We need a veterinary Ombudsman – Part 1

From the Canine Health Concern newsletter, Spring 2018


I once had the pleasure of meeting a Native American Peace Warrior. He explained that every tribe has a peace warrior, and that their role is to mediate between tribal members who had fallen out with one-other. He said that it was his job to remain neutral and to listen to both parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable solution. However, he said, if one person is hurting many people, then it’s his job to take sides and make it clear that the offender’s behaviour is not to be tolerated.

Many of us naturally assume that our government and its agents have taken on this role. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for example, claims that it ensures the safety and efficacy of veterinary medicines, but the opposite seems (to me at least) to be the case. If I’m correct in my conclusions, the VMD is there to help Big Pharma get its drugs, chemicals and biologics to market and ignore and obscure the deathly consequences as much as possible. This leaves us and our animals totally unprotected against unscrupulous business practices which, in the case of medicines, threatens lives.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) also claims to adjudicate when clients have complaints about their vets – but if you read on you’ll see that the process is not even far from acceptable. It’s a joke.

I wish we had peace warriors in our society, able to uncover who is speaking the truth, and who is betraying their fellow human beings by lying or distorting the truth for their own ends. But society is too large; there are too many faceless voices; it’s too complicated.

I was recently asked if I would be interviewed for a film to support the campaign to get the RCVS to retract its position statement which, in effect, makes it very difficult for holistic and homeopathic vets to practice. The RCVS thinks that complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are unproven, and that conventional drugs should be offered before any of the alternatives – and many of us would be horrified if forced to do this to our dogs. As it stands, it makes life very difficult for holistic or homeopathic vets.

So I’ve been thinking about the issue a lot. And it’s complicated, because although it’s about a professional body throwing its weight around, it’s also about individual human beings who are behind the statement. Are they genuine, or is there a hidden agenda? We’ve perhaps all asked this question, because we’ve used many of the alternatives and actually seen miraculous effects, so it’s puzzling that they should claim they don’t work so vociferously.

Unless you know me personally, you may not appreciate that I’m an empath and abhor confrontation, and I never want to hurt anyone. It hasn’t come naturally to me to take on the veterinary profession, the veterinary pharmaceutical industry, and the industry’s regulators (who always, it seems, side with Big Pharma). But I did see it as a case of these groups harming many animals by over-vaccinating, and since I love the animals and their owners, I was prepared to stand up and speak the truth on their behalf via CHC, by writing, and with my voice.

Sometimes those of us who choose the alternatives and speak about it are accused of vet bashing, so by calling the RCVS out, then some people will think I’m … vet bashing. But the truth is I’ve never met a vet I couldn’t love. Vets are usually really nice people, and I wouldn’t want us or our animals to be without them.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the RCVS has overstepped its boundaries in terms of wielding its power, and it and its members haven’t been listening to pet owners very much. With the RCVS statement, it appears to be even less willing to listen to us – because we use the alternatives over the conventional options for a reason, and they don’t seem to want to know why. I wanted to reflect all of this, and the considerations that follow, in the film that’s being made.

At the same time, because I’ve had so many people contacting me over the years who’ve had a problem with the treatment they feel they’ve received from their vets, and who were unhappy with the response they’ve had via the RCVS complaints procedure, I thought that it was time to call for a veterinary ombudsman – whose role, ideally, would be to act as an independent Peace Warrior between warring parties.

There is an imbalance between individual pet owners who don’t have a professional body to support them, and vets, who do have several professional bodies to support them (the RCVS, the BVA, and the BSAVA). With the RCVS statement on CAM, however, homeopathic and holistic vets are arguably pushed out of these clubs.

So an independent ombudsman, if truly impartial, might bring peace to a situation where the power currently resides chiefly with one side.

At the same time, I don’t want to start a war and state that all vets are scum-sucking bottom dwellers who need to be reprimanded – because there are, as you know, usually two sides to every argument. We’re just fools if we listen to only one side without also listening to the other. If you’ve ever had a job which entails dealing with the general public, then you’ll also know that the general public can be pretty unpleasant to deal with!

