ANYONE who is acquainted with me will know that I do not believe in the use of homeopathy in animals.

There is a simple and most compelling reason. It doesn’t work. It just doesn’t.

There is no use saying oh but I used this magic water or that chalk tablet and my pet got better. That proves nothing.

In every proper clinical trial that has ever been done, homeopathic medicines (should we even refer to them as medicines?) have failed to be efficacious. Indeed, using them be tantamount to ‘failing to provide treatment’, which is prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act.

That is not to say that we should be completely complacent about the use of conventional medicines, because with efficacy comes the possibility of side-effects. While homeopathic treatment does nothing, so it risks nothing. The same cannot be said for the highly researched, potent products that fill our pharmacy shelves, as great care must be exercised in their proper use.

In short, if a medicine actually does something pharmacologically, then it might do something that wasn’t expected. In the UK, it is the job of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) to monitor all reports of suspected adverse events involving medicines. The purpose of this process, which is known as pharmacovigilance, is to ensure that the balance between the benefits and risks of authorised medicines remains favourable. For it is indeed a balance.

Take, for example, a bitch who is suffering from toxic mastitis. She is very ill. Her temperature is dangerously high. She has a potentially fatal condition.

Antibiotics can save her life but might, just might, upset her tummy a little. Should we use them? Similarly, figures released every year by the VMD show that around 120 dogs exhibit allergic reactions to parvovirus, distemper and leptospirosis vaccines. In my view, that’s a tiny proportion of the millions that are vaccinated and therefore protected against disease, but for individual owners it won’t feel the same.

It is certainly worth a closer look at VMD figures for medicines. On average, the pharmacovigilance team receives about 5,000 reports of adverse events annually. Over 60 per cent of these originate from the companies that manufacture and sell drugs, confirming to me that they are transparent in their dealings, as they are, in effect, telling on themselves. Unsurprisingly, reports from veterinary surgeons are in second place at around 30 per cent.

There is no self-interest here either. Nobody pays vets for the considerable time involved in filing these reports. They are done for the greater good. And they are generally well informed and reliable.

Worthy of comment is that there are usually about 400 reports involving the use of medicines contrary to the instructions. These include failing to heed warnings, using products in the wrong species, overdosing, underdosing and administering products in an incorrect manner. The message here then is ‘Always read the label (and the package insert).’

My last snippet concerns adverse reactions in humans from veterinary medicines. Out of every 150 reports, about 50 involve needlestick injuries.

Look on the bright side, at least you can’t get those from homeopathy!