The GMC Persecution of Professional Medical Free Speech
The GMC is Unfit for Purpose
GMC: Government or General Medical Council?
There is a pogrom of ethical doctors in the West’s formerly democratic, once Free World. The UK is an exemplar.
Wrongly pursuing ethically-minded, safe, caring doctors via unreasonable GMC investigational and prosecution procedure is destroying the UK profession’s ethical foundations. The GMC’s criteria for acceptable, professional medical opinion seem arbitrary, subjective and politically motivated. At times, it behaves manifestly illegally. The legal uncertainty engendered by such GMC misconduct is compounded by ‘overarching criteria’ of the Medical Act 1983. These are being misapplied resulting in suppressed professional medical free speech. This is damaging public confidence, public health and professional medical standards. Urgent reform of the GMC legal test of professional medical free speech is required to reflect fundamental rights and prevent the GMC misapplication of medical ethics to, in fact, destroy professional medical ethics and the public health. Medical workplaces, and indeed fellow colleagues are increasingly moving to arbitrarily suppress and control dissenting doctors’ free speech. Ofcom’s political remit to curate the country’s official covid narrative has institutionalised the illegal restrictions on general and professional medical freedom of expression. GMC guidance to prevent anonymous, legal professional medical free speech made precisely in the interest of the public health is further indicative of a loss GMC regulatory compass and competence.
Time is proving persecuted dissenting doctors right. The state did not protect us, the MHRA Chair has relinquished its function to ‘stop the (government) killing people’. It should not be right in a moral, ethical society for individual, insightful brave doctors who point out the obvious damage of state non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical measures to be subject to abuse by their regulatory body. Nothing will change in the future unless there is sweeping institutional and political reform. It will only get worse. By trying to remain politically legitimate the GMC has lost any legitimacy to regulate ethical doctors.
The widespread persecution of doctors and medical ethics is sudden, simultaneous and global. It appears to be a systemic, coordinated phenomenon. Finger-pointing to individual doctors is missing the point. Internationally, vocal doctors who speak their inconvenient truths, are ruined with a sophisticated, pre-planned and propagandised intent to maintain an unassailable, fatal covid vaccine narrative. Western medical regulators are mis-regulating with the tools of intimidation and fear. Principally by destroying individual, exemplary medical professional reputations without respect to any moral, legal or ethical principle. In a sense, these medical regulators are not concerned with maintaining high ethical standards in the profession. Contrarily, in the last three years they have been trampling on them in favour of suppressing intelligent, ethical, and life-saving medical counter-propaganda. The regulators must be stopped.
I will discuss the persecution (calling it ‘cancelling’ is inappropriately mild) of some of these fine doctors, and conclude by examining why this occurs and what may be done to end it.
The GMC legal standard to which a UK doctor is governed
Medical Act 1983, section 1. The affliction at the heart of medical ethics
1 The General Medical Council.
(1)(1A)The over-arching objective of the General Council in exercising their functions is the protection of the public.
(1B)The pursuit by the General Council of their over-arching objective involves the pursuit of the following objectives—
(a) to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public,
(b) to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and
(c) to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession.
These functions only allude to something else other than the above 3 core values. They relate to a more fundamental professional medical ethics. These ethics are unsurprisingly constant and timeless. Ethics appear to have become less important and operative in the mind of the GMC and MPTS (The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service), and taken an inferior position to their prescriptive ‘proper professional standards and conduct’. So have basic, natural legal rights: in a rudimentary failure of law and legal process the tribunal Legally Qualified Chair and GMC counsel overlooked the right to basic legal free speech of Dr Sam White. Why? Because their focus was incorrectly on the Medical Act 1983, secondary prescriptive rules of GMC formulation, and politics, not medical ethics. This shift away from fundamental professional ethical values seems more evident since the era of Dr Shipman, and the move of the GMC to appease the government, so as to preserve its regulatory position at the expense of medical ethics.
How does the GMC objectively determine the health, safety and well-being of the public? Judging from March 2020 onwards, I would say it does not. It is subjective, based on contemporaneous political expediencies and the prevailing propaganda.
