Asanta, since I have no expertise in dog biology, I certainly wouldn’t recommend it, but it would be interesting to get McKenzie’s take on the use of quinine as an analgesic. It’s old fashioned, but I believe it was once and possibly is still used as a cattle analgesic.
Occam
Asanta, since I have no expertise in dog biology, I certainly wouldn't recommend it, but it would be interesting to get McKenzie's take on the use of quinine as an analgesic. It's old fashioned, but I believe it was once and possibly is still used as a cattle analgesic. OccamThis particular dog spends time at the vet every few months. I can ask her then. There are probably more effective pain killers for dogs. He just needs an occasional mild NSAID for the times he refuses to accept that he is old... Lol! Like the rest of us!
I have looked into it, but I can’t find any reference to use of quinine as an analgesic other than the PubChem statement that it has been so used. Nothing on PubMed or any of the veterinary drug compendia. Never heard of it.
There are many analgesics that have been tried in dogs. The main problem is that it is difficult to objectively determine the amount of pain a dog feels or how much improvement there is with a particlar drug. Clients almost always report subjective improvement with almost every therapy they try, and there is good documentation of a “caregiver placebo effect” that leads owners and vets to see improvment in clinical trials where none can be measured objectively (through, for example, analysis of the weight bearing on a particular limb). Without controlled trials, we’re just guessing, and there aren’t many trials for most of the agents in use. NSAIDs, though, are well studied, so they are the first choice in many cases.
I have looked into it, but I can't find any reference to use of quinine as an analgesic other than the PubChem statement that it has been so used. Nothing on PubMed or any of the veterinary drug compendia. Never heard of it. There are many analgesics that have been tried in dogs. The main problem is that it is difficult to objectively determine the amount of pain a dog feels or how much improvement there is with a particlar drug. Clients almost always report subjective improvement with almost every therapy they try, and there is good documentation of a "caregiver placebo effect" that leads owners and vets to see improvment in clinical trials where none can be measured objectively (through, for example, analysis of the weight bearing on a particular limb). Without controlled trials, we're just guessing, and there aren't many trials for most of the agents in use. NSAIDs, though, are well studied, so they are the first choice in many cases.If a dog cries and whimpers in supposed pain, even when asleep, then rests quietly for several hours after taking a medication, isn't that objective evidence that the medication is effective against the pain? Isn't it further evidence of effectiveness when the dog begins to whimper again several hours after the medication is administered? Is it any different than when a small child receives pain medication and can't put into words how s/he feels? Lois
I have looked into it, but I can't find any reference to use of quinine as an analgesic other than the PubChem statement that it has been so used. Nothing on PubMed or any of the veterinary drug compendia. Never heard of it. There are many analgesics that have been tried in dogs. The main problem is that it is difficult to objectively determine the amount of pain a dog feels or how much improvement there is with a particlar drug. Clients almost always report subjective improvement with almost every therapy they try, and there is good documentation of a "caregiver placebo effect" that leads owners and vets to see improvment in clinical trials where none can be measured objectively (through, for example, analysis of the weight bearing on a particular limb). Without controlled trials, we're just guessing, and there aren't many trials for most of the agents in use. NSAIDs, though, are well studied, so they are the first choice in many cases.If a dog cries and whimpers in supposed pain, even when asleep, then rests quietly for several hours after taking a medication, isn't that objective evidence that the medication is effective against the pain? Isn't it further evidence of effectiveness when the dog begins to whimper again several hours after the medication is administered? Is it any different than when a small child receives pain medication and can't put into words how s/he feels? Lois Its not any different but in both cases care giver placebo effect is a big issue. Mckenzie did a very good job of going over caregiver placebo affect in an earlier post so maybe he will elaborate further here but when trying to assign cause and effect we must remember that just because events unfold in a given sequence does not prove that the first event ( giving the medication) caused the second ( the apparent relief of pain). Obviously the more times the sequence is observed the greater the probability that the first caused the second but even then there is no certainty. Imagine a situation where you get up every morning and notice your dog is stiff. You give him a remedy and an hour later he appears to be more mobile. You do this same thing for weeks on end and the same pattern continues. Did the medication help the dog? It sure seems to but there are other possible and even probable explanations. Arthritis is a disease where the symptoms fluctuate naturally and sometimes in a regular pattern. Arthritic patients often describe pain that is worse after a period of inactivity and which improves with movement. The dog might be stiff every morning because he hasn't moved all night and get better after rising and moving about, and it all may have nothing to do with the medication despite the illusion created by the sequence of events. Confirmation bias is also an issue. Few pet owners ( or parent for that matter) are keeping an objective journal with notes about the response to every dose of medication given. Its very possible that the dog or child might appear to feel better one day after a med is given and anther day there is no change in their condition but wanting to believe we are helping the patient in our charge we remember the times the med worked and forget the times it didn't. Keep in mind also that what we are measuring here is very subjective. How active or mobile an animal is can vary in degree, speed and type. How are we gauging all of these things. Its not something you can easily put a numerical value on. Sampling error can be an issue too, especially if you are not observing the animal all day. You may have observed him during his least active 10 minute period on Monday. He may have done nothing during that period but ran around like crazy the rest of the day. You may then have seen him during his most active period on Tuesday but he was a total slug the rest of the afternoon when you weren't watching. If you didnt observe the full 24 hour period both days you would get the wrong impression. Another problem is that you are using movement as a proxy for pain but the two may correlate poorly or not at all sometimes. I've left out a lot here but suffice it to say, there are plenty of reasons not to use personal observations an anecdotes as evidence of efficacy.
