Friday, August 29, 2008

2 Counts of Substandard Care and 5 Recordkeeping Violations for Maryland Vet Richard Springer

This entry is about Richard Springer, of Brandywine Animal Hospital in Clinton, Maryland.

In early 2005, an owner brought "her dog 'Baby,' a four-year old male Yorkshire Terrier, to Dr. Springer for veterinary care, believing that her dog was constipated. According to the Veterinary Board's charging documents, in her complaint against Dr. Springer, [the owner] noted that Baby had been 'acting strangely' and yelped whenever he was picked up. In his written response [to the complaint] Dr. Springer noted that Baby was presented for 'pain.'

"In his written response to [the complaint], Dr. Springer also noted the following: (a) Baby had never been to his office and had no history of being seen by a veterinarian in two years; (b) On physical examination of Baby, the noted 'a large fecal mass in [dog's] posterior colon"; (c) On visual examination of the dog's oral cavity, he noted a 'moderate tartar accumulation on most teeth, gingivitis, and probable periodontal disease'; (d) He could not obtain an accurate body temperature for the dog rectally; (e) Because of the dog's medical history, he made a differential diagnosis of canine disk diease, and decided to take an abdominal radiograph;" . . .

OK, pay attention to the next part . . .

"(f)Baby 'defecated and urinated freely and became temperamental when placed in a right lateral [recumbant position]; (g) Baby 'bit freely into the X-ray gloves'; (h) He noted that the radiograph was 'negative for obvious disk disease,' but showed a large air density in the [dog's] posterior colon;' and (i) He made '[a] diagnosis of colonic obstruction due to fecal impaction," and injected cortisone for inflammation, and then discharged the dog."

The Board goes on to say that the information Dr. Springer provided in response to the complaint did NOT appare in the patient record. They say that Springer did not record Baby's medical history and condition, did not record his diagnosis, did not record his treatment or the medications given to Baby, and did not record the "progress and disposition" of the case.

They further noted that Springer failed to meet standards for taking x-rays. Specifically they said that "For diagnostic purposes, a minimum of two radiographic views is highly recommended. For radiation safety purposes, the radiography should be limited to the specific area of interest. Neither standard was met . . . "

The Board adds -- pay attention here, and ask yourself what the implications are . . .

"Dr. Springer noted that Baby was an excited, fractious patient. In such cases, tranqualization or sedation of the animal may be necessary, unless contraindicated, to secure the radiographs, patient comfort, and handler safety."

So -- since he did get x-rays -- how then, did he get this fractious patient to lie in the right position and hold sufficiently still without any sedative? And what might his method of achieving this have to do with Baby's fractured jaw - if anything at all?

The Board continues:

"Having diagnosed that Baby was suffering from colonic obstruction due to fecal impaction, Dr. Springer's workup should have included a more focused examination to rule out colonic, rectal, or prostatic pathology. In the absense of an underlying disease, treatment should have included digital evacuation of the rectum-colun an/or administration of mild enemas. Dr. Springer has not provided any information indicating that he performed any of these procedures. Dr. Springer administered cortisone to treat inflammation, but such drug may have been contraindicated under these circumstances."

The Board also notes that Springer made no plan to treat the periodontal disease he identified.

The document goes on to say:

"When [the owner] went to the hospital's kennel area to help retrieve Baby from his cage, she noted that her dog's mouth was bleeding and in an open position. [The owner] asked Dr. Springer about this, and he told her that Baby was "Okay," that the dog had just cracked a tooth. If Dr. Springer examined Baby's mouth, he failed to note the severity of the injury the dog had sustained."

"After arriving home, Baby would not eat or drink . . . [the owner] also noted that that dog was unable to close his mouth. [The owner] called Dr. Springer and informed him of this problem, and asked that he examine her dog. Dr. Springer directed [the owner] to take Baby to Southern Maryland Referral Center located in Waldorf, Maryland."

The owner took Baby to another hospital, where the vet told her that Baby had a fractured jaw. He was sent to an emergency clinic where a "mandibular fracture" (broken jaw) was repaired.

