Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

[busybee]

I would like to thank cheese on toast for sticking around and Mark Esther Flex etc for adressing his/her post more eloquently than I can.

Please do not start shouting bait and troll we need to educate people even if only for the next generation.

 

[lotusflower]

You are either being totally naive or totally disingenuous.It destroys her ability to provide treatments to patients with ME as intended.There is no controversy regarding her claims.She emphasised that she was expressing her opinion as Drs do all the time.

Whoever made the complaint has put the health of thousands of people at risk for his own childish gratification.I would not like to be in his shoes when his identity is revealed within 48 hours or so.All it takes is a simple court order.

There are hundreds of consultants who prescribe off label drugs for private patients yet they are not challenged.

Dr Myhill provides a website which suggests options when other conventional treatments have failed.This is called alternative medicine and fully endorsed by the Department of health.

Are Nutritionists,homoeopaths and herbalists challenged and deprived of their livelihoods.The answer is a resounding no!

Why are different standards being applied to Dr Myhill than the rest of the medical profession and other practitioners of alternative medicine.The only logical answer is that her success threatens the establishment who want to promote CBT as a treatment.

if the criteria for licence restrictions is the advocacy of unproven treatments with no scientific evidence in their support then why are Simon Wesselly and his colleagues not facing the same restrictions

Good post Gerwyn.

 

[lotusflower]

Latest updates on Dr MYhill website

http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Category:My_GMC_Hearing

The GMC says Dr Myhill is “Guilty” on the basis of no charges, no case and no evidence.
The GMC's full Verdict will be put up here Friday April 30th. Read it. It is a masterpiece of obfuscation and spin. The GMC made no charges, presented no case and ignored findings of fact.

Briefly the verdict says of me:

“The circumstances surrounding this case relate to concerns regarding your clinical and professional practice, and concerns regarding your website, your promotion of treatments and consequently your potential failure to recognise and work within the limits of your competence”.

My comment: No facts. No concerns. No failures. No patient put at risk, No patient harmed.

have 14 days to make changes – during this time you can see what my actual opinion is - after that you get the gagged version

 

[Lethal Lee]

For those who are concerned to preserve/have access to her website info I recently (thanks to another poster) became aware of a free software program that allows you to copy an entire website & access it on your own computer.

Here is the link http://www.httrack.com/page/2/en/index.html

It's quick (took me 20 mins to download the program and copy the website) & easy to do.

Apologies if this has already been posted elsewhere in this forum.

 

[Knackered]

You are either being totally naive or totally disingenuous.It destroys her ability to provide treatments to patients with ME as intended.There is no controversy regarding her claims.She emphasised that she was expressing her opinion as Drs do all the time.

Whoever made the complaint has put the health of thousands of people at risk for his own childish gratification.I would not like to be in his shoes when his identity is revealed within 48 hours or so.All it takes is a simple court order.

There are hundreds of consultants who prescribe off label drugs for private patients yet they are not challenged.

Dr Myhill provides a website which suggests options when other conventional treatments have failed.This is called alternative medicine and fully endorsed by the Department of health.

Are Nutritionists,homoeopaths and herbalists challenged and deprived of their livelihoods.The answer is a resounding no!

Why are different standards being applied to Dr Myhill than the rest of the medical profession and other practitioners of alternative medicine.The only logical answer is that her success threatens the establishment who want to promote CBT as a treatment.

if the criteria for licence restrictions is the advocacy of unproven treatments with no scientific evidence in their support then why are Simon Wesselly and his colleagues not facing the same restrictions

I don't agree with some of her methods when using the broad term of CFS, she advocates B12 injections in "CFS" patients because states she sometimes B12 deficiencies cannot be detected using traditional methods, the symptom of a B12 deficiency is "tiredness"; I'm not tired. I assume perhaps she thinks some "CFS" patients have CF due to vitamin deficiencies, which is fair enough, but I don't want to be lumped in there too. Lots of people were at her protest with M.E banners.

I don't think she should have had a licence revoked though, I believe some of her methods would work for some people. I hope she gets her licence back.

 

[Adam]

Very powerful post flex .That brought tears to my eyes, with extreme sadness, ,frustration and anger

Ditto. Apart from the anger and frustration which I have in check (no, the anger/frustration is not harming me by containing it, more, I have subdued it).

BTW, anyone else have a similar experience to this?

