The Propaganda of the Durham Botulism Case

When influence eclipsed evidence, and the aesthetics industry paid the price

Dearest Practitioner,

Last summer of 2025, following the Durham “botulism outbreak”, fear tore through the aesthetics industry faster than truth ever did.

Headlines screamed botulism. Councils murmured. EHOs frowned. Social media filled the gaps with implication and alarm. And quietly, almost gleefully, certain individuals relished the moment, loudly proclaiming “we told you so”, not because the evidence demanded it, but because the narrative suited them.

What followed was not clarity, but chaos. Commentary raced ahead of facts. Assumptions hardened into belief. An industry was judged before the evidence had even settled.

The ambiguity on the Durham Botulism no one wanted to talk about

UKHSA FOI confirms that injections were carried out primarily in residential settings, with some occurring in clinics or salons. More than one botulinum toxin product was involved, and crucially, the specific product used was not identified in all cases.

🪶 There is no definitive pattern here.

🪶 No single setting.

🪶 No single product.

🪶 No consistent chain of causation.

Yet the absence of a clear pattern did not slow the narrative. It accelerated it.

What the investigation actually says, in plain English

The investigation explicitly states that it cannot conclude whether illness was caused by the product itself, the method of administration, a combination of both, or something else entirely.

Put simply: they do not know.

This is not because the question was answered and ignored, but because the data required to conclusively “close the loop” was not available.

Severity, data gaps, and what was never measured

All cases attended A&E. Fewer than five required ICU care. There were no deaths.

UKHSA also confirms that it does not routinely collect long-term outcome data for incidents of this nature. That means there is no comprehensive follow-up dataset capable of definitively linking cause, severity, practitioner background, or setting over time.

So while the incident was clinically managed and contained, the data required to support the more dramatic claims simply does not exist.

When FOI data doesn’t line up and questions go unanswered

When this FOI is placed alongside the MHRA’s failure to meaningfully contextualise Yellow Card data, and councils implying catastrophic risk, a pattern begins to emerge.

Requests for clarification have been made. The responses, where given, do not align cleanly with the Durham case and fail to provide the granularity needed to support the conclusions being implied publicly.

Some may reasonably question whether this approach sits comfortably with the spirit of FOI legislation itself.

We actively encourage practitioners to submit their own Freedom of Information requests, review the responses critically, and observe for themselves how often the facts are skirted, diluted, or redirected.

🪶 Transparency should calm an industry.

🪶 Opacity breeds fear.

The missing question no one wanted answered

One detail has been conspicuously absent from public discourse: who was actually responsible for administering the treatments?

There has been no confirmed disclosure as to whether the practitioner involved was an HCP or a non-HCP.

Industry word suggests the treatments were likely carried out by a healthcare professional operating in private practice, although this has never been formally addressed.

🪶 Instead, the silence allowed implication to do the damage.

🪶 The vacuum was filled with assumption.

🪶 The assumption targeted non-HCP practitioners.

🪶 And the divide within aesthetics deepened.

This is what propaganda does. It does not need to state a lie outright. It only needs to withhold balance, amplify fear, and let bias do the rest.

The real damage

This is a textbook example of how limited facts, amplified without context, can paralyse an industry.

🪶 Not through evidence.

🪶 Through influence.

🪶 Through omission.

🪶 Through selective outrage.

The result was not public protection, but fear, division, and discrimination across sectors of a profession that never received a fair, evidence-led assessment in the first place.

Dearest Practitioner, a final word

Do not surrender your authority to noise.

Challenge the status quo. Question narratives that rely on implication rather than evidence. Continue to submit Freedom of Information requests. Read them carefully. Compare them. Share them responsibly. Truth does not arrive fully formed, it is built through persistence.

And then, when the truth is clear, consider something even more powerful: collaboration.

This industry does not need more division. It needs calm, informed professionals willing to work together across titles, backgrounds, and sectors to restore balance, integrity, and peace.

🪶 Fear fractures.

🪶 Truth steadies.

🪶 Unity heals.

Yours faithfully,

The Injector’s Quill 🪶