Hi Robin,
Quote Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I think (I'm not sure) what "non fact finding" means is that the burden of determining the medical science does not fall on the shoulders of the panel.

So, what I get is that they're not trying to determine if Myhill's protocol or treatment is efficacious. (That's how I'm reading it!) What they're doing is trying to figure out whether or not the physician is practicing within the scope of his/her specialty...

See? They're not making a value judgment on the information itself. It's more of a legal thing: " it is a fundamental Duty of a Doctor to recognise and work within the limits of your competence."

Then they go on to say they suspect the website material is what American's would say is outside the standard of care, or unverifiable:

Again, they're not saying whether or not it's not her website material is efficacious, it just has to be proven to be true. And, apparently, they ruled that a lot of her material wasn't verifiable, and they went on to list what she had to pull from her website.

It looks like she's still allowed to see patients and treat them, with this condition:

I have no idea what this means -- are "prescription" and "medication" two different things in the UK? Or are they saying she can't prescribe off label? She could probably still give people their B12 and magnesium (in the US that stuff is not regulated like pharmaceuticals are).

All fair enough - your argument, Robin, of course - but it does seem to me to be a case of "we believe we have possible prima facie evidence - anonymously EM'd to us - that makes it potentially possible that you have not been acting as we believe a good doctor should. Hence off with your medical head until we found reasons to put it back".

For which reason, to my way of thinking, that indeed is not much informed with knowledge of British law or the GMC (I am a civilzed European, after all ;) they should have given nominally rational reasons, at the very least. Which, since they didn't do it, seems also something they deliberately left undone.

As to

1. You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary;

I read it as: "You are not allowed to write out recipes for such medicine as are in England only available by a recipe from a medical doctor" i.e. she is not allowed to practice the next one and a half year as a medical doctor.

I hope to be undeceived, though, and is on the statement I read a rationally totally unmotivated decision, that sounds to me highly doubtful in law, but then the costs and trouble of appealing may be enormous, as they well may know.