If you are stuck for a little light bedtime reading, might I recommend browsing through the decisions of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) from the last 12 months? They make for illuminating – albeit bleak and sordid – reading. And if you pay particular attention to decisions marked ‘Erasure’ (meaning the tribunal has decided to strike a medical practitioner’s name from the Medical Register) you will not fail to reflect on the wisdom of Machiavelli in his summary of human nature: “All do wrong.”
My knowledge of the MPT’s decisions is by no means exhaustive, but even a cursory search reveals that almost all instances of Erasure involve some kind of threat to the safety of patients (as one would indeed assume). Most of these concern inappropriate sexual conduct or sexual offences. From the last month or so alone there is, for example, Dr. Cvetkovs, who gave money to a patient so she could buy cocaine and later had a sexual relationship with her; Mr. Baker, a consultant gynaecologist who entered into an inappropriate relationship with a female patient; Dr. Hume, who shared indecent images of children on internet chat rooms and took pictures of a female patient without her consent; Dr. Inthiraraj, who inappropriately contacted a vulnerable female patient and performed examinations on another patient without her consent; Dr. Ali, who intentionally communicated with what he thought were under-16 year old girls for sexual motives without realising they were undercover police officers; Dr. Varnum, who was convicted for possessing large numbers of indecent images of children; Dr. Walker, who did more or less the same thing as Dr. Ali, listed above; I could go on. Occasionally there are cases of outright incompetence (for example, administering the wrong medicine and failing to keep adequate records) or deceit (misrepresenting qualifications). But the basic gist of things is clear: if you get struck off as a doctor, it will basically be because you are likely to put patients at risk.
This puts into perspective the MPT’s decision of September 2023 to ‘Erase’ a certain Mr. Muhammed Adil, who was the subject of my last post. Mr. Adil has apparently been actively uploading YouTube videos and tweeting since early 2020 to express various views about the coronavirus pandemic. The original ‘charge sheet’ (from a hearing now unavailable) listed the views expressed by Mr. Adil between April and October of 2020 as follows:
a. the SARS-CoV-2 virus and/or COVID-19 disease do not exist or words to that effect;
b. the COVID-19 pandemic is a conspiracy brought by the United Kingdom, Israel and America or words to that effect;
c. the COVID-19 pandemic is a multibillion scam which was being manipulated for the benefit of:
- i. Bill Gates;
- ii. pharmaceutical companies;
- iii. the John Hopkins Medical Institute of Massachusetts;
- iv. the World Health Organisation, or words to that effect;
d. the COVID-19 pandemic was being used to impose a new world order or words to that effect;
e. the SARS-CoV-2 virus was made as part of a wider global conspiracy or words to that effect;
f. Bill Gates infected the entire world with SARS-CoV-2 in order to sell vaccines or words to that effect;
g. COVID-19 vaccines:
- i. would be given to everyone, by force if necessary;
- ii. could potentially contain microchips that affect the human body and further the 5G mobile phone technology agenda;
- iii. will transform human psychology and beliefs;
- iv. could be used to control and/or reduce the world’s population, or words to that effect
Now, I should say at the outset that I by no means agree with all of these things. It was my position from the beginning of all of the Covid nonsense that the lockdowns were a really, really stupid thing to do and an overreaction stemming from panic, but I don’t think they were the result of a conspiracy. And I was always of the view that the decision on whether or not to take a vaccine should be rooted only in consent and that personally, since I knew the threat of Covid to be remote, I would not take the jab – but I do not think the vaccine rollout was the result of a plot. I am therefore I suppose a ‘moderate lockdown sceptic’, and I have on occasion since February 2020 found myself being irritated that somebody who holds my views can be bundled in with people like Mr. Adil as a ‘Covid conspiracy theorist’ with crankish ideas about microchips and 5G. In that, I think people like him were not always very helpful to the cause.
