Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES, Actually, They COULD.

EXHIBIT A: THE FILM SET . . . Conversion of my “property” for teaching resources (Unauthorised Conversion of Property & Breach of Bailment (Common Law); Illegal Manipulation for Teaching (Animal Welfare Act 1999, S83)

I have been in a colossal fight with Massey's "Legal and Governance" for the past two months since my precious little Harry was terminated at its Companion Animal 'Hospital', trying to prise out of the institution any truly objective clinical records to determine the more granular, pivotal aspects of what was done to Harry in their "ICU" ward on November 30 and December 1, last year.

In fact, I've been in that colossal fight just to get them to admit that anything other than their subjective, manually produced (and, I firmly believe, significantly retrospectively altered and added to) "Clinical Summary" even exists.

But with the Privacy Commissioner's eyes on them and awaiting my full report, Massey had a dilemma: 

Their "Option A"  was to continue to insist that no objective, machine-based data existed (instead, continuing to argue the semantics of "primary records" vs "secondary records") and know that, when my report is tabled before the Commissioner and most certainly when it is tabled before the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, that those parties would see that falsehood for what it was.

Or, "Option B", hand over the IDEXX reports (part of what I requested) and hope I didn't notice what I've noticed.

Massey's continued arrogance will be its ultimate downfall . . . a symptom of that arrogance being that they think I'm stupid.

And because I'm not stupid, I noticed what they hoped I wouldn't. That Harry's machine-generated monitoring read-outs ended when November 30 ended. Either that, or the monitoring reports for December 1 were something they never want me to see.

There are three critical facts that I need to lay out here before I explain the significance of the above.

Readers, hold these three facts in mind:

1)  Harry had been administered a massive overdose of an unauthorised, and for his kidney condition, strictly contraindicated, convenience sedative in three separate instances across the night and morning of November 30 and December 1. Cumulatively, the hit amounted to something akin to a 750% overdose for his weight and his biological context.

2)  Despite being in a catastrophically overdosed state with a drug that is well-documented in the international veterinary literature as distinctly mimicking neurological symptomology, with the veterinary literature warning against conducting a neurological exam on a dog under the influence of the drug in question - Gabapentin - a "neurologist" performed an extensive 11.22am neurological "examination" on Harry just 2 hours and 22 minutes after he was plied at 9am with a THIRD massive overdose on top of the two massive overdoses he had been administered during the night.

3)  The "neurologist" then wrote that this (horrendously over-sedated and tiny) dog, was "limp" and "obtunded" - failing to note anywhere that Harry was even sedated per se. Let alone catastrophically over-sedated with a drug that mimicked neurological symptomology . . . and she apparently hadn't noticed that someone had disconnected him, three hours earlier, from the rehydrating fluids which by then, would have been his only hope of clearing, to some degree, the phenomenal level of toxicity from the 750% Gabapentin overdose.

Incomprehensibly Incompetent or Intentional? YOU Decide.

Focusing on (3) above, in any even partially professional veterinary "hospital", if a patient is "limp" and "obtunded", that indicates that they are one small step away from potentially entering into a coma.

That signals the need for URGENCY.

It signals immediate, detailed monitoring of cardiorespiratory status, blood glucose, electrolytes, and blood pressure,, requiring the same equipment that had produced the reports that had been included at the end of the "Clinical Summary" for the previous night . . . but that were glaringly missing for the morning when they were needed most i.e. when Harry was literally - to revert to a layman's term - red lining.

But instead, what did this "neurologist" do? She showed students how you conduct a "menace" test on a blind dog (!), flipped his paws back a few times, palpated his spine, twisted his head around, played around with his ears, performed a "structural" examination on him . . . and did absolutely nothing about his near-comatose state.

Actually, staff DID do something. That critical window of time in Harry's life - that THEY had caused to BE critical, by their catastrophic 750% overdosing of him with an unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedative and then intentionally disconnecting him from his life-essential fluids - was exactly when they chose to wheel him off to conduct live experiments on him and film at least eight teaching videos of their cruelty.

Here's the "2 + 2" equation that Massey and - I'm assuming Pauline Nijman, the clinic's manager - hoped I wouldn't be able to calculate:

In an ICU setting, a patient described as "obtunded" and "neurologically abnormal" would be tethered to monitoring equipment -  especially if, as was noted, his "condition was worsening since started".

The "Clinical Summary" claims he was being examined and monitored, but the machine logs - which cover the exact December 1 time window - show zero entries.

The absence of any machine monitoring when Harry is documented as "limp","obtunded" and "worsening" - which, in layman's terms is a dog that is COLLAPSING - is forensic proof that Massey's ICU staff are either incomprehensibly incompetent OR purged the digital evidence from the overall data set that was transmitted to me OR fabricated the manual notes after the fact.

Or all three.

On the note of all three, and focusing for the moment on the incompetence factor, have a go at this:

EXHIBIT C: FUNDAMENTAL PATIENT MISIDENTIFICATION

With that level of general intelligence quotient, it is almost tempting to believe that the 750% overdose administered to Harry was an act of genuine incompetence . . . but then, of course, we have the unauthorised fact of it, the repeated fact of it, the undisclosed fact of it, the intentional disconnection of Harry from his by-then life-essential rehydrating fluids, and the conversion of him to a test and experimental subject for an eight-documentary student film festival.

