Very Important News regarding Dr Myhill and the GMC


Senior Member
I've posted on Petitions and written to the GMC again. Not able to travel. Hoping this time in the light of international viral findings Dr Myhill's rare understanding of this illness in the UK will prevail.

This was released today.

Dear All,

I am sending this to all those whose email addresses are on our mailing list for newsletters from Dr Myhill. Some are patients, some are not. Some have written to the GMC, some have not. However, I have to write in this way because this is the only way I can reply to those who have sent in copies of letters and comments. I can no longer reply to individual messages, but cannot leave them without an answer. I am sorry that this message will be also received by some people who do not need to read it. Please, simply ignore it.

So here are a few points I would like to make:

1. The most important one is to say “Thank you” on behalf of Dr Myhill for all the various ways in which support for her work is being shown, especially for a new batch of powerful letters to Mr Bridge

2. Please, kindly send a copy of your letter to . These letters are all going into the database and will be part of the overall statistical (and factual) defence evidence presented to the GMC.

3. Dr Myhill is urging all those who have written to insist on relevant and acceptable answers from the GMC to the issues raised in these letter. In April these letters were ignored, with no replies and no answers.

4. Thank you very much for messages addressed to me.

Very kind regards,



Hania Bienkowska-Baker

secretary and adviser

Sarah Myhill Limited

Upper Weston


Knighton, Powys

My letter to Paul Bridge GMC has been added to Support Dr Myhill website.

Either see the website and sign up for newletters --

or see below:

MA(Oxon) ACA


22 September 2010

Paul Bridge,
General Medical Council,
Regents Place,
350 Euston Road,
London, NW1 3JN

Dear Mr Bridge,


I am writing to you with reference to the above. I am requesting this letter be submitted
as further evidence in Dr Sarah Myhill’s defence. I shall refer to the two complaints as
the ‘Website Complaint’ and the ‘B12 Complaint’. I trust that you will know the details
of these complaints without further explanation.

The restrictions placed upon Dr Sarah Myhill (SM) at the IOP Hearing of 29 April 2010
should be set aside for the following reasons. References to the Defence Document which is
to be submitted by SM are abbreviated to DD.

1. The B12 complaint contains in its actual text the phrase:

“On 24th March 2009 I had a further telephone conversation with the mother. I reiterated
that we had not agreed to administer, or train her to administer the injections.”

This statement is not true, as has been demonstrated in the DD. For example, in Patient
X’s medical notes there is a letter dated 4th March 2009 from Dr P of the Partners to the
district nurse at K Road Health Centre stating that:

“Dear Colleague, Please can Patient X’s mum be taught how to administer B12 injections.
Yours sincerely, Dr P.”

Therefore the B12 Complaint should be set aside given that it is based on an untruthful

2. The Website Complaint is not corroborated by an evidence base and the credibility of
the Website Complainant has not been established by the GMC.

Under GMC Imposing Interim Orders: Guidance for the Interim Orders Panel and
Fitness to Practise Panel April 2008 Annex 9 (see section 4.12) it is stated that:

“The Interim Orders Panel will make no finding of fact but the complaint must be credible
and backed by corroborative evidence.”

The arguments for this point are laid out in detail within the DD. Therefore the Website
Complaint should be set aside under application of the above mentioned Annex.

3. The GMC data records, both of the ongoing case against SM and also of previous,
subsequently dropped, cases are factually inaccurate.

These factual inaccuracies are detailed in the DD. There are also serious omissions of facts, also as detailed in the DD.
The cumulative effect of these inaccuracies and omissions is to render the case history of
SM’s involvement with the GMC, as presented to the IOP in this data record, to be so
materially deficient that the Hearing can only be concluded to have been unfair.
Therefore, all decisions and restrictions resulting from that Hearing should be set aside
on the basis of unfairness.

4. The Website Complaint is based on a false assumption arising from the Website
Complainant’s personal belief system.

The Website Complainant has a personal beliefsystem that NICE guidelines are in some way mandatory and that Doctors who do not
follow their guidance, in their entirety, represent a danger to the public. This is simply
not true. Once again the DD argues in detail with a firm evidence base that NICE
guidelines are not mandatory and that Doctors do have clinical freedom. This is best
expressed in the following quote from a letter from NICE, which can be found in the
Appendix section of the DD:

‘NICE clinical guidelines are recommendations about the treatment and care of people with
specific diseases and conditions in the NHS in England and Wales. Clinical
guidelines represent the view of NICE, and are arrived at after careful consideration of the
evidence available. Healthcare professionals are expected to take it fully into account when
exercising their clinical judgement. However, the guidance does not override the individual
responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances
of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or guardian or carer, and
informed by the summary of product characteristics of any drugs they are considering.’

Since the Website Complaint is based on a false assumption it should be set aside.