But I also believe, even more strongly, that being a crank is in itself not a reason why anybody should be prevented from airing their views. And I don’t believe this because of a highfalutin utilitarian notion about ‘the marketplace of ideas’. I believe it simply because I hold to the corny, but I think ultimately wise, line in Max Ehrmann’s Desiderata: it is important to “listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; [for] they too have their story”. I don’t wish to live in a society in which the great and good are allowed to decide who is and is not worthy of being able to speak, because in the end I don’t really believe that the great and good are particularly great, or good. In fact I think they are as mediocre and bad as the rest of us. Everybody, in short, should be entitled to have their say about the issues of the day because everybody has value as a human being, and nobody intrinsically has greater value than anybody else. Some restraint on speech is necessary, but such restraints should be as minimal as possible and founded in law. Otherwise people should be able to, in modern parlance, ‘speak their truth’ – even cranks.
With all of that said, of course, if the members of the MPT who decided Mr. Adil’s case were here to speak for themselves, they would probably say that they basically agree with me. It’s just that they would add something like: “Mr. Adil’s speech falls under the umbrella of speech that it is necessary to restrain, because it is dangerous.” In their own words:
A finding of impaired fitness to practise was required in order to protect the public and maintain the public confidence in the profession and to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.
That is to say, we can’t have this man going about saying these things and representing himself as a doctor, because people will believe him and not take the vaccine and therefore die. And generally speaking people will lose faith in doctors and therefore that will have an impact on public health in the round. And, what is more, we are entitled to do this as a matter of law, because the General Medical Council has issued guidelines under the Medical Act 1968, which state that medical professionals must act in such a way as to “justify patients’ trust… and the public’s trust in the profession”. The disagreement then is not at the level of principle but at the level of fact: what Mr. Adil was saying just fell outside of the threshold of what it is ‘safe’ and lawful to say.
There are three things to say about this.
The first is that the basic line of reasoning of the MPT is very common these days within the professional managerial establishment, and it goes as follows: ordinary people are presumptively idiots, are totally credulous, and are inclined to believe anything they are told by a figure of purported authority. If they are told by a doctor appearing in a YouTube video that Bill Gates infected everyone with SARS-CoV-2, and so forth, then this will turn them into hardened conspiracy theorists who will then fail to get vaccinated, and this will undermine the campaign to ‘stop the spread’. And therefore any doctor who does such a thing must be cast out of the profession for “undermining public health” (and also undermining “public confidence in the medical profession”, the mainstream of which was advocating lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccines, etc.)
The same pattern plays out again and again in contemporary public life, as I am sure you are well aware. Whenever people do anything which the professional managerial class in general holds to be undesirable (vote to leave the EU; fail to take a vaccine; refuse to buy an electric car or heat pump; watch Andrew Tate videos; etc.) it is immediately cast as a problem of their having the wrong information, which can only be remedied by preventing them getting their hands on such wrong information and replacing it with correct information. Then they will naturally change course and do the right thing.
It is the kind of account of human psychology that only a Martian would find plausible; that our establishment seems to find it explanatory is deeply troubling, but it is plainly evident that it does. It will not be news to readers of this article that this is not actually how things work in the real world, and that in the long-term seeking to control the flow of information in order to control thought in this way can only possibly end in tears. But clearly that is not how most very well-educated people see things, and the MPT obviously comprises members of that strata of society. In their minds, what is ‘dangerous’ is the making of crankish videos that preach to the converted; it simply doesn’t occur to them that attempting to control the way in which the public thinks and speaks has dangers of its own, and that those are indeed much greater. A society in which the elite conceives of the ‘masses’ in this way simply does not have a stable future in the long term, and it is this that is our real danger; but those in positions of power in our society seem almost wilfully blind to it.
The second thing to say is that, reading the MPT’s decision, it becomes clear that while the panel might have been concerned about the ‘dangerous’ effect of Mr. Adil’s videos on public health (failing to take vaccines; failing to ‘socially distance’, and so on), what really annoyed them was the fact that he was thinking the wrong thing.
