Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

[Mark]

When they turn their hand to philosophy it really grates, doesn't it?

Peter White:
This is a nonsensical question when one considers the neuroscience of consciousness and recent advances in functional brain physiology. The philosopher, John Searle, stated the answer to this Cartesian dualism that still bedevils western medicine. “Conscious states are caused by neurophysiological mechanisms, and are realised in neurophysiological systems.” Therefore it is not possible to have a psychological process or event without a neurological mediating process. It is neither of the mind or body; it is both.

Biopsychobabble analysed this well above. What I find most extraordinary about this quote (apart from the usual cognitive dissonance of agreeing with Peter White while at the same time realising he can't possibly mean what he says) is the way it both completely undermines the somatisation case while purporting to come up with a new way to support it, and at the same time introduces the danger of yet another new dogma to misunderstand.

Of course it's obvious that if he's saying that mind is simply a physical process then there's really no separation, and any application of this principle to us means there's nothing distinct to separate ME/CFS from cancer and therefore CBT for ME/CFS is of precisely the same value that it is for cancer. And I'm sure he'd use that idea to defend himself from any allegations of being a psychologist wrt ME/CFS. And I'm equally sure his ilk wouldn't dare suggest withdrawing all biomedical research and treatments from cancer patients on that basis either. But this is just the standard hypocrisy of course.

But more interestingly, and looking further ahead, by following Searle - who he tells us, praise the lord! has finally, brilliantly, and relatively recently put an end to this long-standing philosophical poser, easily understood with the help of a copy of Dennett's (excellent) Consciousness Explained - White induces a degree of concern as to what the next generation of all this brilliant thinking will produce. Since the mind and the body really aren't separate at all, well, really there's only the body-mind, isn't there, which really we might as well call the body and have done with it: and that's your lot. What wonderful things will they start doing when they have proved conclusively (to themselves) that there is no soul, mind, or consciousness after all. "I think therefore I damn", perhaps? Much may depend on their ability to not only understand a philosopher's theories, but then to believe in the truth of the knowledge they have gained with a certainty of greater than 0 and less than 100%.

I hope this mob have been having fun learning about philosophy over the last couple of decades, I've been otherwise engaged and sadly unable to devote as much time to that as I'd have liked.

Hey there's a thought, maybe we can get our disease handed over to philosophers instead of psychologists? Sounds far preferable to me...in the absence of doctors...

 

[Mark]

There is a post of a letter from Nick Clegg MP who may have a position of some power in a few days time.

START QUOTE FROM NICK CLEGG MP LETTER

The Liberal Democrats have long argued that funding and research must be focused on the 'bio-medical' factors involved and not just simply managing the 'psychological' issues.

END QUOTE FROM NICK CLEGG MP LETTER

Best wishes

The rest of the letter sounds convincing too Craig. I guess we know the Labour position on ME/CFS from bitter experience, and I'm not personally fussed to know the Conservative position (though a little curious), but Clegg's letter is a good enough statement, for me, of what we want to hear from him. UK Election thread anyone? Or is it too obvious a question for us to be worth mentioning? It's not just about us: non-members may also be interested to know the parties' positions and records on ME/CFS...

 

[lotusflower]

Hi everyone, it is important for those of us who wish to support dr myhill try and stay on track, I know it is difficult but not sure arguing with BSers is not helping matters, and is very draining for those who are cognitively challenged and not well. Most Bsers seem to have no interest in seeing the other side, and some clearly are predjudiced against her and nutritional and environment medicine in general. I have been shocked at the scale and the obsession with Dr Myhill on BS running to almost 200 pages, and an obssession with every single detail on her website. I have never seen such an attack on a person like that on a forum before.

What is very important that Dr Myhill needs to be doing is challenging GMC procedures that made the bad decision, rather than challenging the bad decision which was made because of the bad procedure. (I hope this is not being overlooked). If needs to be taken to the high court and a decision obtained by an unbiased judge.Martin Walker has written several comments on the GMC and Sarah Myhill case.

http://www.facebook.com/frakatime?ref=mf



He says all effort should be made to discover who Jonas is and whose interests he is representing should be found out. He says that all anonymous complainants should be taken to the high court and a ruling obtained by a judge, as the concept that you can make an accusation to any kind of court that might result in the curtailment against someones career goes against all the rules of natural or legal justice, ie it is contrary to current Human Rights LegislationHe is advising all supporter to familiarise themselves with the juridlaw, and how the GMC works, and how corrupt it is . it is very complicated.