I hold this picture in my mind of the Bad Science crew, or the 'outsiders' as some have dubbed them, as something akin to the 'Others' in Lost.

Pass me the remote luv.

 

[carolwxyz99]

The Wales Today news is on BBC iplayer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s7sgh/BBC_Wales_Today_29_04_2010/

It starts around 13 minutes 45 seconds

 

[kandro]

I have been having to use an electric wheelchair for 14 years with the CFS illness and you would have thought in our modern scientific society they would have identified the physical malfunction that we are all experiencing by now. And worse is to publicly crucify anyone who actually goes out on a limb to try to help some of the thousands of people crippled by this illness. The message is clear.....abandon these people just give them a few anti depressants & send them away....and if you do anything else WE WILL DESTROY YOU. Perahps if the medical proffession had actually researched & found the root of this physical problem Sarah Myhill would not be in this position. The only difference between Sarah Myhill & other doctors is she cant send these severely physically debilitated people away with nothing because she has a heart, a conscience, and a sense of duty. Why do you think her patients like her so much?
The people running our society are more interested in putting time into making MORE health & safety regulations than researching something actually worthwhile.

 

[Gerwyn]

I don't agree with some of her methods when using the broad term of CFS, she advocates B12 injections in "CFS" patients because states sometimes B12 deficiencies cannot be detected using traditional methods, the symptom of a B12 deficiency is "tiredness"; I'm not tired. I assume perhaps she thinks some "CFS" patients have CF due to vitamin deficiencies, which is fair enough, but I don't want to be lumped in there too. Lots of people were at her protest with M.E banners.

I don't think she should have had a licence revoked though, I believe some of her methods would work for some people. I hope she gets her licence back.

hi Knackered B12 shots are one of the recommended treatments for mito dysfunction

 

[Knackered]

hi Knackered B12 shots are one of the recommended treatments for mito dysfunction

Caused by a retrovirus?

 

[CheeseOnToast]

I won't be engaging here any longer. I received a couple of very thoughtful private messages which set out in a calm and rational way why attempting to engage on this issue may be counterproductive. So I'll leave y'all to it and correspond with anyone who wants to correspond by private message.

I will, however, respond to the following idiocy because it's a poorly veiled threat:

Whoever made the complaint has put the health of thousands of people at risk for his own childish gratification.I would not like to be in his shoes when his identity is revealed within 48 hours or so.All it takes is a simple court order.

Gerwyn, you are a fool...

MODERATOR NOTE (Mark):
The previous sentence, the earlier use of the word 'idiocy', and the phrase "Grow up", are in my opinion the first breach of forum rules that I have seen on this thread.

"Rule 1: While we honor passionate and informed discussion we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts."

This attack is, in my opinion, not "so egregiously offensive that it cannot be allowed to remain to upset other members" so I am not deleting it. Instead I am warning CheeseOnToast, as a new member, that this is the point at which the line was crossed. The subsequent discussion between Gerwyn and CheeseOnToast may contain further breaches of Rule 1 by both parties, but I believe in such cases it is important to identify the first offence.

CheeseOnToast: Please consult the forum rules before posting further, and take care not to breach this rule again. Please bear in mind that here we aim for a much more respectful tone than is the norm on the Bad Science forum. The debate about this legal issue is relevant to this thread and may be of interest to members, but it must be conducted in a polite and respectful tone.

Regarding Gerwyn's original post, to which CheeseOnToast responded, that post perhaps came close to breaching Rule 1:
"It is not permitted to advocate, encourage or condone physical violence, threats of violence, or harassment against anyone, whether members of this forum or not."
However, in my opinion Gerwyn's wording was sufficiently "veiled" as to neither advocate, encourage or condone anything, and is therefore not in breach of Rule 1.

...What on Earth makes you think a court would just hand you someone's identity? You can't just go into a courtroom and ask for some stranger's personal details like going into a bakers and asking for a cake. Absolutely preposterous.
The court would have to decide that:

A) There was good reason for you to know the person's details. Do you think, honestly, that a court would see this debacle as "good reasons"? An individual has made an entirely legal complaint, through the correct official channels. Just because you do not like the nature of the complaint is not a reason for a court to divulge personal information.

B) They would have to be satisfied that, once you were in possession of the person's details, you were going to do something constructive with them. What exactly, pray tell, would you be doing with them? All I see here is veiled threats to stalk and harass.

