Winning sheep farmer finds success with homeopathy

The Northern Echo: Lester Peel, with his Pedigree Suffolk, at this year’s North Yorkshire County Show. Lester Peel, with his Pedigree Suffolk, at this year’s North Yorkshire County Show.

AN EXPERIENCED farmer and owner of award-winning pedigree sheep, has said he’s found success with using homeopathic remedies on his stock.

Lester Peel, who farms at Over Silton, near Osmotherley with his wife Sue and son James, this year was awarded the J Parlour & Son Perpetual Challenge Trophy for the Champion Suffolk at Sunday’s North Yorkshire County Show.

Mr Peel, who has been sheep farming for about 40 years, said it has been a particularly difficult 12 months for sheep farmers. He lost more than 20 lambs to the Schmallenberg virus.

He said they also struggled with worm infestations amongst the flock last year.

But at the beginning of this year he decided to turn to the complementary therapy homeopathy. He says so far he has seen positive results from the homeopathic remedies he has fed his flock.

He said: “Schmallenberg has been very bad round here. But I think with having it has bad as we did, hopefully we’ve built up a resistance now.

“But I’m going more down the homeopathic route. Most of my sheep this year have had a proprietary wormer and a homeopathic wormer.

“Up til now we’ve not been hit by anything and if I can stick with it, we should hopefully again build up a resistance. I’ve recommended it to a lot of other people for various things, as it appears to be working.

“I’m seeing the results. I think a lot of people turn to methods such as this but tend to keep mum about it. But to me, if it works, then that’s all that matters.”

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:50pm Thu 20 Jun 13

RJ Herr says...

As a homeopath with many animals in my practice, I say, 'fantastic!' I give Arnica to my transplanted trees and plants, too. As a spinner, knitter, and weaver, I enjoy a good hogget. Keep up the good work!
As a homeopath with many animals in my practice, I say, 'fantastic!' I give Arnica to my transplanted trees and plants, too. As a spinner, knitter, and weaver, I enjoy a good hogget. Keep up the good work! RJ Herr
  • Score: -4

1:10pm Fri 21 Jun 13

Lagada? says...

I can't help but feel that homeopathy for animals is a form of animal cruety.

Homeopathy is a placebo treatment. Any animals that appear to be getting better using homeopathy are either getting other treatment, gettting better anyway, or not really getting better and the owner is suffering from confirmation bias.

Extensive research has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that homeopathy has any medical benifit. This is not surprsing as it also has no recognisable mode of action.

In fact it is repeatedly labelled as witchcraft by its critics due to is failure to demonstrate efficacy while promoting practice which fly in the face of establish credible scientific theories.

Homeopathy has had its day and failed. Time to move of and put this nonsense to bed.
I can't help but feel that homeopathy for animals is a form of animal cruety. Homeopathy is a placebo treatment. Any animals that appear to be getting better using homeopathy are either getting other treatment, gettting better anyway, or not really getting better and the owner is suffering from confirmation bias. Extensive research has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that homeopathy has any medical benifit. This is not surprsing as it also has no recognisable mode of action. In fact it is repeatedly labelled as witchcraft by its critics due to is failure to demonstrate efficacy while promoting practice which fly in the face of establish credible scientific theories. Homeopathy has had its day and failed. Time to move of and put this nonsense to bed. Lagada?
  • Score: 2

2:53pm Fri 21 Jun 13

GuyChapman says...

Science understands why people believe homeopathy works even though there is no remotely plausible reason to think it should. Homeopathists do like to pretend that the belief it works in animals somehow refutes the scientific consensus, but science certainly does explain the observed facts: http://www.rationali
nquiry.org.uk/it-wor
ks-in-animals.php

The simple truth is that there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no credible evidence it does work.

It is predicated on the idea that matter is infinitely divisible, an idea that was possibly supportable in 1796 when homeopathy was invented by Samuel Hahnemann but which ceased to be defensible by the time of Hahnemann's death. It's easy to understand why doing nothing (which is what homeopathy amounts to) is better than bloodletting and purging, but medicine has moved beyond those practices - and everything we have found out about the nature of matter, human physiology, chemistry, biochemistry and so on, all of it conflicts with the claims of homeopathy. The only response homeopathists can muster is that "it works" - a claim based on accepting at face value the subjective claims of believers.

