TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  

News:

.

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Wie Homöopathen mit Hütchenspielertricks einen Preis kasselieren...  (Read 4639 times)

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1108

Da gibt es in Kassel (weiß jemand, wo das liegt?) eine, ...,..,...nun ja,  sie nennen es "Universität". Da sind auf der einen Seite der Schranke Rindviecher und auf der anderen Seite... bin ich mir nicht so sicher...

Dort wird geforscht. Und promoviert. Und damit kriegt man Preise. Itzo ist es wieder mal soweit...

Bis auf eine klitzekleine Kleinigkeit: Homöopathie funktioniert nicht. Wie haben die dann die Promotion zusammengebäschelt?

Erst mal der Titel der Doktorarbeit:

"Klinische Kontrollstudie zum Vergleich des homöopathischen
und chemotherapeutischen Behandlungsverfahrens
bei der akuten katarrhalischen Mastitis des Rindes"


Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum;
Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum, PD Dr. Peggy Braun, Dr. Michael Zschöck

Also ein Professor, ein Professor, ein Privatdozent und ein normaler Doktor.


Die Tierärztin Christina Werner bekam von denen den Doktorgrad verliehen. Und als Krönung dann anno 2010 der "Preis für hochwertige Forschung zur Wirksamkeit der Veterinär-Homöopathie".

Hochverehrtes Publikum, bitte achten Sie auf das Wort "hochwertige Forschung".
(An dieser Stelle gäbe es bei einer Rede einen Tusch, man möge sich den bitte vor Ohren führen.)

Der Preis wird verliehen von der "Gesellschaft für Ganzheitliche Tiermedizin e.V." (GGTM). Das riecht ja schon mal verdächtig nach Stallgeruch... Streng homöopathischem Stallgeruch...

Den "GGTM-Forschungspreis 2010" gibt es, wie gesagt, "für hochwertige Forschung zur Wirksamkeit der Veterinär-Homöopathie": eine Dissertation an der Veterinärmedizinischen Fakultät der Universität Leipzig aus dem Jahr 2006. Also hängt die Universität Leipzig auch mit drin...


Und das folgende wollen wir ganz besonders luftig auf die Wäscheleine hängen:

Zitat aus der Mitteilung der GGTM:

[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In der randomisierten Studie wertete sie 147 akute katarrhalische Mastitiden von vier Milchviehbetrieben aus, bei denen die Kühe chemotherapeutisch, homöopathisch oder mit einem Placebo behandelt wurden. Bei allen Mastitiden unabhängig eines bakteriologischen Erregernachweises, gab es nach vier und acht Wochen keinen Unterschied in der Heilungsrate der chemotherapeutisch oder homöopathisch behandelten Tiere - dabei war bei beiden Versuchsansätzen die Rate nach acht Wochen signifikant besser, als nach Verabreichung eines Placebos. Frau Werner belegt mit ihren Ergebnissen die Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie für diese Indikation; sie weist aber auch darauf hin, dass eine umfassende Diagnostik grundlegend ist. Die Arbeit wurde finanziert vom Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
 
Ein Ministerium hängt also auch noch mit drin...

Die erkrankten Tiere wurden in drei Gruppen aufgeteilt:

H: bekam Homöopathie
C: bekam chemische Pharmazeutika
K: die Kontrollgruppe, kriegt Placebo

Jetzt gibt es aber ein Problem: Was ist, wenn die Behandlung nichts bringt? Antwort: Dann wird dem Tier einfach Chemie verpaßt:

[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ein Wechsel der homöopathisch behandelten Fälle in die Chemotherapie-Gruppe (Gruppenwechsler Homöopathie, GWH) war immer dann angezeigt, wenn mit den oben genannten Abweichungen der Lokalsymptome Störungen des Allgemeinbefindens einhergingen. Des Weiteren wurde ein Wechsel zur chemotherapeutischen Behandlung nach mehrmaligem Mittelwechsel innerhalb der homöopathischen Therapiegruppe, bedingt durch mehrfache Änderungen der Symptome, vorgenommen. Der Wechsel vom chemotherapeutischen zum homöopathischen Behandlungsverfahren (Gruppenwechsler Chemotherapie, GWC) wurde nur bei nachweislich negativem Keimgehalt in der VAG vom Erkrankungstag vollzogen, kombiniert mit einer Nicht-Besserung der Symptome innerhalb der ersten Woche.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Insgesamt wurde bei 39 der 147 therapierten Euterviertel (26,5%) das Behandlungsverfahren gewechselt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

Das ist DAS klassische Verfahren der Homöopathie: Wenn es dem Kranken schlecht geht, wird er in die Klinik gekarrt, und wenn die pöhse wissenschaftliche Medizin den Kranken nicht wieder zum Leben erweckt, dann zeigt das mal wieder, daß die pöhse wissenschaftliche Medizin nicht heilen kann, jawoll! Die Homöopathie ist niemals schuld!

Das ist  Datenfälschung, Manipulation!

Irgendwie muß denen da in Leipzig und sonstwo schon klar gewesen sein, daß sie murksen. Wörtlich heißt es in der Dissertation:

[*QUOTE*]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Die erzielten Ergebnisse belegen eine Wirksamkeit des homöopathischen Behandlungsverfahrens bei der Therapie von akuten katarrhalischen Euterentzündungen. Der Wirksamkeitsnachweis ist jedoch eng verknüpft mit den spezifischen Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien der Studie, die eine angemessene Diagnostik auf Bestands- wie auch auf Tierebene, vor allem zur Klärung des Erregerspektrums, erfordern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Wie war das noch mal?

Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum;
Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum, PD Dr. Peggy Braun, Dr. Michael Zschöck

Also ein Professor, ein Professor, ein Privatdozent und ein normaler Doktor.

VIER MANN HOCH ist die Truppe.

VIER MANN, die diesen Murks absegnen. Selbst Hahnemann würde sich für die schämen. Der hätte sich wenigstens nicht erwischen lassen.

Und sie wurden erwischt... :-)

Prof. Dr. Gerhard W. Bruhn, Fachbereich Mathematik der TU Darmstadt:
"Kommentar zur Dissertation von Frau Dr. Christina Werner, Universität Kassel"


http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/WernerDissKomm.html

Wie schreibt Herr Prof. Bruhn am Schluß so schön:

"Der Autorin, Frau Dr. Werner, wurde eine Gelegenheit zu einer Stellungnahme an dieser Stelle angeboten."


Herr Prof. Bruhn ist übrigens jener Prof. Bruhn, der zusammen mit PD Dr. Klaus Keck, Konstanz, und Prof. Dr. Erhard Wielandt, Stuttgart, schon zweimal der Universität Leipzig wegen einer vergeigten "Studie" von Homöopathen gehörig die Leviten gelesen hat.


Hier ist Lesestoff zu den homöopathischen Bruchlandungen der Universität Leipzig:

28.11.2003
Herausforderung an die Universität Leipzig
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ho12.htm

03.04.2004
Der Fall Nieber : Pfusch im Labor
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ho13.htm

20.02.2005
Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig
Der Preis für den Wirkungsnachweis homöopathischer Mittel,
den die Leipziger Pharmazeuten Apothekerin Franziska Schmidt,
Prof. Karen Nieber und Prof. Wolfgang Süß 2003 erhalten haben,
beruht auf einer Falschmitteilung
Kommentar von Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Bruhn, Darmstadt
Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Erhard Wielandt, Stuttgart
PD Dr. rer.nat. Klaus Keck, Konstanz
http://www.xy44.de/belladonna

08.09.2005
Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig
Dr. rer. nat. für die Messung "geistartiger Moleküle"
Kommentar von
Prof. Dr. Gerhard W. Bruhn, Darmstadt
Prof. Dr. Erhard Wielandt, Stuttgart
PD Dr. Klaus Keck, Konstanz      
http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/radau/
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 05:54:48 PM by ama »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1108
For the readers of the Quackometer
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2010, 08:12:35 AM »

The script at the Quackometer is insanely censoring. So I deposit the text here.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/09/can-homeopathy-cure-mastitis-in-cows.html

The reassigning of probands not only is done, but is done in a high percentage. Look at the percentages!

This is why I call that "study" a very primitive forgery.

If you look at the persons, you will find FOUR persons involved - aside of the writer herself. FOUR persons accepted that way of forgery. AND LATER the whole scam even got a prize!

This type of "studies" and this type of "prizes" demonstrates that homeopathy is a mafia crime, wherein members of the gang enable, support, strongly support and monetarize each other. And they infiltrate academic education.

In Germany the "university" "Europa-Universität Viadrina" in Frankfurt/Oder is giving Master degrees in "energy and informational medicine".

Look here: http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/

There 31 documents are stored which contain incredible facts about a large-scale fraud in science:

http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/12735810-Programm-NetzwerkForum-2009.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/12735810-Programm-NetzwerkForum-2009.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/13674446-LdLTag-in-Ludwigsburg.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/15887673-Seminar-Service-der-DGEIM.pdf

http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/17474182-11-Symposium-der-DGEIM.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/18110897-ILA-Conference-2009-Invitation.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/18111622-Final-Program-25105091.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/18111798-Kea-Talk-Synopsis-Bio-250509s.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/2099581-scope07booklet.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/2283441-EMAC-Philosophie.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/27181819-Programm-DGEIM-NetzwerkForum-2010.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/27263461-Symposium-Schwingung-Resonanz-Heilung-2010.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/27264367-Integrative-Medizin-Kongress.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/27789581-Masterstudiengange-energy-medicine-in-Graz-Schloss-Seggau-und-Berlin.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/27789705-Im-Detail-Ausbildungsmoglichkeiten-in-energy-medicine-im-Rahmen-universitarer-Masterstudiengange-in-Graz-Schloss-Seggau-und-Berlin.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/2784100-NetzwerkForm-Programm-2008.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/2869633-rankingweiterbildungsblogs.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/28813080-Zum-Funktionsprinzip-radionischer-Systeme-Prof-Dr-Ernst-Senkowski.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/28826414-Energiemedizin-Teil-1-von-PD-Dr-med-Hendrik-Treugut-Eine-Standortbestimmung-2007.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/28826469-Systemtheorie-Teil-2-von-PD-Dr-med-Hendrik-Treugut-Eine-Standortbestimmung-2007.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/28827707-Energetische-und-Informationsmedizin-energy-medicine-PD-Dr-med-Hendrik-Treugut-Dr-med-Manfred-Doepp.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/2896696-Programm-SCOPE08.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/3032168-scope-telefonkonferenz.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/30838173-Seminar-Service-der-DGEIM-2010.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/3147801-risk08magazin.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/34519892-Energy-medicine-Universitare-Ausbildungsmoglichkeit-in-Berlin.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/34546068-Anmeldeformular-Wahlpflichtmodul-Energy-Medicine.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/34866020-Programm-DGEIM-12-Symposium-16-Oktober.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/35342507-Biofeldtest-Ansatze-fur-Diagnose-und-Therapie-chronischer-Krankheiten.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/35610667-Curriculum-energy-medicine-Energetische-und-Informationsmedizin.pdf
http://www.heilpraktikermesse.de/files/3797254-10-DGEIM-Symposium-Wasser-2008.pdf

The Viadrina with great effort was made a "Stiftungs-Universität" (donated university). This means that external forces control the university. The money comes from outside, especially from companies and groups, which use the university to acquire academic titles for their members and launch "scientific" PR as a lever to deep infiltrate public matters and opinion, and MAINLY to infiltrate the health system.

