1. Patients launch a $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!
Nitric oxide and its possible implication in ME/CFS (Part 1 of 2)
Andrew Gladman explores the current and historic hypotheses relating to nitric oxide problems in ME/CFS. Part 1 of a 2-part series puts nitric oxide under the microscope and explores what it is, what it does and why it is so frequently discussed in the world of ME/CFS. Part 1 focuses...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by Cort, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,141
    Likes:
    5,025
    I just saw this, and thought of this thread:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/research/11risk.html?src=me&ref=health

    Risks: Birth Control Linked to Sexual Problems

    Without any data, my prejudices led me to believe that promoting condom use over use of the pill was really not the terrible advice some on Bad Science seemed to believe.

    edit:

    Welcome to the forum, but I'm not sure what you're talking about.
  2. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    I am forwarding a facebook message:

    Beverley Gibson May 11, 2010 at 11:02pm
    Subject: Dr Myhill interviewed after the hearing and before the GMC verdict.
    Courtesy of Susan Douglas and the making of her film - WHAT ABOUT ME?

    THANKS SUSAN FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND FOR FILMING THE GREAT INTERVIEW.



    Cheers
  3. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    There is a new website regarding the Myhill case.

    It (hopes to one day) contains all the information in one place. There is also a How to Help section.

    Pay it a visit!

    www.supportdrmyhill.co.uk

    Once again thanks for all your continuing support
  4. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    FROM supportdrmyhill.co.uk:

    Dr Myhill on Sky TV (channel 200) on 20th May, 2010 at 8pm
    received from Dr Myhill 17th May

    Dear All

    Just to let you know – this Thursday May 20th 8pm Sky Channel 200 yours truly will be performing. Theo Chalmers is hosting a two hour chat show live – so I should be able to vent all my spleen during that time! The idea is that viewers can text in their questions and I will respond live. Should be fun!

    There is a link below to previous shows so you can get the feel of what’s on offer.

    Think of some good questions and fire them in!

    Yours truly

    Sarah

    Invitation from Theo Chalmers

    I host the weekly live TV show called On The Edge on Controversial TV (Sky channel 200) and I would like to invite you to
    be my guest on a show. If interested please call me to discuss. If you’d like to see some quite old previous shows some
    are here: http://www.edgemediatv.com/videoplayer/watchrecordings.html

    Best regards,

    Theo
  5. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    Please visit

    www.supportdrmyhill.co.uk

    and join the mailing list

    You can also link to the SKY TV interview

    Thanks for all your continuing support
  6. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    Hello all,


    This was posted on supportdrmyhill.co.uk :

    GMC apology for Dr Myhill

    Information Release, Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS statement

    The General Medical Council systematically filleted out of their official files all communications from me to the GMC between December 2005 and December 2007. This is illegal under the Data Protection Act. I now have two letters from GMC Information Access Officer Mr Julian Graves and GMC Assistant Director Mr Neil Marshall admitting the offence and apologising “without reservation”.

    The GMC did not reveal these missing documents until the day of my Interim Orders Panel Hearing – I did not know until it was too late that these documents had indeed been filleted out of the official record. All the IOP had to examine was the GMC’s version of events. Since my past history with the GMC has to be taken into account with respect to recent allegations against me, the GMC did not have a complete history that included my side of the story. Since the GMC’s potted version of events is largely incorrect, omitting my version is serious.

    The GMC seems to believe that it is fine to remove documents from the official record, show them to whom you see fit, with-hold them when is convenient, then say what you like to suit subsequently. Just this one incident is symptomatic of the GMC investigation of me over the past nine years – run with any old allegation from any old person and when the facts don’t fit ignore them or make up new ones that suit.

    The editorial is as follows

    In what is an unprecedented move to date, the General Medical Council has apologised ‘without reservation’ to Dr Myhill for transgressions of the Data Protection Act leading up to her IOP Hearing in April 2010.

    The apologies proffered by Julian Graves and Neil Marshall represent recognition on the part of the GMC that they are not invincible and can and do make mistakes. This may appear to be a minor victory but it is also a first and significant step in Dr Myhill’s battle to restore her prescribing rights and to defend herself against allegations she faces, all of which is documented on this website.

