he sees as limiting the perception

of the world to what is assumed to be there and attempting to deny what sciences

assumptions deny. But how has this come about? Why should minds, which set out

to be open, appear to become closed? Here indeed was a rabbit hole, and in it I

found many writers needing the same information, for the same reason, to make

sense of where our world is going. Here was a starting point to “the road less

travelled by”. (Frost.)

Scientific thinking was an escape from the oppression of religious orthodoxy. It

was a vehicle of liberation and freedom. The Copernican Revolution centred on a

basic change in the prevailing concept of reality (Korten 1995). Korten quotes the

historian Edward McNall Burns as saying “No longer need the philosopher pay

homage to revelation as a source of truth; reason was now held to be the solitary

fount of knowledge”. Only those things which are measured are suitable subjects for

scientific study and acceptable as causal explanations. This immediately creates

problems in the validation of homoeopathy, dealing as it does in solutions too dilute

to retain molecules of the original substance, and not classifying or treating

pathogens as the cause of disease.

Richard Pitcairn DVM, an American vet speaks for many homoeopaths, medical,

lay and veterinary when he sees allopathy (modern medicine) as a belief system

(Pitcairn 2000). The same theme is followed by Willis Harman (1995) who

describes the materialist bias of the central myth. He suggests that modern society,

by accepting western science as the only official knowledge validating institution

12

has been led to a critical juncture where “modern science and technology are

contributing to a society whose long term sustainability is in doubt; yet their

prestige and demonstrated power are such that they can hardly be merely

repudiated.” He wonders how enquiry in the scientific spirit can be modified to

“more completely serve the highest needs of humanity” and he sees Western science

as being at an unrecognised crisis. Here too is a concept of a belief system. He

suggests that “a rapidly widening group of individuals are finding the “central

myth” to be fundamentally in error and seriously misleading”. He concludes, “there

is no task more crucial than reassessing the modern form of enquiry”

I was beginning to understand what post-positivism meant. A challenge to the

certainties of science.

The biologist Rupert Sheldrake has made a study of scientific method, the prejudice

of scientists, their reluctance to look at certain phenomena or to use double blinds in

most research. He too finds that the expectations of the researcher influence the

outcome of the experiment. He is not alone. “The conventional view is that

scientific knowledge and method enthusiastically embrace uncertainties and

exhaustively pursue them, this is seriously misleading” (Wynne, 1992). Michael

Stocking (1993) found research done by different people in the same place and into

the same problem (soil erosion in a valley in Sri Lanka) offered a variation of some

8000 fold. Stockton remarks “the researchers were not lying; they were merely

selective”.

There is seen to be a danger of career scientists who are more interested in proving a

theory than formulating one, usually because someone is paying good money to

have the idea or product proved. Science has been seriously hi-jacked since the

days of true science when all scientists were philosophers (Conway 2000)

The problem with the positivist paradigm is that its absolutist approach appears to

exclude other possibilities. Positivist science want ways of predicting and

controlling nature and so a good scientific theory simply gives better control and

13

prediction (Pretty 1995). Pretty observes that investigation with a high degree of

control over the system has become equated with good science and such science is

equated with true knowledge. Norwegian Philosopher Arne Neuss sees this

“monolithic soul shrinking jargon” amongst creative scientists and ponders

“Increase in uniformity is cheered as if it were a reliable indicator of truth content,

neglecting the possibility that it is the urge to conform which is in operation”

Positivism is just one of many ways of describing the world and what is needed are

pluralist ways of thinking about the world and acting to change it. (Pretty 1995). A

more realistic way of thinking about science is as a human tool and not because it is

in touch with some absolute reality. This simply means that there are no longer any

absolute authoritative foundations on which scientific knowledge is based. (Phillips

1990). “…many of our beliefs are warranted by rather weighty bodies of evidence

and argument, and so we are justified in holding them; but they are not absolutely

unchallengable.” Phillips sees it as time to add to, or even let go of, the old

paradigm of positivism for science so that it is no longer seen as the sole type of

enquiry

Reinharz (1981) sees the conflict between research paradigms as not merely

theoretical but political, and that changes in paradigms do not happen rapidly.

However, when they, the ideas, change, people are changed as well. The gulf

between science and religion, the conflict even, has separated scientists from any

responsibility for moral judgement and, in the opinion of Rupert Sheldrake and

many others this is where scientists need to be become involved, to participate.

Skolimowsky (1984) suggests that what he calls the “yoga of participation” is

generally at work when scientists produce their best work. Winning the Nobel Prize

in 1983 Barbara McClintock acknowledged this. “I found the more I worked with

them the bigger and bigger the chromosomes got…. I was part of the system…. As

you look at these things they become a part of you” (Keller 1983).

14

Maslow (1981) discusses the contrast between the masculine and feminine

approaches to research, the objective and the subjective, the rigorous and the free

floating collection of information and the schism between science and religion. In

advocating that “ the best scientists” are those who are able to integrate all these

facets, Sheldrake describes Descartes (who’s ideas came from a “vision” of a

mechanistic world acting in accordance with a set of mathematical rules) as having

withdrawn the soul out of the whole of nature.

This feeling for a subject, an empathy, is termed by Keller (1985) as the “femininist

epistemology”, which Skolimowsk feels is already “articulated by the methodology

of participation.” From his own experience as biologist Dr Rupert Sheldrake has

moved towards the same opinion, reductionist science is not able to help us

understand the living world because the interaction of everything has to be taken

into account. He suggests that the holistic scientist may well work better with a

notebook, pencil and a pair of binoculars (Sheldrake 2000).

It is clearly time to let go of some of the old paradigm of positivism for science and

embrace the new alternatives. (Pretty 1995). It is natural that many scientists are

resistant to approaches which challenge the orthodoxy that has helped them to

achieve their present position (MacRae 1989). New paradigms inevitably involve

some destruction of the old (Kuhn 1962).

“When a distinguished elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost

certainly right. When he states something is impossible he is most probably wrong”

(Clarke 1973).

Pretty feels that where a single view prevails (which in reductionist science is

generally the scientific view) it is not because it is more correct but because of the

power and personality of the actors promoting that idea. Many institutions become

locked into an unproductive cycle of “information manipulation” (Argyris 1978)

which restricts the understanding of new ideas. To break through this cycle the way

research is handled managed and implemented needs to be revised. Pretty sees the

15

positivist approach to research as hindering progress in his own field of regenerative

agriculture. He sees a need for farmer and investigator participation, for more

research to be done on the farm rather than in the laboratory which would involve

participatory methods.

With participation comes ownership, and with ownership comes responsibility and

with that, ethics (Wibberley 2000). At this point I could stop. I had begun to

understand the concepts of post positivism and participatory research

4.2. A pause for reflection along the journey.

So here, well along the path I would not have chosen, and certainly the road not

taken by modern science, I had found where I needed to be. Backed with the

confidence of a whole movement, a new type of men in white coats (Haraway

1991), all with a common theme. That modern science cannot answer all the

questions we need to ask.

It became possible to hold the contradictions in what one was being told and what

one observed. For me, on the one hand having seen and felt homoeopathy work

and on the other being told it couldn’t and it didn’t. On the one hand being taught

that agriculture is an industry and must be approached as such and on the other

seeing that farmers, implementing these principles, are facing ruin. On the one hand

observing that more and more inputs are needed to maintain health and yield of

plant and animal, and on the other that losses to disease and pests and weeds are

increasing steadily (Shiva 1991). Here, well along a road taking me away from the

farmyard, I had finally found the ontology of the firebreak. A whole school of

thought which allows discussion and thought and flexibility and integration of the

whole, as a science of its own.

No longer to “be told child” but rather, as Maslow (1981) pleads “It is this empirical

attitude which I claim can and should be taught to all human beings, including

16

young children. Look for yourself! see how it works! is that claim correct? how

correct?”

These telling indictments of science today added a spice to my research. However,

if one strays from the accepted path one runs the risk of taking the wrong one quite

often. It needs courage to hold the contrary view and I have a huge admiration for

those who have followed their convictions in the face of great hostility, and have

managed to maintain an open mind in doing so. The meandering mischievous

minds like Neuss, who plays with ideas for the stimulation of exploring thought,

asking the question “is it painful to think? (Rothenburg 1993). Yes, of course it is,

and it may be dangerous. But we certainly need those thinkers if we are not to run

so far along a road that we pass the fork we should have taken.

4.3. The reservations science has about homoeopathy

Homoeopathy runs contrary to the accepted tenets of modern scientific thought.

(Scofield 1984)

The treatment of disease is considered a hard science, the study of facts, of

molecules and cells. Hard science is seen to have a superior position to soft science,

ecology, sociology etc. (Pretty 1995). As disease is seen as the study of pathogens,

hard science is always seen as the appropriate discipline for investigation of

anything involved in the treatment of the sick. Homoeopathy is immediately in

conflict with this premise. Treating the whole person to maintain or regain health, it

does not deal with causative agents or pathogens. It works according to its own

laws. It uses dilutions beyond those molecular science understands as containing

any trace of the original material, and, treating the individual rather than the disease,

is difficult to replicate, as there is no single remedy for named illnesses (Bellavite

1995 Scofield 1984). Should sufficient evidence accumulate to suggest that

homoeopathy is effective then ones views, not only of disease but also of the nature

of man, may have to be radically reviewed. (Scofield. 1984). Modern medicine

17

looks to find a causative agent, the pathogen, and eliminate it. Pasteur was certain

this was the wrong road to follow. “the pathogen is nothing, the terrain is

everything” (Learmont 1998) but he was not heeded.

If therefore, modern medicine works to eliminate a pathogen and homoeopathy to

augment the healing powers of the body, one meets, very early, a conundrum. The

fundamental questions are different. The fundamental concepts are different,

therefore, should one attempt to explain and prove homoeopathy within the terms of

modern science, or should one stand very firm and examine it within the terms of its

own philosophy? And if the latter, why is it not possible to include homoeopathy in

the former, which is generally accepted to be the rational and detached

representative of modern thought? We have asked questions about detached and

objective science, and found the plaintive guilty. We have asked if modern science

is the only valid view of our world? and found many scientists would say it is not.

Science as we know it today cannot provide all the answers, nor does it ask all the

necessary questions. So is it valid to look at one paradigm through the prism of

another, or should one look at homoeopathy within the context of its own ontology?

If the laws of homoeopathy are not applied in the choice of a remedy, the remedy,

no matter how prepared, is not homoeopathic. Thus cutting an onion will cause

tears, itching smarting eyes, perhaps running nose, but so will many other things.

Allium Sepia, a remedy made from onion, will remove those symptoms if given to a

person with a cold which fits those symptoms, but not if the symptoms also include

shivering, muscular aches etc. (Adams 2000)

In conventional medicine the same principles apply. An illness caused by bacteria

can be cured by antibiotics. An illness caused by a virus (the common cold) cannot.

(Aukland 2000).

European Union and the European Council are interested in the “phenomenon

homoeopathy” and have asked the question, “is homoeopathy researchable?” After

18 months the answer had been “yes”. After further investigation the group

18

reported (in 1998) “The general quality of clinical publications is acceptable and we

would conclude that a specific remedy action, over the placebo effect, can be

scientifically expected”. Today a sound hypothesis can be drawn up about the

working mechanisms of homoeopathic dilutions. (Ullman 1999)

With changes happening within science itself and advances in the study of systems,

and of the whole, (the environment, sustainable agricultural and more recently soil

microbiology and ecology, (Wood 1995)) some recognition is now given to other

methods of evaluation. Pretty (1995) refers to them and has used them to evaluate

regenerative agriculture. He observes that it is the investigators using the

participatory method who are asked to prove the utility of their approach, not the

conventional investigator. The scientific principle is accepted as the only measure

of validity, which inhibits progress. Twelve points for “trustworthiness criteria”

have been established. (Pretty 1994.) Pretty suggests that these can be used to

judge validity in participatory research, just as statistical analysis does for positivist

or conventional research.

4.4. Homoeopathy

Homoeopathy is a distinctly singular phenomenon in the history of medicine.

(Bellavite 1995)

Homoeopathic medicine is a clinico-pharmaceutica system, which uses microdoses

of substances from plants, minerals or animals for the purpose of stimulating the

natural healing response. (Vitoulkas 1980)

For the clearest explanations of homoeopathic principles I will refer extensively to

Bellevite and Signorini’s book, “Homoeopathy, a Frontier in Medical Science”

(1995) in which the authors, a professor in pathology, and a homoeopathic

physician, make a comprehensive review of the science behind homoeopathic

practice. They draw on the works of leading homoeopathic practitioners like Kent

19

and Coulter, Vithoulkas and Ullman, Blackie and Gibson. However, as the subject

of this section is simply to offer a bird’s eye view of the philosophy behind

homoeopathy it would not seem appropriate to explore and cite all the authors in my

discussion. The subject of this paper is to explore why there could be a role for

homoeopathy in the treatment of production animals rather than to produce a

learned paper of exploration into the science of homoeopathy.

The basic principle of homoeopathy is that like cures like. It was observed in India

four thousand years ago. The ancient Indian poet Kavi-Kalidasa records “It has been

said in old time in the world that poison is the remedy for poison” (Vithoulkas

1991). Later, around 400BC Hypocrites, who believed it impossible to treat illness

without treating the whole, (Gutman 1979) noted that there were two ways to heal,

by contraries, and by similars. Hypocrites also observed that while the contrary

method aimed to suppress a causative agent, the similar method stimulated the

body’s ability to heal itself. (Gutman 1979).

The concept of like curing like was re-discovered in Germany in the eighteenth

century when a German physician and chemist, as a result of taking quinine when

well, realised that it has caused him to present all the symptoms of malaria, the

disease it would be used to treat. He found this phenomenon could be shown again

and again, (replicable) and called it the “Law of Similars”. (Kent 1912, Sankaran

1991, Day 1995 et al)

Hahnemann proposed that

a) Every substance produces characteristic symptoms in healthy bodies which are

susceptible to be in some way perturbed by that substance.

b) Every sick body expresses a series of characteristic symptoms which are typical

of the pathological alteration of that particular subject.

c) The healing of a sick body, characterised by the processive disappearance of all

symptoms, may be obtained by targeted administration of the drug which produces a

similar symptom picture in healthy bodies.” (Bellevite 1995.)

20

Which dovetails very nicely with Newton’s third law, which states that every action

has a re-action equal and opposite

A simple example would be the use of belladonna. The name comes from the

Italian, “beautiful woman”. There was a time in Italy when belladonna was used by

fashionable beauties to enlarge their pupils, to add to their attraction. A

homoeopath, treating a patient whose pupils were dilated would note the symptom

and consider belladonna as a possible remedy. The choice and administration of

the “similar” is very well researched. During Hanneman’s time, and since then,

extensive research has been done by homoeopaths in “proving” remedies on the

healthy, and documenting their effect on the sick. Meticulous recording and cross-

referencing has produced a huge number of books for the homoeopath to use when

deciding on his prescription. These are called repertories, in which the symptom

can be looked up, and Materia Medica, in which the remedy picture can be found.

To the homoeopath the cause of the disease is not the primary consideration, the

important point is the disease process, how that patient is reacting to that disease

(Bellavite 1995)

The fundamental principle of homoeopathy is “similia similibus curentur.” The

homoeopath applies this principle scientifically and systematically using carefully

tested medicines called remedies. (Vithoulkas 1991). The Law of Similars is the

basis of homoeopathic treatment.

In the course of his trials Hahnemann observed the following phenomena (all

recorded in a mighty work called the “Organon” the seminal text of homoeopathic

practice.)

a) If a patient needed a remedy (if there was a match within the frame work of the

law of similars) he or she would tend to be very sensitive to the remedy itself. Thus

the doses necessary….to obtain a positive reaction, were much lower than those

needed to cause symptoms in healthy subjects.

