Millions of dogs threatened by rise of 'anti-vax' pills made from diseased fleth sold online, warns RSPCA

Millions of dogs and cats are at risk of avoidable death from an increase in unproven anti-vaccination “remedies” being sold online, the RSPCA has warned.

Amazon this week agreed to remove advertisements for products made from the diseased flesh of dead animals after a Sunday Telegraph investigation revealed misleading boasts claiming the “homeopathic nosodes” provide immunity from fatal conditions.

Last night the RSPCA said the rise in online marketing of “anti-vax” materials risked “horrific suffering” among pets whose owners reject conventional jabs.

It came as new research by the charity PDSA found that in 2017 25 per cent of dogs - around 2.3 million - had not undergone a primary vaccination course, more than double the proportion of 12 per cent the previous year.

A similar increase was recorded in cats, with 35 per cent - approximately 3.6 million - unvaccinated in 2017, compared to 18 per cent in 2016, while in rabbits the proportion of unvaccinated animals rose from 37 per cent to 50 per cent.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/12/millions-dogs-threatened-rise-anti-vax-pills-made-diseased-flesh/

Every idiot who goes down that "anti-vax" road, and chooses to support such dangerous and opportunistic scamsters, should be banned from keeping any pets or companion animals, for life...

indeed wolfie, in fact i'd go further....

since we appear to be over crowded and such persons are of no positive or even neutral benefit to society, perhaps we should cull them.

Did it harm the animals?

I wouldn’t buy any drugs or remedies online, that’s just idiotic.

eddie wrote:Did it harm the animals?

I wouldn’t buy any drugs or remedies online, that’s just idiotic.

The answer to that is emphatically yes

As without proper vaccinations and pesudo ones, many animals have been harmed

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Did it harm the animals?

eddie wrote:

I wouldn’t buy any drugs or remedies online, that’s just idiotic.

The answer to that is emphatically yes

As without proper vaccinations and pesudo ones, many animals have been harmed

Well the answer is only emphatically yes, if it’s actually true that any animals were harmed.
So are the pet owners suing?

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


The answer to that is emphatically yes

As without proper vaccinations and pesudo ones, many animals have been harmed

Well the answer is only emphatically yes, if it’s actually true that any animals were harmed.  
So are the pet owners suing?

The pet owners who bought this, shoule be the ones that are sued, but then animals have no voice Eddie, do they?

Do you know what is the biggest irony here Eddie?

Its people like Wolf and Victor that hunt animals, that actually care more about animals than any vegan.

For example Eddie, this shows how and why idiots endanger lives, based on fake views around medical problems

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t24360-melanies-marvelous-measles-myles-reviews

This man, is able to expose these idiots that actually endanger lives

Didge wrote:Do you know what is the biggest irony here Eddie?

Its people like Wolf and Victor that hunt animals, that actually care more about animals than any vegan.

Hmmmm. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, didge. Most vegans and vegetarians give up eating animal products because they love animals.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:Do you know what is the biggest irony here Eddie?

Its people like Wolf and Victor that hunt animals, that actually care more about animals than any vegan.

Hmmmm. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, didge. Most vegans and vegetarians give up eating animal products because they love animals.

Does that mean they do not care more about animals?

Not eating meat does not qualify or quanttify as being caring about the future of animals

Hence, why i would place more faith in people that care to look for their future and both Wolf and Lord Foul do. Where they are not hypocrites on the issue

You can’t “care” about animals and eat them at the same time....
That doesn’t make sense.

eddie wrote:You can’t “care” about animals and eat them at the same time....
That doesn’t make sense.

Of course you can, when you understand the cycle of life

By your meaning, animals that eat meat do not care

Is that your claim?

I have to say here I agree with didge....much of vegan thinking is based on a mawkish sentimentality, rather than "care as a duty " towards animals

care does NOT mean "awww dont kill the fluffy bunny for dinner" it means 1) kill it quick and humanely and 2) dont kill so many of them that you wipe them out.

It means kill only so many of a vermin species as is absolutely necessary to protect human and ecological health and NO MORE than that.

It means kill only the necessary few in a cull such as to maintain a healthy flock/herd etc.....

where farming is concerned 99.9% of veggies havnt a clue about the pros and cons of meat vs veggie foods or the effect on land use transport and so on.....they talk about the carbon footprint of meat farming then rely entirely on veggie stuff imported from the ends of the earth with a food value to weight ration of nex6t to nothing compared to meat, totally oblivious to the carbon footprint og THAT.

So nearly 5 million Jains and how many million Hindus are mawkishly sentimental? That is not to mention a few million others.
I don't eat meat because :
A.I don't like the texture
B. I find it hard to digest
C. I could not kill the required animal, so I don't believe I can eat of it.
D. Vegetarianism controls weight better for many people.

Vintage wrote:So nearly 5 million Jains and how many million Hindus are mawkishly sentimental? That is not to mention a few million others.
I don't eat meat because :
A.I don't like the texture
B. I find it hard to digest  
C. I could not kill the required animal, so I don't believe I can eat of it.
D. Vegetarianism controls weight better for many people.