So whilst calling for a veterinary ombudsman, and responding to the RCVS, I think we should look at the whole truth, and not just one side of the story. And I’m starting with ‘our’ side, we pet owners.

The trouble with pet owners

If you’re a member of Canine Health Concern, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that you’re not an ordinary dog owner. It’s likely that you’re someone who will go an extra hundred miles or so (over broken glass) to do the best by your dogs. Rather than troll along to your vet and abdicate responsibility, you’ll take the time to research, read-up on alternatives, and even put the work in and do it the hard way when simpler options exist. This is because, even if the drugs and chemicals might do it with far less effort on your part, they all come with some pretty horrendous unwanted effects. To us, they’re last resort medicine.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), and your own local vet, may think differently. They may think that you’re some sort of sociopathic extremist who wants to feed ‘unsafe’ raw food, and who won’t use the drugs and chemicals they prescribe because of some faulty ideological beliefs. They think you’d happily see your dogs suffer rather than drop the dogma. Further, you’re not trained as they are. What do you know? No doubt vets do a lot of client bashing!

But wouldn’t it be nice if they took the trouble to listen to what we know?

Standing up to your vet who thinks you’re letting your dogs down by refusing their toxins is not easy, either. Not everyone is a great communicator; we might not under pressure be able to reel off the facts and figures to argue our point or, if we do, we may be frightened to speak out for fear of making the relationship with our vet even worse.

And then there are the pet owners who have never grown up. I apologise in advance for saying this as I’m not sitting here looking for ways to offend people, but it’s clear that many pet owners don’t want to think for themselves, because this would mean taking responsibility for themselves and their own actions. Far better to not think at all and do as you’re told, which means you have someone else to blame if it all goes wrong.

Another issue is that people can be very lazy. They want someone else to do the work for them. They don’t want to put themselves out. And it turns out that it’s easier to pour kibble into a bowl than it is to explore the options and do a little bit more work to provide natural and nutritious meals.

For example, I started a Facebook group, flocked-to by grateful clients, to resist the RCVS statement and pressurise them into retracting it. There’s even a legal fund (that’s been started by the campaigning group rather than CHC, and all fully above board and legal) that’s managed to raise just over £7,000 of the £100,000 that’s needed to pay for legal fees and expenses over the last few months. However, if every person on this Facebook group had donated £10, the fund would now stand at £30,000. Why so few donations? Is freedom of healthcare choice for our animals not worth a measly £10?

People on the Facebook group also had lots of ideas and plenty of enthusiasm, and lots of outrage. But despite the ideas, there were few volunteers willing to do any of the work to bring those ideas to fruition. It’s left, as usual, to a small body of people who put themselves out. I moved away from it. I’ve had enough of being Cinderella while everyone else gets to go to the ball. This isn’t to say that CHC hasn’t been helping; I’ve just moved away from the idle chatter.

As Kahlil Gibran said in The Prophet, “the victim is never innocent of the crime”, which may be a bit harsh in some areas – but apathy is always (in my experience) a much bigger problem than the initial problem itself. I’ve known for a couple of decades that if dog owners opened their ears and eyes, and then acted on the science we shared, and even helped CHC out a little more, annual vaccination would have ended a very long time ago.

We should at least respect the veterinary profession for spending five arduous years in college to qualify; for putting the work in.

So there are some of us who do the work, and the rest of us who lie down. Having said that, there are also many of you who have helped, and you have no idea how seriously I take you for it. You at least won’t be offended by the radical truth in this newsletter.
My feeling is that it really is time for the human race to grow up and stand up. Pointing the finger at vets is not enough; it’s not the whole story. If we don’t want to be infantilised by ‘those who know better than us’; if we don’t want to have our power, our freedom of choice, taken away, then we have to behave like adults and take responsibility through word and deed. We have to show up and be counted in a tangible way, rather than just sitting on our backsides pointing the finger at those we don’t approve of.

The thing is, if you are weak and allow someone else to have authority over you, and that person abuses her position, then you get resentful and bitter, and then you go looking for revenge. Better to stand up for yourself in the first place, which effectively means growing up.

