Homeopathy Papers

Radical Honesty

Catherine O’ Driscoll explains how prescription drugs harm and kill both people and animals, while the industry suppresses alternative therapies.

As you may already know, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK has been infiltrated by members of ‘The Good Thinking Society’ who are in a tizzy about complementary therapies, and homeopathy in particular. After attacking the homeopathic veterinary fraternity for years, they’ve now persuaded the RCVS to issue a position statement which essentially says that complementary and alternative therapies are unscientific and unproven. They’ve issued an edict which holistic vets are extremely concerned about, essentially that unless a vet goes first to the drugs, vaccines and chemicals before any alternatives are offered, then they’re likely to find themselves in trouble. Some say it’s an effective ban on Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) in the veterinary field in the UK, and at least one vet has thrown in the towel and stopped practising.

I am writing as a pet owner who, without the complementary and alternative therapies, couldn’t bear to be a pet owner any more. Were my dogs condemned to the conventional veterinary paradigm, I just wouldn’t have the courage to share my life with dogs. It would be too painful to watch them suffer, as I and my dogs did before my eyes were opened to the wonderful alternatives, and the knowledge of building health from within.

It seems to me that the RCVS – which has no independent ombudsman to keep it in line – is attacking fully qualified vets who have studied longer and harder than their conventional colleagues in order to offer (in my view) something better for animals than drugs with their life-threatening side-effects. How strange it is that, at this point in history, the world is so tormented by black and white, either-or, thinking.

In my view, the RCVS has overstepped the bounds of its power. Now, many of us naturally assume that our government and its agents are there to protect us from corrupt practices in the medical field. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for example, is the UK’s veterinary medicines regulator. The VMD 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, arrived at during the 25 years in which I’ve attempted to bring an end to the over-vaccination of companion animals, the VMD is there to help Big Pharma get its drugs, chemicals and biologics to market. It seems to ignore and obscure the deathly consequences of these offerings as much as possible. This leaves us and our animals totally unprotected against unscrupulous business practices which, in the case of medicines, threatens lives.

Natural canine healthcare is not the easy option

There is a huge movement in the dog world where people are taking responsibility for their own dogs. 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. Few or no scientific studies have demonstrated that dogs or cats even need to be revaccinated, let alone every year or three years – and that’s according to the world expert, Dr Ronald D Schultz of Wisconsin University and a leading light on the World Small Animal Veterinary Association vaccine guidelines group. Yet this doesn’t stop vets pushing annual and three-yearly shots.

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’re comfortably oblivious to the fact that the conventional way deconstructs health. 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.

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 puffed 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. And as for issuing edicts about what other people can and can’t do … well it seems to me that it would be better to look at one’s own faults before seeking to fix the perceived faults of others.

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. 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!

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 realm 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 or some corporation is 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. Hordes of us 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 and academics 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 common 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 about 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 have its fingers in its ears and its hands over its eyes?

Vaccines

It seems to me that homeopathic vets first came under fire from the conventional fraternity in the UK when I started asking questions about over-vaccination and vaccine damage back in the 90s, and several homeopathic vets supported me and Canine Health Concern, which I formed to research the causes of ill health in dogs.

About the author

Catherine O’Driscoll

Catherine O’Driscoll

Catherine O’Driscoll is the founder of Canine Health Concern and the Pet Welfare Alliance. Her best-selling books include What Vets Don’t Tell You About Vaccines, and Shock to the System. See www.canine-health-concern.org.uk, and www.petwelfarealliance.org. Click on ‘CHC TV’ on the Canine Health Concern website and you will see a prime-time documentary about pet food and vaccine risks. Catherine has just released two new books: The Tip of the Needle which looks into the politics and economics behind the vaccine industry, and The REAL Epidemic which explores the causes of the epidemic of allergies, autoimmunity, brain damage and cancer in this modern world, and offers natural solutions to both prevent and treat such conditions.