But beware! The term "Stiftungs-Universität" does not mean that the financial risk is with the outside forces. NO!!! If the university gets into financial trouble, the state will keep it financially safe.

That is heaven! The outside forces can mess up at any scale they want, they do not have to care about the consequences. Just like with the Hypo-Real-Estate bank THE PUBLIC is forced into paying the whole fraud.

And in this case the result is HORRIBLE: the academic system is blown to pieces, fraud and medieval bullshit is bombed into the health system. This will lead to dead. And I do mean DEAD: patients, who get killed by the "health" system.

Now, who is responsible for that fraud, for this large-scale murder? It is the politicians, who for more than a decade willfully pushed this crime machine forward. That the university became a "Stiftungs-Universität", is a willful act several groups of persons worked on for decades.

If you look closely at other places, you will find more "Stiftung"/donation stuff, like in Kassel. Now, who profits from that? Answer: Just look at who make those donations, say, in Kassel. It is the anthroposophs, an insane sect with much political power and a lot of money, and with greed for more power and more money.

Academia and the health system are in the hands of insane, and the powers to control that are eith damned stupid politicians or the doers themselves.

And because of this patients die in tens of thousands each year in Germany. No, that is not exaggerated. It is plain fact. The influence of insanity and stupidity in the medical system in Germany is by far larger than you might ever guess.

You see: that the development COULD BECOME so horrible ALREADY was set decades ago. The education, the politics AND the laissez-faire of the established health system members willfully lead to what we have now.

Hogwarts is harmless. Go to Germany to get the full-sized catastrophy of institutionalized mass murder.

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1108
Jetzt reicht's!
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2010, 09:50:19 AM »

.

Zensierende Skripte, das Ganze noch voll durchtränkt mit galloppierender URL-Phobie. Da werden Links zensiert, kein S... uppenhuhn kümmert sich um die Inhalte, Jeder stellt sich selbst nur immer wieder selbst dar. Atrophierte Geltungssucht, Logorrhoe, garniert mit bunten Bildern.

Das Internet.

Ja, wo leben wir denn!?


Weil beim Quackometer ein paar Leute die Realität noch nicht begriffen haben, bunkere ich den Thread mal hier.

[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Homeopathy Cure Mastitis in Cows?
September 12, 2010
By Le Canard Noir

Dana Ullman is yet again misrepresenting trials of homeopathy. The trick is to read what the paper actually says.

cow

A new study has been published in The Journal of Dairy Research looking at if you can use homeopathy to treat mastitis in cattle.

The paper fails to demonstrate that you can. And as such, that is not a surprise. These cows will have been given water drops as if it is medicine: homeopathy is a superstitious hang-over from 18th Century ways of thinking about health. Of course it does not work.

What is surprising is that the homeopathic world is again leaping on this negative study as if it is proof of the positive benefits of homeopathic pseudoscience.

Dana Ullman, America’s chief propagandist for homeopathic treatment, has been posting on the web that homeopathy is as effective as antiobotics for treating mastitis. Is he right? Let’s look at the paper.

The paper was written by a team from Witzenhausen in Germany (a beautiful small market town, where I first kissed a girl, just to gratuitously add a little personal element.) Entitled Efficacy of homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in cases of mild and moderate bovine clinical mastitis(1), the paper looked at how cows responded to homeopathic water drops, antibiotics or no treatment (placebo).

A total of 136 cows were divided into three groups and either given ‘classical homeopathy’, antibiotics or a placebo.The cows were tested on days 0, 1, 2 and on days 7, 14, 28 and 56 after they became infected with the bacterium that causes mastitis – an inflammation of the udder caused by infection.

Now, a word of warning: I only have access to the abstract of the paper, so everything I say is subject to the caveats that the details of the paper may be significant. However, the abstract is quite revealing and contradicts what the homeopaths are crowing about.

Dana Ullman tells us that the result of the trial is that the homeopathy proved to be as effective as the antibiotics and that this effect was greater than the placebo group. What does the paper actually tell us? Here is the abstract,

    On days 28 and 56, treatment strategies did not differ significantly with respect to the clinical outcomes and the total cure rate in cases of bacteriological negative mastitis (n=56). In cases of pathogen-positive mastitis (n=91), the cure rate after 4 and 8 weeks was similar between the two treatment strategies, homeopathy and antibiotic treatment, but the difference between the homeopathic and the placebo treatment at day 56 was significant (P<0.05).

The authors then make a bold claim,

    The results indicate a therapeutic effect of homeopathic treatment in cases of mild and moderate clinical mastitis.

To be caveated with a most important point,

    However, independent of treatment strategy and bacteriological status, the total cure rate was on a low level, revealing limitations in the effectiveness of both antibiotic and homeopathic treatment strategies.

So, what can we make of this?

The authors appear to be making the claim that homeopathy has a therapeutic effect based on the fact that they saw a statistically significant difference between the homoeopathically treated cows and the placebo group on day 56 with a p value less than 0.05.

P-values are the standard way clinical researchers use to see if a result is more likely to be due to treatment than to chance. If after doing the sums, it looks like the result is higher than 95% of the results you would get by chance, then you can start to be confident that you might be seeing something real. However, there are many ways you can easily be misled by p-values. One way is to make many measurements in an experiment and claim a positive result if one of them shows ‘significance’.

This looks exactly like what the Witzenhausen researchers have done. They have tested the cows on multiple days with three different treatments. On just one of this measurements is there a statistically significant result. If you make 20 measurements with a one in twenty chance of having a random result above significance, then it should be no surprise when you get a ‘positive’ result, even with a completely ineffective treatment. The chance of this trial producing a false positive result on one or more of the measurements look to be greater than 50:50. Well conducted research takes account of the multiple measurement problem – the Werner mastitis trial does not look as if has done so.

And so it is not surprise that the researchers note that neither homeopathy or antibiotics appear to have created a high ‘cure rate’. It looks like all arms of the trail were pretty much indistinguishable from placebo.

But, surely, shouldn’t the antibiotic group have at least cured some cows? Well, not necessarily. Mastitis is a difficult problem to control. To minimise the effect of infection, you really have to take an ‘holistic’ approach, part of which may be antibiotic use. Proper hygiene controls, feeding and herd management are required. Antibiotic resistance may be a problem and some cows tend to suffer chronic infection which may re-infect other cows within the herd. Simple antibiotic use in itself is not enough, and low and moderate infection may remain despite treatment. It may not be a big surprise that the antibiotic use group did no better than the controls, especially if other herd management controls were not in place during the trial.

So, it looks like the best you can say from this trial was that homeopathy was as good as an ineffective treatment regime. Not a ringing endorsement.

But not so for the homeopaths.

On the Dana Ullman post, homeopaths are celebrating a new victory for homeopathy, as they can now say it is as good as conventional treatment. Debby Bruck, leader of the forum, tells us that, “perhaps more veterinary studies of this kind will provide further reason for farmers to use homeopathy”, despite the fact that this study failed to show that homeopathy was effective. Dr Muhammed Rafeeque says, “Such information clearly disproves the ‘placebo effect’ propaganda promoted by the skeptics.”, despite the study failing show a consistent effect over the placebo control. Dr. Sushil Bahl says, “the scientific world always is in denial mode”, presumably thinking this study is good evidence of an effect for superstitious medicine. It is clear that none have even read the abstract, and if they did, have not critically appraised it.

This is how homeopathy continues. Weak or non–existent evidence is trumpeted as success. People who ought to know better, such as Dana Ullman, leap on poor quality evidence and pretend it proves an effect. We can be sure that this study will be dragged out into the light to show that cows can be treated with homeopathy and so “it cannot be placebo”. Other people will point out the weaknesses in the study, but no homeopath will take this on board. Their religion will not be shaken. This paper will be added to the large pile of junk science that is used to promote the nonsense of ultra-dilutions. And, if any farmer is fooled by this, it is their cows who will suffer.

And more on that point soon and how an ‘ethical’ UK supermarket appears to be happy to have its animals treated with such nonsense.

References

(1) Journal of Dairy Research doi:10.1017/S0022029910000543 Efficacy of homeopathic and antibiotic treatment strategies in cases of mild and moderate bovine clinical mastitis Christina Werner,  Axel Sobiraj and Albert Sundrum

    * Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

   1. Dr Elaine Weatherley-Jones: You and Yours and ME Radio 4’s You and Yours programme has been running a series on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME. Today saw the last in the series and concentrated on ‘alternative treatments’ for patients who...
   2. Homeopathy Does Not Cause Side Effects in Cancer Patients The Cochrane Library has published a new review of the effects of homeopathy on cancer patients**. Its conclusion is that “there is limited evidence that homeopathic remedies ease the side...
   3. £10,000 if you can show homeopathy works Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh have issued a challenge to homeopaths: show the world your evidence that homeopathy is effective for any single condition. After recently publishing a book...
   4. The Society of Homeopaths are a Shambles and a Bad Joke. The last time I said that, the Society tried to sue me and my web hosts for defamation. So let’s say it again. They are a shambles and a bad...
   5. "Nothing Acts as Well as FairDeal Homeopathy" It looks like the campaign to clean up homeopathy is having effects! A new supplier of homeopathic remedies appears to have entered the market with the promise that “we won’t...