Another issue I have raised - and it is far from inconsequential - is the entirely obvious retrofitting of the "Clinical Summary".

In some instances this is likely obvious only to me (a) because I know the facts of various doctored or retrospectively added inclusions, and (b) because I'm a professional author and also the editor of thousands of other authors' outputs and can smell a mile away when something was added by the non-original author, especially when it is clearly in defence of an issue raised by an external party (me) after the original production of the document in question.

In other instances, any reader with an IQ sufficient to read a bedtime story to their child would readily spot the multiple tardy anomalies:  Anomalies like the notation that Harry's 24-hour rehydration protocol (life-essential, following their catastrophic, repeated overdosing of his impaired kidneys with a renally-contraindicated convenience sedative) had been permanently stopped just 8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol, yet the obviously retrospectively-added-back in appearance of same in subsequent notes and the bogus claim of "hand-pumping". Noting, of course, that they couldn't have been administered, let alone, "hand-pumped" since this was the exact window of time Harry was starring in the eight-documentary lab rat video productions, elsewhere in the facility.

The 'Value' Was All Massey's As Ever, Not Harry's or Mine

This is the literally lethal level of "care" that I paid $1236.84 for 15 hours of.

But Massey doesn't exactly focus on providing "value" any more than it focuses on ethics, or providing any guarantee of competent, or even safe, care . . . or even that they won't kill your pet, or perform lab rat-style testing on them, or all of the above.

On the note of value, I couldn't help but notice the $3300 - $5500 I had obviously paid in October 22, 2024 for an MRI for Harry. I remember that well, I wrote about it in this article, "Was Harry A Marked Dog?.  In a letter to Pauline Nijman, Clinic Manager, I had pointed out how concerning it was not only that Harry had gone for his full post-MRI day stay without being given water or being toileted, but also that the one (core) question I had asked the vet to have answered by the neurologist (since despite the above lofty fee I wasn't allowed to be present for because it had to be conducted at the neurologist's own convenience on the day) had never received an answer because "the neurologist was in such a hurry" Truly. Read the letter. Nijman didn't dispute it.

(Just on the note of mercenary billing: Massey's "intensive care" staff had managed to chemically "obtund" Harry with their 9am, third, massive overdose of their convenience sedation, and by 5.45pm they had achieved their desired outcome for him i.e. life termination, with their "neurological event" ruse to ensure I consented to it with the exact opposite of "informed consent". The clinical summary confirms the patient was deceased at 17:45. However, the final invoice includes charges for "ICU Monitoring" until 21:00. This represents 3.25 hours of billing for services rendered to a non-existent patient.)

I have sent a Public Interest Disclosure notification to every New Zealand Parliamentarian, as well as to every Palmerston North City Councillor, about this travesty . . . because if they can't be made to care, the risk for any pet owner whose dog is referred to Massey, and the credibility of any graduating student's veterinary qualification, is a matter of grave concern.

And speaking of grave concern, if anyone has read the commentary I published yesterday regarding the scandalous waste of the public purse viz a viz Massey's having hired a large team of top-tier lawyers to work out how to - put plainly - shut me up . . . then the following update will be of further interest to you:

The Hits Go TransTasman: An Expansion of 'Surveillance'? Or A Wave of International Veterinary Sector Interest?

The above site analytics screenshot is a real-time capture of active users in the moment.

In my earlier article this week, I pointed to what appears to be the many hours of billable time the big guns at Buddle Findlay were racking up, diving into the two years of archived articles on The Customer & The Constituent, assumedly trying to build a "profile" to character-assassinate me with . . . the standard "vexatious litigant" playbook for dealing with a case where the  actual facts can't be argued with.

My daily site analytics of the past 48 hours would suggest it's worth my asking the question:  Has the legal surveillance team's monitoring stretched across the Tasman? Or is it just the beginning of a wave of worthy international interest by Massey's peers?

If it's the former, let me save the University some of its redirected rescue funds:

(Being that The Customer & The Constituent is literally just a hobby publication for me) I have a long-standing reputation as a highly respected and formidable operator in the upper tiers of the B2B and B2G sphere across the Tasman, winning billion-dollar construction megaprojects for global infrastructure consortia - who recognise that my success lies in my ability to adopt high integrity, forensically detailed, thoroughly researched, processes and smarts to achieve their objectives.

And those processes extend to ensuring my own clients uphold very high standards so their clients aren't disappointed when they win their business. The same expectations I apply when I review companies and government agencies for this publication . . . of which Massey University has, unfortunately, now become the central topic. And for all the wrong reasons.

Just sayin', Vice-Chancellor Venter and Dean Jon Huxley. Because you're burning through a shitload of taxpayer money that you should be using to clean up your Companion Animal "Hospital" . . .so that more pets can make it out of there alive.

Because your current success rate ain't good.