21

b) On the strength of these observations he began to dilute the remedies in order to

find curative doses that did not produce unwanted side effects. Experience led him

to note an increase in the curative potency on reducing the dose, i.e. on increasing

the dilutions.

c) The early dilution procedures also included the process of succussion……for a

wholly practical purpose, consisting of homogeneousness of the diluted product;

only later was it observed that this procedure was necessary to increase the effect of

the dilutions. For this reason the progressive dilutions were also called potencies

and the dilution and succussion process was called potentization. ( Bellevite 1995).

It is this principle of dilution, and its apparent contradiction of Avagadro’s law (at

dilutions beyond 1024 no molecule of the original substance can remain) that modern

science contests (Bellavite 1991).

Hahnemann was very precise and explicit in his reasoning throughout the Organon.

He made many statements that were critical of the medical profession of his day,

and he was very sure that he was right. His assertion was that “The physicians

highest and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed” and

he believed that every illness was a manifestation of an alteration of the vital force,

which originated in the invisible interior of the organism (Bellavite 1995)

Modern medicine is unable to accept Hahnemann’s assumption of either extreme

dilution or a vital force the inner power of the body to heal itself. Ancient

physicians called this force “Vis Medictarix Naturae”, the healing power of nature

(Sankaran 1991). Modern science makes no claim to accept a vital force, indeed

until recently would deny it. However, the concept of an innate vitality, (Balfour

1975) life force and a homoeostasis, an energy to return to normal is generally

accepted by soil scientists and ecologists, as they observe “systems” rather than the

parts in isolation. (Wood 1995). The homoeopath looks to return the sick to health

by augmenting the body’s own natural efforts (vitality) to find homoeostasis.

(Castro1990) Some veterinary surgeons like Peter Merson of MDC (Milk

Development Council) see “a certain logic” in this approach.

22

Where there is a maintaining cause, poor sanitation, malnutrition, poor management

etc., homoeopathy insists that the first step to health is removal of that maintaining

cause. Treatment while the maintaining cause is present is seen as palliative

(Bellavite 1995). Modern medicine sees the cause of disease as a pathogen, a bug.

Modern medicine attacks the bug. Where it cannot find a bug it suppresses

symptoms, as in anti-inflammatories, anti histamines and anti-depressants (Ullman

1991). Recently there has been more concentration, especially amongst veterinary

surgeons on the avocation of good management, (not previously seen as their

domain) rather than routine antibiotic treatment (Blowey 1996)). Homoeopathy

looks beyond and under those symptoms. It sees symptoms as the expression of

disease rather than being the disease itself (Kent 1911).

As well as researching documenting and practising homoeopathy Hahnemann wrote

prolifically, which has left the science of homoeopathy with a wealth of information

and reference. Others have built on his work, notably Herring, a pupil to a surgeon

tasked with writing a refutal of homoeopathy. In investigating Hahnemann’s work,

Herring found that, on the contrary, the ideas appealed to him, and he became a

major figure in the practice of homoeopathy. He described the Law of Cure. “The

remedy works from within out, from above downwards and in the reverse order of

the occurrence of the symptoms. (This never happens except under the action of the

curative remedy)” (Day 1995)

In homoeopathy there are two basic approaches to treatment. The choice can either

be similar i.e. homoeopathic, or exactly the same, isopathy, where a dilution of the

infectious substance is prepared by dilution and succussion, and prescribed for the

same infectious disease, often prophylactically (preventatively). When these

infectious or pathological agents come from the patient himself this process is pure

isopathy. When they come from another source the remedy is called a nosode. This

difference between isopathy and homoeopathy causes some confusion, not only

amongst non-homoeopaths. The validity of prophylactic work e.g. for mastitis, is

much debated by homoeopaths as not being true homoeopathy. Tony Pinkus (2000)

23

finds that prophylactic treatment is very successful. Work in Vermont suggests it is

not. The two are separate issues and need to be addressed as such, or the discussion

becomes clouded. For the non-homoeopaths this is a difficult point to understand

and often prevents intelligent discussion of the merits of homoeopathic treatment.

In summary, homoeopathy seeks to restore health. It does this by observing the

symptoms a remedy produces in a well person and uses that remedy when a sick

person presents similar symptoms. The remedies are made from animal mineral and

vegetable, doses are the least necessary, and in being diluted they are also succussed

which increases their potency. To decide on a remedy the homoeopath will look at

the totality of the symptoms, that is the whole person as he or she presents to the

homoeopath. What matters is whether the homoeopath sees what he or she would

expect to see, or symptoms unique to the patient. (Koelher 1986.)

This whole philosophy, well documented, forms a structure on which homoeopathy

observes treats and assesses.

4.5. The recent growth of homoeopathy.

Homoeopathy is widely used, all over the world, in the treatment of sick people but

less widely, nowadays, as a treatment for animals, particularly farm animals.

(Scofield 1984)

The availability of homoeopathy in Britain is enshrined in the 1948 Health Act and

is part of the National Health Service (Segall 1997). Doctors may take a six-month

course in order to learn the basic principles of homeopathic treatment. Within the

NHS any one may ask to be referred for a second medical opinion and this can be

homoeopathic (British Homoeopathic Association leaflet, on request). 5000 GPs

refer patients for homoeopathic treatment every year (van Haselen.1998). There are

Homoeopathic Hospitals in London, Glasgow and Bristol. There is no official

definition of what is required to produce a competent homoeopath. In UK and

24

many other countries (USA India most of Europe, Australia, Southern Africa etc,

lay practitioners may prescribe (to humans) without any qualifications, (caveat

emptor). However, in UK, most take one of several 5-year courses, which lead, to

professional qualifications recognised in many parts of the world (Ullman 1991).

Homoeopathy is tolerated all over Europe and its practitioners, both lay and

medical, have their own councils which set European standards for teaching and

qualification (Ullman 1997). Homoeopathic medicines are recognised within

European Union pharmaceutical legislation by two directives (92/73/EEC and

92/74/EEC) which acknowledge the particular nature of homoeopathic medicines

and give them special status and requirements alongside conventional medicines.

The main difference in requirements is that for single homoeopathic medicines for

which no therapeutic claim is made no proof of efficacy is required for them to be

licensed and put on the market.

There are currently over 3000 remedies listed in the homoeopathic materia medica.

This list is continually being added to as new medicines are proved, that is tested,

for their therapeutic potential on groups of healthy humans (Ullman 1991).

Homoeopathy has never used animals to test remedy action (Day 1995). In Britain it

is possible to buy a selection of homoeopathic remedies over the counter at most

chemists and health food shops, and many towns have specialist pharmacies who

will advise and order remedies.

World wide there is a general acceptance and use of homoeopathy. In Latin

America, the Far East, Africa, and Australasia homoeopathy is available and its

popularity seems to be growing (Ullman 1991). Discussing medical care in India,

the World Health Organisation considers homoeopathy cheaper than conventional

medicine and something that anybody can learn to use for simple cases (Ullman

1991). It finds that homoeopathic treatment seems well suited for treatment in rural

areas where the infrastructure, equipment and drugs needed for conventional

medicine cannot be provided There were over 100,000 homoeopathic practitioners

in India in 1983. “In the Indian subcontinent the legal position of the practitioners

25

of homoeopathy has been elevated to a professional level similar to that of a

medical practitioner” (Kishore 1983).

In America, where homoeopathy, as in Europe, suffered incessant and harsh

attempts to destroy it (Ullman 1991), there is a constant increase in the number of

practitioners and patients. In the mid 80’s Ullman found that there were over 1000

physicians specialising in homoeopathy and at least another 1000 health

professionals using it within their practice.

In 1997 the Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group, established in 1995 by

Directorate Commission XIIE of the European Union Commission, published a

comprehensive report of its findings into the status of homoeopathic research

together with a Directory of Homoeopathy and a data base of homoeopathic trials.

The report concluded that there was sufficient evidence to continue to develop more

effective research into homoeopathy and its effectiveness but that most of the trials

surveyed were of a low methodological quality. Much work was needed to improve

trial quality before any truly definitive statements could be made,

Studies in UK show that patients treated homoeopathically make fewer visits to GPs

and hospitals than would be average. In 1998 a report from the Royal Society of

Medicine found that 40% of GP’s and 80% of young doctors expressed a desire to

learn more about homoeopathy, and, in a study of 506 patients, 61% were found to

have stopped, or substantially reduced the medication they were taking before

referral. (Eames 1998)

Armed with these hard facts I began to look at the use of homoeopathy in the

treatment of farm animals and immediately came upon another rabbit hole.

4.6. Homoeopathy and modern science.

“Here Cos and here Cnidus. The two schools, symbols of the eternal polarity and

dichotomy of Medicine. Cos: not the disease but the disease process, against

Cnidus: the classification of disease and treatment of the disease.” Cos centres on

26

the healing process (Gutman 1978). Modern medicine concentrates on the

eradication of a causative agent and the palliation of symptoms rather than the

creation of health.

Understanding this fundamental dichotomy it is possible to look at homoeopathy in

conflict with modern medicine and (recalling sciences reservations about science,

discuss the validity of looking at homoeopathy through a modern scientific eye).

In his paper “Homoeopathy and its Potential Role in Agriculture- A Critical

Review” published in 1984 Scofield (then with the Department of Biochemistry,

Physiology and Soil Science at Wye College (London University), made an

extensive review of the published material available then. Looking at homoeopathic

research into both human and animal treatment he found little evidence to suggest

homoeopathy is effective. He ascribed this to bad design, execution, reporting,

analysis and, particularly, failure to repeat promising experimental work, rather than

to inefficiency of the system and suggested homoeopathy had yet to be tested on a

large enough scale. He wanted to see replicable tests to prove the efficacy of

homoeopathy, and saw homoeopathy as unlikely ever to have much impact unless it

could demonstrate a success rate approaching that of conventional medicine,

suggesting that without this homoeopathy would remain a medicine of last resort.

Scofield’s assertion that the system has not been properly tested on a large enough

scale is an interesting one. Presumably he was referring to the treatment of farm

animals. There are in fact hundreds of thousands of collated provings and notes on

curative action observed in humans, and animals, for over three thousand remedies.

However, there are few, if any records of provings on animals, and a major

stumbling block for the homoeopathic veterinary practitioner is the reluctance of

leading vets like Christopher Day to countenance them. Hannemann did write a

paper on the homoeopathic treatment of the domestic animal but I have not been

able to find it.

It seemed unprofitable for me to re-evaluate Scofield’s very thorough and

comprehensive research of the research papers available then. (Not many more are

27

available today, sixteen years later.) It will be valuable to pause again, looking at

the rabbit hole. Like the path I am travelling it now has several radiating passages.

Which of the paths did Scofield challenge, and which was he taking? It would seem

that he wished to follow the route of reductionist science, applying the accepted

standards for experiment and replication. Large and enticing, I will ignore that one

for a while, but will return to it.

Passage Two would be signposted “the Law of Similars”, i.e. like cures like. This

has to be examined in two parts. Not only the symptoms which a substance produces

in a healthy person, but also those recorded as produced by that remedy when given

to the sick. The homoeopathic library has an enormous weight of repeated

observation on both of these phenomena, beginning with recorded medical

observations on the powerful poisons like arsenic, mercury and belladonna. I

would refer an interested reader to the mighty tomes of Hahnemann, Herring, Allen,

Kent, Boericke, Farrington, Lilienthal, and many others where observation of

provings and healings are meticulously detailed.

Passage Three might be signposted “Cure”. Herring established and homoeopaths

have constantly observed and recorded (Kent 1911, Hammond 1988, Day 1995) the

action of remedy from the inside to the outside. What is interesting is to speculate

that this might accord with modern medicine. Since the 1960’s the concept of there

being a “natural defence system” has become accepted in modern medicine. This

sees six basic phases of disease. Excretion, inflammation, deposition (confining of a

problem to a particular part), impregnation (spread of toxins) degeneration, and

finally neoplastic, creation of tumours. (Bellevita 1995. The disease takes hold and

progresses, or, looked at another way, the body’s natural healing ability looses

strength. Homoeopathy looks at the process as the latter, and Herrings Law of Cure

simply states that cure will begin from the deepest part of the illness and that cure

moves through that process, in reverse.

Returning to “Passage One” and to the main point raised by Scofield, that further

unflawed research is need to show the efficacy of homoeopathy within the paradigm

28

of modern medicine. He himself points out that when “this therapeutic system is

opposed and disbelieved by the bulk of the scientific and medical establishment the

onus is upon the system to prove itself. It is, unfortunately, “guilty until proved

innocent”. Scofield refers to Stoff (1983) as saying “ It is highly questionable

scientific practice to dismiss a body of significant empirical evidence (such as

homoeopathy) simply because the underlying philosophy, which rationally

interprets such results, assumes premises foreign to those currently accepted.” And

yet he concludes his paper by asking, as does the medical profession generally, for

more scientifically rigorous research.

We are now into the debate, discussed at the beginning of this journey, about the

restrictions modern scientific method is placing on research.

Proponents of participatory research also find this problem and when presenting

their findings are asked “but how does it compare with the real data? Presuming

observations are the final arbiters of theoretical disputes generates a view that

substantially relegates theoretical reasoning to a relatively minor role.” (Gill 1991).

Science seeks to remove the ambiguity in concepts that are typically embedded in

scientific theories by specifying the operations by which they are to be measured

(Alexander 1982). This means that concepts for which operational definitions

cannot be devised have little or no place in the subsequent development of scientific

theories in a particular field of enquiry. “Thus a number of scientist suggest that the

positivist account of the nature of science is quite simply wrong.” (Harre 1972). If

one accepts this statement a different complexion is put on the validity of

homoeopathic research. It is then possible to validate homoeopathic research

against the laws of homoeopathy, not those of modern science.

So, the rabbit hole I had been loath to enter was in fact very exciting and

enlightening. However, leaving the scientific debate about phenomena and

objectivity and the reservations scientist like Sheldrake, Wynne and Stockton have

about the experimenter effect, it is time to take the demands of science and put

29

homoeopathy to their test. For this section I turned to “hard science” and its

researchers, and found that the debate has moved on since 1984.

“Apparent scientific improbability is a two edged sword, and at the end of the

twentieth century it is cutting the other way.” (foreword to Bellevite 1995, by

Fisher 1995.) As director of research at the Royal London Homoeopathic hospital

Dr Peter Fisher is aware that science is beginning to be able to demonstrate the

actions of very high dilutions, homoeopathy is now stimulating theoretical

innovation, instead of theory inhibiting the acceptance of homoeopathy. There is

investigation into compelling theories about their mechanism of action (Ullman

1999)

Elia and Niccoli (1999) measured the amount of heat emanating from double

distilled water and double distilled water containing a substance. Both control and

treated waters underwent dilution and succussion, between one and thirty times (as

in homoeopathic preparation). Ninety two percent of the test solutions with added

substance emanated higher than expected heat from them. “We are setting the basis

for a new science,: the pysico-chemistry of homeopathic water. These results make a

strong support for the hypothesis of a memory of water. Although more studies have

been done on water than any other liquid there still remains uncertainty about its

structure” (Elia 1999)

Lo (1998) researching IE crystals observed that strange things happen in water.

Substances sequentially diluted in double distilled water at least six times and

shaken in between will create water clusters or ice crystals (IE crystals) that

maintain an electrical field and that do not melt in room temperature water.