How does the GMC objectively determine the undermining of public confidence in the medical profession? I would submit it may be based subjectively on political correctness and prevailing propaganda rather than a true delve into the collective mind of the public.
How does the GMC objectively determine proper professional standards and conduct? I would suggest this is based not as it should be on debating of the scientific paradigm, real clinical experience and ethics to refine them, but subjectively on politics, and the corporate capture of scientific institutions, individuals, pharmaceutical guidelines and journals.
Caution should be applied in interpreting the meaning of ‘the public’. First, it should not be conflated with ‘the public health.’ This is a very different and political beast. Some might say public health has nothing to do with the public or health, but everything to do with subverting human norms for political tyranny and corporate profit. Second, it cannot be presumed that the GMC, the MPTS nor the Judiciary necessarily interprets ‘the public’ as either meaning the individual ‘patient,’ or ‘patients’ as a whole. Dr White’s and Dr Adil’s cases (discussed later) illustrate, I suggest, a contrary tendency.
GMC v Mr Mohammad Adil, Consultant Surgeon, Chair of the World Doctors Alliance
His recent GMC tribunal transcript may be accessed it here, or here. Around April 2020, Dr Adil made a prescient and prophetic calling out of the crime of crimes: a global lockstep lockdown and coercion toward mass human biological assault. He scientifically questioned the existence of SARS-CoV-2. It remains difficult to call state-funded, premeditated genetic engineering and wilful pharmaceutical ignorance of basic science either ‘experimental’ or ‘accidental’. If one still remains unconvinced by these concerns, this presentation by Professor Denis Rancourt of the hard all-cause mortality data of the last three years may assist. It is as shocking as it is compelling: in summary, no viral respiratory infection pandemic, democide by policy, and cumulative pandemic by serial covid jabs.
Dr Adil’s alleged professional misconduct is predicated on the GMC’s subjective view of what the prevailing attitudes of a gaslit UK public and UK medical profession were in April 2020. Those attitudes were engineered by censorship and the sophisticated psychological and political propaganda of 2020. It is not interested in what Dr Aseem Malhotra (see below) is getting away with saying now, in 2023. By this reckoning, even if Gates, Tedros, Whitty and Hancock were hanged at Nuremberg 2027, the GMC would maintain Dr Adil could not possibly have known in 2020, and it would still destroy him.
The GMC believes Dr Adil’s words were more terrible because he promoted them with his professional credentials and seniority. This is perverse reasoning by the GMC tribunal. On the contrary, more credence should have been given to his words because of his professional medical status. Look towards politicians and philanthropists for medical wisdom is recent fashion.
Thank God for the trail-blazing Dr Adil. His was courageous political and scientific dissent, which should not be suppressed nor need to respect majority professional or public opinion and feelings. His ethics are sound, but his views were rendered apparently fringe. Not anymore. Even so, this does not make them professionally, scientifically or politically irrelevant or wrong. The GMC do not care if time vindicated him. It says it was wrong in the context of April 2020. That, is equally perverse. Basic medical ethics ought to be immutable and independent of time, fashions and psychological onslaught.
I quote some of the extraordinary travesty in the tribunal proceedings:
54. In the context of the pandemic at the time, and particularly the concerns of a public confined to home and dependent upon the provision of responsible and trustworthy information, the Tribunal’s view was that such statements, containing mis-information and conspiracy theories, could be both confusing and destabilising. They had been made by a senior UK surgeon with many years’ experience in the NHS. In addition, Mr Adil had promoted his professional experience and credentials in the videos so as to engender trust and confidence in their content in the minds of his audience. The Tribunal determined that, it was more likely than not, such comments undermined public confidence in the medical profession.
83. ... The GMC acknowledged that the comments set out in charge 2g were made before any vaccine had been developed, but the comments were lurid and unconscionable and undermined the vaccine programme then in development, which has since proved to be the best way through the pandemic.
84. Mr Kitching submitted that Mr Adil appeared to be finally gaining insight but it was new insight and far from complete. To a degree, the developing insight reduced the risk of repetition but Mr Adil lacked wider insight and that was the concern, and therefore his fitness to practise was currently impaired.
What if Andrew Bridgen, MP were a Doctor?
