By unlocking the export potential China offers the pig industry, not to mention the red meat sector as a whole, we could gain entry into a marketplace which comprises a fifth of the world’s population.Anger as GMC imposes sanctions on ‘OP’ doctor
THE decision to drastically rein in the activities of a doctor who has treated hundreds of victims of organophosphate (OP) poisoning has been condemned by OP sufferers and campaigners.
The General Medical Council (GMC) ruled last week Sarah Myhill should be banned from prescribing medicine and must remove parts of her website relating to the treatment of various medical conditions.
Dr Myhill, who operates from a private practice near Knighton, Powys, describes herself as a ‘practitioner of nutritional and environmental medicine’.
She has made a reputation for herself treating patients with chronic fatigue syndrome over the years and has been credited with diagnosing and helping hundreds of OP victims.
But some in the medical profession are uneasy about her methods. Last week’s hearing in London, the latest instalment in a long running battle she has waged with the GMC, was sparked by two separate complaints - one by a group of GPs regarding her suggested management of a patient with a neurological disease, the other related to the content of her website.
The GMC panel concluded her methods ‘may pose a real risk to members of the public, and may adversely affect the public interest’. It imposed conditions for a period of 18 months Dr Myhill said would make it virtually impossible for to practice.
She vowed to appeal against what she described as the ‘irrational, illogical and disproportionate’ ruling.
On her website, she wrote: “My comment: No facts. No concerns. No failures. No patient put at risk. No patient harmed.”
She has received strong backing from her patients, with over 800 letters and 3,000 online petition signatures sent to the GMC backing her against what was described as a ‘witch hunt’.
OP campaigners have voiced their anger. The Countess of Mar, who has kept the issue alive at Westminster over the years, said: “It is a great pity that people who have been failed by the National Health Service but treated and helped by Sarah should be deprived of her services when the NHS cannot and will not do anything about them.”
Liz Sigmund of the OP Information Network (OPIN) said: “It is a disgrace that she has been censored for her sensitive and intelligent work with OP sufferers.”
She said Dr Myhill was the only doctor she knew of ‘who takes the time and trouble to try and treat’ OP victims.
Richard Bruce, who has been in contact with Dr Myhill for over 15 years, said the verdict was particularly galling for OP sufferers like him as the GMC had ‘repeatedly refused’ to acknowledge or investigate complaints about toxicologists and neurologists who had ‘deceived patients and GPs about the damage done by OPs’.
Lancashire NFU chairman Tom Rigby accused GMC of ‘harassing someone whose only crime is trying to help those whom medical practitioners have failed’.
More information
- Dr Myhill’s website: http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Category:My_GMC_Hearing
- The GMC verdict: http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/GMC%27s_full_verdict
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Related images
Farmers Guardian newsletters
Get the best of Farmers Guardian delivered straight to your inbox. Click here to sign-up today
-
General news and breaking news alerts
Minimum weekly delivery -
Livestock, arable, dairy and young farmers
news and features
Monthly delivery
Readers' comments (16)
Anonymous | 6 May 2010 5:44 pm
Lancashire NFU chairman is wrong. Sarah Myhill has done a lot more wrong than that: she actively promotes bogus therapies, charges non-trivial amounts of money for tests that have no clinical validity and has lied to the GMC as well as to her supporters. Hers is not a cause you should be championing.
I notice you link to her website, which details her inaccurate to the point of frankly delusional description of events - is this article anything other than a Sarah Myhill press release?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | 6 May 2010 6:46 pm
"Lancashire NFU chairman Tom Rigby accused GMC of ‘harassing someone whose only crime is trying to help those whom medical practitioners have failed’."
Either Mr Rigby;
a) Knows nothing about the case, the substance of the two complaints that have lead to her having restrictions placed on her by the GMC, her ludicrous behaviour before the GMC (the transcript of which can be freely perused by any interested party, although I'd strongly recommend reading the GMC's operating code for background) or indeed the scandalous information on her website and is just trying to get his name in the press
or
B) He's a shamless liar. Which is it, pray tell?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Skepticat | 6 May 2010 6:50 pm
I agree with anonymous. Tony Rigby is also wrong to accuse the GMC of harrassment. The GMC are bound to investigate complaints that come before it and in this case the two complaints were about very serious matters. Dr Myhill's testimony at the IOP hearing will have reassured the GMC that the restrictions they were to impose were in the public interest. By what measure can it be possibly be OK for a registered medical pratitioner to make recommend a medical intervention for someone with a neurological disease whom she hasn't even met, let alone examined nor seen the medical notes of? How can it possibly be OK for such a person giving potentially dangerous advice on topics in which she has no training or expertise?
