The Chairman, 

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 

An open letter to RCVS 

Veterinary training, and attitudes around dog vaccination 

Dear RCVS,

I write to you regarding the standard of education, training and attitude of veterinary staff around dog vaccinations.

We are told that The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) sets, upholds, and advances veterinary standards to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare, including regulating veterinary education, maintaining a register of qualified vets and nurses, and regulating professional conduct.

Key Functions:

• Setting and Upholding Standards:

• Setting the standards for veterinary education, ethical conduct, and clinical practice, ensuring the quality of veterinary services.

An FOI request to all the UK Veterinary Training establishments in 2024 showed just how serious the situation around vaccines and lack of basic knowledge by vets actually is. 

The FOI (attached at the end of this letter) shows that RCVS has failed to keep apace of vaccinations and ensuring that vets and vet staff are trained around the vaccination topic. 

The British Veterinary Association (BVA), British Small Animals Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and DEFRA’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) all openly encourage vets to report all possible cases of Adverse Reaction Events (ARE). And yet vets across the country go out of their way to dismiss claims of ARE as just a coincidence. 

Pet owners are now starting to feel that vaccinations, especially the L4 vaccine is being promoted to cause illnesses in dogs, with vets knowing that the dog owner will pay thousands of pounds in an attempt to get their dog back to full health. 

Social media now has too many stories of; 

1. Vets arguing and shouting at owners, whilst trying to force a Lepto vaccination on the dog, because the vet thinks it is the vet’s right to vaccinate the dog. 

2. Vets telling the owner that the owner is killing the dog by not having the L4 vaccine. 

3. Of taking dogs “out the back” to give it any vaccination instead of in front of the owner. 

4. Of vaccinating dogs who have underlying health issues, when all the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) clearly states that only healthy dogs should be vaccinated. 

5. Of advising owners that the ARE is usually just a lump at the site of injection, when it can lead to lifechanging conditions, and death. Appendix D 

6. Of advising owners that reports of death from vaccines is just social media hype. See appendix D 

7. Of charging owners for the treatment and cure of the ARE symptoms, which increases vet income. 

8. Of being adamant that DHP must be diluted with Lepto in order to be given, when Diluent is made by the pharmaceuticals for the sole purpose of reconstituting the DHP powder without using Lepto. 

9. Of giving DHP every year, when the SPC of most DHP vaccines states:- once at a young age, and then every three years. 

10. Of never discussing Titre testing, when DHP has been shown to provide 7 to 9 years of protection. 

11. Of Receptionists quoting Titre costs to IDEXX at some £250 to £300, when other laboratories such as Glasgow Uni and Dragon Laboratory in Wales do gold standard titre tests for around £45. 

12. Of Vet practices signing up with Vacci-check to be a registered Vacci-check centre, to draw the public in, and then quoting IDEXX prices to the registered client. 

13. Of vets wrongly believing that ARE can only happen within a couple of hours of vaccination. 

14. Of vets rejecting claims of ARE, and claiming “it’s just a coincidence” to avoid responsibility – which misleads VMD into how acceptable/suitable L4 vaccines are. 

15. Of complete lack of training around what an ARE can be. 

16. Of vets obstructing the progress and improvements of animal vaccines by refusing to report and accept an ARE to vaccines. The only way to improve vaccines is to be open, honest, accept, and report all potential AREs. 

17. Of vet Pathologists conducting autopsy, and using other excuses to dismiss any reported ARE as the cause of death. 

18. That vets falsely claim outbreaks of Leptospirosis in their area, without providing details of which strain, Serovar or Serogroup of lepto is causing the claimed outbreak. 

19. That vets claim that identifying the strain of lepto is exceedingly expensive, whilst Animal and Plant Health Agency charge £43 +vat for their 19 Serovar test. Appendix A. 

20. That vets claim that L4 will protect the client’s dog from lepto, when the Lepto vaccine does not prevent the dog from catching lepto. 

21. That vets claim that L4 will protect clients dogs from Lepto, when there are some 14 Sergroups clinically proven by APHA to be in Great Britain. Appendix B. 

