Positive Health Online

World-Renowned Government Research Department Misled Scientists and the Public Over Homeopathy

• Formal complaint to Commonwealth Ombudsman details inaccuracies, mishandling of evidence, and conflicts of interest;
• Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) now releases extensive analysis of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)’s misleading 2015 report;
• An anti-homeopathy effort scored an own-goal when NHMRC review violated the very scientific standards it sought to promote;
• Fiasco highlighted in Just One Drop, a new film on the controversy over evidence for homeopathy’s effectiveness. 

Dr Alex Tournier, Executive Director, Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI), explains: “The inaccuracies in NHMRC’s report are so extreme that we decided to work with the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) to conduct a thorough investigation to fully uncover exactly what went on.”  The film Just One Drop, which will premiere at London’s Curzon Soho on 6 April (7pm, BST), reveals a number of anomalies uncovered by the extensive investigation into NHMRC’s conduct: 

• NHMRC did the review twice. They rejected the first report, despite it being undertaken by a reputable scientist who is an author of NHMRC’s own guidelines on how to conduct reviews;
• The existence of the first report has never been disclosed to the public – it was only discovered by AHA through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests;
• NHMRC said the results of their 2015 report were based on a “rigorous assessment of over 1800 studies”. In fact results were based on only 176 studies;
• NHMRC used a method that has never been used in any other review, before or since.  NHMRC decided that for trials to be ‘reliable’ they had to have at least 150 participants and reach an unusually high threshold for quality. This is despite the fact that NHMRC itself routinely conducts studies with less than 150 participants;
• These unprecedented and arbitrary rules meant the results of 171 of the trials were completely disregarded as being ‘unreliable’ leaving only 5 trials NHMRC considered to be ‘reliable’;
• Professor Peter Brooks, Chair of the NHMRC committee that conducted the 2015 review, initially failed to declare that he was a member of the anti-homeopathy lobby group 'Friends of Science in Medicine';  
• In violation of NHMRC’s own guidelines there was not one homeopathy expert on the committee. 

Rachel Roberts, Chief Executive, Homeopathy Research Institute, “NHMRC’s review is just bad science. Decision-makers and the scientific community rely on these kinds of reports and need to trust their accuracy. This is not about anyone’s personal opinion as to whether homeopathy works or not. It is about the importance of evidence being reported objectively, whatever it says, and the NHMRC did not do that.”

HRI is not alone in criticising the accuracy of NHMRC’s findings. FOI requests have brought to light that two independent experts also raised concerns over the report’s conclusions during peer review, prior to final publication. The Australasian Cochrane Centre commented that for some conditions, “…. 'no reliable evidence' does not seem an accurate reflection of the body of evidence”; a second expert felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the Report’s conclusions”. 

Roberts says: “The public has a right to know that there are high quality studies showing homeopathy works for some medical conditions, such as hay fever,[1] sinusitis[2] and diarrhoea in children[3] – information that was lost only due to NHMRC’s mishandling of the evidence. If the evidence on conventional medicine was treated this way there would be an outcry – and rightly so. NHMRC’s job was to accurately summarize the body of evidence for homeopathy for the public, a task in which they categorically failed.” 

References

1. Reilly, D. T., Taylor, M. A., McSharry, C. & Aitchison, T. Is homoeopathy a placebo response? Controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model. Lancet (London, England), 2:881-886. 1986.

2. Zabolotnyi, D. I. et al. Efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) in patients with acute maxillary sinusitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. Explore (New York, N.Y.), 3:98-109. 2007.

3. Jacobs, J., Jonas, W. B., Jiménez-Pérez, M. & Crothers, D. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials, The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229-234. 2003.

Notes and Further Information

Executive Summary https://tinyurl.com/ExecSummaryOmbudsman  Extracted from the Submission to the Commonwealth Ombudsman by Complementary Medicines Australia, Australian Homoeopathic Association and Australian Traditional Medicine Society, submitted in August 2016.  HRI provided the scientific analysis for this submission. 

The Australian Report: an in depth analysis www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvF8KxbCXzA

Ms Rachel Roberts, CEO Homeopathy Research Institute presents key facts from HRI's in-depth scientific analysis of NHMRC's Homeopathy Review, demonstrating that the public were misled by serious misreporting of the evidence.