1) Yes jains are, when many animals kill other animals in order to eat and survive.

a) No problem

b) No problem

c) Some people cannot, but fail to see, they often do kill life daily, when they tread on insects for example

d) Does it? Based on what evidence? I bet many of those vegitarians, still it meat in the form of fish.

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:So nearly 5 million Jains and how many million Hindus are mawkishly sentimental? That is not to mention a few million others.
I don't eat meat because :
A.I don't like the texture
B. I find it hard to digest  
C. I could not kill the required animal, so I don't believe I can eat of it.
D. Vegetarianism controls weight better for many people.

1) Yes jains are, when many animals kill other animals in order to eat and survive.

a) No problem

b) No problem

c) Some people cannot, but fail to see, they often do kill life daily, when they tread on insects for example

d) Does it? Based on what evidence? I bet many of those vegitarians, still it meat in the form of fish.

moreover those jains and hindus are religiously motivated...which is possibly worse than mere "mawkish sentimentality"

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:So nearly 5 million Jains and how many million Hindus are mawkishly sentimental? That is not to mention a few million others.
I don't eat meat because :
A.I don't like the texture
B. I find it hard to digest  
C. I could not kill the required animal, so I don't believe I can eat of it.
D. Vegetarianism controls weight better for many people.

1) Yes jains are, when many animals kill other animals in order to eat and survive.

a) No problem

b) No problem

c) Some people cannot, but fail to see, they often do kill life daily, when they tread on insects for example

d) Does it? Based on what evidence? I bet many of those vegitarians, still it meat in the form of fish.

Fish - even worse than meat.

Vintage wrote:

Didge wrote:

1) Yes jains are, when many animals kill other animals in order to eat and survive.

a) No problem

b) No problem

c) Some people cannot, but fail to see, they often do kill life daily, when they tread on insects for example

d) Does it? Based on what evidence? I bet many of those vegitarians, still it meat in the form of fish.

Fish - even worse than meat.

Well a village in Italy, has many people over a hundred years old, that live on mainly a fish based diet

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/italy-acciaroli-scientists-investigate-why-residents-one-town-italy-live-long-a6961371.html

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

1) Yes jains are, when many animals kill other animals in order to eat and survive.

a) No problem

b) No problem

c) Some people cannot, but fail to see, they often do kill life daily, when they tread on insects for example

d) Does it? Based on what evidence? I bet many of those vegitarians, still it meat in the form of fish.

moreover those jains and hindus are religiously motivated...which is possibly worse than mere "mawkish sentimentality"

100% agree

Fish and olives - hellish diet, for me anyway.
I'm religiously motivated as well, just not in the usual way.

eddie wrote:You can’t “care” about animals and eat them at the same time....
That doesn’t make sense.

every Decent farmer in the world disagrees with that statement.

It could be said Vegans Don't REALLY care, You Don't care about something you remove yourself from, they do nothing towards improving living standards for Domestic Animals.

Plus NEVER let vegans anywhere near any AI learning about how to 'care' for things, Vegans are running a campaign to stop cows suffering by making cows extinct. which is right I guess, it'll end Animals suffering if there are No Animals, which is the end state of the Vegan Campaign.

eddie wrote:
You can’t “care” about animals and eat them at the same time....
That doesn’t make sense.

What a load of pure rubbish !!!

I suggest you learn the actual and real meanings of the words "farmer, husbandry, conservation"..

And then you will realise why a lot of farmworkers, "cowboys", stockmen, and corporate farm owners really don't fit the definitions for a genuine "farmer"..

Real world farmers will always put the welfare of their working environment first and foremost -- otherwise they will put themselves out of business within a decade or two.

Further to veya's facts re: scumbag criminal "vegan" scamsters...

Animals that "vegans" want to make extinct includes :

Cattle, buffalo
Sheep, goats, camels
Pigs
Horses, ponies, deer
Domesticated poultry
Lama, alpacas
Pet dogs, cats, birds, fish, mice, rats, ferets, hamsters, etc.
Honeybees  (!!!) --  and they would ban commercial beekeeping !

In addition, the absence of animal manures for fertiser and soil conditioning would more than halve crop production --  negating their claimed "benefits" from removing grazing animals..

Sad fact :  the "vegan" plans for a livestock-free food production system will only feed around 1.5 -->> 2 billion people. So, to reach their stated goals, "vegans" would have to cull around 75% to 80% of humanity !!!

Starting with the Vegans ?

The problem as I see it is that although many people do take their animals welfare seriously, so many do not, possibly the majority. Whether through culture or plain ignorance the plight of animals everywhere is awful. Conditions they are kept in, the method of slaughter, can be horrifying.

nicko wrote:
Starting with the Vegans ?

Good idea there, nicko !!!

I reckon you and Victor could find some common ground with me and veya on this topic..