The pharmaceutical industry is on a full-frontal attack against everyone’s freedom of choice, and our freedom to even see information that might enable us to make a choice. They’ve moved to silence all vaccine dissent, make vaccination mandatory, and demonise anyone who chooses another way. This is an assault on democracy and health.

The problem with the vaccine industry is that they have this warm and cuddly front, and billions are spent in sales and marketing to make you believe that they’re reliable, respectable and ethical corporations. Vaccines and drugs prevent and cure disease, don’t they? Whereas, in fact, the industry is just good at seduction. If you’re wise and informed, you’ll know that actions speak louder than words, and ‘by their fruits shall ye know them’.

The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn

First it was the print media. Now TV and radio are repeating untruths about vaccine science and ‘anti-vaxxers’. Organisations, official bodies and even governments, are wanting to legislate to remove information about vaccine dangers from social media. The mainstream media appears now to refuse to publish anything that questions vaccines, so that avenue for sharing the actual truth is blocked. This is on top of moves in recent years to put an end to or discredit complementary therapies and remove our freedom of choice in that arena, too. Looking at it all, it seems inevitable that mandatory vaccination is on the way.

They’ve already ostensibly introduced mandatory vaccines for dogs by forcing breeders to register and vaccinate, and boarding establishments to demand vaccine proof – for shots that frequently aren’t needed.

In fact, they’ve already vaccinated people at gunpoint around the world, punished and imprisoned parents who don’t vaccinate, and they’ve tried to exclude unvaccinated children from public places in America. Thankfully, parents have recently challenged this legally and won – but the bullying tactics haven’t stopped.

What’s happening seems – to me at least – to be so extreme that it even came to me that World War III might be on its way. Otherwise, how can they possibly justify what they’re doing?

If you’ve read Tip of the Needle (, you’ll already know that the vaccine industry and governments are closely aligned due to biological warfare, and hence in partnership with one-another. They are working together to achieve their goals and, I contend, against the people.

And what are we? We are sheep who must do as we’re told, it seems, whilst being hoodwinked about the promised benefits and potential adverse effects of vaccines.

How do you protect your right to choose against overbearing power?

It seems to me that everything boils down to people in the end. So maybe, if we understand people, we can understand how to protect ourselves, our children, and our animal friends. After reading an excellent book about manipulative people, and after much thought, I found a way to say what I think I need to say about current developments in the vaccine field, whilst offering a ray of hope – or a suit of armour at least.

What you don’t know can hurt you and, conversely, what you do know can inform and protect you.

Whilst I’m drawing upon what is known about human psychology relating to aggressive, manipulative people, and describe the tactics used by character-disordered people who want to win at any cost, this information also applies to the powerful pharmaceutical and vaccine industries, because they’re made up of people. If we understand their tactics and share what we understand, then perhaps we can help others, and ultimately all of us, to resist such manipulation and discern the truth amidst the lies. After looking at the tactics of propaganda, I’ll also give examples of how this is being done in the vaccine field.

So … from the book, In Sheep’s Clothing by George Simon Jr, PhD:

The most fundamental rule of human engagement is that the aggressor sets the rules. This is because once attacked, weakened, or emotionally on the run, the victim of aggression is always scrambling to establish a more favourable balance of power.

To guard against victimisation, you must: be free of potentially harmful misconceptions about human nature and behaviour; know how to correctly assess the character of others; have high self-awareness and know your vulnerability to manipulation; recognise and correctly label the tactics of manipulation and respond to them appropriately; and avoid fighting losing battles. Observing these guidelines will help anyone to maintain a position of power and strength in interpersonal relationships [and corporations are run by people], regardless of the power tactics an aggressive or covertly aggressive person might use.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth

In the book, In Sheep’s Clothing, George Simon describes how aggressive people just want to win, and will do and say anything to win. He describes them collectively as ‘disturbed characters’. Others in psychiatric and psychology fields call them narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths, all of which are considered to be, and labelled as, personality disorders.

These are the techniques concerned parents and pet owners are being subjected to by the vaccine industry and its cohorts. Study them, memorise them, and don’t be fooled by them:

Lying is a hallmark behaviour of manipulative and aggressive people who want to win at all costs, and they’re prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. “Someone was well aware of the many ways there are to lie,” Simon says, “when they suggested that court oaths charge a person to tell ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.

Manipulators and other disturbed characters have refined lying to nearly an art form.

Lying by omission is a very subtle form of lying that manipulators use. So is lying by distortion. Manipulators will withhold a significant amount of the truth from you or distort essential elements of the truth to keep you in the dark.

“One of the most subtle forms of distortion is being deliberately vague. They will carefully craft their stories so that you form the impression that you’ve been given information but leave out essential details that would have otherwise made it possible for you to know the larger truth.

They lie to us by omission; they deny the harm they’ve caused unless (or even when) cornered with the truth, and they distort the truth by being deliberately vague. They also evade the truth. Evasion is when they give rambling, irrelevant responses to a direct question or otherwise try to skirt around an issue.

I’ve seen many evasive letters from vaccine companies who want to wriggle out of the fact that they’ve harmed another dog. One person who used to work for one of the vaccine manufacturers, before horror made him walk away, told me that long rambling letters which say nothing at all are, in fact, company policy.

George Simon explains other tactics used by people who are seeking to manipulate you in order to gain advantage over you. He describes selective inattention – where aggressors actively ignore the data, warnings, pleas or wishes of others and, in general, refuse to pay attention to everything or anything that might distract them from pursuing their agenda. For example, the corporate-sponsored RCVS and its anti-choice campaigners selectively ignore or deny any peer-reviewed research that suggests that alternative therapies might work.

There’s also selective attention, which means focusing on what you want to focus on, rather than what others want you to focus on, such as ‘vaccines save lives’, whilst ignoring, denying or minimising the fact that they also take lives. This is, according to Simon, a way of avoiding responsibility. The vaccine industry has even had its responsibility-avoidance enshrined in law through government-indemnified vaccine damage compensation schemes – which limit the amounts awarded to beleaguered and grieving parents!

Now the vaccine industry has taken selective inattention one very dangerous and undemocratic step further, by trying to get the mainstream media, social media and whole governments to censor dissenting views.

This essentially means that they can’t beat us by logic, science or civilized debate. They can’t even resort to the law and sue us because they know we’re speaking the truth. And because we’ve been so successful at getting the truth out there, they have taken tyrannical and despotic measures to silence us.

And then there’s covert intimidation. Like drug companies writing threatening letters to CHC or Facebook groups whose members claim that a certain drug or vaccine has killed or harmed their dogs. Or the vaccine and pet food industry bods who followed me around to lectures in the 90s and listened blatantly and menacingly into private conversations I was having; or the vets who have shouted at me in gangs during lectures (intimidation that wasn’t all that covert!). Or the academics and researchers who are hounded out of their jobs and even die in suspicious circumstances when they stand up and speak the truth – also detailed in Tip of the Needle.

Guilt tripping is another tactic. Human vaccine companies are masters at this, even manipulating through misinformation so that government agencies guilt-trip and intimidate parents who choose not to vaccinate. It’s their fault there’s another outbreak, they say, whilst totally ignoring the actual facts of the case (which will be covered later).

Character-disordered people: narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths, don’t have very much in the way of conscience. They are unaccountable. They never admit to being wrong. But they know that others do have a conscience, and they play on it, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position. This is why dog owners read the science, look at the ‘don’t over-vaccinate’ messages of bodies such as the WSAVA, listen to their over-vaccinating vets, and still go through agonies of choice. It’s also why the media, spoon-fed by Big Pharma, is guilt-tripping and blaming the unvaccinated for what is – when you look into it – vaccine failure.

When manipulators use denial as a form of deception, they refuse to admit that they’ve done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. Frequently, they push the blame outwards and pin it on their victims.

Manipulators also like to shame people. “This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. It’s an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.”

Manipulators play the victim, too. One minute they’re calling you names, putting you down, telling everyone you have mental health issues or can’t take criticism or a joke, selling you vaccines you don’t need, or otherwise manipulating or bullying you, and you eventually stand up for yourself … and they go whimpering off to tell everyone how nasty you’ve been to them!

Vilifying the victim is often used in conjunction with the playing the victim tactic. This is where the aggressor makes it appear that he’s only defending himself against aggression on the part of the victim (i.e., we’re censoring anti-vaxx information on social media because they’re telling lies about us …). This is intended to put us on the defensive whilst also shutting us up. It’s also the inference that, “so what if your kid/dog died, you’re a pseudo-scientist”.

Seduction is a central ruse used by personality-disordered individuals and corporations. In the corporate world it’s sub-categorised as public relations, advertising, sponsorship and grants.

Covert-aggressive personalities are extremely adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defences and surrender their trust and loyalty. Appearing to value and approve of others can be a manipulator’s ticket to incredible power over others. That’s why, if you’re being gossiped about by a narcissist, sociopath or psychopath, you don’t really have a chance. Everyone believes the seductive, charming person … until the narc turns on the current batch of groupies, that is. Personality disordered individuals go through a lot of people; they leave a long trail of bodies behind them.

I would assert that the pharmaceutical industry, with its research grants and bursaries and speaker fees and sales jamborees, has got the veterinary profession well under its seductive control. Add intimidation and aggression towards vets, doctors and academics – anyone who dares to speak out – then it’s plain to see that the world is ruled by one Big Sick, Personality Disordered, Entity.

Fake News Claiming Fake News

The “bash the victims” campaign is so all-encompassing that they’ve co-opted the input of practically everyone that’s amenable to control, or who’s part of the power elite. Personality disordered people – power-lovers – like ganging up on the opposition.