Most of this detail does not appear in the "Consent Agreement," however.

The Board fined Springer $1,850. They suspended his license for 2 weeks, BUT STAYED THE SUSPENSION, which means that NOT ONE DAY of the suspension was enforced.

They placed him on probation for 6 months, but that probation is pretty meaningless, since the only term of the probation is to obey the regulations he already should have been obeying in the first place.

So -

How did Baby's jaw get broken?

And why did Springer tell Baby's owner that Baby was "Okay" and only had a cracked tooth when she arrived at the vet hospital to see her dog Baby bleeding from his mouth which was apparently hanging open?

Did Springer really not KNOW that Baby's jaw was fractured? (How unobservant, or ignorant, would he have to be not to know that?)

Or did he know it but just not say?

If the latter, why? Does it have anything to do with uh, Baby's "fractious" ness?

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Dr. Kenneth Beasley's Chilling Texas Record

Houston veterinarian Kenneth Beasley has three Standard of Care violations on his record. And to read the details is chilling.

On or about May 30, 1997, Kenneth V. Beasley, D.V.M., was presented with “Sandy” a five year old male Dachshund mix, at the Camden Veterinary clinic in Houston, Texas . . . [the owner] presented “Sandy” because the dog was not feeling well and had problems walking.

On or about the same day, Dr. Beasley examined “Sandy” and made a diagnosis of a heartworm infection and congestive heart failure. Dr. Beasley did not test for heartworms.

On or about the same day, [the owner] told Dr. Beasley that she would like to take the dog to her regular veterinarian for a second opinion and then temporarily left the examination room.

On or about that same day and upon [the owner’s] return to the examination room and shortly thereafter, Dr. Beasley told Ms. Estrada that he had given “Sandy” an injection of Ivermectin to treat the heartworm infection. The patient record of “Sandy” records a .1 cc injection of Ivomec. [The owner] did not agree to this treatment prior to its administration by Dr. Beasley. Sandy’s heart condition may have existed before the injection of Ivomec.”

[What the heck is that last statement supposed to mean? Ummm, whatever. Wait till you
hear the conclusion of the necropsy . . . oh, yeah, the dog dies.]

“On or about that same day, Dr. Beasley prescribed and dispensed Ivomec to [the owner] for the continued treatment of “Sandy’s” heartworm infection.

“ . . . Sandy began vomiting after being returned home. [The owner] subsequently presented “Sandy” to Charles Evens, D.V.M. and explained the treatment prescribed by Dr. Beasley. Dr. Evan’s examination of “Sandy” revealed a severe heart murmur, mild dehydration, anemia, and a heartworm infection. The dog was treated for the dehydration and anemia.”

“On or about June 1, 1997, “Sandy’s” condition continued to deteriorate and he was presented to David Wainwright, D.V.M., VCA Spring Branch Animal Hospital, Houston, Texas, as an emergency patient. The dog was presented with a history of red tinged urine. Dr. Wainwright’s examination revealed moderately severe dehydration, and mucus membrane pallor. A packed cell volume was completed (16%) to determine the extent of anemia. Dr. Wainwright administered subcutaneous fluids, Reglan, Cimetidine, and Prednisone. Doxycline was dispensed for home administration. A blood transfusion and hospitalization were recommended.

“On or about June 2, 1997, “Sandy” was examined by Tom Dayton, D.V.M., at Parker Road Animal Hospital, Houston, Texas. Dr. Dayton’s examination revealed a temperature of 100 degrees, grade IV heart murmur, pale mucus membranes and congested lungs. During treatment by Dr. Dayton, “Sandy” began having seizures and died.

“ . . . a necropsy was performed by Dr. Dayton and revealed the following: A visible lesion confined to the chest cavity, with heartworms in the pre and post vena cava, right ventricle and right article. All arteries of the lungs were impacted with heartworms. Dr. Dayton determined the cause of death to be an immediate kill of adult heartworms causing them to block the right aorta and arteries causing congestion in the lung tissue and high blood pressure with death.

“The product monographs for the various Ivomec injectables states that these medicines should not be used to treat dogs, and that such treatment may result in fatality.”