I'm glad there are patients who've benefitted from Dr Myhill but they need to remember that they are not the only people who matter.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jane Johnson | 6 May 2010 6:55 pm
My family has cause to be grateful to Dr. Sarah Myhill for her sympathetic and, in at least one case, life-saving treatment. She is an acknowledged expert in the care of those with OP and similar poisoning. The above anonymous comment is an example of the insiduous and dishonest attacks to which she has all too often been subjected. Thousands of patients attest to her skill and dedication.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 May 2010 9:21 pm
Jane - I posted anonymously because of the behaviour of Dr Myhill's band of supporters: I really don't need their kind of hassle.
My comment was not dishonest in any way at all: any dispassionate reading of Sarah Myhill's statements will lead one to the incontrovertible conclusion that she *has* lied. Her website *does* contain huge numbers of inaccuracies and she *does* charge people for tests which have no scientific basis or validity.
I can give you precise quotes and references if you like.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ruth Myhill | 7 May 2010 8:45 am
The only bad behaviour that has been displayed by anyone is the GMC and the doctors who have complained against Sarah. Many have been anonymous. It may be convenient and dramatic for them to argue that it is out of fear of her supporters but this is ridiculous.
Contrary to what was stated earlier, the GMC are not bound to investigate any complaint. They have a care of duty to the doctor involved as well. Many complaints of GPs are submitted to the GMC and not pursued. Conversely with Sarah. the GMC have conducted 6 previous investigations which later were found too weak to even bring to a hearing.
That her tests are unscientific, I'd be curious to know why this is thought. Please do give precise quotes and references!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Skepticat | 7 May 2010 10:00 am
@ Ruth Myhill
Of course the GMC are bound to investigate any complaint! Their purpose is to "protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine."
If there is the slightest suggestion that a doctor is failing to do this, they have to look at it and, if appropriate, take action. In the case of Dr Myhill, there would seem to be (in the first complaint) quite strong evidence that she is failing to ensure proper standards in the practice of medicine and (in the second complaint) very strong evidence on her website that she is giving erroneous and potentially dangerous advice.
Licensed doctors can't just make up the rules to suit themselves.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 May 2010 10:23 am
Sorry, Ruth, but you're wrong: plenty of bad, unethical behaviour (including personal threats online and incitement to spam people whose email addresses are known) has been seen.
As for a test without scientific validity - take this one for example: http://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Hair_Mineral_Analysis - if you don't know why this is not a valid test, read the following article: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/hair.html
There are plenty more, but that one is fairly easy to understand *why* it is not a test that any reputable doctor would consider. Though the description given on the drmyill.co.uk site is erroneous about the possible diagnoses that can be made, and her comment about mercury levels in autistic children is not one I have seen in a single peer-reviewed research paper - if you could find a decent source to support that (or indeed any of the claims made on that page), it would be gratefully accepted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Marion | 13 May 2010 10:53 pm
Firstly, a hair analysis test can help. My sister had full head alopecia before having this test done (not my Dr. Myhill) and when it revealed she was low in two elements and began supplementing, all her hair grew back in. This was after all sorts of lotions and potions prescribed by her doctor which did nothing. Her hair falls out again if she stops them. So called 'experts' in the medical profession can be wrong too as I found out to my severe cost.
Dr. Myhill treats people like myself who are left physically disabled and have lost bowel and bladder function due to permanent nerve damage from an undiagnosed longterm B12 deficiency. Many doctors will not give them the B12 vital for their recovery and maintenance simply because they are ignorant of the best way to diagnose and treat a deficiency. We've heard critical and downright ignorant comments such as those above too many times to mention. If any of you are unfortunate to have any condition which the medical profession have either failed to treat or have mistreated and, in desperation, seek the help of someone like Dr. Myhill and recover, you might think differently.
I thought the medical profession knew everything there was to know about all sorts of conditions - I found out I was wrong. There are serious failings in quite a few areas and it isn't until it affects you personally that you find out the truth. In the meantime you have to listen to arrogant and wrong statements by all sorts of people who haven't the misfortune to be ill. Some of them will inevitably develop the very conditions for which they ridiculed Dr. Myhill for treating and who will they go to for help then?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Marion | 13 May 2010 11:01 pm
By the way, I am not one of Dr. Myhill's patients. I do, though, have contact with a few of her patients who are terrified at the prospect of having their treatment stopped because of this ruling. These are people who have had their quality of life vastly improved by the help she has given them. Are you happy to see these people deteriorate again? Just remember, it could be someone you love who this is happening to.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment