Sorry about my last post, got it all upside down somehow. Guess I made the mistake of trying to make sense out of Prof Green's letter; the exercise would probably have confused me hopelessly even if I wasn't boiling with rage about the whole episode.
My previous posts still stand though. But my worrying reflection is: What does it mean that Prof Green was unable to interpret the meaning of the IOP's judgement? Can it be that he correctly interpreted what the IOP meant to say?
Presumably he has seen or heard something of the alleged evidence that Dr Myhill has breached the directives. If so, does this imply that the IOP really did mean the opposite of what they said? Are they now to clarify that Dr Myhill may prescribe prescription medications after all - but may not prescribe non-BNF medications? Will that restriction cover advice on vitamin supplements, paracetemol, and a range of other non-prescription medications too? Or do they just want to prevent any doctor from doing anything they don't understand, codex alimentarius style? Are they just preparing to kick away yet another crutch? I guess we'll find out later this week...
But what idiots they would look like if so. They would have to clarify that their judgement was incorrectly worded to say the exact opposite of what it meant to say! Where would that leave their credibility?
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!
The relativism promoted in the Universities for many years has done much to lower the status of facts in the academic community. Facts, as facts, have been denigrated or ignored in some circles for at least a generation.
I'm getting a sort of general impression that government organizations for ME/CFS are interested in defining their area of responsibility as not including any fact determination. Because facts can be so very inconvenient.
MYHILL UPDATE 12.14 pm 7 OCT - Sarah has asked for adjournement on legal grounds. Also objected to one member of Panel who was also on previous Panel - GMC rules state this shouldn't really happen. IOP went into private discussion at 10.20 am to discuss these points. Waiting for their decision. C.x
Pointing out correctly that they weren't following their own rules properly sounds like a good enough explanation of why they adjourned. Most likely they want to cover their backs and make sure it's all done properly. I'll believe they're ready to back down when I see it.
Sounds like they took quite a long time discussing this adjournment. Several hours to discuss that, after which they concluded they couldn't proceed as planned. That feels like a good sign: if they couldn't proceed then at least some of Dr Myhill's arguments must have had some weight to them that they couldn't ignore. Let's see if they can get it right next week...also note that this means the adjourned hearing will clash with the CFSAC meeting, so next week looks like it will be a busy one...
Doctor faces two Kangaroo Courts in One week.Dr Sarah Myhill faced a General Medical Council Hearing yesterday, won her right to appeal against illegal GMC procedures, but faces a second Hearing next week. By any definition these are kangaroo courts
A kangaroo court is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defence at all.A kangaroo court's proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defence, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.
The GMC have erred in all these respects:
Determined in advance: at Dr Myhills IOP Hearing in April 2010 the sentence was discussed before the Hearing heard the evidence.
Manipulated procedure: the GMC were forced to adjourn yesterdays IOP Hearing because they were in breach of their own procedures. The GMC failed to inform Dr Myhill of her legal right to call witnesses and broke the Data Protection Act (DPA) by using patient notes without their knowledge or consent in their attempted prosecution of her. Furthermore the GMC deliberately withheld information from Dr Myhill which she believed was essential to her defence. Dr Myhill has already received three written apologies from the GMC for breaches of the DPA.
Expediency: The GMC are forced to conduct a further Kangaroo court IOP Hearing next week because they are out of time. The GMC have to act before October 28th 2010 and Dr Myhills team have been unable to ascertain what happens should the GMC overrun this schedule. The GMC allowed themselves 15 months to investigate one complaint and 8 months to investigate another but did next to nothing until this last week. They then served Dr Myhill with three Expert Witness reports within four days, one of which she received just 10 hours before making her court appearance.
Right to summon witnesses, right to cross examine these witnesses. Yesterday Dr Myhill successfully appealed against the GMCs IOP and was granted adjournment. The GMC had misled her with respect to her legal right to subpoena witnesses for cross-examination at yesterdays Hearing. However the GMC then informed her that for the purposes of next weeks Hearing, even if she should go ahead and subpoena witnesses, they would refuse to allow these witnesses to be called. The reasons they gave for this is that the IOP is not there to check facts nor test the veracity of evidence. They have the powers to again apply sanctions to her practice simply on suspicion.
The right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence: even now the GMC refuse to tell Dr Myhill what allegations she faces. She has to face a further Hearing next week on the grounds that she is a potential risk to public safety and that she has potentially breached sanctions imposed by the GMC at her last Hearing in April. As Dr Myhill pointed out to the GMC, every doctor in the country represents a potential risk to patients and is potentially at risk of breaking the GMCs Code of Conduct. However she has seen no evidence to suggest she has done either, neither have the GMC given her any evidence to suggest she has erred. Dr Myhill can only think that the GMC has secret evidence that it is not divulging to her.
The right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible: in their prosecution of Dr Myhill the GMC used the notes of patient X. These notes had been purloined without patient knowledge or consent, illegally, against the Data Protection Act and in contravention of the GMCs own procedures. By contrast, Dr Myhill asked the patient for permission to use his private and confidential medical records, but this permission was refused. Dr Myhill respected the patients desires and refused to use the very information that was essential to her defence and which would have entirely exonerated her actions.
The right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest: at Dr Myhills April GMC Hearing the Panel was chaired by Mrs Angela Macpherson. For every other type of GMC hearing, the Panel has to be renewed for each Hearing. Yesterday Mrs Macpherson was again present. Dr Myhill appealed to the Panel that this was unfair on the grounds that any judgement involving Mrs Macpherson would be influenced by her need to be seen to be consistent. Dr Myhills request that Mrs Macpherson be swapped for another Panel member was refused.
The right of appeal: Dr Myhill argued that the IOP heating was inherently unfair for all the reasons given above. The GMC disagreed. She has no right of appeal.
Her next IOP Hearing will go ahead next Thursday at the GMC Building, 350 Euston Road, London. Dr Myhill will be allowed to subpoena witnesses to attend the GMC building on that day but the GMC have said they will refuse to allow these witnesses to appear at the Hearing. Dr Myhill still does not know what allegations she faces, she does not know why she is a potential risk to patients nor what potential breaches of GMC rules she faces. Confidential medical notes that have been illegally obtained will be used against her and she will be unable to defend herself against these particular allegations because she refuses to break patient confidentiality,
It is indeed laughable that the Panel should seek to portray themselves as fair and proportionate by allowing Dr Myhill further time to consider documentation presented before her just a few hours before her GMC appearance,. Whilst at the same time ruling that Dr Myhill:
Will not be allowed to call witnesses,
Will not be permitted to cross-examine GMC witnesses whose written testimony is flawed and inconsistent,
Will not be allowed to cross-examine doctors for whom Dr Myhill has evidence that their own notes prove that they laid false testimony to the GMC,
Will not be allowed to cross examine the GMC Expert Witness who has claimed to be expert in Dr Myhills specialism when he is clearly not.
Will not be permitted to cross-examine members of the GMC prosecution team who have so seriously got their facts wrong with respect to past and present dealings with the GMC that Dr Myhill is unsure whether they are dealing with her case or someone elses.
Furthermore the GMC have disregarded her complaint that the GMC legal team unlawfully used confidential information relating to a patient at a hearing in April which Dr Myhill was not permitted to use under the Data Protection Act.
The GMC appeared unconcerned at the range of discrepancies bought to their attention by Dr Myhill with respect to the work of GMC staff. The most absurd example is of a member of the GMC legal team briefing an Expert Witness by describing Dr Myhill in the male gender and as a consultant anaesthetic (sic).
As Dr Myhill commented after, at least the Panel knew they were dealing with a doctor who had balls.
The GMC are in no position to complain if the members of the Public, present at the Hearing formed the opinion that the GMC are actively protecting doctors and expert witnesses whose work is sloppy, unprofessional and cobbled together at the last moment simply for reasons of expediency.
A further example of this comes from the Chairman of the Adjudication Committee Professor Roger Green who opined that Dr Myhill had broken GMC sanctions by prescribing medication outwith British National Formulary. His interpretation of the GMC sanctions applied to Dr Myhills practice was completely wrong actually the only thing Dr Myhill is permitted to prescribe are medications outwith the BNF! Had Dr Myhill not pointed out this serious error to the Panel then she would have been considered in breach of GMC sanctions for completely false reasons. Dr Myhill graciously accepted an apology from Professor Green.
Dr Myhill also argued that the sanctions placed against her by the GMC were disproportionate and illogical. Because she recommended to a GP that he prescribe vitamin B12 and magnesium injections, at her April 2010 IOP Dr Myhill lost her right to prescribe all prescription medication from British National Formulary and lost her right to freedom of clinical opinion. The GMC appear completely unconcerned by the many letters from patients of Dr Myhills who have been directly harmed by GMC actions. Remarkable indeed, since the GMCs logo is Protecting patients.
By contrast, as reported in the Southend Standard a doctor who was banned from practice by the GMC after fondling a womans breasts when she complained of hip pain will be allowed to practise again next month, but not in south east Essex.
By contrast, Dr Freddy Patel carried out the first post-mortem examination of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009. Dr Patel concluded that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease. But two other pathologists later separately concluded that Mr Tomlinson who had been pushed by a police officer died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma. The GMC suspended Dr Patel from practice for just three months before he was permitted to return to normal duties.
Dr Jane Barton who faced GMC hearing for the deaths of 92 of her patients by morphine and other opiate overdose, simply lost her right to prescribe opiate drugs. As Dr Myhill has commented, lucky she did not prescribe B12 injections or she would have been suspended!
What these three examples show is that as far as the GMC is concerned a doctor is much better off by killing patients Harold Shipman style with opiates, fondling breasts and perverting the course of justice, rather than recommending B12 and magnesium injections.
On the basis of the above symptoms, if the GMC were her patient Dr Myhill would be forced to diagnose Alzheimers disease. The GMC should be very grateful indeed that their physician is not Dr Jane Barton.
"Sarah has had her registration as a doctor suspended. This is therefore a harsher restriction than was currently in force. Details of what this means to patients will be made available as soon as possible. The IOP decision also requires that this suspension be reviewed within 3 months. I am offline now. Thanks for your support. We will now prepare for the next review."
That is appalling, appalling news. I am absolutely sickened and disgusted. There are no words to describe this. Doctors are allowed to kill without getting restrictions such as this. Yet they strike off an internationally respected physician for the inconvenient truths she dares to put on her website.
What they call a "doctor" in this country means nothing more than "drug-dealer" to me now. My last shred of respect for the medical profession has gone. This means war as far as I'm concerned. They have made an enemy for life today. They must be made to pay.
Can we have confirmation that a mirror of Dr Myhill's site is on the way please? Somebody posted instructions for doing that a while ago, and there is no lawful way that can be prevented. We can publicise that valuable information from this site.
Suggest Dr Myhill should carry on and call herself something like "Healer Myhill" instead. The word "Doctor" means nothing to me any more anyway, in the UK at least: Legalised drug dealers.
Further suggest that Healer Myhill pursue the GMC to the highest courts in the land and to courts of human rights. They have broken the law in their persecution of her, and they must be made to pay the price.
There are no adequate words for this absolute travesty of justice. I am truly ashamed of my country today. But we must all make this a beginning, not an end. We cannot go down without a fight.
I have sent the following email to my mailing list:
The only doctor I have found in the UK who has recommended effective treatments for my chronic illness of over 15 years, has today been struck off the medical register for advice she has given on her website which contradicts UK guidelines (although, unless I am misinformed, at least some of this advice is accepted medical practice in other countries, and is based on sound scientific research).
A little casual internet research (which I encourage you to undertake) will quickly reveal numerous cases in which negligent practitioners have been responsible for the deaths of their patients and have NOT been struck off the medical register, and there are many more such examples of the lenient treatment of malpracticing medical personnel by the GMC. It therefore seems impossible to understand why a hugely popular doctor with an international reputation and thousands of supporters, who has never even been accused of harming any patient, would have her licence to practice revoked.
The GMC broke the data protection act during the course of the persecution of Dr Myhill, by illegally obtaining confidential patient records which Dr Myhill herself was unable to access in the course of the investigation because she complied with that same legislation. But that is just one of many appalling anomalies and procedural irregularities in this bizarre and disturbing case.
It is, incredibly, not within the remit of the panel that makes these decisions to "determine facts" of any kind. The process does not conform to any of the normal standards of legal due process. It is quite accurately described as a "kangaroo court".
I have today sent an email (copied below) to Mr Paul Bridge at the General Medical Council, and - I don't often ask for things - I would like to ask you all to request the same explanation of this decision from him, at:
General Medical Council,
350 Euston Road,
London, NW1 3JN
I am sickened, saddened, disgusted, appalled, and ashamed of my country tonight. I am also a little afraid, that things such as this can happen here. I fear for our future if it lies in the hands of people such as these. So I ask you sincerely to look into this issue, to explore what is going on here, and to discuss with me anything you may find. I will be open to all information and all points of view, because I genuinely and urgently want to understand what on earth is going on here. I expect to be campaigning hard on this matter during the months and maybe years to come, so I would really appreciate any support you are able to offer.
General Medical Council,
350 Euston Road,
London, NW1 3JN
Dear Mr Bridge,
I have just been informed that the only doctor in the last 15 years who has supplied effective treatment for my ideopathic chronic illness - Dr Myhill - has today had her registration to practice as a doctor suspended.
I will be contacting you further about this matter in the near future, but for now I simply request that you direct me to where I can see the basis for the decision of today's IOP. I presume this information is available on the internet somewhere, but I have not managed to track it down as yet.
I would like to absorb the purported reasons for this decision before commenting in further detail, but for now I will merely observe that a decade of expensive tests and treatments on the NHS, through multiple practitioners and specialists (all of whom confessed they had no idea what was going on with me and knew nothing about my condition), led only to further deterioration of my health, whereas by the end of a year of treatment using Dr Myhill's advice I was well enough to return to work. I understand that the experience of patients probably does not constitute "evidence" in your eyes, but I hope you will understand that it does in mine.
I hope this brief summary of my personal experience - an experience echoed to you already by thousands of people in similar situations - goes some way towards explaining the anger and contempt I feel towards the GMC and towards the British medical system in general at this moment. I am extremely frustrated that my taxes are taken from me to support a system such as this, and I feel deeply ashamed of my country tonight.
I hope you understand that this decision will have enormous ramifications, and I personally hope that it will mark the beginning of the end of the British medical system as it is currently constituted. I will personally be dedicating whatever resources and energies I can spare towards this goal from now on.
For now, I repeat my request to you to provide me with information as to the basis of today's decision. I will contact you further when I have obtained that information.