You’d think Beasley would be more careful with that drug after his previous run in with the vet board just a few years earlier, which also involved this same drug. But apparently not.

A few years earlier, the following occurred:

An owner “took his male collie ‘Laddie’ to the Camden Veterinary Clinic, operated by Kenneth V. Beasley, D.V.M., for yearly vaccinations and a heartworm check.

‘Laddie’ tested microfilaria [heartworm] positive. Dr. Beasley did not vaccinate ‘Laddie’ at that time but opted to treat for heartworms.

“Dr. Beasley administered one injection of ½ cc of Ivomec (ivermectin 1%) mixed with 2 cc of Albon with B12. Dr. Beasley dispensed to the owner 3 cc of Ivomec mixed with 2 ounces of Vi-Sorbin, to be given to ‘Laddie’ one dropper full, once a day for a month.

“The label attached to the medication dispensed . . . did not include the name, address and telephone number of the clinic, the dispensing veterinarian’s name, the client name, the quantity and strength of the product and precautionary statements, as required by Rule of Professional Conduct . . . By failing to properly label the medication . . . Dr. Ware violated Rule of Professional Conduct 573.40.

“By administering ½ cc Ivomec, equivalent to 5,000 ug, to ‘Laddie’ without weighing him, Dr. Beasley exceeded the 200 ug/kg toxic range for a collie weighing 22 kilograms. The medication was sufficient to cause toxicity in an ivermectin sensitive dog. Dr. Beasley also failed to advise his client to observe the collie closely for at least 8 hours after treatment because of the sensitivity of collies to ivermectin. This activity violated Rule 573.22, Standard of Humane Treatment.”

So are you guessing the same thing that I am guessing? That Laddie died too?

But we’re not done yet with the record of Dr. Beasley.

Because this still wasn’t Dr. Beasley’s first very sad and shocking violation.

In 1992 an owner brought his seven month old Chow mix, “Lady” to Beasley.

Lady couldn’t walk, and “She passed considerable amounts of bloody fecal material. Dr. Beasley diagnosed the dog with parvo and suggested euthanasia.”

“Dr. Beasley’s patient records reflect he administered an unknown amount of Benselmin wormer with Vi-Sorbin, orally; an unknown amount of Vitamin B12, Vitamin K, and Atropine. Dr. Beasley also dispensed 20 250 mg Ampicillin capsules. The patient records do not include dosages of medications administered and details necessary to substantiate diagnosis . . . Although Dr. Beasley instructed [the owner] to give “Lady” a mixture of 3-4 ounces of ½ Gatorade and honey every hour or so as often as possible, until the dog started eating, he failed to treat “Lady” for parvo with the same skill, care and diligence that would have been performed by the average veterinarian under same or similar circumstances. In particular, Dr. Beasley failed to give an adequate volume of parenteral fluids."

“The label on the container of Ampicillin dispensed by Dr. Beasley to [the owner] contained the following information only: “Lady, 1 capsule twice daily.” The label did not contain name and address of veterinarian; the client’s name; species; name, strength and quantity of drug dispensed.

“The activities described . . . violated Rule 583.22, Professional Standard of Humane Treatment, and Rule 573.22, Patient Record Keeping . . . “

For informaton on how parvo really should be treated, here are some resources:

Veterinary re: Parvo

One woman's story about saving her parvo pup

Animal Health Channel on Parvo

Collies -- a breed susceptible to Ivermectin reactions

More ivermectin info

"Don't use Ivomec as heartworm preventative for dogs"

Marvistavet -- includes notice on dangerous use of Ivomec in dogs (Ivomec is for larger animals like farm animals)

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Vet Margaret Metry of Virginia: A Cat Comes in for a Grooming, and Never Makes it out Alive

How would you feel if you took your beloved pet into the vets for just a grooming, and instead of picking up your well groomed pet, ended up picking up her lifeless mortal remains?

That is what happened to the pet owner who took her cat Ciara in to be groomed at the Colonial Heights Veterinary Hospital in Colonial Heights Virginia in March 2007 and placed her under the care of veterinarian Margaret Metry.

