Charlotte Pace, a veterinary cardiology nurse from the Royal Veterinary College, has become the first nurse in the UK to earn a place on the Academy of Internal Medicine for Veterinary Technicians (AIMVT) in the cardiology department.

AIMVT is a group of veterinary technicians working specifically in Internal Medicine, who come from universities, specialty practices, referral practices, general practices, and research facilities across the world.

Each year the organisation receives hundreds of applications from veterinary technicians eager to become a part of the academy in its five department areas, Large Animal Medicine; Small Animal Medicine; Cardiology; Oncology; and, Neurology.

Charlotte Pace, a veterinary nurse for nine years, earned her chance to secure a place on the academy by completing 6,000 hours of work and 75 recorded case studies, which are both requirements during the AIMVT application process.

Charlotte was then one of 22 selected to travel to Anaheim in California, USA, where she took two exams, a three and a half exam in cardiology and a one and a half hour general medical exam.

The application process for a place on AIMVT was tough and selection is strict, making it a remarkable achievement for Charlotte, who's ecstatic that she has been awarded with a place.

Charlotte said: "It's a great moment for me personally and the Royal Veterinary College. The facilities and working environment, which included the teaching, experience and staff helped me during the application process and were factors in me being awarded a place on the AIMVT.

"I lost my husband four years ago due to complicated cardiac disease, which led to my initial interest in the subject and why I became a cardiology veterinary nurse in the first place. The application process gave me a new sense of purpose and focus, and is recognition for the long hours I've put in and my desire to progress further in the field of cardiology."   

Charlotte set up a charity in her husband's name called the Chris Pace Trust. The charity was created following a holiday in 2004, where Chris helped a local school in Namibia get their computer fixed and sent them supplies to keep it working when back in the UK. In Chris' memory, Charlotte and her family decided to help the school further. £16,000 has so far been raised, with the Namibian government matching whatever the charity raises. Further details can be found at http://thechrispacetrust.org/.

Dechra Veterinary Products has sponsored a specialist Feline Nurse at the University of Edinburgh's Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies.

Sara-Ann Dickson, Dechra Feline Nurse, works in the Hospital for Small Animals at the School and is dedicated to promoting cat friendly practices. Cats are referred to the clinic from other veterinary practices for specialist treatment. The clinic also provides vet students and nurses with specialist training on how to handle and treat cats with a range of ailments. 

Sara-Ann qualified from Edinburgh's Napier University and completed her practical training at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies. Sara-Ann also spent eighteen months in Australia in a busy veterinary referral centre before returning to the School in 2008. In her role as Dechra Feline Nurse, Sara-Ann cares for and treats sick cats, provides training to final year students and presents lectures on a range of topics to breeders, cat owners, veterinary staff and veterinary students. 

Sara-Ann said: "I absolutely love my job and am very grateful to Dechra for its support. One of the best things is being able to identify what is wrong with a sick cat, making it better and extending its life. It's amazing. And of course a happy cat means happy owners. I have learned such a lot here and in Australia. Now I just want to use my skills and knowledge in making our feline friends as happy as possible when they stay here. I hope I can fulfil all expectations and help to create a 'cat-tastic' place!"

Matthew Olsen, Product Manager, Dechra Veterinary Products, said: "Dechra is committed to the support of veterinary staff and this is just one of many projects we are involved in. The enthusiasm and commitment of Sara-Ann and the team at the University of Edinburgh is fantastic and we are proud to be involved with the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies. The level of care for its patients and the standard of training for its students is outstanding."

The Royal Veterinary College is embarking on an educational tour to provide advice to school children on studying and working in the veterinary sector.

The tour will visit secondary schools in the following towns:

• Tuesday 14th September, Woodstock, Oxfordshire
• Wednesday 15th September, Salisbury, Wiltshire
• Thursday 16th September, Tiverton, Devon
• Friday 17th September, Newquay, Cornwall
• Monday 20th September, Crosskeys, Wales
• Thursday 23rd September, Hartford, Cheshire
• Friday 24th September, Lancaster, Lancashire
• Monday 27th September, Mirfield, West Yorkshire
• Tuesday 28th September, Lincolnshire
• Thursday 30th September, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire
• Friday 1st October, Pembury, Kent

The RVC says the event is designed to demonstrate the diversity of the profession, looking at both clinical and non-clinical careers within it. RVC staff, students and recent graduates will be on hand to answer questions for all of those interested in becoming a vet, veterinary nurse or bio-veterinary scientist.