Dr Rita Pal left a comment here, she is a medico legal expert that has had experience with winning cases against the GMC. I've highlighted the relvant bits

http://thyroid.about.com/b/2010/04/2...al-council.htm


Quote:
I was very sad to hear that SM lost her IOP hearing. It should have been an easy one to win. Sadly, few people realise or understand that to win against the GMC, you have to know their jurisprudence, their case law and their “language”. None of these were used by counsel representing SM. I do not blame any of them but GMC jurisprudence is a specialist subject and few people think they should spend time mastering it. Those who master it win. Those who don’t lose.

The public interest is defined by the Merrison Committee, Secondly, the GMC misapplied the test for “misconduct”. Thirdly, while the GMC had an expert, SM did not get an expert [ to my knowledge]. SM did what most doctors do and one would think in a reasonable world such tactics would work. The GMC isn’t reasonable. It is a Russian authority with stalinist tactics.

IOPs are actually illegal on the Wright [ House of Lords] test case for nurses. This case has was never quoted nor was it tried. Practising medicine is a civil right according to European Law. The GMC have conducted IOPs without proper tests as to what cases should go forward to a panel such as this. It was designed following the Shipman Inquiry as a measure to keep killers away from the GMC. So far, it was been misused in many cases. If one combines this with a analysis for misconduct that varies from here to the North Pole – the public gets a jist of the kind of lack of standards present at the GMC. As I informed SM – the analysis for misconduct for the case R v GMC Ex Parte Remedy UK [ regarding the MMC fiasco] was protective of doctors and then in my own case [ I was cleared on precation Judicial Review], the analysis of misconduct was as it is in SM’s case. So we conclude, some doctors have to meet higher thresholds while in other cases a very low threshold will do. These fluctuating standards were discussed by Isobel Allen in her summary of Handling Complaints by the GMC,

Dr AR is at the IOP for being rude to his fellow doctors – and has been on a 18 month suspension. There was no evidence that he was ever a risk to patients. I could name a huge number. Indeed, I have written about multiple antics of the GMC on numerous doctors.

I should say, I am pleased that SM made the IOP hearing in her case public. Everyone else suffers in silence. It is the first IOP hearing we have seen in the public forum. Everything else has been conducted secretly. Few people appreciate the level of human rights violations conducted by the GMC on a day to day basis. About 5 doctors per day go through the IOP – many patients and members of the public have simply ignored their plight.

I should say, I am one of the fortunate ones having attacked the GMC in Pal v GMC in 2004 and obtained a judgment with transcripts describing the GMC as like a “totalitarian Regime” [ Charles Harris HHJ]. It is always the case when ones own doctor is dragged through the coalfire, suddenly the violations of human rights comes to the public eye.

I have raised these and many issues with the CHRE who state that their role is not to protect the civil rights of doctors. Every authority in the UK is reluctant to investigate the GMC. Like Sarah, numerous doctors have referred the GMC solicitors to the SRA. Sadly, the SRA is headed by Anthony Townsend, an Ex GMC Honcho. The CHRE is also staffed by ex GMC staff. So, everyone can see why the abuse of power continues, The last audit by the CHRE on the GMC performance deemed it to be ” execellent” yet since the CHRE’s inception, there have been more than a 100 complaints that have remained frozen and will not see the light of day.

I hope the above provides some insight into the GMC, I should say the current result is because few people have fought for a right and fair GMC. Most of the public have watched doctor after doctor go down the GMC steps and have not paid any heed. The case of SM is due to the simple fact that the public have allowed the GMC to abuse their powers for years.

