Stuart Jones hearing with HPC for comments against Dr Myhill

[lilpink]

Stuart Jones

Clinical scientist
Registration Number: CS17316
Allegation Number: FTP

Date & Time of hearing: 20/12/2011 - 10:00

End: 21/12/2011 - 17:00

HPC, Park House, 184 Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU

Outcome: Hearing has not yet been held

Conduct and Competence Committee

Region: England - London

Registrant Name: Stuart Jones

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Notice Of Allegation:

During the course of your registration as a Clinical Scientist, between 1st March 2009 and 26th October 2010, you:

Made disparaging and/or misleading comments on the website forum, Bad Science about Dr XY*.

The matter set out in paragraphs 1 constitutes misconduct.
3. By reason of that misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired
Notes:
This is a two day final hearing to be held at the HPC.

 

[lilpink]

Regarding comments made concerning whether there is enough 'proof', this point must have already been dealt with in the HPC procedures which I attach below. The investigations committee has already decided that there is a case to answer and that Jonas is correctly identified. Of course this does not mean at all that any sanctions will be applied but the stage Jonas is at is already some way down the line.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPC procedures from http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/registrants/investigations/


When we receive a case, we will first assess it to decide whether it is about fitness to practise. The fitness to practise process is not a general service to sort out complaints and we sometimes receive information about issues we cannot deal with.

Cases that do fall within our remit must meet a standard of acceptance before we can consider them further. This means that there must be enough information to identify you as the registrant and the events that took place. A practice note sets out our standard of acceptance in more detail,

If cases are not within our remit, or do not meet the standard of acceptance, we will close them if we cannot gather any more information.

When we have confirmed that we can consider the matter, we will:

pass the case to a case manager in the Fitness to Practise Department who will be your main contact during the process;
write to you and let you know that we are investigating an allegation about your fitness to practise; and
ask for more information if we need it (for example, we might ask for more documents from your employer, or ask the police about the circumstances of a conviction).

We also have powers to demand information. Article 25(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 allows us to insist that individuals or organisations give us information or documents. This power overrides the Data Protection Act. Panels can also insist that witnesses go to a hearing or produce documents. However, the only person this does not apply to is you. We cannot make you give us information or attend a hearing if you choose not to.

Your response
When we have all the information we need, we will write to you and give you full details of the allegation that has been made. We will give you copies of all the documents we have and invite you to respond, in writing, within 28 days of our letter. If you need more than 28 days to make your response, you can ask for more time. The case manager can give you a 28-day extension. If you need more time after this, you will need to make a written application to the Investigating Committee panel.

You do not have to provide a response to the allegation. However, it does help the Investigating Committee to make a decision if they have information from you. You may want to get advice from your union or professional body (if you are a member of one) or a lawyer (if you have appointed one) before you respond. When we write to you, we will give you some information about what you might want to consider including in your response.

If you do provide a response, we will not provide this to the person who raised the concern about you. However, we may need to ask them questions as a result of the points you raise.

The Investigating Committee
After you have had the opportunity to respond to the allegation, it will be passed to a panel of our Investigating Committee to decide whether there is a case to answer. Each panel is made up of at least three people, including someone from the same profession as you and a lay person (someone who is not on our Register). The meeting is held in private and their task is to look at the evidence that is available and decide whether we will be likely to prove the allegation that has been made against you. The panel does not decide whether the allegation is proven, they only decide whether we have a real prospect of proving the allegation at a final hearing.

The Investigating Committee can decide that:

more information is needed;
there is a case to answer (which means they will pass the case to another panel); or
there is no case to answer (which means that the case does not need to be taken any further).

The panel will give reasons for their decision. We will write to you (and the person who raised the concern with us) and give you the panels decision and their reasons. There is no process to appeal against a decision at this stage.

If the panel decides there is no case to answer and we receive another concern about your fitness to practise which is similar in nature, within three years, we can take the first case into account when considering the new information.

 

[lilpink]

Regarding comments made concerning whether there is enough 'proof', this point must have already been dealt with in the HPC procedures which I attach below. The investigations committee has already decided that there is a case to answer and that Jonas is correctly identified. Of course this does not mean at all that any sanctions will be applied but the stage Jonas is at is already some way down the line.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPC procedures from http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/registrants/investigations/


When we receive a case, we will first assess it to decide whether it is about fitness to practise. The fitness to practise process is not a general service to sort out complaints and we sometimes receive information about issues we cannot deal with.