Visitors will have the chance to carry out practical veterinary and scientific skills and discover diagnosis techniques using the RVC's state-of-the-art Haptic laptop, which contains the Core Skills Trainer; a collection of computer games that use touch technology to teach key manual skills needed to become a veterinary professional.

The event will also allow attendees to compete against each other to test their aptitude for core veterinary skills.

The sessions will be open to secondary school students, teachers, parents and careers advisers. It will present information on the wide-ranging courses offered by the RVC and the differing career choices available in the sector.

Booking is essential in order to attend and can be completed at www.rvc.ac.uk/rvcontour. For further information please call 020 7468 1257 or email schools@rvc.ac.uk.

Hill's Pet Nutrition says that the company's 5% average reduction across most Science Plan and Nature's Best products and 6.1% average reduction on Prescription Diet products has proven popular with practices and pet owners alike.

As evidence of this, the company points to data from Euromonitor*, the independent market analyst, which shows Science Plan Healthy Development Puppy is experiencing faster volume sales than the rest of the market, outpacing the growth of popular grocery brands**.

*Euromonitor July 2010 & Hills Data May 2010.
**Such as Pedigree, Winalot and Bakers brands.

Vetoquinol has revamped its Epiphen complimentary voucher scheme for testing serum levels of phenobarbital, and is offering vet practices a chance to win £100 of high street vouchers.

New voucher pads will be posted to participating veterinary practices in August.  The re-vamped scheme also includes freepost envelopes to make the free serum monitoring programme more user-friendly.

Practices are being asked to send back the old vouchers, which can be found in both the 30mg and 60mg Epiphen packs, to take part in a monthly prize draw to win £100 of high street vouchers.  To enter, return the vouchers with the practice name on the back of each voucher.  There will also be a quarterly prize draw for a "Touch Screen" client education tool.

The old vouchers should be sent to: Voucher Amnesty, Vetoquinol, Vetoquinol House, Great Slade, Buckingham Industrial Park, Buckingham, MK18 1PA.

Petplan is calling for nominations for this year's 'Petplan Pet Insurance Advisor Award'.

The award is to recognise the hard work and dedication that Pet Insurance Advisors (PIAs) do to highlight the importance of insurance to pet owners so that they are protected financially. You can nominate a PIA at your practice by visiting www.petplan.co.uk/pia. The winner will receive a new laptop and their practice will receive £100 in vouchers.

Petplan Marketing Manager Alison Andrew said: "At Petplan we are proud to recognise the dedication and hard work that Pet Insurance Advisors put in to give their customers informed and up-to-date advice. So please get your nominations in!"

Nominations close on 3^rd September and the nominees will be judged by industry professionals.  The winner will be announced at the annual BVNA Congress on 9^th October.

A study by Janssen Animal Health has, according to the company, demonstrated that a leading herbal wormer had no demonstrable efficacy against common poultry worms¹.

The trial, done to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Standards, involved 48 chickens that had become naturally infected with three different poultry worms - Capillaria (Hairworm) species, Heterakis gallinarum (Caecal worm) and Ascaridia galii (Large roundworm). The birds were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

A. Flubenvet treated group
B. Herbal wormer treated group
C. Control (untreated) group.

The herbal treatment was administered for 3 days in-feed, as required by the 'on-pack' instructions and Flubenvet was given for 7 days as required on the product data sheet. Droppings were collected from individual birds and group pens at intervals for 2 weeks and examined for the presence of worm eggs

Table 1: Worm Count Summaries

The results showed that very few worm eggs were present after one 7-day treatment with Flubenvet. In contrast, those that had no treatment or the herbal treatment still had hundreds of worm eggs in their droppings, suggesting that there were still many adult egg-laying worms present inside the chickens.

Janssen says poultry keepers who rely on preparations like this particular natural wormer may well be building up problems, as the additional numbers of worm eggs in the environment add to the infection pressure and can result in greater worm burdens for their birds. Birds with high worm burdens are more likely to become ill.