Dr Rita Pal
http://www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com


__________________

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Hi everyone, it is important for those of us who wish to support dr myhill try and stay on track, I know it is difficult but not sure arguing with BSers is not helping matters, and is very draining for those who are cognitively challenged and not well. Most Bsers seem to have no interest in seeing the other side, and some clearly are predjudiced against her and nutritional and environment medicine in general. I have been shocked at the scale and the obsession with Dr Myhill on BS running to almost 200 pages, and an obssession with every single detail on her website. I have never seen such an attack on a person like that on a forum before.

Hi Lotusflower,

Well - that was one of the reasons I started another thread specifically about what is going on in the Bad Science forum in the first place. Issues about the ME/CFS community and the BSers attitude to them and their concerns came up and are of big concern, apart from the Myhill/GMC issue.
As I think Biopsychobabble said something to the effect - there were REAMS of terrible, grossly prejudicial (and some inaccurate) stuff written on that forum before I made the decision to highlight to the community via here.

I don't want to de-rail the Myhill thread at all - but, if you notice, it's BSers who have come onto this thread, like they did the other one. Their comments are impossible to ignore because they are so 'problematic' shall we say. They have to be tackled. They are also 'reporting' back to BS and 'criticising' people in various ways from here.

I think one good thing that has come out of this is that double standards in 'woo-fighting' by BSers, and other inconsistencies in approach/reasoning, has now been confirmed. That is useful to know, even if it's not cheery news : (

We've also learned how old canards against the ME/CFS community are still very much in circulation.

I don't think I (or some others in this forum) can afford to ignore what has gone on with the BSers. I actually don't think Myhill 'supporters' (I mean those actively campaigning for her) can either. But I do understand how this might be extremely physically exerting for some sufferers on here, especially with regard to neuro-cognitive problems. I wish it were different.

 

[Jackofit]

The patient complaint was lodged by a BSer

Its probably been deleted now but I was following the BS forum and remember one BSer talking about having seen her years ago but had not followed up on her treatment and that he was going to complain about it anyway to ramp up the case against Myhill. This is ridiculous, a complaint about treatment he never had and wasn't harmed by, and it is quite common to see a doctor and not act on their recommendations and seek a second opinion etc. It was a gratuitous complaint to nullify the fact that no patient (who has actually been treated by her) has ever complained.

The first complaint by four doctors doesn't stand up as this treatment is NHS approved and was simply advised, treatment was not given or caused any harm, so the GMC had no reason to follow this up, yet the complaint by Jonas about the website was cause for immediate action on both complaints? Others here have pointed out the premise that information on a website does not override patient responsibility and the clinical judgment of the doctors that patients must see in order to get treatment as advised by Myhill.

 

[flex]

Interesting points above. Not only is it important for Dr. Myhill to know the identity of Jonas as it appears to be her right, I think we should all know about the four doctors who allegedly complained in December. I am still in the dark about the circumstances of this. Why would four doctors complain from the same surgery unless all four of them had encountered her on four seperate occasions and given them all grounds to complain. Or was it one influential doctor at a practice who thrust a complaint letter in front of some junior docs and said "here sign this now".

All very relevant if you ask me, especially as it already seems the GMC has stated there is no case to answer on this matter. It appears from the official records that this doctor seriously got his facts mixed up in the alleged complaint. Why was this? If a number of other doctors did sign the complaint how could they ALL have got the facts wrong? Did they actually review the alleged complaint before signing it? If not why did they sign the complaint letter?

I would be asking them all to testify.

 

[Mark]

Flex, I haven't managed to track down much on the doctors either, but I do have a recollection of some fragments (which would all be so much easier to process in a 'due process' situation, with documented allegations, etc etc)...so this is recollection and don't quote me (BSers may do so in their own way of course), I thought I heard that it was 8 doctors at one practice, the injection(s) were to be administered at their practice, they looked at the whole thing and consulted with each other and (does this sound familiar anyone?) they found it all a bit weird, and since they all unanimously agreed with each other, they decided they were not a conspiracy but merely all happened to see things in exactly the same way regarding their understanding of ME/CFS, ecological medicine, etc etc, and raised the complaint.

Sorry Flex but can't answer your question how they managed to screw it up, that is unconfirmed...