This is made plain very early on. Mr. Adil was originally suspended for six months as a result of a hearing in 2022 (though it is important to mention that he was de facto suspended from the middle of 2020 due to an interim decision of a MPT, meaning of course that he was not able to work for three years before being formally ‘struck off’). Here is the 2023 MPT’s account of the 2022 MPT’s original suspension decision, with important phrases in bold:
The 2022 tribunal found that there had been a serious breach of Good Medical Practice (‘GMP’) and it had found Mr. Adil’s fitness to practise to be impaired. The 2022 Tribunal found inconsistencies in his evidence and that he showed no proper appreciation of his conduct. The 2022 Tribunal noted that Mr. Adil had continued to challenge the GMC investigative procedures throughout the hearing…
The 2022 tribunal had considered that Mr. Adil’s expressions of regret and apology had come very late in the day and had continued to develop even during the course of the hearing. The tribunal considered that Mr. Adil did not have full insight into the consequences of his actions in relation to paragraphs 2-4 of the allegation, and that he had demonstrated a fundamental lack of appreciation for the impact of his conduct on the public. At times it was considered that he was only telling the tribunal what he believed to be expedient to say.
The 2022 tribunal had considered that although he was starting to genuinely question and reflect upon his conduct, and that he had expressed regret and remorse for what he had said, he still lacked adequate understanding and appreciation of the impact of his actions in relation to these allegations. It was not satisfied that in the face of an opportunity to proclaim his views in such a way again, there was no risk he would not do so.
The 2022 tribunal determined to suspend Mr. Adil’s registration for six months. The length of the suspension would allow Mr. Adil to reflect carefully on the findings of the tribunal in order to be able to demonstrate that he fully understood and appreciated that impact and its consequences. It was suggested that this reviewing tribunal would be assisted if Mr. Adil were to provide [amongst other things] a detailed written reflection about his appreciation and understanding of the gravity of his misconduct and its impact on public health and public confidence in the medical profession.
The petty authoritarianism of this is of course striking – like a stereotype of a bad parent: “Go and sit on the naughty step and think about what you’ve done!!” – but this conceals its more sinister connotations. Imagine being put in the position of having to lie about what you think in order to be allowed to carry out the job which you have been doing for your whole professional life, without ever putting anybody at risk, and without which you have no source of income. Imagine forcing somebody to ‘reflect’ on his views and write a document detailing how he has done so before allowing him to earn a salary again.
One must be careful not to use hyperbole, but it calls to mind an expression used by Michael Oakeshott: it is a moral enormity to behave in that way. It would be one thing for the MPT to have told Mr. Adil to take down his YouTube videos if he wanted to continue to practice as a doctor. That would have been consistent with the idea that the real problem was the ‘dangerous’ effect of his comments, and it would have easily remedied that problem (if we grant that it was such). It is quite another thing for the tribunal to have told him to explicitly renounce his sincerely held opinions in order to keep his job (hidden in the mealy-mouthed language of “assisting” the panel).
Let’s be absolutely clear, then: Mr. Adil was suspended for supposedly undermining public health with his “dangerous” videos in 2020-22. But the 2023 decision on his erasure was chiefly due to his failure to recant:
In his statement to the MPTS dated August 15th 2023, submitted for use in this review hearing, [Mr. Adil] repeated his views. In short, it sets out that his current views are those which he espoused in the videos in 2020… [T]his tribunal should consider this when looking for evidence of insight and remediation.
The problem, to repeat, is not so much saying the wrong thing as thinking the wrong thing. Not the making of the videos. Persisting in holding the ‘wrong’ opinions. This is not an acceptable thing to have happened in a free society. It is happening in ours.