5. Further to point 4, you will be aware of the concept of Patient Counter-Examples and
in a very real sense this is why NICE guidelines can never be mandatory. Patient
Counter-Examples are those patients for whom ‘conventional’ or ‘accepted’ treatments
for certain conditions are not efficacious. These patients deserve access to Doctors who
are willing, able and qualified to diagnose and treat on an individual basis rather than
merely follow these ‘conventional’ and ‘accepted’ treatment options. This is exactly the
approach SM takes and the IOP will be provided with many Patient Counter-Examples
to demonstrate this. In taking this approach, SM is not passing comment on NICE
guidelines in general; she is merely treating patients for whom such ‘conventional’ and
‘accepted’ treatments have been ineffective and she is doing so to the best of her ability
and knowledge. The fact that so many patients have sent letters and emails of support in
favour of SM shows that her methods are, at the least, providing a necessary service for
these patients. In fact, patient support runs much deeper than that: many of SM’s
patients, myself included, credit their improving health to her protocols. These patients
have almost always been failed by the ‘conventional’ and ‘accepted’ treatments laid
down in NICE guidelines.

I urge the IOP to consider this point very carefully.

Placing severe restrictions, of the kind which were imposed on 29 April 2010, on SM’s
licence to practise medicine is denying a large cohort of patients access to such
individualised treatments (which they surely deserve) and this does no service at all to
the reputation of the GMC.

6. As detailed in the DD both the Complaints were vexatious as defined by Criteria 8 of
‘Vexatious Allegations Guidance on the Application of Rule 4(3)( c) of the GMC
(Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004’ which states that:

‘8. Broadly, a complaint can be vexatious within rule 4(3)(c) in either its intrinsic nature or
in the manner in which it is brought and/or pursued: that is, if there are reasonable grounds
to believe that one or more of three criteria apply:
A. The complaint’s primary purpose and/or effect is to disturb, disrupt and pressurise the
doctor, the GMC and/or another organisation and/or individual.
B. The primary purpose and/or effect of the manner in which the complaint is brought is
to disturb, disrupt and/or pressurise the doctor, the GMC and/or another organisation
and/or individual.
C. The complaint is otherwise manifestly unreasonable.’

The reason why the GMC did not come to the conclusion that both complaints were
vexatious was because it did not properly carry out its procedures for filtering out
vexatious complaints. This point is also made and evidenced in the DD. Indeed, the
vexatious nature or otherwise of both Complaints was not even considered. Under its
own rules, the GMC should set aside both of these Complaints on the basis that they are

7. The independence of the Panel which sat on 29 April 2010 has not been demonstrated
in a transparent and accountable way. This has to be done, as noted in the DD, even if
retrospectively, for the public to have confidence in GMC procedures concerning this
IOP. The DD suggests the taking of suitable affidavits for this purpose and this would
seem a sensible way forward.

8. The GMC contravened certain procedural matters as follows:

• Discussion of the IOP sentence before the hearing of evidence
• Lack of fair notice period accorded by GMC to SM
• GMC Counsel revealed the identities of the Partners and also of Patient X
during the course of his public presentation.
• Full consideration by the Panel of the level of support for SM was not given
• Patient X’s notes were taken without their permission or knowledge A3D
• Hearing Proceedings were flawed and unfair in that neither cross examination
nor the calling of witnesses was permitted.
• The letter of instruction from Ms TS, GMC Legal Department to Professor
Bouloux is littered with factual inaccuracies.
• Professor Bouloux’s Expert Witness report does not follow GMC guidance on
Expert Witness Reports

Full discussion of these points is given in the DD. The cumulative effect of these
procedural contraventions is to render the IOP Hearing unfair to SM and so it should
be set aside on that basis.

9. Under the principle laid down in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
[1957] 1 WLR 583, SM has the right to be judged by her peers. A summary of this case
law is that it:

“ lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in
negligence cases involving skilled professionals (e.g. doctors): it is known as the "Bolam
test". Where the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills
and abilities, this test expects standards which must be in accordance with a responsible
body of opinion, even if others differ in opinion. In other words, Bolam test states that "If a
doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, he is not negligent"

SM was judged by the Expert Witness, Professor Bouloux, who by his own admission,
has no expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of either chronic fatigue syndromes or
mitochondrial disorders. Indeed he states that he refers this group of patients to
specialists rather than treat them himself. Within the GMC case notes on SM there is a
piece of advice dated 16th February 2010 from an expert GP witness which states that:

“..did not have sufficient knowledge of CFS to be in a position to answer questions posed and
that in view of Dr Myhill’s background he feels that the GMC should instruct an expert not
just with mainstream knowledge of CFS but an expert with a special knowledge or interest in

By instructing Profesor Bouloux who is neither expert in nor has a special interest in
CFS, the GMC has ignored its own expert advice. Indeed the GMC are confused about
the manner in which SM should be assessed and the standard against which she should
be judged. In his case notes, the relevant Case Examiner states that:

“Dr Myhill has provided opinions which would not be supported by the wider medical

This is not the standard against which SM should be judged. It is a defence in law,
provided by Bolam, that if a doctor practises a technique which is generally accepted by
his peers, then that is sufficient. ‘Peers’ are defined not by reference to the ‘wider
medical profession’, as the GMC has done so but rather by reference to ‘a responsible
body of medical opinion’ as defined once again by the Bolam principle.