The first example here is that the World Health Organization and global partners met in March to plan global vaccination policy. The stakeholders at the meeting included “representatives from academia, global immunization and broader health partnerships, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), donor agencies, Ministries of Health, industry, private sector, research institutes, and multilateral organizations.”
They talked about their successes and challenges. “Added to these challenges in immunization coverage is the growth of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ across regions but particularly in North America and Europe, which the background document attributes in part to the role of social media in spreading mis-information,” the document said.

Kate Gilmore, deputy high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, said at the meeting, “There is no such thing as a right to refuse vaccines when the consequences of doing so is to be borne by others and undermine the rights of others to health, as recognised in the International Human Rights Framework.”

Blimey, that’s another tactic: calling something the exact opposite of what it is. The deputy high commissioner for human rights is talking about removing our human rights on the basis of protecting human rights?

So they’re talking about mandatory vaccination. To achieve this, they are also constructively lying. ‘Constructively’ means that they’re lying ‘in a way that is not obvious or explicitly stated’, for example, in law: ‘this non-disclosure was said to be constructively tantamount to fraud’. (Oxford Dictionaries Bing Translator).

The lie is that unvaccinated people are the ones who pose a risk to vaccinated people. The truth is that unvaccinated people pose less of a risk to the unvaccinated than the vaccinated pose to everyone. I’ll explain why soon.

Tip of the Needle addresses the lies, greed and criminality surrounding vaccines, looking at the immune-mediated illnesses, the brain damage, the cancer and leukaemia caused by vaccines … the chronic ill health and the deaths associated with vaccines … as well as the evidence to show that vaccines don’t even work very well, and certainly don’t deserve all of the credit they’re given. It looks at the financial gains enjoyed by purveyors of vaccines: the individuals, corporations, ‘charities’, academic establishments, professional bodies, and governments which financially profit from vaccines. And it covers world over-population concerns and people like Bill Gates wanting to reduce the world’s population.

But the current developments are almost unbelievable if we’re living in a civilized society.

Tory Government Gets Involved in Suppressing The Truth

During March, while we were all worrying about Brexit or getting bored with Brexit, Health Minister Matt Hancock took a swipe at fake news, misinformation, and lies … from ‘anti-vaxxers’. He was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, and I nearly spat my coffee out when I heard what he had to say:

“We are looking at legislating for the duty of care that social media companies in particular have towards the people on their sites – this is an important part of that duty of care alongside all the other things that social media companies need to do, like tackling material that promotes suicide and self-harm and, of course, terrorism.”

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it – except that he also included ‘anti-vaxxers’ in the list of undesirables. BBC news online reported on Mr Hancock’s segment on Radio 4, under the heading, “Minister targets anti-vaccination websites”.

They’re targeting social media AND taking websites down to stop us sharing information about vaccine dangers – and likening us to self-harm promoters and terrorists?

The on-line report stated:

“He said the government is working with internet companies to identify misleading material on jabs, including Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR). Artificial intelligence programmes could root out bad science. MMR vaccine uptake rates are declining in many countries.

“The reason is not clear. Rates dipped in the 1990s following publication of a report linking MMR to autism, but partly recovered after that research was discredited and disproved. However, the volume of anti-vaccine sentiment on social media has been swelling in recent years, sparking concern that it is having a negative impact.

“Measles is highly infectious and can cause serious health complications, including damaging the lungs and brain. There were more than 82,500 cases in Europe in 2018 – the highest number in a decade and three times the total reported in 2017. Health chiefs in Greater Manchester reported a sharp increase in measles cases between January and March 2019, the majority in unvaccinated children. In England, the proportion of children receiving both doses of the MMR jab by their fifth birthday has fallen over the last four years to 87.2%. This is below the 95% said to provide ‘herd immunity’, the level considered by experts to protect a population from a disease.”

There are just loads of factually inaccurate, information-deficient, statements in the above, many of which are handsomely debunked in Tip of the Needle, with copious scientific references. For example, they’re forever wheeling out the ‘Dr Andrew Wakefield is a discredited charlatan’ lie when, it’s widely known in Vaccine Truth circles that Dr Wakefield was set up by GSK, the makers of MMR, with the help of the Murdochs and the British government. The person they chose to be a Terrible Warning was discredited by a web of lies aimed at protecting vaccine sales. And we’ll be addressing measles vaccine science later.

You may be interested to know that another scientist has recently gone public and is receiving similar treatment. The Sunday Times reported on the 7th April that funding had been halted for Professor Chris Exley, who links vaccines to autism. : “A controversial British academic who claims childhood vaccines can cause autism has been blocked from raising research funds after protests by other scientists.

“Professor Chris Exley, of Keele University, infuriated health experts by telling parents the aluminium in vaccines given to babies to protect them from diseases such as whooping cough, and in the human papillomavirus vaccine given to teenagers, may cause ‘severe and disabling’ autism.” God bless that man. In trouble for sharing science.