According to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by the Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine:

". . . an individual brought 'Ciara,' a feline in for grooming. Dr. Metry informed the individual that the Ciara would have to be sedated for the procedure."

[umm, sedating a cat for grooming?????]

"Dr. Metry failed to ensure that Ciara was properly monitored after sedation as the cat was placed back in its carrier, which prevented proper monitoring of the animal's health."

That's all this document says. So how do I know Ciara died?

Because in the previous notice of informal conference, the Board says:

"You failed to ensure that Ciara was properly monitored after sedation resulting in no one noticing that Ciara had stopped breathing until she was removed from her cage. She could not be resuscitated."

Can you imagine how heartbroken her family must be?

The Board found that Metry had violated 54.1-3807(5) of the Virginia Code and 18 VAC 150-20-140(7), both of which relate to unprofessional conduct.

And to add insult to injury, all the Board did was give the vet a reprimand.

No fine.

No suspension.

Dead cat, totally needlessly as far as I can see.

And nothing more than a reprimand.

How terribly sad.

Links to disciplinary records:



Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Michigan's Khalid Tirmizi: "Negligence or Failure to Exercise Due Care . . ."

In January 2007, The Michigan Board of Veterinary Medicine entered into a Consent Order with Michigan Vet Kalid Tirmizi, as the ultimate result of a complaint filed against him in May 2005. Ironically, this very Consent Order simultaneously said that the Disciplinary Subcommittee "finds that the allegations of fact contained in the complaint are true,;" while nontheless dismissing one of the two allegations in the complaint. ??? How do you dismiss an allegation that you find to be true???? OK . . . .

As for the substance of the complaint . . .

Tirmizi was practising as a vet at Bloomfield Pointe Veterinary Hospital in Pontiac Michigan.

On November 21, 2003 . . . [dramatic pause for effect here . . . these events took place in 2003, and this order was signed in 2007. WHAT TAKES SO LONG???] . . .

"a. At approximately 2:30 p.m., a six-year-old feline owned by J.G. . . . presented to the Facility with a blue tongue, respiratory distress of unknown etiology and drooling from the mouth. The feline had been a patient of [Bloomfield Pointe Veterinary Hospital] for six years. [Tirmizi] performed a minimal physical examination and administered .25 cc of acepromazine along with atropine, dexamethasone, oxygen and intravenous fluids.

b. At approximately 6:00 p.m., [Tirmizi] called J.G. requesting that he pick up the feline because the facility was closing and it did not have overnight care available.

c. When J.G. arrived at [Bloomfield Pointe Veterinary Hospital] [Tirmizi] demanded payment for veterinary services performed and advised J.G. that he should euthanize the feline or take it to Oakland Veterinary Emergency Group, hereafter Oakland, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

d. Subsequently, J.G. brought the feline to Oakland. Upon arrival at Oakland, a physical examination was performed and a chest x-ray was done. After a diagnosis of severe pulmonary edema and heart failure, efforts to stabilize the feline failed and the feline was euthanized on November 22 at approximately 2:30 a.m."

OK, so before we read what the board decided, let's think about all of this.

Tirmizi performed only a MINIMAL exam on a cat having so much difficulty breathing that his tongue was blue. Since he didn't perform a thorough exam, do x-rays, etc. then I assume he didn't know the cat was in heart failure. Which is not a good thing, because pets in cardiac failure have a difficult time processing fluids. And Tirmizi put this cat on fluids. Ultimately, the cat had severe pulmonary edema. Now, I don't know for sure, but I surmise that the IV fluids Tirmizi would have made pulmonary edema worse if the cat had it already, or even could have caused it in the case of heart failure.

I have no idea why he gave the drugs he gave (dexamethasone, acepromazine, atropine) but one thing is for sure: None of these appear in the recommended treatments I've found for heart failure in cats.

Now for what the Board found:

In their original complaint, the board said that:

Count 1: Tirmizi's "conduct, as set forth above, evidences a violation of general duty, consisting of negligence or failure to exercise due care, whether or not injury results, in violation of section 16221(a) of the Public Health Code . . . "

Count 2: Tirmizi's "conduct, as set fort above, evidences a departure from, or failure to conform to, minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice for the health profession, whether or not actual injury to an individual occurs, in violation of Section 16221(b)(i) of the Public Health Code."

