Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

[natasa778]

Don't try again. Don't try again, Gerwyn or anyone else.

I second that. Please don't try again Gerwyn, your time is too precious.

 

[Min]

I hope this troll is banned soon for his abusive comments to Gerwyn.

 

[Gerwyn]

I think Cheeseontoast is Crowey over at BS if anyone feels strong enough to wade through the puerile swear words, bigotry and abuse that pass for 'science' there and see how he is ridiculing us.

I hope this troll is banned soon for his abusive comments to Gerwyn.

i wont i was trying to see who he was. i do have better things to do. let him enjoy his delusions the poor man probably has little else to live for

 

[Min]

i wont i was trying to see who he was. i do have better things to do. let him enjoy his delusions the poor man probably has little else to live for

there's always that BS basement......

 

[Mark]

Dr Myhill's theories and XMRV?

Note: I have edited CheeseOnToast's post #339 to illustrate where the forum rules were breached on this thread. This may be of interest to members in identifying the rules, how they were breached, and what our guidelines say about moderating such breaches.

The subsequent legal argument obscured some interesting questions which had been raised previously, so I'll now return to this one in post #338:

Originally Posted by Gerwyn
hi Knackered B12 shots are one of the recommended treatments for mito dysfunction

Caused by a retrovirus?

That is a very interesting question indeed, and one that has been in my mind in recent days, and previously. I would be most interested in scientific views on this question.

What is the possible relationship between Dr Myhill's model (and Environmental Medicine / MCS models in general), and the XMRV finding?

I write the following as a mathematician and computer programmer, not a biologist, so please excuse any lapses in terminology...

My understanding is that Dr Myhill's model posits that deficiencies in biochemical pathways disrupt the chain of events that allow us to absorb vitamins properly, causing a chain of very specific vitamin deficiencies which ends up with a mito dysfunction, and that this mito dysfunction is responsible for fatigue symptoms.

The question then would be: is it possible that XMRV could cause these underlying deficiencies? The model I have been wondering about is: can XMRV overwrite a section of our DNA such that it prevents the manufacture of specific enzymes? The corruption of specific sections of DNA, knocking out the ability to create specific enzymes, is what was advanced to me as a theory to explain the underlying inability to break down the food we eat properly. This all sounds feasible to me as a mechanism to explain how XMRV infection could underlie the deficiencies that Dr Myhill has been investigating and treating.

An alternative possibility is that the deficiencies impair our immune systems in such a way that we become vulnerable to XMRV infection.

So it does not seem to me that Dr Myhill's theories and methods are incompatible with XMRV as a causal mechanism for ME/CFS, but I would like to hear scientific comments on what I have described above. Are these two theories necessarily mutually exclusive, or could they both be true?

Another possibility, of course, is that Dr Myhill is successfully treating precisely those ME/CFS patients whose illness is NOT caused by XMRV, and that her theories are valid only for a different subgroup of the ME/CFS wastebasket.

My main 'bottom line' feeling about all this is: the validity of Dr Myhill's theories are not really my primary concern, as a patient. What matters to me is whether her treatments are effective. B12 supplementation is a widely used treatment for ME/CFS with, it seems, a lot of evidence for success in some patients, and whether that treatment works because of Dr Myhill's theories or for some other reason is really an academic point from the patient's point of view.

Therefore I care not, as a patient, whether the treatment works for the wrong reasons, and I do not want the option of receiving that treatment withdrawn from me by the state on the basis that her science is unproven. I would like to at least have the option of making my own mind up which treatment I try, please - especially so when the alternative offer from the state is...nothing.

The bottom line of all this, really, is that the state is, in general, concerned to protect me from myself by preventing me from accessing treatments they consider unscientific, unproven and/or potentially dangerous or worthless. Since my firm and considered opinion of the treatments offered by the state itself is that they themselves are clearly unscientific, unproven, potentially dangerous or possibly worthless, I have to respond: How Very Dare You? It seems that in the medical arena, as in the political arena, the state has still not got the message: We Don't Trust You Any More. It can keep on dreaming of putting the genie back in the bottle, and talking about 'regaining trust' - - but those are merely the last, desperate, meaningless cries of a crumbling infrastructure. Our Trust in you has left the building: get over it!

 

[fourecks]

Note: I have edited CheeseOnToast's post #339 to illustrate where the forum rules were breached on this thread. This may be of interest to members in identifying the rules, how they were breached, and what our guidelines say about moderating such breaches.

Ah, yes but calling someone a coward is fine as long as you've got several hundred posts to your name....

Let's just say for argument's sake that a judge does let you find the identity of Jonas. What difference is it going to make to what the esteemed Dr Myhill has to do to her website and practise? Nothing, nada. zilch. So instead of trying to blame the complainant or find a non-existent conspiracy, actually work out why Myhill's been censured (hint, it's because she is using treatments that are not best practice), tell her, and then she might get her full license to practise back.

Or keep your head stuck firmly in cloud cuckoo land....

 

[kurt]

Mark has already made some MOD comments but I just want to add that both sides in this heated argument have clearly broken forum rules. The notion that you are right does not allow bending of the rules. So please disagree without all the subtle and not-so-subtle insults. This forum does NOT allow insulting of forum members, be they new or established.

 

[Gerwyn]

Note: I have edited CheeseOnToast's post #339 to illustrate where the forum rules were breached on this thread. This may be of interest to members in identifying the rules, how they were breached, and what our guidelines say about moderating such breaches.

The subsequent legal argument obscured some interesting questions which had been raised previously, so I'll now return to this one in post #338:

Originally Posted by Gerwyn
hi Knackered B12 shots are one of the recommended treatments for mito dysfunction



That is a very interesting question indeed, and one that has been in my mind in recent days, and previously. I would be most interested in scientific views on this question.

What is the possible relationship between Dr Myhill's model (and Environmental Medicine / MCS models in general), and the XMRV finding?

I write the following as a mathematician and computer programmer, not a biologist, so please excuse any lapses in terminology...

My understanding is that Dr Myhill's model posits that deficiencies in biochemical pathways disrupt the chain of events that allow us to absorb vitamins properly, causing a chain of very specific vitamin deficiencies which ends up with a mito dysfunction, and that this mito dysfunction is responsible for fatigue symptoms.

The question then would be: is it possible that XMRV could cause these underlying deficiencies? The model I have been wondering about is: can XMRV overwrite a section of our DNA such that it prevents the manufacture of specific enzymes? The corruption of specific sections of DNA, knocking out the ability to create specific enzymes, is what was advanced to me as a theory to explain the underlying inability to break down the food we eat properly. This all sounds feasible to me as a mechanism to explain how XMRV infection could underlie the deficiencies that Dr Myhill has been investigating and treating.

An alternative possibility is that the deficiencies impair our immune systems in such a way that we become vulnerable to XMRV infection.

So it does not seem to me that Dr Myhill's theories and methods are incompatible with XMRV as a causal mechanism for ME/CFS, but I would like to hear scientific comments on what I have described above. Are these two theories necessarily mutually exclusive, or could they both be true?

Another possibility, of course, is that Dr Myhill is successfully treating precisely those ME/CFS patients whose illness is NOT caused by XMRV, and that her theories are valid only for a different subgroup of the ME/CFS wastebasket.

My main 'bottom line' feeling about all this is: the validity of Dr Myhill's theories are not really my primary concern, as a patient. What matters to me is whether her treatments are effective. B12 supplementation is a widely used treatment for ME/CFS with, it seems, a lot of evidence for success in some patients, and whether that treatment works because of Dr Myhill's theories or for some other reason is really an academic point from the patient's point of view.

Therefore I care not, as a patient, whether the treatment works for the wrong reasons, and I do not want the option of receiving that treatment withdrawn from me by the state on the basis that her science is unproven. I would like to at least have the option of making my own mind up which treatment I try, please - especially so when the alternative offer from the state is...nothing.

The bottom line of all this, really, is that the state is, in general, concerned to protect me from myself by preventing me from accessing treatments they consider unscientific, unproven and/or potentially dangerous or worthless. Since my firm and considered opinion of the treatments offered by the state itself is that they themselves are clearly unscientific, unproven, potentially dangerous or possibly worthless, I have to respond: How Very Dare You? It seems that in the medical arena, as in the political arena, the state has still not got the message: We Don't Trust You Any More. It can keep on dreaming of putting the genie back in the bottle, and talking about 'regaining trust' - - but those are merely the last, desperate, meaningless cries of a crumbling infrastructure. Our Trust in you has left the building: get over it!

The mutagenic insertion of xmrv into creb and nfat can explain all our symptoms. Dr myhill actually opines that our illness has mito dysfunction at its core .Her treatments are an attempt to correct such dysfunction

 

[Mark]

Ah, yes but calling someone a coward is fine as long as you've got several hundred posts to your name...

I made it quite clear that there was fault on both sides, and that I was drawing attention in particular to the first offence in order to make clear what the rules are here. I did not even go so far as to issue a warning, I simply pointed out to cheeseontoast and to the world in general where the name-calling began.

I follow football. I do stand out of line a little, in emphasis, in that - as I said - the first offence is the key point as far as I'm concerned. If someone sits there calling me an idiot, or a loon, or whatever other playground insult they may come up with, well, sooner or later, pretty much everyone responds in kind I guess.

But Kurt is right as well of course. In football, and in life, you'd probably both get a yellow card each if it were a serious offence. But since it wasn't, it'd just be a free kick and a quick word with both, I guess.

Let's just say for argument's sake that a judge does let you find the identity of Jonas. What difference is it going to make to what the esteemed Dr Myhill has to do to her website and practise? Nothing, nada. zilch. So instead of trying to blame the complainant or find a non-existent conspiracy, actually work out why Myhill's been censured (hint, it's because she is using treatments that are not best practice), tell her, and then she might get her full license to practise back.

I don't know Forecks! You tell me. What difference would it make to any potential legal appeal, to know the identity of the person who brought the complaint? I have no idea whatsoever, since I don't know the identity of that person, but depending who it is, might make a difference? Like: was it a patient, or a rival, or...whatever.

Surely more important, though, is the evidence why she's been censured, as you rightly say. We have to "work out" why, you say. Your hint is comedic: what does best practice mean here? Is that the same as the NHS and NICE-style best practice? :tear:

Yeah, we do get it actually: they are kicking her out because they don't accept that her treatments work and they seem to think the best practice does. Who was that that was living in cloud-cuckoo land again? Ultimately there's a technical point here, that this is inevitable if the "best practice" is garbage and "not best practice" includes everything that works. So maybe it's not the GMC's fault at all, but the people who decide what is "best practice"? Is that your point perhaps?

Lastly: you want us to "work out" why Dr Myhill has been censored. Can you help me there please? Can you point me to the GMC website that I'm having trouble funding? The one with the detailed evidence: the quotes of what Dr Myhill said on her website that was unacceptable, and the details of why it is unacceptable? I'm also looking forward to watching the video of the proceedings - I gather Australia asked for it amongst others, but it doesn't seem to be online yet. Strange...

I presume this information is all available and you can point me at it? Or perhaps I am getting delusions of democracy again?

 

[insignificount]

Hi Mark,

Here is a link to a transcript (it's a .pdf file) of the hearing: LINK

Is that what you're trying to find?

That's all I'm going to say for now, but I would like to know why my previous username/account ("insignificant") was banned. Which of my posts in this thread broke the rules?

I admit that I might been slightly antagonistic towards Gerwyn (but as kurt said, they give as good as they get), but I actually think I was generally polite.

 

[fourecks]

I don't know Forecks! You tell me. What difference would it make to any potential legal appeal, to know the identity of the person who brought the complaint? I have no idea whatsoever, since I don't know the identity of that person, but depending who it is, might make a difference? Like: was it a patient, or a rival, or...whatever.

Since it was the substance of the complaint that was investigated then it wouldn't make a scrap of difference if the complainant was her worst enemy. It is the substance of the complaint that has been upheld.

Surely more important, though, is the evidence why she's been censured, as you rightly say. We have to "work out" why, you say. Your hint is comedic: what does best practice mean here? Is that the same as the NHS and NICE-style best practice? :tear:

Yeah, we do get it actually: they are kicking her out because she can't prove her treatments work better than best practice does. Who was that that was living in cloud-cuckoo land again? ...

There fixed that for you.

Lastly: you want us to "work out" why Dr Myhill has been censored. Can you help me there please? Can you point me to the GMC website that I'm having trouble funding?

I actually don't want you to work out why Dr Myhill has been censored. She's plainly a danger to the public as details of the first complaint show:

Diagnosing CFS from the results of a blood test (which has zero clinical evidence to support it) without a proper consultation with the patient and trying to prescribe vitamin and magnesium injections. A similar (but opposite) thing happened to my father-in-law who "un-diagnosed" with CFS on the basis of some quack reading his medical notes which turned out to contain errors of fact.

It's in the GMC transcript...

I presume this information is all available and you can point me at it? Or perhaps I am getting delusions of democracy again?

Well I could suggest the "inaccuracies on Dr Myhill's website" thread on Bad Science which contains much well-referenced reasons for why her advice is dangerous. Her advice concerning lung and breast cancer is particularly insidious.

 

[Gerwyn]

Ah, yes but calling someone a coward is fine as long as you've got several hundred posts to your name....

