1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
9th Invest in ME International ME Conference, 2014 - Part 2: Pathogens and the Gut
Mark Berry continues his series of articles on the 9th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London, with the emphasis shifting from autoimmunity to pathogens and the gut ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

BBC names Myhill website complainant

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by Supporters of Dr Myhill, Oct 15, 2010.

  1. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    This from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-11550075

    A GP has been suspended from practising medicine for a year by the General Medical Council (GMC).

    Dr Sarah Myhill, 52, who has a private practice near Knighton, Powys had claimed she was a "pioneer" in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome.

    The GMC imposed an interim ban while it investigates her claims, but it said Dr Myhill might pose a "risk to patients".

    She was banned from prescribing drugs for 18 months by the GMC in April, and told to take down part of her website.

    It came after a group of GPs based in Yorkshire claimed she had provided "inappropriate" treatment to a patient in June 2009.

    Dr Myhill recommended vitamin and magnesium injections for suspected chronic fatigue syndrome, a treatment an expert said had "no clinical or biochemical basis".


    Stuart Jones, a senior clinical scientist at Queen's Hospital in Romford, Essex, also raised concerns about advice on the doctor's website concerning breast cancer screening and child vaccinations.

    The website discouraged women from using the oral contraceptive pill, recommended an alternative method of breast cancer screening and restated the link between the measles, mumps and rubella jab and autism, which has now been discredited.

    The latest GMC hearing heard that there were "repeated and significant concerns raised by former patients, medical practitioners and other members of the public".

    GMC panel chair Dr Peter Maguire said: "The circumstances which bring patients to your practice by their very nature make your patients vulnerable, notwithstanding any actual health issues.

    "The panel is satisfied that, based on the complaints made, and the concerns raised, there is sufficient information before it to indicate that there may be impairment of your fitness to practise and that such impairment may pose a real risk to patients.

    'The panel has been extremely concerned by your possible lack of understanding of the requirements of modern day best practice, as well as a seeming lack of perception and understanding of the consequences of your actions."

    Dr Myhill tried to challenge the interim conditions at the review hearing, which was held in public at her request.

    It was attended by around a dozen of her supporters.

    The hearing also heard that the GMC had received further complaints since April's ruling.

    They included a suggestion that Dr Myhill had attempted to exploit a loophole in a requirement she take down information on her website by posting a link to an "ungagged" version of the site.

    Dr Myhill said she could not be held responsible if other people had chosen to copy her website.

    Her 12-month interim order will be reviewed within three months.

    Dr Myhill has been asked to comment.
  2. curry

    curry Senior Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes:
    0
    Sorry, but I think such a 'name and shame' thread is completely inappropriate.
  3. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    If it is felt that I should remove it or moderators should, then I am more than happy to do so.

    The motivation was protectional really - lest the Myhill supporters be blamed at a later stage for being the ones who originally publically named him. Something the Myhill supporters have been accused of in other areas.

    If moderators consider this thread is inappropriate then please remove and I apologise unreservedly for any offence. Put it down to my relative inexperience of forums.

    Craig
  4. ukme

    ukme Senior Member

    Messages:
    169
    Likes:
    8
    Strange they mentioned the chap in Romford and yet did not say who the group of doctors are in Yorkshire..
  5. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,456
    Likes:
    1,968
    London
    Does he have any connection with Ben Goldacre?
  6. aquariusgirl

    aquariusgirl Senior Member

    Messages:
    947
    Likes:
    91
    Curry, are you saying you think it's wrong to name the Romford doctor?

    I'm not sure I understand why.
  7. curry

    curry Senior Member

    Messages:
    107
    Likes:
    0
    Because a 'name and shame' thread like this, will lead to this doctor being faced with harassment, such as hate mail and probably other unpleasant things.

    I don't agree with this doctor's views, as I admire Dr Myhill, but don't like to see when the frustration about the GMC resorts to questionable campaigns against an individual.
    I also would like to believe this doctor had acted with best intentions and knowledge in mind to protect the safety of patients.
  8. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,527
    Likes:
    2,004
    Sofa, UK
    I am too closely personally involved to make an objective decision on this particular matter so I will pass the buck and leave it to other moderators to rule if Craig should be required to rename his thread. I will just give quick reactions from an emotional place...

    Did Jones name Dr Myhill? Did Jones shame her? Did his actions lead to harassment of her? Did his actions lead to unpleasant things? Does being repeatedly referred to in foul, sexist, abusive language by his mates on the Bad Science forum count as hate mail?

    Should he be immune from the same consequences?

    If he has a complaint about facing similar consequences himself, should he focus that complaint at those responsible for publicly revealing his name?

    How did the BBC get his name, if the GMC took adequate measures to protect him from public disclosure?

    Whose fault is this situation?

    Oh God, so would I!

    He's a doctor and a very highly paid public servant so of course I would like to believe he carefully considered the entire matter and treated it with the appropriate serious reflection, and wasn't just bashing off an email in an idle moment without thought for the consequences.

    I would like to believe he discussed his concerns with his fellow professional before taking any action.

    I would like to believe he knew something about Dr Myhill or something about ME/CFS and considered the full consequences of his actions before sending his email.

    I would hate to think he was just "having fun".

    That would be sick and irresponsible behaviour, if he thought the whole thing was a big joke, wouldn't it?
  9. pictureofhealth

    pictureofhealth XMRV - L'Agent du Jour

    Messages:
    534
    Likes:
    1
    Europe
    Sorry if I'm missing something here, but the name has already been published by the BBC -a worldwide media corporation - and is likely to have been read by millions already. So it is unlikely that posting it on this thread will be tantamount to 'exposure'.
  10. Min

    Min Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes:
    1,235
    UK


    Jones said on BS:


    So depriving Dr Myhill of her livelihood & making her liable for huge legal fees because he was bored in his coffee break is amusing to him.
  11. justy

    justy Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,569
    Likes:
    2,561
    U.K
    Personally i think it is fine for this to be reposted here form the BBC website. I do not think it is fine to harrass anyone that you do not agree with.
    I am concerned about the statement in the BBC report that there were "repeated and significant concerns raised by former patients,"
    The reason i am concerned by his is because i have supported Dr.Myhill on the understanding from her supporters that none of her patients have ever complained about her. Am i now to believe that this is not true?
    For the record i have had testing done with Dr.Myhill and her advice has been very helpful to me.
  12. Cloud

    Cloud Guest


    My thoughts as well. Craig was only keeping us informed of the developments as he had all along. Besides, Craig didn't break the news, he was only linking to it as a courtesy.
    I don't understand why this post would even be singled out for any judgment of possible "name and shame" posting, when that's common practice on this forum anyhow (ie. Reeves, White, Wessley, McClure, etc).
  13. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes:
    2,866
    Couchland, USA
    Not to mention there was only naming, no shaming.

    The real shame is what has happened to Dr Myhill and its outrageously disproportionate consequences.
    If those consequences are in part a result this person's actions, and he is publicly known already as one of the complainants,
    it is useful to have that information--particularly in light of the casualness with which he purports to have lodged his complaint.

    Between Dr Wakefield's fate and Dr Myhill's, I see a pattern here that truly warrants a full review of the GMC and the national health care program altogether.
  14. insignificount

    insignificount

    Messages:
    16
    Likes:
    0
    The only pattern I see emerging is one called "what has happened to Dr Myhill cannot possibly be her fault in anyway whatsoever, so let's blame/scapegoat the complainant because they obviously didn't think that their actions would have such serious consequences", with the implication being that they wouldn't have complained if they had actually thought it through? Which is ridiculous.

    There's no harm in posting this. You're just bringing people's attention to something that has been published elsewhere, and it's something that Stuart Jones/Jonas will have to take up with the GMC and/or the BBC if it bothers him that much or leads to harassment.

    His identity and casualness or whatever is irrelevant though. What Dr Myhill and her supporters should be doing (and should have been doing) is addressing the substance of the complaint(s) instead of looking for scapegoats.
  15. Min

    Min Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    Likes:
    1,235
    UK
    So the complainant, Stuart Jones, clinical scientist works at Queens Hospital Romford. This is the same hospital as Prof Findley - wasn't he medical adviser to AfME , & hasn't he overseen a trial of the Lightning Process?

    Stuart Jones stated on BS that senior colleagues had drawn Dr Myhill's website to his attention.

    Here's what one person on David Icke's forums says about his or her treatment in one of Prof Findley's fatigue clinic:

    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112436&page=23
  16. insignificount

    insignificount

    Messages:
    16
    Likes:
    0
    See... you're doing it again... it's just not possible for Dr Myhill's website to contain reams of nonsense that can justifiably be complained about, so it's all Stuart Jones' fault... urged on by his evil senior colleagues... even though none of the specific sections of Myhill's website that Stuart Jones' complained about had anything to do with ME/CFS...
  17. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes:
    2,866
    Couchland, USA
    I don't see any scapegoating here, but I admit I skimmed some bits. I think people are just trying to put the pieces together and trying to understand how this bizarre witch hunt came to be. I don't agree that the potential casualness is irrelevant; if he didn't have a serious complaint, and never intended for her to be sanctioned so severely, that would have relevance, since the GMC's handling of it went way beyond what one would expect under the circumstances, incuding misleading Dr M on her legal rights. I'm not saying I know one way or another what this man's intention was, I just don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.
    To be honest, though, I think it was more like Dr M who was scapegoated by the system.
  18. insignificount

    insignificount

    Messages:
    16
    Likes:
    0
    The problem with this line of thinking/argument is that nobody would ever complain about anything if somebody suffering severe consequences/penalties as a result of the complaint being upheld is universally considered to be an unacceptable outcome. It's the responsibility of those who might be complained about to behave in a way that prevents the complaint from being upheld.