• H. gallinarum - causes mild illness but also acts as a carrier for the microscopic protozoan parasite Histomonas meleagridis (Blackhead) in turkeys. The eggs of the worm can live for years in soil so this parasite can be difficult to eradicate and re-infection is common unless regular and effective worming is carried out.
• Capillaria - causes malnutrition, emaciation and anaemia in chickens and death in other poultry species.
• Ascaridia gali - causes emaciation, drop in egg production, ill thrift, anaemia, intestinal blockage and death. Occasionally the parasitic worms may be found in chicken eggs. Earthworms are a common intermediate host, particularly likely to result in parasitic infection of free-range poultry when they eat earthworms.

According to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2009 any product making veterinary medicinal claims needs to be licensed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. A licensed product has to show proven efficacy and safety for the animal species involved. Licensed veterinary medicines can be identified by their Vm number, which is shown on-pack. Products termed 'nutritional supplements', that are not licensed do not require the manufacturer to produce any proof of efficacy or safety. It is often easy to buy such products 'off the shelf' because they are not subject to any controls. Any poultry keeper who cares about the health and welfare of the birds is advised to think carefully about their choice of wormer and to seek advice from a vet pharmacist or Suitably Qualified Person (SQP).

¹ Evaluation of the efficacy of flubendazole in comparison with a herbal wormer in the treatment of naturally acquired infections of Ascaridia galli, Heterakis gallinarum, and intestinal Capillaria spp in Chickens, Janssen Animal Health

Medivet has reported a wide range of public reaction to the recent Panorama programme 'It shouldn't happen at a vets', most of which has been at one extreme or the other. 

On the one hand, says the company, many clients have gone out of their way to show their support, whilst on the other, staff have faced considerable anger from members of the public (not known to be Medivet clients).

After transmission, staff at a handful of practices received abusive comments and threatening behaviour. The day after transmission, a veterinary nurse in uniform who was not shown in the programme was called 'dog beater' in the street in Oxford, leaving her feeling very shaken. Staff from other branches have received similar treatment when out in uniform; Medivet recommended that its staff cover up their uniforms when outdoors, and has been working with the Metropolitan Police and other forces.

Two individuals named in the film - Arnold Levy, Medivet's managing partner, and a veterinary nurse who was shown admitting to having struck a dog - received emailed death threats. The nurse has since resigned.

At practices, a receptionist was sworn at, several received abusive phone calls and one of Medivet's kennel staff in Oxted, Surrey was woken in the early hours one morning by people banging on the doors and shouting abuse. Most incidents occurred within the first 48 hours following the programme.

In contrast, Medivet says several practices have been overwhelmed by the level of support shown to staff by clients. Some have brought in gifts of flowers, biscuits and chocolates, and one client visited his practice specifically to tell staff of his and his wife's support.

Staff and managers have received many supportive emails, cards, letters and verbal comments contrasting between the picture portrayed by the programme and their personal experience of Medivet and the level of care their pets receive.

Medivet says that discussions with clients about the programme have been balanced, with many appreciating that the programme was not made in a balanced or fair way. The company also says it believes that, in the vast majority of cases, the strength of the relationship of trust between clients and the teams that look after their pets has not been undermined.

Genitrix has announced the reformulation of Cerusolve, which cleans and deodorises the external ear canal of cats and dogs. 

According to the company, the reformulation has enhanced Cerusolve's exfoliant and keratolyic properties and has given it a new fresh fragrance. Cerusolve ingredients now include:

• Tea Tree Essential Oil - a product with documented antibacterial properties.
• Aloe vera gel - a product documented for having hydrating, emollient and antipruritic properties
• Origanum - an essential oil documented for its anti-infectious, bactericide, paracitide and fungicide effects.

Cerusolve is presented in a 100 ml bottle with a soft canula for application.  It is priced at £5.65.

Genitrix Marketing Director Rob Watkins said:  "Cerusolve has proved itself in practice as a gentle but effective ear cleaner in dogs and cats. The reformulation has given us the opportunity to increase the acidity of the product following a recent study which suggested that topical acidifying products could be therapeutically beneficial for cutaneous yeast infections.

"We believe the new ingredients will enhance the product and, to celebrate its arrival, we're offering practices the opportunity to buy five bottles of Cerusolve and get one free."