Dr Adil’s GMC-alleged conspiracy theories and misinformation have now entered Hansard, and one of those responsible MPs, Andrew Bridgen has now suffered a thinly-veiled witch-hunt of his own. He is expelled from his own party, whilst the feckless, equally-expelled ex-Tory, and former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock has so little insight he calls the quoting of properly contextualised covid vaccine scientific statements, anti-semitic. It is the most odious technique of censorship, practised by a miscreant in public office. For Hancock, Bridgen is an existential threat. Bridgen now sues Hancock for defamation. Whilst all is collapsing around Hancock, he remains defiantly sociopathic. As usual, his desperate, divisive and vicious rhetoric clings to the false narrative he created and maintains three years on, only with UK excess deaths at record and rising levels exactly because of Hancock. In the inflated pretence of saving the few, Hancock killed far more.
If Drs Adil and White were also MPs, or Andrew Bridgen, MP also a registered medical practitioner what would the GMC feel was right to do? Would it avoid them because they were also practising politics? Would it leave the persecution to parliament? Why should that make all the difference?
Time and Tavistock
Will the GMC pursue the doctors at the Tavistock clinic now there is some perceived furore against their possible professionally-abusive conduct toward children? Did they or did they not in the recent past do things professionally to offend the overarching objective of the GMC as enshrined by the Medical Act 1983?
Does the apparent GMC standard of ‘the prevailing, publicly fashionable view’ of medicine applied in Dr Adil’s case apply to the Tavistock doctors? Probably, but only because as a matter of political convenience it helps the GMC politically persecute Mr Adil, and avoid scrutinising the, (dare I say ‘woke-ified’?) Tavistock medical teams.
Times change rapidly, but, medical ethics should not. These ethics are not civil laws that may be legislated on political whim in parliament. Murder is a still a crime because it is, at its essence, immoral, not because a judge or politician says so. Not acting in the best interests of patients (one unreliably presumes these patients are ‘the public’ which the GMC has a legal duty to protect) is professional misconduct because it is essentially unethical, not because the GMC says it is misconduct at only certain points in political time and space, for only certain doctors.
It may be that the majority of the UK medical profession and public did not and do not accept a political, corporate-sponsored ideological game of the hormonal or surgical destruction of a child’s biological sex and gender. It may be that, due to an unrelenting diet of well co-ordinated minority activism and sophisticated propaganda, no one dared to protect these poor children at the time. Dr Adil did not commit this error when he sought to do his professional, ethical medical duty of protecting the public when he voiced his serious and time-vindicated concerns.
Forcing state compliance with an unacceptable minority and/or extreme medical ideology upon professionals, adults and their children is something the Government, Tavistock and the GMC may have in common (future GMC counsel please note: this is my current reasoned hypothesis and opinion - not past or future conspiracy theory or misinformation).
Dr Adil v GMC, High Court, February 2023
Dr Adil made a reasonable statement updating and briefing his position on 15.10.22 His case is listed in the High Court for February 2023. It is a watershed moment for my profession. The profession has a duty to support his right to a freedom to express a professional opinion. It is not a matter of whether one likes him or how, what, nor even primarily about why he speaks. It is that he should not be made to feel he can’t speak. It is a pivotal matter for doctor, patient and the public health.
The High Court judgment may not be personally favourable to Dr Adil. If it is not, it must be hoped it will favour the medical freedom of expression for the profession. Being outspoken should not be medical misconduct. His conduct represents the best of strong, ethical and intuitive medical ethics. His overriding and unbearable concern for patient safety and ethics is not good enough for the GMC. Neither is his being ahead of his time, nor his being a proponent of legal, medical free speech.
His primary risk to the state is his senior status and his opinion, neither of which are risky or illegal. This letter from a fellow surgeon seemed fair and reasonable on 13th July 2020, but time has shown Mr Adil to have not in any sense been fantastic at all. He has being excluded from medical practice for three years because of his political and scientific beliefs and opinions at a point in time, not for medical incompetency. He may not be the slickest social media operator, nor the most skilful public advocate. These are not of his professional skillset. He is a good doctor who did his ethical and moral professional duty in a timely and effective manner. He is guilty only of placing his professional concerns about patients’ welfare, society and public health above his own and his family’s welfare.
One of the unspoken issues about Mr Adil is he is a victim of his time. He is an old-school surgeon and doctor. He is a child of his generation. He is an anachronism of high professional morals and ethics. Independent, and fiercely protective of his patients, not himself. No one seems to value seniority and professional competence anymore. What matters is political compliance. Give my patients an ethical, independent, competent senior doctor any day. It is precisely what society, public and each individual patient is desperate for.
GMC-MPTS Institutional Bias
Dr Adil’s powers of linguistic finesse on complex sociopolitical matters in the public domain may have done him an injustice which the GMC fails to recognise. It seems an obvious point. Mr Adil seemed largely self-represented until latterly, and under severe professional, financial and public stress. It is no coincidence the Mr Adil has recently highlighted the high death and suicide rates of doctors undergoing GMC scrutiny.
He draws attention to genuine and judicially proven concerns of institutional racial and cultural bias in the GMC-MPTS process. It is not merely proven racial inequality. It is proven GMC race discrimination. Take the case of a mixed race, African and muslim NHS Surgeon. Dr Omer Karim’s solicitors say he ‘was a whistle-blower about patient care and raised concerns that ethnic minority doctors were being subjected to bullying’. He somehow ended up with GMC professional misconduct charges, and the GMC was somehow found guilty of race discrimination on appeal at the Employment Tribunal.
The GMC planned in 2021 to appeal that decision. The BMA pledged to support Dr Karim in any further appeal. His case is a landmark not only for the proven racial discrimination against the GMC, but for also being procedurally decided at Employment Tribunal with the GMC regulator positioned as his de facto racist employer. The ET made three key conclusions:
At para 106, (1) “BME doctors are more likely to be referred to the GMC for fitness to practise concerns than their peers and are more likely to be investigated by the GMC and, ultimately, to receive a sanction.
(2) “The Tribunal was concerned that there was, in our view, a level of complacency about the operation of discrimination in the work of GMC or that there might be discrimination infecting the referral process.”
and at para 108, (3) “We have come to the conclusion that there is a difference in the treatment of the Claimant in contrast to Mr L, a white doctor. We do not consider that there has been a credible explanation for the difference in the treatment.”
Part of Dr Adil’s personal concerns of racism in his case may also represent an equally unacceptable cultural bias by the GMC against Mr Adil. He is not only the product of being originally from a different country but also a different generational, religious, moral and ethical milieu. These are not impairments, and may even be assets. In a time of faux wokeness it seems more unjust for these real cultural, language and stress factors not to be taken into account in the impending High Court decision.
The reality is we have a skilled, senior, caring surgeon being excluded from giving to our society and being denied a vocation and living. He is deskilling. Even though he has accepted to the tribunal that he was wrong in much of what he said, much of it was not and is not wrong. What this noble doctor lacks in culturally acceptable style he overcompensates for with immense professional substance. This individual professional competence is his real offence to the politicised medical regulatory system.
Mr Adil cannot diminish the public confidence, public health of the profession by a minority and diverse opinion. He can only enrich or correct it. It is not a case of a rotten apple corrupting the barrel. He is not rotten. Nor is it the case, as the GMC counsel suggested, “whilst it was not akin to falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, it was not far short of that”. Shouting ‘fire’ and causing public pandemonium by fomenting population fear, anxiety and panic is precisely what the WHO and most governments so callously did for an infection fatality rate which at its known worst was in the order of flu, or much less, with an average age of mortality curiously similar to average life expectancy. In April 2020, Mr Adil was a lone voice of reason in a global storm trying to temper the madness. For that, it is the WHO and our government that should be brought down, not Mr Adil.
The only way for Mr Adil to survive is if he has money (please donate to his crowd-funding page) for effective legal representation, the court find in favour of his legal free speech, or if he submits himself to a humiliating GMC brainwashing programme to correct his inapparent, poor professional insight. He has been more professionally insightful than any of us. His primary failure in insight was to believe the state and the GMC would allow and respect him to speak his professional concerns commensurate to his seniority and long medical experience.
