DrStraw wrote:Uberdude wrote:DrStraw wrote: I have seen it work first-hand on several pets over the years. My wife believes it and I think it sounds crazy, but how can you explain that homeopathic concoctions have provided almost instant relieve on multiple occasions and save the live of at least one cat in our family?
Maybe the cat needed some water?
Very droll. If that were the case then it would not recover without water. The cat in question was within 24 hours of being euthanized for seizures the vet said were incurable. The cat was our son's and in desperation he called my wife, who didn't have much hope but made some recommendations. There was almost instant relieve, the cat rest for the first time in days, and lived another twelve years.
As I said, I am not a big believer, and I have no explanation for it. But I have seen it work and it is hard to argue with that.
Well first of all: No one knows what would have happened if the cat did not get homeopathic treatment, and the vet could have erred, too.
And then there are several reasons why there is a placebo effect in animals. One reason is conditioning: Ther is a famous experiment where rats got fed a sweet solution of cylcosporin, a immune supressant. After some time the rats would respond with a supressed immune system after being given just sweet water.
Then there is an effefct that does not affect the animals: Humans just cannot be unbiased observers if they expect an effect. There is e.g. a veterinary thesis (in german) that investigated mineral supplements for horses in a randomized controlled fashion. The author reported that the placebo effect was so strong that it essentially prevented all other analyses. The riders had to judge the effect of the treatment.
There is also a famous experiment that I read somewhere. Unfortunatley I don't find it, if someone could point me to a link a wouold be grateful: They recruited people that then had to watch rats mastering a maze challenge or something. If the observers were told that the rat in question was specificlal trained or bright, they would confirm that based on their observations, even if all rats were the same.
There is a lot to observe in random fluctuations.
I think both these examples would not apply in the case of your cat, but I belive it is just a case of natural recovery. Without knowing how many cats would not have responded to the treatment and how many cats would have survived without treatment one cannot draw a conclusion.
Interestingly: Whenever one studies such things in a randomized controlled fashion, the effect is gone.
Unfortunately the human brain seems to work exactly opposite as science when it comes to judging the reliability of information:
One first hand experinece or a single example usually seems to be more convincing than the collected statistcial evidence of many cases.