Further details are available from Genitrix on 01403 786345.

The Recruitment Investment Group (RIG) has established a new recruitment agency that specialises in the supply of skilled professionals to the veterinary animal health market.

The newly formed RIG Animal Health Recruit will be working in the "industry" side of the profession to provide a permanent and temporary recruitment service in areas such as sales, technical product, academia, and laboratory work. The company's activities will not be confined to the UK alone, but, due the nature of this work, it will also operate in Europe.

The new company is headed up by James Roadnight, who has over 14 years' experience in working in specialist recruitment within professional and high integrity industries.

James said: "There comes a time in some vets or vet nurses' careers when they can want a change from working in practice and would like to move their skills to industry or academia. And we can help with this transition. Similarly, companies and institutions have a need to recruit personnel and will benefit from working with an agency that specialises only in this sector and should therefore have the strongest candidates available."

For more information, see www.rigahr.co.uk

So, after months of speculation, the Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets' finally aired last night. Early reaction from most of the profession seems to be one of mild relief that by focussing so heavily on Medivet, the documentary has left everyone else more or less unscathed.

There's also a great deal of sympathy for those hard-working and professional vets and nurses who work at Medivet. They're the biggest losers in all of this, tarred by the indefensible behaviour of a very small number of colleagues, and by the very nature of most of the filming in the documentary (give me a fish-eye lapel camera, and I could make even Mother Theresa look like a crack dealer).

But can everyone else really sit back, think 'not my problem', 'sensationalist rubbish', or 'it'll blow over in a week' and move on?

If you consider only the more headline-grabbing elements of the documentary, any of those would be a reasonable position to take. But look beyond 'Vet Makes Fraudulent Insurance Claim', and it seems the producers might accidentally have hit upon some big challenges facing the profession. Might now be a good moment to reflect on and debate some of these issues? 

The first story covered by the documentary was that of an owner who'd found their cat 'weeing blood', taken it to Medivet and been quoted £815.05 for a bank of tests. They'd left in disgust, and visited another practice. This one gave a diagnosis without tests, the bill for which came to 75 quid, including £28 worth of food.

Veterinary costs were a recurring theme throughout the documentary. At the start, Jeremy Vine pointed out the £20,000 lifetime cost of owning a dog, and the £15,000 cost of owning a cat. He said vet bills have trebled in a decade. Mid-way through the programme, the voice-over read: "Veterinary medicine is increasingly high tech, and increasingly expensive. The new generation of vets is taught that working up to an accurate diagnosis may involve extensive tests. More veterinary work means more costs. And later in the documentary, Alex Lee, the reporter, was said to have found evidence of two clients that had spent over £100,000 on their pets over a ten year period.

At the end of it all, the real issue is not about the disparity between one vet's bill and another's, but whether the profession is becoming over-qualified or over-equipped for the job, and consequently at risk of pricing itself out of the market. 

Commenting on state-of-the-art care, Professor Innes from the University of Liverpool said in the programme: "We would never push clients into procedures that are unnecessary, but if people want to access the best healthcare for their pet, that's up to them."

Surely every pet owner wants to access the best healthcare for their pet? Of course, Professor Innes is right, there is a market for complex procedures and diagnostic tests. But there's a very fine line between 'pushing' a client into a procedure, and recommending a procedure (to someone who feels emotionally duty-bound to do the best for their cherished pet).

For me, it was ironically one of the Medivet staff who seemed to hit the nail on the head when she said: "The 'Medivet Way' is to work it up to find out why straight away, so... And people can't afford it now really, you know."

Is the word 'Medivet' in her quote interchangeable with a growing list of practices? Does something need to give? Is it time to call a halt to the development of increasingly complex procedures and diagnostic tests developed to save the life of what is, after all, just a cat or a dog?

Or is it a question of veterinary surgeons ceasing to recommend any particular treatment above a certain cost, and instead simply laying out the options available to the client: "Mrs Jones, you've got three options here. Option one is my best guess, and I might be wrong. Option two is my best guess plus these tests, which will help confirm whether I am right and will cost x. Option three is referral to the world's leading expert, who is based in Dallas, but that'll give time for the MRI on board the specially chartered 747". I'm being flippant, but my point is a serious one: as more expensive treatment and diagnostic options become available, so it becomes ever riskier recommending them, rather than simply informing the owner of their choices.