Meanwhile, a piece in the Telegraph came with the heading: “Facebook and Instagram could be hit by new laws if they do not do enough to stamp out anti-vaccine messages.”

Blimey, Big Pharma is so powerful that it has the power to make our democratically elected government enact laws that are ostensibly against the people.


Facebook, Pinterest, YouTube and Amazon, and probably everyone eventually, are censoring vaccine information, or being ‘persuaded’ to censor vaccine information, and the Establishment is calling it a good thing. It’s likely that many of them have their arms up their backs in this when you consider, for example, that YouTube and other internet platforms rely on advertising revenue, and that revenue is based on how many views a particular item attracts.

According to the London research firm, Moonshot CVE, “less than 20 YouTube channels pushing anti-vaccination theories built an audience of more than 170 million people over a decade”. That’s a lot of revenue they’ll be kissing goodbye to.

Meanwhile, WDDTY reported:

“The clampdown on ‘anti-vaxxing’ stories on social media is producing one big winner: Big Pharma. Revenues from vaccines will enjoy ‘an overwhelming hike’ in the next few years, say industry watchers. They’re expecting a hike in revenues by 2025, with one saying that revenues for all vaccines will increase to $57.5bn compared to just $33.7bn last year.” Government backing was credited – in vaccine-friendly business journals – as one big reason for the hike.

Yet way back in 1999, the revered British Medical Journal – to pick one of hundreds out of the hat – published an editorial saying that vaccines can have long-term adverse effects, including diabetes. They added, ‘many other chronic immunological diseases, including asthma, allergies, and immune mediated cancers, have risen rapidly and may also be linked to immunization’. Evolving research since then has changed it from ‘may be linked’ to ‘are linked’.

Doctors were warning, in the BMJ, in 1999: “Public should be told that vaccines may have long-term adverse effects.” Yet the opposite is now happening: the vaccine industry is trying to close the floodgates and keep it all hush-hush. Folks, we are living in that nightmare dystopian future.

Except that I feel like laughing at them. Do they really think they can put the genie of truth back in the bottle now? Really? Or are they just buying time before the game’s well and truly up? (This is why we will ultimately win the battle!)


As I’ve explained in Tip of the Needle, and as Dr Jayne Donegan explains in the foreword, vaccines have never halted epidemics. If anything, vaccines can start epidemics, and sometimes they just don’t work. I could write a book (and have) to explain this, but here’s just one reason:

Vaccines can start epidemics because many are modified live virus (MLV) vaccines, also called ‘attenuated’. Attenuated/MLV vaccines can shed and revert to virulence, meaning that they can infect the person receiving the vaccine; they can infect other people coming into contact with the vaccine-infected individual; and, through shedding, can just infect people (and dogs).

This is why, when mandatory rabies vaccine was introduced in America, they kept getting rabies outbreaks in dogs. They had to switch to killed vaccines.

Dr Suzanne Humphries spoke about this in 2015. She highlighted the technological advancements that have allowed for vaccine-strain viruses to be identified in children.

“There were several cases of measles outbreaks occurring in children who had just been vaccinated,” explained Dr Humphries.

“They looked at, with DNA and genetic fingerprinting, what strains they were – and it was the vaccine strain that they were infected with. So not only did they become sick from measles from the strain that they were vaccinated with, but they were contagious.”

Can you believe this? The measles vaccine is causing measles, and the people who weren’t vaccinated are blamed for it!

The kennel cough vaccine for dogs isn’t an MLV vaccine, though – but it also spreads disease. Dogs who receive this vaccine can, according even to the regulator-approved datasheet, get a ‘mild’ dose of kennel cough. These vaccinated dogs can then infect humans with what looks like whooping cough, and they can also infect other dogs and start kennel cough outbreaks. So character-disordered individuals are sitting in corporations pushing vaccines for dogs that represent a public health hazard for humans. Or maybe they don’t know what they’re doing. Surely that’s got to be selective inattention? Because they ought to know.

Similarly the flu vaccine can give people flu, and they go onto infect others. Parvovirus in dogs didn’t even exist before it was created by a vaccine manufacturer, and one scholarly paper about it expressed relief that it wasn’t a human vaccine that did this to humans. (Except there’s some pretty strong science to say that AIDs was another vaccine-induced plague.) These truths are fully referenced in Tip.

Distortion of facts: measles

Mostly all of the anti-anti-vaxxer news reports talk about measles cases increasing, and it’s all our fault. But mostly it’s ‘the discredited’ Andrew Wakefield’s fault. This is constructive lying.

If you have internet access, you may like to look at this link:

It’s a lovely glossy brochure produced by the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), promoting vaccination uptake. They’ve also identified social media as ‘promoting negative messages about vaccinations’. The vaccine industry has left no stone unturned, it seems, and no friendly sector or group out of the campaign network.