Lois,
Macgyver is correct. One of the most challenging things about evaluating medical therapies is that the way things seem is often not the way they actually are. Placebo effects are powerful and emotionally compelling, and they come with a sense of rightness or certainty that is difficult to shake even when objective evaluation shows we are being fooled. People with asthma who get acupuntcure, for example, report a significant iporvement in their breathing when treated. What could be more objective than the cessation of an asthma attack? Yet when you do objective measures of lung function, there is no improvement with acupuncture, while there is measurable change with drug therapy even though it doesn’t feel any different to the patient. Such placebo effects have been reported consistently in studies of therapies given to pets as well, and they occur because for many reasons, those cited by Macgyver and others, things often look better to us after we’ve given a treatment even when they aren’t actually better.
HERE] is a link to an article I wrote discussing a recent study of arthritis treatments in dogs. Almost half of the veterinarians, and over half of the owners, reported an improvement in the dogs getting the placebo therapy even though the objective measure (the amount of weight the dogs could carry on the affected leg) did not change. Unfortunately, this effect makes it very easy for us to give our pets a treatment and think it is working when they are actually getting no releif, which is why objective controlled studies of pain medication in animals are so important.
One of the problems is the complexity of our mammalian physiological systems. For example, I often have pain in my knee joint. Naproxyn solves it very well. In addition, I saw a research paper that indicated that Nsaids seem to delay onset of Alzheimer’s. However, my cardiologist suggests that I should avoid them because increased cardiac problems can occur. So the question is: would I rather become senile or have a heart attack?
Another question is: Are there any medications that would block the negative cardiac effects of nsaids? (and wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out to be larger doses of some vitamin?) :lol:
Occam
One of the problems is the complexity of our mammalian physiological systems. For example, I often have pain in my knee joint. Naproxyn solves it very well. In addition, I saw a research paper that indicated that Nsaids seem to delay onset of Alzheimer's. However, my cardiologist suggests that I should avoid them because increased cardiac problems can occur. So the question is: would I rather become senile or have a heart attack? Another question is: Are there any medications that would block the negative cardiac effects of nsaids? (and wouldn't it be funny if it turned out to be larger doses of some vitamin?) :lol: OccamIt would be hilarious! As long as your doctor recognized that vitamin tablets actually contained said vitamins and that by taking these vitamin tablets the body absorbed said vitamins and used them for biologic processes.
You hit on the key issue: living organisms are complex biologic systems and tinkering with them leads to a variety of probabilistic effects in multiple domains, some of which we want and some we don’t. The wierd thing about supplements is that a lot of people seem to think you can get something for nothing-benefits without risk. Sadly, no such free lunch in phsyiology, just a complex buffet of statistical risks and benefits.
One of the problems is the complexity of our mammalian physiological systems. For example, I often have pain in my knee joint. Naproxyn solves it very well. In addition, I saw a research paper that indicated that Nsaids seem to delay onset of Alzheimer's. However, my cardiologist suggests that I should avoid them because increased cardiac problems can occur. So the question is: would I rather become senile or have a heart attack? Another question is: Are there any medications that would block the negative cardiac effects of nsaids? (and wouldn't it be funny if it turned out to be larger doses of some vitamin?) :lol: OccamI think your cardiologist has made a common mistake. Not all NSAID's are created equal and none of them directly damage the heart. NSAID's all have the ability to affect how our blood clots since they inhibit the production of a class of chemicals called prostaglandins. The interesting thing is that some prostaglandins promote the formation of clots and others inhibit it. To make things more complex not all NSAID's effect all prostaglandin synthesis equally. As a result some NSAID's may make clot formation more likely and others make it less likely. When it comes to NSAID's and the heart its all about the clot. NSAID's that make clot formation a little more likely may slightly increase ( and I must emphasize slightly here) the risk that if a thrombus develops in a coronary artery the balance of clot formation and clot breakdown will be shifted just enough to make it more likely that the clot will persist and result in a loss of blood flow to the heart muscle which we commonly call a heart attack. Other NSAID's shift the balance slightly in the other direction and actually make it a little less likely that a heart attack will go to completion. Again, the difference is small so anyone giving advice here has to be careful about talking in absolutes. Among the list of common NSAID's, drugs like Ibuprofen (Advil and Motrin) are more likely to shift the balance in favor of a clot and should probably be use sparingly in patients at risk for an MI, but drugs like Aspirin and Naproxyn shift the equation the other way. I find a lot of my colleagues are not aware of this and tend to lump al NSAID's into the same class. I would never advise you to go against your cardiologists recommendations Occam but next time you see him ask him to look into this. Edit: I am editing because i realized after the fact that I left out one important effect of NSAID's that may or may not impact upon this discussion in your case. All NSAIDs do have an additional effect that can be important to patients with cardiac conditions. If a patient has had a heart attack in the past or has had some form of cardiomyopathy NSAID's can result in increased fluid retention and worsen preexisting congestive heart failure. As above, this is not an absolute. NSAID's increase the risk of worsening CHF but may be used under physician supervision if it is felt that the benefits outweigh the risks.
I found this an interesting read concerning vitamins: Billion-Dollar Scam In a Bottle: Why Vitamins Could Be Useless—or Even Shorten Your Lifespan]
You hit on the key issue: living organisms are complex biologic systems and tinkering with them leads to a variety of probabilistic effects in multiple domains, some of which we want and some we don't. The wierd thing about supplements is that a lot of people seem to think you can get something for nothing-benefits without risk. Sadly, no such free lunch in phsyiology, just a complex buffet of statistical risks and benefits.No they're not that complex! Or else we couldn't eat drink smoke or inject, absorb just about everything under the Sun. The human body can digest alcohol, sugar, fats, proteins, fibers, mild poisons, narcotics, controlled substances, radiation, acids, bases, etc... I've made my point. Vitamin tablets contain amines and minerals and chemicals which when ingested are absorbed bodily and put to use in basic, BASIC biological processes. If some cause cancer, than odds are the same compounds in natural food cause cancer too! Whether you think they are not a good lifestyle, or have potential bad effects from over use is a matter of clinical science. I'm not interested in studies which show mega-dosing is harmful. Because I don't megadose. As far as what you consider a sound lifestyle to be...hrrmmph! You advocate giving Prozac to dogs and Crusade against Alt Meds. And you are a vegetarian! With all of those attendant contexts.(see how I can criticize your lifestyle?) You know what....millions and millions of people have lived long healthy lives taking vitamin supplements in regular doses. I'm not talking about drinking Violet Water for better health here, or wearing magnetic jewelry for joint pain. Heck, I'm not even talking about glucosomine. I'm talking about vitamin tablets. They contain compounds that when ingested will be absorbed by my body and put to use in biologic processes. I don't like being branded an Alt Medder because I take a multi. I don't mean to toot my horn, but I am well above average in my exercise and physical fitness. I notice a marked increase in my body to rebound from any soreness after workouts or energy sagging during workouts. That's all I use. No other shakes. No other tablets. No drinks.. Etc...I eat good and fortify my diet further with a mild Multi-vitamin. I ran a 10k last week in 43 and half minutes and I can Benchpress my weight plus 25%. I'm not tooting my horn..I'm just telling you...I know what I want to go in my body.
I notice a marked increase in my body to rebound from any soreness after workouts or energy sagging during workouts. That's all I use. No other shakes. No other tablets. No drinks.. Etc...I eat good and fortify my diet further with a mild Multi-vitamin. I ran a 10k last week in 43 and half minutes and I can Benchpress my weight plus 25%. I'm not tooting my horn..I'm just telling you...I know what I want to go in my body......and you know for sure, it is not a placebo effect. :zip: Anecdote ≠ Data.