There are many examples of favoured media doctors being way off the mark in regard to the science, vaccine effectiveness and safety who were left alone, or have slid away quietly, their bank balances fortified and their burgeoning professional reputations intact. They were left alone by the GMC and permitted to be unprofessional, unethical, wrong, dangerous to the public because it suited the propaganda of Ofcom and its government.
Our society is very confused. Mr Adil deserves to be honoured as a pioneer and medical hero. He is not, because he lives in a time of communist and corporate fascist tyranny. It is a world of lucre with no place for liberty, morality nor ethics.
Dr Adil and Dr Kayat, poles apart on the spectra of clinical experience, ethics, media attention and GMC scrutiny. Only Dr Adil has been, and remains, suspended over three years.
Dr Sam White, General Practitioner
Dr Sam White was also an early medical martyr. His individual courage and belief gives doctors some hope. He voiced reasonable concerns about vaccines on social media. The GMC moved, illegally, to stop him. The High Court simply pointed out the obvious, asking: Why were the GMC illegally restricting his freedom of expression? GMC counsel, the Legally Qualified Chair and his own representation had overlooked this. Perhaps because the propaganda machine was so intensely febrile with covid psychosis. More extraordinary was a rapid communication he received from an NHS England representatives who illegally and summarily informed he could no longer work anywhere in the NHS. It was for him to prove both these decisions were grossly arbitrary and illegal rather than those political minions to know it. These are abuses of power.
It is accepted that Mr Adil’s comments were in some degree speculative, and hypotheses based on circumstantial evidence. Equally, there was primary evidence present which he would have had access to so as to bolster his opinion. However, Dr White’s case proves that even evidence-based comments are not enough.
Mr Ahmad Malik, Consultant Surgeon
This is what got Mr Malik into hot water. That two workplaces should simultaneously move to quash his free speech for his echoing of a parliamentary debate on vaccine safety by asking him to remove his social media post is of public and professional concern to us all. Even if the GMC dare not tread on him due to the ‘current context’, his two workplaces do. Mr Ahmad, I believe is working in the private sector. I speculate that the two companies will say that he does not share their commercial values. However, legal free speech medical ethics, and acting on well-founded, serious concerns should be shared and celebrated by his host companies. They should gave him an award, and say his conduct is exemplary. They should line the corridors, dance and clap for him and all ethical doctors. They should positively discriminate and employ more doctors like him. Mr Malik also stood up for us all in January 2022 when he defended bodily autonomy and spoke publicly against mandated biological, experimental gene therapy to remain working in the NHS. Why did his workplaces not choose to persecute him, then? His responsible, ethical and refreshing response to tyranny proves the adage the only remedy for suppression of freedom of conscience and expression is more free expression.
Mr Ahmad needs surgical theatres and a complex team to operate, he is more dependent on business forces. It is harder for him to set up alone. It is not extraordinary to say that his workplaces may have financial conflicts of interests in regard to their personal, political and business connections with individuals and companies which induce them to harm him.
Dr Aseem Malhotra
Double-jabbed Dr Aseem Malhotra is equally courageous. However, perhaps, at least in his non-interventional cardiologist private practice, he is less susceptible to commercial prejudice and bullying. That being said, what if his publisher, or a leaser of private rooms wrote to him announcing that his strong sense of medical free speech and medical ethics were not values they shared. If that did happen, it would be a medical cancelling reminiscent of JK Rowling’s (TERF) persecution for legal free speech in defence of women.
What is clear from the GMC comments on Dr Malhotra’s case, is the GMC was a keystone in the political, state plot to bamboozle and menace the public into obviously rushed, risky, ineffective, experimental and misrepresented gene therapies.
It is disturbing when the GMC deals with well-founded and serious professional concerns with nebulous disinformation terminology such as ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘misinformation’ while it conspires to misinform the public in league with the government and Ofcom.
