His Majesty King Charles III
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
United Kingdom

Dear King Charles,

I hope this email finds you in the best of health.

I wrote to you a few years ago about helping with your health centre in Scotland. I have always appreciated your commitment to natural health and standing up against injustice in this field.

Professional Background

As you may be aware, I am a Naturopath specializing in Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine, and my own style of massage therapy and bodywork called Raynor Naturopathic Massage and Bodywork. I am a triple citizen of the UK, Australia, and Canada, and I teach in all three countries, plus New Zealand, the United States, and Ireland. I had the honour of massaging the head of the Guards at Buckingham Palace several years ago, and he very much appreciated it.

Summary of Concern

I wish I were writing to you under better circumstances. Unfortunately, I am writing to draw your attention to what I believe is corruption in Queensland, particularly targeting so-called unregulated natural health practitioners. I have personally observed a witch-hunt atmosphere in Queensland, where organizations such as the Office of the Health Ombudsman (OHO) and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) conspire with other government bodies to repress natural therapists—especially those aligned with Ayurveda and Chinese/Japanese medicine.

Historical Context: Chiropractic, Religion, and Rivalries

This repression began in 2009, when certain regulated health professions sought to restrict cervical adjustments to their own members. Medical practitioners, for example, are permitted to perform cervical adjustments despite no mandatory training in the procedure. Chiropractors, meanwhile, do receive training, but the profession’s origins are questionable.

D.D. Palmer, founder of chiropractic, was a spiritualist who performed his first chiropractic adjustment in 1895 after claiming to have channeled a deceased doctor, Dr. Jim Atkinson. Palmer openly described chiropractic as a religion:

“… we must have a religious head… I am the fountain head. I am the founder of chiropractic in its science, in its art, in its philosophy and in its religious phase.”
“… nor interfere with the religious duty of chiropractors… It now becomes us as chiropractors to assert our religious rights.”
“The practice of chiropractic involves a moral obligation and a religious duty.”

To me, it is hypocritical for chiropractors to claim the right to practise their calling as a religion, while supporting laws that restrict others from answering their own divine call as healers.

Many traditional healers—including lomi lomi practitioners of Hawaii and Thai massage practitioners—do not claim to be channeling a long-deceased doctor. Instead, they pray directly to God or seek guidance from revered figures such as Shivago Komarpaj, the Buddhist monk and physician said to be a contemporary and friend of the Buddha. In these traditions, healing is seen as a sacred duty, supported by prayer and connection to the divine.

Thus, while chiropractors defend their spiritual origins and religious rights, they simultaneously work with other regulated professions to suppress healers whose inspiration comes not from a disembodied spirit, but from prayer, God, or long-standing Buddhist or indigenous traditions. This double standard underscores the hypocrisy of restricting others’ freedom to practise their healing callings.

Historically, chiropractors have engaged in turf wars with physiotherapists (or physical therapists in the USA) and with osteopaths, all vying to monopolise adjustments—especially cervical ones. In Australia, this rivalry was resolved by these professions aligning with medical practitioners to introduce a National Law in 2009.

The 2009 National Law and Its Definition

This law created a monopoly over cervical manipulation, effectively excluding naturopaths, massage therapists, shiatsu practitioners, and other traditional bodyworkers. If the true aim had been safety, mandatory training would have been required for anyone performing adjustments, but this was not the case.

The law defined cervical manipulation as:

“Manipulation of the cervical spine means moving the joints of the cervical spine beyond a person’s usual physiological range of motion using a high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust.”

The Complaint Against Me

Under this definition, a competitor saw a Facebook video of me treating a retired New Zealand Army Sergeant, who experienced profound healing during a several-hour treatment. The adjustment I performed was within his normal range, high amplitude, and medium velocity.

An envious viewer, long opposed to my support for Oriental medicine and my innovative training approach, complained to the OHO, alleging I had performed a prohibited manipulation.

OHO “Findings of Fact” and Website Misquote

The OHO’s investigation cited two “findings of fact”:

1. They claimed my website said: “I teach cervical adjustments which I am legally allowed to do so.”
2. They relied on a statutory declaration from Stephen Purcell, a Brisbane physiotherapist, stating that I was “most definitely” performing a cervical manipulation as defined in law.

Both claims were false.

The OHO itself had submitted into evidence a printed copy of my website—clearly showing my original words: “we teach cervical adjustments where we are legally allowed to do so.” This demonstrates beyond doubt that I had not changed my website later to escape liability.

During mediation, I asked their lawyer to read aloud both their “finding” and the printed copy of my website. As he did, his face turned purple. I asked directly why the OHO had altered the wording to make me appear defiant of the law. He could not explain the discrepancy and merely promised to get back to me, which he never did.

I filed two formal complaints about this misconduct: the first the OHO claimed had been “lost in a pile of papers on a desk” (which I believe was a deliberate attempt to ignore it in order to cover up their corruption, but even if true would amount to gross negligence given the seriousness of a complaint against them), and the second they only responded to a few days before the scheduled QCAT hearing. Their excuse was that it was a “transcription error.” But this is nonsensical—why would anyone transcribe written words rather than simply copy and paste them? This excuse further highlights either corruption or gross negligence.

The Purcell Declaration and Cross-Examination

Mr. Purcell’s statutory declaration asserted that my technique met the statutory definition. However, under cross-examination at QCAT, he admitted—without hesitation—that what I did would be considered high amplitude, directly contradicting his sworn declaration that it was low amplitude.

This contradiction exposed his earlier statement as false and misleading. In a normal case, such dishonesty would have led to immediate dismissal of proceedings. Instead, OHO’s lawyers and the QCAT judge rewrote the definition during proceedings, retroactively applying it to my conduct in order to justify a restraining order.

Alleged Retroactive Redefinition by QCAT

This rewriting of the definition happened twice during my case. It violated a fundamental legal principle: no one should be punished for conduct that was not unlawful at the time. Yet I was penalised with a restraining order, ordered to pay $3,000 court costs, and defamed publicly on the internet.

Safety Arguments and Economic Context

The so-called expert witness then attempted to claim my techniques were dangerous, even though he had already shown himself to be deliberately dishonest. By swearing under statutory declaration that I was “most definitely” performing something he later admitted I was not, he demonstrated a knowing and intentional disregard for the truth. Because of this, he should no longer have been considered an expert witness, since a truly expert witness must uphold honesty and integrity and not lie. Despite this, he provided no scientific justification for his claims, and I have never harmed anyone.

I also recently lodged a formal complaint with the OHO about Mr. Purcell’s unprofessional behaviour, specifically his dishonesty under statutory declaration. The OHO, however, refused to investigate my complaint, further demonstrating their unwillingness to hold their chosen experts accountable while they continue to target practitioners such as myself.

My approach involves two hours or more of massage treatment, during which cervical adjustments may be included—not always at the end, but sometimes several times as the layers of muscle and soft tissue relax. This preparatory work reduces risks to soft tissues such as veins, arteries, and muscles. I contend my method is safer than those practised by the four regulated professions, many of whom perform 10 or more cervical adjustments per hour without such preparation.

This holistic approach also poses an economic threat to those professions. My rates, and those of my students, are lower, and my methods more comprehensive. Patients would quickly prefer such treatments, undermining the profits of the regulated professions.

The OHO, which receives significant funding from these professions, did not disclose this conflict of interest. Instead, it acted as their enforcer.

Legal and Ethical Framework in Queensland

Queensland law makes it a criminal offence for officials to falsify documents:

• Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld):
  • s.430 Misconduct in relation to public office – max 7 years
  • s.92 Abuse of office – max 7 years
  • s.123 Forgery and uttering – max 14 years
  • s.430–s.442 False or misleading documents and records
• Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 (Qld): requires integrity, honesty, and accountability.
• Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld): defines falsification for gain, harm, or cover-up as “corrupt conduct.”

Despite this, my complaints to OHO, QCAT, the Queensland Ombudsman, and elected officials have been ignored.

Queensland’s History of Corruption and Fitzgerald’s Warnings

Queensland has a long history of political and bureaucratic corruption. Tony Fitzgerald, who led the landmark Royal Commission in the 1980s, later described Queensland as a “corrupt police state.”

Since then, Fitzgerald has repeatedly warned of backsliding:

• 2009: a “complacent political culture sliding back into arrogance and abuse.”
• 2015: “Queensland is extremely vulnerable to a recurrence of political corruption. There are worrying signs that some politicians have learned nothing from the past.”
• 2022: in a review of the CCC, he again warned that unchecked power and secrecy undermine accountability.

Just as Fitzgerald found the CCC had become captured by internal culture and lacked independent oversight, I see the same risks in OHO and QCAT, where shifting definitions and conflicted experts enable unfair, likely corrupt outcomes.

Request for a Royal Commission

Your Majesty, I respectfully ask you to call for a Royal Commission into corruption within Queensland government bodies, particularly the OHO, QCAT, and the Queensland Ombudsman. The Queensland Government has not shown the will to police itself or restore confidence in its institutions. Only a Royal Commission, with full independence, can expose the truth and restore justice.

Yours sincerely,

Brandon Raynor