Further information

The Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) is an innovative international charity created to address the need for high quality scientific research in homeopathy. The charity was founded by physicist, Dr Alexander Tournier.

www.hri-research.org/about-hri/  www.HRI-Research.org/Australian-Report   

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is Australia’s leading expert body promoting the development and maintenance of public and individual health standards.  www.nhmrc.gov.au/about  

The Australian Homœopathic Association (AHA) is the only national association representing professional homœopaths in Australia.  www.homeopathyoz.org/about-aha.html

AHA’s complaint to the Australian Ombudsman was submitted jointly with Complementary Medicines Australia (CMA) and the Australian Traditional Medicine Society (ATMS). 

The Commonwealth Ombudsman considers and investigates complaints from people who believe they have been treated unfairly or unreasonably by an Australian Government department or agency.  www.ombudsman.gov.au/  

The Cochrane Collaboration is a global independent network of researchers, professionals, patients, carers, and people interested in health.  Their work is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. 

www.cochrane.org/about-us  

Source and Media Contact

Carolyn Howgego, HRI Communications Manager

Tel: 07596 833664;  carolynhowgego@hri-research.org 

Charity Commission Assessing Charities Associated with CAM

The Charity Commission have been asked to carry out an assessment of charities that offer, recommend or otherwise are involved in complementary medicine - in order to see whether their charitable status should remain or should be revoked.

They are seeking views on:

• The level and nature of evidence to support CAM;
• Conflicting and inconsistent evidence;
• Alternative therapies and the risk of harm;
• Palliative alternative therapy.

Please could you click here to read about the assessment.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-complementary-and-alternative-medicines?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14306-382130-Charity+Comission+attack+-+30%2F03%2F2017 

On this page there is a link for you to read the consultation document and also an email link for you to respond.

I believe that it is imperative for us all to respond to this call for information - especially if you are involved with CAMs in the charity sector. Thank you for taking the time to read this quick message from us at The Complementary Medical Association.

Source

Jayney Goddard MSc FCMA President, The Complementary Medical Association

Jayney Goddard jayney@the-cma.org.uk

The CMA Website: www.The-CMA.org.uk

Study Invites Participants:  Can Online Therapy Reduce Distress In Dementia Carers?

A new study is inviting people who care for someone with dementia to help investigate whether an online therapy can help carers cope with feeling of stress, anxiety or depression.

Researchers are looking for up to 750 carers from anywhere in the UK to sign up and assess whether an online programme called ‘Caring for Me and You’ can effectively reduce feelings of distress in carers.

The programme is comparing three different packages that have been tailored for people who support someone with dementia - a computerized Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (cCBT) package, with or without telephone support and an online psycho-education package.  

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) works on the principle that our thoughts, feelings and behaviour affect one another and therefore influence the way we provide care and support. Each package has written, audio and video information for carers to use. The packages are 20 sessions in total and each session lasts about 20 minutes, which can be completed at a time which most suits the carer over a period of up to six months.

The research is co-led by the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust and the Alzheimer’s Society.

Clive Ballard, Professor of Age-Related Diseases at the University of Exeter Medical School, is one of the lead investigators on the study, involved in the design and development of the study. He said: “Caring for someone with dementia can be rewarding, but also be stressful and frustrating. It can result in anxiety or depression, both in carers and in people with dementia. We need to find effective ways to support carers in looking after their own needs as well as the person they care for.

“Carers have traditionally found advice sessions helpful and early evidence indicates that online Cognitive Behavioural Therapy could also help reduce distress in carers, and we now need people to sign up to our trial to find robust answers on whether rolling this out could make a real difference and improve lives.”

Dr Jane Fossey, Associate Director of Psychological Services at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, said:

“We have consulted carers and used the latest evidence to tailor both the therapy and the educational package to the needs of people who care for someone with dementia.”

“We now want to know how effective they are, and whether the online approach works to give convenience and flexibility. By signing up, carers will receive tailored online support, whilst helping us collect the evidence to create strategies that really help support carers.”

Participants will receive either CBT sessions online, or a high-quality education and information package online, with a sub group also receiving telephone support. The three arms of the study will allow researchers to analyse whether any of the three approaches makes a meaningful difference to carers.

Dr Doug Brown, Director of Research and Development at Alzheimer’s Society said: “Even in areas where face to face therapy is available, carers tell us finding time to attend sessions or organizing cover for the person with dementia can be very challenging or stressful. Being able to log on at home and access online therapy has the potential to transform the lives of tens of thousands of carers and help support their health and wellbeing which can often be overlooked.

“We’re calling on carers to join the study to help us find out what kind of online support can help carers to manage stress, anxiety and depression.”

The research team is looking for carers who provide practical or emotional support to someone with dementia  and are experiencing  some stress or low mood. Participants must be over 18, live in the UK, and be comfortable using a PC or Windows laptop and have an internet connection.

Heavy Toll of Dementia Care

The strain of caring for two parents with dementia took a heavy toll on Madeleine Maddocks. At her depths, she became severely depressed and was diagnosed with Graves’ Disease, an overactive thyroid exacerbated by stress.

Mrs Maddocks, who lives in South Devon, was 42 when her father was first diagnosed. She described the physical and emotional drain of caring remotely for her parents, Stuart and Jan, who lived between Bristol and Bath. Although more than 100 miles away, Mrs Maddocks was on call 24/7 and often made the trip when her phone rang in the middle of the night.

Her father, Stuart, was diagnosed in 2005, at the age of 71 and died nine years later In 2014. The lowest ebb for Mrs Maddocks was when her mother, Jan, also received a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s in 2013. She died just 18 months after her diagnosis.

Mrs Maddocks said she grieved her parents from the point of diagnosis, while trying to cope with the emotional drain of caring for them.  “I was incredibly depressed, anxious and completely exhausted all the time. My husband said he felt like he was a carer for me. I became a victim - I was just so crushed by it all. At that point I was diagnosed with Graves’ Disease, which has particular complications when combined with stress. “I experienced symptoms such as extreme fatigue, forgetfulness, eyesight deterioration, hand tremors and trouble sleeping.”

Mrs Maddocks tried counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy, but said the service seemed over-subscribed and she was constantly afraid an appointment would clash with the need to head off to attend to her parents. “I really welcome the online nature of the Caring4MeandYou programme,” she said. “When you’re in that position, it’s hard to find the strength, confidence and time to go to support groups. Having something online is much more flexible and accessible. I think it will help a lot of people, as a vital first step.”

Mrs Maddocks is now starting to rebuild her own life. “I used to wonder if I would ever feel happy again. Now I do have moments of happiness, but I’ll always carry the sadness of those years.”

Further Information

The trial is recruiting until the end of April. To find out more, visit www.caringformeandyou.org.uk

Source

Louise Vennells <l.vennells@exeter.ac.uk>

The CDC Made These Two Radical Changes; 30,000 Diagnoses of Polio Disappeared

Reproduced from https://vactruth.com/2015/07/05/cdc-made-polio-disappear/

The graph is from the Ratner report,[1] the transcript of a 1960 panel sponsored by the Illinois Medical Society, on which sat three PhD statisticians and an MD, met to discuss the problems with the ongoing polio vaccination campaign.

The polio vaccine was licensed in the US in 1954. From ‘50 thru ‘55, the striped and clear portions of the bars represent about 85% of the reported cases, or 30,000 per year, on average. Those cases were automatically eliminated by two radical changes the CDC made to the diagnostic parameters and labelling protocol of the disease as soon as the vaccine was licensed – 30,000 cases a year we were subsequently told were eliminated by the vaccine.

That success, held aloft as a banner of the industry, is an illusion. The CDC has an awesome power of control over public perception, sculpting it from behind closed doors in Atlanta, with the point of a pen.

Over the last sixty years in the US, more than a million cases of what would have been diagnosed as polio pre-vaccine - same symptoms - were given different labels. The change didn’t stop there, however. As addressed in the Ratner report, they also changed the definition of a polio epidemic, greatly reducing the likelihood that any subsequent outbreaks would be so labelled - as though the severity, or noteworthiness, of paralytic polio had halved, overnight. It’s summed up thusly in the report:

Presently [1960], a community is considered to have an epidemic when it has 35 cases of polio per year per 100,000 population. Prior to the introduction of the Salk vaccine the National Foundation defined an epidemic as 20 or more cases of polio per year per 100,000 population. On this basis there were many epidemics throughout the United States yearly. The present higher rate has resulted in not a real, but a semantic elimination of epidemics.

And that’s precisely what happened to polio: not a real, but a semantic elimination of the disease. In the decades following the release of the vaccine, additional changes were made to the diagnostic parameters of the disease, changes involving analysis of cerebrospinal fluid and stool and additional testing,[2] each succeeding change making it less and less likely that a diagnosis of paralytic polio would result.

And, critically, before the vaccine was licensed polio diagnoses were made clinically and accepted from around the nation, duly reported to the American public annually as polio, no lab analysis required, while after it was licensed only the CDC was - and is - allowed to issue confirmations of paralytic polio - all suspected cases had to be sent to them for analysis and testing.[3]

Again, perception is key. Because of the persistent pre-vaccine news coverage of the disease, including film footage of paralytic polio victims in leg braces, or immobilized, strapped to huge, inclined boards, or housed in foreboding iron lungs, the public pictured the thousands of kids reported with polio each year as suffering terribly, when in truth the pictures involved only a fraction of a percent of the diagnosed cases. Moreover, while for many the perception was that the iron lung was a permanent fixture, in the majority of cases the machine was needed only temporarily - generally about one to two weeks.[4]

The arbitrariness of the change in the diagnostic parameter of paralytic polio, from one day of paralysis to two months, resulting specifically in the elimination of all the cases represented by the striped portions of the bars in the graph, is remarkable. Indeed, the very idea that the length of time you’re ill determines the disease is remarkable!, and flies in the face of the science of virology.

Were you to apply the same logic to measles diagnostics, for instance, and add the requirement of a rash that lasts ten days, the disease would be eradicated, since the measles rash lasts from three to five days. To the point, had they made the requirement three months of paralysis instead of two, several additional thousands of cases of paralytic polio would simply and immediately have fallen off the diagnostic plate, hastening the illusion of complete eradication.

All of the non-paralytic cases, represented by the clear portions of the bars in the graph, and which pre-vaccine were the majority of cases reported simply as polio each year, were discarded completely!, reclassified. A search through public health department disease statistics reveals that in the US those cases were basically handled as they were in Canada:

It may be noted that the Dominion Council of Health at its 74th meeting in October 1958 recommended that for the purposes of national reporting and statistics the term non-paralytic poliomyelitis be replaced by “meningitis, viral or aseptic” with the specific viruses shown where known.[5]

Somewhat remarkable too, eh?, that virtually overnight an entire category of disease is simply abandoned; replaced.

The current non-use of the iron lung is often pointed out by vaccine proponents as proof of the success of the polio vaccine, but that, too, is an illusion; years ago it was replaced by much smaller, portable respirators, some body worn, some bedside - and much in use today.

You’ve gotta give ‘em credit for the hubris. Vaccine proponents will actually cite the fact that many illnesses were misdiagnosed as polio pre-vaccine, attempting to explain why the changes following its licensing were necessary, not necessarily nefarious. But as always, perception is the key, as in any magic act, and the CDC on its website continues to forward the illusion they themselves created:

How Common was Polio in the United States?

Polio was one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th century in the United States. [Periodic epidemics increased] in size and frequency in the late 1940s and early 1950s. An average of over 35,000 cases were reported during this time period. With the introduction of Salk inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in 1955, the number of cases rapidly declined to under 2,500 cases in 1957. By 1965, only 61 cases of paralytic polio were reported.[6]

In reality, the charade was continuing right on schedule: Of the “35,000 cases of polio reported on average in the late 1940s and early 1950s”, only 15,000 were paralytic - the reduction to 2,500 cases of paralytic polio in 1957, and the complete disappearance of all the non-paralytic cases, was a direct result of the diagnostic changes. It’s smoke ‘n mirrors.

There are a few more puzzle pieces which help complete the picture, the unavoidably undeniable pattern, of conscious, purposeful manipulation of statistics:

In the 90s, “polio eradication initiatives” were implemented in India and Africa. The WHO quickly established the same diagnostic changes in those nations as were made in the US in 1955. The result, as expected, was the announcement two years ago that India is now polio free. What the WHO so conveniently omitted was any mention of the skyrocketing incidence, in both nations, of acute flaccid paralysis,[7] clinically identical to polio, and following in the wake of the use of the oral polio vaccine, abandoned fifteen years ago in the US because it triggers Vaccine Associated Paralytic Polio:

To eliminate the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP), as of January 1, 2000, OPV was no longer recommended for routine immunization in the United States.[8]

As you can see, the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis quickly soared to tens of thousands, far surpassing the 1996 incidence of polio. Midst the labelling deceptions lies another insidious character trait of the vaccine industry. During the polio epidemics in the 40s and 50s in the US, one doctor - Fred Klenner MD - cured every one of the sixty polio patients he treated, some of them paralyzed, using massive injections of vitamin C. Astoundingly, after summarizing his work, his success, at the annual AMA meeting in 1949, Dr Klenner received neither questions nor comment from his colleagues, and no mention of it was ever made to the American public.[9]

The nut: the eradication of polio is a total sham, an example of trust misplaced, of power and control run amok. It’s indicative of every aspect of the vaccination paradigm, propelled by a baseless, industry-constructed fear of infectious disease, statistical manipulation and withholding of critical information, and sustained, ironically, by the very and insidious nature of vaccine injury, the bulk of which displays temporally well divorced from the act of the vaccination, obfuscating causal relation.

References

1. http://www.greatmothersquestioningvaccines.com/…
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#cite_note-PinkBook2009-1
3. Suspected cases of poliomyelitis must be reported immediately to local or state health departments. CDC compiles and summarizes clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory data concerning suspected cases. Three independent experts review the data and determine whether a suspected case meets the clinical case definition of paralytic poliomyelitis: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/…
4. Historically, a noninvasive, negative-pressure ventilator, more commonly called an iron lung, was used to artificially maintain respiration during an acute polio infection until a person could breathe independently (generally about one to two weeks). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#Paralytic_polio
5. From: Poliomyelitis Trends published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, Canada; Catalog No. 82-204. 1958.
6. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm
7. https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx
8. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/
9. http://www.doctoryourself.com/klennerbio.html

Acknowledgement

Reproduced from https://vactruth.com/2015/07/05/cdc-made-polio-disappear/

Scientists Discover Mechanism That Causes Cancer Cells to Self-destruct

Reproduced from www.aftau.org/weblog-medicine--health?=&storyid4704=2322&ncs4704=3&erid=6394671

Modifying specific proteins during cancer cell division unleashes a natural killing mechanism

Many cancer patients struggle with the adverse effects of chemotherapy, still the most prescribed cancer treatment. For patients with pancreatic cancer and other aggressive cancers, the forecast is more grim: there is no known effective therapy.

A new Tel Aviv University study published last month in Oncotarget discloses the role of three proteins in killing fast-duplicating cancer cells while they're dividing.[1] The research, led by Prof. Malka Cohen-Armon of TAU's Sackler School of Medicine, finds that these proteins can be specifically modified during the division process - mitosis - to unleash an inherent ‘death mechanism’ that self-eradicates duplicating cancer cells.

"The discovery of an exclusive mechanism that kills cancer cells without impairing healthy cells, and the fact that this mechanism works on a variety of rapidly proliferating human cancer cells, is very exciting," Prof. Cohen-Armon said. "According to the mechanism we discovered, the faster cancer cells proliferate, the faster and more efficiently they will be eradicated. The mechanism unleashed during mitosis may be suitable for treating aggressive cancers that are unaffected by traditional chemotherapy.

"Our experiments in cell cultures tested a variety of incurable human cancer types - breast, lung, ovary, colon, pancreas, blood, brain," Prof. Cohen-Armon continued. "This discovery impacts existing cancer research by identifying a new specific target mechanism that exclusively and rapidly eradicates cancer cells without damaging normally proliferating human cells."