If you took this to a court, Gerwyn, the judge would simply tell you where to go - after he/she had stopped laughing his/her face off. Getting the complainants' details through official means is wild and crazy fantasy. Indeed, the complainant would probably have a better case for having your details revealed because you, with your "I wouldn't like to be in his shoes" threats, are actually the one behaving in a possibly illegal manner.

Half-baked threats like this do you or your interests no favours.

Grow up.

 

[natasa778]

We, with ME/CFS, are not the only people with experiences so stark and undeniable that they disprove the lies they try to feed us. They can believe their own garbage-in garbage-out methods if they are stupid enough, but it makes no difference to us how much peer-reviewed bullshit they wave in front of our faces: We are human beings, not subjects or automatons, and we believe the overwhelming evidence of our own lives, our own experience, and that of our friends and family and community. And they can pull out whatever dumbass papers they like, they can pass whatever laws they like, they can persecute whoever they like - but they can't change reality, and they can't put genies back into bottles.

So true. What those rats don't realise is that Dr Myhill is not really The problem. As Jim Carrey said in relation to vaccine-injury denialism, but can be applied here too "We (the parents speaking out) are not the problem. The problem is The Problem".

And The Problem is not going away.

The internet has impovered people somehow, they know it, they feel threatened and their attacks are going to get worse, more desparate. If XMRV story pans out, and especially if it is linked to autism (with much bigger things at stake for high priests of medicine and health care than CFS/ME), tons of elephant shit are going to hit the fan. They feel it. These are the strikes of a dying empire. My concern is they just might take us all down with them.

I totally agree that the only way to fight them by agressive counter-attack. Knives out. GMC is not about justice, science, or patient and peer testimonies. They could not care less.

I also agree this is not really a consipiracy, most parties involved (including BS folks) are acting out of deep inner fears and insecurities. Conformism at it purest.

 

[Countrygirl]

Cheeseontoast,

I appreciate that you disagree with Gerwyn, but please do not stoop to using derogatory names when disagreeing with someone else on this forum. Gerwyn is a highly valued member of this community and is entitled to his opinion, even if you disagree with it.

I do hope a mod deletes the offending comment.

 

[Gerwyn]

I won't be engaging here any longer. I received a couple of very thoughtful private messages which set out in a calm and rational way why attempting to engage on this issue may be counterproductive. So I'll leave y'all to it and correspond with anyone who wants to correspond by private message.

I will, however, respond to the following idiocy because it's a poorly veiled threat:



Gerwyn, you are a fool. What on Earth makes you think a court would just hand you someone's identity? You can't just go into a courtroom and ask for some stranger's personal details like going into a bakers and asking for a cake. Absolutely preposterous.
The court would have to decide that:

A) There was good reason for you to know the person's details. Do you think, honestly, that a court would see this debacle as "good reasons"? An individual has made an entirely legal complaint, through the correct official channels. Just because you do not like the nature of the complaint is not a reason for a court to divulge personal information.

B) They would have to be satisfied that, once you were in possession of the person's details, you were going to do something constructive with them. What exactly, pray tell, would you be doing with them? All I see here is veiled threats to stalk and harass.

If you took this to a court, Gerwyn, the judge would simply tell you where to go - after he/she had stopped laughing his/her face off. Getting the complainants' details through official means is wild and crazy fantasy. Indeed, the complainant would probably have a better case for having your details revealed because you, with your "I wouldn't like to be in his shoes" threats, are actually the one behaving in a possibly illegal manner.

Half-baked threats like this do you or your interests no favours.

Grow up.

it appears that you are as ignorant of the law as you are of science.Anonymity is not protected on the internet.

I,m afraid that it is you who are living in a world of infantile ignorance.Would you like the case law on the subject?

I notice that you lacked the courage and or courtesy to respond to the questions i raised about Wesselly and his cohorts.

This is typical of your ilk.When the science gainsays your argument you ignore it.That is of course the embodiment of Bad Science.

 

[CheeseOnToast]

it appears that you are as ignorant of the law as you are of science.Anonymity is not protected on the internet.

I,m afraid that it is you who are living in a world of infantile ignorance.Would you like the case law on the subject?

Yes please. Please provide me with the case law that suggests one can have the personal details of someone on the internet revealed simply by requesting them; without having good legal reason to do so.