    The ‘without reservation' apology proves that the GMC are at last listening to Dr Myhill, her patients and supporters and are willing to do the honest thing and investigate complaints into their handling of her case. In time, we trust they will also turn their attention to other serious issues raised by Dr Myhill in connection with other investigations over the last nine years - none of which led to to any GMC action.

    Those of you who have followed Dr Myhill’s struggles with the GMC since 2001 will be aware that she has frequently claimed that the GMC have withheld information pertinent to her defence, failed to provide information in a timely manner, taken patient records (permissible in certain circumstances) but then failed to anonymise them properly prior to circulation and withheld information from expert witnesses.

    The Data Protection Act was designed to ensure safe and proper handling of personal information and it is only right that the GMC adhere to the standards imposed by the Act in the same way that every other organisation is obliged so to do.

    It is a small step but a first step.



    I reproduce below section 77 of Freedom of Information Act 2000

    77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure
    (1) Where—

    (a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and

    (b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section,

    any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.

    (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.

    (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

    (4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—

    (a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

    (b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.


    Both the authorty and the individual concerned are guilty of the offence.
  7. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,503
    Likes:
    1,925
    Sofa, UK
    Cool news. I know you'll keep us posted, and let us know how and when we can help.
  8. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    Dear All,

    Attached are extracts from a letter I sent to the GMC on 4 May 2010:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DR SARAH MYHILL GMC CASE REFERENCE – PB/C1-314994282

    Please accept this letter as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following information:

    1-the total (and as detailed a breakdown as your accounting records will permit) of the external costs (such as legal and expert witness fees) which the GMC incurred as a result of the above case reference and

    2- the total ( and as detailed a breakdown as your accounting records will allow) of the internal costs (such as man hour costs and photocopying costs etc) which the GMC incurred as a result of the above case reference.

    Please note that with respect to point 2 above, I have a letter on my file from your office confirming that, after my last request for such information (concerning a previous failed Fitness to Practise case against Dr Sarah Myhill), such internal cost accounting information would thereafter be kept by your office. In response to that previous request you had only been able to provide details of external costs, stating that internal cost records were not then kept but that they would be thereafter.

    I am confident, therefore, that I can expect a full answer to my request.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The GMC, as the holder of information, has 20 days to give a substantive response to such requests. This is as detailed in section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. A substantive response can be either a notice that such information will not be given (under various exemption clauses) or that such information is given in as detailed a form as is possible.

    The GMC has not complied with the deadline nor given reasons as to why it has been unable to comply. Therefore, following guidance from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) contained on http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom_of_information.aspx a letter of complaint has been sent to the ICO regarding this.

    ICO guidance from the website is:

    Public authorities should respond to a request for information within 20 working days. If they need to consider the public interest this may be extended to 40 working days, providing you have been informed.
    If you have not received a response within these timeframes, you can complain to us.
    If you want us to look at a complaint about the time taken to respond you will need to send us unedited copies of the following:
    -Your original request for information
    -Any acknowledgement received from the public authority, such as an acknowledgment letter or automatic ‘bounce-back’ message

    The GMC has not corresponded giving any public interest concerns. Also, in cases concerning time limits, complainants are not required to go through public authority complaint systems first before complaining direct to the ICO. Therefore a complaint was made directly to the ICO.

    The ICO has responded stating that it intends to appoint a Case Officer to investigate this complaint against the GMC.

    The ICO will issue a Decision Notice in which it can make legally binding requirements of the public authority. In this case the Decision Notice would look at whether to require the GMC to disclose or not and would take into account precedents in this decision. Details of previous requests to the GMC for such cost information and the fact that these were disclosed previously by the GMC have been submitted to the ICO along with the other required evidence.

    The ICO has many other powers as well as enforcing disclosure, an example being section 77 reproduced below:

    77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure
    (1) Where—
    (a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and
    (b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section,
    any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.
    (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.
    (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
    (4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—
    (a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;
    (b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.


    So, the ICO can fine the authority and individuals within the authority if certain conditions are met. This section is unlikely to be evoked in the disclosure requirements of this letter but there are other cases where it could be relevant.