Natural canine healthcare is not the easy option

On the positive front, there’s a huge movement in the dog world where people are taking responsibility for their own dogs at least. This is a big deal because saying no to drugs and chemicals can make life much harder and more complicated. Try dealing with fleas if you choose to avoid the chemicals that might kill your dogs. When the vet found a flea on George, she tried to persuade us to use the dangerous chemicals, especially as Georgie has a flea bite allergy. He was beside himself with itching. But we would never forgive ourselves if we went for the easy option and he suffered as a result, or even died.
We had to go through a long process and do a lot of vacuuming and spraying with essential oils before we beat the little suckers.

But it would have been so much easier if we could have given George a tablet or a spot-on. And I don’t think the vet is going to congratulate us for doing it the hard way. I think she’s going to close her ears to what we achieved and turn away.

It’s also ‘easier’ to vaccinate and not have to worry about protecting our dogs another way. The worry is the hardest to bear, because we’ve been sold a lie. Dog owners have been told for decades that a trip to the vet every year, and an injection, removes any possibility that our dogs will die. That feeling of safety is wonderful. Except none of this is true.

Nosodes are a little more complicated than a trip to the vet and a one-off annual needle. You don’t have to worry about building a strong immune system if you accept the chemicals and drugs, and feed kibble, because you’ve managed to sleep through the copious information we and others make available. You don’t have to make brave, courageous, decisions. You don’t have to be responsible.

And as your dog ages, if you abdicate responsibility and close your eyes and ears to the side-effects, then NSAIDs, steroids and antibiotics offer splendid options … until your dog’s liver or kidneys fail, or he dies of heart failure, or responds with brain damage or leaky gut and all the immune-mediated implications leaky gut entails.

Vets have had it easy with subservient clients for a long time, and dealing with people who no longer go cap in hand to be told what to do must be hard for them. I notice that doctors for humans are far more open to us using the alternatives these days, so the veterinary profession is lagging behind.

But blaming vets for everything is too one-sided, and a peace warrior or ombudsman wouldn’t let you get away with that. He’d expect you to take responsibility for your choices, whilst ensuring you haven’t been bullied into anything. And now onto the veterinary profession.

The RCVS and Strange Thinking Processes

It’s difficult to understand how one group of vets can think that their peers, who have passed the same exams as them and who are therefore also vets – but vets who have chosen to go further and study homeopathy or acupuncture or nutrition or herbs – must be thick or stupid if they think that these modalities work.

It’s difficult to understand how a small group of vets, who have managed to get themselves onto the RCVS committee, could imagine that they absolutely know that the alternatives don’t work when they haven’t themselves put the work in to understand those therapies or try them out. All they’ve done is cherry pick third party research and bigged themselves up by putting people who think differently down. I admit it: I cannot stand those people whose only means of having self-respect lies in denigrating other human beings.

This, to me, appears to be where the RCVS is abusing its power and overstepping the line. Rude as I may appear, it’s my assessment that the whole problem is about little people with little minds whose egos want to believe that they’re above others. They don’t do the work, but criticise the people who DO do the work.

Lessons from history have shown us, over and over again, that when those who have power over others seek to limit the personal choices of others, great evil follows. In Communist Russia and China, for example, nearly 200 million people were murdered by their newly-formed communist states because they didn’t think the same as the ruling elite! Even to complain that they weren’t happy with the way things were had them executed or marched off to the gulags.

Vet bashing

I appreciate that making such a comparison against the RCVS could go down very badly. However, because I’m pointing the finger at the veterinary profession, which some call ‘vet bashing’, I feel that it’s important to make the point that we are all human beings and all capable of getting life wrong. You included; me included. And vets are human beings just like us. They are worthy of our compassion and respect, just as our fellow dog owners are worthy of our (and the veterinary profession’s) compassion and respect. The word ‘respect’ means to pay attention to, to listen to.

