Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

[jonathan sizz]

Bottom line is this.
I want Dr Myhill to be able to treat CFS/ME patients, by whom she is very obviously valued and where she seems to be doing no harm, and no real concerns about her advice has been raised.

She will not be able to do this if she remains stubbornly dedicated to giving out dangerous advice on asthma, cancer and the like. I really don't know what she's playing at. Does she want to martyr herself? Does she just not understand what the problem is?

The GMC haven't been trying to get her struck off. They don't have to try! They're the authority. They call the shots. And they've been giving her the benefit of the doubt time and time again.

 

[V99]

If they had previously asked her to take it down, and she didn't, and there was such a concern for public health. Then they would have taken any of those cases futher. They did not, because they did not ask before.

 

[jonathan sizz]

can someone send me a private message and tell me if myhill is taking down her website or taking down the ME/CFS info on her website?

i am just not strong enough to read this whole thread. if anyone can just tell me this info by sending me a private message, i would be forever grateful.

p.s. i think dr myhill is wonderful and i'm so sadden by all this!

xxoo
rrrr

The GMC have not raised any concerns about Myhill's CFS/ME advice. She is allowed to keep it up on her website if she wants.

 

[Nina]

I cannot judge her advice on asthma, cancer etc, but I do know that more doctors should warn their patients about the huge side effects, especially long-term, of oral contraceptives.

Most of the other docs just prescribe them, even to very young women, encouraging them to pop those pills like candy with no mention of how it may affect and harm your body. THAT is dangerous. Just because it's widely accepted that doesn't make it any less so. This is just hypocritical.

 

[jace]

Nina, you are so right. My daughter yesterday went to have her varicose leg veins stripped, her legs were fine until she went on the pill. Mind you, babies have long term health effects too lol

One of the items the GMC objected to was Myhill's information on breast cancer screening, pointing out the Scandinavian studies that speculated that screening could be counter-productive http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_4_29/ai_n6170825/. I came across this information independently myself, some time ago, and lost brownie points with my GP by declining the invitation to a screening session.

 

[Gerwyn]

Bottom line is this.
I want Dr Myhill to be able to treat CFS/ME patients, by whom she is very obviously valued and where she seems to be doing no harm, and no real concerns about her advice has been raised.

She will not be able to do this if she remains stubbornly dedicated to giving out dangerous advice on asthma, cancer and the like. I really don't know what she's playing at. Does she want to martyr herself? Does she just not understand what the problem is?

The GMC haven't been trying to get her struck off. They don't have to try! They're the authority. They call the shots. And they've been giving her the benefit of the doubt time and time again.

no they have not been able to establish a case time after time despite their best efforts. this time they did not even try to make a case.the gmc don,t have the poer to strike anyone off unless the charge is proven.this why they took this clandestine approach and effectively struck her off without trial.They did not even do that in stalanist Russia

 

[Gerwyn]

Hi Gerwyn,



Wish you were right on this one: See Montefiore's "Stalin - The Court of the Red Tsar" and Conquest's "The Great Terror": 'They' did, and much worse.

Which is not to say that the GMC-decision wasn't a very bad decision, medically, legally, morally and humanly speaking, for it is.

Best wishes,

Maarten.

Sorry Maarten .They at least made a show of making a charge and going through the motions of a trial even though the outcome was predetermined.The GMC did not even bother to do that!

 

[garcia]

Bottom line is this.
I want Dr Myhill to be able to treat CFS/ME patients, by whom she is very obviously valued and where she seems to be doing no harm, and no real concerns about her advice has been raised.

So you think the GMC were wrong to censure her for prescribing B12 injections?

 

[valia]

So you think the GMC were wrong to censure her for prescribing B12 injections?

Magaret Thatcher had regular B12 injections when she was prime minister, she used them for added stamina not because of any deficiency.

I don't believe the GMC ever censured her doctor

 

[carolwxyz99]

Because she didn't do it after being asked several times at her previous GMC hearings?! And still hasn't?! And is claiming she'll endeavour to make it available elsewhere if she does eventually delete the stuff from her website?!