    Yours,


    PS I will keep you posted and let you know when you can all swing into action again. Thanks for your continuing support.
  9. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    'The Support Dr Myhill team are now in the process of producing a document of Patient Experiences to be used as evidence. This document will contain both success stories of Dr Myhill's treatments, drawn from the many hundreds of letters sent to the GMC in Dr Myhill's defence, and also, more sadly, the post IOP Hearing experiences of those of Dr Myhill's patients whose health has been, quite often, severely affected as a result of the restrictions imposed by the GMC. Indeed, immediately after the IOP restrictions were imposed the Support Dr Myhill contacted the GMC for its advice on how to protect patient health. The following email was received on 12 May:


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I refer to your enquiry about the determination of the Interim Orders Panel (IOP) in the case of Dr Myhill.

    I can confirm that it is Dr Myhill’s responsibility to ensure that she complies with the conditions placed on her registration by the IOP. With regard to her patients who require prescription only medication, Dr Myhill can arrange for the transfer of care to another doctor who is able to prescribe the medication. The GMC would not become involved in the arrangements made by Dr Myhill for the on-going care of her patients.

    Yours sincerely

    Mrs Alison Thompson

    Adjudication Manager
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is unfortunately the case that patients have been unable to obtain the required medication from other doctors and have suffered as a result.'
  10. Min

    Min Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes:
    906
    UK
    Thank you for keeping us informed.
  11. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    I should have said that if you feel your health has been adversely affected by the sanctions imposed on Dr Myhill, please email me with your story.

    Many thanks.
  12. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    Here are two more letters sent yesterday:

    CHARITY COMMISSION:

    COMPLAINTS DEPARTMENT
    Charity Commission Direct
    PO Box 1227
    Liverpool
    L69 3UG
    12 July 2010

    Dear Sirs,

    GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL – REGISTRATION NUMBER 1089278

    I am writing to complain about what I perceive as a lack of proper financial controls over expenditure within the General Medical Council (GMC). In addition, responses received from the GMC about this accounting issue indicate that the GMC, through its actions, may be damaging its reputation, the reputation of charities generally and indeed reducing public trust and confidence in the Charities Commission as an effective regulator.

    I have been corresponding with the GMC regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for details of costs associated with certain Interim Order Panels (IOP) and Fitness to Practise Hearings. These, as you may know, are Disciplinary Hearings for doctors who are being investigated for suspected wrong-doing.

    In particular, I have been inquiring regarding an IOP Hearing with respect to Dr Sarah Myhill. I attach my FOIA request letter herewith. You will note that I refer to a previous FOIA request with respect to Dr Myhill in the attached letter. That previous request resulted in the GMC disclosing to me the external costs (mainly solicitors' fees) of a previous investigation against Dr Myhill but also stating that they (the GMC) could not disclose the internal costs of that previous investigation because such accounting information was not maintained. However, in that previous correspondence, the GMC did state that they were in the process of instigating a system which would allow the disclosure of such internal cost information in the future.

    Therefore, when I applied for similar information in my most recent FOIA request I was confident of receiving a full account of the GMC's costs with respect to this most recent Hearing regarding Dr Myhill.

    After a lengthy delay, one which broke the terms of the FOIA and one which therefore I am complaining about to the Information Commissioners' Office, the GMC responded with details of external costs, details of hours spent by their internal legal team on this case and then a note stating that further internal cost information could not be disclosed because such information, in particular the costs of the Investigation team, was not recorded. I attach also the email from the GMC containing this disclosure.

    My complaint, therefore, is as follows:

    -In general terms I do not see how the trustees of the GMC can exercise control over the costs associated with individual investigation cases if they do not even record those costs! Remember that the ‘products’ of the GMC are the investigations it carries out. This is its core function as detailed in its Memorandum and Articles. This would be akin to the Ford Motor Company not recording the costs associated with the production of a Mondeo. I believe, in this context, that the trustees of the GMC are not following the guidance contained within CC8 - Internal Financial Controls For Charities. In addition, the requirement to maintain proper accounting records as detailed in PART VI CHARITY ACCOUNTS, REPORTS AND RETURNS section 41 of the Charities Act 1993 also introduces a legal requirement in this context.

    -I am concerned that the GMC informed me that they were going to correct this lack of internal financial control and then did not do so. I believe this indicates a lack of understanding within the GMC regarding the implications to public trust and the damage to its reputation of promising a course of action and then not taking it. I believe this breach of trust is serious enough to warrant investigation.