However, we all – as psychology professor Jordan Peterson says – have monsters lurking inside of us. And make no mistake, our task as human beings is to learn to manage our own inner monster so that we don’t randomly harm others. At the same time, we need to get wisdom and knowledge to protect ourselves from the other fella’s inner monster (and to protect ourselves from the other fella’s monster, we may have to let ours out to play)!
Our task is not to try to change anyone else unless they’re harming others. Our task is to change ourselves so that WE are better people. It seems to me that the people who think they’re perfect, or superior, are the ones who are the least perfect and superior. It’s only by acknowledging our faults that we can strive to rid ourselves of them – and if you think you’re just fine as you are, then there’s no hope for you.

This is precisely where the RCVS is going wrong: it’s trying to change others and legislate against others whilst doing absolutely nothing (and apparently not even recognising) the huge gaping holes in its own system of thinking and being.

The conventional fraternity within the RCVS may think, though, that homeopathic vets are causing harm to animals by withholding the conventional drugs. If the RCVS is right, then the logical conclusion is that homeopathic vets must be psychopaths who don’t care if they’re causing harm. They must be carrying on being homeopaths or herbalists or nutritionists despite the fact that nothing is working! We don’t agree.

It’s all very strange, because many of us have miraculous stories to share about our dogs who were helped by holistic vets, and even knowledgeable non-vets, when conventional medicine either harmed them or had nothing left to offer them. So many of us are using holistic and homeopathic vets and are exceedingly glad that we found them. And I don’t think we’re all stupid or gullible, either!

Those huge gaping holes within the conventional medical model – and why we are turning away from it

It seems to me that if ‘the science’ doesn’t support homeopathy, and if ‘rigorous research’ doesn’t support homeopathy, then there’s something wrong with the science, and something wrong with the scientific model.

Maybe it’s because ‘the science’ is still working from the old Newtonian paradigm, whereas the science to support the homeopathic model more likely lies in the realms of quantum physics! Quantum physics takes us above the material realm and into the realms of energy or frequency, which is essentially closer to the causal level. This isn’t weird New Age woo – it’s the cutting edge of science, and it’s leaving the drugs and chemicals and vaccines behind. Way behind.

Maybe the vets and alleged scientists who oppose energy medicines are too darned lazy to re-train and get with the program? Or maybe they’re secret agents, working for Big Pharma to keep the profits rolling in?

The problem is that we don’t know, because even if there were laws forcing these people to fess up if someone’s bankrolling them (which there aren’t), there are plenty of ways to hide the truth if you want to.

I for one know that my dogs were dying at unacceptably young ages, and suffering from debilitating illnesses, when I was hooked into the conventional veterinary model. Since I learnt about homeopathy, herbs and nutrition – and ditched the drugs, vaccines and chemicals – my dogs have been much healthier, and have lived long and healthy lives. I’m sure many of you have the same story to tell.

The RCVS clearly fails to understand why we are turning away from conventional medicine in droves, and why so many of us would rather see a homeopathic vet than submit our dogs to the unwanted consequences of conventional offerings. But it seems they haven’t even bothered to ask us why.

A BBC study back in 2000 put the complementary and alternative market in the UK at £1.6 billion – and it’s been growing rapidly. The US CAM market is currently thought to be around $3 billion.

Would these figures explain why the conventional medical gravy train – and Big Pharma and the scientists that make billions out of it – are seeking to silence the opposition? For if we can use frequencies to heal illnesses (which is what all energy medicine is essentially about), then there will be no need for the drugs and their side effects.
Could this be why so many holistic doctors – who are onto something – have been apparently murdered in the United States? The figure is currently around 90 dead holistic doctors, and growing. You have to ask why the media is silent on this.

It’s apparent to me that homeopathic vets spend most of their time trying to fix the suffering caused by the conventional medical model.

I drafted a letter to the RCVS to explain why we pet owners are turning to the alternatives but didn’t have the heart to send it. Having campaigned for the last 25 years to end the over-vaccination of our beloved dogs, I have to admit to being disheartened by those who have authority over us, and the potential corruption, or overt pig-headedness, of those who have the power to effect change. They just don’t listen. In its statement, the RCVS asserted:

“… we expect that treatments offered by veterinary surgeons are underpinned by a recognised evidence base or sound scientific principles. Veterinary surgeons should not make unproven claims about any treatments, including prophylactic treatments.”