As one BSer noted recently, the doctor aspect is actually far more important than the internet complaints (and our failure to emphasise that particular aspect has been mocked there, of course they know nothing of what we know concerning these matters so that isn't surprising) and they think we ought to be looking into that really (isn't it touching how concerned they are that our agenda is the wrong one when the big issue of course is the technicalities of their case?).

I don't think their curiosity has really yet been properly aroused as to WHY such a serious matter had been sat waiting for 4 months before 'their' internet complaint was launched ('Jonas' is actually not one of them, I'm led to believe, and they are of course disinterested to find out who is using them, unlike ourselves), and why this matter so foul and dangerous was then fast-tracked. I haven't found an explanation for that yet, but perhaps they will investigate further in due course, and that of course is their affair, being the ones who don't understand what is going on.

Incidentally, the news that Jonas the man himself is NOT a BSer, sheds some light on the way our two forums have touched, since we were all rather unprepared for this new and rather confusing scenario in which the ideal team of recruits can be unwittingly set to work on us, and I think we may have reacted to the BSers on the incorrect assumption that they knew what they were engaged in, which is a great shame if they are decent people we have failed to impress, but was, I suppose, predictable.

I'm sure they will carefully consider all theories as to why the first complaint from the doctors was not fast tracked, provided of course that those theories do not sound to them like a hint of conspiracy, since such theories are of course a waste of valuable time and the transparent decency of the GMC is well known to all, especially to those who keep their heads well and truly down.

I will monitor the other place somewhat, although perhaps not again until later this week, and perhaps by then they will have turned their attention to the important questions:

- Who is this Mr Woosely, and what is he selling?
- If he is not in charge of ME/CFS, who is?
- What exactly did he suggest concerning "the belief that one has ME"?
- When precisely did he change his belief about belief?
- What difference did that make to anything?

And most importantly of all, the $64m question for anyone with an interest in BS:
How does/did one prove or disprove the various scientific theories of somatisation whereby a condition or belief in the mind (real or imagined) causes a disease in the body?

I continue to await the proof of that one, since it is apparently in these times still a matter of science, whatever Popper may say. In the absence of proof, I would alternatively be interested in seeing some evidence, since I have always wondered what mind really is...

(Note to BSers: this is not merely a scientific question to people with ME/CFS, but also a practical day-to-day one, since we must rehearse this troubling question whenever our illness must be discussed with a stranger, or especially so with certain medical professionals, and some have rehearsed and studied and thought and pondered and swung back and forth and found no chance of an answer, before considering Popper and proclaiming: BS!)

Their sharp minds of BS will spot it anyway, so I will mention the technical loophole of disproof where someone could (theoretically) find the actual cause or some effective treatments, but that has never tended to pan out to well for us in any of SW's bimonthly studies to verify other academics' research, and in any case, if there were more than one unexplained illness involved, and in the unlikely event that one of them were explained, that would still leave all the other poor nutters, loons and idiots left with their imaginary condition - which who knows, after a decade or two, might just be enough to actually drive them mad and save everyone the trouble.

So: I look forward to the proof of their interest in Woo, since it seems a much more interesting subject to me than their technicalities.

 

[flex]

I have heard a number of accounts about how many doctors were originally involved in the alleged complaint. It started at eight went down to six then 4. Is it going down in multiples of two until it reaches zero? Oh, of course it couldn't go past one because there is the doctor who appears to have got all his facts wrong!


Ummmm!!

 

[natasa778]

I wonder if the mysterious Jonas answers to the name of Brian Deer?

 

[fourecks]

It is indeed tedious rebutting such disingenuous arguments fourecks

Yes, it is extremely tedious correcting untrue statements whose veracity is easily verifiable from a simple reading of the transcript. It brings into question anything else you say which is not easily verifiable.

For those who think Dr Myhill can do no (or little) wrong you should be asking yourselves why you are so willing to defend a Doctor whose public advice comprises:

1. Lung Cancer: encourages people to avoid surgery where otherwise 60% would survive longer or even recover.
2. Actively discouraging routine mammograms and promoting unproven diagnostic approaches for breast cancer screening.
3. Vaccine advice which increases the risk of the spread of various diseases.
4. Lying your infant on its side to reduce the chance of cot death which is also contrary to NHS advice.