The third thing to say – and I suppose this ought to go without saying – is of course the wonderful and terrible irony of the MPT’s decision. Cast your mind back over the past five years. Would you say that public trust in the medical profession has been undermined during that period? I would say it has been. And what would you attribute that to? Mr. Adil’s YouTube videos? Or, perhaps, off the top of my head:
- Being told that wearing a face mask is not important, but then actually is terribly important and the evidence supporting its importance is overwhelming, but it is only important when you are in a shop or on public transport, and it is definitely not important if you are, say, a world leader at a behind-closed-doors party at Davos
- Being told that it doesn’t matter if children miss a year of school and have no social interactions for months on end, because children are resilient
- Being told that health conditions that aren’t related to Covid don’t particularly matter, and it would be best not to seek medical attention for fear of spreading the virus
- Being told that the vaccine would stop transmission of the virus
- Being told that, although the evidence is overwhelming that the virus is chiefly spread indoors, you should stay at home unless you have a “reasonable excuse” to leave the house
- Being told that, although the evidence that Covid posed little threat to anyone under the age of 60 was overwhelming by February 2020, “we didn’t know anything about the virus” and therefore it was necessary to keep everybody in lockdown on and off for well over 12 months, regardless of their age
- Being told that ‘herd immunity’ means a certain thing one day, but the next day means something totally different
- Being told that it matters whether you are eating a scotch egg or not (or perhaps doesn’t)
I could of course go on, but will stop before I have an aneurysm. You get the point: there was an awful lot of dangerous stuff and nonsense put out into the public domain during the Covid years, much of it spouted by cranks. But those cranks happened to be mainstream medical professionals, and the politicians listening to them. Yet here we are, ‘erasing’ poor Mr. Adil, who seems to have barely put a foot wrong as a surgeon over the course of a 30 year career, because he apparently believes a few things about Covid that could be construed as being a little bit kooky. I know what the ‘dangerous’ thing is here, and I think probably you do too. It’s not the YouTube videos about Bill Gates and microchips.
Where do we go, then, from here? My gut tells me that what happened to Mr. Adil is going to become more common, rather than less. I am anxious not to be misconstrued on this point: we are not waltzing into East Germany or Democratic Kampuchea. But we are heading for a situation in which the horizons of free expression will be increasingly curtailed, and we are going to have to pretend publicly to believe a lot more things which we really don’t. This means our private, internal worlds will take on increasing importance, and indeed we are going to come to cherish them.
In 2017, Victor Davis Hanson wrote an essay for National Review in which he observed that more and more people were retreating into “monasteries of the mind“, enjoying old books, old music and old films, and adopting a “stoical detachment from contemporary life”. In short, we are turning away from public discourse and interesting ourselves chiefly in our imaginations – where we can privately enjoy the things that we like, and think the things that we think, in peace. This phenomenon will become more pronounced as freedom of speech declines; as it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid publicly saying things which you do not believe, and as we are all gradually backed into a corner if we happen to hold opinions that are outside of the mainstream, the monastery of the mind will more seductively beckon. Build yourself a nice one.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. He is the author of the News From Uncibal Substack where this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A very Shakespearean piece , Much Ado About Nothing ! + The Doctor in question ( his name is paragraphs back ) sounds spot on to me
Dr Adil was right, the points listed in a to g. are spot on. Flying viruses don’t exist. Pleomorphic bacteria cause disease. They don’t survive outside a host. The death rate from Rona was 0.3%. We knew this by March 2020. So I take my medieval Occam’s razor and lo and behold, the simplest most logical conclusions are contained in Dr Adil’s a to g list. Plandemic – 30 years in the planning, a CIA-DoD project. Just like the Uketopian war.
“The death rate from Rona was 0.3%” doesn’t make much sense. When it’s time for very elderly people to die, they often die of something. Very few are in fine health one day, and then suddenly die in their sleep. Elderly people can die because of fear and loneliness and hopelessness, they don’t want to live any more, they get flu or Covid, and die. It’s simplistic to say flu or Covid killed them.
What was the ‘death rate from Rona’ for people under the age of 80?
What was the ‘death rate from Rona’ for people under the age of 80 who lived a reasonably healthy lifestyle?
And as for younger people, it was never anything to fear, there are far riskier things in everyday life which we don’t fear, certainly not to the extent of the fear that was whipped up about Covid to pressurise people, old and young, into getting the Covid vaccine.