Cases that do fall within our remit must meet a standard of acceptance before we can consider them further. This means that there must be enough information to identify you as the registrant and the events that took place. A practice note sets out our standard of acceptance in more detail,

If cases are not within our remit, or do not meet the standard of acceptance, we will close them if we cannot gather any more information.

When we have confirmed that we can consider the matter, we will:

pass the case to a case manager in the Fitness to Practise Department who will be your main contact during the process;
write to you and let you know that we are investigating an allegation about your fitness to practise; and
ask for more information if we need it (for example, we might ask for more documents from your employer, or ask the police about the circumstances of a conviction).

We also have powers to demand information. Article 25(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 allows us to insist that individuals or organisations give us information or documents. This power overrides the Data Protection Act. Panels can also insist that witnesses go to a hearing or produce documents. However, the only person this does not apply to is you. We cannot make you give us information or attend a hearing if you choose not to.

Your response
When we have all the information we need, we will write to you and give you full details of the allegation that has been made. We will give you copies of all the documents we have and invite you to respond, in writing, within 28 days of our letter. If you need more than 28 days to make your response, you can ask for more time. The case manager can give you a 28-day extension. If you need more time after this, you will need to make a written application to the Investigating Committee panel.

You do not have to provide a response to the allegation. However, it does help the Investigating Committee to make a decision if they have information from you. You may want to get advice from your union or professional body (if you are a member of one) or a lawyer (if you have appointed one) before you respond. When we write to you, we will give you some information about what you might want to consider including in your response.

If you do provide a response, we will not provide this to the person who raised the concern about you. However, we may need to ask them questions as a result of the points you raise.

The Investigating Committee
After you have had the opportunity to respond to the allegation, it will be passed to a panel of our Investigating Committee to decide whether there is a case to answer. Each panel is made up of at least three people, including someone from the same profession as you and a lay person (someone who is not on our Register). The meeting is held in private and their task is to look at the evidence that is available and decide whether we will be likely to prove the allegation that has been made against you. The panel does not decide whether the allegation is proven, they only decide whether we have a real prospect of proving the allegation at a final hearing.

The Investigating Committee can decide that:

more information is needed;
there is a case to answer (which means they will pass the case to another panel); or
there is no case to answer (which means that the case does not need to be taken any further).

The panel will give reasons for their decision. We will write to you (and the person who raised the concern with us) and give you the panels decision and their reasons. There is no process to appeal against a decision at this stage.

If the panel decides there is no case to answer and we receive another concern about your fitness to practise which is similar in nature, within three years, we can take the first case into account when considering the new information.

 

[lilpink]

No idea why that posted twice!

 

[Min]

people who live in glass houses, Jonas..........................

 

[Enid]

Ditto !!!!!!!!

Thanks for posting lilpink. (And I enjoyed a double post too - sinks in better)

 

[barbc56]

FYI, as a long standing member and poster of the Bad Science forum, I'm not worried.

IMHO, it is retaliation. If I were a betting person, I would say it will never come to fruition. :>)

 

[Mark]

If I were a betting person, I would say it will never come to fruition. :>)

Maybe not, but speaking as someone with close friends whose health has severely deteriorated while they were unable to get treatment during the unsuccessful year-long case against Dr Myhill, and as someone who attributes his own very substantial recovery to the treatments recommended by her, and as someone who witnessed the callously uncaring, mocking, childishly abusive campaign against her by cocksure and ignorant 'quackbusters' with nothing positive to offer ME patients and zero scepticism about the Wessely school's distortion of science, I would personally be delighted to see the instigators of that campaign taken to task for the way they treated a fellow professional.

I have very mixed feelings about the concept of revenge - although the anger and bitterness when I'm wronged is strong, I would ideally prefer to accentuate the positive - but it seems quite likely that we can never make any progress in the UK without identifying and taking on the forces that continue to suppress any chink of light in our darkness. We can't stay on the defensive for ever, there comes a point when you have to hit back to stem the tide of abuse. Much of BS may be an innocent pawn in the war on ME sufferers, but as long as some of its members continue to gleefully proclaim their intent to continue their persecution of Dr Myhill, and their sheeple continue the chorus of laughter as if the whole thing were a delightful game, they will remain an enemy to be confronted in any way possible.

BS issues always seems to remind me of tunes from the good old days - "Those last few days at Jonestown ain't got nothing on this...How do we tell the people in the white coats Enough is Enough?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxqWdSOVI9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0SkBYshLLU

http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/white-coats-lyrics-new-model-army.html

 

[Sean]

We can't stay on the defensive for ever, there comes a point when you have to hit back to stem the tide of abuse.