(Lo1998) Ten different professors have tested the effects of these crystals. One,

the former head of UCLA’s department of immunology and microbiology found

a “two to one hundred percent increase in cytokines (mediators of immune

function that protect against infection and tumour growth) (Ullman 1995)

30

In Europe four different laboratories found that highly diluted doses of histamine

had significant effects on inhibiting degranulation of basophils (Belon et al 1999)

drawing the conclusion that “homoeopathic pharmacology is showing that there

is something about the process of sequentially diluting and shaking a solution

that maintains and even increases its medicinal effect.” (Ullman 1999).

In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them

homoeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using

homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal.

This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that

homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2

were inconclusive. The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results

came as a surprise to us.……the evidence presented in this review would

probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for

certain indications." (Klienjen 1991). An article published in the Lancet, 1994

reports a paper from the Glasgow Royal Infirmary team demonstrating that trials

investigating the positive effects of homoeopathic treatment of hay fever had

been reproduced. The abstract reporting these trials asked the question “is the

reproducibility of evidence in favour of homoeopathy proof of its activity or proof

of the clinical trial’s capacity to produce false-positive results?” (Reilly 1994).

In 1997 the Lancet published the results of a meta-analysis of 89 blinded, placebo

controlled clinical trials concluding that homoeopathic treatment was 2.45 times

more effective than placebo, in their words that it was not simply a placebo

effect. The authors go on to explain that although people unfamiliar with

research may be surprised to learn that most of the studies on homeopathy were

flawed in one significant way or another, research in conventional medicine

during the past 25 years has had a similar percentage of flawed studies (Ullman

1997).

This would necessarily bring one to the discussion of the principles of the double

blinded trial cross over and the clinical trial, neither of which it is really the

31

provenance of this paper to discuss. Ullman contends that the first double blind

cross over trial was in 1906 when trials were conducted in eleven cities on fifteen

subjects and were published in six hundred and sixty-five pages as “The Research

Provings of Belladonna (Bellows 1906). There is controversy about cross over

trials for homoeopathy as it would suggest a short-term approach to medicinal

activity, where in fact the residual effect of homoeopathic medicines, in that they

work by stimulating and strengthening an animals healing processes, does not stop

upon withholding of the medication (Day 1995).

Additionally there is opposition to the principle of the clinical trial at all, not simply

from homoeopaths, most eloquently put by Harris Coulter PhD in his book “The

Controlled Clinical Trial, an Analysis.” Coulter believes that the controlled clinical

trial is a wrong headed attempt by man to subjugate nature which “perpetuates the

monopoly of the major drug companies, ….raises the price of drugs……and

contributes to the high incidence of acute illness, chronic disease and death from

“side effects” of the powerful and non specific drugs…” The discussion, outside the

scope of this paper, about validity of trials, and the independence of scientists does

need to be addressed, not only when discussing the validity of homoeopathic

treatment

I think the effect of the very powerful multinational drug companies is indeed

something which must be seen in relation to the slow growth of homoeopathy, as

well as the way in which science has moved generally. The capacity for research

within the homoeopathic industry (if such it could be called) is very limited. Most

research today is funded by drug companies, who have a great deal more money.

David Wilson, farm manager for the Prince of Wales says the same thing “one

underestimates the influence of the ICI’s of this world” (Wilson. 2000). But this is

another discussion altogether, and one dealt with, for a different reason, by David

Korten. However fascinating though it would be, it is not one to explore in this

paper.

32

“The advocates of modern medicine continue to argue that homoeopathy is

unscientific. However, as the mysteries of the universe continue to unfold, these

sceptics may discover that this field of healing is more consistent with scientific

theory than any other form of medicine, and more important, more humane.”

(Fleming 2000)

4.7. Taking stock of the information gathered.

Coming out of that whole rabbit warren, the subject of modern science, its advances,

its industry and its own controversies, one emerges from the debate understanding

the contradictions and inconsistencies manifested by these controversies, and better

equipped to make some informed comments. Modern medicine may well be

influenced for the commercial gain of the pharmaceutical companies. The seminal

texts of science are being debated; the central assumptions of a mechanistic rational

world and the objectivity of its observers are being challenged. Research now

researches researchers and debates the validity of statistical analysis. I have stood

back and looked for myself, as Maslow would advocate, and have found many

others doing the same thing.

“During the eighties and the first half of the nineties, the homoeopathic research

community was primarily pre-occupied with the question: can homoeopathy work?

Now this question is answered it is time for a shift in emphasis….how can we

improve the effectiveness of homoeopathy?” (van Hasselen 1997)

Interestingly enough the increase in homoeopathic treatment of the human has not

been mirrored in that of the animal, and particularly of the farm animal. With

homoeopathy in the treatment of people so clearly having supporters it is surprising

how little has been used in the treatment of animals, and the strength of feeling that

the suggestion of its use generates. The principles of homoeopathy apply equally to

animals as to people, as do the savings in costs and the reduction of incidence of

illness. A limiting factor is the legislation, which makes illegal the administration

33

of medication to an animal by anyone other than its owner or a qualified veterinary

surgeon. Vets have had the patch all to themselves so most of them simply ignore

homoeopathy and do not make the effort to learn the “huge new area” (Laven in

email to author 2000). Here I had finally found the crux of the matter. Veterinary

homoeopathy is arguing about the wrong question. It has been accepted that

homoeopathy works. The question which the veterinary profession need to address

now is how can we improve our skills in treating animals homoeopathically. How

can we learn more about how to diagnose, to understand the manifestation of

symptoms in animals and use the volume of knowledge available within human

homoeopathy to the benefit of the farmer and the beast?

4.8. Homoeopathy and veterinary science.

The voice which disputes there being any role at all for homoeopathy in the

treatment of animals is that of the British Veterinary Association (a representative

rather than statutory or regulatory body) which has consistently refused to recognise

homoeopathic treatment of animals as a “special division”. This refusal is based on

the prevailing scientific opinion that homoeopathy cannot work because it uses

medicines diluted beyond the point, according to Avagadro’s law, where there can

be any remaining molecule of the original substance left in the solution. This law

has been, until recently, agreed upon by most bodies of scientific opinion.

I spoke to Professor Eifon Evans, the vice president of the BVA who very kindly

took time to answer my telephone call. He explained that the BVA was

“increasingly suspicious of homoeopathy” and pointed out that veterinary medicine

is science based. He felt that “regulation is everything”. Vets, being obliged to

exercise proper protocols and administer medicine to the highest standards, must

therefore ask, “under what basis is this treatment being given?” He was surprised

to hear that the NHS encompasses homoeopathic treatment.

34

Homoeopathic vets have formed the British Association of Homoeopathic

Veterinary Surgeons, whose Honorary Secretary is Christopher Day MA VetMB

MRCVS VetFFHom. This organisation is part of the British Homoeopathic

Association, (BHA) founded in 1902 to support, extend and develop homoeopathy.

The Queen Mother is the Royal Patron of the BVA, and doctors and pharmacists

make up the Council. In 1998 the Chairman of the BHA was a vet. The BHAVS

organises homoeopathic training courses and examinations recognised by the

RCVS. (Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.)

Validation of veterinary homoeopathic competence is governed by the Faculty of

Homoeopathy. There is an irony in the fact that while any veterinary surgeon may

prescribe a homoeopathic remedy, without any knowledge or qualification in

homoeopathic treatment, a lay homoeopath, who has undertaken a 5 year training in

homoeopathy may not. Inappropriate use of homoeopathic remedies is a subject

discussed later.

As far as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the profession’s statutory body,

is concerned, there is no requirement for any study of homoeopathic treatment to be

included in the training or examination of vets and they had no official stance on the

matter. Homoeopathic vets have recently been added to their register. None of the

six Universities teaching veterinary sciences officially include the subject in their

curriculum but the attitude of the people I contacted varied quite considerably.

Glasgow simply said no, they did not teach it, Bristol and Edinburgh did not

encourage or discourage their students from researching the subject. Liverpool and

London fielded my questions with more sympathy. Both universities, while not

actually teaching homoeopathy, do encourage their students to explore more widely,

and offer opportunities, such as biology projects and placements when students can

choose to look at homoeopathy if they wish.

However, the same open-minded approach is not always seen in either research or

practice. Exploring the back copies of the Veterinary Record makes interesting

reading and presumably speaks for the veterinary profession generally.

35

As we have seen, in the eighties when Scofield wrote his review, the debate was

“prove it works”. (van Haselen 1997). An editorial in the Veterinary Record, in

1984 refers to there being a “whole armoury of effective drugs” available to the

veterinary surgeon, and wonders why there is thought to be a need for homoeopathic

treatment. “There is clear need for data on the clinical aspects of veterinary

homoeopathy to assist practitioners in their evaluation of the system. However we

have seen no indication so far of comparative research project that would perhaps,

satisfy the Veterinary Products Committee. There is even a paucity of case reports,

why is this? The fact is that few articles are submitted and even fewer will stand

scientific scrutiny. There tends to be a heavy reliance on anecdotal reports;

sometimes, too, conventional treatments are being administered concurrently so a

clear picture cannot emerg”e (Vol. 114 No 9 Mar 3 Page 229).

That point drew reaction. KJ Biddis wrote, “It is only the veterinary surgeon in

practice who is aware that the “whole armoury of effective drugs” is sadly deficient

and that the use of other medication, albeit homoeopathic, has a place in the

therapeutic armoury.” He counters the charges by saying that reports are published

only by practising vets who often have the least amount of time, and a feeling of

inadequacy when putting pen to paper. To express an interest in the unproved is

neither irrational nor unscientific. Advances in medicine are as often founded on

the empirical as they are on the theoretical. He felt that the first consideration

should be not ”how does it work, but does it work?” (Vol. 114 no 13 March 31

1984)

Mr P A M Rogersis wanted to see the veterinary schools co-ordinating elective

postgraduate training in complementary therapies. “If the profession fails to take

this responsibility it will leave valuable therapies in the hands of non veterinarian

personnel including charlatans.” (Vol. 114 no 13 March 31 1984) This is a very

important point, especially for homoeopathy. There is no regulation on the sale of

the remedies, and, as tiny pills, they are easy to administer. As a remedy will have

no action unless administered homoeopathically, which does mean it is unlikely to

36

harm, it will certainly not cure. At the least this will lead the sceptic to say that

homoeopathy does not work, but at worst will result in continued suffering for the

animal and financial loss to the farmer. Homoeopaths, as well as vets, are

concerned about incompetent use of homoeopathic remedies.

Dr Harry Jagger from Cincinnati advocated the practice of “complete” veterinary

medicine, admitting that holistic medicine required the practitioner to spend more

time with the patient and that “one has to justify the extra effort and attendant cost”.

However, he felt that holistic medicine exercised aspects of preventative medicine

that have influence beyond the short term. (Vol. 114 No.17 April 28 1984 Pg. 435)

This idea that vets should charge for their skill and time rather than make their

income from the sale of antibiotics is still being debated in the veterinary profession.

I will return to this later too.

Mr PA Culpi had “seen fit” to complement his armoury of treatments by including

homoeopathy and had been castigated by another vet for stealing patients!!

Vol.114. No.18. 5 May, 1984: 460). (This is an interesting point Ullman records

the same. “The opposition to homoeopathy was not based on scientific evaluation of

this healing art, but arose primarily because homoeopathy and homoeopaths were a

significant competitor to conventional physicians (Ullman 1991). “We must admit

that we never fought the homoeopath on matters of principle, we fought him because

he came into the community and got the patients” (Kauffman 1971)).

There were many calls for evaluation. “It will be very difficult to convince many

serious veterinary practitioners, and others of its efficacy” (Fussell. Aug 1995 Pg.

152). R.C. Appleby felt that some solutions were so dilute as to contain less than

one molecule of the active principle. “This is contrary to the molecular basis of

chemistry, which is fundamental to scientific medicine. If such solutions do work

then homoeopathy will have disproved the molecular theory of matter, which will be

an achievement indeed.” (Veterinary Record Dec 8 1984 pg. 608.)

37

John Saxton accused Mr Appleby of padlocking his mind and cowering behind

molecular theory. “If he can explain to me without any doubt exactly how every drug

in the molecular armoury produces its effect then he might at least have a prima

fascia case. As it is, he cannot, and his whole line of attack collapses. The first

pillar on which homoeopathy rests is expressed as E=mc2. The concept that “all is

energy” has so many applications to our everyday lives that it would be odd if it

could not be used for healing.” He speaks of the body’s inherent urge to cure itself,

through its immune mechanism. “It should be noted in passing that these far

transcend what we know of anatomically and physiologically as the

reticuloendothelial system. Homoeopathy aims to stimulate the body to heal itself

by the correct application of suitable energies. It is the energy of the remedy we are

interested in, not its molecules.” (John Saxton. Veterinary Record Dec 22/29

1984.Pg668)

The flurry of letters in 1984 ask all the questions which were being asked of

homoeopathy generally, and have finally been laid to rest in the field of human

homoeopathy. But in Britain the use of homoeopathy for the treatment of farm

animals is still not well accepted. All the conventional vets I have spoken to hold

opinions similar to those angry or sceptical voices above.

There are three schools of farmer thought. Black magic mumbo jumbo, true

believers, dabblers. Ignorance of the principle of homoeopathy is perhaps the

reason it is dismissed out of hand (Leach, 1995). Leach described how, using

homoeopathy as a preventative for calving difficulties, in water at a cost of £8 a

year, he observed

fewer assisted calvings.

less calf mortality.

a greater percentage of day light calving.

calving percentages of 98.4; 97.2 and 100.1% on 130 calvings per year.

Additionally

a marked decrease in clinical mastitis using nosodes .

38

great success using specific remedies for weakly calves which needed reviving

after calving (using Carbo Veg) and for “downer” cows. (using Con Mac)

This work is being continued by others like Tony Pinkus (2000) with similar results

and observations.

This is only one of a very large number of magazine articles I found in the pages of

the farming magazines. (My source for these was Update, taken from Aberystwyth

University’s website.)

However, articles like this are “anecdotal evidence” and generally do not bear

scrutiny by scientific standards. Homoeopaths have thousands of cases offering an

enormous volume of anecdotal evidence. Christopher Day, Veterinary Dean at the

Faculty of Homoeopathy is aware of this lack of collection into usable form and

suggests the need for correlation. To modern medicine anecdotal evidence is not

acceptable as evidence of efficacy. Collections of anecdotes would still not

convince the sceptic. Like Roger Blowey, (an authority on the treatment of mastitis

and author of several textbooks), and Professor Johnson (London University), the

majority of vets do not accept these stories as other than coincidence. “It is amazing

what the good Lord heals given a large dose of time.” (Johnson J. 2000). Seventy

percent of mild mastitis cases do not need treating at all, what we need to do is

predict which ones don’t need it. (Laven.2000). Neither can we predict how long

their recovery will take. This is not acceptable in today’s climate when the

discomfort of the cow must be included in the equation, as well as the quality of the

milk and the financial implications for the farmer. All these must be considered

(Hillberton 2000). This is another rabbit hole of enormous importance, but again,

reluctantly, I must ignore it for this paper.

In human medicine there is still no conventional cure for very many illnesses, only

very great advances in systems which support the bodily functions (breathing, blood

supply, fluid intake, excretion) while the disease process is fought by the bodies

own defences. On the whole these are not offered to farm animals, as the expense

would be unjustified.

39

“Anyone who denies that conventional medicine, in its large scale application,

currently finds itself in a kind of impasse is turning a blind eye to reality, which at

every turn dramatically reveals this gap between scientific knowledge and practical

results, or between outstanding diagnostic capability and poor curative results. Not

only are general practitioners, but also specialists in many sectors, are displaying a

lack of confidence in the real ability of medicine to “heal” the sick” (Bellavite

1995).

