How things change since her days of UCL and Bertie. As predicted this week, Fiona Godlee did her friend Neil Bacon a favour. This is not unexpected and I have been predicting it for a while now. Fiona Godlee and Neil Bacon go a long way back. The least she and Brian Keighley could do was free plug for his failing website. It is called solidarity, all peas in a bad pod stick together.
Please note that the BMA has Brian Keighley on its board. He is also a GMC member and a friend of Dr Neil Bacon. This is what the BMJ has to say of its standards
"Editorial decisions should be based mainly on the validity of the work and its importance to readers, not the policies or commercial success of the owner. Editors should be free to publish critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution, even if these views might conflict with the goals of the owner. To maintain this position, editors should seek input from a broad array of advisors such as reviewers, editorial staff, an editorial board, and readers."
This is what Fiona Godlee herself said
"We need to make sure that the journal continues to deliver what readers want—high quality information that is accessible and relevant to their lives as doctors and researchers"
So to live up to Godlee's statement, she featured something contrary to mass opinion. Why didn't she feature the dangers of iwantgreatcare.org in the BMJ? Well, it is because she supports and looks out for her friend Neil. So far, we can see that Neil Bacon has been grovelling to his mates in high places. Isn't it convenient that Neil doesn't have to financially invest in advertising. He simply has to use his friends and contacts in high places. Making money out of selling doctors out while telling the world how much he cares for patients. He has never in his entire life said a thing about the protection of patient rights until it was convenient for him. Bacon already has a finding against him at the Information Commissioner, the BMJ continue to feature him as a angelic dot com success.
This is what the BMJ stated
By Michael Cross.
"Medical practitioners have long been public figures. However, the worldwide web is subjecting doctors to a level of popular scrutiny once reserved for politicians and entertainers. From last week, anyone with access to the internet has been able to read anonymous patients’ reviews of individual doctors in the United Kingdom, searchable by name, location, and specialty. iWantGreatCare is part of a healthcare information phenomenon: the compilation and sharing of facts and opinions by patients equipped with new techniques for sharing multimedia data"
Healthcare information phenomenon eh? I had to laugh at the naivety of this man. More like Trojan Horse for the GMC/Department of Health. This is not to mention the allegedly illegal data collection the website is responsible for. Yes, the BMJ has to talk it up of course because as usual it glosses over the important flaws. It glosses over the devastating effects that the website could potentially have on doctors. The BMJ fails to provide any self help for doctors on the wrong end of defamatory postings. To date, the gutless BMA remains silent on this issue.
I suspect its freelance journalist Michael Cross would not feel at all well if a arbitrary written post ended up at the NUJ and he was subject to NUJ proceedings. The post would then be declared to 5 years of his employers and and would probably destroy his references. He would probably be cleared after that due to the falsity of the post - what then?. This though he says is acceptable for doctors. I doubt he will agree that this behaviour is acceptable for him. As a journalist he probably feels that he is higher in the evolutionary scale than mere doctors. The journalism profession are never held accountable no matter what trash they write. A member of the public cannot for instance complain to the NUJ. Can anyone ever rely on any journalist to research their material appropriately or think about what they are writing? Do journalists have any idea of social responsibility? For years, journalists for most papers spent their time spewing the lies on msbp.com. There was no apology for their negligence. Anyway, there will probably be a website called iwantgreatjournalists.org because quite frankly, I am tired with all of them.
Fiona Godlee failed again to declare her conflict of interest and skewed favouritism towards Neil Bacon. She also failed to obtain a 360 degree review of iwantgreatcare.org. The BMA, funded by its members has a journal that does not represent the serious concerns shown by the majority of doctors in the UK. We believe Dr Fiona Godlee should be the first BMJ editor to be placed on iwantgreatcare.org and provided with a cutting review. Of course, she would arrange for her friend Neil Bacon to remove that by a simple phonecall. We shall then see whether non disclosure of this conflict of interest is a GMC offence or not. .
Godlee should have been fired from the BMJ a long long time ago. In fact, she should never have been hired. But given the race relations policy, the golden girl was hired over the more competent and excellent asian male Kaman Abbassi. As usual she is out of touch with the main issue affecting doctors this week. That is probably because her job isn't on the line but everyone else's is. We cannot expect much for a editor who allows a harasser and a ex felon to post on her Rapid Responses while being oblivious to the dangerous networking through it eg contacting experts and recruiting vulnerable women into Scientology. This poster who is a favourite of Tony Delamonthe and Fiona Godlee has links to Scientology. We don't expect the BMJ to understand this at all. That left us to tidy up the mess called msbp.com.
We shouldn't really mention the oxygen of publicity given by the BMJ to the negligent Professor Griffiths who was indirectly responsible for the deaths of many people on Ward 87 by his failure to act. While doctors were suffering from the fiasco governing the MMC, Godlee was fascinated by incompetent researcher Professor Griffiths. While patients were dying on Ward 87, she was probably busy talking about Carbon and Fluoride. These are though examples of the pedigree of people the BMJ features and they call it equality. Ironically, they forget that the BMJ faced Jay Illagaratne at a Race Discrimination Tribunal. Richard Smith won't forget that of course.