However, when they entered into the Consent Agreement with Tirmizi, which wasn't signed until January 2007, they dropped/dismissed the second "standard of care" violation, in spite of language in the beginning of the document which states (without specifying exceptions) that "the allegations of fact contained in the complaint are true . . ."

For the remaining violation (negligence statute) they fined Tirmizi $1,000 and put him on probation for a year.

Links and references:

Michigan Bureau of Health Professions Announces Disciplinary Action against Tirmizi -

Monday, August 4, 2008

Florida Vet Arrested for Animal Cruelty and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Southside Animal Clinic Veterinarian John Farah was arrested in Callahan Florida and charged with animal cruelty and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, after he shot a dog.

When he shot the dog, he was at the Crawford Hunting Club in Callahan -- engaging in the favorite pastime of those animal-loving vets -- Hunting! Looking forward to shooting and killin him some animals, no doubt.

Teresa Wingate was out walking her dog CoCo, in an area near her home, adjacent to the Club grounds. Unfortunately, CoCo wandered under the barbed wire fence surrounding the club, and the dog was shot. The woman (owner) began screaming, and her husband heard her and came out.

Farah then appraoched them, with his shotgun.

According to the Times-Union, Keith Wingate (the husband) told investigators that he felt threatened because Farah became "irate and held the rifle in a way that pointed at him."

Confronting the dog owners, Farah denied shooting the dog. But according to the FirstCoastNews Article, "the sheriff's department determined he was the shooter."

So, I guess that also makes him dishonest, right?

Hmmm. A vet who likes killing animals and who doesn't tell the truth. Doesn't sound like someone you ever want to take your pets to, does it?


Sunday, August 3, 2008

Alabama Vet and Auburn University Researcher Clinton Lothrop: His Experiments on Animals Led to PETA Undercover Investigation

Is Clinton Lotrhop guilty of animal cruelty?

One thing's for sure: Regardless of the answer to that question, in the eyes of the law, he NEVER will -- never could -- be found guilty of animal cruelty. Why? Because he's an animal researcher, and they are EXEMPT from cruelty statutes in his state. But there is another thing about Lothrop that makes him different from many veterinarians who conduct research on animals: He also accepts paying clients for veterinary care. Experimental and expensive procedures that, according to PETA, have yet to save a life, and have separated pet owners from thousands of dollars ($14,000) while forcing them to pay for what is arguably the torment of their own precious pets who they want nothing more than to save.

So, is it animal cruelty?

Well, watch the PETA undercover investigative video of the lab he ran, and then make up your own mind.

You can watch the video here.

When you do -- keep in mind that some of the animals "treated" at this lab were owned companion animals -- loved by their families, who had turned to Lothrop in desperation for help with their dogs kidney failure. Lothrop's program offered kidney transplants, but PETA alleges that in addition to a transplant, the animals entrusted to Lothrop also got mistreated, tormented, and became victims of cruelty motivated by greed and experiments done with little regard for the animals well-being. PETA alleges that Lothrop et al were offering these procedures to companion animals in part to avoid being held to the Animal Welfare Act standards that apply to lab animals. In other words, that Act would have required them to treat lab animals at a higher standard than they treat paying clients' animals.

The video tape includes footage in which lab workers can be heard making comments, and which shows video of the dogs themselves.

One of the most horrible aspects of this video is the treatment of Cutie, a clients animal. Cutie’s owner had turned to them in hope that they could offer Cutie a kidney transplant that would help her.

But instead, this video shows rough, insensitive – and in my opinion abusive – treatment of the dog whose life was entrusted to them. Cutie's treatment is described in more detail on ""

On tape, a technician describes how bad Cutie feels:

“I honestly thing that they should euthanize her because this is horrible, she vomited three times, she regurgited three times . . . she feels like crap.“

Another staffer admits:

“I don’t know if it’s [the procedure] been in her best interest . . .”
but adds that from a “selfish” standpoint, it’s benefited her because she’s gotten better at using the dialysis equipment by using it Cutie.