20 Responses to “ Can Homeopathy Cure Mastitis in Cows? ”

   1.
      Peter on September 12, 2010 at 2:27 am

      Dana Ullman Misrepresenting a homeopathy Trial? Said Trial not showing any conclusive or reliable support for Homeopathy? Dog Bites Man?

      *Braces self for inevitable waves of Dana Ullman Comments later on*
      Reply
   2.
      EoR on September 12, 2010 at 5:02 am

      I’ve emailed you a copy of the full paper for your delectation.
      Reply
   3.
      ama on September 12, 2010 at 10:14 am

      Hi, folks,

      here is news about the data forgery committed in homeopathic “research”:

      http://transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=6473

      Wie Homöopathen mit Hütchenspielertricks einen Preis kasselieren…
      « on: August 25, 2010, 09:38:16 PM »

      Da gibt es in Kassel (weiß jemand, wo das liegt?) eine, …,..,…nun ja, sie nennen es “Universität”. Da sind auf der einen Seite der Schranke Rindviecher und auf der anderen Seite… bin ich mir nicht so sicher…

      Dort wird geforscht. Und promoviert. Und damit kriegt man Preise. Itzo ist es wieder mal soweit…

      Bis auf eine klitzekleine Kleinigkeit: Homöopathie funktioniert nicht. Wie haben die dann die Promotion zusammengebäschelt?

      Erst mal der Titel der Doktorarbeit:

      “Klinische Kontrollstudie zum Vergleich des homöopathischen
      und chemotherapeutischen Behandlungsverfahrens
      bei der akuten katarrhalischen Mastitis des Rindes”

      Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum;
      Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum, PD Dr. Peggy Braun, Dr. Michael Zschöck

      Also ein Professor, ein Professor, ein Privatdozent und ein normaler Doktor.

      Die Tierärztin Christina Werner bekam von denen den Doktorgrad verliehen. Und als Krönung dann anno 2010 der “Preis für hochwertige Forschung zur Wirksamkeit der Veterinär-Homöopathie”.

      Hochverehrtes Publikum, bitte achten Sie auf das Wort “hochwertige Forschung”.
      (An dieser Stelle gäbe es bei einer Rede einen Tusch, man möge sich den bitte vor Ohren führen.)

      Der Preis wird verliehen von der “Gesellschaft für Ganzheitliche Tiermedizin e.V.” (GGTM). Das riecht ja schon mal verdächtig nach Stallgeruch… Streng homöopathischem Stallgeruch…

      Den “GGTM-Forschungspreis 2010″ gibt es, wie gesagt, “für hochwertige Forschung zur Wirksamkeit der Veterinär-Homöopathie”: eine Dissertation an der Veterinärmedizinischen Fakultät der Universität Leipzig aus dem Jahr 2006. Also hängt die Universität Leipzig auch mit drin…

      Und das folgende wollen wir ganz besonders luftig auf die Wäscheleine hängen:

      Zitat aus der Mitteilung der GGTM:

      [*QUOTE*]
      ———————————————————————
      In der randomisierten Studie wertete sie 147 akute katarrhalische Mastitiden von vier Milchviehbetrieben aus, bei denen die Kühe chemotherapeutisch, homöopathisch oder mit einem Placebo behandelt wurden. Bei allen Mastitiden unabhängig eines bakteriologischen Erregernachweises, gab es nach vier und acht Wochen keinen Unterschied in der Heilungsrate der chemotherapeutisch oder homöopathisch behandelten Tiere – dabei war bei beiden Versuchsansätzen die Rate nach acht Wochen signifikant besser, als nach Verabreichung eines Placebos. Frau Werner belegt mit ihren Ergebnissen die Wirksamkeit der Homöopathie für diese Indikation; sie weist aber auch darauf hin, dass eine umfassende Diagnostik grundlegend ist. Die Arbeit wurde finanziert vom Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz.
      ———————————————————————
      [*/QUOTE*]

      Ein Ministerium hängt also auch noch mit drin…

      Die erkrankten Tiere wurden in drei Gruppen aufgeteilt:

      H: bekam Homöopathie
      C: bekam chemische Pharmazeutika
      K: die Kontrollgruppe, kriegt Placebo

      Jetzt gibt es aber ein Problem: Was ist, wenn die Behandlung nichts bringt? Antwort: Dann wird dem Tier einfach Chemie verpaßt:

      [*QUOTE*]
      ———————————————————————
      Ein Wechsel der homöopathisch behandelten Fälle in die Chemotherapie-Gruppe (Gruppenwechsler Homöopathie, GWH) war immer dann angezeigt, wenn mit den oben genannten Abweichungen der Lokalsymptome Störungen des Allgemeinbefindens einhergingen. Des Weiteren wurde ein Wechsel zur chemotherapeutischen Behandlung nach mehrmaligem Mittelwechsel innerhalb der homöopathischen Therapiegruppe, bedingt durch mehrfache Änderungen der Symptome, vorgenommen. Der Wechsel vom chemotherapeutischen zum homöopathischen Behandlungsverfahren (Gruppenwechsler Chemotherapie, GWC) wurde nur bei nachweislich negativem Keimgehalt in der VAG vom Erkrankungstag vollzogen, kombiniert mit einer Nicht-Besserung der Symptome innerhalb der ersten Woche.
      ———————————————————————
      [*/QUOTE*]

      [*QUOTE*]
      ———————————————————————
      Insgesamt wurde bei 39 der 147 therapierten Euterviertel (26,5%) das Behandlungsverfahren gewechselt.
      ———————————————————————
      [*/QUOTE*]

      Das ist DAS klassische Verfahren der Homöopathie: Wenn es dem Kranken schlecht geht, wird er in die Klinik gekarrt, und wenn die pöhse wissenschaftliche Medizin den Kranken nicht wieder zum Leben erweckt, dann zeigt das mal wieder, daß die pöhse wissenschaftliche Medizin nicht heilen kann, jawoll! Die Homöopathie ist niemals schuld!

      Das ist Datenfälschung, Manipulation!

      Irgendwie muß denen da in Leipzig und sonstwo schon klar gewesen sein, daß sie murksen. Wörtlich heißt es in der Dissertation:

      [*QUOTE*]
      ———————————————————————
      Die erzielten Ergebnisse belegen eine Wirksamkeit des homöopathischen Behandlungsverfahrens bei der Therapie von akuten katarrhalischen Euterentzündungen. Der Wirksamkeitsnachweis ist jedoch eng verknüpft mit den spezifischen Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien der Studie, die eine angemessene Diagnostik auf Bestands- wie auch auf Tierebene, vor allem zur Klärung des Erregerspektrums, erfordern.
      ———————————————————————
      [*/QUOTE*]

      Wie war das noch mal?

      Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum;
      Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Axel Sobiraj, Prof. Dr. Albert Sundrum, PD Dr. Peggy Braun, Dr. Michael Zschöck

      Also ein Professor, ein Professor, ein Privatdozent und ein normaler Doktor.

      VIER MANN HOCH ist die Truppe.

      VIER MANN, die diesen Murks absegnen. Selbst Hahnemann würde sich für die schämen. Der hätte sich wenigstens nicht erwischen lassen.

      Und sie wurden erwischt… :-)

      Prof. Dr. Gerhard W. Bruhn, Fachbereich Mathematik der TU Darmstadt:
      “Kommentar zur Dissertation von Frau Dr. Christina Werner, Universität Kassel”

      http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/WernerDissKomm.html

      Wie schreibt Herr Prof. Bruhn am Schluß so schön:

      “Der Autorin, Frau Dr. Werner, wurde eine Gelegenheit zu einer Stellungnahme an dieser Stelle angeboten.”

      Herr Prof. Bruhn ist übrigens jener Prof. Bruhn, der zusammen mit PD Dr. Klaus Keck, Konstanz, und Prof. Dr. Erhard Wielandt, Stuttgart, schon zweimal der Universität Leipzig wegen einer vergeigten “Studie” von Homöopathen gehörig die Leviten gelesen hat.

      Hier ist Lesestoff zu den homöopathischen Bruchlandungen der Universität Leipzig:

      28.11.2003
      Herausforderung an die Universität Leipzig
      http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ho12.htm

      03.04.2004
      Der Fall Nieber : Pfusch im Labor
      http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ho13.htm

      20.02.2005
      Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig
      Der Preis für den Wirkungsnachweis homöopathischer Mittel,
      den die Leipziger Pharmazeuten Apothekerin Franziska Schmidt,
      Prof. Karen Nieber und Prof. Wolfgang Süß 2003 erhalten haben,
      beruht auf einer Falschmitteilung
      Kommentar von Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Bruhn, Darmstadt
      Prof. Dr. rer.nat. Erhard Wielandt, Stuttgart
      PD Dr. rer.nat. Klaus Keck, Konstanz
      http://www.xy44.de/belladonna

      08.09.2005
      Pseudowissenschaften an der Universität Leipzig
      Dr. rer. nat. für die Messung “geistartiger Moleküle”
      Kommentar von
      Prof. Dr. Gerhard W. Bruhn, Darmstadt
      Prof. Dr. Erhard Wielandt, Stuttgart
      PD Dr. Klaus Keck, Konstanz
      http://www.xy44.de/belladonna/radau/

      Did you know that in Germany homeopaths use dog shit as a remedy?
      Here it is:
      http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_hund.htm

      The latest news: The ICD-10 or Homeopathy was published recently:

      [*quote]

      Der ICD-10 für Homöopathie

      Wednesday 1 September 2010 @ 2:09 am

      Nach einer internationalen, langjährigen, hochkomplexen, Fachdiskussion der international angesehensten, kompetentesten Experten wurde jetzt der ICD-10 für Homöopathie vollendet.

      Dies ist die internationale Ausgabe als Gesamtwerk:

      [*/quote]

      The complete international edition:
      http://ariplex.com/folia/archives/185.htm

      Cheers!
      ama
      Reply
   4.
      Zeno on September 12, 2010 at 10:29 am

      One would hope DEFRA would know this was nonsense. Have you asked them?
      Reply
   5.
      warhelmet on September 12, 2010 at 10:53 am

      Moo.
      Reply
   6.
      Rita Wing on September 12, 2010 at 7:49 pm

      So as well as being confined, constantly impregnated, genetically manipulated for staggering milk yields, deprived of their young, spent and slaughtered years before their time, with mastitis rates of 300 per 100 – or often 60% (John Webster, Animal Welfare,1994 Blackwell, p175)and even worse rates of chronic lameness (ibid p172ff), dairy cows may now run the risk of not even receiving proper treatment (not that antibiotics have much success, as pointed out) for this distressing condition. I frequently have occasion to point out to “natural” enthusiasts that homeopathy uses animal parts – and whole animals – indiscriminately in its “remedies” and is no more concerned with animal welfare than it is with the rules of logic. Poor bloody cows.
      Reply
   7.
      ama on September 13, 2010 at 1:44 am

      To use a homeopathic remedy one needs the repertorium, that is the list of symptoms derived from provings.