This Bolam test is passed even in the presence of others who ‘differ in opinion’. SM’s
peers are the group of doctors involved in the practice of allergy, environmental and
nutritional medicine. It is from within this group of doctors that the GMC should have
sought expert witness reports. These doctors certainly represent a responsible body of
medical opinion and are best placed to judge SM’s practising of medicine.

Since SM has not been judged by her peers, as required by Bolam, the IOP decision
should be set aside on the basis of unfairness to SM.

10. The GMC is acting outwith its remit and so its decisions regarding this IOP should
be set aside. In a letter to SM, dated 7th August 2006, Neil Jinks, then GMC Assistant
Registrar, stated that:

“It is not the place of the GMC to take a position on the correctness or otherwise of generally
recommended or of possible ‘cutting edge’ treatment…...”

Yet this is exactly what the GMC has done and so this is exactly why the GMC’s
decisions regarding this IOP should be set aside.

11. Even if restrictions were considered necessary on SM’s licence, a position which has
been argued very forcefully not to be the case both in this letter and the very many
other documents laid before the IOP, then the severity of those restrictions imposed on
29 April 2010 bears no relation to the supposed transgressions. No patient has been
harmed by SM’s action; in fact many have been helped. Surely this is the ultimate
arbiter of good medical practice? Do no harm. The DD contains many examples,
demonstrating the illogical and disproportionate nature of the restrictions placed on SM
compared with other recently decided GMC cases. When the IOP reconsiders SM at the
review IOP due on 7 October 2010, I urge them to take into account this factor and even
if they cannot accept that SM should have no restrictions on her licence to practise
medicine, I implore them to reduce the severity of the restrictions with particular
regard to the prescribing of BNF medication as it is this restriction which has caused so
much harm to the health of SM’s patients. The IOP will be presented with real life case
studies of where such harm has been directly caused by this particular restriction and
once again this does no service at all to the reputation of the GMC.

I hope that the IOP sees fit to take note of these many points raised in defence of SM
and will, at the very least, lift the restriction on her right to prescribe when the case is
reviewed on 7 October 2010. It is simply not the case the SM is a risk to public safety
and the way this case has been dealt with thus far has been a travesty.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by return.

Yours sincerely,
We are submitting the Defence Document, as previoulsy posted, along with the Patient Experiences Document-PED- and a Medical References Document-MRD.

The PED has contributions from 2185 patients showing how Dr Myhill's protocols have improved patient health and also how GMC restrictions have caused deterioration in patient health.

The MRD gives a full evidence base fo Dr Myhill's website.

Thanks to every one, including of course the 2185, who have helped in this process.

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So the GMC do not know their own rules; what hope is there?

As Dr Myhill’s supporters will all be aware, she appeared before an Interim Orders Panel of the GMC on 29th April, 2010. The sanctions imposed by the Panel included a directive that Dr Myhill should not prescribe any medication listed in the British National Formulary, and that a number of pages from her website should be removed. This has had a far reaching effect on Dr Myhill’s practise as a doctor and upon her many patients.

The GMC are required to hold a further IOP Hearing within 6 months of the original Hearing, and duly notified Dr Myhill that this would take place in London on Thursday, 7th October, 2010.

Dr Myhill has published her Defence Document ahead of the Hearing and at section 3.1.12 it is explained with reference to the April 2010 Hearing that:

SM asked for Dr Y to be subpoenaed to attend the Hearing but this request was denied.
SM asked for Professor Bouloux to be present at the Hearing and this again was denied.
Many requests were made for persons relevant to the Hearing to be present, for example an email from SM to Mr Paul Bridge (GMC) dated 21st April 2010 requested the presence of Dr Woods.
This again was refused and SM was told that only the GMC could subpoena witnesses.

As we approach the Hearing on 7th it is vital to ensuring a fair hearing that Dr Myhill is able to cross-examine the very doctors who have made a complaint against her and the Expert Witness for the GMC, Professor Bouloux whose evidence was presented at the IOP Hearing in April. Again her request for these witnesses has been denied, on this occasion by Adam Elliot in his email of 24th September, 2010 in which he states:

On the matter of calling witnesses, as you know Rule 27(2) of the Rules provides that it is a matter for the IOP on the day to determine whether or not it will allow witnesses to be called to give evidence. There are no provisions within the IOP’s procedure rules for the subpoenaing of witnesses.

In a shock development today Dr Myhill has been advised by a solicitor:
Schedule 4 of the Medical Act 1983

You will note this Schedule deals with proceedings before, amongst other bodies, Interim Orders Panels. In particular, I refer you to paragraph 1, which states that the GMC shall make rules for the Interim Orders Panels with respect to the procedure to be followed and rules of evidence to be observed. Further, and what will be of particular interest is paragraph 2 which states that any party is entitled to issue a writ of subpoenas.

Section 36 Supreme Court Act

Is referred to in the Medical Act 1983 and deals with procedure for issuing a subpoena. It refers to the fact that the subpoena must be issued by the High Court and that expenses must be reimbursed etc.

I would suggest that your first step is to speak to whomever at the GMC told you you could not issue a subpoena and direct them to this section and ask them for an urgent explanation. I would point out that you are acting in person, and they appear to have misled you on an extremely important issue.
Accordingly, Dr Myhill has spoken with Adam Elliot today and acquainted him with the relevant sections of the Medical Act 1983 and the Supreme Court Act 1981 and has now been told that she may apply for an adjournment if subpoenas cannot be arranged in time. However, the GMC must reassess her case before October 29th or they are in breach of their own rules – and not for the first time!


Everyone who knows Dr Myhill knows her to be one of the kindest, caring and compassionate doctors in this country. Her patients frequently recount how they consulted her in desperation after their own GPs were unable to help them further through conventional medicine. So many patients also tell of improvements to their health and there is no doubt in their minds that Sarah is an exceptional doctor, always thinking of how best to help her patients and reading widely in what should be her leisure hours to ensure she uses the very best treatment available. The difference between her and so many doctors is that she always asks ‘Why?’ (is this patient ill) and then goes on to address the cause of the problem rather than suppress the symptoms with medication. My own experience of Dr Myhill is that of a doctor able to take disparate research from across the world and to pull this together to formulate treatment that is highly effective.

Since 1991, Dr Myhill has been subjected to six investigations following complaints from other doctors but none reached a formal Hearing or action by the GMC. Dr Myhill is still able to claim that no patient has ever made a complaint despite being handed a copy of an email at her hearing in April 2010 by Dr Morrison of the IOP Panel with what can only be described as a theatrical flourish. The email did not constitute a complaint and it is not contained in the latest bundle of documents supplied by the GMC as relevant to the forthcoming IOP Hearing.
Whilst accepting that the GMC is duty bound to investigate complaints, what all of Sarah’s patients, colleagues, friends and supporters want to see is a fair hearing, conducted in accordance with the law of the land. An important part of this is for Dr Myhill to be able to question her accusers about their statements on points that she feels are misleading. There is no doubt that false evidence has been provided to the GMC in one instance.

So today’s advice from a solicitor consulted by Dr Myhill is shocking.

The Medical Act 1983 in full is prominently displayed on the GMC website so their can be no excuse for inaccurate and/or poor or misleading advice. Further, the Act as displayed on the GMC website is exactly as in the conclusion put forward by the solicitor.

So we are left to ask ‘If the GMC do not know their own rules, what hope is there?’

The GMC draws its powers from the Medical Act 1983, a document of some 97 pages, and whilst this is a complex document it should be the Bible so far as the GMC is concerned. Their employees should be aware of the basic tenants of the Act; those with an investigatory brief or concerned with the calling of Hearings should be fully conversant with the legislation and able to offer truthful advice. In fact, just as Police Officers have to learn by heart a wide range of legislation, we would expect the GMC staff involved in this process to know the provisions of the Act under which they operate by heart, too, or at least to have the integrity check the facts if they are unsure. We would not tolerate a system in the United Kingdom whereby our police officers, or anyone else for that matter, acted outside the law of the land, made it up or interpreted it as they chose to; neither should the GMC be allowed to work outside of their governing legislation and thus disadvantage a hard working and effective physician in the process.

Dr Myhill has complained bitterly and on many occasions about the GMC’s failure to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the disadvantage caused by their failure to store her records securely and to provide her with ALL of the documents relevant to her case. The Defence Document details a litany of complaints in respect of the IOP Hearing held in April, the validity of evidence presented to the Panel and of the actions of the GMC. Having seen so much of the evidence first hand I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that document.

Now we find by omission or commission the GMC have sought to deny Dr Myhill one of the very basic tenants of English Law; the right to a fair trial/hearing and we are left to consider:

Just whose fitness to practise should be in question?


