Bloggers - Guts, Radicalism and Free SpeechA few days ago, I wrote a post regarding my contact with Onmedica. Kamran Abassi [The Editor] has spotted said piece and has written to me. Kamran isn't happy. I have no idea what his intention was in writing to me because he has never voluntarily done so in the past.
I suspect he wanted to stop the feathers from ruffling at high levels. He wanted to present the views as he saw them. I have known of Kamran for years. As a man I think I have him measured up the right way. As an editor, he is talented but eats establishment cake to "belong" in the fraternity.
There is no doubt that I have always thought that Kamran should have been editor of the BMJ. He was robbed of that job. He does look down on the internet world around him. He is also an arrogant man. I have known this for years but accepted that males have that trait. Kamran gives the impression that all mainstream publications are "accepted" and the rest are " other kinds of journalism". Kamran points out he was not editor of Onmedica during my skirmish with them. That may be true but does not absolve his colleagues on Onmedica from responsibility. The fact remains is that Onmedica were quite happy for me to be engulfed by the vultures on DNUK and left me there to defend myself. A publication is always measured by the backbone their editors have. Onmedica has no backbone. If they cannot back a simple issue like that then they cannot back more important issues of public importance. That is my point. Their " lets walk away, it's not our business" attitude is typical of most mainstream journals. And whatever Kamran's defences are, the owners of the website have no defence. Indeed, Luke is certainly not man enough to admit his rather large mistake that is now shining in neon lights. Quite frankly their initial attitude of " We love you Rita" because "You are about to write a favourable review" makes me sick. It shows us the worst of human behaviour - those who don't even have the guts to stick by their colleagues during times of strife but are quite happy to hang around them when it is to " their advantage". Oh, it must have been such a shock for them to discover who I was.
Enough of Onmedica for now. Time to talk about related issues.....
Indeed, when Richard Smith and Kamran ruled the British Medical Journal, they accepted us rebels as " token" commentaries. Indeed, as Smith once pointed out " not many people visit NHS Exposed". That was what he said sneeringly in the year 2000. I suspect the Times Top 50 Health Websites nomination that we received was all about " not many people visiting" then. It is such an irony that Richard Smith has popped out of his Jack in the Box and has been telling the world that the lifespan of medical journals is deteriorating following the advent of the internet - Facebook, blogs etc. That was a talk he gave at the Medical Journalist Association recently.
My views about medical publications may sound like a whine but it isn't. It is all about two sides never meeting midway. In the year 2001, the BMJ spent a great deal of time marginalising those they did not feel " fitted the profile" of doctors they wanted to support. Rapid Responses from rebels were " blocked". Indeed, the matter was so bad that Dr Illagaratne took Richard Smith to an Employment Tribunal for Race Discrimination because Richard persistently blocked Jay's posts. This was combined with the efforts of the Doctors Only Website who banned anyone who spoke out of turn. Anyone who was deemed controversial was banned.
Smith and Kamran both supported Andrew Wakefield without question. He was hailed as a whistleblower from here to eternity. The boys at the BMJ hugged their doctor and built a story on how the establishment was "out to get him". Their backing of Andrew Wakefield was found to be misguided because Wakefield currently sits in a tent at the General Medical Council facing one charge after another. Having been instrumental in backing Andrew, Richard Smith went onto tell the world
So, what did Richard Smith have to say about the 2001 report [ that's evidence to Richard] on Ward 87. Both Richard and Kamran had nothing whatsoever to say as the issues evolved over the years. Having marginalised my concerns, each of them essentially stood around and watched. The fact is that they could have helped but they didn't. This is rather similar to the establishment boycott of Dr Scot Jnr. The BMJ and each journal UK wide failed to respond to this doctors plight so it was left to the bloggers to fight his corner. Where was Kamran Abassi during this period, drinking tea with his mate Phil Hammond I suppose! Of course, drinking tea doesn't get the job done.
Indeed, they both went out of their way to suppress any material about Ward 87 and ensured it never reached the hallowed halls of the BMJ. Both will no doubt say " ah but we were all fair to you". Sure, so fair that the issue of Ward 87 was marginalised to the corner of the internet. Of course, I have great regrets regarding this because their efforts at suppressing the Ward 87 matter has resulted in my life being extremely difficult. I was not afforded the protection of the leading medical journal but essentially left to my own devices. Of course, as time has gone by, I have not needed any of them - I have actually stood on my own and created a public vehicle for the important issues raised on Ward 87. It is a sad day when the ex editor of the BMJ considered the deaths of many patients on Ward 87 to be unimportant. No doubt Richard Smith is still of the view that Dr Andrew " Hey I am a star" Wakefield is still worth supporting 100%.