This statement was backed up by several vets I spoke to. There are many conditions

where there is no effective conventional treatment, and a much greater reluctance to

use antibiotics routinely.

4.9. Homoeopathy and research.

It is not easy to find published trials of homoeopathic treatment of production

animals, and I would not feel that I have sufficient understanding of research

methodology to comment on their rigour or statistical validity. Amongst trials

showing positive statistical effect have been those reported by Christopher Day. His

paper of 1984, published as a short communication in the Veterinary Record, and

causing such a flurry of exchanges, recorded his work on controlling still birth in

pigs. His treatment (with caulophyllum 30C) showed a reduction of still births to

10.2% as opposed to the control groups 20.8%.

In his own book Day also describes a trial, run on 25 heifers, to test the efficacy of

the same remedy, caulophyllum, in reducing calving difficulties. Where the first

eighteen (100%) of the group to calve needed assistance, with one caesarean and

with 3 of the heifers and 7 of the calves dying (16.7% and 38.9% respectively) the

remaining 7 heifers, treated with caulophyllum 30C calved with minimal assistance

(28.6%) and no fatalities. He makes additional linkage to subsequent metritis,

mastitis and fertility, finding that, of the surviving 15 heifers of the first group, 66%

had severe metritis, 60% severe mastitis and 20% eventually held in calf. In

40

contrast, from the group treated with caulophyllum, 22% had slight metritis, none

had mastitis and 100% held in calf. He suggests that this “story” demonstrates the

ability of caulophyllum to a) help in cases of calving difficulty, b) to mitigate the

after effects of traumatic births on the dams which brought on severe metritis and

mastitis problems in the untreated animals.

In another report Day describes the treatment of mastitis in 80 Friesians cows by

“nosode” i.e. a homoeopathically prepared prophylactic using pathogens of mastitis.

The untreated half of the herd showed a 47.5% incidence of mastitis where the

treated animals only a 2.5%. The otherwise conventional farmer took up the use of

homoeopathic remedies and now uses them whenever possible. (Day 1995)

His final example is of a herd of 150 Friesians suffering from an “unacceptably

high” incidence of mastitis. In the December to March period of an untreated year

there were 12, 8, 20, 20, cases each month. In the next year there were 9 and 20 in

Dec and January. The nosode was then given and cases fell to 3 and 4 in February

and March. Day himself says of these results that while they may seem spectacular

it is important to remember they need repetition under statistical control before

being taken as proof of efficacy and warns the practitioner to remain objective to

prevent delusion of his own effectiveness as this “would lead to welfare problems”.

I have not been able to find any published results from Christopher Day since the

publication of this book. Nor have I been able to make contact with him in the

production of this paper despite several letters faxes and emails. I feel this is a

glaring omission in my paper as Day is undoubtedly, since the death of George

MacCleod, the guru of veterinary homoeopathy in Britain and I would have valued

his input.

Some investigation of efficacy using a nosode for mastitis treatment is recorded by

Phillip Hansford. Administered monthly, in the water trough, the results from two

farms show a sudden and sustained decline in cell count. Similarly treatment of

clinical and subclinical mastitis shows (on one farm) a dramatic increase in the

number of cows with cell counts below 250,000. (Hansford 1998)

41

In the same book Hansford records three case histories as examples of successful

treatment of

tetanus,

E coli mastitis

chronic muscular strain.

Elliot (1993) records successful treatment, in sheep, of

pregnancy toxaemia.

foot rot.

orf.

Day 1995 records case histories for successful treatment of

mastitis

recumbency. (post-parturition, and after repeated calcium magnesium and

phosphorous treatment)

New Forest eye.

septic arthritis.

All these authors (and others, MacCleod 1996, Verkade 1997) give detailed

description of case taking (observation of symptoms) and prescription for farm

animals.

An Agricola and a CAB Abstract search using “ veterinar*, livestock, cattle, cow,

cows, animal*, horse, and homeopath* produced ninety two references. Many of

these were in languages other than English (Malla Hovi, veterinary surgeon working

at Reading University has a literature review of the German publications.

Translation of these would be a useful addition as homoeopathic treatment in

Germany is much more common than in UK). Many mentioned homoeopathy only

in an overview of possible treatments, most referred to the treatment of small

animals (including research on rats and mice). Very few referred to production

animals, and even fewer could be accepted as clinical or blinded trial.

42

Work on the treatment of sub-clinical mastitis was conducted in Ireland (Egan

1995). In this evaluation 15 cows, were treated after subclinical mastitis

pathogens had been isolated from seventeen quarters. The remedy, consisting of

nine different substances, was given twice a day for seventeen days. During the

trial the number of normal cases increased by four and the number of quarters

with a cell count of less than 100,000, decreased from nine to twenty. (I have not

read any other reports on this trial and so am not able to offer comment. It is

certainly apparent that given seventeen days the good Lord did not achieve

anything, but the discussion of whether the remedy was appropriate is a little

complex and not for this paper.) About one quarter of the two hundred and fifty

“progressive herds” in Ireland had tried homoeopathy and of those half were

quite sure that it worked. This was ascribed to the farmer’s attitude and

commitment to homoeopathy. The remedies supplied made claims which did not

include full details of other factors which might effect mastitis and that there was

“little evidence of the homoeopathic industry funding independent studies of these

products” (Egan 1995). I have not read details of the report to evaluate the

remedies used and why the claims were made. No homoeopath would suggest

that one remedy would solve all cases. However, the points are well made and

cautionary.

A report from Belgium suggested there was no reduction of somatic cell count

and incidence of intra mammary infection as a result of treatment by nosodes

(Meaney 1995)

In poultry there has been some positive work on Newcastle disease (Mazhar

1995).

In 1996 Cabaret reports no effect in the control of nematodes egg output in lambs

Jorg Spranger (1998) reports his findings taking sterility and mastitis in cows.

43

Published in German but abstracted in English a trial into the treatment of scours

in weaning piglets found the losses to be below 1.5%.(May. 1997)

Keatinge’s work at ADAS Redesdale is included, although he refers to these as

observations. In studies of controlling pasturella pneumonia and orf in sheep he

notes positive effects. For pasturella his preliminary conclusions are that the

homoeopathic treatment compares favourably with conventional vaccination,

although he suggests less labour intensive methods of delivery are needed. He

also observes that the treated sheep coughed less than the other pens. What is

interesting is that of the 290 hoggs in the five flocks taking part in the trials, non

of the homoeopathically treated sheep contracted pneumonia where 2.5% of the

vaccinated sheep did. However, reading his report, it would seem only 40 of the

total number were treated homoeopathically.

Similarly, in treatment for orf, homoeopathic treatment is observed to be “at least

as effective as gentian violet”. The trial involved the treatment by homoeopathic

nosode, the conventional alternative to vaccination, gentian violet with a sulphur

based capsule called “Orfoid” and seaweed meal, and used only infected animals.

Susan Wynne has written two papers reviewing the use of veterinary

homoeopathy which discuss research in some detail.

Roderick (1996) in a study managed by the animal health trust recommends

further research into the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies for livestock. The

paper was commissioned specifically to identify research priorities for animal

health and welfare in organic livestock production. I received a copy of this

report from Dr Robin Pellew, Chief Executive of the Animal Health Trust who

wrote “ Although the report made some recommendations for further research

we did not feel that the results of the study justified an extension. (of the study

they commissioned as a result of the paper). Whilst we maintain an open mind

about the merits of homoeopathy, we do not see a mainstream role for

44

alternative medicine and will be focusing exclusively in the future on

conventional pharmacological research.”

The statement “homoeopathy certainly has potential and we need to know more

about it (Stopes C. 1986) was made in 1986. It seems to be a Catch 22 situation

where no one will fund research until they are presented with research that shows

homoeopathy is effective. The wrong question is still being asked.

A recent study (Hovi 1999) of the relative incidence of mastitis in conventional

and organic herds has drawn some interesting conclusions. There was no greater

incidence of mastitis in organic herds, although the pattern of infection was

different. Specific mention is made of homoeopathic treatment.

Most (14 out of 16) of the organic farms used homoeopathy and all were

happy about their results.

The use of homoeopathy increased on those farms during the two-year study.

Most herdsmen who did not use homoeopathy as a first choice of therapy

wanted to do so.

Most herdsmen got their advice from pharmacies or retailers.

General lack of advice and support were the main constraints to increased

use of homoeopathy.

The use of ready made “mastitis remedies” increased during the survey,

probably due to the ease of use and lack of other advice and support.

The short withdrawal times of milk after and during homoeopathic

treatments for clinical mastitis may contribute to high BTSCCs on some

farms.

Recommendations were

That it is vital to develop advice and support, and easily available

information as a there is so little homoeopathic veterinarian support.

Milk should be withdrawn on cell count.

Clinical trial protocols suitable to homoeopathy are needed.

The pharmaceutical industry could encouraged to do this.

I would suggest that this latter is unlikely, as it is not in the interests of the drug

companies to show that homoeopathy works

45

A similar paper from Norway (Olensen 1996) reports that there is considerable

use of homoeopathy on organic farms in Norway and in a 30 farm project the

percentage of cows given treatment for mastitis, ketosis and milk fever on

organic farms was lower than that on conventional productions.

A German paper reports positively, in German, on the homoeopathic treatment of

urogenital disorders in recently calved cows. (Dorenkamp 1996)

A Indian paper reports favourably on the use of Sepia for treatment of bovine

prolapse. (Uphadhayay 1995)

Dr Jurgen Bader (1997) ran trials in Osnabruck with the support of the

Osnabruck state veterinary department. Advocating the investigation of

problems which antibiotics are not controlling, such as sow fever after

farrowing, found homoeopathic treatment was successful, and cheaper.

with the antibiotic MMA $9.3c/sow

with homoeopathic treatment. 60c/sow.

Incidence. untreated group 71%.

treated group 56%

Veterinary use of homoeopathy in Southern India is described by Rajan (1997)

I wrote to ten homoeopathic vets who work with farm animals and received the

following papers.

Mark Elliot sent me a paper recording his work on Cushing’s disease in horses

and dogs. While I have avoided including horses in the survey of research as

they are not production animals, nor seen as a herd, his paper is worth recording

as he observes very positive results in 74% of those animals treated. He

concludes “Success rates are comparable, if not better, than most conventional

drug orientated approaches with little relapse. This study suggests the protocol

46

would also lend itself to a double blind trial, something that has become a holy

grail for Homoeopathic researchers. In addition it is extremely inexpensive and

easy to administer with no side effects, making treatment more available to the

owner, which can only be good for animal welfare”

Geoff Johnson told me he has submitted trials showing positive results in the

treatment of summer mastitis to the Faculty of Homoeopathy but has been told

they are probably not statistically significant.

Several homoeopathic vets expressed no interest in convincing the sceptic. Geoff

Johnson (2000) sums up the prevailing attitude. “Why don’t I have more facts and

figures? They take a lot of time and money to get and no one seems to fund

research. I suppose when one sees it working every week, taking time to persuade a

sceptical allopathic community is a bit of a bore - much more fun just to practice.”

Additionally I sent out emails to various organisations, mostly found on the internet

and as a result I found that a number of trials or investigations are under way.

Sweden. The Swedish University of Agricultural sciences, Skara.(Co-ordinator

Tomas Manske.)

Norway. The Norwegian Veterinary School, Oslo.

I have no details.

Jorg Spranger has a paper comparing the effectiveness of prophylaxis, antibiotic

and homoeopathic treatment of mastitis;

prophylactic treatment in one group showed a 60% lower incidence of

mastitis

Antibiotics had more rapid results during the first 20 days of treatment.

Subsequently there was no difference in milk yield or cell count.

Rate of recurrence of illness can not yet be evaluated.

America. Vermont University. (FAO) is running a large scale two year trial of

the treatment of mastitis. Results not yet available.

47

Other information I received was that

Scofield ran a trial (at Elm Farm Research Centre) on the prevention of milk fever

which was “superbly designed.” Blood tests of all animals showed no difference

between the treated and untreated group. It was not published. (Scofield 2000)

Stopes and Woodward (1996) ran trials for Elm Farm Research Centre on

mastitis prevention with homoeopathic nosodes. The authors concluded that all of

the 13 farms taking part, 12 conventional and 1 organic, only two of the farms

surveyed had kept adequate records and showed noticeable results. As both had

taken significant action to improve management during that time the positive

results could not be attributed only to the nosode action. Management was

thought to have played a great part in the improvements recorded. Perceived

success was greatest when the stockman or farmer were themselves committed to

the use of homoeopathy. All except one of the farmers were convinced the

nosodes had helped.

Brian Merrill at ADAS Redesdale has shown some success in treating respiratory

problems, Richard Laven refers to this but I have not found it published.

Dr Schutte has conducted trials in Germany. These are published in the Journal

of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine. I have not been able to find a copy.

I found a web site called “PubMed” which recorded the following on going research

At the London Homoeopathic Hospital independent replication of pre-clinical

research is being reviewed.

In Mexico a homoeopathic drugs validation is one of the current agricultural

research projects.

In Germany a review looked at the position of homoeopathy historically and in

the present day, finding that the prediction of Hahnemann that nowhere would

homoeopathic treatment be as common as in veterinary medicine had proved

incorrect, a point with which one can agree.

Stopes and Woodward (1996) concluded that more proof of efficacy was needed but

farm evaluation, rather than repeatable statistically significant controlled trials, may

48

be a “more relevant way of assessing homoeopathy in practice. It would be valuable

to repeat and extend this work and through it build up an impartial view of the

reliability of the anecdotal evidence on which many organic farmers base their use

of homoeopathy.” This is a view that many hold and I return to in my conclusions

and recommendations. However, the use of homoeopathy is not confined to organic

farmers. Seven out of thirty three attending the RAC workshop (22%) (see

Paragraph 4.11.2.) were conventional farmers, as were several of the other farmers I

contacted.

Additionally there are many articles about the homoeopathic treatment of farm

animals in various magazines. I have read most of these, but have not listed them as

most would be called anecdotal evidence. A list is found on the University of

Aberystwyth UPDATE website.

4.10. Thoughts on why there is so little homoeopathic treatment of farm

animals.

There would be no role at all for homoeopathy if the BVA had had its way, so it is

surprising to find as much evidence of it’s use as one does. Over the years since

Scofield’s 1984 paper was published there have been, in addition to the research

referred to earlier, occasional articles in the farming press which suggest that some

farmers are using it and having mixed, though generally positive results.

One of the main problems with the homoeopathic system of medicine is that

efficacy depends on correct remedy selection, according to the principles of

homoeopathic law. A remedy is not therefore homoeopathic of itself, but only in

the way it is administered. This means that the practitioner must understand the

laws of homoeopathy and apply them rigorously. The time and application needed

is seen as a deterrent to many. It is easier to resort to an antibiotic, or pass the

problem over to the conventional vet. (Laven2000)

49

There is no doubt that peer pressure will deter people, particularly farmers, from

trying something as silly as homoeopathy, judging from the amusement, scepticism,

ridicule and antagonism I met during research for this paper. Vets and farmers

using homoeopathy had either the sure knowledge of it having worked for

themselves and their families, or the group support of fellow farmers. This is not a

subject for the faint hearted.

Searching the CAB abstracts 83 items were found, most before 1984, only two of

those were published in 1999, both, interestingly enough to do with horses. Nine

appeared in 1998, five in 1997, nine in 1996 and so on.