XMRV - L'Agent du Jour
Hi, is there a good UK investigative journalist you can send this to?
How about the (American?) female journalist who exposed the UK MPs' expenses scandal (in which unfortunately our 'very own' Dr Ian Gibson was implicated also). Can't remember her name now, but she seems v thorough and is good at researching organisational malfeance, institutional bias, requesting (& waiting for!) official paperwork and cutting through the bluff.
I think she originally honed her skills on analysing politicians' expenses in Washington DC.
Can anyone remember her name please based on this very vague summary?!

btw, your letter to GMC v well written I thought (few posts above).


Senior Member
Good response from GMC today - they will place my letter (presume all others) before the Panel. I'd pointed out that Dr Myhill's treatments are to put it simply "mainstream" now in ME. All the best with the hard work your end.


Slow But Hopeful
Couchland, USA

You have inspired me to do as suggested and insist on a reply to my letter to the GMC. I have written them today asking for confirmation that they received
it, and asking if they will include it with other documents they put before the panel.

How shockingly disgraceful these proceedings have been so far. It is hard to imagine how this can continue for so long.


Slow But Hopeful
Couchland, USA
Thanks. I have received a reply from the GMC stating my letter will be included too.
Holding the thought and intention that all goes very well for Dr Myhill.
Final submissions to the GMC have to be in by 12.00 on 5 October.

Let's hope it is a good result and that Dr Myhill is not struck off.

Here is the address

Paul Bridge,
General Medical Council,
Regents Place,
350 Euston Road,
London, NW1 3JN


Dear All

Things have moved fast in the last few days in my case between me and the GMC. On Friday I submitted an application to postpone the IOP Hearing on Thursday for the following three reasons:


Mr Scott Geddes, Head of Adjudication, General Medical Council, Regents Place, 350 Euston Road, London, NW1 3JN.

Dear Mr Geddes

Re: Sarah Myhill vs GMC

I have a second IOP Hearing scheduled for 7 October 2010 following my first IOP Hearing which took place on 29 April 2010.

I am writing to request that this second IOP be adjourned. This adjournment is requested on three grounds ; firstly with respect to the subpoenaing of witnesses, secondly with respect to the failure of witnesses, expert witnesses and the GMC to respond to questions I have put to them in writing and thirdly with respect to the GMC with-holding information from me which I believe is essential to my defence.

This adjournment is therefore needed because there is insufficient time between now and the proposed date of my second IOP for all these matters to be satisfactorily resolved. The responsibility for the necessity of this delay rests, I believe, with the GMC. Clearly, GMC officers have not responded to my questions and the matter of subpoenaing is discussed below. However, with this adjournment and the subpoenas in place and with the necessary responses to my questions we can then, I trust, start to agree facts. So please also accept this communication as a warning of Notice to Admit Facts.

Subpoenaing witnesses

As you know I am representing myself in person. I believe I have been misled by the GMC. I have requested on more than one occasion that witnesses and Expert Witnesses, whose evidence is essential to my defence, attend my Hearing, if necessary under subpoena, to give evidence and be cross-examined by myself. I have been told over the telephone and again in writing that I do not have these powers. The relevant extract from an email sent to me by Adam Elliott on 24.9.10 is as follows:

“On the matter of calling witnesses, as you know Rule 27(2) of the Rules provides that it is a matter for the IOP on the day to determine whether or not it will allow witnesses to be called to give evidence. There are no provisions within the IOP’s procedure rules for the subpoenaing of witnesses.”

As a matter of urgency I sought legal advice and have recently been directed to the 1983 Medical Act which states:

Schedule 4 (2)

“For the purposes of proceedings in England or Wales or Northern Ireland before –
a) The Investigation Committee
b) An Interim Orders Panel; or
c) A Fitness to Practice Panel

The Committee or Panel may administer oaths, and any party to the proceedings may issue a writ of subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum, but no person shall be compelled under any such writ to produce any such document that he could not be compelled to produce on the trial of an action. “

Clearly this demonstrates I am entitled, as a party to the proceedings, to subpoena witnesses. I request your urgent acknowledgement of this. The resolution of this issue will require time, hence the request for an adjournment.

Responses to my questions

Furthermore I have sent letters both to the complainants and to your Expert Witness Professor Bouloux in order to establish the full facts and also to understand their considered opinions of my case. In addition, I have sent letters by registered post requesting their presence at my IOP Hearing. I have received no responses to these letters at all and neither have they nor the GMC responded to the concerns raised within the attached letters.

It is essential to my defence that I have typed witness statements and these too have not been forthcoming from the complainants.

It is not possible for the GMC to conduct a fair Hearing without detailed responses to the issues raised in these letters. These responses are required in writing and in order that these lines of enquiry can be further examined it is also essential to fairness that these persons attend as witnesses at my upcoming Hearing in order to clarify any uncertainties and untruths.

