Dr Myhill’s complaint to GMC about PACE authors.

Full letter (very long) and template for patients to submit their own complaints can be found here: https://t.co/YPXTiR7Vsc


Dear Sir Terence

‘THE PACE STUDY AUTHORS COMPLAINT’

COMPLAINT RE AUTHORS OF PACE STUDY [Reference 1]

I am referring such authors of the PACE TRIAL [Reference 1 below] as are subject to GMC regulation to the GMC investigation team.

https://www.gmc-uk.org/DC6046_Hardcopy_form_52934724.pdf ) as its format does not lend itself to the complexities and details of this case. I would be grateful if you would pass this on to the relevant department.

....

Edit: There is now a petition you can sign if you wish to support Dr Myhill's complaint: https://www.change.org/p/the-genera...s-complaint-to-the-gmc-about-the-pace-authors

 

She's accusing the PACE authors of fraud. Previously the thought was that it would be difficult to prove that but it looks like the need to prove intent to deceive may have been relaxed.

So it will be interesting to see if this argument is accepted. My (complete, uneducated) guess will be this will be rejected initially to see if she will push it on to whatever the next step in the process is.

 

I've not read this yet, but I'm not sure Sarah Myhill is the best person to be doing this, seeing as the GMC has previously made rulings against her for making misleading claims. Also, in that video of her speaking about the problems with PACE, it sounded like she wasn't clear on all the details.

Additionally, I'm not sure this is a good idea coming from anyone. Is anyone aware of an example of a complaint against researchers like this being successful in the past?

 

I am not so sure it is a bad idea. From a brief glance I suspect the arguments are not that tight, but all the stuff that has come out in the last year or two is cited. I see no harm in the GMC having to think about it.

I cannot think of a successful complaint quite like this but to be honest I cannot think of a set of circumstances quite like the PACE scam. Companies pointing out serious ethical flaws in widespread policy have been successful in the past, although the context has usually been a bit different. Individuals have been struck off or even imprisoned for unethical clinical practices purporting to be a form of research - particularly in the context of cancer surgery.

 

I'm sure this is one of those "How long is a piece of string?" questions that is completely unanswerable, but how quickly does the GMC reply to accusations against doctors?

In the online magazine, Pulse, I remember a doctor mentioning in some comments that it took several years for a complaint against him from a patient to be finalised and rejected. I would assume a complaint of this complexity from Dr Myhill might take 6 - 8 years to wend its way through the system?

 

I think the process could be more important than the result. A win being a bonus rather than the main event.

Edit: Not a response to any particular post, just an off-the-wall comment.

 

My personal view is that I would need an infinitely long spoon here: ME/CFS critics of things like PACE have already been portrayed as (and I believe I'm pretty much repeating an SMC quote verbatim here) 'little different to anti-vaxxers'. drmyhill.co.uk still (I just checked) contains the following on its autism page [bold mine]:

Anti-MMR horseshit? No thanks. I don't want to be associated with that and I don't want ME/CFS patients as a whole to be associated with that.

 

It's possible that any complaint that isn't cautious and accurate will then be used to try to discredit wider concerns about PACE.

Problems with the case presented at the judicial review of the NICE guidelines were used to disparage wider concerns about CBT/GET for a long time after.

I'd feel nervous with anyone making a complaint like this, and I've got less than full faith in Myhill at the moment.

Having said that, things have progressed a lot over the last few years, and it's possible any investigation could shake something useful loose. Do those at the GMC even have any sort of background in assessing research though? Aren't they just going to defer to authority figures telling them it's just a campaign of anti-science harassment?

 

I think timing is right and if Dr Myhill is gutsy enough to do it then it looks like she is the right person to ask these questions.

 

IMHO, the odds that the GMC would do anything is tiny. The odds are significantly higher that making overblown claims about fraud, orchestrated by a practioner who herself has had run ins with the GMC and who makes somewhat dubious claims about alternative treatments/vaccinations, would feed in to the vexatious anti-science nutters narrative. Let's face it: ME/CFS patients have a PR problem - and this would likely make it worse. I can't see how this action would do anything other than score an own goal.

 

I think that's an interesting ploy. I'm sure the team behind this have considered all the possible ways this might play out. I find it riveting.

 

Myhill has won ALL her GMC complaints . I think the team behind this venture are more than capable of creating a very tight evidence base in the legal sense. I don't think the Establishment are going to play 'easy' with this, but playing 'hard' might actually turn out to be very embarrassing for them. I sense we're looking at this as a 'long game'.

 

Does/should David Tuller know about this?

 

I suspect wishing 'not having to deal with it' is their overriding response this morning