You’d think they’d be grateful to cutie for their learning and treat her gently as they patient, especially as bad as she felt. But they didn’t. The video shows them holding Cutie on a table. Grasping her muzzle, one staff member angrily says to Cutie:

“If you keep doing that I’m gonna smack you in the head. Cutie, Hey, Stop! . . . Quit. Hey Hey Hey .. . whats this up front, what am I doin to your front here.”

Another mumbles:

“Damn bitch.”

These things are being said and done to a sick, dying dog. This is a dog so sick that she is vomiting repeatedly. As they staff member said, she felt "like crap." She would later die during a dialysis treatment, according to the investigator.

Yet, they speak meanly and gruffly to her, threaten to hit her, and call her a "Damn Bitch."


This is how they treated their patient, Cutie. This was Lothop’s lab. While I don’t know which voices on the video may be Lothrop’s, it all took place at his lab.

They had no more respect for their paying clients than they did for the dogs. One man (who appears to me to be Lothrop himself when I compare the picture of Lothrop on the Auburn website with the man on the video -- you see for yourself) explains that clients are charged for surgeries even if they are botched and the patient days, saying:

“If your surgeon fucks up your surgery he’s still gonna charge your ass.”

Explaining the difference between what he says to clients whose dogs die after his transplant surgery, and what he REALLY wants to say, an experimenter says:

“I’m sorry . . . [but what I really want to say is] Now get the FUCK out of here."

Staff are then heard laughing.

Is this the kind of treatment you want your pet to have?

People -- I gotta tell you, this is how some vets and their staff feel about you. They not only don't care about your animals, they have hostility toward them, and they mock you and think you a fool as they take your money and do horrific things to your pet.

And apparently, the kind of treatment that took place in Lothrop’s lab is emblematic of the WORST that is out there.

Does Lothrop have a problem with the way his staff treat patients? I see no evidence that he sees anything wrong with it.

Moreover, staff are heard instructing the investigator to keep their mouths shut about misuse of federal funds.

Then, a man (who once again, appears to me to be Lothrop himself based on comparing the video with the Auburn website pic) talks about how he moved funds around

"I had a set-up where I could just roll [federal grant money] into another account . . . where I was the only one that [knew about it] . . . and you could just sit on it."

Although the Morris Animal Foundation who provided some funds for the kidney transplant program audited the program and subsequently barred two experimenters (they don’t say if one of them is Lothrop) from receiving funds from their foundation, Lothrop continued to treat "client" dogs after that.

All of the pets brought their by clients for kidney transplants died during or shortly after these treatments, the article says. These desperate pet owners paid in many cases $14,000 for the procedure. Yet, see for yourself the kind of "care" they received.

He is still at Auburn, and still receiving referrals as a “veterinary expert.”

I have no reason to believe that his, er, philosophies about patient care have changed. Nor his ethics.

Why do this outrageous man and the other outrageous individuals working at this horrible place still have JOBS??????????

In my opinion, it is because well-funded university labs and renowned veterinarians -- even those whose ill treatment of animals is on video -- will never be touched by our government, not even those agencies whose very mandate it is to regulate them.

Animals have no votes, no money, no lobby. They have only you.

And apparently, these goons think nothing of exploiting you, the pet owner, and treating your animals badly. Understatement.

Case in point:

How did this ill treatment of animals at the lab come to light?

Did the University uncover it and do something?


Did the US Department of Agriculture, which licenses this lab, take action on complaints thus leading to this investigation?


It took PETA to do this.

OK, so PETA, right? I am ready for emails about them taking animals out of shelters, euthanizing them in trucks, and throwing their bodies in dumpsters. I find that horrific. I condemn it. I don't agree with it. Of course.

For good reason, PETA has its detractors among professed animal lovers.

But the fact remains that they are one of the only organizations that do these kinds of investigations. And these things must come to light.