22. That vets are claiming L2 vaccine is no longer made and people will have to use the L4 vaccine. 

23. That vets are claiming L2 vaccine is no longer made and will not be available to any vet in the country, when Virbac and Zoetis have both recently confirmed continued availability of their L2 vaccines. Appendix C. 

24. Of vet surgeries refusing to take on new dogs unless a vaccination record of up to date Lepto vaccines is provided. 

25. Of trained vets claiming that nosodes will protect the client’s dog from Lepto, when the nosode has not been submitted for clinical trials, or approved by any official body. 

26. Of trained, RCVS registered vets selling unapproved, untested nosodes to the public for dog health. 

But let me you give you some background on my reason for submitting those FOIs to the vet training establishments in the first place. 

In 2016, after receiving L2 vaccines for 8 years without issue, my cavalier with a 3/5 heart murmur wrongly received an L4 injection, due to his heart. 5 days later he collapsed whilst following me up the stairs. Three Vets claimed it was just a coincidence and, whilst placing him on heart meds due to his murmur now being a 5/5, strongly recommended the second vaccination at the 4 week point. He had the second L4 vaccine, the heart went to 6/6, and was put on diuretics. 5 days after the second L4, he drowned in his own fluids. Vets agreed it was caused by the L4, the manufacturer agreed to pay for the autopsy. The Pathologist at RVC Hatfield deemed that as the dog was a cavalier, then death by heart should be expected, and dismissed the Adverse Reaction Event (ARE). If the Pathologist had spoken to the owner, and watched the video placed on YouTube, then there is no doubt that the ARE would have been upheld. You can make your own minds up by watching the video. He was a happy, generally healthy and active cavalier before the L4. This video was filmed after I was told to “Just wait for the diuretics to do their job!” 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg7hL8hsJq0 

or search Youtube for “After Lepto vaccination - Alfie now with water retention affecting breathing - MDV Cavalier” 

Whilst ARE to L4 are classed as Rare, data from VMD shows the risk of death officially results to some 100 dogs a year dying from the vaccination – and that’s after a number of ARE reports have been rejected. So the death rate could be double what is shown by VMD. The number of dogs having a life changing condition is not recorded. But of course, the issue remains of vets rejecting the claim of ARE. 

VMD’s official vaccine sales and reported ARE figures are displayed at Appendix D. They are updated by FOI every year, and displayed on the Lepto.co.uk website for ease of access. https://www.lepto.co.uk/sales-and-adverse-reactions 

Following Alfie’s death, I started to read up and learn about vaccinations, Summary Product Characteristics (SPCs), etc. Because I’d trusted my vets as being a source of informed, educated and experienced information, I was rather shocked to learn that my boy had been over vaccinated by receiving DHP every year, when the SPC states of every three years. 

I tried to submit a Parliamentary Petition about Lepto L4 vaccinations, and the ARE. Interesting that the Parliamentary Petitions team rejected my Alfie’s Lepto petition in 2016, because they think Lepto is a brand name and refused to accept that it is a bacterium. 

In 2017 I created www.Lepto.co.uk to promote my Alfie’s petition, mainly to separate the Lepto issue away from my Doretdog.com website, which is a general fun dog show advice, and dog ownership advice website. 

In 2017 I held a petition on Change.org, signed by some 2500 UK residents, submitted to VMD and EMA, calling to suspend L4 vaccinations until more trials are conducted. The joint response dismissed the concerns. Both the petition and response can be viewed on the Lepto.co.uk website at https://www.lepto.co.uk/vmd-ema-response-to-alfie-petition 

I now run and am a member of a number of dog vaccine discussion groups on Facebook. Whilst there is a real issue of invasion by the Anti-vax brigade, there are also the Nosode brigade calling for people to use an untested, unapproved product sold by trained vets to protect people’s dogs from Lepto. Cuba is frequently misquoted. 

On these Facebook groups, one group with some 42 thousand members, we are regularly seeing vets, vet nurses and animal care students asking for members to complete the student’s online surveys conducted for their university course studies. The questions asked includes questions like “What education do you need in order for you to vaccinate your dog with L4.” This question because of the growing number of owners rejecting the L4. 

