Is animal communication credible?

A vet draws a clear line: what is proven, what is not — and how to tell whether you have found someone you can entrust your animal to.

I am asked this question regularly — and I like it. Anyone who asks it is thinking for themselves. As a vet I have a reputation to lose, so I answer it the way I would answer a colleague: with a clear line between what is established and what is not.

The term is not protected — that is the core problem

Anyone may call themselves an “animal communicator”. There is no regulated training, no oversight, no licence. A weekend course is enough. That does not mean everyone is dubious — it means you have to look for yourself, because nobody does it for you.

What is established

A considerable part of what goes by the name of animal communication stands on solid ground.

• Animals give precise information through their bodies. Veterinary medicine uses validated instruments for this. The Feline Grimace Scale, published in Scientific Reports in 2019, records pain in cats from five features of the face — ear position, squinting of the eyes, tension around the muzzle, whiskers and head position. In the study it agreed very closely with an established pain instrument and was reliably reproducible between different observers. Comparable scales exist for horses and other species.
• Animals read human body language extraordinarily well. The most famous piece of evidence is, of all things, a case of deception — more on that shortly.
• Behaviour often has physical causes. That a horse suddenly “playing up” or a cat that stops using its tray needs a medical work-up is everyday veterinary practice, not an alternative doctrine.

What is not established

And now the uncomfortable part that many of my colleagues in this field are reluctant to say out loud: There is no scientific evidence for telepathic communication with animals. There is no solid body of research showing that thoughts or images are transmitted without sensory perception. Anyone who sells you that as proven is telling you an untruth — however convinced they are themselves.

I still work with an approach that goes beyond pure observation, because in thirty years I have experienced things I cannot explain otherwise. But I call it honestly what it is: my experience. Not: proven. That difference matters to me, and you should demand it of anyone you entrust your animal to.

Clever Hans — the story that explains both sides

Around 1900 the horse Hans was regarded in Berlin as a calculating wonder: he tapped out arithmetic answers with his hoof. In 1907 the psychologist Oskar Pfungst solved the case. Hans was not calculating — he was reading the tiny, involuntary body signals of his questioners, who tensed before the decisive tap and relaxed unconsciously at the right number. Roughly nine times out of ten that was enough for him. If the questioner did not know the answer, Hans failed.

Sceptics cite this as an unmasking. Rightly so — it is a reminder how easily we deceive ourselves when we expect a result. But the same story also carries the other conclusion: a horse perceived signals that no human in the room noticed. That animals read us is not mysticism. It is the best-documented part of the whole debate.

Seven warning signs of a dubious offer

If you meet any of these signs, walk on:

1. You are advised against seeing a vet or told to stop medication. That is dangerous and can seriously harm your animal — full stop.
2. Diagnoses are made. Anyone who talks about “kidney problems” or “a blockage in the third vertebra” without an examination has crossed a line.
3. Results are guaranteed. Nobody can guarantee that a behaviour will disappear.
4. It is about past lives, destinies or guilt. If you are told your animal is working off karma, responsibility is being shifted onto you subtly — and it usually costs further sessions.
5. Every statement is unverifiable. If nothing can be disproved, nothing can turn out to be wrong either.
6. Pressure is applied — fear, urgency, a package that is only valid today.
7. What happens is explained with “quantum physics” or “energy fields”. That has nothing to do with actual physics; it is vocabulary that fakes scientific standing.

How to recognise trustworthy support

• The limits are named unprompted — and so is the moment you belong at a practice.
• You are asked about previous findings, medication and what has already been ruled out.
• Statements are concrete enough to be capable of being wrong.
• Uncertainty is named instead of glossed over.
• You get next steps you can check, not a mood.
• Nothing is claimed to be proven that is not proven.

How I handle this

I have been a vet for more than thirty years and lived for four years with Aboriginal people in Australia. There I learned never to look at a living being in isolation. I bring both together: the diagnostics I studied, and a trained eye for the whole picture.

In practice that means: I first ask what has been ruled out medically. I send you back to the practice if something sounds like pain, metabolism or an organ — even when that costs me an appointment. And I tell you when I am unsure. Exactly how a session runs you can read in How does animal communication work? ; how to weigh up other people’s accounts, in Animal communication: experiences honestly weighed up.

What this means for you

The honest answer to the opening question is: it depends who you end up with. The field is unprotected, and there are people in it who claim things nobody can back up. At the same time the usable core — reading body language and behaviour closely — stands on good ground. Check the person, not the label. And never let anyone talk you out of having your animal examined.