Although Dr Malhotra may have viewed his sparing as a huge victory, it seems not to me. The GMC’s selective sparing of him creates no legal precedent for the rest of us. It is a tactical withdrawal decision by the GMC. The GMC seems to be saying they may, depending on political expediency not persecute a Dr White, Ahmad or Malhotra once the job of delivering the bulk of experimental, multiple jabs is done, but they will continue to persecute Mr Adil, and not Dr Kayat, nor her ilk. This is very concerning. It gives no legal certainty to doctors, leaves the door open to more arbitrary GMC behaviour and self-endorses the charge against the GMC that it holds a constant, unpredictable and prejudiced threat over doctors’ professional heads. This is no way to regulate but every way to intimidate. It destroys and controls doctors for political imperatives, and not in any way for individual or public health.
Candour, Consent, Whistleblowing, Free Speech & Privacy - The Unsquareable GMC Circle
GMC social media guidance
Not only is the GMC illegally regulating doctors ECHR article 10 rights, it is recommending doctors forgo their article 8 rights to privacy. At the same time it stipulates professional duties of candour and informed consent. How does the GMC square such circular legal contradictions? By illegality and selective, prejudicial, political persecution of scapegoats.
The GMC has produced social media guidance for doctors. This reveals the GMC not only antagonises reasonable, self-declared whistleblowers, it also has no approval for anonymous medical whistleblowers and writers on social media. Its social media guidance to doctors recommends that it is done without the privilege of anonymity.
I have written on covid, the plight of dissident doctors and the uneven hand of the GMC, before. Does political or professional criticism of the state and GMC reduce or increase public confidence in the medical profession? Should I be writing this? I have no doubt it is legal, but is it professional? I believe it is for the reasons, herein. Particularly, as it is supported by true professional experience, reason, examples and evidence. It is also journalistic, opinionated and sometimes utilises the literary device of humour. Is that wrong for a doctor? No, there are many doctors who do this all the time. They are never pursued by the GMC. It is not necessarily because they are any more or less. It is simply because the GMC politically determines what it believes should be in the public confidence and of a professional standard, based primarily on the grounds of what it subjectively believes is within the acceptable window of current political discourse and public opinion.
I make clear my views are not those of my employers. By my anonymity I protect my patients’ identities, my employers’ feelings and my right to professional, personal, journalistic and artistic freedom of expression and conscience. One has to accept as an anonymous whistleblower what is lost in professional credibility is gained in an exercise of the GMC professional duty of candour without incurring the unethical threat of persecution by the GMC. It is therefore confused and perverse of the GMC to (correctly) conclude:
‘They (doctors) must support and encourage each other to be open and honest, and not stop someone from raising concerns.’
Why, then, does the GMC obstruct and not lead the way?
It is relevant to state I am a doctor and necessary to remain anonymous if I am to contribute to the professional and societal debate with an equal right to anyone else in our society. It is in the interest of public health, public confidence, democracy, patient safety and our profession. Most particularly, because the government, and the state system of regulation and safety (parliament, MHRA, GMC, PHE, UKHSA, ONS etc) and our media have failed to protect and inform the public. Where was the GMC on vaccine informed consent, unethical experimentation, and vaccine risk-benefits?
Where was it to regulate Drs Chris Whitty and June Raine and so forth? Unfortunately for justice, the High Court has ruled there are doctors with a “sufficiently close link with the profession of medicine” and other doctors’ functions which are “too remote from the practice of medicine” to be subjected to the GMC’s standards. This alone gives the GMC sufficient cognitive wriggle room to turn away its attention when politically expedient.
There is a mismatch between theoretical whistleblowing policy, hollow public body statements on paramount patient safety as compared with the reality of GMC scapegoating of individual, ethical whistle-blowing doctors. The GMC’s social media guidance compounds the mismatch. If there are public interest grounds to allow anonymous whistle-blowing of doctors to the GMC, shouldn’t the same argument apply to whistleblowing medical free speech?
In September 2022 it was reported Professor Karol Sikora was being investigated by the GMC, but it would not tell him why. Up until that point, Professor Sikora has been a constant, reasoned and strong public voice critical of the government’s covid measures.