With respect, since I first started Canine Health Concern to research the causes of illnesses in modern dogs, and through campaigning to end the over-vaccination of our dogs, I have come to the conclusion that the current scientific model and its ‘recognised evidence base’ is not only faulty, but dangerous.

The current evidence base for conventional veterinary treatments makes it clear that all drugs and biologics come with unwanted side-effects. This is the process in the UK, but it’s the same process followed by ‘proper science’ around the world:

1. The developer/manufacturer conducts its own safety and efficacy tests and presents its own data to the regulator, the VMD. The VMD appears to accept the manufacturer’s evidence at face value, notes the adverse effects, and then awards a license.

2. A datasheet is prepared, listing the copious warnings, contraindications, and adverse effects. The regulator actively accepts the carnage, and even calls unsafe products safe by the mere act of approving them whilst proclaiming itself to be ensuring the safety of these products.

3. Then, once it goes into the field, further adverse effects are noted. At this point the manufacturer invariably denies claims until eventually forced, by the weight of evidence some years later, and after many have suffered.

4. In notorious instances, dirty tricks are used by Big Pharma to prevent knowledge of serious side-effects from leaking out and reducing sales, and in known cases exerts pressure on the regulator to keep the product on the market.

5. When our dogs suffer adverse reactions, a small proportion of them are reported to the VMD. Because these adverse effects are vastly under-reported, we get a skewed view of the carnage. Where is the rigour in that?

6. A subset of Defra, the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) sits as a committee and decides whether it was a drug/vaccine reaction or not. Unfortunately, many of the people on the VPC are in receipt of funding from the very companies whose products are in question. The fox has its cubs guarding the hen house, but we’re expected to trust them at face value.

7. Eventually, when enough adverse reactions are reported against a drug, chemical or biologic, the regulator has the product withdrawn. Except this seems not to happen very often.

8. Often our elected representatives, our MPs, act as paid consultants to the manufacturer and use their position to prevent the product from being withdrawn.

9. Scientists also get on the payroll and are paid to conduct skewed research or are even paid to get on the circuit to lecture about the wonders of such and such a product, despite its poor safety profile.

10. If you, your children, or your animals are harmed by one of these ‘rigorously tested’ products … tough. You and they are now numbers and statistics, and you’re unlikely to be compensated. Besides, what use is compensation if you’re dead?

Why we’re wary of their drugs

NSAIDs – non-steroidal anti-inflammatories

During 2017, warnings were issued in the BMJ about a NSAID for humans, namely Ibuprofen, due to the risk of cardiac arrest. Ibuprofen has been on the market for decades. How many people has it killed in the meantime, do you think? And do you think there are no safer alternatives? Well, there are … except the regulators seem to be in the business of suppressing their sales, or knowledge of them, by bullying the doctors and vets who might choose to use them.

NSAIDs (COX2 inhibitors) are a favoured drug of choice for the conventional veterinary community. They’re in the same class as the infamous Vioxx for humans which caused thousands of human deaths and some pretty spectacular compensation figures, plus hefty fines were placed upon its manufacturer which actively hid the damage this drug was causing.

Allegedly ‘rigorous science’, supplied to regulators by the same companies that manufacture and benefit financially from the products, informs us that NSAIDs can cause gastrointestinal, liver and kidney problems in dogs. Do vets warn their clients before prescribing them?

After the NSAID Rimadyl was introduced in America, significant reports of sudden animal deaths surfaced. The FDA received more than 6,000 adverse reaction reports about the drug (manufactured by Pfizer). As a result, the FDA requested that Pfizer advise consumers in their advertising that death is a possible consequence. Pfizer initially refused; however, they now include death as a possible side effect on the drug label in America. Where is this information in UK datasheets? Where is the informed consent?

Several million dogs received Rimadyl before its warning label was updated in America to add mention of death. The number two pain reliever Deramaxx was marketed for a year before its label was also changed. Metacam is also flagged in American datasheets as potentially causing death. Beware all NSAIDs, and actively look for alternatives if you don’t want to be complicit in your dog’s death.