Failure of the GMC to comply with the DTA Protection Act

Information essential to my defence was withheld from me before my 29 April IOP Hearing. This was information that I requested from Jackie Smith GMC Head of Investigation in August 2009 and again in a DPA search of 24 February 2010. This information eventually arrived late, with a covering letter of apology from GMC Information Access Officer Julian Graves, at my office, on 29 April, the day of my hearing. My defence was compromised as a result of this GMC breach of the DPA.
There are currently results of DPA searches outstanding from requests made on 16 June 2010, 23 June 2010, 19 August 2010, 2 September 2010 and 15 September 2010. On 26 September I received a letter from the Information Access team requesting 10 before they could proceed with searches. Clearly this is a stalling tactic to ensure that information essential to my defence is again with held and information has been provided without such payment on occasion.

Therefore I request postponement of my Hearing until the above legal requirements are in place.

Yours sincerely Dr Sarah Myhill


In response to the email, I received a copy of an internal memo on Saturday evening from Professor Roger Green, Chairman of the GMC adjudication committee. He opines that I should be called to IOP because I have “breeched” (sic) the GMC sanctions. Unfortunately for him he got the GMC ruling back to front. He thought that I was only allowed to prescribe medication from British National Formulary. I pointed out this obvious error and today received an apology.

The full correspondence is as follows:
From: Adam Elliott (020 7189 5209) []
Sent: 02 October 2010 17:09
Subject: FW: Dr Myhill
Dear Dr Myhill,
I can confirm that the Chairman of the Investigation Committee has considered your applications for a postponement and has determined not to accede to them. His reasons for refusing your application are attached.
Accordingly, the Interim Orders Panel will consider your case as listed at 09:30 on 7 October 2010 at the Council's offices in London.
Any observations or submissions you wish to make should be provided by 12:00 on 5 October 2010.
Regards Adam Elliott Assistant Registrar

From: Dr Sarah Myhill []
Sent: 02 October 2010 18:20
To: Adam Elliott (020 7189 5209)
Subject: RE: Dr Myhill
Dear Mr Elliott
I have just read the determination from Roger Green.
Please tell him as a matter of urgency that he has got his interpretation of the IOP ruling back to front.
The IOP ruled that I was not allowed to prescribe any medication from within BNF.
Roger Green states the opposite : “ I take this to mean that Dr Myhill must confine her prescribing to BNF approved preparations.”
Perhaps he would like to review his opinion in the light of this. Or I can air this at my IOP.
Yours sincerely Sarah Myhill

From: Adam Elliott (020 7189 5209) []
Sent: 04 October 2010 12:55
To: Dr Sarah Myhill
Subject: RE: Dr Myhill

Dear Dr Myhill,
I have raised this issue with Professor Green. He apologises for any misinterpretation. However, he remains of the view that, in light of the concerns raised that there may be a potential breach of the interim conditions imposed on your registration, it is both necessary and appropriate that your hearing proceed as listed on 7 October 2010.
In answer to your question it is open to you to address this issue to the IOP on 7 October 2010. It is also open to you to make an application to the Panel itself for an adjournment of your hearing. However, I would remind you that as set out in Section 41A(2) of the Medical Act your case must be reviewed by 28 October 2010.
Regards, Adam Elliott

Dear Mr Elliott
Perhaps you could tell me what that “potential breach” is.
Please be mindful that a “potential breach” is something that has not happened.
What is much more important are actual breaches.
What did you have in mind exactly?
Clearly I need to know so that I can provide the necessary documentation to demonstrate that I have complied with all the GMC sanctions.
There is nothing that I can see within the bundle of documents sent to me by the GMC that is an actual breach of GMC sanctions.
If there is no such actual breach then there is no necessity that the hearing proceed on 7 Oct 2010.
Please respond as a matter of urgency
Yours sincerely Sarah Myhill

What this means is that I face GMC IOP because of potential breaches (which have not happened)!
The situation is further complicated because the GMC have just served a further two Expert Witness reports on me. The first is with just four working day’s notice, and the second with two working day’s notice. In the first the EW has simply got his calculations wrong with respect to doses of minerals in my physiological mix MMMs that I routinely use. The second is from a doctor who advocates mammography as a screening technique for breast cancer and is concerned that my views on mammography do not accord with hers. I have prepared a rebuttal to both which I shall present to the IOP on Thursday.
My full speech I shall make available on line on Oct 7th Thursday morning – SO WATCH THIS SPACE.

Again a million thanks for all the wonderful support from you all.

PS If you have the energy, Professor Roger Green’s full memo is appended below.

Memorandum To: Adam Elliott/Neil Allwood

From: Roger Green

Date: 1 October 2010

Re: Application to postpone IOP hearing of Dr Myhill

1) Dr Myhill is due to appear before IOP on 7 October 2010. This is a review hearing following IOP making an Order on 29 April 2010. I saw this case in April 2010 and my memorandum of 9 April sets out some of the background before that first appearance at IOP. The allegations remain the same although there is now new evidence which might suggest that Dr Myhill has breeched the Order that IOP imposed.

