Dr Myhill’s complaint to GMC about PACE authors.

adambeyoncelowe said:
Is this an old video? I feel like I've seen it before.

Since then, I think she has addressed the Wessely error. She has had to make the case to the GMC about why he should be included, I think, so someone obviously pointed out he wasn't an author. However, he was involved as a centre coordinator (or whatever term was used), as per the published paper. So arguably he was involved--it's just whether the GMC see it that way.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Binkie4 said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
We cannot trust the GMC to investigate these doctors properly, and we have to ask ourselves what we are going to do to make sure that the GMC do their job properly
Click to expand...
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.
 
Skycloud said:
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.
Click to expand...
That worries me too. I applaud Dr Myhill's care for her patients and her good intentions, but I worry that she gets some of her facts wrong and overstates the fraud idea - better surely to call the PACE people out for bad science as David Tuller does.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Binkie4 said:
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
Click to expand...

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

GMC said:
An investigation can only be opened if the concerns raised are so serious that the doctor’s fitness to practise medicine is called into question to such an extent that action may be required to stop or restrict the way in which they can work to protect future patient safety.
...
We are aware that many people have strong views on the PACE trial and concerns about the way the research was conducted, collated and published.
...
Our considered view is that these concerns are part of an ongoing academic and scientific debate, rather than matters which would raise concerns about an individual doctor’s fitness to practise; from the information provided, we haven’t identified anything which demonstrates that the doctors have acted dishonestly or with any intent to be misleading. Also, as an organisation, we wouldn’t be in a position to comment on the research framework of the trial, and whether this was fair and robust, as this is outside our remit.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
alex3619 said:
Does this mean the current GMC is not fit for purpose?
Click to expand...

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".

alex3619 said:
What happened to the deliberate use of invalid statistical analysis, with knowledge that it was biased? (Rhetorical question)
Click to expand...
They don't feel responsible for that it seems.

Trish said:
as the doctors involved can simply say they are practising NICE guideline recommended therapies
Click to expand...
The PACE authors applied NICE guidelines?

Did someone else here get a reply?
 
Our considered view is that these concerns are part of an ongoing academic and scientific debate, rather than matters which would raise concerns about an individual doctor’s fitness to practise; from the information provided, we haven’t identified anything which demonstrates that the doctors have acted dishonestly or with any intent to be misleading.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
I think theres an element of needing to try all means of pursing a complaint to demonstrate to less sympathetic politicians that the harm caused just isnt being properly addressed by the medical establishment

obviously having a change in the guidelines is necessary but it doesnt address harms already caused

wondering what will be Dr Ms next move

asking people to complain to the health service ombudsman?
legal cases?
 
NelliePledge said:
I think theres an element of needing to try all means of pursing a complaint to demonstrate to less sympathetic politicians that the harm caused just isnt being properly addressed by the medical establishment

obviously having a change in the guidelines is necessary but it doesnt address harms already caused

wondering what will be Dr Ms next move

asking people to complain to the health service ombudsman?
legal cases?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom