here, from my news.google.com alerts:
001. at The Newtown Bee, in "Business Buzz: Your Healthy Pet" we're told:
"business name: Your Healthy Pet [...] my name is Dianne Bromley, and my journey has finally brought me to truly pursue what matters to me: to care for the animals. Most importantly, I am able to provide pet owners with a better understanding of the importance of natural nutrition. With holistic care on the rise, with some vets becoming better educated as to the importance of natural nutrition and remedies, we have come a lot closer to taking better care of our pets. We spend time every day researching products and newest developments in animal companion health. I am a Clinical Pet [Nutritionist] and have completed extensive training in Pet Naturopathy along with Certifications in Holistic Animal Care and Homeopathy [...]":
so, this is sounding like homeopathy and naturopathy, holistic and nutrition for pets. I guess you don't need to be a veterinarian to do these things, in terms of "care", if this is retail?
"objective: to provide our customers with a wide variety of natural and organic products and services; to address pets’ various health, emotional, and nutritional needs using knowledge based on experience and educational training that addresses each pets’ individual needs; offer delivery services to customers that are unable to travel to our location; sell earth-friendly cleaning products, pure, natural supplements, and gentle, cruelty-free grooming products; to provide our customers with a wide variety of homeopathic, herbal, and holistic remedies, natural flea and tick prevention products [...]";
granted, some of these sentiments and aspirations are really positive. Yet the "homeopathic, herbal and holistic", I would think just like DSHEA for humans via FDA exemption, creates an untested and unproven unregulated retail risk.
002. my "researching" and "educational" recalls
002.a. this position as stated by the UK's Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons at BMH Journals, in "No Evidence for Homeopathy, says RCVS" [also at Edzard Ernst's blog]:
"RCVS statement in full: ‘homeopathy exists without a recognized body of evidence for its use. Furthermore, it is not based on sound scientific principles. In order to protect animal welfare, we regard such treatments as being complementary rather than alternative to treatments for which there is a recognized evidence base or which are based in sound scientific principles. ‘It is vital to protect the welfare of animals committed to the care of the veterinary profession and the public’s confidence in the profession that any treatments not underpinned by a recognized evidence base or sound scientific principles do not delay or replace those that do’ [...]";
hear, hear. Of course, this doesn't even touch on the commerce issue of offering something as effective that isn't!
002.b. and this position as stated by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in "A Closer Look at Veterinary Homeopathy":
"the Food and Drug Administration [...] currently does not evaluate these products for safety or efficacy [...] Dr. Virginia R. Fajt, clinical associate professor of veterinary physiology and pharmacology at Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, says our current understanding of chemistry, physics, and pharmacology precludes any scientific basis for the efficacy of homeopathy [...] medical ethics factor into consideration of the practice of veterinary homeopathy, says Dr. David W. Ramey, an equine practitioner who co-wrote the book 'Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine Considered' with ethicist Bernard Rollin, PhD. 'The basic question is: Do we as veterinarians have an obligation to provide effective treatments? If a client believes in magic and the job of the vet is only to make sure each and every client is satisfied, then the veterinarian should simply do magic,” Dr. Ramey says. “However, there are ethical concerns with such a position. What about the animals?' [...]";
interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment