I've had a real problem with fleas this year. The dog has those spot-on drops usually, but she missed a dose while I was down south looking after my mother after her fall downstairs, and when I returned she was fairly covered in the jumpies. It's been a bad year for fleas, and vacuuming, spraying the carpets and her bedding and washing everything helped but didn't eradicate the problem. I've tried a number of commercial solutions, but I am highly sensitive to the commercial flea spray and developed eczema on my feet and eyelids, so was looking for something else and found recommendations from hundreds of people for diatomaceous earth.
I hadn't heard of it before, found a food-grade supplier and ordered some, which came today. It's a white powder with odd properties... it has a drying effect as it absorbs moisture and oil almost instantly. I've read a number of sites which swear by it and say that it works like magic for fleas, but you have to be careful only to use a little as it tends to dry out the coat in animals. I was worried about the prospect of Tizzy licking the stuff off her coat, but she doesn't seem inclined to do that and it's not harmful if she does.
In doing internet research on diatomaceous earth I found a lot of claims for a whole variety of health benefits for people, in ridding them of parasites, lowering cholesterol, and adding silica to the diet. I looked for research, mainly aiming to establish its safety and the quantity required for a therapeutic dose, and came across a website denouncing its use in humans.
I read the article expecting to find some evidence to back up the claims of quackery, but found none. This is one person's opinion that people cannot make claims for this substance because it hasn't been through clinical trials for this purpose, and denouncing those making any claims for it. But actually, there seems to be little scientific evidence for or against it.
This is true of any number of natural substances which have been used by people for centuries. And what angers me about this sort of "trust me, I'm a doctor" approach is that it is one person's opinion, and no more valid or backed up by science than someone who tells you that diatomaceous earth is good for ridding pets of fleas, or red mites. It is backed up by anecdotal evidence, which is entirely dismissed by the scientific fraternity, although for many traditional remedies, that's all there is.
When drugs have been put through clinical testing, you can be sure that any harmful effects are recorded, and that the boundaries for safety of the substance has been established. But do all people react to all substances alike? Aren't some fatally allergic to peanuts while another will happily munch away at a bag of them unaffected? Can science cater for the endless variety in people's reactions? No.
The third leading cause of death in the US is inappropriate treatment or medication - medications which have been through clinical trials. It must be the reason that when doctors go on strike, the death rate actually drops, instead of rising as one would expect. Would I prefer that diatomaceous earth had been put through clinical trials? YES. Am I going to wait to use it until they happen? NO.
Drug companies and those invested in medical research will not pay for medical trials of substances that can't be monetized by patenting. For this reason I think there should be a research tax in the UK which could be used to fund research into commonly used substances. When research was conducted into lavender oil, many of the traditional claims for the oil were substantiated. And like diatomaceous earth, there were a lot of claims in many different directions. I don't think I need to take the word of experts or laypeople... I am going to try it, and see what I think, the same way I might try a drug the doctor prescribes... although in that case I might read the patient leaflet and decide that I'd rather not, thanks.