The research was conducted in collaboration with Prof. Shai Izraeli and Dr Talia Golan of the Cancer Research Center at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, and Prof. Tamar Peretz, head of the Sharett Institute of Oncology at Hadassah Medical Center, Ein Kerem.

A New Target for Cancer Research

The newly-discovered mechanism involves the modification of specific proteins that affect the construction and stability of the spindle, the microtubular structure that prepares duplicated chromosomes for segregation into ‘daughter’ cells during cell division.

The researchers found that certain compounds called Phenanthridine derivatives were able to impair the activity of these proteins, which can distort the spindle structure and prevent the segregation of chromosomes. Once the proteins were modified, the cell was prevented from splitting, and this induced the cell's rapid self-destruction.

"The mechanism we identified during the mitosis of cancer cells is specifically targeted by the Phenanthridine derivatives we tested," Prof. Cohen-Armon said. "However, a variety of additional drugs that also modify these specific proteins may now be developed for cancer cell self-destruction during cell division. The faster the cancer cells proliferate, the more quickly they are expected to die."

Research was conducted using both cancer cell cultures and mice transplanted with human cancer cells. The scientists harnessed biochemical, molecular biology and imaging technologies to observe the mechanism in real time. In addition, mice transplanted with triple negative breast cancer cells, currently resistant to available therapies, revealed the arrest of tumour growth.

"Identifying the mechanism and showing its relevance in treating developed tumours opens new avenues for the eradication of rapidly developing aggressive cancers without damaging healthy tissues," said Prof. Cohen-Armon.

The researchers are currently investigating the potential of one of the Phenanthridine derivatives to treat two aggressive cancers known to be unresponsive to current chemotherapy: pancreatic cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

Reference

1. Leonid Visochek, Asher Castiel, Leonid Mittelman, Michael Elkin, Dikla Atias, Talia Golan, Shai Izraeli, Tamar Peretz, Malka Cohen-Armon. Exclusive destruction of mitotic spindles in human cancer cells. Oncotarget, 2017; DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15343 www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget/index.php?journal=oncotarget&page=article&op=view&path%5b%5d=15343

Further Information

Source: George Hunka, American Friends of Tel Aviv University ghunka@aftau.org

www.aftau.org/weblog-medicine--health?=&storyid4704=2322&ncs4704=3&erid=6394671

Vets4InformedChoice.org

Veterinary homeopathy and vets who are practising Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM)  are experiencing attacks at present. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) position and guidance on Homeopathy and CAM will be considered at the June Council this year.  www.vets4informedchoice.org  was set up to gather addresses of people who could help, and to campaign for veterinarians who practise homeopathy and CAM.

Vets4InformedChoice has been set up to raise awareness of the Evidence Base (or lack of) for many current Veterinary Practices, enabling animal owners and guardians to make considered responsible choices without pressure from the Veterinary Industry.

Concerns over frequent and unnecessary Vaccination, Corporatization of Veterinary Clinics, Pressure Selling of products and services etc. are widespread and growing. Anyone who puts their head above the parapet within the profession risks their career, with just one example being the current campaign to ban Vets from prescribing Homeopathy, and to restrict Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM).

Vets utilizing CAM as part of their clinical approach are great observers of matters, seeing and often fixing daily the failures of the conventional approach to therapy. They have been proven right many times, not least in exposing the lack of need for annual vaccines, confirmed by the mainstream industry’s own data and research. However, vaccination drives footfall, product sales and more, and many Vets base a significant part of marketing on the practice, so there is a reluctance to change and reduce their administration. Vets using CAM now face a campaign within the profession to restrict and or ban their practices in the UK.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced a review of its position statement and guidance regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicines, but is it fit to do so? With Council Members openly supporting the campaign against CAM, no representation from those affected (the Vets and the owners of animals depending on them), and the Veterinary press publishing almost weekly denigrating attacks, it seems impossible that Vets using CAM can survive, and animals benefitting from such therapies will be denied care.

Our first campaign is to raise awareness of these issues, get the public to write to the Minister, their MPs, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Press to get their voices heard.

We will be adding articles and content soon to more pages

If you want to help please sign up to our Campaign, and we will send you updates and who to contact as events unfold.

Further Information:

For Further Information and to sign up to the Campaign please visit www.vets4informedchoice.org