One of the most worrying parts in all of this, is all the reports of vets rejecting claims of ARE to the vaccines. This is something I faced myself, when my boy went from a generally healthy, happy cavalier to a blue tongued, blue gummed dog within 5 days of the L4. All three vets who rejected the Adverse Reaction, all conceded that it was an ARE when his heart reacted again to the second jab. ARE do not just happen within hours of an injection, and the SPC really does need to state that ARE can include life changing conditions and death. VMD have officially stated that they are aware of under reporting of dog vaccine AREs, something that is carried over to the Government website on their Vaccination topics page.

 www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaccination-of-dogs/vaccination-topics 

Perhaps Lepto vaccines should be given one month after any other vaccine has been given, to help identify the Lepto ARE rather than combined with DHPPi/L ARE? 

In 2024, becoming so concerned with the attitudes of young vets towards vaccinations, I submitted an FOI to every UK vet training school. The compiled responses to 12 questions is attached to the end of this letter. 

The issue is that people who want to put their dogs into kennels, or attend dog training classes are required to have their dogs vaccinated with Lepto. Whilst I’m not a vet, and not an Anti-vaccine person, I’m aware that reactions to L4 are much higher than reactions to L2. I’m aware that Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD have dropped the L2 vaccines. Many vets and vet receptionists are now wrongly saying that L2 has been discontinued and L4 is the only option. But Virbac and Zoetis have both recently confirmed in 2025 that they will be continuing to make L2 vaccines for the foreseeable future. So, dog owners have a choice to either find a practice that stocks L2, or to not vaccinate against Lepto at all. 

Perhaps one day we will have dog vaccines that do not have any adverse reactions that result in death and life changing conditions. 

So I ask RCVS as to what RCVS will do to address the numbered points at the start of this letter, and provide evidence of that course of action. 

Yours 

Mark Ellis 

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

The above letter can be viewed as a PDF at 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GT_BLjRhRTr2KT8zOfwm3TCM9nGnkPG0/view?usp=sharing

From : RCVS

To : Mark Ellis

Tue 29/04/2025

Dear Mr Ellis,

Thank you for your letter dated 6 April 2024 (received 6 April 2025) and for taking the time to express your concerns regarding the standard of education, training and attitude of veterinary staff around dog vaccinations. We were also very sorry to hear about Alfie’s unexpected death.

I also confirm receipt of your email dated 9 April attaching the 2024 SAVSnet paper and am aware of your petition to the BVA.

Before moving to the specific issues you have raised, it may be useful if I explain the RCVS’ remit at the outset. We are the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses in the UK, and only those on our registers may practise veterinary surgery (subject to limited exceptions set out in legislation) or call themselves vets.  As you have mentioned, our aim is to set, uphold and maintain veterinary standards. We do this in a number of ways, including by setting minimum standards for education and via our Code of Professional Conduct (‘the Code’) and its supporting guidance which tells the professions what standards we expect them to meet. Notwithstanding this, generally, we do not interfere with matters of clinical and professional judgment, for example, whether vaccination is required and/or which vaccine to recommend, as these will depend on a number of factors that the individual vet treating an animal in question is best placed to judge.

Veterinary education

In terms of veterinary undergraduate education, the RCVS Standards for Accreditation set out the requirements of university veterinary schools and veterinary degree programmes for them to be recognised by the RCVS, and consequently their graduates being eligible for entry on to our register.  Standards are designed to be achievable regardless of the curriculum model, so tend to be written as high level principles rather than being very specific.  However, one requirement for students is that they must be assessed as being Day One Competent (D1C) upon graduation, and some of the issues raised in your correspondence form part of the following D1Cs:

1 - Act professionally, as informed by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.

Additional guidance:  The RCVS Code of Professional Conduct is available on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetcode. The Code sets out veterinary surgeons’ professional responsibilities, and along with supporting guidance provides advice on the proper standards of professional practice.

2 - Act in a way that shows understanding of ethical and legal responsibilities, appropriately balancing competing interests.

Additional guidance:  To abide by the principles in the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons need to be able to make professional judgements based on sound principles. They must be able to think through the dilemmas they face when presented with conflicting priorities and be prepared to justify the decisions they make. As well as decisions relating to individual patients, animal groups, populations of animals and clients, veterinary surgeons must take account of the possible impact of their actions beyond the immediate workplace, for example, on public health, the environment and society more generally.

4 - Apply principles of clinical governance.

Additional guidance: More guidance on clinical governance is included in the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct. It includes critically analysing the best available evidence for procedures used, reflecting on performance and critical events and learning from the outcome to make changes to one’s practice.

17 - Communicate effectively with clients, the public, professional colleagues and responsible authorities, using language appropriate to the audience concerned.

Additional guidance:  Effective communication includes active listening and responding appropriately, both verbally and non-verbally, depending on the context.

18 - Demonstrate inclusivity and cultural competence, and encourage diverse contributions within the workplace.

Additional guidance: Cultural competence is the ability to understand, communicate with and effectively interact with people from all cultures. The veterinary profession is diverse, and veterinary surgeons will need to act professionally and show a respect for colleagues from all backgrounds.

In terms of prescribing and reporting adverse events, again we have specific D1Cs relating to these:

7 - Prescribe and dispense medicines correctly and responsibly in accordance with legislation and latest guidance including published sheets.

Additional guidance: New graduates must understand the requirements of the “Cascade” in prescribing. In particular, when prescribing or using antimicrobial agents, care must be taken to minimise the risk of antimicrobial resistance, risks to food safety, and risks to the person dispensing or damage to the environment.

8 - Report suspected adverse reactions effectively.

Additional guidance: The veterinary surgeon should follow the Veterinary Medicines Directorate procedures for reporting.

16 - Promote health and safety of patients, clients and colleagues in the veterinary setting, including applying the principles of risk management to practice.

Additional guidance: This includes knowledge and explanation of the procedure for reporting adverse incidents and the procedures for avoiding them. It also includes following safe practices relating to the dangers in the workplace.

As such, upon completing their studies, we do expect graduates to be aware of their obligations to prescribe responsibly and to report adverse reactions appropriately. We carry out regular accreditation visits to all vet schools to ensure that the curriculum being delivered meets our accreditation standards, and we will continue to do so going forward. We will also raise the issues you have mentioned at our next meeting with the Vet Schools Council, which includes representatives from all UK vet schools.

RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and Supporting guidance

As regards breaches of our Code and supporting guidance, our legislation allows us to take action where individual veterinary surgeons’ or veterinary nurses’ conduct falls far below the expected standard. This is a high bar to meet and reflects the fact that the sanctions we can impose via our disciplinary process are severe, namely temporary or permanent removal from the register.  As you will appreciate, not every departure from the Code or Guidance will cross that threshold and where this is the case, the Veterinary Client Mediation Service may be able to assist. In order for an investigation into a vet or nurse’s conduct to begin, a formal concern must be raised.

Moving now to the points set out in your letter, you have asked ‘what RCVS will do to address [them], and provide evidence of that course of action’. In our view, the points you have raised – numbered 1-26 – fall into the following, overarching categories:

1. Vets being unprofessional/rude and putting pressure on clients (points 1, 2, 3 and 24)

2. Vets being dishonest, e.g. misleading clients, not giving clients all relevant information, inflating costs (points 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 (if deliberate) 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25)

3. Vets not following the summary of product characteristics (‘SPC’) (points 4, 9)

4. Vets in breach of Veterinary Medicines Legislation and guidance issued by Veterinary Medicines Directorate (‘VMD’), including failure to report adverse reaction events (points 16, 25, 26)

5. Vets lacking competence/knowledge re prescribing vaccines (points 13, 14 and 15)

We wish to make clear that the points you have raised are already covered by our existing Code obligations. Based on the information you have provided, you may feel that the following Code requirements are relevant:

1 Veterinary surgeons must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals.

1.3  Veterinary surgeons must provide veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.

1.5  Veterinary surgeons who prescribe, supply and administer medicines must do so responsibly.

2.1  Veterinary surgeons must be open and honest with clients and respect their needs and requirements.

2.2  Veterinary surgeons must provide independent and impartial advice and inform a client of any conflict of interest.

2.4  Veterinary surgeons must communicate effectively with clients, including in written and spoken English, and ensure informed consent is obtained before treatments or procedures are carried out.