On a further note regarding the policy of free advertising. While Fiona Godlee allows her friend Neil Bacon to advertise freely, the BMJ refused a bona fide advert from Remedy UK. The article below by Hospital Doctor shows the antics of the " editorially independent" journal. Clearly, Remedy UK's did not have a personal friend called Dr Fiona Godlee.
"Joint talks in doubt after BMA blocks Remedy UK advert in BMJ. HOSPITAL DOCTOR
2007 Nov 28, Liz Fox
Senior members of the BMA have signalled their hostility to Remedy UK by banning the pressure group from placing an advertisement in the 'editorially independent' BMJ. The refusal means battle lines have now been drawn between the two organisations - and could end joint discussions aimed at improving the working lives of junior doctors. Since the emergence of the grass-roots campaign earlier this year, the BMA has been careful to avoid any hint of rivalry.
In March, a policy statement from the BMA's Junior Doctors Committee (JDC) said it had agreed 'to walk alongside' Remedy representatives at the peaceful march through London's streets protesting against Modernising Medical Careers (MMC). JDC newsletters have also paid tribute to 'very constructive meetings' between committee officers at Remedy.
But Remedy UK - which insists it has been keen to work with the BMA to resolve the MMC crisis - has criticised the BMA for taking a 'protectionist' stance.
Editor's discretion
Remedy approached the BMJ a month ago, asking to place a paid-for advertisement in the publication outlining the organisation's goals and encouraging doctors to become members. It carried no criticism of the BMA.
But, after seeking permission from the BMA, the BMJ Publishing Group refused to run the advert. A BMJ spokeswoman said the journal's advertisement policy allowed it to carry adverts from competitors 'at the editor's discretion'.
The BMA vetoed the advert because it was considered 'inappropriate'.
Mr Mat Shaw, co-founder of Remedy UK, said the decision was 'a real shame'.
He added: 'Now the BMA has taken this protectionist attitude against an innocuous advertisement that we were prepared to pay the market rate for.'
Remedy UK chief executive Dr Chris McCullough expressed concern about the BMA's 'control' over the BMJ. He said: 'It is perceived by the profession as an independent publication, but it is clear that the BMA has significant influence.'
Mr Ram Moorthy, chairman of the BMA's Junior Doctors Committee, insisted the two organisations had a 'positive' relationship. 'At the end of the day, juniors don't want to see the medical organisations bickering,' he said. 'They want us to get on with the job and make their working lives better.'
But Dr McCullough said: 'This signals a clear change in our relationship with the BMA.'
Contact the author: mailto:elelizabeth.fox@rbi.co.uk
Please note that the BMA has Brian Keighley on its board. He is also a GMC member and a friend of Dr Neil Bacon. This is what the BMJ has to say of its standards
"Editorial decisions should be based mainly on the validity of the work and its importance to readers, not the policies or commercial success of the owner. Editors should be free to publish critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution, even if these views might conflict with the goals of the owner. To maintain this position, editors should seek input from a broad array of advisors such as reviewers, editorial staff, an editorial board, and readers."
This is what Fiona Godlee herself said
"We need to make sure that the journal continues to deliver what readers want—high quality information that is accessible and relevant to their lives as doctors and researchers"
So to live up to Godlee's statement, she featured something contrary to mass opinion. Why didn't she feature the dangers of iwantgreatcare.org in the BMJ? Well, it is because she supports and looks out for her friend Neil. So far, we can see that Neil Bacon has been grovelling to his mates in high places. Isn't it convenient that Neil doesn't have to financially invest in advertising. He simply has to use his friends and contacts in high places. Making money out of selling doctors out while telling the world how much he cares for patients. He has never in his entire life said a thing about the protection of patient rights until it was convenient for him. Bacon already has a finding against him at the Information Commissioner, the BMJ continue to feature him as a angelic dot com success.
This is what the BMJ stated
By Michael Cross.
"Medical practitioners have long been public figures. However, the worldwide web is subjecting doctors to a level of popular scrutiny once reserved for politicians and entertainers. From last week, anyone with access to the internet has been able to read anonymous patients’ reviews of individual doctors in the United Kingdom, searchable by name, location, and specialty. iWantGreatCare is part of a healthcare information phenomenon: the compilation and sharing of facts and opinions by patients equipped with new techniques for sharing multimedia data"
Healthcare information phenomenon eh? I had to laugh at the naivety of this man. More like Trojan Horse for the GMC/Department of Health. This is not to mention the allegedly illegal data collection the website is responsible for. Yes, the BMJ has to talk it up of course because as usual it glosses over the important flaws. It glosses over the devastating effects that the website could potentially have on doctors. The BMJ fails to provide any self help for doctors on the wrong end of defamatory postings. To date, the gutless BMA remains silent on this issue.
