Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Alternative Medicine
The authors of ‘Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 1 and 2’, respond
  1. Martin Whitehead,
  2. Danny Chambers,
  3. Peter Lees,
  4. Ludovic Pelligand,
  5. Pierre-Louis Toutain and
  6. Martin Whiting
  1. Chipping Norton Veterinary Hospital, Banbury Road, Chipping Norton, Oxon OX7 5SY
  2. Langford Vets, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS40 5DU
  3. Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Campus, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA
  1. e-mail: martincnvets{at}

Statistics from

We welcome the opportunity to emphasise our concerns regarding what we view as an unethical practice by responding to the points raised in the above letter.

As explained in our review, we believe that homeopathy requires the existence of a ‘healing power’ with multiple supernatural properties. According to scientific understanding, such a thing is extremely implausible, as homeopaths – including De Beukelaer and others – acknowledge. To counter this problem, the term ‘plausibility bias’ has been used in an attempt to make credulity appear a positive thing.1 We argue that plausibility bias applies in the case of all similar claims including ghosts, clairvoyance, telekinesis, miracles and yetis. Given the consensus that homeopathy is implausible, we believe it imperative that this is explained to clients before treatment …

View Full Text

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.