The RSPH stated in its glossy brochure that it was calling for government and social media platforms to silence vaccine dissent and boost positive vaccine stories.

Not at all surprisingly, the RSPH project was sponsored by MSD (Merck, a vaccine manufacturer), although MSD ‘did not have any editorial input and is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed … ‘. Yes, right.

There are many examples in this document where the authors can be accused of being deliberately vague and lying – by omission and distortion, or maybe through downright ignorance (ignore-ance).
The RSPH report says: “We now face measles outbreaks in Europe – reaching a record high of 41,000 cases in August 2018 – directly attributable to low coverage following the Wakefield scandal.”

That’s a lie.

Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych PhD is slightly more scientific and truthful about it in She writes:

Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the ‘measles paradox.’ I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) ‘Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.’ Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820: “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”

“Further research determined that behind the ‘measles paradox’ is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS. Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine. These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent re-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of ‘susceptibles’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.
Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait. The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.

“Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time. Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity [as is] acquired after natural exposure.

“It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious. In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.”

Measles outbreaks occur in heavily vaccinated populations. It’s not down to irresponsible people who don’t get their shots, but because the measles vaccine is no guarantee of long-term immunity, even if repeated and repeated and repeated. Only natural immunity, acquired when you get a dose of the real measles, prevents re-infection.

Here’s just one paper amongst many, showing a measles outbreak despite a 98% vaccine coverage, three percentage points above the heralded herd immunity level:

It’s just downright manipulative – and a lie – to claim that Andrew Wakefield or parents who choose not to risk vaccine-induced disease are to blame for measles or any other epidemic. Vaccine technology itself, and its failings, must take a large part of the blame.

Something other than vaccines saves lives

Dr Jayne Donegan’s website is another wealth of reliable information. If the vaccine industry and its chums have their way, it could be taken down soon. You may remember that Dr Donegan is the UK doctor who the GMC tried to get struck off because she was sharing vaccine truth. They failed and she won – using government data.

Where measles is concerned, this brave GP says:

“There are about 170,000 measles deaths per years worldwide (2008 figures), but, as the World Health Organisation (WHO) states:

“The overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of measles deaths occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health infrastructures… Most measles deaths are caused by complications associated with the diseases,” and,

“Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases…. As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and lack of adequate health care”.

Measles severity is directly related to malnutrition. Why are measles cases increasing in the wealthy West in recent years? Would it have anything to do with Austerity, imposed on the poor when ill-regulated bankers nearly destroyed our economies and walked away without suffering any of the consequences – thanks to favourable government legislation (for the banks, that is)?

An Independent piece, stated: “A landmark study has linked Tory austerity to 120,000 deaths”. Other reports tell us about the rising number of food banks – for impoverished people in the wealthiest countries in the world who can’t afford to eat.

Which is why I state in Tip of the Needle that infectious disease is about poverty and malnutrition, and why I assert that the ever-growing divide between rich and poor has more to do with disease outbreaks than anything a vaccine can or cannot do.

If the public can be made to believe Big Pharma lies, it will get worse for ordinary people, but better for the industry. The money will keep going to the wealthy elite, and the poor will continue to die of malnutrition and malnutrition-created infectious disease.

Distortion of facts: pertussis

The MSD-sponsored RSPH glossy brochure also said, “Another reason for opposition [to vaccination] has been concerns around side-effects. The 1970s and 1980s saw a major vaccine scare in the UK surrounding the pertussis vaccine for infants, following the publication of a series of cases in 1974 suggesting an association between the vaccine and neurological complications. Widespread media publicity followed, and by 1977 coverage of the vaccine had declined from 77% to 33%, leading to three major epidemics of whooping cough. The link between the vaccine and neurological harm was never proven and immunisation uptake returned to pre-1974 levels by the late 1980s.”

Hmmm… I’d call this selective reporting, omission and distortion.

In fact, a ‘Background Paper Prepared for the Committee on the Evaluation of Vaccine Purchase Financing in the United States’ in 2001, outlined the ‘Legacy of the DTP vaccine’:

“To understand the history of DTaP, it is necessary to understand the legacy of its wholecell predecessor, DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis) vaccine. Simply put, over the course of two decades (from the 1970s to the 1990s) safety issues related to the whole-cell pertussis component of DTP drove a series of events that dramatically impacted the vaccine industry, led to a reshaping of vaccine policies and programs, and resulted in an intensive international search for a new, acellular pertussis vaccine. . .

“Unfortunately, there was also a downside to DTP. While clearly effective in preventing disease, the whole-cell pertussis component was associated with a range of adverse events, including rare but serious neurological consequences.”


The document goes on to say that vaccine uptake declined, and there were more pertussis cases and deaths in Japanese children and in Great Britain.

“In the US, while public concerns about the safety of DTP gained momentum starting in the 1970s, it was not until the early 1980s that the issue exploded domestically. Three related sets of events converged to reshape the US market for DTP and for childhood vaccines more generally: (1) dramatic increases in media coverage of potential adverse effects of DTP; (2) exponential growth in product liability lawsuits brought by consumers against pertussis manufacturers, and (3) exiting of manufacturers from the market.”