      To make a homeopathic proving of animals one needs the spoken description of the animals how they feel.

      Now, who on earth ever made homeopathic provings with animals as probands?

      Who on earth ever got animals as probands to tell him verbosely how they feel?

      Facit: There does not exist an animal homeopathy. All claims about animal homeopathy are fraud, and this judgement is based on the homeopaths’ very own way of thinking.

      If one does not believe this, just think about provings with one of the most-used homeopathic remedyies: belladonna. Ever tried that with cows, mice or the thousands of different bird species? And how about giving a squid some homeopathic “sepia”?
      Reply
   8.
      perceval on September 13, 2010 at 9:32 pm

      This is a completely unrelated nitpick, but your explanation of p-values is slightly off.
      You say that “If after doing the sums, it looks like the result is higher than 95% of the results you would get by chance, then you can start to be confident that you might be seeing something real.”

      What you should say is something like: “Let’s assume that we test for a difference between homoeopathy and placebo on 100 different samples – can be the same cows on different days, can be different cows on the same days, can be different cows on different days. A p-value of 0.05 means that if there is no difference between homoeopathy and placebo, we’ll see a positive result like the one reported in the study in five of the 100 samples.” And that leads neatly into the multiple comparison problem.

      I’d love to see the stats they used. Unfortunately, the comment in German doesn’t address the stats – it only highlights that cows were reassigned to antibiotics if they were really sick and several changes in homoeopathic dosage didn’t work. The authors claim they only did this for coos w/ negative bacterial cultures, but still …
      Reply
   9.
      M Simpson on September 14, 2010 at 12:20 am

      Unless each one of these cows was diagnosed separately and an individual remedy created for them, then the whole ‘individualisation’ aspect of homeopathy falls apart. It’s one of the great contradictions of this nonsense: the belief that real clinical trials can’t be done because of the need to treat each patient individually and the belief that you can treat an entire herd of cows in one go. But as with all the other contradictions you get in CAM, you’ll never find these two groups of homeopaths arguing and challenging each other, because to settle this debate would require evidence and neither side has any.
      Reply
  10.
      ama on September 14, 2010 at 12:50 am

      >Unless each one of these cows was diagnosed
      >separately and an individual remedy created
      >for them, then the whole ‘individualisation’
      >aspect of homeopathy falls apart.”

      RIGHTO! The homeopaths break their own rules, again and again.

      Also, with respect to the “individualisation”, one should note a most important fact: The provings are done with just a handful of persons. How can from those few persons an extrapolation can be made to 7 billion people!? That is STRONGESTLY against the individuality of 7 billion persons!

      Look at WHEN the provings were done. That began in 18xx and lasts up to now. The provings were begun at a time when no diagnostic of even the most simple things was possible. There diagnoses can not be compared with what is done today.
      Look at if provings were done at all. For thousands of homeopathic remedies sold today, not even one proving was done.
      How can these remedies be used? There is no repertorium list for them!

      Homeopathy is insane.
      Reply
  11.
      Michael Kingsford Gray on September 14, 2010 at 11:09 am

      Ullman – How Udderly Homœpathetic…
      Reply
  12.
      The Pick Man on September 14, 2010 at 3:07 pm

      What else did you expect? Surely this is a homeopathic response to the research. The weaker the evidence, the stonger the woo!
      Reply
  13.
      Vicky on September 15, 2010 at 11:09 am

      Those of you who can’t access the full text but are speaking German might be interested in having a look at Ms Werner’s dissertation. I’ve only skimmed through it (cows aren’t that interesting), but I would have thought that the problem of multiple measurements was less important than that they switched the treatment for some cows during the trial.

      I don’t want to go into all the details but from what I understand they reassigned homeopathy (“H”) cows to pharmacological treatment (“C”) if they didn’t improve (after trying different “remedies”) or if their symptoms worsened; “C” cows were only reassigned if they didn’t improve after week one and bacteriolical tests were negative; Placebo (“K”) cows were reassigned to either “H” or “C”.
      I’m not very knowledgable in medical study design, but up until now I thought that once the patient had been assigned to one group he either stayed in that group or dropped out of the study altogether. Doesn’t this reassigning of patients undo randomization to a degree?
      Reply
  14.
      Vicky on September 15, 2010 at 11:11 am

      OK, I somehow forgot to include the link to the dissertation:
      http://www.vmf.uni-leipzig.de/ik/wgeburtshilfe/Promotionen/PDFPromotionen/christinaWerner.pdf
      Reply
  15.
      ama on September 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm

      As the Quackometer script is too stupid to handle the text correctly, I deposited it there:

      http://transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=6484.msg14745#msg14745
      Reply
  16.
      ama on September 15, 2010 at 1:06 pm

      And now the link to where I deposited the text is “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

      Is this a kindergarten!?
      Reply
          *
            Le Canard Noir on September 15, 2010 at 1:36 pm

            ama

            comments with links in are moderated at times to avoid spam posting
            Reply
                o
                  ama on September 15, 2010 at 1:48 pm

                  But if references are to be made this is done with URLs.

                  Otherwise you end up with worthless gossip.
                o
                  Le Canard Noir on September 15, 2010 at 2:20 pm

                  But neither is the quackometer a link dumping ground.

                  All on topic, polite contributions will be published – but you are sailing close to the wind. I would ask you to concentrate on writing clear and concise points that do not depend on readers having to wade though dozens of links.
  17.
      ama on September 15, 2010 at 1:52 pm
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Here is one more withcraft university:

      http://www.hs-fresenius.de/sidlna6vp4mqh8l6299nq1d91f149v53fac/naturheilkunde-master-berufsbegleitend.2008.html

      [*QUOTE*]
      —————————-
      Studienleitung
      Prof. Dr. med. Peter W. Gündling, M.Sc. MME, Facharzt für Allgemeinmedizin, Naturheilverfahren, Balneologie und Klimatologie, Chirotherapie, Akupunktur, Sportmedizin, Ernährungsmedizin in Zusammenarbeit mit nationalen und internationalen Universitäten und namhaften Dozenten wie Prof. H. Heine, Prof. K. Jork, Prof. K. Kraft, Prof. N. Peseschkian und Prof. F.-A. Popp.
      —————————-
      [*/QUOTE*]

      Do the names ring a bell?
      Reply
  18.
      ama on September 15, 2010 at 2:39 pm

      “Le Canard Noir on September 15, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      But neither is the quackometer a link dumping ground.

      All on topic, polite contributions will be published – but you are sailing close to the wind. I would ask you to concentrate on writing clear and concise points that do not depend on readers having to wade though dozens of links.”

      What we do need is short an plain facts, and not gossip.

      Newspapers and advertisement-snappers need gossip, they need the ever-lasting roundabout of people endlessly circling through web-pages.

      But a scientific discussing can only exist if FACTS are SHOWN.

      You are in the internet. So do use it.

      In the Net the references are made with URLs. That is a plain fact. If you do not understand it, go into your garage and polish your car.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


So, das mußte mal gesagt werden.


Oh, es gibt ein Statement:

[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le Canard Noir on September 15, 2010 at 3:25 pm

OK. Last warning.

I do publish links. But sometimes they get sent to moderation as an algorithm rates them as being high risk of spam. Unfortunately, spammers like to target my blog. So, this strategy is the best I have come up with so far.

And also, I provide a comments space to allow discussion of the points I make. Any other use will likely see comments deleted. I am on the web, but my site is not a free for all. My site. My rules. There are other places you can go if this is not to your liking.

No other discussion on this issue will be acceptable. Further posts – off topic – will be removed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Manche lernen es eben nie. Selbst schuld.
.

Klartext:

In the Net the references are made with URLs. That is a plain fact.
If you do not understand it, go into your garage and polish your car.


.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 12:18:06 PM by ama »
Logged

Ayumi

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 355

Sie versuchen es schon wieder. Eine angebliche "Übersichtsarbeit" soll dem homöopathischen Stalldung  (vulgo BULLSHIT, und das paßt wie da Faust auf's Auge) akademisches Lüftle verleihen.

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opag.2019.4.issue-1/opag-2019-0019/opag-2019-0019.pdf

[*quote*]
Open Agriculture. 2019; 4: 203–212
Research Article

Johanna Zeise*, Jürgen Fritz

Use and efficacy of homeopathy in prevention and treatment of bovine mastitis


https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2019-0019
received September 28, 2018; accepted February 10, 2019

Abstract:

Bovine mastitis is an important disease in dairy
farming. As alternative therapy to antibiotics, whose use is
seen as increasingly critical, farmer try to treat mastitis with
homeopathy, for example. The present study examined i)
whether homeopathic treatments for bovine mastitis can
have positive treatment outcomes, ii) which treatments
have been successful and under which conditions,
iii) indications for future studies and applications for
homeopathy to treat mastitis. 32 studies published to date
have been evaluated. Assessment criteria and a rating score
of 0 to 5 points were fixed for the appraisal. Healing and
prophylaxis of mastitis were the primary focus to highlight
the medication success and its framework for suitable
mastitis therapy. The top eight studies of this quality
ranking were subjected to differentiated evaluation. The
selected studies showed a positive treatment outcome of
homeopathy. Due to the homeopathic effect and the most
used remedies in the selected studies, the medication
should be chosen according to the homeopathic drug
picture. With homeopathic drugs it was possible to reduce
the antibiotic use by up to 75%.
Some studies indicated
that homeopathy might have a positive long-term effect.
Furthermore, the results suggested a high self-healing
ability in bovine mastitis.

Keywords: homeopathy, dairy cow, complementary
veterinary medicine, antibiotics, clinical trials
*Corresponding author: Johanna Zeise, University of Bonn,
Agroecology and Organic Farming Group, Auf dem Hügel 6, 53121 Bonn,
Germany, at present: University of Kassel, Faculty of organic agricultural
sciences, Nordbahnhofstraße 1a, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany,
E-mail: johannazeise@web.de

Jürgen Fritz, University of Bonn, Agroecology and Organic Farming
Group, Siegaue 16, 53773 Hennef, Germany

Open Access. © 2019 Johanna Zeise, Jürgen Fritz, published by De Gruyter.
4.0 Public License.