The very institutions that are supposed to be ensuring proper treatment of our animals in settings like these appear to deliberately look the other way, if not give implicit assent, to this treatment. Only when a PETA or an HSUS acts on tips and FILMS the truth does anything get done. So give credit where it's due and ask yourself:

What's wrong with our government? What's wrong with our systems?

In a letter to the United States Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture, (web file dated Aprilo 2006), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) appealed to the Secretary to initiate an investigation of Clinton Lothrop, his colleague Glenn Niemeyer, and Auburn University's Scott-Ritchey Research Center within the School of Veterinary Medicine.

In this letter, PETA's Mary Beth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of Research and Investigations, wrote:

"A PETA investigator was hired as a research assistant in the laboratory of Drs. Clinton D. Lothrop and Glenn Niemeyer and worked there from February 14, 2005 to October 28, 2005. On Monday, February 28, 2005 our investigator began taping his days inside Lothrop's canine lab.

Enclosed with this cover letter you will find . . . . a complaint alleging violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) . . . [and] a DVD that shows alleged violations of the AWA that were caught on tape."

The letter's introduction outlines the alleged violations including:

  • Failure to provide prompt and appropriate veterinary care and euthanasia
  • Failure to avoid or minimize pain and discomfort during procedures
  • Failure to provide exercise and socialization
  • Failure to provide structurally sound housing for dogs
  • Failure to properly clean dogs enclosures
  • Failure to properly train employees
  • Failure to keep proper records
  • Fraudulent use of clients dogs in experimental procedures
  • Fraudulent use of Federal funds

PETA's shocking allegations include the following:

". . . a diseased, geriatric dog who was suffering from blindness and mobility and respiratory problems was used in experiments that researchers believed would kill him . . . "

". . . a dog who was in an advanced state of kidney failure was left to die for over a week before he was finally euthanized . . . "

" . . . a dog who underwent full-body irradiation was housed in a tiny cage, where she could not avoid her own vomit and excrement; and litters of puppies who were used in experiments by Iams died over a six-month period from an outbreak of canine brucellosis."

This document further describes bone-chilling allegations of Lothrop's treatment of the animals. Citing statements of a research assistant, Sweetland quotes:

". . . a research technician [recounted] witnessing dogs 'screaming' in pain when large needles bored through their bones; Lothrop conducted a bone marrow extraction on a dog using a needle with a burr on it, breaking the needle on the dog's bone and repeating the painful procedure; vet students described Lothrop's incompetent manner of drawing blood from animals, imitating stabbing motions while explaining: 'Lothrop harpoons them . . . He sticks [the needle] in and he's like, 'OK [the vein] could be over here . . . alright, well, it's not there, how about over here?"

The letter contains numerous other startling allegations, including that Lothrop has been breeding dogs with genetic mutations at his home and them bringing them into the lab to experiment on them; they also assail Lothrop and colleague Micheal Tillson's canine kidney transplants, which have been offered to and performed on companion animals at a cost, they say, of approximately $15,000 each. PETA alleges that all of the dogs who underwent this procedure "died horrible deaths within a very short time of undergoing the transplants - a result expected by Lothrop and Tillson, who seem to be exploiting clients dogs in an attempt to sidestep AWA [Animal Welfare Act] requirements and who are certainly using client funds to bolster what they refer to as their 'slush fund.'"

Lothrop and Tillson ran the kidney transplant laboratory. Tillson was married to a woman who works for Iams. Iams cruel animal experiments have long since been revealed.

Shocking, isn't it? Why would Big Wig, Famous Vets working at one of our nations few veterinary schools actually be tormenting dogs?

It might shock people to know that in many veterinary programs in the United States, veterinary students are required not merely to TORMENT animals as a part of their training, but also to needlessly kill them in what are called "terminal surgeries.

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights compiled a report in 2000 on the use of animals in our nations veterinary schools. While this report was for the 1998-1999 school year, and one would hope things have improved since then, nonetheless these types of surgeries continue.

In that year, veterinarians in training at Auburn University conducted 267 "Terminal and Detrimental" surgeries on animals.