People forget, it was because of Richard Smith's obstinate attitude that I decided to move on and set up NHS Exposed. While he looked down his nose at it in the old days, the website continues to flourish [ without the support of those that will term itself the elite of medical journalism]. NHS Exposed was set up on a " dare" to Richard Smith. He had published a article on racism in the BMJ without the authors name, I went over to the other side and published the name. Richard said there was a risk of libel - of course 8 years later there has been no libel action. Richard was wrong and I was right.
These clashes with the leaders in medical journals are important to describe. It shows us all about the conceited attitude of many editors to those who are not "typical." Medical Journalism is separated in two sections - those who wallow with the establishment and those who don't give a damn. It is now true that blogging and the internet is the way to the future. and it has given people like me who are banned or suppressed by leading journals,a voice. The freestyle attitude of bloggers is leading the way forward in engaging debate. Indeed, as Dr Rants campaign for Dr Scot Jnr shows, bloggers are becoming influential and can effect change when the establishment journals fail us. That was of course my thoughts in the year 2000 because I was ahead of my time - setting up the first "blog type" website away from mainstream journalism in 2001. It was marginalised, never mentioned and most of the establishment was of the view that if ignored, it would disappear into oblivion. Advertising was banned, links were never carried and most set about making up rumours that we did not have evidence based material. Of course, the basic issue remains that if we didn't have evidence based material, we wouldn't be online today. Unlike other journalists, we are able to read medical notes and can differentiate between a fictional tale and evidence based material.
For years, I have tried to be polite to many of the leading journal editors and assumed that they would respect the value of what all bloggers or website owners do. I had hoped that the views of doctors and patients on NHS Exposed would be noticed but of course, when I grew up as I have done considerably this year, I came to an understanding that realistic and alternative views are not accepted by the mainstream. The mainstream journals self congratulate themselves, have meetings at the MJA about more self congratulatory stuff and this actually goes to their head - so much so that they become divorced from reality. In reality, the public don't give a damn what they right. To them, the material is too dry and out of touch.
Most editors look down upon those who express themselves on the internet. I actually decided that there was no point in attempting to be friendly with these publications eg Onmedia et al. They are just as conceited as the British Medical Journal. They may all collectively say that my opinion doesn't count but in reality - it counts with the right people. And I have come to the point where I can say that - Quite Frankly, I don't give a damn what anyone says about us. I am of the view that bloggers do a sterling job [ The Jobbing Doctor, Witchdoctor, Dr Grumble and Dr Rant] and our writers from the public sector - Deb Acle, Louise De Souza and Angus Dei do an even better job [ without recognition from the mainstream]. This year I believe sees a great deal of progress for material that challenges the status quo.
So when Dr Rant talks about suppression of free speech in the BMJ, he should understand that it has been going on for a long long time. Kamran and Richard may well be of the view that I believe in "conspiracies". Of course, all my colleagues know that suppression of free speech is no conspiracy - it is a reality and has been so for a number of years. Most editors have played into this suppression. We call these people the elite of medical journalism - the people who are of the view that only their view counts and the rest of ours don't.
Suppression of free speech follows a few principles
1. Establishment editors wallow with establishment related people. Richard Smith and Kamran are two of these editors. We can't blame them because like all animals in a farm, they all require acceptance to survive. All humans need acceptance of some sort.
2. Suppression of free speech is done by medical journals to ensure the rebel population in the profession does not become stronger. Fragmenting and controlling debates is the key to ensuring the establishment is not challenged.
3. Rebels or those with " different ideas" are maginalised or blacklisted. This is to ensure there is one type of person accepted in the fold.
The above has nothing to do with racism as Jay Illagaratne once stated, the reason for it is to ensure establishment control. This is what the BMJ's Fiona Godlee, Jane Smith and Tony Delamonthe do by banning any opinion that challenges the status quo. That is the reason the BMJ is now a very boring magazine that no one bothers to read [ apart from them of course]. It might be good for the Harvard educated editor to check her spelling before sending out her newsletters!
