Letter to the GMC
Here is my tome. Please use bits if you wish.
Dear Mr Bridge
I am writing to voice my strong objection to the GMCs attempt to withdraw the licence of Dr Sarah Myhill.
Not only can the tests and treatments offered by Dr Myhill be more relevant and efficacious for chronic illness than any available on the NHS, but her website provides clear and concise information to patients who have no viable or effective alternatives for health support. This is particularly true for patients who are bedbound or housebound, those who can not afford private consultations, and those who have been dismissed by family GPs unable to offer any diagnosis or effective treatments.
As such, the potential withdrawal of Dr Myhills website poses significant patient risk: in the absence of any constructive alternative from the NHS, this proposed action will leave thousands of sick and vulnerable patients without any options for health management.
In particular, Dr Myhills advice and guidance on mitochondrial dysfunction, adrenal fatigue and hypothyroidism is simply not available from the NHS. This advice and guidance is based on sound biomedical research (often from the US and Canada, amongst other countries), and offers valuable insight into methods for treating chronic conditions.
Such research is not widely disseminated throughout the UK medical profession but this fact does not make its associated treatment recommendations either invalid or harmful to patients. To the contrary, there is a substantial UK patient body which can testify to its efficacy.
Instead of persecuting Dr Myhill for having the intelligence, tenacity and compassion to bring new ideas to a research starved UK, one would have hoped that the GMC, in line with its stated aim of promoting high standards of medical education and training would be working proactively with Dr Myhill and her patients to understand and assess her approaches.
Furthermore, if the GMC does not encourage an open and balanced dialogue between Dr Myhill, her patients and the broader UK medical profession, then it will be confounding its own commitment to promote fairness and equality and value diversity.
For many patients of chronic illness (myself included), the meager range of treatments that are currently offered by the family GP is not just ineffective but often harmful.
A case in point is graded exercise, the cornerstone of NICE guidelines for treating ME, and one which is both irresponsible and dangerous given the cardiomyopathic complications associated with the illness.
Whilst the cardiac element is widely recognised in international medical literature (e.g. 48 papers on the subject were included in pre-reading material for a recent MRC ME group meeting), UK GPs seem shockingly unaware of it and unwittingly advise patients to push through their symptoms to achieve a cure.
Even the future Chair of the Royal College of GPs, Dr Clare Gerada, has been recorded in a GP training video advising an ME sufferer that exercise will not harm them. Should we report Dr Gerada to the GMC for putting patients at risk and would the GMC pursue this complaint?
And would the GMC pursue complaints against the following?
Neurologist A:
- for saying that MRI scans and other tests have to be performed on healthy patients to convince them that they are not sick otherwise they will worry themselves until they are
- for prescribing Gabapentin and Amantadine without a diagnosis
Neurologist B:
- for saying that ME is a psychiatric diagnosis, contrary to the WHOs definition of it as neurological illness and the UK CMOs public reinforcement of this definition
Immunologist C:
- for agreeing to perform tests on a patient but saying that they will not show anything
- for disregarding abnormal test results and telling the patient to ignore them
- for stating to a GP that a physical examination of the patient had not found a reported complaint when no examination had been made
Rheumatologist D:
- for diagnosing a patient with mild lupus, prescribing Plaquenil, deciding after two months that the diagnosis was incorrect but allowing the patient to remain on the drug for a further six months, having devolved responsibility for the medication to the family GP
- for prescribing Amitriptylene for sleep disturbance without being aware of potential contra-indications with co-morbidities
ENT Specialist E:
- for advising a patient to stop looking for causes of an illness and start taking the drugs that were being offered
- for prescribing Gabapentin without being able to explain how the drug works or its potential contra-indications with co-morbidities
If this is the type of cohort that the GMC supports whilst denigrating Dr Myhill, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
I understand that Jackie Smith of the GMC has admitted to c. 500k being spent on various investigations of Dr Myhill over the years, all without result.
Perhaps these funds might be better used to investigate doctors for whom there is a groundswell of discontent, rather than one for whom there is a single anonymous complaint.
I am sure that the community of patients with misdiagnosed and mistreated chronic conditions would be only too happy to provide the GMC with an extensive list of establishment doctors who have blatantly disregarded their oath to first do no harm.
For example, the GMC may wish to revisit complaints against doctors complicit in sectioning the late Sophia Mirza, an appalling case which breached all medical and moral duties of care, and yet one in which all those implicated were exonerated.
A final point concerns the timing of the GMCs action against Dr Myhill which I find somewhat unfortunate in the light of growing evidence (in the US) of a link between the new human retrovirus, XMRV, and chronic illnesses such as atypical lupus, atypical MS, fibromyalgia and ME. At a time when links between mitochondrial dysfunction and adrenal failure are being explored in the context of retroviral pathogenicity, it seems imprudent, even negligent, to marginalise the one doctor in the UK who has experience in these fields.
I request that the GMC acknowledges these concerns and provides details of any future Fitness to Practice hearings so that I might attend and provide evidence on Dr Myhills behalf.
Sincerely