Horse Owners we need to WAKE UP!!!

[MassageLady]

Originally quoted by J Swan…

I don’t think anyone is being sarcastic or ridiculing your choice of health care for your animals.

yet…in the same post-

Edited to add - wow - it seems that someone in Indiana actually got off their butt and DID something instead of whining about how difficult it all was. So - though it was some sort of insurmountable task, requiring millions of dollars and a full time lobbyist… somehow a simple change in language and voila. Massage Lady is saved. Good thing someone in her profession was looking out for her interests.

No, actually it required speaking to the legislators in person-and INFORMING them about what the bill says, the impact it would have on the therapists and the clients. It wasn’t just for me-it was for the animals, owners and therapists.
If that isn’t sarcasm, then what is it?

Some of you seem to believe you’re engaged in some sort of great scientific debate and need to score points off people

For about the third time-this was not meant to be a debate, others turned it into one.

Thanks, but I don’t use Google for medical topics. Something far more people out to consider.

Then where did you go for these??

The vertigo study demonstrated positive benefit in both groups: antihistamine and homeopathic stuff. No placebo group. 100 patients. Everyone got better. Wow! Imagine that. Acute vertigo GETS BETTER.

The rheumatoid arthritis study was randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded. It showed no benefit whatsoever to homeopathic remedies of various formulations. In fact, the placebo patients felt BETTER in some measures. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001 Sep;40(9):1052-5. (sorry, can’t get link to work)

The Traumeel/stomatitis paper was promising.

The Brien/Belladonna paper was utterly damning: showed that homeopathic treatment does nothing. Or to be precise, the paper stated “no observable clinical effects”.

The authors of the skin/breast cancer paper had some major questions as to methodology but felt that maybe there was some potential skin cooling. Not enough detail in the abstract to comment.

[JSwan]

Hon - perhaps it’s time you chill out.

First - you’re quoting from the wrong post.

Second - I have first hand knowledge of exactly what had to happen in order to get that language changed. Which is WHY, several times, I told you, Lookout, and other posters that’s what needed to happen. If you go bad and read the responses - it was evident that folks thought it was too hard, required millions, time off work - or came up with other excuses as to why it ‘could not be done’.

Good thing someone else got off their butt.

Unfortunately, y’all are really into your own opinions, and are not willing to read the opinions of others. Particularly those posters who have direct experience working with their state legislature.

And I believe this at least the second time you’ve misquoted me or confused my posts with someone else’s.

One only prays that you have greater attention to detail when you’re working on horses.

[redleaflady]

[QUOTE=J Swan;3052689]

And caballus - pointing out that there are bad vets has absolutely no bearing upon the issue of laypeople practicing veterinary medicine. Separate issue. It does not go ‘both ways’.[/QUOTE]

Actually in the state of FL it is legal for a lay person to practice veternary medicine. It is still illegal for a massage therapist (except under direct vet supervision) or a dentist using power tools, etc to work. But a layperson CAN spay or castrate a herd anaimal. I don’t know about you but I would imagine that spaying a cow would be pretty invasive. How invasive is energy work or massage?

[redleaflady]

@J Swan;3052779

Second - I have first hand knowledge of exactly what had to happen in order to get that language changed. Which is WHY, several times, I told you, Lookout, and other posters that’s what needed to happen. If you go bad and read the responses - it was evident that folks thought it was too hard, required millions, time off work - or came up with other excuses as to why it ‘could not be done’.

The point is not that it is too hard and we can’t do anything. The point is that we need to get the word out that it is happening so that we have some numbers behind us to fight this.

[JSwan]

Ahem - because you’re confused.

Investigate the history behind the laws as they stand now and you’ll most likely find that the ag/farmer lobby asked for the law to contain certain exceptions.

And it passed that way. Again, that’s how it works.

[Lookout]

@J Swan;3052779

Second - I have first hand knowledge of exactly what had to happen in order to get that language changed. Which is WHY, several times, I told you, Lookout, and other posters that’s what needed to happen. If you go bad and read the responses - it was evident that folks thought it was too hard, required millions, time off work - or came up with other excuses as to why it ‘could not be done’.

I was not talking about what it would take to ‘change language’ to wording that makes it okay for someone with no qualifications in a fieldto to be the arbiter of whether a therapy can be performed. I was not talking about doing so in Indiana.
Although in every post you rewrite the world according to J Swan and decide what everyone is saying regardless of what they’re actually saying, and what they should be saying, and doing.

And I believe this at least the second time you’ve misquoted me or confused my posts with someone else’s.

Perhaps you should have coffee with the COTH board to change the laws so that a poster can’t multiquote multiple posts and posters in one response thereby keeping the traffic down, albeit making it necessary for the reader to pay more attention.