"Detrimental" procedures were those procedures that caused short-term or permanent, minor or major harm to an animal without the goal or possibility of improving the individual animal's health or well-being. Examples included, but were not limited to, surgery on healthy animals; invasive medical diagnostics without the medical justification for performance or intent to treat abnormal findings; terminal procedures on healthy animals . . . protocols that involved the killing of an animal to be used as a cadaver for a procedure(s)."

"Terminal procedures were those procedures that resulted in the death of the animal, regardless of the health of the animal or the outcome of the procedure . . . "

In spite of these shocking revelations, Lothrop continues to be highly regarded in his field and continues to hold a Sr. Scientist position at the Auburn's Research Center.

And I would assume that he has not been charged with animal cruelty, in spite of this tape.

You see, our laws make sure that vets can be as cruel as they wanna be -- veterinarians are exempt from animal cruelty laws in a majority of U.S. States. While my reading of Alabama's cruelty statutes does not lead me to conclude that Alabama is one of them, there is another reason that Lothrop and his goons would be exempt:

The cruelty statutes in Alabama exempt: "Academic and research enterprises that use dogs or cats for medical or pharmaceutical research or testing."

You see, the people with the money always make sure that the laws can't be applied to them.

Advice to pet owners:

When you take your pet to an expensive, educational veterinary center where experimental treatments are offered, ask yourself: Is it possible that my money is underwriting cruelty -- not only to other pets, but also to my own.

And once you've asked that question, try to do some research to indeed arrive at an answer, before your beloved animal gets the treatment Cutie and the other doomed patients got.

In particular, if anyone ever recommends you seek help from Auburn University, read PETA's summary of the "10 Things That are Very Wrong at Auburn," and think again.

  • 1. Dog guardians are misled about their animal companions’ almost non-existent chance of survival and the pain and misery that they will have to endure from the irradiation and surgery.
  • 2. The kidneys of “mismatched” dogs are switched, and the dogs die.
  • 3. Transplant veterinarians mock grieving guardians behind their backs.
  • 4. AU veterinarians charge approximately $14,000 for each surgery and put the money into a “slush fund.”
  • 5. AU staff members do not know how to properly perform kidney dialysis treatments (using a dialysis machine) for which clients are charged vast sums of money, so the staff members don’t know if the dog’s blood is being cleared of toxins.
  • 6. Dogs used in kidney transplant experiments suffer greatly without receiving proper veterinary care or euthanasia.
  • 7. Dogs go insane from being kept for years in cages without being walked or given any attention.
  • 8. Dogs come down with heartworms because they are not given a basic preventive medicine.
  • 9. A government grant for an unrelated experiment is used to conduct dog transplants.
  • 10. Dogs in critical condition are left unattended."

Now for my opinion:

The people shown in this video, including Lothrop, are clearly, evidently, OUT-and-OUT SADISTS who, in a just universe would suffer the torments of the inner circle of hell for their horrendous torment of innocent animals and their soulless mockery of the people whose money they take and who love their pets.

I did, however, say in a just universe. Which we clearly do not live in.

I believe these people are MONSTERS. They aren't good enough to lick the toenails of the poor animals they torment. Every breath they take is a waste of good oxygen.


Video of horrific things being done at Lothrop's Lab

PETA's letter to the USDA

PETA Press Release

Announcement that Morris Animal Foundation had Barred Auburn Researchers from Future Funding

Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights -- Statistics on the Needless Killing of Animals at Veterinary Schools

Alabama Vet Board Watch Site. This site is maintained by a consumer who lost her pet after a surgery conducted to find an intestinal obstruction that wasn't there. This surgery had, according to her site, been originally recommended by Lothrop. Although Lothrop is not the subject of the complaint, this pet owner alleges that this surgery contributed to the death of her dog. The veterinary board dismissed the complaint. Read and judge for yourself.

Clinton Lothrop's Page at Auburn. Take a good look at him, then watch the video of the chamber of horrors, see if you can pick him out.

More experiments conducted by Lothrop

Cat experiment - Quote: "We reconstituted four cats that had been lethally irradiated with autologous bone marrow that had been infected with the N2 or SAX retroviral vector"