I suspect its freelance journalist Michael Cross would not feel at all well if a arbitrary written post ended up at the NUJ and he was subject to NUJ proceedings. The post would then be declared to 5 years of his employers and and would probably destroy his references. He would probably be cleared after that due to the falsity of the post - what then?. This though he says is acceptable for doctors. I doubt he will agree that this behaviour is acceptable for him. As a journalist he probably feels that he is higher in the evolutionary scale than mere doctors. The journalism profession are never held accountable no matter what trash they write. A member of the public cannot for instance complain to the NUJ. Can anyone ever rely on any journalist to research their material appropriately or think about what they are writing? Do journalists have any idea of social responsibility? For years, journalists for most papers spent their time spewing the lies on msbp.com. There was no apology for their negligence. Anyway, there will probably be a website called iwantgreatjournalists.org because quite frankly, I am tired with all of them.
Fiona Godlee failed again to declare her conflict of interest and skewed favouritism towards Neil Bacon. She also failed to obtain a 360 degree review of iwantgreatcare.org. The BMA, funded by its members has a journal that does not represent the serious concerns shown by the majority of doctors in the UK. We believe Dr Fiona Godlee should be the first BMJ editor to be placed on iwantgreatcare.org and provided with a cutting review. Of course, she would arrange for her friend Neil Bacon to remove that by a simple phonecall. We shall then see whether non disclosure of this conflict of interest is a GMC offence or not. .
Godlee should have been fired from the BMJ a long long time ago. In fact, she should never have been hired. But given the race relations policy, the golden girl was hired over the more competent and excellent asian male Kaman Abbassi. As usual she is out of touch with the main issue affecting doctors this week. That is probably because her job isn't on the line but everyone else's is. We cannot expect much for a editor who allows a harasser and a ex felon to post on her Rapid Responses while being oblivious to the dangerous networking through it eg contacting experts and recruiting vulnerable women into Scientology. This poster who is a favourite of Tony Delamonthe and Fiona Godlee has links to Scientology. We don't expect the BMJ to understand this at all. That left us to tidy up the mess called msbp.com.
We shouldn't really mention the oxygen of publicity given by the BMJ to the negligent Professor Griffiths who was indirectly responsible for the deaths of many people on Ward 87 by his failure to act. While doctors were suffering from the fiasco governing the MMC, Godlee was fascinated by incompetent researcher Professor Griffiths. While patients were dying on Ward 87, she was probably busy talking about Carbon and Fluoride. These are though examples of the pedigree of people the BMJ features and they call it equality. Ironically, they forget that the BMJ faced Jay Illagaratne at a Race Discrimination Tribunal. Richard Smith won't forget that of course.
On a further note regarding the policy of free advertising. While Fiona Godlee allows her friend Neil Bacon to advertise freely, the BMJ refused a bona fide advert from Remedy UK. The article below by Hospital Doctor shows the antics of the " editorially independent" journal. Clearly, Remedy UK's did not have a personal friend called Dr Fiona Godlee.
"Joint talks in doubt after BMA blocks Remedy UK advert in BMJ. HOSPITAL DOCTOR
2007 Nov 28, Liz Fox
Senior members of the BMA have signalled their hostility to Remedy UK by banning the pressure group from placing an advertisement in the 'editorially independent' BMJ. The refusal means battle lines have now been drawn between the two organisations - and could end joint discussions aimed at improving the working lives of junior doctors. Since the emergence of the grass-roots campaign earlier this year, the BMA has been careful to avoid any hint of rivalry.
In March, a policy statement from the BMA's Junior Doctors Committee (JDC) said it had agreed 'to walk alongside' Remedy representatives at the peaceful march through London's streets protesting against Modernising Medical Careers (MMC). JDC newsletters have also paid tribute to 'very constructive meetings' between committee officers at Remedy.
But Remedy UK - which insists it has been keen to work with the BMA to resolve the MMC crisis - has criticised the BMA for taking a 'protectionist' stance.
Editor's discretion
Remedy approached the BMJ a month ago, asking to place a paid-for advertisement in the publication outlining the organisation's goals and encouraging doctors to become members. It carried no criticism of the BMA.
But, after seeking permission from the BMA, the BMJ Publishing Group refused to run the advert. A BMJ spokeswoman said the journal's advertisement policy allowed it to carry adverts from competitors 'at the editor's discretion'.
The BMA vetoed the advert because it was considered 'inappropriate'.
Mr Mat Shaw, co-founder of Remedy UK, said the decision was 'a real shame'.
He added: 'Now the BMA has taken this protectionist attitude against an innocuous advertisement that we were prepared to pay the market rate for.'
Remedy UK chief executive Dr Chris McCullough expressed concern about the BMA's 'control' over the BMJ. He said: 'It is perceived by the profession as an independent publication, but it is clear that the BMA has significant influence.'
Mr Ram Moorthy, chairman of the BMA's Junior Doctors Committee, insisted the two organisations had a 'positive' relationship. 'At the end of the day, juniors don't want to see the medical organisations bickering,' he said. 'They want us to get on with the job and make their working lives better.'
But Dr McCullough said: 'This signals a clear change in our relationship with the BMA.'
Contact the author: mailto:elelizabeth.fox@rbi.co.uk
0 comments:
Post a Comment