Anti-parasite products

We have evidence from Dr Victoria Hampshire in America, and the senator who helped her, that she was removed from her position at the FDA because she took seriously the large body of adverse reactions reported by clients to ProHeart6, the heartworm preventative. Its manufacturer engaged the services of a PR firm and private investigators to try to discredit her and have the drug returned to the market. We only know about this because Dr Hampshire and Senator Grassley made this public. How does this sort of thing play itself out in the UK, in the face of powerful international corporations? And how does corporate lobbying affect our governments?

There are also Facebook groups asking whether parasite control chemicals such as Bravecto, Nexgard, Comfortis, Simparica, Trifexis and others kill dogs. These groups were started after dog owners thought they did, and I know that some of the companies behind these products have issued threatening letters to the people who have asked these questions. Is it fair that corporations should seek to stop people even asking the questions? Is that an appropriate balance of power?

As of February this year, there have been thousands of adverse event reports logged by the European Medicines Control Agency. Bravecto has caused 7,098 serious (reported) side-effects and 1,696 deaths. Nexgard has given rise to 11,275 acknowledged serious side-effects and 698 deaths. Simparica is acknowledged by the MCA to have caused 834 reported side-effects of a serious nature, and 118 deaths. But does your vet tell you that your dog might suffer serious harm and even die if you use these products? Do you think you should be told?

Rigorous science also informs us that many of the flea control chemicals can have deathly consequences for humans, and pose a serious threat to the environment. But who acts on this deathly information on our behalf? Why does it take campaigning groups to bang their heads against ‘scientific’ brick walls to try to effect change, and why does the scientific system has its fingers in its ears and its hands over its eyes?


It seems to me that homeopathic vets first came under fire from the conventional fraternity when I started asking questions about over-vaccination and vaccine damage back in the 90s, and several homeopathic vets supported me and CHC.

We now know, beyond doubt, that there’s no need to vaccinate our dogs against the core diseases of distemper, parvo and hepatitis every year. We know that protection will potentially remain for life, from one successful shot (usually after a puppy reaches the age of 14 to 16 weeks). Even three-yearly vaccination is questionable.

We also know, through CHC branch VacciCheck clinics, that many puppies who are raw fed and free from chemicals will naturally develop antibodies to these diseases without dying, and without risking the vaccine needle.

But does this stop the veterinary profession from pushing annual shots for these diseases? Absolutely not – and their professional bodies, which might be expected to guide the profession in terms of ethics, does absolutely nothing to stop them.
We know that leptospirosis is a rare disease in the UK, and those of us who are old enough, remember the times when lepto was known to be rare. We didn’t used to vaccinate against it every year because it wasn’t something our vets worried about particularly. Many of us know vets who have told us in the past that they hadn’t seen a case of lepto for at least ten years. However, now that many of us know we don’t need to vaccinate against the core diseases annually, suddenly the lepto threat is being magnified and scaremongering is the norm.

We also know – because pet owners have done the research the veterinary profession should have done – that kennel cough vaccines are a public health hazard! We know that the vaccine causes kennel cough in dogs, and that recently-vaccinated dogs can cause outbreaks in kennels. We know that this vaccine prevents long-term immunity, whereas natural infection confers natural immunity. And we know that the up-the-nose kennel cough vaccine can cause a whooping-cough-like illness in humans, as well as other serious health conditions.

We also know that there is a steady and growing stream of research to show that vaccines cause brain damage, autoimmune diseases, and allergies – which I consider to be the REAL epidemic in the modern dog. Do vets seek out this research, or even listen to those of us who seek to share it for the sake of our dogs? It seems not.

Where is the informed consent?

Veterinarians take it upon themselves to refrain from informing clients of the unwanted potentials. Where are the datasheets to accompany many of the drugs and vaccines prescribed for our pets? Are they given to clients? I think not.
This is short-termism, because when our animals are killed by such products, we lose trust in the veterinary model, start asking questions, seriously want our veterinarians to offer us INFORMED CONSENT, and start to move away from the dangers.