Lawsuits began to rise against the makers of the DTP vaccine – and they stopped making the vaccine. Why not defend themselves if the vaccine is so safe? Why exit the market rather than face having to pay out compensation to people whose lives were terminated or badly damaged?

“During a six-month period in 1984, in response to the growing liability crisis, two of the three manufacturers distributing DTP in the US market Wyeth and Connaught dropped out, leaving Lederle as the sole supplier in the U.S. (CDC, 1984).”

Against this backdrop, American Congress launched its National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a comprehensive legislative package that established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), a no-fault compensation program that limits manufacturer liability and provides substantial payments to the families of children who sustain documented injuries following routine immunization with recommended childhood vaccines.

So going back to the MSD-sponsored RSPH glossy brochure: “The link between the vaccine and neurological harm was never proven and immunisation uptake returned to pre-1974 levels by the late 1980s.” Would you say this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And are THESE people reliable enough witnesses to influence governments when it comes to forcing us and our children to have vaccines that have a whole legal category of their own, aimed at limiting manufacturer liability?
You have got to be joking. But it’s not a joke.

The National Vaccine Information Center offers information that might give a fuller picture to enable parents and doctors to make up their own minds about whether they want their children to have the whooping cough vaccine, without being sponsored by MSD. Do take a look at it; it comprehensively and, in detail, discredits the MSD-sponsored RSPH exercise in vagueness. This may be another website they want to take down:

In addition, and importantly, immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych PhD points out that the (new) pertussis vaccine isn’t very effective:

“The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis.”

Interesting that the RSPH commentary stopped at the 1980s, isn’t it. And interesting that the new vaccine doesn’t blooming work! But it will be your fault if you decide not to offer yourself up to the vaccine.

The problem about sharing vaccine Truth is that one could go on, and on, and on, pointing out the truth behind the lies. And who – apart from rare people like you – is going to take the time to read it?
I – and many others – could take WHO and RSPH and any other pro-vaccinating, manipulative, lying documents apart word by word …. and the frustration is that most people will yawn and go back to sleep until someone they love is destroyed by the lies. And it’s all so easy to take the lies at face value.

More media propaganda

On March 27th, the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 did a piece on the latest government ‘anti-vaxx’ assault. CHC member Maurice Lea very kindly risked a heart attack by listening to it and reviewing it for us:

First half from BBC ‘health editor’
Wakefield, MMR, he misrepresented data, discredited
Herd immunity
Fiddled measles stats as fact
Trump multi-shot comments ridiculed
“Autism link is totally discredited”
And we’re FORCED to pay a license fee for this travesty

Then Dr David Grimes science writer:

Freedom of Speech: anti vaxxers are spreading myths and lies, selfishly spreading disease
Rubella deforming infants
More trump/Wakefield ridicule
Caller message – why are vaccine-damaged denied redress?
Measles kills 160,000 a year, thousands harmed
US State to bar all unvaccinated from public places
Anti vaxxers promote bleach enemas!!! ???
ONE vax damage caller message
And we’re FORCED to pay a license fee for this travesty

Well, that was clearly a staged piece of propaganda. And if someone tells you one lie, you have to assume that they’re happy to tell you another lie and another lie. I, for one, have never heard of anyone recommending bleach enemas, and I’ve been in this field for over a quarter of a century. Similarly, how could anyone trust a vet who insists that dogs need to be vaccinated annually?

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth, please

Who is misinforming who? The Chapelfield Veterinary Partnership Ltd, Long Stratton, put a poster up on Facebook in March. It said:

“Parvovirus Alert. Parvo is a highly infectious disease. Recent cases have been reported in Norfolk. Young puppies and unvaccinated dogs are at risk. Please make sure your dog has up-to-date vaccinations.”

So an undercover CHC member, the brave Linda Bland, picked up the phone and asked Chapelfield Veterinary Partnership Ltd a few salient questions. Chapelfield told her that it wasn’t actually their practice that had experienced the parvo outbreak. It was a practice down the road – Wymondham Veterinary Practice. So our Truth Seeker phoned them, too.

“I just rang Wymondham. It was one case …. I repeat one case. I asked if the dog was unvaccinated or vaccinated and she said she couldn’t divulge that information, and couldn’t wait to declare it’s all been sorted now and only unvaccinated dogs are at risk. I said, looking at the advert, I thought a whole load of dogs had gone down with it … she said oh no. I said well your advert does imply that. It was a bit of scaremongering.”

So the use of a pleural (cases) is constructively a lie. It’s not the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth. It’s an exaggeration that makes one case look like many cases. A lie.

The poster also says that unvaccinated dogs are at risk. But that’s another constructive lie – because vaccinated dogs can and do also come down with parvo, and unvaccinated dogs can develop natural immunity.