2) As I read the original determination the first restriction on Dr Myhill’s registration reads “You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary”. In spite of the odd position of the comma I take this to mean that Dr Myhill must confine her prescribing to BNF approved preparations. There is evidence from several sources which could be taken to indicate that she has prescribed outside the BNF and may have recommended obtaining preparations from outside the UK. In addition there is evidence that the restriction to her web site might not have been complied with completely.

3) Dr Myhill submitted a request on 29 September and two on 30 September asking that the hearing be postponed. The reasons for postponement in the first of the letters were that:
a. She has been misled by the GMC to believe that she cannot subpoena witnesses to appear and that this impaired her defence at the first hearing and will do so again if this hearing proceeds. She quotes legal advice she has obtained which seems to show that “any party to the proceedings may issue a writ of subpoena…..”
b. She has not had responses to questions which she sent to the GMC witnesses and expert and without detailed answers she cannot receive a fair hearing.
c. The GMC has failed to comply with the Data Protection Act and used information which could enable a patient to be identified whereas she, because she complied with the Act, was compromised in her defence in April.

4) Before there was time to respond to these points she submitted 2 further letters on 30 September. I am not able to determine which was sent first from the information provided to me so I will deal with them together.
a. One letter expands on her complaint that the GMC had breeched the Data Protection Act, and refers to patient X and her inability to obtain the patients notes (which she had written) She accuses the GMC of “purloining” those notes. She has complained to the Information Commissioner but as yet has had no response to that complaint. She requests a postponement until relevant permissions to use the notes of this patient have been obtained.
b. The second letter complains about the inaccuracies in an Expert report recently obtained by the GMC which she says need to be corrected and asks for the hearing to be postponed until they have been.

5) The GMC is opposing the application on the grounds that:
a. Dr Myhill appears to have breached the Order and that it needs to be reviewed at the earliest opportunity.
b. If there are inaccuracies in the report of the latest expert then Dr Myhill will have the opportunity to challenge them at the IOP hearing.

6) The matter is referred to me under the provisions of Rule 29.

7) As regards issuing a subpoena to force witnesses to attend, as far as I read the Act and the Rules, the Panel may issue a subpoena on the application of any party and this is the way that subpoenas under Section 4 (2) of the Act would be obtained. Thus, as I read it, the GMC cannot issue a subpoena without first approaching the panel. Dr Myhill would have the same opportunity. If it was felt necessary tocompel a witness to attend and this route was not to be used, then Dr Myhill would have to approach a court and not the GMC and obtain a witness summons. However, I am not a lawyer and if I am wrong I have no doubt that I will be corrected. In this respect therefore I do not see this as a reason for postponing the hearing; if a subpoena is necessary then it has to be through the Panel.

8) It seems to me that eventually the answers to Dr Myhill’s questions will need to be provided, but not necessarily before IOP meets or even at the IOP hearing. My own view is that this comes into the realms of determination of facts and IOP is expressly instructed that this is not their function. Similar considerations apply to the report of the latest expert. It is entirely reasonable for Dr Myhill to point out what she believes the factual inaccuracies are to the Panel, and no doubt they will take this into consideration as they did in their last determination.

9) The matter of the GMC possibly breeching Data Protection provisions is potentially very serious but not something that can be determined at this stage. I am not empowered to do so nor is IOP, and this would need to be a separate matter for the GMC to deal with outside this case even though it might impinge on it. It seems to me that there are two distinct sides to this:
a. The alleged breech that has occurred previously. I am sure that eventually the Information Commissioner will give a Ruling and legal proceedings can be taken forward from that ruling.
b. Whether the GMC can continue to rely on what has already been said about patient X. It seems to me that this is not something for which I can postpone the hearing but if it proceeds in what is eventually determined to be an illegal way the GMC will have to bear the consequences.

10) However the most important fact, as far as I can see, is that Dr Myhill appears to continue to prescribe and advise patients to use non-BNF medication in breech of the Order imposed by IOP. Even if I am wrong about all the previous points this one still has the major force. Because of this I am not prepared to postpone the hearing. This information about the potential breech must be heard as soon as possible.

11) A more minor point is that by law IOP has to review its Orders within a six month period. This case therefore must be reviewed before the 28 October and cannot wait upon other matters as requested by Dr Myhill. I do note, however, that if information becomes available at any time which indicates that there is a need to amend the Order there can be an early review requested by the GMC or Dr Myhill, to reconsider whether the Order needs to be amended or even revoked.

Roger Green
Sofa, UK
Professor Green, in the Ivory Tower, without the dictionary


This is unreal!!