All those articles, with the exception of the trials reported in Ireland, were positive

about the beneficial effects of homoeopathic treatment of large animals. In the

Journal of the British Homoeopathic Association one finds an article on the

successful treatment of animals, every month. The treatment of companion animals

is beginning to be more accepted, but the treatment of the farm animal is not. This

is generally to do with the concept of the herd, as well, of course with economics

and veterinary hostility. While the owner of a companion animal sees an individual

and will spend a lot of money on that individual, the farmer sees a herd, and an

economic unit of production. (Pinkus 2000)

To find out how easy it would be for a farmer to find a homoeopathically qualified

vet I did my own research. Using a list published by the British Association of

Homoeopathic Veterinary Surgeons, updated in November 1999, I rang every vet

listed and asked if they treated farm animals.

Of the twenty-seven who have a homoeopathic qualification i.e. have taken a

course and passed the exam recognised by the Royal College of Veterinary

Surgeons (RCVS) only eight treated large animals. Three said they would if

asked but would not go out to farms. Three treated the occasional horse.

Of the eighteen who have taken the accredited course but not chosen to sit an

exam seven treated farm animals.

50

Of the twenty-four who are in training at the moment six had a large animal

practice.

John Saxton suggests there are 150-200 practising homoeopathic vets Curtis 2000),

it would seem that few are willing, or able, to treat farm animals.

The opinion of the average scientist and veterinary surgeon ranges from total

scepticism to absolute belief. The majority is sceptical, but has very little

understanding of the principles of homoeopathy. Professor John Webster speaks for

the former. I wrote to him explaining my research and asking for his comments as a

member of the Food Ethics Council. His reply was that he rejected “the central

principle of homoeopathy, namely that water can retain the memory of the

pathogen. If it is still there it is not homoeopathy, it is immunisation. When other

remedies are sometimes listed as homoeopathic (e.g. arnica, aloe vera) this is not

true homoeopathy but herbalism…...The usual comment is ‘How can you reject the

possibility that there might be something in it?’ My response is ‘How can you reject

the overwhelming body of biological evidence which says there isn’t?’” As

Professor Webster is currently convening a BBSRC workshop on “Alternatives to

Chemotherapy” he is, obviously, not averse to alternative therapies generally, but

homoeopathy is unacceptable.

This is also the opinion of Richard Laven at ADAS who is “a strong believer in

evidence based medicine and the scientific method” “The efficacy is not there, its

designed for the individual animal and it should not be used in place of

conventional medicine” (Laven. 2000). He disagreed with the argument that science

can’t tell us everything, and subscribes to the view that anecdotal evidence

demonstrates the efficacy of “time”. He referred to several anecdotes that showed

homoeopathy does not work.

The concern about individualisation expressed by Laven is referred to by Dr Jorg

Baden (1997) who points out that there is no such thing as a broad-spectrum

treatment in homoeopathy.

51

Homoeopathic vets like Christopher Day, Chris Auckland, Trevor Adams Mark

Elliot and Geoff Johnson have found homoeopathy to be “better than drugs in

almost all situations” (Letters to author.2000). “It took me four years from being

introduced to homoeopathy to actually studying it because I couldn’t bring myself to

believe it might work, and it wasn’t until it had cured me twice that I thought there

might be something in it” (Hoare 2000).

The pages of the Journal of the BHA contain many references to the scepticism of

most vets and the “joy of healing” (Johnson at Soil Association meeting 1999)

which makes the use of homoeopathy so rewarding for the vets who use it. “It

works, its mostly safe, non-toxic and free of side effects. Having spent years of

training in conventional medicine, it only takes a few months in practice to realise

the limitations.” (Elliot 1996). Many vets spend a few years in the dabbler category,

until they experience success which converts them from hopeful sceptic to dedicated

practitioner (Elliot 1996).

Having studied the subject, at his own expense and in his own time, the

homoeopathic vet probably has no time, and no funding, to set up the rigorous trials

demanded by modern scientific method. The form these should take is disputed.

The rationale of testing Cos against Cnidus is suspect as it then assumes the one

superior to the other. “it must be possible to conduct trials on them in the same way

as for conventional medicine”. “Trialing requires a different approach from

conventional medicines which can’t be agreed.”(Curtis 2000). There are reports of

homoeopathy working and of it not working in the same article along with anxieties

about regulation and efficacy.(Curtis 2000)

However, with the new millennium a homoeopathic vet John Hoare stands for

election to the committee of the RCVS. (Vet. Record March 2000). He feels that

the demand for complimentary medical treatment of animals is on the increase, that

the customer is asking for homoeopathic and other alternative therapies to be

available and he discusses the costs and implications of this. (Hoare 2000)

52

There is general concern that many practitioners prescribe homoeopathics without

understanding the basic and unique principles that differentiate this medical

paradigm from the traditional concepts studied in veterinary school. (Fleming 2000)

“New ideas do not always convince the sceptic, they simply outlive them” (Pretty

2000).

4.11. A Recapitulation.

I hope that the reader, having taken the trouble to follow me thus far along the

“road less travelled by” finds, as I do, that there is a great deal of evidence to

suggest that homoeopathy does work and could indeed have a part to play in the

treatment of the farm animal.

At this point we may profitably review the road travelled and the side roads

investigated. The aim has been to look at why homoeopathy has not been accepted

in the mainstream of modern medicine, and to do that we have looked at modern

science, and the views of many scientists as to its limitations. We have seen that

many scientists, particularly those in the fields of the social sciences, found, some

time ago, that the confines of the scientific method did not lend themselves easily to

investigate complex systems but, rather, hindered progress and understanding. As

philosophers addressed this problem the whole fabric of reductionist science was

questioned, as was the objectivity of the researchers. It was seen that reducing a

system to its component parts did not offer an acceptable picture of the whole. The

study of the “whole” emerged.

We have looked at homoeopathy within its own ontology, and within that of

molecular science and have found increasing evidence of homoeopathic principles

being supported by the contemporary research in modern science. We have

53

observed the antagonism of the veterinary profession to the use of homoeopathy and

finally made a survey of some of the trials that have been published.

Now it is time to look at the centre of this discussion, the farm animal, the farm, and

the final arbiter, the farmer.

4.12. Homoeopathy and the farm.

4.12.1. The changes in farming.

Agriculture today is in crisis. It is reported not only in the farming press, but the

media generally, and nobody really seems to know what to do. Agriculture is the

second most dangerous industry to be in and the second highest cause of death

amongst farmers is suicide (Farming News 22 March 2000) but that is an entire

thesis topic on its own.

Compounding the problem for the farmer, now called a producer, agricultural

production methods themselves are coming under more and more scrutiny. Slowly,

at first, but now more rapidly as the latest Brussels directive refers to the “multi-

functionality” of farming, there has been realisation that industrialised production

has changed not only farming but the farmer, the animals, the soil, the wildlife, the

environment and the rural communities (Pearce 1990). Beginning perhaps in 1945

with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” there has been a ground

swell of opinion “much ridiculed” (Harwood.1990) which questions the production

methods of modern scientific farming, and asks if it is indeed on the right road?

Here is another rabbit hole and again, enticing though it is, not one to discuss in this

paper. Pointing down one road is Professor Dennis Avery in his book “Saving the

Planet with Plastics and Pesticides”. Avery, on visiting the Cotswolds, first

complimented the audience on the exquisite beauty of their Cotswold countryside

(all farmed) and then explained why all farmed land should be farmed as intensively

54

as it could be to protect the wilderness areas of other places. Pointing down the

other, Professor Jules Pretty, in his book “Regenerating Agriculture” suggests that

working with the power of nature rather than in antagonism to it would produce

better, and more sustainable, results. He calls for agricultural research to return to

the field, and for the scientist and the farmer to work together. Here again, a form

of Cos and Cnidus. The same debate, modern rational science or the post-positive

concept of the whole.

While all this has been happening a small number of farmers picked up the thoughts

and ideals of Lady Eve Balfour, (1975) and, asking the question of Cos, how best to

promote healthk, found, like her, that the answer lies in the soil. They began to

farm organically, that is without the use of chemical inputs or the routine use of

antibiotics, and, towards the end of the twentieth century, the consumer began to ask

for these products. Organic food is still a very small proportion of fresh food sales

today, but it offers, at present, a profitable market. The organic standards, set by the

Soil Association, proscribe the use of prophylactic antibiotic treatment and

considerably restricted their use in the treatment of disease. Therefore organic

farmers are looking for alternative therapies.

So it is in these turbulent times, very interesting times indeed, that the question “Is

there a role for homoeopathy in the treatment of the farm animal” is being asked.

4.12.2. Homoeopathy and the farmer

If one did a straw pole of farmers and asked them what they knew about

homoeopathy I think the consensus would be “not much”, so there seemed to be

little profit in making such a general question. Similarly if one asked, “would you

prefer to use medicines which were cheaper and more effective than antibiotics and

might cut your vet bills” the answer would be a unanimous yes, and a very sceptical

raised eyebrow. So how best to find the farmers view? Abetted by Dr Richard

Baines, I decided to ask my College if we could run a workshop to find out whether

55

farmers were interested in learning about homoeopathy, on the principle that if no

one came, my question would be answered!

The homoeopathic workshop held at the Royal Agricultural College Cirencester 22.

March 2000

In organising the programme for this conference I invited Tony Pinkus, because his

pharmacy supplies homoeopathic remedies to over 6000 farmers. I invited Henry

Bagenal to speak as a farmer because he had experience of using the remedies and

was not too far away. (In the event I found that he was an ex RAC student.) I

invited Trevor Adams as being the nearest practising homoeopathic vet with farm

animal expertise. I had approached Christopher Day but did not receive a reply.

Having assembled my speakers I suggested a programme which I thought went

logically through the subject. I asked the pharmacist to explain the principles of

homoeopathy, and the vet and the farmer to explain the practice. Being a teacher I

felt it was important to follow slowly and carefully through the stages, beginning

with prophylaxis, then on to the treatment of the acute and finally the chronic

illness. Tony Pinkus disagreed. His opinion was that Trevor Adams, the vet,

explain the principles and he, Tony, the practice. Trevor Adams, saw the irony in

this, but felt it encapsulated the situation, that the pharmacist has actually far more

knowledge of action of the remedy than most vets. Tony Pinkus also described the

treatment of chronic conditions and the concept, which he feels is the most

important aspect of homoeopathy, of constitutional prescribing.

A flier was sent to about 1000 farmers. 33 delegates paid £55 to come.

Additionally, four students and two lecturers attended. (The latter for only part of

the day.)

All participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire. (Yes or No but adding

comment if they wished)

56

Of the 33 who filled out the questionnaire about half (58%) knew nothing about

homoeopathy.)

32 were farmers (one a vet)

7 were not farming organically. This suggests that the greatest interest in

homoeopathic treatment for the farm animal is from the organic movement.

Only the non organic farmers were asked to give their reasons for wanting to treat

their animals homoeopathically.

100% listed animal welfare.

88% had concerns about antibiotics

22 % thought it was cheaper.

No one thought it was more effective.

The 100% agreement that it might be better for animal welfare was surprising. The

Soil Association and veterinary profession suggest withholding antibiotic treatment

may have welfare implications. Here I realise I made a mistake in constructing the

questionnaire. I should have asked all the delegates those questions, and I should

have asked them the same questions at the end of the workshop.

Amongst the delegates generally

58% would use it on dairy cows.

58% on beef animals.

45 % on sheep

56% on pigs

22% on poultry

3% on goats.

58% already used homoeopathy.

74% farmed organically.

57

53% had found homoeopathy successful.

32% found their vet unsupportive (and several spoke of antagonism)

6 % had a vet with a homoeopathic qualification.

58% felt incompetent using homoeopathy.

64% would like to have a homoeopathic vet.

Nobody had been asked by their buyers to use homoeopathy on the animals.

At the end of the workshop

87% had learnt something (many said a great deal)

51% would like a more advanced workshop 12% said yes, but after they had had

time to try it out.

58% said they would like to be able to attend regular workshops but near to where

they lived.

The questions delegates asked were mostly about how to start at all

What remedies do I start with, do I need to record use?

Will it cost me a lot?”

How do I know there is any thing in this bottle other than alcohol scented water?

Will I be conforming with regulations such as COSHH?

Will using a TB preventative make all cows show up as reactors?

Will treatments create disease in previously healthy animals?

Is remedy selection the same for all species (including human)?

What shelf life does a remedy have?

Is it effected by the chlorine in water?

Some specific questions were asked about the remedies available for conditions

like infertility, calving and “downer cows”.

At the end of the workshop I still felt that, for the beginner, there had not been

enough about the treatment of acute illness treatment. The situations (like ring

womb) when no antibiotic treatment is available, and, in the case of sheep, no

veterinary assistance will be called, can sometimes be spectacularly resolved by the

58

correct homoeopathic remedy. The conventional vet will always dispute this success

and ascribe it to the effect of “time” (Blowey. 2000). However, there are now so

many recorded cases of spontaneous recovery after homoeopathic treatment that

most practitioners shrug their shoulders and say “fine, but it was good to be able to

do something” (Bagenol 2000). I had the same comment from a vet in America.

“The reason I liked homoeopathic treatment as a herdsman was that I could jump on

a problem” (Karreman 2000). Karreman found homoeopathic treatment to work so

well that he trained as a vet, and now works in Pennsylvania USA. His farmers like

homoeopathy for the same reason and he echoes Tony Pinkus “The feeling of

success is much greater when you yourself have made the difference, especially not

reaching for the antibiotic or the vet”. “You will never forget the first time you save

an animal’s life” (Pinkus 2000).

In addition to running the workshop I contacted ten farmers, by phone and by visit,

to ask them their opinions. I did not use a structured questionnaire, and will make

no attempt to formalise the results.

Two have used homoeopathy to establish alternative enterprises.

One by helping the farmer to learn about homoeopathy and supplying remedies

and literature. “A lot of young vets are interested in working with us. Farmers

are crying out for help. They are anxious about antibiotics, and they need to

know what they are putting into their animals, they want to learn.” (Julie

Dodgson in telephone conversation. See Farmers Guardian Jan 13 2000. Back

page.)

The other by using homoeopathy to solve fertility problems in pedigree cows.

Owners now send, and leave, their most valuable animals to him (many from

America). At present he is treating thirty.

Both of these farmers, and the vets I spoke to, had been converted to homoeopathy

when it cured their own intractable illnesses.

I spoke to 10 local farmers.

6 were organic.

59

All had found homoeopathy useful.

7 used it as a first choice for most conditions.

1 had a homoeopathic vet.

1 (selling direct to his consumer) felt its use would add to consumer confidence

but had found it very difficult to address dairy problems and had found no easily

available help.

Most had begun to use homoeopathy on their animals because it had first

worked on them or their family or they had become organic farmers.

Most found the choice of remedy difficult, if not baffling. Those who had been

prepared to try and learn had found their results improved and they had gained

confidence.

Some found it did not work for mastitis. This was generally because the dairy

man was “not convinced” and therefore not willing to use it, or learn more about

it.

All these points accord with the findings of Hovi (1999)and Roderick (1996).