The ‘death rate from Rona’ for people of my age group, and, unless you’re very old, your age group, living a reasonably healthy life, is nowhere near 0.3%. Yet the propaganda told us otherwise.
I’m on board with b to e. Less so a, f & g.
Nonetheless, I support his right to hold those views. The debate is the whole point. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The medical establishment (plus govt, NGOs, media, quangos & the self-righteous class) have only themselves to blame for loss of trust. With few exceptions, they behaved abysmally, and still are.
Here’s the irony: nobody suspected that those highly trained and ethically instructed doctors would get up to all kinds of harm to patients when they were entrusted with responsibility over their lives.
But then, those elected to tribunals to judge the doctors are from the same professional stock, training, and instruction, and nobody suspects they might get up to all kinds of harm to doctors – even after the event, because there is nobody to judge them.
And that needed pointing out.
“But the 2023 decision on his erasure was chiefly due to his failure to recant”: This is straight out of Orwell’s 1984 in that Winston Smith would not recant when he was discovered thinking incorrectly by the Party and had to go to Room 101 so that his thinking was corrected.
The author suggests that we can retreat into the ‘monastry of the mind’ but my view is that the powers that be will not want that either – hence being forced to face your greatest fears in Room 101 so you have no mind and free will.
Dr Adil’s a to g list looks quite plausible to me – certainly more plausible than the official narrative.
Stopped reading at the point that the author makes clear his stance. His stance being that it was all just a cock up. Anyone who still holds this view, who still doesn’t understand – or worse, cannot see – that 2020 laid the foundations for everything that has followed, and everything that has yet to pass, has such poor judgement that their opinion on anything is meaningless.
Well you should have continued reading because the article isn’t about whether lockdown etc was cockup or conspiracy. It’s a thoughtful and nuanced piece about freedom of thought and expression. I recommend it.
I share your frustration and disagreement with this position but he does go on to make some excellent points. I think it’s quite possible to be very right about some things and very wrong about others – I mean I am sure I am wrong about some things, but I would hope that doesn’t mean I am wrong about everything!
I do find it a bit rich that he dismisses Adil’s views as “crankish” – I mean, believing that the whole thing was some natural occurrence that misguided people did their best to react to seems pretty crankish to me.
“believing that the whole thing was some natural occurrence that misguided people did their best to react to seems pretty crankish to me.”
I couldn’t agree more tof.
I agree but not sure about the microchips though, or something would’ve come out on websites like this about it. It seems a closed case in my mind about it being planned mainly by the US and Five Eyes though.
Yeah a coup as big as this looks like something the US MIC would have the reach and the balls to do
The film ‘Plandemic’ in 2020 seems to have aged well and become prophetic. Dr David Martin has been consistent and comes with receipts.
I do take your point but the author makes an excellent overall argument against the rationale used by MPT to arrive at their decision.
High praise indeed to Dr McGrogan for highlighting yet another case of wrong think.
Being brilliant at your job and ‘doing no harm’ is no excuse for thinking things that are against the status quo! This goes for any career in present times, you must think the way we do or else!
I don’t know how one can write such an article and still think that ‘some restraint on speech is necessary’.
With regard to some of his more extreme beliefs, I’d say that I share some and am cognizant about the fact that those which I don’t share might still be true.
For example, there is definitely a lot more to say safety-wise about 5G, and the question of whether viruses exist or not can in truth not really be proven/disproven and judged or decided by anyone yet.
Like the author says, it is important to let everyone air any view so that ones own views are faced and challenged by them and progress can occur.
Leading to my first sentence again as the conclusion.
Indeed. What “restraint” would he propose, and who would decide? He says restraints should be “founded in law” as if that made it OK. Let’s see how restraints on speech founded in law are working out across the world, shall we? A roaring success, as long as you are the one making the laws.
I’m sure he has none other than an appeal to authority/assumption that TPTB would not be so wicked. The only good argument I have seen for 5G being safe is that TPTB don’t have any easy way of excluding themselves from its ill effects – though perhaps those “in the know” simply don’t live near the masts (if indeed living near the masts is what makes it harmful).