1 Introduction

Bovine mastitis is a common disease in dairy farming,
which represents an economic, ecological and health
problem (Kruif et al. 2007). Mastitis is an inflammation
of the udder, which is divided into a subclinical and a
clinical form. Subclinical mastitis is characterized by an
increased content of somatic cells (>100,000 cells/ml) and/
or pathogens in the milk. It is usually treated at the end
of lactation with a combination of (long-term) antibiotics
and internal teat sealer (antibiotic drying off) (DVG 2012;
Wolter 2015; Molina et al. 2017). Clinical mastitis means
the presence of local and general symptoms together with
an increased cell count and pathogens in the milk (Winter
2009; DVG 2012). Depending on the severity of disease,
clinical mastitis is treated by antibiotics either local or
systemic (Hamann 2003; Tenhagen 2013). The antibiotic
use is seen as increasingly critical because of the rising
bacterial resistance (Wallmann 2016; Schulz-Stübner
2016). In organic and biodynamic farming, the use of
antibiotics is restricted by legal requirements; therefore,
the use of complementary medicine, for example
homeopathy is supported (European Union 2008).
Because of this, homeopathy is mainly used by ecological
and biodynamic farmers in animal husbandry (León et al.
2006; Gordon et al. 2012).

Homeopathy is based on three principles: the
similia principle, drug testing with healthy humans
and dilution of doses, which were developed by the
German doctor Samuel Hahnemann. According to
Hahnemann’s observations during drug testing, the simile
is able to initiate a healing, which causes symptoms in the
examination of healthy people, which are as similar as
possible to the symptoms of the patient (Similia similibus
curentur) (Braun 1995).  Homeopathic remedies are
potentiated drugs of components of plants or minerals
for example, which effects are tested in drug trials on
healthy people. These results are transferred to veterinary
medicine, because there are rarely any homeopathic
drug tests on animals
(Ekert 2013).
The preparation of
homeopathic remedies consists of dilution and shaking
or trituration of the active substance with a carrier

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AM204 
 J. Zeise, J. Fritz

substance. According to homeopathic understanding, the
healing power contained in the drug are released through
mechanical processing and strengthened with each
potentiation step.According to homeopaths, non-material
potencies above dilution D23 (Avogadro’s number) act by
passing on the energetic information with the help of the
carrier substance
(Braun 1995; Steingasser 2016).
Due to these characteristics of homeopathy, the
effectiveness of this complementary medical method is a
contentious issue in science. Homeopathy is criticised to be
a placebo effect (Shang et al. 2005). Linde et al. (1997) and
Ammon and Kösters (2016) claim that homeopathy has an
effect better than placebo. However, up to now research
studies demonstrate inconsistent results. An analysis of
peer-reviewed publications shows a homeopathic effect in
dairy cattle in nine studies compared to ten trials without
an effect (Doehring and Sundrum 2016). The authors of
several meta-analyses criticize the partly low and very
heterogeneous quality of the trials so that a generalizable
conclusion is not possible (Mathie et al. 2012; Mathie
and Clausen 2014; Mathie and Clausen 2015a; Mathie
and Clausen 2015b; Francoz et al. 2017). According to
Klocke and Fidelak (2010), the combination of herd
health management and environmental improvement
measures with the use of homeopathic remedies might be
a successful strategy to reduce the use of antibiotics.
The following research questions should be answered
in this study: Has homeopathy an effect in prevention
and treatment of bovine mastitis? If it has a better effect
than standard medication or placebo, which homeopathic
remedy can be recommended for bovine mastitis? Are
there indications for future studies and applications for
homeopathy to treat mastitis?
2 Methods
To answer the research questions, homeopathic studies
published to date (February, 2018) were collected by
literature and database searching of the online-library
of the Carstens Foundation, published meta-analyses
(Mathie et al. 2012; Mathie and Clausen 2014; Mathie and
Clausen 2015a; Mathie and Clausen 2015b; Doehring and
Sundrum 2016; Francoz et al. 2017), references of doctoral
theses about the topic of mastitis and homeopathy
(Fidelak 2003; Garbe 2003; Schlecht 2004; Röhrs 2005;
Walkenhorst 2006; Werner 2006; Notz 2011; Ebert 2016)
and online databases (NLM pubmed.de, orgprints.de,
researchgate.com).
All studies were considered, regardless of their year of
publication and internal validity (control group, blinding,
randomization). In order to get the most comprehensive
picture, the evaluation included peer-reviewed studies,
as well as non-peer-reviewed studies from publications,
conference papers, journals, pilot and practical studies
of preventive and therapeutic concepts of organic and
conventional livestock husbandry.
67 studies in English and German language from 1982
till 2016 were identified.
Studies which were inaccessible to the author due
to inadequate source information, limited time slot and
lack of procurement possibilities were not considered.
Duplicates and studies with less information about the
trial design or the homeopathic remedy were excluded, as
well as case studies on individual animals.
After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria,
32 studies could be used for evaluation. Assessment
criteria and a rating score of 0 to 5 points were fixed for
the appraisal (Table 1 and 2). The chosen criteria based
on scientific guidelines for medical research (EMEA 2000;
Hektoen 2002; Wein 2002; Arlt and Heuwieser 2011) and
the information given in the studies. General information
of the studies, the formal presentation of the results
(statistics, completeness) and internal validity were
recorded in Table 1.
Healing and prophylaxis of mastitis were the focus
to highlight the medication success and its framework
for suitable mastitis therapy. Due to this, the effect of
homeopathy was evaluated by several criteria (Table 2).
The success of healing and prevention were presented
in opposite ways by the proportion of cured animals or
number of incidences. For this reason, the assessment
criteria were divided (Table 2) into the self-healing
ability, the healing ratio of the trial groups and their
percentage difference to each other and the cure rate in
the homeopathic group for the treatment success. The
success of prevention was described by the mastitis
rate and the mastitis ratio of the test groups and their
percentage difference to each other. The rating score was
given concerned to complete information and relevance
for homeopathy and scientific research. For example, 5
points were given for complete information of the dosage
which contained the period, the repetition, the used
amount and the mode of application of the drug.
When comparing the studies, the very heterogeneous
qualitative and quantitative presentation of results made
the evaluation difficult and did not provide a consistent
definition of healing. Therefore, the highest results of the
treatment studies of one of the three levels of clinical,
bacteriological or complete cure were evaluated. This
applies to the four criteria ʹself-healing of placebo or
untreated groupʹ, ʹrelation of cure (RC)ʹ, ʹdifference RC:
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AMUse and efficacy of homeopathy in prevention and treatment of bovine mastitis
  205
Table 1: Assessment criteria with a rating score of 0 to 5 points: general information of the studies
Criteria 5 points 3 points 1 point 0 points
Number of animals > 139 79 - 139 < 79 No information
Definition of inclusion/
exclusion criteria
Investigation period Inclusion and exclusion
criteria
>6 month Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria No information
>3 – 6 month Homeopathy Remedy and potency Only remedy Up to 3 months/ 12 weeks/
90 days
Only potency No/imprecise
information
No information
Dosage Complete information 2 or 3 informations 1 information No information
Complete declaration
(reference to symptoms) Partly (no reference to
symptoms) No information
Comprehensible drug
selection
Criteria of success 1 point per criteria (e.g. cell count, bacteriology, California-Mastitis-Test) No information
Definition of cure 1 point per defined kind of healing (e.g. clinical cure, bacteriological cure) or defined
success of prevention; max. 5 points No definition, no
information
Result presentation Complete statistical Numerical value Information of treatment
success
Control group Complete in all groups In at least 1 group Untreated Placebo Blinding Triple Twice
Randomisation
Indication of results without No information
data
Wording without data
No information
Antibiotics or Internal Teat
sealer
Single No controlgroup
Yes (kind of randomisation:
+1 point) No randomisation
No blinding
Table 2: Assessment criteria with a rating score of 0 to 5 points: effect of healing and prevention
Criteria
5 points 3 points 1 point 0 points
> 30% 16 – 30% 1 – 15% No information
Homeopathy
> Antibiotics Homeopathy
> Placebo Homeopathy
< Antibiotics Homeopathy
< Placebo or no
control group
Treatment study
Self-healing of placebo or
untreated group
Relation of cure (RC)
2 points: Homeopathy = control group (antibiotics or placebo)
Difference RC: homeopathy
versus placebo or versus antibiotics > 30% 16 – 30% 1 – 15% < 0 or no
information
Cure rate of homeopathy > 60% 31 – 60% 1 – 30% No cure
Mastitis rate of placebo
or untreated group 0 – 15% 16 – 30% > 30% No information
Relation mastitis rate (MR) Homeopathy
< Internal
Teat sealer
> 30% Homeopathy
< Placebo Homeopathy
> Placebo
16 – 30 % Homeopathy
> Internal
Teat sealer
1 – 15% 0 – 15% 16 – 30% > 30% No information
Prevention study
Difference MR: homeopathy vs. placebo or
vs. Internal Teat sealer
Mastitis rate of homeopathy
< 0 or no
information
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AM206 
 J. Zeise, J. Fritz
homeopathy versus placebo or versus antibioticsʹ and
ʹcure rate of homeopathyʹ of the treatment studies.
The top eight studies of the quality ranking of Table
2 with a mean value ≥ 2.5 were subjected to differentiated
evaluation in detail with a focus on cure and prevention
of mastitis (Day 1986; Searcy et al. 1995; Merck 2004;
Varshney and Naresh 2005; Werner 2006; Klocke et al.
2007; Klocke et al. 2010; Ebert 2016) (Table 3 and 4). If
several studies had the same mean value, the higher
mean value of all assessment criteria (Table 1 and 2) was
decisive. Despite a low mean value, the study of Otto (1982)
was used as a further reference for comparison because of
its very good homeopathic cure rate of more than 80%.
Since the evaluation contained only one study with an
antibiotic trial group, three further studies (Garbe 2003;
Hektoen et al. 2004; Mueller 2004) were selected in order
to better compare the effect of antibiotic and homeopathic
therapy (Table 3 and 4).
Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related
to either human or animal use.
3 Results
3.1 Treatment studies
The cure of mastitis is separated into four stages to
evaluate the healing process (Table 4). Clinical cure
means that there are no signs of illness left and the milk
has a normal appearance. Cytological cure means that
there are no signs of illness and the milk contains less
than 100,000 cells/ml milk; a higher number of cells is
a sign of inflammation. Bacteriological cure means that
there are no signs of illness and no pathogens in the milk.
The complete cure combines the three previous levels of
cure (Merck 2004). The trial results based on 503 cows in
the homeopathic, 325 cows in the antibiotic, 260 cows in
the placebo and 40 cows in the untreated trial group. The
average time to control homeopathic effect was 24 days.
Over all levels of cure, homeopathy reached an efficiency
of 43% and the antibiotic therapy was almost 10% more
successful. One third of all affected udder quarters were
cured by placebo or without any medication.
3.2 Subclinical mastitis
With homeopathic therapy a moderate cure rate between
12 and 67% (mean value 28%) was achieved in two
studies of subclinical mastitis (Table 4, Figure 1). The
Table 3: Mean value of selected studies after applying the assess-
ment criteria
Author Mean value table 2 Mean value table
1 and 2
Klocke et al. (2010) 4.00 3.41
Searcy et al. (1995) 4.00 2.59
Ebert (2016) 3.50 3.88
Day (1986) 3.50 2.53
Varshney and Naresh (2005) 3.18 3.25
Werner (2006) 3.00 3.47
Klocke et al. (2007) 3.00 3.18
Merck (2004) 2.50 3.29
Hektoen et al. (2004) 2.50 2.82
Garbe (2003) 1.50 3.18
Mueller (2004) 1.50 2.59
Otto (1982) 1.25 2.65
used nosode, a special homeopathic remedy which
consists of inactivated causal agents, was less efficient
than classical homeopathic remedies. During the eight-
week investigation period, an increase of healing rates
was recognizable in the homeopathic and the untreated
trial groups (Klocke et al. 2007). The trial results of Searcy
et al. (1995) showed significant differences between
homeopathy and placebo. Referring to the small number
of animals and a study period of only four weeks, the
results were interpreted cautiously positive by the authors.
Overall, there was below average success compared to
trial results of clinical mastitis.
3.3 Clinical mastitis
Homeopathic healing success varied between 14% and
87% (average 45%), antibiotics achieved an efficiency
of 0-83% (average 53%), both depending on the type
of cure and the examination date (Table 4, Figure 2).
The combined therapy of homeopathy and antibiotics
reached a cure rate up to 99,5%. Animals of the placebo
groups showed high (self-) healing rates up to 68%. Over
a longer investigation period, almost all studies showed
increasing cure rates in the homeopathic group and the
placebo and untreated control groups. There were similar
cure rates of all different trial groups in clinical and
cytological cure. In bacteriological cure, antibiotics were
almost 30% more efficient than homeopathy. This might
depend on the different temporal and substantial mode
of action and made a direct comparison more difficult.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AM  207
Use and efficacy of homeopathy in prevention and treatment of bovine mastitis
Table 4: Cure rates of udder quarters (%)
Type of cure Clinical cure
Trial group Hom
Ab
Pl
U
Cytological
cure Bacteriological cure
Hom Pl Hom
67 a 29 b
Ab
Pl
Complete cure
U
Hom
Ab
Examination
date after
end of
medication
Pl U
Hom 12
Nos 12 Hom 24
Nos 12
Studies of subclinical mastitis
Searcy et al. (1995)
Klocke et al. (2007)
Day 30
Hom 35
Nos 27 Hom 16 17
Nos 42 a
Hom 41
Nos 24 Hom 19
Nos 31
25
b
Hom 3
Nos 31 a 4 b Day 28
Hom 6
Nos 19 17 Day 56
Studies of clinical mastitis
Otto (1982)
51 60
Hektoen et al. (2004) 47
Garbe (2003)
45
Merck (2004)
Mueller (2004)
Varshney and
Naresh (2005)
Werner (2006)
Ebert (2016)
74
(95)
64
54
48
56
86,6
68
69
59,2
21,4
(75,7)
25
(88,6)
56
42 56
29 35
78,5
87
(99,5)
21
38
13 19
20
Day 5
Day 10
Day 14-21
6 Day 28
68 23 19 40 24 15 a 2 b Day 0
58
50 43
41 41
47 40
40
50
65 75
74 26
26 28 a
32 a 11 b
13 b Day 35
Day 56
Day 7
Day 14
Day 52
43,6 b
61,5
59
61,5 82,8 a
82,8
82,8
82,8 56,6 b
65,2
56,5
56,5 14 a
21
28
36 a 9
14
16
16 b Day 7
Day 14
Day 28
Day 56
Day 7
28
(76,1)
32
(87)
47
(80)
56
(93,3)
0 b
24
24
24
Day 14
Abbreviations: Hom: Homeopathy; Nos: Nosode; Ab: Antibiotics; Pl: Placebo; U: Untreated
Note: The values in brackets correspond to the cure rates of combined homeopathic and antibiotic therapy. Differences between the values
per line and per cure marked by a different letter (a, b) are significant (P < 0.05).
The effect of homeopathy compared to placebo was better
in all trials except for Ebert (2016). In complete cure the
healing success of homeopathy and antibiotics were
almost the same, in some cases homeopathy was better
than antibiotics. Homeopathy compared to placebo was -
partly significant - more effective.
3.4 Prevention studies
Two preventive studies were evaluated (Day 1986; Klocke
et al. 2010) (Data are not shown in detail). Day (1986) used
a combined nosode of five pathogens. 25% of the placebo-
controlled animals developed mastitis contrary to 2.5% of
the animals of the homeopathic group. The comparisons of
the cell counts were made nine month before medication
and nine month during homeopathic medication, but
not between homeopathy and placebo. The homeopathic
treated cows had a lower average somatic cell count per
month of 160,000 cell counts/ml compared to the period
before medication. This method of comparison made the
validity of the study more difficult. Good and meaningful
results could be achieved by a study of Klocke et al. (2010).
Homeopathy was compared to internal teat sealer, which
is normally used for cows at drying off. The proportion of
normal secreting quarters with a cell count below 100,000
cells/ml of all involved quarters 100 days post calving was
nearly equal in all trial groups (QSCC) (homeopathy 68%,
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AM208 
 J. Zeise, J. Fritz
internal teat sealer 70%, untreated control group 65%)
(Figure 3). Cows whose milk samples had a cell count
below 200,000 cells/ml at drying off, had a significant
mastitis protection in the homeopathic group 100 days
post calving compared to cows of the untreated group and
a better but non-significant effect compared to internal
teat sealer. The mastitis protection includes pathogen-
free milk samples and a cell count below 200,000 cells/
ml (CSCC) (homeopathy 91%, internal teat sealer 83%,
untreated control group 81%) (Figure 3). The limit of