The next story was an important one too. It was the one where a student nurse and the unqualified reporter were tasked with catheterising a dog unsupervised. They struggled. As did the dog. Thanks to the hidden camera, and the reporter interjecting: 'What a nightmare', it made for dramatic TV. But as many have commented in the VetSurgeon forums, a difficult to catheterise dog is not exactly out of the ordinary. And who thinks this was the first time the procedure has been done by lay staff?

More interesting was the polar opposite interpretations of the law on this issue expressed by Medivet on the one hand, and Professor Sandy Trees for the RCVS on the other. In response to the question of whether a trainee should be placing a catheter, Jeremy Vine read from a statement in which Medivet insisted that everything it allows its trainees to do is legal, and that there was no definitive list of procedures that could be carried out by trainees. Two minutes later, and we had Professor Trees appearing to contradict Medivet's statement.

Then we see the reporter and a student nurse taking a blood sample from a cat, before the arrival of a vet. Medivet says: "This procedure was completely legal, normal and was carried out at the direction of a vet. This means that the vet does not have to be present at the time. [The tasks] were not illegal. The trainee veterinary nurses were properly trained and experienced. RCVS inspectors have never raised this as an issue, and it is common practice." But when Jeremy Vine then asked Professor Trees: "Would it be OK for a student veterinary nurse to take a blood sample before a vet arrived into the practice", the answer is no. When pressed: "So supervision means that the vet has to be in the building", Professor Trees hesitates before delivering his more ambiguous reply: 'I would say so, yes'.

How on earth did that happen? How did one of the biggest veterinary groups come to be at loggerheads with the regulator on TV? Remember that Medivet would have had some time to prepare its response, and presumably had it checked by a team of lawyers first. Professor Trees may or may not have had the luxury of as much warning. Still, if el Presidente himself cannot give more than a personal opinion in answer to such an important question, something is amiss. After all, people's careers are at stake here.

The issue here is whether regulation needs to become more prescriptive. For example, is it fair that the responsibility for defining precisely what is 'minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity)', and therefore able to be performed by a qualified veterinary nurse, currently rests with the individual veterinary surgeon. And if it comes to it, the only way the veterinary surgeon is going to know whether he or she made the right call is if and when it comes to be tested in court.

Talk about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Surely it is time now, particularly in the (like it or not) increasingly corporate and less personally accountable world we live in, for the profession and everyone in it to have clearer leadership in terms of what is and what is not acceptable.

I won't dwell on any of the other stories covered by the documentary, because I don't think any of them are individually revealing of very much.

A student nurse struck a dog. 'Walloped' according to the reporter; 'smacked' according to an  onlooker. There's a difference. Either way, a difficult one to defend.

Then a member of staff (and I couldn't work out whether it was the vet or the nursing assistant) started playing with an anaesthetised kitten as if it were a puppet. That was damning for the lack of humanity it showed.

Next we saw a new grad trying to intubate a cat. For some reason, it didn't go as smoothly as it should. Some speculation in the VetSurgeon forums as to whether she applied the local anaesthetic correctly or not, but the cat was fine. Mistakes happen.

Next we saw a dog that had a condition which made it susceptible to cuts. A 'new girl' says she thinks she must have accidentally cut its pad as she closed the kennel door. Not the end of the world, except we then see the staff plotting to tell the owner that it happened before the dog arrived at the practice, and that they would need £13 worth of Fuciderm. Again, it isn't what you would call the crime of the century. But it was nevertheless a damning piece of film for the lack of honesty shown by the staff.

Then we had the case of the dodgy insurance claims, where the practice allegedly split what should have been one claim into three 'by accident', so that they could effectively increase the total amount the owner would be able to claim. Difficult to get really het up about this one. I mean, I know it's wrong. But it wasn't exactly in the same league as Lord Brocket taking the oxyacetylene torch to his car collection. And as far as I could see, the unwitting beneficiaries of this one were the dog and its  owner.  No, the real problem was that in the same breath as Medivet proclaimed its innocence, its employee was there in technicolor explaining exactly how and why the deed was done.