Agree. It is way past time that these irresponsible and incompetent scumbags got properly and publicly called to account, including Ben Goldacre himself, for allowing, and even encouraging such behaviour on his site.

 

[barbc56]

Mark, I have to disagree with your perception of the Bad Science Forum.

There are many people on the BS forum with cfs/me.

I don't see the people on BS mocking patients. Not all agree with the PACE trial. I think it is a matter of perspective and defensiveness by some patients. I don't like Wessly. I don't like PACE and have said so. I don't mind the type of banter there, but that's me. It's not for everyone.

Some people might see the people from another forum who are not science based and follow a non scientiest, as a form of mocking patients as what they say may be perceived as incorrect as well as harmful to patients. That's what I believe and I do mind the type of comments I see, so just don't go to that forum. But I will continue to fight for science based medicine.

My health has deteriorated and I am very sick. I get angry and bitter. I also consider myself a very proactive advocate in the community.

Myhill did not go by the science and was asked to remove some non science based information on her internet site. She did that and the matter was settled.

I guess we will have to just disagree about this? I don't want to debate the whole Myhill debacle as it's been done but I do want to show my opinion which some may not agree with, but that's okay. It's important to see all sides of an issue.

I'm glad you were helped. I really am.




ETA I did change vengence to retaliation which I have to admit may suit the situation better.

 

[HowToEscape?]

Maybe not, but speaking as someone with close friends whose health has severely deteriorated while they were unable to get treatment during the unsuccessful year-long case against Dr Myhill, and as someone who attributes his own very substantial recovery to the treatments recommended by her, and as someone who witnessed the callously uncaring, mocking, childishly abusive campaign against her by cocksure and ignorant 'quackbusters' with nothing positive to offer ME patients and zero scepticism about the Wessely school's distortion of science, I would personally be delighted to see the instigators of that campaign taken to task for the way they treated a fellow professional.

I have very mixed feelings about the concept of revenge - although the anger and bitterness when I'm wronged is strong, I would ideally prefer to accentuate the positive - but it seems quite likely that we can never make any progress in the UK without identifying and taking on the forces that continue to suppress any chink of light in our darkness. We can't stay on the defensive for ever, there comes a point when you have to hit back to stem the tide of abuse. Much of BS may be an innocent pawn in the war on ME sufferers, but as long as some of its members continue to gleefully proclaim their intent to continue their persecution of Dr Myhill, and their sheeple continue the chorus of laughter as if the whole thing were a delightful game, they will remain an enemy to be confronted in any way possible.

BS issues always seems to remind me of tunes from the good old days - "Those last few days at Jonestown ain't got nothing on this...How do we tell the people in the white coats Enough is Enough?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxqWdSOVI9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0SkBYshLLU

http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/white-coats-lyrics-new-model-army.html

Well said.

I have a different point of view myself; I believe that malicious acts and the persons committing them must be punished and the disgrace made known.
Allowing bad conduct (beyond personal slights and the trivia of everyday life) to walk results in more of it.

 

[HowToEscape?]

"Myhill did not go by the science and was asked to remove some non science based information on her internet site. She did that and the matter was settled."

Scientific medical treatments do not come about automatically, and they are rarely handed down from an official sounding lab in advance of someone, somewhere trying it. The road to scientifically proven treatments requires many hunches, guesses, winding roads, mistakes and things that sorta almost worked. There are NO effective treatments in PDR to cure this in anyone, much less the in variety of patients having it.
Another example, stomach ulcers were "scientifically" known to be caused by stress; one flaky freaky doc insisted they were caused by a bacterium.
He was ostracized. Could have been put in jail for treating patients based on his unscientific theory.
Now the science is that stomach ulcers are caused by the bacterium he identified.
That doctor was a scientist.

My regular MD is a nice guy, uses PDR and accepted treatments (basically nothing, with some harmful stuff as a fallback). It's all good, they're in PDR.

They don't work. One of them can make the disease worse, doc didn't know that... because it's not in PDR.

I get an injection from Dr. Enlander. It's FDA approved for safety but there are no clinical trials of it for effectiveness in CFIDS. There's no business or government entity interested in conducting the scale of research necessary to publish in a peer reviewed journal or run an FDA approved trial. It's not patentable as a new drug, you can't recover the costs of FDA approval.
Thus the injection is not officially accepted science for the treatment of CFIDS/ME, nor will it be.

It works.

Who you gonna call?