Remember, this isn't the first time Myhill has been in front of the GMC.

I have always been under the impression all previous GMC cases was dropped and so she has never been before the GMC. Please tell us the details of when she was up before them? Its the first time I have heard this.

 

[Min]

jonathan sizz, and insignificount are all here from BS to carry on with their tired old game of winding us up in order to lampoon our answers on BS

here's a bed time story for them:

http://www.eurotales.eril.net/billyuk.htm

 

[jonathan sizz]

So you think the GMC were wrong to censure her for prescribing B12 injections?

They didn't.
Her prescription of B12 injections was mentioned in one of the complaints and it was noted that it is not recommended treatment, but they don't dwell on it.
For example, during the actual interrogation of Dr Myhill they don't bring up the issue of B12 injections per se, rather they express concern about the fact she recommended them to a patient she hadn't even seen (the point being prescription without consultation, not the actual prescription itself). It's Myhill who keeps going on about B12 injections as if they were the issue.
And in their ruling B12 injections aren't even mentioned. They make it clear that their concerns are about the veracity of the information provided on her website.

The transcript is available online.

 

[jonathan sizz]

Hi Gerwyn,



Hmm... 'they' - Stalin's henchmen - did. Sometimes, like in 1937, with carefully tortured persons, surrounded by a myriad of their torturers dressed up as 'public'. Or they ended, without trial, hung on a fleshhook, as Stalin's one time planned successor Kuznetsov.

But I do understand, Gerwyn, why you would be very angry indeed, owing a lot to Dr. Myhill also. I merely remark as I remark - this time marked OT - because it is of a bit of importance to keep one's perspective factually adequate: England does seem to me a much worse country than in the early seventies, when I briefly lived there, and it is sliding in the direction of a sort of totalitarianism in the wake of 9/11, as is Holland, but it is not yet a totalitarian country.

And I do agree the GMC-decision is very, very bad, also from the point of view of being a medical doctor according to the best of one's abilities and conscience, regardless of ME/CFS: This sort of nonsense threatens all non-conformist - to the GMC, to prevailing 'wisdom' - medical practice, in principle.

Best wishes,

Maarten.

Absolutely agree that the Stalin comparison is ridiculous.
However, I appreciate that Gerwyn's feelings are running high.

 

[jonathan sizz]

jonathan sizz, jace and insignificount are all here from BS to carry on with their tired old game of winding us up in order to lampoon our answers on BS

here's a bed time story for them:

http://www.eurotales.eril.net/billyuk.htm

Look, I've been entirely pleasant and friendly, so has "Inisignificount". I really don't know what you think trolling is, but this isn't it. And if you want to point to any examples of me "ridiculing" any of the answers I've received on BS, I'll be interested to see them.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Look, I've been entirely pleasant and friendly, so has "Inisignificount". I really don't know what you think trolling is, but this isn't it. And if you want to point to any examples of me "ridiculing" any of the answers I've received on BS, I'll be interested to see them.

Ah - you see, going over to 'tell tales' on BS about various members here is somewhat troll-y. That's happened a lot. I'm now being characterised as holding 'extreme' positions and starting a 'vitriolic' thread over here (THAT old canard! Do you dudes have any idea how old and tired your prejudicial descriptions of the community and its supporters and their concerns actually are?)

Or is your definition of trolling 'evidence based' or something?

What's the Bad Science definition of 'trolling'? Is this the official one?

Whether you have ridiculed PR over on BS or not we don't know because you are anonymous. Though one member of the BSers at least seems to be crowing over being here. Insignificant/count though HAS set me up at least for them to ridicule my comments (and biopsychobabble's evidence for that matter) on the 'placebo effect' (though not by addressing them, I note).

It's all been very silly and childish - on the BS forum that is. It's relentless.