The Governance of the GMC
Unfit for Purpose
After the bizarre and selective persecutory pursuit of Dr Manjula Aurora, fellow doctors have labelled the GMC unfit for purpose and self-serving. The GMC is not just extraordinary for simple doctor-bashing. Once, the GMC-MPTS process did not sanction a doctor at all for one of the greatest medical sins: sexual relationship with patient. In this 2016 case of Dr John Brookes, the disgraceful message and excuse was given that a surgeon with magic fingers is too uniquely-skilled to take out of the NHS. What about the ethical doctors taken out of the NHS by the unethical GMC covid pogrom? Politics matter to the GMC-MPTS process. Morals do not matter, ethics increasingly do not, and the Medical Act 1983 is subjectively and politically interpreted by the GMC and the Tribunal for their own conveniences. The process has become a corrupt inversion of itself through self-interested preservationism and political sycophancy.
The Tyranny of Dogma
The trouble with GMC medical regulation is rather like the trouble with medical science. Politics, regulation of doctors, medical scientific research and profit have fused into a dysfunctional mutant causing pandemics of technocratic kleptocracy and iatrogenic illnesses. Dr David Rasnick’s essay on the tyranny of dogma explains this.
GMC Institutional Dysfunction
Why does the GMC conduct itself in an inconsistent, illegal and unethical manner? One reason is the institutionalised legal laziness and legal over-reach informed by a sense of untouchability as in the case of GMC Counsel and the Legally Qualified Chair missing the overriding and simple matter of Dr Sam White’s article 10 freedom of expression rights.
A second is the GMC-MPTS quasi-judicial process of tribunal decision-making does not set internal precedent. What goes for one doctor, does not for another. The precedent is made in the High Court and requires endless money, and resilience. Many doctors who feel aggrieved therefore capitulate to, and accept the injustice, blame, and humiliation. They pay lip-service to the probational behavioural modification and re-programming just so they can avoid bankruptcy and the suicide-inducing stress of a prolonged suspension, loss of vocation, home and livelihood.
A third is the GMC’s dysfunctional guiding legislation. This can only be corrected by a careful, responsible revision of the Medical Act 1983. Unfortunately, any redrafting by woke 21st century legislators may only make matters worse.
A fourth is politics.
The Privy Council
A fifth issue is the GMCs legal personality is granted through Royal Charter by the Privy Council. The GMC Council is composed of 5 medical professionals and 5 lay members. The appointments process is described as ‘following an independent appointments process.’ All members are appointed by the Privy Council, including the new, current Chair. This is a body arguably even less democratic, more opaque, powerful and less accountable than parliament. The GMC's power to make regulations, under the enabling Medical Act 1983, with respect to the medical register can only come into force when approved by order of the Privy Council. These factors represents another political conflict of interest grating against patient health and the preservation of the core professional ethical values of the doctor-patient relationship.
The GMC was politically compelled to reform after the Shipman Inquiry, 2004, and under some threat of losing its regulatory relevance and status. The essential concerns were of a GMC over-focused on professional interests, rather than patient interests. It is debatable this reform has only created a politically-captured medical regulator more interested in being politically correct than being ethically correct. Thus, through its recent weaponisation by government covid policy, the GMC is in more danger of becoming increasingly and irrevocably illegitimate in the eyes of doctors, patients and ‘the public’. It was Sir Graeme Catto, then GMC president (not Chair), who said in 2006: "Modern medical regulation must put patient safety first.” Indeed it should.
GMC: Reformation or Destruction?
The GMC has become a political sword against ethical doctors and is not an effective shield for patients, ethics, the public confidence nor public health. Why should we doctors pay the GMC to misconduct itself and in doing so, drive the standing of our profession into the ground?
The GMC is desperately in need of meaningful and constructive change. It cannot continue to be allowed to flagellate or muzzle ethical doctors with impunity and disregard for their fundamental legal rights or the medical ethics which it may purport to guard. Dr White’s case and Mr Adil’s upcoming case, even if wholly favourable to medical free speech, are only sticking plasters.
The cancellation of good doctors (or any other good health carer) for no good or legal reason is now a real phenomenon and pernicious to our society. Any system supporting or encouraging such an act is cutting off the nose of society in spite of society.
The GMC has a duty to demonstrate insight. The GMC must recognise that non-propagandised, non-censored professional medical free speech is healthy and commensurate to the number of professionals sharing the message of that speech. It is not a case that one experienced doctor speaking within a minority or at one pole of a spectrum is necessarily wrong, a danger, unprofessional or unworthy of being heard. Not even in the time of global social media, but particularly in the time of global social media.
