Woo against All Odds: Stefanie Handl Battling Pseudoscience in Veterinary Medicine

Annika Harrison

Cover Image: Stefanie Handl giving a speech about alternative medicine within her field and the dangers that come with it. (Source: GkD)

 


Dr. Stefanie Handl is a veterinary doctor from Vienna, Austria. She is an expert when it comes to woo and pseudoscience regarding pets and raises awareness about pseudomedicine with dogs and cats.

 

Annika Harrison: Hi Stefanie, thanks for the interview. Could you please introduce yourself briefly?

Stefanie Handl: I studied veterinary medicine in Vienna and ended up in Vienna looking for a doctoral thesis on animal nutrition. I was fortunate to have a very dedicated supervisor and both the topic of nutrition and the scientific work excited me, so I stayed at the Institute of Animal Nutrition for a total of ten years. During this time, I completed the training as a specialist in nutrition and dietetics at the Austrian Chamber of Veterinarians and a residency at the European College of Veterinary and Comparative Nutrition. In 2011, I passed the diploma examination. In addition, I was at Texas A&M University for almost one and a half years in 2009/2010. 

Since 2013, I have a practice for nutrition and dietary advice in Vienna. Besides consulting for pet owners, I also offer continued education for veterinarians. 

Additionally, I am editor-in-chief of the Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition

AH: What can you tell me about pseudomedicine in the veterinary field?

SH: Unfortunately, pseudomedicine is extremely popular among veterinarians—I hardly know of any practices that don’t offer anything. Besides classical homeopathy, it is mainly manual therapies, chiropractic, and osteopathy that are becoming increasingly popular. In Austria, the Veterinary Association not only tolerates this, but actively promotes it with press conferences, further training courses, etc. “Homeopathy as a beacon of veterinary medicine,” “Integrative medicine as the future of our profession,” “To deny homeopathy its inherent effect is irrational”—these are just a few quotes from publications of the Veterinary Association. Discussions are absolutely impossible, “We will no longer accept criticism without action” they say. I have also been threatened with disciplinary measures for speaking out against these alternative treatments. 

AH: How did you come to the scientific and evidence based position within veterinary medicine? 

SH: I always knew, of course, that there are things like homeopathy or acupuncture, but I have never dealt with them and had nothing to do with them during my time as a scientist at university. 

It wasn’t until I met the “Wiener Skeptiker” (the Skeptics from Vienna, namely the Society for Critical Thinking, via the “Goldenes Brett” [“Golden Board”, an award ceremony comparable to UK’s Ockham Award]) that I became more interested in the background of pseudo-medical methods, and my amazement and horror grew at how natural scientists can believe such obvious nonsense.

Since I returned to the practice, I have been dealing with pseudomedical methods almost daily. It still leaves me stunned when academics argue with “but it works for me” and have absolutely no idea of scientific work and thinking.

AH: “BARF” is the latest thing with my dog owner friends at the moment. Is that healthy?

SH: In short—no! 

Raw feeding (“BARF”) is a trend that appears with similar arguments as pseudo-medicine and here are just a few statements I encounter regularly: “natural=healthy,” “ready-made food=chemical=harmful,” “veterinarians are unsuspecting and money-hungry stooges of the industry.”

The main problems with “Barfing” are: hygiene—raw meat poses a risk of infection, especially for humans; malnutrition—recommendations of “BARF experts” are almost always wrong; and risk of injury from bones. Nutritionists worldwide therefore unanimously advise against it. In addition, people feeding with BARF usually refuse veterinary measures (inoculating, castrating, parasite prophylaxis). 

AH: What can be the consequences of pseudoscience in veterinary medicine?

SH: A “treatment” with placebos means NO treatment—the animals continue to suffer! For me, this clearly contradicts both the legal and ethical obligations of a veterinarian. Animal owners who trust the veterinarian and his methods do not perceive the lack of improvement or the deterioration of health of their pet—or even interpret them positively as “initial aggravation.” “Alternative medical” veterinarians often reject recognized methods of disease prevention, such as vaccination or prophylaxis against parasites—that is a danger to public health! 

Ultimately, the offer of pseudo-medical methods endangers the reputation of veterinarians and the confidence of animal owners.

AH: What would be three wishes of yours: professional, private and skeptical?

SH: Skeptically, I wish that the bases of scientific thinking and trade are brought to each beginning physician and veterinary surgeon—at best already in school. Decision-makers such as universities and chambers should take a clear position for science. 

Professionally, I have plenty of work—I am pleased that nutritional advice as part of a scientifically based care for pets is already widely accepted. 

Privately, I wish above all that family and friends remain healthy. 

AH: Can you give every pet owner a tip on how they can treat or care for their animal as scientifically based as possible? 

SH: The best thing would of course be to choose a practice that doesn’t offer any form of pseudo-medicine. Unfortunately, this is often not possible—then you should clearly communicate that you do not want this. 

If you live in countries where there are animal healers (banned in Austria), it is best to avoid them altogether. 

AH: What is the reason for so many unscientific things happening in veterinary medicine?

SH: I think it’s mainly because pets (especially dogs and cats) are very close to us emotionally; concern about a beloved pet is just as emotionally stressful as concern about a human relative. And that’s where fear-mongering and promises of salvation work especially well. 

In the treatment of farm animals, we face the problem that many medications are not approved or are associated with long waiting periods. “Natural” alternatives are tempting here. In addition, the EU Organic Regulation prescribes the preferred treatment with homeopathy. 

However, I see a large part of the blame in our education; we learned almost nothing about scientific work during our studies, and there was no obligatory final thesis, only elective courses in homeopathy and acupuncture. The curriculum has changed in the meantime, though. 

AH: As a bit of a relaxing last question: How do you relax in your free time?

SH: I relax best when dancing in any form—from shaking in the disco to sports (dance aerobics). 

Besides, I’ve always been a “bookworm,” and I always have at least one open book next to me. 

And—of course—animals are part relaxing, too. I have always been fascinated by insects and other “crawling animals,” and I keep some tarantulas, centipedes, ghost insects, geckos, and snails.

AH: Thanks for the very interesting interview!

Annika Harrison

Annika Harrison is a member of Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) and of Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP; the German Skeptics organization). She enjoys interviewing European and other skeptics, but also writing and improving Wikipedia pages. Since 2020, she's also a member of the European Skeptics Podcast.