2.7  Veterinary surgeons must respond promptly, fully and courteously to clients’ complaints and criticism. 

3.3  Veterinary surgeons must maintain and develop the knowledge and skills relevant to their professional practice and competence, and comply with RCVS requirements on the Veterinary Graduate Development Programme (VetGDP) / Professional Development Phase (PDP) and continuing professional development (CPD).

6.4  Veterinary surgeons must comply with legislation relevant to the provision of veterinary services. 

6.5  Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or under­mine public confidence in the profession

As outlined above, where a vet or nurse has acted in a way that potentially falls far below of the expectations set out in the Code, the appropriate course of action is to raise a concern about the individual’s conduct. As such, we would urge anyone who has witnessed, or has evidence of, vets or registered veterinary nurses behaving in the ways you have described, particularly the behaviour that involves pressurising clients and dishonesty (i.e. categories (a) and (b) above), to raise concerns with us so we can investigate. Please note however, that in order to progress any concerns raised, we do require the names of the individuals involved and direct evidence of the alleged misconduct. You can find out more about raising concerns on our website. You can also discuss how to raise a concern with us and the investigatory process with our concerns team on 020 7202 0789 or you can complete our online enquiries form.

In addition, breaches of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 (as amended) and guidance issued by the VMD, as well as not prescribing in line with the SPC, (i.e. categories (c) and (d) above) can also be reported to the VMD’s enforcement team either via an online form or by calling 01932 338 338.

We hope this information assists, and thank you again for getting in touch.

Kind regards,

XXXX

XXXX XXXX

Head of Legal Services (Standards)

Executive Office

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Mark Ellis

12th May 2025

The full Council, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

An open letter to RCVS Council for Action required due to RCVS failure to Monitor Veterinary training and attitudes around dog vaccination

Dear RCVS Council,

I acknowledge the email from XXXX XXXX, Head of Legal Services (Standards) dated 29th April 2025. Also of the two documents in response to my FOI of 30th April 2025.

It would appear that the RCVS Chairman may have misinterpreted my open letter of 6th April 2025, misdated as 2024. To be clear, the letter is about the lack of consistent training around vaccinations and ARE across the country’s Vet education establishments. This has led to vets not being clear on vaccination legislation and guidelines, despite the RCVS Codes. The most concerning being of vets belief that all dogs should be vaccinated with Lepto, irrespective of health, and of vets (inc. pathologists) dismissing ARE as coincidence – partially due to the 2016 BVA statement. The BVA issue is being addressed by a 6000 signature strong petition.

I’m aware that due to complaints about dogs being over-vaccinated, receiving unnecessary vaccinations, vaccinating unhealthy dogs, etc, that RCVS and VMD released a joint statement in 2018. Statement attached to this letter. It is clear from the continued attitude and behaviour of vets, that RCVS have failed completely to improve and monitor training, despite it being a core Statutory duty.

I’m aware of RCVS unproductive “Report a vet to the RCVS” process, and of the vet not even having to agree to engage in complaints against them. So to clarify, the numbered items in my open letter are not about singular vets, but have been witnessed by a number of clients against a number of vets across the country for every item. So XXX's response, suggesting that clients should report vets is the incorrect response to my letter.

The question is,

A) What will RCVS do to ensure that training establishments will give clear advice and instruction around vaccinations, ARE and local disease issues - to ensure that all vets and vet nurses engage in a national standard of comprehensive and constructive lessons about vaccinations and ARE.

B) What will RCVS do to monitor that all education establishments are teaching to that RCVS criteria.

C) What will RCVS do to inform existing vets that they should all be following this criteria, i.e. a new, clearer newsletter?

I look forward to the board’s consideration of the above points, as to date, RCVS have failed in their statutory duty to set and monitor training around Vaccinations.

Yours

Mark Ellis