Their predecessors, Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi should remember that the deaths of those on Ward 87 could have been stopped by them both in the year 2001 [when I first raised the issue with them]. They failed to stop it. While they wallow in their leather sofas, each should remember that they backed Andrew Wakefield and not me. I am surprised they are both not at the GMC backing up Wakefield. While I hold no malice against Richard and Kamran, they should get the award for being the most unhelpful editors this side of the planet. I often wonder how many whistleblowers they silenced in this way.
In conclusion, it is time the mainstream journals learned to respect their colleagues for the work they do. I am not surprised that most of them find bloggers a threat. We are a threat to the status quo because our opinions are read and our opinions count. We are also here to stay and will challenge the establishment as and when required.
The above isn't about my skirmishes or intolerance of those who are snobs, it is more about human behaviour, how whistleblowers are treated and how different views are marginalised. Free speech is not part of the medical profession, it never has been. There is a reason for that, it is to prevent mutiny in the medical ship. Afterall, the BMA, the Deaneries, the GMC and the Royal Colleges have to function by protecting their ability to control the masses.
My question is this - where were the leading medical editors and journalists when Dr Scot Jnr was in trouble? They were nowhere to be seen. Bit like all the issues surrounding Ward 87 isn't it?
I suspect he wanted to stop the feathers from ruffling at high levels. He wanted to present the views as he saw them. I have known of Kamran for years. As a man I think I have him measured up the right way. As an editor, he is talented but eats establishment cake to "belong" in the fraternity.
There is no doubt that I have always thought that Kamran should have been editor of the BMJ. He was robbed of that job. He does look down on the internet world around him. He is also an arrogant man. I have known this for years but accepted that males have that trait. Kamran gives the impression that all mainstream publications are "accepted" and the rest are " other kinds of journalism". Kamran points out he was not editor of Onmedica during my skirmish with them. That may be true but does not absolve his colleagues on Onmedica from responsibility. The fact remains is that Onmedica were quite happy for me to be engulfed by the vultures on DNUK and left me there to defend myself. A publication is always measured by the backbone their editors have. Onmedica has no backbone. If they cannot back a simple issue like that then they cannot back more important issues of public importance. That is my point. Their " lets walk away, it's not our business" attitude is typical of most mainstream journals. And whatever Kamran's defences are, the owners of the website have no defence. Indeed, Luke is certainly not man enough to admit his rather large mistake that is now shining in neon lights. Quite frankly their initial attitude of " We love you Rita" because "You are about to write a favourable review" makes me sick. It shows us the worst of human behaviour - those who don't even have the guts to stick by their colleagues during times of strife but are quite happy to hang around them when it is to " their advantage". Oh, it must have been such a shock for them to discover who I was.
Enough of Onmedica for now. Time to talk about related issues.....
Indeed, when Richard Smith and Kamran ruled the British Medical Journal, they accepted us rebels as " token" commentaries. Indeed, as Smith once pointed out " not many people visit NHS Exposed". That was what he said sneeringly in the year 2000. I suspect the Times Top 50 Health Websites nomination that we received was all about " not many people visiting" then. It is such an irony that Richard Smith has popped out of his Jack in the Box and has been telling the world that the lifespan of medical journals is deteriorating following the advent of the internet - Facebook, blogs etc. That was a talk he gave at the Medical Journalist Association recently.
My views about medical publications may sound like a whine but it isn't. It is all about two sides never meeting midway. In the year 2001, the BMJ spent a great deal of time marginalising those they did not feel " fitted the profile" of doctors they wanted to support. Rapid Responses from rebels were " blocked". Indeed, the matter was so bad that Dr Illagaratne took Richard Smith to an Employment Tribunal for Race Discrimination because Richard persistently blocked Jay's posts. This was combined with the efforts of the Doctors Only Website who banned anyone who spoke out of turn. Anyone who was deemed controversial was banned.