 

[Nina]

Maybe not, but speaking as someone with close friends whose health has severely deteriorated while they were unable to get treatment during the unsuccessful year-long case against Dr Myhill, and as someone who attributes his own very substantial recovery to the treatments recommended by her, and as someone who witnessed the callously uncaring, mocking, childishly abusive campaign against her by cocksure and ignorant 'quackbusters' with nothing positive to offer ME patients and zero scepticism about the Wessely school's distortion of science, I would personally be delighted to see the instigators of that campaign taken to task for the way they treated a fellow professional.

I have very mixed feelings about the concept of revenge - although the anger and bitterness when I'm wronged is strong, I would ideally prefer to accentuate the positive - but it seems quite likely that we can never make any progress in the UK without identifying and taking on the forces that continue to suppress any chink of light in our darkness. We can't stay on the defensive for ever, there comes a point when you have to hit back to stem the tide of abuse. Much of BS may be an innocent pawn in the war on ME sufferers, but as long as some of its members continue to gleefully proclaim their intent to continue their persecution of Dr Myhill, and their sheeple continue the chorus of laughter as if the whole thing were a delightful game, they will remain an enemy to be confronted in any way possible.

BS issues always seems to remind me of tunes from the good old days - "Those last few days at Jonestown ain't got nothing on this...How do we tell the people in the white coats Enough is Enough?"

Great post, Mark, thank you.

 

[Enid]

Yes I agree - great post Mark.

 

[Esther12]

Personally, I feel a bit sorry for Jonas about all this. He seemed pretty oblivious to all of the politics around CFS, and (from what I remember) was mainly concerned about inaccurate vaccine advice on Myhill's website. It's not like it is his fault that CFS has been treated so poorly in the UK, or that the regulation of inaccurate psychiatric claims is so lacking. Did he even take part in the lame defence of how CFS was treated on Bad Science?

 

[RustyJ]

Personally, I feel a bit sorry for Jonas about all this. He seemed pretty oblivious to all of the politics around CFS, and (from what I remember) was mainly concerned about inaccurate vaccine advice on Myhill's website. It's not like it is his fault that CFS has been treated so poorly in the UK, or that the regulation of inaccurate psychiatric claims is so lacking. Did he even take part in the lame defence of how CFS was treated on Bad Science?

Moderator: Personal attack deleted

I don't hear you expressing regret that his self-righteous actions might have/has hurt patients. Feel sorry for the patients he has harmed. In this case ignorance should be not be an excuse. Furthermore Jonas and others of his ilk contrived to ensure that ignorance prevailed, and continue to do so. If he is silenced, we have made one small step in the right direction. There are many more steps to take.

CFS is treated better where? to what degree? I don't think there is a country in the world that treats ME/CFS adequately.

 

[Esther12]

Moderator - Reference to deleted post removed.

I don't hear you expressing regret that his self-righteous actions might have/has hurt patients. Feel sorry for the patients he has harmed. In this case ignorance should be not be an excuse. Furthermore Jonas and others of his ilk contrived to ensure that ignorance prevailed, and continue to do so. If he is silenced, we have made one small step in the right direction. There are many more steps to take.

CFS is treated better where? to what degree? I don't think there is a country in the world that treats ME/CFS adequately.

Moderator - Response to deleted post removed

It does seem that CFS is treated particularly poorly in the UK, and I don't see why pointing that out would irritate you so.

I've not been following the Myhill case closely, but it did seem that she had some inaccurate information on her website, which she should have changed. I don't know to what extent it's fair to blame Jonas's complaint about that for the problems caused to Myhill's patients, or how reasonable it is to make a complaint about such errors. This isn't a topic I was following closely, but to me, it seemed that the original complaint got mixed in with some of the stupid CFS stuff on Bad Science at a later date.

My post asserted so little that I do not see how it could have 'many errors' - and you have certainly not pointed out any yet.

 

[taniaaust1]

I think this is great news.. we do need things like this to help change things and stop the BS which goes on around ME/CFS.

Doctors/Scienctists shouldnt maliciously be sprouting their mouths off about things they know little about.

 

[RustyJ]

I think this is great news.. we do need things like this to help change things and stop the BS which goes on around ME/CFS.

Doctors/Scienctists shouldnt maliciously be sprouting their mouths off about things they know little about.

It is good news Tania. I also hope other practitioners/researchers are able to gain strength from her actions.

 

[Valentijn]

He seemed pretty oblivious to all of the politics around CFS, and (from what I remember) was mainly concerned about inaccurate vaccine advice on Myhill's website.

What was the vaccine advice on her website?