Guy Carter, one of the Medivet partners was next on the rack. The Panorama reporter alleged that he instructed staff to bill a client for a monitor that wasn't used. The company says it was. So it's their word against hers. Unfortunately, the company's word wasn't looking that good by this stage in the proceedings.

As I said earlier, these things don't individually tell anyone much. But collectively, I wonder whether they don't highlight another important issue, which is the apparent 'disconnect' (hate using the word like that, just can't think of a better alternative at this time of night) between what the public wants (i.e. a close, trusting relationship with an accountable James Herriot-type-figure, personified in the film by Bob Stevenson), and what the corporates can realistically deliver.

I was chatting about this with a locum vet this afternoon. His experience is that in small practices where the owner is present, there is always a better atmosphere. Staff take more pride in their work, and deliver a higher standard of care than in the corporates.

Isn't that really what the documentary showed? Yes, they were especially excruciating examples of how people behave when they don't have a real sense of ownership in a business. But isn't a lower, less personal standard of care an inevitable consequence of corporatisation?

Incidentally, my apologies for labelling Medivet a corporate rather than a partnership, but like it or not, that's the public perception of a chain.

Finally, the star of the show made his grand entrance. Kfir Segev, charged with recommending £2200 worth of MRI scan for a dog that was obviously dying. Now that is despicable. He's found guilty of unprofessional conduct, and struck off. I suppose 'vet commits fraud, is found out and punished' is not the stuff of which great documentaries are made, so Panorama tried to make something of the fact that he continued to work for 28 days whilst deciding whether to exercise his right to appeal. And? Perhaps sensing they still had a bit of a non-story on their hands, they tried to make an issue out of the fact that he'd continued to work as a practice manager after being struck off. It was all a bit lame, really.

Still, not as lame as the finale, which was the 'revelation' that Medivet collected blood from rescue dogs, in return for donations of food and supplies. Panorama claimed the blood was sold at a profit. Medivet claimed it is subsidised. Does anyone actually care either way?

Since the documentary was broadcast last night, Medivet has issued a further statement in which it does the honourable thing, and takes responsibility for everything it needed to. Medivet will recover from this. If the professionalism of the response is anything to go by, it will emerge stronger.

Still, the big questions remain. How to address the spiralling costs that accompany the latest advances. Can the profession afford, any longer, to leave so much to the discretion of the individual, or is it time to demand a more prescriptive regulatory environment? And finally, how can the corporates deliver the kind of service that the public seems to want? Doubtless there will be some who'd like them to fail in this regard. But as we've just seen, it does nobody any favours if they are allowed to do so in a way that threatens to bring the whole profession into disrepute.

The Daily Mail has today published an interview with the 'nurse' who worked undercover at Medivet for tonight's Panorama documentary: It shouldn't happen at a vets (tonight, BBC1 9pm).

Looks like the communications departments at the RCVS, BVA and BSAVA will be run off their feet today. So far, the following radio stations and newspapers have run stories:

BBC Online has published a longer trailer for the programme here.
BBC Radio 4 Today - interview with the mole, followed by Sandy Trees (in the recording of the entire programme, it starts at 1:09:05 on the iPlayer timeline)
BBC Radio 5 live - interview with Jacquie Molyneux (not available on iPlayer)
BBC Radio Tees - 7:50am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)
BBC Radio Somerset - 8:00am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)
BBC Radio Shropshire - 8:40am interview with Bill Reilly (BVA)
Aberdeen Press & Journal
BBC Twitter
China News (in Chinese)
BBC Radio 2 - Jeremy Vine interviews Steve Leonard (starts at 1:10:56 on the iPlayer timeline. Continues through at least a couple of songs. At one point, Jeremy Vine says there are lots of reports coming into the show of good vets too!).
dogmagazine.net
The Guardian (TV Review)

I'll be updating the list of news reports over the course of the day. 

And reaction to the story elsewhere on the Internet ...

UK Labradoodle forum
Digital Spy
Yahoo Answers
Pet forums
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31MgikMLneU (well worth watching, this one).
Horse & Hound forums

Incidentally, in case anyone is asked for an interview, BVA has produced an advice sheet on the subject for its members, plus a briefing document. The association has also published a response to the Daily Mail story on its website.