(All the evidence for the danger of the above points can be found in the rational evidence-based thread Inaccuracies on Dr Sarah Myhill's website on Bad Science).

 

[Gerwyn]

Yes, it is extremely tedious correcting untrue statements whose veracity is easily verifiable from a simple reading of the transcript. It brings into question anything else you say which is not easily verifiable.

For those who think Dr Myhill can do no (or little) wrong you should be asking yourselves why you are so willing to defend a Doctor whose public advice comprises:

1. Lung Cancer: encourages people to avoid surgery where otherwise 60% would survive longer or even recover.
2. Actively discouraging routine mammograms and promoting unproven diagnostic approaches for breast cancer screening.
3. Vaccine advice which increases the risk of the spread of various diseases.
4. Lying your infant on its side to reduce the chance of cot death which is also contrary to NHS advice.

(All the evidence for the danger of the above points can be found in the rational evidence-based thread Inaccuracies on Dr Sarah Myhill's website on Bad Science).

1 depends on type of lung cancer.2 oncologists all over the world question the use of routine mammograms 3 vaccines activate latent viruses information on risk benefit not available.4 NHS advice is contrary to opinion in other countries.

 

[Supporters of Dr Myhill]

Hello all,

Here is a copy of a post from oneclick.co.uk
START COPY

SUMMARY

* Next Steps – Support Dr Sarah Myhill Campaign


Saunders Law Partnership have been invited to challenge the judgement of the General Medical Council’s Interim Orders Panel (IOP) with a view to restoring Dr Sarah Myhill’s prescribing rights and removing the conditions that have been imposed on her medical licence to practice. Dr Myhill said: “The judgement of the IOP was based on no charges, no evidence and no case. The IOP response was irrational and not evidence based. The sanctions are completely out of proportion to the allegations made.” Dr Myhill’s daughter on behalf of the family, Ruth Myhill, said: “We are setting up a Fighting Fund to legally contest the GMC.” One Click Note: Watch this space.
Information Release, Support Dr Sarah Myhill Campaign
Related Links:
* Dr Sarah Myhill Vs. GMC - Open Letter To Supporters
Information Release, Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS
* United We Stand - Support Dr Sarah Myhill Campaign
Jane Bryant, The One Click Group

END COPY

Please see oneclick.co.uk for photograph and for further updates

Many thanks

 

[Gerwyn]

Hello all,

Here is a copy of a post from oneclick.co.uk
START COPY

SUMMARY

* Next Steps Support Dr Sarah Myhill Campaign


Saunders Law Partnership have been invited to challenge the judgement of the General Medical Councils Interim Orders Panel (IOP) with a view to restoring Dr Sarah Myhills prescribing rights and removing the conditions that have been imposed on her medical licence to practice. Dr Myhill said: The judgement of the IOP was based on no charges, no evidence and no case. The IOP response was irrational and not evidence based. The sanctions are completely out of proportion to the allegations made. Dr Myhills daughter on behalf of the family, Ruth Myhill, said: We are setting up a Fighting Fund to legally contest the GMC. One Click Note: Watch this space.
Information Release, Support Dr Sarah Myhill Campaign
Related Links:
* Dr Sarah Myhill Vs. GMC - Open Letter To Supporters
Information Release, Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS
* United We Stand - Support Dr Sarah Myhill Campaign
Jane Bryant, The One Click Group

END COPY

Please see oneclick.co.uk for photograph and for further updates

Many thanks

Hi

Are we talking about judicial review kind of irrationality here

 

[jace]

Hi

I'd just like to draw your attention to lotusflower's post, no. 518, if you haven't seen it already.

jace x

 

[Supporters of Dr Myhill]

Hello

Thank you for your comments.

Although I may not be the most prolific poster (!), I am a prolific reader of posts!

ALL comments and suggestions are taken into account, particularly if they emanate from amongst Sarah's supporters here on PR or indeed from the facebook group.

Many thanks for your continued support.