Smith and Kamran both supported Andrew Wakefield without question. He was hailed as a whistleblower from here to eternity. The boys at the BMJ hugged their doctor and built a story on how the establishment was "out to get him". Their backing of Andrew Wakefield was found to be misguided because Wakefield currently sits in a tent at the General Medical Council facing one charge after another. Having been instrumental in backing Andrew, Richard Smith went onto tell the world
“Medical journals have many problems and need reform. The research they contain is hard to interpret and prone to bias and peer review, the process at the heart of journals and all of science, is deeply flawed,” said Dr Smith"Dr Rant points out that in this day and age, the BMJ provides limited backing for junior doctors. In the year 2000 when I was in trouble and needed help, both Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi had an interesting idea about me. I was their token Rapid Response commentator, they allowed me in just for entertainment but no one was about to take me seriously. Richard Smith persistently overlooked the Ward 87 issues.
So, what did Richard Smith have to say about the 2001 report [ that's evidence to Richard] on Ward 87. Both Richard and Kamran had nothing whatsoever to say as the issues evolved over the years. Having marginalised my concerns, each of them essentially stood around and watched. The fact is that they could have helped but they didn't. This is rather similar to the establishment boycott of Dr Scot Jnr. The BMJ and each journal UK wide failed to respond to this doctors plight so it was left to the bloggers to fight his corner. Where was Kamran Abassi during this period, drinking tea with his mate Phil Hammond I suppose! Of course, drinking tea doesn't get the job done.
Indeed, they both went out of their way to suppress any material about Ward 87 and ensured it never reached the hallowed halls of the BMJ. Both will no doubt say " ah but we were all fair to you". Sure, so fair that the issue of Ward 87 was marginalised to the corner of the internet. Of course, I have great regrets regarding this because their efforts at suppressing the Ward 87 matter has resulted in my life being extremely difficult. I was not afforded the protection of the leading medical journal but essentially left to my own devices. Of course, as time has gone by, I have not needed any of them - I have actually stood on my own and created a public vehicle for the important issues raised on Ward 87. It is a sad day when the ex editor of the BMJ considered the deaths of many patients on Ward 87 to be unimportant. No doubt Richard Smith is still of the view that Dr Andrew " Hey I am a star" Wakefield is still worth supporting 100%.
People forget, it was because of Richard Smith's obstinate attitude that I decided to move on and set up NHS Exposed. While he looked down his nose at it in the old days, the website continues to flourish [ without the support of those that will term itself the elite of medical journalism]. NHS Exposed was set up on a " dare" to Richard Smith. He had published a article on racism in the BMJ without the authors name, I went over to the other side and published the name. Richard said there was a risk of libel - of course 8 years later there has been no libel action. Richard was wrong and I was right.
These clashes with the leaders in medical journals are important to describe. It shows us all about the conceited attitude of many editors to those who are not "typical." Medical Journalism is separated in two sections - those who wallow with the establishment and those who don't give a damn. It is now true that blogging and the internet is the way to the future. and it has given people like me who are banned or suppressed by leading journals,a voice. The freestyle attitude of bloggers is leading the way forward in engaging debate. Indeed, as Dr Rants campaign for Dr Scot Jnr shows, bloggers are becoming influential and can effect change when the establishment journals fail us. That was of course my thoughts in the year 2000 because I was ahead of my time - setting up the first "blog type" website away from mainstream journalism in 2001. It was marginalised, never mentioned and most of the establishment was of the view that if ignored, it would disappear into oblivion. Advertising was banned, links were never carried and most set about making up rumours that we did not have evidence based material. Of course, the basic issue remains that if we didn't have evidence based material, we wouldn't be online today. Unlike other journalists, we are able to read medical notes and can differentiate between a fictional tale and evidence based material.
For years, I have tried to be polite to many of the leading journal editors and assumed that they would respect the value of what all bloggers or website owners do. I had hoped that the views of doctors and patients on NHS Exposed would be noticed but of course, when I grew up as I have done considerably this year, I came to an understanding that realistic and alternative views are not accepted by the mainstream. The mainstream journals self congratulate themselves, have meetings at the MJA about more self congratulatory stuff and this actually goes to their head - so much so that they become divorced from reality. In reality, the public don't give a damn what they right. To them, the material is too dry and out of touch.
Most editors look down upon those who express themselves on the internet. I actually decided that there was no point in attempting to be friendly with these publications eg Onmedia et al. They are just as conceited as the British Medical Journal. They may all collectively say that my opinion doesn't count but in reality - it counts with the right people. And I have come to the point where I can say that - Quite Frankly, I don't give a damn what anyone says about us. I am of the view that bloggers do a sterling job [ The Jobbing Doctor, Witchdoctor, Dr Grumble and Dr Rant] and our writers from the public sector - Deb Acle, Louise De Souza and Angus Dei do an even better job [ without recognition from the mainstream]. This year I believe sees a great deal of progress for material that challenges the status quo.