Let's just say for argument's sake that a judge does let you find the identity of Jonas. What difference is it going to make to what the esteemed Dr Myhill has to do to her website and practise? Nothing, nada. zilch. So instead of trying to blame the complainant or find a non-existent conspiracy, actually work out why Myhill's been censured (hint, it's because she is using treatments that are not best practice), tell her, and then she might get her full license to practise back.

Or keep your head stuck firmly in cloud cuckoo land....

The difference in simple terms is that dr Myhill can recover her loss of income from Jonas,current and future assets. I would have thought that would have been obvious. I understand that Jonas' identity will be known early next week

 

[fourecks]

The difference in simple terms is that dr Myhill can recover her loss of income from Jonas,current and future assets. I would have thought that would have been obvious. I understand that Jonas' identity will be known early next week

Silly me, of course, because it is Jonas's fault that she's had her license restricted. And there was me thinking that it was substance of the complaint (not the complainant) that the GMC were looking at.

There's not a chance in the world that she'll be able to recover any costs to do with this case from Jonas, and anyone who thinks she can is going to be very disappointed indeed.

 

[Gerwyn]

Silly me, of course, because it is Jonas's fault that she's had her license restricted. And there was me thinking that it was substance of the complaint (not the complainant) that the GMC were looking at.

There's not a chance in the world that she'll be able to recover any costs to do with this case from Jonas, and anyone who thinks she can is going to be very disappointed indeed.

yes you are being silly the gmc did not look at the substance of the complaint.The comments of the complainant will be a matter for a judge.I think that jonas will be the one who will be surprised .The new conditional fee arrangements in defamation can make life very interesting indeed!

 

[jonathan sizz]

yes you are being silly the gmc did not look at the substance of the complaint.The comments of the complainant will be a matter for a judge.I think that jonas will be the one who will be surprised .The new conditional fee arrangements in defamation can make life very interesting indeed!

If "Jonas" has his identity revealed by a court and subsequently finds himself the target of a successful defamation case I will actually drink a pint of my own piss and post the video on youtube.
You have my word.

Have you any idea what kind of precedent a defamation case against a complaint made to a proper regulatory authority would set? Why do you think official regulatory authorities exist?

 

[jace]

Is anyone else really tired of posters who are obviously not ME sufferers, who are more often than not antagonistic, and seem to be incapable of taking on board the medical experience of people, many of whom have been ill for decades? I am talking facts, not power games, here.

Not that it is good knife-sharpening practice...

 

[carolwxyz99]

At a GMC hearing on 29th jan 2010, Dr Jane Barton, who murdered or killed 12 patients (and probably many more) was only banned from prescribing morphine and can continue practicing as a doctor. Its unbelievable that they will stop Dr Myhill from prescribing anything on the BNF when she has not harmed any patient.

 

[Gerwyn]

If "Jonas" has his identity revealed by a court and subsequently finds himself the target of a successful defamation case I will actually drink a pint of my own piss and post the video on youtube.
You have my word.

Have you any idea what kind of precedent a defamation case against a complaint made to a proper regulatory authority would set? Why do you think official regulatory authorities exist?

Complaints to "proper" regulatory authorities have been the subject of a number of successful claims in defamation.So you need not worry yourself the precedent already exists.

 

[insignificount]

Quick clarification (and I'm not being pedantic or playing at power games; I've been ill for two decades [but not with ME/CFS], but I don't confuse my experience of being ill with being an expert on my illness):

The BNF (and I've got a copy on my desk atm) includes both "over-the-counter" drugs/medicines and drugs/medicines that are "presciption only" or POM; it is only drugs/medicines in the latter category that Dr Myhill will not be allowed to prescribe (and other doctors that have their licence restricted have been able to work around it to some extent by referring their patients to doctors that are allowed to prescribe POM, who effectively up supervising the prescribing activity of the doctor whose license has been restricted)

 

[Gerwyn]

Quick clarification (and I'm not being pedantic or playing at power games; I've been ill for two decades [but not with ME/CFS], but I don't confuse my experience of being ill with being an expert on my illness):

The BNF (and I've got a copy on my desk atm) includes both "over-the-counter" drugs/medicines and drugs/medicines that are "presciption only" or POM; it is only drugs/medicines in the latter category that Dr Myhill will not be allowed to prescribe.

dr myhill will not be allowed to pescribe poms. drs prescribe poms. the other classes of drugs can be bought over the counter.As Dr Myhill cant prescribe she cant practice as a GP.would tou go and see one who could not prescribe antibiotics,painkillers blood pressure treatments,asthma drugs heart drugs or any other kind of common treatments.She has in objective terms been treated worse than a confessed killer