I also wrote to ten homoeopathic vets. 5 replied. All had found homoeopathy to

work in most cases, (but as one vet pointed out, not all patients get better). All said

that the loss of income from drug prescription was not a problem for their practice

as their clients were prepared to pay for their skills. Geoff Johnson quoted £45/hour

+ VAT as a standard charge. Only one had any case studies to offer. (Elliot 1996)

4.12.3.Disease and the farm animal

At this point one begins to enter the deeper debate of disease and healing. It is the

opinion of experienced homoeopaths (animal and human) that true healing needs a

more complete approach than the appraisal of superficial symptoms and that the

observation of emotional and mental symptoms are vital for real cure (Johnson,

2000). Now here is a very interesting path indeed. The suggestion that illness is a

reaction to stress, of what ever kind, and that the pathogens isolated have simply

come along for the ride. This highly contentious issue was tested in 1912. A paper

in the Canadian Lancet appearing as a communication from Dr John Fraser, gives

60

many examples of causative bacteria not being present during the first few days of

illness, “The bacteria find the morbid tissue” Fraser goes on to discuss the series of

tests to decide if Eberth bacillus would cause typhoid. Over a period of 2 years

forty five different tests were run when fifteen different people drank the bacillus,

and no cases of typhoid fever occurred. (Quoted in Ullman 1999). Recently work

on digital dermatitis in dairy cows has found that infection could not be induced

until the feet were kept wet for several days. (Bowe 2000)

This discussion was presented to me in a different form while accompanying Roger

Blowey on his farm rounds. He pointed out the correlation of parturition, mastitis

and lameness. He has made an extensive study of this coincidence, and concludes

that the poor treatment of the newly calved cow is responsible for the high incidence

of mastitis within one, and lameness after two, months of parturition. “The figures

are all there, it just needs someone to write it up” (Blowey 2000). Here was a

wonderful path and had I not been well along the path of homoeopathy by then I

could well have been diverted. I hope a fellow student will take up the offer.

4.12.4 Standing in the Farm Yard.

Standing where the path entered the farmyard I feel I have achieved a very great

deal. I have addressed the limitations of science, and the limitations of those

practitioners of veterinary science who limit themselves to the orthodoxy of modern

medicine. I have established that homoeopathic treatment has its own laws and

prescription must follow those laws to achieve successful healing and that a body of

evidence is beginning to establish the efficacy of homoeopathy in both its own

philosophy, and within the “Newtonian molecular view” (Hoare 2000) and collected

details of some of that research. I have met the hostility and scepticism of the

mainstream of the veterinary profession, and, even during my research, seen the

change within the RCVS to the registration of homoeopathic vets. I have not

explored the implications of this change. And finally I have listened to the farmer,

the sceptic and the enthusiast and the confused majority in between. I have

61

established that some farmers are using homoeopathy very successfully, but the

majority does not have easy access to qualified help. I have researched some of the

help that is available and will now assess the specific reasons why homoeopathy

might be a useful tool in the management strategy of a modern producer, and why it

might not.

4.13. An assessment of the opportunities for the use of homoeopathy in the

treatment of the farm animal.

Three main factors have influenced attitudes to homoeopathy in the treatment of

farm animals since Scofield wrote his review in 1984. Organic farming, the world-

wide concern about antibiotic resistance, and a general unease (translated, in UK,

into welfare legislation but not into the buying habits of the consumer) about

intensive production of food animals. (Mepham 1995)

4.13.1. Organic farming.

Organic farming proscribes the prophylactic use of antibiotics and actively

encourages the use of alternative medicines, including homoeopathy.

There is increasing interest in the organic movement. The sales of organic food

have rocketed and a proportion of the public are prepared to pay more to have their

food produced in ways which are acceptable to them. The founder of the Soil

Association Lady Eve Balfour saw a link between soil health, animal health and

human health (Balfour 1975). The Soil Association does not allow its producers to

use antibiotics either prophylactically or routinely and actively promotes the use of

homoeopathy. The principles of homoeopathic treatment accord with those of the

Soil Association. The holistic approach of organic farming and homoeopathy offer

a common philosophy and a common goal (Laven 2000).

62

Many organic farmers find the health status of their animals improves, and most

increase their use of homoeopathic treatment as they gain experience and confidence

in its use. Of those I talked to none would return to routine use of antibiotics, all

prefered to use homoeopathy, all found successes and problems, all were happy to

use it, but not all felt confident, some felt confused. These findings reflect those of

Hovi (1999).

4.13.2. Concerns about antibiotics.

During the last few years, beginning with the Swann report of 1969, increasing

concern has focused on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in, as well as

routine and prophylactic treatment of, the farm animal. The general unease about

the misuse of antibiotics can be looked on as an opportunity for the proponents of

homoeopathic treatment. Concern about antimicrobial resistance - and the problems

this can cause in both human and veterinary medicine - has grown in recent years

and shows little sign of abating (Alder 2000).

Tasked to assess the risks to humans from antibiotic resistant organisms entering the

food chain and to consider the need for any action to protect public health the

Advisory Committee for the Microbiological Safety of Food, (ACMSF), reported in

1999 that there is evidence which shows conclusively that giving antibiotics to

animals results in the emergence of some resistant bacteria which can affect

humans. (Alder 1999) The report recommends that vets explore ways of reducing

the use of antibiotics in disease control. As a result of the report the BVA published

“Guidelines on the prudent use of antimicrobial.”

The United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS 1993) lays

down key principles for animal treatment ((Roderick 1996). Similarly the Soil

Association has produced its own guideline (1999) of antibiotic use for the organic

farmer and in 1998 produced the first part of a report into the “Use and Mis-use of

Antibiotics.” They also recommend that vets should charge directly for their advice

and recoup a smaller proportion of their income from the sale of drugs.

63

It is important to note this increased awareness within government bodies and

representative organisations of a need for change in the way food animals are

produced and treated. The routine use of antibiotics is now discouraged. The way

antibiotics are used has changed, as the farmers concern has moved from quantity,

(for instance in the dairy industry, how soon can I get my milk back in the bulk

tank?) to qualitative (how quickly can I get my cow better without re-occurance of

the problem.) (Hillerton, 2000). This may not be to the advantage of the

pharmaceuticals, but it certainly would be the objective of a homoeopath.

Homoeopathy does not have commercial weight behind it. There is little

commercial benefit to anyone in the increased use of homoeopathic treatment,

except the farmer, who may save some money and have healthier animals. The

financial clout of the farmer, as demonstrated by the power of his buyers today, is

very small. It is worth noting that, when it became generally known I intended to try

and run a homoeopathic workshop in College, a lecturer and an American PhD

student both told me I was “very brave”. When asked for clarification their rational

was the power of the pharmaceuticals.

It is inaccurate to use animal welfare as a reason to prescribe antibiotics. Antibiotic

treatment does not relieve pain. (Hunter 2000). The whole issue of animal welfare

needs to be addressed more comprehensively and honestly. I would suggest that

anyone who contests the power of the homoeopathic remedy to relieve pain should

trap their finger in the car door and then take Hypericum 30, but few are likely to

accept my challenge. To relieve pain the correct remedy must be selected. Is it

more humane to cull than to treat? “I would stress that a veterinary surgeon should

always be consulted in cases that do not respond to initial treatment and in cases

which are difficult to diagnose. No animal should be allowed to suffer.” (Hansford

1998.) However, Manor Farm, where Philip Hansford is stockman, has not used

antibiotics for 15 years. “The last time I used antibiotics the bloody thing died.”

(Best 2000).

64

4.13.3. The public perception of food production

This is another area that cannot be covered by this paper. It is reflected in the latest

moves in Europe where the policy has shifted from maximum production to

environmental concern and the “multifunctionality” (Pretty 2000) of agriculture.

With payments for extensification and regulations against pollution and certain

intensive production methods, the climate of animal production has changed. More

extensive agriculture removes some of the maintaining causes of disease, and the

stress on the production animal. “If we are going to produce animals to eat the least

we can do is look after them properly” (Helen Browning 2000), is not a sentiment

restricted to organic farming. “It is part of improving the environment (of the

animal). We need to look at prevention and management not treatment and

reaction…a more holistic approach…I believe homoeopathy can play a role in such

a system.” (Laven 2000)

4.13.4. The changes within the veterinary profession.

Many vets advocate a change within their profession, particularly with regard to the

use of antibiotics. A stable to table approach is advocated (Pederesen 1999). This

has led to a change in perception of accepted veterinary practice, the need for a

more holistic veterinary approach (Hoare 2000) into which homoeopathy fits very

well. (Laven 2000) There is concern that the profession no longer teaches this

improvement of the whole environment but relies on palliation of the symptoms by

antibiotics (Saxton. 2000).

Concerns about the increasing dependence of large animal practice on medicine

sales were voiced to the BVA Congress in 1999. In 1985 large animal practice

accounted for 60% of the drug sales and 20% of the work. In 1998 it had dropped

to 30% of drug sales and 11% of the work. In 1985 the fees to drug ratio was 1:1.9,

in 1998 it was 1:2.5. Many felt vets must return to using their heads and hands.

Skills should be more important than drugs sales which currently account for about

65

70% of income in large animal practice. If the privilege to dispense is removed, as

has happened in Denmark, problems would be compounded by the reluctance of

vets to put up their fees (BVA Congress reported in The Veterinary Record, Vol 5.

Jan 29 2000).

Without exception the vets I questioned referred to their large animal practice

“melting” (Trevor Adams 2000), concern was voiced about twenty four hour

cover, and the loss of basic skills needed for farm practice. (Dr Johnson, Faculty of

Veterinary Sciences, London University, in conversation Jan 2000.) Even sceptics

are wondering whether training in homoeopathy might not be financially astute

(Blowey 2000).

Many farmers feel let down even bullied, by the attitude of their conventional vet to

homoeopathy. (Stated at RAC workshop 2000)

66

4.14. The advantages and disadvantages of homoeopathic treatment.

It is important to look at both the advantages and the disadvantages of using

homoeopathic treatment for farm animals.

4.14.1 Advantages

Has no side effects.

No requirement for laboratory animal experiments.

No residues in milk or meat.

Relatively cheap.

Welfare implications, especially for animals prior to slaughter.

No real dependency on diagnosis in the conventional sense.

Non suppressive.

Effective

(Day 1995)

No restrictions on purchase or possession.

No expensive equipment.

Effective against viruses.

Very cheap (£1.50/mastitis case)

The joy of healing.

(Johnson at conference 2000)

Proactive treatment.

Treats on an individual basis.

Increased health status of the herd reducing costs and losses.

(Pinkus at RAC 2000)

The farmer can feel he is having an effect himself.

(Browning Farm Walk 2000)

No suppression of symptoms for later reappearance

67

No need for laboratory trials on animals for proving medicines.

No dependence on diagnosis - requires observation of symptoms.

Allowance for and dependence on patient individuality.

A treatment for the whole patient.

Works with the body’s defence mechanism to improve effect.

No environmental pollution.

Duration of disease is shortened.

( Verkade 1997)

Increased length of life for dairy herd, reducing culling loss.

(Dairy Farmer Jan 11 1998)

In addition I would add

General pain reduction.

The owner can qualify as a practitioner.

4.14.2. Disadvantages.

Successful treatment needs some skill and study and commitment.

It needs confidence to start.

There is a lack of professional expertise to assist the farmer.

Needs more time spent with animals (labour costs)

Expertise is needed and takes time to learn.

Requires an awareness of the individual and its symptoms.

Chronic problems (mastitis) need a constitutional approach.

It is not the answer to poor management or the problems of intensive production.

The veterinary surgeon will have to charge for his time and expertise, rather than

for the medicine.

Not all patients get better! (Johnson)

Persons with no understanding can administer.

4.15. What information is there to help the farmer?

68

Farmers would generally take the pragmatic approach. Theirs is a practical trade.

It would appear, from my research, that the farming community has accepted the

possibility of homoeopathic treatment for their animals, but are held back in many

cases by lack of their own, and their vets, expertise. All the farmers I spoke to

agreed that there was very little qualified help available and they relied on midnight

telephone calls, to long-suffering fellow farmers, for advice. Many said they were

confused and, having achieved some success then found they were not able to repeat

this, or to understand how to improve.

What help is available to them? The simple answer is, not a lot. Geoff Johnson, in

his own summary of the principles of homoeopathy writes, “However, this should

not daunt the organic farmer, as using the appropriate books he can soon be

treating his own animals. All it takes is a basic grounding in homoeopathy and an

observant stockman.”

At the workshop only 6% of the delegates had access to a homoeopathic vet.

My telephone survey of all homoeopathically qualified vets on the BAHVS list

found only 21 willing or able to treat large animals.

Homoeopathic vets are often prepared to come on a consultancy basis. There is a

certain professional etiquette to observe, but ultimately the farmer may choose to

pay whom he wishes to come and treat his animal.

It is possible for qualified and registered lay (non medical) homeopaths to advise

on symptom recognition and remedy selection. This is a controversial area as

only a veterinary surgeon or an owner may prescribe for an animal.

The Soil Association runs occasional (one or two a year) homoeopathic

workshops for farmers who want to learn about the system.

Articles on homoeopathy appear in organic publications. For a time in the early

90’s Christopher Day had a question and answer page in “Organic Farmer and

Grower”.

The Organic Milk Producers co-op runs workshops for members.

Elm Farm publishes some information in its Monthly Bulletin.

Back copies of work done at Elm Farm are available on request.

69

Some vets have presented or published guidelines and explanations. These are

available from the vets themselves, (Trevor Adams, Geoff Johnson and Chris

Aukland all sent me copies) and many are available in back copies of the Soil

Associations publication, now called Organic Farming.

Tony Pinkus at Ainsworths pharmacy in London will advise on possible remedies

(but not prescribe)

Lay homoeopaths can advise with the consent of the vet.

Remedies are manufactured by and available by return of post from several

pharmacies.

The BHAVS and the BHA will supply details of pharmacies, veterinary surgeons

and books.

The RAC hopes to host a more advanced workshop in October 2000

70

5.0. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.

Science is questioning science and the scientific method.

Science asks the wrong questions of homoeopathy.

It is not possible to evaluate the one within the terms of the other.

Modern medicine treats disease, homoeopathy augments the bodies natural

healing power.

There is concern amongst the veterinary profession, and within the

homoeopathic profession, that homoeopathy is not being used properly, which

can have welfare implications and bring homoeopathy into disrepute.

Homoeopathy must be practised in accordance with its own established laws.

There is concern in the veterinary profession about increasing disease problems

in the farm animal.

Trained practitioners have found homoeopathy to work in almost all diseases.

(But not to cure all patients).

Organic farming and homoeopathy share a common philosophy.

Farmers farming organically (often using homoeopathy) grow increasingly

confident and observe a decrease in disease incidence.

Farmers find it difficult, at first, to use homoeopathy effectively without

considerable help.

Homoeopathy will not take the place of good management.

Homoeopathy is at odds with intensive production as the stress acknowledged to

exist in these systems is viewed as a maintaining cause.

Farmers are choosing to use homoeopathy despite opposition.

There is little expert advice or support for the farmer wishing to use

homoeopathy.

The veterinary profession is still generally sceptical and often hostile.

Homoeopathy is recognised within the EU and found to be possible to research.

For homoeopathic vets wishing to answer the requirements of modern science,

the problem was and is that of deciding the validity of proper investigation.

The problem of research on animals is raised. Homoeopathy has never used

animals for research, only healthy humans.

71

There is a lack of funding, for training, trials and research on the farm.

There is general confusion amongst scientists, vets and farmers because they do

not understand the principles of homoeopathy.

There is little commercial advantage to drug companies in the promotion of

homoeopathic treatment as remedies are not patentable. They are licensed

generically and produced by pharmacist, usually on a relatively small scale.

72

6.0. CONCLUSIONS

There is a role for the homoeopathic treatment of the farm animal, as a general

management tool and/or as part of a more holistic approach to farming.

This is not restricted to the organic farmer and so homoeopathy has a place in

the armoury of any thoughtful farmer.

It is not easy for the farmer who would like to use homoeopathy to find expert

advise.

Using the trustworthiness criteria of participatory research I would suggest that

the homoeopathic treatment of people, as documented, fulfils every requirement.

Thus homoeopathic validity can be measured within the criteria of participatory

research, as well as within its own laws and increasingly, within those of modern

science.