And nowhere – not in the poster, and not from the bod on the phone, did anyone tell dog owners that ‘once a dog is immune to parvovirus, he is immune for years and probably for life’. That’s another constructive lie: a lie of omission aimed at getting pet owners to fork out money that doesn’t need to be forked-out whilst, incidentally, putting their pets at risk of vaccine-induced disease.

We live in complex times, where power and control are used covertly; where lies are the norm and confusion is promoted. What you think you know may not be true; and while you think you’re keeping your loved-ones safe, you may be harming them … because you’ve been spoon-fed lies. And worryingly, even the experts are duped into repeating lies – because they haven’t performed due diligence and don’t know what the heck they’re talking about.

Never before has it been so vital to get wisdom. Proverbs 16:16 How much better to get wisdom than gold, to get insight rather than silver!

We need a veterinary ombudsman – Part 2

By David Anderson

I have great respect for people like David Anderson, because he has done the research and the work, and put himself out on behalf of others, and so I’m delighted to carry his article in our newsletter.

In 2014, David Anderson says that Vets Now, an out-of-hours veterinary franchise, overcharged him and over-treated and overdosed his dog. All complaints to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) and enquiries over fees were rejected. As a result he started the Facebook group Vetsnow complaints.

David says, “The page elicited many stories and comments from pet owners who felt they had suffered much more than I at the hands of Vets Now. All of us had followed the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) advice to raise issues with the company, and not one had received anything other than stock excuses and platitudes.

“All of us subsequently complained to the RCVS, as they tell us we should, and not one complaint received any redress whatsoever.”

In July 2017 the RCVS held its annual day, an impressive affair with various members wearing pretty gowns and hats. It was a day of smug self-congratulation. They gave themselves hundreds of awards; they spoke of the success of the scheme to allow vets, who are not doctors, to call themselves doctors because Australian vets can.

They spoke of how much they wanted to avoid external regulation and the importance of change. Few organisations need these things more. However they made absolutely no mention of the hundreds of complaints that are dismissed with no further action every year.

Since 1966, an important date, the RCVS have received, by their own admission, about a thousand complaints from clients each year. In fairness I make it less, on average about 800 , but as the RCVS rejects nearly all of them anyway, 200 loved pets make little difference.

Until very recently on the RCVS website you would find a page that proudly proclaimed that, “despite the annual number of complaints, because of our robust investigation procedures, only 1% ever reaches a disciplinary stage.” This means that the remaining 99% are dismissed with no further meaningful action.

The RCVS has removed the page and now says that around 80% of complaints have not progressed beyond Stage One of the concerns process. They also say that there are two more stages which increase this percentage further…. to 99% , which is what I said.

When challenged on this they insist that through Health and Safety regulations and the Code of Practice, a number of vets are given ‘advice’. These are not my quote marks; advice is simply that, and vets can take it or leave it. The RCVS admit that advice “offers no practical solutions or avenues for redress for consumers who may consider that something has ‘gone wrong’.”

It’s almost impossible to find out how many vets take any notice of this ‘advice’ and it appears that the RCVS doesn’t know either as, “the way our computer system works, we cannot search for cases that were closed with ‘advice’.”

So the governing body of veterinary surgeons, the much revered Royal College that loudly proclaims how it strives to set standards for the benefit of the profession and its clients, has steadfastly dismissed for the past, now 51 years, in the region of 45,000 complaints. These complaints are about standards of care, extortionate fees, and more.

How can it be that the interests of pet owners are treated with such uncaring contempt? Well, the RCVS blames the jurisdiction of the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1966, which they conveniently insist constrains their actions. This Act stipulates that a vet can only be disciplined if they are guilty of serious professional misconduct for which they can be struck off. There is no other avenue of complaint.

Not surprisingly this very high level of malpractice is very rarely reached, especially as only vets can judge a vet and the RCVS themselves undertake the investigations. The RCVS knows full well that there are literally thousands of genuine complaints from clients who only want some justice for poor care and/or excessive fees, but they have simply chosen to bemoan and bewail that this ‘antiquated’ Act has, for 50 years, completely tied their hands.

Within this group (of 800 complaints per year) there are potential cases of negligence as well as consumer and service disputes, neither of which the RCVS has power to resolve as they don’t cross the high threshold of misconduct – so says the Registrar of the RCVS.
Put very simply they are perfectly happy with things as they are as their role in life is to protect their overblown Royal status and above all the reputation of their paying members. Frankly the interests of unhappy clients are of no importance.

Although the RCVS perpetuates the nonsense that the only sanction that a vet can receive is to be struck off (a vanishingly small likelihood as even those few who are disciplined are rarely deregistered), not many aggrieved clients actually want a vet to lose their livelihood and the Act does not, and never has, prevented the introduction of a much simpler and quicker second tier complaint process to allow the hundreds of unhappy clients a degree of justice. The fact is that the RCVS has never made any effort to set up such a process or to introduce an amendment to the Veterinary Surgeon’s Act.

As a classic example of how little the RCVS cares about the interests of clients, it’s worth noting their refusal to implement their own regulation about fees. In the Guardian online article (April 2016: Are Vets´ Bills Making You As Sick As a Dog?) reporters were told by the RCVS that they do not regulate fees , but were told that there exists a regulation that says that if a vet charges excessive fees this is considered to be serious professional misconduct worthy of disciplinary action.

The reporters were not told, however, that this regulation had only ever been applied once in 50 years (and that the offender was acquitted). The Disciplinary Panel considered that mark-ups on medication of 200% to 300% were disgraceful. Take a quick look at a bill from a large infamous out of hours company and Google the prices of medications and blood kits etc. Disgraceful is not in it. The RCVS refuses to apply this regulation to this company’s CEO, who is famously on record as saying, “I am not in this business to make money”.

The refusal of the RCVS to do anything about their hiding behind the 1966 Act was raised by (I quote from the RCVS Council Report Sept 2017) the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons (back) in 2008. The report said that, “Allowing such a large number of complaints each year to be dismissed in this way inevitably harms the reputation of the veterinary profession.”

This Government Committee required the RCVS to work with Defra to change this and to provide a White Paper to amend the 1966 Act. The RCVS and Defra combined did absolutely nothing until 2013 and 4000 complaints later, when an LRO was implemented which did nothing more than tinker with the Committee membership in order to modernise and speed up , but not change, the Disciplinary process that rejects 99% of cases.

According to the RCVS figures, nothing whatever has changed. No speed-up nor reduction in complaints, nor any increased number being disciplined, nor any sensible second-tier complaint process. So in 2015, and 1600 more complaints later, the pressure on them was such that they had to do something – and that something was two ludicrous trial Alternative Dispute Resolution Schemes.

The first of these came into play when the RCVS had rejected, as they do, the client’s complaint and the matter was then referred to the scheme. This scheme was entirely voluntary, with no sanction nor criticism if the vet chose not to participate. So 88% did exactly that: they didn’t participate.

Thankfully this Scheme was cancelled, but only after it had been extended for six months and more vets simply refused to participate. This Scheme then gave way to another that is even worse.

The RCVS now ‘signposts’ complaints straight to the newly formed Veterinary Client Mediation Service (the VCMS) – a mediation service outside the RCVS. As a consequence these complaints no longer appear in the RCVS statistics. This scheme is also voluntary and a goodly percentage of vets simply refuse to face their complainants.

If a complaint is made directly to the RCVS it will be (their word) ‘triaged’, but most likely the RCVS will try to hive it off to the VCMS. However, the very most an aggrieved client might expect by way of redress would be an apology or a contribution to a charity, but only as long as the traumatised or grieving pet owner stops posting nasty things on Facebook.

At long last, as a consequence of the ongoing pressure from many consumers and action groups, the RCVS has come to the realisation that they are losing public trust and say they intend to do something about it by setting up a working party to consider whether new legislation to regulate the profession may be appropriate.

It is as plain as the nose on your face that after 50 years and 45,000 unanswered complaints it most certainly is appropriate and desperately needed, but nonetheless this working party made up entirely of RCVS personnel is only going to consider the matter. They have apparently only just realised that “Clearly using 50-year-old legislation has its limitations, ………the fact is that this somewhat antiquated legislation is the basis for all we do.”

It is my guess that they will change as little as they can and take a long time doing it. We can safely assume that one member of the panel will be reluctant to change anything. This person is a senior manager in the RCVS and also a senior manager of the out of hours practice that benefits so much from the fact that the RCVS allows them to operate monopolies in large geographical areas (a matter in the CMA’s “pipeline”) and to charge as much as they please.

Any suggestion of a special relationship between the RCVS and this company will be vehemently denied. It is not easy to place much faith in an organisation that does not understand that declaring an interest does not actually remove it.

Mr May, who chairs the working party, observes that “The UK leaving the EU will necessitate some changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act as it currently exists so this feels like an opportune moment to carry out a wholesale review of the legislative basis for regulation of the veterinary profession in the UK”.

Clearly nowhere on the 50 year journey to 45,000 complaints was any other time considered opportune.

The RCVS are always polite and appear helpful but they are past masters at presenting vested interest as moral principle and I have no confidence that much will change especially noting their already declared open-ended timescale.

“The Legislation Working Party is to meet at least four times and will report to RCVS Council in due course.”

So they will meet twice a year, with nice lunches, another year to report to the Council, another year to refine and implement … and this equals 3,200 more unanswered complaints.

The RCVS is not fit for its purpose. It fails to regulate the profession; it appears to allow vested interest to influence the continued use of contested medicine and it seeks to ban the use of alternative treatments. We hope to be a part of changing this.

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.”