    -The fact that the GMC breached the FOIA in its tardiness of reply indicates a disregard for the importance it should attach to complying with information disclosure legislation. I have numerous other examples of the GMC breaking both FOIA and Data Protection Act notice periods. Once again I think this flagrant disregard for legal requirements brings damage to the reputation of the GMC and potentially other charities in general and possibly upon the Commission itself.

    As a result of these areas of concern, my complaint regarding the GMC is made on the following two points, as taken from your website:

    ----serious non-compliance in a charity that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation and/or the reputation of charities generally; and
    ----serious non-compliance in a charity which, left unchecked, could damage public trust and confidence in the Charity Commission as an effective regulator.

    In addition, as already noted, and as a Chartered Accountant, I am concerned by the lack of financial control over costs and would ask you to investigate this too.

    If you require further documentary evidence to proceed with your investigation then please feel free to contact me.

    Yours faithfully,




    JOHN BERCOW MP SPEAKER OF HOUSE OF COMMONS


    Rt Hon John Bercow MP
    Speaker,
    Speaker’s House,
    London
    SW1A OAA

    12 July 2010

    Dear Mr Bercow,

    DR SARAH MYHILL GMC IOP HEARING 29 APRIL 2010

    Thank you for your letter dated 4 June 2010 concerning the above.

    With your letter you attached a response from Mr Paul Philip, Deputy Chief Executive of the GMC. I am concerned by two particular comments within that letter:

    1- In his letter Mr Paul Philip states that the GMC has received ‘a number of letters in relation to Dr Myhill, all of which are of a similar nature..’. The general tone of this paragraph is rather dismissive, almost as though because so many letters have been received that this in some way diminishes their worth. I can confirm that an organised campaign was conducted in defence of Dr Myhill. As a seasoned politician you will be aware that such campaigns only succeed with significant public support. In the space of weeks, a petition in support of Dr Myhill with over 4000 names attached was put together, over 700 emails or letters of support were sent direct to the GMC and a facebook group of over 2000 supporters was formed. How many other doctors do you think could muster such support in such a short time period? I would be indebted if you could write again to Mr Paul Philip and ask for his confirmation that

    a- the GMC is not dismissive of, and recognises, the high level of public support given to Dr Myhill

    and

    b- the GMC took this support into account when arriving at its decision.

    2- Mr Paul Philip also states that ‘Dr Myhill….could have raised any unfairness at that hearing’. I believe this statement to be untrue. I would be grateful if you could pursue this statement a little further on my behalf. I am suggesting that the best course of action would be for you to speak or correspond, directly with Dr Myhill. She is in full possession of the facts – I was unable to attend the hearing due to poor health. I attach her contact details at the tail of this letter.

    3-Finally I would like to make clear that most of the people who supported Dr Myhill in this way are extremely ill and this makes their level of support even more impressive and worthy. Moreover, one of the conditions imposed upon Dr Myhill was that she was no longer permitted to prescribe ‘prescription only’ medication. I have received a number of emails from patients who, having been unable to obtain such medication on the NHS, have suffered relapses or other deteriorations in their condition. When asked about the arrangements for helping patients with problems over obtaining prescription medication, the GMC replied in an email of 12 May 2010 as follows:

    ‘The GMC would not become involved in the arrangements made by Dr Myhill for the on-going care of her patients’.

    There is a deep irony here – the restrictions imposed by the GMC upon Dr Myhill do adversely affect the on -going care of Dr Myhill’s patients and yet having caused the problem the GMC offers no solution to it!

    I wonder if you could possibly raise this issue with Mr Paul Philip also and enquire as to what the GMC thinks these patients should do in order to preserve their health.

    I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

    Yours sincerely,


    Dr Sarah Myhill
    Tel: 01547 550 331
    Email: office@doctormyhill.co.uk;
    Address:
    Dr Sarah Myhill
    Upper Weston
    Llangunllo
    Knighton
    Powys, LD7 1SL
    Wales

    END
  13. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
  14. Min

    Min Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes:
    906
    UK
  15. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
  16. Min

    Min Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes:
    906
    UK
    It's appalling that Dr Barton can continue practising whereas Dr Myhill, who has not caused any deaths and has only ever (i believe) had one patient complain about her, effectively cannot.
  17. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    On that point:


    This news item appeared on oneclick today:

    ================================================================================================
    GMC Sanctions Doctor To Work With Children

    Dr Stuart Ruthven told the GMC, "I was bored..."