Within the field of animal treatment little specific information is published. It is

likely that the information is there and could be found in an extensive search and

correlation of veterinary case studies. Additionally ongoing farm studies could

help clarify remedy selection and give weight to the discussion and confidence

to the beginner. I could find no evidence of work being done at any

establishment in UK. It is perhaps a field of work in which Elm Farm could be

more active. Malla Hovi from Reading University agrees that this type of work

is very necessary.

In the light of the general move towards concerted and co-operative action (in

marketing collectively etc) and the strength this is giving to farmers who have

taken part, I would suspect that any pressure for increase in the use of

homoeopathy for the treatment of the farm animal will come from the farmers

themselves. As they demand the services of homoeopathic vets someone will

find a commercial advantage in supplying it.

73

There is an immense irony in the fact that a vet, with no homoeopathic

qualification, may prescribe a homoeopathic remedy to an animal, while a lay

homoeopath, taking 5 years to qualify, may not.

Homoeopathic treatment leads to a greater recognition of the individual animal

and therefore better observation and greater care, resulting in a general

improvement in management and thus health status. This approach accords with

that of many conventional vets but has to be implemented by the farmer. Vets

rely on the observations of the stockman, “a good stockman sees today what any

fool will see tomorrow.” (Wilson 2000). Thus he is already well on the way to

understanding how to select a remedy.

74

7.0. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1. To increase the understanding of veterinary homoeopathy.

Anyone evaluating the efficacy of homoeopathy must have a good

understanding of the principles of homoeopathy, and ideally, in trials, several

homoeopaths should be asked to make their own assessment of the required

remedy. Such collaboration would move the understanding of the treatment of

the farm animal along much faster.

The concentration of many on the treatment of multifactoral conditions like

mastitis to evaluate homoeopathic treatment is confusing the issue.

A closer look at the overall and not just the immediate effect of homoeopathic

treatment would be informative. A constant concern with reducing immediate

costs does not take into account the long-term benefit of increased health status,

resulting in increased growth, yields, longevity, fertility, decreased mortality etc.

Achievement of this sort of over all picture would need considerable time and

funding to research.

Research needs to come out of the laboratory and go onto the farm. Professor

Pretty’s call (1995) for agricultural research to come out of the laboratory and

back into the field to participate with the farmer applies equally to veterinary

homoeopathy.

Participatory research on the farm as outlined by Professor Jules Pretty would be

most valuable, concentrating, as Brinkmann (1997) suggests, on presently

intractable conditions which are not too multifactoral.

Central collection and correlation of research work could be undertaken and

made available to the veterinary profession.

75

Collection and correlation of practitioner’s (stockman and vet) case studies

could be undertaken. This would offer an information base for prescription.

There is a need for a translation of symptoms into the language of the farm and

the animal, that is as symptoms manifest in animals, so a farmer can relate them

more easily to Kent’s or Boericke’s repertories if he wishes to study the subject

in more depth.

There is no repertory of symptoms for animal practice. The publication of one

would help remedy selection.

Levy funded organisations like MDC could (as discussed with the chief

executive Peter Merson) fulfil their obligation to undertake research into issues

not seen as commercially advantageous to anyone other than, in the case of

MDC, the milk producer, by beginning long term investigation of how best to

use homoeopathy in the dairy herd. This was also suggested to me by one of the

farmers I visited.

7.2. To increase the availability of expert advice and support to the farmer.

Farmers learning groups (farmer funded research) could be established for

homoeopathy on the lines of the successful arable research groups, with monthly

meetings for discussion. These would increase the contact and support for

isolated farmers.

More use could be made of lay homoeopaths (examined and registered by

the Association of Homoeopaths and recognised by the initials RSHom).

The controversy remains of prescribing for an animal, but medical

practitioners in the NHS are using lay homoeopaths within their practices,

so it would seem sensible for conventional vets with organic farming clients

76

to do the same. It is a field in which the three professionals, vet, homoeopath

and farmer could work together to mutual advantage, and for the

considerable advantage of the animal.

Homoeopathic vets could be employed by organisations such as the Organic Milk

Suppliers Co-operative, every farmer paying a small amount per year for a

certain number of advisory visits, and emergency telephone consultations.

Producer organisations (Rare Breeds Association, Cotswold Sheep, etc) could run

groups and invite speakers. Most homoeopathic vets have prepared

presentations, as does Tony Pinkus. Lay homoeopaths are also able to explain

the principles and practice of homoeopathy to farmers.

Regular 14 day courses in practical homoeopathy need to be available for

interested vets and farmers. (Johnson 2000), perhaps run by retired homoeopathic

vets together with lay homoeopaths? There are several, internationally

recognised, established schools which teach the latter.

“Shadowing” of homoeopathic vets by conventional vets for a day or more so

they can observe the practice of homoeopathy.

Veterinary Physicians. Some vets could qualify as veterinary physicians rather

than surgeons. Given the workload required of the student veterinary surgeon,

some earlier specialisation might be introduced, so that a percentage would

qualify with alternative skills such as homoeopathy already acquired. Surgery on

farm animals is often refused today, as the value of the animal is too low to

justify it. Most farmers cull rather than operate.

Funding from bodies like MAFF, rather than investing in laboratory research,

could more profitably be used to fund on farm research along the lines of that

done into sustainable agriculture by Jules Pretty, or as scholarships to help more

vets qualify as homoeopathics.

77

Paraprofessionals as suggested but not explained by the government white paper,

(see Veterinary Record, Vol.147 No.5 January 29,2000) could include lay

homoeopaths who take a further specialisation in the treatment of farm animals.

There is a need for a veterinary repertory from which remedies can be selected

by symptom. (As Kent (1935) and Boercke etc. produced for the treatment of

people). At present all books published for farm animal homoeopathy list by

disease (or condition) diagnosis or remedy picture. It is the observation

symptoms common, and, but most importantly, unique to the individual which

give the clue to homoeopathic prescription, especially in the difficult case.

The barriers to dialogue (Southgate 1981) need to be removed.

78

8.0. FOOTNOTE.

I have found that to be of value to anyone homoeopathy needs to be practised within

its own principles, and that success lies in the skill of the practitioner. To acquire

this skill needs practice, and to gain this needs commitment. Commitment demands

participation.

I have also digested and understood what I first read in Skolimowski when I began

this journey. That the time has come to establish a new unity, evoking the

pioneering spirit of the pre-Socratics, and to appreciate that it is possible to have

valid concepts which do not follow the form of the modern scientific paradigm. I

now understand what Burrell and Morgan (1979) call the sociology of radical

change. That today we tend to think of reality as “that object out there”. We have

enormous difficulty in conceiving reality as, for example, in continuous flux.

(Skolimowski 1994). Burrell and Morgan see this problem as a page divided into

quarters. On the far right is objectivity, and on the far left is subjectivity. At the

bottom is the sociology of regulation and order, and at the top the sociology of

radical change. Safety and security to the western mind is represented in the top and

bottom quarters of the right hand side. Danger and change in the left-hand quarters.

Some (totalitarian states for example) are in the top right hand quadrant, Freudian

concepts in the top left, in which subjective perception and radical change act

together. Western sciences, (individual, organisation, or government) begin,

generally, in the bottom right hand quadrant: control, regulation, things in their

proper systems, objectivity being the only proper way to investigate etc.), but some

are moving towards the left hand quadrants, to the bottom left where the view of the

world is more subjective but still regulated: rules and protocols to organise change,

or even to the top left where individuals challenge status quo and demand radical

change.

I am now able to place homoeopathy within the framework of Burrell’s concept. It

occupies the centre and uses all parts of the quadrants. The whole. The practitioner

receives objectively the subjective symptoms of the patient. By using a radical

79

philosophy of medicine he prescribes the appropriate remedy within the regulation

and order of homoeopathic law.

I must now pause, reluctantly, along this road less travelled by, having participated,

and in doing so learnt a huge amount. Not only learnt but also found some answers

to the conundrums, the paradoxes. I have learnt that it is possible, and vital, to hold

these conundrums, that there is no mutually exclusive conflict in paradox, if the

human mind is kept open.

Clear minds like those of Professors Jules Pretty and Colin Spedding see dangers in

polarisation, where one form is considered good and the other bad. “The true

sensibility lies in the way opposites are synthesised.” (Pretty 1995)

It would appear that Pretty’s application of participatory research and evaluation

could be as applicable to homoeopathy as it is to sustainable agriculture.

“I don’t believe in objective true, universal, neutral science. We use agroecology

within a development paradigm that must have a certain direction in terms of social

change. Our approach has been marginalised from academia and we have always

been called the radicals or the dreamers. It is interesting that academia is now

knocking on our door. I don’t argue with any one any more about whether the set

rotation works for seven years,: I’ll take you there and you can argue with the

farmers because the proof is theirs. (Altieri 1992)

For agriculture read homoeopathy. This is exactly the sentiment of those who

understand the principles and practice of homoeopathy. No requirement is felt to

justify what they are doing. Will Best (Manor Farm, Dorset), Oliver Dowding and

Henry Bagenal (Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative) Chris Freeman (Home Farm,

Goosey) and many others use homoeopathy as a medicine of first resort and observe

that their animals are healthier, there is less incidence of disease. Homoeopathy has

been marginalised by academia and its value consistently denied. How much more

80

valuable to investigate what so many are finding to be a useful tool in their efficient

management of the farm animal.

Burrell and Morgan observe that many are schooled in the objective, positivist,

sociology of regulation paradigm, and stay there. Many move into the subjectivist,

post-positivist, the sociology of radical change paradigm, altering how they see the

world and how they create knowledge within it. Of interest is how discussion and

understanding can move through the frontiers of these very different approaches to

knowledge. This is not an insight I would have been able to make nine months ago.

In relating these ideas to my own corriculum I realise, now, that I have had to

demonstrate some of the questions of the art of the dialectician (Plato, Phaedrus) in

being able to work in a college of higher education which operates in the area of the

objective, the positivist and the regulatory, while at the same time create the

learning space for me to develop my own corriculum of the subjective and the

radical. I now realise that, within this dissertation is the implicit demonstration of

the role that agricultural institutions, both educational and research, need to take in

stepping outside their traditional narrow range of epistemology and embracing new

knowledges and new discourses for the benefit of the land, the farm, the farmer and

the animal.

The value of this statement is held within the realisation that nine months ago I

would not have been able to articulate the complexity of this position, located as it is

within the politics of education and the politics of power.

I have returned to the ancient philosophers and taken, with increasing confidence

and comprehension, the road to which Heraclitus, Hippocrates and Plato pointed. I

have found their thoughts as clear and relevant today as they were over two

thousand years ago. It was a journey that I made, unwillingly and unwittingly,

schooled, as I was, into the value of objectivity, from a deep inner sense of disquiet,

impossible to justify within the confines of my own education. I began in the

bottom right hand quarter, being told, and believing, it the only proper place to be,

81

the civilised, modern, forward thinking place, and found that it is not. This

dissertation is the story of that journey and that realisation.

From what I have found during my research one must conclude that there is indeed

a very important role for the use of homoeopathy in the treatment of the farm

animal. To facilitate this, established bodies and organisations must ask the right

questions. Not to deny the validity of homoeopathy, not to demand proof of

efficacy, but rather to enquire how best to help the farmer use it effectively. This is

the crux of my paper. I hope that I have been able to break down some of those

barriers to dialogue, so that more minds open, and address the issue of how best to

advance the homoeopathic treatment of the farm animal.

82

9.0. BIBLIOGRAPY

ADAMS, T. 2000 teadams@eggconnect.net Conversations with

author and at workshop RAC 2000

ADAMS, T. 2000 In talk at homoeopathic workshop, RAC March2000

ALDER, M. 1999 Moving forward on resistance. Veterinary Record

September 18. 1999 Pg. 325

ALDER, M. 2000 Promoting prudent use of antimicrobials. Veterinary

Record. Feb 5 2000. 145.

ALEXANDER, J. 1982 Theoretical logic in sociology. Volume 1;Positivism

presuppositions and current controversies, London

Routledge and Kent Paul, 16, 42.

ALLEN, T.F 1990 The Encyclopædia of pure materia medica. R Jain.

1990 New Delhi

ALTIERI, M. 1992 Farmers initiatives to maintain diversity. In The

gene traders, security or profit in food production?

Proceedings of an international Conference.14-15

April 1992 ITDG,Rugby And New Economics

Foundation, London.

ARGYRIS, C. SCHON, D.

1978

Organisational learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading.

Mass.

AUCKLAND. C 2000 Conversations with author.

BADEN, J.1997 Soft medicine beats antibiotics. Pigs. Vol. 13 no3

83

Pg. 8

BAGENAL, H. 2000 At RAC workshop.

BALFOUR, E. 1975 The Living Soil and the Haughley experiments.

Revised edition. Faber and Faber.

BELLAVITE, P. SIGNORINI,

A .1995

Homoeopathy a frontier in modern medicine. North

Atlantic Books.

BELLOWS,H. 1995 A Reproving of Belladonna. Boston: The American

Homoeopathic Opthalmological, Ontological and

Laryngologocal Society 1906.

BELON,P. CRUMPS,J

ENNIS,M et.al.

Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by

successive histomine Dilutions: Results of a

European multi-centre trial. Inflammation Research

48 Supplement 1, 1999:17-18.

BEST,W. 2000 At Soil Association workshop. Dorset.

BLACKIE, M. Classical homoeopathy. Beaconsfield Publishers

Ltd

BLOWEY, R. 1999 A veterinary book for dairy farmers. Farming Press

BLOWEY, R. 2000 Conversation with author during farm rounds.

BOERECKE, W. 1927 Materia medica with repertory. Homoeopathic

Publications. New Dehli.

BOWE, K. 2000. Bovine Lameness. Farmers Guardian May 5,

2000,:17

84

BRINKEMAN. 1997 Training for the homoeopathic vet. Pigs. Vol. 13

no3 Pg. 8

BROUGH, C. 2000 Conversation with author. RAC

BRYMAN, A. 1992 Quantity and quality in research. Routledge.

BURRELL, G, MORGAN, G.

1979

Sociological paradigm and organisational analysis.

Arena

CABARET, J. 1996. The homoeopathic Cina does not reduce the egg output of digestive tract nematodes in lambs. Revue-de-medicine Veterinaire, 1996, 147:6 445-446.

CASTRO, M. 1990 The complete homoeopathic handbook. Macmillan

CHANNINGS, R. 1984. The effect of not treating milk cases of clinical

mastitis in a dairy herd. Veterinary Record 1984

155:499-500.

CLARKE, A. 1973 Profiles of the future. In a dictionary of

contemporary quotations. Pan books Ltd. London.

CONWAY, J. 2000 Personal communication to author.

COULTER, C. 1986 Portraits of homoeopathic medicines. North Atlantic

books. 1986.

COULTER, H. 1991 The controlled clinical trial, an analysis. Centre for

Empirical Medicine. Washington DC

CURTIS, M. 2000 More calls for homoeopathy cause concern.

Farmers Weekly 28 Jan 2000

DAY, C. The Homoeopathic Treatment of Beef and Dairy

Cattle. Beaconsfield Publishers Ltd. England.

85

DAY, C. 1984. Control of still births in pigs using homoeopathy.

Veterinary Record 1984. Vol. 114. 216.

DAY, C. 1986 Clinical trials in use of nosodes for prevention of

bovine mastitis. British Homoeopathic Journal.

January 1986; 11-15.

DAY, C. 1995 The homoeopathic treatment of beef and dairy

cattle. Beaconsfield Publishers Ltd.

DODGESON, J. 2000 orders@crossgatesfarm.co.uk Personal

communication.