Regarding Wessely et al, like I said, I've taken the advice of a couple of your regulars and won't be drawn on the subject of Myhill's predicament. If you want to have a polite discussion about it I'm happy to do so by private message.

 

[Gerwyn]

Yes please. Please provide me with the case law that suggests one can have the personal details of someone on the internet revealed simply by requesting them; without having good legal reason to do so.

Regarding Wessely et al, like I said, I've taken the advice of a couple of your regulars and won't be drawn on the subject of Myhill's predicament. If you want to have a polite discussion about it I'm happy to do so by private message.

There you go

Motley Fool v Totalise

enjoy.I still think you are too much of a coward to anwer my question.you have been easily drawn on Dr Myhill before

 

[CheeseOnToast]

There you go

Motley Fool v Totalise

Afraid not. In this case the court had to be convinced there was a case to answer over charge of defamation before divulging the personal details of the individual. So, if you're using this case as a template, you would first have to demonstrate that there was a reasonable case that "Jonas" had acted in a defamatory manner (presumably against Myhill). Firstly, you would be unable to bring this case on Myhill's behalf. Secondly, seeing as "Jonas" undertook the correct, legally specified, route in raising his concerns about Myhill (and that the appropriate body - the GMC - appears to have agreed with him) it is vanishingly unlikely that a court would support a defamation claim.

Try again.

Regarding the Wessely stuff. Okay, I'm a coward, if that makes you happy. I already explained why I'm no longer being drawn on the matter, and said that I'm more than happy to discuss it with you privately.

 

[Gerwyn]

Afraid not. In this case the court had to be convinced there was a case to answer over charge of defamation before divulging the personal details of the individual. So, if you're using this case as a template, you would first have to demonstrate that there was a reasonable case that "Jonas" had acted in a defamatory manner (presumably against Myhill). Firstly, you would be unable to bring this case on Myhill's behalf. Secondly, seeing as "Jonas" undertook the correct, legally specified, route in raising his concerns about Myhill (and that the appropriate body - the GMC - appears to have agreed with him) it is vanishingly unlikely that a court would support a defamation claim.

Try again.

Regarding the Wessely stuff. Okay, I'm a coward, if that makes you happy. I already explained why I'm no longer being drawn on the matter, and said that I'm more than happy to discuss it with you privately.

i think you had better read the case only evidence that the statement might be defamation is needed.It does not matter in the least what route he took.the burden that the statement was not defamatory rests with him.the requirement that you are involved in thhe case is not true. if you doubt it see a lawyer.It's nothing to do with the behaviour just the content of the statement.The GMC is not there to resolve whether the comment is factual or not and specifically said so

 

[CheeseOnToast]

i think you had better read the case only evidence that the statement might be defamation is needed.It does not matter in the least what route he took.the burden that the statement was not defamatory rests with him.the requirement that you are involved in thhe case is not true. if you doubt it see a lawyer

You are quite simply mistaken. The court concluded that revelation of an identity can be forced only if it is "necessary in the interests of justice". The judge first had to rule that the posts in question were "clearly defamatory" before forcing the disclosure of personal details. The court required that a prima facie case existed.
You CANNOT simply go up to a court and get the details of an individual who is saying things you don't like. You would have to satisfy a judge that bringing a case of defamation could be successful.
And it absolutely matters what route he took. Are you suggesting that people can be sued for defamation for making complaints in the official, legally recognised way? Don't be ridiculous.

Try again.

 

[Gerwyn]

yes they can be sued if the contents are defamatory.The comments only need to meet the legal tests of defamation. if those are met then a prime facie case exists"in the interests of justice" is in itself a legal test.If an action is brought then it is up to the defendant to prove that the comments were not defamation

these are the facts;

A user of the service, 'Z Dust', made a number of postings which were allegedly defamatory against the Claimant. The Claimant requested disclosure of Z Dust's identity from the Defendants. The Defendants refused on the basis that disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (the '1998 Act'). As a consequence the Claimant brought a Norwich Pharmacal application against the Defendants seeking a Court Order that they disclose Z Dust's identity and provide documents relating to the same.

Owen J. made an order for disclosure of Z Dust's identity and that the Defendants pay the costs of the application. This costs order was made on the basis that although the Defendants had to carry out the balancing exercise as to whether or not to disclose the identity, in this case there was only one answer to that balancing exercise, namely that they should have complied with the requests made by the Claimant. The costs part of the order formed the subject of the appeal.