Science explains why homeopathy appears to work, homeopathists cannot explain why we should believe it does work but insist that we believe anyway.
Science understands why people believe homeopathy works even though there is no remotely plausible reason to think it should. Homeopathists do like to pretend that the belief it works in animals somehow refutes the scientific consensus, but science certainly does explain the observed facts: http://www.rationali nquiry.org.uk/it-wor ks-in-animals.php The simple truth is that there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no credible evidence it does work. It is predicated on the idea that matter is infinitely divisible, an idea that was possibly supportable in 1796 when homeopathy was invented by Samuel Hahnemann but which ceased to be defensible by the time of Hahnemann's death. It's easy to understand why doing nothing (which is what homeopathy amounts to) is better than bloodletting and purging, but medicine has moved beyond those practices - and everything we have found out about the nature of matter, human physiology, chemistry, biochemistry and so on, all of it conflicts with the claims of homeopathy. The only response homeopathists can muster is that "it works" - a claim based on accepting at face value the subjective claims of believers. Science explains why homeopathy appears to work, homeopathists cannot explain why we should believe it does work but insist that we believe anyway. GuyChapman
  • Score: 3

2:57pm Fri 21 Jun 13

GuyChapman says...

RJ Herr wrote:
As a homeopath with many animals in my practice, I say, 'fantastic!' I give Arnica to my transplanted trees and plants, too. As a spinner, knitter, and weaver, I enjoy a good hogget. Keep up the good work!
Er, what? You think that trees have similar physiology to sheep and humans? How do you do case-taking for trees? How do they tell you if the pain is in the left branch or the right? Do they tell you about their dreams?

The use of homeopathy on plants is a clear sign that homeopathists have lost all touch with the real world.
[quote][p][bold]RJ Herr[/bold] wrote: As a homeopath with many animals in my practice, I say, 'fantastic!' I give Arnica to my transplanted trees and plants, too. As a spinner, knitter, and weaver, I enjoy a good hogget. Keep up the good work![/p][/quote]Er, what? You think that trees have similar physiology to sheep and humans? How do you do case-taking for trees? How do they tell you if the pain is in the left branch or the right? Do they tell you about their dreams? The use of homeopathy on plants is a clear sign that homeopathists have lost all touch with the real world. GuyChapman
  • Score: 1

4:28pm Fri 21 Jun 13

JosephineJones says...

"Most of my sheep this year have had a proprietary wormer and a homeopathic wormer."

So why does homeopathy get the credit? It contains no active ingredient, has never been shown to be effective beyond placebo (in any good trial) and the whole premise is implausible nonsense. And yes, you could get placebo effects in animals if the people looking after those animals think homeopathy is effective medicine.
"Most of my sheep this year have had a proprietary wormer and a homeopathic wormer." So why does homeopathy get the credit? It contains no active ingredient, has never been shown to be effective beyond placebo (in any good trial) and the whole premise is implausible nonsense. And yes, you could get placebo effects in animals if the people looking after those animals think homeopathy is effective medicine. JosephineJones
  • Score: 2

5:18pm Fri 21 Jun 13

Tetenterre says...

From the article: "Most of my sheep this year have had a proprietary wormer and a homeopathic wormer."
So hte evidence that the homeopathic one has had any effect at all, beyond placebo is...?

I do hope that whoever is providing the magic sugar pills is abiding by the VMD rules!
https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/news/alter
native-pet-remedies-
government-clampdown
From the article: "Most of my sheep this year have had a proprietary wormer and a homeopathic wormer." So hte evidence that the homeopathic one has had any effect at all, beyond placebo is...? I do hope that whoever is providing the magic sugar pills is abiding by the VMD rules! https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/news/alter native-pet-remedies- government-clampdown Tetenterre
  • Score: 4

8:53am Thu 27 Jun 13

whatdidyousay? says...

Ah yes, I see the experts (joking of course!)have responded swiftly. I say 'experts' as these particular people who have written in such scathing terms, often reply to these excellent reports, denigrating the frequent good results reported, but themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy.
Ah yes, I see the experts (joking of course!)have responded swiftly. I say 'experts' as these particular people who have written in such scathing terms, often reply to these excellent reports, denigrating the frequent good results reported, but themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy. whatdidyousay?
  • Score: 1

11:48am Thu 27 Jun 13

Tetenterre says...

whatdidyousay? wrote:
Ah yes, I see the experts (joking of course!)have responded swiftly. I say 'experts' as these particular people who have written in such scathing terms, often reply to these excellent reports, denigrating the frequent good results reported, but themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy.
whatdidyousay?, you wrote " denigrating the frequent good results reported"

That is misleading and disingenuous. It is not the results that are being denigrated. It is their attribution, without any evidence whatsoever, to homeopathy. If you can provide the objective evidence that it was the homeopathy and not the other interventions (or a placebo effect) that was responsible for the "good results", please post it: I'm sure we'd all be interested.

You continued: " themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy."

That is misleading for at least two reasons:
Firstly, it is simply untrue.
Secondly, it is a red herring: you don't have to be trained in something to know that it is simply wrong. I offer confidence-trickster
ism as an appropriate example. Do you disagree?

Now, I wonder why it is that, instead of addressing the points we made, you chose instead to write about the people who wrote the points (i.e. argumentum ad hominem). I presume that this is because you are unable to refute those points. You can show my presumption to be incorrect by posting a refutation of those points (but I won't hold my breath...)
[quote][p][bold]whatdidyousay?[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, I see the experts (joking of course!)have responded swiftly. I say 'experts' as these particular people who have written in such scathing terms, often reply to these excellent reports, denigrating the frequent good results reported, but themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy.[/p][/quote]whatdidyousay?, you wrote " denigrating the frequent good results reported" That is misleading and disingenuous. It is not the results that are being denigrated. It is their attribution, without any evidence whatsoever, to homeopathy. If you can provide the objective evidence that it was the homeopathy and not the other interventions (or a placebo effect) that was responsible for the "good results", please post it: I'm sure we'd all be interested. You continued: " themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy." That is misleading for at least two reasons: Firstly, it is simply untrue. Secondly, it is a red herring: you don't have to be trained in something to know that it is simply wrong. I offer confidence-trickster ism as an appropriate example. Do you disagree? Now, I wonder why it is that, instead of addressing the points we made, you chose instead to write about the people who wrote the points (i.e. argumentum ad hominem). I presume that this is because you are unable to refute those points. You can show my presumption to be incorrect by posting a refutation of those points (but I won't hold my breath...) Tetenterre
  • Score: -1

12:25pm Thu 27 Jun 13

GuyChapman says...

whatdidyousay? wrote:
Ah yes, I see the experts (joking of course!)have responded swiftly. I say 'experts' as these particular people who have written in such scathing terms, often reply to these excellent reports, denigrating the frequent good results reported, but themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy.
That's a bit like saying Chris Hadfield is not qualified to talk about space travel because he hasn't studied dilithium crystals.

Do you think it is necessary to study the Qur'an in order to be able to comment on the actions of the Taliban? Is an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bible necessary in order to be allowed to argue for equality? Must one have studied in a seminary before one can criticise a priest who abuses children in his care?

I think we know quite enough to be able to comment on the veracity of homeopathists' claims and on the danger of believing them. In fact I think your problem is that we know rather too much; my observations suggest that homeopathists are quite happy for people not to understand what they are actually claiming and may often actively collude in that ignorance, for example by not challenging the conflation of herbal remedies and homeopathy even though they are clearly different and in fact herbalism is allopathic.
[quote][p][bold]whatdidyousay?[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, I see the experts (joking of course!)have responded swiftly. I say 'experts' as these particular people who have written in such scathing terms, often reply to these excellent reports, denigrating the frequent good results reported, but themselves have no training whatsoever in homeopathy.[/p][/quote]That's a bit like saying Chris Hadfield is not qualified to talk about space travel because he hasn't studied dilithium crystals. Do you think it is necessary to study the Qur'an in order to be able to comment on the actions of the Taliban? Is an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bible necessary in order to be allowed to argue for equality? Must one have studied in a seminary before one can criticise a priest who abuses children in his care? I think we know quite enough to be able to comment on the veracity of homeopathists' claims and on the danger of believing them. In fact I think your problem is that we know rather too much; my observations suggest that homeopathists are quite happy for people not to understand what they are actually claiming and may often actively collude in that ignorance, for example by not challenging the conflation of herbal remedies and homeopathy even though they are clearly different and in fact herbalism is allopathic. GuyChapman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree