1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th January 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Dr Myhill’s complaint to GMC about PACE authors.

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Robert 1973, Jan 15, 2018.

  1. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,471
    Likes Received:
    42,833
    Excellent. Small steps, but vital in paving the way.
     
    Kitty, SarahandElly, JaneL and 8 others like this.
  2. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    10,496
    Wow!
     
    Kitty, JaneL, Annamaria and 2 others like this.
  3. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    44,111
    Location:
    Canada
    To be fair, any such evidence would be devastating to their case. It always is with this lot.
     
    Kitty, ukxmrv, Sean and 4 others like this.
  4. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,471
    Likes Received:
    42,833
    What's the betting the 'evidence' turns out to be opinionated pieces by the authors themselves. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  5. JemPD

    JemPD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    13,354
    haha i reckon that's exactly what it will be... & I cant wait to see them try to defend it :D
     
    Kitty, ladycatlover, JaneL and 6 others like this.
  6. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,420
    Likes Received:
    33,018
    Location:
    UK
    Obviously they will call in experts, to provide expert opinion to do so.

    Imagine the savings in both time and money when they decide that the only experts with the relevant expertise are themselves.

    This would appear to be the way that they do things so why would this case be any different?
     
    Kitty, ladycatlover, chrisb and 5 others like this.
  7. Seven

    Seven Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    675
    What does this means? Sorry not sure if it is my English.
     
    Kitty likes this.
  8. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,665
    Likes Received:
    141,367
    Location:
    UK
    I take it to mean that the GMC has been told to produce the written evidence showing why they didn't investigate the PACE authors.

    If they can't show with written evidence that there was a correct procedure followed, then Myhill will take the GMC to court for not carrying out a proper investigation.
     
    Kitty, MEMarge, Seven and 9 others like this.
  9. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,218
    Likes Received:
    21,945
    It would be the "decision not to investigate" which would be taken to court for review. Had they decided to investigate there would have been no need.The language, is at first sight, somewhat confusing.
     
    Kitty, MEMarge, Seven and 5 others like this.
  10. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,571
    Likes Received:
    45,937
    Location:
    UK
    I wouldn't be surprised if 'they' pointed to the HRA report and said it had already been investigated and found to be all above board.
     
    Kitty, MEMarge, Seven and 5 others like this.
  11. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,186
    Likes Received:
    42,484
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Kitty, MEMarge, Seven and 2 others like this.
  12. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,471
    Likes Received:
    42,833
    I had to read it twice myself @Seven, because the wording can at first glance seem ambiguous.

    I've reworded slightly from ...

    "If there is no evidence base, then I will take the decision not to investigate the PACE authors to the High Court for a Judicial Review."

    ... to ...

    "If there is no evidence base, then I will take the [GMC's] decision (to not investigate the PACE authors) to the High Court for a Judicial Review."

    Hope that helps a bit.
     
    Kitty, MEMarge, Forestvon and 9 others like this.
  13. Seven

    Seven Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    675
    Kitty, MEMarge and Barry like this.
  14. Patient4Life

    Patient4Life Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    213
    Likes Received:
    736
    WOW!
     
    Kitty, Sean, MEMarge and 5 others like this.
  15. Eagles

    Eagles Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    2,757
    Merged thread

    Dr Sarah Myhill: Update on Dr Myhill's complaint to the GMC about the PACE authors

    https://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/My_Complaint_to_the_GMC_about_the_PACE_authors

    20 JANUARY 2020 UPDATE AND SUMMARY OF EVENTS SO FAR
    • I complained about the PACE authors to the GMC
    • After much time passing, the GMC issued a decision notice stating that it was not going to investigate the PACE authors
    • I made a Freedom of Information Act data request, requiring that the GMC release their reasons for not investigating the PACE authors
    • The GMC replied with a short opinion-based document, with no evidence base
    • I made a second Freedom of Information Act data request, requiring that the GMC either release the evidence base for their decision or admit that no evidence base actually existed
    • The GMC replied and stated that they considered that they had complied with this second Freedom of Information Act data request within the document supplied as above
    • I wrote to the Information Commissioner’s Office asking that they review the GMC’s insistence that it had complied with my second data request
    • On 1 October, [see below] the ICO upheld my point of law and put a Decision Notice on the GMC requiring that they either release the evidence base for their decision not to investigate the GMC or that they state that there is no such evidence base.
    • The GMC appealed against the above ICO Decision Notice to force such disclosure
    • In a turnaround of logic, the ICO accepted this GMC appeal
    • I appealed against the ICO decision to accept the GMC’s appeal against the original Decision Notice
    • The ICO has accepted my appeal against their decision as noted directly above
    • I will appear in person at a Hearing [Myhill versus ICO]. I will update you on when and where this will take place.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2021
    Sarah94, Binkie4, EzzieD and 30 others like this.
  16. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    19,534
    interesting - I admire Dr Myhill's perseverance.
     
    Binkie4, Nellie, ScottTriGuy and 10 others like this.
  17. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    9,243
    If this was a sporting event it would go like this:

    Sarah Myhill (Roger Federer)

    Versus

    Pace team - (Russian Athletic Doping agency)


    GMC Line judge - (Lance Armstrong)
    ICO Umpire - (Sepp Blatter)
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
    Nellie, ScottTriGuy, Wits_End and 7 others like this.
  18. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    11,742
    Likes Received:
    84,367
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    I've not been following these efforts. What is the hoped for outcome with all of this?
     
  19. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,792
    Likes Received:
    10,496
    As I understand it, she is hoping that the GMC will investigate the PACE authors, re their flawed research.

    Sadly the number of MPs supporting her actions has reduced significantly since the election.
     
    Sarah94, Binkie4, Amw66 and 10 others like this.
  20. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,799
    Likes Received:
    15,438
    Moved post


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2021
    geminiqry, EzzieD, Sly Saint and 9 others like this.

Share This Page