Figure 1: Cure of subclinical mastitis as percentage in three trial groups. The sample size of each test group was: Homeopathy: Searcy et al.
(1995): 51 udder quarters (cytological cure); Klocke et al. (2007): 67 udder quarters (bacteriological cure, complete cure); Placebo: Searcy et
al. (1995): 52 udder quarters (cytological cure); Klocke et al. (2007): 58 udder quarters (bacteriological cure, complete cure); Unmedicated:
Klocke et al. (2007): 24 udder quarters (bacteriological cure, complete cure). Note: Due to less studies of subclinical mastitis, the bar of
cytological cure represents the results of Searcy et al. (1995) not as mean values. The bacteriological and complete cures show the results
(Klocke et al. 2007) as mean values with minimum and maximum values as lines, all in percentages. (Used data see table 4)
Figure 2: Cure of clinical mastitis as percentage mean value in four trial groups. Note: The bar chart of figure 2 shows the results of studies of
clinical mastitis (data see Table 4) in percentages as mean values and the minimum and maximum values as lines. The results shown in the
antibiotics group include the results of the three further studies mentioned above.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AMUse and efficacy of homeopathy in prevention and treatment of bovine mastitis
  209
Figure 3: Prevention of mastitis in three trial groups compared between quarter somatic cell count (QSCC) and cow somatic cell count
(CSCC) (Data from: Klocke et al. 2010).


200,000 cells/ml was used because of manufacturer
recommendation that internal teat sealer should only be
used up to this limit to minimize the risk of clinical mastitis
during the dry period. 9% of the cows of the homeopathic
group and 11% of the cows treated with internal teat
sealer developed a clinical mastitis during the first 100
days post calving. The untreated group showed the lowest
incidence for clinical mastitis with 3% (Klocke et al. 2010).
According to homeopath, homeopathic remedies could
reactivate former illnesses (Braun 1995). This might be
an explanation that 9% of the cows of the homeopathic
group developed a clinical mastitis. The results indicated
that homeopathy might be an effective alternative to
internal teat sealer.
4 Discussion and conclusion
The analysed studies have been selected because of their
good healing results to find out under which conditions
homeopathy can have an effect. After evaluating the
scientific trials, it can be determined that the measure of
cure depended on the selected homeopathic remedy, the
pathogen, study conditions and individual conditions of
the farm. Homeopathy has shown in some studies that
it can have a better effect (partly significant) compared
to placebo. The criticism of homeopathy as a placebo
effect could be refuted by the results of these studies. The
achieved efficiency of antibiotics in these trials largely
coincides with the literature data on healing success
of clinical mastitis with a healing range of 14% to 96%
(Garbe 2003; Werner 2006). For mastitis incidence the
prophylactic effect of teat sealer as standard medication
in the dry period is stated by 3.5% in literature (Krömker
et al. 2014, cited in Kiesner et al. 2015) compared to 10.5%
in an untreated control group. This is opposed to the
results of Klocke et al. (2010) with a mastitis incidence of
11% by using internal teat sealer and 3% in the untreated
control group. In literature the self-healing ability during
lactation is stated by 30% and 50-70% for dry off cows
(Dorenkamp 2010). Together with the results of the cows
dried off untreated in the preventive study (Klocke et al.
2010), it could be questioned whether a therapeutic or
preventive medication is always necessary.
In conclusion it can be said that an effect was
recognizable in prophylactic and therapeutic application
of homeopathy in the selected trials. Due to the evaluated
trial results, the efficiency might be better in clinical than
in subclinical mastitis. This might be explained by missing
signs of illness of the cows in subclinical mastitis, which
impedes the correct choice of the homeopathic remedy.
No specific medication could be recommended for bovine
mastitis. Most used remedies, in 8 of 9 selected studies,
were Belladonna, Bryonia, Lachesis and Phytolacca. All
these four remedies referred to mastitis through their
homeopathic drug picture. Due to this, homeopathic
remedies should be used according to indication and
individual symptoms of the cow. This result supported
the citation of Hahnemann: “In every case of illness,
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AM210 
 J. Zeise, J. Fritz
choose a remedy which can cause a similar disease as it
should heal!” (Hahnemann 1992). The comparison of the
effect of homeopathic and antibiotic therapy was limited
because of their different mode of action. In the combined
use of homeopathy and antibiotics it was possible to
reduce the antibiotic use by up to 75% (Merck 2004). This
was achieved by using homeopathy or a combination of
homeopathy and antibiotics if needed. The phenomena
indicated that homeopathy might have a long-term effect,
which could help to stabilize animal health. This was
recognisable the longer the investigation period lasted
on. Furthermore, the results suggested a high self-healing
ability in bovine mastitis. A further need for research on
the homeopathic effect, the application within the various
types of bovine mastitis and their self-healing ability is
emphasised. It is recommended to develop a study design
that considers the specific characteristics of homeopathy.
At last, due to the high rates of self-healing, it should be
examined which types of mastitis have a high self-healing
rate and which conditions are necessary for self-healing.
The results of the evaluation showed, that homeopathy
might be an alternative possibility to treat bovine mastitis
in organic and biodynamic agriculture depending on the
type of mastitis. A therapy of mastitis with homeopathic
remedies in combination with antibiotics if necessary, or
homeopathy in prevention might be a possible application.