I realise that academics (in the UK at least) are notorious for their inadequacies in respect of basic literacy (skills like grammar and spelling being, apparently, unnecessary requirements for the fine minds that run things in this country), but this interpretation of the IOP's orders really takes the cake!

(What does IOP stand for by the way? Idiots On Parade?)

How on earth am I expected to respect the authority of people who don't know the difference between "breach" and "breech", who can't understand basic grammar, and who interpret sentences in ways that are utterly illogical?

How did we come to such a state? This is a Professor!!! How did it come to pass that someone with a weaker grasp of the English language than some cognitively-impaired ME/CFS patients (even including some for whom English is not their first language) comes to attain the title of Professor?

Truly, if it were ever in doubt, here is the evidence: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

For those who haven't waded through all of the above and distilled the key detail, the disputed restriction on Dr Myhill’s registration reads: “You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary”.

Prof Green's interpretation of this (admittedly clumsy) sentence: "In spite of the odd position of the comma I take this to mean that Dr Myhill must confine her prescribing to BNF approved preparations."


How can he be in a position to pass judgement on anything, if he can't even understand what the IOP's directive means?!

“You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary”

“You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary”

Since the British National Formulary describes "prescription only medication", the meaning is really quite clear. I myself would certainly have added a hyphen to avoid any confusion - "prescription-only" - but then again, I am but a cognitively-impaired patient with an illness that officially doesn't exist, and not one of those noble and worthy great minds who gets to decide the fate of the physicians that actually help me and people like me (in the starkest possible contrast to the NHS, whose treatments are indeed as harmful to people with ME/CFS as the latest research indicates, a fact we long-suffering patients have known for many years, without need of the research to prove it).

Look at this directive as many times as you like. And try, really hard, to interpret it as stating that Dr Myhill must ONLY prescribe medications that are detailed in the British National Formulary. I submit that interpreting the sentence in the way Prof Green has done will require some considerable effort.

“You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary”

The 'odd position of the comma'. Here is the only guess I can make at what Prof Green has intepreted as to where the comma should appear:

“You must not prescribe any prescription, only medication as detailed in the British National Formulary”

This sentence doesn't make sense either, of course. Nor would it make sense as a judgement. Dr Myhill may continue to prescribe medication, but may not prescribe anything that does not require a prescription? This would be an insane and illogical judgement...but I suppose, in Prof Green's defence, such a judgement would be quite in keeping with the IOP's track record in this case.

But I suppose all this should really come as no suprise. Nothing about the GMC's persecution of Dr Myhill makes sense. The complaints don't make sense, the short notice and draconian measures imposed don't make sense, the disparity between the sanctions applied to Dr Myhill and other physicians committing far more serious offences doesn't make sense, the judgement doesn't make sense, the failure of the GMC to follow their own procedures and to comply with the law of the land doesn't make sense.

How did it come to pass that a man whose weak basic literacy ought to bar him from entry to university nevertheless manages to become a Professor, and to attain a position where he can pass psuedo-legal judgments? Surely there are potential candidates in this country for such positions of authority who understand the difference between "breech" and "breach", no? All this, too, does not make sense.

But what's new? The NHS policy on ME/CFS doesn't make sense. The GMC doesn't make sense. Me being chronically ill but receiving no recognition and support, having to struggle on and maintain my living as best I can, all the while paying taxes to support the very system that denies me medical care, does not make sense.

The English medical system lies exposed for what it is: nothing more than an old boy's network, a gentleman's club, a sinecure for people born into privilege and protected in their positions of power and wealth in spite of their mediocre intellects. Even as they close ranks to defend their own, they are no doubt blissfully unaware of the realities of their own situation. But at least some of their victims are now awakening to the reality.

Whoever it was that advised Dr Myhill to go on the offensive and expose the GMC's procedural inadequacies was right on the ball. Go for it Sarah! Expose these charlatans for what they are. Take the GMC themselves to court, get hold of that legal advice, somehow. Take it to a higher court - a real court - bring them down! Truly, after decades of neglect and abuse, we have had more than enough of this shit.
Sofa, UK
What madness is this?!

8) It seems to me that eventually the answers to Dr Myhill’s questions will need to be provided, but not necessarily before IOP meets or even at the IOP hearing. My own view is that this comes into the realms of determination of facts and IOP is expressly instructed that this is not their function. Similar considerations apply to the report of the latest expert. It is entirely reasonable for Dr Myhill to point out what she believes the factual inaccuracies are to the Panel, and no doubt they will take this into consideration as they did in their last determination.

Aside from the madness that it is not the function of the IOP to determine facts, what on earth can this clause mean? They may not determine facts, but Dr Myhill may point out the errors of fact in the 'expert' report, and the panel may take this into consideration. But while doing so, they may not determine whether the supposed facts really are facts or not!

What an utter farce.