    For argument's sake, let's go with the hypothesis about the (serious) complaint about the (iffy) website being the difference between the GMC acting in the way it has done and not acting it all/the other (more serious, I think) complaint not being sufficient in itself to initiate Fitness to Practice whatevers.

    Even if that is the case, the responsibility for what happens next is entirely down to Dr Myhill and the GMC and whether Stuart Jones acted seriously or casually or whilst off-his-face on caffeine is still irrelevant.

    Obviously, I'm not going to agree with anyone here about the extent to which Dr Myhill is responsible for the situation she now finds herself in, but those who think she is completely innocent should be focusing on the GMC instead of the complainants (although focusing entirely on that at the expense of addressing the substance of the complaints has backfired horribly).
  19. abc123

    abc123

    Messages:
    14
    Likes:
    0
    Why would people here JUMP to defend this Jones clown? They act like they have no experience with bully denialist doctors determined to maintain their control and the outdated and abusive status quo. If someone has CFS and they've tried to get help from mainstream doctors, they have a belly full of it.

    Even if Myhill's site contained "reams of nonsense", so what...? People reading websites are not automatically patients being treated by the doctor who expresses opinions on the website. Isn't there any freedom of speech in the UK? And anyway, I see "reams of nonsense" on EVERY TV commercial advertising a prescription drug.

    Man, I thought things were bad here in the U$A for CFS patients...but things appear even worse in the UK--your medical system really IS stuck even deeper in the dark ages.

    Myhill should move to the US like Wakefield did, where she might be able to at least practice a little bit of real medicine...
  20. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy *****

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    152
    Essex, UK
    Insignificount is misrepresenting people's concerns here, or possibly just misunderstanding them.

    That a member of the BS forum has behaved as Stuart Jones has is an important part of the picture, the case, if you like.

    My particular problem with BS is the selective outrage and scepticism they display. Big honchos or aspiring ones on the BS forum would, it appears, never officially complain (or even consider on the forum) about the abuses against ME/CFS patients (using psychiatric measures), or the Lightning process. They are certainly not equal opportunity sceptics. So, they are either unable to understand the scientific and ethical problems in psychogenic explanations and their treatments (which means they are not the brightest stars in the heavens and don't really understand science), or possibly are acting as ostriches to avoid the inevitable cognitive dissonance, or there is a failure of courage going on.

    Whatever the Myhill issue is about, Insignificount, you are failing to understand the real issue here, which is the psychogenic dismissal and abuse of ME/CFS patients using LUDICROUS claims, fallacious reasoning, and bad science to do so, and how that NEVER gets tackled by the likes of the BSers, or the medical establishment, or the government. Myhill has now been taken away from patients she was helping, who now will be stuck with the option of dangerous treatments, or nothing at all, or looking for someone else, until that person too is ruined by the full might of a Jonas thinkey-likey on his coffee break.

    Go back to BS and say that - then watch the meme of the "crazy PR forumites" and "stupid woman Angela Kennedy" get propagated, again. They'll do anything but try and understand the issues. I know that the BS forum is not a homogenous membership - but the big cheeses on there, the aspiring big cheeses, and the little helpers, are the ones who direct the ethos, if you like, of that group of people. Something is rotten there, and I think it's cognitive dissonance, failure of courage to tackle Bad Science when it's state authorised, or inability to understand Bad Science when it's 'tainted' by social science and the humanities ( a key problem in psychogenic explanations for example), possibly all three. This matters because of things that happen as a result, like Jonas and his bull-headed mission and its actual effects on patients (let alone Myhill), and their ongoing pronouncements from ignorance about CFS patients, which are all extremely damaging.

    Jonas acted from a position of ignorance, possibly with wilful disregard for the consequences for others. He has caused catastrophe for many people over issues which are uncertain at best. There are so many other people, who do real harm to patients, that he could have gone after if he was in the mood for crusading, and his behaviour on the BS forum inflamed matters even more. He cannot escape criticism for that, much as might think he should and BS high-fives he gets.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page