Conflict of interest: Authors declare no conflict of
interest.


References

Ammon K. von, Kösters C., Methodological problems of randomised
double-blind trials in homeopathic research, In: Baumgartner
S., Behnke J., Frei-Erb M., Kösters C., Teut M., Torchetti L.,
Ammon K. von (Eds.), The current state of homeopathic
research, Scientific Society for Homeopathy (WissHom),
Köthen, 2016, 25-32

Arlt S., Heuwieser W., Training students to appraise the quality of
scientific literature, J Vet Med Educ, 2011, 38, 135-140, DOI:
10.3138/jvme.38.2.135

Braun A., Methodik der Homöopathie: Leitfaden für die Ärztekurse
in homöopathischer Medizin, 5th ed., Sonntag Verlag,
Stuttgart, 1995

Day C., Clinical trials in bovine mastitis – use of nosodes for
prevention, The British Homoeopathic Journal, 1986, 75, 11-14

Doehring C., Sundrum A., Efficacy of homeopathy in livestock
according to peer-reviewed publications from 1981 to 2014, Vet
Rec, 2016, 179, 628-641, DOI: 10.1136/vr.103779

Dorenkamp B., Eutergesundheit und Fruchtbarkeit, Milchrind, 2010,
4, 54–58

DVG [Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische Gesellschaft], Leitlinien
Bekämpfung der Mastitis des Rindes als Bestandsproblem,
Fachgruppe Milchhygiene, Arbeitsgruppe Sachverständigen-
ausschuss Subklinische Mastitis, Fehlings K., Hamann J.,
Klawonn W., Knappstein K., Mansfeld R., Wittkowski G., et al.
(Eds.), 5th ed., Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, 2012

Ebert F., Randomisierte, placebo-kontrollierte Studie zur
Untersuchung der Effekte einer homöopathischen Mastitis-
therapie bei Milchkühen, PhD thesis, University of Berlin,
Berlin, Germany, 2016

Ekert G., Geschichtliche Entwicklung der Veterinärhomöopathie
von Hahnemann bis heute, Zeitschrift für Ganzheitliche
Tiermedizin, 2013, 27, 78-81, DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1328776

EMEA [The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
Products], VICH Topic GL9, (GCP) Guideline on good clinical
practices, CVMP/VICH/595/98-FINAL, London, UK, 2000,
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/
Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500004343.pdf
European Union, Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008
of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on
organic production and labelling of organic products with
regard to organic production, labelling and control, 2008,
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/889/oj

Fidelak C., Zum Einsatz eines Prophylaxeprogrammes mit
Homöopathika in einem biologisch wirtschaftenden Milchvieh-
betrieb unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Fruchtbarkeit,
PhD thesis, University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2003

Francoz D., Wellemans V., Dupré J.P., Roy J.P., Labelle F., Lacasse
P., et al., Invited review: A systematic review and qualitative
analysis of treatments other than conventional antimicrobials
for clinical mastitis in dairy cows, J Dairy Sci, 2017, 100,
7751–7770, DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-12512

Garbe S., Untersuchungen zur Verbesserung der Eutergesundheit
bei Milchkühen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des
Einsatzes von Homöopathika, PhD thesis, University of Berlin,
Berlin, Germany, 2003

Gordon P., Kohler S., Reist M., van den Borne B., Menéndez
González S., Doherr M., Baseline survey of health prophylaxis
and management practices on Swiss dairy farms, Schweizer
Archiv für Tierheilkunde, 2012, 154, 371–379, DOI:
10.1024/0036-7281/a000367

Hahnemann S., Organon der Heilkunst, Bearbeitet, heraus-
gegeben und mit einem Vorwort versehen von J. M. Schmidt,
Textkritische Ausgabe der von Samuel Hahnemann für die 6.
Auflage vorgesehenen Fassung, Haug Verlag, Heidelberg, 1992

Hamann J., Zum Erreger- und Entzündungsnachweis im Rahmen der
Mastitisdiagnostik – Befunderhebung und Konsequenzen für
Bekämpfungsmaßnahmen der bovinen Mastitis, Prakt Tierarzt,
2003, 84, 382-388

Hektoen L., Das Design von klinischen Studien zur Wirksamkeit von
Homöopathika am Beispiel der bovinen Mastitis, Zeitschrift für
Ganzheitliche Tiermedizin, 2002, 16, 52-55

Hektoen L., Larsen S., Odegaard S.A., Løken T., Comparison of
homeopathy, placebo and antibiotic treatment of clinical
mastitis in dairy cows - methodological issues and results from
a randomized-clinical trial, J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med,
2004, 51 439-446, DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0442.2004.00661.x

Klocke P., Ivemeyer S., Heil F., Walkenhorst M., Notz C., Treatment of
bovine subclinical mastitis with homeopathic remedies, In: U.
Niggli, C. Leifert, T. Alföldi, L. Lück, H. Willer (Eds.), Improving
Sustainability in Organic and Low Input Food Production

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AMUse and efficacy of homeopathy in prevention and treatment of bovine mastitis
Systems, Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of
the European Integrated Project Quality Low Input Food (QLIF)
(20-23 March 2007, Stuttgart, Germany), Research Institute of
Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland, 2007, 351-355

Klocke P., Fidelak C., Homöopathische Konzepte in der Euterge-
sundheit, Lebendige Erde 3, 2010, 42-45

Klocke P., Ivemeyer S., Butler G., Maeschli A., Heil F., A randomized
controlled trial to compare the use of homeopathy and internal
Teat Sealers for the prevention of mastitis in organically
farmed dairy cows during the dry period and 100 days
post-calving, Homeopathy, 2010, 99, 90-98, DOI: 10.1016/j.
homp.2009.12.001

Krömker V., Grabowski N.Th., Friedrich J., New infection rate of
bovine mammary glands after application of an internal teat
seal at dry off, J Dairy Research, 2014, 81, 54-58, cited in:
Kiesner K., Knorr N., Zhang Y., Vollin O., Krömker V., Neuinfek-
tionsrate von bovinen Milchdrüsen nach der Applikation
eines bismuthsubnitrat-freien internen Zitzenversieglers
zum Trockenstellen, In: Deutsche Veterinärmedizinische
Gesellschaft e. V. (Ed.), Werkzeuge einer modernen
Eutergesundheit, Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe Sachverständi-
genausschuss Subklinische Mastitis der DVG-Fachgruppe
Milchhygiene, Verlag der DVG Service GmbH, Gießen, 2015,
105-109

Kruif A. de, Mansfeld R., Hoedemaker M., Tierärztliche Bestandesbe-
treuung beim Milchrind, 2nd ed., Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, 2007
León L., Nürnberg M., Andersson R., Naturheilverfahren auf Bioland-
und Demeter-Betrieben, Ökologie und Landbau, 2006, 140,
44-46

Linde K., Clausius N., Ramirez G., Melchart D., Eitel F., Hedges L.V.,
et al., Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects?
A metaanalysis of placebo-controlled trials, The Lancet, 1997,
350, 834–843

Mathie R. T., Hacke D., Clausen J., Randomised controlled trials
of veterinary homeopathy: Characterising the peer-reviewed
research literature for systematic review. Homeopathy, 2012,
101, 196–203, DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2012.05.009

Mathie R.T., Clausen J., Veterinary homeopathy. Systematic review
of medical conditions studied by randomised placebo-
controlled trials, Vet Rec, 2014, 175, 373–381, DOI: 10.1136/
vr.101767

Mathie R.T., Clausen J., Veterinary homeopathy, Meta-analysis of
randomised placebo-controlled trials, Homeopathy, 2015a, 104,
3–8, DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2014.11.001

Mathie R.T., Clausen J., Veterinary homeopathy, Systematic review of
medical conditions studied by randomised trials controlled by
other than placebo, BMC Vet Res, 2015b, 11, 236, DOI: 10.1186/
s12917-015-0542-2

Merck C.C., Etablierung der homöopathischen Mastitistherapie
in einem biologisch-dynamisch wirtschaftenden Milcher-
zeugerbetrieb unter Berücksichtigung ökologischer,
epidemiologischer und ökonomischer Gesichtspunkte,
Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsvorhaben 99UM032,
Tierklinik für Fortpflanzung, Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin,
Freie Universität Berlin, 2004, https://core.ac.uk/download/
pdf/10922807.pdf

Molina L.R., Costa H.N., Leão J.M., Malacco V.M.R., Facury Filho E.J.,
Carvalho A.U., et al., Efficacy of an internal teat seal associated
with a dry cow intramammary antibiotic for prevention of
intramammary infections in dairy cows during the dry and
  211
early lactation periods, Pesq. Vet. Bras, 2017, 37, 465-470, DOI:
10.1590/S0100-736X2017000500007

Mueller K., Comparison of homoeopathic and antibiotic treatment
of clinical mastitis, In: Proceedings of the British Mastitis
Conference (13th October 2004, Stoneleigh, UK), 2004, 113-115,
http://www.britishmastitisconference.org.uk/BMC2004Pro-
ceedings.pdf

Notz C., Homöopathische Studien zur Rindermastitis beim Trocken-
stellen und zum Abkalben, PhD thesis, University of Zürich,
Zürich, Switzerland, 2011

Otto H., Erfahrungen mit der homöopathischen Therapie akuter
parenchymatöser Mastitiden des Rindes, Tierarztl Umsch,
1982, 37, 732-734

Röhrs K., Grundlagen der homöopathischen Arzneimittelbilder in
der Veterinärmedizin - historische Wurzeln und derzeitige
Anwendung in der Praxis -am Beispiel von Arsenicum album,
Atropa belladonna, Lachesis muta, Strychnos nux vomica und
Pulsatilla pratensis, PhD thesis, University of Berlin, Berlin,
Germany, 2005

Searcy R., Reyes O., Guajardo G., Control of subclinical bovine
mastitis: Utilization of a homoeopathic combination, Br
Homeopath J., 1995, 84, 67-70

Shang A., Huwiler-Müntener K., Nartey L., Jüni P., Dörig S., Sterne
J.A.C., et al., Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo
effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of
homoeopathy and allopathy, The Lancet, 2005, 366, 726–732

Schlecht S., Auswirkungen einer prophylaktischen Verabreichung
der Präparate Carduus compositum®, Coenzyme
compositum®, Lachesis compositum® und Traumeel QP® auf
die Eutergesundheit von Milchkühen, PhD thesis, University of
Munich, Munich, Germany, 2004

Schulz-Stübner S., Geschichtliche Entwicklung und Public-Health-
Aspekte, In: Schulz-Stübner S., Dettenkofer M., Mattner
F., Meyer E., Mahlberg R. (Eds.), Multiresistente Erreger,
Diagnostik – Epidemiologie – Hygiene – Antibiotika –
„Stewardship“, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2016, 1-14

Steingasser H.M., Homöopathische Materia Medica für Veterinärme-
diziner, 5th ed., Maudrich Verlag, Wien, 2016

Tenhagen B.-A., Antibiotikaresistenz und Mastitistherapie, In:
Tierklinik für Fortpflanzung, Freie Universität Berlin (Ed.),
Eutergesundheit und Mastitis, 13. Modul der Weiterbildung
zum Fachtierarzt Rind, Mensch und Buch Verlag, Berlin, 2013,
34-37

Varshney J.P., Naresh R., Comparative efficacy of homeopathic and
allopathic systems of medicine in the management of clinical
mastitis of Indian dairy cows, Homeopathy, 2005, 94, 81-85

Walkenhorst M., Vergleich von homöopathischer mit antibiotischer
Laktationstherapie zur Behandlung von Mastitiden des Rindes,
PhD thesis, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, 2006

Wallmann J., Veterinary antimicrobial sales, In: Federal Office
of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Paul-Ehrlich-
Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (Ed.), GERMAP 2015
– Report on the consumption of antimicrobials and the spread
of antimicrobial resistance in human and veterinary medicine
in Germany, Antiinfectives Intelligence, Rheinbach, 2016, 23-27

Wein C., Qualitätsaspekte klinischer Studien zur Homöopathie, KVC
Verlag, Essen, 2002

Werner C., Klinische Kontrollstudie zum Vergleich des homöopa-
thischen und chemotherapeutischen Behandlungsverfahren
bei der Therapie der akuten katarrhalischen Mastitis des
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AM212 

 J. Zeise, J. Fritz
Rindes, PhD thesis, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany,
2006

Winter P., Praktischer Leitfaden Mastitis, Vorgehen beim Einzeltier
und im Bestand, Parey Verlag, Stuttgart, 2009

Wolter W., Trockenstellen: Jede Kuh einzeln ins Visier nehmen,
topagrar, 2015, 7, R16-R20

Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/18/19 9:11 AM
[*/quote*]


[Hervorhebungen für Zitate eingefügt. Julian]
« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 09:51:52 PM by Julian »
Logged

Julian

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 764

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opag.2019.4.issue-1/opag-2019-0019/opag-2019-0019.pdf

[*quote*]
Johanna Zeise*, Jürgen Fritz

Use and efficacy of homeopathy in prevention and treatment of bovine mastitis

[*/quote*]

Homöopathie ist Betrug. Also ist das Ganze nichts als Tierquälerei und gehört nicht nur wegen Betrug, sondern auch wegen Tierquälerei verboten.


"With homeopathic drugs it was possible to reduce
the antibiotic use by up to 75%."


Das ist gelogen. Die homöopathischen Mittel wurden ZUSÄTZLICH gegeben. ZUSÄTZLICH! Das heißt, daß die Antibiotika gegeben wurden. UND, daß diese Antibiotika gewirkt haben, so daß man deren Dosis verringern konnte. Der homöopathische Mist hat daran überhaupt nichts geändert.


"It is usually treated at the end
of lactation with a combination of (long-term) antibiotics
and internal teat sealer (antibiotic drying off) (DVG 2012;
Wolter 2015; Molina et al. 2017)."


Das muß man sich näher ansehen. Eine Kuh wird versiegelt? So wie man einen Motor einmottet? IN DER TAT!

Hier ist eine Beschreibung aus der Praxis:

https://www.dairyherd.com/article/9-steps-using-internal-teat-sealant

[*quote*]
9 Steps to Using an Internal Teat Sealant
Mike Opperman
March 15, 2018 03:16 PM
Drovers
Proper administration and removal is key.
( Wyatt Bechtel )

The use of an internal teat sealant is an important part of a dry cow therapy program. It’s equally as important to ensure the product is properly inserted and removed for optimal protection. The following nine-step program was developed by Zoetis for use with Orbeseal, an internal teat sealant, based on the research and development that went into this product.

Application

Step 1: Clean and dry teats. If teats are not clean, carefully wash and dry them prior to disinfection.

Step 2: Using an alcohol pad, clean the end of the teat to remove any contaminated skin, dirt or manure. Repeat until the pad remains clean.

Step 3: Disinfect the far teats before the near teats to avoid accidental contamination of previously disinfected teats.

Step 4: Insert the Orbeseal syringe nozzle into the teat canal. Grasp the base of the teat near the udder attachment with two fingers pressed firmly together and slowly inject all contents. Use one complete syringe per quarter. Do not massage as the product must remain in the teat canal to be effective.

Step 5: Insert the product into the nearest teats first to minimize contamination of teats that have not been treated.

Step 6: After inserting the product, mark the cow so other employees can tell she has been dried off. Then dip each teat with a quality teat dip.
Removal

As important as it is to properly apply the product, it is equally as important to properly remove the product when the cow freshens. Here are the removal steps.

Step 1: Grab the top of the teat where it meets the udder and work all the way down to the teat end. Don’t grab the middle of the teat, squeeze and work down. This will only clear the bottom half of the teat. Strip the entire quarter by starting at the top and working all the way down.

Step 2: Strip aggressively—10 to 12 times per quarter—for the first four days post-freshening. This helps ensure you’re removing the plug and all Orbeseal particles. Do not remove the product by action of the milking machine.

Step 3: Milk into a bucket for the first three to four days post-freshening. This will help to remove any remaining product particles.

Note: This story ran in the March 2018 magazine issue of Dairy Herd Management.
[*/quote*]


Kühe sind biologische Maschinen und werden auch so betrieben und gewartet.

Wenn man nicht aufpaßt und zuviel Treibstoff gibt, kann es die Maschinen umhauen:

Technischer Defekt schrottet 46 Sekundärbiosolarbrennstoffkonverter
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=6702.0


"In organic and biodynamic farming, the use of
antibiotics is restricted by legal requirements; therefore,
the use of complementary medicine, for example
homeopathy is supported (European Union 2008)."


Das ist gelogen. Natürlich kann man die Anwendung von Antibiotika einschränken. Aber das heißt noch lange nicht, daß man dann mit Homöopathie oder anderem Mist betrügen darf!


"Because of this, homeopathy is mainly used by ecological
and biodynamic farmers in animal husbandry (León et al.
2006; Gordon et al. 2012)."


Gegen Dummheit ist eben kein Kraut gewachsen. Aber es gibt Gerichte, die den Blöden klar sagen, wo es lang geht:

Homöopathie wirkte nicht: Schweizer Bio-Bauer wegen fahrlässiger Tierquälerei verurteilt
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/index.php?topic=8035.0

Homöopathie ist Tierquälerei.


Ich kann das jetzt abkürzen. Hier kommt nämlich der Oberhammer schlechthin. Ama hatte schon lange, lange davor gewarnt:

"Homeopathic remedies are
potentiated drugs of components of plants or minerals
for example, which effects are tested in drug trials on
healthy people. These results are transferred to veterinary
medicine, because there are rarely any homeopathic
drug tests on animals
(Ekert 2013)."


Es gibt keine Repertorien für Tiere. Statt dessen werden einfach die von Menschen benutzt. Das beste Beispiel, warum das total idiotisch ist: Belladonna. Das ist Tollkirsche. Einige Vogelarten fressen Tollkirschen sehr gerne und sie sind für die Tiere völlig ungefährlich. Also erfüllt Belladonna (Tollkirsche) nicht einmal die Mindestanforderungen an ein homöopathisches Mittel.

Aber die Homöopathen sind so verdammt schweineblöde, daß die darüber einfach hinweggehen. Die einen Homöopathen sind so blöde, daß sie es nicht bemerken, und die anderen wissen es, korrigieren jedoch den Fehler nicht, sind also Betrüger. Die gesamte Tierhomöopathie ist, gemessen an den höchsteigenen Maßstäben der Homöopathie (!), nichts als Betrug. Das gilt selbstverständlich auch für die gesamten Studien an Kühen.


"According to homeopaths, non-material
potencies above dilution D23 (Avogadro’s number) act by
passing on the energetic information with the help of the
carrier substance
(Braun 1995; Steingasser 2016)."

Na klar, auch diese Blödheit darf nicht fehlen. Aber Homöopathie ist Betrug, so oder so.


"Conflict of interest: Authors declare no conflict of
interest."


Doch. Sie kollidieren mit der Realität. Und sie unterstützen einen Betrug und profitieren davon, weil sie für ihre angebliche "Forschung" bezahlt werden.
Logged
StarCruiser http://WWW.ALLAXYS.COM mission countdown
Pages: [1]