So when Dr Rant talks about suppression of free speech in the BMJ, he should understand that it has been going on for a long long time. Kamran and Richard may well be of the view that I believe in "conspiracies". Of course, all my colleagues know that suppression of free speech is no conspiracy - it is a reality and has been so for a number of years. Most editors have played into this suppression. We call these people the elite of medical journalism - the people who are of the view that only their view counts and the rest of ours don't.
Suppression of free speech follows a few principles
1. Establishment editors wallow with establishment related people. Richard Smith and Kamran are two of these editors. We can't blame them because like all animals in a farm, they all require acceptance to survive. All humans need acceptance of some sort.
2. Suppression of free speech is done by medical journals to ensure the rebel population in the profession does not become stronger. Fragmenting and controlling debates is the key to ensuring the establishment is not challenged.
3. Rebels or those with " different ideas" are maginalised or blacklisted. This is to ensure there is one type of person accepted in the fold.
The above has nothing to do with racism as Jay Illagaratne once stated, the reason for it is to ensure establishment control. This is what the BMJ's Fiona Godlee, Jane Smith and Tony Delamonthe do by banning any opinion that challenges the status quo. That is the reason the BMJ is now a very boring magazine that no one bothers to read [ apart from them of course]. It might be good for the Harvard educated editor to check her spelling before sending out her newsletters!
Their predecessors, Richard Smith and Kamran Abassi should remember that the deaths of those on Ward 87 could have been stopped by them both in the year 2001 [when I first raised the issue with them]. They failed to stop it. While they wallow in their leather sofas, each should remember that they backed Andrew Wakefield and not me. I am surprised they are both not at the GMC backing up Wakefield. While I hold no malice against Richard and Kamran, they should get the award for being the most unhelpful editors this side of the planet. I often wonder how many whistleblowers they silenced in this way.
In conclusion, it is time the mainstream journals learned to respect their colleagues for the work they do. I am not surprised that most of them find bloggers a threat. We are a threat to the status quo because our opinions are read and our opinions count. We are also here to stay and will challenge the establishment as and when required.
The above isn't about my skirmishes or intolerance of those who are snobs, it is more about human behaviour, how whistleblowers are treated and how different views are marginalised. Free speech is not part of the medical profession, it never has been. There is a reason for that, it is to prevent mutiny in the medical ship. Afterall, the BMA, the Deaneries, the GMC and the Royal Colleges have to function by protecting their ability to control the masses.
My question is this - where were the leading medical editors and journalists when Dr Scot Jnr was in trouble? They were nowhere to be seen. Bit like all the issues surrounding Ward 87 isn't it?
1 comments:
...and you know what? We 'rebel' writers are not actually rebels at all!
Or only in the minds of, let's face it, a comparatively small sector of frightened, power seekers.
I would say that we 'rebels' actually comprise the mainstream (if only folks knew how mainstream and shiny-establishment I was until my encounters with the NHS impelled me to question all this fearful, power-driven dysfunction).
We 'rebels', I believe, have the privilege of speaking out about issues and injustices that beset many, many more people than that comparatively small sector.
What's more, we have the temerity - as well as a grasp on the inside knowledge - to do so where most of our fellow citizens are scared because they worry, justifiably, about reprisals. And/or they lack the knowledge, freely available on the web (at the moment!) if you know how and where to look, to challenge the status quo.
Being able to challenge the status quo without fear of reprisal is a sign of a healthy democracy, which always embraces a plurality of views.
There's a revolution currently taking place in UK healthcare. It's happening quietly, bloodlessly, under the very noses of that comparative few. Witness, for example, the very rapid rise of RemedyUK, the increasing numbers of senior and junior medics who are feeling more and more able to speak up, the upsurge in healthcare service users who are presenting what is actually the mainstream critique of, in particular, the NHS.
It's a truism that the more avaricious the monkey, the tighter he grasps the peanut in the jar, the more he defends his 'right' to it. With the result that he ends up literally handicapped.
Perhaps it's about time the monkeys took their hands out of the jars and looked around at the more readily available, more realistically acquired and plentiful sustenance all around them.
Good post, Rita. Thank you.
Post a Comment