Meanwhile, as the GMC continues to serve politicians while it bullies medics into practicing defensive and obedient, corporate-captured medicine, and drives doctors to their deaths; our patients continue to increasingly die in across age groups, globally and in the UK (as I reported and predicted).
What majority of doctors is going to suggest it is due to modified mRNA population experiment when the GMC is rabid guard-dog to the government’s impossible ‘safe and effective’ mantra? Without the GMC’s misguided stewardship and cronyism, there is every chance the profession would have swiftly realised the public truth of the unethical, unsafe and ineffective experimental biological interventions two years ago, and actually prevented deaths.
A Western spiritual and intellectual crisis
Other professions and professional regulators are behaving politically
Lois Bayliss, solicitor, helped countless individuals in a David versus Goliath battle against the covid narrative. She is now being pursued by her regulatory body. A UK Magistrate was sacked for using her suffix “JP” in a request for ICC to investigate crimes against humanity. Popular political commentator, Dr Jordan Peterson, who incidentally happens to be a gifted psychologist, is politically attacked by his professional regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario. It should have more psychological insight into how it politically abuses it position, and into how psychologically abusive it is to suggest one of its foremost psychologists should be politically reprogrammed. There is a full spectrum attack on professionally laudable, moral, ethical and legal free speech.
It is not just Western morals, ethics and human rights under persecution by Western institutions. It is the deliberate self-harm of their historical basis, Judaeo-Christian thought. In November 2022, a peaceful woman, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested by British police in violation a local council ‘censorship zone’ for a crime against natural human existence and potential thought. She was standing silently in public, and possibly praying in her head outside a closed abortion clinic. Compare this with the complicity of the police in the mass violation of bodily autonomy perpetrated by the government and GMC in the name of Pharma and covid vaccines. Her case goes on trial February 2nd 2023. All religious people should support her. Particularly muslims, whose religious freedoms and similarly conservative beliefs are selectively tolerated in the West, while the West does a demolition job on its own. For, Western censorship of religious free thought, conscience and speech will, one by one, come for all religions. This, as Scottish police are permissive to paedophilia by euphemistically discussing them as MAPS, ‘minor-attracted people’.
The fundamental tenet of medicine, primum non nocere - first do no harm has been inverted. It is not merely the case that it has been ignored. Government and GMC policy is obviously and actively democidal. They did not exercise any precautionary principle - this required evidence of no harm, and significant benefit. There wasn’t any for their non-pharmaceutical or pharmaceutical interventions. Coercing, forcing and inducing every person in the world to playing unnecessary pharmaceutical Russian roulette is not the precautionary principle. The GMC would do well to heed both Hippocrates, and Laozi, since, the fundamental Taoist principle of wu wei - action through non-action is very Hippocratic, and apposite for our headless, heedless times. Had the government and the GMC simply done nothing they would not have harmed and killed so very many, and saved so very few, if any.
“I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.”
Amidst today’s centralised reprogramming of the meaning of fundamental words such as ‘woman,’ ‘pandemic,’ ‘menstruation’ and ‘vaccine;’ and the career-ending, international prohibition on the truthful juxtaposition of the words unsafe, ineffective and ‘vaccine’ we must also add global linguistic-communism to the lexicon. What would she have made of that? With regard to past and present medical regulators approved communo-fascist medical tyranny, I will leave the last word to Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor.
With regard to past and present medical regulator approved communo-fascist medical tyranny, The GMC has responsibility for encouraging this type of extreme political climate of fear around freedom of expression and conscience. This fear was heightened in covid. To the extent where a publisher broke off relations in 2021 when I refused its request to self-censor these parallels of our covid state with fascism and Nazism. I had been writing of the parallels since 2020, here, here, here, and here. I had never imagined the UK had sunk so low. To Vera Sharav, and other Holocaust survivors who have witnessed it all before, I will leave the last wise words.
31st January 2023
The Covid Physician is (still) an unheroic NHS doctor. This article is a personal view and does not necessarily represent the views of the NHS. Patient details have been anonymised.
To support TCP please share and retweet.