You see, arrogant ‘scientists’ at the RCVS believe they have the allegedly rigorous science on their side, but it works only if we – the consumers – accept the concept of sacrifice. That is, to use conventional drugs, chemicals and vaccines, we have to accept (often in retrospect) that our dogs might die as a result of using them.

Our animals are family. They are not numbers to be dismissed when they suffer the unwanted consequences of products the veterinary profession prescribes. And certainly not if there is a safer natural product that will do the job without potentially killing our pets. The RCVS’s sneering (apologies for consciously using that word, but what a sneerer he is) Mr Danny Chambers thinks that there’s no evidence to support the use of alternatives – but those of us who use them and do the research know he’s talking out of his bias.

Practising homeopathic vets also know that there is an air of witch-hunting where complementary and alternative therapies are concerned. Young, newly qualified, vets know that if they get involved with a holistic practice, then their chances of employment in a conventional practice in the future is seriously compromised. Being interested in another way is, it seems, professional suicide. That’s not science – it’s a mindset that censors the open pursuit of knowledge.

Fiduciaries have a duty to tell us the truth

“A fiduciary must not misleadingly impart only half truths. A statement that does not present the whole truth may be regarded as misrepresentation (Tate v Williamson [1886] LR 2 Ch App 55).”

A fiduciary is a person who holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust with others – such as a vet, government agent, or a professional body.

In English Common Law, it is incumbent upon all of us to know stuff that we ought to know. For example, a CEO cannot pretend innocence if he knows the company secretary is cooking the books. Not acting upon known information is a crime.

A veterinary surgeon and his professional bodies ought to know, for example, that vaccines are not totally benign. There is copious scientific research to illustrate this FACT. A vet should have a moral and professional obligation to report this to clients – but the RCVS leaves all of this up to individual vets, who don’t tell us these things.

A veterinary surgeon also ought to know that our dogs don’t need to be vaccinated every year for the core diseases, and they ought to know the flip side of annual vaccination against leptospirosis and kennel cough. But they act like the three little monkeys, with their hands firmly over their eyes and ears.

The RCVS, and other veterinary professional bodies, have done a Pontius Pilate on us and our pets – totally washing their hands of the actual science and leaving it up to individual vets to sell vaccines at their own discretion, whilst withholding duration of immunity and adverse effect information from clients. Yet we’re expected to trust the ‘professionals’ we hand our money over to, rather than be respected as caring pet owners who are doing the work and the research that vets either don’t do, or don’t want to know about.

If the RCVS were to open its eyes, it would be vastly enriched. There is no way veterinary surgeons can honour the oath to first do no harm when it has only toxic products and very little else to offer.

I thank God for the holistic vets who offered me a different way – for if I had to do it the conventional way again, I couldn’t possibly bear the pain of dog ownership.

Dr Peter Gotzsche is a director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen. Cochrane’s work is recognised as representing an international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. In a Youtube interview, Dr Gotzsche said:

“Two years ago I found that our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death, after heart disease and cancer. Our drugs kill around 200,000 people in America every year, and half of these people die while they do what their doctors told them. So they die because of the side-effects; the other half die because of errors. And it’s often the doctors who make the errors, because any drug comes with maybe 20, 30 or 40 warnings, contraindications, precautions and so on. No doctor in the world knows about all this.
“ … The other thing I found out was that much of what the drug industry does fulfils the criteria of organised crime in US law. And they behave in many ways like the Mafia does. They corrupt everyone they can corrupt. They have bought every type of person, even including ministers of health in some countries. There is a huge amount of corruption.
“ … Drugs are not that helpful. They kill very many of us. What we need to do in the coming years is to take far fewer drugs than we do currently. If we did that and were careful, then we could live longer and better lives.
“ … it’s not popular to tell the truth in healthcare. You will get a lot of enemies, because a lot of people make money on false premises, doctors and industry alike. And our drug regulators and our politicians, they are on board on this wagon. Very few people are independent of money in healthcare.
“The crimes have increased, because when crime pays you have more crime. That’s how capitalism works.”