I notice a marked increase in my body to rebound from any soreness after workouts or energy sagging during workouts. That's all I use. No other shakes. No other tablets. No drinks.. Etc...I eat good and fortify my diet further with a mild Multi-vitamin. I ran a 10k last week in 43 and half minutes and I can Benchpress my weight plus 25%. I'm not tooting my horn..I'm just telling you...I know what I want to go in my body......and you know for sure, it is not a placebo effect. :zip: Anecdote ≠ Data. No Asanta, being honest with you I can't say for 100% sure it is or isn't. I can only relate to my unscientific experience with them. They certainly seem like noticeable effects. And let me reiterate further that these aren't placebo type compounds. IE, they aren't sugar tablets or cornstarch. I think that should surely be put on the record in this discussion. They are actual "amines", elementary minerals, and compounds necessary for assorted human metabolic processes. Also, I didn't post my physical fitness as a result of taking vitamins. I'm not attributing that to vitamins. I only wanted to stress that I am not some loafy couch potato who lives un-healthily and is doubling down on vitamins as an insurance policy.
And let me reiterate further that these aren't placebo type compounds.Non-placebo compounds can have placebo effects. That is no contradiction.
And let me reiterate further that these aren't placebo type compounds.Non-placebo compounds can have placebo effects. That is no contradiction. Yeah....I figured that. Nonetheless, the vitamin tablets I take have compounds in them that are being absorbed into my bloodstream and used by my system. Do you want to dispute that? Is vitamin C a placebo? Is potassium a placebo?
I don’t know, VYAZMA, that’s like arguing that homeopathic garbage is not merely a placebo because in its liquid form it can get rid of your thirst or that it is effective because you could drown in it.
Is vitamin C a placebo? Is potassium a placebo?You cannot say if a substance is a placebo if you do not say what you claim the substance does. Is vitamin C a placebo in avoiding scurvy]? Of course not! Is it a placebo avoiding the common cold]? Yes, it mostly is.
More than 30 clinical trials with over 10,000 participants have examined the effects of taking daily vitamin C in doses up to 2 g/day. The majority of studies of non-athletic people, when looked at collectively, led researchers to conclude that vitamin C does not prevent or treat the common cold, but highly physically active people training in stressful conditions (e.g. soldiers training in the Arctic) may benefit from supplementationSo you must mention the substance and the claim, then one can investigate if it is a placebo in this respect.
I don't know, VYAZMA, that's like arguing that homeopathic garbage is not merely a placebo because in its liquid form it can get rid of your thirst or that it is effective because you could drown in it.Well George, perhaps I made the mistake(?) of positing that I can feel some of the benefits of the vitamins I take. IE less pain the day after a harsh workout. But I'm honest.(honest about the fact that it is anecdotal, and unprovable-yet highly likely, given all we know about the role of vitamins and minerals.) I'm willing to include anecdotal support to my arguments. But yes, I stated what could possibly be a placebo effect. But, it doesn't matter that's tertiary to my main thrust here: it's some brightly colored string I threw in to the discussion. Vitamins are not placebos. They take on the character of placebos when I used them in that context admittedly. IE I think I notice less muscle fatigue.(highly likely that is in fact true) or I almost never get sick(debatable) 2x I went out on a limb about possible effects, and both times I admitted that was shaky on my part. The first time waaay back pages ago..I preempted the shakiness. I argue in good faith. But, like I said erase the points here about possible noticeable effects, and what are we left with: The vitamin tablets I take contain compounds proven to be necessary for human life. When I take one of these tablets the compounds do in fact enter my system and begin to be absorbed. My body then uses these compounds and elements for various metabolic and biologic processes. So show me proof that either my vitamins don't contain these elements, or that my body doesn't use them after ingestion. Or show me proof that Potassium, Vitamin C, Vitamin D or Calcium for examples are hoaxes. Humans actually don't need those things.
Is vitamin C a placebo? Is potassium a placebo?You cannot say if a substance is a placebo if you do not say what you claim the substance does. Is vitamin C a placebo in avoiding scurvy]? Of course not! Is it a placebo avoiding the common cold]? Yes, it mostly is.
More than 30 clinical trials with over 10,000 participants have examined the effects of taking daily vitamin C in doses up to 2 g/day. The majority of studies of non-athletic people, when looked at collectively, led researchers to conclude that vitamin C does not prevent or treat the common cold, but highly physically active people training in stressful conditions (e.g. soldiers training in the Arctic) may benefit from supplementationSo you must mention the substance and the claim, then one can investigate if it is a placebo in this respect. I know where and when I put my foot in my mouth GdB. I admitted my placebo type claims preemptively six pages back. See subsequent post. I'm not afraid to step off the path a little.... If anecdotal evidence is off the table completely as far as proof goes(and I agree with this), that doesn't mean I can't take a little license with it in my writing! Life is nothing but anecdotal evidence.