DORENKAMP, B. 1996 The homoeopathic treatment of urogenital disorders

in recently calved cow. Biologische Tiermedizin

1996, 13:4,116-123.

EAMES, S. 1998 Journal of the British Homoeopathic Association

Vol. 48 No 1. February 1998. 2

EGAN, J. 1995. Evaluation of a homoeopathic remedy for

subclinical mastitis. Veterinary Record. 137:2,48:4

ELIA, E. NICCOLI, M. 1999 The thermodynamics of extremely diluted solutions.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,

1999,827:241-248

ELLIOT, M. 1996. A homoeopathic vet. Journal of the British

Homoeopathic Association. Vol. 46, no 3. June

1996. Pg. 53

86

ELLIOTT,M 1993 Homoeopathy, the shepherds guide. Ainsworth’s

pharmacy.

FARRINGTON, E. 1991 Clinical materia medica. B. Jain Publishers, Pvt.

Ltd., New Dehli.

FELL, H. 1999 Lecture to students. RAC

FITZPATRICK, J. (1999) Animal Welfare Implications of Mastitis. Mastitis

The Organic Perspective. The Soil Association.

FLEMING, P. 1999 Homoeopathy. Journal of Equine Veterinary

Science. Vol 19, No.12. December 1999

FROST, R. The road not taken.

GILL, G. 1991 But how does it compare with the ‘real’ data? RRA Notes 14, 5-13.

GUNN, 1999 Tough times, tough decisions.

Veterinary Record 1999. October 9. 414.

GUTMAN, W. 1978 Homoeopathy. The Fundemantals of its philosophy.

The Homoeopathic Medical Publishers, Bombay.8

HAMMOND, C. 1988 How to use homoeopathy effectively. Caritas health

care.

HANNEMANN, S. (1921 ed.) Organon of medicine, sixth edition. Homoeopathic

Publications New Delhi. 1921 Boericke translation.

HANSFORD, P. PINKUS,T.

1998

The herdsmans introduction to homoeopathy.

Ainsworths Homoeopathic Pharmacy.

87

HARAWAY, D. 1991 Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Free Association Books, London.

HARMAN, W. 1995 The shortcomings of western science. Prepared for

the University of Bath Symposium on Quality in

human enquiry. March. 1995

HARRE. 1972 The Philosophies of Science Oxford University Press

HARVEY. J AND MASON, E

1998

The use and mis-use of antibiotics. Soil

Association.

HILLERTON, E. 2000 eric.hillerton@bbsrc.ac.uk BBSRC Conversation with author.

HOARE, J. 1998 Constitutional prescribing for animals.

Homoeopathy. The Journal of the British

Homoeopathic Society. Vol. 48, No. 3.

HOARE.J. Integrating complementary medicine into general

practice. In Practice Jan 2000. 47.

HOVI, M. RODERICK, S.

1999

An investigation into the incidence, treatment

strategies and financial implications of mastitis in

organic and conventionally managed UK dairy

herds. Organic Livestock research group, Veterinary

Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit.

The University of Reading.

HUNTER, F. 2000 Conversation with author

JOHNSON, J. (Prof) 2000 Faculty of veterinary medicine. London University.

88

Telephone conversation with author.

JOHNSON,G. 2000 At Soil Association workshop, Manor Farm, Dorset.

KARREMAN, H, 2000 webmaster@altvetmed.com. communication with

author.

KAUFMAN, M.1971 Homoeopathy in America, Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins, 53.

KELLER, E. 1993 The feeling of the organism. Yale University Press

KELLER, E. 1998 Reflections on gender and science. Yale University

Press

KENT, J.T. 1911 A materia medica. New Delhi

KENT. 1935 Repatory of materia medica with index.

Homoeopathic Publucations. New Dehli 4th edition.

KENT. J.T. 1911 Lectures in homoeopathic materia medica.

Homoeopathic publications. New Delhi. First

published 1911

KISHORE, J. 1983 Homoeopathy, the Indian Experience. The World

Health Forum, 3, 1983, 107.

KLEIJNEN, J. KNIPSCHILD,

P. TER RIET G.1991

Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy, British Medical

Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316- 323.

KOEHLER, G. 1987 The handbook of homoeopathy. Thorson Publishing

Group. Northamptonshire.

89

KORTEN , D. 1995 When Corporations Rule The World. Earthscan.

KUHN,T. 1962 The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago

University Press. 1963

KUTZINNA. et.al. 1996 Organic milk production in Germany. Biological

agriculture and horticulture. 13:351-358

LANCET 1997 Meta analysis. State of the art conclusion, the

clinical effects of homoeopathic medicines are not a

placebo” September 20

LANE,G. 1995 Conversation with author. RAC

LAVEN, R. 2000 Richard.Laven@adas.co.uk ADAS. Emails to author

LEACH, S. 1995 Don’t sneer Homoeopathy can work. It did for us British Daiying July 1995 25.

LEARMONT, A. 1998 Disease ecology. Blackwell. Oxford 1998

LEVY. S. 1997 Antibiotic resistance. An ecological imbalance.

Tufts University School of Medicine. Boston. The

Ciba foundation.

LILLIENTAL, H. 1986 Homoeopathic therapeutics, B.Jain Pvt. Ltd 1986.

LO, SHUI-YIN 1996 Anomalous State of Ice. Modern Physics Letter B,

10,19 (1996): 921-930 See also Proceedings of the

First International Symposium on IE Water

Clusters. Singapore World Scientific 1998.

MACLEOD, G. 1996 The treatment of cattle by homoeopathy. The C.W.

Daniel Company Ltd.

90

MACRAE, R. HILL, S.

HENNING,J. et al 1989

Agriculture, science and sustainable agricultur: a

review of the existing scientific barriers to

sustainable food production and potential solutions.

Biol. Agric. J. Hortic. 6, 1089

MASLOW, A. 1981 The psychology of science. In Human Enquiry.

Edited by Reason. John Wiley and sons. 88

MATHUR. K.N 1989 Principles of prescribing. R Jain New Delhi

MAY,T von. REINHART,E.

1997

Field Trial of homoeopathic, prophylactic herd

treatment in weaning pigs against enterotoxemia

caused by Escherichia coli. Biologishe Tiermedizin.

1997, 14: 1, 20-27.

MAZHAR, A. 1995 Newcastle disease and homoeopathy. Misset Poultry

World. 1995.11:9,61.

MEANEY, W. 1995 Treatment of mastitis with homoeopathic remedies.

Newsletter of the International Dairy Federation

(Belgium) Mastitis news letter. Sept 1995 no.

142/20. 5-6.

MEPHAM, B. 1995 Issues in agricultural bioethics. Nottingham

University Press.

MERSON, P. 2000 Conversation with author.

NUESS, A 1993 The Pluralist and Possibilist Aspect of the Scientific

Enterprise. Quoted in ROTHENBURG.D. Is it

Painful To Think? University of Minnesota Press.

91

OLESEN. I. 1996 Buskap og Avdratt. 1996, 48: 2, 26-28.Mastitis and

Organic Farming.

PEARCE. MARKANDYA, A.

BARBIER,E. 1990

Blue print for a green economy. Earthscan

PEDERSEN, K.

AARESTRUP,F. JENSEN,N.

et.al 1999

The need for a veterinary policy. The Veterinary

Record ,July 10 1999 pg. 50-53

PEDERSEN,K. AARESTRUP,

F. JENSEN,N. ET AL 1999

The need for a veterinary antibiotic policy. The

Veterinary Record, July 10 1999. 50-51

PELLOW, R. (2000) Animal health Trust. Personal communication.

PHILLIPS, D.C. Post Positive Science. Myths and realities. The

Paradigm dialogue. Sage Publications. Newbury

Park

PINKUS,T. 2000 Conversations with author.

PITCAIRN, R. 2000 Homoeopathy, antidote to a material age. Available

from author. ANHC@pacinfo.com

1283 Lincoln Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Voice:

(541) 342-7665 Fax: (541) 344-5356.

PRETTY, J. 1994. Alternative systems of enquiry for sustainable

agriculture. IDS bulletin 25(2):37-48, Ids,

University of Sussex

PRETTY, J. 1995 Regenerating agriculture. Earthscan.

PRETTY,J. 2000 Email to author pretty@essex.ac.uk

RAJAN, S. SETHURAMAN, Traditional veterinary practices in rural districts of

92

M. 1997 Dindigul district, Tamil Nadu, India. Indigenous

knowledge and development monitor. 1997, 5; 3, 7-

9

REASON, P .1981 Human inquiry. John Wiley and Sons

REILLY,D. TAYLOR, M.

NEIL, G. 1994

Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible? Lancet

Vol. 344. Dec 10 1994.:1601-6

REINHARZ, S. 1981 Implementing a new paradigm research. In Human

enquiry. Edited by Reason. John Wiley and Sons.

RODERICK, S. SHORT,N.

HOVI, M. 1996

Organic livestock production. animal health and

welfare research priorities. Veterinary

Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit.

The University of Reading

ROTHENBURG D 1993 Is it painful to think? Conversations with Arne

Naess. University of Minnesota Press

SANKARAN, R. 1991 The Spirit of Homoeopathy. Sankaran, Bombay.

SAXTON, J. 2000 Response to questionnaire.

SCHUMACHER,E. 1974 Small is beautiful. Abacus.

SCOFIELD, A.M. 1984 Homoeopathy and its Potential role in Agriculture-

A Critical Review, Biological Agriculture and

Horticulture, 184, Vol.2,

SEGALL, E. 1997 The NHS and homoeopathy. The Journal of the British Homoeopathic Association, Vol 47 No.5. October 1997.

SHELDRAKE, R. 2000 How Gaia is challenging Descarte’s worldview.

93

Organic Farming. Issue 65 Spring 2000

SHIVA, V. 1991 The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology and politics. Zed books.l

SKOLIMOWSKY, H. 1994 The participatory mind. Arkana. Penguin Books

SOIL ASSOCIATION (1999) Soil Association Standards for Organic Food and

Farming, September 1999

SOMMER, H. 1996 Homoeopathy in dairy herds. Institut fur anatomie,

Universtat Bonn, Germany (in German)

SOUTHGATE, J. 1981 The troubled fish. Barriers to dialogue. In Human

inquiry. Edited by Peter Reason. John Wiley & Sons

SPEDDING, C. 1996 Agriculture and the citizen. Chapman and Hall

SPEDDING, C. 2000 Lecture to students. RAC.

SPRANGER, J.1997 Homoeopathic medicine as a flanking measure of an

ethiologically oriented therapy, taking sterility and

mastitis in cows as an example. Danmarks

Jordbrugsforskning, Foulum (Denmark) Veterianary

Homoeopathy in Organic Herds: Relevance,

Practical Applicability and Future Perspectives.

Foulum (Denmark) 1997 no.90. pg. 13-39.

STOCKING, M. 1993 Soil erosion in developing countries: where

geomorphology fears to tread. Discussion Paper. No

241. School of Development Studies, University of

East Anglia.

STOPES,C WOODWARD,L.

1986

The use of veterinary homoeopathy: Theory practice

and potential. Proceedings: 6th IFOAM Conference,

Santa Cruz. 1986

94

STOPES,C. WOODWARD, L.

1986

The use and efficacy of a homoeopathic nosode in

the prevention of mastitis in dairy herds: A farm

survey. Presented to the International Journal for

Veterinary Homoeopathy. 30 March 1987.Elm farm

Research Centre.

TYLER, M. 1989 Homoeopathic drug pictures. The C.W. Daniel

Company Ltd.

ULLMAN, D 1991 Discovering Homoeopathy: Medicine for the 21st

Century. M.P.H., Berkley; North Atlantic 1991.

http://www.ihr.com/homeopat/history.html

ULLMAN, D. Discovering Homoeopathy: Medicine for the 21st

Century. M.P.H., Berkl;ey; North Atlantic 1991.

Taken from

http://www.ihr.com/homeopat/history.html

The international homoeopathic renaissance. M.P.H

1995. Information from The Homoeopathic

Education Services, 2124B Kettredge Street,

Berkely, California.94704.

http://www.ihr.com/homeopat/hyworld.html.

ULLMAN, D. 1991 Discovering homoeopathy medicine for the 21st

Century. M.P.H., Berkley; North Atlantic.

http://www.ihr.com/homeopat/history.html

ULLMAN, D. 1996 The Consumer's Guide to Homeopathy,

Tarcher/Putnam,

http://www.ihr.com/homeopat/research.html

95

ULLMAN, D. 1999 The thermodynamics of Extremely Dilute Solutions.

http://www.homeopathic.com/article/thermdynamic

s.hym

ULLMAN, D.1999 Lancet Publishes Major Review of Research on

Homoeopathic Medicine

http://www.homeopathic.com/research/lancet.htm

UPADHAYAY, A. 1995 Homoeopathic treatment of vaginal prolapse. Indian

Journal of Veterinary Medicine 1995. 15: 2, 110.

UPDATE. University of North Wales. Aberystwyth.

http://www.aber.ac.uk/~updwww/searcg/AllYears/H

OMOEOPATY.htm

VAN HASELEN, A. 1997 Does Homoeopathy offer value for money? Journal

of the British Homoeopathic Association Vol. 47.

No.5. Oct 1997 114

VERKADE, T. 1997 Homoeopathic hand book for dairy farming. Homoeopathic Support. New Zealand.

VITHOULKAS, G. 1990 Talks on classical homoeopathy. R Jain New Delhi

VITHOULKAS, G. 1991. A New Model For Health And Disease, North

Atlantic Books.

WEBSTER, J. 2000 john.webster@bristol.ac.uk

personal communication.

WHITEHEAD, J. 2000 Email communication with Paul Murray RAC

WIBBERLEY, J. 2000 Farmers together. An International overview

towards farmers-interactive extension and action.

Presented May 2000. RAC

WILSON D. 2000 Abbey Home Farm, Tetbury. In conversation with

96

students from the Royal Agricultural College,

Cirencester. March 2000

WOOD, M. 1995 Environmental soil biology. Blackie Academic and

Professional.

WYNNE, B. 1992 Uncertainty and environmental learning.

Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive

paradigm. Global Environmental Change. June

1992. 111-127.

WYNNE, S. 1998 Studies on the use of homoeopathy in animals.

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical

Association 1998, 215(5): 719-724.

WYNNE, S. 1998 Homoeopathy, evidence and clinical applications.

Proceedings of the North American Veterinary

Conference. 1992-98, V12 : 20-23.

97

10.0. OTHER REFERENCES.

INTERNET SITES

HOMOEOPATHIC RESEARCH CENTRE

THE SOIL ASSOCIATION

ALTVETMED

UPDATE

ORGANISATIONS.

BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION

ELM FARM RESEARCH CENTRE,

THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION OF HOMOEOPATHIC VETERINARY SURGEONS

THE FACULTY OF HOMOEOPATHY

CONTACTS

DANA ULLMAN,

TOWERS, J

NICK THOMPSON. MRCVS

CHRIS AUKLAND. MRCVS

http://www.healthy.net/CLINIC/therapy/Homeopat/Research/Index.asp

nfo@soilassociation.org

http://www.altvetmed.com

http://www.aber.ac.uk/~update/search/allYears/HOMOEOPATHY.htm

27A Devonshire Street, London W1N 1RJ. Tel 0171 935 2163.

Newbury, RG20 0HR, UK

Chinham House, Stanford in the Vale, Oxfordshire, SN7 8NQ.

5, Clarkenwell Close, London EC1.

mail@homeopathic.com

Elm Farm Research Centre.judith.t@efrc.com

http://www.holisticvet.co.uk/

Caukland@aol.com

98