And good thing you’re not sarcastic in your replies.

[Lookout]

@J Swan;3052790

Ahem - because you’re confused.

Investigate the history behind the laws as they stand now and you’ll most likely find that the ag/farmer lobby asked for the law to contain certain exceptions.

And it passed that way. Again, that’s how it works.

Lobby? Lobby??

[system]

Obviously everybody is getting off topic. IF I’m not mistaken, it’s about choice, like religion, where you want to eat, where you want to go to school, who you want to vote for. IT’s a decision that if you try one thing and it doesn’t work, you have the ability to try something else. And if alternative therapies injure or someone feels they’ve been defrauded, do like every good American…SUE!!! IT"S ABOUT CHOICE There are things that we’ve done and been successful without allopathic care. And then, there are things that we’ve had to use allopathic care. But I’ve had the choice both for my animals and myself. If it doesn’t suit you, don’t do it. But be able to have a choice. The people providing the opportunity for the choice, some good and some not, should be judged by their results, by the market place, and by the court system. The healing arts involed in this conversation origionate from cultures outside this country, technology developed within this country, and a sincere state of mind from the practioner to influence the quality of an animals life. It should be considered a different form of licensure that doesn’t include allopathically trained individuals but those that understand and are trained in these practices.

[redleaflady]

Oh, but I guess that you can’t sue a vet and win. I guess they have a license to mess up.

[MassageLady]

Hon - perhaps it’s time you chill out.

First - you’re quoting from the wrong post.

I ain’t your ‘Hon’, and I don’t need to chill out…wrong post? it was from the same post that you put up.

If you go bad and read the responses - it was evident that folks thought it was too hard, required millions, time off work - or came up with other excuses as to why it ‘could not be done’.

Nobody said that-we were just putting the word out there so that those that use alternative therapy and offer it would know about it. Nobody said it ‘couldn’t be done’.

Quoted by JSwan

I don’t think anyone is being sarcastic or ridiculing your choice of health care for your animals. Your position is that that veterinarians have no right to get into your business. But they do. Their profession is charged with the care and treatment of pets and livestock. While they do not have the right to make decisions FOR the owner, they do have the right to express concern about the legitimacy of alternative medicine (and its practitioners). More to the point - the concern is the practitioners; not the medicine.

It’s no secret that alternative medicine is being studied in universities. That’s where a lot of research is done on many sciences.

Some of you seem to believe you’re engaged in some sort of great scientific debate and need to score points off people. If it’s a debate - it’s pretty one-sided because all the ‘other side’ is doing is pointing out that you need to have your concerns addressed by your state legislature.

Further discussion is rather pointless unless it’s to post about wonderful it is to speak in committee about your opposition to a Bill.

Edited to add - wow - it seems that someone in Indiana actually got off their butt and DID something instead of whining about how difficult it all was. So - though it was some sort of insurmountable task, requiring millions of dollars and a full time lobbyist… somehow a simple change in language and voila. Massage Lady is saved. Good thing someone in her profession was looking out for her interests.

And I believe this at least the second time you’ve misquoted me or confused my posts with someone else’s.

Nope…I believe it’s all here in black and white (and red)‘Hon’.:winkgrin:

One only prays that you have greater attention to detail when you’re working on horses.

You don’t need to worry about that, I’m sure I’ve helped more than you’ll ever help.:winkgrin:

Good thing someone else got off their butt.

Too bad you keep speaking out of yours.:lol:

[JSwan]

The post you quoted was taken from Deltawave, I believe. A post in which articles or abstracts were discussed. I posted no such thing.

The other post you got wrong was the one in which I referred to redleaflady’s misinterpretation of two federal bills.

Though all of you have blamed the veterinary lobby, and made inferences about being deprived of rights - Lookout was the main poster who had a defeatist attitude. And none of you have managed to respond gracefully to any well intentioned attempt to explain how the legislative process works.

The overall impression I have is of people who want to be treated as professionals, yet are incapable of acting like one. So you did succeed in getting the word out - but maybe not the word(s) that are helpful to your cause.

[redleaflady]

This dicussion is not supposed to be a personal attack. THE POINT IS DO YOU WANT A CHOICE

[deltawave]

ML wrote:

Then where did you go for these??
PubMed. Give it a try. www.pubmed.gov All the science, none of the crap. Kind of the anti-Google.

Remember Google, as comprehensive as it is, is AD-DRIVEN. So when you google, you get not the BEST match, but the HIGHEST BIDDER. If that works for you, groovy. But as far as discrimination goes, that’s all you get from Google.