 

[jace]

It seems to me that the gist of the BS position is that anything that contravenes the received wisdom from NICE and the NHS is defacto incorrect and/or dangerous.

I'm old enough to remember when they told us to lay babies on their side. When they told us that butter was bad, and we should all eat margarine and trans-fats.

I believe is is a matter of record that the first rounds of MMR vaccination (87 - 91) were carried out using a vaccine that had severe questions already raised about it in Canada, and was therefore substantially discounted in price. I understand the pharmaceutical company that manufactured it demanded a liability waver from the purchasing authority in the UK before supplying.

I wonder whether the difference in views expressesd by our BS guests has to do with their youth and lack of personal experience.

I hope that our visitors from BS have learned from their sojourn here on the Phoenix. I know that some who posted contentiously initially have since contented themselves to study here, and I hope that they are learning from their many visits.

A respectful and open dialogue with Bad Science members can only be to the good.

 

[busybee]

It seems to me that the gist of the BS position is that anything that contravenes the received wisdom from NICE and the NHS is defacto incorrect and/or dangerous.

I'm old enough when they told us to lay babies on their side. When they told us that butter was bad, and we should all eat margarine and trans-fats.

I believe is is a matter of record that the first rounds of MMR vaccination (87 - 91) were carried out using a vaccine that had severe questions already raised about it in Canada, and was therefore substantially discounted in price. I understand the pharmaceutical company that manufactured it demanded a liability waver from the purchasing authority in the UK before supplying.

I wonder whether the difference in views expresses by our BS guests has to do with their youth and lack of personal experience.

I hope that our visitors from BS have learned from their sojourn here on the Phoenix. I know that some who posted contentiously initially have since contented themselves to study here, and I hope that they are learning from their many visits.

A respectful and open dialogue with Bad Science members can only be to the good.

Ditto and after our experience of NHS who could blame us for thinking for ourselves

 

[natasa778]

I'm old enough to remember when they told us to lay babies on their side. When they told us that butter was bad, and we should all eat margarine and trans-fats.

Do you remember when they told us that smoking was ok and nothing to do with lung cancer?

I wonder if there were doctors around back then who suspected that smoking wasn't that good for you, but were afraid to voice their concerns and give anti-smoking advice for fear of persecution by leading medical bodies.

 

[fourecks]

1 depends on type of lung cancer.

Oh so that makes her advice so much better . For the type of lung cancer that it is relevant to 60% of such patients will die unnecessarily or unnecessarily early. I take it you're happy with that.

2 oncologists all over the world question the use of routine mammograms

True, mainly because of the number of false positives. But her advice is to use a technique that directly increases the number of false-positives.

3 vaccines activate latent viruses information on risk benefit not available.

That isn't even a sentence. There is indisputable evidence that the vaccines save lives.

 

[Supporters of Dr Myhill]

Hello all,

Attached below are two letters Sarah Myhill sent to the GMC today.

START FIRST LETTER TO PETER RUBIN:

May 5th 2010



Professor Peter Rubin
President
General Medical Council
Regents Place
350 Euston Road
London NW1 3JN


Dear Professor Rubin,

Re: IOP Hearing of Dr Sarah Myhill April 29th 2010

I am writing to ask that you overturn the rulings of an IOP Panel which heard my case last week on the following grounds:

1. IOP specific procedures as noted in my letter to Mr Scott Geddes which is attached hereto. I refer you to the rules under which the IOP was carried out, to the notice I was given for this IOP, how patient notes were taken illegally (i.e. without patient knowledge or permission), how the patient’s right to anonymity has been seriously compromised by GMC prosecutor Mr Summers and how the IOP were not fully apprised of my past history with the GMC. Finally, the GMC failed to observe its own rules with respect to vexatious complainants (7 August 2009 rule 4 (3) (c) ). This is illustrated by the tone of the website posting in which the complainant identified himself to the world and which I read out at my Hearing: “I reproduce below, verbatim, online quotes from the ‘anonymous’ complainant. This was posted on Thursday April 15th at 2.20 a.m.:

“OK, so I finally bit the bullet and complained (anonymously for reasons that will become clear) to the GMC about uber-quack, Dr Sarah Myhill and to my surprise they have decided to launch a Fitness to Practise investigation. Her response has been quite interesting so I thought I would share it with the Badscience community. It will be interesting to see how the GMC proceed as I believe she has been in the same situation on numerous occasions in the past with similar public campaigns resulting in the GMC dropping charges for undisclosed reasons. She has a (public) Interim Order Panel (IOP) hearing on 29th April at which she could have her license to practise suspended for 18 months.
Those who live in glass houses should masturbate in the basement …”
At a further post he states:

“I actually find this quite funny as my initial contact with the GMC was just a speculative email to the general enquiries email asking whether it would actually be worth submitting another complaint given the failure of the previous 6 efforts. This was written with some haste during a coffee break and hence contained a few typos. Amusingly, after submitting my full complaint the GMC decided to use this email to front the complaint to Myhill *sigh*.”
These posts are accompanied by a photograph which I presume to be of the complainant himself. It pictures him underwater drinking a can of Coca-Cola.

2. The restrictions placed on my practice by the GMC are illogical. As a result of my recommending the use of B12 injections to a general practitioner (none were given to the patient), all my rights to prescribe all medications listed in British National Formulary have been lifted. Consequentially I am unable to practise effectively as a doctor and unable to earn a living as a qualified doctor.

3. Consistency. I note that Dr Jane Barton was investigated over 12 years for the deaths of 95 patients in her care, of which 5 were clearly shown to be due to morphine overdose. She had a GMC Hearing on 29th January 2010. She lost her right to prescribe opiates for the next 3 years, whilst all other drug prescribing was permitted. The decision to lift all my prescribing rights on the basis of my recommending a B12 injection is inconsistent with the Barton case. As noted above as a result of this I am now unable to practise effectively as a doctor and unable to earn a living as a qualified doctor.

4. Timing. The GMC did not allow me sufficient time to prepare my defence nor brief my representative. Initially I was given one full working day’s notice of an IOP. This was then extended by 13 working days on appeal. Furthermore the expert witness report was only sent to me three days before my hearing. Given the GMC had allowed themselves 10 months to investigate the B12 complaint and 14 weeks to investigate the website complaint, the time allowed afforded to me was unfair. At the very least, the time given to me to peruse the Expert Witness report would appear to be against the spirit of GMC rules which allow 7 days’ notice. Furthermore the expert witness report did not arrive until after the date of the first arranged IOP, suggesting his opinion was irrelevant both to the original GMC Hearing as planned and by inference to preconceived ideas as to the outcome of my case.

5. Expert witness report. My expertise in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial disorders was dismissed by the expert witness Professor Bouloux who is an endocrinologist with, by his own admission, no expertise in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial disorders. I have a right to be judged by my peers and this right was not observed.

As a result of this IOP decision the well being of my patients has been seriously damaged. It is incumbent on you to put this right and act in my and my patients Best Interest as a matter of urgency.

Yours sincerely Sarah Myhill

Enclosed copy letter to Scott Geddes May 5th 2010, copy letter to Julian Graves

Cc: Niall Dickson, Chief Executive GMC.

END FIRST LETTER

START SECOND LETTER TO SCOTT GEDDES

May 5th 2010
Mr Scott Geddes
Head of Investigations
General Medical Council
Regents Place
350 Euston Road
London NW1 3JN


Dear Mr Geddes,

Concerns arising from my IOP Hearing on April 29th 2010

I have concerns about the procedures and running of my IOP.

Please, could you address the following questions as a matter of urgency.

In January 2006 the GMC received a complaint about me from Dr Charles Swainson of Lothian NHS Board. I note that on the IOP there was a Dr Lewis Morrison also from Lothian NHS. Please, can you ask Dr Morrison for a letter confirming that he had no knowledge of me or my case before this IOP. I note that both Drs Swainson and Morrison are involved in the provision of stroke services in Scotland (see ref (1) below).

In his presentation to the Hearing, Mr Summers, the GMC prosecutor, made a false statement with respect to who initiated the process to teach the administration of B12 injections. Is Mr Summers personally responsible for checking the veracity of such statements or does this responsibility lie with the GMC?