Simple: When people were still holding 3G phones next to their brains all day, it was 4G that was deemed to be unsafe and before they had any mobile phones, they were worried about radio and TV transmissions and overhead power lines. That’s a bit like the Climate change!¹ story. The basics always stay the same, fear of invisible rays which must be very harmful. But obviously not fear about absolutely essential household items. I mean, of what use are Invisible rays! scare stories when they can’t be shared with like-minded people?
¹ Fear of invisible or semivisible gases, NO₂ in the 1980s, FCKW in the 1990, CO₂ since the turn of the millenium. And recently, NO₂ again, despite this was supposedly already addressed by mandating catalytic converters. Event the anti-smoking cranks belong into this category as they’re really afraid of cigarette smoke they cannot see. And also, water vapour from vaping devices they can no longer see.
If a phone is pinned to the side of the users head then, aside from any other concerns, the manufacturers safety advice probably isn’t being followed.
Wifi and bluetooth devices have similar advice which will likely not be followed but manufacturers don’t draw much attention to distance-from-the-body considerations for their products.
Those “invisible rays” can be harmful which is why there are warnings next to transmitters and drying pets in a microwave is a bad idea.
It’s perfectly possible to die because of overexposure to sunlight, that’s just pretty rare and takes quite some exposure. It’s also possible to build a laser capable of shooting down missiles or even planes. Even laser pointers can seriously damage people’s eyes. That’s all a matter of the amount of energy transmitted in this way. And this obviously also works with sound waves. Coming too close to a stone-cutting saw can be quite painful. OTOH, strangely, nobody was ever seriously afraid of harmful ‘noise pollution’ close to busy roads. That wouldn’t do when owning and driving a car.
Some people are more sensitive to the rays than others. Some people have had to move house after masts have been installed near their property. You can see the effects on, say, Fir Trees where they have masts near by.
I don’t remember ever seeing any effect close to power lines going through woodland.
The 1980s gas was really SO₂ and not NO₂.
I’m not so sure that Adil was suspended for holding the “wrong” opinions, but rather for publicly voicing what those involved in the scam knew very well to be the right opinions – opinions that would expose what was being done as wicked and harmful. I think the motive here is not to protect the public, but to protect themselves. But I am just a crank…
And obviously I too am a crank.
Being a crank was the safe option!
I normally appreciate David McGrogan’s essays but he lost me when he referred to Dr Adil as a “crank.”
“The original ‘charge sheet’ (from a hearing now unavailable) listed the views expressed by Mr. Adil between April and October of 2020 as follows:”
And there is not one single charge listed that does not have merit.
McGrogan does not believe Lockdowns were a conspiracy yet they were enacted across the whole of the western world. For the more awake it is called Lockstep.
“an overreaction stemming from panic”
The ridiculousness of this statement is beyond absurd.
“but I do not think the vaccine rollout was the result of a plot.”
At this point I want to swear.
“and I have on occasion since February 2020 found myself being irritated that somebody who holds my views can be bundled in with people like Mr. Adil as a ‘Covid conspiracy theorist’ with crankish ideas about microchips and 5G. In that, I think people like him were not always very helpful to the cause.”
At this point dear chap you should have considered yourself to be in exalted company. And at this point McGrogan lost me – the guy is so asleep he is in zombie territory.
A crude and vitriolic shaming of a genuine Doctor who deserves our support rather than this despicable and ignorant tirade.
Lockdowns not a conspiracy? Yesterday’s DS included a piece quoting this: https://brownstone.org/articles/lockdowns-counterterrorism-not-public-health/
Doesn’t seem outlandish to me.
Associate Professor of Law Dr McGrogan appears to believe there is an Medical Practitioners Tribunal [MPT] and a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service [MPTS] which are both independent objective and unbiased.