4 Comments

  • Throughout history new and seemingly radical ideas have always gone the same route: ignoring of them, then ridiculing them, then outright attacking them, including trying to have them banned, then acceptance.

    This is the reason why, although it seems hopeless at the moment, we can take heart. Gone are the days when we homeopaths were ignored, we are now in the second and third stages simultaneously. The more they attack us, they greater they see us as a ‘danger’ – to their authority, their prestige, and their incomes.

    THIS IS WHY WE MUST NOT GIVE UP – in fact we must redouble, triple, quadruple our efforts. It’s GREAT that we are being attacked – it shows that we are a force to be reckoned with – otherwise we would still be ignored. We must bombard the media with articles such as this one (vastly edited – it’s too long and self pitying), and when we meet opposition then keep bombarding, with every article supported by scientific evidence of homeopathic efficacy. And if there is no direct evidence, then give them cases – lots of them, case after case after case. And if the mainstream won’t publish, guess what? – we have a terrific tool – the Internet where we can publish anything we like. Just make sure we follow certain rules:

    DON’T:

    * rubbish the orthodox practitioners – this is their system, it’s all they know, and they do it to the best of their ability. And you will very quickly get the general public offside if you keep rubbishing what they have been told by their medical gods is the absolute truth.

    * be self pitying – we should be well past the era of grovelling and saying please, please listen, or if you can’t listen then just leave me alone to practise what I know and I won’t disturb anybody, I’ll just keep my head down and stay under the radar.

    DO:

    * keep backing up and referencing what you say – there’s so much evidence out there to support our claims about vaccinations, NSAIDS, antibiotics, pet diet etc.

    * keep things simple and as short as possible. People will simply not read anything too long these days – this is the era of quick bites. Better a series of short articles rather than one long one.

    * lobby your professional organisation to do this – often we don’t hear from these august bodies at all and it seems we are not supported. They keep telling us they are working behind the scenes, but I think it’s reached the point now where we must come out from behind those scenes.

    And best of all, we must keep up our hearts and contact with each other and support all our efforts. Don’t give up, don’t, as this author did, lose heart. Of COURSE it’s difficult. But we can do this.

    Would love to hear what others think.

    Liz

  • This is a parallel to what has happened in human health care, where the NHS has double-crossed homeopathy users too.
    Unfortunately the leading organisations of the homeopaths have been totally useless and thoroughly inadequate at countering the propaganda from SaS and the “skeptic” community (slavish followers of false authority who have turned the meaning of the word on its head)

    How can we actually combat the forces of evil & scientism? One way is to see the back of of inadequate representatives and elect people with some mettle. Another might be to organise social media properly, rather than in a wishy-washy style – so that when there are e-petitions they are actually heard about don’t just languish. Why are homeopaths avoiding being on official committees? Why are we not getting political representatives and authorities on our side? Why are we leaving the field open for followers of bogus scientism?

    Also, we need some ideas about how to get convincing research models into the mainstream, rather than methodologies which run counter to natural & holistic therapies. Bear in mind the conventional research model seeks to exclude considerations of the individual, so no wonder it does not recognise individualised therapies.
    This means it does not recognise a remedy that works well but only for a small select minority of patients with a particular diagnosis. The conventional model clearly fails when it comes to identifying dangerous adverse effects – some of which are found and acted on only years later – whereas this is not a problem in homeopathy. The conventional research model does not properly address multi-morbidity – a general failure of health over several conditions – whereas the holistic model does. In short, the conventional ‘science’ – which discards real clinical experience as if it didn’t matter – is not fit for purpose. But it will take some real effort to turn it around in a scientific context, since it suits the pharma model really well.

    Come on, homeopaths everywhere. We need to get our act together to counter the forces of evil.

  • I am not a learned individual unlike Catherine and Liz but I do know from experience with my dogs that homoeopathy works where conventional medicine fails. I want to keep my right to protect the animals for whom I am responsible from conventional medicine which may shorten their lives.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *