Dr Myhill’s complaint to GMC about PACE authors.

Yes. I remember the S4ME discussion. I just think it's wise to be as accurate as possible.
I was particularly interested in the info about Dr Jane Barton and how the GMC handled that. Unbelievable.
Have asked mod if title can be changed to better reflect the content.

I don't remember seeing this before. She refers to receiving over 200 letters so concluded it was relatively recent sparked by the Jane Barton affair. I find that horrifying.

ETA: cross posted within post above
ETA: thanks for changing title @Trish

 

Yes, she needs to be more accurate. The text beneath the video called him an associate, not author, but it was muddled in the video itself.

 

I think she could have taken a bit more care in what she said; for example I think she's overstated that fraud is a fact. There's certainly evidence that could point that way but until such time that fraud is proven I think she should be more nuanced in how she phrases it.

However this is bang on the nose:

It will take pressure as she says and I hope the GMC are rattled into acting fairly rather than closing ranks which seems to be the default reaction in the UK regarding ME.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ee-at-gosport-war-memorial-hospital-qqdw3zffj

"The GMC also faced criticism for “a lack of candour” with families over the potential for conflict of interest, because Dr Barton’s brother Christopher Bulstrode had been on its council until late 2008." ( Taken from link above)

These are presumably the circumstances Dr Myhill referred to in the video clip and what she is using ( alongside a comparison with her own suspension) to support her view that the GMC can't be trusted to properly investigate.

Does anyone know what stage the MAIMES campaign has reached at the GMC?@adambeyoncelowe

Surely the GMC is another medical institution that needs a spotlight shining on it, alongside the Lancet, BMJ etc? Could this become the " pressure" Dr Myhill refers to as needed.

ETA: ? @dave30th

 

@adambeyoncelowe
Thank you for the date. I've incorporated it into the title.

 

I'm afraid I don't know. It's been a while since she submitted everything. Maybe Craig is the person to ask?

 

Anyone?

 

I received a reply from GMC - Probably the others who sent a letter did, too? They told me the complaint will not be taken further.

Here are some excerpts:

It seems they don't want to acknowledge that, here, it is not about research but about doctors who offer and propagate damaging treatment for people with ME.
(Of course they can't do much in my case since I wrote from Germany.)

 

What happened to the deliberate use of invalid statistical analysis, with knowledge that it was biased? (Rhetorical question)

How about statements from patients in the PACE trial that harms were not recorded? This is one case that is hard to document though, with no proof in the public arena that these were genuinely in the trial. However there is ample evidence from people outside the trial that GET harms patients, but this is rarely officially recorded. The reporting system is grossly inadequate, everywhere.

Does this mean the current GMC is not fit for purpose?

 

I assumed that trying to discredit the GMC was the only point of this complaint. They were never going to rule against the PACE researchers. I was always unsure about the wisdom of making this complaint, as now that we have this ruling, how can people progress with challenging the GMC?

edit: I'd assume that they avoided engaging with any of the specific concerns raised.

 

I didn't expect too much either. But it's interesting they say "It's not our issue, this has got to do with reasearch".

They don't feel responsible for that it seems.

The PACE authors applied NICE guidelines?

Did someone else here get a reply?

 

My reply was similar

 

I think that the PACE researcher's series of misleading claims, and refusal to correct clear errors, does mean that they have shown themselves to be unfit to be working within medicine. I don't think that there was ever much chance that the GMC would make that ruling though.

 

The question for me is whether I should reply. But I think it's better to wait for Myhill's input and save my energy.

 

I too was wondering the same thing, if they went into this expecting the GMC to do this, but that taking the issue to the GMC was a necessary step on the way to taking things further?

 

Coupled with the recent BabaGawa(?) case, and the Gosport doctor not being more severely pulled up ( her brother sat on GMC panel) it does make you wonder what exactly GMC ' s role is