    A DOCTOR caught with a stash of 5,000 child porn pictures has been working at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital. Stuart Ruthven worked in the hospital last month as part of a training programme. In 2003, the then Royal Navy surgeon was convicted of making indecent photographs of children. He was sentenced to an 18-month community rehabilitation order and made to sign the Sex Offenders Register for five years. A review panel of the General Medical Council (GMC) ruled that Dr Ruthven could continue to practise, with the condition he didn’t treat under-16s. But in December 2008 that condition was revoked, meaning he can now work with children and in entering the hospital he was breaking no laws, court orders or GMC rulings. Children’s charity Kidscape says they have grave concerns about the medic’s freedom to practise. Director Claude Knights said: “The possession of indecent images of children represents a vile crime, whi ch is even more despicable when the perpetrator is a doctor. The downloading of indecent images of children is never a victimless crime and encourages this deplorable trade. Some people would question whether this doctor's sentence reflects fully the horror of his crimes.” Dr Ruthven was today unavailable for comment.

    =====================================================================================================

    Seems somewhat inconsistent in its application of sanctions vis a vis the Myhill case.

    Best to all,
  18. boomer

    boomer Senior Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes:
    6
    This burns me up to see what they are doing to this very good person. Let good people who have good intentions live.
  19. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Messages:
    165
    Likes:
    9
    The following is relevant to Dr Myhill's case because so much of what was procedurally wrong with the IOP Decision was the denial to Dr Myhill of her human rights:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is well known that the General Medical Council (GMC), acting under its guiding legislation, The Medical Act 1983, breaks Human Rights legislation.

    One of the more obvious examples is that the GMC is prosecutor, jury and judge in its Discliplinary hearings. This is contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Right to a Fair Trial.

    This HAD been recognised by the previous UK Government and the OHPA (Office for Health Professions Adjudicator) had been set up to overcome this particular problem. OHPA was due to take over the decision making of Hearings from the GMC in April 2011.

    Now the new UK Coalition Government is minded to abolish the OHPA before it has even started its work.

    Here is the webpage extract from the OHPA website::

    ======================================================================================================

    A message concerning the future of the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator:
    26th July, 2010
    The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health (Anne Milton) announced in a written statement: The Government has been considering the case for proceeding with work surrounding the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator (OHPA).

    OHPA was established in law in January of this year, but is not yet operationally active. It was anticipated previously that, from April 2011, it was to take over from the General Medical Council (GMC) the role of adjudicating on fitness to practise matters relating to Doctors and, in due course, take on the adjudication role in relation to other health professionals from the remaining health regulators.

    Having reviewed the case for OHPA the Government is not persuaded that the creation of another body is necessarily the most appropriate and proportionate way forward in terms of adjudication. We believe that steps can be taken to strengthen and modernise existing systems within the GMC to deliver substantially the same benefits as OHPA. The learning from these steps can then be reviewed and, in due course, applied to the other health regulators. We intend to consult with external partners on this approach shortly.

    Reacting to the Government statement, Walter Merricks, Chair of OHPA said:

    “The establishment of OHPA aimed to enhance public confidence by creating independent adjudication of health professionals. We have also identified changes that could reduce the cost and delay in fitness to practise hearings not only in relation to doctors, but also other health professionals. While we are disappointed at the Government’s provisional view, we intend to play a full part to support the proposed consultation on improving health professional adjudication.”

    http://ohpa.org.uk/2010/07/26/a-mes...office-of-the-health-professions-adjudicator/


    ====================================================================================================

    I, for one, will engage in the consultation although that word 'consultation' means different things to politicians, I suspect, than the dictionary definition.

    I will keep you all posted on what no doubt will be slow progress.
  20. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,742
    Likes:
    4,611
    Sth Australia
    I had missed reading the link.. which gave an update on what was going on and the call for anyone who Dr Sarah Myhills site had helped on different things. I just sent a letter in regards to that request but have no idea if its too late or not as the request was 14th July. http://www.supportdrmyhill.co.uk/update_120710.html and no updates have been done since then (so i can only figure she's getting ready to go back to court).

    Her site really helped me in the past, so ive written in support of B12 injections helping me when nothing else did. It's sad she's going throu what she is being put throu.... I hope she's got many hundreds of letters in support.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page