 

[V99]

jonathan sizz

Show me where it states the GMC have had Myhill at a hearing? When has she been asked to remove info from her site previously?

 

[busybee]

Valid points need to be accurate and not speculation.

Quite

Medicine has a plethora of examples where "current recommendations" were proved to be wrong if not downright dangerous.

I agree

These opinions were changed by pioneering doctors who were vilified at the time by small minded members of their own profession

None of these things change my statement. Why do you think other pioneers for ME/CFS use Yahoo addresses and not websites?

 

[insignificount]

I posted your comments on the placebo effect over at Bad Science (and Mark's question) because I genuinely didn't understand what were you talking about (and because I thought you had a valid question/interest, but were too angry with "us" to bother asking), and the response was a couple of links:

This one at jds's Stuff & Nonsense blog - LINK - which is where that copy of the transcript of Dr Myhill's hearing that I linked to earlier is hosted.

This one - LINK - which is a link to an older discussion about the existence or non-existence of the placebo effect.

I didn't invite anyone to ridicule your comments. All I said that I was thought your post about "us" on the thread that you started was rude, and that you shouldn't have been surprised when some people from over there came over here to point out why they thought you were wrong. I didn't even mention biopsychobabble.

When you accuse a bunch of people of not being able to think outside the box or accuse them of having a quasi-religious belief in psychogenic explanations, what do you expect to happen?

(and I know that you'll respond to that [if you decide to respond] by pointing examples of Bad Science forum members bad behaviour or childishness or whatever, but as I said on the other [locked] thread, there isn't anything I can do about that)

 

[jonathan sizz]

jonathan sizz

Show me where it states the GMC have had Myhill at a hearing? When has she been asked to remove info from her site previously?

Yes you're right. There were no previous hearings, I was mistaken, however she has been investigated several times and the GMC has recommended to her (as a result of these investigations) that she should remove alarmist and unevidenced claims from her website. This is all documented by Myhill herself, on her website.
So she has known that her website has been of concern to the GMC and she knows that she has been advised to change the information. That advice has now turned into an order. That seems reasonable to me.

Can I ask you: do you think a registered doctor, carrying all the authority that brings, should be advising that asthmatics should not be using inhalers and should fight asthma with posture and breathing exercises, and supplements? Does this concern you at all? Do you know that people die from asthma attacks?

Do you think it's sensible that Myhill, since the decision, has said she will be removing the material from the website but will actively endeavour to make it available elsewhere? Do you think that a professional way to fight her case is to initiate a campaign of vexatious correspondence to the GMC rather than addressing their concerns by altering her website or by providing evidence to back up her assertions? Do you think this will stand her on good ground for winning the retention of her right to practise?

I hope she's going to remain able to help patients who value her practice with regard to CMF/ME. But she's putting that all in jeopardy.

 

[flex]

I think everyone here on both sides has made their points. Its getting a bit personal around here and is becoming unproductive.

I have a suggestion - as well as posting here, why don't the Bad science guys go and do some real investigating of ME neuro immune disease, XMRV retrovirus , CBT, GET, the LP, Wessely and Ben Goldacre. If they are truly the investigators of quackery and bad science they will see that ME and XMRV are real scientific and physical issues and the rest are psycho babbling unscientific dangerous quackery.

Do it before its too late guys and it affects you and your families.

As for Dr Myhill my impression is we have all made our points and the fact is she hasn't been charged with anything, ever, including now. Like the last join forum thread this one is going nowhere accept down a blind alley. That does not mean I believe it should be closed down. We can all express our opinions.

Any supposed quotes by Dr Myhill should be only posted in full with full context here in order to be assessed. If she was a real danger to the public she would have been struck of without hesitation especially as it is claimed she has been given numerous "warnings". Why would someone who is supposedly a danger to the public still be allowed to see patients and advise them. Has the GMC therefore brought a case against themselves? What does she do now if she does believe someone would benefit from an inhaler - she is not allowed to prescribe one. So are the GMC now putting patients in danger?