Why did discussions of restrictions on my license to practise take place before I had given my statement? This gives the clear impression that the GMC had decided upon the outcome of my case before even hearing from me.

What steps did the GMC take to confirm the identity of the website complainant. Without doing this, the complainant effectively remains anonymous, even to the GMC.

I note the GMC’s new rules on vexatious complaints were brought into effect last August 2009. I consider both complaints to be vexatious. Which guidances did the GMC apply in my case to conclude the opposite?

Letters essential to my defence in previous GMC hearings were either deliberately or accidentally filleted from the record. There were 45 missing. I complained about this to the GMC and on the day of my Hearing, those letters were all delivered to my office with a covering letter from Julian Graves dated 26 April 2010, stating: “I’m sorry that some of these letters were not disclosed to you as a result of your previous subject access requests.”
Mr Graves lists 38 letters as not having been previously disclosed, 5 letters as having been previously disclosed and 2 letters that he was unable to trace. Did the Panel have access to those letters in their perusal of my previous files? What other information essential to my defence was also withheld? I am mindful that the past GMC record of a defendant has also to be considered and am concerned that this did not happen in my case.

Timing. The GMC did not allow me sufficient time to prepare my defence nor brief my representative. Initially I was given one full working day’s notice of an IOP. The IOP rules are that 7 working days’ notice should be given. This was only extended by 13 working days when I appealed. Furthermore, the expert witness report was only sent to me three days before my hearing. Given the GMC had allowed themselves 10 months to investigate the B12 complaint and 14 weeks to investigate the website complaint, the time afforded to me was unfair. At the very least, the time given to me to peruse the Expert Witness report would appear to be against the spirit of GMC rules which allow 7 days’ notice. Is this usual GMC practice?

In the course of his presentation Mr Summers put the identity of the patient involved at risk. He released sufficient information at that public Hearing from which the patient could, with minimal investigation, be identified. Should this happen is Mr Summers or the GMC responsible for this breach of confidentiality? The relevant paragraph is:
“In short, the case was brought to the attention of the GMC by eight GPs in that Yorkshire practice in the letter of 18 June 2009. The mother of the patient had self-referred to Dr Myhill after discovering her website on the web, as a result of which Dr Myhill requested a blood sample in respect of her son, an adult.

Following analysis of the blood sample Dr Myhill wrote to the patient’s mother outlining various theories and treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome. In particular, she advised that he be administered B12 and magnesium sulphate injections. Dr Woods advised the mother that he would not be able to prescribe these drugs, being unsure why the patient should be prescribed the drugs in the first place. In particular, the patient was a known suffer of – and I am going to use the letter “B” – of juvenile [B’s] disease.”

The GMC took the patient’s notes without their knowledge or permission. In doing so they broke the terms of the Data Protection Act and hence were acting illegally. Please could the GMC now inform the patient that this is what has been done?

The restrictions on my practice are illogical. As a result of recommending the use of B12 injections, all my prescribing rights have been lifted. Please explain the logic for this.

Consistency. I note Dr Jane Barton was investigated over 12 years for the deaths of 95 patients in her care of which 5 were clearly shown to be due to morphine overdose. She had a GMC Hearing on 29th January 2010. She lost her right to prescribe opiates for the next 3 years, whilst all other drug prescribing was permitted. The decision to lift all my prescribing rights on the basis of recommending a B12 injection is inconsistent with the Barton case. As a result of this I am unable to practise effectively as a doctor and unable to earn a living as a qualified doctor. Please can you send me GMC guidance on the imposition of sanctions on doctors?

Expert witness report. I have a right to be judged by my peers. Professor Bouloux by his own admission is not expert in the areas of chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Can you please confirm that all of the thousands of emails, letters and petition comments sent in my support were taken into account by the Panel and that sufficient time was allowed for these documents to be read and digested by Panel members?

I would ask you that these issues are considered as a matter of urgency. My patients are suffering already because I cannot avail them of my full medical services.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Myhill

Ref (1) Lothian Stroke MCN Steering Group, Minutes of meeting 17.2.2006

END SECOND LETTER