Do I want a choice? Yes. I, for one, am actually ON YOUR SIDE in terms of allowing practitioners to practice. With appropriate oversight, scrutiny, credentials and accreditation, I think it’s fine. I want to be able to choose what kind of experts I’d like to consult for a problem I might be having. I would not, however, want to have to guess or try and figure out with some sort of divining rod who is qualified and who isn’t. If that information isn’t crystal clear, I’d probably NOT do any choosing and just consult my vet. So either way the rulings go, it’s all sort of fine with me.

[caballus]

[QUOTE=deltawave;3052712]
Thanks, but I don’t use Google for medical topics. Something far more people ought to consider.[/QUOTE]Didn’t suggest that you look up any medical topics online - suggested that if you wanted to know more to look up the veterinarians who use the protocol. Read with comprehension.

[RAyers]

[QUOTE=MassageLady;3052731]

Then where did you go for these??[/QUOTE]

There are several EXCELLENT medical and research databases, including Medline, PubMed, Scirus, Comdex, Articlefirst, etc. Many of these are available to the public to read an abstract. Most university researchers and society members can access full publications online so we get the full context of the specific research.

Google is a horrible place to find research articles. You can get some but it is so full of flotsam that sifting through is a pain.

Reed

[deltawave]

You said:

All you need to do is google Veterinarian + Homeopathy. I’m sure you can come up with something.

Garbage in = Garbage out when talking about scientific data AND search engines. Too much unfiltered stuff on Google. If I wanted to look for a homeopathic vet in Michigan, yes, I’d use Google. But to know what vets have WRITTEN on the topic, I’ll stick with the scholarly stuff. :yes:

[caballus]

Good Glory … I sure hope you don’t read cardiograms or other like you do posts here … when you quote someone you should quote the ENTIRE post so statements are not taken out of context.

I WROTE,

“If you’re that interested in the Ledum protocol for Lyme you might want to check with the vets who advocate it and use it successfully. All you need to do is google Veterinarian + Homeopathy.”

I did not suggest you look up Ledum protocol but that you should check WITH THE VETERINARIANS who ADVOCATE it and use it successfully …

The search of “Veterinarian & Homeopathy” would lead you to those veterinarians who do use Homeopathy for treatments.

Once again, read for comprehension.

[deltawave]

I don’t know what you mean by “cardiogram” . . .such a sloppy and imprecise term! Nope, I leave sloppy diagnostics and slapdash decision-making to those who proclaim to cure the incurable, or at least know somebody who might have, once. :lol: But I shall endeavor to be utterly comprehensive in my attribution of every subtext and nuance of your posts in the future. Because good gracious, NOBODY ELSE snips quotes when they’re replying to a thread, how shockingly bad-mannered of me! I do beg your pardon for misinterpreting “coming up with something” as an invitation to go Googling. To repeat with more precision: if I was interested in the use of Ledum protocols for Lyme disease I would STILL go to medline/PubMed.

In fact, I just did so. Know what I found? Bupkis. Gornischt. Zilch-o. Guess I’m stuck with Googling the knowledge of Ledum. Makes one wonder. Well, makes ME wonder, anyway.

[JHUshoer20]

LOL Ladies! Ladies!
Cant we all just get along?

Over at horseshoes we keep getting lipchained for such talk. Looks like this place is worthy of popcorn;)
George

[JSwan]

George - please forgive me! It’s puppy season and I’m going crazy arranging transport and feeding squalling puppies every few hours.:no: I need a nap.

Spay or neuter your pets, folks!

Anyway - I think there’s a great deal of common ground. I don’t know many horse or pet owners that have not at least tried an alternative remedy. I know I have; and I’m a skeptic. I also have a great lady that works on my horses, and I go to a massage therapist for my back.

As a consumer, I do want a choice. I’d hate to be told my only option for back pain is pain medication; when massage is a perfectly viable alternative. I use jewelweed on insect bites and poison ivy if I’m out in the woods or fields. But if I’m in the house and notice a bug bite - I reach for benadryl cream. Both work. I’d like those same options for my livestock and pets - within reason.

But as a consumer I also want to be protected from bad vets, bad farriers, and bad alternative medicine practitioners. So far, the only profession that polices its own is veterinarians. I can file a malpractice claim, the veterinarian can be censured, or even have his/her license revoked. And not just for veterinary related misconduct. The most talented veterinarian I have ever met lost his license because of a drug problem.

I think consumers need to have the same protections for alternative medicine practitioners. What these folks need to work on is making sure they determine their own path and promote the mainstream acceptance of their profession. Part of that process is participating in the legislative process, and working WITH the veterinary lobby on legislation that benefits both. At the same time, working internally to weed out bad apples.

That’s already happening, or the Indiana Bill would not have had its language changed. But it’s not up to horse owners to protect alternative medicine practitioners. It’s up to them. I think they can do it, but I think it will take time and it’s not going to be easy.

Nothing worthwhile ever is.