Consideration of the legislation and operation and running of the MPT and MPTS shows the MPT and MPTS are no more nor less than the old GMC in sheep’s clothing. How? Or to put it another way again, there is no independent objective unbiased tribunal organisation to hear cases against doctors.
For that we can thank corrupt practices in Whitehall which engineer legislation which makes it look like there is an independent MPT/MPTS when it is the old GMC’s nom de plume for striking-off decisions in political cases.
Or to put it another way, the MPT/MPTS is the GMC and the GMC is the MPT/MPTS.
This is personal opinion informed by evidence and experience informed by Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers [1993] AC 534. Government bodies have no right at common law to sue for libel to protect their governing or administrative reputation, because allowing such a right would stifle pubic opinion and be contrary to the public interest. This may not however apply to the GMC as such or as its alter ego the GMC/MPT/MPTS.
Nothing has changed from the old days except the optics. It is also now easier for the GMC[MPT/MPTS] to prosecute doctors with a standard of proof of the balance of probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
And for clarity also I am not suggesting that the people appointed to MPT panels are puppets of the GMC. Under the old system panels could be chosen by the GMC for ‘political’ cases which comprised individuals most likely to convict. One such example was the original Chairman in May 2007 for the Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch case. He was replaced when the press were tipped off that he had been a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s [JCVI’s] Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation [ARVI] when the dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine was being approved for use in 1986-88 and had numerous conflicting drug industry interests. It made no difference however because the replacement also had drug industry interests and believed in compulsory MMR vaccination, which had been described by a prior BMA Chairman, Hamish Meldrum, as ‘Stalinist’. Ho hum.
CONTINUED ….
For more on the Wakefield et al case: How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed – In Eight Steps – A 21st Century Medical Controversy.
In the Wakefield, Adil and Donegan cases [more below] we see the corrupt practices which have infested Whitehall since Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s wiped out the restrictions on civil servants developing individual personal relationships with external interests in commerce and industry.
The result is that external interests can exercise direct influence over the implementation of policies and legislation in the UK via this invisible backdoor into the corridors of power. Agencies carrying out government functions like the GMC [albeit not strictly speaking a government body] and the MHRA are designed and built by Whitehall as puppets of external interests.
The MHRA for decades in its various forms has been in my view and the views of many others a puppet of the drug industry courtesy of Whitehall. And that is to the detriment of the health of British children, their parents and relatives. We are being farmed for our health.
The rate of autism in boys is in excess of 7% or 1 in 14 according to Department for Education statistics and that is supported by the figures published independently in Northern Ireland. The 60% of stage 5 boys in the NI figures prove the lie that this cannot be ‘greater awareness’ and ‘better diagnosis’ but a tsunami of autism at a frightening rate. 4 in 5 cases is a boy.
The Dr Jayne Donegan case is also instructive.
Parents of unvaccinated children, who have a legal right not to be discriminated against under the Equality Act, are frightened to take their children to GPs and especially to Accident and Emergency departments. This is because some doctors who have no training in vaccination bully and abuse them and threaten them with referrals to social services and then expose their children to inappropriate treatments before they will treat the child for the emergency concerned.
Anyone wanting to know more can read Dr Donegan’s response to the GMC case against her. None of it was made public during the supposed public MPT hearing by hearing Chairman and solicitor Julian Weinberg. Dr Donegan’s account of the GMC’s numerous attempts to silence her can be found here.
So the only option for them to protect their children and ensure they can get necessary emergency treatment is to say their children have been vaccinated.
Donegan was struck off by the GMC for telling parents that is what some parents do to ensure their children can get healthcare.
The maximum training of the average doctor about vaccinations is 45 minutes to 1.5 hours and for many others it is nil.
If Bill Gates is doing in secret what Elon Musk is doing with Neuralink, then maybe “microchops in the brain” is not so far off. We can’t have these influential people sounding off and giving the game away can we!
Not seeing at as consipiracy only suggests you’re not familar with RFK Jr’s book or Documentary titled ‘The Real Antony Fauci’. These people reponsible deserve what Julian Assange has had to deal with.